P-40 turn rate/Flight model check

[ZachariasX]

Regarding the size of the P-40 elevator section. I can only speculate, but I guess Don Berlin was aware of the fact that the plane might be prone to comarably large trim shifts. Making the elevator larger is one way to bring more stability to the plane. As we know, even that was not enough and only lenghtening the tail section helped the pilot fly other than "hands on TRIM and stick".

[BlitzPig_EL]

Do remember that the wings, stabilizers, etc...  of the Hawk 81 and 87, are the same as the Hawk 75 (P36).

That aircraft of course had a shorter nose owing to it's R-1830 radial engine.

 

The P40 did not spring into being from out of nowhere, it was a development of the P36, so it's real life maneuverability came from it's roots as a mid 30's aircraft design, even though high dive speed was part of it's design as well.

 

Somehow I think that some of the built in prejudice that the P40 was not a good turning, maneuverable aircraft stems from it's performance vs. the kite like Japanese opponents it faced in Asia, and it seems that trying to prove it was a poor turning aircraft is the point of some of this discussion.  I hope I am wrong here.

 

The Curtiss designers knew what they were doing, and designed a very good aircraft given the design parameters of the time, and that time is 1934.  They chose a wing profile that gave high lift and great strength, and also managed to make it one of the best rolling aircraft of it's time. 

 

This is historical fact.

 

Why all the math I see bandied about by amateur aircraft designers in this thread cannot come to grips with that is beyond me

[Dakpilot]

The only point I have, is when compared with 109E7 with similar HP the P-40 has 800kg weight disadvantage, science says something has got to give, the wing profile was not a miracle that shrugged off 800kg

 

The flying characteristics (in game) seem not 'pilot friendly' and in normal flight regimes it appears not very accessible to the sim Pilot, which is a major problem that needs to be looked at (if it is a problem)

 

As good as an aircraft it was (P-40E model) it is seriously outclassed as a pure fighter by 1942 and nothing will change that, all it's great history was mainly as a fighter bomber support aircraft, if used like that it excels, with slightly more accessible flight envelope it will become more 'fun' and still be able to hold it's own occasionally with a fair pilot

 

Fortunately or unfortunately we got the E model because it historically appeared at Stalingrad battle

 

Maybe it is just me but some people seem to expect more from it. at least that is what I take from many of the discussions (not the math ones)

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Farky]

Regarding the size of the P-40 elevator section. I can only speculate, but I guess Don Berlin was aware of the fact that the plane might be prone to comarably large trim shifts. Making the elevator larger is one way to bring more stability to the plane. As we know, even that was not enough and only lenghtening the tail section helped the pilot fly other than "hands on TRIM and stick".

 

I believe that extension of the tail section was not associated with the elevator at all, it was the cure for issues with rudder. Tail was indeed longer, however the elevator remained in its original position. Curtiss basically just shifted the rudder of P-40 more rearward.

[ZachariasX]

Do remember that the wings, stabilizers, etc...  of the Hawk 81 and 87, are the same as the Hawk 75 (P36).

That aircraft of course had a shorter nose owing to it's R-1830 radial engine.

 

The P40 did not spring into being from out of nowhere, it was a development of the P36, so it's real life maneuverability came from it's roots as a mid 30's aircraft design, even though high dive speed was part of it's design as well.

 

Somehow I think that some of the built in prejudice that the P40 was not a good turning, maneuverable aircraft stems from it's performance vs. the kite like Japanese opponents it faced in Asia, and it seems that trying to prove it was a poor turning aircraft is the point of some of this discussion.  I hope I am wrong here.

 

The Curtiss designers knew what they were doing, and designed a very good aircraft given the design parameters of the time, and that time is 1934.  They chose a wing profile that gave high lift and great strength, and also managed to make it one of the best rolling aircraft of it's time. 

 

This is historical fact.

 

Why all the math I see bandied about by amateur aircraft designers in this thread cannot come to grips with that is beyond me

I'm sorry giving you that impression. Just to be clear, I'm not asking for any revision on th in-game FM, nor would I spend a second in questioning opinions of other people about the matter. If you referred to my comment on the requirement for re-trim in the P-40, then maybe I should have added to say that I was paraphrasing Frank Tallmans comment on his P-40.

 

I would however like to understand what is happening in aerodynamic terms to put anectotal knowledge into context. I'm also sorry if you find my attempt in learning more and understanding tedious. But that's just the way it is, as "knowing for sure" won't do for me. Anyone can know things. You can know what happened last night in Sweden, but understanding the nature of it such that you will be able making a correct prediciton of what will happen tomorrow night is a different sport. Besides, personally speaking, I would consider the metrics of judging an aircraft to be how well it flies, not how amateurish or not the designer was.

[Scojo]

I just bought this plane. I like it for what it is. I hope that any defects in the FM can be found and worked out if there are any. Thanks for doing nitty gritty work for the cause, Kai_Lae

[BlitzPig_EL]

ZachariasX, my post is not aimed at you, or anyone in particular.  Sorry if you took it that way.

