IL2 vs real (WWII russian based military trainer.)

[SCG_motoadve]

2,000hr pilot  here and a big fan of Il2 Great battles.

I got to fly a CJ 6 this weekend (CJ 5 its a chinese development trainer licensed from the YAK 18 trainer made just after WWII, has the same instruments, copied radial engine, its like flying a WWII russian trainer (like the mission the USA AT 6). CJ-6 its an improved version with more performance based on the CJ 5/Yak 18.

Thanks to this simulator immediately I was familiar with all the instruments, they are all the same.

The taxiing with air brakes get some time to get used to, lever is catchy not smooth, throttle also not smooth, again thanks to this sim this was not so new.

Same with air flaps, air systems (gear)

 

If you have the right hardware in IL2 BOS, I can tell you they do a great job, really good, the air brakes, air landing gear, everything.

I have VR and a Vrpil with extensions, Warthog throttle.

My PC joystick  with extensions is at the exact same height as the CJ 6, also I added a Buttkicker to as some feedback to my joystick and seat, it has exactly the same feeling as how the stick vibrates in the real plane.

Stick forces are too soft in the PC joystick, (we need to add force feedback, there is a company  who makes it but $1,500 is too much)

The control throws on the Virpil are very close to the CJ6, the arm movement exactly the same.

G forces... nothing we can do to simulate those.

 

Sounds , the air system sounds is well modeled when using the brakes, engine lacks a bit of ooomph sound in this sim.(And this plane I flew has 1/3rd of the power ).

 

I am not 100% sure if the landing gear and  flaps in Yaks, Laggs, LA-5s and Migs are part of the air system , I think they are , and if they are they should make the same sound as the brakes (air release sound) its loud and you clearly can hear it.

In the sim, the gear and flaps sound mechanical, some flaps electric sound (not sure how they worked in real life)

Feeling of flight its real good in the sim (always said so).

I was very comfortable doing sustained steep turns in this initial flights, definitely thanks to the sim and the hardware I have, VR is very immersive and realistic, so this steep turns didnt feel new to me.

 

This  a is a military trainer so for sure easier to fly than a Mig, Yak or LA-5 but definitely has a WWII russian warbird feel.

If you want to get the best out of this sim, get the best hardware, this sim deserves it, and takes you a lot closer to how it is to fly this airplanes in real life.

 

Congrats to the team, you guys do a great job.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 8, 2018 by II./JG77_motoadve
Grammar

[pilotpierre]

I did most of my 400+ hours aerobatics in a Cessna 152 Aerobat but one mate had a Nanchang, another a Yak Trainer and another a 2 seat Pitts Special. I have flown aeros in all of them.

 

I class the 152 as a sedate sedan, the Pitts as a racing car and the Yak and Nanchang as tractors but great fun to fly aeros nevertheless.

 

I agree that this series of Il2 is the closest sim to actual flying. I remember when it was first released how heavy the LaGG felt, first time I ever experienced that in a sim.

 

 

[Finkeren]

The LaGG-3 and La-5 have electrically operated flaps and landing gear. The MiG-3 I think has a combination of electric and hydraulic. I think the Yaks are the only Soviet fighters to solely use a pneumatic system for both landing gear and flaps (which is cheap and light weight but also less reliable)

[E_Davjack]

Always great to hear from pilots with real experience!

[Guest deleted@83466]

Quick question about your Buttkicker.  You said it acts on your joystick too?  Is that because your joystick is attached to your chair, or do you have multiple shakers?  I have a BK,  on the chair, and I've been starting to wonder if I should add a shaker to the joystick for extra immersion.   I take it you aren't concerned about the vibrations being bad for the stick...is that even something to worry about?

[SCG_motoadve]

45 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

Quick question about your Buttkicker.  You said it acts on your joystick too?  Is that because your joystick is attached to your chair, or do you have multiple shakers?  I have a BK,  on the chair, and I've been starting to wonder if I should add a shaker to the joystick for extra immersion.   I take it you aren't concerned about the vibrations being bad for the stick...is that even something to worry about?

