Advanced Flight Model for other aircrafts!
-
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
-
I up them next free time for you guys. KGB stlye :mrgreen:
-
-
Hello again,
I had those charts too, and i was willing to upload them here right away as a starting reference, but then i saw this last post containing exactly that!:eek:
I’ve used those for a while as a comparison method with my results, because those charts don’t contain all the data ranges we need (ex: CL2AoA for a given Mach number, or CD), data which i couldn’t yet find anywhere, otherwise things would’ve been done easily long before! So, for the moment at least…, i can only provide results that i’ve obtained with a software which uses 3D panel methods to obtain CL2AoA and CD2AoA for a given Mach of 0.1 (to avoid compressibility effects), values which have been later derived for the rest of the Mach numbers through transonic and up to 2.5!
Of course, as these values approach transonic regions which are mostly dominated by the normal shock presence, and beyond, where things get slightly better (in terms of reduced overall drag), where the oblique shocks and Mach cones rule the rest as speed increases…, there will definitely be a divergence in terms of increasing error margins…, yet i hope they won’t be alarmingly great in comparison to some real data, which hopefully the russians have archived at Tsagi.
Here are the charts that i’ve obtained after the last corrections:
Finally, PDF’s worked!
I’m not putting my hand into the fire to tell that these corrected thrust levels are appropriate and close to real, but at least i tweaked them so that the aircraft accelerates accordingly to what the manual says here:
http://backfiretu-22m.tripod.com/id16.html
Thus, even if i covered that area, it’s only a small one, so in all the other regions for which i don’t have this kind of data (longitudinal accelerations within some given conditions), i can only presume how it could be…, and even if i had that kind of data, it would mean tons to read for every condition and so on the time to tweak until i get the proper reactions. From this point of view, i honestly can’t help much more…, i’m only able to provide some better main aerodynamic coefficients (CL and CD to alpha), and replace them over the initial ones. Even if the MIG-23ML wasn’t the easiest choice because of the swing wings which drastically modify these coefficients with every position, i was able to obtain, from my perspective, some overall good and reliable data on the 23’s aero only. I feel sorry if this isn’t good enough, but i’m not able at the moment to provide more.
Thank you for your time,
Maverick!