" Some notes on the energy approach to flying fighters for the sim pilot"
{Just for general information}
Dudley Henriques
President Emeritus
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
"Before 1966, we had little in the way of comparison info between
any two fighters save for the personal experiences of combat
pilots and the information that they provided. Thanks to the work
done by Col. John Boyd USAF, Tom Christie a civilian math genius;
and E.S. Rutowski of McDonnell Douglas, all whiz kids with numbers, we
developed a way to compare fighter performance throughout each
aircraft's flight envelope. Using energy conversion against known
aircraft characteristics, we could now construct a maneuver
diagram that showed areas of advantage and disadvantage of each
aircraft through overlay. The concept was called "energy
maneuverability", and it changed the way we looked at combat, and
indeed all aircraft performance in the air. The first practical
application of EM concepts was used to compare the F4 to the
MIG21 in an effort to explain what had been observed in SEA and
to try and provide a game plan for F4 crews.
Keep in mind that EM is only one way to compare fighters. It
can't stand alone without other comparison techniques; it does
however provide a scientific basis for maneuvering tactics.
Total energy is potential energy+ kinetic energy. or WH+1/2MVsq. [sub for mass
and v] TE=WH+Wvtsq/2g.
Total energy however is a bad way to compare aircraft. Example: a
747 with a large w when flown high and fast would beat an F5
every time on total energy....ah but....would it win the fight?
Specific energy[Es] units in feet, is defined as total energy
divided by aircraft weight. Es=TE/W [Es=
WH/W+WVtsq/W2g][=H+Vtsq/2g]
F4 v Mig 21 . Both at 15K 450kts and combat weight. Es is equal
dispite the fact that the F4 has higher TOTAL energy.
Now put the F4 at 20K at 0kts and put the Mig at 0ft at 675 kts.
Ignore compressibility!!! and other factors. Theoretically BOTH
have the same Es: 20,000ft. Or in other words BOTH aircraft have
an EQUAL energy STATE.The Mig could theoretically zoom with
engine at idle and reach 0 airspeed at 20K. Likewise the F4 could
fall ballistic ally and accelerate to 675kts due to gravity. It
becomes evident that the specific energy of an aircraft or any
object is entirely the result of it's velocity and altitude. The
characteristics of the aircraft are not a factor. Even so, Es is
important as a measure of an aircraft's energy state,ie. ability
to zoom or conversely, trade altitude for airspeed.
Now for Ps.
If we know the energy state of an aircraft, the ability to CHANGE
that energy state would be important to us in developing a game
plan.
Enter EXCESS POWER!!!!!!
Defined as the change in specific energy with time. Units are
ft/sec. Ps=DEs/DT or[DH/DT V/g DV/DT] Ps= V{T-D}/W assumes
level flight. So Ps is a function of the aircraft's excess thrust
[T-D] at a given airspeed/altitude.
Steady state conditions are when Ps=0=V{T-D/W}This special case
is sometimes refereed to as "sustained" performance in that the
aircraft's energy state is not changing. For instance an F14 at
710KCAS, sea level, in burner. Parasite drag has increased with
speed until T-D=0. 710KCAS is Vmax [Q limit} at sea level. Ps=0.
An F4 at 290KCAS, 48K in military. At this altitude thrust has
decreased until T-D=0 and Ps=0. This means 48K is the military
service ceiling in military.
An F14 at 420 KCAS, 15K, in a level turn at military. As the g is
increased, drag increases as it's square. At about 5.5g, induced
drag has increased by a factor of 25. At this point, T-D=0 and
Ps=0. If g is decreased the F14 will accelerate. If we pull
harder, airspeed will drop off.
This brings me to a point. Ps can be either positive or negative
depending on whether or not we are adding energy or bleeding it
off.
As well as a measure of an aircraft's ability to climb, Ps can
ALSO be used to demonstrate the aircraft's ability to ACCELERATE
OR DECELERATE, and PULL G. An aircraft with a Ps of +600ft/sec
could theoretically climb at TWICE the rate of one with a Ps of
300ft/sec. Conversely, negative Ps values could be used to
compare rates of decent.
Ps values can not be directly equated to climb/dive rates like
those indicated on the cockpit VSI. i.e.. where Ps= -1000
ft/sec, the aircraft is NOT descending at 1000 ft/sec.
HM diagrams are great stuff. God knows I've seen enough of them
in my time. Knowing energy is fine. Knowing angles is fine. It's
a great tool".
Dudley Henriques
Some EM notes for Future F4 drivers from my old notes
- DHenriques_
- A2A Chief Pilot
- Posts: 5711
- Joined: 27 Mar 2009, 08:31
- Location: East Coast United States
Re: Some EM notes for Future F4 drivers from my old notes
I completely agree! Great energy management makes all the difference.
You may be interested to know the F-16 can pull a sustained level +9 g turn at 600 kts below 15000 ft.
Best regards,
Robin.
You may be interested to know the F-16 can pull a sustained level +9 g turn at 600 kts below 15000 ft.
Best regards,
Robin.
A2A/AccuSim. 'nuff said!
Re: Some EM notes for Future F4 drivers from my old notes
Thankyou for posting that information, extremely interesting.
Now I know these forums are full of people with tons of aviation knowledge, so a question I've been pondering and one which I hope will be answered by you most learned fellows, is this : how accurately does FSX actually model the changes in the energy state?
Further to that question: have you folks at A2A had to remodel (from the stock FSX) the way in which the energy state is calculated for the Accusim A/C?
I only ask the second question because Lewis had mentioned in the Spitfire update, that there were some generic FSX features that had been re-written by you folks at A2A, or was that purely in relation to the engine modelling?
I look forward to any and all answers !
Regards
Matt
Now I know these forums are full of people with tons of aviation knowledge, so a question I've been pondering and one which I hope will be answered by you most learned fellows, is this : how accurately does FSX actually model the changes in the energy state?
Further to that question: have you folks at A2A had to remodel (from the stock FSX) the way in which the energy state is calculated for the Accusim A/C?
I only ask the second question because Lewis had mentioned in the Spitfire update, that there were some generic FSX features that had been re-written by you folks at A2A, or was that purely in relation to the engine modelling?
I look forward to any and all answers !
Regards
Matt
"Poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese"
- G.K. Chesterton.
i7 2600K, 8GB Vengeance RAM, Asus P67, GTX 580.
- G.K. Chesterton.
i7 2600K, 8GB Vengeance RAM, Asus P67, GTX 580.
Re: Some EM notes for Future F4 drivers from my old notes
Not very. There are all kinds of oddities in the flight model that prevent it accurately modeling much beyond straight and level.how accurately does FSX actually model the changes in the energy state?
The AoA model is FUBAR so most aircraft won't even stall correctly at altitude, and accelerated stalls aren't possible in the stock FSX engine (from what I read only the CFS flight models had this ability, though A2A found a way!). If that isn't bad enough, the drag from a shutdown engine is far too high, and the aircraft don't seem able to carry inertia as they should, either. This affects maneuvers such as loops. Gravity is another strange thing, and the reason aircraft don't fly well upside down.
If you want to do aerobatics with accurate flight physics, then MSFS isn't really the platform for it, unless you're flying A2A aircraft such as the Cub or Spitfire.
Best regards,
Robin.
Last bumped by VulcanB2 on 11 Jun 2011, 19:06.
A2A/AccuSim. 'nuff said!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests