Formation flying and Aerodynamic efficiency
-
and actually to answer the original question
YES i could improve the AIR modeling of BMS by making the airspeed (which i did already for jetwash) and pressure different behind a AC…which will make immediatly the AC behind react accordingly…but jeeeeeez , i dont want to do that
-
-
X-Plane has no tabular (already stated in the thread). And I’ve heard of reports that it only works fast enough for prop aircraft, travelling at rather subsonic speeds… That they fall back to tabular once aircraft gets too fast, since they can’t integrate with delta small enough for the results to make sense anymore.
Note: I have tons of respect for Laminar devs, especially Ben Supnik, who’s a very helpful and nice fellow, so this isn’t my way of dissing their research either.
Another question - is landing gear so resistant because you integrate with dt too high? Or is there another reason?
-
you guys believe Navier Stokes calculation IS the answer .
I know that is not the answer, because I also learned some fluid mechanics.
I tried to explain some Hungarian poeple if the physical code is good and your data is good concerning on thrust, weight, sizes and aero coefficients, even commercial flight sims are not so bad concerning the simulated Ps, but they did not believe me…
(I just do not know where came the date which are outside the normal operational range of an AC. I think here about the extreme big transiend AoA and stall cases.)
-
Isn’t data from TP-1538 up to alpha 90 deg enough?
-
well you are actually wrong…
in BMS, wake turbulence is done via AC - AIr - AC …
how ?
i have created a AIR rotation behind each AC and the physical model is reacting to the roation of the air around it … how ? well easy , the fact that the AIR is rotating makes it variable in force and direction, which is taken into account into the model as a varation of local parameters (like AOA , speeds , sideslip angle etc etc…)
so YES there is AIR in BMS, if you read the BMS flight models articles you will see that the improvment of AIR modelisation has taken several monts/years
without AIR, turbulence modeling would have been impossible…
i think you need to go flying back on FF or AF just to remind you what it was…then you will realize in BMS you fly IN AIR compared to the others
Teeeeeechnically I’m not wrong because I started my sentence with “what is meant by…” so really I was just clarifying a statement made by someone else. I never actually said any of my clarification truthfully applied to BMS.
I still think you misunderstand my point though. What happens if you instantaneously delete the aircraft creating the wake. Does the trailing aircraft feel the wake still or does it disappear with the source? To put it another way can the localized quality or air (wake, de-oxygenation, etc.) exist standalone separate from its source?
I’m not talking about the quality of the simulation. It’s entirely possible to have self-interaction through the medium well modeled without ever modeling air as a medium for the exchange. If one knows that this mach, AoA, beta, etc produces this effect then the inter alia medium of air can be assumed and bypassed. The results are very difficult if not impossible to distinguish in practice.
-
For final clarification:
Wake is not modeled in BMS , only JetWash is modeled
Wake implies that the turbulence vortex are living a long time after their generation and are impacted by wind
like this for instance:
-
Is ground effect modelled?
-
yes, heat and mechanical
-
Is ground effect modelled?
yes ground effect is modeled
Convective turbulences and mechanical turbulences as well.