P-40 turn rate/Flight model check

[BlitzPig_EL]

I'm hopeful that this will have a positive effect on the P 40, that will bring it more in line with the real world maneuverability of the actual aircraft.  I'm also hoping that it will help some with energy retention, which it should for all aircraft because of limiting the amount of off line of desired travel movement that occurs now with the silly roll coupling that we have in the sim.

[19//Moach]

yes, I have noticed that with very careful rudder correction, the P40 has a whole new "layer" of performance hidden underneath... alas, the workload to attain this is beyond what one can reasonably manage during a dogfight - and even if managed, it takes a substantial part of your attention which could be far more useful if focused on "not getting killed" 

 

 

most P40 dogfights, according to my own experience and various fellow sim-pilots I've talked to, end badly less from enemy action and more from a near-stall speed entry of a DeathSlide™ at low altitude, where there's no hope of recovery...   if not for that, at those speeds it is actually possible to outstall a 109, as this plane surprisingly does not stall as readily as it spins*

 

* spins are a consequence of the loss of rudder authority with (fairly minimal) slip angles - a rudder stall such as this should be impossible, due to the slipstream sticking to the fuselage - yet the current FMs do allow for such phenomena to take place, to the horror of any pilot who dares use full rudder deflection - wing stalls are not necessary for this to occur, in fact, snap roll tests were conducted too, and proved very different in feel and much easier to counter

 

 

therefore, I have high hopes that the rudder updates will make a very big difference for this plane, perhaps removing its most relevant weakness:  the infamous slip-away of doom, aka: Death Slide 

Edited April 10, 2017 by 19//Moach

[BlitzPig_EL]

I hope you are correct sir.

[Dave]

Just ask these guys ...

[ACG_KaiLae]

Do they have the mathematical papers that accurately describe what the aircraft do? Because that's what we need. 

[ZachariasX]

Do they have the mathematical papers that accurately describe what the aircraft do? Because that's what we need.

 

It would be surprising if they didn't have most of the existing data out there for their aircraft. But they have someting better than that, they have the real aircraft. If you have enough cash, you can do telemetry on those and answer the questions.

 

You can do flights with the Spit9. Take a GPS along and slowly stall her out, see what the speedometer says and what the GPS tells as speed. It's not cheap, but I plan on taking this ride. We'll see. Flying a Spit is definitely one for the bucket list.

[Venturi]

After the most recent patch, I took up the P40E again in IL2. I was hoping something under the hood had been updated after all this time. NOPE!

 

What a joke the P40 is in this IL2. It feels like flying a bus. I can still put the aircraft in a near-unrecoverable spin by just using the rudder at 200mph cruising.

 

The DCS P51D at several thousand pounds heavier (9000lbs+) and at the same power levels, 40" MAP, feels a mile more lively.

 

Shame on you, IL2.

[BlitzPig_EL]

It would be surprising if they didn't have most of the existing data out there for their aircraft. But they have someting better than that, they have the real aircraft. If you have enough cash, you can do telemetry on those and answer the questions.

 

You can do flights with the Spit9. Take a GPS along and slowly stall her out, see what the speedometer says and what the GPS tells as speed. It's not cheap, but I plan on taking this ride. We'll see. Flying a Spit is definitely one for the bucket list.

 

Sir, I suspect you have no real idea of the operating costs of a WW2 fighter aircraft in today's world, nor do you understand that NO owner of a vintage fighter is going to subject his aircraft to potential loss doing flight tests at the edge of the envelope for a video game.

 

To get the data set necessary for flight model building you simply cannot take a 20 minute joy ride with a hand held GPS and learn all you need to know.  Flight testing is a time consuming, laborious, and dangerous business, and I don't think a publisher as large as EA could even afford it, much less one the size of IL2's team.

 

I applaud your enthusiasm, but what you are suggesting is simply not possible.

 

[ZachariasX]

Sir, I suspect you have no real idea of the operating costs of a WW2 fighter aircraft in today's world, nor do you understand that NO owner of a vintage fighter is going to subject his aircraft to potential loss doing flight tests at the edge of the envelope for a video game.

 

To get the data set necessary for flight model building you simply cannot take a 20 minute joy ride with a hand held GPS and learn all you need to know.  Flight testing is a time consuming, laborious, and dangerous business, and I don't think a publisher as large as EA could even afford it, much less one the size of IL2's team.

 

I applaud your enthusiasm, but what you are suggesting is simply not possible.

