PDA

View Full Version : I have NEVER heard of a P-51D shedding it's wings in a dive!



Waldo.Pepper
07-18-2007, 01:29 AM
Well you have now!

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6482196760319906605

That was Clayton Kelly Gross.

Six kill ace. He completed two tours with the 354th FG, and flew 105 combat missions. He shot down six enemy fighters, including an ME-262 on April 14, 1945. He was awarded the Silver Star, two Distinguished Flying Crosses, and 16 Air Medals.

And he said he saw eight of them shed their wings in a dive. He mentioned it was in their new D's. Perhaps the pilots were a little unfamiliar with them, and were a little too ham fisted with the controls. Who knows. Thought it was interesting.

Here is his book. A worthy read.

http://www.homestead.com/354thfightergroup/LIVEBAIT.html

Waldo.Pepper
07-18-2007, 01:29 AM
Well you have now!

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6482196760319906605

That was Clayton Kelly Gross.

Six kill ace. He completed two tours with the 354th FG, and flew 105 combat missions. He shot down six enemy fighters, including an ME-262 on April 14, 1945. He was awarded the Silver Star, two Distinguished Flying Crosses, and 16 Air Medals.

And he said he saw eight of them shed their wings in a dive. He mentioned it was in their new D's. Perhaps the pilots were a little unfamiliar with them, and were a little too ham fisted with the controls. Who knows. Thought it was interesting.

Here is his book. A worthy read.

http://www.homestead.com/354thfightergroup/LIVEBAIT.html

Matz0r
07-18-2007, 01:56 AM
Lies! Not precious! Lies!

MrMojok
07-18-2007, 02:22 AM
Tell us more about the book, Waldo. Good writing style? How does it compare to other Mustang pilot bios?

joeap
07-18-2007, 02:27 AM
Real history, it's a ***** ain't it. Watch all our P-51 whiners suddenly ignore this testimony when the fourm was bombarded by it before.

DKoor
07-18-2007, 02:43 AM
But it's still 78,92% cooler ac than the Spitfire.
Even with wings falling off.

Waldo.Pepper
07-18-2007, 02:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrMojok:
Tell us more about the book, Waldo. Good writing style? How does it compare to other Mustang pilot bios? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is expensive! I have only read excerpts so far. I like what I have read so far. After I rob a bank I may order it.

Feathered_IV
07-18-2007, 04:37 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif Amazing stuff.

Did you see those addon rear-view mirrors too? Never seen those before either. Truth is a wonderful thing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

BGs_Ricky
07-18-2007, 05:02 AM
Very interesting. But it should also be noted that it happened while they were dive-bombing. The pilot seems to say that the wing broke because of the extra gun in the wing (compared to B/C models) that made it less resistant...I'd be more suspicious about the extra wight of the bombs http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Airmail109
07-18-2007, 05:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BGs_Ricky:
Very interesting. But it should also be noted that it happened while they were dive-bombing. The pilot seems to say that the wing broke because of the extra gun in the wing (compared to B/C models) that made it less resistant...I'd be more suspicious about the extra wight of the bombs http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ive got a picture in a book of a p51 whose wings fell off whilst diving over his own airbase.

Apparently the fusalages used to crash first, then the wings would come slowly fluttering down.

BSS_Goat
07-18-2007, 05:29 AM
He also says "when we got back they grounded the P-51"
I would think this was to fix the problem.....and not let it continue for the rest of the war.

luftluuver
07-18-2007, 05:46 AM
Old news. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif The cause was traced to a u/c lock malfunction. This would allow the u/c to protrude into the airstream. The wind would get hold of the u/c and tear the u/c from the wing, damaging the wing enough for it to fail.

SeaFireLIV
07-18-2007, 06:25 AM
This does demonstrate that the P-51 did have a bit of a wing shed problem.

In this case it was the dive plus the extra gun.

It`s quite logical then that removing the gun would not stop this wing problem altogther but alleviate it.

So if you go out again, without the gun in each wing and no bomb, but you dived harder then made a sharp turn UP, or back, the wings might be stressed enough to snap.

Which I reckon most rookies are doing in IL2. then they come back and complain.

3.JG51_BigBear
07-18-2007, 08:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Old news. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif The cause was traced to a u/c lock malfunction. This would allow the u/c to protrude into the airstream. The wind would get hold of the u/c and tear the u/c from the wing, damaging the wing enough for it to fail. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif
To be honest, I don't have a problem with the wing shedding thing in Il2, it hasn't happened to me in quite some time after I reconfigured my joystick, but what the pilot in the clip is talking about was traced to the undercarriage lock.

luftluuver
07-18-2007, 09:16 AM
It would seem that Oleg got suckered by a thread in ORR when he first modelled the P-51. No doubt there was an e-mail to Oleg by the thread starter. Selective quotes giving only a partial 'story'. We all know that Oleg is not up to snuff on American a/c, at least then.

PBNA-Boosher
07-18-2007, 09:23 AM
I have never had a P-51's wings snap out on me in a dive in this game. I pull out nice and easy. The last plane that snapped a wing with me in the cockpit was the MiG-9. I was pushing 900 kph and pulled up too fast. It was perfectly believable that I put too much stress on the airframe.

