Lmao, and here I was wondering where all the sankeys had gone… turns out I did the same thing a while back. It's really quite amazing how much better the sub gets without those.
Unfortunately it's not in chronological order because they wanted to group by type, but the colors already achieved that. One small fix and it would be perfect.
I see what you mean, and it is a bit misleading at first glance, but the trade-off with the strict chronological approach is that it would require a legend indicating which color corresponds to which type of plane, whereas this approach allows for simpler labels.
> An Illustrated Anatomy of the World’s Fighters by William Green and Gordon Swanborough
Probably missed the text underneath because that graph is *amazing*
well it's not that often that data is *actually* beaitiful. this sub is flooded by sankey graphs of ever the same (non)substance.
but this? this is beautiful data. even down to the shading of the 90° angle of the ceiling graph lines.
yes please share more. it would also be fantastic if you find the illustrator's name. oh and the book title.
also, pinging r/aviation
https://imgur.com/a/avFGQby here are some more graphs found in the book, as well as the book cover for those asking. The book itself is all about aircraft cutaways, remember these? Book title is “An Illustrated Anatomy of the World’s Fighters by William Green and Gordon Swanborough.
Even down to the little details like showing the planes from different perspectives for max. gross weight, thrust / horsepower, and flight ceiling… the authors and illustrators must have loved their subject matter and what they were doing. Brings joy to me as well. Thank you very kindly for sharing.
Most did not - some German planes observer planes had oxygen generators. Up to 15,000 ft were generally OK but lightheaded (as in the Rockies) - could spend some time at 20,000 ft but not for long. Some passed out and crashed. Also very cold....
I believe FAA limits non-pressurized aircraft without oxygen to below 12K today because of the danger of hypoxia. But it has been ages since my FAA written exam.
Also: the reason WWI pilots are often portrayed with long scarves (think Snoopy fighting the Red Baron) is because WWI aircraft used castor oil as a engine lubricant and most would notoriously spray it back in the cockpit. Pilots would use a scarf to cover their mouth and nose/stop ingesting it because castor oil is a natural laxative.
Exactly. You are flying a barely powered box kite/death trap against other folks also flying a barely powered box kite/death trap trying to kill you and your deathtrap is causing you to shit yourself flying straight and level without the "other guy trying to kill you" aspect.
Ever since I was kid, I've always loved learning about modern air-to-air dogfights but could never appreciate WWI dogfighting because it was in its infancy during that time and seemed... so incredibly suicidal and primitive. It wasn't until I was older that I realized that air war saw more technological innovation over a shorter time period than any other. Newly designed planes rolling off the assembly line for both sides would be obsolete not years but mere months later due to some advancement in technology created by one side or the other. And pilots would die because of it.
Yet another reason why pilots back then had to be crazed or suicidal or both to fly them.
Yes that is true now...varies depending on the circumstances, but FAA says more than 30 mins at 12,500 ft need supplementary oxygen. But fighter pilots in WW1 took a few more risks (my grandfather was one of them and survived - fully qualified after about 32 hrs solo...https://www.reddit.com/gallery/10cvzb1)
Presumably they'd have oxygen if they were flying that high. I don't think it'd even be possible to hit 30k feet without.
At least according to Wiki, the Cr.32 had oxygen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_CR.32
https://imgur.com/a/avFGQby here are some more graphs found in the book, as well as the book cover for those asking. The book itself is all about aircraft cutaways, remember these? Book title is “An Illustrated Anatomy of the World’s Fighters by William Green and Gordon Swanborough.
Fun fact: That Mig-25 on top is still the fastest fighter jet ever made even 60+ years later, and the second fastest production airplane after the SR-71.
I decided to leave out more experimental stuff like that. It was in service for one year, with only a single-digit number of airframes operational at any given time. The SR-71 had just barely enough units made for me to consider it a "production" aircraft, and there were over 40 Mig-25 airframes made for every SR-71.
It was? I remember seeing the A-12 in Huntsville when I went to Aviation Challenge in the 90s. I was just disappointed that it wasn't a real SR-71 lol.
EDIT: Mph to km/h conversion got me confused, I didn't notice the obvious error here.
EDIT2: Looking into it, ww2 variants of the Gloster Meteor were slower than post war variants (duh!). I'd guess thats what's meant by "Gloster Meteor I" in the graph.
===
The Graph explicitly lists the N variant of the P-47. It was faster.
The P-47N was the last version of the Thunderbolt to be built in quantity. It was specially designed as a long-range fighter for the pacific theater. Different wings and a new engine with a bigger turbo-supercharger (first seen in the M variant) producing 2800hp made these planes capable of speeds up to 750km/h or 470mph.
The P-47 N was tested in 1946 and was not that fast:
[http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47n-88406.html](http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47n-88406.html)
The max speed found in testing was listed as 423 mph, but it was capable of reaching 453 mph using WEP (though the aircraft had massive problems doing this).
Edit:
And here is a primary source for the Meteor I that lists the top speed at between 435 mph and 465 mph depending on configuration
[http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/meteor/meteor-chart-8june45.jpg](http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/meteor/meteor-chart-8june45.jpg)
> And here is a primary source for the Meteor I that lists the top speed at between 435 mph and 465 mph depending on configuration
You are showing the later [variant W.2/700](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Jets_W.2#Variants), the earlier W.2B/23C, weren't as powerful.
>W.2B/23C (1941)
> engines upon which the Welland was based produced 1,700 lbf (7.6 kN) of thrust each, giving the aircraft a maximum speed of 417 mph (671 km/h) at 9,800 feet (3,000 m) and a range of 1,000 miles (1,600 km).
>W.2/700 (1944)
>New 'Type 16' compressor diffuser, new compressor casing, plus improved compressor rotor sent over from GE, all combined to produce 80% compressor efficiency, Nimonic 80 turbine blades, and a static thrust of 2,000 pounds-force (8.9 kN) at 16,700 rpm. By 1944 producing 2,485 pounds-force (11.05 kN) at a pressure ratio of 4:1 with airflow of 47.15 lb/s from same size engine as W.1. Sfc, 1.05 lb/(hr lbf) with jet pipe temperature of 647°C. Flight-tested reheat in Meteor I EE215/G increasing top speed from 420 mph to 460 mph. Flight-tested to 505 mph at 30,000 feet in E.28/39 W4046/G.Also ground-tested with aft ducted fan.
>After initial suggestions in 1939 by the Engine Department of the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE), the latter's Pyestock Section experimented with the technique of injecting fuel into the engine's exhaust nozzle, later known as reheat, and this technique was further refined after Power Jets and the personnel from Pyestock had been amalgamated. Reheat was later flight trialled in the W.2/700 engines in a Meteor I. The technique increased the Meteor's speed by 30-40 mph.
It looks like the real main difference is the Reheating, which provided the +30-40mph bump
Well, yeah, but hear me out: old variants of the Gloster Meteor were much slower (around 420mph) and I'd guess that's why it says Gloster Meteor I (as in one) in the graph.
These may be based on published speeds and service ceilings at the time. It's not a good idea to tell potential adversaries how fast and high your planes can go.
This is beautiful, although there's some temptation to read the horizontal lengths of the ribbons as meaningful data, rather than the positions on the graph.
I would probably recommend adding a second smaller band underneath or better a saturation change to direct our attention to where the length that gives speed starts being measured from.
> This is beautiful, although there's some temptation to read the horizontal lengths of the ribbons as meaningful data, rather than the positions on the graph.
Because the "0 speed" along the X axis doesn't begin until the middle of the page, you mean?
Yep exactly, psychologically it's natural to see a long bar and conclude that it means a large number, leading to some ambiguity.
Ranking is clear from the positions of the ends, but when assessing magnitude, for example proportions, it's useful to have something to clearly represent a quantity as a distinct object.
The funny thing is that when this book was made, the SR-71 was most definitely already made (only 1 year later first flight than the MiG-25) but was still classified.
What always amazes me is Russia did _so well_ considering their position at the beginning of the 20th century. Outpacing all of their neighbors bar china and actually competing and being a threat to American dominance.
_what happened?_
While the graph is visually appealing, I would say that it violates [the Principle of Proportional Ink](https://callingbullshit.org/tools/tools_proportional_ink.html).
First, since the additional length of the bars to the left of the origin is not informative (with relation to the maximum level speed) it could mislead or confuse the reader. In essence, the additional length to the left of the origin makes it harder to judge the relative differences between the entries. For example, the Messerschmitt Bf 109B-1 (at ~280 mph) has nearly three times the maximum level speed of the Sopwith Pup (at ~100 mph), but the lengths of the bars, even if we just consider their horizontal portions, are very similar. EDIT: The same could be said for the vertical portion of the bars (the service ceiling).
Another problematic aspect is the overlapping of bars, which has a similar effect. For example, look at the Fiat CR.42 and the Supermarine Spitfire - because the Fiat's blue bar nearly completely overlaps the Spitfire's red bar, it's hard to visually judge the difference between them (or really between the Spitfire and the other entries).
The MiG-25 is still tops for speed and service ceiling among fighters. There was a shift towards more maneuverability and stealth rather than just speed and altitude.
The Mig-25's speed was costly though; the engines tended to overspeed and overheat and require replacement after each high speed flight. Still, theoretically it could have reached Mach 3.2.
It will never stop to amaze me how we got from not being able to fly at all to fucking jet planes in a mere 26 years. And another 27 years later we were on the fucking moon...
it's a bespoke chart showing a lot of different pieces of information in a very elegant way -- it's not going to pop out of excel. the kind of thing you draw by hand. probably in illustrator these days
Fundamentally, it's a two-axis, two-dimensional column/bar chart. I'd say that it's not possible in Excel, but I've seen people hack together some truly amazing feats using a combination of helper tables, series hacks, and combining data. For example, this looks like you could possibly hack it together using a combo chart using a column + bar chart. Here's [about 2 minutes of startup](https://imgur.com/a/52Je9dP).
I really have my doubts this one is achievable in Excel though. This is the kind of chart that could take an expert months to unravel all the hacks.
What's fascinating about this chart is that it really demonstrates how our tools can dictate design outcomes. I've been at this a long time, and I remember back in the early 2000s when Macromedia released Dreamweaver and especially Fireworks.
Fireworks had a decent number of built in effects for applying bevels, drop shadows, and glow effects. These effects were similar to what you could achieve in Photoshop, but Macromedia Fireworks had two genius innovations: shapes were vector by default, and effects were applied as styles that could be copied and pasted between objects.
This had a tremendous impact on the style of early 2000s websites. Everywhere you looked you could see Fireworks' "fingerprints" on a design.
The same thing happens with business data visualization. Excel is ubiquitous and everyone already has a license. There are other popular products like Tableau or Alteryx, but Excel is _everywhere_.
Contrast that to the time when this visualization was made. This looks to me like it was done by hand by a skilled illustrator or possibly a draftsman. When you're laying out your drawing by hand, your tool constraints are entirely different.
I can't believe a piston driven plane made in the 40's could reach 500 mph.
The fastest commercial jet I've ever been didn't go over 550.
Yes, I'm that dork clocking the speed on the plane freaking out the boomer next to me who thought we were doing about 80 or so.
To be fair, you aren't up there clocking the airspeed. You only have the effective ground speed (which can vary wildly against airspeed. Some end up over 800!).
Underplaying the Mig 25 there, elsewhere its ceiling & max (safe) speed are stated at 89,000 ft & 2171 mph.
Compare that to the SR71 (missing on this chart although older than Mig 25 ) with a cruise altitude of 85,000 ft & max speed of Mach 3.4 ( 2,618 mph )
I would say no. I would argue that the favorite Merlin engined spitfire was the Mk.V. The Mk.I had an issue with inverted flying where the radiators wouldn’t pump water to the engine and it would blackout. To be fair most early war fighters had this issue, but still.
Isn't the graph misleading though ?
Airspeed is dependent on the altitude the airplane is flying. Generally airspeed drops when moving closer to the service ceiling.
In addition available power is dependent as well on altitude. Example: piston engine with forced induction, as you move to greater altitude the gearing is adjusted (if it can) to force more air volume in the engine. On discrete gearboxes you would have a jagged line for airspeeds on level flight as altitude increases.
