Jump to content
YIPPEE

very high angles of attack

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

Yes, I think it would have been great if you could have figured it out on your own.  And yet, here we are...

Indeed it would have been great, because then I would not have had my time wasted by you.

Share this post


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

 

Thx, I had missed that one...

 

So TACVIEW takes geometric AoA, not aerodynamic…  I still remember when around 2006 "our" beloved "icidence" and "washout" records were "robbed" from MSFS flight dynamics between fs9 and fsx… They started to take geometic AoA instead. Washout went out too...

 

and… @Fumes, it was good for you to start the thread, but it would also be great to see you happy that it isn't actually - just - an IL-2 limitation...

 

My understanding of the thread post by Frederf is that there are three relevant angles.

 

1) That measured by a real instrument (modeled in DCS but we do not have one in any BoX plane?)  which takes into account the disturbed airflow.

2)  Actual angle of airflow around the airframe.

3)  Actual angle of motion relative to the airframe. This is what Tacview measures.

 

The point is that angle 1 will always be higher than angle 2 or 3, which will be very close together. So if Tacview is showing 30 degrees, this is underestimating what the DCS cockpit measures.  That is what the DCS thread was about: not saying that Tacview overestimates AoA. So this discrepancy cannot be anything to do with the OP's question which was why AoA well above stall angle appears sustainable in BoX.

 

Additionally, wing incidence is usually in the order of 3 degrees IIRC. So if Tacview is showing (3) as 30 degrees, the AoA of the wing would be ~33. 

 

So this linked thread does not seem to address the OP's question at all, except in the most general terms that you have to be very specific about what is being measured .

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

You're right, and ( I always come up with this one... if you can't beat them, confuse them... ) my age and the time of day I read the thread helped adding to the confusion ... 🙂

 

Before going to bed, while saying my prayers, it did come to my mind it wouldn't make much difference, even if in your last calculation regarding (3) in your post you add the washout, whose value I really don't know if it's that important on most BoX models ( ? ).

 

So indeed, @BraveSirRobin while he contributed with yet more food for our thoughts, isn't really targeting the true kernel of the problem, which can well lay in the Tacview software and how it aquires it's data from the sim or in IL-2's FDM....  I'd love it's on TacView's side ...

 

 

If it's on IL-2's side, I'd say it's a very rough kind of innacuracy, and should be really looked after by the Dev Team 😕

 

And, just out of curiosity, where does TACVIEW get this data out from IL2 ? Is there some way we can read it too ? Any "log" files or runtime command line options ( verbose mode 🙂 ) ?

Edited by jcomm
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

My understanding of the thread post by Frederf is that there are three relevant angles.

 

1) That measured by a real instrument (modeled in DCS but we do not have one in any BoX plane?)  which takes into account the disturbed airflow.

2)  Actual angle of airflow around the airframe.

3)  Actual angle of motion relative to the airframe. This is what Tacview measures.

 

The point is that angle 1 will always be higher than angle 2 or 3, which will be very close together. So if Tacview is showing 30 degrees, this is underestimating what the DCS cockpit measures.  That is what the DCS thread was about: not saying that Tacview overestimates AoA. So this discrepancy cannot be anything to do with the OP's question which was why AoA well above stall angle appears sustainable in BoX.

 

Additionally, wing incidence is usually in the order of 3 degrees IIRC. So if Tacview is showing (3) as 30 degrees, the AoA of the wing would be ~33. 

 

So this linked thread does not seem to address the OP's question at all, except in the most general terms that you have to be very specific about what is being measured .

So if I understand right, this could still be in il2s court and not tacview?

Share this post


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

So if I understand right, this could still be in il2s court and not tacview?

