PDA

View Full Version : No wonder the 190 is popular



XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 02:48 AM
Try this put a 190 in 45-60 deg dive get to around 800kph and when your 300m from the ground pull up you will NOT hit the ground.It reminds me of the old trim turn days

So how many other planes can make this kind of bat turn now?

No1RAAF_Pourshot


http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/CAC-15.jpg

CAC CA-15 Kangaroo

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 02:48 AM
Try this put a 190 in 45-60 deg dive get to around 800kph and when your 300m from the ground pull up you will NOT hit the ground.It reminds me of the old trim turn days

So how many other planes can make this kind of bat turn now?

No1RAAF_Pourshot


http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/CAC-15.jpg

CAC CA-15 Kangaroo

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 02:55 AM
pourshot wrote:
- Try this put a 190 in 45-60 deg dive get to around
- 800kph and when your 300m from the ground pull up
- you will NOT hit the ground.It reminds me of the old
- trim turn days
-
- So how many other planes can make this kind of bat
- turn now?
-

Apparently the AI aircraft, but only when landing, and only until the ground controller tells them there is traffic on the runway, and to go around. Then they can't.

I just have a very strange offline mission, that is all. The AI aircraft would start their landing run from 5000m directly over their airbase. Flaps down, gear, nose down, vertical dive, pullout at about 500m, and land. Then the Control Tower would annouce "Traffic on the run way. Go around!" 2 would pull out, 3 would pull out, 4 would auger in. 2 and 3 would then go around and perform normal landings. I watched three flights of aircraft do that. It was surreal. I saved the track too...

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 03:05 AM
I just tested more and it does not work with the D9 only the A models I can level out in less than 100m from a 50deg dive at 800kph tas and thats after triming so I dont have to hold it in it's dive

No1RAAF_Pourshot


http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/CAC-15.jpg

CAC CA-15 Kangaroo

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 03:43 AM
Well I see that this was a well known bug as I would have been flamed by now if I was wrong /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

So guys will you luftwhinners campain to have this and the joke of a roll rate fixed? or is that only for when your fav plane is 2kph to slow or the gunsite a tad to low /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

No1RAAF_Pourshot


http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/CAC-15.jpg

CAC CA-15 Kangaroo

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 03:45 AM
800 kph is only 480 mph ya know Dave /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<center>http://www.assonetart.com/jsGodsgrace.jpg </center><center>/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif The above statue was a gift from France</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 03:49 AM
many 190 drivers commented on flaws. Major Death, a well know respected 190 pilot, repeatedly said the roll rate was too fast and that the A9 was too fast pre-1.1B.

I never heard such self criticism from Yak or Lagg drivers so please don't even start whining. You have every damn advantage on the VVS side and you still whine. Unreal.

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 04:02 AM
feiz wrote:
- many 190 drivers commented on flaws. Major Death, a
- well know respected 190 pilot, repeatedly said the
- roll rate was too fast and that the A9 was too fast
- pre-1.1B.
-
- I never heard such self criticism from Yak or Lagg
- drivers so please don't even start whining. You
- have every damn advantage on the VVS side and you
- still whine. Unreal.


First up I'am new to this Whinning thing but I intend to make a habit of it now, it seems like it's the only way to get things fixed as for major death I bet he is not a bit happy about having fav ride getting porked like this, being one the better pilots around here he would most likely have to find a new most difficult plane to learn if it's not fixed.

So about this bat turn thing why has nobody said anything before now? or did I miss that post

Also the vvs pilots never had to make many post about the flaws in there FM that was left to the luftwhinners

No1RAAF_Pourshot


http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/CAC-15.jpg

CAC CA-15 Kangaroo

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 04:05 AM
Heuristic_ALgor wrote:
- 800 kph is only 480 mph ya know Dave

Maybe so but do you think a 190 could pullout in less than 100m from a 50deg dive? I dont think so it was famous for mushing when doing that

Go on try it in any other plane

No1RAAF_Pourshot


http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/CAC-15.jpg

CAC CA-15 Kangaroo

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 04:08 AM
Funny though it seems most known 190 fanatics will even admit the 190 might be a tad over moddled when it comes to the roll rate.
But you will seldom hear from fanboys of thier own favorite ride that curtain aspects and characteristic are over moddled.
My favorite is from P-39 fanboys who will swear an oath that thier P-39 still have the same stall characteristic as when IL2 first came out.

I want nothing more than my favorite 190 to be moddled as correctly as posible.
With the way its moddled now I still try to use it with patance and disapline. Some times I'll get a little over confident try a little turn and burn with my oponent,if I think I have the upper hand,which usually ends up having my a$$ handed to me.

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 04:21 AM
"I dont think so it was famous for mushing when doing that"

Please elaborate.




-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 05:07 AM
kweassa wrote:
-
- "I dont think so it was famous for mushing when
- doing that"
-
- Please elaborate.

I dont know a better word for it ,thats how I have seen it described,I think it goes something like this ,the AoA as opposed to the direction of flight you pull back on the stick and your pointing in more or less the correct direction but still losing alt.

The high loaded wings give great speed but at a cost.

No1RAAF_Pourshot


http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/CAC-15.jpg

CAC CA-15 Kangaroo

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 05:12 AM
I think everyone is too damn uptight here, why cant we just get along and have fun killing eachother? lol.

http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/griffon.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 05:34 AM
I dont know what your smoaking... my A5 usualy pancakes into the ground much to the delight of my pursuer.

http://www.geocities.com/bs87cr/190sig.txt

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 05:41 AM
VonSchlep wrote:
- Funny though it seems most known 190 fanatics will
- even admit the 190 might be a tad over moddled when
- it comes to the roll rate.
- But you will seldom hear from fanboys of thier own
- favorite ride that curtain aspects and
- characteristic are over moddled.
- My favorite is from P-39 fanboys who will swear an
- oath that thier P-39 still have the same stall
- characteristic as when IL2 first came out.


That's not true VonSchlep. Many of the dedicated Cobra pilots admit it has FM issues. Many of them have asked to have the IL-2 stall/spin back.

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 05:44 AM
Just for the record I dont hate the 190 this thread is more a protest about how backwards we have come from the old IL2 at least then the planes were pretty close to right as it is now most FM have a major error of some kind.I just needed to vent I suppose.

In fact the 190 is imho a fantastic machine I made many models of it as a kid I just dont fly it very much being in a vvs squad.

What I would like to know however is does anyone ever test the FM before it's released in a patch and what is the method of testing it,after all it's gone from way undermodeled to way over,it really sucks that after all this time we still cant get the correct FM's

I think every planes FM should be tested by a group to it's limits then the results compared and debated before it's implemented

No1RAAF_Pourshot


http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/CAC-15.jpg

CAC CA-15 Kangaroo

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 05:46 AM
BS87 wrote:
- I dont know what your smoaking... my A5 usualy
- pancakes into the ground much to the delight of my
- pursuer.



Is this before 1.1final?

Want to see a track?

No1RAAF_Pourshot


http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/CAC-15.jpg

CAC CA-15 Kangaroo

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 06:05 AM
pourshot wrote:
- Well I see that this was a well known bug as I would
- have been flamed by now if I was wrong /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-
- So guys will you luftwhinners campain to have this
- and the joke of a roll rate fixed? or is that only
- for when your fav plane is 2kph to slow or the
- gunsite a tad to low.


I resent that ALOT I used to fly the 190s when they were hell to fly & hard too /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif after the 1.1b patch I did extensive testing & reported major non overheating bugs on all FW & 109 & many other ac had the same problem la7 to mention another....

