PDA

View Full Version : Updated E Retention Testing format



AKA_TAGERT
09-03-2007, 05:32 PM
Hey guys!

I had the day off and some time to kill so I thought I would spend a little time and update my E RETENTION testing format. Here is a link to an example of the new format that applied to the N1K2-Ja test..

N1K2-Ja_ZOOM_SUMMARY.pdf (http://geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ZOOM/408/N1K2-Ja/ME_00/N1K2-Ja_ZOOM_SUMMARY.pdf)

I will be updating the other previous E RETENTION tests with this new format over the next week or so.

All in all I added big section that should clear up some of the confusion about my E RETENTION testing.

Here is an example of that new format and info.


NEW E RETENTION FORMAT and INFO:
TABLE OF CONTENTS:

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">1 E RETENTION TESTING
2 DISCLAIMER
3 E RETENTION ANALYSIS EXPLAINED
3.1 CLEARING UP SOME CONFUSION
3.1.1 DISPELLING THE NOTION THAT TE IS ALWAYS CONSTANT
3.1.2 DISPELLING THE NOTION THAT TE IS DEPENDENT ON TIME
3.2 SUMMARY
4 REFERENCES</pre>

1: E RETENTION TESTING:
GRAPHS SECTION.. see link to pdf

2: DISCLAIMER:
All graphs consist of raw DeviceLink data unless otherwise noted as calculated. This analysis consists of two parts:

1. Energy Analysis
2. XY Flight Path Analysis

The actual mass of the in-game aircraft is unknown, therefore the mass value used in the analysis is set to 1kg. To calculate the energy value in joules, simply multiply the value listed in the graph by the mass of the plane (your choice).

The XY Flight Path graph uses the DeviceLink altitude value for the Y distance and a calculated X distance. The X distance is calculated from my calculated TAS and my calculated Velocity Vector Angle (θvva) and time, i.e.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">X = TAS × cos(θvva) × time</pre>

I validate the θvva by using it to calculate the Y distance, i.e.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">Y = TAS × sin(θvva) × time</pre>

Than I compare it to the DeviceLink altitude, which produces a near perfect match. The idea being if my θvv is good enough to reproduce the correct Y distance (aka altitude) than it will produce near perfect X distance. In that the only difference in the two calculations is the use of sine and cosine.

3: E RETENTION ANALYSIS EXPLAINED:
My E RETENTION testing is based on a WWII test that pitted a P51 against a ZERO. The test consisted of two types of tests. A level zoom climb and a dive than zoom climb. I found the later more interesting and therefore chose that method. The real world test did not provide much detail as to the dive and climbing angles, but it did make note of the initial speed and altitude and that the end of the test was determined by an arbitrary IAS of the P51.

There is not a lot of real world data on this type of testing, so don't think you can use these test to say how realistic the flight models are of the in-game planes. Think of these tests as a in-game tool that describes how the in-game planes perform.

As noted in section one my test method begins with each plane starting at the same altitude and airspeed, each plane than dives at the same angle, each plane than starts a constant g pull out at the same altitude, each plane than climbs at the same angle, each plane continues to climb at that angle until it's airspeed slows down to some arbitrary airspeed. This marks the end of the test, at which point the final altitude is recorded.

Using my above methods I plot a graph of the flight path which shows the planes XY position. Over that graph I plot data points at fixed time intervals to show the progression of the plane along the flight path with regards to time. Next I plot a graph showing the Potential Energy (PE), Kinetic Energy (KE) and Total Mechanical Energy (TE) i.e.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">TE = PE + KE
TE = mgH + 1/2m V² </pre>

Where..
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">m = mass
g = gravity
H = Height
V = Velocity</pre>

The calculated energy graph shows how the energy values change over time. Note that the PE, KE, and TE are not dependent on time; this graph simply shows the value of PE, KE, and TE at each point in time. The time it takes for a plane to complete this maneuver is actually one of the outputs of this analysis. Generally speaking, a plane with better E RETENTION than another is going to take longer, time wise, to slow down to 110mph. That is to say it will fly for a longer period of time because it retains energy better.

While on the subject of energy, it is noteworthy to point out that the work done is equal to the change in TE, i.e.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">WORK = ∆TE = ∆PE + ∆KE
WORK = ∆TE = (mgH1 mgH2) + (1/2m V1² 1/2m V2²)</pre>

Where..
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">m = mass
g = gravity
H1 = Initial Height
H2 = Final Height
V1 = Initial Velocity
V2 = Final Velocity</pre>

In the case of an airplane the work being done is predominately due to THRUST and DRAG acting on the airplane.

The physics and math of it all pretty simple, whether someone understanding the physics and math well enough to make use of it is another story. To that end I have provided an example that is based on one of my favorite university college physics books examples; an example that shows the work done by other' forces acting on a body.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">Let Wtotal represent the total work done by ALL FORCES including the gravitational force..

Wtotal = Wgrav + Wother

Since the Wtotal equals the change in kinetic energy we have..

Wother + Wgrav = Wtotal
Wother + Wgrav = ∆K
Wother + Wgrav = K2 - K1
Wother + Wgrav = [(1/2)mV2² - (1/2)mV1²]

Since Wgrav equals the change in potential energy we have..

Wother + Wgrav = [(1/2)mV2² - (1/2)mV1²]
Wother + [-∆P] = [(1/2)mV2² - (1/2)mV1²]
Wother - [∆P] = [(1/2)mV2² - (1/2)mV1²]
Wother - [mgH2 - mgH1] = [(1/2)mV2² - (1/2)mV1²]
Wother = [(1/2)mV2² - (1/2)mV1²] + [mgH2 - mgH1]
Wother = ∆K + ∆P

Therefore..

Wother = ∆TE</pre>

Where..
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">m = mass
g = gravity
H1 = Initial Height
H2 = Final Height
V1 = Initial Velocity
V2 = Final Velocity
∆K = the change in kinetic energy
∆P = the change in potential energy</pre>

NOTE the left side of the equation (Wother) contains only the work done by other' forces (other than gravity) and the terms on the right side depend ONLY on the initial and final SPEED and POSITION.

3.1: CLEARING UP SOME CONFUSION:
There was a lot of confusion surrounding my initial post on E RETENTION testing. Most of which had to do the use of the TE equation. There were several areas of confusion, most of which fell into one of two categories.

<LI>The notion that TE is always constant.
<LI>The notion that TE is depended on time.

Therefore, in an attempt to clear up some of this confusion I took the time to not only explain what it is I am doing, but to provide links that support what it is I am doing. By support I mean show that I am not the only person in this world who uses the TE equation to find the change in TE, and that TE is not dependent on time.

3.1.1: DISPELLING THE NOTION THAT TE IS ALWAYS CONSTANT:
The main confusion surrounding TE appears to stem from a misunderstanding of the Conservation of Energy' principle, i.e.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">CONSERVATION OF ENERGY PRINCIPLE:
Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but it may change form.

That is the short' definition you will find in most introduction to physics' books (read physics 101). At this level they typically only deal with ideal cases. By ideal cases I mean examples of point masses that ignore things such as air resistance, friction, etc. TE remaining a constant is actually a special case (read ideal) where the only force acting on the body is the gravitational force. Under those conditions TE does remain constant and thus conserved.

Unfortunately there are very few ideal cases in the real world!

Which is not a problem in and of itself until someone tries to say TE equation must remain constant in real world scenarios based on the Conservation of Energy' principle.

