Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: icepac on March 15, 2014, 04:52:27 PM
-
degrees and using full rudder?
Is the aces high fuselage a lifting body design and the rudder is able to apply enough force to bring the angle of attack sufficient to generate enough lift to cause a positive rate of climb?
Surely not.
Why can we climb these planes missing a wing by banking 90 degrees and using the rudder?
-
Because the flight model isn't perfect.
-
The graphic of the missing half wing and the portion modeled as missing in the flight model can be two very different things. That means the visual damage can be far more severe than the damage modeled in the flight model.
The graphic of your plane is just an avatar. It isn't actually involved in the flight calculations at all.
-
degrees and using full rudder?
Is the aces high fuselage a lifting body design and the rudder is able to apply enough force to bring the angle of attack sufficient to generate enough lift to cause a positive rate of climb?
Surely not.
Why can we climb these planes missing a wing by banking 90 degrees and using the rudder?
If you bank 90 degrees you cannot hold level flight. Seems unlikely you can climb. Post the film.
-
Ok, I didn't fully read the OP. Mea culpa.
-
degrees and using full rudder?
Is the aces high fuselage a lifting body design and the rudder is able to apply enough force to bring the angle of attack sufficient to generate enough lift to cause a positive rate of climb?
Surely not.
Why can we climb these planes missing a wing by banking 90 degrees and using the rudder?
There's a video on Youtube of someone doing exactly that with an RC. I can't remember how they broke the wing off but once it was gone the guy rolled it 90 degrees and had complete control bringing it down.
Not saying it should work in a WWII fighter but just saying it's evidently a possibility to "flip" your control surfaces like that.
-
That RC plane is using the fact that he has a 2 to 1 thrust vs weight ratio and applying said thrust to counter gravity.
The airframe is not generating the lift, the prop is.
No need to post the film since most here have achieved positive rate of climb using rudder at one part of thier eventual auger because they are missing a wing.
Columbo is correct and I believe the effectiveness of rudder is the hardest thing to model here.
-
Film would likely show a ballistic flight path, like a real aircraft. Or you can just make stuff up and say no film is required.
-
Just fire up the sim and do it yourself......it's not hard.
Get a wing shot off and you will eventually reach an airspeed where you can temporarily achieve a rate of climb............from having been in a descent shortly before.
That is not "ballistic".
Heck....in warbirds 2, I could fly a zero home 2 sectors and land without a wing.
I'm addressing this because I believe our rudder authority acts strangely and missing a wing is not the only place where it's modeling issues show up.
I "discussed" this with a few guys, some who claimed cfii in the arena and you wouldn't believe the answers they gave.............Yes saved to film.
-
I have never been able to do anything but crash with a wing missing regardless of what I done, even opening the canopy and flapping my arm on the missing side doesn't work, half a wing is different. Lets see the film you have saved then.
-
Just fire up the sim and do it yourself......it's not hard.
Get a wing shot off and you will eventually reach an airspeed where you can temporarily achieve a rate of climb............from having been in a descent shortly before.
That is not "ballistic".
Heck....in warbirds 2, I could fly a zero home 2 sectors and land without a wing.
I'm addressing this because I believe our rudder authority acts strangely and missing a wing is not the only place where it's modeling issues show up.
I "discussed" this with a few guys, some who claimed cfii in the arena and you wouldn't believe the answers they gave.............Yes saved to film.
What you describe, descending to build speed for a ballistic climb, sounds completely reasonable. If you are convinced it's a bug you know where to post it.
-
What you describe, descending to build speed for a ballistic climb, sounds completely reasonable.
:huh
You and your blatant misuse of terminology! :lol :aok
Ballistic climb as silly as saying the plane is falling upwards.
-
... their eventual auger.
No crisis. Move along. :D
-
:huh
You and your blatant misuse of terminology! :lol :aok
Ballistic climb as silly as saying the plane is falling upwards.
Ballistic refers to moving by momentum, which, the aircraft thrust being insufficient, is exactly what icepac is describing.
Ballistic is from the greek work for throw. Ballistic climb is as "silly" as saying the plane is thrown upwards.
-
Ballistic climb is an actual term, it means zoom climb.
-
I seem to have been pwned. I stand corrected. :aok
-
Film or lies! :noid
-
Ready the ballistas!
-
Just about any object can generate lift with enough speed. Knife-edge planes can climb for a little bit that way, but unless (as pointed out) they have large enough thrust/weight, eventually airspeed drops, and they won't be able to maintain even level flight that way.
Planes with T/W well less than 1 do something similar commonly at airshows (called a "knife edge").
Here's a video of one. Note that he adds more and more rudder and that, by the end of the pass, he's out of enough airspeed to hold it and rolls out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvn_PTs0e5Q
Aces High has no problems with its aerodynamic modeling in this regard.
-
Ice pack they cannot for long. The lift created by the fuse eventually is negated by aoa and drag. Then as you have stated the prop is flying the airplane not the fuselage or the wing. I have pics of an1k2 maintaining level flight missing left stab and left outer wing. Seems impossible until I saw the "avatar" comment which makes sense to me. Saw your discussion yesterday with the aerobatic pilot... i think he was missing the point. I do not believe that prop airplanes can fly missing an entire half of a wing. 1/4 of a wing sure.
-
:huh
Is this another bold claim icepac?
I'd like to see an actual film of said event otherwise you're talking utter bollocks as per usual.
-
Or you can just make stuff up and say no film is required.
The key element of any icepac post :)
-
What you describe, descending to build speed for a ballistic climb, sounds completely reasonable. If you are convinced it's a bug you know where to post it.
Ok......so what mechanism is changing the descent into a ballistic climb?
I am saying that planes here can lose a wing, descend, and build enough speed to go from descent to climb while banked 90 degrees while only using the rudder.
:huh
Is this another bold claim icepac?
I'd like to see an actual film of said event otherwise you're talking utter bollocks as per usual.
If you haven't experienced it yourself, then I question your ability to comment.
Also......I do provide films yet you ignore them while claiming I provide no films because said films prove you wrong.
I'm sure I have a film but how about Dolby volunteer to shoot the wing off of my plane while I fly straight and level at 20,000 feet so I can demonstrate it?
You can film it yourself.
That would give you a chance to actually score a kill on me which has eluded you.
I have the advantage of already having done what I claim and I would be surprised that nobody else has made the same observation since this has been going on since warbirds 2.77 where you could fly a zero two sectors missing a wing and land it by establishing level flight right above the runway and banking back level wings right at touchdown.
I'll add some screenshots later from the film of the conversation in which a claimed cfii shows huge ignorance to basic physics and understanding of how a plane flies.
-
You don't need to lose a wing to fly knife edge for a bit.
The key is, as explained above, "for a bit". You can do it until you run out of enough airspeed for your fuselage to generate enough lift. (Lift is proportional to the square of velocity.)
Here is a video of a Pitts doing it. Note that a Pitts can't fly for long this way, but it can for a bit after building up enough speed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvn_PTs0e5Q
Aces High gets this correct. If it didn't work this way in AH, it would be incorrect modeling.
-
Also......I do provide films yet you ignore them while claiming I provide no films because said films prove you wrong.
Please link said films of the happening you describe. I would like to see the entire film from beginning to its conclusion.
Thanks in advance.
-
Ok......so what mechanism is changing the descent into a ballistic climb?
I am saying that planes here can lose a wing, descend, and build enough speed to go from descent to climb while banked 90 degrees while only using the rudder.
