109 advice needed (climb)

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

I don't understand if it's sarcasm. I don't know your field but I got 3 friends who happen to be aeronautical engineers, using the right software they have the tools to do it with a good approximation.

No sarcasm (you agree with what I have been saying)

The point is, most of the data needed is 'calculated' using aeronautical engineering techniques

The real world performance data is not used in the FM as much as it is used as a sanity check of the results of the FM

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

I think that a developer of a flight sim should be in contact with experts in this field.

Who says they are not?

Like my sig says.. put another way.. most of the 'issues' with the FM are 'issues' with the users, not the FM

Albeit I agree that some too easily blame the fm for their misfortune in a dogfight. However you cannot just deny that there is a general problem with the fm of most planes.

It is also too easy to just blame each player here to be bad pilots when they find that plane xy is too slow or porked in another way.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

Albeit I agree that some too easily blame the fm for their misfortune in a dogfight.

Bingo!

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

However you cannot just deny that there is a general problem with the fm of most planes.

Sure I can.. Or should I say.. Thus far NO ONE has provided anything that would be considered proof there is an error in the FM! Which is not to be confused with me saying there is no problems, only that no one (on the user side, i.e. not someone from 1C) has provided anything that would be considered proof! Look at most if not all of the threads in this forum, for every person that says the PLANE A is too slow, there is another that says PLANE A it is too fast! So what does that say about the users?

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

It is also too easy to just blame each player here to be bad pilots when they find that plane xy is too slow or porked in another way.

Which is why my first question to anyone making a claim of any sort is Got Track?©®. Because most of these so called claims can be put to rest by simply watching the track file, in that most of the time it is clear that it is pilot error! At least that is what I have found after years of viewing IL2 track files people provided as 'proof' of this or that

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

Bingo!


Sure I can.. Or should I say.. Thus far NO ONE has provided anything that would be considered proof there is an error in the FM! Which is not to be confused with me saying there is no problems, only that no one (on the user side, i.e. not someone from 1C) has provided anything that would be considered proof! Look at most if not all of the threads in this forum, for every person that says the PLANE A is too slow, there is another that says PLANE A it is too fast! So what does that say about the users?


Which is why my first question to anyone making a claim of any sort is Got Track?©®. Because most of these so called claims can be put to rest by simply watching the track file, in that most of the time it is clear that it is pilot error! At least that is what I have found after years of viewing IL2 track files people provided as 'proof' of this or that

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 ...

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

Oh, there is abundance of proof that the 109 for instance is too slow.

Abundance.. Really? Well if there is an 'abundance' of 'proof' than it should be a simple task for you to 'pick one' and provide the link to it for review.. Right?

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

Please look up again the corresponding threads.

I have a beter idea..

As noted, I have 'looked' and have yet to see 'one' that would quality as 'proof'

But maybe I missed the one your refering to?

So since you seem to think there is an 'abundance' of 'proof', please pick the best one and provide the link to it for review, that way we are both on the same sheet of music

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

I guess that there has been similar data posted for other planes as well.

I like to avoid guess work

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

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 ...

Agreed 100%

As I allready noted, no sim is perfect!

And no sim ever was, is, or will be equal to reality!

Hence the name 'simulation' in place of 'reality'

I knew that you would ask other ppl to do the search work for you.

Instead I now ask you to provide a proof that there is no data. I have not enough time to do this work for you. Remember: you brought up this whole: leave-it-as-it-is-because-there-is-no-proof thing. And please spare me anything like: "So you don't have proof". I know this argumentation strategy too well and it just bores me. You just look up the threads by yourself or proove that there is no data available. Otherwise I would just take you as of the same kind as all the others that you blame for making unfounded assertions.

Furthermore I come to believe that even if I or anybody else provided proof you would just call it to be no proof. You're a man on a mission. So any effort would be wasted on you imho.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

I knew that you would ask other ppl to do the search work for you.

As I knew you were talking out your A when you said there is an abundance of proof

[TomcatViP]

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.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

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.

Exactally