PDA

View Full Version : E Retention Testing Status (BETA)



Pages : [1] 2

AKA_TAGERT
06-30-2007, 07:14 PM
Hey guys

Here is an update.. I got the dive to work out without snapping the wings off.. and got some PID values that seem to be working pretty good.. Think of this is just a staus update on where I am at with the testing.. Remember.. this is still BETA!

ALT
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ZOOM/408/COMP_ALT.JPG

IAS
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ZOOM/408/COMP_IAS.JPG

ACC
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ZOOM/408/COMP_ACC.JPG

Where..
P1 : A6M5a aka ZERO
P2 : P51D-5NT aka Cadillac of the sky
P3 : P47D 1944 aka The Jug
P4 : Fw-190A-8 aka The Butcher Bird

The Basic Test Method
<LI> START 10kft @230mph
<LI> Dive at -30? pitch
<LI> Wait until you pass through 6,000ft
<LI> Climb at 30? pitch
<LI> Wait until IAS = 150mph

Here is a link to the full analysis
ZOOM_COMP.pdf (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ZOOM/408/ZOOM_COMP.pdf) <span class="ev_code_yellow"><--- click on this to see more</span>

Ill update this as I do more tests.

mbfRoy
06-30-2007, 07:23 PM
Looking good!

VMF-214_HaVoK
06-30-2007, 07:29 PM
Good stuff Tag! Keep em coming man. You think when all your test are done you can zip them up and upload/email them? This will be valuable info to have and a tool in training new recruits. Thanks.

S!

na85
06-30-2007, 08:49 PM
I look forward to seeing more results, this could be very informative

zardozid
06-30-2007, 09:28 PM
interesting, thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Akronnick
06-30-2007, 09:35 PM
I would be interested in seeing the relationship between airspeed at the pull-up point to final zoom altitude.

MrMojok
06-30-2007, 10:22 PM
Good stuff TAGERT, keep it up man.

AKA_TAGERT
06-30-2007, 10:39 PM
Added the P47 and the Fw190 and the IAS graph for Akronnick..

But I recomend you click on the pdf file.. There are more graphs in the pdf

M_Gunz
06-30-2007, 11:55 PM
Could you add some markers, dots or circles thicker than the lines to show some points?

My choices would be;
1) last data point at -30 pitch
2) first data point at +30 pitch

These to bracket transitions.

Also, still no accurate way to determine actual path angle is there?

-HH-Quazi
07-01-2007, 01:19 AM
Great idea Tag. Your efforts are appreciated.

AKA_TAGERT
07-01-2007, 07:22 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Could you add some markers, dots or circles thicker than the lines to show some points?

My choices would be;
1) last data point at -30 pitch
2) first data point at +30 pitch

These to bracket transitions.
Click on the link to the pdf file to see the corsponding pitch angle vs. time plots.


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Also, still no accurate way to determine actual path angle is there?
The path angle?

Well the 'path' is captured in the altitude..

Which is all I needed for this test..

Or are you talking about an AoA vs. time plot?

If so, AoA is NOT one of the DeviceLink varialbes..

But..

I do have a method to calculated it that produces reasonable results.

Blutarski2004
07-01-2007, 08:29 AM
Hats off to you, Tag.

I can't say whether the differences between one ac/ and another = history, but it seems to me that Oleg's boys have the relative order of merit correct.

Are you going to do the 109G/K? If so, please warn me in advance so I can fasten my seatbelt.

;-]

Xiolablu3
07-01-2007, 08:50 AM
Looks very good Tagert, your results are just like JTD's conclusions :-

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/t404/404testing.html

Possibly the Zoom climb could be a bit better on the P47 if I am reading the graph correctly? JTD's test also has the P51 performing a little better than all the others in Zoom climb. Would you guys agree maybe that the P47 should zoom better than the P51? Or maybe the weight actually also helps it to slow down in the climb too.


Your tests should enable game programmers of SOW series to get things even closer to reality if needs be.

AKA_TAGERT
07-01-2007, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Or maybe the weight actually also helps it to slow down in the climb too.
As you can see from the graph.. The P47 took a little longer to pull out of the dive.. That could be the extra weight fighting the turn around.. Or just the better elevator authority of the P51..

But.. NOTE

The P51 and P47 have the SAME ZOOM altitude..

So the P51 didn't ZOOM better than the P47 height wise..

But..

It did do it quicker due to the P47 slower turn around time.

AKA_TAGERT
07-01-2007, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Hats off to you, Tag.

I can't say whether the differences between one ac/ and another = history, but it seems to me that Oleg's boys have the relative order of merit correct.
Agreed


Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Are you going to do the 109G/K? If so, please warn me in advance so I can fasten my seatbelt.

;-] ROTFL

AKA_TAGERT
07-01-2007, 11:42 AM
Just added acceleration to the mix.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

M_Gunz
07-01-2007, 08:52 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
The path angle?

Well the 'path' is captured in the altitude..

Which is all I needed for this test..

Or are you talking about an AoA vs. time plot?

If so, AoA is NOT one of the DeviceLink varialbes..

But..

I do have a method to calculated it that produces reasonable results.

First I agree about reasonable results.

I had tried to do paths long ago to try and calculate separation distances but one of the
things I realized is that it's not so simple as I'd like it to be. I ended up using TAS from
IAS and altitudes with 1/10th second steps to approximate paths. Best I could do.

Something I learned from high-hour pilots is their saying "pitch is not path", I was unable
to simply go by pitch and really not too happy about using IAS (value given is for guage) as
if it is direct FM readout.

It'd be solid gold if devicelink had Q&A's for positional, true velocity and accel readouts!

AKA_TAGERT
07-01-2007, 09:15 PM
Not sure what your talking about..

But..

It sounds like when you say 'path' you mean 'coordinates'..

As in one X1,Y1,Z1 coordinate to the next X2,Y2,Z2 cordinate..

Of the three..

We only have one..

Altitude..

And lucky for me that 'path' is all I need for the E retention testing I am doing.

As long as I keep my heading fixed and my wings level..

Which I do.

M_Gunz
07-02-2007, 12:11 AM
By path I mean that chances are high that the planes are not following quite the same dive slope
when pitch is the same for all.

BBB_Hyperion
07-02-2007, 12:17 AM
Looks like some serious testing. Is there a kind of autopilot controlling the plane for this dives to keep them compareable ?

AKA_TAGERT
07-02-2007, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
By path I mean that chances are high that the planes are not following quite the same dive slope when pitch is the same for all.
During the transient/dynamic portions I am sure the AoA for each plane differs..

As a mater of fact I know they do because as I noted I am calculating AoA and can see that they do in fact differ during the transient/dynamic portions.

But..

The good news is that what ever that difference in 'angle' is..

The 'path' (aka altitude) does not care!

Thus the altitude vs. time plot is the 'path' vs. time plot.

AKA_TAGERT
07-02-2007, 07:37 AM
Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Looks like some serious testing.
Thanks! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Is there a kind of autopilot controlling the plane for this dives to keep them compareable ?
Yes!

Not the in-game autopilot.. An external autopilot util that interfaces via DeviceLink.

tigertalon
07-02-2007, 07:41 AM
What's the uncertainty?

BBB_Hyperion
07-02-2007, 07:53 AM
For better overall understanding dives for single planes could increase and decrease angle by 0.25(over a range of 30 degrees (+ -15? from Base 45?) degrees margin depends on triggerrate of autopilot (What precision is possible to correct flightpath in timeframe without wobling ?). That should give some insights how the dive angle effects drag in this sim. Furthermore as sidenode how the planes were trimmed pitch , roll and yaw that should have an effect on acceleration as the default trimm is only for cruise speed and is therefore bleeding energy in different phases of the dive .(Only the applied force change rate influences that this is highly depending on the triggerrate of the autopilot)

AKA_TAGERT
07-02-2007, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
What's the uncertainty? Of?

AKA_TAGERT
07-02-2007, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
For better overall understanding dives for single planes could increase and decrease angle by 0.25 (over a range of 30 degrees (+ -15? from Base 45?) degrees margin
Based on?


Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
depends on trigger rate of autopilot (What precision is possible to correct flightpath in timeframe without wobling ?).
As for the autopilot.. I forget what it is? He says what it is in the readme.. but I don't have it with me at the moment (at work). But, what ever it is, when I play back the track file to record data I am sampling at 100ms.


Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
That should give some insights how the dive angle effects drag in this sim.
True, and this E testing also gives dome 'FEEL' for it.


Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Furthermore as sidenode how the planes were trimmed pitch , roll and yaw that should have an effect on acceleration as the default trimm is only for cruise speed and is therefore bleeding energy in different phases of the dive. (Only the applied force change rate influences that this is highly depending on the trigger rate of the autopilot)
All trim settings are default.. The autopilot uses the main controls to trim.

BBB_Hyperion
07-02-2007, 09:27 AM
Here the problem i see with the autopilot using default trim.

Hopefully my 5 minute illustration is understandable http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://rapidshare.com/files/40606835/AutoPilot.pdf.html

AKA_TAGERT
07-02-2007, 10:09 AM
Link is not working for me.. might be the firewall at my work that is blocking it?

BBB_Hyperion
07-02-2007, 10:36 AM
no direct download, free host provider click link click free type in code and press download via .

When it is still not working uploading it on other webhost later.

BBB_Hyperion
07-02-2007, 11:54 AM
Direct Link
http://www.butcherbirdbrotherhood.eu/bbb/AutoPilot.pdf

AKA_TAGERT
07-02-2007, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Direct Link
http://www.butcherbirdbrotherhood.eu/bbb/AutoPilot.pdf
Ok that link worked..

As for your concern..

No worries..

A mass the size of a WWII plane is not going to oscillate that much (level -> up 5ft -> level -> down 5ft -> level) within 100ms..

Which is not to say it can not oscillate!

It would just take much more time to move that much.

Any oscillation occuring within 100ms would not be visible.. you might hear a hum or feel a vibration.. but the movement of the plane would be so small that it would go un-noticed.

M_Gunz
07-02-2007, 02:36 PM
I've gone through analyzing dives using devicelink before and run into a kind of wall.


Me, from another thread:
The plane does not always go where it is pointed, simply.

You fly level faster and faster you have to keep trimming nose down to stay level or you have
to keep pushing stick more forward to stay level. This fact IRL and in the game.
Who does not know that that changes pitch to keep the same path?

If I fly at economy cruise, 70% power and trimmed to fly level and then I add 10% power with
no change in trim --- plane keeps pitch but altitude increases, my path goes upward.

In dives it works by the same principles.

You start the dive at some speed and if you want to maintain the same Dive Angle, you have
to keep pushing the nose down to couteract your own increased lift from increased speed if
you keep the pitch constant.

That is for any one plane. Is the ANYONE here that thinks that for any speed, all these
planes get the same dive path for any given pitch and speed?

The problems is -- how can they be closely compared at different dive angles? Dive angle
dictates how much gravity is assisting, Plane A at -25 deg path is going to have less gravity
boost than plane B at -28 deg path.

Solution should be as simple as putting up fly through targets along the desired path and
do what it takes to get the AI to pass through each. THEN you know!

AKA_TAGERT
07-02-2007, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I've gone through analyzing dives using devicelink before and run into a kind of wall.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Me, from another thread:
The plane does not always go where it is pointed, simply.

You fly level faster and faster you have to keep trimming nose down to stay level or you have
to keep pushing stick more forward to stay level. This fact IRL and in the game.
Who does not know that that changes pitch to keep the same path?

If I fly at economy cruise, 70% power and trimmed to fly level and then I add 10% power with
no change in trim --- plane keeps pitch but altitude increases, my path goes upward.

In dives it works by the same principles.

You start the dive at some speed and if you want to maintain the same Dive Angle, you have
to keep pushing the nose down to couteract your own increased lift from increased speed if
you keep the pitch constant.

That is for any one plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So far so good.. that is to say no surprises.. pretty basic stuff


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Is the ANYONE here that thinks that for any speed, all these planes get the same dive path for any given pitch and speed?
The same dive path?

I hope not!

Only a fool would think they followed in the same footsteps!

On that note, part of this testing is to show the difference in the footsteps! Take the P51 vs. P47 pull out point for example.


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
The problems is -- how can they be closely compared at different dive angles? Dive angle dictates how much gravity is assisting, Plane A at -25 deg path is going to have less gravity boost than plane B at -28 deg path.
Well your never going to get it perfect!

Sorry if that is the impression you got from all this!

But this is how a test pilot would have had to do it back in the 40s!

In that there was no AoA gauge on the dash board!

Just the pitch/horizon gauge..

So he would have had to flown pitch also.


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Solution should be as simple as putting up fly through targets along the desired path and do what it takes to get the AI to pass through each. THEN you know!
As simple as...

ROTFL!

If you think you hit a wall before.. wait until you try doing that! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Long story short.. this test is as good as any dive test a WWII pilot could have done.. Better in that the auto pilot can maintain the pitch better than the pilot could have from the horizon gauge. Therefore this method is far more fair than having a real pilot at the wheel and a heck of a lot simpler than trying to get the AI to fly some laid out course in the sky.

But if you think you can do a better job of it..

THAN DO IT!

Talk is cheap!

Anyone can pick at DUH limtations/short commings of a test method.. but doing so is kind of.. well.. DUH.

M_Gunz
07-02-2007, 04:58 PM
Anyone can make claims about tests without noting limitations, sound cool with being duh.

As above I did state the tests are okay within reasonable limits I am also noting something
about the extent of reasonable. Last times I did science, analysis of error margins was required.
Maybe things have changed.

AKA_TAGERT
07-02-2007, 05:10 PM
To make an analogy..

Only a few people can make a good movie..

Where as movie critics are a dime a dozen..

The offer still stands..

If you think you can do a better job..

Do it!

na85
07-02-2007, 05:24 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 tigertalon:
What's the uncertainty? Of? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think he's asking about the DeviceLink Pilot's degree of accuracy.

Tigertalon,

Imagine a program that pretends it's a joystick, and flies your game for you. That's basically what it is.

As for accuracy, I'm not sure there's a number for it. Ask Tagert if he got chart, maybe.

VMF-214_HaVoK
07-02-2007, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
To make an analogy..

Only a few people can make a good movie..

Where as movie critics are a dime a dozen..

The offer still stands..

If you think you can do a better job..

Do it!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

AKA_TAGERT
07-03-2007, 11:57 AM
Per request I did a Fw-190D-9 1945 vs Tempest Mk. V test

But before that.. In light of the current rash of master-of-the-obvious (read DUH tell me something I don't know) statements I feel the need to post the following.


<span class="ev_code_red">DISCLAIMER

The following graphs depicting AoA and the separation distance are for reference only.

The basic separation distance calculation is..

distance = velocity * time

Where the velocity is the previously calculated delta IAS and assumes a linear separation
(read same direction) between the two planes. Therefore the separation distance in around the
pull up point will be way off.

The variables needed to calculate a true separation are not provided in DeviceLink and
therefore the following graphs are not very accurate.. but they do provide you a ball park feel
for the separation.

Currently I am using delta IAS and ignoring AoA, but I plan on using delta TAS and incorporating
my calculated AoA to get a better result </span>

With that out of the way..

P1 : Tempest Mk. V
P2 : 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


Here is a link to the full analysis that contains more graphs
TEMPEST_VS_FW190D9.pdf (http://geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ZOOM/408/COMP/TEMPEST_VS_FW190D9_1945/ZOOM_TEMPEST_VS_FW190D9_1945.pdf) <span class="ev_code_yellow"><-- click on link to see full analysis</span>

ALT
http://geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ZOOM/408/COMP/TEMPEST_VS_FW190D9_1945/ZOOM_TEMPEST_VS_Fw190D9_1945_ALT.JPG

SEPERATION
http://geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ZOOM/408/COMP/TEMPEST_VS_FW190D9_1945/ZOOM_TEMPEST_VS_Fw190D9_1945_SEP.JPG

Enjoy!

BBB_Hyperion
07-03-2007, 12:01 PM
Tagert can you use this flightpath reference or something similar for example here with 30 degrees dive angle showing lights every 250 m alt loss for 30 degress. Just that we get an impression how precise the dive is and how good it keeps on track.

http://img143.imagevenue.com/loc645/th_85298_DivePath_122_645lo.JPG

Mission source
[MAIN]
MAP Crimea/load.ini
TIME 12.0
CloudType 0
CloudHeight 1000.0
player r0100
army 1
playerNum 0
[Wing]
r0100
[r0100]
Planes 1
Skill 1
Class air.P_51D20NA
Fuel 100
weapons default
[r0100_Way]
NORMFLY 150000.00 10000.00 5000.00 300.00 &0
NORMFLY 150866.03 10000.00 4500.00 300.00 &0
[NStationary]
0_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke13 0 150000.00 10000.00 360.00 5000.00
1_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke13 0 150433.01 10000.00 360.00 4750.00
2_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke13 0 150866.03 10000.00 360.00 4500.00
3_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke13 0 151299.04 10000.00 360.00 4250.00
4_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke13 0 151732.05 10000.00 360.00 4000.00
5_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke13 0 152165.06 10000.00 360.00 3750.00
6_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke13 0 152598.08 10000.00 360.00 3500.00
7_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke13 0 153031.09 10000.00 360.00 3250.00
8_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke13 0 153464.10 10000.00 360.00 3000.00
9_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke13 0 153897.11 10000.00 360.00 2750.00
10_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke13 0 154330.13 10000.00 360.00 2500.00
11_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke13 0 154763.14 10000.00 360.00 2250.00
12_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke13 0 155196.15 10000.00 360.00 2000.00
13_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke13 0 155629.17 10000.00 360.00 1750.00
14_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke13 0 156062.18 10000.00 360.00 1500.00
15_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke13 0 156495.19 10000.00 360.00 1250.00
16_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke13 0 156928.20 10000.00 360.00 1000.00
17_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke13 0 157361.22 10000.00 360.00 750.00
18_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke13 0 157794.23 10000.00 360.00 500.00
19_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke13 0 158227.24 10000.00 360.00 250.00
20_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke13 0 158660.25 10000.00 360.00 0.00
[Buildings]
[Bridge]
[House]

AKA_TAGERT
07-03-2007, 12:03 PM
There is no way I know of to sync the auto pilot plane position to the light(s) position(s)

Once I get past BETA Ill start devoting space for folks to DL the track files.. than they can view the test from any angle they like.

Xiolablu3
07-03-2007, 12:10 PM
Tempest and FW190D09 looks extrememly close, just like things should be.

I think more interesting comparisons would be between things like the Spitfire V amd FW190A4

or the Hellcat and contemporary Zero.

or Spitfire Vc(2) vs 109F4

or P51B and Bf109G6

or the SPitfire IX 25lbs and the Fw190D9.

AKA_TAGERT
07-03-2007, 12:33 PM
In time.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Right now I am on my way to start my mini 4th O July vacation.. So.. I will be OL for a few

Xiolablu3
07-03-2007, 12:34 PM
Thanks mate, I wasnt demanding, its just my opinon.

It would be nice to see the difference between the dogfighters and the energy fighters. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG4_Helofly
07-03-2007, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Tempest and FW190D09 looks extrememly close, just like things should be.

I think more interesting comparisons would be between things like the Spitfire V amd FW190A4

or the Hellcat and contemporary Zero.

or Spitfire Vc(2) vs 109F4

or P51B and Bf109G6

or the SPitfire IX 25lbs and the Fw190D9.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

And thx for the test Tagert.

Bremspropeller
07-03-2007, 01:29 PM
Thx a lot for the testing Tag!

Have a nice day off, tomorrow!

M_Gunz
07-03-2007, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Tagert can you use this flightpath reference or something similar for example here with 30 degrees dive angle showing lights every 250 m alt loss for 30 degress. Just that we get an impression how precise the dive is and how good it keeps on track.


It would take a whole grid of lights and trying to judge distance of plane to light in pause
during playback. Unless you could make the lights targets and somehow have icons with range
it wouldn't help at all.
EDIT: but then of course you could ask: Got Track? LOL!

Good job getting wing AOI data for all those planes Tagert!

AKA_TAGERT
07-03-2007, 02:13 PM
Poor Nancy

M_Gunz
07-03-2007, 02:59 PM
Just wondering, not for the first time, how you calculate AOA without knowing AOI for each plane?
You do know what AOI is?

