PDA

View Full Version : Twin-Engined Flight Characteristics



XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 02:19 AM
Hi all. I was wondering whether anyone else (experienced pilots in particular) have noticed that the flight handling of multi-engined prop planes in Il-2: FB is EXTERMELY unrealistic. By this I mean the He-111 and TB-3 bombers. Any pilot will tell you that if you shut off one or more engines on one side of the plane (i.e. the left engines only) and apply full power to the engines on the other side, and pull into a stall, the plane will (oftentimes violently) snap over hard into a spin. I have tried several times unsuccessfully to replicate this pilot's bane in FB. I feel that not only would it add to realism, but implementing correct & realistic multi-engine characteristics would give us simmers the fear and caution the bomber pilots must have felt when one of their engines was disabled in the heat of combat. It would be especially challenging and fun to attempt to land with one engine, wouldn't you say?

I'd really appreciate it if you guys over at 1C:Maddox would pay more attention to multi-engine realism when working on the next patch instead of worrying about such trifling details as navigation lights, stirring of dust at ground-level, etc. As I have stated in past posts, multi-engine management was a huge disappointment to me when I first ran FB, as I had high expectations of the modeling of this aspect of the capable 1C team. I also find it shockingly odd that no one else reports this problem. Please correct this problem, it would make Il-2: FB so much better!

------------------------------------------

"If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out of it but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow enobled and no-one dares criticize it." - Pierre Gallois

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 02:19 AM
Hi all. I was wondering whether anyone else (experienced pilots in particular) have noticed that the flight handling of multi-engined prop planes in Il-2: FB is EXTERMELY unrealistic. By this I mean the He-111 and TB-3 bombers. Any pilot will tell you that if you shut off one or more engines on one side of the plane (i.e. the left engines only) and apply full power to the engines on the other side, and pull into a stall, the plane will (oftentimes violently) snap over hard into a spin. I have tried several times unsuccessfully to replicate this pilot's bane in FB. I feel that not only would it add to realism, but implementing correct & realistic multi-engine characteristics would give us simmers the fear and caution the bomber pilots must have felt when one of their engines was disabled in the heat of combat. It would be especially challenging and fun to attempt to land with one engine, wouldn't you say?

I'd really appreciate it if you guys over at 1C:Maddox would pay more attention to multi-engine realism when working on the next patch instead of worrying about such trifling details as navigation lights, stirring of dust at ground-level, etc. As I have stated in past posts, multi-engine management was a huge disappointment to me when I first ran FB, as I had high expectations of the modeling of this aspect of the capable 1C team. I also find it shockingly odd that no one else reports this problem. Please correct this problem, it would make Il-2: FB so much better!

------------------------------------------

"If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out of it but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow enobled and no-one dares criticize it." - Pierre Gallois

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 02:41 AM
Just a bump, to make sure Oleg sees it. Please post your comments/thoughts also, I want to see what others think of it.

------------------------------------------

"If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out of it but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow enobled and no-one dares criticize it." - Pierre Gallois

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 04:00 AM
Another bump. Thank you if you've read it, but I'd like to see your thoughts on it too.

------------------------------------------

"If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out of it but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow enobled and no-one dares criticize it." - Pierre Gallois

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 05:45 AM
computer_67 wrote:
Any pilot will tell you that if you shut off one or more engines on one side of the plane (i.e. the left engines only) and apply full power to the engines on the other side, and pull into a stall, the plane will (oftentimes violently) snap over hard into a spin.

When you lose an engine on one side, the torque affect can be easily overcome with the rudder. If you were to pull the plane into a stall even with both engines running it would stall violently. Thats what is called a full power stall, and they are very violent. But not as much in a bigger plane. I can say that from real life experience. A cruise stall will usually only drop a wing tip and a descent stall will make the plane sort of flutter in the air and drop. One engine in a full power stall would simply pull the plane over in that direction and possibly into a spin. Not always. I think the stalls are modeled fairly accurate. A full power stall will break violent and there is always the possibilty of a spin because of the way the plane comes over. The nose is very high in a full power stall and it will drop over on a wing and straight down. I would think that a smaller plane would be more likely to spin than a larger one. Losing an engine makes it hard but it can be handled relatively easy by an experienced pilot. Meaning the plane would never be put into a stall situation even with both engines. IMHO the big planes stall characteristics are well enough as they are.

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

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 06:17 AM
Well, after I posted the first time I went and messed with the 111 a bit. It will stall very violently and you cannot recover from it. Three times in a row I put it into a full power stall and three times it broke into a spin and went all the way down. Instead of it not modeled correctly, it may actually be a bit over done. Try pulling the plane at full power into a steep climb and hold it there. Keep pulling back on the stick to hold the nose up and hold the stick backeven after it stalls for a second. Theres your violent stall breaking into a spin. And that was with both engines. It will stall and spin. Ive just never done it before. I try not to. And I fly the 111 on a regular basis. So I have had engines shot out and landed it safely. The trick is (not) to stall the plane. I'm not trying to flame your thread at all. All I am saying is that you dont stall a plane unless your not paying attention or do something wrong. Or perhaps lose an engine on takeoff. Or fly a Pitts Special in airshows lol.

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

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 10:44 AM
What were the general stall characteristics of the
He111 like? Perhaps it was more violent than usual
in a power stall?

I suppose it is possible to take a Pe2, Pe3, or 110
up via a DF server game, but the flight models are
simpler for those, so maybe it wouldn't be a fair
comparasion checking the other twin engined aircraft?

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 03:59 PM
Hmm. The plane seems to have been corrected in the patch after all. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Thanks for the heads-up!

------------------------------------------

"If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out of it but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow enobled and no-one dares criticize it." - Pierre Gallois