BoS fighters roll comparison

[Holtzauge]

Some input on the roll comparison: I don't know the exact differences between the Me109 F2 and F4 but if the mass difference is located mostly in the fuselage then they should have about the same roll acceleration. The reason being that the rotational moment of inertia is proportional to the mass multiplied by the distance from the rotational axis squared. This means that things like the outboard MGFF on the Fw-190 would make an appreciable difference but any mass added close to the fuselage center not so much. So most likely, the difference in roll acceleration between the F2 and F4 would be barely measurable and the steady state roll rate should be about the same.

 

However, the issue that remains is that the BoS F4, Yak, and Lagg all roll so well in comparison to the BoS Fw190 (Which seems closer to IRL performance). Now, I'm not a big fan of pilot accounts as proof points, but if you have a statistically significant number of pilots that state something then I would tend to trust that. AFAIK, there are plenty of accounts of the Fw190 flicking around in wicked rolls impossible to catch by the opposition so I would expect it to stand out but in Ze-Hairy's it does not really do that. Now, looking at the historically correct Me109 DVL data and the BoS data for the Russian fighters in the figure, a Yak or  Lagg with that rolling performance would leave a historically performing Me109 standing. So if the Russian fighters were so superior in roll IRL as  Ze-Hairy's BoS measurements indicate, where are all the Russian pilot stories of using this to avoid persistent Me109's or frustrated German accounts complaining about Russian fighters flicking out of turns which they could not follow?

 

And no, I don't have any data to support my radical idea so I probably deserve to be shot on the spot. However, this is I believe a discussion forum which means one should be allowed to make educated guesses and muse on things that seem strange no?

 

Grabs hat and starts running.......

Edited February 25, 2016 by Holtzauge

[Dakpilot]

 

And no, I don't have any data to support my radical idea so I probably deserve to be shot on the spot. However, this is I believe a discussion forum which means one should be allowed to make educated guesses and muse on things that seem strange no?

 

Grabs hat and starts running.......

 

I dont think it is such a radical idea at all, however the idea of discussing things in an FM thread does seem quite radical 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[unreasonable]

Some input on the roll comparison: I don't know the exact differences between the Me109 F2 and F4 but if the mass difference is located mostly in the fuselage then they should have about the same roll acceleration. The reason being that the rotational moment of inertia is proportional to the mass multiplied by the distance from the rotational axis squared. This means that things like the outboard MGFF on the Fw-190 would make an appreciable difference but any mass added close to the fuselage center not so much. So most likely, the difference in roll acceleration between the F2 and F4 would be barely measurable and the steady state roll rate should be about the same.

 

However, the issue that remains is that the BoS F4, Yak, and Lagg all roll so well in comparison to the BoS Fw190 (Which seems closer to IRL performance). Now, I'm not a big fan of pilot accounts as proof points, but if you have a statistically significant number of pilots that state something then I would tend to trust that. AFAIK, there are plenty of accounts of the Fw190 flicking around in wicked rolls impossible to catch by the opposition so I would expect it to stand out but in Ze-Hairy's it does not really do that. Now, looking at the historically correct Me109 DVL data and the BoS data for the Russian fighters in the figure, a Yak or  Lagg with that rolling performance would leave a historically performing Me109 standing. So if the Russian fighters were so superior in roll IRL as  Ze-Hairy's BoS measurements indicate, where are all the Russian pilot stories of using this to avoid persistent Me109's or frustrated German accounts complaining about Russian fighters flicking out of turns which they could not follow?

 

And no, I don't have any data to support my radical idea so I probably deserve to be shot on the spot. However, this is I believe a discussion forum which means one should be allowed to make educated guesses and muse on things that seem strange no?

 

Grabs hat and starts running.......

 

I agree: roll performance has always seemed an issue in the FMs. Nearly everything in RoF rolls much faster than reported in pilot accounts too.

 

So if we agree that the F-4 in BoS rolls way too fast assuming that it should not be able to roll faster than an F-2, (and hypothesize in the absence of hard data that the same is true for some of the Soviet planes), we must conclude one or more of the following:

 

1) There is a basic factor wrong or missing in the underlying physics equations of the FM.