 

Perhaps, but without an AoA indicator in the game itself we cannot be 100% sure, also we do not know exactly how far above stall AoA these planes could fly: some would depart controlled flight very sharply, others lose lift rather slowly. As usual, it seems to be complicated, but perhaps our resident engineers have a clearer view.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't going to comment further in this thread, but out of consideration for people who might otherwise be misled, I can categorically state that the AoA figures given for IL-2 GB by the current version of Tacview are unreliable. It is a simple exercise to demonstrate this: set up a quick mission with a fighter, and with 10 M/s wind. Then record a tight 360 degree turn at about 1000m altitude (the wind at that height will be about 25 m/s or 90 km/h). Then look at the Tacview data. the 'AoA' will be nowhere near constant, and can easily vary between +35 to -5 degrees as the aircraft heading changes relative to the wind (I did this test with a U-2VS, and got even more extreme results: +65.9 to -18.9 degrees). The explanation is simple.  As Vyrtuoz, the developer of Tacview has made clear (both on this forum and on the Tacview one http://dogsofwarvu.com/forum/index.php/board,57.0.html) IL-2 GB only provides limited data to Tacview, and accordingly will not always give correct results. In particular, Tacview currently has no way of detecting wind, and accordingly can only  arrive at an 'AoA' figure in relation to motion over the ground. Which is clearly going to be wrong if there is any wind. I suspect from looking at other Tacview data that there may be reasons to question Tacview's AoA figures even without wind, though this is difficult to verify conclusively. Given the limited data Tacview is supplied with, I'm not even entirely sure how Tacview arrives at an 'AoA' figure at all.

 

Tacview is an interesting and useful application, but as Vyrtuoz has stated, it is limited by the data it receives. If people are to use its data as a basis for questioning IL-2 GB FMs, they need to understand this, and not jump to conclusions based on their own prior assumptions.

  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, TacView calculates angle of attack from the known attitude of the aircraft and the known flight path over ground. Depending how 'current' is defined, say attitude right now and flight path calculated from the two last know coordinates over the last 10th of a second, errors are to be expected. However, from my limited testing (which I always do with wind off), it appeared quite reasonable.

 

Thanks for the info on the wind, never occurred to me because I never have wind on when I'm interested in what TacView has to say...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

As I said, there may be other reasons to question the Tacview AoA figures. Testing the Bf 109 F-4, I have Tacview data showing an 'AoA' of up to 30 degrees in a tight turn, even without wind. In level flight, the stall angle is around the 20 degrees or so quoted in the IL-2 GB description. Errors of a few degrees could be accounted for by the sampling errors, as you suggest, but something has to be seriously wrong somewhere for an error of this magnitude. And if the IL-2 GB FM actually permits the 109 to turn at a 30 degree AoA, we would need better evidence than the limited data provided by Tacview to prove it. Vyrtuoz has already acknowledged its limitations, and I very much doubt he'd want it being cited as evidence for a faulty FM. 

Edited by AndyJWest
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Further to my above comment, if you look at the raw data that Tacview used for a IL-2 GB recording - the acmi file - you will see that it has no data for aircraft heading or yaw. It has pitch and roll angle data, but no means to determine the aircraft heading other than by interpolation from aircraft motion.  And if you are doing that, I can't see how you can use the same data to arrive at an 'AoA'. Maybe Vyrtuoz could shed some light on how he arrives at the figure, if someone wishes to ask on his forum, but otherwise I'm going to stick with the assumption that the AoA data isn't reliable.

 

EDIT: Please ignore above. Hadn't looked closely enough at the acmi file format. The heading data is there, just not always sampled.

Edited by AndyJWest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Some further comments, just for closure. Having done some more experimenting, it is clear that even in level flight, the 'AoA' figure given in Tacview graphs doesn't necessarily correspond to the difference between the pitch angle reported by IL-2 GB and the direction of motion. This can be easily demonstrated by recording an aircraft being flown by the 'level autopilot' at different speeds. Set up a quick mission, (with no wind) with a fighter at 1500 m. Go full throttle, and dive to about 500 m or so, then engage level autopilot, and throttle right back. At high speeds, Tacview shows the AoA to be almost identical to the pitch angle, but as speed decays, they begin to diverge. With a Bf-109 F4, the autopilot disengages at about 180 km/h, with the Tacview graph showing an 'AoA' of about 34°, and a pitch angle of about 13°. Oddly though, if you display the Tacview 'AoA' in the label attached to the in-map aircraft at this point, it gives a figure of 14.4°, meaning that Tacview isn't even self-consistent. 

