Spin behaviour

[SCFG_DC]

I think something is very off with the spin behaviour. In all the aircraft I tried (most of the fighters so far) when I am in conditions that should be a stabilised spin (not incipient stage), the only recovery that is required is centralised controls (majority)  or some aileron input (P-39) NO rudder is required!!! Most will self recover within a couple of turns. Power on or off doesn’t seem to matter. 

 

Something is is not right. Can someone name an aircraft that stays in the spin and requires rudder to get it out?

[Blackhawk_FR]

I share the same feeling. When the P39 came out, as it was well known for its flat spin behavior, I immediately tried to get into that flap spin and try the recovery. I've never been able to put it into the flap spin... 

 

I'm gonna try with other aircraft. But I've already saw some guys going into positive or negative spins and crashing because of that.

Edited April 9, 2018 by F/JG300_Faucon

[FTC_DerSheriff]

I was at least in a horrible inverted spin in the yaks69 once. The P39 had apparently the flat spin stuff only when no ammo was loaded. But what do I know.

[SCFG_DC]

I can’t find a single one that actually needs rudder to recover. Rudder probably speeds recovery in game ( rudder is the common denominator in all spin recovery IRL) The fact you don’t need it is the issue.

 

Sheriff I know you spend a lot of time on the game (love the videos btw) try getting any of them into a spin and then try to get out of it first by doing nothing. (I.e centralise controls) then try ailerons. I have not found the need to use the rudder, which is the primary control to get you out of a spin. Just weird

[Blackhawk_FR]

4 hours ago, DerSheriff said:

I was at least in a horrible inverted spin in the yaks69 once. The P39 had apparently the flat spin stuff only when no ammo was loaded. But what do I know.

 

As we can say 37mm ammo are heavy and stored in the nose, putting them off would move the CG to the back of the aircraft, and so, easier flat spin.

 

 

3 hours ago, SCFG_DC said:

I can’t find a single one that actually needs rudder to recover. Rudder probably speeds recovery in game ( rudder is the common denominator in all spin recovery IRL) The fact you don’t need it is the issue.

 

Sheriff I know you spend a lot of time on the game (love the videos btw) try getting any of them into a spin and then try to get out of it first by doing nothing. (I.e centralise controls) then try ailerons. I have not found the need to use the rudder, which is the primary control to get you out of a spin. Just weird

 

Try Mig3. I've tried it, once in the spin, all commands to neutral, it keeps spinning. You need reverse rudder, forward stick, and aileron in the spin (but didn't realise if it helps). 

Also tried the 109G: hard to get it into spin, and once you're into it, it recovers alone (all commands to neutral).

Edited April 9, 2018 by F/JG300_Faucon

[56RAF_Roblex]

 

I have got into an inverted flat spin in a Yak-1 that I found impossible to get out of.  I also tried recovering from a P-39 spin using full power and it refused to come out (though without power it does come out easily)     I should also mention that despite the stories, once the initial stability problems had been ironed out the P-39 was able to recover from a spin within "one half turn"  when the correct recovery procedure was used.   I am not sure if that means 'half a turn'  or 'one and a half turns'.   I agree though that the P-39 recovers using the usual process when in real life you actually had to apply rudder *with* the spin and stick back to slow the spin before switching to the usual opposite rudder and stick forward.   I think this is because the P-39 had a strange oscillating spin behavior and modelling the aerodynamics so perfectly that it does that naturally as well as responding correctly to its unique spin recovery process is probably too hard.

[SCFG_DC]

Tried yak 1 69 it will enter a stabilised spin (yeah) but don’t need rudder to get out of it.(booooo!!!)

 

map stalingrad autumn 6000m start. Full fuel and ammo. Spin to left from idle power. Centralised controls, no recovery. Centralised controls, full power, recovery in a couple of turns. 

 

Next spin to left idle power start at 6000m. Centralise controls, no recovery. Move elevator through neutral towards full forward, no recovery, ailerons into spin (left aileron) recovery in 1-2 turns.

 

Tried at 50% fuel same result. 

 

Mig-3 will stabilise in a spin but still don’t need rudder to recover. Same as Yak-1.

 

 

 

ITried yak 1 69 it will enter a stabilised spin (yeah) but don’t need rudder to get out of it.(booooo!!!)