I also mentioned several times that the roll rate is way too fast @ high speeds & the instantaniouse turn rate of all FW is too much.... I think they stole the 109s turn rate & slaped it on the FW /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Just so you know many... many other FW Fans posted lots of tests & info to try to get it tuned corectaly because the fact is that if all ac in this sim were perfect like real life (wich canot ever happen) the FW would be a feared & revered AC wich most would avoid if they had a choice

Being a smart arse never got anyone anywhere so how bout using some tact when you post bugs/problems !!! Please

<center> http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_109_1062789885.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 06:07 AM
The Fw-190's have never been correct in IL2 or FB and they still arn't. Back in IL2 and pre FB 1.1b the Fw 190's suffered from unrealistically poor high speed handling. The high speed turn rate is closer to being correct in 1.1b. I think it maybe a tad overdone but it is fairly close. Roll rate is a different issue. This is way too high right now. But it is also too high on the P-39 and various Yak's. Climb rates in general are incorrect. They appear to be about 5m/s too high for all planes except the majority of Bf-109's, which are too low. I could go on, but there is no need to. The simple fact is most players will fly whatever plane they feel gives them an advantage over all opponents. I am no exception to this. I have always considered the Fw-190A's to be the best axis plane in IL2 and FB. However many less experienced players tend to give into alot of hype and fly what everyone else flies. Threads like this are why the Fw-190's are suddenly so popular, not because of any change in performance. In my oppinion, the Fw 190's actually lost a good chunk of its edge over the allied planes in 1.1b. In FB 1.0 the Fw 190A's could out run ANY allied fighter of the same year. In 1.1b the La's can usually beat them in top speed at low altitude. And while the Fw's recieved a massive high speed agility boost, they bleed alot of energy when using it and the La's soundly outclass the Fw's at low speed manuevering fights.

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I/JG1 Oesau (http://jg1-oesau.org) is recruiting. Join us!

Stab.I/JG1Death at HL, Maj_Death at Ubi.com

At the start of WW2 the German army lacked experienced anti-aircraft gunners. The average gunner was so bad that the USSR decided to help them out. They did it by forcing some of their pilots to fly I-153 flak magnets. These planes were slow but very sturdy. This allowed German anti-aircraft gunners to get a large amount of target practice on a relatively small number of planes. Thanks to the Soviets help, by the end of the war the German anti-aircraft gunners were amoung the best in the world.</center>

Message Edited on 09/06/0312:08AM by Maj_Death

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 06:19 AM
pourshot, i'll see what happens online tonight, all i know is that lastnight in my A5, i was diving about 750/790 Kmph IAS, and i was pulling up roughly at 150m and my A5 decided to make its self a rocket sled, smashing into the ground and sliding halfway across stalingrad. Though i'm more inclined to beleive what you say, as this was only 1 experiance.

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 06:21 AM
these bugs were in 1.1b!!!!


Author: AFJ_Murdoc
Rank: Lonely Postman
Date: 08/21/03 01:24PM




Ok I did some testing on my own super ultra accurate testing
Using the Gauges in the cockpit not the fullscreen gauges
you might be suprised @ the results then again maybe not

Ok a lil advance information, I used the qmb to create these tests 100% fuel @ 5000m after I achived a perfect 5000m using auto level combined with trim & reading the gauges in the Pit to maintain this perfect 5000m altitude the tests begin....

Here are the results
================================================== =========
Aircraft= FWA9
Prop Pth= Automatic
Throttle= 110%
Altitude= 5000m
Radiator= SpawnPosition(IE:Automatic/Closed)
Wep = On
Max Kmh = 510
OilTemp = 120c (peged on the gauge)

Flew like this for over 30min doesnot overheat
================================================== =========
Aircraft= FWA9
Prop Pth= Automatic
Throttle= 110%
Altitude= 5000m
Radiator= Automatic/Closed (Cycled to this Position)
Wep = On
Max Kmh = 460
OilTemp = 120c (peged on the gauge)

Flew like this for over 30min doesnot overheat
================================================== =========
Aircraft= FWA9
Prop Pth= Automatic
Throttle= 110%
Altitude= 5000m
Radiator= Cycled & selected FULL OPEN
Wep = On
Max Kmh = 460
OilTemp = 120c (peged on the gauge)
================================================== ==========
Aircraft= FWA9
Prop Pth= Automatic
Throttle= 110%
Altitude= 5000m
Radiator= Open
Wep = Off
Max Kmh = 430
OilTemp = 120c (peged on the gauge)

Flew like this for over 30min doesnot overheat
================================================== =========
Aircraft= FWA9
Prop Pth= Automatic
Throttle= 110%
Altitude= 5000m
Radiator= Closed
Wep = On
Max Kmh = 500 (*)see note below
OilTemp = 120c (peged on the gauge)

Flew like this for 25 seconds then the Overheat Warning came on, Imeadiataly cycled radiator to Open position it took 48 seconds before the Normal Signal came on this was repetable.

When I Opened the radiator (to the OPEN Position) to cool the engine all information corrilated with this faze of previouse testing...

Aircraft= FWA9
Prop Pth= Automatic
Throttle= 110%
Altitude= 5000m
Radiator= Automatic/Closed (Cycled to this Position)
Wep = On
Max Kmh = 460
OilTemp = 120c (peged on the gauge)

Engine Cooled in 48 seconds, Continued to fly like this for over 30 minuts engine did not re-Overheat

(*) before I could reach 510 the overheat warning came on altho in a later test 510 was achivable & was the max speed @ 5000m with rad closed & engine was overheating for aproximataly 45/50 seconds before I hit 510kmh.
================================================== ==========



In closing Id like to say there are one of two things hapining here....

Either there is a bug that is allowing FWA9 (among other AC)
to achive max kmh 510@5000m (emulating closed flap position but with Cooling Effects

OR

Once we Cycle to the Automatic/Closed Position we are Losing 50Kmh of top end speed for no reason, Wich is also a Bug.

If you will notice that during all tests the The Engine Oil Tempature Is Maxed out @ 120, I canot find the water temp gauge so Im guessing that the Overheat Warning is Trigered by Water temp not Oil Temp...

Either way the Automatic Radiator funtion is not working correctaly Im not sure tho what speed we should be achiving
@ 5000m 510 or 460 Kmh

Radiator spawn setting Automatic/closed 510kmh @ 5000m ?

Cycle to Radiator setting Automatic/closed 460kmh @ 5000m ?

sorry this is so long was trying to be very Precise
All Informative Input welcome

This is not a whine post but a post to define proper speed @ altitude & radiator settings





<center> http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_109_1062789885.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 06:25 AM
"I think it goes something like this ,the AoA as opposed to the direction of flight you pull back on the stick and your pointing in more or less the correct direction but still losing alt.

The high loaded wings give great speed but at a cost."

And you're saying a plane with a +/- 1800hp engine thrust, will not be able to generate enough powerful lift for approximately 0.5~1 second to adjust pitch to level, and overcome the effects of downward inertia, and just crash to the ground because even if the great eleavtor authority allows the nose to come to level, it will just fall flat on its belly?








-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 06:25 AM
================================================== ==========
MORE FROM 1.1b

Ok here we go Very interesting.....


All Tests Used these settings:
Aircraft= FWA9
Prop Pth= Automatic
Throttle= 90%
Altitude= 5000m
Fuel = 100%
================================================== =========

Radiator= Default Position (IE:Automatic/Closed)
Wep = On
Max Kmh = 450
OilTemp = 100c

================================================== =========

Radiator= Manualy Selected= Automatic/Closed
Wep = On
Max Kmh = 410
OilTemp = 100c

================================================== =========

Radiator= Manualy selected= Open
Wep = On
Max Kmh = 410
OilTemp = 100

================================================== ==========

Radiator= Manualy selected=2
Wep = On
Max Kmh = 440
OilTemp = 118c

================================================== ==========

Radiator= Manualy selected=4
Wep = On
Max Kmh = 430
OilTemp = 116c

================================================== ==========

Radiator= Manualy selected=6
Wep = On
Max Kmh = 420
OilTemp = 113c

================================================== ==========

Radiator= Manualy selected=8
Wep = On
Max Kmh = 420
OilTemp = 110c

================================================== ==========



Ok again there is no differance Between Manualy Selected Auto/closed And Fully Open Radiator

There is a 40Kmh differance between Default Radiator setting (Auto/Closed) and Manualy Selected (Auto/Close)
there is no Oil Temp Change tho

It appears That The Default setting is bugged since there is a 40Kmh Advantage With no Oil tempature Rise !!!


