PDA

View Full Version : Oleg - Wing stall problem with ALL planes



Red_Baroness
03-16-2004, 10:30 PM
Oleg - in the next patch, is it possible to reduce the wing stalls slightly in the game for all planes to make for a more realistic feel to the game? My husband, Roth, is an actual pilot and says that wing stalls as severe as that simply do not occur when flying a/c. You simply lose speed and then fall out of the sky; hopefully one recovers before hitting the ground.

Thanks so much for your input/response.

Red

----,---'-->@
Karena von Richthofen
"Velvet glove, iron fist"
Deustches Eisen

Red_Baroness
03-16-2004, 10:30 PM
Oleg - in the next patch, is it possible to reduce the wing stalls slightly in the game for all planes to make for a more realistic feel to the game? My husband, Roth, is an actual pilot and says that wing stalls as severe as that simply do not occur when flying a/c. You simply lose speed and then fall out of the sky; hopefully one recovers before hitting the ground.

Thanks so much for your input/response.

Red

----,---'-->@
Karena von Richthofen
"Velvet glove, iron fist"
Deustches Eisen

boohaa
03-17-2004, 05:33 PM
If I can reply with my limited knowledge herehttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If your husband is an actual pilot I would think he flies planes that are meant to have nice stalls and to just sink.The FW190 was known to have a vicous high speed stall and what we have in game seems like I would imagine it.Some planes do just seem to sink when they stall.,

II_JG2_Roth
03-17-2004, 06:47 PM
Yes...I am a pilot and all planes stall unless you have a Ultra-light. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif However, what degree a aircraft stalls is combined with their weight, wing area and design over all and when the wings can no longer create lift. I'm not talking about high speed stalls, but more or less turning...or so called "Wing Stalls". When I fly in real life, I practice Spins, Figure Eights, Power Stalls and Regular Stalls.
I too like to put in my plug for the wing stalls. Oleg...could you please turn down the "Stall& Spin" in the game. The only time I've experianced those kind of stalls and turbulance when I fly real aircraft is low next to the trees on a windy day, or when I'm flying in "Storm like conditions".
I was flying online last night and most of my deaths were not only due to lagg and freezes...it was mostly the stalls and spins that I couldn't recover from. It seems a little too much in the game. Oleg could you please take a look at it? Thanks!

Luftwaffe Oberst CFS3 aka Roth

JG7_Rall
03-17-2004, 06:52 PM
When I practice stalls in my Cessna they are very easy to recover from and don't invovle the plane flipping over

But, my Cessna wasn't made for combat.

People seem to forget that WWII aircraft are MADE to be unstable-that is where they get their meanueverability from. Also, my plane has barley over 100 horsepower-WWII planes had engines that ranged from 1000-2000 horsepower :O.

Stalls are very sever in this game because once lift is not generated by the wings, the rotations of the motor cause the plane to flip-the same effect that a chopper would have without the tail rotor. It will spin in the opposite direction because every action has and equal and opposite reaction.

I suggest that you just try to avoid stalls-once you train your ear to sense out when a stall is going to occure, its very easy to avoid them. I don't stall too often and when I do its so slight that the altitude lost isn't noticeable.

S! Hope my rambling helped

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r/sig.jpg

03-17-2004, 07:30 PM
Cessnas are explicitly meant to have very gentle stalls with plenty of warning leading up to the stall.

Don't assume that just because your GA puddlejumper has tame, mushy stalls, that all other aircraft must fly the same way. It's a dumb assumption, really.

As a private pilot, you already know quite a bit about aeronautic theory. Why not sit down and mathematically demonstrate that the stalls are not right. Then once you have some real data, compare it against the limitations of the way the sim works and see if there is still cause for alarm.

Common Cessna airfoil: NACA 2412, root and tip
Fw 190 airfoil: NACA 23015.3 root, NACA 23009 tip

In addition to airfoil, consider the wing planform and where separation first occurs on the wing? Does stall progress from the root outwards to the wingtips, or does air separate over the wing root first?

