Jump to content

Hawker Hunter F.1


  • 2 weeks later...

Nice data sheet.
Did Gaijin completely ignore the fact the Hunter pulled a 14G turn and survived?

 

At which speed? A planes may survive 14G at 400 kmh, but break doing the same at 800 kmh. Faster means more pressure on the wings during a turn. It's stated not to pull +6G at 0.9 MACH, which is pretty damn fast.

 

It's not gaijin ignoring facts about the plane, it's people claiming facts from incomplete data. I'm sure people will be able to pull 14G turns under certain speeds without any problem.

  • Upvote 4
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At which speed? A planes may survive 14G at 400 kmh, but break doing the same at 800 kmh. Faster means more pressure on the wings during a turn. It's stated not to pull +6G at 0.9 MACH, which is pretty damn fast.

 

It's not gaijin ignoring facts about the plane, it's people claiming facts from incomplete data. I'm sure people will be able to pull 14G turns under certain speeds without any problem.

14G's at low speed is the same as 14G's at high speed (Like the question: What is heavier, A Kg of bricks or a Kg of feathers) , the amount of pressure is the same (No planes can pull 14gs at low speed anyway)  ..... It's just that you are more likely to pull those Gs the faster you are going 

  • Upvote 8
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14G's at low speed is the same as 14G's at high speed (Like the question: What is heavier, A Kg of bricks or a Kg of feathers) , the amount of pressure is the same (No planes can pull 14gs at low speed anyway)  ..... It's just that you are more likely to pull those Gs the faster you are going 

 

G-load is not related to the amount of pressure on the wings during a turn. Speed is what matters, because it's the airflow on the wings that creates the stress that can bend or break the wing.

 

About the 14G at low speed: at 100m/s (360kph), the radius of a 14G turn is around 73m (r=100^2/(14*9.8)). Most plane would stall because their AoA would be too high during the turn, that's why it's not possible (so your statement is corrcect). A RC model could do it tho, since it has an insanely low stall speed and wing loading compared to real fighter planes.

 

Here's a more in-depth explaination:

[spoiler]

There are 4 forces applied on an aircraft during flight. The most problematic is gravity, which pulls you down. To counter it, you need lift, produced by the wings. Lift is a force, so it creates a pressure on the surface it is applied (Pressure (Pa) = Force (N)/Surface (m^2)). Pressure is what you need to know in order to mesure the stress on an object.

 

In order to determine lift, you need 3 other fundamental variables: Surface area (constant), Air Density (changes with altitude) and Velocity^2. (http://www.langleyflyingschool.com/Pages/CPGS+4+Aerodynamics+and+Theory+of+Flight+Part+1.html#Lift%20and%20Drag%20Concepts) With this, we have a lift force that increases with speed, but not in a linear fashion (L=/=C*V, C is a fixed value). It's the equation of a parabola (given a constant air density) L=C*V^2. As explained in the website I linked, twice the speed increases the lift force 4 times. Lift force is what gives you the pressure, so twice the speed means 4 times more pressure on your wing.

 

About the wing itelf: a solid will have 2 types of deformation under pressure: elastic and plastic. Elastic means that once the stress is removed, the object will return to it's initial form. Plastic is the zone where the stress will create a permanent deformation on the solid. In order to mesure this you need the pressure and the variation of lenght of the object. From there, you can make a graph with the pressure on the Y axis, and lenght variation (strain) on the X axis.

 

example of graph:

[spoiler] The actual name is the sigma epsilon diagram

cub_surg_lesson02_figure1web.jpg

[/spoiler]

At some point, you'll reach a stress that will go beyond the elastic range, which results, in our case, in the wing bending or breaking.

 

When you turn your plane, you create more lift in order to change the direction of your velocity (radial acceleration, that's where your 14G comes from). Here is the main difference between a low speed 14G vs a high speed 14G: at high speed, your wing is already under an immense stress because the lift produced is very high. By pulling even more, you reach a level of stress that might enter plastic range, and thus create permanent damage to the wing.