 

2) At least one of the environmental or plane specific inputs in the FM is (fairly systematically) incorrect, by developer error.

 

3) At least one of the environmental or plane specific inputs in the FM is (fairly systematically) incorrect, by developer choice.

 

4) Roll performance is particularly difficult to model because of the lack of genuine force needed to move our table top sticks (or some other interface issue).

 

Personally I doubt that it is (1), but as to the rest I am not sure.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

All the Russian fighters had a completely wrong turn rate and energy retention with flaps until a week ago, so i would not wonder at all, if all Russian fighters + all 109s have a vastly overperforming roll rate as well

[Holtzauge]

I dont think it is such a radical idea at all, however the idea of discussing things in an FM thread does seem quite radical 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

Yup, now that you mention it, the idea of a sensible FM discussion does seem radical and utopian but a man can dream can’t he?……

Edited February 27, 2016 by Holtzauge

[Holtzauge]

Looking some more at the relative roll performance in Ze-Hairys diagram (the absolute values seem off in general) it’s really the Lagg that sticks out IMHO: It’s so close to the Fw-190 and yet there is AFAIK no historical evidence that it was way better than the Me109 or Yak?

 

One thing that however does tab with what one would expect (given their wooden wings) is that the Russian fighters roll performance falls off more rapidly with speed. So given that the BoS F4 performs better than the IRL F2 one way to adjust things in BoS to get a better relative performance to the Fw-190, would be to simply parallel translate all planes (except the Fw-190 of course) roll performance downwards towards the F2 data.

 

However, that would still leave the Lagg doing pretty well in relation to the others and that begs the question why does it in BoS do so much better than its wooden sibling the Yak?

[JtD]

The developers stated that the LaGG and early La-5 have an aileron design similar to Fw190, but with larger surfaces and angles, on a smaller wing. In theory, this would mean that the LaGG/La outroll the Fw190 at low speeds. For what it's worth, I agree with the theory.

 

What is lacking is proof that this theory applies, with for instance control forces, aileron efficiency or wing construction being factors not included but still important for actual performance.

 

I've read on the forums, but not directly in a developers post, that the theory was validated with a later La-5 roll performance, with changed aileron-stick linkage. It may or may not be representative for early versions when it comes to factors outside of plain aileron design.

Edited February 27, 2016 by JtD

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Jtd your theory might apply for a Gorilla, but pilots are still rather lean humans (not the most powerful)..the larger the aileron, the harder to move your stick. I am pretty sure that the limiting factor in the roll rate of the Lagg and La5 was the pilots force, and not the aircraft capabilities

[303_Kwiatek]

But at higher speeds larger control surface should effect in exscessive stick load so control surface which are not spring tab loaded should be balanced in size. I no wonder that la5 pilots reported excessive stick load during banking - it could be at higher speeds. As i remember correctly la5f modification was reduced airleons size comparing to standart la5? Its also metter of control system solutions if it was linkage or stiff?

Edited February 27, 2016 by 303_Kwiatek

[JtD]

Jtd your theory might apply for a Gorilla, but pilots are still rather lean humans (not the most powerful)..the larger the aileron, the harder to move your stick. I am pretty sure that the limiting factor in the roll rate of the Lagg and La5 was the pilots force, and not the aircraft capabilities

If you'd know half you'd know half as much as you think you do, you'd know that the 'peak' you see in nearly every roll rate over speed chart is the point where pilot force becomes the limiting factor. Below that, it's simply the matter of aileron effectiveness at full deflection. None of this is "my" theory.

Edited February 27, 2016 by JtD

[Holtzauge]

I'm not so sure it's as simple as saying just because you have a large aileron/wing relationship you get good roll performance: AFAIK the allies spent a lot of effort trying to improve roll performance and as Kwiatek and Manu points out you have the control forces to content with. IIRC correct Kurt Tank said something about the secret being careful design and balancing of aileron not size was what was important. In addition, most efforts to improve roll performance that I know of did not involve size but rather experimenting with aileron trailing edges, the frieze overhand, internal balance and then the IMHO ingenious torsion bar controlled tab balance the Brits came up with. If it was as simple as increasing the size I'm sure they would not have spent so much time fiddling around with all the other solutions.....

