Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Citabria on May 05, 2001, 01:29:00 AM
-
are these items on a revision list?
if so how far down on the list are they?
1. f6f5 accellerated stall behavior?
2. typhoon Ib rollrate?
3. n1k2 rumored flight model bug?
-
4. Improved P38 brake model. As to be able to ditch in friendly ack in a hurry, with 6 109's closing in.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
LOL
-
3. n1k2 rumored flight model bug?
Any idea on why this is just a rumor and can't be proven conclusively? HTC has admitted modelling bugs before... so that's not necessarily the issue. Could it be that is just a bunch of "that can't be right" or "something is wrong" accusations with no proof?
I think so.
AKDejaVu
-
Ask Brady about the automatic combat flap operation Deja.
As it is now there are two sets of flaps on the N1K2. Those worked into the flight model like the 109's slats, and whatever those manual flaps do. That part isn't right. Whether the FM is bugged, oreo.
-
Sorry for hijacking thread and being first class butthead <S>! y'all you too AKDejaVu.
"I'm good enough
I'm smart enough
and dog gone it, people like me!"
Stuart Smalley (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by BigJoe (edited 05-06-2001).]
-
Sounds like BigJoe has been shot down by one too many N1K2s....
"IT MUST HAVE A PROBLEM!! I KNOW IT!!"
-SW
-
LOL nope I just stay away from'em (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
LOL Here we go again, Mr T and his girlfriend DejaVu.....
-
Funny aren't you one of them queer LimpWristed LittleWiener LuftWhiners Grunherz?
Oh yeah you are.
-SW
-
Here we go again "Could it be that is just a bunch of "that can't be right" or "something is wrong" accusations with no proof?"
Hmmm, that seems to work for millions when they take their car to the mechanic.
Sure it does.. especially when they say "I dunno.. something is just wrong". The mechanic will have it fixed in no time. Yeah.. right.
But self imposed moderators here believe HTC needs them to screen their calls.
I'm sorry.. but where did I try to moderate this thread? Where did I tell anyone not to post this or where to move it to?
How about this.. I don't agree with the statement. I don't have the same problem with miraculous movements by N1K2s in the arena. If you don't believe me.. check my stats.
Somehow, others maintain they see N1Ks doing unbelievable things anytime they see them. I just can't figure out how this is so exclusive to them.
Let me clue ya in you are not important!, every company needs feedback no matter how vague it may sound.
I'm sorry... I fail to see where your post is feedback. I fail to see where Cit saying the same thing OVER AND OVER AND OVER again is feedback. Let me clue you in here.. if its not the P-38, Cit will criticize it. It is the one great consting in AH.
You sir play no part whatever in deciding what gets fixed so why on earth does anyone need to proof anything to you or this community?
Read this over... VERY... VERY... SLOWLY.
I PLAY NO PART WHAT(SO)EVER IN DECIDING WHAT GETS FIXED.
What I say is my beliefs alone. If someone posts theirs here.. they'd better be prepared for people to post contrary.
Promote discussion, add your expertise, give advice to the community so it provides a learning enviroment everyone can benefit from.
I'm sorry.. was this thread intended to promote discussion? I don't really see that. Especially the "rummored flight model bug" statement.
Otherwise just shut your cake hole, thank you.
Shoulda followed your own advice. Only one person in this thread is telling people what to post. You.
AKDejaVu
-
LOL Here we go again, Mr T and his girlfriend DejaVu
To Grunherz and whatever other handles he happens to be using this week:
It seems your sole purpose these days is to jump in to any thread I post in and point out I posted there. So be it. Just don't forget who you are criticizing and why... then try to figure out how you are being any different.
AKDejaVu
-
1- Haven't looked at it specifically but know what you're talking about.
2- Wanted to get that done for the last version but didn't get to it.
3- Have looked at it for any obvious errors and have found none. Except for fuel consumption rate, I think that's too low but need to check it. The lift properties of its airfoil and its effect on turnrate is one area that I question.
Jigster, I have no idea what you're talking about. The flaps have to be operated manually, we did not model the automatic flap feature for this plane.
Finally, I suggest some of you guys get a room and lay off of hijacking threads into your own personal flame wars. It is getting old and this camel's back is getting strained. Nuff said.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
Pyro I know this should be in the aircraft forum, but...
Am I correct in saying NONE of the lift and/or drag properties of the automatic flaps have been included in the N1K2's flight model outside manipulation of the manual flaps? (IE as opposed to the slats being taken into consideration for the 109's flight model)
That is to what I was refering, not actual pilot operation.
There may indeed be a problem then. I believe that the "fm bug" soley refers to it's lift and drag generation during manuvers.
-
This would probably make good reading.
