Author Topic: Turn rate hierarchy correlation from actual flight tests  (Read 31622 times)

Offline thorsim

  • Parolee
  • Restricted
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
      • The Luftwhiner Lounge
Re: Turn rate hierarchy correlation from actual flight tests
« Reply #270 on: October 28, 2009, 10:22:38 AM »
respectfully you were not there so you have nothing to say as to where gum's post differed from our conversation.
 
you have admitted to the difficulty you have representing trim because of the input devices in another conversation of ours.  that is one of his bigger issues one which he addresses in that post.  i will be fair and say that you say it is different between the games, however it feels very much the same to me. 

my bigger issue is the flaps and low speed handling and maneuverability they allow, and that seems to come down to how much they helped over hurt in the game vs reality.  none of the experts here you speak of have chimed in against my sentiments on this issue, at least not in any "i am an expert here is the data" manner that i have noticed. 
on some of the Grognard ww2 boards i have seen where AH players get set very straight on the use of extreme flap deployments in combat, not one expert in favor of the possibility chimed in over there there either. 

other players have posted about relaxed stalls as i have noted in here which also contributes to my issue of success outside of ones envelope.  i was not here before so i will just have to take their word on the matter.   

as far as who was where when during the WB2-WB3-AH break up reform start up thing i do not know, i will defer to you on that. 
i assure you that your name was not left out of that discussion PD gums and i were having about where things went astray in the games, but i will allow that you will probably know more about that than any of us would. 
it is possible i may have misunderstood his opinion on your involvement but that was not something i brought up here in any way so if you feel the need to sort that out with him go ahead.
 
i posted gums opinion because i value it, i felt it was on topic as i was involved in the discussion that that post mirrored.  the aspects of the games which we were discussing were considered by all to be very off and included those i have brought up here.  for the record we were discussing AW AH WB and IL-2.  it was very much a what was good what was bad and where it went wrong and how.  the consensus was that all the games were better at some things than all the others even the lowly AW had its good points that none of the others have done as well.
i suspect that that would be the conclusion of most players who have been around long enough to offer an opinion.   
 
as far as others opinions not involved in this discussion i have pointed out that you yourself make decisions about  including others posts that you feel are pertinent to a discussion and handle that in very much the same manner as i did.  the only comment about that was that the data did not actually address the specific point under discussion.
so i guess though we believe we were contributing at the time others feel differently, so be it.

funny that AGW has turned out to be the more civil board than this one in any regard.

t
 
You are still trying to post miss conceptions. Gums post state that the changes to WB went down hill AFTER Pyro and I left. Yet you are trying to still claim that it is in some way about AH and sims in general.

And btw stating some one elses opinion who is not involved in the discussion is very strange. Because you may believe he is saying one thing but as you interpret what he said, it comes out very different. And as far as you trying to claim "But I stayed in a holiday in last night" I.E. you had dinner with someone who flys a lot,you would not really want to stack that credential against many in this thread. Because many here have the same experience as Gum.

HiTech
THOR C.O. II ~JG-27~ Afrika-AH
Axis Co-Op
Quote from: any number of idiots here
blah blah Blah
Quote from: oldman
Good call.  Ignore the people who actually flew the real planes against each other.

Offline Masherbrum

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22408
Re: Turn rate hierarchy correlation from actual flight tests
« Reply #271 on: October 28, 2009, 10:48:39 AM »
Be gone already.   We don't care.   No one is forcing you to play AH.   
-=Most Wanted=-

FSO Squad 412th FNVG
http://worldfamousfridaynighters.com/
Co-Founder of DFC

Offline Raptor

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7577
Re: Turn rate hierarchy correlation from actual flight tests
« Reply #272 on: October 28, 2009, 10:50:43 AM »

Offline thorsim

  • Parolee
  • Restricted
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
      • The Luftwhiner Lounge
Re: Turn rate hierarchy correlation from actual flight tests
« Reply #273 on: October 28, 2009, 10:54:25 AM »
yea well the game developer addressed me directly, so i replied.

THOR C.O. II ~JG-27~ Afrika-AH
Axis Co-Op
Quote from: any number of idiots here
blah blah Blah
Quote from: oldman
Good call.  Ignore the people who actually flew the real planes against each other.