The rudder works like the elevator when you are rolled 90. Generally you get the nose up before you roll because there is so little lift when you don't use your wings. When you are flying knife edge with one wing or two you are only flying straight if there is no lift from the wings. In order to climb you need more lift then you do to fly straight but to zoom climb you only need momentum. This is why you have to dive first. We generally zoom climb with both lift and momentum but you can zoom in any fighter at 0 G and still be climbing even though you're at the 0 lift AOA.
-
I'll add some screenshots later from the film of the conversation in which a claimed cfii shows huge ignorance to basic physics and understanding of how a plane flies.
I'll chime in here. I'm the guy that he's referring to.
What sparked this was IcePac's comment that "NO plane can climb [sustained] while knife-edge." I spoke up and said that any plane with a thrust/weight ratio of 1.0 or greater can climb, regardless of lift vector or orientation.
Icepac, instead of realizing that he made a mistake by stating no aircraft could climb knife-edge (F-16's, F-22's, Su-37's, etc. all have T/W ratios of 1.0 or more and can climb at any angle, sustained), decided to try to dig himself deeper by stating that ONLY the wing can produce lift.
Lift comes from three primary areas:
1) from the portion of the thrust vector that directly opposes weight,
2) from the ram-air/impact effect of the relative wind defecting into a vector that opposes weight
3) from the lifting airfoils/wing(s)
Instead of simply acknowledging that, he decided to devolve the conversation further where we got onto the subject of stabilizers. I stated that stabilizers produce lift as part of number three (above) (they do - all airfoils, by design, must produce lift). What he didn't seem to understand was that it produces lift in downward direction, but it is still a lifting force and it is still called a lifting force, and he proceeded to argue that the tail doesn't produce lift, which is why it's so much smaller than the primary airfoil (wing). He didn't seem to understand the difference between lift (as a force) vs lift vectors. His argument was akin to stating that a car driving in reverse isn't really "driving", because it's not moving forward (I actually presented that example to him to point out the flaw in reasoning) - just because lift is in a downward direction doesn't change the fact that it's lift.
I then pointed out that rolling an aircraft inverted changes the lift vectors of the airfoils relative to gravity (in other words, roll inverted [without changing the overall AoA, other than inverting it] and your stabilizer, left uncorrected, will naturally create lift directly upwards, against the aircraft weight). Keep in mind we're talking traditional/GA aircraft here for simplicity (not military/aerobatic aircraft with neutral or otherwise different cambers). He then asked a series of completed unrelated questions, showing a lack of understanding about leverage forces and how the tail is smaller because it has a further arm/fulcrum from the CG.
Anyone who is familiar with aerodynamics, please feel free to examine and critique the above, if you find it incorrect (which it's not).
To address his question, you can dive and pick up enough airspeed, then roll 90* and use the rudder to deflect the airflow enough to maintain level flight... with enough airspeed. In fact, you can do it for several seconds at a time in the right aircraft (it must have good rudder authority). The wind deflection against the fuselage and the rudder is enough to keep it airborne. However, both of these surfaces will create an usually large amount of form drag and, eventually, will slow the plane down to the point that it's no longer sustainable.
However, given enough altitude, you can fly a series of "waves" (descend for speed, hard rudder for climb, descend for speed), to stay in flight for a good while. This is probably what he saw, as I've experienced the same thing myself. It takes a smart pilot, but at 20k, you can probably get a good two minutes of flight time out of something like a Yak-3.
Given enough speed, ANY surface will produce lift.
See here for a close-enough related real-life event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ76BSassms
-
The rudder works like the elevator when you are rolled 90. Generally you get the nose up before you roll because there is so little lift when you don't use your wings. When you are flying knife edge with one wing or two you are only flying straight if there is no lift from the wings. In order to climb you need more lift then you do to fly straight but to zoom climb you only need momentum. This is why you have to dive first. We generally zoom climb with both lift and momentum but you can zoom in any fighter at 0 G and still be climbing even though you're at the 0 lift AOA.
In a normal configuration airplane (of which all but the 163 in aces high are) the elevator/stab provides downforce to pivot the plane such that the wing achieves enough angle of attack to provide lift to climb
In a 90 degree bank, the rudder is now charged to do the job of the horizontal stabilizer/elevator.
Sadly, there is no wing for the rudder to influence into gaining the angle of attack required to generate enough lift for the plane to climb.
In aces high, what is providing the lift required to generate a positive rate of climb?
Skyyr immediately starts muddying the waters by running away toward bizarre airplane configurations that have nothing to do with the subject........which is planes in aces climbing while banked 90 degrees only using the rudder.
First he moves to the XFV pogo not realizing that only the thrust itself is what causes the plane to take off.
That's thrust directly countering gravity...............and it has nothing to do with the subject....bad example.
He even get's the name of the plane incorrect.
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3702/13224182903_67629cdb94_o.jpg)
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7222/13224356764_eb5e387022_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3741/13224182723_b996cb65cb_o.jpg)
Then he's incorrect on the horizontal stabilizer/elevator's role in a standard configuration airplane.........which is the subject being discussed after he shifts the subject to stabilizer/elevator from rudder so I pose a super simple question using a common airplane but he's not answering even though this reference is in the first few pages of most every single basic flight book.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7138/13224183303_b7765e4165_o.jpg)
Nox gets it and answers the question correctly.
The claimed CFII still gets it wrong.
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3672/13224358314_9e82be05ed_o.jpg)
Then he tries to shift his references to another plane with non-standard configuration (not at all what we were discussing).
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7206/13224183663_4d032495e8_o.jpg)
The film is an entire treasure trove of guys being incorrect as well as some who understand chiming in and skyyr never attempted to stay on subject.
Also skyyr.....shame on you for muddying the waters further by using a plane with a configuration completely different than the subject of the discussion.
Using that F15 shows a complete lack of understanding for the simple fact that the F15 has horizontal stabilators that can be deflected independent of each other.
The pilot was able to achieve level flight only because of this and, again, this has nothing to do with the subject of the discussion.
-
If what I said is wrong, which I spelled-out clearly in my previous post, then please, address it. Trying to take quotes out of context, such as a typo on the XFV (which I quickly corrected) is disingenuous.
I posted a very clear, very concise explanation in my previous post, that reflects everything that was said in-game. As I said, anyone who has a background or knowledge in aerodynamics can confirm it's correct (which is why I posted it here). It's not my fault that you went down this path because you simply wouldn't retract your statement of "no plane can climb while knife-edge."
Further, you completely ignored my answer to your question in this post. At high-speed knife-edge flight, the fuselage and rudder ARE the lifting surfaces. Watch the video of the F-15 I posted - it's the same concept. The difference is that the flight isn't sustainable, but instantaneous lift still IS possible. By flying a series of "waves," diving for airspeed, ruddering for lift, you can keep an aircraft in the air for a good amount of time. You will run out of airspeed and altitude eventually, but you can delay it for several minutes if you start at an altitude of 20,000ft or so.
The F15 produced lift not because of independent elevators, but because of the mechanics of high-speed airflow. Any object, even a brick (yes, literally a brick), will generate actual lift at sufficiently high speeds. The F15 did this, which is why the pilot couldn't maintain control until after he activated the afterburners.
-
You don't need a wing to pivot, you just need a CG. As I said, the climb angle is generally set before you are knife edge. If you have a film that shows otherwise I'd like to see it.
-
Lift is not the force that produces climb in an aircraft. Thrust/inertia is the force that produces a climb.
Lift by definition is a force perpendicular to an objects velocity vector. Any discussion of aerodynamics must start with the definitions of forces. Thrust is the sum of forces in the direction of the velocity vector. Drag is the sum of forces in the direction opposite the velocity vector.