 

I was just being sarcastic on the first one in the context of *you* sorting that out like that. In principle it is doable. But it would take several hours to get some data. But all depends on the owner. For 2 million Dollars you can be owner of such an aircraft. (If you have another 2 million to spare you can even fly it.) And yes, I'm very well aware of of the operating costs of aircraft.

 

The Spitfire Mk.IX is available to you for £5'000 an hour. Including instructor. Although I wouldn't assume you would invest your first hour stall speed telemetry.

[ACG_KaiLae]

After the most recent patch, I took up the P40E again in IL2. I was hoping something under the hood had been updated after all this time. NOPE!

 

What a joke the P40 is in this IL2. It feels like flying a bus. I can still put the aircraft in a near-unrecoverable spin by just using the rudder at 200mph cruising.

 

The DCS P51D at several thousand pounds heavier (9000lbs+) and at the same power levels, 40" MAP, feels a mile more lively.

 

Shame on you, IL2.

This isn't surprising because nothing has been changed. The fm roll yaw coupling changes are still upcoming.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

All my friends who did liked P40 in old il2 are saying that this incarnation is porked, one thing they like - fire power of 50s, is that enough... I think this plane should have it justice.

[ACG_KaiLae]

I'm waiting to see what comes of the FM changes that are pending. Meanwhile, I just emailed Curtiss-Wright to see if they even have records and if they do, what I would need to do to get them.

[ZachariasX]

I'm waiting to see what comes of the FM changes that are pending. Meanwhile, I just emailed Curtiss-Wright to see if they even have records and if they do, what I would need to do to get them.

Let's see what they have to share. Would be nice having some data from them.

[Legioneod]

The P-40 is the worst aircraft in the game at this time. It needs a lot of work imo but I'm afraid it will never happen. My main concern is with how poorly the engine is modeled, if they would do the engine limitations in a more dynamic and realistic way I would be able to actually use the P-40 effectively.

[BlitzPig_EL]

I doubt you will get anything at all from Curtiss-Wright.

 

They have not built a conventional airframe since the late 1940s, have built nothing that flew since 1958 (two VTOL prototypes for the US Army) and are now only a component manufacturer for industry and aircraft, and for shipboard nuclear power systems.

[ACG_KaiLae]

So far they didn't return my email. Still they should have records? The lack of availability of useful information is very aggravating.

 

And hey, I used to run those nuclear reactors so at least they should show me some love.

[Barnacles]

Boats or CVNs?

[ACG_KaiLae]

I am now insulted, that you in any way would associate me with a skimmer.

[Barnacles]

I am now insulted, that you in any way would associate me with a skimmer.

Im really sorry. Dolphin 36.

[unreasonable]

Just to save anyone else confused by this nautical slang the trouble of looking it up .....

 

http://www.combat.ws/S4/SAILOR/APNDX2.HTM

[-WILD-AlbinoHA5E]

The Post-Patch P-40 is a Night and Day Difference to what we have now. The Post Patch FMs will be a lot different from what we have now, not Perfect, a bit too stable but overall better than now.

[BMA_FlyingShark]

 

 

The Post-Patch P-40 is a Night and Day Difference to what we have now. The Post Patch FMs will be a lot different from what we have now, not Perfect, a bit too stable but overall better than now.

That's great, looking forward to the update, the P40 is my favorite plane and I have hardly used it in this sim, what you tell us here might just get me back in it. 

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

One must ask, how do you know this?

 

Are you a tester?   If so thank you for the report.

 

Also, I'd take a bit too stable (subjective on any of our part as none of us has flown a P 40) over the weightless kites in the breeze feel we have had since the beginning of this title.

 

Hopefully the last remnants of Rise of Flight have finally been expunged from Battle of Stalingradmoscowkuban.

[Guest deleted@83466]

The Post-Patch P-40 is a Night and Day Difference to what we have now. The Post Patch FMs will be a lot different from what we have now, not Perfect, a bit too stable but overall better than now.

 

One must ask, how do you know this?

 

Are you a tester?   If so thank you for the report.

 

The Testers all have a tag under their avatar that says "Tester", and CuteKitten does not, so I just don't know what to make of it when such a declarative statement like the one above is made.  

