Author Topic: Please finish the page, HT!  (Read 332 times)

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
Please finish the page, HT!
« on: November 04, 2001, 10:18:00 AM »
I know everybody has been busy and are quite tired preparing the newly arrived 1.08, and patches up to 4.. But I really hope the "Web Charts" pages are complete and finished soon. I've noticed the web charts section has remained practically unchanged for quite some time now, but it really would become a good source of info for many people including me..

 For most aircraft it contains just two charts - speed and climb, but the example of the P-51D web chart is really good. I hope we can see all the aircrafts info at that page like we see the P-51D page.. Nice pic.. explanation on the paint scheme.. some data... etc etc..

 This probably is no where near a priority issue, but I figure it can be done in a jiffy with relatively low effort(at least compared to making new stuff.. correcting bugs.. etc etc..  :) )
 
 Give it a thought, cheers

Offline Badboy

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1226
Please finish the page, HT!
« Reply #1 on: November 04, 2001, 06:05:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kweassa:
I know everybody has been busy and are quite tired preparing the newly arrived 1.08, and patches up to 4.. But I really hope the "Web Charts" pages are complete and finished soon. I've noticed the web charts section has remained practically unchanged for quite some time now, but it really would become a good source of info for many people including me..

Hi Kweassa,

There are plans to update those pages, and things should begin moving forward fairly soon now.  I have previously agreed to provide charts for the web pages that provide a lot more information about the aircraft and work on that was due to begin in September. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to start yet because I’ve been behind schedule on another project, and I’ve just recently undergone minor surgery that has set me back several weeks.  


 
Quote
For most aircraft it contains just two charts - speed and climb, but the example of the P-51D web chart is really good. I hope we can see all the aircrafts info at that page like we see the P-51D page.. Nice pic.. explanation on the paint scheme.. some data... etc etc..

Here is an example of the sort of information that’s in the pipeline. This chart is a comparison of the P-51 and the P-38 and shows how they compare in both an instantaneous and sustained turn.

 

This sort of thing should prove to be invaluable for people who want to employ these aircraft to their best advantage. However, I will initially provide diagrams for each aircraft by itself for a variety of different configurations and altitudes. That’s would almost certainly fit into those pages very nicely. The overlays for various dissimilar aircraft engagements really require more explanation and are probably better suited to other pages on the site.  

 
Quote
This probably is no where near a priority issue, but I figure it can be done in a jiffy with relatively low effort(at least compared to making new stuff.. correcting bugs.. etc etc..   :) )
 
Give it a thought, cheers

Well, for me it’s the next job in the queue, so I’ll be submitting work as it gets done. However, the amount of effort required shouldn’t be underestimated and the good news is that Lephturn (Chief Trainer) and I believe some of the other Trainers have agreed to help. Hope he hasn’t forgotten  :)

Anyway, keep an eye on those pages, because good things will happen.

Badboy
The Damned (est. 1988)
  • AH Training Corps - Retired
  • Air Warrior Trainer - Retired

Offline gatt

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2441
Please finish the page, HT!
« Reply #2 on: November 05, 2001, 01:20:00 AM »
WOW!  :)
"And one of the finest aircraft I ever flew was the Macchi C.205. Oh, beautiful. And here you had the perfect combination of italian styling and german engineering .... it really was a delight to fly ... and we did tests on it and were most impressed." - Captain Eric Brown

Offline FDutchmn

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1114
Please finish the page, HT!
« Reply #3 on: November 05, 2001, 03:18:00 AM »
BADZ???? Is that YOU???? HiYA!!!

Flying Dutchman

Offline Badboy

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1226
Please finish the page, HT!
« Reply #4 on: November 05, 2001, 10:14:00 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by FDutchmn:
BADZ???? Is that YOU???? HiYA!!!

Flying Dutchman

Yep   :)

Nice to see you. Have you been flying AH long?

Badboy

[ 11-05-2001: Message edited by: Badboy ]
The Damned (est. 1988)
  • AH Training Corps - Retired
  • Air Warrior Trainer - Retired

Offline Westy MOL

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
Please finish the page, HT!
« Reply #5 on: November 05, 2001, 10:35:00 AM »
I'm dying to see this info! Good to see you again Badboy. Hope you're well!

