Remodeling the flight model

[Wilbus]

One aspect of the flight model that always makes me scratch my noggin is e retention when your engine conks out. Planes like the P-51 are very hard to lose airspeed with even a slight down nose angle, despite full flaps and the drag of lowered gear.

Could be the fact that the prop is feathered. A prop doesn't only give the plane thrust, it also gives it drag. The prop is the reason no prop plane can ever go supersonic (with the prop still attatched). Once near supersonic (what you talk about as a planes "mach number") the plane won't go any faster as the prop gives more drag than thrust. Killing the prop kills the drag (some of it).

[Wilbus]

One aspect of the flight model that always makes me scratch my noggin is e retention when your engine conks out. Planes like the P-51 are very hard to lose airspeed with even a slight down nose angle, despite full flaps and the drag of lowered gear.

Could be the fact that the prop is feathered. A prop doesn't only give the plane thrust, it also gives it drag. The prop is the reason no prop plane can ever go supersonic (with the prop still attatched). Once near supersonic (what you talk about as a planes "mach number") the plane won't go any faster as the prop gives more drag than thrust. Killing the prop kills the drag (some of it).

[hazed-]

Personally I think that the combat trim is actually too good.If used properly it is actually so effective it makes those of us who try to trim manually (as the real pilots had to) have a hard time. Especially in energy fighting.Could we have it toned down a little?

Im all for helping a newbie but its too much help imo.


As for some stuff that id like to see loked into :

P51 durability I think at the moment is way too strong vs ground fire. I have had 3 or 4 ack hits withour even losing a part in the p51d.True sometimes it goes down first hit but that seems rare.

From accounts of almost every pilot who ever speaks about it they all say the p51d was not suited to ground attack generally because it was so susceptable to even small arms fire. It should reflect this in AH.

The acceleration of 190 A5 seems to be a hell of a lot slower than a spitfireV yet flight tests of 190a3's and spitV's clearly state it had a huge advantage in acceleration, roll , dive etc.
I realise we have the 190a5 and it was heavier than the A3 but was it REALLY that much of a step down in speed?
Surely if suddenly the 190a5 was slower than the 190a3 and it made the spitV and spitIX faster the pilots would have started screaming blue murder!? anyhow Id like to see some kind of data to ease my mind on this.

I would also have to say that the 110G2 seems to have a superb acceleration for such an apparently unweildy aircraft.Certainly better than the 190a5 , even 'feels' better than the 190d9 to me! This might be a bug or maybe thats how they were?  

One last thing could you please explain why when we apply an auto level (x) or auto climb (alt x) to some aircraft it takes a LOT longer for some than others.There is a VERY large difference.
As auto trim and auto level werent really on these aircraft why on earth is there such glaring differences? Surely as its an added feature most planes of the same size should behave exactly the same using what is after all a 'unreal' feature.I do however greatly appreciate the feature and use it often but i have noticed some aircraft take up to 2.5 times longer to settle into position than others.seems weird.

[Straiga]

Bod,
I total cannot understand what you are talking about. First of all Jet turbines do have torge its measured on takeoff on the N1 and N2 gauges or torge gauge in someplanes or EPR gauge. Increase power on a turbine can torge an airplane. A single Eng Jet figher needs to on takeoff, counter torge and gyro precession.(a Rotating Mass) depending on what type of turbine is in its belly.
The N1 stage off a jet engine has as many as 13 stages of stator vanes, these are for diverting and decreasing pressure of the air before it enters the burner canisters, fuel is introduced into fine mist not touching anypart of the canisters, then the ignitors light  the fuel. Then the exploding gas exits onto the N2 stage of the
of the turbine which has a shaft that turns the N1 compressure. this is an axil flow type turbine. Some N1 and N2 sections turn opposite of each other. No torge just gyro precession.

Counter rotating or not you will still have prop slip stream! Thats just the way its is.
About the vertical Stab zeroing out. ???????????????????????????

