Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Films and Screenshots => Topic started by: glzsqd on July 08, 2014, 04:21:57 PM
-
I just wanted to know if this goes against any laws of physics. Any comments?
-
:rofl I don't think one needs any more proof that something is up with the F4U's (quite literally) hover flaps.
-
I have heard the early corsairs had a tendency to "float" on deck landing approach's and it was a reason for one of its many nicknames. What surprised me was how I was able to throw my nose back into place with the rudder.
-
(https://i.imgflip.com/a5z31.jpg)
-
Hogs = Easy Mode
-
As opposed to what?
-
I've managed to do similar in a A6M3...but it's made of paper mache, pixie dust and ice cream dreams and thus weighs absolutely nothing. :devil
So yeah....I think that might be a modeling problem....nice flying by the way. :aok
-
As opposed to what?
Pretty much everything in my book.
-1 being an exception
-
I'm rarely in any other Hog, -1 just looks to darn mean :devil
-
When you stalled it and skidded your load factor was .4 - .6g so your stall speed dropped around 30%. This helped get you quickly flying again as you dropped more flaps while your load factor increased to 1g. You may have had some help from ground effect too.
-
I would have to wonder about the effects of torque on a hog at 100 mph and full throttle.
-
The Torque might have helped in leveling me out, I'm not sure but I've never had an issues with the engine torque on the f4u-1.
-
I would have to wonder about the effects of torque on a hog at 100 mph and full throttle.
The torque is modeled so you can see what it does.
-
Is it modeled accurately is my question. You'd think with the F4U's reputation of very high torque and difficult slow speed handling that you couldn't hover and rotate over 90 degrees about the yaw axis while maintaining wings relatively level.
-
The F4U has a very good reputation, it was designed to have good slow speed handling. The "Ensign killer" story is a story. Any powerful fighter will give you similar trouble.
The OP's film does not show any hovering. He stalls, slides sideways, and recovers.
-
Being able to do that maneuver in a hog at about 50ft and maintain control just doesn't pass the smell test to me.
-
Being able to do that maneuver in a hog at about 50ft and maintain control just doesn't pass the smell test to me.
The scent of physics. Post your film. I'd like to see you do it on purpose. While you're at it maybe you could hover a bit too. Use smoke, it makes the hovering obvious.
-
The scent of physics. Post your film. I'd like to see you do it on purpose. While you're at it maybe you could hover a bit too. Use smoke, it makes the hovering obvious.
Here you go. I even landed it backwards using this maneuver. I just hope the French judges don't take off for the busted wing.
-
That's how I always land my F4U's lol.
There are pilot accounts saying the F4U had a bad sink rate with landing flaps fully extended, This caused over shoots on carrier decks. Now when the British got their hands on the -1 they clipped the wings so the planes could be stored easier on their small carriers. This had improved the sink rate as well.
I'm not saying the F4U is spot on in the modeling of its flaps, but what plane in this game is modeled 100% correctly? I believe the F4U is modeled more accurately In this game than games like Il2/War thunder or War Birds.
-
Here you go. I even landed it backwards using this maneuver. I just hope the French judges don't take off for the busted wing.
Nice flying. :D No hovering though. You stalled, slid sideways and recovered the first time when you used WEP to increase the torque that you used to rotate.
If torque wasn't modeled correctly don't you think you'd notice it in the required roll trim?
When you yaw right with a clockwise prop gyroscopic progression pitches the nose down, is that a factor here?
I don't know that Hitech has fully modeled flying sideways but you do see similar flying in airshows.
-
In the OP's film the sloped terrain contributes to it looking odd, if it were performed the same over level terrain it would make a bit more sense.
was nice control
-
... No hovering though.....
100% agree
-
I don't think that the hover flap moniker is to be taken literally (even though I did joke about that in my first post.) I didn't claim that I hovered, simply that I could do that maneuver in a controlled fashion, or "on purpose." Also notice in my film at the beginning, shortly after takeoff. I'm going under 100 mph and pull throttle back to idle. I then go full throttle to feel the full effect of that huge prop's torque. I don't think I would have spilled my coffee...