 

map stalingrad autumn 6000m start. Full fuel and ammo. Spin to left from idle power. Centralised controls, no recovery. Centralised controls, full power, recovery in a couple of turns. 

 

Next spin to left idle power start at 6000m. Centralise controls, no recovery. Move elevator through neutral towards full forward, no recovery, ailerons into spin (left aileron) recovery in 1-2 turns.

 

Tried at 50% fuel same result. 

 

Mig-3 will stabilise in a spin but still don’t need rudder to recover. Same as Yak-1.

 

Roblex I can’t see any reference with regards the P-39 that into spin rudder is required. I read the flight manual but I may have missed it. I see full elevator but no mention of into spin rudder.

 

 

 

[56RAF_Roblex]

52 minutes ago, SCFG_DC said:

 

 

Roblex I can’t see any reference with regards the P-39 that into spin rudder is required. I read the flight manual but I may have missed it. I see full elevator but no mention of into spin rudder.

 

 

 

 

Hmm. I cannot find where I saw the advice to apply rudder *with* the spin at first (EDIT: See end of post) though the relevant page from the manual does talk about 'full stick back' which is counter intuitive.

 

 

 

ADDENDUM

 

**********************************************************************************************************************************

 

I am not going crazy!   Here is an instructor telling his pupil to apply rudder *with* the spin.

 

https://youtu.be/tXnXP39cO8U?t=13m20s

 

************************************************************************************************************************************

 

Edited April 9, 2018 by 56RAF_Roblex

[SCFG_DC]

Interesting. Still the P-39 in game does not require those actions to get in out of a spin. Far from it.

[ACG_Smokejumper]

On 4/9/2018 at 2:59 AM, DerSheriff said:

I was at least in a horrible inverted spin in the yaks69 once. The P39 had apparently the flat spin stuff only when no ammo was loaded. But what do I know.

 

Nothing, and you smell like sausage.   

[AndyJWest]

In the early BoS alpha days I managed to get a Bf 109 into an inverted flat spin:

 

Whether it will still do it, I don't know: the FM may have changed enough to prevent it. What was apparent from this was that recovery only seemed to be possible as the altitude decreased. Does anyone know whether real-life spin characteristics change with air density?

 

[unreasonable]

A quick search suggests that air density is absolutely a factor as it is intuitively - it is the air resistance vs the mass of the spinning object that slows the spin. How much difference it should make in a specific case of course I have no idea at all...

 

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19650009675.pdf

[ZachariasX]

I think we have to be a bit tolerant regarding post-stall bevaviour of the airplanes. This is something „outside“ of the sim FM and you have to script it somehow as any lifting line theory in aerodynamics will not help you.

 

Regarding the P39 spin recovery, it seems they go great lenght to prevent a flat spin. I would say this is the reason why the „movie instuctor“ was recommending at as a first measure to push rudder inside the turn once you effectively lost control of the aircraft. But doing only so, once what feels as a tumble initially is positvely a spin in a known direction. After that, Spin recovery is as in any aircraft that stabilizes in a spin. The nose-up tendency of the P39 (when no ammo is loaded in the front guns) can be deduced by the recommendation to push the stick forward.

 

Pushing full forward is a pretty coarse thing to do and you don‘t want to do that in most GA aircraft or especially gliders, as it may lead to the aircraft pointing straight down when exiting the spin. It brings the risk of overspeed, structural overload an added hight requirements for the pull-out.

 

The inverted flat spin however is a very different animal from your traditional spin. See here, well explained:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PhfT8gCOCy0

 

 

 

[AndyJWest]

 

Interesting video,  ZachariasX, though I'm not entirely convinced that gyroscopic procession is of any more significance in an inverted spin than a normal upright one, since the forces generated should be the same either way. And of course it is possible to spin inverted with no gyroscopic forces involved at all: 

 

 

 

 

[Ehret]

On 4/10/2018 at 11:49 PM, 56RAF_Roblex said:

I am not going crazy!   Here is an instructor telling his pupil to apply rudder *with* the spin.

 

https://youtu.be/tXnXP39cO8U?t=13m20s

 

When it was filmed? - pre or post the discovery of the ballast fix by soviets pilots?

