C.205 Flight Model

[gatt]

Well,

I have to say that the "Veltro" is very unstable.

Max speed at 22K should be 399mph TAS. Actually, the kite is some 10-15mph slower.
Same prob at sea level.

Time to 20K is more than 7 minutes. Thats wrong: the C.205 should climb more or less like a 109G-2. Our best estimate is from 5'30 t 6'00" (the real G-2 took 5'05" to get to 20K but she weighted some 200Kg less).

I hope HTC will fix it.
 

[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 11-21-1999).]

[SnakeEyes]

It rocks back & forth like a boat on a lake... I'm sure the FM requires some tweaking.

Still, I'm glad that HTC is looking at adding unusual aircraft like the Macchi.

------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=

[v-twin]

I agree with gatt: speed and climb time aren't correct, and I hope this will be fixed.
Anyway, I'm really grateful to HTC for having modelled the 205.

v-twin

[gatt]

V-Twin,

I tried the La-5FN after some very tough killin in the C.205. Ouch, THAT kite is very stable. Faster and better climber. Snake is right, the Veltro goes up and down with the nose like a drunken boat. Very hard to keep in autopilot, very different from other a/c.
Again, please fix it.

[Fishu]

Talking of La-5FN, what if its La-7 actually?  
Just seems to be VERY fast, and I mean it.

On my test results at 500ft it was second fastest plane (354-355mph), after P-51 (365-67mph) and even 5mph faster than 109G10.

If it's still correct, La-5FN rides 415mph at alt of 24k in AH, if it haven't been changed since v.37

And currently C.205 is slowest plane in aces high, at least on the deck.

[leonid]

Fishu,
Now you know why the La-5FN was the fighter of choice among the VVS fighter pilots.  Can you imagine what it would be like if the only other planes to fight were the Bf 109G-6 and Fw 190A-4?  Forgetaboutit  


------------------
129 IAP VVS RKKA

[Vermillion]

I too have noticed the extreme "bouncey'ness" of the C.205.

At first I thought it was my control setup, but it is fine with all other aircraft.

I did manage to take some of it out by raising my damper in the Pitch direction, but anymore and it adversely effects the performance of the other aircraft that I fly.

------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), **MOL**, Men of Leisure,
"Real men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires "

[leonid]

Fishu,

I tested the La-5FN for top speed again.  The stated top speed for the La-5 'doubler' prototype was 402.6mph @ 20,750ft(6300m).

After getting to the stated altitude I let it stay level for about eight minutes, where the TAS indicator settled between the 400mph  and 412.5mph marks, though the TAS indicator seemed a tad on the higher mark.  However, I don't think the graphical instruments on the panel are entirely exact.  Thus, for myself it looks like it may possibly be anywhere from fine to 6mph faster than RL.

Pyro, has this been tweaked yet?

------------------
129 IAP VVS RKKA

[gatt]

Leonid,
as I posted some time ago, I have a beautiful book about Soviet fighters.
The reported speed at 20K is 385 for the "production" La-5FN.
Do we have the "doubler" or the "production" type in AH?
Anyway the AH La-5 is a beautiful fighter with an impressive performance at mid-low level <S>

[leonid]

gatt,
My friend, I pointed this out once before, but you must have missed it.  Let me explain.

The specifications that you see for most all fighter aircraft flown by most nations is of a prototype, specifically made for testing trials, not a production aircraft.  This has been the norm around the world for many decades.  A company builds a plane that is painstakingly made with a new design or engine, etc.  This design progresses from initial versions until a final version is made that can be said to be of the same specs as the eventual production aircraft.  This final prototype is tweaked and refined as testing progresses until it is just 'right', or at least as good as it's going to get.  Weight requirements are kept as close as they are projected to be for the production aircraft.  The data from all the flight tests are sent to the respective military testing board or commission for approval to be built.  It is this very data that ends up being the specs that we see in all the books on WWII (and modern) aircraft, not of the aircraft that actually rolled out from the production line.


The Soviets are unique in that they also recorded tests of their production models too.  No other country was in the habit of doing this so extensively.  I think a big reason for these production tests was to insure the quality of their transplanted factories beyond the Urals.  As an example, moving nearly the entire industrial base from western Russia to east of the Urals would be similar to taking most of the USA eastern seaboard industrial base of the forties, and moving it to the eastern Great Plains.  Such a dislocation of Soviet heavy industry demanded that quality control be of prime importance, especially since the Germans were actually invading their country too.

Finally, it is very rare that a production aircraft will match the performance results of the prototype that proceeded it.  This goes for all countries.

Gatt, do you think it is fair to use all prototype flight data for all countries except the Soviet aircraft, just because the Soviets also kept production flight test data, and the other countries did not?

