N1K2-J WEP Climb Issue

[Pyro]

You're right Funked.  The current George chart is out of date because I made some changes to the low alt performance back in the beta and never updated the chart.  However, there still should not be a wep boost at that altitude and yet there is.  I don't know how that got there so I'll have to do some research in our version control to see what happened.  I'll make some time before this next version to check the web charts against the game and get things the way they're intended.



------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations

[Lephturn]

Wow... did you guys see that!

All whiners please take note.  Funked just demonstrated how you actually get a change made.  He did tests and posted the results, and Pyro responded right away.  Cool huh?  Just think about all the things you could get changed if you use your time testing instead of writing BBS posts!  

<S> funked.

WTG Pyro and HTC for being the most responsive game developers I've ever heard of.

------------------
Lephturn - Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs  http://www.flyingpigs.com


"My P-47 is a pretty good ship, she took a round coming 'cross the Channel last trip.
Just thinking 'bout my baby and lettin' her rip, always got me through so far."
 - Steve Earl

[bloom25]

Mino, what are the Y and X axis representing?  Best I can figure is climbrate in ft/min divided by 10.  The X axis is altitude.  My experiences in the p51 would tell me that this is the case.  With 50% fuel I can climb out at about 3400 fpm, which rapidly drops to about 2800 fpm at 10k.  At 20k I can climb at about 2k fpm.

------------------
bloom25
THUNDERBIRDS

[funked]

Thanks Pyro!

<S> Leph.  

Cool charts Mino!

[Sorrow[S=A]]

Question for a few of the mathematical folks out there:

The Butterfly flaps on the George are AFAIK an automatic combat flap system that engages when the lift over the wing drops- correct?
Now we know this is represented in the model but what I am wondering is how much extra drag those flaps are going to creat per wing.

The data on it I have indicate that the flaps engaged when lift dropped under X amount, I figured in some testing I was doing on flat turns that when speed in the turn came to the point the flap extended the plane would start decelerating at a different rate. Since the info I have indicate it extended at mid to low speeds I figured the rate would change around 250-200 mph.

However I cannot find the change! In flat turns at 3G SL the rate of deceleration is constant to stall. Can the flap really not affect the rate enough for us to pick it up?

ALSO: I see some oddities in how high AOA is being treated in regards to drag. I cannot pin it down but some things are happening I don't think are correct. I put some planes into high angled zooms to see how they handled E retention in zoom climbs and sometimes it wasn't working. The A6M5 is a best example: the plane can hold itself at 37 degrees and achieve <1000 fpm at around 92mph. I did not think any WWII plane could generate enough thrust to hold itself at this angle. However most of the good E retention planes in the game can literally hold a semi cobra position right up until stall speed. BTW I measured by going to external view, putting a ruler along the rear horizontal stab and prop hub and a protractor on the water horizon. Some planes need to be going quite fast to get them into position- then hit auto angle and see where they will stay stay flying.

[wells]

Sorrow,

I don't think those flaps are modelled.  Last time I checked, you had to put them down yourself.  that might have changed though...was a few versions ago.  At stall speed, you can add a good 15 degrees to the climb angle.  If you are measuring 37 degrees pitch angle, the climb angle is probably more like 20.

[Jigster]

 

Originally posted by wells:
Sorrow,

I don't think those flaps are modelled.  Last time I checked, you had to put them down yourself.  that might have changed though...was a few versions ago.  At stall speed, you can add a good 15 degrees to the climb angle.  If you are measuring 37 degrees pitch angle, the climb angle is probably more like 20.

The manual flaps don't help turning signifigantly. They do add drag however.

Those wing flaps were pretty big. Anyone got a aspect shot above the N1K2? In AH, the flap hinge on the wing only comes half as high as the alieron hinge...it should be the other way around if, I remember right. They trailed off the wing when deployed fully, like the Stuka's alierons set up, or for a modern example, the 747's flaps. That is, however, within AH.

- Jig

[Minotaur]

 

Originally posted by bloom25:
Mino, what are the Y and X axis representing?  Best I can figure is climbrate in ft/min divided by 10.  The X axis is altitude.  My experiences in the p51 would tell me that this is the case.  With 50% fuel I can climb out at about 3400 fpm, which rapidly drops to about 2800 fpm at 10k.  At 20k I can climb at about 2k fpm.

Oops sorry, I should have pointed something out.

Bloom, it is climbrate divided by 10.  This is so that I can get all the data, from 0 to 30k altitude, all on one page of my spreadsheet.

I stated my testing conditions above the top chart.  They were 100% fuel, no DT's with the test being done in the TA.

To read my chart turn the HTC chart sideways or vice versa.



------------------
Mino
The Wrecking Crew

"Anyway, more golf..."
Humble

[Pyro]

Mino, one thing about 51 is that full fuel is an overload condition.  In AH, it's set up to have full wing tanks at 75% and no fuel in the fuselage tank.  So the normal gross weight would be at 75% and that's what the chart will correspond to.  



------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations

[Jigster]

 

Originally posted by Pyro:
Mino, one thing about 51 is that full fuel is an overload condition.  In AH, it's set up to have full wing tanks at 75% and no fuel in the fuselage tank.  So the normal gross weight would be at 75% and that's what the chart will correspond to.  

As it is though, at 75%, the wing tanks are full, and 25% is in the fuselage tank. Which should be perfectly alright, because once the fuselage tank has been half-emptied, the CoG issue is corrected. (Least that how I remembered it)

[Minotaur]

 

Originally posted by Pyro:
Mino, one thing about 51 is that full fuel is an overload condition.  In AH, it's set up to have full wing tanks at 75% and no fuel in the fuselage tank.  So the normal gross weight would be at 75% and that's what the chart will correspond to.  

Pyro;

I was not really doubting your chart vs actual performance.  I was more just checking the relative curves between the two graph shapes.  I found it interesting, that is all.  

What I did not say, but quite please me, was how well the curves matched up.  My curve is a little wavy in places.  I only did the test once, where I should have ran it a few times and averaged my data.  The VSI can be difficult to read accurately.  I can only break it down into 50fpm increments.

My assumption was that somehow I had ran the test under different conditions and for my test the plane heavier than yours on the HTC climb chart.

Thanks!  



------------------
Mino
The Wrecking Crew

"Anyway, more golf..."
Humble

[Pyro]

You're right Jigster.  Back in the beta I had it set up as I described because the 85 gallon fuselage tank was later placarded to a max of 45 or 55 gallons.  That was a postwar stipulation so I changed it back to 85 gallons in the beta.



------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations