PDA

View Full Version : Aerobatic FM's



DdT_IcemanFred
02-22-2007, 08:11 PM
Oleg,

First, of course, thank you so much for your incredible sim. I've been flying it for 5 years, and it shows no sign of wearing out.

I am an aerobatic pilot in "real" life. Like many of my friends who share their passion for this fascinating sport, and for your sim, I was very exited hearing about your plans to include the Su26 in BoB. I plan and hope to use the upcoming Su26 as a serious training tool. I also hope aerobatic competitions will become as much part of the online experience as air-to-air combat is.

In general, I am very very very very!! impressed with IL2 series' FM. It has unique, very realistic (I know, I fly them in reality) spin behaviour. And snaprolls,... incredible. You are the ONLY one simulating beyond maximum alpha flight behaviour to this level of realism.

I was therefore interested in finding out how realistic the Su26's behaviour is going to be.
Positive alpha behaviour is already quite realistic, but aerobatic aircraft have just as much elevator power in the negative alpha range, as the positive. Will the FM alow full negative maneuver capability?

Spin behaviour: Flat spins in modern aerobatic aircraft are fully recoverable and controlable.
The power on/power off spin behaviour difference is a litlle to weak in the current FM.
Also, and this is quite difficult to model, opposite aileron input during the spin can have significant effects on how flat the spin gets. This (and also tailsliding) will require alpha modeling up to 180 degrees. Retreating wing effect can reverse flow (very high alpha >90 deg.) over the ailerons during the spin.
In flat, high rotation rate spins, inputting forward elevator during the spin can accelerate it...


Also, gyroscopic maneuvering is now a large part of aerobatics. Will tumbles and knife edge spins be possible. How about torque rolls?

Aeroelasticity effect can also be quite strong. With a very stiff aircraft (like the 26), if the imput is very sudden, only a relatively small stick movement, combined with fast full rudder imput, can start a snap roll.

Will there be airfields with aerobatic box limits painted on the ground?

Also, please don't forget to include sight gauges (wingtip triangles).

It would also be great if we could show a drawing of our aerobatic sequence in the cockpit.

Looking forward to hearing your answer,

Ice

Stackhouse25th
02-22-2007, 08:16 PM
nuts

WWMaxGunz
02-22-2007, 09:42 PM
Try emailing that to mado1@1c.ru and not here.

How close will the Sukhoi be? Some of the development team worked as Sukhoi engineers,
maybe on that projsct but you will have to find just what out from someone else.

You might want to search out TX-EcoDragon. His squad is all or has a few competition
aerobatics pilots from the same team and they've been using IL2 series from near the
start.

In the meantime we have different clowns coming here all the time to declare how unreal
this sim is because it doesn't match what they read in war stories. That *is* the way to
know, right? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif According to Stiglr/Sudoku the Targetware series has a better FM
too.

Just wondering how many aerobatic planes are built that close to the warbirds in weight,
balance and power to weight? I thought aerobatics planes are built light for quick and
precise maneuvers whereas warplanes have armor, guns, metal skin, and all that goes
with that. Shouldn't there be some tricks right out of the question? Some handling
that would be quite different?

VW-IceFire
02-22-2007, 09:47 PM
Yeah, we've heard that many of the engineers on the Su-26 development team are now on the development team for Oleg. So thats one of the reasons for the plane being present. I think its going to be great for air racing, virtual aerobatic displays, and probably a great plane to fine tune the overall flight modeling to as it should have tons of data.

I suspect that Oleg's FM will be even better than it is now in the Storm of War series. It sounds like a huge step up so no doubt it'll be something to take note.

Very interesting to hear from a real pilot who actually flies something thats in the higher performance area. Its nice to know we're dealing with some of the real feelings.

BTW: I don't know what the markings would be, but there are several objects in the mission builder that could be used to lay down field markings wherever you wanted them. I imagine this will carry through to the new series.

msalama
02-22-2007, 11:40 PM
Try emailing that to mado1@1c.ru and not here.

+1

Was going to offer the same but you beat me to it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

PS. Good suggestions there Iceman. S!

CMHQ_Rikimaru
02-23-2007, 01:20 AM
About spins.... even if u are flying a real Su26, u shouldnt forget that its aerobatic plane, and it should be easy to recover from stall, while in game, all planes are easy to recover, while u shouldnt forget that many planes are flying bricks, got crappy center of gravity like P39 etc, and they never should be easy to recover. But tbh, i dont give a f**k about aerobatics, I just want to see more realistic energy model in BOB.

WWMaxGunz
02-23-2007, 09:54 AM
We have racing pylons already in the set of ground objects. I like concrete runways for
markers better, they show up from a long ways off.

DdT_IcemanFred
02-24-2007, 01:10 PM
Well, actually, what I was talking about are aerobatic box edge markers. They are not there to align, but to show the outer lateral limits of the box.

BWT, mado1@1c.ru didn't work as an email adress. Do you guys have another one for me?

Thx , Ice

XyZspineZyX
02-24-2007, 07:06 PM
I may be mistaken, but try pf@1c.ru

greypeace
02-25-2007, 12:24 AM
Thanks for the interesting comments of a REAL
knowledgeable pilot.
Too often we see statements by know-alls.

My only beef with the FM is behaviour at very near touch down.
But may be it's me ...?
It's a long time since real time.
I personnaly prefer X-Plane behaviour close to
ground (may be ground effect ??)

Anyway PF and X-planes beat them all !!!!

DdT_IcemanFred
02-25-2007, 08:05 AM
Hmmm, wellll...

I would love to see how X-plane models flight. I always had the feeling it simulated the stall too sudden. Then the stability derivatives seem to make a very sudden jump. Hence the oscillations after stall. But then, I haven't flown the latest version yet.

X-plane uses the blade element method for calculating its' forces. It was used in a (quite succesfull) attempt to make X-plane as realistic as possible. But at the same time it created a sort of "bite-of-more-than-you-can-chew" situation. If you use blade element method, you need to be very very accurate in modelling your dynamics. The problem is that it can become very difficult to control your stability derivatives, because the aircraft is behaving "naturally". What I mean by that is that usually, the resolution of the simulated elements is too low to give a fully realistic behaviour in the post stall regime. Beyond maximum lift alpha, a certain amount of uncertainty has to be calculated into the FM. Oleg did this briliantly in IL2. The stall behaviour is amazing! He seems to have found a beautifull balance between simulating the aerodynamic flow and its' effect on every part of the aircraft (the way X-plane does it), and a more predictable "pre-programmed/adjustable derivative" method of modeling the behaviour of the aircraft more directly. The inertial behaviour, and the interaction with aerodynamics is just as important to simulate as the aerodynamics on their own. I think that is another thing where Oleg has things just right, and X-plane doesn't.

Has the vertical flight problem been reolved in X-plane? I can remember it would start behaving very strangely when put in purely vertical flight. The visuals would go all messy... and the aircraft would come out at a completely different heading than it came into the maneuver with.
Also, I don't know if it supports (smooth!)3-D cockpits now.
All this makes X-plane unsuitable for Aero's.

The best aero sim upto now (appart from IL2 wich, due to the type aircraft modeled is only good for limited, positive G maneuvering) is, in my opinion, surprisingly,... Condor! (the soaring sim). Their FM is simply STUNNING! If you want to try real aerobatics, get Condor and try out their "MDM-1 Fox", a fully aerobatic +9/-6G fully snap-rollable,tail-slidable glider. Unfortunately, the designers are sticking rigidly to gliding sims. I've been trying to convince them to produce a powered version too, but they want to stick to what they are best at, wich is understandable. And they also have a vey good ground representation of the aerobatic box.

I think Oleg should defenitly take a look at that sim!

About ground behaviour. Hmmm, it looks pretty realistic to me. It is however really difficult to say how e.g. a Spitfire is supposed to behave in ground effect or on the rollout, if I've never flown one. I fly the Extra 200 (low powered verion of the famous 300). As soon as Oleg brings out a flyable Extra, I'll be able to tell you more.

At some point, he has made the yaw behaviour a bit more sensitive, wich was neccesary, if maybe a litlle bit too strong. But, there again, I do believe Oleg's team has people who go all the way to simulate things as accurately as they can.

Hope this has answered some of your questions.

WWMaxGunz
02-25-2007, 09:38 PM
Does X-Plane have enough overhead to allow all what it takes to make combat sim?

Every shot tracked and ballistics better than arcade? Hits to the planes making damage on
a realistic enough level, as opposed to hit bubbles or the like?

Because if the gunnery and damage are grossly less than the FM there is no need to bother
is there?

Perhaps it is so, how much PC does it take to run a version X-Plane with better FM and
enough planes at once to make a good combat flight sim... say at least 32?

If that is not already then by the time hardware passes that point will SOW be out?

Are there places where you learned so much underlying aerobatics or is this only by doing and
discussing with others who do? Is any sim good enough to learn by or is that still in the
future?

MaxMhz
02-25-2007, 10:20 PM
Thanks for a very interesting post Iceman; Let us know when you get answers from Oleg - I'm sure the Su-26 FM will be very good given the attention to detail the 1C team has allways shown. I'm not worried about BoB - I'm just worried I will have a good enough puter by the time it will be published.

Fork-N-spoon
02-26-2007, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by DdT_IcemanFred:
Oleg,

First, of course, thank you so much for your incredible sim. I've been flying it for 5 years, and it shows no sign of wearing out.

I am an aerobatic pilot in "real" life. Like many of my friends who share their passion for this fascinating sport, and for your sim, I was very exited hearing about your plans to include the Su26 in BoB. I plan and hope to use the upcoming Su26 as a serious training tool. I also hope aerobatic competitions will become as much part of the online experience as air-to-air combat is.

In general, I am very very very very!! impressed with IL2 series' FM. It has unique, very realistic (I know, I fly them in reality) spin behaviour. And snaprolls,... incredible. You are the ONLY one simulating beyond maximum alpha flight behaviour to this level of realism.

I was therefore interested in finding out how realistic the Su26's behaviour is going to be.
Positive alpha behaviour is already quite realistic, but aerobatic aircraft have just as much elevator power in the negative alpha range, as the positive. Will the FM alow full negative maneuver capability?

Spin behaviour: Flat spins in modern aerobatic aircraft are fully recoverable and controlable.
The power on/power off spin behaviour difference is a litlle to weak in the current FM.
Also, and this is quite difficult to model, opposite aileron input during the spin can have significant effects on how flat the spin gets. This (and also tailsliding) will require alpha modeling up to 180 degrees. Retreating wing effect can reverse flow (very high alpha >90 deg.) over the ailerons during the spin.
In flat, high rotation rate spins, inputting forward elevator during the spin can accelerate it...


Also, gyroscopic maneuvering is now a large part of aerobatics. Will tumbles and knife edge spins be possible. How about torque rolls?

Aeroelasticity effect can also be quite strong. With a very stiff aircraft (like the 26), if the imput is very sudden, only a relatively small stick movement, combined with fast full rudder imput, can start a snap roll.

Will there be airfields with aerobatic box limits painted on the ground?

Also, please don't forget to include sight gauges (wingtip triangles).

It would also be great if we could show a drawing of our aerobatic sequence in the cockpit.

Looking forward to hearing your answer,

Ice
I don't know why it amazes me at how some people worship others like they're God... Man, get a life! Some person comes in here, spouts a little intellectual rubbish and some of you buy into it hook line and sinker...

Anybody that states, the flight models are so realistic, I've actually flown them, isn't going to be wasting their time in here. How many people actually have flight experience with these aircraft? Moreover, how many actually have flight experience with dozens of WWII era aircraft? Of the real pilots that I've met, once they're through school, they disappear because they're flying all the time. Most have little time to waste in these forums or playing this game.

Didn't anybody bother to check this person's obvious statistics? He's only made three posts in as many years. I doubt that anybody that made such passionate statements as the above quoted ones would be able to stay silent for well over three years. Somebody so willing to dazzle us with their experience would obviously have a hard time keeping their thoughts to themselves.

The stall behavior is obviously flawed in this game and lacking. Ask any novice pilot about it and you'll get a resounding now. I too have talked to veteran pilots that have played this game. They all conclude the same thing, this game is nothing like real flight. It's possible to do things that would get you killed in real life.

This story reminds me of how any fool can come in here and state,

"My great great grand pappy flew with the AVG. He said that the P-40..."
"My daddy flew on B-17s and he said..."
"My momma's daddy's uncle's brother was the right hand man of Bader the legless wonder and he said..."

My God are we that gullible to believe any fool that comes in here spouting such rubbish? The person posting this is obviously a poser and has duped many of the desperate naïve bunch into believing what they already want to believe...

DdT_IcemanFred, I'd thank you not to come in here and write such lies, many of the people reading these forums have delicate lives and cannot tell the difference between fact and fantasy. It's not very nice to lead such people astray. Somebody tell me that Stackhouse wasn't the only one to notice the obvious.

DdT_IcemanFred
02-26-2007, 01:29 PM
Gunz

I'm not making a competitive comparison between X-Plane and IL2. They are both pretty cool sims and they are good at what they are designed to do. All I'm saying is that a develloped version of IL2 (BoB) will make a much better aerobatics sim. I don't think X-plane was ever meant to be a combat sim. It probably never will be. But I do have to say that I learned an awfull lot about aerodynamics and flight sims through flying X-plane. It is a fascinating sim.

I learned Aerobatics by flying them and reading about them. If you would like to understand more about principles of flight and about aerobatics, I can greatly recommend two books: 1. Flightwise part 1 and 2 by Chris Carpenter. 2. Better Aerobatics by Allan Cassidy.

Enjoy, Ice

DdT_IcemanFred
02-26-2007, 01:43 PM
Fork-n-Spoon.

First: As I said: I've never flown Spitfires or anything similar. I don't claim to have done so, and I don't know why I would. I have nothing to prove.

Second: The last reason why I'm sending this post is to be worshipped. It is about everything except me.

Third: If you would like to have a mature friendly debate about IL2, any other sim, my (or your) flight experience, or any other interesting aviation related subject I would be more than happy to continue this conversation in a friendly, adult manner. Otherwise, I would kindly like to ask you not to react to my posts, because such agressive behaviour doesn't deserve a reply.

Fourth: relax man, life's too short... :-)

Thank you, Ice.

WWMaxGunz
02-26-2007, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by DdT_IcemanFred:
Gunz

I'm not making a competitive comparison between X-Plane and IL2. They are both pretty cool sims and they are good at what they are designed to do. All I'm saying is that a develloped version of IL2 (BoB) will make a much better aerobatics sim. I don't think X-plane was ever meant to be a combat sim. It probably never will be. But I do have to say that I learned an awfull lot about aerodynamics and flight sims through flying X-plane. It is a fascinating sim.

Please consider that with future hardware the X-Plane flight may be able to include the
rest of what is needed to be a very good combat flight sim. And I mean that! Given that
X-Plane allows models made in 3D with how much else data and returns flight behaviour, I
find that shows promise.
I don't have and never had X-Plane but it has been out in one form or another since CPU's
were much less powerful than now so I question just what version of X-Plane has flight
modeling from untweaked models (shaped as real without needing changes to meet real data)
and if indeed there may be overhead on a 2007 high end PC to fit the extra combat parts?


