Thoughts on the Current Flight Model

[AKDogg]

I think the hurri IIC's need to be looked at very closely.  They seem to dive way to fast and maintain maneuvability at 400+.  Many times I have seen and had a hurri dive down with me in my Hog and stay with me, even in a high speed turns.  Its only the hurri IIC's.

[Stoney74]

I had another couple of issues/questions:

1)  In another thread, I asked about the nose up moment on all the aircraft when flaps are deployed.  HT said that their was a moment created by flaps that pushed the nose based on the moments relation to the CG of the aircraft.  Regardless, the P-47N POH states that flap deployment requires pitch trim to "counter the nose heaviness" after flaps are deployed.  Just curious about the discrepancy there.

2)  Second observation is whether or not the roll moment caused by aggressive rudder use is proportional.  I know from my PPL training that dutch rolls are accomplished using nothing more than rudder, but they were very small.  I've flown 5 different planes and even a 172, with its monstrous rudder, doesn't have a very severe roll moment with hard rudder movement.  I have a very difficult time skidding AH aircraft without almost full opposite aileron control.  Extreme slips mean a 90 degree attitude, with full opposite rudder.  Again, I've never flown a WWII aircraft and have no idea what the comparitive rudder roll moment would be, but I know that the P-47 was not supposed to have a very effective rudder, and yet, in the game, I can roll the plane all the way over inverted with rudder alone.  I suppose the roll stability of the aircraft has much to do with roll moment created by the rudder, so I though maybe one of the others more in the know, could explain this to me.  Could this frustrate the hammerhead as well?

[Knegel]

Originally posted by MwDogg
I think the hurri IIC's need to be looked at very closely.  They seem to dive way to fast and maintain maneuvability at 400+.  Many times I have seen and had a hurri dive down with me in my Hog and stay with me, even in a high speed turns.  Its only the hurri IIC's.

Hi,

its not only the Hurri, in AH the more light wingloaded planes in general tend to show this behaviour. The A6M5 but also the 109E, 109F, SpitV, F4F etc dive pretty good and keep energy like mad afterward. Much more powerfull planes with much more weight(inertia) lose much more energy while highspeed turns and vertical manouvers.

Imho this wrong e-bleed behaviour (specialy at highspeed) is the biggest mistake. This result into the superplanes F4U-4, Tempest, La7 and Spit16(all three rather light wingloaded and powerfull), while planes like the P51D, FW190D9, Spit14 and 109K4 imho dont fit into this line, if it comes to the energymanagemant at highspeed.
Similar it is A6M5 vs P40, 109F4 vs 109G, 190A5 vs A8, P38G vs P38L, SpitV vs SpitIXc or P51B vs P51D. The more heavy plane always lose much more energy even while very smooth highspeed manouvers, while the particular much higher inertia and/or power with similar or smaler drag should have the oposide result.
Actually iam not sure where exact the mistake is, no-power-deceleration-tests with a HurrIIc and FW190A8 show that the inertia and zero drag seems to be right(if both planes cut the throttle at 450mph, the Hurri decelerate MUCH faster), but with full power the FW190A8 have real problems to get rid of the HurriIIc. If the FW190A8 make smooth manouvers, the Hurri is able to stay on its tail(the A6M5 is or at least was similar) and a upzoom is hopeless so it seems to me that the MUCH stronger 190 engine dont count that much at highspeed(the P47, P38 and other planes have similar problems).

Strangewise in rare cases some planes show the right relation. For example the A6M2 lose much more energy than the A6M5, althought the last one is more heavy and have smaler wings.

I think the relative energy-bleed performences above Vmax need to get adjusted, then 10mph more or less dont count that much anymore(the behaviour while flying with full flaps also need to get more realistic).

Greetings,

Knegel

P.S.:It may be that some of my comparisons base on outdated experiences(one of the last updates particular changed things a lot), but general tendency is still the same with the current FM.

[AKDogg]

Well the hog is actually a very heavy plane and should be able to hold its E very well, which in AH it does.  At least for me.  Empty weights for the -1 are about 10,300lb's (no ammo and near zero fuel).  When fully loaded less ords, it weighs near 12,500lb's.  The hurriIIc weighs what, 7000lbs approx loaded?

[Kweassa]

I agree. In fact, I delight in throwing that very picture at the IL-2 fanboys every time they start gushing about IL-2 being the paragon of flight model realism (it is far from that). It usually shuts them up for a while.

