Aircraft acceleration statistics?

[Tipsi]

Hey all,

 

We are all familiar with important information such as Climb rate @ sea level and @ 3000m etc, but there is another important statistic which is not really talked about: Acceleration (200kph to 300kph & 300kph to 400kph)

 

Does anyone know of any game-published statistics regarding the acceleration of aircraft? I'm not sure what the format of these statistics would look like... 

 

Kind regards,

Tipsi

[FTC_DerSheriff]

i did a few tests. data can be downloaded here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7NEbwyXgfdDRVNEZWtuVFFzSXc/view?usp=sharing'

I plan to do more aicraft. The data is extracted with tac view. Test is done in autum from standing postion with take off and a small climb to get over tree top. Hence the "dent" in the curve.

Edited March 27, 2018 by DerSheriff

[rolikiraly]

*km/h/s 

 

What setting did you use for the G-4? And for the climbrates?

 

Edit:

Nice information on your link.

It seems like the imported IAS data is quite different compared to what we would see ingame. The values are noticeably lower here for most (all?) planes?

Edited March 27, 2018 by rolikiraly

[SJ_Butcher]

I can't believe a combat plane with all the brutal power it have accelerate so slow

[rolikiraly]

1 minute ago, SJ_Butcher said:

I can't believe a combat plane with all the brutal power it have accelerate so slow

 

 Your topic on this in the other section is re-opened. Could we try to reserve this one for actual ingame data?

[SJ_Butcher]

Just now, rolikiraly said:

 

 Your topic on this in the other section is re-opened. Could we try to reserve this one for actual ingame data?

 

I know it was reopened, I am waiting my book with simulation data to provide a more accurate view

[FTC_DerSheriff]

35 minutes ago, rolikiraly said:

*km/h/s 

 

What setting did you use for the G-4? And for the climbrates

 

Edit:

Nice information on your link.

It seems like the imported IAS data is quite different compared to what we would see ingame. The values are noticeably lower here for most (all?) planes?

The thing is i tested that in summer conditions. Thats why you get slower results than the manual data suggets. I plan to transfer all the tests into std atmosphere as soon as I can.
if you know how that works, pls contact me. I have to work that out soon.

All aircraft are tested @Full Power to simulate a emergency situation. And even the 109s are capable to use emergency power through the entire acceleration process. Since you arerly accelerate from standing :D
 

 

11 minutes ago, SJ_Butcher said:

I can't believe a combat plane with all the brutal power it have accelerate so slow

The brutal power is there for a reason. If the acceleration would be way of we would see very unrealistic take off runs. We dont see that. 

[216th_Jordan]

km/s^2 seems to be a bit high   is it meters/s^2 or ..? Because if so thats rather high too.

 

Edit: You probably meant kph/s? 

Edited March 27, 2018 by 216th_Jordan

[rolikiraly]

^^ It's km/h/s.

 

1 hour ago, DerSheriff said:

The thing is i tested that in summer conditions. Thats why you get slower results than the manual data suggets.
[...]

 

Ok i thought it's all for autumn. 

1 hour ago, DerSheriff said:

[...] I plan to transfer all the tests into std atmosphere as soon as I can.
if you know how that works, pls contact me. I have to work that out soon.
[...]

 

I am not sure if your performance data can be "transferred" reliably to other conditions, without repeating the test flight itself. (If that's NOT what you meant, ignore the following).

I think the deviation between speeds in different conditions is caused by

     1, Error of the IAS value: for one given TAS you have different IAS in different conditions, it's only equal for 1 set condition. (Same thing as with the changing altitude on a given map)

     2, Influence of the conditions on the actual performance of the plane. Different conditions mean different aerodynamic performance, and different engine output as well. So TAS also changes with conditions. I don't exactly know how all these things are simulated (they ARE simulated somehow for sure, see again the altitude behaviour).

 

So it might be rather complex and different for different planes. But i'm not an expert on this so feel free to correct me.