I have 2 BKers, one on the base of the joystick and one in the seat.

I asked Virpil about the vibrations being bad and they send me the video link on how they test the joystick, look it up its in their website.

They say no worries.

[Lensman]

I've been using a force-feedback stick with ALL the IL-2 variants for 18 years.

[Duckman]

Love this real life stuff,

[[APAF]VR_Spartan85]

21 hours ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

2,000hr pilot  here and a big fan of Il2 Great battles.

I got to fly a CJ 6 this weekend (CJ 5 its a chinese development trainer licensed from the YAK 18 trainer made just after WWII, has the same instruments, copied radial engine, its like flying a WWII russian trainer (like the mission the USA AT 6). CJ-6 its an improved version with more performance based on the CJ 5/Yak 18.

Thanks to this simulator immediately I was familiar with all the instruments, they are all the same.

The taxiing with air brakes get some time to get used to, lever is catchy not smooth, throttle also not smooth, again thanks to this sim this was not so new.

Same with air flaps, air systems (gear)

 

If you have the right hardware in IL2 BOS, I can tell you they do a great job, really good, the air brakes, air landing gear, everything.

I have VR and a Vrpil with extensions, Warthog throttle.

My PC joystick  with extensions is at the exact same height as the CJ 6, also I added a Buttkicker to as some feedback to my joystick and seat, it has exactly the same feeling as how the stick vibrates in the real plane.

Stick forces are too soft in the PC joystick, (we need to add force feedback, there is a company  who makes it but $1,500 is too much)

The control throws on the Virpil are very close to the CJ6, the arm movement exactly the same.

G forces... nothing we can do to simulate those.

 

Sounds , the air system sounds is well modeled when using the brakes, engine lacks a bit of ooomph sound in this sim.(And this plane I flew has 1/3rd of the power ).

 

I am not 100% sure if the landing gear and  flaps in Yaks, Laggs, LA-5s and Migs are part of the air system , I think they are , and if they are they should make the same sound as the brakes (air release sound) its loud and you clearly can hear it.

In the sim, the gear and flaps sound mechanical, some flaps electric sound (not sure how they worked in real life)

Feeling of flight its real good in the sim (always said so).

I was very comfortable doing sustained steep turns in this initial flights, definitely thanks to the sim and the hardware I have, VR is very immersive and realistic, so this steep turns didnt feel new to me.

 

This  a is a military trainer so for sure easier to fly than a Mig, Yak or LA-5 but definitely has a WWII russian warbird feel.

If you want to get the best out of this sim, get the best hardware, this sim deserves it, and takes you a lot closer to how it is to fly this airplanes in real life.

 

Congrats to the team, you guys do a great job.

 

 

 

 

 

Awesome video and thanks for the comparisons of real vs sim...

when you lifted off and wheels up... i was waiting for flares to shoot and the chat to pop up with a Russian radio voice to telling you to carry on with your objective....

[-TBC-AeroAce]

He doesn't even need to press O for GPS.  #BOSed it

[SCG_motoadve]

Forgot to mention, I tried to check 6 while flying.

VR has it right, actually perfect if you dont try to move to a side and reset view in VR.

 

If you just try to check six while VR is centered its just the same as in the real plane with parachute strapped and harness.

I know is a dis advantage to track IR , but I dont care, its more realistic and immersive.

Head bump and VR limits, you cannot move too much when strapped in, while I dont like the bump sound when VR limit is reached, which feels like an invisible wall, the limits are not too bad really.

 

Just getting rid of the bump noise would be nice.

[Bremspropeller]

7 minutes ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

Just getting rid of the bump noise would be nice.

