Jump to content

unreasonable

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    5392
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2367 Excellent

1 Follower

About unreasonable

  • Rank
    Founder

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Bangkok

Recent Profile Visitors

1867 profile views
  1. Try Senran Kagura Burst Renewal. I would post some screen shots but I do not want to get banned.
  2. Perhaps I am recalling a post by another dev on the RoF forum: somone clearly explained the physics and how it was modeled. The physics is simple enough. If you try to turn the RoF or FRC Camel, left or right, using the rudder as you should, you will then need some left rudder in both cases to keep the nose level in a sustained turn. Precession is modeled, demonstrably, but you still get people insisting that it is not. Experienced RL pilots say that they adjust for this almost without noticing, but some would have the Camel be almost uncontrollable because many novices were killed learning it. This has been going on for years. Off topic for the P-51 perhaps but I bring it up to demonstrate the importance of being able to demonstrate that certain aspects of the sim are off in response to Legioneod's comments about torque, rather than depending on oft repeated forum comments. I am certainly not claiming FMs are perfect: what is that anyway when there was much variation in aircraft, test conditions and so on, and our data points are rather sparse. But when we do have some data points, it is wrong to throw them out because some pilot has a story.
  3. An excellent video well worth reposting. I wish it was somehow embedded in FC. New players could be encouraged to watch it before posting.
  4. Good post, I cannot rule out a simple human error, although it does seem awfully convenient. Although you concede that the Pup might be faster, your argument still uses the premise that it should have exactly the same speed as the N.11 RNAS No.8 Squadron ditched their Nieuports for Pups as soon as they could: other reasons than speed would of course have played a part, but I have yet to see anyone claim that the N.11 was as good a fighting machine as a Pup. Why this assumption? As previously posted, the Vintage Aviator's Albatross DVa is noticeably slower than the D.II with the same engine: basing your whole argument on the assumption that the speeds were the same undermines it, IMHO. Occam's razor would suggest the simplest explanation - which is that the test reports are at least roughly right and the N.11 is slower than a Pup. If we had some consistent contemporary modern test results I would be convinced. Unsourced numbers on internet sites require no response. FYI The test report in Bruce gives the speeds at altitude: here for the Le Rhone, with the Knot conversion using the Admiralty Knot, of 6080ft used in the UK until 1970. I am not sure why the test report would show the extra decimal place only for the SL mph number. If you round the Kt figure to the nearest Kt, since one is supposing that this was actually mph read from the dial, then convert to mph to one decimal place using 6080ft, then round again, you find that the 103 value would be 104 mph. SL - 111.5 mph 96.8 kt 5,000ft - 105 mph 91.2 kt 7 & 9,000ft - 103 mph 89.4 kt 11,000ft - 101 mph 87.7 kt 13,000 - 98 mph 85.1 kt 15,000 - 85 mph 73.8 kt A lot depends on the propeller used as well. For the tests this is stated as L.P. 1020 (Le Rhone) and Vickers 57 (Mono). This means nothing to me but someone may know if it makes a significant difference. Bruce says many of the Home Defence Pups were fitted with Monosoupapes. They needed rate of climb, so it is possible they were fitted with a finer airscrew, but that is conjecture. Bruce gives the bare numbers for performance (speed, time to climb, ceiling, endurance) plus weight details, engine and prop type. The trials are dated, (no place give) so if you had a weather report for that day you could attempt a heroic temperature adjustment, but as they were in the UK it is safe to assume that it was always chilly! No idea if the original archives have more detail.
  5. Thanks for answer - it was a genuine question. People in the RoF and now FC forum sometimes say the same thing about precessional forces, that the Camel is far too easy to fly etc. AnPetrovich posted that it was easy to calculate and input into the FM, and modeled correctly. There is a video of a pilot who had analysed Camel turns using modern technology, saying that for an experienced pilot, the effect is usually barely noticeable and adjusted for using the rudder without any difficulty. Testing it myself it is clear that it is there: but there are still people who pop up from time to time saying "the Camel is too easy to fly, precession is not modeled"... I just give this example because sometimes these tropes take on a forum life of their own, despite being untrue, so I wondered if this is also the case for torque effects. It may be the case, for instance, that torque effects are correctly modeled, but in some circumstances damped out by something else, such as excessive yaw stability. Without a clear statement from the developers it is hard to be definitive.
  6. It is very general - probably the same as the He111 gunner outside the plane issue at root. In Spitfire IX I have seen the pilots feet sticking out of the bottom of the fuselage, although the rest of him is in the cockpit. It is a very odd bug: ran the same mission ten times, got it once. In P47s, got the standing up bug once. AFAICR, I started up the missions in exactly the same way each time.
  7. Could be worse: imagine how F_IV would have turned out, if he had had that advice from his MUM.
  8. This kind of thing is fun for a lot of us...
  9. Not sure why I missed this: interesting, thanks for posting the link.
  10. Do you have a link to a developer saying this, (bold part) especially with regards to torque? I recall seeing that claim made for OldIL-2, but not for BoX. The problem with brakes is that for those planes with a button they are either on or off so we lack the full range of braking power. Personally I have never found the swing on take-off, for instance, to be weak: if you are not ready for it most planes will happily turn sharply to one side if you open throttle too quickly. Certainly when I was learning to fly the game I had to abort take off from time to time. Of course, once you have many take-offs under your belt it seems easy enough.
  11. Albatross did indeed do that: just a few weeks ago I mentioned an interview in Aeroplane Magazine, Nov issue, with one of the pilots from the Vintage Aviator saying that "interestingly, our 180 hp D.II is slightly faster than the D.Vas, with the same power plant". And as we know they tended to shed lower wings, due to flutter and warping at speed. So I am not convinced that the theoretical advantages of the sesquiplane translated well into practice. Of course there were other reasons why the D.Vs were crap aeroplanes, not the sleek boom and zoom predators of RoF forum imagination. ( Simply put, if you are flying defensively so that you can choose your fights, having two MGs per plane instead of one, you already have a much bigger advantage than would be provided by any marginal speed edge). But I see no evidence that any actual benefits were gained from a sesquiplane configuration, except a better view downwards, (at your failing lower wing ). There were plenty of post war biplane designs Gladiator, Fury etc but I do not recall many of them being sesqiplanes. Certainly it seems UK designers were unconvinced. But I do agree that if Sopwith had been able to put the Fokker D.VIII's wing on a Pup it would have been better. Fortunately for the Entente, A.F. did not come up with this until it was too late.
  12. Anyone who has been studying this subject for a while knows that measuring aircraft speeds in those days was a problem for a number of reasons, so I do not rule that out. Comparing the Pup with an N.11, however, is also a problem. The N.11 has much higher wing loading, (36.1 kg/m^2 compared to 23.6), so more AoA required at a set speed to fly level = more drag. It is questionable whether the sesquiplane arrangement is more or less efficient. It may create less drag, cet par, but if the lower wing is warping because it only has one attachment on the V -strut, maybe not. It had a wing mounted gun instead of one flush to the fuselage = more drag. It lacked a vertical stabilizer and had a much more tapered fuselage than a Pup: much harder to fly consistently without sideslip. All in all, the Pup was a much better design that the N.11 and I would be extremely surprised if it did not show a measurable improvement in actually achieved top speed over the N.11 Hence my objection to Hellbender's comparison.
  13. No misprint required, just examination of contemporary documents. Bruce's British Aeroplanes 1914-18 gives two test reports for a Pup, with the sea level top speeds given at 111.5 mph (80 hp Le Rhone) and 110 mph (100hp Monosoupape) 111.5 mph = 179.4 kph.
  14. Wow! What next, just print your own whole 109?
  15. Actually those are just dead waypoints from when I deleted two aeroplanes that were refusing to behave themselves from the mission start. They have no effect on the planes that are left, all of which have waypoints attached, but thanks for taking a look. So I now have the mission working for Fw190s. My goal of a mock up of the attack on Eindhoven is one step closer to fruition!
×
×
  • Create New...