PDA

View Full Version : P51 high speed wings breakin off.



Pinker15
01-23-2006, 03:12 AM
P51 looses easilly its wings during high speed pullout ( 680 kmph and more) even before blackout. I think P51 looses wings too easily or Im wrong ? I read that at beginning P51 was have problem with wings but it was solved verry quick. As I know great P 51 high speed elevator effectivenecy causes accidently blackouts but no instant wings breakin off

Pinker15
01-23-2006, 03:12 AM
P51 looses easilly its wings during high speed pullout ( 680 kmph and more) even before blackout. I think P51 looses wings too easily or Im wrong ? I read that at beginning P51 was have problem with wings but it was solved verry quick. As I know great P 51 high speed elevator effectivenecy causes accidently blackouts but no instant wings breakin off

Ratsack
01-23-2006, 06:19 AM
Um, about 10:45...

...and just so there's no confusion, that's P.M.

Ratsack

Tator_Totts
01-23-2006, 07:10 AM
http://home.carolina.rr.com/squad/popcorn.gif

ElAurens
01-23-2006, 08:10 AM
Guys, give the new man a break here. Someone just coming in to the sim is going to have questions like this.

And there is a problem with how this wing breakage is implemented. Oleg claims it happens at 15G, like all other aircraft. Ok fine, then tell me why it happens long before blackout? And on the B and C models which have no history of such things IRL. It happened to me the other day while testing a new map and I fly with an awareness of the issue. P51B in shallow dive, just over 680kph, gentle pull out, and POP!, off comes the left wing. No blackout, no buffeting, nothing, just instant wing loss.

Argue all you will, this is not correct.

AustinPowers_
01-23-2006, 09:49 AM
The P-51 has very sensitive elevator, and good elevator authority throughout the speed range.
THe reaons you loose the wings is because you have pulled more than 15gs, the level set by oleg for maximum G any plane can take.

If you guys actually did some testing for once, and trimmed planes like The Dora, Spitfire, BF-109 et al. full tail heavy trim... you would realize that not only can they also loose their wings, they will do it without blacking out. Not blacking out is NOT only related to the P-51.
P-51 needs no trim, that is all.

Wings popping off in high speed pullouts is entirely realistic with too much trim. What isn't realistic is how easy the P-51 can upl 15gs.

But if Oleg turns down the elevator authority.. we will back to where we were before.. p51 pilots wanting more elevator authority.

WWSensei
01-23-2006, 09:59 AM
Me110 loses its wings at 680kph as well when you try and pull out for the same reason. Good elevator authorty that overstresses the frame. Happens before blackout as well. Just last night in Warclouds I did that when I thought I had a nice juicy P-47 in my sights...

Brain32
01-23-2006, 11:01 AM
You don't have to trim the Dora or the TA152 to rip off wings and also before blackout occurs(want track(TM)?), I said it before I will repeat it again, you have to be a freakin' maniac or unaware of present condicions to rip a wing off.

lrrp22
01-23-2006, 11:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
I said it before I will repeat it again, you have to be a freakin' maniac or unaware of present condicions to rip a wing off. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you talking about the P-51? If so, Icouldn't disagree more- it's the easiest thing in the world to pop a wing off the Mustang. I agree it is probably the overly effective elevators, but it's a huge problem regardless of cause.

LRRP

Bremspropeller
01-23-2006, 12:18 PM
It's not a bug, it's a feature http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

SlickStick
01-23-2006, 12:22 PM
From my experience, I'm thinking that there must be a difference in the calculations for how an individual plane reaches the 15Gs required to snap a wing, because for me it happens most while in the P-51 and Ki-84 series.

Or maybe the sense of 15Gs applied in those planes is not as noticeable as other planes? i.e. struggling against blackout, buffeting...etc. Anytime I snap a wing in another plane, I know I'm about to reach that point and try ot ride the envelope. Sometimes I get away with it, other times not.

It's just that with Ki-84s or P-51s, for me, it seems I get no "warning" whatsoever. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

ICDP
01-23-2006, 12:28 PM
While wing sheeding is not unique to the P51 you have to do it intentionaly in most other fighters. There are a few with the oversensitive elevator such as the Ki84 and P51 where the wing will break off with very little effort. In fact you have to be extremely delicate on the controls of these aircraft at higher speeds.

As has already be stated by others it seems to be related to over-effective elevator controls on some fighters. IMHO the way to fix this is to reduce elevator authority on these AC. It wont reduce their turn performance but it will reduce the risk of wing shedding.

StellarRat
01-23-2006, 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 lrrp22:
Are you talking about the P-51? If so, Icouldn't disagree more- it's the easiest thing in the world to pop a wing off the Mustang. I agree it is probably the overly effective elevators, but it's a huge problem regardless of cause.

LRRP </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a problem only because you don't experience the pain and black out that a real pilot would experience before ripping the wings off. From a sim perspective Oleg has done it correctly. If we had "real" force feedback on our sticks these things probably wouldn't happen as often.

I haven't ripped a wing off for months now because I know that with the 51 I have to avoid yanking on the stick at high speed.

IL2-chuter
01-23-2006, 12:41 PM
Rate of G onset is a very important factor as well, especially if preceded by negative Gs. In a rapid transition from negative to positive Gs pilots have been known to blackout without ANY warning at 4.5 Gs.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Philipscdrw
01-23-2006, 12:47 PM
I'm no fast-jet pilot or aviation doctor, but surely there is a delay before a pilot experiences blackout?

Blackout is caused when the blood drains from the head, causing the eyes to stop working temporarily, right?

If someone suddenly enters a 10g turn, they will black out, but only after the eyes have used up the oxygen in their cells. Which will take a certain amount of time, regardless of the current G-force.

I think that the blackout modelling is absolutely correct in terms of what happens to your vision. You enter a high-G manouever, your vision stays fine for a moment or two, then you gradually black out. When you unload the aircraft, it takes a short while for the blood to reactivate your eyes.

If you drive along at 700kmph and suddenly move the stick back, the wings will immediately be under 15g loading but it will take a couple of moments for your eyes to use up their oxygen and make you black out. So your wings fall off before your eyes black out.

MLudner
01-23-2006, 12:50 PM
Hm. I've never lost my wings on a P-51. YP-80 I've had some problems with and once in a Bf-109G10 while chasing a diving P-51, but never in the P-51 itself.

Unknown-Pilot
01-23-2006, 12:57 PM
There is no reason for the Mustang to have that much elevator authority. It was known to it's pilots as a "true two hander", meaning the controls were NOT light. So what we have is ridiculous.

As for the blackout - it's the difference between spiked and built up Gs. If you build them up over time, you will black out long before you reach that point, however, if you spike them hard, you can exceed that threshold before blackout can begin to take effect.

StellarRat
01-23-2006, 12:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
I'm no fast-jet pilot or aviation doctor, but surely there is a delay before a pilot experiences blackout?

Blackout is caused when the blood drains from the head, causing the eyes to stop working temporarily, right?

If someone suddenly enters a 10g turn, they will black out, but only after the eyes have used up the oxygen in their cells. Which will take a certain amount of time, regardless of the current G-force.

I think that the blackout modelling is absolutely correct in terms of what happens to your vision. You enter a high-G manouever, your vision stays fine for a moment or two, then you gradually black out. When you unload the aircraft, it takes a short while for the blood to reactivate your eyes.

If you drive along at 700kmph and suddenly move the stick back, the wings will immediately be under 15g loading but it will take a couple of moments for your eyes to use up their oxygen and make you black out. So your wings fall off before your eyes black out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've never flown a P-51, but I can tell you from flying Cessnas and such that it is difficult to suddenly yank the yoke back. (I've never done it, so maybe someone else that has could comment.) There the physical distance the yoke has to travel and the plane fights you. There are G forces to contend with and warn you. Plus there is a huge mental factor (a little voice that says "don't even try this".) All these things keep you from doing this in a real plane. We don't have those experiences in the sim.

lrrp22
01-23-2006, 01:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
There is no reason for the Mustang to have that much elevator authority. It was known to it's pilots as a "true two hander", meaning the controls were NOT light. So what we have is ridiculous. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No it wasn't and yes they were! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Once again...the "two hander" comment is a 1990's warbird pilot account- it has no relation to wartime experiences. All wartime testing, from Wright Field, to the RAF, to the Joint Fighter Cnference, all indicate that the P-51 had very effective elevators *and* ailerons that were considered light to moderate at all speeds. However, they were certainly heavier at high speed than the instantaneous 15G acceleration response we have now.

LRRP

Philipscdrw
01-23-2006, 01:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StellarRat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
I'm no fast-jet pilot or aviation doctor, but surely there is a delay before a pilot experiences blackout?

Blackout is caused when the blood drains from the head, causing the eyes to stop working temporarily, right?

If someone suddenly enters a 10g turn, they will black out, but only after the eyes have used up the oxygen in their cells. Which will take a certain amount of time, regardless of the current G-force.

I think that the blackout modelling is absolutely correct in terms of what happens to your vision. You enter a high-G manouever, your vision stays fine for a moment or two, then you gradually black out. When you unload the aircraft, it takes a short while for the blood to reactivate your eyes.

If you drive along at 700kmph and suddenly move the stick back, the wings will immediately be under 15g loading but it will take a couple of moments for your eyes to use up their oxygen and make you black out. So your wings fall off before your eyes black out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've never flown a P-51, but I can tell you from flying Cessnas and such that it is difficult to suddenly yank the yoke back. (I've never done it, so maybe someone else that has could comment.) There the physical distance the yoke has to travel and the plane fights you. There are G forces to contend with and warn you. Plus there is a huge mental factor (a little voice that says "don't even try this".) All these things keep you from doing this in a real plane. We don't have those experiences in the sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Surely it's a question of control surface power, the physical and aerodynamic size of the elevators, the leverage inherent to the control runs? A Cessna is designed to be stable. A fighting aircraft is designed to be agile. It is easier to pull the elevators hard up when you have a stick instead of a yoke - I fly gliders which have sticks, they don't do anything close to 680kmph, but pulling the wings off the aircraft isn't unfeasable...

Unknown-Pilot
01-23-2006, 01:15 PM
Doesn't matter when it came from, it is the description. Sorry you don't like it.

Effective and heavy are not mutually exclusive. The Zero had very effective controls, they were just too heavy for the average Japanese pilot of the era to use at high speed.

Light controls at high speed would be inneffective controls since they would have too little effect at slow speeds (for such mundane tasks as take off and landing).

IL2-chuter
01-23-2006, 01:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
I'm no fast-jet pilot or aviation doctor, but surely there is a delay before a pilot experiences blackout?

Blackout is caused when the blood drains from the head, causing the eyes to stop working temporarily, right?

If someone suddenly enters a 10g turn, they will black out, but only after the eyes have used up the oxygen in their cells. Which will take a certain amount of time, regardless of the current G-force.

I think that the blackout modelling is absolutely correct in terms of what happens to your vision. You enter a high-G manouever, your vision stays fine for a moment or two, then you gradually black out. When you unload the aircraft, it takes a short while for the blood to reactivate your eyes.

If you drive along at 700kmph and suddenly move the stick back, the wings will immediately be under 15g loading but it will take a couple of moments for your eyes to use up their oxygen and make you black out. So your wings fall off before your eyes black out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'm a RL pilot and what I posted is from both Canadian and FAA testing and research. This is a big deal in aerobatics but not so much for combat - except in IL2, the way guys yoyo to evade fire http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif. No warning Loss of Consciousness (LOC) has been documented. Negative Gs dramatically slows the heart (and bloodflow) and a sudden switch to positive Gs of as little as 4 or 5 Gs can induce an instantaneous LOC. I can't change this so you might take it up with the FAA's head medical examiner.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

JtD
01-23-2006, 01:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:

Light controls at high speed would be inneffective controls since they would have too little effect at slow speeds (for such mundane tasks as take off and landing). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not true, it's all a question of control balance. In fact you can built controls that are usable with 0 force and highly effective at any speed. You just don't want that as that plane would be highly unstable.

Philipscdrw
01-23-2006, 01:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IL2-chuter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
I'm no fast-jet pilot or aviation doctor, but surely there is a delay before a pilot experiences blackout?

Blackout is caused when the blood drains from the head, causing the eyes to stop working temporarily, right?

If someone suddenly enters a 10g turn, they will black out, but only after the eyes have used up the oxygen in their cells. Which will take a certain amount of time, regardless of the current G-force.

I think that the blackout modelling is absolutely correct in terms of what happens to your vision. You enter a high-G manouever, your vision stays fine for a moment or two, then you gradually black out. When you unload the aircraft, it takes a short while for the blood to reactivate your eyes.

If you drive along at 700kmph and suddenly move the stick back, the wings will immediately be under 15g loading but it will take a couple of moments for your eyes to use up their oxygen and make you black out. So your wings fall off before your eyes black out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'm a RL pilot and what I posted is from both Canadian and FAA testing and research. This is a big deal in aerobatics but not so much for combat - except in IL2, the way guys yoyo to evade fire http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif. No warning Loss of Consciousness (LOC) has been documented. Negative Gs dramatically slows the heart (and bloodflow) and a sudden switch to positive Gs of as little as 4 or 5 Gs can induce an instantaneous LOC. I can't change this so you might take it up with the FAA's head medical examiner.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I didn't intend to comment on the negative-G modelling - I only meant to talk of blackouts!

Thinking of control loads, why didn't the Japanese just make their control columns longer? At high speeds, hold the control column higher up for extra leverage?

Bearcat99
01-23-2006, 01:32 PM
I have been flying the P-51 in this sim since it first arrived. The wing issue is not as bad as it used to be. I have found that if you keep the stick pressure down your wings will not fall off. I have made turns at 400mph... and not lost my wings... blacked out yes.... but not lost the wings. But this took a lot of time and practice on my part. The last time this happened to me was a while ago. I do think it is a tad too sensitive.. but like I always say.. and I dont want to appear cocky or rude... but it is what it is ... deal with it. The quicker we all do that and learn to fly what we have as it is and not as it was historically the happier we will be. I know guys that have been flying the 190s since they were albatrosses.... they were killers then and now they are murderous butchering bastiges... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif It may nbot be 100% right... but it is what it is.. and with patience and practice any plane in this sim can be learned well enough to fly it to it's strengths.

T_O_A_D
01-23-2006, 01:37 PM
I've been thinking of adding this to my sig. I couldn't of said it any better.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> FunGus wrote:
I am not so concerned with the discussions found on the popular forums regarding the differences between the game and reality. Instead, I accept the model as its own reality and I am satisfied (putting it mildly) with the modelling.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ElAurens
01-23-2006, 02:12 PM
a. I did not yank the stick.

b. I was being gentle as I know the P51 is wrong in this area of FM.

c. 15Gs without blacking out? Sure, and I'm Teddy Roosevelt.

jds1978
01-23-2006, 02:41 PM
i'm watching this thread w/ interest.

I like to fly the Mustang but find some of it's idiosynchrocies a tad frustrating. wing snap is one of them (yes, i realize it can happen to any plane.....but i've never had more than one or two instances of wingsnap with any other bird)

i'm not educated enough to have a valid point about this issue (ie: is it the FM or the pilot?)

still, something tells me that 4.03 should include a healthy looking into of the P51 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

TX-EcoDragon
01-23-2006, 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 Philipscdrw:
I'm no fast-jet pilot or aviation doctor, but surely there is a delay before a pilot experiences blackout?

Blackout is caused when the blood drains from the head, causing the eyes to stop working temporarily, right?

If someone suddenly enters a 10g turn, they will black out, but only after the eyes have used up the oxygen in their cells. Which will take a certain amount of time, regardless of the current G-force.

I think that the blackout modelling is absolutely correct in terms of what happens to your vision. You enter a high-G manouever, your vision stays fine for a moment or two, then you gradually black out. When you unload the aircraft, it takes a short while for the blood to reactivate your eyes.

If you drive along at 700kmph and suddenly move the stick back, the wings will immediately be under 15g loading but it will take a couple of moments for your eyes to use up their oxygen and make you black out. So your wings fall off before your eyes black out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is quite right Philipscdrw. Within an average period of about 5 seconds the +G that a pilot may pull without gray/blackout or GILOC is far higher than the G load most any aircraft can sustain. This is due to the oxygen reserve in the bloodstream and brain.

In the following figure from the US Navy we see this clearly presented:

http://www.txsquadron.com/uploaded/TX-EcoDragon/GLOC%20onset%20diagram.jpg

Additionally, my time in the P-51 (generally while loaded towards the aft CG range) has prompted many emails to 1C regarding my oppinion the elevator axis of the in game P-51 is overly sensitive. Couple this with a spiking controller, or on slightly abrupt/aggressive use of the controls at high speed (and thusly very high available G) and it's easy to see how this could happen without much warning from visual blackout, also worth pointing out is that buffeting will not come before overstress so don't expect that to be a signal of impending doom. Given that we don't feel G's in game, that the in game elevator is overly sensitive, that there is no audible buffeting before airframe overstress, and that artificially accelerating blackout effects would hamper gameplay and reduce realism the choice is obvious.


IL-2Chuter's point about the push-pull effect is correct as well (though I'm not sure what it has to do with the wings coming off). As always individual anti-G straining maneuvers can reduce the effects when the maneuver is expected. . . as can hardening of the cardiac and thoracic baroreceptors in less than fit aviators. ;-)

lrrp22
01-23-2006, 03:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Doesn't matter when it came from, it is the description. Sorry you don't like it.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, it does matter- and it is 'a' description, not 'the' description. It certainly isn't 'the' description of the vast majority of wartime evidence.

Loadings and CG are everything when it comes to this issue- a latter day Warbird pilot's impressions of a warbird in unknown configuration hold virtually no weight compared to the highly documented wartime test results of elevator effectiveness and forces. Beyond that is the impressions of wartime USAAF, RAF, USN, USMC and manufacturers' test pilots who overwhelmingly rated the P-51's elevators as 'light'. But no, you have a quote from some un-named Warbird pilot, so it must be so.

LRRP

Brain32
01-23-2006, 05:48 PM
I use 91-100 for pitch, and I never broke a wing of a P51, doing my testing I learned that in game only way to brake a P51's wings is to yank it, not hard but brutal. Watch what you wish for because you may end up flying ME109 aka "The Brick".

Sergio_101
01-23-2006, 06:03 PM
The instant un zipping of the wings is the reason
the P-51 has been so dominant in air racing
for the past 60 years.
The resulting reduction in areodynamic drag
results in un beatable top speeds.

P-51s such as "Dago Red" have broken 535mph
in level flight at sea level.
Although highly modified these speeds are
impossible with wings.

