Aircraft peformances, is this joke ?

[jf1981]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

By collecting the test data during the test flight others will be able to review your test flight to see NOT only how accurate the FM is but how accurate your test method is.

I used a method accurate enough for that purpose, the margin for error in terms of vertical speed and top speed is really a matter of few percents. Agree it can be nearly zero with a better method.

By retro engineering I mean flight testing in order to determine what was set inside the code.

By the way, could you have a look at the vertical speed dials ? I looked at the Mk II spit and got nonsense values, if you could check with you method, It would be interesting. I determined about 30% error low sea level and a 200% at 18'000 ft (the VSI higher by factor of 1.3 to 2 from SL to alt).

Aircraft IAS looks right versus map scale and time checks. Altimeter can only be assumed to give correct reading, I see no obvious way to cross check.

[winny]

What figures are you using as your real life ones?

The only reason I ask is that the usual figures for Mk I/II come from aircraft that were quite a bit lighter than BoB trim aircraft.

Any idea what the AUW is for your RL numbers?

[jf1981]

Winny,

"Spitfire, A Test Pilot's Story" from Jeffrey Quill
"Sigh for a Merlin, Testing the Spitfire" from Alex Henshaw
"The Story of the Spitfire, An operational and combat story" from Ken Delve
"Spitfire, The history" from Eric B. Morgan & Edward Shacklady

All being very good lectures.

[Jugdriver]

Just out of curiosity do these references give consistent data (same or similar performace) for any of the given Spit variants?

JD
AKA_MattE