Does the FW190 FM need reevaluation?

[MadisonV44]

FM change more often than we think (without being documented sometimes). At some patch there are silent tweaking, sometime directly on the plane FM itself, maybe sometimes coming from the global physics change of the game, but I often noticed changed with the FW. Last undocumented change was the 2.0 release. It was great change in maneuverability and armament efficiency. The day after we had a hot fix ... all was gone.

 

If the FM change I bet there will be no announcements for that. This will be a silent one    

Just hope and cross finger so this change will be durable in time (if it happens ... )

[Holtzauge]

Most likely the A-3 will see a review by the developers when they are preparing to put the A-5 into the game - just like they have plans to look at the "old" Bf 109 flight models.

 

Now THAT would be a way forward that could resolve this whole issue. Icing on the cake would be a confirmation from the devs that this is in the works!

[Haza]

To be honest, yes. If the majority of a game are unsatisfied with a part of the game, why a dev shouldn't change it? If you are a dev or a game studio or a car manufacturer for example and people don't want to have your product for some reason, wouldn't it be clever to satisfy them?

 

I guess the car manufacturer could always put some software into the car to trick the people into thinking that they had a good car!

Now that would be clever!

[Stig]

 

Agree 100% and in addition to being highly motivated, many of those who are active here and have consequently participated in the poll are enthusiasts well read up on WW2 history, pilot accounts, flight trials etc which is another thing to bear in mind when evaluating the poll numbers.

 

History can be interpreted in many ways depending on perspective; pilot accounts are subjective and flight trials can also give varying results, which we should also bear in mind.

[Holtzauge]

History can be interpreted in many ways depending on perspective; pilot accounts are subjective and flight trials can also give varying results, which we should also bear in mind.

 

Definitely, and I don't think anyone disagrees with that. So the more pilot accounts, reports and flight trials you have read the better because after a while you begin to see a pattern and can recognize those that stick out from the majority. For example, I have read a very convincing pilot account by Erwin Leykauf in which he insists he can outturn Spitfires with a Me-109. However, when I weigh that in relation to all the other pilot accounts that differ I see an anecdotal pattern that suggests that the Spitfire outturns the Me-109. So my belief is that you can use anecdotal evidence even if there are different opinions as long as you have a sufficient number to see a pattern and recognize the outliers. In fact, the same is also true for hard performance figures like speed or climb rates, these will vary and you need to see a pattern in the numbers to find which are representative and which are the outliers.

[SvAF/F16_Goblin]

While on the topic, perhaps an "experten" on the FW190 could explain to me why it is that it always snap over the left wing?

If I bank Right and gently increase the tightness and stick pull (50 cm extension on a warthog) it flicks instantly 180 degree left roll when limit is exceeded.

If I bank Left and gently increases the tightness as mentioned above it flicks instantly the same 180 degree left roll.

 

In the first case I'm suddenly banking left and in the second case I'm suddenly banking right. And in most cases I can't catch it and stalls violently.

I Really want to know how it comes it always snaps over the left wing no matter what scenario I try.

 

Rudder kept straight, the manoeuvre with right and left respective wing-tip pointing towards ground.

Edited September 17, 2016 by I./ZG1_Goblin

[707shap_Srbin]

History can be interpreted in many ways depending on perspective; pilot accounts are subjective and flight trials can also give varying results, which we should also bear in mind.

 

Exactly.

Flight characters of each aircraft strongly depend of expirience and flight mastery of a pilot.

 

When I interveiwed Hero of Soviet Union, polk. Alexandr Mikhailovich Chislov (21 pers + 6 shared), he told me about one of his dogfights. While flying along with his wingmen on a free hunt during Battle of Kursk, he met two Fw190's, at the same level. Chislov ordered his wingman to attack enemy #2, and attacked enemy leader. Soon battle splitted, #2 vs #2, and leader vs leader. Sovet wingman soon shot down his opponent, but, because he lost his wingleader, had to return to his airfield.

 

But Chislov himself in his La-5 (not F or FN, just 3 fuel-tanked razorback La-5) found his Fw190A opponent as a perfect expert, who knows his aircraft very good. They reached 6km height, then went almost to the deckm then again to 6rm, made all possible maneuveres, but nobody could give even a burst of fire. This fight lasted over 30 minutes, and, seeng at once, two big clouds, two pilots decided to disengage - each jumped into different cloud

 

Chislov said he landed covered with sweat, and could not exit his aircraft without help. What to say, JG51 or JG54 pilot of that Fw190 was a real master.

