PDA

View Full Version : how did oleg??



nakamura_kenji
09-28-2005, 02:30 AM
first thing say is not fish please not turn into one.

I be think while of just how oleg able calculate flight model for plane that never flew ie bf-109z. from what read bf-109z that was built was two bf-109F but never flew as destroy in bombing and also fact one have in game base bf-109G. I guess it possible to in someway claculate performance base on wing area ,engine power and some figures from bf-109g it base but i guess this can only take so far. As would be lot of unknowns which not be found from calculation but which would been found in testing which not have since plane never existed. So guess figures produce somewhat perfect performance plane could possible have but not usual be able achieve real life. or is there way compensate for by reduce by 10 to 15%??

nakamura_kenji
09-28-2005, 02:30 AM
first thing say is not fish please not turn into one.

I be think while of just how oleg able calculate flight model for plane that never flew ie bf-109z. from what read bf-109z that was built was two bf-109F but never flew as destroy in bombing and also fact one have in game base bf-109G. I guess it possible to in someway claculate performance base on wing area ,engine power and some figures from bf-109g it base but i guess this can only take so far. As would be lot of unknowns which not be found from calculation but which would been found in testing which not have since plane never existed. So guess figures produce somewhat perfect performance plane could possible have but not usual be able achieve real life. or is there way compensate for by reduce by 10 to 15%??

neural_dream
09-28-2005, 04:39 AM
let's see. What i would do. For a crude speed estimation i would look at the twin mustang and compare.
For example, i would say that the speed of the bf109Z should be a little higher (because of the lack of second cockpit and pilot) than

(speed of Twin Mustang / speed of Mustang) * speed of Bf109

where Mustang = the one used in the twin mustang
Bf109 = the one used in the Bf109Z. I think in-game it's a G, although it should be a F.

I know, very crude estimation, but i suspect it would be close to the real thing at most altitudes. I hope Oleg didn't do something like that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif.

Low_Flyer_MkII
09-28-2005, 05:08 AM
It's simple:-

2 x Allied engines + airframe = more weight/less speed
2 x German engines + airframe = double power/twice the speed

Source: Luftwhining for dummies.

jimDG
09-28-2005, 12:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neural_dream:
let's see. What i would do. For a crude speed estimation i would look at the twin mustang and compare.
For example, i would say that the speed of the bf109Z should be a little higher (because of the lack of second cockpit and pilot) than

(speed of Twin Mustang / speed of Mustang) * speed of Bf109

where Mustang = the one used in the twin mustang
Bf109 = the one used in the Bf109Z. I think in-game it's a G, although it should be a F.

I know, very crude estimation, but i suspect it would be close to the real thing at most altitudes. I hope Oleg didn't do something like that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

every half of the twin mustang was 30% bigger than a normal mustang - it's scaled up. There is only 15% parts commonality between the twin stang and the stang. And besides, the twin stang has different engine(s), as the USA lost the Merlin engine license after the war, so it got substituted with (I think) an upgraded Alison.

I think the FM inherently takes into account wing area - (when the outer wing is shot off airplanes spin). So, its only a matter of connecting (the FM of) two bf109s each with one wing shot off throught the middle.

diomedes33
09-28-2005, 12:55 PM
He probably approached it how aircraft companies do preliminary sizing, but backwards.

From what is known about the bf109z, you know the weight, airfoil, shape of all the components, prop and engine power.

From this you can estimate the thrust, drag build up, lift distributions etc. With these calculations you can create a very rudimentary flight model. Nothing I would fly in real life, but should be adequate for a computer sim that has even more limitations then the equations used for the estimate.

DuxCorvan
09-28-2005, 01:48 PM
He reasonably invented it, according to Luftwaffe contest specifications and previsions. That's all. Don't toast your brains.

Kamikazeiii
09-28-2005, 11:17 PM
Don't forget the possibility that the bunch of IL-2 gods stuck a model of 2 BF-109 models which were superglued together and they just modified the surfaces on it with sticky-notes to check the maximum/minimum turning radius/maneverability, and they probably just plugged all that stuff into an oleg super computer with the engine statistics of two db-105 engines... which of course would've gave them the true performance of the aircraft. ^^
BTW, this plane's high speed and climb rate is canceled out by this plane's miniscule ammunition stores.

