PDA

View Full Version : Mustang Pilot: More torque effects needed please.



XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 03:25 PM
Could il-2 have more torque forces added please? I piloted the TF-51D Mustang, Spitfire Mk. 9, Mig-17, T-6, PT-17, T-34 and Pitts Special among others in 4-5 g aerobatics including spins in both directions for the Mustang among with most others...no spins in the Mig-17.

I found that at 12,000 feet in the Mustang that when I put the landing gear down, the flaps full down and reduced power to idle and then rapidly added power that the Mustang went into an uncontrolled, rapid torque roll. It was quite violent.

When I do this maneuver in Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator 3 in the Mustang, it does indeed do a torque roll.
The new CFS3 Firepower addon series aircraft do it even better. However, IL-2 does not.

Does il-2 model the complete torque forces of the propeller including slipstream effects, asymmetric loading, equal and opposite reactions and precession?

In IL-2, nothing (or very little) happens when I add power in this situation in the Mustang. Nothing or very little happened in the Mig-17 in this situation too. In the TF-51D,however, the reaction was very violent. In the Spitfire and T-6 in this situation, they also started rolling. This suggests that the many types of torque forces are not adequately modeled in the current il-2 version.

US Navy aeronautical engineeers go through a "torque conversion training class" with a TF-51D Mustang with Stallion 51 training company in Kissimmee, Florida because the jet-era aeronautical engineer and pilot has very little actual experience with the sometimes overwhelming torque forces experienced with a WW2-era fighter.
Their contact information.

I personally know of at least one flight simulation developer who has flown with this company to gain experience: Dale "HiTech" Addink of Aces High and formally of Warbirds.

Stallion 51 contact information:

ADDRESS: 3951 Merlin Drive
(Located at Kissimmee Municipal Airport.)
Kissimmee, FL 34741
PHONE: (407) 846-4400
(407) 846-0414 (fax)

E-MAIL: p51mustang@stallion51.com
SCHEDULING: Contact Sharon at ext: 24 or email: sharon@stallion51.com

Would it be possible to add more torque forces to il-2 to bring it up to a Combat Flight Simulator 3 level because in so many ways il-2 is the best WW2 flight simulator I have ever flown.

Thanks,

Richard

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 03:25 PM
Could il-2 have more torque forces added please? I piloted the TF-51D Mustang, Spitfire Mk. 9, Mig-17, T-6, PT-17, T-34 and Pitts Special among others in 4-5 g aerobatics including spins in both directions for the Mustang among with most others...no spins in the Mig-17.

I found that at 12,000 feet in the Mustang that when I put the landing gear down, the flaps full down and reduced power to idle and then rapidly added power that the Mustang went into an uncontrolled, rapid torque roll. It was quite violent.

When I do this maneuver in Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator 3 in the Mustang, it does indeed do a torque roll.
The new CFS3 Firepower addon series aircraft do it even better. However, IL-2 does not.

Does il-2 model the complete torque forces of the propeller including slipstream effects, asymmetric loading, equal and opposite reactions and precession?

In IL-2, nothing (or very little) happens when I add power in this situation in the Mustang. Nothing or very little happened in the Mig-17 in this situation too. In the TF-51D,however, the reaction was very violent. In the Spitfire and T-6 in this situation, they also started rolling. This suggests that the many types of torque forces are not adequately modeled in the current il-2 version.

US Navy aeronautical engineeers go through a "torque conversion training class" with a TF-51D Mustang with Stallion 51 training company in Kissimmee, Florida because the jet-era aeronautical engineer and pilot has very little actual experience with the sometimes overwhelming torque forces experienced with a WW2-era fighter.
Their contact information.

I personally know of at least one flight simulation developer who has flown with this company to gain experience: Dale "HiTech" Addink of Aces High and formally of Warbirds.

Stallion 51 contact information:

ADDRESS: 3951 Merlin Drive
(Located at Kissimmee Municipal Airport.)
Kissimmee, FL 34741
PHONE: (407) 846-4400
(407) 846-0414 (fax)

E-MAIL: p51mustang@stallion51.com
SCHEDULING: Contact Sharon at ext: 24 or email: sharon@stallion51.com

Would it be possible to add more torque forces to il-2 to bring it up to a Combat Flight Simulator 3 level because in so many ways il-2 is the best WW2 flight simulator I have ever flown.

