Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Climb Rate Chart for ROF Planes -- 2015


  • Please log in to reply
79 replies to this topic

#41 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2409
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 04 August 2015 - 22:56

I think the gauge is irrelevant in this case, it is just a reference for you to keep at a same given speed. I say this because I tested different speeds for each plane and settled for the best rate of climb. The real 'gauge' in this case is the chronometer. The faster the plane gets to the altitudes the best is the speed for a given plane to climb. It is not rocket science in this case. From my tests, 5-10km/h might account for 6-7s at 500m, 15-17s at 100m and so on so forth. A 5km/h difference is noticeable right at the first 'check point' (500m). 10km/h makes you miss the mark by a mile. It is hard to make a mistake on the account of methodology.

 

It is just like the mixture. You have an optimal position, and if you go up and down and the RPM decreases, it means that you are at the right spot. And I found this optimal speed in all the planes that I tested. This is what I was saying to Unreasonable. It happens that we were talking about different gauges and the same speed, but the gauge in this case is irrelevant. What really tells you how the plane is climbing is the chronometer. And my refferece gauge was always the chronometer.

 

What is possible is that after 2000m there might be a leeway of inaccuracy due to the mixture control, but not in terms of being at the wrong speed, but of the mixture being off. I tested the Camel with auto mixture and all the values were higher than the ones I collected with manual mixture. I might test the others, but I don't predict much changes.

 

And sure, I will keep testing the others! I need to finish the bombers chart on the max speed and test the S-16, S22. Little by little I'll cover them all.

 

SeaW0lf

:icon_e_salute:


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

#42 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2409
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 04 August 2015 - 23:18

Ah, or perhaps you are saying that the IAS will not indicate the true air speed at altitude? This could change the numbers as I go up, but I recall changing the speed in mid flight and the climb always decrease, which is an indication that the IAS gauge is a good guide to follow. The best runs that I did were always following the IAS gauge the best I could. I am going to make a test in one of the runs with the anemometer. I'll take an Entente plane with a big gauge.

 

I'll tell later how it went. I might do it just Friday, since I am slammed until then.

 

SeaW0lf

:icon_e_salute:


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

#43 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2409
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 04 August 2015 - 23:40

I just did  :icon_e_biggrin: (got the climbrate bug). I went with the S.E.5a until 3000m and the HUD gauge and the plane gauge indicates the same thing. The only difference is that the HUD gauge is in km/h. 


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

#44 unreasonable

unreasonable
  • Posts: 1452
  • LocationBangkok

Posted 05 August 2015 - 03:43

I just did  :icon_e_biggrin: (got the climbrate bug). I went with the S.E.5a until 3000m and the HUD gauge and the plane gauge indicates the same thing. The only difference is that the HUD gauge is in km/h. 

 

That is as you would expect because the Entente gauges, unlike the German ones, measure IAS. At 2km height there is about a 14% difference between TAS and IAS, which might be say 15-18 kph depending on the plane, but then TAS Vy also increases about 1% per 1000ft, so I would expect you to have to decrease IAS about 1% per 1000ft to maintain Vy.

 

Good explanation here:   http://cospilot.com/...th Altitude.pdf

 

I very much doubt that this would change any relative results or the basic results anyway, but it is interesting that you find that a change from your set IAS always seems to reduce climb rate. 

 

In your tests the chronometer is measuring the output, the speed gauge the input, so they are equally important. Ideally you would have an instrument that shows TAS and instantaneous rate of climb and then you could see the relationship without any difficulty. It may be that the differences are just smaller than the range of changes that you have experimented with.


  • 0

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


#45 unreasonable

unreasonable
  • Posts: 1452
  • LocationBangkok

Posted 05 August 2015 - 04:10

 

I think that's a part of what unreasonable was alluding to with his charts (differences in the various airspeed gauges and units notwithstanding).

 

What I was alluding to was more the practical consequences for the pilot deciding how to fly his plane. Leaving the mix up over TAS/IAS aside, the point of the performance envelopes charts is threefold. They illustrate:

 

1) That trading off speed for climb shows diminishing returns. As you slow down from top speed as you increase AoA to climb, you initially get a large amount of climb per kph lost. Each successive kph lost yields a smaller amount of increased climb, until as you approach Best Climb Speed the climb contribution of each kph is tiny.