 So are you saying you have some other factual data on the IL-2 series that which you can compare with Pyro's pic, and find it severely lacking?

 If otherwise, how in nine hells would you know which one is truly better?

[Charge]

"Thoughts on the Current Flight Model"

Actually this seems to be concerning more flaws in individual models -not the flaws (or what ever) in current flight model .

Semantics, sry...

E.g. The inverted stall of a Spitfire is a "flaw" (not a major one) in current flight model and probably not a fault of some error in Spitfire model itself.

Well, how could I know for sure...

 ***

However my list of flaws in several models:

-Too low AoA limits of aircaft equipped with slats (I could be wrong but I have not seen any confirmation to other direction). This could affect some models unfavourably. I also seem to have been wrong in my statements in flap effects on AoA limits...

-Too weak wingtips of late FW series.

-Too slow spool time of 262 engines. The behaviour of 262 airframe is not logical. It does not want to accelerate even in dive and then it does not want to slow down. Or is it because of engine drag and inablity to slow down the turbine? The airframe should not provide much drag?

-Adamantium tail units (+5 resistance to 30mm) in Lanc and B24. (Both double rudders! Hmmm...)

-Wrong sights in German armour and probably in Allied armour too. Plus you can move your driver views outside of tank in some armour, at least in T34 and M8.

-Too small view from 109 cockpit. The view should be slightly wider. The same flaw is most prolly also in FW. You cannot see much of the outer framing if there is armour glass installed.

-Wrong AoA of FW. No evidence, just a hunch. 2 degrees of AoA added with changing profile incidence angle with speed should give more significant nose down attitude even at cruise.

-Too slow deck speed for FW190A8. It is pain to get it to 345mph and it should do 350 mph no probs. It does not seem to benefit of more power either when compared to A5. It should at least be able to accelerate faster. To me it seems that A5 dominates the A8 by a margin in a dogfight. Did they really make the A8 worse than A5 back then?

-90 round Minengeshoss magazines for A5 outboard MG-FFs.

-Forward firing 20mm MG-FF for JU-88A4!

-C+

[Bronk]

Originally posted by Charge


 you can move your driver views outside of tank in some armour, at least in T34 and M8.


-C+

Ummm you can do that with Tiger and panzer also.
Strange that you leave those out.
Wondering why you would, as they are German and I'm sure you have driven them.

Bronk

[skycaptn]

I see I will be the zeke dork to address the zero dive FM.
Firstly neither of the zero's dive particularly well or for anything that could be considered a distance.. all models of the zero have a nasty habbit of nosing down and to the right at over 400mph below 10k and 455 at 15k.
This death dive and spin is and can be unrecoverable if the pilot is not familiar with recovery tactics.. and btw once in it she falls apart like a paper airplane.

[Knegel]

Originally posted by MwDogg
Well the hog is actually a very heavy plane and should be able to hold its E very well, which in AH it does.  At least for me.  Empty weights for the -1 are about 10,300lb's (no ammo and near zero fuel).  When fully loaded less ords, it weighs near 12,500lb's.  The hurriIIc weighs what, 7000lbs approx loaded?

Hi,
 
not only the weight is important, its the dragload that count and the Hog was one of the biggest single engine fighters in war, it should be able to keep its energy high rather due to its strong engine than due to its airframe.

Btw, the wingload is at least as good or a better value to estimate the e-bleed behaviour than to estimate the turnbehaviour.  

The F4U was a rather light wingloaded plane, although the smal wing aspectratio tend to provide a better dragbehaviour at highspeed, it still have a rather big surface in relation to its mass(in comparison to the 190A/D, 109K, P51D, P38 and P47) and i doubt that the big engine was helpfull to keep the drag low.


Greetings,

Knegel

[nuchpatrick]

Originally posted by Widewing
My issues related to the P-51B vs P-47 are also supported by Brit data that shows the Mustang III (P-51B) turns much smaller circles than the P-47. There is also testing at Eglin Field that supports the argument.

From http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org:

PROOF DEPARTMENT
TACTICAL COMBAT SECTION
ARMY AIR FORCES PROVING GROUND COMMAND, EGLIN FIELD, FLORIDA
FINAL REPORT ON TACTICAL SUITABILITY OF THE P-47C-1 TYPE AIRCRAFT
18 December 1942

1. OBJECT:

To determine the relative tactical value of the P-47C-1 type aircraft for combat service.

