Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SCFG_DC

Spin behaviour

Recommended Posts

A few years ago I did a 30 minute session of WWII air tactics with an ex RAF instructor in an Extra 200... We practiced 'Boom and Zoom',  'split S and evasion', 'sustained turn fights' etc...

At times I was pulling over 7g's...

When we got back to the airfield, I was bathed in sweat and my legs felt weak... I felt like I'd just been beasted around a 10 miler... this kind of flying is physically demanding on the body.

Edited by Trooper117

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Trooper117 said:

A few years ago I did a 30 minute session of WWII air tactics with an ex RAF instructor in an Extra 200... We practiced 'Boom and Zoom',  'split S and evasion', 'sustained turn fights' etc...

At times I was pulling over 7g's...

When we got back to the airfield, I was bathed in sweat and my legs felt weak... I felt like I'd just been beasted around a 10 miler... this kind of flying is physically demanding on the body.

 

Really makes you wonder whether a sim should start modelling some endurance factors for the pilots wherein the ability to pull G gets limited as the pilot gets more and more exhausted (yay for stamina meter>P). A BIG can of worms nobody wants to touch but as you report, it could become a big factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they would be able to accurately do it justice to be honest... I think what we have in game is fine as is...

The one thing I remember thinking after that session in the Extra, was realising that during the Battle of Britain for instance, those young guys were flinging themselves around the sky like that 3 or 4 times a day sometimes.

I was knackered after my single session, (but I was 50 yrs old at the time, lol)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

I don't think they would be able to accurately do it justice to be honest... I think what we have in game is fine as is...

Yes, blacking out is the best that can be done. And remember that these were young men. They could take it. As they obviously proved that every day. The adreneline that pumps through your body during combat negates the effects of fatigue. It's after everything calms down and you land that it hits you. Pilots would often have to be lifted out of their fighters by their ground crews.

Edited by Poochnboo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

I don't think they would be able to accurately do it justice to be honest... I think what we have in game is fine as is...

The one thing I remember thinking after that session in the Extra, was realising that during the Battle of Britain for instance, those young guys were flinging themselves around the sky like that 3 or 4 times a day sometimes.

I was knackered after my single session, (but I was 50 yrs old at the time, lol)

 

 

I do both powered and unpowered aerobatics. You build up tolerance extremely quickly. I do not remember my first ever spin - I recall the beginning and end, but the middle was completely washed out. Now spins are just another thing you do - a little uncomfortable on the recovery as you can pull 3-4g, but otherwise completely normal.

 

6-7g is indeed where it gets quite difficult and can be exhausting. But then you don't spend 100% of your time pulling these gees.

Edited by JaffaCake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mauf said:

 

Really makes you wonder whether a sim should start modelling some endurance factors for the pilots wherein the ability to pull G gets limited as the pilot gets more and more exhausted (yay for stamina meter>P). A BIG can of worms nobody wants to touch but as you report, it could become a big factor.

 

You just need to play Warthunder. There it is implemented. And you need to grind like [edited] to get more G tolerance, better vision etc. . I do not think we want that here.

Edited by SYN_Haashashin
lenguage
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Vladimir Mikhailovich Mukhmediarov, pilot of 14th GvIAP

 

 

There are rumors that Cobras was prone to spins?

Cobra easily entered any kind of spins. Both into simple and into flat spins. It also had bad landing characteristics due to the fact that it was tail-heavy. (This is very unusual comment as most accounts praise Airacobra for its excellent landing characteristics due to tricycle landing gear � IG). There were two of us, who came to train on Cobras, we already mastered take offs and landings. Then they told me:
� Now go to the zone for aerobatics. And look after your tail, Germans are close by, they can shoot you down�
So I flew, sharp turns first, then half-loop down� What�s going on? Earth is so close now? But I was flying at 3 000 meters. In a half-loop I lost 1 500 meters, Yak would loose 600 meters. What a heavy airplane, I thought.
I gained 3 000 again� Zooms, combat turns, half loops, barrel rolls� Then I flew in formation with my friend, with whom we came from the flight school � Sergeant Vladimir Pavlov. He flew very well, he was an excellent pilot. But he did not make it to combat-ready status, got killed in a Cobra.
It happened before my eyes: their pair flew from Volkhov to the airfield at an altitude of approximately 2 000 meters. Leader begun diving, dove, dove, then he pulled out very sharply. His aircraft lifted its nose and then begun falling like a leaf. Chirkov shouted over radio:
� Bail out!
We heard no reply.
� Bail out!
No reaction.
� Bail out! 
Airplane fell into the bushes�

 

 

 

Same as we have on the game yeah.

p39 spin.png

p39 spin 2.png

p39 spin 3.png

Oh... same as we have on the game..

 

 

You Just can not make this on the game. Is not possible... FM of the plane is not behabing like that.

 

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

As the rule 18 sais. Now that i posted proofs. Can i say now that i post facts that FMs look more simple that it should be without being banned?

 

 

pilot spin.png

Edited by E69_geramos109
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, E69_geramos109 said:

 Vladimir Mikhailovich Mukhmediarov, pilot of 14th GvIAP

There are rumors that Cobras was prone to spins?

Cobra easily entered any kind of spins. Both into simple and into flat spins. It also had bad landing characteristics due to the fact that it was tail-heavy

Yes, Geramos109 is right in this too. The P-39´s bad spins recovery behavior was very famous and well know by all pilots, especially when the P-39 was fliying with low fuel and low ammunition weight in the nose, because de C.G. moves dangeruosly  rearward, due to the engine (the most heavy weight in all warbirds) was installed in the middle, it´s not in the nose, unlike the majority of the warbirds.
Moreover, when the aircraft enter in a spin, the engine weight in the nose allows to the aircraft to lower the nose, and gain speed easily due to gravity action, when the spining speed decrease, allowing a easy recover of the spin.
 

Spoiler

39cut-jpg.308387


I think, that is another more reason why the correct Weight & Balance and a correct trim behabior is needed to include in the FM. I think, that at present day W&B& trim changes, are not modelled in the FM, because the leakage of fuel in one tank of the airplanes with tanks in the both wings, (such as; Yak´s , Lagg, P-39, Bf-110, etc)  don´t cause lateral unbalance, and these aircraft are able to performed amacing maneouvers, with a big cannon hit hole in one tank and the tank empty.  

Edited by III/JG52_Otto_-I-
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2018 at 9:45 AM, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:


 

  Reveal hidden contents

39cut-jpg.308387


I think, that is another more reason why the correct Weight & Balance and a correct trim behabior is needed to include in the FM. I think, that at present day W&B& trim changes, are not modelled in the FM, because the leakage of fuel in one tank of the airplanes with tanks in the both wings, (such as; Yak´s , Lagg, P-39, Bf-110, etc)  don´t cause lateral unbalance, and these aircraft are able to performed amacing maneouvers, with a big cannon hit hole in one tank and the tank empty.  

 

 

I'd love that to be modeled! I'd like it if you could manually switch tanks as well. It would be nice if we could isolate the venting fuel tank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 7./JG26_Smokejumper said:

 

 

I'd love that to be modeled! I'd like it if you could manually switch tanks as well. It would be nice if we could isolate the venting fuel tank.

 

It's coming with future updates, so the developers said...

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this on the Russian forum the other day, it's from a book about spinning dynamics. Basically - the higher the number, the faster it spins. Some planes from the game are in that table, Lavochkins are given with and without leading edge slats.

post-328-0-03176600-1446385181.thumb.jpg.9f2217ec9a20426bb1b42418847fbb57.jpg

Edited by JtD
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got back to this game after a year because I did mostly real life flying (no spins) and War Thunder. The first thing I tried was spins. I wasn't very impressed to be honest. I would certainly like to see a scripted spin behavior. As of now WT is on another planet in this department, and in that department only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No changes. Planes are just as easy to fly as before. I guess with the current problems they are going to focus on solving them rather than tunning Fm. So lets wait 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have now killed so many Mustangs with Pilots too stupid to properly adjust their Fuel Load, that got completely G-Locked, with G-Loc resulting in fatal Spins, as well myself getting caught in pretty nasty Spins in the P-39, that I would say that Spin behaviour in the newer Models is pretty good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2018 at 5:19 AM, Trooper117 said:

A few years ago I did a 30 minute session of WWII air tactics with an ex RAF instructor in an Extra 200... We practiced 'Boom and Zoom',  'split S and evasion', 'sustained turn fights' etc...

At times I was pulling over 7g's...

When we got back to the airfield, I was bathed in sweat and my legs felt weak... I felt like I'd just been beasted around a 10 miler... this kind of flying is physically demanding on the body.

 

Similar to Formula 3 driving, where G loads can be up to 5G or more.

The P39 is deadly if the spin is not instantly stopped. The real problem is that it has sensitive controls and a rear center of gravity which increases the instability of the aircraft, additionally. The spin also develops very quickly and once in a fast spin it is very hard indeed to recover. At least in real life from the accounts I have read. There was a set of rearrangements that the Russians did to the loading of the P-39 to address this issue for all aircraft, and issued operating instructions to that effect to front line squadrons. The P-39s that fly today have ballast in the nose to shift the COG forward, again for this very reason.

However, imagine a pilot not used to sensitive controls, getting bounced, or otherwise panicking, and jerking on this stick after expending ammunition or some other situation which made a rear bias weight on the P39 even worse. Result=spin.

 

Otherwise, the P39 was apparently a delight to fly but with substandard roll compared to spitfire and P40, and substandard climb compared to spitfire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2018 at 2:50 AM, Venturi said:

 

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. 

 

While I agree that american fighters had different boots to fill, the notion that they were DESIGNED for longer ranges isn't quite correct.

All the "legacy" fighters (P-38, P-47 and P-51) saw significant growth in range over their service-life. Mostly due to cramming more fuel into the airframe, but also to a great deal by giving them the capability of carrying a sheet-ton of external gas.

 

Keep in mind that the P-38 had enormous troubles (especially in Europe) till it could finally could be considered a "definitive" product. By that time, it's relative performance compared to contemporaries wasn't all that great anymore.

The P-47 was a very evolutionary design, not really starting from a clean sheet of paper.

The P-51 was flying within a four months after conception of the idea. This airplane, however, was still a great deal of development (and political arm-wrestling) away from eventually becoming the right airplane at the right time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

13 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

While I agree that american fighters had different boots to fill, the notion that they were DESIGNED for longer ranges isn't quite correct.

 

 

 

Wrong. The required ferry range was for the P-40 was, I believe, 1000 miles - a requirement that the Bf109, FW190, Spitfire, Yak, or any other European fighter could hardly match. Pursuit aircraft designed in the late 30s had "hemispheric defense" in mind... and since North America is a big continent, pursuit aircraft had range requirements. Also see "The Army Air Forces in World War II", volume 6, official Office of Air Force History publication, authors Wesley Craven of Princeton and James Cate of University of Chicago, 1983.

 

13 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

All the "legacy" fighters (P-38, P-47 and P-51)

 

"Legacy" fighters? The P-47. P-38, and P-51 were some of, if not THE most technically advanced fighters of the war.

 

13 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Keep in mind that the P-38 had enormous troubles (especially in Europe) till it could finally could be considered a "definitive" product. By that time, it's relative performance compared to contemporaries wasn't all that great anymore.

Disagree again. The P-38 had enormous troubles WITH COMPLEXITY, which led to problems in practical use at high altitudes. Its performance including turning and climbing performance, was as good or superior to the Bf109 AND FW190 models encountered.

 

Quote

The P-47 was a very evolutionary design, not really starting from a clean sheet of paper.

Your point is what? That the FW190D-9 was an awful aircraft because it came from the FW190A? Or that the Bf109K-4 was not a good aircraft, because it came from an earlier model with two-bladed prop and had only rifle caliber MGs for armament? If you are making the point that evolutionary aircraft design can't result in a good aircraft, I think you should consider other examples than the P-47 as well.

 

Quote

The P-51 was flying within a four months after conception of the idea. This airplane, however, was still a great deal of development (and political arm-wrestling) away from eventually becoming the right airplane at the right time.

 

Are you saying that the P-51 didn't end up destroying the Luftwaffe? That the Luftwaffe losses from American fighters escorting the bombers in 1944 (mostly P-51s) didn't result in the Luftwaffe being crushed utterly? In one week alone the Luftwaffe lost a THIRD of its fighter force in Europe.

