Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Shane on October 15, 2003, 05:59:51 PM
-
does the roll seem sluggish compared to ah1? rudder helps somewhat, but still seems slow.
-
Roll to right is much much slower.
-
definately pulls to the left. It seems like the head position in the cockpit sits higher. Its most likely is the new canopy. I would love to see the cockpit redone.
-
Originally posted by Batz
definately pulls to the left. It seems like the head position in the cockpit sits higher. Its most likely is the new canopy. I would love to see the cockpit redone.
I like the new cockpit but I do think that the cockpit frames should be darker - they are now very light gray which is odd since AH1 has them black/gray RLM 66 as was in real life.
PS HTC fixed the oil cooler - and how - look at all the detail!!!!! Plus the 3D model has tons more detail and even the spinner spiral is fully rendered.
-
the detail is better and I cant wait to see the g6. Oil cooler looks good but wheres the functioning rad flaps? :)
didja see where the 190s fuel guage is at?
Some one listened.......
-
Yea the fuel guage is nice and high up. :) I wonder if the tank sequence is changed too...
I also cant wait to see the G6, I hope HTC built it on the G2 airframe instead of adding the G6 MG bulges over the streamlined G10 MG fairings as in AH1 ..
-
Looks like the Fw 190 got very little attention:(. Just look the difference between pony D and the Fw. Poor wurger is still square, i think the pony has twice as many polygons than the wurger.:confused:
-
the roll in the spit seems a whole lot slower.
-
Noticed.
The Fw190A seems to roll a bit faster at 300mph ranges now, as compared to the Spit9, which definately seems to roll slower. The G-10 also seems to roll slower, and the 51B and D seems to roll a teensey bit faster, but not sure about this one.
Another thing noticed.. taking off in G-10 hastily like we used to, causes death :D In AH, fire engines, hit the 100mph mark and pull and you're up.. not so in AH2. Stabilize the plane first before take off.. a new lesson learned by me.
-
strange idea you'd put the plane at such a high-drag aoa when you also want to take off in a hurry.
would be nice if the temperature gauge was also in sight, it's more important (to me, dunno about others) than the fuel amount.
-
I'm not familiar enough with the 109 to comment, but the Spitfire Mk IX hit the NACA numbers pretty closely in AH1. The Spitfire Mk IX's roll rate in AH1 was a little fast at high speed, but the peak roll rate was right on. The NACA charted a 50lb stick force roll rate across the speed spectrum, but a Spitfire pilot had room to exert a 60lb stick force which might have explained the higher roll rate at high speed where the issue was the pilots inability to fully deflect the ailerons, not an airframe limitation. The AH2 Spitfire Mk V and Mk IX fall well short of the NACA results.
The C-47A in AH2 might as well not roll it is so slow. It feels like it is using wing warping instead of ailerons.
I suspect the FM is not final.
-
Posted by Vo101_Isegrim on the ubi forum (dont remember the thread title as I just saved snippets to a text file, search over there for full thread....)
From :
"Measurements of the flying qualities of a Supermarine Sptitife VA airplane." NACA Advanced Confidental Report, by William H. Phillips and Joseph R. Vensel.
The tests were conducted at Langley field, Va., during the period from December 30, 1941 to January 29, 1942. Sixteen flights and apprx. 18 hours flying time were required to complete the tests.
[...]
Desription of the the Supermarine Spitfire airplane
Name and Type : Supermarine Spitfire VA (Air Mininstry No. W3119).
Engine : R-R Merlin XLV
Weight, empty : 4960 lbs
Normal gross weight : 6237 lbs
Weight as flown for tests : 6184 lbs
Ailerons (metal-covered)
Lenght (each) : 6 feet, 10 1/2 inches
Area (total area, each) : 9.45 sq. feet
Balance area (each) : 2.45 square feet
[...]
A stick force of 2 lbs to the right and 3 lbs to the left was required to overcome aileron friction.
[...]
Lateral Stability and Control
Aileron-control characteristics : The effectiveness of the ailerons of the Supermarine Spitfire airplane was determined by recording the rolling velocity produced by abrubtly deflecting the ailerons at various speeds. The aileron angles and stick forces were measured. It should be noted that the airplane tested was equipeed with metal covered ailerons.