LStarosta
07-18-2007, 09:24 AM
The wings weren't breaking off. Nubs pilots confused the storage wing release switch with the Win-War switch. durrrrr

BillyTheKid_22
07-18-2007, 09:48 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Great video!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif



http://www.homestead.com/354thfightergroup/livebaitbk1.jpg

SeaFireLIV
07-18-2007, 10:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PBNA-Boosher:
I have never had a P-51's wings snap out on me in a dive in this game. I pull out nice and easy. The last plane that snapped a wing with me in the cockpit was the MiG-9. I was pushing 900 kph and pulled up too fast. It was perfectly believable that I put too much stress on the airframe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most Russian planes will break apart relatively easily. i`m always aware of this, especially when some Luftwaffy sees me and instantly dives hoping to snap my wings off. I always chuckle when he levels out low and banks to look behind him and I`m still there - wings intact!

It`s all about how you fly `em. Most people learn quick the 1st couple of times the wings snap off.

I wonder if the Russian forums badger Oleg continuously because of this?

horseback
07-18-2007, 10:22 AM
Okay, so Clayton Gross was an ace and he was there. He was NOT the squadron's engineering officer, he did NOT have an engineering degree, but he KNEW it was the extra gun in the wing that caused all that extra stress.

I'm sorry, but this sort of thing goes on all the time. A veteran makes a comment based on what he heard in the chow hall or officers' mess, and it becomes Gospel to some people.

Gross may have transferred out before he got the straight information, or he may have simply not been concerned about what the cause of the problem really was once it was fixed, and he could fly his missions without the wings coming off.

This is like the Soviet pilots' statements about how they knew that Western (both Axis and Allied) pilots only fought hard because they would get paid extra cash for each plane they shot down, and some people on these forums insisting that it must be so, because the man was a veteran, and he was there, so he must know. It couldn't possibly been what his regiment's political officer told him...

A friend of mine's father was a combat infantry veteran of the Torch campign in North Africa, and he always insisted that Stukas were used as fighters, because he saw one shoot down a (single-tailed) B-25 over the front while he was in Algeria.

From his description of the event, I'm pretty sure that he saw a Stuka take a break from strafing the Americans' ground positions to take out a lone crippled A-20 (single tail?) limping back from its bombing attack behind the German lines. He never accepted my theory, though, because he saw a fighter version of the Stuka (fixed gear, gull wing and all) take down a US bomber.

He was there, and he knew what he saw, period.

cheers

horseback

Manos1
07-18-2007, 10:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
He shot down six enemy fighters...He was awarded the Silver Star, two Distinguished Flying Crosses, and 16 Air Medals. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am wondering how can somebody get a Silver Star, two Distinguished Flying Crosses, and 16 Air Medals with six kills.

And since I do not have the book (nor the time to read it) I hope that one of you guys can help my ignorance...

~S~

Bearcat99
07-18-2007, 10:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manos1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
He shot down six enemy fighters...He was awarded the Silver Star, two Distinguished Flying Crosses, and 16 Air Medals. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am wondering how can somebody get a Silver Star, two Distinguished Flying Crosses, and 16 Air Medals with six kills.

And since I do not have the book (nor the time to read it) I hope that one of you guys can help my ignorance...

~S~ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess that would all depend on the circumsatnces..

TheBandit_76
07-18-2007, 11:17 AM
....and every tank encountered was a Tiger, and every shell sent over was an 88, and the German tanks were diesels, and yadda yadda yadda.

Well documented that the undercarriage locks were failing and causing this. I like how the video clips off @ and......

and what?

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

What I really love is that all the bitter Mustang haters will never be able to erase history, and history says the Mustang kicked luft a$$, and took names.

That's just something folks will have to learn to live with.

http://www.riveting-images.com/Dan_Zoernig_Aviation_Art/Dan_Zoernig___Can_t_Talk__Gott/Zoernig_Can_Talk_Goota_Shoot_600pxl.jpg

Vipez-
07-18-2007, 11:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheBandit_76:

What I really love is that all the bitter Mustang haters will never be able to erase history, and history says the Mustang kicked luft a$$, and took names.

http://www.riveting-images.com/Dan_Zoernig_Aviation_Art/Dan_Zoernig___Can_t_Talk__Gott/Zoernig_Can_Talk_Goota_Shoot_600pxl.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whaa?? So far I've seen none bashing teh P-51 in this topic, what ever your smoking pass it on please http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Blutarski2004
07-18-2007, 11:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
Okay, so Clayton Gross was an ace and he was there. He was NOT the squadron's engineering officer, he did NOT have an engineering degree, but he KNEW it was the extra gun in the wing that caused all that extra stress.

I'm sorry, but this sort of thing goes on all the time. A veteran makes a comment based on what he heard in the chow hall or officers' mess, and it becomes Gospel to some people.

Gross may have transferred out before he got the straight information, or he may have simply not been concerned about what the cause of the problem really was once it was fixed, and he could fly his missions without the wings coming off.

This is like the Soviet pilots' statements about how they knew that Western (both Axis and Allied) pilots only fought hard because they would get paid extra cash for each plane they shot down, and some people on these forums insisting that it must be so, because the man was a veteran, and he was there, so he must know. It couldn't possibly been what his regiment's political officer told him...

A friend of mine's father was a combat infantry veteran of the Torch campign in North Africa, and he always insisted that Stukas were used as fighters, because he saw one shoot down a (single-tailed) B-25 over the front while he was in Algeria.

From his description of the event, I'm pretty sure that he saw a Stuka take a break from strafing the Americans' ground positions to take out a lone crippled A-20 (single tail?) limping back from its bombing attack behind the German lines. He never accepted my theory, though, because he saw a fighter version of the Stuka (fixed gear, gull wing and all) take down a US bomber.

