queston one the 190 turn

[Karnak]

Tank-Ace,

Turn off Combat Trim on the Ki-84 and ~90% of its problems go away.  It is truly stunning the performance difference.

Spitfire can keep with the Fw190 in a spiral dive so long as the Fw190 does not use its roll rate to switch directions, it isn't that] fragile.  Spitfires roll like crap at high speeds.

[Tank-Ace]

IDK, all I know is that I've lost wings under heavy manuvering at speeds as low as 430mph. Was a spit 14, IDK if the wings are weaker or anything, I'm not a spitdweeb, but I can say for certian a 190 could have pulled the same manuver and survived.

And I'll have to try that with the Ki-84.

[drgondog]

I'm curious about the comments regarding Spit losing wings in high speed turn.  A couple of things come to mind.

First, until the clipped wing spit came into play, the elliptical wing Spit Did have issues with wing torsion at high speeds. IIRC NACA Report 868(?) detailed studies comparing both the P-47C-1 and the Spit V with respect to aileron diminished effectiveness at 400 mph with extensions to control reversals in 550 mph range.

The Jug had ~ 65% aileron effectiveness at 400 and the Spit was at 31% -indicating a significant amount of torsion in the outer panels of the wing as the Q loads increased.  Another curiosity of the Spit was that twist of the wing was not done on the leading edge, but on the trailing edge which I think was unique.   But there is no reason for a Spit to shed wings unless the initial turn exceeded ~ 10-12G and somehow avoided a stall well before it reached that level of loading... So how were the modelling assumptions applied to create the game effect?

[Tank-Ace]

I don't think we'll ever know all the sources they've used to model our planes and tanks. For whatever reason, whether it be to hide the use of speculation or to keep things from competitiors I don't know, but (I don't think) they've ever disclosed their sources.

[grizz441]

First, until the clipped wing spit came into play, the elliptical wing Spit Did have issues with wing torsion at high speeds.

That would imply either the shape of the wing was not symmetric to the applied aerodynamic force or the force was not acting uniformly about the wing I believe..

[dtango]

I'm curious about the comments regarding Spit losing wings in high speed turn.  A couple of things come to mind.

First, until the clipped wing spit came into play, the elliptical wing Spit Did have issues with wing torsion at high speeds. IIRC NACA Report 868(?) detailed studies comparing both the P-47C-1 and the Spit V with respect to aileron diminished effectiveness at 400 mph with extensions to control reversals in 550 mph range.

The Jug had ~ 65% aileron effectiveness at 400 and the Spit was at 31% -indicating a significant amount of torsion in the outer panels of the wing as the Q loads increased. 

Blast it, you structures & loads guys always have to bring up aerolasticity don't you.  I like my bodies rigid.

[PR3D4TOR]

I'm very happy aileron reversal isn't modeled in the game! 

[FLS]

If you look at your aileron deflection at high speeds you'll see that the travel is reduced.

Hitech mentioned looking at the possibility of modeling wing flex and aileron reversal.

[Charge]

"First, until the clipped wing spit came into play, the elliptical wing Spit Did have issues with wing torsion at high speeds."

All wings flex, more or less, but because of wing area the Spit's wings flex more that usual and it was most noticeable from aileron reversal at high speed dives and visually evident from outer machineguns firing a bit here and there during maneuvers. Not many other, if none at all, planes had machineguns fitted that much outboard so the wing flex in those was not that evident during firing.

The wing clipping did not affect to wing flexing, AFAIK, but the changes in wing structure in later models did.

-C+

[Wmaker]

All wings flex, more or less,

Yes. If a fly sits on a rail road track piece suspended from both ends. Does it bend because of the weight of the fly? Yes it does. The question is, just how much.