Ummm, is the possible?

[nrshida]

When the stall speed is 60 mph, recovering a stall at 68 mph doesn't look like a flight model problem.  

Is that it? No corrections to the maths? I even showed my working without double checking. Pulled the equations off the internet and the flight data also. It was just that simple? So you're absolutely satisfied based on these calculations in combination with the films that there is no problem with the flight model of Aces High's Corsair? Had the finding been 70 mph do you think you would have found a problem?

The dispute is simply nrshida harassing me with baseless accusations that ironically fit his own behavior.

There's no dispute. It's not baseless there are three examples of you doing this in the last six months alone and I haven't even been paying that much attention. I NEVER suppress discussion about any issues including my own favourite plane and spend more than half my time helping people on this forum. I have spent many hours making lengthy pictorial tutorials to help people repair their joysticks and have on three separate occasions posted replacement parts from my own collection - for free - to players all over the world. I have tried to help players with their flying, with their gunnery, whatever I can. I am forthcoming with data, open and not afraid to be seen to be wrong. For the most part I don't start fights on this forum I defend myself and sometimes others and I do try to stand up for what I believe in. I learned that from Brother Ink. I don't deliberately try to work around the forum rules (although I sometimes break them).

I try to keep him on topic.

That's a lie. You use ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies when you need to to win your arguments. Don't try to imply you're all about an open discussion of the topic. You want to try to shut me up because I know what your agenda is and I mess with your game. You are actually the one perpetuating the personal attack angle.

Fair enough mate, I think I was only looking at the small picture in reference to the bit you quoted with the smiley faces or whatever. I wasn't paying attention to any on going disputes. Which is unlike me actually, I'm usually a big picture kind of guy. This is one big picture situation I'm going to stay clear of.  

It's not a problem Batty, it's good that you call it as you see it. I respect you for that. As I have already stated I think he bends the rules and has a clear agenda to suppress open discussion. If he was as able as his arrogance and condescension suggests why would he be worried about less qualified people raising issues? He should be able to argue his view with evidence and still assert his position without resorting to insult and trickery. His starting point, to me, seems to be that he's naturally right and everyone else is automatically wrong.



If you don't want this kind of discussion on the forum then just pole HTC to boot me off it and I'll expend my energies elsewhere.

[FLS]

Your numbers don't match mine but they were close enough to prove my point. Thanks for doing that for me. 

[nrshida]

Your numbers don't match mine but they were close enough to prove my point. Thanks for doing that for me. 

I wonder if you fight in the arenas the same way you argue on the forum. Absolutely predictably.


Yes of course, your point was perfectly obvious and predictable from the start. I did the sums to illustrate it wasn't beyond the reach of any normal Aces High player to do so. I think I also managed to demonstrate my point about your needless arrogance and smugness, and how you only lift a finger on this forum to mock other people's efforts when they differ with you. Thanks for that  

I imagined the figure would be something like 60 m.p.h. with a 0.5G loading before I even found the equation. I already told you you would be no use to this discussion because you are disabled with a complete lack of imagination and are too fixated on numbers. I told you twice the figure was irrelevant.

Flight modeling has two components a quantitive and qualitative aspect. I already knew the stall speed was modeled correctly before this thread was posted. So far so good. The qualitative aspect however is where the problem lies.

You say the "Ensign killer" description was just a story (I think it was actually 'Ensign Eliminator' wasn't it?). Firstly YOU have to qualify that - by your own definition of burden of proof - since your opinion differs with the historical description. Secondly if the real F4U1 was as docile in handling as the AH version then why did Vought modify the right wing with a bodge to calm the handling at slow speed?

If you refer back to my previous post you will notice I italicized a section regarding flight testing I did. I italicized it because I knew you would only be focussing on the numbers. I was able to hold the aircraft at the onset of stall with my stick fully back to the stop. You said any powerful aircraft would be a handful when so slow. Seriously? As modeled in Aces High this has to be one of the most docile stalls of all the aircraft powerful or not.

What is the 0.5g stall speed of the Fw190A-8 with 25% fuel on the deck and 3 notches flaps? Could you similarly hold the 190 in this configuration (at it's undoubtedly higher stall speed)? No, you could not. Impossible. Go and do a back to back flight test if you want to see how HTC models an abrupt or even better described viscous stall. So it can be modeled in other words (before I have to endure another strawman about that).

I urge anyone to repeat the flight tests. The characteristics of the Aces High Corsair entering the stall does not match the historical description.


Consistency of modeling is all that is asked for. I don't think it's modeled accurately and apparently I'm not the only one who thinks that.

[FLS]

You aren't describing the posted film. Of course stall speed is relevant, it's the reason he didn't crash. My figure for stall speed at full flaps at .5g was 52.5 mph. That's from flight testing.

Again you describe your own behavior and attribute it to me. People may eventually notice that.