AKA_TAGERT
07-03-2007, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Just wondering, not for the first time, how you calculate AOA without knowing AOI for each plane?
You do know what AOI is? Yes I know what AOI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_incidence) is oh master-of-the-obvious!

Have for years!

Good news what ever it is, it is constant.. So once you know what it is you can simply add it to my result. On that note it is typically small and alot of flight sims assume it is zero..

Now..

How is your E testing going?

Oh wait..

I forgot..

Those who can do..

Those who can NOT sit back and try to split hairs of those who can.

Right?

BBB_Hyperion
07-03-2007, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:

It would take a whole grid of lights and trying to judge distance of plane to light in pause
during playback. Unless you could make the lights targets and somehow have icons with range
it wouldn't help at all.


Well you can place cameras positions and lights at precise positions and when you look from wrong angle you see wrong lights red etc that are behind the green . So when you look only at the 2d projection you can well see if the path follows 30? .

Sync with autopilot could be done by arranging start position like done in this mission file dive angle and direction is already in but the plane falls below the path cause it does not preduce enough lift at start.

Do the waypoints record alt in the eventlog ?

M_Gunz
07-03-2007, 03:34 PM
Here's a guy with a different approach in a different sim. Perhaps in Warbirds a wing flies
the same upside down as right side up but regardless he has a unique approach. By not using
actual historic or game AOI data though you can see in his result table you can see that
different stall speeds got him different AOI's and none of those warbirds had adjustable
tilt wings.

Warbirds Angle of Attack Study (http://www.rdrop.com/users/hoofj/AoA.htm)

EDIT: here's the bit with his method mentioned above:
As all planes need a positive angle of attack to maintain level flight, most planes have the wing tilted slightly so that the weapons of the plane can fire directly forward while flying straight/level at some speed. For most planes this is 200-250mph, fly below this speed, then you will sink if you have the crosshairs of the plane on the horizon. Fly above this speed and you will rise

This study is a study of the Angle of Attack and Incidence angle of Warbirds. It turns out
that if you measure the angle-of-attack while right side up and upside down, you can determine
the angle-of-attack for a certain speed and the incidence angle of a wing. Fly upside down, you
will notice that the nose often needs to be quite high to keep level flight, as the wings have
to produce a certain angle-of-attack, and the nose angle has to also counter the incidence
angle of the wing.

Crumpp SWAG'd a FW flying level at Vmax using NACA foil data and what AOA it would take to
support the plane as 4.some degrees. You have 7 or less degrees on the highest G portion
of the pullout and soon after reaching critical negative during the +30 deg pitch zoom.
Maybe if you add the AOI's, the results would be in the correct range.

I just want to see the best output. You going to make tracks or logs available?
You know, like you have DEMANDED OF MANY OTHERS?

Kettenhunde
07-03-2007, 03:48 PM
Perhaps in Warbirds a wing flies
the same upside down as right side up but regardless he has a unique approach


A symmetrical airfoil will fly the same upside down as it does right side up.

Non-symmetrical airfoils will still develop lift accordingly. So while conditions of flight such as velocity will change, the wing is completely capable of sustaining inverted flight. Your page shows this well, M_Gunz.

Tagert,

AOI is simply added or subtracted from the wing AoA to get the body angle. So no big mystery. Hope that clears up your internet education some and helps out.

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
07-03-2007, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Perhaps in Warbirds a wing flies
the same upside down as right side up but regardless he has a unique approach


A symmetrical airfoil will fly the same upside down as it does right side up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dunno but do doubt that the wing of that FW is a symmetric airfoil!


Non-symmetrical airfoils will still develop lift accordingly. So while conditions of flight such as velocity will change, the wing is completely capable of sustaining inverted flight. Your page shows this well, M_Gunz.

It's NOT my page. If the L/D differs flying straight as opposed to inverted then you can't
split the difference between pitch readings. Note his table, 2 different AOI's is because
the wing flies THAT much different at such close stall speed estimates. He goes 95 and gets
one value, he goes 90 and gets another. It shows flaw and scale of flaw in methods, a thing
to correct. If he had the real AOI's then he could work it back and correct his method.


AOI is simply added or subtracted from the wing AoA to get the body angle. So no big mystery. Hope that clears up your internet education some and helps out.


LOL, when you are going from angle of roll axis to vertical path in the first place, it
needs to be added. And then you had written about 'induced AOA' which I've seen diagrams
that show air rises to meet the wing, part of flow of lift I guess.
See, I have some netucation too! ROFL! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

na85
07-03-2007, 05:15 PM
Tagert,

I have a concern regarding this test method. Planes that suffer pronounced compressibility effects at high speeds (P38, etc) will obviously not be able to transition from a dive to a climb as quickly as those which maintain their good elevator authority at speed.

I am not as familiar with your test environment and procedures as you or others, but I feel that this will result in some planes being misrepresented in terms of their energy-retention.

What do you think?

Kettenhunde
07-03-2007, 05:17 PM
I dunno but do doubt that the wing of that FW is a symmetric airfoil!


It's not showing a symmetrical airfoil for the FW190 series as far as I can tell.

It has the NACA 23015 and NACA 23009.5 developing 21 degrees at stall and 16 degrees inverted. You can tell by the FW190's airfoil nomenclature that it does not have a symmetrical wing. The 21 degrees is about right at the stall for "right side up" flying. The inverted angle of 16 degrees is not correct.

However the trend is in that we need more AoA to fly in the same condition of flight. The airfoil will maintain inverted about 21 degrees usable AoA. We need to use more of this AoA inverted to do the same maneuvers we did right side up.

Our Cl drops when we invert if our wing is not symmetrical.

AoA = 2D AoA + Induced AoA

Body Angle = AoA + AOI

So the author of the page is confusing his terminology. AoA itself does not normally contain a component of AOI.

Now I am not saying the methods on that page are correct either, I am saying that the trend is correct. I have only glanced at the page and skimmed a few paragraphs.

In a non-symmetrical airfoil the usable AoA will be lower because of camber and shape changes. Our aircrafts ability to maneuver will be limited in comparison to an aircraft with a symmetrical airfoil. This is a symmetrical airfoil is popular with aerobatic aircraft. Inverted the wing will still produce the exact same amount of manuverability.

Make sense now?


LOL, when you are going from angle of roll axis to vertical path in the first place, it
needs to be added.

In a high camber wing you can have negative AOI. AOI is just the angle from the chord line to the longitudinal body axis.

The angle is fixed. So if you have a negative AOI then you simply subtract.

Here try this with foilsim:

. http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/foil2.html

Connect to FoilSim II.
Initial Conditions:
Ideal flow Window change to Stall Model
English Units
Input Window-Flight Test
Output Window-Plot
Earth Average Day
Speed 100 mph
Altitude 0 ft
Change Input Window to Size-
Chord-5.0 ft
Span 40.1 ft
Area-200.5 Ft2
Change Input Window to Shape/Angle
Angle-0 deg
Camber-0 %
Thickness- 12%
Output window-Plot Selection
Change Lift vs. to Cl vs Angle
Data Window-Cl instead of Lift


Now adjust one parameter at a time. Start with Camber first and go thru AoA from 0 - 25 degrees in 5 degree increments. Then leave camber fixed and adjust thickness. This parametric study will illustrate the concepts I am referring too.

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
07-03-2007, 05:43 PM
Uhhhhhh........

oh I see. I think you have that wrong, those are not AOA but his pitch data columns to get AOA.

The columns labeled "Angle Right-Side-Up" and "Angle Up-Side-Down" are the pitch angles he
collected from WB. His calculated AOA and AOI follow and you can see his AOI change due to
clean and dirty config.

Here's his FW figures, just pretend it's formatted here. I see clean stall AOA of the A4 at
18.5 deg with pitch Rightside Up 16 deg and pitch Up-Side 21 deg. It's the two different values
for AOI

Plane Stall Speed Angle Right-Side-Up Angle Up-Side-Down Angle-of-Attack Incidence Angle
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fw190A4 105/95mph 16/15 degrees 21/21 degrees 18.5/18.5 degrees 2.5/3.0 degrees
Fw190A8 105/95mph 16/15 degrees 21/21 degrees 18.5/18.0 degrees 2.5/3.0 degrees
Fw190D9 110/100mph 15/15 degrees 21/22 degrees 18.0/18.5 degrees 3.0/3.5 degrees

Kettenhunde
07-03-2007, 05:57 PM
Here is what I SWAG'd for the FW-190. Note this the root section of the wing and not the entire wing. It is the root that has the largest influence on our stall characteristics.

First I just noticed I read the wrong plot for a different airfoil in that previous SWAG. So let me go back and correct that now, M_gunz.

Using the published data for a 2D wing for the airfoil type.

Focke Wulf Fw 190 Wurger

root = NACA 23015.3

For example, the NACA 23015.3 2D a ranges from about -4 degrees at Vmax to 29 degrees on the backside of the curve. At L/Dmax it is ~4 degrees.

Therefore our AoA at Vmax, Vs, and L/Dmax:

Vs = L/D: 9.102769099
AoA = 21 + 4.522749835 = 25.5 degrees

body angle = 25.5-2.5 = 23 degrees

L/Dmax = L/D = 12.5571036
AoA = 4 + 1.9413944 = 5.94 degrees

Vmax = L/D = 5.182745098
AoA = -4 + 0.419315184 = -3.58

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
07-03-2007, 06:42 PM
M_Gunz,

I just read the whole page. The guy is determining AOI by comparing body angle inverted and body angle in level flight. He is using the difference to determine his AOI.

It is a technique.

The other information he determines is the AoA at CLmax.

In the realm of significant digits, he makes a good SWAG.

I see where he gets the 16 degree AoA at the stall too. He subtracted the induced AoA from the AoA in order to find the infinite AoA.

Only issue I see is that he starts out with the infinite wing stall AoA of 21 degrees. This has absolutely no effect on his goals of determining AOI though. It does effect the Vs AoA however.

A finite wing must pull a higher AoA to achieve the same CL as an infinite wing.

Using the stall speed for the FW190A8 we can confirm the CL required at the stall.

CL = 295*9418lbs/94.4KEAS^2*197ft^2 = 1.58

94.4KEAS = 109mph EAS

The FW190 must have a CL of 1.58 at the stall.

The NACA 23015 airfoil CL max is 1.58. In order to achieve that CL we must add the induced angle of attack in order for the finite wing to achieve the same CL as the infinite wing.

Understand? Our finite wing will stall at a higher angle of attack than our infinite wing if it produces the same amount of lift.

http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/aerodynamics1/Drag/Induced_Angle.html

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
07-03-2007, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
In the realm of significant digits, he makes a good SWAG.

Yes, it's a neat way to get something out of a sim. I just note that he has a reduceable
error margin if he can get the AOI's used in WB. The error shows in the different AOI results.

I ain't knockin him, just pointing out there's a next step takeable right there.


I see where he gets the 16 degree AoA at the stall too. He subtracted the induced AoA from the AoA in order to find the infinite AoA.

Are you talking about the Spit Ia entry? He split the difference in pitch upright and pitch
upside down for both clean and dirty stall.

There is only one column of AOA's there and nothing on the page about induced AOA.


Only issue I see is that he starts out with the infinite wing stall AoA of 21 degrees. This has absolutely no effect on his goals of determining AOI though. It does effect the Vs AoA however.

The only 21 degrees there is pitch flying inverted stall for A6M3, 109E4, FW's, and P-51D.
Those are *not* AOA values. The plane is upside down, pitch must be high because wing AOI
he subtracts from pitch to get -his- AOA, Vinfinite is there level and no induced AOA.
How do I know? He says exactly what he does and it's to split upright and inverted pitch
to get his AOI to add to upright pitch and SWAG his AOA.


A finite wing must pull a higher AoA to achieve the same CL as an infinite wing.

Like you said, a good SWAG. The error is not large.


Using the stall speed for the FW190A8 we can confirm the CL required at the stall.

CL = 295*9418lbs/94.4KEAS^2*197ft^2 = 1.58

94.4KEAS = 109mph EAS

The FW190 must have a CL of 1.58 at the stall.

The NACA 23015 airfoil CL max is 1.58. In order to achieve that CL we must add the induced angle of attack in order for the finite wing to achieve the same CL as the infinite wing.

Understand? Our finite wing will stall at a higher angle of attack than our infinite wing if it produces the same amount of lift.

http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/aerodynamics1/Drag/Induced_Angle.html

All the best,

Crumpp

Yes, you go beyond and can reduce error through cross check even more.
Does our finite wing produce the same lift? It should if we are using weight and level flight
as part of the method shouldn't it?

I look at that link you show and AOA is still chord to relative wind.
I see induced angle inside that clearly labeled.
I see induced AOA being used only for induced drag calculation but not changing labeled AOA.
Which says the induced is what the wing meets air with and not path angle.

This induced angle of attack (i in the diagram) reduces the actual angle of attack, so that the wing produces less lift, but also stalls at a higher angle of attack. The induced angle of attack is the angle between the relative wind and the induced flow.

This induced AOA would work both rightside up and upside down. He is finding the angle of
wing to relative wind only in his study by using pitch angle differences. What that site
diagram shows by label as just plain old AOA.

I think I see what you mean though but does that apply to all foil data, even the historic?
When I see old document that Spitfire some-model had critical AOA of 12 degrees, do I add this
induced AOA (12/2 = +6 degrees) so real AOA is 18 degrees? Or would 12 degrees reported of
the real wing mean 8 degrees of the infinite length wing + 4 degrees induced AOA = 12 total?
If so simple and direct then why not just take the infinite wing and multiply table by 3/2
and save a step? I must be somehow along the wrong POV here.

Didn't they used to record level flight pitch minus AOI as AOA and that's why the labels are
what they are since? Or was that over by 1930 or so?

Kettenhunde
07-04-2007, 07:49 AM
The only 21 degrees there is pitch flying inverted stall for A6M3, 109E4, FW's, and P-51D.
Those are *not* AOA values. The plane is upside down, pitch must be high because wing AOI
he subtracts from pitch to get -his- AOA, Vinfinite is there level and no induced AOA.

M_Gunz,

Your correct and I know what was done on the test I think we are having a miscommunication on this one somewhere.

I was trying to figure what the FM was doing and his test regarding induced AoA. The guy who wrote this was a programmer for the FM:


Background: Warbirds '97-'99 (General Programmer, Imagic Online), Dawn of Aces '98-'99 (General Programmer, Imagic Online), World War II Online '99-'01 (Physics programmer, Flight Model programmer, Weapons and Armor programmer, Front End general programmer)

http://www.hoofsperformance.wwiionline.com/

For whatever reason, the old WB's FM ignores 3D wing effects on AoA. This is readily apparent by examining the AoA at CLmax.


I see induced AOA being used only for induced drag calculation but not changing labeled AOA.

The real AoA is made up of two components which are added together. The infinite wing AoA at that velocity and induced AoA at that velocity, the sum of which forms our Real AoA.

Induced AoA defines the 3D AoA, it is not limited by the 2D AoA.

The results of this are our 3D wing or finite wing, stalls at a higher AoA at the same lift production as the 2D or infinite wing.

http://img171.imagevenue.com/loc433/th_53517_AoA_122_433lo.JPG (http://img171.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=53517_AoA_122_433lo.JPG)


I think I see what you mean though but does that apply to all foil data, even the historic?

If you want to calculate the AoA in a given condition of flight then yes it applies. It does not apply to measured results of the 3D wing. However when measuring results, things sometimes have to be converted.

A common example is Re number using scale models. We have to use a correction to convert the data so that it is applicable to the actual aircraft scale.

Another example is a low speed wing tunnel may not produce a velocity high enough for us to achieve CLmax on the airfoil. It does give data points from which calculations can be confirmed as well as confirmation of the CLmax itself.

Just read and understand the conditions of the test and the limitations of the data the engineer imposed in his report.


I must be somehow along the wrong POV here.

LOL. You have some thing's misaligned but are on the right track.

What you seem to be missing is how to calculate Induced AoA. Induced AoA is a function of lift production.

A simple formula is:

Induced AoA in degrees = 18.24* (Cl / Aspect Ratio)

All the best,

Crumpp

AKA_TAGERT
07-04-2007, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Tagert,

AOI is simply added or subtracted from the wing AoA to get the body angle. So no big mystery. Hope that clears up your internet education some and helps out.
Thanks Crump!

But no need!

In that as I told MAX..

I know what AOI is and have for years!

AKA_TAGERT
07-04-2007, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by na85:
Tagert,

I have a concern regarding this test method. Planes that suffer pronounced compressibility effects at high speeds (P38, etc) will obviously not be able to transition from a dive to a climb as quickly as those which maintain their good elevator authority at speed.
True, but that is all part of the E testing.. If an in-game plane has trouble pulling out of the dive.. for what ever reason (compressibility, poor elevator authority, etc) it will show up in the testing.


Originally posted by na85:
I am not as familiar with your test environment and procedures as you or others, but I feel that this will result in some planes being misrepresented in terms of their energy-retention.

What do you think?
Well.. it is a real in game problem.. thus not really a misrepresentation IMHO.. but highlights a problem. On that note, I have done a test with the P38J and it does in fact take it a long time to pull out.. thus bleeds off a lot of E during that pull out.

Kettenhunde
07-04-2007, 10:02 AM
Yes I know what AOI is oh master-of-the-obvious!

Have for years!

Good news what ever it is, it is constant.. So once you know what it is you can simply add it to my result. On that note it is typically small and alot of flight sims assume it is zero..

Indisputably you were certainly not at a loss for a clear explanation of the angle the wings are mounted on the fuselage in relation to the longitudinal axis.

All the best,

Crumpp

mbfRoy
07-04-2007, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yes I know what AOI is oh master-of-the-obvious!

Have for years!

Good news what ever it is, it is constant.. So once you know what it is you can simply add it to my result. On that note it is typically small and alot of flight sims assume it is zero..

Indisputably you were certainly not at a loss for a clear explanation of the angle the wings are mounted on the fuselage in relation to the longitudinal axis.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So it isn't constant in each plane?

Kettenhunde
07-04-2007, 11:12 AM
So it isn't constant in each plane?


No it is not constant from aircraft to aircraft.

It is determined by the airfoil selection for the design and the goals of the designer.

Some aircraft even have negative AOI for a high camber wing. Generally though it is positive.

It does remain constant once the wings are bolted on as long as the wings configuration does not change. Changing the configuration of the wing, such as dropping flaps or LE devices can change AOI as they alter the shape of the wing changing the chord line.

The actual definition is the angle of the chord line to the body longitudinal axis. The chord line is a line draw from wing leading edge to wing trailing edge. When our trailing edge flaps come down, they move the trailing edge location thereby altering the chord line.

Tagerts detailed and clear explanation should have cleared up any questions.

All the best,

Crumpp

mbfRoy
07-04-2007, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So it isn't constant in each plane?


No it is not constant from aircraft to aircraft.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks, but that was not my question. So I guess it is constant on each aircraft then, aight!

Kettenhunde
07-04-2007, 12:34 PM
Thanks, but that was not my question.

Your question was answered in detail.


It does remain constant once the wings are bolted on as long as the wings configuration does not change. Changing the configuration of the wing, such as dropping flaps or LE devices can change AOI as they alter the shape of the wing changing the chord line.

The actual definition is the angle of the chord line to the body longitudinal axis. The chord line is a line draw from wing leading edge to wing trailing edge. When our trailing edge flaps come down, they move the trailing edge location thereby altering the chord line.

All the best,

Crumpp

mbfRoy
07-04-2007, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Thanks, but that was not my question.

Your question was answered in detail.


It does remain constant once the wings are bolted on as long as the wings configuration does not change. Changing the configuration of the wing, such as dropping flaps or LE devices can change AOI as they alter the shape of the wing changing the chord line.

The actual definition is the angle of the chord line to the body longitudinal axis. The chord line is a line draw from wing leading edge to wing trailing edge. When our trailing edge flaps come down, they move the trailing edge location thereby altering the chord line.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So going back to the original question about the angle of incidence being constant on each aircraft on this test... I guess it is after all.

Thanks for the info by the way.

Kettenhunde
07-04-2007, 02:00 PM
So going back to the original question about the angle of incidence being constant on each aircraft on this test... I guess it is after all.

I can't answer that. You will have to go and look at your game testing yourself.

Adding the part about "in the test" is your ball of wax. It's your world, so construct the events in it anyway you would like to make them more palatable.

I just answered your question about AOI being constant on an aircraft in real aircraft.

All the best,

Crumpp

mbfRoy
07-04-2007, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So going back to the original question about the angle of incidence being constant on each aircraft on this test... I guess it is after all.

I can't answer that. You will have to go and look at your game testing yourself.

Adding the part about "in the test" is your ball of wax. It's your world, so construct the events in it anyway you would like to make them more palatable.

I just answered your question about AOI being constant on an aircraft in real aircraft.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Right... maybe I was referring to THIS test because that's what the thread is about.

Anyway as I said, thanks for the info (on the real aircraft stuff) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kettenhunde
07-04-2007, 08:14 PM
Anyway as I said, thanks for the info (on the real aircraft stuff)

Your Welcome...

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

M_Gunz
07-04-2007, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by mbfRoy:
[Thanks, but that was not my question. So I guess it is constant on each aircraft then, aight!

Each plane has it's own wing to fuselage angle. The reason for it is simple. It's so
when you are at cruise the plane will be pointed most directly into the air, pitch axis
aligned with path when in level flight. If the wing was then at pitch angle, these WWII
fighters and bombers would be making too little lift to keep flying level.
So you have to incline the wings a few degrees depending on things like mainly wingloading
and what your desired pitch=path speed range is for your design. That's why it's called
Angle Of Inclination.

I've seen a demonstration showing AOI in Warbirds and posted links here.

Anyone think that IL2 does not model AOI?

Hard to imagine that X-Plane doesn't account for the angle a wing is set.

I dunno about Microsloth though. Is there no AOI in the M$CFS UFO-maker?

The difference in angle is enough to support the entire plane at cruise range with nose level.

But go fly a plane and trim it out for level and check your pitch. If you speed up then
you have to trim pitch down again. In dive speeds these fighters are all nose down a couple
degrees or better to the path they are flying is verifiable in level highspeed flight.
How much nose down it takes on level to stay flying level, it takes even more at the same
speed in a dive where your plane is not supporting full weight. The nose has to come down
even more to cancel the lift not used in the descent of the plane.

To make a straight angle dive requires constantly decreasing pitch with speed and design of
the plane. However each plane is going to have a different rate to decrease the pitch with
different speeds, etc. All flown the same will have different dives especially as speed
rises. The ones that fly the steeper paths will make the best speed and zoom in general.

It's about lift (and sometimes drag) at speed, not how small the number of the angle is.
Especially if you start comparing AOA of one plane to another, without AOI any ratios are
thrown off badly. AOI is not tiny compared to Critical AOA. Why set up for such error?

M_Gunz
07-04-2007, 09:19 PM
I did see one plane mentioned that does have variable AOI wings but I forget the name.
It might be a Convair....

mynameisroland
07-05-2007, 03:30 AM
TAGERT, a big thanks for the Tempest vs D9 test.

Much appreciated, hope your enjoying your mini 4th July holiday http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kettenhunde
07-05-2007, 08:55 AM
I did see one plane mentioned that does have variable AOI wings but I forget the name.
It might be a Convair....


F-8 Crusader.


The F8U Crusader is unique in providing a two-position, variable incidence wing which allowed the pilot to hydraulically raise it 7 degrees to enable the aircraft to land and takeoff at slow speeds while maintaining the fuselage parallel to a carrier deck or runway for excellent visibility by the pilot.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-8.htm

Instead of indirectly changine AOI thru leading edge device or flaps, Chance Vought chose to direct change AOI in order to improve carrier landing characteristics.

Instead of a portion of the wing acting as a flap, it uses the entire wing.

All the best,

Crumpp

luftluuver
07-05-2007, 09:07 AM
Instead of indirectly changine AOI thru leading edge device or flaps, Chance Vought chose to direct change AOI in order to improve carrier landing characteristics.

Instead of a portion of the wing acting as a flap, it uses the entire wing.

The F8U still had and used leds and flaps.

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/PRPhotos/531L.jpg

Kettenhunde
07-05-2007, 12:17 PM
The F8U still had and used leds and flaps.

Certainly!

The only reason I can figure you quoted me was because you think the statement is wrong.

Here is another good picture from the same article I linked:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft...-DNSC9806230_JPG.jpg (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/rf-8g-DNSC9806230_JPG.jpg)

If you can show me another device on that aircraft that directly moves the AOI by changing the entire wing angle to the longitudinal axis I am all ears.

Otherwise flaps and LE devices are not covered in this statement:


Instead of indirectly changing AOI thru leading edge device or flaps, Chance Vought chose to directly change AOI in order to improve carrier landing characteristics.

Instead of a portion of the wing acting as a flap, it uses the entire wing.

Honestly, in your world are they covered by that statement?

Do you know the difference?

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
07-05-2007, 09:48 PM
The word 'instead' can possibly imply choosing one way and excluding the other.
In fact, that would be the default but by no means the only interpretation.

Some people write words to express an idea, some people lose the idea in the words.

AKA_TAGERT
07-06-2007, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yes I know what AOI is oh master-of-the-obvious!

Have for years!

Good news what ever it is, it is constant.. So once you know what it is you can simply add it to my result. On that note it is typically small and a lot of flight sims assume it is zero..

Indisputably you were certainly not at a loss for a clear explanation of the angle the wings are mounted on the fuselage in relation to the longitudinal axis. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not sure what your going on about?

But AOI is not a muddy topic, thus no clear explanation was needed.

Note I never said I know what the AOI is for each WWII plane.. All I said is for each plane it is a constant and is typically small..

So small that a lot of sims just assume it is zero (i.e. AOI equal to longitudinal axis).

AKA_TAGERT
07-06-2007, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
TAGERT, a big thanks for the Tempest vs D9 test.

Much appreciated, hope your enjoying your mini 4th July holiday http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif No Prob!

Went to the atomic museum in yesterday.. got some cool pictures.. Where going out 4 wheeling today.. Ill be in and out over the next few days.

M_Gunz
07-06-2007, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
So small that a lot of sims just assume it is zero (i.e. AOI equal to longitudinal axis).

Name some where it is not part of calculation short-cut and not made up for in equations.

M_Gunz
07-06-2007, 12:43 PM
As long as no one -uses- the results it won't matter that they are by label wrong anyway.
But you stick pitch into AOA value of lift and drag equations and you get bad output in return.

Because some old tabled sims used pitch angle to offset into performance TABLES that means it's
okay to *assume* that all the planes fly the same path slope, get the same gravity assist even
when they don't. Oh well, as long as they cover the same vertical distance it shouldn't matter
how long they take to get there, right? In a total energy and forget about thrust and drag and
time sort of way, right?

2 degrees difference in glide angle means 1 meter vertical separation for every 28 meters travel.
360kph is 100m/s, over 3m per second just there, in 30 secs about 100m more or less drop in a
chase to compare energy ... path deviations amount to energy and speed differences with all
that entails IRL and in any good model.

Kettenhunde
07-07-2007, 05:31 AM
So small that a lot of sims just assume it is zero

Wow, I bet they can't simulate the aircraft with any accuracy.

Of course I am sure you know how AOI relates to performance.

Absolutely makes any kind of comparison with real world data absolutely silly and a futile undertaking.

But I imagine I am preaching to the choir on this one with your internet education.

All the best,

Crumpp

AKA_TAGERT
07-07-2007, 03:15 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:
So small that a lot of sims just assume it is zero (i.e. AOI equal to longitudinal axis).

Name some where it is not part of calculation short-cut and not made up for in equations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I am just telling you what I have read and been told over the past 15 years of flight shimming..

Feel free to ignore it..

In that I really don't give a rip about what you think one way or another wrt my methods..

Now.. how is your E testing going?

Do you have anything to show.. or still playing the part of the movie critic?

AKA_TAGERT
07-07-2007, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So small that a lot of sims just assume it is zero

Wow, I bet they can't simulate the aircraft with any accuracy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Depends..


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Of course I am sure you know how AOI relates to performance.
Of course


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Absolutely makes any kind of comparison with real world data absolutely silly and a futile undertaking.
Go back to the page one of the original post on E retention testing and note that I pointed out there is not a lot of real data to comp to.. Thus this whole exercise is for sim plane to sim plane comparisons


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
But I imagine I am preaching to the choir on this one with your internet education.
I imagine you imagine a lot of things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Kettenhunde
07-07-2007, 05:30 PM
Depends..


Baloney. It is an absolute Tagert. If you don't explain it, I will. I don't think you can explain it in your own words.


Of course

Well good! Explain how AOI relates to aircraft performance or I will.

I think some readers will learn a thing or two.

All the best,

Crumpp

Wurkeri
07-07-2007, 06:08 PM
Hm... Overall the knowing the exact AoA or AoI (and the difference between these) is purely a secondary issues assuming that the Cl/Cd relation is correctly modeled in the sim (nothing indicates that it is not).

I can see that the flight paths of the planes are not exactly the same in Tagert's testing, however, the relative differences between the planes should show up well given that the method seems to be free from the variation caused by human error.

M_Gunz
07-07-2007, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Do you have anything to show.. or still playing the part of the movie critic?

I'll just borrow a line from the mouthiest, pushiest "movie critic" on this board...

Got tracks Nancy? Savvy?

M_Gunz
07-07-2007, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by Wurkeri:
I can see that the flight paths of the planes are not exactly the same in Tagert's testing, however, the relative differences between the planes should show up well given that the method seems to be free from the variation caused by human error.

The error is in the setup, but it's a consistent error that varies from plane to plane.
A look at trends should show some planes favored, but so far no charts on that, no data
to make them.

I am reminded of the people that refuse to post tracks because of Tagert.
Oh, yes, they were such losers for not posting tracks....

Kettenhunde
07-07-2007, 07:17 PM
Mhh...It's hardly secondary issues if your trying to reproduce or simulate an aircraft.

Especially the AoA! That's actually a very basic relationship of aerodynamics.

That is the heart of the issue in fact. You can SWAG the L/D on paper but you will never reproduce it in the air on an actual aircraft or have a 3D model that acts like the aircraft being simulated.

Why do you think that WB's testing was done in the first place?

The individual who did that testing also has a Master's in Aeronautical Science and was the lead programmer for WB's.

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
07-07-2007, 10:55 PM
You can use pitch if your formula or table data includes a bias to AOA.
If you don't then the plane will not fly pitch-level without some other adjustment.
But then in a sim you can always adjust, especially tabled sims like the old Aces series.

Does MSFS/MSCFS have AOI data in the UFO-design kit?

Does X-Plane, as in the 3D model?

Warbirds must either directly or indirectly.

And apologies to the guy that did that page, the two AOI values are for flaps up and down so
they should be different and I was wrong that it indicated any error in his method. He counts
the chord angle change with flaps down as different AOI which really changes things.

Wurkeri
07-07-2007, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
The error is in the setup, but it's a consistent error that varies from plane to plane.
A look at trends should show some planes favored, but so far no charts on that, no data
to make them.


The test method might favor some planes but it should be easy to modify the test to find out that. As an example; first a little climb and then a dive (basicly same test in reverse order). The field is open for your own analysis.


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I am reminded of the people that refuse to post tracks because of Tagert.
Oh, yes, they were such losers for not posting tracks....

The problem here is that the discussions tend to turn personal, what if we just try to avoid such things?


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Mhh...It's hardly secondary issues if your trying to reproduce or simulate an aircraft.

Especially the AoA! That's actually a very basic relationship of aerodynamics.

That is the heart of the issue in fact. You can SWAG the L/D on paper but you will never reproduce it in the air on an actual aircraft or have a 3D model that acts like the aircraft being simulated.

There is no exact information on AoA (nor AoI) available so all the tester can do is to record the speed and altitude at time line and assume that Cl/Cd relation is correct in the Il-2 (nothing indicates that it is not).


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Why do you think that WB's testing was done in the first place?


Mr. Hoof just tested how the AoA was modeled in the WB and the differences between the planes. Probably similar tests can be done in the Il-2 as well but that is an subject for another thread.

Badsight-
07-08-2007, 02:43 AM
TY for the testing Tagert

why do some feel the need to disprove clear un-biased testing - jealousy at not having done it themselves ?

M_Gunz
07-08-2007, 02:43 AM
AOI can be found. How many of these planes exist in line drawing profile view if not in museum?
Wing twist root and tip of Spitfire and Mustang have been shown, chord angle = AOI.

Not exactly forever lost information.

Try setting trim for 400kph level at cruise power and then go 100% power and check your climb.
Your pitch stays constant even as the plane begins to rise. Same pitch, more speed, you climb.
Same thing works in a dive, and speed increase is not engine dependent in dive.
Pitch is not path.

Kettenhunde
07-08-2007, 04:40 AM
There is no exact information on AoA

AoA and AOI are both very easy to calculate off the "data" from your game. It's been done in this thread!

It is also very easy to calculate off real world data to compare it too.

This is not some mystery nor is it unavailable.

Yes, AoA it is extremely important to know. All aircraft performance is based upon it. All aircraft performance occurs at a specific AoA. This is fixed by design.

It is rather to silly to argue otherwise or against this very important bit of information when discussing performance.

If you want to know how accurate your FM's are then examine the AoA.

All the best,

Crumpp

Wurkeri
07-08-2007, 05:37 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
AoA and AOI are both very easy to calculate off the "data" from your game. It's been done in this thread!


Could you point where that has been done. I see that you have calculated something based on root profile of the Fw 190 but generally such calculations should be done at MAC (mean aerodynamic chord) and you have not documented the parameters (Cd0 for entire plane, AoA at Cd0 for entire plane, value of the e for entire plane) you have used for the L/D values so I don't see much point in your calculations.

If you look at Mr. Hoof's testing on WB you can see that determining (simulated) AoA is rather complicated issue and there is still some uncertainty in the results.


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Yes, AoA it is extremely important to know. All aircraft performance is based upon it. All aircraft performance occurs at a specific AoA. This is fixed by design.


If the Cd/Cl relation of the plane is known there is not much need to know exact AoA. The Cl and Cd values are much easier to calculate out from test data than the AoA.

Kettenhunde
07-08-2007, 06:11 AM
MAC (mean aerodynamic chord)

It was a quick SWAG and an accurate one. MAC is not hard either if you wanted to take it a step further. Just some simple algebra.

http://www.airfieldmodels.com/information_source/math_a...erodynamic_chord.htm (http://www.airfieldmodels.com/information_source/math_and_science_of_model_aircraft/formulas/mean_aerodynamic_chord.htm)


(Cd0 for entire plane, AoA at Cd0 for entire plane, value of the e for entire plane)

Ohh Baloney. You don't need zero lift drag for the entire aircraft, value of e, or any of that. Just use the forces required and the airfoil data.

The induced AoA has to meet the forces required for that condition of flight.

The airfoil AoA is fixed by design of the airfoil.

Your making this much more complicated than it really is Wurkeri.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
07-08-2007, 06:24 AM
If you can't work the formula:

http://www.ajgs.com/Avaition-Protected/MACLength11ajgs.htm

You need to know how to read the airfoil data?

All the best,

Crumpp

Wurkeri
07-08-2007, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Do you even know what MAC is??? I don't think so with this question?


I do know but apparently you don't because you used the root chord for the analysis which is a wrong approach.


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Ohh Baloney. You don't need zero lift drag for the entire aircraft, value of e, or any of that. Just use the forces required and the airfoil data.


Actually you need them to make sensible analysis on Cl/Cd relations of an airplane. The wing is just a part of an airplane.

Kettenhunde
07-08-2007, 06:31 AM
What part of this:

The induced AoA has to meet the forces required for that condition of flight.

Is confusing?

All your smoke is contained in the induced AoA. You don't need to know airplane efficiency or Cdo. It is accounted for already in our forces required. That is the whole purpose of induced AoA!

Let me explain this before these silly claims continue.

Induced angle of attack is a function of the induced drag. Induced drag is a function of the lift required for that condition of flight.

Now Lift is tied to drag by design and occurs at a specific AoA. By using our drag required and lift required we find our Lift to Drag ratio required for that condition of flight. Using the lift required we find the induced drag required and from there the induced angle of attack required.

We don't need to know the Cdo or airplane efficiency. All we need to know is the total drag, total lift required for that condition of flight, and some basic airfoil data found in any reference.


you used the root chord for the analysis which is a wrong approach.

There is absolutely nothing that says you have to use MAC, Wurkeri. I did a quick SWAG to show how easy this is to do. You can section the wing and the AoA. How do you think engineers get the root to stall first or manipulate stall characteristics of an airfoil?

You sure you understand this stuff?

All the best,

Crumpp

Wurkeri
07-08-2007, 06:47 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
The induced AoA has to meet the forces required for that condition of flight.


Yep but there is no particular need to know the AoA (nor the AoI) if the real thing, Cl/Cd relation, is known. And the Cl/Cd relation is much easier to calculate than the exact AoA.


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
[b]
All your smoke is contained in the induced AoA. You don't need to know airplane efficiency or Cdo. It is accounted for already in our forces required.


The AoA nor the AoI tells very little about the drag of the entire airplane while the Cl/Cd relation gives directly the needed information.


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
[b]
There is absolutely nothing that says you have to use MAC, Wurkeri. I did a quick SWAG to show how easy this is to do. You can section the wing and the AoA. How do you think engineers get the root to stall first or manipulate stall characteristics of an airfoil?


We are talking about the AoA of the airplane and the MAC is the only sensible place to measure that.

Kettenhunde
07-08-2007, 07:02 AM
Yep but there is no particular need to know the AoA (nor the AoI) if the real thing, Cl/Cd relation, is known. And the Cl/Cd relation is much easier to calculate than the exact AoA.

Wow! The fact that L/D is tied to AoA is a fundamental principle of aerodynamics.

It is tied by design to each aircraft. How else can it be explained? A Spitfire has a unique L/D and AoA at a given condition of flight. If it does not meet those numbers then it is not a Spitfire!

If you can't see the importance of this very basic relationship, I can't help you. This is something you should have gotten in your very first aerodynamics class.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
07-08-2007, 07:14 AM
Here, so you don't make this mistake again, Wurkeri!

http://img181.imagevenue.com/loc510/th_00073_LD_ratio_122_510lo.JPG (http://img181.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=00073_LD_ratio_122_510lo.JPG)


The Lift Coefficient and the Drag Coefficient represent the changes in lift and drag as the angle of attack changes. CL and CD are not expressed by any physical unit, they are rather absolute numbers obtained from either wind tunnel tests or derived mathematically.


or derived mathematically.

This means you can use the forces required!

http://www.pilotsweb.com/principle/liftdrag.htm

All the best,

Crumpp

Wurkeri
07-08-2007, 07:19 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Wow! The fact that L/D is tied to AoA is a fundamental principle of aerodynamics.


It's tied but the real thing is the Cl/Cd relation. There is no need to know the exact AoA if the Cl/Cd relation is known. The AoA (nor the AoI) tells very little directly about L/D relation of an airplane while the Cl/Cd relation tells all the needed information.


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
If you can't see the importance of this very basic relationship, I can't help you. This is something you should have gotten in your very first aerodynamics class.


No one is ignoring the importance of the AoA but we just don't need to know (nor calculate) it because the Cl/Cd relation gives all the needed information. And the Cd/Cl is easy to calculate out while the exact AoA is not.

BTW it's better that I simply disagree with you because it does not matter at all what I say.

Kettenhunde
07-08-2007, 07:21 AM
We are talking about the AoA of the airplane and the MAC is the only sensible place to measure that.

If you need help figuring out the MAC or interpreting the data let me know.

You certainly should not go it alone without someone who understands the basic relationships reviewing it.

It is very easy to figure out AoA and all of these aircraft have reliable aerodynamic data published.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
07-08-2007, 07:24 AM
And the Cd/Cl is easy to calculate out while the exact AoA is not.

No one is saying it is not easy to calculate. However if you are going to marry these numbers to a 3D shape or representation of a physical shape you certainly do need to to know AoA.

All of this has to line up, otherwise your not modeling any specific aircraft.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
07-08-2007, 07:29 AM
The AoA (nor the AoI) tells very little directly about L/D relation of an airplane while the Cl/Cd relation tells all the needed information.


That's baloney. You most certainly can figure your lift and drag from AoA in a given design.

Using the following graph:
http://img181.imagevenue.com/loc510/th_00073_LD_ratio_122_510lo.JPG (http://img181.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=00073_LD_ratio_122_510lo.JPG)

We can see that at 6 degrees AoA our CL must be 1.28 and our Cd must be .0385!

It is all tied together by design.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
07-08-2007, 08:00 AM
Here is the F6F Hellcat's wing tip and the FW190 series wingtip. Just an example of a typical 2D data plot for an airfoil.

I wouldn't use MAC though I would use root data. Designers in WWII were very aware of manipulation of the airfoil to achieve desired stall effects. The goal is too stall the root first. If your wing root is stalled, the aircraft is no longer in flight but in a stalled condition.

MAC is acceptable but understand you will be on the backside of the lift polar for much of the wing and it will not be useful for flight performance other than saying, our plane floundered for a few more feet! Once that root stalls our plane is dead in the water and the wing can no longer support controlled flight. The tips only give the pilot lateral control to help keep the wing level and maintain some directional control in the stall. They do not support the aircraft itself and we cannot fly on them alone.
http://img178.imagevenue.com/loc82/th_02393_NACA_23009_122_82lo.JPG (http://img178.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=02393_NACA_23009_122_82lo.JPG)

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
07-08-2007, 08:04 AM
Hurry up and read up on this stuff Tagert and post! Start clicking those websites, boy.

I want to hear how you already knew all this stuff. I especially want to hear how AoA or AOI is not important.

All the best,

Crumpp

AKA_TAGERT
07-08-2007, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Depends..


Baloney. It is an absolute Tagert. If you don't explain it, I will. I don't think you can explain it in your own words.


Of course

Well good! Explain how AOI relates to aircraft performance or I will.

I think some readers will learn a thing or two.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That's nice..

Say I have a novel idea..

Why don't you..

<LI> Take the time to program your own DeviceLink data extraction program that time stamps the data.. As I did.
<LI> Take the time to program your own DeviceLink data analysis program that calculates AoA.. As I did.
<LI> Take the time to program the auto pilot util that starts at a constant vel and alt and preforms a dive and pull out.. As I did.

After which we can talk about what is or is not Baloney.

Or you can just sit there like a movie critic stating how star wars would have been more realistic if the color of the lasers on the death star were yellow instead of green.

AKA_TAGERT
07-08-2007, 08:20 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 AKA_TAGERT:
Do you have anything to show.. or still playing the part of the movie critic?

I'll just borrow a line from the mouthiest, pushiest "movie critic" on this board...

Got tracks Nancy? Savvy? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That's nice..

Say I have a novel idea..

Why don't you..

<LI> Take the time to program your own DeviceLink data extraction program that time stamps the data.. As I did.
<LI> Take the time to program your own DeviceLink data analysis program that calculates AoA.. As I did.
<LI> Take the time to program the auto pilot util that starts at a constant vel and alt and preforms a dive and pull out.. As I did.

After which we can talk about who is or is not the pushiest.

Or you can just sit there like a movie critic stating how star wars would have been more realistic if the color of the lasers on the death star were yellow instead of green.

AKA_TAGERT
07-08-2007, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by Wurkeri:
Hm... Overall the knowing the exact AoA or AoI (and the difference between these) is purely a secondary issues assuming that the Cl/Cd relation is correctly modeled in the sim (nothing indicates that it is not).

I can see that the flight paths of the planes are not exactly the same in Tagert's testing, however, the relative differences between the planes should show up well given that the method seems to be free from the variation caused by human error. Exactally!

AKA_TAGERT
07-08-2007, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
TY for the testing Tagert
Your Welcome Badsight!


Originally posted by Badsight-:
why do some feel the need to disprove clear un-biased testing -
I wish I knew


Originally posted by Badsight-:
jealousy at not having done it themselves ?
Be my guess..

That and absoulty nothing else going on in their small lives..

Where as while Max and Crimp were playing master-of-the-obvious WRT AoA & AoI..

I was out doing this..

http://geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/MY_MUG/ME_AN_LITTLEBOY.JPG
http://geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/MY_MUG/ME_AN_FATMAN.JPG
http://geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/MY_MUG/ME_AN_HOLE00.JPG
http://geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/MY_MUG/ME_AN_HOLE02.JPG
http://geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/MY_MUG/ME_AN_MY_RANGER01.JPG
http://geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/MY_MUG/NM_AM_00.JPG
http://geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/MY_MUG/NM_AM_02.JPG

Now you will have to excuse me.. were off onto another adventure today! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kettenhunde
07-08-2007, 09:02 AM
Don't dodge the question Tagert.

You made the claim that AOI or AoA does not matter in aircraft performance. So quit making excuses and let's here your explanation. You claim to be well read in Aerodynamics so please provide a simple explanation.

The evidence is presented and it is a very basic fact of aerodynamics that AoA and L/D ratio are linked by design. It is a very fundamental relationship and one that is very easy to calculate and confirm.

And for your excuse, I was out doing this with the family:

http://img165.imagevenue.com/loc877/th_06795_IMG_0003_122_877lo.JPG (http://img165.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=06795_IMG_0003_122_877lo.JPG)http://img138.imagevenue.com/loc376/th_06801_IMG_0011_122_376lo.JPG (http://img138.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=06801_IMG_0011_122_376lo.JPG)http://img126.imagevenue.com/loc945/th_06803_IMG_0017_122_945lo.JPG (http://img126.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=06803_IMG_0017_122_945lo.JPG)http://img45.imagevenue.com/loc1113/th_06808_IMG_0015_122_1113lo.JPG (http://img45.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=06808_IMG_0015_122_1113lo.JPG)

Whoopie do...

All the best,

Crumpp

AKA_TAGERT
07-08-2007, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Don't dodge the question Tagert.
What question?


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
You made the claim that AOI or AoA does not matter in aircraft performance.
You are a liar!

I challenge you to quote me where I ever said it was not important!


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
So quit making excuses and let's here your explanation.
No excuses or explanation needed in that I never said what your saying I said!

Why?

because you are a liar!

Simple fact is Wurkeri handed you your A with regards to AoA and AoI and now your trying to avoid that topic and go off on some tangent.


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
You claim to be well read in Aerodynamics so please provide a simple explanation.
Another lie!

You and MAX seem to be drinking from the same kool-aid in that you are both seeing things!

Quote me where you think I said either of those things and I will show you a case of you not being able to read!


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
The evidence is presented and it is a very basic fact of aerodynamics that AoA and L/D ratio are linked by design. It is a very fundamental relationship and one that is very easy to calculate and confirm.
Which is what Wurkeri pointed out and I never disputed


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
And for your excuse, I was out doing this with the family:

Whoopie do...
Sure.. sure.. sure.. You keep telling yourself that!

Kettenhunde
07-08-2007, 09:28 AM
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:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So small that a lot of sims just assume it is zero

Wow, I bet they can't simulate the aircraft with any accuracy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Depends..


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Of course I am sure you know how AOI relates to performance.
Of course


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Absolutely makes any kind of comparison with real world data absolutely silly and a futile undertaking.
Go back to the page one of the original post on E retention testing and note that I pointed out there is not a lot of real data to comp to.. Thus this whole exercise is for sim plane to sim plane comparisons


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
But I imagine I am preaching to the choir on this one with your internet education.
I imagine you imagine a lot of things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Explain how anyone can marry the physical performance of the aircraft to a 3D shape with any degree of accuracy without accounting for the correct AoA and AOI?

All ears...

Quit dodging and answer the question. You said "It depends". Lets hear those exceptions!

All the best,

Crumpp

AKA_TAGERT
07-08-2007, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<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:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So small that a lot of sims just assume it is zero

Wow, I bet they can't simulate the aircraft with any accuracy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Depends..


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Of course I am sure you know how AOI relates to performance.
Of course


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Absolutely makes any kind of comparison with real world data absolutely silly and a futile undertaking.
Go back to the page one of the original post on E retention testing and note that I pointed out there is not a lot of real data to comp to.. Thus this whole exercise is for sim plane to sim plane comparisons


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
But I imagine I am preaching to the choir on this one with your internet education.
I imagine you imagine a lot of things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Explain how anyone can marry the physical performance of the aircraft to a 3D shape with any degree of accuracy without accounting for the correct AoA and AOI?

All ears...

Quit dodging and answer the question. You said "It depends". Lets hear those exceptions!

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I notice you did not provide the quote I requested..

Thus your still a liar in my book!

Now I am out the door.. in the mean time.. work on that DeviceLink, Analysis, and autopilot tools so we can talk about the topic at hand!

Kettenhunde
07-08-2007, 09:38 AM
Which is what Wurkeri pointed out and I never disputed

Wow, you can't read. Wurkeri did not understand that Lift, drag, and AoA are all physically linked by design. You cannot separate them if you want to simulate an aircraft.

Otherwise he wouldn't have bothered to even post as your assertion of "It depends" is ridiculous.

For the life of me I can't figure out why your so afraid of the actual science or cannot stand being corrected when your wrong.

You should be thanking me! I have shown you how to correctly estimate zoom climb performance and AoA! Basic ingredients you need to confirm your results.

All you have to do is some simple math, read some charts, and compare the results to your test.

Your resistance is just stupidity to what is really some excellent help.

As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water...

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
07-08-2007, 09:43 AM
I notice you did not provide the quote I requested..


Weak Tagert, very weak.

It's pretty clear. You say we don't need AoA or AOI to simulate aircraft performance on a 3D shape. Lets here those circumstances that, "It depends."

What are those circumstances?

I know you won't answer the question though. You simply don't have the answer and your internet sites will not help you on this because your assumption violates a fundamental principle of aerodynamics.

Your a BS artist in over his head.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
07-08-2007, 09:55 AM
I stink at posting, instead of quoting this post I ended up editing it.

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

Oh well, this still holds true:


Hurry up and read up on this stuff Tagert and post! Start clicking those websites, boy.

I want to hear how you already knew all this stuff. I especially want to hear how AoA or AOI is not important.

All the best,

Crumpp

What's funny is 16 minutes after I post this, look who shows up posting a bunch of pictures claiming, "No I wasn't lurking in the thread trying to figure out what is going on!"

Poor Nancy....

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
07-08-2007, 10:02 AM
Oh yeah,

Before some silly junk winds up in this thread, the SWAG is accurate within the realm of significant digits.

I am not spending a considerable amount of money to run an engineering level estimate and you can bet Oleg did not either.

All the best,

Crumpp

Wurkeri
07-08-2007, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
If you need help figuring out the MAC or interpreting the data let me know.

You certainly should not go it alone without someone who understands the basic relationships reviewing it.


No thanks, I have checked your calculations several times in the past and practically allways there has been large amount various of errors.


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Here, so you don't make this mistake again, Wurkeri!


What mistake? We don't have such exact data on the Il-2 planes.


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Here is the F6F Hellcat's wing tip and the FW190 series wingtip. Just an example of a typical 2D data plot for an airfoil.


These are profile drag and wing data sets, but we need data for entire plane. Just study Mr. Hoof's tests, it's not easy.

Wurkeri
07-08-2007, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Wow, you can't read. Wurkeri did not understand that Lift, drag, and AoA are all physically linked by design.

Well, please prove that. I have said several times that these are connected but there is no particular need to know the exact AoA (nor AoI).

Kettenhunde
07-08-2007, 10:18 AM
Get page or two away and we can just reinvent it, huh?

Or calling up past rounding errors or simple math mistakes is your defense for screwing up a basic fundamental principle of aerodynamics?

Here so folks do not have to hunt through it:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/5421017075/p/6

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
07-08-2007, 10:24 AM
Well, please prove that. I have said several times that these are connected but there is no particular need to know the exact AoA (nor AoI).


Baloney. We need it to confirm our performance is correct and correlates with the 3D or physical representation we are simulating.

If it does not then we are not simulating a specific aircraft.

Isn't that rather self evident??

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
07-08-2007, 10:34 AM
We don't have such exact data on the Il-2 planes.


Here I will help you again since this is such a mystery!

http://agert.homelinux.org/~fredrik/flyg/aircraft.html (http://agert.homelinux.org/%7Efredrik/flyg/aircraft.html)

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
07-08-2007, 10:47 AM
These are profile drag and wing data sets, but we need data for entire plane.


You are lost aren't you?

Induced AoA accounts for the effect on total AoA for the entire airplane.

That is the defining feature between an airfoil and a wing!

All the best,'

Crumpp

M_Gunz
07-08-2007, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
[Say I have a novel idea..


What, do what you accuse "The Blue Team" of which is change the subject.

Got Tracks Nancy? Just like you demand of others.
And for the same reason, oh master movie critic of other people's tracks.
And you was saying how other people can't take it but you can.

See what happens next time you play "got track?". Answer is now "make your own".

na85
07-08-2007, 01:29 PM
Crumpp,

Is that graph you posted valid for all aircraft?

Kettenhunde
07-08-2007, 03:21 PM
Is that graph you posted valid for all aircraft?

No it is a generic example representing typical polars. Each aircraft has unique polars based upon it's relationship of Lift, drag, and AoA.

It's not hard to find or calculate.

All the best,

Crumpp

mbfRoy
07-08-2007, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Is that graph you posted valid for all aircraft?

No it is a generic example representing typical polars. Each aircraft has unique polars based upon it's relationship of Lift, drag, and AoA.

It's not hard to find or calculate.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I cannot believe that I've read through the whole thing!

I must have lost it somewhere between page 5 and 7 because I fail to see how all these things are important for a test that's supposed to measure ingame performance only. Maybe start a new thread to compare ingame AOA to real aircraft AOA?

Kettenhunde
07-08-2007, 04:40 PM
I must have lost it somewhere between page 5 and 7 because I fail to see how all these things are important for a test that's supposed to measure ingame performance only. Maybe start a new thread to compare ingame AOA to real aircraft AOA?

You did lose it.

The concept is very simple. If you want to ensure your getting optimum performance then you need to place the aircraft at optimum angle of attack.

The AoA routine in the autopilot should be able to do this for you. I would pick Vx AoA on L/D curve.

You can use the real aircraft AoA to confirm the simulated aircraft's performance to see how close the FM's are to RL.

All the best,

Crumpp

mbfRoy
07-08-2007, 04:58 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 must have lost it somewhere between page 5 and 7 because I fail to see how all these things are important for a test that's supposed to measure ingame performance only. Maybe start a new thread to compare ingame AOA to real aircraft AOA?

You did lose it.

The concept is very simple. If you want to ensure your getting optimum performance then you need to place the aircraft at optimum angle of attack.

The AoA routine in the autopilot should be able to do this for you. I would pick Vx AoA on L/D curve.

You can use the real aircraft AoA to confirm the simulated aircraft's performance to see how close the FM's are to RL.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So rather than making every plane do the same thing, they'd need to dive/climb at different angles to reach their optimum angle of attack?

Is AOA affected by speed? (yes, I'm a total ignorant on the subject, before anyone asks).

And assuming that every plane would need its own climb/dive angle, how much would they differ, approx, in degrees?

Wurkeri
07-08-2007, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Get page or two away and we can just reinvent it, huh?


What I said in my first post in this thread is that the AoA (and AoI) is a secondary issue; we don't need to know it because the flight path in Tagert's test can be determined without it.


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Or calling up past rounding errors or simple math mistakes is your defense for screwing up a basic fundamental principle of aerodynamics?


Well, last time I when I checked your calculation you somehow mixed the terms of power and force, in addition you tried to use 1g L/D max formula for turn performance calculation which does not make sense at all.

Thread (closed) is here:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/6131040055/p/1

Note that at CWOS several posters made same points before the thread was closed as well.


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Baloney. We need it to confirm our performance is correct and correlates with the 3D or physical representation we are simulating.


The flight path in the Tagert's test can be determined without knowing the AoA (using recorded speed, altitude and time data) so I don't see anykind of point in your argument.

Perhaps you should make your own tests if you are interested if the AoA is correctly modeled in the Il-2. Mr. Hoofs methods give good guidelines but it won't be easy.


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Here I will help you again since this is such a mystery!

http://agert.homelinux.org/~fredrik/flyg/aircraft.html (http://agert.homelinux.org/%7Efredrik/flyg/aircraft.html)


These are just profiles, only the rough analysis are possible.


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Induced AoA accounts for the effect on total AoA for the entire airplane.

That is the defining feature between an airfoil and a wing!


Well, you can make rough analysis on Cl with profile data but it tells very little about the drag of the entire plane.

Kettenhunde
07-08-2007, 05:23 PM
Well, last time I when I checked your calculation you somehow mixed the terms of power and force, in addition you tried to use 1g L/D max formula for turn performance calculation which does not make sense at all.


In your world maybe. Construct it as you need too to make things more palatable.

Facts are I said everything I need to say in about it in that thread already.

You don't understand the terms power and thrust. For example, Vx occurs at maximum excess thrust while Vy occurs at maximum excess power. Too different characteristics. So no, I did not confuse anything. You just don't know what I am talking about because your not formally educated in aerodynamics or aircraft performance.

Not a big deal. I can live with it.


These are just profiles, only the rough analysis are possible.

You think we are going to be doing engineering level calcs on Ubizoo??

Get real. The method I showed you is the accepted method for determining AoA. It is not engineering level calcs but you will not get more accurate without going to the next level. I'm not paying for the computer time!

Your arguments are silly. The SWAG is accurate enough for what we need to do and will definitely tell us if we are in the correct ballpark for a given design. Aircraft performance is not that precise in the first place so I hardly see where your objections make any sense at all.

If you had a formal education in aerodynamics you would have in your library plenty of references for this too.

Here is a good one to get you started!

http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Wing-Sections-Including-Su...id=1183937932&sr=1-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Wing-Sections-Including-Summary/dp/0486605868/ref=sr_1_1/002-3112850-2639247?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183937932&sr=1-1)


Well, you can make rough analysis on Cl with profile data but it tells very little about the drag of the entire plane.

Oh please. Are you incapable of calculating drag required under given condition of flight?

The drag of the entire plane is accounted for in our L/D ratio and induced AoA. You do understand that L/D ratio is fixed by design? Therefore each Cl has a single corresponding Cd for that AoA?

It's simple to do and easy to confirm if it is correct.

Facts are you don't know how to do this because your not formally educated in aerodynamics. To cover it up your throwing out a bunch of red herrings.

It's not my fault you do not understand the basic relationship of AoA, Lift, and Drag. For being self eductated you have come a pretty good distance Wurkeri, honestly. Maybe you understand it now somewhat? If so you are welcome.

It is also not my fault you do not realize the importance of this to aircraft performance.

All the best,

Crumpp

AKA_TAGERT
07-08-2007, 05:26 PM
@Guys..

Don't waste your time trying to have a conversation with Crump and Max.. In that half the time they are arguing with you about things they 'think' you said instead of things you actually did say.. and the rest of the time they are making master-of-the-obvious statements as if no one ever heard of gravity until they told us.

Long story short.. it is a loose loose situation..

So from here on out Ill just post my progress in my testing.. After wich if anyone has any 'useful' feedback or suggestionss simply PM me.. Otherwise you may find yourself defending accusations from Crump and MAX that you did not know how to type letters until you saw them do it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

@MAX and Crump..

Ill make it real simple for you two..

If you think you can do a better in-game E retention test..

DO IT!

In that I made it this far without any of your help.. Lets see what you two can do.

SAVVY?

Kettenhunde
07-08-2007, 05:35 PM
Oh so your not going to tell us the situations where AoA does not depend on L/D ratio?

I was really looking forward to it.

The only thing to say is...


Poooor Nancy!!!

All the best,

Crumpp

AKA_TAGERT
07-08-2007, 05:37 PM
There you go responding to things I never said and/or making up lies.

You a real one trick pony!

Now back on topic..

If you think you can do a better in-game E retention test..

DO IT!

mbfRoy
07-08-2007, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Now back on topic.. If you think you can do a better in-game E retention test..

DO IT!
Honestly I don't see anything wrong with the test...

START 10kft @230mph
Dive at -30? pitch
Wait until you pass through 6,000ft
Climb at 30? pitch
Wait until IAS = 150mph

I'd like to know why those settings would not be a good way to determine energy retention for different ingame planes at that angle.

IMO adding +/-45º and +/-60º would be nice to get more info on how the planes behave at different angles, but it still looks like a valid (and useful) test to me.

Kettenhunde
07-08-2007, 05:46 PM
I still have to wonder what you have against the science and suggestions to make your testing easier and more accurate?

Unless of course the agenda is not to be more accurate.

Then I completely understand why you shy away from the science.

All the best,

Crumpp

AKA_TAGERT
07-08-2007, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
I still have to wonder what you have against the science and suggestions to make your testing easier and more accurate?

Unless of course the agenda is not to be more accurate.

Then I completely understand why you shy away from the science.

All the best,

Crumpp
So what part of...

