Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Pyro on February 16, 2004, 11:36:16 AM
-
I'm going to be doing some work in the area of roll rates soon. Since many people like to complain about how their favorite plane rolls too slow and every plane they don't like rolls too fast, I figured I'd give everyone a chance to put up now. Detailed roll rate data is not widely available, and most of the stuff that is out there is pretty generic and not well documented. Even so, something is better than nothing.
So what I'm looking for is some roll rate data that I can pop into excel and graph out. It should be in the following format:
Speed MPH, Roll Rate degrees per second
Example:
200, 45
210, 47
220, 49
230, 51
etc.
Please include the following with your data. What the source data is, the specific plane model, and any specific test conditions mentioned in the source data. If you're posting data that represents a composite of multiple differing sources, please include those sources as well and give an indication as to what you're thinking.
Please don't submit fake data as a joke, i.e. B-17 rolling 720 dps. Please try to put aside any bias you may have and don't try to push inapplicable data to either bolster or diminish a particular plane. I.E., don't try to push clipped wing Spit data because you want the Spit to roll faster and conversely, don't try to push early fabric aileron spit data for a later model with metal ailerons because you want it to roll slower. Don't be afraid to post something if you're not sure if it's applicable, just don't try to be misleading about it. Thanks for the input.
-
Pyro, I suppose you are asking for max roll rate, but take into consideration roll acceleration/decceleration also.
-
I have never seen a full set for the lavochkins.
The Rechlin translation
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/la5g3.jpg
(thanks F4UDOA)
gives La5 as a single
280, 90
It mentions "excellent aileron authority" and indicates that stick forces (generally) increase at 373mph.
As you know the La7 had the same wing. Also stick forces were further reduced in the La7 (over the La5) and authority further improved with the replacement of cables with tubular linkages.
If you ever find any lavochkin roll data of any depth I would be very interested in a copy.:)
-
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/
This might help some. It's the (in)famous NACA report on roll rate, including a whole mess of calculations, graphs, charts, diagrams, the works. A fairly comprehensive work if you're looking for one. On page 42 there's a massive graph showing the roll rates for all sorts of US, German, British, and Japanese aircraft. You'll need a magnifying glass though; some of the print is awful hard to read.
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
Put the P-61B in Aces High
(http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/sig/end_net.gif)
-
I think Pyro is asking us to type and sort all them data by ourselves, so he can see what kind of opinions differ on what plane at a single glance.
Like for instance, somebody gives a sorted speed/ degrees per second data on a Fw190A-5, and somebody gives another data that's quite different from it. Pyro can then look at both differing data sets of the Fw190A-5, and determine which one of them to choose on what standards.
...
ps) If anyone might want to look up how AH planes are doing:
Kingcat's Aces High planes roll rates (http://kingcat.hihome.com/rollrate.html)
-
Pyro,
Will you model overbalance and flutter?
-
F4U, we aren't planning to. How would you have us model overbalance without FFB?
Kweassa, yeah basically this is a good time to give anybody the opportunity to make a specific case about the roll performance of a particular plane. It's very easy to implement with the new flight model changes.
Tilt, that test report was written by Hans-Werner Lerche if you are unaware. A copy of it appears in his book, "Luftwaffe Test Pilot". He doesn't talk a whole lot about the La-5 in the book but it is an interesting read worth getting if you don't have it. As to detailed roll data on the Lavochkins, I don't even recall seeing that in any of the Tsagi data I've looked at.
-
Pyro, I read the NACA report Flakbait posted and I find it interesting that while the diagram on page 42 is limited to 50 lbs stick force they point out Zero "force limits unknown". Does this mean that other planes (and presumably the Zero) had maximum stick force limits, or that the Zero's performance in the diagram was possibly done with a stick force other than 50 lbs?
Does AH1 / AH2 model maximum stick force to 50 lbs?
-
Interesting point Scholz.... there was huge ruckus in IL2/FB forums concerning plane roll rates on the point that some planes would be impossible for the pilot to apply and maintain "ideal" stick forces. So, people started fighting on how much force can be applied in what plane, before they even started mentioning specific roll rates.