 

Imagine they had a buttkicker-VR make a bump-move anytime you smashed your virtual head into the virtual canopy. :)

 

17 hours ago, pilotpierre said:

did most of my 400+ hours aerobatics in a Cessna 152 Aerobat

 

Oh boy, I'd be paranoid about the whole rudder AD thing in the 152.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

17 hours ago, pilotpierre said:

I did most of my 400+ hours aerobatics in a Cessna 152 aerobat

 

 

 

I learnt in a 152 aerobat.  It had cracks in its wing spar so it was limmited to 1g flight. Now having that knowledge when flying is interesting, let's just say it makes ones flying very smooth.

[ZachariasX]

9 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

rudder AD

What is that?

 

My problem would be i'd just could put in one leg and fly it with the door open. At least they are sensible enough making a door on the pilots side. I detest that in the Archer etc. where you only have that "hatch" to crawl inside and onto that sofa.

 

In the Bücker 131, you just get rid of the pillows and the chute and imagine yourself 65 kilos. Then it works well.

4 minutes ago, AeroAce said:

It had cracks in its wing spar so it was limmited to 1g flight.

And you still took it up? Impressive.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

9 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

 

And you still took it up? Impressive.

 

You would be very suprised how many cracks there are in aluminium aircraft. The standard practice is just to weld a doubler over it or drill a hole in the end of the crack to stop it from spreading.

 

Seriously if you fly on a 10 year plus airliner they would have had to repair many a crack. I bet a load of people would not fly if they knew more on the subject. 

Edited October 9, 2018 by AeroAce

[Bremspropeller]

IIRC there were a couple of incidents (well, accidents) where a pilot had a bigger foot thn brains and would bury the rudder-cable attachment fittings into the fuselage skin, blocking the rudder in the full position and making sure they would nicely recover from a spin, but proceed to spin into the opposite direction, auger in and buy the farm.

The AD is just a screw or plate that limits rudder-travel (not by much) and gives the fittings something more sturdy to hit on than the fuselage-skin.

This AD is related:

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-05-13/pdf/E9-11029.pdf

 

My biggest fear in the Warrior-family (and all but the most recent Mooneys for that matter) is a jammed door or some incompetent dud trying to open it and not succeeding.

Well that and a random wingspar-failure.

[Poochnboo]

19 minutes ago, AeroAce said:

I learnt in a 152 aerobat.  It had cracks in its wing spar so it was limmited to 1g flight. Now having that knowledge when flying is interesting, let's just say it makes ones flying very smooth.

Limited to one G!? That's straight and level flight. Were you even allowed to turn? Seriously, did they really allow an airplane that dangerous to go up? I took airbatic training in a Citabria. My instructor was ex-Air Force. Flew FAC in O-10's in Viet Nam. Then went on to F-15's at Nellis. Really knew his stuff, and he got me sick! He, ironically, died in a flying accident with a student. Airplanes like the Nanching and the Yak-52 are a lot of fun, I'll bet. But it costs an arm and a leg to keep those radial engines going.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

1 minute ago, Poochnboo said:

Limited to one G!? That's straight and level flight. Were you even allowed to turn? Seriously, did they really allow an airplane that dangerous to go up? I took airbatic training in a Citabria. My instructor was ex-Air Force. Flew FAC in O-10's in Viet Nam. Then went on to F-15's at Nellis. Really knew his stuff, and he got me sick! He, ironically, died in a flying accident with a student. Airplanes like the Nanching and the Yak-52 are a lot of fun, I'll bet. But it costs an arm and a leg to keep those radial engines going.

 

When I say 1g I really mean it was not allowed to aerobatics.  It was more than safe to fly, it just had its flight envelope limmited. 

Edited October 9, 2018 by AeroAce

[Bremspropeller]

Poochn, the Citabria was the one with the flat-bottomed wing, correct?

Probably needs a whole lot of pushing to keep her level inverted (if you have inverted oil and gas systems anyway).

Did you have the spades on the ailerons to help rolling, or did you have to muscle her around?

 

4 minutes ago, AeroAce said:

When I say 1g I really mean it was not allowed to aerobatics.  

 

Not allowed to do aerobatics usually means limited to 3.8g or "Utility" category.

