Jump to content
jcomm-il2

WOW, wow and Wow!!!!

Recommended Posts

I'm just not going to be contactable for days, by anyone, when these summer maps come out. I'm stocking the fridge and toilet paper now.

 

Thats the spirit!  :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Power to weight is not the only important factor. The Bf-109F is much more streamlined than the I-16 and has a higher wing loading which translates into a much lower air resistance.

Edited by Freycinet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Power to weight is not the only important factor. The Bf-109F is much more streamlined than the I-16 and has a higher wing loading which translates into a much lower air resistance.

In terms of these videos however, it is less important because of the relatively low air speed.

 

Yes. Of course we know that even with a significantly lower P/W ratio, the Bf 109 is a much more potent and powerful fighter with better climb rate and top speed compared to the I-16 precisely because of its cleaner design. But when it comes to low speed aerobatics the higher initial acceleration and lower wing loading of the I-16 wins out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread made me go out and see what other aircraft could do. This giant Airbus' take off made me wince.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread made me go out and see what other aircraft could do. This giant Airbus' take off made me wince.

 

The whole ugly bloody aircraft makes me wince.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounded unbelievable, but then I did the math. Indeed, even the G-2 has a way better power to weight ratio than the Extra 300...astonishing.

 

F-4: 0.46 Hp/kg 

Extra 300: 0.31

Heinkel: 0.21 (loaded) vs 0.28 (almost empty)

P-40: 0.30

Yak-1b: 0.41

 

Extra 300 weight:

- empty weight 660 kg -------- so PtW ---- 0,45 HP/Kg

- take off weight - 820 kg-------------------- 0,36 HP/Kg

( full fuel tank)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Han's videos may or may not provide an accurate representation (I don't know) but none of the aircraft featured in the You tube clips you provided climbed straight off the end of a takeoff run like the F4.

Bob Hoover is the living proof of what kind of aerobatic can be done with right energy management !

One of the best pilots ever seen.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Hoover

 

https://www.youtube.com/embed/D_mRy9g3c5w"

 

Edited by F/JG300_Touch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry but the Beech 18 d'ont really make a looping , it's different .

the h111 in bos make a true looping .

Edited by sport02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry but the Beech 18 d'ont really make a looping , it's different .

the h111 in bos make a true looping .

 

 

Ok, then here you have:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First video:

The 2nd climb after a tight turn over the airfield IMHO is unrealistic. The 109 climb like a pure aerobatic plane.

Edited by [AoA]Pablo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geez guys, you're only noticing these videos for the first time now? :P

Somewhere along the lines I missed the F series video. So, I'm pretty happy it was re-posted. I love the waving grasses in the foreground. So looking forward to greens, blues, tans, browns........anything other than SNOW maps1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, then here you have:

 

 

What a nice video! I like how you can clearly see the pilot stomping on the rudders to do those barrel rolls!  :biggrin:  :salute:

Edited by istruba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many types of Extra 300, single seat, double seat and from 200hp to 330 hp power to weight comparisons have to be 'generalised'

 

just accept that BF109 performance is comparable to modern competative aerobatic aircraft, and disbelief of what a 109 with 20% fuel can achieve will be suspended

 

First video:

The 2nd climb after a tight turn over the airfield IMHO is unrealistic. The 109 climb like a pure aerobatic plane.

 

A real 109 does climb like a pure aerobatic plane :)

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Extra 300 weight:

- empty weight 660 kg -------- so PtW ---- 0,45 HP/Kg

- take off weight - 820 kg-------------------- 0,36 HP/Kg

( full fuel tank)

 

Yes.  I found approx 900 kg for max weight, but oh well. I did my calculations with takeoff weight. The PTW should be even better when the tanks are almost empty, like in Han's videos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In BoS I can loop a fully loaded (4 SC250 + 1SC500 and 100% fuel) within 3mns after take-off.

 

He111 is a pure aerobatic plane too ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In BoS I can loop a fully loaded (4 SC250 + 1SC500 and 100% fuel) within 3mns after take-off.

 

He111 is a pure aerobatic plane too ;)

 

It depends only on how fast and how high you start your maneuver... A looping isn't such a complex thing to do :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Especially with a fully loaded medium bomber like the He111, a pure aerobatic plane :salute:

 

The standard evasion tactic taught to pilots of four engined RAF heavy bombers like the Lancaster or Halifax was the corkscrew.  By late '44 these aircraft had more than three times the all up weight of a HE-111 but were stressed for these manoeuvers.  Go figure............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are several reports of fully loaded Lancasters being looped during violent evasive manouvres to avoid night fighters.

 

 You could also track down a book called "Sigh for a Merlin" by Alex Henshaw where he describes looping and barrel rolling a Lancaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, I have read the same kind of account on a  B17, but it didn't mention aircraft as still loaded. However, this Lanc got "help" with an explosion to complete the loop, and "has amazed both RAF and production expert".

 

Any "in control" loop ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Any "in control" loop ?

 

Yeah, the book I quoted above. Or a book called "Lancaster Victory" by Bob Currie where he describes an inadvertant loop while avoiding a night fighter.  It removed the wingtips from the aircraft and concussed his bomb aimer too.

 

You'll have to obtain some copies of aircrew memoirs as not everything is available by "url" thank goodness.  As you yourself have discovered there are many reports of heavy aircraft being put through 'forbidden' manoeuvres - mostly in the heat of action but often for the amusement of the crew.  Few of these would appear in any sort of official report.

