Hawker Tempest turning performance

[Panthera]

On 6/27/2024 at 9:28 AM, ACG_Cass said:

 

I think we're straying from what I was trying to say. 1.4 for the 109 comes from a corrected stall speed test the RAE conducted, which they did for the 190 and F6F that has given us their clmax. Certainly might not have been perfect so it could very well be 1.44-1.48 but I'm not discussing actual clmax numbers.

 

This is the part that I wanted to make clear is incorrect from an actual aerofoil performance perspective unless at very high altitudes where critical mach comes into play.

 

There are other factors at play as @Aurora_Stealth has pointed out that mean getting maximum performance is challenging that also potentially need to modelled but from a flight model design perspective, the clmax is not the issue.

 

Tbf those are separate figures measured at different events though, which is problematic enough in itself unless we're talking windtunnel figures which after all are collected in a carefully controlled environment. But more importantly both are "power off" figures, a condition not many dogfights take place in 😉, and where outboard slats don't really contribute much to the overall Clmax of the wing, as the inboard section simply stalls out way sooner and the aircraft starts to sink, though whilst maintaining aileron effectiveness however thanks to the slat covered area still is "flying" (i.e. no wing drop) -> a known characteristic of the 109 during power off landing approaches. 

It's in the "power on" condition that outboard slats add a significant increase to the wings overall Clmax for this type of aircraft design, as the inboard wing section is then energized via the powerful propwash, allowing it to stay flying for longer. Without the slats, power on, the outboard wing section will stall a lot sooner unless the wing features sufficient washout (negative AoA twist). The addition of slats in this area not only prevents this from happening but it also allows the outboard section to match the lift generation of the inboard section by increasing the critical AoA and thus Clmax of this area, having the cumulative effect of increasing the lift of the entire wing. The much more common addition (at the time) of washout by comparison trades lift for simplicity/weight, and doesn't add any extra lift.

 

That pilots who've flown both aircraft (109 and P-51) all report that the 109 is significantly more nimble below ~350 mph (560 km/h), after which point control forces start picking up, thus isn't really a surprise, and its also what we see in the more serious DCS simulation.

 

That said, once again, your point about incorrectly modelled drag is likely also a big problem, as during my testing a couple years ago it was particularly in sustained turning duels that the 109 came up short vs the P-51 in IL2, where'as this is where the 109 should easily beat the P-51 thanks to that significant advantage in powerloading, spanloading and lower overall drag in that flight condition.
 

Edited June 29, 2024 by Panthera

[Panthera]

On 6/27/2024 at 9:28 AM, ACG_Cass said:

This is the part that I wanted to make clear is incorrect from an actual aerofoil performance perspective unless at very high altitudes where critical mach comes into play.

 

No the trend is the same down low, albeit less severe, but still even if we compare F6Fs conventional assym. airfoil wing Clmax at 25 kft with that of the P-51's laminar flow airfoil wing clmax at 5 kft (!), the difference is on average still 0.1 in favour of the F6F between 0.4-0.3 mach, and even more below that, with the Clmax of the F6F down low being measured around 1.58-1.61 at 0.25 mach.

 

To further bring the point home we can look at the USN comparison between the F4U & P-51, where despite a higher wing loading the F4U proved decisively superior in turning performance. Main reason was again that the F4U uses a conventional assym. NACA 23xxx profile for the entire wing, and thus its wing was better at generating lift within the typical dogfighting speeds of WW2 piston engined fighters.

 

As the average speed of fighter aircraft increased drastically with the introduction of the jet engine however, the laminar airfoil clearly proved to be the future, as it is substantially superior to the conventional assym. types at the most common maneuvering speeds for a jet fighter, with the clmax vs mach curve flattening out around 0.4-0.5 mach depending on altitude.

