Author Topic: 190A vs SpitVB (Read 8447 times)

hitech · « **Reply #210 on:** July 31, 2003, 10:49:03 AM »

On the drag subject, you guys might want to find out what the glide ratio was on these planes and run some test.

One thing i've found in AH as compaired to real flying. Time seems to go much faster when flying for real, simple things like a climb out in AH seem to take forever and a 2k per min climb seem realy slow in ah. In A real plane it feels like you are a rocket.

Same thing with landing, set up a standard pattern aproch at 1k above the ground, fly a down wind at what would be normal pattern speeds. Then see if you still don't think the planes will slow down.

And use the standard numbers of turning final at 500ft, it will look like you are hardly desending with 500 to 700 fpm decent.

HiTech

Toad · « **Reply #211 on:** July 31, 2003, 11:01:59 AM »

Yeah, HT, one thing I've wondered about in this respect is the "picture" of the field you get through the cockpit. For example, I often get the feeling that I'm a long way from the runway and then "whoops! time to land!" suddenly becomes obvious.

Could be a "perspective" thing that is somehow mixed up in scaling, FOV or "pixel based 19" view screen". Anyway, it does in fact seem different from RL.

I know! Put windsocks at the base turn points so we can turn over them at 800 AGL and fly a known pattern. A three mile outer marker would be nice too...

Ever think of calling this new version Aces Flight Simulator High 2003?

Glide ratio on a P-51 is in the neighborhood of 3 miles per 1K ~ 175mph, isn't it?

Wmaker · « **Reply #212 on:** July 31, 2003, 11:04:34 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
As far as I know the 109 is the only WWII fighter with this trimming system.

Fiat G.50 and Bristol Bulldog for example had the same kind of elevator trim.

P.S. You too DiieWankee!

GScholz · « **Reply #213 on:** July 31, 2003, 11:16:49 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wmaker
Fiat G.50 and Bristol Bulldog for example had the same kind of elevator trim.

P.S. You too DiieWankee!

And then there was three ...

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #214 on:** July 31, 2003, 01:14:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
Sounds like a conspiricy to me.
HiTech

No, it may sound like a lack of interest instead of a conspiracy.

I suppose every plane needs hours of research, modeling and development to be implemented and "fine tuned" in the game. More than probably, HTC personel invested more resources in the P51 modeling than in the C202. Does that mean a lack of interest in C202? Well, compared to P51, yep. Of course, this is just a fictional example.

hitech · « **Reply #215 on:** July 31, 2003, 01:47:29 PM »

And you are dead wrong about it madoble. Just as hazed is.

It comes down to "well HTCisn't doing what I want them to, therefore they are biased or don't care about my particular plane." And that consept is so far from how we operate, that it exasperates me when some people like you and hazed keep restating it in different forms.

2nd unlike f4udoa who now seems to understand the problem in doing plane research, but didn't orignaly ,there is lots of data out there, and most of it confilicts with eachother, some even with it's self.

Therefore just pulling one source dosn't invalidate our version of an aircraft.

You and hazed follow the clasic example of totaly biased when it comes to evaluating plane performance. You start with a conclusion and then just look everywhere for the 1 sample that proves your point, and ignor all other items that contridict it.

And Hazed we do hit our performance charts on all planes.We have stated that before. There are lots of people how have tested them, and we always hit the numbers when they run an accurate test and not looking to prove there point. Did you even try out F4UDOA's suggestion to get the speed with a film?

HiTech

Toad: And what is the glide ratio in AH.

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #216 on:** July 31, 2003, 02:21:05 PM »

No hitech, you are not understanding my point. What Hazed said may be interpreted as:
1 - A lack of interest, as I decided to interpret.
2 - A LW conspiracy, as you decided to interpret.

BTW, as I said before, the charts we have are climb rate at a constant speed and max speed at a constant altitude. None of these represent factors like acceleration, zoom, dive, roll. For me, climb rate alone at a constant speed has a relative interest, but not a mayor interest. Same with top speed. And none of them give a clear image about a fighter performance during fight. For example, I have no real problems with 190A8 not matching exact top speed numbers, or exact substained climb numbers. I use both of them just to ferry from one point to another, and rarely in combat.

hitech · « **Reply #217 on:** July 31, 2003, 02:43:38 PM »

Mandoble I understood you perfectly, you stated that we have more interstest in the p51 than we do the 202. As a hypothetical.

