Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover > Technical threads > FM/DM threads

FM/DM threads Everything about FM/DM in CoD

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #241  
Old 12-11-2012, 11:54 PM
Crumpp's Avatar
Crumpp Crumpp is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,552
Default

Quote:
The slats ensure a laminar flow
Turbulent flow....not laminar!!

__________________
  #242  
Old 12-11-2012, 11:57 PM
*Buzzsaw* *Buzzsaw* is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Vancouver Canada
Posts: 467
Default

All of this may be somewhat academic, as the game engine has been dropped.

See announcement on main forum.

New forum for BATTLE OF STALINGRAD is here:

http://forum.il2sturmovik.net/index.php?
  #243  
Old 12-12-2012, 12:11 AM
Crumpp's Avatar
Crumpp Crumpp is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,552
Default

Quote:
Theres standards and then theres standardisation, you can have standards without standardisation, it simply means there was not a universally applied standard, I asure you the British aircraft industry was not a free-for all where they let the tea ladies get in on the act because it 'looked pretty', there were people who were very aware of what stability and control was within the RAE.
I am not arguing a point about whether a universal standard was adopted, I'm arguing against your bizarre claims the British had 'no' standards and therefore the RAE reports on the 109 may as well have been performed by monkeys.....until of course you want to 'cherry pick' anything positive.
The RAE left things up to the opinion of the pilot as the definative source on the stability and control.

That is why you had such a variation in stability and control in British designs.

Here I will quote Lyons in his report:

Quote:
It is recommended that Q be adopted for designers' use, that its limits of validity be checked by careful tests on one aeroplane, and that more force measurements in pull out from dives be made on a number of aeroplanes in order that numerical standards may be attached to Q. Reference is made to American standards....
Quote:
A compact formula Im a criterion of manoeuvrability Q the stick force per g is proposed as a basis of design.
Quote:
If Q is adopted as a criterion, numerical standards should be attached to it. More measurements are needed of stick force in pulling out of dives, particularly on bombers, before these can be fixed.
__________________
  #244  
Old 12-12-2012, 01:00 AM
taildraggernut taildraggernut is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 334
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post
There is nothing they can do about the airframe changes without a complete redesign of the aircraft.

Why do you think they called the Avia S-199 the "Mule"?

The Ha-112 was a different airplane.

The higher thrust line, weight differences, and difference in rpm results in different dynamic pressure ranges in the spiral slipstream than the airframe was designed. It will have different flying qualities.

I guess you hate me for pointing out that fact!!

Try flying a piston engine porter and a turbine porter if you don't think engine makes a difference in flying qualities.

Do I hate you for pointing out the HE-112 was a different aircraft therefore irrelevant?.......no, it's one of the few things you've said that's true, I don' even hate you for bringing up the Pilatus porter which is also irrelevant. I Do have less than complimentary feelings for your hypocrisy at having quoted Mark Hanna describing the Bouchon's positive handling as an example of the 109 and then immediately contradicting yourself by saying it's not comparable.
  #245  
Old 12-12-2012, 01:02 AM
Skoshi Tiger Skoshi Tiger is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 2,197
Default

Do you think the Leading edge slats will be moddled any better in BOS?
  #246  
Old 12-12-2012, 02:13 AM
NZtyphoon NZtyphoon is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NZ
Posts: 543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post
The RAE left things up to the opinion of the pilot as the definative source on the stability and control.

That is why you had such a variation in stability and control in British designs.

Here I will quote Lyons in his report:
Just to quote one moderator who got tired of a subject being regurgitated time and again: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=934

Quote:
If Crump wants to provide Game test data or observed and documented characteristics and furnish the developers with the supporting valid realworld data (NACA or other I dont care). He can do it in private directly to Ilya, this thread has had more than enough time and data thrown at it to "prove" his theory if its correct. This thread is just causing more and more heated arguments and personal attacks and has failed to be objective. And yes I have read most of it because Ive had to moderate it continuously.

Personally I dont see the point of wasting this much energy on a single characteristic of a single aircraft at the expense of all other aspects and all other aircraft. In doing so it would unbalance the game and overall flight model of the aircraft in question. I would also have to question whether Crump holds an objective view of this flight characteristic and flight data given the single bloody-mindedness of the argument.

The developers have their criteria and approach to modelling flight characteristics and should not be pushed to change a FM based on one persons argument against the community. While I am impressed by the amount of research and data and the extreme effort to prove the spit was unstable, where was the game testing data to back up that infact the FM is incorrect? Nada, zero, zilch... so I have to conclude this is just a massive one-man-band trolling of the community.
Dead right, and it applies here as well - this is meant to be about improving 109 control characteristics in CLOD - which evidently won't be happening soon, as pointed out by Buzzsaw.

If Crumpp wants to exhaustively pursue his dead-end obsessions about whether or not the British had standards, or the Spitfire's control characteristics or his clear belief that he alone has all the answers about everything to do with aerodynamics and aeronautics, he can start his own site and troll that instead.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...90&postcount=1

10. Off topic discussion - in full or in part. Purposeful and/ or continuous off topic discussion.

Last edited by NZtyphoon; 12-12-2012 at 03:52 AM.
  #247  
Old 12-12-2012, 07:30 AM
JG52Uther's Avatar
JG52Uther JG52Uther is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,358
Default

You do all know CoD is dead don't you? All this is pretty pointless in the context of CoD, which is what this forum is about.Nothing will change, or be fixed. Its over.
I'm sure the new forum will be thrilled when you take all your knowledge there to share with everybody.I don't think there is an FM forum there yet, but its early days for the new project.
http://forum.il2sturmovik.net/
  #248  
Old 12-12-2012, 03:08 PM
ACE-OF-ACES's Avatar
ACE-OF-ACES ACE-OF-ACES is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NM
Posts: 2,248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabelschwanz Teufel View Post
It only works if everybody does it or the ones that don't will stop quoting him.
I smell a trend!
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on.
  #249  
Old 12-12-2012, 10:30 PM
KG26_Alpha KG26_Alpha is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 2,805
Default

Yea its called flogging a dead horse.

These threads always end up the same, locked with the same few people doing the same whining and personally insulting each other regardless what the topic is.

Closed Thread


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.