 

So what that means practically is that you would only use the Best Climb Speed when you were basically uninterested in your forwards speed - or wanted to minimize it!

 

2) If you look at the performance envelope over a time period of a few minutes - tactically relevant if, say, you are trying to intercept an enemy formation - the optimum climb speed may not be the Best Climb Speed, technically defined. It is just an unfortunate fact of English that the terms are ambiguous. It depends where you want to go and what your height and distance gain requirements are. The fastest way to reach any point on the outer limit of the envelope is to head straight towards it, not to use best climb until you are at the right altitude and then fly level.

 

3) If you take two aircraft close together, perhaps preparing to engage, usually the crucial thing to maximize is energy, not altitude. Since both altitude and speed determine energy, it is possible for the lower aircraft to be in a higher energy state. Since kinetic energy increases as the square of speed (KE=1/2*m*v^2), going back to the point about diminishing returns in (1), you would usually be better to climb at above best climb speed to maintain the best total energy. 

 

None of this was intended to take away from the fact that knowing your (and your enemy's) best climb speed is extremely useful - I was merely mulling over how I would take that knowledge and use it in a variety of situations in my everyday RoF sorties.


  • 0

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


#46 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2409
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 05 August 2015 - 11:11

That is as you would expect because the Entente gauges, unlike the German ones, measure IAS.

 

I suspected that, because with my speed chart the German anemometer is always at odds with the IAS gauge.
 
But to climb with the anemometer is virtually impossible, even if I had a 27" monitor. But what I can do is the following, test again changing the IAS in midflight. I wll make some rough calculations and set a course when I have to met certain speeds at each checkpoint and see the result.

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

#47 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2409
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 05 August 2015 - 11:35

What I'll do is the following, I will take the IAS and TAS data that I have for the D.VII (attached below) and calculate the speeds that I have to have in IAS at the checkpoints.

Attached Files


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

#48 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2409
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 07 August 2015 - 15:28

So guys, I tested the Fokker D.VII with the anemometer speeds. The plane does not have mixture control and is stable, ideal for that.

 

Initially I have done the climb at a constant 110-115km/h by the IAS hud gauge.

 

Then I did a math to compensate for the anemometer reading, and I came with these numbers to match on the IAS hud gauge:

 

1000m - 120km/h.
2000m - 125km/h.
3000m - 145km/h.

 

It will end on the range of 15% difference from the anemometer, just like Unreasonable mentioned.

 

The run reading -- until 1500 it either matches the time or looses by a few seconds, but after that it starts to trail back. At 3000m it simply takes almost double the time to reach 3500m. I didn't even finish the run because it was taking too long, almost leveled.

 

Regarding the draw until 1500m, I finished the run with the D.VIIF* and there is no much difference from 105-120km/h, hence why the approximation to the anemometer does not vary until a certain altitude. But after 2000m the difference is visibly worse. By all means, the IAS gauge is a good value to follow in a constant.

 

*Climbs like the S.E.5a until 500m and then becomes a rocket after 1000m, 1min16s faster than the D.VIII until 2000m. There is a slightly divergent curve after 1000m.

 

I also tested to climb in a constant speed (IAS) until 3000m and then speed up 5-10km/h. The result was some 5 seconds worse. Then I reckon the 110-115km/h gate is the most efficient speed of them all.

 

I will test with some other planes, but in my mind I think the IAS constant speed is as good as it gets.

 

Later this weekend I will test the Pfalz D.XII and post the two rockets (I suppose the Pfalz will be similar) among the others.


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

#49 unreasonable

unreasonable
  • Posts: 1452
  • LocationBangkok

Posted 07 August 2015 - 18:58

I am just going to repeat what I said before: at 2km height there is about a 14% difference between TAS and IAS, which might be say 15-18 kph depending on the plane, but then TAS Vy also increases about 1% per 1000ft, so I would expect you to have to decrease IAS about 1% per 1000ft to maintain Vy.
 

