Jump to content

From Jasons Q&A on Stormbirds blog, parts on FC


Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:


My opinion of all the “Albatros-like” Central planes in RoF/FC has remained unchanged since 2009-2010. That includes the Albatros D.II, D.III, D.Va, Pfalz D.IIIa (especially pre-RoF 1.034), D.XII, Halberstadt D.II, CL.II, Roland C.IIa, DFW C.V, Brandenburg W.12 and Gotha G.V. Basically everything that isn’t a Fokker. They turn too well for their relatively high wing loading and are unable to sharply stall, though they can enter very nasty nearly unrecoverable spins if you prophang them too long.


IMO, the only plane that should be handling that effortlessly is the Fokker D.VII / D.VII F. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Monostripezebra said:

 

The 10g is your figure..  I took that from you.. (Note: no source, but Chill seems to have read the same 10.7 he gives)

Also Note here: 6.5 is the requirement at time of type approval.. 10/6.5=1.5 and a bit.

 

I am not in an academic context anymore, so i can not grab every book but contrary to others I have made an effort to use online available contemporary sources..and in terms of textbooks and early scolarly material (like DVL stuff) but generally, you WILL find safety factor thinking in this time..  since the limitations of source access  I only had this bad scan copy.. of the 1919 rehash what was state of science in 1918 and written up. "Flugzeugstatik".   given, which  contemporary books on the topic has 1.5 as a safty factor recomendation. As well as the mentioning of 2. It is in there. Among other things... look it up.

 

So, I am kinda out of the discussion, why should I spend unpaid hours going through stuff look sources for really unfriendly people who just wanna fanboi for their ego or  game adjustments for their side..   cry "source source" for everything they dislike but not for things in favour of their viewpoint or even their own posts. Like, did you give a source for any factual statement in this discussion?

 

please note here: I have 0 claims made on how the game should be nor 0 claims that I would know which construction used what factors, or even that this was limited to the germans, on the contrary..  I merely pointed to when you wanna look at when stuff breaks it is an issue what the safety factor is.. and "geforderte Sicherheit" is a thing in 1918. And that you can varying factors but 1.5 seems to come trough in the emediate aftermath of the war (at a time where germany was forbidden to build aircraft..)  And I would suspect somewhere in france probably a similar transition took place, as did in the UK and US.

 

grafik.png.e7bb1b5ee1efe4624df3772703251351.pngetc..pp. too lazy to look it all through again.

 

If you don´t believe me, well.. I am fine with that, in then end, you just wanna fit the facts to your vision, so this whole discussion is not for me.. the focus on "historical accuracy" as weapon to fight for changes one wants in a game is really silly.. in the end, it is a game and while some flying accuracy sure is fun, balancing is also part of it and trying have unbalanced games in the name of "but muuh, I am right" is very shortsighted. Or just some forum ego thing. not really fun, so I´m out.

 

" It all boils down to HOW MUCH material you use." ->NO. More does not equal more strenght im Leichtbau

 

OK, well when I ran this post through my ad hominem filter I had a buffer overflow but in the fact stack there is zilch/nada but thanks for playing anyway!

Edited by Holtzauge
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

 

Pfalz D.IIIa.

 

 

 

Recovery is effected by holding the stick full back and in the spin direction for at least one second then push forward and in the same direction.  No rudder, no power change required.  No issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

Recovery is effected by holding the stick full back and in the spin direction for at least one second then push forward and in the same direction.  No rudder, no power change required.  No issue.

 

Spin recovery in this game is just plain weird and, dare I say it, unrealistic. The above Pfalz DIII procedure is similar to the Camel yet these aircraft are worlds apart in almost every respect apart from the ability to fly.

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

 

Spin recovery in this game is just plain weird and, dare I say it, unrealistic. The above Pfalz DIII procedure is similar to the Camel yet these aircraft are worlds apart in almost every respect apart from the ability to fly.

Absolutely! I doubt that you could deliberately design any type of real aircraft to have these weird spin recovery control input requirements. You could, of course to design it to be UN recoverable... (there have been numerous examples of that throughout history) and maybe, through pure luck, discover some crazy way to recover. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

 

Spin recovery in this game is just plain weird and, dare I say it, unrealistic. The above Pfalz DIII procedure is similar to the Camel yet these aircraft are worlds apart in almost every respect apart from the ability to fly.

