Dora climb rates

[GrapeJam]

Well, I don't actually have the Dora, but Solty has it and he's done some test and was able to a climb rate of 28m/s at low altitude and get to 9000m in 7 minutes 30 seconds, oh and because of his joystick he wasn't able to control the plane in really stable state and thus if he had a really good joystick I think he would had climbed to 9000m even faster.

 

 

Thank you Solty very much for the test :)

 

For comparison to rl Dora, here's the Dora running on C3, clean condition, at 2.02 ata, DCS Dora's maximum ata is 1.8:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_D-9_C3.pdf

 

So we can say that the D9 climbs to 9000m at least 3 minutes faster than it should.

Edited January 18, 2015 by GrapeJam

[Solty]

I did one for P-51 too, just to make sure that everything is ok with the physics... I had 2 attempts. At first my engine died at 5200m. Second time I was able to climb to 9300m.

 

 

I want to put a disclaimer here. My stick is almost 6 years old AV8R Saitek. I have no pedals, so it was hard for me to keep the plane at the same speed all the time.

 

But P-51 seems to be in order. During the Dora test I was having more problems with holding her steady, but that should only affect it's climb rate in a bad way (making it climb slower)...

 

If somebody could do some testing too, I would be grateful.:book:

Edited January 18, 2015 by Solty

[Crumpp]

Couple of important points...

 

1. What power setting used in your test?

 

2. What is the weight of the aircraft?

 

3. Do not use a pre-production calculation for comparison.

 

Here is the kennblatt, an original and a cleaned up version for easier reading.

 

Use the time to 6Km and power setting of 3000 rpm for Steig-u-Kampfleistung.

 

It is very important how you enter the climb if you want to reproduce the conditions the data point of the real aircraft was recorded. Slow the airplane down to 290Kph IAS. As you pull up add power to reach 3000 rpm and maintain 290kph IAS. If you pull up above 290Kph, you are zooming and the time will be reduced considerably.

 

Most importantly...have fun!

 

:smilewink:

[GrapeJam]

Couple of important points...

 

1. What power setting used in your test?

 

2. What is the weight of the aircraft?

 

3. Do not use a pre-production calculation for comparison.

 

Here is the kennblatt, an original and a cleaned up version for easier reading.

 

Use the time to 6Km and power setting of 3000 rpm for Steig-u-Kampfleistung.

 

It is very important how you enter the climb if you want to reproduce the conditions the data point of the real aircraft was recorded. Slow the airplane down to 290Kph IAS. As you pull up add power to reach 3000 rpm and maintain 290kph IAS. If you pull up above 290Kph, you are zooming and the time will be reduced considerably.

 

Most importantly...have fun!

 

:smilewink:

Yeah, except there's an "optimal climb speed" for a reason, and I've already shown you the best possible climb to altitude test for the D9 at the lowest possible weight and highest power setting, and the in game D9 still climbs far faster to 9km than that.

 

You don't actually think you could get to altitude faster by zoom climbing, do you?

[gavagai]

You don't actually think you could get to altitude faster by zoom climbing, do you?

 

He just means you'll be converting kinetic energy into potential energy instead of testing the work done by the engine.

[GrapeJam]

Here's another test done on march 1945, so production model.

 

Edited January 18, 2015 by GrapeJam

[Crumpp]

Here's another test done on march 1945, so production model.

 

Nope, that is calculated. Who do you think gave those reports to that website?

 

You want to pay me for the copy and shipping, I will get you one.

 

I gave a copy to a friend in Germany and he passed them on.

[GrapeJam]

Nope, that is calculated. Who do you think gave those reports to that website?

 

You want to pay me for the copy and shipping, I will get you one.

 

I gave a copy to a friend in Germany and he passed them on.

 

Oh, does it show that the D9 can climb to 9km in 7 minutes? I don't think so, I think it shows a very similar result to the charts I've posted, if several "calculated"(according to you) tests show similar result it only means one thing.

 

Do you actually think that climbing a lot faster than the optimal climb speed (which is optimal for a reason) will make the plane climbs 30% faster?

Edited January 18, 2015 by GrapeJam

[Crumpp]

Here is a flight test of a serial production D-9 with ETC504 and no MW-50.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190d9test.html

[GrapeJam]

Here is a flight test of a serial production D-9 with ETC504 and no MW-50.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190d9test.html

 

It helps to be more specific.

[Crumpp]

Oh, does it show that the D9 can climb to 9km in 7 minutes? I don't think so, I think it shows a very similar result to the charts I've posted, if several "calculated"(according to you) tests show similar result it only means one thing.

 

Don't be defensive. Sure it could depending on conditions. P-51 could do that under the right conditions GrapeJam.

 

Let's use a measured point that was used as flight planning data found in the Kennblatt. If it not correct then there is no debate.

 

I do not know if the FM is correct but I do know your climb test method is wrong.

[GrapeJam]

Don't be defensive. Sure it could depending on conditions. P-51 could do that under the right conditions GrapeJam.

 

Let's use a measured point that was used as flight planning data found in the Kennblatt. If it not correct then there is no debate.

 

I do not know if the FM is correct but I do know your climb test method is wrong.

 

Oh, yes somehow solty with a crappy joystick was able to get 30% more out the D9 than even experienced test German pilots, in a time when the Germans were desperate to get into the air and high as fast as possible.

 

If this is the test you meant:

 

The D9 without MW 50(and thus 100 kg lighter) got 9 km in 12 minutes, so climb to 9km in 9.5 minutes at 2.02 ata actually sound reasonable, but in DCS the D9 climbs to 9km in 7 minutes 30 seconds(if not faster), and the D9 in game should be limited to 1.8 ata, max.

[Crumpp]

If this is the test you meant:

 

I posted the test I meant. Your sheet shows 5min 10 seconds to 6KM at Steig u Kampfliestung.

 

That is better than the Kennblatt by some 2 minutes. Chew on that for a few minutes and read my first post.

[GrapeJam]

I posted the test I meant. Your sheet shows 5min 10 seconds to 6KM at Steig u Kampfliestung.

 

That is better than the Kennblatt by some 2 minutes. Chew on that for a few minutes and read my first post.

 

Does running test without pushing the engine to the limit (like the charts I've shown) even have any actual use?

[Crumpp]

Does running test without pushing the engine to the limit (like the charts I've shown) even have any actual use?

 

Yes it does....do you wonder why Yo-Yo just post's a chart and leaves your thread without comment?

 

First of all the published climb rates are not at power setting that is pushing the engine to its maximum. They are at the engines climb rating setting.

 

The basic relationship for best climb is Best Rate of Climb = [(Power Available - Power Required)] divided by weight. It occurs at the point [(Power Available - Power Required)] is maximized in propeller aircraft.

 

It is basically power available to weight.

 

That is speed (Vy) that will not change very much. Not enough to make a real difference because the majority of it is a function of the Lift to Drag ratio which IS fixed by the design. In jets, Best Rate of Climb is the speed of L/Dmax.

 

Fixed by design means you have to do physical changes to the shape of the aircraft to change it. It is like moving the Neutral Point to change CG limits....it does not happen without physical changes to the shape of the design.

 

So, if the engine is making the power it should and our L/D ratio is correct, the game will match the performance of the real thing at its normal climb settings.

 

That means climbing at Vy or best rate speed and climb power setting on the engine.

 

Add more power for Sondernotleistung in the math and we can move from known to unknown to put a pretty good ballpark on where it should be for climb performance.

 

The percentage variation over a mean for climb performance can also be very large when compared to level speed variation.

 

If a problem is present, it will be much easier to track down and fix. If no problem is present then you have learned something about airplane performance so you are not like most folks reading a report and drawing the wrong conclusions.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Crumpp

[Solty]

I did a second run. This time I wanted to get it slower. For most time I was keeping it at 290kph at low alt, but I kept high incline going below optimal IAS at higher altitudes. I put my nose lower only when I approached stall. TAS increased buy I kept it most of the time below 290kph IAS.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Solty

[GrapeJam]

Yes it does....

 

First of all the published climb rates are not at power setting that is pushing the engine to its maximum. They are at the engines climb rating setting.

 

Sure, because the climb tests in the documents I've posted did not have have line for sonder notleigstung (Special Emergency, maximum power)....

 

Oh wait.

[Crumpp]

I did a second run.

 

I did a quick climb to 6Km. Did you have the cooling flaps all the way open? Why does your data read 219 IAS instead of 290kph IAS?

 

I got to 6Km in 5:20 seconds which agrees with this data. The VSI did not indicate any wild or excessive rates and seemed to spend most it's time above 10m/s and below 20m/s.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_D-9_210001_FB3_climb.jpg

Edited January 18, 2015 by Crumpp
Wrote 5Km instead of 6Km

[Crumpp]

I saved the track btw. Speed is a little hard to hold but I stayed with 5 mph the whole way. The Dora is slick, it does not like to slow down and it loves to zoom climb.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Crumpp

[Solty]

I saved the track btw. Speed is a little hard to hold but I stayed with 5 mph the whole way. The Dora is slick, it does not like to slow down and it loves to zoom climb.

It shows 219 because I did 219 and 220 and even 180kph. I was keeping it way below the optimal speed for most part and it still was able to get there (9000m) within 07:30min

[Crumpp]

It shows 219 because I did 219 and 220 and even 180kph. I was keeping it way below the optimal speed for most part and it still was able to get there (9000m) within 07:30mi

 

In other words you are climbing in the vicinity of best angle of climb at sondernotleistung?

[GrapeJam]

I saved the track btw. Speed is a little hard to hold but I stayed with 5 mph the whole way. The Dora is slick, it does not like to slow down and it loves to zoom climb.