Edited June 29, 2024 by Panthera

[Ace_Pilto]

Just for the record, one thing I noticed flying the original Il-2 was that people don't tend to understand that turning performance at speed is different to a sustained rate turn. At 350MPH a P-51 will out turn anything except perhaps a Dora 9. This leads to all kinds of anecdotal ambiguity that precipitates all kinds of strange and seemingly  incomprehensible data from which to select a viable tactical approach. The Hawker Tempest was made to do neither. It's an evolution of the Typhoon which was developed to be fast and strong. Go in, hit target, go home. The RAF had the Spitfire as a fighter killer, the Tempest was on the edge of their engineering capability.

[Ace_Pilto]

On 5/26/2024 at 7:39 AM, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

Is there any chance that any improvements to the tempest would also end up in the typhoon too? I can feel a lot of the tempest strangeness in the typhoon FM, but it's not nearly as exploitable and talked about due to the much harsher stall behavior.

 

JenkemJunkie

lolz

 

Forumdads will not understand.

The Typhoon was just a Hurricane with big power engine. Can't do anything well but goes fast. The tactical considerations of the time wanted that. Fly to France, strafe a train or a villiage and go home.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

When I said improvements I never meant make the plane perform better like a spitfire. I meant improvements as in more realistic.

[Roland_HUNter]

11 hours ago, Ace_Pilto said:

 

JenkemJunkie

lolz

 

Forumdads will not understand.

The Typhoon was just a Hurricane with big power engine. Can't do anything well but goes fast. The tactical considerations of the time wanted that. Fly to France, strafe a train or a villiage and go home.

Looks like somebody do not care about british reports...

[Avimimus]

12 hours ago, Ace_Pilto said:

Forumdads will not understand.

The Typhoon was just a Hurricane with big power engine. Can't do anything well but goes fast. The tactical considerations of the time wanted that. Fly to France, strafe a train or a villiage and go home.

 

Well, if you look closely for a moment, you'll notice that it is a completely new aircraft - totally redesigned. Also, it was originally the only aircraft capable of running down the Fw-190 Jabo fighter-bombers that were slipping across the channel... so it was the premier fighter for a bit. You could perhaps learn how to fly it better?

 

Anyway, isn't this thread supposed to be about the Tempest?

[Ace_Pilto]

I feel as though there is a progression being made and that the designers for one company are going to inherit ideas and innovations from the "genes" of their previous designs. I can fly it just fine, not complaining at all because, to me, speed is life.

[Ace_Pilto]

What I felt about the Tempest, it's a significant improvement in all aspects over the Typhoon but the progression of fighter design at the time favoured heavier, faster aircraft over turning ability. Turning is very situational. Sustained vs instantaneous turn is what I'm trying to draw attention to here since the Tempest favours speed in every aspect of its' operation over sustained turn and yet, flown correctly can win an energy fight by flying a wider turn but at higher speed. In any post 1943 airframe, sustained rate of turn is a big no-no. You're going to get e-bombed so It's something that you should be avoiding. Sustained rate fights don't really come back into the picture again until the jet age where the thrust to sustain high speed, high G turns become more readily available.

 

I've always enjoyed the high speed responsiveness of the 190 and P-51 for this reason which allows you to defeat a firing solution and maintain enough energy to egress or climb away but I don;t fight the same way that a lot of people think is the best way (kill at all costs). To me the Tempest is a battle-axe, if you try anything too fancy with it you're going to need a lot of experience to get away with it or risk ending up low dumb and slow. It can be done but it's not the optimal approach.  I dunno, it's been a while since I Tempested anything to death but I recall its' strength being in low-mid alt performance and running down low energy bandits who think that they can out boost you. The superior wing design of the tempest does give you more leverage but to me that's a fall back for when all else has failed because it will only last a few turns/reversals.