End of Tests..... Conclusion Default Radiator setting Is bugged & needs fixing

This is not only On the FWA9 But On alot of the AC in FB but not all.....

Extensive testing needs to be done on All AC to isolate the effected AC, its not just on the FW, many other ac have same Issue, Its not my Job to test them all, Im just doing this one so that Oleg & 1C know there is a real problem/bug here.....


For any Laymen who donot understand what this means I shall spell it out...

It means that if I take a FW190a9 and do not manualy change my Radiator settings when I spawn. I will have a 40Kmh advantage over anyone who spawns into the game & manualy cycles his Radiator too the Auto/Closed Position with a FW190A9







<center> http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_109_1062789885.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 06:32 AM
I fly the D-9 mostly. The He111 some and a few others. I fly them the best I can kill what I can, bail if I have to and land when I can. I have never complained about them over or under modeled. I have posted about the uber muzzle flash though. I play this game for fun, and will continue to do so with the planes available regardless of what they do to them. Unless they remove the engine. Other than obvious bugs, I dont really understand all the fuss about a lot of things. I like just about all planes. The P-51, P-47 ,Spitfire, Zero, Stuka, 262, Meteor, 190's, Ju-88, Me110, P-38, P-40, P-61, Mosquito, Avengers, Hellcats, B-29s 17's 25's, C-47's and a lot more. Vintage aircraft. Hell as long as I can bomb something or shoot down another plane once in awhile I'm happy. I think this game is great. The graphics are outstanding and the planes are gorgeous. Yeah, it has some problems. But I deal with problems everyday. And the problems in this game are the least of my concerns. Thats why I sit down at my pc and fire it up. I can relax and have a little fun. I'm certainly not going to let a planes roll rate or low altitude speed or the fact that the guns seem weak ruin my fun. I wonder sometimes why, if this game makes someone so angry, do they play it? I refuse to get worked up over it as many seem to do. It would be nice if this were the only thing I ever had to worry about. Life would be good lol. CFS was a blast when thats all we had. Everyone thought it was great. Then CFS2 came around. I never really like it and stayed with CFS1. CFS3 was a joke to me. Then FB came along. WOW...Compared to CFS1 it was like the Flinstones meet Captain Kirk. I'm sorry, but I cannot complain about this game. I remember what it was like before it came along. And we have come a long way. I'm sure that bugs will be fixed sooner or later.

...and once you have tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward,
for there you have been and there you long to return.
~leonardo de vinci

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 06:36 AM
kweassa wrote:
- And you're saying a plane with a +/- 1800hp engine
- thrust, will not be able to generate enough powerful
- lift for approximately 0.5~1 second to adjust pitch
- to level, and overcome the effects of downward
- inertia, and just crash to the ground because even
- if the great eleavtor authority allows the nose to
- come to level, it will just fall flat on its belly?

wOOt Tha? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

What's engine power got to do with this? If you're going 800kmph in a WWII plane that had no fly-by-wire control and diving at some 50deg angle there is no way you can pull out of this dive from such a small altitude!

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 07:05 AM
If the elevator authority remains intact, a plane at 100m altitude in a 45 degrees, 1G dive at 800km/h, barely needs to pull under 1 second with a pitch of 45 degrees rate, to recover. The following change in pitch is more than enough to compensate for the inertia downwards.

What you're saying is the same equivalent to:

"a plane entering a turn at 800km/h with a 45 degrees change of pitch, will not be able to turn and actually will 'skid' and remain flying towards the original flight path, even when the nose pitch is deflected 45 degrees to the original heading"

The 'fall flat on the belly' happens when you're at low speeds, when the plane is insufficient to provide enough thrust and lift despite the change of pitch - ie. think about 'three-point landings' in an aircraft.







-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 07:08 AM
Also, you people are confusing the circumstances of a power dive and a normal 1G dive, and that of planes with reduced elevator efficiency at high speeds and planes that retain theirs through most speeds.





-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 07:08 AM
No.1RAAF_edin wrote:
-
- What's engine power got to do with this? If you're
- going 800kmph in a WWII plane that had no
- fly-by-wire control and diving at some 50deg angle
- there is no way you can pull out of this dive from
- such a small altitude!
-
-

Unless your the incredible hulk /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Dark_Knight_667
09-06-2003, 07:10 AM
Its not that we don't whine..we do it properly..us WS laggers and yakkers email oleg..example of what was fixed the yak 1 has always had aileron trim up until 1.1 F..guess what..it doesn't..it wasn't supposed to have had it in the first place. Thats just one example..need I say more?

DK

http://members.cox.net/cptdarkknight/bkbanner.jpg


The Knights have arrived. AMD 2700 XP, Radeon 9800 Pro, Turtle Beach Santa Cruz, 30 gig hdd, Gigabyte GA-7VT600-L, 52x cd rom, microsoft intellimouse explorer, Saitek x45 HOTAS

<center><a href="http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/" target="mash"><img src="http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_hawkeye.jpg" width="205" height="95" border="0"

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 07:13 AM
"Unless your the incredible hulk"

Or, if you have a plane that retains good elevator authority even over 400mph.



-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 07:25 AM
RAF pilot testing a captured FW-190A-3.

"The maximum speed so far obtained in a dive is 580 mph (934km/h), and at this speed the controls, although slightly heavier, are still remarkably light. One very good feature is that no alteration of trim from level flight is required either during the entry or during the pull-out."

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 07:58 AM
kweassa wrote: And you're saying a plane with a +/- 1800hp engine
- thrust, will not be able to generate enough powerful
- lift for approximately 0.5~1 second to adjust pitch
- to level, and overcome the effects of downward
- inertia, and just crash to the ground because even
- if the great eleavtor authority allows the nose to
- come to level, it will just fall flat on its belly?
-
Yes a plane does not fly on rails like train, do you realy think a plane doing 800kph can instanly change direction?

That cant happen even today with thrust vectoring.


Just try it in the game it makes a sharp turn just like when the trim cheat is used it's as if the elevator has no force working against it and the stall on wing is delayed,just test it your self.

And by the way this is at 800kph not far short of braking up so at that speed ANY plane should be heavy on the controls,I cannot duplicate this on D9 only the A series

You know I dont realy care one way or the other I found it so I posted it if I'am wrong fine no harm done if I'am correct then it should go on the to fix list.

If you can find a bug in the FM of my fav the p40 post it so we can test it and debate it I welcome it.



No1RAAF_Pourshot


http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/CAC-15.jpg

CAC CA-15 Kangaroo

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 08:27 AM
This is my last post on this topic I will let my pics do the talking

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/dive1.JPG


http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/dive2.JPG


http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/dive3.JPG


No1RAAF_Pourshot


http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/CAC-15.jpg

CAC CA-15 Kangaroo

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 09:44 AM
Salute Kyrule

You are forgetting the other two Allied reports.

From USAAF on test of 190A5:

"The FW190 performs nicely in all acrobatic maneuvers with the exception of a very light fore and aft control which makes low altitude maneuvers dangerous. This airplane has an extremely bad high speed stall in turns which not so evident in high speed pullouts, but if trimmed and pulled hard enough it will spin violently straight down without warning. Aileron control is very good at all speeds and rudder control is normally good... The airplane is quite nose heavy which would make dead stick landings dangerous and high speed dives near the ground dangerous."

From Eric Brown's test of 190A4: (one of the lightest and most maneuvrable 190's)

"The elevators proved to be heavy at all speeds adn particularly so above 350mph (563kph) when they became heavy enough to impose a tactical restriction on the fighter as regards pull-outs from low level dives. This heaviness was accentuated because of the nose down pitch which occurred at high speeds when trimmed for low speeds."