 

However, it's a fascinating subject in its own right.  A couple of images to whet your appetite;

 

B24dive.jpg

 

Fully laden B24 in the process of diving twelve thousand feet following a collision.  Yes, they did manage to pull out of this but the a/c was a right off.

 

Victorroll_zps48055e06.jpg

 

Handley Page Victor nuclear bomber, sometime in the late 'fifties at the top of a loop.  Thats a drop tank under the wing btw and finally this man;

 

 

The late, great Wing Cmdr. Ken Wallis.  He could recount looping Wellington bombers fairly frequently.  Why did he do it?  Because he could!

I include the video to give you an idea of the calibre of pilot this guy was.  He was ninety-five when that was filmed! :salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to this thread http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/569210-bent-airframes-3.html#post9149835 the Handley Page Victor shown above was being barrel-rolled rather than looped - and may have got slightly bent as a result. The thread contains an interesting discussion on why some particular airframes have had peculiar flight characteristics - including several of the V-Bomber fleet which never flew quite straight again after aerobatics... 

Edited by AndyJWest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all these, fascinating subject indeed :)

 

Thing is, in game there's 0% damage after a loop with fully loaded 111, I don't necessarily expect wings to come off, but some hinder to flight characteristics would be more realistic, I once flew a bent aerobatics aircraft and it handled... not exactly well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im shocked..in positive way. I always thought that BOS FM isnt as good as DCS or even CLOD with TF mods. This is an absolute proof I was wrong! Wow, look at those stalls....Ironically Im saying this in topic where some of you have a quite different opinion.

Though I would like to know how many fuel Han used in his F4....but, nevertheless, some stunts look almost identical as we see them on ww2 airshows.

 

I often use x-plane to judge the quality of the FMs between the two sims, and I have to say that while aircraft like the F-15 DCS nailed, aircraft like the mustang were fairly distant from their x-plane counterparts.  BoS and BoM are very similar to the same aircraft in x-plane, the only issue I see is that IL-2 is lacking the torque that it should have, but all other values are spot on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all these, fascinating subject indeed :)

 

Thing is, in game there's 0% damage after a loop with fully loaded 111, I don't necessarily expect wings to come off, but some hinder to flight characteristics would be more realistic, I once flew a bent aerobatics aircraft and it handled... not exactly well.

 

Does anyone have any images of fighters in the sim with bent wings (as a result of Gs)?  In my experience, there really is no wing bending at all until you have complete structural failure, while in real life one could bend their wings and still fly home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is, in game there's 0% damage after a loop with fully loaded 111, I don't necessarily expect wings to come off, but some hinder to flight characteristics would be more realistic, I once flew a bent aerobatics aircraft and it handled... not exactly well.

 

Why should there be? They were designed to carry that full load all the way to the target. That could include flak bursts disturbing the air around them, which is a concussive force, and it could include hitting an air pocket of less dense air causing them to drop quite far in altitude. The airframes were quite rugged. The aircraft were quite powerful.

 

Sounds to me like your aerobatic aircraft had a structural weak point that hadn't been resolved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have any images of fighters in the sim with bent wings (as a result of Gs)?  In my experience, there really is no wing bending at all until you have complete structural failure, while in real life one could bend their wings and still fly home.

 

Most of these airframes can handle more Gs than the meat popsicle flying them. The structural failure is usually in absolute speed (dive), or from a rapid G acceleration which I've done only in the 109 and 190 with the horizontal stab set so pulling back all the way results in structural failure and the pilot instantly blacks out. The speeds that has to be done at would most likely result in an aircraft falling apart very soon after (650+km/h).

 

The reports of speed or maneuver damage I've seen isn't bent wings, but damaged control surfaces damaged (fabric stripped off, or duraluminum pressed in) or the wings themselves shedding paneling/duraluminum pressed in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was impressed with the audio. Sounds very clean and powerful  :)

Edited by Mysticpuma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I often use x-plane to judge the quality of the FMs between the two sims, and I have to say that while aircraft like the F-15 DCS nailed, aircraft like the mustang were fairly distant from their x-plane counterparts.  BoS and BoM are very similar to the same aircraft in x-plane, the only issue I see is that IL-2 is lacking the torque that it should have, but all other values are spot on.

 

Sorry for the off-topic, but...

 

I'm sorry to have to point out that you're using a "very poor comparison tool" because XPlane's flight dynamics are actually seriously flawed as I and many have long been trying to show Austin, since mid v9...

 

Finally, thx to Murmur's investigation, Austin finally acknowledged one of the problems and says it'll be fixed for 10.50, but there are still many other ( mostly directional and longitudinal ) stability problems with the way XPlane calculates it's flight dynamics....

 

Check this thread at the .ORG where Austin has FINALLY accepted the overdone torque and one of it's reasons - the infamous "torque bug" in X-Plane, starting mid XP9, and ported to XP10...

 

By far IL-2 BoS and DCS World excel in terms of flight dynamics, each with it's own pluses and minuses, like everything in life, but both way above any other flight simulation for prop aircraft I have used ( with a 2nd honourable place for A2A's prop add-ons for FSX... )

 

Also make sure you follow Murmur's posts both at the ORG and at AVSIM, because he's creating a series of scripts to analyse in detail most of the limitations present in X-Plane's flight dynamics model. To be honest, we can't even say it is any better than the best we get for FSX, quite on the contrary....

Edited by jcomm

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...