[Chaoic16]

New information Moved to other thread.

[caldrail]

Virtual physics and aerodynamics. I like it. Good idea, a consistent method of determing flight models.

[fly_zo]

... when time comes for x-planes ( he he that means we already have Lanc,Do17 .... ) this could be useful IMHO

thanks for your time & effort

Z

[Chaoic16]

I am very happy to hear that both of you agreed to my theories. You know what taught me to find solutions to many problems? That is being open-minded and see toward problems in many different views. And since I would do whatever it take to solve the critical problems of adding 'what if' aircraft to IL-2 1946. I am always flexible toward 'what if' and this simulator is the greatest opportunity to be the very first simulator that would do something that no simulator have ever done.

That is what got me using a lot of my time to think about the solutions to his problems and did a lot of research, especially using my knowledge about simulators.

This is best solution I can come up that would solve the critical problem of finding best 'predicted' flight model for aircraft that have not flown nor built yet but in best realistic way. And if any of you have an additional theories to this theories, please dont be afriad to post them here. More theories we have, the better.

We are this TOGETHER in AAA community, we have great passion in avaition. I am sure that alot of us alway wonder... What would it have been like if they were ever flown right? This is our great opportunity to actually 'DO" something about it instead of just... dreaming or wondering about these 'what if' aircraft. And like I said notihng, I mean NOTHING is impossible period as long any of you are very willing to find solution to the problems in many different views.




Chaoic out...

[RedChico]

The extra thing we need is engine performance, as said before.
Will we be able to predict engine performance of never-were engines? Using past engine performance and common sence, i think so.

[Chaoic16]

The extra thing we need is engine performance, as said before.
Will we be able to predict engine performance of never-were engines? Using past engine performance and common sence, i think so.

Exactly, now you are thinking where I stated in my theories. Finding the patterns of how much engines have evolved from 1930s to 1945s. And at the same time, we would research do more on the prototypes engine that were being experimented, and other engines being developed that would be suppposed to increase in reiable and improvement over previous engines during 1945s.


Chaoic out...

[Radoye]

This is an excellent idea! However, may i suggest instead of using just one plane (P-51) to figure out the necessary conversion formula, we should use as many as we can - ideally all planes currently shared between x-planes and il-2. This way we'll avoid potential quirks with individual FM's and would be able to get a way better conversion formula with best accuracy possible.

[Chaoic16]

This is an excellent idea! However, may i suggest instead of using just one plane (P-51) to figure out the necessary conversion formula, we should use as many as we can - ideally all planes currently shared between x-planes and il-2. This way we'll avoid potential quirks with individual FM's and would be able to get a way better conversion formula with best accuracy possible.

That sounded like good idea. Like i said, more theories being posted here, the better.

I am glad you also agreed to my theories.

(thumb up)


Chaoic ouit...

[Radoye]

I am glad you also agreed to my theories.

(thumb up)

Yeah, i love it! The only thing that's not good about it - it wasn't me who came up with it

It's a fairly standard method in physics and other experimental sciences, to avoid anomalous readings you always do multiple measurements, then use the data that converges together, and throw away the results that fall far away. This way you make sure that errors due to imprecise measuring instruments or just human mistakes or some weird occurances are not polluting the data set.

[dgk196]

Would any 'flight model' have to be based on basic, or advanced, aerodynamic theories?

And if that is true, are there any programs available on the subject, as an application for 'modeling'?

When you have the basic performance of an ac and the physical characteristics, can these be applied to such a program to determine other performance characteristics?

For example, if we know an ac's speed at a specific altitude, and we know some other bits of information, couldn't we determine 'Lift' and 'Drag', CL and CD from that? And with that info determine other things such as, rate-of-climb, roll-rate, stall angle, best angle for maximum climb rate, turn radius and on and on....

Sure would be nice if there were such a program!

Dennis

[Davew]

Would any 'flight model' have to be based on basic, or advanced, aerodynamic theories?

And if that is true, are there any programs available on the subject, as an application for 'modeling'?

When you have the basic performance of an ac and the physical characteristics, can these be applied to such a program to determine other performance characteristics?

For example, if we know an ac's speed at a specific altitude, and we know some other bits of information, couldn't we determine 'Lift' and 'Drag', CL and CD from that? And with that info determine other things such as, rate-of-climb, roll-rate, stall angle, best angle for maximum climb rate, turn radius and on and on....

Sure would be nice if there were such a program!

Dennis

Its not quite that easy though.
In s/l flight at equilibrium lift = weight, thrust = drag so thats easy enough.
Coefficient of lift and drag are also not difficult given air density, velocity and surface area. Formulas for those.

Rate of climb is dependant on excess thrust available, but things like roll rate are dependant on a number of factors, stall angle depends on quite a few things such as aerofoil shape airflow characteristics etc, as does the behaviour at the stall.

Not knowing about x-plane 9 i may be a little ignorant here, but it would appear that there's an assumption that the pattern of differences between an x-plane model and an Il2 model would remain constant across the aircraft types, so as to be able to extrapolate for the other types flight envelopes.
We know that that's not the case though, because the TA-183 wouldnt actually have been able to fly IRL. Also, given the discussion about the somewhat warped flight models for some aircraft, I would suggest that it wouldnt be a fixed pattern correlating an x-plane model to the equivalent IL2 one.

What could perhaps be done though is develop the model in x-plane, gather whatever performance criteria may be possible from that model and write the flight model for IL2 with reference to a range of aircraft, broadly fitting the new aircraft into an approximate category?

[Chaoic16]

I have updated my theories with new additional information and I will keep updating at once I found more information through my research and talking with specific aeronautical/aerodynamic people when I have more of free time. I hope that my long efforts on this theory will be vastly helpful to the modders that are working on 'what if' aircraft, especially gathering better data for historical aircraft at the same time.




Chaoic out...

[certificate]

I don't get it. I don't think the flight models in IL2 are based on geometric shape, they're based on the fmd and emd files.

You could make a square, give it the P-51 flightmodel and engine, and have a square P51

[Chaoic16]

I don't get it. I don't think the flight models in IL2 are based on geometric shape, they're based on the fmd and emd files.

You could make a square, give it the P-51 flightmodel and engine, and have a square P51

You probably didnt read all of my theory carefullly:

"But how would that work because these data in X-plane 9 can