[unreasonable]

Eek - forgot to quote - replying to Goblin's post above.

 

No experten, but I will put some wild guesses up for them to demolish... prop in Fw190 A series rotates to the right from pilot's view, so torque tends to turn the plane against this rotation, ie to the left. Once you have stalled - ie stopped flying, there is less resistance to this turning force. Additionally, the slipstream from the prop is asymmetric, and perhaps exaggerate this effect. May also depend on what you are doing with your rudder?

 

 

Edited September 17, 2016 by unreasonable

[SvAF/F16_Goblin]

Rudder straight and right/left wingtip towards ground and very gently increasing stick force until flick comes.

[unreasonable]

If your rudder is straight your turn is not co-ordinated and you may be yawing in the same direction in both cases, which would make the slipstream asymmetry worse?

 

You need a real prop pilot here - you might be better off starting a new thread with your question, people who like talking about flying in general may not be reading this one....interesting question, btw.

[Stig]

Definitely, and I don't think anyone disagrees with that. So the more pilot accounts, reports and flight trials you have read the better because after a while you begin to see a pattern and can recognize those that stick out from the majority. For example, I have read a very convincing pilot account by Erwin Leykauf in which he insists he can outturn Spitfires with a Me-109. However, when I weigh that in relation to all the other pilot accounts that differ I see an anecdotal pattern that suggests that the Spitfire outturns the Me-109. So my belief is that you can use anecdotal evidence even if there are different opinions as long as you have a sufficient number to see a pattern and recognize the outliers. In fact, the same is also true for hard performance figures like speed or climb rates, these will vary and you need to see a pattern in the numbers to find which are representative and which are the outliers.

 

Does eveyone read multiple pilot accounts, reports and flight trials? Or do the majority read the headlines as in 'This plane is techically superior to ours' or 'These guys are full of confidence, they stick around and fight'. Quotes from memory, so not word for word.

[SvAF/F16_Goblin]

OK, I started a new thread here http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/25270-aerodynamical-question/?do=findComment&comment=390655 about the left wing drop and it might be something funny about it.

It seems that we cannot get the right wing to stall under power in any situation which might not be correct.

Further testing might be in order by people with more skills and knowledge about this.

 

A quote from Lange says:

A dangerous characteristic of the Focke-Wulf was that in very tight high G-turns it would sometimes, suddenly and with no warning, whip into a turn into the opposite direction. In a dogfight or near the ground, this could have a very bad result.

 

That statement seems to indicate that in a tight high g turn to the left it would flick to the right and not as it is now to the left.

Edited September 17, 2016 by I./ZG1_Goblin

[F/JG300_Gruber]

A quote from Lange says:

A dangerous characteristic of the Focke-Wulf was that in very tight high G-turns it would sometimes, suddenly and with no warning, whip into a turn into the opposite direction. In a dogfight or near the ground, this could have a very bad result.

 

That statement seems to indicate that in a tight high g turn to the left it would flick to the right and not as it is now to the left.

 

The stalling speed of the Fw 190A-4 in clean configuration was 127 mph (204 km/h) and the stall came suddenly and virtually without warning, the port wing dropping so violently that the aircraft almost inverted itself. In fact, if the German fighter was pulled into a g stall in a right turn, it would flick out into the opposite bank and an incipient spin was the inevitable outcome if the pilot did not have its wits about him.

The stall in landing was quite different, there being intense pre-stall buffeting before the starboard wing dropped comparatively gently at 102 mph (164 km/h).

 

Extract from Wings of the Luftwaffe by Eric Brown, McDonald and Jane's, 1977, p.80 to p.87

 

What this indicates more to me is that on a high G-turn, the plane should stall suddenly and with no warning. ​At the moment, in a high G turn, it gives a lot of warning with a strong buffeting that wasn't there prior patch. There was a very faint one but you really had to pay attention to notice. So to me the airfoil behaviour near the critical AoA is obviously much less accurate than it was prior the modification of the fineness ratio.

 

Even if all other parameters (top speed and climb rate at various alt) seems to be almost spot on now, this is still very embarrassing because the wulf is a plane in which the pilot have to exploit the edges of the flight enveloppe to manoeuver somewhat effectively without being limited to hit once and run away tactics.

 

AFAIK buffeting generates a loss of lift, and an increase in drag, hence a noticeable energy bleeding when it happens and a loss of turning potential.