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, AndyJWest said:

 

Interesting video,  ZachariasX, though I'm not entirely convinced that gyroscopic procession is of any more significance in an inverted spin than a normal upright one, since the forces generated should be the same either way. And of course it is possible to spin inverted with no gyroscopic forces involved at all: 

 

 

 

 

Of course inverted spins can happen just like „normal“ spins. But the when and how are not well understood by many.

 

The vid gives an impression of what a „nice“ inverted spin in an aerobatic prop aircraft looks like and how that is done.

 

Now coming to the „not nice“ inverted spins, the ones that kill pilots. Especially in aerobatic gliders, but also in prop aircraft, inverted spins occur after a wrong procedure to exit a normal spin, namely pushing full forward (in a plane with an effective elevator) plus full opposite rudder. An inverted spin is very steep. Steep enough for a pilot not realizing that he just switched from a spin in an inverted spin, thinking „why doesn‘t the aircraft exit the spin? I apply full rudder??“ and then that is the end of it. To exit an inverted spin, it is usually enough just to center controls (and idle throttle).

 

Inverted flat spin require much more, such as the gyro of the propeller or, say in an aerobatic glider such as the Swift or the Fox, full ailerons agianst the turn (remember, we are inverted) will flatten the spin. Neutralizing controls will exit the spin.

 

In aircraft with a very effective elevator, the risk of initiating an inverted spin is the rationale for discouraging anything but a very slight push forward is to be applied for exiting a spin.

Edited April 13, 2018 by ZachariasX
typo

[SCFG_DC]

This all a bit beside the point. The crucial thing here is in NO AIRCRAFT REQUIRES THE USE OF RUDDER TO GET OUT OF A SPIN!!!!! Upright or inverted. i.e. You can get out of a spin in game using controls that are secondary at best and in some case should worsen the Spin.

 

I still have yet to see a video of spin in the current verson that requires rudder.

[ZachariasX]

It should depend on how the plane is loaded if it exits the spin on his own. Most aircraft should exit a spin by releasing the controls, unless you do something against that, namely put weight in the tail.

 

Post stall behaviour is not trivial to script and will hardly be accurate, unless you can match specific behavior to an actual plane. So I would never expect post stall departures to be really accurate in such a sim, but it's a start if they are plausible.

 

Also, there is no way that you have an i AC with a wrong CoG due to improper loading. This means you have always the most benign of all possible ways to get back control.

[Art-J]

Technically, any real airplane which doesn't have all of the rudder "hidden" from the airflow by fuselage and/or remaining elements of empennage during spin should show a tendency to slow down the rotation or even recover by itself without opposite rudder input, it will just do it slower/later than with correct recovery procedures. That has been the rule for decades, with rare exceptions obviously, but the sim is correct in principle. Same applies to warbirds in DCS.

 

Now, whether the details (how slower/later is correct) are OK or not in BoX & DCS can be discussed further, but I wouldn't waste too much time on it. As mentioned, no PC-grade simulation on the market today is capable of simulating the beyond-critical AoA regimes accurately, nor will they be capable of doing it in near future. Some simplifications, or going straight for scripted/"faked" effects is all what can be done for now.

Edited April 16, 2018 by Art-J

[Venturi]

I discussed this earlier with several forum members.

 

The post stall effects are incredibly aerodynamically complex and really can't be modeled in the same way the rest of the sim is. Even so I find the behavior of some aircraft very plausible post stall. For instance, the flick-spin of the FW190 is modeled. I think the FM developers are well aware of these issues and they also want to do the best they can to simulate reality in accordance with the limitations of time and computing power.

 

Far more important to the simulation are the models used for engine management, and the A20 is a major step forward in this if you'll notice - mixture having impact on temperature management and therefore boost levels beyond what is available in pure "timer" fashion. 

[AndyJWest]

3 hours ago, Venturi said:

...

The post stall effects are incredibly aerodynamically complex and really can't be modeled in the same way the rest of the sim is.

...

