A couple of quick questions re 1.06

[Jekyll]

We've all seen the pictures of the new 1.06 aircraft .... BUT I've got a few questions in relation to the game as a whole  

1.  Will the drag/damage model be fixed in 1.06?  For those who don't know, at present an aircraft with half a wing on one side flies faster than a whole aircraft .. perhaps because the damage model, in removing half a wing, has also removed that half wing's attendant drag.

2.  Are any changes to the N1K2 engine power envisioned in 1.06?  Refer Widewing's analysis of R/L N1K2 performance, and HIS conclusion that the real N1K2 only generated around 1500hp.

3.  Are any changes envisioned in 1.06 to bring the various aircraft rollrates more in line with the NACA report quoted in the 'Rollrates' thread on this board a few weeks ago?  You know, the report which suggests that the Tiffie is up to 37 deg/sec too fast in roll, while the 190 is up to 20 deg/sec too slow?

I mean, eye candy and special FX are cute, especially in the movies, but are we gonna get any meat on AH's bones any time soon?

------------------
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Chapter 13, verse 11

[juzz]

1. Probably not until a later version,  haven't heard that HTC was even looking at it yet?
2. I don't think so!
3. See 1

[flakbait]

To add to Jekyll's wondering...

1) Will the C-hog get it's 600 pound weight gain?

2) Will the P-38 spins get fixed?

3) Will flaps be fixed?

4) Will the F6F's stall and spin characteristics get fixed?


-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta 6's Flight School
Put the P-61B in Aces High
"For yay did the sky darken, and split open and spew forth fire, and
through the smoke rode the Four Wurgers of the Apocalypse.
And on their canopies was tattooed the number of the Beast, and the
number was 190." Jedi, Verse Five, Capter Two, The Book of Dweeb
 

[funked]

1.  Actually at higher speeds a real plane can become more efficient if you reduce wing span and/or area.  And remember that the intact wing will need aileron up, which lowers the angle of attack, reducing induced drag.  There will be some increase in profile drag due to aileron and rudder deflection needed to keep the plane straight, but this is pretty small at high speeds.  So the plane could theoretically fly faster.  

Right now the model is pretty good, because it reduces lift and drag appropriately for the missing part.  But what they are missing is increased drag on the remaining parts due to gaping holes, jagged edges, etc.

2.  Widewing's analysis was not valid.

3.  The NACA Typhoon roll rate curve is pretty strange.  There is certainly nothing in the pilot's notes for the Typhoon to indicate a deficient roll rate, nor have I read any commentary from pilots that it was particularly bad.  The data are just a curve on a graph.  We don't know who measured it or how.  If HTC have good information showing the current roll rates are accurate, don't expect it to change.

PS I don't mean to piss on your post.  It's just that these issues are not so simple.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 02-20-2001).]

[Ripsnort]

In addition to the C-hog needing to gain about 600lbs, will stall and performance be improved?

 

F4UDOA:..."the stall actually needs to come down anyway. The power off stall for the C-hog power off should be 88.6MPH from the 100mph+ we have now. You see just changing the weight doesn't actually change performance when the documented performance is better than what we currently have. Notice the -1C climb/acceleration is better than what is in AH currently. So you see while the listed weight should change the stall,turn, climb and acceleration should improve based on performance data.

Careful what you whish for, you might get it.

 

[Jimdandy]

 

Originally posted by funked:
1. ...But what they are missing is increased drag on the remaining parts due to gaping holes, jagged edges, etc...

2.  Widewing's analysis was not valid.

3.  The NACA Typhoon roll rate curve is pretty strange.  There is certainly nothing in the pilot's notes for the Typhoon to indicate a deficient roll rate, nor have I read any commentary from pilots that it was particularly bad.  The data are just a curve on a graph.  We don't know who measured it or how.  If HTC have good information showing the current roll rates are accurate, don't expect it to change.


[This message has been edited by funked (edited 02-20-2001).]

1. Yep, I think that is where you will see a speed reduction.

2.Yep, as Widewing said he was using comparative data and a rule of thumb calculation. It does raise questions but it's not proof.

3. Yep, for some reason NACA didn't give us the whole story. It makes me assume they had a standard practice that someone reading the report would know. As with Widewing's data it only raises legitimate questions but isn't conclusive proof. They didn't tell us if the roll rates were an average of both directions or not. If we knew what the standard practice for NACA was we would have some real good data. I don't know HTC's sources but I assume they looked at there data as valid when the built the model.

[Zigrat]

hey funked you gree spitfire we have rolls too well at speeds > 350? The spit experienced high wing deformation at high speeds and therefore couldnt roll well till they clipped wing...

[funked]

Yes Zig I suspect (but can not prove) that wing twist is missing from the flight model.  On a lot of these planes the loss of roll rate due to wing twist was just as significant as the loss due to increase in stick forces or deformation of the aileron.  Spit V and Spit IX should be very difficult to roll near their dive limit speeds (about 480 IAS).

If they fixed this, they could introduce the LF models (clipped wing) as a low-price perk, with the vast roll rate increase providing a motivation to buy one.    


[This message has been edited by funked (edited 02-20-2001).]

[Jochen]

I think idea of reducing Spit roll rate at higher speeds is valid. I have not flown Spitfire (well duh) but I think it wasnt very goor roller in high speeds since it's tink wing flexed, earlier models (prior to mk V) also had cloth covered ailerons which buckled on high speeds, further reducing roll rate.

