Why I really want the Tempest

[Quinte]

1 hour ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Roll slightly worse than Spitfire until 300 mph when it becomes better than Spit (worse than Fw)

 

This is only true of Tempests equipped with spring-loaded aileron tabs, though. All evidence tends to suggest those were removed and subsequently not installed on aircrafts flown during the BoBp timeline. I believe we should expect a fairly bad rolling aicraft (though still much better than a Tiffie if you want to compare to existing data).

[Talon_]

1 hour ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

The Series II / Sabre IIB model commence deliveries in September '44, so this is the model for BoBp. There is a jpeg of a pilot card for the Seires II / Sabre IIB as of Feb '45 (though this should not be immediately seized upon as being only flown from Feb - this simply happens to be the date of this particular card). It refers to '5 min combat allowance' in terms of range reduction but would have to check my Pilots Notes for actual engine limits but it would be nice to see power over recommended time = sudden massive engine temp rise that can be controlled  using radiator and rapid engine management rather than 5:01 = 'bang!'

 

2050hp for 1 hour

2400hp for 5 minutes

[PatrickAWlson]

2 hours ago, Leifr said:

 

Willing to bet that it will be gimped in some way...

 

Give 1C a bit of credit.  They are constantly working the FMs to get them right.  So right out of the box there will probably be some issues.  Over time they get pretty good.

[Talon_]

1 minute ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Give 1C a bit of credit.  They are constantly working the FMs to get them right.  So right out of the box there will probably be some issues.  Over time they get pretty good.

 

I really don't like this approach. It's been longer now since the P-47 was released than the entire time that elapsed between the 3D model reveal and inclusion in the game. In that time the FM has remained a magic-flap hovercraft with thoroughly unrealistic handling characteristics, engine limitations and damage resistance. 1C have not even commented on it. Are we to assume it's working as intended?

[EAF19_Marsh]

Quote

This is only true of Tempests equipped with spring-loaded aileron tabs, though. All evidence tends to suggest those were removed and subsequently not installed on aircrafts flown during the BoBp timeline. I believe we should expect a fairly bad rolling aicraft (though still much better than a Tiffie if you want to compare to existing data).

 

Not seen nothing to suggest it rolled poorly. The wing and aileron were totally different to that of the Typhoon's. None of the tables or testing accounts suggest that it was slow in roll, though it got better as speed increased.

Edited February 26, 2019 by EAF19_Marsh

[Voidhunger]

48 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

I really don't like this approach. It's been longer now since the P-47 was released than the entire time that elapsed between the 3D model reveal and inclusion in the game. In that time the FM has remained a magic-flap hovercraft with thoroughly unrealistic handling characteristics, engine limitations and damage resistance. 1C have not even commented on it. Are we to assume it's working as intended?

BOBP is still in early access. So until full release its still work in progress. Like they said many times revisiting fm is not that easy.

[Talon_]

12 minutes ago, Voidhunger said:

BOBP is still in early access. So until full release its still work in progress. Like they said many times revisiting fm is not that easy.

 

I'm fully of the opinion that it still has yet to be visited in the first place.

[Voidhunger]

12 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

I'm fully of the opinion that it still has yet to be visited in the first place.

I agree that flaps need to be revisited, but they have some plan how they develope things. For me personaly its not that big issue, because i play sp only and im not gaming the game. I use flaps to take off and landing.

[Quinte]

1 hour ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

Not seen nothing to suggest it rolled poorly. The wing and aileron were totally different to that of the Typhoon's. None of the tables or testing accounts suggest that it was slow in roll, though it got better as speed increased.

My bad, I failed to properly convey my meaning here. I meant not as good as is often thought, since the values for a spring-tab equipped Tempest are often thrown around on the internet.

Also, it may be trivial, but I feel like saying it anyway just to avoid confusion, it's obvious that the roll rate didn't get better as speed went over 300mph. What it did was get worse, but at a slower rate than that of a standard, fully-winged spit XVI or a 109. 

[EAF19_Marsh]

1 hour ago, Quinte said:

My bad, I failed to properly convey my meaning here. I meant not as good as is often thought, since the values for a spring-tab equipped Tempest are often thrown around on the internet.

Also, it may be trivial, but I feel like saying it anyway just to avoid confusion, it's obvious that the roll rate didn't get better as speed went over 300mph. What it did was get worse, but at a slower rate than that of a standard, fully-winged spit XVI or a 109. 

 

Yes, I was being vague about the ‘300 mph’ point, but 3 things:

- Its rate of roll was good by contemporary standards across the speed range

- At 300mph, sustained roll rate was 100 degrees per second which was better than its roll rate below 300 mph so rate did climb with speed

- Roll rate appears to have peaked at around 300 mph, so not only did its roll rate improve at (rather than beyond) 300 mph, but its comparative roll rate also rose above this speed.

