GOAT-ACEOFACES Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 So, after 6 pages, have we gone anywhere?qualitatively or quantitatively? 2
Mewt Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 So, after 6 pages, have we gone anywhere? No, but as FM discussions go, I've read worse. Some genuinely interesting reading, to me at least.
Cloyd Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 So, after 6 pages, have we gone anywhere? If we don't get up to forty pages, I will be seriously disappointed. (It's tradition, dating back to the UBIZOO.) But Bearcat will probably lock it before then.
Rama Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 Wait, so in your mind not knowing how much faster aircraft A is compared to aircraft B completely negates the fact that it is? No, your logic is faulty: not knowing how much faster aircraft A is compared to aircraft B tells that you have no data, made no measurement and that you don't know if plane A is faster than plane B... so that there's no fact at all. The only way to know it without knowing the respective top speed would be to make an experiment, in which: plane A and plane B start flying aside, on a level flight, in same atmospheric conditions, with same initial speed and altitude, then both pilots slam the throttle and if plane A go ahead of plane B, then she's faster. You know what?... this kind of experiment, obeying a scientific protocal is assimilable to a measurement (which goad would be to measure the sign of the difference of the top speed of both planes in the given condition). Do any of the "anecdotal evidence" refer to any measurement protocol?..... no (or if they do, they are in fact measurements), so they don't give you any valuable information. One pilot tell you his plane is faster than another.... what does he mean... it's that in certain conditions you don't know her plane outrunned plane B... maybe she was higher, with better initial speed, or her engine was in better conditions... all this you don't know. Then.... you will add a dozen or a few dozen of such anecdotal evidences, which are not comparable to each other (since you don't know the conditions), discard other"anecdotal evidences" that don't fit with your theory, and declare that "the amount of anecdotal evidences allow me to affirm..." No, neither statistically (you can't add apples and oranges) nor physically, the amount of anecdotal evidence don't allow you affirm anything, except that, in fact, you don't know.... Now, hopefully for you, the plane top speed is a bad example... since for every plane since the aviation exist, many measurement have been done (more or less accurate), for each plane, by the designer, the clients, the armies using it, the armies fighting it (with captured crates), etc..... so there's plenty of data, even too much sometimes with a lot of discrepancies, but generally you have enought to tell with a good certitude that "plane A is faster than plane B", and so the useless anecdotal evidences are not needed. The FW 190 should be more controlable at high speeds than the Bf 109. Fact. Just because we can't yet quantify by how much, doesn't mean that the game should not model the difference! what do you mean by "controlable"..... In any case, if you can't quantify this, at least with the sign of the difference, you don't know anything. 2
Crump Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 The science of flight is well known as are the techniques to convert performance to any atmospheric condition. There really isn't any need for 40 pages of discussion except to feed egos. 1
Rama Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 There really isn't any need for 40 pages of discussion except to feed egos. That's probably why you just dived into it?........... 6
361fundahl Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 Lol! I just want to hunt some in a P-51 already!!! (Lots of holes)
Crump Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 That's probably why you just dived into it?........... Nope, it is just the truth. Again, it is not hard to see what these aircraft are doing and why. Nor is it hard to run the math to confirm it. Continue on!!
1CGS LukeFF Posted February 27, 2015 1CGS Posted February 27, 2015 That's probably why you just dived into it?........... 1
wtornado Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 I like this debate no wonder the forum has more people than the game in multiplayer has pilots Bloody hilarious.
Willy__ Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 So, after 6 pages, have we gone anywhere? Dont know about you, but my ignore list grown quite a lot after these 6 pages.
Uriah Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 I think these SIMs need virtual wind tunnels that can be used to test how well the virtual planes stack up to actual documented fact when it is available and at least pay some head to pilot testimony. Particularly when modern test are done on vintage planes and we have the data on such. I don't think the devs are making up the flight models and such out of thin air. Yet sometimes it is good to find what a consensus is from the buying public. Right now there is no way to put out a test platform for the public to give constant feed back to constant changes. I think taking the top knowledgeable players and using their thoughts in a test server. I also would like a virtual testing ground with rings in the air and slops of clouds or whatever to see if I can make that plane turn as tight as the best virtual pilots can with the way the given plane is at its present state. Right now I don't know how close I am coming or not.
