PDA

View Full Version : 4.08 TEMPEST E and XY Flight Path Analysis (BETA)



AKA_TAGERT
07-16-2007, 09:02 PM
Link to Full Analysis in pdf format (http://geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ZOOM/408/TEMPEST/BETA_00/TEMPEST_ZOOM_SUMMARY.pdf) <span class="ev_code_yellow"><-- Click On Link to see more</span>

http://geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ZOOM/408/TEMPEST/BETA_00/DISCLAIMER.JPG
http://geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ZOOM/408/TEMPEST/BETA_00/PEKETE.JPG
http://geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ZOOM/408/TEMPEST/BETA_00/XYFLIGHTPATH.JPG
http://geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ZOOM/408/TEMPEST/BETA_00/XYFLIGHTPATHVSTIME.JPG

AKA_TAGERT
07-16-2007, 09:02 PM
Link to Full Analysis in pdf format (http://geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ZOOM/408/TEMPEST/BETA_00/TEMPEST_ZOOM_SUMMARY.pdf) <span class="ev_code_yellow">&lt;-- Click On Link to see more</span>

http://geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ZOOM/408/TEMPEST/BETA_00/DISCLAIMER.JPG
http://geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ZOOM/408/TEMPEST/BETA_00/PEKETE.JPG
http://geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ZOOM/408/TEMPEST/BETA_00/XYFLIGHTPATH.JPG
http://geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ZOOM/408/TEMPEST/BETA_00/XYFLIGHTPATHVSTIME.JPG

Akronnick
07-16-2007, 09:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> All graphs contain raw DeviceLink data unless otherwise noted as calculated. For example the TAS value is calculated
from the DeviceLink IAS and Altitude values.
This analysis consists of two parts:
1. Energy Analysis
2. XY Flight Path Analysis
The Energy graphs assume an aircraft mass of 1kg, in that the actual mass of the airplane used in IL2 is not known.
Therefore you would have to multiply the value listed in the graph to obtain the true Energy value in Joules.
The XY Flight Path graph uses the actual DeviceLink altitude value for the Y axis and the calculated X distance. The X
distance is derived from the calculated TAS value and the calculated Velocity Vector Angle and time
X = TAS × cos(vel vector) × time
I have come up with a good approximation of the vel vector and validate it by calculating the Y distance and comparing it to
the know Y distance (aka Altitude)
Y = TAS × sin(vel vector) × time
It is not perfect but below 10kft it provides good results. I will contained to improve on that Velocity Vector Angle in future
updates. I have a good idea of what needs to be done, I just need more time to do it.
The next step is to use the XY Flight Path to calculate the separation distance between two planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just wanted to put a time stamp on that text, so nobody gets any 'funny' ideas http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Daiichidoku
07-16-2007, 09:58 PM
on yer marks....

Daiichidoku
07-16-2007, 10:00 PM
btw, T, wtf does all that math and charts tell me, so's i dont have to rifle through the dross to figure it out for myself, please?

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

MrMojok
07-16-2007, 11:33 PM
My prediction is that when translated, it will say "Tempest is undermodelled".

Ratsack
07-17-2007, 03:05 AM
In order to say it's under modeled, you'd need some comparable real-world data to compare to. This may be forthcoming, but I suspect it doesn't actually exist.

What this is good for is comparative tests of planes IN GAME. If he does other tests, it may show us how planes stack up against each other in 4.08. By itself, it doesn't say anything about whether this or that is correctly or incorrectly modeled.

Nice work, too.

cheers,
Ratsack

ploughman
07-17-2007, 03:21 AM
Er, at the risk of being unmasked as the thread ret4rd is that graph about zoom climb?

Badsight-
07-17-2007, 03:44 AM
its calculated energy

for a FB Tempest put thru a dive then climb

AKA_TAGERT
07-17-2007, 07:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
In order to say it's under modeled, you'd need some comparable real-world data to compare to. This may be forthcoming, but I suspect it doesn't actually exist.

What this is good for is comparative tests of planes IN GAME. If he does other tests, it may show us how planes stack up against each other in 4.08. By itself, it doesn't say anything about whether this or that is correctly or incorrectly modeled. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Exactally!

This is a follow on to my orginal thread on this topic where I noted that I don't have any real data to comp too.. except that P51 and ZERO test.. Thus all of this is intended for in-game vs. in-game plane comparsons.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
Nice work, too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks!

AKA_TAGERT
07-17-2007, 07:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
Er, at the risk of being unmasked as the thread ret4rd is that graph about zoom climb? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>They are both related.. the E graph and the XY Flight Path graph.. but the later is the ZOOM flight path..

The next step is to compare the XY Fligth Path of two planes and calculate the seperation distance between the two..

That is the interesting part.. The final height of each is also interesting

AKA_TAGERT
07-17-2007, 08:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
its calculated energy

for a FB Tempest put thru a dive then climb </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Bingo!

AKA_TAGERT
07-17-2007, 08:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
btw, T, wtf does all that math and charts tell me, so's i dont have to rifle through the dross to figure it out for myself, please?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well this one by itself is not very reveling.. It will be once I do another plane and compare the two.. I just wanted to give an update as to where I am with regards to finding the X component of the XY Flight Path.

To find the X component I need to know the actual flight path angle to calculate it.. I verify the angle I used by calculating the Y component (aka altitude) and compare it to the devicelink altitude variable.

As you can see in the link, the error between the two is small.. thus the flight path angle approximation I am using is pretty good!

I can now use the Y component comp to altitude to find the correction factor to the flight path angle to get it near perfect.. That I am currently working on.

In the past I would provide every step of what I did to get to the result.. but that just caused more problems than it was worth. So now I will just say that I have an angle that I use to find the XY Flight Path and show the validation of that angle. How I come up with the angle than becomes a moot point.

AKA_TAGERT
07-17-2007, 08:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrMojok:
My prediction is that when translated, it will say "Tempest is undermodelled". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Wrong.

Brain32
07-17-2007, 08:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrMojok:
My prediction is that when translated, it will say "Tempest is undermodelled". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Depends on the translator http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

na85
07-17-2007, 09:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Akronnick:

Just wanted to put a time stamp on that text, so nobody gets any 'funny' ideas http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good job. That should stop some trolling for sure.

AKA_TAGERT
07-17-2007, 09:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Akronnick:

Just wanted to put a time stamp on that text, so nobody gets any 'funny' ideas http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good job. That should stop some trolling for sure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not a bad idea..

http://geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TE...408/TEMPEST/BETA_00/ (http://geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ZOOM/408/TEMPEST/BETA_00/)<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">

Parent Directory 16-Jul-2007 19:58 -
DISCLAIMER.JPG 16-Jul-2007 19:59 92k
PEKETE.JPG 16-Jul-2007 19:59 62k
TEMPEST_ZOOM_SUMMARY..&gt; 16-Jul-2007 19:59 371k
XYFLIGHTPATH.JPG 16-Jul-2007 19:59 50k
XYFLIGHTPATHVSTIME.JPG 16-Jul-2007 19:59 42k
ZOOM_TEMPEST.zip 16-Jul-2007 19:59 22k </pre>

Not that it really maters..

it is beta..

But..

From past experance.. better safe than sorry! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

na85
07-17-2007, 09:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Link to Full Analysis in pdf format (http://geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ZOOM/408/TEMPEST/BETA_00/TEMPEST_ZOOM_SUMMARY.pdf) <span class="ev_code_yellow">&lt;-- Click On Link to see more</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great work, Tagert. I look forward to seeing more results.

M_Gunz
07-17-2007, 09:40 AM
Nice form on the ERROR curve. Using that for compares should add relevance.

ploughman
07-17-2007, 09:57 AM
The graph on page 12 of the doco has mis-marked axis. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

AKA_TAGERT
07-17-2007, 10:34 AM
Whoops.. your right.. I got them swapped! I also spelt feet wrong on one.. Thanks for the heads up!

AKA_TAGERT
07-17-2007, 10:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Nice form on the ERROR curve. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I know

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Using that for compares should add relevance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Enh.. The Significance of it is without question, thus I did not provided it to add relevance.

I provided it as validation of the "angle" I used to calculate the X distance..

Sort of an end run around all the things that everyone was getting hung up on (the how) and putting the focus back on the end result..

That is to say how I came up with the "angle" is not important, what is important is that I can show it works where others have failed.

Viper2005_
07-17-2007, 11:49 AM
Most piston engined aeroplanes experience a lateral trim change when their speed is varied.

Therefore they have a tendency to end up going sideways to a greater or lesser degree when executing a dive & zoom.

This means that there may well be variation along the z axis too, which will cause a small (but possibly significant depending upon your accuracy requirements) trigonometric error in the other calculated data.

To evaluate this error, it might be sensible to repeat the calculated profile flown in a piston engined test with a jet and then compare the results.

Viper2005_
07-17-2007, 12:13 PM
Oh BTW, you may find this test data for the Spitfire interesting:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/sd2011.jpg

AKA_TAGERT
07-17-2007, 12:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Most piston engined aeroplanes experience a lateral trim change when their speed is varied.

Therefore they have a tendency to end up going sideways to a greater or lesser degree when executing a dive & zoom.

This means that there may well be variation along the z axis too, which will cause a small (but possibly significant depending upon your accuracy requirements) trigonometric error in the other calculated data.

To evaluate this error, it might be sensible to repeat the calculated profile flown in a piston engined test with a jet and then compare the results. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I am sure that what ever it is, it is small and thus would fall within the noise of other testing errors/limitations.. That statment based on the check I do by taking sqr(TAS_X^2 + TAS_Y^2) and compare it back to TAS. The error between the two is very small. If that is not enough to make your worries go away, I could plot the azmuth angle to show how little it does change.. The autopilot (read PID loop) does a really good job of keeping the heading delta to a minimum.

But..

Don't let me stop you from trying it yourself!

If you can come up with a better way of doing it, we would all benefit from your efforts..

Where as I have other issues that I am concerned about and interested in that I belive impact the results more than lateral trim..

I really want to get that correction factor worked in to make the error between the caclulated Y distance and altitude as small as posible.. It is small now, but I know I can do beter. So what ever free time I come up with, it will be devoted to that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Oh BTW, you may find this test data for the Spitfire interesting:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/sd2011.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Cool thanks!

Viper2005_
07-17-2007, 01:30 PM
I would anticipate that the trigonometric error due to z would be less than 1%, so it's not a big deal, but perhaps something to bear in mind.

A check would be to calculate total distance travelled by integrating TAS with respect to time.

You can then compare this with the sum of the distances between your calculated xy coordinates.

Of course, this is all numerical, so it relies upon small delta-t to minimise integration errors. Due to the fact that the trigonometric error due to z is going to be very small, you'll need a very small delta t in order to be confident that it doesn't get swamped in the integration error.

na85
07-17-2007, 01:35 PM
Tagert, how often does your test method take data measurements? (I.e. on a 30sec flight, how many data points would you have?)

AKA_TAGERT
07-17-2007, 01:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
I would anticipate that the trigonometric error due to z would be less than 1%, so it's not a big deal, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Be my guess

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
but perhaps something to bear in mind. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Which is why I did the TAS = sqr[TAS_X^2+TAS_Y^2] check.. On that note.. I do alot of math and checks that no one sees.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
A check would be to calculate total distance travelled by integrating TAS with respect to time.

You can then compare this with the sum of the distances between your calculated xy coordinates. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
True.. but after visually seeing how small the error was in the azmuth I just skipped that.. So many other things I am interested in doing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Of course, this is all numerical, so it relies upon small delta-t to minimise integration errors. Due to the fact that the trigonometric error due to z is going to be very small, you'll need a very small delta t in order to be confident that it doesn't get swamped in the integration error. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That and other test errors/limitaions

Wurkeri
07-17-2007, 01:46 PM
How is the IAS speeds modeled in the Il-2. I assume that IAS is same as CAS ie there is no position error but is the EAS same or lower than CAS (as it is in the real world due to compressibiliyu). I got around 4-5% error in speed using earlier IAS data when assuming that IAS=CAS=EAS, so I quess that compressibility is modeled to the IAS.

AKA_TAGERT
07-17-2007, 01:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wurkeri:
How is the IAS speeds modeled in the Il-2. I assume that IAS is same as CAS ie there is no position error </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
There was some talk about that years ago with regards to the P38 stall speed.. At that time I think we concluded that was in fact the case, ie IAS=CAS, but no real proof of it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wurkeri:
but is the EAS same or lower than CAS (as it is in the real world due to compressibiliyu). I got around 4-5% error in speed using earlier IAS data when assuming that IAS=CAS=EAS, so I quess that compressibility is modeled to the IAS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not sure about that one.. but.. I doubt Oleg put that much detail into his guages. i.e. compressibility effects on guages, when he can not even simulate the P38 compressibility correctly. But, that is just a feeling of mine, I got nothing to prove it one way or another.

AKA_TAGERT
07-17-2007, 01:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
Tagert, how often does your test method take data measurements? (I.e. on a 30sec flight, how many data points would you have?) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I can set it to what I need.. It is based off an interupt timmer, so it is pretty accurate. Ill have to check, but I think for this one I had it set to 10ms.

MrMojok
07-17-2007, 02:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrMojok:
My prediction is that when translated, it will say "Tempest is undermodelled". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do we know if there is nothing to compare it to yet? Don't you have to do the same thing for some other planes before it can be declared to be undermodelled, overmodelled, or right on?

AKA_TAGERT
07-17-2007, 02:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrMojok:
How do we know if there is nothing to compare it to yet? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Easy.. In that I know what I am thinking and what I am doing.. So I know I will never say the TEMPEST is undermodeled based on the results of my test.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrMojok:
Don't you have to do the same thing for some other planes before it can be declared to be undermodelled, overmodelled, or right on? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No to make that call you need real world data

MrMojok
07-17-2007, 03:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
No to make that call you need real world data </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, maybe RLD of the Mustang and Zero compared to these will give some kind of feel to the accuracy of some planes in game.

Just to clarify, I have my favorites just like anyone else. If my favorite plane looks overmodelled as a result of this, fine. Maybe they will do it more accurately in SOW. I just want everything to be as true-to-life as possible in the upcoming series.

Anyway, good work Tagert.

WOLFMondo
07-17-2007, 03:03 PM
If anyone has a few days spare and wants to visit Londons national archive, I bet the data is in there. Either that or within the BAe archives. Unfortunatly the information is extremely hard to find in the online version of the archives and would cost allot of that way.

JG14_Josf
07-17-2007, 03:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is a follow on to my orginal thread on this topic where I noted that I don't have any real data to comp too.. except that P51 and ZERO test.. Thus all of this is intended for in-game vs. in-game plane comparsons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What?

Is this a case of selective memory?

Extensive tests done in WWII by the British (http://www.pbase.com/chrisdnt/190_tests)

Example:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Dive (Fw 190A-3 de-rated compared to Spitfire VB in side by side flight tests June 1942)
Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Fw 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Climb
The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably stepper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000 feet [7,620 m]. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled into a climb from a dive, the Fw 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spitfire IX 25 versus 109G6 Early (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109gtac.html)

Example:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Climb
18.........The climb of the Spitfire is superior to that of the Me.109 at all heights. It has a particularly marked advantage below 13,000 feet using 18 lbs.boost, and this is naturally more pronounced when using 25 lbs. boost. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the performance is almost identical, but when climbing speed is reached the Spitfire slowly pulls away.

Dive
19.........Comparitive dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Me.109 can leave the Spitfire without any difficulty.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What part of something don't I understand?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is a follow on to my orginal thread on this topic where I noted that I don't have any real data to comp too.. except that P51 and ZERO test.. Thus all of this is intended for in-game vs. in-game plane comparsons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The part where you don't have any real data to comp too..when the links reposted above include relative dive performance, relative pull out performance, and relative zoom climb performance.

I get the part where you selectively pick and choose what you want when you want it.

NP

Viper2005_
07-17-2007, 04:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wurkeri:
How is the IAS speeds modeled in the Il-2. I assume that IAS is same as CAS ie there is no position error </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
There was some talk about that years ago with regards to the P38 stall speed.. At that time I think we concluded that was in fact the case, ie IAS=CAS, but no real proof of it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> This is almost certainly the case since it would require individual programming for each aircraft which would be a huge amount of work! There are several potential methods of constructing a proof:

- Fly two aircraft of different types along a measured course at the same altitude & IAS. If the elapsed time is identical then there is no realistic position error since position error varies from type to type.