If you think you can do a better in-game E retention test than..

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
******* ******* ** **********
/**////** **/////** /**/////**///
/** /** ** //** /** /**
/** /**/** /** /** /**
/** /**/** /** /** /**
/** ** //** ** /** /**
/******* //******* /** /**
/////// /////// // // </pre>
Did you not understand?

I made it this far without any of your help..

Now lets see what you two can do..

Should be a real hoot!

And highlight who here is shying away from what! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Wurkeri
07-08-2007, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
You don't understand the terms power and thrust.


Well, the evidence proves that the understanding problem is in your side.


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
The method I showed you is the accepted method for determining AoA.


Well, if you use MAC, calculate the effect of the wing twist, correct the Reynolds number etc...

Besides, it's not needed for Tagert's test.


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Are you incapable of calculating drag required under given condition of flight?


No, and I don't need to know exact AoA nor profile data to do that.


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Facts are you don't know how...


Well, no need to comment the rest. I'm following Tagert's suggestion. Good night.

AKA_TAGERT
07-08-2007, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by Wurkeri:
I'm following Tagert's suggestion. Good night. Smart man.. I think I will follow my own advice too! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kettenhunde
07-08-2007, 05:56 PM
I'd like to know why those settings would not be a good way to determine energy retention for different ingame planes at that angle.

You can compare performance with what you have in the game with this method. You can use the rectilinear motion equations to confirm relative performance.

However it tells you nothing about the specific performance of the design being simulated in your game.

To confirm the specific performance, some simple AoA calculations cross referenced with the L/D will easily put you in the ballpark. That puts the maths numbers in concert with the 3D shape.

You already have the tools to do it.

Of course that all comes back too:


Unless of course the agenda is not to be more accurate.

Then I completely understand why you shy away from the science.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
07-08-2007, 06:04 PM
No, and I don't need to know exact AoA nor profile data to do that.

Bingo!

Your correct! Now that you have found the drag required we know that it must correspond to a specific Lift point on the L/D curve!

And that coefficient of lift corresponds to specific AoA! Isn't that neat how it all comes together like that?

If it all lines up in your game, then we know our simulated aircraft data is good. If it doesn't line up well then there is a problem with the FM for that aircraft.

Yeah! You figured it out!

Good Job!

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

Reynolds number...that's funny man.

All the best,

Crumpp

mbfRoy
07-08-2007, 06:08 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'd like to know why those settings would not be a good way to determine energy retention for different ingame planes at that angle.

You can compare performance with what you have in the game with this method. You can use the rectilinear motion equations to confirm relative performance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I (dunno about others)don't have any data on the ingame planes to do it unfortunately, so I would not be able to check it that way I'm afraid.


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
However it tells you nothing about the specific performance of the design being simulated in your game.

To confirm the specific performance, some simple AoA calculations cross referenced with the L/D will easily put you in the ballpark. That puts the maths numbers in concert with the 3D shape.

You already have the tools to do it.

All the best,

Crumpp
Ok. Regarding AOA I had a question on the previous page that maybe you missed,


Posted by me eariler:
So rather than making every plane do the same thing, they'd need to dive/climb at different angles to reach their optimum angle of attack?

Is AOA affected by speed? (yes, I'm a total ignorant on the subject, before anyone asks).

And assuming that every plane would need its own climb/dive angle, how much would they differ, approx, in degrees?

Targ
07-08-2007, 06:20 PM
Let's please keep this discussion civil http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Personal attacks are not needed to convey ones point here.
Thanks

Kettenhunde
07-08-2007, 07:04 PM
I (dunno about others)don't have any data on the ingame planes to do it unfortunately, so I would not be able to check it that way I'm afraid.

I already did one spreadsheet for one of the players of this game. It figures out the L/D ratio, Ta, Tr, Pa, and Pr off some basic data on the design. From there you plug the data into another sheet which does zoom and dive performance for you. It should help out.


So rather than making every plane do the same thing, they'd need to dive/climb at different angles to reach their optimum angle of attack?

If you want to see maximum zoom performance of the design.


Is AOA affected by speed? (yes, I'm a total ignorant on the subject, before anyone asks).

Yes and no! If our performance is sustained then our AoA will change with velocity. If our performance is not sustained then we can hold our AoA constant and our velocity will change.

Doing so we keep the lift and drag forces in the correct ratio. Our Cl and Cd remain constant but our dynamic pressure changes.

We can only do this to the point of sustained performance. So if we zoom at the Vx AoA, our velocity will cease to decrease when we reach Vx as we are now in the sustained performance envelope. The L/D ratio is the ratio we have the most excess thrust available in our design.


And assuming that every plane would need its own climb/dive angle, how much would they differ, approx, in degrees?

We would have to do the math to make a decent SWAG. I would simply be guessing now.

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
07-08-2007, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by mbfRoy:
So rather than making every plane do the same thing, they'd need to dive/climb at different angles to reach their optimum angle of attack?

They need to fly at different pitch to dive at the same angle. Less steep dives do not get
as much assistance from gravity and pitch is not path IRL or in any decent sim.

I pointed this out not just this time but LONG ago and got the BS shuffle than as now.
Until you can determine slopes and get each running the same slope it's not an even compare.
And for some reason we don't see that information but instead excuses from the same guy that
beats down anyone not giving him track(s) but is too good to live by his own rules. He won't
give them up but next time he pulls his "got track" line it will be worthless.

Answer to "got track?" is "make your own" and tagert's first name is Nancy, middle name is Boy.

AKA_TAGERT
07-08-2007, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
They need to fly at different pitch to dive at the same angle. Less steep dives do not get as much assistance from gravity and pitch is not path IRL or in any decent sim.
Poor Max..

Badsight was right about you!

Now with that said..

If you think you can do a better job of it..

DO IT!


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I pointed this out not just this time but LONG ago and got the BS shuffle than as now.
Yes your good pointing out the 'obvious' Oh master-of-the-obvious!

As for the BS shuffle..

Hardly!

I just don't waste my time replying to DUH statements like that!

Now with that said..

<span class="ev_code_yellow">PUT UP OR SHUT UP!</span>

Do the test yourself and show just how much error there is in my method..

Percent error wise where YOUR TEST is the baseline..

Than we can talk!

Ill bet you don't make it past step one! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

But..

Prove me wrong!

If you think you can do a better job of it..

DO IT!


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Until you can determine slopes and get each running the same slope it's not an even compare.
If you think you can get the angle needed to equate the two perfectly over the entire flight path out to 2 decimal places, let alone one, than..

YOUR A FOOL!

No test is perfect and they will never be equal!

On that note..

Even in the real world tests..

the few that we have..

Did not obtain the same dive angle or flight path perfectly!

At lest the testing I am doing has the same pilot inputs due to the auto pilot and is therefore about as fair as it gets!

But..

Prove me wrong!

If you think you can do a better job of it..

DO IT!


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
And for some reason we don't see that information but instead excuses from the same guy that beats down anyone not giving him track(s) but is too good to live by his own rules. He won't give them up but next time he pulls his "got track" line it will be worthless. Answer to "got track?" is "make your own" and tagert's first name is Nancy, middle name is Boy.
What part of me saying..


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT on page 2:
<span class="ev_code_yellow">Once I get past BETA Ill start devoting space for folks to DL the track files.. </span>

Did you not understand?

Which makes you a LIAR or a FOOL!

Pick One!

Or Both!

In that either one suits you fine!

Now with that out of the way..

if you want the track files now to "PLAY" with..

Here you go!

http://geocities.com/grantsenn/STFU/BETA_ZOOM_TESTS_FOR_MAX_TO_PLAY_WITH.zip

And I do mean "PLAY" with!

In that you have never provided any useful feedback, answers, insight, etc. to any analysis I have worked on here.. except your typical DUH, after-the-fact, master-of-the-obvious statements.. Which advance NOTHING!

But..

Prove me wrong!

If you think you can do a better job of it..

DO IT!

And please forgive me if I and others don't hold our breath waiting on your tests results!

Let alone an apology from you to me for FALSELY accusing me of not providing the track files..

In that clearly.. ONCE AGAIN.. the ERROR is on your side of the "reading comprehension" fence!

Kettenhunde
07-09-2007, 05:25 AM
same pilot inputs due to the auto pilot




So rather than making every plane do the same thing, they'd need to dive/climb at different angles to reach their optimum angle of attack?


If you want to see maximum zoom performance of the design.


All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
07-09-2007, 05:50 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Let alone an apology from you to me for FALSELY accusing me of not providing the track files..

In that clearly.. ONCE AGAIN.. the ERROR is on your side of the "reading comprehension" fence!

provided when?
hey, why don't you just throw a fit?

what, don't you LIKE being "rubbed the wrong way"? that's how you treat others.

mbfRoy
07-09-2007, 06:17 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
I already did one spreadsheet for one of the players of this game. It figures out the L/D ratio, Ta, Tr, Pa, and Pr off some basic data on the design. From there you plug the data into another sheet which does zoom and dive performance for you. It should help out.
Can you please point me to where it is (is it the FW swag in p.3)? if it is in this thread I have definitely missed it aswell. I'd also need to know what Ta, Tr, Pa and Pr are so I get a rough idea of what I'm doing. Also... how do I calculate thrust without resorting to real aircraft data (that I don't have)? so I can plug everything to the rectilinar motion equations.

Thanks in advance.


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Is AOA affected by speed? (yes, I'm a total ignorant on the subject, before anyone asks).

Yes and no! If our performance is sustained then our AoA will change with velocity. If our performance is not sustained then we can hold our AoA constant and our velocity will change.

Doing so we keep the lift and drag forces in the correct ratio. Our Cl and Cd remain constant but our dynamic pressure changes.

We can only do this to the point of sustained performance. So if we zoom at the Vx AoA, our velocity will cease to decrease when we reach Vx as we are now in the sustained performance envelope. The L/D ratio is the ratio we have the most excess thrust available in our design.


And assuming that every plane would need its own climb/dive angle, how much would they differ, approx, in degrees?
We would have to do the math to make a decent SWAG. I would simply be guessing now.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok, let's see if I got this right. In order to get maximum zoom performance, L/D needs to be kept at its max value, and this would be done at a fixed angle of attack since this is not a sustained climb, correct? Or is it the opposite?

If it is the opposite, then the AoA needed would be defined by the maximum Cl value? Meaning that it would be getting the maximum lift even if drag is huge.

If so it is my understanding that this AoA would only be held for a set amount of time before stalling. Does it work this way?

AKA_TAGERT
07-09-2007, 07:36 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 AKA_TAGERT:
Let alone an apology from you to me for FALSELY accusing me of not providing the track files..

In that clearly.. ONCE AGAIN.. the ERROR is on your side of the "reading comprehension" fence!

provided when?
hey, why don't you just throw a fit?

what, don't you LIKE being "rubbed the wrong way"? that's how you treat others. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Surprise Surprise

MAX did not address his mistake let alone admit he made one!

The one where he accused me of having a double standard, where I didn't provide the track files for the E Retention testing I have done up to now..

Even after I pointed him to the link where I clearly said I was not going to bother uploading a bunch of BETA track files.

What did MAX do?

The MAX SOP!

Ignore it, go off on some tangent and hope nobody noticed that he made yet another mistake in his reading.

No big surprise!

In that MAX is nothing more than a "movie critic"

He wishes he could do this kind of testing.. but he can't so he just nit picks the work that other people can do.

<span class="ev_code_yellow">That is to say MAX is the kind of guy that would stand back and say the landing on the moon would have been better if the space suits were a blue color instead of white.</span>

A sort of hair dresser of aircraft performance analysis! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

The funniest part is.. MAX expects more precision and fairness from my E retention testing that what was actually done in real life! Even though I have already exceeded the precision and fairness of the real life testing!

AKA_TAGERT
07-09-2007, 07:40 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">same pilot inputs due to the auto pilot




So rather than making every plane do the same thing, they'd need to dive/climb at different angles to reach their optimum angle of attack?


If you want to see maximum zoom performance of the design.


All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ah..

I see your problem..

Your confused!

This testing is NOT to find the maximum zoom performance of the each design..

This testing is done like the REAL WORLD test done between the ZERO and the P51..

A sort of moc dog fight where one tried to follow the other at some angle..

<span class="ev_code_yellow">The FACT that one was trying to follow the other should tell you that at least one, and most likely both, were not zooming at their maximum zoom performance of the design angle.. In that the only way they could both be zooming at their maximum zoom performance of the design, while one is following the others, is if the two planes were identical.</span>

I am surprised an expert like yourself did not realize that from the start... NOT! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

But, again, if you think you can do a better job..

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre"> ******* ******* ** **********
/**////** **/////** /**/////**///
/** /** ** //** /** /**
/** /**/** /** /** /**
/** /**/** /** /** /**
/** ** //** ** /** /**
/******* //******* /** /**
/////// /////// // // </pre>
Than we can talk about who has more error in their method.

na85
07-09-2007, 08:57 AM
Cmon guys, let's not get this thread locked too

Jaws2002
07-09-2007, 01:17 PM
Cmon guys, let's not get this thread locked too

Why not? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif

M_Gunz
07-09-2007, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
MAX did not address his mistake let alone admit he made one!

The one where he accused me of having a double standard, where I didn't provide the track files for the E Retention testing I have done up to now..


I just did what you have done to anyone else, gave you a hard time over nothing much.

You just don't get the message.

Kettenhunde
07-09-2007, 03:10 PM
Can you please point me to where it is (is it the FW swag in p.3)? if it is in this thread I have definitely missed it aswell. I'd also need to know what Ta, Tr, Pa and Pr are so I get a rough idea of what I'm doing. Also... how do I calculate thrust without resorting to real aircraft data (that I don't have)? so I can plug everything to the rectilinar motion equations.

PM me and I will send you the sheet.

Ta = thrust available
Tr = Thrust required
Pa = Power Available
Pr = Power required


Let me correct something too.

This portion of my explaination:


Doing so we keep the lift and drag forces in the correct ratio.

Is correct.

This part:


Our Cl and Cd remain constant but our dynamic pressure changes.

Is not really correct. Sorry it was late. Our coefficients or the ratio of dynamic pressure to lift or drag pressure do change.

I should have said that lift and drag remain in proportion while dynamic pressure decreases.

Siny or our climb angle = (Thrust - Drag)/weight

The forces will sum to zero for sustained performance.

T-D-Siny * weight = 0

Lift will be effected as such:

Lift = Cosy * weight

Our coefficient of lift and drag will change but will remain in the same ratio at the same AoA.

That is a more detailed and correct explanation. Hope I did not loose you.


If so it is my understanding that this AoA would only be held for a set amount of time before stalling.

Yes, the AoA would be held from entry velocity until the aircraft reaches Vx velocity.

Vx = best angle of climb velocity

All the best,

Crumpp

AKA_TAGERT
07-09-2007, 07:37 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:
MAX did not address his mistake let alone admit he made one!

The one where he accused me of having a double standard, where I didn't provide the track files for the E Retention testing I have done up to now..


I just did what you have done to anyone else, gave you a hard time over nothing much.

You just don't get the message. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sure.. sure.. sure..

You keep telling yourself that!

But..

Don't think your fooling anyone!

In that it is clear that the only person having a hard time here is you..

Due to your poor reading skills http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

M_Gunz
07-10-2007, 06:19 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
I should have said that lift and drag remain in proportion while dynamic pressure decreases.

Siny or our climb angle = (Thrust - Drag)/weight

The forces will sum to zero for sustained performance.

T-D-Siny * weight = 0

Lift will be effected as such:

Lift = Cosy * weight

Our coefficient of lift and drag will change but will remain in the same ratio at the same AoA.

That is a more detailed and correct explanation. Hope I did not loose you.

I've seen at least 2 aero sites that went into lift being less in climb

Lift = Cosy * weight

Until I saw where the work was done, it looked a bit like black magic and then it was cool.
It's not something the pilot training people thought everyone in their course would get, just
going by what they said.

IIRC the plane rises because the increased drag of the tilted back lift vector is countered
by thrust in a sustained climb.

M_Gunz
07-10-2007, 06:47 AM
Originally posted by NANCY:
Don't think your fooling anyone!

I'm not. Never tried. That's your job.


So small that a lot of sims just assume it is zero (i.e. AOI equal to longitudinal axis).

There are no sims worth mentioning that "assume" that AOI is zero. Even RB1 had it built into
the tables.

Someone told you that is true, THAT is how you decide that AOI is not important? And **I'M**
not fooling anyone? Funny how someone that claims to know all this goes from sense and form
all knowns to "I was told that" to support a bigger flaw in his method than he jumped all over
Crumpp for. Gee, a plane running on half power has to go faster than the same on full power
to zoom the same height and he did say fastest zooms highest... something to get anal about
and at the same time BLOW A VALUABLE LESSON FOR THE BOARD RIGHT INTO TRASH BECAUSE OF YOU.

You either missed the point or decided to obscure it which is SOP for you. When you are wrong
and you know it is when you play your worst games so I expect it, Nancy. Keep trying.

AKA_TAGERT
07-10-2007, 07:14 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 NANCY:
Don't think your fooling anyone!

I'm not. Never tried. That's your job.


So small that a lot of sims just assume it is zero (i.e. AOI equal to longitudinal axis).

There are no sims worth mentioning that "assume" that AOI is zero. Even RB1 had it built into
the tables.

Someone told you that is true, THAT is how you decide that AOI is not important? And **I'M**
not fooling anyone? Funny how someone that claims to know all this goes from sense and form
all knowns to "I was told that" to support a bigger flaw in his method than he jumped all over
Crumpp for. Gee, a plane running on half power has to go faster than the same on full power
to zoom the same height and he did say fastest zooms highest... something to get anal about
and at the same time BLOW A VALUABLE LESSON FOR THE BOARD RIGHT INTO TRASH BECAUSE OF YOU.

You either missed the point or decided to obscure it which is SOP for you. When you are wrong
and you know it is when you play your worst games so I expect it, Nancy. Keep trying. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You seem very upset about me pointing out yet another one of your reading mistakes..

One that you are NOT able to admit you made.. (read not adult enough)

Went as far as to claim I made mistakes I never made and claim I said things I never said.. (read your a liar)

Even went as far as to change my name in the quote.. (read child like)

Cute!

I must have struck a nerve to invoke such a response!

Well..

Look at the bright side..

At least your consistent! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

M_Gunz
07-10-2007, 07:47 AM
Read: Nothing YOU haven't done many times over. But you're Special.

Read: adults all make mistakes, except for you.

Daiichidoku
07-10-2007, 08:25 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/there-yet-350.jpg

AKA_TAGERT
07-10-2007, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Read: Nothing YOU haven't done many times over. But you're Special.
Folks.. Notice that MAX is a liar! In that MAX provided no link to support his statement.. A link to where I have done this'

Why?

Becuase it only exists in his mind..

The same mind that see numbers and dates change that never actully changed..


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Read: adults all make mistakes, except for you
Folks.. Notice that MAX is a liar! In that MAX provided no link to support his statement.. A link to where I made a mistake he is saying I made

Why?

Becuase it only exists in his mind..

The same mind that see numbers and dates change that never actully changed..

Which is not to imply that I have never made a mistake here!

I have made plenty!

Just not the one's MAX is claiming I made.

On that note..

One of the difference between adult vs. child is the ability to admit it when one makes a mistake..

Something MAX is not able to do.

Even though he makes mistakes reguarly

M_Gunz
07-10-2007, 12:15 PM
Poooooor Nancy.
Get some other to play your stupid game with Nancy.
I know what you've done and you know it. It doesn't matter what I can show so piss off.

na85
07-10-2007, 12:47 PM
M_Gunz,

Perhaps if this thread upsets you so much you should refrain from posting in it. It is, after all, Tagert's thread, so telling him to piss of won't really work.

AKA_TAGERT
07-10-2007, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Poooooor Nancy.
How Orginal!

A copy of something someone else allready said..

Which is the only time you don't make a mistake! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Get some other to play your stupid game with Nancy.
Game?

Pointing out that you are a liar is not a game IMHO.

I am simply defending myself aginst your wild imagination..

In that is all it is..

Because when I ask you for proof..

You ignor it and just continued to make up even more lies.


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I know what you've done and you know it. It doesn't matter what I can show so piss off.
See..

Perfect example!



<span class="ev_code_yellow">YOU GOT NOTHING!</span>



The way I see it..

Your problem is one of two things

1) You are just upset that I pointed out another mistakes..

And instead of admitting it..

