Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

736 Excellent

About AndyJWest

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    London, England

Recent Profile Visitors

961 profile views
  1. AndyJWest

    Does IL2 model ground effect?

    If it models ground effect at all, it is very subtle, and I've not seen any repeatable tests that show it. There is no obvious change of trim, or of power required, when flying very close to the surface - the easiest way to try this is over water. You shouldn't see much effect until you get down below half a wingspan above the surface. In IL-2 '46 you could certainly show 'ground effect' that way, though there seemed to be some weirdness in the way it was modelled.
  2. I suspect that the Ju 52 autopilot was similar to most others of its era: it will have controlled the aircraft pitch and roll attitude and heading, via input from gyroscopes. So 'straight and level', with no direct altitude control. Properly set up (i.e. with the aircraft trimmed before turning it on), it would probably hold altitude reasonably well, despite having no input from the altimeter, but you would still have to monitor the instruments, and make regular adjustments for gyroscopic drift etc. There is further discussion of WW2 autopilots in this thread: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/35796-bf-110-autopilot-question/?tab=comments#comment-604669
  3. If you want to do the sort of aerobatics that is seen in modern aircraft designed specifically for the job, there is nothing in BoX (or RoF) that will really do. There is a Su-26 'easter egg' in Cliffs of Dover (I assume it still works) though the flight model is a bit suspect. For just learning the basics of aerobatics, I'd say the Yaks were probably the best option. Relatively light, and with well-harmonised controls. They aren't designed for flick manoeuvres or sustained inverted flight though, so don't expect to be able to do a Lomcovak or an outside loop.
  4. AndyJWest

    Tiger periscope - ho to use.

    Not all tank periscopes rotate. There are some nice photos here, which suggest that Tiger periscopes were fixed in place: http://tiger1.info/EN/Vertical-periscope.html
  5. AndyJWest

    What about adding middle british bombers?

    The issue with heavy bombers isn't just the number of engines: more gunners make for more CPU demands for AI, and having to model multiple crew positions makes them more expensive too. There are multiple threads explaining this already. If the devs want to add a British Bodenplatte time-period 2-engined bomber, the obvious choice is the Mosquito.
  6. AndyJWest

    What about adding middle british bombers?

    There were only ever 202 Manchesters built. Even during the 16 months or so they were in use by bomber command they were of limited significance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Manchester#Operational_history
  7. AndyJWest

    Kermit Weeks flies the Sopwith Snipe

    More Snipe video from Kermit. This time featuring on-board Go-Pro shots. I noticed he applies 'wrong direction' aileron while taxi-turning. Presumably the increased drag from the down-going aileron helps the turn.
  8. AndyJWest

    The reason why AP is so powerfull on the game.

    Ok, I'm done here. Your video has proven precisely nothing, and you clearly aren't interested in anything that doesn't confirm to your half-baked assumptions. (And for the record, I worked for some years as an engineering draughtsman. I have also designed and built RC aircraft. Neither of which qualifies me as an aircraft engineer. So when someone describes aircraft construction as stressed-skin, I will assume that they mean what they say. Unless presented with actual evidence to the contrary, from a qualified source. )
  9. AndyJWest

    The reason why AP is so powerfull on the game.

    Please do a little research into how stressed-skin aircraft construction works.
  10. AndyJWest

    The reason why AP is so powerfull on the game.

    Well, if you want a simulation that does complete real-time 3D stress analysis for damage modelling, I think you are going to have to pay a lot more for the software. And for the supercomputer to run it on. We know that the simulation simplifies things. It has to. But being simplified isn't evidence that there is an imbalance between AP and HE, which is what the video purports to show.
  11. AndyJWest

    The reason why AP is so powerfull on the game.

    An AP round hitting aircraft-grade aluminium alloy square on will probably make a neat round hole. The same round hitting a wing at an acute angle is likely to tumble, if it penetrates, and do a whole lot more damage. And the skin of a Bf 109 wing carries a significant part of the load. An undamaged spar doesn't equate to an undamaged wing. There may well be inaccuracies in the way BoX models damage (in fact there are certain to be, since it is a simulation), but your video does nothing to demonstrate anything specific regarding the relative damage of HE and AP rounds.
  12. AndyJWest

    Castor oil aircraft fire preventative

    I don't think castor oil could be described as a 'fire inhibitor'. It is less flammable than mineral oils, but will still burn given enough heat. https://www.aromantic.co.uk/technical-documents/msds/castor-oil-msds.aspxhttps://www.aromantic.co.uk/technical-documents/msds/castor-oil-msds.aspx
  13. AndyJWest

    Fokker Dr.I Discussion

    I've posted this before, but some may not have seen it. A poem wot I rote: Tom Sopwith and the carpenters (with apologies to Lewis Carroll)"The time has come", Tom Sopwith said, "To talk of many things: Of ribs and struts and bracing wires, And planes with triple wings. To twist and turn, and loop and climb and run around in rings". "A rotary is what we need, behind, a Vickers gun: two wheels, a prop, And suchlike 'till it's done. We'll send it up into the clouds To perforate the Hun". Tom Sopwith set his men to work, upon his new contraption They hammered, sawed and glued and screwed till driven to distraction, then broke for tea, and biscuits (three!), continued with the lamps on. All through the night (the Moon was bright) They worked on Tom's invention Of canvas, wood, of cloth and dope And wires all tight with tension assembled all from wheels to tail And then they fixed the wings on. The pilot sat inside the Tripe behind the Vickers gun they spun the prop, and off he shot to climb up to the sun to turn and loop, and wheel about and perforate the Hun. The German in his Albatross was clueless what was coming The triplane pounced, then wheeled right round and went on with its gunning The Huns below, all saw the show, Astonished at such cunning. So off they went, all giving vent, to see their best constuctor With gutteral curse, and language worse, they barked out urgent order To build and fly, as their reply A triple-winged destructor. "Tis time", Anthony Fokker said "To talk of many things Of ribs and struts (no bracing wires!) And planes with triple wings. To twist and turn, and loop and climb and run around in rings..."
  14. AndyJWest

    Question about RoF WW1 planes.

    I suspect the developers have enough on their hands already, and would prefer not to engage in major structural modifications to the application. Especially ones that would inevitably add complexity to testing and deployment. Using DCS as an example doesn't seem to me particularly helpful either: there has been a long history in that sim of things which previously worked getting 'broken' with new releases, and I suspect at least part of that is down to its modular structure. If it was my decision (it isn't) I'd go for keeping things simple over saving a few GB of storage every time.
  15. AndyJWest

    Fokker Dr.I Discussion

    Thanks for the feedback Chill31. It's nice to see just how close to the real thing the FC Dr 1 is. I've just tested a quick fix to reduce the centring force on my joystick (a couple of rubber bands partially compressing the spring), and it seems much more controllable now. And I can always tell myself the sore shoulder is authentic! I should probably try the RoF Dr 1 again, just to see whether the FM really is that different. From what I remember I never really got the hang of it, so either it is different, or I've got better.