Excited, but at the same time disappointed

[BSS_Vidar]

Tactics and Intel were the main reasons for Allied successes.

 

Test flights and evaluation of the captured Zeke was quite revealing on how to counter a Zero's attack. i.e. Dive and roll to the right with a Zeke on your tail. Above 200kts, the Zero had almost no roll authority to the right due to aileron compressibility. In level flight, the torque of the engine and the light-weight airframe hindered rolls to the right as well. Above 240kts, the elevator locked up. Examples of mistaken identity of "Kamikaze Zeros" diving into the water with seemingly no targets reveled that they simply got too fast in a dive and augured in due to elevator compressibility. Soon after, Japanese pilots stopped pursuing in dives. The Rudder authority however was completely available throughout the Zeke's speed regime. NONE of which was included in the IL2 Pacific Fighters flight model.

 

On a side note, when the F-6 Hellcat was released, it outclassed the Zero in every aspect except turn radius. But it was close due to the Hellcat's speed controlled flap system. Despite its heavier weight, it drastically out climbed the Zero due to it's superior power to weight ratio. A successful Japanese Ace made the mistake of thinking he was fighting a Wildcat and went to the vertical. The Aviator thought that was a bad move and powered right up his 6 in the vertical with speed to spare and shot down a top Ace.

 

Despite my issues with the FM in BoS, I will say they have done a better job towards accurate aircraft performances. I recently flew my first sortied in an FW-190A3. Seeing that I was outnumbered, I pushed the nose over to run and didn't even try to jink - thought I had it made. I was then summarily ran down by a MiG-3 that had been co-alt with me. That would not have happened in the old IL2 days.

 

Nice shot Elf! LOL

 

V

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

No, I would say that tactics and intel were as important as large number of pilots to build up more units as well as replace dead/wounded along with ability to replenish all the losses in machines. Where Japanese had to keep their units until they were crushed Americans could simply rotate their fighter squadrons. Valuable and experienced pilots were preserved for the benefit of whole Air Force. 

 

I dont want to break the things for you but shaking of a Zero was much harder than just that, at least thats what this Army tests proven :

http://imageshack.com/a/img911/5645/hfSgch.png

Hint -> Diving and climbing spirals. I mean sure, you can simply dive away. But thats not exactly what you were mentioning. 200 knots is waaay too low, at this speed the ailerons were stiffening hard but from NACA evaluation of Zeke fighter at 370 km/h (200 knots / 230 mph) I get 54 deg/sec roll to the left and 46 deg/sec right. It's surly not great when compared to FW-190 or even Spitfire but I'd say its far from "no" roll authority. I'm also quite certain its not maximum at that speed, there were only two trials done by two pilots and for unknown reason first pilot managed to get much better results at low speed but very poor at medium and high speeds, while in the second one pilot actually had lower results at low speed but much better at medium to high speed. It does not seem maximum stick deflections for that speed were achieved. 

Even bigger nonsense is the elevator lockup, 240 knots is slightly above A6M2 cruising speed. A6M2 was in 1941 evaluated and compared with Army fighters (Ki-43, Ki-44 and Ki-27) where it dove to maximum 680 km/h and maintained structural integrity as well as pilot was fully capable of pulling out. I also have a 1943 experiment conducted by Yokosuka Air Group in Naval Aviation Technology Center to verify maximum loadouts aircraft could withstand in normal combat, in two day trials following g-loads were reached : 8.2 G at 300 knots on a first attempt second day and 8.6 G at 320 knots on second attempt.  Doesnt seem to me that elevator has no authority. 

 

F6F didnt outclass Zero in "every" aspect, Zeke had superior range and acceleration. I think I already once explained you that Zero had also better power to weight ratio ...  

I'm not sure what you mean or what you are expecting but for your information F6F-3 (with P&W R-2800-10) and F6F-5 (with P&W R-2800-10W so with water injection) had power loading of 0.16 and  0.17 hp/lb respectively. A6M5 in had  0.19 hp/lb. Dont know what F6F is supposed to have but climb or acceleration are not the things that warbird is famous for. 

 

 

 

And then you recall a "situation" from a Dogfights ... this is where I lost any hope ...

