Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Talon_

Stop trying to climb away from A-20s in your 109s... it doesn't work!!

Recommended Posts

Nice hits. Lazy 109 driver. All he really had to do was use superior roll to keep away from your nose. Trying to just extend straight (up) against any foe is a bad plan, even a lumbering beast, with a good pilot.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not an historic expert about wwII ac performances but I doubt that a A20 bomber in reality will never go such a climb rate and also could made a looping. Can anyone discuss about this?

 

Edited by EAF_51_FOX
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EAF_51_FOX said:

I'm not an historic expert about wwII ac performances but I doubt that a A20 bomber in reality will never go such a climb rate and also could made a looping. Can anyone discuss about this?

 

 

I hear what you are saying, however, at the end of the day it is just a PC game and not a real life WW2 sim.

 

Share this post


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

 

I hear what you are saying, however, at the end of the day it is just a PC game and not a real life WW2 sim.

 

 

 

Yes, but I know developers 1C (and players..) all they struggling and debate on FM of this SIM as to achieve best similarity to real life performance ..and if there are results like this (an A 20 looping..) may be there is lot of work still to do and to correct on FM parameters?..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you think an a20 shouldn't be able to loop? Unloaded it's not a lumbering aircraft and it was limited, I think to 4g so was obviously an aircraft capable of being thrown around the sky.  Well flown, a loop doesn't place an awful lot of stress on the airframe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might want to watch Bob Hoover loop a twin engine aircraft from minimum altitude with both engines shutdown (starting at 6.16)!

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, EAF_51_FOX said:

I'm not an historic expert about wwII ac performances but I doubt that a A20 bomber in reality will never go such a climb rate and also could made a looping. Can anyone discuss about this?

 

 

Well, it's a sturdy 7 tons plane with over 3000HP, so I'd not be surrised it can do it (when empty, of course).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The A-20 has a big Trick up it's Sleeve: 2nd Gear. 

 

It doesn't have a MAP Regulator, so the well acquainted Pilot simple goes Balls to the Wall and puts in Second Gear at Low Alt and thus gets around 60" MAP, giving him around 2000hp per Engine, with Low Fuel and no Bombs it thus is in the same Region in Power to Weight and Wing Loading as many Lower Power Figthers. It's only Limiting Factor is G-Load. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really doubt that in WWII structural materials and engine power could achieve a A 20 loop. If anyone has historical data or any original report about this manouver I will change my opinion, but still there, no doubt there is something really wrong in this FM 1C aircraft(s).

 

here you have some REAL data.. no mention of looping with this plane...

 

Edited by EAF_51_FOX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, EAF_51_FOX said:

I'm not an historic expert about wwII ac performances

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, the A-20C has twin engines capable of putting out 1600HP at sea level and without bombs it has a similar power to weight ratio as a Bf-109G2.  It can do 317mph and 4Gs.  Yes, this thing can loop.  Yes, this thing can prop hang.  Just because nobody did it (or filmed it) in WW2 doesn't mean it couldn't be done.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, EAF_51_FOX said:

I really doubt that in WWII structural materials and engine power could achieve a A 20 loop. If anyone has historical data or any original report about this manouver I will change my opinion, but still there, no doubt there is something really wrong in this FM 1C aircraft(s).

 

here you have some REAL data.. no mention of looping with this plane...

 

 

 

 

Yet the 4 tóns heavier Ju-88 was used as a Fighter with higher G Rating and you have surely no trouble believing that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, EAF_51_FOX said:

I really doubt that in WWII structural materials and engine power could achieve a A 20 loop. If anyone has historical data or any original report about this manouver I will change my opinion, but still there, no doubt there is something really wrong in this FM 1C aircraft(s).

 

here you have some REAL data.. no mention of looping with this plane...

 

 

You're confusing yourself, it is g ratings that matter here and a loop can be kept to comfortable g loads, well under 4g. Do you believe a Boeing 707 can do a barrel roll? Check out you tube.  Bob hoover's twin above uses materials and construction methods not that different from the 40s. As for historical evidence, I doubt any pilot would admit to looping, or even get the opportunity to do so, an A20. This is completely different from having the ability. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just confirm what has been said. Sure a A20 can make a loop. It's just a question about power/weight ratio, g load (no need to pull 8G), and entry speed. Nowadays also, many aircraft can make a loop, but it's forbidden because it's simply not designed for that (btw it's useless and stupid). 