XFOIL (http://raphael.mit.edu/xfoil/)
UIUC Airfoil Database (http://www.aae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads/coord_database.html)
"The Incomplete Guide to Airfoil Usage" (http://www.aae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads/aircraft.html)

II_JG2_Roth
03-17-2004, 07:53 PM
True Rall, Cessna's aren't war birds. I fly more than Cessna's...lol, however I have had a Dog Fight with a 48' J-3 Cub against a Cessna 150. Of coarse you know who won that one...he couldn't shake me. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif Anyhow, I flew all kinds of aircraft and I have over 189 hours in flight time...not counting when I flew when I was 12,13,14,15 and 16 years of age when I first started. I was the youngest solo pilot in 1982 in the state of NY. If you have flown Arobatic Aircraft...they are very fast, touchy and highly manouverable...and not too forgiving. Arobatic Aircraft are closely built to the War Birds, however they lack Hp, weight, Armor and guns. Low winged aircraft handle differantly...like comparing the Piper Cherokie against the Cessna 172.
Jg7_Rall...your statement proved my point,/Quote/ I don't stall too often and when I do its so slight that the altitude lost isn't noticeable./Quote// I found that true in all the aircraft I've flown...and if I did loose it for a second I always recovered. I haven't eaten dirt yet...Knock on wood! But...I have had a few close calls and had the FAA looking to give me a hard time a few times...lol. But over all...I've met quite a few men who flew WW2 planes...and this is why I say the things I do. And I agree with you Rall, engine torque has some to do with it. But not by much though, when you set the "trims" it compensates for it except on Takeoffs with Carb Heat off and full throttle. And you pre-set the prop for takeoff...like the Mooney or Skymaster. And even then the right rudder on takeoff is slight. In the game ....The wing stalls and the Unforgivability are a bit much. This is not just my opinion. It is what the "Old Birds" once told me...and from what my experiance has taught me. Choppers...I know nothing about them. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif
Thanks again,
Roth

LEXX_Luthor
03-17-2004, 09:57 PM
Once I get to know a plane I never stall when I don't want to, and I have FB sound off so I don't get any FB sound warning of stall approach, if there is any I dunno. Have you tried MS flight simulator you may like that one better.

__________________
"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

LEXX_Luthor
03-17-2004, 10:32 PM
WAIT duh I forgot, check your joystick settings in the FB input menu. Also you can't jerk suddenly hard back on the stick but take a second or two gently. Jerking hard on the stick you can even roll over the Spit at fairly high speeds.

__________________
"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

crazyivan1970
03-17-2004, 10:40 PM
I had this conversation with Zen few days ago. I believe in many situations it boils down to joystick settings. I can hardly stall any planes, maybe this config will help someone?

This is actually for MS FFB2

[rts_joystick]
X=0 1 4 9 16 25 36 49 64 81 100 0
Y=0 1 4 9 16 25 36 49 64 81 100 0
Z=0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RZ=0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0
FF=0
U=0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0
V=0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0
1X=0 27 38 52 63 69 75 83 88 93 100 0
1Y=0 28 44 55 62 70 79 88 93 96 100 0
1RZ=7 29 40 48 57 66 76 86 93 95 100 0
1U=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1V=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1Z=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1X1=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1Y1=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1RX1=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1RZ1=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1U1=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1V1=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

HarryVoyager
03-18-2004, 12:23 AM
The Yak-1 flips on every turning stall now too.

Previously, the inner wing would stall first, and pull the plane out of the sky.

I can understand some aircraft having stall that flip the plane; the FW-190 was notorious for doing so in 4G+ stalls, but other aircraft didn't.

Right now, every aircraft in the game snaps out when it stalls in a turn.

On a side note, why is it that some aircraft snap roll out of a turn when stalled? I can understand why some aircraft drop into the turn when stalled; the inner wing has dropped in speed so much, that it has simply lost lift, but I don't quite see how the aircraft ends up in a situation where the outer wing in a turn suddenly loses lift.

Is it a form of AoA stall, where the outer wing ends up movign so fast, relative to its AoA, that the airflow separates?

Harry Voyager

Kwiatos
03-18-2004, 02:42 AM
If you dont like stalls&spins turn off it in difficult otpions.

Magister__Ludi
03-18-2004, 02:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HarryVoyager:

I can understand some aircraft having stall that flip the plane; the FW-190 was notorious for doing so in 4G+ stalls, but other aircraft didn't.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Exactly the opposite is true. Fw-190 had a gentle stall and was difficult to put in a spin due to wing washout and nearly rectangular wing planform. Kurt Tank himself describes the stall/spin characteristics of Fw-190:

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bogdandone/FW190_stall.jpg

Nice try to spread old, proven incorrect, information. I saw your "contribution" about oil cooling on Fw-190 in this thread:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=560104772

Dmitri9mm
03-18-2004, 03:18 AM
The answer to why the stalls in this game are correctly modelled is actually quite easy:
The planes that we fly are combat planes that have allways differed from civilian a/c in several aspects:
1. Their engines are over powered to achieve a high top-speed and accelleration. This meens that the power of the engine is pushed to the limit (and sometimes over) what the airframe can handle, this gives you the feeling that the engine is dragging the plane aroung instead of being an integrated part of the a/c. Also the torque which in other planes is a slight disturbance, in military a/c becomes severe and inflict strongly on the flying.
2. The planes often have a very high wingloading. Where the civilian bf 108 weights just over 500 kg the bf 109 E wieghts about three times as much with roughly the same wing-area.
3. In order to achieve maneuvererability the designers often deliberately make the plane unstable. Good examples are the yak and Focke Wulf models, often the planes have very thin wings which give them great manueverability in all aspects, but also make them prone tto stall in a sustained turn, the FW again.

4. I a combat situation you'll often have to perform hazardous maneuvers without the chance to prepare for them. An acrobatics pilot allways take time to position himself and achieve the right speed before atampting a loop etc. A combat pilot just have no time for that.

On the other hand: Civilian a/c are build to be stable, the power of the engine is optimized to reflect the way the plane is handling, not to achieve maximum speed, and most modern a/c have several aerodynamical and technological improvements, that just weren't around at the time of WWII, just think of the narrow landing gear of the bf 109 the lack of flaps on the I-153 asoasf.

You just can't compare modern day civilian flying with aerial combat of WWII http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

blabla0001
03-18-2004, 03:27 AM
Huckebein_FW, I find it rather odd that you still attack people for trying spread incorrect information while you are doing the same sometimes.

You tried to sell over here that the Bf109G could almost turn with the Spitfires while the tests show completely otherwise.

Bearcat99
03-18-2004, 05:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by II_JG2_Roth:
True Rall, Cessna's aren't war birds. I fly more than Cessna's...lol, however I have had a Dog Fight with a 48' J-3 Cub against a Cessna 150. Of coarse you know who won that one...he couldn't shake me. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif Anyhow, I flew all kinds of aircraft and I have over 189 hours in flight time...not counting when I flew when I was 12,13,14,15 and 16 years of age when I first started. I was the youngest solo pilot in 1982 in the state of NY. If you have flown Arobatic Aircraft...they are very fast, touchy and highly manouverable...and not too forgiving. Arobatic Aircraft are closely built to the War Birds, however they lack Hp, weight, Armor and guns. Low winged aircraft handle differantly...like comparing the Piper Cherokie against the Cessna 172.
Jg7_Rall...your statement proved my point,/Quote/ I don't stall too often and when I do its so slight that the altitude lost isn't noticeable./Quote// I found that true in all the aircraft I've flown...and if I did loose it for a second I always recovered. I haven't eaten dirt yet...Knock on wood! But...I have had a few close calls and had the FAA looking to give me a hard time a few times...lol. But over all...I've met quite a few men who flew WW2 planes...and this is why I say the things I do. And I agree with you Rall, engine torque has some to do with it. But not by much though, when you set the "trims" it compensates for it except on Takeoffs with Carb Heat off and full throttle. And you pre-set the prop for takeoff...like the Mooney or Skymaster. And even then the right rudder on takeoff is slight. In the game ....The wing stalls and the Unforgivability are a bit much. This is not just my opinion. It is what the "Old Birds" once told me...and from what my experiance has taught me. Choppers...I know nothing about them. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif
Thanks again,
Roth<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey I remember you!! Are you the kid they did an article about in the paper back in the 80s? In the Daily News I think it was..it may have been the Post...

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

heywooood
03-18-2004, 09:52 AM
ummm - warbirds stall way more harshly than cessnas and pipers babe.. its part of their overall deathdealing design - in order to be manoeverable enough to be effective at dogfighting - they must be a little "unstable"
in the air. oh and next time you might wanna do your own whining, I know wives are better at it but, dude, come on.

AcesHigh_AVG
03-18-2004, 09:53 AM
I don't know, i've had some interesting stalls in a C150. I took one up on a windy day flew perpendicular to the wind and did a power-on stall slightly uncoordinated to the right (into the wind) and slightly rolling to the right. The result was a rather nasty (for a 150) aysimetrical stall to the right going from 5 degrees of bank to about 45 degrees and the nose dropping off considerably leaving me at Vno by the time I got back straight and level.

So i can imagine if that could happen in a cessna then the effects would probably be much greater in a larger more powerful combat engineered aircraft. I really don't think the stalls are that misrepresented in the game. I think that we maneuver the aircraft in the game much more violently that we really think we do. If we were really flying the real deal half the maneuvers you see online probably wouldn't be performed for very long. Most people would have beaten themselves sensless against the canopy.

Magister__Ludi
03-18-2004, 10:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cappadocian_317:
Huckebein_FW, I find it rather odd that you still attack people for trying spread incorrect information while you are doing the same sometimes.

You tried to sell over here that the Bf109G could almost turn with the Spitfires while the tests show completely otherwise.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Give the exact quote, not your twist on my words.

In general Spitfire has one second advantage in turn performance over the contemporary and similarly equipped 109 (like Mk V over F4/G2, Mk IX over G6 and so on). This is a very small advantage that cannot be valorified in combat because piots never made more that one 360 turn (unless he was alone with the enemy plane, which was very rare).

Furthermore, buffeting occurs faster for a Spitfire because of lower aspect ratio wings, so this small difference in turn performance will be nulified when turning near Clmax (when you see vortices at wing tips).

Turn performance as resulted in russian tests is the following:

F4 19 sec
G2 19-20 sec
G6 20 sec
K4 21 sec

Turn performance for Spit:

MkV 18 sec
MkIX 19-20 sec
MKXIV 20-21 sec


AEP does a good job portraying the relative performance of the 2 planes. Nothing to complain here.
However in climb performance there are many inconsistencies, for all planes.

VF-2_John_Banks
03-18-2004, 12:47 PM
There is a general flaw in the flight engine since IL2. The game doesn't model those classic "nose down" stalls but always lets the plane drop a wing and spin or, if you are lucky, you get very heavy buffeting. Planes like the P-38 never had any nastay stalls at all, due to the counter rotating props, but the P-38 flies in FB like a single engine plane and also stalls that way. And that is pure BS, which goes for all 2 mots like the BF-110. Unless you fle the P-38 on one engine, there was absolutely no tendency of that plane, to drop a wing and start to spin, unless you tried that on purpose. But that is a well known flaw, which Oleg even explained as a result of the flight engine beeing designed with single prop planes (read: IL2) in mind plus a very simplified stall model, where no plane can really stall without dropping a wing. I guess we have to wait till BoB for a "fix".

JV44Rall
03-18-2004, 01:43 PM
Interesting thread, but why does everyone believe that by repeating the obvious - warbirds aren't Cessnas - they've proven that certain warbirds are as twitchy and spin-prone as is modeled in 2.0.

