Axis Flaps

[bozon]

is torque the only factor contributing to a spin?

no.
high torque leads into spins by creating roll and yaw momentum while the plane looses forward speed. But other factors like stick inputs and orientation also count.

The prop shaft transferes rolling torque to the plane. normally this is countered by the ailrons increasing the lift on one wing and reducing it on the other. when you reach the stall, if you deflect ailrons, the "rising" wing will stall before the "lowered" wing and the plane will be fliped in the other direction of the intended roll - both due to the loss of lift on one side and due to engine torque which work in the same direction.

stalling one wing before the other also creates an un-even yaw momentum. In addition, the prop's P factor is significant at slow speeds and high angle of attack and also act on the yaw axis (with or against the other yaw). So in addition to fliping over, you also start spining in the yaw direction - the dreaded inverted flat spin.

once a plane starts falling in a direction not with a "nose into the wind", the aerodynamic effects are unpredictable. it may not drop its nose and recover as fast as expected. it might be thrown and flipped due to the air flow going in, say, the 7-2 oclock direction instead of the normal 12-6 direction. I suspect that forward thrust with no torque like the P-38 has can hasten the recovery considerably, but not before a few flips.

Bozon

[Mad0Max]

Okay...

I'm getting tired of people complaining that the stall speeds need to be higher(aka stall at more than 200)! For example a BF-109E has a stall speed of 75-85mph NOT 120 or 200 IN A TURN!!!!!

sigh...

Another example,
The FW 190 A-4 was around 95-105 mph NOT 225 IN A TURN!!!!

pant pant pant......

FIX THE FREAKING STALL SPEEDS BACK TO REAL SETTINGS!! This stupid "oh planes need more torque and need to stall more" BS whining is rediculious! I want some more reality, no WWII aircraft felt like it was on ice on take off.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Mad0Max
Okay...

I'm getting tired of people complaining that the stall speeds need to be higher(aka stall at more than 200)! For example a BF-109E has a stall speed of 75-85mph NOT 120 or 200 IN A TURN!!!!!

sigh...

Another example,
The FW 190 A-4 was around 95-105 mph NOT 225 IN A TURN!!!!

pant pant pant......

FIX THE FREAKING STALL SPEEDS BACK TO REAL SETTINGS!! This stupid "oh planes need more torque and need to stall more" BS whining is rediculious! I want some more reality, no WWII aircraft felt like it was on ice on take off.

I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings for you, but that 75-85 MPH stall speed is for level straight ahead flight, at 1G, with an angle of attack of zero. So was the 95-105 MPH. It has nothing to do with stall speed in turns during combat, pulling high G's, a high angle of attack, and dealing with torque at WOT.

Oh, and the 109 was notorious for takeoff and landing accidents. There are any number of people on this board who can list dozens of examples of fighter planes crashing on takeoff due to torque, so I won't bother with that. Takeoff accidents that occurred due to torque when power was applied were very common.

It takes nearly 4000 foot pounds of torque at 2800 RPM to make about 2000 HP. That amount of shafted torque exerts an extremely large twisting force on the airframe.

To get an idea of how much force, and the effects it has, find yourself a V8 powered rear wheel drive car, put it in gear, put your foot on the brake, and rev the engine. Notice how the car twists up from left to right. The average V8 rear wheel drive car has about 275-300 foot pounds of torque, and weighs about 3500-4000 pounds. The torque to weight ratio is about 1:10 at best.

Now the average WWII fighter plane has about 3600 foot pounds of torque (over ten times that of the car above) and only weighs about 10,000 pounds, or just a little over twice what the car weighs. The torque to weight ratio is about 1:3. Now, add to that the fact that the propellor is also exerting that same force in a twisting motion just like the torque of the engine, unlike the car, where the motion of the axle is pushing the car forward, in an entirely different direction that the torque generated by the engine. That should explain why torque has so much effect on single engine propellor driven aircraft handling in high performance aircraft. They aren't like a Cessna 172 with 180 HP and weighs 3000 pounds or so.

[Slash27]

Lots of good info CVH, thanks.

[icemaw]

Solution to all stall spin problems. 100% works every time.
When your making your turn at whatever speed your at in whatever plane your in. When you start to hear the stall horn and you feel it wiggle just do this.







DONT PULL SO HARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[1K3]

in AH world, i can still turn with spit IX - '51s  below 220 and get a shot while in 190 without using flaps (or 109Fs but not Gs)... but not foe long (obviously)

Summary. LW FM-ing is aight (for now) and remember DONT PULL THE STICK TOO HARD!

[Crumpp]

Summary. LW FM-ing is aight (for now) and remember DONT PULL THE STICK TOO HARD!

I really don't want to go thru it again but it is off.  It is off because if we are going to have a simulation then we need to "simulate" actual events.  Some of the features that the real aircraft could do, cannot be done in AH at this time.

Pyro is redoing the FM.  I am sure he will make a great model even more realistic.

Crumpp

[wrag]

I agree the FM for the 109 is not quite on.  Maybe close but the aircraft will not preform some manuver it was reportedly able to do.  It instead flounders about or snaps into unusual angles when those manuvers are tried.

Noticed this floundering about in some other aircraft as well.

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Kweassa

Basically in my point of view the P-38 pilots whining of how the P-38 will snap stall violently, is like a spoiled kid's rant.

Oh...a comment from the clue-less.  