 

Anyway, in my opinion it's already quite useful to have it for just 1 condition, just make sure it's stated clearly and it's the same for all aircraft. To give a ballpark estimate from my own experiences, i would say the autumn results for the 300m IAS data would be like 3-4% more, compared to your data.

Edited March 27, 2018 by rolikiraly

[SJ_Butcher]

2 hours ago, DerSheriff said:

The thing is i tested that in summer conditions. Thats why you get slower results than the manual data suggets. I plan to transfer all the tests into std atmosphere as soon as I can.
if you know how that works, pls contact me. I have to work that out soon.

All aircraft are tested @Full Power to simulate a emergency situation. And even the 109s are capable to use emergency power through the entire acceleration process. Since you arerly accelerate from standing :D
 

 

The brutal power is there for a reason. If the acceleration would be way of we would see very unrealistic take off runs. We dont see that. 

 

In fact planes on the ground accelerate really fast

[FTC_DerSheriff]

2 hours ago, rolikiraly said:

^^ It's km/h/s.

 

 

Ok i thought it's all for autumn. 

 

I am not sure if your performance data can be "transferred" reliably to other conditions, without repeating the test flight itself. (If that's NOT what you meant, ignore the following).

I think the deviation between speeds in different conditions is caused by

     1, Error of the IAS value: for one given TAS you have different IAS in different conditions, it's only equal for 1 set condition. (Same thing as with the changing altitude on a given map)

     2, Influence of the conditions on the actual performance of the plane. Different conditions mean different aerodynamic performance, and different engine output as well. So TAS also changes with conditions. I don't exactly know how all these things are simulated (they ARE simulated somehow for sure, see again the altitude behaviour).

 

So it might be rather complex and different for different planes. But i'm not an expert on this so feel free to correct me.

 

Anyway, in my opinion it's already quite useful to have it for just 1 condition, just make sure it's stated clearly and it's the same for all aircraft. To give a ballpark estimate from my own experiences, i would say the autumn results for the 300m IAS data would be like 3-4% more, compared to your data.

All the aicraft in the IAS section are tested under the very same conditions. So that is as reliable as it gets. The reason I want to do the tests again, is to be able to compare the results with official documents. 

[rolikiraly]

Yep, i was just trying to say that you probably need to actually repeat the tests in-game to have proper data for a given condition.

I've been told earlier that the 'standard' conditions (as the devs used it for their specifications tab) is basically what you will find on the autumn map (quick mission?), though that might not be 100% correct. 

If not that, maybe you can set those parameters in the mission builder? I don't know much about that.

[FTC_DerSheriff]

2 hours ago, rolikiraly said:

Yep, i was just trying to say that you probably need to actually repeat the tests in-game to have proper data for a given condition.

I've been told earlier that the 'standard' conditions (as the devs used it for their specifications tab) is basically what you will find on the autumn map (quick mission?), though that might not be 100% correct. 

If not that, maybe you can set those parameters in the mission builder? I don't know much about that.

No the autumn map is std condition.

 

3 hours ago, SJ_Butcher said:

 

In fact planes on the ground accelerate really fast

Since there the drag plays a minor role.

Edited March 27, 2018 by DerSheriff

[Tipsi]

Any joy with 190 acceleration?

[FTC_DerSheriff]

14 hours ago, Tipsi said:

Any joy with 190 acceleration?

Still have to do that

[Tipsi]

I'am intrigued to see acceleration characteristics comparison of 190 vs Yak1 and 190 vs La-5.

[FTC_DerSheriff]

6 hours ago, Tipsi said:

I'am intrigued to see acceleration characteristics comparison of 190 vs Yak1 and 190 vs La-5.

Cheers

Edited April 4, 2018 by DerSheriff
the x axis was messed up - corrected

[JtD]

I think it would be useful to show acceleration over speed, instead of over time, for a better comparison.

 

Thanks for sharing.

[FTC_DerSheriff]

3 hours ago, JtD said:

I think it would be useful to show acceleration over speed, instead of over time, for a better comparison.

 

Thanks for sharing.

Makes sense and I will do that.