 

Viewing the IL-2 GB track of the  test will make it clear that the 34° 'AoA' reported by Tacview graphs at the slowest point is clearly wrong, or at least, not reporting what people think it is supposed to indicate. The aircraft is clearly not 34° nose up, or anywhere close. It is, as far as I can tell by measuring a screenshot (not very accurate, obviously), close to the pitch angle reported. Furthermore, any discrepancy can't be down to a correction for a possible difference between aircraft datum (used for pitch measurements) and wing incidence, since that difference would remain constant, rather than increasing as speed decays.  There is a slight error due to the fact that the level autopilot doesn't actually maintain altitude properly over the last few seconds, which may account for the difference between the 14.4° displayed in the map label and the 13° pitch angle, but the total loss of altitude is only about 10m, and the AoA/pitch discrepancy is evident long before any appreciable loss of height. 

 

As I said earlier, Vyrtuoz is working with limited data, and as far as IL-2 GB is concerned, Tacview needs to be seen as a work in progress. 

 

Edit: Struck out, see next post.

 

Edited by AndyJWest
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Correction to the above, I was misreading the Tacview chart, which used two different scales for Pitch and AoA data.  The Tacview AoA does seem to more or less correspond to pitch angle in level flight, under the conditions I tested. I need to investigate further though, as there still seem to be unexplained discrepancies when turning. I should probably try and get a decent night's sleep before doing so though, as insomnia clearly doesn't help with my thinking...

Edited by AndyJWest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

After a couple of red herrings and a decent night's sleep, I think I've now figured out at least one more reason why Tacview can report excessive AoA angles. As JtD suggested earlier, Tacview interpolates flight path from positional coordinates (it doesn't have anything else to go on). But rather then using the last two, as JtD suggested, it is using more (possibly to smooth out the data), and accordingly the estimated direction of flight lags quite a bit behind the aircraft orientation data, which doesn't require interpolation and is immediate. Inspecting the data raw data and how Tacview interprets it suggests to me that the lag is somewhere around half a second. Which doesn't sound much, until you consider that a fighter aircraft pulling hard may easily achieve a turn rate of 20 degrees a second or more. A half-second directional data lag alone could thus result in a ten degree overestimate of AoA at that turn rate.

 

As evidence for this, take a look at these Tacview graphs, from a recording of a Bf-109 F4 pulling up steeply into a climb (and subsequent loop) from a dive. In the first graph the upper (red) line indicates altitude above sea level, and the lower (blue) shows vertical speed. The second shows AoA (blue) and pitch angle (red). There are two things to note here. Firstly, the altitude and vertical speed values cannot possibly both be correct at some points. The aircraft is shown as reaching its lowest point about half a second before the vertical speed is shown as zero. Secondly, at the point where the aircraft is at its lowest (11:00:30 on the time scale) the AoA (blue, read from the left scale) is shown as about 17°, while the pitch angle (red, read on the right scale) is shown as around 7°. 

 

VS-ASL.png

 

Ao-A-Pitch.png

 

 

Inspection of the raw data confirms this. Take a look at this short excerpt:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#12
173ff,T=5.1856489|4.8872364|1158.88|0.3|-10.4|,AGL=1158.88
#12.2
173ff,T=5.1853949|4.8874448|1151.36|0.5|-7.6|321.3,AGL=1151.36
#12.4
173ff,T=5.1851388|4.8876553|1145.03|0.6|-4.2|321.4,AGL=1145.03
#12.6
173ff,T=5.1848813|4.8878677|1140.09|0.8|-0.3|321.6,AGL=1140.09
#12.8
173ff,T=5.184623|4.8880813|1136.79|1.1|4.1|321.8,AGL=1136.79
#13
173ff,T=5.1843655|4.8882955|1135.35|1.4|8.5|322,AGL=1135.35
#13.2
173ff,T=5.18411|4.888509|1135.92|1.8|12.7|322.2,AGL=1135.92
#13.4
173ff,T=5.1838582|4.8887207|1138.53|2|16.8|322.5,AGL=1138.53
#13.6
173ff,T=5.1836115|4.8889296|1143.16|0.9|20.8|322.7,AGL=1143.16
#13.8
173ff,T=5.1833709|4.8891342|1149.75|-0.9|24.7|322.6,AGL=1149.74
#14
173ff,T=5.183137|4.8893332|1158.19|-2.2|28.9|322.2,AGL=1158.19