Exactly what people are complaining about the current FM​ and the only single gripe I have against the plane as it is now. I don't know if the current 15.5 critical AoA is realistic or not (I leave that bit to the experts) but one thing for sure, buffeting should not be occuring anywhere before the stall in clean configuration and wings should keep generating lift up to that point.

 

 

Cure that high AoA incorrect behavior and you will have a very convincing FM.

 

Then only the other complains about her can be relegated to L2P issues.

Edited September 17, 2016 by F/JG300_Gruber

[SvAF/F16_Goblin]

I don't have a problem with a sudden and violent stall and with regards to buffeting and warning I can't say I have that actually.

Could be that I have turned off all head shaking and cinematic effects. My question is that it seems we cannot get a right wing stall at any situation.

It always stall over left wing and that might be correct but it puzzles me. In regard to AoA you might be correct.

 

The anecdotal references is just that, anecdotal, but if I had written about something like that I would have said "it always violently stalls over the left wing"

if that always was the case and not described it as Lange with a "sometimes, suddenly and with no warning, whip into a turn into the opposite direction".

 

That to me, right or wrong, says to me it could go both ways depending on AoA and situation.

[Holtzauge]

For those who still think the Fw-190 post stall behaviour is correct: Please either find a pilot account or flight trial report that mentions that the IRL Fw-190 could get into the superstall like state we see in BoS today. If you can’t find a pilot account or flight trial report, then an explanation based on flight mechanics would also do the trick.

 

I have studied aerodynamics and flight mechanics so I do know of exactly the same type of superstall behaviour IRL as we see in the BoS only not connected to the Fw-190: Some aircraft have two stable regions of flight: One is the design range meaning roughly from 0 to around 20 degrees aoa. In this region the aircraft has a negative pitching moment derivate dCm/dAlfa which we recognize as controllable in that if we move the stick back and forth from the balance point the aircraft will respond as expected. Now on certain aircraft as you pass 20 degrees aoa the dCm/dAlfa goes from negative to positive. This means that when you get here the aircraft becomes unstable meaning even if you hold the stick still, your aoa will increase. This pushes you into another region where the dCm/dAlfa is again negative meaning you are now stable again. The good news is that you are now in stable state again which may feel good because you are no longer pitching up, but the bad news is your aoa is now in the region of 40 to 90 degrees and your elevator is close to ineffective. To get out of this you need to reinforce the small pendular aoa motions the aircraft is doing. If you are successful doing this you will eventually be able to nose over and recover. Problem is that this may require prodigious amounts of altitude which you may not have.

 

So while the above described phenomena does occur, I have only heard about it in connection to low aspect ratio delta winged jets that rely on bound vortex type lift as exemplified by  the J35 Draken fighter, never in connection to a longitudinally stable conventional plane that relies on circulation type lift like the Fw-190. However, when I fly the BoS Fw-190 I can sometimes get into this kind of jet like state. How do I know? Well, on a number of occasions I’ve been dumb enough to get caught from below by a prophanging VVScopter who got my engine smoking. While not always appreciating this at the time, this actually had the inadvertent but positive effect of providing me with my very own Il-2 smoke windtunnel!

 

What this impromptu windtunnel has shown me, is that the BoS Fw-190 can fall in a superstall like state, i.e. not spinning because there is very limited movement in yaw. So sometimes it will fall flat as a pancake with the smoke coming from the engine like a chimney stack going straight up and I have my very own Fw-190 superstall. So IMHO the current Fw-190 post stall behaviour is more reminiscient of a jet fighter than a WW2 fighter plane which is why I voted yes in response to the question if this should be re evaluated.

Edited September 18, 2016 by Holtzauge

[Turban]

I'm gonna ask again.

Can you show us this "super-stall" ? Demonstrate that it exists and that it is what you say it is ?  I've ask for people to show what they think is wrong with the stall for a while now. And still nothing. Maybe it's not that common or maybe it's not what it's being said it is. Maybe it's just words. Super-words.

[Holtzauge]

I'm gonna ask again.

 

Can you show us this "super-stall" ? Demonstrate that it exists and that it is what you say it is ?  I've ask for people to show what they think is wrong with the stall for a while now. And still nothing. Maybe it's not that common or maybe it's not what it's being said it is. Maybe it's just words. Super-words.

