Jump to content
Pringliano

Flight dynamics after the latest patches...

Recommended Posts

Alright...

 

Andyw,

 

I like your post and your willingness to take the time to test some of these observations. While I agree I think the 109 as a whole seems to be a bit more complete I don't see any mention of the FW. Maybe you don't own it. It could be and I'm willing to investigate but my ground handling problems are with a non modified Warthog and Saitek Combat Pro Rudders. It may be I need to look at the curves and make some adjustments but just at a quick glance my setup is pretty straight forward.

 

Ground Handling Observation: FW After start just trying to make a right turn during taxi. Stick in lap to lock the tail wheel NO turn what so ever. Relax the stick with slight power added -20-30 percent and full right rudder aircraft moves forward with little turn to the right. Add a slight amount of right wheel brake no turn and come to a complete stop at some point. Add a bit more power back wheel unlocks and I get a complete ground loop 360 degree plus in some cases. I can assure you having 100s of hours in tail draggers this is NOT normal. Granted this could be some whacky hardware thing but from what I can see in the UI there isn't anything that indicates an improper configuration.

 

For those that don't fly tail draggers here are some RW techniques. Most modern tail draggers don't have a locked tail wheel control. The tail wheel is locked when the wheel is aligned with the nose. It becomes unlocked passed a certain point. Which means you hold the stick back in your lap during taxi at all times. This gives you steering which is done with rudder and differential braking. Upon take off its a gradual adding of power opposite rudder to maintain centerline and stick forward until you pick the tail off the ground. As you pick up airspeed the forward stick pressure relaxes all while you're maintaining center line with rudder control and aileron if you have a crosswind. Upon reaching your take off speed it's a gradual pull and let the plane fly off the runway.

 

Landings: There are 2 kinds. 3 Point which most guys use because it's the easiest to perform. Land tail wheel first and let the mains settle. Wheel landings which require some skill and practice. Upon touching the mains it's still forward and maintain centerline with rudder. Most bounce this part because they don't STICK the landing. Forward pressure to hold the tail wheel off as you start to slow down you bring the tail wheel down slowly by adding back pressure and don't Bounce it. Then immediate full back pressure once the tail has touched down and you're now in taxi mode.

 

FW Stalls where interesting. Much more complex than good ole IL2 but the FW in particular is almost willing to swap ends if you push hard forward. She will also invert and rap up tight if you keep the pressure on which is expected and a nice touch.

 

My general overall impression is that the longitudinal axis is a bit wobbly at times even under high speed. Perhaps it's accurate I don't know but at 300mph you would think most aircraft are stable in flight.

Edited by 14./JG5CaptStubing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

andyw,

 

You have a highly modified stick that is twice the length of what the VAST MAJORITY of us use.  Your comments should be circumscribed by that fact.

 

Your in game experience is NOT the same as most here are having because of your equipment.  Please try to see it from our perspective.

 

I know... That's why before I got my Warthog and the stick extension I converted my old CHPro Fighter stick into this:

 

post-14246-0-38682400-1420520589_thumb.jpg

 

Back then I wrote about it: "The attached picture shows my rendition of a minimalistic stick. Yes, it's ugly, and if you share your place with your significant other you might not get much appreciation for your efforts. Note that the picture also shows the even uglier results of my stick extension; however, this was just a proof-of-concept and took a quick visit of my garage, plus 10 minutes to cut the tube to length and wrap the whole thing in tape."

While I agree I think the 109 as a whole seems to be a bit more complete I don't see any mention of the FW. Maybe you don't own it. It could be and I'm willing to investigate but my ground handling problems are with a non modified Warthog and Saitek Combat Pro Rudders. It may be I need to look at the curves and make some adjustments but just at a quick glance my setup is pretty straight forward.

 

Well, I do own the FW, and I have some thoughts about it, but I also think it's more controversial than the 109, so I don't want to write anything about it before I have taken it through a good amount of testing, including both the maneuvers that I've put the 109 through and anything others suggest in addition to that. Maybe next weekend...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rudder deflection on the video says absolutely nothing. When I started taxiing heavy taildraggers I was deflecting the rudder before using the brakes as well. But it has no effect at idle power. Not a tiny bit. Only if the tailwheel gets deflection by the rudder, it will have an effect. But this is not the case in any german fighter as far as I know. Please correct that, if I miss some information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are playing different sims.   :biggrin:

 

Or at least are playing with different controllers perhaps.

 

I never have issues on takeoff.  It's always when on the taxiway, or on roll out after touchdown.  I agree the La5 has the best ground handling, but oddly, because they share basically the same airframe, the LaGG 3 has the worst.

I can make a nice long slow approach in the LaGG, really just absolutely grease a 3 point touchdown, have a nice long slow roll out and it will spin like a top at the end of the roll out, every time.  Very odd.

I expect the 109, with it's utterly compromised landing gear design to be a handful on the ground, but I have a bit less trouble with it than the LaGG,  Go figure.

 

The fact that you can master the odd behavior is a credit to your skills, but that doesn't make it right.

 

As I said, the aircraft feel absolutely weightless when on the ground, and not much better in the air, like balancing them on the head of a pin.

 

I wish I had a better explanation but for now, words fail.

 

This was exactly my problem - I have probably thousands of hours in different sims some R/L experience and the Lagg-3 in BoS was quite a challenge during rollout for me. I had no problems in landing aircraft with lockable tail-wheel (Il-2, 109, 190 are fine for me), but with Lagg-3 even after a perfect three pointer I always ended in a ground loop, often at speeds of maybe less than 20 km/h and not able to counter with full opposite differential brake. Now I can do it without problems, but I had to develop a special technique in order to prevent it. It reminds me a lot of landings in RoF and does not seem right for me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found 2 British raports about Fw 190 flying charactersitic:

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/eb-104.html

 

http://www.a2asimulations.com/store/fw190/tactical_trials.htm

 

 

Some interesting things:

 

 

Fw 190 A-3

Flying Characteristics

 The aircraft is pleasant to fly, all controls being extremely light and positive. The aircraft is difficult to taxi due to the excessive weight on the self-centring tailwheel when on the ground. For take-off, 15° of flap is required, and it is necessary to keep the control column back to avoid swinging during the initial stage of the take-off run. The run is approximately the same as that of the Spitfire IX.

 

Once airborne, the pilot immediately feels at home in the aircraft. The retraction of the flaps and undercarriage is barely noticeable although the aircraft will sink if the retraction of the flaps is made before a reasonably high airspeed has been obtained.

 

The stalling speed of the aircraft is high, being approximately 110 m.p.h. (177 k.m./h.) with the undercarriage and flaps retracted, and 105 m.p.h. [169 k.m./h.| with the undercarriage and flaps fully down. All controls are effective up to the stall. One excellent feature of this aircraft is that it is seldom necessary to retrim under all conditions of flight.

 

Dive

The Fw 190 has a high rate of dive, the initial acceleration being excellent. The maximum speed so far obtained in a dive is 580 m.p.h. |934 k.m./h.l True at 16,000 ft [4,880 m|, and at this speed the controls, although slightly heavier, are still remarkably light. One very g<x>d feature is that no alteration of trim form level flight is required either during the entry or during the pull-out. Due to the fuel injection system it is possible to enter the dive by pushing the control column forward without the engine cutting.

 

CONCLUSIONS

 

The flying characteristics are exceptional and a pilot new to the type feels at home within the first few minutes of flight. The controls are light and well-harmonised and all manoeuvres can be carried out without difficulty at all speeds. The fact that the Fw 190 does not require re-trimming under all conditions of flight is a particularly good point. The initial acceleration is very good and is particularly noticeable in the initial stages of a climb or dive.

 

Perhaps one of the most outstanding qualities of this aircraft is the remarkable aileron control. It is possible to change from a turn in one direction to a turn in the opposite direction with incredible speed, and when viewed from another aircraft the change appears just as if a flick half-roll has been made.

 

 

Second raport ( A-4 Jabo)

 

    B.    Taxiing and Ground Handling

                The airplane is easy to taxi but vision is somewhat restricted. Brakes operate by toe pressure and are readily applied for all positions of the rudder. The tail wheel is freely pivoting but can be locked by holding the control column back as on the P-51B.

        C.    Take-off and Initial Climb

                Take-off run is short and the airplane has no tendency to swing sideways. An intermediate flap position of 15 degrees is recommended for take-off but does not appreciably shorten the ground run. Initial climb is good. The landing gear retracts rapidly effecting very little change in the trim of the airplane.

        D.    Climbs

                The airplane has a steep climb and vision is good. Although no rudder trim is provided, the torque effect is negligible.

        E.    Handling and Control at Various Speeds

                The controls are highly effective at most speeds and forces are moderate giving good control feel. However, at speeds over 400 MPH indicated airspeed, the elevator tends to become quite heavy and noticeable buffeting and vibration of the airplane occurs.

        F.    Trim and Stability

                Longitudinal trim of the airplane is accomplished by changing the incidence angle of the stabilizer rather than by trim tabs on the elevator. Ground adjustable tabs are only provided for rudder and aileron but are adequate since rudder and aileron trim changes for most flight conditions are very slight.

                The elevator trim control is electrically operated and is controlled by a toggle switch. This control arrangement operates too slowly for maneuvers, requiring a rapid change in elevator trim.

                Stability was satisfactory at this weight and C.G. location.

        G.    Stalls and Stall Warning

                The airplane has a gentle stall and controls remain effective up to the stall. Adequate warning of the stall is given by shaking of the airplane and controls.