(http://content.communities.msn.com/isapi/fetch.dll?action=MyPhotos_GetPubPhoto&photoId=nHwD6d1wJwXqupnHucOvBw9GkN78zmM3Z2MljEaalK0KYtKnWxOWC8G0mf3TiLu*G)
-
thanks pyro! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Pyro,
I love your positive product.
Take good care of yourself. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Salute,
Mitsu
-
<S> Pyro and Grunnerz
-
Methinks, and this just my humble opinion, that the Nik retains way to much E in high g maneuvers, especially with a craft that appears to have more inherant drag then an FW190.
Hajo
PS: and NO it's not because I fly the 190, I'm just considering the differences in size of the aircraft, the Nik is almost if not as large as a P47, lots of drag there. The 190 is a small aircraft. The differences in inherant drag should be obivious.
-
N1K1
Weights: 6387 pounds empty, 8598 pounds loaded, 9526 pounds maximum loaded.
Dimensions:
wingspan 39 feet 4 7/16 inches
length 29 feet 1 25/32 inches
height 13 feet 3 27/32 inches
wing area 252.95 square feet.
------------
FW-190A8
Weights: 7652 pounds empty, 9625 pounds loaded, 10724 pounds maximum loaded.
Dimensions:
wingspan 34 feet 5 1/2 inches
length 29 feet 4 1/4 inches
height 12 feet 11 1/2 inches
wing area 196.98 square feet.
------------------
P-47D-25
Weights: 10198 pounds empty, 13582 pounds loaded, 17326 pounds maximum loaded.
Dimensions:
wingspan 40 feet 9 5/16 inches
length 34 feet 10 inches
wing area 300 square feet.
------------
Hajo: Except for the larger wings the N1K1 is about the same size as a FW, only lighter. The N1Ks bleed energy just like everything else but since they are very light and have 2000hp they accelerate like a demon and recover lost speed very rapidly. And your statements probably came about simply because you are a 190 fan.
Hooligan
-
Originally posted by Pyro:
Finally, I suggest some of you guys get a room and lay off of hijacking threads into your own personal flame wars. It is getting old and this camel's back is getting strained. Nuff said.
Couldnt agree more. 'luftwhiners' etc is getting so old it should be buried by now.
------------------
Hazed
3./JG2 (http://members.home.net/winyah999/3jg2.htm)
-
Originally posted by Hooligan:
N1K1
Weights: 6387 pounds empty, 8598 pounds loaded, 9526 pounds maximum loaded.
Dimensions:
wingspan 39 feet 4 7/16 inches
length 29 feet 1 25/32 inches
height 13 feet 3 27/32 inches
wing area 252.95 square feet.
------------
FW-190A8
Weights: 7652 pounds empty, 9625 pounds loaded, 10724 pounds maximum loaded.
Dimensions:
wingspan 34 feet 5 1/2 inches
length 29 feet 4 1/4 inches
height 12 feet 11 1/2 inches
wing area 196.98 square feet.
And just an added note - the N1K2-J was a substantial re-design from the N1K1 - it even went from a mid-wing to a low-wing form - and was even lighter, by some 500 pounds, which is a pretty significant change in power to weight ratio.
- Yoj
-
Originally posted by Hajo:
PS: and NO it's not because I fly the 190, I'm just considering the differences in size of the aircraft, the Nik is almost if not as large as a P47, lots of drag there. The 190 is a small aircraft. The differences in inherant drag should be obivious.
<cough> BS
the N1K, you ever seen one? it is DWARFED byt the P-47, and I mean it looks SMALL. It's even smaller than a zeke. Go to the Pensacola NASmuseum for a hands on look at a N1K2. There along with many naval AC such as F6F's, F4u-s, etc...
(http://home.nc.rr.com/ammo/public.html/ammo_sig1.JPG) (http://www.jump.net/~cs3)
-
Just noticed thats a ME-410 being shot down bya jugg.
-
rgr AG, that is also the exact AC that HTC modeled for 1.07. Gabby's D-11 in Feb '44 colors.
-
Ammo, just re-read Zemke's book and they painted the cowlings red on the 6th of February (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Daff
------------------
CO, 56th Fighter Group
www.56thfightergroup.org (http://www.56thfightergroup.org)
This is Yardstick, follow me"
-
Originally posted by Daff:
Ammo, just re-read Zemke's book and they painted the cowlings red on the 6th of February (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Daff
Daff, its not that I dont entirely believe you, and I certainly dont have zemke's book handy. But I recall that being an 8th AF decision to alow them to designate the different squads, 61. 62, and 63rd, with the colored cowlings in march. All the way through the sweinfurt raids I recall Zemke saying they were standard white with the white vert stab mark too. Now..if ya could quote the text for me since I dont have the book. Sancho loaned it to me and I have since returned it.