He was there, and he knew what he saw, period.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... These download sites -

http://www.tailwheel.nl/downloads/p40trainingsmall.pdf

http://www.tailwheel.nl/downloads/p51trainingmanualsmall.pdf

http://www.tailwheel.nl/downloads/p47trainingmanualsmall.pdf

- were posted earlier by Msalama (bless him). Read the P51D pilot's handbook. It discusses some interesting design alterations which might have definitely contributed to this wing shedding problem of the P51D.

Control sensitivity is one which leaped out at me - how much easier it was to suddenly develop high G's in the D model than in the B/C models.

SeaFireLIV
07-18-2007, 11:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vipez-:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheBandit_76:

What I really love is that all the bitter Mustang haters will never be able to erase history, and history says the Mustang kicked luft a$$, and took names.



Whaa?? So far I've seen none bashing teh P-51 in this topic, what ever your smoking pass it on please http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, it`s the forums. Some people try to look so deep and read so hard between the lines with an added bit of paranoia like `No body better criticise the P51...` and well, say anything that`s not out right praise and you`re fair game.

GIAP.Shura
07-18-2007, 11:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
Truth is a wonderful thing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The truth? We can't handle the truth!

BillyTheKid_22
07-18-2007, 12:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheBandit_76:
....and every tank encountered was a Tiger, and every shell sent over was an 88, and the German tanks were diesels, and yadda yadda yadda.

Well documented that the undercarriage locks were failing and causing this. I like how the video clips off @ and......

and what?

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

What I really love is that all the bitter Mustang haters will never be able to erase history, and history says the Mustang kicked luft a$$, and took names.

That's just something folks will have to learn to live with.

http://www.riveting-images.com/Dan_Zoernig_Aviation_Art/Dan_Zoernig___Can_t_Talk__Gott/Zoernig_Can_Talk_Goota_Shoot_600pxl.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



LoL!~!! MY BIG BROTHER!!! http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif



http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/f16mustang01.jpg

No601_Tom
07-18-2007, 12:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manos1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
He shot down six enemy fighters...He was awarded the Silver Star, two Distinguished Flying Crosses, and 16 Air Medals. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am wondering how can somebody get a Silver Star, two Distinguished Flying Crosses, and 16 Air Medals with six kills.

And since I do not have the book (nor the time to read it) I hope that one of you guys can help my ignorance...

~S~ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He was American, and Americans tend to reward ordinary service with medals.

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

StellarRat
07-18-2007, 12:37 PM
The P-51 has the best high speed controls in the game. You will never get control lock in a high speed dive in a 51, but you might break the wings trying to pull out too hard. Most of this can be overcome with a reduced setting on the elevator profile. I dive them at 800 kph + from time to time and haven't lost a wing DURING the dive only when attempting to pull out too hard.

GBrutus
07-18-2007, 12:38 PM
Most pilots never scored so much as a hit on an enemy aircraft. Six kills is nothing to sneer at.

StellarRat
07-18-2007, 12:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GBrutus:
Most pilots never scored so much as a hit on an enemy aircraft. Six kills is nothing to sneer at. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Sillius_Sodus
07-18-2007, 12:54 PM
Manos1,

It's a valid question. Air Medals could be awarded for completing a certain number of missions. The other medals could have been awarded for flying deeds other than shooting down aircraft although I imagine shooting down a 262 would earn you some extra recognition.

Good hunting,
Sillius_Sodus

BSS_Goat
07-18-2007, 12:56 PM
No such thing as "ordinary" service.

msalama
07-18-2007, 01:04 PM
Cheers Blutarski http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Control sensitivity is one which leaped out at me - how much easier it was to suddenly develop high G's in the D model than in the B/C models. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1

That, and how a heavily loaded fuselage tank affected the plane's flying characteristics...

C'mon guys, read it, a highly interesting document!

M_Gunz
07-18-2007, 01:12 PM
The P-51's losing wings when the gear dropped was a short lived problem that got fixed in
short order. It's been posted how many were lost which was a fraction of one percent of
the total.

We have had enough people saying that LaGG's should all catch fire and burn easily because
for a short time ONE factory of THREE that produced them used a substitute varnish that did
catch fire easily. Problem was rectified in a very "miscreant held responsible way" (he was
pocketing the money saved by cheap varnish) that really should be how it works even now...
the big screwups just profit and walk instead.

stalkervision
07-18-2007, 01:33 PM
How dare anyone besmerch the great name of the P-51! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

A pox on your "joystick" I tell you!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Kettenhunde
07-18-2007, 02:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Control sensitivity is one which leaped out at me - how much easier it was to suddenly develop high G's in the D model than in the B/C models. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is exactly it. All aircraft have the ability to shed their wings and overload the airframe if flown fast enough and "commanded to do so" by the pilot.

This is where the engineer takes care of the pilot and sometimes the pilot thinks he does not like it!

If the stick force per G is low, the pilots like the light stick forces. The engineers know that this is dangerous however. With very low forces it is very easy to over stress the airframe at high velocity.

One of the challenges of stability and control design is keeping the pilot from having the ability to fly the plane in areas it cannot fly in the first place.

This low stick force per G combined with other stability problems led to some accidents in the P51D series.

The FW-190 series also has a low stick force per G and it experienced similar issues. At very high velocity the elevator would loose effectiveness. Elevator trim was used to recover the aircraft but was very sensitive. If moved too quickly, the airframe would over stress and come apart.

A solution was found for all of these issues as with most designs.

All the best,

Crumpp

joeap
07-18-2007, 02:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheBandit_76:
....and every tank encountered was a Tiger, and every shell sent over was an 88, and the German tanks were diesels, and yadda yadda yadda.

Well documented that the undercarriage locks were failing and causing this. I like how the video clips off @ and......

and what?

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

What I really love is that all the bitter Mustang haters will never be able to erase history, and history says the Mustang kicked luft a$$, and took names.