 

It's more the frustration at the circular nature of the discussion at this point.  All the math in the world won't prove anything without having the correct numbers to plug in to the equations, and indeed having the correct equations, and we don't have those numbers, at least yet.

 

What I do know, from my reading and my experiences with the in game P40 E is that with the real aircraft you didn't have to be afraid to turn the aircraft, unlike the one in the sim that turns like a bus, and then slips on a banana peel.

 

I also understand that we need credible info to fix it.

 

I only hope that that the info can be obtained that will validate what the real pilots said, and did with the P40.

[19//Moach]

this is a relevant enough fact to warrant revision - I have never come across any accounts whatsoever about the p40 being a dangerous and somewhat unpredictable plane which was prone to slipping into a deadly spin at the lightest provocation..."slippery" is actually not a word I've ever seen associated with this plane, regardless of variant, throughout a number of accounts of it -- more commonly the words you get are more in the lines of "stable gun platform" 

 

turn radius aside - the general stability of it seems like it was modeled with the same regard for error margins as the fw190 had before the update which fixed it, that being "pessimistic across the board"

 

 

throughout all stages of flight (except at unsustainable speeds and powered dives) it feels as if it's dangling precariously, like trying to stand up on a slack wire - to such extent it makes a pilot very uncomfortable to try and extract maximum performance from it, since it feels even non-combat flight is always done at a breath away of complete departure from controlled flight

 

once we got the data, it is very much recommended that the Kittyhawk should get the same kind of love that the 190 got

 

 

also - I may have found a player who could have access to the RAE test data as well - this has yet to be confirmed, but it'd be indeed pretty great to have that info at hand - so here's hoping 

Edited February 24, 2017 by 19//Moach

[Holtzauge]

I have to agree with the complaints about the dangling & wobbliness: The current rendition of the P-40 reminds me a bit about the Me-109 F & G which also wobbles all over the place and while I have not seen any YouTube videos taken from inside a P-40 cockpit, there are plenty from the restored 109’s flying and they do not wobble IRL like the f4 and especially G2 do in this sim. I suspect that there are different developers doing different planes and comparing flying characteristics I would not be surprised if it were the same guys who did the P-40, F4 and G2. In addition, the Il-2 P-40 seems to accelerate poorly and for some reason seems to have been modeled with a glass engine. So I do hope the developers give the P-40 a bit of TLC and addresses these things but that being said I have to agree with what Dakpilot said earlier: In comparison to the other fighters in the sim the P-40 is rather underpowered and is slugging around a lot of weight so it would probably be wise to temper expectations…..

[19//Moach]

 

 

this is an amazing hands-on account of the p40 with commentary while being flown

 

 

 

absolutely a must-see, especially for devs -- in some parts, it's almost like he's talking about a completely different plane from the one in our sim -- and remember, this is the very Kittyhawk E model, exactly the same as featured ingame that is being flown - discrepancies are somewhat significant

 

 

watch and notice the visible absence of the infamous "wobble" we're all so painfully aware of, it seems that stability is indeed quite a lesser concern than we have -- also, it seems the "always cool" engine we got is pretty well wrong - the p40 will overheat on the ground if kept at idle

 

the stall demonstrated also appears largely more benign than we're used to, although he does remark how it will easily turn to a spin unless kept well centered

 

 

without a doubt - the current FM for the p40 needs a thorough revision - there are little ways we possibly make it clearer than the man in the cockpit of the real thing does while flying it

Edited February 24, 2017 by 19//Moach

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

A couple nice videos showing P-40E from the cockpit:

 

 

Edited February 24, 2017 by SuperEtendard

[ACG_KaiLae]

also - I may have found a player who could have access to the RAE test data as well - this has yet to be confirmed, but it'd be indeed pretty great to have that info at hand - so here's hoping 

Let me know immediately if this turns out to be the case. I am still waiting to get my hands on the Smithsonian documents, and more sources would be greatly desired.

I have to agree with the complaints about the dangling & wobbliness: The current rendition of the P-40 reminds me a bit about the Me-109 F & G which also wobbles all over the place and while I have not seen any YouTube videos taken from inside a P-40 cockpit, there are plenty from the restored 109’s flying and they do not wobble IRL like the f4 and especially G2 do in this sim. I suspect that there are different developers doing different planes and comparing flying characteristics I would not be surprised if it were the same guys who did the P-40, F4 and G2. In addition, the Il-2 P-40 seems to accelerate poorly and for some reason seems to have been modeled with a glass engine. So I do hope the developers give the P-40 a bit of TLC and addresses these things but that being said I have to agree with what Dakpilot said earlier: In comparison to the other fighters in the sim the P-40 is rather underpowered and is slugging around a lot of weight so it would probably be wise to temper expectations…..

My expectations are an aircraft with roughly similar performance to a LaGG-3 or E7/F2. Obviously with a very different performance envelope, but somewhere in that general neighborhood. No one is arguing that the P 40 was a world beating aircraft. However, many people would argue that as it is implemented now, it is not close to that – and in multiple cases, published test information contradicts what is in game.