I am surprised the Luftwhiners would even consider arguing this point.

The fact is, any WWII aircraft travelling at 800 kph with its nose pointed down at 500 meters above the ground was not going to recover. At that speed all the aircraft of that period were experiencing extreme control lockup as a result of compressibility.

To argue the point is extreme and not worthy of anyone who has any claim to balance.

Yes the 190 had good control response at high speeds when compared to many planes. No it was not capable of pulling a 90 degree turn at 800 kph in less than 500 meters.

It is frankly ridiculous to argue otherwise, and those are doing so should admit there is a problem with the aircraft's performance and ask for changes.

To RAAF Pourshot: Please send your test as well as comments to Oleg.


Thanks RAF74 Buzzsaw

P.S, Anyone who wants copies of the reports I mentioned, PM me and I will e-mail them.




Message Edited on 09/06/0308:46AM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 10:22 AM
Good one Pourshot... that should make all Luftwhinners shut up... at least for a while! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 11:10 AM
pourshot wrote:
- Try this put a 190 in 45-60 deg dive get to around
- 800kph and when your 300m from the ground pull up
- you will NOT hit the ground.It reminds me of the old
- trim turn days

you are right.

-
- So how many other planes can make this kind of bat
- turn now?

you are wrong.
Or do you think 1.0 was right where every plane except the 190x was able to do this?

with this additional sentence you told everyone "I'm provoking, I don't want a serious discusion", so you should not wonder if you get none.



quiet_man

second foundation member of the EURO_Snoopy fan club!

I'm quiet_man, but if I post I post quiet much /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 11:33 AM
fb need overloading physic model,than is such maneuver not possible


dora9 with a-lader fly 640km/h sealevel

this bird had certain the stick force improvement,not good when she has same highspeed handling how a4

a4 is slow bird compare dora-9 with a-lader

but although with better stick force such maneuver are not possible

at least the overload from wings is the limit

Message Edited on 09/07/0301:13AM by Skalgrim

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 11:45 AM
quiet_man wrote:
-
- pourshot wrote:
-- Try this put a 190 in 45-60 deg dive get to around
-- 800kph and when your 300m from the ground pull up
-- you will NOT hit the ground.It reminds me of the old
-- trim turn days
-
- you are right.
-
--
-- So how many other planes can make this kind of bat
-- turn now?
-
- you are wrong.
- Or do you think 1.0 was right where every plane
- except the 190x was able to do this?
-
- with this additional sentence you told everyone "I'm
- provoking, I don't want a serious discusion", so you
- should not wonder if you get none.

How on earth did you come to that conclusion ,it was a simple question but maybe not simple enough for you aye.


No1RAAF_Pourshot


http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/CAC-15.jpg

CAC CA-15 Kangaroo

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 12:13 PM
Uh are you guys talking about 1.1B 190, or 1.1 "Final" 190?

Besides, 1.1F brought some new bugs.. like 190 A-4, automatic pitch works like crap.. RPM was way too low..

And if you did not know, roll rate at highspeeds in 1.1F was decreased allready /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif roll rate is around 90 degrees at high speeds, should be some 75 degrees.. now IMHO that is a very minor FM-bug.. and anyway, in terms of game balance it should be leaved like so, since FW-190 is the only bird suffering from crippled forwardview /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

____________________________________



Official Sig:



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez4.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 02:42 PM
Just read cozmo report and have a question.
You flew the A-9? The A series did not have a radiator or cowl flaps. Were as the D series did. IS this what you mean?
I am not picking, or have anything to whin about.
I play three games flying the FW's; EAW, CFS3 and IL2 FB. They are all a little different, but are very simular in ways. I do not know if a flight sim can get all the planes to preform as they were in real life. One thing is that we as a group do not really know how the performed, and we all have ideas on how they should.

gsedwards@cox.net

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 05:45 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:


- From Eric Brown's test of 190A4: (one of the
- lightest and most maneuvrable 190's)

- "The elevators proved to be heavy at all speeds adn
- particularly so above 350mph (563kph) when they
- became heavy enough to impose a tactical restriction
- on the fighter as regards pull-outs from low level
- dives. This heaviness was accentuated because of
- the nose down pitch which occurred at high speeds
- when trimmed for low speeds."
-
- I am surprised the Luftwhiners would even consider
- arguing this point.


Buzzsaw, this is the first time in all of my reading that I have ever seen anyone say that the 190's controls were heavy at any time or at any speed. Also, most reports I have read said that the 190 didn't require re-trimming and I see that this plane was trimmed for low-speeds. And I tend to believe all of the other material I have read saying the 190's controls were very light at all speeds.

- Yes the 190 had good control response at high speeds
- when compared to many planes. No it was not capable
- of pulling a 90 degree turn at 800 kph in less than
- 500 meters.

You are probably right, and I wasn't really arguing the point. My comment was more directed at the poster who said it would take the "incredible hulk" to pull out of a dive at 800km/h. I just posted a report/test that refuted this claim. I'll let everyone else discuss how realistic the 190's ability to pull out of a dive is, I just wanted to say that the controls, IMHO, wouldn't be a factor. Physics on the other hand, probably would be.


<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 09:34 PM
"Yes a plane does not fly on rails like train, do you realy think a plane doing 800kph can instanly change direction?"

Interestingly, your initial post starts out with a 45 degrees angle and a 300m margin with 800km/h, which keeps on changing through the post into harsher conditions.

But whatever-rate, a 45 degrees change of pitch at 800km/h at 300m altitude offers more than two seconds for the pullout. By the condition you stated, it was not a powerdive, where the "unloaded" wings would suddenly have to meet incredible G forces from pull out.

A constant 1G dive at 45 degrees angle at 800km/h, and most every plane we have in FB, unless trimmed down more than 20~30 clicks, will want to pull out on its own. If a plane can offer a change of pitch by retaining a fair control response on the elevators, any plane can manage a fair pull-out. Try it with a P-47 which also retains pretty good elevator authority over top speeds - you'll get the same results. Try it with a Bf109 which doesn't - you won't.

Otherwise if you are so thoroughly convinced it is impossible, I suggest you might as well be able to prove what kind of a turning radius a Fw190 can manage at 800km/h?

Unless you are willing to do that, what you claim stands a claim, based upon your own conceptions of what's possible and not.

And believe me, I've seen a lot of people's conceptions drift away from reality.




-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 11:09 PM
800km/h is about 222m/s so in 200m, it would
mean, at a 45 degree dive angle, about an 8.5G
pullout. Not pleasant, but not totally beyond
the realms of possibility, at least.

When flying the 190 for opposition during squad
training (I prefer VVS, and like the P39, and
would love to see that modelled with full accuracy)
I've overspeeded in dive and hit the ground a
couple of times. This was in 1.0 though.

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 12:22 AM
kweassa I did many dives at all angles and posted pics of what I think best demonstrates the problem.How can you look at those screans and not see that this is a problem just how thick are you mate.

Just look at screan it makes a 90deg turn in 200m at 800kph so what part dont you understand

Makes me wonder why we ever needed to go to thrust vectoring.

You people are thick.


No1RAAF_Pourshot


http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/CAC-15.jpg

CAC CA-15 Kangaroo

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 12:58 AM
Kyrule, i was joking with the incredible hulk comment. I meant that, unless you had the strength of the hulk, there would be no way to pull out of an 800~kmph dive in a 190 at 100-200 meters off the ground.

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 01:57 AM
You are continuously claiming something is impossible, based on your own perception of possible and not. Not to mention the "conditions" you have set, continuously changed through the post in ever harsher directions.

If indeed you seek to present a problem, it would be found in the fact that most of FB planes do not have structural decomposition with high G-loading. That is typically because most planes in FB, under extremely high speeds, are greatly effected in their elevator authority that rarely anyone of them can pull enough Gs to destroy their plane.