[...]
The ailerons were sufficiently effective at low speeds, and were relatively light at small deflections in high speed flight. The forces required to obtain high rolling velocities in high-speed flight were considered excessive.
With a stick force of 30 lbs, full deflection of the ailerons could be obtained at speeds lower than 110 miles per hour. A value of pb/2V of 0.09 radian in left rolls and 0.08 radian in right rolls were obtained with full deflection.
Rolling velocity (at 6000 ft altitude) of about 59 degrees per second could be obtained with 30 lbs stick force at 230 miles per hour indicated speed.
The ailerons were relatively light for small deflections, but the slope of the curve of stick force against deflection increased progressively with deflection, so that about five times as much force was required to fully deflect the ailerons as was needed to reach one-half of the maximum travel. The effectiveness of the ailerons increased almost linearly with deflection all the way up to maximum position. The value of pb/2V obtained for a given ailerons deflection was nearly the same in speeds and conditions tested. It may be concluded, therefore, that there was very little reduction in aileron effectiveness either by separation of flow near minimum speeds or by wing twist at high speed.
Fig 27 shows the aileron deflection, stick force, and helix angle obtained in a series of roll at various speeds intended to represent the maximum rolling velocity that could be readily obtained.
The pilot was able to exert a maximum of about 40 lbs on the stick. With this force, full deflection could be attained only up to about 130 miles per hour. Beyond this speed, the rapid increase in stick force near maximum deflection prevented full motion of the control stick. Only one-half of the available deflection was reached with a 40 lbs stick force at 300 miles per hour, with the result that the pb/2V obtainable at this speed was reduced to 0.04 radian, or one-half that reached at low speeds.
Another method of presenting the results of the aileron-roll measurements is that given in figure 28, where the force for different rolling velocities is plotted as a function of speed. The relatively light forces required to reach small rolling velocities are readily seen from this figure. The excessive forces required to reach high rolling velocities and the impossibility of obtaining maximum aileron deflection much above 140 miles per hour are also illustrated.
From :
STABILITY AND CONTROL SUB-COMMITEE. AERONAUTICAL RESEARCH COMMITEE
Comparision of aileron control charactheristics as determined in Flight Tests of P-36, P-40, 'Spitfire' and 'Hurricane' Pursuit airplanes.
By William H. Philps. N.A.C.A. Confidental Bulletin. 16th November, 1942
[..]
The aileron effectiveness of the various airplanes is compared in the following table on the basis of the response obtained with stick forces of 30 and 5 pounds. A force of 30 lbs is somewhat less than the greatest stick force exerted by the pilot. Repeated flight measurements have shown, however, that this forcer is a reasonable upper limit for manouvering at high speeds. A comparision at a stick force of 5 lbs are also included to bring out a rather interesting fact regarding the order of merit of aileron effectiveness for the various airplanes when very light forces are used :
Rolling velocities obtained with 30 lbs stick force at 230 mph indicated airspeed at 10 000 ft. (deg/sec)
P-36 : 43
P-40 : 90
Hurricane : 64
Spitfire : 63
Rolling velocities obtained with 5 lbs stick force at 230 mph indicated airspeed at 10 000 ft (deg/sec)
P-36 : 9
P-40 : 8
Hurricane : 19
Spitfire : 15
A further comparision of the aileron performance of the four airplanes is given in figure 2, which shows how the control force characteristics influence the rolling velocities obtained through the speed range.
(http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/ROLLRATE%20Spit%20Hurri%20P40%20P36.jpg)
If you are referring to the NACA Report 868
Yep, CALCULATED results from the Brits, which is damn obvious from the fact they are giving STRAIGHT roll curves up to 200mph at 50lbs (note that NACA`s engineers were unalbe to deflect the ailrons further than 130 mph, and the cramped canopy enable no more than 40 lbs stickforce). In additition, they didn`t took into account the wing twist - which decreased roll rate by 60% on the Spitifre (only about 35% on the P-47) at speeds, if you read the FULL report... They not even specify exact model... LOL!
On the other hand, we have the testimony`s of REAL Spitfire pilots, like :
This if form Alex Heshaw, the Chief pilot of the Castle Bromwhich Spitfire plant. He basically flew hundreds of Spitfires after they left the factory and were tested for airworthyness.
