Advanced Flight Model for other aircrafts!
-
Hello friends. I am not any kind of engineer, and do not understand too much what you are talking about (CL, CD and Cm CFD FBW) but I would like to ask, if possible:
Please can you try to tweak a little the F22 FM?
Is there a way to make thrust vectoring in Falcon 432 ?
Thanks and I hope don’t have wrote bullshits.You worry about FM? Come on mate finish model first
-
LOL Cemil!!!
RAM22
-
Hi,
First of all i want to apologize for the almost “one year late” response from me, as i was suppose to quickly send some data for the MIG-23’s aerodynamic coefficients (CL and CD vs alpha from Mach=0 to Mach=2.5), but i honestly didn’t have enough time to finish and refine them at that moment, so i ran very busy with other things!
Now i have finally managed to finish and gather all the aero data for these coefficients, not for the MIG-23ML alone, but also for the MIG-21 and F-4!
I want to send 4 files for these planes, which are: 3 OFM (one for each aircraft) and 1AFM for the MIG-23 only, where i tried, as far as i could comprehend the new AFM’s data, to replicate a more realistic motion around the 3 main axis, with a corresponding static stability of the 23.
The only problem is that i can’t seem to be able to upload them…, for some reason i get an “invalid file” error when trying to upload a .dat file or any other file.
The reason why you will see some drops in the CL vs Alpha diagrams (at least one for high sweep angles), is to simulate the partial flow separations which occur depending on the wing’s shape, within some given ranges of the AoA. So as this is a realistic behaviour of not just an airfoil, but more to a 3D wing, i’ve also included these effects within the polars and lift slope vs alpha derivatives.
About the thrust data (at least for the MIL and AB power), i can say i didn’t have much occasion to find valuable information like diagrams and charts, specifically for each engine, at least for the MIG-23’s one, yet i tried to obtain this data as well for all altitudes and speeds and now i hope it is a bit closer to to real values, for all the 3 aircrafts here. Although there is a question about how where the F-16’s (AB alone) thrust data obtained, because as far as i know, or at least for what some data agrees, is that the the static thrust for the GE F110 (sea level, Mach=0) is around 28000lbf (for F-16’s block 30, 40, 50), while for the PW 220 is around 24000lbf or for the PW 229 is 29200lbf (which equip the blocks 15, 25, 32, 42, 52). Why are all the static thrust values (for the F-16 at least) at sea level much lower than those real ones?
I’ve also read the NASA’s TP 1538, which gave me some valuable information only in some certain areas regarding the F-16 only, while the rest of the information is a known fact for an aerodynamicist or aircraft engineer.
I know it will not be perfect, but at least i can share the data i could obtain and therefore see what’s next in order to have these birds given a better flight envelope behaviour, especially for the aero data.
With honest respect,
Maverick!P.S.: Tell me what has to be done so that i can upload these files! Thank you!
-
In the mean time…! After i’ve been testing the new AFM on the MIG-23ML (L comes from lightweight) to see whether or not does it’s flight envelope for manoeuverability (sustained and constant turn rates at given altitudes and weights) and accelerations replicate the real Flogger G’s characteristics, and after watching the ACMI, i was happy to see how close the now modified MIG-23ML, takes shape around the real one. I’ve also conducted some simulated dogfights using the AFM on the 23 against the newly modified MIG-21 and F-4E with their corresponding aero data, although i didn’t take any more time to try and play a little with the AFM on them also…, but from what i could see…, the outcome is very close to what is told within the 23ML’s manual! The MIG-23 has better acceleration and slightly better turn rates than the F-4 and also the MIG-21. It’s as good as it can get so far.
Here’s a useful site regarding various information about the MIG-23’s:
http://backfiretu-22m.tripod.com/id16.htmlWithin the simulator, we also have to modify the technical data, which for the moment corresponds to the less performant MIG-23M or MF (as also the 3d model of the plane, with that extended dorsal fin), and change it with the real ML’s specs, part of which can be found on the same above site.
Have a good day!
-
Great news!
About the files, you will probably need to upload the files to a host, i use rapidshare, or there might be someone on the forum with a ftp who can help.
Anyway, great job!Cheers
-
OK
Please send the files
As far as testing , unless you tested human vs human, dogfight means nothing as AI brain is unable to maintain speed properly
You need to draw EM charts to compare performances
As far as f16 thrust is concerned, they have been retroengineered based on accel and EM charts.
You can check, BMS f16 performance are matching the real perfectly.
I don’t trust at all anything we can find about f16 thrust because the real information is not public. Retro engineering from accel charts gives you real perfs
-
Beside i will add that
Between Mach 0 and Mach 0.2 thrust values of BMS are somehow interpolated as there is no accel curve from 0
And
Noeone knows what the conditions are when they announce thrust for an engine. Most of the time this is given at high speed where the thrust is the highest
Anyway accel curves and EM are the best way to match real perfos
-
Hello there Mav,
First of all i’m sorry for making you people wait so much for the data that i promised to share and worked on!
Thank you for the reply regarding the engines thrust values, which now i understand why they weren’t the values at Mach=0, alt=0. This also explains why my MIG-23, MIG-21 and F-4E which i worked on, did seem to accelerate a bit more than the manual says! So now i have my answer and i’ll begin to rework them as soon as possible. I’m very glad to hear that with those thrust values, the F-16C accelerates (within the given conditions of air density, weight and airspeed) in a par with the real one, so now i have a good reference point for my further work on the F-4E, MIG-21 and MIG-23, which i want to finish.
I’ll try to upload the 4 files now, let’s hope this time it works, because i’m still getting the “invalid file” error when i try to upload a file (from my computer or url) using the attachment function!
The F-4E: http://speedy.sh/td5gD/f4e.dat
The MIG-21: http://speedy.sh/PExjv/mig21.dat
The MIG-23ML: http://speedy.sh/6Mzbn/mig23.dat
MIG-23ML’s AFM test: http://speedy.sh/mHuGN/mig23-afm.dat
I’m not too used with file upload servers so far, so if the above aren’t easy to access, try the following:
http://www.fileconvoy.com/dfl.php?id=gf2d3c0e6c6644f66999347860ab5844ad6b9be9c6
Have a good day!:-)
-
Hello there Mav,
First of all i’m sorry for making you people wait so much for the data that i promised to share and worked on!
Thank you for the reply regarding the engines thrust values, which now i understand why they weren’t the values at Mach=0, alt=0. This also explains why my MIG-23, MIG-21 and F-4E which i worked on, did seem to accelerate a bit more than the manual says! So now i have my answer and i’ll begin to rework them as soon as possible. I’m very glad to hear that with those thrust values, the F-16C accelerates (within the given conditions of air density, weight and airspeed) in a par with the real one, so now i have a good reference point for my further work on the F-4E, MIG-21 and MIG-23, which i want to finish.
I’ll try to upload the 4 files now, let’s hope this time it works, because i’m still getting the “invalid file” error when i try to upload a file (from my computer or url) using the attachment function!
The F-4E: http://speedy.sh/td5gD/f4e.dat
The MIG-21: http://speedy.sh/PExjv/mig21.dat
The MIG-23ML: http://speedy.sh/6Mzbn/mig23.dat
MIG-23ML’s AFM test: http://speedy.sh/mHuGN/mig23-afm.dat
I’m not too used with file upload servers so far, so if the above aren’t easy to access, try the following:
http://www.fileconvoy.com/dfl.php?id=gf2d3c0e6c6644f66999347860ab5844ad6b9be9c6
Have a good day!:-)
Ok you absolutely need to draw the EM charts for your models, comparing in flights with other models is not the way to go …
I think topolo has a program to draw them , contact him
-
I would be very interested in this tool aswell, unless its “doghouse” …i have that already.
-
The MIG-23ML: http://speedy.sh/6Mzbn/mig23.dat
MIG-23ML’s AFM test: http://speedy.sh/mHuGN/mig23-afm.datDo not mind if I say a word?
Great work, but there are a number of comments.
MiG-23ML
I just checked the dat files (without using the program).
Cl, CD, Trust far from reality, especially Cd and Trust. EM charts maybe similar in some cases.
there is another point
if the coefficients Cl, Cd are used as-is. Then in OFM (mig23).dat
DRAG COEFFICIENT CD
Table Multiplier should be set to 0.66666
but if used AFM, then Table Multiplier should be set to 0.66666 in mig23.dat and in mig23_afm.dat Table Multiplier should be set to 1
if I’m wrong request to the Mav-jp, correct me -
I missed this thread in the past, just found it……nice someone is interested in Flogger and Fishbed FMs - I flied them often in the past…even tried to respect varioust flight regime limitations - for example there is G load limit for Flogger during sweep change (it was quite attention intensive “voluntary penalization”) or structural speed limit for low flying Fishbed - especially BIS version on second stage AB …there was also time limit I set for myself - 90s (it is 1-3min? in RL) + high limit <4000m for this regime IIRC
This is not easy to constantly check speed, angels, G-load ect when avoiding Amraams, trying to find firing solution with weak radar and almost zero ECCM missile capability…
so it would be really nice to include damage penalizations or even AC destruction in future BMS code…I allways desired to have nice designed PvP scenario, where matured RED pilots (Mig nerds), flying eastern jets are making nice, rich and realistic environment for F-16 nerds :mrgreen:
BTW - F4AF has various 21 dat versions modeled - Mig-21-93 is the only R-25 2nd stage AB capable FM, not 21BIS IMO (of course,there are no MIG stages modeled - the engine is just stronger on AB)…but file format is coded…
…also 21F13 is usually the weakest modeled Fishbed in all Falcon versions - it almost does not fly- but according to real pilots opinion, this very first version is the most comfortable to fly, including the BIS…it has even much better visibility -
@OSD:
Do not mind if I say a word?
