Wuz Up With These Flight Dynamics

[ALF]

Originally posted by LEDPIG
Iv'e seen cessna 152's out perform some of these planes.  

Whens the last time you pulled 6-8 Gs in your cessna...at 300 mph...

[LEDPIG]

I have looped em in air combat nice move it works, talk about stall buufffeet though, totally throws your opponent for a loop if they don't have much energy either, ther're like this guys crazy and just fall out then you shoot them on they way down and go you shoulda went over with me lol!!

[LEDPIG]

Whens the last time you pulled 6-8 Gs in your cessna...at 300 mph... [/B][/QUOTE]


                                       HA, HA NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL!!!:O

[Karnak]

When was the last time your 152 climbed at 4,600fpm like several of the fighters her can?  Even some heavy fighters break 3,500fpm.

Climb rate gives a pretty good read on acceleration, which mean E generation.

I think you are just not comfortable with the game yet and are misreading E states.

[Badboy]

Originally posted by LEDPIG
Hey guys, been playing this for a couple weeks now and i'm really wondering bout these flight dynamics.

Hi LEDPIG,

It was a pleasure working with you in the Training Arena earlier today, sorry I couldn't stay longer.

Regarding your question, I'd like to share a comparison of the EM diagrams for the real Spitfire and the AH Spitfire at 12,000ft that I did some time ago. The diagrams are shown below. You can see that they have the same corner velocity at that altitude and configuration. If we compare a 5g turn at the corner speed of 250mph, I've indicated on the diagram for the real Spitfire that it would need to descend at 16 degrees below the horizon to sustain that turn and it would turn a full circle in about 14.5 seconds with a radius of about 850ft. You can see from the diagram for the AH Spitfire that it would also make the same turn in about 14.5 seconds with a radius of 850ft, and that it would need to descend at an angle of 23 degrees below the horizon, a descending turn only 6 degrees steeper than the real aircraft. But the turn rates and radii for the turn, along with the corner speed are amazingly close. The difference in the angle of descent is probably due to differences in engine power available at that altitude between the real world tests and Aces High, and perhaps some differences in weight.



.



It is interesting that both diagrams are essentially the same shape, and that they agree quite closely in many respects, indicating that the flight model in Aces High has accounted for all of the aerodynamic factors that would influence the shape of the curves to any significant degree. I've made a similar comparison with the Spitfire and 109 from other simulations, and so far Aces High has first place for accuracy. I have also tested many other AH aircraft, and in every case the in game performance is always closely related to real world data for that aircraft. For example, you will notice that the real Spitfire was able to sustain about 2.6g on the stall boundary at 160mph, and that the AH Spitfire the value was 2.5g at almost exactly the same speed, a remarkably close match.

People on these boards no longer question that the flight models perform in accordance with real world data. Because data from different sources vary slightly, they now mainly argue about what set of data was used, or should have been used, and which source has greater merit. People argue about variations in real world and in game performance as small as one or two percent. So, if you have any real world performance data to throw into the pot, please do, you will probably find that for every data item you can provide, several other people will have data from other sources showing different results that will fuel much deep and meaningful debate  

Hope that helps...

Badboy

[Glasses]

Lepdig drop flaps and your problems will go away like a new wing is attached. It's aerodynamicliscious.

[LEDPIG]

Originally posted by Badboy
Hi LEDPIG,

It was a pleasure working with you in the Training Arena earlier today, sorry I couldn't stay longer.

Regarding your question, I'd like to share a comparison of the EM diagrams for the real Spitfire and the AH Spitfire at 12,000ft that I did some time ago. The diagrams are shown below. You can see that they have the same corner velocity at that altitude and configuration. If we compare a 5g turn at the corner speed of 250mph, I've indicated on the diagram for the real Spitfire that it would need to descend at 16 degrees below the horizon to sustain that turn and it would turn a full circle in about 14.5 seconds with a radius of about 850ft. You can see from the diagram for the AH Spitfire that it would also make the same turn in about 14.5 seconds with a radius of 850ft, and that it would need to descend at an angle of 23 degrees below the horizon, a descending turn only 6 degrees steeper than the real aircraft. But the turn rates and radii for the turn, along with the corner speed are amazingly close. The difference in the angle of descent is probably due to differences in engine power available at that altitude between the real world tests and Aces High, and perhaps some differences in weight.


