Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Andy Bush on February 13, 2002, 06:55:51 PM
-
Lately, I've been doing a lot of work with both sims. Each has its strong and not-so-strong points...
But I sure like the "feel' of the AH aircraft better than the IL-2 planes.
HiTech folks...good on ya!
Andy
-
And since you are an experienced pilot, no one can say you are full of toejam :)
So elaborate on the tests and why you reached the conclusion?
-
Well I gotta admit I like the feel of the Il-2 planes better, other than the "grabby" ailerons. I'm not a pilot though.
But there are some performance oddities, and some strange holes in the FM, like stable flight at ludicrous AoA with flaps and gear down.
If they made the AI planes conform to the human flight model I would play it more often.
-
Overall my preference is towards the IL2 FMs but with some misgivings.
Ive noticed a strong tendency for stick inputs to lose effectiveness at high speed without concurrent buffeting. The buffeting in IL2 begins after the onset of control loss. In AH we have buffeting leading to control loss. This seems correct in my mind.
As for high AoA oddities I agree, odd but my feeling is that this behavior is not as consistently repeatable as one would expect it to be.
My impression of the AI performance, when set at highest skill, is good.
The only other comments I would make regarding AH vrs IL2 is how aged AH terrain and atmosphere appears in comparrison.
It begs me to wonder how much longer the current build of AH
can remain current in comparrison. The sun effect is stunning as are the clouds and weather. The hit signs and susbequent debri are totally believable.
Y
-
i like il2 as well but im not a pilot......
also I am one to always like the newer things better. Maybe because they are different and theres a whole new challenge to learning them.
how ever there are things in both games that make ya say wtf was that...........
but I sure enjoy reading and learning from the stuff you write Andy..........
S!
-
Well I can call myself a pilot, but I just cant associate the feelings of real controlled flight with these simulators.
If I try hard enough, I lean towards AH.
Though I play it because its more fun, not because of realism.
-
Well...my comment was meant to be a pat on the back for AH...and not a stab in the back for IL-2!
I like both sims...as I said, each has its good and not-so-good points.
I'm doing a series of articles on rudder, trim, and flaps. I fire up various sims and use them as a basis for my discussion. Since much of what I'm talking about deals with WW2 sims, AH and Il-2 are my choices (no offense to CFS or EAW, etc).
What do I like about the AH FM? The stable feel, for one thing. My experience in flying fighters is that the aircraft have a solid feel and are steady platforms. One major aspect of the IL-2 FM is its tendency to have all of their aircraft roll out of a bank...it takes constant aileron input to hold an IL-2 aircraft in a given bank angle. Maybe this was the way these aircraft flew...but no plane I have ever flown, from fighters to airliners, flys this way...none! This roll out tendency makes gun tracking somewhat erratic since the pilot has to fight the plane's attempt to roll wings level.
Overall, I think the pitch feel in AH is more like what I expect out of a fighter...solid, not "twitchy". Gun tracking in AH is easier...more like what I saw in RL.
Aside from the FM, IL-2 is a clear winner in the graphics department.
So...my idea was not to put down IL-2...but was to praise AH.
Andy
-
Sentiently, the Il-2 and AH FM are identical for me. The only thing that I have trouble with is taking down planes with 109F2 15mm and MG pea shooters.
The odd useage of flaps to gain angles in Il-2 also takes some time to get use to. As well as the lack of negative-G pitch response in planes.
Many low-e scissor techniques I use in AH get me killed in Il-2 nicely. The ground seems to have been my biggest enemy in Il-2.
-
Andy,
I also noticed the sense of stability in real life compared to sims. I dismissed it in IL2 and blamed it on not putting enough effort to configure my joystick well on the game settings.
The aircraft Ive flown, though they dont exactly feel like they fly on rails, are very steady in flight.
Much faster planes such as WWII fighters should need even less input if my logic is right.
Have you flown WWII, or old military prop aicraft? or just modern jets?
-
I've been in IL2 a lot lately and I've noticed the same 'wandering' feeling in IL2 compared to AH.
I tweaked, tweaked and re-tweaked my joystick settings and it finally made worlds of difference. It took forever but it's worth it. Much more stable.
I still have a tendancy to drive it into the ground though !
-
andy you make good points. here is how i would rate the fms..
bad points of il2
1) roll stability in il2. it does feel kinda wierd but it really should depend largely on dihedral. i do not know if any of these planes were stable in roll.
2) pitch stability in il2. in il2 it is impossible to trim to a given AOA and i am not talking about PIO. trim your plane up perfect, and it will still porpose.
3) i think acceleration is kinda wacky in il2, especially at takeoff. there seems to be a 170 km/h barrier. try sometime to takeoff, notice how you are like a crack monkey till 170 km/h in any plane then suddently you run into sticky glue.
4) stupid trim model. in a way aces high shares this. in il2 if you trim poorly it actually severely limits control authority, even at low dynamic pressures. this is just goofy. i think this also happens to a lesser extent in aces high (not as bad tho)
5) funny prop model. i cant get maximum rpm out of any of the planes.
6) being able to deploy flaps/gear at high speeds. just leads to gamey top gun stuff.
good points of il2:
1) well graphics. obviously aces high graphics are pretty fricking old, and while not related to the FM it certainly impacts immersion. its just more fun to blow up tanks in il2 when you see the cool pyrotechnics, rather than some cheesy 3 frame sprite a la air warrior dos.
2) some cool fm effects. like buffeting when you go through clouds. variable drag based on pylons or no pylons (ie bring bombs on your 190 and your 190 still performs like toejam after you drop your eggs due to extra drag/weight)
3) aces high stall model is kinda stupid imo. you can never get a plane to clean stall even at idle, they always do that artificial floip on your back and insta recover thing.
abviously i think aces high wins in the FM category. especially with regards to accuracy. but i cant help it, i like pretty graphics.
-
Like Nath, I found the flight models very simular.
The biggest variance to me was the ground handling aspect. Finding that happy medium of rudder position on rollout was impossible. I couldn't stay centered on the runway to save my life. Also, I found that when I tried to taxi back to a staging area after a mission, the rudder had very little effect on the direction stability. Factor in no differential braking in IL2, and maintaining control while rolling was dicy.
I found the IL2 graphics marginally better in appearance, but AH gets my vote overall for ease of depth perception on my part. I can easily tell how close I am to the ground visually in AH. I can't count the number of times I've augered in IL2 thinking I still had at least a hundred feet of altitude AGL.
Il2 is a good box game, but for overall enjoyment, AH gets my vote.:D
-
Wolfgang, did you have your joystick on ID1 or ID2 when you configured it in Il-2? I have both a MS FF Wheel (with brake/gas pedals) and USB Saitek X36/35 gear... the MS FF Wheel takes ID1, no matter what. I can't force it to anything else (inside of windows game controllers)... this of course leads to me not being able to set the scaling and such... I can, but it only applies it to ID#1 and thus I am stuck with whatever scaling is applied to any secondary joysticks.
I like both Il-2 and AH, but for two entirely different reasons. I like Il-2, because it is a good offline game. I can "believe" what's going on offline and have fun with it. Unlike other games where it was kind of a hit and miss (EAW), Il-2 does what it's supposed to and does it fairly well- like RBII/3D which stayed on my HDD for 2+ years.
Online, it simply does not perform as I believe it should. Atleast not on my system. This is where I prefer AH, that and the fact that I can fly with my squad of 30+ people and still have a great connection and go up against other large squads/countries and it's not so limited as Il-2 is in the online department.
BUT, I have some gripes with Il-2. The mushy input for one, it just doesn't have the responsiveness of the planes I've flown in RL. An airplane is an airplane when it comes to control responses, unless they changed the physics of how an elevator grabs the wind... the only time I have experienced a plane bouncing up on me is when I hit a thermal... and I don't believe those are modelled in Il-2, so the entire sliding effect kind of puts me off. (have to stay on the controls the whole time to keep on target- even when the target is flying level)
And the damage model..... sure, it's great when it comes down to it, but it just isn't believable. I don't have anymore drag for huge gaping holes in my wing where my virtual pilot could crawl through than I do with no damage. And if it's there, it's not noticeable at all. It only appears to model a loss of lift to damaged wings, and I'm not even sure about the horiz or vert stab. Shoot, I've knocked the entire vert stab off of a Lagg-3 offline and watched it turn without any problems! Okay, sure, there was the leading edge of the vert stab left, but that won't do much more than act as a spear when it crashes into the ground below. Basically I get the feeling it's just an AH damage model with a little more physics detail added into the inner wings and some flashy damage model graphics.
Both are great, but at this time I believe AH does a better job at representing real world flight while Il-2 is a composite of the developers idea of flight and the beta testers.
-SW
-
Animal
My only prop time is a few hours in a C-172 and Piper Cub.
You mentioned the phrase "fly on rails"...I've heard this before, usually as a complaint or negative remark about a sim's FM. I admit I've never really understood what the person meant. All of the fighters I flew in RL were rock solid aircraft when flown within their operating envelope...no instability or "twitchiness" at all. Sometimes I get the impression that some simmers think that a fighter was supposed to feel unstable...not so, just the opposite, in fact.
Zigrat
I'm not sure about the magnitude of what appears to be dihedral effect in IL-2. It almost seems like the developers knew about this concept and then over-modeled it. The airliner I fly today has dihedral and it will not roll out when placed into a bank.
I agree about the trim and flaps...I'll be talking about these in my next article.
Andy
-
Guys, remember that I haven't been online with IL-2 yet. But, sheesh... other than some cool new planes to look at, I just can't get into this flight-sim. Honestly, offline it's alright. I'd hate to see terrain graphics like IL-2 in Aces High, or any online sim really, the "realness" makes it all look ..fake?..and harder to see anything. I dunno, I've seen LOTS of stuff from MANY differen't real-life aircraft at various altitudes..but in IL-2 I can't tell a tank from an outhouse until I'm on top of it. Personally, I think online flightsims need to keep simple terrain graphics in order to maintain realistic clarity, and hey, I have 20/15 corrected vision so don't tell me I'm blind lol (running IL-2 at 1600x1200 don't make a difference either).
The flight modeling in IL-2 seems ok, AH feels alot more "solid" but I think thats mostly because the Force Feedback in IL-2 ...sucks, limp as hell in comparison. The WORST thing about IL-2 (0ffline) is the freekin blabbermouths on the radio lol, I'll be turning that off right away.
-
Overall, I think the pitch feel in AH is more like what I expect out of a fighter...solid, not "twitchy". Gun tracking in AH is easier...more like what I saw in RL.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Thank you for that,,I thought i sucked big time ,,,can`t hit a sausage in il2;) .
-
In IL-2 FM is pretty nice, though, I've also noticed funny rocketing to 170kph and then sudden drop in accerlation.
At faster speed it again gets raise in accerlation.
What is really positive in IL2 vs. AH, is power of cannons.
Those aren't so darn powerful like in AH, can't really expect to hit from 700 meters and drop the plane with two hits.
Damage model is much better; parts aren't either fine or gone, but hits in the wing will reduce lift.
Also engine damage seems to be light and serious.
Engine can last for under a minute or for 20km, depending on damage.
Just flap/gear operation at high speed bugs me.. though, I've sometimes experienced gear ripping off or flap getting stuck when lowering at high speeds. (although, how can flap lower in first place when going way too fast?)
Multiplaying is, at least so far, bit boring when looking at it; can't limit planes for airfields.
-
Not getting into a pure FM discussion.
Clear IL2 advantages over AH:
- Much better damage modeling.
- Much better graphics and ambient.
- Better engine management.
- Much better flight immersion (you are INTO a plane).
- IMO, Much better gunnery modeling.
Clear AH advantages over IL2:
- Much better online game.
- Objects are more detailed at long ranges.
-
I spent a lot of time with IL-2, because I saw some good aspects and
great potential within the game. It was definately no 'junk'.
I tried many different combinations in joy stick calibration before the
game. .... deadband, filtering and scaling you name it.
The filtering is the main reason behind the super twitchy roll
responses. It messes up the response time of "no aileron input"
status. Thus, even after you centered the stick after a certain bank
angle, the system doesn't recognize it.
Another thing is, rudder response is also super twitchy. I use a MS
Precision Pro (older version) Stick. The rudder function is implemented
by the 'twisty stick base'. Even a slightest touch of the base sets my
rudder input to max. I had to practically dampen, smother, and kill this
response by fiddling with the scale, filter and deadband.
After this painstaking process was through(I think I recalibrated my
stick about 20 times), my feel on the planes weren't much different
from AH like others have said before me. I don't seem to feel any sort
of strange, or unfamiliar responses. Of course overall, it isn't as crisp
clear as AH, but it wasn't too wierd either. A little less predictable than
AH, that was all.
The overall problem I've noticed with IL-2, the REAL problem behind
the trickiness in handling, is the fact that some planes accelerate just
too fast, and other planes(LW planes :rolleyes: ) accelerate like a slug.
I've heard of a phenomenon where a plane's initial acceleration rate
is determined by how fast you are going. Which means the slower you
are the lower your accel. rate, the faster you are the higher your accel.
rate. In some planes, this phenomenon is just too extreme. Perfectly
trimmed, careful control.. you can barely accelerate it up to 400kph
in level flight. Give it a slow dive, finally speed up to about 500~600
kph, the usual speed we would fight in AH... make one move, the speed
drops to bottom and doesn't come back up. Overheat that damn engine
and it would still recover only about 70% of the speed before.
Thus, in IL-2, we usually fly and fight in about 150~250 mph speed
area. Imagine we fly and fight in 109s at 150~250mph in the AH MA.
These sort of goofy accelerations make it almost impossible to enjoy
flying, fighting in a plane that responds crisp and well.(IL-2 FM isn't
that bad if you fly planes that hold constant high speeds...)
There is a possibility that AH, with everyone running their engine at
max pitch max throttle constantly may be a bit too crisp. Too easy to
handle planes. But in the case of IL-2, the engine power and acceleration
factor is just too extreme.
..
ps) Thus, in Multiplayer games, people exclusively fly so called 'ubers'
, especially La-5FNs, which compared to AH La-5FNs, seem to hold
low speed sustained turn awfully good. (feels like spitfires, the damn
basta*ds)
ps2) conclusions: flying IL-2 multiplayer with plane limit(~1942) is really
fun, since everybody has trouble maintaining there planes to do
something. Playing most other FFA games just plain suck.