The poor design and stuctural weakness of the
P-51 has resulted, by accident I'm sure, in the
winningest war bird in air racing history!

Note how with the availability of new Yak-3 and 9s
the dominance of Allied designs has ended.
Faced with the obvious superiority of the
product of the Bolshivek revolution all but
a few teams have retired in the face of the Russian
onslaught.

Despite the use of pirated engine designs the
Russian planes are totally dominant.
This must be attributed at least in part
to those Wright Radials pirated/copied being
produced by yhe superior hands of the liberated workers
of the workers paradise!

I just had to vent. The P-51 and P-80
un zipping wings are an embarassment to Oleg and his team.

Sergio

horseback
01-23-2006, 06:06 PM
It does seem to me that the Mustang's elevators have an unreasonable amount of 'bite' at high speeds, when the normal expectation would be that they faster you are going, the harder it would be to get the control surfaces to move with the same amount of force. I've read many pilots' accounts which indicate that the stick did get 'heavy' at high speeds, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to me that the Mustang has so much elevator deflection in conditions when other aircraft's elevators would be locked up.

I've had plenty of virtual flights in other types in this sim, and pulled the hell out of the stick and not had it (or at least the control surfaces) move at all when moving too fast, so I know that Oleg and Co can model it when they want to...

cheers

horseback

FritzGryphon
01-23-2006, 06:28 PM
Long story short, all planes do break wings at 15G. You can test this with UPDspeed. (In UPDspeed, it displays 14G, but this has been suggested to be erroneous). From Zero to 109, all are 14G. Sorry to say, but there is no conspiracy against P-51.

The likelihood of wingbreak is simply the aircraft's elevator responsiveness at high speeds. The worst being P-51, FW-190 and YP-80.

It is possible to do this without black out, because in PF, blacking out is not instantaneous. You can perform 10+G G turns without blacking out, so long as they are less than a few seconds duration.

It's also interesting to note that, at high speeds, 15G is far too much. Even including safety margins, the structural limits were far lower.

IIRC, at Vmax, the Zero was limited to 3-some G, with a 2 safety factor (source: Zero Fighter).

Grey_Mouser67
01-23-2006, 06:42 PM
Anyone who hasn't lost a wing with a Mustang either hasn't flown one or has the "flutter effect" turned off.

I have lost a wing while rolling the plane at high speeds. The effect occurs only below 2500 meters...methinks there is more going on than 15G's....hence the "flutter effect" connection. Turn it off, and do your bat turns...I doubt you'll lose a wing.

Enough said. Fix it.

GR142-Pipper
01-23-2006, 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 Bremspropeller:
It's not a bug, it's a feature http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Indeed...for the blue team.

GR142-Pipper

FritzGryphon
01-23-2006, 07:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> methinks there is more going on than 15G's....hence the "flutter effect" connection. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Got track?

Brain32
01-23-2006, 07:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Anyone who hasn't lost a wing with a Mustang either hasn't flown one or has the "flutter effect" turned off. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Complete and utter BS. You know what? I hope you will get a new elevator, a VERY stiff one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

GR142-Pipper
01-23-2006, 07:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
I'm no fast-jet pilot or aviation doctor, but surely there is a delay before a pilot experiences blackout? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Typically, the pilot would experience progressively higher G loadings and then the onset of grey-out would occur if continued (assuming +G's). Gray-out starts with a degradation of vision to the point where the pilot has tunnel vision and then no vision at all. The pilot is "grayed out" and if G is still increased the pilot will eventually lose all vision (black out) and then consciousness thereafter.

The bottom line on this matter is that the wing separation issue was RESOLVED. Pilots no longer had to worry about undue wing separation early on in the P-51 program. I think that this is reinforced by the fact that I have read no pilot accounts of pilots being afraid to engage in P-51s and exploit the flight envelope fully due to this matter.

This is a false issue for the P-51 that should not be programmed into the game (or really for any aircraft for that matter given the non-feedback inherent in a PC venue). As an aside, it's hard to understand Maddox's priorities when we get gimmick oddities like this getting the attention of the programmers when the basic flight models are in need of attention. Go figure.

GR142-Pipper

Grey_Mouser67
01-23-2006, 08:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> methinks there is more going on than 15G's....hence the "flutter effect" connection. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Got track? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup...but you get your own...really quite easy to reproduce...and no it is not utter nonsense...you can not fly a Mustang fast, below 2500 meters, with flutter effect turned on and not eventually lose a wing.

You either don't fly it, or you have your settings set so it doesnt fall off. It is a good thing real Mustangs didn't do this or we'd have none of them flying around...their wings don't fall off in Reno...nor can they pull 15 G's instantaneously without realizing it.

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

FritzGryphon
01-23-2006, 08:20 PM
If someone knows already how to reproduce this bug, it would be easier for them to show than me to spend time to find out.

I too tried it sub-2500 at high speed. Never less than 14G. I can't do it now, either.

Or at least, tell us the 'trick' to get this to happen. Or is it something not really there, but the idea sounds good, like god?

Tully__
01-23-2006, 11:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Light controls at high speed would be inneffective controls since they would have too little effect at slow speeds (for such mundane tasks as take off and landing). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not necessarily... it depends on pivot points and a whole lot of other design choices. However it is (usually) fair to say that controls that are light at high speed may be dangerously light and lackin in feel at low speed, perhaps even prone to flutter an instability.

Tully__
01-23-2006, 11:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
c. 15Gs without blacking out? Sure, and I'm Teddy Roosevelt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
As has already been pointed out, time to blackout depends not just on total G pulled. It also depends on recent G history and how quickly the G builds up. It is quite possible for strong, fit pilots to hit 15 or even 20 G for brief periods without blacking out, certainly for long enough to rip off a wing, if the pilot has had some time to recover from previous G forces applied and has been flying at more or less 1G (equivalent to level flight) for some time.

GR142-Pipper
01-24-2006, 12:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
I do think it is a tad too sensitive.. but like I always say.. and I dont want to appear cocky or rude... but it is what it is ... deal with it. The quicker we all do that and learn to fly what we have as it is and not as it was historically the happier we will be. I know guys that have been flying the 190s since they were albatrosses.... they were killers then and now they are murderous butchering bastiges... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif It may nbot be 100% right... but it is what it is.. and with patience and practice any plane in this sim can be learned well enough to fly it to it's strengths. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Bearcat, I've used those very words myself and, yes, that is the reality as it is today. However, if the usership accepts the flaws, they don't get fixed....ever. If we don't accept the flaws, they still might not get fixed but accepting them guarantees it.

