Reasons why experimental and 'what if' aircraft is worth it!
#16

I don't care for what if aircraft unless they are 'sane' ideas. With that I mean realistic FM's, realistic shapes, etcetera. What I do love though are 'what if' scenarios. How about an early 30's USSR versus Germany? Maybe other European nations would have joined in the fight. Or what about an earlier start to the second world war?
Reply
#17

Speaking of 'what if' part, there is already many ways that it can be developed realistic as possible if we follow the patterns of previous developed experimental aircraft that was developed before or during the blue-print were developed.

And that is WHY, we should NOT be afraid to explore all areas and discuss what we experience flying any historical and alternative historical aircraft from what we have learned from it. This is where we would the idea of improving the understanding how each both historical and alternative historical aircraft (experimental and 'what if') aircraft would have flown, this is just like what the scientific method is about where
we would improve our understanding how each aircraft would have flown like.


Chaoic out...
Reply
#18

to be honest moggy, i see that the post is experimental AND what if, experimental being exactly that even if it was only in the planning stage( to which i have no issue with) and what if being all that fantasy stuff. i have no argument at all, but will not be called silly and pointless and non constructive without a fight :lol:
Reply
#19

If anyone wants to make a "what if?" aircraft then go for it and good on them. At least they will have made an effort and may be successful. And working on a "what if" may give a new modeller the experience to work on a "real" aircraft.

This all boils down to the same answer as usual. If you want it , download it. If you don't want it then leave it. Just remember the sim is called Il2 1946 now, not 1945.
Reply
#20

If you make a airplane that is not physically possible to fly and you make it to fly (as the Lerche), it's exactly the same thing that to use "anti-gravity tech" in my book.

So, not "what if". "What if" can be something like that: how about building a He-280 (it really flew) and make an hypothetical campaign in 1943? See the difference between that and things like "how about building a plane impossible to fly and make it possible to fly and enter in the war" This is pure Sci-fi. Note, I have no problem with that....

A good What if must be "realistic to achieve" historically speaking. If not, there is no "what if". There is pure fantasy.

About "predicted FMs", the question is the same. There were planes cancelled because there were physically not possible to fly in. No Fly by Wire in 1940's. Giving flyable FMs to planes not possible to fly is the same thing than giving them Fly by Wire, or giving them "anti-gravity tech".

Good debate, by the way! :cheers:
Reply
#21

Chaoic16 Wrote:Speaking of 'what if' part, there is already many ways that it can be developed realistic as possible if we follow the patterns of previous developed experimental aircraft that was developed before or during the blue-print were developed.

And that is WHY, we should NOT be afraid to explore all areas and discuss what we experience flying any historical and alternative historical aircraft from what we have learned from it. This is where we would the idea of improving the understanding how each both historical and alternative historical aircraft (experimental and 'what if') aircraft would have flown, this is just like what the scientific method is about where
we would improve our understanding how each aircraft would have flown like.


Chaoic out...
look, chaoti, read moggys post above, and then read my posts CAREFULLY, maybe there is a language barrier here or something but to me, what if is exactly that, what if they did build lasers etc, etc etc.

in my view there are two types of planes, thoise that made service, and those that didnt ( experimental). when someone says what if, then to me that is non reality,
Reply
#22

ojcar Wrote:If you make a airplane that is not physically possible to fly and you make it to fly (as the Lerche), it's exactly the same thing that to use "anti-gravity tech" in my book.

So, not "what if". "What if" can be something like that: how about building a He-280 (it really flew) and make an hypothetical campaign in 1943? See the difference between that and things like "how about building a plane impossible to fly and make it possible to fly and enter in the war" This is pure Sci-fi. Note, I have no problem with that....

A good What if must be "realistic to achieve" historically speaking. If not, there is no "what if". There is pure fantasy.

About "predicted FMs", the question is the same. There were planes cancelled because there were physically not possible to fly in. No Fly by Wire in 1940's. Giving flyable FMs to planes not possible to fly is the same thing than giving them Fly by Wire, or giving them "anti-gravity tech".

Good debate, by the way! :cheers:

If there is other aircraft that would seem to be impossible to fly similar to lecher, these aircraft could possibly would have not been flown right, being very unstable, or doesn't fly at all if we were doing it in most realistic way as possible? How about Amerkica bomber (flying wing), these would of been practical to fly as 'what if' part. Same thing applies to BV P.215, there are so many of 'what if' aircraft that is possible to be flyable too. You see, its like scientific method, determining each of experimental and 'what if' aircraft if they would have been fully flyable or completely the opposition.


Chaoic out...
Reply
#23

Saburo Sakai Wrote:
Chaoic16 Wrote:Speaking of 'what if' part, there is already many ways that it can be developed realistic as possible if we follow the patterns of previous developed experimental aircraft that was developed before or during the blue-print were developed.

And that is WHY, we should NOT be afraid to explore all areas and discuss what we experience flying any historical and alternative historical aircraft from what we have learned from it. This is where we would the idea of improving the understanding how each both historical and alternative historical aircraft (experimental and 'what if') aircraft would have flown, this is just like what the scientific method is about where
we would improve our understanding how each aircraft would have flown like.