- Since position error is a function of alpha and beta, flying at the same IAS and altitude with varying alpha & beta (sustained alpha may be increased by turning) should result in a different TAS. If this is not the case then there is no generic position error.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wurkeri:
but is the EAS same or lower than CAS (as it is in the real world due to compressibiliyu). I got around 4-5% error in speed using earlier IAS data when assuming that IAS=CAS=EAS, so I quess that compressibility is modeled to the IAS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not sure about that one.. but.. I doubt Oleg put that much detail into his guages. i.e. compressibility effects on guages, when he can not even simulate the P38 compressibility correctly. But, that is just a feeling of mine, I got nothing to prove it one way or another. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is a lot easier to apply a generic compressibility effect to IAS readings than it is to model realistic transonic handling characteristics. However, I don't think that any such effect is modelled; this may easily be tested by conducting vertical dives and cross-checking the IAS, TAS and rate of descent.

Other secondary effects of compressibility (such as errors in the static system) are almost certainly not modelled; again they'd show up in dive testing via a cross-check between indicated pressure altitude and WW geometric altitude.

I hope that this stuff is modelled in BoB!

M_Gunz
07-17-2007, 04:08 PM
EDITED to add post-relevance:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Dive (Fw 190A-3 de-rated compared to Spitfire VB in side by side flight tests June 1942)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heeeere we go a-gain, Same old $#!+ a-again.

Lets compare a worn out first batch Spit VB from 1941 and an un-derated 190A3 to the ones we
don't have in the game to find that we get different results.

That is some kind of joke that's been told way too many times. The funny wore off years ago.

M_Gunz
07-17-2007, 04:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
I provided it as validation of the "angle" I used to calculate the X distance.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So your error margin represents difference of what?

AKA_TAGERT
07-17-2007, 04:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
I provided it as validation of the "angle" I used to calculate the X distance.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So your error margin represents difference of what? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Your kidding right?

AKA_TAGERT
07-17-2007, 04:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is a follow on to my orginal thread on this topic where I noted that I don't have any real data to comp too.. except that P51 and ZERO test.. Thus all of this is intended for in-game vs. in-game plane comparsons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What?

Is this a case of selective memory? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No it appears to be a simple case of you not understanding the difference between someone saying I DON'T HAVE vs. THERE IS NONE.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
What part of something don't I understand? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If I had to guess.. I would say most of it from the get go!

AKA_TAGERT
07-17-2007, 04:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wurkeri:
How is the IAS speeds modeled in the Il-2. I assume that IAS is same as CAS ie there is no position error </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
There was some talk about that years ago with regards to the P38 stall speed.. At that time I think we concluded that was in fact the case, ie IAS=CAS, but no real proof of it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> This is almost certainly the case since it would require individual programming for each aircraft which would be a huge amount of work! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Is what Im sayin..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
There are several potential methods of constructing a proof:

- Fly two aircraft of different types along a measured course at the same altitude & IAS. If the elapsed time is identical then there is no realistic position error since position error varies from type to type.

- Since position error is a function of alpha and beta, flying at the same IAS and altitude with varying alpha & beta (sustained alpha may be increased by turning) should result in a different TAS. If this is not the case then there is no generic position error. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Cool.. let us know what you find out!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wurkeri:
but is the EAS same or lower than CAS (as it is in the real world due to compressibiliyu). I got around 4-5% error in speed using earlier IAS data when assuming that IAS=CAS=EAS, so I quess that compressibility is modeled to the IAS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not sure about that one.. but.. I doubt Oleg put that much detail into his guages. i.e. compressibility effects on guages, when he can not even simulate the P38 compressibility correctly. But, that is just a feeling of mine, I got nothing to prove it one way or another. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is a lot easier to apply a generic compressibility effect to IAS readings than it is to model realistic transonic handling characteristics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
True, but in a world with limited time and money.. your time and money would be better spent on something someone might actully notice! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
However, I don't think that any such effect is modelled;[/qutoe]
Is what Im sayin..

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Viper2005_:
this may easily be tested by conducting vertical dives and cross-checking the IAS, TAS and rate of descent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Cool.. let us know what you find out! Since it is easy.. we can expect said feedback within a day or two?
Other secondary effects of compressibility (such as errors in the static system) are almost certainly not modelled; again they'd show up in dive testing via a cross-check between indicated pressure altitude and WW geometric altitude.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
I hope that this stuff is modelled in BoB! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well.. in a world with limited time and money.. your time and money would be better spent on something someone might actully notice! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Viper2005_
07-17-2007, 05:18 PM
1) I probably could conduct the position error & compressibility tests in a couple of days, but producing the writeup to a rigorous standard would doubtless take me longer & whether I'll get around to doing so is another matter entirely! I've got a number of projects on the go at the moment, and it's nice to actually play the game from time to time too!

2) You really do notice alpha & beta induced airspeed errors when they happen, since the errors can be substantial at times. In fact I've had the ASI unwind to zero several times whilst gliding in strong thermals, which is quite disconcerting, especially when accompanied by the ROC going off the clock.

More applicable is the substantial reduction in IAS sometimes associated with sideslip. Again this can be quite disconcerting on final approach.

Also applicable is altimeter error. Since many aircraft under-read altitude at high speed, low level work can involve flying at a negative indicated altitude, which would make full switch flying extremely interesting, especially at night and/or in IMC!

Over-reading ASIs at high speeds would of course also produce a new flavour of whine to the boards, but realistic transonic handling (d)ef(f)ects would quite dramatically take the biscuit. If nothing else you can rest assured that the latter would be noticed!

JG14_Josf
07-17-2007, 05:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Lets compare a worn out first batch Spit VB from 1941 and an un-derated 190A3 to the ones we
don't have in the game to find that we get different results. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spin meister,

The real world tests are a matter of historical record for anyone having an interest in knowing how well many of the Allied fighters stacked up against the Fw190 in what has been called Focke-Wulf Summer (http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/dieppe.htm) (1942).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Dieppe was one of the finest moments in the service career of the Focke-Wulf 190, and the combats of 19 August 1942 represent the climax of the Luftwaffe's dominance on the Channel Front. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://images.ecampus.com/images/d/486/1840372486.jpg

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Focke-Wulf Summer
88 (20)
The Dieppe Raid
108 (11
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The game manages to avoid modeling the specific match-ups during that time; however the game does manage to model an earlier model Spitfire (1941) and a later model Fw190A-4. One could expect things to be reasonably accurate although the earlier Spitfire may not perform up to 1942 standards and the later model Fw190A may exceed the 1942 standard.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Dive (Fw 190A-3 de-rated compared to Spitfire VB in side by side flight tests June 1942)
Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Fw 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Climb
The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably stepper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000 feet [7,620 m]. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled into a climb from a dive, the Fw 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A forum troll these days may wish to spin the historical record into something supporting whatever a forum troll may wish to support.
Historians and authors of published documentary accounts of history have also spun history into a recognizable form:

Focke Wulf FW 190-Ta 152: Aircraft and Legend (http://www.alibris.com/search/books/isbn/0854298819)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">On 17 July a party of Americans including Colonel Grainger, Lieutenant Colonel Sparks, Major Turner, Major Hitchcock and Major Stalling were invited to witness a dogfight between Faber's Fw 190 and a Spitfire IX. Five days later further dogfights between the Fw 190, a Spitfire IX, as Spitfire XII and a Hawker Typhoon were simulated at the Air Fighting Development Unit, Duxford. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are more examples of historical record concerning the performance data documented as a result of the real world side by side tests done by the British in the summer of 1942 when they captured a combat performing example of the FW190 fighter plane.

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51HJ0T7WTVL._AA240_.jpg

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Following initial flight trials at the Royal Aircraft Establishmetn at Farnborough in July 1942, the captured Focke Wulf 190 flew to the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford for tactical trials.
The resultant report, issued in August 1942 and reproduced below almost in its entirety, is a model of what such an intelligence document should contain. In places the language was complimentary in the extreme. The reader should bear in mind that these are not the words of a Focke Wulf salesman trying to boost his firm's product, but those of an enemy forced to give an opponent grudging admiration in time of war.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Alfred Price (http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Alfred%20Price&page=1)

Compared to...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Lets compare a worn out first batch Spit VB from 1941 and an un-derated 190A3 to the ones we
don't have in the game to find that we get different results. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The worn out' Spitfire's used in the military evaluation tests may have been worn out. Where is the historical evidence that suggests that the Spitfire's used in the British tests were worn out'?

The term un-derated' suggests something specific, in fact, the de-rating' of a Focke-Wulf fighter plane consisted of placing a screw in the throttle gate thus limiting the movement of the throttle lever; so un-derated' means what exactly?
The British tests performed with the un-derated' Fw190A-3 included top speed runs where the throttle was set to the maximum power setting for no more than 2 minutes according to the documentation that can be found at this site:

Where "all level speed runs were for two minutes (http://www.pbase.com/chrisdnt/image/16364654) at maximum emergency (3 minute) ratings, and all sustained climbs were carried out at maximum continuous climbing conditions (30 minute rating).

That is the original REAL WORLD document documenting the dive, pull out, and zoom climbing or ENERGY RETENTION tests done by the British in 1942 against the Spitfire VB, Spitfire IX, various other Allied aircraft, and the captured un-derated' Fw190A-3 (less of a fighter plane than the Fw190A-4).

So anyone wanted to know they could know what the REAL WORLD dive, pull out, and zoom climb performance difference was between the worn out' Spitfire VB (1942) and the un-derated' Fw190A-3, if they wanted to know, then they can know:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Dive (Fw 190A-3 de-rated compared to Spitfire VB in side by side flight tests June 1942)
Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Fw 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Climb
The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably stepper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000 feet [7,620 m]. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled into a climb from a dive, the Fw 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If they would rather ignore that fact, then, they can ignore it. Anyone can spin the facts too; if they wanted to spin the facts recorded in the original REAL WORLD performance comparisons done where the British found out which plane dove faster, pulled out, and zoomed away from the other plane.

JG14_Josf
07-17-2007, 05:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No it appears to be a simple case of you not understanding the difference between someone saying I DON'T HAVE vs. THERE IS NONE.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is some (http://www.pbase.com/chrisdnt/190_tests)

Here is more (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109gtac.html)

You don't have it? Will you ever have it?

Not that it matters = no problem.

Other people have it.

mbfRoy
07-17-2007, 06:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No it appears to be a simple case of you not understanding the difference between someone saying I DON'T HAVE vs. THERE IS NONE.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is some (http://www.pbase.com/chrisdnt/190_tests)

Here is more (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109gtac.html)

You don't have it? Will you ever have it?

Not that it matters = no problem.

Other people have it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
As far as I know this test is for ingame planes comparisions only so it's rather pointless. Maybe you can start a new thread about it?

Kettenhunde
07-17-2007, 10:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How is the IAS speeds modeled in the Il-2. I assume that IAS is same as CAS ie there is no position error but is the EAS same or lower than CAS (as it is in the real world due to compressibiliyu). I got around 4-5% error in speed using earlier IAS data when assuming that IAS=CAS=EAS, so I quess that compressibility is modeled to the IAS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is a lot easier to apply a generic compressibility effect </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Compressibility is universal. The only debate is when to apply the correction. How much correction is universal.

There is no standard velocity to apply the corrections and it varies in today's firms from ~Mach .3 to ~Mach .7.

Some simple experimentation using the rectilinear motion equations should give you the onset velocity used in IL2. It will apply to all aircraft.

I haven't forgotten the AoA predictions from the other thread, I am just traveling on business this week.

All the best,

Crumpp

JG14_Josf
07-18-2007, 06:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As far as I know this test is for ingame planes comparisions only so it's rather pointless. Maybe you can start a new thread about it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

mbfRoy,

As far as I know moderators determine when someone has stepped over the line. If you are not a moderator and you feel the need to moderate me, then, perhaps you can start a new thread on that topic.

I replied to the topic starter's statement concerning Real World Test Data.

I'll repeat that:

I replied to the topic starter's statement concerning Real World Test Data.

My second reply concerning someone suggesting that the Real World Test Data was somehow inaccurate.

My third reply concerned the topic starter's statement concerning Real World Test Data.

Now I'm reply to your statement concerning Real World Test Data.

If my post has nothing to do with this topic, according to you, then you have a few options including, but not limited to, cluttering up this thread with your opinion on that off-topic subject.

Now suppose, I know this may seem pointless to some, but suppose that the in game tests do, in fact, get around to testing the FW190A-4 compared to the Spitfire VB (1941), now, there is a reference known by anyone caring to look, including the topic starter, which compares the game to the Real World Test Data.

Suppose, further, that the topic starter gets around to testing the Spitfire IX (25 lb boost) with the Me109G-6 (Early), and again, there is Real World Test Data that can be used to show how the game measures up to that Real World Test Data.

There is also a test report done between a P-47 and an Fw190A.

If no one responds to this post of mine, then, I'll have no reason to post again on the subject of my reposting Real World Data in a thread that tests the game for players who don't already know how well the planes stack up in the game.

I really like those tests that record TE. That is interesting information.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Climb
The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably stepper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000 feet [7,620 m]. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled into a climb from a dive, the Fw 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That above indicates a faster increase in TE for the Fw190 on the angle of climb used in that test if I am not mistaken; the climb angle is sustainable, not vertical, shallow or not really a zoom climb as one which is used in vertical energy fighting tactics.

luftluuver
07-18-2007, 06:39 AM
You really do have much trouble don't you Josf. Is that because of your 'metal disease'. mbfRoy was suggesting you start a new thread as your post was OT, not that you had 'stepped over the line'. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif So http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif .

mbfRoy
07-18-2007, 06:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As far as I know this test is for ingame planes comparisions only so it's rather pointless. Maybe you can start a new thread about it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

mbfRoy,

As far as I know moderators determine when someone has stepped over the line. If you are not a moderator and you feel the need to moderate me, then, perhaps you can start a new thread on that topic.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hi,

Check the highlighted text above. Also check this

maybe /ˈmeɪbi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mey-bee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
adverb
1. perhaps; possibly: Maybe I'll go too.
noun
2. a possibility or uncertainty


moderate /adj., n. ˈmɒdərɪt, ˈmɒdrɪt; v. ˈmɒdəˌreɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[adj., n. mod-er-it, mod-rit; v. mod-uh-reyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, noun, verb, -ated, -ating.
verb (used with object)
8. to reduce the excessiveness of; make less violent, severe, intense, or rigorous: to moderate the sharpness of one's words.
9. to preside over or at (a public forum, meeting, discussion, etc.).


See the difference?

Next.

Ratsack
07-18-2007, 07:01 AM
There was an old cartoon character that was a little black bird chick, with its egg shell still stuck on its head. This miserable little thing would get into trouble and then declaim to the viewer: 'It's an injustice, it is!'

For some reason I'm constantly reminded of it around here.


Ratsack

na85
07-18-2007, 07:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:

Now suppose, I know this may seem pointless to some, but suppose that the in game tests do, in fact, get around to testing the FW190A-4 compared to the Spitfire VB (1941), now, there is a reference known by anyone caring to look, including the topic starter, which compares the game to the Real World Test Data. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that this would be an informative comparison to make, however I feel it necessary to point out that differences between RLD and ingame test data might not be from flaws in the test.

Ratsack
07-18-2007, 07:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:

Now suppose, I know this may seem pointless to some, but suppose that the in game tests do, in fact, get around to testing the FW190A-4 compared to the Spitfire VB (1941), now, there is a reference known by anyone caring to look, including the topic starter, which compares the game to the Real World Test Data. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that this would be an informative comparison to make, however I feel it necessary to point out that differences between RLD and ingame test data might not be from flaws in the test. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is needed for comparisons to the real world is numerical data from the real world. Qualitative intelligence is very useful to a pilot.

e.g., the Fw 190 zooms much better than your Spitfire.

That's a good bit of intelligence. It's not common knowledge, the user can take action based on it, and it's something that the user may not already know. Good stuff for the RAF in 1942.

However, it's not much use to help us work out whether A or B is modeled correctly. If our tests show the Fw 190 to zoom better than the Spitfire, we still don't know if that constitutes 'much better', in the sense it was meant in 1942.

Numbers are best.

cheers,
Ratsack

AKA_TAGERT
07-18-2007, 09:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Not that it matters = no problem. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah good.. So you wont be upset if I continue to ignore your so called inputs to this thread.

M_Gunz
07-18-2007, 12:44 PM
You brought up the false comparison ==YET AGAIN==, Joke. Spin? Nothing you aren't trying.

The complete Faber test document gives the serial numbers of the planes involved. It was shown
YEARS AGO that the Spit VB used that compared so poorly was IIRC the second one ever made, used
by RAE then ADFU and then wrung out in the USA before being sent back and showing up with the
ADFU again in time to test against a brand new FW-190A-3 that was not run de-rated in the test.

We have a Spit VB labeled as 1941 that is really a mid-42 Spit VB as posted here by Oleg Maddox,
who should know. The mid-42 Spit VB has a more powerful engine just for starts. It is NOT
going to compare the same as a worn out Spit VB, all our planes are in new condition.