Offline WMLute

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4512
Re: Turn rate hierarchy correlation from actual flight tests
« Reply #274 on: October 28, 2009, 11:42:13 AM »
"Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity."
— George Patton

Absurdum est ut alios regat, qui seipsum regere nescit

Offline hitech

  • Administrator
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12398
      • http://www.hitechcreations.com
Re: Turn rate hierarchy correlation from actual flight tests
« Reply #275 on: October 28, 2009, 11:45:29 AM »
Thor wrote;
Quote
   
   actually my complaints about the flaps between the planes are about deployment speeds alone not so much in their effect once hey are deployed.

Thor wrote:
Quote
my bigger issue is the flaps and low speed handling and maneuverability they allow, and that seems to come down to how much they helped over hurt in the game vs reality.

So which is it Thor? Or is your real issue you just wish to sling mud. If it is just to sling mud I would suggest you stop.

Quote
you have admitted to the difficulty you have representing trim because of the input devices in another conversation of ours.

This is a miss representation, I did not state I have difficulty, I said it is impossible because the mechanics of the 2 systems are different.

Quote
ther players have posted about relaxed stalls as i have noted in here which also contributes to my issue of success outside of ones envelope.

Stalls are not relaxed.

HiTech

Offline FLS

  • AH Training Corps
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11617
      • Trainer's Website
Re: Turn rate hierarchy correlation from actual flight tests
« Reply #276 on: October 28, 2009, 12:48:26 PM »
I'm guessing we're finally getting WW1 aircraft because they don't have flaps.   :neener::devil:neener:

Offline thorsim

  • Parolee
  • Restricted
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
      • The Luftwhiner Lounge
Re: Turn rate hierarchy correlation from actual flight tests
« Reply #277 on: October 28, 2009, 01:15:12 PM »
no hitech i am not slinging mud here not calling anyone a liar, i am just pointing out things that seem to me to be incorrect and trying to discuss them.  

my issues i think have been pretty clear, although you are posting examples from different discussions one from a table over beer and pizza about several games and one on these boards about this one.  
just lets say my most expressed complaint is about ...

"flaps in general, and how they effect the envelopes of the plane set" for simplicity.

i am just having trouble equating the situation in AH and some other games with the expert conclusions such as the one in this report

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930092640_1993092640.pdf

which seems to limit the benefit of combat flaps more so than what the game represents.

EDIT : oh and the reservations i have about the criteria you use to determine the flap deployment speeds, reservations shared by every other game of this type, even the ones that you were involved with when that criteria was selected.

sorry i did not mean to misrepresent your statement, thanks for clearing up the difference between difficult and impossible and why.

the stall comment was a quote from someone else.  it is quoted previously in this thread.

i confess things seem to escalate when more people get involved and we all are making points often on tangents.  
i will be more restrictive with my points in the future on this board.    

i will just once more get back to my original message in this thread which is that the criteria requirements here are too restrictive for these types of discussions, so i will no longer discuss things this way in here either even to point that out.

t
 
Thor wrote;
Thor wrote:
So which is it Thor? Or is your real issue you just wish to sling mud. If it is just to sling mud I would suggest you stop.

This is a miss representation, I did not state I have difficulty, I said it is impossible because the mechanics of the 2 systems are different.

Stalls are not relaxed.

HiTech
« Last Edit: October 28, 2009, 02:11:34 PM by thorsim »
THOR C.O. II ~JG-27~ Afrika-AH
Axis Co-Op
Quote from: any number of idiots here
blah blah Blah
Quote from: oldman
Good call.  Ignore the people who actually flew the real planes against each other.

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20385
Re: Turn rate hierarchy correlation from actual flight tests
« Reply #278 on: October 28, 2009, 02:25:18 PM »
Thor, you are quoting a report on the Navy version of the Buffalo.  Probably not the strongest document to state your case.
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline Raptor

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7577
Re: Turn rate hierarchy correlation from actual flight tests
« Reply #279 on: October 28, 2009, 02:38:41 PM »
Quote
Results of flight tests to determine the turning performance
of a Heavy F2A-3 airplane over a speed range of
approximately 90 to 160 miles per hour for three flap deflections
at two altitudes are presented. In general, for horizontal turns,
the use of the standard airplane split flaps does not appear
desirable for this airplane. For turns involving a loss of altitude
the turning radius is decreased by the use of the flaps.

This reflects exactly what people have been trying to communicate with you this entire discussion.

The F2A in that report has the same type of flaps as a spitfire or a hurricane (Split Flaps). These flaps, as we have said, are not meant for maneuvering purposes. Be that as it may, they will still increase the turn performance... AS INDICATED IN THE REPORT YOU CITED...