-
why are you playing ffa? i havent touched ffa in about a month
-
you forgot the uberness of the IL-2 AI exemple :
(sorry for the quality I add to compress the pictures a maximun ...)
(http://www.multimania.com/straffo/NN/FW8.jpg)
(http://www.multimania.com/straffo/NN/FW81.jpg)
and yes he ditched :D
-
weave differential braking seems to work by holding the break and moving your js left or right depending on which way you wanna turn.
Atleast for me any way.
I hate box games online I like to just pop in get a few fights in and log. Waitin it the game lobbies and finding a good coop is far too boring.
Maybe its just me but half the guys dont know how to hit the fly button to ready up. Theres never a real good mission description and end up followin the guy in front of.
I had one guy in a full real coop mission stop three quarters the way down the runway. I was number 4 I saw 1 and 2 lift up counted to 10 and rolled I crashed into him and the other 4 crashed into me. 15 min to get a good mission wasted.
It takes me 30 min just to find a potential decent game by then I ready to move on........
EAW was the same just no my deal I guess..........
Hopefully a some decent dedicated servers will pop up after next patch.
Oh il2 trees are gay you can fly under then in certain spots.......:)
(http://personal.jax.bellsouth.net/jax/t/y/tyr88/Screens/il21.jpg)
but it looks great..................
-
- Better engine management.
Not entirely true. The cowl flaps are nice. But the prop pitch control model is way off. And the overheating is ridiculous. Maybe German and Russian engines were that lousy, but not US/UK.
-
I've spent more time in IL-2 than AH recently, mostly because my time to do either is limited and I appreciate having a pause and an accelerate time key in IL-2 :)
What I have noticed when I get back in AH is my gunnery has immensely improved from IL-2 practice. Especially my ability to judge lead from angle off and my timing as to when I fire. I'm getting kills faster and more accurately than ever before.
I was amazed how bad I was when I first tried IL-2 so I spent a lot of time just practicing gunnery on unarmed bombers, first using 1/2 or 1/4 time. As I got better I'd practice more on fighters and using no ext. views, always show cockpit and nothing but normal time rate.
Doing this seems to have paid off big time in AH for me.
I'd recommend IL-2 just on its merits as a gunnery trainer. If you can hit it in IL-2 you can hit it in anything :D
-sequence
p.s. While I'm very impressed with IL-2, I still like AH better, you just can't beat the MMP experience with AI opponents.
-
And the overheating is ridiculous.
====
Not rediculous maybe. Too quick to ovht too quick to cool? probably, but if AH had a decent eng ovht build in the game
it would be a better more immersive and enjoyable game.
I know..HT, I know...all the dweebs would get pissed if running their LA7s at 100% thrott meant eng ovht. This would probably send them on their way to FA interfering with the neverending quest to load as many dweebs into AH as is possible. Hell, AH would pull em in if those damned cockpits would just go away.
Imagine an arena with 1000 people in it.
Y
-
Yeager, the time limits on high power settings for WWII planes had more to do with reliability and overhaul intervals than they had to do with overheating. At least for US and UK engines, the limits were often ignored without immediate problems. I think enforcing the time limits by creating artificial overheating is a lame way to handle it. Just because it's harder doesn't make it more realistic. Fortunately for Maddox there is a large segment of the market who can't grasp that concept.
-
Heh, you're all dweebs! :p
Reality on a computer? Man, when that happens I'll have to digitize my brainwaves and become a permanent resident of the internet. I might even save some money on food!
Waste of bandwidth, Andy.
Wotan, you gonna make it to Sun-N-Fun this year? I'm not sure, but I'll either be with the '46 Navion, or some other bare metal machine.
Poof!
-
Fortunately for Maddox there is a large segment of the market who can't grasp that concept.
====
I am satisfied with the effort made in IL2 to incorprate engine overheat at "sustained" maximum throttle. My understanding of aircraft engine mechanics is that this feature is plausible. AH has no such feature (WEP exempt).
However, suggesting that quality of engine manufacturing would be an appropriate factor in determining engine performance in any given airframe is far more random and open to broad critical speculation than a simple but effective approach to engine overlimits as employed in IL2. In tandem, the oft suggested" fuel quality should affect engine performance" is just as speculative. Might just as well factor in the relative experience of ground crews for any given nation in any given theater in any given year. How about tool quality? Atmospheric environment? The amount of covered workspace and time of year (season)?
Hell! sounds good to me!
Incorporating what IL2 has in the regard of engine degradation at sustained maximum throttle into AH would be welcomed by me but obviously, it would interfere with gameplay and that bodes poorly for attracting the average customer. Too bad.
-
Hmm
a few things here-
Trim- Porpoise effect is mostly because you cannot fine tune the trim well enough without a rotary! I have an X-36 and never have problems getting "hands off" unless I try to use the buttons on the KB. The "push button" method seems to whack the trim wheel a set amount- which is usually somewhere between hands off for the axis you want. I blame Oleg for this- we told him the problem in Beta many many times. Both AH and Il-2 seem to have wierd issues with trim affecting main flight controls. In Il-2 it gets more apparent because Oleg has trim based on recentering nuetral force on planes with no trim tabs. This leads to frustration where trim can be resettting nuetral to a point where you can't get full deflection in some directions without resetting the trim position. I asked Andy about this at SimHQ before, about trim creating more power than the pilot can exert himself to overcome it. I recieved an inconclusive answer at the time- it was because of this effect that I asked.
Flaps- High speeds opening flaps is whacko in AH not in IL-2. The WWII planes we use almost all had Hydraulic flaps that opened with 500+PSI. These flaps opened up fully in a second or two and at almost any speed (some just bent or broke at higher speeds).
IN AH flaps are auto retracting well below the point where RL ones damaged. In Il-2 flap damage is a fair amount under-modelled. IE he chose to make them jam and refuse to retract instead of actually breaking apart at high speeds. And higher speeds is relative- most us and soviet planes could use the flaps for dive brakes, that means they could hold up under a pretty heavy load without breaking.
Funkedup: Engine overheats at full throttle were a SERIOUS problem!!!! The last time we pestered Pyro about this he dug up a quote on the P&W twin wasp running under high boost for hours. Yeah, the MOST OVER-ENGINEERED and TOUGH engine of WWII does not make a good basis to judge other engines. Liquid cooled engines (especially late war german ones) had issues, even at mil power. Both US and Soviet testing show that they could boil the coolant and start serious overheat and damage. PLS notice that pilots who flew Merlin engines considered it a SERIOUS event to break the wire for WEP. Whereas P&W engines (P-47 or F-4U) barely cared unless it was a maintenance issue. this is missing in AH and most people miss it. At the very least it would establish some parity to people in the relative difference in frailty and power availability the real Radial vs inline angines had in WWII. And I have to admit here- Il-2 model of engine damage and wear-out from over-boost and over heat or enemy fire seems a heck of alot more realistic to me than AH's binary on/off model.
Roll model-
Yeah, this bugs the toejam outta me too. Didn't most of these planes have a preset aileron trim? IE it never gets hands off unless within a certain flight speed? I can never find that speed in Il-2. I love AH's stability. However I do enjoy the bob/weave effect the planes get. kind of like driving a car- you are always making fine control changes to keep precise. just wish they wouldn't drift me right off course.
My own Il-2 peeves?
