[FIXED INTERNALLY] Wind not accounted for in flight model and display.

[Deano87]

You just explained that aircrafts ain't aircrafts, but groundcrafts... Maybe we should as well call spacecrafts as orbitcrafts....

 

The air speed is indicated because it doesn't matter what happens on ground. Same way as all aeronautical calculations are all about speed of wind in relative to the aircraft attitude.

Be there a zero wind, high wind, thin air etc... It is all about air and aircraft attitude to it.

 

There is no ground, there is inertial movement that can be calculated and that as well is all about air speed and relative attitude for the aircraft and its shape.

 

 

We can place an aircraft to wind tunnel, and consider that there is no ground, there is nothing else than a gravity that is pulling aircraft down, and to fly you need lift.

And what you need to do to generate lift? Just a high air speed from any direction as long it is steady and the aircraft will counter the gravity?

 

Since when we did receive a anti-gravitation generators so that our aircrafts can counter the gravity regardless the air flow direction or strength?

 

In aeronautical, ground speed is just one element of many in flight. Gravity is one of the core elements. If you can't overcome gravity, you are either in weightless space or you will be moving toward gravitational force that is pulling you to it. And why you don't want that?

 

Air and its speed affects directly to the aircraft. It doesn't matter is the aircraft stationary or flying, and it doesn't matter is it air speed as wind, or is it aircraft speed by propulsion, it is all about the direction, speed and the relative effects by the aircraft shape.

 

Otherwise we would all be flying spheres, as air doesn't matter and only gravitation would be required to be countered.

 

Er...

 

I agree with every point you said. And I've been saying the exact same thing for ages, don't know why you quoted me tbh.

[The Falcon]

Honestly, I would report bugs once and with acknowledgement...wait until the Changelog comes out and verify fixes. Remember, the Viper is still in development.

We are no longer talking about the bug since page 2 :lol:

[Magnatilla]

Er...

 

I agree with every point you said. And I've been saying the exact same thing for ages, don't know why you quoted me tbh.

 

yeah, i was confused by that too, still. this thread just keeps on giving....

[bbrz]

We are no longer talking about the bug since page 2 :lol:

And just guess WHY!!!! You apparently didn't notice that your unwilligness to understand how things actually work are the main reason why this thread goes on and on.

[The Falcon]

Well an orbital velocity is not really related to ground speed either... all it worries about is having enough forward momentum to equal the force of gravity...

I was getting confused because i thought with the wrong formula Kin.E = 1/2 m v2, it is not mathematically wrong but it is not the correct one. In our case we talk about angular velocity since we are rotating around a point.

The correct formula is E = ω ^ 2 · r.

So technically it is not possible to convert the motion vertically but once you reach a certain speed ω you go in the opposite direction to the center then vertically. ω can be converted to v and that is why it is not mathematically wrong the formula E= 1/2 m v2 but v must be seen with respect to the center of the earth not on the ground.

[The Falcon]

And just guess WHY!!!! You apparently didn't notice that your unwilligness to understand how things actually work are the main reason why this thread goes on and on.

Terms and strong assertion can be trick minds and do this

[The Falcon]

Kinetic energy of an aircraft is a function of its airspeed, not ground speed..

And that's IAS/CAS. From an aerodynamic POV the aircraft doesn't care about TAS at all.

I got confused about some things, now i understand better, but some statements confuse me, for example, not considering the TAS. It's a bit like the speech of the wind, it counts aerodynamically from a POV. I considered the GS but in reality i had to consider the TAS for energy, TAS is equal to GS in horizontal flight and in the absence of wind, that's why i confused myself. I would like to understand one thing, always with the example of vertical ascent:

 

Two a/c, one at 30000 feet, the other at 1000 feet. The speed of both is 300kts IAS. Both perform a 90 degree vertical. Which has more energy to go up? I believe the first a/c, the one at 30k has more energy, if I'm wrong correct me.

[takamba]

Total Energy

 

Total Energy (TE) is the combination of the aircraft's Potential Energy (PE)(function of aircraft

altitude) and Kinetic Energy (KE)(function of airspeed).

 

TE will be referred to as your "energy package" and will vary according to your situation.

 

TE = PE + KE

 

PE (altitude): In general, the aircraft at a higher altitude has more PE.

 

KE (airspeed): The aircraft with more airspeed has the higher KE.

 

As a result: Same airspeed, same kinetic energy

[The Falcon]

Total Energy...

This reasoning would be useful for the wind discourse, but now we are talking about another thing. So do I get wrong? For KE what type of airspeed should I use? for me the first a/c has more kinetic energy but both have the same aerodynamic energy. I explain better, making an argument, I hope not to be wrong.

 

Total energy in this case

 

AE = aerodynamic energy, due to drag

ME = body energy, due to mass

 

To calculate the AE i use the IAS or CAS, while to calculate the ME i use the TAS. The combination of the two tells me total energy or at least tells me the real performance, so the correct FM

Edited February 6, 2020 by The Falcon

[Hummingbird]

TAS is also airspeed = True Air Speed.

[takamba]

For KE what type of airspeed should I use?

 

TAS

 

I am sorry, I never heard of aerodynamic energy.