 

TD;LR: It's like pulling an elastic: if it's already near it's maximum lenght when you pull it, it's much easier to break than if you have to pull it all the way to the breaking point from the start.

 

The entire point of this is: the number of G pulled isn't related to the strenght of the wing, it's only there to tell you your radial acceleration, which affects the pilot a lot, because it's a fictive force that acts on his body during a turn. In fact, it's the acceleration at which the plane pushes on the pilot (or anything that can move inside the plane). That's why, in this very data sheet, it says not to pull more than 6Gs at mach 0.9, because the max G-load decreases when the speed is increased.

[/spoiler]

 

If there's anything else, I think it should be via PM or in another topic on the subject, since that's not directly related to the Hunter. By the way, Blitz said he found a few sources of pilots pulling 14G turns, so the plane seems more than solid enough to pull sharp turns without any problems.

 

Just to make it clear: I'm not defending the way wings break at high speed in-game. I just want to make people understand that the number of G pulled isn't the way to determine the strenght of the airframe.

  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-Snip-

And I'm studying Physics in college, oh dear 

 

I guess I could have worked that out If I thought about it, damn 

(When I said pressure I meant force) 

 

I know 1g= 9.81m/s of acceleration,

 

Edit: Unless... Hang on a sec, I've been thinking about this... surely it is just that a high speed it is easier to pull said high gs and rip the wings (It just requires less movement for the same g-force at higher speeds? Like an exponential curve?), while at low speed to turn at the same "g force" you would need to turn the aircraft so hard that the back end of it is accelerating massively (If it was possible) ,causing the force acting on the wings to be the same, thus ripping them. So the number of gs is proportional to the force applied to the wing  

 

Actually I just looked on some flying school websites and the structural limitations of planes is written in gs (at any speed), so aircraft structure is directly related to Gs, they have a positive and a negative max g-load that remains the same at any speed  (So yes g-force is a good way of measuring aircraft Structure strength)  http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-455094.html

 

.... basically you were mostly right (like the elasticity and the stress/strain graph part)  it's just that at low or high speed the force "required" on the aircraft to "achieve" 14gs remains the same, and like you said it is easier to "achieve" the 14gs at high speed (due to lift on the wings) ! 

 

Sorry If come across as rude, I like a debate  (Also sorry for not PMing you) 

 

Relating it to the hunter the max g limit of 6 was probably for stopping people from blacking out/they hadn't tested the strength of the airframe/ losing control at high speed = death

Edited by Boamere
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[spoiler]sCUdTdP.jpg

[/spoiler]

That's a hunter pulling 14 G after the pilot misjudged his alt and was close to hitting the ground so he deployed full flaps and pulled right back on the yolk.

 

and yes a Hunter can deploy full flaps and not rip them off, they were originally designed as air brakes so they are strong.

Edited by Valkyrian0
  • Upvote 16
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I pointed out in that thread, a mach-tuck is also a violent nose down (hence the use of the word tuck). Surviving that at 14Gs is a testament to the strength of the aircraft's construction.

 

Basically the Hunter should have some of, if not the sturdiest wings and flaps in game.

  • Upvote 6
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
All g-force is is a relative term to describe how much acceleration due to gravity something is under 10Gs is just 10x the "force" they would experience from gravity and as gravity is measured in ms^-2 speed is already in the equation for the force therefore speed does not effect the amount of "pressure" exerted on the wings unless my understanding is totally off but this is what I was taught to understand atleast.

-graduated physics student
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk2CXw47qhI

 

As stated in the video, why isn't it using Avon RA7 engine?

  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk2CXw47qhI

 

As stated in the video, why isn't it using Avon RA7 engine?

 

It is using the RA.7.

 

The Mk 113 is the Rolls Royce Avon RA.7 Mk 113 used on both the Hunter F.1 and Vickers Valiant (pre-production models)

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is using the RA.7.

