Compressibility modelling

[6S.Tamat]

Originally Posted by Holtzauge

... If I had to choose between better graphics and better flight models then it would have been the latter no contest. On the other hand from a commercial perspective I guess better graphics wins the day over hard core simmers fancies so I can understand the priorities taken from that perspective.

I agree with the fm choice, but the problem is that u need a better physic management in general and then a good environment management (seeing the contacts, the clouds, tree collision etc etc), then the graphic. About the commercial perspective, seeing the results they had until now i would not guess so much .
About the compressibility, despite the interest of the argument, the list of the important stuff to correct or implement is so long that now it is a "not a problem". to give u an example less used of the wrong simulation of the atmosphere, the "amazing" Cem if you check the engineswith the megnetos, does not change the rpm, and for me this is a bigger feeling killer (an trust killer, as they pushed alot on the new total sim engine management).

[robtek]

Originally Posted by 6S.Tamat

......., the "amazing" Cem if you check the engineswith the megnetos, does not change the rpm, and for me this is a bigger feeling killer (an trust killer, as they pushed alot on the new total sim engine management).

I am strongly disagreeing with you, last time i checked the magnetos on a Bf110 the engine lost waaay too much rpm's when switching one off, - 500 instead of - 35 rpm's!!!

[6S.Tamat]

Originally Posted by robtek

I am strongly disagreeing with you, last time i checked the magnetos on a Bf110 the engine lost waaay too much rpm's when switching one off, - 500 instead of - 35 rpm's!!!

well if they fixed in all the airplanes (i tried on the bf109 and wasn't working at all), also if really late (it is something that I could not understand how they didn't notice at the start) it is a good news in a drab landscape.

[Crumpp]

About the compressibility, despite the interest of the argument, the list of the important stuff to correct or implement is so long that now it is a "not a problem".

Right and the point I was making.

When it comes time though, the community will have to be very careful in its selection of theory.

The agreement between theory and flight is not always very good. Some are worse than others.

[Crumpp]

based on the Prandtl factor

Depending on what your doing with the Prandtl-Glauert correction, you can vary velocity for example as much as ~75 mph TAS over measured results or even more depending on the design specifics.

The basic correction agreement between calculated and wind tunnel data for a tailess DC-9 for example shows the Prandtl-Glauert correction to be some 66 mph TAS pessimestic over measured results.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

The basic correction agreement between calculated and wind tunnel data for a tailess DC-9 for example shows the Prandtl-Glauert correction to be some 66 mph TAS pessimestic over measured results.

Got a link?

[Crumpp]

http://www.desktop.aero/appliedaero/...ccompress.html