Any chance someone can explian that diagram to a "diagramn idiot" such as I?  :(

 Westy

Offline 214thCavalier

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1929
Please finish the page, HT!
« Reply #6 on: November 05, 2001, 12:56:00 PM »
Ok for example the P38, follow the 3G line from left to right to the point where the blue line clips the bottom of it.
That blue line represents the max G in a flat turn the P38 can sustain at sea level with 25% fuel at differing speeds and if you then look left it shows what degrees per second that relates to.
Now say at 225 Mph in a 3G flat turn at 16 degrees per second turn rate thats all you can do, you have no excess power to climb, if you want to climb you need to relax the G and if you want or need to increase the turn rate your only choice if you want to sustain it is to trade altitude but in this case you cant because its a sea level diagram.
So anything you do keeping below that blue line is a sustainable move and above its not, example at 225 Mph in a 2G turn your turn rate is now only 9.8 degrees/sec but you have power available to add some climb into your fight.
The top right scale in feet is the radius or diameter (not sure on this chart) of the turn you can sustain at your chosen speed.
Now at 215mph the P38 can sustain a turn of 1100 feet at about 16.5 degrees/sec and 2.95G.
The P51 however cannot match and sustain this, if he wants to fly the same 1100 ft turn he has to slow to 208 Mph at about 2.8G and 16 Dps theoretically the P38 would catch him in the turn if they both sustained this,
of course its not that simple tho   :)
If the P51 decides to slow to 173 Mph his G will be approx 2.75  and his turn rate 18 dps also his turn circle will only be approx 810 feet basically now the P38 is in trouble as the P51 is turning in a smaller circle and faster.
The P38 can match this though at 190 Mph and 2.9G Turn rate although his turn circle will be larger at nearer 890 feet this will not matter because the degrees per second turned matches or is marginally on the P38's side.
Of course remember this is Sustainable turn rates we are talking you could still die to a risk all snap shot but of course if he misses he's yours for the taking.
Of course the last place the P38 wants to engage the P51 from that chart is at speeds over 260 mph as the P51 holds all the cards over that speed.
So to me that chart (which looks incomplete at low end, am sure i saw a different one from Badboy b4) tells me the percentage escape tactic if the P51 is coalt and E on your 6 would be to try and sustain a turning climb between the speeds of 190 and say 240 Mph around the 2.5G area.
Or of course just drag his speed down with your 215mph 2.95 G turn, if he tries to match with his 173 mph turn then its time to use the P38's better acceleration and climb to get outa there.
Of course thats just my interpretation of it all and its rare that things go by the book in a fight anyway.

[ 11-05-2001: Message edited by: 214thCavalier ]

Offline Zigrat

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 792
Please finish the page, HT!
« Reply #7 on: November 05, 2001, 01:42:00 PM »
badboy,

those charts are looking good. i have a couple questions, as i have been doing similar types of things on my own.

1) where are you getting prop efficiency data. I am a grad ae student and we had to do for class complete constraint diagrams for the f5-e, and i was thinking it would be nice to do them over for some prop planes but the data just isnt there. for example with the f5-e we got engine decks that gave for a variety of throttle settings/altitudes/mach numbers thrust and fuel consumption. where can i get manifold vs rpm vs power vs fuel consumption data for these piston engines. i went to the library and found "aircraft engines of ww2" but they give at best 2 points, not a whole mesh.

2) prop efficienccy. i got the hamilton standard red book, but finding propeller data on these planes like pich angle vs diameter and thickness to chord vs diameter (parameters needed when finding activity factor for example) seems next to impossible.

im just saying this because your curves look very smooth, as do mine since im making so many assumptions for the props. for my class assignments there are many jaggies and peaks since clmax isnt assumed constant with mach number, cd0 varies with reynolds number, etcera.

Offline Westy MOL

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
Please finish the page, HT!
« Reply #8 on: November 05, 2001, 01:48:00 PM »
Good lord 214thCavalier  :) That is exactly what I needed. What you wrote I can picture in my minds eye. For some reason (inexperience with those type of charts on a whole probably) I'm unable to formulate what you wrote just looking at the chart. Thank you. MUCH!!