However, in the case of Fw190s you present, as with the calaculations presented by Aaron, the pilot will have to pull a lot of Gs under pressure.

You have so far presented no evidence whatsoever, that a WWII plane cannot retain enough elevator authority throughout a dive. Some planes are known to be impossible to do so, others are not.

One of the instances are P-51s, which its efficiency in high speed maneuvering brought forth the problem of the wings ripping off due to high G-loads, before its wing structure was strengthened. Max G loading for the P-51, if I remember correctly, was to be around -4G minimum, +8G maximum - which was about the same as the Fw190A.

So the proper line of questions would be:

1) do Fw190As retain enough elevator authority during high speeds?

2) Just how many Gs is the Fw190A in the portrayed case pulling?

3) Does FB model destruction of structure via high G-loads?

4) What was the structural limit of the Fw190A in real life?

Through these four questions answered, we would be able to determine if the Fw190A in FB is indeed fishy or not.

However, you gave answers to none of them. We ask you "why is it impossible", and your answer is "because it is impossible".

Now, to put it in a fair way, the pullout in the incident described, should be pretty close to the structural limit of the plane. If you would present questions in that line of logic, then I would have agreed.






-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 02:36 AM
I don't know how far from reality the pull out ability is, but I do know what I'd trade this ability for.

I and probably most IL2 players would trade the insane high speed handling in a second for refraction to be modeled in every plane cockpit including the fw190.

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 04:05 AM
Pourshot,

If kweassa is thick, then you are as well. You didn't lose 200 meters in that pullout, you lost almost 300 meters. 285 to be precise. So, try again and start pulling out at just under 300 and then see what happens. Do you want flowers? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

We know the elevator authority of the 190 at the higher speeds is a bit much, but I take it you do remember what it *was* like in the first version of FB, don't you? But then maybe you just didn't care then, because you normally don't fly that bird. But now that it is a bit much, you do care all of a sudden.

So who exactly is thick here? Well, not me, I'm around the perfect weight for my length thk u very macho.. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Oh, and about this: "No wonder the 190 is popular"...

Well... it ain't for the great view from the pit, nor it's super deflection-shot gunsight, I can tell you that! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

And that makes three.

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 04:09 AM
If the FM is wrong now it should be fixed, not left in because the 190s had it bad before. The uber 190s and P-39s need to be fixed. Two wrongs don't make a right, right? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 04:44 AM
"Two wrongs don't make a right, right?"

You're not wrong there. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

But, I don't want them to neuter the elevator once again either. Right now I don't have this excessive elevator authority at my disposal, because I adjusted my stick settings so that I cannot even acces this anymore. And still I can pull myself into a nice blackout if I don't watch out. So, they can take the *excess* authority out AFAIAC. I don't need it personally. I just don't want them to cripple the 190 once again. We'll see. I'm sure they wil do something to it. Somehow it's always the 109 and 190 that get completely overhauled every new version/patch. And that doesn't make for a solid and satisfied customers base, who have to re-learn how to fly there fav warbird over and over again IMO. Anyway, it's 1C:Maddox's call and we'll see what happens, won't we.

Lord help me I made a typo... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif



Message Edited on 09/07/0305:55AM by Airborn_

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 05:17 AM
Let me add one thing here...

The reason why this is not possible to do, and let me underline, <u>with any plane known up to today</u>, is because if you're doing 800km/h (which is the average speed in that pull-out) and manage to make a 90deg turn with that speed and maintain a turn radius of 300m, then you are pulling, my friend, a <u>more than 16G's</u>! Not any pilot or aircraft can do this and only modern AA missiles are capable if this amount of G forces (FULL STOP)

Now I hope all people claiming this is possible, would shut up, and think twice before saying that it can be done. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 05:45 AM
Dude!Good point.

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 05:49 AM
Steven190 wrote:
- Just read cozmo report and have a question.
- You flew the A-9? The A series did not have a
- radiator or cowl flaps. Were as the D series did. IS
- this what you mean?
- I am not picking, or have anything to whin about.
- I play three games flying the FW's; EAW, CFS3 and
- IL2 FB. They are all a little different, but are
- very simular in ways. I do not know if a flight sim
- can get all the planes to preform as they were in
- real life. One thing is that we as a group do not
- really know how the performed, and we all have ideas
- on how they should.
-


I take a FW190a9 and do not manualy change my Radiator settings when I spawn. I will have a 40Kmh advantage over anyone who spawns into the game & manualy cycles to any position Its a bug & has been reported

Your right FW does not have cowl flaps but they do have vents on the side wich could be opened by the pilot to allow more air flow across the engine as it was AIR cooled
ther eis much less drag induced with this form of cooling wich I have no clue if its modled correctaly in FB but some how I doubt it I mean the actual proper drag effect & the fact that it should be less than ac with cowl flaps

I was only trying to make a point to the original Poster that FW fans want it right in all aspects not just an advantageinduced by a bug but the Proper Advantage /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I feal the instintaniouse turn rate wich is diferant than sustained turn rate is overmodled in FB 1.1b & that allows your high speed dive pullout, if your not diving @ 90 Degress than your theory is full of holes because it wouldnt take much to pull out of a 50 degree dive you dont have far to go to pull out & I think FW could do it but I have no documents & never flew it in real life Go figure


<center> http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_109_1062789885.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 05:54 AM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- It is frankly ridiculous to argue otherwise, and
- those are doing so should admit there is a problem
- with the aircraft's performance and ask for changes.
-


Other AC in this sim do very simular manuver so if your gona b*tch about the 190 make dam sure you mention ALL ac wich can pull out of dives @ high speed

dam near all the ac in fb can make these simular manuvers maybe not @ 800kmh but @ 700kmh+


To the original poster !!!
So whats your POINT ???



<center> http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_109_1062789885.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 05:58 AM
"more than 16G's"

How is that calculation derived?

Anyhow, assuming it is true, then FB has a problem with plane structural integrity, not to mention the pilot factor being too low.

-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 06:03 AM
Hes not making a 90 degree turn hes making about a 40 degree turn if that

He said hes diving @ 50 Degrees you dont need to make a 90 degree turn to pull out of a 50 Degree dive RIGHT ?

You only have to go another 40 degree's to Level out

Again let me mention in this sim dam near all AC can do a simular manuver so lets not just slam the 190 only...

It might not be realistic but you guys arent mentioning any other ac that doing overmodled dives

Like I said 40 degrees is not very hard to pull out

Now if he was in a pure vertical 90 degree dive & he could do that id say there was a large problem

PS Fix them all dont just fix the FW

<center> http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_109_1062789885.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 06:04 AM
I think he went to have a puke after pulling those 16G's. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 06:31 AM
The equation is very simple:

<u>a = ?</u> (Centripetal Acceleration)
<u>v = 800km/h</u> or aprox. <u>222m/s</u> (Linear Velocity)
<u>r = 300m</u> (Turn Radius)
<u>g = 9.81m/s²</u> (Earth Gravitation)

So:

a = (v² / r)

and turns out to be:

a = ((800km/h)² / 300m)

or:

a = ((222m/s)² / 300m)

This equates to:

a = 164m/s²

Then divided by Earth Gravitation:

a = 164m/s² / 9.81m/s²
a = 16.7m/s²

Now, don't forget that Eart Graviation is not calculated into this and if it was it would contribute even more to the amount of G's the Pilot and Aircraft are experiencing. The closer it is to horizontal the more G's they suffer.

If this turn rate would be sustainable even after level is achieved then the amount of G forces would be 16.7G + 1G = 17.7G.

note: The figures are NOT EXACT as I used average speed (800km/h), aproximated turn radius (300m) and during calculations the result is rounded off (no need for more then 1 decimal point in any of them). Still I said 16G's just to round it off... however even when rounded off it is still <u>way too much any pilot or aircraft can do</u>!

