Jump to content

Speed…..


valleyboy

Recommended Posts

Not sure if it’s a problem, or still subject to tweaks on the FM etc.

 

found the following document:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/hj679-dh.pdf
 

which is testing results of a Mosquito FB.VI with Merlin 25’s in 1943 - very specific details of the testing with engine boost, RPM’s etc given and attained speed on the air speed indicator.  Also gives the aircraft weight.

 

page 3 holds the juicy bits for speed attained by engine setting

 

i cant get anywhere near these speeds unless i dive - might just be user error?

but there is no mention of these speeds only attainable by diving - my impression is these are level flight speeds.

 

though interesting to note some other info on website shows that aircraft were sent back to factory if they were deemed sluggish, as it was usually caused by drag - e.g. radiator shutter gap too large etc. Or ill fitting bomb bay doors.

 

anyway, anyone else care to have a stab at matching these test results?

 

cheers

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make sure that atmospheric parameters match values for standard atm very important.


Edited by grafspee

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I have not done proper speed tests in the Mossie the numbers for the lower altitudes do seem quite close to what I see in-game.

 

It might need some tweaking but it seems to be quite good already, you'd have to run some proper tests. Make sure you mod your trim sensitivity when you do this because the current sensitivity doesn't allow for fine enough adjustments to trim the aircraft properly.

  • Like 1


CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 5900X | Mobo: Gigabyte X570 Aorus Pro | RAM: 64GB DDR4 3600 G.Skill TridentZ | GPU: Palit RTX3080 Ti 12GB | SSDs: 2xSabrent Rocket 1TB M.2 | Samsung Pro 256GB | Samsung EVO 850 500GB | Samsung QVO 1TB 

Peripherals: Warthog HOTAS | TrackIR 5 | MFG Crosswinds | 3xTM Cougar MFDs | HP Reverb G2
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1

 

  • Like 1

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 DCS & BMS

F14B | AV-8B | F15E | F18C | F16C | F5 | F86 | A10C | JF17 | Viggen |Mirage 2000 | F1 |  L-39 | C101 | Mig15 | Mig21 | Mig29 | SU27 | SU33 | F15C | AH64 | MI8 | Mi24 | Huey | KA50 | Gazelle | P47 | P51 | BF109 | FW190A/D | Spitfire | Mossie | CA | Persian Gulf | Nevada | Normandy | Channel | Syria | South Atlantic | Sinai 

 Liquid Cooled ROG 690 13700K @ 5.9Ghz | RTX3090 FTW Ultra | 64GB DDR4 3600 MHz | 2x2TB SSD m2 Samsung 980/990 | Pimax Crystal/Reverb G2 | MFG Crosswinds | Virpil T50/CM3 | Winwing & Cougar MFD's | Buddyfox UFC | Winwing TOP & CP | Jetseat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

as Bozon pointed out, this Mozzie did 332 mph with wing tanks on at 6000ft - reading the doc, wing tanks only affected speed by about 8-10mph, but this mozzie was considered slow 

 

the only way I get above 300 is by a shallow dive, but I need to do a thorough test against the data - time is an issue, plus if the misses asks what I’m up to - I need to think of a good excuse! 🤣

 

other test data available:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/hx809.pdf

 

reading the above, they conclude that HJ679 was not typical of type and was 15mph SLOWER than average mosquitos tested!  And that’s taking into account external fuel tanks

 

HX809 did 354mph at sea level….   
and even faster at altitude but had the saxophone type exhausts fitted instead of multi stub.

 

anyway, anyone care to try get 350mph at sea level without having to dive! 

 

 


Edited by valleyboy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
1 hour ago, valleyboy said:

 

as Bozon pointed out, this Mozzie did 332 mph with wing tanks on at 6000ft - reading the doc, wing tanks only affected speed by about 8-10mph, but this mozzie was considered slow 

 

the only way I get above 300 is by a shallow dive, but I need to do a thorough test against the data - time is an issue, plus if the misses asks what I’m up to - I need to think of a good excuse! 🤣

 

other test data available:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/hx809.pdf

 

reading the above, they conclude that HJ679 was not typical of type and was 15mph SLOWER than average mosquitos tested!  And that’s taking into account external fuel tanks

 

HX809 did 354mph at sea level….   
and even faster at altitude but had the saxophone type exhausts fitted instead of multi stub.

 

anyway, anyone care to try get 350mph at sea level without having to dive! 

 

 

 

The test stated RAD CLOSE. Try it and you will be surprised...

Ніщо так сильно не ранить мозок, як уламки скла від розбитих рожевих окулярів

There is nothing so hurtful for the brain as splinters of broken rose-coloured spectacles.

Ничто так сильно не ранит мозг, как осколки стекла от разбитых розовых очков (С) Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/9/2021 at 8:30 AM, Derbysieger said:

While I have not done proper speed tests in the Mossie the numbers for the lower altitudes do seem quite close to what I see in-game.

 

It might need some tweaking but it seems to be quite good already, you'd have to run some proper tests. Make sure you mod your trim sensitivity when you do this because the current sensitivity doesn't allow for fine enough adjustments to trim the aircraft properly.


you mention ‘modding’ the trim sensitivity…  can you please explain how this is done?

 

I am finding the Mossie hard to trim making it’s a real handful, impossible to formation fly with and useless as a gun platform and believe that she is unrealistically tail heavy… what are your thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Yank said:


you mention ‘modding’ the trim sensitivity…  can you please explain how this is done?

 

I am finding the Mossie hard to trim making it’s a real handful, impossible to formation fly with and useless as a gun platform and believe that she is unrealistically tail heavy… what are your thoughts?

 

Check this out regarding trim:

 

As to your other points I don't agree.

 

From what I have read the Mossie is actually quite tail havy, whether it is correct or overdone in DCS is not something I am qualified to judge.

 

I have flown the Mossie quite a lot since release and I have to say she is a joy to fly in formation and also in combat. I would say it is actually an excellent gun platform. Very stable and precise, plus the 20mm cannons are absolutely wrecking everything that comes in front of your nose.


Edited by Derbysieger


CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 5900X | Mobo: Gigabyte X570 Aorus Pro | RAM: 64GB DDR4 3600 G.Skill TridentZ | GPU: Palit RTX3080 Ti 12GB | SSDs: 2xSabrent Rocket 1TB M.2 | Samsung Pro 256GB | Samsung EVO 850 500GB | Samsung QVO 1TB 

Peripherals: Warthog HOTAS | TrackIR 5 | MFG Crosswinds | 3xTM Cougar MFDs | HP Reverb G2
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trim like in the Mustang. Rudder trim first to eliminate the slip, then deal with aileron/elavator trim. If you don’t trim the rudder/side slip first you’ll be all over the place and the aircraft will have more induced drag. 

PC: MSI X670E, Ryzen 9 7900X, 64GB DDR5 RAM, RTX 3090 Ti, TM Warthog HOTAS, Saitek Pro Flight pedals, Opentrack

Link to my Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/DieselThunderAviation

Commander, 62nd Virtual Fighter Squadron

Join the 62nd VFS today! Link to our discord server: https://discord.gg/Z25BSKk84s

Patch_v1.2 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/10/2021 at 10:44 PM, iFoxRomeo said:

With 23.9lb/sq.in. We only have 18lb/sq.in

 

With 18 lb HX809 reached 332mph

 

mossie.jpg

 

 

There is no performance data that I am aware of for our exact configuration. HJ679 was tested with drop tanks on, and was likely a lemon regarding its performance, as stated in the later HX809 report. HX809 was equipped with the saxophone ducts covered by flame dampeners - this is a highly unfavorable configuration as the saxophone ducts were slower than the short multi-stubs that we have, and the flame dampeners on top of that had a significant negative effect on speed. The HX809 report states that other tests (with B.IV model, also available from the same website) indicated 15 mph difference of max speed between the exhausts configurations with M.S. gear and at +9 boost - the difference at +18 boost should be even greater!

 

Link to the B.IV exhaust systems comparison:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/dk290-b.pdf

 

From this comes the common estimate that for the optimal configuration (short stubs exhausts, no flame dampeners, no drop tanks) FB.VI should do 350 mph at +18 boost 0 altitude - Though no explicit test data for this specific condition can be found (AFAIK).

 


Edited by Bozon

“Mosquitoes fly, but flies don’t Mosquito” :pilotfly:

- Geoffrey de Havilland.

 

... well, he could have said it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...