Thanks,

Richard

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 03:48 PM
I believe the torque at start must be stronger too. I read you can simply lose control of the plane if the tail goes up too fast.

Btw, great to hear a real pilot speak about that!

Cheers,



P.S. I vote Ordway as a beta tester!

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 03:48 PM
double post, sorry!



Message Edited on 11/13/0302:49PM by CHDT

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 03:48 PM
ohh yeah *bump*

"HyperLobby 4 Ever"

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 03:51 PM
"US Navy aeronautical engineeers go through a "torque conversion training class" with a TF-51D Mustang with Stallion 51 training company in Kissimmee, Florida because the jet-era aeronautical engineer and pilot has very little actual experience with the sometimes overwhelming torque forces experienced with a WW2-era fighter."



I've seen at Sion airbase some very experienced jet pilots making very ugly starts and sometimes accidents when they were trained on the Pilatus Porter, which has a very strong torque!

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 04:23 PM
Ah Yes. I complained about this months ago. Ground handling characteristics in this sim are lacking. Its a fantastic sim, but I too would like to see more realistic ground handling like torque. Currently, the bf-109s are a piece of cake to taxi when in fact 2000+ were lost to ground accidents. The new zero is almost impossible to move even on concrete runways!

http://www.fargoairmuseum.org/zero-105-over-rabaul.jpg

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_henry_blake.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 04:53 PM
Back in the IL2 demo torque (on the P39) was quite
vicious on take off it seemed (although there was
also quite a lot of wind in the demo).

Richard - what do you think of CFS3 in general? (PVT
message - since CFS3 would be off topic and it would
be naughty to discuss it here).

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 05:06 PM
mike_espo wrote:
- Ah Yes. I complained about this months ago. Ground
- handling characteristics in this sim are lacking.
- Its a fantastic sim, but I too would like to see
- more realistic ground handling like torque.
- Currently, the bf-109s are a piece of cake to taxi
- when in fact 2000+ were lost to ground accidents.
- The new zero is almost impossible to move even on
- concrete runways!

Its not exactly fair to mention this as an 109 "fault", since many of the eras a/c had similar issues.

Not even the numbers are an indication since

1. 109s often operated from very rough field conditions

2. were in time transferred to training command

3. flown by inexperienced air crew.

Chances are that in a final analysis a great percentage would have been lost in accidents, take off and landing or otherwise.

Ruy "SPADES" Horta
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta
-----------------------------
Il-2 - VEF JG 77
-----------------------------
'95-02 - WB Jagdgeschwader 53
'99-00 - DoA Jagdstaffel 18
-----------------------------
The rest is history...

http:\\www.xs4all.nl\~rhorta\brother.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 05:22 PM
Good point, I believe that torque effects should be stronger. 109 WAS challencing to start in demo IIRC, but now it is very easy. Finns lost 36 Messerschmitts in combat and 39 in accidents, 15 of those were accidents during take-off. Almost in every desciption of those incidents reads: "plane rolled left during takeoff..." and so on.

So in Finnish service Messerschmitt combined with rookie pilot caused as much losses as Soviet Air Force itself.

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 05:52 PM
I don't know if I'll be shot for mentioning another sim here and linking it but I'll take my chances http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. Try the F-51 in TargetKorea or the Corsairs in both TargetRabaul and TargetKorea. You're search for torque effects will be rewarded with a vengence http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.targetware.net/

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 06:18 PM
How is TargetRabual progressing? I downloaded 0.51
or something and it seemed very unfinished.

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 06:25 PM
IMHO all plane`s torque is greatly undermodelled on the ground ever since the original`s il2 beta a good 3? years ago... it should be more pronounced, esp. with planes that were most effected with it, 109 being classic example for that.

BTW, 109`s ground accidents. It was not uncommon, in fact it followed the same trend in every air force that around 1/3 to 1/2 of the plane losses occured in non-combat.. ie., today the USAF looses around 99% of the planes in non-combat, so does it really tells anything ?

BTW, the 109 was easy to taxy, the problem was weak directional stability on the ground just after the tailwheel was raised, and torque effect can be felt. If pilot did not counterreacted with rudder immidiately, there was a good chance to ground loop. However, one should notice that this was just an operating phenomenon of the plane, which some easygoing pilot`s ignored, or were just too violent with the throttle.. which is more like pilot error to me.



Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 08:38 PM
AaronGT wrote:
- How is TargetRabual progressing? I downloaded 0.51
- or something and it seemed very unfinished.

They are up to .56 now. It is much further along. The UI is very good and all settings and calibrations and things like that can all be done via the UI now which is nice. Some more planes and effects and stuff too. .57 is due out soon and is supposed to have a reworked mission/scenario system that will be better for squad ops and such among other things.

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 08:59 PM
This one really deserves a big BUMP!
Torque & gyro effects are practically non-existent in FB and of course this does not only apply to the P51 but to all fighters. These effects play an important roll in air combat, especially at slow speed as they can easily overcome control authority at slow speed and they must be a part of any FM that claims to be realistic. Some of these torque effects seem modeled as a careful observation of the slip indicator shows but they are so weak that they have no practical effect. Without this, the FM does not feel convincing in extreme situations.

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 09:37 PM
However, the Bf-109 was notorious for having a very thin wheel base, which caused pilots a great deal of trouble landing and also on take offs.

The effect of torque on the aircraft was so great, and the spacing of the wheels so thin, that many pilots, Adolf Galland mentioned in his book, would never refuce their throttle to the "proper" landing settings because of the difference in the planes attitude with and without torque, even at very low throttle settings. This resulted in some longer landings, but it was better then getting tossed into a violent torque roll should you need to go around for another pass.

I too miss the days when Il2 was nearly impossibly difficult. For all the realism additions they have made, we'e also lost quite a bit. I remember the Bf-109 having a nasty torque roll.. Maybe I'll install IL-2 again and see what patch took it from us, or if it wasn't until FB.

The P-39 used to spin at the drop of a hat too.. Pity it's not nearly that touchy anymore... considering most pilots considered it a death trap if it ever spun...

But then again, i suppose you have to sell copies, and a really really hard game wouldn't sell.. Oleg, how about giving us more realism options? Scalable Torque effects, wind, slip, etc so that we could make it as hard as its supposed to be on ourselves.

?



:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+

"Flying is more than a sport and more than a job; flying is pure passion and desire, which fill a lifetime."

RAF74_JazzMan
RAF No.74 Squadron
http://www.aircombat.ca/RAF74/

http://www.hotel.wineasy.se/ipms/photos/profile_74sqn_06.gif


"Individual victories in the air should be subordinate to the overall sucess of the group....The most important principle is to insure that those under you feel that their commander understands their worries; that the commander can be approached by anyone in the group; that what he demands of the group is necessary, and that you would never demand of them more that what you are willing to demand of yourself."

:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 09:54 PM
rhorta wrote:
-
- Its not exactly fair to mention this as an 109
- "fault", since many of the eras a/c had similar
- issues.
-
- Not even the numbers are an indication


Be honest with yourself about this. It doesn't matter how many excuses one can dream up, the numbers don't lie and they are glaring:

Of 33,000 Bf109s produced in the war, 11,000 were lost to landing AND takeoff accidents. I have no pilot data, but I'd bet a bunch of young men died. One third.

The landing gear were set too narrow and Willy knew it. He didn't want drag inducing bulges in the wings so the design remained unchanged. The Yaks operated in the same lousy conditions and had no such losses.

The FB Bf109 is easy to take off and land for marketing/commercial reasons.



"We will welcome them with bullets and shoes."

ZG77_Nagual
11-13-2003, 10:02 PM
This is true and was also a fault in the spitfire - though not as bad.
190 was praised for having more civilized landing gear.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 10:11 PM
I've been to the restoration museam at the Kissimmee airport, and my screensaver is WW2 warbirds I bought from a CD sold inside their little gift shop! Cool huh?

http://www.80snostalgia.com/classictv/airwolf/pic1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 10:43 PM
I agree completely on the the ground handling characteristics of all the aircraft in the game. It is very simplified. I think however in done for a reason of ease of use. Do you remember all the howls of protest of how difficult is was to take-off in Rowan's Bob.

Also how many of you do run-ups and do things like mag checks in the game, always keep full back stick whilst taxiing, with ailerons into wind (hard to do with no wind sock). I backing not many, although these are vital checks and actions to any real life pilot. Or how many start up and immediately go to full power, no warm, up for a quick take off in a DF server. It was probably done to keep even experienced sim pilots from being driven away from the game in it's hardest modes. I still remember all the tap dancing to keep a CAP-10 straight on take off.

Would be great to fly a Tf-51. If only I could convince a fellow pilot to get me a ride in the P-51 that he has access too./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

I can imagine that you were being shown that you should not slam the throttle from idle in the event of a late go-around because of the violent torque which caused many operational losses in all types of high powered single engine fighters.

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 11:24 PM
"I agree completely on the the ground handling characteristics of all the aircraft in the game. It is very simplified. I think however in done for a reason of ease of use. Do you remember all the howls of protest of how difficult is was to take-off in Rowan's Bob."


Realistic torque could be an option in the difficulty menu.

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 11:36 PM
As far as torque effects, I posted on this topic over a year ago and have taken the occasional revisit to it however I do not feel that it is within the scope of the sim at teh moment, and I would almost rather that it be ignored rather than attempted poorly with scripting etc. I havent found the inflight torque of the P-51, the AT-6 or the PT-17 to be so high as to present anyhting too unusual when flown outside of stall regimes, while at minimum airspeed, or when at close to 0G you can get a nice roll going, but I think you would have to try to do that to see effects to any significant extent, and that it would not change the gameplay much for the majority of "pilots." However it would be a god-send for the aerobatics pilots out there! Ground handling of course is a whole diferent thing, and I for one can tell by the nature of many posts here that if the ground handling was modeled perfectly Oleg would loose a lot of customers who read somewhere that the P-51 has "nice ground handling due to its wide and low stance" and suppose that because of this statement that the typical gamer should be able to control it. As and option however, I think it would be an absolutely wonderful thing.


Regarding P-51 stick time

Stallion 51 is the best place for LOA and more advanced training, but to those who live on the west coast and don't have any P-51 connections, or don't have the ~$2,000/hour, there is a P-51 avialable for "rides" and not dual instruction (ie pilot rated passengers must be tailwheel and high-performance endorsed to log anything as PIC) in Lodi CA. and the only charge is $500/hour. (about 1/4 what you will find elsewhere).




S!
TX-EcoDragon
Black 1
TX Squadron XO
http://www.txsquadron.com

Member-Team Raven
http://www.waynehandley.com

(Former)Reserve Pilot Aircraft #2 of Gruppo 313
Pattuglia Acrobatica Virtuale
http://www.vhvt.com/

http://www.attitudeaviation.com/

http://www.calaggieflyers.com/



http://www.txsquadron.com/uploaded/TX-EcoDragon/ravenvert.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 11:40 PM
And by the way, this is bar none the best FM for complex physics I have seen to date in a sim, and I msut cringe at the comparison to CFS. ;-)


I would say that the next big FM change that needs to be made would be to enable more proper stall behaviour, so that there was some delineation between the stall and the spin, and so that proper coordination would allow for a stall without a spin/snap roll as the game currently handles it.

S!
TX-EcoDragon
Black 1
TX Squadron XO
http://www.txsquadron.com

Member-Team Raven
http://www.waynehandley.com

(Former)Reserve Pilot Aircraft #2 of Gruppo 313
Pattuglia Acrobatica Virtuale
http://www.vhvt.com/

http://www.attitudeaviation.com/

http://www.calaggieflyers.com/



http://www.txsquadron.com/uploaded/TX-EcoDragon/ravenvert.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 11:53 PM
CHDT wrote:
- Realistic torque could be an option in the
- difficulty menu.

Yep. Why after all is there a button "Torque & Gyro effects" if there are practically none?

Just one RL example to show that it was not only an issue when taking off.
From Higham/Siddal's "Flying combat aircraft of the USAAF-USAF" describing a fight between P-38s and FW-190s which shows the effect of torque on the 190 at high power/slow speed whereas for the P-38 it is cancelled due to the two counter-rotating propellers:
"My flight of four P-38s was bounced by twenty-five to thirty FW-190s of the yellow-nose variety from Abbeville. A string of six or more of them got in behind me before I noticed them, and just as No. 1 began to fire, I rolled into a right climbing turn and went to war emergency of 60 inches manifold pressure. As we went round and round in our corkscrew climb, I could see over my right shoulder the various FW-190 pilots booting right rudder attempting to control their torque at 150 mph and full throttle, but one by one they flipped over the left and spun out."

Not like the ultra-stable steep stall speed climbs in FB.

XyZspineZyX
11-14-2003, 12:48 AM
ordway wrote:

"Does il-2 model the complete torque forces of the propeller including slipstream effects, asymmetric loading, equal and opposite reactions and precession?"

The only reason I bought this WWII Combat Simulation was because I wanted to find out what it is like to fly these amazing old planes. As far as I'm concerned if these above mentioned violent forces aren't factored into this simulation then this flight sim isn't a flight sim, it is an "Arcade Game" and if that is the case then I'll just go play Battlefield 1942 because it entertains without causing any frustration. This simulator on the other hand is complicated and I expect it to be complicated. The more complicated it is the more challenge it is the more I will enjoy it. I for one fully expect 1C Maddox Games to correct this issue ASAP. As a paying client I would like to see a setting for complex torque and gyroscopic precession as well as cavitating propellors factored into this simulation, along with any other forces that have been left out. We the paying customers must demand it otherwise why should Oleg waste his time on this if the customer doesn't want or ask for it? Lets all expect it to be corrected for the final 1.2 version, I can't wait. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

PS. Please Oleg can you rectify this situation for the final release.
YOUR CUSTOMER, E_Temperament.

XyZspineZyX
11-14-2003, 01:31 AM
E_Temperament::
-- As far as I'm concerned if these above mentioned violent
-- forces aren't factored into this simulation then this
-- flight sim isn't a flight sim, it is an "Arcade Game"

Then you don't want a frontline military air warfare simulator, but a Test Pilot sim. Good thinking.

ZG77_Nagual
11-14-2003, 01:51 AM
as the occassional person seems to appreciate - this simm has great flight modeling - but it is also very processor intensive. I think given the approach taken you might be looking at even more cpu power to model torque. I'd look for this in the next one - which is being written for more processing power.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-15-2003, 12:44 PM
ZG77_Nagual wrote:
- as the occassional person seems to appreciate - this
- simm has great flight modeling - but it is also very
- processor intensive. I think given the approach
- taken you might be looking at even more cpu power to
- model torque. I'd look for this in the next one -
- which is being written for more processing power.

As has been said, some (maybe even all?) torque effects are already modeled. They just seem artificially weakened so much that they don't play a role any more.
And since this stuff has at least as much effect on air combat as stalls, spins and snap rolls (after all, they are correlated), I wouldn't say that they are unimportant.
Why make the FM arcade when there's an realism option to enable/disable these things?

XyZspineZyX
11-15-2003, 01:33 PM
Getting a bit late in time now isnt it guys ?

Ok so Il-2/FB caught your attention, thats just the start, do not expect too much to change in this Sim, mainly because a new Generation of WW2 Combat flight Sims is going to Emerge from the Maddox 1C Gaming house over the next 3/4 years, and work has already begun
IL-2 is no longer supported, 12 months from now FB probably wont be either.

Fewer aircraft but much more complex flight models is what is comming from 1C ,according to interviews Oleg has had with others, over recent months.

Direction ? once again as said by Oleg during an interview in Spain.
Battle of Britain with a Med expansion.
A full Pacific Sim,
Then back to the Russian Front.

All indications from observing posts made by Oleg or reading transcripts of interviews he has had=

It would seem you will get the more complex flight models you want,in future,and pay the price of having fewer aircraft as a result, but not in FB.

Bye

XyZspineZyX
11-15-2003, 11:46 PM
Everything that I read suggests that the issues reside in the CPU power more than with the code writers. If anyone is going to do this I when the means are there I would think this group would.

S!
TX-EcoDragon
Black 1
TX Squadron XO
http://www.txsquadron.com

Member-Team Raven
http://www.waynehandley.com

(Former)Reserve Pilot Aircraft #2 of Gruppo 313
Pattuglia Acrobatica Virtuale
http://www.vhvt.com/

http://www.attitudeaviation.com/

http://www.calaggieflyers.com/



http://www.txsquadron.com/uploaded/TX-EcoDragon/ravenvert.jpg