PDA

View Full Version : Is this maneuver possible in IL-2?



Noxx0s
07-22-2011, 10:43 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuipnDc7dms

If so, how would you do it, step-by-step?

Tully__
07-22-2011, 11:44 PM
It's possible but the conditions have to be right. The conditions can't be that rare because 109 pilots do it to me all the time, I think it mostly involves the chasing aircraft (me in this case) thinking he has more energy to spare than he really has.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

You pretty much do it how they describe in the video.

JtD
07-22-2011, 11:50 PM
Doesn't work like shown in the video, though.

Tully__
07-23-2011, 12:39 AM
Oops, it's not the one I thought it was. They seem to be describing a snap roll, though that's not what the vision shows?

TipsyTed
07-23-2011, 06:32 AM
Yeah, it will maybe be possible once they include Su-30MKI with 3D thrust vectoring. Up to then, good luck trying to do this either in RL or in IL-2.

It's possible to push your plane over the limit in IL-2, stall and shoot instinctively during the stall, but nowhere near the Tie Fighter maneouver shown in that video.

VW-IceFire
07-23-2011, 07:45 AM
I think the representation in the video is pretty terrible. I doubt any WWII aircraft could pull that off. I'm sure he did some sort of fantastic maneuver that wasn't anticipated by the German pilot but no idea what.

Stiletto-
07-23-2011, 11:41 AM
Not to be out done (atleast by much) by this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...ture=related#t=6m51s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wg8Wa1fMfQE&feature=related#t=6m51s)

Badsight-
07-23-2011, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by IcyScythe:
If so, how would you do it, step-by-step? induce the hard-turn stall

control how it snaps so your nose comes round onto your bandit

that "control" part is where IL2s flight modelling breaks down. planes depart not according to aerodynamics in the game

controlling the departure is where in "in-game response" knowledge comes in.

GratedLeeman
07-23-2011, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by Stiletto-:
Not to be out done (atleast by much) by this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...ture=related#t=6m51s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wg8Wa1fMfQE&feature=related#t=6m51s)

Funny, when I watched the first video I instantly thought of this one!

Noxx0s
07-23-2011, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IcyScythe:
If so, how would you do it, step-by-step? induce the hard-turn stall

control how it snaps so your nose comes round onto your bandit

that "control" part is where IL2s flight modelling breaks down. planes depart not according to aerodynamics in the game

controlling the departure is where in "in-game response" knowledge comes in. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What do you mean by "controlling the departure"?

Badsight-
07-23-2011, 04:37 PM
when you pull too hard in a turn, the plane goes into a stall

it "departs" from controlled steady flight

pulling off the same youtube manouver in IL2 requires that you have control over the "departure"

meaning instinctive knowledge of how the nose is going to flop thru the sky & operating your controls to make it to go where you want it too

its far from easy when your also mentally tracking where the bandit is going to be for shooting

Col_SandersLite
07-23-2011, 05:09 PM
Um guys, I think that's just a bad history channel artist rendition of a hammerhead which yielded a snapshot firing opportunity and a kill.

In fact, listening to his description of his control inputs:

Pulled back until he was vertical just above the stall.
Loosened the stick pressure and Kicked the rudder.
I was not able to track him, the gunsight was too slow.


Sounds pretty textbook to me.

Badsight-
07-23-2011, 07:50 PM
how correct the CGI of the history channel is to the veterans description isnt what the thread here is about

pulling off what the CGI is showing - in IL2 - is what the OP wants to do

Col_SandersLite
07-23-2011, 10:39 PM
He doesn't specify the CGI or the pilot account.

The pilot's account is of a hammerhead with a snapshot and is entirely possible to do consistantly, although it's dangerous as you're a *very* slow target at the top (hey, they even say it's dangerous!).

The CG *also* shows a hammerhead followed by a half roll with deflection shot. Albeit a very condensed "doesn't know **** from shinola" history channel artist fashion.

Edit: Lol, I was gonna find that clip of Voss as a perfect example of what I'm talking about with condensing the maneuvers to make them quicker and more exciting, but Stiletto's already got it.

Dolemite-
07-23-2011, 10:41 PM
Dogfights also shows WW1 biplanes zipping around at about 500mph. Pay no attention to what you see the aircraft do in that show.

___

Col_SandersLite
07-23-2011, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by Dolemite-:
Dogfights also shows WW1 biplanes zipping around at about 500mph. Pay no attention to what you see the aircraft do in that show.

___
QFT

DO pay attention to what the veterens themselves say however.