Great work, but there are a number of comments.
MiG-23ML
I just checked the dat files (without using the program).
Cl, CD, Trust far from reality, especially Cd and Trust. EM charts maybe similar in some cases.
there is another point
if the coefficients Cl, Cd are used as-is. Then in OFM (mig23).dat
DRAG COEFFICIENT CD
Table Multiplier should be set to 0.66666
but if used AFM, then Table Multiplier should be set to 0.66666 in mig23.dat and in mig23_afm.dat Table Multiplier should be set to 1
if I’m wrong request to the Mav-jp, correct meThis is correct for multiplying coefficient
OFM code multiplies the drag coefficient by 1/0.6666 , don’t ask me why this oddity….
-
Hello again,
Thanks for telling me about these aspects…, so as i’ve also noticed, there is a great difference in drag between OFM and AFM and now i have my answer in that multiplier (only for CD). About the lift (CL) values…, i can’t obtain some better ones at the moment, but i’ll keep trying to get them to more correct areas, while the drag values, as far as i know, are a bit higher than they should, though i hope they respect a realistic form as they travel from -90 to +90 AoA and from Mach = 0 to 2.5. About the thrust tables, Mav also gave me a more clear view and as it seems i confused the static thrust with the one at a higher Mach number, so i’ll try to correct that as well.
Have a good day!
-
Hello again,
Thanks for telling me about these aspects…, so as i’ve also noticed, there is a great difference in drag between OFM and AFM and now i have my answer in that multiplier (only for CD). About the lift (CL) values…, i can’t obtain some better ones at the moment, but i’ll keep trying to get them to more correct areas, while the drag values, as far as i know, are a bit higher than they should, though i hope they respect a realistic form as they travel from -90 to +90 AoA and from Mach = 0 to 2.5. About the thrust tables, Mav also gave me a more clear view and as it seems i confused the static thrust with the one at a higher Mach number, so i’ll try to correct that as well.
Have a good day!
Again you need to draw EM charts:-)
-
wasn’t there mig-21 MF, BIS and Mig-23 MF and ML flight model by Topolo for FF with EM charts already done?
-
Hello again,
Thanks for telling me about these aspects…, so as i’ve also noticed, there is a great difference in drag between OFM and AFM and now i have my answer in that multiplier (only for CD). About the lift (CL) values…, i can’t obtain some better ones at the moment, but i’ll keep trying to get them to more correct areas, while the drag values, as far as i know, are a bit higher than they should, though i hope they respect a realistic form as they travel from -90 to +90 AoA and from Mach = 0 to 2.5. About the thrust tables, Mav also gave me a more clear view and as it seems i confused the static thrust with the one at a higher Mach number, so i’ll try to correct that as well.Have a good day!
So it will be easier.
Add a few charts from practical aerodynamics of the MiG-23ML.23_Cl_local_AOA
X-axis = Cl.
Y-axis = local_AOA (units); localAOA= 2 * trueAOA – 5.523_Cl_to_M
X-axis = Cl
Y-axis = Mach number.23_Cdo
X-axis = Cd0 with different sweep of wing.
Y-axis = Mach number.23_Cl_to_Cd
X-axis = Cl
Y-axis = Cd (total)
The top chart for wing sweep = 45 with two R-23
The bottom chart for a clean aircraftwith different swept wing.23_AC
for Mach number = 0.6
X-axis = aerodynamic quality (Cl/Cd)
Y-axis = Cl23_trust
X-axis = Thrust with lossy in the inlet and nozzle (installed trust)
Y-axis = Mach number.
the dotted line – Thrust Full AB
dashed line with a point - military power -
Again you need to draw EM charts:-)
I can provide the original russian EM charts for Su-27, Mig-23ML, Mig-25RB and Mig-29 if that helps.
Text is russian, but the graphs are understandable. -
In the same “classical form” as used in US? I really wish to see their measured parameters. My PM box is open.
-
I’d really like to see
@A.S:the original russian EM charts for Su-27