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 06:54 AM
How about you apply that too all the other ac as well not just FW alright ?

Looks like your on a FW mission

You guys act like 800kmh is 800mph its not.....
800 kilometer/hour = 497.0969538 mile/hour (mph)

hes going 796 not 825 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If its wrong I hope its fixed YES.... But you need to pic on more than just FW!!!!

I want the witch hunt by Russian pilots to stop make sure you guys apply the same dedication to perfect flight physics to all ac ok

Please...

<center> http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_109_1062912618.jpg </center>



Message Edited on 09/07/03 12:58AM by cozmo_d

Message Edited on 09/07/0301:49AM by cozmo_d

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 07:33 AM
That wingtip smoke could look like a circle of radius maybe 150m, judging by the apparent size of Fw, although length/distance measurements in FB is another Debate.

Assuming the maths above is correct, 32 gees? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 09:06 AM
How's this for an example?

If the aircraft's speed is 750km/h and it does a sustained 9G turn then the turn radius should be 490m.

Now, from looking at the three screenshots, the true airspeed is over 800km/h in the begining and just under 800km/h when it levels off... I think it is quite allright to round the average speed to 800km/h which is what I did.

The altitude lost in that dive is say little over 300m but under 350m or even WELL UNDER 400m, whouldn't you agree?

Therefore I see no reason how anyone could claim such manouvre is possible?

And lets not forget that a 9G sustained turn is hardly possible even with todays modern jets where pilot wears a G-Suit. The most a pilot can handle without a G-Suit is 4G maybe up to 5 in some extreme cases.

You still want to argue against this?

Yes, I do agree ALL aircraft should have their FM checked, and also the PILOT'S durability to high G-turns. Even if the aircraft could sustain a 7G or 8G which some prop planes could for a short time, the Pilot couldn't!

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 09:42 AM
No.1RAAF_edin wrote:
- The equation is very simple:

Good point. I only took into account the component
acting vertically - It was late when I posted my calculation.

The following is averaged over the whole time period
of the pull out, since we don't really know what the
pull out path is - it won't be circular, though.

My calculation was for the vertical component,
being 8.5G for a degree dive from 45 degrees in 200m,
but I should have accounted for the horizontal component,
which would be 8.5G perpendicular to the other 8.5G, so
the total force should have been the resultant of these
two - or sqrt(8.5^2+(8.5+1)^2) = 12.7

For a vertical dive in 300m, this would be sqrt(8.2^2+9.2^2)
or 12.3G

So now I've remembered the horizontal compoment, I agree.
This is too many Gs for the pilot or plane. (8.5G as I
erroneously calculated before was just about possible).

These are also just averages. At any instant, it may
be greater.

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 09:54 AM
Damn! I just tried it. The pullout is astronomically greater than a few other aircraft I just tried tried. Fortunately it can't sustain that or it eventually stalls at high speed, or does it?

It was a Freakish experience--like the time I watched an FB 1.0 I~16 sit on airfield revving up and for two minutes shrug off cannon hits from parked Me323 like it was nothing (btw that was a good test for AI DM).

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 10:59 AM
Hello,

I am not an Avation expert and know very little about aircraft, I am a gamer so please excuse my ignorance.

I would like to ask if there is a direct corrilation between the Joystick settings you select and the aircrafts flight performance, ..i.e. if someone choses settings of 100% and someone chose settings of 50% would or should thier be a difference in flight performances ?

Some players make thier own settings, some use 100%, and some use the standard settings. I would think that reaction times are a factor in the ability to perform some manouvers. or are stick settings irrelevent ?.

I don't know if what I have wrote is related to your topic, but I chose to mention it to find out for myself.

I would like to see performance related test to also include the stick settings which were used.

Thanks.

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 11:31 AM
LEXX_Luthor wrote:
- Damn! I just tried it. The pullout is astronomically
- greater than a few other aircraft I just tried
- tried. Fortunately it can't sustain that or it
- eventually stalls at high speed, or does it?

I thank you very much for trying it Lexx at least you are willing to test what i have said.

No1RAAF_Pourshot


http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/CAC-15.jpg

CAC CA-15 Kangaroo

Message Edited on 09/07/0309:31PM by pourshot

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 11:32 AM
Your question is not really related to the topic, but to answer your question... different settings just give different "feel" to controls. Some people like to have a "soft" controll in the begining then very sudden if they pull all the way on the stick. Others preffer very sudden so thier settings will differ. The numbers ranging from 0 to 100 in settings profile for each axis are percentages. Say if I pull the stick to its first 10% of travell in one axis direction and have 10% in settings for that axis, I will effectively get something like 1% of total travell. Setting to 50% I'll get 5% and setting to 100 I'll get 10% of total travel.

Try going into Input section and try changing these values and see what happens... it's probably easier to understand that way /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 12:40 PM
Thank you No.1RAAF_edin

I will have a try

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 02:54 PM
I just had an interesting test with the P-40M and FW-190 D-9 1945 model regarding this dive test. What I did was get each plane to start of at 5000m and without engine power do a pretty much accurate vertical dive. Each dive was pretty steady where I had the gunsight stay stationary at point on the ground.

Just as the aircraft reached 800km/h I pulled on the stick very quickly untill the aircraft was level (also very accurate). I saved each test and during playback I noted aircraft speed and altitude at the moment I started pulling out of the dive and when level was achieved. This is what I found:

<u>P-40M version:</u>
initial speed: 815km/h TAS
initial altitude 1920m
final speed: 816km/h TAS
final altitude: 1163m

This equates to aproximate 815km/h velocity and 757m radius giving just under <u>7G's</u> (6.90G)

<u>FW-190 D-9 1945 version:</u>
initial speed: 817km/h TAS
initial altitude 2343m
final speed: 801km/h TAS
final altitude: 1769m

This equates to aproximate 809km/h velocity and 574m radius giving just under <u>9G's</u> (8.97G)

Considering that my virtual pilot only blacked out when I achieved level it looks like as P-40 can do just under 7G's and 190 remarkable 9G's. This is most definitely not possible in real life especially in 190 case and I haven't even added the influence of Gravitational pull. It is true that I wouldn't be able to do turn, or pull actually, any longer as just as I reached level I'd black out however if I just level off I wouldn't lose the control of the aircraft. Highly unrealistic if you ask me /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I hope some of the Oleg's team read this and think twice what kind of flight model and pilot's abbilities they release in next patch(es).

By the way I did these tests on v1.1F version of IL-2FB.

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 04:36 PM
P-47 can do it without breaking a sweat.

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 04:37 PM
pourshot wrote:
--- So how many other planes can make this kind of bat
--- turn now?
--
-- you are wrong.
-- Or do you think 1.0 was right where every plane
-- except the 190x was able to do this?
--
-- with this additional sentence you told everyone "I'm
-- provoking, I don't want a serious discusion", so you
-- should not wonder if you get none.
-
- How on earth did you come to that conclusion ,it was
- a simple question but maybe not simple enough for
- you aye.

take a number between 0 and 100 as answer for you second question and it says nothing about the "correctness" of the 190 FM


but to add something to the discussion,

IL2 and FB 1.0 had absolutely no high speed effects (shaking, elevator lock, structural failure), turning abilities calculated linear from low speed caracteristics, resulting in P11 and I-16 being the monster planes for high speed attacks

the "bad" turning abilities of the 190 where modelled by limiting the controls and at IL2 by adding rediclious high speed bleed in turns, resulting in also bad high speed handling, what was compeletly wrong

about wingload:
1. the 190A5 (with 4*20mm) has only slightly higher wingload than a La5
2. at high speed (>350 for WWII planes) wingload effects decrease
e.g. cutting engine at very high speed (>500) 190A5/A8/A9 will deaccelerate slower than any Yak due to relative low drag

in 1.1 they added better simulation of control surfaces and speed limits,

but still some important effects are MISSING like

1."sliding"
the 190 should be able to do "sharp turns" at high speed, but the direction of flight should not change instantly

2."structural failure by gs"
nearly all WWII planes had limitations here

3."pilot exhausting"
ALL WWII planes demanded more or less muscle to move controlls at high speed

4. "shaking"
many (most?) WWII planes started shaking when flying high speed

while the 190 is much to good at 1, about every other plane is much to good at 2 3 and 4
IMHO the missing of 2 3 and 4 are also the major cause why the P47 has a hard stand in FB



quiet_man

second foundation member of the EURO_Snoopy fan club!