GR142-Pipper

Sergio_101
01-24-2006, 03:38 AM
Truth is ripping off a wing during combat
would be pretty unlikely.
Extreme over speeding or violent G forces
like you might see in a thunder storm
may do the job.

The instant un zipping wings are just a way
to keep the P-51 from being top dog in this
flight sim.
That is a spot reserved for the Soviet planes.

Sergio

Viper2005_
01-24-2006, 04:56 AM
The P-51, like all USAAF fighters of the period had a design load factor of 7.33 g. Why is everybody so surprised that it comes un-glued at +15 g?

I think the most surprising thing about this game is that structural failure is so rare. The Spitfire had a lower design load factor than the P-51, and the highest g load I know of one surviving is +11 (following Martindale's dive to M=0.89), after which the structure was seriously deformed and the airframe had to be scrapped.

Aeroplanes are generally constructed out of light alloys and optimised for low weight with safety factors around 1.5 (unless they're made by Grumman, in which case the structural material of choice is of course Iron http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

If you exceed their design limits they fail.

The P-51 has several issues in game of which structural failure is the most obvious symptom. Lack of structural strength is not the cause of the problem however.

ElAurens
01-24-2006, 05:31 AM
Viper, thanks for the numbers. However this still begs the question. The Spit has a lower margin of safety than the P51 and is a very good turner with excellent elevator response. Why aren't their wings snapping off with even greater frequency than the P51s?

Something is clearly wrong here.

AustinPowers_
01-24-2006, 05:37 AM
Its elevator isn't as sensitive, and so you don' pull 15gs as often.

Although it is fairly easy to snap the wings off a spitfire if you try.

danjama
01-24-2006, 06:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AustinPowers_:
The P-51 has very sensitive elevator, and good elevator authority throughout the speed range.
THe reaons you loose the wings is because you have pulled more than 15gs, the level set by oleg for maximum G any plane can take.

If you guys actually did some testing for once, and trimmed planes like The Dora, Spitfire, BF-109 et al. full tail heavy trim... you would realize that not only can they also loose their wings, they will do it without blacking out. Not blacking out is NOT only related to the P-51.
P-51 needs no trim, that is all.

Wings popping off in high speed pullouts is entirely realistic with too much trim. What isn't realistic is how easy the P-51 can upl 15gs.

But if Oleg turns down the elevator authority.. we will back to where we were before.. p51 pilots wanting more elevator authority. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well said sir!!

danjama
01-24-2006, 06:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tully__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
c. 15Gs without blacking out? Sure, and I'm Teddy Roosevelt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
As has already been pointed out, time to blackout depends not just on total G pulled. It also depends on recent G history and how quickly the G builds up. It is quite possible for strong, fit pilots to hit 15 or even 20 G for brief periods without blacking out, certainly for long enough to rip off a wing, if the pilot has had some time to recover from previous G forces applied and has been flying at more or less 1G (equivalent to level flight) for some time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But the game doesnt calculate recent G history or how quickly the G builds up, that point is invalid.

Bearcat99
01-24-2006, 06:20 AM
I have only read a few accounts of pilots actually loosing their wings... I do know that in Bud Fortiers book there was a passge in there where he mentions being careful not to pull too high Gs... I also remember reading Yeagers book or it may have been Anderson's.. but it was about Yeager... the writer said that his crew would get pissed at him because more often than not when he came back tere were at least a few popped rivets from where he pushed his plane to the limits.... I think the wing falling off was possible.. but not common because these guys knew their lives ere on the line and would only push things so far. I also think that if we had some measure of G forces that we could feel intuitively like FFB or TIR it woyuld be easier.... and lastly.. as I said... I do think it is a bit too sensitive...but it is what it is.

robban75
01-24-2006, 06:54 AM
Has anybody written to Oleg and asked for a less effective elevator?

Brain32
01-24-2006, 07:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Has anybody written to Oleg and asked for a less effective elevator? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hehe, I don't think they want less efective elevator, they want their precious Pony to withstand 15G without consecuences...

carguy_
01-24-2006, 07:56 AM
I see Pinker got owned again heheh

Go back to parachute killing thats what you like the most you *******.

Pinker15
01-24-2006, 09:45 AM
Sorry Carguy for that U have beeing killed on parachute mabe to often.

carguy_
01-24-2006, 10:00 AM
I`m referring to 303_Pinker.If you don`t go by this nick I apologise for my comments.

Sorry nothin we both now you hate anything German.In Balaton`44 campaign you went nuts because VVS was owned there so all you flew for was a chute kill oportunity.You`re making entire 303 look bad.
Your squad buds are the same.You represent lack of sportsmanship and etiquette.


You guys are great pilots but overall HL opinion of you is staggering the memory of Dywizjon Ko┼"║ciuszkowski 303.

Good luck http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Brain32
01-24-2006, 10:13 AM
OK, I made a track(.ntrk) with P51D20NA on Crimea map, 100% fuel, default weapons, It's generally aerobatics, but includes very harsh dive recovery at speeds no less than 700Km/h, guess what I kept my wings http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Piper, I also rolled at 650Km/h and turned like a maniac http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
And all that at Pitch:91,92,93,...,100 and Roll all 100. So if anybody is interested: http://rapidshare.de/files/11734540/P51aerobatics.rar.html
So all in all the so called easyness of breaking wings is nothing but BS or too large expectacions from a P51...

Viper2005_
01-24-2006, 10:29 AM
The P-51 has excessive elevator authority; most aircraft heavy up somewhat at high speed. I suspect that the P-51 does not.

The game is unable to handle multiple fuel tanks and as such the change in CoG of the P-51 with fuel burn cannot be accurately simulated. As such it's always going to be a fudge. Either excessively benign performance at high weights or excessively unforgiving performance at light weights.

Given the lack of really long range missions in game (we can't fly from East Anglia to Berlin and back in one map) the best solution would be to delete the rear tank. This would give a realistic range and CoG combination; as very few people fly with 100% fuel in game this would have limited negative impact.