 

Well, maybe you need to explore this part of the Fw-190 flight envelope yourself Turban, from what you have posted so far it looks more like how happy you are with the Fw-190 and what a super airplane it is if flown properly which as far as I have seen you preaching is keeping it fast and only limited manovering so how would you know? Maybe you should investigate the post stall behaviour a bit yourself so you actually know what you are talking about before brushing it off like you do?

[F/JG300_Gruber]

For those who still think the Fw-190 post stall behaviour is correct: Please either find a pilot account or flight trial report that mentions that the IRL Fw-190 could get into the superstall like state we see in BoS today. If you can’t find a pilot account or flight trial report, then an explanation based on flight mechanics would also do the trick.

 

I have studied aerodynamics and flight mechanics so I do know of exactly the same type of superstall behaviour IRL as we see in the BoS only not connected to the Fw-190: Some aircraft have two stable regions of flight: One is the design range meaning roughly from 0 to around 20 degrees aoa. In this region the aircraft has a negative pitching moment derivate dCm/dAlfa which we recognize as controllable in that if we move the stick back and forth from the balance point the aircraft will respond as expected. Now on certain aircraft as you pass 20 degrees aoa the dCm/dAlfa goes from negative to positive. This means that when you get here the aircraft becomes unstable meaning even if you hold the stick still, your aoa will increase. This pushes you into another region where the dCm/dAlfa is again negative meaning you are now stable again. The good news is that you are now in stable state again which may feel good because you are no longer pitching up, but the bad news is your aoa is now in the region of 40 to 90 degrees and your elevator is close to ineffective. To get out of this you need to reinforce the small pendular aoa motions the aircraft is doing. If you are successful doing this you will eventually be able to nose over and recover. Problem is that this may require prodigious amounts of altitude which you may not have.

 

So while the above described phenomena does occur, I have only heard about it in connection to low aspect ratio delta winged jets that rely on bound vortex type lift as exemplified by  the J35 Draken fighter, never in connection to a longitudinally stable conventional plane that relies on circulation type lift like the Fw-190. However, when I fly the BoS Fw-190 I can sometimes get into this kind of jet like state. How do I know? Well, on a number of occasions I’ve been dumb enough to get caught from below by a prophanging VVScopter who got my engine smoking. While not always appreciating this at the time, this actually had the inadvertent but positive effect of providing me with my very own Il-2 smoke windtunnel!

 

What this impromptu windtunnel has shown me, is that the BoS Fw-190 can fall in a superstall like state, i.e. not spinning because there is very limited movement in yaw. So sometimes it will fall flat as a pancake with the smoke coming from the engine like a chimney stack going straight up and I have my very own Fw-190 superstall. So IMHO the current Fw-190 post stall behaviour is more reminiscient of a jet fighter than a WW2 fighter plane which is why I voted yes in response to the question if this should be re evaluated.

Hi Holtzauge,

 

I don't know if that is really related or not to the behavior you describe but here's another quote from (again) Eric Brown that seems relevant to me :

 

​The elevators proved to be heavy at all speeds and particularly so above 350mph (563kph) when they became heavy enough to impose a tactical restriction on the fighter as regards pull-out from low level dives. This heaviness was accentuated because of the nose down pitch which occurred at high speeds when trimmed for low speeds. The critical speed at which this change in trim occurred was around 220mph (354kph) and could be easily gauged in turns. At lower speeds, the German fighter had a tendency to tighten up the turn and I found it necessary to apply slight forward pressure on the stick, but above the previously-mentionned critical figure, the changeover called for some backward pressure to hold the Focke Wulf in the turn.

 

​​That is from his flight with the A4/U8 variant.

Edited September 18, 2016 by F/JG300_Gruber

[Turban]

Well, maybe you need to explore this part of the Fw-190 flight envelope yourself Turban, from what you have posted so far it looks more like how happy you are with the Fw-190 and what a super airplane it is if flown properly which as far as I have seen you preaching is keeping it fast and only limited manovering so how would you know? Maybe you should investigate the post stall behaviour a bit yourself so you actually know what you are talking about before brushing it off like you do?

 

lol.

 

I ask you to provide video evidence and...this, THIS is your answer ??? 

 

That's really hilarious.  Is that what they taught you in school ? If someone ask you to prove something you tell them to go find it themselves? 

Bottom line is, you have no proof, you can't produce proof, we will never see proof,. It's all talk.

 

There is no such thing as "super-stall".  Your answer and the fact that you will not provide evidence is proof enough.

