Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: BBGunn on December 27, 2000, 02:44:00 PM
-
Do you think that the FM is getting dumbed down too much. If we took the FM's from say WB and FS2000-CFS2 for comparison-it seems to me that AH has lost a lot of torque effect and lateral inertia. In fact I'm not sure it ever had much lateral interia. My own personal whine is that I waited three years for rudder pedals and now I hardly need them. I can fly off the carrier with rudders pretty much centered. Hmmmmm. The ball still moves out on turns which require the rudder for correction-but FM seems kind of stiff some how. EG: Seems like the A6M5 and spit V should have a sort of fluid bounce to them. I am not in complete flight model withdrawals yet but I tend to picture what I saw on various air war movies/documentaries for my idea of what a fighter does-like when a spit turns in on the bogeys tail and drifts over a bit from inertia causing the pilot to correct to line up his shot etc. The planes were fluid and alive!
-
I find rudder pedals to be very useful for fine tuning for a snapshot. While I also think torque is too weak now I find rudders to be very useful.
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://www.geocities.com/nirfurian/stSanta.jpg)
-
I dont know, but if you like the corsair you should like aces high! I think these guys who came over from air warrior did not like the 38 and so they modeled it so it couldnt even meet its minimum performance specs, but never mind this they will come up with some sort of mathmatical, opinionated, or vague statement to support their claims
hey, if the corsairs doesnt fly like you like it, than make it more uber!
-
I think these guys who came over from air warrior...[/B
Eh? Hitech Creations was formed by former members of the Warbirds development team.
-
Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
I dont know, but if you like the corsair you should like aces high! I think these guys who came over from air warrior did not like the 38 and so they modeled it so it couldnt even meet its minimum performance specs, but never mind this they will come up with some sort of mathmatical, opinionated, or vague statement to support their claims.
Nonsense. First, the makers of Aces High were the makers of Warbirds, not Air Warrior. Second, I exclusively flew the AW P-38 for almost four years. I loved it; it was a great overall ride and the most versatile plane in that game. However, even I think that for all its shortcomings, the Aces High P-38 is probably closer to the mark than the Air Warrior one. If you want something with similar feel to the AW 38 in AH, try the Spit IX. In AH, it holds many of the same strengths and weaknesses: very good but not the best at turning, nice vertical control, medium speed, above average acceleration, nice firepower. Alas, there's no "airbrake" like on the AW 38, but that was improperly modelled anyway.
hey, if the corsairs doesnt fly like you like it, than make it more uber!
[/b]
The specific Corsair flight model hasn't been changed in a very long time now. All planes were affected by the addition of autotrim and corrections to incorrectly modelled E bleed. Frankly, I don't see what the fuss is with Corsairs. I've never had a problem with them in AH, and I suspect with a little practice most people wouldn't either. They're just another plane with some above average guns.
-- Todd/DMF
-
Gotta agree with BBGunn here.
If you think the FM's are fine, try this quick test. Grab an F4U or F6F on a carrier. Turn EZTrim off and then adjust rudder trim so that it is exactly centred and in line with aileron trim. Start engine, hit full throttle and WEP and do not touch your rudders or ailerons.
You'll find that these 2000hp beasts track perfectly straight down the CV with no hint of torque.
Something is surely way different than earlier versions. Perhaps torque was too much for the new guys to handle?
-
heheh I hate to tell ya but Dale cut his flight sim teeth in AW and THEN wrote WB when the AW guys wouldn't give him the time of day <G>
-
Another weirdness is that you can't raise the Corsairs tail until it's nearly at the end of the deck.
-
No wind Juzz.
-Westy
-
jekyl... not saying you are wrong about lack of torque in AH but... Why do you single out the Hog with it's "2000 hp" ?
If you go by lbs per hp and wing area, most of the other, if not all of the other planes should have more torque effect than the Hog. Most of the german planes with their light weight, high Hp and high wingloading should be twice as bad as the blue planes.
lazs
-
Way dumbed down this release.
I can takeoff and land Corsairs and Hellcats from the CV with impunity.
My total fighter time in AH since it was released in beta is almost none.
In 1.4 I could get a Corsair fully loaded off the runway but never did walk away from a landing attempt.
I liked the 1.3 Corsair, get that thing off the ground and you did something.
------------------
When did they put this thing in here and WTF is it for?
-
torque feels weak as hell now tracks straight, on cv at full power, in 1.03 it took concentration to take-off a corasir- now a blind retarded monkey can do it
-
Hey you aeronautical geniuses, tell me what the indicated airspeed is for a plane sitting on the deck of the carrier.
PS Torque is proportional to power / prop rpm.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 12-28-2000).]
-
Funked, you asked for it:
36.3 mph, the current speed of our Essex-class carrier. Also the top speed of that perticluar ship, and the Baltimore-class cruiser.
-----------------------
Flakbait
Delta 6's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
"For yay did the sky darken, and split open and spew forth fire, and
through the smoke rode the Four Wurgers of the Apocalypse.
And on their canopies was tattooed the number of the Beast, and the
number was 190." Jedi, Verse Five, Capter Two, The Book of Dweeb
(http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/htbin/custom1.jpg)
-
Fer chrissake Lazs.. I was not having a go at the big blue bird!!!!!!!
AFAIK the only fighter aircraft that can take off from carriers are the F4U, F6F, A6M5B and Seafire.
And of those, only the F4U and F6F have 2000 hp engines.
If the P47 was carrier capable, I would have tested it as well!!!!!
How could I have 'singled out' the Hog when I specifically said 'F4U and F6F' ?
[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 12-29-2000).]
-
Funked, would not torque ALSO be proportional to propellor pitch?
I would imagine the coarser the prop pitch, the greater the resultant torque effect.
-
The term "dumbed down" used above may not have been a good choice of words, but seems mild compared to some of the metaphors being posted. Anyway I found a reprint of an F6F pilot manual and noticed the following. "Trim tab settings for takeoff: elevator-1 degree down; ailerons-neutral; and rudder 30 degrees right." "Following takeoff at high gross weight, it is necessary to hold hard right rudder pressure until the flaps are raised even though full right rudder tabs are used". Torque and the other related force factors (P-factor and corkscrew effect) were obviously an important issue on take-off. Clearly I do not wish to make anyone angry but I was a bit surprised that torque etc does not seemed to be modeled in for carrier take-off.
-
Originally posted by Jekyll:
Funked, would not torque ALSO be proportional to propellor pitch?
I would imagine the coarser the prop pitch, the greater the resultant torque effect.
The answer to your question is no. Pitch doesn't impact torque. Pitch impacts amount of air displaced by the blades and correspondingly the number of RPM's of the engine due to loading the prop beyond the engines ability to produce enough horse power to maintain RPM. Lower rpm means LESS torque as the mass the engine is spinning is going slower. The amount of the mass is the same so the only variable is the speed of the prop.
Frankly the whole issue of torque on the bbs astounds me. The only time it becomes a "real" factor in flying in the GAME is if you are not using auto take off. There is no real reason for a go around on landing so torque on sudden increase of power is not an issue. If you are flying at full stall you are doing something very wrong as you will very soon be out of control of the aircraft. This is not good in a fight.
As a real pilot of a real plane (complex, retract and variable pitch prop) torque is not a big factor in flying. You learn to deal with it and apply the minimal amount of rudder needed to keep you lined up on take off. After that it becomes a very small consideration including an aborted landing.
In short, I think the "torque fanatics" need to get a life here.
Mav
-
AFAIK, and please tell me (nicely) if I'm wrong, torque is the effect caused by Newton's Third Law of Motion, i.e., for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Torque is the airframe trying to spin in the opposite direction of the propellor. The effect caused by displaced air is, I think, the P-factor/slipstream. P-factor is part of what causes most twin engined planes to have a "critical engine" (the one on the left).
I'm probably at least partly wrong. Let me know. What I'm basically trying to say is that torque isn't a problem until you are in the air. I think.
I'm done talking now (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
[This message has been edited by ispar (edited 12-31-2000).]
-
I think the word "power" takes into account the propellers pitch.
-
Pitch impacts amount of air displaced by the blades and correspondingly the number of RPM's of the engine due to loading the prop beyond the engines ability to produce enough horse power to maintain RPM.
Don't forget that AH models constant speed propellors. It would seem to my poor dim mind the following:
1. Constant speed prop = prop is always revolving at same rotational rate.
2. If prop is in coarse pitch, it is displacing more air than if in fine pitch
3. If it is displacing more air, then Newton's Third Law suggests that torque effect would be greater for an engine in coarse pitch than in fine pitch.
Too many brandys to think this through any further. Over to the aerodynamicists (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
The only time it becomes a "real" factor in flying in the GAME is if you are not using auto take off.
Hell, does ANYONE really use EZ Takeoff other than in the TA?
[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 01-01-2001).]