Edited January 27, 2016 by =LD=Hiromachi

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Hellcat didn't have better climb rate then Zero as well. Initial climb rate of Hellcat was slightly better (17,8s to 16,5s), but time to 6000 the Zero was better (7,2 minutes compared to 7,5 in Hellcat). So i think you really can't say, one is better then the other...

[JtD]

.... in two day trials following g-loads were reached : 8.2 G at 300 knots on a first attempt second day and 8.6 G at 320 knots on second attempt.  Doesnt seem to me that elevator has no authority...

Interesting information, is it available somewhere outside your collection?

Technically, this does not necessarily say anything about elevator authority. It can be achieved with a rearward centre of gravity and/or extensive use of trim even with very poor elevator authority.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Interesting information, is it available somewhere outside your collection?

Technically, this does not necessarily say anything about elevator authority. It can be achieved with a rearward centre of gravity and/or extensive use of trim even with very poor elevator authority.

No, I only have a translation of the original document from PACMIR translations obtained in AFHRA. Have been trying to track original myself on http://www.jacar.go.jp/english/but it most likely is in private collection there and wont become public until person decides to make it public. 

Hmm, the problem is that the only way Zero could have a rearward center of gravity would be with 250 kg bomb, and such bomb could only be mounted under modified A6M2 or A6M5. There wasnt just much stuff placed behind the pilot in Zeros, all the mass was placed in front of him or in the wings ... 

And the usage of trim would sort of ... negate the point of evaluation. The reason for this trial was based on Zuikaku fighter who got damaged during ACM pulling a lot of G's. 

 

There is quite a bit of such stuff in Japan, but most of the documents have seen better times and are now in bad quality. There can be found on jacar.go.jp available for public view Wind tunnel test No. 823 "Performance tests of A7M1 vertical stabilizer" which also contains data from J2M and A6M for comparison ... but its barely readable ...

[Crump]

 

 

Have been trying to track original myself on http://www.jacar.go.jp/english/butit most likely is in private collection there and wont become public until person decides to make it public. 

 

Search A6M on that website and the A6M3 Operations manual comes up. 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Yes, thats the only file publicly available in regard to A6M3. And its not exactly operations manual but more like a maintenance manual. On page 11 you can for instance see maximum permitted G loads with safety factor for various parts of the aircraft (wings for instance have 7.0 G positive load with 1.8 Safety Factor) like ailerons, horizontal stabilizer, landing gear, tail hook, etc. etc. There are also weight tables at pages 23-25 for both model 32 and model 22. Page 73 has basic data for Sakae 21 power at given rpm, manifold pressure and altitude.

[Crump]

Good stuff.  Thanks for posting it.

 

I could not actually download it as it was asking for some program not on my machine.  I will download it and see.

 

Very interesting on the safety margin factor!  The A6M3 then had a proof load of 7G and the higher ultimate factor of 12.6G.  That would make for a very strong set of wings.

 

I would love to discuss this on PM.  I have some questions on the Japanese designs you might be able to help with.  Specifically questions on the state of pilot physiology technology.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

It was asking you for djvu viewer, should be available on net. Just need to install plugin. Or try with mozilla, I had some issues with Chrome so than I started using mozilla for downloading documents from there. Other option is switching from djvu to jpeg. 

 

Yes, I can copy what I'm fighting right now on War Thunder where they ultimately seem to be setting 1.5 safety for all aircraft which according to my knowledge became standard only after the war. Before each country had its own limits and choices. This is from Eagles of the Mitsubishi by Jiro Horikoshi, pages 36 to 39 : 

"The biggest problem - weight reduction 

At the early stage of the Prototype 12 concept, I knew I we must explore one step deeper and attempt to shine a ray of light where now there was only darkness. Only by departing from traditional customs and specifications could this be accomplished. I felt at that stage of the project that such a philosophy was essential. 

By 1932, a new standard called "Summary of Airplane Planning" had been established which had to be adhered to in airplane design. It contained a rule that called for a safety factor prescribing the strength of structural members. This safety factor was defined as the ratio of an airplane's destructive load to the maximum load it was expected to be subjected to during operations. According to the regulation, this factor must be 1.8 regardless of the type of airplane, the application of the force, or the material characteristics. In other words, the rule required the airplane not to be destroyed by loads less than 1.8 times the maximum load experienced in flight. For fighters, the maximum load had been established as seven times the force of gravity, or 7Gs. Thus, when the 1.8 factor was applied to this, all airplane parts must be able to withstand a load of 12.6 Gs. Even when the airplane went through a maneuver of 7 Gs, which was the maximum load to which it would be subjected, the strength of all parts must have additional capability equal to 5.6 Gs. 

