Jump to content

MaxTurn

Members
  • Content Count

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About MaxTurn

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

443 profile views
  1. Thanks for all of your hard work. I have enjoyed the missions but am frequently lost if I don't have someone to follow.
  2. On the damage from 20mm and 30mm guns attention needs to be paid to kineticenergy. The Germans tended to use lower velocity guns with projectiles that were lighter compared to the HS used by U.S. and GB. Many of the German shells (esp. the Minengeschoss) had a very thin projectile enclosing a large amount of HE. These shells were very effective if they exploded inside of an aircraft structure but they also exploded on the outside of the structure. Yesterday by chance, I saw an interview with Yeager done in 1998 where he mentioned that the German cannon would sometimes blow a hole in the surface of the wing without destroying the structure (he was talking about the Mustang). Flying Guns of WW2 and also the book "The Big Bang" should be referenced. Not only the guns but the fuses and explosives used differed by countries. The German FF cannon and the HS 404 fired very different forms of projectiles. The American .50 inch machine gun was successful (as many have pointed out) because it was reliable and it produced reasonable kinetic energy. Even the high explosive shells for the .50 had very little explosive. Also, not all explosives have an equal amount of chemical energy. I am not going to dig out my books to find details but just remember that not all weapons of the same caliber are equally as effective. The FF for example was a delayed blow back weapon and its muzzle velocity was limited by the use of an action which was light but did not allow the use of projectiles with the mass of other heavier 20 mm guns. Based on my readings of Flying Guns and Rapid Fire, I think the best overall cannons were developed by the USSR. The Browning is regarded by the authors of Flying Guns as a mediocre weapon which did the job of shooting down fighters and medium bombers but was out classed by other heavy MGs. It was reliable and 6 .50 caliber Browning put out a lot of projectiles with enough velocity and mass to do the job against a 109 or a medium bomber but it probably would not have been that effective in attacking B-17s. It was not a wonder weapon. I find it interesting that of all the heavy machine guns used in WW2, that the Browning is the only one (as far as I know) still in active service with a major military. The German guns were good and many used electrical primers (at least for the synchronized guns). Damage has to be very difficult to model correctly. Both the Germans and the US and GB did tests on the ground using damaged enemy aircraft to estimate how many hits were required to destroy enemy planes. Of course, the test could only provide approximate data. Consider the never ending debate about the effectiveness of handgun cartridges. Is it better to have a .45 ACP round with a muzzle velocity of 900 fps and a mass of 230 grains (15 grams) or a 9mm with a mass of 120 to 130 grains (usually) but a muzzle velocity of 1200 to 1300 fps. And for aircraft weapons, the rate of fire is especially important. I think everyone agrees that after BOB, the 30 caliber guns were not powerful enough. Just some things that I think need to be considered. A good reference is at: http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/an_introduction_to_collecting_20.htm
  3. Modeling the radar would be the most basic need. However, ship or sub based radar was available in Silent Hunter. Modern focused flight sims use radar. Neither Germany or G.B. had night fighters with the radar being read by the pilot. There was always a radar operator. Bill Gunston wrote a good introduction to the subject. The Hellcat (of course) had a radar screen read by the pilot. The Germans never developed (or a least never deployed) a radar with a standard PPI. The German ground based radar was (I think) just as good as what the British developed, but the German AI radar developed by the British (because of the cavity magnetron) which U.S. engineering greatly improved (in terms of production and reliability) was always a step behind the British. I would certainly buy a sim that included radar interception by night fighters and intruders over Western Europe. You would not need many planes in the air at a single time. The bombers flew in a "steam" and many nights did not see another bomber except maybe over the fires of the target. Visual identification was usually made based on the exhaust pattern. Of course, the Germans only had to know that it was a 4 engine plane. Reading the radar and being able to intercept were very difficult tasks in WW2. I also doubt that this will be developed.
  4. If you want to learn more about G and jerk. Jerk is not explained very well. But it is the killer. That was a big problem with early ejection seats using spring, explosives, and compressed air. To get to an acceptable G (enough to clear the aircraft) involved unacceptable jerk. Anyway some references for those you are interested in learning. Nice demonstration of a centrifuge: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMKcO-T5Y4o Note that Jerk is mentioned as being the killer. http://code7700.com/aero_turn_performance.htm https://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pilotsafetybrochures/media/acceleration.pdf https://www.intechopen.com/books/aircraft-technology/physiologic-challenges-to-pilots-of-modern-high-performance-aircraft
  5. I don't play online and have never seen or performed an UFO maneuver. What I can't believe is the climb rate for 109's. I know it was comparatively excellent until the 44 or 45 but man can those guys go. However, I think if you adjust your stick settings then you can avoid some of the effects. But a barrel roll does not appear to be a high g maneuver. Think about things in terms of vectors. I think to do a good barrel roll is hard. But what was forbidden for most planes was snap rolls and flying inverted for more than just a few seconds. Fuel injection solved the problem with getting fuel while inverted but how about oil?
  6. An interesting read. Section 3, may me think of things differently. https://www.intechopen.com/books/aircraft-technology/physiologic-challenges-to-pilots-of-modern-high-performance-aircraft Another older publication at NASA: https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4201/ch2-4.htm
  7. “The Barrel roll is a combination between a loop and a roll. You complete one loop while completing one roll at the same time. The flight path during a barrel roll has the shape of a horizontal cork screw. Imagine a big barrel, with the airplanes wheels rolling along the inside of the barrel in a cork screw path. During a barrel roll, the pilot always experiences positive Gs. The maximum is about 2.5 to 3 G. The minimum about 0.5 G.” https://www.iac.org/ WIKI has a nice diagram of a barrel roll. The point made earlier about the rate of the rate of change (jerk or the third derivative) is valid. The above is from the International Aerobatic Club but if one just throws the aircraft through the roll then you would increase the jerk which would increase the stress on the aircraft and the pilot. I think this is an argument that will not be resolved anytime soon. 20 plus years ago there was an aerobatic flight sim that I used to fly. I thought it was very realistic. But if you exceeded the velocity to never exceed (by much) then the plane would fall apart. You would also hear a short scream from the pilot. I screamed a lot.
  8. Good, you must be very efficient. I have both volumes but just use them occasionally for reference.
  9. I did another mission (Airfield Mayhem by Jade Monkey) and the effects seemed more realistic (to me).
  10. I can give you a list based for GB and the Commonwealth based on Aces High by Shores and Williams. How far down do you want to go? Actually, I am going to have to withdraw my offer. Aces High does not seem to have a list of the top aces and it is over 500 pages long. However, WIKI has a list for both GB and Germany. Of course the whole number of claims and the accuracy of the claims is a huge discussion on the net. While the list on WIKI may not be exact, I will be happy to check the top 50 British against Shores and Williams. One thing to not is that the names with hyperlinks are going to those who were the best known. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_aces_from_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_aces_from_Germany
  11. Based on my recollection, IL-2 had more red out black out effects than IL-2 BOX until this update. I thought the physiological effects of pulling excessive g forces were under-modeled in BOX until the update. I have done aerobatics once as a passenger and have performed maybe 50 auto-rotations (in training) and have little experience with excessive g forces. However, based on my reading of pilots recounting missions and also test pilot accounts (and I have read a lot) then I think the update may over-model the effect. Unless, you are in a military simulator then you do not have the vestibular and other physiological input to know how hard you are turning. Also without hydraulic systems, a pilot can only pull so many g because of the required muscle strength -- I still have a couple of MS force feedback sticks but with my current stick (Virpil base/Warthog grip) I not have any control feedback. How about an optional g meter? That would help in learning one's limits.
  12. Alonzo, thanks for your post. I am going to also use your template as a starting point. Also, can anyone answer a question about the mode switch? Can you set it up to have the same buttons from different operations in different modes? Is there an Manual in English? I have my T-50 (second version) ready to go on an extension but haven't started to program it or my stick.
  13. One of the early combat sims (Aces of/over the Pacific/Europe) had the ability to tell your wingman to break right or left (and maybe up or down?). Or that is how I remember it. That was so long ago, you had to write a batch file to get the sims to boot.
×
×
  • Create New...