-
There were no flight model changes aside from what was written in the readme and that just covered some ordnance details. My world would sure be nice if I had so much spare time that I could go make all the phantom changes that gets purported by people, but the fact is I can't even get through the list of known problems I need to look at.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
Jekyll the power of the engine (or any rotating machinery) is proportional to torque times rpm. Other than a little bit of reduction gear friction, all of the power of the engine is absorbed by torques from forces acting perpendicular to the axis of prop rotation. So torque is almost precisely proportional to power divided by rpm.
In the example you describe, increasing the pitch at a constant rpm would require a power increase to maintain rpm. Otherwise the torque times rpm would exceed engine power and rpm would have to decrease.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 01-01-2001).]
-
If you think the FM's are fine, try this quick test. Grab an F4U or F6F on a carrier. Turn EZTrim off and then adjust rudder trim so that it is exactly centred and in line with aileron trim. Start engine, hit full throttle and WEP and do not touch your rudders or ailerons.
If you think the fm is dummed down based on this.. try the exact same thing from a land base.
Its not the FM being dummed down.. its a bug.
AKDejaVu
-
Actually.. don't even know that its a bug... that's just an assumption.
Hard to tell how sudden the torque effect happens (how many feet). I do know the F6F was farther left that the F4u.. though both actually were left of center. The F6F actually dropped on gear off the edge prior to clearing the front of the carrier. The Hurricane 2 dropped that gear about 10 feet sooner.
Don't really know how a 25 mph headwind would affect this... so I'm just guessing that something is wrong on the CV Deck.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by Jekyll:
Hell, does ANYONE really use EZ Takeoff other than in the TA?
[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 01-01-2001).]
Jekyll,
Usage of constant speed prop is not how you imagined it.
You set the desired RPM of the prop / engine by using the propeller control. Once the RPM is set the prop will maintain that rpm as you manipulate the throttle. More power to the prop means the prop will coarsen the pitch to maintain the preset RPM. If you lower power (throttle) the prop will fine pitch to it's built in limit at which point the rpms will drop as the engine is not putting out enough horses to maintain the RPMs. If you coarsen the pitch sufficiently the engine will bog down and lose RPM's. In my Comanche it is possible to coarsen the pitch enough in the preflight checks to kill the engine.
Prop control is maintained in two ways. Either by an electric hub or a hydraulic hub. The electric was an early version and was extensively used in WW2 bombers. That is the prop that could "run away" (go to ultra fine pitch) and destroy the engine if it couldn't be shut down fast enough. It also required the plane have a functioning generator to maintain enough electrical power to operate the prop. The battery will not hold for very long.
The hydraulic hub uses engine oil under pressure through the crankshaft or a separate line that maintains pitch by using the set pressure from the oil. A valve either opens or restricts oil flow / pressure to change blade angle. When the engine stops, the blades revert to the setting intended by design and the restraining springs in the hub. In small single airplanes it is usually fine pitch. In a multi engine plane it may feather to reduce the drag in case of an inflight engine failure.
Power is a function of the engine and how much throttle you are using. The constant speed prop regulates the RPMs as opposed to a fixed prop plane where the only control you have is the throttle.
If you change the pitch only, the engine RPMs will fluctuate unless the throttle is moved in a coordinated manner with the prop pitch control. This is because the load on the engine changes with the pitch.
Constant speed props mean you can fine tune the performance of your plane to best use the horsepower from the engine and get best efficiency from the plane. You can have a "climb prop" when climbing and a "cruise prop" when cruising which is not possible in a fixed prop plane.
Finally in answer to your last question, yes I use easy take off in MA. I see no reason not to at this time. If I need to abandon the runway on takeoff all I have to do is move my stick. I do try to avoid capped fields and the attendant vulchers however.
I hope this helps you to understand that the constant speed prop is not effective in controlling or manipulating torque.
Mav
-
WOW Pyro, am I glad to hear that, appearantly my skills majically matured between the releases.
It got easier for me to takeoff in a Corsair from 1 day to the next.
I am not trying to be a smartass....much.... but that is a fact.
------------------
When did they put this thing in here and WTF is it for?
-
Sunchaser, you can reinstall 1.04 into a different directory and see if there is a difference taking off from a normal field. Taking off from a carrier would be different because you have a good amount of airspeed before you even start to move.
There can easily be something off in what everyone refers to as "torque". But true torque is actually the easiest thing in this to calculate within reason. The hardest thing about this is trying to figure out what effect a revolving mass of airflow from the propwash has on the plane. What a lot of people don't realize is that you're dealing with multiple factors from both sides. How many people realize that the corkscrewing propwash decreases the effective angle of attack on a portion of one wing while increasing it on the other? And that this is effect is counteractive to torque? How many people realize that the tailplane usually has a built in incendence angle?
