Remodeling the flight model

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by hazed-
Personally I think that the combat trim is actually too good.If used properly it is actually so effective it makes those of us who try to trim manually (as the real pilots had to) have a hard time. Especially in energy fighting.Could we have it toned down a little?

Im all for helping a newbie but its too much help imo.

I think the effectiveness of CT depend on the plane you fly.  Turn on CT in a P-38 and you'll find that CT will seriously hamper your ability to ride the edge of the envelope.  Read Lephturn's article on Combat Trim because he explains why CT is effective in some planes and why it's not in others.


Ack-Ack

[AKWeav]

Perhaps I should have made my post a bit clearer. If I lose my engine for lack of fuel, and don't reduce rpm prior to the engine cutting out, the plane don't glide worth two dead flies. However it the engine gets shot out, it's like all of a sudden I'm in the most areodynamic machine ever built. Don't know if that is correct or not, just doesn't seem right.

[flakbait]

Originally posted by Straiga
First of all Jet turbines do have torge its measured on takeoff on the N1 and N2 gauges or torge gauge in someplanes or EPR gauge. Increase power on a turbine can torge an airplane. A single Eng Jet figher needs to on takeoff, counter torge and gyro precession.(a Rotating Mass) depending on what type of turbine is in its belly.

Counter rotating or not you will still have prop slip stream! Thats just the way its is.
About the vertical Stab zeroing out. ???????????????????????????

Bod is right, sorry to say.

NASA web site on jet propulsion:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/shortp.html

BTW, no pilot would ever confuse N1, N2, and EPR with a torque gauge. EPR is the difference in pressure between the compressor face and exhaust nozzle. The only place you'll find an EPR gauge is on jet fighters and airliners. N1 is low compressor speed, N2 is high compressor speed. Torque is not measured on jets, only on turbo-props and helos. Even then, it's measured at the transmission; something jet engines don't have. You claim to be a high-time helo pilot? A student could get this right.



-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School
Put the P-61B in Aces High

[Straiga]

When I go fly mys Dads P-51D Mustang,When i Get a chance, Either on takeoff or airbourne I use rudder to counter torge nothing else. On takeoff If the rudder goes to the stop I get of the Power you only use 1/3 of the power to get airbourne as you steadly and slowly increase power. At altitude I still use rudder to counter torge you never want  to just jam the power to it then there would be nothing nothing to counter torge anyway. Airplanes fly just as good with out Ailerons I teach students emergency procedures on control failures where the students use rudder and elevator trim  to fly the plane back to the airport

[Mitsu]

Please implement new FM to the Ki-84!

[GScholz]

Oh yeah Straiga, many of the early airplanes didn't even have ailerons, just rudder and elevator. A couple of days ago I landed a 152 with both wingtips and ailerons missing, and later that same day I landed a 110 with no elevators or rudders. Amazing what you can do without when you have to.

[hazed-]

Originally posted by GScholz
Hazed, actually all your tests are a bit short I believe. The "target" travels with your plane (to stay at the set range). You could say that your test is correct if fiering at a plane flying away from you at aprox. the same speed. I've been pinged by B17's .50 cals as far out as d1.8k.

However you are absulutely correct that the guns with a higher muzzle velocity has an unfair range advantage, in addition to being easier to aim (which is correct).

not if you fire a continueous burst with 7800 rounds of ammo in the guns.(10x) by testing this way the target behaves like a paper target would, if placed at the same distance from a moving gun platform. If no bullets fly through it then those bullets arent making it that far ever.This is what is happening in AH
This is often the way we fire at running aircraft anyway.If your slowly closing and you fire a shavak 20mm when your target is 1000 yards away, and your barely closing, this means no matter how many 20mm you fire, they will never reach the target. No matter how good your aim.
However a 50 caliber can start firing at them as soon as they come within 1350 yards!!!. Any way you look at it this makes the 50 cals the longest ranged weapons with the fastest bullets and the best trajectory.
The Bombers get an advantage of distance too if the 3 second rule applies to them also because after 3 seconds all bullets dissapear. If it was set so after a certain distance has been travelled by the bullets we would ALL be able to shoot right out to 14k! (or whatever the b17s manage to shoot to, I must say ive been hit further out than 14k by themtoo so for now, ill use 50cal length from my test).

As it is in AH now, if you had 30mm guns defending a b17 you would be unable to hit anything further out than 900 yards! no matter what you did they would be unhurt because your bullets would cease to exist after 3 seconds (the furthest they will travel will be a lot less than any 50cals ergo less defensive range)

surely i cant be alone in thinking this method really doesnt help any type of gun that is slower or heavier in caliber when in fact although some were very hard to aim due to their poor trajectory they had the fact that they were filled with far more explosive power to, in most cases, compensate fully for it. The 20mm did far more damage than the 50 caliber and both would be still capable of causing damage at well over 1300 yards. The 20mm would have to be aimed differently(raised) but it could still hit and probably cause more damage. Not so in AH. Because of a timer it ceased to exist.

now i know why its so easy to hit with those 50's in bombers!

