* *

Translations for our friends around the world.

Click on banner for Tornado website

Click.gif Save

Author Topic: How realistic is Tornado's aerodynamics? Very.  (Read 1174 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Frankie

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • From Dogs of War to Pipes Of Peace
    • Frankie's Moodurian
How realistic is Tornado's aerodynamics? Very.
« on: June 20, 2016, 09:13:54 AM »
The purpose of this short video is to show how realistic the aerodynamics are in Tornado. If you get too close to your wingman while formation flying you can actually get into the other aircraft's wake turbulence! Speedwagon

Video by Speedwagon

Yes, you can see the cockpit shudder from 00:08 to 00:10. I have never seen that before in Tornado. Amazing!? Mostly because I can never seem to hold formation or fly close enough to the other mission mates. What other aerodynamic and fluid dynamics phenomena lie hidden in this sim? Frankie
« Last Edit: June 20, 2016, 11:55:37 AM by Frankie »

After the Dogs of War are let slip, let us smoke the Pipes Of Peace.

Offline Speedwagon

  • Tornado
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: How realistic is Tornado's aerodynamics? Very.
« Reply #1 on: June 21, 2016, 03:30:07 AM »
Thanks for posting the video, Frankie. And my apologies to all for the rookie formatting and sound. Wish I could say what you hear is breathing picked up by the oxygen mask mic but alas, it's just the screech of OBS training wheels on my Mac. With patient coaching from Frankie future videos will be better.

Attention to details like this are one reason this sim remains fascinating after so many years. Imagine what Messrs. Marshall, Bezant, Mascall, Hosier, Heydon and Smith would have done if they'd had access to today's technology!
« Last Edit: June 21, 2016, 03:36:00 AM by Speedwagon »

Offline Frankie

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • From Dogs of War to Pipes Of Peace
    • Frankie's Moodurian
Re: How realistic is Tornado's aerodynamics? Very.
« Reply #2 on: June 21, 2016, 04:52:04 AM »
Attention to details like this are one reason this sim remains fascinating after so many years. Imagine what Messrs. Marshall, Bezant, Mascall, Hosier, Heydon and Smith would have done if they'd had access to today's technology!
Staggers the imagination. George Smiley would agree too! ;-)

After the Dogs of War are let slip, let us smoke the Pipes Of Peace.

Offline Speedwagon

  • Tornado
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: How realistic is Tornado's aerodynamics? Very.
« Reply #3 on: June 25, 2016, 02:48:25 AM »
CORRECTION: While the title of this thread was accurate, my interpretation of the video was not. In real flight an aircraft following another that closely would definitely experience wake turbulence. Thanks to the eagle-eye of another forum member I have since learned that in Tornado the rumble effect seen in the video only occurs while flying the simulator with Aircraft Collisions set to "Bounce".

So while the rumble effect isn't part of the aero-d model it does look realistic and allows you to fly closer to wingmen in the simulator than you can when "Crash" is selected. I learn something every day!

And yes Frankie, Beggarman would agree!
« Last Edit: June 25, 2016, 02:50:20 AM by Speedwagon »

Offline Tom N

  • Tornado
  • *
  • Posts: 46
  • New member
Re: How realistic is Tornado's aerodynamics? Very.
« Reply #4 on: May 24, 2017, 04:55:10 AM »
Hi guys,
I did again some fuel burning / engine testing in that simulator just to get some nice data about maximum possible flying time and how to prolong it. So here comes y sheet (I guess this is part of aerodynamics as well).

Offline Frankie

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • From Dogs of War to Pipes Of Peace
    • Frankie's Moodurian
Re: How realistic is Tornado's aerodynamics? Very.
« Reply #5 on: May 24, 2017, 05:07:16 PM »
Nice work Tom. I understand half of it. The other half I ... willl have trust you that you know what it is, and that it provides more evidence that Digital Integration designed Tornado with accurate physics and flight data. Any chance you can summarize the highlights of the spreadsheet data, or even interpret it, with layman language, to the more mathematically-challenged chumps like me?

After the Dogs of War are let slip, let us smoke the Pipes Of Peace.

