Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: MANDOBLE on March 25, 2002, 04:06:28 AM
-
Yesterday I got frustrated, again, being unable to follow a right roll of a SpitV (I was doing about 250 mph in a D9 and the Spit was slower in front of me). So, I switch my whine mode on and set up some whinning questions:
1 - What was (if any) the difference in roll rate between 190As and 190D9?
2 - Whitch % of roll rate has been substracted from AH's 190s for gameplay issues related to the net?
3 - If % > 0, has been this % also substracted from the rest of the planes?
4 - Isn't Spit roll rate exagerated?
-
Not sure how much worse the Dora rolled, it rolled worse judging from Pilot reports about it, it was still amongst the best rolling planes though.
Not sure if A's have been set down, the A5 with 4 wing guns had a roll speed of about 160 degrees per second, sure doesn't feel like that though.
IL2 190 Roll rate seems pretty nice :)
-
There is an EAW webpage, were a couple of guys did an ultra-realistic EAW mod.
They took all charts etc. drag data and so on and calculated them for every plane in EAW planeset.
And here is there result, its btw the 1st chart i ever saw that differs between FW190A and D
(http://www.geocities.com/weurger/main/rolls.jpg)
The most funniest thing is, that spit IX and XIV roll way slower at speed than spit I-V.
FW190A roll at 164 °/sec
FW190D at 160 °/sec
the only planes that can ever match FW190 roll are P51 and P38 with powered ailerons at high speeds.
Edit: Just for in case anyone thinks they dont know what they do, one of this guys is an active aircraft designer, so i guess he has an idea of aerodynamics etc.
-
a short offline test reveals:
FW-190A5 135°/second
FW-190D9 130°/second
Spitfire MkIX 80°/second
all tests at 3000ft, 250mph IAS, 25%fuel, the A5 had it's outboard cannons removed, all rolls clockwise. These figures are somewhat inaccurate due to nosedropping after the initial roll and increasing speed. Actual rollrate might be a bit (~10°) higher. That's what my stick gives me :)
-
Nevertheless, even if you add the 10°/sec, both FW190 would role at 20°/sec slower than in the chart. This would be a difference of around 12-14%.
This is from my standpoint to far away to be called a "small" inaccuracy.
Btw, anyway having an idea how to perform roletest without any nosedrop and speed increase?
-
190 roll rate has been brought up several times already. I can't find the threads that had the tests and discussion, but it was found that the AH 190A rolls slower than NACA data for slower airspeeds (< 250mph?) and faster for higher airspeeds (> 300mph?). The image I'm thinking about had AH curves superimposed on the original NACA chart, if anyone happened to have saved it. It did not have data on the D9.
-
190s should have their rollrate reduced at high speeds and added at low/med speeds.
This is very important to anyone who flies 190.
Hitech, do you agree or do you maybe have data from more trustworthy sources?
Here we have this usual naca roll chart :D
-
The answer from HTC's side would be: "Because Fw190 has too fast roll rate and makes it warp"
-
No problem with that, roll rate reduced due warps, but then lets reduce also the roll rate of the rest of the planset instead of just having their roll rate slighly increased over NACA report.
-
Hristo did some tests of the rollrates some time ago.
The 190 was about 5deg a sec too slow below 250, bang on at the peak (about 255 mph iirc) and 25 deg a sec too fast at 300 +
Most of the other planes were similar, too slow at low speed, too fast at high speed.
The Spit was slow at low speed, and 21 deg a sec too fast at high speed.
In other words, no neutering of the 190 has taken place. AH either has it's rollrates wrongly skewed for high speed, or more likely there is a difference between the way rests are carried out here and by NACA.
-
Thanks nashwan. I think it maybe just different stick forces modeled for high speeds then.
-
crap about no neutering !!! 190 elevtor autority and E lose is so terible if u try anything alse like roll you imedaitaly lose speed drasticly and slow down and roll rate at slow to low worth of nothing !!!!!! in 1.03 even niki teror have problem to scisor with 190 , and not includet warpers, not all was warpy, and the old notorios warper still warp even today they just dont fly 190 anymore
definitely 190 is not a 190 in AH:( not anymore for long time:(
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Hristo did some tests of the rollrates some time ago.
The 190 was about 5deg a sec too slow below 250, bang on at the peak (about 255 mph iirc) and 25 deg a sec too fast at 300 +
Most of the other planes were similar, too slow at low speed, too fast at high speed.
The Spit was slow at low speed, and 21 deg a sec too fast at high speed.
Too fast, too slow, yes yes, but compared to what? The NACA test AFAIR had 50 lbs of stick force as the upper limit. But whatever the limiting stick force in the NACA test and AH, below both of those (ie. at the maximum aileron deflection) the planes should have identical performances. I remember that it wasn't quite so.
-
Hehe, another Luftwhiner thread :)
Don't be mad at me, just funnin you guys.
Keep it in perspective, what difference does it really make? Just adjust to what is there and learn to work with it.
All 47's had field mods to them to increase turbocharger output but it's not modeled, so what, I work with what is there.
It's a game people, not real life, quit acting like it was.
-
mark luper , if your prefered plane got be the 190 FM , i em sure you and other will cry out a new ocean about it !:p
-
Keep it in perspective, what difference does it really make? Just adjust to what is there and learn to work with it.
You really ask?
If i fly a 190, i want to have it flying like one.
I dont want a FW190 3D model with the FM of a P51.
If you see it that way, why not give all planes the same FM, and just keep the 3D model how it is.
And about AH rollrates. It would really help if HiTech just jumps in an explains how stick forces are modeled in AH.
If the rolerate in AH is based on a certain stickforce, the rollrate in AH should have basicily the same relation as on the NACA chart.
Cause it would make no sense to limit roll with different amount of force at different speeds. (i.e 40lbs@250mph but 55lbs@400mph)
If it is based on maximum possible aileron deflection, i think i.e. the FW190 would roll better at all speeds. But same goes for all planes.
But that would not be a realistic way, just imagine that in some planes stick forces get really really high. So high no pilot could apply them.
And about the warps cause by rollrate, i again say it is a problem of AH's way of transfer. FA2.5 and now FA3 both give the 190 its full rollrate and there it doesnt cause any warp probs. There transfer protocol is modeled so well, that i have never seen any warp roles or micriwarps there.
Same goes for my trial period in WW2Online. Even though i sometimes had fps of just 12-15, i never saw any mircrowarps.
Its a phenomenon i just know from AH.
-
Oh yea I'm pretty sure Naudet is not interested in going to play FA or WW2OL....... :D
-
Perhaps I wasn't clear:
The AH 190 rolls a little bit too slow at low speeds, on the order of 3% or so. At high speeds it is up to 20% to fast, probably due to increased stick forces being modelled.
The 3% reduction at lower speeds could easily be down to minor variations in the testing, for example the figures Hristo came up with were the time taken to do 3 complete rolls, averaged over several attempts. That figure includes the time to accelerate into the roll, the Naca figures may not.
The AH 190 closely matches the real life 190.
Same is true for most of the other planes Hristo tested, iirc. The Spit was certainly the same, too slow at low speeds (though again not by much), too fast at high speeds, again indicating higher allowed stick forces.
-
Thread with NACA vs AH roll rate comparison (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28507&highlight=roll+AND+naca)
The initial chart in the thread above shows clearly what planes are gaining roll rate and what are loosing it. It is as easy as substracting AH roll rate area from NACA roll rate area.
All the planes have a slight gainance in roll rate except the 190, it has a notorious decrement. Planes like Typhs, Spits, Zeros, F6F and P47D25 have a notorious increase. Hey, that NACA report states 55 degree per secs for planes like Typhs and Zekes at 10k.
