LW aircraft speed specifications

[Crumpp]

all this fuss for what is simply compressibility error

Surprised myself it took this long for a pilot to recognize it.

interestingly enough compressibility error makes an ASI 'over read' so not sure why compressibility error will have been a factor in the Russians tests not being able to reach speeds.

whooosh....

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Surprised myself it took this long for a pilot to recognize it.





whooosh....

Well if you just mentioned compressibility error in the first place it would have been simpler, but as usual you hide it behind the 'look at me and my clever internet aerodynamicist equations', another indication of someone who isn't a pilot, internet amateurs use gaphs and equations and pilots like to keep it simple with 'rules of thumb'
either way, now you have confirmed it you have also invalidated everything you contributed by failing to realise the error has the opposite effect to what the Russians were facing, apparently they couldn't reach the high speeds claimed despite their instruments over reading due to the error....

and to cap it all you put a smug 'whooosh' at the end

[Crumpp]

If the russian's calibrate their instruments based on the common expression for compressibility used at the time, they will always measure results which are slower than the German's.

Now, I don't know if that is the answer in this specific case. No details are passed along in the anecdote.

Robteks first post in this thread was spot on.

Robtek says:

This is so unspecified that it is absolutely worthless besides the anecdotical value.

What german fighters in which version and what equipment? No Information.

Were they trying to reach the 190 A8 speeds with a F8 or so?

And then hearsay from a german specialist, who might say anything to please his new masters.

Worthless for any real value deductions, i'd say.

I just took the opportunity to demonstrate the following to the community.

It is a fact, the expression for compressibility effects was NOT the same. The implication of that is you cannot take performance data from different countries during WWII at face value.

The other damning fact is that all instruments, manifold pressure, rpm, airspeed indicators, altimeter, etc...require both periodic maintenance and calibration.

You claim to be a pilot but do not seem to understand these basic facts.

Instead you leap on the anecdotal bandwagon because it is something you think will advance your game shape agenda.

It is no different than the ridiculous "testing" of performance without first understanding the atmospheric conditions.

Both incident's are example of behavior that folks who understand aircraft performance would not undertake!! Like I did, they would think it is a very silly thing to do.

My suggestion is less whining from the community about specific aircraft performance to fit an agenda and more enjoyment of the game.

[Crumpp]

now you have confirmed it you have also invalidated everything you contributed by failing to realise the error has the opposite effect

If the russian's calibrate their instruments based on the common expression for compressibility used at the time, they will always measure results which are slower than the German's.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

If the russian's calibrate their instruments based on the common expression for compressibility used at the time, they will always measure results which are slower than the German's.

Doesn't matter how the Russians calibrate their compressibility, I'm sure the 'captured' 'German' aircraft they were testing had 'German' instruments in them anyway.

[Crumpp]

I'm sure the 'captured' 'German' aircraft they were testing had 'German' instruments in them anyway.

Exactly.....whoosh!!!

Of course, the German instruments will always show up as slower compared to russian calibrated instruments.

Now aircraft performance is a percentage range over an median and that instrument error is not outside that range so you will find some agreement.

actually as a pilot i can tell you that instruments barely ever 'need' maintenance

Baloney....

A considerable amount of maintenance is replacement of instruments. I have had to replace turn co-ordinators, manifold pressure gauges, oil pressure gauges, and re-calibrate rpm gauges.

On every airplane I have ever gotten IFR rated, it required maintenance to the pitot-static system.

All outside of the normal checks and required calibrations.

you put it is towards accuracy.

Acccuracy? You mean flight testing data without understanding atmospheric conditions???

Not very accurate IMHO!!

Crumpp says:
Almost as amazing as all the "I am real world pilot" on this forum who are testing away, screaming about their favorite gameshape is porked, but don't bother to worry about the atmospheric model or understand it first.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...t=32523&page=4

[=AN=Felipe]

I think blue pilots need a little more good sense, and less talking...

