Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover > Technical threads > FM/DM threads

FM/DM threads Everything about FM/DM in CoD

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-29-2012, 01:11 PM
Ernst Ernst is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 285
Default

The relative climb speeds, i.e., the difference between the climb speeds of all aircraft each other are in good agreement with RL.

Since to me there is no difference in the "fighting" aspect if the strategy used was to degrade RAF fighters or upgrade the LW ones.

Obviously I prefer that the LW ones upgraded to its RL curves. But if someone is complaining that they were being shot down because the RAF are uncompetitive in climb area I disagree.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-29-2012, 01:17 PM
Robo.'s Avatar
Robo. Robo. is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 658
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernst View Post
The relative climb speeds, i.e., the difference between the climb speeds of all aircraft each other are in good agreement with RL.
Well they are certainly not.
__________________
Bobika.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-29-2012, 01:25 PM
Ernst Ernst is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 285
Default

And more there were some error due the fact there is no guarantee that the pilot used the maximun aircraft performance only because he is human. Was the tests repeated extensively do determine an average that the pilot can climb the aircarft? Yes or no? Due to this the relative (difference in) climbs are in good agreement. Second the quantity represented is not rate of climb.

From the error theory the error should be the minimun grade/2, i.e, sigma = 2.5ftm/2 = 1.25m = 1m15s. Considering this error the relative climbing can be considered in good agreement.

Last edited by Ernst; 05-29-2012 at 02:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-29-2012, 02:03 PM
Crumpp's Avatar
Crumpp Crumpp is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,552
Default

Quote:
And more there were some error due the fact there is no guarantee that the pilot used the maximun aircraft performance only because he is human. Was the tests repeated extensively do determine an average that the pilot can climb the aircarft? Yes or no? Due to this the relative (difference in) climbs are in good agreement. Second the quantity represented is not rate of climb.
You are absolutely correct in both your post's Ernest. The Relative performance is about right and it looks like people are nitpicking IMHO.

To put it another way, there is more correct about it than there is wrong with it.

It is rate of climb though. Rate is performance in relation to time. The graph plots are time to altitude which one can calculate rate in feet, meters, inches, nanometers, or whatever unit of distance per time they wish.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.