 

The kinetic energy of an aircraft is the result of its thrust and its drag.

 

An airplane’s altitude and airspeed are two inseparable forms of energy. Together, they make up the airplane’s total mechanical energy. Put differently, the airplane’s total mechanical energy is distributed between altitude (potential energy) and airspeed (kinetic energy). In fact, the airplane’s energy state is defined as the total amount and distribution of energy over altitude and airspeed.

But there is more. Altitude and speed are not only inseparable—they are also interchangeable. You can increase one at the expense of the other without changing the airplane’s total mechanical energy. Given the energy coupling between altitude and speed, it’s no wonder that any attempt to change one independently of the other by using a single control always fails.

[The Falcon]

TAS is also airspeed = True Air Speed.

of course but is the real airspeed

As a result: Same airspeed, same kinetic energy

 

TAS

they are also interchangeable...

So which of the two a/c rises more vertically. One at 30k, one at 1000 feet, same at 300 IAS..

We have to convert the speeds to altitude but to get the correct result we have to use the TAS, so for the first a/c goes up more.

[Hummingbird]

Assuming a normal jet engine climb rate usually descreases with altitude as lift decreases. The exception being a steep zoom climb which obviously maxes out at the altitude of highest top speed.

[takamba]

Dude, both aircraft have the same kinetic energy since both have the same airspeed.

 

The only reason I see the first aircraft will gain more delta altitude is because the gravitational force is less at 30k feet altitude then at 1000 feet altitude.

But that has nothing to do with kinetic energy.

[The Falcon]

They have the same "IAS" not the same TAS, 30k a/c have more TAS. Which of the two should i take to calculate energy? for me it's the TAS. But doing so the 30k a/c is the one that has the most energy

Edited February 6, 2020 by The Falcon

[Hummingbird]

To calculate energy you always use TAS.

[takamba]

They have the same "IAS" not the same TAS, 30k a/c have more TAS. Which of the two should i take to calculate energy? for me it's the TAS. But doing so the 30k a/c is the one that has the most energy

 

You're right, posting things while having the mind full of other stuff is not the way to go, sorry.

[The Falcon]

To calculate energy you always use TAS.

You're right, posting things while having the mind full of other stuff is not the way to go, sorry.

 

 

I thought i was wrong again:joystick: thank goodness:lol:

[Frederf]

To calculate energy you always use TAS.

 

No, you use the velocity in the inertial reference frame of your choice. That can be velocity relative to the center of Venus. 1/2 m GS^2 and 1/2 m TAS^2 are both valid depending on what you're trying to measure.

 

Motion is relative and there is no absolute reference. If you want to analyze everything in terms of motion relative to the air mass that's fine except that's certainly not what the simulator does nor does it hold up if the air-ground velocity relationship (aka wind) isn't constant over all time and space.

[The Falcon]

No, you use the velocity in the inertial reference frame of your choice..

Motion is relative and there is no absolute reference...

Yes energy depends on the observation point but the TAS is always a speed like the IAS only that the IAS is not correct because the air probe, in addition to reporting errors is subject to changes in pressure, temperature and therefore density. If you use the IAS you don't understand at what true speed you are moving with respect to the air. Of course this was related to my example, if you want to measure the energy with respect to the center of a planet then you are right but it is not relevant to the example.

[bkthunder]

My mind is blown. What I learnt from this thread:

 

1. First and foremost I have to complain to the manufacturer of the aircraft I fly, because all performance tables and reference speeds are given in IAS/CAS.

 

2. I must definitely sue the flight schools and all the instructors that have given me wrong information on how to fly an aircraft. They even wrote pilot manuals that are all wrong! Bastards!

 

3. I realize how truly blessed I am, I have been flying with headwinds, tailwinds and crosswinds and I never realized until now that I was probably stalling or going above VNE. I am still alive, must be a miracle. Damn, I remember once I had a 60kts tailwind and I was definitely above VNE, surprised the wings didn’t break in two!

[Hummingbird]

No, you use the velocity in the inertial reference frame of your choice. That can be velocity relative to the center of Venus. 1/2 m GS^2 and 1/2 m TAS^2 are both valid depending on what you're trying to measure.

 

Pretty sure we are talking about aircraft energy here (i.e. in its bubble of air), and not bullet impact energy ;)

Edited February 6, 2020 by Hummingbird

[Hummingbird]

My mind is blown. What I learnt from this thread:

1. First and foremost I have to complain to the manufacturer of the aircraft I fly, because all performance tables and reference speeds are given in IAS/CAS.

 

Going to venture a guess and say that's because you're flying a civilian aircraft at relatively low airspeeds and don't have a need to have precise measurements of peak maneuvering performance.

 

All teen series jet fighter EM performance tables are in TAS.

[bbrz]

Furthermore cruise performance tables are, for obvious reasons, always in TAS (sometimes IAS/CAS/MN is included). From the P-51 via the C-150 to the A380.

Edited February 7, 2020 by bbrz

[The Falcon]

This is because the IAS is useful for determining the aerodynamic forces and so the maneuvers, but it does not say how fast you move in the air, it doesn't tell you what your kinetic energy is and so is not reliable in combat to let you know how fast you can go up or down.