The 4th force that is normally considered is Gravity, it is different then all other forces because it is a world relative force / acceleration vs an object relative force.
A simple thought experiment is to realize that to hold a perfectly vertical zoom climb, lift must be zero.
-----------
I have personally changed direction flying my RV8 from level flight in a 90deg bank to a climbing attitude while in a 90 deg bank.
PS. If you haven't done it before, it makes for a nice bump on the side of the head.
HiTech
-
Lift is not the force that produces climb in an aircraft.
Lift by definition is a force perpendicular to an objects velocity vector.
HiTech
Thank you.
-
In a normal configuration airplane (of which all but the 163 in aces high are) the elevator/stab provides downforce to pivot the plane such that the wing achieves enough angle of attack to provide lift to climb
This is a very common miss conception. There is no need for an the elevator/Hstab to produce a down force. Only requirement for stable flight is that the CG is ahead of the net CL including both the horizontal stab and the wing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitudinal_static_stability
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/AirStability.svg/760px-AirStability.svg.png)
HiTech
-
I doubt we will see icepac in a while, he is very busy trying to get a 1 winged aircraft to fly and climb as he has stated.
I'm hoping this research and determination to prove such keeps him away from AcesHigh for the next few years :pray
-
So what generated the lift to go from level flight to a climb in your rv8 while in a 90 degree bank?
What other surface was the rudder pivoting the plane on?
Surely, the rv8 doesn't have a lifting body design of the fuselage.
My point is that the planes represented in aces high never could go from a descent or level flight to a positive rate of climb by banking and using the rudder only.
No need to involve anything other than what is in the planeset.
This is a very common miss conception. There is no need for an the elevator/Hstab to produce a down force. Only requirement for stable flight is that the CG is ahead of the net CL including both the horizontal stab and the wing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitudinal_static_stability
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/AirStability.svg/760px-AirStability.svg.png)
Sure......there are situations where the stabilizer is not providing downforce but to change from level flight to a climb will require it to provide downforce going by your example of no downforce.
So.....in the example you show above, let's assume the plane is in level flight and the pilot wants to climb
You are saying that the airplane would not require downforce to change the angle of attack to climb?
You are saying that the horizontal stab./elevator are providing no downforce in your example.........when is that?....................in level flight or after it commanded to climb?
"When" is just as important as other points of data because we are talking about something that is dynamic and not static.
-
Surely, the rv8 doesn't have a lifting body design of the fuselage.
The side of the plane is producing lift.
A flat surface is a lifting body when rotated to have an angle of attack. Have you ever seen videos of boats or race cars flying into the air from a bump that suddenly causes an AOA?
Flying level just push the rudder on any plane while holding the wings level, the plane will fly in a circle. The force that is turning the plane in a circle is the lift (a horizontal vector) produced by the fuselage and vertical stab.
When are you saying that the horizontal stab./elevator are providing no downforce in yoru example.........when is that?....................in level flight or after it commanded to climb?
"When" is just as important as other points of data because we are talking about something that is dynamic and not static.
No down force is required, just less up force and the plane will rotate.
HiTech
-
The side of the plane is producing lift.
A flat surface is a lifting body when rotated to have an angle of attack. Have you ever seen videos of boats or race cars flying into the air from a bump that suddenly causes an AOA?
Hmmmm.... where have I heard that before, Icepac?
Further, you completely ignored my answer to your question in this post. At high-speed knife-edge flight, the fuselage and rudder ARE the lifting surfaces. Watch the video of the F-15 I posted - it's the same concept. The difference is that the flight isn't sustainable, but instantaneous lift still IS possible.
The F15 produced lift not because of independent elevators, but because of the mechanics of high-speed airflow. Any object, even a brick (yes, literally a brick), will generate actual lift at sufficiently high speeds.
;)
-
The side of the plane is producing lift.
A flat surface is a lifting body when rotated to have an angle of attack. Have you ever seen videos of boats or race cars flying into the air from a bump that suddenly causes an AOA?
Flying level just push the rudder on any plane while holding the wings level, the plane will fly in a circle. The force that is turning the plane in a circle is the lift (a horizontal vector) produced by the fuselage and vertical stab.
No down force is required, just less up force and the plane will rotate.
HiTech
Yes, but the rudder, in a 90 degree bank will need to generate downforce to raise the nose such that the "side of the plane" can provide lift.
Still.....this discussion is about whether the planes of aces high can demonstrate a positive rate of climb from level flight while missing a wing by banking 90 degrees and using the rudder.
So which aces high planes, in real life, ever achieved a positive rate of climb from level flight while missing a wing by banking 90 degrees and using the rudder?
-
Yes, but the rudder, in a 90 degree bank will need to generate downforce to raise the nose such that the "side of the plane" can provide lift.
Not necessarily, it is the same stability arrangement as a wing and a horizontal stab. It simply needs to have the sum of torques to be in the desired direction relative to the CG. But my guess would be the force at the tail would be down on most planes. But which direction the force is doesn't make any difference to this discussion. It only changes the quantity of the net total force, not the direction.
-
How many pounds of downforce do you think the elevators are exerting these two airplanes?
We don't need an exact figure but "a lot" is probably pretty accurate and that's "a lot" more than "none".
Surely enough to "oilcan" the fuselage skin.
So you guys still think a WWII plane could climb while missing a wing by banking 90 degrees and using the rudder?
How much downforce would a rudder need to "chase down" and then pass the rest of the fuselage which is falling quickly because of the missing wing and then pivot the fuselage enough to cause it to act like a lifting body to establish a positive rate of climb having started from either a descent or level flight?
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7429/13227666765_0964ab05f8_o.jpg)
(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2845/13227986134_e5787b3b7a_o.jpg)
-
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQDavgPKYxbygPP6TQ92IsxBnwzepzw41pIGbRc9uSDzwo3Edc5)
-
In aces high, what is providing the lift
Well, it's been posted several times already. I don't think that you are reading it:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,360200.msg4780995.html#msg4780995
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,360200.msg4781529.html#msg4781529
-
Big difference between a whole wing and a half wing brought many a plane home on a half wing. It takes quick thought for each aircraft.
-
Man, I wish math came as easy for me as it does some of you guys. :lol
-
Two pounds of cotton plus two pounds of gold = _____
:D
-
Two pounds of cotton plus two pounds of gold = _____
:D
:confused: Wait, cheese?
-
Two pounds of cotton plus two pounds of gold = _____
:D
It's 4lbs in total weight.
Simples
-
Two pounds of cotton plus two pounds of gold = _____
:D
= my outfit!
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/04/article-2257209-16C051F1000005DC-920_634x822.jpg)
-
= my outfit!
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/04/article-2257209-16C051F1000005DC-920_634x822.jpg)
Just a bit of advice if I may.....Don't go swimming in that outfit.
-
= my outfit!
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/04/article-2257209-16C051F1000005DC-920_634x822.jpg)
LOL! :aok
-
Two pounds of cotton plus two pounds of gold = _____
:D
Four pounds of course.
The cotton will, also of course, have a much higher volume than the gold will.
-
The cotton will, also of course, have a much higher volume than the gold will.
Yes, but which one will Icepac claim is modeled incorrectly despite multiple explanations that are ignored in hopes of eventually hearing what he wants to hear?
:D
-
:lol
-
Yes, but the rudder, in a 90 degree bank will need to generate downforce to raise the nose such that the "side of the plane" can provide lift.
Still.....this discussion is about whether the planes of aces high can demonstrate a positive rate of climb from level flight while missing a wing by banking 90 degrees and using the rudder.
