Future of DCS Video & Hawker Typhoon - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-03-2020, 08:32 AM   #1
Krupi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,723
Default Future of DCS Video & Hawker Typhoon

Hi ED, NineLine, Simon,

In the "Future of DCS Video" with Simon around the 24:30 mark specific mention is made to the fact that there are no currently no flying Typhoons and therefore it would make it difficult to create, so they opted for the Mossie as data is more readily available... I completely understand that is going to make life harder.

However that answer irritated me on two counts...

One, two very different aircraft, I personally don't see the Mossie as an aircraft that covers the same role as the Typhoon.

Two, there are no flying Fw190 Dora's currently flying and yet we have the D9.

So what gives... Is there more to this story, is there well documented information regarding the D9 that simply isn't available for the Typhoon? I find this hard to believe response, but then that was the case with the P-47 and yet they worked around that.

I would really like to hear more on this issue..

Will we never get a Typhoon in DCS?

Was the P-47 and the D9 completed just because they were in the kickstarter regardless of the hard work required to obtain the information to create them?

I just want to understand the reasoning.

Regards,
Krupi
__________________
Windows 10 Pro | ASUS RANGER VIII | i5 6600K @ 4.6GHz| MSI RTX 2060 SUPER | 16GB Ram | Corsair H100i | Corsair Carbide 540 | Oculus Rift CV1 | MFG crosswind Pedals

Project IX Cockpit

Last edited by Krupi; 08-03-2020 at 10:12 AM.
Krupi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2020, 10:27 AM   #2
DD_Fenrir
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,052
Default

I believe it's a bit of everything you alluded to Krupi. However there is nuance.

At a minimum, it appears that to get a flyable DCS warbird you need the following:

1. Wind Tunnel Test Data/Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) modelling
2. Performance charts
3. Pilot reports on aircraft handling characteristics (either from current Warbird pilots or surviving veterans with particularly clear memories)

The P-47 has 2. and 3. is definitely available (The Fighter Collection, owned by Nick Grey CEO of ED, had a P-47D for many years, now in the hands of Fighter Aviation Engineering LTD) and the lack of Wind tunnel test data meant that 1. was eventually accomplished with CFD.

Regards the Fw 190D-9, 2. is definitely available: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...190d9test.html

3. is more troublesome, as you say, however, they did have Erich Brunotte, a man of remarkable cognizance and recall for his advancing years, brief ED thoroughly through a series of interviews on the various characteristics of both the 109 and 190.

1. I have no idea if or what Wind Tunnel data ED had access to, but it maybe the differences in performance data for different power outputs and some known aerodynamic performance data regards the NACA profiles for the wings could have been used to extrapolate a drag profile for the a/c.

The Typhoon is a different animal by all accounts.

2. is available: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...phoontest.html

1. is however troublesome. Hawker Siddley documentation on these aircraft seems patchy at best.

Let's take the Tempest mk.V, a more modern a/c than the Typhoon and it could be argued that (particularly with the Fury line which evolved from it which, with many around on the Warbird circuit, you'd think are quite well documented) there should be some good documentation to support the restoration of one of these.

However, this is not the case; Kermit Weeks and his team allude to the troubles in getting solid data on even the Tempest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x96Dl9n6DNE.

Given the trouble with an airframe which shares some commonality with known flyables, you can see the issues trying to get the same information for an airframe deemed obsolete as soon as WW2 ended. It maybe that Hawker Siddley shredded (or the 1950's equivalent) all/most of the Typhoon data becuase it was no longer relevant, so why spend the effort and money storing paper you'd not likely reference again?

This then leads to point 3.

No current Warbird pilot as any experience flying a Typhoon, simply because there are none. This means you are reliant on the memories and recall of an already small sub-set of veterans whose number is inevitably dwindling and hoping that some of them have the same outstanding powers of recollection of Erich Brunotte. The percentage chance of that is, unfortunately, tiny.

I'd love a Tiffie, because if it could be done I believe DCS would do it magnificently. However...
DD_Fenrir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2020, 10:33 AM   #3
Magic Zach
Senior Member
 
Magic Zach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Alaska
Posts: 1,743
Default

+1
I get that some warbirds may be more challenging that others, but I do recall somewhere that WWII aircraft were some of the most profitable modules ED sells (so please by all means make more for us, hehehe), so I'd imagine there could be some leeway to push through some muck to get to a certain aircraft (like a Typhoon). If aircraft are going to be chosen most largely by what's the easiest and most available, it's a bit underwhelming, as it throws the idea of a complete and cohesive planeset of an era under the rug.
I love DCS aircraft, and I love the finished state quality, but having a good planeset and plane-to-map/theater cohesion is something I also value in a historical aircraft sim as well.

OP, what video are you referring to?



Sent from my SM-A715F using Tapatalk
__________________
Hardware: T-16000M Pack, Saitek 3 Throttle Quadrant, Homemade 32-function Leo Bodnar Button Box, MFG Crosswind Pedals Oculus Rift S
System Specs: MSI MPG X570 GAMING PLUS, GTX 1070 SC2, AMD RX3700, 32GB DDR4-3200, Samsung 860 EVO, Samsung 970 EVO 250GB
Modules: Ka-50, Mi-8MTV2, FC3, F/A-18C, F-14B, F-5E, P-51D, Spitfire Mk LF Mk. IXc, Bf-109K-4, Fw-190A-8
Maps: Normandy, Nevada

Magic Zach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2020, 11:53 AM   #4
Krupi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,723
Default

It is the Grim Reapers interview, still watching it myself.

https://youtu.be/zRKL0yZHvwg
__________________
Windows 10 Pro | ASUS RANGER VIII | i5 6600K @ 4.6GHz| MSI RTX 2060 SUPER | 16GB Ram | Corsair H100i | Corsair Carbide 540 | Oculus Rift CV1 | MFG crosswind Pedals

Project IX Cockpit
Krupi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2020, 12:14 PM   #5
DD_Fenrir
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,052
Default

This could be of use:

https://www.aerosociety.com/news/aud...cas-interview/
DD_Fenrir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2020, 12:17 PM   #6
Krupi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,723
Default

I agree with your three points Fenrir.

