Quote:
Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow
Oh, there is abundance of proof that the 109 for instance is too slow. Please look up again the corresponding threads.
I guess that there has been similar data posted for other planes as well.
EDIT: On the how to do a sim: I have a couple of years experience in the aerospace business as an engineer and I work for a research institute in this field. One field of our research are hypersonic planes. As any hypersonic plane has to accelerate through the subsonic velocity range (and deccelerate later for landing) we put some effort in studying subsonic aerodynamics. From all experience we have collected I can say one thing: there is not ONE single simplified method that can predict accurately the aerodynamic forces in the subsonic region (but some adequate approximations) for low and medium subsonic speeds. When the speed approaches transsonic speeds it basically gets guesswork.
Only halfway trustworthy aerodynamic results by calculation would be to do the fully viscous NS-equations (provided they can be solved correctly) but this is not at all practicable for a flight sim as the calculation for one flight point only (Ma, altitude, angle of attack, sideslip angle) would take a lot of time and we would need an enormous number of flight points in order to create a sufficiently large data base. And again, as a researcher who respects himself, I would request to verify some calculated points by wind tunnel tests ...
And we yet have not even talked about the damping coefficients which are even more difficult to assess by wind tunnel tests let alone determine by calculations ...
|
Very interesting Storm.
But you don't always hve to go trough the full range of NS eq even in RL. Hopefully You can use simplified form and some fair assumptions to get a valid result.