Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Rise of Flight Max Speeds and Altitude Performance Chart - 2015


  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#1 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2415
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 16 June 2015 - 04:26

Scouts_Chart_2015_1.7_zpssqmopxkf.jpg
 
 
So guys, I created this altitude performance chart of most of the scouts we have in ROF. The data are theoretically very accurate because the measurements were performed across a distance of 75km, two or three times, and sometimes up to four runs. Interestingly, the difference in between the runs are almost inexistent, mostly 1-2 seconds difference in the planes with mixture control (it is algorithms after all). If you want to confirm the times, and you should if you want, I predict a difference of 0.2km to 0.3km, unless I made a mistake in the account.
 
That is, if there is nothing wrong with the methodology, this is the actual speed of the aircraft. If anyone wants to check the HUD chronometer (the source of my timing[1]) and compare it with true professional timer, like Olympics stuff, and a difference is detected, would be nice to determine the difference and make a conversion table.
 
[1] It runs at the same pace of sites like http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/ and http://www.time.gov/.
 
Below is the data:
 
Scouts_data_2015_zps2v3k1ue7.jpg
 
And then the two-seaters / bombers chart (still in progress). 'Load' stands for only bombs. It is separated into two charts -- empty and load.
 
Two_Seaters_Bombers_chart_empty_2015_zps
 
 
Below is the data:
 
Two_seaters_bombers_data_empty_2015_zpse
 
Two_Seaters_Bombers_chart_Load_2015_zpsv
 
 
Below is the data:
 
Two_seaters_bombers_data_load_2015_zpsij
 
Below is the test methodology. 
 
Map: Summer Channel
Time: 09h28min
Temperature: 15ºC
Pressure: 760
No wind / no turbulence
100% fuel and ammo / no bomb loads or weapon mods
Course track: over the Channel
 
The tests of all planes start at 100m. I have done tests to 40m and 20m with planes with and without mixing control and no increase in speed was noted, in some cases even loss, as in the case of the Fokker Dr.I. So I kept all tests starting from 100m.
 
To calculate the average speed, it was divided 75000 meters (75km) by the time in seconds the airplane has traveled the route, then multiplied by 3600 (one hour). Example: Nieuport 17 at 100m took 1641 seconds to cross the 75000 meters of the track. 75000/1641 = 457038 X 3600 = 164,5km/h.
 
Every second of difference in between the runs corresponds to 0.1km/h.
 
At 100m, there is no visible difference from 100% to 60% fuel. They run at the same 1-2 seconds difference margin (IIRC, bomb loads makes a visible difference). Because of this, I did no further tests. All runs were made with 100% fuel and ammo.
 
The runs were solely made with the keyboard and level flight.
 
The time to hit the first balloon varies due to the angle of entry and the pre-run to settle the right mixture. But the course track is the same 75km distance.
 
The first value is the start of the run and the second value is the end of the run.
 
I attached not only all partial timings but template missions (from 100m to 5000m) for those who want to corroborate or improve the data with their own testing. You can use the template to create missions to other aircraft. I set it to start at 9am, better to calcutale the totals. It would also be nice if anyone wants to check the data (too many numbers for so many planes). If you like a particular plane, you can check to see if it is correct and then give a feedback. Or test intermediate altitudes, winter, autumn, with bomb loads, two-seaters, bombers, etc.
 
We could also use this topic to make a complete panorama of all Rise of Flight planes. So everyone can know precisely what the performance of each airplane is. If anyone wants to create missions for other planes and test it, would be nice. Or create a different methodology, but since the planes run by algorithms, I assume we could do a run with less than half the distance and still get the same max speed.
 
A detail; lets refrain ourselves from flight model bickering or baiting. The topic was not created to defend or question flight models, but to share information with the community. If someone wants to use the data to defend or question a flight model, create your own topic and make a link to this topic or use the data that was posted here. I am also attaching the Excel file with the chart (vide bellow the charts. This way you can add, remove or edit the chart for a particular post or for your particular liking. 
 