To see the Vy on the anemometer the numbers, given a 110 kph SL speed, and allowing for 1% per 1,000ft decrease in IAS Vy, would be approx:

 

1km anemometer TAS  113 kph  IAS HUD 107 kph

2km anemometer TAS  117 kph  IAS HUD 103 kph

3km anemometer TAS  121 kph  IAS HUD   99 kph

 

Which is pretty close to your preferred results so I am not surprised climb drops off sharply at 145 kph TAS given your results. 

 

I would have to add, 10 kph to those to allow AI wingmen to keep up as they just cannot cope with under 120kph. When you are flying "operationally" without the HUD you can only glance at the anemometer occasionally anyway, so you are never going to get the theoretical maximum.

 

As I result of all this, I do climb a little more quickly now, when I am concentrating on it, so I have benefited from the discussion - thanks again!


  • 0

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


#50 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2409
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 07 August 2015 - 19:58

Ah, nice, it decreases  :icon_e_biggrin: You already know that I do intuitive tests  :icon_e_wink: I just take them for a ride and have a feel for the climb.

 

So, I took the D.VII with your numbers and it went exactly the same until 3000m. Margin of difference of 2 seconds, 1 second, sometimes higher, sometimes lower, which is nothing but a draw, but the last patch it arrived 6 seconds late, and I kept the plane at a constant 98-99km/h during 90% of the time. What I felt is that I am really at the edge of the envelope, hence why I settled at 110km/h in my initial tests. Maybe if I settle to 105km/h after 2500m I might have better results.

 

I will take your math and see the percentage decrease for each altitude and apply to some other planes to see if the pattern will repeat.

 

Yeah, it is fun. I am having a blast with it  :icon_mad:


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

#51 unreasonable

unreasonable
  • Posts: 1452
  • LocationBangkok

Posted 08 August 2015 - 03:33

Great: I have learned a lot from following this thread too.

 

I am sure that there is a TAS-IAS calculator out there somewhere on a webpage that you could use to get exact calculations, maybe one that gives the exact formula for the TAS change over height. It might be worth checking just for completeness, in case some other smart-alec (like me :)) comes along and wants to challenge your numbers, although I do not think any difference from the % per thousand feet approximation are material.

 

Once you have the best climb speed and the level top speed you only need one more number for climb rate at a speed somewhere midway between the two and you can fit the three points on a curve and have most of the performance envelope for an aircraft!


  • 0

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


#52 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15541

Posted 08 August 2015 - 12:09

Great: I have learned a lot from following this thread too.

 

I am sure that there is a TAS-IAS calculator out there somewhere on a webpage that you could use to get exact calculations, maybe one that gives the exact formula for the TAS change over height. It might be worth checking just for completeness, in case some other smart-alec (like me :)) comes along and wants to challenge your numbers, although I do not think any difference from the % per thousand feet approximation are material.

 

Once you have the best climb speed and the level top speed you only need one more number for climb rate at a speed somewhere midway between the two and you can fit the three points on a curve and have most of the performance envelope for an aircraft!

 

You need atmospheric information to complete the equation.  Chill31 provided this formula for excel that supposedly takes Rise of Flight atmospherics into account:

 

TAS =IAS*SQRT((273.16+(15-altitude/1000*1.98121))/(288/(10^(altitude/(63691.776-(0.2191*altitude))))))

 

Everything assumes feet and miles per hour.


  • 0

#53 unreasonable

unreasonable
  • Posts: 1452
  • LocationBangkok

Posted 08 August 2015 - 12:27

Thanks gavagai - just copy that down for future reference, somehow do not think I will be able to remember it. ;)


  • 0

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


#54 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2409
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 08 August 2015 - 12:41

Thanks gavagai - just copy that down for future reference, somehow do not think I will be able to remember it. ;)

 

Unreasonable, could you make the math and apply to the calculation you made for the D.VII? Then I can take her for another spin.

 

When you say "you only need one more number for climb rate at a speed somewhere midway between the two and you can fit the three points on a curve and have most of the performance envelope for an aircraft", what does that mean in layman terms? You got me completely lost there :icon_e_biggrin:


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

#55 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2409
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 08 August 2015 - 15:15

Well, I finished testing the Pfalz D.XII (more conservative numbers, with a little edge over the Hanriot, but it also has a divergent curve after 1000m). 
 
