As you may know the Ki27 we have in the sim is rather lethargic in it's take off and climb.

Now I know why.

The real Ki27s had a variable pitch prop, like the German planes when the Kommando Gerat is disabled, although it was manual and not electric. The control is even modeled in the cockpit...



Wonder why it's not implemented in the game?

No lobby for the Japanese. If that had been Russian, German, British or US American, it would have been implemented ages ago.

But as a sidenote, I don't think all Ki-27 had a variable pitch prop.

The IAR-80/81 is the same.
It should have the prop pitch the BF-109E had right after the release of FB. It had normal 109 pitch until they fixed the 109 prop pitch over-reving. Then they changed it into CSP for no reason.

quote:

Originally posted by JtD:
No lobby for the Japanese. If that had been Russian, German, British or US American, it would have been implemented ages ago.

But as a sidenote, I don't think all Ki-27 had a variable pitch prop.

This is true I think. I remember when they had the unhistorical plate on dash of the Spitfire and had it not been for a Spitfire fan, the error would not have been fixed. Of course the error was checked and corrobated first.

I remember Oleg saying something along the lines of `be glad you`ve got an authentic Spitfire cockpit`, but he fixed it anyway.

Forumers have been quite instrumental in helping provide accuracy to many aircraft. They don`t get as much credit as they should really.

The Ki-27 originally had a wooden fixed pitch prop. This was later changed to a metal two-blade, with only two pitch settings: take off and normal flight.

This is not unusual for the period. The early Spitfire had a similar early variable pitch prop following the switch from fixed pitch. This had three fixed settings. It was later replaced by the Rotol (constant speed).

I don't personally see the need to model two prop pitch settings on the later build Ki-27, one is only used at take off and landing. As for the early ones, the existing modelling is accurate.

There is a few things one should keep in mind about a flight simulator like il2, unless you're going to base it on one particular aircraft. It is inherently going to be prohibitive to accurately model every detail of every aircraft, to a common flight input system. Some shortcuts really need to be taken so that a very wide variety of aircraft can be flyable.

If we're going purely for accuracy and not entertainment then one might start with things like engine startup procedures before some of the details brought up on the forums.

As it is I've been recently tremendously impressed in the overall quality of the sim when I experienced a spontaneous magneto failure soon after take off, just like the real thing. I've never heard of this happening on any of the forums, in fact I've read quite the opposite. Similarly IRL a magneto failure happens once in a blue moon, but when they do, if you have both magnetos operating, both fail and you're a glider. I was laughing with joy at the sim's realism all the way to a forced landing.

So I'm thinking: exhaustive research among a very wide variety or preferrably primary sources, then requests for modelling patches. Not, 'I read a book and it said...'

quote:

Originally posted by vanir:

As it is I've been recently tremendously impressed in the overall quality of the sim when I experienced a spontaneous magneto failure soon after take off, just like the real thing. I've never heard of this happening on any of the forums, in fact I've read quite the opposite. Similarly IRL a magneto failure happens once in a blue moon, but when they do, if you have both magnetos operating, both fail and you're a glider. I was laughing with joy at the sim's realism all the way to a forced landing.

I think that might have happened to me once. I was flying a BF-109E at around 2,000 meters when my engine just stopped dead in midair. My engine temperature was normal and I had enough fuel too. Restarting the engine didn't work.

I had been in combat with some P-39's but as I recall none hit my engine. And if they did, I would have heard the tell-tale noises.

Might have been a "spontaneous magneto failure"!

quote:

Originally posted by vanir:
...There is a few things one should keep in mind about a flight simulator like il2, unless you're going to base it on one particular aircraft. It is inherently going to be prohibitive to accurately model every detail of every aircraft...

Although I believe that was Oleg's original intention - to model the game on the IL2 as the only flyable. There's a clue in the name Might have saved an awful lot of whining on behalf of various fighters if we were all flying the same basic type v AI fighters. There are some features of the game which betray this original idea - in a game as detailed as IL-2, with controls for all sorts, even magnetos which don't need controlling in-game, ever wondered why there's no control for the bomb doors? The Sturmovik was the only original flyable with bomb doors and it had spring loaded doors with no need for a control, hence no button for bomb doors in v1.0 and presumably one could not be added (game engine limit?) when ac with the need for a bomb door button were included later on.

"I don't personally see the need to model two prop pitch settings on the later build Ki-27, one is only used at take off and landing."


. . . and climb. Fixed pitch props are typically available in "climb" or "cruise" varieties. Two position props go with these two settings.





As for this being an IL2 sim ported over to other aircraft . . . exactly.

Fascinating history of the sim, Kernow and IL2-chuter. Explains much.

quote:

Originally posted by vanir:
So I'm thinking: exhaustive research among a very wide variety or preferrably primary sources, then requests for modelling patches. Not, 'I read a book and it said...'

You'll get that in a company run by a former Sukhoi test pilot aero-engineer with other AE's
and computer pros (and others) making products they can feel good about.