        H.    Maneuverability and Aerobatics

                The outstanding maneuverability feature of this airplane is it extremely high rate of roll. The radius of turn, however, is poor and it is only slightly improved by using the maneuvering flap position of 15 degrees. If pulled fast, the airplane tends to stall out abruptly with little warning. Elevator control forces are very heavy in a tight turn, requiring constant use of the elevator trim control.

                The airplane responds to the controls satisfactory in performing rolls, loops, Immelmanns and other aerobatics.

        I.      Change in Trim when Operating Landing Gear, Flaps, etc.

                Changes in trim resulting from the operation of landing gear, flaps, etc., are slight and can be readily corrected by use of controls or elevator trim control.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kwiatek,

 

It should be totally in bold the following:

 

The flying characteristics are exceptional and a pilot new to the type feels at home within the first few minutes of flight. The controls are light and well-harmonised and all manoeuvres can be carried out without difficulty at all speeds. The fact that the Fw 190 does not require re-trimming under all conditions of flight is a particularly good point. The initial acceleration is very good and is particularly noticeable in the initial stages of a climb or dive.

 

Edited by Tales

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder most about trim settings in BOS A-3.  There is need 60% trim nose ( about half trim nose down) for correct take off and taxing.  Also strange is that with trim 0% planes taxi a lot heavier then with nose trim.

 

Other hand i found that DCS D-9 dont need to much trim in most flight conditions like it was said in Fw 190 flight raports.


I found also something about flight charactarestic Lagg-3 and La5 for comparision.

 

 

" Soviet pilots reported that the Lavochkin ( La-5 ) could stay with – but not overtake – an Fw 190 in horizontal flight at low altitude and their performance was similar,  when manoeuvring in the same plane. When chasing or evading an Fw 190 in a climb, the La-5 (which was half a ton lighter) enjoyed some advantage. However, its manoeuvrability at speeds in excess of 250mph left a lot to be desired in comparison with the Fw 190. Most pilots felt that the ailerons and elevators were particularly heavy when turning tightly at higher speeds and when exiting a dive. This in turn meant that only physically strong pilots could hope to get the best out of the early La-5s when engaging enemy fighters."

 

With service testing and combat experience having revealed numerous defects with the La-5, Lavochkin set about rectifying these problems with the follow-on La-5F of early 1943. Incorporating aerodynamic improvements, reduced weight (achieved by losing two of the five fuel tanks), reshaped and larger flight controls and a more powerful (and reliable) M-82F engine, the new fighter started to reach frontline units in March 1943. Engine reliability had been of great concern with the original La-5, as the M-82 had a tendency to suffer from spark plug failure and exhaust pipe burnthrough. The fighter’s boost system had also proven difficult to operate, as had the cowling side flaps – the engine routinely overheated as a result.  Although the improved La-5F allowed Soviet pilots to achieve parity with German fighters during the spring of 1943, Lavochkin was fully aware that more still needed to be done. For example, engine reliability was still not what it should have been, with the La-5 suffering a failure rate three times greater than its contemporaries in the VVS-KA at that time. Pilots were also finding the aircraft difficult to recover from inverted spins due to the heaviness of the controls. Indeed, frontline aviators continued to abandon La-5s in an inverted spin until they were shown how to recover the aircraft by Lavochkin test pilots. As previously mentioned, the fighter’s handling improved with the advent of the La-5F thanks to the fitment of larger flying surfaces.

 

 

" The LaGG-3 tested by the agency in March and April 1942 at a flying weight of 6,8341b (3,1OOkg) ......In addition to high noise level, high control column forces and short range, it was claimed that manoeuvrability was poor and that radio communication range was insufficient..

 

(La5 with M-82)......The tests also revealed quite a number of problems. Controllability proved to be even more difficult than that of the LaGG-3 M-1 05P. Transition from a banked turn in one direction to a banked turn in the other caused stick forces requiring great physical efforts by the pilot. "

 

 

Resuming La5 and Lagg-3 was known from not good control harmony and high control forces from 250 mph -  quite opposite what we got in BOS actually.   It was change although with La5 F series which got improved controls.  In BOS La5 actually feels more like La5 F with improved controls.

 

So from Fw 190 reports controls start to be heavy from 400 mph  IAS  comparing to  LA5 250 mph.  It is signigificant difference i think.  

Edited by Kwiatek
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hardly ever trim the 190.

As said in this evaluation it doesn't require much trim.

The sudden, (they say stall),I say spin or tip stall without warning seems correct in this evaluation.

I just feel as another on this forum has said its like slipping on a banana skin, very sudden and too severe.

Most aircraft give a sign like buffet or sound clues and you can ease off accordingly.

I really like the 190s handling apart from the sudden spin/stall, I feel it should have this feature but needs tweaking down a little.

I have no problem with take off or landing as long as you stay alert and catch the yaw early especially when opening the throttle.