#1 inaccurate guages. The ball and needle guages bite the big one. Even with my rotary trim, getting rudder trim precise is a squeak. I am almost always in a 1-2 degree per second slide on my yaw axis. and the IAS is goofed above 3000 meters, it doesn't match up mathematically with the TAS in the no-cockpit screen.
Spins- the spin model still seems weak to me. Stalls seem ok, but try for example to get departure in a snap roll. it stalls but won't get the proper cocentric(sp?) motion to get the rotational spin. ditto for low speed high AOA turns.
Damage: ever notice how impossible it seems to destroy an aileron from dead 6? Also penetration is not modelled. Thusly the extremely small area of an Il-2 tail gun makes him almost impossible to hurt. Ditto for other bombers. You also keep yaw stability by magic even with out a vert. stab?
G FORCES!!!! Good christ the Il-2 pilot is a tough bastard. He grey's out around 7.5G's or so! up to 9 before he goes lights out!
Makes it bloody hard to judge your turn rate when he never shows you how hard your being shoved into the seat. He also can take "lumps" and loumavack (sp?) far too well (when you get a 6-7 G tug or worse- when it goes 6G positive then 5G negative!)
On the other hand- AH would be amazing with a few of the ideas from Il-2.
Gunnery! I dunno how he did it but shooting in Il-2 feels like every WWII description I have ever read. you need to get close, and it's not easy to land hits especially against a manuevering target. and you need to HAMMER them to knock a plane down. not many two hit wonders. and the mixed ammo belts :)
the LOD models!!!!! AH has no LOD rescale, I wish it did so we could ID planes better at 500-1000 yds and see how they are changing position and orientation.
The sun. nuff said, it's a part of the DX toolkit and more than silly eye candy. MOHAA has it too. AH currently has no serious lighting effects. Would love to see some spiffy ones replace our sprite flashes.
Metric :)
AOA in the FM. ever notice you can ground loop in Il-2 EXACTLY like in a real plane? exceed your AOA and the plane "grabs" and the nose goes up, your COG changes and flippity wham! Also the planes get slide under heavy turns. I notice this happens to acro planes from a movie that had in cockpit cams.
Ahh, I talk too much. I love Il-2... but mostly for off-line with Starshoy's campaigns.
AH still feels more real in most ways to me.
-
Il-2 and AH damage model feels identical to me.
I've dropped Il-2s with 4-5 hits of single MG 151/20. With 30mm one hit usually does it.
I also wanted to try out the Fw 190 vs heavy buffs (Pe-8 in this case). The 4x20mm tears them to shreds and the 190 is quite tough at taking damage from head on. I can't wait till I get an A8 in the game.
Btw, anyone here complete the Axis pilot career? What date will I get a 109G-2? Getting tired of 15mm.
-
109G-2 comes in right with Stalingrad.
The difference between 15mms and 20mms are immense in IL-2.
A good half~one second burst on IL-2 fuselage with 109G-2s
knock out enough material two convince the AIs to jump.
In the case of Overheating, I also believe it might be a serious
problem. But the question is, do those planes really overheat
THAT QUICKLY?
And about the accelerations. If German planes like 109G-2s and
190A-5s can't accelerate worth crap like currently in IL-2, I'd hate
to think what US planes and RAF planes would be portrayed like
if they are ever introduced within IL-2 standards.
I think the post by Sorrow [S=A] explains and tells us lot of
helpful info, but I don't think I see anything about the accelration
issues.
-
Voss I am planning on it..........
I let ya know maybe I look ya up......:)
-
I'd be basically amazed if anyone designed an aircraft where the trim panel / stick force relationship was such that the "average" pilot could find himself in a position where he was too weak to "overcome" the forces generated by a particular trim panel with the stick or rudder pedals.
However, there's an awful lot of WW2 aircraft out there, maybe there are one or two that are that poorly designed. I'd think anecdotal evidence about such a plane would be common and usually with obscene vulgar words used to describe such an aircraft.
Trim is a secondary flight control. This cannot be repeated often enough. Trim is not normally used to "fly" the airplane, but rather to relieve stick forces to reduce/avoid fatigue.
The only time someone would "fiddle" with trim enough to get it totally "hands" off would be on "cruise" legs. There's no need and absoutely no time to be totally trimming hands off while fighting. You have a stick and rudder to move the nose that are far, far more powerful than any trim panel on the aircraft.
Also, remember that trim is constantly changing as fuel burns off (weight change), with throttle/rpm changes or airspeed changes. "In trim" is a "moment to moment" thing.
I'd almost guarantee that in any WW2 dogfight the pilot had one hand on the stick and the other on the throttle quadrant 98% of the time. Maybe a couple quick turns of an elevator trim wheel as major changes in speed resulted from climbs or dives now and then. Probably NEVER on the rudder or ailerons.
I'll never forget my IP in T-38's telling me from the backseat "mister, I want this airplane totally trimmed hands off in 30 seconds. Put both hands up when you're done". Well, the 38 was real stable in cruise and easily trimmed. After you had some time in it you could trim it hands off pretty quickly. So, I trimmed and held my hands up.. it went perfectly straight for about 10 seconds then started a slow roll to the right. I got screamed at and had to do it again. Same thing. And again. Same result.
Finally, he had me trim it out, put my hands up and then he said "lean all the way to the right against the cockpit rail". I did.. the airplane started a real slow roll to the right in a few seconds.
He had just be letting me trim it out and then leaning to the side. That's all it took, just that little shift of weight. He thought this was absolutely hilarious.
(Yeah, Larry... I still remember that one and the "hoo-hah" check too. ;) )
Moral of the story? Concerns about trim are usually way overmodeled. ;)
-
Trim is not normally used to "fly" the airplane,
Dunno 'bout that. On approach in a civilian turboprop, trim is almost the whole elevator input to achieve a smooth balance to glideslope.
Now maybe a jetliner is diffrent, I doubt it, and who am i to differ?
I agree you elude to stick input in combat is 98% of the time the controlling factor, but don't discount when that T-38 wasn't stable after setting it up and you had to trim it.
The trim input AH seems to model achieves this very small balance of control pretty well.
Or were you not discounting this?
-
Flying precision approaches (in anything):
You set the desired pitch attitude with the stick and relieve the resultant stick pressures with the trim. Almost always elevator only because the aileron and rudder pressures are so light as to be insignificant. However, sometimes a little rudder trim is nice, especially with a "bent" airplane.
Of course, if you're in the mood, you can just hold the pressure without trimming. You generally get a better, more precise approach if you trim however. This is due to a lot of reasons but mainly because there's other stuff going on besides pure stick and rudder flying that momentarily distract you.
And we're talking about simply flying straight down a 3 degree glideslope here, not maneuvering during ACM. Trim IS useful for a constant, nearly unchanging flight condition. THAT is the point of trimming, in fact.
Look, trim is defined as a secondary flight control by the Feds.
Yeah, you can fly down the glideslope using only minor adjustments to elevator trim... on a calm day, AFTER the aircraft is fully configured and on speed. Basically, a constant, unchanging flight path.... that's what trim is really for; relieveing the stick pressures and reducing the number of things you have to be worrying about at one time.
Trim is NOT a primary flight control.
Will a WW2 fighter fly if you remove the elevator trim panel from the airplane? Absolutely YES.
Will a WW2 fighter fly if you remove the elevators from the airplane? Absolutely NO.