Troll away, you and others bring up the same invalid "point" for over FIVE YEARS NOW and get
the same answer every time. But it does prove that you put BS well before facts and keep it
that way just like Raaid and his empty tires at over 200mph = spherical balls at under 10mph
no matter what anyone else says. And I note that you don't try and correct him on that, the
ends justify the means for you?

M_Gunz
07-18-2007, 12:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
I provided it as validation of the "angle" I used to calculate the X distance.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So your error margin represents difference of what? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Your kidding right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How about the difference between curved path and polygon path?

I guess it's showing the error per interval rather than error in calculated position as
it looks tighter at the end of the run than in the middle. But that's my guess.

na85
07-18-2007, 01:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
You brought up the false comparison ==YET AGAIN==, Joke. Spin? Nothing you aren't trying.

The complete Faber test document gives the serial numbers of the planes involved. It was shown
YEARS AGO that the Spit VB used that compared so poorly was IIRC the second one ever made, used
by RAE then ADFU and then wrung out in the USA before being sent back and showing up with the
ADFU again in time to test against a brand new FW-190A-3 that was not run de-rated in the test.

We have a Spit VB labeled as 1941 that is really a mid-42 Spit VB as posted here by Oleg Maddox,
who should know. The mid-42 Spit VB has a more powerful engine just for starts. It is NOT
going to compare the same as a worn out Spit VB, all our planes are in new condition.

Troll away, you and others bring up the same invalid "point" for over FIVE YEARS NOW and get
the same answer every time. But it does prove that you put BS well before facts and keep it
that way just like Raaid and his empty tires at over 200mph = spherical balls at under 10mph
no matter what anyone else says. And I note that you don't try and correct him on that, the
ends justify the means for you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stop trolling

AKA_TAGERT
07-18-2007, 01:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
I provided it as validation of the "angle" I used to calculate the X distance.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So your error margin represents difference of what? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Your kidding right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How about the difference between curved path and polygon path?

I guess it's showing the error per interval rather than error in calculated position as
it looks tighter at the end of the run than in the middle. But that's my guess. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not sure what your getting at..

So allow me to post the title of the graph..

<span class="ev_code_yellow">ERROR between altitude & calculated Y distance from TAS-Y vs. time</span>

That along with this note from the disclaimer.. i.e.

<span class="ev_code_red">All graphs contain raw DeviceLink data unless otherwise noted as calculated.</span>

Is about as clear as I can make it IMHO..

If you need more detail than that feel free to PM me.

M_Gunz
07-18-2007, 01:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So allow me to post the title of the graph..

ERROR between altitude & calculated Y distance from TAS-Y vs. time

That along with this note from the disclaimer.. i.e.

All graphs contain raw DeviceLink data unless otherwise noted as calculated. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess it didn't make sense to me that you would need to calculate height values since those
are given as data by devicelink.

I am more interested in horizontal distance calculations to go with data heights as the path.

AKA_TAGERT
07-18-2007, 01:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So allow me to post the title of the graph..

ERROR between altitude & calculated Y distance from TAS-Y vs. time

That along with this note from the disclaimer.. i.e.

All graphs contain raw DeviceLink data unless otherwise noted as calculated. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess it didn't make sense to me that you would need to calculate height values since those
are given as data by devicelink. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ah, ok that I have an asnwer for..

I show that graph as validation of the TAS and ANGLE value I used in the following

Y = TAS * sin(ANGLE) * time

In that if the TAS and ANGLE values are good enough to re-create the altitude (Y distance) with little error than the same TAS and ANGLE values are good enough to create the X distance.. i.e.

X = TAS * cos(ANGLE) * time

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I am more interested in horizontal distance calculations to go with data heights as the path. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
See above.

M_Gunz
07-18-2007, 01:48 PM
Can you translate those into angular error?

JG14_Josf
07-18-2007, 07:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Ah good.. So you wont be upset if I continue to ignore your so called inputs to this thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tagert,

Call me ignorant, I don't mind, but it seems reasonable to expect someone ignoring someone else to ignore them. Replying to them is replying to them.

See the difference?

Maybe?

No problem if you don't; other's do.

If you do get around to testing the Fw190A-4 and any of the planes tested by the British against the Fw190A-4s lesser performing cousin the Fw190A-3, then, you will no longer be ignoring the RWD for those match-ups and I still won't be upset about you replying to my posts claiming to be ignoring my posts.

If you get around to testing the Spitfire IX (25) and the Me109G-6 (Early), then, you will no longer be ignore the RWD for that match-up, again, no problem either way for me and your replies to my posts and/or you ignoring my posts or the RWD posted in my posts.

No Problem.

I won't even reply to your good buddy Max as he continues to troll in your thread at my expense.

P.S. Your work is very good especially the TE line which, if I'm not mistaken, reports if the zoom climb is sustainable or unsustainable or, in other words, if the zoom climb is a combat type vertical energy tactic maneuver or some other non tactical extension or rather.

AKA_TAGERT
07-19-2007, 07:30 AM
Ah good.. just as long as your not upset.

AKA_TAGERT
07-19-2007, 07:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Can you translate those into angular error? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>As I was telling Viper a few pages back..

That is my next goal..

To find what I call the correction factor (what you call angle error)

It would be a two step process..

FIRST STEP I have all ready done..

SECOND STEP find the correction factor (angle error) between the real Y position (altitude) and my calculated Y values..

Than apply that correction factor to re-calculate the Y position.. As a check.. At which point it should perfectly match the real Y position (altitude) than use the correction factor to find the X position.

Wa-La perfect XY Flight Path

Keep in mind, there is more to it than angle error.. a big part of the error is just a time shift in the data that I have to resolve.. Hence the name correction factor instead of just angle error.

M_Gunz
07-19-2007, 03:47 PM
What I started on years ago and lately seek to make work still is not perfect but....

If I take alt data and TAS (closing on real answers about CAS) to form sine and hypoteneuse
then I have the polygon path we both know is not how the plane moves but to me is the best
starting point.

Error occurs where the curved path between the points is longer than the polygon path between
same. The plane would have to fly the curve some bit faster so the horizontal displacement
must be less than the first approximation.

With close points and never a lot of angle between sides of the poly, the ideal solution that
comes to my mind would be parabolic arc sections as was used not long prior to the invention
of the calculus and IIRC was part of the buildup to proof of integration as was presented to
in my HS calculus course. But that was 74-75 and I forget a LOT of details. The way it was
done however was super-elegant as it gave the parabolic section automatically and there was
proof that over short ranges the match would always be Perfect. Needless to say it was only
something to know was done and not algebra needing to be done during integrations, what was
not used in so long was lost at least by me.

So anyway I look at the polygon and points and I see that if at each point a perpendicular
to a line bisecting each angle is drawn at the point then that would construct tangents at
each 1st approximation point, always remembering that those will have to move and are not
true path.
Given those tangents there becomes 3+ different cases where curves of different possible
path lengths could be fit depending on how tight anyone wanted to be. At this point with
the points close together and the angles of the poly small I am thinking of simple circular
arc sections in one general case or with a lot more math effort, ellipse sections.

The point of that is not to fit a curved path to the points I know are wrong but instead
to take the ratio of the length of the arc to the length of the poly segment, the hypoteneuse,
and SHORTEN the poly segment to provide correction of that endpoint.

Such math can be general case to run without any need of user to fit the curves but as above
there are at least 3 different cases of relation of the tangents to how the curves/arcs
would need to apply (if two poly segs are on the same line, flight is straight, if both
and concave, if both are convex, and the tangents at skew cases would need to be generalized
properly). When I got to 3D on it, years ago, I overloaded between that and RL but maybe
it's time to finish the work or at least push it another step and hope for brilliance later.

With a decent correction to apply to the length of the hypoteneuse lengths and alt data
being direct and (I hope) accurate, that would allow more accurate path calculation, IMO.

I do need to get methods for 3D fitting because I'm not the only one that wants to do turns.

AKA_TAGERT
07-19-2007, 04:47 PM
Glad I could help!

M_Gunz
07-19-2007, 05:02 PM
That's where I left thing back years ago. You were just beginning to use devicelink then.

Perhaps you've been thinking along similar lines. Perhaps your curve-fitting software can
be used if length of curve segments can be extracted and applied automatically to adjust
those endpoints. I figure that even with single-tangent fit arcs with short polys the error
can be cut to less than half.

As to total path and angular error -- two words; cumulative tolerances.

AKA_TAGERT
07-19-2007, 06:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
That's where I left thing back years ago. You were just beginning to use devicelink then. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So what your saying is I did in a few weeks what you have yet to do after years of trying..

Interesting..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Perhaps you've been thinking along similar lines. Perhaps your curve-fitting software can be used if length of curve segments can be extracted and applied automatically to adjust those endpoints. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have news for you..

NONE of the graphs in the TEMPEST test make use of any curve fitting software...

They are simple XY plots of each individual data point..

As for us thinking along similar lines..

I doubt that..

In that you had no idea why I was calculating the Y distance from the TAS-Y component..

Until after I explained to you why I was calculating the Y distance.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I figure that even with single-tangent fit arcs with short polys the error can be cut to less than half. As to total path and angular error -- two words; cumulative tolerances. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I figure that after years of trying..

You still have some figuring to figure out..

As for your two words..

Ill see your two words and raise you one statement..

If you think you can do a better job..

DO IT!

Should be easy..

What with your YEARS of a head start combined with me telling you how to validate your X distance.

M_Gunz
07-19-2007, 09:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
That's where I left thing back years ago. You were just beginning to use devicelink then. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So what your saying is I did in a few weeks what you have yet to do after years of trying..
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope. Try again. Spent some days years ago and haven't gone back to it. NOT the same.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Interesting.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well you just KEEP yourself amused that way.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Perhaps you've been thinking along similar lines. Perhaps your curve-fitting software can be used if length of curve segments can be extracted and applied automatically to adjust those endpoints. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have news for you..

NONE of the graphs in the TEMPEST test make use of any curve fitting software...

They are simple XY plots of each individual data point.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Didn't say you used the curve-fit. Said perhaps you could. NOT the same.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As for us thinking along similar lines..

I doubt that..

In that you had no idea why I was calculating the Y distance from the TAS-Y component..

Until after I explained to you why I was calculating the Y distance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's right because it only makes sense if you're trying to shoehorn the results rather than
following the data. But continue with your agenda since as you like to point out, it's your
effort.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I figure that even with single-tangent fit arcs with short polys the error can be cut to less than half. As to total path and angular error -- two words; cumulative tolerances. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I figure that after years of trying..

You still have some figuring to figure out.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong again, Nancy!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As for your two words..

Ill see your two words and raise you one statement..

If you think you can do a better job..

DO IT!

Should be easy..

What with your YEARS of a head start combined with me telling you how to validate your X distance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why you keep ASSUMING I've been at work on that for years... well that's you and how you work.
I shoulda known you'd get down your usual level soon enough.

AKA_TAGERT
07-22-2007, 12:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Nope. Try again. Spent some days years ago and haven't gone back to it. NOT the same. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So what your saying is you failed so miserably that you gave up years ago..

Interesting..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Well you just KEEP yourself amused that way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No I just find it interesting that after someone shows you the way you try to claim credit in some manor.. As if your work that you never presented some how influenced my work.. or As if your after the fact master of the obvious suggestions some how influenced my work. You so want to be apart of it that you go out of your way to try and make it sound like you knew it all along by making useless suggestion and master of the obvious statements in the hopes that you can baffle them with bull$****..

That might fool some of the people.. but to anyone that understands what it is I am doing they know as I do that you proved you had no clue as to what is going on or what is needed when you questioned why I was calculating the Y distance.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Didn't say you used the curve-fit. Said perhaps you could. NOT the same. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Which makes your original suggestion even less relevant to what is going on.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
That's right because it only makes sense if you're trying to shoehorn the results rather than following the data. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That statement just shows how confused you are to what is going on. I am not shoe horning anything. I am validating the 'ANGLE' I use to calculate the X distance by showing how that the 'ANGLE' can be used to calculate the correct Y distance (altitude)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
But continue with your agenda since as you like to point out, it's your effort. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And you continue to be confused

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Wrong again, Nancy! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hardly!

You yourself said it was not easy and thus gave up!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Why you keep ASSUMING I've been at work on that for years... well that's you and how you work. I should known you'd get down your usual level soon enough. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Poor Nancy!

Anyway.. back to the actual topic..

Here is the..

NOW PAY ATT MAX!

So you can parrot this back to me later!

Or get frustrated and try and make something of the NACA emblem! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Eitherway..

Here is the validation of the 'ANGLE' used to calculate the X distance.. The 'ANGLE' is used to calculate the Y distance, and than that distance is compared to the altitude. The idea being if the two match than the 'ANGLE' used is correct and will produce a valid X distance.

Here is the error between the calculated Y distance and altitude BEFORE the 'correction factor' is applied
http://geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ZOOM/408/TEMPEST/BETA_00/VERTERROR.JPG
As you can see, it is a pretty good fit to about 10kft where the two start to diverge.

Here is the error between the calculated Y distance and the altitude AFTER the 'correction factor' is applied
http://geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ZOOM/408/TEMPEST/BETA_01/VERTERROR.JPG
As you can see, it is a pretty good fit at all altitudes.

With that, here is the new XY Flight Path Plot
http://geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ZOOM/408/TEMPEST/BETA_01/XYFLIGHTPATH.JPG

Now with that in place..

Here is the XY Flight Patch comparison of the Fw190D and TEMPEST

http://geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ZOOM/408/PLANE_VS_PLANE/TEMPEST_VS_FW190D9_LATE/BETA_00/XYFLIGHTPATH.JPG

Where..

PLANE 1 : Tempest Mk. V
PLANE 2 : Fw-190D-9 1945

Test Method
<LI> START 10kft @230mph
<LI> Close Rad
<LI> Dive at -30? pitch
<LI> Wait until you pass through 6,000ft
<LI> Climb at 30? pitch
<LI> Wait until IAS = 110mph

<span class="ev_code_yellow"> Click on link to see the full comparison in pdf format</span> (http://geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ZOOM/408/PLANE_VS_PLANE/TEMPEST_VS_FW190D9_LATE/BETA_00/ZOOM_TEMPEST_VS_FW190D9_LATE.pdf)

Enjoy!

TX-Gunslinger
07-22-2007, 03:56 PM
Outstanding work Tagert, as always. Great engineering data collection, error analysis and presentation. The insights that I'm gleaning (as usual) from you work are very enlightening with respect to A/C behavior in-game, and complex details of the FM that virtual pilots can not obtain anywhere else.

In this series of complex analysis you've presented data which shows that while the Tempest is accelerating a little quicker and climbing a slight bit higher than the Dora-45 during some portions of the envelope - the Tempest is ultimately paying a significant energy penalty for such performance. Please let me know if I'm misinterpreting the data.

I may have missed something in the information provided, prompting me to ask - what is the status of WEP/Boost in these tests? Was MW-50 enabled on the Dora or it disengaged with 110% throttle?

Last question, if you have time. What do you think accounts for the short term instability toward the end of the Tempest's AOA plot from 48 to 60 seconds. This instability appears to increases in magnitude until the Tempest reaches it's 110mph cutoff.

What is so very significant about the results is that your data correlates very well to Il2-Compare data, in that Tempests do climb better under certain conditions than Dora-45's, the missing details from IL2C are the energy and acceleration states - i.e. "the time domain relationships" - that Il2 Compare does not represent. Great stuff.

In the 6/7 years that this sim has been around - we have NEVER had access to this until you started a few years ago. Thank you so much for all the hard work that you've put in. I "played" with DeviceLink early on, collecting and analyzing for myself, some of the data. I quickly realized that a significant amount of hard work would have to be done with that raw data to produce usable information.

As a virtual pilot, as most know, I'm and avid 190/blue flyer, although I enjoy a lot of other aircraft. I've always found your testing to be very even handed, fair and reliable.

Mostly I just wanted to say thanks, because I realize the hours you must have had to devote to come up with results like this.

S~

Gunny

AKA_TAGERT
07-22-2007, 04:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TX-Gunslinger:
Outstanding work Tagert, as always. Great engineering data collection, error analysis and presentation. The insights that I'm gleaning (as usual) from you work are very enlightening with respect to A/C behavior in-game, and complex details of the FM that virtual pilots can not obtain anywhere else. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TX-Gunslinger:
In this series of complex analysis you've presented data which shows that while the Tempest is accelerating a little quicker and climbing a slight bit higher than the Dora-45 during some portions of the envelope - the Tempest is ultimately paying a significant energy penalty for such performance. Please let me know if I'm misinterpreting the data. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That sums it up nicely!

