Jump to content

DD today?


Blooddawn1942
 Share

Recommended Posts

unreasonable
On 1/16/2021 at 9:49 PM, Algy-Lacey said:

 

The MkXIV will be competitive at any altitude, will be able to turn well and fight very well in the vertical, climbs like a monkey and excels at higher altitudes.

 

At some point this year I would love it for the developers to revisit 1 aspect of the FM, the impact of Torque on flight at low airspeeds and in general. The swing on takeoff is there, but other aspects are lacking. Historically the P51 was tricky on landing and if a go-around was needed the pilots had to be careful to apply the throttle gradually, otherwise the torque of the Packard Merlin and 4 bladed propellor would roll a Mustang onto it's back. Not nice at low altitude. I imagine that the Spitfire XIV would be worse, with 2000+ Hp and a 5 bladed prop. (I might be using the wrong aeronautical term, is it torque that I'm referring to, or P-factor, anyone?) Also when turning the nose should either drop a little or want to rise up depending on which side you turn because of gyroscopic effect. I would love these qualities added, and for people to be able to choose in the settings if we want things as they are or with the added difficulty of these factors.

 

Anyways, I'm very much looking forward to all of the aircraft in BON even with torque modelled the way it is. I have been waiting for a Spitfire Mk XIV since the early days of IL-2 Forgotten Battles, good times ahead!

 

Algy :salute:

 

My bold added - Gyroscopic precession is in the FM of FC so I would be astonished if it were not also in the WW2 planes, since we have been told that the underlying FM is the same.

 

It is most noticeable in the FC Sopwith Camel and Fokker Dr1, as not only the prop but the engine itself rotates, in light, short planes that are not stable in yaw to start with. I recall AnP talking about this and saying that it is not particularly difficult physics, but I have no idea if the quantity is incorrect. 

 

  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RedKestrel
10 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

My bold added - Gyroscopic precession is in the FM of FC so I would be astonished if it were not also in the WW2 planes, since we have been told that the underlying FM is the same.

 

It is most noticeable in the FC Sopwith Camel and Fokker Dr1, as not only the prop but the engine itself rotates, in light, short planes that are not stable in yaw to start with. I recall AnP talking about this and saying that it is not particularly difficult physics, but I have no idea if the quantity is incorrect. 

 

  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Algy-Lacey
2 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

My bold added - Gyroscopic precession is in the FM of FC so I would be astonished if it were not also in the WW2 planes, since we have been told that the underlying FM is the same.

 

It is most noticeable in the FC Sopwith Camel and Fokker Dr1, as not only the prop but the engine itself rotates, in light, short planes that are not stable in yaw to start with. I recall AnP talking about this and saying that it is not particularly difficult physics, but I have no idea if the quantity is incorrect. 

 

  

 

I've not flown aircraft from FC but know what you mean from reading anecdotes (which obviously we should ignore because of biased pilots ;)), that concentration of mass with a short fuselage and small rudder meant for one of the most agile and best turning fighters of WW1, but the Camel would turn tighter one side than the other as you say because of gyroscopic precession, having the whole engine rotating would certainly add to the effect. It's good to hear that it is modelled in FC1, if it is modelled in BoX then it is mild, I can't say I've noticed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RedKestrel
Just now, Algy-Lacey said:

 

I've not flown aircraft from FC but know what you mean from reading anecdotes (which obviously we should ignore because of biased pilots ;)), that concentration of mass with a short fuselage and small rudder meant for one of the most agile and best turning fighters of WW1, but the Camel would turn tighter one side than the other as you say because of gyroscopic precession, having the whole engine rotating would certainly add to the effect. It's good to hear that it is modelled in FC1, if it is modelled in BoX then it is mild, I can't say I've noticed it.

I definitely notice gyroscopic precession. If you watch the ball when maneuvering you will see it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

216th_Jordan
2 minutes ago, Algy-Lacey said:

 

I've not flown aircraft from FC but know what you mean from reading anecdotes (which obviously we should ignore because of biased pilots ;)), that concentration of mass with a short fuselage and small rudder meant for one of the most agile and best turning fighters of WW1, but the Camel would turn tighter one side than the other as you say because of gyroscopic precession, having the whole engine rotating would certainly add to the effect. It's good to hear that it is modelled in FC1, if it is modelled in BoX then it is mild, I can't say I've noticed it.

 

It is definitely there and has quite an effect. Most easily checked by turning in either direction and watching the slip/skid ball.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Algy-Lacey

Thanks, I shall check that instrument next time I fly. As usual, it's a problem of perception rather than a flaw with the simulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

69th_Mobile_BBQ
22 minutes ago, Algy-Lacey said:

Thanks, I shall check that instrument next time I fly. As usual, it's a problem of perception rather than a flaw with the simulation.

 

The easiest way to tell is to throttle up from a dead stop and seeing whether or not you need to apply rudder to keep the plane rolling straight.  

 

I forget if it's a quote from a LW ace interview but, it has been said that one of the basic requirements for being a 109 pilot was "a strong right leg".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mitthrawnuruodo
31 minutes ago, 69th_Mobile_BBQ said:

 

The easiest way to tell is to throttle up from a dead stop and seeing whether or not you need to apply rudder to keep the plane rolling straight.  

