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 08-29-2012, 06:24 AM
Redroach's Avatar
Redroach Redroach is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bavaria, Germany
Posts: 709
Default

with which weapon configuration(s) and with which ammo load(s) did the RL-tests take place?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-29-2012, 08:48 AM
winny winny is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Manchester UK
Posts: 1,508
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redroach View Post
with which weapon configuration(s) and with which ammo load(s) did the RL-tests take place?
The RL data for a mk I (if it's the data usually quoted, top speed 363mph) was taken from a Spitfire that was at least 300 lb lighter than a mkI in Battle of Britain trim. It was around 5,800 lb as opposed to 6,100 lb (ish). It was the eight gun version, didn't have the pilot armour, bullet proof windscreen ( reckoned to cost 3-4 mph) or the IFF aerial (again another 2-3 mph). The only reference I've seen to it is by Dr Alfred Price. He says in "Spitfire in combat" that the top speed was closer to 350 mph for a BoB era MkI. It's a bit vague, I know, but does highlight how difficult it is to get accuracy. He knows his Spits though..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-29-2012, 11:47 PM
ACE-OF-ACES's Avatar
ACE-OF-ACES ACE-OF-ACES is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NM
Posts: 2,248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by winny View Post
The RL data for a mk I (if it's the data usually quoted, top speed 363mph) was taken from a Spitfire that was at least 300 lb lighter than a mkI in Battle of Britain trim. It was around 5,800 lb as opposed to 6,100 lb (ish). It was the eight gun version, didn't have the pilot armour, bullet proof windscreen ( reckoned to cost 3-4 mph) or the IFF aerial (again another 2-3 mph). The only reference I've seen to it is by Dr Alfred Price. He says in "Spitfire in combat" that the top speed was closer to 350 mph for a BoB era MkI. It's a bit vague, I know, but does highlight how difficult it is to get accuracy. He knows his Spits though..
On that note..

Differences in weight typically affect the ROC results much more than the TSPA results..

That is to say you may not notice a difference (percent difference would be small) in TSPA due to a little weight change, but, you will notice it in an ROC test.
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on.

Last edited by ACE-OF-ACES; 08-29-2012 at 11:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-02-2012, 09:07 AM
Redroach's Avatar
Redroach Redroach is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bavaria, Germany
Posts: 709
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by winny View Post
The RL data for a mk I (if it's the data usually quoted, top speed 363mph) was taken from a Spitfire that was at least 300 lb lighter than a mkI in Battle of Britain trim. It was around 5,800 lb as opposed to 6,100 lb (ish). It was the eight gun version, didn't have the pilot armour, bullet proof windscreen ( reckoned to cost 3-4 mph) or the IFF aerial (again another 2-3 mph). The only reference I've seen to it is by Dr Alfred Price. He says in "Spitfire in combat" that the top speed was closer to 350 mph for a BoB era MkI. It's a bit vague, I know, but does highlight how difficult it is to get accuracy. He knows his Spits though..
okay, I just wanted to know. Thank you!

I'm still afraid of people being awful "test pilots" like those who were around at CoD Release... of that type who complained hard, over multiple forum pages, about why they can't achieve maximum rated speed at sea level (TAS was totally unknown, anyways). If the devs would have listened to that, we would be in even more trouble now.
But you guys seem to have done your "homework" resp. proper set-up and flight procedures (wind/no wind, REALLY straight and level, eliminate any yawing etc.), and then some (that website I was directed to looks really nice)!

Last edited by Redroach; 09-02-2012 at 09:16 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-03-2012, 03:12 PM
ACE-OF-ACES's Avatar
ACE-OF-ACES ACE-OF-ACES is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NM
Posts: 2,248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redroach View Post
(that website I was directed to looks really nice)!
Thanks it is a work in progress but it is comming along! S!
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-29-2012, 11:38 PM
ACE-OF-ACES's Avatar
ACE-OF-ACES ACE-OF-ACES is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NM
Posts: 2,248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redroach View Post
with which weapon configuration(s) and with which ammo load(s) did the RL-tests take place?
A link is provided to the source of the real world test at my website, i.e.

www.flightsimtesting.com

There you will find the answer to all those questions and more.
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on.
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 07:44 PM.


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