The measurements were made on the altitudes of 100, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000 meters. I did not see any gain below 100m, sometimes even loss of speed. Therefore, it starts at 100m.
 
The track was laid on the Channel map, at sea, using balloons as landmarks. Below are some examples of how I marked the entry and exit of each run. For some reason I could not set the balloons above 1500m (or 2000m, I am not sure). Maybe someone experienced with the mission builder can give a simple explanation for that. 
 
tutorial01_zpsasi3ueul.jpg
 
The best way I found to time the entry and the exit of each run was with the external view (F4), since many planes have limited visibility to certain angles. At the altitude of 100m I used the balloon on the same level, passing on the side.
 
The aircraft altitude is always set to 29m above the desired mission altitude. If I wanted a run at 100m, I had to set the mission at 129. 29 meters is the altitude that the aircraft loses after respawning. It invariably settles 29 meters below, no matter the plane or the altitude.
 
Use the time compression (16X) to accelerate the mission and use the pause to mark and take note of the entry and exit time. I'm used to it (I do subtitles a lot) and my timing is very precise, but it can be problematic for those who do not type or do manual work. Give it a try.
 
Anyway, it was hard work but it was fun. Enjoy!

Attached Files


Edited by SeaW0lf, 16 July 2015 - 07:16.

  • 14
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#2 ChiefRedCloud

ChiefRedCloud
  • Posts: 2850
  • LocationWaleska, Georgia, USA

Posted 16 June 2015 - 04:31

Nice  ... thank you ..

 

Chief


  • 0

G5fCmYF.png

NEW WINGS VIRTUAL FLIGHT TRAINING

"Hardcore Through Passion"


#3 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2415
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 16 June 2015 - 04:44

Sure Chief!


  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#4 EmerlistDavjack

EmerlistDavjack
  • Posts: 167

Posted 16 June 2015 - 06:00

Every second of difference in between the runs corresponds to 0.1km/h.

 

Looks like a dataset with a high degree of confidence.  Bravo on rigorous testing!

 

One question:  What were your DVIIF altitude throttle settings and methodology for each altitude?  Adjusted until peak RPM on the run up to the balloon? 

 

I think RPM would be a good piece of data for corroboration with the mixtured planes, although as you said the difference across 75km due to variations in mixture are practically negligible, as long as pilots practice the method for arriving at peak RPM.     


  • 0

#5 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2415
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 16 June 2015 - 06:30

Looks like a dataset with a high degree of confidence.  Bravo on rigorous testing!

 

One question:  What were your DVIIF altitude throttle settings and methodology for each altitude?  Adjusted until peak RPM on the run up to the balloon? 

 

I think RPM would be a good piece of data for corroboration with the mixtured planes, although as you said the difference across 75km due to variations in mixture are practically negligible, as long as pilots practice the method for arriving at peak RPM.     

 

Thanks!

 

On the D.VIIF, I used the altitude throttle to it maximum without the engine to rattle (one or two taps on the keyboard from the rattle sound), and the engine did not overheat along the 75km in none of the runs (four or five below the 1500m mark). And this is how I use ingame -- as soon as I take off. I even let it rattle a bit,  but I did not let it rattle during the tests. If you use the historic settings, and I think they start at 500m, then you would probably lose 3-4km/h of the max speed. But I have read someone quoting a WWI pilot saying they used it cranked up for periods of 30 minutes or so at sea level. Can't confirm it though.

 

I encountered differences of 5 seconds doing runs with manual mixture planes, but then I would go back and do other runs (five, six), and I found that the mixture was beyond the optimum threshold from both ends. Then I would reset, run again and the difference would go back to 1-2 seconds. I would say that in between the threshold of eight taps on the keyboard from both ends of the optimum mixture, RPM, in this case the ideal being 4 taps, bulls eye, the difference would be around 1 second. But some planes have a short threshold, others a lengthy one of ten taps, or even more IIRC. The Pup was the worse to settle. Two, three taps would affect right the way. The easiest might have been the Hanriot.