I'm quiet_man, but if I post I post quiet much /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

quiet_man

second foundation member of the EURO_Snoopy fan club!

I'm quiet_man, but if I post I post quiet much /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-07-2003, 09:49 PM
Just checking - this is in 1.1 final (rejected), or
1.1 beta, or 1.0? Neither are 'final' versions, so
it might be something that is a work in progress.

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 07:39 AM
I'm not sure who you're asking this AaronGT but in case you're reffering to me I'll say I did that test with 1.1F which was recalled. So it was not with 1.0 or 1.1b but 1.1F.

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 08:24 AM
quiet_man,

When I ask what other planes can make this kind of bat turn, I am asking exactly this.

"WHAT OTHER PLANES CAN MAKE THIS KIND OF BAT TURN NOW".

Now what dont you get in this very simple sentence.

No1RAAF_Pourshot


http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/CAC-15.jpg

CAC CA-15 Kangaroo

Message Edited on 09/08/0306:34PM by pourshot

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 08:38 AM
Which realism Settings do you use for this ? (your 800km/h dive)

I tend to black out very early if only turning sharp into an enemy.

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 09:09 AM
No.1RAAF_edin wrote:
- The equation is very simple:
-
- <u>a = ?</u> (Centripetal Acceleration)
- <u>v = 800km/h</u> or aprox. <u>222m/s</u> (Linear
- Velocity)
- <u>r = 300m</u> (Turn Radius)
- <u>g = 9.81m/s²</u> (Earth Gravitation)
-
- So:
-
- a = (v² / r)
-
- and turns out to be:
-
- a = ((800km/h)² / 300m)
-
- or:
-
- a = ((222m/s)² / 300m)

I think you have neglected to account for the fact that the dive angle is already at 45 degrees when the test begins. You would be correct if you began your test at 90 degrees at 300 meters, that would make the radius 300 meters. If the turn rate is constant then you should use an altitude/radius of about 600 meters for your equation, so the aircraft would be at about 45 degrees angle at 300 meters altitude, ie about 8.35g.

The equation does not use vertical or horizontal components of velocity, only a velocity vector as a tangent to the circle being flown. The radius can be determined from the altitude lost when the angle of the aircraft goes from 90 degrees to zero degrees.





Message Edited on 09/08/0309:21AM by Shot2Pieces

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 10:42 AM
After reading the thread again, and consulting some other people on the physics of this matter, I changed my mind.

Yes. now I agree the Fw190As are overdone in highspeed pitch adjustment.

With the case of the individual plane, the overall matters within the FM quiet_man suggested also come into effect - even if the elevator authority allowed the plane to adjust pitch at the case-represented rate, the airframe certainly will not tolerate 16.8Gs, nor will the pilot.

Take due note that this in agreement with the second test condition given - a dive angle of 90d vertical. A Fw190 travelling at a rate of 800km/h vertical downwards, should not be able to pull out of such a condition.

However, at 60d angle the acceleration rate would be cut to about half of what we get with the 90d dive - which would give it around 8.4Gs - the allowed strutural limit of the Fw190A, and not to mention most airplanes of that era. So, in the first test condition, a dive of exactly 45d at 800km/h, would be possible to pull out of, if the plane itself can manage such elevator authority at high speeds.

To quote Hohun, whom I consulted with:

"The desired elevator authority at high speed is just enough to gain full performance, but not enough to break the plane. As far as I know, the Fw 190's elevator authority was considered satisfactory, so it probably wouldn't allow 17 Gs to be pulled"

So, assuming his opinion is correct, I'd say the Fw190 would be able to pull about 7Gs maximum. Thus, in a given test-dive condition, anything around 7Gs would probably be possible.

Also, it should be noted that pull-out itself effects acceleration, and whether the pilot tampered with the set throttle or not, should also be considered. "Pulling major Gs will decelerate the airframe even in a dive so that the speed decays throughout the manoeuvre. That means the same Gs will give you a smaller radius the further you're into the pull-out."

So the given calculation equation does not represent reality, and it would most likely suggest higher G load than actual instance.

As someone said "two wrongs don't make something right" - I would not know if the coming 1.11 patch would be satisfactory, but I agree the 1.1"Final" sort of overcompensated the Fw190s in pitch control.








-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 10:47 AM
first of all I used Full Flight Model (as I always do).

Second, I did a test myself, and I made sure I have done it properly.

In my last test post I stated I started at vertical and ended horizontal. The values I recorded are very decent and have little error in them.

In that test of my own I obtained a 6.9G with P-40M and 8.99G with FW-190D-9. If you haven't seen this post please scroll up a little. I stand by my word and can say that the test I conducted is pretty accurate (as accurate can be with only available method). I will also repeat I did not include Gravitation in final value and if I did it would only add to it.

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 11:30 AM
No.1RAAF_edin wrote:
- first of all I used Full Flight Model (as I always
- do).
-
- Second, I did a test myself, and I made sure I have
- done it properly.
-
- In my last test post I stated I started at vertical
- and ended horizontal. The values I recorded are very
- decent and have little error in them.
-
- In that test of my own I obtained a 6.9G with P-40M
- and 8.99G with FW-190D-9. If you haven't seen this
- post please scroll up a little. I stand by my word
- and can say that the test I conducted is pretty
- accurate (as accurate can be with only available
- method). I will also repeat I did not include
- Gravitation in final value and if I did it would
- only add to it.

I've seen your test with the P-40M and Fw-190 D9 and it is fine. However your equation on page 2 of this thread related to the original test is flawed because you neglected to account for the fact that the test was begun with the aircraft diving at 45 degrees, not vertically straight down. Therefore the assumed turn radius was incorrectly halved and the G's doubled. See my post above.

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 12:44 PM
yeah that's cool... reason being I did the test myself /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 12:56 PM
kweassa wrote:
-
- After reading the thread again, and consulting some
- other people on the physics of this matter, I
- changed my mind.
-
-
- Yes. now I agree the Fw190As are overdone in
- highspeed pitch adjustment.
-
-
- With the case of the individual plane, the overall
- matters within the FM quiet_man suggested also come
- into effect - even if the elevator authority allowed
- the plane to adjust pitch at the case-represented
- rate, the airframe certainly will not tolerate
- 16.8Gs, nor will the pilot.

It isn't 16.8Gs, its 8.4. See my post above yours.

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 01:56 PM
I did couple more test with FW-190 and this time I tried the A4, A5, A8 and A9 versions and this is what I got:

<u>A4</u>
Average speed = 221.4m/s
Altitude lost = 437m
Amount of G's = 11.4G

<u>A5</u>
Average speed = 220.3m/s
Altitude lost = 460m
Amount of G's = 10.8G

<u>A8</u>
Average speed = 222.2m/s
Altitude lost = 523m
Amount of G's = 9.6G

<u>A9</u>
Average speed = 222.0m/s
Altitude lost = 548m
Amount of G's = 9.2G

Again, the test was done with v1.1f (reject), engine power to zero, trimmed to vertical dive. Values taken from initial point of applying full elevator and point of achieving level. Gravity not calculated into final values.

A4 = 3989Kg
A5 = 4000Kg
A8 = 4360Kg
A9 = 4410Kg

The values are in some good consistency with aircraft inertia as mass of the aircraft increases with every later version. Considering the aircrafts are of same dimensions (with exception of A4 which is little shorter) their mass is increasing, therefore their inertia is also increased meaning the aircraft will be harder to change direction... and as a consequence have longer turn radius (or lost altitude)... and this means the aircraft will be able to pull less G's. This is all in good relation with values I got.

