Aircraft Top Speeds

[Kalthios]

Top Speeds in level flight at sustainable radiator settings:

Fuel at 70% for British (198 kg), 65% for German (197 kg)


E4B
Altitude = 7,000 feet (2,133 meters)
No WEP: 298 mph (480 kph)
WEP: 308 mph (495 kph)

E4N
Altitude = 7,000 feet (2,133 meters)
No Wep: 301 mph (485 kph)

E4
Altitude = 7,000 feet (2,133 meters)
No WEP: 292 mph (470 kph)
WEP: 298 mph (480 kph)



Ia 100 oct
Altitude = 7,000 feet (2,133 meters)
295 mph (475 kph)
Altitude = 14,000 feet (4,236 meters)
270 mph (435 kph)

IIa
Altitude = 7,000 feet (2,133 meters)
270 mph (435 kph)
Altitude = 14,000 feet (4,236 meters)
275 mph (443 kph)

Please contribute your own speed tests of the various aircraft in the same format.

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Once again Kalthious... your results show Indicated Airspeed, not True Airspeed.

Please take the time to read up on True Airspeed.

In addition, in the game the gauges cannot be taken to read 100% accurately... you need to go to no cockpit view and the virtual gauges to get an accurate reading.

[Kalthios]

Buzzsaw, are all the airspeed dials calibrated to the same temperature and pressure in the different aircraft? Can I change their setting? Typically, how are the airspeed dials inaccurate?

Thank you for telling me that I need to calculate true airspeed ( I assumed that all the dials were calibrated to the same pressure and temperature in the different aircraft by the "ground crew" and dial inaccuracy wouldn't be an issue) I'd love to know more about the airspeed dial to get accurate comparisons of airspeed. Thank you for the help.

[ATAG_Colander]

For one, the game simulates different types of gauges so the spit one will behave differently to the 109 one.
Also, as Buzz said, the crew can calibrate them for sea level but that will mean they are off at altitude (or the other way around).

[Kalthios]

For one, the game simulates different types of gauges so the spit one will behave differently to the 109 one.
Also, as Buzz said, the crew can calibrate them for sea level but that will mean they are off at altitude (or the other way around).

How do you mean the gauges will behave differently?

Do different missions have different pressure and temperature settings for the airspeed dials?

Do all aircraft use the same temperature and pressure settings in the same mission?

[ATAG_Colander]

A Volkswagen beetle gauge has different characteristics than a Ferrari gauge.

[Kalthios]

A Volkswagen beetle gauge has different characteristics than a Ferrari gauge.

That doesn't make any sense. Let's keep it scientific.

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

That doesn't make any sense. Let's keep it scientific.

I have already told you how to keep it scientific... calculate True Airspeeds.

Second your arbitrarily setting the altitudes for testing at 7000 ft means nothing and is highly unscientific.

The theoretical altitude at which a Supercharged aircraft can obtain its maximum speed is at Full Throttle Height for the supercharger, i.e. the height at which the supercharger can maintain its rated boost.

Then you have to add Ram effect, i.e. the effect of additional pressure being generated in the supercharger venturi due to the velocity of the aircraft itself.

You arbitrarily designated 7000 feet as your testing height, and then are surprised to find the E-4B gets the highest maximum speed... it does precisely because its Full Throttle Height is at 3700 meters... closer to your designated altitude than any of the other types. The E-4B, when RAM effect is included, gets its max speed at approx. 3800 meters.

But the other aircraft you included in the comparison have different Full Throttle Heights... all of them higher than the E-4B's.

So these aircraft will get maximum speeds at higher altitudes, again, depending on their aircraft engine's FTH.

By testing all aircraft at 7000 ft, you are handicapping some of them.

Before you start throwing around tests and making claims, you really need to take some time and do research on aerodynamics, supercharged engines and how that translates into performance.

[Biggs]

Some people have been complaining about the spit1A 100 sea level top speed being too slow (305mph indicated) when they were expecting 310mph... Can i tell them that the gauge is off? is it actually going faster than indicated? is the spitIIa gauge reading the same as the spitIa 100?

The engine settings they were claiming to use were 110% throttle 3000rpm... Not sure the rad position. Are they doing something wrong?

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Both Blue and Red types are slower at Sea Level than in TF 4.312.

That is partly historical adjustment and partly the fact there has to be some balancing to make sure the maximum altitude climb ceiling of the aircraft types is accurate.

