P-51D maneuvrability - what it was in reality ...

[tonycat77]

I know I know, sims aren't reality, but at least they have some aerodynamic modelling.
With that said, I don't really like to fly the P-51, it's usually starts with drop tanks and flying slow and above the b-17s or b-29s you're supposed to be escorting.

If you try to pull hard on it, the wing usually stalls suddenly before you know it.

I usually try to make head on passes after accelerating, once you're up to speed, no one except maybe the ta-152 can get to you.

Against it I try to go down on the ground, get them to overshoot me and usually they start to overheat and slow down since they don't get methanol injections like the late war axis planes, the AI also tries to follow you in scissors and it's always a bad idea.

My favorite American plane to fly is the p-47, it's unbeatable in a dive and boom and zoom, and its unbelievable fast down low even with bombs, it's a lot of fun, especially when you water inject it.

 

[Glider]

words fail me

 

[BarnOwlLover]

Sims are "sim"s, and not full on simulators. They're basically arcade games. Even racing games aren't 100% simulations of driving a race car. You'd basically need the simulators like what F1 teams have. And even then there's probably things that aren't 100% replicated in actually driving a car. Same with actual flight simulators.

Not to mention that this seems to fly in the face of what drgondog has said (based on serious research), and actual performance testing done by the manufacturers and the USAAF during and after the war.

 

[drgondog]

Here is the FUNDAMENTAL issue with SIMs. The very best modelllers may have an Aero education, or gain the knowldege to apply fundamental relationships to plug in density from tables, 'assume' a prop efficiency, 'assume' an oswald effciency for their wing - but THEY have no access to that fighters complete wind tunnel data at low altitude, low speed Reynold's numbers - and assume that when they do find a table in an aero book like Hoerner's Fluid Dynamic Drag that are 'golden'.

Just to use NAA as an example, the wind tunnel data begins very much like the NACA Full scale test that was performed on production models - only with, say, 1/4 scale and incredibly smooth model. The models used by the manufacturers in their home grown wind tunnels will have the lowest possible values for the friction component of the parasite drag (unrealistically low when compared to real life with gaps, rivets, waves in surface, realistic boundary layer separation and associated adverse pressure gradents causing more 'profile/form drag').

So each mfr will gain a table of component values for form drag of wing, fuselage, empennage, radiator/coolant scoops, etc. - Some compenents will vary as function of RN, some will remain as independent of RN (but as functions of pressure drag such as bomb racks exhaust stacks.

So, 'in the beginning' CDP1 = sum of the individual form drag's for each maor airframe component.

The next step is to the CONVERSION relationship for CDP2 at the Wind Tunnel build up at say RN for 8o-mph based on Mean Aero Chord (say for the 1/4 scale model)- to the new CDP at a DIFFERENT RN for a DIFFERENT SPEED and a DIFFERENT altitude. RN is plotted on Log scales (to account for V^2 varation), and when done so, yields a steadily decreasing CDP as a function of V..

Trust me when I say tyou have just began a Performance Analysis and nowhere close to a programmable solution yet. I discussed the process a couple of weeks ago but have no idea where/which thread.

Let me cut to the beginning of the end. NAA and (Douglas and Lockheed) were pretty much the samein gatherig the base drag values for zero lift at increasing speed for say, common altitudes until they had enough data to create an equation for Aero guys to 'plug and play' with any V or altitude and MAC.

The NAA wind tunnel based relationship for the Merlin Mustangs was
CDP2 = CDP1 *(RN1/RN2)^0.11

More later

 

[tonycat77]

Sims are "sim"s, and not full on simulators. They're basically arcade games. Even racing games aren't 100% simulations of driving a race car. You'd basically need the simulators like what F1 teams have. And even then there's probably things that aren't 100% replicated in actually driving a car. Same with actual flight simulators.

Not to mention that this seems to fly in the face of what drgondog has said (based on serious research), and actual performance testing done by the manufacturers and the USAAF during and after the war.

Here is the FUNDAMENTAL issue with SIMs. The very best modelllers may have an Aero education, or gain the knowldege to apply fundamental relationships to plug in density from tables, 'assume' a prop efficiency, 'assume' an oswald effciency for their wing - but THEY have no access to that fighters complete wind tunnel data at low altitude, low speed Reynold's numbers - and assume that when they do find a table in an aero book like Hoerner's Fluid Dynamic Drag that are 'golden'.

Just to use NAA as an example, the wind tunnel data begins very much like the NACA Full scale test that was performed on production models - only with, say, 1/4 scale and incredibly smooth model. The models used by the manufacturers in their home grown wind tunnels will have the lowest possible values for the friction component of the parasite drag (unrealistically low when compared to real life with gaps, rivets, waves in surface, realistic boundary layer separation and associated adverse pressure gradents causing more 'profile/form drag').

So each mfr will gain a table of component values for form drag of wing, fuselage, empennage, radiator/coolant scoops, etc. - Some compenents will vary as function of RN, some will remain as independent of RN (but as functions of pressure drag such as bomb racks exhaust stacks.