In that sense, how much force can the AH1 or AH2 virtual pilot apply?? :confused: Are they all the same in all planes? Or is there some specific differences in specific planes we should be aware of?? ie) P-51s are modelled at 50lbs side force, 109s are 30lbs.. or something like that?
-
Originally posted by Pyro
. As to detailed roll data on the Lavochkins, I don't even recall seeing that in any of the Tsagi data I've looked at.
Me neither......... its like they never had a test for it! I have over 50 pages of various TSAGI stuff and roll rate is not mentioned once. (or at least not in any bit I can translate and I have looked........ believe me).
The only reference I have ever seen is the Rechlin figure referred to above plus some anecdotal stuff (without numbers) from a czech pilot that (with further research) suggest it )la5 roll rate) was "better" than a Spit MkV. (but at what speed etc it is very unclear)
Frankly barring any other data, and as your present curve passes thru the sole Rechlin reference I would tend to go with what you have lavochkin roll rate wise!
-
Flutter and stick responce and pilot input.............
I know its an illusion but when in an AH cockpit I apply aileron the ac rolls almost before the aileron seems to move. I presume actually its instantanious.
Flutter I know nothing of
Stick responce could be a function of dead banding between input and out put that varies with FM........... AH has always seemed to resist this however ........
Pilot input (over coming stick forces) could also be shown via damping of input..basically our std pilot has to apply a certain input force and above a certain level his "strain" to do this causes a delay in its full application.
I assume over balance would be exactly the opposite.........ie stick inputs are amplified under certain conditions.
best leave it as it is;)
-
The only thing not more or less correct in our AH that crosses my mind is the Zeke, especially the speed at which it should roll no more.
-
I've never seen a roll rate test that really quantified stick forces using a measuring device of some sort. I believe 50 lbs is used as a standard for the maximum input that an average pilot can exert and that it is strictly up to the test pilot to keep stick forces in the 50 lb range during his tests.
Angus, quantify what you're saying and we can go from there.
-
The Fw190 data in NACA 868 comes from an RAF report, iirc. That report notes they used a "henschel type stick force indicator".
-
Any chance of clipping the wings of the Spit V or IX Pyro? Since most fights are 20K and below that full span wing doesn't make that much difference. and it would improve the roll rate on both.
Clipped wing LFVc's and LFIXs would be really nice :)
Dan/Slack
-
Yeah, I would like to do a clipped wing LF IX.
-
I wanted to see Clipped wing ver. Spit in AH1.
I hope you do it in AH2!
-
Pyro,
Did you got the Bf 109F test I sent couple months ago?
gripen
-
Yeah, I would like to do a clipped wing LF IX.
My hero!
-
Clipped wings are cool!!
Pyro,
I don't really know how you could model overbalance. That's why I asked. BTW, what is FFB?
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Clipped wings are cool!!
Pyro,
I don't really know how you could model overbalance. That's why I asked. BTW, what is FFB?
Force Feed Back joystick.
-
Originally posted by Pyro
Yeah, I would like to do a clipped wing LF IX.
That would be most welcome :)
Dan/Slack
Spit XII fanatic, but a clipped LFIX/XVI would be a close second
-
any chance for a spit VIII? pacific spits would be great :)
-
Originally posted by Citabria
any chance for a spit VIII? pacific spits would be great :)
Better off asking for an LFIX with the pointed tail. Then you can skin it as a MKVIII. Performance is going to be much the same as the LFVIII that that Aussies were flying as well as the RAF in the CBI.
The old AW3 Spit IX looked great in RAAF markings, masquerading as a VIII :)
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_169_1076305581.jpg)
-
Found something about the zeke:
first this:
http://yarchive.net/mil/zero.html
Then this, - a goodie, test results
http://www.tgplanes.com/Public/snitz/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=161
Caldwell's engagements were in the Spring of 1943 in a Spitfire Vb
Then this:
http://www.danford.net/shilling.htm
This is the a6m2's roll rate in old warbirds, but I guess Pyro already knows those ;)
150mph: 4.9s
200mph: 5.9s
250mph: 6.9s
300mph: 14.8s
350mph: 21.6s
A comparison from combat Ki43 and a6m: http://yarchive.net/mil/ki-43.html
However, I have not been able to find any real life roll charts anywhere, and I've been looking quite a bit. :(
-
Originally posted by gripen
Pyro,
Did you got the Bf 109F test I sent couple months ago?
gripen
Negative, did you send it directly to me?
