Realism I can do without

[gimpyguy]

Bottom line - If i can turn a plane - any plane - at 3000 ft into a circle without losing height, then I ought to be able to do it at 100ft-
unless there is an aerodynamic/ physics consideration that causes this because of the height at which it is performed.

Well I say: Lack of avialable engine power

77Scout says: It's a Illusion

You say it's a possible aerodynamic/ physics consideration

Easily prooved or disprooved, do your circle at 3000 feet, with any plane, you do believe in altimeters, don't you?

Or do you know better

 

[Fortiesboy]

Well I say: Lack of avialable engine power

77Scout says: It's a Illusion

You say it's a possible aerodynamic/ physics consideration

Easily prooved or disprooved, do your circle at 3000 feet, with any plane, you do believe in altimeters, don't you?

Or do you know better

Gimpy - You always have to have a little dig or so, don't you? -
Perhaps you are reading too quickly, because you seem not to grasp what i have written.
I repeat - In Real Life - If I can turn a plane at a constant height (77 - it can be done without losing 100 ft or so whilst doing it ) at an altitude of 1000ft, then I should be able to do it at a much lower altitude, say 100 ft. - all other parameters being equal
If it cannot be done, i.e you start to slip or whatever, then " it's a possible aerodynamic/ physics consideration"
What else could it be?

If it CAN be done in real life,then - what I am saying is that in OFF2 it seems it cannot be done- so that's down to the sim.

OK ?- you do believe in logic, don't you?

 

[Olham54]

What I experienced two or three times with Albatros D Va and D III, was this: curving with a Camel close to the ground ( 100 - 150 feet), the plane suddenly went into a stall-like slip sideways, like attracted by a magnet, whilst I could not correct anything with the stick. And in two cases, at least, my plane was not hit before. With Pfalz D IIIa (in Quick Flight-never campaigned with it yet) that never happened.
I don't know, if it can be compared, but I think to remember, that American ace Tommy McGuire came to death, when he curved very low at rather low speed with his Lightning, against a Japanese plane?

So, were are the real life pilots - help is needed here.

 

[Catfish]

Hello,
if you're not going diagonally (rolling), but straight i would think the real ground effect would give you some kind of air cushion close to the ground, so your plane could have even less speed until stalling ?
Greetings,
Catfish

 

[sp1t2]

Another possible reason for the difference in performance is to do with the computer itself and the program. The graphics in OFF at 100ft are usually so great that it would effect the frame rates. This gives you less time to correct a fault before you bury yourself. At 1000ft the frame rates would be higher and make your flying easier and more responsive. Other sims, including original CFS3, (ETO & MAW excepted) don't have the same quality of graphics and are therefore nowhere near as hungry for video memory.

But then, doesn't this mirror reality. A fraction of a second lapse in concentration at 100ft will have far greater consequences than the same lapse at 1000ft. On a long flight, late at night, I've nodded of for a few seconds. Found myself flying at odd angles but still flying. Wouldn't be the same at low altitude.

All this reminds me. Where are all the old barnstormers we used to have? No more flying under bridges or the Eifel Tower. Even remember flying under that little bridge west of the Battersey Power Station.

Bring back the barnstormers.

 

[Catfish]

Hello,

does anyone know, apart from the later german high-altitude engines, if and how mixture was adjusted e.g. in the Albatros Benz and Daimler inline engines ? I mean there is a pressured tank, and a carburettor - was there really a "device" to adjust the mixture to various altitudes manually ? Or was there an automatic device ?

And how would fuel mixture be adjusted to high altitudes in rotary engines ??

Thanks and greetings,
Catfish
:bananapowerslide:
sorry for the icon, it was so idiotic i HAD to use it lol

 

[gimpyguy]

Well I say: Lack of avialable engine power
77Scout says: It's a Illusion
You say it's a possible aerodynamic/ physics consideration
Easily prooved or disprooved, do your circle at 3000 feet, with any plane, you do believe in altimeters, don't you?Or do you know better

With or without my inuendo's. In real life you must certainly use an altimeter. According to the Laws of Physics there can be no difference, yet a difference does indeed exist. It can't be magic

Screwy as this may sound ( searching for a variable ) is there any way to judge the time of day. As morning dew, makes for denser air, which must have an effect on mixture, which could effect engine RPM in a engine that old

I fully realize that's grasping at straws, but I'm open for suggestions

 

[gimpyguy]

All this reminds me. Where are all the old barnstormers we used to have? No more flying under bridges or the Eifel Tower. Even remember flying under that little bridge west of the Battersey Power Station.
Bring back the barnstormers.

Oh they're still around, of that I'm sure. But as OFF became tamer, they also became tamer. In Phase 1, you could take an SE5 to 15,000, then full power dive, hit 265mph (F5) gauge, yank the stick back @ 700 feet, and live to tell of it.

They actualy were taught it in the Royal Australian Flying Corps, had the link, but it no-longer works

But in Phase 2 it can't be done, your elevators stop responding @ 215 mph, next stop Dirt Nap. Polovski assures me it Will work in Phase 3.

I'm looking forward to it, as NOW I have Trackir. I'm sure it'll cure my sinus condition

 

[gimpyguy]

Hello,
And how would fuel mixture be adjusted to high altitudes in rotary engines ??

That is an interesting question, I don't think we'll ever get the complete answer. As I see it, if the charge is in the crankcase, any mixture change wouldn't occur instantly, but in gradual steps, which can't be hurried

I would compare it, to a SCUBA Diver assending from the depths

And I agree, some of those smilees are ridiculous :bananalama:

 

[ZoomZoom]

When you are banking hard near the ground, for whatever reason, with the wings at around a 45 degree angle or more, what causes you to crash is simply side-slipping into a stall. The wings don't generate as much lift in that configuration, and, depending on the power and weight of the craft, you will stall in. Its just a matter of how long will it take depending on the motor and weight factors. However, If you are constantly descending in this bank....ie a death spiral from altitude, you will not stall as quickly because you are adding airspeed back into the equation. Its ususually a level turn right above the ground where this happens because you no longer have altitude to convert to airspeed.

ZZ.

 

[77Scout]

In Real Life - If I can turn a plane at a constant height (77 - it can be done without losing 100 ft or so whilst doing it ) at an altitude of 1000ft, then I should be able to do it at a much lower altitude, say 100 ft. - all other parameters being equal

Makes sense. So to test if the 'ground suck' is real in OFF or just some kind of sensory illusion we should test as Gimpy suggests using the altimeter to monitor elevation. An OFF pilot would try a turn at 1000 feet and see if he can maintain elevation. He then repeats the same turn at ground level and sees if he can similarly maintain elevation or if the ground sucks the plane down.

I can't run this experiment as my computer hasn't got OFF installed; awaiting Phase 3. Maybe someone else cares to try it?

p.s. I remember people reporting the infamous 'ground suck' in RB3D too. That was a totally different sim yet the same effect was reported...makes me even more suspicious that it is just an illusion of flight rather than something real in the flight model program.