60 Degree Limits for Bombers

[earl1937]

Here is another diagram.
http://www.lancaster-archive.com/lanc_corkscrew.htm

(Image removed from quote.)

Bustr, diagram is interesting, but lets see if the famous "lanc's" can do a true aerobatic maneuver called a slow roll! Remember to do a slow roll, pick out a point on the horizon or the top of a mountain and do a complete roll, 360 degrees, keeping the nose of the aircraft on that point though out the roll....plus or minus 50 feet would be acceptable in the bombers.
What you have shown is known as a "barrel roll"

[bustr]

The diagram along with reading crew accounts from WW2, the maneuver is s-curves while at the same time diving and climbing in coordination. The rear or top gunner calls the side to break to by watching the night fighter's attack.

This was not a daytime maneuver. It would be easily followed by a day fighter. It is a night time maneuver which to a degree confuses or ruins the aim of the night fighter. Some sources say it was effective others called it garbage. Mostly the pilots who had the timing down and could perform the maneuver, along with crew who could call the night fighter break response point made it work.

Sometimes the break gave the rear gunner a full side exposed shot on the night fighter.

They did this going into the target loaded with bombs and coming out unloaded. Says something for the Lancaster's structural limits. None of my research could I find a barrel roll as a Lancaster defensive maneuver.

[FLOOB]

Being able to do things like this in a four engine bomber is dumb and brings dishonor and ridicule upon our hallowed game.

[hitech]

Being able to do things like this in a four engine bomber is dumb and brings dishonor and ridicule upon our hallowed game.

So what precisely in that video do you think could not be done in real life? And please back up any assertions with published limits.

HiTech

[Bino]

So what precisely in that video do you think could not be done in real life? And please back up any assertions with published limits.

HiTech

According to what I can find online, the limits that Bustr posted...

Lancaster bomb clearance angles:
Dive 30
Climb 20
Bank 10

As well as flying inverted while loaded with bombs (first pass in the video).

[hitech]

According to what I can find online, the limits that Bustr posted...

Lancaster bomb clearance angles:
Dive 30
Climb 20
Bank 10

As well as flying inverted while loaded with bombs (first pass in the video).

Watch the film closly at what angle were the bombs dropped?

2nd those angles assume an unacelerated angle. With a slight loading as in the film the clearance angles of the drop will change.

As far as flying inverted, he was never really flying under neg G's the entire time. The game all ready has load tolerance on the wings not done in G's but total force on the wings. Obviously he didn't exceed those so whats is the issue?


Aces High has never tried , nor does it want , to force a pilot to behave like the real pilots did during the war.

HiTech

[bustr]

Hitech,

The angle limits for pitching bombs is to protect the bomb bay, fuselage, props and engines from being hit. AAF placed limits on bomber and fighters wing angle and nose pitch during glide and dive bombing to protect from those strikes. I've noticed over the years you may have chosen not to model that.

When I was looking for the manuals I posted in here about flight restrictions, I ran into that clear explanation for the warning.

When you first introduced the B29, I ran into a player in the TA who would up it with 25% fuel and barrel roll it by climbing a few thousand feet, diving to the deck, and barrel rolling with the pull out from the deck. I have no clue if that was possible in real life, or if the airframe would survive it but, this is your unique universe.

[hitech]

Hitech,

The angle limits for pitching bombs is to protect the bomb bay, fuselage, props and engines from being hit. AAF placed limits on bomber and fighters wing angle and nose pitch during glide and dive bombing to protect from those strikes. I've noticed over the years you may have chosen not to model that.

When I was looking for the manuals I posted in here about flight restrictions, I ran into that clear explanation for the warning.

When you first introduced the B29, I ran into a player in the TA who would up it with 25% fuel and barrel roll it by climbing a few thousand feet, diving to the deck, and barrel rolling with the pull out from the deck. I have no clue if that was possible in real life, or if the airframe would survive it but, this is your unique universe.

I understand why the limits were there, but you also must think about the difference in the real world limits when thinking about accelerated flight. There is no difference in how the bomb will drop away relative to the plane if the plane is under 1 g and completely upside down, vs level and right side up.

I had considered modeling it, and if I would it would also include the above effects, it would have almost zero game play impact, because the film posted would still be possible, because the drop is still with in the limits.

HiTech

[Bino]

Watch the film closly at what angle were the bombs dropped?

2nd those angles assume an unacelerated angle. With a slight loading as in the film the clearance angles of the drop will change.

As far as flying inverted, he was never really flying under neg G's the entire time. The game all ready has load tolerance on the wings not done in G's but total force on the wings. Obviously he didn't exceed those so whats is the issue?


Aces High has never tried , nor does it want , to force a pilot to behave like the real pilots did during the war.

HiTech

Thanks for the replies in this thread, HiTech! 

[Zimme83]

What could be an issue is if the pilot is strong enough to do those maneuvers, stick forces must be pretty heavy in that case, But i havent flown a Lanc so i cannot tell...

[bustr]

If you play these games long enough, you stop being surprised that the code world is not the real world when it coitus interruptuses you out of the depth of your mental drug fix. Or you end up watching really angry addicts accusing the game creator of stepping on "their" fun. And we all know the law of diminishing returns that applies to drug fixes.

Hitech, the more explanations you give about your choices of why you present the physical functions in the AH world in a given manner. The more sense the game's process makes regarding your target goals for playability.

It looks like your addicts want to raise a lynch party because you are not targeting out doing WT\IL2\DCS with a Holo-deck extravaganza overdose fix. Some of them sound like they have plateaued and are blaming you with the euphemistic accusation equivalent of cutting their stuff. The truth is they no longer receive the same positive  dopamine rush they used to, and blame it on you, not their personal biology.

Anger studies are finding that the brain responds by becoming closer to and trying to bond with the experience. The closeness is a natural tendency to wanting to eliminate the source of the anger. Kind of a twisted thing but a natural tendency. Ever wondered why so many players can sustain being angry at so many people and things in the game for so many years? It's the other side to the self dopamine addiction that eventually cannot be supported without taking a break.

[FLOOB]

So what precisely in that video do you think could not be done in real life? And please back up any assertions with published limits.

HiTech

[Karnak]

Lancaster leaving formation with Mossie and B-25, look at 11:05.

[FLOOB]

Lancaster leaving formation with Mossie and B-25, look at 11:05.

It's like he was going fast and turned auto level off and drifted upward. But that's nothing, check this out.

I wonder what altitude that base is.

[Karnak]

It's like he was going fast and turned auto level off and drifted upward. But that's nothing, check this out.

I wonder what altitude that base is.

You're comparing a restored Lanc flown to a fraction of its limits to a jet fighter?

Ok then....