 

I forget if it's a quote from a LW ace interview but, it has been said that one of the basic requirements for being a 109 pilot was "a strong right leg".

 

Left-turning tendencies aren't necessarily caused by gyroscopic precession. When increasing power, you may feel the effects of engine torque, slipstream, and asymmetric thrust.

 

Gyroscopic precession is mild in modern aircraft, but some say that it is noticeable when raising the tail during the takeoff roll in a taildragger.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Algy-Lacey
1 minute ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

Left-turning tendencies aren't necessarily caused by gyroscopic precession. When increasing power, you may feel the effects of engine torque, slipstream, and asymmetric thrust.

 

I'm no expert, but I would like these tendencies to be more pronounced, especially 'torque roll', a twisting motion when power is increased. I remember back in IL-2 Pacific Fighters, they brought out a patch that changed the flightmodels so that these effects were beefed up (was it update 4.02?) but people complained that single enginged aircraft were now too difficult to fly and it was toned down with the next patch to somewhere like what we have now in IL-2 Great Batttles. I flew the user made Spitfire Mk XIV in IL-2 1946 and gyroscopic procession was more pronounced than what we have here in todays Spit's. Turning to the right you had to hold the nose up with the rudder, turning left you had to bring the nose down with the rudder. It felt believable.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=621=Samikatz
21 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

So currently you can have a bit of an approximation on how the Spit XIV could handle in this situation: take a Spit Mk IX, load it with bombs (almost 500 Kg extra weight), put the 150 octane modification and fight some 109s at 13k - 18k feet. You will have a good bit of extra drag but so far it would be the best approximation 👍 (also propeller efficiency differences).

 

I don't think this paints the full picture, or at least engine power doesn't. Comparing a 25lbs LF.IX speed chart to one for an 18lbs XIV still gives a good 20mph advantage to the Griffonspit in that region, a bombed up Spit IX would be completely wrong on speed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PatrickAWlson
3 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

My bold added - Gyroscopic precession is in the FM of FC so I would be astonished if it were not also in the WW2 planes, since we have been told that the underlying FM is the same.

 

It is most noticeable in the FC Sopwith Camel and Fokker Dr1, as not only the prop but the engine itself rotates, in light, short planes that are not stable in yaw to start with. I recall AnP talking about this and saying that it is not particularly difficult physics, but I have no idea if the quantity is incorrect. 

 

  

 

Rotary engines were not used in WWII, so the flight characteristics of the WWI rotaries would be wildly different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-=PHX=-SuperEtendard
1 hour ago, =621=Samikatz said:

 

I don't think this paints the full picture, or at least engine power doesn't. Comparing a 25lbs LF.IX speed chart to one for an 18lbs XIV still gives a good 20mph advantage to the Griffonspit in that region, a bombed up Spit IX would be completely wrong on speed


Yes the drag is different, and you also have the different propeller, but it's the best shot we have at trying to see how it would handle in the current engine flight model. And this was more about low speed dogfighting, yes it's a factor but still it's the best we have and it's better than just speculation ^^  We could consider it as absolute worst case scenario, the actual XIV would be somewhat better than that given the cleaner airframe and better prop.

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just waiting for the first DD of 2021......

 

Waiting GIFs | Tenor

Maybe this week?

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

unreasonable
5 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Rotary engines were not used in WWII, so the flight characteristics of the WWI rotaries would be wildly different.

 

No they are not wildly different - the physics has not changed. It is just a matter of degree, mainly for the reason I gave: yaw stability.   WW2 planes still have a heavy spinning propeller.  

 

There is a lot of rubbish talked about the WW1 rotaries. Watching this (19.51 on) will help sort it out.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RedKestrel
4 hours ago, 40plus said:

<Checks calendar> .... guys, isn't it Monday?

It's felt like Monday since last April, so what else is new.

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

It's felt like Monday since last April, so what else is new.

 

Not going to argue with that. :dash:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trooper117
4 hours ago, Asgar said:

Did anyone say images of the Me 410?

 

The 410 will be the very last aircraft to be released... not going to be seeing anything in that regard for a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[-=BP=-]Slegawsky_VR

Quote:

''Supermarine Spitfire XIV: Second Griffon-engined production variant, combining 2,035 hp two-stage, two-speed Griffon 65 with features of Mk VIII airframe. Development (Supermarine Types 369 and 373) based on six Supermarine Spitfire VIIIs fitted with various Griffon 60-series engines, flown during 1943. Initial (Supermarine Type 379) production configuration, Supermarine Spitfire F Mk XIV, featured full-span wing with 'C'-type armament of two 20-mm cannon and four 0.303-in (7.7-mm) machine guns; retractable tailwheel; enlarged fin-and-rudder; extra leading-edge fuel tank and structural improvements. The Supermarine Spitfire F Mk XIVE had 'E'-wing armament of two 20-mm cannon (outer bays) and two 0.50-in (12.7 mm) machine guns (inner bays); later aircraft, without change of designation, used cut-down rear fuselage with 360-deg vision canopy, requiring further enlargement of rudder chord and height. Supermarine Spitfire FR Mk XIV and Supermarine Spitfire FR Mk XIVE were fighter-reconnaissance versions with oblique F.24 camera and extra fuel tank in rear fuselage; all had 360-deg vision canopy. Production of all four Mk XIV variants totalled 957, by Supermarine. Deliveries began October 1943 and service use January 1944, with No 610 Sqn. F and FR variants operational in Europe up to end of war, some in fighter-bomber role with underwing rockets and/or bombs. Introduction into Far East theatre too late for wartime use.

https://airpages.ru/eng/draw/spit14e.shtml

 

https://airpages.ru/eng/uk/spitf14.shtml

Looks like only 1 squadron had mk14s No.610 code letters DW.

