Test Missions sent - FSIC Messageboard

FSIC Messageboard

Test Missions sent

profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Author	Topic: Test Missions sent
Da Jug head Pilot	posted 06-20- 09:00 AM Test missions were sent to all of the people in the Fm school and anyone I could think of that does their own FM work. I know I probably missed a couple of people, and may not have the e-mail address for a couple more. These missions cover, max speed, climb and AI takeoff/landing tests. If all FM people use these tests, it will go a long way in standardizing the performance of the aircraft. If you didn't get these and want a copy post here. Diego- would you be willing to translate the briefings to amke it easier for Gustavo? I didn't send him a copy yet as I'd like to get them translated first. ------------------ "Da Jug" =V67= FM question: Which end does the propeller thingy go on? Fighter Squadron Central ICQ: 121447410 IP: Logged
Maury Markowitz Pilot	posted 06-20- 09:27 AM quote: Originally posted by Da Jug head: These missions cover, max speed, climb and AI takeoff/landing tests. Oh excellent. What would be very cool is if there was a way to write "scripts" for this. That is, you start by defining a mission (thus selecting the plane, altitude, starting speed, fuel load etc.), and then have an associated script that would "do things". One of the things it could do is log various parameters, and set flight parameters. So for instance, if you wanted to test high altitude climb performance, you'd set the speed to some low value in the mission, tell it to climb 10000ft, and record times and altitudes. That would be cool. Maury IP: Logged
Nat JAG	posted 06-20- 10:45 AM Maury, for all these kinds of tests you must set the speed above what should be the maximum speed by a good margin, atleast 50mph to much, see if you want to test climb rate and you set a low speed, thats the speed the AI will try to maintian in the climb, which may actualy be less than it's capable of, thereby giving you a false climb rate. Da Jug, I got your mail, Thanks but all that was attached was an rtf (rich text format) file, but don't worry, I set all these types of missions up a long time ago for all my FM testing The way I work is like this, if I get good data on climb rate, initial climb rate, High alt speed and low alt speed, those are the missions I set up, as an example of these: Climb rate: mission start 1000ft@450mph, waypoints set to climb to 10,000ft@450mph, time how long the climb takes and average it out. You may even have data like "climb to 16,00ft - 4min 10 secs" thats even better, you can set this mission up and just time it and get it as close as possible to the data in time rather than averaging things out. Initial climb rate, basicly the same but timed from AI hitting full throttle from a takeoff High and Low altitude speed test, from your data you probably have something like 317mph@ sea level - 404mph@22,000ft, so I make 2 missions, 1 at 1,000ft and the other at 22,000ft, speed set to 450mph, start mission and let AI take over, then just watch for 5 mins to see what speed the AI settles at, becuase you've set the speed to high it will run at 100% throttle all the time so you can see what the actual top speeds are for your aircraft I know in the past people have been critical of using the AI to judge climb rate, and these worries may be founded, it's hard to say to tell the truth, but that said, because you set the speed much higher than the AI can maintain, the AI is always trying to reach that speed, but also to climb to the altitude you've given, so whats happening is the AI is climbing at it's maximum "sustainable" climb rate, thats not always as fast as a person could climb you must understand, but the AI is trying to sustain the best climb whereas we would climb real hard till the speed drops of, let speed gather again, then climb hard again.. this isn't the way to judge climb rate though, so I think the AI way is better. After all the babbling though, the point Da Jug makes is a good and valid one, if all aircraft were judged by these methods, then they would all compair to each other, rather than having 50 different methods and no 2 the same, each giving different results. Thanks Da Jug ~Nat~ ------------------ =V67th= "Naturlich" "SDOE... What and where would you like to fly today?" http://members.nbci.com/naturlich/index.htm IP: Logged
Diego Lozano Pilot	posted 06-20- 02:24 PM DJH, Send me what you want translated (with some descriptions incase I'm too dense to understand what you're talking about). I'm better at making the idea come out clearly than I am at precisely translating word for word. dlozano@mediaone.net IP: Logged
