109 it fly wrong

[gripen]

HoHun,
Nonsense,  the line is created with wrong value for 10100m CINA. Now you try to pick values from this allready wrong line to support your agenda.

The real values are documented above, try to live with them.

Could  tell us why do you use manipulated data?

gripen

[HoHun]

Dearest Gripen,

>Nonsense,  the line is created with wrong value for 10100m CINA.

Do you concede that the data points from the "5.4.43" chart at the altitudes I mentioned are portrayed accurately by the orange graph in my chart?

Please don't try to evade a third time.

My question is not whether the original "5.4.43" chart is accurate, but whether my portrayal of the data points I read from it is accurate.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[gripen]

HoHun,
Well, at the time you presented the graph, you  allready knew that the real value for the 10100m CINA was 552km/h (it had been pointed out several times).  So you certainly knew that the graph was wrong before you posted it.

Basicly it does not matter what values can be found from these altitudes, you knew these were wrong before you used them.

Therefore you certainly knew that the data you use is manipulated.

Now if you just tell us why did you do it despite you knew that values are wrong?

gripen

[HoHun]

Hi Gripen,

Sadly, you tried to evade a fourth time, so let me repeat my question:

"Do you concede that the data points from the "5.4.43" chart at the altitudes I mentioned are portrayed accurately by the orange graph in my chart?"

Would you please answer, if possible with a simple "yes" or "no", and no poison darts this time?

Thank you in advance,

Henning (HoHun)

[gripen]

HoHun,
Basicly you are hiding behind an error in the FAF chart. And you knew that error before you posted the graph.

So why did you do it?

gripen

[HoHun]

Hi Gripen,

It's very sad that you seem to be unable to admit that my usage of the "4.5.43" graph was accurate with the simple and clear "yes" I deserve.

>Basicly you are hiding behind an error in the FAF chart. And you knew that error before you posted the graph.

Actually, you had provided no documentation about the error, so it was only a claimed error so far. I'm quite ready to trust you (as I have done several times in this thread), but in that special point, several contradicting figures were floating about, including your own statement from your 06-03-2004 10:24 AM post:

"May I remind you that measured speed of the MT-215 at 10100m CINA was 552km/h which I corrected to about 580km/h at 10000m CINA 2600rpm with altitude correction, rpm correction, output correction and tailwheel. This value is in a very good agreement with other really tested data sets."

Note that you suggested 580 km/h @ 10.1 km, while the "5.4.32" graph I quoted only lists 572 km/h @ 10.3 km.

Besides, along with posting the chart, which only was meant to illustrate that it was possible to calculate a fairly good estimate from a single data point if you have an engine power chart (so my prediction was not affected by the 10.3 km data point anyway), I pointed out in my post from 06-01-2004 07:57 PM:

"Above full throttle height, my graph actually looks more realistic than the FAF test data because the latter features a linear shape where it should realistically be slightly convex, like my calculated shape."

I added in my post from 06-03-2004 07:16 PM:

"The shape of the corrected curve as shown in

http://www.x-plane.org/users/hohun/me109g-2.jpg

is unrealistic. A realistic curve would be convex, with the speed decay accelerating at altitude. This qualitative argument leaves it open whether the aircraft is too fast or too slow, so I imagine you might agree on this one."

Obviously, a lower speed at 10.3 km as you suggest helps with that requirement, so your suggestion that I was trying to "manipulate data" completely lacks any justification.

In fact, I was repeatedly pointing out doubts about the realism of exactly that part of the curve you're now trying to bash me for.

I hope you realize now that your accusations are based on nothing but a misunderstanding on your part, and take the necessary consequences. I'd really prefer to continue this discussion on friendly terms with you :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[gripen]

HoHun,
Well, now your attitude is much more constructive than earlier. Generally I have provided you quite lot of documentation during this discussion or do you have something to complain? But it seems that you are more willing to believe things which favor Bf 109G than things which do not. From my viewpoint the problem is that you have not told how did you reach your numbers; I'm not interested to spend hours checking not so clear spreadsheets, a short explanation will do fine. I can see you have calculated RAM just like I did for the output but rest of the calculation is unclear.

My about 580km/h (actually 578km/h at 10000m) estimate is for 2600rpm and tail wheel in ie  around 568km/h tailwheel down (details in my post 24.5 12:11AM, basicly all are linear  quick and dirty estimates with output estimates but no drag nor prop efficiency calculations). Note that all other data points should be corrected too for the curve.

Regarding your chart , manipulation etc. The attitude  you have presented earlier in this thread leaves very little room for neutrality; I don't know how many messages it took to point out that 7000m FTH is pretty much wishfull thinking, the validity of the Russian data set, Kennblatt which actually says 6,4km etc... I still see using that chart quite unvalid because it gives a wrong picture about FAF data set; above FTH it's not correct and between 1st and 2nd FTH it's not correct for the technical reason described above (I think both points are quite well documented above).

gripen

[gripen]

Added points to jpg for HoHun's request.  Did not  fit well.

gripen

[13Promet]

Hey HoHun are you flying in AH ?

[HoHun]

Hi Gripen,

>Added points to jpg for HoHun's request.  Did not  fit well.

Try to get the figures from a clearer copy:

http://www.x-plane.org/users/hohun/MT215_speed.jpg

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[HoHun]

Hi 13Promet,

>Hey HoHun are you flying in AH ?

I gave Aces High a try, and though I thought it to be a great simulation with a lot of good features, I didn't really enjoy the gameplay aspects :-/ Too much like the ancient Air Warrior (which was quite good actually - it just grew old on me after a couple of years).

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[gripen]

HoHun,
I quess this is a human error from your side? Anyway, basicly this  means that your chart shows 6km/h too fast speed at 10300m and it also misses the concavity of the FAF curve (which itself contains an error).  Basicly you give lot of reasons to be paranoid...

gripen

[13Promet]

Originally posted by HoHun
Hi 13Promet,

>Hey HoHun are you flying in AH ?

I gave Aces High a try, and though I thought it to be a great simulation with a lot of good features, I didn't really enjoy the gameplay aspects :-/ Too much like the ancient Air Warrior (which was quite good actually - it just grew old on me after a couple of years).

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Looks like AHII gameplay is going to be very similar to WB FH.
Let's wait and see.

[Batz]

HoHun would hate it the fuel consumption has been reworked and the fuel multiplier is at 2.

RTB every 30min........

[gripen]

Batz,
Well, total error of the HoHun's calculated version of the FAF data including his error (or agenda, I can't say because I'm supposed to be a paranoid) and FAF's error is around 45km/h at 10300m CINA (real data gives about 540km/h assuming linear estimate), that does just  8,5% increase. So I believe the 8,5% increase in the fuel consumption would be in right ball park instead 100%

gripen