Jump to content

The AoA value from outside view is an average of wing and elevators?


Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

 

After some playing with airplanes from outside view I found that when the plane's AoA remains almost constant (or doesn't have enough time to vary), the indicated AoA does vary instantaneously with pitch controls deflection. The AoA indication isn't necessarily that of the elevators for example, but is definitely some sort of average between the actual wing's AoA and the actual elevator's AoA. There is no other explanation why the outside view AoA indication varies a lot more than the actual plane's pitch elevation angle may vary for a given constant airspeed and initial constant flight path.

 

Proof wanted? From in game, here it is:

 

AoA indication as average between wing and pitch control.trk

 

When the plane is flying slowly enough and it's heavy enough (so it has a relatively high pitching moment inertia), if you jerk the stick quickly fore and aft you'll notice that the AoA indication is actually not a wing AoA indication, but rather an average between elevator AoA and wing AoA, otherwise what's the explanation for the high AoA variation which happens instantaneously with elevator deflections? For instance, when the plane is at a constant AoA indication, if the elevators are rapidly deflected trailing edge down, the AoA indication rapidly starts increasing (a couple of degrees) during the elevator transition from the initial position to full deflection. So, although the plane starts pitching down as the elevator travels, the AoA first increases during the elevator movement, before it starts decreasing and following the whole aircraft. Normally/conventionally in aviation, the aircraft's AoA reference is between the undisturbed air and the wing's MAC.

 

Of course, this problem is not a big deal now in DCS, as we have far better ones to deal with including all kind of ignorant around who'd rather do anything to deny the truth instead of trying to fix something, but this one also adds a bit to the whole thing.


Edited by Maverick Su-35S

When you can't prove something with words, let the maths do the talking.

I have an insatiable passion for helping simulated aircraft fly realistically!

Sincerely, your correct flight model simulation advisor!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, you have some interesting observations and theories about the various flight models in DCS and I suspect you might be right about some of them. You may even have some valuable knowledge that could help improve DCS.

But you have no credibility here for two reasons.

 

You don’t have actual proof, just ranting speculation, no matter how informed that may be.

 

And conspiracy theory shit like this:

 

...as we have far better ones to deal with including all kind of ignorant around who'd rather do anything to deny the truth instead of trying to fix something, but this one also adds a bit to the whole thing.

 

And

 

As long as the truth is out there for you and all other ignorant who blindly pretend that DCS is a realistic simulator and before asking someone who spots a problem to provide a link on something that you should've known about

 

And this is how you respond to people that “dare” asking questions with

 

...you only look like some random guy who knows very little about the subject and dares asking for a proof on normally well known things!

 

I’m not going to reply to any lunatic nonsense you have to say, though I doubt you’ll be able to help yourself. But seriously, cut that shit right out or go find another sim to harass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, you have some interesting observations and theories about the various flight models in DCS and I suspect you might be right about some of them. You may even have some valuable knowledge that could help improve DCS.

But you have no credibility here for two reasons.

 

Lol! I didn't say it's a conspiracy. You said that! I've only said that I interpret the replies as coming from ignorant people or people with not enough knowledge (as it appears from their replies) when discussing various stuff.

 

I personally don't find very wrong what I've said in what you quoted. Yes I may sound like talking from somewhere upstairs (yet I'm not), but I've gotten sick of seeing replies from people who prove to have little knowledge, but dare to ask questions in which they only show how little they know/understood about the subject. Sort to say, they're wasting my time and theirs by forcing me to reply to a nonsense. I believe I have my reason to be angered a bit, yet maybe I'm just too harsh in the way I write back, yet I don't feel like being wrong with my statements.

 

Good day!

When you can't prove something with words, let the maths do the talking.

I have an insatiable passion for helping simulated aircraft fly realistically!

Sincerely, your correct flight model simulation advisor!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don’t have actual proof, just ranting speculation, no matter how informed that may be.

 

Ok, now coming back to the subject. What "proof" do we need more than actual tracks to see the wrong that goes here in there in the simulation?

