Jump to content

Dora climb rates


GrapeJam

Recommended Posts

ell with the DCS T/O weight of 4175 Kg with 100% fuel and ammo (Is that planned to be changed BTW?) as opposed to the "real" weight of 4270 Kg the climb time is only reduced by about 22 s in my simulation:

 

I would suggest having a Ladeplan.

 

The type of rack, internal plumbing, equipment, and set up makes a huge difference.

 

The Dora will be anywhere from ~4100Kg to 4350Kg depending on set up.

 

The 4175kg weight is very close to a clean configuration aircraft without an equipment rack, associated fittings, and no gear doors.

 

I do not know what kind of ladeplan DCS is referencing but I am sure Yo-Yo would note this and tell us if there was an error.

Answers to most important questions ATC can ask that every pilot should memorize:

 

1. No, I do not have a pen. 2. Indicating 250

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I would suggest having a Ladeplan.

 

The type of rack, internal plumbing, equipment, and set up makes a huge difference.

 

The Dora will be anywhere from ~4100Kg to 4350Kg depending on set up.

 

The 4175kg weight is very close to a clean configuration aircraft without an equipment rack, associated fittings, and no gear doors.

 

I do not know what kind of ladeplan DCS is referencing but I am sure Yo-Yo would note this and tell us if there was an error.

 

Yes, because slight adjustments in max weight result in 1500 feet per minute climb rate increases......

 

Not to mention the weights in the German documents are more or less the same.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Weed Be gone Needed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, because slight adjustments in max weight result in 1500 feet per minute climb rate increases......

 

Weight has a huge effect on climb performance.

 

The basic formula for climb performance is:

 

(Power Available - Power Required) / Weight

 

Not to mention the weights in the German documents are more or less the same.

 

Read Yo-Yo's post. They are not all the same.

 

Yo-Yo says:

As far as I can see, measured Vy for the same power and weight is 10% higher than estimated...

 

USAStarkey,

 

I appears Yo-Yo is saying the estimates are running 10% below actual flight measured data.

 

Now, take into account Focke Wulf's factory guarantee for performance in the climb was 10% variance over the published average and we begin the picture of what is going on.

 

Focke Wulf's calculated estimate that is being referenced by those who think the type is over performing ensures they will be able to deliver on that promise.

 

The actual flight performance can be 20% greater than the calculated performance and still give good agreement when compared to that calculated climb data Pilum attached. The actual flight performance will NEVER be lower than the calculated climb data.

 

The calculated performance data represents Focke Wulf's factory guarantee minimum.

 

If you know what you are doing USAStarkey, it is not hard to add additional power to an existing design and estimate the results.

Answers to most important questions ATC can ask that every pilot should memorize:

 

1. No, I do not have a pen. 2. Indicating 250

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dora WNr 210006 tested at Rechlin (Group E2c. 2 March 1945) had a gross weight of 4350kg. Full ammo carried. Unfaired ETC504

 

With drop tank, the weight increased to 4640kg.

 

Climb @ 3250rpm ranged from 16.6m/s @ sl to 12.2m/s @ 6300m.

Time to climb ranged from 1 min to 1000m to 6.8min to 6000m (cooling gills open)


Edited by MiloMorai
added more info
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weight has a huge effect on climb performance.

 

The basic formula for climb performance is:

 

(Power Available - Power Required) / Weight

 

 

 

Read Yo-Yo's post. They are not all the same.

 

 

 

USAStarkey,

 

I appears Yo-Yo is saying the estimates are running 10% below actual flight measured data.

 

Now, take into account Focke Wulf's factory guarantee for performance in the climb was 10% variance over the published average and we begin the picture of what is going on.

 

Focke Wulf's calculated estimate that is being referenced by those who think the type is over performing ensures they will be able to deliver on that promise.

 

The actual flight performance can be 20% greater than the calculated performance and still give good agreement when compared to that calculated climb data Pilum attached. The actual flight performance will NEVER be lower than the calculated climb data.

 

The calculated performance data represents Focke Wulf's factory guarantee minimum.

 

If you know what you are doing USAStarkey, it is not hard to add additional power to an existing design and estimate the results.

 

The weights are close enough, especially since they give basically the same numbers in every paper regardless of the small weight changes.