"I loved the Spit, every Marks of it. But I must admit, that altough later Marks were much faster, they were also progressively inferior to previous Marks in manouveribility. When we checked how a Spit behaves during roll, we counted how many complete rolls we could do under a given time. With the Mark II and V, we did 2 1/2 rolls, but the Mark IX was heavier, and only capable of 1 1/2 rolls. The later, more heavier versions could do even less. Designing an aircraft is about finding balance. It`s hardly possible to improve performance without degrading other properties of the aircraft. "
And this from Jeff Ethell:
"The elevator is very light, while the rudder is stiff and the ailerons even more so. Every Spitfire I have flown take more muscle to roll than most other fighters. As speed increases, both rudder and ailerons get heavier, creating a curious mismatch at high speeds... on has to handle the almost oversensitive elevators with a light fingertip touch while arm-wrestling the stiff ailerons."
And one more word: the NACA report I have shown is for an early MkVA, probably the best rolling of all Spitfires. It`s from the first batch of 78 planes, which still had 8 MGs, but already had the metal ailerons. All later MkVs had Hispano cannons installed in the wings, which decreased roll rate further because of the weight in the wings, and later models, as weight increased (to over 9000 lbs by 1945, 50% more than MkV), roll rate and manouveribilty decreased further.
So it could be argued 50lbs stick force is optimistic
-
NACA Report 868
(http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/42.gif)
-
more
Hop, what you posted there is not a NACA test, it is just data collected by the authors of a post-war summary on lateral control, where the graph you posted is not commented in any way and no sources for the data contained in the chart are given. Link:
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/naca-report-868.pdf
On the other hand we the TWO DETAILED NACA TESTS on Spitfire (eliptical wing) roll performance, both comming to same conclusion: 60deg/sec max roll rate reached at 230mph. For this data it can be concluded that Spitfire had a roll performance worse than Emil, and much worse roll performance than 109F and later at high speeds.
This is one of the reports, the other I think it was posted by Isegrim:
http://members.tripod.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/raf/spit_flying.pdf
-
Found the thread
http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yxyaf
-
Did that Spitfire Va have fabric ailerons? If so it isn't a valid test for the AH Spitfire V or IX. The aluminum ailerons greatly improved the Spitire's roll rate.
Spitfire Mk IX vs Bf109G:
Rate of Roll
21.........Here again the Spitfire has a marked advantage at all speeds.
Spitfire Mk XIV vs Bf109G:
Rate of Roll
48. The Spitfire XIV rolls much more quickly.
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html
I can't find it right now but I recall reading one test pilot saying that one thing he didn't like about the Bf109 was that the cramped cockpit only allowed 40lbs of lateral stick force to be applied whereas he could get 60lbs of lateral stick force in the somewhat roomier Spitfire's cockpit.
-
no metal ailerons,
Marh Hanna, German tests, Finnish roll rate tests. All say 80-90 degree/sec range at 450 kph, two of them indicating explicitly the stick force of 20 lbs, while Hanna leaving little doubt about it.
I am not a "spit whiner" and have no trouble killing one. (just saying before it gets thrown out). I posted this because you mention the spit in ah 1 matched the NACA tests. Actually it rolled a bit better at high speed IIRC. My point is that if you refer to the NACA chart I posted above then it was
CALCULATED results from the Brits, which is damn obvious from the fact they are giving STRAIGHT roll curves up to 200mph at 50lbs (note that NACA`s engineers were unalbe to deflect the ailrons further than 130 mph, and the cramped canopy enable no more than 40 lbs stickforce). In additition, they didn`t took into account the wing twist - which decreased roll rate by 60% on the Spitifre
So if this is true not only did the spit in ah1 roll a bit better then this chart then the chart itself is "optimistic". Which leads back to the spit roll rate in ah2. Did ht make adjustments to its roll rate or is it a bug related to ah2?
I dunno know enough myself to say one way or the other. Especially since theres obvious conflicting data. We do know that the roll rate (I guess it needs a testing) seems slower. Same with the g10.
Anyway I am sure the experts will get it figured out.