I think this discussion will go on and on, I just hope the Devs take note of the complaints about the FMs, especially the FW 190.

Edited by voncrapenhauser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im quite sure  that could be something wrong with trim settings for A-3 in BOS.

 

 

IRL Fw 190 got adjusted stabilizer from -1 Deg  to +4 Deg.   Postion "0" on the indicator mean + 2 deg horizontal stabilizator position.  Its mean then in postion " 0 "  Fw 190 was trimmed to little nose down position  ( horizontal stabilizator got postive angle of attack ). 

 

Position "0" mean +2 deg  so you could change 2 deg up from position "0" and 3 deg down from postion ( +1 deg, 0 deg, -1 deg).

 

For take off and stabilize flight at slow to medium speed there is enough postion " 0" which mean +2 deg of horizontal stabilizer.

 

 

Thats how it work IRL.  Also for comparizon it work the same in Fw D-9 in DCS.  Fw fly with little nose down tendency with position " 0 " on trim guage.

 

 

Unfortunately it is wrong in BOS A-3.

 

Postion " 0 "  on indicator corensponded with - 55% trim. Now from postion "0" you could only change horizontal stabilizer down by 1 degree and up by four degree which is totaly wrong. So effect is that at  " 0 " position A-3 in BOS  corensponed with  position "- 2" deg on the  RL Fw 190 trim indicator  which mean real angle of horizontal stabilizer  0 degre.   So in BOS A-3    "0" position" of  trim indicator mean  0 degree horizontal stab wheren IRL  " 0 " postion mean + 2 deg horizontal pos.

 

What these casue.

 

IRL with  trim guage at " 0 " postion Fw 190 got postive AoA on elevator which casue nose down postion of flight.    In BOS it is neutral AoA which casue nose up position with increasing speed.  

 

Thats why in BOS A-3 there is need a lot trim change during different phase of flight  which wasn't need in real Fw 190.

Edited by Kwiatek
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regards to the negative G flick characteristics it is worth remembering Hans post ..

notwithstanding this was from a few patches earlier

"

4. Fw-190 and Bf-109 is very easy to be dived to negative stall, this not allows to perform "Hartman's negative G evasive".
- Yes, German planes have more negative controlability reserve, but this just means that they are achieving the same negative G loads with less negative pitch input. I've tested negative G for several planes in very fast and rought tests (can't be used for strict compare and so on) with push dive from level flight on 400 km/h IAS, 100% fuel with standart load, G achieved before stall:
Bf 109 F-4: -4g , after that it's stalls
Bf 109 G-2: -4g , after that it's stalls
Fw 190 A-3: -3g , after that it's stalls
LaGG-3 ser.29: -1g , can't achieve more AoA and G on max pushed stick pitch and trim
La-5 ser.8: -2g , can't achieve more AoA and G on max pushed stick pitch and trim
Yak-1 ser.69: -3g , can't achieve more AoA and G on max pushed stick pitch and trim
So, no any advantage of soviet fighters in negative G load is presented in the game.
False claim. "
 
The FW and ME have much better elevator/joystick authority, so a similar input on a Lagg will have a different effect than on the FW190, it is this lack of different 'feel' that leads to an easy over input of control force on German fighters, they are stalling/spinning at the correct AoA/G but it is hard to notice you are quickly getting to a critical phase, individual A/C curves would allow the change of individual aircraft handling parameters,  or a change in buffet effects could give more warning to these limits being reached, however it is reported that with the high wing loading the FW190 will snap stall with little warning. Same issue of rudder authority in FW190 IRL it had non linear curve on rudders, we do not have that ingame and if adjusted to be accurate, in controls/curves all other A/C are off
 
Cheers Dakpilot
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did some tests in game.

 

FW 190 Neutral trim seems to be around -40-50% in game according to the cockpit indicator, elevator is effective for pullout above 800 kph at that setting, can't steepen the dive above 700 kph at that trim. Wouldn't call the controls "light" at that speed although the ailerons still respond but starts to quickly loose authority above 700 kph. 800 kph is also the speed where you get severe buffeting of the controls if you are using a FFB stick, the control surfaces rip off at around 895 kph which is about the same as the 109, the FW engine seems sturdier so at that speed it doesn't blow up like the 109 engine does. The dive characteristics need to be tweaked I agree, compared to other fighters we have it has less elevator authority than most other planes. 

 

The 109 F has the most elevator control during dives, can easily pull up from 700+ dives with elevator at 0 setting, 

Yak 1 comes second but 700+ dives are not very practical cause the control surfaces rip off fraction of a second later at 750, even if you try to pull out at these speeds with the Yak chances are you'll rip a wing off. (just happened to me)

Then comes the Lagg and La5, both control pretty same in dives when it comes to elevator authority, not far off from the rest above. , La5 looses the surfaces at 770 kph and the Lagg the same.  