In Il2 1946 we had the same problem, blue pilots crying for improvements in their 109 and 190... now IL2 1946 = gameboy...

In Cliffs of dover we had the same, cry cry cry, Spitfire IIa ripped off Ia too, throtle problems, ridiculous curves of speed, ridiculous behavior over 14k and Sea Level...

Now you guys got over design speed like you always wanted!

great job Blue Pilots!

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Exactly.....whoosh!!!

Of course, the German instruments will always show up as slower compared to russian calibrated instruments.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

If the russian's calibrate their instruments based on the common expression for compressibility used at the time, they will always measure results which are slower than the German's.

Make up your mind.....

Baloney....

A considerable amount of maintenance is replacement of instruments. I have had to replace turn co-ordinators, manifold pressure gauges, oil pressure gauges, and re-calibrate rpm gauges.

On every airplane I have ever gotten IFR rated, it required maintenance to the pitot-static system.

All outside of the normal checks and required calibrations.

Baloney

Acccuracy? You mean flight testing data without understanding atmospheric conditions???

Not very accurate IMHO!!

is this relevant? where has a lack understanding of atmospheric conditions come into this thread?

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...t=32523&page=4

Ah the thread I was hoping you'd bring up, the one where you questioned this particular statement of mine...

Rubbish, real pilots only have to calculate how much rest they earn at the end of the duty period and pray they don't end up on a split-shift, I pitty the poor guy that has to go into the Flight Manual and work this stuff out instead of having it ready in tabular abridged form on the checklists based on T/O weight and temparature or in fact have the entire performance schedule handed to him by operations who worked it out for him, occasionally with GA operations there are times when you will dust off the Flight Manual if a customer has an unusual destination.

I will point you to the attached checklist I used on the learjet, you probably don't know this but a checklist forms part of an operators 'Ops manual' and is a thoroughly audited document and 'must' be approved by the authorities, on the attachment you will notice the very 'abridged and tabular data' I mentioned....

[bongodriver]

You claim to be a pilot but do not seem to understand these basic facts.

No claims, it's all been proven.

Robteks first post in this thread was spot on.

Actually I can agree, but I only decided to question the sudden conviction to the theory it was all about the difference between IAS and TAS, really it doesn't matter who calibrates how, like I mentioned a simple 'rule of thumb' calculation gives a pretty accurate result, I'm sure the Russians had thumbs too (even opposeable ones) the compressibility effects you talked about were really geared around transonic flight, given the anecdote was in all probability talking about more mainstream German aircraft i.e. the piston engined ones then theres not too much chance the data you provided was applicable.

The other damning fact is that all instruments, manifold pressure, rpm, airspeed indicators, altimeter, etc...require both periodic maintenance and calibration.

Damming? how so? what makes you think the Russians were incapable of giving captured machines any maintenance, actually as a pilot i can tell you that instruments barely ever 'need' maintenance, sure they get checked for obvious reasons but seldom do they loose calibration.

I just took the opportunity to demonstrate the following to the community.

you demonstrated something? appart from the usual internet trawled stuff and equations which I have to admit were barely readable I saw no demonstrations of anything relevant.

Instead you leap on the anecdotal bandwagon because it is something you think will advance your game shape agenda.

My 'gameshape agenda' as you put it is towards accuracy.

It is no different than the ridiculous "testing" of performance without first understanding the atmospheric conditions.

Which I did....youre welcome by the way.

Both incident's are example of behavior that folks who understand aircraft performance would not undertake!! Like I did, they would think it is a very silly thing to do.

Yeah, your specialty, sitting on the sidelines thinking evryone else is stupid.

My suggestion is less whining from the community about specific aircraft performance to fit an agenda and more enjoyment of the game.

From a guy who whinges about aircraft performance and barely plays the game....

[fruitbat]

just stick Crummp on ignore, he's not worth it.

If he told me it was raining outside, i'd still have to look outside to check.