Hopefully comes with massive prop torque in opposite direction and prop drag. 

spit14.png

Edited by [-=BP=-]Slegawsky_VR
Link to comment
Share on other sites

=VARP=Ribbon
52 minutes ago, [-=BP=-]Slegawsky_VR said:

Quote:

''Supermarine Spitfire XIV: Second Griffon-engined production variant, combining 2,035 hp two-stage, two-speed Griffon 65 with features of Mk VIII airframe. Development (Supermarine Types 369 and 373) based on six Supermarine Spitfire VIIIs fitted with various Griffon 60-series engines, flown during 1943. Initial (Supermarine Type 379) production configuration, Supermarine Spitfire F Mk XIV, featured full-span wing with 'C'-type armament of two 20-mm cannon and four 0.303-in (7.7-mm) machine guns; retractable tailwheel; enlarged fin-and-rudder; extra leading-edge fuel tank and structural improvements. The Supermarine Spitfire F Mk XIVE had 'E'-wing armament of two 20-mm cannon (outer bays) and two 0.50-in (12.7 mm) machine guns (inner bays); later aircraft, without change of designation, used cut-down rear fuselage with 360-deg vision canopy, requiring further enlargement of rudder chord and height. Supermarine Spitfire FR Mk XIV and Supermarine Spitfire FR Mk XIVE were fighter-reconnaissance versions with oblique F.24 camera and extra fuel tank in rear fuselage; all had 360-deg vision canopy. Production of all four Mk XIV variants totalled 957, by Supermarine. Deliveries began October 1943 and service use January 1944, with No 610 Sqn. F and FR variants operational in Europe up to end of war, some in fighter-bomber role with underwing rockets and/or bombs. Introduction into Far East theatre too late for wartime use.

https://airpages.ru/eng/draw/spit14e.shtml

 

https://airpages.ru/eng/uk/spitf14.shtml

Looks like only 1 squadron had mk14s No.610 code letters DW.

Hopefully comes with massive prop torque in opposite direction and prop drag. 

spit14.png

I hope we'll get the one with both wheels....or prop torque is so strong that we need only one wheel😜

  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

 

The 410 will be the very last aircraft to be released... not going to be seeing anything in that regard for a bit.

We saw images of the Mossi and it’s not planned that much earlier 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trooper117
2 hours ago, CountZero said:

Would not count on either of them this year

 

Well, let's hope your'e wrong!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bremspropeller

- XIV *is released*

- every RAF guy on a dogfight server spawning-area near you...

 

 

  • Haha 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RedKestrel
19 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

- XIV *is released*

- every RAF guy on a dogfight server spawning-area near you...

 

 

Every once in a while, I go a few sorties without ground looping the spit and think I've finally gotten it down. Next spawn: "Ok, here we go...opposite rudder...ops, bit of break...OK, I got this...oh no...no...nononononononono sheeeeeeiiiiitttt."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bremspropeller

The funny thing about the non-lockabe tailwheel Spit is that I actually find it more controllable than the LW aircraft with the fancy locking ones.

It's also part of the pleasure. Just make your arm "long" and dance on the pedals.

 

Works 98% every time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RedKestrel
10 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

The funny thing about the non-lockabe tailwheel Spit is that I actually find it more controllable than the LW aircraft with the fancy locking ones.

It's also part of the pleasure. Just make your arm "long" and dance on the pedals.

 

Works 98% every time.

It's not so bad if you go slow and keep on it. My problem is I get lazy and complacent after a few sorties and then it gets away from me. 

Holding the stick fully back, going slow, and reacting before a lot of turn starts developing makes it a lot easier. It will likely be more so for the XIV. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[-=BP=-]Slegawsky_VR

I recon all Griffons will obtain ''AIR Spawn Only'' status shortly.

Lets hope the brakes will get some attention this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sevenless

Can´t wait. Hope we´ll get this baby by february.

 

image.png.88262f5e627574a3295351e53107a8fc.png

image.png.6e2d6ad315c110340b6eddccf92fcb50.png

Edited by sevenless
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voidhunger
1 hour ago, =[PANDA]=TheRedPanda said:

Screenshot_20201231-232301.jpg

Big nose looks nice, like in 190d and Ta152

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

got them weird wings. XXI?

 

Hardly even a spit by that point imho. 

 

Mind you, I remember when all this was just fields. 

Edited by Diggun
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...