The 109 G can't even get it into a straight dive above 700kph, it wants to nose up even with max down trim, it pulls up just as fast at the Friedrich though.

Last is The FW 190, you really need to use the trimmable tail to control the dive but if you do it has the capability to dive faster than anything else and keep fighting.

Edited by =LD=Penshoon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

With regards to the negative G flick characteristics it is worth remembering Hans post ..

notwithstanding this was from a few patches earlier

"

4. Fw-190 and Bf-109 is very easy to be dived to negative stall, this not allows to perform "Hartman's negative G evasive".
- Yes, German planes have more negative controlability reserve, but this just means that they are achieving the same negative G loads with less negative pitch input. I've tested negative G for several planes in very fast and rought tests (can't be used for strict compare and so on) with push dive from level flight on 400 km/h IAS, 100% fuel with standart load, G achieved before stall:
Bf 109 F-4: -4g , after that it's stalls
Bf 109 G-2: -4g , after that it's stalls
Fw 190 A-3: -3g , after that it's stalls
LaGG-3 ser.29: -1g , can't achieve more AoA and G on max pushed stick pitch and trim
La-5 ser.8: -2g , can't achieve more AoA and G on max pushed stick pitch and trim
Yak-1 ser.69: -3g , can't achieve more AoA and G on max pushed stick pitch and trim
So, no any advantage of soviet fighters in negative G load is presented in the game.
False claim. "
 
The FW and ME have much better elevator/joystick authority, so a similar input on a Lagg will have a different effect than on the FW190, it is this lack of different 'feel' that leads to an easy over input of control force on German fighters, they are stalling/spinning at the correct AoA/G but it is hard to notice you are quickly getting to a critical phase, individual A/C curves would allow the change of individual aircraft handling parameters,  or a change in buffet effects could give more warning to these limits being reached, however it is reported that with the high wing loading the FW190 will snap stall with little warning. Same issue of rudder authority in FW190 IRL it had non linear curve on rudders, we do not have that ingame and if adjusted to be accurate, in controls/curves all other A/C are off
 
Cheers Dakpilot

 

 

Plane should stall when reach critical angle of attack both postive and negative but these not exacly mean that it should spin imiedietly.  In other sims planes just stall when pass negative AoA ,  in BOS planes spin imiedietly. Thats the difference.

Edited by Kwiatek
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plane should stall when reach critical angle of attack both postive and negative but these not exacly mean that it should spin imiedietly.  In other sims planes just stall when pass negative AoA ,  in BOS planes spin imiedietly. Thats the difference.

That's what he said but he worded it weirdly. Russian planes doesn't have the control authority to reach the AoA of negative stalls in most circumstances as they have a normal fixed tail, the 109 and 190 has a movable tail as trim so they can achieve a much greater angle of attack even with very little stick movement. The movable elevator is like a multiplier for the stick movement.

 

Try it out for yourself, do a quick flight in the 109 trim it for level flight and push the stick forward while looking from the side in external view, it will dive like a rocket instantly. Now do another quick flight in a Lagg and trim it for level flight. Look from external view and push the stick full forward, it will take ages to pitch down the same amount as the 109. 

 

I could achieve a 45 degree dive in the 109 in less than a second when I push the stick forward, didn't even have to push it more than 20%. In the Lagg at the same airspeed it look 10 seconds even with 100% full forward stick. 

Edited by =LD=Penshoon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plane should stall when reach critical angle of attack both postive and negative but these not exacly mean that it should spin imiedietly.  In other sims planes just stall when pass negative AoA ,  in BOS planes spin imiedietly. Thats the difference.

+1.

Spot on the spin is immediate at slow ,fast and seems like any speed?, Irrespective of airflow over the wing and tail surface.

Stalls are governed by wing loading if your wing loading is negative no spin/stall should occur no matter what speed.

Needs a tweak, its not broken.  

Edited by voncrapenhauser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally speaking most aircraft don't enter a spin during a stall if the plane is coordinated. You should be getting the stall to happen on both wings at the root if they built in some washout and dihedral. By the way Accelerated stalls don't exceed a critical AOA. The stall is created by exceeding the lift vs. weight (G Load. They usually mush out not spin if you're coordinated in my experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally speaking most aircraft don't enter a spin during a stall if the plane is coordinated. You should be getting the stall to happen on both wings at the root if they built in some washout and dihedral. By the way Accelerated stalls don't exceed a critical AOA. The stall is created by exceeding the lift vs. weight (G Load. They usually mush out not spin if you're coordinated in my experience.

+1

As a glider pilot I always coordinate/harmonise controls.

Except when thermaling.

Edited by voncrapenhauser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1.

Spot on the spin is immediate at slow ,fast and seems like any speed?, Irrespective of airflow over the wing and tail surface.

Stalls are governed by wing loading if your wing loading is negative no spin/stall should occur no matter what speed.

Needs a tweak, its not broken.  