You accuse me of the things you do in the hopes that no one will notice your mistake..

2) You are truly mental..

That is to say you belive what your saying..

But..

It does not actully exist.. Except for in your mind..

The same mind that sees numbers and dates change when in fact they have not.

Which is the root of the problem you and I always have..

You see things that are not there and don't see the things that are there.

If case 2 (ie mental)

I think it would do you some good to actully seek out a link to these things you accuse me of.. Take few moments and try.. Maybe after a few hours of trying.. but comming up short.. You will realise that you just dreamed the whole thing? At which point I would like, but not expect an apology. Give it a try.. It will help you more than I and help the forum as a whole should you realise it and change your ways.

If case 1 (ie your just upset)

Nothing will help that!

If a man your age has not reached a point in his life to where he can make a mistake without getting upset.. Chances are your never going to reach that point. Which means all the members here will just have to put up with you.

The wost case senarion would be that it is a combination of the two.. Which means there is no hope for you or the forum as a whole. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

M_Gunz
07-10-2007, 10:32 PM
Poooooooor Nancy-Boy.

msalama
07-10-2007, 11:20 PM
OK, think of me as a bypasser who just overheard your little argument and got curious... so who's actually accusing whom and of what exactly?

Short answers only please. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

M_Gunz
07-10-2007, 11:51 PM
quote:
So small that a lot of sims just assume it is zero (i.e. AOI equal to longitudinal axis).

Since a lot was lost when the archives went last winter it's time for Taggy to play "prove it"
and for me to tell him to "shove it".

He just wants something to post to draw attention away from his BS when he's caught at some
thing small that had someone else done it, he would attack like some viscous little dog.

I point out after stating TWICE that the dive-zoom tests are reasonable that he has made
some errors in method that can be reduced and also his AOA graph is purely wrong and why
being the AOI and he goes off with the usual stream and comes back with his answer about AOI:

quote:
So small that a lot of sims just assume it is zero (i.e. AOI equal to longitudinal axis).

That's his last excuse for assuming that AOI is not important. Somebody told him that.
It's BS so to further counter he gets down to mud. It's that or admit he was wrong for
which no way that could be but big problem is he can't argue the point, he lost there so
it's back to the usual Taggy Show, drop the issue and pop smoke to cover.

I've taken to answering Taggy posts with Taggy answers and of course he's decided it's mental!
No duh, I'm farting out Taggy-style answers and insults which are mental because they're
TAGGY-SAVVY-POOR-NANCY answers. But I am glad the boy has figured HALF of it out and still
thinks he has insults to work with.

BTW, only Taggy gets this treatment and yes, it's payback for his own posts.

Wurkeri
07-11-2007, 02:19 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
That's his last excuse for assuming that AOI is not important. Somebody told him that.

Please, be fair. Tagert's test data gives the flight path so there is no reason to know the exact AoA (nor AoI) and determining the AoA reliably would be quite difficult. If there is considerable bias in the method, it can be found out by altering the test procedure.

Quite often I don't like the style Tagert posts. However, IMHO in this case he has done good work by developing method to test the E retention without human error. I think that it's not perfect yet (probably never) but it's the best test on that I have seen so far.

Kettenhunde
07-11-2007, 05:42 AM
Please, be fair. Tagert's test data gives the flight path so there is no reason to know the exact AoA (nor AoI) and determining the AoA reliably would be quite difficult. If there is considerable bias in the method, it can be found out by altering the test procedure.

I think we have been through this one. It is extremely important that each aircraft picks it's unique AoA so that it is achieving it's maximum performance in the zoom.

Otherwise the test is kind silly for performance comparision purposes. It is a comparision of performance if the pilot does not fly his aircraft correctly and simply matches the lead planes climb angle.

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
07-11-2007, 06:14 AM
Originally posted by Wurkeri:
<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 his last excuse for assuming that AOI is not important. Somebody told him that.

Please, be fair. Tagert's test data gives the flight path so there is no reason to know the exact AoA (nor AoI) and determining the AoA reliably would be quite difficult. If there is considerable bias in the method, it can be found out by altering the test procedure.

Quite often I don't like the style Tagert posts. However, IMHO in this case he has done good work by developing method to test the E retention without human error. I think that it's not perfect yet (probably never) but it's the best test on that I have seen so far. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said the test was no good. I pointed out a couple of errors and instead of him
acknowledging them he went into another one of his productions. That's all it takes.

BTW, did you see any flight paths laid out? Have a look at the AOA graph if it hasn't
been deleted or changed. Last time I looked the AOA graphed a large amount of time
showing negative AOA down around critical negative (a stall condition) and almost no AOA
during the transition where the highest G's are being pulled. IOW, the AOA graphs as they
were, are useless. But they do show the error in the fundamental assumption that AOI is
not important which is something no one trained in aerodynamics would make.

M_Gunz
07-11-2007, 06:30 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
It is a comparision of performance if the pilot does not fly his aircraft correctly and simply matches the lead planes climb angle.

He doesn't do that. The AI sets equal pitch for all. Yes, best zoom is a matter of pitch.
But this is how we **judge** e-retention.

Pitch is not path. It's easy to prove. Planes optimal for different speeds will have bigger
differences, also proven. Just fly level from mid speed to high while keeping the plane trim
for the start speed. Which goes higher from 300kph to 400kph, Spit VB or 109F-4? Which goes
farther and which takes longer? Because that answers and asks as many questions as uneven
dive and zoom. Only thing 'proved' is within the limits of the test. Tactics set outside
of that is more useful than tactics set to match the test conditions, but still there will
be "conclusions" that we're supposed to take as being very wide, apply in majority cases, etc.

I do have to get a laugh at the little NACA emblems on the graphs shown. I guess that makes
them "official" and somehow unquestionable. Well, some people Like to play Dress-Up, I guess.

na85
07-11-2007, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:

I do have to get a laugh at the little NACA emblems on the graphs shown. I guess that makes
them "official" and somehow unquestionable. Well, some people Like to play Dress-Up, I guess.

To which NACA emblems are you referring? I just re-read the whole thread and didn't see any. Nor do I remember ever seeing any.

Wurkeri
07-11-2007, 08:00 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
I think we have been through this one. It is extremely important that each aircraft picks it's unique AoA so that it is achieving it's maximum performance in the zoom.


Well, we have gone through large amount personal attacks from your side which makes sensible discussion practically impossible.

There is no need to know the AoA since it the flight path can be determined from the speed, altitude and timeline data. Besides the AoA varies somewhat all the time during the test so there is not much sense to measure it even if it can be determined some how reliably.

If you are interested if the planes in the Il-2 behave like your calculations, just form a test like Mr. Hoof and report the results.

If you are interested about the differences between the planes in zoom in the Il-2 just alter the Tagert's test and report the results.


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Otherwise the test is kind silly for performance comparision purposes. It is a comparision of performance if the pilot does not fly his aircraft correctly and simply matches the lead planes climb angle.


Apparently you have not read how the Tagert's test is formed; the autopilot does the pitch so input wise it's the same for all the planes.


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I pointed out a couple of errors and instead of him acknowledging them he went into another one of his productions. That's all it takes.


Do you realize that you (both, you and Tagert) should finaly bury the axes.


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
BTW, did you see any flight paths laid out? Have a look at the AOA graph if it hasn't


There seem to be no flight paths calculated out yet but it should be no problem assuming that true speed can be worked out, anyway it can be seen that these are not exactly same as noted in the beginning of the Tempest vs Fw 190D test.

I don't put much value nor care about the AoA chart in the same paper; it's not important. However, I don't see any reason to nitpick it because the test itself is interesting and promissing.

AKA_TAGERT
07-11-2007, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Since a lot was lost when the archives went last winter it's time for Taggy to play "prove it"
and for me to tell him to "shove it".
LOL!

What a smacktard!

You have been accusing me of doing these things NOW not a year ago!

Where are the links to the things you are accusing me of doing NOW?

Answer..

There are no links to the ones NOW or THAN!

Why?

Becuase it only exists in your mind!

The same mind that sees numbers and dates change when in fact they have not changed!

AKA_TAGERT
07-11-2007, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Please, be fair. Tagert's test data gives the flight path so there is no reason to know the exact AoA (nor AoI) and determining the AoA reliably would be quite difficult. If there is considerable bias in the method, it can be found out by altering the test procedure.

I think we have been through this one. It is extremely important that each aircraft picks it's unique AoA so that it is achieving it's maximum performance in the zoom.

Otherwise the test is kind silly for performance comparision purposes. It is a comparision of performance if the pilot does not fly his aircraft correctly and simply matches the lead planes climb angle. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
NOTE..

The REAL WORLD TEST of the ZOOM climb between the P51 and ZERO is silly per Crumpp's definition.

Does that not speak volumes?

AKA_TAGERT
07-11-2007, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by na85:
To which NACA emblems are you referring? I just re-read the whole thread and didn't see any. Nor do I remember ever seeing any.
They are in my pdf file that I provide the link to on page one..

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSI...OM/408/ZOOM_COMP.pdf (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ZOOM/408/ZOOM_COMP.pdf)

I was just having fun with it..

I didn't think anyone would actually believe it was a real NACA document!

The only reason MAX brings it up is because he is so but hurt about me pointing out his mistakes..

In that this is all he has.. an NACA emblem to complain about!

Because when you ask him to provide proof (aka link) to something he claims I did wrong or said he can not produce it..

Thus he has to find something to complain.. Just shows you how low he is willing to go to try and discrete me with his lies.

AKA_TAGERT
07-11-2007, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I never said the test was no good. I pointed out a couple of errors and instead of him acknowledging them he went into another one of his productions. That's all it takes.
Notice how MAX makes claims but provides no quotes or links.

There were no errors in the test!

The test sequence does exactly as it says it does!

Test Method
<LI> START 10kft @230mph
<LI> Dive at -30? pitch
<LI> Wait until you pass through 6,000ft
<LI> Climb at 30? pitch
<LI> Wait until IAS = 150mph

The ERROR in MAX's mind is it is his OPINION that AoI and AoA have to be known and taken into consideration..

Otherwise the test is in useless in his OPINION.

If that was the case..

Than ask yourself?

How did they do the REAL WWII P51 vs ZERO ZOOM test without an AoA guage in the cockpit?

The answer is they didn't need an AoA guage!

They simply did a ZOOM climb at some angle (pitch) where one would try and follow the other!

That is what my testing does!

That kind of test MAX considers to be an ERROR and Crumpp calls SILLY!

Speaks volumes IMHO about some of the ego problems in play around here!

The funny part is now MAX realises no one is falling for his lies..

So now he is trying to back peddle and say that he was doing it on purpose!

LOL!

Talk about a fragle ego!

But I digress!


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
BTW, did you see any flight paths laid out?
News flash..

There is no XY flight path provided.. Just a Y (altitude) vs. TIME graph.

Which is all you need for this E test..

Where the FINAL height at a given SPEED is noted..

Separation calculations is not part of this E Retention test..

I have a few ready to post..

But..

In light of all the but hurt movie critics I will hold off on posting anything until I have more time to review them.

<span class="ev_code_black">Sorry guys..

I wanted to keep you all abreast of my progress, but as you can see, it just brings out the trolls.</span>


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Have a look at the AOA graph if it hasn't been deleted or changed.
Notice how MAX makes claims but provides no quotes or links.

The truth is MAX is still but hurt from an thread from a few weeks back where he went on for about 3 pages about how I made an error in a calculation..

When in fact I never did!

He just read the calculation wrong!

At which point an adult would have admitted he made a mistake..

But MAX is not capable of that!

So MAX simply lied and accused me of changing the calculation to avoid admiting he made a mistake.

Problem with his lie is it does not hold any water!

<span class="ev_code_yellow">In that after he accused me of changing the calculation I showed him that the file date and time of the calculation preceded his ubi post date accusing me of making a mistake..

AND

That and his buddy Crumpp even quoted the result from of that calculation in a ubi post date that preceded his ubi post date accusing me of making a mistake.</span>

Long story short..

MAX sees things that are not there and does not see things that are there..

Which would not be a problem..

Except that he responds to things that are not there and does not respond to the things that are there!

That is the problem!


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Last time I looked the AOA graphed a large amount of time showing negative AOA down around critical negative (a stall condition) and almost no AOA during the transition where the highest G's are being pulled.
I would not put much credit in that statment..

Considering the fact that it has been proven many times that MAX has a reading problem or just lies to avoid admiting he made a mistake.


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
IOW, the AOA graphs as they were, are useless.
Useless to someone who sees things that are not there and does not see things that are there.


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
But they do show the error in the fundamental assumption that AOI is not important which is something no one trained in aerodynamics would make.
Notice how MAX makes claims but provides no quotes or links.

I never said AoI is not important!

NEVER!

That is MAX and Crumpps spin on what was actually said..

Need proof?

Ask them to post a quote of me saying that!

Freelancer-1
07-11-2007, 01:21 PM
What happend to this?


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:

So from here on out Ill just post my progress in my testing.. After wich if anyone has any 'useful' feedback or suggestionss simply PM me..

M_Gunz
07-11-2007, 01:36 PM
Poor little Nancy gets restless. I didn't provide links to a thread ANYONE can find.
Your AOA graph last time I looked was whacked unless you are STUPID enough to believe that
AOI is pitch which it is not. But at least you quit with your equalling path to pitch so
I have to count that as evidence that you're not terminally brain dead.


quote:
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Last time I looked the AOA graphed a large amount of time showing negative AOA down around critical negative (a stall condition) and almost no AOA during the transition where the highest G's are being pulled.


I would not put much credit in that statment..

Well no, YOU wouldn't. The biggie for you is getting others to believe the same.

Did you change the AOA graph or just remove it? Should everyone still believe that changing
files LINKED TO in an UBI post also change the post date stamp? Well, the net illiterates
might.

M_Gunz
07-11-2007, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
The only reason MAX brings it up is because he is so but hurt about me pointing out his mistakes..

You just keep right on saying it over and over and someone will believe you.
Say it enough and you might believe it yourself.

M_Gunz
07-11-2007, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
The same mind that sees numbers and dates change when in fact they have not changed!

Link?

na85
07-11-2007, 02:06 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 na85:
To which NACA emblems are you referring? I just re-read the whole thread and didn't see any. Nor do I remember ever seeing any.
They are in my pdf file that I provide the link to on page one..

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSI...OM/408/ZOOM_COMP.pdf (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ZOOM/408/ZOOM_COMP.pdf)

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

rgr that, ty

VMF-214_HaVoK
07-11-2007, 02:44 PM
M Gunz has over 1000 post since March!! Classic Troll! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif I think Ivan has a few door prizes for ya.

na85
07-11-2007, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Link?

Oh.



Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Note to self: save images and don't just link.




Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Weak you say but not denied. I'm sure of what I saw and I checked it then three times.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2421020665/p/29

Here ya go, just in case you forgot.

AKA_TAGERT
07-11-2007, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I didn't provide links to a thread ANYONE can find.
Folks..

If it was that easy..

Trust me..

MAX would have posted a quote by now!

The fact that he hasent proves he is just making it all up!

AKA_TAGERT
07-11-2007, 04:24 PM
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 M_Gunz:
Link?

Oh.



Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Note to self: save images and don't just link.




Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Weak you say but not denied. I'm sure of what I saw and I checked it then three times.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2421020665/p/29

Here ya go, just in case you forgot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks na85..

Maybe if it comes from someone else he will belive it..

But don't hold your breath! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

AKA_TAGERT
07-11-2007, 04:27 PM
See MAX..

Your not fooling anyone! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

AKA_TAGERT
07-11-2007, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by Freelancer-1:
What happend to this?
Sorry..

Trust me..

I would love to give daily progress in the hopes of generating some discussion on this..

I have some real cool XY flight path plots that I have generated that also show the speration distance..

But..

Just too many but hurt movie critic peanut gallery trolls sniffing around this topic..

I end up wasting more time addressing their lies than working on the testing!

So, Ill just hold off on posting anything until I get it in a format I like.

Only down side is I won't be able to get any useful feedback until that time.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Kettenhunde
07-11-2007, 06:25 PM
There is no need to know the AoA since it the flight path can be determined from the speed, altitude and timeline data.

You can whine about "personal" attacks that only exist in your mind all you want.

It is a fact that your statement betrays a lack of understanding of the fundamental relationship of AoA, AoI, and L/D ratio. It is nothing personal against you. Many people don't understand this stuff, Wurkeri. I applaud you for at least being able to work some formulas and trying to understand it!

You are simply unable to put all of these concepts together at the moment.

If the testing program is able to define the pitch then it very easily able to define the AoA.

This should be done by calculating the AoA and AoI. This will give us the longitudinal axis of the aircraft for the pitch.


If you want to compare the aircraft performance then you should compare them at the Prmin point.


Claiming it is not necessary is sheer ignorance combined with an unwillingness to just admit you are wrong. There is not a more accurate method of maintaining a specific L/D ratio during instantaneous performance.

You can't use velocity, it changes, you can't use lift or drag as they are changing too. The ratio does not change but the individual values do change.

The only thing that remains a constant is the AoA!!

Unless of course we are not trying to compare aircraft as they are flown by pilots. Aircraft are flown by their design numbers not a different designs numbers.

The test as it stands now is no different than comparing the landing characteristics of a Piper Cub and Mooney M20C by flying the Mooney's approach speeds.

Our comparison would conclude that the Piper Cub has dangerous and very poor landing characteristics.

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
07-11-2007, 06:43 PM
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 M_Gunz:
Link?

Oh.



Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Note to self: save images and don't just link.




Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Weak you say but not denied. I'm sure of what I saw and I checked it then three times.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2421020665/p/29

Here ya go, just in case you forgot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I didn't forget. And I don't believe that UBI post date and time stamps change when file
content on a site linked to in an UBI post changes. Do you? And Taggy is SO BIG on PROOF.
Not that I give a damn what was in that image he posted, I was just sick and tired of his BS
and felt like venting on him.

Beyond that, genius, what has it to do with the actual issue that was discussed BESIDES the
"let's change the subject" issue that Taggy went absolute LOCK on? Did you understand what
Crumpp showed and the significance or were you dazzled away by the TOTALLY LAME "EXAMPLE"
that Taggy cooked up? Perhaps you can tell me what two fighters have the same weight and
drag but one has HALF the power of the other? Perhaps you can tell me why that does not fit
in the discussion before then? Or perhaps you really don't know and welcomed the distraction?


Kettenhunde

Posted Sat June 16 2007 17:29 Hide Post

quote:
I don't beleive Tagart ever claimed that velocity wasn't a factor, or even the most miportant factor, he only said it's not the ONLY factor, which seems to be the position that you are taking.



No, your reading into my position a claim that is not there and never was until Tagert invented it. Read my comments in the context they were written.

Velocity is the key component. The faster aircraft will zoom the highest.

That is all I have ever claimed.

That is a fact.

Comparing WWII fighters you are going to have a very difficult time finding any design contemporaries that are going to have a 50% difference in thrust production. Remember the 50% thrust reduction was overcome easily by only a 9mph velocity advantage.

You have to have a very, very, large thrust difference, drag reduction, or weight difference for it the conditions of the parametric study to exist in reality.

You would not be comparing design contemporaries or role equivalents.

All the best,

Crumpp

How much of the above gets completely ignored or brushed aside?


AKA_TAGERT
Don't Argue With Me Nancy Boy(s)!

Posted Sun June 17 2007 07:50 Hide Post

quote:
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Profile

1st plane:

Drag = 500 lbs

Thrust = 1000lbs

P1 entry velocity = 300mph

2nd Plane:

Drag = 500lbs

Thrust = 500lbs

P2 entry velocity = 309.44mph

However what can learn from this parametric study is the point I am making:

The aircraft with the faster velocity will zoom the highest!

Here we can see, if we assume they end the zoom at the same velocity:

150mph = 220.5fps

309.44mph = 454.8786fps

(454.8786^2 - 220.5^2) / (2 * 22.769) = 3476ft

3476 * sin45 = 2457.9ft = P2_Y2

P1_Y2 = 2446.91ft

2457.9ft - 2446.91ft = 10.99 ft higher

This is easy to confirm by examining the acceleration of each aircraft.

P1 = 20.98 ft/s^2

P2 = 22.769 ft/s^2

So you can see it takes a ton of thrust to overcome even a small advantage in entry velocity.