 

The Mk 113 is the Rolls Royce Avon RA.7 Mk 113 used on both the Hunter F.1 and Vickers Valiant (pre-production models)

 

I was not aware of any RA7 using the 5500lbf-6500lbf. It would seem that in game that its the RA7 only in name, not you know... in performance.

  • Upvote 11
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not aware of any RA7 using the 5500lbf-6500lbf. It would seem that in game that its the RA7 only in name, not you know... in performance.

 

Then please, if you have the evidence, please report it here: http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/forum/590-flight-and-damage-model-issues/

 

Its all very well people making videos, however it does not help unless we get reports with evidence that can be forwarded. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then please, if you have the evidence, please report it here: http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/forum/590-flight-and-damage-model-issues/

 

Its all very well people making videos, however it does not help unless we get reports with evidence that can be forwarded. 

But It's all fine and dandy when the sekrit russian documentz come into play

Auscam (Posted )

Some people really can't help themselves and what's even funnier is that you know you've done wrong.

1.1.2. Start or participate in flame wars, intentionally derail a topic, or post useless spam messages in moderated areas.

1.1.23. Any post judged to be "insulting and/or inflammatory by deed or intention" by the Gaijin Staff and administrators.
  • Upvote 20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But It's all fine and dandy when the sekrit russian documentz come into play

 

Please do not take this off-topic with trolling.

 

If you have a legitimate issue, then please report it. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please do not take this off-topic with trolling.

 

If you have a legitimate issue, then please report it. 

 

I thought Magz had documents in his video though?

 

I just took out my hunter in an RB test flight and I am also getting the same lack of performance. It's not even breaking 3000kgs.

 

In fact above 20,000ft it becomes a brick and struggles to climb.

Edited by SoapboxLeader
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The video may be well and good for pointing things out, however we need the evidence, documents and tests themselves to forward on.

 

Which is why we ask for proper reports here: http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/forum/590-flight-and-damage-model-issues/

 

It says in your own stat card the RA7 113 produces 7550lbs of thrust, the one ingame is producing significantly less than that (the most I was able to get is 2993KG using a spaded hunter) which can be tested by anyone using 127.0.0.1:8111

 

And to be honest I am very apprehensive about submitting any bug reports now, since the report I submitted 6 months ago about the M392A2 APDS round still hasn't been fixed, and the other one about the Leopards transmission wasn't even accepted despite containing multiple sources and the necessary format for a bug report. Gaijin picks and chooses which reports to acknowledge, so why should we spend our time doing research and writing up a report when it's just going to be ignored?

  • Upvote 31
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The video may be well and good for pointing things out, however we need the evidence, documents and tests themselves to forward on.

 

Which is why we ask for proper reports here: http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/forum/590-flight-and-damage-model-issues/

 

I actually don't see what the issue is here. We have alot of evidence against the Hunter being only Hunter in name and look and not in what you promised to add to the game. 

 

Fixing this should not be that hard, you have gotten a full sheet of info from day 1 with all the documents to properly make the Hunter F.1 appear in the game in all it's beautifull glory.

 

I just wish that Gajin as a company could go"Hmm, this video that has been posted on our forums seems to have pointed out a glaring fault of our design and intention of a plane, we should maybe look into it."

 

But it seems like Gajin ignores it until a certain point and tweak maybe a little too much things at the same time, resulting in some planes becoming UFO's *cough* 15bis *cough* and others just, not doing what they were inteded for. 

 

I am all for the mig not being easy to kill, but right now the Hunter is not performing to specifications and the Mig's are pulling energy out from it's ass, energy no plane in the game should be able to have.

 

I've been looking forward to this plane since I first heard about it being introduced. And now that it is here I'm left feeling almost betrayed.

 

Please just have a dev look into it and maybe tweak the numbers to correct speccs.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...