Maybe the 190s arent wrong....or how to be really unpopular in 1 step

[Crumpp]

It's pure and plain 3D and no calculation gives more accurate result.

It is not Gripen.  Your pushing pure baloney and acting like a child.  If it does not consider the shape of the wing it is not 3D theory by definiton.  

Calculation of CL alone is not 3D theory either, it is part of it.  Unless you take the next step in the process and consider AR and efficiency.

For high angle of attack situations such as turn, 3D is more accurate than calculations based on CL alone.  Why?  It is an area were the dimensions ae not as trival.  

Not to say that there are not other acceptable methods or other ways to do it as many conditions of flight the dimensions are trivial as bozon point out.

Anyone can work the following problem and see the difference in the theory:

Assume two planes of equal weight, equal wing area, and equal speed flown in the same atmosphere.

One has an elliptical wing with no twist, and the other a square wing with no twist. The CL will calculate out exactly the same using that formula.

These wings may have the exact same CL but they will not have the exact same abilities or characteristics.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Waffle]

Originally posted by BlauK
Waffle,
I said, dont move the eye
Only rotate it!

.. but anyways. You are already close to the solution. You already got more viewing angle. Congratulations!

In other words, what yuo see is what you get! Now look again at those pich where the vertical frames appear thinner!

First pic - the eye didn't move..and you cannot see P1...

The only way to see P1 is to move the eye, which is illustrated in the second posted pic.

[BlauK]

nooo  , you were so close...

In first picture yuo did not rotate the eye and in 2nd yuo had to go and move it

Try one more time, please. Rotete, but dont move!

[Waffle]

Tell you what Blauk - you give me the angle from P1 - use dead center (1 pixel lines)  to the outer frames edge (no-mans land - cant see nothing but frame mount)

Let me know that angle and post that pic.

It's not a simple as rotating to fit - theres a refraction angle in the glass which corresponds to the angle (LOS) that hits the glass. Thats what the second pic was about. Which is how seeing p1 results in having to move the eyepoint forward. As you rotate - you will also have to move the eyepoint forward some to see P1 due to the refraction angle changing in the glass.

[BlauK]

Waffle,
it is not really about the exact numbers, but about the principle.

Anyways, try 38,7 degrees. I dont know if yuo wil lbe able to fit the whol egreen dot, or just part of it, bu tin any case you can get a wider view than without teh armoured glass.

Here is the pic with 38,7 degs:

[BlauK]

btw Waffle, what material are yuo using for the armoured glass?

I got interested in teh actual numbers, so I found this kind of values from net:

Air       1,0003
Plexiglass   1,51
Crown Glass   1,52
Light Flint glass   1,58
Dense flint glass   1,66

Your 40 angle refracts as 28,9, whereas I get even with the plexiglas a refraction of 25,2 degrees.. which allows more view than your 28,9 degs.

I really wonder if the density of the armoured glass would also be higher than that of normal glass... no idea.

[Waffle]

ding ding ding....lol

Thats why I was curious as to what type glass it was made out of. Actually this is kinda a moot point without that knowledge...

BTW - I ran the last pict with a 28 degree refraction...and the line ended up slightly behind the eyepoint...which would mean out of feild of view? or having to move back a small amount...lol

Anyway - I got crap to do today...wasted enough time today...

[BlauK]

Originally posted by Waffle BAS
BTW - I ran the last pict with a 28 degree refraction...and the line ended up slightly behind the eyepoint...which would mean out of feild of view? or having to move back a small amount...lol

Nope.. wrong interpretation. One does NOT have to MOVE BACK in order to see it. One CAN move back and STILL SEE IT!
The blocked area is on the right side of the LOS, right?

Would this be enough to prove the point?

[gripen]

Originally posted by Crumpp
It is not Gripen.  Your pushing pure baloney and acting like a child.  If it does not consider the shape of the wing it is not 3D theory by definiton.  

Complete nonsense. The shape of the wing does not affect on required (3D) Cl for given lift. There is no physical nor aerodynamical reason for that. You simply can't understand that required Cl in 3D depends only on wing area, density, speed and lift.

Originally posted by Crumpp

Calculation of CL alone is not 3D theory either, it is part of it.  Unless you take the next step in the process and consider AR and efficiency.