[Straiga]

Pyro,
Dont get me wrong this is a class A1 combat sim you guys have here. We have started a 3rd sqd and doing great. I just would like to help in any way I can. I have a lot of experience flying airplanes and helicopters for a living with over 18,000 hrs of flying time.
I was just trying help out and I feal like the bad guy. I dont know what experince you guys have at AH at all. But I was just trying to say that I have never used Aileron in any airplane that I have flown to counter torge.
If I can help in anyway please let me know.
Thanks Pyro

[bozon]

But I was just trying to say that I have never used Aileron in any airplane that I have flown to counter torge

Straiga,
you just misread Pyro. He said:
[/I]Pyro:

An example of this is the effects on the propeller vortex on the wings. We’re modeling the forces of the vortex and its effect, but we weren’t applying it exactly where it needed to be applied, thereby creating an inaccurate force moment.

He's talking about torque in the ROLL axis where secondary prop wash on the wings wasn't modeled correctly.
There's no mention of "while taking off". Inflight you do use ailrons when increasing throttle (or insert pedal on helicopter when moving collective as he tried to example).

Bozon

[hazed-]

Pyro I would also like to give you this quote from 'wings of the luftwaffe' by captain eric brown RAF test pilot.
regarding the ju87:

'Every dive bomber of WWII vintage featured some sort of synthetic aid to judging dive angle, and in the ju87 this consisted of a series of lines of incllination marked on the starboard front side screen.These marks , when aligned with the horizon gave dive angles of 30 to 90 degrees. Now a dive angle of 90 degrees is a pretty palpitating experience for it always feels as if the aircraft is over the vertical and is bunting, and all the while terra firma is rushing closer with apparently suicidal rapidity.In fact , I have rarely seen a specialist dive bomber put over 70 degrees in a dive, but the ju87 is a genuine 90 degree screamer!. For some indefinable reason the ju87 felt right standing on its nose'

This got me thinking about the way its possible to divebomb vertically in almost any aircraft in AH with little or no fear of 'bunting' or any other adverse problem apart from locking up with compression.I was wondering if we should have a much more unstable platform when we use aircraft that werent designed to bomb in this manner so easily all the time. Could a P47 loaded with 3000lbs of ordinance dive vertically with ease?
Could 190s and p51s etc ? Was it common for the pilots to do this?
It would seem according to Eric Brown it didnt happen often.Do you think maybe we need to add some unnerving effect to this sort of behaviour? locking up earlier maybe? Is there any data on compression when an aircraft carries an extra 1000 to 3500 lbs of bombs and rockets?

I get the impression in AH that diving vertically is the easiest way to bomb stuff yet according to people like eric brown the stuka was UNUSUAL in that it could go vertical to 90 degrees and yet feel right. If he flew any of the AH planes im sure he wouldnt even notice a difference between the stuka and others. Certainly not enough to make remarks like these. Maybe this area needs looking into especially with people these days using b26s and lancasters to do just this type of bombing.

thnx

[Tumor]

Originally posted by culero
This is a gripe for me, as well.

culero

I think it's really wierd too.  I have no idea what real planes act like with no engine but the inability to slow down (or ability to glide forever and a day) has always struck me as being ??... unusual?

[hazed-]

a few tip bits ive read which are interesting to test in AH

Me262 : 'if one throttle was cut  at 160mph the me262 went into a violent diving turn.Full rudder was required to counteract the swing and roll and backward stick pressure had to be applied to keep the nose up.This action had to be taken within 2 seconds or else the situation was disasterous.The rudder force involved was high'

Havent gone to test this yet but i have landed the me262 with one engine and i have to say it wasnt terribly difficult. Perhaps i stayed at high enough speed to avoid any of this swing and roll effect? ust afer reading about the me262 in this boook it did make me think we have a very easy to fly me262 compared to the one described in the book.Seeing as how it is a perk plane I began to think maybe all its bad characteristics should be modeled. It had qute a few bad vices.

heres one:

'The jumo turbojets tended toward tempremental above 13,125 ft at which altitude the fuel pumps had to be switched on to sustain combustion.and above 29,530 ft it was considered inadvisable to reduce revs below 6000 per minute as to do so was to ensure a flameout, and restarting could not be attempted above 13,125 ft!'

but also theres a small thing which seems a little off with the current AH me262:

'For landing the undercarraige could be lowered at 310 mph but it was preferable to reduce speed to 250 mph and throttle back to 5000 rpm'

[hazed-]

One last thing i dont quite understand:

The mk108 or 103 cannon on the me262 , if you use the .target command to test it, when fired at 800 yards you will see your bullets land. BUT if you set it to 900 yards you cannot hit the target. Does this mean all bullets with the 30mm are removed at or over 900 yards?

