-
Which the release of FS2020 we see an explosition of activity on the forun and of course we are very happy to see this. But having all questions about FS2020 in one forum becomes a bit messy. So therefore we would like to ask you all to use the following guidelines when posting your questions:
- Tag FS2020 specific questions with the MSFS2020 tag.
- Questions about making 3D assets can be posted in the 3D asset design forum. Either post them in the subforum of the modelling tool you use or in the general forum if they are general.
- Questions about aircraft design can be posted in the Aircraft design forum
- Questions about airport design can be posted in the FS2020 airport design forum. Once airport development tools have been updated for FS2020 you can post tool speciifc questions in the subforums of those tools as well of course.
- Questions about terrain design can be posted in the FS2020 terrain design forum.
- Questions about SimConnect can be posted in the SimConnect forum.
Any other question that is not specific to an aspect of development or tool can be posted in the General chat forum.
By following these guidelines we make sure that the forums remain easy to read for everybody and also that the right people can find your post to answer it.
Question about turn rate
- Thread starter Dutch
- Start date
Roy Holmes
Resource contributor
- Messages
- 1,805
- Country
Dutch,
You might consider this also. Just because you have got yourself behind the airplane you want to kill does not mean that your bullets will automatically kill it.
You have to fire such that the target flies into the path of the bullets, or at least enough of them hit sensitive parts of the target and damage them sufficiently to cause it to crash or take no further part in the encounter.
To explain that in a different way, the guy on the receiving end is turning to keep out of the path of the bullets, the shooter cannot just point his guns at the target, he must point them ahead of the turning target so it flies into the bullets. This amount was called the lead angle.
Most WW2 fighters had some form of gyro gunsight late in the conflict. This worked by the aiming reticle lagging behind where the guns were pointing. This gave a lag or deflection angle which was an estimate of the lead angle needed.
The lead angle needed was a function of a large number of factors, in particular range which dictated time of flight. The early gunsights had a crude ranging system, you set in the target wingspan and moved a control so that a circle of dots or diamonds had a diameter the same as the perceived wingspan of the target.
If you were close the wingspan looked bigger than when you were far away. You adjusted the control to make the circle larger so it encompassed the target‘s wings. This meant you had established the range to target.
That varied the stiffness of the gyro according to the range and time of flight of the bullets. The vertical position of the circle also varied, becoming lower at long range due to the need to raise the guns to compensate for the bullet drop due to gravity acting on it during its time of flight.
Most kills were against a target flying straight and level. Few were in hard turning flight except when the attacker got so close that just pointing his airplane was enough to hit.
The early jets had gyro gunsights and no radar ranging. Target practice involved shooting at a towed target. The target flew straight and the fighters came in from the side turning while firing. The Hunter was the first RAF fighter with radar ranging. That solved the range estimation problem leaving just aiming accuracy and smooth flying so the gyro solution was accurate. Good pilots could get scores where recorded hits exceeded 50% of rounds fired. Most were able to get a few hits.
The F4M had a gyro gunsight and a GAU cannon on the centerline pylon. I only used it once against a towed target and had no hits despite firing 676 rounds, the gunsight was worse than the old Ferranti one in the Hunter.
So, to finally get to my point, if you want an accurate combat simulation that involves gun firing, you need some form of computerized aiming and a method of relating aiming accuracy to target hits. Otherwise it is unrealistic.
Roy
You might consider this also. Just because you have got yourself behind the airplane you want to kill does not mean that your bullets will automatically kill it.
You have to fire such that the target flies into the path of the bullets, or at least enough of them hit sensitive parts of the target and damage them sufficiently to cause it to crash or take no further part in the encounter.
To explain that in a different way, the guy on the receiving end is turning to keep out of the path of the bullets, the shooter cannot just point his guns at the target, he must point them ahead of the turning target so it flies into the bullets. This amount was called the lead angle.
Most WW2 fighters had some form of gyro gunsight late in the conflict. This worked by the aiming reticle lagging behind where the guns were pointing. This gave a lag or deflection angle which was an estimate of the lead angle needed.