(http://home.nc.rr.com/ammo/public.html/ammo_sig1.JPG) (http://www.jump.net/~cs3)
-
Actually the N1K2 is slighty larger then A6M5, about 2 feet bigger in the span. The Fuselage is much larger in diameter, length is about the same.
The A6M5 and the N1K2 share very simular aerodynamic components, the N1K1-Ja used a almost identical tail section, and the N1K2 retained the horizontal tail spars and stabilizers, however the the vertical stabilizer was lengthend so a larger rudder could be installed to help control engine torque. The Airfoils in use on both the N1K2 and the A6M5 are also very simular, they use ailerons of the same approximate dimensions and placement, the only key difference between the two are in the wing root and the chord. The N1K2 has a thicker chord and the wing root is much thicker to accomodate the combat flaps.
That is not to say they should fly realtively the same by any means though, as simple variations through planes of the same basic airframe (109's, 190's, etc) all handle differently of course.
However I still quesiton it's handling in regards to the combat flaps...I am still not sure to what aspect they are modeled in AH...if they are solely based on the pilot-operated flaps they seem to be doing far to little (difference between deployed and clean states is relatively small, considering the automatic system on the N1K1, N1K1-J and N1K2 was said to greatly increase manuverability)in regards as to how the actual system worked, respectively.
-
Originally posted by Jigster:
and the N1K2 retained the horizontal tail spars and stabilizers, however the the vertical stabilizer was lengthend so a larger rudder could be installed to help control engine torque.
Torque?...wich torque?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
The stabilizer fixed it. The entire tail from the N1K1-Ja was basically the same as the A6M2, and the rudder is very small (which is no big deal because the Zero doesn't develope a monsterous amount of torque). Couple that with an engine that developed nearly 1000 more HP and the N1K1-Ja, among some of the other problems, became a real monster.
The new stabilzier was quite a bit taller, and the rudder ran from the top to the bottom of the fuselage( the rudder on the N1K1-Ja stopped just above the elevators) and provided the necessary control.
[This message has been edited by Jigster (edited 05-07-2001).]
-
So, from being a "monster" it became the kitty it is in AH? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Yah,I believe it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Originally posted by -ammo-:
<cough> BS
the N1K, you ever seen one? it is DWARFED byt the P-47, and I mean it looks SMALL. It's even smaller than a zeke. Go to the Pensacola NASmuseum for a hands on look at a N1K2. There along with many naval AC such as F6F's, F4u-s, etc...
*grabs a tape measure and digital camera* well, maybe not the tape measure. I've never taken pictures in the museum before, but I don't see why they wouldn't let me. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Originally posted by R4M:
So, from being a "monster" it became the kitty it is in AH? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Yah,I believe it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Believe what RAM? When did we get the N1K1-Ja in Aces High? I believe our "George" is the N1K2-J is it not? Go back and read for comprehension this time instead of just blindly looking for things to grasp at to validate your anti-axis conspiracies.
-
I think what R4M is referring to is the low speed handling of the n1k 'helicopter manouver' where the torque should still be present in large numbers.
Vert. stab and rudder wont be able to stabilize the torque if airspeed is low..
However the n1k we have is rock steady at stall speeds.. And it recovers from a spin very fast without taking consideration of throttle positions..
-
Jigster: Howdy- some aircraft had counter spring mechanisms on the flaps to compensate for airpressure at different speeds. They still had to be accuated by the pilot but they were automatic in that they sort of 'sensed' airpressure thus keeping flaps from being damaged and also keeping them in the most effective range of drag vs lift. Don't know for certain if this is the case with the NIK but it sounds like it.
[This message has been edited by BBGunn (edited 05-08-2001).]
-
Originally posted by hazed-:
Couldnt agree more. 'luftwhiners' etc is getting so old it should be buried by now.
Along with "Chog dweeb", "hispano dweeb", "turbolaser dweeb", "HO dweeb", "niki dweeb" and maybe "dweeb" itself.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Well MrSid, I believe Jigster was stating that the N1K1-Ja had the same size rudder as the A6M which made it a "monster"....not the N1K2-J. Jigster also states that the rudder design was changed for the N1K2-J.
Ram, however, didnt read that part. He just conveniently latched onto Jig saying that the plane "was a monster" and decided that the statement was good enough to justify his beliefs that there is something wrong with our N1K2-J "George", when in fact Jig's statement was in reference to the N1K1-Ja.
-
Originally posted by sling322:
Well MrSid, I believe Jigster was stating Ram, however, didnt read that part. He just conveniently latched onto Jig saying that the plane "was a monster" and decided that the statement was good enough to justify his beliefs that there is something wrong with our N1K2-J "George", when in fact Jig's statement was in reference to the N1K1-Ja.
LOL get a clue. I indeed read that part.And in my sarcastic answer, I said that "From being a monster (The N1K1-J) it changed to be the kitty it is in AH (the N1K2-j)"
obviously I'm not the one NOT reading the other's post here (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
The low speed handling of the N1K2 feels like that of the Zero. With 2000hp and the light airframe of the N1K2, I would expect way more torque...with bigger rudder surface than the zeke or without it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
And BTW ,the N1K1-J, with its "normal-sized rudder", had an engine with 1500hp only...the N1K2 had 500hp more...
of course I can understand that if the normal N1K1 had torque problems, they had to fit a bigger rudder to compensate somehow for the 500hp addition. But that solved COMPLETELY the problem of adding 500hp to an airframe 500lbs LIGHTER than that of the N1K1-j?. Dont make me laugh, please.
It feels like it has almost no torque...maybe only because the rudder was bigger?...a plane with twice the power of the zeke gets rid of 2000hp of engine pulling a nice precession effect only because has a somewhat bigger rudder?
Yah right...I still believe it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by R4M (edited 05-08-2001).]
-
Really? Hmmm...I never once saw Jigster refer to the N1K2 as a monster. I did, however see him make that reference to the N1K1.
So, who wasn't reading what again R4Metz?
And by the way, see Pyro's post further up where he states that he sees "no obvious errors" in the George's flight model.
[This message has been edited by sling322 (edited 05-08-2001).]
-
..
[This message has been edited by sling322 (edited 05-08-2001).]
-
FYI: The N1K1-J had the EXACT SAME engine as the N1K2-J.
And isn't it odd how the Fw 190A-5, which is about the same size and weight as the N1K2-J but with 240HP less and a smaller rudder, is just as lacking in "torque" effects...
-
Give it the tail of a B-17, it won't matter that much when it's hanging by the prop with only the prop pushing air over the plane.
With such a light frame and such a powerful engine, shouldn't it have more torque?
------------------
Von Santa
Staffelkapitän 9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you return from a mission with a victory, but without your Rottenflieger, you have lost your battle."
- D. Hrabak, JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://stsantas.tripod.com/stsanta.jpg)
-
You know what I find odd?
After flying a big piston aircraft with a big prop and 450 HP motor for a while I never had to "think" about adding rudder.
Seemed like my foot just sorta knew what to do when my hand added throttle.
Wonder if that happens to other people? Ya think?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
The same time that combat trim came in, we lost a LOT of engine torque (even with combat trim off). I noticed this because It was with that release that I was able to land in a tiffie (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
As to the N1k, I tries it out today in the MA over a rear-area base. I was able to start a 0G dive from 7000 ft, pull into the vertical on the deck and zoom climb right back to 7000 ft. and still be at 200 ias. I was also able to do loops one right after the other from 200 ias with 1 notch of flaps and pulling a sustained 3.5G. And as a side note, I was able to do 3 outside loops (starting on the bottom, inverted), one right after the other. I don't know if that's right, but is cool (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
That brings up a point, are we going to get modeling for carberated engine during negative G maneuvers?
Muttz
-
Originally posted by BBGunn:
Jigster: Howdy- some aircraft had counter spring mechanisms on the flaps to compensate for airpressure at different speeds. They still had to be accuated by the pilot but they were automatic in that they sort of 'sensed' airpressure thus keeping flaps from being damaged and also keeping them in the most effective range of drag vs lift. Don't know for certain if this is the case with the NIK but it sounds like it.
[This message has been edited by BBGunn (edited 05-08-2001).]
The N1K1 Float plane, N1K1-Ja, N1K2-J and later variants all had a very unique, automatic flap system. The flaps deployed as need according to the state of the plane in flight. The system is somewhat outlined in the picture I linked to earlier. The basic intent was to reduce pilot workload and increase efficency by having them work automatically, and thus the so-called unbelieveable manuverability of the N1K series is derived.
-
Yall are forgetting one important aspect of what's happening when that engine is running at full throttle at stall speeds. All that propwash is going directly over the tail so that the control surfaces retain atleast some effectiveness (Thats how planes taxi, how airboat and hovercraft steer, etc) so that there is still something countering torque.
Notice the size of the N1K1-Ja's tail and rudder and that of the N1K2-J full lenght rudder:
(http://www.214th.com/ww2/japan/n1k1/n1k1b.jpg)
(http://www.214th.com/ww2/japan/n1k1/n1k1a.jpg)
(http://www.214th.com/ww2/japan/n1k1/n1k2b.jpg)
(http://www.214th.com/ww2/japan/n1k1/n1k2c.jpg)
And besides, refering to the N1K1-Ja as a monster was not just because of the tail problems. The thing was literally a monstrosity...like the engine which had known problems due to resource and maintence problems due to complexity, but namely the gear system. It was awkward, as it telescoped before retracting which rarely worked right and ended up with alot of belly landings...all due to the mid-wing configuration. Try to imagine an F4U with straight wings...that pretty much what the N1K1-Ja was.
