PDA

View Full Version : FM not modeled



Latico
07-24-2004, 01:25 PM
I don't think that any flight sim has modeled this effect into their program.

Vortex trail.

For those that may not know what that is, all aircraft create a trial of horizontal dual counterrotating vortexes behind them as they pass through the air. It is caused by the downward force of air as it passes past the wings. This can be seen very well if you ever see a plane pass through smoke.

Anytime we get directly behind another plane we should experience turbulence, possibly even stalls. It is believed that this was the cause of a commercial airline to crash on it's landing approach a few years ago, as it violently roled to one side and lost altitude. Unfortunately, the airlineer did not have enough altitude to recover from the onesided stall.

Have you ever noticed that most of the guncamera footage IS NOT from directly behind the enemy planes? Usually, the shooting plane is off the the side, above or below of the target plane just a little. It's probably because the fighter pilots could not maintain their aim in the turbulance that would have been present in the flight path trail of the target plane.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong here.

Latico
07-24-2004, 01:25 PM
I don't think that any flight sim has modeled this effect into their program.

Vortex trail.

For those that may not know what that is, all aircraft create a trial of horizontal dual counterrotating vortexes behind them as they pass through the air. It is caused by the downward force of air as it passes past the wings. This can be seen very well if you ever see a plane pass through smoke.

Anytime we get directly behind another plane we should experience turbulence, possibly even stalls. It is believed that this was the cause of a commercial airline to crash on it's landing approach a few years ago, as it violently roled to one side and lost altitude. Unfortunately, the airlineer did not have enough altitude to recover from the onesided stall.

Have you ever noticed that most of the guncamera footage IS NOT from directly behind the enemy planes? Usually, the shooting plane is off the the side, above or below of the target plane just a little. It's probably because the fighter pilots could not maintain their aim in the turbulance that would have been present in the flight path trail of the target plane.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong here.

carguy_
07-24-2004, 01:33 PM
That`s right,the turbulence is there but I doubt if this was a reason not to get on dead 6.
As an example I think will be multiple B17 attack footages where LW pilots camped on dead six and kept firing.

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

Yellonet
07-24-2004, 01:35 PM
Perhaps not any flight sim game at least http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Havn't played all that many flight sims to tell the truth.


- Yellonet

Latico
07-24-2004, 02:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by carguy_:
That`s right,the turbulence is there but I doubt if this was a reason not to get on dead 6.
As an example I think will be multiple B17 attack footages where LW pilots camped on dead six and kept firing.

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would think that the vortex effect would be worse behind the heavy bombers than behind a fighter. Ususally the larger the plane the larger the vortex. Maybe they were far enough back that they weren't in the strongest turbulance. Or they were staying just outside of the vortex.

Weather_Man
07-24-2004, 02:08 PM
It's modeled in FS2004. At least, I think it is. I tried getting on the six of a 737 with my Lear jet and got in his turbulance. After a moment of buffetting, I went into an uncontrollable spin and crashed from 25,000ft. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

http://banners.wunderground.com/banner/smalltemptr/language/www/US/TX/Dallas.gif

Latico
07-24-2004, 02:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yellonet:
Perhaps not any flight sim _game_ at least http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Havn't played all that many flight sims to tell the truth.


- Yellonet<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dobn't have all the sims myself, but of the ones I do have none feature this effect.

IIRC, in the movie "Top Gun" didn't Tome Cruz lose a plane because he got caught in the "wingwash" (vortex) of another plane he was persuing? Went into a spin I think and couldn't pull it out.

Latico
07-24-2004, 02:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Weather_Man:
It's modeled in FS2004. At least, I think it is. I tried getting on the six of a 737 with my Lear jet and got in his turbulance. After a moment of buffetting, I went into an uncontrollable spin and crashed from 25,000ft. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

http://banners.wunderground.com/banner/smalltemptr/language/www/US/TX/Dallas.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FS 2K4 is more geared for realistic flight charactoristics for the commercial/private pilot simmer. Since they may not feature combat FM's, they probably put more work into the other stuff.

michapma
07-24-2004, 02:19 PM
If we are being precise I suppose we should specify that the vortex zone is behind and below the aircraft. Modern aircraft regulations provide for the vortex, most especially for large jets. The time to wait before following the jet, say during airport procedures after it has taken off or landed, is three minutes! That time can be shortened according to the pilot's judgment. I can't look it up right now, but it's definitely a relevant phenomenon. The vortex of fighter aircraft is of course much smaller than today's large jets, and yes bombers will have more. My guess is that the scale of the vortices is proportional to lift (and wing design and configuration), so heavier aircraft will produce stronger vortices.