Urra Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) I've come to the conclusion that the 190's performance issues (only those that are perceived and not really felt) stem from there being too much rubber modeled on its wheels. I mean the rubber is at least twice as thick as it should be, and therefore a great detriment to the airflow around (not certain where) the lower part of the airframe. Edited February 28, 2015 by roaming_gnome 1
unreasonable Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) Sure.... but again, you can't "correct" the result of a quantitative model with a "non model" based on "non data" (aka "anecdotal evidence"). You have to base on datas in all cases. This is just plain wrong. Since quantitative testing always has an error margin, simple Yes/No tests are often essential to correct quantitative models against the real world. BTW it is also plain wrong to imply that non-quantitative information is not "data". Obviously when you code an FM you need a numerical data because the FM is expressed in equations that need quantities to express themselves. I am sure that we all understand that perfectly well, but that is not what we are talking about. I am also not talking about testing game FMs against a given data set. Obviously this requires quantitative comparison. I am talking about the process by which you arrive at the data set you wish to express in the FM. This is a process of historic analysis, not an engineering problem, because we simply do not have the means to make our own tests of RL aircraft. All of the information that we have has to be tested for usefulness and credibility in exactly the same way. All of it, including 60 year old documents of historic tests, is "anecdotal", the fact that some of it includes numbers and some does not is not relevant to the truth of what is asserted. People can lie with numbers just as well as they do with words. Just ask a banker. The relevance for the Fw190 debate (and any other FM controversy) is that we have one set of people claiming a result based on their numerical data, the other set claiming that the outcomes do not seem to reflect other observed historical reports. For one side to try to use the word "anecdotal" as a derogatory put down to close down debate by disallowing many of the information sources that we have is not helpful. Edited February 28, 2015 by unreasonable
GOAT-ACEOFACES Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 I am talking about the process by which you arrive at the data set you wish to express in the FM. This is a process of historic analysis, not an engineering problem, because we simply do not have the means to make our own tests of RL aircraft. Can you give us an example of this? the other set claiming that the outcomes do not seem to reflect other observed historical reports.Do not seem to reflect.. I just don't see how you can separate the human perceptions of observations without applying some values to them.. Can you give us an example of this too?
BraveSirRobin Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 The problem with using anecdotal information to build flight models instead of test data is that eventually you're going to have to give an aircraft capabilities that you know it did not have. 190 not kicking enough ass? Make it climb better than it really could!!! Problem solved!! Except then you have to deal with constant complaining from the rivet counters, and you won't have any response because they'll be right.
unreasonable Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) Can you give us an example of this? Do not seem to reflect.. I just don't see how you can separate the human perceptions of observations without applying some values to them.. Can you give us an example of this too? Not sure what you mean by the first request: we do not have actual Fw190s to test do we? More broadly lets just talk about any model of a RL phenomenon in history. The model has certain variables based on what we think is important, it is an approximation of RL , not a duplicate, I am sure we all agree on that. Then the question is what numbers do we plug into the model. So we go and look at the evidence. We have the data (quantitative and qualitative) we have, we are unlikely to find any more. Some are more soundly based than others. Which to use? The "anti-anecdote" school of thought says use only quantitative data. Why? It is true that the form of the model may require quantitative inputs: but this does not mean that we have to use only quantitative data in deciding what those inputs should be. Engineers naturally have a bias to give greater credibility to quantitative data, understandably since that is what they are trained to work with in cases where testing against RL phenomena is easy, which generates new data, which is used to refine the model. But this is not such a case, no such RL checks can be done. We are trying to achieve a "best fit" with some credibility weighted data set. The claim that elements of the qualitative data are misleading or even false, mainly due to human error for one reason or another, is fair and I agree. But this is also true about the quantitative data. A fundamental point about empirical tests is that they are subject to human and instrument measurement error, as well as unspecified variations in conditions. So results are given confidence margins. Looking at 70 year old documents of empirical tests it is not always clear what these margins for error are: we are not talking about repeated double blind trials here! And that is assuming that tests were reported in good faith, a questionable assumption. Taking the most obvious type of error (the old A turns better than B example) as a brush to tar all non quantitative information is just a rhetorical trick. On your last request for an example: nearly all the information we process in our lives comes in non-quantitative form: when you look at a beautiful woman, you do not need to count everything: even rating her as a "Ten" is really by way of a joke. Edited February 28, 2015 by unreasonable 1
707shap_Srbin Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 Use her to attack groundtargets but forget her to fly her as a fighter. Just not worth it. I personalyl cant have fun in this plane flying it as a fighter. And i really tried hard. Are'nt You a schlachtflieger, mate?
