109 flight model

[Anaxogoras]

I think you're mixing up AH and IL2. IL2 has every plane with the same identical flight model but different speeds.

Bullpoop.

[Angus]

Krusty:
"Fly a spit like a pony and all of a sudden you'll be locking your contols due to compressiong"
Bullpoop too. The Spit holds the all time speed record of a prop plane in a mad dive. That is, without nosing in

[Saurdaukar]

IL2 has every plane with the same identical flight model but different speeds.

Is that technically correct?  It would certainly explain why I think all A/C in IL2 feel "the same."

[thorsim]

a really really big prop though and metal ...

p factor not bhp factor ya know

Okay, here's the thing.

The F4U-1s have some of the lousiest weight to power ratios in the game. That engine is putting out 2000+ horses, but in a frikkin' HUGE airplane. I mean, sometimes I feel like a Cessna accelerates better...

Corsairs also have large and effective ailerons.

So I guess what I'm saying, why *should* what amounts to relatively small engine (by warbird standards) in a very large airframe have worse torque than some single prop "engines with saddles on them" like the La, 109? Or even the P-51, with its rather greater horsepower weight?

Was the Corsair's torque truly that awful, or was it more "rep". What I mean is, go into AHII put down full flaps and trim for 75mph IAS, power off, like you are coming onto the deck of a carrier. Now realize you are coming in abit low and slam the throttle forward. What happens? Do you think real-world pilots might have been slightly more disconcerted by that reaction considering 1. Their butts were actually in the seat and 2. They had to do slightly more than flick their wrist to correct any rolling tendency?

[FLS]

a really really big prop though and metal ...

p factor not bhp factor ya know

Why do you think the material is a factor? Are you suggesting that torque in an aircraft is from the mass of the prop?


When do you think P-factor would be noticeable in a Corsair?

[Kweassa]

 Don't we know better than to start fighting amongst ourselves the moment a typical, uninformed, ignorant n00b comes in and starts bashing the FM for no obvious reason, nor with any real evidence?


 

[Bodhi]

I know that agreeing with his statement probably means the world is coming to an end, but Krusty is kind of right in that the torque on the Corsair is undermodeled.  But so is every other aircraft in the game. 

Don't agree?  Run a throttle up quickly like every one does in here, and see how long it is before you haven't bounced a wing on the ground, or rolled the aircraft at low speeds.  Torque is a huge factor in warbirds.

[BnZs]

a really really big prop though and metal ...

p factor not bhp factor ya know

P-factor is the aerodynamic effect that causes the descending prop blade to have a higher AoA and and thus more thrust on one side. If you got a prop, ya got P-factor.

Prop mass as such has nothing to do with P-factor, you are thinking of the gyroscopic forces involved.

Neither of which is is anywhere near as significant for our purposes as the torque itself. And as I pointed out, the F4U doesn't have anything going on in that regard that say, the R-2800-engined P-47 doesn't. I suspect the difference is that no one was trying to plop P-47s down on carrier decks at 75mph.

[FLS]

P-factor is the aerodynamic effect that causes the descending prop blade to have a higher AoA and and thus more thrust on one side. If you got a prop, ya got P-factor.

I believe you only have P-factor when the propeller axis is at an angle to the relative wind.

[BnZs]

I believe you only have P-factor when the propeller axis is at an angle to the relative wind.

Right, when the airplane is at a high angle of attack, like climbing.

[Angus]

Okay, in RL the F4U would take off a slippery carrier deck. In AH, it's about the toughest ones to get of a carrier deck.
In real life, Spitfires were launched off a small carrier deck, while being overloaded. Full fuel, ammo, and a big slipper tank. It was done with completely full WEP power from the start, and they would tend to veer a little to the side. I recall oneincident where the aircraft actually went over the side after a little distance, but it still made it. In AH, that might be a problem.
A fun story about the P-factor was when a pilot I know landed his Cessna on a frozen lake. He had problems getting airborne, for the aircraft just turned around itself. He got it in the end, but I can't remember how.

[Ghosth]

Well when your talking about a plane that could, and often did "flip" off its wheels if the throttle was advanced too fast. You start to understand why they called it the Ensign Eliminator.

Yeah, it has a boatload of torque.

[Ack-Ack]

Reading about this nightmare you guys call 'torque' makes me all the more glad I enjoy a plane that lacks such an evil thing.

Didn't the Mustang also have a tendency to roll over on take off if throttle advanced too fast?


ack-ack

[BnZs]

Reading about this nightmare you guys call 'torque' makes me all the more glad I enjoy a plane that lacks such an evil thing.

Didn't the Mustang also have a tendency to roll over on take off if throttle advanced too fast?


ack-ack

I think pretty much every single-engine warbird was liable to flip over on its back if you pulled it into an accelerated stall with the throttle fire-walled. But like I say, not every single-engine warbird was landed on the carrier at very low airspeeds.

[BnZs]

Bullpoop.

Yeah, I don't get that one either Anax. Not a big Il2 fan, but a Fw-190 definitely does different things than a SpitIX when you haul back on the stick at 200mph IAS in that game!