I have no data, I'm not a RL pilot. But imho, the stall characteristics in AEP seem a bit overdone, especially when compared to previous versions of FB. The flight modelling in the old versions were defended as "just right," too.

The fact that the stall characteristics change for certain planes (e.g., FW 190A) with each new version FB indicates that Oleg and crew are making it up as they go along.

That's okay - as far as I know, it is difficult, if not impossible, to get objective data on stall characteristics. Thus, it's mostly a judgment call. And it's Oleg product, so it's his judgment.

But I think the current stall modelling is overdone.

So I'm with the Baroness: Oleg, please reduce the stall characteristics a little in the next patch.

[This message was edited by JV44Rall on Thu March 18 2004 at 12:59 PM.]

blabla0001
03-18-2004, 01:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cappadocian_317:
Huckebein_FW, I find it rather odd that you still attack people for trying spread incorrect information while you are doing the same sometimes.

You tried to sell over here that the Bf109G could almost turn with the Spitfires while the tests show completely otherwise.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Give the exact quote, not your twist on my words.

In general Spitfire has one second advantage in turn performance over the contemporary and similarly equipped 109 (like Mk V over F4/G2, Mk IX over G6 and so on). This is a very small advantage that cannot be valorified in combat because piots never made more that one 360 turn (unless he was alone with the enemy plane, which was very rare).

Furthermore, buffeting occurs faster for a Spitfire because of lower aspect ratio wings, so this small difference in turn performance will be nulified when turning near Clmax (when you see vortices at wing tips).

Turn performance as resulted in russian tests is the following:

F4 19 sec
G2 19-20 sec
G6 20 sec
K4 21 sec

Turn performance for Spit:

MkV 18 sec
MkIX 19-20 sec
MKXIV 20-21 sec


AEP does a good job portraying the relative performance of the 2 planes. Nothing to complain here.
However in climb performance there are many inconsistencies, for all planes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL.

Sorry man but your reaching here.

You said, and I am not going to dig it up in the tons of other bogus you posted:

The Bf109 vs Spitfire test done in the UK was bogus because the Bf109G was damaged goods, ok that part was acceptable.

Here is the test btw:

SPITFIRE XIV VERSUS BF109G
Maximum Speed: The Spitfire XIV is 40 mph [64 km/hr] faster at all heights except near 16,000 feet
[4878 m] - where it is only 10 mph [16 km/hr] faster.

Maximum Climb: The same result - at 16,000 feet [4878 m] the two aircraft are virtually identical, otherwise the Spitfire XIV outclimbs the 109. The zoom climb is practically identical when the climb is made without the throttle open. Climbing at full throttle, the Spitfire XIV draws away from the 109 quite easily.

Dive: During the initial part of the dive, the 109 draws away slightly, but when a speed of 380 mph [611 km/hr] is reached the Spitfire XIV begins to gain on the 109.

Turning Circle: The Spitfire XIV easily out-turns the 109 in either direction.

Rate of Roll: The Spitfire XIV rolls much more quickly.

Conclusion: The Spitfire XIV is superior in every respect.

--------------------------------------------

Then you claimed that the Tempest V was a good turner and that it was only slightly worse then a Bf109G.

All I asked then was for you to EXPLAIN this test report:

Maximum Speed
From 0 - 10,000 ft. the Tempest is 20 mph faster than the Spitfire XIV. There is little to choose until 22,000 ft. when the Spitfire XIV becomes 30-40 mph faster, the Tempest's operational ceiling being about 30,000 ft. as opposed to the Spitfire XIV's 40,000 ft.

Maximum Climb
The Tempest is not in the same class as the Spitfire XIV. The Tempest V however, has a considerably better zoom climb, holding a higher speed throughout the manoeuvre. If the climb is prolonged until climbing speed is reached, then, of course the Spitfire XIV will begin to catch and pull ahead.

Dive
The Tempest gains on the Spitfire XIV.