Hey, The Illo NACA chart shows 55 degrees per sec as maximum roll rate for Zekes and Typhs and 165 for 190 at 10k. Now show me an AH 190 doing 165 degrees or a Zeke or Typh doing no more than 55 at any speed.
I also would like to know how "bad" was the elevator control of 190s at hi speeds and how "good" was it with the Typhs, and why they keep with full control while the 190s are just limited to trims at these speeds.
In AH we have 190s that nearly matches the general performance numbers for the real machines (climb and speed). But handling is a different thing.
-
@Grun: i hate the new FA3, and i am not going to play it, but WW2online might be in reach if i get a new comp. It basicily because i am tired of those guys, that just wirl around cause they know AH tranfer protocol will ensure their safety. WW2online lags behind in many things especially graphics, number of available planes, but i found the immersion of airwar was there better than in AH, noone pray&spraying from 700 yards and turning is not the all-winning-ability a fighter must posses
@nashwan: how did Hristo the test, and how can i copy the results? I have performed test on climb and turnspeed before, that gave representative results, but i dont know how to test roll without may other factors disrupting the test (nose drop, speed increase etc.)
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Perhaps I wasn't clear:
The AH 190 rolls a little bit too slow at low speeds, on the order of 3% or so. At high speeds it is up to 20% to fast, probably due to increased stick forces being modelled.
The 3% reduction at lower speeds could easily be down to minor variations in the testing, for example the figures Hristo came up with were the time taken to do 3 complete rolls, averaged over several attempts. That figure includes the time to accelerate into the roll, the Naca figures may not.
The AH 190 closely matches the real life 190.
No, you were clear but were just holding back info. Saying that the 190 is up to 20% fast doesn't do much good if you don't give the actual figures. So, tell us what results Hristo obtained, so we can (again) compare them with the NACA graph and (again) see that they are quite much more off than you imply (at max aileron deflection).
-
SageFIN, in my previous post there is a link to a thread with a graph of the AH results.
-
(http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/phoenix/images/rollrates.jpg)
-
Naudet is right what he said about wwiiol: Planes do not warp. They just disappear from your sights...
Oh and if you're interested about planes in wwiiol do some speed tests in different altitudes... Flying in there is a joke but ground war rocks.
-
No, you were clear but were just holding back info. Saying that the 190 is up to 20% fast doesn't do much good if you don't give the actual figures. So, tell us what results Hristo obtained, so we can (again) compare them with the NACA graph and (again) see that they are quite much more off than you imply (at max aileron deflection).
I can't remember the actual figures.
I do remember the results, and they showed 5% too slow at about 200mph, 20% too fast at 300 (350?) mph. (ie, 20% faster than the NACA figures)
ISTR Hristo did his tests after that chart illo posted, and found very different figures. I don't know how he tested, and he is a far better pilot than me, so I wouldn't be able to duplicate his results anyway.
How about one of you asks Hristo?
-
The data in that NACA chart for the Fw 190 (and Mustang, Typhoon and Spitfires) is actually from a fighter aileron comparison made by the RAE. The RAE paper claims that the tested Fw 190 had heavier ailerons than other two captured Fws RAF had that time. It should be also noted that data is for maxium rolling velocity of the roll.
gripen
-
gripen, can you post a link to that aileron comparison.
And did i get that right: The test 190 had HEAVIER ailerons than two other examples at the RAE? So it can be expected the other two would have done even better?
And maximum rolling velocity means, reaction to roll, acceleration in the roll etc. are not shown. Therefor we cannot get any hind from that if i.e. the 190 initiates the roll much faster than the spit?
-
Gripen, do you know the serials of the Spitfires in that roll comparison?
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
I can't remember the actual figures.