[JtD]

There is no such thing as "super-stall".

This angle of attack, from 6km into the ground.

bla85.zip

Edited September 18, 2016 by JtD

[Turban]

This angle of attack, from 6km into the ground.

 

 

Give video evidence then.  A picture ? Really ? A picture ??  It can say anything. 

 

Imagine that: A picture of a black crater on the ground :  "Yes. Yes. This is proof that the 190 is porked and has unrecoverable spin. Yes yes. Proof is here Yes !"

 

That's what it is so far... 

[unreasonable]

If it (JtD's picture) can say anything, I am curious as to how Turban thinks such a picture can be generated unless by a super stall.

 

I thought those coloured smokes might come in handy somehow.

[SvAF/F16_Goblin]

Smoke going almost straight up from a falling plane, and you (Turban) says it's not evidence of a "super stall".

Please enlighten us how that scenario would unfold any other way.

Edited September 18, 2016 by I./ZG1_Goblin

[Holtzauge]

Hi Holtzauge,

 

I don't know if that is really related or not to the behavior you describe but here's another quote from (again) Eric Brown that seems relevant to me :

 

​The elevators proved to be heavy at all speeds and particularly so above 350mph (563kph) when they became heavy enough to impose a tactical restriction on the fighter as regards pull-out from low level dives. This heaviness was accentuated because of the nose down pitch which occurred at high speeds when trimmed for low speeds. The critical speed at which this change in trim occurred was around 220mph (354kph) and could be easily gauged in turns. At lower speeds, the German fighter had a tendency to tighten up the turn and I found it necessary to apply slight forward pressure on the stick, but above the previously-mentionned critical figure, the changeover called for some backward pressure to hold the Focke Wulf in the turn.

 

​​That is from his flight with the A4/U8 variant.

 

Yes, I have read about that as well when it comes to the Fw-190 but this tightening up occurs before stall as far as I have understood so as I understand if you roll over into a turn and initially pull the stick back to get into the turn, after that you need to keep a forward pressure on the stick to avoid the plane tightening up the turn by itself. Now as I understood it all of this occurs in the normal flying regime i.e. prior to stall. The superstall phenomena I was talking about occurs after you have stalled, so in case you no longer have attached flow over the wings.

This angle of attack, from 6km into the ground.

 

Thanks JtD, measuring that on screen it looks like around 55 degrees aoa.

 

Is that the new wing tip smoke I have heard about? How do you activate that? Seems simpler than trying to get a Yak to bust my engine to get my smoke for my impromptu IL- 2 "wind tunnel"

[9./JG27golani79]

Is that the new wing tip smoke I have heard about? How do you activate that? Seems simpler than trying to get a Yak to bust my engine to get my smoke for my impromptu IL- 2 "wind tunnel"

 

Just take the "Aerobatic Loadout" - after that you can enable smoke with the bomb release or "B" key.

[SvAF/F16_Goblin]

Super stall behaviour of a J35 Draken

 

Edited September 18, 2016 by I./ZG1_Goblin

[Holtzauge]

Just take the "Aerobatic Loadout" - after that you can enable smoke with the bomb release or "B" key.

Thnx!

[Turban]

Why can't we get a track if it is real?

 

I think I know why. But it's interesting to see all the excuses that are being made not to provide one...

Smoke going almost straight up from a falling plane, and you (Turban) says it's not evidence of a "super stall".

Please enlighten us how that scenario would unfold any other way.

 

You can easily put the plane in that position for a very brief period of time. Of course it won't stay like that. But that would go against their theory. That's why they show a picture and not a full track

[Caudron431]

1) The only reason that anyone is asking for a re-evaluation is because we know the developers are doing a good job, on the whole. If they were not, no-one would bother, they would simply leave without comment.

 

2) The poll is an indication of dissatisfaction, no where has anyone asked them to revise anything "according to a poll".

 

3) Many people want the devs to look at the calculations done by some forum members, and at least explain in some detail why their results differ. The fact that they have been so far reluctant to do that is the source of the dissatisfaction.

 

4) As to aggressive and bitter comments - I agree that some complainants express themselves in this way, and that is regrettable. Accusing people of "black mailing", however, as you have done pretty much takes first prize for aggressive and bitter language. If people get fed up with aspects of the game of course they will go elsewhere: this is just a simple fact. And for most people with other things to do in their lives, Il-2, or any other computer video game, is just another product, incomprehensible though that may be to you.