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

The only pieces of (anecdotal) info we've come across by now is russian combat reports. It's probably safe to assume, that those derived from expiriences at typical combat speeds and that any clear advantage that the La-5 had over the Fw-190 would have been mentioned in it. Which is not the case.

 

Also Kwiatek is correct, the aileroun area was reduced on La-5F along other controll changes that improved the manouvrebility issue due to high stick forces.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[Holtzauge]

If you'd know half you'd know half as much as you think you do, you'd know that the 'peak' you see in nearly every roll rate over speed chart is the point where pilot force becomes the limiting factor. Below that, it's simply the matter of aileron effectiveness at full deflection. None of this is "my" theory.

Yes, but if you simply increase the size, you for sure get a high peak but it will be placed very much to the "left" and your roll at speed would be poor. However, look at the BoS Lagg: It stays up there close to the Fw-190 all the way up at high speed. So where are all the pilot accounts of the Lagg's stellar roll performance? How come a wooden winged aircraft like the Lagg hangs in there so well with the aluminum and as far as I can tell torsionally stiff wing of the Fw-190? The BoS chart indicates that they were close in aileron reversal speed which until I see data I have my doubts about. As I said before, no matter how well you design your wooden wing, Young's modulus is not working in your favour at high IAS......

 

Edit: OK, maybe I was a bit quick in my reply: It does look like the BoS Lagg has a lower aileron reversal speed than the Fw-190 but it for sure looks like it has very good roll performance at higher IAS and a significantly higher aileron reversal speed compared to the DVL Me-109 data.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Holtzauge

[II./JG77_Manu*]

If you'd know half you'd know half as much as you think you do, you'd know that the 'peak' you see in nearly every roll rate over speed chart is the point where pilot force becomes the limiting factor. Below that, it's simply the matter of aileron effectiveness at full deflection. None of this is "my" theory.

If i did not know that   of course it's your theory..the peak in an aircraft with large rudder surfaces is with considerably less speed, then the one's with smaller surfaces. The Lavochkin still rolls very good at 500kph. Which clearly contradicts the pilot accounts

[Holtzauge]

Ze-Hairy, could you possibly update your chart on page 1 with the BoS La-5 roll data as well? If so that would be......

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Ze-Hairy, could you possibly update your chart on page 1 with the BoS La-5 roll data as well? If so that would be......

 

No problem, maybe tonight or tomorrow.

[Dakpilot]

It may be a silly question, but are these rolls tests averaged in both directions or all done in favor of prop rotation, not sure it could make a difference but one set of figures with a roll against the prop compared with another with the rotation could lead to an outlier result

 

maybe this is not relevant but I have not seen any mention of these considerations, also what weights would the Lagg-3 and FW190/ Bf-109 be at during the tests, sorry if it is mentioned somewhere else in the thread

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[JtD]

Yes, but if you simply increase the size, you for sure get a high peak but it will be placed very much to the "left" and your roll at speed would be poor. However, look at the BoS Lagg: It stays up there close to the Fw-190 all the way up at high speed. So where are all the pilot accounts of the Lagg's stellar roll performance? How come a wooden winged aircraft like the Lagg hangs in there so well with the aluminum and as far as I can tell torsionally stiff wing of the Fw-190? The BoS chart indicates that they were close in aileron reversal speed which until I see data I have my doubts about. As I said before, no matter how well you design your wooden wing, Young's modulus is not working in your favour at high IAS......

 

Edit: OK, maybe I was a bit quick in my reply: It does look like the BoS Lagg has a lower aileron reversal speed than the Fw-190 but it for sure looks like it has very good roll performance at higher IAS and a significantly higher aileron reversal speed compared to the DVL Me-109 data.