 

I think you will find that at negative 4G there is wing loading

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you will find that at negative 4G there is wing loading

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Correction zero wing loading.

Thanks Dakpilot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what he said but he worded it weirdly. Russian planes doesn't have the control authority to reach the AoA of negative stalls in most circumstances as they have a normal fixed tail, the 109 and 190 has a movable tail as trim so they can achieve a much greater angle of attack even with very little stick movement. The movable elevator is like a multiplier for the stick movement.

 

Try it out for yourself, do a quick flight in the 109 trim it for level flight and push the stick forward while looking from the side in external view, it will dive like a rocket instantly. Now do another quick flight in a Lagg and trim it for level flight. Look from external view and push the stick full forward, it will take ages to pitch down the same amount as the 109. 

 

I could achieve a 45 degree dive in the 109 in less than a second when I push the stick forward, didn't even have to push it more than 20%. In the Lagg at the same airspeed it look 10 seconds even with 100% full forward stick. 

 

When you change horizontal stabilizator for level flight in German planes it mean that you got positive angle of atack on the elevator which mean that pass critical negative angle of attack you need much more negative move then with neutral horizontal stabilizator.   German planes fly straight in cruise with positive angle for horizontal stabilizator.  Planes with standart trim fly with neutral.

 

Also you dont see a difference between stall and spin.  In BOS German planes with negative G got spin. Of course plane should stall if you pass critical AoA but it doesn't mean automaticly that you got a spin.   In other sim e.x. DCS when you pass critical AoA ( ex. in P-51 or Fw 190 D-9) with coordinated flight you got stall on both wings but not a spin.  In BOS you got always spin. Thats the difference.

Edited by Kwiatek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you change horizontal stabilizator for level flight in German planes it mean that you got positive angle of atack on the elevator which mean that pass critical negative angle of attack you need much more negative move then with neutral horizontal stabilizator.   German planes fly straight in cruise with positive angle for horizontal stabilizator.  Planes with standart trim fly with neutral.

 

Also you dont see a difference between stall and spin.  In BOS German planes with negative G got spin. Of course plane should stall if you pass critical AoA but it doesn't mean automaticly that you got a spin.   In other sim e.x. DCS when you pass critical AoA ( ex. in P-51 or Fw 190 D-9) with coordinated flight you got stall on both wings but not a spin.  In BOS you got always spin. Thats the difference.

+1 I need to test further but this has been my experience as well. Why is it that our A3 in BOS has such a heavy elevator pull 600+ when other aircraft don't. I saw your post about the Jabo version having a harder pull but not the A3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read my post 144-145 here about Fw 190 A-3 horizontal stabilizator wrong settings in BOS.

 

Also i think that before last update A-3 stall/spin characteristic was more acceptable but with last update Fw 190 became spincrazy.

Edited by Kwiatek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you change horizontal stabilizator for level flight in German planes it mean that you got positive angle of atack on the elevator which mean that pass critical negative angle of attack you need much more negative move then with neutral horizontal stabilizator.   German planes fly straight in cruise with positive angle for horizontal stabilizator.  Planes with standart trim fly with neutral.

 

Also you dont see a difference between stall and spin.  In BOS German planes with negative G got spin. Of course plane should stall if you pass critical AoA but it doesn't mean automaticly that you got a spin.   In other sim e.x. DCS when you pass critical AoA ( ex. in P-51 or Fw 190 D-9) with coordinated flight you got stall on both wings but not a spin.  In BOS you got always spin. Thats the difference.

Just test it out in game, it's a huge difference of negative elevator authority between the planes. The Lagg doesn't have enough elevator authority to stall or spin and the FW does. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After my earlier post, another post asked "What is your point?" My point is that the negative aspects of the Russian fighters have been reduced or eliminated. The negative aspects of German fighters are either equal to reality or exaggerated especially in the case of the FW-190. This game has been labeled by the developers as a historical flight simulator and not an arcade game. Therefore the flight and ground characteristics of the aircraft should be as accurate as technically possible. After reading the posts on this forum for several months it appears to me that I am not the only one with this opinion.

 

In a book by two Russian authors Dmitriy Khazanoz and Aleksander Medved they discuss the characteristics of the LaGG-3, La-5 and the FW-190. The La-5 is basically a LaGG-3 modified to accept a radial engine. Adding a radial engine increased the weight, increased aerodynamic drag and changed the balance of the aircraft. "The fighter (La-5) was even more difficult to fly than the notoriously poor handling LaGG-3". "This was particularly the case when changing direction in a banked turn, the pilot needing great physical strength to cope with the stick forces required to perform such a maneuver". "It also took 25 seconds to complete a banked turn - two long for a single engine fighter". Russian pilots were discouraged from entering a turning battle with the FW-190. "The fighter's lack of speed was of particular concern, it barely attained 509 km/h at low level and 535 km/h when at its augmented rating - the latter only available for short periods due to excessive engine overheating". "The La-5 could only accelerate up to 583 km/h at an altitude of 6000 m". Is this the La-5 simulated in the Battle of Stalingrad?