Complete nonsense. There is no physical reason to include AR or efficiency to Cl calculation because these are not needed to calculate required Cl in 3D.

Originally posted by Crumpp

For high angle of attack situations such as turn, 3D is more accurate than calculations based on CL alone.  Why?  It is an area were the dimensions ae not as trival.  

Complete nonsense again. The equation I linked gives exact and accurate required Cl for any loading in turn and it's 3D. There is no method which gives more accurate Cl.

BTW please, try prove your claim with calculation if you can...

Originally posted by Crumpp

Anyone can work the following problem...

Required Cl for both wings are exactly same, regardless shape of the wing and the equation I linked gives exact and accurate required 3D lift coefficient for them at all loadings, in turn, level, dive or what ever flight condition.

gripen

[Waffle]

here's the pic:
So at 38.7 degrees - the eyepoint would have to be back...remember you said we couldn't move the head? so if it LOS was moved up to the eye posistion. - even at 38.7 degress - you still wouldn't see P1.

like I said it's all moot untill we find they type of glass / proper thickness and the refraction index of the glass.


Also - if you're getting a smaller angle - you said 25 to my 28 - that would result in a smaller view. I should say shifted instead...it would bring the angle on the exterior side inward.

[Krusty]

waffle, that only means that not only would you be able to see P1, you'd be able to see a bit past it. The line is the outer angle for your field of view.

Anything inside it is visible. Thus you could see P1 with refraction (but not without refraction).

The general conclusion I made from this thread is that the frames in the 109 (and 190?) should not be as thick, because in reality when you sit inside the cockpit the refraction makes them look thinner.

[KAntti]

Originally posted by Lye-El
Interesting Virtual pilot site.

 


That said what i found interesting was the opinions differ with pilots.

Visability sucked. Visability wasn't that bad.

Slats were good. Slats were bad.

109s could out turn spits during BoB but not later models of Spit.

The 109 was wonderful. The only good thing about the 109 was the cannon and engine.

109 turned great. 109 didn't turn well.

All from guys who flew them. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder apparently.

Of course I should have mentioned that this is not to show off 109 or compare it to any other aircraft. I tried by telling Im not into 109's but apparently I failed.

If you take a closer LOOK and forget your favorite AC and really look. WHERE can u see a mention anywhere there that 109 (never mind the variant) had other than superb or even adequate stall performance?

The overall picture the interviews offer is not what I am looking at. I want to know how the stall performance of AH 109 FM compares with what the pilots have to say. We have been and at least I am still talking only and solely of the stall performance. When the interviews and test reports are referring to as wonderful stalling performance, the AH 109 FM compared must be running in the woods at night with a sack over its head.

And truly, the beaty IS in the eye of the beholder as what u are referring to is the russians and others saying 109 was wonderful and finns that flew them saying it wasn't that good compared to the Fiat g.50's and Brewsters, please check them out:

http://hkkk.fi/~yrjola/war/faf/brewster.html

http://www.kotfsc.com/aviation/g50.htm

The overall picture is very complex view to what 10 or so aces thought about the plane, but try to separate this small thing of stall performance from the overall picture and come back with something else than "They all contradict in performance compared to the spit"

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by KAntti
And truly, the beaty IS in the eye of the beholder as what u are referring to is the russians and others saying 109 was wonderful and finns that flew them saying it wasn't that good compared to the Fiat g.50's and Brewsters, please check them out

Spot on
Beauty is very much in the eye of the beholder.
Thats the main reason that they don't build FMs based on anecdotal evidence.

[KAntti]

Holy helll we have a spitmaister here!

Even if it was equally accepted by any one as truth, regardless the side the plane was used Kev? U would actually trust the FM in hands of "trusted and absolutely non partial, non eye beholding" creator?  Do you actually question anything that works in your favor Kev?

As I said before this is a game, AND if u dont believe anecdotes, there still are the real warbirds flying around.

[Angus]

And todays fliers give anecdotes.

Some of the old ones still live though. But not many of them flew US, UK and LW planes. The selected who did that would almost exclusively at combat be Finns, then you have the others testing the enemy's stuff.
Oh, got one of them on my sig....goodness