Other aircraft, have flaps designed specifically for maneuvering, IE. the P38, which is why they have a more dramatic effect.
Edit: in case you don't know what type of flaps the P38 has, they are Fowler flaps.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2009, 02:43:28 PM by Raptor »

Offline Baumer

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1739
      • 332nd Flying Mongrels
Re: Turn rate hierarchy correlation from actual flight tests
« Reply #280 on: October 28, 2009, 02:58:31 PM »
Thorsim,

Did you look at the conclusions on page 23, specifically #3?

HTC Please show the blue planes some love!
F4F-4, FM2, SBD-5, TBM-3

Offline Bronk

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9044
Re: Turn rate hierarchy correlation from actual flight tests
« Reply #281 on: October 28, 2009, 03:02:35 PM »
Boot em and be done with it.
See Rule #4

Offline thorsim

  • Parolee
  • Restricted
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
      • The Luftwhiner Lounge
Re: Turn rate hierarchy correlation from actual flight tests
« Reply #282 on: October 28, 2009, 03:15:55 PM »
i just thought it was a through report that shows a lot of the drawbacks of using flaps.  i will look for others on other types but there are some general conclusions about costs and benefits in the report and at what point flaps start to hurt turn performance, it has to do with drag and C of L and is on page 21.  also interesting to note the maneuverability loss that made some of the testing impossible to obtain.  

just lots of interesting basic stuff about lift drag and available power and some general conclusions that it seemed to me that the testers thought should apply beyond the specific airframe being tested.

that is all
This reflects exactly what people have been trying to communicate with you this entire discussion.
(Image removed from quote.)
The F2A in that report has the same type of flaps as a spitfire or a hurricane (Split Flaps). These flaps, as we have said, are not meant for maneuvering purposes. Be that as it may, they will still increase the turn performance... AS INDICATED IN THE REPORT YOU CITED...

Other aircraft, have flaps designed specifically for maneuvering, IE. the P38, which is why they have a more dramatic effect.
Edit: in case you don't know what type of flaps the P38 has, they are Fowler flaps.
Thor, you are quoting a report on the Navy version of the Buffalo.  Probably not the strongest document to state your case.
 

 
THOR C.O. II ~JG-27~ Afrika-AH
Axis Co-Op
Quote from: any number of idiots here
blah blah Blah
Quote from: oldman
Good call.  Ignore the people who actually flew the real planes against each other.

Offline thorsim

  • Parolee
  • Restricted
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
      • The Luftwhiner Lounge
Re: Turn rate hierarchy correlation from actual flight tests
« Reply #283 on: October 28, 2009, 03:29:08 PM »
This reflects exactly what people have been trying to communicate with you this entire discussion.
(Image removed from quote.)
The F2A in that report has the same type of flaps as a spitfire or a hurricane (Split Flaps). These flaps, as we have said, are not meant for maneuvering purposes. Be that as it may, they will still increase the turn performance... AS INDICATED IN THE REPORT YOU CITED...

Other aircraft, have flaps designed specifically for maneuvering, IE. the P38, which is why they have a more dramatic effect.
Edit: in case you don't know what type of flaps the P38 has, they are Fowler flaps.

i thought the spitfire only had one deployment setting, not the several cited in this report.

the reduced drag of the fowler flap would extend the useful deflections, i don't think i have ever proposed that it wouldn't however it seems the statement about lift/drag should still hold true, or that is how it sounds.

i am all for other tests on flaps, this one came up in the search and did seem to be quite through and did seem to offer some general conclusions.  

if you guys have something you feel is better or more specifically appropriate then please post a link.  but my post before last was not really intended to restart this discussion.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2009, 03:32:06 PM by thorsim »
THOR C.O. II ~JG-27~ Afrika-AH
Axis Co-Op
Quote from: any number of idiots here
blah blah Blah
Quote from: oldman
Good call.  Ignore the people who actually flew the real planes against each other.

Offline Charge

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
Re: Turn rate hierarchy correlation from actual flight tests
« Reply #284 on: October 28, 2009, 03:32:48 PM »
"Boot em and be done with it."

Bronk, have you ever contributed anything sensible in these threads?

Did you achieve your platinum status simply by violating the forum rule nr 4? It seems so.

Quote: "If you cannot make a positive contribution to the thread, then just stay out of it."

Translation: STFU

-C+
"When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a giant meteor hurtling to the earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much screwed no matter what you wish for. Unless of course, it's death by meteorite."