There's also a lot of misunderstanding about what true torque is and what it does and how it applies to constant speed aircraft engines. Take a hand-held grinder and fire it up. You can feel the torque pull as it comes up to speed. Once it's up to speed though, the torque is not something you have to fight. You can see the same thing with your car. Rev it in neutral and watch one side sink as it speeds up but once you get hold the rpm, it settles.
But that's kind of an aside, what most people want to think of as torque is really slipstream effect. It would be easier to exaggerate an effect that people expect to be of a certain magnitude, but we really are trying to calculate it accurately.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
How many people
realize that the corkscrewing propwash decreases the effective angle
of attack on a portion of one wing while increasing it on the other?
And that this is effect is counteractive to torque?
This is only true if the angle of attack (plus induced angle from slipstream) doesn't exceed that of the stall. What happens when you're flying slow and the wings are already at high angle of attack? The angle increases on the left wing, decreases on the right wing, what happens? It's not counteractive to torque in that case!
-
I read a story from an german aviation author, i think his name was Baumann. He flew the FW190 in the war.
He wrote about a common accident during their training on the FW190.
Earlier they were trained on a Arado aircraft with about 4-500HP. When they came into a critical situation (during landing approch, slow flight) they got used to push the throttle full forward. No Problem with 500HP.
The next aircraft what they did fly was already the FW190. 1300HP more power. When someone wasn´t careful, he reacted in the same situation in the same way, like in the Arado and pushed the throttle quickly forward.
This let the Fw190 immediatly roll on it´s head, and they crashed. He wrote that he saw many dying this way.
This is of course no "steady state". I think it has something to do with the change of the RPM. How fast can a constant-speed-mechanism adjust the RPM? In AH it´s always constant, no matter how fast you change your power setting. I remember the mechanism of the P40 from zenoswarbirdsvideos, it worked pretty slow. That would mean if you open your throttle very fast you can reach 4000,5000 RPM for a short time right?
niklas
-
Thank you again Pyro.
Due to the fact that I thought I might have missed something I went to a land base, got a Corsair and loaded it up and needed 1 notch right rudder and 1 notch flaps to take off.
From CV with same load took same with rudder and 2 notches of flaps and I almost crashed when the left wing dropped on liftoff.
Torque is there.
My knowledge of aerodynamics allows me to distinguish them from a bottle of beer so I defer to you.
That TBM is beautiful.
------------------
When did they put this thing in here and WTF is it for?
-
Originally posted by niklas:
I read a story from an german aviation author, i think his name was Baumann. He flew the FW190 in the war.
He wrote about a common accident during their training on the FW190.
Earlier they were trained on a Arado aircraft with about 4-500HP. When they came into a critical situation (during landing approch, slow flight) they got used to push the throttle full forward. No Problem with 500HP.
The next aircraft what they did fly was already the FW190. 1300HP more power. When someone wasn´t careful, he reacted in the same situation in the same way, like in the Arado and pushed the throttle quickly forward.
This let the Fw190 immediatly roll on it´s head, and they crashed. He wrote that he saw many dying this way.
This is of course no "steady state". I think it has something to do with the change of the RPM. How fast can a constant-speed-mechanism adjust the RPM? In AH it´s always constant, no matter how fast you change your power setting. I remember the mechanism of the P40 from zenoswarbirdsvideos, it worked pretty slow. That would mean if you open your throttle very fast you can reach 4000,5000 RPM for a short time right?
niklas
Let’s stop for a while right here. Forget about Hogs, Nikis, 27 loops etc.
Let’s hear analyze the story/anecdotes from Herr Baumann. Here you have someone who flew the particular type explaining the particular effect. Of course, he did not put out the numbers or formulas, just the effect he noticed. Does that immediately disqualify him ? Hmmm, I’d rather listen to this guy than a dozen of engineers with formulas (being an enginner myself (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)).
He states that 190 would flip on its back if throttle was pushed full forward from idle, at low speeds. Supposedly he is right. I believe I heard of P 51 pilots noticing/experiencing similar effect.
I tried it for few minutes, but could not reproduce this effect in AH. If you can, please tell me so we do not drag this further.
But if it really doesn’t feel like the 190 Herr Baumann flew, the 190 who would kill its pilot at low speeds, then what now ? What is the next step ? Whine ? No, just put the question here and discuss it. OF course asskissers will qualify it a whine, but let them. If there is someone with hidden agenda, it is them.