Turning Circle
The Spitfire XVI easily out-turns the Tempest.

Rate of Roll
The Spitfire XIV rolls faster at speeds below 300 mph, but definitely more slowly at speeds greater than 350 mph.

-------------------------

So how can, according to your data the Spitfire XIV and the G6 have the same turn rate (G6 even a tiny bit better) while the Spitfire can out turn a Tempest V with ease?

The fact that the G6 used in the UK was damaged is ok with me, but don't try and claim now that they also used a damaged Tempest V during their tests.

That's what I asked, and you never answered it.

Oh, and here is another part of the Tempest V trail:

Turning Circle
The Tempest is slightly better, the Bf.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall.

----------------------

But ok, the G6 was damaged so I can live with that part.

blabla0001
03-18-2004, 02:44 PM
Here you are Huck:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cappadocian_317:
"Recall the story of stall-fighting a Tempest at sea level, with the Tempest unable to match teh Ta 152H and spinning in"

Tempest has a poor turn rate and is by no means a turn fighter.
It's a pure energy fighter so the Tempest is a bad example to compare the Ta's turn performance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Tempest was not bad in turns, had a slightly inferior turn rate to Bf-109. Problem was that it used laminar flow wings that deteriorates handling at high AoA.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

heywooood
03-18-2004, 02:45 PM
sorry double post

heywooood
03-18-2004, 02:45 PM
What was this thread about again? oh yeah - overmodeled wing stall in AEP vs cessnas and pipers.Como se dice "highjacked" en espaniol?

AcesHigh_AVG
03-18-2004, 03:26 PM
I think if you read many books on the subject you'll find that the P40 was not a good turner, but it turns well in FB, that the P39 entered spins easily, but doesn't in FB, that the 109 and 190 were pretty close in terms of performance to the point where pilots considered it a matter of personal taste to determine which plane was the better dogfighter, yet in FB the 109 turns much better than the 190 and climbs better too. So for some planes the stalls are not there and in others such as the P51 they are there. I've read that the p51 would stall just after the 109, but not in FB? In any case just take what you have an enjoy it.

crazyivan1970
03-18-2004, 03:44 PM
You guys have amazing ability to turn any thread into 109/190 vs Spitfire discussion.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

Functio
03-18-2004, 03:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
You guys have amazing ability to turn any thread into 109/190 vs Spitfire discussion.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, and it doesn't help if the Bf109G that was used isn't defined in it's variant. Remember that some of the oft-quoted tests featured a G-6 with 20mm gunpods http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif There are quite alot of different Bf109G variants, after all... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Red_Baroness
03-18-2004, 04:16 PM
Bearcat - Yes, Roth was in the paper back then; flew with Gid Wilbur (the "oldest pilot") out of Duanesburg Airport in NY, Richmore Aviation.

Now I think Kurt Tank's actual specs that our kind fellow Magister__Ludi gave to us cannot be argued with. THAT's what I like to see - Actual specs. Now how in the hell can anyone argue with that, eh?

JV44Rall ~S!~ Agree completely with you on your comments (and so does Roth)! Now hopefully the P51 FM will be corrected too...Roth met a lot of pilots who flew them when he was a young-un and they said it was the "Cadillac of the skies". It's more like the "Yugo of the Skies" now in the game. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif A very fast Yugo, but a Yugo nonetheless.

John - thanks for the heads up on the insider info on the game. It's really nice to see that. I guess I can relax somewhat now that perhaps this will be fixed. We hope.

Take care, all and let's keep this a stall post instead of the Spit vs Cessna vs Cub vs 109/190 post. We gots other threads fer that.. LOL

Red

----,---'--&gt;@
Karena von Richthofen
"Velvet glove, iron fist"
Deustches Eisen

PzKpfw
03-18-2004, 05:44 PM
1./JG 51 pilots did not find the Fw 190A-3 stall gentle etc, the pilots were warned the stall was sudden and vicious* if the speed fell below 127mph the port wing would drop without any warning so violently the Fw 190 all but turned over on its back.