And all we have to do is to dig up some reliable data that supports our gut feelings. Or sheds some light on the ingenuity of Lavochkin which is so far eluding us. Either way, the LaGG/La and Fw wing/aileron are so close in design that theory or anecdotes won't help in getting things more accurate then they are now.

It may be a silly question, but are these rolls tests averaged in both directions or all done in favor of prop rotation, not sure it could make a difference but one set of figures with a roll against the prop compared with another with the rotation could lead to an outlier result

 

maybe this is not relevant but I have not seen any mention of these considerations, also what weights would the Lagg-3 and FW190/ Bf-109 be at during the tests, sorry if it is mentioned somewhere else in the thread

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Prop direction would certainly be an important point. Also engine/power/rpm setting.

 

Weight is not - for acceleration it is, but not for roll rate.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Well, adding La-5 data makes the chart unreadable since his curve is really in pair with LaGG-3, the biggest difference being a small 3°/s, which is probably an error from me.

 

Now i remember why i didn't added it from the beginning.

 

I roll in prop direction of course, at nominal power for Russian fighters and combat power for German fighters.

[303_Kwiatek]

Planes roll better in opposite prop direction ( when you look from cocpit)

[TX-Gunslinger]

Check this out.   To scale based upon new parameters Han posted.   What do you see here that might influence the relative roll rate between these aircraft?

 

Edited February 28, 2016 by TX-Gunslinger

[unreasonable]

Check this out.   To scale based upon new parameters Han posted.   What do you see here that might influence the relative roll rate between these aircraft?

 

190A3 vs Lagg Top Down Shot with anno.jpg

 

All right I will bite, at the risk of looking like an idiot.

 

The 190 wing area is 4.5% larger than the Lagg: ie more resistant to rolling, but the aileron area (as you have coloured it) is at least 50% greater, (eyeball estimate). The 190 ailerons also have slightly higher leverage since the wingspan is a little greater.

 

How that quantifies into relative roll rate I do not know. What do you think?

[taildraggernut]

Shorter wings always make for a better rate of roll, hence why the roll rate improved on Spitfires with clipped wings.

[303_Kwiatek]

You should know also that Kurt Tanks was smart guy  

[F/JG300_Gruber]

So that you are not alone to look like an idiot :

 

Wingtips larger on the FW190 hence more roll inertia since this mass is further away from the rolling axis.

 

But that would be an accurate statement if both wings were made of metal which is not the case.

Delta wood used by lavotchkin factory being not a weight saver due to the density and amount used in the construction, so this may be neglecting the effect of having narrower wingtips.

 

 

So in the end I don't know if it helps or not compared to the 190 

Edited February 28, 2016 by F/JG300_Gruber

[Tektolnes]

The developers stated that the LaGG and early La-5 have an aileron design similar to Fw190, but with larger surfaces and angles, on a smaller wing. In theory, this would mean that the LaGG/La outroll the Fw190 at low speeds. For what it's worth, I agree with the theory.

One of the main TF guys who has access to a lot of source info commented some time ago that the La-5 should have a comparable roll to the FW190 at low speeds and that the FW190 should have an appreciably better roll at higher speeds (due to the lighter controls if I remember right). Don't think they'd post this source info though so don't know what the exact differences are. In BoS they seem to roll the same at all speeds though.

[TX-Gunslinger]

All right I will bite, at the risk of looking like an idiot.

 

The 190 wing area is 4.5% larger than the Lagg: ie more resistant to rolling, but the aileron area (as you have coloured it) is at least 50% greater, (eyeball estimate). The 190 ailerons also have slightly higher leverage since the wingspan is a little greater.

 

How that quantifies into relative roll rate I do not know. What do you think?

 

Thanks.  Everything you said plus I'd add/amplify:

 

- Note how the 190's ailerons extend all the way to aft portion of the wingtips.   They interact with the wingtip vortices and provide more leverage at the end of the wing (in the roll plane, the velocity of the wing is greatest at the tip.

 

- The angle of the ailerons relative to the angle of the airflow over the wing is noticeably more perpendicular on the 190 ailerons.

