PDA

View Full Version : Terminal Velocity?



darksky1986
07-07-2007, 05:36 AM
Does IL2 model terminal velocities of aircraft? It seems to me that whatever you fly, if you point the nose down and use maximum power, you will simply keep accelerating... I'm confused about this as an I-16 is noted as having a terminal velocity of 550kph, yet I can dive to nearly 700 - before this is reached however bits start falling off. So, does terminal velocity mean the maximum speed of an aircraft, or the maximum speed it SHOULD go before endangering the occupant?

Hawgdog
07-07-2007, 05:40 AM
In school it meant the fastest an object can before the affects of wind resistance....oh and dirt interfere http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

darksky1986
07-07-2007, 06:22 AM
I know the scientific meaning is that an object balances out against the air resistance and thus cannot go any faster unpowered, I was just wondering how fast an I-16 should be dive at max power - 550Kmh seems a little...conservative for a heavy yet aerodynamic object powering toward the ground.

M_Gunz
07-07-2007, 07:16 AM
Is that terminal velocity or Vne, velocity not exceed? Try maneuvering like pullout above
that speed other than slow-motion gentle.

Vne is supposed to be good for planes not new, already stressed some. We always have the
new plane in mission or DF. We get the extra margin.

claypidgon
07-07-2007, 09:49 AM
Its what my plane achives just before it hits the ground....

Crash_Moses
07-07-2007, 10:04 AM
As I recall...an object in free fall accelerates at 30 ft. per second/per second until it reaches terminal velocity. I think for the human body this is around 110 m.ph. at which point air resistance/drag equals the pull of Earth's gravity.

So...I'd say fly your aircraft as high as you can...cut the engine and dive...the maximum speed you obtain would be your terminal velocity.

If the plane is especially aerodynamic and disintigrates while still accelerating then well...the point is moot.

darksky1986
07-07-2007, 05:59 PM
Ok, I have some wierd results of that little test, I put an AC-20C into an unpowered dive from 10,000m. It actually hit the water at 1020Kph. Is that even possible? Of course all that remained of it was the fuselage section as the wings and tail came away, but still that is a huge speed for an unpowered hollow tube to reach, and leads me to question the accuracy of the modelling of airspeed/drag in the game. I could of course be wrong but thats what I'm here to find out. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

M_Gunz
07-07-2007, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by darksky1986:
Ok, I have some wierd results of that little test, I put an AC-20C into an unpowered dive from 10,000m. It actually hit the water at 1020Kph. Is that even possible? Of course all that remained of it was the fuselage section as the wings and tail came away, but still that is a huge speed for an unpowered hollow tube to reach, and leads me to question the accuracy of the modelling of airspeed/drag in the game. I could of course be wrong but thats what I'm here to find out. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hollow tube with how heavy engine and all inside? Was the prop gone?

Big problem is compression not fully modeled so you see extreme speeds in extreme situations.

When Gigant floor and suspension were overmodeled in the start of IL2 there were many who
posted again and again Mk 108 and MG-151/20's time and time again ONLY against Gigant floor
to prove what... that the guns were undermodelled.

Why is it that some people fixate on any little hole they can find and try to make it large?

Yes, it counts in massive Boom and Zoom... you can actually go too fast to turn on target
as compression is modeled in control stiffness to some degree.

Crash_Moses
07-07-2007, 07:18 PM
OK...OK...so what we need is a really heavy tube we can drop from 10,000 meters.

Who's with me? Charge!!!!!!!

MrMojok
07-07-2007, 08:45 PM
I've got a really heavy and massive tube, but you lot aren't getting your hands on it.

*cymbal crash*

Thanks, I'll be here all week, folks.

<<dead silence>>

*Tap tap tap* ... is this thing on?

*burst of microphone feedback*

darksky1986
07-08-2007, 07:41 AM
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 darksky1986:
Ok, I have some wierd results of that little test, I put an AC-20C into an unpowered dive from 10,000m. It actually hit the water at 1020Kph. Is that even possible? Of course all that remained of it was the fuselage section as the wings and tail came away, but still that is a huge speed for an unpowered hollow tube to reach, and leads me to question the accuracy of the modelling of airspeed/drag in the game. I could of course be wrong but thats what I'm here to find out. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hollow tube with how heavy engine and all inside? Was the prop gone?

Big problem is compression not fully modeled so you see extreme speeds in extreme situations.

When Gigant floor and suspension were overmodeled in the start of IL2 there were many who
posted again and again Mk 108 and MG-151/20's time and time again ONLY against Gigant floor
to prove what... that the guns were undermodelled.

Why is it that some people fixate on any little hole they can find and try to make it large?

Yes, it counts in massive Boom and Zoom... you can actually go too fast to turn on target
as compression is modeled in control stiffness to some degree. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, in my opinion, the point isn't particularly small as any aircraft in the game can reach speeds of, in some cases, well over 900Kph. I agree to some extent that this doesn't affect overall normal flying, but if these things aren't raised and people are 100% happy with everything nothing gets improved.

P.S
I am in no way interested in getting my hands on your 'tube'. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Crash_Moses
07-08-2007, 08:02 AM
Awww...we was just funnin' ya. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

I just took up the I-16 and did an unpowered dive. It's control surfaces fell off at about 590kph. Then it just glided around.

I guess you'd have to ask the source that gave you the 550kph terminal velocity for more information so you can compare apples to apples.

darksky1986
07-08-2007, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by Crash_Moses:
Awww...we was just funnin' ya. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

I just took up the I-16 and did an unpowered dive. It's control surfaces fell off at about 590kph. Then it just glided around.

I guess you'd have to ask the source that gave you the 550kph terminal velocity for more information so you can compare apples to apples.
Lol I know you were just playing around http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif.
I guess stuff in IL2 just goes faster and faster the more it falls - until it breaks up. The Stuka on the other hand seems to stay within the parameters of real life data in a dive, so I suppose they just concentrated on modelling the ground attack/dive bomber planes and made them behave characteristically. Thx all.

M_Gunz
07-08-2007, 11:51 AM
At 10km alt the speed of sound in std atmosphere is 1078kph but down at sea level it's 1279kph.

Spitfire record was .89 mach and some others made over .8 mach and still able to land.
.8 x 1279 is over 1000.