Hawker Tempest turning performance

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

With today's patch note mentioning the Typhoon's wing lift changes I tested it's stall speed and it has been increased by around 10 km/h.

Using unreasonable's calculator, at 4915 Kg and 162 km/h stall speed the Clmax would be now at 1.50

Before I could complete a sustained turn at sea level at 270 km/h with +9 boost and three blade prop, full fuel in 20 seconds. Now looks like this has been increased to more like 23 seconds.

 

[SIA_ArcTander]

Has there been any further changes on this as there is no way that the Tempest and FW190 have ‘similar turning performance’ in game as the original 1946(?) documents show…

Edited December 18, 2021 by SIA_ArcTander

[Real_NBD]

Bumping this for we still live in a game where at equal weight, the Tempest has a lower stall speed than the Typhoon. And it is much much easier to control near the edge. Makes no sense to me considering the discussion above, and the airfoils associated.

[Aurora_Stealth]

I agree that this should be a top priority flight model for review when the next opportunity comes up, there's more than enough data and supporting evidence provided in the thread substantiating its CLmax (thanks to all who supported, contributed the thread).

 

There may not be much time for the team to address it right now though, as they have plenty of complex twin engined aircraft to deliver over the next few months to release for the Normandy expansion; not to mention a number of WW1 aircraft in the works at the same time also.

[354thFG_Panda_]

Any chance this is going to get looked at or investigated again? 

[Aurora_Stealth]

16 hours ago, [=RMAS=]theRedPanda said:

Any chance this is going to get looked at or investigated again? 

 

Just my opinion, but I think the best time to press for this to be reviewed/looked at will be after the Me 410 is released; as that marks the last of the really intensive flight modelling projects for the Normandy module and with most of the twin engine WW1 stuff out the way. Knowing how complex and tricky the 410 is in features, engineering and aerodynamics, I imagine it has been almost as much of a headache for our developers as it was for the designers of the original aircraft hehe

[Rache-der-Boote]

On 6/17/2022 at 3:36 AM, Aurora_Stealth said:

 

Just my opinion, but I think the best time to press for this to be reviewed/looked at will be after the Me 410 is released; as that marks the last of the really intensive flight modelling projects for the Normandy module and with most of the twin engine WW1 stuff out the way. Knowing how complex and tricky the 410 is in features, engineering and aerodynamics, I imagine it has been almost as much of a headache for our developers as it was for the designers of the original aircraft hehe

 

Yes I completely agree; creating another plane in this video game does appear to be as difficult for these developers as creating cutting edge aircraft was for engineers 80 years ago!

[Aurora_Stealth]

2 hours ago, pocketshaver2 said:

 

Yes I completely agree; creating another plane in this video game does appear to be as difficult for these developers as creating cutting edge aircraft was for engineers 80 years ago!

 

Yep, and especially with the 410 - it has a very controversial background and technical development which will have required very deep research and understanding to get to the bottom of. It won't respond like the notoriously poor handling 210 which came before it, but still - its stability and control, handling characteristics may require some skill to master. In fairness the developers are sticking to their high standards, and breaking new ground with these complex systems for the sim (this will bring some benefits in the long run, including experience for more complex/larger aircraft projects hopefully).

 

It's a hard thing trying to depict a real aircraft's behaviour and flying qualities from information on a piece of paper, even mathematical/physics models and pilot accounts can only go so far in understanding an aircraft's basic responses. As there are no more 410's flying anymore its like trying to profile a person without ever having met them - you really have to read between the lines, apply mechanics/aerodynamic principles and try and understand from other similar airframes how it might respond, and then adjust/compensate for the differences... quite a complicated act to pull off accurately.

 

I'm looking forward to see what they come up with though, its been in testing... so I think we must be getting very close.

Edited July 19, 2022 by Aurora_Stealth

[Dr_Molem]

Lt. Ossenkop's commentary on Dora-9, and comparison with allied fighters, including Tempest.

 

(January 1945)

 

Edited September 3, 2022 by Dr_Molem

[JG27*PapaFly]

On 6/16/2022 at 11:17 AM, theRedPanda said:

Any chance this is going to get looked at or investigated again? 

