Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Debrody on September 26, 2013, 05:54:14 AM
-
Two questions have flashed into my mind.
-How was the WW2 planes prop pitch control working? In AH, you just set an rpm and your prop pitch is changing constantly to maintain that, only limited by the engine power (at low very low speeds) and the highest angle of the prop pitch (the prop is forced to hit higher rpms at very high speeds than its wep rpm)
-The stall. Im not a R/L pilot, in fact, i have never been flying or been on an aeroplane in flight, therefore i cannot imagine the feeling when the aircraft stalls. Could a R/L pilot explain this for me?
Thanks!
-
Prop control works as in AH. You set desired RPM and the governor will maintain that RPM within the limits of the pitch stops for the prop. You set it and then forget it.
What a stall feels like depends on the aircraft and the type of stall (slow deceleration, accelerated, power on, power off). Generally you'll get some kind of aerodynamic warning (buffet), you'll notice control sloppiness in case of slow deceleration low speed stall and might notice changes in wind/airframe noise.
Slow deceleration...
In a Cessna a gentle buffet followed by a nose drop, pretty docile.
In a Mustang definite buffet then sharp left wing drop at the break.
B-24 you get minimal buffet around 85 mph IAS. Additional aft stick will not cause noticeable pitch increase. If you continue to slow buffeting of ailerons that can be violent enough to snatch yoke out of hands.
B-17 very noticeable buffet well above stall speed with gentle nose drop at the stall. If not coordinated you'll get wing drop, if you try to use aileron to pick up wing airplane will roll sharply opposite aileron input, incipient spin.
Go to your local airport flight school and go for an intro flight, ask them to demonstrate a stall.
-
One other thing, when the stall happens, it feels like when, on a rollercoaster, you drop down one of the hills (i.e., "the bottom falls out" sort of feeling).
-
This is one of the ways in which the FW-190 was a much better fighter plane in real life than it gets credit for in AH many times. The FW-190 had fully automated single lever control for throttle, prop, ignition timing, supercharger boost, and mixture. This was way ahead of its time, as many modern planes still do not have this. Needless to say, not having to worry about that in combat would have been huge. The FW-190 had several advantages like this in real life that do not translate well to AH, since it is not a comparative advantage, as all airplanes effectively have it.
-
This is one of the ways in which the FW-190 was a much better fighter plane in real life than it gets credit for in AH many times. The FW-190 had fully automated single lever control for throttle, prop, ignition timing, supercharger boost, and mixture. This was way ahead of its time, as many modern planes still do not have this. Needless to say, not having to worry about that in combat would have been huge. The FW-190 had several advantages like this in real life that do not translate well to AH, since it is not a comparative advantage, as all airplanes effectively have it.
Note that was the case for the BMW engined models of the Fw190 only.
-
One other thing, when the stall happens, it feels like when, on a rollercoaster, you drop down one of the hills (i.e., "the bottom falls out" sort of feeling).
thats what it felt like the entire time I was in the plane I flew....
a tiny little movement on the stick and my stomach was like woaaaaa
besides the stick not self centering and rudder peddles being very stiff,and the roller coaster stomach feeling.... flying the real plane was exactly like AH...never flew a plane...let alone been in one except as an infant....it was quite easy to fly the plane.
and one of the greatest days of my life. :rock
-
Correct, only the BMW radials had this single lever control feature, not the Doras.
-
This is one of the ways in which the FW-190 was a much better fighter plane in real life than it gets credit for in AH many times. The FW-190 had fully automated single lever control for throttle, prop, ignition timing, supercharger boost, and mixture. This was way ahead of its time, as many modern planes still do not have this. Needless to say, not having to worry about that in combat would have been huge. The FW-190 had several advantages like this in real life that do not translate well to AH, since it is not a comparative advantage, as all airplanes effectively have it.
Interesting info DurrD, I had no Idea about this. :salute :cheers:
-
Thanks! :aok
-
Note that was the case for the BMW engined models of the Fw190 only.
All 190s and 109s (late-109Es onward) had single lever control for throttle and prop rpm, plus automatic fuel mixture. The Kommandogerät on the 190 was especially advanced though.
-
When trimmed for combat and with everything set to automatic the 109 and 190 were completely HOTAS. With two notable exceptions: Changing trim (for example when diving fast) and engaging/disengaging MW-50 injection (a button on the dash). Both requited the use of the pilot's left hand.
-
Here's video of a 1g stall in the Mustang. (http://www.dalefalk.com/Movies/Mustang/7506324_93ZBhV#!i=484642764&k=CNWF5zF)
-
In the highwing ultralight I've piloting most, the Eurocub, buffeting is very pronounced and stalls are abrupt.
If you try to counter the stall with rudder, you will find yourself almost inverted immediately.
-
I can only speak for the warbird trainer SNJ texans stall behavior as the closest thing to warbirds stall behavior I have gotten to fly...
coordinated rudder plays a huge part in the stall behavior of the texan.
straight and level coordinated power on or off the stall can be gentle and the nose simply drops forward. BUT...
if you enter a stall in an uncoordinated state or in a turn uncoordinated you will get wing drop very noticable as the plane stalls.
there is some buffet and you can feel it coming and recover easily but if you ham fist it you could end up nearly upside down at the beginning of a spin in a nose down angle.
this is how people die in t6 texans on a regular basis. if they attempt a roll at too low an airspeed and altitude or a base to final turn in a skid and exceed the critical angle of attack on one wing before the other the NTSB gets involved and there ussually are no survivors in the texan.
(http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x205/p38fester/Scott%20Flying%20Airplanes/SNJT-6Texansinformation078.jpg)
-
Real planes also have a puke factor. Pretty much I know I'm in trouble if I break a sweat.
