Author Topic: Doghouse plot comparison site...need your input/help (Read 1964 times)

Gianlupo · « **Reply #15 on:** October 28, 2005, 09:28:34 AM »

You did a great job, Soda!

The only things I'm afraid of are the "rounding issues" and the fact the the curve is extrapolated from a single point data... if you want more measurements I volunteer (though I can't assure the quality of the job, maybe you need a better pilot than me

)

Just one thing... IIRC Kweassa's data were about sustained turn performance, not instantaneous. So, shouldn't you be able to draw the sustained turn curve??? Sorry if I'm saying BS, I have no idea of the process needed to obtain that curve...

Soda · « **Reply #16 on:** October 29, 2005, 11:49:07 AM »

I can probably clean up the rounding with a bit of work. The thing with sustained turn performance is it's based on excess power while the instantaneous is based on lift potential. I think I have some ideas on how to calculate the sustained curve but never really got very far into it. The curves are really easy to produce though using my spreadsheet, it's all automatic once you drop in a couple of numbers so I can use it for any configuration/aircraft. I'd really like to test a single aircraft through a range of configurations and weights though and see what sort of trends/differences there are.

If there is another aircraft you'd like me to post I'll see what I can do.

-Soda

FTJR · « **Reply #17 on:** October 29, 2005, 11:57:53 AM »

C205 soda , please.

Gianlupo · « **Reply #18 on:** October 29, 2005, 12:11:26 PM »

Lol, well, yes, guess that, being italian, I'd like to see the EM diagrams for C.202 and C.205...

But I'd really like to see them for all the planes (well, all the fighters, at least). As said, Soda, I volunteer for testing, but I need a brief to know what to do: is it sufficient that I follow Kweassa's testing parameters, as shown in his thread? Or do you have in mind some different drill? You said the process is automated, just tell me what number you need and I'll try to get them.

And (outrageous request!

) can you mail me that spreadsheet with the instructions needed?

Fry · « **Reply #19 on:** October 29, 2005, 10:20:25 PM »

Hey guys. Sorry for this late reply but I've been out of town at a technical users conference all week.

First of all, I'd like to thank you all for the support for a project like this as it really is a long time in coming. But I have to say that I'm going to table this indefinitely as I was informed by HiTech Creations that they have something like this already in the works:aok Given that they're the trained professionals for this kind of stuff, I'd rather them do this 'right' than me doing a mediocre job;)

So, lets just wait and see what they come up with...and no, they didn't give me any dates. Let's wait the standard "two weeks" and follow up at that time:D

Gianlupo · « **Reply #20 on:** October 30, 2005, 10:22:41 AM »

Great new, Fry! I'm afraid that this job is not at the top of HTC to-do list, but, hey, it's years I'm waiting to see it, so, "some" weeks more don't really matters... after all, we have Soda's spreadsheet in the meanwhile... isn't it, Soda?

Soda · « **Reply #21 on:** October 30, 2005, 05:46:59 PM »

I sure hope they complete the diagrams as it would be much easier to them to do them based on the source data, everything we do is based on "testing" that have quite a bit of variance built in.

Anyway, I processed the C202 and C205 in my spreadsheets, the links are below:

C202
Peak instantaneous on the C202 comes at ~246mph, 578ft radius, 35.75 deg/sec.

C205
Peak instantaneous on the C205 comes at ~261mph, 663ft radius, 33.06 deg/sec.

These graphs came VERY close to Kweassa's test (the yellow point) so I have a bit more faith in them than the Spit V one that came out close to 50ft off on radius at some points. I think Badboy had some C20X diagrams in one of his articles although they were at lighter fuel loads (25% internal). I have a summary from that Badboy data though and it showed 31deg/sec @ 240mph for the C205 and 22deg/sec @225mph for the C202. Given the extra weight involved in our numbers at 75% internal, it is probably feasible we'd lose 2 deg/sec and gain 20mph required to make max.

FTJR · « **Reply #22 on:** October 30, 2005, 10:02:12 PM »

Thanks Soda, Much appreciated

Gianlupo · « **Reply #23 on:** October 31, 2005, 04:55:21 AM »

Thank you Soda, good to have this graphics.

One doubt about the data you posted, from Badboy's article: haven't you exchanged the data for the 2 planes? Shouldn't the 202 turn faster than the 205, given the lighter wingloading? Or the speed difference matters in this case? As said, I'm not well versed in the math behind this stuff.

SkyChimp · « **Reply #24 on:** October 31, 2005, 08:52:09 AM »

I also started making something like this but since u have i wont haha.

I can help u a great deal if u want me to. I'll offer you a subdomain on my server (if u want it).

I can code.

Are u using sql? or just basic html?

I'll post what i have later =)

Soda · « **Reply #25 on:** October 31, 2005, 10:45:51 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gianlupo
Thank you Soda, good to have this graphics.

One doubt about the data you posted, from Badboy's article: haven't you exchanged the data for the 2 planes? Shouldn't the 202 turn faster than the 205, given the lighter wingloading? Or the speed difference matters in this case? As said, I'm not well versed in the math behind this stuff.

Sloppy typing sorry:

plane sustained instant
MC 205 19 deg/sec@160mph 31 deg/sec@240mph
MC 202 21 deg/sec@152mph 33 deg/sec@225mph

These numbers came from Badboy's graphs and some other info I got from a BBS source so I can't claim the accuracy/method used to test them. I just used them for comparison purposes to my calculations.

hammer · « **Reply #26 on:** October 31, 2005, 11:06:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gianlupo
Good idea, but, unfortunately, Netaces still has old data...

Actually, I've recently tested the P-51D and Spitfire Mk IX and found them both to be within 1mph of AH1 "old" data with the exception of the P-51 at 26k up. The WEP no longer seems to have any effect at those altitudes.

The only other planes that have had their flight models altered (as far as I can tell) is the Spit V/Seafire (which will be changed again at next patch) and possibly the 190s.

Gianlupo · « **Reply #27 on:** October 31, 2005, 11:16:26 AM »

Soda: np, everyone makes typo!

Hammer: sorry, I just looked at what the "Plane comparison page" said («Note: All tests were done in late versions of AH 1. AH 2 test data coming soon.») and assumed it was right and there were differences between the previous and actual FMs.

One little provocation for you: why don't you have an italian card in the Netaces emblem?

Btw, no need to say, since I linked it in my signature, but great site!

MOSQ · « **Reply #28 on:** November 02, 2005, 05:34:45 PM »

Hammer,

The Ki-84 data at Netaces is for the original one w/o WEP. They remodeled it and added WEP which changes the speed/climb java charts quite a bit.

Unfortunatley HTC has never posted a speed chart for the new version as far as I know. Can you add data to the Java chart program or do you have to have the HTC line drawings to create the charts?

It irks me a bit that we've had the Ki-84 for a year, but still no write-up or charts on it at the Aces High Game Info > Planes pages. It's said "Coming Soon" for a year.

*********
I'd love to see EM diagrams for all the planes in AHII on a dynamic chart page!

I figure we'll have it in two weeks.

hammer · « **Reply #29 on:** November 02, 2005, 06:49:24 PM »

MOS,

cc on the Ki... I've known for a while but, just couldn't bring myself to do the tests again (yet)