A "one g"-limitation would make the airplane lose it's airworthiness-certificate as you couldn't even safely fly a traffic pattern in that thing.

Edited October 9, 2018 by Bremspropeller

[-TBC-AeroAce]

3 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Not allowed to do aerobatics usually means limited to 3.8g or "Utility" category.

A "one g"-limitation would make the airplane lose it's airworthiness-certificate as you couldn't even safely fly a traffic pattern in that thing.

 

This is what I meant.

[Bremspropeller]

Up to 3.8g would be "normal" category.

"Utility" is up to 4.4g.

 

The 152s I have flown were all so beat up and corroded (Florida is kinda hard on airplanes - especially when non-hangared), I wouldn't even have dared to test the normal 3.8g.

 

One cool memory I have, though, is this one:

I was practicing power-off stalls solo (for our non US pilot-friends: Those are flown in the landing-configuration iaw the PTS) - Flaps 30°, carb heat on and power idle.

Despite being fully stalled (pretty much as in a falling leaf), I was climbing with about 100-200ft/min.

As an old glider-dude I thought this was kind of neat.

 

 

 

@II./JG77_motoadve was the amount of rudder required rather normal, or did the Nanchang need more of your feet than expected?

Edited October 9, 2018 by Bremspropeller

[SCG_motoadve]

It needed more rudder than my 182 for sure, and left rudder, which is new

[Poochnboo]

3 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Poochn, the Citabria was the one with the flat-bottomed wing, correct?

Probably needs a whole lot of pushing to keep her level inverted (if you have inverted oil and gas systems anyway).

Did you have the spades on the ailerons to help rolling, or did you have to muscle her around?

Brem, you made me go and dig out my log book. Haven't done that in a while, felt good actually. Charlie, my late airbatics instructor, wrote the aircraft type down as "AGCBC." That would make it one of the old flat bottomed winged airplanes. They changed it to symetrical later on and called it the Decathlon. Beefed up the airframe, too. We didn't stay inverted for any length of time. I remember mostly spins and rolls. I don't recall it being hard to roll the airplane. I suppose it did have the spade modification. 

Edited October 9, 2018 by Poochnboo

[IckyATLAS]

Thanks for sharing the video. I did my aerobatics licence and flew quite sometime in a CAP 10C with carbon wing. It was certified +6 / -4.5G. I flew in three planes that had a round front glass window the CAP 10C, the Robin DR400 (excellent panoramic view) and the P3-05. 

 

But what I liked most in your video is that we have a flight under the rain. I never did that because as I flew for my personal pleasure and not professionally I just choose the right time.

What we could see in your video is that the drops of water really behave like in the IL2 simulation. Excellent job the devs did. 

 

[E_Davjack]

So, as a part of transitioning from the wonderful FM of RoF to WWII, I have been spending spare bits of time doing pattern ops.  Various take-offs and landings, crosswinds, that sort of thing.

 

Question for you, as a person whose only RL flight experience is sparse and in Cessna 172/152:  how was the ground effect in that plane?  As I am doing pattern ops in game, I notice that I don't "feel" the ground effect as strongly as I recall in Cessnas, but of course there are probably 1000 reasons for that, weight being chief, I'd assume.  (Proportion of lift/weight ratio siphoned off by tip vortex drag being far less.)

 

In a 152, the ground effect on a dense day could feel like a pillow.  How was it in the CJ6?

[-TBC-AeroAce]

Ground effect in small planes, is not really a thing.

 

But to preempt.... It is a big thing if a big plane lands in front of you.

Edited October 10, 2018 by AeroAce

[E_Davjack]

It's part of what I was trained to clear ground and gain velocity for a short field takeoff in a Cessna, so.  I distinctly remember being taught about it in ground school, flight school, and I recall feeling it affect final descent, so...was I taught wrong? Educate me.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

1 minute ago, EmerlistDavjack said:

It's part of what I was trained to clear ground and gain velocity for a short field takeoff in a Cessna, so.  I distinctly remember being taught about it in ground school, flight school, and I recall feeling it affect final descent, so...was I taught wrong? Educate me.