Offline Tom N

  • Tornado
  • *
  • Posts: 46
  • New member
Re: How realistic is Tornado's aerodynamics? Very.
« Reply #6 on: May 24, 2017, 11:06:32 PM »
Cool, I am flattered, I'll explain, it could be important enough,

because fuel usage is important for airplane travelling distance and travelling time.
In some very old entry (was it in the Tornado wishlist ? ) I remarked the fast sucking property of afterburners, they really suck   ;D  (full use of afterburners on ground level gives some rough 5 minutes of fun before emptiness), however, using only 100 % throttle without the afterburners gives about 45 minutes for one mission (plenty of time for many targets and a relaxed return)

---------------------------------------------

BUT now 2 new parts in that sheet:
1st - the dependency between engine throttle setting and fuel usage on ground ( i was lazy there and made only 3 correlations, as for 80 %, 90 % and 100 %, but the resulting graph should nicely enough show a parable similar as it is with cars with higher speeds and their fuel using correlation, really here :

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/241091063_fig2_Fig-2-Specific-fuel-consumption-graph-for-representative-diesel-generator-versus-engine   )

2nd - the influence of height (and therefore influence of surrounding air pressure) on fuel usage is
somewhat trickier, because you need to get to a constant starting position for all influencing factors (luckily it's for this reason only height and weight --> including the fuel) so i needed only once take the time for burning the fuel on ground for that in the first part, the next "stops" in midair were at 20 000 feet and at 35 000 feet with about 8000 LBs (british pounds, from latin libra lb - circa o.45 kg) of fuel left, then counting the time for burning up 500 LBs of fuel in the air.

When i let excel/ open office calculator do the math for me, I was surprised and yet not, BECAUSE why do airlines get up high to travel-height  ;) ?

Precisely --> for saving fuel and having better aerodynamic conditions !
short dull explanation: Combustion needs a combustible, organic matter AND OXYGEN
the oxygen partial pressure in the air lowers as the air pressure lowers so a complete combustion needs with less available oxygen logically less organic matter.

So from this point of view the airplanes would go slower and slower the higher they would get, but since the air matter in great height does not hinder the airplane as much as on the ground, it can provide nearly the same possible speed (or even a little bit more) like on ground level..

Though there is a limit there and quite somewhere near 35 000 feet without using afterburners and a Tornado, then the leftover surrounding air matter is not sufficient to carry the flying vehicle and a stall will take place
(there was some real crash accident for some passenger airline with bad sight in the past and the pilots didn't notice the stall and wondered about their instruments showing a steady drop of height but the nose above the artificial horizon and they wondered and set the throttle to full thrust and dropped and wondered and crashed without the necessary stall recovery maneuver)

-----------

Some additional results in the sheet: flying time and travel distance for 90 % and 100 % on ground level are similar enough so that I keep my old statement "just set the throttle to 100% and sweep the wings accordingly without using some automatic throttle system", but there is now a nice new insight about travelling higher and even farther than 450 nm (already on ground level) and those 48.6 minutes of flying time. Thise time prolongs in 35 000 feet to about 157 minutes if you would have started there with those 10720 LBs of full fuel, so the gain would be somewhere near of 2 hours still, I guess.

And I am still NOT even considering those bulky, unnecessary drop tanks !!!!!!!
Which now should have become FINALLY AND FOREVER obsolete on this tiny 90 x 90 nautical mile war garden .
And there is even further the minimum airplane weight without any additional Battlefield Loadout (i used about 15000 weapon-LBs for those values)
« Last Edit: May 26, 2017, 11:11:15 AM by Tom N »

Offline Tom N

  • Tornado
  • *
  • Posts: 46
  • New member
Re: How realistic is Tornado's aerodynamics? Very.
« Reply #7 on: June 12, 2017, 09:37:03 AM »
Oh, hmm, I made a serious mistake there to claim that weight would influence the fuel usage in greater heights:

so here a correction about that: the weight added to the tornado in the table is for looking at the maximum possible speeds (the weight influences only the drag, thus the speed of the airplane, thus the effective range)
And additionally the weight determines the maximum height possible and the possible vertical speed.
(because of drag influence again)

Now it should sound better, or at least improved, sorry for that error of thought.

And another interesting thing about the enemy patroling aircraft: It won't be able to effectivel intercept above a height of approximately 48'000 feet (better get above 50'000 feet, afterburners needed, so only recommended when heading back to base ).
That results in very unstable maneuvers of that follower, worst aiming of infrared-guided- rockets and overall clumsy really clumsy enemy attempts (first interceptor giving up quickly, switching through enemy interceptors nearby that would get a lock)
« Last Edit: June 13, 2017, 04:52:09 AM by Tom N »

Offline Frankie

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • From Dogs of War to Pipes Of Peace
    • Frankie's Moodurian
Re: How realistic is Tornado's aerodynamics? Very.
« Reply #8 on: June 12, 2017, 11:01:43 AM »
Yes, that sound so better. Thanks for the correction.

After the Dogs of War are let slip, let us smoke the Pipes Of Peace.