 

And I bet USAAF instructors had other priorities than teaching how to make a looping with a bomber 😐

 

Btw nothing special in the video of the A20 climbing after a 109. Just arriving with a better energy state, pulling the nose up and shooting. 

Edited by F/JG300_Faucon
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it can fly well above its stall speed - it can also loop. If you are not there in for a perfect loop you can even keep the entire trajectory at under 2g. Even gliders can do aerobatics - don't need engines for it, just energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can sustain climb at 24.5m/s from takeoff, like a Spitfire. I never pulled more than 2G in the climb and loop.

 

 

41354570_10160893601380165_1456054412253331456_o.jpg

On 9/9/2018 at 12:40 PM, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

The A-20 has a big Trick up it's Sleeve: 2nd Gear. 

 

It doesn't have a MAP Regulator, so the well acquainted Pilot simple goes Balls to the Wall and puts in Second Gear at Low Alt and thus gets around 60" MAP, giving him around 2000hp per Engine, with Low Fuel and no Bombs it thus is in the same Region in Power to Weight and Wing Loading as many Lower Power Figthers. It's only Limiting Factor is G-Load. 

 

Bingo. This is what I did.

 

I was actually at a lower energy state than the 109, but it was a G-6 which is not as effective an energy fighter as an A-20B on 60".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2018 at 8:01 PM, Karamazov said:

 

I seem to remember testing the 'stalling out at 70 degrees and 200mph' mentioned in this video when the A20 was released. It didn't stall in game and I thought that was odd/wrong (but then I have no knowledge of the physics and flight stuff).

Exactly.. so in -game there are evidence of wrong FM about this plane at least. The player of A20 make a loop.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I Don't think there is a Plane in the game I havent been able to Loop, Roll and Half Cuban 8 so why should it be so special that an A20 is able to do it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that even a Boeing 747 is designed to take G-stress - fully loaded with fuel and passengers - that exceeds any possible aerobatic maneuver or spin the plane might experience in an emergency situation, I don't see why a combat worthy bomber couldn't do the same.  Granted, computers weren't used to design the A-20, but aircraft engineers did have a very good grasp of what was needed to make it a viable combat plane.  There is quite the possibility that the plane could break under high stress, but it takes a good bit more than one might imagine.  As long as the plane has the speed going into the loop, it should do it.  Considering the plane would be at near-stall at the top of a loop, I would think that pulling out of a high speed split S would be more of a G load than pulling out of said loop. 

 

As far as flight model goes, I'm more concerned about the fact that the airframes don't warp or bend during high G maneuvers.  I've done many loops in a Pe-2 with 2 500kg bombs under the wings and never had to change my trim settings or control inputs to compensate for a bent frame.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As if the mighty peshhka would ever bend or break. The only thing that is bendt after such manovers is the nose of the Navigator that gets thrown around. At least I haven't seen something to strap your self in down there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EAF_51_FOX said:

Exactly.. so in -game there are evidence of wrong FM about this plane at least. The player of A20 make a loop.

 

 

At a lot more than 200mph my dude, and at 50% more than maximum WEP power according to the manual.

Edited by Talon_
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Sarpalaxan said:

As if the mighty peshhka would ever bend or break. The only thing that is bendt after such manovers is the nose of the Navigator that gets thrown around. At least I haven't seen something to strap your self in down there. 

 

Planes are designed to "flex" before they fully bend or break, but that doesn't mean they are invincible.  With a full bomb load, I think it would be reasonable to expect high-G maneuvers would cause some warping of the frame.  Maybe it was the fact the pilot had to consider his crew that kept such things from happening except for extreme emergencies - like a FW190 or two hot on one's 6. 

 

2 hours ago, EAF_51_FOX said:

Exactly.. so in -game there are evidence of wrong FM about this plane at least. The player of A20 make a loop.

 

 

The video says 200mph in a 70 degree bank - left or right, not a 70 degree sustained climb.  If I remember correctly, a 70 degree sustained climb without losing speed is the kind of thing an F-14 fighter jet (or better) can do, not a WW2 era plane of any model.  Obviously, in a loop the plane passes 70 degrees, but that is momentary, and the plane is losing speed until it comes to the down-side of the loop.  

 

In the case of the A-20 the video says to not do any aerobatics and that it wasn't designed for it.  It's probably not because it can't handle it and the plane would break.  It's more likely because it would warp the airframe badly enough that flying normally afterward would be extremely difficult.  Also a lot of training vids for new pilots forbid 'advanced' maneuvers.  Partly because some maneuvers will send the plane out of control, and partly because the after effects would cause the plane damage that would require it to be retired too early for the long term effectiveness that was needed from it. 