 

The only unrealistic element I have found is with planes that can be recovered with up elevator albeit in combination with another control. This is just plain wrong, in that up elevator will maintain a spin, while the objective is to get the nose pointing down in order to stop the rotation.  It makes sense to begin recovery with up elevator, the idea being to raise the nose as much as possible before allowing it to drop with more momentum than it would have otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To recover from a spin in most airplanes, you apply rudder against the spin and drop the nose.  The ailerons are not needed and should not be used because they tend to complicate things with adverse yaw, etc., while up elevator should not be needed and the only reason I see it helping recover is if one wing is still not fully stalled, where up elevator would fully stall both wings.  To recover from a spin, Camel pilots were advised to shut the engine off, push the nose down and apply rudder against the spin.  I think I heard somewhere that the Albatros was recovered from a spin in a similar manner.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Roundels and Crosses pdf book has imo the best advice for camel spins and separates them into left and right spins where very different input is needed

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

To recover from a spin in most airplanes, you apply rudder against the spin and drop the nose

 

During a spin, the rudder is largely out of the propwash so has questionable effect.  As the spin recovers, the rudder's effect will increase, which may cause the illusion that it was responsible for stopping the spin.

 

5 hours ago, Miners said:

The ailerons are not needed and should not be used because they tend to complicate things with adverse yaw, etc.,

 

On some aircraft. pilots have reported the need to add aileron into the spin in order to recover.  I imagine the theory is that if the aileron on the flying (unstalled) wing is lowered, the increased lift will tilt the axis of rotation, causing the nose to point further downwards during part of the rotation.

 

 

5 hours ago, Miners said:

while up elevator should not be needed and the only reason I see it helping recover is if one wing is still not fully stalled, where up elevator would fully stall both wings.

 

Nobody's saying it's always needed, but as I said:

8 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

It makes sense to begin recovery with up elevator, the idea being to raise the nose as much as possible before allowing it to drop with more momentum than it would have otherwise.

 

For the same reason that the rudder is compromised during a spin, so are the elevators, and they may not always have sufficient authority to lower the nose un-assisted.

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

During a spin, the rudder is largely out of the propwash so has questionable effect. 

You will not recover it the rudder is "ineffective". Usually the rudder is well in the airstream. It is certainly not as effective as if in normal flight, but it does the trick. In benign airctaft, the empenage is dimensioned such that releasing controls will make the plane exit a spin.

 

3 minutes ago, Cynic_Al said:

imagine the theory is that if the aileron on the flying (unstalled) wing is lowered, the increased lift will tilt the axis of rotation, causing the nose to point further downwards during part of the rotation.

No. The inner wing is stalled out, while the outer wing might well be "flying". When you are steering into the turn with the ailerons means that on the inner wing, the control surface is lifted, it decreases the overall AoA of the wing, making it sooner regain proper airflow.

 

7 minutes ago, Cynic_Al said:

For the same reason that the rudder is compromised during a spin, so are the elevators, and they may not always have sufficient authority to lower the nose un-assisted.

If you can't lower the nose, you are in an established (flat) spin that most likely will kill you if you cannot hit the silk (in time). The elevator works as well as the rudder during a spin. If it wouldn't do so then it would be absolutely VERBOTEN to perform spins in said AC.

 

The main determinant is your CoG. With forward CoG, the plane will "fall out" of a spin without by dropping the nose and accellerating (decreasing wing AoA until proper airflow is established) without much control input. With a rear CoG, the plane sits more on its tail and this will maintain the spin. Consequently, the further rear your CoG, the more you have to use the controls to make the plane exit a spin. With a forward enough CoG, the plane will resist enetrin a spin in the first place and will recover by itself after dropping a wing or enter a spiral. (That can be very dangerous, as just pulling then will enable you to accidentally overstress the airframe.) Balance is the key to spins.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

During a spin, the rudder is largely out of the propwash so has questionable effect.  As the spin recovers, the rudder's effect will increase, which may cause the illusion that it was responsible for stopping the spin.

 

This and basically everything stated in the post from which it comes is utter nonsense.  I have done hundreds, maybe by now--thousands, of spins both upright and inverted, with power and idle, with aileron and without, in competition and in practice.  Post-stall behavior in some planes in Flying Circus is totally out to lunch.  But I'll save talk about my issues with the game for a moment.  Let's just talk about spins in real life.