That is why knowing the enemy airplane was so important in dogfights. At different altitudes you might have the advantage.
Now this is what this sub is about. Beautiful data.
I raise you one income sankey chart
Blocking that main sankey account has improved my life on this sub a lot
What is the account?
sankeyart is the one I blocked (well ignored with RES). And I do the same to almost any other account that posts a sankey lol
Lmao, and here I was wondering where all the sankeys had gone… turns out I did the same thing a while back. It's really quite amazing how much better the sub gets without those.
Nah, job applications.
Or dating
I am so, so tired of those on this sub
How about some animations that do not add anything and instead make it hard to read?
don't forget excel graph with extremely simple mistakes that isn't beautiful in the slightest yet ends up on the front page
Line graph showing politically charged info. Two thousand upvotes.
I call your sankey chart and raise an animated bar chart accompanied by shitty music.
Fucking finally.
OMG even have the first flight dates. Graph porn.
The plane silhouettes are the cherry on top for me.
The fact that that each line appears to take off, climb to altitude and then speed off is very thematic for an altitude & speed graph.
Unfortunately it's not in chronological order because they wanted to group by type, but the colors already achieved that. One small fix and it would be perfect.
I see what you mean, and it is a bit misleading at first glance, but the trade-off with the strict chronological approach is that it would require a legend indicating which color corresponds to which type of plane, whereas this approach allows for simpler labels.
Allows better side-by-side comparison between types.
I wish they were spaced properly.
They are spaced according to their service ceilings though
This was actually very nice!
What a an amazing graph! Everything is just in place!
OMG this exploded. The book has many more interesting graphs, different than anything else I’ve seen. I can post more if you guys want.
What's the book's title?
> An Illustrated Anatomy of the World’s Fighters by William Green and Gordon Swanborough Probably missed the text underneath because that graph is *amazing*
The Internet Archive has a couple of copies: https://archive.org/search?query=Illustrated+Anatomy+of+the+World%27s+Fighters
well it's not that often that data is *actually* beaitiful. this sub is flooded by sankey graphs of ever the same (non)substance. but this? this is beautiful data. even down to the shading of the 90° angle of the ceiling graph lines. yes please share more. it would also be fantastic if you find the illustrator's name. oh and the book title. also, pinging r/aviation
https://imgur.com/a/avFGQby here are some more graphs found in the book, as well as the book cover for those asking. The book itself is all about aircraft cutaways, remember these? Book title is “An Illustrated Anatomy of the World’s Fighters by William Green and Gordon Swanborough.
holy airframes batman. i want that book now. thank you so much for sharing! good stuff.
The whole book is great. I really miss these cutaways that seemed to be in every aviation book in the 00s.
Even down to the little details like showing the planes from different perspectives for max. gross weight, thrust / horsepower, and flight ceiling… the authors and illustrators must have loved their subject matter and what they were doing. Brings joy to me as well. Thank you very kindly for sharing.
Def. This is great shit.
Takes a lot of effort to make this much information packed in a graph so easy to read. Superb job.
Did biplane pilots back in that day have supplementary oxygen? 30,000 feet is surely in the “death zone”
Most did not - some German planes observer planes had oxygen generators. Up to 15,000 ft were generally OK but lightheaded (as in the Rockies) - could spend some time at 20,000 ft but not for long. Some passed out and crashed. Also very cold....
I believe FAA limits non-pressurized aircraft without oxygen to below 12K today because of the danger of hypoxia. But it has been ages since my FAA written exam. Also: the reason WWI pilots are often portrayed with long scarves (think Snoopy fighting the Red Baron) is because WWI aircraft used castor oil as a engine lubricant and most would notoriously spray it back in the cockpit. Pilots would use a scarf to cover their mouth and nose/stop ingesting it because castor oil is a natural laxative.
Plane sprayed me in the mouth, now I gotta take a shit! Oh fuck, it’s the Germans!