 

This. It is beyond the capabilities of a PC to model the complex three-dimensional flows involved in real time, so trying to duplicate reported spin behaviour would most likely involve grafting on some sort of 'scripted' physics to the existing FMs. Even doing that though would probably involve making guesses at exactly how the real aircraft behaved, and would necessarily involve an awful lot of work to achieve the right sort of response. As it stands now, the aircraft will all spin, and can all be made to recover. Maybe they recover too easily, but erring on that side rather than making recovery impossible has to be preferable.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I’ve never worried about it because I just do standard spin recoveries in game, which are intuitive, and work every time.

[69th_Ustio]

Sorry for a little bit off topic. But why does when the spitfire lost 1 of its horizontal stabilizer it goes into a unrecoverable spin ? Is this a bug or does this happen in RL?

[AndyJWest]

1 hour ago, Ustioo said:

Sorry for a little bit off topic. But why does when the spitfire lost 1 of its horizontal stabilizer it goes into a unrecoverable spin ? Is this a bug or does this happen in RL?

 

Loss of control after losing half the tailplane seems entirely plausible to me. Particularly in an aircraft with marginal pitch stability. As for what happens in real life, I doubt that anyone has the data, and it might depend on what else was damaged. You do sometimes see pictures of aircraft successfully landed with large parts missing, but they probably aren't representative: smoking craters don't make such good photos.

[E69_geramos109]

I was very disapointed with the actual Fm of the P39 regarding the spin.

 

18. Claiming that FM is incorrect without the required proof and starting a flame thread based on such claim is prohibited.

 

2. This forum is provided by 1C-777 Ltd. as a courtesy and its usage is a privilege and 1C-777 Ltd. reserves the right to ban any member temporarily or permanently for any reason at any time. Any penalties listed below for violations of the rules are guidelines only and forum administration may take additional action if they feel it is warranted. Use of the forum is not connected to usage of the game and access to this forum is not guaranteed to users as a consequence of purchasing the game.

Edited May 17, 2018 by SYN_Haashashin

[56RAF_Roblex]

1 hour ago, E69_geramos109 said:

I was very disapointed with the actual Fm of the P39 regarding the spin. I didn`t find any plane difficult to fly and when there is one, they change it to be as simple as a trainer as with 190, mig3, la5 with slats and any torque.... etc. 

Fms are by far with rendering distance the handicap of this sim for me..

 

According to the official manual, the P-39 recovered from spins within less than a single rotation so your desire for a difficult recovery is unhistoric.

 

 

[E69_geramos109]

41 minutes ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

 

According to the official manual, the P-39 recovered from spins within less than a single rotation so your desire for a difficult recovery is unhistoric.

 

 

So why all this pilots fear and reports about the flat spins?

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Because Pilots are People too. Most American Aircraft had Spin Problems, The P-40B and C, P-47 with Bubble Canopy, P-51 up to the D Model as well as some early P-39 Models and the DC-2.

 

The P-40 went through 4 different Tails and 2 Wing Root Iterations to cure it. 

The P-47 got those forward extensions right up to the Canopy, same for the P-51.

The P-39 went through numerous Tails and Fuselage Lengths, and forward extensions. 

 

The P-39 was odd and Rumors are powerful things, no Matter how wrong they are.

 

 

 

[56RAF_Roblex]

10 hours ago, E69_geramos109 said:

So why all this pilots fear and reports about the flat spins?

 

Because if you read the spin recovery technique in the manual you will see that it is a little different to most other aircraft.  You must first pull the stick right back then wait for the slow part of the spin before applying opposite rudder.  Only then do you apply forward stick etc.        If you just panic and try to put the nose down as soon as you enter the spin then it wont recover.    To be fair,  in BoX you will get away with just pushing the stick forward the same as any other aircraft but that is because it would be near impossible to simulate the  strange oscillating spin of a P39 and the effects on flight controls.  No flight sim has ever done it.   So yes on one hand they have  simplified it but on the other hand the only thing they have simplified is the corner case of a stupid pilot ignoring everything he was taught.  To a properly trained P39 pilot its spin was easy to recover from.

 

If you scroll up to my post of 9th April you will see I posted a link to a P39 training video in which the instructor demonstrates how to stall & spin the P39.  Go to about 13 minutes.

Edited May 16, 2018 by 56RAF_Roblex

[ZachariasX]

3 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

The P-47 got those forward extensions right up to the Canopy, same for the P-51.

 These were actually made to make the aircraft less easy to yaw in-flight. Without those it was possible to give that much rudder input at high speed that it was more than specified max load.

 

3 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

The P-40 went through 4 different Tails and 2 Wing Root Iterations to cure it. 

Also that one is more a trim issue. The short birds in the beginning required a lot of foot work.

 

There were several factors that led to said improvements. With a proper loadout, they were not worse han other aircraft. There was plenty margin for that when you look at how much fuel they put in the tail of a P-51. Just, no aerobatics then please.

[E69_geramos109]

On 16/5/2018 at 10:07 AM, 56RAF_Roblex said:

 

Because if you read the spin recovery technique in the manual you will see that it is a little different to most other aircraft.  You must first pull the stick right back then wait for the slow part of the spin before applying opposite rudder.  Only then do you apply forward stick etc.        If you just panic and try to put the nose down as soon as you enter the spin then it wont recover.    To be fair,  in BoX you will get away with just pushing the stick forward the same as any other aircraft but that is because it would be near impossible to simulate the  strange oscillating spin of a P39 and the effects on flight controls.  No flight sim has ever done it.   So yes on one hand they have  simplified it but on the other hand the only thing they have simplified is the corner case of a stupid pilot ignoring everything he was taught.  To a properly trained P39 pilot its spin was easy to recover from.

 

If you scroll up to my post of 9th April you will see I posted a link to a P39 training video in which the instructor demonstrates how to stall & spin the P39.  Go to about 13 minutes.

[edited]. 

 

2. This forum is provided by 1C-777 Ltd. as a courtesy and its usage is a privilege and 1C-777 Ltd. reserves the right to ban any member temporarily or permanently for any reason at any time. Any penalties listed below for violations of the rules are guidelines only and forum administration may take additional action if they feel it is warranted. Use of the forum is not connected to usage of the game and access to this forum is not guaranteed to users as a consequence of purchasing the game.

 

18. Claiming that FM is incorrect without the required proof and starting a flame thread based on such claim is prohibited.

[SCFG_DC]

I’d be happy with same spin in most/all aircraft aslong as it 1.  actually could stabilise in auto-rotation and 2. actually require the rudder to   recover (It is the primary flight control for this)

 

 I would be interested to see any documentation  that does not contain rudder as the primary step in spin recovery.

[56RAF_Roblex]

1 hour ago, E69_geramos109 said:

And for me is near imposible to make a flat spin in any of the aircraf in BOS.

 

I managed to get a Yak into an inverted flat spin.  I died.

 

[Venturi]

15 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

 There were several factors that led to said improvements. With a proper loadout, they were not worse han other aircraft. There was plenty margin for that when you look at how much fuel they put in the tail of a P-51. Just, no aerobatics then please.

 

What many don't realize is the extremely stringent set of requirements required of American fighter aircraft.

 

Unlike continental fighters whose role was to simply provide point defense, and screw the range - American fighter aircraft had, as a prerequisite requirement for their contract approval, to meet range requirements double or triple their European counterparts, to withstand airframe G loads in multiple axes which most other fighter aircraft were not specified for, or were specified at lower G loads for, to carry on the whole heavier armament and pilot protection than their contemporaries, and to be fast. There were some absolute performance compromises made on some of the earlier aircraft such as the Tomahawk / Warhawk to achieve these design goals, however if you look overall at the mission specifications it met, it is a remarkable aircraft, especially considering the abuse it took and kept flying. To consider then the P-38, P-47, and especially the P-51, which went from contract signing to flying in less than a year, and which met these goals while meeting or exceeding their European counterparts' performances in some or all dimensions of the envelope.

 

The only other air force which required so many complex dimensions of mission performance from its fighter aircraft, was the IJN in the A6M, which although was at the very leading edge of performance in the 1943 and before era, could not withstand the Gs, dive speeds, or punishment that the American aircraft could - although it matched or exceeded their range.

 

To a gamer, the only thing that matters is instantaneous aerobatic performance. While this is important, it does not factor in the many other aspects of aircraft performance which indeed mattered very much to pilots of the time. 

[Ehret]

1 hour ago, Venturi said:

To a gamer, the only thing that matters is instantaneous aerobatic performance. While this is important, it does not factor in the many other aspects of aircraft performance which indeed mattered very much to pilots of the time. 