From yesterday to today, I might have done from 30 to 35 runs with the D.XII. I was having problems to have consistent numbers at altitude (2.5k and above), when the plane was entering the coastline. I redid the mission and placed it on a path with only water and the numbers settled. But since I did so many runs I saw the reason why the speed compensation is not having results. I naturally compensate in the climb. After a certain altitude the plane starts to settle on a path, and it is always the lower speed. And I did several runs with the D.XII and the D.VIIF below 110km/p until 95km/h and the result is always the same. It might be the case that the angle of attack and the speed nullify each other. So, to climb at 110km/h or 95km/h is going to have more or less the same results.
 
But I will need to review other planes because this thing of the coastline (It didn't happen with the D.VIIF). Then I will do more tests and reduce gradually the speed after 2K. Before that the plane is too instable to get a precise speed and it won't matter, since I tested other speeds without result.
 
Note: the time of the Dr.I untill 500m was wrong (wrong math). It is 85s (as indicated in the data box - 1min25s), not 75s. I will correct in the next chart.

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

#56 unreasonable

unreasonable
  • Posts: 1452
  • LocationBangkok

Posted 08 August 2015 - 19:00

Unreasonable, could you make the math and apply to the calculation you made for the D.VII? Then I can take her for another spin.

 

When you say "you only need one more number for climb rate at a speed somewhere midway between the two and you can fit the three points on a curve and have most of the performance envelope for an aircraft", what does that mean in layman terms? You got me completely lost there :icon_e_biggrin:

 

OK I will get my trusty spreadsheet up and running, plus explain what I mean about the performance envelope, but you might have to wait a couple of days - RL intruding just now. Will post again soonish.


  • 0

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


#57 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2409
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 08 August 2015 - 20:27

OK I will get my trusty spreadsheet up and running, plus explain what I mean about the performance envelope, but you might have to wait a couple of days - RL intruding just now. Will post again soonish.

 

Thanks! And I just tested the Camel again. No gain if I compensate for altitude. In this case, it lost a bunch.


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

#58 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2409
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 08 August 2015 - 22:05

I updated the general chart. Planes added:
 
Fokker D.VIIF
Pfalz D.XII
 
I tested the new methodology, to compensate for altitude TAS, but the results are the same. I was already intuitively compensating as I went up.

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

#59 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2409
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 09 August 2015 - 15:05

Today I tested to compensate the speeds of the S.E.5a, a plane that I thought could have some changes due to the wrong data at the store, but it didn't change. After 2000m I started to compensate and it only got worse.
 
I am kind of done with testing TAS. From my understanding, until 1500-2000m the plane flies some 5-10km/h faster and then it starts to settle in the final speed. In a way it compensates by itself.  
 
When I post your math I will take some of them for a spin Unreasonable, but I won't expect much difference.
 
Later on I will edit the first post and post the full methodology.

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

#60 unreasonable

unreasonable
  • Posts: 1452
  • LocationBangkok

Posted 11 August 2015 - 11:11

Here is a file with IAS-TAS conversion tables using Chill's formula for RoF's conditions posted earlier by gavagai.

 

I have done two tables, one showing imperial measurements, the other converted to metric. You can see that the 2% per 1,000 feet estimate is a little too high, but close enough for general piloting work. 

 

No graphs - actually I think tables are a better bet in this case.

 

Attached File  IAS-TAS for RoF.zip   22.63KB   12 downloads

 

 


  • 0

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


#61 RocketTurtle

RocketTurtle
  • Posts: 44

Posted 17 October 2015 - 21:28

Do you think you could add the SPAD XIII and the Dolphin?

 

Also what fuel levels were used?


  • 0

#62 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2409
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 18 October 2015 - 06:31

Ah, I was trying to remember who had asked online  :icon_e_smile: Good timing. I just have partially finished the Dolphin.

 

The fuel was 100% -- to mimic real life performance on the front, since I assume they took off with full load, and to reproduce what we find at Syndicate, the closest we get of a full full real server.
 
And here is a sample of the first runs I have done with the Dolphin. Maybe ten, twelve runs. Tomorrow I will do some more to close the test and confirm / void the numbers. But if nothing is wrong, they won't change much. It is a very docile bird and one of the easiest to test.
 
climb_dolphin_zpsazmbyrqj.jpg
 
You can see that it climbs very well, but it won't touch the D7F or the Hanriot / D.VIII for that matter, but close on the latter two. And it catches up with the S.E.5a at 2.000m and gains some ground over it until 3.500m.
 
Tomorrow I'll see if I can start testing the Spad 13 (will do both versions of the Spad 7 as well).
 
Cheers mate  :icon_e_salute:
SeaW0lf

  • 1
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#63 RocketTurtle

RocketTurtle
  • Posts: 44

Posted 18 October 2015 - 07:03

 

Ah, I was trying to remember who had asked online  :icon_e_smile: Good timing. I just have partially finished the Dolphin.

 

The fuel was 100% -- to mimic real life performance on the front, since I assume they took off with full load, and to reproduce what we find at Syndicate, the closest we get of a full full real server.
 
And here is a sample of the first runs I have done with the Dolphin. Maybe ten, twelve runs. Tomorrow I will do some more to close the test and confirm / void the numbers. But if nothing is wrong, they won't change much. It is a very docile bird and one of the easiest to test.
 
climb_dolphin_zpsazmbyrqj.jpg
 
You can see that it climbs very well, but it won't touch the D7F or the Hanriot / D.VIII for that matter, but close on the latter two. And it catches up with the S.E.5a at 2.000m and gains some ground over it until 3.500m.
 
Tomorrow I'll see if I can start testing the Spad 13 (will do both versions of the Spad 7 as well).
 
Cheers mate  :icon_e_salute:
SeaW0lf

 

 

Seems the D.VIIF still holds the crown then!

 

 

Let's just see what the SPAD's can do. Do you have any rough estimations on how they will compare?

 

Cheers.


  • 0

#64 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2409
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 18 October 2015 - 16:04

Let's just see what the SPAD's can do. Do you have any rough estimations on how they will compare?

 

I suppose it will be among the top three (from comments I have seen in the forum). Let's see...


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

#65 RocketTurtle

RocketTurtle
  • Posts: 44

Posted 18 October 2015 - 18:36

I suppose it will be among the top three (from comments I have seen in the forum). Let's see...

 

If it's at all realistic the D.VIIF should be better...

 

Going off my memory, the D.VIIF is actually underperforming in climb rate.

 

Here's data of the SPAD with the 300hp Hispano-Suiza

 

1km: n/a
2km: 5 min, 24 seconds
3km: 8 min, 20 seconds
4km: 12 min, 32 seconds
5km: 17 min, 21 seconds 


  • 0

#66 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2409
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 19 October 2015 - 00:51

If it's at all realistic the D.VIIF should be better...

 

Going off my memory, the D.VIIF is actually underperforming in climb rate.

 

Here's data of the SPAD with the 300hp Hispano-Suiza

 

1km: n/a
2km: 5 min, 24 seconds
3km: 8 min, 20 seconds
4km: 12 min, 32 seconds
5km: 17 min, 21 seconds 

 

Cool, lets see how it fares at ROF in comparison. But the data might vary from source (and I know little of the Spad).


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

#67 RocketTurtle

RocketTurtle
  • Posts: 44

Posted 19 October 2015 - 01:25

Cool, lets see how it fares at ROF in comparison. But the data might vary from source (and I know little of the Spad).

 

Keep in mind that's the 300HP SPAD XVII. The data came from "SPAD XII VS Fokker D VII" by Jon Guttman.

 

Here's data on the 220HP SPAD we see in game and the Fokker D.VIIF

 

 

SPAD XII 220HP

 

Climb to

 

1km: 2 min 20 sec

2km: 5 min 17 sec

3km: 8 min 45 sec

4km: 13 min 5 sec

5km: 20 min 10 sec

 

 

Fokker D.VII 185 HP BMW

 

Climb to

 

1km: 1 min 40 sec

2km: 4 min 5 sec

3km: 7 min 0 sec

4km: 10 min 15 sec

5km: 15 min 30 sec

 

 

Edit: I also just realized the SE5a has 148 liters of fuel compared to the D.VIIF's 90 liters... so that seems a bit unfair to me...

