Nonskimmer
Captain
What's so bad about that? 
Best Fighter III
- Thread starter kiwimac
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
Alright now I will seay eeewww!
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
LMFAO....
JonJGoldberg
Airman 1st Class
Reply to lesofprimus >>
Reply to Wmaxt >>
At $30 a fish, what are you getting into? A lot of work, for probably nothing. I agree with Les ( to be frank, you are saying the same thing), the numbers you will receive will be 'official' about as valid as, well Les said it best. I also agree with you with regard to 'circumstance' its impact, so what are you doing? What would be the point of this search?
Reply to Wmaxt >>
At $30 a fish, what are you getting into? A lot of work, for probably nothing. I agree with Les ( to be frank, you are saying the same thing), the numbers you will receive will be 'official' about as valid as, well Les said it best. I also agree with you with regard to 'circumstance' its impact, so what are you doing? What would be the point of this search?
102first_hussars
Tech Sergeant
Nonskimmer said:What's so bad about that?
Now you just sound like a Newfy, (Hooy Moi Moothers Moi Seester) Try saying that
evangilder
"Shooter"
Gents, I did say the generally accepted number was 4,950. I don't have an accurate count, nor does the US Army. You have to kind of go with a generally accepted number as a reasonable guess.
Yes you do even...
JonJGoldberg
Airman 1st Class
Message to all >>>
Wow, I've been occupied on the F4U-4 vs. P-47N thread, haven't missed much.
Sorry, there has been quite a bit of action, at least for me, there recently at this exact moment I'm a bit fired up, so, accept my apoligy in advance for the tone. The reason for the post is to inform of some changes to the Fighter Comparison Tables.
Edited from (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/about1116-0-asc-100.html) >>>
New Table outlines, as taken from an exchange with Wmaxt 11/26/2005 7:28:10 PM Eastern Standard Time:
I haven't posted my last response to Sal, although I read his post; from this experience, some experience now with you, as they regard to some or all of the performance data (for example the climb rate data)... I'm going to re-label the following headers, Horizontal Limits, Vertical Limits with the following: {@ Projected Combat Weight (Actual value given was calculated checked to be within the 'window' of 'reliable' specifications, when available)}. I'm going to update all 'Combat Weight' figures to read 'Calculated Combat Weight'. I will update all notes to include the amount of 'points' in question.
This should allow me to address data inconsistencies, limit mandated changes as proposed by other's measurements, documents, or other materials, to changes that I may accept, or pass, in a much less condescending light. At this point, again not to be stubborn, condescending, arrogant or rude; due to the inconsistencies of data values from the best of sources, I must both identify where I have used, continue to rely on, my own judgment.
Again, thanks for staying with me, there is a lot to read here. Maybe next weekend, with or with out Sal's data, to better serve all I will post the new tables. PS: been working with Wmaxt in resolving, and including firing range. If we can acquire this data, this new feature should bring us that much closer.
Wow, I've been occupied on the F4U-4 vs. P-47N thread, haven't missed much.
Sorry, there has been quite a bit of action, at least for me, there recently at this exact moment I'm a bit fired up, so, accept my apoligy in advance for the tone. The reason for the post is to inform of some changes to the Fighter Comparison Tables.
Edited from (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/about1116-0-asc-100.html) >>>
New Table outlines, as taken from an exchange with Wmaxt 11/26/2005 7:28:10 PM Eastern Standard Time:
I haven't posted my last response to Sal, although I read his post; from this experience, some experience now with you, as they regard to some or all of the performance data (for example the climb rate data)... I'm going to re-label the following headers, Horizontal Limits, Vertical Limits with the following: {@ Projected Combat Weight (Actual value given was calculated checked to be within the 'window' of 'reliable' specifications, when available)}. I'm going to update all 'Combat Weight' figures to read 'Calculated Combat Weight'. I will update all notes to include the amount of 'points' in question.
This should allow me to address data inconsistencies, limit mandated changes as proposed by other's measurements, documents, or other materials, to changes that I may accept, or pass, in a much less condescending light. At this point, again not to be stubborn, condescending, arrogant or rude; due to the inconsistencies of data values from the best of sources, I must both identify where I have used, continue to rely on, my own judgment.
Again, thanks for staying with me, there is a lot to read here. Maybe next weekend, with or with out Sal's data, to better serve all I will post the new tables. PS: been working with Wmaxt in resolving, and including firing range. If we can acquire this data, this new feature should bring us that much closer.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Jon, it almost sounds like sub catagories are needed...... like best at mid altitude/mid speeds, mid alt/high speeds, high alt/mid speeds, high alt/high speeds.
I think youve put forth some convincing data that the P47N was the best.
I think youve put forth some convincing data that the P47N was the best.
It almost sounds like someone needs to stop taking things so seriously and not fired up.
JonJGoldberg
Airman 1st Class
With regard to my previous post, please see my latest post below. It is quite an interesting view, with regard to the Fighter Comparison Tables.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=137454#137454
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=137454#137454
JonJGoldberg
Airman 1st Class
Is it possible that a 'match' between WW2 fighters can be confined to altitude 'X', assuming that one or the other contestant isn't wiped out on the first pass? Mostly, it's not possible, as I'll go wherever I feel my opportunity waits. However, as I'm a great pilot in reality, flying my genuine authentic IKEA power recliner while on sim fighter patrol in my assigned Ta-152, I sight on this cloudless pixilated day some P-47s strafing. Do I dive to engage, hoping my specialized wings stay together as my altitude decreases until I'm in air that does not allow me to turn; or do I wait, in the sun, until I may take advantage, hoping to position myself inline with the '47s, bringing them to me as they climb to go home?
Is a plane that climbs at 3,000 fpm, when its adversary climbs at 4,000 fpm, at a disadvantage, when the plane that climbs at 3,000 fpm can maintain climb angles keeping its guns on the target? Even though this 33% improvement is significant numerically, mostly it's of no, or of little advantage, unless your pursuer was either way far away, or too dam close. As we separate at about 11 mph, if I'm on your tail I have 10 seconds +/- 5 seconds to rip you up. If you're on my tail, I'll use this knowledge, nose up turn into you, forcing you to disengage, or over shoot. You may kill me as I nose up turn into you, but hey you are on my tail, I'm dead if I don't, if my craft was the better climber, by 1000 fpm at our combat altitude, do I offer you 10 seconds +/- 5 to rip me a new… I think not.
Will a pilot, who knows his mount is not a turn/stall fighter, change his proven zoom boom tactics, to turn/stall fight an adversary even if the foe is a multi-engine bomber out of bullets? No I think not. As I'm in control, I may press reset at any moment, I will attempt to use my weapon as effectively as possible, making a wide turn, catching my target, engaging at my decision, not the decision of circumstance, especially that of a pixilated circumstance.
What am I getting at here?
Well, as I've participated in this thread that of the P-47N vs. F4U-4, debate over participation in other threads; I've learned a great deal, that was/is my intention. Similarly, I've repaid, creating, I think, a great tool, or starting point for us to play with; but I'm frustrated a bit on two levels.
1- Unfortunately not may people downloaded, or participated in the exchanges I tried to generate by producing the tables (My Fighter Comparison Chart). Although I'm going to continue again shortly after the New Year, as their evolution data has produced marked improvements into my CFS-2 install, unless you guys ask, there will be no further postings. The tables are far from perfect. For instance, the Ta-152 would be annihilated in them, as it doesn't perform at sea level, at all. Sea level response is the anchor to my turn rate calculations, as sea level data is the most readily available data. I'd like to thank Erich, wmaxt for the very helpful E-mail exchanges; Jabberwocky for the data corrections; syscom3, FLYBOYJ for their general support; DerAdlerIstGelandet, plan_D, Gnomey, evangilder, lesofprimus for the constructive criticism. To Sal Monella, in retrospect, the personal stuff aside, I had some serious fun, learned a great deal during the course of our exchanges, so thanks. Parmigiano, what ever happened to you?
2- My 1st three paragraphs represent what I view on these threads, in conclusion to most digressions; 'members' stating that plane X is better at medium altitudes than plane Y, or it climbs better, or performs better in a turn fight. All important aspects to be sure, but not overall the right approach to determining which was best in my opinion, rather, I feel it perpetuates this circular exchange among us, prevents us from moving past, quoting the lancaster kicks ass, "…it all comes down to what you look for in a fighter."
Well now I'm thinking we are all wrong. My vote for the P-51 most other posts I've seen avoid this plane, except those dam tables again. As flawed as they are they show, as does the info found below, the answer was in front of us all along.