-
What do you think should have happened? Besides spilling your coffee? :)
-
68 mph and look at your path of travel as compared to the angle the airplane is actually pointed at. You are right to call shenanigans on this Gizz.
(https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t31.0-8/10511527_10201872049395336_2368176859642544276_o.jpg)
-
What shenanigans do you have in mind? Why do you think 68 mph is a problem?
-
What shenanigans do you have in mind? Why do you think 68 mph is a problem?
Hmmmm hmmm hmmmm. Just quivering with anticipation aren't you. Oh yeah, this is really a serious question and not a screaming rule number 4 violation :rolleyes:
-
What shenanigans do you have in mind? Why do you think 68 mph is a problem?
Let me see...it's literally flying sideways, nose pitched way up, right around stalling speed for a Corsair, with the throttle wide open presumably...Look man, I love this game, and 99% of the time realistic tactics work realistically. It's a bit silly to try and justify the odd time when the FM veers into UFOlogy though. Post-stall behavior is the most difficult aspect to model correctly in a flight sim, IIRC.
-
Let me see...it's literally flying sideways, nose pitched way up, right around stalling speed for a Corsair, with the throttle wide open presumably...Look man, I love this game, and 99% of the time realistic tactics work realistically. It's a bit silly to try and justify the odd time when the FM veers into UFOlogy though. Post-stall behavior is the most difficult aspect to model correctly in a flight sim, IIRC.
It ain't the flight model, I'm just that good of a pilot. :cool:
Ill be running Corsair VTOL clinics Mondays and Fridays in the Training arena.
On a serious note, I haven't been able to duplicate this incident, each time ends with me eating the dirt butt first.
-
Let me see...it's literally flying sideways, nose pitched way up, right around stalling speed for a Corsair, with the throttle wide open presumably...Look man, I love this game, and 99% of the time realistic tactics work realistically. It's a bit silly to try and justify the odd time when the FM veers into UFOlogy though. Post-stall behavior is the most difficult aspect to model correctly in a flight sim, IIRC.
He's not flying sideways. He flick stalled it, slid sideways, recovered the stall and flew off. He was flaps out at less than 1g. What do you think his stall speed was?
-
Hmmmm hmmm hmmmm. Just quivering with anticipation aren't you. Oh yeah, this is really a serious question and not a screaming rule number 4 violation :rolleyes:
What is the .5g stall speed of the F4U-1 on the deck with 25% fuel and 3 notches flaps?
-
He's not flying sideways. He flick stalled it, slid sideways, recovered the stall and flew off. He was flaps out at less than 1g. What do you think his stall speed was?
As BnZs said, it's the extremes that are hardest to model, and it's the extremes of flight envelopes that show where discrepancies in the flight model exist.
I'm just as giddy as the next guy for fully-realistic aerodynamic simulations, but the torque modeling and spin characteristics are so out of whack that they almost don't resemble flight at all. It's simply not realistic. I could go into aerodynamics ad-naseum, but it'd be a waste of time for all parties involved. You think it's fine, years of flight experience say otherwise for me - we'll have to agree to disagree.
Also - that "G" meter is actually an airframe LOAD meter; it is not an actual G-meter. In unusual attitudes and orientations, it's all but completely irrelevant to stall speed.
-
As BnZs said, it's the extremes that are hardest to model, and it's the extremes of flight envelopes that show where discrepancies in the flight model exist.
I'm just as giddy as the next guy for fully-realistic aerodynamic simulations, but the torque modeling and spin characteristics are so out of whack that they almost don't resemble flight at all. It's simply not realistic. I could go into aerodynamics ad-naseum, but it'd be a waste of time for all parties involved. You think it's fine, years of flight experience say otherwise for me - we'll have to agree to disagree.
Impossible unrealistic flying that we see regularly at airshows. :lol
The load factor, as shown on the accelerometer, actually determines the stall speed, which so far nobody has bothered to figure out. Why is that? :D
-
What is the .5g stall speed of the F4U-1 on the deck with 25% fuel and 3 notches flaps?
The stall speed is irrelevant.
-
The load factor, as shown on the accelerometer, actually determines the stall speed, which so far nobody has bothered to figure out. Why is that? :D
Because it's irrelevant.