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The aircraft is at its lowest (1135.35m ASL) at data point #13. At that point, the pitch angle is shown as +8.5°. The pitch angle rate of change (i.e. the rate of turn, since we are turning vertically) is about 20 degrees a second, and the data points are 0.2 seconds apart, meaning that the pitch at the actual lowest point may potentially be off by a couple of degrees from the 8.5 degrees shown, but this cannot account for the supposed 17° AoA that Tacview indicates. The AoA value shown (on the graph, and on the aircraft label at the same time) simply cannot be correct, based on the raw data. It overestimates by about 10 degrees in the example I give, due to the lag in directional data interpolation.

 

If anyone wants to confirm this, I can provide the track recording, though it might be better to repeat the test and verify it with independent data. It would be nice to check the values for horizontal turns too, but I've not yet figured out a way to do this accurately, since one needs then to account for the bank angle when calculating the true angle of attack. Working with data from turns in the vertical axis reduces the problem from three dimensions to two.
 

Edited by AndyJWest
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know about tac view. This is a clip making some hard AOA. Is that possible to make on a real plane? the lose of speed on the game making this at 300 is not too much

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, E69_geramos109 said:

 

I dont know about tac view...

 

You know about it now. So rather than asking for opinions about things we can't measure, record a track using it, and maybe we can actually come up with concrete data rather than going through yet another round of pointless subjectivity.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

You know about it now. So rather than asking for opinions about things we can't measure, record a track using it, and maybe we can actually come up with concrete data rather than going through yet another round of pointless subjectivity.

I dont want to lose the time to become  an expert on the tac view just to see someone who comes later to say that tak view data is wrong. You can see a very big angle of attack on my clip and there is no need tac view for that. 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, E69_geramos109 said:

I dont want to lose the time to become  an expert on the tac view just to see someone who comes later to say that tak view data is wrong. You can see a very big angle of attack on my clip and there is no need tac view for that. 

 

 

You cannot see any 'angle of attack' on that video. Angle of attack cannot be determined by watching a video of someone flying a Bf-109 like it was a clown car.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

 

You cannot see any 'angle of attack' on that video. Angle of attack cannot be determined by watching a video of someone flying a Bf-109 like it was a clown car.

If you see the video normal great. 

I thing that going at 300 km/h on straight line and doing the showed on the video pitching up and down like a monkey is not realistic and I think the limit of AOA is very clear superior than the limit of the plane.

Is as simple as going straight line you can see the plane at 40+ degrees perfectrly. 

I have never see a plane doing that on real even on RC models that are prepared for 3d acrobatics. But a plane going on straight line drifting the nose and the tail like that never.

 

If you have a tool to measure that perfect. If not, just becuase it can be not measured on the game it is not correct. You have a guy that is real pilot and  that made video showing amounts of problems on the Fm and that ridiculiced a lot the current level of the Fm.

 

Edited by E69_geramos109
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, E69_geramos109 said:

If you see the video normal great. 

I thing that going at 300 km/h on straight line and doing the showed on the video pitching up and down like a monkey is not realistic and I think the limit of AOA is very clear superior than the limit of the plane.

Is as simple as going straight line you can see the plane at 40+ degrees perfectrly. 

I have never see a plane doing that on real even on RC models that are prepared for 3d acrobatics. But a plane going on straight line drifting the nose ans the tail like that never.

 

If you have a tool to measure that perfect. If not, just becuase it can be not measured on the game it is not correct. You have a guy that is real pilot and  that made video showing amounts of problems on the Fm and that ridiculiced a lot the current leven of the Fm.