The bad thing here is that those G values are rather high for a WWII aircraft and somewhere along the FM and aircraft's (and pilot's) ability to sustain G forces has gone little wrong.

As a further test I might do the same with other aircraft and see how things stand up.

(edited typos)

Message Edited on 09/08/0311:57PM by No.1RAAF_edin

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 02:15 PM
Great stuff, look forward to further tests...oh wait most VVS aircraft can't go that fast without blowing to pieces /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Would be great to see how abilities of different aircraft to pull G varies with speed though /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

By the way, was blackout on? If pilot blackout occurs at (say) 8G, does it really matter if the plane is capable of more than that? 8G will be the practical limit won't it?



Message Edited on 09/08/0302:27PM by Shot2Pieces

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 04:01 PM
Ditto here. Very interesting.

For about five months (way before the patch), I've been flying FWs almost exclusively. Occassionally, I'll fly a P-39 or LA7 for grins. I'm always surprised when Cobra turns like a brick when coming out of a dive and the LA buffets at over 600kph. So I see a lot of merit in what is said here.

But IIRC, the patch didn't change much to the FW. It was always uber on the boom and zoom. It's just now, ppl are starting to pay closer attention to the FW.

While I don't understand the physics or the math being kicked around, I agree the FW needs to be calmed down a little. Reduce the roll rate and maybe reduce the elevator authority.

But in RL, the FW was widely (almost universally) observed as the equal or the superior to any allied fighter.

I'd be concerned about the accuracy of the FM if the FW wasn't very popular. And in FB 1.0, the FW was not popular at all. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 06:08 PM
Shot2Pieces wrote:
- I think you have neglected to account for the fact
- that the dive angle is already at 45 degrees when
- the test begins. You would be correct if you began
- your test at 90 degrees at 300 meters, that would
- make the radius 300 meters. If the turn rate is
- constant then you should use an altitude/radius of
- about 600 meters for your equation, so the aircraft
- would be at about 45 degrees angle at 300 meters
- altitude, ie about 8.35g.
-
- The equation does not use vertical or horizontal
- components of velocity, only a velocity vector as a
- tangent to the circle being flown. The radius can be
- determined from the altitude lost when the angle of
- the aircraft goes from 90 degrees to zero degrees.

Or r=H(1+tan(90-angle)), I think. For angle=0,
r=infinity, angle=90, r=H.

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 08:18 PM
AaronGT wrote:
-
- Shot2Pieces wrote:
-- I think you have neglected to account for the fact
-- that the dive angle is already at 45 degrees when
-- the test begins. You would be correct if you began
-- your test at 90 degrees at 300 meters, that would
-- make the radius 300 meters. If the turn rate is
-- constant then you should use an altitude/radius of
-- about 600 meters for your equation, so the aircraft
-- would be at about 45 degrees angle at 300 meters
-- altitude, ie about 8.35g.
--
-- The equation does not use vertical or horizontal
-- components of velocity, only a velocity vector as a
-- tangent to the circle being flown. The radius can be
-- determined from the altitude lost when the angle of
-- the aircraft goes from 90 degrees to zero degrees.
-
- Or r=H(1+tan(90-angle)), I think. For angle=0,
- r=infinity, angle=90, r=H.


?? r won't equal infinity unless you are flying exactly in a straight line, no matter what the angle. There is no need to use some angle to calculate r, r is derived experimentally and plugged into the equation along with a known velocity to calculate G.

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 09:34 PM
Shot2Pieces wrote:
- ?? r won't equal infinity unless you are flying
- exactly in a straight line,

Not true. It will also be the case if you are
just falling like a brick in some sort of flat stall!

- There is no need to use some angle to
- calculate r,

It was a suggested modification to v^2/r, as suggested
by Edin, which assumes a path that is an arc of a circle.
It works given those assumptions (and that the path is
led by the nose of the plane at all times). Given those
assumptions you then just need the height lost and initial
angle of dive, which are relatively easy to determine.
I don't know how you'd calculate the radius with any
degree of certainty from a track, but I am open to suggestions!


- r is derived experimentally and
- plugged into the equation along with a known
- velocity to calculate G.


If you are going to go to the trouble of doing it
experimentally then you may as well record the exact
path travelled, which won't be the arc of a circle,
I would have thought, as initially elevator effectiveness
will be low at high speed. You'd need to plot data
points from a flight path, or try to judge elevator
effectiveness from level flight at various speeds, but
there a whole lot of other variables there.

Now... has 1.11 downloaded yet?

XyZspineZyX
09-08-2003, 10:43 PM
AaronGT,

I did a test with the D9 1945 online and I have found only the same result of losing about 550 meters while pulling out from a zero angle dive (straight down) at a height between 1500-2000 meters and doing around 800 TAS at the start of the pullout. Above that height, it took considerable more time, and thus height, to get the plane flying horizontally once again. So I strongly suspect either a ground-effect or the air-density to play a role in this. So it might be interesting to take this into account during further tests.

And I have found another candidate that would need further testing as well: the P47.
In this machine I could recover from a dive going straight down, to a horizontal flight path while I lost approx. 550 meters as well. But this happened also at a lower height, going from 650 to 100 meters to be precise. But when starting the pullout at higher levels, I needed considerably more height to recover. The blackout happened in both planes as you described: it was considerable, but it was sometimes possible to still make slight course corrections, although one would be a sitting duck while it lasted. And it lasted quite long. And there were also cases in which it wasn't possible to do anything with the controls anymore.

Possibly the diminishing of the excess elevator authority of the 190, and other planes like the P47, would be an answer to this. In that case It still remains to be seen if the authority at higher levels will still be sufficient after this modification of course.

And: I seriously wonder if the stalling characteristics of the P47 are modelled 100% correct. Somehow, when I entered a stall with this plane, it was invariably an unrecoverable one. Each and every time. Was every stall in the P47 deadly in real life as well? I will leave this question to the P47 experts, but I have serious doubts in this regard myself.

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 09:00 AM
Here's a chart contributed by Leon "Badboy" Smith.

http://www.badz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Files/Images/pullout.jpg


Foreign link is refused, so you'd have to click on the link, to view the chart.

Needed altitude for recovery per angle, at a 6G pull-out.

According to the chart, the first condition - 800km/h, 45 degrees dive - needs 433m of altitude. It is possible, if a plane is efficienct enough to produce 6Gs.

-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

Message Edited on 09/09/03 05:01PM by kweassa

Message Edited on 09/09/0305:05PM by kweassa

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 12:44 PM
I believe you.

"degustibus non disputandum"

<center>http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

<center>"Weder Tod noch Teufel!"</font>[/B]</center> (http://www.jzg23.de>[B]<font)

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 01:54 PM
May I ask how is this chart obtained and what is the unit for Y-axis?

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 04:19 PM
I have also produced sets of similar curves for other load factors, and 6g is admittedly a tad conservative for an emergency dive recovery. The aircraft mentioned in the original thread would almost certainly have suffered some form of structural damage, but you can see from the diagram below that even a relatively safe 8g recovery brings the minimum altitude down to around 900ft which is just under 275m.

http://www.badz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Files/Images/pullout2.jpg


Hope that helps...

Badboy
http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_065a.html

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 08:35 AM
Once again I ask how is this chart obtained and what units is Y-axis in? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 09:00 AM
No.1RAAF_edin wrote:
- Once again I ask how is this chart obtained and what
- units is Y-axis in? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Looks like y-axis is required altitude to pull out of a dive at a known speed and G given the initial dive angle shown on the x-axis.

ie y-axis is r and can be found after by calculation from G=v^2/r. r/y-axis/alt will be reduced depending on initial dive angle.