BillSwagger
07-24-2011, 01:40 AM
http://www.scootworks.com/rdrc/aerobatics/hhead.html

It sounds like he did a hammerhead or stall turn.
I've done this in game, and its fairly easy but the results aren't the same because that video is a bit exaggerated.

Another thought, Il2 doesn't have wind effects that might also exaggerate the turn or how the aircraft stalls, but even with that said, its a tv show that has been known to hype up combat engagements for show quality.


Bill

Badsight-
07-24-2011, 03:26 AM
Originally posted by Col_SandersLite:
the pilot account. i can read a book for that. i go to utube to watch video - the OP can confirm one way or the other of course

i dont have a hangup with how bad the history channel is, the CG could be 100% wrong

but that manouver can be pulled off in IL2

Bremspropeller
07-24-2011, 03:41 AM
A Hammerhead would be a most-stupid idea with a "hot shot" pilot on your six as it runs you out of airspeed and options.
Had he done that there wouldn't be a show today.

Flying a Hammerhead requires a lot of attention and skill in a WW2 fighter. You can not divert any attention away from the other fighter, so doing an airshow-stunt with another fighter on your tail wis the last thing you'd do in your life.


What he did was a snap-roll, forcing the other guy to overshoot and gunned him out of the sky.

JtD
07-24-2011, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
but that manouver can be pulled off in IL2

Until you can show me a track of that, I'd say it can't. It's also impossible in real life.

btasm
07-24-2011, 12:06 PM
There were a slew of aerodynamically impossible recreations in this series. This is just one of them, but this one stood out in my memory after watching this show.

Col_SandersLite
07-25-2011, 12:54 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
A Hammerhead would be a most-stupid idea with a "hot shot" pilot on your six as it runs you out of airspeed and options.
Had he done that there wouldn't be a show today.

Flying a Hammerhead requires a lot of attention and skill in a WW2 fighter. You can not divert any attention away from the other fighter, so doing an airshow-stunt with another fighter on your tail wis the last thing you'd do in your life.


What he did was a snap-roll, forcing the other guy to overshoot and gunned him out of the sky.

Whether or not a hammerhead can be successful depends on several factors not mentioned in the show. Among them, relative speeds, altitudes, and just how far back there the 109 was. Equally important is the 109 pilot's skill level and the element of surprise. For all we know, that pilot was a rookie on his first combat sortie.


Regardless, pulling the stick back just above stall speed, centering the stick, and kicking the rudder is not under any condition how you pull a snap roll. So no, that's not what he did.


Also, watch the first view of the animation as opposed to the second. During the second, the camera angles make it look like a roll. During the first, it's definitely a hammerhead, just faster than is really possible.


Originally posted by Badsight-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Col_SandersLite:
the pilot account. i can read a book for that. i go to utube to watch video </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Personally, I'd rather hear a pilot describe it in his own words with no editing. It creates a far more "human" touch for the lack of a better word.

BillSwagger
07-25-2011, 02:55 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
but that manouver can be pulled off in IL2

Until you can show me a track of that, I'd say it can't. It's also impossible in real life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think he's referring to the hammerhead, not what you see in the video.
I haven't had a chance to play 4.10 yet, but in 4.09 i could do it almost with out thinking.

Its a pretty easy maneuver.
Get vertical, chop throttle at the stall, and kick hard rudder to get your nose around.
People forget the chop throttle part, but that's what kills the torque effect so you can actually pull it around, otherwise you just end up rolling on your side and into a spin.


A Hammerhead would be a most-stupid idea with a "hot shot" pilot on your six as it runs you out of airspeed and options.
Had he done that there wouldn't be a show today.

I know...I found in game if I ever went vertical with a bandit on my six i was going to be hitting "refly" soon.
There is obviously some missing details there, perhaps more separation, actual airspeed, turning radius, etc.

On the topic of the Mustang, it was said to have poor lateral stability at low speeds and more so at the onset of stall.
Getting the tail to whip around is probably not that unrealistic, but its the recovery in the animation that looks a bit funky to me. In all likelihood he didn't regain any control response as the animation depicts, instead he probably luckily flopped his nose down at the right time to get a shot in.

Bremspropeller
07-25-2011, 10:50 AM
Regardless, pulling the stick back just above stall speed, centering the stick, and kicking the rudder is not under any condition how you pull a snap roll. So no, that's not what he did.


Depends - as Bill described.

You CAN do a snap-roll that way. Especially when at low speed, you don't want to overshoot Alpha too much in order to not get into a spin after kicking rudder, so you'll limit Alpha-onset by neutralizing or "releasing pressure" on the stick an instant before kicking the rudder.