 

With respect to the wing tips - let me add these as a simple example (CW Spit has been brought up many times):

 

Spitfire VIII wingtip versions - Clipped/Normal/High Alt (improved lift, worse roll)

 

 

Late Spitfire XVIe Late War Improved Wing - note that aileron is larger, grown out almost to the wingtip (more like FW).

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

The Fw-190 has a combined aileroun area of 1.93 m² with each having 17° up and 17° down deflections. Also it's a full metall wing without internal fuel tanks but weapons.

 

I couldn't find anything about the pure wings weight but it would be more than interesting to compare tham both.

 

Also, as Gunslinger pointed out, the "all the way to the tip" aileoruns were a great solution increasing the roll rate without ncreaisng the area (which otherwise would result in higher stck forces as atmospheric pressure increases).

 

Edit: The wing of the Fw-190 A-8 weighs 475kg (mind you it's slightly different form the A-3). With ammunition (110kg for 500 bullets for MG151) and removal of outer MG151 cannons (112.5kg) it's 473.5 kg

Edited February 28, 2016 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[[GOAT]Spoutpout]

Bivalov posted that on russian forum:

 

кстати, у меня в голове постоянно крутится одна цитата из статьи в АиВ 5-2006, и вчера я чет решил прочитать ее заново -

"Участок этот именуется неустановившимся виражом, а его частным случаем и есть вход в вираж из прямолинейного полета. Быстрота входа в неустановившийся вираж зависит от инертности машины, а она в значительной мере от того, есть ли в крыле баки или тяжелые агрегаты. В каждой консоли Ла-5 находился бак на 110 кг бензина, для боевой массы это 83 кг, и добавочный момент инерции, препятствующий энергичному вводу самолета в крен, составлял 249 кг м. У FW 190 все топливо находилось в фюзеляже, зато в крыле располагалось весьма тяжелое вооружение, добавочный момент инерции от которого у FW 190А-3 составлял почти 280 кг-м. а на FW 190А-8 возрос до 405 кг-м. При использовании крыльевых бомбодержателей и подвесных пушечных гондол FW 190 и вовсе становился вялым по крену. Однако строевые летчики сообщали (и это подтвердили испытания трофейного самолета), что на некоторых режимах угловые скорости крена и неустановившегося виража у FW 190А-3 и А-4 лучше, чем у Ла-5. Это объяснялось тем. что у немецкого истребителя были больше относительная площадь элеронов, лучше подобраны передаточные отношения качалок, меньше трение в системе управления. Однако, чтобы выполнить энергичный крен, летчик FW 190 должен был обладать большой физической силой."

 

With google trad it gives:

 

By the way, in my mind constantly turns one quote from an article in the AIV 5-2006, and I even decided to read it again yesterday -

"The site is called the unsteady turns, and its special case is the entrance to the turn of the straight flight entry in Speed. transient turn depends on the inertia of the machine, and to a considerable extent on whether there is in the wing tanks or heavy machines. each console La-5 was tank 110 kg of gasoline, to combat weight is 83 kg, and additional moment of inertia that prevents vigorous commissioning of the aircraft in roll, is 249 kg m. at the FW 190 was all the fuel in the fuselage, but it was located in a wing of a very heavy weaponry, an additional moment of inertia that made ​​FW 190A-3 was almost 280 kg-m. and on the FW 190A- 8 had increased to 405 kg-m. When using the wing bomb racks and hanging cannon gondolas FW 190 and does become sluggish roll. However combatant pilots reported (and this was confirmed by tests of captured aircraft) that in some modes of the angular velocity of the roll and transient bend in FW 190A-3 and A-4 is better than La-5. This is due to the fact. that the German fighter was more relative area of the ailerons, better matched gear ratios rocking, less friction in the control system. However, in order to perform an energetic roll, FW 190 pilot had to have great physical strength."