 

The 2.02 ata 190 couldnt climb at over 5000fpm, so the D-9 with 1.8 ata sure as hell wouldn't.

 

None of the german tests or estimates show anything remotely close to a over 5000fpm climbe rate. No previous sim as modeled a 190 at such a climb. Pilums estimates dont agree either. So how is it that Yo-Yo as suddenly discovered such a massive climb increase? Nobody elses estimates agree Crump.

 

Interesting how the same estimates almost exactly predict the non-MW50 performance compared to the IRL flight tests. Yet suddenly were to believe that with MW-50 all the German data goes out the window and magic takes over.


Edited by USARStarkey

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Weed Be gone Needed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok...

 

Quick climb swag at 1.8ata @3250 rpm using a Jumo 213 power chart with n = .85; climbing just above the stall like the pathological climb test's we see in this thread:

 

Something like Maximum Angle of Climb at SEA LEVEL reproducing the test climb profiles found in this thread:

 

[(1827thp*550) - (308thp*550)] / 9038lbs = 92.4fps x 60 = 5546fpm = 28 m/s

 

[(1827thp*550) - (308thp*550)] / 9370lbs = 89.1fps X 60 = 5349.73 = 27 m/s

 

Now let's do it at Best ROC speed ~300kph

 

[(1827thp*550) - (367thp*550)] / 9038lbs = 88.8fps X 60 = 5330fpm = 27 m/s

 

[(1827thp*550) - (367thp*550)] / 9370lbs = 85.6fps X 60 = 5141fpm = 26 m/s

 

That is 11% using a quick very rough SWAG from the 22.9 m/s Focke Wulf publishes in their calculated performance.

 

It very much agrees with what Yo-Yo is saying.


Edited by Crumpp

Answers to most important questions ATC can ask that every pilot should memorize:

 

1. No, I do not have a pen. 2. Indicating 250

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 2.02 ata 190 couldnt climb at over 5000fpm, so the D-9 with 1.8 ata sure as hell wouldn't.

 

Have you run the math?

 

It is right above using the power Junkers says the Jumo 213 produced at 1.8ata!!

Answers to most important questions ATC can ask that every pilot should memorize:

 

1. No, I do not have a pen. 2. Indicating 250

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting how the same estimates almost exactly predict the non-MW50 performance compared to the IRL flight tests.

 

Well, that is because the non-methanol performance is easier to predict. Methanol Water power production is highly dependent upon the charge air temperature.

 

That changes as the system is run.

 

The question becomes do you want to show the performance you will get when you first turn the system on; after the charge air stabilizes in a few minutes, or do you want to pick a middle of the road estimate for average performance.

 

The more MW you inject (to a point) and the longer you allow the system to run (to a point), the more power it will produce.

Answers to most important questions ATC can ask that every pilot should memorize:

 

1. No, I do not have a pen. 2. Indicating 250

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok...

 

Quick climb swag at 1.8ata @3250 rpm using a Jumo 213 power chart with n = .85; climbing just above the stall like the pathological climb test's we see in this thread:

 

Something like Maximum Angle of Climb at SEA LEVEL reproducing the test climb profiles found in this thread:

 

[(1827thp*550) - (308thp*550)] / 9038lbs = 92.4fps x 60 = 5546fpm = 28 m/s

 

[(1827thp*550) - (308thp*550)] / 9370lbs = 89.1fps X 60 = 5349.73 = 27 m/s

 

Now let's do it at Best ROC speed ~300kph

 

[(1827thp*550) - (367thp*550)] / 9038lbs = 88.8fps X 60 = 5330fpm = 27 m/s

 

[(1827thp*550) - (367thp*550)] / 9370lbs = 85.6fps X 60 = 5141fpm = 26 m/s

 

That is 11% using a quick very rough SWAG from the 22.9 m/s Focke Wulf publishes in their calculated performance.

 

It very much agrees with what Yo-Yo is saying.

 

Then it is 11% wrong, obviously.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Weed Be gone Needed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you run the math?

 

It is right above using the power Junkers says the Jumo 213 produced at 1.8ata!!

 

No the Germans did it for me, better than you could ever do, and lo and behold, every other point of data except this game agrees with them

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Weed Be gone Needed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that is because the non-methanol performance is easier to predict. Methanol Water power production is highly dependent upon the charge air temperature.