(The stickynotes and superglue thinggy was a joke for you people with no humor)

Daiichidoku
09-28-2005, 11:23 PM
oleg also managed to get an FM out of the hardly-flown i-185...

got so correct, the only weakness it has is an "uncomfortable throttle lever"


ok, yes, the 109Z FM is probably fairly close to what it could have been IRL

but who knows? the smallest details can lead to huge variances withiin the flight enevelope

F4Us had a lot of development time, but it wasnt until it was actually flying in tests they found the nasty low-speed flick roll....solved by a tiny six-inch strip of metal

granted, the 109Z had a lot of established behavior of the 109F to go by, but until it could actually be flown, who really knows, even reasonalby, JUST what behavior the Z would reveal within its envelope, not even counting with a bomb or drop tank loadout, or when firing its battery in certain attitudes


"109Z thread"
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1011081853

Kamikazeiii
09-28-2005, 11:50 PM
oHHH a HE-219 UHU is in your sig!!!(my fav plane btw) they need that plane in the next release. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/353.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

Gibbage1
09-28-2005, 11:50 PM
Bf-109Z. The only true fantisy aircraft in IL2. Be sure!

TAGERT.
09-28-2005, 11:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nakamura_kenji:
first thing say is not fish please not turn into one.

I be think while of just how oleg able calculate flight model for plane that never flew ie bf-109z. from what read bf-109z that was built was two bf-109F but never flew as destroy in bombing and also fact one have in game base bf-109G. I guess it possible to in someway claculate performance base on wing area ,engine power and some figures from bf-109g it base but i guess this can only take so far. As would be lot of unknowns which not be found from calculation but which would been found in testing which not have since plane never existed. So guess figures produce somewhat perfect performance plane could possible have but not usual be able achieve real life. or is there way compensate for by reduce by 10 to 15%?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, dont fool yourself in thiking the planes that did fly are much better. In that most data does not exist for all planes in all situations. Therefore the blanks have to be filled in with a best guess. Happens all the time in the real world, but even more so with 60+ year old data that most of which was destroyed during the war.

There are probally other planes in the game that have as much data contributions as the 109Z does (i.e. ZERO), but, you dont consider them as much because you think if they actully flew, there must be data. Not allways the case.

Kamikazeiii
09-29-2005, 12:03 AM
Not really.... the allied forces got acess to all of te remaining german arms and stuff, they did extensive testing on the swept wing theory, the firing system of the mk cannons (They really wanted to know how those worked), the ME-262, and every airframe they could lay their hands on. Now all of that data is stored in the US National library in about 80 books, organized from A-Z, with all of that data they could've plugged it into a computer and got the statistics of how the zwillig worked.

P.S. The blueprint of the BF-109Z survived the war BTW, it was never at the factory when it was bombed.

P.P.S. The bf-109z flew for a few seconds when it was bombed BTW. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

IL2-chuter
09-29-2005, 01:58 AM
The P-82 didn't get Allisons because the US "lost" the Merlin production license at the end of the war, it was an economic decision to keep Americans (well, a few) working after the war after so many other military contracts were cancelled. Besides, some technologies and concepts "learned" during the war were finding their way into post-war military development. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

And that little strip of metal on the Corsair's right wing was usually wood. Neat, huh? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

And enemy aircraft flight test programs didn't end in the US when the war ended, the Oscar was flying well into '46 in its testing and the Ju388 report wasn't done until, I believe, '47. (I've read an original copy of the 388 report as well as been in the aircraft. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif WOOHOO)

SnailRunner
09-29-2005, 02:07 AM
If i had the brains to program and in general was a puter nerd, the way i would make planes fm`s would be to contact one of the big plane builders (fokker-airbus-boing etc) and find out what puter programs they use to calculate there next in production planes.

Today the planes are build virtual first, in there they get testet when they have something they know will work they produce the testmodel. The only reson they need a test model is not because they doent know how it will fly (FM) they simply need a test bed to solve the mechanical stuff there is. so in a game like a combat sim like FB it will be pretty easy to make FM`s using this kind of software, its not guessing, its not from old pilots statements, its from the data of the plane and some puter power.

Oleg get some of this software, use it will be easyer for you, will stop alot of the FM talk here at the forums, and you would be able to program the program to make durability count (put in the erros that made a difference)

my 2 cents

jimDG
09-29-2005, 10:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SnailRunner:
If i had the brains to program and in general was a puter nerd, the way i would make planes fm`s would be to contact one of the big plane builders (fokker-airbus-boing etc) and find out what puter programs they use to calculate there next in production planes.

Today the planes are build virtual first, in there they get testet when they have something they know will work they produce the testmodel. The only reson they need a test model is not because they doent know how it will fly (FM) they simply need a test bed to solve the mechanical stuff there is. so in a game like a combat sim like FB it will be pretty easy to make FM`s using this kind of software, its not guessing, its not from old pilots statements, its from the data of the plane and some puter power.

Oleg get some of this software, use it will be easyer for you, will stop alot of the FM talk here at the forums, and you would be able to program the program to make durability count (put in the erros that made a difference)

my 2 cents </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

X-Plane (supposedly) does this.