Edited from an article which can be found, beginning at http://www.stormbirds.com/squadron/home.htm
"Some of the most unnerving German advances to emerge late in the war were embodied in the jet aircraft; especially the Messerschmitt 262 fighter. While the forces of the Wehrmacht were in a full retreat across the continent, this sleek warbird was a cause for great alarm among the Allies. At a time when the rest the world's jet aircraft were little more than docile test beds,* the Me 262 was sweeping the sky for intruding bomber formations. The potential for disaster had not gone unnoticed."
"Of course, aggressive exploitation plans had been put into motion many months before V-E day. In the Army Air Forces, this gave rise to the Air Technical Intelligence (ATI) division. Charged with mounting an all-out dragnet for advanced weapons of all types, ATI operations were primarily focused upon a classified "blacklist" of priority targets. At the top of every list was the Messerschmitt 262. Field contact teams generally were finding little outside of a few wrecked jets. What was really needed was a collection of flyable examples."
"* The Gloster Meteor (UK) and Bell P-59 (US) were both operational during this period; however, neither of these aircraft were considered ready for front-line combat service, and neither established an operational service record approaching that of the Me 262."
"What made the Me 262 such a force to be reckoned with? The most obvious -- and relevant -- answer lies in it's blinding speed. In 1944-45, the North American P-51 Mustang was among the quickest and most agile performers in the Allied arsenal. In a clean configuration (without drop tanks), it's top speed was in the neighborhood of 440 miles per hour with "everything wide open except the toolbox."
"By way of contrast, when the Me 262 joined the battle in the skies over Europe, it was capable of passing through a bomber formation at 540 mph with relative ease. This gave it a speed advantage over Allied escort fighters of between 100 and 150 miles per hour, and rendered traditional tactics ineffective."
"Many U.S. bomber crews began to complain that, when they attempted to track the Me 262 from their defensive positions, the electric gun turrets could not slew fast enough to keep up with the Stormbird."
"The weapons fitted to the aircraft were no less impressive. The standard Me 262 carried four Mk 108 30mm cannons in the nose, and was later equipped with R4M 50mm rockets mounted on racks under the wings. Both were devastatingly effective against any adversary, and Stormbird pilots ran their scores up quickly against the American bomber formations."
Now, as with any aircraft, there were problems weaknesses, but…
Bob Strobell
"My first solo flight in the Me 262 started with a pilot error on takeoff. Somewhere in the back of my mind I got the impression that swept wings required a higher angle of attitude on takeoff. It must have come from watching Baur make his takeoff. About halfway down the runway, all was going well, except that I noticed that I was gaining flight speed slowly, if at all! Everything was roaring along just fine, except the airspeed was not up to takeoff, and didn't appear to be increasing as rapidly as expected. At this point I lowered the nose and put the nose wheel on runway. I was doing something like 70 or 80 miles per hour, and up came the airspeed ... I found myself at the end of the runway, and I simply hauled it off of the ground, feeling that I had used all 6,000 feet of a 5,000 foot runway. One is not likely to forget such an adventure, and I still think about that rough trip down that runway as the watched the end approach .. both mine and the runway's."
"The next thing I noticed was the speed. Raw speed, exhilarating speed. Smooth speed. Unbelievable speed. It seemed effortless. My flight was held to low altitude, so I had the ground as a reference. This was something I had never experienced in the P-47 Thunderbolt, and it was impressive."
"When it came time to return to Lechfeld to make a landing, I committed my second pilot error. I made a normal "P-47 approach" to the landing by entering the downwind leg. I was planning for a quick left turn onto base and then final, but I never got out of the downwind leg! Normally, with a Thunderbolt, you would pull the throttle back on the downwind leg, drop the gear, and make a U-turn back toward the runway controlling speed with the throttle while descending to touchdown."
"In the Me 262, I pulled the throttle back and nothing happened. I mean that there was no apparent reaction from the airplane. It simply continued to fly at the same speed, and I recall thinking that I had discovered "perpetual speed." By the time I figured out that I wasn't on a normal jet approach, I was five miles beyond the airfield, and still headed outbound at high speed. The airport had long since disappeared from sight! We had been cautioned not to reduce the turbine below 6000 RPM in the traffic pattern, but it seemed that this only encouraged the jet to continue to fly at cruising speed."
