quote:

Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
BTW, note the force reversal. That is a dangerous thing in an airplane. It's more common than engineers would like but nonetheless it is not a good thing especially at high velocity. This means of stick forces move from pull force to a push force or vice versa to maintain the same condition of flight.

In other words if you are pushing to ease out of the dive and you hit that reversal point, you are now applying input force in the opposite direction from where you want to go. Instead of slowly recovering from the dive, you are now increasing the load factor in the recovery.

That's something we flying the sim don't have feel of without FFB, if it happens in IL2.
I've seen it posted that it does happen as Godfrey wrote but I'm still not so sure it does.

I shed a wing on a Fw190A4 tonight at 740kph.

I was diving down with my throttle off attacking a landing craft with 20mm, I fired off a few shots at longish range, as I was travelling so fast. Then pulled up and 'snap' off came the wing.

it can happen on any aircraft.

Sorry if this has been mentioned before (haven't read pages 2-6...)

Spiky signals from joysticks might be a reason that some people snap wings more than others.

Eg. I know a few aging saitek stick users (though the problem is not limited to saitek) that can't fly jets with their throttles - because their signal spikes too much and causes flame outs, even when they're moving the throttle slowly. The same will happen with the other pot-controlled axes. A signal spike when you're pulling out of a high speed dive wouldn't be too good.

Also relevant is my experience with early carb'd planes and fuel cut from negative G maneuvers. I used to use a logitech extreme 3d pro, and the slightest forward movement would cause a complete engine stoppage, even when doing it very slowly. I have since modded a CH stick with hall sensors, and used a custom USB interface, and now barely get any engine stoppages/wing breakage, despite handling the planes pretty similarly.

Obviously IL2 models its wing breakages and fuel cut-outs from the unmodified control INPUT - which includes spikes of a few milliseconds. Hence the plane will look like you're handling it gently enough, but you'll break a wing, flame out an engine, or get a fuel cut.

Hence a workaround might be to increase the axes' damping (or smoothing, I can't remember) in the IL2 input options, at the cost of control response.

Actually us simmers do have an advantage in that airframe fatigue isn't modelled. I believe that fatigue, which wasn't well-understood in WW2, was responsible for a lot of P-51 (and other planes) shedding wings in combat.

For instance, a P-51 pilot could pull off an extreme manoeuvre during one combat mission and get home in one piece, but unknowingly cause deep structural damage to his wings. Next mission, it's one gentle turn and then.....disaster.

quote:

Originally posted by julian265:
Spiky signals from joysticks might be a reason that some people snap wings more than others.

Tuner spray can work wonders there. Getting down to the pots being the hard part, at least
the X-52 uses hall sensor for X and Y axes so no need there.

Could corrosion on the plugs between stick and throttle also be a problem source?
I get that with my PC speakers, spray the plugs and work em in and out to rub the oxides off
and get some spray into the unit then spray the volume knob from the front and twist to get
that cleaned.

Phil_K has made a valid point.

Zemke's own account of his wingloss refers to the fact that he had stressed the airframe pretty heavily on his previous mission, but his crewchief couldn't find any evidence of damage (lacking the tools we take for granted today) and cleared the fighter for furhter combat use.

Obviously, flying through a thunderhead (as Zemke was forced to by low fuel state) might have overstressed a brand new aircraft, so I have to wonder why so many quote this particular incident as 'proof' of the Mustang's 'weak' wings.

My own take on the Mustang's 'fragility' in-game is that it is overdone relative to its major opponents in-game. Most of the pilots who flew it and complained of its weaknesses were Americans who had flown P-40s, P-38s or P-47s, which were outstandingly tough airframes.

If anything, this comparison is overquoted and taken out of the context of American fighters and extended out to all WWII fighters. I believe that the Mustang was still quite a bit more rugged than the vast majority of the smaller and lighter fighters built by the European manufacturers.

I think that Oleg & co misinterpreted the data quoted to them and found a way to make the Mustang artificially prone to wing loss in order to satisfy the entrenched and vocal crowd of Luftie fliers, who had largely had it all their own way prior to the Mustang's introduction just before the AEP's release.

I have to believe that a large fraction of wing loss incidents reported in WWII fighters were the result of overconfidence ("...it made it through a dive this hard the last time I did it") and cumulative stress to wingspars or major connecting bolts, etc. In the cases of the Messerschmitts, we have to bear in mind that the Axis made a regular practice of rebuilding old airframes and returning them to combat units, so undetected flaws might have been more prevalent than we would think.

Historically, the pony was less fragile in the air to air regime than depicted in-game; the in-game version's fragility is due to a combination of the greater skills of the ai and the online aces added to the exaggerated (and constantly modified) differences in its handling model.

cheers

horseback

I see two categories of people in this thread.

Those who try to explain why the mustang in game lose its wings.

And those trying to explain why mustang IRL shouldn't lose its wings.

They are both right, but nothing positive will come until all people start speaking about the same subject.

quote:

Originally posted by horseback:
I think that Oleg & co misinterpreted the data quoted to them and found a way to make the Mustang artificially prone to wing loss in order to satisfy the entrenched and vocal crowd of Luftie fliers, who had largely had it all their own way prior to the Mustang's introduction just before the AEP's release.

Pretty good Luftie trick, getting P-51 fans to send a pile of data including stick forces to
Oleg and demanding more elevator authority. Boy those Lufties are devious beyond paranoia!

quote:

Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
I see two categories of people in this thread.

Those who try to explain why the mustang in game lose its wings.

And those trying to explain why mustang IRL shouldn't lose its wings.

They are both right, but nothing positive will come until all people start speaking about the same subject.

Too right.

SHed anopther wing today in a FW190A6 at around 750kph.

An La5FN was chasing me, so I decided to take him as fas as possible then pull up to make him disintegrate.

He did, it worked, but my wing also came off.

Simon (HuninMunin) was on the server and landing at the time, not sure if he saw it or not.


Again, it can happen in any plane, its just that the Pony picks up speed so fast in a dive , it happens more often and is easier to do in that plane, because its so low drag.

As I fly energy tactics most of the time, I do it often in all planes. It happens most in those planes with low drag like the P51, Fw190, and sometimes in the Bf109.

Does anyone know the one particular ww 2 american fighter aircraft that supposidly has no dive speed limit..

quote:

I think that Oleg & co misinterpreted the data quoted to them and found a way to make the Mustang artificially prone to wing loss in order to satisfy the entrenched and vocal crowd of Luftie fliers, who had largely had it all their own way prior to the Mustang's introduction just before the AEP's release.

People have tracked the behaviour with DeviceLink. Hit 15G and the wings come off, ditto any plane. It's been shown multiple times. Before the elevator authority was increased it didn't happen. It seems clear to me that it is due to this, not some conspiracy theory. I've exchanged a few emails with Oleg over the years and I can't imagine him being as petty as to intenionally badly model a plane, especially one that is a favorite of as large a market as the USA (and despite me being a Brit I like it too).

What I do think might be an isuue is the lack of tactile feedback in many areas, plus the modelling of stick movement to force might not be right yet. It has been modified a few times over the life of the game but it might need some more work to make up for the lsck of tactile feedback.

Actually the issue of tactile feedback was, and still is, one of the controversial points on the choice of an Airbus over a Boeing for the USAAF tanker contract. The concern has been expressed that with fly-by-wire then without retraining over control is possible, which was suggested as a cause of the loss of the tail from an Airbus over New York. The game may be subject to the same issues, and perhaps the same issues of getting fully realistic control surface feedback apply to both.

Gentlemen,

Way back on the first page I reported that wing breakage seems to be heavily influenced by altitude in the game. A dive to 800kmh TAS from 3000m caused wing breakages (using maximum elevator trim in all cases) with the Spitfire IX, P-40M, P-47D, F6F-5, F4U-1D, Yak-3, Bf-109K, and Fw-190D-9. A similar dive to the same speed from 10,000m never resulted in wing breakage.

I understand that air density has an effect here, but my real question is the amount of Gs being pulled. Is it necessary at higher altitude to push to a higher speed to attain the same G in a pull out at low altitude? Or are the G's being pulled at all altitudes the same regardless of air density?

Your local DeviceLink expert would be the one to ask. Tagert was a dab hand with DeviceLink, but isn't on call for this one.

quote:

Originally posted by Korolov1986:
Gentlemen,

Way back on the first page I reported that wing breakage seems to be heavily influenced by altitude in the game. A dive to 800kmh TAS from 3000m caused wing breakages (using maximum elevator trim in all cases) with the Spitfire IX, P-40M, P-47D, F6F-5, F4U-1D, Yak-3, Bf-109K, and Fw-190D-9. A similar dive to the same speed from 10,000m never resulted in wing breakage.

I understand that air density has an effect here, but my real question is the amount of Gs being pulled. Is it necessary at higher altitude to push to a higher speed to attain the same G in a pull out at low altitude? Or are the G's being pulled at all altitudes the same regardless of air density?

Your testing would indicate, and rightly so, that there is more at work than G forces in wing shedding. Drag forces on the wings are apparently a cause as well. From my experiences in IL2, I can say I've shed wings in pullouts that could not have been anywhere close to 15G. As a LOMAC F-15 vpilot, I'm used to seeing Gs displayed constantly. The types of pulls that have shed wings in the P-51 would not have even engaged the G-limiter in the F-15, much less could have reached 15G.

quote:

Originally posted by stalkervision:
Does anyone know the one particular ww 2 american fighter aircraft that supposidly has no dive speed limit..

Grumman F4F. It was so draggy that it could not dive fast enough to hurt itself.

Now, question number 2:

What was the first US military aircraft to have a speed redline?

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
What I do think might be an isuue is the lack of tactile feedback in many areas, plus the modelling of stick movement to force might not be right yet. It has been modified a few times over the life of the game but it might need some more work to make up for the lsck of tactile feedback.

DING! DING! DING!

We have a winner!!!

Our BlitzPig real aerobatics instructor cites this shortcoming of the sim often.

quote:

Originally posted by ElAurens:

quote:

Originally posted by stalkervision:
Does anyone know the one particular ww 2 american fighter aircraft that supposidly has no dive speed limit..

Grumman F4F. It was so draggy that it could not dive fast enough to hurt itself.

Now, question number 2:

What was the first US military aircraft to have a speed redline?

Got that one huh and for the exact reason too. I'm impressed..

When I had a spare non-FFB Sidewinder I did consider getting a hollow broomstick and transplanting the handle onto the top of the broomstick to make a long throw stick. The length of the handle would need to be short enough so I could still get full deflection, but would be longer than at present. I then wanted to see how this changed feel.

I could have a go with my current FFB stick but I'm not going to transfer the handle! It would be strictly a temporary job with duct tape!

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
despite me being a Brit I like it too

1) If it wasn't for the British there would be no Mustang.
2) If it wasn't for the British there would be no Rolls Royce engine to make it so hot.