Accurate climb rate rate testing.

[pixelshader]

I like to see objective facts, so here I have the accurately tested bos climb rate of 109 F-4 from 1km-2km.

 

100% fuel for all these tests, 80% throttle (~2508 rpm on hud), reading airspeed from hud and altitude from the cockpit, using 60fps video recording to count exactly the number of frames between times the altimeter needle hits 1km and 2km on a quick mission.

 

First I did quick testing in intervals of 10km/h to find roughly the best climb speed, which surprisingly was over 300km/h. No use of rudder or precise speed control, but I did measure 2km-3km as well:

 

Climbing at 252+-3 km/h:

1km > 2km 19.40 m/sec (51.55 sec)

2km > 3km 18.63 m/sec (53.68 sec)

 

Climbing at 262+-3 km/h:

1km > 2km 20.01 m/sec (49.98 sec)

2km > 3km 19.08 m/sec (52.42 sec)

 

Climbing at 272+-3 km/h:

1km > 2km 20.68 m/sec (48.35 sec)

2km > 3km 19.61 m/sec (51.00 sec)

 

Climbing at 282+-3 km/h:

1km > 2km 21.38 m/sec (46.78 sec)

2km > 3km 20.33 m/sec (49.20 sec)

 

Climbing at 292+-3 km/h:

1km > 2km 21.49 m/sec (46.53 sec)

2km > 3km 20.89 m/sec (47.88 sec)

 

Climbing at 302+-3 km/h:

1km > 2km 22.26 m/sec (44.92 sec)

2km > 3km 20.91 m/sec (47.83 sec)

 

Here I stopped, and instead started to measure very carefully. Trim set to positive 1 for all, use of rudder to keep the ball exactly in the middle, and controlling speed to +- 1km/h. I would guess the accuracy of this measurement is at least to within +- 0.20 m/s climb rate, but I am not motivated to run several repetitions and find out 

 

@ 302+-1 km/h:

1km > 2km 22.41 m/s (2677 frames)

 

@ 306+-1 km/h:

1km > 2km 22.62 m/s (2652 frames)

 

@ 310+-1 km/h:

1km > 2km 22.30 m/s (2690 frames)

 

 

One more for fun, with multiplayer settings

+2 trim, 37% fuel, 2600rpm climb

 

@ 307+-2 km/h:

1km > 2km 26.54 m/s (2261 frames)

 

Conclusion: F-4 is a space rocket 

 

 

Please, if anyone who likes some kind of plane wants to test it, go ahead! I used dxtory to record, and virtualdub to look at each frame.

Edited May 11, 2014 by pixelshader

[sturmkraehe]

This is great. Comparing to http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109F4_Datenblatts/109F4_dblatt_flown.html the climb of the 109F4 from 1 km to 2 km should take 0.9 min (= 55s) and not 45s (=0.75min). 

 

The kurfurst data is approximately compatible with this source:

 

http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=24

 

which are in rough accordance with some american testing:

 

http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=33

 

I think if you like to do testing of all the aircraft and provide us with the figure there would be more than me gratefull and happy about it. 

Edited May 11, 2014 by sturmkraehe

[69th_chuter]

Very nice.  Just for clarification, +1 trim is 1 unit nose down as per WW2 German convention; this was what you used for climb?

[Matt]

Let's not forget that we get this extra cold weather boost, which could explained why it climbs a bit faster than it should and it wouldn't surprise me, if that would be true for the other planes as well.

 

I ran a similar test with the Yak, but it's not as accurate as this, so I better not post the results. I do have all speeds in a graph though, if anybody is interested in this.

Edited May 11, 2014 by Matt

[sturmkraehe]

That what personally is a bit itchy. This move by the devs makes it difficult to check their data with historic sources. What if we get a uber La5? How can we see if its uber performance is correct or wrong - because of cold weather?

 

Anyhow, the difference is large and not a bit (it's +22%, so more than one huge fifth, almost 1/4 better). And if so we should get similar performance improvements for ALL other aircraft (+22%) so it would be great to see the performances of the other aircraft.

Edited May 11, 2014 by sturmkraehe

[Matt]

We will get a FMB eventually and at least in the RoF FMB, you can set the temperature yourself.

 

I think it's great that the devs modeled this detail in the first place.

[pixelshader]

Very nice.  Just for clarification, +1 trim is 1 unit nose down as per WW2 German convention; this was what you used for climb?

 

Yes, 1 unit nose down. Sounds a bit strange reading it now, but that's right.

[pixelshader]

We will get a FMB eventually and at least in the RoF FMB, you can set the temperature yourself.

 

I think it's great that the devs modeled this detail in the first place.

 

The temperature for the 6-8km climb should be similar anywhere on the globe with similar latitude, right? Or looking at this, actually colder over germany.

 

Anyway, I figure the best climb speed up there is maybe something like 280-290 if it is 305 down low, and just doing a quick test right now with that speed and 2500rpm etc. I climbed 6 > 8km in 2min 23sec, or 2.4min, which is still 4/5 the time on the document.

 

Maybe the cold air modelling is not right at high alt, or maybe this or that, but that is another result anyway.

[Volkoff]

Let's not forget that we get this extra cold weather boost, which could explained why it climbs a bit faster than it should and it wouldn't surprise me, if that would be true for the other planes as well.

+1  MJ

[wastel]

The only chance to compare BoS Planes with RL old test is that if the Rl test showed plane A is better in climb than plane B,

this situation should be the same in BoS during the stalingrad temperature condition.

 

I just hope that the devs have an "standard" climatic condition scenario for their internal FM test.

[Crump]

With the low density altitude environment of the game, you will see dramatic increases in performance over standard conditions.

 

 

 just hope that the devs have an "standard" climatic condition scenario for their internal FM test.

 

 

With some basic atmospheric data, we could convert to standard but it would much easier if the devs gave us a standard atmosphere environment.

That what personally is a bit itchy. This move by the devs makes it difficult to check their data with historic sources. What if we get a uber La5? How can we see if its uber performance is correct or wrong - because of cold weather?

 

Anyhow, the difference is large and not a bit (it's +22%, so more than one huge fifth, almost 1/4 better). And if so we should get similar performance improvements for ALL other aircraft (+22%) so it would be great to see the performances of the other aircraft.

 

It can be converted sturmkraehe.