(...)"

 

Actually not all the parts of A6M had such a safe limit, everything unexposed to G loads and high speeds had lower limits of 1.66 or even less, landing gear for example was given 1.44 safety limit. 

"After the war, the safety factor was lowered to 1.5 throughout the world, in effect confirming the correctness of my observation. Unfortunately, at the time we did not have time to challenge or argue with existing worldwide requirement. For slender parts on the Prototype 12, we initiated a moderate policy of using a safety factor slightly below 1.8, and even though I could not calculate a total air-frame weight reduction resulting from this policy, I was confident that a considerable amount of weight would be saved. With this breakthrough, I felt there was hope that the Prototype 12 would meet its goals."

 

So for every relevant part of the aircraft like the wings safety was set to 1.8, everything not exposed to high g loads had a lower value to save the weight. It was a very cool approach, but extremely time consuming as you had to calculate everything for each part from bolts to seat. But at the end they build a tough aircraft saving a lot of weight. 

 

And yeah, surly you can hit me on PM. Though I'm afraid my knowledge is limited, I'm an amateur researcher rather interested in machines and their weaponry than pure aviation or pilots stuff. But always can try !

[Crump]

Actually not all the parts of A6M had such a safe limit, everything unexposed to G loads and high speeds had lower limits of 1.66 or even less, landing gear for example was given 1.44 safety limit. 

 

 

You seem to be well versed in Aeronautical Science and probably already know that the weakest link is what sets the load factor limit.  Typically it is the engine mounts in aircraft.  That landing gear limit is most likely the inertial limit of the gear.

 

http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part23-725-FAR.shtml

 

in other words...it has nothing to the with the aircrafts inflight proof or ultimate load factor.

 

 

According to the regulation, this factor must be 1.8 regardless of the type of airplane, the application of the force, or the material characteristics. In other words, the rule required the airplane not to be destroyed by loads less than 1.8 times the maximum load experienced in flight.

 

 

 

Then there is no debate, the engineering safety margin is 1.8.  

 

The Germans also used 1.8 for compression safety factor and 2.0 for tension in their aircraft.    While 1.5 is the most common and the safety factory used by the western allies, it is not universal.

 

Using the wrong safety factor will lead to the wrong conclusions about load factor limits.  For example, the FW-190 was limited to 5G's at max takeoff weight for a fighter variant.  That would lead to a false assumption the airframe was weaker in comparison to allied designs.

 

5G proof * 1.8 = 9G ultimate

 

6G proof * 1.5 = 9G ultimate

 

The RAF and USAAF 6G proof was actually the exact same airframe strength as the German 5G proof.

 

 

I will have to give you the full report over a few posts

[Crump]

Try this:

 

http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA049380

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Typically it is the engine mounts in aircraft.

Now that you speak of that, I checked it, front of the fuselage (engine mount to be specific) had same limit and safety factor. That was tested under various conditions - with two different propellers (with different weights).

But limit was same.

 

 

 

in other words...it has nothing to the with the aircrafts inflight proof or ultimate load factor.

 

Well, I understand that. What I meant was that keeping it strict with regulation would force the team to make parts more resistant then necessary and thus heavier. It had more to do with saving the weight to meet the Navy limits 

 

Try this:

Got it, thank you very much. 

 

 

Afaik, today another A6M flew for the first time since the war : 

 

 

It's second flyable A6M3 model 22. Aircraft was flown by Skip Holm.

Edited January 27, 2016 by =LD=Hiromachi

[JtD]

Hmm, the problem is that the only way Zero could have a rearward center of gravity would be with 250 kg bomb, and such bomb could only be mounted under modified A6M2 or A6M5. There wasnt just much stuff placed behind the pilot in Zeros, all the mass was placed in front of him or in the wings ...

And the usage of trim would sort of ... negate the point of evaluation. The reason for this trial was based on Zuikaku fighter who got damaged during ACM pulling a lot of G's.

