Dogs Of War Vu

Network of Friends => Tornado => Topic started by: Frankie on June 20, 2016, 09:13:54 AM

Title: How realistic is Tornado's aerodynamics? Very.
Post by: Frankie 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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpUrUkp2lzY
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
Title: Re: How realistic is Tornado's aerodynamics? Very.
Post by: Speedwagon 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!
Title: Re: How realistic is Tornado's aerodynamics? Very.
Post by: Frankie 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! ;-)
Title: Re: How realistic is Tornado's aerodynamics? Very.
Post by: Speedwagon 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!
Title: Re: How realistic is Tornado's aerodynamics? Very.
Post by: Tom N 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).
Title: Re: How realistic is Tornado's aerodynamics? Very.
Post by: Frankie 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?
Title: Re: How realistic is Tornado's aerodynamics? Very.
Post by: Tom N 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)
Title: Re: How realistic is Tornado's aerodynamics? Very.
Post by: Tom N 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)
Title: Re: How realistic is Tornado's aerodynamics? Very.
Post by: Frankie on June 12, 2017, 11:01:43 AM
Yes, that sound so better. Thanks for the correction.
Title: Re: How realistic is Tornado's aerodynamics? Very.
Post by: Tom N on August 07, 2018, 09:53:13 PM
Hi guys,
I had another insane idea about fuel consumption and burning it all while starting from the runway, then returning while smoking the last oil drop and let decide by mood to land on a runway or a road (watching the video from the Guybrush guy, now Thriftweeds, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwZUJLXPvBs , he uses up nearly all of his fuel by letting his afterburners loose, close call guy!)

so this is the result:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOG5qTNZkNU

I'd even vote this as a pilots' contest for airplane/(spaceshuttle reentry) handling in simulator ^^
It's fun and no virtual enemies were harmed.
This time.
Title: Re: How realistic is Tornado's aerodynamics? Very.
Post by: Tom N on August 07, 2018, 10:15:37 PM
And my former entry "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 : "

I need to give a graph more graphical than the forum thread link ... here is a nice picture showing RPM and bhp/hr of a car:
https://www.mgexp.com/article/fuel-power.html

(the higher the total number RPM -towards the upper limit- the hungrier the engine PER each rpm)

Though still don't miss the latest video in the post below or above (depends on the personal display settings), it's been created with OBS+HandBrake ;-), no sound issues anymore
Title: Re: How realistic is Tornado's aerodynamics? Very.
Post by: Tom N on August 09, 2018, 11:09:36 AM
Another part about aerodynamics (gliding) is up to have a look at, flight companies might need to fuel airplanes only for half the traveling distance in future (Just kidding, am I?)! ;-P

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OshFABKMypg
Title: Re: How realistic is Tornado's aerodynamics? Very.
Post by: Frankie on August 09, 2018, 01:29:19 PM
That's quite an expensive glider you've got there.

Next time, perhaps you might want to give this a try:
(http://www.moodurian.com/tornado/images/glider.png)

https://twitter.com/i/status/1027035882581368834

Title: Re: How realistic is Tornado's aerodynamics? Very.
Post by: Tom N on August 10, 2018, 07:24:49 PM
And i tested the no-fuel-situation with an enemy SAM-site, the infra red seeking missiles are still homing into the cold airplane. What a nuisance! It would have been fun being able to avoid all heat seeking missiles that way (gliding).
Title: Re: How realistic is Tornado's aerodynamics? Very.
Post by: Frankie on August 10, 2018, 08:41:01 PM
Hi Tom

I've added this code to WEAPONS.ASM:

(http://www.moodurian.com/tornado/images/NoLockIfOutOfFuel2.png)

If out of fuel (indicated by zero fuel weight), then the logic will jump to the "No Lock" label.

Please let me know if the IR SAMs lock up or don't lock up on your Tornado when it is out of fuel. They shouldn't. And if they don't then this is Mod#89. One step closer to a 100 mods for Tornado.