There seems to be a rather large discrepancy between different guns .

Id like an explanation as to why some guns can fire over 1000 yards and some have the bullets stop a lot shorter. Surely its silly to remove the bullets as they will continue to travel and hit regardless of distances. AT least up to 1000 yards.

In 'veiw from the cockpit' by adolf galland he clearly states the effective range of the mk108 was 800 meters. Thats a lot further than 800 yards.

heres a quick list of various guns in AH and the range at which AH ceases (it seems) to calculate them:


MK 108  30mm range at wich no bullets hit .target is @850-900 yards

Browning .50 cal range at which no bullets hit .target is @1350 yards

mg151 20mm range at which no bullets hit .target is @ 1100 yards

MG131 13mm range at which no bullets hit .target is @1190-1200 yards

Hispano MK II range at which no bullets hit .target is @1200 yards

shavak 20mm range at which no bullets hit .target is @ 940 yards

Type 99 model 2 20mm range at which  no bullets hit .target is @1080 yards

Now i realise this may be a quirk of the graphical display on the .target command but as it is the only way we can test guns and their effective range it should at least give us accurate data.

IF it is accurate Id just like to know why the 50 cals are effective or are ACTUALLY modeled out to 1350 yards whereas others are it seems removed at a far lesser distance? doesnt make sense to me. surely the bullets are still there for all guns, shouldnt we have all guns calculated to this range even if they have dropped a considerable distance and are not as effective. As the game is now 50 cals can reach at least 150 yards further than any other gun, and at worse some 450 yards more!!!!. Ok so the 30mm at 1350 yards is next to useless because of its velocity but it should still BE there, just cause less damage.
If this is a quirk of the .target feature then fair enough. If its not then i have to say i find this a blatent extra ability for the 50 cals in this game.They already have a laser like trajectory, do we really want them to be the only guns with bullets calculated over 1200 yards? seems damn unfair to me.

slightly peeved!

[Wilbus]

Hazed, believe all bullets have timed flying distance. Say 3 seconds flying time. Difference is thanks to higher initial velocity the 50 cal will go further than a 30mm.

[hazed-]

Originally posted by Wilbus
Hazed, believe all bullets have timed flying distance. Say 3 seconds flying time. Difference is thanks to higher initial velocity the 50 cal will go further than a 30mm.

well thats a bit convenient isnt it? sheesh who decided that was fair?


now i understand why my bullets from a 30mm dont hit ground targets if fired at from over 900 yards. This is a completely unfair system, no wonder straffing Gv's etc is so difficult. Im amazed its set up this way to be honest and pretty dissapointed.

[Tilt]

Originally posted by Straiga

Taxiing and airplane on the ground just requires indepentant brake application on trycycle and taildraggers.  

Lavochkins did not have independant brakes they had one brake lever mounted on the JS which operated an air valve via a bowden cable.

The tail wheel was a free castor design

La 5's had a nasty bounce upon landing (worse than the spit) and the La 7 was worse still(longer gear). Pilots were taught to ignore the bounce as attempts to compensate for it usually put the AC on its nose.

On the ground Lavochkins must have been horrendous........ taxi ing could only be accomplished with the hood pulled back and even then the AC was required to snake as much as the rudder would allow

[GScholz]

Hazed, actually all your tests are a bit short I believe. The "target" travels with your plane (to stay at the set range). You could say that your test is correct if fiering at a plane flying away from you at aprox. the same speed. I've been pinged by B17's .50 cals as far out as d1.8k.

However you are absulutely correct that the guns with a higher muzzle velocity has an unfair range advantage, in addition to being easier to aim (which is correct).

[Puke]

From accounts of almost every pilot who ever speaks about it they all say the p51d was not suited to ground attack generally because it was so susceptable to even small arms fire. It should reflect this in AH.

-Hazed

Because it had a radiator and its placement.  Otherwise, the airframe isn't any weaker than your typical fighter.