Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: SFRT - Frenchy on June 03, 2000, 12:55:00 AM
-
two days ago I was flying Lazy 8 with my student in a Piper Warrior. During the manoeuveur we gained 350 feet. The next day, same people, same fuel, same location, same alt, same tail number, we gained 200 feet only. Hummmm... that's almost 40% error. What's the lesson there? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
I believe that you guys can't come in the general discussion and throw true test datas to people's faces telling : 'look I have the proof', like a policeman showing his badge and telling 'I am the law'.
Even the same aircraft doesn't behave the same days to days. So i let you imagine two different aircrafts who are not probably tested at the same time/condition. Was the wind the same at the testing altitude? Pressure altitude, density altitude? humidity level? temperature?
How about the pilot? We used to fly the Mooney. My god, people loved it, others hated it. 'you can't slow it down on final'...'what? off course you can!'...'I always ballon on short field landings'...'peuft, it sinks like a rock'...blablabl and so on. Every pilot as his own perception of an aircraft. Take 2 pilots, give them a test checklist, they will give 2 different reports, I'm pretty sure of that. Even the POH (pilot Operating Handbook) gives some data that I could never match in real life.
i really respect the tremendous knowledge that most of you have in aviation due to the tons of reading you guys did on WW2 books. But all this doesn't make you an expert on what should be what. At a Titusville airshow, I met 2 P47 pilots arguing on his turning ability, 1 telling it couldn't turn, other arguing it could dogfight w/out worries. If two WW2 pilots who actually flew the same plane in combat can't agree, I don't believe that we (most of us w/out a single flight hour in a real plane) can define how the planes should really behave.
I have a lot of fun in AH so far, like all flight sim, take it like it is. see the planes as they are modeled, learn their strenght and weackness and go have fun. Every pilot has his favorite plane and a lot of experience on it. As far as I'm concerned, I can't fly the FW190. Everytime I'm following one of those guys at slow speed in a Niki and this guy is rolling all over and turning and slowing and climbing and rolling, and Im sweating to remain in his 6, I ask to myself:' how is he doing this?!?!' It's because he knows the plane and moreover he feels confident in it. He is not cheating, his plane isn't over modeled, he is just better than me at flying this type of airplane.
Everyday, this message board will have a new message on 'it should be like this'. I know it, my message will change nothing, but I wanted to express that nothing in reall life works like in theory, test data have to be interpreted like the news on TV, it's probably true, but not exact.
Meet you all up there! <S> pilots!
------------------
Olivier "Frenchy" Raunier
(http://home.cfl.rr.com/rauns/SFRT-AH-LOGO.jpg) http://home.CFL.rr.com/rauns/menu.htm (http://home.CFL.rr.com/rauns/menu.htm)
[This message has been edited by SFRT - Frenchy (edited 06-03-2000).]
-
Its thermals duh (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) I fly gliders and sometimes you can get 800/ft per minute climb WITHOUT an ENGINE!!!! Now in the 190 you only get 2000 feet/min WITH an engine? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) hehe
-
hehehe Zigrat, but if we put FW190 guns on ur glider, i'm convinced you can fly backward when you shoot. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
Olivier "Frenchy" Raunier
(http://home.cfl.rr.com/rauns/SFRT-AH-LOGO.jpg)
[This message has been edited by SFRT - Frenchy (edited 06-03-2000).]
-
no hes right (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
even flight characteristics of the same make and model of aircraft can vary EXTREMELY from plane to plane.
some will climb great, some will sputter, some stall perfectly with ease and drop the nose straight down after stalling while others drop a wing without the perfect rudder input. etc etc
then there is the weather...
LOL
nothing is ever exactly the same with all these variables.
-
btw Good luck monday on your CFI oral frenchy (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
There are stories of P-38's out turning Zekes. A few German pilots claimed their Me 109 could out turn the P-38. And P-47 pilots could out turn the Me 109 if you believe them. Clearly this implies that the P-47 should out turn the Zeke!
