Hi,
Did a little test flight of three of the new aircraft.
Aren’t the new aircraft pants! Flew the Arado and the round one and the other German one. The round one was the best, the other two were incredibly slow.
Any thoughts on this?
Richy…
The “round one” (vertical starter) is much faster and way more nimble then I’d expect from the little I’ve flown it (and against it), others, well, pretty ordinarily early jet stuff, not very impressive, but still faster then most (if not all) prop planes. Still pretty uninteresting for me.
I think I remember someone else saying that they should have gone for a Korea war jet sim instead, and I can only agree…
RRG are [rumoured to be] making a Korea sim, but using the Storm of War engine - the '46 add-on is a sort of prototype for the RRG Korea sim, I think.
My first impression:
“Gosh, I forgot what vanilla FB looks like. I miss MAT-Manager 4.07. And a bigger hard disk. Is it possible to fly using the keyboard?.. no. I’ll work out how to merge this with 4.05 at some point. Bring on January when I’ll have the desk space for a flight controller again!”
My first and biggest impression was the recoil cannon shake for wing mounted guns has been toned down. The Spit Mk Vc was awful for swinging all over the place and now its much easier to aim.
The aircraft also seem to slow down quicker when reducing throttle, though this may be the added weight of Christmas turkey. 
The aircraft also seem to slow down quicker when reducing throttle, though this may be the added weight of Christmas turkey
Things that are heavier slow down slower than lighter things (all other things being equal) due to momentum and er, that. Kinetic wotsit
Look it may be Christmas but I’m not letting him get away with that [struggles with rubber suit] What? Yes he is wirf it
Ming
The ground effects of cannon are excellent, with gouts of flame accompanying exploding cannon shells.
The aircraft are not bad now that i am used to them. The IL10 is excellent, a real joy to fly, as is the A20-C.
People are suggestiong that the aircraft have a better sense of mass to them, particularly with regard to heavier BnZ types which seem to retain more energy on the way up. Anyone comment on this? Also, the Tempest’s horrific overheat might have been lessened?
Things that are heavier slow down slower than lighter things (all other things being equal) due to momentum and er, that. Kinetic wotsit
Unless the heavier things are climbing (i.e - away from the earth’s gravity), in which case by the very nature of your argument, they will slow down quicker than a lighter object for a given velocity.
with regard to heavier BnZ types which seem to retain more energy on the way up. Anyone comment on this?
Yes I’ve noticed this. I’ve got to give the P-47 a go to see if it dives quicker now.
It also feels like the controls are somehow heavier and less responsive in high speed tight turns. Some of this may be the placebo effect though, have to do the same in 4.05…
It also feels like the controls are somehow heavier and less responsive in high speed tight turns. Some of this may be the placebo effect though, have to do the same in 4.05…
Yep I’ve noticed this also, strange thing is I’ve set up 407 to switch back to 405 rather than the other way round and now 405 has the same effect!
I need to look at it properly to see what has happened.
[b]Things that are heavier slow down slower than lighter things (all other things being equal) due to momentum and er, that. Kinetic wotsit
Unless the heavier things are climbing (i.e - away from the earth’s gravity), in which case by the very nature of your argument, they will slow down quicker than a lighter object for a given velocity.[/b]
That is correct as long as the Law of Gravity does not apply and/or is not behaving in a strictly linear fashion. The gravity field can be nonlinear but only over volcanoes and other sources of high density mantle. Is this test taking place on Mars btw
Away from the Earth’s gravity that’s a good one
by the very nature of your argument
It’s not so much an argument it’s more of a law really
Ming
AFAIK gravity doesn’t recognise weight or mass and all things fall to earth at the same speed when in free fall. IE a pea and a bowling ball will fall at the same rate of aceleration and speed. Therefore kinetic energy stored will take an object that little bit higher. Whether a heavier object stores more energy than a lighter object I’m not sure. But overall a high climb speed should take a plane further once it decelerates than a slower aircraft… I think
However I know for a fact we are not on Mars
Gravity determines weight, Brigs, but mass stays constant A more massive object has greater potential energy at a given height as, though it will accelerate at the same rate as a less massive when acted upon by Earth’s gravity in a vacuum (32 ft per second per second), it will gain more kinetic energy owing to its greater mass. This can be ably demonstrated by getting hit on the head by a large, falling object
In an atmosphere, the more massive (or, in reality, more dense) object tends to accelerate faster, but at this point we start getting in to flat plat area calculations and other complications. Start adding thrust to the equation and it’s time to retire to the bar
Fecking clever clogs
So in English, will a heavier plane carry on climbing further than a lighter aircraft when powered acceleration stops?
Well, in fact the pea will fall faster than the bowling ball…gravity is not the only force acting, the air resistance (?) is acting too.
As for 2 equal planes, same speed, one heavier because of, for example, more fuel, the lighter one will zoom higher…at least thats what “Fighter Combat” says on page 395, using an equation for specific excess power (Ps)
As for 2 equal planes, same speed, one heavier because of, for example, more fuel, the lighter one will zoom higher…
Which in essence is what I was hinting at with my turkey reference… :rolleyes:
So, in essence, a vegan Pilot at christmas will climb higher than a non vegeterian at the same time…
Now were does that leave power to weight ratios at Easter, because everyone eats chocolate
Sorry, i got lost after “Gravity”. Whats Gravity?
Oh in a zoom missed that sorry. I’ll check your results later see if I can dig out a discrepancy
Ming
If you want a readable introduction to aerodynamics, check this out
Model Aircraft Aerodynamics by Martin Simons
So in English, will a heavier plane carry on climbing further than a lighter aircraft when powered acceleration stops?
Think of gliders (soarers), they climb with no engine!
So, in essence, a vegan Pilot at christmas will climb higher than a non vegeterian at the same time…
Because she’s lighter, the vegan may require less lift for the same change in altitude, which may in turn cause less induced drag, leading to less deceleration, leading to more sustained velocity, allowing lift to be applied for longer, leading to greater height gain.*
An awful lot of ‘may’ in there - depending on the airframe, induced drag can be higher at low speeds.
Now were does that leave power to weight ratios at Easter, because everyone eats chocolate
The vegan will eat carob (uggh!!), so she still wins at Easter.
- In this context: Lift is a force vector perpendicular to the line of flight. Drag is a force vector parallel to the line of flight.
Sorry, i got lost after “Gravity”. Whats Gravity?
Its a myth, the earth just sucks
sorry I had nothing constructive to say but felt I should add something