It was in interesting test..

In that the elevator authority really seems to play a part..

As you can see, the TEMPEST pulled out of the dive quicker than the 190..

But did that also bleed off more energy that than kept it from reaching the same height?

Or was it just the thrust to weight ratio at play during the climb phaes?

That I don't know.. Yet! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TX-Gunslinger:
I may have missed something in the information provided, prompting me to ask - what is the status of WEP/Boost in these tests? Was MW-50 enabled on the Dora or it disengaged with 110% throttle? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Both started at a throttle setting that produced level flight at ~230mph.. Once the dive starts (t0 on the graph) they both apply 110% and WEP if they got it. On that note.. this is beta.. and note.. the 190 had a slight level speed advantage.. i.e. it was not perfectly at 240mph.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TX-Gunslinger:
Last question, if you have time. What do you think accounts for the short term instability toward the end of the Tempest's AOA plot from 48 to 60 seconds. This instability appears to increases in magnitude until the Tempest reaches it's 110mph cutoff. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah.. she got a little jumpy near the end.. I think I can clear that up by tweaking the auto pilot parameters.. This test is more for debugging my analysis code.. Once I get it cleaned up I will re-run those tests and spend a little more time on the auto pilot setup.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TX-Gunslinger:
What is so very significant about the results is that your data correlates very well to Il2-Compare data, in that Tempests do climb better under certain conditions than Dora-45's, the missing details from IL2C are the energy and acceleration states - i.e. "the time domain relationships" - that Il2 Compare does not represent. Great stuff. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TX-Gunslinger:
In the 6/7 years that this sim has been around - we have NEVER had access to this until you started a few years ago. Thank you so much for all the hard work that you've put in. I "played" with DeviceLink early on, collecting and analyzing for myself, some of the data. I quickly realized that a significant amount of hard work would have to be done with that raw data to produce usable information. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks!

It is something I started years ago.. and just keep adding to it.. It is coming along very nicely now.. I really want to go back and redo the roll rate testing in that since that time I converted my analysis tool to handle any sample rate.. Where back at that time it was hard coded at 1Hz. Which was too low to do the roll rate stuff justice.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TX-Gunslinger:
As a virtual pilot, as most know, I'm and avid 190/blue flyer, although I enjoy a lot of other aircraft. I've always found your testing to be very even handed, fair and reliable.

Mostly I just wanted to say thanks, because I realize the hours you must have had to devote to come up with results like this.

S~ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks!

I am just glad to hear some folks are getting something out of it.. In that there are times that I think no one gives a rip and I wonder why I bother in that I typically get more negative feedback than positive!

So thank you!

M_Gunz
07-22-2007, 05:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Nope. Try again. Spent some days years ago and haven't gone back to it. NOT the same. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So what your saying is you failed so miserably that you gave up years ago..

Interesting..

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You do with the words of others what you do with your own errors, twist them to your own ends.

Interesting is how you introduce your DESIRED path angle into your "error analysis" to not find
error but to instead bend it you your own ends. You may some others but not all.

You have direct height data at every point yet you come out with your "Y error" when the error
is in the path angle. That is your own miserable failure, strait-jacketing your results.

Go ahead, act proud. So did P.T. Barnum who bragged about how many people he fooled.

AKA_TAGERT
07-22-2007, 05:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
You do with the words of others what you do with your own errors, twist them to your own ends. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Once again..

MAX makes unfounded claims..

Don't get me wrong..

I am sure MAX believes what he says..

Just like he believes he saw the file dates and numbers change..

Even though they never did..

Thus I can not get too upset with him..

He is just a little too wall-eyed and simple for this kind of detail..

No mater how many times I explain it..

He will see what he wants to see..

Pity is more fitting than anger.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Interesting is how you introduce your DESIRED path angle into your "error analysis" to not find error but to instead bend it you your own ends. You may some others but not all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It may appear to be bent to some..

That don't understand what it is I am doing..

On that note..

Thus far..

Your the only one of the some! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
You have direct height data at every point yet you come out with your "Y error" when the error is in the path angle. That is your own miserable failure, strait-jacketing your results. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<span class="ev_code_yellow">And there is a perfect example of how clueless you are.. and how you see only what you want to see</span>

In that I have told you several times allready..

I don't use my calculated Y distance or the Y error in my XY Flight Path..

I use the direct height data (MAX's fancy way of saying DeviceLink altitude) in the XY Flight Path.

The only thing I use my calculated Y distance for is when I compare it to the DeviceLink altitude to make the Y error plot. Which is used to validate the 'ANGLE' that is later used to calculate the X distance.

Thus the XY Flight Path is made up of the DeviceLink altitude and my calculated X distance data.

SAVVY.. YET?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Go ahead, act proud. So did P.T. Barnum who bragged about how many people he fooled. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
MAX..

If I have said it once I have said it a thousand times..

IF you think you can do better..

DO IT!

Otherwise run along and take your clueless confused remarks with you!

Thanks!

M_Gunz
07-22-2007, 05:26 PM
Poor little Nancy!

AKA_TAGERT
07-22-2007, 05:27 PM
Did you say that into the mirror?

AKA_TAGERT
07-22-2007, 06:21 PM
Now.. where was I?

Oh yes..

Last but not least..

The seperation & delta TAS..

http://geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ZOOM/408/PLANE_VS_PLANE/TEMPEST_VS_FW190D9_LATE/BETA_01/SEPERATION.JPG

click on this link to see the updated.. yet still BETA.. analysis with many more graphs (http://geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ZOOM/408/PLANE_VS_PLANE/TEMPEST_VS_FW190D9_LATE/BETA_01/ZOOM_TEMPEST_VS_FW190D9_LATE.pdf)

NOTE it is beta.. I still need to do some cross checks to make sure it is correct.. So consider this just an update of the current state

na85
07-22-2007, 09:08 PM
Tagert, is that separation really the true separation (i.e. straight line between 2 planes) or is it vertical/horizontal separation? (i.e. altitude difference?)

AKA_TAGERT
07-22-2007, 09:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
Tagert, is that separation really the true separation (i.e. straight line between 2 planes) or is it vertical/horizontal separation? (i.e. altitude difference?) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>straight line between two planes..

As in

sep = sqr[(YP2 - YP1)^2 + (XP2 - XP1)^2]

Where the Y values are DeviceLink altitude and the X values are the cacluated X distances..

Note the comparsion stops at ~60s..

In that is where the TEMPEST reached the min vel of 110mph..

In that is where I end the individual tests..

At that time the 190 was still going strong..

The 190 speed did not drop to 110mph until ~76sec..

So the seperation is between the two planes at the 60s mark

na85
07-22-2007, 09:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
Tagert, is that separation really the true separation (i.e. straight line between 2 planes) or is it vertical/horizontal separation? (i.e. altitude difference?) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>straight line between two planes..

As in

sep = sqr[(YP2 - YP1)^2 + (XP2 - XP1)^2]

Where the Y values are DeviceLink altitude and the X values are the cacluated X distances..

Note the comparsion stops at ~60s..

In that is where the TEMPEST reached the min vel of 110mph.. I

n that is where I end the individual tests..

At that time the 190 was still going strong..

The 190 speed did not drop to 110mph until ~76sec..

So the seperation is between the two planes at the 60s mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rgr that, my mistake; I forgot you posted that formula earlier.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Diablo310th
07-22-2007, 09:50 PM
tagert..I may not understand all the technical mumbojumbo but I can sure see the overall results and implications of your work. Please keep it up as it is very informative and useful. Do you have plans to do the Jugs anytime soon?

jimDG
07-23-2007, 06:05 AM
Is all that trying to tell us that the Tempest doesn't dive too well, but climbs well enough?

Akronnick
07-23-2007, 07:23 AM
Tagart, would it be possible for the Auto Pilot to be set to make the pull-up at a particular g-loading? On the graph, the Tempest pulls up harder, but does not zoom as high. It would be interesting to know how much e the Tempest is losing in the pull-up.

AKA_TAGERT
07-23-2007, 08:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Akronnick:
Tagart, would it be possible for the Auto Pilot to be set to make the pull-up at a particular g-loading? On the graph, the Tempest pulls up harder, but does not zoom as high. It would be interesting to know how much e the Tempest is losing in the pull-up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was going to email the maker of the autopilot to ask him how hard that would be to add. In that some planes elevators work beter than others.. It would be better if you could use the g load to control the amount of elevator applied.

AKA_TAGERT
07-23-2007, 08:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Diablo310th:
tagert..I may not understand all the technical mumbojumbo but I can sure see the overall results and implications of your work. Please keep it up as it is very informative and useful. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks Bud!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Diablo310th:
Do you have plans to do the Jugs anytime soon? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh yes!

Just working out the analysis tool issues right now.. I think I am about ready to move from BETA to some real testing.

Akronnick
07-23-2007, 08:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Akronnick:
Tagart, would it be possible for the Auto Pilot to be set to make the pull-up at a particular g-loading? On the graph, the Tempest pulls up harder, but does not zoom as high. It would be interesting to know how much e the Tempest is losing in the pull-up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was going to email the maker of the autopilot to ask him how hard that would be to add. In that some planes elevators work beter than others.. It would be better if you could use the g load to control the amount of elevator applied. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If that could be accomplished it would go a long way toward establishing a more similar flight path.

If the pull-up could be done at the same g-load for all craft, the difference in the flight path would be dependant on how much speed each plane picks up in the dive.

AKA_TAGERT
07-23-2007, 10:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Akronnick:
If that could be accomplished it would go a long way toward establishing a more similar flight path.

If the pull-up could be done at the same g-load for all craft, the difference in the flight path would be dependant on how much speed each plane picks up in the dive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe..

In that these two planes are at about the same speed ~409 at the 6,000ft mark..

So what we are seeing is most likly a momentum vs. elevator authority thing..

I think Ill add the elevator input plot.. To see how much elevator input the autopilot is applying.. I wonder how close those two are?

But..

If we had the g-load option..

We will most likly see what we are seeing now for two planes that have different speeds at the 6,000ft mark. At which point that we would have to mis-match the g-load to get them to pull out the same..

Thus just moving the problem around.. Could get messy!

Akronnick
07-23-2007, 10:43 AM
The thing is, if two planes ar flying at the same speed and pull the same amount of g's, shouldn't they make the same flight path?

If the test shows two planes pulling the same g-loads but different turn radii, wouldn't that mean that the plane with the wider turn was moving faster?

Then we would know that the difference in flight path was largely due to differences in airspeed rather than other, less testable factors such as elevator authority.

AKA_TAGERT
07-23-2007, 11:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Akronnick:
The thing is, if two planes ar flying at the same speed and pull the same amount of g's, shouldn't they make the same flight path?

If the test shows two planes pulling the same g-loads but different turn radii, wouldn't that mean that the plane with the wider turn was moving faster? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That sounds right to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Akronnick:
Then we would know that the difference in flight path was largely due to differences in airspeed rather than other, less testable factors such as elevator authority. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
As long at the elevator authority is not maxed out.. or P38 like compressibility kicking in.

Akronnick
07-23-2007, 11:26 AM
You'd definatly want to keep the test away from the hairy edges of the flight envelope to avoid things of that nature.

na85
07-23-2007, 12:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Akronnick:
The thing is, if two planes ar flying at the same speed and pull the same amount of g's, shouldn't they make the same flight path?

If the test shows two planes pulling the same g-loads but different turn radii, wouldn't that mean that the plane with the wider turn was moving faster? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That sounds right to me.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not so sure... If an A6M and a B25 were both traveling at 300 kph, and both made a 2-G turn, I would assume the Zero would turn tighter than the B25.

Correct me if I'm wrong

na85
07-23-2007, 12:59 PM
I am wrong:

I did a little search and found this:

http://www.csgnetwork.com/aircraftturninfocalc.html

And throwing in some numbers:

B25:
Initial speed: 187.5 MPH (300kph)
Rated stall speed: 90 MPH (google)
Bank angle: 45 Degrees (arbitrary)

A6M:
Initial speed: 187.5 MPH
Rated stall speed: 68 MPH (google)
Bank angle: 45

The calculated G load and turn radius were identical for both aircraft.

Turn radius: 2361.2 ft
G load: 1.4 G

AKA_TAGERT
07-23-2007, 01:53 PM
Cool Link! Thanks!

AKA_TAGERT
07-23-2007, 01:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Akronnick:
You'd definatly want to keep the test away from the hairy edges of the flight envelope to avoid things of that nature. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>True.. but the poor P38 does not have much choice.. I did a test with the P38 (not posted) and it really had trouble pulling out of the dive.. But.. it's final altitude at 110mph was not that far off from the rest.. The seperation looks pretty bad though! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

AKA_TAGERT
07-31-2007, 09:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Diablo310th:
Do you have plans to do the Jugs anytime soon? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Here is a P-47D test..

P-47D_ZOOM_SUMMARY.pdf (http://geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ZOOM/408/P-47D/BETA_01/P-47D_ZOOM_SUMMARY.pdf)

NOTE I have been trying some different angles.. All of my beta testing up to now were with -30 dive and 30 pull out.. This one I tried a -20 dive and 35 pull out.. Just to see if my XY Flight Path holds for othe angles.. And it does! So this is most likly my last beta test.. I just need to decide what test method I am going to use from here on out.. i.e. the start alt, pull out alt, start speed, end speed.. I kind of like the -20 +35.. but I am thinking of changing the pull out alt to 5kft instead of 6kft.. but I need to run that by the P51 first.. to see if it snaps a wing.. In that if the P51 can do it wihtout snapping a wing.. the rest of the planes should be able to handle it. I wish that real world P51 vs ZERO test had more detail as to what angles they used and what altitude they pulled out at.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif Would have been nice to redo that test to see how well the ingame planes relate to the real thing.

Alex_Voicu
08-01-2007, 01:43 AM
In my opinion it would be better to isolate the dive, pull-up and zoom climb and make a separate test for each one. Especially during the pull-up it's very difficult to keep the same test conditions for each plane.
If you want to measure the energy bleed under g-load, maybe turning tests are more useful. There are a lot of variables involved, like instant turn radius, instant g-load, instant turn rate and it's hard to tell which one you should try to keep constant and which to ignore.

I was very interested in this kind of flight-testing a while ago, and made a few energy bleed charts myself back in 2003:

http://www.alexvoicu.home.ro/enbl_comp.html

The big chart at the end of the page shows an energy bleed comparison of 2 planes turning at the same instant turn rate and speed.

AKA_TAGERT
08-01-2007, 10:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Alex_Voicu:
In my opinion it would be better to isolate the dive, pull-up and zoom climb and make a separate test for each one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not sure I understand your point.. sounds like your saying break the single test into 3 tests? dive, pull up, and zoom?

Assuming that is the case.. what would be gained by doing that? In that with the test I provided.. if someone wanted to do that they could.. i.e. break my test up into 3 separate tests.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Alex_Voicu:
Especially during the pull-up it's very difficult to keep the same test conditions for each plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well no test is going to be perfect.. Even the real world test has it's limits.. I am just trying to provide a test that people can use to get a feel for the relative performance of each simulated plane.. Not trying to relate this to the real world in that there is very little if no real world data to compare to.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Alex_Voicu:
If you want to measure the energy bleed under g-load, maybe turning tests are more useful. There are a lot of variables involved, like instant turn radius, instant g-load, instant turn rate and it's hard to tell which one you should try to keep constant and which to ignore. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not trying to measure energy bleed under g-load.. Just trying to provide a test that people can use to get a feel for the relative performance of each simulated plane..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Alex_Voicu:
I was very interested in this kind of flight-testing a while ago, and made a few energy bleed charts myself back in 2003:

http://www.alexvoicu.home.ro/enbl_comp.html

The big chart at the end of the page shows an energy bleed comparison of 2 planes turning at the same instant turn rate and speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Cool.. Nice work!

As for my testing..

I think I have come up with a way to do it..

I need a baseline.. a reference..

Since the P-47 allways comes to mind when someone says ZOOM..

Im thinking of using it as the basline/reference to compare all other planes too..

That way I don't have to compare each plane to each plane.. In that people can just look at the results of thier plane relitive to the P-47.. relitive to some other plane relitive to the P-47.

Diablo310th
08-01-2007, 10:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Diablo310th:
Do you have plans to do the Jugs anytime soon? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Here is a P-47D test..

