109g10

[Karnak]

Did that Spitfire Va have fabric ailerons?  If so it isn't a valid test for the AH Spitfire V or IX.  The aluminum ailerons greatly improved the Spitire's roll rate.

Spitfire Mk IX vs Bf109G:

Rate of Roll
21.........Here again the Spitfire has a marked advantage at all speeds.

Spitfire Mk XIV vs Bf109G:

Rate of Roll
48. The Spitfire XIV rolls much more quickly.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html

I can't find it right now but I recall reading one test pilot saying that one thing he didn't like about the Bf109 was that the cramped cockpit only allowed 40lbs of lateral stick force to be applied whereas he could get 60lbs of lateral stick force in the somewhat roomier Spitfire's cockpit.

[Batz]

no metal ailerons,

Marh Hanna, German tests, Finnish roll rate tests. All say 80-90 degree/sec range at 450 kph, two of them indicating explicitly the stick force of 20 lbs, while Hanna leaving little doubt about it.

I am not a "spit whiner" and have no trouble killing one. (just saying before it gets thrown out). I posted this because you mention the spit in ah 1 matched the NACA tests. Actually it rolled a bit better at high speed IIRC. My point is that if you refer to the NACA chart I posted above then it was

CALCULATED results from the Brits, which is damn obvious from the fact they are giving STRAIGHT roll curves up to 200mph at 50lbs (note that NACA`s engineers were unalbe to deflect the ailrons further than 130 mph, and the cramped canopy enable no more than 40 lbs stickforce). In additition, they didn`t took into account the wing twist - which decreased roll rate by 60% on the Spitifre

So if this is true not only did the spit in ah1 roll a bit better then this chart then the chart itself is "optimistic". Which leads back to the spit roll rate in ah2. Did ht make adjustments to its roll rate or is it a bug related to ah2?

I dunno know enough myself to say one way or the other. Especially since theres obvious conflicting data.  We do know that the roll rate (I guess it needs a testing) seems slower. Same with the g10.

Anyway I am sure the experts will get it figured out.

[Kubwak]

OTR, auto take off is on, applied full power, went afk for a minute or so.

wth!? the g10 is a few hundred feet agl and is banking left, i checked my stick to see if it wasnt calibrated, looks ok.

hrrrmmm, them DBs must have lotsa torque now.

any one else experienced that?

[Batz]

I dont fly with auto take off or combat trim etc.

I just add some right rudder trim and a bit of right aileron and fly it straight down the run way.

I adjust trim to maintain a 2500fpm climb then when i get to alt i trim for level flight. NP at all with it. To stay in trim you need to fly at a contant speed. If you slow down then you need more right trim if you speed up you need less right trim.

[Nashwan]

Batz, you'll notice Isegrim dropped the thread when confronted with facts.

Also notice that Naca 868 contradicts not just the earlier Spit figures, but also the P-40 figures from the same test.

According to the early report, the P-40 did 110 deg/sec with only 30 lbs stick force, at 280 IAS.

According to the later report, 868, the P-40 did 95 deg/sec with 50 lbs stick force, at 280 IAS.

CALCULATED results from the Brits, which is damn obvious from the fact they are giving STRAIGHT roll curves up to 200mph at 50lbs

How does a straight line up to 200mph indicate calculated results? Wing twist at 200 mph or less is going to be negligible.

The results were not calculated. I have seen some of the original documents, and they describe the use of a "rat" to record angles, a gyro to record angle of bank, an electrical timer, a "henschel" type guage to record stick forces.

The RAE report specifically notes that proper instrumentation is vital, and that stopwatch timings are not adequate.

In additition, they didn`t took into account the wing twist - which decreased roll rate by 60% on the Spitifre

Measured results of course have to take into account wing twist. Wing twist limits rollrate at higher speeds. If it's above the stick force limit applied, then wing twist is going to be relatively hard to spot.

For example, the RAE tests show the rollrate for the 190 would be 15 deg/sec per degree of deflection at 350 IAS, if there was no wing twist.

That would be 255 deg/sec at 350, with rigid wings and unlimited stick force (assuming it could take the structural load)

The actual figure, with wing twist, was about 11 deg/sec per degree of deflection, for a theoretical roll rate of 187 deg/sec at 350 IAS, with unlimited stick force.

As you can see, the real rate they achieved with 50lbs stick force was 95 deg/sec. The effect of wing twist is masked by the drop off due to stickforce limits being exceeded.

So if this is true not only did the spit in ah1 roll a bit better then this chart then the chart itself is "optimistic".

The Fw190 figures in that chart come from the RAE as well, as do some of the others.

According to Gripen, the early Naca tests were conducted at one speed, and calculated from there. The fact that Naca's postwar report shows different figures indicates they were not satisfied with those results either.

The Naca Spit tests also seem to be measuring roll inertia as well as rollrate, whereas NACA 868 is a measure of steady state roll.

[Eagler]

anyone been able to do a IL2 style hammerhead in the g10?

[Black Sheep]

Il-2 style? Since the FM there seems to change, I'm not sure how to answer that one.

I do however notice alot more how the torque is a factor to rolling in the direction of the prop, as well it should

[Kweassa]

No Eagler.

 I know what you're asking, and I've tried it myself but couldn't pull it off. I've tried enabling and disabling stall limiters, also with both manual and auto trimming, but no success.

 It seems the FM itself isn't a finalized or finished version. The torque issues are certainly interesting, but as people point out, planes can fly with half wings and stuff. I think only part of the changes - the new torque factor I presume.. - are implemented with this beta.

 For instance, I know the 109s aren't rolling wonders, and when I fly IL2/FB, I think the roll rate on 109s as portrayed in that game is too optimistic. But the roll on the G-10 in this beta version we have is almost baffling

 Right roll during speeds under 200mph are almost impossible - it's slower than our AH1 Bf109E-4 at 400mph. When you try a 90d vertical, even with full rightside stick deflection and rudder input, you cannot stop the plane from rolling left due to torque - and that's at 150mph. By the time it reaches 100mph, it's almost impossible to stop the plane from nosing down - making the 30~50mph tailslides or hammerheads, immelmanns impossible to enter it in the first place.

 The only possible explanation I'd say, is that the FM isn't finalized.

 On the other hand, I notice the nose now whips downwards and points to the earth very fast, when met with a stall while going vertical. That seems to be a good thing.