-
OTR, auto take off is on, applied full power, went afk for a minute or so.
wth!? the g10 is a few hundred feet agl and is banking left, i checked my stick to see if it wasnt calibrated, looks ok.
hrrrmmm, them DBs must have lotsa torque now.
any one else experienced that?
-
I dont fly with auto take off or combat trim etc.
I just add some right rudder trim and a bit of right aileron and fly it straight down the run way.
I adjust trim to maintain a 2500fpm climb then when i get to alt i trim for level flight. NP at all with it. To stay in trim you need to fly at a contant speed. If you slow down then you need more right trim if you speed up you need less right trim.
-
Batz, you'll notice Isegrim dropped the thread when confronted with facts.
Also notice that Naca 868 contradicts not just the earlier Spit figures, but also the P-40 figures from the same test.
According to the early report, the P-40 did 110 deg/sec with only 30 lbs stick force, at 280 IAS.
According to the later report, 868, the P-40 did 95 deg/sec with 50 lbs stick force, at 280 IAS.
CALCULATED results from the Brits, which is damn obvious from the fact they are giving STRAIGHT roll curves up to 200mph at 50lbs
How does a straight line up to 200mph indicate calculated results? Wing twist at 200 mph or less is going to be negligible.
The results were not calculated. I have seen some of the original documents, and they describe the use of a "rat" to record angles, a gyro to record angle of bank, an electrical timer, a "henschel" type guage to record stick forces.
The RAE report specifically notes that proper instrumentation is vital, and that stopwatch timings are not adequate.
In additition, they didn`t took into account the wing twist - which decreased roll rate by 60% on the Spitifre
Measured results of course have to take into account wing twist. Wing twist limits rollrate at higher speeds. If it's above the stick force limit applied, then wing twist is going to be relatively hard to spot.
For example, the RAE tests show the rollrate for the 190 would be 15 deg/sec per degree of deflection at 350 IAS, if there was no wing twist.
That would be 255 deg/sec at 350, with rigid wings and unlimited stick force (assuming it could take the structural load)
The actual figure, with wing twist, was about 11 deg/sec per degree of deflection, for a theoretical roll rate of 187 deg/sec at 350 IAS, with unlimited stick force.
As you can see, the real rate they achieved with 50lbs stick force was 95 deg/sec. The effect of wing twist is masked by the drop off due to stickforce limits being exceeded.
So if this is true not only did the spit in ah1 roll a bit better then this chart then the chart itself is "optimistic".
The Fw190 figures in that chart come from the RAE as well, as do some of the others.
According to Gripen, the early Naca tests were conducted at one speed, and calculated from there. The fact that Naca's postwar report shows different figures indicates they were not satisfied with those results either.
The Naca Spit tests also seem to be measuring roll inertia as well as rollrate, whereas NACA 868 is a measure of steady state roll.
-
anyone been able to do a IL2 style hammerhead in the g10?
-
Il-2 style? Since the FM there seems to change, I'm not sure how to answer that one.
I do however notice alot more how the torque is a factor to rolling in the direction of the prop, as well it should
-
No Eagler.
I know what you're asking, and I've tried it myself but couldn't pull it off. I've tried enabling and disabling stall limiters, also with both manual and auto trimming, but no success.
It seems the FM itself isn't a finalized or finished version. The torque issues are certainly interesting, but as people point out, planes can fly with half wings and stuff. I think only part of the changes - the new torque factor I presume.. - are implemented with this beta.
For instance, I know the 109s aren't rolling wonders, and when I fly IL2/FB, I think the roll rate on 109s as portrayed in that game is too optimistic. But the roll on the G-10 in this beta version we have is almost baffling :)
Right roll during speeds under 200mph are almost impossible - it's slower than our AH1 Bf109E-4 at 400mph. When you try a 90d vertical, even with full rightside stick deflection and rudder input, you cannot stop the plane from rolling left due to torque - and that's at 150mph. By the time it reaches 100mph, it's almost impossible to stop the plane from nosing down - making the 30~50mph tailslides or hammerheads, immelmanns impossible to enter it in the first place.
The only possible explanation I'd say, is that the FM isn't finalized.
On the other hand, I notice the nose now whips downwards and points to the earth very fast, when met with a stall while going vertical. That seems to be a good thing.