So does this mean the concept of the conservation of energy is a worthless concept when applied to real world situations?

Hardly!

The conservation of energy is one of the most useful concepts in physics! Knowing that energy can not be created or destroyed in conjunction with the TE equation enables you to calculate the change in mechanical energy due to other' forces acting on the body. By other' forces I mean other than gravity (which PE already accounts for)

As already noted, in my E RETENTION testing the other' forces acting on the body (airplane) is THRUST (positive work) and DRAG (negative work). Note there are other forces acting on the body (airplane) as well, but these two are the two main other' forces acting on the body (airplane) and the two of interest in E RETENTION testing.

The reason TE changes in my E RETENTION testing is because I am NOT ignoring the influence of THRUST and DRAG. As a mater of FACT those are the two main' forces I am looking for in my E RETENTION testing!

Note I just said that TE can change.

This is in direct conflict with what some of the ubi forum members said! Most notably ubi forum member Kettenhunde (aka Crump).

So who should you believe?

Before you decide, allow me to point out that I can provide sources showing that I am not the only one that uses the TE equation to determine the change in TE. Teachers, engineers and scientists alike use the TE equation to calculate the change in TE.

With that in mind, I have provided the following definitions that are comprised of said sources. Each source has a corresponding ID reference number ([#]) that is provided at the end of this document. Should you take the time to look up these sources note that most, if not all of them are direct quotes. I simply combined them into the following definitions and took the liberty to bold points of interest.


TOTAL MECHANICAL ENERGY:
It is usually said that a component of a system has a certain amount of "MECHANICAL ENERGY", whereas "mechanical work" describes the amount of MECHANICAL ENERGY a component has GAINED or LOST.[2].

An object which possesses MECHANICAL ENERGY is able to do work. In fact, MECHANICAL ENERGY is often defined as the ability to do work. Any object which possesses MECHANICAL ENERGY - whether it be in the form of potential energy or kinetic energy - is able to do work. That is, its MECHANICAL ENERGY enables that object to apply a force to another object in order to cause it to be displaced.[3].

Hence, the work done by all forces acting on the body, with the exception of the gravitational force, equals the CHANGE in the TOTAL MECHANICAL ENERGY of the body.[1].

The sum of the kinetic energy, or energy of motion, and the potential energy, or energy stored in a system by reason of the position of its parts. MECHANICAL ENERGY is CONSTANT in a system that has ONLY gravitational forces or in an otherwise IDEALIZED system"that is, one LACKING dissipative forces, such as friction and air resistance,[11].


As you can see, change in TE is actually the norm (read real world), no change in TE is the exception to the rule that only occurs under special cases where dissipative forces are ignored (read in physics 101 classrooms).

Since the confusion of TE appears to stem from a misunderstanding of the conservation of energy principle I have provided a deeper' definition (read beyond physics 101). A definition that highlights the difference between the ideal case and real world.


CONSERVATION OF ENERGY:
IF a system does NOT INTERACT with its environment in any way, THEN certain mechanical properties of the system cannot change. These quantities are said to be "CONSERVED" and the conservation laws which result can be considered to be the most fundamental principles of mechanics.[8].

Energy can be defined as the capacity for doing work. It may exist in a variety of forms and may be transformed from one type of energy to another. However, these energy transformations are constrained by a fundamental principle, the Conservation of Energy principle. One way to state this principle is "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed". Another approach is to say that the total energy of an ISOLATED SYSTEM remains CONSTANT.[8]. The method of energy conservation allows the solution of otherwise difficult problems. [5].

Consider the classic pendulum example..

Using our common sense we know that it's impossible for the pendulum to swing higher than it's initial height without giving it a push.[7]. As it moves, energy is continuously passing back and forth between the two forms. NEGLECTING friction and air resistance, the pendulum's MECHANICAL ENERGY is CONSTANT.[12]

IF one (unrealistically) assumes that there is no friction, the conversion of energy between these processes is perfect, and the pendulum will continue swinging forever.[9].


At this point it should be clear that the TE equation will remain CONSTANT only when there are no other forces acting on the body, aka an isolated system. On that note, here is my definition of an isolated system.


ISOLATED SYSTEM:
An isolated system implies a collection of matter which does not interact with the rest of the universe at all - and as far as we know THERE ARE REALLY NO SUCH SYSTEMS. There is no shield against gravity, and the electromagnetic force is infinite in range. But in order to focus on BASIC PRINCIPLES, it is useful to POSTULATE such a system to clarify the nature of physical laws (aka teach). In particular, the conservation laws can be PRESUMED to be exact when referring to an isolated system:[8].


All of which brings us to my definition of the work-energy principle, which is where the TE equation is used to find changes in the total mechanical energy, which in turn is equal to the work done.


WORK-ENERGY PRINCIPLE:
The work-energy principle states that the work done by EXTERNAL FORCES is capable of CHANGING THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF MECHANICAL ENERGY from an initial value to some final value. The amount of work done by the EXTERNAL FORCES upon the object is equal to the AMOUNT OF CHANGE in the TOTAL MECHANICAL ENERGY of the object.[6].

There is a relationship between work and MECHANICAL ENERGY CHANGE. Whenever work is done upon an object by an EXTERNAL FORCE, there WILL BE a CHANGE in the TOTAL MECHANICAL ENERGY of the object.[4].

The tendency of an object to CONSERVE its MECHANICAL ENERGY is observed whenever EXTERNAL FORCES are NOT doing work. IF the influence of friction and air resistance can be ignored (or assumed to be negligible) and all other [/b]EXTERNAL FORCES[/b] are absent or merely not doing work, then the object is often said to CONSERVE its energy.[4].


At this point it should be clear to all that anyone who claims TE is always CONSTANT based on the conservation of energy principle does not understand the TE equation let alone the conservation of energy principle let alone the physics behind it.

3.1.2: DISPELLING THE NOTION THAT TE IS DEPENDENT ON TIME:
This one was actually harder to provide support for, in that it is hard to find a teacher, engineer, or scientists who feels the need to state the obvious. That being there is no time variable in the TE equation. All one simply has to do is look at the TE equation to see that it is only dependent on mass, gravity, velocity, and position. But in this PC world today where we need labels on the side of a glue bottle to telling people NOT to ingest it and NOT to put it in their eyes it is not surprising.

Typically such people realize their limitations and therefore don't comment on such maters. But some of the ubi forum members like M_Gunz do exactly that.

So keep in mind that the following definition does NOT explicitly state that TE is NOT dependent on time, nor does it state that TE is not dependent on, hair color, day of the week, or how many dimes you have in your pocket. In that the list of all the things that TE is not dependent on is endless.


MECHANICAL ENERGY:
Mechanical energy is the energy which is possessed by an object due to its MOTION or due to its POSITION.[3].

Mechanical energy is the energy which is possessed by an object due to its MOTION or its stored energy of POSITION.[10]

The sum of the kinetic energy, or energy of MOTION, and the potential energy, or energy stored in a system by reason of the POSITION of its parts.[11].


At this point it should be clear to all that anyone who claims TE is depended on time does not understand the TE equation, let alone algebra, let alone the physics behind it.