 

Yup - we can see that in the P-40' controllable tail wheel and the P-39' tricycle gear. A pilot may/may not meet an enemy in the air but every sortie had to have taxi, takeoff, landing and taxing again. Would be better to have a slightly improved power-loading only to get crippled (or killed) in a more probable runway incident? No, surely not.

[E69_geramos109]

[edited]

 

redone or something because it looks that some aspects of the fm are very simplyfied from the last Fm path.

 

2. This forum is provided by 1C-777 Ltd. as a courtesy and its usage is a privilege and 1C-777 Ltd. reserves the right to ban any member temporarily or permanently for any reason at any time. Any penalties listed below for violations of the rules are guidelines only and forum administration may take additional action if they feel it is warranted. Use of the forum is not connected to usage of the game and access to this forum is not guaranteed to users as a consequence of purchasing the game.

 

18. Claiming that FM is incorrect without the required proof and starting a flame thread based on such claim is prohibited.  

 

Already warned you and others at the Spanish forum, this kind of comments without the support of proof are prohibited.

 

 

Edited May 17, 2018 by SYN_Haashashin

[AndyJWest]

4 hours ago, E69_geramos109 said:

There is an  acrobatic manouver called fast roll. that consist on rolling puting a little of elevator and rudder and what it makes is to make an acelerated stall in some way that helps you to roll and is very controlable. I use to make this on combat a lot on other sim and also here before the fm review but now is imposible to make it.

To flat spin a plane on this sim is quite difficilt and allways when it hapens is just for a moment and the plane recovers just alone. So i thing this subject should be redone or something because it looks that some aspects of the fm are very simplyfied from the last Fm path. 

 

That's a flick roll. If it is 'very controllable' in other sims, the sims probably have it wrong. Pilots notes etc for WW2 fighters often expressly state that flick manoeuvres are forbidden, not just because of the danger of losing control but because of the strain they put on the aircraft. 

[Poochnboo]

16 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

because of the strain they put on the aircraft. 

..and the pilot! As a real life flyer, i can tell you that those violent airbatics are punishing to the body. To be really honest, I'm not crazy about them. 

[ZachariasX]

19 minutes ago, Poochnboo said:

..and the pilot! As a real life flyer, i can tell you that those violent airbatics are punishing to the body. To be really honest, I'm not crazy about them. 

Imagine keeping your bearings onopponents while flick rolling...

[Poochnboo]

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

Imagine keeping your bearings onopponents while flick rolling...

It's hard to keep you bearings on anything. During some of these maneuvers you aren't even in control of the airplane for a few seconds. You don't do this stuff unless you have thousands of feet of air between you and the ground.

My stomach had a hard time with airbatics. Maybe if I'd done it for a while longer I would have gotten used to it. I was doing some airwork with an excellant instructor out of Northwest Regional Airport in Roanoke Texas. Charlie Yates. Terrific guy. Terrific pilot. We were almost upside down at one point and I said over the intercom, "Charlie, I think we need to land." From the back seat of the Citabria, Charlie said, "You okay?" My answer was a simple no.

We put the little taildragger down at Reliance Airport. I opened the windows and sucked in some much needed air! I felt a little better, but I was done flying for the day. A real blow to the ego for someone who had always dreamed of being a fighter pilot. 

Charlie had been a combat pilot in Viet Nam. He told me that he had flown as an FAC. That's some dangerous work. Later he flew as an aggressor at Red Flag and then he was with an F-15 Wing until he retired after 20 years. He went on to be a Captain for Delta.

I was shocked to hear, a few years ago, that Charlie had been killed with a student pilot while taking off from Regional. With all of his thousands of hours in combat jets he died in a little single seat G.A. airplane, doing nothing more than taking off. Such is aviation.

 

As has already been said here, rudder is always used to recover from a spin. Opposite rudder, of course. The fact that you don't need it, here, highlights the fact that this is a "sim light." I'm not knocking it. I enjoy the game. But, the flight modeling is not as realistic as, say, DCS. As a matter of fact, the Spitfires in CLOD feel a little more real than in BOX. And again, nothing wrong with that. But, I think people need to go into this game knowing that about it. 

Edited May 17, 2018 by Poochnboo