[ACG_KaiLae]

 

 

this is an amazing hands-on account of the p40 with commentary while being flown

 

 

 

absolutely a must-see, especially for devs -- in some parts, it's almost like he's talking about a completely different plane from the one in our sim -- and remember, this is the very Kittyhawk E model, exactly the same as featured ingame that is being flown - discrepancies are somewhat significant

 

 

watch and notice the visible absence of the infamous "wobble" we're all so painfully aware of, it seems that stability is indeed quite a lesser concern than we have -- also, it seems the "always cool" engine we got is pretty well wrong - the p40 will overheat on the ground if kept at idle

 

the stall demonstrated also appears largely more benign than we're used to, although he does remark how it will easily turn to a spin unless kept well centered

 

 

without a doubt - the current FM for the p40 needs a thorough revision - there are little ways we possibly make it clearer than the man in the cockpit of the real thing does while flying it

Just to be clear, the turning performance of the aircraft is not the only area that I wish to investigate. The engine performance of the aircraft needs to be gone over, I have long been dubious about the efficiency of the cooling system, and the dive speed in game is actually higher than listed in multiple sources.

 

Again, however, our ability to check these items depends on the quality of source documents, which we are attempting to obtain.

[Scojo]

its been a while since i watched that video, but i felt he described the aircraft we have in the sim almost to a T.

 

We have good roll rate and it's good in a dive but not a climb

[Holtzauge]

My expectations are an aircraft with roughly similar performance to a LaGG-3 or E7/F2. Obviously with a very different performance envelope, but somewhere in that general neighborhood. No one is arguing that the P 40 was a world beating aircraft. However, many people would argue that as it is implemented now, it is not close to that – and in multiple cases, published test information contradicts what is in game.

 

The only way the P-40E is going to come close to the LaGG-3 ser 29 is if you manage to convince the developers to extend the time you can run the Allison at 1470 hp:

 

The planes are rather close in wing loading, with the P-40 at 174 Kg/sqm and the LaGG at 180 Kg/sqm.

 

Comparing power loading the LaGG does much better: It has a power to weight ratio of 0.38 hp/Kg while the P-40E only manages 0.3 hp/Kg at 1150 hp.

 

However, if you raise the power to 1470 hp, then the P-40E power to weight ratio goes up to  0.38 hp/Kg just like on the LaGG and then you would have a plane with similar performance characteristics.

[Holtzauge]

Just to be clear: My opposition to increasing the Clmax on the P-40 is because this is a sim and like most people here I want realistic performance, not balance and I just don’t see from an aerodynamics standpoint why the P-40 should have a substantially higher Clmax than other planes in the same class.

 

OTOH I do sympathise with the efforts to improve the handling because right now the P-40 is a dog and I don’t fly it. I like the 50-cals but that’s about it: Other than that the thing just wallows around and accelerates like it’s enveloped in corn syrup.

 

Maybe the disconnect we have between what we see in the sim and conceptions about the IRL performance stems from the engine performance: In game the engine at WEP seems to conk out very quickly. However, AFAIK IRL pilots were able to and did fly for extended periods at higher power settings.

 

So a solution to the problem of how the P-40 handles in this sim would be to allow the IL-2 version of the Allison to run for more extended periods at 1470 hp. IIRC then Farky, Venturi and others have presented at lot of info supporting that pilots did use the higher power settings for extended periods without breaking the engine and the current 1150 hp limit with that in mind seems too low.

 

So to set the in game P-40 straight, I would push for a fix of the handling so the P-40 behaves more crisply without the wallowing just like we see in the videos and that the developers allow the engine to be run for longer periods at 1470 hp.

 

@Moach & SuperEtendard: Thanks for posting the P-40 vids: Have not seen those before and enjoyed watching them: Look at how crisply the P-40 handles, especially in the multi-point roll: Not much wallowing going on there…..

[19//Moach]

what I'm starting to notice on the, is it's tendency to oscillate across yaw at speeds below 300mph - this is what I find to be largely exaggerated, as the man on the video flying the real thing says it becomes pretty stable above 200

 

perhaps there is not much else to it, and the overall poor performance (below our best educated expectations) is more a symptom of not being able to keep the thing pointed straight as well as one should - this would explain also why there seems to be no obvious issue with the Clmax that we can find - that could quite simply be a result, rather than the cause of the problem

 

 

 

observe in the video above, how the turn indicator needle barely moves upon takeoff - and stays there through maneuvers that when we do, makes it sway back and forth like it's doing the snake dance....  this makes the plane behave very unpredictably, and could easily be the reason we cannot seem to fly that thing hard enough to extract every bit of performance from it (and then some more) like it was widely reported to have been done back in the day 

 

on all the nose-camera footage seen, as well as in the pilot angles - there is not the slightest hint of this swinging behavior which can be observed against the terrain below - and there is no mention of such a factor by the pilot

 