303_Kwiatek Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) The problem with using anecdotal information to build flight models instead of test data is that eventually you're going to have to give an aircraft capabilities that you know it did not have. 190 not kicking enough ass? Make it climb better than it really could!!! Problem solved!! Except then you have to deal with constant complaining from the rivet counters, and you won't have any response because they'll be right. If you would read these topic when someone made climb rate test in ISA conditions and where Fw 190 A-3 in BOS got 2 m/s slowier climb rate then in RL data you will be not write such rubbish. Even earlier test showed that in winter BOS conditions A-3 got too worse climb rate casue all other planes got better climb rate due to colder air. BOS A-3 got similar results in climb like real life data but for ISA conditions. So no benefis in climb from cold air for BOS A-3. But these need to be understand some dont understand even such simple things. But i think no metter what would be proved here by numbers still there would be biased people writing such nonsenses. Edited February 28, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek
303_Kwiatek Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 So, after 6 pages, have we gone anywhere? Fact are still the same : 1. A-3 climb rate is about 2 m/s too slow. It was proved before in winter conditions where A-3 got only the same climb times like it was IRL for ISA. Now climb test made in ISA conditions in BOS confirm these. Check : post 162 here 2. Still wrong horizontal stabilizator position. IRL " 0" positon in trim guage mean exacly +2 deg horizontal stabilizer. So from " 0" position it was possible only +2 deg up and - 3 deg down. In BOS A-3 " 0" position on trim guage mean 0 deg of horizontal stab. 3. Too fast heavy elevator at high speed. In BOS A-3 start to frozen at 600-650 kph where IRL it was not change in trim for nose down before 0.7 Mach.
SR-F_Winger Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 Are'nt You a schlachtflieger, mate? Even a Schlachtegeschwader needs fightercover. And i play all roles. Sometimes even levelbombing.
StG2_Manfred Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 Getting back to the current Fw190 - I just ran a short test on the Lapino map in standard atmosphere. I used the Fw190 in normal loadout (no outer guns) with 100% fuel. Real life reference is the data sheet of the Fw190Aa3, which is pretty close to the A-3, and pretty much identical in terms of performance. (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a3-sheet-26-11-42.jpg) Climb was done at 270 km/h indicated, give or take a few km/h, which at altitude <6km is pretty close to the best climbing speeds as given by Fw. As you can see, performance in game appears to be better in terms of speed at low altitude and worse in terms of speed at high altitude and in terms of climb. I haven't tested climb below 1000m. All tests done at combat/climb power. Speeds were determined with stop watch and map grid, CAS-TAS conversion gives slightly lower numbers at altitude (1%). qualitatively or quantitatively? Do you call the figures in JtD's post qualitative or quantitative?
wtornado Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 I did not but the FW-190 or the LA-5 at 50% off. Everyone that has it say it is ...... (wait for it here it comes the old IL-2 hyperlobby term) ''PORKED'' Hahahaha love that old term!
LY_LCT_unknwn Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 FW 190 will have no point of being used until elevator lock at high speeds is fixed. I can cope with other disadvantages of the plane or FM inaccruaries but not the elevator lock.