Edited by Mobile_BBQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, EAF_51_FOX said:

Exactly.. so in -game there are evidence of wrong FM about this plane at least. The player of A20 make a loop.

 

70 degree bank... at that bank angle only (very simplistically) 30% of the wings lift is pointed vertically so you need a correspondingly greater angle of attack. This is all pretty simple. The game may have issues with FM it may not but there's nothing about the A20 specifications that say it can't do a loop. As has been said, whether you should or not is an entirely different matter and for sure if my bum was actually inside the aircraft I would think long and hard about it. If I had to explain to an authority why I'd done it I would think even longer. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Hoots said:

70 degree bank... at that bank angle only (very simplistically) 30% of the wings lift is pointed vertically so you need a correspondingly greater angle of attack. This is all pretty simple. The game may have issues with FM it may not but there's nothing about the A20 specifications that say it can't do a loop. As has been said, whether you should or not is an entirely different matter and for sure if my bum was actually inside the aircraft I would think long and hard about it. If I had to explain to an authority why I'd done it I would think even longer. 

 

And you certainly wouldn't ramp up the MAP over 60" if it was your actual self suspended several thousand feet above the wasteland below. We're talking manifold pressures the engine was basically never tested on here.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

In the case of the A-20 the video says to not do any aerobatics and that it wasn't designed for it.  It's probably not because it can't handle it and the plane would break.

 

Snap rolls were supposed to be "forbidden" for the P-51, too. They were used at some occasions, anyway. Depends how desperate is the pilot... it's much better to damage the plane than get killed, obviously.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If an aircraft is not cleared for aerobatics is not always correlated with its ability to do a loop. Fuel and lubrication systems need to be specially designed to tolerate significant „odd“ g forces. In a bomber, you don‘t do these kind of installations. Ergo, no aerobatics. Simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One can always try, especially when in a dire situation - systems have tolerances and wouldn't fail immediately.

Edited by Ehret

Share this post


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

If an aircraft is not cleared for aerobatics is not always correlated with its ability to do a loop. Fuel and lubrication systems need to be specially designed to tolerate significant „odd“ g forces. In a bomber, you don‘t do these kind of installations. Ergo, no aerobatics. Simple as that.

 

Er.....you sure about that?

 

Schematic of the standard nightfighter evasion manoeuvre taught by the RAF to all it's WWII bomber pilots.

pic_cockscrew.jpg

 

 All RAF heavy bombers were capable of performing this manouevre - with a bomb load too. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but there is no way a bomber is doing maneuvers with a full bomb load. C'mon now. Even if the airplane held together, the bomb bay shackles weren't designed for such a thing. They would have broken loose, and gone smashing through the closed bomb bay doors. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Poochnboo said:

Sorry, but there is no way a bomber is doing maneuvers with a full bomb load. C'mon now. Even if the airplane held together, the bomb bay shackles weren't designed for such a thing. They would have broken loose, and gone smashing through the closed bomb bay doors. 

 

We're not talking about B17's or B24's here

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind that jettisoning payload to get away from imminent destruction is less of a loss than the whole plane and crew.  Bombs that don't get to target < Lost plane and crew that will never get a chance to attack again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

Er.....you sure about that?

 

Schematic of the standard nightfighter evasion manoeuvre taught by the RAF to all it's WWII bomber pilots.

pic_cockscrew.jpg

 

 All RAF heavy bombers were capable of performing this manouevre - with a bomb load too. 

This is hardly aerobatics, but maneuvers that every GA plane can do as well, even if they are not cleared for aerobatics. 

 

This maneuver was a dire necessity as bombers in a bomber stream were essentially loners and could not combine their firepower in a formation. Then you move on and certify an aircraft for what it is supposed to do. 

 

I should think that you can loop (or much rather flip it overbackwards) an unloaded A-20, as these aircraft are quiet overpowered when flown without bomb and ammo load. It would mostly depend on control force required for pulling ~3.5 g close to red line on the speedometer. 250 mph IAS is probably on the slow side. But I wouldn‘t try it. Weekend warriors in the Swiss Air Force looped a Ju-52. They could throw away the aircraft afterwards, as the main wing spar was bent in process.