The complaint we have about the P-38 is not the violent snap rolling stall but the auto-retracting flaps that cause them.  Unlike our ignorant Luftwhiner, Truekill, the P-38 did not have this feature in real life and it does, despite your clueless comments, have a negative impact on the P-38 in AH.

So please, when you write your rebuttal, please try to keep it less than 500 words and not the usual manifestos you like to post so much.


ack-ack

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by bozon
CVH, you can relax. If there's any one plane that would benifit from more pronounced torque and tougher stall model it's the 38, as it did historically.



Bozon

Why do people that know so little about the P-38 always insist on making comments on it?

1) P-38 had counter-rotating props.  This negated the torque.  The only P-38s that had torque were the few Model 322s that were shipped to England and France (France never received them as they were occupied by the time the planes were shipped) in the early part of the war.  These were the "castrated P-38s".

2) The P-38 had a very gentle stall characteristic in real life.  If you have any doubt, you should watch the P-38 flight training film on Zeno's Warbird site.  That World War II training film shows the gentle stall characteristics of the plane.  There are also numerous other sources of information that confirm this widely known fact.


ack-ack

[Crumpp]

Unlike are ignorant Luftwhiner, Truekill, the P-38 did not have this feature in real life and it does, despite your clueless comments, have a negative impact on the P-38 in AH.

Please read the thread before you run around accusing folks of being "ignorant Luftwhiners".  It's a major turnoff and quite frankly speaks of ignorance.  Reading a few books does not make anyone an expert.  Truekills claims are based off original documentation which was posted earlier in this thread.

The P-38 had a very gentle stall characteristic in real life. If you have any doubt, you should watch the P-38 flight training film on Zeno's Warbird site. That World War II training film shows the gentle stall characteristics of the plane. There are also numerous other sources of information that confirm this widely known fact.

Like all stalls, it depends.  It might shock you know the FW-190 had a gentle stall as well.  The same stall left unchecked developed into a spin.  The FW-190 also recovered very quickly.  The P38 did have gentle stall but could become violent under certain circumstances.  Read up on how Tommy McGuire died.

Going to the aid of another pilot who was under attack, McGuire was making a sharp turn at low speed when his P-38 shuddered and then stalled. His plane plunged into the jungle, exploding in a fiery crash. McGuire's death came within a month of his scheduled return to the U.S., and just two victories shy of matching America's leading World War II Ace, Maj. Richard Bon, who had downed 40 Japanese aircraft.

I have to dig for it but Avaition History ran an article a few years back.  I won't claim it as a fact just yet, but IIRC, the crash of McGuires P38 did not have the drop tanks on it.  If that was the case the article speculated McGuire was using his engines to increase his turn and misjudged his speed.

Crumpp

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Crumpp


 

Like all stalls, it depends.  It might shock you know the FW-190 had a gentle stall as well.  The same stall left unchecked developed into a spin.  The FW-190 also recovered very quickly.  The P38 did have gentle stall but could become violent under certain circumstances.  Read up on how Tommy McGuire died.

 

I have to dig for it but Avaition History ran an article a few years back.  I won't claim it as a fact just yet, but IIRC, the crash of McGuires P38 did not have the drop tanks on it.  If that was the case the article speculated McGuire was using his engines to increase his turn and misjudged his speed.

Crumpp

Actually, it is you that should read up more on how McGuire died.  

1) McGuire did have his drop tanks on when he went down, violating his own dicta.  

2) When using differential throttle control in the P-38, if you do not advance both throttle together after powering one throttle down, the plane had a very nasty tendency to get into the spin that caused McGuire's death.  In the P-38, if you chop throttle to one engine, you need to chop throttle to the second engine and advance them both together.  

Savage, Widewing and/or Slack have a more detailed report into the death of McGuire.  I think Widewing's website also has the report posted.  You should read it, might learn something.


ack-ack

[Crumpp]

Actually, it is you that should read up more on how McGuire died.

Well we can all read the crap you put out.  IF you can comprehend what I wrote then MAYBE you might understand that I KNOW the popular circumstances of his death.

I was initiating a discussion and going to look for the article.

Until then you can chew on this bit of info on the "wonder 38"

The P38 for the most part was not that great.  The USAAF had good reason to concentrate on other designs. P38 fans can cry til the cows come home.   Facts are the end USER, the USAAF withdrew the P38 from the fighter role in the European theater and regulated it to the attack role.   They had good reason.  You can check out the power loading, drag, wingloading and other characteristics.  It's an overrated and overhyped design as a fighter.



Crumpp

[Ack-Ack]

And yet the P-38 was flown by more USAAF aces in the PTO than any other USAAF airplane.  


Of course, you also fail to point out the major reason the 8th AAF pulled the P-38 as a front line fighter was more due to short sighted thinking on the part of 8th AAF high command than any other reason.  The 8th AAF was the only one to pull them from front line service, which isn't surprising since most of the 8th AAF high command had a bomber's mentality.



ack-ack

[Crumpp]

Of course, you also fail to point out the major reason the 8th AAF pulled the P-38 as a front line fighter was more due to short sighted thinking on the part of 8th AAF high command than any other reason. The 8th AAF was the only one to pull them from front line service, which isn't surprising since most of the 8th AAF high command had a bomber's mentality.

Interesting, because the USAAF say's it was due to the P38's "rough" handling by Luftwaffe fighters.  The Luftwaffe did not have a high opinion of it.  

So far the P38 fans are long on crying big crocodile tears and short on producing flight tested documentation.  

So simply produce some flight tested documentation supporting your argument.

Crumpp