That's just something folks will have to learn to live with.

http://www.riveting-images.com/Dan_Zoernig_Aviation_Art/Dan_Zoernig___Can_t_Talk__Gott/Zoernig_Can_Talk_Goota_Shoot_600pxl.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uh huh, so this veterans statements are dissed along with the "every tank a Tiger" etc. but lord knows when you or some others here drag out Col. "Kit" Carson's opinion on the 109 as the definite truth woe begone anyone who doubts HIS testimony "a vet who was there."

Just like this guy...so was Clayton Kelly Gross lying when he saw 8 planes shed wings or not. ANSWER THIS QUESTION.

Brain may have made stupid blue troll statements but I guess he just could not take any more from you and the other maritime patrol plane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker-Siddeley_Nimrod)

VMF-214_HaVoK
07-18-2007, 02:31 PM
I do believe Robert Johnson mentioned that the Mustang could loose it wings. Apparently it did not happen all the time as many pilots such as Bud Anderson dove the shat outa them. Im sure Oleg can not factor in random acts such as this or he would have done so. This is why it happens every single time but it can be avoided with a little finesse on the stick. If it were possible to have random accidents we would already have things like engine failure or some thing simple like a fouled spark plug. My guess anyway.

S!

VMF-214_HaVoK
07-18-2007, 02:44 PM
Personally I tend to believe pretty much all WW2 pilots first hand accounts but there are some here who only wish to believe them when it best suits their interest. Like the ones who automatically dismiss US pilots accounts of aircraft performance or vice versa and come up with all kinds of excuses as to why they are wrong. But find something negative a pilot has to say about their respective nations aircraft and...loooooook out! Now all of the sudden a mans word is gospel. This place does not surprise me anymore. I for one am inclined to believe this account as I do with all pilots who fought regardless what nation they flew for! Just once I would love to see people look at things with an open mind and stop this bias bullshat. WW2 is over it happened all ready, its done, and people should be concerned with only the truth and the facts even if it means your favorite plane is not as good as you thought it was or think it should be.

S!

VMF-214_HaVoK
07-18-2007, 02:47 PM
Oh and one more thing, even if all your wishes came true and Oleg modeled your favorite plane to what you think it should be even if its not correct, you are not, I repeat not going to be any better as a virtual pilot. You will still loose to those better then you regardless of the plane they fly. A superior aircraft can not and never will be able to defeat a more skilled pilot with a better tactical advantage. Sorry my friends but this is fact and its undisputed.

S!

LW_lcarp
07-18-2007, 02:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
If it were possible to have random accidents we would already have things like engine failure or some thing simple like a fouled spark plug. My guess anyway.

S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Back in the Old IL2 day if you took off to soon after start up you would foul a plug. Didnt happen all the time but it did from time to time. This was disabled for some reason or another. So yes it can be made random but it wasnt. To bad all planes didnt get treated like the 51 in this game and have there 1 fault happen EVERY time.

MEGILE
07-18-2007, 02:57 PM
elevator authority

VMF-214_HaVoK
07-18-2007, 03:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LW_lcarp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
If it were possible to have random accidents we would already have things like engine failure or some thing simple like a fouled spark plug. My guess anyway.

S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Back in the Old IL2 day if you took off to soon after start up you would foul a plug. Didnt happen all the time but it did from time to time. This was disabled for some reason or another. So yes it can be made random but it wasnt. To bad all planes didnt get treated like the 51 in this game and have there 1 fault happen EVERY time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

rgrt I do believe I remember such a thing. And now that I think of it you do get the occasional stuck throttle or jammed gear from damage. I suppose thats random. I have never had the jammed gear from rounds in any plane other then US ones though, not that it doesnt happen, I just have never seen it and I do fly axis aircraft a lot nowadays about 50% unless Im in a PTO server.

S!

joeap
07-18-2007, 03:11 PM
VMF-214_HaVoK agree with http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif x 3

fordfan25
07-18-2007, 05:36 PM
i have not read threw the whole thread so this has prob already been said. The problem with wings snaping off in a dive started when thay put the 5th and 6th extra guns in the wings. resone iirc was that some of the suports and braceing were remoaved or thined to allow the extra guns and ammo belts. this was a problem for a very very short time iirc and was very quickly fixed.

fordfan25
07-18-2007, 05:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Oh and one more thing, even if all your wishes came true and Oleg modeled your favorite plane to what you think it should be even if its not correct, you are not, I repeat not going to be any better as a virtual pilot. You will still loose to those better then you regardless of the plane they fly. A superior aircraft can not and never will be able to defeat a more skilled pilot with a better tactical advantage. Sorry my friends but this is fact and its undisputed.

S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>i disagree. if that were the case the ussr would not have devloped the mig29 or Su27 and up and the USA would not have devloped the F22 and F35 ect ect. Germany in the 40's would not have devloped FW190's and The Brits would not have devloped the Tempest ect ect. haveing a better plane gives you more options. now if we are talking about a very unexp piolet in a spitty plane vs say .... me in a p39 then of it might not matter :P

Blutarski2004
07-18-2007, 06:06 PM
Her's the relevant passage excerpted from the P51 training manual:

Quote -

CAUTION

In designing the later models of the P-51 and adding new equipment such as radio units and an additional gas tnk, the center of gravity of the plane had been moved back. The effect is that the amount of back pressure necessary to move the stick has been reduced. Instead of a force of 6 pounds per G of acceleration, you exert a force of only 1-1/2 pounds, the stick forces reversing as acceleration exceeds 4 G's.