-
I think Sorrows covered most of the issues well. A couple points I'd excentuate.
IL2 nicer points:
Overrev: This should be in AH, it IS a crucial factor of pushing a plane to the envelope and beyond, and it would add a great dimension to AH. All of a sudden those slower P&W rides like the Jug and F4 have a VERY real advantage over the Runstangs, D9's, and La7's (the latter's radial wasn't nearly as robust as the P&W) in drawn out fights.
Graphics: IL2's graphics are indeed nice, but I wouldn't want them in AH. For online sims framerate is everything. I much prefer a slightly older graphics engine and enhanced frame rate for something like AH.
Gunnery and damage: One needs to be careful here as I think they do a bit of "gamey" stuff in IL2 to help give the appearance of a historic gun model. No hard testing on that mind you, just an observation. Nevertheless IL2 does have a good feel to its gunnery. Damage is a nice touch, although I'd tend to agree with others that I don't think the _effects_ of the damage are that stringently modelled. Nice eye candy though.
Stalls: The planes actually mush out in IL2, very much like how a high speed stall should feel. AH doesn't really model this, or at least not to that degree.
IL2 minuses:
Trim: This is a mess imo. IL2 is a perfect example of trying to take "realism" too far. Keep an A/C in trim is a constant battle with the big difference over an actual a/c being you can't "feel" a thing in a sim. Moreover inputs to one degree or another DO significantly limit the maneuverability of the plane along that axis. AH is leaps and bounds ahead here providing a nice compromise between playability and this concept of realism. IL2 is pretty much exactly what I wouldn't do in a sim wrt trim.
Stick config: I don't know what the exact cause is here but I've yet to see a game that is so sensitive when it comes to stick config. Get it wrong and you will see some of the strangest effects ever in a sim. As an example my first SCALING (not deadband or the like, although its absolutely amazing how much slight adjustments in those settings can mess things up too) setup caused limitless inertia along the roll axis of the plane. Start a roll, let stick come center, and the plane would continue to roll infinitely until you applied offsetting pressure...at which point it would start rolling back the other way. You can tweak a lot of this out but it takes much time and a bit of luck to be sure. In the end you never really know if the effect you're seeing in game is the result of the model itself, or the porked stick config. Another "Top of the List" for the worst I've seen in a game. Worth noting I use an older analog stick. It works fine in every other sim I've tried though, including AH.
Other than some wizzy graphics in IL2 I don't really know what all the fuss is about. Its got some nice features, its a nice change to be sure, but it certainly isn't lighting my sim world afire.
-
that's what trim is really for; relieveing the stick pressures and reducing the number of things you have to be worrying about at one time.
Of course, which I use every time I try and trim the Dora out on the flat merge, and any other envelope/speed/'angle it demands so she aint so dirty.
Some use Combat Trim to achieve a desired result, i choose to just work in what the sim provides for the simulation itself. Good trim characterists. See?
-
I see you left out the part about "constant unchanging flight path" which is really the relevant part with respect to trim use and ACM in the game.
IMO, trim is one of the aspects of the AH FM that doesn't really make the grade. Trim effects are WAY overmodeled I think. A minor spin of the trim wheel shouldn't put you in a 1500 FPM climb.
After flying the P-38 for a tour, I am more convinced than ever. If you don't constantly work the manual trim the airplane barely performs. Sorry, that's just not right. ELEVATOR moves the nose.. not trim. Trim just relieves stick pressure.
Trim is not a primary flight control. ELEVATOR moves the nose. Elevator trim relieves stick pressure.
Combat trim, provided by the game programming, is merely an attempt to moderate the overemphasis unwittingly placed on trim intially... in my opinion, of course. To a degree, it helps do that. However, relying on Combat Trim in a P-38 (and probably others as well) provides significantly less performance than is available with manual trim. So, it's not entirely effective.
Now, if folks want to believe that the essence of being a true killer fighter pilot is mastery of the elevator trim wheel.. who am I to whiz in their wheaties? There's people who still believe in Santa Claus and the Cardiff Giant too.
-
I lost you on the Holiday character and I think comic book ref.
Regardless, trim should damn near fly the plane in the various axis in level flight. And help at least stabilize it in any flight envelope. To what degree? Dunno, ask Charles Yeager.
The velocity of the trim inputs is a argument I never commented on, nor have the batteries to point/counterpoint. Im tired.
I like what AH does with it though.
-
Actually Toad...you're kinda wrong.
Adjusting flight controls using the trim wheel is only ineffective because of the gear ratio (so to speak we're actually talking cables and pullies) from the trim wheel to the actually control surface (or trim tab of the surface) is designed to give the pilot an easier "Fine tuning" ability.
However full control of flight Can be achieved. In fact it's done all the time.
Autopilot systems fly aircraft through use of the aircraft trim. Autopilot doesn't move the control surfaces directly, but indirectly through use of the trim tabs. And don't think for a moment we're merely talking 'Attitude Hold' or 'Heading Hold'. Terrain following, WARS, GPS Waypoint Following, and my other autopilot modes are perfect examples of this.
Plus many aircraft have electronic trim wheels, (usually larger aircraft with large control surfaces) which really zip that trim wheel quickly.
Granted I'm using more modern examples, however the Trim concept is still the same. (of course all the planes in AH have autopilot modes anyway...go figger).
-
You are indeed talking modern aircraft and not all of them work as you say. Some autopilots do work through trim tabs... and some move the actuator that's attached to the actual control surface. The latest commercial technology autopilots mostly reposition the control surface hydraulically, eliminating the need for a tab. Additionally, when hand flying such an aircraft, 'trimming" is merely using hydraulics to reposition/redefine the "neutral" position the surface.
If you're going to tell me that fully deflecting a WW2 trim tab will eventually move the associated control surface to full deflection, I'll disagree. Some may have that much authority but I seriously doubt if very many would. It would be the definite exception, not the rule.
Ever try to takeoff using only elevator trim for pitch? It can be done (in some but not all weight/CG conditions) but it's not as efficient or fast as just pulling back on the stick. Why? Because the tab probably has enough authority to get you into the air but not as fast or efficiently as deflecting the control surface.
Ever wonder why they don't TEACH "rotate with trim only on takeoff"? I don't.
Beyond that, have you ever encountered a WW2 trim tab so powerful that the stick could not be used to overpower it? In other words, an elevator trim tab so strong that when the tab is trimmed full up using forward stick is insufficient to make the aircraft nose go down?
Trim is NOT a primary flight control.
-
Thanks Toad, I was waiting desperatly for someone to FINALLY come out and say that.
Beyond that, have you ever encountered a WW2 trim tab so powerful that the stick could not be used to overpower it? In other words, an elevator trim tab so strong that when the tab is trimmed full up using forward stick is insufficient to make the aircraft nose go down?
This has been my major question about Il-2 trim models.
At max value +/- there is so much trim recenter that the pilot cannot obtain full deflection (even in slower speeds). This has been my query all along- can an elevator trim tab exert enough pressure to do this? (It is NOT like this with elevator&rudder AFAIK).
In looking at this I am left with two observations.
#1 The 109 we know had leverage problems and force was limited to what? 40-60lbs? Could the trim exceed that? We know it could exert enough force to pull the plane out when the stick could not- unless it was just the gear ratio on the tab allowing any control input to raise the nose.
#2 I honestly don't know how much effort it took to control the fighters we play with IRL. The P-38 needed hydraulics to move ailerons- was that because a normal person wouldn't have been able to do so effectivly? What about the P-47? Too many questions :(
-
From what I've read:
The 109's trim tabs on elevator and aileron were not adjustable in flight. The rudder had a small trim tab that was found to be ineffective and was assisted by additional (ground adjustable) tabs. Well, there were a lot of 109's, but I don't think any had aileron/elevator trims adjustable in flight.
The P-38's ailerons were boosted to assist the pilot. They were about as heavy as a Lear 25 is today, before the change. Everyone says that a four hour flight in a Lear 25 will wear you out. The autopilot fails constantly on nearly every one of them, so the PIC is constantly holding a pretty good load. This, no doubt, helped a great deal on those long missions.
I don't think either it or the Jug were so heavy in control as to cause a real problem, unless in compression.
The 109, however, was limited in lateral application of force from the pilot to the stick. This was because of the narrow cockpit, as the pilot could not elevate his elbow enough to gain proper leverage. In the Blonde Knight's case, he was so over-sortied against the Russians that, after landing. he was frequently asleep before the ground crew could remove the canopy. The 109 was that abusive.
In contrast, every Luftwaffe pilot (or British for that matter) that had a chance to inspect an American machine, was surprised at the room available in the cockpits.
109's never had to contend with the really long missions, though.
Oops, wandered off of trim tabs.,,
-
Originally posted by Voss
From what I've read:
The 109's trim tabs on elevator and aileron were not adjustable in flight.
Elevator trim was possible. You could change the AoA of the whole stabilizer. If you compare it to current highspeed designs (which often uses the whole stabi as an elevator), than you can see that it was the most advanced trim system at this time.
The rudder had a small trim tab that was found to be ineffective and was assisted by additional (ground adjustable) tabs. Well, there were a lot of 109's, but I don't think any had aileron/elevator trims adjustable in flight.
It was a flettner tab / spring tab and not adjustable from the cockpit like a trim tab.
The 109, however, was limited in lateral application of force from the pilot to the stick. This was because of the narrow cockpit, as the pilot could not elevate his elbow enough to gain proper leverage. In the Blonde Knight's case, he was so over-sortied against the Russians that, after landing. he was frequently asleep before the ground crew could remove the canopy. The 109 was that abusive.
I´m tired to hear over and over again the same BS. Was the cockpit of the spit much larger? Yak-3? When the english test pilot has no power in his arms he shouldn´t blame the 109. And those comments refer to the aillerons of the E btw, the F model already had new designed aillerons with Frise effect.
The 109 was a small aircraft, you logically have smaller control surfaces and smaller control forces. This way it could go with a smaller stick and less stick deflection.
You can also balance the control surfaces of a P38 in a way that you could fly with the stick of a 109, but in some situations you would risk overbalance. The control surfaces of the 109 were not as good balanced as other designs imo, but the forces were afaik positiv in most (if not all) flight situations.
In contrast, every Luftwaffe pilot (or British for that matter) that had a chance to inspect an American machine, was surprised at the room available in the cockpits.
Well, they were even more suprised that the P47 performed like a lame duck near ground with such a powerful engine. What do you think, could this be somehow related to the size? The airframe of the P47 actually had a larger diameter than some civil passenger aircraft.
by sorrow
#1 The 109 we know had leverage problems and force was limited to what? 40-60lbs? Could the trim exceed that? We know it could exert enough force to pull the plane out when the stick could not- unless it was just the gear ratio on the tab allowing any control input to raise the nose
This is simply not true. The 109 elevator was designed for at least 85kg/ 187lb "elevator pulling" and 70kg /154lb "elevator pushing". The rudder was designed for 150kg/ 330lb each feet.
And in the 109F 50lb aileron stickforce was reached in 10k feet at a speed of ~350mph, this is comparable to many other designs.
niklas
-
Niklas- 50lbs would be in the "range" I quoted of between 40-60lbs. 350mph@10k would be an operational flight speed too would it not? I was not referring to the ability "on the ground" after all.
And I was aware of the changes by the F and later G model, these IIRC affected mostly the ailerons at higher speeds. The Elevators still had lockup issues and required trim to regain control in fast dives.
My question still stands- with this in mind could any of the 109 model had an issue where at 200-350mph the trim tab could create enough force the pilot could not move the stick it's full amount?
This is not about the 109, it's a question about trim with the 109 as a starting point. Don't get sidetracked!
-
Sorry, Niklas. I know some of the best airplanes had severe problems, and it is true that many, many war time pilots that flew the 109 complained of this trait (no elbow room). I can tell you when the fact came to light, but only approximately. In 1939 things were quite a bit different. Not one of the Allies had examined a 109 and it was held in awe. Just a year (perhaps year-and-a-half) later they had a 109F, that had fallen into their hands. This aircraft was tested by as many as two dozen British boys, all of whom agreed: the 109 had severe shortcomings, and one had to respect the pilots that flew her successfully. This is not propaganda, as why dispell untruths to the very men who needed accurate information in defense of Britain?
As for slamming the Jug: Gabreski (GRHS) himself quite often stated that he preferred low level work. His story can attest to the dangers involved in that undertaking.
However, thanks for confirming my suspiscion that NONE of the 109's trim surfaces were in-flight adjustable. Cutaway views of the time can't be trusted in accuracy, and it seems everyone that came later (in that field) simply plagiarized wartime artists.
I can tell you that the 109 DID NOT have an adjustable incidence line on the elevator stab. You are thinking about the 190. The 109 was fixed quite solidly.
I will agree that several Allied machines suffered likewise (though not from elbow room). The P51D suffered from a new trait that previous machines had not: all it took was one hit to bring it down. Every other Mustang from the P51 (originally named Apache) to the P51C was known for its ability to take considerable abuse.
Ah, well, sorry mate. If you're tired of reading it now, stop reading, 'cause the truth hurts.
-
Originally posted by Sorrow[S=A]
Niklas- 50lbs would be in the "range" I quoted of between 40-60lbs. 350mph@10k would be an operational flight speed too would it not? I was not referring to the ability "on the ground" after all.
And I was aware of the changes by the F and later G model, these IIRC affected mostly the ailerons at higher speeds. The Elevators still had lockup issues and required trim to regain control in fast dives.
My question still stands- with this in mind could any of the 109 model had an issue where at 200-350mph the trim tab could create enough force the pilot could not move the stick it's full amount?
This is not about the 109, it's a question about trim with the 109 as a starting point. Don't get sidetracked!
I don't think anyone can argue so. The problem is as I stated previously.
Are you saying the 109G had an adjustable stab incidence? I don't recall that at all.
-
the 109 had an elevator trim.
it reimmes the whole AOA of the elevator.
like all modern jets and airliners have.
with the 109K4, they had adjustable
rudder trim (inflight) too
wastl
-
This leads to frustration where trim can be resettting nuetral to a point where you can't get full deflection in some directions without resetting the trim position. I asked Andy about this at SimHQ before, about trim creating more power than the pilot can exert himself to overcome it.
Trim modeling in flight sims is complicated by the fact that joysticks have spring centering so trimming off the forces on the stick doesn't leave the stick deflection in the position corresponding to the control deflection. In order to allow trimmed flight with the stick centered, sims generally just add the trim input to the stick input. This can result in more control deflection with trim than you should actually get. It can also result in less control deflection then you should get when the trim setting is subtracted from the stick position. Letting the sim change what it reads as the center position of the stick to correspond with the trim setting retains the full control authority without artifically adding or subtracting trim input and stick input. In the case of elevator trim this assumes that the trim tab is on the elevator rather than the trim changing the incidence of the horizontal stabilizor.
As for trim being used to save pilots who didn't otherwise have control I've read accounts of pilots in P-38's and P-47's using trim to recover from compression and I've heard of P-39 and Me109 pilots doing so as well. I expect it works with a lot of different aircraft since the elevator trim tab is less affected by air pressure than the elevator itself.
--)-FLS----
Musketeers
-
I can tell you that the 109 DID NOT have an adjustable incidence line on the elevator stab. You are thinking about the 190. The 109 was fixed quite solidly.
It DID have an adjustable stabi, like the 190. Even the Emil in the german technical museum has one. When they did the dive tests the pilot was only able with the trim wheel to get the nose up again.
About cutaways: they´re not always 100% correct. For example even wartime cutaways don´t show the tail enlargment of the 190D correct. And all Models in every sim have it wrong too :).
But stop now, this belongs not in this thread
nik out
-
Toad has it right. Period. End of story.
The 109 had a trimmable horizontal stabilizer, not elevator.
I'm doing a series of articles on secondary flight controls for SimHQ. The first one is being edited now and covers the rudder (before someone goes screaming into the night because I classed the rudder as a secondary flight control, please wait for the article!!). The follow on articles will cover the flaps and trim functions. Toad covered the main points very well...I can only add to his comments regarding trim.
As for the finer techniques of flying with trim...you'll find that there is the "book" answer...and then there is "technique". Most of us old heads don't pass along technique until the newer pilots demonstrate a little finesse. Flying with trim is well into the finesse category. I trim into the flare with the airliner that I fly...but as an airline check airman and instructor I did not teach the technique. Same for when I flew fighters...there were things that I did that I didn't mention to the average wingman. I didn't want him going out and killing himself.
Andy
-
Some how this thread turned into a trim discussion....
Trim in AH does increase turn rate.
My guess is that the AH trim model is a "best compromise" between the real world and a simulation of it.
HTC can not simulate stick pressure with our spring return joysticks. What is simulated is stick irresponsiveness IE more joystick movement gets you less control surface movement.
The trim model bypasses this. The end result is that you can trim a better turn rate.
-
I fly a cessna 172 thats been highly modified for towing banners (STOL kit, climb prop, etc.). When I was being trained in it my boss warned me not to put too much trim in before landing. I realized what he meant when I went to flare...... I eased back on the yoke and it stopped after about 2 inches of travel- for the first time in my (relatively short) career. I had just run out of elevator. Luckily its a very robust little airplane and doesnt mind being dropped in from 5 feet in the air. This is the result of a nose heavy condition.
Just a little trim story for the hell of it.
-
Mino
Excellent point. I like AH and don't mean to be critical of the sim...but it's FM errors like this in ALL sims that lead folks astray. It seems that our search for "realism" can boomerang on us when the programming departs from RL. Our fellow simmers may not realize this and mistake sim FM performance for the real thing.
When this happens, we get folks thinking such things as trim improves turn performance, flaps do the same, etc. What is missing is the academics that go along with these ideas that permit our buddies to recognize realism from silliness.
Andy
-
Trim can inprove turn performance. Search past threads and you will see this previously explaned.
First off you need to understand that the machanics of real plane trim v simulation trim. It is inposible with a standard joy stick to simulate trim like it works in planes.
The reason is simple, when triming a real plane it moves the 0 pressure stick position. Another way of looking at it is that moving the trim tabs moves the yoke or stick. Normal flight triming is just hold the control, turn trim tab until no more pressure is felt on the control. This effectly moved the hands off position of the control.
With normal joy sticks, and even FF back there is no way of moving the center of the stick. Hence the big problem of simulating trim on a pc.
AH has 2 effects in triming. One being the physical stop the other been the force on stick stop.
If your controls are not limited by speed or stick force you get full range of control surface deflection regardless of where the trim is set , and triming will not give you any more turn performance.
If control range is limited by force (do to plane speed) you get the same amount of movement from the trim center position based on how much force would be needed to move the stick.
It's possible to disagree with where we have the control forces set at, but i'm open to sugestion on any other method of doing trim.
Quite simply i've never heard of a better way.
HiTech
-
I hope Flanker doesn't mind if I copy/paste his post from SimHQ. Post is in Il-2 board but some points are valid in AH too:
As some of You know the Finnish annual netpilot meeting UrbanBlitz was kept last weekend at Tampere. 47 participants showed up and the event kicked off. A LOT of BEER & CIDER was consumed during the 3 days of the event The most anticipated thing was still the visit of some of the very few veterans of Finnish Air Force. They were Bristol Blenheim, Ju88 and Bf109G pilots.
To the point. A vet that flew Bf109G-6 asked to get a swing in the Bf109G-6 he had flown. In notime he was airborne and U could tell he had flown this bird before and his memory was sharp as a razor blade conserning the characteristics of the plane. He liked the feel of the FM but gave some critics too. And this may cause a storm in the bowl but here it comes: He said IL-2's G-6 is way too sluggish performance wise and stall prone!Not to mention the overheat. Let me tell the points he said...
1) Stall. He said the 109 NEVER tried to enter an uncontrolled spin like IL-2. The stall was VERY gentle and the leading edge slats made the plane flyable at very low airspeed. Also the wingdrop was VERY slight or nonexistent. The stall characteristics were so good that they used it to land the Bf109 on a short field. The approach was otherwise normal but the pilot intentionally pulled high AoA to open the slats and then kept the plane in a stall with engine power. That way the aproach angle was steeper and speed could be kept below 180km/h at approach.
2) Performance.Comment was very short:Too sluggish and poor climb compared to the real plane.He told the 109 was like a sports car when U flew it. Climbed VERY well and was somewhat fast too. Dive characteristics were good up to over 850km/h where the plane began to shake slightly and pilot knew to begin leveling off. General flying charactersitics were very pleasant and the plane did not shake or squeak at all. Very stable to fly and NO wobbling when firing guns or lining up for the shot.
3)Views. They were pretty close to the real deal according to him. The forward view was restricted only during approach when the nose was above horizon 4-6 degrees. Otherwise the Bf109 flew in a slight "nose down" attitude and provided good view for the pilot.
Other stuff he told was that the MG151/20 was VERY effective and accurate gun as well the MG131's(13mm cowl guns).Fireing them was noticed by a slight shake in the plane but no change in stability of the plane.
Overheating was no problem according to this Eagle. The only circumstances where when U used WEP and had to run on 100% for extended time. Otherwise no real problems and the cooling system was effective.
There was more he told and I try to put them here later. One thing he was 100% positive of was that he could ALWAYS outclimb a La5FN in his G-6. He considered it a fast and somewhat maneuverable but otherwise no wonder plane. And remember..his memory was sharp and he had VERY detailed info on the 109 as well as flight time in many other planes(Fokker D.XXI, Fiat G.50bis etc.)...
-----------------------------------------
(continues)
The Eagle said that IL2 captures sense of flying and the feel(to a certain extent) very well, but handling and performance characteristics were not correct for the G-6 in some areas. Most criticism was heard about the lack of climb and the "strange stalls" of the 109G.
He also was very kind to answer our endless questions how Bf109 was flown in combat situations. Here some snippets...Use of flaps in ANY combat maneuver was NONEXISTENT. It killed the speed too much and flaps were too slow to operate in a combat situation. Speed was life!
Use of propellor pitch. The manual pitch trim was used in some occasions like when above 5.7km and when a desired rpm/ata combo was to be set. The pitch could also be used to slow down the plane in certain combat maneuvers and force the enemy to overshoot or spoil his aim.
The leading edge slats. They popped in or out instantly on certain angles of attacks and did NOT slide continuously like in IL-2. When they opened the plane could be flown in great AoA quite effortlessly and still maintain good handling. Some pilots popped them open prior landing to give more authority on ailerons.
Landing of 109 was not too hard when You followed the instructions. As the Eagle said:"..when the plane bounces the pilot has made a mistake.." Take off required the use of rudder, but again not too difficult when proper procedures were followed by the pilot.
Trim. Was used in take-off and landing mostly. In some combat maneuvers it could be used to tighten the turns, but usually(according to this Eagle) he did not use it very much since he said he could always pull enough on the stick to make the plane turn. Some planes had rudder trims, but not all. The planes with the higher wooden tail had it, but as Finns changed the tails to the "older" lower metallic ones, the feature was removed. The tail change was due to the excess weight it added to the plane. Also the metallic tail section was tougher and easier to repair.
Gunnery. He said it was VERY hard to hit a moving target in a 3D environment. This is well modelled in IL-2. Only thing he added was the use of gun pods in Bf109. They did affect the performance a bit, but not so much as some sources tell. Kyösti "Kössi" Karhila was one of the Bf109G-6/R-6 pilots and he liked the plane with this equipment. He had told that the IL-2 was ripped open like a tin can with a short burst of the 3 cannons. It simply dis-integrated. Accuracy of the 20mm was very good. Same applied to the 13mm. Kyösti Karhila was also one of the FAF pilots that was credited with a Mustang kill on Eastern front. He entered a trun fight against an A36 Apache(P51A?) with his G-6/R-6. The turn circle was EVEN and when the A36 pilot became impatient and tried to make his turn a bit tighter the plane wobbled in a near stall..Kössi saw his opportunity and cut the throttle and made a slight pull to get lead on the A36..a short burst of the 3 x 20mm and the A36 was no more. So as U can see the G-6/R-6 was NOT a sluggish gun boat only
More to come if You are interested...
-
thats great piece - glad you snipped it :)
-
A little observation..
ISN'T IT GREAT we're having a "This game" vs "Other game"
conversation and not slinging mud at each other?? :D
Maybe because this time the words were too technical for the
"XxXx OwNz YoO" folk to understand :)
ps) What happened to my question on comparative acceleration factors
on the planes of AH and IL-2??? Can anyone enlighten me :) ?
-
In Uniteds simulators when you trim the plane up the yoke actually moves, you dont see this happen with your joy-stick and there in lies a huge difference between the virtual craft as opposed to the real thing !
-
When it comes to these kinds of discussions, folks often look for the "bottom line" and end up disappointed because it seems that one isn't reached.
The chief culprit here is that in aviation there are few absolutes, and the subject of trim is an excellent example. As Toad mentioned, there were many, many aircraft designs in WW2, spanning a wide range of technology. Trying to find a "one size fits all" answer is not easy. These planes had various trim designs ranging from the non-existent to the complex. Not all aircraft were designed perfectly...aerodynamic oddities did exist and sometimes defied conventional practice.
For us, we have the additional problem of separating the sim world from the real. As has been explained, trim is a function that is difficult to reproduce in a sim. The developers, when producing a multi-plane sim, find that programming each different aircraft like its real life counterpart is far too impractical. So we end up with planes that have a trim function in the sim that they did not have in RL. We can live with this!
We have been tossing around the idea of trim "improving turn performance". I think the real issue is separating the terms that we are really talking about...chiefly "turn performance" and "stick authority".
When we talk "turn performance", we are referring to turn rate and radius. These two are affected by true airspeed and radial G...nothing else....more G at less speed equals more degrees per second and a smaller turn radius.
"Stick authority", on the other hand, is a reference to the control surface movement that a pilot can obtain in flight. Here is where we may get confused when looking at the trim issue. At high speeds, the air loads on the control surfaces make the controls harder to move...it simply takes more force to move the stick. And at these speeds, the performance values are excessive (large radius, low rate). If the pilot cannot get full travel on the stick because of air loads, he may be unable to get the maximum performance available. IF his trim function can independently operate the control surface to produce an increased range of movement, then the pilot may see some performance improvement. There are limits to how far this technique can be taken...these are the design G limit of the plane and the ability of the pilot to maintain consciousness under high G loads.
As a rule, when trim was used to improve stick authority, it was in situations such as a high speed dive recovery. It was not widely used to improve turn performance numbers...not that the technique couldn't be used in some cases...it just wasn't the norm.
Generally speaking, pilots entered the fight trimmed for the speed at the merge, and they tended to leave the trim at that position during maneuvering. The exception to this was when the maneuvering took the pilot to the boundaries of the flight envelope (slow or fast). There, he may have trimmed to either relieve stick loads or to gain stick authority as previously described.
When the fight stayed in the middle of the speed range, as was the norm, then there was little reason for trimming. Air loads were not a factor, and the pilot had far more problems to be worried about than a stick that was slightly "heavy". Trimming was done by exception. At these speeds, the pilot could reach full stick authority...because of this, actuation of the trim function would not confer any advantage...it only reduced stick forces.
Now, that's RL. If the sim is programmed differently, then all of this is moot. If the pilot can add elevator trim when in the "normal" speed range and realize an increase in turn rate or decrease in turn radius, then the sim has provided him an advantage the RL pilot did not have. I'll leave it up to the folks that know more about how our sims are programmed to figure this issue out. If the trim can provide a performance advantage, then this should be announced from the gitgo in the sim's documentation. We don't want some folks to have an unfair advantage because they are in the "know" and others aren't!
Andy
-
I thought "TRIM" was something one looked for when heading out on a friday night... You know a little trim in that little black dress :p
xBAT
-
Very good explanation, Andy.
Thanks.
-
So Toad and Andy, do you still disagree that 109 had trimmable elevator assy?
I've also read number of fist hand accounts of 109 pilots using this trim to pull up from dives over 900kmh IAS near ground level. Finnish 109 pilots used high speed dives to disengage from combat so there is quite many sortie descriptions which include trimming out of dive. I don't have here any nice book's to sitate from, but im sure some other finns here can give you your proof if you need that.
-
OK, illo, what's the problem here? Read my previous post. I said the Me-109 had a trimmable horizontal stabilizer.
Or do you have me confused with someone else? Toad too...I don't recall that he weighed in differently on this subject.
Andy
-
Illo:
Andy Bush in earlier in this topic: "The 109 had a trimmable horizontal stabilizer, not elevator."
Which is correct.
-
Yes, thx andy. I should read post before replying.
Forgive me. :D
-
This was great informational/refresher material folks,
mauser