The N1K2 lowered the wing, fixed the gear problem, and several other aerodynamic problems including the tail and the accumulative problems with take off and landing.
The entire N1K series was said great low-speed handling however...mostly due to the automatic flap system. The flaps were quite large, and their deployment actual deployment characteristics was interesting ...they are called butterfly flaps. They are already to small in AH...they barely make it to the frontal edge of the ailerons. And the wing tips are tapered a bit to much. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) They are deployed here:
(http://www.214th.com/ww2/japan/n1k1/n1k2e.jpg)
I keep hoping Pyro will answer my FM question from above...
[This message has been edited by Jigster (edited 05-09-2001).]
-
Originally posted by juzz:
And isn't it odd how the Fw 190A-5, which is about the same size and weight as the N1K2-J but with 240HP less and a smaller rudder, is just as lacking in "torque" effects...
Oh, Juzz, I dont say that the N1K2 lacks torque. I say that ALL the planes in AH lack it. Compare 1.03FM torque with the one we have now. Now it is laughable comparing with the previous FM's. I understand that the E-keeping now is way higher than what it used to be (because something wrong about too much drag at high Gs in the previous FM?) but I dont see how that can mean the sudden, massive drop of the torque effects in AH.
And in any case I DO feel some effects of torque in the 190 I dont feel in the N1K2. Go figure.
Sling............learn to read, please. I will quote my words again.....
"I said that "From being a monster (The N1K1-J) it changed to be the kitty it is in AH (the N1K2-j)""
Is the third time I quote the same passage...maybe now you will get it? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
BTW how stupid were the British and german designers...if only the British had fitted a bigger rudder to the typhoon, the massive problems given by the torque would've been so easily fixed...
same with the 109G10 and K4, planes with so big engine in a small airframe that suffered of massive torque (Again, not in AH)...if only the germans had added a bit of rudder area the problem would've SO easily fixed...
All designers were stupid, xcept the japanese. Lol. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
The "massive" problem with the Typhoon was the reliability of the sleeve-valve engine.
According to the Pilot's Notes, swinging to starboard on takeoff was only a problem if the throttle was opened suddenly at the beginning of the takeoff roll when using 30 degree flap setting. Otherwise the rudder and rudder trim were entirely adequate.
Interesting also to note that the aileron control was "light and effective up to the maximum permissible speed" which was 525 mph indicated. It was however "sluggish at low speeds and heavy when carrying bombs".
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 05-09-2001).]
-
Just an illiterate question here:
Wasn't it right that certain planes (the torque-prone ones, read: BIG engines, HUGE horsepower) could flip over wing if the pilot firewalled the throtle on Take off, even before they move forward?. If so, where this behaviour is modelled?
I repeat, It is not a twisted way of arguing, just curiosity, I've heard or read it somewhere.
Cheers,
Pepe.
-
Originally posted by funked:
The "massive" problem with the Typhoon was the reliability of the sleeve-valve engine.
According to the Pilot's Notes, swinging to starboard on takeoff was only a problem if the throttle was opened suddenly at the beginning of the takeoff roll when using 30 degree flap setting. Otherwise the rudder and rudder trim were entirely adequate.
Interesting also to note that the aileron control was "light and effective up to the maximum permissible speed" which was 525 mph indicated. It was however "sluggish at low speeds and heavy when carrying bombs".
The RAF airfield architects were drunk when they removed the right-side hangars from the extreme sides of the field, then?.
Wow, lots of whisky they had to drink. I used to think that the removal of those hangars was because tyffies used to smash there because the torque made them yaw and squid so hard...
But yes, they quitted those hangars while they were drunk. yeah right (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Talking about serious trouble, I would say that the falling tail was the worse one. You know, when your engine dies at least you can glide, but when your tail goes out to take a beer...well...lets say you dont have a chance.
And dont tell me that this was adressed with the strenghtening of the tail. It was PARTIALLY adressed. Proof of that is that since the strenghtening of the tail until the last identified loss because a tail fell off the plane,there were 26 documented losses. Only 2 of the 26 pilots involved survived. And the last typhoon lost because this failure was in 18-July-1945.
Oh, and BTW the NACA test roll charts show indeed a "light aileron" typhoon. In AH, I mean,because real life's typhoon rolled more or less like a Zero (roll of wich is also grossly overmodelled in AH (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif))
[This message has been edited by R4M (edited 05-09-2001).]
-
Well - sorry RAM, if I somehow got the mistaken impression that you only apply the "torqueless wonder" comments to the N1K2-J...