This means that you'll have to be careful in sharp pullouts and steep turns. You can easily black out - and you can also put greater loads on the airplane than its structure was designed to withstand.

- Unquote

Viper2005_
07-18-2007, 06:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Control sensitivity is one which leaped out at me - how much easier it was to suddenly develop high G's in the D model than in the B/C models. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is exactly it. All aircraft have the ability to shed their wings and overload the airframe if flown fast enough and "commanded to do so" by the pilot.

This is where the engineer takes care of the pilot and sometimes the pilot thinks he does not like it!

If the stick force per G is low, the pilots like the light stick forces. The engineers know that this is dangerous however. With very low forces it is very easy to over stress the airframe at high velocity.

One of the challenges of stability and control design is keeping the pilot from having the ability to fly the plane in areas it cannot fly in the first place.

This low stick force per G combined with other stability problems led to some accidents in the P51D series.

The FW-190 series also has a low stick force per G and it experienced similar issues. At very high velocity the elevator would loose effectiveness. Elevator trim was used to recover the aircraft but was very sensitive. If moved too quickly, the airframe would over stress and come apart.

A solution was found for all of these issues as with most designs.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would like to add a few points to the above:

1) "Low" stick force per g in this context means something like 4-6 lbf/g. If online pilots had to exert a ~30 lbf pull to attain 6 g then dogfights would look rather different and wing failures would be much less frequent!

2) AFAIK all the aircraft in IL2 come apart at +15 g, which is very optimistic. Most WWII fighters had design limit load factors of between 6 and 8 g. Here are the limits for the P-51D:

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-51/P-51OLL.gif

Note that the limit load factor is 8 g at 8000 lb AUW. Assuming an industry standard safety factor of 1.5, that means a brand new airframe in perfect condition would be expected to fail at 12 g. Any complaints regarding failures at 15 g are therefore pretty laughable. IMO most aeroplanes in IL2 are modelled very optimistically with regards to structural strength...

3) IRL the g loads experienced by the pilot provide a certain amount of natural envelope protection because pulling lots of g is quite uncomfortable! I suspect that a substantial proportion of online aces would suffer personal structural failure before reaching Oleg's 15 g absolute airframe limit.

BSS_Sniper
07-18-2007, 06:42 PM
I'm not disputing wing shedding, however, its funny that NOW it's ok to take pilot reports as gospel. lmao How many times in here has it been said that pilot reports don't mean squat? lol

VMF-214_HaVoK
07-18-2007, 07:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Oh and one more thing, even if all your wishes came true and Oleg modeled your favorite plane to what you think it should be even if its not correct, you are not, I repeat not going to be any better as a virtual pilot. You will still loose to those better then you regardless of the plane they fly. A superior aircraft can not and never will be able to defeat a more skilled pilot with a better tactical advantage. Sorry my friends but this is fact and its undisputed.

S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>i disagree. if that were the case the ussr would not have devloped the mig29 or Su27 and up and the USA would not have devloped the F22 and F35 ect ect. Germany in the 40's would not have devloped FW190's and The Brits would not have devloped the Tempest ect ect. haveing a better plane gives you more options. now if we are talking about a very unexp piolet in a spitty plane vs say .... me in a p39 then of it might not matter :P </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Virtual world.

MrMojok
07-18-2007, 07:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_Sniper:
I'm not disputing wing shedding, however, its funny that NOW it's ok to take pilot reports as gospel. lmao How many times in here has it been said that pilot reports don't mean squat? lol </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Best post of 2007.

horseback
07-18-2007, 07:31 PM
Once again, we appear to be ignoring a few basic facts. The manual all the experts here are quoting is dated 15 August 1945, by which time the USAAF had been operating the P-51D in combat for 14 months. Gross was a member of the Pioneer Mustang Group (354th?) which introduced the P-51B to the ETO in November of 1943.

If they were flying missions just after converting over from razorback models, that makes it June of 1944, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">by which time his outfit had been flying the Mustang in combat for over seven months.</span> Just a guess on my part, but most of that time was probably also spent in fuselage tank equipped Mustangs, and I'd be shocked if the pilots in the group were unaware of its effect on handling. It was, after all, the outfit with the most hours in the Merlin Mustang in the world at the time...

The modifications to the elevators (Merlin Mustangs went to metal elevators shortly in their combat career; like the Thunderbolt, they found out that the fabric variety tended to balloon in a high speed dive from high alts) took place early on, and the one to the horizontal stabilizers took place around the same time as the fin fillet was added, or August of 1944-a full year before the manual was released. Again, I believe that that particular modification had not been made by the time that the incident Gross described.

I'd say the problem almost had to be the faulty landing gear covers, which was a problem affecting a very short and specific early production run of D-model Mustangs. In all my reading on the subject in thirty five plus years now, I've never heard that the D model Mustang's new wing was 'weaker' because of the addition of the extra guns. In fact, the new wing was supposed to have been strengthened.

Again, it sounds like Gross' source for the extra gun theory was chow hall discussion and engineering theory to me.

cheers

horseback

Skoshi Tiger
07-18-2007, 07:54 PM
This isn't a story about Mustangs shedding a wing but theres a well documented story about one bending them.

April 10, 1945 Flying Officer John 'Slops' Haslope DFC was flying Mustang III's with 165 Squadron RAF. He was escorting Lancasters and Halifaxes in a daylight raid on Leipzig. a Me163 dived through the formation and Haslope Dived after it, ignoring his air speed indicator, fireing as he went. The Komet pulled up sudenly from the dive and Haslope attempted to follow, blacking out in the process. When he came to he was down at 8000 feet and there was something very wrong with his Mustang.