Sailor Pilot	posted 06-20- 03:35 PM DJH Could you please send them to me as well ? I tested four 1940 planes for perf comparison (Hurricane, Spit 1a, Me109e and Dewoitine) and could use a standard for that. I'll post the result tomorrow with some other stuff on the Spit & Emil. BTW I think a good way to compare turn and roll rates would be to do it on-line with 2 pilots in 2 different planes, as testing alone with a chrono is a bit difficult : you need to keep the altitude while you roll or turn + some planes are hard to keep from stalling / spinning when pulled too hard, not mentionning the need to start all tests at the same Alt + Speed..etc Thanks Sailor IP: Logged
Sailor Pilot	posted 06-20- 03:40 PM Sorry Nat, i did not read your entire post before. I still think the best way (when you don't have historical best angle of climb) is to test several combinations of speed / angles and judge the results. Very time consuming + you will/might find that the best values change with altitude for some planes but I think it helps a lot to know the plane and you get the best time 2 reach a given alt. Just a personal view. Sailor IP: Logged
Maury Markowitz Pilot	posted 06-20- 05:23 PM quote: Originally posted by Nat: Maury, for all these kinds of tests you must set the speed above what should be the maximum speed by a good margin, atleast 50mph to much, see if you want to test climb rate and you set a low speed, thats the speed the AI will try to maintian in the climb, which may actualy be less than it's capable of, thereby giving you a false climb rate. Good point! So just to make sure I understand this, the AI will _try_ to maintain whatever speed you say, by pegging the throttle and max-climbing? If so, how does it know when it's got too much AoA going? You CAN pull the plane into a position where it's climbing slower than it could (the whole Vx range). Maury IP: Logged
Maury Markowitz Pilot	posted 06-20- 05:29 PM quote: Originally posted by Sailor: Sorry Nat, i did not read your entire post before. I still think the best way (when you don't have historical best angle of climb) is to test several combinations of speed / angles and judge the results. I don't know if we can do that in the current engine though. At least not without changing the autopilots to support it. Maury IP: Logged
Nat JAG	posted 06-20- 06:03 PM Maury, I have little understanding of how the AI actualy works, but I do know how it reacts to mission settings, as an example, a climb mission would start at 1000ft, waypoint 2 is set to 15,000ft, and the speed set to 450mph, it takes some tweaking now, because if you set waypoint 2 to close it can't attain the altitude fast enough so you do'nt get a god reading, putting it to far away and the AI could climb slower than it maximum, so you move the waypoint ans test again, or easier, use 3 high waypoints in a straight line, one fairly close to the start point, then stepping back so that AI is always trying to climb. Why or how the AI decides what the best AoA is for the climb I realy don't know, but I do know that it's doing 2 things, trying it's best to maintain the spedd you set, which it can't, so it keeps set at 100% throttle, and also that it's trying it hardest to get to the altitude you set, combine these 2 factors and the AI is climbing as hard and fast as it's able at a sustainable rate, the AI will always attempt not to stall or slowdown, so it picks the best angle to achieve that goal. I hope this helps in some way, I just can't tell you how it decides this, just why it decides it. IP: Logged
Da Jug head Pilot	posted 06-22- 09:45 AM quote: Originally posted by Sailor: DJH BTW I think a good way to compare turn and roll rates would be to do it on-line with 2 pilots in 2 different planes, as testing alone with a chrono is a bit difficult : you need to keep the altitude while you roll or turn + some planes are hard to keep from stalling / spinning when pulled too hard, not mentionning the need to start all tests at the same Alt + Speed..etc Sailor Sounds like the testing criteria we've set up for the DIME project. 1) Get the aircraft we have real numbers for adjusted to those 2) then do an in flight comparism. Make adjustments when needed. 3) For those we can't get hard data on, adjust their performance relative to other aircraft they should be better or worse than. I think you just got "volunteered" to be one of the test pilots ( if you don't mind) ------------------ "Da Jug" =V67= FM question: Which end does the propeller thingy go on? Fighter Squadron Central ICQ: 121447410 [This message has been edited by Da Jug head (edited 06-22-2001).] IP: Logged
Sailor Pilot	posted 06-25- 02:49 AM OK, I'm again 3 days late reading this forum, so this settles all I wanted to say concerning Spit Vs Me109 (especially Mk1a vs Emil). Just re-read what A. Galland wrote on the sugject and he was very much saying what we usually think is OK, i.e Spit run rate ag Emil speed & climb+dive. One interesting sentence (i quote but traduction is my own so ?) : "The English pilot, being chased, would usually try to evade by a half roll followed by a half looping whereas we could usually follow him by a simple 90 degrees, with full engine power (and to say the truce, our eyes popping out of our heads)". Sailor IP: Logged