"I finally turned back toward the airport and again entered the downwind leg at 500 feet. But this time I had figured things out, or so I thought. I pulled the RPM back to 6000 and pointed the nose up in a climb attitude. The airspeed dropped to 250 MPH, at which point the landing gear could be lowered safely. I managed all of this with my head my head inside the cockpit, so you can imagine my surprise when I discovered I was at 2,500 feet and again several miles from the airport. I continued around for a third and final approach, and landed without incident."
"It remains an indelible event in my memory."
Lieutenant Roy W. Brown
"The Me 262 was smooth, quiet, and very responsive to the controls compared to the P-47 I had been flying for about a year. I had also flown a P-40 in the States, and the Me 262 was even better than that."
"The plane was easy -- and a pleasure -- to fly. Because of its high speed, I found myself going through my maps quickly to keep pace with the distance covered over the ground."
The site has more great stuff on Watson's Wizzers, USAF pilots, and ground crews responsible in acquiring, then bringing to flight condition, testing finally storing all flyable examples of any jet, top prize, Me-262s.
To end… My arguments previously posted proclamations about the P-51, Hurricane as rightful owner runner up to the best fighter title I now retract. I retract my statements about MVPs having to come from the 'wining team'. I was in error, I was wrong.
The Me 262 was not so much "ahead of it's time" as it was the harbinger of an entirely new era in aviation, which I now concede as historically of more value than the fighter most responsible for winning a battle, or theater, regardless of the terrible philosophy practiced by some of its creators. Additionally, the Me-262 held clear performance edges of unmatched speed, unmatched firepower. …The amount of effort expended by the Allies, Soviets, as it is hard to believe just the Americans were interested in the finding, securing, rebuilding, testing of Me-262s, is the final testimony of its status, Best Fighter Of WW2.
Is a plane that climbs at 3,000 fpm, when its adversary climbs at 4,000 fpm, at a disadvantage, when the plane that climbs at 3,000 fpm can maintain climb angles keeping its guns on the target? Even though this 33% improvement is significant numerically, mostly it's of no, or of little advantage, unless your pursuer was either way far away, or too dam close. As we separate at about 11 mph, if I'm on your tail I have 10 seconds +/- 5 seconds to rip you up. If you're on my tail, I'll use this knowledge, nose up turn into you, forcing you to disengage, or over shoot. You may kill me as I nose up turn into you, but hey you are on my tail, I'm dead if I don't, if my craft was the better climber, by 1000 fpm at our combat altitude, do I offer you 10 seconds +/- 5 to rip me a new… I think not.
Will a pilot, who knows his mount is not a turn/stall fighter, change his proven zoom boom tactics, to turn/stall fight an adversary even if the foe is a multi-engine bomber out of bullets? No I think not. As I'm in control, I may press reset at any moment, I will attempt to use my weapon as effectively as possible, making a wide turn, catching my target, engaging at my decision, not the decision of circumstance, especially that of a pixilated circumstance.
What am I getting at here?
Well, as I've participated in this thread that of the P-47N vs. F4U-4, debate over participation in other threads; I've learned a great deal, that was/is my intention. Similarly, I've repaid, creating, I think, a great tool, or starting point for us to play with; but I'm frustrated a bit on two levels.
1- Unfortunately not may people downloaded, or participated in the exchanges I tried to generate by producing the tables (My Fighter Comparison Chart). Although I'm going to continue again shortly after the New Year, as their evolution data has produced marked improvements into my CFS-2 install, unless you guys ask, there will be no further postings. The tables are far from perfect. For instance, the Ta-152 would be annihilated in them, as it doesn't perform at sea level, at all. Sea level response is the anchor to my turn rate calculations, as sea level data is the most readily available data. I'd like to thank Erich, wmaxt for the very helpful E-mail exchanges; Jabberwocky for the data corrections; syscom3, FLYBOYJ for their general support; DerAdlerIstGelandet, plan_D, Gnomey, evangilder, lesofprimus for the constructive criticism. To Sal Monella, in retrospect, the personal stuff aside, I had some serious fun, learned a great deal during the course of our exchanges, so thanks. Parmigiano, what ever happened to you?
2- My 1st three paragraphs represent what I view on these threads, in conclusion to most digressions; 'members' stating that plane X is better at medium altitudes than plane Y, or it climbs better, or performs better in a turn fight. All important aspects to be sure, but not overall the right approach to determining which was best in my opinion, rather, I feel it perpetuates this circular exchange among us, prevents us from moving past, quoting the lancaster kicks ass, "…it all comes down to what you look for in a fighter."