 

 

"going at 300 km/h on straight line"? [edited] to be worthy of further comment.

 

Welcome to my ignore list.

Edited by SYN_Haashashin
language

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

 

"going at 300 km/h on straight line"? [edited] to be worthy of further comment.

 

Welcome to my ignore list.

Yes. Is on the definition of angle of attack. The wing is not going trough the air on the same direction that the plane is mooving.

You can see that on the video very clear. 

[edited]

Edited by SYN_Haashashin
unnecesary remarks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2019 at 8:43 PM, AndyJWest said:

You cannot see any 'angle of attack' on that video. Angle of attack cannot be determined by watching a video of someone flying a Bf-109 like it was a clown car.

 

You may cannot determine the precise angle, but you can see there is a huge angle.

 

On 4/20/2019 at 7:34 PM, E69_geramos109 said:

Is that possible to make on a real plane?

 

Yes.

 

On 4/20/2019 at 11:00 PM, E69_geramos109 said:

I have never see a plane doing that on real even on RC models that are prepared for 3d acrobatics. But a plane going on straight line drifting the nose and the tail like that never.

 

See above. I think you just never had the occasion to see. 

On the video, 1min37, you can see a ~85° AoA. Of course the aircraft is way lighter, stronger, with a much more powerfull elevator compare to a 109. But it's just to show the idea that the more you are slow, the more you can pull AoA, whatever the aircraft (before stalling, your elevator stay very efficient).

 

 

On 4/20/2019 at 11:00 PM, E69_geramos109 said:

I think the limit of AOA is very clear superior than the limit of the plane.

 

It's not possible to determine how much AoA you can pull with an aircraft, it depends so much on the speed, on how fast you will pull your stick, etc...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

F/JG300_Faucon, I'm not interested in what angle of attack I might think I could guess at in a video. Not when a tool is available to measure the same thing. As I've demonstrated, there are a couple of reasons to be sceptical about the AoA values Tacview provides, but nothing I've seen so far suggests that the raw positional and orientation data is erroneous. If there is an actual problem, it should be possible to provide verifiable data to prove it. Which is all I'm interested in, and the only reason I have participated in this thread.

 

If people want to engage in yet more vacuous round-in-circles subjective opinionating about things the developers aren't going to change without verifiable data, they can do it without my participation. Accordingly, this is my last post in this thread unless someone provides a Tacview track suitable for analysis, or otherwise offers something of relevance to a discussion on the analysis of numerical in-game data. 

 

Edited by AndyJWest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2019 at 5:00 PM, E69_geramos109 said:

If you see the video normal great. 

I thing that going at 300 km/h on straight line and doing the showed on the video pitching up and down like a monkey is not realistic and I think the limit of AOA is very clear superior than the limit of the plane.

Is as simple as going straight line you can see the plane at 40+ degrees perfectrly. 

I have never see a plane doing that on real even on RC models that are prepared for 3d acrobatics. But a plane going on straight line drifting the nose and the tail like that never.

 

If you have a tool to measure that perfect. If not, just becuase it can be not measured on the game it is not correct. You have a guy that is real pilot and  that made video showing amounts of problems on the Fm and that ridiculiced a lot the current level of the Fm.

 

Hasn't petrovich responded to these complaints like a million times on the russian forum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JonRedcorn said:

Hasn't petrovich responded to these complaints like a million times on the russian forum?

 

I suspect that most of the participants in this thread don't speak Russian. If Petrovich (or any other developer) has commented specifically on the AoA data from Tacview, I'd like to read it, even through Google Translate. Any chance of a link?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

 

I suspect that most of the participants in this thread don't speak Russian. If Petrovich (or any other developer) has commented specifically on the AoA data from Tacview, I'd like to read it, even through Google Translate. Any chance of a link?

I was more responding to the guy I quoted, in regards to flopping airplanes around like dolphins. Go check out the FM discussion page on the russian forum. Just use google chrome to translate the pages. There's hours of reading with him responding to this type of stuff. Also I am pretty sure I've seen that guy posting on there with the same videos and complaints. That's why again, I quoted him.

