PDA

View Full Version : p47 roll rate...



GH_Klingstroem
07-15-2006, 05:27 AM
Is it correct? I have read many accounts about it being very fast which made it easy to fight with at high speeds.. As it is now, its is close to the macchis...
Is it correct?
thx

geetarman
07-15-2006, 06:31 AM
I find it rolls very well.

WTE_Wombat
07-15-2006, 07:46 AM
According to Johnson in Thunderbolt! on page 194 in a mock combat with a Spit 9:

..."I could whip through better than two rolls before the Spitfire completed his first"...

Ours don't seem to come close to that roll rate.

robban75
07-15-2006, 09:23 AM
IIRC, Tagerts roll rate tests showed that the P-47 rolled too fast at low speeds and too slow at high speeds.

Roll rates are off for most planes.

SkyChimp
07-15-2006, 09:32 AM
Tagert would be the best to address that. He can show you his charts that show the in-game performance vs. real life performance.

The P-47's roll rate is a battle we fought from before Forgotten Battles was even released.

Abbuzze
07-15-2006, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Wombat:
According to Johnson in Thunderbolt! on page 194 in a mock combat with a Spit 9:

..."I could whip through better than two rolls before the Spitfire completed his first"...

Ours don't seem to come close to that roll rate.

First no speed is mentioned and second the Spitfire wasn´t a good roller with the standard wing especially at highspeed.

And the most important things, most pilots overestimate their own plane and we don´t know how much force the spitfire pilot applied.

EDIT: And yes the earlier postings are right, also the 190 has this problem - rollrates are inaccurate in FB

heywooood
07-15-2006, 10:04 AM
big ailerons that were well balanced, and that huge engine and prop up front - yeah - the Jug in R/L could roll real fast - especially when using torque to assist (right roll) following the prop.

...and ofcourse - anything the Allied birds could do - the Lufties could do better...lets not forget the importance of keeping our online experience equal for gaming purposes.

Aaron_GT
07-15-2006, 10:45 AM
The P-47's roll rate is a battle we fought from before Forgotten Battles was even released.

Yes! I remember testing all the sims I had on my hard drive, including FB, for comparasion, and FB did not compare well at that point. It's at the point now where it isn't perfect, but it's in the ball park now. It's off a bit, but then most planes are. There seems to be a general tendency for the roll rates to be off in a way that looks to be systematic, so probably something to do with the physics engine is coded or the compromises in modelling to allow it to run on the average PC.

BfHeFwMe
07-15-2006, 01:32 PM
Lightning L's are way off, not even ballpark. The boosted versions transfered 16 to 1 force ratios compared, yet you can't percieve much if any difference with the unboosted J. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

But than in this "community"˜" it's acceptable to ignore certain documentation while embellishing others. And than they scratch heads wondering what hit them when the sales data comes in, that data can't be fudged quite as easily. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

slipBall
07-15-2006, 02:03 PM
I have Hardball's viewer, would be nice if roll rate's were included

WWSensei
07-15-2006, 05:05 PM
In game, using just aerilons the 47 doesn't seem to roll well. However, if you initiate the roll with rudder then use aerilons the roll rate is significantly faster. From a pilots point of view that isn't entirely off the wall (most aircraft rolls are initiated by rudder movement to varying amounts).

I do not make any claim as to the accuracy of the roll rate with just aerilons just pointing out that using rudder to initiate helps the roll rate considerably in game.

TgD Thunderbolt56
07-16-2006, 08:03 AM
P-47's roll-rate is too slow...and the 50's are borked. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

Enjoy what we have fellas. A couple add-ons and another year and this baby may be put to bed. No doubt 1:C has and will continue to implement many things they've learned in future releases.


TB

anarchy52
07-16-2006, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Lightning L's are way off, not even ballpark. The boosted versions transfered 16 to 1 force ratios compared, yet you can't percieve much if any difference with the unboosted J. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

The difference is enormous, but it only comes to play at high speed, low speed roll rate of P-38 wasn't limited by available force/deflection of ailerons. At high speed nothing outrolls boosted P-38, not IRL not in game (except Do-335 which also has boosted ailerons)

Bearcat99
07-17-2006, 08:03 AM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Tagert would be the best to address that. He can show you his charts that show the in-game performance vs. real life performance.

The P-47's roll rate is a battle we fought from before Forgotten Battles was even released. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

You think it is off now? You should have seen it in FB 1.0. I think He-111s & IL2s had a faster roll rate..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Viper2005_
07-17-2006, 08:23 AM
Roll rates are a complex business. It's very easy to say "roll rates are out", but that's not actually what you mean.

What you mean is that the roll rate of the aeroplane doesn't match your assumptions.

How much force does Oleg's virtual pilot apply to the stick?

How fast can Oleg's virtual pilot deflect the stick?

Once you know the answers to those questions, the next stage is to correct the NACA reports to those parameters. Then and only then can you compare & contrast.

Incidently, altitude is very important. Control forces vary roughly with dynamic pressure, whilst roll rate varies directly with TAS. As such, the higher you fly, the higher your roll rate in any given aeroplane.

As regards the He-111, it is worth pointing out that since the Heinkel pilot has a yoke instead of a stick, he might reasonably be expected to apply much larger control forces than the P-47 pilot with his stick.

Does Oleg model this?

I'm not attempting to suggest that a He-111 should out roll a P-47; but I feel that it should be pointed out that aircraft performance is not a trivial subject by any means.

Objective test data, corrected appropriately, will most likely paint a picture rather different from that suggested by some or even many pilot reports, which often contain at least as many questions as answers.

p1ngu666
07-17-2006, 08:56 AM
i vaguly remmber the old jug http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif, i used to apply full rudder and full aliron as quickly as i could when rolling, to speed it up http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Slickun
07-17-2006, 11:28 AM
Dad said that the P-51 outrolled the P-47, by a hair. The N model was really close.

According to Pop, what set the P-47 apart was that all the controls were equal. About the same force required to get the same effect in all axis' of flight. I believe the term is harmonization.

Down low, the Jug was "mushy", but you got "used to it".

BfHeFwMe
07-17-2006, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Lightning L's are way off, not even ballpark. The boosted versions transfered 16 to 1 force ratios compared, yet you can't percieve much if any difference with the unboosted J. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

The difference is enormous, but it only comes to play at high speed, low speed roll rate of P-38 wasn't limited by available force/deflection of ailerons. At high speed nothing outrolls boosted P-38, not IRL not in game (except Do-335 which also has boosted ailerons) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Balogna, at no time or at any speed does an unboosted and boosted set of ailerons overlap in performance. The chart clearly shows not even ballpark, but nice try.
Roll chart (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p-38/p-38j-roll.jpg)

The-Pizza-Man
07-18-2006, 01:41 AM
That's time to roll 90 degrees, which is not directly convertable to roll rate. Boosted ailerons may have simply allowed the pilot to get to full aileron deflection at low speed faster than with unboosted. An extra second spent turning the control yoke with unboosted ailerons would make the difference in a 90 degree roll.

It's analogous to reverse parking in a car with power steering, your able to get from lock to lock faster because you can turn the wheel with less effort, but your actual rate of turn won't be any faster than a non-power steering car once you get the wheels turned.

WOLFMondo
07-18-2006, 03:35 AM
Boosted ailerons probably do allot more for the pilots arms and shoulders more than anything else, allowing him to pull more manouvers for longer periods without knackering himself out.

I once say an interview with a Tigercat display pilot at Duxford. He said the 20 minute display wore him out, his arms were numb afterwards.

Bearcat99
07-18-2006, 06:01 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Roll rates are a complex business. It's very easy to say "roll rates are out", but that's not actually what you mean.

What you mean is that the roll rate of the aeroplane doesn't match your assumptions.

How much force does Oleg's virtual pilot apply to the stick?

How fast can Oleg's virtual pilot deflect the stick?

Once you know the answers to those questions, the next stage is to correct the NACA reports to those parameters. Then and only then can you compare & contrast.

Incidently, altitude is very important. Control forces vary roughly with dynamic pressure, whilst roll rate varies directly with TAS. As such, the higher you fly, the higher your roll rate in any given aeroplane.

As regards the He-111, it is worth pointing out that since the Heinkel pilot has a yoke instead of a stick, he might reasonably be expected to apply much larger control forces than the P-47 pilot with his stick.

Does Oleg model this?

I'm not attempting to suggest that a He-111 should out roll a P-47; but I feel that it should be pointed out that aircraft performance is not a trivial subject by any means.

Objective test data, corrected appropriately, will most likely paint a picture rather different from that suggested by some or even many pilot reports, which often contain at least as many questions as answers.

Be all that as it may be..... the FB 1.0 roll rates on the jug were incorrect.... everybody knew it.. including Oleg... thats why he changed it.

Jaws2002
07-18-2006, 09:48 AM
I would suggest you guys start testing and come up with some results that can be compared with real time data.

Remember, if you don't bring something that can be compared with the real thing you are called whiners, and are not taken seriously.

Tagert does some nice charts with device link, but it would be good if you gents would do the testing, save the tracks and send them to him (if he agrees to help). Rather then expect him to do all the work.

Anyway, last time he did it, the results showed the jug rolled too good at low speeds and too bad at high speeds.

Kocur_
07-18-2006, 09:57 AM
...and it was problem of most, if not all planes in the game IIRC.