 

Maybe this is wishful thinking on my part, but I'm guessing that even now as the developers are crafting the the P-39, they are learning new things about the durability of the Allison v-1710. Certainly most virtual pilots will not be the next Pokryshkin, but since the anecdotes tell us that the P-39 was quite competitive at low altitudes, in order to make the simulated P-39 appropriately capable, it seems logical that they are going to have to take another look at hard engine limitations. Even though the P-39 engine will be a different series number (-63???), with more horsepower, I would think that some of the generalities would be rolled back into the P-40.   Again, maybe this is wishful thinking, but it seems reasonable to me to think that it might happen at some point.

Edited June 24, 2017 by Iceworm

[-WILD-AlbinoHA5E]

It's reliable information. Don't want anyone to get into Trouble.

[LukeFF]

The Post-Patch P-40 is a Night and Day Difference to what we have now. The Post Patch FMs will be a lot different from what we have now, not Perfect, a bit too stable but overall better than now.

 

Suggest you zip it and not pass along info from whatever tester decided to violate their NDA.

[Legioneod]

The Testers all have a tag under their avatar that says "Tester", and CuteKitten does not, so I just don't know what to make of it when such a declarative statement like the one above is made.  

 

Maybe this is wishful thinking on my part, but I'm guessing that even now as the developers are crafting the the P-39, they are learning new things about the durability of the Allison v-1710. Certainly most virtual pilots will not be the next Pokryshkin, but since the anecdotes tell us that the P-39 was quite competitive at low altitudes, in order to make the simulated P-39 appropriately capable, it seems logical that they are going to have to take another look at hard engine limitations. Even though the P-39 engine will be a different series number (-63???), with more horsepower, I would think that some of the generalities would be rolled back into the P-40.   Again, maybe this is wishful thinking, but it seems reasonable to me to think that it might happen at some point.

The engine def needs another look at. Imo the engine limitations has always been the main problem when I fly the P-40. They are unrealistic and gamey, and makes the P-40 underpreform compared to what it did irl. The Allison engine is a tough engine, unlike in game.

[JG13_opcode]

 

 

The Testers all have a tag under their avatar that says "Tester"

 

Not all of us do.  Mine just says "IL2" and a few others have no tag whatsoever.

 

If others have signed an NDA, that's news to me.  I haven't, but we've all been asked not to talk about specifics all the same.

 

The developers are working on making the sim better, let's just leave it at that.

[ACG_KaiLae]

In the case above: I spoke to a guy on TS probably 2-3 months ago who told me that his buddy was a tester, and he had been over at his house and been given access to the beta client for an hour or 2. The current patch notes in the dev diary closely track with what he told me at the time. So, he's probably not BSing us.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

It's about as informative as a fortune cookie.  I'd just keep my mouth shut in your Place. Become a Tester and Discuss on the Closed Beta Forum. 

[unreasonable]

Now that the Spitfire is in, we can see that it stalls (F+G up) at 85-89 mph, over it's given weight range - compared to a Pilot's Notes figure of 73 mph, which is given at a weight towards the upper end of the range given in BoX stats: ie about an 16 mph difference.

 

The PEC for 100-140 mph is given at +4 - so 73mph is equivalent to at least 77mph on our game instruments which read TAS at SL, but this is still a big difference from 85-89.  The BoX figures are extremely close to the RAE test figures.

 

The CLmax comes out at 1.33-1.34 over the weight range. (This P-40s range was 1.32-1.35)

 

And, it flies like "sex with wings" as one particularly excited denizen of the forum put it.   

 

So what does this have to do with the P-40?

 

It shows that the poor handling of the BoX P-40 - whether this is right or wrong - has little or nothing to do with the CLmax as such, and that the developers are being consistent in not taking manual figures at face value.

 

Perhaps the new roll-yaw FM changes will help the P-40. Personally, I still do not understand why the P-40 critical AoA is so very low, (14 deg) given the similarity of the wing section to the Spitfire (18.8 deg) but having asked why and being given a non-answer by Han all we can do is wait.....

[Blutaar]

I think the spit is "sex with wings" just because of the new FM. It sure feals so much different then all the other planes. No wobble, much less rudder authority at speeds, no rudder needed while pulling Gs, nearly no torqueeffect from its 3000rpms and massive amounts of high speed maneuvering with easy blackouts etc, it feels like from another Sim. I really hope that we will see this kind of improved flight behavior in all the other planes wit the new FM update, im tired of the 109 for exampel even when it has the performance, it just feels awful to fly in my opinion but the list is much longer.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

So, how do guys like the FM Changes? I feel that the Spins are a bit undermodelled. According to my Sources they should be more Erratic and Violent when they occur. 

