eekz Posted March 21, 2016 Author Posted March 21, 2016 It is tweaked and very well optimized in the current version in my opinion. Nope, all the same in the latest 1.5.3 update. Would be good if someone registered in public bugtracker would post these vids there. VIRPIL Controls Servers
theropod Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 (edited) Nope, all the same in the latest 1.5.3 update. Would be good if someone registered in public bugtracker would post these vids there. yes it is still same motion ,nothing has changed. rebounding six times:) Edited March 21, 2016 by theropod
archer86 Posted March 23, 2016 Posted March 23, 2016 It is tweaked and very well optimized in the current version in my opinion. nope, it is still same like it has first reported .
Maverick Su-35S Posted December 24, 2016 Posted December 24, 2016 Anyone thought, that indicated AoA is not the same as the aircraft AoA it is local and is pretty much higher, than the aircraft general AoA? So it cannot be the same on F2 view (general AoA) and cockpit indicator. Oh man I'm glad that after so many posts of people that don't quite understand what that 28-30-33 deg.AoA is all about, one managed to see the difference;)! Indeed, the REAL angle of attack is much lower that what the needle in the cockpit points at. The reason is very simple, but again, as people confuse stall speed to critical angle of attack, the same way they confuse the indicated angle which only indicates how many degrees the AoA vane had turned and NOT the real angle of attack at which the wing meets the air. When you can't prove something with words, let the math do the talking. I have an insatiable passion for helping simulated aircraft fly realistically. Don't underestimate my knowledge before understanding what I talk about! Sincerely, your flight model reviewer/advisor.
Maverick Su-35S Posted December 24, 2016 Posted December 24, 2016 Here is the explanation why the AoA vane (which the cockpit AoA tells at what angle in degrees it's deflected) deflects to a higher angle than the one at which the wing's chord meets the air. Let's take this case: The plane is at positive lift and some angle of attack, so the high pressure region is below the aircraft and the low pressure is above it. The air, as any other fluid will always start a motion from high to low pressure. When the air meets the higher pressure of the aircraft, which in this case is the belly of the whole fuselage and wings, it will rapidly start moving through wherever it finds possible towards the low pressure region, which for instance would be the top of the fuselage and wings. In an ideal case, one could imagine some airflow lines that are nothing but continuous straight lines passing around the plane and so the real angle of attack (between the wing's aerodynamic mean chord and oncoming air) would match the angle at which the vane is deflected by the air, but in reality the airflow curves and doesn't hold a straight line as it passes the aircraft and the more difference in pressure the exponentially more the airflow curves. This curvature of airflow lines (if you were to see some smoke lines in a wind tunnel on a plane's fuselage model would be great) around the fuselage of any plane and also around where the AoA vane is mounted will undeniably deflect the AoA vane with them, thus making it show a higher angle than that between the free stream of air and the wings chord. So the higher the real angle of attack and the more intense the differences in pressure between the top and bottom of the plane, the more the airflow curves in an exponential manner (curves more rapidly as real AoA increases) as it tries to run away from high pressure to low pressure deflecting the AoA vane with it. At low real angles of attack, the AoA indication in the cockpit will be very close to it, but as the real AoA increases, the AoA indication grows faster and faster away from the real AoA. Same does for negative AoA. Starting from low negative AoA towards high negative AoA, the onboard indication again grows much faster than the real AoA. For short (cause I always get into thorough details when I discuss something, so the conclusion is at the end), the curvature of airflow around the fuselage as it goes from higher pressure towards low pressure deflects the AoA vane also with it thus making it show a higher angle than that between the air and the wing. When you can't prove something with words, let the math do the talking. I have an insatiable passion for helping simulated aircraft fly realistically. Don't underestimate my knowledge before understanding what I talk about! Sincerely, your flight model reviewer/advisor.
Frederf Posted December 24, 2016 Posted December 24, 2016 I've been meaning to chart the local-true AOA relationship for a while and here it is. I repeated a few data points quickly at 0, 5, 10, 15 at 0.9M and 1.6M and found them to agree to the low Mach case within 0.1° true AOA.
Maverick Su-35S Posted January 2, 2017 Posted January 2, 2017 I've been meaning to chart the local-true AOA relationship for a while and here it is. I repeated a few data points quickly at 0, 5, 10, 15 at 0.9M and 1.6M and found them to agree to the low Mach case within 0.1° true AOA. This may be the new plot, as the critical AoA is now strangely low at about 15 deg.AoA. Initially it was at 20, so the function was different in the past, and I suppose, more realistic. Indeed, the function might be linear as you experimentally determined it in game and this is a good case, cause for other aircraft it ain't mostly linear. Good job! When you can't prove something with words, let the math do the talking. I have an insatiable passion for helping simulated aircraft fly realistically. Don't underestimate my knowledge before understanding what I talk about! Sincerely, your flight model reviewer/advisor.
Frederf Posted January 3, 2017 Posted January 3, 2017 The odds of a realistic local-true AOA relationship having zero dependence on Mach is about nil.
Recommended Posts