Author Topic: Remodeling the flight model  (Read 8449 times)

Offline bod

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: its to funny
« Reply #90 on: June 20, 2003, 12:42:26 PM »
As i said: Power = Torque * angular velocity, No torque - no power, so obviously you want torque, you need torque or the plane will not move.

But from an aerodynamic point of view you want to use the engine to accelerate air, and you want to accelerate it straight bakcward. Any other direction, including spinning of that air is lost power (except vectoring thrust where you want to divert the thrust). A turbojet and turbofan does this with exellence, a propeller does not.

Newton said that force equal opposite force, this is the truth, and there really is no way of fooling it (although many have tried :) ). If you manage to accelerate the air straight back, you will have thrust straight forward. If for some reason you set the air into spin, you will also have an opposing force rotating the plane in opposite direction. What you want is to convert all the torque on the engine shaft into thrust, straight clean thrust with no spin because this will give maximum efficiency, maximum thrust. In a fan or propeller the torque on the shaft is a result of the drag on the blades. The drag on the blades is a direct result of the lift on the blades (thrust) - more thrust = more drag = more torque. The air see this thrust (lift) as linear acceleration straight back while it see the drag as angular acceleration (spinning).

In a fan this spinning is stopped by stationary vanes. The result of this is that the fan sets the air into spin. You need torque to do this from the shaft. The stationary vanes stop the spinning of the air which require an equal amount of torque in the opposite direction. The engine see two torques - one from the shaft and one from the stationary vanes and since they are opposite in direction and roughfly equal in size they cansel each other out. The air comes in straight and linear and leaves straight and linear, thus no net spin is put on the air and therefore no net torque is put on the plane (Newton's law). The torque on the shaft however, is large but so are the torque on the stationary vanes. (The stationary vanes can also be in front of the fan setting the air in spinning motion and any combination, it doesnt matter just as long as the air comes in straight and leaves straight).

On a propeller there really is no way of balancing the torque properly, unless you use contrarotating props which is complicated and expensive, and does not work as good in real life as in theory. On a propeller airplane you therefore allways will have an amount of unbalanced torque that will rotate the plane in roll and create swirling propeller slipstream.

Another general principle is that it is more efficient to accelerate large amounts of air a little than it is to accelerate a small amount of air alot (Thrust = mass of air * acceleration of air). This means that although a propeller is not as efficient in terms of lost torque, it can nevertheless have a better overall efficiency due to the large amount of air that is accelerated just a little.

Gyroscopic forces and other transient forces (slamming the throttle for instance) really has nothing to do with aerodynamics at all. They all produce torque in some way, but not continously. Ever done a lomcevak by the way?

About the vertical stab, just think about it, force = opposite force ALLWAYS. The slipstream hits the vertical fin and creates a force on it - you adjust the rudder to compensate. What you really are doing is to set an effective aoa on the vertical fin so that the rotating slipstream do not create any force either way. The effective aoa on the vertical fin = angle on slipstream. The only way to have the plane not to yaw is to have zero resulting torque about the yaw axis (Newton again) and there is NO other way.  

Quote
Originally posted by Straiga
Bod,
I total cannot understand what you are talking about. 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.
The N1 stage off a jet engine has as many as 13 stages of stator vanes, these are for diverting and decreasing pressure of the air before it enters the burner canisters, fuel is introduced into fine mist not touching anypart of the canisters, then the ignitors light  the fuel. Then the exploding gas exits onto the N2 stage of the
of the turbine which has a shaft that turns the N1 compressure. this is an axil flow type turbine. Some N1 and N2 sections turn opposite of each other. No torge just gyro precession.

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

Offline Tilt

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
      • FullTilt
Remodeling the flight model
« Reply #91 on: June 20, 2003, 09:19:33 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by F4UDOA
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.
 


This makes sense...

btw

Any 109 exerting Hp over 1800 had a greater hp/m^2 of wing area than the La7 {la7 had more wing surface area than the 109}

The la7 was slightly shorter and had slightly less wing span. Its wing deepened however at the root.........also its tail surfaces were larger but closer to the C of G.

I have not done the maths on the D9 but would expect its hp/m^2 to be lower still.

Also if by control surface you refer to elevator and rudder surface area then you will note the significant size difference between Lavochkins and other AC of similar size.

Both these plan views are to the same scale.