-
You don't know. :lol
If you want to criticize, do the math. :D
-
You don't know. :lol
If you want to criticize, do the math. :D
The burden of proof is on the person bringing the claim that what appears to be impossible and deviates from accepted parameters is, indeed, possible. You do the math.
-
I did the math Skyyr. Didn't you read page 1? I posted an approximation but I know the speed I asked nrshida for.
I'm just curious who else can do it. :D Waiting on nrshida and BnZs. And Skyyr. ;)
And the burden of proof is always on the person criticizing the flight model. Based on his speed when he recovered the stall should he have been able to continue flying? Obviously the answer involves the stall speed. Did you all say it was wrong without even knowing the stall speed?
-
You don't know. :lol
No I don't know. I dare say I could find the equation and do the sums quite easily if I had the data. Not rocket surgery is it.
I'm just curious who else can do it. :D Waiting on nrshida and BnZs. And Skyyr. ;)
Judas Priest could you be any more full of yourself? Not really here to discuss things in a helpful way are you. You get your jollies from quite a different activity. Is your trolling endorsed by the official Aces High Training Corps? I'm just wondering.
Anyway, once again the stall speed is irrelevant. You have nothing to contribute to this argument since all you can do is transcribe information, what with your crippling lack of imagination and bias. Let me guess, the Corsair is one of your favourites is it?
-
I think that is a bit unfair Shida, being a trainer does not mean losing all sense of self and individual natures. All the trainers were their own person before being a trainer and the good ones continue being their own person while simultaneously offering their time to help anyone in any way possible.
I see nothing wrong with poking fun at each other in a friendly way, trainer or not.
-
No I don't know. I dare say I could find the equation and do the sums quite easily if I had the data. Not rocket surgery is it.
Judas Priest could you be any more full of yourself? Not really here to discuss things in a helpful way are you. You get your jollies from quite a different activity. Is your trolling endorsed by the official Aces High Training Corps? I'm just wondering.
Anyway, once again the stall speed is irrelevant. You have nothing to contribute to this argument since all you can do is transcribe information, what with your crippling lack of imagination and bias. Let me guess, the Corsair is one of your favourites is it?
Do you feel it's inappropriate to post in a thread just to vent some personal animosity?
-
I think that is a bit unfair Shida, being a trainer does not mean losing all sense of self and individual natures. All the trainers were their own person before being a trainer and the good ones continue being their own person while simultaneously offering their time to help anyone in any way possible.
I'm allergic to people persistently bending the forum rules so they can forward their agenda of divine condescension while ensuring nothing they like ever gets changed even if it might be incorrect. If he's going to troll then he should expect the same treatment everyone else gets.
Do you feel it's inappropriate to post in a thread just to vent some personal animosity?
It isn't personal, I don't know you or care about you. It is a 'professional' objection to your consistent conduct and agenda on this forum which prevents progress through any constructive discussion. I think it's inappropriate for you to continue do this, doubly so since you are a trainer who is supposed to contribute constructively and actually be interested in a faithful representation of modeling instead of taking the default argument it is perfect as it is without enquiring what people might have found out or thought of. I refer you to GScholz's recent P-38 dive flaps discussion for the previous example of your monkey business.
So in answer to your question:
What is the .5g stall speed of the F4U-1 on the deck with 25% fuel and 3 notches flaps?
I did the following sums. I had to make an assumption and might indeed have made a schoolboy's. No doubt corrections with considerable laughter will follow but who cares if being corrected by you is the only way to get more accurate data, since you never come forward with it only to correct someone.
This is the equation I used:
V = sq root (W x 9.81/(1/2p x S x Cl_max))
Where:
V = Stall speed m/s
p (rho) = air density kg/metre^3
S = wing area metres^2
Cl_max = Coefficient of lift at stall
W = weight kilogrammes
I couldn't find Cl_max for an F4U1 with three notches. I tried to determine it through flight testing and got a power off stall speed of 74 mph with three notches based on an average of 12 samples but the units weren't specified for the equation and the data spurious when I tried.
I found two different values for it with full flaps (that's five notches in AH). I also didn't know how to allow for a 0.5G load so I made an assumption. I took an estimated weight with 25% fuel to be 4351kgs. At 0.5G I assumed it to be reduced by the sine of 45 degrees so 4351 x 0.707 = 3076.157 = 3076 kgs. It just felt right because I didn't feel it would be a linear value between 1.0 and 0.