 

Cheers,


  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#6 J2_Oelmann

J2_Oelmann
  • Posts: 292
  • LocationGermany

Posted 16 June 2015 - 07:01

Thats great! Good effort!
  • 0

#7 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2415
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 16 June 2015 - 08:34

Thats great! Good effort!

 

Thanks mate!


  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#8 J99=Hardy

J99=Hardy
  • Posts: 899
  • LocationGermany

Posted 16 June 2015 - 09:59

Great stuff - great work! Thanks a lot!


  • 0

img_3834.png


#9 Uwe_W.

Uwe_W.
  • Posts: 143
  • LocationFresno, CA

Posted 16 June 2015 - 11:06

Superb!

It would be interesting to compare this to a graph showing the relative airspeds of the actual aircraft.

 

EDIT:

From here:

http://history.nasa....P-468/ch2-2.htm

 

p45.jpg


  • 0

#10 Quax.

Quax.
  • Posts: 633
  • LocationGermany

Posted 16 June 2015 - 11:48

Thank You, Seawolf !


  • 0

#11 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 16 June 2015 - 12:05

Superb!

It would be interesting to compare this to a graph showing the relative airspeds of the actual aircraft.

 

EDIT:

From here:

http://history.nasa....P-468/ch2-2.htm

 

p45.jpg

 

Not sure if you would take the speeds from here. Better use Table I on that page. But it is just the theoretical max. speed. It is not really what SeaW0lf plotted.

 

The graph also has a different message. It wants to show you the efficiency of the aircraft to turn given power into speed. They scale rather linear, with the Camel and especially the Dr.I being not so efficient designs.


  • 0

#12 Uwe_W.

Uwe_W.
  • Posts: 143
  • LocationFresno, CA

Posted 16 June 2015 - 12:26

Indeed you are correct, but i will say in my defense that it was 3 AM and I'm taking care of a sick (cold) wife and son so I'm a bit worn out and posted the wrong link. That's what happens when you have too many tabs open at once.

Mea culpa!

Regardless the huge amount of time spent by the OP in testing to make that chart is greatly appreciated. Hopefully we can compare it to reality and see we aren't that far off.
  • 0

#13 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 16 June 2015 - 12:33

Indeed you are correct, but i will say in my defense that it was 3 AM and I'm taking care of a sick (cold) wife and son so I'm a bit worn out and posted the wrong link. That's what happens when you have too many tabs open at once.

Mea culpa!

Regardless the huge amount of time spent by the OP in testing to make that chart is greatly appreciated. Hopefully we can compare it to reality and see we aren't that far off.

 

Never mind. In line with the OP, good data is always nice to see. :icon_e_salute:


  • 0

#14 unreasonable

unreasonable
  • Posts: 1452
  • LocationBangkok

Posted 16 June 2015 - 12:39

Thank you for this, rigorous and very clearly presented!

Looking at that top chart helps you understand why the Entente powers were so keen to take away all the Fokker D-VIIs at the end of the war (by which time I assume that the F version was the standard?) I know the type had other useful attributes, but that high altitude performance, wow.

On a broader note, while I understand in general terms why performance drops off with altitude, and how specific engine technologies can help to overcome this, it is interesting that while most of the planes have a more or less parallel curve, the Dr1's curve is much flatter (better high altitude) than you might predict, and the regular D VII is much more sloped (worse high altitude).

I know you do not want to make this an FM thread so I just want to ask once if there is anything about this elsewhere in the forum or otherwise that can help me understand why these are such obvious outliers.
  • 0

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." H. L. Mencken


#15 SYN_Mike77

SYN_Mike77
  • Posts: 1161

Posted 16 June 2015 - 13:09

Well, the D7F has a second carburator that is tuned to high altitude conditions.  I have no idea why the Dr1 has such a flat curve while the camel falls off the table.  They both had rotary engines.