So which aces high planes, in real life, ever achieved a positive rate of climb from level flight while missing a wing by banking 90 degrees and using the rudder?
Actually you said that you had to dive first to build up speed. Climbing from level flight is not what you described. You can not climb knife edge from stable level flight.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lJy1idHwCc
-
Four pounds of course.
The cotton will, also of course, have a much higher volume than the gold will.
Not if it's on fire.
-
Actually you said that you had to dive first to build up speed. Climbing from level flight is not what you described. You can not climb knife edge from stable level flight.
And you surely can't climb knife edge missing a wing from a 7000 rpm dive....... But you can in aces high.
Take up a fm2, crash into a drone to remove a wing at 10,000 feet, bank 90 degrees, and you can use the rudder to raise the nose from way below the horizon to high enough to climb at 4000 rpm.
That is not realistic.
-
I'll enjoy seeing that film.
-
One would think Brewster would be a good test plane for this, it has a rudder almost bigger than the rest of the plane :x
-
190A is better , it does not have any wings at all, just sidesteps so you can climb into cockpit from either side, and its rudder is very effective.
-
One would think Brewster would be a good test plane for this, it has a rudder almost bigger than the rest of the plane :x
The Brewster as modeled actually flies quite well without wingtips.
-
Two pounds of cotton plus two pounds of gold = _____
:D
$42,554 dollars for the gold at current prices. They'll probably throw the cotton in for free.
-
And you surely can't climb knife edge missing a wing from a 7000 rpm dive....... But you can in aces high.
Take up a fm2, crash into a drone to remove a wing at 10,000 feet, bank 90 degrees, and you can use the rudder to raise the nose from way below the horizon to high enough to climb at 4000 rpm.
That is not realistic.
So what exactly is the max LCO of the fuselage of an fm2?
I assume you must have done the calculations because you KNOW ours is not correct.
HiTech
HiTech
-
Two pounds of cotton plus two pounds of gold = _____
:D
A really shiny coat?
-
So what exactly is the max LCO of the fuselage of an fm2?
I assume you must have done the calculations because you KNOW ours is not correct.
HiTech
HiTech
Okay, this has given me an extreme curiousity...how does one get the lift and drag coefficients for things likes the fuselage alone of a WWII airplane?
-
Okay, this has given me an extreme curiousity...how does one get the lift and drag coefficients for things likes the fuselage alone of a WWII airplane?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/c/0/6/c068d59200adb0f9a2fdbc291841147c.png)
The important bit is Area
Don't ask me about lift... I only did cars
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/c/0/6/c068d59200adb0f9a2fdbc291841147c.png)
The important bit is Area
But isn't some wind-tunnel testing of the shape required at some point along the line?
-
Fliud Dynamics on a PC can solve that
-
Wow. I did not know they had the technology to reliably do that now.
-
Wow. I did not know they had the technology to reliably do that now.
In 2003-5 I was using a Fluid Dynamics program on your everyday PC.
I can't quite remember the name but I think it was a program by EDS.
It was pretty cool.
(But getting it to recognise work done in Solidedge was a pain in the rectum :mad:)
-
I seem to have been pwned. I stand corrected. :aok
Do not ever expect this from fls. He is not capable of it. I on the other hand admire it.
-
Two pounds of cotton plus two pounds of gold = _____
:D
one pimptastic outfit!
:old:
<edit : aww brooke beat me to it, with pix even!> :furious
-
$42,554 dollars for the gold at current prices. They'll probably throw the cotton in for free.
what it if were two lbs of $100 bills?
-
Icepac is still crunching the numbers :old:
-
Icepac is still crunching the numbers :old:
It simply amazes me how so many people on here can go on and on about how a plane shouldn't act, and how few can tell you how it should.
Wiley.
-
Hm. I've managed to do this several times whilst piloting the 109 series and there's only a few things I have to say about this. In fact, in my last sorty, I was flying for all of a minute with half my wing gone after a collision.
One is that at the moment your wing gets clipped down to half size you must be already going level or something close to otherwise you simply spin to your death. [Note you can still be level and turning (As long as your AoA is not high or even marginally moderate), or in a roll.] What I mean by this is the vector of your plane is roughly parallel to the ground/ perpendicular to gravity, whatever you want to call it.
You must be incredibly quick on balancing your plane out, or you'll lose your chance to stay afloat
You have to be going balls deep in terms of speed, like 400+MPH when your wing gets ripped off
From there its a matter of using rudder, and finding the new lift vector to kind of keep your plane afloat and managing E to stay as fast as possible.
If the conditions aren't near perfect when you lose your wing, you WILL plummet to the ground in a horrible case of drunken spins.
If your speed drops to low you will plummet. If you cannot maintain that soft AoA you will plummet.
You are pretty much stuck in a straight line doing a very shallow and low frequency wave, as the slightest change in your yaw, pitch, and roll will cause you to plummet
All in all, it seems realistic to me. If you can't finish off a plane with half a wing, the problem is not with the physics (As Skyyr and Hitech explained very technically) but with either your piloting skills, or your marksmanship.
Every flight-sim I ever had you could keep your plane (Unless its like... Some Goliath Boeing or crap civilian plane) going in a straight line with one wing severely damaged/broken/or in this case half missing (Half-there if your the optimist!) You could only really execute a shallow pitch climb, or a shallow pitch dive anything else and spinspinspinspinspin.
Imagine dropping a brick from 10m. It would hit the ground in 1 second.
But if you were to launch that brick with a level trajectory out of a cannon at 1,800m/s from 10m in the air I am willing to bet that the brick will take slightly longer to hit the ground. And it doesn't have any wings at all!
All these pilots are doing is using their remaining control surfaces to maintain their current momentum for as long as possible.
It would be one thing if they pulled out of a 15+ degree dive or climb with 1 and a half wings. Then I would think there is maaaaaybe something fishy.
-
I always get a chuckle when Hitech himself comes in, explains it half a dozen times and they still call BS. :rofl
-
Les Paul the OP is talking about climbing knife edge with half a wing not flying level with half a wing. Next time you lose half try 50% flap extension. That should save you until you slow down to land. Flaps will decrease the lift imbalance as well as increasing the coefficient of lift.
-
But if you were to launch that brick with a level trajectory out of a cannon at 1,800m/s from 10m in the air I am willing to bet that the brick will take slightly longer to hit the ground. And it doesn't have any wings at all!
I'd take that bet. it might tumble a certain way occasionally that makes it "fly" momentarily, but averaged out, its gonna fall at the same rate as the dropped brick.
-
Okay, this has given me an extreme curiousity...how does one get the lift and drag coefficients for things likes the fuselage alone of a WWII airplane?
Friday night with kids asleep -- so, I'll take a crack at it. :aok
One could do it computationally, but it would require more work than I can put into it. One could do it in a wind tunnel, but that's out. Or, one can always do an estimation. That's within my grasp.
For a lifting body, L = 0.5 * rho * v^2 * S * C_L, where rho is air density, v is velocity of the aircraft, S is reference area for the object generating aerodynamic lift, and C_L is the coefficient of lift for that object. For wings, it is customary for S to be mean chord times wingspan. For knife edge, the fuselage is doing the aerodynamic lifting, and I'll take S to be 0.5 * (fuselage diameter at nose of aircraft) * (aircraft length) = 0.5 * d * l.
