Remodeling the flight model

[clouds]

heheheh hey TILT when you see an enemy plane in front of you and its icon is showing 6k it is at 5,.....Km and instead when you see the same enemy above you and its icon is showing 6k it is at 1,8...Km !?!?!?!?!

WHAT'S the difference m8, in front or above you, an icon at 6K is 6K far from you

I agree with OIO for the icon system.

[icemaw]

Range on tags are in yards wether he is in fron of you behind you over you or under you even if your on the ground. A tag with a range of 6k is 15000 feet away. Altimeters in planes are in feet.
 When your flying in a plane at 15000 feet and you fly over a gv at sea level he will see your tag as 6k

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by clouds
I'm sorry but I havent found another place to post what I'm posting now so have patience please.

What I considered often an AH fault is the ICON SYSTEM.

I think it is not much realistic to know there is an enemy SPIT XIV 6k  (~10 kilometers) from you, I guess bejond visual range.

I hope not to be hit by an AIM 7 Sparrow YahooOOOOOoooo.....

I'm sorry I must correct ~10 Km with ~5 Km.

The reason why flight sims such as AH have some sort of icon for the planes showing range is because of the depth perception problem inherent in all PC flight sims.

Like the previous person that complained about Combat Trim, you too have the option of using or not using icons.  If you don't want to use them, just turn them off.

Ack-Ack

[ccvi]

Range estimation by stereoscopic vision does not work farther out than 50 yards.

[Lazerus]

Originally posted by icemaw
Range on tags are in yards wether he is in fron of you behind you over you or under you even if your on the ground. A tag with a range of 6k is 15000 feet away. Altimeters in planes are in feet.
 When your flying in a plane at 15000 feet and you fly over a gv at sea level he will see your tag as 6k

6x3=18. Other than that its correct.

Sorry ice:D


I agree that the icon system should be 'tweaked'.

[icemaw]

I stand corrected

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by ccvi
Range estimation by stereoscopic vision does not work farther out than 50 yards.

Who told you that?

If it were true then stereoscopic vision wouldn't be a requirement for pilots (and many other professions where distance estimation is required).

[GScholz]

Actually it’s more like 20 feet.

You would have to be one-eyed not to have stereoscopic vision, so I don’t see why it would be a requirement … except to disqualify everyone that’s half-blind of course .

Beyond 20 feet or so stereoscopic vision means less. Size and movement is the prime factors in determining range beyond 20 feet.

http://www.hd3dmovies.com/3d.html

[Vulcan]

Non-binocular vision in two eyed people is not as uncommon as you might think. Depth perception is a function of the brain - not the eyes, and theres lot of reasons for not having it.

When I was a youngen I lost the use of my right eye for a couple of years due to a severed nerve to the muscles. Many operations later I regained use of that eye, however by this time my vision development had completed and I had 'learned' to see non-binocular. Funny thing was I had no idea til I did an Air Force physical - when I found out it explained a lot of wierd **** about my vision (like being an excellent shot with both eyes open, totally unable to hit balls in tennis and stuff, no idea what 100 metres down the road was).

Stereoscopic vision does go out a lot further than 20 feet GS. And it does matter, I have to fake our drivers test which checks yours eyes for binocular vision - theres no way they'd let guys with 2D vision in the air

[GScholz]

Originally posted by Vulcan
Stereoscopic vision does go out a lot further than 20 feet GS.

How would you know?! (sorry, couldn't help myself )


Wow, you need stereoscopic vision to get a drivers license? Here they let one-eyed ppl drive. They just have to have their head on a swivel to cover their blind side.

You can't judge a 100 meter distance? I find that odd since I do that with one eye all the time, 200 meters and 50 meters too (pistol/rifle shooting).

[mjolnir]

Originally posted by Straiga
The horizontal stabilizer creates lift in a downward motion on all airplanes for equalibrium.  

I feel bad picking on Straiga here, but this jumped out at me, and he said it more than once.  The horizontal stabilizer is an airfoil, just like the wing.  It creates lift, just like the wing.  The only difference is the size and location.  There is no such thing as lift in a downward direction.  Downward force on an airplane is called weight.  I don't have any handy pictures to link here and illustrate, so I'll try to draw this with words the best I can.  

Imagine a side view of an airplane.  Now imagine a big arrow coming up from about the middle of the wing, representing the lift generated by the wings.  Imagine also a smaller arrow coming straight up from the horizontal stabilizer, representing the lift created by it.  Now picture a dot somewhere between those two arrows, representing the Center of Gravity (CG).  Do some simple physics-math (force x distance) and you can figure out where the equilbrium point is.  Now if the CG slides too far forward, both arrows are behind it and the plane will go nose-down and start flipping.  Likewise, if the CG moves too far back, the plane will go nose-up and flip.  But assuming the CG stays where it should, slightly behind the lift vector from the wing, it makes sense when the empennage gets shot off that the aircraft would pitch nose-up, because the only lift remaining is in front of the CG.

Sorry, but for someone with these kind of credentials:

I have been a pilot for over 30yrs, 91/2 with the US Navy jet fighter pilot, the rest as an Airline Pilot with a major carrier flying DC10s and B767s. Im both airplane and helicopter flight instructor with ATP in both. I have a master in aeronautical engineering,with over 500 hrs in a P-51D

it just strikes me as odd that you can be that far off the mark about basic aerodynamic concepts.

[Seeker]

Originally posted by mjolnir
I feel bad picking on Straiga here, but this jumped out at me, and he said it more than once.  The horizontal stabilizer is an airfoil, just like the wing.  It creates lift, just like the wing. .

There are some (mainly canard) designs where the tail contributes lift, but for all the designs we're interested in WWII aviation, the tail does indeed supply a downward turning moment and does not contribute lift.

[GScholz]

Most planes are designed nose heavy to get the CG far enough forward to make the plane stable in the vertical, with a counteracting force (inverse lift) acting on the tail. This is why as speed increase you have to trim the nose down, the downward force acting on the tail gets stronger with speed, but the weight of the nose does not.

[bozon]

Originally posted by GScholz
Most planes are designed nose heavy to get the CG far enough forward to make the plane stable in the vertical, with a counteracting force (inverse lift) acting on the tail. This is why as speed increase you have to trim the nose down, the downward force acting on the tail gets stronger with speed, but the weight of the nose does not.

you'd have to trim the nose down as speed increases since the wings would produce more lift (proportional to the square of the speed) and you'll start climbing if you dont.

It has nothing to do with the location of the center of gravity and direction of the force induced by the elevators. the both increase propotionally and net moment is constant.

I dont know how real planes are built but having the center-of-gravity infront of the wings' center of lift is less eficient in terms of drag and maximum turnrate.

Bozon

[mjolnir]

Originally posted by Seeker
There are some (mainly canard) designs where the tail contributes lift, but for all the designs we're interested in WWII aviation, the tail does indeed supply a downward turning moment and does not contribute lift.

Read what I said again, and we're arguing the same point.  I wasn't talking about turning moments, just straight vectors.  The CG sits between the lift vector of the wing and the lift vector of the tail.  Thus, the wing provides a positive (upward) turning moment, and the tail provides a negative (downward) turning moment.  But both create lift.  Canards create lift too, and are mainly useful in delta wing designs where there is no tail and the CG sits forward of the wing lift vector.