PDA

View Full Version : The Endless Loop Myth: Spit IXe



TAGERT.
10-30-2005, 10:41 AM
SimHQ (http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=144;t=001467)

Enjoy

p1ngu666
10-30-2005, 10:46 AM
graphtastic http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

MEGILE
10-30-2005, 10:46 AM
Good work.. never doubted it for a second.
The guys who make these claims never back up with test data.. just anecdotal "one time I saw in a dogfight server" etc.etc.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

neural_dream
10-30-2005, 10:47 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Oh, that's seriously raising the bar for the whiners. Now "got track?" isn't enough. They'll need to face the "got curve?" as well http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.

Very nice Tagert.

mynameisroland
10-30-2005, 11:00 AM
Hi Tagert is there any possibility of you testing the Fw 190 Anton? Any model you like, it seems that the looping performance of this type is poor.

Philipscdrw
10-30-2005, 11:14 AM
Oh noes! It's Graph Wars V: The Trackfile Strikes Back!

p1ngu666
10-30-2005, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
Oh noes! It's Graph Wars V: The Trackfile Strikes Back!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

TAGERT.
10-30-2005, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Hi Tagert is there any possibility of you testing the Fw 190 Anton? Any model you like, it seems that the looping performance of this type is poor. Actully, dl the track file of the spit and note how he did it, then YOU take any 190 you want and record a *.ntrk file (not *.trk) file and send it to me at naca_testing@yahoo.com and Ill process it for you. Im just too busy right now to fly them *and* process them.

mynameisroland
10-30-2005, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Hi Tagert is there any possibility of you testing the Fw 190 Anton? Any model you like, it seems that the looping performance of this type is poor. Actully, dl the track file of the spit and note how he did it, then YOU take any 190 you want and record a *.ntrk file (not *.trk) file and send it to me at naca_testing@yahoo.com and Ill process it for you. Im just too busy right now to fly them *and* process them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok m8

FritzGryphon
10-30-2005, 01:12 PM
So is the conclusion then, looping continuously would cause you to crash?

danjama
10-30-2005, 01:19 PM
Looks like it. Thistesting confirms what i had always known,as did hundreds of others. So http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

FritzGryphon
10-30-2005, 01:20 PM
I think you're using too much stick deflection. Just like in a turn, excessive G causes energy loss. For example, you can't do a sustained turn at 60% deflection, so you couldn't do a sustained loop either.

Using less deflection, you could sustain a loop indefinitely, or even climb while doing so. Not just SpitIX, but lots of planes.

I'll make a track, starting a loop at ground level and getting higher.

FritzGryphon
10-30-2005, 01:41 PM
http://members.shaw.ca/evilgryphon3/spit9loop.trk

Start looping at 10m, 350km/h.

During about half a dozen loops, I manage to ascend about 450m. My speed at the bottom of each loop remains the same. My total energy increases. I could continue this indefinitely, getting higher and higher, so long as the total drag is less than thrust.

So, the energy lost during the loop is mostly dependant on the G-loading during the loop. A loop is, after all, just a vertical turn, and follows the same rules for induced drag.

The poorer the sustained turning ability of the plane, the larger the loop would have to maintain equal, or gain energy.

Manos1
10-30-2005, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
So is the conclusion then, looping continuously would cause you to crash?


Of course!

when you run out of fuel !

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!

Thanks for doing the test FritzGryphon,

Still, the LA-5FN is the plane http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


What an utter embarassement, flying for years a flight simulation only to realise that one patch was sufficient to blow all statements about "historical accuracy" and "complex flight model analysis" out of the way....

pity, pity, pity....

Now, where did I put my EAW CD ??????

FoolTrottel
10-30-2005, 03:48 PM
Nice testing and all...

But how would one know what engine RPM's to use?

Or are these tests done with engine switched off?

That's the only way to be sure no energy is added...

Power to the loop!

(Meaning: Am I missing something here?)

TAGERT.
10-30-2005, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
I think you're using too much stick deflection. Just like in a turn, excessive G causes energy loss. For example, you can't do a sustained turn at 60% deflection, so you couldn't do a sustained loop either.

Using less deflection, you could sustain a loop indefinitely, or even climb while doing so. Not just SpitIX, but lots of planes.

I'll make a track, starting a loop at ground level and getting higher. Note, 60% joystick input does NOT equate to 60% elevator deflection. It is 60% of the total force that can be applied.

TAGERT.
10-30-2005, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by FoolTrottel:
Nice testing and all...

But how would one know what engine RPM's to use? By reading the DeviceLin variable for RPM

TAGERT.
10-30-2005, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
http://members.shaw.ca/evilgryphon3/spit9loop.trk

Start looping at 10m, 350km/h.

During about half a dozen loops, I manage to ascend about 450m. My speed at the bottom of each loop remains the same. My total energy increases. I could continue this indefinitely, getting higher and higher, so long as the total drag is less than thrust.

So, the energy lost during the loop is mostly dependant on the G-loading during the loop. A loop is, after all, just a vertical turn, and follows the same rules for induced drag.

The poorer the sustained turning ability of the plane, the larger the loop would have to maintain equal, or gain energy. Roger, as would be expected, but had you pulled the stick back and held it there, per the method, you woudl not have gained any alt.

PS *.trk files are worthless to share with others, you need to use the *.ntrk file

FritzGryphon
10-30-2005, 04:04 PM
Well, it at least proves that infinite looping is possible.