 

Could you possibly test the SE5a with 64% fuel if you have the chance? I would, but my numbers always seem to vary wildly.


  • 0

#68 RocketTurtle

RocketTurtle
  • Posts: 44

Posted 19 October 2015 - 14:57

And the SE5a...

 

Quick note, unfortunately the altitudes used in British tests don't quite line up with German/French tests... 

 

Gross weight 1940 lbs, 35 gal fuel. 200hp Wolseley Viper

4 min 55 sec to 5,000 ft

11min to 10,000ft

19 min 55 sec to 15,000ft

 

200hp Hispano-Suiza. 1953lb 35 gal of fuel

6min to 6,000ft

10 min 2 sec to 10,000ft

18 min 5 sec to 15,000ft

 

Source: "Fighter Aircraft of the 1914-1918 War" by W.M. Lamberton, also "British Aeroplanes 1914-1918" by J.M. Bruce


  • 0

#69 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2409
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 19 October 2015 - 16:09

Yeah, that's what I thought. It may vary, especially because they can use different methodologies. I am not gonna be able to test the planes in the next couple days, but I'll try to finish until the weekend.


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

#70 RocketTurtle

RocketTurtle
  • Posts: 44

Posted 19 October 2015 - 20:46

Yeah, that's what I thought. It may vary, especially because they can use different methodologies. I am not gonna be able to test the planes in the next couple days, but I'll try to finish until the weekend.

Yeah. Thanks.


It is quite amazing what the D.VIIF can do with its comparatively low horsepower engine.
  • 0

#71 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 20 October 2015 - 15:19

Never mind.


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#72 RocketTurtle

RocketTurtle
  • Posts: 44

Posted 21 October 2015 - 22:07

Also SeaWolf, how do you conduct these tests with very little difference between tests? You mentioned letting the plane settle into its own climb but with the D.VIIF if I use the default curves it just pitches up constantly and even with my curves adjusted for trim it just flies level with the horizon.
  • 0

#73 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2409
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 23 October 2015 - 16:35

Also SeaWolf, how do you conduct these tests with very little difference between tests? You mentioned letting the plane settle into its own climb but with the D.VIIF if I use the default curves it just pitches up constantly and even with my curves adjusted for trim it just flies level with the horizon.

 

It might have to do with your stick. At least with mine, they tend to settle on a course if I use 2X or 4X time constraint.

 

I am kind of slammed in work here. As soon as I get some spare time I'll finish the tests.

 

Cheers,


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

#74 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2409
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 24 November 2017 - 22:11

Some tests were updated in March this year (2017) and some other aircraft added in 2016. You can find the same chart in the original post (first post).

Attached Files


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

#75 US103_Furlow

US103_Furlow
  • Member
  • Posts: 382

Posted 24 November 2017 - 22:24

Some tests were updated in March this year (2017) and some other aircraft added in 2016. You can find the same chart in the original post (first post).

Interesting, both the SPAD VII and XIII have slower climbrates in game than the chart indicates. 2min 14 sec to 1000m for the XIII on the chart  :icon_eek: that is 2 seconds faster than the in game SPAD VII 180hp.


  • 0

#76 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2409
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 24 November 2017 - 22:34

Interesting, both the SPAD VII and XIII have slower climbrates in game than the chart indicates. 2min 14 sec to 1000m for the XIII on the chart  :icon_eek: that is 2 seconds faster than the in game SPAD VII 180hp.

 

The numbers you see at the store are to conservative. All of them have better performance in game in general. For example, I climbed with the D.VIIF using high altitude control since the start (in increments). The store numbers probably takes into account high altitude control after 1500m (IIRC). What I did was not a historic chart, but an ingame chart -- the type of performance we can squeeze out of these aircraft. It will be hard to match the chart because it is an optimal climb after several tries, but it is doable and it is a good indication of performance.