I do remember the results, and they showed 5% too slow at about 200mph, 20% too fast at 300 (350?) mph. (ie, 20% faster than the NACA figures)
ISTR Hristo did his tests after that chart illo posted, and found very different figures. I don't know how he tested, and he is a far better pilot than me, so I wouldn't be able to duplicate his results anyway.
How about one of you asks Hristo?
One doesn't need to be a good pilot to test planes. A steady hand, observant eyes, a stopwatch, a good testing prodecure and some patience is all it takes. Having a friend to do the timing and such helps much, too.
I say we do new tests and plot them against the NACA chart. Then at low speeds we have directly comparable results and by looking at the spikes, we can have an approximation of the max stick forces that the AH pilot can exert on the stick. I for one will do some testing when I get my stick back together. Having Hristo's test results would help too.
Also, Naudet, you could try having a slight nose up attitude before starting your roll test. Then check out how many complete rolls you can make before the nose drops too much and the plane gets too fast. Then just do it again and this time use a stopwatch or such and time how long it takes to do x number of complete rolls. If you don't time the first one, your results are more comparable with the NACA test, which according to gripen represents full roll velocity.
-
I just started to do roll tests. First one, the Typh. After repeated tests I got 6.9 - 7.4 segs for 360 degree roll at 375 mph. that is almost the double shown in NACA chart. I hope to have a complete graph in few days.
-
Naudet,
The comparison is available from the PRO (AVIA 6/10353). And yes, report claims that other two Fw 190s the Brits had that time had lighter ailerons than the one which was used for the comparison. And yes, the chart does not tell anything about roll acceleration.
Nashwan,
There is no serials mentioned in the report, the Spifires were mark Vs.
SageFIN,
You need to measure peak rolling velocity somehow to get omparable results with that NACA chart.
gripen
-
I did 5.7sec/360 with typhoon at 250mph, Naca chart says 6.6sec.
With 190 2.5sec/360 at 250mph, Naca says 2.18sec(i also read 1.8sec somewhere)
Anyone has numbers for 190A with normal aerlons?
-
Originally posted by gripen
SageFIN,
You need to measure peak rolling velocity somehow to get omparable results with that NACA chart.
Yes, but I think that the best we can do is best average rolling velocity, without the roll inertia of the first 360 influencing the result. I can't think of a way to get the peak vel without an extra readout in the game except perhaps with the film viewer. Any suggestions?
-
Just curious about "lighter ailerons" vs. "heavier ailerons". Would lighter ailerons improve the roll rate at lower speeds, but cause stability issues at higher speeds? Were heavier airerons intended to improve dive speed performance?
-
SageFIN,
RAE made their measurements using special equipment like free gyro, recorder and electrical timer (NACA did their tests with pretty similar instruments and actually DVL in the Germany used similar procedures too). I don't know if it is possible to measure steady rate of the roll from the AH film, timing should be very accurate and value of the angle should be known exactly.
BTW RAE report contains also following part:
"Some interesting pictures of F.W.190s banking into tight turns have been obtained by R.A.F. pilots during actual combat, and have been communicated to us by the Operational Research Section of Fighter command. Fig.5 shows curves deduced from a typical selection which were taken from the attacking Spitfires with the G.45 camera gun. The films chosen were those in which the backround showed that the Spitfires were not rolling, so that the curves in Fig.5 represent the actual times to bank of enemy aircraft. The speed and height are unfortunately not known, but maximum rate of roll in Fig.4 is about 120 degrees per second."
So the film method was also used by the RAE.
sourkraut,
Basicly heavier ailerons means that more force was required for same deflection iein the chart the difference would have been at high speeds where the stick force was the limiting factor. Anyway, the pilot could feel this heavines throughout the speed range. RAE report says:
"It should be pointed out, however, that where Frise ailerons are used, there is liable to be a variation in the feel of the control from aircraft to aircraft. Our pilots who have now flown three F.W.190s, have, in fact, noticed this variation; they report that the machine on which the measurements were made had rather heavier ailerons than the other two."
gripen