Version I - Brooke's Cl_max 2.74
V = sq root (W x 9.81/(1/2p x S x Cl_max))
V = sq root (3076 x 9.81 / ( (1.225 / 2) x 29.17 x 2.74) )
V = sq root (3076 x 9.81 / ( 0.6125 x 29.17 x 2.74) )
V = sq root (3076 x 9.81 / 48.9545525 )
V = sq root (30175.56 / 48.9545525)
V = sq root (616.39946560639074)
V = 24.82739345171762 m/s
V = 55.5372974 miles per hour
Version II - Some random site citing some manual Cl_max 2.30
V = sq root (W x 9.81 / (1/2 p x S x Cl_max))
V = sq root ( 3076 x 9.81 / ( (1.225 / 2) x 29.17 x 2.30) )
V = sq root ( 3076 x 9.81 / ( 0.6125 x 29.17 x 2.30 ) )
V = sq root ( 3076 x 9.81 / 41.0932375 )
V = sq root ( 30175.56 / 41.0932375 )
V = sq root ( 734.31936337456984 )
V = 27.09832768593977 m/s
V = 60.6172327 miles per hour
So with full flaps at sea level with a 0.5G loading the stall speeds are either 56 mph or 61 mph depending on which Cl_max value you use.
And?
-
I'm allergic to people persistently bending the forum rules so they can forward their agenda of divine condescension while ensuring nothing they like ever gets changed even if it might be incorrect. If he's going to troll then he should expect the same treatment everyone else gets.
Fair enough mate, I think I was only looking at the small picture in reference to the bit you quoted with the smiley faces or whatever. I wasn't paying attention to any on going disputes. Which is unlike me actually, I'm usually a big picture kind of guy. This is one big picture situation I'm going to stay clear of. :bolt:
-
When the stall speed is 60 mph, recovering a stall at 68 mph doesn't look like a flight model problem.
-
Fair enough mate, I think I was only looking at the small picture in reference to the bit you quoted with the smiley faces or whatever. I wasn't paying attention to any on going disputes. Which is unlike me actually, I'm usually a big picture kind of guy. This is one big picture situation I'm going to stay clear of. :bolt:
The dispute is simply nrshida harassing me with baseless accusations that ironically fit his own behavior.
I try to keep him on topic.
-
When the stall speed is 60 mph, recovering a stall at 68 mph doesn't look like a flight model problem.
Is that it? No corrections to the maths? I even showed my working without double checking. Pulled the equations off the internet and the flight data also. It was just that simple? So you're absolutely satisfied based on these calculations in combination with the films that there is no problem with the flight model of Aces High's Corsair? Had the finding been 70 mph do you think you would have found a problem?
The dispute is simply nrshida harassing me with baseless accusations that ironically fit his own behavior.
There's no dispute. It's not baseless there are three examples of you doing this in the last six months alone and I haven't even been paying that much attention. I NEVER suppress discussion about any issues including my own favourite plane and spend more than half my time helping people on this forum. I have spent many hours making lengthy pictorial tutorials to help people repair their joysticks and have on three separate occasions posted replacement parts from my own collection - for free - to players all over the world. I have tried to help players with their flying, with their gunnery, whatever I can. I am forthcoming with data, open and not afraid to be seen to be wrong. For the most part I don't start fights on this forum I defend myself and sometimes others and I do try to stand up for what I believe in. I learned that from Brother Ink. I don't deliberately try to work around the forum rules (although I sometimes break them).
I try to keep him on topic.
That's a lie. You use ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies when you need to to win your arguments. Don't try to imply you're all about an open discussion of the topic. You want to try to shut me up because I know what your agenda is and I mess with your game. You are actually the one perpetuating the personal attack angle.
