Author Topic: 109g10 (Read 1045 times)

Shane · « **on:** October 15, 2003, 05:59:51 PM »

does the roll seem sluggish compared to ah1? rudder helps somewhat, but still seems slow.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #1 on:** October 15, 2003, 06:31:25 PM »

Roll to right is much much slower.

Batz · « **Reply #2 on:** October 15, 2003, 06:39:25 PM »

definately pulls to the left. It seems like the head position in the cockpit sits higher. Its most likely is the new canopy. I would love to see the cockpit redone.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #3 on:** October 15, 2003, 06:56:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Batz
definately pulls to the left. It seems like the head position in the cockpit sits higher. Its most likely is the new canopy. I would love to see the cockpit redone.

I like the new cockpit but I do think that the cockpit frames should be darker - they are now very light gray which is odd since AH1 has them black/gray RLM 66 as was in real life.

PS HTC fixed the oil cooler - and how - look at all the detail!!!!! Plus the 3D model has tons more detail and even the spinner spiral is fully rendered.

Batz · « **Reply #4 on:** October 15, 2003, 07:24:47 PM »

the detail is better and I cant wait to see the g6. Oil cooler looks good but wheres the functioning rad flaps?

didja see where the 190s fuel guage is at?

Some one listened.......

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #5 on:** October 15, 2003, 07:35:08 PM »

Yea the fuel guage is nice and high up.

I wonder if the tank sequence is changed too...

I also cant wait to see the G6, I hope HTC built it on the G2 airframe instead of adding the G6 MG bulges over the streamlined G10 MG fairings as in AH1 ..

JAWS2003 · « **Reply #6 on:** October 15, 2003, 08:06:11 PM »

Looks like the Fw 190 got very little attention:(. Just look the difference between pony D and the Fw. Poor wurger is still square, i think the pony has twice as many polygons than the wurger.

thrila · « **Reply #7 on:** October 15, 2003, 08:13:33 PM »

the roll in the spit seems a whole lot slower.

Kweassa · « **Reply #8 on:** October 15, 2003, 08:30:14 PM »

Noticed.

The Fw190A seems to roll a bit faster at 300mph ranges now, as compared to the Spit9, which definately seems to roll slower. The G-10 also seems to roll slower, and the 51B and D seems to roll a teensey bit faster, but not sure about this one.

Another thing noticed.. taking off in G-10 hastily like we used to, causes death

In AH, fire engines, hit the 100mph mark and pull and you're up.. not so in AH2. Stabilize the plane first before take off.. a new lesson learned by me.

moot · « **Reply #9 on:** October 16, 2003, 10:41:53 AM »

strange idea you'd put the plane at such a high-drag aoa when you also want to take off in a hurry.

would be nice if the temperature gauge was also in sight, it's more important (to me, dunno about others) than the fuel amount.

Karnak · « **Reply #10 on:** October 16, 2003, 12:29:17 PM »

I'm not familiar enough with the 109 to comment, but the Spitfire Mk IX hit the NACA numbers pretty closely in AH1. The Spitfire Mk IX's roll rate in AH1 was a little fast at high speed, but the peak roll rate was right on. The NACA charted a 50lb stick force roll rate across the speed spectrum, but a Spitfire pilot had room to exert a 60lb stick force which might have explained the higher roll rate at high speed where the issue was the pilots inability to fully deflect the ailerons, not an airframe limitation. The AH2 Spitfire Mk V and Mk IX fall well short of the NACA results.

The C-47A in AH2 might as well not roll it is so slow. It feels like it is using wing warping instead of ailerons.

I suspect the FM is not final.

Batz · « **Reply #11 on:** October 16, 2003, 12:53:00 PM »

Posted by Vo101_Isegrim on the ubi forum (dont remember the thread title as I just saved snippets to a text file, search over there for full thread....)

Quote

From :

"Measurements of the flying qualities of a Supermarine Sptitife VA airplane." NACA Advanced Confidental Report, by William H. Phillips and Joseph R. Vensel.

The tests were conducted at Langley field, Va., during the period from December 30, 1941 to January 29, 1942. Sixteen flights and apprx. 18 hours flying time were required to complete the tests.

[...]

Desription of the the Supermarine Spitfire airplane

Name and Type : Supermarine Spitfire VA (Air Mininstry No. W3119).
Engine : R-R Merlin XLV
Weight, empty : 4960 lbs
Normal gross weight : 6237 lbs
Weight as flown for tests : 6184 lbs

Ailerons (metal-covered)
Lenght (each) : 6 feet, 10 1/2 inches
Area (total area, each) : 9.45 sq. feet
Balance area (each) : 2.45 square feet

[...]

A stick force of 2 lbs to the right and 3 lbs to the left was required to overcome aileron friction.

[...]

Lateral Stability and Control

Aileron-control characteristics : The effectiveness of the ailerons of the Supermarine Spitfire airplane was determined by recording the rolling velocity produced by abrubtly deflecting the ailerons at various speeds. The aileron angles and stick forces were measured. It should be noted that the airplane tested was equipeed with metal covered ailerons.

[...]

The ailerons were sufficiently effective at low speeds, and were relatively light at small deflections in high speed flight. The forces required to obtain high rolling velocities in high-speed flight were considered excessive.
With a stick force of 30 lbs, full deflection of the ailerons could be obtained at speeds lower than 110 miles per hour. A value of pb/2V of 0.09 radian in left rolls and 0.08 radian in right rolls were obtained with full deflection.

Rolling velocity (at 6000 ft altitude) of about 59 degrees per second could be obtained with 30 lbs stick force at 230 miles per hour indicated speed.