« Last Edit: June 20, 2003, 09:24:30 PM by Tilt »
Ludere Vincere

Offline btone

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Remodeling the flight model
« Reply #92 on: June 20, 2003, 11:25:01 PM »
I dunno if this has ben mentioned/covered, or if I'm TOTALLY WRONG, but I was wondering about the amount of trim controls.  I have looked at pictures etc. of planes, and the trim tabs are always TINY as compared to their relative control surface.  But I have noticed also that in the game if I am flying, say, a BF-110 g2 and get it into one of those terrible stalls where it just falls toward the ground just below it's stall speed, the big ol' elevator won't do diddely crap, but the tiny little elevator trim tab can actually make a difference. Might someone correct me, or if by some mistake I am correct mabye this needs fixing.

Whatever you do please don't get mad if I'm wrong, I really don't know that much, and I apologize for all incorrect information.
Thanks

Offline artik

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1909
      • Blog
Remodeling the flight model
« Reply #93 on: June 21, 2003, 12:09:24 AM »
Brakes
Can both brakes be prssed differently - via rudder for exemple if I apply light right rudder the right brake force will be 65% and left 35% just like in WB (sorry). With this option you can taxi much easyly and when landing you can control your plane better.

Me262 Turbojet Engines
Me262 jets had some problems in real life:
If you operate you throttle too hard - at high speed and high RPM you close too fast your throttle you just get both engines cut.
At hi speeds - of 400-500 km/h you could not reduce your throttle less then 7000 rpm
Artik, 101 "Red" Squadron, Israel

Offline Straiga

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 205
Torgue
« Reply #94 on: June 21, 2003, 02:20:29 AM »
Torgue is present in every rotating mass, and is also present in non moving objects. Anything that is that has a twisting or bending moment to it. Thats is torge.

An airliner that is sitting on the ground park no engines running just sitting there has torge affecting it. The stress of the wing bending on its own weight the fulcrum is at the fuselage and arm or bending moment is the torgue.
As in an engine the N1, and N2 is the measure of the percentage of rpm in the low and high stage axial compressors. EPR is a measure of the air as it enters the engine, and the gas pressure at the turbine discharge. The ratio between the two is read directly on the instrument dial. One of the engine variables such as compressor rpm, turbine discharge pressure or engine pressure ratio, all of which vary with thrust, should be employed as an indication of propulsive force which an engine is developing. When an engine is on its test stand all cockpit gauge and more gauges monitor the engine as its is running. Engineers can calculate anything that engines is doing through all ranges of opperation. For example how much torgue is the engine pylon taking, either from thrust, increasing or decreasing RPM of the rotation of the mass turning or gyroscopic precession.  Based off the information they recieve from various gauges and the engineering calculations.
In a jet airplane we dont care about torgue that the engines produces. We want to know air density, temp, barometric pressure to determine MCT(Max continuous thrust) or for a normal rated takeoff. How much trust is available for that day,weight of the airplane, runway length, dry or wet runways. Can we go fly for that given information.
Yes turbo-props and helicopters have torge gauges. Because of only a small part of propulsive force is derived from the jet thrust, neither turbine discharge pressure nor engine pressure ratio is used as an indication of the power produced by a turbo-prop engine. Turbo-props are usually fitted with a torguemeter, operated by a torguemeter ring-gear in the engine nose-section, similar to the torguemeter provided on large reciprcation engines. The torge being developed by the engine is proportional to the horse power. Torguemeter oil pressure is used to indicate shaft horsepower.(SHP)and similar with helicopters.

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Remodeling the flight model
« Reply #95 on: June 21, 2003, 05:59:27 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by 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



With a duel throttle it's possible to pull off a perfect hammerhead in a P-38, just cut throttle to one engine and let gravity do it's work.  It's also possible to do it without a duel throttle but takes some practice but mine usually look really sloppy unless I'm using a duel throttle.

ack-ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline ccvi

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
      • http://www.carl-eike-hofmeister.de/
Remodeling the flight model
« Reply #96 on: June 21, 2003, 06:37:35 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by btone
I dunno if this has ben mentioned/covered, or if I'm TOTALLY WRONG, but I was wondering about the amount of trim controls.  I have looked at pictures etc. of planes, and the trim tabs are always TINY as compared to their relative control surface.


The trim tabs don't work like the control surfaces themselves do, they just change the  deflection of the control surfaces - trim tab down makes the control surfaces go up. So a small change has a pretty big effect.