Reduce Spit V and IX roll rates at high speeds and introduce low alt Mk V or Mk IX which are faster and roll better but turn worser.

------------------
jochen Gefechtsverband Kowalewski

Units: I. and II./KG 51, II. and III./KG 76, NSGr 1, NSGr 2, NSGr 20.
Planes: Do 17Z, Ju 87, Ju 88A, He 111H, Ar 234A, Me 410A, Me 262A, Fw 190F, Fw 190G.

Sieg oder bolsevismus!

[Jekyll]

 

Originally posted by funked:
3.  The NACA Typhoon roll rate curve is pretty strange.  There is certainly nothing in the pilot's notes for the Typhoon to indicate a deficient roll rate, nor have I read any commentary from pilots that it was particularly bad.  The data are just a curve on a graph.  We don't know who measured it or how.  If HTC have good information showing the current roll rates are accurate, don't expect it to change.

I seem to recall Pyro jumping into the Rollrates thread saying that he thought the AH Tiffie rolled too well, though he couldn't recall where he got the rollrate data from.

PS I don't mean to piss on your post.  It's just that these issues are not so simple.

[/b]

Hell funked, no offence taken.  I'm just interested to find out whether there will be anything OTHER than new aircraft in 1.06  



------------------
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Chapter 13, verse 11

[Jekyll]

 

Originally posted by funked:
1.  Actually at higher speeds a real plane can become more efficient if you reduce wing span and/or area.  And remember that the intact wing will need aileron up, which lowers the angle of attack, reducing induced drag.  There will be some increase in profile drag due to aileron and rudder deflection needed to keep the plane straight, but this is pretty small at high speeds.  So the plane could theoretically fly faster.  

Right now the model is pretty good, because it reduces lift and drag appropriately for the missing part.  But what they are missing is increased drag on the remaining parts due to gaping holes, jagged edges, etc.

Actually funked, re-reading the above paragraphs has left me fairly confused, but then again, I'm no aerodynamicist  

Lets take a simple example:  An aircraft weighing 8000 lb with a perfectly rectangular wing of 200 sq foot area.  Lets assume that the engine generates 3000 lb of thrust at full throttle at a particular altitude.

OK, so when the aircraft is in equilibrium, the engine is putting out 3000lb, drag is 3000lb and the aircraft is generating 8000lb of lift.  Lets assume ALL the lift is generated by the wings.

Something happens .. half a wing either is shot off or simply stops producing lift.  Now for that aircraft to stay in equilibrium, the remaining 150 sq ft of wing now has to generate that 8000lb of lift, doesn't it?

And if that smaller wing area has to generate a larger amount of lift, won't drag therefore increase to some figure above 3000lb?  And therefore, will not the aircraft slow down due to the increased drag?

Of course, there's a problem here, in that we assume that the engine continues to put out 3000lb of thrust.  Therefore, to be in equilibrium, drag must also equal 3000lb.

It would seem that the answer would be that since the undamaged wing is now flying at a lower angle of attack due to the upward deflected aileron, the stub wing on the opposite side must therefore need to generate a huge amount of lift in order for equilibrium to be reached.  What kind of yawing moment might this be likely to induce?  Surely, if such a yawing moment were an inevitable byproduct of the damage, then profile drag would increase a substantial amount?  And THIS might be the answer to the 'missing drag' problem in AH.

At present, lose half a wing and its just a matter of dialling in full opposite aileron trim and holding the stick over.  Very little rudder input required at all.

P.S.  what do you mean by 'high speeds" in your above paragraph.  Are we talking high subsonic, supersonic ?

Regards.. Jekyll
fairly confused Jekyll  

[CavemanJ]

 

Originally posted by Ripsnort:
In addition to the C-hog needing to gain about 600lbs, will stall and performance be improved?

         

This applies to BOTH hogs, yes?  

[funked]

Jekyll very good questions.  

By high speeds I mean speeds near the maximum level speed of the aircraft, subsonic, compressibility effects can be ignored.

You are right that there would be a yawing moment.  But remember that all of these planes have some built-in directional stability because of the vertical tail, which will resist yawing moments like the tail feathers on an arrow.  The faster you go, the stronger this effect becomes.  So at high speeds the aircraft might only need a very small slip angle to counteract the yawing moment, with the rudder neutralized.  

If the pilot wanted to trim out the slip angle, he might only need a small rudder deflection, again because of the high speeds which increase the effectiveness of the rudder (yawing moment per degree of deflection).  So the drag penalty due to the yawing moment could be quite small.

Furthermore I'm not sure the yawing moment would be all that big.  Since the stub wing has to operate at a higher lift coefficient [lift/(area*dynamic pressure)], it will also have a larger induced drag coefficient.  It also will have a lower aspect ratio which will further increase the induced drag.

So while it is a smaller wing, it is working a lot harder and generating a lot more drag per unit area.  Total drag on the short wing might actually be greater than total drag on the long wing.  Probably not enough to make zero yawing moment, but maybe enough to reduce it significantly.

Now the actual results will all depend on the numbers one picks for the model.  I don't have data handy to do these calculations for a WW2 fighter, although I could do them for a Cherokee 180 (LOL).  I'm taking a class that deals with this kind of stuff, and if the opportunity presents itself, I'll try to get the professor to let me analyze this problem for credit.  

[Ripsnort]

Cave, no.  C-Hog is the only one off on weight...but hopefully the aero-dynamics will be fixed on both!