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/forum/55-обсуждение-фм/

Edited by JonRedcorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough. Doesn't sound worth reading then, if its more of the same data-free whinging...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

Fair enough. Doesn't sound worth reading then, if its more of the same data-free whinging...

Right the lead fm developer going into detail about things is probably just bunk. Better stick to irrelevant tacview data that doesn't even work properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, JonRedcorn said:

Right the lead fm developer going into detail about things is probably just bunk. Better stick to irrelevant tacview data that doesn't even work properly.

 

I'm not suggesting that what the developer says is bunk. I'm saying that the round-in-circles subjective whining he is having to put up with is. As for Tacview, I'll stick with what I said earlier: there are clearly issues with how Tacview interprets the limited data it gets, but I've not seen evidence as yet that the raw positional and orientational data has significant errors. And if you want to calculate angle of attack, that is all the data you need, provided you conduct your tests properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AndyJWest said:

 

I'm not suggesting that what the developer says is bunk. I'm saying that the round-in-circles subjective whining he is having to put up with is. As for Tacview, I'll stick with what I said earlier: there are clearly issues with how Tacview interprets the limited data it gets, but I've not seen evidence as yet that the raw positional and orientational data has significant errors. And if you want to calculate angle of attack, that is all the data you need, provided you conduct your tests properly.

Ain't that the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone,

 

TL;DR: Due to data limitations, the AOA readings in Tacview, when using IL-2, may indeed be inaccurate.

 

I would like to point out several facts about the AOA displayed in Tacview:

 

  1. IL-2 does not directly export any AOA (cockpit reading or real AOA)
  2. The data recorded by IL-2 contains only latitude, longitude and altitude. They come from IL-2 “flat world” coordinates. Which means they are distorted in Tacview spherical world; inevitably leading to discrepancies when values like speed, AOA and so on are calculated by Tacview.
  3. In addition, as previous outlined by some of you, there is an incidence angle error to consider.

 

In the current state of IL-2 data export capability, Tacview is very efficient to analyze tactics and piloting. However, if you want to check the accuracy of IL-2, it should be done in-game only to ensure there is no possible conversion error in the equation.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2019 at 11:58 PM, Dakpilot said:

 

I think you may be exaggerating just a wee bit there... LoL

 

However I will say some peoples expectations are very unrealistic for what they are paying for 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

I wish he was. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Geronimo553 said:

 

I wish he was. 

 

If you seriously think there are people who think the devs can "never be wrong" you are a bit delusional 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

 

If you seriously think there are people who think the devs can "never be wrong" you are a bit delusional 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

Experience of actions and attitude of others here has indeed swayed my view point. Nothing delusional about that.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always been suspicious of the 109's ability to hang around in tight turns without dipping a wing. I have no proof....but it would not surprise me if the slats are bugged

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2019 at 12:10 AM, F/JG300_Faucon said:

 

You may cannot determine the precise angle, but you can see there is a huge angle.

 

 

Yes.

 

 

See above. I think you just never had the occasion to see. 

On the video, 1min37, you can see a ~85° AoA. Of course the aircraft is way lighter, stronger, with a much more powerfull elevator compare to a 109. But it's just to show the idea that the more you are slow, the more you can pull AoA, whatever the aircraft (before stalling, your elevator stay very efficient).

 

 

 

It's not possible to determine how much AoA you can pull with an aircraft, it depends so much on the speed, on how fast you will pull your stick, etc...

 

 

 

I'm aware I'm a few months late on this, but I just have to correct your flawed perception of what an airfoil's critical angle of attack is.

 

You're confusing the ability of a aerobatic plane to perform incredibly tight turns due to its extremely low wing loading (just a bit higher than 2/3 that of a Spitfire Mk. IX at full fuel) with a supposed possibility to exceed the critical angle of attack (alpha).

 

First off, that aerobatic plane does exhibit an extremely high turn rate, but throughout that pullup, alpha was never even close to 30°.

