Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Zigrat on December 06, 2000, 01:17:00 AM
-
i was bored today and wrote this excel sheet, just input simple test parametrs you can find from aces high into the worksheet, i think its pretty straight forward
i should have been doing my 401 lab but i made this, LOL
it seems to *me* to be fairly accurate, but there will be about a 5-10% margin of error because i used a generic prop efficiency curve
give it a try with your favorite AC and post the results.
http://www.iit.edu/~buonmic/aircraft-test.xls (http://www.iit.edu/~buonmic/aircraft-test.xls)
btw its an excel file (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
post your test results versus worksheet results here
[This message has been edited by Zigrat (edited 12-06-2000).]
-
zig i love ya , but could you give some explanation of you findings . i promis ill jump any that flame ya.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Zig, you canceled your account, right? Why bother?
-
And TOWD said he is too. "Last month"
-Westy
-
mabye because it isnt only good for aces high but any piston powered monoplane? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
anyways try it out, it turns out that the models really are pretty accurate, which will make you cheerleaders happy ;D
-
Excuse me,
I fail to see where a spread sheet is a definitive explanation of flight characteristics. I recall several engineers were able to show that a bumble bee could not fly on the basis of their mathematical extrapolations. Fortunately bees don't do math. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Mav
-
how do you think pyro makes flight models, he makes em up?
no he uses math (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
The bumblebee story is usually regarded as an urban legend.
http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/aero/team/fjournals/wellman/bumblebee.html (http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/aero/team/fjournals/wellman/bumblebee.html)
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
btw i just did a little yak testing ..
in aces high, the yak can sustain a 4g turn at 1000 ft and 215 MPH with a sink rate of 3800 FPM, predicted by worksheet 3600 fpm sink rate for that turn..
the yak was also able to flat turn on the deck at 215 MPH 3 G, which was rpedicted by the worksheet, exactly almost (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
so it works pretty well for the yak anyways...
so if you think a plane is *uber* or whatever, plug in its info and then test it and see if its close.. if you test it right (keep good corrdinated turns etcera) it should be very close...
anyways i verified the yak flight model (good job pyro (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) ) so all the nik whiners etcera can go try it out
-
I don't want to get into a "ours is good there,s is bad thing". But why are the FM,s so different in other sims? Arcade sims aside. There are sims claiming to have the most realistic FM. If it is just the math. why aren't the FM,s identical?
-
Bad equations and missing/excluded numbers Easy.
ts
-
Cool spreadsheet, but it appears to be using a "generic" airfoil. So it may only approximate values for some of the planes with more "exotic" airfoils.
The more factors the modeling system attempts to track, the more likely it is to provide accurate data, but also the more likely it is to have erroneous data input at some point.
Also, the closer you come to "max performing" the airplane, or flying it "at the edge," the less likely it is that any "smooth" equation system will accurately predict the real performance.
Which is probably why the turn performance is so hard to get just right, and why the "anecdotal evidence" often fails to match the sim performance...
--jedi
------------------
-
This is very interesting.
Again, not to start anything. But has anyone done a test of WB with this system. I would be curious how close they are.
-
well one thing easymo...
by climb rates for all aircraft i am testing are too high, but I am not sure why. It must be due to incorrect propeller efficiency curves but it is difficult to find good data on prop efficiency.
-
Cool,
Just a few questions and comments regarding the thrust/climb speed calculations:
Considering all the planes in AH hace constant speed drives, i would believe that your propeller efficiency curve a bit wrong. The thrust of a constant speed drive propeller is in general relatively independant of aircraft velocity, although designed to have a maximum at some point (with real values of max speed and max climb or static thrust, you will have a good idea). Also i don't understand why you include the propeller efficency curve also in the excess power calculations when you already have included it in the thrust calculations?, or maybe i have missed something?
-
Re: The Bumbblebee
I recalled this from our BBS on 10/29/99, posted by Pyton in "Aircraft Sizes":
"Just a point about that "bumblebee can't fly" thing (it's something of a crusade for me ). The proof prooves only that bumblebees can't GLIDE, not that bumblebees can't FLY.
When the engineer who made the calculations did it he failed to take into account the movement of wings and this version spread around. Later when he checked it he took into account the movement of wings it was clear that bumblebee could easily fly, but science prooving that bumblebees can't fly was a much better story than science prooving that they can fly."
FWIW.
-
sheesh this is almost like the okd days . kinda cozy.