My comments interleaved with yours:
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Trouble
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 11:47 AM
To: Gamers Discussion list
Subject: Re: [Audyssey] a thought on the Shard Workshop project
You got some of the principles, but way off on others.
The ailerons on the ends of the wings are what lets the plane turn
left or right. You get this motion by moving the yoke left or right.
By pushing forward or pulling back on the yoke causes the Elevators
on the tail wings to raise or lower the planes level of flight. By
giving the plane more or less power. Gives more or less wind on the
wings surface to assist in these movements. Speed only makes you go
faster or slower. Depending on wait of plane determines how much
speed it takes to keep it in the air. Not all planes have rudders,
and those that do move along with the ailerons.
Um Trouble, I have hours logged in an actual cockpit, have helped
rebuild
aircraft and have an aeronautical engineer/pilot for a stepfather.
Trust
me, when you increase power, you climb, unless you trim the aircraft to
prevent it, just as when you decrease power, you descend, unless you
trim
the aircraft or deploy flaps to increase the wing surface area. here
are
some very basic aerodynamics.
Lift is proportional to wing area and increases with angle of
attack. it
also increases with increasing velocity of airflow over the wing,
(possibly
with the square of that velocity, I don't remember for sure.) Increase
engine power in level flight, increase aircraft speed. increase
aircraft
speed, increase speed of air over the wing surface, thus increasing
lift.
The ailerons increase the angle of attack for their wing. Move the
stick
left, increase the AoA on the right wing, producing more lift. This
rolls
the aircraft left, and does produce a small turning moment as well.
But if
you want to turn sharply, you quarter roll the aircraft and pull up
on the
stick. This pulls the aircraft through your turn more quickly than any
rudder-and-aileron alone turn can. You can also roll and push the stick
forward for a negative-gee maneuver, but aircraft will typically turn
more
tightly in a positive-gee regime.
There are aircraft where the rudder and ailerons are automatically
coordinated, but given the need to cross-control (to perform a
side-slip for
instance, I'm guessing there are overrides even for the most modern,
fly-by-wire jets. Obviously, I haven't flown an F16, though I have
spoken
to people who have.
Anyone that has flown and had time at the stick would of ben told
this info after all its basic flying. You want hard flying try a
helicopter.
I have flown just about all types of RC models from airplanes to
hover craft. Now working on helicopters indoor type and out. Ben
playing with these big boy toys for past 30 years and most of it being
blind.
I have never flown a helicopter, but based on what I've been told and
read,
I'd agree that it's probably much harder than fixed-wing aircraft.
As for
the rest of this paragraph, I'm trying to see how you aren't accusing
me of
lying, because that would be rude and disrespectful. I have flown
various
Sesna aircraft, as well as a Fairchild PT23, which is an open-cockpit
WWII
era primary trainer with aerobatic capabilities. I have survived and
walked
away from a plane crash. (Piper cub got flipped over by a freak
crosswind
gust on landing, everyone but the plane was ok.)
I don't know what feedback you get flying an RC aircraft, not knowing
your
vision level, but in order to comment disagree with my statements
based on
your experience, you're going to have to convince me that you are in
full
knowledge of exactly what your aircraft is doing at every moment in
response
to your control commands. You are also going to have to convince me
that,
having actual sensory feedback in a cockpit, I don't know what I'm
talking
about. Good luck with that.
So with It's your plane and zero sight sims. You do get a good idea
of flying by sim.
I must respectfully but completely disagree.
Christopher Bartlett
At 10:21 AM 12/22/2011, you wrote:
>OK, small dissertation to follow.
>
>Flying an aircraft is not at all like driving a car or a boat. The
biggest
>difference is that many of your controls do not directly affect your
>position and orientation in three-space, but instead affect the rate of
>change of that orientation.
>
>As a somewhat simplified example: moving the stick to the left
initiates a
>bank to the left, that is, the aircraft rolls along its long axis. The
>excursion from the zero-point of the stick controls how rapidly your
roll
>angle changes, rather than setting your absolute roll. Move the
stick only
>a little, and your roll rate is slow, but you do continue rolling. The
same
>sort of rate control works for the elevator (stick forward and
back), with
>the addition that gravity is still in effect, so that if you
"unload" that
>is remove all lift from the aircraft, you will eventually describe a
>parabolic arc downwards (friction effects ignored.)
>
>These two effects are combined in actual flying, especially
high-performance
>flying, so that turning is usually accomplished by rolling the
aircraft,
>then pulling back on the stick for a turn that occupies less horizontal
>space. Much dogfighting was done in the vertical, where rolling
equates to
>turning. Typically you had more control authority for pitch then
roll and
>finally yaw, so you would use your pitch controls to aid in turning.
>
>Now add engine power into the mix. Goosing the throttle has more
effects
>than just increasing your speed. Zero Sight has it right that you
>accelerate or decelerate when you change throttle settings, but
given that
>lift is, among other things, a function of speed, if you are in level
flight
>and goose the throttle without making any other control changes, you
will
>climb. Chop the power and you descend.
>
>Now finally add in that when you bank, you tend to turn, and when
you apply
>rudder, it has an effect on bank angle, and both affect your pitch
angle,
>and you begin to see how complex flying even a WWII aircraft was.
Dark is
>right that it was possible to turn someone who had never flown into a
combat
>pilot in relatively short order, though in the U.S. the training
time was
>more like six months and was every day, hours a day.
>
>Now, we look at modern combat flying. In addition to performing all
the
>above tasks, you have a complex cockpit layout that requires
memorization.
>You have radar to monitor in any of several possible modes. You have
>weapons packages, both air-to-air and air-to-ground that each have
their
>separate control characteristics. It isn't like in the movies, just
point
>and shoot, you have to select targets, select weapon system for each
target,
>know your weapon's envelope of effectiveness and deploy it correctly.
>
>Now to Dark's point, Lone Wolf does not cover every complexity of
conning a
>submarine in the WWII era, but it gives you enough to do that in the
midst
>of a furious combat sequence, firing on one target say, while
evading three
>incoming destroyers, you have plenty to do. Also, it enforces the
sorts of
>snap decision-making that a sub commander would have to do. Ok, my
>targeting solution is coming into effect, but I have two destroyers
bearing
>down on me. Do I wait and take the shot? If so, do I then turn and
snap
>off a shot at a destroyer, or do I crash dive and hope to live
through the
>bombardment?
>
> From what I've seen, Zero sight gets some of the feel of the
"switchology"
>right for modern aircraft, but the flight model is simplified to the
point
>where it doesn't impose a burden at all on the pilot. The amazing
thing
>about modern fighter or attack pilots is that if need be, they can
do all
>this switching while yanking and banking at several gees.
>
>Now, it's probably unrealistic of me to expect anyone to create a
detailed
>flight model, though I have some excel models that do a pretty good
job, at
>least for WWII era aircraft. There are a vanishingly small number
of blind
>people who've actually flown an aircraft, I am one, so the
experience isn't
>missed by most gamers. I'm unable to comment on other flight sims,
as I
>haven't tried one since the DOS days, but it's my impression that
there are
>simulators out there, available to the commercial gamer, that do model
>flight more realistically.
>
>So in conclusion, I recognize that my requirements are unreasonable for
most
>people. Do not take my negative view as representative, and I do
recommend
>anyone try it. But do not believe that you are doing anything like
flying.
>And that's ok, I'm the radical simulationist on this forum and I
recognize
>that.
>
> Chris Bartlett
>
>
>
>---
>Gamers mailing list __ [email protected]
>If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to
[email protected].
>You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at
>http://mail.audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org.
>All messages are archived and can be searched and read at
>http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected].
>If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of
the list,
>please send E-mail to [email protected].
---
Gamers mailing list __ [email protected]
If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to
[email protected].
You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at
http://mail.audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org.
All messages are archived and can be searched and read at
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected].
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the
list,
please send E-mail to [email protected].
---
Gamers mailing list __ [email protected]
If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to
[email protected].
You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at
http://mail.audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org.
All messages are archived and can be searched and read at
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected].
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the
list,
please send E-mail to [email protected].
