SJ_Butcher Posted April 6, 2018 Posted April 6, 2018 (edited) GUys do you have the value of every CLmax in game? I suspect that every data is wrong, according to a book that I bought that came with 200 values of most popular ww2 planes a lot of data is wrong across the technical data, in fact the most reliable data is provided by NACA, I think we will never have a good simulator if the devs use the data that came from every country, in fact according to the book even Germans made mistakes in calculations to determine the Clmax, ex: CLmax of Fw190 A3 @4000m using Reynolds =10 million is 1.516 and in game is 1.3-1.4? Airfoil Shape: @Root Naca 23015 @Riot Naca 23009 CLmax of LA-5 (massoviy) Type 37 factory N°21 @4000m using Reynolds =10 million is 1.629@ Root Naca 23016 @Riot Naca 23010 You deleted the post LOL Quote @19//Tuesday Thankfully we already established in that other thread that the book you bought is not a legitimate source for anything. thankfully you don't have a single prove to claim that, in fact I quoted the shape of NACA which you are claiming are wrong, don't be a clown and come here with constructive feedback and data that support your claim. Edited April 6, 2018 by SJ_Butcher 2
Inkophile Posted April 6, 2018 Posted April 6, 2018 So... when you add the 190's aileron and flap design to that airfoil, and the turbulence-inducing guns on the wings, what CLmax do you get? 1 1
Tuesday Posted April 6, 2018 Posted April 6, 2018 (edited) 29 minutes ago, SJ_Butcher said: GUys do you have the value of every CLmax in game? I suspect that every data is wrong, according to a book that I bought [Oh, how you make me laugh] that came with 200 values of most popular ww2 planes a lot of data is wrong across the technical data, in fact the most reliable data is provided by NACA, I think we will never have a good simulator if the devs use the data that came from every country, in fact according to the book even Germans made mistakes in calculations to determine the Clmax, ex: CLmax of Fw190 A3 @4000m using Reynolds =10 million is 1.516 and in game is 1.3-1.4? Airfoil Shape: @Root Naca 23015 @Riot Naca 23009 CLmax of LA-5 (massoviy) Type 37 factory N°21 @4000m using Reynolds =10 million is 1.629@ Root Naca 23016 @Riot Naca 23010 You deleted the post LOL thankfully you don't have a single prove to claim that, in fact I quoted the shape of NACA which you are claiming are wrong, don't be a clown and come here with constructive feedback and data that support your claim. Follow your own advice. Yes, I deleted the post because I realized it came off as rude and offered nothing constructive (but since you've gone there, neither do you). I'll just refer back to this post in regards to your book. Edited April 6, 2018 by 19//Tuesday 1 1
SJ_Butcher Posted April 6, 2018 Author Posted April 6, 2018 8 minutes ago, Inkoslav said: So... when you add the 190's aileron and flap design to that airfoil, and the turbulence-inducing guns on the wings, what CLmax do you get? why I should provide the value? is the jobs devs to look into it, I presented you the NACA test which claim 1.516, full flaps should be 1.71 according to other sources 7 minutes ago, 19//Tuesday said: Follow your own advice. Yes, I deleted the post because I realized it came off as rude and offered nothing constructive (but since you've gone there, neither do you). I'll just refer back to this post in regards to your book. still nobody came with a decent source proving the contrary, and the guy lying about numbers c++... is in the same way that the book, but at least the book provide you sources and formulas which nobody can prove they are wrong 1
Inkophile Posted April 6, 2018 Posted April 6, 2018 Oooookay. I'll just take the easy way out of this. Ignore function, here I come. 1 2
SJ_Butcher Posted April 6, 2018 Author Posted April 6, 2018 1 minute ago, Inkoslav said: Oooookay. I'll just take the easy way out of this. Ignore function, here I come. ouch too emotional man, both of you
JtD Posted April 6, 2018 Posted April 6, 2018 Fortunately, for both aircraft (and a lot more), full scale real aircraft wind tunnel (and in flight data) exists and we don't have to rely on odd calculated values from an up to now quite obscure source. Maybe it's good as food for thought, but apparently it sucks at providing reliable numbers. There has been plenty of discussion on this subject already, some aspect of which were forwarded to the developers. As a result, in particular for the Fw190, you can assume the game model to be largely correct. It's been discussed, checked and approved by several engineers. I'm not sure you can say that about the figures in the book. 2
SJ_Butcher Posted April 6, 2018 Author Posted April 6, 2018 1 minute ago, JtD said: Fortunately, for both aircraft (and a lot more), full scale real aircraft wind tunnel (and in flight data) exists and we don't have to rely on odd calculated values from an up to now quite obscure source. Maybe it's good as food for thought, but apparently it sucks at providing reliable numbers. There has been plenty of discussion on this subject already, some aspect of which were forwarded to the developers. As a result, in particular for the Fw190, you can assume the game model to be largely correct. It's been discussed, checked and approved by several engineers. I'm not sure you can say that about the figures in the book. and could you provide that full test wind tunel for both aircraft? http://airfoiltools.com/airfoil/details?airfoil=naca23015-il#polars is equal to what the book says, the guy never invented the data, he only compile the data and investigate it, the acceleration performance he own developed was compared taking into account other calculations he made, in fact that formula works perfectly in scale planes, so why is wrong? I repeat put more facts and not more feelings 1
AndyJWest Posted April 6, 2018 Posted April 6, 2018 3 hours ago, SJ_Butcher said: ...put more facts and not more feelings OK, here's a fact. If I was to fork out the money, Lulu.com would publish a book which stated that Fw 190s were made of recycled toilet rolls and powered by rubber bands. If you want to be taken seriously, find better sources. 2
SJ_Butcher Posted April 6, 2018 Author Posted April 6, 2018 Some times I feel the people is just too stupid and blind and passionate which lead to this nonesense answers, I will not waste my time here anymore, In the future at least provide data and studies that prove that I am wrong 1
Bearcat Posted April 6, 2018 Posted April 6, 2018 Sometimes I feel that people take this stuff way to seriously trying to apply real world physics in a computer simulation..
Recommended Posts