Is it possible that torque effect has been toned down for whatever reason ? Intentional or non intentional ? Formulas do not offer the ultimate answer many times. Being a civil engineer, I know it happens. Empiric formulas, coefficients etc etc. Almost every graduate out of technical college believes hard in his formulas. But he is in after a tough lesson once his formulas fail and some "uneducated" worker comes with the right answer (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif). The thruth is in between. I’d say it goes similar with aerodynamics.
Remember the torque effects from 0.33 beta ? Please, do find AH 0.33 and take off in G-10. And do it here. Planes DO feel different. And same programmers did both versions. Could it be they for whatever reason modeled something differently ? Some planes benefit out of it, some don’t.
Don’t get me wrong here, I am not jumping at particular plane or HTC.
I just want the Fw 190 to feel as a WW2 German veteran pilot would describe it.
Take Fw 190 in WB. You will notice it is a lot different in roll. So much inertia that you can call the plane almost unresponsive. I know HTC staf was at iMagic/iEN long time ago. But they did the WB flight model. Others only tweaked with it. Were they wrong then ? Are they wrong now ?
I can say that I like AH Fw 190 much more, in WB its roll rate advantage is hardly existant.
Forgive me if I offended some spirits, I would just like to know the answer. Who is right ? WB, AH 0.33, AH 1.03, AH 1.04 or CFS ? Or at leaast who is closer ? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Actually, concerning the torque effects, planes in WB and AH feels pretty close. Tried taking off without pedals, almost the same.
As for inverting the 190, here’s the worst scenario. I drop speed down to 120-140 kph IAS, nose slightly high, like landing approach.The left wing has tendency to drop now. If I realize this and start panicking and push the throttle from idle all the way forward, the torque is enough to induce the drop of the left wing. Planes now goes some 90 degrees to the left in roll. Pretty dangerous for a novice at ground level, I’d say.
Could this be the effect Baumann described ?
-
I keep pointing this out, and it keeps being overlooked.
Is "slamming the throttle" in real life the same as slamming it in AH with our simplified engine controls? I think not, hence AH will not match the cited analogies. That does not mean that torque effects are not modelled properly in normal flight.
And to answer one of the questions posed above, I think the latest version of AH is the "closest". Still, they keep on making it better. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Lephturn - Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs http://www.flyingpigs.com (http://www.flyingpigs.com)
"A pig is a jolly companion, Boar, sow, barrow, or gilt --
A pig is a pal, who'll boost your morale, Though mountains may topple and tilt.
When they've blackballed, bamboozled, and burned you, When they've turned on you, Tory and Whig,
Though you may be thrown over by Tabby and Rover, You'll never go wrong with a pig, a pig,
You'll never go wrong with a pig!" -- Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"
-
It's time for HT and Pyro to come clean and make a full confession.
If a group of 50 professional flight simulation programmers working hand in glove with an aircraft manufacturer's engineers and test pilots...
having access to all current design and flight test data can come up with programming that is acceptable to the FAA to certify a simulator as a Class III device (same as an airplane for checkout purposes)...
and will run on a computer setup that only costs about a million dollars....
and can get all that programming done in about three years.....
HOW COME
the six AH employees haven't supplied a "perfect" flight model for WW2 fighters based on nearly non-existent or extremely hard to find test data, that will run on a $700 desktop PC an ENTIRE YEAR after the debut of the beta program?
Come on Pyro or HT...'fess up!
Enquiring minds can't figure this out!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Toad...Enjoying 1.05, looking forward to 1.06!
-
Toad, I get the point. Yes, they have done remarkable job so far.
But your post kind of goes into a@kissing territory (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
I guess I'd rather be that than a never-satisfied, always complaining, impolite, disrespectful, never-even-flown-an-airplane-in-RL flight model/game critic expert.
Not a pointed personal comment, just a general observation.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
I think Niklas got it right. The prop regulators weren't perfect. If you change power quickly there should be some RPM fluctuation.
-
Well, I'd rather be all you state above than an asskisser (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
and that's just ONE of the differences between you and I. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Remember old Spiro Agnew?
"In a 1969 speech against war protesters, he said, "A spirit of national masochism prevails, encouraged by an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals." "In the United States today," Agnew told a 1970 audience in San Diego, "we have more than our share of the nattering nabobs of negativism."
Well, Spiro, we have more than our share in AH as well.
...and if you refuse to "natter" along with them
...if you show a little decency and respect to the guys who make this all possible
Guess what you get called? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
BaD MaNnErS RuLz, DoOds! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 01-03-2001).]