G
gajit
Guest
Wise words. But if a FM allows an aircraft to exceed its published rate of climb, max cruise etc etc etc then we are bound to question the general "feel" of a product.
-
Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.
I really suggest ya´ll head to A2A site
- Thread starter Prowler1111
- Start date
Wise words. But if a FM allows an aircraft to exceed its published rate of climb, max cruise etc etc etc then we are bound to question the general "feel" of a product.
I'd like the new FDE file if possible just to compare it with the A2A version. There's nothing wrong with the A2A FDE at all. I haven't done any real testing yet with the Corsair to see how well the numbers match up with the flight manual I have, but I'd like to compare the two and pick the one closer to the actual performance of the real plane. I've only done 1 takeoff and landing so far (pressed for time) and she tracked right down the centerline with 5 degrees right rudder trim and 5 degrees right wing down aileron trim, which is what the manual recommends.
Feel free to PM me and I'll get my email addy to you.
Darrell
krazycolin
Banned
the numbers in the "published" data are, sadly, usually wrong. the reason for this is that it's a specification and a generalization and based on one or two birds. it's more than likely, that, as a plane goes into production and the pipeline gets smoother, the plane itself gets better, faster, flies higher, etc.
Note that this is only my opinion. But, I believe, it has merit.
And it is only an opinion....
G
gajit
Guest
Well - of course - it depends on the source of the data- I was kindofthinking real flight manuals - not my boys book of planes!!! LOL
:violent:I was at KCUB, Owens downtown Columbia SC and saw a F4u go down after engine trouble shortly after takeoff. The pilot, Joe Tobul,a veteran was killed.His son and two grandsons also flying in warbirds were in formation and watched him go in making it all the more worse. He dumped it into a wooded area to avoid houses. Ive seen 6 crashes but the sound of that engine cutting loose during climbout haunts me to this day.
http://www.vacwarbirds.org/oldnewsletters/0212unscramble.pdf
1/3 of the page down.
I had seen him do numerous airshows mostly at KSSC Shaw AFB in his Corsair and the sound of it doing full power flybys was incredible. One of the most beautiful planes IMO ever made.
http://www.vacwarbirds.org/oldnewsletters/0212unscramble.pdf
1/3 of the page down.
I had seen him do numerous airshows mostly at KSSC Shaw AFB in his Corsair and the sound of it doing full power flybys was incredible. One of the most beautiful planes IMO ever made.
I was fortunate enough to see him with "Korean War Hero" at my hometown airport in 1999. Like you, I can still hear the sound of those fly-bys. Definitely a great loss to the warbird community.
Darrell
krazycolin
Banned
Actually, i was talking about the flight manual. they aren't exactly a valid item of reference for most of the performance data and sometimes, that data is even... dare i say it? not quite... er.. realistic. anyway.
nuff said on this one...
Has anyone made a successful carrier landing on the Enterprise yet? I made a couple quick approaches (which probably is the source of my problem LOL) but it didn't seem like the tailhook was working. I know it was down but I "think" I may have been missing the landing zone. It kinda whacked me out since I haven't had any trouble putting the Avenger down on the same carrier.
Darrell
Darrell
GypsyBaron
Charter Member
Yes, I've made several traps on CV-6...as well as MANY
missed approaches
I've also taken off from that deck as far forward as the
aft end of the island...perhaps a planes length further
forward than that, actually. I dropped it in the drink
once or twice when I was unable to keep rolling straight
down the deck and went off the port side
Paul
In my fiddling with this alpha for Colin, I did about 200 carrier landings on the CV6, bounce it in too hard or miss the landing zone you would hit the barrier, if there was one. Main thing for any WWII carrier aircraft, pay attention to (1) the wind over the deck (2) load, including fuel (3) airspeed managment.
Glad to see some classic Carrier Birds that have arrived and more that are coming down the pike!!!!! T.
Glad to see some classic Carrier Birds that have arrived and more that are coming down the pike!!!!! T.
G
gajit
Guest
Ok - but now I will never beleive a flight manual again. If I die I will haunt you!! LOL
Edit : I have always wanted to visit Canada - like the idea of living there one day.
T
tigisfat
Guest
Thank you!! noone in the flight sim world understands this though.
krazycolin
Banned
If it is written, it must be true, is a common enough error in all times. And this is evident in "Performance Data" as it is elsewhere. Going "by the book" is not good enough. You need/should always to talk to at least one, if not more actual flyers of that particular plane... (again, only my opinion)
It's hard when the manual is your only valid reference. But, as always, there's a fine line between building something that's for fun and building something that has to perform... On both sides, people get it wrong (F/A-18 Hornet ) and people get it right (F-15). (again, my opinion)
Visiting Canada is fine. Living... well.. first off, though our medical system and our "socialist" method of living is, I believe, far more... er.. fair than most countries, it's FRIGGIN COLD here in the winter (-30 celsius)... So, even I don't WANT to live here, there's just no where better (at this time, for me... ) (don't get upset.. this is MY opinion having lived in about 20 different countries over my lifetime)....