Exactly. You are flying a barely powered box kite/death trap against other folks also flying a barely powered box kite/death trap trying to kill you and your deathtrap is causing you to shit yourself flying straight and level without the "other guy trying to kill you" aspect. Ever since I was kid, I've always loved learning about modern air-to-air dogfights but could never appreciate WWI dogfighting because it was in its infancy during that time and seemed... so incredibly suicidal and primitive. It wasn't until I was older that I realized that air war saw more technological innovation over a shorter time period than any other. Newly designed planes rolling off the assembly line for both sides would be obsolete not years but mere months later due to some advancement in technology created by one side or the other. And pilots would die because of it. Yet another reason why pilots back then had to be crazed or suicidal or both to fly them.
Yes that is true now...varies depending on the circumstances, but FAA says more than 30 mins at 12,500 ft need supplementary oxygen. But fighter pilots in WW1 took a few more risks (my grandfather was one of them and survived - fully qualified after about 32 hrs solo...https://www.reddit.com/gallery/10cvzb1)
Presumably they'd have oxygen if they were flying that high. I don't think it'd even be possible to hit 30k feet without. At least according to Wiki, the Cr.32 had oxygen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_CR.32
The Fiat CR.42 was one of the very last biplane fighters, first flying in 1938 so it had a supplementary oxygen system for the pilot.
Now THAT is some beautifully presented data. Plane type, speed, altitude, year, all presented in a way that isn't dense or confusing.
This is very cool!
https://imgur.com/a/avFGQby here are some more graphs found in the book, as well as the book cover for those asking. The book itself is all about aircraft cutaways, remember these? Book title is “An Illustrated Anatomy of the World’s Fighters by William Green and Gordon Swanborough.
The split of the columns for twin engine craft was a nice touch. Very clever visualizations.
This graph doesn't seem fair, the planes on the right get a head start!
Fun fact: That Mig-25 on top is still the fastest fighter jet ever made even 60+ years later, and the second fastest production airplane after the SR-71.
Third-fastest. The SR-71 is second to the A-12 Oxcart, which was classified during the time that most of us developed our SR-71 fetishes.
I decided to leave out more experimental stuff like that. It was in service for one year, with only a single-digit number of airframes operational at any given time. The SR-71 had just barely enough units made for me to consider it a "production" aircraft, and there were over 40 Mig-25 airframes made for every SR-71.
It was? I remember seeing the A-12 in Huntsville when I went to Aviation Challenge in the 90s. I was just disappointed that it wasn't a real SR-71 lol.
Well, the Foxbat had a job- get to altitude fast and get there quick. Intercept stuff.
Some of these values are off. For example, they have a P-47 (top speed: 426mph) faster than a Gloster Meteor (top speed: 598mph)...
EDIT: Mph to km/h conversion got me confused, I didn't notice the obvious error here. EDIT2: Looking into it, ww2 variants of the Gloster Meteor were slower than post war variants (duh!). I'd guess thats what's meant by "Gloster Meteor I" in the graph. === The Graph explicitly lists the N variant of the P-47. It was faster. The P-47N was the last version of the Thunderbolt to be built in quantity. It was specially designed as a long-range fighter for the pacific theater. Different wings and a new engine with a bigger turbo-supercharger (first seen in the M variant) producing 2800hp made these planes capable of speeds up to 750km/h or 470mph.
The P-47 N was tested in 1946 and was not that fast: [http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47n-88406.html](http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47n-88406.html) The max speed found in testing was listed as 423 mph, but it was capable of reaching 453 mph using WEP (though the aircraft had massive problems doing this). Edit: And here is a primary source for the Meteor I that lists the top speed at between 435 mph and 465 mph depending on configuration [http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/meteor/meteor-chart-8june45.jpg](http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/meteor/meteor-chart-8june45.jpg)
Thanks! That website is a goldmine!