 

 

 

[Voyager]

7 hours ago, Talon_ said:

 

I really don't like this approach. It's been longer now since the P-47 was released than the entire time that elapsed between the 3D model reveal and inclusion in the game. In that time the FM has remained a magic-flap hovercraft with thoroughly unrealistic handling characteristics, engine limitations and damage resistance. 1C have not even commented on it. Are we to assume it's working as intended?

 

You have a source on the L/D ratio with flaps deployed that I can test to? So far I've found references that one flap would deploy to 20° before the other moved, and that if you lost hydraulic pressure, they'd snap shut suddenly, but finding how the aircraft behaved with flaps down has been rather thin gruel.

[ZachariasX]

13 minutes ago, Voyager said:

flap would deploy to 20° before the other moved

That would kill you.

 

14 minutes ago, Voyager said:

if you lost hydraulic pressure

Regarding hydraulic pressure check the dial, it should read 1000 psi, dropping to 100 to 200 while either gear or flaps are moving. If you have the flaps lever on "neutral", the flaps circuit is locked, meaning the valves on both sides of the flaps actuator are shut. You can drain all oil in the system, as long as that lever remains in "neutral", the flaps won't move.

 

If the oil is gone and pressure to 0 psi on the dial, if flaps are deployed in flight in any way (position up or down of the lever) will make the flaps being immediately pushed up by the airstream as you open the sealed of oil tubes.

 

In the Mustang, you have a lever for relieving pressure in that oil system. You pull that red handle (down between your legs to the right side of the control column) and oil pressure drops to 0, making flaps fall down all the way. It is how you do it to park your plane for an extended period of time. You'll need a running engine after shutting that valve again to buil up pressure to 1000 psi, then flaps can come back up.

[Voyager]

27 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

That would kill you.

 

Regarding hydraulic pressure check the dial, it should read 1000 psi, dropping to 100 to 200 while either gear or flaps are moving. If you have the flaps lever on "neutral", the flaps circuit is locked, meaning the valves on both sides of the flaps actuator are shut. You can drain all oil in the system, as long as that lever remains in "neutral", the flaps won't move.

 

If the oil is gone and pressure to 0 psi on the dial, if flaps are deployed in flight in any way (position up or down of the lever) will make the flaps being immediately pushed up by the airstream as you open the sealed of oil tubes.

 

It would kill you if you are in a near stall turn. In level flight with 140mph indicated it just requires a lot of control inputs and side slip correction. 

 

NACA Technical Note 2899, pg 60, shows both flaps dropping to ~5 degrees, then the left extending to ~20, then the right flap, then both out to about 40°. It also shows a plot of the pilot stick and rudder inputs at the time. 

 

The P-47N manual pg 80, states that flaps take offs are strictly an emergency procedure, as there's always a possibility of one of the flaps coming up and making the plane difficult to control. 

 

Things like that, that modern pilots would consider "will kill you" flaws are the sorts of things I'm finding as I'm digging deeper into the Thnderbolt's flight characteristics. I doubt all the pilots who called it "gentle" "easy to fly" "mild stall" were wrong, within their frame of reference, but I've come to seriously question what that frame of reference actually was. 

 

I doubt the Tempest or the Mustang are going to have fewer hidden surprises in store for us. 

Edited February 26, 2019 by Voyager

[ZachariasX]

3 minutes ago, Voyager said:

it just requires a lot of control inputs and side slip correction. 

More than enough to snuff you out in the long run. Remember, flaps are something that come into play when there is little distance between you and your future point of impact. 

 

5 minutes ago, Voyager said:

The P-47N manual pg 80, states that flaps take offs are strictly an emergency procedure, as there's always a possibility of one of the flaps coming up and making the plane difficult to control. 

How much of a difference visually would you tolerate for a take off into English weather? Just in comparison to „at 140 mph, 15 degree difference is easily controlled“?

 

The P-47 is a handful even when everything works out well. Real world, real airport traffic and real stress eat enough margin for making sudden asymmetric flap failure quiet an issue.

[Voyager]

@ZachariasXI think we may be talking past each other here. Are you saying that you don't believe there was a flap deployment asymmetry? Or are you arguing something different? 

[ZachariasX]

7 hours ago, Voyager said:

@ZachariasXI think we may be talking past each other here. Are you saying that you don't believe there was a flap deployment asymmetry? Or are you arguing something different? 