303_Kwiatek Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) Yea elevator lock in BOS seriously resrticted Fw 190 Boom and Zoom characteristic. No other plane in BOS got such poor elevator autorihty at the same high speed range. Edited February 28, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek
Rama Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 quantitative testing always has an error margin Of course, that's what I said..... but still you can't feed or control a model with non-quantitative data. Moreover, if you have enough quantitative data, you can also quantify the error margin (so you can tell by how much you're wrong at max). Without quantitative data.... you have.... nothing usefull for a model... simple Yes/No tests are often essential to correct quantitative models against the real world. Yes/no test are quantitative data (binary value), I even gave an example how to measure it. But I suspect you male another missconception there.... if you think that yes/no tests have no error margin, you're completelly wrong.... and if you can't admit or better evaluate this error margin, the only thing you proove is that you know nothing on the matter you want to explain/modelize.... That's the very first question that a scientist/engineer ask himself when building a model.... what is the error margin of the data to be used to feed or control the model, and what impact this error margin has on the strenght of the model. Also, despite what you seem to think, Yes/No tests are rarelly "simple".... all the devil is in the definition of the proposition that you want binary tested. The definition should be very precise for the test to have any value... it the definition is blurred, then the error margin is huge and the test meaningless. As an example, if you talk about speed without indicating a precise definition of it and of the conditions in which you would like to evaluate it with a Yes/NO test... then the test is useless.... and that's exactly the problem of the "anecdotal evidences" you can compile from the literrature. it is also plain wrong to imply that non-quantitative information is not "data". You can call it "non-qauntitative data" if you want.... it wont change anything This is a process of historic analysis, not an engineering problem, because we simply do not have the means to make our own tests of RL aircraft. Your error is to think that "historical analysis" without numerical data is of any help to allow you to "know" (or just to understand) the performances of a plane..... you could just admit you don't know, but since you built a belief with your "historical analysis), you can't admit it. To admit it, you should take the scientific approach. Historical analysis, when it's descriptive (when not trying to understand human behavior), can be quantitative or not. Even when they're quantitative, they need to be precise to be usefull for a model. Very vague description like "plane A behave better than plane B", or "plane A is more manoeuvrable than plane B", or "plane A is faster than plane B" are totally useless, and you can sum thousands of such observation, it will still not be helpfull, since each of these "description" may relate to an almost infinite possibilities space, concerning the exact meaning of the words (not even sure the author had a precise meanings for them), the observation conditions and the relation to defined performances (like "max IAS at 10 kft in standard atmosphere" or "max roll rate at 10 kft in standard atmosphere", etc....) People can lie with numbers just as well as they do with words Of course.... but you still can't feed a physical model with words.... outcomes do not seem to reflect other observed historical reports. Can preciselly describe the "observations" from historical reports not including quantitative data? If you can, it means the "observation" were quantifiable. If you can't, you can't make any comparison with the outcome of the model. What you don't seem to understand is that a performance comparison just don't exist without numbers (which include binary values, or even sign of differences), since "performances" are quantifications of physical actions. For one side to try to use the word "anecdotal" I don't take side and don't pretend to know what I don't..... and I said absolutly nothing about the Fw190 (and wont). What I said is that if you don't bring numbers and/or charts or any quantitative information, you bring nothing into a FM debate. But I agree with you it's hard to understand when you don't know what a scientific approach is and what the physic of the measure is. 1
FlatSpinMan Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 Some really clearly made points in this thread. Interesting to read. I liked the explanation of performances being quantifications of physical actions. I'd never given it much thought but explained like that, it does highlight the problem of working from anecdotal evidence.
unreasonable Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 But I agree with you it's hard to understand when you don't know what a scientific approach is and what the physic of the measure is. I was trained in sciences too as it happens, among other things. I also have no axe to grind on the Fw190 and I was not particularly referring to you, rather the tendency to denigrate any information not packaged in quantitative form. I am not going to go through your post point by point as you appear to me to becoming angry and borderline abusive, so I will stick to a couple of points. Let me give an simple example of the sort of thing I am talking about. A previous thread on Fw190 performance got hung up on the issue of at what height the Fw190's supercharger changes gear. The question depends on a matter of fact: the physical mechanism that causally effects the gear change. Some said the change was a causal result of the external altitude pressure, others said no, it was the density altitude (ie pressure and temperature effects). Now this is just a matter of fact either way. Before any useful modeling or quantification can take place the issue of the mechanism needs to be settled. How is it settled? By reading the manual and the reports of people who have taken apart the relevant machinery. All qualitative information of the form of "the leg bone is connected to the thigh bone" etc. Now we can make a model that needs quantitative inputs and produces quantitative outputs. You can have the last word on this as far as I am concerned, I am not interested in being the target for any more ad hominem comments, particularly from a moderator who should know better.
Rama Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 you appear to me to becoming angry and borderline abusive I am not interested in being the target for any more ad hominem comments What are you talking about? I'm not and wasn't angry. And your feeling or "sensation" of me being borderline abusive or using ad hominem attack is probably a missinterpretation of some "anecdotal evidences" in my text. Maybe shoud have had used "I would agree" instead of "I agree" in the text part you quoted, the following "you" obviously being a general "you", not directed at you specifically. If you feel abused by an hominem attack, please quote it, I will then see if it was a bad formulation that I should correct, or a bad interpretation, or a combination of the 2. In any case, there was no intention. Before any useful modeling or quantification can take place the issue of the mechanism needs to be settled I agree..... but this has nothing to do with what people call "anecdotal evidences" about some kind of blurred performances perceptions.