The ailerons were relatively light for small deflections, but the slope of the curve of stick force against deflection increased progressively with deflection, so that about five times as much force was required to fully deflect the ailerons as was needed to reach one-half of the maximum travel. The effectiveness of the ailerons increased almost linearly with deflection all the way up to maximum position. The value of pb/2V obtained for a given ailerons deflection was nearly the same in speeds and conditions tested. It may be concluded, therefore, that there was very little reduction in aileron effectiveness either by separation of flow near minimum speeds or by wing twist at high speed.

Fig 27 shows the aileron deflection, stick force, and helix angle obtained in a series of roll at various speeds intended to represent the maximum rolling velocity that could be readily obtained.

The pilot was able to exert a maximum of about 40 lbs on the stick. With this force, full deflection could be attained only up to about 130 miles per hour. Beyond this speed, the rapid increase in stick force near maximum deflection prevented full motion of the control stick. Only one-half of the available deflection was reached with a 40 lbs stick force at 300 miles per hour, with the result that the pb/2V obtainable at this speed was reduced to 0.04 radian, or one-half that reached at low speeds.

Another method of presenting the results of the aileron-roll measurements is that given in figure 28, where the force for different rolling velocities is plotted as a function of speed. The relatively light forces required to reach small rolling velocities are readily seen from this figure. The excessive forces required to reach high rolling velocities and the impossibility of obtaining maximum aileron deflection much above 140 miles per hour are also illustrated.

From :

STABILITY AND CONTROL SUB-COMMITEE. AERONAUTICAL RESEARCH COMMITEE
Comparision of aileron control charactheristics as determined in Flight Tests of P-36, P-40, 'Spitfire' and 'Hurricane' Pursuit airplanes.

By William H. Philps. N.A.C.A. Confidental Bulletin. 16th November, 1942

[..]

The aileron effectiveness of the various airplanes is compared in the following table on the basis of the response obtained with stick forces of 30 and 5 pounds. A force of 30 lbs is somewhat less than the greatest stick force exerted by the pilot. Repeated flight measurements have shown, however, that this forcer is a reasonable upper limit for manouvering at high speeds. A comparision at a stick force of 5 lbs are also included to bring out a rather interesting fact regarding the order of merit of aileron effectiveness for the various airplanes when very light forces are used :

Rolling velocities obtained with 30 lbs stick force at 230 mph indicated airspeed at 10 000 ft. (deg/sec)

P-36 : 43
P-40 : 90
Hurricane : 64
Spitfire : 63

Rolling velocities obtained with 5 lbs stick force at 230 mph indicated airspeed at 10 000 ft (deg/sec)

P-36 : 9
P-40 : 8
Hurricane : 19
Spitfire : 15

A further comparision of the aileron performance of the four airplanes is given in figure 2, which shows how the control force characteristics influence the rolling velocities obtained through the speed range.

If you are referring to the NACA Report 868

Quote

Yep, 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 (only about 35% on the P-47) at speeds, if you read the FULL report... They not even specify exact model... LOL!

On the other hand, we have the testimony`s of REAL Spitfire pilots, like :

This if form Alex Heshaw, the Chief pilot of the Castle Bromwhich Spitfire plant. He basically flew hundreds of Spitfires after they left the factory and were tested for airworthyness.

"I loved the Spit, every Marks of it. But I must admit, that altough later Marks were much faster, they were also progressively inferior to previous Marks in manouveribility. When we checked how a Spit behaves during roll, we counted how many complete rolls we could do under a given time. With the Mark II and V, we did 2 1/2 rolls, but the Mark IX was heavier, and only capable of 1 1/2 rolls. The later, more heavier versions could do even less. Designing an aircraft is about finding balance. It`s hardly possible to improve performance without degrading other properties of the aircraft. "

And this from Jeff Ethell:

"The elevator is very light, while the rudder is stiff and the ailerons even more so. Every Spitfire I have flown take more muscle to roll than most other fighters. As speed increases, both rudder and ailerons get heavier, creating a curious mismatch at high speeds... on has to handle the almost oversensitive elevators with a light fingertip touch while arm-wrestling the stiff ailerons."

And one more word: the NACA report I have shown is for an early MkVA, probably the best rolling of all Spitfires. It`s from the first batch of 78 planes, which still had 8 MGs, but already had the metal ailerons. All later MkVs had Hispano cannons installed in the wings, which decreased roll rate further because of the weight in the wings, and later models, as weight increased (to over 9000 lbs by 1945, 50% more than MkV), roll rate and manouveribilty decreased further.

So it could be argued 50lbs stick force is optimistic

Batz · « **Reply #12 on:** October 16, 2003, 12:54:35 PM »

NACA Report 868

Batz · « **Reply #13 on:** October 16, 2003, 01:01:44 PM »

more

Quote

Hop, what you posted there is not a NACA test, it is just data collected by the authors of a post-war summary on lateral control, where the graph you posted is not commented in any way and no sources for the data contained in the chart are given. Link:

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/naca-report-868.pdf

On the other hand we the TWO DETAILED NACA TESTS on Spitfire (eliptical wing) roll performance, both comming to same conclusion: 60deg/sec max roll rate reached at 230mph. For this data it can be concluded that Spitfire had a roll performance worse than Emil, and much worse roll performance than 109F and later at high speeds.
This is one of the reports, the other I think it was posted by Isegrim:

http://members.tripod.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/raf/spit_flying.pdf

Batz · « **Reply #14 on:** October 16, 2003, 01:08:55 PM »

Found the thread

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yxyaf