P-47D_ZOOM_SUMMARY.pdf (http://geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ZOOM/408/P-47D/BETA_01/P-47D_ZOOM_SUMMARY.pdf)

NOTE I have been trying some different angles.. All of my beta testing up to now were with -30 dive and 30 pull out.. This one I tried a -20 dive and 35 pull out.. Just to see if my XY Flight Path holds for othe angles.. And it does! So this is most likly my last beta test.. I just need to decide what test method I am going to use from here on out.. i.e. the start alt, pull out alt, start speed, end speed.. I kind of like the -20 +35.. but I am thinking of changing the pull out alt to 5kft instead of 6kft.. but I need to run that by the P51 first.. to see if it snaps a wing.. In that if the P51 can do it wihtout snapping a wing.. the rest of the planes should be able to handle it. I wish that real world P51 vs ZERO test had more detail as to what angles they used and what altitude they pulled out at.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif Would have been nice to redo that test to see how well the ingame planes relate to the real thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif thank you tagert

JG14_Josf
08-01-2007, 01:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's easy to see that while turning at the same instant turnrate and speed, the Bf 109 K4 bleeds energy 2 times faster than the La7. I agree that the La7 was superior at sea level, but in my opinion the difference seems a little too big. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice work,

If I may offer a hypothesis (to be reinforce or contended against with actual data or mere conjecture):

The question of Energy Bleed' is a direct relationship between the ratio of energy loss (drag) compared to energy spent (lift).

In other words an aircraft having twice the "Energy Bleed" rate is a plane that slows down twice as fast (drag) for each unit of acceleration on the lift vector (lift).

This is an efficiency factor that is independent of weight or mass.

In other words the factor of weight does not affect the ratio of drag to lift. The factor of weight merely increases or lowers the stall speed and the factor of weight does not change the ratio of Energy Bleed (L/D under load) unless, and this does happen, the airplane suffers elastic deformation during the loading process (acceleration on the lift vector under g).

Also: The "Energy Bleed" rate (L/D ratio under load) is effected by something called buffet which is a function of turbulent air flow (increased drag and decreases lift production) when the aircraft reaches stall.

Note: An aircraft designed to be easy to handle (forgiving) will suffer greater reduction in lift force and increased drag near the stall (as a direct result of design seeking easy handling). In other words the addition of more feel' near the stall is an increase in Energy Bleed near the stall. The feel is purchased with greater buffet.

So...in the tests conducted at the site linked, for the patch tested, the plane suffering twice the Energy Bleed is the plane with twice the drag (slowing down) for the same lift or, in other words, the twice Energy Bleed plane is half the lift for the same cost in speed.

That can only happen if the L/D ratio (under load) is half as efficient or twice as efficient in design and if the wing design alone, is at fault (for the twice inefficient capability of converting forward airspeed into lift vector acceleration), then, that wing is a very poor design (or the other wing is a very good design) comparatively speaking.

If the poor ratio of speed lost for lift vector acceleration gained is a combination of poor wing design and poor fuselage design, then, the magnitude of poor fuselage design must be very great since the major force decelerating the aircraft must be associated with the production of lift force (at a high cost in decelerating force against forward vector travel).
If the engine thrust production adds to the poor rate of lift production at the high cost of forward vector speed, then, and again, that factor is a lower magnitude force compared to the high magnitude force of Drag production relative to Lift production during high g load turning (the force of engine thrust becomes a higher magnitude force when the turning decelerates into a condition of sustainability when the aircraft sustains or gains altitude).

In a diving turn the sustainability of the energy bleed rate can be measured as altitude loss when both planes are flown at the same speed, same g load, same turn rate, and same turn radius (engine on or engine off). The energy bleed rate will then be a function of altitude loss.

If the poor "Energy Bleed" rate plane is turning and diving at the same speed, same g, same turn rate, and same turn radius as the half "Energy Bleed" rate plane, then, the twice "Energy Bleed" rate plane will Bleed Altitude faster because the cost (Drag) of turning (creating lift) is higher for the poorly designed wing on the poorly designed plane.

Weight has nothing to do with L/D other than increasing the speed when stall occurs and decreasing the speed when elastic deformation occurs.

A spiral dive at a fixed g (black out for example) while measuring altitude loss is a measure of Energy Bleed and a measure of wing efficiency (how much cost is associated with the production of lift force = L/D under load).

Nice work.

P.S. Please consider comparing the new P-47 in the game with the old P-47 and explain the difference.

Xiolablu3
08-01-2007, 03:02 PM
It does seem very strange that the 109 bleeds energy twice as fast as the La7.

Both planes are simlarly small, both have leading edge slats.

I would use the Dora as a benchmark rather than the P47. The P47 is a bit of an odd fighter, being so big and heavy. It doesnt make a very good 'generic' WW2 fighter. The Dora would be better for a late war comparision I would htink. Or the 109F4 for early war.

AKA_TAGERT
08-02-2007, 07:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I would use the Dora as a benchmark rather than the P47. The P47 is a bit of an odd fighter, being so big and heavy. It doesnt make a very good 'generic' WW2 fighter. The Dora would be better for a late war comparision I would htink. Or the 109F4 for early war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well.. it really does not matter.. Not looking for a generic fighter.. Just a bench mark.. a reference.. I picked the P-47 because it has this 'reputation' as a great ZOOM figher.. that is based more on pilot accounts than factual testing.. Thus I think many will be suprised at how small that advantge is relitive to other planes in the game.

gkll
08-02-2007, 01:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:



Weight has nothing to do with L/D other than increasing the speed when stall occurs and decreasing the speed when elastic deformation occurs.

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except that increases in mass mean more lift is required. So of course the L/D ratio doesn't change per se, but the heavier plane needs more L to perform the same arc as the lighter plane, at a speed. However this has been expressed in different forms many many times, eh Josf? Maybe just don't reply if you forsee endless posts and accusations of strawmen and the like.

Just IMO that that issue right there (alternately expressed as the 'heavier plane, all other things being equal, needs more AOA to pull the same G, hence generates more drag' by myself some time ago) is why you keep butting heads with the likes of viper or Crump.

I only reply as I am back from some field work and holidays, I check in to the ol' forum and I see you still stuck (IMO) on this e-bleed/weight/lift/bank angle jungle you seem (IMO) to have been lost in since at least a year ago. And really it is pretty simple (IMO).

JG14_Josf
08-02-2007, 02:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And really it is pretty simple (IMO). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

gkll,

If it is so simple as you contend, then, you can conclude with absolute authority which plane will dump more altitude (Energy Bleed) and at the rate that higher energy bleed plane will dump it when everything else is equal except mass.

If you cannot fill in the blanks', then, your response is merely a regurgitation of the same old accusations where somehow (magically) you are right and I am wrong again.

All else being equal except mass:

Plane A (same exact plane at twice the internal mass):
400 km/h
6 g
Engine off
Rate of altitude loss = BLANK

Plane B (same exact plane at half the internal mass):
400 km/h
6 g
Engine off
Rate of altitude loss = BLANK

From your words the suggestion is that A &gt; B.

In fact the greater mass of A (twice) multiplied by the same 400 km/h is a greater amount of momentum (twice).

P = ma

Your theory' concerning the increased requirement of lift continues to ignore the facts concerning the increase in momentum.

When you can prove the validity of your theory', then, you can fill in the blanks accurately.

Until that time your theory' is absolutely no better than my question and my question remains unanswered while your theory' continues to ignore momentum.

Thanks anyway for the editorial comments as if the same thing hasn't been repeated enough times already (and still no answer materializes).

Take any WII aircraft with the engine off (so as to eliminate variations in T/W) and turn it at corner speed in a diving spiral.
What is the rate of altitude loss (Energy Bleed)?

Example:

Fw190A-4

Or

Spitfire VB (1941)

Or

Any WWII aircraft

Example

--------------------------400 km/h 6 g
FW190A-4 ----------rate of altitude loss


Energy Bleed will be distance (feet or meters) over time (minutes or seconds).

Take the same aircraft and remove half the internal mass (a simple adjustment in the calculation).

---------------------------400 km/h 6 g
Fw190B (light) ---------BLANK

The reason why you continue to address me and my question with NO ANSWER is because you have NO ANSWER other than ATTACK THE MESSENGER.

What is your point?

My point is to arrive at an answer.

Clearly the adjustment of one simple factor (mass) while all other factors (every single factor other than mass) is simple enough to arrive at a very simple answer.

Where is the answer?

Why is the answer always "You is wrong"?

How stupid is it to answer a question with "You is wrong"?

And you are in a position to criticize me?

Why not just answer the question?

You quoted me:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Weight has nothing to do with L/D other than increasing the speed when stall occurs and decreasing the speed when elastic deformation occurs.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you find the above words to be false?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Except that increases in mass mean more lift is required. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is false.

The requirement of more lift does not cause an exception' to the fact that weight does not alter L/D, does not cause an exception' to the increase in stall speed, and does not case an exception' to the decreased speed when elastic deformation occurs.

You can remove your Except' word from your sentence and thereby remove the false part of your sentence.

Example:

Except that increases in mass mean more momentum exists at the same speed and the same g load.

That is false because the word except' is added to the statement.

Increases in mass increase the required lift and increase the magnitude of the momentum at a given speed and g load.

Why, for example, does a glider slow down when it dumps ballast while maintaining the same maximum distance traveled for altitude lost L/D rate?

Because:

A. Decreased mass does not alter the L/D rate of distance traveled for altitude lost
B. Decreased mass decreases momentum

If you would like to add how C. Decreased mass lowers the lift required to maintain the same rate of altitude lost for distance traveled rate, then, you may need to make an exception' to your theory' because the loss of ballast slows the aircraft down and does not increase the distance traveled for altitude lost rate even if the decreased mass requires less lift to offset the force of gravity (or multiples thereof perhaps).

Answering the question (filling in the Blanks that remain Blank) is not the same thing as saying "You is wrong" again, and again, and again, until even you believe it does.

It doesn't.

The only way to fill in the Blanks (answer the question) is to fill in the blank. I have nothing to do with the fact that the blanks remain blank. I just point out that the blanks remain blank.

Energy Bleed (all else being equal) is a very simple measure of altitude loss at any rate of acceleration on the lift vector (g load).

A key to understanding how this works is (as pointed out by Crump) the bank angle variable.

Like this:

-------------------Bank Angle--------Rate of altitude lost
Fw190A-----------Blank-------------------Blank
Fw190B-----------Blank-------------------Blank

Where:

Fw190A is a combat ready WWII example of an FW190A-4 (engine off) diving down in a spiral at 400 km/h and 6 g from 10,000 meters altitude.

Fw190B is the same exact WWIII example of an Fw190A-4 (engine off) diving down in a spiral at 400 km/h and 6 g from 10,000 meters altitude with one single difference internal mass is reduced by half.

There are four blanks for you, or anyone, to answer or to ignore and instead of answering you can continue on with the ridiculous claim "You is wrong".

I'm asking a question.

The answer can be factual or political.

Which will you bring to the table next time?

gkll
08-02-2007, 03:52 PM
Well Im not hostile to you as you seem to think. I do think you put forth more strawmen than you get though.

EDIT - deleted some crazy junk...

Bank angle has to increase to maintain g in a circle as weight increases. However to maintain altitude at the same time the 'up' lift vector is compromised by the increased bank angle. So even more AOA is needed to maintain height simultaneously. So drag rises higher yet.

Maybe you can drop bank angle out of the discussion by considering vertical loops instead, what I am saying becomes more direct then. EDIT added some stuff.... I don't agree with you when you suggest that weight does not affect L/D, it does not do so directly but lift requirements DO increase when weight increases, for a g and speed of turn. So that moves you to a different L/D at that new L, it has a new D too. Nothing is free in E studies, to turn a heavy plane takes more E. Anyway you can treat me as hostile if you wish, up to you.

I am not interested in endless debates either though, and anyways Im a dilletante at aero stuff, understanding and modelling biological systems and all things forestry related is my bag. And a piston head too. But no expert at this. So feel no need to reply.

JG14_Josf
08-02-2007, 05:05 PM
gkll,

How about answering the question instead of continuing your appraisal of me as if I am interesting for some reason? I am not the subject. Do you get that?

I'll repeat it:

I am not the subject until you make me the subject.

Please leave me out of the discussion. It isn't difficult. You can take your whole post and edit out all the personal garbage and leave the pertinent information concerning the topic questions. If you think the topic questions are not worthy of discussion, then, you can ignore my version of what I think is on-topic without bringing me personally into the discussion. You can do this and it isn't difficult to stop bringing me personally into the discussion.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Bank angle has to increase to maintain g in a circle as weight increases. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is that a partial answer to my question or just an observation?

My question, on topic, concerns something often bantered about concerning "Energy Bleed".

Is my question unanswerable? Do you think you have answered the question?

Do you understand the question?

If all else is equal except mass, then, which plane will "Bleed" more altitude when both planes (exactly the same except mass) turn at the same speed and at the same g in a diving turn with the engine power off?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Bank angle has to increase to maintain g in a circle as weight increases. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you answer my question or are you merely reporting an observation concerning what happens to bank angle as if what happens to bank angle could help answer the question?

Do you think you have answered my Energy Bleed' question?

I'll read on and see if I can find the answer to my question.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However to maintain altitude at the same time the 'up' lift vector is compromised by the increased bank angle. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did that answer my simple question? What do you mean by compromised'?

Do you intend to suggest that the increase in mass will compromise' the rate of Bleeding where the compromise' causes an increase in the rate of altitude loss at the same g load and at the same speed while mass increases and the bank angle increases?

Did you understand my question?

All else is equal, only mass changes, both planes (at different densities = internal mass changes) dive in a turn at 400 km/h and 6 g.

A. Bank angle increases with weight.
B. "Up" lift is compromised

How about an answer to the question?

Did you answer the question?

Which plane dumps more energy (altitude) as both planes maintain 400 km/h and 6 g?

I'll read on:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So even more AOA is needed to maintain height simultaneously. So drag rises higher yet.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you answering the question I asked or are you avoiding an answer to the question I asked? Are you answering my question indirectly?

Are you saying that the lighter mass plane will bleed altitude at a slower rate or not?

Both planes maintain speed and g.

That is my question.

Both planes maintain speed and g; not altitude.

The rate of altitude loss measures Energy Bleed as all else remains equal.

Altitude is energy. All else is equal.

Do you understand that trying to maintain altitude (sustain) altitude is going to change the nature of my question as if you prefer to ignore my question? This is the same question that has been ignored for some time now. This is the question that is ignored and then the response is always the same; "You is wrong"?

It is a question. "You is wrong" is not an answer.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So even more AOA is needed to maintain height simultaneously. So drag rises higher yet.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Drag rises higher when AOA is increased to maintain height?

What happened to maintaining speed and maintaining g load?

Do you mean to suggest that AOA increases as speed and g load is maintained?

Like this:

---------------Bank angle----AOA------Speed-------- G load------Drag -------Energy Bleed
Fw190A--------A &lt; B-------A &lt; B----400 km/h------- 6 g ------ A &lt; B -----------A &lt; B
Fw190B--------A &gt; B-------A &gt; B----400 km/h------- 6 g ------ A &gt; B -----------A &gt; B


Picture the Fw190A in the diving turn at 400 km/h and 6 g.


The plane is ticking off altitude in feet per second or meters per second or feet per minute or meters per minute.

The pilot does this test 1 zillion times and averages out the results to arrive at an average rate of decent from 10,000 meters to 1,000 meters. The average rate of decent is X meters per second.

The pilot does the same test with the same exact plane at half the mass another 1 zillion times and averages out the results to arrive at an average rate of decent from 10,000 meters to 1,000 meters. The average rate of decent is Y meters per second.

One and only one variable has changed. If the experts who claim "You is wrong" are in a position to claim "You is wrong", then, those experts could answer the question for any plane based upon some accurate formulation rather than answering a question with "You is wrong" or changing the question to another question as if I didn't ask a specific question and then continue to pretend to answer the question with "You is wrong".

X &gt; Y means that the higher mass plane Bleeds more altitude than the lower mass plane.

Is that true?

What is the difference in that rate? What is the difference in Energy Bleed caused by the change in mass and only caused by the change in mass?

Picture the pilot conducting the zillion tests at full weight and then the same pilot conducts another zillion tests at half weight (density) and then the pilot conducts another zillion tests with the full weight plane slowly dumping the internal weight out from full weight to no weight (even less than half weight) where the plane starts out at 10,000 meters at full weight and ends at 1,000 meters at zero weight (or as light as physically possible).

What happens to the energy bleed rate as the weight dumps out in the dive while the pilot maintains 400 km/h and 6 g all the way down from 10,000 meters to 1,000 meters and the only thing that changes is mass?

The pilot does not try to maintain altitude.

The pilot does not try to gain altitude.

The pilot maintains 400 km/h.

The pilot maintains 6 g.

The pilot measures rate of decent.

The pilot measures the effect of changes in mass on the rate of decent.

How does a change in mass affect Energy Bleed as the pilot maintains 400 km/h and 6 g in the diving turn without an engine?

If the pilot must reduce the bank angle to maintain 400 km/h and 6 g, then, the pilot must do so.

