Author Topic: Seafire AH chart is not accurate! (Read 1631 times)

1K3 · « **on:** December 22, 2006, 11:09:25 AM »

The climb rate of out current Seafire is much lower than the charts suggests. From 0 to 2,000 feet the seafire can achieve only 2,500 fpm vs ~3,000 showed on the charts. The max speed for seafire must be lower too:noid

Widewing · « **Reply #1 on:** December 22, 2006, 01:23:52 PM »

Well, I tested the Seafire today... I agree that its climb rate is different from the posted chart. I recorded climb rate at every 1,000 foot interval until it ran out of WEP at 14,000 feet (using auto-climb). I charted the results in purple.

Speed at sea level was 304 mph TAS. This looks correct to the chart.

Speed at 16,500 feet was 370 mph TAS, which is very close to the chart.

Fuel load for all tests was 25%, zero burn.

My regards,

Widewing

Krusty · « **Reply #2 on:** December 24, 2006, 01:31:36 AM »

First: Shouldn't all tests be done with 100%? If they go by official flight tests and charts, chances are they had full fuel there, so I'd think these charts would be full fuel as well. (this was always my assumption with them).

Second: Maybe the chart hasn't been updated since the de-boosting of the SpitV? Didn't the Seafire share the same de-boosting? I don't fly it often so I can't say for sure. Thought I'd put it out there.

Schutt · « **Reply #3 on:** December 24, 2006, 03:33:00 AM »

The climb rates of a lot of planes are less than indicated in the charts.

Widewing · « **Reply #4 on:** December 24, 2006, 10:25:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
First: Shouldn't all tests be done with 100%? If they go by official flight tests and charts, chances are they had full fuel there, so I'd think these charts would be full fuel as well. (this was always my assumption with them).

Second: Maybe the chart hasn't been updated since the de-boosting of the SpitV? Didn't the Seafire share the same de-boosting? I don't fly it often so I can't say for sure. Thought I'd put it out there.

IK3 stated that the Seafire doesn't climb at the rate indicated on the chart. I confirmed this. Using 25% gas illustrates that when flying with low fuel, the climb rate is significantly below the charted rate. Adding 100% fuel would only reduce climb further.

I do not know why the aircraft doesn't conform to the chart, I only verified the observation.

My regards,

Widewing

Krusty · « **Reply #5 on:** December 24, 2006, 10:55:23 AM »

But, in general, isn't using 25% gas in a climb test cheating? It's like choosing the ligthest gun load, the least amount of fuel and all that. If compared to actual charts of the real plane, the charts might be the same, but the real plane climbed a LOT better because it did it at a full load.

I don't get why HTC does the charts like that. (*shrug*)

Widewing · « **Reply #6 on:** December 24, 2006, 11:23:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
But, in general, isn't using 25% gas in a climb test cheating? It's like choosing the ligthest gun load, the least amount of fuel and all that. If compared to actual charts of the real plane, the charts might be the same, but the real plane climbed a LOT better because it did it at a full load.

I don't get why HTC does the charts like that. (*shrug*)

Krusty, I was establishing the best possible rate of the climb for the Seafire. If that falls below the full load climb rate, it shows the full extent of the discrepancy.

My regards,

Widewing

Krusty · « **Reply #7 on:** December 24, 2006, 12:02:45 PM »

OOooooOOooohh... I see what you mean. Sorry, I'm rather dense today!

So, if even at 25% it does that poorly, it's WAY below spec, right?

I'm thinking maybe the Seafire was deboosted and it has the old chart or something.

Kev367th · « **Reply #8 on:** December 24, 2006, 08:05:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
Second: Maybe the chart hasn't been updated since the de-boosting of the SpitV? Didn't the Seafire share the same de-boosting? I don't fly it often so I can't say for sure. Thought I'd put it out there.

Nope Seafire wasn't 'de-boosted', still has the same Merlin 45/46 it always has had.
Only difference now is the Spit V has the same motor.

Bring the Merlin 32 Seafire L IIc to AH

.
Or the Merlin 55M Seafire L III, hell lets have both.

1K3 · « **Reply #9 on:** December 25, 2006, 02:18:49 AM »

Bring on Seafire L III! Give it a lower ENY though cause it's a killer:)

Angus · « **Reply #10 on:** December 26, 2006, 08:34:50 AM »

BTW, how does AH's Spit XIV rack up to RL? Or the Mk VIII?
Both of them would hit 20K in 5 mins. The XIV there in question is the early one.

Mace2004 · « **Reply #11 on:** December 26, 2006, 08:55:37 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
First: Shouldn't all tests be done with 100%? If they go by official flight tests and charts, chances are they had full fuel there, so I'd think these charts would be full fuel as well. (this was always my assumption with them).

To be precise we'd need to know the specific aircraft configuration for the AH charts. What is the weight and external stores?

In RL, military specs would determine required performance under very specific conditions for contract purposes, however, whatever conditions produced the best numbers would be the one quoted in general literature. For precise numbers there would also be a whole list of performance charts provided which gave specific performance at specific weights/ loadouts/ altitudes. Hard to say how much of this material HTC has.

MOSQ · « **Reply #12 on:** December 26, 2006, 10:06:10 PM »

According to HTC this is not possible.

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=189254&highlight=Charts

"Sloehand: The charts in the hangar can not be out of date, they are generated on the fly from the current AH model.

HiTech"

Krusty · « **Reply #13 on:** December 26, 2006, 10:31:11 PM »

Maybe in-game, but what about the ones on the webpage? When we got the new variants, there's been occasions where a chart is simply missing for a while (this was the case with the new P38s for many months). Then again maybe that's a process they have to run to produce the image, and they could be tardy in running the process. So it's possible the chart could be old. However, with this new info (btw: thanks for the info!) it doesn't seem likely.

Widewing · « **Reply #14 on:** December 27, 2006, 12:00:38 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MOSQ
According to HTC this is not possible.

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=189254&highlight=Charts

"Sloehand: The charts in the hangar can not be out of date, they are generated on the fly from the current AH model.

HiTech"

In this case it is more than possible. I tested the Seafire three times and it averages 3:48 to climb to 12,000 feet using auto-climb. Climb varies between 2,975 to 3,075 feet per minute over that height. This is well below what is shown on the chart (in game or from the website). Perhaps they have the Seafire's weight incorrect. Nonetheless, it does not climb anywhere near the chart's rate, even when flying with just 25% fuel.

I also tested climb in MIL power. Again, with 25% fuel. All tests were done with the plane flying at 50 feet @ 160 mph. Auoto-climb was engaged and power brought up to WEP or MIL. Once again, the Seafire fell well short of the charted climb rate. See chart below.

My regards,

Widewing