When he got back to base they found he had added an several degrees to the dihedral of the wings, plus severe wrinking the wings skin.

Also it seams that when the komet had pulled up, he had actually hit it. the Komet performed a loop and then speared into the ground. ( Allowing Haslope to become the only Australian to shoot down an 163 - Only seven in total were shotdown durring the war!)

Now not being an Aircraft Engineer, I can't say how close that Mustang III was to loosing it's wings, but it couldn't have been far off!

Copperhead310th
07-18-2007, 07:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Control sensitivity is one which leaped out at me - how much easier it was to suddenly develop high G's in the D model than in the B/C models. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is exactly it. All aircraft have the ability to shed their wings and overload the airframe if flown fast enough and "commanded to do so" by the pilot.

This is where the engineer takes care of the pilot and sometimes the pilot thinks he does not like it!

If the stick force per G is low, the pilots like the light stick forces. The engineers know that this is dangerous however. With very low forces it is very easy to over stress the airframe at high velocity.

One of the challenges of stability and control design is keeping the pilot from having the ability to fly the plane in areas it cannot fly in the first place.

This low stick force per G combined with other stability problems led to some accidents in the P51D series.

The FW-190 series also has a low stick force per G and it experienced similar issues. At very high velocity the elevator would loose effectiveness. Elevator trim was used to recover the aircraft but was very sensitive. If moved too quickly, the airframe would over stress and come apart.

A solution was found for all of these issues as with most designs.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would like to add a few points to the above:

1) "Low" stick force per g in this context means something like 4-6 lbf/g. If online pilots had to exert a ~30 lbf pull to attain 6 g then dogfights would look rather different and wing failures would be much less frequent!

2) AFAIK all the aircraft in IL2 come apart at +15 g, which is very optimistic. Most WWII fighters had design limit load factors of between 6 and 8 g. Here are the limits for the P-51D:

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-51/P-51OLL.gif

Note that the limit load factor is 8 g at 8000 lb AUW. Assuming an industry standard safety factor of 1.5, that means a brand new airframe in perfect condition would be expected to fail at 12 g. Any complaints regarding failures at 15 g are therefore pretty laughable. IMO most aeroplanes in IL2 are modelled very optimistically with regards to structural strength...

3) IRL the g loads experienced by the pilot provide a certain amount of natural envelope protection because pulling lots of g is quite uncomfortable! I suspect that a substantial proportion of online aces would suffer personal structural failure before reaching Oleg's 15 g absolute airframe limit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh Brother.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
And here come the CHART MONKEYs marching in again to suport thier therories with a quetionable chart.

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e389/turnipkiller/chartmonkeys.jpg
Well looks like Kurfy is already here. Tagrt should be along soon. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kettenhunde
07-18-2007, 09:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the stick forces reversing as acceleration exceeds 4 G's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the dangerous part. If the pilot is not on top of that reversal, he will be applying additional control input when he might not want too.

You can see from this testing of the P51D series that the stick force per G diminishes with velocity.

99.9 aft CG is short range fighter without the internal fuselage tank mounted.
http://img140.imagevenue.com/loc511/th_14216_AVIA_732_Report_781d_Part_09_Page_05_122_ 511lo.jpg (http://img140.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=14216_AVIA_732_Report_781d_Part_09_P age_05_122_511lo.jpg)

According to the report, when dove from a level flight trim condition and the aircraft is not trimmed for the dive, just releasing the controls will produce ~3.8G's of acceleration at ~440ASI.

To compare, here is a plot of what is considered satisfactory pull forces in a design:
http://img176.imagevenue.com/loc397/th_14215_pull_up_plot_122_397lo.JPG (http://img176.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=14215_pull_up_plot_122_397lo.JPG)

Without a doubt the P 51 was an aircraft that required respect from it's pilot. The FW-190A series has much in common with the P51 series regarding control.

All the best,

Crumpp

Blutarski2004
07-19-2007, 05:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the stick forces reversing as acceleration exceeds 4 G's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the dangerous part. If the pilot is not on top of that reversal, he will be applying additional control input when he might not want too.

You can see from this testing of the P51D series that the stick force per G diminishes with velocity.

99.9 aft CG is short range fighter without the internal fuselage tank mounted.
http://img140.imagevenue.com/loc511/th_14216_AVIA_732_Report_781d_Part_09_Page_05_122_ 511lo.jpg (http://img140.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=14216_AVIA_732_Report_781d_Part_09_P age_05_122_511lo.jpg)

According to the report, when dove from a level flight trim condition and the aircraft is not trimmed for the dive, just releasing the controls will produce ~3.8G's of acceleration at ~440ASI.

Without a doubt the P 51 was an aircraft that required respect from it's pilot. The FW-190A series has much in common with the P51 series regarding control. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... It really is amazing what a difference of only 20mm in the c/g position can make in a/c behavior.

Hawgdog
07-19-2007, 07:45 AM
I've never flown a P-51.
I suspect that the feel sitting in a real airplane instead of at a desk with a plastic nonconjoined to mechanical devices might be different.
Then again...the P-51 WON THE WAR!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

M_Gunz
07-19-2007, 02:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
1) "Low" stick force per g in this context means something like 4-6 lbf/g. If online pilots had to exert a ~30 lbf pull to attain 6 g then dogfights would look rather different and wing failures would be much less frequent! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps my math is bad but at 4-6 lbf/g, wouldn't 6 g's be 24-36 lbf to pull?

Viper2005_
07-19-2007, 03:06 PM
Yes it would. 30 lbf would be in the middle of that range. Hence the "~" which is shorthand for "about".