  • 0

#16 Ceowulf

Ceowulf
  • Posts: 360
  • LocationA long way from Tipperary

Posted 16 June 2015 - 13:16

That's a lot of work.  Thanks, Seawolf.  I'm enjoying studying it.


  • 0

#17 unreasonable

unreasonable
  • Posts: 1452
  • LocationBangkok

Posted 16 June 2015 - 13:20

I understand about the DVIIF engine modification - but the Dr1 and DVII standard you might expect to compare closely to similar types but they are very different: so I wondered if there was any info about a lift/drag/power relationship or some such that made this result more intuitively obvious.

When you look at the data so nicely presented it just leaps off the page at you! (Not to diss others who have done similar charts in the past - just that this one is really nicely done). Anyway I will shut up, do not want to go against the OP's desires for this thread.
  • 0

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." H. L. Mencken


#18 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 16 June 2015 - 13:21

 

 

On a broader note, while I understand in general terms why performance drops off with altitude, and how specific engine technologies can help to overcome this, it is interesting that while most of the planes have a more or less parallel curve, the Dr1's curve is much flatter (better high altitude) than you might predict,

If you noticed the DR1 and the D VIII has about the same curve just different speeds they use the same engine. 

 

 

 I have no idea why the Dr1 has such a flat curve while the camel falls off the table

Differences in engines, notice the Sopwith tripe and Camel have about the same curve, they to use the same engine. 


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#19 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 16 June 2015 - 14:57

Thank you for this, rigorous and very clearly presented!

Looking at that top chart helps you understand why the Entente powers were so keen to take away all the Fokker D-VIIs at the end of the war (by which time I assume that the F version was the standard?) I know the type had other useful attributes, but that high altitude performance, wow.

On a broader note, while I understand in general terms why performance drops off with altitude, and how specific engine technologies can help to overcome this, it is interesting that while most of the planes have a more or less parallel curve, the Dr1's curve is much flatter (better high altitude) than you might predict, and the regular D VII is much more sloped (worse high altitude).

I know you do not want to make this an FM thread so I just want to ask once if there is anything about this elsewhere in the forum or otherwise that can help me understand why these are such obvious outliers.

 

With having in mind that this is only a sim, basically such a graph can be produced if the drag of the airframe is very high. Making the aircraft go faster will create exponentially more drag. Engine power however is falling about linear with decreasing oxigen it can "breathe". This way, the reduced drag due to less air density somewhat compensates the decline in power. This inefficiency is also in some way depicted in message #9 in this thread.

 

Same applies if you have a fine pitched prop that is used with less torque. In a setting where the engine is "choking" anyway, you are on a "shorter gear" already and get more out of what you still have.

 

Maybe these are the effects that show up producing these kind of curves.


  • 0

#20 unreasonable

unreasonable
  • Posts: 1452
  • LocationBangkok

Posted 16 June 2015 - 15:28

OK thanks Hillbilly and Zacharias for those explanations: I find the drag explanation especially plausible for the difference between the Fokker rotary curves and Sopwith curves since I remember seeing comments about how surprisingly "clean" the Dr1 was and I suppose the DVIII would be even better. Interesting to see the technology changes manifested in such a simple chart.


  • 0

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." H. L. Mencken


#21 FourSpeed

FourSpeed
  • Posts: 1756

Posted 16 June 2015 - 16:42

Nice work Seawolf,

 

If you don't mind, I'd like to use your chart / table as a reference for Dutchman's Aircraft viewer, when I get around to updating it.

 

If I understand it correctly, the store's numbers have never been updated to correspond with in-game values, so your chart represents the most up-to-date source I'm aware of. 

 

Appropriate credit will be given for your fine work, of course, if you're ok with us using your numbers.

