190A5 vs 190A8

[Scherf]

He probably came to the same conclusion as me:

"Thorsim is an idiotic time-wasting whiner with a shapeless axe to grind and time on his hands. Why should I feed his habit?"

[thorsim]

that really is not what i was looking for, so lets go slow ...

the flight model has to define things that are not defined by the physical characteristics of the plane, can we agree on that?

Yes, I believe that given my understanding of how fluid dynamics are computer modeled, that there is an aerodynamic 3d model within the game. That model interacts with the mathematical equations that then calculate the specific performance as the maneuver is being performed.

I also believe that every 3d model interacts with the same mathematical equations no matter if it's a Dr.1, Spit V, B-17 or RV-8.

I do not believe that there are separate or unique interactions with the math formulas based on it being a P-51 or an Fw 190.

The test you are referring to has been addressed all ready but I'll try again. As badboy pointed out there are numerous ways to encounter a stall and that Stoney's chart may be in error based on his flight precision. If you read the PDF with Badboys calculator you would appreciate how difficult/demanding performing flight testing is.

Having been a member of the CAF and actually flown several WW2 aircraft, I can also judge aircraft anecdotes very well. In 1995 I got to meet several members of the flying tigers during one of their reunions. They spoke of the P-40 in glowing terms, witch differed greatly for the actual performance of the plane. So I have first hand experience in listening to and objectively analyzing pilot statements about an aircraft's performance.

I am not trying to discredit you, I am trying to get you to understand that what you continually state is data, is nothing more than subjective anecdotes.

Reiterating what I stated in the first line of this post, subjectivity plays no part in the 3d model or the mathematical equations.

[FLS]

the flight model has to define things that are not defined by the physical characteristics of the plane, can we agree on that?

No. The flight model can only be based on the physical characteristics of the aircraft.

When you start with a false conclusion as your first premise, you can never validate it with facts. The point of a circular argument is that it can't be defeated by argument. That's why they're so popular. But you can't prove a circular argument either, you can only believe in it.

[thorsim]

have you seen the code?  have you sen the way they adjust the variables and what those values are?

No. The flight model can only be based on the physical characteristics of the aircraft.

When you start with a false conclusion as your first premise, you can never validate it with facts. The point of a circular argument is that it can't be defeated by argument. That's why they're so popular. But you can't prove a circular argument either, you can only believe in it.

[FLS]

have you seen the code?  have you sen the way they adjust the variables and what those values are?

I don't need to see the code, I've seen the arguments, that's enough. I understand you and I don't feel any need to try and change your mind.

[thorsim]

I don't need to see the code, I've seen the arguments, that's enough. I understand you and I don't feel any need to try and change your mind.

just curious how do you suppose they establish the differences in stick forces or rudder authority or trim effectiveness or compression effects etc etc.

i.e. all those things that the basic physical parameters of the plane won't tell you in any real detail.

how do you numerically represent the differences in flight character between the changes in the shape of a tail surface or a wing tip or the change in the material used in a control surface?

[Baumer]

that really is not what i was looking for, so lets go slow ...

the flight model has to define things that are not defined by the physical characteristics of the plane, can we agree on that?

no

[Baumer]

Thorsim please read these pages on modeling. They will address your questions of how computer models can handle different materials and forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_fluid_dynamics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_element_analysis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersed_Boundary_Method

[thorsim]

i will, in the meantime why don't you show me where one can find all the data required to define these things in the aircraft modeled in the game.

Thorsim please read these pages on modeling. They will address your questions of how computer models can handle different materials and forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_fluid_dynamics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_element_analysis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersed_Boundary_Method

[Baumer]

Here is a link to a set of Fw 190A-8 blueprints you can buy,

http://www.aircraft-manuals.com/fowufwa8aibl.html

Here is a quote from the site;

"From the original manufacturing drawings converted first on microfilm and now in electronic format Airframe Engineering Drawings ( Blueprints ) Tiff and PDF Graphic format   # 900  Engineering drawings sheets  This set contains drawings for most aspects of this aircraft - Bremen blueprints for the Fuselage and Wings, Rudder, elevator, canopy, windscreen, cockpit, formers, ribs, instrument panel and supporting structures, cockpit side panel, control linkages, cockpit controls, dimensions between ribs and formers, wing riveting plans, maintenance access panels. Included are very accurate fuselage cross sections with data co-ordinates for the curves. This  Set of Engineering Drawings are not complete or exhaustive."

This would be a very good start for an accurate model.

I don't know where HTC got their data but at worst case they could get all the data by simply going to an existing airframe and getting all the measurements. That would be a very long and tedious process, but it could be done.

[Bronk]

LMAO The thread that just keeps on giving.
Baumer post hard data and presto HT going to take a look at it.

Meanwhile back in toontown Thor keeps spouting hyprbole hoping to get noticed.

Thor set your hair on fire next.... you might get noticed that way.

[thorsim]

those are really cool and it would be great if that is how detailed HTC was about getting the actual forces modeled .  however since by his own admission he uses data instead of force load calculations i am going to have to point out that your projection on how things are done in AH is a fail.

Thorsim please read these pages on modeling. They will address your questions of how computer models can handle different materials and forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_fluid_dynamics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_element_analysis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersed_Boundary_Method

yes it would, but that is not how it is done in AH.

Here is a link to a set of Fw 190A-8 blueprints you can buy,

http://www.aircraft-manuals.com/fowufwa8aibl.html

Here is a quote from the site;

"From the original manufacturing drawings converted first on microfilm and now in electronic format Airframe Engineering Drawings ( Blueprints ) Tiff and PDF Graphic format   # 900  Engineering drawings sheets  This set contains drawings for most aspects of this aircraft - Bremen blueprints for the Fuselage and Wings, Rudder, elevator, canopy, windscreen, cockpit, formers, ribs, instrument panel and supporting structures, cockpit side panel, control linkages, cockpit controls, dimensions between ribs and formers, wing riveting plans, maintenance access panels. Included are very accurate fuselage cross sections with data co-ordinates for the curves. This  Set of Engineering Drawings are not complete or exhaustive."

This would be a very good start for an accurate model.

I don't know where HTC got their data but at worst case they could get all the data by simply going to an existing airframe and getting all the measurements. That would be a very long and tedious process, but it could be done.

light your own hair on fire and note the fail above ...

LMAO The thread that just keeps on giving.
Baumer post hard data and presto HT going to take a look at it.

Meanwhile back in toontown Thor keeps spouting hyprbole hoping to get noticed.

Thor set your hair on fire next.... you might get noticed that way.

[Bronk]

i am going to have to point out that your projection on how things are done in AH is a fail.

Keep insulting the man... the fail that will be heading your way will be epically funnay.

[thorsim]

Keep insulting the man... the fail that will be heading your way will be epically funnay.

who did i insult?  and what exactly were you inferring with "toontown"?

[Ack-Ack]

Are you guys not surprised thorsim isn't able to provide any data?  It's a common theme in all of his threads and if anyone provides the data that shows he's wrong, he dismisses them. 


ack-ack