We're talking about a Mustang with lots of inertia, not about a Pitts with crisp response to anything you'll do.

@ Bill:

Exactly my thoughts.

Col_SandersLite
07-25-2011, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Regardless, pulling the stick back just above stall speed, centering the stick, and kicking the rudder is not under any condition how you pull a snap roll. So no, that's not what he did.


We're talking about a Mustang with lots of inertia, not about a Pitts with crisp response to anything you'll do.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even if you're correct about relative responsiveness, that would mean that a mustang requires *more* stick pressure to pull a snap roll, not less. It is absolutely completely impossible to pull a snap roll with no stick pressure. If you feel otherwise, maybe you need to do some looking into executing aerobatics.

@Bill
No, badsight is pretty keen on the animation, see his last post on page 1.

DrHerb
07-25-2011, 02:08 PM
Apparently, in the P-51 pilot's manual it's prohibited to even attempt a snap-roll


(AAF Manual 51-127-5) states the following: The aerodynamic characteristics of the P-51D are such that snap rolls cannot be satisfactorily performed. This has been proved by a long series of test flights. So don't try any snap rolls in an attempt to show that you're the guy who can do them. You'll invariably wind up in a power spin - -- and that's bad. It also advises that, in performing a country loop (a plain ol' loop), the plane must be pulled over the top, otherwise it will climb inverted on its back. Inverted flight must be kept below 10-seconds due to loss of oil pressure and scavenger pump's failure to operate in an inverted position.

Bremspropeller
07-25-2011, 02:41 PM
Even if you're correct about relative responsiveness, that would mean that a mustang requires *more* stick pressure to pull a snap roll, not less. It is absolutely completely impossible to pull a snap roll with no stick pressure.

No, the pitch-onset is already there - the stick goes neutral in order not to overshoot the target-AoA.
It's a pitch-stability issue.

Col_SandersLite
07-26-2011, 02:12 PM
Only if it's *way* out of trim, probably to the point of uncontrollably. Besides, see Dr Herbs post. Snap rolls are prohibited on a mustang.

mortoma
07-26-2011, 05:03 PM
Why is everyone talking about snap rolls as if that's the only thing the maneuver depicted in the film is showing? It's a lot more of a skid than it ever was a snap roll!!! And no, you could never do that in IL2 because there is no plane that has enough rudder authority to get a plane to skid that severely. In real life a P-51 probably has hugely more rudder authority than our in game P-51 FM does. So the pilot might have actually done that in combat and got away with it. But it was probably more desperate and sheer luck than anything.......

Treetop64
07-26-2011, 08:20 PM
Is this maneuver possible in IL-2?

They're likely just talking about a snap-roll, combined with a skid, which is a risky maneuver, and it does bleed off a lot of energy quickly and results in a rapid change of direction, though perhaps not quite in the dramatic fashion that is depicted by the CGI in that episode...

...so let's get this out of the way:

"Dogfights" on the Discovery channel is perhaps the worst historical reference of air combat one could possibly find. It is highly sensationalized, Ameri-centric storytelling with fancy (though well rendered) CGI. Times, dates, and general historical events may be accurately presented, but much of the details in the rest of what happens that are discussed is borderline fantasy, and in some cases pure fantasy. Furthermore, some of the interviewed "veteran pilots" on the show are actually actors portraying the veteran pilot, and like all actors they follow a script...

There is an episode that talks about the exploits of U.S. Navy F4F pilots against the A6M Zeros of the IJN that, when comparing the technical details of the two machines, is particularly offensive. While mentioning that the Wildcat had six .50s (though failing to mention that only the later dash-4s carried six guns while the earlier versions carried four), they go on to say - with the "qualified" testimonial confirmation of a current U.S. air force pilot - that the Zero carried just two rifle caliber machine guns, and that's it! No mention is ever made of the 20mm cannon in the wings. So, based on that technical comparison of the opposing fighter's armament they go on to say, and I quote:

"...the Wildcat was pretty much proof against anything the Zero could throw at it."

Another "revisionist" episode starts off badly almost immediately when a former USN dive bomber pilot claims that his bomb hit the only weak spot on the Yamato's deck, penetrated through several decks, and detonated near the keel of the ship, creating a large blast hole on the bottom of the hull that sunk the ship. Miraculously, he was able to determine all of this while flying his aircraft in the face of AAA and while the Yamato was still underway and fighting...

There are several other "ignorance inducing" episodes of this show that have been aired, but you get my point by now.