 

You was trained well. but if u have ever really come across it is another thing.

[E_Davjack]

Can you explain?  I'm genuinely interested in what you mean. 

[-TBC-AeroAce]

8 minutes ago, EmerlistDavjack said:

Can you explain?  I'm genuinely interested in what you mean. 

 

Ground effect is really only somthing that will badly effect bigger aircraft OR a small aircraft that is in the toe of a bigger one.

 

In this game it really is not a thing that should be worried about, unless you are in twins.

 

People here will say that ground effect is a thing... bha ... but for the fighters at least it will not add more than a couple of mph to your landing speed. 

Edited October 10, 2018 by AeroAce

[E_Davjack]

But, it is an effect that exists and affects all fixed wing aircraft, no?  It might be subtle in light aircraft, and certainly not something "to be worried about," but it can be felt or used. I would imagine a Heavy who needs the entire strip might "worry" about it, or like you say, a light aircraft too close to the ground and encountering the tip vortices of a Heavy is bad news...

 

What I am asking the OP is whether or not he "felt" much in that heavier, meatier WWII-trainer style aircraft compared to his 182.

[Guest deleted@50488]

I believe I feel it ok in the IL-2 fighters, although I think it's more evident in DCS. Comparing the 109s and even the 190s, I float more in DCS than I tend to in IL2.

 

If it's realistic or not, honestly after 38 yrs flying gliders I only feel it when I decide I don't want to be far from the hangar and retract the spoilers during flare... Other than that I should say it never played quite a role in my glider landings.

 

At high speed and over scenery areas where the terrain is mostly plain I can feel it too in IL-2 and as I approach the ground the aircraft slightly "cushions" - something I often use to escape some guys who really persist in going after me ?

Edited October 10, 2018 by Von-Target

[E_Davjack]

Ground effect, in layman's terms, increases lift at shallow angles of attack while very close to the ground.  In a light aircraft, it is especially noticeable if you come in just a little too fast, flare, and then gain a little altitude as you bleed speed, but not much. You relax backpressure (or push the stick down, depending on trim) and...keep flying level in the ground effect cushion. 

 

I was taught that this only happens within a wingspan of the ground. If you are using it to escape followers, that is some damned low flying.

Edited October 10, 2018 by EmerlistDavjack
reasons

[ZachariasX]

12 minutes ago, EmerlistDavjack said:

I was taught that this only happens within a wingspan of the ground,

That sounds very correct. It is really independent of the size of the aircraft. R/C planes have extensive ground effect too.

 

For practical purposes, you notice that mostly that the aircraft settles a bit later when you flare it out during the landing.

 

On take off, it is of course present as well. Short field takeoff has been mentioned. I know some flying clubs encourage that for takeoffs from grass strips when the strips are wet after rain. You can lift the wheels of the ground at a speed where the aircraft is technically not yet flying, and then accellerate while flying about 1 meter or so off the ground when you still feel the „cushion“ of air under you. Once you have reached climbing speed, you can lift the A/C off that cushion and start your climb.

 

It is nothing to br affraid off, it helps you flying at low speeds. However personally, I frown at flying clubs telling their pilots to do short field takeoffs. It is just an open invitation for bent metal and cracked spars. Club pilots on the average have very little flight time and especially when they got their pilots rating after retirement, they almost never develop a true sense for their aircraft. Although they most often fly „correct“, they do so with their brain and not with their gut. Ground effect is something that depends on aircraft type, weather, weight, etc. If handling the aircraft doesn‘t come that naturally, one puts the pilot in a dangerous position when forcing such situations.