GOAT-ACEOFACES Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 Not sure what you mean by the first request: we do not have actual Fw190s to test do we? I was asking for an example of 'the process' you refereed to.. That would go into greater detail of the following aspect of your statement, i.e. This is a process of historic analysis, not an engineering problem Looking at that statement of yours, the part that is vauge is the 'historic analysis' part.. What does that mean to you? More broadly lets just talk about any model of a RL phenomenon in history. The model has certain variables based on what we think is important, it is an approximation of RL , not a duplicate, I am sure we all agree on that. Then the question is what numbers do we plug into the model. So we go and look at the evidence. Agreed.. We have the data (quantitative and qualitative) we have, we are unlikely to find any more. Some are more soundly based than others. So far so good.. Which to use? The "anti-anecdote" school of thought says use only quantitative data. Why? It is true that the form of the model may require quantitative inputs: but this does not mean that we have to use only quantitative data in deciding what those inputs should be. That is your opinion, and your welcome to it, but know that at this point I disagree with you. But as I read on, maybe you will say something to change my mind, lets continue and see. Engineers naturally have a bias to give greater credibility to quantitative data, understandably since that is what they are trained to work with in cases where testing against RL phenomena is easy, which generates new data, which is used to refine the model. Yup, we engineers are silly like that! But this is not such a case, no such RL checks can be done. Depends on the 'check' your referring too.. Say we want to test the P-51 landing gear 'model' we came up with. Can we than take a real P-51 and drop it from one 50 feet to see how far the landing gear bend and/or break? Nope! Well, we could if we could find someone with a million dollar P-51 that was willing to loan us their plane for an afternoon, but, I think we can all agree that is not likely, thus my Nope statement stands! Now say we want to test the P-51 rate of climb aspect of our 'model' (FM) we came up with. Cant we than take a real P-51 and preform a rate of climb test just like they didn't in WWII? Well, there is no need to, because it has already been done! We are trying to achieve a "best fit" with some credibility weighted data set. Credibility weighted data? If you are referring to quantitative data from a P-51 rate of climb test, than I agree.. If you are referring to qualitative data from some Bf109 pilots book, that said he was able to out climb the P-51, than I disagree. Referring to qualitative data as credibility weighted data does not convert it into quantitative data. The claim that elements of the qualitative data are misleading or even false, mainly due to human error for one reason or another, is fair and I agree. Ah, good, you had me worried there for a second! But this is also true about the quantitative data. Depends.. But at least with quantitative, you can typically figure out why it was different. Assuming the test is well documented. Where as with the Bf109 pilot book note, not so much, if ever! Why? Well sadly such notes never give you enough information to re-create the scenario ingame to see if you can obtain the same results.. In some attempt to 'validate the FM'.. Things like What was your altitude at the time What was your speed at the time What was the air temperature at the time What was your fuel load at the time What was your ammo load at the time What was your throttle setting at the time And that is just for the Bf109! What about the P-51 he was referring to? You have to ask all of the same questions plus more.. Things like.. Was your P-51 damaged when you were trying to climb with the 109? Were you wounded when you were trying to climb with the 109? Were you experiencing engine problems when you were trying to climb with the 109? Did you even see the 109 and were you even trying to climb with the 109? The list is ENDLESS!! Which is why they did and still do CONTROLLED TEST where all those unknowns can be known. So, that covers the collecting of quantitative data.. But there is still the chance that you can misinterpret the quantitative data.. But again, you can typically figure out where the misinterpretation. For example, back in the IL2 days there was a problem with the P-38J rate of climb. It was much lower than the real world data said it was. I started looking at some of the real world data on the P-38J and did some testing and sent it to Oleg. He reviewed the data and said, no, there is nothing wrong with out P-38J rate of climb data.. Well, we went back and forth a few times when I noted something in his email, he had read the data wrong. The times listed in the test report were fractional time, i.e. 6.35 (min) as opposed to 6:35 (min:seconds). After I pointed that out to him, he still disagree with me that the times listed were fraction times.. At least he did until I pointed out one of the times listed in the report, that proved my point. I don't recall the actual value, but it was something like '6.83' and as we all know, there is only 60 seconds in a min, so, where does the 83 mins come from, unless it is fractional time. So yes, there can be errors in collecting and the reading of quantitative data! And example like the one I listed above is just one example of why we get patches from time to time that 'change' the flight model. But there is little to no chance of doing any of that with qualitative data! People think some sort of statistical average can be obtain from qualitative data, and maybe they can? But all I know for