[Ace_Pilto]

I should probably add that the final element to this is that you may be fighting people who have trained to an unrealistic level of competency in high aspect low percentage shooting. This complicates things even more since you are basically denied entry into even the fringes of a guns envelope that you might otherwise flirt with. How you manage that in any aircraft is on you, stay out of guns. It is incredibly difficult to defend against people who have trained their aim to such a robotic precision and I'd advise staying away from servers that host this kind of player. You're not going to win against them without a thousand deaths.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

8 hours ago, Ace_Pilto said:

To me the Tempest is a battle-axe, if you try anything too fancy with it you're going to need a lot of experience to get away with it or risk ending up low dumb and slow. It can be done but it's not the optimal approach.  I dunno, it's been a while since I Tempested anything to death but I recall its' strength being in low-mid alt performance and running down low energy bandits who think that they can out boost you. The superior wing design of the tempest does give you more leverage but to me that's a fall back for when all else has failed because it will only last a few turns/reversals.

Yes exploiting an energy advantage should be plan A if you have the luxury, but in this thread we're arguing that the tempest is too good at being fancy especially when slow. If you're only flying it in a boom and zoom way and aren't pushing the plane to the edges of it's envelope I could maybe understand you not noticing, but if you get fancy with it you should be able to feel pretty quickly that this plane is not like the others if you have a good feel for the IL-2 planes. It handles like the Tempest is on simple physics while most other planes are on normal physics, and if you turn simple physics on then... let's not talk about that.... thing....

[Ace_Pilto]

Well, the Il2 flies like a hot air balloon. If that is the...thing. You are referring to. It was an awful, underpowered piece of junk that worked because the design survived beyond the need for competent design. Like the Hurricane.

[HazMatt]

I've read pilots accounts of Ta-152s out turning Tempests on the deck during the war. For some reason I suspect that wouldn't happen in GB.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

3 hours ago, Ace_Pilto said:

Well, the Il2 flies like a hot air balloon. If that is the...thing. You are referring to. It was an awful, underpowered piece of junk that worked because the design survived beyond the need for competent design. Like the Hurricane.

The IL2 has its own brand of specialness, but the ...thing I was talking about is the simple physics Tempest. Its really funny the first time you see it, but it soon gets old and becomes your white whale. I just brought it up jokingly though, when you turn simple physics on, things get simple duh. This threads about the normal physics Tempest.

[LukeFF]

On 8/6/2024 at 12:56 PM, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

The IL2 has its own brand of specialness, but the ...thing I was talking about is the simple physics Tempest. Its really funny the first time you see it, but it soon gets old and becomes your white whale. I just brought it up jokingly though, when you turn simple physics on, things get simple duh. This threads about the normal physics Tempest.

 

We have begun evaluating some changes to the Tempest FM, so assuming all goes well it will be improved in the near future. 

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

This is the happiest day in my life! ❤️❤️❤️ 

[HazMatt]

Good news! 30mm next? 🙏

[354thFG_Leifr]

Great news.

[MK_RED13]

LukeFF.. Tempest FM... improved or corrected... ???? 😉

[LukeFF]

59 minutes ago, MK_RED13 said:

LukeFF.. Tempest FM... improved or corrected... ???? 😉

 

Why can't it be both?

[nesher666]

Great news, thank you Luke!

Any idea appr. when we might get to see these Tempest improvements? Roughly o.c.

[Aurora_Stealth]

I'm really looking forward to seeing some change/improvement to the Tempest V and to flying it again soon on IL2, hopefully sooner rather than later considering when the issues were first raised.

 

A change here would really help normalise the perception of the other fighters of the era as well (i.e. Spitfire IX, Spitfire XIV, Fw 190 D as well as the 109's etc) which come across as being disproportionately inferior in certain aspects.

 

The Tempest did have terrific performance, and rightly was considered one of the most powerful and fastest piston engine fighters at low/medium altitude... but it traded high speed performance for compromises in other areas and that has felt neglected in its FM.

 

I hope a revision here could help open up the possibility of further availability of the Tempest V on the Combat Box server and people could then access it more often online. The understanding being that players would have to adjust to its real life hit and run, zooming tactics which this aircraft was known for being dominant at... while avoiding the types of slower speed and knife edge combat manoeuvring which was considered very risky against the typical fighters of the day.

[LukeFF]

8 hours ago, nesher666 said:

Great news, thank you Luke!