3.2: SUMMARY:
Note this dissertation is not meant to imply everyone has to understand physics to make it in this world! A lot of people are very successful and lead fulfilling lives and don't know the first thing about physics! Nor is this dissertation meant to imply that I am a physics major/expert incapable of making a mistake! All I am pointing out is that I do have a BS degree in engineering that consisted of many physics classes. So I do, or at least did, know something about the subject. All in all I am simply pointing out that there are some people who think they are physics majors/experts. Who go around telling others that the TE equation is dependent on time and that TE is always a constant. As I have shown in this dissertation such people would be well served to pick up a physics book and review it before making such clearly inaccurate statements. Which leads me to a rather off topic question.

Where do these so called physics majors/experts come from?

I am not sure, but I have a theory. In my 45+ years on this planet I have run across these types of people in all walks of life, not just physics mind you, but all walks of life! From those encounters I have noticed a pattern. The pattern being, those types of people tend to be what I call, half educated'.

What do I mean by half educated'?

I mean someone that has the equivalent of a junior collage AA/AS degree.

There are several ways to obtain the equivalent of an AA/AS degree. The most obvious one being you take the required collage courses for an AA/AS degree. Another ways is to teach yourself all the things that equate to an AA/AS degree. Another way is to obtain the equivalent of a BS or higher degree, and over time forget enough of what you learned that you are now on par with an AA/AS degree. I personally can attest to that in many aspects of my degree, in that I have forgotten more math than most people learn!

Unfortunately a lot of people's education stops at the AS/AS degree level, and the problem with an AA/AS degree point is they have learned enough to be dangerous.

What do I mean by dangerous?

I mean they have learned a lot, and start to get a little full of themselves and mistakenly think they know it all!

Up to the point of an AA/AS degree At the AA/AS level they have been taught about all the great things man and done and discovered. They have been exposed to things like beginning calculus or introduction to physics. Where most of the lessons/teaching are that of the ideal cases'. Things like perfectly elastic collisions, no air resistance, no thermal transfers, etc. Basically exposed to all the 100/200 level classes where they know enough about algebra and physics to be able to plug some numbers into an equation and get a number/result. Problem is a lot of them don't fully understand what the number/result is trying to tell them; or worse yet not realize they don't understand, but at least they can get a number/result.

It is not until the upper level classes (300/400) that math and physics come together and start to get interesting. At which point physics starts to deal with the real world conditions with earnest. It is at this point people start to realize they don't know it all and most likely never will! In that there is so much mankind has not done and not discovered.

At which point most people obtain a little humility in the realization that they know very little about how the world really works. These kinds of people tend to be the types that will listen to and consider someone else's point of view before replying. Where as the half educated' typically wont even wait for someone to finish what it is they are saying before chiming in with their opinion' of how it works.

Case in point, the following is what I consider to be the classic example of half educated'..

Here is a response from ubi forum member named Kettenhunde (aka Crump) with regards to my E retention testing.


Orginally posted by Kettenhunde: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/8521039185/p/9 :
It is very clear Tagert you have no clue how to use Total Energy concepts to predict aircraft performance.

http://img179.imagevenue.com/loc575/th_07270_Conservation_of_TE_122_575lo.JPG

TE energy cannot change IAW the law of conservation of energy. It is not only a fundamental concept of physics, it is a limitation of the formulation for predicting aircraft performance.

http://img105.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=07512_TE_changes_122_1017lo.JPG

Simplly put, you have worked very hard on a mishmash of confused concepts that has little bearing on actual aircraft performance predictions.

There are other limitations and rules of usage with Total Energy concept formulas. I suggest you take a formal class as your internet education will only lead you to more confusion with this method.

Later in that same thread Crump posts a reply to another ubi member containing some picture that he mistakenly thinks supports his claimes that TE is allways a constant


Orginally posted by Kettenhunde: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/8521039185/p/9 :
http://www.image-upload.net/files/7878/Conservation%20of%20TE.JPG
http://www.image-upload.net/files/7878/Total%20energy%202.JPG
http://www.image-upload.net/files/7878/TE%20changes%20for%20Josf.JPG

As I said, this is a classic example of the 'half educated'. Someone that is able to memorize and later regurgitate a physics equation and even plug some numbers into it to get a result. But actually has no idea how to apply that equation or result to the real world.

4: REFERENCES:
[1] UNIVERSITY PHYSICS 7th edition ISBN 0-201-06681-5
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_energy
[3] http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/class/energy/u5l1d.html
[4] http://www2.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/energy/u5l2bb.html
[5] http://lectureonline.cl.msu.edu/~mmp/kap5/cd125.htm (http://lectureonline.cl.msu.edu/%7Emmp/kap5/cd125.htm)
[6] http://www2.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/mmedia/energy/ce.html
[7] http://library.thinkquest.org/2745/data/lawce1.htm
[8] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/conser.html
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy#Energy_transfer
[10] http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/energy/u5l1d.html
[11] http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9051701/mechanical-energy
[12] http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9371706
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Enjoy!

Monterey13
09-03-2007, 05:37 PM
Lol, you got waaaay too much time on your hands, bro.

Oh well, someones' gotta do it.

S!

AKA_TAGERT
09-03-2007, 05:37 PM
Enh only took a couple of hours to put tother..

Kettenhunde
09-03-2007, 08:55 PM
Wow you have some issues! Talk to someone, Tagert. Someone with a comfortable couch and degrees hanging on the wall.

You will be much happier in life I think.


The reason TE changes in my E RETENTION testing is because I am NOT ignoring the influence of THRUST and DRAG.

This is where it becomes obvious your internet education has failed you.

Using TE concepts to determine aircraft performance requires we factor in the effects of thrust and drag. They are accounted for when we determine our Specific Excess Power or Ps.

Factoring thrust and drag as part of our Specific Energy simply destroys the comparision. Our aircraft are not at the same condition of flight.

Having trouble putting all this together huh? That is because your confusing concepts.

Keep surfin, dude!!!

Forest for the trees....

The key sentence in my post is:


it is a limitation of the formulation for predicting aircraft performance.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/852...751061485#4751061485 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/8521039185?r=4751061485#4751061485)

All the best,

Crumpp

VW-IceFire
09-03-2007, 09:10 PM
Everyone has different hobbies. Tagert seems to have a very interesting one...one that not everyone can do (I can't...brain would explode) but its great data for all of us who are willing to try and understand. Couple of hours on this...versus someone else spending a couple of hours watching sitcoms on TV...this is more productive.

fordfan25
09-03-2007, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Wow you have some issues! Talk to someone, Tagert. Someone with a comfortable couch and degrees hanging on the wall.

You will be much happier in life I think.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The reason TE changes in my E RETENTION testing is because I am NOT ignoring the influence of THRUST and DRAG.

This is where it becomes obvious your internet education has failed you.

Using TE concepts to determine aircraft performance requires we factor in the effects of thrust and drag. They are accounted for when we determine our Specific Excess Power or Ps.

Factoring thrust and drag as part of our Specific Energy simply destroys the comparision. Our aircraft are not at the same condition of flight.

Having trouble putting all this together huh? That is because your confusing concepts.

Keep surfin, dude!!!

Forest for the trees....

The key sentence in my post is:


it is a limitation of the formulation for predicting aircraft performance.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/852...751061485#4751061485 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/8521039185?r=4751061485#4751061485)

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>you know i had some things to say about your post but i find i just cant bring my self to defend tagert. It would never wash off lol :P j/k tag

Kettenhunde
09-03-2007, 10:42 PM
Feel free, Fordfan.

By all means, bring your defense to light!

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


it is a limitation of the formulation for predicting aircraft performance.