Well now I'm thinking we are all wrong. My vote for the P-51 most other posts I've seen avoid this plane, except those dam tables again. As flawed as they are they show, as does the info found below, the answer was in front of us all along.
Edited from an article which can be found, beginning at http://www.stormbirds.com/squadron/home.htm
"Some of the most unnerving German advances to emerge late in the war were embodied in the jet aircraft; especially the Messerschmitt 262 fighter. While the forces of the Wehrmacht were in a full retreat across the continent, this sleek warbird was a cause for great alarm among the Allies. At a time when the rest the world's jet aircraft were little more than docile test beds,* the Me 262 was sweeping the sky for intruding bomber formations. The potential for disaster had not gone unnoticed."
"Of course, aggressive exploitation plans had been put into motion many months before V-E day. In the Army Air Forces, this gave rise to the Air Technical Intelligence (ATI) division. Charged with mounting an all-out dragnet for advanced weapons of all types, ATI operations were primarily focused upon a classified "blacklist" of priority targets. At the top of every list was the Messerschmitt 262. Field contact teams generally were finding little outside of a few wrecked jets. What was really needed was a collection of flyable examples."
"* The Gloster Meteor (UK) and Bell P-59 (US) were both operational during this period; however, neither of these aircraft were considered ready for front-line combat service, and neither established an operational service record approaching that of the Me 262."
"What made the Me 262 such a force to be reckoned with? The most obvious -- and relevant -- answer lies in it's blinding speed. In 1944-45, the North American P-51 Mustang was among the quickest and most agile performers in the Allied arsenal. In a clean configuration (without drop tanks), it's top speed was in the neighborhood of 440 miles per hour with "everything wide open except the toolbox."
"By way of contrast, when the Me 262 joined the battle in the skies over Europe, it was capable of passing through a bomber formation at 540 mph with relative ease. This gave it a speed advantage over Allied escort fighters of between 100 and 150 miles per hour, and rendered traditional tactics ineffective."
"Many U.S. bomber crews began to complain that, when they attempted to track the Me 262 from their defensive positions, the electric gun turrets could not slew fast enough to keep up with the Stormbird."
"The weapons fitted to the aircraft were no less impressive. The standard Me 262 carried four Mk 108 30mm cannons in the nose, and was later equipped with R4M 50mm rockets mounted on racks under the wings. Both were devastatingly effective against any adversary, and Stormbird pilots ran their scores up quickly against the American bomber formations."
Now, as with any aircraft, there were problems weaknesses, but…
Bob Strobell
"My first solo flight in the Me 262 started with a pilot error on takeoff. Somewhere in the back of my mind I got the impression that swept wings required a higher angle of attitude on takeoff. It must have come from watching Baur make his takeoff. About halfway down the runway, all was going well, except that I noticed that I was gaining flight speed slowly, if at all! Everything was roaring along just fine, except the airspeed was not up to takeoff, and didn't appear to be increasing as rapidly as expected. At this point I lowered the nose and put the nose wheel on runway. I was doing something like 70 or 80 miles per hour, and up came the airspeed ... I found myself at the end of the runway, and I simply hauled it off of the ground, feeling that I had used all 6,000 feet of a 5,000 foot runway. One is not likely to forget such an adventure, and I still think about that rough trip down that runway as the watched the end approach .. both mine and the runway's."
"The next thing I noticed was the speed. Raw speed, exhilarating speed. Smooth speed. Unbelievable speed. It seemed effortless. My flight was held to low altitude, so I had the ground as a reference. This was something I had never experienced in the P-47 Thunderbolt, and it was impressive."
"When it came time to return to Lechfeld to make a landing, I committed my second pilot error. I made a normal "P-47 approach" to the landing by entering the downwind leg. I was planning for a quick left turn onto base and then final, but I never got out of the downwind leg! Normally, with a Thunderbolt, you would pull the throttle back on the downwind leg, drop the gear, and make a U-turn back toward the runway controlling speed with the throttle while descending to touchdown."