Just trying to say that these figures are not evidence one way or another, just an indication. High g loads can be achieved because it's a very agile aircraft, but can also be a consequence of aircraft condition (adverse loading) or handling procedure (tail heavy trim). I know testing of all these aspects for other aircraft, and all were investigations into bent wings. It would not negate the point of an investigation to see what operating procedures are necessary to damage the aircraft.

 

Regarding rearward CoG, if you check the CoG positions in the loading tables, you'll see the position vary by 4% without external loads, most rearward without external loads at about 27%. Rearward limit given is 30.7% (if I interpret the MAC drawing right).

Regarding the 8g at 300knots, if the stall speed of the aircraft was 65knots, full elevator authority should give you around 20g at 300knots. Clearly, this isn't desirable and some sort of elevator 'locking' would have to set in earlier for safety reasons as part of the design. It's always the issue of finding the right balance between too light and too heavy.

 

Anyway, going to leave that at that. I wish I had the time to do a little bit of browsing, it's been near 5 years since I last updated my Japanese sources.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Regarding the 8g at 300knots, if the stall speed of the aircraft was 65knots, full elevator authority should give you around 20g at 300knots. Clearly, this isn't desirable and some sort of elevator 'locking' would have to set in earlier for safety reasons as part of the design. It's always the issue of finding the right balance between too light and too heavy.

The elevators link cables in Zeros were elastic.

 

Quotes from Horikoshi book (page 77) :

I immediately performed calculations on cables having excess strength relative to the loads they must bear, and finally decided to use cable diameters of 3.5 mm and 3.0 mm for the original 4 mm, and tubes of 32 mm in place of the original 50 mm. I was convinced that the smaller cables would sufficiently reduce the stiffness while retaining adequate strength and durability. This technique would later be described as : "Improvement of Control Response by the Method of Reduced Stiffness." . (apparently it is available in University of Tokyo. I wish I could contact them for that one)

Page 79 and 80

"Sure enough, the tests showed excellent results. As we expected, the amount of stick motion was greatly increased during vertical turns and loops at high speeds. The pilots noted that because of this, the elevator response was softened and flight characteristics were greatly improved. It was also reported that no matter how rapidly the pilot moved the stick, the airplane's oscillations quickly subsided. "

" After flight tests were performed by the four pilots - Mr. Shima, Lieutenant Maki, Lieutenant Commander Nakano and Mr. Aratani they all said in one voice, "The elevator response is now satisfactory. There is nothing wrong with this control under any conditions." This solved the biggest problem of our flight testing. I was satisfied that we had been able to match the airplanes control response to the human pilots sense of motion by making adjustments based on the reports and opinions of our superb pilots. 

Here is the scan from the book how it was supposed to work : 

 

Edited January 27, 2016 by =LD=Hiromachi

[YSoMadTovarisch]

Even bigger nonsense is the elevator lockup, 240 knots is slightly above A6M2 cruising speed. A6M2 was in 1941 evaluated and compared with Army fighters (Ki-43, Ki-44 and Ki-27) where it dove to maximum 680 km/h and maintained structural integrity as well as pilot was fully capable of pulling out. I also have a 1943 experiment conducted by Yokosuka Air Group in Naval Aviation Technology Center to verify maximum loadouts aircraft could withstand in normal combat, in two day trials following g-loads were reached : 8.2 G at 300 knots on a first attempt second day and 8.6 G at 320 knots on second attempt.  Doesnt seem to me that elevator has no authority.

 

RAAF report, I'm really tired of linking this:

 

Not everything has to be taken literally, every plane has elevator authority outside of compressibility range.

[Crump]

RAAF report, I'm really tired of linking this:

 

Not everything has to be taken literally, every plane has elevator authority outside of compressibility range.

 

 

That is to achieve 4G which is the physiological limit for most World War II combatants.   You are approaching the limits of pilot.

 

Why would you anyone want to design controls that take an airplane someplace the pilot cannot fly it?

 

A pilot can also achieve much higher stick force input depending on the stick design and control layout of the cockpit for short period if necessary but most modern engineers would see the high elevator forces as good stability and control designed to keep the pilot safely at the maximum maneuvering limits of himself and the airplane.

 

 

[YSoMadTovarisch]

Yeah, does that change the fact the zero's elevator was much heavier than other contemporary planes at high speed? The 109 got a stick force of 20lbs/g at 400mph and it was considered to be excessively heavy, the zero was even worse.