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_chap.jpg (http://giap.webhop.info)

The ongoing IL-2 User's Guide (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/il2guide/) | Forgotten Skies (http://www.forgottenskies.com/)
But we are all that way: when we know a thing we have only scorn for other people who don't happen to know it. - Mark Twain, Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc

RogueRunner
07-24-2004, 02:23 PM
It's called wake turbulance and is quite severe in heavies. For instance the safe seperation between a light aircraft (C172) flying behind a heavy (747) is 6nm or 5 min. For a light behind a medium (typically a b17) would be 5nm or 4 min.

Latico
07-24-2004, 02:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RogueRunner:
It's called wake turbulance and is quite severe in heavies. For instance the safe seperation between a light aircraft (C172) flying behind a heavy (747) is 6nm or 5 min. For a light behind a medium (typically a b17) would be 5nm or 4 min.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but in the combat situation we need to get much closer to the persued aircraft to get within gun range. I would think that this distance would put us somewhere near the area of the most severe turbulence.

Alexander_Seil
07-24-2004, 05:25 PM
That depends on what is considered safe for civilian aircraft, and whether the same safe distance would apply to a military aircraft. There are no aircraft as large as the 747 in FB. Besides, if this effect is proportional to lift, and lift in turn is proportional to speed...well, what's the average approach speed of a 747? Somehow I think it would be much faster than a B-17 could manage, plus it's larger.

VOL_Hans
07-24-2004, 06:34 PM
Well...

Do remember that this is combat. The smallest and lightest German fighter, that would be a Bf-109 I think, would still be much more heavy than a C-172.

It would also be moveing faster, that may have some effect.

The B-17 that it targets is smaller, lighter, and slower than the 747 that the C172 was compared to.

So, over all, less danger, less effect.

http://www.altitude.us/missions/The%20Volunteers/hanssig.jpg

Willey
07-24-2004, 07:02 PM
FS2k4? LOL

Now this is interesting: I remember Oleg saying that propwash turbulences WILL be modelled in BoB http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif.

Latico
07-24-2004, 08:29 PM
Aaahh, but prop wash and wake turbulance are not quite the same thing.

BennyMoore
07-24-2004, 09:56 PM
Then again, a mile is considered an unsafe distance in modern civilian flying.

mortoma
07-24-2004, 10:24 PM
Wingtip vortices are not a big deal unless you are behind a large and relatively slow moving ( for it's size ) aircraft, like a heavy jumbo type of transport category aircraft. In which case you are the most vulnerable if you are behind, slighty lower and off to the right or left of the planes wings.

Tooz_69GIAP
07-24-2004, 11:43 PM
well, something is modelled in FB. I was flying about in QMB, and I had a bunch of B-25s in there.

I was in a P-51 or something like that, and I flew right up close to the left side level 8 o'clock of one of em to get a closer look in flight.

My aircraft started to buffet slightly, which I found odd. The turbulence moved me away from the B-25 a little, so I moved in again, and noted that I was flying directly behind the left nacelle. I felt the buffeting a little again, so I thought "is that modelled?" I moved in closer staying behind the nacelee, and I was about 50m away or something, and my aircraft was definately shaking, although not too bad, and when I moved away to the left, the buffeting stopped.

This was at around 1,000m and at a speed of around 300kmh IAS.

I didn't do any real testing, but I was very intrigued by it to say the least!!

whit ye looking at, ya big jessie?!?!

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_tooz.jpg (http://giap.webhop.info)
Executive Officer, 69th GIAP
Za Rodinu!
Petition to stop the M3 motorway through the Tara-Skryne Valley in Co. Meath, Ireland (http://www.petitiononline.com/hilltara/petition.html)

Latico
07-25-2004, 08:41 PM
Just tried a QM like you had, Tooz. 4 B-17's and a P-51. I slowly appraoched from the rear and searched around for a rough spot. Didn't find one. (I did check to make sure I had "turbulence effects" switched on, too.)

Alexander_Seil
07-25-2004, 10:18 PM
I would say that you must use something more discrepant to make this work. Try, say, Me-323 and P.11, now THAT is a huge difference in mass and speed, plus you'll be flying on a flimsy monoplane behind the only 6-engined airplane in the game.

Fennec_P
07-25-2004, 11:20 PM
I might be mistaken, but I think Oleg said something about wake turbulence for BoB.