So, 'in the beginning' CDP1 = sum of the individual form drag's for each maor airframe component.

The next step is to the CONVERSION relationship for CDP2 at the Wind Tunnel build up at say RN for 8o-mph based on Mean Aero Chord (say for the 1/4 scale model)- to the new CDP at a DIFFERENT RN for a DIFFERENT SPEED and a DIFFERENT altitude. RN is plotted on Log scales (to account for V^2 varation), and when done so, yields a steadily decreasing CDP as a function of V..

Trust me when I say tyou have just began a Performance Analysis and nowhere close to a programmable solution yet. I discussed the process a couple of weeks ago but have no idea where/which thread.

Let me cut to the beginning of the end. NAA and (Douglas and Lockheed) were pretty much the samein gatherig the base drag values for zero lift at increasing speed for say, common altitudes until they had enough data to create an equation for Aero guys to 'plug and play' with any V or altitude and MAC.

The NAA wind tunnel based relationship for the Merlin Mustangs was
CDP2 = CDP1 *(RN1/RN2)^0.11

More later

Even so, i don't think you need that much accuracy to at least get a feel for the thing, also modern flight sims are resource hogs, you need a very fast cpu to run something like DCS or IL-2 Cliffs of Dover or Battle of stalingrad.
Sure you can't get a flight license on sims alone, but they are a powerful educational tool.
Anyway wish i was Elon Musk rich, i'd buy a yakolev or CAC factory and start mass producing ww2 replicas with the original blueprints and engines, then we could settle this for good, lol.

 

[SaparotRob]

Even so, i don't think you need that much accuracy to at least get a feel for the thing, also modern flight sims are resource hogs, you need a very fast cpu to run something like DCS or IL-2 Cliffs of Dover or Battle of stalingrad.
Sure you can't get a flight license on sims alone, but they are a powerful educational tool.
Anyway wish i was Elon Musk rich, i'd buy a yakolev or CAC factory and start mass producing ww2 replicas with the original blueprints and engines, then we could settle this for good, lol.

If I was Elon Musk rich, I'd get two Big Macs.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Even so, i don't think you need that much accuracy to at least get a feel for the thing, also modern flight sims are resource hogs, you need a very fast cpu to run something like DCS or IL-2 Cliffs of Dover or Battle of stalingrad.
Sure you can't get a flight license on sims alone, but they are a powerful educational tool.
Anyway wish i was Elon Musk rich, i'd buy a yakolev or CAC factory and start mass producing ww2 replicas with the original blueprints and engines, then we could settle this for good, lol.

Inaccuracy in flight puts holes in the ground. Educational? Sure. Definitive? Not in the least. Judging a plane by the model on any sim is not realistic. Would you buy a car based on sim driving?

 

[GrauGeist]

Anyway wish i was Elon Musk rich, i'd buy a yakolev or CAC factory and start mass producing ww2 replicas with the original blueprints and engines, then we could settle this for good, lol.

You do realize that the issue was settled in real life, over Europe, the Mediterranean, the Eastern Front, Southeast Asia and the Pacific, right?

 

[drgondog]

Even so, i don't think you need that much accuracy to at least get a feel for the thing, also modern flight sims are resource hogs, you need a very fast cpu to run something like DCS or IL-2 Cliffs of Dover or Battle of stalingrad.
Sure you can't get a flight license on sims alone, but they are a powerful educational tool.
Anyway wish i was Elon Musk rich, i'd buy a yakolev or CAC factory and start mass producing ww2 replicas with the original blueprints and engines, then we could settle this for good, lol.

Unfortunately - those that rely on Sims as a tool for comparisons, should not believe that they are accurate models, individually or collectively, with respect to the real articles.

The only simulators that Do reflect real basis based on aerodynamics and flight mechanics are the real world fighter simulators for F-15/16,A-10, etc - which ARE'Elon Musk' grade coding and artificial cockpits - and masssive CPU imbedded.

 

[Snautzer01]

but THEY have no access to that fighters complete wind tunnel data at low altitude, low speed Reynold's numbers - and assume that when they do find a table in an aero book like Hoerner's Fluid Dynamic Drag that are 'golden'.

And you know that because of....??

Sorry drgondog but this is a bit thin. I am aware of your fast knowledge but i think game development is not were you excell.

There is more information gathered then a simple game can produce as a result. Clients hardware etc as a bottomline

It would be wrong i feel just by bulldozing it all on one heap of dung.
In fact i know that some developers have data some bookwriters will fight for.

 

[tonycat77]

You do realize that the issue was settled in real life, over Europe, the Mediterranean, the Eastern Front, Southeast Asia and the Pacific, right?

To be fair that was more of a logistical war, Allies would've won with P-39s and Hawker hurricanes alone.

Inaccuracy in flight puts holes in the ground. Educational? Sure. Definitive? Not in the least. Judging a plane by the model on any sim is not realistic. Would you buy a car based on sim driving?

You can get a idea of thing, There are now famous sim drivers competing in real life events:

SimRacers Who Have Jumped from Sim Racing to The Real World

The success stories of Lucas Ordoñez, Ricardo Sanchez and Jann Mardenborough are now far behind us and associated only with the now defunct GT Academy project. Nowadays, other opportunities arise f…

boxthislap.org

 

[tonycat77]

It would be wrong i feel just by bulldozing it all on one heap of dung.
In fact i know that some developers have data some bookwriters will fight for.

Both top dog sims canned their Pacific campaign expansions due to a lack of flight data on japanese aircraft, they would be paying top dollar for that...

Also several DCS modules were made with either pilot or even in the case of the JF-17 a partnership agreement with the manufacturer.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

You can get a idea of thing, There are now famous sim drivers competing in real life events:

SimRacers Who Have Jumped from Sim Racing to The Real World

The success stories of Lucas Ordoñez, Ricardo Sanchez and Jann Mardenborough are now far behind us and associated only with the now defunct GT Academy project. Nowadays, other opportunities arise f…

boxthislap.org

Which is precisely why I wrote "Educational? Sure." The problem is that without knowing the parameters included in the coding, you really won't know if you're learning the dope, or learning the reputation, or learning some junk.

The fact that some simmers have made the leap to competitive flying says nothing at all about the ability of simulators to accurately mirror the behaviors of WWII planes, espeially those with no flying examples available today.

In short, this line of reasoning is a category error.

Gosh, I wish the Great Gazoo were here to read this today.

 

[GrauGeist]

To be fair that was more of a logistical war, Allies would've won with P-39s and Hawker hurricanes alone.

Sorry, no.

Not even close.

Even the P-51/P-51A would have been annihilated by the Fw190A, Hurricanes and P-39s stood zero chance against them (as happened in real life).

The only chance the Allies had at breaking Germany's back, was through strategic bombing. Without long range escort, this wasn't going to happen.

In the Pacific, the A6M and KI-43 dominated the P-39 and Hurricane.

I get that combat sims are great, I ran them for years (great way to let off steam after a long day at work), but they do not teach the history behind the aircraft in the "select aircraft" pull down menu, nor do they teach WHY they were what they were.

The logistics aspect of the war was what made the Allies (the U.S. in particular) successful, but that was only one aspect of the bigger picture.

The more important factor, was that the Allies could upgrade their aircraft performance and abilities faster than the Axis could...

 

[drgondog]

And you know that because of....??

Sorry drgondog but this is a bit thin. I am aware of your fast knowledge but i think game development is not were you excell.

There is more information gathered then a simple game can produce as a result. Clients hardware etc as a bottomline

It would be wrong i feel just by bulldozing it all on one heap of dung.
In fact i know that some developers have data some bookwriters will fight for.

Not to be argumentative, the data 'they' would need looks something like this as a BASE start point for each and every aircraft they wished to model. Several charts came from NACA (dealing with charge consumption, ambient aipressure, exhaust velocity ect) but all the rest are Wind tunnel results (multiple) at 1/4 scale and testing performed for 1.84x10^6.

I have a couple of critical charts left to show but they are in Tif and I need to covert.

In the last 30 years I sent copies of what I had to Boland and Lednicer - both of which left more Aero marbles on the table than I ever had - but neither of tem to my knowledg had seen these data

 

[Snautzer01]

So you do not know what they know or have in i.g. a knowledge bank. You think they etc
I get your point i do, but having been involved it can be very suprizing i can tell you that.
And yes there were, at least for what i was involved in, many trips to archives.
By far not all data was used. Pc are not powerfull enough then and still are not.

Never the less saying:

but THEY have no access to that fighters complete wind tunnel data at low altitude, low speed Reynold's numbers - and assume that when they do find a table in an aero book like Hoerner's Fluid Dynamic Drag that are 'golden'.

Is selling short. So i think you do not know what goes on there and/or what data has been achived. i have been to archives like quite a few others to support a certain game.) It is not always rehassing old and tired data,

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Pc are not powerfull enough then and still are not.

Doesn't that render your point moot? Say the programmers had all the relevant data. If the computers cannot process that data due to lacking processing power, doesn't that still mean that sims cannot replicate flight characteristics?

Either way, that sim will not be accurate, right?

 

[Glider]

An obvious point I admit but no sim can replicate the G forces and no real aircraft can replicate you still living after being shot down

 

[GrauGeist]

Sims cannot replicate the forcea on your body generated by a spin, it cannot limit.your ability to function if a 20mm cannon shell just shattered your femur.

They cannot blind you with oil and/or smoke in your eyes from a damaged engine and they cannot add variable environmental like windshear or crosswinds at different times (though MS flight simulator does try).

It is true that sims have come a long way over the years - IL-2 1946 is far more advanced than Jane's WW2 Fighters (which was a sim benchmark in it's day), but no sim will be able to match real life.

Which is why it's called a simulator.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsG6qDIco