Author Topic: Typhoon critical mach modelling correct or incorrect (Read 4973 times)

2bighorn · « **Reply #45 on:** June 20, 2007, 09:22:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
Watch that blood pressure now... And if you're having fantasies of me in a tutu you should be more concerned about your own manliness, not to mention your sanity.

Just for the case you've missed it:

Quote

feel free to sod off...

B@tfinkV · « **Reply #46 on:** June 20, 2007, 09:28:48 PM »

<--- will wear the tutu for $1000 for no longer than 30 mins if it will make you manly men play nice..

Souless · « **Reply #47 on:** June 21, 2007, 02:33:55 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
Watch that blood pressure now... And if you're having fantasies of me in a tutu you should be more concerned about your own manliness, not to mention your sanity.

actually if you ever have anything inforamative keep us posted untill then please bore us with your sad diatribe and uninformed ignorance.
poor little fellow

Hazzer · « **Reply #48 on:** June 21, 2007, 06:30:56 AM »

Here is the view of pilots of 415 Squadron Raaf - they flew the aircraft,they didn't google from the sofa- after exstensive flight trials of the Typhoon 1b in the middle east during 1943,they sum up.

"The general view was admiration for the Aircraft.The "likes" included 400mph level speed at 18500 altitude,a dive speed of 525 mph(Limited),the superb view out of the canopy,and light and sensitive controls."

At this juncture of history,451 Sqn commenced converting fully to spitfire mkVc

The three trials Typhoons were then ferried to 161 MU on 23rd of October 1943.

Actually all three of these Tiffies were operational during testing and sported dessert camo,maybe Kev would like to Skin one.

B3YT · « **Reply #49 on:** June 21, 2007, 11:58:53 AM »

i'm sorry but i got very angry at what seems to be a general tendancy of this game to play down non american alied aircraft. Widewing is probably a sound bloke , and knows his stuff yet he wants to contadict what test pilots and actual combat pilots at the time say about it's perfomance in real combat.

the Mossie is a very much nuetered plane in this game yet if it was modeled CORRECTLY it would wipe the floor with most threats. but alas it would never happen . pitty

B@tfinkV · « **Reply #50 on:** June 21, 2007, 12:58:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by B3YT

the Mossie is a very much nuetered plane in this game yet if it was modeled CORRECTLY it would wipe the floor with most threats. but alas it would never happen . pitty

flown correctly, it will do.

just ask for 'Thrilla' or 'Rolex' to show you how its done.

Widewing · « **Reply #51 on:** June 21, 2007, 05:52:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by B3YT
i'm sorry but i got very angry at what seems to be a general tendancy of this game to play down non american alied aircraft. Widewing is probably a sound bloke , and knows his stuff yet he wants to contadict what test pilots and actual combat pilots at the time say about it's perfomance in real combat.

the Mossie is a very much nuetered plane in this game yet if it was modeled CORRECTLY it would wipe the floor with most threats. but alas it would never happen . pitty

I personally do not have any favorites. I very much enjoy the Brit aircraft and have no desire to undercut any.

However, I have a fair amount of experience with military aircraft and have researched the flight characteristics of many fighters.

Pilot reports can be accurate, but just as often completely inaccurate. Recorded data and test pilots are usually accurate, but not always. Especially in the 1940s where instrumentation errors were common. I can describe many instances where test pilots were deceived by malfunctioning instruments. Any report, regardless of author, that claims that the Typhoon had a critical Mach in excess of Mach 0.81 is flawed. NACA, who designed the 2219 wing used by the Typhoon states that the critical Mach of the wing section is Mach 0.70. A Typhoon could certainly exceed Mach 0.70, but did so with buffeting and eventual loss of control.

In the game, the Typhoon has virtually the exact same dive characteristics as the Tempest. However, the Tempest's wing was specifically designed to improve high Mach flight and control. The AH2 Typhoon doesn't even begin to buffet until Mach 0.77, which is well above where it should begin. Heck, I can dive an F4F-4 as fast as a Tempest... Go figure. Especially when the F4F-4 had an absolute terminal velocity of 483 mph. In AH2, you can get 601 mph! So, this issue is not isolated to the Typhoon.

