190A5 vs 190A8

[thorsim]

Are you guys not surprised thorsim isn't able to provide any data?  It's a common theme in all of his threads and if anyone provides the data that shows he's wrong, he dismisses them. 


ack-ack

and this data that has proven me wrong would be where?

[Bronk]

and this data that has proven me wrong would be where?

and your *cough* data has proven ht's model wrong how?
 

[thorsim]

just curious which story will you be sticking with? 

and your *cough* data has proven ht's model wrong how?
 

Are you guys not surprised thorsim isn't able to provide any data?  It's a common theme in all of his threads and if anyone provides the data that shows he's wrong, he dismisses them. 


ack-ack

[Karnak]

just curious how do you suppose they establish the differences in stick forces

There is an NACA document that has roll rates across a speed spectrum using (can't remember which) 50lbs or 60lbs of stick force.  That gives some data for stick forces for some aircraft.

Obviously a lot of stuff has to be fudged in any simulation about WWII equipment.


An example of a fudge would be the Ki-84's roll rate.  When it was first added it rolled slower than a full span Spitfire.  It was changed after somebody produced a Royal Navy flight test in which it was noted that the Ki-84 significantly outrolled the Seafire Mk III.

[thorsim]

what you mean they didn't use a blueprint and a slide rule ?

There is an NACA document that has roll rates across a speed spectrum using (can't remember which) 50lbs or 60lbs of stick force.  That gives some data for stick forces for some aircraft.

Obviously a lot of stuff has to be fudged in any simulation about WWII equipment.


An example of a fudge would be the Ki-84's roll rate.  When it was first added it rolled slower than a full span Spitfire.  It was changed after somebody produced a Royal Navy flight test in which it was noted that the Ki-84 significantly outrolled the Seafire Mk III.

[Baumer]

those are really cool and it would be great if that is how detailed HTC was about getting the actual forces modeled .  however since by his own admission he uses data instead of force load calculations i am going to have to point out that your projection on how things are done in AH is a fail.

I believe that your attempted fail has failed.

DeezCamp I have been using Blade Element therory since I started writing sims.

HiTech

You can read this to learn more about blade element theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_element_theory

But I'll just post this little snip-it to help speed up the process, (I added the bold/underline/italics)

"Blade element theory (BET) is a mathematical process originally designed by William Froude (1878), David W. Taylor (1893) and Stefan Drzewiecki to determine the behavior of propellers. It involves breaking a blade down into several small parts then determining the forces on each of these small blade elements. These forces are then integrated along the entire blade and over one rotor revolution in order to obtain the forces and moments produced by the entire propeller or rotor."

[Karnak]

what you mean they didn't use a blueprint and a slide rule ?

I doubt there is anything to use such tools on in regards to the Ki-84.  You'd need to know precise cable runs, attachment points, hinge points, lever points, control surface area and such in order to have any hope of calculating stick forces or control surface effectiveness that way and I doubt it would be possible even then.  I understand that the Japanese destroyed most of their technical documentation at the end of the war.

[thorsim]

ok well then i am curious if he uses these calculations exclusively why would he care about the weight discrepancies you posted?

I believe that your attempted fail has failed.

You can read this to learn more about blade element theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_element_theory

But I'll just post this little snip-it to help speed up the process, (I added the bold/underline/italics)

"Blade element theory (BET) is a mathematical process originally designed by William Froude (1878), David W. Taylor (1893) and Stefan Drzewiecki to determine the behavior of propellers. It involves breaking a blade down into several small parts then determining the forces on each of these small blade elements. These forces are then integrated along the entire blade and over one rotor revolution in order to obtain the forces and moments produced by the entire propeller or rotor."

[thorsim]

yea i think it would be cumbersome in the extreme to approach a sim that way as well.

I doubt there is anything to use such tools on in regards to the Ki-84.  You'd need to know precise cable runs, attachment points, hinge points, lever points, control surface area and such in order to have any hope of calculating stick forces or control surface effectiveness that way and I doubt it would be possible even then.  I understand that the Japanese destroyed most of their technical documentation at the end of the war.

[Ack-Ack]

just curious which story will you be sticking with? 

There is no difference between what Bronk and I have stated.  The only data you've presented have been purely anecdotal, which in these types of discussions is basically no data.  Others have presented and shown the math behind it and all you've been able to present is "pilot so and so said...". 

ack-ack

[Ack-Ack]

and this data that has proven me wrong would be where?

I think Braumer's and Badboy did a pretty good job but that's just me.


ack-ack

[thorsim]

right ok so your position is that any historic documented real world experience information no matter how well supported or how many separate sources agree, is in the opinion of the community completely irrelevant in comparison to in house mathematic formulations done with undisclosed data numbers which by the way have been proven to have been in error in several cases in this thread alone?

is that the argument you guys are trying to make?

There is no difference between what Bronk and I have stated.  The only data you've presented have been purely anecdotal, which in these types of discussions is basically no data.  Others have presented and shown the math behind it and all you've been able to present is "pilot so and so said...". 

ack-ack

I think Braumer's and Badboy did a pretty good job but that's just me.


ack-ack

[Baumer]

You continually fail to grasp the concept that nothing you have posted has been "well supported".

It is my position that correct data, used in a correct mathematical model, can produce an accurate program for simulating aircraft performance.

[Karnak]

thorsim,

The reason combat reports fail to meet the criteria of evidence of performance is because there are too many unknown variables.  Whenever you look at flight performance testing it is always done in a fashion to eliminate differences caused by other variables and to isolate the thing being tested.  In a combat report that is not true and, worse, you almost always only have one side of the encounter described.

[thorsim]

You continually fail to grasp the concept that nothing you have posted has been "well supported".

so you are saying that my position that the FW-190s were excellent handling aircraft with outstanding maneuverability is not well supported?  
are you saying that the aircraft so described above by so many sources could ever be modeled accurately and be described as a pig as they so often are in AH?
clearly you yourself was curious enough about at least one of the representations of this aircraft type to investigate it, and you yourself found flaws with this FM.  i mean were not you supporting my claims of inaccuracy by being compelled to investigate the matter in the first place?

It is my position that correct data, used in a correct mathematical model, can produce an accurate program for simulating aircraft performance.

i think you can gleam a lot of general information with the method you put forward above.

however i also believe that to be able to model the specifics of an aircraft you also need real world flight testing and comparative data taken by humans.  
after all if you could know everything about an aircraft from a design program then there would be no need for test pilots anymore, would there?  a computer program and all those equations will not be able to tell you exactly how a plane will behave in a stall.

also you have touched on the core of my point, which was in my first post in this thread.  

how do you know ...

A) what the "correct data" is ...

B) if the "correct data" is in fact the data being used in the game/s, especially when the source data is a "secret".