Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: xHaMmeRx on August 23, 2001, 11:24:00 PM
-
Greetings All,
Just added the C.205, F4U-1D, La-5FN and Fw 190D-9 test data to the comparison charts I've been making on my web-site. Interesting note: La-5 out-climbs La-7 on the auto-settings (both auto-speeds are about 169 indicated). Info is at
www.netaces.org (http://www.netaces.org)
HaMmeR
-
nice work :)
...though it may be "easier on the eyes" if you would display the data in a chart, no?
-
Great Job!!
Your page is the first of it's kind for AH. I have seen many for Warbirds and AW but not for AH.
When will you finish the stall and scrable times? I am anxious to see your results.
Thanx
F4UDOA
-
Ooops,
Scamble times only one not correct. Giving me the climb rates again.
Thanx
-
Originally posted by xHaMmeRx:
Greetings All,
HaMmeR
very nice stuff hammer........well done
I think it does show up some anomalies....
eg the zero throttle deceleration table shows that the AH SpitIX has the worst drag coefficient of all planes sampled!!!!
I have a hard time understanding the thrust to drag balance AH has established there. particularly when looking at the actual Hp rating of its engine compared to the La 5 for example.
Tilt
-
Also, your data does not match up with HTC's posted data- unless I'm mistaken.
You list the top speed of the 109G10 as 328/356 (i believe, i check last night) at 100 feet- according to HTC it goes faster than this. Your data also has the LA7 going faster than what HTC has on their speed charts at 100 feet.
-
Originally posted by Urchin:
Also, your data does not match up with HTC's posted data- unless I'm mistaken.
You list the top speed of the 109G10 as 328/356 (i believe, i check last night) at 100 feet- according to HTC it goes faster than this. Your data also has the LA7 going faster than what HTC has on their speed charts at 100 feet.
I've seen Hammer's work in Air Warrior, and I know - first hand - that he and his crew do their very best to produce the most accurate data in the online environment. I believe we can have faith in the numbers he presents. :cool:
Enduro
-
Originally posted by Urchin:
Also, your data does not match up with HTC's posted data- unless I'm mistaken.
You list the top speed of the 109G10 as 328/356 (i believe, i check last night) at 100 feet- according to HTC it goes faster than this. Your data also has the LA7 going faster than what HTC has on their speed charts at 100 feet.
Lots of possible reasons for differences. Fuel load, ammo load, etc. For example, on the 109G-10, the speeds were recorded with a full fuel load and 0 usage. Tanks were full the whold time. In general, I tried to test all planes at a similar duration of around 28 minutes rather than a similar percentage. In all cases except scramble time, use rate was set to 0.001 so fuel states remained constant. You can read the exact conditions and procedures for each test, and reproduce any you doubt! :D If you come up with different results, let me know and I will run that test again!
I have tried to reproduce HTC's results with the F4U and was unable to. Even with no ammo and almost 0 fuel, I could not reach the speeds their charts indicate. Not sure why, but I am confident in my methods. (Background, I just finished duty with U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command, where I designed evaluations of equipment the Army was considering buying). Biggest concern is my sample size of one test for each area. If I blew the reading, it got recorded.
Biggest thing to remember is that rarely will you encounter a plane in the arena under the exact same conditions I tested them at. It makes a difference. Like I said, feel free to reproduce any questionable tests and, if you get different results from me, I'll run them again here.
HaMmeR
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA:
Ooops,
Scamble times only one not correct. Giving me the climb rates again.
Thanx
Fixed....what I get for working while watching football.
HaMmeR
-
Originally posted by Effdub:
nice work :)
...though it may be "easier on the eyes" if you would display the data in a chart, no?
Probably when I get data on all the planes... otherwise it just adds to the work I do when I add a few. My goal is to get 2 - 4 planes completely tested and added each month rather than waiting until I have it all done.
HaMmeR