|
|
|
|
#1
11-28-2011, 10:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
I think we should make use of the data that is there. That is better than just leaving wrong things as they are. Otherwise you will never change much in the sim and then we have a fake FM.
The chances that the existing data is completely wrong is smaller than the chances of just guesswork. 
|
|
#2
11-28-2011, 10:23 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
But what about the planes for which there is no data? A little change in weight, horse power, frame (clip wing) etc can have a big effect on these charts! But lets assume you can agree to some 'calculated' values.. The next big hurtle for the sim pilot is the validation of the values.. This is all for not unless you come up with a standard test.. And even with that you will than find most sim pilots are not up to the tasks that they can get the same results test after test (read repeatable Ala scientific method) So even if you had all the info/data.. you would still have to contend with the whinny sim pilots that does not know the difference between TAS and IAS but has not problem calling the FM porked
__________________
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.
|
|
#3
11-28-2011, 10:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#4
11-28-2011, 11:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The fan plots that I have collected over the years though few in number are:
Spitfire1A BF109E3 Spitfire MKIII Clean (Merlin XX) Spitfire MKIII with Full Flap (RAE study on Flap and its effects on turn performance) Blenheim MKIV (RAE report "Notes on the dogfight) Brewster Buffalo (F2A) with Flap and Clean (Exhaustive USN/NACA study on Flap effects on turn performance) I am sure there are more out there but its just finding them.
|
|
#5
11-29-2011, 07:28 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Thus it is safe to say that at some point 'we' will have to trust the math (FM) of it all.. As in a calculated value. Once that is done and agreed upon you have to find those that have what it takes to do the test! As noted, based on my experance of testing and reviewing tests done by others, sim pilots typically fall way short of that mark!
__________________
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. Last edited by ACE-OF-ACES; 11-29-2011 at 07:31 PM.
|
|
#6
11-29-2011, 07:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think we can overcome this problem with the help of our engineers.
I'm quite sure that today they are using software who can return to us many informations about those planes' attitude.
__________________
 A whole generation of pilots learned to treasure the Spitfire for its delightful response to aerobatic manoeuvres and its handiness as a dogfighter. Iit is odd that they had continued to esteem these qualities over those of other fighters in spite of the fact that they were of only secondary importance tactically.Thus it is doubly ironic that the Spitfire’s reputation would habitually be established by reference to archaic, non-tactical criteria.
|
|
#7
11-29-2011, 09:05 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Engineers like myself do it all the time in all fields of engineering! 
__________________
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.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
