190 roll rate

[Naudet]

Keep it in perspective, what difference does it really make? Just adjust to what is there and learn to work with it.

You really ask?

If i fly a 190, i want to have it flying like one.

I dont want a FW190 3D model with the FM of a P51.

If you see it that way, why not give all planes the same FM, and just keep the 3D model how it is.

And about AH rollrates. It would really help if HiTech just jumps in an explains how stick forces are modeled in AH.

If the rolerate in AH is based on a certain stickforce, the rollrate in AH should have basicily the same relation as on the NACA chart.
Cause it would make no sense to limit roll with different amount of force at different speeds. (i.e 40lbs@250mph but 55lbs@400mph)

If it is based on maximum possible aileron deflection, i think i.e. the FW190 would roll better at all speeds. But same goes for all planes.
But that would not be a realistic way, just imagine that in some planes stick forces get really really high. So high no pilot could apply them.


And about the warps cause by rollrate, i again say it is a problem of AH's way of transfer. FA2.5 and now FA3 both give the 190 its full rollrate and there it doesnt cause any warp probs. There transfer protocol is modeled so well, that i have never seen any warp roles or micriwarps there.
Same goes for my trial period in WW2Online. Even though i sometimes had fps of just 12-15, i never saw any mircrowarps.
Its a phenomenon i just know from AH.

[GRUNHERZ]

Oh yea I'm pretty sure Naudet is not interested in going to play FA or WW2OL.......

[Nashwan]

Perhaps I wasn't clear:

The AH 190 rolls a little bit too slow at low speeds, on the order of 3% or so. At high speeds it is up to 20% to fast, probably due to increased stick forces being modelled.

The 3% reduction at lower speeds could easily be down to minor variations in the testing, for example the figures Hristo came up with were the time taken to do 3 complete rolls, averaged over several attempts. That figure includes the time to accelerate into the roll, the Naca figures may not.

The AH 190 closely matches the real life 190.

Same is true for most of the other planes Hristo tested, iirc. The Spit was certainly the same, too slow at low speeds (though again not by much), too fast at high speeds, again indicating higher allowed stick forces.

[MANDOBLE]

Thread with NACA vs AH roll rate comparison

The initial chart in the thread above shows clearly what planes are gaining roll rate and what are loosing it. It is as easy as substracting AH roll rate area from NACA roll rate area.

All the planes have a slight gainance in roll rate except the 190, it has a notorious decrement. Planes like Typhs, Spits, Zeros, F6F and P47D25 have a notorious increase. Hey, that NACA report states 55 degree per secs for planes like Typhs and Zekes at 10k.

Hey, The Illo NACA chart shows 55 degrees per sec as maximum roll rate for Zekes and Typhs and 165 for 190 at 10k. Now show me an AH 190 doing 165 degrees or a Zeke or Typh doing no more than 55 at any speed.

I also would like to know how "bad" was the elevator control of 190s at hi speeds and how "good" was it with the Typhs, and why they keep with full control while the 190s are just limited to trims at these speeds.

In AH we have 190s that nearly matches the general performance numbers for the real machines (climb and speed). But handling is a different thing.

[Naudet]

@Grun: i hate the new FA3, and i am not going to play it, but WW2online might be in reach if i get a new comp. It basicily because i am tired of those guys, that just wirl around cause they know AH tranfer protocol will ensure their safety. WW2online lags behind in many things especially graphics, number of available planes, but i found the immersion of airwar was there better than in AH, noone pray&spraying from 700 yards and turning is not the all-winning-ability a fighter must posses


@nashwan: how did Hristo the test, and how can i copy the results? I have performed test on climb and turnspeed before, that gave representative results, but i dont know how to test roll without may other factors disrupting the test (nose drop, speed increase etc.)

[SageFIN]

Originally posted by Nashwan
Perhaps I wasn't clear:

The AH 190 rolls a little bit too slow at low speeds, on the order of 3% or so. At high speeds it is up to 20% to fast, probably due to increased stick forces being modelled.