 

another very noticeable contradiction of the ingame model - on the startup procedure, the pilot simply skips the "manual turning of the blades while priming" part completely - reducing the startup time dramatically from what we have to sit through - and then there's the cooling, which is perhaps the only thing on it that must be called out for being too good

 

but it feels to me, the stability margins are more of a central cause of our problems than we've given it credit for - the p40E did have a stability issue with the rudder, of course - but I have doubts believing that were it as pronounced as the ingame model suggests, it would have ever been accepted into service

 

and were it this severe, then it would certainly be a "detail" found more often across real life pilot accounts - yet there is little to no mention of a "wobble issue" at ~200mph speeds - instead, the instructor from the video even calls it "docile" 

 

quite frankly, the p40 in the sim is NOT docile - it is actually kind of a bitch to handle, and doesn't let you relax one bit below 300 (which it can't seem to easily reach, also contrary to what our instructor said)

 

 

also, the amount of time over which "emergency power" can be sustained is most likely restricting effective performance even further -- the real main issue with that level of power for prolonged periods is reportedly one of long(er) term concern, as doing this will seriously degrade the engines service life and TBH (Time Between Overhauls) 

 

this notion seems to have been modeled in a rather extreme fashion, and the engine rapidly self-destructs upon exceeding some 30 seconds of high power, and does so somewhat spontaneously, regardless of indicated pressures and temperatures - this is an almost cartoon-like depiction of the consequences of overboosting, and takes a critical additional toll on the already handicapped airframe

 

 

 

edit:   Ninja'd  by the post above -- precisely my point    

Edited February 25, 2017 by 19//Moach

[Holtzauge]

Agree 100% !

[Dakpilot]

Wait for rudder roll coupling changes to be addressed, Jason's latest post suggests improvements in this area

 

P-40 is known for it's rudder issues and has larger rudder than most, so most likely will benefit most

 

Cheers Dakpilot 

[ZachariasX]

Agree 100% !

Same...

 

Regarding the "wobble", I call that the "air combat simulator wobble". It is an endemic disease of basically all air combat simulators featuring prop planes published after "Chuck Yeager's Air Combat". I've been behind the stick or yoke of a few aircraft, and they all do not wobble at all, unless you have someone like him

in the backseat of your Cessna. Planes don't wobble like that in real life when flown in correct trim. Such an instability would be unacceptable.

 

What they do however in my experience, is gradually yaw or pitch depending on torque and speed. But this is always a gradual thing. When you show a passenger what happens if you turn/pull the yoke, even with jerking hard, the plane will not oscilate more than one tiny swing.

 

In air combat sims, I get the feeling that people are longing for "harder than life" controls. Unstable airctaft give an even steeper learning curve "and the plane does not fly on rails", which is often used as an indicative of realism in a sim. But believe me, if you have an aircraft, you want this one to "fly on rails", because it is not only convenient, it is also safe, given in RL, you have only one frag to give.

 

If they removed those "customer expected" wobbliness, the forum would be on fire, I'm sure. But have never seen video either from any decent airctaft exhibiting this wobbliness at all. Be it a Piper Cub, be it a P-51. They don't wobble with a correct loadout.

 

It is also of notice that in no "aircaft simulator" (P3D/FSX/XPlane/etc.) there is a wobble present with a plane in correct trim. There just isn't. But as soon as you have guns, there is wobble.

[Holtzauge]

Yes, unfortunately many seem to equate wobbly with realistic even though a lot of footage from WW2 fighters shows otherwise. However, in IL-2 some aircraft are more affected than others and the P-40 is in joined in the wobbly brotherhood by the Me-109 F4 and G2 and I sure hope Dakpilot is right that the upcoming roll coupling fix will address this. For some strange reason the IL-2 Me-109 E is not as affected and for the time being that's the Me-109 ride for me. Another wobbly IL-2 plane with strange (as in I doubt it was that difficult to fly IRL) take off and landing characteristics is the Mig-3 but that deserves a thread on it's own and since this one's about the P-40 I'll refrain from derailing this thread with rants about the Mig.......

 

BTW, Image what will happen after takeoff if that guy in the picture decides to take a leak in the aft restroom.........

[ZachariasX]

BTW, Image what will happen after takeoff if that guy in the picture decides to take a leak in the aft restroom.........

Simple, you announce the temporary upgrade to first class for all other monkey-class passengers in the cabin.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Would be like this : 

https://youtu.be/suY06PVK_bI?t=13s

Edited February 25, 2017 by =LD=Hiromachi

[ICDP]

Let me start by saying I have always felt the Allison engine in the P-40 in this sim is crippled with far too strict limits IMHO.  And I do believe The P-40E in sim is in need of a stability fix (hoping rudder fix should fix that).  Having said that I don't think it's that useful to use info on modern restorations as a totally accurate guide on how a wartime version would have handled.  It does give some indications but please remember that modern war birds are sometimes substantially lighter than their wartime equivalent.  There is also the possibility that modern restoration are not using completely model specific engines.