If the pilot must reduce AOA to maintain 400 km/h and 6 g, then, the pilot must do so.

If the rate of decent decreases as the pilot rolls out and eases off the elevator, then, that is what happens.

Is that what happens?

Do you understand the question or are you purposefully ignoring the question?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Maybe you can drop bank angle out of the discussion by considering vertical loops instead, what I am saying becomes more direct then. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did this become you asking a specific question? What happened to my question?

If you wish to measure the effect of mass changes and only mass changes on vertical flight (no bank angle), then, the 1 g turn performance is called best glide angle and that does not change with increased mass. The speed required to maintain the best glide angle changes. The stall speed increases too so best sink rate (no bank angle) decreases as mass increases which is also the 1 g turn performance; however that is the 1 g turn performance where the wing is past CLmax no?

Best glide angle is when the wing is at CLmax no?

Increases in mass (no bank angle) does not change the AOA where CLmax is CLmax no?

Remember I am asking questions. I am not the one claiming to know all the answers.

Repeating "You is wrong" over and over again merely suggests that you don't know the answers either.

I don't mind changing the question so long as an accurate answer for the new question is identified and agreeable (not contending some other answer).

I would like an answer to the question that inspires people to attack me personally for some reason.

gkll
08-02-2007, 06:03 PM
Nevermind. I wasn't answering or trying to answer your specific questions, I was just trotting out what I thought was a counterpoint opinion to your 'general' view of this topic based on past readings of your posts.

You post it all the time in different forms, relentlessly. I absolutely disagree with it, since it leads you to conclude (you have concluded...) that spitfires should dump speed faster than 190s when turning hard because they are lighter, or less dense. Since this is opposite to what I think.... you see?

As I say nevermind. Have a good one.

M_Gunz
08-02-2007, 07:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:
Bank angle has to increase to maintain g in a circle as weight increases. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps you should check yourself there. Bank angle and G's are entirely tied together.
How fast you have to fly that bank to stay level changes which changes radius proportionally
as well.

See what reading twisto-words has gotten you confused enough to say? Really, CHECK.
I know you are better than that... John?

I like the part where you say "all other things equal" and he argues FW vs Spitfire as answer.
Right there he has violated conditions, as he usually does.

JG14_Josf
08-02-2007, 10:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">you to conclude (you have concluded...) that spitfires should dump speed faster than 190s when turning hard </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

gkll,

You and M are in the same club. I did not conclude what you claim. You are misrepresenting me. My question asks for an answer that is specific. When that answer does materialize, then, a conclusion can be made about that specific question and answer.

If you continue to be confused about what I conclude then I have to ask (not conclude) do you even listen to what is written or do you simply make things up as you go along as if you are discussing things with an imaginary friend of your own construction?

My question remains the same question in other words and it remains unanswered by you or anyone. The you is wrong' misrepresentations continue to be repeated and those same falsehoods continue to be created by the same people.

Example:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">you to conclude (you have concluded...) that spitfires should dump speed faster than 190s when turning hard </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A hypothesis can progress based upon an educated guess such as:

A.
The lower mass plane (all else being equal = not a Spit vs 190 comparison = as stated over and over again; everything, and I literally mean everything except mass being exactly equal) decelerates at a faster rate (or loses altitude at a faster rate) compared to the higher mass plane (internal mass = density).

B.
The higher mass plane decelerates at a faster rate

C.
Mass does not alter the deceleration rate (Energy Bleed under load).

What cannot be done is progress to conclude anything based upon an educated guess (without some measure of accuracy).

It cannot be assumed that A,B, and C are all true and it is impossible to conclude anything without accurate data beyond the educated guess.

As to the Spitfire versus 190 comparisons (not the current subject concerning Energy Bleed) the historical record manages to identify specific relative performance capabilities on that specific match-up for a very specific time period in actual, real, history.

P.S. Tagert, mice work and I really like that total energy line.

gkll
08-02-2007, 10:57 PM
Hey Max,
well I meant it when I said I was a dilletante, lazy too...

But the bank, lemme think. So the bank provides the ratio of lateral and vertical force needed to counter gravity, and maintain g.... so for a level turn at a radius at a speed, changing weight only changes AOA on the aircraft... doh! However that does mean that vertical loops or not the AOA is still higher for mr heavy.

Weight works against you in turns. Ive spent a bit of time mulling over any possible interesting similarities between cars and planes in this... for cars man don't tell me about it... they got classes of racing which aren't weight limited (some sprints eg) and to get the weight out (and win) can cost a lot of bucks, build the chassis out of thin wall titanium tubing no kidding... for race cars every class has a &lt;minimum&gt; weight limit. And I understand car dynamics enough that I was successful in RL in getting two different chassis to work at a real track, and win... however I have sadly concluded that planes and cars must be seen differently, the differences in being able to predict are enormous.... however weight hurts both in a turn, that part is raw and simple enought that it still is the same.

Things still the same around here? Lots of cranky people?

gkll
08-02-2007, 11:10 PM
Josf maybe I am indeed in a club with Max... fine with me. I usually find myself agreeing with what he says pretty much, and I appreciate relentless behavior, I correspond with you don't I?

Sure I admit I didn't read your post well or completely.. but you have in fact argued cogently and completely incorrectly the exact point I attribute to you... spits bleed like crazy when you crank on them... spit drivers should be grateful for the advantages of rapid deceleration... and so on.... there was a whole thread. Do you deny it? Im sure you remember. Somewhere in the middle you popped out with a clear post, short and to the point.... thats what I pulled my attribution from.... you just didn't say it today. Changed your mind?

M_Gunz
08-03-2007, 07:05 AM
From what I read and do the forms through for, bank angle sets the G's but same plane with
more weight has to go faster to maintain the bank which means wider turn radius. AOA in
coordinated turn is part of that same plane thing, if the rest is flown clean then AOA is
automatic result if I understand correctly and no site I've seen yet has left it out as a
variable just to trip people up!

Easiest way to show about weight differences is 25% fuel vs 100% fuel and what inveterate
onliner always takes 100% fuel because that makes the plane perform and maneuver better
right from the start? LOL! Only good the extra fuel does is for time spent and how long
you can run after fuel tank is holed. They all perform poorly when the gas runs out!

JG14_Josf
08-03-2007, 07:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Changed your mind? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

gkll,

See here is an example of what happens when you skip (or fail to understand) parts of a discussion (that you call an argument) with a real person as opposed to arguing with your imaginary friend.

When you are arguing with your imaginary friend you come up with questions like the above, where, your imaginary friend has made some conclusion that requires a change of mind to undo in some fashion agreeable to you and your imaginary friend.

You can skip all that above and/or misunderstand it and then move from a discussion with me (an actual persons) and move toward an imaginary argument where you decide what your imaginary friend thinks, says, and concludes (needing to explain changes of mind').

In reality the higher mass plane will have the same Energy Bleed rate as the lower mass plane (C), or, the higher mass plane with Bleed Energy at a faster rate (B), or, the higher mass plane will Bleed Energy at a slower rate (A).

In reality the higher mass plane cannot do A,B, and C at the same time where the higher mass plane dumps energy faster, slower, and at the same rate as the lower mass plane (all else being exactly equal).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I like the part where you say "all other things equal" and he argues FW vs Spitfire as answer.
Right there he has violated conditions, as he usually does. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Above is an example of a real person (not an imaginary friend) who tells false stories about someone for some reason. I think that person is delusional where his imaginary construction of reality has become reality in his mind.

If you are not in that club yet, then, hang on and be patient. The more you allow of it the more of it will get on you and it won't wash off.

If you continue to believe that I have concluded something that I have not concluded, then, you will continue to construct a falsehood the will eventually turn into a belief.

A hypothesis, on the other hand, is an educated guess seeking data to confirm or deny the hypothesis. Belief is reserved as well as any absolute conclusion (requiring a change of mind).

When a hypothesis is challenged by refuting data, then, the hypothesis must account of the challenging data with a new hypothesis or the hypothesis becomes nothing more than a baseless conclusion.
Example (baseless conclusion):

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I like the part where you say "all other things equal" and he argues FW vs Spitfire as answer.
Right there he has violated conditions, as he usually does. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The challenging data can be repeated, just in case you missed it, however the club is unwilling or unable to comprehend the data challenging the baseless conclusion.

I aught to know what my argument is or is not since my argument remains the same one and it isn't an argument (unless you fancy to see a question seeking an answer, hypothesis, as an argument) so much as my perspective is, and continues to be, a question seeking an accurate answer.

The educated guess part, where my hypothesis can operate on one of the three possible directions the hypothesis can go (A,B, or C described earlier), comes from my own personal flying experience with Hang Gliders.

The lower the mass = the slower the glider.

The data I have confirms the above educated guess' and no data I have refutes the above educated guess'.

In every case of my personal experience the higher the mass (density) the faster the glider.

Energy is Bleed right out of the lower mass glider (making it go less fast).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">but you have in fact argued cogently and completely incorrectly the exact point I attribute to you... spits bleed like crazy when you crank on them... spit drivers should be grateful for the advantages of rapid deceleration... and so on.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Along the way, trying to answer the question asked (the one that remains unanswered by you or anyone), data does materialize.

Example:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The aircraft has a wide speed range which greatly assists in regaining formation, but care must be taken to avoid over-shooting as its clean lines make deceleration slow. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those are words written in a British wartime relative performance evaluation report (July 1942). That data describes a specific airplane compared to other airplanes (not specified in that part of the report).

You can call that an argument if you wish. I call it data.
If you argue with what you call an argument, then, I call that data indicating your propensity to argue with your imaginary argument.

The data is specific. The data reports specific things.

The data could be wrong and can be proven wrong with contending data.

Example (data that may or may not contend):

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled into a climb from a dive, the Fw 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is more data and that is data specific to two aircraft being tested side by side for relative performance during pulling up' and pulled into a climb from a dive' which, if I am not mistaken, is a process that causes a deceleration of forward speed and an acceleration of the mass on a vector other than forward.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">but you have in fact argued cogently and completely incorrectly the exact point I attribute to you... spits bleed like crazy when you crank on them... spit drivers should be grateful for the advantages of rapid deceleration... and so on.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pretending that my questions seeking accurate answers are in fact argued cogently and completely incorrectly' is a pretentious and false misrepresentation of what I know to be true. I do not argue cogently and completely incorrectly the exact point you attribute to me...spits bleed like crazy when I crank on them...spit drivers should be grateful for the advantages of rapid deceleration...and so on....because I know an argument is futile.

Who would argue against me? Certainly not the Straw-Man Fantasy Club:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I like the part where you say "all other things equal" and he argues FW vs Spitfire as answer.
Right there he has violated conditions, as he usually does. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When two aircraft are exactly the same (setting aside the WWII combat evaluation reports reporting which plane decelerated at a faster rate) except that one plane is half the mass of the other and both planes are turning at 400 km/h and 6 g, then, the rate of decent is a measure of Energy Bleed.

The question remains unanswered. Which plane Bleeds more?

A. The higher mass
B. The lower mass
C. Both A and B are the same

An argument, if I understand how arguments go, is another person reading, or skipping over, the data, ignoring the data, ignoring questions within the data, and the argument moves focus away from the data onto some personality flaw attributed to some imaginary friend, which is, a funny way to answer a question from my viewpoint.

The total energy line measures total energy. I really like that part.

M_Gunz
08-03-2007, 07:51 AM
The Straw-Man Glider Club.
Imaginary meetings occur whenever to discuss the impact of weight on gliders as pertains to WWII
fighters. Relative statements converted into absolutes with reduced reason for extra simplicity.
Come and see why IL2 must be wrong! Bring your imaginary friends!

gkll
08-03-2007, 12:10 PM
Max we may be talking about a slightly different scenario. Now Ive derived all of my knowledge very nearly from these forums so. bear with me, Im working it out as I go

The bank angle provides two vectors, vertical and lateral. For a level turn at a fixed radius and a fixed speed there is only one bank angle therefore. When we increase the weight of the ship, the same arc at the same speed may be followed? It will be at the same bank angle, with a higher power setting and with more AOA. Assume no yaw. Because of our higher weight, we need more lift upwards and &lt;in proportion&gt; we need more lift acting laterally, so the bank angle remains the same. Both vectors must go up in proportion, that proportion or ratio is set by the bank angle. Eh?

Assume our corner is not at the edge of the envelope, eg a spit at 400 k at 4g, so when we add weight we &lt;can&gt; generate more lift (with extra AOA) and add more power (to counter the drag of the extra AOA) as needed when weight increases.

M_Gunz
08-04-2007, 06:24 AM
Turning acceleration G's = velocity squared / radius... a = v^2 / r

Same relation, r = v^2 / a
It shows clearly that with constant acceleration, radius increases with speed.

It doesn't matter how we get the speed and acceleration. The acceleration is per time, the
slower you go the shorter the distance you will turn in. It's like wind on the path of a
thrown beaseball, the faster the pitch the less it will be deflected over distance.

Since this is a public forum I will include the following Caveats:
obviously that doesn't count with trick baseballs that change mass or have near to zero mass
or have the mass of the moon or a neutron star or thrust devices and/or wing or any other
Raaid-Joke mental-exception-inventions, emphasis on 'mental'.

JG14_Josf
08-04-2007, 08:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Since this is a public forum I will include the following Caveats: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

M,

Did you actually mean that since this is a forum where trolls can insult other people with impunity you might as well go ahead and continue with your personal attacks?

Increasing speed can decrease turn radius. Since this is true I will add that true fact here now.

Again

Increasing speed can decrease turn radius.

Maximum turn rate and minimum turn radius is found at a specific speed and under specific flight conditions.

At maximum turn rate and minimum turn radius speed any change from that speed will decrease turn rate and increase turn radius.

Math is nice and all that but when a pilot must know how to turn the fastest turn rate and the smallest turn radius the pilot must know the speed and the flight condition where that maximum turn rate and minimum turn radius is flown.

If acceleration is held constant during the turn, then, the pilot must know the highest possible acceleration that can be held constant because a lower constantly held acceleration will be a larger turn radius and a lower turn rate.

Increases in acceleration increase turn rate and decrease turn radius always; because, in this case, acceleration is the acceleration on the lift vector and this acceleration is not thrust produced forward vector acceleration. This acceleration can be added to or subtracted from with gravity and that is why the maximum performance turn where turn rate is maximized and turn radius is minimized will be an inverted turn where the lift vector is pointed below the horizon.

If this acceleration is not understood, then, this acceleration can be confused with forward vector acceleration. Unlike acceleration on the lift vector where increases in acceleration on the lift vector increase turn rate and decrease turn radius, unlike that acceleration, forward vector acceleration decreases turn radius only up to corner velocity and past corner velocity the turn radius will increase as forward vector acceleration increases.

Again the maximum turn rate and minimum turn radius is found at a specific forward vector speed (air speed); however all increases in lift vector acceleration will turn into decreases in turn radius (when airspeed is held constant) even when increases in acceleration on the lift vector are the direct result of gravitational acceleration as the lift vector points down after a pitch back on top of a zoom climb.
This is easy to confuse if the pilot thinks only in terms of sustained level stalling turns at minimum air speed.

It is easy to conclude a false understanding of physics and believe that the smallest possible turn radius is flown in a level turn at stall speed. That is false.

The smallest possible turn radius is flown at the highest g possible, at the slowest possible speed, inverted.

The smallest possible turn radius is limited by structural (or pilot) g limit, the stall limit, and any limit that does not allow a higher acceleration on the lift vector (g or lift vector acceleration) and any other factor that limits the lowest possible speed while holding the maximum g possible such as any effort expended against the accelerating force of gravity (sustaining or gaining altitude for example).

This is why an Fw190 could not be followed in a split S and dive until the P-47 arrived on the scene.

Back to the falsehoods spread by forum trolls:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Easiest way to show about weight differences is 25% fuel vs 100% fuel and what inveterate
onliner always takes 100% fuel because that makes the plane perform and maneuver better
right from the start? LOL! Only good the extra fuel does is for time spent and how long
you can run after fuel tank is holed. They all perform poorly when the gas runs out!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Increased internal mass increases aircraft density. At the very least that increase in density increases acceleration in a power off dive to a higher top speed in a power off dive and that same increase in internal mass decreases the rate of deceleration caused by air resistance.

Example of this type of advantage (http://members.aol.com/geobat66/galland/caldwell.htm) (density combined with better aerodynamics):

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Galland: Why? He said we had the best fighter in the world. I said that the Spitfire was better able to slow down, because of its lower wing loading. It was also better able to turn at lower speeds. Our advantage was not in turning, but in flying straight ahead, diving, and climbing. Our turns were not tight enough. So when he said, "We have the best fighter in the world! Don't blame me!" I tried to tell him otherwise. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the pilot does not understand the relationship between turn rate, turn radius, g load, and aircraft speed, then, a confusion concerning maximum turn performance is likely.
On the other hand a pilot who understands how turn performance is maximized at a specific airspeed (and that speed is called corner speed), then, the pilot begins to understand how any air speed above or below the maximum performance turn speed is a reduction in turn performance.