It is interesting that both diagrams are essentially the same shape, and that they agree quite closely in many respects, indicating that the flight model in Aces High has accounted for all of the aerodynamic factors that would influence the shape of the curves to any significant degree. I've made a similar comparison with the Spitfire and 109 from other simulations, and so far Aces High has first place for accuracy. I have also tested many other AH aircraft, and in every case the in game performance is always closely related to real world data for that aircraft. For example, you will notice that the real Spitfire was able to sustain about 2.6g on the stall boundary at 160mph, and that the AH Spitfire the value was 2.5g at almost exactly the same speed, a remarkably close match.

BADBOY that information is truly fascinating i'm so glad you chimed in, i thought it was pretty close, it seems the actual spitfire outperforms the sim by such a tiny amount its negligible. I wonder if sims have reached the point where we can throw in variables that change during an actual manuever test, and if we can throw in dynamic variables, that change increasing exponentially in time so the results are almost insantaneous, truly fascinating!:D

[Mister Fork]

Badboy and Leadpig: the other factor you have to ask is how accurate was the test data back from 1939-1945?   (I.e. equipment used, error factors, cross wind layers and headwinds, temperature variances at altitudes, pressure variances, as so on and so on).

Personally, I think with Aces High we can get more accurate data because of the availability of instant values.  They're also software simulated and highly accurate. Also, todays machines are a whole lot more accurate than a 1940ish electro-wired-half-baked device.  

[Knegel]

Hi,

i also think not all is good with the AH FM(no FM ever will be perfect), but i guess your problem is 1. related to a bad sticksetup(to agressive and lead to uncontrollable fast stalls) and 2. to the irritating stall horn.

To find a good working sticksetup did need ages for me and for me it was most difficult in AH, but it make a huge different!

The stallhorn i found to be horrible and destroyed my feeling for the stalledge.  Look for the EAW(European Air War) stallsound, it start smooth and get louder as more you get to the stalledge. For me this stallsound alone made a other game out of AH(maybe cause i was used to it from EAW).

Like in every flightsim and with every game engine you will find mistakes and limits, but all over AH dont seems to be that far off in general.

Edit: If you feel uncomfortable with the P38, try the FW190A.

Greetings, Knegel

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Mustaine
i don't know who, but it has been talked about at CON's and elsewhere, but supposedly there is a few real WWI vets' includign a p38 pilot who fly AH, and supposedly they say it is as real as it gets.

I seriously doubt there are any WWI veterans flying AH II. They'd be well over 100 at least. Especially the pilots.

I believe it was Widewing who said he had a P-38 pilot friend (may be someone we both know) who tried AH and said the P-38 was not bad, but it lacked elevator authority, and had a couple of other issues. Of course, few, if any, of those guys actually fly anymore, I know most of the guys Widewing and I both know are grounded by health reasons, they are after all mostly in their 80's. And I doubt anyone who owns a P-38 would let a now 80 year old veteran act as PIC of his priceless P-38. Further, with the probable differences in controls (unless Widewing flies with a forcefeedback yoke and rudders) there is a difference in feel as well.

[Krusty]

Virgil, I vaguely recall the reference being used, and it was more along the lines of WW2 P38 vets flying AH at a con, rather than a friend of a player. I got the impression they flew it themselves, i.e. had their own regular accounts. I can't back it up but it's an old reference -- might be out of date what with 2.0 then 2.07 changing things.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

I'm actually quite sure Widewing had a friend who tried it, he posted about it, although he did not mention a name. It may have been as far back as early AH II or even late AH I. But it was a friend of Widewing's, I'm almost positive.

[gripen]

In the simulations people do not feel the g load so pulling a plane to the limits is very easy. In the real plane the pilot feels accelerations and adjust the control input according to that. In other words pulling 3-4 g in the simulator is common while in the real Cesna 152 it's very rare to go above 2 g.

gripen

[Angus]

On a con in Finland some WW2 vets tried AH,,,,or was it Il-2, or both.??
Then we had Stamper play online, but his ride was a Lancaster...

[hogenbor]

Originally posted by Widewing

However, you can loop a P-38 beginning at 150 mph, just gotta know how to do it.

My regards,

Widewing

And would you be so kind to give a brief tutorial on how to do exactly that?