Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: SgtPappy on July 28, 2009, 12:12:12 PM
-
Good day ladies and gents,
I know we're all about WWII era aircraft here for most of the time, but many of us have a wealth of information on jet fighters, bombers, interdiction/strike aircraft... etc. the list goes on.
I'd greatly appreciate it if anyone could post their BEST sites, book titles or other material about jet aircraft technology.
I'm on my way to aerospace engineering in a month and seeing as how interesting the university labs were, I decided to bulk up a little more on my jet aircraft know-how. I'm particularly interested in learning what defines jet aircraft from First, Second .... Fifth generation jets and the development of jet engine powerplants and airframes.
Thanks so much!
EDIT: Oh, btw, if anyone's got a jet-fighter sim that is anywhere near as awesome and competent as AHII, PLEASE tell me. Nothing has motivated my thirst for knowledge about WWII planes more than this game. Perhaps a jet-fighter sim will have the same effect.
-
Good day ladies and gents,
I know we're all about WWII era aircraft here for most of the time, but many of us have a wealth of information on jet fighters, bombers, interdiction/strike aircraft... etc. the list goes on.
I'd greatly appreciate it if anyone could post their BEST sites, book titles or other material about jet aircraft technology.
I'm on my way to aerospace engineering in a month and seeing as how interesting the university labs were, I decided to bulk up a little more on my jet aircraft know-how. I'm particularly interested in learning what defines jet aircraft from First, Second .... Fifth generation jets and the development of jet engine powerplants and airframes.
Thanks so much!
EDIT: Oh, btw, if anyone's got a jet-fighter sim that is anywhere near as awesome and competent as AHII, PLEASE tell me. Nothing has motivated my thirst for knowledge about WWII planes more than this game. Perhaps a jet-fighter sim will have the same effect.
Falcon 4.0 PM me if you want info.
-
I'd greatly appreciate it if anyone could post their BEST sites, book titles or other material about jet aircraft technology.
I'm on my way to aerospace engineering in a month and seeing as how interesting the university labs were, I decided to bulk up a little more on my jet aircraft know-how. I'm particularly interested in learning what defines jet aircraft from First, Second .... Fifth generation jets and the development of jet engine powerplants and airframes.
That's quite a tall order you are asking for :). There are volumes of information out there. Here are a few places to start.
- NASA's Quest for Performance: The Evolution of Modern Aircraft - a very readable account with chapters 9-14 focused on the Jet Age.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/cover.htm
- If you're ready for a giant 400 page tome, take a look at NASA's On the Frontier: Flight Research at Dryden 1946-1981.
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4303.pdf
- NASA LARC's Partners in Freedom if you're interested in LARC's contribution to US Combat Aircraft operational in the 1990's.
http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Partners/contents.html
- The companion to the above is NASA LARC's Concept to Reality for LARC's contribution to civil aviation for aircraft operational in the 1990's.
http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Concept2Reality/
- A very accessible book is Air Power by Steven Budiansky. This is more of general aeronautics history from the Wright Brothers to the 1990's focused on air power achievements. A very good read in my opinion. Covers evolution into the Jet Age nicely in summary.
http://www.amazon.com/Air-Power-Machines-Ideas-Revolutionized/dp/0670032859
- For a sharp and somewhat controversial read Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War. Biography of Col. John Boyd but includes aircraft development from Korea to the 1990's. Also covers relevant topics that folks don't usually talk about in discussion about aircraft that totally gets overlooked in circles like this message board.
http://www.amazon.com/Boyd-Fighter-Pilot-Who-Changed/dp/0316796883/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248825336&sr=1-1
- One of my favorites..Skunk Works about the Lockheed Skunk Works and development of the U-2, SR-71, F-117.
http://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-Lockheed/dp/0316743003/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248825757&sr=1-1
Falcon 4.0 is my quintessential jet fighter sim. Falcon Allied Force came out in 2005. Lock-On is another one that looks pretty good but I've never played it myself. You can check them out via write-ups at SimHQ.com.
Hope that helps!
Tango
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Gentlemen, thanks so very much for this information. I'll look up Falcon 4.0. Sounds pretty epic.
I will surely be reading a lot this coming year, but I'll be looking forward to it! Now if I could only find some skills for university survival! :D
I've PM'd you, Serenity.
-
There is also LOMAC and Third Wire.
-
I've noticed that these sims contain very few or just one flyable aircraft. I'm assuming this is because of the with the current amount of information, modeling and avionics simulation that goes into one modern fighter, it's just impossible to model a lot of aircraft.
Does this necessarily mean a sim like Lock On which has 8 planes has likely more errors than a sim like Falcon? I would prefer to fly Lock On so that I could easily compare the fighters but would fly Falcon if they have substantially more accurate modeling.
-
I've noticed that these sims contain very few or just one flyable aircraft. I'm assuming this is because of the with the current amount of information, modeling and avionics simulation that goes into one modern fighter, it's just impossible to model a lot of aircraft.
Does this necessarily mean a sim like Lock On which has 8 planes has likely more errors than a sim like Falcon? I would prefer to fly Lock On so that I could easily compare the fighters but would fly Falcon if they have substantially more accurate modeling.