If they started their zoom at the same velocity of 300mph then our numbers would look like:

P2 = 2265ft zoom altitude

P1 = 2446.91ft zoom altitude

In otherwords, P1 with 1000lbs of thrust would be 181.91 ft higher than P2 with 500lbs of thrust.

Pooor Nancy....

I see why you did not post any math before now.

All the best,

Crumpp

Is that your way of saying you were wrong and The aircraft traveling at the faster velocity will NOT ALWAYS zoom the highest.?

If so than Apology Accepted!

Now I know that was painful for you.. What with your ego in the way and all.. But remember, you asked for the math! So please don't PM me with idol threats for the next couple of weeks like you did the last time I corrected one of your mistakes!

As for 'A ton of thrust' I could have varied weight or drag and got the same results.

Eitherway.. This is progress! Keep up the good work! Your coming around! But be careful as you are back peddling so fast.. You are bound to get your pant leg caught in the chain! Veryhappy


Before Taggy posted, Crumpp had already 14 hours before explained what HE meant but if you've
ever seen a pit bull with a frisbee then you know what that meant to Taggy. He made himself
a fringe "example" that did not fit the discussion but rather a sentence taken out of context
and no way he was going to let go.

So I say screw Taggy, I've had it with his BS. Example above and there's many more as well.

Where is the list of flight sims made in the past 10-15 years that assume that AOI=pitch?
We're supposed to forget about that. Maybe the forum can crash and nobody can 'prove' he
ever tried that BS. What was the word he used to describe how many sims made? Alot?


AKA_TAGERT
Don't Argue With Me Nancy Boy(s)!

Posted Tue July 03 2007 14:24 Hide Post

quote:
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Just wondering, not for the first time, how you calculate AOA without knowing AOI for each plane?
You do know what AOI is?

Yes I know what AOI is oh master-of-the-obvious!

Have for years!

Good news what ever it is, it is constant.. So once you know what it is you can simply add it to my result. On that note it is typically small and alot of flight sims assume it is zero..


Typically small. Yeah, a couple-four degrees when critical AOA may be 12-18. Insignificant.
Unless you are working equations using AOA and not just blowing warm air, then it's the
difference between the plane able to fly pitch-level at cruise or descending.

I've not seen any sim in the last 10-15 years that I couldn't fly pitch=0 at some speed that
passed for cruise. Pitch may be used to index into a table but the table results as if AOI
is a factor, not assumed to be zero.

Significant to the topic is that planes with differing lift and differing AOI will not fly
the same path in a fixed-pitch dive. Want to compare energy gain and loss for planes that
dive down different slopes and zoom up different slopes then YOU HAVE A SOURCE OF ERROR THAT
MAY BE REDUCED.

Funny how a degreed AE from a top AE school not only says it's true but also provides more
proof and concrete examples. Even funnier, Taggy argued against it! Well, it wasn't his
idea and it shows the weakness of his method which if that's wrong then your math alone
can be correct and still be bad at the same time. But perhaps that's just too subtle for
someone that lives and cries on sentences and pieces of sentences.

I don't care if the jerk doesn't like that, and it's true no matter WHO wrote it so attack
away all you want and nothing about that is any less true. I can see him getting shot and
arguing that the mugger isn't holding the gun right.. won't change the fact of the bullet.

You want to discuss issues then I will do that but you play the Taggy Game and I'll do for
you what I've been doing for him which is feeding him his own "rub people the wrong way"
twist, bend, fold and mutilate whatever, whenever, just to get a few kicks, to wind the
bastage up until he gets sick of his own schiess. You want that then just sing out!

M_Gunz
07-11-2007, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
I end up wasting more time addressing their lies than working on the testing!

Really sad. You "end up" wasting time trying to say everything the "hurt movie critic peanut
gallery trolls" posts is lies... except for the half you ignore while drawing attention from
discussion of topic into petty BS.

Just keep "working it", jerk.

You never had to answer anything. Your arguments on points brought up are LAME so you drag
the whole mess down the second you meet any criticism, including constructive criticism.
At least on grounds of insults alone, you know your way around. Certainly not on points.

Prove the points wrong. Your insults are less than useless, but you won't get that either.

AKA_TAGERT
07-11-2007, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
No, I didn't forget. And I don't believe that UBI post date and time stamps change when file content on a site linked to in an UBI post changes. Do you?
Folks..

Take note..

This is just another case of MAX seeing things that are not there..

In that NOBODY said the ubi post date would change when file content on a site linked to in an UBI post changes!

That only exists in MAX's mind!

Now the one thing you will never see MAS address is the following..

<LI>Posted Sat June 16 2007 10:52 <-- My post with the picture that shows a RESULT of 309.44mph
<LI>Posted Sat June 16 2007 12:11 <-- Crump's post where he quotes RESULT of 309.44mph
<LI>Posted Sat June 16 2007 23:12 <-- MAX's post that says I made a mistake.

The picture still shows a RESULT of 309.33mph

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2421020665/p/22

Also note that the date/time of the pciture itself with the RESULT of 309.44mph preceed MAX's post

<LI>Posted Sat June 16 2007 10:50 <-- Exactlly 2 min before my ubi post where I linked to it.

Now if the RESULT is the same before and after MAX's post..

How could I have changed it?

NOTE!

MAX's reply to this post will totally ignor the FACT that his Buddy Crumpp quoted the RESULT of 309.44mph and try to draw your att away with some weak excuse about how the upload time and date of the picutre can be changed on some sights.

My server does not have that option.. but he will still claim I did.

But..

He still can NOT explane how Crumpp quoted the RESULT value of 309.44mph!

NEVER HAS!

AND

NEVER WILL!

Nice try MAX..

But as I said..

NOBODY is falling for your lies!

M_Gunz
07-11-2007, 07:39 PM
Obviously that's all I ever do in your little world.
And you never lie or make a mistake.

Poor Nancy.

AKA_TAGERT
07-11-2007, 07:43 PM
Nobody is falling for it MAX!

Give it up!

AKA_TAGERT
07-11-2007, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There is no need to know the AoA since it the flight path can be determined from the speed, altitude and timeline data.

You can whine about "personal" attacks that only exist in your mind all you want.

It is a fact that your statement betrays a lack of understanding of the fundamental relationship of AoA, AoI, and L/D ratio. It is nothing personal against you. Many people don't understand this stuff, Wurkeri. I applaud you for at least being able to work some formulas and trying to understand it!

You are simply unable to put all of these concepts together at the moment.

If the testing program is able to define the pitch then it very easily able to define the AoA.

This should be done by calculating the AoA and AoI. This will give us the longitudinal axis of the aircraft for the pitch.


If you want to compare the aircraft performance then you should compare them at the Prmin point.


Claiming it is not necessary is sheer ignorance combined with an unwillingness to just admit you are wrong. There is not a more accurate method of maintaining a specific L/D ratio during instantaneous performance.

You can't use velocity, it changes, you can't use lift or drag as they are changing too. The ratio does not change but the individual values do change.

The only thing that remains a constant is the AoA!!

Unless of course we are not trying to compare aircraft as they are flown by pilots. Aircraft are flown by their design numbers not a different designs numbers.

The test as it stands now is no different than comparing the landing characteristics of a Piper Cub and Mooney M20C by flying the Mooney's approach speeds.

Our comparison would conclude that the Piper Cub has dangerous and very poor landing characteristics.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
By your own definition..

This REAL WWII test.. i.e.

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/6193/zoomp51nm4.jpg

Was silly..

Too bad you were not around back then to tell all those REAL test pilots and engineers how silly they are http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Copperhead310th
07-11-2007, 07:58 PM
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u115/AJ1586019/monkey.jpg
CHART MONKEY"S UNITE!!!!

Serously you guys are freaking killing me with all these charts. geez give it a rest already. lol
http://cellar.org/images/smilies/dedhors2.gif

AKA_TAGERT
07-11-2007, 08:03 PM
Forgive them Oleg..

For they mock what they don'd understand! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

M_Gunz
07-11-2007, 08:52 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/6193/zoomp51nm4.jpg

Oh yeah, a combat comparison test.
As opposed to what Crumpp was saying which is not the same thing except zoom is involved.
It's the same difference between AFDU and RAE tests.
So you either ignored what he wrote (_make_ into something wrong then blame him for it) or
you didn't understand...
and you still have no cover.

AKA_TAGERT
07-11-2007, 08:59 PM
MAX.. Your seeing things again..

Oh..

And don't think that nobody notice that you TOTALLY avoided addressing how Crumpp quoted the 309.44mph before your reply and how it is still 309.44mph after your reply.

No one is falling for your lies and re-direct!

Give it up MAX!

M_Gunz
07-11-2007, 09:04 PM
You're wrong Nancy.
And now I know your last name isn't Boy, it's Representation!
Because you are Miss Representation since you started out here.

If you're such a ****** that you can't see the difference I posted above the you really are
HOPELESS.

AKA_TAGERT
07-11-2007, 09:05 PM
Care to try and explane..

<LI>Posted Sat June 16 2007 10:52 <-- My post with the picture that shows a RESULT of 309.44mph
<LI>Posted Sat June 16 2007 12:11 <-- Crump's post where he quotes RESULT of 309.44mph
<LI>Posted Sat June 16 2007 23:12 <-- MAX's post that says I made a mistake.

Also note that the date/time of the pciture itself with the RESULT of 309.44mph preceed MAX's post

<LI>Posted Sat June 16 2007 10:50 <-- Exactlly 2 min before my ubi post where I linked to it.

Give it up MAX!

M_Gunz
07-11-2007, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
And don't think that nobody notice that you TOTALLY avoided addressing how Crumpp quoted the 309.44mph before your reply and how it is still 309.44mph after your reply.

Which has exactly what to do with this discussion?
Does it change any points or address the topic?
Or is it just another duck and cover from your latest counter fizzling badly?

You've got no point and I addressed your "issues" of that thread in that thread.
Tough squat if you don't like it, Miss Representation.

AKA_TAGERT
07-11-2007, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Which has exactly what to do with this discussion?
This.. On page 10 you asked for the link.. i.e.


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Link?

Here is the link you requested..

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2421020665/p/22

Now, care to try and explane the following..

<LI>Posted Sat June 16 2007 10:52 <-- My post with the picture that shows a RESULT of 309.44mph
<LI>Posted Sat June 16 2007 12:11 <-- Crump's post where he quotes RESULT of 309.44mph
<LI>Posted Sat June 16 2007 23:12 <-- MAX's post that says I made a mistake.

Also note that the date/time of the pciture itself with the RESULT of 309.44mph preceed MAX's post

<LI>Posted Sat June 16 2007 10:50 <-- Exactlly 2 min before my ubi post where I linked to it.

We are all ears!

Wurkeri
07-11-2007, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
You can whine about "personal" attacks that only exist in your mind all you want.


Well, I rate you postings as personal attacks because you continously ignore my points and do personal remarks about my understanding and knowledge.


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
It is a fact that your statement betrays a lack of understanding of the fundamental relationship of AoA, AoI, and L/D ratio.


Nope, I just say that there is just no need to know the exact AoA nor AoI because the Cl and Cd realtion can be worked out from the data (flight path and acceleration) and therefore also the L/D. Similar way the L/D can be worked out from the Fw datasheet using the given values of the Cw0F and K without any knowledge about the AoA. Same way the L/D can be worked out from the any drag polar without looking the AoA chart even if such is available.


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
It is nothing personal against you. Many people don't understand this stuff, Wurkeri. I applaud you for at least being able to work some formulas and trying to understand it!


Well, you don't seem to understand my point despite I have explained it several times. Instead you do endless personal remaks about my understanding; for the same reason you were banned from the AH board in the end.


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
If the testing program is able to define the pitch then it very easily able to define the AoA.

This should be done by calculating the AoA and AoI. This will give us the longitudinal axis of the aircraft for the pitch.


The given pitch is related to the flight path so it's much easier to determine directly the Cl so there is no need know AoA (nor AoI).

If you want to determine the AoA, you need similar testing made by Mr. Hoof and that makes testing much more difficult.


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
If you want to compare the aircraft performance then you should compare them at the Prmin point.


All the needed information can be worked out from the Cl and Cd without knowing the AoA as pointed out several times above. That is why normal presentation of the drag polar is given as function of Cl and Cd:

Cd = Cd0 + Cl^2/(pi*AR*e)

And that is all needed to determine the L/D.


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Claiming it is not necessary is sheer ignorance combined with an unwillingness...

The rest of your posting is just continous ignoring of my points and personal remarks as was the beginning of your posting.

It's better to just disagree if you can't discuss in sensible manner.

AKA_TAGERT
07-12-2007, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by Wurkeri:
the same reason you were banned from the AH board in the end.
Which speaks volumes IMHO!

M_Gunz
07-12-2007, 07:23 AM
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:
Which has exactly what to do with this discussion?
This.. On page 10 you asked for the link.. i.e. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OH! Well that changes EVERYTHING about Energy Retention!


Now, care to try and explane the following..

<LI>Posted Sat June 16 2007 10:52 <-- My post with the picture that shows a RESULT of 309.44mph
<LI>Posted Sat June 16 2007 12:11 <-- Crump's post where he quotes RESULT of 309.44mph
<LI>Posted Sat June 16 2007 23:12 <-- MAX's post that says I made a mistake.

Also note that the date/time of the pciture itself with the RESULT of 309.44mph preceed MAX's post

<LI>Posted Sat June 16 2007 10:50 <-- Exactlly 2 min before my ubi post where I linked to it.

We are all ears!

Grow some eyes then and go back to THAT THREAD and read your answer. It is there even if
you STILL can't understand of accept it.

I can tell this will be your ESCAPE POINT from now on. When cornered, bring up that thread
while ignoring that you were answered in that thread.

Up yours, Miss Representation!

AKA_TAGERT
07-12-2007, 07:26 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 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:
Which has exactly what to do with this discussion?
This.. On page 10 you asked for the link.. i.e. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OH! Well that changes EVERYTHING about Energy Retention! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Folks..

Here is a classic MAXism

<LI>MAX asks for a link to another thread within this thread..
<LI>I provided MAX the link he requested..
<LI>MAX asks me what that link has to do with the current topic..
<LI>I point out to MAX that he requested the link..
<LI>MAX gets upset and trys to play down the fact that he ask for the link..

Too Funny Really!


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now, care to try and explain the following..

<LI>Posted Sat June 16 2007 10:52 <-- My post with the picture that shows a RESULT of 309.44mph
<LI>Posted Sat June 16 2007 12:11 <-- Crump's post where he quotes RESULT of 309.44mph
<LI>Posted Sat June 16 2007 23:12 <-- MAX's post that says I made a mistake.

Also note that the date/time of the pciture itself with the RESULT of 309.44mph preceed MAX's post

<LI>Posted Sat June 16 2007 10:50 <-- Exactly 2 min before my ubi post where I linked to it.

We are all ears!

Grow some eyes then and go back to THAT THREAD and read your answer. It is there even if you STILL can't understand of accept it.

I can tell this will be your ESCAPE POINT from now on. When cornered, bring up that thread while ignoring that you were answered in that thread.

Up yours, Miss Representation! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually you never answered it!

In that you can NOT explain those dates and times..

I know we are not going to get an answer..

I just enjoy watching you do your MAX dance around the answer..

So, for the new commers here..

Can you do it one more time?

It is truly entertaining! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Now..

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre"> ******* ** **** ** ****** ******** **
/**////** **** /**/** /** **////**/**///// /**
/** /** **//** /**//** /** ** // /** /**
/** /** ** //** /** //** /**/** /******* /**
/** /** **********/** //**/**/** /**//// /**
/** ** /**//////**/** //****//** **/** //
/******* /** /**/** //*** //****** /******** **
/////// // // // /// ////// //////// // </pre>

M_Gunz
07-12-2007, 07:36 AM
Originally posted by Wurkeri:
Nope, I just say that there is just no need to know the exact AoA nor AoI because the Cl and Cd realtion can be worked out from the data (flight path and acceleration) and therefore also the L/D. Similar way the L/D can be worked out from the Fw datasheet using the given values of the Cw0F and K without any knowledge about the AoA. Same way the L/D can be worked out from the any drag polar without looking the AoA chart even if such is available.

So are AOA and AOI unimportant or just something you can get by without calculating?

M_Gunz
07-12-2007, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Actually you never answered it!

Did more than once whether you accept it or not.
I'm not responsible for your inability to understand what you don't want to.
I'm more than sure that others have felt exactly the same about you.

I may make one more answer to this in time and I may not, and you won't like that either way,
so consider this is for you what being put in a round room and told there's candy in the
corner is for a ******ed kid.
You just keep running around and round whining about your candy.

AKA_TAGERT
07-12-2007, 07:45 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 AKA_TAGERT:
Actually you never answered it!

Did more than once whether you accept it or not.
I'm not responsible for your inability to understand what you don't want to.
I'm more than sure that others have felt exactly the same about you.

I may make one more answer to this in time and I may not, and you won't like that either way,
so consider this is for you what being put in a round room and told there's candy in the
corner is for a ******ed kid.
You just keep running around and round whining about your candy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Come closer so I can stuff a dollar in your belt.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

And..

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre"> ******* ** **** ** ****** ******** **
/**////** **** /**/** /** **////**/**///// /**
/** /** **//** /**//** /** ** // /** /**
/** /** ** //** /** //** /**/** /******* /**
/** /** **********/** //**/**/** /**//// /**
/** ** /**//////**/** //****//** **/** //
/******* /** /**/** //*** //****** /******** **
/////// // // // /// ////// //////// // </pre>
For me! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

SHAKE IT MAX! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

SHAKE IT GOOD! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

YOU KNOW WHAT I LIKE! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

And if you get tired..

See if you can explane the following..

<LI>Posted Sat June 16 2007 10:52 <-- My post with the picture that shows a RESULT of 309.44mph
<LI>Posted Sat June 16 2007 12:11 <-- Crump's post where he quotes RESULT of 309.44mph
<LI>Posted Sat June 16 2007 23:12 <-- MAX's post that says I made a mistake.

Also note that the date/time of the pciture itself with the RESULT of 309.44mph preceed MAX's post

<LI>Posted Sat June 16 2007 10:50 <-- Exactlly 2 min before my ubi post where I linked to it.

That should keep you on your feet a little longer! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Wurkeri
07-12-2007, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
So are AOA and AOI unimportant or just something you can get by without calculating?

I'm not saying that these are unimportant but there is no need calculate them because the Cl can be calculated out at any given point of the test using flight path, acceleration and speed. The L/D can be easily calculated out from any drag polar using the Cd and Cl without any knowdledge about the AoA.

M_Gunz
07-12-2007, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by Wukeri:
quote:
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
So are AOA and AOI unimportant or just something you can get by without calculating?



I'm not saying that these are unimportant but there is no need calculate them because the Cl can be calculated out at any given point of the test using flight path, acceleration and speed. The L/D can be easily calculated out from any drag polar using the Cd and Cl without any knowdledge about the AoA.

I think we both agree on this or at least I agree with what I understand of your words.

I do see a lot of problems in communications when viewpoints differ and neither person
realizes the other is not talking from the same POV, and I've seen some real turn-arounds
in my time.

I see your POV as from the flight is done, we only need to find L/D on that path.
And I see another view that comes from path prediction.
And I see a view that Cl arises from AOA so calculated or not it is still important.

I think you agree with the last of those three, why I asked what I did.

As to why calculate AOA is because there was and might still be an AOA graph in the files.

AKA_TAGERT
07-12-2007, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
As to why calculate AOA is because there was and might still be an AOA graph in the files.
Your paranoia and/or ignorance knows no bounds!

Wurkeri
07-12-2007, 01:06 PM
Well, the Cl can be calculated accurately out from the data allready collected and it corresponds certain (unknown) AoA assuming that the drag polar is modeled constant (in reality it tends to vary). However, the exact amount of AoA needs different test; Mr. Hoof used horizon and crosshair as reference.

Note that the Cl varies (with AoA) all the time during the test when the pitch is kept constant so IMHO it's much more important to calculate the flight path out than the Cl or AoA.

Xiolablu3
07-12-2007, 01:30 PM
Can you guys who are complaining about Tagerts tests and saying they are wrong PLEASE do you your own charts or just shut up?

Why try and derail his testing?

If you know a better more accurate way then please just DO IT!

I keep coming back to this thread hoping to see more of Tagerts tests and all I find is bickering from people who say they know better yet dont seem to produce anything?!? Yawwnnn....

Diablo310th
07-12-2007, 02:01 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Akronnick
07-12-2007, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Can you guys who are complaining about Tagerts tests and saying they are wrong PLEASE do you your own charts or just shut up?