My guess is that it'll only be fixed when we have a proper replacement available in our hangars ?

[Aurora_Stealth]

Hi all,

 

Just a brief update, I've recommended the change to the Tempest V flight model formally, now that Normandy has been released:

 

Recommending a CLmax of 1.2 (current IL-2 estimate being CLmax of 1.52)

 

 

Feel free to contact me either here or by DM if there's anything in particular that I've missed, isn't clear or needs correction.

 

Thanks again to all contributors.

 

Cheers,

 

Aurora

[Roland_HUNter]

In my spare time I started to test the constant turning times of the machines, and I have to say that the parameter given in the technical description of most of the machines is correct. But for the Tempest, the max power is quoted as 20 seconds at 270 km/h.
Well one of the most stable machines is the tempest, in turns and able to turn around in 17.2 sec.
With 11lb boost: ~17 sec.

Typhoon 4 blade:
18.75  sec.

Typhoon 4 blade + 11 lb:
~18.7 sec

Note that while the Tempest was very stable at 9 lb, the 11lb became similarly dippy/stalling as the Typhoon at 9 and 11 lb.

[Dr_Molem]

No idea when this plane is going to get fixed, be it in 6 months or 10 years, but when that will happen, I know a lot of Tempest lovers in MP that will get really surprised.

 

A 1G stall speed's increase of 20-25 kph is not to be taken lightly, let me tell you that you will have to completely relearn how to fly this plane that day.

[CountZero]

39 minutes ago, Roland_HUNter said:

In my spare time I started to test the constant turning times of the machines, and I have to say that the parameter given in the technical description of most of the machines is correct. But for the Tempest, the max power is quoted as 20 seconds at 270 km/h.
Well one of the most stable machines is the tempest, in turns and able to turn around in 17.2 sec.
With 11lb boost: ~17 sec.

Typhoon 4 blade:
18.75  sec.

Typhoon 4 blade + 11 lb:
~18.7 sec

Note that while the Tempest was very stable at 9 lb, the 11lb became similarly dippy/stalling as the Typhoon at 9 and 11 lb.

So you tested all airplanes turn and ONLY Tempest is wrong by 3s, tell me what turn did you get on 190A3 ? 23s is what spec say, i bet its better then that by more then 3s you say Tempest turn is better. Funny how you only finding problems with Tempest or P-51s lol

5 minutes ago, Dr_Molem said:

No idea when this plane is going to get fixed, be it in 6 months or 10 years, but when that will happen, I know a lot of Tempest lovers in MP that will get really surprised.

 

A 1G stall speed's increase of 20-25 kph is not to be taken lightly, let me tell you that you will have to completely relearn how to fly this plane that day.

Well hope they fix helecopter 109s also, then we can finaly see axis players learn some energy fighting and not just count on helecopter 109 ability to get some kills.

[Dr_Molem]

5 minutes ago, CountZero said:

Well hope they fix helecopter 109s also, then we can finaly see axis players learn some energy fighting and not just count on helecopter 109 ability to get some kills.

 

As well as its new super roll rate which allow it to roll like a 190 at high speed without any problem... But that's another discussion. 

[Roland_HUNter]

1 hour ago, Dr_Molem said:

 

As well as its new super roll rate which allow it to roll like a 190 at high speed without any problem... But that's another discussion. 

But that is already proven right, so there is no discussion about it.

2 hours ago, CountZero said:

So you tested all airplanes turn and ONLY Tempest is wrong by 3s, tell me what turn did you get on 190A3 ? 23s is what spec say, i bet its better then that by more then 3s you say Tempest turn is better. Funny how you only finding problems with Tempest or P-51s lol

Well hope they fix helecopter 109s also, then we can finaly see axis players learn some energy fighting and not just count on helecopter 109 ability to get some kills.

Sorry bruh, READ correctly NEXT time:
"most of the machines is correct"
And this IS a TEMPEST topic.
Thanks.

PS:
Krup already demostrated on discord, the P-51 has also helicooopter problems.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

The only official stats that can be relied on to certain extent is the speed one. Both the climb rate and turn rate for most planes aren't accurate for performance in game, you generally get much better results when testing them yourself. 