No, I misunderstood you then. Asymmetric flap deployment could occur for sure and was a big problem if it did. Hence probably the tests of how much you can get away with in flight.

 

[EAF19_Marsh]

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

No, I misunderstood you then. Asymmetric flap deployment could occur for sure and was a big problem if it did. Hence probably the tests of how much you can get away with in flight.

 

 

Yet another reason why flap usage for BFM was extremely rare for all a/c, not just the P-47: with the exception of the 190 electrical settings approach, the things were simply not designed for this kind of usage and too unwieldy for the fine-balanced, multi-tasking that such flap control required.

 

Anyway, the Tempest has big ol' barn-door flaps so their use for esoteric maneuvering will be severely limited.

[Ehret]

39 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Yet another reason why flap usage for BFM was extremely rare for all a/c, not just the P-47: with the exception of the 190 electrical settings approach, the things were simply not designed for this kind of usage and too unwieldy for the fine-balanced, multi-tasking that such flap control required.

 

Not so rare... it was quite common for the Mustang - you will find numerous entries in the "Use of flaps in combat" section. I recall that P-38 and some Japanese planes had been using flaps as well in combat.

Edited February 27, 2019 by Ehret

[Elem]

19 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

Not so rare... it was quite common for the Mustang

Interesting reports there. Tail Warning System is not something I've heard of for the 51. I assume we'll have that modelled.

[EAF19_Marsh]

31 minutes ago, Ehret said:

Not so rare... it was quite common for the Mustang - you will find numerous entries in the "Use of flaps in combat" section. I recall that P-38 and some Japanese planes had been using flaps as well in combat.

 

No, it was used on occasion by some pilots in some situations but it was in no way 'quite common'. A few aircraft had a limited flap setting for increasing lift but the resulting drag increase made it a dangerous. As the war went on, fewer and fewer aircraft were lost during extended combat so the purpose of a flap-assisted turn declined.

 

Just because some accounts exist where it was used doe snot mean that it was common - it was not and it is missing from most combat reports for the very good reason that it was a mixed blessing and carried its own dangers. Use on a DF server is one thing, use in a multi-participant air battle while trying to keep as a pair and avoid losing speed is quite another.

[Ehret]

2 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Just because some accounts exist where it was used doe snot mean that it was common - it was not and it is missing from most combat reports for the very good reason that it was a mixed blessing and carried its own dangers. Use on a DF server is one thing, use in a multi-participant air battle while trying to keep as a pair and avoid losing speed is quite another.

 

Not some - what can be seen from encounter lists it's quite a number. Sure, it should be avoided but mistakes and surprises happen and once slow why pilots would handicap themselves?

The P-38 had "combat maneuver" setting for flaps. The Kawanishi N1K had automatically extending flaps during turns.

[CountZero]

45 minutes ago, Elem said:

Interesting reports there. Tail Warning System is not something I've heard of for the 51. I assume we'll have that modelled.

Tempest also used it, for P-51 i think later models had it then one we are getting, Tempest also had I.F.F but i dont expect any of thouse to be in game.

[Voyager]

2 hours ago, Ehret said:

 

Not some - what can be seen from encounter lists it's quite a number. Sure, it should be avoided but mistakes and surprises happen and once slow why pilots would handicap themselves?

The P-38 had "combat maneuver" setting for flaps. The Kawanishi N1K had automatically extending flaps during turns.

 

Those were both either designed for it at the outset, or modified to do that by the aircraft maker during updates. 

 

In cases where they are just intended for takeoff and landing, they are designed with different characteristics and tolerances. The P-51 flaps were just a happy accident. 

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

10 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

No, it was used on occasion by some pilots in some situations but it was in no way 'quite common'. A few aircraft had a limited flap setting for increasing lift but the resulting drag increase made it a dangerous. As the war went on, fewer and fewer aircraft were lost during extended combat so the purpose of a flap-assisted turn declined.

 

Just because some accounts exist where it was used doe snot mean that it was common - it was not and it is missing from most combat reports for the very good reason that it was a mixed blessing and carried its own dangers. Use on a DF server is one thing, use in a multi-participant air battle while trying to keep as a pair and avoid losing speed is quite another.

P-51 flaps were rated for 400mph at 10 degrees. Something tells me they weren't like that just cos.

[EAF19_Marsh]

8 minutes ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

P-51 flaps were rated for 400mph at 10 degrees. Something tells me they weren't like that just cos.

 

Sorry, are you suggesting that - in 1941 - the North American team decided that the P-51 flaps would be an integral part of combat maneuvering and therefore designed ultra-resilient flaps for this purpose to be used at 400mph? That would be a trip into post-facto fantasy land. 'Rated for', 'intended for', 'actually used for; and 'occasionally someone used it in this way' are extremes of a spectrum. You can drop your landing gear at quite high speeds if you wish - above recommended airspeed - but that does not mean that the system was designed with such operation as a core element.