-
I'm sure you have this, but what the heck:
Bf109E RAE tests:
Ailerons:
At low speeds, the ailerons control was good, response brisk. As speed increased the ailerons became too heavy but the response was good up to 200 mph. At 300 mph they became "unpleasant". Over 300 mph they became impossible. At 400 mph the stick felt like it was set in a bucket of cement. A pilot exerting all his strength could not apply more than one fifth aileron at 400 mph; that's 5 degrees up and 3 degrees down. The aileron situation at high combat speeds might be summarized in the following way:
(1) Due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick as compared to 60 pounds or more possible if he had more elbow room.
(2) Messerschmitt also penalized the pilot by designing in an unsually small stick top travel of plus or minus 4 inches, giving very poor mechanical advantage between pilot and aileron.
(3) At 400 mph with 40 pounds side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4 seconds to get into a 45 degree roll or bank. That immediately classifies the airplane as being unmaneuverable and unacceptable as a fighter.
Elevator:
This was a good control at slow speeds but became too heavy above 250 mph and at 400 mph it became so heavy that maneurverability became seriously restricted. When diving at 400 mph a pilot, pulling very hard could not pull enough "g" force to black himself out. The stick force per "g" was an excess of 20 pounds in a high speed dive. To black out, as a limit to the human factor in high speed maneuvers, would require over 100 pounds pull on the stick.
Rudder:
At low speeds the rudder was light, but sluggish in response. At 200 mph the sluggishness disappears, at 300 mph the absense of trim control in the cockpit became an acute problem. The pilot's leg force on the port rudder above 300 mph to prevent sideslip became excessive and unacceptable.
Control Harmony:
At low speed, below 250 mph, control harmony was good, only a little spoiled by the suggishness of the rudder. At higher speeds the aileron and elevator forces were so high that the word "harmony" is inappropriate.
Aerobatics
Not easy to do. Loops had to be started from about 280 mph when the elevator forces were getting unduly heavy; there was also a tendency for the wing slats to bang open the top of the loop, resulting in aileron snatch and loss of direction.
Below 250 mph the airplane would roll quickly, but there was a strong tendency for the nose to fall through the horizon in the last half of the roll and the stick had to be moved well back to keep the nose up.
Upward rolls were difficult, again because of elevator heaviness at the required starting speed. Due to this, only a moderate pull out from a dive to build up speed was possible and considerable speed was lost before the upward roll could be started.
The very bad maneuverability at high speed of the Me 109 quickly became known to the RAF pilots in 1940. On many occasions 109 pilots were led to self-destruction when on the tail of a Hurricane or Spitfire at moderate or low altitudes. The RAF pilot would do a snappy half roll and "split ess" pull out, from say 3,000 feet. In the heat and confusion of the moment the 109 pilot would follow, only to discover that he didn't have enough altitude to recover due to his heavy elevator forces and go straight into the ground or the Channel without a shot being fired.
-
up
-
up
-
^
-
.. Hey where are all those guys who came up with various arguments?? :confused: Sheesh, it's like the ancient sayings of our country goes, "prepare a spot, and the guy never shows up"..
Okay, hoping to light a few sparks, here is the Bf109E-4 and the SpitfireMkI in AH1:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_232_1078278204.jpg)
The degrees per second, was measured through the third-party program "AH Film Analyzer", made by knob32. It takes flight info directly from the AHF film file, and shows the plane's yaw, pitch, bank angles, speed, climb rate, roll rate in dps and etc etc.. So I think the margin for errors is pretty low.
Some people have brought up in the past, that the Bf109E-4 should slightly roll faster than the SpitI. They've come up with the following;
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_232_1078277812.jpg)
I personally don't have a clue where the source above came from, but if it's correct, then the Bf109E-4 should slightly outroll the SpitI at at least low to mid speeds, which is not the case in AH1.
...
Please, don't let's waste such a good chance provided by Ptro himself, guys. Anyone is welcome to fill in the blind spots, or criticize the illogical points of my posts! Let's not lose this chance!