Equally amusing is Tagert's dissertation on mass. Talk about the blind leading the blind.

http://img165.imagevenue.com/loc749/th_83262_Tagerts_Mass_confusion_122_749lo.JPG (http://img165.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=83262_Tagerts_Mass_confusion_122_749 lo.JPG)

TE concepts were developed for predicting fighter aircraft performance. They did not know the mass of the enemy aircraft either when the formulation was developed. The methodology normalizes the mass by it's nature.

If you know some specific data taken under some simple but specific conditions then you do not need to know the mass of the aircraft to predict the performance under any condition of flight!

You can even use it to solve for the mass of the aircraft!


I had the day off and some time to kill

Probably should have spent it refilling that box of clues.

You sure don't have any when it comes to TE Concepts for Aircraft Performance.


All the best,

Crumpp

BoCfuss
09-04-2007, 12:13 AM
Tagert obviously bothers you, and you seem to think you are better then him. Why then do you even bother to post in HIS threads? I don't get it?

M_Gunz
09-04-2007, 07:27 AM
What a shame that when Crumpp wrote about using TE to PREDICT AC performance the answer is
that TE does change and nothing about the PREDICT PERFORMANCE part. If you want to use the
formula to say the result is right then TE must be completely accounted for. You did seem
to have some idea about your results that ending heights is all that matters as comparison
and no it doesn't cover it.

In the real world test both planes got the same amount of time.

Input, output, the final speed used in the one size fits all test benefits lighter wingloaded
or slotted wing planes with high power to weight ratio. End speed should be much higher,
above best sustained climb speeds to have a fair look.

HOW the test is done and HOW the planes each fly the course qualifies the end result data.
So try not to be so amazed when the 109K does so well at just what it should!

Kettenhunde
09-04-2007, 03:24 PM
Pooor Nancy.....

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

zardozid
09-04-2007, 05:01 PM
N1K2-Ja_ZOOM_SUMMARY.pdf

I will be updating the other previous E RETENTION tests with this new format over the next week or so.

All in all I added big section that should clear up some of the confusion about my E RETENTION testing.

Here is an example of that new format and info.


Thanks looking forward to the up-dated charts...


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

JG14_Josf
09-04-2007, 05:15 PM
Thanks looking forward to the up-dated charts...

ditto

Viper2005_
09-04-2007, 05:17 PM
I just don't understand why we can't make objective measurements of SEP as a function of speed and altitude, thereby avoiding all the emotive issues of "my plane climbs better than yours" and similar...

At the end of the day, all you really need to describe the performance of WWII fighters is:

1) SEP as a function of Q, altitude and Mach number. In IL2 you can forget the Mach number bit.

2) Roll rate as a function of TAS

3) Stick force per g (assuming constant pilot strength) and structural g capability.

Given this data you could make a pretty objective comparison of whose fighter will win an energy fight or a T&B fight.

All that remains is firepower & marksmanship.

In a perfect world, such an analysis would be devoid of emotion. Probably too much to ask, but at least IMO a rational attempt to construct comprehensive performance maps would remove the risk that those who dislike the results would cry bias and let slip the dogs of war...

Kettenhunde
09-04-2007, 05:41 PM
At the end of the day, all you really need to describe the performance of WWII fighters is:

IMHO Tagert has all the tools to make some pretty accurate performance predictions.

If I understand the device-link and autopilot program, he could very accurately gather in-game data on the FM's provided he flew the correct although very simple flight profiles.

This "flight testing" would take about 2 minutes per aircraft.

Correctly using TE concepts for aircraft performance would then yield data on the FM's in a format that could easily be compared with their RL counterpart.

The mass of the aircraft in the game could be compared with the actual mass of the design as well.

What he has now is simply not useful for any kind of performance comparision. It's a lot of effort for nothing.

I actually PM'd him and offered to help him get it straight.

All the best,

Crumpp

AKA_TAGERT
09-04-2007, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Wow you have some issues! Talk to someone, Tagert. Someone with a comfortable couch and degrees hanging on the wall.

You will be much happier in life I think.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The reason TE changes in my E RETENTION testing is because I am NOT ignoring the influence of THRUST and DRAG.

This is where it becomes obvious your internet education has failed you.

Using TE concepts to determine aircraft performance requires we factor in the effects of thrust and drag. They are accounted for when we determine our Specific Excess Power or Ps.

Factoring thrust and drag as part of our Specific Energy simply destroys the comparision. Our aircraft are not at the same condition of flight.

Having trouble putting all this together huh? That is because your confusing concepts.

Keep surfin, dude!!!

Forest for the trees....

The key sentence in my post is:


it is a limitation of the formulation for predicting aircraft performance.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/852...751061485#4751061485 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/8521039185?r=4751061485#4751061485)

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>How sad..

You still beilve TE must reamin constant..

And here I thought for sure pointing out that work is equal to the change in TE would help you realise your mistake.

Oh well, can't say I didn't try!

AKA_TAGERT
09-04-2007, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
What a shame that when Crumpp wrote about using TE to PREDICT AC performance the answer is
that TE does change and nothing about the PREDICT PERFORMANCE part. If you want to use the
formula to say the result is right then TE must be completely accounted for. You did seem
to have some idea about your results that ending heights is all that matters as comparison
and no it doesn't cover it.

In the real world test both planes got the same amount of time.

Input, output, the final speed used in the one size fits all test benefits lighter wingloaded
or slotted wing planes with high power to weight ratio. End speed should be much higher,
above best sustained climb speeds to have a fair look.

HOW the test is done and HOW the planes each fly the course qualifies the end result data.
So try not to be so amazed when the 109K does so well at just what it should! How sad..

You still belive TE is based on time..

And here I thoguht for sure pointing out that TE has no time variable would help you realise your mistake.

Oh well, can't say I didn't try!

Kettenhunde
09-04-2007, 09:51 PM
You still beilve TE must reamin constant..

I know it is a principle of using TE concepts to predict aircraft performance.

Are you trying to do something else here besides predict aircraft performance?

If you had more than an internet education in aerodynamics and aircraft performance you would know it too.

I have offered to show you how to do it and help you out.

What have you got to lose? Scared of the truth?

All the best,

Crumpp

AKA_TAGERT
09-04-2007, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You still belive TE must remain constant..

I know it is a principle of using TE concepts to predict aircraft performance.

Are you trying to do something else here besides predict aircraft performance?

If you had more than an internet education in aerodynamics and aircraft performance you would know it too.

I have offered to show you how to do it and help you out.

What have you got to lose? Scared of the truth?

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>How sad..

You still belive TE must remain constant..

And here I thought for sure pointing out that work is equal to the change in TE would help you realize your mistake..

So.. if not thrust and drag..

What do you think is causing the change in TE?

Freelancer-1
09-04-2007, 10:19 PM
ROFL!!

Come back after a month and I find the 'League of Extraordinary Intellect' are still at it.

Like sands through the hourglass, so are the days of this topic.

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

heywooood
09-04-2007, 10:24 PM
aw dude - Tagert charted again?...open a window!

Kettenhunde
09-04-2007, 10:48 PM
What do you think is causing the change in TE?

Poor Nancy....

I have already explained this once to you.

You intentionally hold TE constant. Why? Because aircraft performance comparision's are only good under the same condition of flight.

It is the yardstick that we use to measure our performance differences!

It is then normalized for weight so that we estabilish that yardstick with which to measure to our aircraft performance.

We then figure our specific excess power or the rate at which we can change that energy state for each aircraft under that condition of flight.