If I were you, I'd take anything from the "Dogfights" series, and from the Discovery Channel in general, with a significantly sized grain of very bitter salt.

I love our vets and deeply appreciate all the sacrifices and sufferings they had to endure to do their jobs. However, bullsh!tting their exploits for the sake of rousing the spirits of those who are watching and may know relatively little of the subject matter - as well as for the sake of raising viewership and ratings - is a disservice to those vets and those who honor them.

Stiletto-
07-27-2011, 12:13 AM
Well said, Treetop. Except for the CGI part http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Not having looked at the CGI in dogfights for a year or 2 and looking at it now, I don't think the rendering looks very good at all anymore.

But thats the least important part, the part that counts, the accuracy is utter garbage. There is one dogfight clip where some P-47s or P-51s are engaged by 109's.. That have gun pods on their wings, wanting to dogfight. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

megalopsuche
07-27-2011, 07:32 AM
That maneuver is not possible in real life.

Dogfights is the biggest pile of poo to ever touch the subject of air combat.

BillSwagger
07-27-2011, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by mortoma:
Why is everyone talking about snap rolls as if that's the only thing the maneuver depicted in the film is showing? It's a lot more of a skid than it ever was a snap roll!!! And no, you could never do that in IL2 because there is no plane that has enough rudder authority to get a plane to skid that severely. In real life a P-51 probably has hugely more rudder authority than our in game P-51 FM does. So the pilot might have actually done that in combat and got away with it. But it was probably more desperate and sheer luck than anything.......

On the topic of rudder authority, i used to think the same thing accept after reading a bit more on it. Rudder authority is usually the first control response to drop off with speed.
The rudder yaws the plane, but think of the vertical stab as it skids/slips it works opposite the rudder response.
You have some planes with more vertical stablizer than rudder area, not to mention the angle of the fuselage which also acts against the pressure of the rudder.
At low speed this changes significantly, and rudder authority can vary significantly depending on aircraft design.
To give you a better idea, look at the rudder area of the P-40E and compare it to the P-51D.
I say this knowing that P-40 pilots reported stepping on the rudder quite a bit to correct slip/skid changes with speed.
I know that the P-51 and P-47 required the filet fin added to stablizer to aid directional stability upon landing.

Bremspropeller
07-27-2011, 09:23 AM
Only if it's *way* out of trim, probably to the point of uncontrollably. Besides, see Dr Herbs post. Snap rolls are prohibited on a mustang.

Trim and CoG are contributing factors, as is grossweight.
None of the values are presented.

Pilots are very quick at stoping to give a siht about operational limitations when being shot at. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Col_SandersLite
07-27-2011, 02:54 PM
Trim and CoG are contributing factors, as is grossweight.
None of the values are presented.

Pilots are very quick at stoping to give a siht about operational limitations when being shot at. Wink2


I think it's safe to assume that COG and trim where within normal operational parameters. Whether or not operational limitations where ignored is irrelevant as it states right in the POH that a snap roll is a guaranteed one-way ticket to spintown. Since he did not spin out, logic dictates that he did not do a snap roll.


Originally posted by BillSwagger:
The rudder yaws the plane, but think of the vertical stab as it skids/slips it works opposite the rudder response.

Not to mention that when the plane is yawed, the entire sideforce generated by the air hitting the fuselage is a centering force preventing further yawing. The faster you go and the more yaw you've induced, the more sideforce. It's quite obvious.

Bremspropeller
07-28-2011, 09:16 AM
I think it's safe to assume that COG and trim where within normal operational parameters. Whether or not operational limitations where ignored is irrelevant as it states right in the POH that a snap roll is a guaranteed one-way ticket to spintown. Since he did not spin out, logic dictates that he did not do a snap roll.

Pitch-stability is affected even when within the safe range of CoG. Especially when "safe range" is somewhat of an oxymoron as in the P-51.
A P-51 with a filled fuselage-tank is hardly "safe" by today's standards.

POH-procedures aren't the word of god.
They provide a guide to the average pilot performing averagely under average conditions.
If the P-51 was prone to departure (= spinning and killing the pilot all the time) when rudder was applied at any high AoA, it wouldn't have passed flight-testing.
POH-limitations are always more conservative than neccessary when max-performing the aircraft.

If pilots weren't exceeding POH-limitations all the time, we'd have had about 50% less losses fighteroperations.

GratedLeeman
07-29-2011, 12:47 AM
There is one dogfight clip where some P-47s or P-51s are engaged by 109's.. That have gun pods on their wings, wanting to dogfight. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

I very shamelessly take gun pods into dogfights on my 109, pump some one with a few cannon shells and then run like hell!