 

For our purposes with the planes we have in game, the only „problem“ there could be with ground effect is that it would allow you to lift the A/C from the ground before it actually flies. While the A/C is „skimming“ on the air cushion but not yet flying, asymetric load on the wing by torque of a full power setting making you torque roll if you don‘t ease up on the pull up. In ground effect, you will reach „max altitude“ right away, meaning there is almost zero tolerance for compensating asymetric lift, hence you will do a short field takeoff with a P-51 only once.

[Bremspropeller]

Ground effect really isn't a cushion, it's more just a reduction of your wing-tip vortice strength and as such, two things happen:

 

1) Induced drag decreases within ground-effect, leading to greater excess-power and an enhanced gliding-capability (which is what you feel on landing).

2) Your available lift is greater, as there is less of a vortex-induced flow-field around the tips. Thus your airplane can fly a bit below Vs within ground-effect.

 

Even commercial Level-D simulators have a hard time simulating ground-effect, which is why airliner line-training is still flown with the real airplane. And that is with tons of data gathered during wind-tunnel analysis, CFx calculations and actual flight-testing.

If IL-2 doesn't get it completely right (and who says DCS does, for that matter?), that isn't a big deal.

[TWC_Ace]

Good remark on the engine sound. It should be a bit deeper and more "rumbling". Dont know a better word to describe.

Edited October 10, 2018 by blackram

[eRoN]

For real pilots here, is the hartman rolle simmed correctly in this game? From my perspective (not a pilot) it seems like it doesn't work correctly (feels like there is a lot of resistance even at c. 300-400 kph, from the plane to want to go into it making it very slow, and then ends up often spinning out of control before the first roll even completes). In CloD for example, it works a lot better (a lot faster and can pull out of the roll whenever one wants without losing control). Which is closer to the reality?

[SCG_motoadve]

7 hours ago, EmerlistDavjack said:

But, it is an effect that exists and affects all fixed wing aircraft, no?  It might be subtle in light aircraft, and certainly not something "to be worried about," but it can be felt or used. I would imagine a Heavy who needs the entire strip might "worry" about it, or like you say, a light aircraft too close to the ground and encountering the tip vortices of a Heavy is bad news...

 

What I am asking the OP is whether or not he "felt" much in that heavier, meatier WWII-trainer style aircraft compared to his 182.

That is ground effect, and its free performance, helps you accelerate on short take offs, and makes you float on landings(not a good thing on landings)

IL2 BOS ground effect its very subtle, this is why the landings are a lot easier than in real life, and not really a challenge. DCS you can feel it a bit more.

 

I use ground effect all the time in backcountry flying to gain more speed (free performance)increased lift force close to the ground, and clear obstacles at higher speeds . Take off short and push the yoke or stick down, and feel the acceleration, the faster you start to go, the harder you need to push down.

CJ-6 also gets ground effect, every airplane does, the wing creates it when close to the ground, you come fast and you will float when you are at least the lenght of the wing high over the runway.

Here is a video where I use ground effect on take off, (I am pushing the yoke  quite hard to keep it in ground effect) there were no obstacles, but higher altitude airport and using the free performance.

 

 

The question about the hartmann rolle, I dont understand very well what do you refer to, controls get harder at speeds, yes , (we need force feedback joystick to simulate this) slower response (I read yes when very high speeds, never tried it myself), and it is simulated in Il2).

 

 

[E_Davjack]

I'll be honest, I gave up on flight sims for a few years until, on a whim, I decided to get a MSFFB2 off ebay and give that a go.  I had already had TIR, pedals, levers, but the FFB changed everything.  I fell in love with RoF all over again. 

 

DCS downloaded before the stick arrived, so I thought I would give it a chance with my spring stick, and promptly failed every single approach in the P-51 (the ground effect is much stronger in DCS!).  I was porpoising and looping, stalling wings.  It was gross.  The next day, I get the stick, set it up, configure the controls and...nail my first approach.  As a result, I've become a FFB fanatic/evangelist in a very short time. It's really too bad that FFB (haptic) stick technology is wrapped up in patents or whatever is going on there. 

[SCG_motoadve]

I found that there is a pilot in the cockpit after all. ?