I certainly can't think of a situation in which one would need full fuel and drop tanks, so anybody needing the extra previously provided by the rear tank could take drop tanks.

This is far from an ideal solution, but I think that it would work within the constraints of the engine. It would also mean that the main tank gauges would at last do something!

Aaron_GT
01-24-2006, 11:04 AM
I liked SkyChimp's suggestion - P51B without tank, P51C with. What to do with the D and Mustang III, though?

Unknown-Pilot
01-24-2006, 11:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
But the game doesnt calculate recent G history or how quickly the G builds up, that point is invalid. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not entirely true. You can control your blackout by riding the edge. If you do, a muscle spasm will put you out because you have lower tolerance since you're on the edge.

Whereas, the same turn, or more, won't be an issue if you do into it clean.

It doesn't track fatigue or g transitions, but there is some amount of g tolerance and tracking built in.

IL2-chuter
01-24-2006, 11:40 AM
IL-2Chuter's point about the push-pull effect is correct as well (though I'm not sure what it has to do with the wings coming off).

Hi. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Wings coming off . . . the pilot has to get it to that point first, I guess.


As far as Gs on the pilot, the push/pull thing has been studied a bit more than simple rapid positive G onset. The Navy's tests don't deal with rapid onset. My point was that if moderate negative to positive could cause no-warning LOC then rapid high G onset could bypass grey- and blackout phases as well. I don't believe (it's not entirely unfounded) that you can simply state that there is no way you can lose consciousness in less than five seconds, just as you can't say that you have to greyout and blackout before you lose consciousness.

Blackout is an interesting situation by itself. I've never experienced it (I've greyed a lot of times) but to hear guys talking about blacking and remaining fully conscious and flying the plane by last known vector and sound is way too spooky for me. With warning a pilot has to be serious to keep pushing like that and recreationalists (me) usually back off right quick. Art Scholl said he only lost consciousness once while flying and it was because he had absolutely no warning, he wouldn't have pushed it to that point if he had warning.

Carry on. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

TX-EcoDragon
01-24-2006, 03:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robban75:
Has anybody written to Oleg and asked for a less effective elevator? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep.

GR142-Pipper
01-24-2006, 03:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Has anybody written to Oleg and asked for a less effective elevator? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hehe, I don't think they want less efective elevator, they want their precious Pony to withstand 15G without consecuences... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, it's really pretty much moot at this point. Few fly the P-51 anymore...with cause.

GR142-Pipper

UberPickle
01-24-2006, 03:20 PM
Just take a look at the link in my sig.

High speeds can be killer.

GR142-Pipper
01-24-2006, 03:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
OK, I made a track(.ntrk) with P51D20NA on Crimea map, 100% fuel, default weapons, It's generally aerobatics, but includes very harsh dive recovery at speeds no less than 700Km/h, guess what I kept my wings http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Piper, I also rolled at 650Km/h and turned like a maniac http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
And all that at Pitch:91,92,93,...,100 and Roll all 100. So if anybody is interested: http://rapidshare.de/files/11734540/P51aerobatics.rar.html
So all in all the so called easyness of breaking wings is nothing but BS or too large expectacions from a P51... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, so the whole thing is made up now, eh? Please. I knew that sooner or later this would be offered up.

GR142-Pipper

HayateAce
01-24-2006, 03:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Has anybody written to Oleg and asked for a less effective elevator? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hehe, I don't think they want less efective elevator, they want their precious Pony to withstand 15G without consecuences... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Neato post. No really, I mean that. One of your finest to date. Bravo, and looking forward to more brilliant statements from you.

TX-EcoDragon
01-24-2006, 03:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
The P-51 has excessive elevator authority; most aircraft heavy up somewhat at high speed. I suspect that the P-51 does not.

The game is unable to handle multiple fuel tanks and as such the change in CoG of the P-51 with fuel burn cannot be accurately simulated. As such it's always going to be a fudge. Either excessively benign performance at high weights or excessively unforgiving performance at light weights.

Given the lack of really long range missions in game (we can't fly from East Anglia to Berlin and back in one map) the best solution would be to delete the rear tank. This would give a realistic range and CoG combination; as very few people fly with 100% fuel in game this would have limited negative impact.

I certainly can't think of a situation in which one would need full fuel and drop tanks, so anybody needing the extra previously provided by the rear tank could take drop tanks.

This is far from an ideal solution, but I think that it would work within the constraints of the engine. It would also mean that the main tank gauges would at last do something! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Agree

TX-EcoDragon
01-24-2006, 03:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
OK, I made a track(.ntrk) with P51D20NA on Crimea map, 100% fuel, default weapons, It's generally aerobatics, but includes very harsh dive recovery at speeds no less than 700Km/h, guess what I kept my wings . . snip </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I recall, the way it works is different between online and offline games.

Brain32
01-24-2006, 04:57 PM
I dont see how would FM be influenced by online playing but I don't know(I guess only Oleg knows). As for my track, I am sure that anybody who watched it can agree that Mustang is quite flyable, and that wings don't fall off as easy as many times claimed. The only way to brake it is to yank the stick like a maniac...

ElAurens
01-24-2006, 05:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
The only way to brake it is to yank the stick like a maniac... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, but that is not my experience. A simple high speed pull out that every other plane in the set can manage just fine took the wing off a P51.

Grey_Mouser67
01-24-2006, 06:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IL2-chuter:
IL-2Chuter's point about the push-pull effect is correct as well (though I'm not sure what it has to do with the wings coming off).

Hi. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Wings coming off . . . the pilot has to get it to that point first, I guess.


As far as Gs on the pilot, the push/pull thing has been studied a bit more than simple rapid positive G onset. The Navy's tests don't deal with rapid onset. My point was that if moderate negative to positive could cause no-warning LOC then rapid high G onset could bypass grey- and blackout phases as well. I don't believe (it's not entirely unfounded) that you can simply state that there is no way you can lose consciousness in less than five seconds, just as you can't say that you have to greyout and blackout before you lose consciousness.

Blackout is an interesting situation by itself. I've never experienced it (I've greyed a lot of times) but to hear guys talking about blacking and remaining fully conscious and flying the plane by last known vector and sound is way too spooky for me. With warning a pilot has to be serious to keep pushing like that and recreationalists (me) usually back off right quick. Art Scholl said he only lost consciousness once while flying and it was because he had absolutely no warning, he wouldn't have pushed it to that point if he had warning.