ANYWAY!
KC
According to "the book", a C152 with 1 POB and a full fuel load will climb at 1000fpm, full power, 65KIAS.
Of all the people who have flown them, here, has anyone ever seen one break 600fpm? I ain't, and I flew a horde of the little blighters!
The AOM or equivalent was written by a combination between people with a shiny new test aircraft and their sales team. It was done before the "options" and "modifications" were done, then tweaked a little, basically. The only numbers I've ever believed in official documentation for an aircraft I've flown are the weight and balance, because they're specifically for the aircraft whose identity is on the front of the book and, at least according to the CAA, should be checked and updated every time the aircraft is down for heavy maintenance.
Of all the people who have flown them, here, has anyone ever seen one break 600fpm? I ain't, and I flew a horde of the little blighters!
The AOM or equivalent was written by a combination between people with a shiny new test aircraft and their sales team. It was done before the "options" and "modifications" were done, then tweaked a little, basically. The only numbers I've ever believed in official documentation for an aircraft I've flown are the weight and balance, because they're specifically for the aircraft whose identity is on the front of the book and, at least according to the CAA, should be checked and updated every time the aircraft is down for heavy maintenance.
Henry
Retired SOH Administrator
I remember reading some
useful Data on a Mossie test somewhere
cannot find it at the moment
but colour and shine of the paint
had a big change on top speed
Thats in no flight manual that i have
and i have a copy of most,
everything is subjective
also i would think is the area you are flying in
H
useful Data on a Mossie test somewhere
cannot find it at the moment
but colour and shine of the paint
had a big change on top speed
Thats in no flight manual that i have
and i have a copy of most,
everything is subjective
also i would think is the area you are flying in
H
The area you are flying in, particularly, has a massive effect. "Hot and High" performance is one of the big discussion points whenever people talk about military aircraft in particular. Helicopters that were designed for use in Europe don't cope at all well in Afghanistan. An aircraft that can take off from a small unprepared strip in Germany or the US needs a mile of runway to operate at the top of the Andes.
Piston engined aircraft suffer far more from the effects of heat and altitude than turbine engined ones, but both produce less power the higher and/or hotter the place they are operating from. Even a hot day in a temperate climate can make a significant difference to the performance of an older or less powerful aircraft.
Piston engined aircraft suffer far more from the effects of heat and altitude than turbine engined ones, but both produce less power the higher and/or hotter the place they are operating from. Even a hot day in a temperate climate can make a significant difference to the performance of an older or less powerful aircraft.
Aircraft test data has gotten much better as we nudge past the year 2000. For the 747-400 I fly, it is quite good indeed, a matter of importance as the takeoff and fuel burn data we compute must be very good indeed!
During the 40's test data was not particulary reliable. Remember it was mosty aquired by a very busy test pilot reading cockpit instruments and scribbling on his knee board. The several layers of innacuracy possible in that chain of events are significant.
One of the better references in America's Hundred Thousand", which usually has both manufacturer and service test data. The divergences can be dramatic! Temperature and altimeter (pressure altitude) differences even make a big difference in very modern and high performance aircraft! I would not agree that turbine aircraft less vunerable to altitude and temperture effects after some 25 years of driving them around. They just typically start with a bit more power to weight ratio.
At least in FS we can approximate standard condition for flight test by setting the weather to "Clear Skies" weather theme.
Cheers: t.
During the 40's test data was not particulary reliable. Remember it was mosty aquired by a very busy test pilot reading cockpit instruments and scribbling on his knee board. The several layers of innacuracy possible in that chain of events are significant.
One of the better references in America's Hundred Thousand", which usually has both manufacturer and service test data. The divergences can be dramatic! Temperature and altimeter (pressure altitude) differences even make a big difference in very modern and high performance aircraft! I would not agree that turbine aircraft less vunerable to altitude and temperture effects after some 25 years of driving them around. They just typically start with a bit more power to weight ratio.
At least in FS we can approximate standard condition for flight test by setting the weather to "Clear Skies" weather theme.
Cheers: t.
I've never flown a turbine aircraft, so will bow before you on that one.
All I understand is that if you ask a C206 and C208 to depart the same runway at sea level, the chances are they'll both get out and use similar amounts of runway. If you tried the same in the Rockies or even the Alps, the Caravan would still be getting out when the Stationair was welded to the ground with a similar load. That came from what I was told by a guy who flew both types, not first hand experience.