-
*smack!*
-
luftpunt
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
The degrees per second, was measured through the third-party program "AH Film Analyzer", made by knob32. It takes flight info directly from the AHF film file, and shows the plane's yaw, pitch, bank angles, speed, climb rate, roll rate in dps and etc etc.. So I think the margin for errors is pretty low.
where can be this utility be found ?
-
Can't remember.. I seem to recall seeing it at Mitsu's Battoutai pages, but not sure. Besides, most of the text is in Japanese and Chinese characters..
but it's a very small utility with no prior installation required. Maybe I can send you a copy via email?
-
considering the ahf sampling rate, it's good for general maneuvers, but maybe not precise enough for exact measurement of movement..
-
I found it here : http://ss-s.nu/~knob/archive/ahfilm0017.lzh
but my Japanese level is pretty low :D
see:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_33_1078824305.jpg)
My next step will be to edit the ressources :)
-
Grrr editing the res crash the soft...
-
T'as bien édité en unicode ?
-
Information from Eric Browns test flight of me262b-1a/u1 wk number 111-980 in may of 1945:
roll rate:
360 degrees in 3.8 seconds at 400mhp (645/km/hr)
-
also found this:
]http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38.html (http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38.html)
this image was from the above site, don't know if it's of use.
(http://www.dangreve.com/P-38rollchart.jpg)
-
Originally posted by butch2k
T'as bien édité en unicode ?
non mais par contre j'éai changé d'éditeur de ressources :)
-
Kweassa, are you sure that's 45 degrees? Because that would put the Spit's peak roll rate at 23 degrees per second which is obviously not correct. It would take a Spit pilot 8 seconds to enter an immelman at 200 mph. I would be interested in seeing the whole report that that comes from, because something is being omitted or misrepresented.
Thanks Waffle, I've been working on the 38 and one of the things I am going to change is to start dropping down the roll rate increase at higher speeds like that chart depicts.
-
Hi Pyro,
A wild idea that just occurred to me: How about setting up a Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki) for the community to gather the kind of information displayed in this thread?
The advantage would be that the collaborative approach would focus the collected information and store it in an easy to read, easy to retrieve form.
This contrasts with the current BBS where we have a lot of great discussions that are hard to find after a few months, and even harder to digest because you have to wade through countless pages of discussion trying to distill the decisive facts. (They're there, as the result of good research by the community, but rather hard to access.)
Well, I admit I'm currently riding on a wave of Wiki enthusiasm without actually having tried the concept :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by Pyro
Kweassa, are you sure that's 45 degrees? Because that would put the Spit's peak roll rate at 23 degrees per second which is obviously not correct. It would take a Spit pilot 8 seconds to enter an immelman at 200 mph. I would be interested in seeing the whole report that that comes from, because something is being omitted or misrepresented.
No, it`s perfectly believable. The 45 degrees seems to be some kind of standard with British measurements, ie. what are the deflection, stick forces etc. required to obtain the same rolling velocity - it`s good for comparing aileron effectiveness.
The above graph is from a test with Spit I. tested against a 109E. I find it perfectly believable that with fabric ailerons it had such a poor roll rate. The stick force mentioned here ~56lbs, is about the maximum for a pilot, perhaps even a bit more, so it shows the absolute limits.
It`s also in line with the later Spit roll rate tests, ie. :
NACA 868 roll doc, unknown Spit type (British calculations?), 50 lbs : about 40 deg/sec at 400mph
NACA`smeasurement of Spit VA (metal ailerons) and others, 30 lbs stickforce:
(http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/ROLLRATE%20Spit%20Hurri%20P40%20P36.jpg)
It would show about 30 deg/sec at 400mph. Note however that only 30 lbs is used, somewhat lower than maximum.
Also there`s AVIA 6/10126, comparison of Mustang and Spit ailerons, mid-1942, so probably a Mk V or IX.
In order to obtain steady 45 degree/sec roll rate at 300 and 400mph with the Spit, the following deflection and stickforce required :
at 300mph, 8.45 degree aileron deflection required, and 24 lbs stickforce
at 400mph, 10.3 degree aileron deflection, requires no less than 71 lbs stickforce.
For comparison the Mustang required only 23 lbs stickforce for the same roll rate, at 400mph..
