Flight Modeling vs. Flight Handling.

[ElAurens]

But I'm not saying two identical machines, I'm saying different machines with identical (or close enough for the real world) performance numbers.


I realize this is a somewhat cerebral discussion.

There have been posts in the past, going back all the way to the start of IL2, where there are those that say that if two aircraft have the same wing loading and power loading then they will perform the same.

This is a common thread among many sim pilots.

I'm saying this is not necessarily the case. One could be so difficult to fly that achieving it's max performance would be nearly impossible, whereas the other could have such beautifully harmonized controls that relatively inexperienced pilots could achieve the outside of the envelope with ease.

In the sim this difference would be so slight that it would make no difference.

It this making sense?

[5./JG27.Farber]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

I realize this is a somewhat cerebral discussion.

Since when did pilots fly on intellect alone...

I reasoned today that Pilot experiences where based upon:

Aircraft handling
Pilot Energy
Aircraft Energy

Thats it.

[Codex]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

But I'm not saying two identical machines, I'm saying different machines with identical (or close enough for the real world) performance numbers.


I realize this is a somewhat cerebral discussion.

There have been posts in the past, going back all the way to the start of IL2, where there are those that say that if two aircraft have the same wing loading and power loading then they will perform the same.

This is a common thread among many sim pilots.

I'm saying this is not necessarily the case. One could be so difficult to fly that achieving it's max performance would be nearly impossible, whereas the other could have such beautifully harmonized controls that relatively inexperienced pilots could achieve the outside of the envelope with ease.

In the sim this difference would be so slight that it would make no difference.

It this making sense?

Argh, I should have quoted excerpts of the thread to direct my responses.

I was wanting to present my experiences to CaptianDoggles point about two identical machines performing the same (post #16).

As for your initial post El, I understand where you're coming from. From the many posts, videos and books I've read / viewed over the years I think it boils down to wear and tear. It's no secret that pilots found things "different" when jumping into a new plane from their old one.

I do recall during my Airforce Cadet days when taking a joy flight in a Macchi trainer at RAAF East Sale. The pilot I flew with had recently transferred from F-111's to be an instructor, and he was having a hard time adjusting to the Macchi because he was accustomed to having his own ride (F-111). At East Sale, he had use what ever jet that was available on the day. He mentioned that he found himself always checking the IAS gauge before going into an maneuver not just because of safety, but also because all the trainers "felt" different to him. He knew all the jets could all perform at the same specs, but to him they all had their own "feel".

[ATAG_Bliss]

Two identical machines (even down to the molecular level) can never perform truly identical unless they resided in their own foot print.

Basically, because of this:

When Albert Einstein introduced his Theory of Relativity in the early 20th century, however, he suggested that time wasn't separate from space but connected to it. Time and space combined to form space-time, and everyone measures his or her own experience in it differently because the speed of light (300,000 km per second) is the same for all observers. In other words, if all observers have to agree on the speed of light being 300,000 km per second, then they can't agree on the time it takes for other objects to travel relative to them.

Einstein also suggested that space-time wasn't flat, but curved or "warped" by the existence of matter and energy. Large bodies in space-time, like the Earth, aren't just floating in orbit. Instead, imagine an apple resting on a stretched out blanket -- the weight of the apple warps the sheet. If the Earth is an apple, then we can imagine the Earth's blanket as space-time.

This means that someone moving through space-time will experience it differently at various points. Time will actually appear to move slower near massive objects, because space-time is warped by the weight. These predictions have actually been proven. In 1962, scientists placed two atomic clocks at the bottom and top of a water tower. The clock at the bottom, the one closer to the massive center of the Earth, was running slower than the clock at the top. Einstein called this phenomenon time dilation.

A further explanation of the bending of space-time and time dilation came in the form of a thought experiment called the twin paradox, devised in 1911 by French physicist Paul Langevin. If one twin lives at the foot of a mountain and the other lives at the top, the twin closer to the Earth will age more slowly. He or she would turn out younger than the other twin, though by a very small amount. If you sent one twin in a spaceship accelerating close to the speed of light, however, he or she would return much younger than the other twin, because high acceleration and large gravitational masses are the same in relativity. Of course, no one's gone so far as to send somebody's twin into high-speed orbit, but scientists proved the hypothesis true in the '70s by sending an atomic clock into orbit. It returned to Earth having run much slower than grounded atomic clocks.