 

For example

How much lighter than a real P-40E is the restored one in the video?  Does it have full ammo and weapons (doubtful)?  How much lighter is the modern radio sets and other equipment?  Is the engine a later model Allison producing significantly more power?

 

No guns, ammo and reduced wight of equipment could result in a net wight reduction of around 500-600kg.

 

Obviously it's aerodynamically the same but lets not kid ourselves that a massive weight loss would not make that plane fly substantially better.

Edited February 25, 2017 by ICDP

[BlitzPig_EL]

The removal of combat equipment will not affect the wobbliness  seen in the in game aircraft.

 

Aircraft flown at airshows and demonstrations (not talking air racing here, that is a different world entirely) are never run anywhere near their wartime engine limits. and the fact that the very high octane fuels used in WW2 are no longer available is also a limiting factor to engine output.  Remember, there no longer are factories churning out vast numbers of replacement engines, and parts.  A basic rebuild of an Allison or Merlin will set you back a cool quarter of a million US dollars, so no owner is going to thrash their powerplant at WW2 max power levels, even if they had the fuel that would allow that.

 

The maneuvers seen in the videos in this thread are quite slow and gentle and no where near the in extremis maneuvering that would be consistent with air combat.  Again, no owner of a nearly irreplaceable WW2 aircraft is going to risk pulling max G maneuvers with their 70 odd year old warbird.

 

And I agree with Holtzauge totally on the "simmer effect".   The "harder is more real crowd" have done more to make WW2 air combat simulation unrealistic than any un-found test documents, computer performance limitations, or so called bias of developers.  We can be our own worst enemy.

[Dakpilot]

I agree that this community can be it's own worst enemy, but in the strive for realism/accuracy we must accept that jumping into the cockpit of a virtual Mig 3 and expecting to be proficient in 20 minutes is also very unrealistic, many pilots with years of training crashed and died trying to learn these aircraft 

 

The simple fact is that an accurate flight sim will require the same training as real life, this is not "harder is more real" people are just not interested in putting in the time..

 

But this leads to the question that only 5% of actual Pilots had the skills to be Hartmans/MalansKozhedubs/Bongs, and those from a similar small percent of the overall population, what do people really want, and why is WT a more popular game   

 

as far as the overall "wobbliness" V's on rails argument, there are two very distinct issues that are confused, as a pilot the 'feeling of flight' turbulence/air movement or whatever which is 'baked in' in Bos, compared to other dims is distinct from individual FM issues experienced in certain aircraft, overall it is a marked improvement from original IL-2, what has been achieved with RoF/BoS should be lauded not maligned because of individual aircraft issues, 109E v's F as an example

 

I totally agree that "harder" is not more realistic but a 1000+HP WW2 fighter is not a modern Cessna/Boeing or even a Tiger Moth or other similar period training aircraft

 

okay rant off/ignore    should not be on the forum with a hangover

 

Cheers Dakpilot
 

[ZachariasX]

About the "wobble" I was not relating to the Mig3 "handling issue". My point is that the gut is waaaayyy more sensitive to wobbling (rocking of the plane through air turbulence in this case) than the eye. Trubulences that you'd hardly notice just from "watching front camera view" can make passengers very uncomfortable. In airliners, even rather severe turbulences (on the scream-o-meter) dont make your wine glass fall over. The peeps in this forum wouldn't ask fir such wobble if they actually had to sit in a real plane behaving like that.

 

I found this always impressive when sitting in a class D full motion sim. With everything on, all is increadibly convincing, but as soon as you flip the switch and turn off motion, what was impressive turbulences is just mostly gone. There are hardly any visual cues to what was bad turbulence. The wind draft however remains and represents the greatest challenge to master until you enter the final, where turbulence/shaking comes into play.

 

Even for simulators as FSX, weather engines grossly overstate the rocking of the plane, sometimes to a degree that can unhook the autopilot of your Cessna in what actually are still very flyable conditions. But the customer is expecting a shaking of the airctaft when there's turbulences, and he's expecting it to a degree he finds satisfying. Because of this, I tend to deactivate this "shake" in the weather engine of the sim. Although it makes things harder, it does not relate to the real world.

 

In combat sims, when having a bit unstable planes, the Hartmanns (in online combat sims such as BoX, there are MANY more than in RL) have the satisfaction of a more challenging plane plus when mastering it, those planes are even better for quick snapshots, sometimes over obscene ranges. But that is what you can learn when you have more than one frag to give and you can even get a report of your hits on the target.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

In combat sims, when having a bit unstable planes, the Hartmanns (in online combat sims such as BoX, there are MANY more than in RL) have the satisfaction of a more challenging plane plus when mastering it, those planes are even better for quick snapshots, sometimes over obscene ranges. But that is what you can learn when you have more than one frag to give and you can even get a report of your hits on the target.