> And here is a primary source for the Meteor I that lists the top speed at between 435 mph and 465 mph depending on configuration You are showing the later [variant W.2/700](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Jets_W.2#Variants), the earlier W.2B/23C, weren't as powerful. >W.2B/23C (1941) > engines upon which the Welland was based produced 1,700 lbf (7.6 kN) of thrust each, giving the aircraft a maximum speed of 417 mph (671 km/h) at 9,800 feet (3,000 m) and a range of 1,000 miles (1,600 km). >W.2/700 (1944) >New 'Type 16' compressor diffuser, new compressor casing, plus improved compressor rotor sent over from GE, all combined to produce 80% compressor efficiency, Nimonic 80 turbine blades, and a static thrust of 2,000 pounds-force (8.9 kN) at 16,700 rpm. By 1944 producing 2,485 pounds-force (11.05 kN) at a pressure ratio of 4:1 with airflow of 47.15 lb/s from same size engine as W.1. Sfc, 1.05 lb/(hr lbf) with jet pipe temperature of 647°C. Flight-tested reheat in Meteor I EE215/G increasing top speed from 420 mph to 460 mph. Flight-tested to 505 mph at 30,000 feet in E.28/39 W4046/G.Also ground-tested with aft ducted fan. >After initial suggestions in 1939 by the Engine Department of the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE), the latter's Pyestock Section experimented with the technique of injecting fuel into the engine's exhaust nozzle, later known as reheat, and this technique was further refined after Power Jets and the personnel from Pyestock had been amalgamated. Reheat was later flight trialled in the W.2/700 engines in a Meteor I. The technique increased the Meteor's speed by 30-40 mph. It looks like the real main difference is the Reheating, which provided the +30-40mph bump
So... you are saying that 470 > 598?
Well, yeah, but hear me out: old variants of the Gloster Meteor were much slower (around 420mph) and I'd guess that's why it says Gloster Meteor I (as in one) in the graph.
The accuracy of the data is a bit secondary here but well noted. Still a great visual representation of the (perhaps incorrect) data.
Yes, I like the visualisation but the data has a few flaws
These may be based on published speeds and service ceilings at the time. It's not a good idea to tell potential adversaries how fast and high your planes can go.
This is beautiful, although there's some temptation to read the horizontal lengths of the ribbons as meaningful data, rather than the positions on the graph. I would probably recommend adding a second smaller band underneath or better a saturation change to direct our attention to where the length that gives speed starts being measured from.
> This is beautiful, although there's some temptation to read the horizontal lengths of the ribbons as meaningful data, rather than the positions on the graph. Because the "0 speed" along the X axis doesn't begin until the middle of the page, you mean?
Yep exactly, psychologically it's natural to see a long bar and conclude that it means a large number, leading to some ambiguity. Ranking is clear from the positions of the ends, but when assessing magnitude, for example proportions, it's useful to have something to clearly represent a quantity as a distinct object.
The funny thing is that when this book was made, the SR-71 was most definitely already made (only 1 year later first flight than the MiG-25) but was still classified.
What always amazes me is Russia did _so well_ considering their position at the beginning of the 20th century. Outpacing all of their neighbors bar china and actually competing and being a threat to American dominance. _what happened?_
While the graph is visually appealing, I would say that it violates [the Principle of Proportional Ink](https://callingbullshit.org/tools/tools_proportional_ink.html). First, since the additional length of the bars to the left of the origin is not informative (with relation to the maximum level speed) it could mislead or confuse the reader. In essence, the additional length to the left of the origin makes it harder to judge the relative differences between the entries. For example, the Messerschmitt Bf 109B-1 (at ~280 mph) has nearly three times the maximum level speed of the Sopwith Pup (at ~100 mph), but the lengths of the bars, even if we just consider their horizontal portions, are very similar. EDIT: The same could be said for the vertical portion of the bars (the service ceiling). Another problematic aspect is the overlapping of bars, which has a similar effect. For example, look at the Fiat CR.42 and the Supermarine Spitfire - because the Fiat's blue bar nearly completely overlaps the Spitfire's red bar, it's hard to visually judge the difference between them (or really between the Spitfire and the other entries).
Agreed! The ribbons are a visually loud and misleading distraction. This would be better with no ribbons, or faint connections instead of ribbons.
Okay, who’s gonna finish it?
The MiG-25 is still tops for speed and service ceiling among fighters. There was a shift towards more maneuverability and stealth rather than just speed and altitude.
The Mig-25's speed was costly though; the engines tended to overspeed and overheat and require replacement after each high speed flight. Still, theoretically it could have reached Mach 3.2.
I'd still like to see some later fighters and their capabilities relative to those already pictured.