[ViFF]

Aren't LW cannon shells fuzed to explode at a certain distance/time ?

[Mini D]

Originally posted by AKWeav
Perhaps I should have made my post a bit clearer. If I lose my engine for lack of fuel, and don't reduce rpm prior to the engine cutting out, the plane don't glide worth two dead flies. However it the engine gets shot out, it's like all of a sudden I'm in the most areodynamic machine ever built. Don't know if that is correct or not, just doesn't seem right.

This is something I've noticed too.  If I run out of fuel... the prop generates tons of drag.  If the engine is shot out... nadda.

MiniD

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Mini D
This is something I've noticed too.  If I run out of fuel... the prop generates tons of drag.  If the engine is shot out... nadda.

MiniD

It appears that the planes go into automatic feathering when the engines shuts down due to engine damage.  I've also noticed (at least in the P-38), the same thing happens even when the engine shuts down from lack of fuel.  The only time I've noticed drag from a shut down engine is when I shut it down manually.

One thing that has always made me curious is why do the wheel brakes still work if you do a belly landing and why don't they work if you land dead stick?


Ack-Ack

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Straiga
When I go fly mys Dads P-51D Mustang...

Out of curiosity, what is the name of your Dad's P-51?



Ack-Ack

[Wilbus]

Perhaps I should have made my post a bit clearer. If I lose my engine for lack of fuel, and don't reduce rpm prior to the engine cutting out, the plane don't glide worth two dead flies. However it the engine gets shot out, it's like all of a sudden I'm in the most areodynamic machine ever built. Don't know if that is correct or not, just doesn't seem right.

What Ack-Ack said, auto-feathering was implamented some time ago in AH so all planes that could feather automaticly do it when engine is shot dead.

Tourqe is AFAIK not countered by rudder on the ground. What you counter on the ground is Yaw effect created by the prop slip stream that pushes the vertical stabilizer one way or the other (depending on what way the prop is spinning). The prop stream pushes the tail plain (vertical stab) one way thus the nose wants to turn.

Tourqe is an effect created by the prop spinning and the actual plane want spin with it. If you throttle up slowly the plane will be able to counter this it self on the ground, still being stable. If you throttle up to max very quickly it will flip it over, has got nothing to do with slip stream only the fact that two bodies will want to spin together. The prop has a force working in one direction (well every direction really but let's say one) while the body must counter that force.

[Wilbus]

Just to clearify one more time...

Tourqe and slip stream are NOT the same things. Tourqe doesn't make a plane want to turn on the runway.

[LoneStarBuckeye]

There has been some discussion in the past about the inability to perform proper hammerheads and tailslides due to some peculiarity in the AH flight model.  I have no idea whether the claims about the flight model are correct, but I do know that I have never been able to perform a pure hammerhead or tailslide.  If I kill and slam the throttle at the top of the vertical climb, I can produce sort of an ugly approximation of a hammerhead, but I don't think that this is the way it is normally done.

Anyway, I'm no expert, but if there is there is a problem with the current FM that prevents or inhibits these maneuvers, the ability to perform them properly might be a good verification of your modifications.

Thanks.

- JNOV

[F4UDOA]

Gents,

Everytime I hear a conversation about torque and aircraft modeling I get motion sick.

In an envirement were annecedotal evindence is largely ignored for some reason the mention of torque modeling sends people into a rant about Ground loops, ensign eliminator, torque roll etc.

Let us not forget that this is all annecdotal Bullsh*t until someone proves otherwise.

Here are my reasons for this.

1. Aircraft with large engines and high HP also had the control surfaces to counteract this affect.

2. These aircraft also had trim tabs to counter these effects which worked quite well. We should have trim settings in degrees so we can use them realistically IMHO.

3. Annecdotal evidence is relative to pilot experiance. IE if your used to a T-6 then a P-51 will have much torque. If your used to a Wildcat a F4U will have much torque. It doesn't mean anything in practical FM modeling.

4. If your going to arrive at a conclusion and then change the facts to match the conclusion you will be changing the FM weekly to match what Joe Blows uncle may have said 40 years ago.

If you want to model torque I think a good starting point would be the A/C with high HP ie 109G10, La-7 and 190D9 which had very high HP and almost no relative control surface to dampen the effect. The190D9 didn't even have aileron trim IRL.

Basically stay away from revisionest history and we will be fine.