Author Topic: Roll rates (Read 6736 times)

Waffle · « **Reply #60 on:** May 11, 2004, 03:34:37 PM »

Quote

i hope the fm is unfinished because ah1 262 and its FM is what keeps the game interesting to me when facing a gangbang enemy hoard [/B]

hehe right - I think you have gangbang confused with cherry-picking

Flyboy · « **Reply #61 on:** May 12, 2004, 02:36:40 AM »

Hi pyro.

by this graph that Isegrim posted

you can clearly see the P40 rolls much batter then the current one we have in AH.

hope its improved at AH2, cant check it yet thou

gripen · « **Reply #62 on:** May 12, 2004, 12:55:25 PM »

The problem with that chart is that curves for the P-40 and the P-36 appear to be created using measured data just for small speed range and rest of the chart seems to be calculated. This can be easily confirmed by looking shape of the P-36 and P-40 curves; there is no wing twist due to elasticity. Later NACA test on P-40F gives much more realistic chart.

gripen

Flyboy · « **Reply #63 on:** May 12, 2004, 01:59:24 PM »

Hi gripen.
i have very litle technical knowledge, so i had a hard time figuring out those graphs.
but after looking at what seems to be the roll rate, i can say its still higher then the AH current P40

allso can you please explain me why the above graph is incorect.
as i understand it, the linear line in the graph is because maximum ailron deflection is reached, and the curve line starts when the pilot doesnt apply enough strengh to keep the ailrons at full deflection. (so in theory the plane will roll even batter at high speeds if the controls where boosted)

bur thats just my take of the graph

gripen · « **Reply #64 on:** May 12, 2004, 03:29:25 PM »

Flyboy,
The problem is that linear line (up to speed where the stick force of full aileron deflection reached 30 lbs) indicates that the wing of the P-40 did not twist due to aeroelasticity (and there should had been some sponginess in the controll linkages too). Basicly the roll rate curve is allways concave due to aeroelasticity and sponginess of the controll system. There are some minor exceptions but that's another story... Actually the RAE critized NACA for NACA test on Spitfire because it gave too good picture of the rigidity of the Spitfire wing.

gripen

Angus · « **Reply #65 on:** May 12, 2004, 06:39:16 PM »

As far as I know, the Spitfire wing was getting "stiffened up" as development carried on.

Flyboy · « **Reply #66 on:** May 15, 2004, 05:16:50 AM »

are we going to see a roll rate fix in the p40 ? (in AH2 ofcourse)

moot · « **Reply #67 on:** June 04, 2004, 03:03:56 AM »

moot · « **Reply #68 on:** June 15, 2004, 02:23:54 PM »

BlauK · « **Reply #69 on:** June 16, 2004, 03:27:56 AM »

Just a questions... or some thoughts:

How much stick force can the AH pilot model character apply?... meaning: How can the different charts be compared to each other or modified to become comparable?

We all know how different planes require different amount of stick force, some are stiff like 109:s and some have boosted ailerons like P-38:s. Cockpits come in different sizes where in larger ones it is easier to move the stick than in narrow ones. Different pilots could perform better or worse in similar planes. All players are different but that cannot be taken itno equation. Therefore I suppose that there has to be some average pilot model as a basis...

How are these issues being considered? What is the basis for comparing those charts?

moot · « **Reply #70 on:** June 17, 2004, 12:02:21 AM »

I've seen 50lbs mentionned as the standard, I think.