Fair enough mate, I think I was only looking at the small picture in reference to the bit you quoted with the smiley faces or whatever. I wasn't paying attention to any on going disputes. Which is unlike me actually, I'm usually a big picture kind of guy. This is one big picture situation I'm going to stay clear of. :bolt:
It's not a problem Batty, it's good that you call it as you see it. I respect you for that. As I have already stated I think he bends the rules and has a clear agenda to suppress open discussion. If he was as able as his arrogance and condescension suggests why would he be worried about less qualified people raising issues? He should be able to argue his view with evidence and still assert his position without resorting to insult and trickery. His starting point, to me, seems to be that he's naturally right and everyone else is automatically wrong.
If you don't want this kind of discussion on the forum then just pole HTC to boot me off it and I'll expend my energies elsewhere.
-
Your numbers don't match mine but they were close enough to prove my point. Thanks for doing that for me. :aok
-
Your numbers don't match mine but they were close enough to prove my point. Thanks for doing that for me. :aok
I wonder if you fight in the arenas the same way you argue on the forum. Absolutely predictably.
Yes of course, your point was perfectly obvious and predictable from the start. I did the sums to illustrate it wasn't beyond the reach of any normal Aces High player to do so. I think I also managed to demonstrate my point about your needless arrogance and smugness, and how you only lift a finger on this forum to mock other people's efforts when they differ with you. Thanks for that :aok
I imagined the figure would be something like 60 m.p.h. with a 0.5G loading before I even found the equation. I already told you you would be no use to this discussion because you are disabled with a complete lack of imagination and are too fixated on numbers. I told you twice the figure was irrelevant.
Flight modeling has two components a quantitive and qualitative aspect. I already knew the stall speed was modeled correctly before this thread was posted. So far so good. The qualitative aspect however is where the problem lies.
You say the "Ensign killer" description was just a story (I think it was actually 'Ensign Eliminator' wasn't it?). Firstly YOU have to qualify that - by your own definition of burden of proof - since your opinion differs with the historical description. Secondly if the real F4U1 was as docile in handling as the AH version then why did Vought modify the right wing with a bodge to calm the handling at slow speed?
If you refer back to my previous post you will notice I italicized a section regarding flight testing I did. I italicized it because I knew you would only be focussing on the numbers. I was able to hold the aircraft at the onset of stall with my stick fully back to the stop. You said any powerful aircraft would be a handful when so slow. Seriously? As modeled in Aces High this has to be one of the most docile stalls of all the aircraft powerful or not.
What is the 0.5g stall speed of the Fw190A-8 with 25% fuel on the deck and 3 notches flaps? Could you similarly hold the 190 in this configuration (at it's undoubtedly higher stall speed)? No, you could not. Impossible. Go and do a back to back flight test if you want to see how HTC models an abrupt or even better described viscous stall. So it can be modeled in other words (before I have to endure another strawman about that).
I urge anyone to repeat the flight tests. The characteristics of the Aces High Corsair entering the stall does not match the historical description.
Consistency of modeling is all that is asked for. I don't think it's modeled accurately and apparently I'm not the only one who thinks that.
-
You aren't describing the posted film. Of course stall speed is relevant, it's the reason he didn't crash. My figure for stall speed at full flaps at .5g was 52.5 mph. That's from flight testing.
Again you describe your own behavior and attribute it to me. People may eventually notice that.
If you look at the USN training films for flying the F4U you see that it's performance is very similar to the AH model.
-
You aren't describing the posted film. Of course stall speed is relevant, it's the reason he didn't crash.
Again you describe your own behavior and attribute it to me. People may eventually notice that.
If you look at the USN training films for flying the F4U you see that it's performance is very similar to the AH model.
It's relevant to the discussion which emerged about the validity of the Corsair's modeling.
I'm not going to engage in some psychobable projection discussion with you. I have pointed things out about your M.O. and people can judge for themselves. Judge me too, I'm not the one obstructing discussion.
I have seen the USN training films, I don't think the departure is similar. In the training film the departure is abrupt.
My testing is throttle pulled back to the stop because that was the test to discover Lift co-efficient I suppose I should have clarified that. Just try it. Spit 5 will also hold full back to the stop but it takes twice the inputs and reflexes. Fw190A-8 and D-9 roll inexorably right to the plop.
-
Bf109F-4 can be held at the stop but is about a third more difficult again than the Corsair in terms of reflexes and inputs and it has slats. Spitfire Mark VIII very similar to the Mark V, Mark I more difficult than both.