If I weren't so lazy I'd have used "≈" which is the correct symbol. But that involves mucking about with ascii codes, whilst the similar "~" symbol is at my fingertips. I assumed that this laxity wouldn't cause confusion given the context.

I deliberately went for ~30 lbf rather than 24-36 lbf because of the context. I'm talking about a rough range of stick force/g which has fuzzy edges - going from 6 lbf/g to 6.16 lbf/g doesn't suddenly represent a move to heavy stick forces, yet it would result in a stick force of 37 lbf being required to attain 6 g, which is outside the range 24-36 lbf. As such it would be misleading to talk in terms of a hard-edged range defined to the nearest lbf.

M_Gunz
07-19-2007, 04:28 PM
Then I entirely missed your earlier point. It seemed like you were saying that if the pilots
had to pull ~30 lbf that things would have been different and as far as I can tell, they did.

Perhaps you were referring to something where less stick force was needed like where it was
said that stick forces reduced with high speed or something else I missed in haste?

Viper2005_
07-19-2007, 04:34 PM
You've missed the point completely.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"Low" stick force per g in this context means something like 4-6 lbf/g. If <span class="ev_code_red">online</span> pilots had to exert a ~30 lbf pull to attain 6 g then dogfights would look rather different and wing failures would be much less frequent!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Emphasis added.

M_Gunz
07-19-2007, 05:08 PM
Ah. Being a light touch on the stick and aware of what my use of the stick means, I think
that full pull -is- 50 lbs force. Really pulling that hard would doubtless end up with me
wearing my keyboard and monitor before long!

Viper2005_
07-19-2007, 06:10 PM
AFAIK the game allows the virtual pilot to apply a 25 kgf pull when windows sees full stick deflection (I'd be surprised if Oleg worked in lbf; he might work in N though).

Unfortunately, unlike you, most people don't realise this and certainly don't understand the implications. The inputs people think they are making to the model are not the inputs they are actually making. GIGO applies. Cue righteous indignation.

The fact that they don't know how many g they're actually pulling by the time the wings finally come off, or indeed how many g they might reasonably expect to pull IRL before same doesn't help of course...

It never ceases to amaze me that people will happily spend thousands of pounds or dollars on a fast PC to get the most out of the game, but won't invest similar money on a really good set of control inceptors for the same purpose. It's just like buying a Soldano SLO (or equivalent) and then plugging a 50 guitar into it...

(I am quite certain that poor quality control inceptors were also the cause of the wobble whines that afflicted the boards a few patches ago and that what was really happening was over-control induced PIO.)

M_Gunz
07-19-2007, 10:00 PM
There is so much in anecdotes that is not said. If P-51D was a light touch then how many
war stories tell just how light? Some few do and most do not. Bud Anderson wrote of trimming
the stick constantly, even during the hairiest fight he ever had, without mentioning how much
force he used. Well, when you can and do change it with trim, what's to compare to? LOL!

For some people I recommend holding 10 lbs at arms length, unmoving (you want to fly steady)
more than a finger width for say, 10 solid minutes and come tell how easy it is. Can do is
not the same as easy, the hold steady part is definitely much harder.

Yeah I started posting about the control system in summer of 2002 after Oleg posted about the
strength based inputs and I spent maybe a week investigating implications and slider settings.
And I still might not have the full picture -or- the interface may have changed as you and
Iceman Fred had pointed out to me months ago that when full pull is less than full strength
that the stick _may_ indeed scale to however much it takes for full pull to be the whole
stick throw. IE if pilot could pull full back with 30 lbf then full stick is that much,
which makes a kind of sense even though it does depart from straight interpretation.

Inceptors means stick or the control sensors in the stick? Never saw that word before.

Manu-6S
07-20-2007, 09:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Oh and one more thing, even if all your wishes came true and Oleg modeled your favorite plane to what you think it should be even if its not correct, you are not, I repeat not going to be any better as a virtual pilot. You will still loose to those better then you regardless of the plane they fly. A superior aircraft can not and never will be able to defeat a more skilled pilot with a better tactical advantage. Sorry my friends but this is fact and its undisputed.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldn't be rude, but IMO this is BS.

Take 2 similar planes with different skill pilots -&gt; the more skilled wins.

In the loser's plane take out the "overheat" feature -&gt; the more skilled still wins but he suffers a bit

Modify the loser's plane so that it retains much better energy during manouvres -&gt; maybe the more skilled can still wins, but this time it's hard

So depending from the loser abilities:
ANOTHER HELP..
ANOTHER HELP..
AND ANOTHER HELP..

You reach the point where the more skilled pilot loses because he can do nothing since his opponent plane is too superior.

Let's translate this online:

Here the "skilled-not skilled" difference is minimal.
A true online Ace depends from his firing skill and tactic's knowledge above all (I'm speaking about a full difficulty server).

In a one vs one the PLANE is the weapon that you use to win.
Think about a fight with rifle: you use a naked Garand and your "enemy" uses a M21. At very long distance who is going to win?

Fighters are improved with radar, HUDs, and FnF missiles... put the greatest pilot of all the time in a Mig15 against a F22 and tell me who wins.

Viper2005_
07-20-2007, 09:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Inceptors means stick or the control sensors in the stick? Never saw that word before. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Inceptors are control input devices.