We then use that rate of change to predict all kinds of performance parameters. We can figure such things as sustatined climb, best angle of climb, best rate of climb, level aceleration, or zoom climb to any airspeed.

All from some very simple flight test under some known conditions.

We can even use data from the flight test to determine our mass!

All the best,

Crumpp

AKA_TAGERT
09-04-2007, 11:15 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What do you think is causing the change in TE?

Poor Nancy....

I have already explained this once to you.

You intentionally hold TE constant. Why? Because aircraft performance comparision's are only good under the same condition of flight.

It is the yardstick that we use to measure our performance differences!

It is then normalized for weight so that we estabilish that yardstick with which to measure to our aircraft performance.

We then figure our specific excess power or the rate at which we can change that energy state for each aircraft under that condition of flight.

We then use that rate of change to predict all kinds of performance parameters. We can figure such things as sustatined climb, best angle of climb, best rate of climb, level aceleration, or zoom climb to any airspeed.

All from some very simple flight test under some known conditions.

We can even use data from the flight test to determine our mass!

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>How sad..

You still belive TE must remain constant..

And here I thought for sure pointing out that work is equal to the change in TE would help you realize your mistake..

Lets see if we can determine at what point your education breaks down..

Do you belive the amount of work done is equal to the change in TE?

YES or NO?

Before you answer..

I urge you to review the definition of the 'WORK-ENERGY' theorem.

DuxCorvan
09-05-2007, 01:01 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Everyone has different hobbies. Tagert seems to have a very interesting one...one that not everyone can do (I can't...brain would explode) but its great data for all of us who are willing to try and understand.

C'mon, that's just the bait to lure tech roosters to his rooster fight ring. We all know what's Tag's hobby:



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 random unsuspecting sparring:
Mmmm, blah blah blah...

OH RLY? dooo do ba dooo? Poor Nancy!


What da yudu yudu yudu, ignorant ble ble ble.

HA! blah blah blah and it's YOU! AIR! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif


Blu blu blu inertia, dadada compression, where TX=4,56 and yadda yadda.

WHAT! Groovie doobie takatakataka X-J=64, mmmmm, mmmm? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


Blah Blah. KAKA!

How sad... diddy diddy blah blah, PUM! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

BaldieJr
09-05-2007, 01:15 AM
oh dux. ya posted the secret formula. you done did it now!

Niipzu
09-05-2007, 01:40 AM
Hey this is nice one Tagert.

Thanks for clarifying things up, i think this sums up pretty nicely what you are doing.

You're right that your energy testing actually doesnt need time variables since it's not complete performance analyses. (No reason to argue here about constant time/path testing since it's not what your doing!)

Keep it going, Npz.

Kettenhunde
09-05-2007, 04:46 AM
it's not complete performance analyses.

That's an understatement.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
09-05-2007, 05:07 AM
I urge you to review the definition of the 'WORK-ENERGY' theorem.

Once again it and I will spell it out plainly.

Using TE concepts to predict aircraft performance requires a level playing field in order to compare aircraft under the same condition of flight.

It does no good to compare aircraft that are not at same energy state. I think most people will recognize that one with the higher energy will have an advantage.


Poor Nancy....

I have already explained this once to you.

You intentionally hold TE constant. Why? Because aircraft performance comparison's are only good under the same condition of flight.

It is the yardstick that we use to measure our performance differences!

It is then normalized for weight so that we establish that yardstick with which to measure to our aircraft performance.

We then figure our specific excess power or the rate at which we can change that energy state for each aircraft under that condition of flight.

We then use that rate of change to predict all kinds of performance parameters. We can figure such things as sustained climb, best angle of climb, best rate of climb, level acceleration, or zoom climb to any airspeed.

All from some very simple flight test under some known conditions.

We can even use data from the flight test to determine our mass!

All the best,

Crumpp

You have devoted a considerable amount of time constructing what are nonsensical charts.

They only thing they show is the zoom under a single condition of flight collected in such a manner as to offer no value for comparison to other aircraft.

Good Luck with that!

All the best,

Crumpp

AKA_TAGERT
09-05-2007, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I urge you to review the definition of the 'WORK-ENERGY' theorem.

Once again it and I will spell it out plainly.

Using TE concepts to predict aircraft performance requires a level playing field in order to compare aircraft under the same condition of flight.

It does no good to compare aircraft that are not at same energy state. I think most people will recognize that one with the higher energy will have an advantage.


Poor Nancy....

I have already explained this once to you.

You intentionally hold TE constant. Why? Because aircraft performance comparison's are only good under the same condition of flight.

It is the yardstick that we use to measure our performance differences!

It is then normalized for weight so that we establish that yardstick with which to measure to our aircraft performance.

We then figure our specific excess power or the rate at which we can change that energy state for each aircraft under that condition of flight.

We then use that rate of change to predict all kinds of performance parameters. We can figure such things as sustained climb, best angle of climb, best rate of climb, level acceleration, or zoom climb to any airspeed.

All from some very simple flight test under some known conditions.

We can even use data from the flight test to determine our mass!

All the best,

Crumpp

You have devoted a considerable amount of time constructing what are nonsensical charts.

They only thing they show is the zoom under a single condition of flight collected in such a manner as to offer no value for comparison to other aircraft.

Good Luck with that!

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>How sad..
Still no answer to my question..

Maybe you avoided it the 1st time I asked it?

Maybe you just missed it the 1st time I asked it?

Either way Ill ask it a 2nd time..

Do you belive the amount of work done is equal to the change in TE?

YES or NO?

AKA_TAGERT
09-05-2007, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by Niipzu:
Hey this is nice one Tagert.
Thanks!


Originally posted by Niipzu:
Thanks for clarifying things up, i think this sums up pretty nicely what you are doing.
Total Mechanical Energy from the get go..


Originally posted by Niipzu:
You're right that your energy testing actually doesn't need time variables since
Please tell M_Gunz for me! He is still struggling with that fact.

As for the test method, I can not take credit for it! It is based off the WWII P51 vs ZERO ZOOM test. As for the calculation of the change in the Total Mechanical Energy, that is just simply physics.. Well for some, Crump is still struggling with that one.


Originally posted by Niipzu:
it's not complete performance analyses. (No reason to argue here about constant time/path testing since it's not what your doing!)
As complete as one can make it IMHO! In that using LesniHU's auto pilot util is about as close as you can get to ensuring the same flight path is being flown.

As for the time/path thing, the nice thing about energy methods! You don't have to know the path to calculate TE, let alone the change in TE (aka work done). But from the XY Flight Path we can tell just how fare the test was, in that we can see how well the paths overlay each other. Which is why developed the method to calculate the X distance, so I can show how well the paths overlay each other. Some are nearly perfect, others are not.. Thus a little common sense needs to be applied for the ones that don't overlay well.

For example, the N1K2-Ja auto combat flaps did affect this test.. Causing it to pull out quicker than most other planes.. but it also paid the price in bleeding off some energy in the process.

So all in all, nothing is perfect in the real world.. No mater how many times Crump says TE should remain constant in the real world! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I just hope some see these tests as being better than no tests at all.. Which they are IMHO as they are willing to use a little common since.

But, if you or anyone can fly it better, simply send me your track file and Ill replace mine with yours.


Originally posted by Niipzu:
Keep it going, Npz.
Will do.

