Author Topic: Flight model stuff  (Read 2033 times)

Offline Nifty

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4400
Flight model stuff
« Reply #60 on: June 22, 2001, 02:50:00 PM »
Pyro should spend every waking moment working on the AH system and not checking out anything else!!!  Not x-plane, not wwiiol, not movies, not babes, not anything but AH and sleep for him.  Hook him up to an IV or something, and chain him to that desk!   :D
proud member of the 332nd Flying Mongrels, noses in the wind since 1997.

Offline funkedup

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9466
      • http://www.raf303.org/
Flight model stuff
« Reply #61 on: June 22, 2001, 04:22:00 PM »
I agree with F4UDOA and Nexus actually.  But my questions to Deez still stand.  I hate to jump on the bashwagon like that but he deserved it.  Anyways it just gives him a chance to prove yet again that he is a classy guy by taking all this abuse with good humor.   :)

Offline funkedup

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9466
      • http://www.raf303.org/
Flight model stuff
« Reply #62 on: June 22, 2001, 04:25:00 PM »
PS Thanks Pyro.

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
Flight model stuff
« Reply #63 on: June 22, 2001, 05:03:00 PM »
So... once the weight is adjusted on the CHOG, will it continue to be perked?
sand

Offline Tac

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4085
Flight model stuff
« Reply #64 on: June 22, 2001, 06:03:00 PM »
yes sandman  :D  :D  :D

Pyro, I have 5 megs worth of historical info on the 38, where can I send it so you can take a look at it? It has great info on how the dive flaps worked and what the pilots felt/experienced with them extended as well as spin characteristics and combat flaps stuff.

Guys, kindly delete those flame posts, dont scare pyro away from his own thread  :D

Offline air_ReCoile

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 28
      • http://airsquadron.com/
Flight model stuff
« Reply #65 on: June 23, 2001, 01:19:00 PM »
Deez,

I downloaded demo,  but doesn't seem to work very well with my x36 combo stick and ch pedals pro.
Any suggestions (other than buying a new flight control system)?

(I'm thinking of testing WWII planes in x-plane)

P.S. Zigrat, thx for all your posts on FM and FM testing, very impressive work. I know a little about aerodynamics and control and trying to put it to use in WWII AC FM prog/test.

cheers

Offline wells

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 166
Flight model stuff
« Reply #66 on: June 23, 2001, 05:22:00 PM »
X-plane only allows for 1 critical altitude for the engine, so it's impossible to get the right power at all heights for a 2-speed supercharger, like 90% of WW2 planes had.  Any difference in feel between AH and X-plane seems to be just inertia related (AH planes feel a bit lighter).  X-plane doesn't let you specify what the moments of inertia actually are, so you have no way of knowing even the calculated value, since it doesn't show anywhere that I could see in the planemaker.

Offline Gunslayer

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Flight model stuff
« Reply #67 on: June 24, 2001, 12:15:00 PM »
punt

Offline DeeZCamp

  • Banned
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 279
Flight model stuff
« Reply #68 on: June 24, 2001, 03:19:00 PM »
Pyro ya there?   :p ??

Offline mrfish

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2343
Flight model stuff
« Reply #69 on: June 24, 2001, 03:40:00 PM »
i'd also like to know if the 109 slats are in the works. thanks.

also - dee zee camp do you appen to work for laminar research or be named austin meyer?

Offline gatt

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2441
Flight model stuff
« Reply #70 on: June 24, 2001, 04:23:00 PM »
Hear, hear ... news about the George and the C-Hog! Thx for the infos PYRO. Keep up with the good work, AH *is* actually the best.

P.S.: thanks GOD, a thread where no rocket scientist is asking for films  ;)  :)  :D
"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 Midnight

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1809
      • http://www.brauncomustangs.org
Flight model stuff
« Reply #71 on: June 25, 2001, 03:50:00 AM »
Pyro...

Maybe it was the font in AW. I remember talking on VOX once when I first started playing. I said there was an N1K1 in the area and everyone on channel asked me what an N1K1 was.

Finally, someone else saw it and said, "Niki, 3 o'clock low"

It surely must have started in AW.

Offline brady

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7055
      • http://personal.jax.bellsouth.net/jax/t/y/tyr88/JG2main.html
Flight model stuff
« Reply #72 on: June 25, 2001, 09:30:00 PM »
I remember when i started flying with the Night hawks and I was on RW for the first time with theam ...George on your 6 Cougar 9or somting like that)..everyone said almost in unison whats a George...I said it is a N1K2-J... O....he mean's a NIKI...well why dident he say that?!...i said because it is not a NIKI....eventualy I gave up and stated calling it a NIKI...kinda drove me nut's but people are creature's of habit and they werent leting lose of it :)Every time i see it or hear it I just think u mean a freaking George :)

                              Brady

Offline Sundog

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1781
Flight model stuff
« Reply #73 on: June 26, 2001, 08:14:00 PM »
Thanks Pyro.

BTW, regarding the N1K2's turn rate, is it as high as it is just to model the turnrate with automatic maneuvering flaps? I just assumed that's why it turned so well in here (As opposed to showing the flaps deploy, etc.).

I think X-Planes has an excellent FM. However, I can't compare it to AH, as I don't know how HTC implements the FM, and as such, HTC probably considers it propietary info.

Off topic (sort of): I have flown WW2OL, FA, WB, AW, and AH and I can't tell you which one has the most accurate FM. Some of them have glaring errors I can see, but I won't digress into that here. I can write the equations, plug in the numbers, tell you what the results are, but that only offers us first order numbers (I could do the same with coding and check the results). What would be interesting would be to see a MAJOR aerospace firm offer some data from their advanced CFD codes (And simulator codes) and results and compare with actual flight test data of existing warbirds, then get some actual WW2 Combat pilots and some pilots who fly them today input as to the 'feel' (I know this has been done to some extent...e.g. HT's 51 ride). I realize all the FM/sim coders out there try to do that with historical data, etc (Some of it very accurate), but it would be interesting with some of the advanced codes in the industry today to offer some 'definitive data' with regard to the entire EOMs for each aircraft through out the entire flight envelope. I'm not holding my breath.  ;)

P.S.- This is sort of along the lines of that NASTRAN Ref.(I think that is what it was) paper Funked put the link up to before, only more in depth.

Offline hazed-

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
      • http://combatarena.users.btopenworld.com
Flight model stuff
« Reply #74 on: June 27, 2001, 11:14:00 AM »
deez from what i can see you are merely asking for what you feel is a realistic flight model (x-plane) to be looked at by a person whos possibly more qualified to just have a look at it and give you an objective answer,nothing wrong with that.It seems people just like to wind each other up in here rather than just read and agree or not.<shrug>

Its a nice idea but i dont think pyro has the time by the looks of it.If pyro has already flown xplane im sure he knows what is good or not himself and as its not his product so why mention it?   :D i bet hes played more differnt flight sims FM than ive had hot women!   ;)(undoubtedly! hehe).If i was you id take it that hes seen it already.

[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: hazed- ]