 

image.thumb.png.182d7e69e0f23ec39b4b0607787e85eb.png

 

Edited by Venturi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Venturi said:

Wrong. The required ferry range was for the P-40 was, I believe, 1000 miles - a requirement that the Bf109, FW190, Spitfire, Yak, or any other European fighter could hardly match. Pursuit aircraft designed in the late 30s had "hemispheric defense" in mind... and since North America is a big continent, pursuit aircraft had range requirements. Also see "The Army Air Forces in World War II", volume 6, official Office of Air Force History publication, authors Wesley Craven of Princeton and James Cate of University of Chicago, 1983.

 

The P-40 isn't "american fighters". It's ONE american fighter. If that is supposed to be the ferry range, it has to be with a crapton of external fuel, which isn't quite the indication what the aircraft was DESIGNED for - especially, when it's initially not designed/ built to carry external stuff.

 

9 hours ago, Venturi said:

"Legacy" fighters? The P-47. P-38, and P-51 were some of, if not THE most technically advanced fighters of the war.

 

I meant it more in the sense of building a heritage for future fighter generations, but since you're taking a defensive stance:

Technologically advanced may be true in a way - but that also applies to "overly complex" (-38/ -47) and "expensive" (-38/-47).

 

The most technologically advanced fighters of the war were the jets. The german and british prop-fighters were in no way less advanced than the american props.

The P-51 needed a british engine-installation to give it the altitude and speed, as Allison couldn't provide a working supercharger-solution. Quite some technological superiority at work there...

 

9 hours ago, Venturi said:

Disagree again. The P-38 had enormous troubles WITH COMPLEXITY, which led to problems in practical use at high altitudes. Its performance including turning and climbing performance, was as good or superior to the Bf109 AND FW190 models encountered.

 

No. The P-38 was aerodynamically a flawed design, which led to compressibility issues a whole frigging 0.1 Mach sooner than on contemporary hi-performance airplanes.

By the time it's issues were fixed (the dive-brakes were a crutch, not a fix), it's performance wasn't anything to write home about anymore.

 

It wasn't "complexity" that led to freezing cold cockpits and overeffective intercoolers. It was a design that wasn't quite ready for prime-time. It was good enough for the PTO and in a way for MTO, but it wasn't good enough for ETO.

 

9 hours ago, Venturi said:

Your point is what? That the FW190D-9 was an awful aircraft because it came from the FW190A? Or that the Bf109K-4 was not a good aircraft, because it came from an earlier model with two-bladed prop and had only rifle caliber MGs for armament? If you are making the point that evolutionary aircraft design can't result in a good aircraft, I think you should consider other examples than the P-47 as well.

 

Congrats for missing the point entirely.

 

9 hours ago, Venturi said:

Are you saying that the P-51 didn't end up destroying the Luftwaffe? That the Luftwaffe losses from American fighters escorting the bombers in 1944 (mostly P-51s) didn't result in the Luftwaffe being crushed utterly? In one week alone the Luftwaffe lost a THIRD of its fighter force in Europe.

 

No. I'm saying the Mustang wasn't DESIGNED to have a lot of range, as the original airplane missed both, the vastly increased fuel-volume of the later models, and the performance. On top, it was an airplane built to british requirements.

 

Now what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Now what?

 

Have a beer together and a fun discussion instead of an anonymous near hostile internet argument.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2018 at 8:21 AM, jcomm-il2 said:

 

It's coming with future updates, so the developers said...

 

Twooo Gggggyeaaargs Lateewr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 1940, the Bf109 and Spitfire both had around 105 US gallons of fuel capacity, and no provision for external fuel.  Both used water cooled V12s making about 1100hp or so.  The Yak-1 had 107 gallons, and the Macchi 202 had 113.

 

The early Allison V-1710s employed in the P-38, P-39, P-40 and P-51 were all putting out similar power, and thus had pretty similar fuel consumption.

 

The P-38 started life with 410 US gallons of fuel - essentially 205 per engine.  This got reduced to 300 gallons after switching to self sealing fuel tanks.

The P-39 started as a prototype with 200 gallons, which fell to 120 after switching to self sealing tanks.

The P-40 started with 180 gallons and settled around 148 with self sealing tanks.

The P-51 started out with self sealing tanks and had 170 to 180 gallons of fuel, prior to the later Merlin versions with their additional 85 gallon fuselage tank.

 

So in short, the US fighters were all designed with significantly more fuel capacity than their European counterparts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...