On that note, I have the new format for the SEPARATION testing

P-47D-10_VS_N1K2-Ja.pdf (http://geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/SEPERATION/408/P-47D-10_VS_N1K2-Ja/ME_00/SEPERATION_P-47D-10_VS_N1K2-Ja.pdf)

Enjoy!

M_Gunz
09-06-2007, 04:13 PM
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 Kettenhunde:
Using TE concepts to predict aircraft performance requires a level playing field in order to compare aircraft under the same condition of flight.

They only thing they show is the zoom under a single condition of flight collected in such a manner as to offer no value for comparison to other aircraft.

How sad.. You still belive TE must remain constant..

And here I thought for sure pointing out that work is equal to the change in TE would help you realize your mistake..

I also noticed you didn't answer my question..

Maybe you avoided it?

Maybe you just missed it?

Either way Ill ask it a 2nd time..

Do you belive the amount of work done is equal to the change in TE?

YES or NO? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you were 10% of what you pretend to be then you would see what he has made clear and yet
you get stuck on the first thing he made clear.
If you could get past the first sentence,.. maybe you'd have a chance.

Let's try again, instead of:
How sad.. You still belive TE must remain constant..
try:
oh, so if TE does not remain constantly accounted for then comparing TE from one plane to another is no good?

ALL you have to do is read the WHOLE SENTENCE without discarding what you so obviously don't
understand. Because then you'd know it DOESN'T say TE has to remain constant ALL the time.

Do you belive the amount of work done is equal to the change in TE?

Are you going to compare relative changes in energies from start to end, plane to plane?
You WILL be factoring the masses in, some of those planes are twice the weight of others
and same speed and alt, the heavier one has loads more energy. For a heavier one to rise
up less can still have more energy than a lighter one higher up and just as fast.

Are you counting DRAG as work? Of course, and thrust all mixed in because as YOU say, it's
the OUTPUTS that matter. I really don't think that the ends justifies the means, unlike you.

Are you counting 70 seconds flight for one plane but 110 seconds for another?
Oh yeah, it must be right because YOU made it a Test Condition so that makes it Right.
And YOU patterned this after a historic test where oh yeah, data ended for both planes
at once.

And you are the fully educated one with those all-important 3rd and 4th year classes in
aerodynamics?

M_Gunz
09-06-2007, 04:46 PM
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:
What a shame that when Crumpp wrote about using TE to PREDICT AC performance the answer is
that TE does change and nothing about the PREDICT PERFORMANCE part. If you want to use the
formula to say the result is right then TE must be completely accounted for. You did seem
to have some idea about your results that ending heights is all that matters as comparison
and no it doesn't cover it.

In the real world test both planes got the same amount of time.

Input, output, the final speed used in the one size fits all test benefits lighter wingloaded
or slotted wing planes with high power to weight ratio. End speed should be much higher,
above best sustained climb speeds to have a fair look.

HOW the test is done and HOW the planes each fly the course qualifies the end result data.
So try not to be so amazed when the 109K does so well at just what it should! How sad..

You still belive TE is based on time.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you ****. I believe that the plane that flew longer had more engine input and should fly
higher.

And the HISTORIC TEST you keep saying you're patterning after cut data for both planes at once.

It's very simple that you are making your own rules and trying to call the results valid.


And here I thoguht for sure pointing out that TE has no time variable would help you realise your mistake.

Oh well, can't say I didn't try!

It's not MY mistake -- it's YOURS oh Greenbelt of The Obvious! Try figuring out what I wrote
instead of making out like I wrote something else.

You only try to blow off the points you don't address by coming off with your screwed up half
fast on a half sentence characterizations of what you want to argue rather than what I said.

It's your test and they're your results but really they don't mean much. You've factored out
mass, you have Specific Energy, and I posted before the section where Robert Shaw shows that
in reality it is Specific Excess Power that works out true. Under the one way, equal planes
with only different masses zoom the same while using SEP the lighter one correctly zooms
higher and longer to the same cutoff speed. And I don't see you doing Jack with SEP there.

So if the 109K does so well then NO SURPRISE NANCY! It's because of YOUR test method which
favors some planes and penalizes others.

AKA_TAGERT
09-06-2007, 09:07 PM
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:
What a shame that when Crumpp wrote about using TE to PREDICT AC performance the answer is
that TE does change and nothing about the PREDICT PERFORMANCE part. If you want to use the
formula to say the result is right then TE must be completely accounted for. You did seem
to have some idea about your results that ending heights is all that matters as comparison
and no it doesn't cover it.

In the real world test both planes got the same amount of time.

Input, output, the final speed used in the one size fits all test benefits lighter wingloaded
or slotted wing planes with high power to weight ratio. End speed should be much higher,
above best sustained climb speeds to have a fair look.

HOW the test is done and HOW the planes each fly the course qualifies the end result data.
So try not to be so amazed when the 109K does so well at just what it should! How sad..

You still belive TE is based on time.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you ****. I believe that the plane that flew longer had more engine input and should fly
higher.

And the HISTORIC TEST you keep saying you're patterning after cut data for both planes at once.

It's very simple that you are making your own rules and trying to call the results valid.


And here I thoguht for sure pointing out that TE has no time variable would help you realise your mistake.

Oh well, can't say I didn't try!

It's not MY mistake -- it's YOURS oh Greenbelt of The Obvious! Try figuring out what I wrote
instead of making out like I wrote something else.

You only try to blow off the points you don't address by coming off with your screwed up half
fast on a half sentence characterizations of what you want to argue rather than what I said.

It's your test and they're your results but really they don't mean much. You've factored out
mass, you have Specific Energy, and I posted before the section where Robert Shaw shows that
in reality it is Specific Excess Power that works out true. Under the one way, equal planes
with only different masses zoom the same while using SEP the lighter one correctly zooms
higher and longer to the same cutoff speed. And I don't see you doing Jack with SEP there.

So if the 109K does so well then NO SURPRISE NANCY! It's because of YOUR test method which
favors some planes and penalizes others. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>How sad..

You still belive TE is based on time..

And here I thought for sure pointing out that TE has no time variable would help you realize your mistake.

Even after Niipzu pointed out your mistake..

No big surprise..

What with your inability to admit you ever made a mistake..

Thus keep stating the obvious..

That some planes will fly longer than others..

As if you figured out something new..

Even though the test method/criteria points out that it is expected that some planes will fly longer than others..

And that the difference in the time it takes for the speed to reduce to 110mph one of the results/outputs of the test.

AKA_TAGERT
09-06-2007, 09:08 PM
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 Kettenhunde:
Using TE concepts to predict aircraft performance requires a level playing field in order to compare aircraft under the same condition of flight.

They only thing they show is the zoom under a single condition of flight collected in such a manner as to offer no value for comparison to other aircraft.

How sad.. You still belive TE must remain constant..

And here I thought for sure pointing out that work is equal to the change in TE would help you realize your mistake..

I also noticed you didn't answer my question..

Maybe you avoided it?

Maybe you just missed it?

Either way Ill ask it a 2nd time..

Do you belive the amount of work done is equal to the change in TE?

YES or NO? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you were 10% of what you pretend to be then you would see what he has made clear and yet
you get stuck on the first thing he made clear.
If you could get past the first sentence,.. maybe you'd have a chance.

Let's try again, instead of:
How sad.. You still belive TE must remain constant..
try:
oh, so if TE does not remain constantly accounted for then comparing TE from one plane to another is no good?