 Westy

Offline Badboy

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1226
Please finish the page, HT!
« Reply #9 on: November 05, 2001, 01:56:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Westy MOL:
I'm dying to see this info! Good to see you again Badboy. Hope you're well!

Any chance someone can explian that diagram to a "diagramn idiot" such as I?   :(

 Westy

Yep, thanks Westy,

There's an explanation buried in this article I think  :)
 http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/air_combat/energymgmt/

Hope that helps.

Badboy
The Damned (est. 1988)
  • AH Training Corps - Retired
  • Air Warrior Trainer - Retired

Offline Badboy

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1226
Please finish the page, HT!
« Reply #10 on: November 06, 2001, 04:13:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Zigrat:
badboy,

those charts are looking good. i have a couple questions, as i have been doing similar types of things on my own.

1)where are you getting prop efficiency data. I am a grad ae student and we had to do for class complete constraint diagrams for the f5-e, and i was thinking it would be nice to do them over for some prop planes but the data just isnt there. for example with the f5-e we got engine decks that gave for a variety of throttle settings/altitudes/mach numbers thrust and fuel consumption. where can i get manifold vs rpm vs power vs fuel consumption data for these piston engines. i went to the library and found "aircraft engines of ww2" but they give at best 2 points, not a whole mesh.

If we are talking about the analysis of real world aircraft, I have several original propeller charts and engine power curves that I can use to analyse aircraft that used them. I agree that finding propeller charts and engine power curves is not easy, and I don’t think it can be done entirely from libraries or online sources. My only success in finding good data has come from visiting aircraft manufactures, air force museums and other establishments who are far more likely to help when you show up in person, particularly when you are willing to spend whatever time is necessary sorting through reams of archived paperwork with only the occasional piece of luck. Having said that, I have also had some success finding valuable documents in second hand book shops over the last 20 years and I still spend at least 4 or 5 whole weekends a year away from home in search of such things. However, there is another way. In cases where the propeller charts aren’t available it is possible to use other methods to get what’s needed if you don’t mind obtaining permission to take measurements from aircraft parts in museums or at air shows and then spending a day at a time doing it. When combined with research and data from other sources, and some mathematical tools, it’s amazing how much can be achieved. Although not ideal, the scarcity of genuine documents means that such methods are probably the only remaining hope for people with enquiring minds who want to know what those aircraft could do.

However, that doesn’t have a lot to do with the Aces High diagrams, because for those I don’t need to know what the real aircraft did, instead I only need to know what the Aces High aircraft do. That’s the point… I only guarantee that the charts will accurately reflect what happens in the game. All of my charts can be relatively easily verified. I’ve produced a large number of these charts over the last 5 or 6 years for many different simulations and the only feedback I’ve ever had from the most critical observers is of how accurate they are when applied in the sim'. For folk like us, who fly competitively in online air combat, that’s what really counts. Fortunately the procedures involved for flight simulations are not quite as labour intensive. However, the methods used to obtain that data is another can of worms altogether with a very different set of problems. As for comparisons with real world aircraft and the way they are modelled in various simulations... well that's a whole other can of worms also   :)

 
Quote
im just saying this because your curves look very smooth, as do mine since im making so many assumptions for the props. for my class assignments there are many jaggies and peaks since clmax isnt assumed constant with mach number, cd0 varies with reynolds number, etcera.

I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “jaggies” I have several models that I use to analyse aircraft from prop’s through modern jet’s to those capable of post stall manoeuvrability and thrust vectoring and include all of the things you mention above. While there are bumps in the curves caused by mach effects for example, the only sharp (jagged) changes in the curves I see are caused by changes in aircraft configuration for aircraft that have automatic devices, like the Me109’s leading edge slots, or the automatic leading or trailing edge devices on fighters like the F-16. As another example, for aircraft that need to drop flaps in incremental stages, there is an almost saw tooth like effect on some of the curves.

It is interesting that you mention the F-5E because I have EM charts for the real aircraft and it is true that there are changes in the curves that begin just below Mach 0.9 that are quite dramatic and I would certainly call them jagged, but that’s the only diagram I’ve seen that looks like that and it doesn’t appear to be typical.      