My regards,

Widewing

Hazzer · « **Reply #52 on:** June 21, 2007, 06:19:14 PM »

Naca ruined the P39,this was a 400mph aeroplane all be it without armour or Guns,till NACA made them remove the draggy turbo charger air intakes,and the Turbocharger with it!..P39 Naca'erd..lol

Thank God they didn't get hold of the P38,almost identical air intakes...Less draggy..I don't think so.

Murdr · « **Reply #53 on:** June 21, 2007, 06:39:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hazzer
Thank God they didn't get hold of the P38,almost identical air intakes...Less draggy..I don't think so.

I believe they were the ones responsible for those useless tail weights on the 38

Stoney74 · « **Reply #54 on:** June 21, 2007, 08:59:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hazzer
Naca ruined the P39,this was a 400mph aeroplane all be it without armour or Guns,till NACA made them remove the draggy turbo charger air intakes,and the Turbocharger with it!..P39 Naca'erd..lol

Thank God they didn't get hold of the P38,almost identical air intakes...Less draggy..I don't think so.

NACA is now known as NASA. They simply provided the research that helped design many of these planes. Blame the P39 on the USAAC and Bell.

straffo · « **Reply #55 on:** June 22, 2007, 05:18:12 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Widewing
I personally do not have any favorites. I very much enjoy the Brit aircraft and have no desire to undercut any.

However, I have a fair amount of experience with military aircraft and have researched the flight characteristics of many fighters.

Pilot reports can be accurate, but just as often completely inaccurate. Recorded data and test pilots are usually accurate, but not always. Especially in the 1940s where instrumentation errors were common. I can describe many instances where test pilots were deceived by malfunctioning instruments. Any report, regardless of author, that claims that the Typhoon had a critical Mach in excess of Mach 0.81 is flawed. NACA, who designed the 2219 wing used by the Typhoon states that the critical Mach of the wing section is Mach 0.70. A Typhoon could certainly exceed Mach 0.70, but did so with buffeting and eventual loss of control.

Pilot manual contradict this so who's right ?

Btw what is the Naca profile used by the Spitfire a know good diver ?

Quote

In the game, the Typhoon has virtually the exact same dive characteristics as the Tempest. However, the Tempest's wing was specifically designed to improve high Mach flight and control. The AH2 Typhoon doesn't even begin to buffet until Mach 0.77, which is well above where it should begin. Heck, I can dive an F4F-4 as fast as a Tempest... Go figure. Especially when the F4F-4 had an absolute terminal velocity of 483 mph. In AH2, you can get 601 mph! So, this issue is not isolated to the Typhoon.[/B]

this issue is also not related to the Typhoon.

Kev367th · « **Reply #56 on:** June 22, 2007, 06:39:55 AM »

Until we are all running super computers flight models are NEVER going to be right.
Why do you think Boeing, Airbus, etc all spend $100,000s on computers for it, and not a couple of thousand on a home PC.

Hazzer · « **Reply #57 on:** June 22, 2007, 10:36:54 AM »

Bell were outraged by what NACA and the AAF did to their aeroplane at wright field,but on the verge of financial collapse,their was nothing the company could do,they needed the Orders.

The prototype climbed to 20k,in 5 min's!

due too NACA's obsession with streamlining - due largley to underpowered radial engined Aircraft,they were used to dealing with-the P39 became a missed opportunity,or the Iron "DOG"

hitech · « **Reply #58 on:** June 22, 2007, 11:41:03 AM »

Kev the issue has nothing to do with the flight model, we can set critical mach where ever it should be.

The issue is simply about conflicting data sets, and where the critical mach should be. And that is not a simple question to answer.

HiTech

Ack-Ack · « **Reply #59 on:** June 22, 2007, 12:12:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by B3YT

the Mossie is a very much nuetered plane in this game yet if it was modeled CORRECTLY it would wipe the floor with most threats. but alas it would never happen . pitty

No it won't. If a Mossie flown by a good stick encounters a Spitfire flown by an equally good stick and all the conditions are the same (i.e. co-alt and co-Energy) the Spitfire is going to beat the crap out of the Mossie. There are just some things no matter how good you are, just can't make the Mossie over come when it engages a single engine fighter on equal footing. However, if the Mossie had an advantage in altitude or Energy then things can work out differently.

ack-ack