 

 

Regards,

:icon_e_salute:

 

 

 

PS> If you ever do a follow-up with 2-seaters and bombers, we'd be happy to incorporate those results as well.


  • 1

#22 EmerlistDavjack

EmerlistDavjack
  • Posts: 167

Posted 16 June 2015 - 18:03

Thanks telling us your Mix/Alt Throttle methodology.  Always interesting to see how others work the alt throttle.

 

OK thanks Hillbilly and Zacharias for those explanations: I find the drag explanation especially plausible for the difference between the Fokker rotary curves and Sopwith curves since I remember seeing comments about how surprisingly "clean" the Dr1 was and I suppose the DVIII would be even better. Interesting to see the technology changes manifested in such a simple chart.

 

 

The nasa piece linked above has a good explanation of the DR1 airfoil and lack of wire-drag midway down.  Search "[23] Figure 2.8."


  • 0

#23 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2415
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 16 June 2015 - 18:06

Thanks guys!

 

Nice work Seawolf,

 

If you don't mind, I'd like to use your chart / table as a reference for Dutchman's Aircraft viewer, when I get around to updating it.

 

If I understand it correctly, the store's numbers have never been updated to correspond with in-game values, so your chart represents the most up-to-date source I'm aware of. 

 

Appropriate credit will be given for your fine work, of course, if you're ok with us using your numbers.

 

 

Regards,

:icon_e_salute:

 

 

 

PS> If you ever do a follow-up with 2-seaters and bombers, we'd be happy to incorporate those results as well.

 

Be by guest FourSpeed, you can use it as you wish. I will add more planes in the future, little by little. I think the store numbers are used as historic a reference, because neither the anemometer nor the HUD gauge follows the real speeds, and when they do by approximation they don't follow up in all altitudes.  It is kind of a mixed bag, especially the HUD gauge, which is simply just for show. My guess is that the store numbers never intended to be the real numbers of the planes ingame.  


  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#24 EmerlistDavjack

EmerlistDavjack
  • Posts: 167

Posted 16 June 2015 - 20:50

The HUD Gauge will only come close to your calculations on the deck, because you have measured ground speed (and with no wind that is TAS). For all planes the HUD is reading an Indicated Airspeed (IAS) using an equation based on the real world pitot-static system.    The in-plane gauges either should match the HUD if they are Pitot planes (most Entente), or display TAS if they are anemometers on wing struts.

 

IRL anemometers should really show some divergence from TAS, but not as much as the pitot system. IIRC pitot is ~30% difference at 18000ft and Anemometer is ~8% difference. I found that ~8% on a skydiving forum where they were using weather station calibration data.  The game does not appear to model this. 

 

The HUD seems to use a very similar calculation to this site: http://www.csgnetwor...asinfocalc.html , which assumes that the airmass has a standard/uniform temp drop with altitude. (Remember to convert from Meters!)

 

For which anemometer planes are you not seeing your TAS displayed (as close as you can tell on the dial)?  I just tested the DVIIF, DVa at 3000m and 5000m they all hit the mark.  Then I tested the DVa from the deck, and the anemometer was at just below 180, climbed to 1000m and it now read right on 180, following your data with the slight rise.    There will be small variations: in a SPAD 13 at 3000m the HUD read 176km/h, the plane's gauge looked a lot more like 177-78. 

EDIT: Just found one of significance: the DVII reads a clear 165km/h on the anemometer at 5000m, contrary to SeaW0lf's data of 160.5km/h.  Interesting.  Unfortunately I can't spend any more time on this today.  It has to do with something like the difference between ground speed as measured and IAS as the game calculates it (if the anemometers are just a function of the underlying IAS calcs the FM must use for stalls). 

 

Anyone who wants to know more about Airspeeds, this page explains it rather simply: http://www.experimen...tion-speed.php\


  • 0

#25 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2415
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 16 June 2015 - 21:30

 

The HUD Gauge will only come close to your calculations on the deck, because you have calculated TAS, and for all planes the HUD is reading an Indicated Airspeed (IAS) using an equation based on the pitot-static system.    The in-plane gauges either should match the HUD if they are Pitot planes (most Entente), or display TAS if they are anemometers on wing struts.