As someone with a good bit of light aviation expirience (gliders) I find the ingame effects to be quite believebel. In weather conditions where sheer winds and thermals are coming into play the aircraft can exhibit sudden rocking motions which the pilot has to counter quickly. I remember a flight on a windy day that became more of a rodeo ride with the wings constantly banking and the nose pivoting off course. I agree there is a difference between 400kg aircraft and 3t heavy fighters, not to mention we're talkign about totally different speed ranges, but the basic effect seems plausible to me (it was one of the first feautures in BoS that instantly appealed to me as a real pilot).

Edited February 26, 2017 by 6./ZG26_5tuka

[Dakpilot]

Maybe my memory is going  or i just flew a lot in crappy weather but in the thousands of hours I flew the "feeling'' in BoS seems pretty authentic, up at 40,000ft it is pretty smooth, but I spend the majority between 10-20 thousand and often a lot lower  One of my favorite aircraft had a nice damped suspension system on the seat, I was very glad for that, also nearly knocked myself unconscious early in career, hitting my head on the roof while wearing a seatbelt (in a smaller aircraft , mountain wave CAT) learnt a good lesson there

 

getting a bit off topic so I will shut up 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Same here though I am primarily on old Mixed Construction Types like K-13 and K-8 where he is on modern, more stable GRP ones. And the old ones are indeed very wobbly once you get down to thermalling speed. 

If I flew these Aircraft the way some handle theirs in the Sim I would have spun out on Landing about a Million times and died horribly. The Short Fuselage makes it quite touchy to Rudde Inputs. 

Edited February 26, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[ZachariasX]

As someone with a good bit of light aviation expirience (gliders) I find the ingame effects to be quite believebel. In weather conditions where sheer winds and thermals are coming into play the aircraft can exhibit sudden rocking motions which the pilot has to counter quickly. I remember a flight on a windy day that became more of a rodeo ride with the wings constantly banking and the nose pivoting off course. I agree there is a difference between 400kg aircraft and 3t heavy fighters, not to mention we're talkign about totally different speed ranges, but the basic effect seems plausible to me (it was one of the first feautures in BoS that instantly appealed to me as a real pilot).

I didn't say what we have in BoS is not believable. It is, and it works out well. My point was that if you are lacking the motion, you need excessive visuals to compensate for getting the same feeling again and your expectations. This is basically what really struck me "as take home message" when you do the direct comparison in a full motion sim. What appears to be rather rough weather with motion on, is suddenly not s bad anymore with motion off. To get the same feeling for the weather again, you had to "up" the "rocking" of the plane.

 

Regarding gliders or a 3 ton plane, they all move along with the weather. What makes them differ in "rocking" when passing through regions with windshear, the higher your wing loading and the slower it is, the slower it will adjust to differnent wind regions and thus the "less" it will rock.

 

Gliders are a bit of a special case, as they are about the only planes flown in areas of significant up or down drafts. And yes, in those, those drafts can tilt your aircraft in the most impressive way.

 

In most other cases like patrolling over Stalingrad, you are passing through areas that have wind directions differing in azimuth. Thus, you plane experiences suddenly different airspeeds producing more lift, if more headwind is experienced or less lift if you get suddenly more tailwind giving less lift letting the plane sink ("Luftloch", everyone screaming in the tube). That makes you feel the "bump", but it will not so much tilt your aircraft. Thus, your ride is "bumpy", not "tilty". Taking away the bumps that give very little cue on the "front camera", there is not so much tilt left. Or at least, much less than expected.

 

The farther back you are in an airplane, you will experience also a slight side-to-side movement as the plane also will yaw a bit. The longer the tube, the more prononced the effect is. What is of note, is that the yaw rotation axis is not at the center of gravity, but near the nose. Everyone flying business or first class will know that difference. It is easy the get airsick in the back, but in the front it's all happy and dandy. Same weather, same plane, same flight, different experience. (Food is better too in the front!)

 

 

But I guess this is derailing the OP rather heavily. Back on track. I hope Kai_Lae gets his hand on those documents soon...

[ACG_KaiLae]

The only way the P-40E is going to come close to the LaGG-3 ser 29 is if you manage to convince the developers to extend the time you can run the Allison at 1470 hp:

 

The planes are rather close in wing loading, with the P-40 at 174 Kg/sqm and the LaGG at 180 Kg/sqm.

 

Comparing power loading the LaGG does much better: It has a power to weight ratio of 0.38 hp/Kg while the P-40E only manages 0.3 hp/Kg at 1150 hp.

 

However, if you raise the power to 1470 hp, then the P-40E power to weight ratio goes up to  0.38 hp/Kg just like on the LaGG and then you would have a plane with similar performance characteristics.

 

Not quite what I meant. The LaGG-3 and P-40 would, and should, not behave the same at all, unless they were similar, which they aren't. What I meant is that in effectiveness they are in the same general neighborhood. Neither are great, but both should be effective when used right.

[Holtzauge]

Not quite what I meant. The LaGG-3 and P-40 would, and should, not behave the same at all, unless they were similar, which they aren't. What I meant is that in effectiveness they are in the same general neighborhood. Neither are great, but both should be effective when used right.