1. We know that if they have the appetite ED can reproduce flight test with CFD if required. I hope it is not as fiscal cost of doing it for an aircraft that is niche might mean they won't consider it.

2. From what I have seen there are charts available, whether it is all the charts required I would like to know.

3. Whilst understandable useful I do wonder exactly how important information from pilots are.

Obviously these aircraft simply aren't flown like they were in wartime does that mean that nuisance at certain speeds etc will never be experienced by current warbird pilots? Might be doing them a massive injustice there (jealousy obviously).

As you have alluded to already we have dwindling number of veterans that we can discuss flight characteristics with, although naively perhaps, I would assume some of this can be taken from reports and autobiographies?
__________________
Windows 10 Pro | ASUS RANGER VIII | i5 6600K @ 4.6GHz| MSI RTX 2060 SUPER | 16GB Ram | Corsair H100i | Corsair Carbide 540 | Oculus Rift CV1 | MFG crosswind Pedals

Project IX Cockpit
Krupi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2020, 12:19 PM   #7
Krupi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,723
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DD_Fenrir View Post

Awesome, I will have to give that a listen.

Thank you
__________________
Windows 10 Pro | ASUS RANGER VIII | i5 6600K @ 4.6GHz| MSI RTX 2060 SUPER | 16GB Ram | Corsair H100i | Corsair Carbide 540 | Oculus Rift CV1 | MFG crosswind Pedals

Project IX Cockpit
Krupi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2020, 01:31 PM   #8
DD_Fenrir
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,052
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krupi View Post
I agree with your three points Fenrir.

1. We know that if they have the appetite ED can reproduce flight test with CFD if required. I hope it is not as fiscal cost of doing it for an aircraft that is niche might mean they won't consider it.
You and me both Krupi.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krupi View Post
2. From what I have seen there are charts available, whether it is all the charts required I would like to know.
Indeed. Only ED knows the answer to that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krupi View Post
3. Whilst understandable useful I do wonder exactly how important information from pilots are.

Obviously these aircraft simply aren't flown like they were in wartime does that mean that nuisance at certain speeds etc will never be experienced by current warbird pilots? Might be doing them a massive injustice there (jealousy obviously).

As you have alluded to already we have dwindling number of veterans that we can discuss flight characteristics with, although naively perhaps, I would assume some of this can be taken from reports and autobiographies?
Here's my humble opinion, and is not based on any practical experience but more of a general feel for aerodynamics after 40 years of aviating, flight sims and flying model aeroplanes:

I imagine CFD is useful for determining some broader aspects of the flight model, particularly at increasing angles of alpha or beta, to see how draggy an airframe becomes in various states of flight and if any airflow blanking occurs across other surfaces and how that might affect stability.

Where the anecdotal Pilot reports come in is to provide detail and nuance as to how these broader affects manifest in control feedback, for example aileron snatching, or lack of authority on one particular control axis, etc. A lot of these will be fundamental to giving the FM the flavour of the aeroplane, making it unique against it's contemporaries, and will not necessarily be discovered through Wind Tunnel or CFD testing.

Indeed, think how many real aircraft went through the WT testing and into prototype or even operational production only to discover some unforeseen undesirable or even dangerous flying characteristic or aerodynamic phenomenon that required a significant alteration to the airframe to mitigate it's effect.

As such I believe CFD will give you some solid numbers to work with to make sure the airframe bleeds speed appropriately with alpha or beta and maybe some pointers to some interesting airflow dynamics over tail surfaces but it won't tell you what the pilot experienced in the cockpit and how indivdual surfaces reacted in those instances.
DD_Fenrir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2020, 04:05 PM   #9
Krupi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,723
Default

I concur entirely agree, I am an aerospace engineer and have seen this happen with my own eyes

However one would have thought these nuanced behaviours would be exactly what is reported to teach the pilots how to fly particular aircraft.

Maybe not all of them, perhaps most were just learnt 'on the job'
__________________
Windows 10 Pro | ASUS RANGER VIII | i5 6600K @ 4.6GHz| MSI RTX 2060 SUPER | 16GB Ram | Corsair H100i | Corsair Carbide 540 | Oculus Rift CV1 | MFG crosswind Pedals

Project IX Cockpit
Krupi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2020, 05:51 PM   #10
Buzzles
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Northern Europe
Posts: 2,752
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krupi View Post
Two, there are no flying Fw190 Dora's currently flying and yet we have the D9.

So what gives... Is there more to this story, is there well documented information regarding the D9 that simply isn't available for the Typhoon? I find this hard to believe response, but then that was the case with the P-47 and yet they worked around that.
Just on this, ED have said in the past (and it's backupable by searching), there's a veritable treasure trove of data on the German war birds knocking around, mostly down to the fact they were captured and documented extensively during and post WWII, and that info was kept.

Allies' own planes...not so much. A good chunk of P47 data was destroyed in the 1987 when the Republic's corporate archives were destroyed, that's documented, handily there's enough of it left around + flying examples that ED could work around it with CFD.

The Mossie is a great example of docs not being kept properly for Allied planes:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/06/discovery-lost-ww2-mosquito-plans-will-allow-wooden-wonder-fly/
That collection may be the only complete set.

Last edited by Buzzles; 08-03-2020 at 05:55 PM.
Buzzles is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:51 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.