 

https://de.scribd.com/doc/117829198/Pilot-s-Manual-Curtiss-P-40-Warhawk-WW

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40E_40-633_PHQ-M-19-1398-A.pdf

http://www.avialogs.com/viewer/avialogs-documentviewer.php?id=3136

[19//Moach]

So, how do guys like the FM Changes? I feel that the Spins are a bit undermodelled. According to my Sources they should be more Erratic and Violent when they occur. 

 

https://de.scribd.com/doc/117829198/Pilot-s-Manual-Curtiss-P-40-Warhawk-WW

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40E_40-633_PHQ-M-19-1398-A.pdf

http://www.avialogs.com/viewer/avialogs-documentviewer.php?id=3136

 

well, that is all very subjective, isn't it?

 

can you define "erratic and violent" mathematically?  - also, keep in mind that the official P40 literature was written in a pre-war era, and had far more concern for minimizing risk and maintenance costs than you'd find on wartime recommendations 

 

 

anyways, I find that the current FMs are pretty sweet and dandy, and really do justice to the P40's reputation of "a plane much better than it's reputation"

 

 

 

my only gripes are the longer-than-normal startup procedure and the fact that the engine cooling is massively overpowered (overcooling even in conditions where the manuals say it ought to overheat, e.g: idle on the ground)... 

 

I reckon engines are next in line for a good round of love and attention, just like our FMs were just blessed with

Edited September 4, 2017 by 19//Moach

[Venturi]

Klaus, 

1. Your manual does not say spins are easily entered. It says the opposite in fact.

2. Spin entry and recovery was tested on ALL aircraft. Your link just says that the spins were not predictable and not easily recovered from. Most aircraft have similar warnings about altitude for recovery. That it has a spin characteristic which is bad, does not mean that such a spin was easily induced. See P-39.

3. Your training manual says "do not enter spins". Like every other training manual ever printed.

 

It is ALSO interesting to note, your first link dictates a gross weight of 7300-8300 lbs, a stall speed with gear and flaps up of 85 MPH indicated, and "aircraft does not readily spin from stalls".

 

Thank you for your misleading post regarding aircraft characteristics.

[JtD]

Posting sources is misleading now? I find that hard to believe.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Klaus, 

1. Your manual does not say spins are easily entered. It says the opposite in fact.

2. Spin entry and recovery was tested on ALL aircraft. Your link just says that the spins were not predictable and not easily recovered from. Most aircraft have similar warnings about altitude for recovery. That it has a spin characteristic which is bad, does not mean that such a spin was easily induced. See P-39.

3. Your training manual says "do not enter spins". Like every other training manual ever printed.

 

It is ALSO interesting to note, your first link dictates a gross weight of 7300-8300 lbs, a stall speed with gear and flaps up of 85 MPH indicated, and "aircraft does not readily spin from stalls".

 

Thank you for your misleading post regarding aircraft characteristics.

I'm not saying that she should readily enter spins but that the ingame Spin is undermodelled, stable and self recovering. The Test Reports show a tendency to whip around the Vertical Axis, so a large Variation in Speed of Rotation, and Oscillate around the Lateral between 60° Nose down and, depending on Directon, 20° Nose down and above the Horizon. 

 

A Stable Aircraft doesn't Spin in a stable manner. Overly Stable Aircraft don't spin, Unstable Aircraft Spin Stable. 

Edited September 4, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[Venturi]

Yes, Schilling describes a very nasty spin which was almost a "tumble" - which began ONLY when the aircraft entered a stall at 60deg pitch up with yaw added. Which I have posted about before, and which Klaus knows about too. However if someone read a "spin report" purely out of context without thinking, they might very well come to the conclusion that the aircraft spun easily - which it did not, by all accounts.

Edited September 4, 2017 by Venturi

[Farky]

So, how do guys like the FM Changes? I feel that the Spins are a bit undermodelled. According to my Sources they should be more Erratic and Violent when they occur.

 

Some RAF point of view on stall in P-40E-1 -

 

 

 

Edited September 4, 2017 by Farky

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Two different Things. An Airplane may have no natural tendency to Spin naturally, but if you Force a Spin, for example through tight manouvering with bad Coordination or a straight Stall and heavy kick into the Rudder you may still end up in one. 

 

An unsteady/violent/erratic Spin is a desirable Characteristic because it means the Machine won't Flatspin and will remain recoverable even after several Turns. 

The P-40 pretty much has the same Spin behaviour as a J-3 Cub flown from the Rear without Passenger, just a bit quicker.