-
You did a power off stall to test the full power performance. I noticed that. As I said you were close enough to prove my point so I wasn't going to quibble.
Yes different wings have different stall behaviors but keep in mind that power off stalls are different from power on stalls.
-
Yes I know, I'm inverstigating the stall characteristics so wanted to eliminate torque.
P-38J is nigh on impossible to hold full back stick and the official training film says that one's stall is docile and recovers quickly. F4U training film does not describe the stall as docile if I remember correctly.
-
You did a power off stall to test the full power performance. I noticed that. As I said you were close enough to prove my point so I wasn't going to quibble.
Ah no, I didn't use this flight testing to establish the 0.5G stall speed, that was calculation only based on Brooke (and some other dude's) lift co-efficient figure.
The power off stuff revealed the fully back to the stop business.
-
Widewing's quote about his friend's experiences with an F4U-1A:
Stall speed is spot on... Stability isn't. Chris Fahey told me that he can fly the F6F-5 down to 85 knots in landing configuration and it's a stable as a brick through maneuvers, including rolling into 45 degree banked turns. On the other hand, Chris says that the F4U-1A will want to snap inverted if he attempted that at 85 knots. The right wing spoiler reduced the tendency for unequal side wing stall, but did not completely eliminate it. This was exacerbated in a right hand, low speed turn, where the inside wing wants to stall first anyway. Chris also stated that the F6F's rudder was more effective than that of the F4U, probably due to its longer lever arm. Total vertical stabilizer area is also greater for the F6F, both fixed and movable (22 sq/ft total, 13 sq/ft movable for F4U, 24 sq/ft total, and 14 sq/ft movable for F6F). This allows for more effective countering of torque. If the F4U's rudder is more effective in the game, it shouldn't be.
-
If you look at the USN training films for flying the F4U you see that it's performance is very similar to the AH model.
I don't remember them flying it sideways in a perfectly controlled manner, nor do I remember the stalls being as gentle as they are in Aces High. They were abrupt with the left wing falling quickly.
-
Dude, the problem isn't the stall speed alone. The problem is an F4U Corsair actually traveling *sideways* (you are correct that it technically can't be called "flying" I suppose) with the nose pitched extremely high. BTW, I just figured out something...the speed listed in the right hand side of the film viewer *does* not refer to indicated airspeed. It refers to the true airspeed of the plane *without reference to the direction in which the plane is hurtling*. Why is this important? Well, let's look at pictures again. The first image includes trails and a top down view of the Corsair. It's path of travel is almost entirely sideways. So even though the film says the airplane is going 88 at this point, virtually none of that speed is in the form of forward velocity.
(https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/t1.0-9/q71/s480x480/10256290_10201898354972959_6878043444462629681_n.jpg)
Let's look from inside the cockpit at this exact same moment. A close up of the instrument panel confirms what I said. Although the film viewer says the airplane is going 88mph at this moment, most of that is not in the form of forward motion, there is only enough of that to have less than 50mph IAS. And last time I checked, indicated air speed is the important thing in such matters. Moreover, the G meter says the plane is loaded at exactly 1G at this moment and a look at the MAP indicates the engine is at or near full power at this point, with all the attendant torque.
(https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t1.0-9/10402761_10201898357893032_3138443127005613286_n.jpg)
-
Watching this film in slow-mo
Two seconds later the flight path is still essentially sideways, while the Indicated Airspeed is down to between 30 and 40. In fairness though the G has been reduced to slightly more than .6. The power setting remains the same.
-
~Two seconds later Gizz uses rudder to align the flight path with the direction of travel. But the fact remains that for about 3-4 seconds an aircraft known for bad low-speed/high power handling was flying directly sideways with the engine wide open and about 40mph of IAS.
-
You're correct when you say it wasn't flying sideways. It resumed flying when the nose returned forward.
-
You're correct when you say it wasn't flying sideways. It resumed flying when the nose returned forward.
Right. But for an interval before that happened it was traveling perpendicular to the direction it's control surfaces are supposed to operate at, with a rather high torque engine at high power settings without losing control...