-
I can only speak for the warbird trainer SNJ texans stall behavior as the closest thing to warbirds stall behavior I have gotten to fly...
coordinated rudder plays a huge part in the stall behavior of the texan.
straight and level coordinated power on or off the stall can be gentle and the nose simply drops forward. BUT...
if you enter a stall in an uncoordinated state or in a turn uncoordinated you will get wing drop very noticable as the plane stalls.
there is some buffet and you can feel it coming and recover easily but if you ham fist it you could end up nearly upside down at the beginning of a spin in a nose down angle.
this is how people die in t6 texans on a regular basis. if they attempt a roll at too low an airspeed and altitude or a base to final turn in a skid and exceed the critical angle of attack on one wing before the other the NTSB gets involved and there ussually are no survivors in the texan.
(http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x205/p38fester/Scott%20Flying%20Airplanes/SNJT-6Texansinformation078.jpg)
:airplane: There could be an argument made that the T-6 was the best primary flight trainer ever made! If you could master the T-6, you could almost fly anything, in so far as stick and rudder control is concerned. Stick and Rudder coordinated flight at all times is a must!!
-
Two questions have flashed into my mind.
-How was the WW2 planes prop pitch control working? In AH, you just set an rpm and your prop pitch is changing constantly to maintain that, only limited by the engine power (at low very low speeds) and the highest angle of the prop pitch (the prop is forced to hit higher rpms at very high speeds than its wep rpm)
-The stall. Im not a R/L pilot, in fact, i have never been flying or been on an aeroplane in flight, therefore i cannot imagine the feeling when the aircraft stalls. Could a R/L pilot explain this for me?
Thanks!
:airplane: Have you tail spun the 109's and 190's? If not, try it: power off, nose up about 30 degrees and as buffering starts, full left rudder and full back stick and just sit there, might take a turn or two before it gets to spinning like a real aircraft. Easy, quick way to come down from 15K to 5K when RTB.
-
One other thing, when the stall happens, it feels like when, on a rollercoaster, you drop down one of the hills (i.e., "the bottom falls out" sort of feeling).
The only ting I hated about flight lessons. :(
-
I like spins, turbulence, etc. -- but I am very susceptible to motion sickness even in a car if I'm not the one driving.
One of the times flying for me that was the most fun was a very, very turbulent gusty day in Michigan in a Cessna 152. In addition to that, it was a hot summer day, and there was a large plowed-up section of dark earth right before the runway. So, I'd set it up on final, then get over the plowed-up section, and the plane would get slammed upward.
One of the others was taking off and landing on a grass strip with a paved runway running across the middle of it. The paved runway was higher than the grass, so I had to keep the nose wheel off the ground when transiting that, and the plane would do a little jump going across the raised part.
The closest I got to puking was flying at Air Combat USA. Coming back after the dogfights, the instructor pilot came hammering back to the field and then slammed it into a hard turn without telling me he was going to do that, and I quickly blacked out. When I came back to, the g-limit beeper was sounding, so I'm guessing 6 g's or a little more. Then, I almost hurled. :uhoh I found dogfighting in the SF.260 to be very close to dogfighting in AH -- all the same moves and techniques worked the same way.
-
Oh,that's a fun lookin' plane!
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/SF-260_cockpit.jpg)
(http://www.aircraftinformation.info/Images/SF-260_02.jpg)
I want. (Seems my theme, lately.)
-
I like spins, turbulence, etc. -- but I am very susceptible to motion sickness even in a car if I'm not the one driving.
I went up in a Cessna 152 one day with the sole intention of doing aerobatics with the instructor. After a few rolls loops and spins I could tell the instructor was getting a little green when he said "let me show you something" His way of getting back on the controls so avoid hurling! - In this instance I can't remember all the settings but throttle came back to around 1500 RPM and he nursed the 152 along until he got the speed and attitude all set up. Next was to throw in the lot (I think) because the 152 executed a flick roll, recovery from which is more about timing than trying to follow the horizon which just spun around as a blur! I never knew it had the capability! - A conventional roll in a 152 (Full aileron and rudder) takes forever at much higher speed from a nose high attitude to exit in a nose low (wind it up to 120 in a shallow dive! before raising the nose). After a few more manoeuvres from the instructor it was my turn to start the cold sweat warning you of an impending hurl!
-
One of the times flying for me that was the most fun was a very, very turbulent gusty day in Michigan in a Cessna 152. In addition to that, it was a hot summer day, and there was a large plowed-up section of dark earth right before the runway. So, I'd set it up on final, then get over the plowed-up section, and the plane would get slammed upward.
You are a sick man. And the first I know of who enjoys hot airplanes and bumps.
The closest I got to puking was flying at Air Combat USA. Coming back after the dogfights, the instructor pilot came hammering back to the field and then slammed it into a hard turn without telling me he was going to do that, and I quickly blacked out. When I came back to, the g-limit beeper was sounding, so I'm guessing 6 g's or a little more. Then, I almost hurled. :uhoh I found dogfighting in the SF.260 to be very close to dogfighting in AH -- all the same moves and techniques worked the same way.
No water and a hot 6g day, had me working to keep it down it down while flying Air Combat USA.
Lesson learned that day was , hot day, I always have water in the plane.
But my record remains clean.
The other time I felt ill was after giving 4 different people aerobatic rides on a hot after noon.
HiTech
HiTech
-
You are a sick man. And the first I know of who enjoys hot airplanes and bumps.
No water and a hot 6g day, had me working to keep it down it down while flying Air Combat USA.
Lesson learned that day was , hot day, I always have water in the plane.
But my record remains clean.
The other time I felt ill was after giving 4 different people aerobatic rides on a hot after noon.
HiTech
Hot weather in the 152 I trained in meant 3/4 tank, tops. I weighed in 225 football weight and my instructor was heavier than me.
But geez, stall recovery was mandatory every hop. Did a lot of killin the engine and lookin for a dirt road (and the telephone lines around them).
:airplane:
-
:airplane: Have you tail spun the 109's and 190's? If not, try it: power off, nose up about 30 degrees and as buffering starts, full left rudder and full back stick and just sit there, might take a turn or two before it gets to spinning like a real aircraft. Easy, quick way to come down from 15K to 5K when RTB.