 

That changes as the system is run.

 

The question becomes do you want to show the performance you will get when you first turn the system on; after the charge air stabilizes in a few minutes, or do you want to pick a middle of the road estimate for average performance.

 

The more MW you inject (to a point) and the longer you allow the system to run (to a point), the more power it will produce.

 

Yeah, at the difference is so large you get massive performance boosts :lol:

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Weed Be gone Needed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About 100 hp or more...see chart below

 

No the Germans did it for me, better than you could ever do, and lo and behold, every other point of data except this game agrees with them

 

Find a flight measured climb test at 1.8ata...

 

That is problem...there is no flight measurement.

 

Then it is 11% wrong, obviously.

 

You are either ignoring what Yo-Yo said or do not understand it.

 

Dora WNr 210006 tested at Rechlin (Group E2c. 2 March 1945) had a gross weight of 4350kg. Full ammo carried. Unfaired ETC504

 

With drop tank, the weight increased to 4640kg.

 

Climb @ 3250rpm ranged from 16.6m/s @ sl to 12.2m/s @ 6300m.

Time to climb ranged from 1 min to 1000m to 6.8min to 6000m (cooling gills open)

 

I do not doubt it. Much heavier and a lot more power required.

 

Not to mention, that aircraft used a lot lower power setting to make the climb. WNr 210006 used a much lower manifold pressure in the climb than the 1.8 ata of MW50.....

 

FW190D9%20wnr%20210006%20climb%20at%201.55%20ata.jpg

Answers to most important questions ATC can ask that every pilot should memorize:

 

1. No, I do not have a pen. 2. Indicating 250

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About 100 hp or more...see chart below

 

 

 

Find a flight measured climb test at 1.8ata...

 

That is problem...there is no flight measurement.

 

 

 

You are either ignoring what Yo-Yo said or do not understand it.

 

 

 

I do not doubt it. Much heavier and a lot more power required.

 

Not to mention, that aircraft used a lot lower power setting to make the climb. WNr 210006 used a much lower manifold pressure in the climb than the 1.8 ata of MW50.....

 

FW190D9%20wnr%20210006%20climb%20at%201.55%20ata.jpg

 

No, there arent any IRL tests, but that is hardly carte blanch to simply make up whatever climb rate you want. I am quite confidant that the Germans were quite good at estimating the performance of the planes they designed. Some variance is allowed, but not an exorbitant additional 1500fpm higher than the German estimates, Pilums estimates, and the estimates of every other FM made for this plane. Case in point, the estimates for 2.02ata dont even come close to the rates we see in game. You seem to be under the impression that a 20 percent margin is somehow close enough for a flight model. Seriously? I could do whatever I wanted with that much wiggle room. 20 percent is a MASSIVE amount of difference. With a margin of error of 20% we could have a P-51 with a climb rate of 4400fpm WITHOUT 150 grade. You ok with that too?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Weed Be gone Needed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but that is hardly carte blanch to simply make up whatever climb rate you want.

 

You are taking this a little personally.

 

Because you do not know how to run the math and Yo-Yo does to make a performance estimate does not mean it is simply made up.

 

It is physics. A given amount of power available to power required at a specified weight will yield a specific climb performance.

 

Nothing to do with "making up" anything.

 

You seem to be under the impression that a 20 percent margin is somehow close enough for a flight model.

 

Again, The calculated performance represents the minimum performance Focke Wulf expected. It marks the lower 10% of their guaranteed average.

 

The Kennblatt performance is 10% higher than the calculated. The kennblatt is the mean average.

 

Understand? The DCS Dora is not over-performing by 10%....

 

It gives very good agreement with flight tested data. This is not pulled out thin air. It is a performance estimate based on the physics of flight. The accepted methods give good agreement with performance in the air.

 

FockeWulftolerences.jpg

 

 

20 percent is a MASSIVE amount of difference.

 

Not really when it comes to climb rate. It is harder to estimate than level speed and most manufacturers had some pretty large percentage range over average.

 

we could have a P-51 with a climb rate of 4400fpm WITHOUT 150 grade. You ok with that too?

 

Yes, If we do not have flight tested data and the math works out.