1./JG 51 found that when Pulling a G-stall in a tight turn, it would flick over into opposite bank, and you had an incipient spin on your hands.

experienced pilots later learned to use the stall tendancy to their advantage, and stated it was a manouver no Allied AC could follow.

*See: Weal John. Focke-Wulf: Fw 190 Aces of the Ryussian Front p.10

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

WWMaxGunz
03-18-2004, 06:06 PM
Well anyone can read this post on the WW forum from a real life competition aerobatics team flier about the lastest IL2/FB FM.

www.wingwalkers.org/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=2381 (http://www.wingwalkers.org/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=2381)

At the bottom of the post are links.


Neal

WWMaxGunz
03-18-2004, 06:22 PM
Also I've done exactly one snap stall in about 20 hours with AEP and that was when I wasn't paying attention and got greedy and target fixated while playing around with the P-51 and checking out the guns. I flipped over twice in no time then recovered in about twice that, perhaps a 5 second exercise. All this and I'm slow with health problems.

It's too easy to get online and lose it trying to turn harder than the flier coming around gaining angles of you. Way too easy.

Also if you're new to the IL2 line you should be aware of your PC stick is not mapped to the stick in the virtual plane. Your PC stick is mapped to the pilot. He moves the virtual stick by a combination of how far your stick moves x your stick settings on the X and Y axes and then only as far as he has strength to move it. The subtle parts take some getting used to.

Tame fighters tended to get eaten, or should I say beaten? A plane with a fast rollrate is going to have less stability about that axis. If anyone thinks the FW is bad then wait until someone models a Spad or a Camel correctly!

II_JG2_Roth? You have a member JG2_FireCat?
Tell her I said hi!


Neal

SkyChimp
03-18-2004, 06:38 PM
The Bf-109G-6, according to its manual, has a 180 degree turn time at 400 km/h of 13 seconds. It has a 100 degree turn time at 450 km/h of 14 seconds.

And regarding diving: it was imprudent to dive at full throttle. Regardless of the plane, maximum speed was reached very quickly and overrevving the engine was a danger. The proper tactic was to enter into the dive and chop the throttle to flight-idle. This is even in the Bf-109 manual. This is not modelled well in FB.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/skychimp.jpg

boohaa
03-18-2004, 06:59 PM
Hey Skychimp....wondering if you know the answer to my dilema.I figure that heavier plane would bleed less speed in turns compared to a very light plane.Am I wrong here??

WWMaxGunz
03-18-2004, 07:11 PM
Dude... not in general but what really matters is wingloading. A heavy plane can have low wingloading.


Neal

boohaa
03-18-2004, 07:30 PM
Care to comment on why its wingloading that is the main factor in speed loss in turns?

boohaa
03-18-2004, 07:31 PM
Can you explain why wingloading has to do with energy loaa in turns?

WWMaxGunz
03-18-2004, 08:00 PM
No time tonite and I'd prolly only give you a link because it's too much typing. Try a websearch through like Google with wingloading as the keyword. You may or may not find articles on SimHQ, avsim.com, avweb.com, or a dozen other flight and flight sim websites. Or you can wait for a reply.


Neal

HarryVoyager
03-19-2004, 04:17 AM
From what I understand, wings induce drag to generate lift, however, I do not believe that is a linear relationship.

In other words, if you have the same wing, in order for it to generate twice the lift, it may need to generate three times as muc hthe drag, or more.

However, this is just a layman's understanding of it, and it is likely to be wrong, so feel free to disagree.

Harry Voyager

WTE_Ibis
03-19-2004, 05:14 AM
I agree, it would be better toned down a little.If the stalls in FB are true to life
then it seems to me nearly as many young boys[thats what they were] must have been killed by their aircraft as were killed by the enemy.
If we are to be honest,how many times were you killed by stalling before you became proficient,50,100,200??? You know and I know in real life
you dont get chance No2

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/Ibissix-kneebonejockey.jpg