BTW FLS, for me there is nothing personal in this discussion. :salute I just think the behavior on this film warrants a closer look. If you could post some proofs that nail down a Corsair doing what is shown here as plausible, then that would be the best possible outcome as far as I'm concerned.
P.S. Would ya mind going on the thread labeled "Mustang" in the Help&Training section and explaining to yet another AH player that any two airplanes turn the same @ the same speed and G-load? They seem to believe YOU when you say that. :devil
-
The sideways ballistic flight is not really under control, it's just nudging the result of the forces generated by the flick stall. The recovery was at minimum flight speed.
I'm not getting involved in your quibbles about undefined terms like high speed turn performance. :lol
It might be better to explore the opposing point of view instead of assuming it's just turn rate and radius at fixed speeds.
Btw re: personal, everybody's first post here was about the video, that being the topic of interest, except the one post that was about something else entirely. That being the apparent topic of interest.
-
and now for something from left field...Doesn't the F4U G-Meter only read force along the Z-Axis?
-
I think what myself and the rest of the aerodynamics amateurs are wondering is how an airplane known for dropping a wing and/or spinning with a combination of flaps, low speed and high power pulled this maneuver without ending up in the tree tops. Some ball-park demonstration of the physics involved, such as the one you did for a Brew briefly flying knife-edge, would suffice.
I'm not getting involved in your quibbles about undefined terms like high speed turn performance. :lol
It might be better to explore the opposing point of view instead of assuming it's just turn rate and radius at fixed speeds.
Nah, I'm half convinced that 50% of the player base really does think that a P-51D pulling 5.5Gs@350mph really does turn tighter or faster than something else pulling 5.5Gs@350mph. You should make a "basic aerodynamics as applied to dogfighting" sticky.
-
and now for something from left field...Doesn't the F4U G-Meter only read force along the Z-Axis?
AFAIK that's correct, it measures acceleration on the Z axis.
BnZs the spectacular results possible with the snap roll or flick stall are generally well illustrated in airshows. High performance aerobatic aircraft can do more extreme maneuvers and can do them more safely but it's the same physics.
Btw did you know the 3 point attitude of the F4U was the level flight stall AOA? Think that caused any problems? :)
-
BnZs the spectacular results possible with the snap roll or flick stall are generally well illustrated in airshows. High performance aerobatic aircraft can do more extreme maneuvers and can do them more safely but it's the same physics.
"Flick stall"? lol.
-
Can't we all just agree that I'm literally the most incredible Corsair pilot (HogsMen) to grace the digital skies :x
-
"Flick stall"? lol.
You don't get out much do you. :lol
Can't we all just agree that I'm literally the most incredible Corsair pilot (HogsMen) to grace the digital skies :x
Would you settle for lucky? :D
-
I actually do get out to the airshows, and I've seen an airplane specifically designed for aerobatic maneuvers drifting somewhat sideways, really tail sliding more than anything else, while nose up.
This is an F4U Corsair doing a maneuver that is different in key details from that, such as the fact that it's path of travel is almost directly sideways and not pointed straight up.
-
Would you settle for lucky? :D
(http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r561/folanjohnp1/Godfatherii2_zps7e3f1b93.jpg)
Fredo, you broke my Heart.
-
I actually do get out to the airshows, and I've seen an airplane specifically designed for aerobatic maneuvers drifting somewhat sideways, really tail sliding more than anything else, while nose up.
This is an F4U Corsair doing a maneuver that is different in key details from that, such as the fact that it's path of travel is almost directly sideways and not pointed straight up.
Which way was the plane flying sideways? Which way is the prop turning and what direction is the torque?
These and more questions can be answered,same bat channel same bat time!
:salute
-
I've seen sideways and climbing backwards, same as my videos, but I don't have a link. Of course they don't do that in vintage warbirds. I expect high performance aerobatic aircraft are less stable and more work to fly than Corsairs but they are all single prop high torque aircraft and the physics of flight are the same.
I'm not sure you could go backwards at 100 mph in a Bf109 with split flaps open but that's the damage model not the flight model. :D
-
Btw re: personal, everybody's first post here was about the video, that being the topic of interest, except the one post that was about something else entirely. That being the apparent topic of interest.
No you're not that interesting. To be fair my points did keep open the discussion when you tried to close it implying the stall speed was the only relevant issue.