 

OK, I agree that both should be effective when used right. Maybe I misunderstood you then when you said "with roughly similar performance" in an earlier post because to me that implies a similarity in things like speed, climb rate and turn rate etc but of course effectiveness is something different. Anyway, that being said, I'm leaning more and more towards convincing the devs to reconsider the allowable power settings as the most viable approach to improve the in game P-40 performance. Of course one can always continue to pursue the Clmax path in paralell but to me the power track seems far more likely to succeed based on what we have so far.

[Farky]

Wobbling - I don't mind "wobbling", but why  is P-40 in this regard one of the worst aircraft in the game? There is no reason for it, as far as I know the documents do not mention "wobbling" at all.

 

Oil and coolant temperatures - are way low all the time. I have a problem getting to the correct operating temperature of the engine, even with radiator on neutral. We have Boscombe Down report which shows what should the temperatures be, game is completely out.

 

Oil pressure - too high all the time. It does not affect gameplay, it's just a cosmetic thing, but it's not right.

 

General handling - according to Soviet pilots handling characteristics of P-40 were very similar to LaGG-3 (without slots)and LaGG was less stable. P-40 is probably the worst controllable aircraft in the game, particularly at low speeds. P-40 was worse (more sluggish) in this respect than for example IL-2? I don't buy it, sorry.

 

Sideslip - is ridiculously wrong. According developers, "Airplane has a very small stability margin in yaw. When angle of side slip is more than 12° plane becomes unstable in yaw and starts to increase the side slip angle by itself. Because of this, it is necessary to accurately operate the rudder pedals and pay attention to the side slip indicator.". We have hard data from NACA for sideslip of P-40E and the game is completely out. Sideslip turn was even recommended procedure during approach, if you do this in game, P-40 will try to kill you. I believe that this is (at least partly) intentional characteristic of P-40 and not just a consequence of the general characteristics of the rudder in game.

 

Dive - talking about "flying on rails" in simulators, this is excellent example. In real P-40E, it was necessary to literally stand on the left rudder pedal to overcome yaw to the right, even with use of left rudder trim. Dive in game? No rudder, no trim, no problem.

 

Horizontal maneuverability - I do not know a single WWII pilot (German pilots included ) who ever say that the P-40 was less maneuverable than the Bf 109, not a single one. It is very difficult for me to believe that they are all wrong. On other hand,  I understand what calculations say, so this is real mystery to me.

 

Engine limits - I was already talking about this in other thread. I will just say this - I don't like idea of using "overboost" for long period of time in dogfight, simply because it is absolutely not in accordance with history.  Anyway, to this day I do not know how the engine in game really works. In my opinion, game engine (architecture) wasn't ready for engine without regulator and it remains true today. I am therefore very curious about A-20B and P-39 engines, we will see if I am wrong. I hope I am wrong. It is very important get engines without regulator right, otherwise the Battle of Midway can be disaster.

 

P-40E was barely average fighter airplane, German airplanes were simply better, but P-40 in the game is a utter piece of (s)crap.

[ACG_KaiLae]

Above post is pretty much a list of the things to go over

[Scojo]

Same...

 

Regarding the "wobble", I call that the "air combat simulator wobble". It is an endemic disease of basically all air combat simulators featuring prop planes published after "Chuck Yeager's Air Combat". I've been behind the stick or yoke of a few aircraft, and they all do not wobble at all

 

If they removed those "customer expected" wobbliness, the forum would be on fire, I'm sure. But have never seen video either from any decent airctaft exhibiting this wobbliness at all. Be it a Piper Cub, be it a P-51. They don't wobble with a correct loadout.

So I recently started taking lessons in sailplanes, and I noticed this as well. Not to mention a sailplane doesn't have a motor and prop on the front pulling it, which would help prevent the wobble even more.

 

I really wish this is something they would fix (if it really isn't accurately modeled, and it sounds like it isn't). Several people on these forums who have flight experience in powered aircraft have said the same thing, but they're always drowned out by other people saying they don't understand what they're talking about

[Holtzauge]

 

Wobbling - I don't mind "wobbling", but why  is P-40 in this regard one of the worst aircraft in the game? There is no reason for it, as far as I know the documents do not mention "wobbling" at all.

 

Oil and coolant temperatures - are way low all the time. I have a problem getting to the correct operating temperature of the engine, even with radiator on neutral. We have Boscombe Down report which shows what should the temperatures be, game is completely out.

 

Oil pressure - too high all the time. It does not affect gameplay, it's just a cosmetic thing, but it's not right.

 

General handling - according to Soviet pilots handling characteristics of P-40 were very similar to LaGG-3 (without slots)and LaGG was less stable. P-40 is probably the worst controllable aircraft in the game, particularly at low speeds. P-40 was worse (more sluggish) in this respect than for example IL-2? I don't buy it, sorry.