 

Also, btw, it takes more time to get a desired deflection with a heavier stick using the same amount of force, you know?

Edited January 27, 2016 by GrapeJam

[Crump]

 

 

Yeah, does that change the fact the zero's elevator was much heavier than other contemporary planes at high speed? The 109 got a stick force of 20lbs/g at 400mph and it was considered to be excessively heavy, the zero was even worse.   Also, btw, it takes more time to get a desired deflection with a heavier stick using the same amount of force, you know?

 

All true but Cave men used to think the sun was eaten by a monster during a lunar eclipse.

 

That does not mean it is correct or that we have not evolved our thinking and learned a few things.

 

Stability and Control was still a new science at the beginning of World War II so I am not surprised there were monsters eating the moon when different ideas where encountered. 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Grape, that is a pretty bold statement considering that on a page 3 it is written "In testing rates of roll, information on control and wing stiffness would have been of great interest but it was not possible in the time available to fit the necessary equipment required for this work."

What you presented is an estimation as indicated. 

 

If you want specific data you should try with NACA. 

[YSoMadTovarisch]

If you want specific data you should try with NACA. 

 

What specific data aside from a general statement comparing the zero with early American fighters that also had heavy elevator at high speed?

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Stick motion, acceleration (g's) during tests in various conditions (combat maneuvers, landing, etc.) elevator angle at speeds, and things like that. There is a lot of data, graphs and tables in that documentation. 

[II./JG77_Manu*]

RAAF report, I'm really tired of linking this:

 

Not everything has to be taken literally, every plane has elevator authority outside of compressibility range.

 

pulling 100lbs is no problem what so ever. There is a reason that Zero pilots trained their muscles

[YSoMadTovarisch]

Stick motion, acceleration (g's) during tests in various conditions (combat maneuvers, landing, etc.) elevator angle at speeds, and things like that. There is a lot of data, graphs and tables in that documentation.

But no stick force?

pulling 100lbs is no problem what so ever. There is a reason that Zero pilots trained their muscles

 

Like, I said, nobody says that you can't pull 100lbs, but you're gonna pull a heavier stick slower using the same force.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

But no stick force?

Nope, no stick force. There seems to be no apparatus to record that one, just like in RAAF trials. Some verbal info can be found in pilot notes, "Inasmuch as no measurements of control forces were made, it is not known whether the requirements for satisfactory stick forces in maneuvers were met. The pilot did not complain of excessive forces, however."

Some data could be however obtained from recorded diving turns and pullouts, although pilots did not exceed imposed limits of 5 G. Much of the dogfighting was done at speeds below 180 miles per hour, where the maximum lift coefficient is reached with,less than 4 G acceleration. 

 

Afaik, here is another video from the Kanoya airfield flight trials :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34UKy8q-mOs

 

In 1:50 you can hear Skip Holm. 

[Crump]

 

 

Like, I said, nobody says that you can't pull 100lbs, but you're gonna pull a heavier stick slower using the same force.

 

Which is good grapejam.  It means the pilot has control over the accelerations he puts on the aircraft and can precisely load the aircraft.  It he won't be hunting all over the place and fighting the aircraft keep a constant acceleration.

 

It does not matter if you quickly apply a load factor, only to overshoot and undershoot because the controls are too light.  It does not make for a more controllable or maneuverable aircraft. 

[9./JG27DavidRed]

The cockpit immersion is just ruined in DCS.  The rudder does not do the basic functions of a rudder in the either of the models I own.  I cannot reconcile the physics of the FM in several areas.  That is a huge immersion killer.  I fly for a living.  Almost every day I am in an airplane at the controls.  When it does not act like an airplane, it is very noticeable.

 

[Edited]

 

Please refrain from posting negative comments about other developers on this forum.

this! thats why i left dcs, besides to obvious shortcomings like a proper map...

[Guest deleted@50488]

I never really understood what Crump was referring to regarding the rudder in that other sim....

 

One thing is for sure - in il-2 BoS, in most of the aircraft, it's authority is way overdone... something that DD120 may have promised to address...

 

Same in as far as the effects of negative g stalls, and those crazy inverted spins we easily enter in the 190 A-3 if you do not have  acurve in our stick input tuning, and aren't cautious... and the wobbling....