 

In this book the authors also discuss the FW-190. "For the Russian front the FW-190 was to prove the ideal machine, combining ruggedness with maneuverability and stability". "In short, a superb dog fighter - in all but the tightest horizontal turns - an excellent gun platform".  The following characteristics are the only two FW-190 negative issues indicated in the book. One "The FW-190's performance fell off above 6700 m". Two "In a twist and turn dogfight, they (German pilots) were strongly warned of the FW-190's one, and potentially lethal, flaw". "In clean configuration the stall was sudden and vicious". "Let the speed fall below 204 km/h and, virtually without warning, the port wing would drop so violently that the FW-190 all but turned on its back". "But a virtue could be made even of this vice, as pilots were told". "It was a maneuver no pursuer could emulate". "I believe the next quote summarizes the FW-190's impact on the Russian front. "Despite suffering terrible losses through the end of 1943, Soviet fighter regiments began to enjoy the upper hand in combat during early 1944 after FW-190 fighter units were pulled back to defend Germany from the United States Air Force daylight bombing raids". Is this the FW-190 simulated in the Battle of Stalingrad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Some things with the ground handling are just off no matter how hard you argue the opposite: for instance, aircraft are easier to take off if you slam the throttle forward rather than steadily increase power (as you do in real life).

 

I always increase power slowly as in RL. And there is no problem at all. You all want a simulator. You have to expect problems, if you don´t use appropriate input devices. The real planes haven´t been flown with keyboard brakes and wrist joysticks. You can´t expect realistic behaviour of the FM on one side and easy to control mode for cheap input devices on the other side. 

 

With good rudder pedals and brakes the ground handling of all BoS planes is nothing less than superb. 

Edited by BlackDevil
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plane should stall when reach critical angle of attack both postive and negative but these not exacly mean that it should spin imiedietly.  In other sims planes just stall when pass negative AoA ,  in BOS planes spin imiedietly. Thats the difference.

 

Why should BoS take other sims as a reference ?  Thinking of a FW190 forced into a negative stall without immidiate induced roll is just BS. The real FW190 snapped even when forced into positive stall.

No way to imagine, what you are telling here.

Edited by BlackDevil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always increase power slowly as in RL. And there is no problem at all. You all want a simulator. You have to expect problems, if you don´t use appropriate input devices. The real planes haven´t been flown with keyboard brakes and wrist joysticks. You can´t expect realistic behaviour of the FM on one side and easy to control mode for cheap input devices on the other side. 

 

With good rudder pedals and brakes the ground handling of all BoS planes is nothing less than superb. 

 

You do realize I was saying that you SHOULDN'T be able to slam the throttle forward, right? As in, you currently can, but SHOULDN'T be able to?

 

In your eagerness to give advice, you completely missed the point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a video of going from level flight to a 90 degree pitch down in a FW and a Lagg, default trim/stabilizer settings after entering quick flight at 6000 m. With the Lagg I deflect the stick 100% forward and can't get a tighter turn than this, the FW I only nudge the stick forward so it has the controls to do it faster. The limiting factor is the redout, not the accelerated stall. This is from 330 kph, as speed increases the 190s advantage gets bigger.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In your eagerness to give advice, you completely missed the point

 

In your eagerness you missed to explain, what is wrong then. What wrong behaviour do you see ? This : "...but SHOULDN'T be able to?" is nonsense. Of course you can. But there are reasons I don´t do it in RL as in BoS.

Edited by BlackDevil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a video of going from level flight to a 90 degree pitch down in a FW and a Lagg, default trim/stabilizer settings after entering quick flight at 6000 m. With the Lagg I deflect the stick 100% forward and can't get a tighter turn than this, the FW I only nudge the stick forward so it has the controls to do it faster. The limiting factor is the redout, not the accelerated stall. This is from 330 kph, as speed increases the 190s advantage gets bigger.  

 

Do the same with the Yak and  the 190 please. Then you'll see the huge difference!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do the same with the Yak and  the 190 please. Then you'll see the huge difference!

Both are limited by the same redout effect, I think redout happens at -2 G and according to Han the Yak can pull -3g in his test so thats to be expected.

 

4. Fw-190 and Bf-109 is very easy to be dived to negative stall, this not allows to perform "Hartman's negative G evasive".