For thrust, from propeller theory (see http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/aces_high/stallSpeedMath/turningMath.html ), T= eta * BHP * 375 / v, where eta is propeller efficiency, BHP is HP of the engine. For props with good ability to absorb the power of the engine, eta can be approximated reasonably well by knowing the advance ratio (J) and the power coefficient (C_P): J = 88.0 * v / (N * D), where v is aircraft speed in mph, N is prop rotation in RPM, and D is prop diameter in feet; and C_P = 52.5 * gamma* BHP / [(N / 1000)^3 * D^5 * rho / rho_0], where gamma is fraction of full power being applied, BHP is engine brake horsepower, N is prop RPM, D is prop diameter in ft, rho is the air density, and rho_0 is the air density at standard sea level; and by using this chart:
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/aces_high/stallSpeedMath/eta.jpg)
I'm going to use a Pitts Special as a reference aircraft to see what a fuselage C_L is (as I can look at this video):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvn_PTs0e5Q
And use these as references:
http://www.mt-propeller.com/pdf/stcflyer/FL003US.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycoming_O-540
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/ffae5a2bb5506dcc8625747a00650001/$FILE/1E4.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitts_Special
http://www.steenaero.com/Images/Aircraft/3Views/pitts_s1c_3-view_800x500.jpg
My Pitts estimates are:
v = 175 mph (approximate cruise speed for a Pitts Special)
HP = 300 HP
D = 7 ft
N = 2700 RPM
W = 1400 lbs
alpha = 30 degrees (just eyeballing it from video)
l = 19 ft
d = 95 / 516 * 19 = 3.5 ft
For this, J = 88 * 175 * / (2700 * 7) = 0.81. C_P = 52.5 * 300 / (2.7^3 * 7^5) = 0.048. J/C_P^(1/3) = 0.81/0.048^0.333 = 2.22. Then, eta = 0.8, and T = 0.8 * 300 * 375 / 175 = 514 lbs.
At sea level, rho = 1.22 kg/m^3 = mass/vol. The equivalent weight/vol in English units is 0.0762 lbs/ft^3 = mass * g / vol = rho * g, so rho = 0.0762 / 32.2 = 0.00237 lbs * s^2 / ft^4. For using in, say, L = 0.5 * rho * v^2 * S * C_L, where L is in lbs, v is in mph, and S in ft^2, we want rho in units of lbs / (mph^2 * ft^2), which is rho = 0.00237 lbs * s^2 / ft^4 * (5280 ft / mi)^2 * (1 hr / 3600 s)^2 = 0.00510 lbs / (mph^2 * ft^2).
L = W = 0.5 * rho * v^2 * S * C_L + T * sin(alpha). 1400 = 0.5 * 0.00510 * 175^2 * 0.5 * 19 * 3.5 * C_L + 514 * sin(30 deg). 1400 = 2600 * C_L + 257. C_L = 0.44.
OK, so my estimate is that a fuselage has a C_L of 0.44.
Now let's see what v we need on a Brewster to keep level in knife edge at the same 30 deg. For a Brewster, from America's Hundred Thousdand, by Dean:
HP = 1000 HP
D = 9 ft
N = 2200 RPM (had a gear ratio of 1:1)
W = 5500 lbs
l = 26 ft
d = 10 / 58 * 26 ft = 4.5 ft
So that I don't have to do a lot of algebra for a nonlinear equation, let's see if we can assume eta = 0.8 for the Brewster. Assume we'll need to be going at least 200 mph. In that case, J = 88 * 200 / (2200 * 9) = 0.89. C_P = 52.5 * 1000 / (2.2^3 * 9^5) = 0.084. J / C_P^(1/3) = 0.89 / 0.084^0.333 = 2.04, and eta = about 0.8 again. So, we are OK.
Then, T = 0.8 * 1000 * 375 / v. W = L = 5500 = 0.5 * 0.0051 * v^2 * 0.5 * 26 * 4.5 * 0.44 + 0.8 * 1000 * 375 / v * sin(30 deg). 5500 = 0.0656 * v^2 + 150,000 / v. 0.0656 * v^3 - 5500 * v + 150,000 = 0. Solving numerically for v gives a root at v = 275 mph.
So, with all of these estimates, it shows that a Brewster can maintain level, knife-edge flight at 275 mph or more.
This is all assuming that I haven't made any math errors. Also, if you think any of my numbers are wrong (like prop diameter of the Pitts Special, or whatever), plug in your own numbers and have a go at it.
-
By the way, in the above, I don't expect the estimate to be correct within 10 mph or something that close. It's just a rough estimate coming up with the number being well less than 500 mph and a lot more than 150 mph -- i.e., doesn't sound too outrageous compared to what we see in AH.
-
Les Paul the OP is talking about climbing knife edge with half a wing not flying level with half a wing. Next time you lose half try 50% flap extension. That should save you until you slow down to land. Flaps will decrease the lift imbalance as well as increasing the coefficient of lift.
Hm, maybe I didn't explain that clearly. I know he is talking about knife edging. What I meant by near level was for the planes trajectory, not the wing line. (I'm not a pilot, so my terminology is shaky. I have to resort to tard ways of explaining things I always just assumed that flying level meant you were traveling perpendicular to gravity, regardless of planes orientation. That's why at high altitude auto-level pitches your nose up. You're plane's wings are technically no longer level, but your flight path is still level.) Or if he used too much elevator trying to turn his knife edged plane, he would spin out.
The only speeds that I can fly my 109 with half a wing and keep my wings level is in the 450 to 400 mph, otherwise you're plane starts to naturally begin to roll on its side. Despite applying all the rudder in the world. The one aileron you have left can aide the rudder, and you can maintain level wings for longer, but I wouldn't advise adding all that drag.
While I was rocketing around in my 109 for a few minutes without half my wing, I was probably banked around 75 degrees maximum, 45 degrees minimum pending current speed/climb rate (The 109 can't knife edge for nada, so I needed some elevator to aide me) shifting between a -5 degree dive to maybe a +5 degree climb (Probably an even smaller margin, more like -5,+2) by using full rudder and relaxing it only slightly, every now and then you shallow out your bank, before steepening again. I have never never seen a half wing (Knife-Edged or Not) sustain level flight indefinitely or sustain a climb in game (He uses the Rv-8, which is only available offline.), its always that slow frequency wave I see people doing, giving the appearance of sustained level flight (From out of plane looking at the plane) at varying degrees of bank pending the plane. Some of these planes have crazy weight/thrust ratio's and beefy rudders, low wing loading, so I can see certain planes being able to bank a full 90 degrees and use rudder to maintain level flight or a shallow degree climb for extended periods of time.
In essence, that plane can only maintain its momentum from when it lost half its wing, and any sudden shift in the vector of your planes momentum can and usually will cause you to spin out.
I was also trying to explain that if the guy was in a vertical climb/descent (Parallel to Gravity) when he lost his wings, his rudders, elevators, and ailerons would not have the necessary strength to stabilize the plane and get it flying perpendicular to gravity again. They only have the strength to keep your momentum perpendicular to gravity for a short period of time. In essence, you are now a projectile with some limited control flaps.
My half-wing 109 however plummets/spins out when I get around 250mph no matter what, much to fast for me to deploy flaps.
-
Oops, double post. Meant to edit.
Also, Icepac changed what he meant with his original posting several times. The title suggests that ALL planes in AH can do this. Then 1st and 2nd page, he goes into just using rudder to stop yourself from auguring with half a wing (No mention of knife-edging.) then he brings up some crazy convo about the Rv-8 which doesn't appear in game. He never suggests which planes have the ability to do this, and which do not, provides no video evidence of planes doing this at a full 90 degrees pure knife edge half-wing climbs, then he goes into he only made this post because he thinks the rudder authority is fishy.. I am not sure the OP knows what his own thread is about.