Edited October 1, 2022 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[Dr_Molem]

23 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

But that is already proven right, so there is no discussion about it.

 

Can you give me a link ? Thank you.

[Roland_HUNter]

49 minutes ago, Dr_Molem said:

 

Can you give me a link ? Thank you.

 

[CountZero]

On 10/1/2022 at 2:59 PM, Roland_HUNter said:

But that is already proven right, so there is no discussion about it.

Sorry bruh, READ correctly NEXT time:
"most of the machines is correct"
And this IS a TEMPEST topic.
Thanks.

PS:
Krup already demostrated on discord, the P-51 has also helicooopter problems.

You said you tested all airplanes turn times and ONLY problem is on Tempest, what is not correct as on every airplane, if you test same way you test Tempest turn times ,youll see big differances in spec times and what player can do... i just pointed obvious exploiter in 190A3, more wrong turn time then what you see as problem in Tempest... to show that what you think its problem is not problem only tempest have and that other airplanes ppl think are perfect have turn times no where to what spec say... even bigger error then this 3s you say tempest only have.

And all this players complaining how Tempest have to good turn times , have no problem in 190A3 turning so mutch better...you also probably, your concern is only allied airplanes.

Edited October 2, 2022 by CountZero

[Roland_HUNter]

51 minutes ago, CountZero said:

You said you tested all airplanes turn times and ONLY problem is on Tempest, what is not correct as on every airplane, if you test same way you test Tempest turn times ,youll see big differances in spec times and what player can do... i just pointed obvious exploiter in 190A3, more wrong turn time then what you see as problem in Tempest... to show that what you think its problem is not problem only tempest have and that other airplanes ppl think are perfect have turn times no where to what spec say... even bigger error then this 3s you say tempest only have.

And all this players complaining how Tempest have to good turn times , have no problem in 190A3 turning so mutch better...you also probably, your concern is only allied airplanes.

1. Looks like you can't read english or you just ingore what I said.
2.Still this topic about the Tempest
3.Stop this aiming on my personality."you also probably, your concern is only allied airplanes. "
Learn how to debate.

PS: most of the machines=not all.
I beg you to learn to read and argue.
Thank you.

[purK]

On 10/1/2022 at 8:59 AM, Roland_HUNter said:

Krup already demostrated on discord, the P-51 has also helicooopter problems.

No? The P51 in comparison to other aircraft in this game does not have "helicopter" problems.

[Roland_HUNter]

17 hours ago, Krupnski said:

No? The P51 in comparison to other aircraft in this game does not have "helicopter" problems.

Then what is the "helicopter" problem?

[Roland_HUNter]

With 100% flaps down, 200 L of fuel, 11 boost of engine: with 180-200 km/h I can make a circle in 16 sec.

[Youtch]

I personally love the Tempest, it is one of my favorite ww2 birds, even somehow better than the spit.

 

BUT i do not like AT ALL flying it in IL2, and I never use it in MP because it feels too easy, almost like cheating, and does not do real justice to other fantastic planes such as the Spitfire or P51 or Bf109.

 

The Tempest as per its current FM is a beast in 1 circle and in 2 circles dogfight, which is somehow quite weird to me, and i never really understood how a fighter can be good at both things.

 

No doubt that it is one of the latest achievement in piston engine engineering, but it is too close to perfect to feel real.

 

As a result on dogfight servers, you only have Tempests, which is totally boring.

 

Several planes may require indeed some fine-tuning of their FMs, but to me (with the caveat of having zero experience of flying a real Tempest) no other planes feels more out space than the Tempest.

 

Most of the people i know who fly Tempest are fully aware that it is borderline UFO, and have no problem acknowledging it in petit comite, but they are still happy with it, and would not request to change anything about it, since it is such a competitive beast as-is in MP. 

 

On the other hand, Tempest are also flown by a lot by beginners, and a good plane to start with in Allies line-up, this is the one i started with. So, the fact that it is slightly OP give them an extra boost, which is very welcome.