 

IRL anemometers should really show some divergence from TAS, but not as much as the pitot system. IIRC pitot is ~30% difference at 18000ft and Anemometer is ~8% difference. I found that ~8% on a skydiving forum where they were using weather station calibration data.  The game does not appear to model this. 

 

The HUD uses a very similar calculation to this site: http://www.csgnetwor...asinfocalc.html , which assumes that the airmass has a standard/uniform temp drop with altitude. (Remember to convert from Meters!)

 

For which anemometer planes are you not seeing your TAS displayed (as close as you can tell on the dial)?  I just tested the DVIIF, DVa at 3000m and 5000m they all hit the mark.  Then I tested the DVa from the deck, and the anemometer was at just below 180, climbed to 1000m and it now read right on 180, following your data with the slight rise.    There will be small variations: in a SPAD 13 at 3000m the HUD read 176km/h, the plane's gauge looked a lot more like 177-78. 

EDIT: Just found one of significance: the DVII reads a clear 165km/h on the anemometer at 5000m, contrary to SeaW0lf's data of 160.5km/h.  Interesting.  Unfortunately I can't spend any more time on this today. 

 

Anyone who wants to know more about Airspeeds, this page explains it rather simply: http://www.experimen...ation-speed.php

 

Good feedback. I didn't know what the HUD indicated, then it might be right with something. But I don't recall the HUD making sense with the anemometer at altitude -- IIRC they are completely at odds -- so I have no idea what it indicates.
 
But they -- anemometer / HUD -- most of the times have a difference of 1-1,5kmh at 100m. The N28 and the S.E.5a have a difference of 2-2,4km/h. I don't know how to convert the air speed to altitude, then I can't say about the others. I wasn't sure which speed the HUD indicated. But the last TAS chart has these same differences up to 3km/h in all planes. I don't know if I recall more than that, but the differences that I was picking was an incentive to keep me going. I was also seeing people indicating the new revisions with (edit*) the Dr.I close to 170km/h, which is not the case.
 
*the Albatros was correct. The Pfalz D.III was indicated 2km/k slower too.
 
What I think is that the developers use these measurements because people like to make these tests, like real life tests. I bet they have a way to determine the real speed of all planes.

  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#26 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2415
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 16 June 2015 - 22:27

So, I went back to check the last TAS chart and I have seen a difference of 5km/h at 3000m, which is a lot, and it was supposedly made with conversion calculations, so the anemometer might be indicating the wrong data.

 

If someone wants to check it, and I just double checked it with the mission and the calculations, see if the speed of the DVII is of 180,6km/h at 3000m. The TAS chart indicates 185,5km/h (a tad above the 185 line, give or take, since the graph does not show numbers). The S.E.5a is 3km/h faster on the TAS chart as well (I think at 2000m), and this is a pattern in all planes and altitudes.

 

Later on I will check to see if there are differences above 5km/h.

 

-----edit-----

I will also test during winter to see if there will be a difference. But it wasn't a pattern with the DVII in all altitudes. The numbers oscilate.


  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#27 EmerlistDavjack

EmerlistDavjack
  • Posts: 167

Posted 17 June 2015 - 01:40

Apologies if I was a bit confusing:  there is a huge difference between Entente airspeed gauges and German anemometers.  You can't say that an SE5a or a SPAD has an anemometer, it doesn't, it has a series of air tubes linked with a diaphragm.   

 

Ground speed is a function of everything else IRL.  It happens after your plane gets airborne and encounters the airmass.  There is no way to tune GS or have an expected GS, or throttle for GS, unless you have a GPS showing you exactly what it is in real time or you know exactly what the winds aloft and outside air temperature will be.  It is a calculated approximate value or a measured value point-to-point.