If you look at the USN training films for flying the F4U you see that it's performance is very similar to the AH model.

[nrshida]

You aren't describing the posted film. Of course stall speed is relevant, it's the reason he didn't crash.

Again you describe your own behavior and attribute it to me. People may eventually notice that.

If you look at the USN training films for flying the F4U you see that it's performance is very similar to the AH model.

It's relevant to the discussion which emerged about the validity of the Corsair's modeling.

I'm not going to engage in some psychobable projection discussion with you. I have pointed things out about your M.O. and people can judge for themselves. Judge me too, I'm not the one obstructing discussion.

I have seen the USN training films, I don't think the departure is similar. In the training film the departure is abrupt.


My testing is throttle pulled back to the stop because that was the test to discover Lift co-efficient I suppose I should have clarified that. Just try it. Spit 5 will also hold full back to the stop but it takes twice the inputs and reflexes. Fw190A-8 and D-9 roll inexorably right to the plop.

[nrshida]

Bf109F-4 can be held at the stop but is about a third more difficult again than the Corsair in terms of reflexes and inputs and it has slats. Spitfire Mark VIII very similar to the Mark V, Mark I more difficult than both.

[FLS]

You did a power off stall to test the full power performance. I noticed that. As I said you were close enough to prove my point so I wasn't going to quibble.

Yes different wings have different stall behaviors but keep in mind that power off stalls are different from power on stalls.

[nrshida]

Yes I know, I'm inverstigating the stall characteristics so wanted to eliminate torque.

P-38J is nigh on impossible to hold full back stick and the official training film says that one's stall is docile and recovers quickly. F4U training film does not describe the stall as docile if I remember correctly.

[nrshida]

You did a power off stall to test the full power performance. I noticed that. As I said you were close enough to prove my point so I wasn't going to quibble.

Ah no, I didn't use this flight testing to establish the 0.5G stall speed, that was calculation only based on Brooke (and some other dude's) lift co-efficient figure.

The power off stuff revealed the fully back to the stop business.

[nrshida]

Widewing's quote about his friend's experiences with an F4U-1A:

Stall speed is spot on... Stability isn't. Chris Fahey told me that he can fly the F6F-5 down to 85 knots in landing configuration and it's a stable as a brick through maneuvers, including rolling into 45 degree banked turns. On the other hand, Chris says that the F4U-1A will want to snap inverted if he attempted that at 85 knots. The right wing spoiler reduced the tendency for unequal side wing stall, but did not completely eliminate it. This was exacerbated in a right hand, low speed turn, where the inside wing wants to stall first anyway. Chris also stated that the F6F's rudder was more effective than that of the F4U, probably due to its longer lever arm. Total vertical stabilizer area is also greater for the F6F, both fixed and movable (22 sq/ft total, 13 sq/ft movable for F4U, 24 sq/ft total, and 14 sq/ft movable for F6F). This allows for more effective countering of torque. If the F4U's rudder is more effective in the game, it shouldn't be.

[TonyJoey]

If you look at the USN training films for flying the F4U you see that it's performance is very similar to the AH model.

I don't remember them flying it sideways in a perfectly controlled manner, nor do I remember the stalls being as gentle as they are in Aces High. They were abrupt with the left wing falling quickly.

[BnZs]

Dude, the problem isn't the stall speed alone. The problem is an F4U Corsair actually traveling *sideways* (you are correct that it technically can't be called "flying" I suppose) with the nose pitched extremely high. BTW, I just figured out something...the speed listed in the right hand side of the film viewer *does* not refer to indicated airspeed. It refers to the true airspeed of the plane *without reference to the direction in which the plane is hurtling*. Why is this important? Well, let's look at pictures again. The first image includes trails and a top down view of the Corsair. It's path of travel is almost entirely sideways. So even though the film says the airplane is going 88 at this point, virtually none of that speed is in the form of forward velocity.

Let's look from inside the cockpit at this exact same moment. A close up of the instrument panel confirms what I said. Although the film viewer says the airplane is going 88mph at this moment, most of that is not in the form of forward motion, there is only enough of that to have less than 50mph IAS. And last time I checked, indicated air speed is the important thing in such matters. Moreover, the G meter says the plane is loaded at exactly 1G at this moment and a look at the MAP indicates the engine is at or near full power at this point, with all the attendant torque.

[BnZs]

Watching this film in slow-mo
Two seconds later the flight path is still essentially sideways, while the Indicated Airspeed is down to between 30 and 40. In fairness though the G has been reduced to slightly more than .6. The power setting remains the same.

[BnZs]

~Two seconds later Gizz uses rudder to align the flight path with the direction of travel. But the fact remains that for about 3-4 seconds an aircraft known for bad low-speed/high power handling was flying directly sideways with the engine wide open and about 40mph of IAS.

[FLS]

You're correct when you say it wasn't flying sideways. It resumed flying when the nose returned forward.