 

Take this example only for now. The outside AoA indication. If you don't believe that track I've shared then do it yourself and test to see how the AoA rapidly varies only with elevator displacements. Be careful to not misinterpret what you see (it's easy to get into confusion), try to do it with a heavy enough plane (take the su-27 or 33 or F-18 ), jerk the stick back and forth and you'll notice that the AoA indication actually varies much quicker than the pitch attitude angle for example. My personal explanation would be that the AoA is somewhat affected by the elevator's deflection also (not completely, but rather an average between wing and elevator).

 

Waiting for your reply on the "proof".

 

Regards!


Edited by Maverick Su-35S

When you can't prove something with words, let the maths do the talking.

I have an insatiable passion for helping simulated aircraft fly realistically!

Sincerely, your correct flight model simulation advisor!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many threads you need to be closed to understand this is not the right way?

" You must think in russian.."

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Windows 7 Home Premium-Intel 2500K OC 4.6-SSD Samsung EVO 860- MSI GTX 1080 - 16G RAM - 1920x1080 27´

 

Hotas Rhino X-55-MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals -Track IR 4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

Of course, this problem is not a big deal now in DCS, as we have far better ones to deal with including all kind of ignorant around who'd rather do anything to deny the truth instead of trying to fix something, but this one also adds a bit to the whole thing.

 

ED will happily make changes if they need changing, what are you actually saying is out now? FM's or physics engine? DCS is basically a virtual wind tunnel and the aircraft parts are built up to form a whole FM, no faking. You can download your own physics engine, similar to what ED developed HERE. No graphics engine with that, ED also has built their own.

 

If any of these physics where out 0.01 many of the FM's would be way out at some point of all their performance charts and easily seen at some point. It's not hard to prove something, if it's that far out! as you make out things to be. Use Tacview with it's data against a chart on a standard day. I will even do the same test to double check for you. Then you can present the evidence to ED or to others here to test as well.

 

When the plane is flying slowly enough and it's heavy enough (so it has a relatively high pitching moment inertia), if you jerk the stick quickly fore and aft you'll notice that the AoA indication is actually not a wing AoA indication, but rather an average between elevator AoA and wing AoA, otherwise what's the explanation for the high AoA variation which happens instantaneously with elevator deflections? For instance, when the plane is at a constant AoA indication, if the elevators are rapidly deflected trailing edge down, the AoA indication rapidly starts increasing (a couple of degrees) during the elevator transition from the initial position to full deflection. So, although the plane starts pitching down as the elevator travels, the AoA first increases during the elevator movement, before it starts decreasing and following the whole aircraft. Normally/conventionally in aviation, the aircraft's AoA reference is between the undisturbed air and the wing's MAC.

 

Of course, this problem is not a big deal now in DCS, as we have far better ones to deal with including all kind of ignorant around who'd rather do anything to deny the truth instead of trying to fix something, but this one also adds a bit to the whole thing.

 

When doing these test you need to add a lot more ordnance to upset the aircraft even more.

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=190813&stc=1&d=1532694312

 

Video coming of this technical analysis...

 

.

Maverick1.thumb.jpg.91e432c8c45b3e08499af266dfe2c961.jpg


Edited by David OC

i7-7700K OC @ 5Ghz | ASUS IX Hero MB | ASUS GTX 1080 Ti STRIX | 32GB Corsair 3000Mhz | Corsair H100i V2 Radiator | Samsung 960 EVO M.2 NVMe 500G SSD | Samsung 850 EVO 500G SSD | Corsair HX850i Platinum 850W | Oculus Rift | ASUS PG278Q 27-inch, 2560 x 1440, G-SYNC, 144Hz, 1ms | VKB Gunfighter Pro

Chuck's DCS Tutorial Library

Download PDF Tutorial guides to help get up to speed with aircraft quickly and also great for taking a good look at the aircraft available for DCS before purchasing. Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deleted reply , as it is inappropriate with OP suspended .


Edited by Svsmokey
my reply inappropriate as op suspended .

9700k @ stock , Aorus Pro Z390 wifi , 32gb 3200 mhz CL16 , 1tb EVO 970 , MSI RX 6800XT Gaming X TRIO , Seasonic Prime 850w Gold , Coolermaster H500m , Noctua NH-D15S , CH Pro throttle and T50CM2/WarBrD base on Foxxmounts , CH pedals , Reverb G2v2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...