Going slower than corner speed reduces turn rate and increases turn radius.

Going faster than corner speed reduces turn rate and increases turn radius.

Corner speed maximizes turn rate and minimizes turn radius.

The only way to increase turn rate and decrease turn radius other than corner speed is to depart from the flight envelope during a gravity assisted maneuver such as a hammer head or pitch back maneuver on top of a zoom climb.

Once this relationship is understood thoroughly the pilot can begin to see how important it is to understand deceleration performance while, for example, the pilot is presented with a combat situation where airspeed is too high and the need exists to bring that airspeed down to corner speed and thereby maximize turn rate and minimize turn radius. A failure to decelerate fast enough is a failure to maximize turn rate and minimize turn radius. An inability to decelerate faster is an expense of time at high speed where turn rate is high and turn radius is wide.

An easy to see situation to exemplify this relationship could be as follows:

An opponent is turning a horizontal turn (stalling turn) while maintaining altitude on the deck. This isn't too tough to understand. The opponent allowed him or herself to get low and slow and now the opponent is stall fighting' in a maximum performance turn on the deck. The opponent is on the stall at full power trying to minimize turn radius. The opponent cannot dive to convert altitude into higher g (smaller turn radius) because the ground limits that method of decreasing turn radius. The opponent cannot climb without increasing turn radius.

The attacking pilot is entering the fight at a speed well over corner speed (where turn rate is maximized and turn radius is minimized at the highest possible g and the lowest possible speed).

In numbers (if the numbers where readily available):

----------------------Airspeed--------turn rate---------turn radius-----g
Opponent------------sustained level minimum turn performance --- --- (2+)
Attacker-----------700 km/h ------over corner-----over corner-------max (6)

The sustained' maximum of 2+ g @ sustained level air speed cannot compete, at all, with the decelerating capability of 6 g at the minimum speed for 6 g.

To see this clearly a turn performance chart can be used.

I have one handy.

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Corner%20time.jpg

While the opponent is on the deck in a maximum performance sustained' turn the attacking pilot can dump airspeed from 700 (http://www.onlineconversion.com/speed_common.htm) km/h (.57 Mach) to corner speed and thereby cut inside the opponents turn at a higher turn rate and a smaller turn radius once (or during) the decelerating turn. The attacking pilot cannot turn inside at a higher speed and any attempt at turning inside will be momentary (not sustainable) and therefore dependent upon instantaneous turn performance advantages.

A forum participant (http://www.alexvoicu.home.ro/enbl_comp.html) offered a good illustration of decelerating turn performance earlier in this thread:

http://www.alexvoicu.home.ro/flightpath.jpg

Edit: Look for the spiral

The attacker can position his plane above the opponent's maximum sustained' turning orbit and spiral down into to fight scrubbing off excess airspeed (decelerating turn) until reaching corner speed (where turn rate is maximized and turn radius is minimized) and then use altitude to maintain that tightest possible turn.

This is merely an illustration of a relationship and not meant to project a viable combat maneuver. In such a situation as described above the attacker merely blasts through the opponents orbit setting up deflection shots.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Since this is a public forum I will include the following Caveats: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A caveat (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/caveat) need not be confused with a troll's propensity to merely blast through a topic seeking insults and injuries for personal satisfaction.

The black total energy line is a very interesting way to look at relative performance.

Thanks.

M_Gunz
08-04-2007, 02:19 PM
Increasing speed can decrease turn radius. Since this is true I will add that true fact here now.

Not at the same bank angle.
I posted one thing and you answer with DS BS.

JG14_Josf
08-04-2007, 05:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I posted one thing and you answer with DS BS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

M,

Nanny nanny poo poo?

Why do you feel as if your bank angle comment is being contended? Are you reading things from your imaginary friend?

Even the words you repeat above your false claim makes no mention of bank angle, so, why did you imagine your falsehood?

What is the point?

Can you simply transfer data that you find to be important to anyone interested in reading what you think is important without making up some strange baseless innuendo where somehow I answer a question that you didn't ask and my answer is DS and BS?

What is the point?

Did I miss something?

You repeat this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Increasing speed can decrease turn radius. Since this is true I will add that true fact here now.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is fact. Below corner speed the aircraft does not have the energy required to maximize turn rate and minimize turn radius. The wing cannot generate the required lift force needed to accelerate the aircraft mass on the lift vector.

Did you imagine that somewhere in the two sentences you repeat is a hidden attack on YOUR bank angle knowledge?

What is the point?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Not at the same bank angle.
I posted one thing and you answer with DS BS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>\

What?

I answered something?

What did I answer?

I answered something you wrote about bank angle.

What are you going on about and why do you have to involve me in your psychobabble?

Ratsack
08-04-2007, 05:34 PM
All this thread needs to be complete is a scan of a doghouse plot of the MiG-15 and...


...ah, already got it.

What about the falling elephant?

Perhaps the screenies of the Fw 190 and Spit?

Failing that, how about a good Robert Johnson anecdote?

Ratsack

M_Gunz
08-04-2007, 06:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
From what I read and do the forms through for, bank angle sets the G's but same plane with
more weight has to go faster to maintain the bank which means wider turn radius. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Turning acceleration G's = velocity squared / radius... a = v^2 / r

Same relation, r = v^2 / a
It shows clearly that with constant acceleration, radius increases with speed.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And then the Strawman comes in and demonstrates his need for a brain, I didn't hang an
effing sign up for the Simple that one post MIGHT have something to do with the last one
that someone replied to in a question.

Once again, Joke, just for you AS YOUR OWN WINDUP TURN DIAGRAM SHOWS:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It shows clearly that with constant acceleration, radius increases with speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You go figure it out, or not as usual, and post your diatribe redefining as many words as
you will while calling someone else (in this case me) a Troll.

JG14_Josf
08-04-2007, 08:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You go figure it out, or not as usual, and post your diatribe redefining as many words as
you will while calling someone else (in this case me) a Troll. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

M,

Figure out what?

No one (unless you count your imaginary friend) is contending the bank angle or the 'constant acceleration' statement you make. What is odd and repeatedly odd is your fixation with attaching me to some strange argument of your creation. That is the odd thing that continues to occur.

It makes sense (your fixation with creating an imaginary opponent) to note how you, and anyone else, can't answer my question concerning "Energy Bleed".

Having no answer leaves you with nothing other than an imaginary argument.

That is not a conclusion. That is another hypothesis. Call it the Troll Hypothesis.

What can a Troll do when no one is willing to argue with the nonsense published by the troll?

Guard the bridge?

When someone answers my question, then, I will have an answer to my question. Until then the trolls can do as they please no problem.

P.S. The black total energy line remains to be a very interesting measurement.

Thanks again Tagert good work.

gkll
08-04-2007, 09:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Turning acceleration G's = velocity squared / radius... a = v^2 / r

Same relation, r = v^2 / a
It shows clearly that with constant acceleration, radius increases with speed.

It doesn't matter how we get the speed and acceleration. The acceleration is per time, the
slower you go the shorter the distance you will turn in. It's like wind on the path of a
thrown beaseball, the faster the pitch the less it will be deflected over distance.

Since this is a public forum I will include the following Caveats:
obviously that doesn't count with trick baseballs that change mass or have near to zero mass
or have the mass of the moon or a neutron star or thrust devices and/or wing or any other
Raaid-Joke mental-exception-inventions, emphasis on 'mental'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure Max I get that, really. I had to think about bank angle for a minute, but the basic relationship of a body and an arc, at a speed, (generating X g) is/was clear to me. What I am on about is what happens when you add weight and describe the exact same arc at the same speed. Bank angle cannot change, however AOA must, plus added power is now required. Right?

M_Gunz
08-05-2007, 06:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
What I am on about is what happens when you add weight and describe the exact same arc at the same speed. Bank angle cannot change, however AOA must, plus added power is now required. Right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same plane with less weight has lower 1G stall speed. It flies the flat turn at X G's and
speed is stall speed times square root of the G's, say for 4 G turn speed is twice 1G stall.

If you add weight then 1G stall speed increases since AOA cannot increase. So no way it can
make the 4G turn at the same speed as without the extra weight, increase AOA and it stalls.

You MIGHT be able to do something using skid on the plane with less weight to match the plane
with more weight.

With different planes with different wingloadings but also different critical AOA's..... it
becomes a case of numbers, please, and then just stand back for the flame fest.

M_Gunz
08-05-2007, 07:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
[It makes sense (your fixation with creating an imaginary opponent) to note how you, and anyone else, can't answer my question concerning "Energy Bleed". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Every time you've gotten answer for YEARS now, you change what you're on about. More than a
few forum members have given notice of this. You are not called The Joke without reason.

Who CARES what you want any more? **I** don't! That's because I know what you want.
You even stated your little agenda in clear English to Ivan months ago. You've had it up your
butt that IL2 FM physics is WRONG, your word, JOKE.
To that end you have INSULTED everyone that's disagreed with you no matter how qualified they
are, no matter what they bring to the discussion.
If you think that I will treat you with other than the respect I'd give a stupid punk then you
are confused beyond reckoning.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Can you simply transfer data that you find to be important to anyone interested in reading what you think is important without making up some strange baseless innuendo
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean like this?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Back to the falsehoods spread by forum trolls:

quote:
Easiest way to show about weight differences is 25% fuel vs 100% fuel and what inveterate
onliner always takes 100% fuel because that makes the plane perform and maneuver better
right from the start? LOL! Only good the extra fuel does is for time spent and how long
you can run after fuel tank is holed. They all perform poorly when the gas runs out!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's nothing false about that. A tiny bit extra dive speed does not make up for worse turn,
climb, acceleration and acceleration in the start of a dive as well?

Simple truths about the relation between acceleration, speed and radius in level turns apply
-exactly- even to corner speed:

With MORE WEIGHT, Corner Speed MUST INCREASE to maintain a level turn.
With MORE SPEED and THE SAME G's, RADIUS IS INCREASED.

What I've written applies to ALL flat turns at any G-loading -- even CORNER.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Straw Man:
It is easy to conclude a false understanding of physics and believe that the smallest possible turn radius is flown in a level turn at stall speed. That is false. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You want to reply beginning with
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
M,
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then yeah, I figure it's Jokf the Troll trying to derail whatever I posted, as usual.
I put in the caveats because YOU have tried to disprove posts that I and others have made with
JOKE EXAMPLES that have included balloons, feather, elephants, zero-mass objects, lunar-mass
objects, relativistic conditions and black holes to mention just a few of the Raaid-Level
weiners you've dumped on the board.

The relation between Acceleration, Speed and Radius in flat turns STANDS regardless of all the
NON-EXCEPTIONS you've posted or will post. It doesn't matter what a pilot understands or does
for that matter. Adding the vertical only adds another vector which really only changes the
acceleration during the maneuver -- EXTRA MASS MAKES THE TURN WIDER, even a Split-S.

gkll
08-06-2007, 12:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
What I am on about is what happens when you add weight and describe the exact same arc at the same speed. Bank angle cannot change, however AOA must, plus added power is now required. Right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same plane with less weight has lower 1G stall speed. It flies the flat turn at X G's and
speed is stall speed times square root of the G's, say for 4 G turn speed is twice 1G stall.

If you add weight then 1G stall speed increases since AOA cannot increase. So no way it can
make the 4G turn at the same speed as without the extra weight, increase AOA and it stalls.

You MIGHT be able to do something using skid on the plane with less weight to match the plane
with more weight.

With different planes with different wingloadings but also different critical AOA's..... it
becomes a case of numbers, please, and then just stand back for the flame fest. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Max,

I don't get this... Im talking where the ship is well under corner.... just say 4 g. Surely the heavy plane can follow the lighter one, in the same arc at the same speed? So we can add AOA we are not at max. I agree if you are talking max performance.

JG14_Josf
08-06-2007, 07:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There's nothing false about that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

M,

When you project your faults onto me it is a form of psychobabble.

Why?

Are you insecure in your ignorance or is this a deeper problem having to do with a base need of yours to have company in your misery?

How can I respond to your lies?

Again

I can ask you politely to seek help. Please seek help. If you can't seek help then please ignore my posts and stop attacking me personally. Please find someone else to project your faults upon seeking company for your misery please.

When someone does answer my question, the same questions I've been asking for years, in other words, then this diatribe of yours can be shown for what it is lies.

Again

Everything is exactly the same literally except mass which is double or half for two planes diving at 400 km/h in a 6 g turn with the engines off.

Which plane dumps more altitude?

If the answer is accurate, then, what is the difference in Energy Bleed caused by the doubling of weight?

Lie more or answer the question. Lie more or point to someone who has answered the questions. Lie more or lie less - it is your dime.

I'm looking for the accurate answer to my Energy Bleed question.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">EXTRA MASS MAKES THE TURN WIDER, even a Split-S.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is an interesting statement in caps. What does it have to do with my Energy Bleed question?

What does the above statement have to do with anything involving me, my question, and anything other than you and your intention to misrepresent me?

6.3.3 VERTICLE TURNS (http://flighttest.navair.navy.mil/unrestricted/FTM108/c6.pdf)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Vertical turns highlight the influence of the weight vector on turns. In the level turn, weight does not contribute to the radial force. In the vertical turn, however, weight contributes directly to the radial force. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just so you know, (http://www.flightlab.net/pdf/8_Maneuvering.pdf)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just so you know, maximum instantaneous turn performance happens while pulling maximum g, at corner speed, inverted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is the point of misrepresenting what I ask, not answering what I ask, saying that you or anyone has answered what I ask, blaming me for your misunderstanding of the question, accusing me of changing my question to avoid the answer (if that is what you are trying now), and then making statements as if your statements argue against something I wrote?

What is the point?

If the following is true, then, it is true. What does it mean?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">EXTRA MASS MAKES THE TURN WIDER, even a Split-S.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the following is true, then, it is what I meant:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Vertical turns highlight the influence of the weight vector on turns. In the level turn, weight does not contribute to the radial force. In the vertical turn, however, weight contributes directly to the radial force. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just so you know, maximum instantaneous turn performance happens while pulling maximum g, at corner speed, inverted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sources are linked.

If you have or know of an answer to my question, then, link it.

Again

Everything is exactly the same literally except mass which is double or half for two planes diving at 400 km/h in a 6 g turn with the engines off.

Which plane dumps more altitude?

If the answer is accurate, then, what is the difference in Energy Bleed caused by the doubling of weight?

Example:


------------------------------------ g -------- speed ----------rate of decent (Energy Bleed)
Fw190A -8 ----------------------6---------400 km/h -----------BLANK
Fw190A-8 (half weight) -------6---------400 km/h -----------also BLANK


A real answer will materialize in the form of feet per minute or meters per second. I can convert.

The question does not concern level' turn performance.

The question does not factor in engine horsepower over aircraft weight ratios.

All else with the only exception of internal mass is exactly equal literally.

P.S. Are you really as stupid as your words suggest?

P.P.S. That last question is an honest question.

M_Gunz
08-06-2007, 08:03 AM
It doesn't matter Gkll. 6 G bank makes the hardest turn the pilot can take and a bit less
radius than less G's, also faster velocity is very fine but in the 4 G bank turn the plane
is still going to hit the smallest radius when it is traveling as slow as possible and still
maintain the turn which puts it at max AOA. IF it could pull more AOA then it could make a
tighter radius turn.

Radius = Velocity squared / Acceleration G's -- as speed increases the radius increases with
the square of the speed and radius decreases by inverse of the G's.

One step at a time. If the first step is not understood then jumping ahead goes nowhere.
First the relations are understood -- Then they can be applied to the But-What cases.
People that want to drag in But-What's while rejecting the simple truths are never going to
have anything but unsupportable opinions.

At 6 G's or 4 G's or 2 G's, the same plane with more weight CANNOT turn in as small a radius
as without the extra weight just because it cannot make the turn at as low a speed.

Perhaps the confusion lies in the doghouse charts where it doesn't say in big enough letters
that the chart is for plane X at certain configuration including WEIGHT. We see such charts
thrown up here again and again stripped of such "minor details" or having them but they are
ignored.

I learn these things from Real Pilots and Real Aero sites, not from Gamers guessing at it.
There's people here that make me look like a school kid at it. But as Crumpp pointed out
before, CAT is spelled the same in grade school as it is in college.

1 + 1 is still 2 as well, critical AOA does not require 6 G's to pull either.