Carry on. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Posted Tue January 24 2006 17:05
I have experienced a blackout...under different circumstances, but ultimately it was lack of oxygen to the brain....I have been completely out, but once...I was out...but I wasn't unconcious...I was sitting upright and could hear just fine, but I could not see...very bizaar situation....If I had been operating an aircraft, I would have been able to hold my position, but not necessarily do anything. Quite a disturbing it was and I'll never forget it.

Von_Rat
01-24-2006, 07:43 PM
i usually fly a fw, but i like the p51.

except for the over effective elevator ripping wings off.

even though im mostly a blue player i have to agree 100% with others here that the way the p51 so easliy loses wings is just plain WRONG.

Tully__
01-25-2006, 03:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
...The instant un zipping wings are just a way
to keep the P-51 from being top dog in this
flight sim.
That is a spot reserved for the Soviet planes.

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No need for this. If it were even close to true all such suggestions would be raised for the same group of aicraft and they aren't. If I see more of this poop from you you'll be suspended.

Tully__
01-25-2006, 03:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tully__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
c. 15Gs without blacking out? Sure, and I'm Teddy Roosevelt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
As has already been pointed out, time to blackout depends not just on total G pulled. It also depends on recent G history and how quickly the G builds up. It is quite possible for strong, fit pilots to hit 15 or even 20 G for brief periods without blacking out, certainly for long enough to rip off a wing, if the pilot has had some time to recover from previous G forces applied and has been flying at more or less 1G (equivalent to level flight) for some time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But the game doesnt calculate recent G history or how quickly the G builds up, that point is invalid. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Wanna bet. The game definitely calculates the pilot's recent G history, though only over the last 15-20 seconds. The G threshold is about 5G. If you ease just over it, you'll grey out very gradually. Pull straight to 10G and you'll be blacked out very quickly. If you've just recovered from blackout, you'll black out a lot quicker if you pull gently to 5-6G than if you pulled that G without previous manouvers.

Xiolablu3
01-25-2006, 03:31 AM
I can add that even with a FF stick it is very easy to lose a wing on a p51, especially in a hi speed B&Z attack.

If you are much more than 1000m above your target and dive, then you have to monitor your speed very closely (I have to put throttle on 0% and sometimes use flaps to slow) otherwise you lose a wing.

If I forget to do this in the excitement then I will surely have a wing break. Maybe its because the p51 picks up speed so well thx to its laminar flow wing, I dont know.

Add me to the 'easy to lose a p51 wing' club.

Tully__
01-25-2006, 03:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
The only way to brake it is to yank the stick like a maniac... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, but that is not my experience. A simple high speed pull out that every other plane in the set can manage just fine took the wing off a P51. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think what may be confusing some a little is the way joystick deflection is read by the game. Full joystick deflection is not equal to full control deflection. In this game the joystick controls how much effort the pilot is applying to the controls. In some aircraft with heavy controls at high speed, full pilot effort will only result in a small fraction of maximum deflection, while in other aircraft where the designers have aimed for light controls at high speed, the controls may be deflected to a significant proportion of full deflection by full pilot force even at or near Vne. The end result is dangerously high G force in the latter at the same joystick deflection that is perfectly safe in the former.

robban75
01-25-2006, 03:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TX-EcoDragon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robban75:
Has anybody written to Oleg and asked for a less effective elevator? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Bearcat99
01-25-2006, 06:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I can add that even with a FF stick it is very easy to lose a wing on a p51, especially in a hi speed B&Z attack.

If you are much more than 1000m above your target and dive, then you have to monitor your speed very closely (I have to put throttle on 0% and sometimes use flaps to slow) otherwise you lose a wing.

If I forget to do this in the excitement then I will surely have a wing break. Maybe its because the p51 picks up speed so well thx to its laminar flow wing, I dont know.

Add me to the 'easy to lose a p51 wing' club. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have found that the steeper the angle the wider your pullout should be.. I do what you do.. chop throttle and sometimes pitch as well... then I try to time my pullout or I should say the angle of my pull out so that when I see myself getting up tp @ 400 mph I beginm to tery to pull out slowly.... I still loose a wing on ocaassion... but it has been a while.... and like I said.. while I do think it should be a bit beefier... it is wht it is... I am learning to deal with it and choose my battles. Lately the only time I loose my wing(s) is when some guy with a cannon bounces me and shoots them off....

FatBoyHK
01-25-2006, 10:57 AM
it is a very very strange pheonmon and I have reported that to ORR some months before. In online environment you can suffer wing break at a much lower speed than in offline, at about 350MPH.... I have just tried some experiment on WC, and yes, I can't break my wing above 10K FT even I pull as hard as I can, if I trimmed 25 clicks down and don't exceed 400MPH.

I think it may be related to the netcode of lag. In an empty server, and with a good connection, which both are true when I conduct the experiment, you can fly like what you can do in offline. But once server lag and network latency kick in, you may suffer wing failure at a much lower speed and G.

I am thinking, if the game lags for 0.1 seconds when you are turning hard, once the game resume in its normal speed, the game need to compensate what its missed during the lag, and to do that it will make you turn even harder, and due to mustang's very good elevator response, it is already very close to the 15G limit, and with this sudden "booat" it exceed the 15G limit, and BOOM!

It is the only reason I can think of

Unknown-Pilot
01-25-2006, 11:29 AM
FBHK, interesting thought, but I don't think that's it. Look at warpage. That is caused by lag. I heard that the Host (server) tracks positions of everyone and periodically sends updates to compensate for lag, thus leading to warping planes as they are moved as part of this correction - much like what you were talking about. However, it would certainly put undue Gs on the planes if it was tracked for warping like that. So I don't think that is what's causing it.

Texan...
01-25-2006, 12:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FatBoyHK:
it is a very very strange pheonmon and I have reported that to ORR some months before. In online environment you can suffer wing break at a much lower speed than in offline, at about 350MPH.... I have just tried some experiment on WC, and yes, I can't break my wing above 10K FT even I pull as hard as I can, if I trimmed 25 clicks down and don't exceed 400MPH.

I think it may be related to the netcode of lag. In an empty server, and with a good connection, which both are true when I conduct the experiment, you can fly like what you can do in offline. But once server lag and network latency kick in, you may suffer wing failure at a much lower speed and G.