-
My half-wing 109 however plummets/spins out when I get around 250mph no matter what, much to fast for me to deploy flaps.
As long as youre still fast, point your nose up high, chop throttle to slow down, then open full flaps to regain control. It works.
-
what it if were two lbs of $100 bills?
$90,800
-
So what exactly is the max LCO of the fuselage of an fm2?
I assume you must have done the calculations because you KNOW ours is not correct.
HiTech
HiTech
Oh for Christ's sake HiTech, get a hold of yourself. Learn how to take a critic. You always get defensive and throw your aeronautical engineering studies to intimidate the crowds. You can wave your fancy aerodynamic formulas all you want, they are still severe flaws in some aspects of AH flight modeling, such as the P47 nose getting 'stuck' wobbling in the sky in a stall nose high for 5 secs plus. All the planes I ever flew, including my 16,000lbs Metro or lately 10,000lbs Pilatus with 1,600HP ... when you stall at any angle : the nose goes down quicker than a Thai hooker.
Anyway, still a hell of a game that's why I've been giving you my money for the last 14 years. Please put your ego aside and listen to your customers concerns about FM even when they identify the shortcomings of the FM.
-
I'd take that bet. it might tumble a certain way occasionally that makes it "fly" momentarily, but averaged out, its gonna fall at the same rate as the dropped brick.
^^^ this :old:
-
I think that HiTech is right. Folks frequently say that a particular thing is wrong when it isn't. Sometimes it's like someone saying that a machinegun can't possibly shoot more than one round every 10 seconds and thus that the machineguns in AH are modeled incorrectly. That's like this knife-edge business. For sure some aircraft can fly for a while knife edge. Many air-show viewers have seen this. There are videos of it. And you can work out the math of it to show that it is feasible and that, if it weren't possible in the game, the game would be wrong.
With regard to stalls, some WWII fighters can have quirky stall behavior, depending on how the stall is entered and what control motions the pilot does, behavior including nose-high oscillations. Design of civilian aircraft puts great emphasis on docile stall behavior. WWII fighters, not nearly as much. They also have 1500-2000 HP engines and huge diameter props, generating an enormous amount of torque, gyroscopic forces, and P-factor.
Here is a video titled "P-39 Tumble and Spin Tests". Check out the footage starting at 6:37 in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWwI6gZw67g
Here is video of a Mosquito getting into an unrecoverable and fatal stall:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag5ut3tP3ZM
-
Oh for Christ's sake HiTech, get a hold of yourself. Learn how to take a critic. You always get defensive and throw your aeronautical engineering studies to intimidate the crowds. You can wave your fancy aerodynamic formulas all you want, they are still severe flaws in some aspects of AH flight modeling, such as the P47 nose getting 'stuck' wobbling in the sky in a stall nose high for 5 secs plus. All the planes I ever flew, including my 16,000lbs Metro or lately 10,000lbs Pilatus with 1,600HP ... when you stall at any angle : the nose goes down quicker than a Thai hooker.
Anyway, still a hell of a game that's why I've been giving you my money for the last 14 years. Please put your ego aside and listen to your customers concerns about FM even when they identify the shortcomings of the FM.
Nice rant but I don't think it fits this case. The OP has a reputation for making claims he can't back up. The aircraft in AH can only zoom climb knife edge. The half wing is beside the point.
-
Alright then, carry on chaps :salute
-
Oh for Christ's sake HiTech, get a hold of yourself. Learn how to take a critic. You always get defensive and throw your aeronautical engineering studies to intimidate the crowds. You can wave your fancy aerodynamic formulas all you want, they are still severe flaws in some aspects of AH flight modeling, such as the P47 nose getting 'stuck' wobbling in the sky in a stall nose high for 5 secs plus. All the planes I ever flew, including my 16,000lbs Metro or lately 10,000lbs Pilatus with 1,600HP ... when you stall at any angle : the nose goes down quicker than a Thai hooker.
Anyway, still a hell of a game that's why I've been giving you my money for the last 14 years. Please put your ego aside and listen to your customers concerns about FM even when they identify the shortcomings of the FM.
Frenchy , I get critics day in day out,and very rarely do I respond to any of them. I do not believe I ever throw any of my "engineering studys" out to intimidate. What I do is simply post engineering information that can at any time be debated analytically. But false information like this thread have a way of becoming urban legend and hence people will continue to believe false claims, and hence some require responses.
HiTech
-
Frenchy , I get critics day in day out,and very rarely do I respond to any of them. I do not believe I ever throw any of my "engineering studys" out to intimidate. What I do is simply post engineering information that can at any time be debated analytically. But false information like this thread have a way of becoming urban legend and hence people will continue to believe false claims, and hence some require responses.
HiTech
Putz! Just kidding Hitech, don't ban me i'm still on probation apparently! :P At any rate, I'm not a math genius, nor a pilot that has any flight time in any plane, much less a WWII bird. But, having played pretty much every flight sim out there, I feel this one gets as close as possible. Hell, flight models have been changed when information shows that they had it wrong. I don't understand what else they expect. :headscratch:
Regards
-
The best i had today : a p51d, with its right wing missing, managed to outrun my Ta152 on a level run (no previous alt advantage) : i recorded it and lighted a cig, thinking "wtf"... :salute
-
Frenchy , I get critics day in day out,and very rarely do I respond to any of them. I do not believe I ever throw any of my "engineering studys" out to intimidate. What I do is simply post engineering information that can at any time be debated analytically. But false information like this thread have a way of becoming urban legend and hence people will continue to believe false claims, and hence some require responses.
HiTech
It makes no mistake to any of us that you created the best flight model out there, but formulas and numbers don't always tell the full story. Along the years I noticed a tendancy to talk formulas as 'the bible' over the 'feeling of flight'. Let's face it, few of us wish to dig up the 'Principle of flight' book and debate you that's what I mean by 'intimidate'.
At any rate HiTech, I appreciated the fair answer, and I do understand where you are coming from. You shall now resume work on the P47 D23 and the benefits of the paddle prop ... heu ... I mean the new terrain/lighting model. :D
-
It makes no mistake to any of us that you created the best flight model out there, but formulas and numbers don't always tell the full story. Along the years I noticed a tendancy to talk formulas as 'the bible' over the 'feeling of flight'. Let's face it, few of us wish to dig up the 'Principle of flight' book and debate you that's what I mean by 'intimidate'.
At any rate HiTech, I appreciated the fair answer, and I do understand where you are coming from. You shall now resume work on the P47 D23 and the benefits of the paddle prop ... heu ... I mean the new terrain/lighting model. :D
You know, if I ran into Hitech and Skuzzy in a dark alley or something, I think skuzzy would be/is more intimidating. :D It's nice to see you around the game again though Frenchy. <S> :airplane:
-
Hey thank you, appreciated. Such an addicting game there's so much to do in it, it's hard to get borred. :salute
-
Frenchy, do some research and find someone who has stalled a real P47, they should know if AH gets it right...
-
Frenchy, do some research and find someone who has stalled a real P47, they should know if AH gets it right...
About 13:00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cd0J3Sg_qqA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cd0J3Sg_qqA)
-
But false information like this thread have a way of becoming urban legend and hence people will continue to believe false claims, and hence some require responses.
HiTech
When people see it's from icepac, I very much doubt anyone will believe a word.
Outside "another bout of verbal diarrhoea by icepac" there is no chance of such claims becoming urban legend.
-
Nice rant but I don't think it fits this case. The OP has a reputation for making claims he can't back up. The aircraft in AH can only zoom climb knife edge. The half wing is beside the point.