I've played both Falcon 4 and Lock On and overall I enjoy Falcon 4 much more. You may want to check out FreeFalcon5 if more planes is what your looking for. http://freefalcon.com/ (http://freefalcon.com/)
-
I've noticed that these sims contain very few or just one flyable aircraft. I'm assuming this is because of the with the current amount of information, modeling and avionics simulation that goes into one modern fighter, it's just impossible to model a lot of aircraft.
The laws of supply of demand my young padawan: to be profitable marginal revenue needs to be >= marginal costs.
Practically anything is "model-able". The questions are how much to model, to what degree of fidelity, and how much time (and thus money) is it reasonable to spend on doing so where it's still profitable. If it costs a developer more to develop a sim than they get from selling the sim, that of course a recipe for a failed business. As the cliche goes, "there's no such thing as a free lunch" :).
Does this necessarily mean a sim like Lock On which has 8 planes has likely more errors than a sim like Falcon? I would prefer to fly Lock On so that I could easily compare the fighters but would fly Falcon if they have substantially more accurate modeling.
No we can't make any conclusion like that. The only ways we could know are:
a) if we've created flight models for both LOMAC and Falcon (or know the details of what has gone into flight modeling of both) or
b) be smart enough to understand flight dynamics, avionics, etc. to enough depth so that you could objectively compare the flight models against a robust set of physics or credible real world data
Unfortunately the inTARDnet is full of people who think they are in category B ;). I've found very few who actually are credible and know what the heck they are talking about. Kind of like American Idol. Millions who think they have singing talent, very few who actually do!
Tango
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Ah I see. Modeling seems really complicated though; the data you have to collect is INSANELY abundant.
Now I've been looking forward to trying Falcon. WOW it looks complicated haha. I'm willing to learn though, seeing as I will have to know it all by third year university.
Are there, by chance, any sites similar to Gonzo's charts where we can easily compare concrete graphs of modern aircraft performance figures? I think that's where I get a lot of my data. I'm sure NASA has some of that stuff right?
-
Ah I see. Modeling seems really complicated though; the data you have to collect is INSANELY abundant.
Regardless of the amount of info it's only as complicated as the modeler makes it. The modeler / developer can choose what they are going to model (e.g. what dynamics, how many things to model, how it operates, etc.) and how they will model them. Of course there are all sorts of trade-offs in making these choices: e.g. does it impact realism if I choose to model it one way vs. another, do I have the data to model what I want to model or do I have to estimate/calculate it, etc. Available data is only one data point (pun intended :) ) that a modeler will need to work with in making these choices.
It's important to note also that modeling complexity and increasing volumes of data doesn't mean that something will be more realistic. Infact much of aerodynamics can be boiled down into continual efforts to simplify the complexity without losing accuracy. For instance the conventional foundational basis of calculating lift comes from Prandtl's lifting line theory. Well Prandlt's lifting line theory is nothing more than a simplification of very nasty Navier-Stokes equations so that we can arrive at an accurate prediction of lift without having to resort to very complex calculations to do so(nearly impossible to do without computers!).
Are there, by chance, any sites similar to Gonzo's charts where we can easily compare concrete graphs of modern aircraft performance figures? I think that's where I get a lot of my data. I'm sure NASA has some of that stuff right?
Where to start here :). To answer the question, not that I know of. Badboy has some EM charts he's created for analyzing Falcon and LOMAC aircraft.
Badboy's Falcon Flight Model Evolution article:
http://www.simhq.com/_air3/air_117a.html
Badboy's "How to be a good stick in LOMAC" article:
http://www.simhq.com/_air/PDF/air_097print.pdf
I want to address DokGonzo's charts. I know lots of folks look at those charts for AH. Everyone who's worked on them via flight tests have really contributed to the community with their efforts. I tip my hat to them.
However, modern real world comparisons are much more sophisticated than speed, climb, and sustained turn radius numbers. Those are of limited value. Typical fighter to fighter comparisons now take the form of other things like energy-maneuverability (EM) charts and dynamic turn plots. Post-stall / super-maneuverability are also important performances to factor in. Of course in circles like this message board basic things like, range, combat radius, visibility, pilot ergonomics etc. totally get ignored. In reality these are also key factors because they have tactical and strategic impact as well. In other words there are many other things that can be looked at for relative comparison besides speed, climb, and turn radius.
Tango
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Thanks again Tango.
Yea, I've read a bit about E charts and whatnot. Though, I still have to get back to all that physics again in September. I'm still getting to know the technology of modern aircraft better, but I'm confining my research, for now, on older jets like the F-4 or more recently the F-16 because they've been in service and there's a huge amount of information on them. The F-22 seems to have a good deal of information on it but not a lot of it seems concrete as sources vary vastly in figures.
I guess it's because it's never really fought in a war yet, though something like the F-16 is a veteran.
-
SgtPappy,
Give Third Wire a try. The FMs are not as realistic as some of the above mentioned jet sims. However the series has a great community and following. Plus thier products cover from WWI to present with a lot of jet aircraft from the 50s 60s 70s 80s and 90s.
http://www.thirdwire.com/
-
Thanks Shifty, I will. It reminds me a little of Target Ware though I've never been actually been able to play it.
Looks interesting though, hopefully my comp will run it.