Answers to most important questions ATC can ask that every pilot should memorize:

 

1. No, I do not have a pen. 2. Indicating 250

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So P51 in the game practically equal to the exact data IRL. But Fw190has 10- 20% difference? How is that OK? Its a completely different plane with that difference. 0.o

 

Just make the plane according to IRL data. Don't overthink it.


Edited by Solty

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]In 21st century there is only war and ponies.

 

My experience: Jane's attack squadron, IL2 for couple of years, War Thunder and DCS.

My channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyAXX9rAX_Sqdc0IKJuv6dA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

The answer is simple: just try to perform the test for the KNOWN conditions for the REAL TEST.

And compare the results. If it's within 5-7% of measured - it's more than necessary because the real world gauges and measurements means as well as atmosphere conditions could not give better accuracy.

The model does extrapolation for the different weights and power itself.

 

P.S. And some questions you must always ask yourself before you try to interpret tests results:

was it recalculated to the constant weight during the flight or it's only raw results "as is"?

was it recalculated to standard atmosphere or it's only "as is" results?

 

Some reports (for Mustang, for example contain this information, and for some of them we have to presume that they generalized for std atm and for the constant weigh.

Ніщо так сильно не ранить мозок, як уламки скла від розбитих рожевих окулярів

There is nothing so hurtful for the brain as splinters of broken rose-coloured spectacles.

Ничто так сильно не ранит мозг, как осколки стекла от разбитых розовых очков (С) Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are taking this a little personally.

 

Because you do not know how to run the math and Yo-Yo does to make a performance estimate does not mean it is simply made up.

 

It is physics. A given amount of power available to power required at a specified weight will yield a specific climb performance.

 

Nothing to do with "making up" anything.

 

 

 

Again, The calculated performance represents the minimum performance Focke Wulf expected. It marks the lower 10% of their guaranteed average.

 

The Kennblatt performance is 10% higher than the calculated. The kennblatt is the mean average.

 

Understand? The DCS Dora is not over-performing by 10%....

 

It gives very good agreement with flight tested data. This is not pulled out thin air. It is a performance estimate based on the physics of flight. The accepted methods give good agreement with performance in the air.

 

FockeWulftolerences.jpg

 

 

 

 

Not really when it comes to climb rate. It is harder to estimate than level speed and most manufacturers had some pretty large percentage range over average.

 

 

 

Yes, If we do not have flight tested data and the math works out.

 

 

LOL

 

I am taking nothing personally..... This Dora does not meet the 41-4400fpm performance data layed out by Focke-Wulf and.......everyone who isnt yo-yo or you. It is wrong, end of story.

 

Its over-performing, understand yet? 5000-5500 fpm isnt even withing the 10 percent margin of error. Which by the way, is not a minimum, but is WITHIN 10 percent. Regardless of which, does not put a climb rate of 5-5500 fpm within that tolerance. Not even close.

 

Your accepted methods for calculating performance are clearly only your own. How is it that everyone else calculates the performance of this plane differently? ED is hardly the first group of people to make a FM for this plane, or do the math in general. Funny how none of their figures agree with ED's.....

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Weed Be gone Needed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So summing up the posts up till now the motivation for the high 1.8 ata Notleistung climb rate we find in DCS is Yo-Yo pointing out that there can be 10% variations between flight tests and calculated figures and in support of this is referencing some figures for 1.45 ata Steig & Kampffleistung? In addition, Crummp has chimed in to explain that a variation in climb rate of 20% from manufacturers published calculated data is not uncommon? Is that it?

 

So is it a high end Dora we have in DCS that is 10-20% better than Focke-Wulf published figures? What are the implications for other planes modeled in DCS? Will we see other planes that deviate 10-20% from manufacturers published figures or is this limited to the Dora only and if so based on what data?

 

In addition, for some strange reason, my C++ calculation estimate of 10 min to 9 km for 1.8 ata (attached below) seems to tab up pretty well with the Focke-Wulf estimate of 9.19 min for 2.02 ata which makes more sense as compared to the 7.75 min result in DCS IMHO. However, that could of course be due to that Abteilung Flugmechanik-L and me, unlike Crumpp, don't understand the maths and physics involved here.

