The data is flawed for several reasons. airspeed affects cooling, if on a moderate or hot map you might blow your engine.
Secondly, the slower u go the more u engage your radiator slowing u down further.
Third, you might be climbing at an optimal speed but that doesn’t mean you can engage at that climb speed. Example: your min turn speed might be 330kph but u climbed at 280kph… that makes u a sitting duck in the merge.
Remember, everything is contextual. There is no one size fits all solution
Optimal climb speed doesn’t change much you simply throttle down/open radiators to keep the speeda while decreasing angle.
Before any engagement you should straighten out and gain speed.
Instead of angle try using speed. If you’re lazy just stick to ~270 kph for most normal planes (250 for turn fighters and 300 for fast aircraft).
with all due respect, this is bad advice. The radiator effectiveness can determine the lowest speed you can climb or you will damage your engine (AEC and MEC).
Example: British planes are not the fastest nor due they need 300 kph to engage but they do need 300kph in order to not damage the engine with heat.
On a few planes that have major overheating problems that might be the case but most planes can run WEP on AEC while climbing without cooking their engine.
There is a lot more that you’re not seeing and taking into account.
Even if you are under engine over heat temps, the radiator most likely will be fully open. So when you do try to accelerate your plane will not accelerate as it should.
try it with a yak 9 or bf 109 f4, the radiator will slam wide open at lower speeds.
It doesn’t help that auto radiator is very broken even on planes where it doesn’t over heat in that in the example above (109 f4) it shuts the radiator completely weping but then slams it fully open at 100% throttle this is catastrophic for performance and engine health
See the data details of the 109 f4:
I agree with your points, but those points don’t make my data inherently flawed, in fact, I have been using your MEC settings with the climb speed in the charts, and have had no problems. (though I’ve flown few planes) Maybe I should recommend MEC settings for the climb and not worry about MEC for combat situations.
Sorry for the lack of continuation for this project, if it is not clear I am extremely lazy, (dropped out of college because (among other things) the only class that could entertain me as a freshman was Calc 3, and even then I devoted some of my time researching the Goldbach conjecture). Also, I set myself back, because I reset my PC and thus many of my files, including the ones that had the final data. So I have to rewrite the program and continue transferring the data to a spreadsheet.
I know first hand how much work getting this data is. I had variations creep into testing several times that invalidated all the testing up to that point. To put it in perspective, I redid the American tree and German tree at least 3 times due to unexpected findings which invalidated all findings to that point.
When I use the word flaw in this case, it’s in regards to the fact that there are contributing factors to climb speed that make it dynamic. Wind direction, Air temp, radiator performance, prop pitch, engine mixture (rarely), fuel load, compressor stage power curves and aec/mec settings. In addition, air temp does not change with altitude.
Reducing the spread of variation data had everything to do with starting on the same map, runway, starting elevation, minimum 30min fuel tank etc.
That is the reason I give a minimum climb speed to (ideally) not go under, but not a specific absolute ideal climb speed. I hope that clarifies better.
Finding flaws is a good thing, especially early on. ( although painfully disheartening). Please realize when I use the word flaw it’s to warn you to be cautious and constantly recheck your results and more importantly your methodology.
If there is any help I can offer I’m willing to provide it.
This is why I hate virtual communication, Miscommunication. I misunderstood your usage of “flawed”. If there is so much variation, then should I even continue this project? Also, (I’m asking because of your wording) are you aware of where/how I am obtaining this data?
There is variation, but you just have to recognize it and account for it. It’s very manageable and imho, not a reason to be discouraged
As for your methodology, with out over simplifying it, it seems your data mining the results from the actual game files with an intent to automate updating it.
Who the hell deleted this work of art?
Still looking for it, seems like only the chart for FW series aircraft have been archived online.
I have a backup copy here.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1s40wBo4dW0cbu6SMFVt4P15WbvDhuhDxT9xiFgCagVY/edit?usp=sharing
hello can you publish it?
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1s40wBo4dW0cbu6SMFVt4P15WbvDhuhDxT9xiFgCagVY/edit?usp=sharing
Does this link work for you?
Found the issue, the Forum changed the url when trying to embed it. I changed my posts, you should be able to use the link from the forum directly now.
it works now, i recognize this chart, isn’t it super outdated by now?
Yes it is old, but some things haven’t changed… So I suggested it as base for the OP’s research.
And THEN some people wanted to have it…
– E.