Chaoic out...
look, chaoti, read moggys post above, and then read my posts CAREFULLY, maybe there is a language barrier here or something but to me, what if is exactly that, what if they did build lasers etc, etc etc.

in my view there are two types of planes, thoise that made service, and those that didnt ( experimental). when someone says what if, then to me that is non reality,

And read my posts carefuly as well. There is already possible way to determine how would have 'what if' blueprint based aircraft designed by aerouantical engineer officialy have flown in reailsitc way if we follow the operated aircraft and experimental aircraft's patterns.

The patterns of how operated aircraft had flown with specific weapons used. Same thing applies to expimental aircraft but following operated aircraft built by specirfic people and company patterns of what engine, weapons, locations of fuel tanks, and everything that operated aircraft used. Same thing applies to blue-print based aircraft that didnt make it past to expimental aircraft yet, but using the patterns of how would have fuel tanks, weapons, and other equipment of have been in. its stated in my theories of 'predicting' Flight model thread:

[quote="Chaoic16"]
Now, how would we find location of fuel, quantity of these, location of weapons, quantity of ammo, and finally, location and type of engine (specific horsepower and lb of thrust for jet engine)???

To find the best answer to this, what we community need to do is start discussing of it where it would be very likely to be, the estimated location of fuel tank, weapons, and engine, while debating about quaintly of fuel, armament ammo, and type of engine that would have been used while comparing the aircraft with many of other aircraft that were built. I
Reply
#24

Agree with that! You are seeing my point now! (maybe my bad English). An Amerika bomber would be fantastic! There are lots of interesting planes for all nations.

A litte joke, to relax:
You build a New, Realistic, 1% FM for a new slot Lerche after an enntire year of very scientific work, and I test it. I go to the mission builder and make a quick mission.
Now, Im virtually sitting in my wonderful cockpit, start the engine, feel the power and...........The plane doesn't move. It's not capable to taking off (well, maybe 2 m and then landing). Mission accomplished. I have the most realistic Lerche!!!! :cheers:
Reply
#25

ojcar Wrote:Agree with that! You are seeing my point now! (maybe my bad English). An Amerika bomber would be fantastic! There are lots of interesting planes for all nations.

A litte joke, to relax:
You build a New, Realistic, 1% FM for a new slot Lerche after an enntire year of very scientific work, and I test it. I go to the mission builder and make a quick mission.
Now, Im virtually sitting in my wonderful cockpit, start the engine, feel the power and...........The plane doesn't move. It's not capable to taking off (well, maybe 2 m and then landing). Mission accomplished. I have the most realistic Lerche!!!! :cheers:

There you go, now that is how we would test every expimental and 'what if' aircraft (based on official blueprint and document that didnt make it past to expimental aircraft) and see if it work, just like scientist method of testing aircraft.

Smile


Chaoic out...
Reply
#26

"First at all, Oleg many FM have s many erros and flaws, so to me, it appear that Oleg FM may have been 'biased"

Can you give me some examples on this, because I find Oleg Flight Models quite realistic compared to the studies I have done. On the other hand, some of the FM's from Modded planes are untrue to history on a large scale. And I think I know a little about aviation, I worked 3 years on the A380 at the plant in Hamburg, on the rear fuselage section. So I know how a little about judging the FM on a plane, from the figures only.

Personally i think 1946 was ridiculous, and I have never been flying one single plane of those, but they serve well as FM's and cockpits for the Korea Modders LOL

To me being true to history, is everything, but again for the online gamers fantasy planes might be funny so just let them do what they want here, For those who want historical accuracy there are other Foums out there.

That said, Il2 still is a fantasy world, with the real world as raw model, and there are many different opinions on different planes combat performance, just as in real life.

If u do a new plane, inform the community about any changes you have done to the FM, and for all why you did it, so that people can judge for themselves, this can be done easily without reveling any "sensitive" information.

Cheers

/Morten
Reply
#27

SAS~MOSCA Wrote:"First at all, Oleg many FM have s many erros and flaws, so to me, it appear that Oleg FM may have been 'biased"

Can you give me some examples on this, because I find Oleg Flight Models quite realistic compared to the studies I have done.

/Morten
Mosca, i will agree with most of what you said, except the bit i quote above. Oleg's FM's are not bad, and i would assume they are pretty good, but the are not realistic. The main reason for this is because there is no real external environment. and there is nothing to represent the individual engine attributes.
secondly, who knows what the warbirds of the past actually flew like, other than the pilots that actually flew them ? here, we can only really go by data. and as we all know, every plane had its own quirks.

now, an example, at duxford this year, i saw a FW190 take off and initiate a climb from wheels up of less than 40 degrees. I have tried to make this climb in game, but everytime the plane stalls out.
The A6M, i have timed the roll rates and found them to be to slow ( according to data) and they are slightly overpowered, and that is just two planes, so if there are issues like that with them two, who is to say there is not a lot more.
Reply
#28

I'd be glad to see postwar/non-produced AC take to the skies in Il-2, as well some of the more sensible 'what-if' designs... but actual, serving WWII AC should ALWAYS be the priority. There's not much point filling the sim with wonderplanes if some of the most important WWII designs are still absent. I also don't like the idea of simply picking crazy German line drawing X and then getting it ingame as a magical rocketship to the stars, especially in some cases where people can't even tell if it was truly one of the more unusual designs considered or whether it's simply a hoax or a homage to those designs created postwar.
Reply
#29

i have started work on a ME334 and i agree with you what if planes are worth it
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 5 Guest(s)