There are now several topics being discussed, all but one relevant. I don't think we should get too sidetracked about 'flying' sideways. Many AH planes will float sideways for a short while if you present the wing to the airflow correctly it should generate lift. I took the topic 'Ummm, is this possible' to include a discussion of control at the departure. This aircraft as modeled hardly matches its historical description or the modifications done to it. If Widewing's quote from a person who has flown the real Corsair isn't enough to cast some doubt on the fidelity of the flight model then something seriously stinks on this forum and it is relevant to discuss the personal motivation in that case.
-
The incredible Rob Holland. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRz6JpPrESE
Making the improbable look normal.
-
The incredible Rob Holland. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRz6JpPrESE
Making the improbable look normal.
That's one weird looking Corsair.
-
That's one weird looking Corsair.
Custom paint job.
-
This is pretty long, what time is the scene where he replicates the maneuver in Gizz's film?
-
So are we going equate a maneuver that a specifically designed aerobatic airplane can perform with a Corsair?
-
This is pretty long, what time is the scene where he replicates the maneuver in Gizz's film?
So are we going equate a maneuver that a specifically designed aerobatic airplane can perform with a Corsair?
The video shows snap rolls into uncontrolled flight. I think that's a better indicator of possibilities than uninformed speculation.
Even in Aces High different aircraft designs react differently to the same control inputs.
-
The video shows snap rolls into uncontrolled flight. I think that's a better indicator of possibilities than uninformed speculation.
Even in Aces High different aircraft designs react differently to the same control inputs.
Okay, but what time is the maneuver similar to the one in Gizz's video? I watched about 6 minute carefully and didn't see it.
-
Looking for about 45 degrees nose up pitch with the plane drifting sideways for about two seconds or more, no rotation.
-
I never said that video had the same maneuver in it.
Do you have a reason why gizz's maneuver wasn't possible?
-
I never said that video had the same maneuver in it.
Do you have a reason why gizz's maneuver wasn't possible?
So what was the point of the video precisely?
Well, for one thing the F4U is a plane known for dropping a wing if you applied full power with flaps out on *approach* at speeds around ~70, which we calculated to be the Corsair's approximate stall speed with flaps out. Right? I posted pictorial proof Gizz's Hog at one point having less than 50 mph IAS at 1G with high power settings, if you remember. While drifting directly sideways.
(https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t1.0-9/10402761_10201898357893032_3138443127005613286_n.jpg)
-
You are simply describing what you see in the video. You aren't telling us why it couldn't happen.
-
So what was the point of the video precisely?
There are two points:
Firstly demonstrate that aircraft can depart in extraordinary ways and recover reliably and predictably. I actually agree with him about this. Some AH players have even incorporated these kind of manoeuvres into their standard ACM and if they are willing to put the considerable time and energy needed to develop & practice these then good for them.
Secondly, FLS is pressing this aspect of the topic so he can deflect attention from the observation that the AH Corsair is favourably and unrealistically modeled when it comes to the nature of departure. Gizz's Corsair should have snapped inverted and needed more altitude to recover than he had if the quote from Widewing / historical description has any validity at all. FLS would like to ignore or keep attention from this point. Additionally if you continue to differ with him you can expect more of this:
uninformed speculation.
...which is basically a subtle, forum rule-safe ad hominem attack which I already suggested he will resort to. Your opinion will be devalued by any means available if it doesn't agree with his, especially when he is personally motivated to win the argument.
Three people have so far PMed me that FLS spends a considerable amount of his TA time flying and even teaching the Corsair. Would you care to comment on this or the relevance of this FLS?
-
I admit I have conducted training with the F4U on several occasions. You got me there.
Other than that you are mistaken.
Widewing's quote was a pilot talking about accelerated stalls in a turn. That's not what Gizz was doing.
-
I admit I have conducted training with the F4U on several occasions. You got me there.
Then since you are not without a very small bit of experience in Aces High's Corsair, in your opinion does the characteristic of the accelerated stall match what is described both historically and by modern pilots of this aircraft?
-
Which characteristic, pulling yourself on your back in a turn?
-
Which characteristic, pulling yourself on your back in a turn?
:rofl