------------------
129 IAP VVS RKKA

[Jochen]

 

Gatt, do you think it is fair to use all prototype flight data for all countries except the Soviet aircraft, just because the Soviets also kept production flight test data, and the other countries did not?

The fate of LW planes is bit similar, I think most of the data game designers allegedly have is based on tests conducted by US or British air forces with captured and worn out production models.

------------------
jochen
Geschwaderkommodore
Jagdgeschwader 2 'Richthofen' (Warbirds)

If you ever get across the sea to England,
Then maybe at the closing of the day
The bars will all be serving German lager
Which means we won the war - hip hip hooray!

[Vermillion]

Though I feel your pain Gatt, I wouldn't expect to see any change to the C.205 unless you can procure some really hard data from flight testing.

For example see my whole discussion on the N1K2.  There I had what I would consider good data, since at least one company used it for a flight model, but Pyro says he has better data to refute it (which incidentally I'm trying to track down, more on this later today).

So I wouldn't expect to see any changes based on estimates or "expected" performance.  

Don't misunderstand me, I don't disagree with you.  But these disagreements on aircraft modeling have been going on since 1987 (the first AW version) and I don't expect them to end now.

------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), **MOL**, Men of Leisure,
"Real men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires "

[Pyro]

Gatt,

Lots of work needs to be done on stability and handling for all planes.  205 is especially bad right now.  Hang on awhile and things will feel better.  After the F4U, we'll concentrate on getting all the flight models completed and up to snuff.

As for the performance, everything I've seen states that the 205 should be peaking its speed at about 24k not 22k.  As for climb times, are you using wep?



------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations

[gatt]

PYRO, here is the test I made.

Fuel: 100%.
Armament: 2x12,7mm and 2x20mm.
Starting altitude: 100ft.
Starting speed: 200mph TAS.
Climb speed 160mph IAS, no WEP.

Well, time to 20K is about 7'06". Too much, IMHO. Climb speed never exceeded 3,000ft/min    

Some thoughts:

The 109E-1, with the DB601A engine, 5,523lb loaded, took about 6'15" to get to 20K. The C.202 "Folgore", same engine, 6,459lb loaded, made it in 5'55".

The 109G-1, with the DB605A1, 7,055lb loaded, took about 5'10" to get to 20K. The C.205, same engine, 7,490lb loaded, *cannot* take more than 7 minutes to do the same thing. I know, she weights some 400lb more. But take a look at the 109E-C.202 comparison (and the effect of the 202/205 wing).

Anyway, thx for the feedback PYRO, I appreciate it ...     and I look forward for the "FM fine tuning".

Leonid,
mine was not a criticism, I was only trying to understand better ...    


[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 11-23-1999).]

[gatt]

Leonid, Verm

One of the main problems in buiding FM is that for some a/c you have only "theoretical" data and for other you have "official tests".

Take a look at these figures for the Reggiane 2005 "Sagittario", prolly the best WWII italian fighter:

MAX SPEED at M. (data origin)
556 Kph at 2000 m (theoretical speed prelim. Design A05/0901)
590 Kph at 4000 m (theoretical speed prelim. Design A05/0901)
618 Kph at 6000 m (theoretical speed prelim. Design A05/0901)
629 Kph at 6950 m (official tests*)
644 Kph at 7200 m (theoretical speed prelim. Design A05/0901)
*during the July-September 1943 tests MM 096105 reach a speed of 988 Kph (diving tests)
CLIMB RATE:
M. : TIME (data origin)
2000 m. : 1 min 35 sec (theoretical C.R. prelim. Design A05/0901)
2000 m. : 1 min 55 sec (official R.A. test of September 23rd 1942)
4000 m. : 3 min 29 sec (theoretical C.R. prelim. Design A05/0901)
4000 m. : 4 min 28 sec (official R.A. test of September 23rd 1942)
6000 m. : 5 min 31 sec (theoretical C.R. prelim. Design A05/0901)
6000 m. : 7 min 25 sec (official R.A. test of September 23rd 1942)
8000 m. : 7 min 56 sec (theoretical C.R. prelim. Design A05/0901)
8000 m. : 11 min 22 sec (official R.A. test of September 23rd 1942)
10000 m. : 11 min 65 sec (theoretical C.R. prelim. Design A05/0901)
SERVICE CEILING:
12000 m (theoretical C.R. prelim. Design A05/0901)
11500 m (official R.A. tests July-November 1942)
RANGE:
1250 Km at 515 Kph (theoretical C.R. prelim. Design A05/0901)
980 Km (official R.A. tests July-November 1942)

I think that real a/c, loaded and in combat conditions had very different figures from those we are talking about. But this should be true for ALL a/c ...