You don't HAVE to pull critical AOA in a turn, only for the tightest turn at any bank angle.
Thus yes it is true you can pull same radius and speed at bank, heavier to lighter same plane
but ONLY if in the lighter plane you slack the turn enough to match. Then you can say that
more weight, less slack and that should tell you something about speed bleed and the energy
it takes to keep turning at the same G's is higher with added weight -- higher AOA makes
more induced drag at the same speed after all.

Blutarski2004
08-06-2007, 01:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Are you really as stupid as your words suggest?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... We are all precisely as stupid as our words suggest, Josf. To what particular degree our stupidity compares with that of any other individual is, of course, an entirely different matter.

gkll
08-06-2007, 09:37 PM
Thanks Max, I think I got it now. Your last paragraph is what I was talking about. Yes extra AOA equals extra 'e-bleed', the point I was trying to make.

M_Gunz
08-06-2007, 10:13 PM
Yeah, I was just trying to get there with a complete solid trail at least for those willing
to do the complete science. The relation of speed, radius and velocity holds true for planes,
cars, weights on strings and even planetary motion to mention a few. The AOA part is airfoils
and I hope you've got that as at any G's it holds. Flat turns are only the most simple example
and why complicate what people don't seem to get? Once the simple is understood, then is the
time to bring in additional factors like varying direction of gravity with relation to plane.

As for the bleed, Force = Mass x Acceleration
Acceleration is any change in momentum in any direction which turning requires.
The rest is just a matter of how that plays out, with consideration to entropy IRL.

JG14_Josf
08-07-2007, 07:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">..... We are all precisely as stupid as our words suggest, Josf. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Blutarski2004,

Absolutely?

Are you the type who goes around answering questions with the word: Absolutely?

What is the point of your butting in with my direct, and honest, question to M?

Do you have an answer to my topic question concerning Energy Bleed?

Are you just chiming in here to add to the personal attacks as if Max needs help in that regard?

What did you post actually say?

Do not include me in your "We" without quoting the words you find to be as stupid as the words suggest.

Like these:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">EXTRA MASS MAKES THE TURN WIDER, even a Split-S.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That suggests stupidity to me.

I asked.

What is your problem - specifically? You have a problem with my question to Max?

You think "we" are all "precisely" as stupid as our' words suggest.

Josf

How about answering the topic question concerning energy bleed rather than suggesting that we' are all precisely' as stupid as our' words suggest?

Which words: precisely?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> To what particular degree our stupidity compares with that of any other individual is, of course, an entirely different matter.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What does that say?

Is that proof of your authority as master of the obvious? Why do"we" need to involve me in "our" sudden need to publish the obvious so precisely for us, "we", and that which is ours?

Are you one of those who have supposedly answered my questions before I change the questions?

Can we take a trip down memory lane or will your current contribution suffice to suggest precisely what is going on here?

Again:

---------------------------------- g -------- speed ----------rate of decent (Energy Bleed)
Fw190A -8 ----------------------6---------400 km/h -----------BLANK
Fw190A-8 (half weight)-- -------6---------400 km/h -----------also BLANK

Ratsack
08-07-2007, 07:31 AM
But why is a brick?

M_Gunz
08-07-2007, 07:59 AM
What a shame that a Split-S which starts inverted doesn't stay inverted.
The whole turn is wider with more weight in the same plane.

Blutarski2004
08-07-2007, 10:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
But why is a brick? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... or a bag of hammers.

JG14_Josf
08-07-2007, 11:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What a shame that a Split-S which starts inverted doesn't stay inverted.
The whole turn is wider with more weight in the same plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Blutarski2004,

There is no reason for anyone to answer my question. I don't see a problem.

You did however respond to a comment concerning stupid things written with words so I quoted another example above.

The following are words that are not stupid:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Vertical turns highlight the influence of the weight vector on turns. In the level turn, weight does not contribute to the radial force. In the vertical turn, however, weight contributes directly to the radial force. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just so you know, maximum instantaneous turn performance happens while pulling maximum g, at corner speed, inverted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How about a comparative analysis?

Stupid:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What a shame that a Split-S which starts inverted doesn't stay inverted.
The whole turn is wider with more weight in the same plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not stupid:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Vertical turns highlight the influence of the weight vector on turns. In the level turn, weight does not contribute to the radial force. In the vertical turn, however, weight contributes directly to the radial force. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just so you know, maximum instantaneous turn performance happens while pulling maximum g, at corner speed, inverted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Meaningless stupidity expressed with words:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What a shame that a Split-S which starts inverted doesn't stay inverted.
The whole turn is wider with more weight in the same plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rational information containing accurate observations of physical fact:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Vertical turns highlight the influence of the weight vector on turns. In the level turn, weight does not contribute to the radial force. In the vertical turn, however, weight contributes directly to the radial force. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just so you know, maximum instantaneous turn performance happens while pulling maximum g, at corner speed, inverted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What else is new?

How about those charts from Tagert?

The black line for Total Energy was new original even.

M_Gunz
08-07-2007, 03:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
The following are words that are not stupid:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Vertical turns highlight the influence of the weight vector on turns. In the level turn, weight does not contribute to the radial force. In the vertical turn, however, weight contributes directly to the radial force. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just so you know, maximum instantaneous turn performance happens while pulling maximum g, at corner speed, inverted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

STUPID is quoting those words as if they mean other than what they actually do.

So please oh genius, tell how weight contributing to the radial force in vertical turns affects
the same plane loaded with more as opposed to less mass.
You keep throwing the words up as if they prove something now say what you think they prove.

Oh yeah, and why can't you post anything without making personal attacks? Booooo-hooooo!

JG14_Josf
08-08-2007, 09:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Oh yeah, and why can't you post anything without making personal attacks? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

M,

A personal attack is where you attack me personally. An attack on your stupid statements is not a personal attack. Your stupid statements are just as stupid if Jesus says them.

Does that make Jesus stupid?

The quotes I quoted are self-contained facts that communicate physical facts, so, I don't need to explain them to you or anyone I can but what would be the point?

I can repeat them:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Vertical turns highlight the influence of the weight vector on turns. In the level turn, weight does not contribute to the radial force. In the vertical turn, however, weight contributes directly to the radial force. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just so you know, maximum instantaneous turn performance happens while pulling maximum g, at corner speed, inverted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can link the source.

I can repeat stupid statements as well:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What a shame that a Split-S which starts inverted doesn't stay inverted.
The whole turn is wider with more weight in the same plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The source merely identifies where the statements originate. The source isn't needed to validate or invalidate the information communicated.

JtD
08-08-2007, 10:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:

If the answer is accurate, then, what is the difference in Energy Bleed caused by the doubling of weight? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Neither parasitic nor induced drag are linear.

M_Gunz
08-08-2007, 11:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Oh yeah, and why can't you post anything without making personal attacks? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

M,

A personal attack is where you attack me personally. An attack on your stupid statements is not a personal attack. Your stupid statements are just as stupid if Jesus says them.

Does that make Jesus stupid?

The quotes I quoted are self-contained facts that communicate physical facts, so, I don't need to explain them to you or anyone I can but what would be the point?

I can repeat them:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Vertical turns highlight the influence of the weight vector on turns. In the level turn, weight does not contribute to the radial force. In the vertical turn, however, weight contributes directly to the radial force. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just so you know, maximum instantaneous turn performance happens while pulling maximum g, at corner speed, inverted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can link the source.

I can repeat stupid statements as well:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What a shame that a Split-S which starts inverted doesn't stay inverted.
The whole turn is wider with more weight in the same plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The source merely identifies where the statements originate. The source isn't needed to validate or invalidate the information communicated. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You've posted that I print falsehoods without showing any of it to be falsehoods.
You repeat words that I guess you can sound out to yourself but what you think or why you
don't say and anyone that tries to gets sense out you gets the run around.

It's YOU that the Joke comes from, not your 'sources' as YOU chose to post what you do
along with your quotes.

Wherever you got this one,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Vertical turns highlight the influence of the weight vector on turns. In the level turn, weight does not contribute to the radial force. In the vertical turn, however, weight contributes directly to the radial force. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You've taken out of context and I challenge you to explain the meaning in real detail.
What is "radial force" supposed to mean? That would be force away from center? That's
what most people would say but what would you have it mean?

Tell you what, just name or link where you got that one if you can't show why you think it
proves diddly-squat or just stall and spin on your own. I've printed no falsehoods in this
thread.

JG14_Josf
08-08-2007, 02:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I've printed no falsehoods in this
thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

M,

Your whole personal attack routine is false and I'm not your only victim.

Examples:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...but what would you have it mean? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You repeat words that I guess you can sound out to yourself but what you think or why you don't say and anyone that tries to gets sense out you gets the run around. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You've taken out of context... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In fact: I can't 'have' something mean anything. Either something is meaningful (accurate measurements of reality) or something is not meaningful and my stated preference continues to be a preference for accuracy and a rejection of inaccuracy. My preference is for accuracy. I "have" no say in shaping reality as you claim by false innuendo.

In fact:

If you cease attacking me personally, then, the only thing left to 'run around' is my question which you or anyone has yet to answer concerning Energy Bleed.

The latest 'answer' being the following:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Neither parasitic nor induced drag are linear. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is another self-evident statement of fact. It is no different than the self-evident statements of fact quoted from web sites that are linked so that anyone with an interest in the context of the words quoted can read the context for themselves if they have any questions whatsoever as to the meaning of the quoted words.

Example: (http://www.flightlab.net/pdf/8_Maneuvering.pdf)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just so you know, maximum instantaneous turn performance happens while pulling maximum g, at corner speed, inverted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That site has a diagram that can help transfer the meaning accurately.

On the diagram where the aircraft is inverted there are these words to help transfer the self-evident meaning accurately:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Radial g = load factor + 1. Pitch
rate increases; radius decreases. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The turn radius decreases because the aircraft mass adds to radial force.

Example 2 (http://flighttest.navair.navy.mil/unrestricted/FTM108/c6.pdf)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The weight vector can be used to tighten a turn, only if the lift vector is pointed
below the horizon. Whenever the nose of the airplane is pulled up, the turn is hampered by the weight vector. The advantage of using the weight vector to tighten a turn is short-lived, but it can be exploited in a variety of tactical situations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In the vertical turn, however, weight
contributes directly to the radial force. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Any arrangement of words or symbols can be out of context' compared to flying in reality.

If you have cored thermals in a glider or did your own version of actual flying in reality, then, you don't need words or symbols to know real flying you do it.

Explaining IT with words is problematic and more problematic when people focus their attention upon personal attacks as if their interest were nothing more than personal attacks for some very strange reason.

If the reader glances over my words and skips the links linked and focuses their attention toward M's account' of what is being communicated by me, then, the reader gets exactly what they wish to get.

Get it?

What remains unanswered by M or anyone is my question.

Again:

---------------------------------- g -------- speed ----------rate of decent (Energy Bleed)
Fw190A -8 ----------------------6---------400 km/h -----------BLANK
Fw190A-8 (half weight)-- -------6---------400 km/h -----------also BLANK

M_Gunz
08-08-2007, 07:32 PM
Just as I thought, you really don't know what you're reading, just pulling out phrases that
no, you can't explain and only repeat like a little kid trying to figure out a dirty joke.

Every thing there is expressed in G-forces which requires lift to match against weight.
Same plane with less weight can match G's at lower speed than same plane with more weight.
Same G's at lower speed makes for a tighter turn.

THEY BOTH GET THE SAME ACCELERATION AT THE SAME G's, GRAVITY AFFECTS BOTH AS 1 G STRAIGHT DOWN.

NEITHER SOURCE SAYS OR INDICATES THAT MORE WEIGHT MAKES A TIGHTER TURN -- NOWHERE.

LOOK AT SOURCE 1, Bill Crawford's, at Figure 1, V-n diagram and TRY TO FIGURE IT OUT.

You served a purpose this time, Troll, which is showing how to F-Up simple technical
understanding. Step 1, skip everything that doesn't look good. Step 2, post as if you
understand what you clearly do not.

The V-n diagram says it all as the source explains to those intelligent enough to follow it.
I figure that includes smart 10-12 year olds though they might take longer than the 13-14
year olds that have gotten through algebra.
But math isn't for everyone, only for people that want to understand the real world better.

JG14_Josf
08-09-2007, 11:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...a little kid trying to figure out a dirty joke.

You served a purpose this time, Troll, which is showing how to F-Up simple technical
understanding. Step 1, skip everything that doesn't look good. Step 2, post as if you
understand what you clearly do not.

The V-n diagram says it all as the source explains to those intelligent enough to follow it.

I figure that includes smart 10-12 year olds though they might take longer than the 13-14
year olds that have gotten through algebra.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

M,

Why do you continue with the personal attacks?

Why not answer the question?

Again:

---------------------------------- g -------- speed ----------rate of decent (Energy Bleed)
Fw190A -8 ----------------------6---------400 km/h -----------BLANK
Fw190A-8 (half weight)-- -------6---------400 km/h -----------also BLANK

The answer, if it exists, will be two numbers.

X ft per minute

Y meters per second

Why continue the personal attacks?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But math isn't for everyone, only for people that want to understand the real world better.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the real world the following is true:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In the vertical turn, however, weight contributes directly to the radial force. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those words can be expressed as a mathematical calculation that can answer the question asked.

I don't need math to answer the question. My personal flying experience is enough for me to answer the question asked to my personal satisfaction until such time as the BLANKS are filled in by someone who can fill in the BLANKS with accurate numbers.

Until then the personal attacks will continue instead of the accurate numbers filling in the blanks of my question asked.

Why?

The answer, to me, is self-evident and self-confessed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...a little kid trying to figure out a dirty joke.

You served a purpose this time, Troll, which is showing how to F-Up simple technical
understanding. Step 1, skip everything that doesn't look good. Step 2, post as if you
understand what you clearly do not.

The V-n diagram says it all as the source explains to those intelligent enough to follow it.

I figure that includes smart 10-12 year olds though they might take longer than the 13-14
year olds that have gotten through algebra.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

M_Gunz
08-09-2007, 03:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
In the real world the following is true:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In the vertical turn, however, weight contributes directly to the radial force. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is clear from your source that they are comparing vertical turn to flat turn.

You SEEM to be trying to say that that quote somehow shows that what I posted about more weight
makes the turn wider since you called my words false and then posted that and other non-conclusive
quotes as if they back your BS.

It almost looks as if you're trying to say that more weight will therefore make the vertical turn
tighter. But it does not say that in the source at all.

So go ahead and make something from your quotes. I've read the sources and they do not say
nor do they lead to saying that anything I posted was false.

Here's the deal. IF YOU CAN'T, then you've been posting nonsense just to attack what I posted.

Example:
True -- The Joke can cut and paste actual facts from reputable sources.
False - Those same facts prove whatever The Joke loosely attaches them to.

I do not know YOU personally but The Joke you PLAY on this forum is a real Dip$hit.

JG14_Josf
08-09-2007, 09:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It almost looks as if you're trying to say that more weight will therefore make the vertical turn tighter. But it does not say that in the source at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

M,

When you make things up: you argue with your creation.

Why involve me with your fantasies?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I do not know YOU personally but The Joke you PLAY on this forum is a real Dip$hit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For anyone who is confused about M and his falsehoods I can repost an example:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The whole turn is wider with more weight in the same plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why the falsehoods repeat is a confession that has yet to be confessed by any other means besides repetition of example.

Over and over again the falsehoods follow personal attacks and I am not the only victim.

That is a shame since I've felt oh so special in the past.

M_Gunz
08-10-2007, 03:57 AM
You've made your point Troll. It's ALL about You.
On the technical side and the flying side you have none, it's all about BS.

I did print LOOKS LIKE. I did not make up your POV at all.
And somehow I had a hunch you'd be playing your Joke game, anything but backing your accusation
re: me printing "falsehoods".

Neural doesn't have to worry about village idiot standing, not at all. There's a line with you
right behind Raaid at the front, or is it you next to Raaid? He's crazier but you try harder.

Now let's see the Mig vs Sabre doghouse compares again.

JG14_Josf
08-10-2007, 05:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You've made your point Troll. It's ALL about You. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

M,

You are able to roll up falsehoods within personal attacks.

I'm asking a question about Energy Bleed. "It" is not "all" about me. That is false.

If you can answer the question then the discussion can move onto another question (about Energy Bleed).

If all you do is continue to respond with falsehoods and insults, then, the question isn't answered by you and Tagert will associate my question asking with your personal attacks and I'll be guilty of your 'playing' by association.

Why not answer the question?

Again:

---------------------------------- g -------- speed ----------rate of decent (Energy Bleed)
P-47 Late ----------------------6---------400 km/h -----------BLANK
P-47 (half weight)----- -------6---------400 km/h -----------also BLANK