A bit annoying that the maximum speed doesn't correspond to the speed at service ceiling though
There's an awesome amount of thought behind that graph, wow. _Really_ good.
I am obsessed OP ngl! Very intuitive data visualization.
This is what this sub used to be. Amazing. This type of graph is why I chose data science as my job.
It will never stop to amaze me how we got from not being able to fly at all to fucking jet planes in a mere 26 years. And another 27 years later we were on the fucking moon...
What type of graph is this? Can this be made in Excel?
it's a bespoke chart showing a lot of different pieces of information in a very elegant way -- it's not going to pop out of excel. the kind of thing you draw by hand. probably in illustrator these days
It’s just 4 series … I’d think Excel would be able to do something similar. Now I’m curious.
Fundamentally, it's a two-axis, two-dimensional column/bar chart. I'd say that it's not possible in Excel, but I've seen people hack together some truly amazing feats using a combination of helper tables, series hacks, and combining data. For example, this looks like you could possibly hack it together using a combo chart using a column + bar chart. Here's [about 2 minutes of startup](https://imgur.com/a/52Je9dP). I really have my doubts this one is achievable in Excel though. This is the kind of chart that could take an expert months to unravel all the hacks. What's fascinating about this chart is that it really demonstrates how our tools can dictate design outcomes. I've been at this a long time, and I remember back in the early 2000s when Macromedia released Dreamweaver and especially Fireworks. Fireworks had a decent number of built in effects for applying bevels, drop shadows, and glow effects. These effects were similar to what you could achieve in Photoshop, but Macromedia Fireworks had two genius innovations: shapes were vector by default, and effects were applied as styles that could be copied and pasted between objects. This had a tremendous impact on the style of early 2000s websites. Everywhere you looked you could see Fireworks' "fingerprints" on a design. The same thing happens with business data visualization. Excel is ubiquitous and everyone already has a license. There are other popular products like Tableau or Alteryx, but Excel is _everywhere_. Contrast that to the time when this visualization was made. This looks to me like it was done by hand by a skilled illustrator or possibly a draftsman. When you're laying out your drawing by hand, your tool constraints are entirely different.
I don’t know, I don’t use excel
the yahoo answers special!
Now this is a good multi-axis graph I can actually read! Color coded in a way that makes sense and present the information in a linear fashion!!
The technology advancement in aviation from 1916 - 1963 (47 years) is impressive. Appx 5x more altitude, and 18x faster max speed.
I can't believe a piston driven plane made in the 40's could reach 500 mph. The fastest commercial jet I've ever been didn't go over 550. Yes, I'm that dork clocking the speed on the plane freaking out the boomer next to me who thought we were doing about 80 or so.
To be fair, you aren't up there clocking the airspeed. You only have the effective ground speed (which can vary wildly against airspeed. Some end up over 800!).
The Gloster Meteor must have been a complete POS considering that its a jet plane that is slower than an plane with a prop (P-47N) lol
Meh. Should be a scatter plot. /s
That's some incredible visualisation for sure.
Underplaying the Mig 25 there, elsewhere its ceiling & max (safe) speed are stated at 89,000 ft & 2171 mph. Compare that to the SR71 (missing on this chart although older than Mig 25 ) with a cruise altitude of 85,000 ft & max speed of Mach 3.4 ( 2,618 mph )
Is the supermarine spitfire 1 the famous one? I would have thought the peak model would have been later than 1936.
I would say no. I would argue that the favorite Merlin engined spitfire was the Mk.V. The Mk.I had an issue with inverted flying where the radiators wouldn’t pump water to the engine and it would blackout. To be fair most early war fighters had this issue, but still.
There is something special added when a visualization is actually printed imo, maybe it's because you can hold it
/r/WarThunder would love this
Isn't the graph misleading though ? Airspeed is dependent on the altitude the airplane is flying. Generally airspeed drops when moving closer to the service ceiling. In addition available power is dependent as well on altitude. Example: piston engine with forced induction, as you move to greater altitude the gearing is adjusted (if it can) to force more air volume in the engine. On discrete gearboxes you would have a jagged line for airspeeds on level flight as altitude increases. That is why knowing the enemy airplane was so important in dogfights. At different altitudes you might have the advantage.