Badboy

[ 11-06-2001: Message edited by: Badboy ]
The Damned (est. 1988)
  • AH Training Corps - Retired
  • Air Warrior Trainer - Retired

Offline Tac

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4085
Please finish the page, HT!
« Reply #11 on: November 06, 2001, 04:47:00 PM »
Funny thing is the chart dont take into account the 38's fowlers.. 1 notch and ze pony is as good as out-turned *grin*

Offline Zigrat

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 792
Please finish the page, HT!
« Reply #12 on: November 06, 2001, 05:10:00 PM »
heres some examples of charts produced using real world test data.. sorry the jpg compression made them so uggggly

   
   

mabye you can see the "imperfections" i am talking about. like for example do you know if aces high used both induced drag and camber drag for calculation of performance, or just induced as they often teach in modern textbooks since modern high performance jets have relatively little camber. on your p-51 chart i couldnt discern with my naked eye any laminar bucket effects.

in other words, is AH using purely quadratic models for everything? or is it taking into aco bigtoe the little nuances. from what I've seen, the clmax, for example, of the me-109 in AH is significantly lower than what i would expect considering its slats.

[ 11-06-2001: Message edited by: Zigrat ]

Offline Badboy

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1226
Please finish the page, HT!
« Reply #13 on: November 06, 2001, 06:09:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Tac:
Funny thing is the chart dont take into account the 38's fowlers.. 1 notch and ze pony is as good as out-turned *grin*

Yep, each configuration requires a different chart, flap usage will be fully covered  :)

Badboy
The Damned (est. 1988)
  • AH Training Corps - Retired
  • Air Warrior Trainer - Retired

Offline Badboy

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1226
Please finish the page, HT!
« Reply #14 on: November 06, 2001, 07:57:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Zigrat:
heres some examples of charts produced using real world test data.. sorry the jpg compression made them so uggggly

The charts for the F-5E that I’m looking at are the genuine article, they were produced by the USAF and are quite different from yours. You have cusps at the top of the curves in your H-M diagram and they shouldn’t be there. The USAF curves for the same aircraft are smooth, and that is typically true for other aircraft. Check out the generic H-M diagrams in Shaw… they are smooth also. When you previously said:

 
Quote
for my class assignments there are many jaggies and peaks since clmax isnt assumed constant with mach number, cd0 varies with reynolds number, etcera

I think those “jaggies” and “peaks” are due to other issues, either with your data or modelling.

 
Quote
on your p-51 chart i couldnt discern with my naked eye any laminar bucket effects.


Agreed, I’ve experimented with various NACA 6 series profiles, some in which the bucket is much more pronounced and even then, when you combine the various contributions to drag and produce the Ps curves for load factors greater than one, they tend to smooth it out. For aircraft in a turn the lift induced drag appears to have a more dominant influence on the shape of the curve. Similarly with other effects you have mentioned, I’d say it’s very difficult to distinguish such things by casual inspection of those curves, possibly because of the combined effect of the various parameters used to produce them. The effects that do create noticeable changes in the shape of those curves are wave drag in the transonic region (probably because those changes are dramatic) and the changes in configuration I mentioned previously. This appears to be true of all the EM diagrams I’ve seen for real aircraft.  

 
Quote
in other words, is AH using purely quadratic models for everything? or is it taking into aco bigtoe the little nuances. from what I've seen, the clmax, for example, of the me-109 in AH is significantly lower than what i would expect considering its slats.

I haven’t looked at the AH 109 yet, but the important thing for me is not whether it has the correct clmax, or not, it is whether the performance chart I produce is a true and accurate representation of what the AH 109 will do in the sim, that’s my main objective, because that’s the thing that will help folk fly it to its best advantage. Knowing what “little nuances” have been modelled or that the Clmax is slightly high or low won’t help them much, unless they have a different agenda. I won’t be distracted by such issues, If I can show folk how the AH aircraft perform, and it helps them to become better virtual fighter pilots I’ll be happy  :)

Badboy
The Damned (est. 1988)
  • AH Training Corps - Retired
  • Air Warrior Trainer - Retired