I think i have tryed almost everything a 109G6 and a 190D9 can do in-game. Was just curious, how close the in-game flight model is to the "real aircraft feeling" - sorry, i cannot express myself any better.
-
I went up in a Cessna 152 one day with the sole intention of doing aerobatics with the instructor. After a few rolls loops and spins
I hope that it was a 152 Aerobat! :aok
-
You are a sick man. And the first I know of who enjoys hot airplanes and bumps.
OK, I admit to not being so fond of the hot interior of the plane. :D
No water and a hot 6g day, had me working to keep it down it down while flying Air Combat USA.
Lesson learned that day was , hot day, I always have water in the plane.
But my record remains clean.
Heh! :aok
My Air Combat USA day, I very queasy for the whole rest of the day.
-
Was just curious, how close the in-game flight model is to the "real aircraft feeling" - sorry, i cannot express myself any better.
Compared to a bunch of guys here, I have almost no real flight time -- I don't presume to speak for any of them. The following is from only my limited experience.
With regard to flying around in a regular civilian airplane, the main thing you don't feel in AH compared to the real thing is the bumpiness here and there of the usual little bit of turbulence. AH is like flying on a very calm day. However, I think that it would be a very bad idea to have constant screen shake in the game as turbulence, as it would quickly make many people nauseous. The same is true of driving games that implement road bumpiness and make the screen constantly shake about -- that is, I think, a bad choice. Your visual system has the ability to deal with bumpiness in real life -- when its a computer screen shaking around, though, shakiness is not a good analog and, instead of making things more realistic, can make it unrealistically intolerable.
With regard to flying in a prop-plane dogfight, such as Air Combat USA, the main difference is feeling the g's, but that's not too big a deal at 4 g's or less. (Turbulence here is not a factor at all or even noticed when you are in a dogfight.) The handling of an SF.260 -- how it feels on its controls, control response, what it's like to roll it, loop it, do split s'es down onto your opponent's tail, high yo yo, do a vertical pursuit in it, stall-speed turning fights on the "deck" (which at Air Combat USA was 3000 ft) -- is very much like typical planes in AH (like a P-51 or Spitfire). Even how it feels approaching accelerated stalls is about the same as in AH. Everything that you do fighting in AH translates exactly to fighting in an SF.260.
Flying formation is easier in real life than in AH because of unavoidable network communication effects. Looking backward is a little easier in AH than in real life, depending on the flexibility of your neck and whether you are wearing glasses or contacts. For landing, AH seems more forgiving on sideways and vertical speeds at touchdown (although look at some carrier landings for what those military aircraft could routinely take, so I'm not saying that AH is wrong). The landing gear interaction with the ground seems a little more bouncy in AH than in real life (although I remember on my solo in a 152 doing a few bounces after touchdown as I wasn't used yet to the plane being so much lighter without the instructor in it).
Overall, I think AH is a wonderful flight simulation and excellent as a prop-plane dogfighting sim.
-
Overall, I think AH is a wonderful flight simulation and excellent as a prop-plane dogfighting sim.
Heard this from many people. :aok
-
I'd like to add that AH models slipping where xplane and fsxxx doesn't seem to, (I seem to remember reading about one cessna that somebody made that did in fsx.) I don't know what slipping any of the real planes that are modeled in AH would be like so I don't know how realistic it is but the fact that you CAN slip makes it feel like a much better stick and rudder sim than the other two. Instruments are a little peculiar though. I find it hard to believe that the real life AH aircraft were quite so easy to land without ground looping, you can jam the throttle on and not much happens, also there is never a cross wind.
-
I find it hard to believe that the real life AH aircraft were quite so easy to land without ground looping, you can jam the throttle on and not much happens, also there is never a cross wind.
i don't know what you been flying but using manual take off, i've crashed 109s, f4us and f6fs jamming the throttle forward and not using any rudder.
-
AH is easymode. All parts of the simulation, from departure characteristics to ground handling is very forgiving compared to real life. If the 262 was simulated realistically most people wouldn't even get it rolling without it bursting into flames.
-
I went up in a Cessna 152 one day with the sole intention of doing aerobatics with the instructor. After a few rolls loops and spins I could tell the instructor was getting a little green when he said "let me show you something" His way of getting back on the controls so avoid hurling! - In this instance I can't remember all the settings but throttle came back to around 1500 RPM and he nursed the 152 along until he got the speed and attitude all set up. Next was to throw in the lot (I think) because the 152 executed a flick roll, recovery from which is more about timing than trying to follow the horizon which just spun around as a blur! I never knew it had the capability! - A conventional roll in a 152 (Full aileron and rudder) takes forever at much higher speed from a nose high attitude to exit in a nose low (wind it up to 120 in a shallow dive! before raising the nose). After a few more manoeuvres from the instructor it was my turn to start the cold sweat warning you of an impending hurl!
:airplane: What you experienced is called a "snap roll"! It is much different than a "barrel roll", which is the hi-speed maneuver you described. The "four" point roll is the hardest of the rolls to do in a 152, as it does not have enough rudder to hold the "knife edge" when in the 90 degree attitude. A slow roll, holding your nose on a cloud or other object, though out the roll is another 152 maneuver which is hard, if not impossible to do correctly because of the lack of enough rudder.
-
Oh,that's a fun lookin' plane!
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/SF-260_cockpit.jpg)
(http://www.aircraftinformation.info/Images/SF-260_02.jpg)
I want. (Seems my theme, lately.)
:airplane: These folks got the design right on this one! A very good aerobatic aircraft and enough speed envelope to be able to do most all the ACM's for that size engine!
-
I've been in a Cessna for a few stalls with a former USMC F-4 Phantom II pilot. It was a blast!!
Quick question that I can only guess about. Why is it that airplanes will always stall one way? It was mentioned that the P-51 will always drop their left wing first. Is this due to torque? If not, why?
Also, in reading the book by Capt Brown (RN) about Naval Combat, he mentioned that the 190 had to have trim set by hand on the ground. Is that accurate of all models or just the one he flew? Or, did I not read that correct?
Thanks in advance!
Boo
-
i don't know what you been flying but using manual take off, i've crashed 109s, f4us and f6fs jamming the throttle forward and not using any rudder.
I'm pretty sure that in RL if you pushed the throttle all the way forward at the beginning of your take off roll on an f4u or f6 it wouldn't matter how much rudder you used, you'd be headed sideways off into the weeds.
-
I'm pretty sure that in RL if you pushed the throttle all the way forward at the beginning of your take off roll on an f4u or f6 it wouldn't matter how much rudder you used, you'd be headed sideways off into the weeds.
:airplane: Correct
-
I wonder about USMC Phantom pilots. I used to fix USAF F4s down in Georgia and every once in a
while we'd get transient visitors. I remember walking along the flight line one afternoon and suddenly
hearing the Whoo Whoo Whoo noise our F4s would make when pulling Gs with the slats deployed.
I looked up and there were a pair of RF-4Bs from the USMC flying straight and level. They
performed a pretty snappy overhead recovery and then ruined it by ending with the typical Navy
landing <sigh>. It looked about a 4.5 on the Richter scale. :D
They left the next day and after takeoff, held the nose down past the end of the runway. After
building a little speed, they yanked the nose up so hard I thought the drop tanks were going to come
off. A little risky, but alot of fun to watch :aok
-
I've been in a Cessna for a few stalls with a former USMC F-4 Phantom II pilot. It was a blast!!
Quick question that I can only guess about. Why is it that airplanes will always stall one way? It was mentioned that the P-51 will always drop their left wing first. Is this due to torque? If not, why?
Also, in reading the book by Capt Brown (RN) about Naval Combat, he mentioned that the 190 had to have trim set by hand on the ground. Is that accurate of all models or just the one he flew? Or, did I not read that correct?
Thanks in advance!
Boo
I remember seeing a program on 109s that showed the manual trim tabs as well. Maybe it was
just a popular thing with the german fighters.
-
109s and 190s only had adjustable elevator trim. Aileron and rudder had fixed trim tabs usually configured for cruise speed.
-
The reason a single engine prop will drop one wing first is the prop wash. The wing where the prop is ascending will stall first because the prop wash increases the angle of attack on the wing (the part of the wing that is in the prop wash). On the descending side the prop wash decreases the AoA delaying the stall.
-
The reason a single engine prop will drop one wing first is the prop wash. The wing where the prop is ascending will stall first because the prop wash increases the angle of attack on the wing (the part of the wing that is in the prop wash). On the descending side the prop wash decreases the AoA delaying the stall.
:airplane: What I found about which wing would break first, usually had to do with the student or pilot being uncoordinated during approach to the stall. On your turn and bank indicator, ball out of center left, the right wing would break first, because it was skidding as you entered the stall. Ball out of center to the right, the left wing will break first, again, because you are skidding the aircraft as you approach the stall. Ailerons not centered will also affect which way the aircraft breaks during the stall.
This is why it is so, so important for any pilot, student or not, to work on slow flight in the aircraft which they normally fly. 5 Knots above stall speed, IAS, making coordinated turns in both directions, both with full flaps down and up will sharpen your pilot skills, so that anywhere in the slow flight realm, the pilot is always in control of the aircraft. Most single engine aircraft of today will recover from a stall by simply relaxing the back pressure on the control yoke or stick, and the aircraft will fly out of the stall.
The only time I could see the prop wash having any effect on which wing breaks first is doing takeoff and departure stalls, with full power, or full power, flaps down stalls, then I think it would be minimal at best, as there are many other factors affecting the aircraft during these type maneuvers.
-
:airplane: What I found about which wing would break first, usually had to do with the student or pilot being uncoordinated during approach to the stall. On your turn and bank indicator, ball out of center left, the right wing would break first, because it was skidding as you entered the stall. Ball out of center to the right, the left wing will break first, again, because you are skidding the aircraft as you approach the stall. Ailerons not centered will also affect which way the aircraft breaks during the stall.
This is why it is so, so important for any pilot, student or not, to work on slow flight in the aircraft which they normally fly. 5 Knots above stall speed, IAS, making coordinated turns in both directions, both with full flaps down and up will sharpen your pilot skills, so that anywhere in the slow flight realm, the pilot is always in control of the aircraft. Most single engine aircraft of today will recover from a stall by simply relaxing the back pressure on the control yoke or stick, and the aircraft will fly out of the stall.
The only time I could see the prop wash having any effect on which wing breaks first is doing takeoff and departure stalls, with full power, or full power, flaps down stalls, then I think it would be minimal at best, as there are many other factors affecting the aircraft during these type maneuvers.
Earl the difference in prop wash between Cessnas and WWII fighters is drastic. The left snap is primarily do to the increased aoa on the left wing do the to prop slip stream. Dogfight in the real p51s I departed 3 times at about 180 mph. Doing normal approach stalls in the p51 , they felt about the same to me as with the Cessnas.
My first attempt at sustained inverted flight in the RV produce a very wicked inverted snap roll. RV inverted stall speed turns out to be around 90 knots.
HiTech
-
Earl the difference in prop wash between Cessnas and WWII fighters is drastic. The left snap is primarily do to the increased aoa on the left wing do the to prop slip stream. Dogfight in the real p51s I departed 3 times at about 180 mph. Doing normal approach stalls in the p51 , they felt about the same to me as with the Cessnas.
My first attempt at sustained inverted flight in the RV produce a very wicked inverted snap roll. RV inverted stall speed turns out to be around 90 knots.
HiTech
:airplane: No question about the difference, but in power off situations, such as approach to landing stalls practice, the prop wash on any aircraft is insignificant, but departure stalls with full power is a different matter. In the hours which I flew the K model ponie, it certainly would break left 99% of the time, but most of it is helped by pilots being cross controlled as they enter the stalling speed area, and they usually stall unexpectedly, but almost always breaks left. Now don't get me wrong, I know the prop wash of an engine which has a prop with clock wise rotation, affects the air flow over the left wing.
How far are you from Larado, Texas? Reason I ask, a druggist friend of mine has a T-34 and his father lives in Larado, and he is not instrument rated and wants me to go with him to see his dad and I was thinking if you are not to far away, maybe one day I could come up and we could have some fun. I also would like to see the Aces High complex, would that be possible?
-
They left the next day and after takeoff, held the nose down past the end of the runway. After
building a little speed, they yanked the nose up so hard I thought the drop tanks were going to come
off. A little risky, but alot of fun to watch :aok
Many years back an F-15 was departing the Galena airport (joint use civil/Air Force) and wanted to impress the folks on the ground. Held her level with a hard pull at the end (along the edge of the Yukon river). The F-15 was an armed alert bird with missles and external tanks, he pulled the wings off and the wreckage went into the Yukon. IIRC his wife was watching the takeoff.
-
I have read the 109s (as an example) could not do what we do in AH, ram the throttle full forward (even with WEP), without ground-looping. I guess many high-powered planes behave the same.
Can someone explain to me why its a difference, as it should do the same in AH.
-
I have read the 109s (as an example) could not do what we do in AH, ram the throttle full forward (even with WEP), without ground-looping. I guess many high-powered planes behave the same.
Can someone explain to me why its a difference, as it should do the same in AH.
I imagine its a compromise to make the game more playable. Maybe its harder to model the slow speed regimes than the high speed ones so it would be hard to make it realistic for a minimal pay off.
-
I have read the 109s (as an example) could not do what we do in AH, ram the throttle full forward (even with WEP), without ground-looping. I guess many high-powered planes behave the same.
Can someone explain to me why its a difference, as it should do the same in AH.
We change how the tail wheel operates vs real life. I modeled the real one in my RV for testing . It was then very difficult for me to take off and took all my concentration to keep it straight on the runway ,in the real RV it is not a big deal.Pyro could not regularly accomplish the task. With out rudder pedals it was almost impossible. The reason is that in real life, much of the ruder work in a tail drager is accomplished by the feel of your but.Your reflexes have learned to automatically put in rudder with the feel of a slight side force. Inputs many times must be very quick and then released almost immediately after the input. There is no way to provide this feed back, so we model the tail wheels a little more sticky then in real life and provide steerable tail wheels for all planes.
HiTech
-
I have read the 109s (as an example) could not do what we do in AH, ram the throttle full forward (even with WEP), without ground-looping. I guess many high-powered planes behave the same.
Can someone explain to me why its a difference, as it should do the same in AH.
:airplane: I think Hi Tech has designed this game to be very forgiving in the ground environment and reasonably forgiving in the flight realm because so many people who play this game are not trained pilots. One of the big items which are missing when playing this game is "feel"! Many real aircraft give you feed back on what needs to be corrected by the pilot. One thing you would never do in real life, on the runway, prior to takeoff, is jam the throttle wide open! #1, it is very bad for the life of the engine as that can and does, sometimes, do damage to the engine. You have to remember, in Aces High, if your engine fails, no big deal, just go to the hangar and get another a/c, but in real life, you could arrive at your "final solution" if you don't take care of your engine, especially WW2 aircraft engines. Most tail wheeled aircraft have the ability to lock the tail wheel, but even with that feature, it will still steer 2 to 4 degrees either side of center. Twin engine, tail wheeled aircraft are easy to ground loop, even with no crosswind, unless you are very careful. A lot of tail wheeled aircraft have what is called a "steerable" tail wheel, but even those steerable features can easily be overcome by "jamming" the throttle wide open. The easiest tail wheeled aircraft to keep straight on the runway which I ever flew was the C-46! It had a very large vertical stabilizer and large rudder and very wide spread landing gear and even in a good crosswind, it was just a toe tap to keep it straight.
The aircrafts design also has a lot to do with how hard it is to keep it straight on the runway on takeoff, or landing for that matter. A good example of that is to compare the P-51 to the T-6! The P-51 is a little ole lady when compared to the T-6, because of how far apart the landing gear is arranged on the aircraft. The hardest aircraft I ever flew, to keep straight on the runway, takeoff or landing was the Lockheed Lodestar. This thing was beast at best! Very narrow landing gear arrangement, coupled with an extended fuselage on the later models, made for some interesting moments on the runway. You really didn't care what the weather was enroute, as you couldn't tear the wings off this thing in turbulence, but you sure wanted to know what the wind was at the airport of intended landing!
-
Thanks Hitech !
I know take off /landing is easy mode compared to RL, I flew VLA tail-draggers for 10 years, when you put main wheel on the runway, only half of the landing was done, keeping it from ground-looping with crosswind required reptile-fast rudder work, specially on concrete.
-
On many WWII fighters which had free castering tail wheels they also could be locked for take off. Many ground looping accidents were caused because locking was forgotten.
-
The P-51 is a little ole lady when compared to the T-6, because of how far apart the landing gear is arranged on the aircraft.
God, a 109 must have been one SOB to handle on the ground... look how narrow the undercarriage is...
-
God, a 109 must have been one SOB to handle on the ground... look how narrow the undercarriage is...
:airplane: If you will notice, the gear is spread eagled with the tires being much wider than where the gear struts entered the wing area. I would guess that made them some what easier to handle. In watching old German films of them taking off, rudders were really working hard on takeoff to keep them straight!
-
Whoa, ET has time in the Lodestar!!! (Lodestall as skydivers like to call it, has been in a couple notable accidents after a stall on jumprun).
RE T-6 vs P-51.....the T-6 just keeps you on the edge of the seat...you have that feeling that any nanosecond it's going to bite you!!
Although it's a big, lumbering airplane the B-17 would be nigh on impossible to land or takeoff with the tail-wheel unlocked. It's a challenge just to taxi it. I had a B-17 type-rated pilot in the right seat of the B-24, we were #2 behind the B-17 departing Santa Barbara. The co-pilot (new to the bombers, retired 747 Capt) was doing the flying and had the tailwheel loaded to hard (too much aft yoke) as he started the takeoff roll which caused the tail-wheel to shimmy which resulted in the lock pin failing. Katie bar the door! The fort started swerving down the runway with each swing getting wider and more violent. We could see the rudder banging back and forth and smoke as they throttled trying to get her under control but they were losing the battle. As the nose swung back to the right my copilot keyed the mic and said (MIKE, IDLE POWER!). Smoke from all the engines as they came to idle and the airplane then continued in a straight line, instantly under control. Bad news is they were just departing the runway off the right sign and hit one of those big black and yellow taxiway/runway marking signs -- that old Ham Standard cleaved that thing right in too leaving only a small mark in the paint on the prop. We checked prop run out the next day, replaced the lock pin and went back to aviating.
-
God, a 109 must have been one SOB to handle on the ground... look how narrow the undercarriage is...
I think I've posted this before, but it's a good time to post it again. Pertinent excerpt from a very fine article:
Taxiing is the Messerchmitt’s opportunity to get you alone and to whisper a warning in your ear. There is a grotesquely high download on the tailwheel in the Bf-109; a situation made evident by the requirement for full rudder, hard braking, forward stick and a blast of power to effect a turn. Try that in a Spitfire and the propeller will chew dirt! While odd, it at least gave reassurance that even aggressive braking would be unlikely to result in a nose-over. Unfortunately it also meant that the center of gravity was very far aft of the main wheels. That is not a good thing. Recalling my misadventures in once trying to steer a shopping cart backwards down a hill, I made a mental note that the tail might try to pass me during the landing.
The geometry of the undercarriage is perhaps the most unusual feature of the Bf-109. A digression is in order to appreciate how its characteristics would manifest themselves during take-off or landing. Some sources claim that between 15-25% of the Bf-109s ever built were damaged or destroyed during take-off or landing accidents. I find this a remarkable figure for a combat aeroplane – especially one that served on the losing side of the war! Most contemporary histories of the Bf-109 attribute this to the narrow undercarriage track, however this misses the point. (The Spitfire’s undercarriage is just as narrow, and it doesn’t have any of the Bf-109’s quirks. It has its own quirks – but that’s another story.) Dr. Messerschmitt faced a challenge in the design of his first fighter. In the interest of simplifying transport and repair of the aeroplane, it was designed with the undercarriage attached to the fuselage, such that the wings could be completely removed with the aeroplane resting on its wheels. The undercarriage struts were attached to a complicated forging at the firewall aft of the engine mount. The narrow width of the fuselage structure necessitated installing the undercarriage legs splayed outwards. This feature became the aeroplane’s Achilles heel.
Imagine that you have a bicycle wheel in your hands. Roll the wheel with the axle parallel to the ground. It goes straight. Now roll the wheel such that the axle is not parallel to the ground. The wheel turns. Let’s return to the Bf-109. Both of the tires are mounted “crooked”, rolling with a camber angle of about 25°. Consequently both wheels want to turn inwards under the aeroplane. When the aeroplane is rolling with an equal download on both wheels, symmetry prevails; both wheels fight to a stand-off, and the aeroplane rolls straight. Now imagine that something causes the download on the wheels to momentarily become unequal. In that case the rolling friction of the tires becomes uneven and the turning tendency of the “heavy” tire asserts itself. What might do this? Well, crosswinds. Or torque from engine power. However, the most dangerous culprit is turning. With the aeroplane’s centre of gravity situated high above the tires, a swerve will set loose large centrifugal forces that cause the aeroplane to try to roll over the tires. This is true of any aeroplane, but in this scenario the unusual camber of the Bf-109’s tires creates strong directional instability, requiring a different type of control strategy for take-offs and landings. Tight heading control or aggressive tracking of the runway centerline can set off abrupt directional divergence. Better for the pilot to relax, merely dampen heading changes, and accept small heading errors. Funny, I didn’t feel relaxed.
http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tabid/116/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/124/language/en-CA/Bouncing-Clouds--Flying-the-Messerschmitt-Bf-109.aspx
-
The fort started swerving down the runway with each swing getting wider and more violent.
Yikes!
Imagine enjoying that with a bomb bay full of bombs and tanks full of fuel.
- oldman
-
Prop control works as in AH. You set desired RPM and the governor will maintain that RPM within the limits of the pitch stops for the prop. You set it and then forget it.
What a stall feels like depends on the aircraft and the type of stall (slow deceleration, accelerated, power on, power off). Generally you'll get some kind of aerodynamic warning (buffet), you'll notice control sloppiness in case of slow deceleration low speed stall and might notice changes in wind/airframe noise.
Slow deceleration...
In a Cessna a gentle buffet followed by a nose drop, pretty docile.
In a Mustang definite buffet then sharp left wing drop at the break.
B-24 you get minimal buffet around 85 mph IAS. Additional aft stick will not cause noticeable pitch increase. If you continue to slow buffeting of ailerons that can be violent enough to snatch yoke out of hands.
B-17 very noticeable buffet well above stall speed with gentle nose drop at the stall. If not coordinated you'll get wing drop, if you try to use aileron to pick up wing airplane will roll sharply opposite aileron input, incipient spin.
Go to your local airport flight school and go for an intro flight, ask them to demonstrate a stall.
We dop not have accelerated stalls in here correct ? What causes them ? How do you recover from one ?
-
We dop not have accelerated stalls in here correct ? What causes them ? How do you recover from one ?
When you stall at more than 1G it's an accelerated stall. They're caused by pulling too much pitch. You recover by pulling less.
-
although I understand the logic behind the takeoff and landing "helpers" they always felt unrealistic to me when I compare what its like to takeoff and land a t-6 texan especially from the rear cockpit which better simulates what its like in a big nosed warbird...
the feeling that its going to bite you as colmbo said is a very accurate one and you dare not let the thing sway an inch from dead center much less out of its very narrow triangle for fear of re-enacting a texan groundloop youtube video
its true you cant feel the plane wanting to swerve and stay ahead of it in a sim like this but AH seems too forgiving with no wind no turbulence very little concern of ground loop.
but the worst one of all to me has always been the ez mode brakes in AH.
lock up the brakes in a taildragger and your going to have bad day in real life. do it in ah and the brake limiter will keep your nose nice and level so you don't even strike the prop.
an option for realistic brakes with no limiter or governor and a less sticky tailwheel option would be great for the hardcore fans.
-
also wheel landings in ah...
take the flubber out of the wheels so that wheel landings can be done.
as it is you have to 3 point it in a stall or bounce all over the place even when flying it on smooth its a bounce every single time unless in a stall.
-
also wheel landings in ah...
take the flubber out of the wheels so that wheel landings can be done.
as it is you have to 3 point it in a stall or bounce all over the place even when flying it on smooth its a bounce every single time unless in a stall.
:airplane: The only thing in this game that I "3 point stance land" are the 190's, and I can wheel them on, but is easier to stall land the things. They have a short coupled fuesledge, which makes for easy ground loops, unless you are very careful. Just carry a very small amount of power, almost idle power, just cracked just a little, level the bird over the runway and when the mains touch the ground, just a little forward pressure on the stick and reduce power at same time.
-
Whoa, ET has time in the Lodestar!!! (Lodestall as skydivers like to call it, has been in a couple notable accidents after a stall on jumprun).
RE T-6 vs P-51.....the T-6 just keeps you on the edge of the seat...you have that feeling that any nanosecond it's going to bite you!!
Although it's a big, lumbering airplane the B-17 would be nigh on impossible to land or takeoff with the tail-wheel unlocked. It's a challenge just to taxi it. I had a B-17 type-rated pilot in the right seat of the B-24, we were #2 behind the B-17 departing Santa Barbara. The co-pilot (new to the bombers, retired 747 Capt) was doing the flying and had the tailwheel loaded to hard (too much aft yoke) as he started the takeoff roll which caused the tail-wheel to shimmy which resulted in the lock pin failing. Katie bar the door! The fort started swerving down the runway with each swing getting wider and more violent. We could see the rudder banging back and forth and smoke as they throttled trying to get her under control but they were losing the battle. As the nose swung back to the right my copilot keyed the mic and said (MIKE, IDLE POWER!). Smoke from all the engines as they came to idle and the airplane then continued in a straight line, instantly under control. Bad news is they were just departing the runway off the right sign and hit one of those big black and yellow taxiway/runway marking signs -- that old Ham Standard cleaved that thing right in too leaving only a small mark in the paint on the prop. We checked prop run out the next day, replaced the lock pin and went back to aviating.
:airplane: We had a Lodestar at Atlanta Air Taxi and Calvin Franklin was the chief pilot and the only one typed in the beast! I had about 100 hours or so as co-pilot and was in the process of getting my type, when they had a accident in the maintance shop, burned up the Lockheed, a Beech Baron and an old N model Bonaza. I enjoy flying the thing in the air as it was very stable in heavy weather, which is where we used it most, but on the ground, Ha, every landing was an adventure for sure, if you had any x-wind.
-
I rarely 3-point the taildraggers in game. The key to a wheelie is getting the sink rate to -.00000001 at touchdown.
Some think for a wheel landing you have to come in fast and fly it onto the ground, far from true. R/L on the B-17 we did "tail low wheel landings"...you touchdown slow but don't 3-point and bang the tailwheel.
-
109s must be 3-pointed, preferably on grass or dirt runways. The main-wheel geometry causes toe-in when the tail is raised, causing dangerous directional instability. It has a very strong tail-wheel for this reason.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dO9mEv5Ve54#t=64
-
The main-wheel geometry causes toe-in when the tail is raised, causing dangerous directional instability.
Tail-draggers are designed to have toe-in....which improves ground handling. I've understand the big issue with the 109 was the camber, just read a link posted on the BBS recently that addressed the 109 gear, camber, etc.
***It is in this thread, go back a few posts.
-
Don't know if this is true but I read somewhere awhile back that 30% of loses incurred by the 109 were on landing and taking off.
Any truth to that? Also read that most 109 pilots preferred the F over the G. Reason had to fly at high throttle settings and the 109G
required full attention at all times. again, don't know if true but read this more then a few times.
-
Well if you where taking off / landing in conditions as below linked video, 30% is pretty good in any plane.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tp4ChYkkGSg
-
Well if you where taking off / landing in conditions as below linked video, 30% is pretty good in any plane.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tp4ChYkkGSg
:airplane: Sooner or later, if u fly ling enough, you will encounter cross winds which are outside the demonstrated and placarded cross wind compent of the aircraft you are flying. When that happens, you find out real quick what your skill and nerve level is! Check out this video!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cvypv_twqfY
-
:airplane: Sooner or later, if u fly ling enough, you will encounter cross winds which are outside the demonstrated and placarded cross wind compent of the aircraft you are flying. When that happens, you find out real quick what your skill and nerve level is! Check out this video!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cvypv_twqfY
I know my 170 can handle a gusting 25kt 50degree crosswind...barely. Not fun to watch the right wing on a Cessna come within a foot of the ground when you have full correction already applied and standing on the brake. Did make a pretty cool half moon skid mark on the runway (and perhaps a small one in my pants).
-
I threw up a little in my mouth after a few violent tumbles in a pitts, that was fun
-
I threw up a little in my mouth after a few violent tumbles in a pitts, that was fun
:x Were you doing a "Lomcovak"?
-
If I have my knowledge correct a lomcovak is a tumble whilst climbing nearly vertical, is that correct?
This was a departure from level flight into a violent tumble that lost us about 2,000ft. Not to mention threw my arms and legs all over the cockpit, I have no idea how the pilot controlled anything in those conditions. I was in awe of his ability. He was about 65 and he made my 28 year old body seem inferiour!
-
If I have my knowledge correct a lomcovak is a tumble whilst climbing nearly vertical, is that correct?
This was a departure from level flight into a violent tumble that lost us about 2,000ft. Not to mention threw my arms and legs all over the cockpit, I have no idea how the pilot controlled anything in those conditions. I was in awe of his ability. He was about 65 and he made my 28 year old body seem inferiour!
According to Neil Williams there are 5 basic Lomcovaks. He got his information from Ladislav Bezak who conceived the maneuver. The main Lomcovak starts with a vertical climb and an inverted snap roll. Sounds like yours was a flick roll from level flight.
-
I couldn't say for sure, all I know is that we hit +4/-3G during the tumble
edit: which was initiated from level flight
-
If I have my knowledge correct a lomcovak is a tumble whilst climbing nearly vertical, is that correct?
This was a departure from level flight into a violent tumble that lost us about 2,000ft. Not to mention threw my arms and legs all over the cockpit, I have no idea how the pilot controlled anything in those conditions. I was in awe of his ability. He was about 65 and he made my 28 year old body seem inferiour!
:airplane: That is the way a lot of people do them, as that is the easiest way of entry to one, but you can do them from level or inverted or steep turns. They are not a lot of fun, and I have forgotten, its been so long since I did one, probably 40 years. Seems as though from level flight and cruise power in a Pitts special, it was stick all the way right forward and full left rudder, then full forward neutral stick, gosh, I can't remember. Basically, as I remember, you have no control for first 2 tumbles and then you have to start recovery procedures, which depended on what attitude you were in to start the recovery. You could just put the Pitts controls in neutral and add a little power and it would stop tumbling as I recall. Unless you know what you are doing, I would'nt want to start one below about 8,000 AGL, but the show guys know what they are doing and can do them real low for crowd pleasing maneuvers. I'm going to fool around a little in here and see if I can do one. I doubt it, because being computer generated, its probably not programmed for such a violent maneuver.
-
I believe it is possible to recreated in AceHigh, the only issues I know about are those concerning the physic hammerhead which seem to be not quite right somehow. But hey, this game has a better flight model than a lot of dedicated flight simulators so I am not complaining.
-
None of our aircraft will tumble like a aerobatic aircraft. The design and power to weight are too different.
-
The RV is well suited for it though
-
I look forward to your film of a tumbling RV8. :D
-
I shall endeavour to tumble an RV and film it :)
-
Did you see my P-47 film? It's in the films forum. :joystick:
I think the entry angle may be critical for tumbling given our power to weight. I'll try the RV8 again when I get home.
-
Just watched it, enjoyed the air display. I will now go and ake an RV8 film with some extended tumbling
-
If I have my knowledge correct a lomcovak is a tumble whilst climbing nearly vertical, is that correct?
I like Art Scholl's description: Start from a 45 degree inverted climb then put the stick and rudder in opposite corners. Wait until you see something you recognize (usually an inverted spin) and recover.
-
Wiki has instructions now. :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lomcevak
-
I like Art Scholl's description: Start from a 45 degree inverted climb then put the stick and rudder in opposite corners. Wait until you see something you recognize (usually an inverted spin) and recover.
What could *possibly* go wrong?
-
I look forward to your film of a tumbling RV8. :D
Nothing superb but it was fun to make, especially the flying
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZUrlE8YUWk&feature=youtu.be
-
Nothing superb but it was fun to make, especially the flying
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZUrlE8YUWk&feature=youtu.be
Nice! :aok
Well, I'd say the AH flight model nails it . . . again!
-
Nice flying Bat. I like the paint job and music. :aok
I didn't see any rotation around the pitch axis. I can do a slow rotation with the RV8 like the opening of the P-47M video but that's not a tumble. I tried the K4 too but no luck. :joystick:
-
Cheers! That skin was thanks to Cactus. I think there was definitely some pitch axis rotation but it is masked by the high speed roll motion. Certainly you are right that I found it impossible to do the purely pitch axis flipping I've seen in modern acrobatics. I'm glad you inspired me to edit again, I have just finished a little film I've been planning for about three years, it's going to be a little bit mind blowing to most of us I believe :devil
I'll post a link in the films forum in about 10 mins :x I'm excited
-
Cheers! That skin was thanks to Cactus. I think there was definitely some pitch axis rotation but it is masked by the high speed roll motion. Certainly you are right that I found it impossible to do the purely pitch axis flipping I've seen in modern acrobatics. I'm glad you inspired me to edit again, I have just finished a little film I've been planning for about three years, it's going to be a little bit mind blowing to most of us I believe :devil
I'll post a link in the films forum in about 10 mins :x I'm excited
I think Mace mentioned that he played with Lomcovaks and you can't get the pitch axis rotation decoupled from the torque roll. Or something like that. :D
Maybe if we're good Hitech will model a Zlin or a Pitts for the TA. :pray
Btw did you see this RV8 video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulpdOHcCiNE
-
Hmmm, that RV looks amazingly familiar, I guess waffle does have certain perks after being cherry picked out of the arena to build the game for us :D
-
Nothing superb but it was fun to make, especially the flying
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZUrlE8YUWk&feature=youtu.be
:airplane: What you were doing were "snap" rolls and etc. A Lomcovak is a tumbling end over end about the lateral axis of the aircraft! Nice video though and good flying!
-
cheers earl!
Ok, I think I have managed to make a 109 tumble end over end here, albeit briefly
http://youtu.be/2W77qKFLdAg
-
Nice Bat. The Lomcovak is a neg G rotation. Entry is inverted or knife edge. I haven't had any luck with that.