 

For example, you can be sure that against S.E.5a and Spads you can climb with the D.VIIF and they will stay behind and you can turn around and get them in a below position (taking into account the altitude performance as well). I did that a few times after these tests and it worked depending on the altitude you already are. I am not so sure if you can pull this from the deck. It's been several months so I don't recall in details, but you have a better understanding with this.


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

#77 US103_Furlow

US103_Furlow
  • Member
  • Posts: 382

Posted 24 November 2017 - 23:25

In game the SPAD XIII is slower then what it says in the store page so I'm also assuming the store page climb-rate is also faster than it is in game, but the table's data might be coming from a SPAD XIII with a high compression 8Be engine (ours is a lower compression 8Ba as stated in the store).


  • 0

#78 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2409
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 24 November 2017 - 23:37

In game the SPAD XIII is slower then what it says in the store page so I'm also assuming the store page climb-rate is also faster than it is in game, but the table's data might be coming from a SPAD XIII with a high compression 8Be engine (ours is a lower compression 8Ba as stated in the store).

 

Yeah, the Spad XIII is slower in game at se a level in my chart and in a chart Gavagai IIRC made with Chill's formula. But not the climb, because I got those numbers during a year of tests and the HUD clock is precise (I checked with online chronometers, some official, and these might use the same algorithm). So in general disregard the store numbers. Get the charts people make. You can check my altitude performance tests in this thread:

 

https://riseofflight...nce-chart-2015/

 

I did not use IAS to convert. I used markers on the ground (balloons) to calculate travelled distance (80km IIRC) versus time. Given the distance travelled, I consider it very precise. I have to update the photos, but the charts on the OP are OK.


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

#79 JoeCrow

JoeCrow
  • Posts: 4145

Posted 25 November 2017 - 20:00

Just a note of caution (a reminder) for the combat pilots here:

Climb-rates and climb-speeds are really only relevant to an aircraft flying at zero angle-of-bank and a constant climb-angle and climb-speed. The fly-in-the-ointment for a combat pilot is that there are also many other variables in the mix. The most relevant is angle-of-bank (the climbing-turn). Here, vertical-lift is reduced in proportion to the AoB, which also has obvious implications for comparative drag and airspeed. That is why you will find that Se5a can actually outclimb both the the D7f and the Dr1 in a climbing-turn (at best climb-speed) but not in a straight climb at best climb-rate. The implications are obvious. There is also energy and the zoom-climb to consider, which blows best climb-rate and best climb-speed clean out of the water.

I'm not trying to be in any way destructive and find the charts a valuable guide but it is unwise to rely solely on climb-rate in a combat situation or if the enemy are in the vicinity. In this case best climb-speed (indicated airspeed) is the best guide and even this varies with payload.
Just a reminder.

Good work SeaW0lf. :icon_e_salute: 
Cheers


  • 0

#80 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2409
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 25 November 2017 - 21:04

Just a note of caution (a reminder) for the combat pilots here:

Climb-rates and climb-speeds are really only relevant to an aircraft flying at zero angle-of-bank and a constant climb-angle and climb-speed. The fly-in-the-ointment for a combat pilot is that there are also many other variables in the mix. The most relevant is angle-of-bank (the climbing-turn). Here, lift is reduced in proportion to the AoB, which also has obvious implications for comparative drag and airspeed. That is why you will find that Se5a can actually outclimb both the the D7f and the Dr1 in a climbing-turn (at best climb-speed) but not in a straight climb at best climb-rate. The implications are obvious. There is also energy and the zoom-climb to consider, which blows best climb-rate and best climb-speed clean out of the water.

I'm not trying to be in any way destructive and find the charts a valuable guide but it is unwise to rely solely on climb-rate in a combat situation or if the enemy are in the vicinity. In this case best climb-speed is the better guide and even this varies with payload.
Just a reminder.
Cheers.

 

Zoom climb is also another story, but unless tests are made with methodology, we are talking about anecdotal perception that can take into account fuel load, ammunition and pilot skills. The speed and climb are the barebones basics to start understanding these aircraft. Also to have a better understanding of the last patch, which was why I did them. 

 

But nowadays the S.E.5a climbs much better than the nerfed Dr.1 until 2500-3000m. The store numbers don't count anymore. They forgot to update it I suppose <sarcasm>.


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


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users