I've watched the whole track and there's no climbing past 2km in this, anyway, you did not use MW 50, you did not hold the plane steadily and yet you still managed to achieve a "correct" time to climb to 6km, with a plane that is 100kg heavier (because of MW 50 equipment), does it ring any alarm bell?

 

In other words you are climbing in the vicinity of best angle of climb at sondernotleistung?

 

In the rl Sonder Nottleigstung climb test, the test pilot would surely have tested the plane at the best possible climb angle and best possible climb speed to gain the best possible climb rate, the fact that Solty managed to get better result thanks to different speed/climb angle indicate that there's something not right with the FM.

 

And this "Sonder Nottleigstung" in the test I've posted, mind you, is 2.02 ata, the in game Dora should be limited to 1.8 ata.

Edited January 19, 2015 by GrapeJam

[USARStarkey]

Did the test myself several times with time of 7-8min to 9000m. My last test was meant to be as conservative as possible and I tried to maintain a ever increasing airspeed, which I did until very high altitude at which point my airspeed became fairly homogeneous. starting at 198mph TAS, I climbed at a fairly constant angle and ever increasing speed to obtain a climb rate of 5087ft/min. The entire time I was accelerating in the climb, so no zooms what-so-ever. I was able maintain 22m/s or 4500ft/min up to about 11,000ft, massively outstripping the real FW190. I used full power and max fuel load in the tests.

 

Things to note about the documentation.

 

There do not appear to be any climb rate tests of real FW190 D-9s(mw50). (at least not that I have seen) However, I am quite confident that the Germans were capable of producing accurate estimations of performance. One does hope Germanys engineers were not total incompetents. Yo-Yo's FM is indeed a estimate itself.....

 

That beings said, the D-12 190s were only capable on the other flight tests of 21m/s. This is very close to the estimate for the D-9s. Furthermore, the D-9 estimates for the lower power settings in crumps charts are in very good agreement with each other. One can only hope the German engineers didn't lose their calculator in between estimates :megalol:

Tacview-20150118-211240-DCS.txt.rar

Edited January 19, 2015 by USARStarkey

[Crumpp]

've watched the whole track and there's no climbing past 2km in this, anyway, you did not use MW 50, you did not hold the plane steadily and yet you still managed to achieve a "correct" time to climb to 6km, with a plane that is 100kg heavier (because of MW 50 equipment), does it ring any alarm bell?

 

I am not going to argue. The profile wasn't perfect but it was good enough.

 

"No climbing after 2Km"? :music_whistling:

 

That does not sound smart.

 

You do know that airplanes have to lower the nose at some point to maintain Vy?

 

That is the setting I used is climb and combat power and it was optimistic but close enough. Live with it.

 

the fact that Solty managed to get better result thanks to different speed/climb angle indicate that there's something not right with the FM.

 

First of all best rate and best angle are not the same thing. The difference to altitude is not that dramatic between Vx and Vy.

 

This shows a total of only 7 seconds difference between Vx and Vy, arriving at 1,000 feet!

 

The big advantage of Vx is you cover a lot less distance along the ground for that altitude gain.

 

The difference between the two is approximately 600 feet. Using Vy in the climb, and Best Glide speed for the descent, you’ll be 600’ further away from liftoff.

 

I wouldn't use this guys take off technique but he is right about there is little difference between Vx and Vy in terms of time to altitude.

 

http://www.advancedpilot.com/articles.php?action=article&articleid=1842

 

Climbing at Vy with Steig u Kampfleistung does not mean climbing at Vx with Sondernotleistung will not result in a faster time to altitude. You have a lot more power to work with at Sondernotleistung.

 

 

I am surprised the engine held up and did not over-temp with the cooling gills closed. The Dora oil temps would be at the top of the green arc at Vy at Steig u Kampfleistung with the cooling gills closed. The higher velocity of aids cooling.

 

There do not appear to be any climb rate tests of real FW190 D-9s(mw50).

 

No there is not.....

 

What are the atmospheric conditions in the game?

 

It looks like standard temp 15C but I dont' get a good read on the altimeters. The P-51 looks like it defaults to 31.13inHg and the Dora's is just unreadable.

[Crumpp]

However, I am quite confident that the Germans were capable of producing accurate estimations of performance.

 

Yes they were very capable. The difference is your definition of accuracy is not the same as theirs or any aeronautical engineer.

 

The Dora using C3 should get to 6 KM in 4.94 minutes at Sondernotleistung. Plus or minus up to 20% depending on the stage of development is considered accurate climb estimation. Focke Wulf factory climb guarantee was 10% for a production machine.

 

 

So....24M/s with a 20% variation = 19 M/s to 28.8 M/s for a prototype is good agreement and accurate to the engineer. Our production machines average will fall in that range.

 

For a production machine if the average was 24M/s with a 10% variation = 21.6 to 26.4M/s is service acceptable and accurate to the engineer.