Any idea appr. when we might get to see these Tempest improvements? Roughly o.c.

 

Probably sometime next month, or October at the latest. 

[nesher666]

Much appreciated, and looking forward to it! 

[the_emperor]

@LukeFF

any news whether any of the other flight model issues will get tackled with the next patch?

Many Thanks✌️

[LukeFF]

3 hours ago, the_emperor said:

@LukeFF

any news whether any of the other flight model issues will get tackled with the next patch?

Many Thanks✌️

 

Yes, one FC plane as of right now.

[MK_RED13]

6 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

Yes, one FC plane as of right now.

 

Sorry.. what is FC??? 

 

Thx. 

[Aapje]

17 minutes ago, MK_RED13 said:

Sorry.. what is FC??? 

 

Flying Circus. The WW 1 modules.

[nesher666]

7 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

Yes, one FC plane as of right now.

Will that be in addition to the Tempest FM adjustment?

Or the FC plane will come in the next update, while the Tempest adjustment will follow after that?

 

I got a bit confused, sorry. :D

[LukeFF]

Just now, nesher666 said:

Will that be in addition to the Tempest FM adjustment?

Or the FC plane will come in the next update, while the Tempest adjustment will follow after that?

 

I got a bit confused, sorry. 😄

 

Both are planned for the next update.

[FTC_ChilliBalls]

On 8/31/2024 at 11:41 AM, LukeFF said:

 

Yes, one FC plane as of right now.

On 8/31/2024 at 7:16 PM, LukeFF said:

Both are planned for the next update.

 

I hope you don't mind me asking about any potential increases in the DB 605 Notleistungs timelimit also being included?

Edited September 5, 2024 by FTC_ChilliBalls

[LukeFF]

36 minutes ago, FTC_ChilliBalls said:

I hope you don't mind me asking about any potential increases in the DB 605 Notleistungs timelimit also being included?

 

It is planned but there is no exact date for right now. 

[the_emperor]

On 9/5/2024 at 7:12 PM, LukeFF said:

It is planned but there is no exact date for right now. 

 

Really hopping this will come sooner than later.

If you dont mind asking, is there a reason why this takes so long?

I would have figured changing the timer value from 1 to 3 would be one of the easier changes, but I could be totally wrong here 😁.

And are there reasons why the 1min limit was chosen in the first place when there are no documents for the 109s DB605a with cleared Start&Notleistung was rated for 1min?

I dont want to be unpolite or rude but they literately painted the limits on their instruments...was this an oversight in the first place?

 

 

[LukeFF]

That's a question for Gavrick to answer, not me. 🙂

[357th_KW]

On 8/31/2024 at 10:16 AM, LukeFF said:

 

Both are planned for the next update.

 

Are any other existing aircraft getting any updates?

[LukeFF]

38 minutes ago, 357th_KW said:

Are any other existing aircraft getting any updates?

 

One other WWI plane, yes. 

[the_emperor]

On 9/8/2024 at 11:17 AM, the_emperor said:

If you dont mind asking, is there a reason why this takes so long?

I would have figured changing the timer value from 1 to 3 would be one of the easier changes, but I could be totally wrong here 😁.

And are there reasons why the 1min limit was chosen in the first place when there are no documents for the 109s DB605a with cleared Start&Notleistung was rated for 1min?

I dont want to be unpolite or rude but they literately painted the limits on their instruments...was this an oversight in the first place?

 

On 9/9/2024 at 6:09 PM, LukeFF said:

That's a question for Gavrick to answer, not me. 🙂

@Gavrick

Many Thanks

[HawkerMkIII_]

Awesome to know the Tempest is getting revised! Thank you everyone

[Ace_Pilto]

Cool, now you people who couldn't fly the Tempest before can blame the new patch for your tactical shortcomings. Victory all round, I'd say.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

4 hours ago, Ace_Pilto said:

Cool, now you people who couldn't fly the Tempest before can blame the new patch for your tactical shortcomings. Victory all round, I'd say.

As an Fw driver, I'm not inclined to be happy about this......