 

You've measured Ground Speed using the old tried and true point-to-point and stopwatch method.  This is a real measurement and it is very useful in determining pursuit speed. 

 

But if TAS = GS with no wind, why wouldn't this match the German Anemometers?  Perhaps because the game is calculating IAS for all planes because that's what matters for aerodynamics, and then doing a conversion factor for the display of the German Anemometers.  Then the Ground Speed relative to the game world is a separate calculation?  I'm stumped!

 

If anybody knows more about how the game gets from IAS values to moving in the map, we'd love to know!


  • 0

#28 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2415
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 17 June 2015 - 16:17

Apologies if I was a bit confusing:  there is a huge difference between Entente airspeed gauges and German anemometers.  You can't say that an SE5a or a SPAD has an anemometer, it doesn't, it has a series of air tubes linked with a diaphragm.   

 

Ground speed is a function of everything else IRL.  It happens after your plane gets airborne and encounters the airmass.  There is no way to tune GS or have an expected GS, or throttle for GS, unless you have a GPS showing you exactly what it is in real time or you know exactly what the winds aloft and outside air temperature will be.  It is a calculated approximate value or a measured value point-to-point.

 

You've measured Ground Speed using the old tried and true point-to-point and stopwatch method.  This is a real measurement and it is very useful in determining pursuit speed. 

 

But if TAS = GS with no wind, why wouldn't this match the German Anemometers?  Perhaps because the game is calculating IAS for all planes because that's what matters for aerodynamics, and then doing a conversion factor for the display of the German Anemometers.  Then the Ground Speed relative to the game world is a separate calculation?  I'm stumped!

 

If anybody knows more about how the game gets from IAS values to moving in the map, we'd love to know!

 

No problem, it was good for me to know since I have little knowledge of it. I also tested with 0ºC and the pressure of Siberia (the highest pressure in the world) and there is no difference. But it was with the same summer map of the Channel. I suppose the winter map won't do anything, just the landscape.

 

I also started the tests with the Roland CIIa. At 100m it runs at 165,4km/h with no loads and 158,9km/h with weapon mods -- twin parabellum). I'll see with bombs and then bombs and weapon mods.


  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#29 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2415
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 27 June 2015 - 02:21

So guys, I added the Sopwith Dolphin to the chart. This weekend I might post the chart (the beginning) of the two-seaters / bombers, starting with Sopwith Strutter and Roland -- doing runs with and without bombs. I am kind of half way through.
 
Enjoy!
 
Note: all files were updated, including the mission template (one of them was bogus).

  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#30 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2415
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 28 June 2015 - 14:39

So guys, now it is time for the big boys. I am starting with the Roland and the Strutter (vide chart on the OP).
 
I was supposed to add the Gotha and the Page today, but the first that I was doing (Gotha) is having inconsistent runs and it was taking too long. I might have spotted a factor -- it might have to do with the auto radiator on or off, but I need to do more tests. The difference in each run is of 2-3km-h, which is a lot. I have not seen this issue in any of the other planes.
 
I also tested these two (Roland / Strutter) with weapon mods and weapon mods and bombs at 100m only. The Roland has an inconstancy. Weapon mods makes it slower than just bombs, but if you run with bombs and weapon mods, it stays between bombs and empty (1-2km/h faster than just bombs). While the Strutter is consistent -- each load adds in a penalty on top of it. Maybe I'll test some other planes to see if there is a pattern.
 
Later on I'll add more planes to both charts, like the strawweights (DH2 / E.III) and son on so forth.
 