I guess the 400mph stickforce figure was extrapolated from the force curves at lower speeds. 71 lbs is way more than the typical 50 lbs used (not impossible, but you want to compare like with the like, not extra-strong pilots vs. avarage pilots), in fact the NACA`s report on flying characteristics of the Spitfire specifies that the pilot was unable to excert more than 40 lbs on the stick.
8.45 deg/sec translates to about 1/3 deflected ailerons (matches nicely with the Spit I graph).
It also mentions : "Most of the difference is due to the large loss of effectiveness of the Spitfire ailerons due to wing twist".
Similiarly, NACA 868 on pg 7 mentions in regard of effects of wing twist :
"A somewhat similiar analyis made by Morris and Morgan of Great Britiain shows that at an IAS of 400mph the aileron effectiveness of the British Spitfire aeroplane is reduced by about 65%, principally due to wing twist."
For comparison, similiar data for P-47C-1-RE was 31%.
So I guess, for early Spits about 20 deg/sec roll rate , and about 30-40 deg/sec roll rate for the later (metal aileron ones) at 400mph is approximiately correct.
The cause for that are :
a, High stick forces on the Spitfire at high speeds
b, Too flexible wings, wing twist reducing roll rate and leads to aileron reversal at relatively low airspeeds.
-
Interesting idea Hohun, I've never heard of that before.
Isegrim, I wasn't referring to a 23 dps roll rate at 400 mph. I was referring to a 23 dps peak roll rate at 200 mph.
-
Does the spitfire/109 reach maximum rollrate during a 45 degree roll starting from straight level flight? If they have simply done tests from level to a 45 degree bank and timed those.
And it should be obvious I didn't read all the messages in the thread.
// fats
-
Francis Dean had quite a bit of data on roll rates in his tome "America's Hundred Thousand."
I don't have the ability to show his graphs on these boards, but I'm sure somebody does.
By the way, I was surprised to learn while reading this book that Dean could find almost no data on the roll rate of the Corsair at speeds above 400mph. For anybody who wonders why certain aircraft aren't modeled the way you think they should be, the answer may lie in the fact that much of the data has been lost over the last six decades. For instance, the Brewster company went out of business during the war. How much of their data on the Buffalo do you think is still around, hmm?
Dean also reported that one of the prototype Mustangs had ailerons with beveled trailing edges. The roll rate of this bird at high speeds was phenomenal...way above that of the standard production P-51. Can anyone explain how these beveled edges produced this roll rate, and why they were not incorporated on production Mustangs?
Regards, Shuckins/Leggern
-
^
-
Pyro,
You are going to have a hard job in front of you good luck.
One thing with roll rates to consider is which way is the screw turning? With abrubt increase of power at the time of roll can vary roll rate in the direction of the screw or opposite direction (IE. torge, prop slip stream). Another is how big is the cockpit and how big is the pilot, can he get the full travel on the stick? How much stick force can a skinny guy produce? How much fuel was on board and in what location? How tail heavy or nose heavy was the plane? What ordinace is on board? How fast is the plane going? Whats the density altitude? Was the airplane controlled by cables or push rod tubes? Were flaps used in the roll? Metal or fabric covered wings?
It would be hard find old statistics on any WWII fighter that will have all of this Considered or tell you how the airplane was configured at the time of the testing.
Good luck!
-
It seems in the latest AH2 patch, the E-4 finally outrolls the SpitI now..
at 250mph:
* Bf109E-4 360d roll at 5.5 seconds
* SpitI 360d roll at 8 seconds full
..
Got no idea if this is correct or not tho'
Anybody have an idea where that chart I dug up really came from?
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
It seems in the latest AH2 patch, the E-4 finally outrolls the SpitI now..
at 250mph:
* Bf109E-4 360d roll at 5.5 seconds
* SpitI 360d roll at 8 seconds full
Kweassa,
what are your test perimeters? ie...left roll / right roll / alt / fuel load /
instantaneous or sustained , not sure if you can actually judge the last 2, maybe possible though, am assuming the roll tested is aeliron input only, no elevator input. and did you do these in an average of say 3 or 5 or just one time each?
-
pyro that spit/109 chart is from here...
i "think" i have the whole repot somewhere.
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit1.html
at the bottom
some other info on my page at http://prodocs.netfirms.com
-
up
-
Pyro, I understood the Spit I / 109 chart as "roll to 45 degrees from level flight", meaning the chart figures include the time it takes the pilot to physically move the stick to full deflection/50 lbs, and the time it takes the ailerons to accelerate the roll to full roll rate (fighting inertia). The time to 45 degrees should be significantly less for both aircraft if they were at max roll rate from the start of the test.
Just my $.2
-
can't be too much time left..
-
I didn't see it mentioned elsewhere in depth, but I strongly suggest that NACA report #868 (all 76 pages) be reviewed for roll data on Spitfires (apparently Mk.V, standard wing and clipped wing).
My regards,
Widewing
-
me 262 roll rate
Information from Eric Browns test flight of me262b-1a/u1 wk number 111-980 in may of 1945:
roll rate:
360 degrees in 3.8 seconds at 400mhp (645/km/hr)
AH2 beta 28 me262 is taking 8 seconds at 400mph to do a 360 roll :eek:
also 262 acceleration in level flight and in dives takes so much more time to get to full speed, took me over 30 miles to reach 500mph :( and e bleed is higher than ah1 :confused:
i hope the fm is unfinished because ah1 262 and its FM is what keeps the game interesting to me when facing a gangbang enemy hoard :(
-
Originally posted by Citabria
me when facing a gangbang enemy hoard :(
How many enemies vs. you is needed that it can be called gangbang? :D :D :rofl
-
Aces High II Version 1.9925 Open Beta
Fixed an error in the 262's weight causing it to be underweight
-
i hope the fm is unfinished because ah1 262 and its FM is what keeps the game interesting to me when facing a gangbang enemy hoard :( [/B]
hehe right - I think you have gangbang confused with cherry-picking :)
-
Hi pyro.
by this graph that Isegrim posted
(http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/ROLLRATE%20Spit%20Hurri%20P40%20P36.jpg)
you can clearly see the P40 rolls much batter then the current one we have in AH.
hope its improved at AH2, cant check it yet thou
-
The problem with that chart is that curves for the P-40 and the P-36 appear to be created using measured data just for small speed range and rest of the chart seems to be calculated. This can be easily confirmed by looking shape of the P-36 and P-40 curves; there is no wing twist due to elasticity. Later NACA test (http://members.tripod.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/usaaf/P40F_aileron.pdf) on P-40F gives much more realistic chart.
gripen
-
Hi gripen.
i have very litle technical knowledge, so i had a hard time figuring out those graphs.
but after looking at what seems to be the roll rate, i can say its still higher then the AH current P40
allso can you please explain me why the above graph is incorect.
as i understand it, the linear line in the graph is because maximum ailron deflection is reached, and the curve line starts when the pilot doesnt apply enough strengh to keep the ailrons at full deflection. (so in theory the plane will roll even batter at high speeds if the controls where boosted)
bur thats just my take of the graph :)
-
Flyboy,
The problem is that linear line (up to speed where the stick force of full aileron deflection reached 30 lbs) indicates that the wing of the P-40 did not twist due to aeroelasticity (and there should had been some sponginess in the controll linkages too). Basicly the roll rate curve is allways concave due to aeroelasticity and sponginess of the controll system. There are some minor exceptions but that's another story... Actually the RAE critized NACA for NACA test on Spitfire because it gave too good picture of the rigidity of the Spitfire wing.
gripen
-
As far as I know, the Spitfire wing was getting "stiffened up" as development carried on.
-
are we going to see a roll rate fix in the p40 ? (in AH2 ofcourse)
-
+
-
up
-
Just a questions... or some thoughts:
How much stick force can the AH pilot model character apply?... meaning: How can the different charts be compared to each other or modified to become comparable?
We all know how different planes require different amount of stick force, some are stiff like 109:s and some have boosted ailerons like P-38:s. Cockpits come in different sizes where in larger ones it is easier to move the stick than in narrow ones. Different pilots could perform better or worse in similar planes. All players are different but that cannot be taken itno equation. Therefore I suppose that there has to be some average pilot model as a basis...
How are these issues being considered? What is the basis for comparing those charts?
-
I've seen 50lbs mentionned as the standard, I think.