-
I've said lots of times that IMO one of the reasons of the N1K2's UFO abilities at low speeds is because the lack of torque...torque wich also has been severely turned down in all the rest of the planes. In the previous FM it was VERY noticeable. Now is nowhere (in comparison).
Now, if you people,and HTC,keep on insisting that the current modelling of the torque effects is accurate then I have to say that the RAF men who quitted those hangars from the right side of their fields had to be drunk. And that the reported massive torque in the 109K4 was only because the test pilots were having a hangover from the previous night's orgy.
And if you say that from a plane said to have nasty torque effects (N1K1), its sucessor (N1K2) had almost nil torque effects with the simple change of the vertical stabilizator surface (yes I know the wing and landin gear were changed, but that had nothing to do with torque), then I repeat that IMO RAF and LW experts were idiots for not putting a bigger rudder in the so-hard-yawing Tiffie and K4 (well, I mean, if the test pilots were indeed not drunk when tehy tested those planes reporting great torque)
[This message has been edited by R4M (edited 05-09-2001).]
-
Pepe,
I'd imagine so. Then again I've got a photo of a P-47 that dumped a 500 pounder on landing, got blown in half, and the pilot survived! Odds are it's one of those things that depends on the situation. I know if you firewalled the gas on an F8F the thing required a LOAD of aileron to keep level for takeoff. Maybe it would roll under the right circumstances. Gyroscopic effect seems rather faint, since you can floor it in any plane with nearly no roll effect. It could be a bug, something that was overlooked, or an item that's not here yet. You'd have to bug Pyro about it.
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
Put the P-61B in Aces High
"With all due respect Chaplian, I don't think God wants to hear from me right now.
I'm gonna go out there and remove one of His creations from this universe.
And when I get back I'm gonna drink a bottle of Scotch like it was Chiggy von
Richthofen's blood and celebrate his death."
Col. McQueen, Space: Above and Beyond
(http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/htbin/delta6.jpg)
-
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Thanks for the answer, flakbait (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Pepe,
Don't forget, we can't duplicate "firewalling the throttle". We just don't do that. Our engine controls are simplified such that we can't really do what they did. If you went from very low RPM to very high RPM very quickly, sure you could likely flip some of the big radials. The problem is, our throttle is a combination of RPM and manifold pressure, so when we "firewall the throttle", the RPM ramps up smoothly as more manifold pressure is applied instead of just a really fast jump in RPM. We just can't duplicate those conditions with our simplified controls, so we don't see the same results.
It's silly to try and judge torque sitting on the ground. Do it in flight and you'll see the results. Try to do low speed loops in a N1k2 and film it. Now go back and watch with trails on. Unless you conteracted the torque a LOT, you won't have vertical loops.
------------------
Sean "Lephturn" Conrad - Aces High Chief Trainer
A proud member of the mighty Flying Pigs
http://www.flyingpigs.com
Check out Lephturn's Aerodrome (http://lephturn.webhop.net) for AH articles and training info!
-
...26 documented losses...
Do me a favour RAM and express that as a percentage of the production after the tail modifications. Thanks.
While you're at it compare the value you get with the rate of air-frame failures attributed to other problems (obviously while in service and after the quality control checks).
Think of it as taking away the 'background' from your recorded data.
-
Incredible as it may seem Dowding, there was NO aircombat in WW2.
All losses were actually on takeoff, due to the inability of mere humans to handle the huge torque.
No one wanted to admit this of course, so a solution had to be found.
Everyday, the opposing commands sent each other their total losses and they mutually agreed to make up stories about air battles for the public.
That's how it all really happened.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Spited my café around Toad (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
<edit> re-reading my msg I've the strange feeling that I've done YetAnotherGrammarError ...
why don't you use french ? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by straffo (edited 05-09-2001).]
-
lol Toad. I think that's called a 'mind-blowing revelation'. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
RAM: I want the Torque!
HT [In Jack Nicholson mode]: You can't handle the Torque!!
Straffo - while not technically correct, 'spited my cafe around' is much, much funnier. And very literal. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Malhereusement, je parle Francais un peu.
How's that for gramatical inaccuracy (I think)! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Straffo,
Parce que votre Anglais est donc beaucoup de mieux que mes Français!
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 05-09-2001).]
-
Originally posted by R4M:
Sling............learn to read, please. I will quote my words again.....
"I said that "From being a monster (The N1K1-J) it changed to be the kitty it is in AH (the N1K2-j)""
That may be what you said....but its not what Jigster said. He was referring to the N1K1-Ja as a monster and you just conveniently extrapolated that out to make it seem that he was referring to the N1K2-J to suit your own conspiracy theories.