Cheers,
SeaW0lf

  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#31 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2415
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 02 July 2015 - 04:42

Planes recently added to the charts:

 

Fokker E.III
Airco D.H.2
Spad VII (150hp)
Pfalz D.XII (used the altitude throttle in all runs -- maxed without rattle)
Handley Page
Gotha G.V
Brandenburg W12

 

The big bombers (Gotha / Page) have a big difference in each run, sometimes of 3-5km/h when running empty. Either they already spawn in a different speed or they run at the same speed on the gauge, but the time is way off from run to run. With load of bombs the effect is minimized, and then I tend to think they also modeled a "wobble" effect on the big bombers that may show the same speed on the gauge but vary the time at the end. Anyway, the imprecision (average) will be on the range of 1-2km/h. So far, all other planes don't behave that way, having very precise runs.

 

Some bombers can get to a higher altitude with 80-90% fuel, but I only tested with 100%. 


  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#32 J99=Hardy

J99=Hardy
  • Posts: 899
  • LocationGermany

Posted 02 July 2015 - 05:56

Awsome work!


  • 0

img_3834.png


#33 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2415
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 02 July 2015 - 16:34

Thanks mate!


  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#34 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk

1PL-Sahaj-1Esk
  • Posts: 940

Posted 02 July 2015 - 17:15

Impressive work SeaW0lf ! Have to go through it ...


  • 0

kpt. pil. / Capt. Sahaj / Operations Officer / 1. Eskadra Mysliwska / 1. Pulk Lotniczy / http://www.1pl.boo.pl

bannerf11esks.png?raw=1

http://warthog-extensions-by-sahaj.com


#35 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2415
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 02 July 2015 - 18:00

Thanks Sahaj! It is fun when we check the results  :icon_e_smile:


  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#36 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk

1PL-Sahaj-1Esk
  • Posts: 940

Posted 02 July 2015 - 20:19

What we have to bear in mind regarding this chart is also the fact that realistic RoF in game alititudes are not more than 2500 m, on some Synidicate vintage missions, otherwise it is even lower. Thus look and compare the speeds rather in the middle of the chart.

 

The performance drops of Camel/Triplane/Pup vs Dr.1 is startling. Plus, N11 beeing only 2 km/h slower than the Camel on 2000 m .. sorry but that just does not reflect RL. It's absurd.


  • 0

kpt. pil. / Capt. Sahaj / Operations Officer / 1. Eskadra Mysliwska / 1. Pulk Lotniczy / http://www.1pl.boo.pl

bannerf11esks.png?raw=1

http://warthog-extensions-by-sahaj.com


#37 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2415
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 02 July 2015 - 23:37

Yeah, if you look, the Dr.I, Hanriot, Fokker D.VIII and the Albatroses have a similar altitude drop. I am not sure if the Albatroses have compressor engines for altitude.
 
At least now we know that the flight models are fairly pliable, which indicates they were made to be that way. But if you look at the McCook-Field test with a D.VIII (Oberusel engine), it does not differ much from the D.VIII we have online. The reason is that the D.VIII has a ceiling of 22.000ft and the real drop starts above 16.000ft. It has a drop of only 11km/h in the first 15.000ft. It will vary from plane to plane, but it is an indication of how the rotaries perform at altitude.
 
But the N11 being close to the Camel is a no brainer. The Camel wasn't supposed to be there. 
 
I might open a topic with these planes current performance, their old performance and how some of them could look like. Then people can open fire on the subject.

  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#38 hq_Reflected

hq_Reflected
  • Posts: 4711

Posted 03 July 2015 - 05:53

Fantastic work ,thank you very much!

Very precise indeed. 


  • 0

#39 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2415
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 03 July 2015 - 14:26

Thanks!


  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#40 unreasonable

unreasonable
  • Posts: 1452
  • LocationBangkok

Posted 03 July 2015 - 14:50

If you only look at the "RoF altitude" points on the charts you wonder why the N11 was replaced with the N17, although the N17 appears to have the edge when you get high.

 

But a few km/h would have been virtually undetectable at the time in the absence of any means of accurate testing: the ability to carry more fuel or a heavier gun/ammo load, structural improvements, better handling: there is more to aeroplane development than top speed. 


  • 0

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." H. L. Mencken



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users