Weight/Drag/Inertia Mishandled?

[reve_etrange]

Good stuff there reve_etrange it gives a reasonable approximation of what to expect to see.

 

Thanks, that's exactly what I wanted to do - I think we basically need one more significant digit in the test data. (And of course you are right about the thrust force).

 

I like the two graphs there, reve_etrange.  Of course, this would be assuming fuel quantity had no bearing on CG.  If the CG moved aft with fuel that would reduce drag and vice versa.

 

Thanks also! The game engine does model CG and lots besides - though I would say that my chart matches the game results much better if the Yak has a higher C_d, maybe above 0.03.

[unreasonable]

What do I mean by unstable?

 

That feeling that you are trying to balance these aircraft on the point of a pin, for one example.

 

 

As you say elsewhere, these are not real planes, we are trying to create the illusion of flying. There are two variables (tempted to express this algebraically after reading this thread, but better not ) you and BoS.  You cannot change BoS, but you can change yourself to get a similar effect.

 

To make you feel that all of the BoS planes are nice and stable all you have to do is get free to play RoF if you have not already, and buy and fly the fly the N11 and N17 (RFC version) for a few weeks, online or offline.  Rotary motor, flying rudder, top heavy from Lewis gun on the upper wing, tail heavy at all times, ground loop worse than the LaGG3: now they really are like seals on a beachball.  An added benefit is that these aeroplanes are intrinsically funny in a way that the WW2 warbirds are not.

 

This will not change The BoS FMs of course, but it will certainly change their subjective feel!

[BlitzPig_EL]

I have owned Rise of Flight for years now.

 

My preferred kites are the Sopwith Triplane, Nieuport 28, and the Bristol, with some affection for the Felixstow and Hansa-Brandenberg naval aircraft.

 

That said, when I fly WW2 aircraft, I don't expect to be flying kites, but that certainly seems to be the case in BoS.

 

And doing what I do for a living, tending to vintage racing sports cars, I actually do understand the difference, and trade offs, between stability and agility quite well.

 

The issue remains that the virtual aircraft we fly in BoS behave more like a Sukhoi 26 or Extra 300 than a much heavier combat aircraft from the 1940s.

 

There is also much said that these aircraft are modeled to the correct performance figures.

 

Well, show me the numbers.  Oh, that's right, it can't be done because not only do we not know what numbers these aircraft are modeled to, we have no way to verify that the aircraft in the sim are actually meeting, or not, these performance statistics.

 

So we can have all the multiple page threads we want showing all the math behind real flight, and, while it is educational, it still doesn't amount to a hill of beans when talking about the virtual aircraft in this sim.

 

So that is where I will leave this.

 

You gents carry on as you will.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Not questioning virtual performance vs real world performance by the aircraft numbers themselves.

e.g I'm not interested if the top speed of the real yak is 100kph and the virtual one is only 70kph.

or if the real yak can "zoom" from 650kph and gain 2000m of altitude but the virtual one can only gain 1500m from 650kph.

You may not be, but some are..

 

I'm interested in if the virtual yak's weight is not being modelled correctly against another virtual yak of a different weight.

Until 1C/777 provides a way to log data during flight, as 1C did in IL-2 with DeviceLink, or as 1C did in CoD with C#, no one can say with any certainty how well the planes are matching the real world data, or matching each other.

 

Hear ye, hear ye! Written like a true scientist.

 

I hate myself for quoting a complete post and replying to it with a short, simple comment, especially as it seems to be more of a general comment than a comment specific to this thread. But this post is definitely worth several thorough and thoughtful readings for anybody criticizing the flight models.

 

Important thing to notice here is that I'm not saying if the models themselves are wrong or right, that is beyond my expertise. Only thing I'm saying is that I'm not convinced most of the time by the arguments that a lot of people come up with as the arguments are so vague (from scientific point of view). I.e. non-standardized tests run in an environment they don't fully necessarily understand (the simulator itself), quoting subjective opinions of pilots, which cannot really be used as basis of any standard, as ACEOFACES explains in his post.

Amen scientific brother!

[Karost]

I found video for yak-50 force to bail landing from engine loses oil pressure

 

over the Lake District at 1250ft. Engine runs until dry before seizing, gearbox u/s and windmilling prop at 3100ft followed by glide, wheels up as per ops (no flaps on the 50) into a rough field with an upslope of 12-14 degrees at 500ft amsl.

 

it's good for pilot made a save landing and share this video to youtube.

 

from video I can learn that glide landing how it look like.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZvSmsIE_Ls