 

Most mechanical objects are rated to one standard or another, sometimes of a more or less usable nature. It turned out that the Spitfire wing had a critical Mach of somewhere near .92, I do not recall Mitchell intending that this be a core element of the Spitfire's BFM repertoire nor it making it into the pilot notes.

 

People can keep on insisting that DF server flap use is somehow reflective of actual flying as long as they wish, but they will carry on being mostly wrong about it. Pilots did dial in some flap on occasions, but in general the control surface was not intended that way nor did they function in a manner consistent with rapid and precise deployment to suit changing aerofoil conditions. Some a/c had flap settings that could be used during flight, but they were a minority and it does not mean that such flaps were frequently used or were particularly effective.

 

I am not sure - for example - what you would usefully  do with 10 degree flap at 400mph: at that speed the centre of lift is probably quite far aft (more so on a laminar flow wing) so any flap use would probably cause a nose-down change and in any case you have enough speed to generate a lot of g if needed. If you can provide a good argument as to why it was felt that 10 degree of flap was intended for use at that speed - as opposed to being merely the structure limits of the airframe - then I will concede that maybe it was intended all along.

 

Back to the Tempest which had boring flaps used for landing in order to allow slow Spitfires to catch up.

[Gambit21]

I asked specifically about use of flaps in combat while interviewing 352nd Mustang pilots (as well as Bud Anderson) and all of them indicated that they didn’t do it, nor did they know anyone who did.

 

I don’t doubt it happened here and there, but indications are that those pilots/instances are outliers.

 

There might very well be 352nd pilots that did do this...they’re far from all-knowing and they often disagree with each other.

[CountZero]

15 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

I asked specifically about use of flaps in combat while interviewing 352nd Mustang pilots (as well as Bud Anderson) and all of them indicated that they didn’t do it, nor did they know anyone who did.

 

I don’t doubt it happened here and there, but indications are that those pilots/instances are outliers.

 

There might very well be 352nd pilots that did do this...they’re far from all-knowing and they often disagree with each other.

and im sure 109 pilots didnt use stabilizers in df to fly like helecopters, but in game players will, as its posible and you have no danger to your life doing stunts like that and risking braking something as you can just refly, real pilots were mutch more cearfule to their airplane then we in game are, as we can just refly in brand new airplane so why not poush to max every time.

 

 

Edited February 27, 2019 by 77.CountZero

[Gambit21]

7 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

and im sure 109 pilots didnt use stabilizers in df to fly like helecopters, but in game players will, as its posible and you have no danger to your life doing stunts like that and risking braking something as you can just refly, real pilots were mutch more cearfule to their airplane then we in game are, as we can just refly in brand new airplane so why not poush to max every time.

 

 

 

Absolutely.

I’ve dropped flaps and gear to win stall fights against better maneuvering aircraft that should have gotten me killed.

I’ve also mis-judged and ended up auguring.

 

No re-boots in real life.

[CountZero]

and thats why thouse extream cases we can do in game should not be considered as broken FM or bad FM in my view, i can lol when i see thouse things on P-47 or 109s or what other airplane and i understand how they happend in game, but thouse things more show how we in game can push airplanes to do what you would not dear to do in real. On extreams any flying game will have fun stuff hapening, and thats not beacause FM is wrong the way i see it, its just we can frealy do all kined of stuff with what ever control options are alowed to use in game with no conseqances.

[Gambit21]

36 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

and thats why thouse extream cases we can do in game should not be considered as broken FM or bad FM in my view, i can lol when i see thouse things on P-47 or 109s or what other airplane and i understand how they happend in game, but thouse things more show how we in game can push airplanes to do what you would not dear to do in real. On extreams any flying game will have fun stuff hapening, and thats not beacause FM is wrong the way i see it, its just we can frealy do all kined of stuff with what ever control options are alowed to use in game with no conseqances.

 

Yep...but I’m even talking extreme things that might actually be possible in the real aircraft - just exceptionally desperate or stupid. The cases I site fall more into this category rather than exploiting a flight model weakness.

[smink1701]

For your sake I hope it flies better than the P47 Thunderdolt!

[Ehret]

2 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Yep...but I’m even talking extreme things that might actually be possible in the real aircraft - just exceptionally desperate or stupid. The cases I site fall more into this category rather than exploiting a flight model weakness.