Col_SandersLite
07-29-2011, 03:12 AM
POH-procedures aren't the word of god.
They provide a guide to the average pilot performing averagely under average conditions.
If the P-51 was prone to departure (= spinning and killing the pilot all the time) when rudder was applied at any high AoA, it wouldn't have passed flight-testing.


Ok,

1: The manual does not say that the spin is unrecoverable. It does say that you *will* spin.

2: There are numerous instances where aircraft with major defects entered service. The p-39's spin of death, the p-38's low critical mach dive, the me-262's engine problems, the 109's notoriously difficult landing. Frankly, I could go on and on but you get the point. These sorts of problems plagued nearly every high performance aircraft and were experienced by every major combatant in every theater of the war.

3: You say yourself that pilots who ignored the POH tended to die.

4: I think I'll take the POH's word over some self-important guy on the internet. Especially since it was written by people who designed the aircraft based on the experiences of the very qualified test pilots who not only actually flew them, but flew them to their limits. Just how much stick time in a mustang do you have again? How much of that was spent at the limits of the aircraft? Maybe if I'm nice you'll let me fly your personal p-51, but I somehow doubt it.

5: Unless the aircraft's COG and trim are so out of wack that a very large amount of forward stick pressure is required to hold the plane level (probably not), it is not possible to perform a snap roll without a quite significant amount of back stick pressure. It is not possible to get the high amount of AOA required to perform a snap roll any other way. I'm done arguing this point, as you have quite thoroughly demonstrated you don't know what the hell you're talking about, though you like to sound like you do.



The way I see it, you can either; walk away and save a little face by pretending you never saw this post, admit you're plain wrong, or continue to demonstrate your ignorance for the world to see. The choice is yours bud.




There is one dogfight clip where some P-47s or P-51s are engaged by 109's.. That have gun pods on their wings, wanting to dogfight. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

While not common, I can understand that there are various conditions which could lead to this happening. I dunno if it's the case in the specific fight you're talking about or not, but it's possible anyways. After all, you don't fight a war with what you want to fight it with, you fight it with what you've got. Sometimes you're at a disadvantage but need to truck on anyways, that's just the way the cookie crumbles.

Tully__
07-29-2011, 07:04 AM
Originally posted by Col_SandersLite:
5: Unless the aircraft's COG and trim are so out of wack that a very large amount of forward stick pressure is required to hold the plane level (probably not), it is not possible to perform a snap roll without a quite significant amount of back stick pressure. It is not possible to get the high amount of AOA required to perform a snap roll any other way. I'm done arguing this point, as you have quite thoroughly demonstrated you don't know what the hell you're talking about, though you like to sound like you do.
I believe Brems was suggesting that you could induce a snap roll with no back pressure on the stick if the aircraft already had a significant rotational inertia in the direction of increased angle of attack, was already close to critical angle of attack and the speed was low, meaning poor aerodynamic damping of the rotational inertia. It may not be true but it's certainly credible enough to not deserve that sort of bitter response. Please be civil.

Bremspropeller
07-29-2011, 09:01 AM
I believe Brems was suggesting that you could induce a snap roll with no back pressure on the stick if the aircraft already had a significant rotational inertia in the direction of increased angle of attack, was already close to critical angle of attack and the speed was low, meaning poor aerodynamic damping of the rotational inertia.

That's what he suggested. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Maybe if I'm nice you'll let me fly your personal p-51, but I somehow doubt it.

It was a present by grandma, so I'm sensitive abou who I'll let go fly with it - maybe if you beg really hard! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif


4: I think I'll take the POH's word over some self-important guy on the internet. Especially since it was written by people who designed the aircraft based on the experiences of the very qualified test pilots who not only actually flew them, but flew them to their limits.

As I said before, POH-limitations don't take the aircraft to it's limits - there is a healthy safety-margin in-between.
That's what the POH is all for:

Keeping the average guy from killing himself.

Gaston444
08-07-2011, 01:42 PM
Sounds to me like a near-vertical climb followed by a "vector roll", followed by a stall. (Which is roughly what the video's CGI shows in a condensed form)

The "vector roll" could be initiated immediately by a wing dropping when pulling up, leading to him describing it as just one maneuver...

It is true that the pilot does not actually say "vertical", but the problem with a level turn stall is he would have to be somewhere above his opponent for the nose not to drop too low. A vertical climb would allow that, and the vector roll would allow the instant gain in angles in a more or less predictable way...

I think it was a pull-up induced wing drop...

Gaston