Just not with 60% joystick deflection. Maybe 20-30%.

FoolTrottel
10-30-2005, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FoolTrottel:
Nice testing and all...

But how would one know what engine RPM's to use? By reading the DeviceLin variable for RPM </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, but how would you know you're not overpowering, as in adding power and energy into the equation?

TAGERT.
10-30-2005, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
Well, it at least proves that infinite looping is possible.

Just not with 60% joystick deflection. Maybe 20-30%. Roger, as expected

TAGERT.
10-30-2005, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by FoolTrottel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FoolTrottel:
Nice testing and all...

But how would one know what engine RPM's to use? By reading the DeviceLin variable for RPM </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, but how would you know you're not overpowering, as in adding power and energy into the equation? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That is exactally what we are trying to show, that the engine puts in enough energy to overcome the drag. Some say that the engine is so powerful in the La5 that it will never stall with the stick fully aft the whole time.. but no one has sent me a track file showing that yet.. Thus far the only way to make continuous loops is to push the stick forward during the climb phase. Thus gaining alt more slowly, thus not stalling. If the stick was held fully aft during the clmib, the engine would not have enough energy to pull it through the tighter loop.

FoolTrottel
10-30-2005, 04:16 PM
Thank you for clearing it up for me.
That was the part I was missing ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

JG7_Rall
10-30-2005, 05:29 PM
You know you need a vacation from calculus when those graphs immediately make you think of sine and cosine graphs


back me up on this Luke

LStarosta
10-30-2005, 05:31 PM
Indeed. When I saw those graphs, I immediately calculated the first three derivatives just out of habit.

Calculus fux with your mind, yo.

TAGERT.
10-30-2005, 06:19 PM
Calculus? You dont need that, simple high school trig should have gave you these kinds of flash backs.

p1ngu666
10-30-2005, 06:45 PM
thankfully my memory is dire, so i dont remmber complex maths.

iirec it is possible to loop contiuously irl, some lady set a record AGES ago.

even those mad aerobatic planes dont have a sustained climb that could compair to a spit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

hobnail
10-30-2005, 08:20 PM
So to summarise:

You definately cannot, in any way, ever attempt endlessly loop the Spitfire IXe if you use full back stick.

But you definately can, in all respects, at any time endlessly loop the Spitfire IXe if you use something other than full backstick.

This is cracking stuff.

ElAurens
10-30-2005, 08:49 PM
Yet further proof that most of you are cluless about aviation history.

The records for continous loops were all set by woefully underpowered aircraft in the 20s and 30s.

Find another tree to bark up in your quest to hobble each others plane sets.


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

LEXX_Luthor
10-30-2005, 09:32 PM
I once read somebody looooooooped 1001 times in the 1920s, yes? no? And if true, it probably was not the plane that won WW2.

p1ngu666
10-30-2005, 10:01 PM
yep

pourshot
10-30-2005, 10:25 PM
So to summarise:

You definately cannot, in any way, ever attempt endlessly loop the Spitfire IXe if you use full back stick.

You wont even get one loop becuase it will spin http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

p1ngu666
10-30-2005, 10:54 PM
These Fleet planes were very popular for beginner students learning to fly. Speeds were very slow rarely exceeding 95 mph. The Navy used them as dirigible trainers to teach pilots how to hook onto the huge airships. In 1929 a Fleet 2, new from the factory, would have cost $5,500. Two years later, during the depression, they were only $3,985. Today they are valuable collectors items.


Paul Mantz set a new world record of outside loops in a Fleet 2, which might well have been this same aircraft. Years later Mantz would become even more famous for his contribution to numerous other aviation films, until his death in a failed stunt for his last film, "The Flight of the Phoenix."

http://www.fighterfactory.net/aircraft-for-sale/forsalefleet2-history.html

anarchy52
10-31-2005, 01:34 AM
So, endless endless loop spit gaining altitude while doing loops is not a myth after all...

Viva 4.02!

Ankanor
10-31-2005, 02:29 AM
Did someone try to make a alt-gaining loop in a FW190? I wonder...

pourshot
10-31-2005, 02:30 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
So, endless endless loop spit gaining altitude while doing loops is not a myth after all...

Viva 4.02!

Try looking at the data agian you will see the spit lost alt and crashed

nakamura_kenji
10-31-2005, 02:47 AM
he mean FritzGryphon track where gain altitude prove possible.

possible ki-61-I-ko try last night ^_^ no perfect loop but gain up.way do pull up vertical climb until near stall where pull back plane fall over on back. dive 330kph pull out dive and climb vertical repeat

Friendly_flyer
10-31-2005, 03:00 AM
Endless loops are impossible, as any engine plane, even a Spitfire, will run out of gasoline sooner or later. However, if it starts from a decent height, it will manage an astonishing number of loops before it runs out.

Really, those calculations are based on a non-realistic environment. In real life, the pilot and possibly the plane too, would fairly quickly be worn out by the yo-yo G-force in such a high power fighter. Also, I guess the pilot would get sick and tired of looping, and he€d no doubt receive a very bad scrap from his squadron leader for needlessly burning a tank€s worth of a scarce war-time commodity and risking one of His Highness€s most valuable pieces of equipment for no good purpose at all.

Ankanor
10-31-2005, 11:02 AM
In real life Spitfires would seldomly be found at 1k turning like children in the merry-go-round. And FW190 would have better visibility http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif