Jump to content

Recommended Posts


You Know..

 

Honestly, I think she flies different in WOI because of the newer flight engine of WOI itself.....

 

I didn't see any difference in the previous installments :dntknw:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Caesar,

 

Please do not take offense, but I find those G@speed figures a bit hard to believe. Do you have any vetifiable sources for them, with tables or graphs, (etc)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately most of my data comes from reference books and NATOPS, graphs are mostly within NATOPS but not to fine detail, so I guess there's a bit too much guesswork. Noted, will leave the FMs to the pros.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noted, will leave the FMs to the pros.

 

No man. That was not the point of my reply. If anything, we'd rather encourage someone to delve into the dark side (FM creation), than have them turn away in frustration.

 

The issue I have is with the 4Gs at 200 KIAS, Think about that for a second. That literally implies that an F-14A can execute at least a 2.5-3 G maneuver right off the end of the catapult! Another thing, there's a marked difference between an aircraft's limits and performance when it's practically skosh fuel and unarmed, versus carrying a full bag of fuel and loaded for bear.

 

Another issue is one created by the limitations of the game, itself.

 

Ideally, when working with a variable sweep aircraft, you'd have a set of lift and drag tables for each wing sweep setting. Unfortunately, we're stuck with just one set of applicable values. So, we compensate by taking in all the sweep angles, and arriving at an average. We then create Xac tables with values progressing further aft than we otherwise would, had the aircraft been equipped with a conventional wing* (Also, when dealing with the F-14, one must take into consideration the effect of the glove vanes when they deploy).

 

As a result, one is forced to tailor the FM for (accurate) performance within a narrower flight regime, then would otherwise have been possible, had we been able to incorporate tables for multiple sweep angles.

 

So, you can see the dilemma here, at least from the perspective of realism.

 

Hope this helps...it did little more than confuse the crap out of me... :wink:

 

*Note: The unwritten rule of thumb is that the Xac table starts 25-30% of the Mac aft of the leading edge of the surface in question, and extends to (and terminates at) about the mid point of the chord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point, not much excess G off the cat. I'll keep at it, then, but I'm gonna have to go over those charts again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The person that might be able to verify, or to dispute those figures, would be Typhoid.

 

no clue.

 

I would guess that the Tomcat coming off of the cat at about 145kias would not be able to pull more than a couple of g's without stalling. My recollection, purely second hand on this one, is that she earned the name "Turkey" at slow speed for a reason.

 

I would think the g capability wouldn't pick up until above 350kias.

 

For modeling here, I'd say if you can get the stall speeds and stall characteristics right, then you've got a winner. If you have the NATOPS, then you have more info than I have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No man. That was not the point of my reply. If anything, we'd rather encourage someone to delve into the dark side (FM creation), than have them turn away in frustration.

 

The issue I have is with the 4Gs at 200 KIAS, Think about that for a second. That literally implies that an F-14A can execute at least a 2.5-3 G maneuver right off the end of the catapult! Another thing, there's a marked difference between an aircraft's limits and performance when it's practically skosh fuel and unarmed, versus carrying a full bag of fuel and loaded for bear.

 

Another issue is one created by the limitations of the game, itself.

 

Ideally, when working with a variable sweep aircraft, you'd have a set of lift and drag tables for each wing sweep setting. Unfortunately, we're stuck with just one set of applicable values. So, we compensate by taking in all the sweep angles, and arriving at an average. We then create Xac tables with values progressing further aft than we otherwise would, had the aircraft been equipped with a conventional wing* (Also, when dealing with the F-14, one must take into consideration the effect of the glove vanes when they deploy).

 

As a result, one is forced to tailor the FM for (accurate) performance within a narrower flight regime, then would otherwise have been possible, had we been able to incorporate tables for multiple sweep angles.

 

So, you can see the dilemma here, at least from the perspective of realism.

 

Hope this helps...it did little more than confuse the crap out of me... :wink:

 

*Note: The unwritten rule of thumb is that the Xac table starts 25-30% of the Mac aft of the leading edge of the surface in question, and extends to (and terminates at) about the mid point of the chord.

 

 

huh.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C, we'll have to get Hoser a copy and see what he thinks! :) Keep up the FM work, I know it's a PITA, but it's rewarding...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..