ALL you have to do is read the WHOLE SENTENCE without discarding what you so obviously don't
understand. Because then you'd know it DOESN'T say TE has to remain constant ALL the time.

Do you belive the amount of work done is equal to the change in TE?

Are you going to compare relative changes in energies from start to end, plane to plane?
You WILL be factoring the masses in, some of those planes are twice the weight of others
and same speed and alt, the heavier one has loads more energy. For a heavier one to rise
up less can still have more energy than a lighter one higher up and just as fast.

Are you counting DRAG as work? Of course, and thrust all mixed in because as YOU say, it's
the OUTPUTS that matter. I really don't think that the ends justifies the means, unlike you.

Are you counting 70 seconds flight for one plane but 110 seconds for another?
Oh yeah, it must be right because YOU made it a Test Condition so that makes it Right.
And YOU patterned this after a historic test where oh yeah, data ended for both planes
at once.

And you are the fully educated one with those all-important 3rd and 4th year classes in
aerodynamics? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Wrong.. try again.

AKA_TAGERT
09-06-2007, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I urge you to review the definition of the 'WORK-ENERGY' theorem.

Once again it and I will spell it out plainly.

Using TE concepts to predict aircraft performance requires a level playing field in order to compare aircraft under the same condition of flight.

It does no good to compare aircraft that are not at same energy state. I think most people will recognize that one with the higher energy will have an advantage.


Poor Nancy....

I have already explained this once to you.

You intentionally hold TE constant. Why? Because aircraft performance comparison's are only good under the same condition of flight.

It is the yardstick that we use to measure our performance differences!

It is then normalized for weight so that we establish that yardstick with which to measure to our aircraft performance.

We then figure our specific excess power or the rate at which we can change that energy state for each aircraft under that condition of flight.

We then use that rate of change to predict all kinds of performance parameters. We can figure such things as sustained climb, best angle of climb, best rate of climb, level acceleration, or zoom climb to any airspeed.

All from some very simple flight test under some known conditions.

We can even use data from the flight test to determine our mass!

All the best,

Crumpp

You have devoted a considerable amount of time constructing what are nonsensical charts.

They only thing they show is the zoom under a single condition of flight collected in such a manner as to offer no value for comparison to other aircraft.

Good Luck with that!

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Still no answer to my question..

Maybe you avoided it the 1st and 2nd time I asked it?

Maybe you just missed it the 1st and 2nd time I asked it?

Either way Ill ask it a 3nd time..

Do you belive the amount of work done is equal to the change in TE?

YES or NO?

Kettenhunde
09-06-2007, 09:59 PM
Tagert,

I tried to explain to you were your mistake is being made. I have even offered to help you out and correct it.

If you are using TE concepts to predict aircraft performance, you have to keep TE constant.

TE is then normalized for weight to get our Energy Height. If we don't keep TE constant, then our Energy Hieght will not be correct when we normalize for weight.

Understand that very simple concept???

Holding our TE constant ensures that our Energy Height is the same for all aircraft no matter what the size or weight. The Energy Height is our condition of flight that we want to compare the aircraft's performance.

We then figure our Specific Excess power which factors in our thrust and drag differences.

The Specific excess power is used to determine our rate of change the aircraft is capable of at that Energy Height.

Because you do not understand how to use the formulas to perdict aircraft performance, you have confused concepts and are using formulas incorrectly.

You have created a Frankenstien of confused concepts in a thrown together a conglomeration of nonsense.

Simply put you are working very hard to record in detail one aircrafts performance in isolation. There is no valid basis to be able make any performance comparision with another aircraft nor is their any ability to predict performance of that same aircraft under other conditions of flight.

That is the ability correctly using the formulation provides. If correctly used then you can not only compare one aircrafts performance to anothers, but you can use the information to predict a wealth of information about the performance and the design.

Because the raw data to calculate TE Concepts for predicting aircraft performance is gathered in the game it would be useful for comparision with Real World data gather or converted to the same atmospheric model.

Used in conjunction with the recticlinear motion equations, TE concepts, and RL data I think a reasonably accurate picture of relative performance could be constructed.

However, it is obvious that any further communication with you is just not productive.

So have fun making your charts and good luck with your testing!

All the best,

Crumpp

AKA_TAGERT
09-06-2007, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Tagert,

I tried to explain to you were your mistake is being made. I have even offered to help you out and correct it.

If you are using TE concepts to predict aircraft performance, you have to keep TE constant.

TE is then normalized for weight to get our Energy Height. If we don't keep TE constant, then our Energy Hieght will not be correct when we normalize for weight.

Understand that very simple concept???

Holding our TE constant ensures that our Energy Height is the same for all aircraft no matter what the size or weight. The Energy Height is our condition of flight that we want to compare the aircraft's performance.

We then figure our Specific Excess power which factors in our thrust and drag differences.

The Specific excess power is used to determine our rate of change the aircraft is capable of at that Energy Height.

Because you do not understand how to use the formulas to perdict aircraft performance, you have confused concepts and are using formulas incorrectly.

You have created a Frankenstien of confused concepts in a thrown together a conglomeration of nonsense.

Simply put you are working very hard to record in detail one aircrafts performance in isolation. There is no valid basis to be able make any performance comparision with another aircraft nor is their any ability to predict performance of that same aircraft under other conditions of flight.

That is the ability correctly using the formulation provides. If correctly used then you can not only compare one aircrafts performance to anothers, but you can use the information to predict a wealth of information about the performance and the design.

Because the raw data to calculate TE Concepts for predicting aircraft performance is gathered in the game it would be useful for comparision with Real World data gather or converted to the same atmospheric model.

Used in conjunction with the recticlinear motion equations, TE concepts, and RL data I think a reasonably accurate picture of relative performance could be constructed.

However, it is obvious that any further communication with you is just not productive.

So have fun making your charts and good luck with your testing!

All the best,

Crumpp How sad..

You still belive TE must remain constant..

And here I thought for sure pointing out that work is equal to the change in TE would help you realize your mistake..

That and still no answer to my question..

Maybe you avoided it the 1st,2nd and 3rd time I asked it?

Maybe you just missed it the 1st,2nd and 3rd time I asked it?

Either way Ill ask it a 4th time..

<span class="ev_code_yellow">Do you belive the amount of work done is equal to the change in TE?</span>

<span class="ev_code_green">YES</span> or <span class="ev_code_red">NO</span>?

NOTE it is a simply <span class="ev_code_green">YES</span> or <span class="ev_code_red">NO</span> answer..

No dancing required.

M_Gunz
09-07-2007, 03:25 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
So if the 109K does so well then NO SURPRISE NANCY! It's because of YOUR test method which
favors some planes and penalizes others. How sad..

You still belive TE is based on time..[/QUOTE]

Easy enough to show that when you're taking the difference in TE states, adding engine power
over time does add up. If I take off and climb for two minutes then my TE will be higher
than if I take off and only climb for one minute. Difference in time gets difference in
energy at over 2000 HP in some late war cases.



And here I thought for sure pointing out that TE has no time variable would help you realize your mistake.

And here I was knowing you still don't get my point at all.


Even after Niipzu pointed out your mistake..

No big surprise..

What with your inability to admit you ever made a mistake..

Thus keep stating the obvious..

Thus keep restating your short-shafting little excuses to avoid the reasons the 109 did so well.


That some planes will fly longer than others..

As if you figured out something new..

Even though the test method/criteria points out that it is expected that some planes will fly longer than others..