-
Originally posted by Pepe:
Just an illiterate question here:
Wasn't it right that certain planes (the torque-prone ones, read: BIG engines, HUGE horsepower) could flip over wing if the pilot firewalled the throtle on Take off, even before they move forward?. If so, where this behaviour is modelled?
I repeat, It is not a twisted way of arguing, just curiosity, I've heard or read it somewhere.
Cheers,
Pepe.
I couple cents on the torque question - a plane flipping over due to torque is fairly unlikely unless the pilot is really bad or inexperienced. This is because, while there is a tendency of the plane to roll opposite to the prop, it is proportional to their relative masses. The mass of the plane is much greater than the mass of the prop. The largest force comes from the gyroscopic precession, and it is a yaw force, not a roll force, which is why during takeoff there is some need for aileron input, but much greater need for rudder input.
A good example of the difference is the Sopwith Camel. The Camel's engine was quite powerful for the time, and was a Rotary type - that is, the entire engine turned with the prop. The relative mass of engine plus prop to plane mass was greater than any WW2 fighter, and the Camel did have a tendency to roll opposite to the engine, but it was easily compensated. However, it had a HUGE yaw tendency that could be fatal to a new pilot. It would yaw through 90 degrees in a half loop, and it could turn very quickly in one direction - a fact that the better pilots used to great advantage.
So - suddenly firewalling the engine would likely not flip you over, but could well turn you sideways and cause a loss of control, especially at low speeds.
- Yoj
-
RAM I've never heard of any such airfield changes, or even an accident where a Typhoon hit a hangar on takeoff. Can you cite a source on this?
-
Yoj, what's the secondary effect of yaw?
Daff
------------------
CO, 56th Fighter Group
www.56thfightergroup.org (http://www.56thfightergroup.org)
This is Yardstick, follow me"
-
Ram forgets that the principle aspect of torque is the engine changing speeds, not the plane, granted in high speed flight they are related. It is not limited simply to weight and engine power.
Besides the principle problem with the N1K1-Ja was the rudder was not large enough to compensate on take off, taxing, etc. It was, afterall, a converted float plane design that wasn't really subject to narrow runways.
Most planes with some form of rudder trim, be it a fixed or pilot manipulated one, easily corrected yaw once the plane was airborne. Most of the other aspect of torque are related to the ailerons. The only planes that I pilot had to be aware of it lacked some form of trim, like the, um G10.
[This message has been edited by Jigster (edited 05-09-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Daff:
Yoj, what's the secondary effect of yaw?
Daff
Sorry Daff - I don't know. I'm not sure exactly what you're asking.
- Yoj
-
Yoj, I think he's pointing out that roll is the secondary effect of yaw.
Next, I expect the dicussion to move to the amount of roll. "Easy to counter or death flip? Tune in to Jerry Springer!"
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Yoj, I think he's pointing out that roll is the secondary effect of yaw.
Next, I expect the dicussion to move to the amount of roll. "Easy to counter or death flip? Tune in to Jerry Springer!"
Ah - it was the emphasis ot "THE secondary" effect that threw me. Roll is certainly A secondary effect. My point was that the plane is not going to throw itself onto its back from twisting in the opposite direction of the prop. If it could, it would be possible when the plane was stationary, just by reving the engine. I could see something like having the yaw slew the plane sideways on takeoff and having impact and inertia flip it. Torque would be responsible, but I don't think that was the gist of Pepe's original question.
- Yoj
-
AFAIK, one major factor (while on the ground), is that the yaw will push more weight onto one wheel, again causing further tendency to turn to one side. You're right that planes dont get thrown around by roll..it's usually caused by a sharp turn to the side that will flip the plane the other way as the weight shifts to the outside wheel...but what really puzzles me about the Torque/sideslip/gyroscopic precission in AH is that the moment you lift off, they are virtually non-existant...you actually have to easy off on the rudder. (Something I never had to in a real plane).
Daff
------------------
CO, 56th Fighter Group
www.56thfightergroup.org (http://www.56thfightergroup.org)
This is Yardstick, follow me"
-
Sigh, some days I feel like we should have a section on physics 101.
Roll Torque on the plane is very easy to calculate it's simply current HP / prop rpm.
What most people refer to torque, the stuff on take off that makes your plane yaw,has nothing to do with Roll Torque, it has every thing to do with the slip stream/prop wash.
The 2 other forces that produce yaw do to the prop/eng they are gyroscopic (this only produces yaw if you are changing pitch) i.e. when your tail lifts. The final force is PFactor, it only has much effect at high speeds and hi aoa's.
AH Models all 4 prop forces, 3 of which I'm confidant we are with 5% of the real plane.
I'm not happy with our slip stream effects, we have been doing more research into calculating the slip stream, and it will change in some later version.
HiTech
-
awsome HT!