I am thinking, if the game lags for 0.1 seconds when you are turning hard, once the game resume in its normal speed, the game need to compensate what its missed during the lag, and to do that it will make you turn even harder, and due to mustang's very good elevator response, it is already very close to the 15G limit, and with this sudden "booat" it exceed the 15G limit, and BOOM!

It is the only reason I can think of </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You very well may be on to something FB.

horseback
01-25-2006, 01:37 PM
Speaking of lag, what influence does the lag of trim inputs have?

My experiences with the P-51 in-game is that the aircraft is very demanding of elevator trim adjustment. It needs a nose up or down trimming every time the speed varies 10-15 kph and the trim inputs are hard to get right, unlike, say, the P-40 variants, which are also trim aircraft, but are easily and predictably trimmed in rudder and especially elevator.

Is the built-in delay of trim inputs making the job of trimming the aircraft harder, or are the trim inputs (I use button trim inputs, not axes) just sloppier or varied in accordance with some arcane formula in the Mustang, Corsair, and the other less notable wobblers and bobblers?

cheers

horseback

Grey_Mouser67
01-25-2006, 07:25 PM
The conversation around online play and wing breakage has been covered in the past and based on my experience, there is a connection.

I have lost wings in Ki-84's, Fw's, Corsairs, Mustangs, and once in a 109. Online, the issue is more severe...I say this not because of the Mustang, but because of the Fw. I have never, that I can remember, lost a wing in a Fw offline, but I have done it on occassion online....in fact, I remember a specific occassion recently where I lost Fw wings repreatedly on the same map in manuevers that left me scratching my head wondering what I did??? That only happens online...I lose Mustang wings online and offline and often in those planes, I am performing normal manuevers like rolling the plane or pulling out of a dive (not yanking on the stick) and the wing pops off.

The best way I've figured how to counter it is to negative trim the aircraft and/or use trim to pull out of a dive.

The biggest issue with the Mustang is that the plane was designed to fly fast, fly's fast well, infact if you don't fly fast you die....it was that way in real life and it is that way in game. The issue is that if you fly it fast like its supposed to be, you wind up in a dive recovery posture instead of on the offensive. The aircraft's stall characteristics and turning abilities are already suspect and anyone with any sense recognizes the issue with the sync'd guns....the dive modelling is pretty good, but if you can't fly it to the limits, what combat assests are left?

I'll answer that: It is good at running away...except against Dora's and 109K's. It cant climb well, can't turn, handles like a pig with abominal stall characteristics...and now, its one real true combat asset, speed and high speed manuevering has to be "toned down" and "adjusted with joystick settings" so that you can survive the very environement the plane was designed to excel in.

The real P-51 had a redline speed of 550 mph...or 880km/hr. The real Mustang, the one that flies around today in at Reno, flies speeds approaching 500 mph at sea level...the wings don't come off mistakenly when a pilot pulls on the stick too much.

In game, if we can "accidently" rip the wings off with elevator input commonly and that was not common in real life, then there is a modelling opportunity and adjustment to be made....seems pretty simple to me. Don't exactly know what the issue is, maybe Oleg doesn't either and that is why it hasn't been addressed, but it is there none-the-less. Fix it please.

GR142-Pipper
01-25-2006, 07:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
In game, if we can "accidently" rip the wings off with elevator input commonly and that was not common in real life, then there is a modelling opportunity and adjustment to be made....seems pretty simple to me. Don't exactly know what the issue is, maybe Oleg doesn't either and that is why it hasn't been addressed, but it is there none-the-less. Fix it please. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed. The fix is simple (assuming that pilots' G tolerance is lower than that of their aicraft)...remove wing loss from the code (with the exception of loss from exceeding airspeed limits).

GR142-Pipper

Nigel_Woodman
01-26-2006, 07:29 AM
Are you guys flying with G-forces turned off? I always black out way before I get close to pulling the wings off a P-51. BTW, the blackouts are poorly modeled. A release of G-forces will restore vision much more quickly than in the sim.

Check out my P-51 campaign here:

http://www.weston-american.com/incoming/

Press the button that enters the file download area. Once you get there don't worry about the upload file window. Just click on the file P-51Campaign.zip. Once you've got the download, just unzip to your IL-2 FB directory.

Brain32
01-26-2006, 07:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Agreed. The fix is simple (assuming that pilots' G tolerance is lower than that of their aicraft)...remove wing loss from the code (with the exception of loss from exceeding airspeed limits). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
He, he, and enable P51 to be the only plane that can sustain 15G+ without structural damage, nice try...

Grey_Mouser67
01-26-2006, 11:39 AM
I wouldn't want the Mustang to do 15 G turns...that would be ridiculous and I'd quit flying it.

I still am not totally convinced it is a G issue, but if it is...the issue is how easy one can hit 15G's and with how much warning....I've just had my wing depart with very small control inputs...it just isn't right.

Some will call it a game, some will call it a sim...whatever you want to call it, Oleg is trying to make it as lifelike and real as possible....if in real life, wing shedding is not a major cause of death, then why should it be in the sim? It is a top cause and affects combat tactics in game, it did not in real life....Mustangs were fast, they still are today. They flew fast, manuevered fast and no they didn't fall apart any more than any other aircraft....why should they be worst in class in this aspect in game? They shouldn't..so how about fixing it!

GR142-Pipper
01-29-2006, 08:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Agreed. The fix is simple (assuming that pilots' G tolerance is lower than that of their aicraft)...remove wing loss from the code (with the exception of loss from exceeding airspeed limits). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
He, he, and enable P51 to be the only plane that can sustain 15G+ without structural damage, nice try... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You misunderstand. My intent was to suggest that the wing loss code be removed from ALL aircraft unless the airspeed restrictions were violated. Keep in mind too that, even with the wing loss code removed, NO plane should be able to sustain inordinantly high G's because the PILOT will black out thus preventing it.

As an aside, the rationale behind why items like wing loss and the introduction of the strange and uneven engine torque effects are brought into the game is puzzling given the supposed limitation of the game engine (which in itself seems to be a default catch-all excuse for why things are the way they are). If the game engine is not up to handling issues like these then don't introduce them into the game in the first place. If it turns out the game engine is capable of modeling them properly then correction of these obvious flaws is certainly a reasonable and justified expectation.

GR142-Pipper