sure is allot of people say it can be done, but no one has ever done it in the 20+ years I have been playing flight sims. A fundamental point about empirical tests is that they are subject to human and instrument measurement error, as well as unspecified variations in conditions. But quantitative (empirical) data is far Far FAR less subject to human errors than qualitative data! As you noted, the quantitative (empirical) data consists of both the pilot account and the instrument recordings. Thus you can 'calibrate' what the pilot says based on the instrument recorded data. Last but not least, they typically did the test more than once to insure the test was 'repeatable' which is a basic scientific approach to any testing, repeatability. So results are given confidence margins. Looking at 70 year old documents of empirical tests it is not always clear what these margins for error are: we are not talking about repeated double blind trials here! I don't think you give them much credit? We are not talking about cave men here sitting around a camp fire tossing rocks into the fire and measuring how big the sparks are based with their spears.. The engineers of WWII understood all too well the scientific method! Of which one was repeatability! Which is why most if not all of these 70 year old tests are the results of several test. In English they did the test more than once and typically averaged the results. And that is assuming that tests were reported in good faith, a questionable assumption. Which is true of anything! But, this can be minimized and is minimized by preforming a controlled test with a group of people several times (repeatability)! Much harder to get a group to embellish on a story than it is to get one Bf109 pilot to embellish on a story of his encounter with a P-51 Taking the most obvious type of error (the old A turns better than B example) as a brush to tar all non quantitative information is just a rhetorical trick. No, it is just an example of how worthless the story is with regards to plane performance, in that you don't know the most if any of the parameters I listed above (Bf109 vs P51 rate of climb example) about either plane, most notably the other plane from the perspective of the story teller. On your last request for an example: nearly all the information we process in our lives comes in non-quantitative form: when you look at a beautiful woman, you do not need to count everything: even rating her as a "Ten" is really by way of a joke. Agreed, But until you do the quantitative 'junk test' you don't know for sure if she is a he! Which is one of the few examples of quantitative testing that does NOT need to be repeated to meet the scientific method repeatability requirement! Once is enough! So, just to recap, you have not said anything that would change my point of view on quantitative vs qualitative data.. But, I think I can say something that will change your min? Pick one! And by pick one I mean take some aspect of the flight model that you think qualitative data can be used to validate the FM.. Take all the qualitative sources that support your theory, but more importantly take all the qualitative sources that do NOT support your theory and are completely 180 out and explain to us the criteria you used to pick some and toss others. I think after a day or so of 'trying' to do that, you will realize just how useless qualitative data is with regards to the making and validating an FM.
Crump Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 Maybe this will help resolve some of the issues in this discussion. Atmospheric effects are universal and well understood. It is a function of the density altitude. Density ratio is just a mathematical expression of that specific density altitude over an infinite number of atmospheric combinations. All performance effects of density altitude are divided by same number. Relative performance remains the same. In other-words, the quantitative data values will changes in their specific numbers based on the density altitude but the relative differences in that quantitative data remains the same. You can compare ISA data. That is why we have ISA and what it is used for in aircraft performance calculations.
Crump Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 Duh Then why have 7 pages of discussion on that fact? That seems a much larger..."Duh" to me.
GOAT-ACEOFACES Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 Then why have 7 pages of discussion on that fact? That seems a much larger..."Duh" to me. That fact? Crump, I noticed your master of the obvious reply did not quote anyone.. I suspect the reason for that is due to the fact that no one was saying performance is NOT affect by atmospheric conditions.. And therefore this reply of yours was simply.. How did you put it? feed your ego.. 1
CUJO_1970 Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 Why are you mods allowing so much clutter in this thread? Why are you mods sitting by and allowing the forums to become toxic by allowing insults and even engaging in them yourselves? Do your jobs or step aside. 3
GOAT-ACEOFACES Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) Why are you mods allowing so much clutter in this thread?All threads evolve, some go off on completely different tangents.. But this thread started off talking about the validity of Fw190 flight model.. Which in turn resulted in discussions about flight models in general.. So, I would not equate that to clutter. Why are you mods sitting by and allowing the forums to become toxic by allowing insults and even engaging in them yourselves?Really? Maybe I missed something, can you quote something a mod said that you consider to be an insult, let alone toxic? Because I am not seeing it. Edited February 28, 2015 by ACEOFACES
Recommended Posts