On something like F-35B you don't have a stick & throttle any more, you've got a left inceptor and a right inceptor. Under the "Unified" laws, the left inceptor always controls how fast you're going, whilst forward & aft movement of the right inceptor always controls altitude. Obviously at high speed that means the right inceptor pitches the nose and the left inceptor controls engine thrust. But at low speed the right inceptor modulates engine thrust to control altitude, whilst the left inceptor controls the thrust vector. Since the various controls interact, the actual commands fed to the various control surfaces are computer generated, and so the relationship between the position of the control inceptors and the position of the control surfaces is a complex one...

http://www.harrierlist.co.uk/Falcon/Falcon.html

Anyway, once you depart from the realm of having a stick and throttle which are mechanically connected to the physical controls of your aeroplane and simply operate them in proportion to pilot input, it is more sensible to think in terms of control inceptors, since everybody has a pre-conceived idea of what sticks & throttles do which is an obvious potential source of confusion.

So for example, in IL2 if I take something like a Ta-152H and perform a stall-turn at altitude, so that I'm pointing the aircraft nose down with very little airspeed and then move my right inceptor to the right stop, most people would say that I was applying full right aileron. And they'd be right. But wait...

Because we're in a vertical dive, airspeed is rapidly building. Look out of the cockpit and you'll see the aileron deflection decrease despite the fact that you're holding your right inceptor on the right-hand stop. It is no longer accurate to say that you are applying full right aileron. (Interestingly, the last time I did this, when I looked into the cockpit, the virtual stick was stationary on the right stop, suggesting that the virtual stick position is proportional to the position of the right inceptor rather than the position of the virtual control surfaces.)

Because we're dealing with a computer model, it makes sense to use FBW type terminology in order to avoid confusion.

M_Gunz
07-20-2007, 02:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Because we're in a vertical dive, airspeed is rapidly building. Look out of the cockpit and you'll see the aileron deflection decrease despite the fact that you're holding your right inceptor on the right-hand stop. It is no longer accurate to say that you are applying full right aileron. (Interestingly, the last time I did this, when I looked into the cockpit, the virtual stick was stationary on the right stop, suggesting that the virtual stick position is proportional to the position of the right inceptor rather than the position of the virtual control surfaces.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Beautiful example and definitely shows the 3D cockpit stick is not tied to control surface
positions. Hope they do it different in SOW. (bad choice of name, in English that is female
pig!)

VMF-214_HaVoK
07-20-2007, 02:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Oh and one more thing, even if all your wishes came true and Oleg modeled your favorite plane to what you think it should be even if its not correct, you are not, I repeat not going to be any better as a virtual pilot. You will still loose to those better then you regardless of the plane they fly. A superior aircraft can not and never will be able to defeat a more skilled pilot with a better tactical advantage. Sorry my friends but this is fact and its undisputed.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldn't be rude, but IMO this is BS.

Take 2 similar planes with different skill pilots -&gt; the more skilled wins.

In the loser's plane take out the "overheat" feature -&gt; the more skilled still wins but he suffers a bit

Modify the loser's plane so that it retains much better energy during manouvres -&gt; maybe the more skilled can still wins, but this time it's hard

So depending from the loser abilities:
ANOTHER HELP..
ANOTHER HELP..
AND ANOTHER HELP..

You reach the point where the more skilled pilot loses because he can do nothing since his opponent plane is too superior.

Let's translate this online:

Here the "skilled-not skilled" difference is minimal.
A true online Ace depends from his firing skill and tactic's knowledge above all (I'm speaking about a full difficulty server).

In a one vs one the PLANE is the weapon that you use to win.
Think about a fight with rifle: you use a naked Garand and your "enemy" uses a M21. At very long distance who is going to win?

Fighters are improved with radar, HUDs, and FnF missiles... put the greatest pilot of all the time in a Mig15 against a F22 and tell me who wins. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You claim its BS but yet your agreeing with it for the most part. Visit any popular server and you will see the successful pilots win no matter what plane they fly. And you must have missed something in my post so here I will say it again: more skilled pilot with a better tactical advantage.

This is my opinion and mine alone and yours may be different but I would not be rude and call yours BS. But thats just me. If you care to run some plane match ups in a 1v1 so that we understand one another better then please do not hesitate to pm me on HL.

S!

fordfan25
07-20-2007, 05:26 PM
VMF-214_HaVoK next time i see you online i challenge you to a 1vs1. you in a SBD and me in a Tempist. http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif

luftluuver
07-20-2007, 05:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
VMF-214_HaVoK next time i see you online i challenge you to a 1vs1. you in a SBD and me in a Tempist. http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>What is a Tempist?

Low_Flyer_MkVb
07-20-2007, 05:41 PM
It's like a Tempest, but angry.

Badsight-
07-20-2007, 05:51 PM
^ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If online pilots had to exert a ~30 lbf pull to attain 6 g then dogfights would look rather different and wing failures would be much less frequent! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>how true is that!

The-Pizza-Man
07-21-2007, 01:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
^ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If online pilots had to exert a ~30 lbf pull to attain 6 g then dogfights would look rather different and wing failures would be much less frequent! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>how true is that! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would be cool to make a stick setup that had those sort of forces, some coil over damper suspension might work there.

M_Gunz
07-21-2007, 01:44 PM
Problem was worse before 4.07 handling changes which BTW --

THANK YOU MADDOX GAMES DEV TEAM!

VMF-214_HaVoK
07-21-2007, 07:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
VMF-214_HaVoK next time i see you online i challenge you to a 1vs1. you in a SBD and me in a Tempist. http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well thats a little extreme seeing how the SBD is not a fighter but I certainly will give it a valiant effort. Give me 5000 feet, which will be my tactical advantage. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
07-21-2007, 07:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkVb:
It's like a Tempest, but angry. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif Great wit!

M_Gunz
07-21-2007, 09:36 PM
Whereas a Tempissed is just a drunk Tempest.