 

It's our game; not our job to avoid FM edges so we could pretend there aren't problems. We should be able to test them to the extreme and still get proper behaviors. Therefore, it's not exploiting the FM weakness; merely that FM has faults and it's up to the Devs to change.

 

The problem with the P-47D flaps is they transform the plane by "180 degress". The Thunderbolt becomes "Thunderspit". In the P-39L I deploy flaps sometimes to delay stall and that is it. It doesn't change plane to something very different; you can win continuous turn fight in the Airacobra but it's 50/50 thus ill advised (or desperate).

[Gambit21]

15 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

It's our game; not our job to avoid FM edges so we could pretend there aren't problems. We should be able to test them to the extreme and still get proper behaviors. Therefore, it's not exploiting the FM weakness; merely that FM has faults and it's up to the Devs to change.

 

The problem with the P-47D flaps is they transform the plane by "180 degress". The Thunderbolt becomes "Thunderspit". In the P-39L I deploy flaps sometimes to delay stall and that is it. It doesn't change plane to something very different; you can win continuous turn fight in the Airacobra but it's 50/50 thus ill advised (or desperate).

 

I think you might have misunderstood me bit there.

In any case, I don't disagree.

[Bremspropeller]

On 2/26/2019 at 10:38 PM, Voyager said:

Things like that, that modern pilots would consider "will kill you" flaws are the sorts of things I'm finding as I'm digging deeper into the Thnderbolt's flight characteristics. I doubt all the pilots who called it "gentle" "easy to fly" "mild stall" were wrong, within their frame of reference, but I've come to seriously question what that frame of reference actually was. 

 

More pilots killed by operational accidents than by the hand of the enemy mostly.

Times were savage and lives did matter less, compared to today.

 

23 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

I asked specifically about use of flaps in combat while interviewing 352nd Mustang pilots (as well as Bud Anderson) and all of them indicated that they didn’t do it, nor did they know anyone who did.

 

I don’t doubt it happened here and there, but indications are that those pilots/instances are outliers.

 

There might very well be 352nd pilots that did do this...they’re far from all-knowing and they often disagree with each other.

 

It might have been a squadron (or group) thing, where one squadron (or group) had it in their bag of tricks, while another squadron might have considered it too hazardous.

That's at least how Navy squadrons did their flying pre-NATOPS.

 

There's a good chance policy changed with leaders.

 

[EAF19_Marsh]

On 2/28/2019 at 9:15 PM, Bremspropeller said:

 

More pilots killed by operational accidents than by the hand of the enemy mostly.

Times were savage and lives did matter less, compared to today.

 

 

Not sure that is true of most air forces, though non-operational losses tended to be far higher than generally supposed.

 

Quote

  There's a good chance policy changed with leaders.

 

 

Things like using flaps to maneuver would not be a 'leader policy', it would be a something that some pilots might or might not have done.

[=621=Samikatz]

On 2/27/2019 at 8:54 PM, 77.CountZero said:

 

 

 

 

omg it's like a fly-by-wire aircraft, can all 109s do that in game? If so that really needs looking at

[CountZero]

11 hours ago, =621=Samikatz said:

 

omg it's like a fly-by-wire aircraft, can all 109s do that in game? If so that really needs looking at

Yes they all can use stabilisers to do all kined a weard moves

[Bremspropeller]

15 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Things like using flaps to maneuver would not be a 'leader policy', it would be a something that some pilots might or might not have done.

 

There were only few pilots who had the balls, dedication or wonder of what would happen if you did this or that and experiment.

Encouragement of those who wouldn't try by themselves was down to the squad-leaders.

 

Thinking outside the box is usually not encouraged by a system that drills compliance to procedures from day one. There is only one "right way" to fly - be it by the recommended procedures set in the Flight Manual or be it procedures thought up in squadrons. Tactics were mostly down to the squadrons and thus the use or lack thereof of flaps was most certainly discussed (or not) on a squadron level. That is apart from a few handful of pilots who tried anyway.

 

Ze Germans (TM) had those few pilots, too (see Marseille for example), but in general the use of tactics was down to how the squadron did things. A change in leadership often brought changes in tactics and procedures.

[Voyager]

Just remember, thinking outside the box, and being wrong got you killed too. I recall the story of one pilot who figured that the compressability problem they were running into was a version of control reversal, so he took his plane up to altitude and entered into a tremendous dive to test it. 

 

The other pilots in the squadron were impressed that the fuselage was still recognizable after the impact. 

[Bremspropeller]

That's precisely why procedures are hammered into pilots during training and why they're tested for in checkrides time and time again. Standardisation is king.

This has lead to safety-increases of one or two orders of magnitude in terms of accident-rates over the past couple of decades.