I forsee the return of a need for right rudder when the slipstream is tuned up (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Slipstream, eh... Always wondered why the fighters won't lift the tail until 50mph or more, when most of them should be able to do it at 0mph with a high power setting, just from the propwash over the tail. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by funked:
RAM I've never heard of any such airfield changes, or even an accident where a Typhoon hit a hangar on takeoff. Can you cite a source on this?
I've read that in the "Grand cirque" (big show) by Clostermann but it's likely an writer "artifice" and as I've not the book near I don't know if it's about the Typhoon or the Tempest.
-
Don't forget the tailwheel guys. When the tail is on the ground, the tailwheel (free, locked, or steering) has a major effect on directional control and stability. AH seems to have tailwheel steering, but I think most of the WW2 taildraggers had a free tailwheel that could be locked in some planes. Anyways a lot of this stuff about "torque" and rudder effectiveness means diddly squat if the tailwheel is keeping her straight.
-
Originally posted by hitech:
Roll Torque on the plane is very easy to calculate it's simply current HP / prop rpm.
HiTech
Thanks HT. I was curious about the comment on Roll Torque though. From what you say it would appear that Roll Torque would be the same regardless of the prop's mass - or even without a prop installed (assuming the engine could be run that way). If that's true then I would think it would be of no interest at all to the pilot - only to a propulsion specialist. Did I get what you meant?
Yoj
-
Originally posted by Yoj:
Thanks HT. I was curious about the comment on Roll Torque though. From what you say it would appear that Roll Torque would be the same regardless of the prop's mass
If you watch the RPM gauge then you´ll see that your RPM is always constant until you change it manually. Mass is only important when you accelerate it - this is not the case here. So torque seems to be only modelled due to drag effects of the blades.
I´m wondering myself why the number of blades and the length of the blades is not important for this roll torque? I mean a 4-bladed prop produce ~33% more torque than a similar 3-bladed one, right? And torque is force*distance, so a larger propeller should produce more torque than a smaller one, right? So why has the 109 with a small 3-bladed propeller one of biggest torque effects?
And aillerons are not affected by the slipstream. Why has the N1k still good ailleron control in a vertical zoom when you slow down to less than 50mph?? Ailleron torque is based on lift, right? And lift is a function of speed.
niklas
-
Niklas the torque is just action/reaction. The prop exerts a torque on the atmosphere and the atmosphere exerts a torque on the prop. To balance that, the engine/gearbox exerts on the prop a torque equal to shaft power divided by rotational speed. The rotational speed is not the engine crankshaft rpm, but the rpm of the reduction gearbox output shaft.
Also try moving the throttle in AH when you are at very low speeds. The rpm will change. They still don't have a full dynamic model of the prop governor but it's better than it used to be.
-
Yoj Prop mass has nothing to do with the torque on the plane, whats realy happening is we are concerned with the torque at the prop shaft,
that torque is either going into thrust/prop drag or it's going into accelerating the prop, Either way the force on the plane remains the same for any HP/rpm combination, the thing to relize is that the HP of the eng is increasing as the rpm increases.
Threw most mid RPM ranges the eng tourqe output is fairly constant and HP is increasing with RPM.
HiTech
-
I see that i'm the subject of much debate. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Hehehe, just as I was writing a post stating that I did not undertand the mass thingy, the light struck me.....i guess (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Bearing in mind that we are talking about constant rpm props, now I can imagine that prop mass and prop diameter has only slight consequences on generated torque. It would if we change rpm, but since we are only varying the prop pitch, the propwash effect would be far more intense than the one generated by the change in the pair of forces (dunno if that's the right translation, but tech english is quite schematic here (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)) produced by the prop spin and derived from the change in blades' angle.
Now the question is....did the light really struck me, or I'm even more lost? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
On a side note....I like a lot these thech discussions....food for my thoughts (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Cheers,
Pepe
-
Originally posted by Pepe:
Hehehe, just as I was writing a post stating that I did not undertand the mass thingy, the light struck me.....i guess (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Bearing in mind that we are talking about constant rpm props, now I can imagine that prop mass and prop diameter has only slight consequences on generated torque. It would if we change rpm, but since we are only varying the prop pitch, the propwash effect would be far more intense than the one generated by the change in the pair of forces (dunno if that's the right translation, but tech english is quite schematic here (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)) produced by the prop spin and derived from the change in blades' angle.
Now the question is....did the light really struck me, or I'm even more lost? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
On a side note....I like a lot these thech discussions....food for my thoughts (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Cheers,
Pepe
I agree - your comments clicked with HT's and a lightbulb went on.
-
n.m. answer to this one was on Htc. first post...gyroscopic precession
Cheers,
Pepe
[This message has been edited by Pepe (edited 05-11-2001).]