The lead angle needed was a function of a large number of factors, in particular range which dictated time of flight. The early gunsights had a crude ranging system, you set in the target wingspan and moved a control so that a circle of dots or diamonds had a diameter the same as the perceived wingspan of the target.
If you were close the wingspan looked bigger than when you were far away. You adjusted the control to make the circle larger so it encompassed the target‘s wings. This meant you had established the range to target.
That varied the stiffness of the gyro according to the range and time of flight of the bullets. The vertical position of the circle also varied, becoming lower at long range due to the need to raise the guns to compensate for the bullet drop due to gravity acting on it during its time of flight.
Most kills were against a target flying straight and level. Few were in hard turning flight except when the attacker got so close that just pointing his airplane was enough to hit.
The early jets had gyro gunsights and no radar ranging. Target practice involved shooting at a towed target. The target flew straight and the fighters came in from the side turning while firing. The Hunter was the first RAF fighter with radar ranging. That solved the range estimation problem leaving just aiming accuracy and smooth flying so the gyro solution was accurate. Good pilots could get scores where recorded hits exceeded 50% of rounds fired. Most were able to get a few hits.
The F4M had a gyro gunsight and a GAU cannon on the centerline pylon. I only used it once against a towed target and had no hits despite firing 676 rounds, the gunsight was worse than the old Ferranti one in the Hunter.
So, to finally get to my point, if you want an accurate combat simulation that involves gun firing, you need some form of computerized aiming and a method of relating aiming accuracy to target hits. Otherwise it is unrealistic.
Roy
Turn rates are not constant. They increase with height. Things that have to be correct,
1. Aircraft weight
2. Aircraft Power
3. Parasite drag
4. Induced drag ( span, area, Oswald efficiency and scalar set to 1 )
5. Maximum lift coefficient
6. Make sure you can get max lift ( AoA ) at corner speed ( check table 517 for elevator deflection vs dynamic pressure )
The radius of the turn is related to the G force and airspeed. The rate of turn is the speed at which it flies the circle. I can help more if needed.
1. Aircraft weight
2. Aircraft Power
3. Parasite drag
4. Induced drag ( span, area, Oswald efficiency and scalar set to 1 )
5. Maximum lift coefficient
6. Make sure you can get max lift ( AoA ) at corner speed ( check table 517 for elevator deflection vs dynamic pressure )
The radius of the turn is related to the G force and airspeed. The rate of turn is the speed at which it flies the circle. I can help more if needed.
- Messages
- 2,168
- Country
where
r = radius
V = velocity
g = gravitational acceleration (NOT g-force caused by the turn)
B = bank angle
That is all there is in calculating the radius of a turn.
Rate of turn is:
ROT = 1092.39 * tan(B) / V
where
ROT = rate of turn
B = bank angle
V = velocity in knots.
Neither equation has weight, power, drag or lift specifically in it but rather all of that is what impacts the aircraft's airspeed. So, while the post from @Wells is not inaccurate... it is misleading.
Roy Holmes
Resource contributor
- Messages
- 1,805
- Country
If all other factors are constant, turn rate does not increase with increase of altitude, it decreases. Lift factors are directly related to indicated airspeed. For an increase in altitude at constant indicated airspeed, true airspeed increases so the velocity in knots increases. From the equation for rate of turn above an increase in the velocity term gives reduced rate of turn.
The rate of turn is not the speed at which it flies the circle, it is the number of degrees per second it turns, so you could say it is the time it takes to fly the circle.
The key factor in both radius and rate of turn is bank angle, g-Force is a secondary factor.
WarpD covered the other issues with the post.
Roy
The rate of turn is not the speed at which it flies the circle, it is the number of degrees per second it turns, so you could say it is the time it takes to fly the circle.
The key factor in both radius and rate of turn is bank angle, g-Force is a secondary factor.
WarpD covered the other issues with the post.
Roy