-
Lol funked (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Verry good point Frenchy, is that true then that the plane I am flying at a particular time is not Under-Modelled then ??? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Excellent points, Frenchy! Good post (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
(http://www.adamfive.com/guerrero/5GIAP.jpg)
leonid, Komandir
5 GIAP VVS RKKA (http://www.adamfive.com/guerrero)
"Our cause is just. The enemy will be crushed. Victory will be ours."
[This message has been edited by leonid (edited 06-03-2000).]
-
"Clearly this implies that the P-47 should out turn the Zeke!"
I've done that ;=)
Daff
------------------
CO, 56th Fighter Group
-
Its amazing that climb/turn rates never present temperature and humidity when providing data.
Anyone ever land in or takeoff from Reno in the summer time? Basically.. see if a plane handles the same on a 110 degree 2% humidity day as it does on a 60 degree 50% humidity one. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most that haven't had this experience would be amazed at the difference.
AKDejaVu
-
DejaVu, it's possible to adjust the data for atmospheric conditions, and I'm pretty sure this was done in official tests. Not certain though...
-
Good post Frenchy, very true. There are so many factors involved, that all you can hope for is a good general degree of accuracy. Even in test reports you see this. I used to be wowed by seemingly conclusive evidence and thought I had the answers. You get one good report and think you have the answers. Get two good reports on the same plane and suddenly your answers have become questions again.
But without knowing specifics, things can vary tremendously just based on a few details. Planes are different, pilots are different, weights and power settings need to be known, is atmospheric conditions corrected to standard atmosphere, is indicated airspeed corrected to CAS, etc.
Planes also have personalities as I'm sure you know. Some are hangar queens, always breaking down, can barely make power, etc. and some are the complete opposite.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.
-
is there gonna be a point in all this where you go get a good measurement( with lasers ) of a plane in a museum (3d shape), plug in the variables weight/size/thrust and get a true flight model based off the true planes digitised shape ?
just occured to me
-
It's easier to get the info from the engineering drawings used to build the plane. The kind of approach you are suggesting is used in the aerospace industry but to get it right you need wind tunnel data. If you have a flying plane that is the best source of course.
-
IMO it isn't so important to have the FMs perfect as it is to have the relative strengths and weaknesses modelled correctly. I.e. If a spitfire can outturn a p51 at 200mph by a large margin, then the planes are historically correct. For all the reasons above it is impossible to make the FM 100% accurate. I read the turn rate thread for a while and got thinking about all of the factors involved in calculating how fast a plane should be able to turn 360 degrees. Were all the planes tested at corner speed? What about altitude? Temperature? Octane of fuel? New airplane or well worn capured test example? How much fuel, ammo, flap settings? I'll bet if you add up all these factors you will have a large possibility for error from one plane to another. I'm also curious to see what effect prop drag will have on turn rates. It seems to me that cutting the throttle could help you corner faster for 90 degrees or so if you were above corner speed.
To me AH "feels right." I used to fly MSCFS a little bit and it seemed really arcade like. You could turn a p51 in circles for ever and you wouldn't stall. Now I've never flown a real plane, but to me a p51 being able to continuously pull 4 Gs as long as you want seems impossible.
The only complaint that I have with any of the plane FMs right now is that the p51 can lift its tailwheel off the ground at 5 mph when rolling by hitting the brakes. (It then usually breaks off when it hits the ground. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) )
------------------
bloom25
THUNDERBIRDS
-
Frenchy.... I believe that you have hit it right on the head. If someone else tested a 172 half a world away 8 months later and gave the climb numbers and then used them to model a sim.... you would have a problem.
If you tested the planes against each other with several pilots in the same place on the same day your results would give you a very good idea of how the planes performed against each other under the same conditions.
If you modeled a sim based on method number one.... It would not match peoples "real" experiances. The planes might hit the "numbers" perfectly but people would be unhappy.... And rightly so.
If you made it perform based on the second method, the planes might be "off" a small %in the sim but they would be right comparitively and most would be happy.
lazs
Oh... I was part owner in a 61 4 place mooney and I couldn't stop the darn thing once it GOT down. Course... I never did have a pilots licence and only had a couple of hrs in it.
[This message has been edited by -lazs- (edited 06-04-2000).]