 

 

 

1/ You have a very strange way to say that devs are doing a great job on the whole, or perhaps you like to forget what you wrote when it doesn't suit you immediate rethorical needs anymore lol ( you wrote "Experience on this issue, and many other game design issues, shows that this simply does not work very well. Perhaps the noise on the forum will die away, but only because some of the people who care about the issue have given up and are now playing something else."Post114).

 

2/ But did we need it then? It is not as if there hasn't been tons of Fw190A3 closed topics and banned people these times, is it ? Everyone knows about the issue: you may not be the majority but you sure are loud... BTW,  what exactly can't you understand in the sentence :"What will come next if we start this? A new feature like "Make a poll to revise you favorite aircraft FM" in my post?" 

 

3/ I want this too, it is the poll thing i'm not happy with, because to me this isn't a good way to have things done. But forget it, it is just my opinion and i wanted to express it.

 

4/ I'm happy you agree, but i want to precise that i don't accuse "people", but actually you and your likes, of blackmailing, because that is just what you were doing, and pathetically denying it by hiding behind words like "people" really makes you look  faint hearted, as i alredy said, but also takes the first prize of bad faith language. 

 

 

And once again are wrong in that WW2 combat simulator is just a mere product: most of the guys that play it have a real passion for these kind of games and invest a lot of time and money in it, they speak together about it, learn of it etc... They come everyday and post on these boards as you should know ... In fact these passionated people will be very sad if the sim would fail and the genre disappear.

 

But isn't there bad faith in you post again, because after all, if IL2 is s just a mere product to you, then why the hell are you posting here, wasting you time and energy (what is more with somebody that agrees that we need an official statement by the devs about the calculations done by some knowledgeable members here) instead of doing the fantastic and unbelievable things you surely daily do in your life?   I want you to stay in this community, no question, but if you have more intesresting things to do in you free time, then do them and be happy my friend.

Edited September 18, 2016 by Yak9Micha

[9./JG27golani79]

Why can't we get a track if it is real?

 

I think I know why. But it's interesting to see all the excuses that are being made not to provide one...

 

You can easily put the plane in that position for a very brief period of time. Of course it won't stay like that. But that would go against their theory. That's why they show a picture and not a full track

 

Maybe you wanna check out the track file which was attached to the initial post that included the picture ...

[Holtzauge]

Super stall behaviour of a J35 Draken

 

 

The Draken could also perform a cobra manouver if you knew what you were doing (long before the Su-27 ever did!).

 

Cobras performed from around 1:55 into the clip:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqiDEcfSnXs

 

The clip is also worth watching because of the music: Someone had the good taste to add one of my absolute favourites: Beethoven’s piano concerto no 5 op73.

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

Why can't we get a track if it is real? I think I know why. But it's interesting to see all the excuses that are being made not to provide one...

[Edited]

Edited September 19, 2016 by Bearcat

[Turban]

Maybe you wanna check out the track file which was attached to the initial post that included the picture ...

 

 

Yeah where is the beginning ?  What happens when you try to get out of it instead of doing what you can to stay in it ?

[Turban]

It's actually pretty hilarious as often.

[Turban]

Let me explain a few things.

That's not a "superstall" (OMG    I'm still lmao on this one.)

 

That's just the plane being in a deep stall. Easy stuff. Pretty sure almost any plane could go into one. Including airliners . So all that : ""no manufacturer would release a plane like that"" ......... yeah..ok ... 

 

About the track. You'll notice several things.

 

- It starts at 2300 meters. Not 6000 m as it was claimed by the author. The plane didn't go from 6000 m to the ground like that. It probably took a while to put the plane in that deep stall in the first place. And it was 100 % deliberate. Of course, showing it was out of the question...  

 

-Talking about deliberate, everything was done to be able to put (and keep !!!) the plane in this position . Starting with the stabilizer at max pitch up.    ,And constant pitch up input.   (Pilot obviously wanted to crash  )

 

-It's harder to get into it than to get out of it. Just release the controls, even reduce power.. It gets out of it real  easy. If you're spinning, then just add some counter rudder.



ALL THIS DRAMA ................ ALL THIS TALK ABOUT UNRECOVERABLE SUPERSTALL FROM OUTER SPACE ...

 

A big fabrication that's what it is.... 

 

And that is why you need to ask for more than a picture...

Edited September 18, 2016 by Turban

[unreasonable]

1/ You have a very strange way to say that devs are doing a great job on the whole, or perhaps you like to forget what you wrote when it doesn't suit you immediate rethorical needs anymore lol ( you wrote "Experience on this issue, and many other game design issues, shows that this simply does not work very well. Perhaps the noise on the forum will die away, but only because some of the people who care about the issue have given up and are now playing something else."Post114).

 

 

Unlocks, stripping RPG elements out of SP campaign, no mods. There are reasons why the take up of BoS/BoM has been poor enough to require a change of direction, and I believe that people leaving the game because of these issues is a fact. edit - but in terms of graphics, maps, and most importantly feeling of flight, they are doing a good job.

 

 

2/ But did we need it then? It is not as if there hasn't been tons of Fw190A3 closed topics and banned people these times, is it ? Everyone knows about the issue: you may not be the majority but you sure are loud... BTW,  what exactly can't you understand in the sentence :"What will come next if we start this? A new feature like "Make a poll to revise you favorite aircraft FM" in my post?" 

 

 

Why not? If people feel strongly about it, who is to say that they should not express themselves in this way? So you do not like it - tough luck. There are plenty of things in this game and community that I expect all of us dislike: that is the nature of a community, we all have to put up with some things we do not like in order to get the bits we do like.

 

 

4/ I'm happy you agree, but i want to precise that i don't accuse "people", but actually you and your likes, of blackmailing, because that is just what you were doing, and pathetically denying it by hiding behind words like "people" really makes you look  faint hearted, as i alredy said, but also takes the first prize of bad faith language. 

 

 

Do you think the developers were blackmailing when they said that without better Steam reviews the title was in danger of folding? Or when Jason recently said that he needed everyone to get on board with BoK and the collector planes to keep the series alive? I do not (despite my "shoot the dog" picture, which was in case you had missed it, a joke!) They are simply stating the facts: collective actions have collective consequences. 

 

Do you really think I am so stupid that I think that my own personal decision on buying anything swings any developer decision? Actually, given your misrepresentation of what I had said throughout, perhaps you do.

 

 

And once again are wrong in that WW2 combat simulator is just a mere product: most of the guys that play it have a real passion for these kind of games and invest a lot of time and money in it, they speak together about it, learn of it etc... They come everyday and post on these boards as you should know ... In fact these passionated people will be very sad if the sim would fail and the genre disappear.

 

They will do all of that as long as they are enjoying themselves. If they are not, they have every right to say so and why, preferably without being accused of bad faith or blackmailing.

 

 

 

But isn't there bad faith in you post again, because after all, if IL2 is s just a mere product to you, then why the hell are you posting here, wasting you time and energy (what is more with somebody that agrees that we need an official statement by the devs about the calculations done by some knowledgeable members here) instead of doing the fantastic and unbelievable things you surely daily do in your life?   I want you to stay in this community, no question, but if you have more intesresting things to do in you free time, then do them and be happy my friend.

 

My first instinct is to tell you that my motivations for posting are none of your business, but...

 

The reason I bother with these posts - apart from the pure mental exercise - is because it bothers me when people post some issue or concern and then are barraged with posts saying, in effect, not that someone has a different view, but that the original poster should not be saying that in the first place. Many forums get like that sometimes, CFS forums are worse than average, but this forum has been consistently the worst I can recall - at least since the old Pilots' Cocktail Lounge, which was pure anarchy.

 

btw, if you really want someone to stay in a community accusing them of blackmailing, faint-heartedness and bad faith is a strange way of showing it. You might want to go away and look up "ad-hominem fallacy" as well.

Edited September 18, 2016 by unreasonable

[JtD]

The Draken could also perform a cobra manouver if you knew what you were doing (long before the Su-27 ever did!).

 

Cobras performed from around 1:55 into the clip:

Still a couple of decades late...

 

[Holtzauge]

Still a couple of decades late...

 

 

Aw shucks.....And here I was thinking us Swedes beat the Russkies to it only to yet again being foiled by teutonic engineering......

[JG13_opcode]

[Edited]

Edited September 19, 2016 by Bearcat

[Turban]

Turban is like a climate-change denier or a conspiracy theorist.

 

 

It's exactly the opposite.

 

And btw, pretending the FW has a crazy unrecoverable "superstall " then fabricate ingame "proof" to make it look real, in the end, is attempting to spread false information, and that is a bannable offense...

Edited September 18, 2016 by Turban