Sailor Pilot	posted 06-25- 03:11 AM Here are the results i got when testing 4 1940 planes for FM (to compare the Dewoitine 520 with its competitors). Results obtained with my "old" method, i.e. human pilot. Climb rates measured from a ground start, engine started, chrono started when releasing the brakes and pulling the throttle. I tested speed at 22.000 feet because I had the exact max speed for the De520 at that Alt. Note : all 3 allied planes use pretty much the same optimal angle of climb, arnd 12 to 14� whereas if i recall correctly the Me109 climbs much steeper. One can almost "feel" the power of the DB engine but I wonder if the difference with the Merlin is justified. Dewoitine 520 : at 1.000" : 300 mph at 10.000" : 327 mph at 22.000" : 365 mph acceleration from 200 mph to 300 mph in 38 sec climb rate to 10.000" in 3'28" roll rate (1 roll) at 250 mph at 10.000" 2".75 to the left, 3"30 to the right turn rate 12 to 13" (1 turn, same speed and alt as above). Me109e Emil : at 1.000" : 303 mph at 10.000" : 327 mph at 22.000" : 364 mph acceleration from 200 mph to 300 mph in 34 sec climb rate to 10.000" in 2'38" roll rate (1 roll) at 250 mph at 10.000" 4".20 to the left, 4"80 to the right turn rate 14 to 15" (1 turn, same speed and alt as above). Hurricane Mk1 at 1.000" : 265 mph at 10.000" : 285 mph at 22.000" : 324 mph acceleration from 200 mph to 285 mph (max speed at Alt) in 58 sec climb rate to 10.000" in 4'00" roll rate (1 roll) at 250 mph at 10.000" 5".20 to the left, 5"20 to the right turn rate 15 " (1 turn, same speed and alt as above). Note : I found the Hurricane much more difficult to keep from spinning / stalling in a tight turn or in a fast roll. This might be due to me (not trained enough), to my MS FF joystick, or to the plane. I think this explains the poor handling perfs I have for this plane wich was suppposed to be good at it. SpitMk1a : at 1.000" : 275 mph at 10.000" : 300 mph at 22.000" : 340 mph acceleration from 200 mph to 3000 mph in 64 sec. climb rate to 10.000" in 3'20" roll rate (1 roll) at 250 mph at 10.000" 3"30 to the left, 4"00 to the right turn rate 13 to 15" (1 turn, same speed and alt as above). Is there a place where someone would have gathered all the FM docs that everyone has for reference in the testing process ? I have a couple of docs (Me109, De520 and Me110)that could be usefull but most probably most of you already have all the data ? Sailor [This message has been edited by Sailor (edited 06-25-2001).] IP: Logged
Pachy Pilot	posted 06-25- 10:55 AM Thanks for the testing Sailor. Here are real world values (also in imperialistic units) for the D.520: Speed vs. alt 274 mph @ SL 323 mph @ 10000 ft 335 mph @ 22000 ft Climb 0 to 10000 ft in 4'02'' Turn rate One 360� turn in 15'' (alt unknown) Other data unknown (possibly non-existent) IP: Logged
Maury Markowitz Pilot	posted 06-25- 01:53 PM As to the "high alt" speed being too high, is this not likely due to the incorrect engine performance model? Maury IP: Logged
Sailor Pilot	posted 06-25- 04:30 PM Hi Maury, The De520 like the Spit had a two stage compressor and was optimized for above 5000 meters where it clearly outperformed the Emil despite a less powerfull engine on take off (910 Hp for the Hispano Suiza 12Y49 ag 1150 Hp for the DB601a (or 1175 depending on the sources)). If I understand the way this sim works, it may be difficult to model that kind of performance profile whereas for linear performances planes (relative to alt) you can be correct at nearly all altitudes. It's probably a bit like the Spit's carburator, we all would like it to choke off the engine when taking some negative Gs but it may be some time before the game's engine could handle that. Although with the OPP wizards out there you never know Sailor IP: Logged
Maury Markowitz Pilot	posted 06-25- 05:27 PM quote: Originally posted by Sailor: If I understand the way this sim works, it may be difficult to model that kind of performance profile whereas for linear performances planes (relative to alt) you can be correct at nearly all altitudes. For now perhaps :-) Maury IP: Logged
Da Jug head Pilot	posted 06-25- 08:54 PM Maury, The speed being too high above 20,000 ft is a common problem because there is no HP drop off above 20,000 ft but there is less drag due to the rarified air. Even with turbo/superchargeers, 90% of the speed vs altitude and HP vs altitude curves I've seen start droping off somewhere between 18,000 and 21,000 ft (depending on the plane). Since HP doesn't drop off, the planes get faster above 20,000 feet rather than slower. ------------------ "Da Jug" =V67= FM question: Which end does the propeller thingy go on? Fighter Squadron Central ICQ: 121447410 [This message has been edited by Da Jug head (edited 06-26-2001).] IP: Logged

All times are CT (US)	next newest topic \| next oldest topic
Administrative Options: Close Topic \| Archive/Move \| Delete Topic
	Hop to:

Contact Us | Fighter Squadron Information Center

(This site Copyright (c) 1999 Inertia LLC)

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.45c