I learned Aerobatics by flying them and reading about them. If you would like to understand more about principles of flight and about aerobatics, I can greatly recommend two books: 1. Flightwise part 1 and 2 by Chris Carpenter. 2. Better Aerobatics by Allan Cassidy.

Enjoy, Ice

First I will check with my extensive library system. It is well funded to say the least and
very large, serving many universities here as well as the rest of the public. Just the
small local branch has 10 PC's with T1 connect and USB 2.0 right on the front of each!
Any book in the extended system, I can get. I was able to D/L 4.08 at 330 k/sec there!

TX-EcoDragon
02-26-2007, 05:13 PM
The issue with the vertical maneuvers in X-Plane was solved at least five years ago, I think X-Plane 5.0-6.0 sorted that out, though the clouds do a funny jig as you pull through 90 degrees, but it's no showstopper. The Aerobatic fm isn't bad in well done models, but there are many exceptions that have to be made to other aspects of the FM, so the best overall experience I'd say is still found in IL-2, or FS2004/FS9 using the RealAir Spit or SF260 or the freeware LongIslandClassics Christen Eagle (I've modified mine a bit, but the stock fm is quite good for an MSFS aircraft). The MSFS FM still has serious issues, and is much less complex than that of IL-2 so I don't see the FMs getting much better without being totally reworked from the ground up, IL-2 just needs a little reworking. . .and proper equipment, like this SU26.

The use of this sim for racing and aerobatics hasn't been lost on Oleg, I'm sure it won't be a main focus, but hopefully he will continue to work with those of us who have been pushing for it.


While most gamers might not see the merit of it, there is a bigger world out there where people do in fact want a good aerobatic sim to fly, and while Fork-N-spoon might not buy it, some of them actually do fly these planes in the real world and fly this sim, and some might even actually take some time to post here. I've introduced many of my friends to this sim, and they would have otherwise thought MSFS was as good as it gets. I promise you that there would be many more if this sim wasn't perceived as largely a WWII combat game amongst the flying community, and more as a flight simulator that can do more than procedures, a sim that can do the most difficult thing of all, edge of the envelope aerobatics. Once that's done we have a *flight sim* that the market is generally missing, and none are closer than IL-2 could be. That's why topics like this are important to me. As always, you must take what you read in forums with a grain of salt, there are plenty of good posts by first time posters, and loads of garbage posted by forum regulars. . .that's just how it is.

I do think it's funny how people jump on the bandwagon sometimes, but that happens here all the time, and no matter who this guy is, his points seem pretty much correct, I see that much, and don't really see why it's an issue worth pointing out. This is a place for an exchange of ideas, 90% of what's posted might be garbage, but it's an open forum, and there is usually merit in the discussions . . .isn't there?

Anyway. . .
I flew with a virtual formation group (VHVT (http://www.haute-voltige.com/virtualHVteam/index.htm)) that was sponsored by the Haute-Voltige (http://www.haute-voltige.com/) group, which sponsors the real world FAI aerobatics grand prix. What was really cool about this is that they were attempting to fly live competitions at the events, and to show people what sort of thing is actually possible in a good sim. The trouble is that this sort of thing is quite difficult, demands a commitment that many wouldn't make except those seriously passionate about flight, and appeals more to "real" pilots or aspiring "real" pilots, and only if the fidelity of the sim is high enough. I've flown sims for 20 years and am used to making allowances for their departures from realism, but pilots who don't ever fly sims often try one and don't see the connection. . . and much of this is due to the details, and that's why I want to see the small details gone over further. To seriously bring new blood to this sim that isn't simply gamers would be in the best interest of everyone who enjoys this sim. It might demand new and better flight controllers too, but again, that's good for everyone.

DdT_IcemanFred
02-26-2007, 10:44 PM
Eco,

Thank you so much for your very interesting reply. I have the feeling you and I have things to talk about. I especially recognise the reactions of some pilots to PC based sims. It is very similar to how pilots reacted to the introduction of flight sims used as actual flight training devices. In the beginning (I'm talking about the 1930ies now!) they were seen as very limited pure instrument procedure training devices. And that is what they were. So there were two schools of thaught. There were those pilots who accepted the sims' limitations, but used their good points to learn. And then there were those who rejected the idea of a sim altogether because of its' limited realism.

Nowadays, full flight simulators have evolved into full blown multifunctional realistic training devices, used for everything and anything from checklist procedure training, to system understanding, hands on flight control teaching,etc,etc,etc,...
Funnily enough, the flight models on some full flight sims are less realistic than what you can get on modern PC based sims. But it is interesting how strong the effect of a mental cultural change of mindset can have. Although full flight simulators have their limitations what concerns FM's, they are now fully accepted by the pilot community. They are used as training tools, and their (slight) lack of realism is some areas is "integrated and realized" in training. What I'm trying to say is that that is maybe the same way we should look at our PC based sims. They are very realistic, but always only up to a certain point. If you learn to live with this fact, then you can really appreciate the value of a good sim.

I should maybe go and get X-plane's latest version. The last one I've had was version 7. It still had problems with 3D cockpit vision in vertical maneuvering. I always had the feeling it had something to do with how the body axis values were translated into the 3D earth reference frame (Euler method as opposed to Quaternion method). Maybe Austin has resolved a lot of the issues meanwhile. Or maybe it had something to do with the way my system is configured.
I don't know. But as you said, although X-plane is a fantastic, fascinating sim, it's FM is not the best suited to aero's. Maybe later, as the X-plane gets more develloped, it will evolve.

I agree with what you say about the SF260. I have met and spoken to Rob Young in person. He has a very special way of designing flight models. He uses his feel to adjust his models to a great extent. That is quite a unique talent to have. His methods are quite empirical, but extremely effective. I have great respect for him. Flying the SF260, it was the first time I experienced an aerobatic simulation that made me FEEL like I was flying aero's. The sounds, the aircraft's reactions, the way it spins.
But nevertheless, it suffered from a problem many flight models suffer from. They do what they're supposed to do only in a quite restricted envelope. The SF 260 spun beautifully. But it had an opposite reaction to aileron imput (what I mean by that is that out spin aileron virtually stopped the spin, wich is possible in some aircraft, but unlikely to be realistic in the SF260). And snap rolling it at low speed could have some really strange effects.
These problems however, showed more of the limitations of MSFS FM, that the quality of the SF260 (still one of the best models I've ever seen made for MSFS).

Purely aerodynamically (I mean simulation of forces and moments due to the flow) several of the modern sims are getting really impressive nowadays. But my feeling tels me that that is not so much the problem. I have the feeling inertial, gyroscopic and aeroelastic effect now need more focusing on.
Aeroelasticity is extremely complex aspect of aerodynamics. It affects most conventional aircraft when flutter or control reversal start occuring. These are mainly high speed effects. But in aerobatic aircraft the stifness of the airframe has very strong effects on how the aircraft reacts on short sharp imputs. Especially when they are combined with inertial effect.

An example: Compare the CAP10B to the CAP10C. Two airframes that are aerodynamically almost identical. The B however has a wooden wing, whereas the C has a partially carbonfibre reinforces wing. The B requires a higher roll control imput for the same roll rate. This is due to the twisting of the wooden wing creating more control reversal than the carbon wing.
Intertially I think IL2 is already quite advanced, but I can imagine the weight distribution of the Su26's composite airframe should have a strong effect on how it behaves in tumbles and snaps.

The Extra 200 for example is very reactive in pitch. It needs very litlle balanceing of the elevator becaus it's CG is very close to its' aerodynamic neutral point. The elevator requires very little or no lift changes for angle of attack changes. Not elevator position, elevator Cl increase(Lift). Now combine that with it's light and stiff airframe -> and you get an aircraft that requires a surprisingly small elevator imput to start a powerfull snaproll. The interesting thing is that after the initial fast elevator imput, it requires a return to neutral to keep the snap going. This has to do with the centrifugal force of the rotating fuselage creating a angle of attack increasing moment. I'd need a visual representation of what happens to explain it in full, but you get the idea.
To simulate these kind of flight characteristic will require a sim that simulates inertial effects to the full.

IL2 is already amazingly good at this:

Try this: Go fly the I185. Get it up to about 1,6 times the 1G stall speed. Snap the stick back about halfway of full deflection and in the millisecond while you are pulling the stick back apply full left rudder. The aircraft will start snap rolling. Keep the stick back. See how it snaps fairly slowly. This is called burying the snap. Now try the same thing again, but just after the aircraft starts snapping, move the stick back forward to the neutral position making sure you do it AFTER the aircraft has started snapping. Now see the difference between an unloaded and a burried snap! Wow! What's interesting as well is that when you snap a real aircraft, if you release (let go!) of the stick in the snap, the ailerons will move into the snap direction on their own, and the elevator returns to somwhere between halfway aft and neutral. If you counter this effect by keeping the ailerons in the neutral position, it creates a burying effect.

It would be fantastic to see such effects simulated in IL2. (Although... how are you going to tell the computer you've just let go of the stick... hehe).


Eco, you seem somebody fully qualified to continue our debate.

I really hope we'll keep this thread going. If we take it far enough, we could for example come up with a set of requirement reuests we could present to Oleg.

Looking forward to hearing from you,

Ice

WWMaxGunz
02-27-2007, 01:44 AM
Consider that we have been told that IL2 3D models do not have distributed mass while the
upcoming SOW 3D models will. The effects of momentum will be more true in SOW.

Interesting discussion on the snap roll and ways to goof it up. I say it that way because
we have already people that fly half-fast 'tests' and then come crying about gross FM errors.

Tiger27
02-27-2007, 03:01 AM
ubi.com Forums Hop To Forum Categories 1C:Maddox Games Hop To Forums Oleg Maddox's Ready Room Aerobatic FM's

Fork n Spoon, Im wondering why you think your word is better than IcemanFreds I cant see any one here worshiping him like a god and really without giving any evidence that you know anything about flying it suprises me that you bother to post in this topic just to be negative.

joeap
02-27-2007, 03:11 AM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:

Anybody that states, the flight models are so realistic, I've actually flown them, isn't going to be wasting their time in here. How many people actually have flight experience with these aircraft? Moreover, how many actually have flight experience with dozens of WWII era aircraft? Of the real pilots that I've met, once they're through school, they disappear because they're flying all the time. Most have little time to waste in these forums or playing this game.



Uhhh TX-EcoDragon is a real pilot and "wastes" time with this sim. Unless you think he is a liar too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

WWMaxGunz
02-27-2007, 02:14 PM
Just look at the beak on that bird he shows under the "Blondes are for Nancy Boys" caption.
Is that The Joker's little sister, noting the smile?

Really, how could someone with such "good taste" be wrong?

msalama
03-02-2007, 01:34 AM
Hey c'mon guys, stop wasting your time on him. He's just another d**khead "expert" we regrettably see a lot around here...

OK, back on topic -

EcoDracon & Iceman:

Can you please summarize a bit on what you think are the good and the bad points of IL-2's flight modelling, please? I'm extremely interested in this topic & thus am all ears here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

S! guys http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

WWMaxGunz
03-03-2007, 02:51 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

DdT_IcemanFred
03-03-2007, 11:48 AM
What do and do I not like about the IL2 FM?

Hmmm, do you have half a day?
Hehe... No don't wanna be a smartass, but there is a lot that I don't like about it. But for every item I don't like, there are 6 that I absolutely LOVE!

Where shall I start?

First: Beware! Aircraft characteristics can change enormously from type to type. E.g. : Some aircraft won't budge going through their critical Mach. Some will buffet, loose control effectiveness, control reversal and Mach tuck.
All depends on the design of the aircraft. So on some subjects of the flight model, it is very hard to judge weather it is realistic or not without having flown the actual specific aircraft type.
On the other hand, some behaviour, although not exactly equal, is common or similar in all aircraft. E.g. : Stall angle of attack should be lower when getting close to critical Mach on almost all aircraft.

So:

What I do like:

-Realistic Stall, and, up tp a point, spin behaviour.
-Good short period response (reactions to small, short time disturbances)
-And linked to the above, fairly good interial simulation. It still needs some work, but is much better than anything I've seen before.
-Great immersion. Oleg understood that just making the numbers work wasn't going to do it on its' own. He included noise, visual vibration and control reactions that are remarkably like the real thing.
-Good control imput force simulation. Although I am curious how he will simulate aircraft with hydraulicaly assisted controls in future upgrades.
-Some compresibility effects. (Some is better than none, like on most other sims...)
-Very realistic take off and landing behaviour. Seems to agree with my experience flying tail draggers. And about what I would expect from such a huge engine up front. Nevertheless, I think Oleg sliiiightly overdid the sideforce reaction due to rudder imput.

What I don't like:

-Underreaction to power and opposite aileron or even forward elevator application during the spin. Should be a bit more violent on most aircraft. Spin should become flatter.
-Insufficient realism what concerns Hi Mach number flight (compressibility effects). But see note in "what I DO like".
Maybe it would be cool to simulate specific control imput flutter due to hi Mach. Or control reversal. But then you are going into the area of aeroelasticity (complicated stuff!)
Also, maybe it would be interesting to have a better "coffin corner " simulation. The effect that the CAS stall speed should increase somewhat at critical Mach numbers isn't sufficiently simulated.


More soon!

;-) Fred

WWMaxGunz
03-03-2007, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by DdT_IcemanFred:
Some aircraft won't budge going through their critical Mach.

I was told about that by an old friend who just last fall got a lifetime Aviator award,
he was around as pilot and engineer since the 40's.

Anyway he told me about watching a split-tail Beech augur in at Wilmington Airport years ago.
He explained that the plane is so slick you don't even notice how fast you're accelerating
until it's too late if you don't keep an eye on the guages. By the time that guy noticed,
it was too late and there was nothing he could do is what Lou told me. So I figure that is
an example of just what you wrote.

msalama
03-04-2007, 08:12 AM
Cheers Fred m8 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

slipBall
03-04-2007, 09:03 AM
Interesting thread...I was wondering if you viewed the bonus DVD that came with 46...The Fighting Wood******s..Crazy Skies...if a picture is worth a thousand words, then you may have a question or two answered by watching it...those boys are good!

DdT_IcemanFred
03-04-2007, 10:30 AM
Well,...

Actually, the V-tailed Bonanza, if that is the aircraft you are talking about, will never go anywhere near its' critical Mach number even if you point it straight donw and add full power.
It seems it might have been suffering different problems that I will discuss later... Compressibility is a problem that starts occuring at around Mach 0.60 for subsonically designed aircraft and around Mach 0.75-0.80 for transsonic aircraft. The one I fly (Falcon2000EX Easy, the ultimate bizjet, in my (humble)opinion hehe ;-)) has an Mmo of Mach 0.862. But the only reason why it is limited to that Mach no. is because at that speed the secondary yaw imput effect reverses (e.g. right rudder imput results in left roll). Test pilots have flown this aircraft to Mach 1.04 (Yes, that's no typo), so supersonically, without too much trouble. And I think most transonically designed aircraft can go supersonic without too much drama. You see, once you passed the transonic regime safely, the worse is behind you. Most of the trouble occurs because the air is going from super- to subsonic. Because air accelerates as it follows the curves of the aircraft, it can reach supersonic speed over some parts of the aircraft, although IT is flying subsonically. They call this flight regime the transonic one. But once this airflow slows back down at a later point of, let's say, the wing, a shockwave will form. This shockwave will often cause the boundary layer to become turbulent, or even detach. This can cause loss of control effectiveness, or stiffening of the controls,depending on how they are balanced, and wether they are hydraulically actuated or not and how stiff the sturcture they are attach ed to is.
What probably happened to the Beech might be that the aircraft accelerated quickly to a speed where the controls became too heavy to pull out of the dive. Or the pilot could not pull enough G's to recover from the dive without exceeding the aircraft's G limit. Another thing that could have happened is that a high speed stall occured. An aircraft can be stalled at any subsonic speed, as long as the angle of attack is high enough. Less experienced pilots might try too hard pulling out of a dive, stall the aircraft at high G loading, not realize that the resulting decrease in G force is a result of him pulling too much instead of not enough, and pull the aircraft even deeper into the stall. So that's why I always follow my golden rule: If making and imput results in the opposite effect of what you expect, you are either:

1.going way too fast

->control reversal due to the wing or fuselage bending
->premature stall due to compressibility effect
->maybe even Mach tuck(pitch down due to change in center of pressure due to supersonic area forming on the wing)

OR

2. Pulling way too hard

->assymetric stall(undemanded roll),
->pitch down rate increaseing due to lift loss
->possibly pitch UP rate increaseing due to post- stall longitudinal static instability, a problem T-tailed aircraft pilots will tell you
about

Either way, if it happens to you:

-Power idle (Close throtlle)
-Push forward (unstall)
-Stop roll RATE! with rudder imput
-Neutralise everything, roll wings level and pull out

If that doesn't work:

You're either in a spin or you are in compressibility speed range.



If you are spinning:

-Power off
-Ailerons Neutral (important!)
-Rudder FULL opposite (to the YAW movement, not the roll movement!)
-Elevator forward (or back, in case of an inverted spin) through neutral

(IN THAT ORDER!)

As soon as spin stops:

-NEUTRALIZE all controls (important!)
-Roll wings level
-Pull out geeeently (Don't enter the spin again by pulling out too hard)

Remember that the further you let your spin accelerate, the less chance you have to recover from it.

If you are in compressibility:

-Power idle
-Rudder neutral (or opposite, or into, roll rate, as required to stop roll rate)
-Ailerons neutral

As soon as uncommanded roll stops

-Roll wings level
-Geeeeeently pull out (compressibility effects tend to get worse as angle of attack increases...)

Well, there you go, I hoped you liked my litlle survival guide.

More to come, keep the questions comming!

Ice

WWMaxGunz
03-04-2007, 03:56 PM
Yah, good stuff!

I get more of a feeling like instead of a few rules there's a box of different factors and
boundaries where different factors play in combinations depending on flight conditions, you
have to watch out for a couple extra 'walls' to not run into depending on plane design.

Well, when I read about the yaw reversal, it did that to my 'picture'. Is that because
when the plane yaws the outside wing has less sweep angle with relation to flight path?

I've been told about aileron buzz shaking the yoke in jets with hydraulics, those were
rated to about .78 mach. That Falcon sounds wicked!

DdT_IcemanFred
03-04-2007, 05:02 PM
Yes,

High speed yaw reversal can happen because e.g. the right wing gets less sweep during a left rudder input, causing the shock wave to become stronger and thus decreasing the lift on that wing. It all depends on wether this effect is stronger than the dihedral efect or not.
Or, and this could occur if you are dealing with a really flexible fuselage, it might occur if the fuselage bends enough under load to reverse the rudders' input effect. Or it could happen if the vertical stab is producing enough roll moment to counter dihedral (the vertical stab can produce a roll moment because it is mounted above the center of gravity.

Aileron flutter: it can have an effect on hydraulically powered controls, but that is usually because the PCU's (power control units or servo's) have a badly designed flutter protection. If direct aerodynamic control feedback (I mean not caused by the aircrafts' feel systems) occurs, that is usually a sign that the aerodynamic forces have become greater than the hydraulic forces and so they are pushing the input rods (connected to the pilot's controls) back against the hydraulic pistons force... Wooow, you are talking about a LOT of force now. In the Falcon, as far as I have understood, there are anti flutter springs in the PCUs, but they really only do anything in case of total hydraulic failure. The Falcons controls are mass balanced, but not aerodynamically balanced, so flutter is a possibility. BUT, and I know because I've flown without hydraulics in the sim..., they are SOOOO heavy that it is basically impossible to fly the aircraft anywhere near the kind of speeds where flutter would occur (ok, I admit, that's a bit of a bold statement, since maybe flutter might occur earlier with the loss of Hydraulic power).
With hydraulic power on however... Oh man! the controls of the Falcon are ... heaven! The best I've ever felt on any commercial aircraft. But enough bragging about my new toy.
And also, flutter in the roll axis is not necceserally caused by the ailerons. It could be that the natural frequency of the flexing of the wing is in phase with the tortional frequency, causing it to increase the angle of attack locally as the wing moves down. This could have a damping effect, but it might as well have an undamped effect. In the latter case, the wing could shake itself appart after a short sharp aileron input or a sharp gust, without the ailerons fluttering as such. I imagine this could happen to an open class glider, or maybe an A330 (in direct law)?

Ooops getting late now, gotta sleep...

BTW, do you remember what jet that was in (the aileron buzz)?

WWMaxGunz
03-05-2007, 06:38 AM
I was part of a team making systems training carrels for FSI. My job included attending two
of the courses while simultaneously writing and filling in special database software for
the complex filming and a presentation aspects. The term aileron buzz at over .78 mach first
came up in G-III school (1987) but they were clear that at "around" that mach pretty much
all the commercial jets hit it. The explanation was attributed exactly to shock waves on
the control surfaces. At Lear 35 school the same basic information was presented. I don't
think it was anything loose, Ray Croc's personal pilot was in the G-III class as were a
couple of AF Majors that drove congressmen around.

I "flew" the G-III boxes first, then the Lear 35 and then only "for fun" got time on one
Westwind box close to where we were based, IIRC Wilmington DE. Didn't do anything fantastic
you understand, just up and around then tng's till time was up and of course in the Gulf
and Lear boxes there is this sadist behind you who is out to make sure you don't land, LOL!

One big impression that hit both the boss and I was the Lear. After the G-III with full
hydraulics, less than a month later we are in the Lear 35 box and that plane has no boost!
I'm sure it makes a big difference at high speed but OMG does it feel light at less speed!
We flew out in an Aztec, 11 1/2 hours each way to Witchita and I swear the Lear box felt
lighter, more responsive and so did the boss (his plane with light touch controls). We
did ask the trainer if this was how it is and he said yes. If you ever get a chance at
the real thing >after< checking maint records. I understand that Lears are notorious for
not being maintained! Cheapest jet and what sometimes comes with it, might be 3-4 mil
outfitted new back then but in 88 one could be had in unspecified condition for well
under 1/2 mil as we had offers to buy which the boss instantly refused. Get in one that
is in good shape though, it's like a small sports car handling compared to the Gulf being
a Caddie. Bossman just had to use up our box time doing the loss of an engine during
takeoff over and over till he could **** it, like a spoiled rich kid. I heard him scream
the first time but didn't hang around as I had work to do.

Codex1971
03-05-2007, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
Of the real pilots that I've met, once they're through school, they disappear because they're flying all the time. Most have little time to waste in these forums or playing this game.

Didn't anybody bother to check this person's obvious statistics? He's only made three posts in as many years....

That makes him a "real" pilot by your own definition http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

DdT_IcemanFred
03-05-2007, 08:02 AM
Haha! Brilliant!

Nice to hear. Well, the first thing my instructor said before we got in the sim is: This aircraft thinks it's a Lear35... Hehe. I know that the Lear 35 was one of the best performing commercial jets ever.
And from what I've heard people were very impressed with it's flight controls as well.

But this is what a friend of mine told me once about his first flight on a Falcon (please don't missunderstand, I'm not trying to brag here. Just very impressed with the Falcon's controls) : I quote: "I had flown the Lear 35 before, so I thought nothing could possibly be lighter to fly,... then I moved up into Falcon territory... Wooow! A whole different ballgame!"
But in climb performance the Lear beats well... anything short of a fighter...
I heard the Gulf is a lot less interesting to fly. Yes, the newer models have great performance and fancy electronics, but flight control wise,... a bit of a truck.

About aileron buzz: I don't agree with the Mach .78 thing. The Falcon doesn't suffer any of it and regularly cruises at Mach .86. Neihter does the Hawker 800 or the Beech 400XP (I've flown that one too at it's Mach .785Mmo, but then the 400 didn't have any ailerons).

We do most of our training at FSI as well. I was in FSI Dallas Fort Worth. Very good center. Best instruction I've had from FSI untill now.

M_Gunz
03-06-2007, 04:19 AM
Could the difference be as simple as newer designs? The .78 mach is the fastest you are
supposed to fly those planes like G-III so maybe the buzz hits at higher mach but not a
whole lot. That's why I was so impressed with what you say about the Falcon.

I had no idea the reputation of the Lear! It is just a plane we were contracted to make
training apps for. It does feel great is all I could say yet always knowing the only
connection between stick and surfaces... I think to the elevators it is a cable, why it
is so direct and no waiting for fluid to pump. How is this in the Falcon? Perhaps high
flowrate capable hydraulics? Considering what-all ain't in that Lear there should be a
higher T/W!

M_Gunz
03-08-2007, 12:19 AM
Iceman, how about views on the FM more within the envelopes of these WWII fighters,
BCM's and ACM's? These would be of much more use to us!

I've seen many complaints about so much that I have identified as gamer-pilot error
especially since 4.0 and the need to pay attention to slip for example. But when I
am coming over or under whatever, I don't always know what to look out for in context
of what is real and what is simism. It's often quite tricky and lack of good answers
only leaves holes for endless circular FM arguments that knowing pilots easily avoid.
Having such answers could improve things for many of us.

msalama
03-08-2007, 05:54 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

+1

So please continue guys! Still all ears here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

DdT_IcemanFred
03-09-2007, 04:31 AM
Higuys,

There's something that's very important to remember:

-Judging of a flightmodel can effectively be devided in three questions:

1. Is it conforming to the laws of physics and aerodynamics, aeroelasticity or inertia in particular. In other words: Is the model behaving according to characteristics that are common to all aircraft. e.g. The increase in stall speed relative to the 1G stallspeed, increases with the square root of the number of G's you are pulling. So an(y!) aircraft that is pullling 4G's will suffer a doubling of it's 1G stall speed. This is inevitable and a fixed physical law, no matter wether you are flying a piper cub, spaceship one, or an F16.
There are a whole bunch more similar cases. Going into all of these would probably take me a day.
I would say that apart from a few details that are more apparent in aerobatic aircraft, IL2's FM is really quite accurate. It obeys most of the most visible physical laws.

2. Is it conforming to the stability and control and performance characteristics of the particular aircraft that's modelled.
e.g. The amount of Lift Coefficient a P51's wing can produce is completely different to the amount of LC a Spit can produce.

3. The way the aircraft "feels" to you as a human pilot. You could call it the man-machine interface. e.g. a Saitek X52 feels a lot lighter than a HOTAS Cougar. This effect can drastically change your opinion about how a FM or a particular aircraft in a FM feels to you. Another example would be the sound and image vibration that is simulated during the stall.

People tend to confuse these three elements. In the beginning of this thread I already recommended two brilliant, very easy to read books that can help you understand the principles of aircraft flight. I strongly recommend anyone who would like to analyze FM's to read these two books.

So, to summarize: What I CAN do is tell you if the FM and the aircraft in IL2 react in the way aircraft react in reality with regards to the common physical laws they obide to.
What I CAN NOT do is tell you if a Spitfire or Mustang really climbs that fast or slow in reality. Well, I don't know, because first I've never flown the aircraft in reality. Second, I would have to testfly the aircraft in reality and measure their performance, and then compare that to what you get in the sim in order to tell you the complete truth. To some extent, you can go by what the history books tell you, but some of them are more scientific than others. So you can imagine that creating an FM is always a mix of a bit of guesswork and science.

Hope this sort of answered your questions...

Keep em comming, Ice

M_Gunz
03-09-2007, 06:56 AM
I've seen gold before and this is it! It is something that has to be shown time to time for
the new crops of players, IMO. These things do get written time to time but NOT OFTEN ENOUGH
as evidenced by the majority of claims I see posted. If even 1 out of 5 newbs pick up on
what Iceman posted so well above (why I accept his bonafides, his ease of text betrays a
solid understanding) then it bodes better for the future of the hobby and maybe a few more
will take it to the real and become licensed pilots.

Iceman, can I have permission to copy this to my squad's forum?

Without me checking (lazy me) have you done any such as article for SimHQ?
Do you even know of SimHQ? I don't get there often enough, it's not like the ZOO here.

I can't thank you or the others that have educated people like me all these years.

greypeace
03-10-2007, 07:12 AM
Carefull there Max ,you are falling in the adoring basket .....
with me ...
It is so interesting that I had to shut up and listen (read only)
The stuff talked about is for real pilots and specialists.
I am only an ex beginner that stayed so( I flew and stopped early..A long time ago)
My experience in spin(s) is ONE by my instructor,
in a Piper Cherokee , but,
I remember floating and floating for ages on my first solo landing.
This is why I stil query the ground effect on IL2 ,It seems to be more
realistic on Xplane(may be formula linear-log action of groung effect ?) .For the rest I
leave it to the real specialists ...
Ask Austin Meyer or Oleg
Finally ,may be one could ask our Spoon (without "stearing").
........
The "persecution" rest. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

M_Gunz
03-10-2007, 08:21 AM
He is telling us in this, places where the sim and the real align and do not along with some
evaluation of the importances. He has pointed out is a general way places where players may
be fooled by control interface about flight model, the two are connected but not the same.

So hell yeah I appreciate whatever he wants to give! And I say my thanks.

FA_Retro-Burn
03-10-2007, 09:00 AM
Has anyone made a stunt map? I don't know if there's objects to build such a map. Any thoughts?

DdT_IcemanFred
03-11-2007, 10:50 AM
Gunz,

Sure, you can publish what I've written, but please be so kind as to not change anything and to always mention my name.
I do know simHQ, and no, I haven't written anything in there, but feel free to copy these posts and publish them there if you like.

greetz, Ice

Viper2005_
03-11-2007, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by DdT_IcemanFred:
Higuys,

There's something that's very important to remember:

-Judging of a flightmodel can effectively be devided in three questions:

1. Is it conforming to the laws of physics and aerodynamics, aeroelasticity or inertia in particular. In other words: Is the model behaving according to characteristics that are common to all aircraft. e.g. The increase in stall speed relative to the 1G stallspeed, increases with the square root of the number of G's you are pulling. So an(y!) aircraft that is pullling 4G's will suffer a doubling of it's 1G stall speed. This is inevitable and a fixed physical law, no matter wether you are flying a piper cub, spaceship one, or an F16.

This works in general terms as a rule of thumb. It isn't really true however.

1) Reynolds number effects get in the way.
At 4 g you're flying about twice as fast, and therefore you've got roughly double the Reynolds number. This can have a dramatic effect upon stall behaviour.

2) Mach number effects get in the way.
Once compressibility starts to bite, things can change. And when you go supersonic, you're potentially in a very different world.

So it's a good general trend, and works very well at GA speeds, but YMMV quite considerably if you try to apply it to Spaceship 1 or an F-16...


Originally posted by DdT_IcemanFred:
There are a whole bunch more similar cases. Going into all of these would probably take me a day.
I would say that apart from a few details that are more apparent in aerobatic aircraft, IL2's FM is really quite accurate. It obeys most of the most visible physical laws.

2. Is it conforming to the stability and control and performance characteristics of the particular aircraft that's modelled. Performance in flightsims is easy enough to get about right. Stability and control in flightsims = There Be Dragons!

Originally posted by DdT_IcemanFred:e.g. The amount of Lift Coefficient a P51's wing can produce is completely different to the amount of LC a Spit can produce.

3. The way the aircraft "feels" to you as a human pilot. You could call it the man-machine interface. e.g. a Saitek X52 feels a lot lighter than a HOTAS Cougar. This effect can drastically change your opinion about how a FM or a particular aircraft in a FM feels to you. Another example would be the sound and image vibration that is simulated during the stall.

People tend to confuse these three elements. In the beginning of this thread I already recommended two brilliant, very easy to read books that can help you understand the principles of aircraft flight. I strongly recommend anyone who would like to analyze FM's to read these two books.

The big problem is that IRL if I go up in your average WWII aeroplane, I'll be dealing with a good old fashioned direct manual control system, much like that fitted to the GA puddle-jumpers & gliders I fly in the summer.

That means that the "feel" is the result of "stick fixed" and "stick free" behaviour. Those of us without force feedback sticks end up flying without the "stick free" aspect of that "feel".

The game is based upon a control model. The assumptions of this model have a powerful impact upon our experience of flying the aeroplanes in the sim.

AFAIK, the sim uses a model that works like this:

If you set all the sliders to 100, and then haul back on your stick, the sim asks your virtual pilot to apply full stick deflection, or 25 kgf, whichever is less.

If you apply half deflection to your stick, the sim seems to ask your virtual pilot to apply half deflection or 25 kgf, whichever happens first.

If you apply no deflection to your stick, the sim seems to ask your virtual pilot to centre his stick, applying a force of 25 kg to do so.

This is obviously rather different from the way in which most pilots fly their aeroplanes. It basically kills any stick-free stability that your aeroplane might have, and of course removes many subtle aspects of control feedback. IMO the result is that our WWII aeroplanes behave in a manner more akin to 1950s jets with their hydraulic control actuators and limited feel.


Originally posted by DdT_IcemanFred:
So, to summarize: What I CAN do is tell you if the FM and the aircraft in IL2 react in the way aircraft react in reality with regards to the common physical laws they obide to.
What I CAN NOT do is tell you if a Spitfire or Mustang really climbs that fast or slow in reality. Well, I don't know, because first I've never flown the aircraft in reality. Second, I would have to testfly the aircraft in reality and measure their performance, and then compare that to what you get in the sim in order to tell you the complete truth. To some extent, you can go by what the history books tell you, but some of them are more scientific than others. So you can imagine that creating an FM is always a mix of a bit of guesswork and science.

Hope this sort of answered your questions...

Keep em comming, Ice

Personally I think that it's much easier to get the speed/ROC type stats right than to get the feel right, because feel is a very complex thing, and to a certain extent intangible, especially in the context of our individual control rigs. A Cougar is very very different from an X-52, as you point out.

M_Gunz
03-12-2007, 02:37 AM
Viper the stick interface is strength based not strength limited.
Trim would not work as it does otherwise.

If I am going slow and pull halfway back on joystick will that put the elevator at 1/2
deflection is a maybe only. I can't hold the elevator in one spot that way. Try a climb
at slow and bring the nose up slowly, looking for maintainable low speeds while watching
the stick in the 3D cockpit. I can be holding my joystick relatively steady and yet watch
the 3D stick wobble virtual inches in what I assume is a dynamic of buffet changing back
force vs constant strength applied. I understand that with properly configured FFB I would
feel that where without I can at least see that in cockpit view.

Best I can tell, joystick controls the pilot arm and only indirectly the control surfaces.
Without FFB, my pilot only knows how hard he forces the stick away from trim.
It is very like flying where you pull a form of idealized spring attached to the stick.
You cannot hold the controls steady in a changing backforce situation except by moving
your joystick, FFB or not.

And yet all told this is the best human-hardware-PC-flightsim interface I know of after
counting the unrealities of the older position-based methods I have known. It just takes
awareness to not get caught wondering in some situations.

DdT_IcemanFred
03-12-2007, 07:06 AM
Viper,

Thank you so much for this very interesting reply.
You seem to know what you are talking about.
You are absolutely right about the Reynolds and Mach number effects comming into play when flying at high Mach numbers or low density situtations. I do realise these effects. I was however only making a point, so I didn't want to go that deeply into it.
Remember that Reynolds number effects are logarithmic and non linear. I know, form experience that their effect is limited, unless you make several order jumps (very small or large scale aircraft, or very high or low Mach/Density values.
But, nevertheless, well remarked, thanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I was talking about a 1 G stall speed increase for a fixed set of starting conditions. e.g. An F4 stalls at Mach 0.5, EAS is 150knots, at 50000ft DA. Well, the amount this stall speed will increase when pulling, let's say 4 G's is x 2. So it will be 300knots.
If you then take a Spitfire stalling at 1G at 70knots EAS again at 50000ft DA, then it will need the same speed multiplication, so it will need 140 knots at 4G.
So, yes the 1G stall speed will change with weight and configuration, Mach nr. and to some extent density (Re) (Reynolds number effects are existent, but not that huge with aircraft of this scale), but the amount you need to multiply it with in order to pull a certain amount of G will be the same, no matter what you fly.

Compressibility is a whole different story. As I experienced in reality again.
On the Beech 400 we comfortably and regularly flew at 160 knots in the clean configuration, with the stick shaker not comming on untill oh, let's say about 110 knots. One day I tried that at 39000feet on an ISA + 15 day... Stick shaker came on at an astounding... 160KIAS!!! A really serious increase! If frightend the s*&!it out of me. Quite unexpected. When I later looked at the buffet limit graphs, it started to make sense to me again. We were also unrealisingly trying to climb above it's operational ceiling for these conditions.

But when I talked about it with a Raytheon aerodynamicist, he told me that most of that increase can be attributed to the fact that I was pretty close to the coffin corner, and so the stall onset came on at a much lower angle of attack due to a shockwave forming at the leading edge at relatively high angles of attack, this then stalling the wing prematurely (Note!! this is not the same as a high speed shock stall, wich can occur at very low angles of attack, but due to a similar reason (shock wave forming due to aircraft free stream speed, not due to local flow acceleration). The stick shaker computer takes this effect into account and corrects it's threshold values with altitude and Mach.
So there you go, I learned about what you are talking about the hard way. Hehehe.

Also, because air actually accellerates and decreases it's pressure in a divergent duct at supersonic speeds, believe it or not, aircraft don't stall when flying supersonically, because there is no unfavourable pressure gradient detaching the boundary layer in this situation... So because there is no stall, there is no stall speed to speak of.

Transonically, as I explained above, is a different story. There it is the tranition from supersonic air to subsonic due to local flow changes that causes a very sudden unfavourable pressure gradient, causing the boundary layer to "run out of steam" and detach.

What do you mean by : there be Dragons?

About the stick free/ stick fixed stability. Please gimme a bit more time to think about that one. My hands are getting more tired from typing than from pulling on the stick right now, hehe.

More soon, stay tuned!

Viper2005_
03-12-2007, 09:17 AM
M_Gunz, I will test this, but I think that most of the "wobble" you're seeing is noise in your PC control system.

Note that if the control system was merely force based then takeoff would be a nightmare because with small breakout and frictional forces in the control system (one hopes!) the slightest touch on the stick would result in full control deflection...

Last time I checked this on the ground, partial deflection of my R/L stick resulted in only partial deflection of the virtual stick.

Of course, since Oleg is very clever there may be some kind of fudge going on to give us some stick free effects (though I doubt it, since the phugoid doesn't appear to be particularly well damped R/L stick free, implying a lack of virtual stick free stability).

DdT_IcemanFred,

Usually the whole Reynolds number thing isn't much of an issue with "real" aircraft, but it can bite under certain circumstances (tipstall in aircraft with short tip chords springs to mind). Small aircraft such as UAVs however can do quite dramatically different things over the reynolds number range. Thankfully things are worst from an aerodynamic point of view at light weights, and so you can generally "brute force" your way out of the problem with excess thrust (though of course it is generally sensible to placard the nasty bits of the envelope). Needless to say, the resulting drag polars can sometimes be rather strangely shaped!

Supersonic stalls are certainly possible. The rules are different though:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/design/waverider/figures/fig08.jpg

By the time CL starts to fall off, CD is so high that it doesn't really matter much anymore. The chances are that your vehicle is broken unless you're in very low density flow under carefully controlled conditions (eg space shuttle re-entry).

Of course, the graph posted above simply assumes pure supersonic/hypersonic Newtonian flow. IRL you'll get pockets of subsonic flow even at Mach numbers high enough to make your eyes water, and things can get complicated. Until the flow density gets very low (and/or the Mach number very high), the zero slip assumption still sort of holds together, so you've got a subsonic boundary layer, apart from anything else. Suffice it to say that things can get quite impressively nasty rather quickly (type IV shock-shock interactions for example can actually burn holes in your vehicle), and partly as a result of this sort of thing, most high Mach number vehicles have flight envelopes which are defined by variables other than the stall. But the stall is still there, even if you aren't likely to experience it as a pilot...

As for stability & control, There Be Dragons because:

Firstly it's a very complicated subject at the best of times...

Secondly it's closely related to aircraft handling which is rather subjective...

Thirdly we're testing using very non-standard control inceptors, such that your experience and my experience are unlikely to be the same even if all other things were equal!

Fourthly we don't even really know how Oleg's model works, which muddies the waters further.

And Finally, there were and are good aircraft and bad aircraft, meaning that even if we disregard all of the above, we'd still have cause for argument, because some people would base their assumptions on good examples, some would base their assumptions upon bad examples, and some would base their assumptions on their best guess at an average. There are a lot of worms in this can!

DdT_IcemanFred
03-12-2007, 04:39 PM
Viper

Fascinating stuff.
I obviously don't know aero's up to your level.
The there be Dragons thing: I didn't understand the expression. English not my native language.
Sorry if I'm talking BS about aero's from time to time. I go by what I've learnt.
BTW. Could you explain supersonic stall in a litlle more detail pls. And not tooo techy language. Thanks.
And indeed, if you get aircraft like delta's, I can imagine their chord gets small enough for them to locally behave like smaller scale aircraft. Hmmmm, interesting, didn't think about that one. Thanks! tell me more! pls!!

Of course stability and control is a complex subject. But to some extent a quantifiable one nevertheless. Stability derivatives can be measured, even with pretty simple methods.
I see what you mean about the inceptors. But as long as we keep input force (I mean real inceptor input force, not the simulated stick force that Oleg simulates) out of the equasion,
we could compare control stick deflection (and by calculating the input force out of it, or by making an infinitly strong pilot, the control deflection), by the aircrafts' outputs. Although pilot opinion is not quantifiable, aircraft reaction is.

And I don't think Gunz was saying that Oleg's model is merely a force based one. If it programmes such that an inceptor input results in a simulated stick deflecyion (or LESS, depending how strong the control surface hinge moment is) there will be no full deflection at the slightest touch, because the FM will never simulate more than the inceptor's input signal demands.
I guess it would be impossible to simulate stick free situations unless you specifically tell the FM that you are now releasing the stick...
Woblle indeed sounds like noise in your controller. But it could be FM... Wouldn't be the first time Oleg surprises us. He could have simulated some buffet my quickly altering feedback forces upon reaching buffet limits... could be,... maybe.
I guess much of this FM will stay a mistery to us mere mortals http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)


Keep em comming Viper and Gunz. Very interesting stuff!

Viper2005_
03-12-2007, 07:40 PM
"There Be Dragons" is the sort of thing they used to write on medieval maps when the cartographers didn't know what was really there.
http://www.maphist.nl/extra/herebedragons.html

As for the supersonic stall, the graph presented above was simple Newtonian flow, so it's all trigonometry.

CL = [2(sin)²α](cos)α

As such, there comes a point as you increase alpha beyond which CL starts to decrease. This isn't related particularly to a breakdown of the flow. It's just how the forces end up resolving.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/design/waverider/theory.shtml

Sadly, Newtonian flow is the supersonic equivalent of saying in subsonic flow that air moves faster over the top of a wing because it has further to go. It isn't really true, but it's a working model. The real world however is very complicated because as soon as you reach transonic Mach numbers you've generally got a mixture of supersonic and subsonic flows to consider, and everything is complicated, because most real aerospace vehicles are quite complicated shapes which means that there are lots of shock waves, and many of them interact with each other.

Shock-Shock interactions are themselves sufficiently complex to merit many research papers, lots of which essentially say the following, albeit in technical language:

1) Here Be Dragons!

2) The type IV shock-shock (and likewise the equivalent shock-boundary) interaction really does breathe fire. Well actually a supersonic jet, but the results look about the same if said jet happens to impinge upon your structure (see X-15 flight 188 for a classic example - http://cobweb.ecn.purdue.edu/~aae519/columbialoss/x-15-...k-heating-damage.htm (http://cobweb.ecn.purdue.edu/%7Eaae519/columbialoss/x-15-shock-shock-heating-damage.htm) ).

3) Therefore design your vehicle to avoid type IV interactions like the plague, and if you can't, do your best not to make them angry!

It's past my bedtime, so maybe I'll type more tomorrow...

M_Gunz
03-13-2007, 05:22 AM
My stick had no spikes until I got into maximum climb for my power then, or it was start of
buffets.

Try pulling into a flat turn with half back joystick and cut power while holding the joystick
the same back but keeping somewhat level. Set view one click down from straight forward and
watch the virtual stick or make a track and watch on playback.

Were you around Viper, when Oleg had explained stick interface is strength based back in 2002?
I ran tests then and found a few of the implications. Took me a while and when I was done I
then applied that to position based systems I knew (I think that AH has a hybrid just going
from reading from an AH forum conversation with that developer. I don't play AH so I don't
say I know it.) and I come up with IL2 system to be more true to life and capable of natural
feel though as I point out, I can't easily hold against varying backforces. I haven't checked
since 4.02 or so though.

Viper2005_
03-13-2007, 11:01 AM
Nope, I wasn't around back then.

I use a Cougar FSSB R2 which uses force transducers, so a force based model suits my control system very well. I am now a firm believer in force, rather than displacement based control inceptors, though I have yet to try them in the air...

M_Gunz
03-13-2007, 09:38 PM
Another part it's been so long I forgot the words (sorry but I don't think in words) is what
happens and how it works when you are going fast enough the pilot cannot make full deflection.
At the full 50 lbs pull he maybe can only make 80% deflection. If your stick sliders are at
all 100's then halfway back gets you 40% deflection. If we had a had a strength limited
position-based interface then halfway back would give us 50% deflection, 80% back would give
us 80% and any farther back would make no change at all. On the same hand if you are going
slow enough that less than full atrength will get full deflection (strength based) then you
will be able to keep pulling the joystick and make no change at all which is realistic from
a strength POV but not a "my joystick is the control stick" view.
So it becomes; does the system have positional control when forces are at or below maximum pilot
strength allowed that switches to strength scaled positional control when forces are higher or
not? Follow that by asking what happens as your speed crosses that line and keeps changing?

As the plane slows down the same pull force gets more control deflection but since the plane
is slowing down, within a certain design speed range (just cutting out extremes here) there
is less force created per degree of deflection resulting in *Roughly* the same amount of say
pitch or roll force generated by the same pull over that operating speed range.

You can't get that with a position based interface or a hybrid interface as I posited above.
What can I say? It's been years since I worked through it all including the non-FFB 'funnies'
(compared to real where I could feel as well as move the column... I understand that trim on
a good FFB, you know how fast to ease off on the stick without relying on watching the nose!)
and yes it's still the best way. Hehehe, Viper, I didn't go to aero school but I did spend a
couple decade writing code and treating interfaces of all kinds as art forms. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Now if I can only find an affordable FFB stick with a decent set of hats and buttons that
can marry up to an equally good throttle quadrant -- I think that the affordable part is the
real sticker there..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

DdT_IcemanFred
03-14-2007, 08:11 AM
Gunz,

Here's what I think happens:

The system is strength based , but scaled.
By that I mean: how much the virtual stick, and thus the control surface deflects relative to your device input (e.g. joystick deflection) depends on two things.

First: the FM will never let the virtual stick (VS)'s virtual force be more than the procentual equivalent deflection of your input device (ID). So that is a limiter.

Second: In order to do that, the FM will scale it's stength computation to your input devices maximum travel. So, if full strength (full ID deflection) can only apply 80 percent VS deflection (because it scales the inputs) , half ID deflection will indeed result in 40 percent VS deflection, not 50 percent deflection... And because 100 percent ID deflection (e.g. full back)equates 80 percent VS deflection, you could NOT move the ID any further back.

However, when slowing down, it now scales full ID deflection to full VS strength requirement, wich might be lower than the maximum your virtual pilot can deliver, but so what, at that point we'll be at maximum VS deflection anyway. So, although the system is still strenght based, full VS deflection now equates to a lower strength.
But, the ID input is still scaled to the VS strength requirement.

Am I just repeating what you just said, or is there a difference?

greetz, Ice

M_Gunz
03-14-2007, 01:40 PM
There is a difference and I'll have to give it a test to see for sure as most of the time
these things are subtle while other times as in reality, thinking you are doing one thing
while another is the case can bite you hard!

It's simple enough... no really not so simple. Well maybe simple, help me out here.

While making a track so observations don't get in the way of the flying:
I figure run slow enough that pilot strength should be able to pin the stick, at good alt and
enter a wide low-G turn just descending fast enough to keep speed steady. And then keep the
stick coming back while keeping speed steady or slowing down even and then fire shots when
the joystick is fully back and pitch sliders all at 100. P-51 is maybe the best choice for
the job or maybe Spit V but not a stiff pull model, no 109's for this. Then I watch the
track with view on cockpit stick and if it stops moving back before the gun shots then I
know and if it doesn't I try slower if possible to double check the test itself. It only
has to 'bottom out' once.

I assume that IRL somewhere above 1G stall the test plane stick would be pinned back all
the way given a 50 lb pull.

To me, your joystick position HAS no relevance to actual control stick position just due
to trim alone. I can as in reality move the 3D control stick purely through trim while
my joystick stays at center which interprets to me as the zero pilot force position. If
the position of my joystick relates then scaling and translation of 'center' would also
have to change in 4 directions with all changes in trim. But --- it is possible, these
are computer models and not physical!

M_Gunz
03-14-2007, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by DdT_IcemanFred:
Am I just repeating what you just said, or is there a difference?

greetz, Ice

Difference is I believe you are right!

I can do the full back at low speed, it stalls and spins every plane I tried. I went
through anyway but can't really tell. That was a bad way of trying to find out.

It doesn't do some of what it used to back when I had checked these things first and last.
I'm pretty sure stick spikes were not an issue as I had Filter cranked about halfway then.

I don't notice any stick wobble even while in buffets. I do have pitch sliders beginning
at ... well the far right is 100 and it's a -6 per step leftwards progression.

I kept the stick near center and used trim to keep nosing up. I can't help but feel that
there's something I did different before but WTH, pilot CAN hold the stick in place at
least to strength as far as I can tell.

NonWonderDog
03-15-2007, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
If the position of my joystick relates then scaling and translation of 'center' would also
have to change in 4 directions with all changes in trim. But --- it is possible, these
are computer models and not physical!
In some planes in the sim, the stick does move as you trim. I've forgotten which; I think a couple of the 109s do it.

In every other plane it's a visual bug, but it hasn't been important or noticeable enough to get fixed. I'd actually forgotten until now, and I was one of the ones raising a ruckus about it a while back!

Needless to say, the visual position of the stick has no effect on the modeled flight controls. They're simulated separately.

Viper2005_
03-15-2007, 01:17 PM
Ah that rings a bell. IIRC last time I checked the visual stick position was tied to the input your pilots is asking for, whilst the actual control surface movement you see is tied to what's actually going on.

So if you dive something like a Ta-152H from high altitude asking for a maximum rate roll, you'll see the virtual stick all the way to one side whilst the ailerons will start at full deflection and then slowly reduce deflection as your speed increases... At least that's how I remember it!

DdT_IcemanFred
03-15-2007, 05:03 PM
Hmmm,

Not really. I've actually seen the stick move to center as you accelerate.
Something about trim:
In reality the stick should move position as you trim if you are dealing with a trim system that makes the elevator move position as you trim.
In the Falcon, the whole stabilizer moves (changes it's incidence as you trim). The elevator then moves along with the stab, but because it's position relative to the stab doesn't move, the stick position in the cockpit doesn't move.
Most second world war aircraft have a trim system that moves the elevator by resetting the position of a trim tab. This changes the elevator's aerodynamic stick free neutral point, and thus trims the aircraft. So this is not a visual bug. The stick SHOULD change position as you retrim. I used to fly the Cessna Citation Bravo. It had a trim tab, and the stick changed position as you trimmed. I like the THS much better!
Another aircraft I flew,the BAe146/AVRO RJ85/100 had a fixed horizontal stab. It had trim tabs on the elevator,but nevertheless this aircrafts'stick did not reposition with trimming, because there was no direct link between the stick/Yoke and the flight controls as such. Instead,this aircraft had litlle servo tabs. Moving the stick caused the servotabs to moves, then in their turn moving the control. So it was a way of making the controls lighter although they were manually actuated. It was weird to fly a 46ton (100000lb) aircraft with no hydraulic assistance. Later I flew the 7,4ton (16300lb) Beechjet 400XP. It had a THS and a balanced elevator for pitch control and spoilers (about 70 percent span!) and separate electrical aileron-lookalike trim surfaces for roll control,and a massively heavy manual aerodynamically balanced rudder for yaw. It was so heavy we needed an electrical rudder boost system to help us push the rudder to keep it straight in case of an engine failure... 8-O
Believe it or not, but the control forces on this aircraft were higher than the 146's! I thought I liked the Beech 400's flight controls most. Then I started flying the Falcon... and had to think again... The falcon has... the best flight controls of ANY commercial aircraft. Period, no discussion, no competition!

Hope it clarified things a bit,

Keep em comming, Ice

DGC763
03-15-2007, 06:17 PM
This is a nice discussion:

Icemanfred I like the spin survival tips (good general advice), but there are some weird spin recovery techniques out there and one size does difinetly not fit all. E.g the P-39 technique has some little extras.

Cut power
Low RPM
Pull stick full back
Wait for spin to be slowest
full opposite rudder (timing important)
wait for rudder effect to become apparent
full stick forward and ailerons against spin.
recovery should happen in half a turn.

If not refer song about P-39 "it would tumble and spin and soon auger in."

Whereas the P-47 was

full opposite rudder
neutral elevator
ailerons against spin

if no recovery within half turn apply half throttle.

Viper2005_
03-15-2007, 09:24 PM
In general if I were going to apply aileron I'd feel much happier with in-spin aileron since this effectively reduces the camber of the stalled wing...

DdT_IcemanFred
03-16-2007, 03:32 AM
AAAAAARGHGHGHGHG!!!!

"ailerons against spin."

DGC736, just because you seem to be a nice enough guy, I'm gonna pretend you never said that.

I know the rules are different for every aircraft,but...

NEVER,EVER,EVER,EVeeeerrrr, in ANY aircraft, try to recover from a spin with opposite aileron!!
(I know that some in some sims the aircraft will stop spinning if you apply opposite aileron, but that'susually because either the FM is wrong, the aircraft is incorrectly modelled, or you are dealing with an aircraft with extremely large ailerons. But even in those aircraft,they will only stop the spin in exceptional circomstances. The opposite aileron imput usually flattens the spin. It is actually a flat spin entry technique)

So pleasepleaseplease!!! No opposite aileron in the spin, please!

When I have a bit more time, I'll explain you why.

Greetz,Ice

DdT_IcemanFred
03-16-2007, 03:36 AM
Oh, and my the way, before I forget:

Did I mention N-E-V-E-R to apply opposite aileron ina spin?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif Neeevvveeeerrr! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Any sim that models spinrecovery that way BAD sim http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif NEVER!!

Viper2005_
03-16-2007, 05:13 AM
If you apply "outspin" aileron (ie try to pick up the falling wing with aileron), you'll usually make things worse because the ailerons are trying to increase lift on that wing by increasing its camber.

Since the downgoing wing is stalled however, increased camber merely serves to deepen the stall, increasing drag and reducing lift.

Thus, "out-spin" aileron is actually a pro-spin control input under normal circumstances, which is why if you suffer wing-drop at the stall you should use rudder, not aileron to correct it.

DdT_IcemanFred
03-16-2007, 05:25 AM
Not only that,

Depending on where your spin axis is situated and how flat your spin has become (wich to a great extent depends on the rotation speed, you might end up with the inner wing retreating, resulting in an angle of attack greater than 90 degrees at the inner wings' tip. When you then apply opposite aileron you are effectively creating a slat (leading edge flap) effect wich tends to increase this wings' lift, resulting in your roll component decreasing, flattening the spin (= BAD news!).

Another important thing about spin recovery is that the technique might vary depending on how far the spin is develloped. Up to a point, a spin tends to accellerate itself. It might do that to a point where it gets irrecoverable...

I will test fly some IL2 aircraft and write a test report on some of them.

I've written a presentation on spins. I would like to publish it, but it is a powerpoint format. If you want, I can send it through.


Greetz,

Fred

DdT_IcemanFred
03-16-2007, 09:05 AM
Ok, here are the results from the Spin flight test:

Entry conditions:

-Altitude : 8000 feet
-Fuel 25 percent
-Level decelleration to stall
-Full left rudder on G break
-Elevator full aft through out spin

-Ailerons neutral throughout spin

-Recovery initiated after 2 full rotations

Recovery procedures:

Phase I:

-Power : Idle
-Ailerons : Neutral
-Rudder : Full Opposite
*Pause to wait for rotation to slow*
-Elevator : Forward movement through neutral untill rotation stops

If rotation does not slow down: Go Phase II

Phase II:

-Elevator : Full aft
-Ailerons : Full into spin
*Pause to wait for rotation to slow*
-Elevator : Full forward

If rotation does not slow down: Go Phase III

Phase III:

-Elevator : Oscillate full forward, then full aft in phase with aircraft pitch oscillations. Continue untill rotation stops.

If rotation does not slow down below 4000ft:
-Bail Out!!

If rotation slows significantly or stops:

Neutralize Controlls !!

Recover gently from dive, avoiding secondary stall/spin.

Spin report will indicate

-Aircraft
-Number of rotations required to recover (from initiation of recovery untill rotation stop)
-Altitude required for recovery (in feet!!)
-Phase required for recovery

1. P39 N-1 1942

-7
-4500
-Phase II

2. P47 D-10 1943 and D-27 1944

-4
-2500
-Phase I

3. P51D-20NA

-1/4!-2
-2000
Phase I

4. Bf109 K-4 1944

-3
-2500
-Phase I

5. FW 190 D-9 1944

-2.5
-2500
-Phase I

5. Ta 183

-7 !
-4000
-Phase I (But phase II in fully develloped power-on flat spin)

6. F4U D

-3
-3000
-Phase I (But only if recovery is initiated early !)

* Phase III was required in about 10 percent of the develloped power on flat spins
* Recovery must be made prompt, before rotation rate is allowed to become to high!
* Power-on high G load spin entry may lead to hard to recover flat spin!
* Elevator can be brought full forward during develloped spin, with no effect whatsoever,
if not a slight spin accelleration. Recovery MUST be made according to standard spin
recovery technique discribed above.

NonWonderDog
03-16-2007, 01:54 PM
So this is not a visual bug. The stick SHOULD change position as you retrim.
I guess I was unclear. That is, as you say, what should happen. The bug is that it doesn't.

In fact--if I remember correctly--the only planes in the sim in which the visible control stick moves as you trim are Me-109s. This is ironic, because the Me-109 had a trimmable tailplane; it might be one of few planes in the sim where the stick SHOULDN'T move as you trim!

It's not an important bug, but it still confuses people every once in a while. I gave up on it a year or so ago.

DGC763
03-17-2007, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by DdT_IcemanFred:
Oh, and my the way, before I forget:

Did I mention N-E-V-E-R to apply opposite aileron ina spin?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif Neeevvveeeerrr! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Any sim that models spinrecovery that way BAD sim http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif NEVER!!

IcemanFred and Viper, I know exactly what you mean re out spin aileron, but what I posted was not an in game spin recovery for the P-39 and P-47. They are real world spin recovery steps as listed in the FM for the aircraft. I just used them as an example to illustrate that every aircraft is different and sometimes unusual control inputs are required to get yourself out of greif.

So sometimes outspin aileron is good and in aviation NEVER SAY NEVER http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Oh and remember you learn something new everyday.

MEGILE
03-17-2007, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
blah blah blah look at me, i want to get in on the debate

you = tool

DdT_IcemanFred
03-17-2007, 02:43 PM
DGC,


The spin recovery techniques described in my spin test ARE real world spin recovery techniques.
Of course you should never say never in aviation.
But I would really like to know wich flight manual tells you to apply outspin aileron as a recovery technique.
I'm not saying you are wrong or telling me porkies or that not using outspin aileron is an IL2 ingame spin recovery technique.
I am telling you that if you would like to die of old age(in reality), never ever apply outspin aileron to recover a spin, unless you are at least 2 of the things below:

1. A test pilot with 5000 hrs spin experience
2. At 15000ft (so by the time to reach 10000ft you realize it's maybe not such a good idea after all)
3. Flying an aircraft whom's flight manual specifically tells you to apply outspin aileron...

HOWEVER! If you are not 1. and at least 2.,forget it!, you shouldn't have been flying 3. in the first place.

Please DGC, don't take it personally. I know what you are trying to say,and your opnion is as valid as anyone else's, but I'm trying to drive a point home here. Even if outspin aileron stops your spin quicker in some extremely rare cases, doing so at the wrong moment can make life pretty miserable for you, real quick. Making this technique not worth the risk. Just say http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

BTW, heard this interesting story form an aerobatic pilot today (not a hobbyist like me, I'm talking about someone who won bronze in the WAC now!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif I quote:
"On the CAP10C, the flap switch is between the pilots. One day someone was flatspinning it for practice when his shirt caught the switch, throwing the flaps out when you least want it. By the time he realized his @#$ck-up, he had about 3 seconds to think about what to explain his insurance agent... ...plane crashed in a field with a rut. Wings broke off, pilot walked away unhurt... Some people use up their luck fasterthan others..." Unquote...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

DGC763
03-18-2007, 06:55 AM
Originally posted by DdT_IcemanFred:
DGC,


The spin recovery techniques described in my spin test ARE real world spin recovery techniques.
Of course you should never say never in aviation.
But I would really like to know wich flight manual tells you to apply outspin aileron as a recovery technique.
I'm not saying you are wrong or telling me porkies or that not using outspin aileron is an IL2 ingame spin recovery technique.
I am telling you that if you would like to die of old age(in reality), never ever apply outspin aileron to recover a spin, unless you are at least 2 of the things below:

1. A test pilot with 5000 hrs spin experience
2. At 15000ft (so by the time to reach 10000ft you realize it's maybe not such a good idea after all)
3. Flying an aircraft whom's flight manual specifically tells you to apply outspin aileron...

HOWEVER! If you are not 1. and at least 2.,forget it!, you shouldn't have been flying 3. in the first place.

Please DGC, don't take it personally. I know what you are trying to say,and your opnion is as valid as anyone else's, but I'm trying to drive a point home here. Even if outspin aileron stops your spin quicker in some extremely rare cases, doing so at the wrong moment can make life pretty miserable for you, real quick. Making this technique not worth the risk. Just say http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

BTW, heard this interesting story form an aerobatic pilot today (not a hobbyist like me, I'm talking about someone who won bronze in the WAC now!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif I quote:
"On the CAP10C, the flap switch is between the pilots. One day someone was flatspinning it for practice when his shirt caught the switch, throwing the flaps out when you least want it. By the time he realized his @#$ck-up, he had about 3 seconds to think about what to explain his insurance agent... ...plane crashed in a field with a rut. Wings broke off, pilot walked away unhurt... Some people use up their luck fasterthan others..." Unquote...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

P-39Q1 Flight manual P16 see section 14.:

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u5/DGC737/p21.jpg

M_Gunz
03-19-2007, 02:54 AM
Bad link DCG763.

DGC763
03-19-2007, 04:50 AM
Link is ok now, thanks Gunz.

DdT_IcemanFred
03-19-2007, 05:15 PM
DGC,

Be carefull in analizing the P-39's FM spin recovery technique.
First, opinions about this subject have evolved throughout the years, and taking into account the age of this book, and the knowledge that was available to the test pilots of the time, this text, although not in itself wrong has to be read and applied with great care.

Let's analize what it says in the Manual:

Prerecovery: the idea of this, is that you make sure that the recovery actions are not going to make the spin worse. And also to make sure the aircraft is configured (in a flight control sense of the word)for recovery.

-Throtlle off,propeller control minimum rpm.
This can be regarded as one action.
The whole idea here is to reduce the propellers' rpm to a minimum, reducing the gyrosopic forces to a minimum. With a right turning propeller, entering a left turn spin (the flatter, the stronger the effect), precession will produce a nose up moment, increasing the angle of attack. Not what you want...

-Stick full back: Because of the position of the horizontal tailplane relative to the vertical tailplane on some aircraft, permature forward stick input can cause the elevator's wake to render the vertical tailplane (and thus the rudder, ineffective.) In a flat spin this actually accellerates the spin). Although this effect is not so well simulated in IL2, it is possible to push the stick forward during an accellerated flat spin without the angle off attack decreasing very much. This shows centrifugal forces have been simulated well. Because the aircraft is spinning by rolling and yawing at the same time, centrifugal forces will cause the angle of attack to increase. The yaw rate must thus be decreased for the spin to become steep enough (angle of attack lowering) in order for the elevator force to be powerfull enough for it to unstall the aircraft.
But either way, pushing the stick before the rudder slowing down the spin would yet be ...more bad news...

Hence...

-Opposite rudder, forward elevator and opposite aileron must be applied in that order, and only when the spin the spin is at it's slowest. The idea being that:

First: You slow the rotation rate as much as you can by using opposite rudder.
Second: You use the fact that the centrifugal forces are at their minimum at that moment by applying forward elevator to unstall the wing.
Third: Assuming you can unstall the wing this way, and thus (here's the big trick!) the ailerons work the right way around again, you try to overcome the roll component inertia as soon as you can by applying opposite aileron. This might be a good ideaif you are dealing with an aircraft that has a great moment ofinertia around it's X-axis. If not however, I would first make sure I get rid of the yaw component as much as possible.

This technique bets a lot of money on one horse. As it says, if you do not get the opposite rudder in at exactly the right moment, things could get real ugly.

If you would apply forward stick before the rotation rate is at it's minimum, centrifugal forces might be stronger than the elevators nose down moment. And, you might cause the vertical tail to be blanked off by the horizontal one at exactly the wrong moment increasing the rotation rate instead of slowing it down.

If you would apply opposite aileron during the faster part of the rotation, you could risk dealing with either a stalled aileron increasing the drag on the in-spin wing, or, if it suffers even higher angles of attack, reverse flow increasing the lift on that wing. Although that might seem to be what you are looking for, it is not. Increasing the lift on the down going wing will reduce the rotations' roll component, and thus increase it's yaw to roll ratio, further flattening the spin,increasing the angle of attack, etc.,etc.,...



So there you go. This technique is an instant incipient spin recovery.
You need to get it juuust right to recover.
And it is a hell of a gamble. You could compare it to the dutch roll recovery technique in a way. If you can apply the right control inputs at exactly the right moment, exactly in phase with the movement, you might recover.
But get the timing wrong,and you opened a can of worms.

Hope that helped.
Might not be super clear. If you have questions,please go ahead.

Ice

M_Gunz
03-19-2007, 10:09 PM
That page goes a long way to explaining the reputation P-39 had with so many US pilots.
There were others, a minority that did learn to fly it right and loved the plane.

What I'd REALLY like to see is what the Russian manual had to say!

blindpugh
03-23-2007, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DdT_IcemanFred:
Oleg,

First, of course, thank you so much for your incredible sim. I've been flying it for 5 years, and it shows no sign of wearing out.

I am an aerobatic pilot in "real" life. Like many of my friends who share their passion for this fascinating sport, and for your sim, I was very exited hearing about your plans to include the Su26 in BoB. I plan and hope to use the upcoming Su26 as a serious training tool. I also hope aerobatic competitions will become as much part of the online experience as air-to-air combat is.

In general, I am very very very very!! impressed with IL2 series' FM. It has unique, very realistic (I know, I fly them in reality) spin behaviour. And snaprolls,... incredible. You are the ONLY one simulating beyond maximum alpha flight behaviour to this level of realism.

I was therefore interested in finding out how realistic the Su26's behaviour is going to be.
Positive alpha behaviour is already quite realistic, but aerobatic aircraft have just as much elevator power in the negative alpha range, as the positive. Will the FM alow full negative maneuver capability?

Spin behaviour: Flat spins in modern aerobatic aircraft are fully recoverable and controlable.
The power on/power off spin behaviour difference is a litlle to weak in the current FM.
Also, and this is quite difficult to model, opposite aileron input during the spin can have significant effects on how flat the spin gets. This (and also tailsliding) will require alpha modeling up to 180 degrees. Retreating wing effect can reverse flow (very high alpha >90 deg.) over the ailerons during the spin.
In flat, high rotation rate spins, inputting forward elevator during the spin can accelerate it...


Also, gyroscopic maneuvering is now a large part of aerobatics. Will tumbles and knife edge spins be possible. How about torque rolls?

Aeroelasticity effect can also be quite strong. With a very stiff aircraft (like the 26), if the imput is very sudden, only a relatively small stick movement, combined with fast full rudder imput, can start a snap roll.

Will there be airfields with aerobatic box limits painted on the ground?

Also, please don't forget to include sight gauges (wingtip triangles).

It would also be great if we could show a drawing of our aerobatic sequence in the cockpit.

Looking forward to hearing your answer,

Ice
I don't know why it amazes me at how some people worship others like they're God... Man, get a life! Some person comes in here, spouts a little intellectual rubbish and some of you buy into it hook line and sinker...

Anybody that states, the flight models are so realistic, I've actually flown them, isn't going to be wasting their time in here. How many people actually have flight experience with these aircraft? Moreover, how many actually have flight experience with dozens of WWII era aircraft? Of the real pilots that I've met, once they're through school, they disappear because they're flying all the time. Most have little time to waste in these forums or playing this game.

Didn't anybody bother to check this person's obvious statistics? He's only made three posts in as many years. I doubt that anybody that made such passionate statements as the above quoted ones would be able to stay silent for well over three years. Somebody so willing to dazzle us with their experience would obviously have a hard time keeping their thoughts to themselves.

The stall behavior is obviously flawed in this game and lacking. Ask any novice pilot about it and you'll get a resounding now. I too have talked to veteran pilots that have played this game. They all conclude the same thing, this game is nothing like real flight. It's possible to do things that would get you killed in real life.

This story reminds me of how any fool can come in here and state,

"My great great grand pappy flew with the AVG. He said that the P-40..."
"My daddy flew on B-17s and he said..."
"My momma's daddy's uncle's brother was the right hand man of Bader the legless wonder and he said..."

My God are we that gullible to believe any fool that comes in here spouting such rubbish? The person posting this is obviously a poser and has duped many of the desperate naïve bunch into believing what they already want to believe...

DdT_IcemanFred, I'd thank you not to come in here and write such lies, many of the people reading these forums have delicate lives and cannot tell the difference between fact and fantasy. It's not very nice to lead such people astray. Somebody tell me that Stackhouse wasn't the only one to notice the obvious. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>hear! hear!biggest load of bllx ive ever read

M_Gunz
03-23-2007, 11:40 PM
You mean Dork and Moon's little fit there?

tomtheyak
03-24-2007, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by blindpugh:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DdT_IcemanFred:
Oleg,

First, of course, thank you so much for your incredible sim. I've been flying it for 5 years, and it shows no sign of wearing out.

I am an aerobatic pilot in "real" life. Like many of my friends who share their passion for this fascinating sport, and for your sim, I was very exited hearing about your plans to include the Su26 in BoB. I plan and hope to use the upcoming Su26 as a serious training tool. I also hope aerobatic competitions will become as much part of the online experience as air-to-air combat is.

In general, I am very very very very!! impressed with IL2 series' FM. It has unique, very realistic (I know, I fly them in reality) spin behaviour. And snaprolls,... incredible. You are the ONLY one simulating beyond maximum alpha flight behaviour to this level of realism.

I was therefore interested in finding out how realistic the Su26's behaviour is going to be.
Positive alpha behaviour is already quite realistic, but aerobatic aircraft have just as much elevator power in the negative alpha range, as the positive. Will the FM alow full negative maneuver capability?

Spin behaviour: Flat spins in modern aerobatic aircraft are fully recoverable and controlable.
The power on/power off spin behaviour difference is a litlle to weak in the current FM.
Also, and this is quite difficult to model, opposite aileron input during the spin can have significant effects on how flat the spin gets. This (and also tailsliding) will require alpha modeling up to 180 degrees. Retreating wing effect can reverse flow (very high alpha >90 deg.) over the ailerons during the spin.
In flat, high rotation rate spins, inputting forward elevator during the spin can accelerate it...


Also, gyroscopic maneuvering is now a large part of aerobatics. Will tumbles and knife edge spins be possible. How about torque rolls?

Aeroelasticity effect can also be quite strong. With a very stiff aircraft (like the 26), if the imput is very sudden, only a relatively small stick movement, combined with fast full rudder imput, can start a snap roll.

Will there be airfields with aerobatic box limits painted on the ground?

Also, please don't forget to include sight gauges (wingtip triangles).

It would also be great if we could show a drawing of our aerobatic sequence in the cockpit.

Looking forward to hearing your answer,

Ice
I don't know why it amazes me at how some people worship others like they're God... Man, get a life! Some person comes in here, spouts a little intellectual rubbish and some of you buy into it hook line and sinker...

Anybody that states, the flight models are so realistic, I've actually flown them, isn't going to be wasting their time in here. How many people actually have flight experience with these aircraft? Moreover, how many actually have flight experience with dozens of WWII era aircraft? Of the real pilots that I've met, once they're through school, they disappear because they're flying all the time. Most have little time to waste in these forums or playing this game.

Didn't anybody bother to check this person's obvious statistics? He's only made three posts in as many years. I doubt that anybody that made such passionate statements as the above quoted ones would be able to stay silent for well over three years. Somebody so willing to dazzle us with their experience would obviously have a hard time keeping their thoughts to themselves.

The stall behavior is obviously flawed in this game and lacking. Ask any novice pilot about it and you'll get a resounding now. I too have talked to veteran pilots that have played this game. They all conclude the same thing, this game is nothing like real flight. It's possible to do things that would get you killed in real life.

This story reminds me of how any fool can come in here and state,

"My great great grand pappy flew with the AVG. He said that the P-40..."
"My daddy flew on B-17s and he said..."
"My momma's daddy's uncle's brother was the right hand man of Bader the legless wonder and he said..."

My God are we that gullible to believe any fool that comes in here spouting such rubbish? The person posting this is obviously a poser and has duped many of the desperate naïve bunch into believing what they already want to believe...

DdT_IcemanFred, I'd thank you not to come in here and write such lies, many of the people reading these forums have delicate lives and cannot tell the difference between fact and fantasy. It's not very nice to lead such people astray. Somebody tell me that Stackhouse wasn't the only one to notice the obvious. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>hear! hear!biggest load of bllx ive ever read </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Iceman knows what he's talking about. If you had any scrap of intellect you'd know this. As it is the pair of you probably can't tell your mouth from your arse.

Good luck with your ignorance.

Oh, and BTW real pilots DO fly this game - my squad leader is an ex RAF phantom pilot.

Oh, whats that? That'll be the sound of your flawlees (ahem) argument disappearing down the toilet bowl.

arrow80
03-24-2007, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by DGC763:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DdT_IcemanFred:
DGC,


The spin recovery techniques described in my spin test ARE real world spin recovery techniques.
Of course you should never say never in aviation.
But I would really like to know wich flight manual tells you to apply outspin aileron as a recovery technique.
I'm not saying you are wrong or telling me porkies or that not using outspin aileron is an IL2 ingame spin recovery technique.
I am telling you that if you would like to die of old age(in reality), never ever apply outspin aileron to recover a spin, unless you are at least 2 of the things below:

1. A test pilot with 5000 hrs spin experience
2. At 15000ft (so by the time to reach 10000ft you realize it's maybe not such a good idea after all)
3. Flying an aircraft whom's flight manual specifically tells you to apply outspin aileron...

HOWEVER! If you are not 1. and at least 2.,forget it!, you shouldn't have been flying 3. in the first place.

Please DGC, don't take it personally. I know what you are trying to say,and your opnion is as valid as anyone else's, but I'm trying to drive a point home here. Even if outspin aileron stops your spin quicker in some extremely rare cases, doing so at the wrong moment can make life pretty miserable for you, real quick. Making this technique not worth the risk. Just say http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

BTW, heard this interesting story form an aerobatic pilot today (not a hobbyist like me, I'm talking about someone who won bronze in the WAC now!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif I quote:
"On the CAP10C, the flap switch is between the pilots. One day someone was flatspinning it for practice when his shirt caught the switch, throwing the flaps out when you least want it. By the time he realized his @#$ck-up, he had about 3 seconds to think about what to explain his insurance agent... ...plane crashed in a field with a rut. Wings broke off, pilot walked away unhurt... Some people use up their luck fasterthan others..." Unquote...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

P-39Q1 Flight manual P16 see section 14.:

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u5/DGC737/p21.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Spin recovery for P-39 in Il2 works exactly as written in this manual...I am stunned, how well it works in Il2, see the track:
http://www.letka13.sk/~arrow/spin_p39.ntrk (http://www.letka13.sk/%7Earrow/spin_p39.ntrk)

I am doing exactly the same: power down, stick backwards, rudder opposite - after it bites, elevator forward, aileron opposite...

M_Gunz
03-25-2007, 09:55 PM
With full forward stick at that time won't the nose pitch down? Doing so, won't that take care
of increased camber/AOA of the concerned (outspin?) wing?

DdT_IcemanFred
03-26-2007, 01:45 AM
Gunz,

Hmmm. Maybe I wasen't 100 percent clear on this one. Sorry. What I'm saying is that you should only apply forward stick when the rotation rate has slowed down enough for the elevators' moment to overcome the centrifugal forces trying to increase the anle of attack. In high rate flat spins, the centrifugal force is too strong to overcome. So when you move the stick forward:
1ST: It will move the nose down, but not enough to unstall the aircraft.
2nd: moving the nose down causes the rotation rate to increase (the spinning-ice-skater-pulling-her-arms-in effect). Then the higher centrifugal forces pull the nose up again, so you are now dealing either with an oscillating pitch movement, or a stabilized status quo.
3rd: Moving the elevator forward will blank the vertical tail's airflow at the extremely high angles of attack present in flat spin, making it's damping effect less effective, and so,... guess what,... yes indeed, increasing the yaw rotation rate, further flattening the spin.

So the conclusion is that:

-Yes, in high rotation, flat spins, moving the stick forward can worsen the spin.

-So at least apply opposite ruddder BEFORE you apply forward stick.

-Remember that the basic rules are the same for most aircraft, but there are some special cases requiring different input. Read the manual, or experiment at high altitude, with a chute strapped to your back.

Arrow,

Thank you for your reply. I love to hear about different people's opinions.

In my reply to the P-39's handbook extract, I analized the handbook's comments. I can kindly recommend to read that post again.

I never said you cannot stop, or help stopping a spin with opposite aileron.

What I said was, that if you do, you are making one hell of a gamble.
Maybe it will work: Then great
Maybe it won't work:It was nice to know you.
But keep experimenting... I can recommend to follow the guidelines of my spin test flights described a few posts earlier.


Regards, Ice

M_Gunz
03-26-2007, 07:18 AM
I was thinking you had to get the spin slowed down before any forward stick. Until then just
cut power and opposite pedal... perhaps lowering the gear might help add some drag?

Noooo, I see my error here. Nose going down does not change AOA or makes it worse?

No danger of me doing any of that in real... well .001% chance anyway, I may get back up in
front with someone else I know at the yoke and who knows what could happen? I can also be
struck down by a meteor from space, the odds may be equal.

In sims if I am in a flat spin and have alt, I try to destabilize the spin and get the gyro
to fight itself and lose energy, then recover from there. Flat spins are perhaps the scariest
in sims for me (less chance I will recover) with high speed accelerated stall into spin being
next worse. I've learned to be careful in sims how fast I change bank at extreme speeds not
because of maybe losing a wing but because I may enter a spin doing so. I can't say how real
any of that is though. Most non-accelerated spins I have time to just let the stick go and
cut power, it doesn't even complete one turn.

DdT_IcemanFred
03-26-2007, 02:03 PM
Gunz,

I wouldn't lower the gear. Producing drag is not really the problem here. I can only guess whatthe effects will be. Not much in IL2 Iwould think. Maybe a bit more interesting in real aircraft.
Some aircraft require you to lower the gear,but then it is specifically described in the FM.
With nose going down i did mean the angle of attack decreasing,but since the centrifigal force is stronger in a fast flat spin, then the elevator's power, push the stick forward reduces the angle of attack, but not enough fot it to unstall the aircraft.

Good point about letting the stick go. In most aircraft, if nothing else works, just cut the power and let go of the stick...

I can recommend to read my spin recovery flight test carefully.

Thnx, Ice

M_Gunz
03-26-2007, 08:22 PM
IRL gear down may equal "arms out" and -help- slow things down. It may also lead to a real
problem and perhaps gear jammed down depending on the plane. Be hell if you could stop the
spin but not get speed to recover before auguring in because of gear jammed down. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Only in sims can that attitude be taken for long! Real planes have no reset button!

I've seen an FAA film where gear down on commercial jets does help but it's not spin.
They lost a few planes going through storms where they'd get blown up high and fast on a
rising cell and then hit the downdraft side from high alt and speed, go right into stick
buzz and compression. In those cases, lowering the gear is the approved course in those
planes but note how strong the gear is on those planes that can use emergency blowdown
bottles (7000 psi nitrogen) to achieve lock without bending the gear itself.

arrow80
03-27-2007, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by DdT_IcemanFred:
Gunz,

Hmmm. Maybe I wasen't 100 percent clear on this one. Sorry. What I'm saying is that you should only apply forward stick when the rotation rate has slowed down enough for the elevators' moment to overcome the centrifugal forces trying to increase the anle of attack. In high rate flat spins, the centrifugal force is too strong to overcome. So when you move the stick forward:
1ST: It will move the nose down, but not enough to unstall the aircraft.
2nd: moving the nose down causes the rotation rate to increase (the spinning-ice-skater-pulling-her-arms-in effect). Then the higher centrifugal forces pull the nose up again, so you are now dealing either with an oscillating pitch movement, or a stabilized status quo.
3rd: Moving the elevator forward will blank the vertical tail's airflow at the extremely high angles of attack present in flat spin, making it's damping effect less effective, and so,... guess what,... yes indeed, increasing the yaw rotation rate, further flattening the spin.

So the conclusion is that:

-Yes, in high rotation, flat spins, moving the stick forward can worsen the spin.

-So at least apply opposite ruddder BEFORE you apply forward stick.

-Remember that the basic rules are the same for most aircraft, but there are some special cases requiring different input. Read the manual, or experiment at high altitude, with a chute strapped to your back.

Arrow,

Thank you for your reply. I love to hear about different people's opinions.

In my reply to the P-39's handbook extract, I analized the handbook's comments. I can kindly recommend to read that post again.

I never said you cannot stop, or help stopping a spin with opposite aileron.

What I said was, that if you do, you are making one hell of a gamble.
Maybe it will work: Then great
Maybe it won't work:It was nice to know you.
But keep experimenting... I can recommend to follow the guidelines of my spin test flights described a few posts earlier.


Regards, Ice
Well I agree with you. I wouldn't normally use aileron in a spin, I just did what was written in the manual and found that it also works in Il2 exactly like this. I am no real life pilot and I certainly can't disagree with what you are saying. You correctly state that by P-39 you can apply aileron after you slow the flat spin, if you apply it too soon it accelerates the spin. In other aircraft I never would use aileron in a spin, it certainly is situation and aircraft dependant thing and not very common. P-39 has its engine in COG, so there it works somehow, but you have to do it right. But that's no news for you, I just wanted to say that I respect your views and don't disagree with them.

DdT_IcemanFred
03-28-2007, 11:58 AM
Likewise dude,...

respek

M_Gunz
03-28-2007, 01:27 PM
So other than at extremes and flight departures, how does the FM/user interface strike you as to
normal flight, basic and advanced combat maneuvers? How about basic stability?

msalama
03-29-2007, 07:48 AM
What Gunz asked!

Please carry on, one of the most interesting discussions of all time around here IMHO http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

M_Gunz
03-31-2007, 02:21 PM
I've got a departure question. Does wingloading make a real difference in how fast or easy
it is to recover from spin, or possibility of flat spin?

DdT_IcemanFred
04-01-2007, 12:14 PM
Goodquestion.

I'll have to think about that one.

Gimme a couple of days.

Greetz, I

TX-EcoDragon
04-01-2007, 06:37 PM
It's nice to see you guys are still having fun here! I've been so busy as to not really even be able to get on the computer, let alone check the forums.
If you don't have the older versions of IL-2 there is some fun to be had in a few versions of original IL-2 (not forgotten battles) that were particularly suited to things like torque rolls and tailslides. Overall the more recent versions are still an improvement, but spin dynamics in 3.04 were better than they are now in general, though that was with very minimal gyroscopic effect of the prop, inertia etc. Back then we couldn't do near as nice snaps, but inverted spins in particular were much improved. It's always a few steps forward, a few back. My hope is that BOB will be able to start from scratch with high fidelity aerobatics at it's core, so hopefully we will have one version that is a hands down improvement over the older versions.

I've given Oleg a lot of feedback over the years but of course they are somewhat limited in what they can do with this rather dated bit of code, which they have already expanded on quite a lot. There are things that would benefit all flying types though, such as better handling of adverse yaw, and better low g aerodynamics that the sim currently lacks, these things would also help the aerobatic side of things.

I guess that given the fact that few people who fly this sim, and even few real world pilots, would actually recognize accurate aerobatic behaviors in the sim, I've come to the mindset I now where I'm mostly just focused on what BOB will bring, and enjoying FB for what it is, a great sim. However it's also true that in the pursuit of a higher fidelity FM these aspects must be improved on.

There was some talk regarding the effects of elevator and aileron on the spin dynamics. Take a look at some of these things in action in the following videos.

Here, the elevator is pushed fully forward just shy of the second rotation of the spin. You will clearly see the change in rotation rate after the second revolution:
http://www.tutimaacademy.com/video/accel.mov

Now, usually outspin aileron serves only to flatten a spin, and isn't used in recovery. Here is an interesting aspect of what outspin aileron does in most Pitts type aircraft when too much outspin aileron is used to flatten inverted flat spins:
http://www.tutimaacademy.com/video/invflat.mov

Moving the stick too far forward and in close proximity to the rudder application, or simply moving it forward before applying opposite rudder can give you the following treat:
http://www.tutimaacademy.com/video/xover.mov

Note that this doesn't happen in most aircraft, most simply will flatten without the crossover as they lack the "power" of the Pitts ailerons. In any case, it's obviously not at all useful for spin recovery during a developed spin. (In spin aileron however will actually help, or will fully recover the spin).

Even the P-39 used a fairly normal spin recovery technique if you recognize that the initial inputs that were suggested were to stabilize the aircraft in the spin such that the blanketing/shielding of the control surfaces due to the aggravated oscillations that the aircraft was known for in spins were reduced before the more typical spin recovery inputs were made. Put simply, you would hold pro-spin inputs for a short time, and wait for the control surfaces to "fly" a little better, before attempting the recovery. It amazing what can happen if you rush a recovery and there is shielding of the control surfaces. For something of an example of this sort of dynamic, take a look at this next video which is of a Lomcevak which does something interesting. The Lomcevak is entered by moving the stick forward and left while adding right rudder. If you think about this it makes sense that you would end up in an inverted spin to the right, and the recovery inputs would include left rudder and moving the stick aft (aft/up elevator). Given that, watch the video:
http://www.tutimaacademy.com/video/lomcevak.mov



I meant to ask way back when IcemanFred, where are you based, if you don't mind me asking?

DGC763
04-01-2007, 11:22 PM
Tx-EcoDragon and DdT_IcemanFred Do you have any books that would you recommend on how to fly aerobatics?

TX-EcoDragon
04-02-2007, 01:11 AM
My list is here: http://www.iac38.org/index.html?recommended2.htm

Of course these books are geared for real world flying vs sims so keep that in mind. If you are interested in sim specific stuff perhaps a little multiplayer session is best. FSX with it's shared cockpit is pretty cool for this sort of thing, and there is a very nice freeware Christen Eagle for FSX/FS2004, in IL-2 watching via externals is all we've got as an option. The shared cockpit concept is another cool thing we will see in BOB.

DGC763
04-02-2007, 02:59 AM
Thanks for the list. If you had to pick one or maybe two which would it be?

DdT_IcemanFred
04-02-2007, 04:55 AM
eco,


I fly a Falcon 2000EX EaSy for Netjets Europe. They are based in Lisbon, Portugal. But they let their pilots be based anywhere they want in Europe . So I live in Brussels, Belgium. I fly the Extra 200 at ACPN, an aeroclub near Paris, France.

There you go. thanks for the interesting reply.
If you would like to talk a bit more, please send me your details via a personnal message.

thanks, Ice

TX-EcoDragon
04-02-2007, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by DGC763:
Thanks for the list. If you had to pick one or maybe two which would it be?

Well, it depends on what your goals from the books are, and if you plan on flying aerobatics in the real world or only in sims. I don't know if any of them would be that useful for sims.

If you have real world aspirations I'd look at Stick and Rudder as well as Rich Stowell's EMT book for general information that is useful to all pilots, and moving more into competition aerobatics the Goullian books are great.
If you are more interested in the aerobatics exclusively I'd go with: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0070629269/iacchapter38nort

TX-EcoDragon
04-02-2007, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by DdT_IcemanFred:
eco,


I fly a Falcon 2000EX EaSy for Netjets Europe. They are based in Lisbon, Portugal. But they let their pilots be based anywhere they want in Europe . So I live in Brussels, Belgium. I fly the Extra 200 at ACPN, an aeroclub near Paris, France.

There you go. thanks for the interesting reply.
If you would like to talk a bit more, please send me your details via a personnal message.

thanks, Ice

Cool, thanks for the info. . .well, if you're ever in the Western US let's go flying! :-D

DdT_IcemanFred
04-03-2007, 01:21 AM
I flew from Livermore! I did a couple of Pitts S2C in 2004...

Hehe, it's such a small world!

Ice

TX-EcoDragon
04-03-2007, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by DdT_IcemanFred:
I flew from Livermore! I did a couple of Pitts S2C in 2004...

Hehe, it's such a small world!

Ice

Hehe. . .cool so you've been to AttitudeAviation! I guess you might have already figured, I fly their aerobatic fleet. In 04 they used the S2B mostly, but had just gotten the Charlie. Probably about half my aerobatic flying is out of LVK.

I guess flying the Falcon you get to do a fair amount of travel eh? Think the boss will notice if your destinations often include fuel stops at places with different aerobatic mounts?? :-D

KrasniyYastreb
04-12-2007, 08:23 PM
Great discussion guys! What do you think of the modeling of the phugoid mode in the sim? (For those not familiar with the term, that's the long-period oscillation of the speed and altitude of the a/c) It seems quite pronounced and not damped at all. And it drives me up the wall because I can rarely trim the a/c for perfectly straight and level flight. Is this the way it is IRL? But then again, what are the natural damping mechanisms in the system?

Either way, maybe I don't have enough sim experience, but I am impressed enough that these dynamics are modeled at all.

MGunz, my feeling is that CG influences flat spin development and not wing-loading, but I'll wait for the "expert" answer.

BeerCamel
04-12-2007, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:

Anybody that states, the flight models are so realistic, I've actually flown them, isn't going to be wasting their time in here. How many people actually have flight experience with these aircraft? Moreover, how many actually have flight experience with dozens of WWII era aircraft? Of the real pilots that I've met, once they're through school, they disappear because they're flying all the time. Most have little time to waste in these forums or playing this game.



Uhhh TX-EcoDragon is a real pilot and "wastes" time with this sim. Unless you think he is a liar too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'm a real Pilot, in fact I make my living flying wide body's around the globe, and I ˜waste my time' in here...

I have even flown some WW2 aircraft, as well as several current USAF tactical aircraft.

My total flying time military and civilian is over 14,000 hours..

And I STILL ˜waste' my time with IL2

I TOTALLY AGREE with DdT_IcemanFred assessment of this game. No flight model is perfect, Oleg's baby DOES have some aerodynamic ˜holes', but I have been very impressed with the high alpha modeling. It is the best I have seen in a game modeling combat aircraft.

As for aerobatic capability, that is not my area of expertise, I have flown Pitts, Decathlons, Great Lakes, Stardusters and other ˜acro' capable aircraft, but I have never competed or took to the precise ˜box' flying that dedicated aviators like DdT_IcemanFred have.

BeerCamel
04-12-2007, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by DdT_IcemanFred:
eco,


I fly a Falcon 2000EX EaSy for Netjets Europe. They are based in Lisbon, Portugal. But they let their pilots be based anywhere they want in Europe . So I live in Brussels, Belgium. I fly the Extra 200 at ACPN, an aeroclub near Paris, France.

There you go. thanks for the interesting reply.
If you would like to talk a bit more, please send me your details via a personnal message.

thanks, Ice


DdT_IcemanFred

I get to Paris pretty often... CDG (LFPG), we stay downtown, we should get a beer sometime!


VP

M_Gunz
04-13-2007, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by KrasniyYastreb:
Great discussion guys! What do you think of the modeling of the phugoid mode in the sim? (For those not familiar with the term, that's the long-period oscillation of the speed and altitude of the a/c) It seems quite pronounced and not damped at all. And it drives me up the wall because I can rarely trim the a/c for perfectly straight and level flight. Is this the way it is IRL? But then again, what are the natural damping mechanisms in the system?

IMHO it is due to RL controls being larger and able to adjust trim much finer than game.
I'd have gone nuts in a real plane with trim that works as on PC in IL2!


MGunz, my feeling is that CG influences flat spin development and not wing-loading, but I'll wait for the "expert" answer.

Me too, that's why I asked! Also that someone was going on in another thread about how the
Spitfires should be easier by far than 109's to flat spin due to less wingloading! We get
a LOT of that from people that don't know just because to them it sounds good.

DdT_IcemanFred
04-14-2007, 02:32 AM
Aaaaahhhh!!

Happy that someone mentioned the phugoid.
Well, it does seem to have too low a frequency to me as well. Large aircraft tend to have a pretty slow phugoid, but aircraft of WW2 fighter size would, I would imagine have higher frequency phugoids than simulated in IL2.
Nevertheless, I do think Gunz has a point in pointing out that the phugoid is hard to damp in IL2 due to the trim input resolution being to low, and it showing some latency. Small single engined aircraft's flight paths tend to be controlable in pitch (up to a degree) by just changing engine power,and using long period pitch oscillation. In larger aircraft, you need to follow up the oscillation with some pitch input.

Here's pretty much how the phugoid works:
1. aircraft flying straight and level. Thus flying at 1G. Constant angle of attack.

2. Velocity disturbance. Let's say velocity increase. This can be due to a gust,or due
to an increase in thrust. This causes the dynamic pressure to increase.

3. Because angle of attack is not changed, lift increases due to the velocity change.

4. Because of the resulting increase in G (can be a tiny litlle bit, say 1,02G's), flight path angle increases.

5. Because lift vector gets tilted back relative to weight vector, forward velocity starts to decrease again.

6. Decrease in lift due to velocity decreasing again.

7. Flight path angle decreases again due to lift (G) decrease.

8. Velocity increases again.

9. And so on, and so on.

If you are dealing with an aircraft with a high moment of inertia about the pitch axis though, you might end up with the pitch motion being out of phase with the lift increase and decrease. This could result in the angle of attack not staying constant throughout the maneuver, because longitudinal dynamic stability relative to pitch moment of inertia being too low to follow up the sinusoidal motion.

Another thing that could play a role is how much pitch moment the engine power/thrust change results in. This might counter the natural phugoid motion.

Wingloading in spins:

Lower wing loading could influence the way an aircraft spins. But kind of indirectly.
What I mean by that is that wing loading influences the stall speed.

Depending on the aircraft's forward velocity to rotation rate ratio, it's spin will tend to be tighter or not, and thus have a higher roll to yaw ratio. But I would say that it definitly not the defining factor in how eager an aircraft is to flat spin.

But I'll have to give that a bit more thought.
Kind of a complex question that doesn't have a simple answer I'm afraid...

KrasniyYastreb
04-14-2007, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by DdT_IcemanFred:

Small single engined aircraft's flight paths tend to be controlable in pitch (up to a degree) by just changing engine power,and using long period pitch oscillation. In larger aircraft, you need to follow up the oscillation with some pitch input.


Thx for the reply. So are you implying that for small aircraft, the phugoid is critically damped?

DdT_IcemanFred
04-15-2007, 04:10 AM
What do you mean by critically damped?

AeroSign
04-30-2007, 02:20 PM
Dear All,
Beeing a newbe in this forum you might not appreciate what I have on mind but I try anyway. I really appreciate this thread and hope it keeps going!

I have flown RL aerobatics since 1995 but only on gliders though.... Those of you familiar with high performance aerobatic gliders know that they are capable of very advanced manoveres. I too have a hope for a dedicated aerobatic simulator at some point. I started using "Looking Glass's Flight Unlimited" when it was released back in 1994. It was amasing and I still use it occasionally. It is a dedicated aerobatic simulator complete with lessons and all. But it lacks in every way you can expect from such old title. It is however capable of doing some sort of gyroscopic tumble and I made a small video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gb0GTjh5d6o) of it during a discussion about tumbles on X-Plane.org. Before you get all upset and critiszie please remember this was written for DOS in 1994 :-)

I have been using X-Plane a lot for aerobatics and it does okay. I mainly use it for traing the ARISTI sequense and not the manoveres itself. I find it valuable to try different wind situations and adjust my sequense to compensate for the wind. It can be confusing knowing if the inverted spin is a right foot or left foot invoked in order to exit accordingly against the wind etc. Simulations help me in this way. I wrote a small PlugIn for X-Plane that takes an ARISTI sequense made with Michael Golans great OLAN program (http://www.aerobatics.org.il/olan/welcome.php) and show it in my X-Plane cockpit. More info about that can be found Here (http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?s=f4b75edc2943222a2ae6bab18241ccee&showtopic=23958).

Reading this thread makes me realize that IL2 might be something I should try.... I also own a Condor license and I agree to some point that the Condor implementation is good. But I really would like something more aerobatic dedicated. I would love to be able to do some gyroscopic manovres in simulation. There are so many cool things that could be implemented in a aerobatic simulator; automatic scoring, box-violation detection, dedicated camera settings, replay options, lessons, online competition etc etc.

I hope the IL2 programmer sees it's potential because Austin Meyer is not that positive about the idear. Last but not least, I saw this (http://www.gennadich.com/) a few days ago, maybe it will get us a step closer to aerobatic simulation. The Promo Video looks very interesting.

I hope I did not waste your time beeing a newbe and all....

Best regards
/AeroSign

TX-EcoDragon
05-06-2007, 01:39 AM
Welcome AeroSign!

You should certainly try out The Maddox sims! Recognize though that it has very little ability to handle tumbles (though better than most), but also recognize that we are making do with WWII vintage fighters which obviously aren't the ideal platform. The plus side as I see it is that this sim will be about as good of a foundation to build an aerobatic sim as there is, and Oleg has responded to our feedback and has implemented an SU-26 in the next sim he will be releasing. It won't be a dedicated aerobatic sim, but the thing about Oleg is he always continues to update the original release, and I'm gonna keep pestering him for more, that's for sure! :-D

I'm travelling now but when I get back I'm going to come back to this thread and get your X-Plane plugin! That will be very nice to have the Aresti on the panel instead of on my desk!

If anyone here hasn't yet heard of it, OLAN is a great (and free) tool for generating Aresti notation without the need for the more expensive Cassidy stuff.


Oh and yeah, regarding phugoid oscillations and pitch stability, I'd say that's a weak point of all sims. X-plane is decent, and actually there are some very good add-ons for FS2004 that are the best simulation of the real thing I've "flown" yet with respect to pitch behaviours, and these are the DreamFleet/Flight1 Beech A36 and B58. It's so nice to be able to trim them realistically, and then fly them as you really would, and see the aircraft exhibit the same sort of subtle oscillations that remain centered on the altitude and airspeed that you trimmed for. Constant airspeed descents/climbs and such are very nice and I actually use these models to demonstrate these concepts to people doing their flight training that I mentor "in the real world".

These also feature exceptional panels and a pretty much 100% accurate GNS430/530 GPS stack. They can be found here: http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/

I trust the Archer won't disappoint either. I tend to be very picky with payware, and usually just trash it after trying them, but these are worth every penny, in fact I'd pay a whole lot more for what they offer. . .they are actually good enough that I use the BaronB58 with the to keep sharp on IFR procedures with the GNS530 and I know that unit inside and out without needing to be paying for a "real" airplane.

AeroSign
05-07-2007, 10:20 AM
Hi Again,
This is partly related to this thread, so I risk an eye and continiue here....


Originally posted by TX-EcoDragon:
Welcome AeroSign!

You should certainly try out The Maddox sims!

Okay I went and bought the game on your recommendation :-) No seriously I thought why not, if there is going to be a SU-26 soon the author must belive in it's aerobatic potential - which is enough to get me supporting it!

But there are so many planes, missions and possibilities I don't know where to start. Could you guys give me a hint regarding the (currently) best suited aerobatic plane? How do I get to a "free flight" mission that dosen't wan't me go bombing someting? I'd like just to explore it's FM with the currently best suited plane.

Any hits are appreciated :-)

Best Regards
/Aero

Edited: Spelling....

OMK_Hand
05-07-2007, 01:34 PM
Hi AeroSign.

Congratulations on your good taste.
You've probably sussed this by now, but:

When the game has loaded, click the button labelled ˜quick mission builder'.

Here, you can choose what, where, when, and how to fly.

At the bottom of the screen the is a button marked ˜difficulty'. Click this and you'll find 2 screens of settings. It's up to you what you choose, ˜though I'd recommend setting everything to ˜real' using the supplied button on each page, except for ˜No external view' and No minimap', both on the second page.

Back in the quick mission builder screen on the top line, labelled ˜your flight', there is a button at the far right of the line. This will take you to a detailed page where you can select type, load out, fuel, etc.

Generally, the bi-planes are very agile:
I-153, J8, CR.42...

Back at the main mission screen, you can set the weather, the time, and the altitude at which you start, oh, and it might be prudent to turn off the AAA defence option.

Of the choices available, the Crimea map is regarded as THE map for testing things out on.

If you want friends to fly with, use the menus. Same for opponents.

When you are ready, off you go.
Don't be afraid to explore the program.

Go here for all you need:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/9121094645

and

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/4871047252

Hope this helps.
Enjoy.

AeroSign
05-08-2007, 02:27 PM
Hi OMK_Handsome,
Thank you for your fast introduction. The links was very good too.

I am alreday looking forward to the Sukhoi :-)

Regards
/Aero

TX-EcoDragon
05-09-2007, 12:05 AM
I just go to multiplayer, and host a session (password if you want, but chances are no one will ever find it!). This lets you start on the ground, and without other AI aircraft to mess with.

There really are lots of fun planes worth flying, my favorites for this sort of flying are the FW-190A5/A6, Ki-43 (probably the most like the Extra300 that we've got), the La-5/7, the 109G6A/S, and if you don't mind no inverted fuel the J8A Gladiator, Fiat Cr42, i153 and i16 are also kinda fun.

I'm glad you picked the sim up, hopefully you will appreciate some other attributes that it has, as it's obviously more suited to things other than aerobatics, but supporting the very few developers that there are that actually pay any attention at all to aerobatics, or heck, flight sims in general, seems a good thing to do.

One of the coolest things to do in this sim series for me has been formation aerobatics. I flew on a team using the FW190 off and on for a few years (hard as the team was based in Italy and I'm in the US). For formation this is the most realistic sim there is (LockOn is nice for jets), and it blows away every other sim out there for this not only in the physics department, but also the smooth netcode. Oh, if you would like to see a sample of this, our (Virtual Haute-Voltige Team) video is on the special features DVD that came with 1946, along with some other very cool ones.

If you would like to meet up on TeamSpeak and do some formation flying I'd love to do it. . .I'm very busy recently, but if I'm here I'd love to help get you started! We have 24/7 dedicated teamspeak servers as well as a data center hosted game server that can be a dedicated (and smooooooth) place to try out some formation! Just let me know!

AeroSign
05-17-2007, 04:19 PM
Hi Tx-EcoDragon,
Thank you for your kind reply. I am sorry for my late one.
The FW109G6A is really nice to fly - great jump start you provided me. I like the sim so far and must agree that the high alfa model is very well implemented! What I don't like is that Red-Out feature that every sim implements when pushing negative G's. Why is that.... I can do inverted loops in my little H101 Salto (RL) doing -4 - - 4.5G and I never see red :-) In fact I only heard stories about this phenomen butit must be very rare

Great you are in the Haute-Voltige Team. I have seen that video on the internet some time ago. It's looking really cool. I found it when I searched for "virtual aerobatic championship (http://www.flightxtreme.com/index.htm)". I think that is a great idear (the virtual aerobatic competition) but I am not that keen on the MS FS flight model - properly due to bad designed planes.... I find X-Plane better suited. By the way, I started building an installer for my X-Plane plugin if you should be interested.

Thank you for your syncron flight offer. I think I need a little more traing before I should ask you to spend time with me online :-)

With the best regards
/Aero

DdT_IcemanFred
05-18-2007, 12:32 PM
Agree. Been up to -4 G. Never had any Redout. Don't think it exists unless you burst some vessels in your retina, but then you've gone real real far...