 

But I love il-2 BoS too of course!

Edited January 28, 2016 by jcomm

[Crump]

 

 

I never really understood what Crump was referring to regarding the rudder in that other sim....

 

1.  The rudder will not lift the wing at the stall.

 

2.  At high speed you could not maintain coordinated flight while maneuvering. 

 

If we assume the aileron trim tab is correctly set, you can tell the yaw-roll coupling is healthy when you can use the rudder to keep the wings level in a fixed aileron trim aircraft.   Enough rudder to keep the wing level equals coordinated flight.

[Guest deleted@50488]

Thx for making it clear.

 

Indeed, recovering from stalls ( while giving instruction in gliders and most aircraft ) where a wing falls is done with opposite rudder, and it always worked for me in the K-4, D9 and 51d ?

 

Then, at high speed, in il-2 too, the aircraft ( Bf109 ) enters a left sideslip because of the compensation due to the asymmetric profile of the vertical tail fin and the rudder fixed trim tab. In game ( the other game ) we can fine tune the aileron trim for a given speed range.

 

What I, OTOH, find not plausible in il-2, as modeled presently, is the authority of rudder, on most aircraft, at all speeds and AoAs....

Edited January 28, 2016 by jcomm

[MiloMorai]

It was amazing what those old R/C models could do with only rudder for control.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

Which is good grapejam.  It means the pilot has control over the accelerations he puts on the aircraft and can precisely load the aircraft.  It he won't be hunting all over the place and fighting the aircraft keep a constant acceleration.

 

It does not matter if you quickly apply a load factor, only to overshoot and undershoot because the controls are too light.  It does not make for a more controllable or maneuverable aircraft. 

 

Yeah, I'm sure that's why all late war planes all had heavier elevator at high speed, the P51 never had metal elevator to lighten the control force at high speed,etc....

 

Oh wait....

[Solty]

Stick forces are realy important to the pilot. Especially if we give the pilot a G-suit.

 

As Grape Jam said. If the force that the pilot has to use is lower, therefore the plane reacts quicker to movment and it is easier to dodge incoming fire, start your maneuver or do few maneuvers one after another. A body is strained by G forces, so high stick forces become realy problematic when you are struggling to pull the stick to begin with.

 

That is why generally Fw190 was seen as the superior aircraft to the 109, even though disparity between them in level acceleration and max speed was very small. But the stick forces for the 190 were so much easier to handle than the 109's which made the plane easy to control at high speed and therfore a more effective combat aircraft.

 

So what that 109 can turn tighter at low speeds? It is not realy a factor when you are fighting many vs many. You want to get some good hits in an instantenous turn and roll out check six and help your friends while keeping the speed. If there is someone behind you, maneuver and present him as a target to your wingman.

 

As pilots use to say. Speed is life and altitude is insurence. The faster the plane the better... but what if you are fast... but can't use that speed to shoot anyone down in a dogfight and therfore you can't help your friends, and they can't help you. So each of you dive to "safety" but the plane behind you is keeping up with you and you can't roll out of his fire... so you either die or you bail out... or wait for a miracle xD.

[Crump]

Yeah, I'm sure that's why all late war planes all had heavier elevator at high speed, the P51 never had metal elevator to lighten the control force at high speed,etc....

 

Oh wait....

 

The metal elevator was not added to "lighten the stick forces".  I have no idea who planted that in your head.

 

It increased the hinge moments....in other words increased the stick force gradient to increase the aircraft's elevator forces.  

 

Completely the opposite.....

Thx for making it clear.

 

Indeed, recovering from stalls ( while giving instruction in gliders and most aircraft ) where a wing falls is done with opposite rudder, and it always worked for me in the K-4, D9 and 51d ?

 

Then, at high speed, in il-2 too, the aircraft ( Bf109 ) enters a left sideslip because of the compensation due to the asymmetric profile of the vertical tail fin and the rudder fixed trim tab. In game ( the other game ) we can fine tune the aileron trim for a given speed range.

 

What I, OTOH, find not plausible in il-2, as modeled presently, is the authority of rudder, on most aircraft, at all speeds and AoAs....

 

 

I do not fly IL2 or DCS.  I am getting my money back for the DCS crap and moving on.

 

As Grape Jam said. If the force that the pilot has to use is lower, therefore the plane reacts quicker to movment and it is easier to dodge incoming fire, start your maneuver or do few maneuvers one after another. A body is strained by G forces, so high stick forces become realy problematic when you are struggling to pull the stick to begin with.

 

 

 

 

That is why a man named after fruit and sugar "Grapejam" wrote the standards for stability and control.  

 

 

Oh wait...he did not and those standards say something completely different!!! 

 

 

Trolling, personal attack.

 

7. Comments containing profanity, personal insults, accusations of cheating, excessive rudeness, vulgarity, drug propaganda, political and religious discussion and propaganda, all manifestations of Nazism and racist statements, calls to overthrow governments by force, inciting ethnic hatred, humiliation of persons of a particular gender, sexual orientation or religion are not allowed and will result in a ban.

 

Violations of this rule will result in the following:

First offense - 3 days ban on entry

Edited January 29, 2016 by BlackSix

[Crump]

 

 

14CFR FAR Part 23.155 Elevator control force in manoeuvres

(a) The elevator control force needed to

achieve the positive limit manoeuvring load

factor may not be less than –

(1) For wheel controls, W/10N (where

W is the maximum weight in kg) (W/100 lbf

(where W is the maximum weight in lb)) or

89 N (20 lbf), whichever is greater, except that

it need not be greater than 222 N (50 lbf); or

(2) For stick controls, W/14N (where

W is the maximum weight in kg) (W/140 lbf

(where W is the maximum weight in lb)) or

66∙8 N (15 lbf), whichever is greater, except

that it need not be greater than 156 N (35 lbf).

 

 

http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_23-155.html

[YSoMadTovarisch]

The metal elevator was not added to "lighten the stick forces".  I have no idea who planted that in your head.

 

It increased the hinge moments....in other words increased the stick force gradient to increase the aircraft's elevator forces.  

 

Completely the opposite.....

 

You're sure about that?

http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc62617/m1/7/

 

Also, take another example, the F4U5 also had spring tabbed rudder and elevator to decrease control forces at high speed, oh and guess what, late model BF109s also had their elevator forces lightened.

 

There's a difference between civilian plane, which emphasize safety, and combat airplanes, which emphasize practical combat performance.

Edited January 28, 2016 by GrapeJam

[Crump]

You're sure about that?

http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc62617/m1/7/

 

Also, take another example, the F4U5 also had spring tabbed rudder and elevator to decrease control forces at high speed.

 

There's a difference between civilian plane, which emphasize safety, and combat airplanes, which emphasize practical combat performance.

 

 

OMG...

 

Talk about out of context and drawing the wrong conclusions!! 

 

Looks like you missed the whole part about the changing the angle of incidence....

Grapejam.....

 

You are confusing the quest to reduce stick forces because airplanes did become much heavier and faster the fact it is a range.

 

Fall outside of that range and things are not good.

 

FWIW...the effect of adding a metal elevator is to increase the hinge moments.

 

Think of the law of the lever:

 

Moment = Weight X Arm

 

If you increase weight by adding a metal elevator....what do you think happens to the Moment??

[YSoMadTovarisch]

OMG...

 

Talk about out of context and drawing the wrong conclusions!! 

 

Looks like you missed the whole part about the changing the angle of incidence....

 

And still what is the result that it got, apart from smoother stick force gradient?

 

And I gave you two examples among many planes that had their elevator force at high speed lightened with later models, still waiting for your rebuttal.

 

 

FWIW...the effect of adding a metal elevator is to increase the hinge moments.

 

Think of the law of the lever:

 

Moment = Weight X Arm

 

If you increase weight by adding a metal elevator....what do you think happens to the Moment??

 

I'm pretty sure what we're talking about here is at high speed, where classic fabric covered surfaces don't do so well.

Edited January 28, 2016 by GrapeJam

[Crump]

The effect of a metal elevator is to increase the stick force gradient.  

 

End of story...that is how it works!!

 

Moment = Weight X Arm

[LukeFF]

 

 

I do not fly IL2 or DCS.

 

Then why exactly are you here? 

[Crump]

 Because I enjoy the science.  I like the detective work in the reports and figuring it out.  Is that ok with you??

 

Or is that illegal in the Peoples Republic of California??