(snip)

3) Maneuverability -- The P-47C-1 was flown in mock combat against the P-38F, P-39D1, P-40F, and the P-51.  
   
 (a) It had superior rate of aileron roll at all speeds, and especially at high speed to all American fighter contemporary types, none could follow it in a fast reverse turn.  
   
 (b) The turning circle of this aircraft was larger than any of the other types engaged in combat. The high wing loading makes the plane mush in all maneuvers controlled by the elevators, and this also causes high speed stall in tight turns.  
   
 (c) It was slightly slower in acceleration from level flight at fifteen-thousand (15,000) than all types except the P-40F, which was decidedly slower, however, the distance gained in the initial acceleration was never greater than fifty (50) yards and the P-47C-1 rapidly overhauled and passed the other types. This test was with closed shutters and the liquid cooled engines rapidly overheated, the shutters had to be opened and the planes decreased a good deal in speed allowing P-47C-1 to run away rapidly. In push-overs with maximum manifold pressure the P-47 accelerated faster and drew away from all other types.  
   
 (d) In testing the zoom ability of the P-47C-1 it was found that from level flight and dives, the zoom was comparable with the P-40F. The P-39D1, P-38F, and P-51 have greater zooming ability.  
   
 (e) In close fighting the P-47C-1, due to its faster aileron roll, can quickly reverse turn and break off the combat almost at will. However, due to the large turning circle and low rate of climb, it is deemed inadvisable to attempt to dog fight with any type of enemy fighter now used in the combat area.

In short, the P-51B should run circles around the P-47D-11.



As to the stall behavior, I can stall an aircraft and it drops straight down without a hint of rotation. In the case of the Mosquito, it has 8,000 lb of thrust and the corresponding torque. Both are ignored and the aircraft has zero forward motion, while wings are level and without any rotation whatsoever. I have a real problem accepting that this is normal behavior, especially since this behavior was introduced with an update to the software and had not existed prior.

If P-factor is modeled correctly, I would think that there should be some slipstream impingement on the rudder. I don't see any. Which is why it is impossible to perform a true hammerhead stall.

My regards,

Widewing

Widewing & All..

You guys are wrong, you need to look at this data again. Your Compairing a P-47C-1-RE against a P-47D-11-RE. Tho they are simular in design your not taking in account the motors of the planes.

The P-47C-1 w/2800-21 - 2000hp and no water injection vs P-47D-11 with 2800-63 - 2300 hp which also had water injection.

It would be like comparing a A-36 Allison V-1710-81 to a P-51B Packard V-1650-3(Merlin made 68)

If were going to base this on facts lets have them right.

[Benny Moore]

Originally posted by Kweassa
So are you saying you have some other factual data on the IL-2 series that which you can compare with Pyro's pic, and find it severely lacking?

That's right.

[1K3]

Ok it seems that some people here want increased boost for their favorite planes such as the Spit, P38, and P51.  If that's the case then we should have Perk "power-up", similar to proposed  Perk "Ordinance".

http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=198125

[Charge]

"Ummm you can do that with Tiger and panzer also.
Strange that you leave those out.
Wondering why you would, as they are German and I'm sure you have driven them."

Nice one Bronk.  

Before you mentioned this I wasn't aware that you can stick you head through the roof of the drivers place -never even crossed my mind that you could  do something like that (in Pz and Tgr). If it is meant to simulate the drivers exit hatch you should only be able to stick your head from where the hatch actually is, not though front plate.

-C+

[Benny Moore]

Originally posted by 1K3
Ok it seems that some people here want increased boost for their favorite planes such as the Spit, P38, and P51.  If that's the case then we should have Perk "power-up", similar to proposed  Perk "Ordinance".

You forgot the current 1.98 ata Me-109K.  You meant to include that in the list, didn't you?  You want that to be perked, too, right?  Am I reading you correctly?  Fair play and all?

You Luftwhiners always want to have your cake and eat it as well.  If you want the U.S. and British ships to use standard boosts, than the Luftwaffe airplanes should definitely use the standard boosts as well.  U.S. and British fighters used their higher boosts a lot more than their Nazi opponents.

[straffo]

Benny you're so unable to post any data, you're boring.



Btw you still have no idea why the TsAGI PE2 data vs Rechlin data match ?