 

( http://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/2786-obrashenie-jaws2002-fw-190-high-speed-handling/page-12?do=findComment&comment=329102 )

[TX-Gunslinger]

I just found a very good reference to describe 190 A3 Stick relationship to control surface deflection (and 190 A design and construction), btw.   It's  a Design   Analysis   article  that was   originally published in the October, 1944 issue, Volume 43, number 10 of "Aviation".  You can d/l the pdf (has important illustrations) at the bottom of the page. 

 

Link:   http://legendsintheirowntime.com/FW190/FW190_Av_4410_DA.html

 

Some excerpts:

 

~"The German's extensive use of ball bearings is particularly evident in the Focke­Wulf 190 controls, for finely built ball bearing units are used not only throughout the complicated differential bell cranks, but wherever moving parts are joined and in all the electric reduction gears and motors."

 

- "Fabric covered Frise type ailerons are as light in weight as they are reported to be on controls. They are built around a channel monospar with beaded vertical stiffeners to which are riveted upper and lower two layer, metal leading edge skins, the inner ones having beaded stiffeners. Aft of the spar there are 10 conventional ribs, with the familiar rounded gussets, and 10 intercostals of stamped flanged light aluminum alloy. These lightweight intercostals are provided to contour the fabric and allow it to be stitched down with wire."

 

     Comment:  Frise type ailerons reduce adverse yaw (don't need as much rudder to keep nose level while rolling)

 

- "Ailerons are mounted on three self aligning ball bearing hinges at ribs No. 1, 5, and 9. The inboard hinge at rib No. 1 is a cast aluminum fitting into the bottom of which screws a lug and ball bearing collar, running on a tapered pin assembly through the bracket attached to the rear spar. The screw bearing collar is split and the taper jambs it tight when the lock nut is tightened. This makes it possible to get perfect alignment between the hinge, bracket and wing fairing without the necessity of mating parts in jigs."

 

- "The 21 1/4 in. long control stick is mounted in a cast base in the fuselage floor center between bulkheads 3 and 4. Elevator control is via a tube leading to the right side of the cockpit, then via single push-pull rod to just aft of the pilot's seat to a bell crank from which two double 1/4in. cables lead back to a differential bell crank mounted in bulkhead 14, where another short single push-pull rod leads back to a bell crank directly under the stabilizer leading edge and a vertical push-pull rod attached to the elevator horn on the center of the elevator spar."

 

- "Aileron control consists of a tube running forward from the control stick base and actuating a push-pull rod and bell crank set on the front face of the front spar center."

- "Aileron stick gearing is 3.2 deg. to the inch; elevator stick gearing is 4.1 deg. to the inch; and rudder pedal gearing is 6 deg. to the inch."

 

+ ​So 2" deflection on a 21.25' stick gets me 6.4 degrees of aileron deflection at 200/400/700 km/h?.....

 

If all this has been covered somewhere else, please let me know.

Edited February 28, 2016 by TX-Gunslinger

[andyw248]

 

 

I just found a very good reference...

 

What a great find, thanks for sharing! I love this kind of documents, this one (the pdf) will keep me busy for days if not weeks...

[unreasonable]

Thanks.  Everything you said plus I'd add/amplify:

 

 

 

Thanks for interesting additional materials. Not too much of an idiot then, phew.

 

Still not sure if the Lagg and La roll rate should be right up there with the Fw - in the absence of comparable tests it is hard to know how these factors balance out.  I expect it is far too complex for a simple physics calculation to provide an answer. 

 

But I certainly am learning more about aircraft rolling, and learning more stuff is why I lurk in the FM section!

[LLv24_Vilppi]

Here's a relatively easy to understand article about aileron design:

http://faculty.dwc.edu/sadraey/Aileron%20Design.pdf

 

I'm not qualified to judge how accurate the model is (seems to omit at least the effect of wing torsion, so I wonder if it has other simplifications also), but at least the mathematics seem pretty easy to follow.

 

- Note how the 190's ailerons extend all the way to aft portion of the wingtips.   They interact with the wingtip vortices and provide more leverage at the end of the wing (in the roll plane, the velocity of the wing is greatest at the tip.