"In the Me 262, I pulled the throttle back and nothing happened. I mean that there was no apparent reaction from the airplane. It simply continued to fly at the same speed, and I recall thinking that I had discovered "perpetual speed." By the time I figured out that I wasn't on a normal jet approach, I was five miles beyond the airfield, and still headed outbound at high speed. The airport had long since disappeared from sight! We had been cautioned not to reduce the turbine below 6000 RPM in the traffic pattern, but it seemed that this only encouraged the jet to continue to fly at cruising speed."
"I finally turned back toward the airport and again entered the downwind leg at 500 feet. But this time I had figured things out, or so I thought. I pulled the RPM back to 6000 and pointed the nose up in a climb attitude. The airspeed dropped to 250 MPH, at which point the landing gear could be lowered safely. I managed all of this with my head my head inside the cockpit, so you can imagine my surprise when I discovered I was at 2,500 feet and again several miles from the airport. I continued around for a third and final approach, and landed without incident."
"It remains an indelible event in my memory."
Lieutenant Roy W. Brown
"The Me 262 was smooth, quiet, and very responsive to the controls compared to the P-47 I had been flying for about a year. I had also flown a P-40 in the States, and the Me 262 was even better than that."
"The plane was easy -- and a pleasure -- to fly. Because of its high speed, I found myself going through my maps quickly to keep pace with the distance covered over the ground."
The site has more great stuff on Watson's Wizzers, USAF pilots, and ground crews responsible in acquiring, then bringing to flight condition, testing finally storing all flyable examples of any jet, top prize, Me-262s.
To end… My arguments previously posted proclamations about the P-51, Hurricane as rightful owner runner up to the best fighter title I now retract. I retract my statements about MVPs having to come from the 'wining team'. I was in error, I was wrong.
The Me 262 was not so much "ahead of it's time" as it was the harbinger of an entirely new era in aviation, which I now concede as historically of more value than the fighter most responsible for winning a battle, or theater, regardless of the terrible philosophy practiced by some of its creators. Additionally, the Me-262 held clear performance edges of unmatched speed, unmatched firepower. …The amount of effort expended by the Allies, Soviets, as it is hard to believe just the Americans were interested in the finding, securing, rebuilding, testing of Me-262s, is the final testimony of its status, Best Fighter Of WW2.
Attachments
syscom3
Pacific Historian
nice post Jon.
But it had its defects. High fuel consumption, poor engine life, engine sensitivity to damage
But it had its defects. High fuel consumption, poor engine life, engine sensitivity to damage
JonJGoldberg
Airman 1st Class
Thanks syscom3.
All aircraft have defects, all. Preliminary reading suggests that engines produced before 'high strength' steels were of short supply, allocated to the U-Boats 1st, before engine parts were redesigned to use metals of lower strength, they were much more reliable.
But there were other weaknesses, you can read there that she was defeated when lured into a turn fight, when landing, on take off, at low altitude, where the engines didn't work well.
Battle dammage is a valid point, but overcomeable in 'development' my newborn opinion.
All aircraft have defects, all. Preliminary reading suggests that engines produced before 'high strength' steels were of short supply, allocated to the U-Boats 1st, before engine parts were redesigned to use metals of lower strength, they were much more reliable.
But there were other weaknesses, you can read there that she was defeated when lured into a turn fight, when landing, on take off, at low altitude, where the engines didn't work well.
Battle dammage is a valid point, but overcomeable in 'development' my newborn opinion.
Attachments
Jon I found your posts very very interesting and enjoyed reading them and posted some comments here and there. I just chose not to completly get involved because I did not care to compare aircraft based off of data from sims.
JonJGoldberg
Airman 1st Class
Reply to DerAdlerIstGelandet >>>
Thank You. Since I can't fly a real one...
But something is tickling me. I don't understand what you said... "I did not care to compare aircraft based off of data from sims."
Absolutely no data came from any sim. They are drawn from books, web sites, other 'source' materials (no games/sims). The spread sheet used to calculate turn data, verify climb data, altitude data was designed to allow acceptance of the tip root air foil information (NACA labels), engine HP at sea level, prop diameter, number of blades, critical altitude, loaded weights, aircraft dimensions... , and runs calculations based on these inputs, my inputs. Then the spread sheet uses NACA wind tunnel data to calculate lift and drag parameters for the airfoils. The engineering data and formulas used to calculate propeller efficiency, climb rates, roll rates, and stability parameters were drawn from the NACA database as well. After the data is loaded, the author (Jerry Beckwith) provides an activation 'cell' which runs the math engine turning out 'code', representing the crucial figures needed to generate...