Not at all......It's just that people like dolby ignore the backing up of claims so he can continue his agenda.
Show me the claims or stop parroting what dolby incorrectly asserts.
Again......my statement is that any real wwII plane missing an entire wing (not half a wing) can not go from a 7000fpm descent to a 4000fpm climb flying knife edge using only the rudder.
So....when someone uses the pitts special as an example, they should note whether the nose is already up or not at the time the plane goes knife edge.
Not all planes in aces high can do it but more than a few can.
I'm now working two jobs so my aces high time for the week has been consumed by this post.
-
lol at this amount of plain stupidity :rofl
Youre awesome, buddy :aok
-
Note: P-47 being stalled in 1943 film.
About 13:00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cd0J3Sg_qqA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cd0J3Sg_qqA)
-
About 13:00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cd0J3Sg_qqA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cd0J3Sg_qqA)
Yes, that's a normal tame stall. But planes behave a lot differently when people are doing highly accelerated stalls with crossed controls. Then you can get all kinds of weird behavior, such as here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWwI6gZw67g
-
Again......my statement is that any real wwII plane missing an entire wing (not half a wing) can not go from a 7000fpm descent to a 4000fpm climb flying knife edge using only the rudder.
So....when someone uses the pitts special as an example, they should note whether the nose is already up or not at the time the plane goes knife edge.
The principle is the same. The fuselage is generating lift. Math above estimates that the Brewster can maintain level at 275 mph -- that's where lift = weight. As you exceed that speed, you can generate more lift from the fuselage than the plane weighs. Thus, at more than about 275 mph, you can start generating some acceleration (in excess of weight) to apply to a curving path (i.e., descent to climb, or a bit of a knife-edge turn). It's the same principle that applies when you have a plane stalls at 80 mph, but as you go faster than 80 mph, you can maneuver and not be relegated to flying just straight ahead and level.
So, I hereby note that when I use the Pitts Special as an example, the physics and math are the same as for any other plane in Earth's atmosphere.
-
lol at this amount of plain stupidity :rofl
Youre awesome, buddy :aok
I warned him not to start the thread. lol
-
Yes, that's a normal tame stall. But planes behave a lot differently when people are doing highly accelerated stalls with crossed controls. Then you can get all kinds of weird behavior, such as here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWwI6gZw67g
I think Frenchy was talking about more of tail-slide type maneuver than any sort of spin.
-
Yes, that's a normal tame stall. But planes behave a lot differently when people are doing highly accelerated stalls with crossed controls. Then you can get all kinds of weird behavior, such as here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWwI6gZw67g
Thank you for the link BnZ, but those stalls from those instructional vids were very tame. Manufacturers videos are also often ridiculous to sell what they want. Here are some from Pilatus on the PC12 to sell you why you need a stick pusher. Basically stalls with and without stick pushers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNRK2aUmWWI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNRK2aUmWWI) :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
We stall it without the pusher, and you do have a significant instant nose down 30/40 degrees but nothing like this video :rofl Pull gently to avoid a secondary stall while performing the recovery items, and you loose 400 ft max.
-
BnZ what I'm refering too is like this :
You are in a slow turnfight, you pull your nose upward to try to make it to over the top and your controls inputs stop responding. Ok, I'm in a deep stall and not enough airflow for my controls to respond. I understand that. But the nose, your attitude stays the same for a couple of seconds, like you are 'stuck', then something gives and you have 'the stall' where the nose still doesn't go down, it's whobeling around till finally you 'brake it' with your rudder/power. To me it's not natural, because all the planes I flew have a significant 'break' when you enter a deep stall, with the nose significantly and abruptly droping even while you have no control response.
Same with entering a spin. Take a Spitfire, even a P47. Throttle to idle while straight and level, flaps up, Apply and maintain full rudder on one side. You'll be able to maintain control of your stall with the nose moderately oscilliating up and down. Again, the plane I flew would go into a spin right away when stalled with full rudder deflection.
I think it's just reaching the limit of an already great flight model programation, but because it's a combat sim and we push the envellop so much, those issues pop out. As 'loose' as IL2 Sturvovik was with A/C performances and weapons, the 'nose over' part in a dogfight was a delight, felt real to me. That's the best I can explain it. :headscratch:
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNRK2aUmWWI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNRK2aUmWWI) :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Cool. Looks sort of like the f4u stall behavior from its films.
-
I am not sure there are many real pilots who deliberate depart their airplanes and the attempt to use thrust and torqueto mmaintain a high aoa like we do in the game.would probably have been certain death in combat as it is in the game.
-
But the nose, your attitude stays the same for a couple of seconds, like you are 'stuck', then something gives and you have 'the stall' where the nose still doesn't go down, it's whobeling around till finally you 'brake it' with your rudder/power. To me it's not natural, because all the planes I flew have a significant 'break' when you enter a deep stall, with the nose significantly and abruptly droping even while you have no control response.
Same with entering a spin.:headscratch:
I very much agree. The stall/post stall model isn't right. Once any inertia or gyroscopic forces are negated the nose should drop. You don't see arrows falling fletching first.
However have yet to find a sim that does stall behavior well.
-
I very much agree. The stall/post stall model isn't right. Once any inertia or gyroscopic forces are negated the nose should drop. You don't see arrows falling fletching first.
However have yet to find a sim that does stall behavior well.
I agree here. No plane I have EVER flown has ever exhibited similar stall or spin characteristics remotely similar to anything ingame. Once buffeting passed and stall was entered, the floor falls out from under you.
-
I agree here. No plane I have EVER flown has ever exhibited similar stall or spin characteristics remotely similar to anything ingame. Once buffeting passed and stall was entered, the floor falls out from under you.
Most "ace" duels in AHII if they go on long enough end up in what I call the "ruddering scissors"-IOW an exchanged series of pullups and roughly hammerhead-style rotations in the yaw axis to come back down and take the shot, as opposed to the barrrel-rolling around each other one would expect. It is very common. I've also seen flat rotation in the yaw axis used quite a bit as well. For instance, being in a Corsair's rear quarter, both of you having gotten very slow in the fight, and suddenly the Corsair seems to rotate about 135 degrees in the air and suddenly it is basically a head-on merge again. I've had a few ????????? about a lot of this stuff. 90% of fights are still won or lost by more conventional maneuvering though, so I take it in stride.
-
Stall turns in ACM seem likely to have occurred in WW2 even if stall fighting was not as common as it is in AH.
WW2 fighter aircraft were designed to different safety/stability standards compared to civilian aircraft. I don't see why they should stall the same way.
-
So, would you guys say that these stall behaviors are unrealistic? I doubt that these stall behaviors match most people's real-life flying.
See footage starting at 6:37 in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWwI6gZw67g
And this one from start:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag5ut3tP3ZM
-
Stall turns in ACM seem likely to have occurred in WW2 even if stall fighting was not as common as it is in AH.
WW2 fighter aircraft were designed to different safety/stability standards compared to civilian aircraft. I don't see why they should stall the same way.
But is stall behavior that allows the "ruddering scissors" to replace the "rolling scissors" realistic?
-
What the first video showed was a P-39 tumbling like a leaf in a spin, loosing thousands of feet of altitude while doing so. What Frenchy was describing was a P-47 getting stuck "nose up" I think. What I'm talking about with my remarks is being able to pull up to the vertical, essentially hammerhead, take a shot accurately, and continue to be able to fly and fight effectively. As opposed to say spinning and losing thousands of feet of altitude.
So, would you guys say that these stall behaviors are unrealistic? I doubt that these stall behaviors match most people's real-life flying.
