Author Topic: Pyro, inverted lift and drag? (Read 826 times)

Daff · « **on:** August 04, 2000, 06:41:00 PM »

Will that be fixed in 1.04?.

Daff

------------------
CO, 56th Fighter Group
"This is Yardstick. Follow me"

RAM · « **Reply #1 on:** August 04, 2000, 06:49:00 PM »

Is it broken ?

(its a serious question)

Daff · « **Reply #2 on:** August 04, 2000, 06:55:00 PM »

Broken..I guess you could say so..it's the same as "normal" lift and drag, ie the planes have symmetrical wings.

Daff

------------------
CO, 56th Fighter Group
"This is Yardstick. Follow me"

funked · « **Reply #3 on:** August 04, 2000, 07:26:00 PM »

Yep I get the same rate of climb inverted or right side up. I haven't noticed symmetrical airfoils on the WW2 fighters I've had a chance to look at.

Andy Bush · « **Reply #4 on:** August 04, 2000, 07:27:00 PM »

The planes don't have symmetrical wings...not by a long shot. At least not in RL...

Nash · « **Reply #5 on:** August 04, 2000, 08:05:00 PM »

Out of curiousity Daff... honest... why is this important to you? I just ask this because when you've mentioned this before, I've tried to pay attention to how that would affect my flying/fighting... and I think I must be looking at it wrong. Unless yer chasing a bandit that chooses to fly inverted the whole way (no extra drag) or you intend to pull some wild neg-G manuevers/evades (inverted lift) I cannot come up with a reason why this would be such a sore spot.

Help me out with this.

Daff · « **Reply #6 on:** August 04, 2000, 08:16:00 PM »

Several reasons.
One is that it should be there, before any of the sims can call themselves "realistic".
(No, it isnt in WB either). It's basic stuff, really.
Two, it would stop several silly manuevers, like outside barrel rolls, bunts at low speed and lomcevak like manuvers because either it would cost too much E or they'd simply depart. (A typical inverted stall speed is about 50% higher inverted than upright). It would make the standard rolling 190 defense (yes other planes are also capable of that) pretty much useless. (I should mention that this problem is much worse in WB).
In short, it would force people to learn to fly more realisticly.
I know it's on the shortlist of things to fix in WB (Although I dont think that list is short at all

), but I've yet to hear Pyro/HT acknowledge it.

Daff

------------------
CO, 56th Fighter Group
"This is Yardstick. Follow me"

Nash · « **Reply #7 on:** August 04, 2000, 08:20:00 PM »

Yup, just as I figured... there's a whole damn flying envelope out there I wasn't aware of that concerns this inverted lift/drag thing. Now I gotta go back to flight school and figure out what a low speed bunt and a lomcevak are. Thanks a lot

Andy Bush · « **Reply #8 on:** August 04, 2000, 08:57:00 PM »

Bunts...lomcevaks...makes me reach for my Excedrin....although a low speed bunt is one heck of a lot easier on the bod than a high speed one.

Lomcevak...sort of did that in a F-104 once...not on purpose of course. +8 to -3 G in about a second. I don't recommend it.

Speaking of the 104...it had a 'regular' unsymmetrical airfoil as well.

Andy

funked · « **Reply #9 on:** August 04, 2000, 08:59:00 PM »

The 104 had wings? I thought those were guidance fins?

Kieren · « **Reply #10 on:** August 04, 2000, 09:02:00 PM »

Daff is correct- it is important in a realistic flight model to get this right. You better believe a lot of the beeeeyoootiful rolls, loops, and assorted maneuvers would get much sloppier with asymmetrical airfoils. (Heck, even veteran R/C pilots know the difference in rolling a Clark Y vs. a fully symmetrical airfoil.)

In short, at slow speed rolls at low alt would cause that plane to dig a great big ditch- you would see a lot more altitude loss while inverted.

[This message has been edited by Kieren (edited 08-04-2000).]

Nash · « **Reply #11 on:** August 04, 2000, 09:06:00 PM »

I'm sold.

Kieren · « **Reply #12 on:** August 04, 2000, 09:08:00 PM »

Doesn't Lomcevak mean "headache"? (Seriously)

Try this, Nash. Dive a 51 at about 10 degrees. When the speed builds, pull into a nice vertical zoom. When you get it lined out straight up, push full forward and left while holding right rudder. If you do it right the plane should tumble forward.

I haven't been able to get it down just right, but that is the basic idea (as I understand it).

Nash · « **Reply #13 on:** August 04, 2000, 09:31:00 PM »

Tried it Kieren - thanks. It put me into a kind of messy barrel roll. Is this what should happen? These kinds of evasives are something I really *should* work on.

My philosophy when it comes to evasives up to now, basically, is that unless things are in such bad shape that ya need to go into scissors etc. and force an overshoot somehow... that you remain in an offensive mindset. ie, your still the attacker, you just have more catching up to do.

It always struck me as kind of defeatist to throw yer plane into wild out of plane type manuevers simply to throw off the enemy's gunnery. Like lost seconds that ya coulda spent bettering yer angles. However, my stats will bear out the fact that this is probably not the right way to look at a fight.

This is now way off topic...I shoulda put this in the Training forum... But it sure has been an enlightening thread for me. Thanks.

Back to yer regularly scheduled FM gripes

StSanta · « **Reply #14 on:** August 04, 2000, 09:46:00 PM »

Andy Bush wrote:

Quote

The planes don't have symmetrical wings...not by a long shot. At least not in RL...

Andy, how far off are they? In, say, an F16?

Wouldn't asymetrical wings overload the super 8086's the Viper use for its FBW?

Joking aside, this should affect flight performance considerably.

I understand that wings flex under g loading and so forth, adn that modern FBW systems can compensate for uneven loads and so forth, but still?

------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"

Author Topic: Pyro, inverted lift and drag? (Read 826 times)

funked

funked