 

Sideslip - is ridiculously wrong. According developers, "Airplane has a very small stability margin in yaw. When angle of side slip is more than 12° plane becomes unstable in yaw and starts to increase the side slip angle by itself. Because of this, it is necessary to accurately operate the rudder pedals and pay attention to the side slip indicator.". We have hard data from NACA for sideslip of P-40E and the game is completely out. Sideslip turn was even recommended procedure during approach, if you do this in game, P-40 will try to kill you. I believe that this is (at least partly) intentional characteristic of P-40 and not just a consequence of the general characteristics of the rudder in game.

 

Dive - talking about "flying on rails" in simulators, this is excellent example. In real P-40E, it was necessary to literally stand on the left rudder pedal to overcome yaw to the right, even with use of left rudder trim. Dive in game? No rudder, no trim, no problem.

 

Horizontal maneuverability - I do not know a single WWII pilot (German pilots included ) who ever say that the P-40 was less maneuverable than the Bf 109, not a single one. It is very difficult for me to believe that they are all wrong. On other hand,  I understand what calculations say, so this is real mystery to me.

 

Engine limits - I was already talking about this in other thread. I will just say this - I don't like idea of using "overboost" for long period of time in dogfight, simply because it is absolutely not in accordance with history.  Anyway, to this day I do not know how the engine in game really works. In my opinion, game engine (architecture) wasn't ready for engine without regulator and it remains true today. I am therefore very curious about A-20B and P-39 engines, we will see if I am wrong. I hope I am wrong. It is very important get engines without regulator right, otherwise the Battle of Midway can be disaster.

 

P-40E was barely average fighter airplane, German airplanes were simply better, but P-40 in the game is a utter piece of (s)crap.

 

 

A lot of good points and I hope the developers will address most of them. However, there are a few issues listed that I have a somewhat different opinion on:

 

First of all is the wobbling: I mind the wobblieness very much and the way some aircraft in this sim wobbles puts me off and I simply don't fly them very often for that very reason and those are the F4, G2 and in some sense the P-40 only as we know the P-40 has other issues as well. Also, no cockpit videos I have seen support this kind of rubber band connection between roll and yaw. So here I would definitely like to see a fix.

 

Second is the horizontal manouverability: I too find it difficult to reconcile pilot accounts with the in-game peformance we see but this I think is coupled to my last point which again is about the power:

 

AFAIK the Allison could be run at higher boost for extended periods of time and probably was. I you assume that pilots broke the rules on this point then I think you can reconcile the pilot accounts with the calculated performance because if you assume the higher boost then the P-40 is right there with the others so no reason it would not perform as well as the others.

 

As to if the pilots did run at higher boost than recommended or not I'm pretty sure they did: If you have  a 109 on your tail or if you are lagging one in a turn fight and need that little bit of extra lead I'm sure most would use it to get there. Sure, one can reason that if you kill your engine you are dead anyway but probably many pilots did try to push the envelope and word got around about what you could and could not do in terms boosting your engine without killing it.

 

The problem of course is how to model this in the sim: If you start to forego the rules on one engine then this opens up a whole can of worms about modeling all the other planes in the sim lacking boost regulation so this speaks for simply implementing the official limits in IL-2 and punish the offenders with a bust engine and leave it at that. OTOH the Allison seems to be a bit of a special case both in terms of the huge gain in power when you add boost and also that the official margins seem to have been set very conservatively. So no easy way to address this for the developers as far as I can see: None of the solutions seem very savoury.....

 

So to sum up I still think this (the abuse of the official power limits) is the reason behind the pilot accounts that the P-40 IRL could hold it's own against fighters which on paper had a higher P/W ratio. It's either that or the P-40 was endowed with some special aerodynamic properties that the other designers missed out on incorporating.

 

However, Using Occam's razor my money is still on the pilots bending the boost rules in the heat of combat rather than the P-40 being an aerodynamic unicorn.

[ZachariasX]

If Kai_Lae takes much more time to produce those documents, I will start chewing on my nails...

 

In the meantime, lets have someone talking that knows planes and that also knows the P-40, Frank Tallman.

 

Here we go, on the P-40E, a plane that he liked to fly very much:

 

[ICDP]

If Kai_Lae takes much more time to produce those documents, I will start chewing on my nails...

 

In the meantime, lets have someone talking that knows planes and that also knows the P-40, Frank Tallman.

 

Here we go, on the P-40E, a plane that he liked to fly very much:

 

Snip

 

It was a nice read but it demonstrates what I mentioned earlier.  This was a restored P-40E without weapons or ammo and with a later model Allison engine that gave about 80 extra HP at combat power and allowed higher boost overall.

 

So about 450kg lighter and more power = much improved handling.  I know they don't run these engines at full power but they don't run them at cruise settings during their stunts at airshows either.

 

I genuinely believe the P-40 needs improved but showing accounts from restored warbirds that do NOT represent WWII era combat ready versions is not going to convince the devs.

 

The easiest way we can get the P-40E improved is to prove the engine was much more durable than represented in game.

[ACG_KaiLae]

If Kai_Lae takes much more time to produce those documents, I will start chewing on my nails...

 

 

Outside of my control. Crump has the documents. He had some kind of work engagement where he was busy, then apparently he caught the flu. I don't want to pester the man.