See footage starting at 6:37 in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWwI6gZw67g
And this one from start:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag5ut3tP3ZM
-
But is stall behavior that allows the "ruddering scissors" to replace the "rolling scissors" realistic?
I don't understand what you think is wrong with it. Isn't it just a different slower way to get over the top? Don't we see it in airshows?
-
What the first video showed was a P-39 tumbling like a leaf in a spin, loosing thousands of feet of altitude while doing so. What Frenchy was describing was a P-47 getting stuck "nose up" I think. What I'm talking about with my remarks is being able to pull up to the vertical, essentially hammerhead, take a shot accurately, and continue to be able to fly and fight effectively. As opposed to say spinning and losing thousands of feet of altitude.
What you described is possible even in most training GA aircraft. As long as the aircraft is unloaded when it stalls, it will simply nose down and regain airspeed. I've done hammerheads in aircraft you'd be surprised to hear could do them - there's nothing special about the maneuver. However, they are exponentially harder to do in AH, which is where I think it deviates from reality.
The spins you saw in the video were that - spins; where the aircraft was stalled, the wings were loaded and the ball wasn't centered - that will result in a spin. The spins in the video, while steeper and faster, looked similar to the spins in GA aircraft as well (except for the more exotic stuff, like inverted spins, which we don't try).
-
But is stall behavior that allows the "ruddering scissors" to replace the "rolling scissors" realistic?
Perhaps, but I think a bigger part of it is incorrect modelling of torque and spins. The torque almost "sticks" you in a nose-high position and allows you to hold it much longer. In every other sim I've played (and in real life), once you go from a stall to nose-low, you pick up speed quickly and you can't return to the same position without a severe horizontal offset and loss of altitude.
The torque and spin modeling seems to promote this rudder-stall environment.
-
How do you think the torque and spins should be different? I'm not clear on what you're describing.
What do you mean by rudder-stall? I don't know that term.
-
I don't understand what you think is wrong with it. Isn't it just a different slower way to get over the top? Don't we see it in airshows?
It is not the fact of a hammerhead being performed in the game. I'm skeptical more the ability to enter, leave, and control the nose in hammerheads and other moves involving yaw rotation to a seemingly F-22esque extent. In real ACM they tend to say that every fight that goes long enough ends up in the rolling scissors, whereas in AHII such fights end up in a move series so uncommon I don't know the proper name for it. Everything you get from outside ACM sources like Shaw makes sense and works in AHII right until you get to that point...
-
AH fights are exactly how my fights at Air Combat USA went -- where the guys were about equal, they ended up in stallfights on the "deck", not rolling scissors.
-
AH fights are exactly how my fights at Air Combat USA went -- where the guys were about equal, they ended up in stallfights on the "deck", not rolling scissors.
That falls into the 90% of fights being realistic I was talking about earlier. But with sticks at a certain level, Batfink for instance you will ALWAYS run into what I'm talking about. If you fly well enough to actually wind up on their tail in the first place during an equal duel, they will use a pullup in combination with killing energy, followed by a hammerhead rotation. They WILL get a shot coming back down. Hit or miss, you will end up on the defensive unless you can also pull up and begin utilizing the same sort of maneuvers. The fight will hinge on snapshots taken as you exchange positions in this hammerhead series, and as I say, in my observation this is where almost every duel between high-level pilots eventually goes.
One also runs into some pilots who aren't particularly great at anything but these sort of maneuvers, indicating that god-level flying ability isn't required to use the FM in this way.
One incident of this sort I remember is being 200 yards behind and slightly to the right of a Corsair, both of us being very low and slow, while flying an FM2. Both of us were level turning by this point. The Corsair rotates while very near flat almost 180 degrees to the right to face me, does not shoot me in the face in the spirit of good sportsmanship I suppose, flies under me, and the fight continues
-
I shot down Batfink......once :old:
Think he was AFK :confused:
-
It is not the fact of a hammerhead being performed in the game. I'm skeptical more the ability to enter, leave, and control the nose in hammerheads and other moves involving yaw rotation to a seemingly F-22esque extent. In real ACM they tend to say that every fight that goes long enough ends up in the rolling scissors, whereas in AHII such fights end up in a move series so uncommon I don't know the proper name for it. Everything you get from outside ACM sources like Shaw makes sense and works in AHII right until you get to that point...
In airshows we see throttle controlling the nose in stalls. Not in the vintage aircraft of course.
Most WW2 fighters were very aerobatic and the loads aren't great when stalled at the top of a zoom climb. They didn't perform like current aerobatic aircraft but remember the account of Candelaria stall spinning his P-51 and getting a kill. We may do more of it but we didn't invent it.
-
So, would you guys say that these stall behaviors are unrealistic? I doubt that these stall behaviors match most people's real-life flying.
See footage starting at 6:37 in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWwI6gZw67g
And this one from start:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag5ut3tP3ZM
No,not at all. The Mossie accident was an engine failure at a very bad time and what was probably Vmc roll so kind of apples and oranges, he recovered but didn't have room to pull out.
But did you notice that when the aircraft stalled the nose dropped through the horizon. In game the 152, Mossie and Spit 14 are 3 of the top of my head that will set "stalled" but nose above the horizon as they descend with very low IAS. I've done stalls in Cessnas, Pipers, T-6, P-51 and B-17. Each and every time when the stall breaks the nose drops. The heavy end is going to point toward the dirt, the feather end is going to trail behind.
-
To me it's not natural, because all the planes I flew have a significant 'break' when you enter a deep stall, with the nose significantly and abruptly droping even while you have no control response.
You can do this in game, I do this with a d9, one of the big problems I always had with the d9 was a fast nose up down transition, something I learnt in WW1 is fast up down transitions equate to angles, I use very slight jabs of virtually no throttle to make it happen and viola the nose swings. A D7 in the WW1 arena will do exactly as you described very easily. Even if you end up stuck at the top spinning on the prop the nose will swing down? It could be your just not getting the plane slow enough in game?
In the MA some of the F4Us and even Jugs I have seen me following them up and the nose swinging straight down and me getting a faceful its not that uncommon.
-
It is not the fact of a hammerhead being performed in the game. I'm skeptical more the ability to enter, leave, and control the nose in hammerheads and other moves involving yaw rotation to a seemingly F-22esque extent. In real ACM they tend to say that every fight that goes long enough ends up in the rolling scissors, whereas in AHII such fights end up in a move series so uncommon I don't know the proper name for it. Everything you get from outside ACM sources like Shaw makes sense and works in AHII right until you get to that point...
Every fight that goes long enough ends in a luftberry fight on the deck, the ground and threat of guns will dictate that rolling scissors will get flatter and flatter until the guy in guns has to resort to a flat turn, his only other options are getting shot or hitting the ground.
-
Thanks Hitech, Very informative. I always learn something in threads like this. :salute
-
You can do this in game, I do this with a d9, one of the big problems I always had with the d9 was a fast nose up down transition, something I learnt in WW1 is fast up down transitions equate to angles, I use very slight jabs of virtually no throttle to make it happen and viola the nose swings. A D7 in the WW1 arena will do exactly as you described very easily. Even if you end up stuck at the top spinning on the prop the nose will swing down? It could be your just not getting the plane slow enough in game?
In the MA some of the F4Us and even Jugs I have seen me following them up and the nose swinging straight down and me getting a faceful its not that uncommon.
I don't think that's what it is Pervert, the speed gets down into the 0 to 50 range and yet like you, I have to assle the throttle and get all crazy with the rudder to get the 'nose' to 'break'. Granteed some planes just do that worse than others.