Ah I see. Modeling seems really complicated though; the data you have to collect is INSANELY abundant.
Regardless of the amount of info it's only as complicated as the modeler makes it. The modeler / developer can choose what they are going to model (e.g. what dynamics, how many things to model, how it operates, etc.) and how they will model them. Of course there are all sorts of trade-offs in making these choices: e.g. does it impact realism if I choose to model it one way vs. another, do I have the data to model what I want to model or do I have to estimate/calculate it, etc. Available data is only one data point (pun intended
) that a modeler will need to work with in making these choices.
It's important to note also that modeling complexity and increasing volumes of data doesn't mean that something will be more realistic. Infact much of aerodynamics can be boiled down into continual efforts to simplify the complexity without losing accuracy. For instance the conventional foundational basis of calculating lift comes from Prandtl's lifting line theory. Well Prandlt's lifting line theory is nothing more than a simplification of very nasty Navier-Stokes equations so that we can arrive at an accurate prediction of lift without having to resort to very complex calculations to do so(nearly impossible to do without computers!).
Are there, by chance, any sites similar to Gonzo's charts where we can easily compare concrete graphs of modern aircraft performance figures? I think that's where I get a lot of my data. I'm sure NASA has some of that stuff right?
Where to start here
. To answer the question, not that I know of. Badboy has some EM charts he's created for analyzing Falcon and LOMAC aircraft.
Badboy's Falcon Flight Model Evolution article:
http://www.simhq.com/_air3/air_117a.htmlBadboy's "How to be a good stick in LOMAC" article:
http://www.simhq.com/_air/PDF/air_097print.pdfI want to address DokGonzo's charts. I know lots of folks look at those charts for AH. Everyone who's worked on them via flight tests have really contributed to the community with their efforts. I tip my hat to them.
However, modern real world comparisons are much more sophisticated than speed, climb, and sustained turn radius numbers. Those are of limited value. Typical fighter to fighter comparisons now take the form of other things like energy-maneuverability (EM) charts and dynamic turn plots. Post-stall / super-maneuverability are also important performances to factor in. Of course in circles like this message board basic things like, range, combat radius, visibility, pilot ergonomics etc. totally get ignored. In reality these are also key factors because they have tactical and strategic impact as well. In other words there are many other things that can be looked at for relative comparison besides speed, climb, and turn radius.
Tango
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