Why try and derail his testing?

If you know a better more accurate way then please just DO IT!

I keep coming back to this thread hoping to see more of Tagerts tests and all I find is bickering from people who say they know better yet dont seem to produce anything?!? Yawwnnn....

You don't even have to do the test yourself, just suggest a method for measuring whatever it is you want to compare...

All you've done is attack the man. We get it, you hate Tagart. Every time he posts any thing, the same folks always go after him, usually for the same old grudge. Give it a rest already!

Don't like the results of Tagarts test?

MAKE A SUGGESTION!!!

M_Gunz
07-12-2007, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by Wurkeri:
Well, the Cl can be calculated accurately out from the data allready collected and it corresponds certain (unknown) AoA assuming that the drag polar is modeled constant (in reality it tends to vary). However, the exact amount of AoA needs different test; Mr. Hoof used horizon and crosshair as reference.

Note that the Cl varies (with AoA) all the time during the test when the pitch is kept constant so IMHO it's much more important to calculate the flight path out than the Cl or AoA.

I totally agree esp with the last part. It's just not so simple/straightforward with IL2 data
as I found out over 2 years ago working with my own dive tracks and those of two others. We
don't have TAS data and to some degree IAS data is also suspect at high speeds as it would be
IRL. We don't get positional data. What I had done before was to use TAS converted from IAS
and altitude change to construct triangles at 1/10th second intervals, TAS hypoteneuse and
alt difference sine side and I wasn't all that happy with the results even though "the math
was right". It's something I arrived at over a period of weeks and a lot of thinking. You
see, I hold myself to the same standards, minimum.

I do have a request in to find out for sure how realistic the IAS and pitot action is modeled
but have not heard back yet. I'd rather be completely sure than guess about it or blow it off.

M_Gunz
07-12-2007, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I keep coming back to this thread hoping to see more of Tagerts tests and all I find is bickering from people who say they know better yet dont seem to produce anything?!? Yawwnnn....

Yes, Taggy can't work when there's posts he -has- to respond to. If he doesn't then the
space aliens will invade his mind. Be sure that is holding him up and not any lack of
having his butt kissed.

AKA_TAGERT
07-12-2007, 04:29 PM
Poor Dancing Nancy

Akronnick
07-12-2007, 04:56 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 Xiolablu3:
I keep coming back to this thread hoping to see more of Tagerts tests and all I find is bickering from people who say they know better yet dont seem to produce anything?!? Yawwnnn....

Yes, Taggy can't work when there's posts he -has- to respond to. If he doesn't then the
space aliens will invade his mind. Be sure that is holding him up and not any lack of
having his butt kissed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So no suggested test method then, just more ad hominem bull$#!+?

M_Gunz
07-12-2007, 05:02 PM
You could go back and read where I posted that within the given limits the test is reasonable.
Then you could read the suggestions I had made including suggestion to discuss better ways.
Or you could focus on only parts of what was posted that the big deal was made of and forget
the rest to come away with very slanted opinion. There never needed to be any frigging flames
by anyone. It's just that some people can't stand to be told they ain't perfect.

Akronnick
07-12-2007, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
You could go back and read where I posted that within the given limits the test is reasonable.
Then you could read the suggestions I had made including suggestion to discuss better ways.
Or you could focus on only parts of what was posted that the big deal was made of and forget
the rest to come away with very slanted opinion. There never needed to be any frigging flames
by anyone. It's just that some people can't stand to be told they ain't perfect.

So what was the suggestion then?

Kettenhunde
07-12-2007, 05:17 PM
Well, I rate you postings as personal attacks because you continously ignore my points and do personal remarks about my understanding and knowledge.

It's not personal at all when I say you do not understand the underlying concepts.

It is a fact. Don't take it personally or be offended.


Nope, I just say that there is just no need to know the exact AoA nor AoI because the Cl and Cd realtion can be worked out from the data (flight path and acceleration) and therefore also the L/D. Similar way the L/D can be worked out from the Fw datasheet using the given values of the Cw0F and K without any knowledge about the AoA. Same way the L/D can be worked out from the any drag polar without looking the AoA chart even if such is available.

See this a great example of how you do not understand. You are absolutely correct that you do not need to know AoA to figure lift, drag, and L/D ratio.

However you certainly need AoA to get that value of L/D in flight.

If the "autopilot" can adjust pitch, then you can easily find the pitch from the AoA.


Well, you don't seem to understand my point despite I have explained it several times.

I do understand your point.

You don't seem to understand that the only thing that is constant is the AoA. That certainly betrays your inability to put all of this together. No personal attack, just a statement of fact.

In real aircraft that is the only way to achieve a specific L/D in instanteous flight. Why do you think many aircraft, including modern fighters have an AoA indicator onboard?

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/menus/in/angleofattackindicators.html


The given pitch is related to the flight path so it's much easier to determine directly the Cl so there is no need know AoA (nor AoI).

Well unless a program is written to constantly change the Cl this not going to work.


All the needed information can be worked out from the Cl and Cd without knowing the AoA as pointed out several times above. That is why normal presentation of the drag polar is given as function of Cl and Cd:

Cd = Cd0 + Cl^2/(pi*AR*e)

And that is all needed to determine the L/D.

Come on now, the drag polar is our L/D ratio. I don't think we need to flog a dead horse about understanding and this will be my last comment to you about it.

Polars most certainly do include AoA when you have a full set.

The drag polar includes Cl because they are linked.

Why do you think a Cl polar includes AoA?

So you can easily find the AoA without having to calculate it for a given Cd.

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
07-12-2007, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by Akronnick:
<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 could go back and read where I posted that within the given limits the test is reasonable.
Then you could read the suggestions I had made including suggestion to discuss better ways.
Or you could focus on only parts of what was posted that the big deal was made of and forget
the rest to come away with very slanted opinion. There never needed to be any frigging flames
by anyone. It's just that some people can't stand to be told they ain't perfect.

So what was the suggestion then? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The most practical part was to write sources of and amounts of error into the description
of the test. It does mean determining them but that is part of all science I was taught,
labs include error analysis.

Second part is more difficult and I've been informed that I can just do that myself is
to find a way to make the planes fly down fixed-pitch paths. So when I get useful time
not spent doing dozen+ things besides housecleaning I need to tear into the AI package
and see just how programmable it is. So far my best guess is to program the flight so
that desired pitch changes with speed (different per plane), then test and adjust if
it works well enough to be narrowed down within some limits specified for the "test"
(I don't claim to be test-pilot/AE knowing what is best way to check these planes)
I try. I guess I'll find out if the AI-auto can do that. And no, I never got to the
-how- part because, well... just go back to page one and keep reading I guess.

Energy retention is a big thing in sailplanes, maybe I can find glider aero pages and
see what measures they use for it.

M_Gunz
07-12-2007, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
See this a great example of how you do not understand. You are absolutely correct that you do not need to know AoA to figure lift, drag, and L/D ratio.

However you certainly need AoA to get that value of L/D in flight.

Ahhh, errr, waydaminit! Maybe I don't get the use of the terms or something, but what is
the difference in the L/D he can get and the L/D in flight he can't? From earlier
in the discussion he had stated he could find those values 'at any point' which to me says
'it might just as well be all the data points' --- IF that is what he implied I ask him?


Crumpp:
If the "autopilot" can adjust pitch, then you can easily find the pitch from the AoA.

AoA - AOI


from NASA
The angle of incidence that is usually chosen is the angle of attack at which the lift-drag ratio is optimum. In most modern airplanes, there is a small positive angle of incidence so that the wing has a slight angle of attack when the airplane is in level cruising flight.

So what angle are these WWII fighter wings at optimum L/D... maybe no need to find AOI data
at all?

And I note that without AOI, gunnery would have been REALLY hard, worse than FW 'bar'.


Crumpp:
You don't seem to understand that the only thing that is constant is the AoA.

I need some help here or the rest will never make complete sense.
Isn't Cl directly from AOA, as in for every AOA there is a Cl?

Akronnick
07-12-2007, 10:07 PM
I think the desire to make the different types fly the same path may stamp out the very differences we are trying to measure.

If the Mustang (I'll keep to the convetion that has been established of refering to the Mustang and the Zero)has more retained more of its energy, It will fly a higher path than the Zero.

The difference we're trying to measure is the difference in path.

M_Gunz
07-12-2007, 10:13 PM
If plane A is diving at 25 degrees and plane B is diving at 30 degrees then which plane is
getting more gravity assist? Who will hit the bottom with more speed for the zoom and what
is the importance of speed in the zoom, which has been shown as the only higher order term
in the motion equations?

That's why.

EDIT: how would like <insert favorite plane here> judged on that basis?

Wurkeri
07-12-2007, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
It's not personal at all when I say you do not understand the underlying concepts.


All can read your postings from above; you just accuse but can't prove and continously do personal remarks.


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
See this a great example of how you do not understand. You are absolutely correct that you do not need to know AoA to figure lift, drag, and L/D ratio.

However you certainly need AoA to get that value of L/D in flight.


Nope, if we assume that the shape of the polar is constant then the given L/D and Cl/Cd relation is constant. In other words there is no need to know the AoA because the Cl gives the needed information. And in this case determination of the Cl is much easier.


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
If the "autopilot" can adjust pitch, then you can easily find the pitch from the AoA.


Please have a look to Tagerts test data, the pitch value is related to the flight path not to the airflow.


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
I do understand your point.


No, you don't; the L/D and the Cl/Cd relation is the same thing just measured different way. A given Cl value corresponds allways certain and same (unknown in this case) AoA value if we assume that the shape of the drag polar is constant (as we do here).

No need to comment the rest of your posting because you are just repeat same flawed argumentation combined with personal remarks.

na85
07-13-2007, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Can you guys who are complaining about Tagerts tests and saying they are wrong PLEASE do you your own charts or just shut up?

Why try and derail his testing?

If you know a better more accurate way then please just DO IT!

I keep coming back to this thread hoping to see more of Tagerts tests and all I find is bickering from people who say they know better yet dont seem to produce anything?!? Yawwnnn....

Agree

Kettenhunde
07-13-2007, 12:57 PM
So what angle are these WWII fighter wings at optimum L/D... maybe no need to find AOI data
at all?

Hi M_Gunz,

The good thing is that the Prmin point occurs in what is termed "the region of neutral stability". This is a point on the Pr curve that is fairly flat on the backside of L/Dmax. Here we find a variety of AoA for a similar L/D ratio.

So we have some buffer and our analysis only has to be within the realm of significant digits. No need to overcomplicate it.



Wurkeri says:

All the needed information can be worked out from the Cl and Cd without knowing the AoA as pointed out several times above. That is why normal presentation of the drag polar is given as function of Cl and Cd:

Cd = Cd0 + Cl^2/(pi*AR*e)

And that is all needed to determine the L/D.

Wurkeri,

The drag polar is the L/D ratio for aircraft.

The fact you think we need to determine L/D ratio speaks volumes about your understanding.

It's given to you by the polar. That main purpose of the polar!


Please have a look to Tagerts test data, the pitch value is related to the flight path not to the airflow.

And you think the relative wind is hard to determine?

You know, I think I am just going to have to ignore you.

Good Luck with your journey towards understanding.

All the best,

Crumpp

Wurkeri
07-13-2007, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
The drag polar is the L/D ratio for aircraft.


Well, that is what I have been saying all the time; the drag polar can be presented:

Cd = Cd0 + Cl^2/(pi*AR*e)

And further the L/D can be presented as function of the Cl:

L/D = Cl / (Cd0 + Cl^2/(pi*AR*e))

And even further the L/D max can be calculated simply by maximizing the above function without knowing the AoA (nor AoI).

And that has been my point from the beginning, I quess you finaly understood that based on tone of your posting.


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
And you think the relative wind is hard to determine?


This has nothing to do with the relative wind, pitch is simply related to the flight path in Tagert's data not AoA.

Of course you can do your own analysis on relative wind and AoA if you are interested, Mr. Hoof's test gives some guidelines and ideas.

Kettenhunde
07-13-2007, 05:50 PM
We can use pitch to adjust our AoA with autopilot with little to no modification to the test autopilot.

I would be glad to do the AoA at Prmin for both the P51D and Zeke so the methodology could be tested.

I am on a business trip at the moment. When I have time upon my return I can do it and outline the steps so that interested players can do their own analysis.

All the best,

Crumpp

Wurkeri
07-13-2007, 09:46 PM
Great, I'm sure Tagert is patiently waiting the results of your analysis http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

AKA_TAGERT
07-14-2007, 09:09 AM
ROTFL

AKA_TAGERT
07-14-2007, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by Akronnick:
I think the desire to make the different types fly the same path may stamp out the very differences we are trying to measure.

If the Mustang (I'll keep to the convetion that has been established of refering to the Mustang and the Zero)has more retained more of its energy, It will fly a higher path than the Zero.

The difference we're trying to measure is the difference in path. DING!

Something I told MAX pages ago.. Yet he has yet to realize.

As for useful feedback from MAX..

NONE!

This thread is yet another example of MAX seeing things that are not there (flight path testing) and not seeing what is there (PITCH graph). By page 2 he realized his error and was so upset with himself that he stopped TRYING to provide feedback and started attacking the REAL WORLD METHOD I am using in place of his imaginary alternative UNREALISTIC METHOD that only works on paper in some perfect world where a P51 and ZERO have AoA gauges.

But I digress

NOTE Min AX's first so called feedback he ask for the pitch to be plotted..

At which point I told him it all ready is.. Just click on the link to the pdf..

NEXT went OT and started talking about flight path..

As in the XY position..

Which is not needed for this test..

All I need for energy retention testing is the final speed and altitude.. How they get there maters as much as it did in that REAL WWII P51 vs. ZERO test!

Something MAX and Crumpp keep avoiding..

Why?

Because there is no way to spin that REAL WORLD TEST to support their idea that you need to know AoA and AoI.

In that the test pilots did not need to know it for the test..

As a mater of FACT..

Even if they wanted to fly AoA instead of PITCH there is no AoA gauge in either the P51 or ZERO.

Again.. something MAX and Crumpp have yet to address.

With that said..

My testing using that REAL WORLD METHOD is actually more accurate in that with the auto pilot I can get a perfect PITCH flown..

Thus making the test more fair.

Again.. something MAX and Crumpp have yet to address.

M_Gunz
07-14-2007, 09:29 AM
Miss Representation at work again, ignore the point I explained a I explained it.

You don't get the same gravity assist in a shallower dive, the speed will be less and
the speed at the start of the zoom is the only second order factor in the subsequent rise.

And that is called NOTHING by Miss Representation, poor little picked-on Nancy.

AKA_TAGERT
07-14-2007, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Miss Representation at work again, ignore the point I explained a I explained it.

You don't get the same gravity assist in a shallower dive, the speed will be less and
the speed at the start of the zoom is the only second order factor in the subsequent rise.

And that is called NOTHING by Miss Representation, poor little picked-on Nancy.
Thus by MAX and Crumpps assement the REAL WORLD TEST method was in ERROR. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Too bad these two were not around back then to set these REAL test pilots and test engineers straight! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

M_Gunz
07-14-2007, 10:37 AM
I am sure that in WWII if one plane chased another in a dive, he would stay on line with his
target unless he was working a tactic. Last time I checked, diving shallower than your target
is only a tactic if you know he is going to pull up or if he is going to run. But it's not
the way to follow a dive and the shallower path nets less energy gain per second which in dive
past top speed yields a higher NET LOSS penalizing the plane flying the shallower path.
You don't generate the speed your airframe can while on the shallower path. Separation is not
just a matter of comparing distances flown when paths are not the same either.

Yep, not relevant arguments as long as you keep your back to them.

Whereas what Crumpp may provide is better understanding of the ideal paths if you are the lead
plane or just happen to be trying to build energy as you position for an attack.

AKA_TAGERT
07-14-2007, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I am sure that in WWII if one plane chased another in a dive, he would stay on line with his
target unless he was working a tactic. Last time I checked, diving shallower than your target
is only a tactic if you know he is going to pull up or if he is going to run. But it's not
the way to follow a dive and the shallower path nets less energy gain per second which in dive
past top speed yields a higher NET LOSS penalizing the plane flying the shallower path.
You don't generate the speed your airframe can while on the shallower path. Separation is not
just a matter of comparing distances flown when paths are not the same either.

Yep, not relevant arguments as long as you keep your back to them.

Whereas what Crumpp may provide is better understanding of the ideal paths if you are the lead
plane or just happen to be trying to build energy as you position for an attack. Thus by MAX and Crumpps assement the REAL WORLD ZOOM TEST method was in ERROR. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

My test method has the same limitations as the real one..

Now the REAL test pilots and test engineers felt it was useful information..

Where as you and yours don't..

Too bad you two were not around back then to tell those REAL test pilots and engineers what fools they are for doing such a test! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

M_Gunz
07-14-2007, 12:54 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:
I am sure that in WWII if one plane chased another in a dive, he would stay on line with his
target unless he was working a tactic. Last time I checked, diving shallower than your target
is only a tactic if you know he is going to pull up or if he is going to run. But it's not
the way to follow a dive and the shallower path nets less energy gain per second which in dive
past top speed yields a higher NET LOSS penalizing the plane flying the shallower path.
You don't generate the speed your airframe can while on the shallower path. Separation is not
just a matter of comparing distances flown when paths are not the same either.

Yep, not relevant arguments as long as you keep your back to them.

Whereas what Crumpp may provide is better understanding of the ideal paths if you are the lead
plane or just happen to be trying to build energy as you position for an attack. Thus by MAX and Crumpps assement the REAL WORLD ZOOM TEST method was in ERROR. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The real world test where they climbed at the SAME ANGLE?
EDIT: That's why they call those combat comparison tests.

AKA_TAGERT
07-14-2007, 12:58 PM
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/6193/zoomp51nm4.jpg

What part of line abreast are you having trouble with? Once one pulls away from the other.. the other would try and follow.. It would be a pretty meaningless test if one did not try to follow the other.. But I am sure that will not stop you from trying to imply that was the case.

On that note..

Supose they did it your way..

Using your method..

How would a REAL WWII test pilot fly at a certain AoA angle without an AoA gauge?

Please..

Enlighten us!

M_Gunz
07-14-2007, 01:14 PM
Pitch is not path.

Zero flew same angle path as Mustang just not as fast or as far.

Compare pitch with speed in level flight from 300kph to full speed. Dives go faster and lift
is by speed squared.

And still as a pilot you adjust your pitch to make your path esp in a chase.

That's all.
I can tell the 109's are going to take a beating but so might the Spits so it evens out.

CYA!

AKA_TAGERT
07-14-2007, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Pitch is not path.
NOTE Folks.. MAX keeps tossing this master-of-the-obvious statement out as if someone said PITCH is PATH.


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Zero flew same angle path as Mustang just not as fast or as far.
DUH


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Compare pitch with speed in level flight from 300kph to full speed. Dives go faster and lift is by speed squared.
DUH


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
And still as a pilot you adjust your pitch to make your path esp in a chase.
DUH


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
That's all.
All master-of-the-obvious stuff


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I can tell the 109's are going to take a beating but so might the Spits so it evens out.
Yes we all all well aware of the fact that you can run your yap..

But..

You can not 'do' it (i.e. movie critic like)


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
CYA!
Promise?

But before you go..

Please tell us how a REAL WWII pilot was suppose to fly a set AoA without an AoA gauge!

Been asking you for pages now..

But you keep avoiding that little detail

I wonder why? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

M_Gunz
07-14-2007, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/6193/zoomp51nm4.jpg

What part of line abreast are you having trouble with? Once one pulls away from the other.. the other woudl try and follow.

And thus follow along the same PATH.


What part of this is confusing for you?

Confusing for me? Who has been posting how important it is for both planes to follow the
same dive and zoom angles? And how fixed same pitch for each will not do that?

I'm not the one who is confused.


On that note..

Tell us..

Using your method.. How would a REAL WWII test pilot fly at a certain AoA angle without an AoA guage?

Please..

Enlighten us!

The question is how the real WWII test pilot fly at a certain dive or climb path angle
during a zoom where speed is changing.

In practice, one plane set the angle and the other followed.

In a dive it's possible to keep the gunsight on a ground feature and be not just ballpark
but infield but your AI does not see does it?

I wonder if the AI is capable of tying pitch to speed well enough to auto-trim a speed change?
Cause that'd make dive angles tunable per plane.