The 3% reduction at lower speeds could easily be down to minor variations in the testing, for example the figures Hristo came up with were the time taken to do 3 complete rolls, averaged over several attempts. That figure includes the time to accelerate into the roll, the Naca figures may not.

The AH 190 closely matches the real life 190.

No, you were clear but were just holding back info. Saying that the 190 is up to 20% fast doesn't do much good if you don't give the actual figures. So, tell us what results Hristo obtained, so we can (again) compare them with the NACA graph and (again) see that they are quite much more off than you imply (at max aileron deflection).

[MANDOBLE]

SageFIN, in my previous post there is a link to a thread with a graph of the AH results.

[illo]

[Staga]

Naudet is right what he said about wwiiol: Planes do not warp. They just disappear from your sights...
Oh and if you're interested about planes in wwiiol do some speed tests in different altitudes... Flying in there is a joke but ground war rocks.

[Nashwan]

No, you were clear but were just holding back info. Saying that the 190 is up to 20% fast doesn't do much good if you don't give the actual figures. So, tell us what results Hristo obtained, so we can (again) compare them with the NACA graph and (again) see that they are quite much more off than you imply (at max aileron deflection).

I can't remember the actual figures.

I do remember the results, and they showed 5% too slow at about 200mph, 20% too fast at 300 (350?) mph. (ie, 20% faster than the NACA figures)

ISTR Hristo did his tests after that chart illo posted, and found very different figures. I don't know how he tested, and he is a far better pilot than me, so I wouldn't be able to duplicate his results anyway.

How about one of you asks Hristo?

[gripen]

The data in that  NACA chart  for  the Fw 190 (and Mustang, Typhoon and Spitfires) is actually from a fighter aileron comparison made by the RAE. The RAE paper claims that the tested Fw 190 had heavier ailerons than other two captured Fws RAF had that time. It should be also noted that data is for maxium rolling velocity of the roll.

gripen

[Naudet]

gripen, can you post a link to that aileron comparison.

And did i get that right: The test 190 had HEAVIER ailerons than two other examples at the RAE? So it can be expected the other two would have done even better?

And maximum rolling velocity means, reaction to roll, acceleration in the roll etc. are not shown. Therefor we cannot get any hind from that if i.e. the 190 initiates the roll much faster than the spit?

[Nashwan]

Gripen, do you know the serials of the Spitfires in that roll comparison?

[SageFIN]

Originally posted by Nashwan


I can't remember the actual figures.

I do remember the results, and they showed 5% too slow at about 200mph, 20% too fast at 300 (350?) mph. (ie, 20% faster than the NACA figures)

ISTR Hristo did his tests after that chart illo posted, and found very different figures. I don't know how he tested, and he is a far better pilot than me, so I wouldn't be able to duplicate his results anyway.

How about one of you asks Hristo?

One doesn't need to be a good pilot to test planes. A steady hand, observant eyes, a stopwatch, a good testing prodecure and some patience is all it takes. Having a friend to do the timing and such helps much, too.

I say we do new tests and plot them against the NACA chart. Then at low speeds we have directly comparable results and by looking at the spikes, we can have an approximation of the max stick forces that the AH pilot can exert on the stick. I for one will do some testing when I get my stick back together. Having Hristo's test results would help too.

Also, Naudet, you could try having a slight nose up attitude before starting your roll test. Then check out how many complete rolls you can make before the nose drops too much and the plane gets too fast. Then just do it again and this time use a stopwatch or such and time how long it takes to do x number of complete rolls. If you don't time the first one, your results are more comparable with the NACA test, which according to gripen represents full roll velocity.

[MANDOBLE]

I just started to do roll tests. First one, the Typh. After repeated tests I got 6.9 - 7.4 segs for 360 degree roll at 375 mph. that is almost the double shown in NACA chart. I hope to have a complete graph in few days.