 

Finaly: USARStarkey, I must say I really admire your stamina and patience in all this! :notworthy:

Fw190d918ataclimbestimate.JPG.94c7de8487cb2359d9ce83905e5730d3.JPG

  • Like 1

 

Old Crow ECM motto: Those who talk don't know and those who know don't talk........

 

http://www.crows.org/about/mission-a-history.html

 

Pilum aka Holtzauge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So summing up the posts up till now the motivation for the high 1.8 ata Notleistung climb rate we find in DCS is Yo-Yo pointing out that there can be 10% variations between flight tests and calculated figures and in support of this is referencing some figures for 1.45 ata Steig & Kampffleistung? In addition, Crummp has chimed in to explain that a variation in climb rate of 20% from manufacturers published calculated data is not uncommon? Is that it?

 

So is it a high end Dora we have in DCS that is 10-20% better than Focke-Wulf published figures? What are the implications for other planes modeled in DCS? Will we see other planes that deviate 10-20% from manufacturers published figures or is this limited to the Dora only and if so based on what data?

 

In addition, for some strange reason, my C++ calculation estimate of 10 min to 9 km for 1.8 ata (attached below) seems to tab up pretty well with the Focke-Wulf estimate of 9.19 min for 2.02 ata which makes more sense as compared to the 7.75 min result in DCS IMHO. However, that could of course be due to that Abteilung Flugmechanik-L and me, unlike Crumpp, don't understand the maths and physics involved here.

 

Finaly: USARStarkey, I must say I really admire your stamina and patience in all this! :notworthy:

 

Isn't similar with these?

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=111674&d=1421674460

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, that looks quite familiar don't it :)

 

And about the racks: Those would make an impact on top speed but in climb rate the difference would be really small.

 

Will be interesting to see if we will see some calculations or flight test data by Focke-Wulf to back up Crumpp's 28 m/s climb SWAG but I would not hold my breath! :music_whistling:

 

Old Crow ECM motto: Those who talk don't know and those who know don't talk........

 

http://www.crows.org/about/mission-a-history.html

 

Pilum aka Holtzauge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will be interesting to see if we will see some calculations

 

Right here...

 

Ok...

 

Quick climb swag at 1.8ata @3250 rpm using a Jumo 213 power chart with n = .85; climbing just above the stall like the pathological climb test's we see in this thread:

 

Something like Maximum Angle of Climb at SEA LEVEL reproducing the test climb profiles found in this thread:

 

[(1827thp*550) - (308thp*550)] / 9038lbs = 92.4fps x 60 = 5546fpm = 28 m/s

 

[(1827thp*550) - (308thp*550)] / 9370lbs = 89.1fps X 60 = 5349.73 = 27 m/s

 

Now let's do it at Best ROC speed ~300kph

 

[(1827thp*550) - (367thp*550)] / 9038lbs = 88.8fps X 60 = 5330fpm = 27 m/s

 

[(1827thp*550) - (367thp*550)] / 9370lbs = 85.6fps X 60 = 5141fpm = 26 m/s

 

That is 11% using a quick very rough SWAG from the 22.9 m/s Focke Wulf publishes in their calculated performance.

 

It very much agrees with what Yo-Yo is saying.

Answers to most important questions ATC can ask that every pilot should memorize:

 

1. No, I do not have a pen. 2. Indicating 250

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crumpp, you must have missed the "Focke-Wulf" when I asked. I think we are all pretty clear on what your calculation method yields. However, we are interested in manufacturer calculations or flight test data for 1.8 ata OK?

 

Old Crow ECM motto: Those who talk don't know and those who know don't talk........

 

http://www.crows.org/about/mission-a-history.html

 

Pilum aka Holtzauge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where does this 20% mentioned come from?

 

The calculated performance from Focke Wulf is 10% lower than the Kennblatt performance and other flight measurements according to Yo-Yo findings.

 

It appears that the calcs represent the minimum performance within a + or - 10% range.

 

You would have to add 10% to get the average and another 10% to reach the far side of the range.

 

Pretty smart if you think about it. The customer buys off on the lower estimate and is thrilled when they get the finished product. Might even make the designer an honorary title and allow his name to be used as an official aircraft designation!!

Answers to most important questions ATC can ask that every pilot should memorize:

 

1. No, I do not have a pen. 2. Indicating 250

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...