Offline Tinker

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12
The Real World Trim tab has little relation to the AH Combat Trim.
« Reply #97 on: June 21, 2003, 10:34:34 AM »
My original Post on the Control Authority given the Combat Trim system in Aces High seems to have been sidetracked a bit.

The AH Combat Trim has Control Authority greater than that of the pilots control inputs in many cases. Not a situation anywhere near the desired effects or the real world design for that matter.

I Augered a P 51 in the MA recently due to "my forgeting to turn combat trim off" before starting a series of straffing run s.  

The combat trim totally overcame the elevator commands and aileron commands as I manuvered low to the ground, even with throttle greatly reduced, the aircraft was responding to the Combat trim system instead of my stick inputs..  Very frustrating...

The Flight Model also seems to only recognize the reduced drag and weight of the aircraft after ordnance release - after the weapons select (backspace key), has been toggled and the guns and cannons again selected...  Especially noticeable on low powered aircraft such as the  Zero...

Offline artik

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1909
      • Blog
Remodeling the flight model
« Reply #98 on: June 21, 2003, 12:26:19 PM »
So lets delete this unreal feacher - lets make pilots trim their planes manualy. if you feel to much froce on stick just press I/K/J/L/M/, and all ok!!!! More reality like real trimmers.

I never use this option - more realism.
Artik, 101 "Red" Squadron, Israel

Offline udet

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2242
      • http://www.angelfire.com/nd/mihaipruna/dogfight.html
Remodeling the flight model
« Reply #99 on: June 21, 2003, 04:02:15 PM »
-there is too much visibility over the nose. Try the Corsair in FS2k2 and let me know if you see any difference :P
-every plane in AH flies like a Cessna 152-i.e. rudder is not needed for coordinated flight.

Offline ccvi

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
      • http://www.carl-eike-hofmeister.de/
Remodeling the flight model
« Reply #100 on: June 21, 2003, 05:02:49 PM »
Too much visibility over the nose?

At 100 meters a fighter should just fit into the circle of the cross hair (of german planes). In AH if an nmy fighter is at 110 (or whatever is 100 meters) flying knifes edge part of his lower wing isn't visible because it's below the nose. I don't think the crosshair IRL was partly showing the nose...

Offline btone

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Remodeling the flight model
« Reply #101 on: June 22, 2003, 03:45:20 PM »
Sorry to but in between the visibility issues, but I was just going to say I'm all for it if HTC wants to just rid us of the whole combat trim or whatever it's called (I disabled it as soon as I figured out what it did, which I still don't understand :-) ).

Maybe, if they like it becuase it helps begginners, they could have it as an arena option, so that it could be on for a training arena, but off at all other times, and toggleable in H2H.

Thanks

(p.s.- I know that combat trim in AH works totally different than real trim, I wasn't talking about combat trim to start with, just to clear things up.

Offline F4UDOA

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1731
      • http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/index.html
Remodeling the flight model
« Reply #102 on: June 22, 2003, 07:36:06 PM »
Udet,

Visabilty over the nose is 100% subjective to what ever pilot or annecdote you may have read. I have numerous references for points of view on that subject.

Instead I think using photographic replications of the cockpits and there views are the way to go.

On a similiar subject 6 views are also very subective. Take a look at WB3 and compare it to AH. Both are replicating the same thing but have opposite results. How is that possible?

I have a quote from the 1944 Joint Fighter Conferance stating that in a F4U-1 you can look over your shoulder and see the virtical stab and that you can from the inside of a P-51D look over your shoulder and see the opposite horizontal stab. This is more generous than AH let alone the horrible view system in WB3.

BTW. I do feel that some of the Axis A/C such as the FW190 have a horrible view over the nose while the 109 has a rediculous 6 view allowing for an external view. I'm sure some better research from the community could help HTC change some of this.

Offline Ike 2K#

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1739
Remodeling the flight model
« Reply #103 on: June 23, 2003, 01:33:32 AM »
I heard that spitfires are more manuverable than hurricanes. Is that true? I suspect that Hurricane 1 can turn better than spit 1 in AH during dogfights.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Remodeling the flight model
« Reply #104 on: June 23, 2003, 02:28:59 AM »
The Hurri did turn tighter than the Spitfire, but the Spitfire completed any given number of degrees of turning faster owing to its higher speed.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-