Apples, oranges and grapefruit...
Knots, MPH
TAS, IAS
Maximum Indicated Airspeed--- in a MSFS context, or aircraft certification documents? Since a large percentage of the people who quote these figures don't specify what is being used, or miss doing the conversions, or use 'informal' sources instead of the engineering data sheets (because they can't find them) I'll go out on a limb and say that it's a near-miracle that most MSFS planes even come close to the historical record.
Just for the exercise, the numbers from Salt_air (Kts) and PRB (MPH) above : 280 MPH = 244 Kts; 250 MPH = 218 Kts
--but are those True A/S (the engineering side) or IAS (for pilot info & manuals)
--is "maximum' what the a/c will achieve or where it reaches stress limits?
--is the Max Speed quoted or Sea Level or at operational altitudes? (and if so, what altitude - meaningless without that info)
In MSFS, did the modeler toss a random number in, or use a reliable source (press releases are NOT reliable). Was it adequately tested to see if it matches what the model will do or just picked to be close - or it's accurate data but the model won't come close...
Well, I was going to save this for another time in a few weeks, but it might as well be now..
In events like this, or the RTWR or any other where performance becomes an issue -either relative to other a/c or to the historical record - there is really only one way to resolve these questions:
After you determine which SPECIFIC model/version you want to 'approve' --
1. acquire trustworthy historical/test data (and likely not just from the internet)
2. test fly the model in question and get speeds (and range) at various altitudes (and power settings)
3. determine whether questionable practices (like unlimited WEP) are used in the model
4. have another pilot do comparison tests
5. compare the flight test data to the known specs and establish the degree of error
6. establish a database to be used for race entries ( and to help detect 'cheater' airfiles)
For us, the only difficult part of the above is getting the real-world data- some is pretty obscure. Most aircraft are available to a multitude of pilots so comparison tests can be done (and even head-to-head online). Are some popular models going to fail? - wouldn't surprise me! Not every modeler spends as much time researching the specs as they do building the model and then the airfile has to be built and tested to fit.
So, if we want accuracy and fair comparisons, Who's going to do it? In the past it's been the 'race committee' as they've wanted fair and impartial tests done as expeditiously as possible. I offer that the people who should be doing it are the pilots who want to use a particular plane...
A. Make up a report form that has to be completed (speed, altitudes, range at a minimum);
B. anyone ask "Can I use the XXXX?" and submit their test data and supporting research
C. At least one other pilot must test the same model and submit the results.
D. Test x and test y can be compared and then measured against the historical info
E. The "Race Committee" can then rule on admissibility and record the info in the database.
BTW, this would also go a long way to resolving the "subsonic" dispute and variances between two different models of the same aircraft. We don't care what the numbers in the read-me and config files say -- we would have 'actual' performance data for the specific model in question. Can't do the research on your favorite plane? - ask a friend for help. There IS a lot of good data online if you dig and compare several sources, and we have some people with extensive printed libraries who might help, or even visit your local library.
Anything less will just perpetuate the arguments, doubts and suspicions.
(Oh Paul, this discussion should get split out into a new thread
)