- Yes, German planes have more negative controlability reserve, but this just means that they are achieving the same negative G loads with less negative pitch input. I've tested negative G for several planes in very fast and rought tests (can't be used for strict compare and so on) with push dive from level flight on 400 km/h IAS, 100% fuel with standart load, G achieved before stall:
Bf 109 F-4: -4g , after that it's stalls
Bf 109 G-2: -4g , after that it's stalls
Fw 190 A-3: -3g , after that it's stalls
LaGG-3 ser.29: -1g , can't achieve more AoA and G on max pushed stick pitch and trim
La-5 ser.8: -2g , can't achieve more AoA and G on max pushed stick pitch and trim
Yak-1 ser.69: -3g , can't achieve more AoA and G on max pushed stick pitch and trim
So, no any advantage of soviet fighters in negative G load is presented in the game.
False claim. "
Edited by =LD=Penshoon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both are limited by the same redout effect, I think redout happens at -2 G and according to Han the Yak can pull -3g in his test so thats to be expected.

 

If you do the maneuver very harsh in the 190 then the plane stalls on the left wing and start to spin, long before you've got a redout. The Yak stalls under no circumstances at the same maneuver. So the redout is not the limiting factor, at least not at the beginning of this maneuver.

 

Maybe I've got time in the next days and can provide a video...

Edited by StG2_Manfred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you do the maneuver very harsh in the 190 then the plane stalls on the left wing and start to spin, long before you've got a redout. The Yak stalls under no circumstances at the same maneuver. So the redout is not the limiting factor, at least not at the beginning of this maneuver.

 

Maybe I've got time in the next days and can provide a video...

Yes if you do it harsh it will stall very easily as the stick is very effective at these speeds, if you are not harsh you can bunt it without stalling like I did in the video above and then the limit is the redout. It is hard yes but that is to be expected as it has a much greater wing loading than any other plane we have ingame. 

 

Provide your video and I'll repost mine above where I can redout without stalling the plane. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm honest, I cannot believe this explanation, because the Yak has the same effective stick and can change it's path of flight very very effectively. Ok, it has not the same wing loading, but the AoA also changes rapidly.

 

I also tried to fly the Yak in a very brutal manner, I tossed and turned her violently through the air and it never stalled, let alone it spinned. It signals to you that it want to stall slightly, but then you can always easily counter this 'begining stall' and continue to throw her through the air. Not really believable to me...

Edited by StG2_Manfred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On this same subject of the overall physics modeling in BoS, and bringing the discussion "further down" :rolleyes: to the ground, and since I started ( finally ! ) playing Rise of Flight, I noticed how important it is to give some bursts of throttle to keep the directional control of most ww1 birds at the end of the landing rollout, if we do not want to get the tail going nuts and trying to get ahead of the nose ....

 

Then, I picked the LagG3 and the La5 in il-2 BoS, landed both, made constant rudder corrections while I had still a bit of speed during the rollouts, and as soon as I got slower, where usually the ground loops start to happen, I decided to do the same - and know what ? I was able to bring the aircraft to a stop straight as an arrow !

 

I also didn't use any hint of differential braking - only after starting to taxi away from the rw...

 

Which demonstrates what I have said more than a few times,  BoS has too much RoF in it's flight modeling.   The global physics model still "thinks" it is controlling super light stick and canvas kites.

 

BlackDevil, so you think with a 1200+ bhp aircraft you can just slam the throttle all the way open on takeoff to achieve a stable, straight ahead take off roll?   On what planet?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes if you do it harsh it will stall very easily as the stick is very effective at these speeds, if you are not harsh you can bunt it without stalling like I did in the video above and then the limit is the redout. It is hard yes but that is to be expected as it has a much greater wing loading than any other plane we have ingame. 

 

Provide your video and I'll repost mine above where I can redout without stalling the plane. 

 

If you allow me to response ones more and point you to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading

 

Section: Effect on turning performance

An aircraft with a small, highly loaded wing may have superior instantaneous turn performance, but poor sustained turn performance: it reacts quickly to control input, but its ability to sustain a tight turn is limited.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you allow me to response ones more and point you to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading

 

Section: Effect on turning performance

An aircraft with a small, highly loaded wing may have superior instantaneous turn performance, but poor sustained turn performance: it reacts quickly to control input, but its ability to sustain a tight turn is limited.

Isn't this exactly what we see ingame though? It can change it's pitch attitude very fast but soon develops a spin if pressure is kept on the stick so you have to loose the pressure and the sustained turn widens?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't this exactly what we see ingame though? It can change it's pitch attitude very fast but soon develops a spin if pressure is kept on the stick so you have to loose the pressure and the sustained turn widens?

 

No, this is not what we see ingame. What we see is, that you can hardly change your pitch altitude at all.

 

Also, if a high wing load causes a superior instantaneous turn performancethen a lower wing load must cause a slower instanttaneous turn performance, which the Yak doesn't have.

 

 

EDIT: If you want to to test it, I volunteer in a Yak (behind you) and you can try to escape in the 190 with it's famous roll rate and superior instantaneous turn performance (due to the high wing loading). I bet you cannot exploit these features, which you should be able to... (Don't want to be offending though).

Edited by StG2_Manfred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...