Would you have a source for this? The article I linked above and quick Google search seems to suggest the opposite. Plus some people seem to say that fluttering (due to wing tip vortices) is a possible problem with ailerons extending to the tip of the wings (I believe these were RC people discussing the matter, so I have no idea how pronounced this problem is in bigger, heavier planes). I'd be curious to learn more.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Some more data on the 190 / Lagg-3 (still nto enought to compare them technicly but I'm gathering):

 

- Lagg-3 has 24° of up and 25° of down deflection (based upon technical drawing)

 

- Lagg-3 ser.35  has a wing loading of 1759.34 N/m² at TO weight

 

- Fw-190 A-3 has a wing loading of 2066.53 N/m² at TO weight

 

-> Wing loading relation Fw-190 : Lagg-3 is 1.1746 : 1

 

So the 190 apparently has a higher wing loading which is favourable for higher roll rates but not a final saying. Whats important is the aileroun area and wing weight of the Lagg-3 (or La-5).

[LuftManu]

This post in really good! thanks for all the info

 

One question: The new data, posted by the devs on the latest DD, is for actual aircraft? or is what is going to be in the next update?

 

thanks

[JtD]

I'm pretty sure it's for the current aircraft.

[Holtzauge]

Been skiing for a few days now and what a pleasure it was to return and see that this thread is still in pristine condition.

 

Lots of good info posted here. Some was known to me but some was new so thanks to all who have contributed their thoughts, links and excerpts. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it all and I guess many of us learned something. Would be nice if all this could set the standard and become rule rather than exception.

 

Pity people have been so confrontational in other threads lately though. And yes, I think people is the right word because based on what I have seen posted I can’t see anyone making a fair claim to the high ground. Just hope everyone can chill down and discuss things more objectively in future. I really appreciate the developers efforts to inform the community and develop the sim but I also know there are very dedicated and committed community members who just want to help. Some are aeronautical engineers, others civilian or fighter pilots and yet others are autodidacts and/or aviation buffs who have amassed an impressive level of knowledge and insight. I learn things regularly here and in other forums and I think we all can. All we need to do is listen to each other and show some mutual respect and let everybody count or else nobody counts. Would be a pity to chuck something that has the potential to be a win-win situation out the window.
 
Maybe that came out a bit von oben. If so apologies for the lecture. However, can’t say I feel too motivated contributing to the roll or climb rate discussions right now though so I’ll just return to the slopes, stay frosty and leave y’all in peace....

Edited March 1, 2016 by Holtzauge

[SR-F_Winger]

Been skiing for a few days now and what a pleasure it was to return and see that this thread is still in pristine condition.

 

Lots of good info posted here. Some was known to me but some was new so thanks to all who have contributed their thoughts, links and excerpts. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it all and I guess many of us learned something. Would be nice if all this could set the standard and become rule rather than exception.

 

Pity people have been so confrontational in other threads lately though. And yes, I think people is the right word because based on what I have seen posted I can’t see anyone making a fair claim to the high ground. Just hope everyone can chill down and discuss things more objectively in future. I really appreciate the developers efforts to inform the community and develop the sim but I also know there are very dedicated and committed community members who just want to help. Some are aeronautical engineers, others civilian or fighter pilots and yet others are autodidacts and/or aviation buffs who have amassed an impressive level of knowledge and insight. I learn things regularly here and in other forums and I think we all can. All we need to do is listen to each other and show some mutual respect and let everybody count or else nobody counts. Would be a pity to chuck something that has the potential to be a win-win situation out the window.

 

Maybe that came out a bit von oben. If so apologies for the lecture. However, can’t say I feel too motivated contributing to the roll or climb rate discussions right now though so I’ll just return to the slopes, stay frosty and leave y’all in peace....

Just not some of its biggest contributors. AFAIK Hairy is banned.

[GP*]

Just not some of its biggest contributors. AFAIK Hairy is banned.

If Hairy is banned, I hope another one or two got banned as well.

[MK_RED13]

If Hairy is banned, I hope another one or two got banned as well.

Another with "banned" is Kwaitek... his tongue had better rollrate than devs...

Edited March 4, 2016 by MK_RED13