I do two things... Run an Access pivot table, of my design, to restate the results into 'a form' we can understand. Run the accompanying .exe that converts the data into a CFS-2/FS-2000 .air file.
As for opinion, well, you have a point here; it must be somewhat based on my flight sim. You may not agree on how I derived an opinion, but the 'real' pilots here, you yourself, to your own disbelief, have agreed on the opinion, most times. At others, I've either defended my view, or admitted error, acted as a 'responsible' forum member.
As you said, I'm really into this. I'm not a pilot, have no collage education. I was born on windows '95. I'm no kid, as I write this I'm 45. I know I'm a bit tilted, extreme, but this is my 'fun'. Numbers specs just don't do it for me, lifeless on screen paper. Why not 'animate' them?
To conclude: Based on what I've seen of your posts, you I derive data from the same sources; reliable not so reliable. You use data reason to draw conclusions dream (I really don't mean this in a negative way at all). I use data reason to draw conclusions 'animate' sim aircraft.
Thank You. Since I can't fly a real one...
But something is tickling me. I don't understand what you said... "I did not care to compare aircraft based off of data from sims."
Absolutely no data came from any sim. They are drawn from books, web sites, other 'source' materials (no games/sims). The spread sheet used to calculate turn data, verify climb data, altitude data was designed to allow acceptance of the tip root air foil information (NACA labels), engine HP at sea level, prop diameter, number of blades, critical altitude, loaded weights, aircraft dimensions... , and runs calculations based on these inputs, my inputs. Then the spread sheet uses NACA wind tunnel data to calculate lift and drag parameters for the airfoils. The engineering data and formulas used to calculate propeller efficiency, climb rates, roll rates, and stability parameters were drawn from the NACA database as well. After the data is loaded, the author (Jerry Beckwith) provides an activation 'cell' which runs the math engine turning out 'code', representing the crucial figures needed to generate...
I do two things... Run an Access pivot table, of my design, to restate the results into 'a form' we can understand. Run the accompanying .exe that converts the data into a CFS-2/FS-2000 .air file.
As for opinion, well, you have a point here; it must be somewhat based on my flight sim. You may not agree on how I derived an opinion, but the 'real' pilots here, you yourself, to your own disbelief, have agreed on the opinion, most times. At others, I've either defended my view, or admitted error, acted as a 'responsible' forum member.
As you said, I'm really into this. I'm not a pilot, have no collage education. I was born on windows '95. I'm no kid, as I write this I'm 45. I know I'm a bit tilted, extreme, but this is my 'fun'. Numbers specs just don't do it for me, lifeless on screen paper. Why not 'animate' them?
To conclude: Based on what I've seen of your posts, you I derive data from the same sources; reliable not so reliable. You use data reason to draw conclusions dream (I really don't mean this in a negative way at all). I use data reason to draw conclusions 'animate' sim aircraft.
Attachments
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Jon, I agree with you. Its all a matter of crunching numbers based on well known mathmatical formula's.
Id say your data is accurate to withing a few percentage points of actual performance. And the margin of error is so slight as to be meaningless in a real world situation.
Id say your data is accurate to withing a few percentage points of actual performance. And the margin of error is so slight as to be meaningless in a real world situation.
Jon I may have misunderstood you then. I thought you were taking this data from Sims. I apologize.
I however do not dream about flying.......
I however do not dream about flying.......
JonJGoldberg
Airman 1st Class
I should have written this...
To conclude: Based on what I've seen of your posts, you I derive data from the same sources; reliable not so reliable. You use the data about WW2 aircraft reason to draw conclusions dream (I really don't mean this in a negative way at all). I use the data about WW2 aircraft reason to draw conclusions 'animate' sim aircraft.
I didn't mean to imply dreaming of flying in general, or weather or not you have flown, or have flown WW2 aircraft, just what we do with the data.
Sorry
To conclude: Based on what I've seen of your posts, you I derive data from the same sources; reliable not so reliable. You use the data about WW2 aircraft reason to draw conclusions dream (I really don't mean this in a negative way at all). I use the data about WW2 aircraft reason to draw conclusions 'animate' sim aircraft.
I didn't mean to imply dreaming of flying in general, or weather or not you have flown, or have flown WW2 aircraft, just what we do with the data.
Sorry
Attachments
I use the data to learn.
- Status
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
- Locked