Like I said, you make your own rules and call it right.


And that the difference in the time it takes for the speed to reduce to 110mph one of the results/outputs of the test.

The way you set it up, yes. You're showing something bent and twisted analogous to the ideal
zoom - Specific Energy curve and the end condition of the exercise is supposed to be how well
each plane did.
But you broke the rule that would hold the TE relation between planes as Crumpp pointed out.
Once you broke that, your results are bad math, can't predict performance means you can't
validly COMPARE them either.

TE concept does not explain REAL WORLD FLIGHT well at all, as posted ealier. IRL SEP shows
what happens much better. Specific Energy doesn't scale weight or drag or thrust or time
but it also does not predict real zoom performance which Specific Excess Power does.

My Bank Balance has no time unit. But when I put money away month after month the balance
does increase over time. No Surprise.

M_Gunz
09-07-2007, 04:45 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Do you belive the amount of work done is equal to the change in TE?

YES or NO?

I'll take that. TE is the minimum amount of work that was done, IRL far more work was done
than TE differences show.

But since you violated TE Constancy, your TE results are invalid.

IRL, Zoom is figured by SEP.

Here's a link that many forum members will appreciate. (http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_015a.html)


from the link:
So the modern fighter pilot will always begin an intercept (or a tail chase) by increasing his speed to maximum energy transfer rate as quickly as possible, using a zero G maneuver. How does that contrast with the aircraft of W.W.II? Propeller and turbocharged engine combinations were generally designed to give maximum efficiency close to top speed at the critical altitude. So both altitude and airspeed have an influence on the best energy transfer, just as it does for the jets. That this technique survives the differences between jet and prop driven aircraft is both surprising and advantageous to those who know.

Looks like it takes him SEP information to set the path right and best to zoom a particular
plane. And he isn't just talking about jets as he notes in the start and later in the article.

If some planes don't hit or passed their maximum energy transfer speed then they will dog the
"test" but for different reasons. There is work and there is efficiency. Planes at disadvantage
by the test will be less efficient, should do more poorly but what does it say about a plane
how well it does at that particular flight unless you do that a lot, at those speeds.

Xiolablu3
09-07-2007, 05:08 AM
I wish I understood all this.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif SO I have no idea who is right and who is wrong.

But guys, Tagert has done his tests and they are very interesting...why dont you guys who are sure that you know better than him, such as Max and Crumpp do a few tests of your own??

I am sure member of the community would be very interested to see them.

M_Gunz
09-07-2007, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I wish I understood all this.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif SO I have no idea who is right and who is wrong.

But guys, Tagert has done his tests and they are very interesting...why dont you guys who are sure that you know better than him, such as Max and Crumpp do a few tests of your own??

I am sure member of the community would be very interested to see them.

I'm sure I don't know the complete rundown as is done for every commercial AC made but just
offhand I'd say clean stall and max speed should give most of the basics. Just how and what
else more has to be done, I defer to the guys with the aero degrees thank you.

Crumpp says he can find the weights of the planes, I'm interested.

Tagert says he ain't calculating but when you say an FM is not right then to say how much not
right takes what? mmmmm-hmmm Later on, all the results will be used as if scientific law.
Just wait.

AKA_TAGERT
09-07-2007, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I wish I understood all this.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif SO I have no idea who is right and who is wrong.

But guys, Tagert has done his tests and they are very interesting...
Just so you know..

I did NOT ask Crump and M_Gunz the same question multiple times thinking they would answer it..

In that I knew before I asked the question that they can not admit they made a mistake..

Especially a mistake I pointed out to them!

Thus the reason I asked the same question multiple times was to highlight the FACT that they can not admit they make a mistake, and to highlight the lengths they is willing to go to (read sink to) to avoid admitting they made a mistake.

As for the question itself..

Crump has already answered the question put to him in a previous thread..

Where he said TE is allays, and must remain constant!

Which is wrong!

His error clearly stems from his limited education..

One that has exposed him to concepts like "Conservation of Energy" and the TE equations..

But not exposed enough to realize the difference in the two.

The TE equation accounts for one force and one force only..

Gravity

Where as the "Conservation of Energy" is NOT limited to one force!

When all forces are accounted for, there is no loss or gain of energy, thus the conservation of energy theorem is preserved. Knowing those two things allows you to use the TE equation to find the energy due to forces 'other' than gravity!

Like Thrust and Drag!

Now the following is not meant as an excuse..

In that there is none!

It is simply stated to try and understand how Crump could make such a mistake as to think TE is allays constant.

With that in mind, it is somewhat understandable how Crump could make such a mistake..

In that most of the Physics's 101 Classrooms only cover the ideal examples..

Examples where the TE equation is applied to a situation where the only force acting on the body is gravity..

In such ideal example TE does remain constant..

Thus after seeing a few of those examples put up on the chalk board a student may make the mistake in thinking that TE is allays constant.

As Crump has done.

Upper level Physics classes go well beyond the ideal case where the only force acting on the body is gravity..

At which point they realize that TE is one of the best tools around!

In that it enables you to find the change in TE due to 'other' forces..

Take the example of the car crashing into the tree..

Trying to account for every piece of bent fender, broken tree branch, bruised should due to seat belt, heat transfer from seat belt to your shirt, dirt that flew to the left, dirt that flew to the right, etc using Niipzu proposed method would be a daunting task.

But with the TE equation you can determine how much energy was transferred to all those things very easily.

As for what lengths he is willing to go to (read sink to)..

One simply has to look at the way he dances around the subject..

He is back pedaling now and trying to re-define what he said by going off on some tangent about the right way to test airplane performance..

In doing so he has made another mistake

In saying that basic Physics (read the TE equation) can NOT be applied to airplane performance..

The FACT of the mater is it can be applied..

If one is savvy enough to not make the kind of mistakes Crump has made up to now..

Airplane Performance is measured in many ways..

Really depends on your definition of performance..

For example, the aerospace engineers of WWII considered doing a ZOOM test between a P51 and ZERO worth doing..

From said test they made noet of the 'separation' between the two planes once the P51 hit a certain air speed in a climb..

The separation showing the 'PERFORMANCE' difference between the two planes..

That is exactly what my SEPARATION testing does!

As for my E RETENTION tests (aka TE values)..

They are a byproduct of the SEPARATION testing..

In that they too show the 'PERFORMANCE' difference between the two planes..

That being how long a plane can climb at 30? before slowing down to 110mph..

As noted, the TE can not be directly compared between planes unless you multiply by the mass of the plane for each..

But..

You can do that, but that is not the purpose of the test..

The test is to show how TE changes!!!

If TE is less than it was at the start..

<LI>Drag did more work than Thrust (read not so hot thrust to weight ratio)

If TE is more than it was at the start..

<LI>Thrust did more work than Drag (read pretty good thrust to weight ratio)

How much the actual value is not as important as making note of the change!!

Is it more than it was at the start?

Or

Is it less than it was at the start?

It is that simple..

Yet Crump and M_Gunz have yet to realize it!

As noted.. If you want the actual value in Joules, simply multiply the values listed in the graph by the mass of the plane.


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
why don't you guys who are sure that you know better than him, such as Max and Crump do a few tests of your own??

I am sure member of the community would be very interested to see them.
Don't hold your breath on that one!

M_Gunz has been trying for years to do just the XY Flight Path..

With no success..

Mater of fact, that is one of the reason he is so upset..

Is because I did it in a few days, what he has failed to do in years of trying.