Regards
Frankie Kam
Title: Re: How realistic is Tornado's aerodynamics? Very.
Post by: Tom N on August 10, 2018, 09:22:10 PM
Really you could change THAT??? Wow, I'm amazed and curiously checking now ^^
And recording :-)
Title: Re: How realistic is Tornado's aerodynamics? Very.
Post by: Tom N on August 10, 2018, 09:51:28 PM
So here is the link to the mudfight result with no fuel on board:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgeO5-ro9lo

and in the attached picture below is the damage report being shot by the active SAM having still 3000 LBS of fuel.
Sadly i did not record that, because i just wanted to look at the shooting SAM, though the hit and the damage done by this one missile IS remarkable, i avoided some (5?) missiles, but the one made up for the others  !!! ^^

Remark on the picture: You can see that there is still fuel left by looking at the analog fuel indicator on the lower right side, the other engine indicators/ gauges (power of left and right engine, fuel flow per minute and engine temperatures) ALL are at zero, because of wasted engines, only the fuel gauge is still at around 2500 - 3000 LBS.
Title: Re: How realistic is Tornado's aerodynamics? Very.
Post by: Tom N on August 10, 2018, 10:17:18 PM
Hmmm, i'm still unsure about the temperature output of the auxiliary power unit (APU) using/ burning hydrazine. Might that temperature difference be enough for IR-tracking?

EDIT: And would this modification work as well with the enemy CAP (combat air patrol)?
Title: Re: How realistic is Tornado's aerodynamics? Very.
Post by: Frankie on August 11, 2018, 01:41:18 AM
Hi Tom
So did the mod work?
Regards
Frankie
Title: Re: How realistic is Tornado's aerodynamics? Very.
Post by: Tom N on August 11, 2018, 06:53:41 AM
So far it's working fine and without flaws, I only checked the results for SAM, though. Did not check the effect of this new code on enemy AAA and CAP.
Title: Re: How realistic is Tornado's aerodynamics? Very.
Post by: Frankie on August 11, 2018, 07:35:33 AM
Actually in the original version 1.0 of Tornado, all it took was one hit by a SAM and you're dead. I modified the code so that each time your Tornado got hit, 10 random components got damaged. Not 10 unique components but 10 components. So the same component could have been set as damaged more than once during a SAM hit. Anyway the point is that now you could still survive but your Tornado would be a wreck with each SAMr hit.
Title: Re: How realistic is Tornado's aerodynamics? Very.
Post by: Tom N on August 11, 2018, 09:15:02 AM
So this (either being shot down by 1st missile or having around 10 system failures by 1 hit) i did not encounter before with the operation desert storm addon (around 3 missile hits possible to survive with 1-6 system failures per hit).

It might be interesting getting this extreme system disabling feature by single missile hits more often to cope with. I was somewhat positively surprised to see both my engines fail (in the front+rear cockpit pic) so the gliding training/demonstration videos were of some use to get down on a nearby road with timed speed management.

As mentioned above it NEVER (? or did it once but with engine fire as well,but that might have been after the 2nd hit then), yeah I'm pretty sure, the 1st hit was never or pretty close to never that deadly.
So this modification might be really fine with me!

Still Missing in Action = game over so far. ;-)
It would be cool to send a fuel request when waiting in enemy territory on a road.
Especially near the border. That might require a radio feature, though ;-) .
Title: Re: How realistic is Tornado's aerodynamics? Very.
Post by: Frankie on August 11, 2018, 09:21:35 AM
Fuel request? Aha. That's a nice idea for mod#90. If landed on a road or friendly runway which is not runway A, then if the gamer hits a key assigned as the Refuel Request key, the Tornado's fuel weight goes from zero to  N Kg.
Title: Re: How realistic is Tornado's aerodynamics? Very.
Post by: Tom N on August 11, 2018, 09:41:55 AM
Hmmm, whoever might need more fuel and still has weapons on board to unload in enemy territory might need quite the full amount ^^
But this might be more of a cheating mod if given too much, so 2000 LBS or 3000 LBS will be good for doing something small.
Yes, do not underestimate 2000 LBS of fuel, you can easily transfer a plane from 1 airfield to another in the allied zone, I claim hereby! (I still need to prove that).
Title: Re: How realistic is Tornado's aerodynamics? Very.
Post by: Frankie on August 15, 2018, 08:33:38 AM
Since we are on the topic of gliding, before Tornado there was Ernst Udet's unpowered landing at the Chicago International Air Race in 1933.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz4J8f6pkIk
See arounf the 0:25 mark. Plane heads downwards but the propellor has already stopped spinning.
Do not try this at home, kids.

Fuel saving to the max. Enjoy.