 

I suspect that whenever the Ta-152 comes out, it also has some potential to be borderline UFO, then as it happens to be better than the Tempest most probably the same people who did not want any change to Tempest FM will be begging to review the FM of the Ta-152, screaming it is outrageous. We can bet that this useless thread will be created the very same day the Ta-152 is released.

 

It is a pity that MP drives so much focus on maximum performance to be competitive, instead of laying more emphasis on realism.

 

I personally like better to fly a plane knowning it has some strong points and weak points as well, this is what IMHO makes a plane so interesting to fly, learning it and understanding its limits, the constraints you need to work-around, and learning how to play your cards well with its design limitations.

 

If i am willing to sacrify realism and have a need to take a ride with no limitations, i would rather play a space ship game, but that is just my personal taste.

 

As per the last update, i have hope that the developpers will keep on bringing some FM improvements to the planes already released, when suppported by well documented facts&figures and evidences. I really respect the way they approach it.

 

I have personally no evidence to bring, and was just sharing how i feel about it.

 

I am looking forward to an improve Tempest to enjoy flying in SP and MP.

[MK_RED13]

Tempest is totally out of touch with reality. It is as if he lacked 2 tons of weight, he behaves like an acrobatic special!! Its funny yet sad!!!!

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

1 hour ago, Youtch said:

It is a pity that MP drives so much focus on maximum performance to be competitive, instead of laying more emphasis on realism.

You are right that flying Tempest feels OP. But talking about realism what about those 190 dance, when  they realize that enemy is on it's six - up and  down, inverted, up and down, full ruder up and down which looks so comical and immersion breaking. It's abuse of game mechanic or poor FM ?

[HazMatt]

In my 20+ years of flying sims I must say the modeling for both the Tempest, P51 and D9 and Spit all surprised me. Maybe those other sims all got it wrong?

 

From what I've seen here the Tempest turns like a Spit and a Spit is as fast as a Tempest.

 

The P51 has good high and low speed handling. (I talked to a real life 51 pilot many years ago who said "the P51 was a dog if it wasn't going fast")

 

The D9 accelerates and zooms like a pedal car.

 

These are all observations from flying them in other sims. Can't compare to the real thing cause I haven't had a chance to fly those yet

[JG27*PapaFly]

There are 2 planes in which I ever managed to kill myself by g loads alone: Tempest and Spit. Going from -9 g to + 11 did the trick.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

42 minutes ago, JG27*PapaFly said:

There are 2 planes in which I ever managed to kill myself by g loads alone: Tempest and Spit. Going from -9 g to + 11 did the trick.

Try with bombs attached, when you pull suddenly you will break the wing, same with Typhoon.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

21 hours ago, MK_RED13 said:

Tempest is totally out of touch with reality. It is as if he lacked 2 tons of weight, he behaves like an acrobatic special!! Its funny yet sad!!!!

Yes I feel like flying OP plane, but it's not about weight alone,it's the engine power which plane can deliver. Meny modern jets are heavy but do to engine thrust can do acrobatics maneuvers. Tempest engine is powerful comparted to other.

[Gavrick]

Tempest FM check is scheduled. I can’t say when, maybe not soon. But this is in the plans.
By the way, any data on Tempest's characteristics would be useful - perhaps you can find something that we don't have.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

19 hours ago, Gavrick said:

Tempest FM check is scheduled. I can’t say when, maybe not soon. But this is in the plans.
By the way, any data on Tempest's characteristics would be useful - perhaps you can find something that we don't have.

Tempest and Typhoon whit bomb attached are prone to wing breaking when player pull elevator quickly /suddenly, this must generate very high G for wing to sustain the load, but why you can do that in first place, should be stick force damped by the weight of the bombs?  Btw this happing in multiplayer.

Edited February 23, 2024 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[JG27*PapaFly]

3 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Try with bombs attached, when you pull suddenly you will break the wing, same with Typhoon.

I know that wings can come off at times, especially on the Tempest, but I mean the plane literally killed the pilot without suffering structural damage. I went from -9g to +11g in an instant, and the pilot went KIA. This puts these planes in a class of their own.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

As the FM will be reviewed no use to add anything  But while I did test planes quite a bit the Tempest stood out like a sore thumb. I could fly gears and flaps down without losing altitude at speeds down to 80mph. And change direction with ease. And it did not require full power either. Maybe should test Typhoon to see if it has similar characteristics.