 

Secondly, while it's true that you generally run into issues reaching an airfoil's critical alpha at high speeds due to control stiffening, that just means you cannot physically stall the plane because you cannot exert enough force on the elevator. The angle of attack any given airfoil stalls at (=where flow reversal and subsequently flow separation occur on the trailing edge) is constant and known to the engineers that designed a given plane.

 

This is apparent in the calculation for coefficient of lift:

9c8ab765820b7120cfa816d49f99108e90bc8682

where L is the lift force, q is the working fluid's dynamic pressure and cs are the plane's surface area (chord * span). This works until the maximum lift coefficient CLmax is reached at the airfoil's critical angle of attack, after which it stalls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, PainGod85 said:

but throughout that pullup, alpha was never even close to 30°.

If you're talking about the angle of attack, it definitely went way over 30°. 

 

5 hours ago, PainGod85 said:

You're confusing the ability of a aerobatic plane to perform incredibly tight turns due to its extremely low wing loading (just a bit higher than 2/3 that of a Spitfire Mk. IX at full fuel) with a supposed possibility to exceed the critical angle of attack (alpha).

You're probably confusing what that kind an aerobatic aircraft can do.

Sure it has a very high roll rate and good turn rate, but it has nothing to do with the maneuver (that we can call a "cobra", well known on Sukhoi 27) of 1:37. It also has a wing profile which is easy to stall, in addition to a very HUGE elevator authority, lightness of the stick, and light weight of the aircraft. Talking about weight, that guy (Rob Holland) made modifications to move the center of gravity aft. 

So yes that kind of aerobatic aircraft can perform such maneuvers, which are way over the "critical AoA". 

 

5 hours ago, PainGod85 said:

Secondly, while it's true that you generally run into issues reaching an airfoil's critical alpha at high speeds due to control stiffening, that just means you cannot physically stall the plane because you cannot exert enough force on the elevator.

See above, depend on elevator authority and lightness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yes, with sufficient power and control authority, you can get an aerobatic aircraft into a condition where the 'angle of attack' is anything you like, at least temporarily. Including minus 180 degrees (pull up vertically, and hold it there until the speed decays to zero - get it right and you will tailslide for a second or so if you are lucky, before aerodynamics reasserts itself, and you flip round into a dive, or maybe a spin). This has nothing to do with the angle of attack you can maintain in a sustained turn though, which is what is being discussed in this thread. That requires the wing to be creating lift, which it won't do (or at least, not without too much drag to be sustainable) if the critical AoA is exceeded. As for the Cobra manoeuvre, you can do it in a Su 27 because it is designed to operate at the sort of AoA that can't be maintained with a straight wing - with leading-edge root extensions, vectored thrust, and fly-by-wire. None of which are relevant to the aircraft modelled in IL-2 GB.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

This has nothing to do with the angle of attack you can maintain in a sustained turn though, which is what is being discussed in this thread.

Sure. 

The video of the MXS pulling a "cobra" was a direct answer to the video and post of E69_geramos109, who said he never seen any aircrafts or even RC models doing that kind of maneuvers, and wondering if it was possible.

 

A good understanding of what aircrafts are capable of is important to make a judgement on FMs. 

 

 

8 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

Including minus 180 degrees (pull up vertically, and hold it there until the speed decays to zero - get it right and you will tailslide for a second or so if you are lucky, before aerodynamics reasserts itself, and you flip round into a dive, or maybe a spin)

I don't think it's really comparable. You put an aircraft into a tail slide by going verticale, reduce power, and wait that gravity make you fly backwards. Although it's true that the airflow is inverted and thus, AoA at "180°".

Edited by F/JG300_Faucon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

A good understanding of what aircrafts are capable of is important to make a judgement on FMs. 

 

As the developers have made clear, they aren't going to modify FMs based on 'judgement'. Not when actual data is available, which is certainly the case when discussing angle of attack. The physics is quite sufficiently well known to make such subjectivity unnecessary. And so far, despite the ready availability of a data source which could provide such data - TacView files - nobody has come up with objective verifiable evidence which supports the claims being made in this thread about there being an issue with IL-2 GB FMs.  

  • Upvote 2

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

×
×
  • Create New...