Jump to content

PainGod85

Members
  • Content Count

    428
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

257 Excellent

1 Follower

About PainGod85

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

898 profile views
  1. I would argue functioning guns and reasonably accurate flight and damage models take precedence over clouds being 100% realistic instead of reasonably accurate in a combat flight simulator, but what do I know.
  2. Alright, let's try this a different way. You have a crane with two different engines that can be used to drive it. One engine is stronger than the other, running at higher RPM. Now you have two weights, of which one is substantially heavier than the other. You test the weaker engine with both weights, noting that the heavier weight takes longer to be lifted ten meters. You test the stronger engine, but only with the heavy weight. You calculate expected performance of the stronger engine by correlating the difference in speed of the weaker engine and adding it on top of the measured value obtained on the stronger engine with the heavy weight.
  3. Never concede defeat when you could just move the goalpost. - Arguing in bad faith 101
  4. You still don't get it. For climb speeds at a constant CAS, it is absolutely possible to correct for radiator drag by using numbers for a different gear. We know the drag from FS with compared to FW without radiators open cost the plane around 500 fpm in Vz. We know the plane's climb speed in MS gear with radiators open. We know CAS in every case was the same. Thus we may extrapolate MS climb speed with radiators closed to be the speed given in the MS climb speed test plus the difference between the two climb tests done in FS gear.
  5. MS gear with radiator flaps open. Thank you for disproving the point you were trying to make. Again, this airframe was tested by Rolls-Royce with radiators closed. During this test, the figures in climb were unsurprisingly in excess of the ones obtained in this later test by A&AEE, where the radiator flaps were open during tests in MS gear.
  6. I unliked your post just so I could like it again.
  7. "Just trim it out." "There's a hole in your right hole!"
  8. You brought up that mythical 31 m/s figure as a point of criticism on a graph where planes were flown at substantially less than their weight with full internal fuel. You started arguing about how that just wasn't feasible without appreciating all the facts pertaining to said graph. And it seems you appear to have an issue understanding that lower wing loading on the same airframe producing the same amount of power by the same means invariably translates to proportionally higher rate of climb at the same CAS, both due to higher p/w ratio as well as a reduction in alpha and thus lift induced drag.
  9. Climb at +18 PSI was estimated from real data obtained from flying the plane at +25 PSI. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165.html E: Also, this test proves radiator flaps in FS gear need not be open at all to still provide adequate cooling for the engine. As all values have been corrected to 95% of the takeoff weight, climb performance at altitude would actually still be a bit higher, too.
  10. That doesn't show structural failure as a reason for wing loss, it shows an ammunition explosion causing the wing to be blown off.
  11. While true, it begs to ask the question why there's even a point of failure implemented in a spot where it was exceedingly hard to actually cause catastrophic damage outside of an ammunition explosion or fuel deflagration.
  12. None of the structural failures show wing loss at or near the root, whereas in IL-2 it's exceedingly common for wings to get blown off at the section where the wing is the strongest, with up to five spars connecting the airfoil to the fuselage.
  13. Except that every plane overclimbs in these graphs as the implementation of Tacview introduces an error margin, and that those historical tests were usually conducted with full internal fuel while @-=PHX=-SuperEtendard stated every plane except the P-51D was flown @50% fuel. But why care about portraying facts accurately when they might as well be distorted to fit your narrative, right?
  14. The prop blades turn radially to the direction of travel. On the longitudinal axis, they are pretty much at a standstill. The plane is literally dragging them along the ground, and since the ground is magnitudes more dense than air, what little air pressure is exerted on the blades can't even come close to the opposing force exerted on them by even soft earth.
  15. Odds are the blades would be dragged along the ground by the plane's momentum.
×
×
  • Create New...