[Roland_HUNter]

Tempest manual says with 270 km/h the turn time is 20 sec.
Currently it is 17-18 sec.

Also, you can still pull brutal G's, and the plane barely wants to stall.

When will this finally be fixed?

[MK_RED13]

I think the tempest has a wrong modeled weight... therefore he moves like an acrobat.

[FTC_ChilliBalls]

On 4/26/2024 at 6:57 PM, Roland_HUNter said:

When will this finally be fixed?

When the devs find the time, it's already scheduled. 

 

On 4/26/2024 at 9:17 PM, MK_RED13 said:

I think the tempest has a wrong modeled weight... therefore he moves like an acrobat.

 

And your proof is... what exactly? Your feelings?
 

On 2/22/2024 at 3:54 PM, Gavrick said:

By the way, any data on Tempest's characteristics would be useful - perhaps you can find something that we don't have.

 

Given how Gavrick already adressed the topic, how about we let it lie?
Unless anyone actually has any data that could be useful?

Edited May 23, 2024 by FTC_ChilliBalls

[ZachariasX]

On 4/26/2024 at 6:57 PM, Roland_HUNter said:

Also, you can still pull brutal G's

The Tempest has far better controls at high speeds due to flettner tabs. It *is* far better to pilot at high speeds than almost any other plane. It is Britains apex fighter of WW2 for good reason.

 

The problem is the lift coefficient of the wing and (induced) drag. In the sim, it most likely has the effective clmax derived by the minimum speed stated in the PN. However, these figures can be deeply misleading, as this tells you nothing about the control you still have at that speed nor the sustainability of this flight configuration, as induced drag rises considerably („coffin corner“).

 

This is for instance why the P47 on one side is a great plane to fly, but if you get slow that is the end of you. There, all the thousands of hp will not help anymore. You‘re not getting away with this at that moment as you would in a Spit or a 109.

 

The Tempest wing profile is specifically designed for low drag. This goes against high AoA. Right now in the game, The Tempest is both king of one circle and two circle fights, while in the real world it is designed for optimum performance (and control) at high speeds. Sydney Camm had learned his lesson from the Typhoon debacle. The devs made their task way too simple for designing the FM of that aircraft.

 

I hope @Holtzauge will at some point come up with a more exact depiction of the situation in future work.

[Holtzauge]

2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

The Tempest has far better controls at high speeds due to flettner tabs. It *is* far better to pilot at high speeds than almost any other plane. It is Britains apex fighter of WW2 for good reason.

 

The problem is the lift coefficient of the wing and (induced) drag. In the sim, it most likely has the effective clmax derived by the minimum speed stated in the PN. However, these figures can be deeply misleading, as this tells you nothing about the control you still have at that speed nor the sustainability of this flight configuration, as induced drag rises considerably („coffin corner“).

 

This is for instance why the P47 on one side is a great plane to fly, but if you get slow that is the end of you. There, all the thousands of hp will not help anymore. You‘re not getting away with this at that moment as you would in a Spit or a 109.

 

The Tempest wing profile is specifically designed for low drag. This goes against high AoA. Right now in the game, The Tempest is both king of one circle and two circle fights, while in the real world it is designed for optimum performance (and control) at high speeds. Sydney Camm had learned his lesson from the Typhoon debacle. The devs made their task way too simple for designing the FM of that aircraft.

 

I hope @Holtzauge will at some point come up with a more exact depiction of the situation in future work.

 

Yes, using the flight manual or pilot's notes to derive stall speed will in general give you a way to high Clmax because most aircraft's speed dial's show a way too low IAS number due to position errors and it's not unusual with the CAS being 15 mph or higher.

 

I just did a quick check with my C++ model of the Tempest and I get about 21 s at 1 km altitude for a turn with the Sabre at +11 boost which then is significantly longer than what people seems to be able to get out of it in-game.

 

But I gather @Gavrick has said that a fix is in the pipeline which sounds good!