I'm just telling you, that you are dead wrong.

With the exception of roll.

acceleration, zoom, dive are a function of weight put together with speed and climb curves. But of course you knew that with your great math/physics back ground.

HiTech

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #218 on:** July 31, 2003, 03:10:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
acceleration, zoom, dive are a function of weight put together with speed and climb curves. But of course you knew that with your great math/physics back ground.

Well, disagree with that. You are stating that knowing the weight, max level speed at some altitudes, and substained climb rate at a constant speed, I'm going to find out how that object accelerates, zooms or dives. I think I will miss some critical factors there, engine related and shape related ones.

Lets suppose I have an 9000 lb "object" with max speed of 450 mph at 10k and climbing at 3000 fpm at 160 mph at 10k also. With only that data (the data we have except the weight (we dont have it)) how can I calculate the time needed to reach 400 mph starting at 160 mph at 10k?

Toad · « **Reply #219 on:** July 31, 2003, 03:18:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
Toad: And what is the glide ratio in AH.

Fudge if I know! Nor do I really care. If it's off by 321.623 feet per 1000 of altitude, it makes no difference to me.

I'm not the type to stare deep into my bellybutton and wonder at the internal cosmic mysteries of the AH FM and why a certain plane seems to be off 2 mph in top speed from what my "Famous Planes of WW2" playing card says.

I just play the game, mostly. It does seem like I have troubling slowing down when I want to, like landing, but I never have trouble slowing down when I don't want to, like turn fighting.

More I think about it though, the more I think the "game" visual cues for distance to the field does not compute against my RL visual cues for distance to the field very well. But that's probably just a flat screen pov/fov thing.

I know this.. the glide ratio is never good enough when somebody is chasing me.

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #220 on:** July 31, 2003, 03:43:19 PM »

Just a final question about plane modeling. Is there any free or comercial wind tunel software were you can test 3D models with the corresponding weights and simulated engine?

Shiva · « **Reply #221 on:** July 31, 2003, 03:53:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
LOL! Well if the LW planes had too little drag modelled I don't think it would be the LW guys crying bloody murder. I can see it now "WTH! the Dora outpaces my Spit IX even with the engine out!"

If you want to see a bad case of mismodelled drag, fire up SWOTL (Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe, for those of you who don't remember it) and take up a Do-335. I remember flying one mission over England where I was worried about running out of fuel on the return trip, so I throttled back to idle and waited to see what kind of glide ratio I could get. Ten minutes later I was over my home field, still over 400 IAS, having lost only 2000 feet of altitude. Definitely a screwed-up drag model somewhere; I can't believe that the Ameisenbär was that clean — it just defies imagination.

F4UDOA · « **Reply #222 on:** July 31, 2003, 04:02:37 PM »

MANDOBLE,

Your equation isn't that hard to figure really, and I am a novice.

Except you contradict yourself a bit. First you said that the airplane or object weighted 9K then you said you didn't know the weight.

I will assume it is 9,000lbs and you want to know how fast it will get to 400MPH from 160MPH.

I will answer you as soon as I can do the math. Be patient, it takes me a while. BTW I going to use the Dora's aspect ratio and HP for the calculations although even if I went generic it would still be close.

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #223 on:** July 31, 2003, 04:17:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by F4UDOA
Except you contradict yourself a bit. First you said that the airplane or object weighted 9K then you said you didn't know the weight

In my example I put 9000lb, what we dont know is the weight of our modeled planes in AH. The fact is that we only have a pair of graphs per plane.

BTW, with only that data, you probably are going to have a hard time calculating how drag and thrust will vary along the acceleration process.

hitech · « **Reply #224 on:** July 31, 2003, 04:44:05 PM »

As to wind tunnels programs, i've just heard of a new one called accel.

HiTech