Even with that considered, 305 mph for the Spit IA 100 octane is not incorrect... although you see higher speeds on certain British tests with 100 octane, it is important to understand those tests were done with a Spit I, an aircraft which did not have the bulletproof windshield fitted, and the windshield typically reduced top speed due to its considerable drag. (it was fitted outside the cockpit instead of inside, as was the case with the Spit VC and later types) The loss of speed due to drag when the windshield was fitted outside was calculated in testing by the RAF at between 6-10 mph. Also a Spit I had a different prop, a prop designed for better speed instead of climb... the Rotol prop on the IA 100 octane was focused on improved climb.

The important thing players will discover about 4.5 is the Spits are faster relative to the 109's at sea level and lower altitudes. They are slower at higher altitudes. Both results are historical.

I will not comment any further about performance... except to say the aircraft are more accurate than 4.312.

[Kalthios]

I have already told you how to keep it scientific... calculate True Airspeeds.

Second your arbitrarily setting the altitudes for testing at 7000 ft means nothing and is highly unscientific.

The theoretical altitude at which a Supercharged aircraft can obtain its maximum speed is at Full Throttle Height for the supercharger, i.e. the height at which the supercharger can maintain its rated boost.

Then you have to add Ram effect, i.e. the effect of additional pressure being generated in the supercharger venturi due to the velocity of the aircraft itself.

You arbitrarily designated 7000 feet as your testing height, and then are surprised to find the E-4B gets the highest maximum speed... it does precisely because its Full Throttle Height is at 3700 meters... closer to your designated altitude than any of the other types. The E-4B, when RAM effect is included, gets its max speed at approx. 3800 meters.

But the other aircraft you included in the comparison have different Full Throttle Heights... all of them higher than the E-4B's.

So these aircraft will get maximum speeds at higher altitudes, again, depending on their aircraft engine's FTH.

By testing all aircraft at 7000 ft, you are handicapping some of them.

Before you start throwing around tests and making claims, you really need to take some time and do research on aerodynamics, supercharged engines and how that translates into performance.

Just skip to the end of my post in bold for relevant conversation

Nothing unscientific about testing airspeeds at exactly the same altitudes. I chose 7,000 feet for speed of setup, the quick mission Free Flight England, starts at 7k feet. I've started testing at 14k feet as well.

I have no idea at what point the different aircraft will achieve their highest speeds, that is why I am trying to collect more data: top airspeeds of different aircraft at different altitudes. I understand that different aircraft have different superchargers that perform differently at different altitudes. I'm not surprised by any of the air speeds I have recorded, nor have I problem with testing all aircraft at all altitudes and was actually asking for that information to be helped gathered by the community.

You tell me I need to go learn about true airspeed, about aerodynamics and supercharged engines, and how they work. How I am doing unscientific testing and that I am "throwing around tests". I find your tone patronizing and frankly, derisive. That's alright, I know that isn't how you are trying to come off and I appreciate that you are trying to help.

That all aside, I would appreciate your's or anyone's assistance. Does anyone know how Airspeed Indicators are calibrated in CloD? As long as we can boot up the same mission with different aircraft and have the Airspeed Indicators calibrated to the same temperature and pressure, we can take relative airspeed measurements.

[ATAG_Bliss]

That doesn't make any sense. Let's keep it scientific.

Yes it does. An analog gauge is only as good as the engineering and design that goes into it for making accurate readings.

Colander’s remark means just that. The sim actually models the differences in the various analog gauges (IE - British vs German instruments etc.). So even though Your altimeter etc is reading a certain altitude etc, doesn’t mean it’s particularly perfectly accurate. It’s designed to be as accurate as the real aircraft was.

In other words, you don’t have the same level of accuracy in the various aircrafts. Sure the sim could have been designed to show 500ft at 500ft, but it actually shows (or tries to show) that between the British and German designs both had a varying degree of inaccuracy compared to reality and different manufactures.

Make sense?

[ATAG_Flare]

Yes it does. An analog gauge is only as good as the engineering and design that goes into it for making accurate readings.

Colander’s remark means just that. The sim actually models the differences in the various analog gauges (IE - British vs German instruments etc.). So even though Your altimeter etc is reading a certain altitude etc, doesn’t mean it’s particularly perfectly accurate. It’s designed to be as accurate as the real aircraft was.

In other words, you don’t have the same level of accuracy in the various aircrafts. Sure the sim could have been designed to show 500ft at 500ft, but it actually shows (or tries to show) that between the British and German designs both had a varying degree of inaccuracy compared to reality and different manufactures.

Make sense?

I didn't know CloD did this. That is incredible cool. Makes me appreciate all the brains at TF even more. Keep it up.