 

You really have to keep in mind that control forces for large, especially multi crew, aircraft are much higher than for fighters. This is deliberately so, effectivelly being a limiter for the pilot not damaging his aircraft or hurting the crew during maneuvers. To do a loop, you should easily be able to pull 4 g at elevated speeds. In bombers, that is a lot of g‘s. 2 tons of bombs are like 8 tons then, add some sideways load, they will exit the aircraft regardless whether there are closed bomb bay doors in the way or some fuselage longerons.

 

Eric Brown hated flying the He-177 (Heinkel himself hated that plane as well) as it had extremely light elevator controls, you could break up the aircraft with the pull of one arm on the controls. Combine that with very heavy ailerons and you get a living nightmare to fly. This was especially frightening, as the 177 was also considered to be used as dive bomber. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Poochnboo said:

Sorry, but there is no way a bomber is doing maneuvers with a full bomb load. C'mon now. Even if the airplane held together, the bomb bay shackles weren't designed for such a thing. They would have broken loose, and gone smashing through the closed bomb bay doors. 

The corkscrew was a recognised, taught manoeuvre, I know anecdotal evidence isn't worth a lot but my grandfather flew in Lancasters and described its use. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So because a plane is "heavy", he does not has the right to do aerobatics like other planes?

A "heavy" plane is a plane.

Any plane can do aerobatic because they fly the same way, same physics apply.

 

On 9/10/2018 at 9:25 AM, JaffaCake said:

If it can fly well above its stall speed - it can also loop. If you are not there in for a perfect loop you can even keep the entire trajectory at under 2g. Even gliders can do aerobatics - don't need engines for it, just energy.

 

Well said!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 2:14 AM, Talon_ said:

Outside: https://streamable.com/akre2

 

Inside: https://streamable.com/dprns

 

3rd Person: https://streamable.com/gac42

 

Showed another Bf109 a little trick I learned 😄 

 

 

We were watching this as we steamed in to help out.  You were quite fortunate because just as you got to the top of the climb before firing TP_Sparky was about to clobber you in his FW but disco'd, leaving me to get the hits seen at the end.

 

Good shooting though.

 

von Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2018 at 9:25 AM, JaffaCake said:

If you are not there in for a perfect loop you can even keep the entire trajectory at under 2g.

No. You do that, you go up no further than vertical unless you have the power to weight ratio of a modern fighter jet.

 

For glider, you use about 3.5 g as well to make a remotely round looping. You'll be around 50 km/h at the top. Around 3 g it becomes significantly oval and you'll be very slow at the top. Below that you're just messing around. Even biplanes like the Bücker 131 require you to pull 3.5 g, of if you are alone and lightly loaded, you can go down to maybe 3 g. Still, you will be very slow then on top of the arc.

 

In both examples, you enter the loop around 180 to 200 km/h. At twice the speed for fast aircraft, you fly a much bigger loop with a much farther upward travel. there is simply no way you get anywhere past nose up if you don't have the power to weight ratio of a Spitfire. And even in those aircraft, I don't think that 2 g will bring you anywhere near a loop. You are very fast when entering a loop. 2 g is a very flat trajectory then. At 400 km/h and 2 g, you'll be doing a 1.2 km circle!

 

The AT-6 has 155 kts, 290 km/h speed for entering a loop. If you were to make a round loop (that is the purpose of the maneuver), you have most speed and therefore acelleration down low when entering and when exiting the loop. At 3.5 g pull you will make a loop with 185 m radius, meaning your aircraft is required to be fast enough to make it up vertical for about 370 m. If you were to pull 2 g, you get about 300 m radius, requiring you to cover 600 m vertical. It is fair to say that the AT-6 cannot do that. The Tempest V requieres roughly 600 km/h to enter a loop. Think of where you'd go if you pulled only 2 g.

 

For practical purposes, as the aircraft will slow down, upward travel will be reduced signifitcantly. Therefore you might say, of course, one doesn't have to make a round loop, just pulling gradually when the aircraft slows down. While you have some leeway to do that (and this will enable you to "flip" some planes), you will quickly face the situation of stalling out when trying to pull the aircraft around or the aircraft stopping and falling backward, maybe flipping over if you are far enough on the back. Or not. Sitting in an aircraft falling backwards I find a most uncomfortable situation, as you have to hold the controls centered with all your force. If the windforce moves them they might get torn off. You cannot count on being able to hold the controls of a large, multicrew aircraft that is falling backwards.

 

In this sim, there is no problems in stalling out an aircraft in the vertical, so you are encouraged to do so. Even with bombers. But in real life, you wouldn't.

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...