 

A spin can also be called an "autorotation".  The autorotation comes from the fact that the outside, less stalled, wing is producing more lift than the inside wing creating a rotation which further propagates the low airflow and higher AoA experienced by the inside wing.  If one wishes to make the spin faster and tighter, he can add full outside aileron.  This increases AOA and drag on the inside wing even further, increasing the rate of rotation in most planes (by about 50% in the Pitts pictured in my avatar).  In a well-designed airplane that is flown within it's designed CG range, the natural stabilizing tendencies will recover from the spin on their own if the pilot does nothing but reduce the throttle and neutralize (or release) all controls.  This is known as the Beggs-Mueler recovery method.  So it's not just rudder that is not required to recover; it's all controls.  But this assumes a plane designed from a foundation of established aerodynamic knowledge which was lacking in the early part of WWI.  Designers learned very quickly through necessity.  By later in the war the basic concepts that we still use today were in place.  Forget propwash for now.  If the engine is generating propwash, it is producing torque and toque flattens the spin.  Flatter spins recover slowly--or not at all.  With the engine idled or dead, there is more than sufficient airflow over all surfaces to allow for recovery.  It is true that a portion of the vertical stab and rudder are blocked partially by the elevator and horizontal stabilizer but the blocking is not total.  Because the tailfeathers enjoy a long arm, the stabilizing effects of the surfaces, even when partially blanked, are enough to trend the rotation to zero after less than a turn.  But that is only IF the elevator is neutralized.  Elevator got the airplane into the spin.  The spin is not recoverable until the nose is allowed to point more into the airflow.  Let's say that the airplane wasn't designed by modern standards and lacks the stability to recover on its own by simply idling and letting go.  It's still an airplane.  It wants to be an arrow, not a stick.  It just needs a little help in reducing the AoA and ending the conditions that started the autorotation in the first place. For that the first place to go is rudder and the second is elevator.  Recovery may not be immediate but if the CG is not too far aft, recovery WILL happen.

 

I can illustrate this a bit by describing competition spins.  Competition spins are just spins.  But, because they must end exactly on heading we cheat them a little.  In the Pitts, the best cheat is to hold full elevator, aft or forward, depending on whether the spin is inside or outside.  Full elevator keeps the speed of rotation predictable, making recovery on point easier.  If one relaxes elevator too soon, Coriolis forces increase the rate of rotation at the very moment where the pilot is trying to gauge the recovery on heading.  About a quarter turn before the target heading, apply full opposite rudder.  Nothing will happen because the elevator is still held at its limit.  But the airplane is now "armed" to recover.  All it takes is a quick push or pull to neutral and BAM!, rotation stops on point and the nose is pointed down.  In completion we push or pull even further to draw the required vertical line and then push or pull to recover to horizontal.  Again, the spin I described was flown to score well at a contest.  If one wishes to spin for fun or practice, the easiest recovery is just to let go.  Instead of recovering on point, the plane will recover somewhere between a quarter and half a turn.  The point I am trying to illustrate is that the spin is not an uncontrolled maneuver. It is totally predictable and every fraction of a second is managed and directed when flown by an experienced pilot.  There is nothing at all fuzzy about a spin.

 

I cannot explain the spin in the FC Camel or Dolphin.  There is no aerodynamic explanation for it.  The planes appear well designed.  They exhibit decent static and dynamic stability, ie, if the speed slows, the nose naturally drops and trends over time to a new trimmed attitude.  They appear to be arrows, not sticks.  But the spin is nonsense.  In the FC Camel, recovery requires aft elevator which in any real airplane would give you a very pleasant ride to impact.  I also can't explain why the Camel doesn't fly controllably inverted.  I get that it shouldn't fly WELL inverted.  The wing is asymmetrical and the fuel and oil systems are not designed for sustained negative g.  But with the engine off it should be able to glide around upside down with impunity.  It doesn't.  It wants to snap upright the instant that g is pushed lower than zero.  Why?

 

I wasn't there.  True.  I only know what I know.  And that leaves remaining volumes of knowledge that I will never have.  But when it comes to pulling and pushing g's and snapping and spinning I feel that I have an informed hunch about how things should be.  When I play Flying Circus, a game I enjoy immensely, I know that it is a total (and totally inconsistent) beautiful...fantasy.  

Edited by =IRFC=SmokinHole
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, =IRFC=SmokinHole said:

 I also can't explain why the Camel doesn't fly controllably inverted.  I get that it shouldn't fly WELL inverted.  The wing is asymmetrical and the fuel and oil systems are not designed for sustained negative g.  But with the engine off it should be able to glide around upside down with impunity.  It doesn't.  It wants to snap upright the instant that g is pushed lower than zero.  Why?

I have found that to fly the Camel inverted, you start a normal roll with rudder and aileron but as you come past 90 degrees, the rudder should be taken out.  Once it is inverted, it seems quite stable and stalls at about 80 or so.  I’m not sure why this works but I learned to do it this way from some document written by a test pilot describing inverted stall/spins postwar.  However, this same document mentions a half-loop entry method as well which I haven’t got to work yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn’t able to get it to stay inverted for the longest time and once I knew how, it took me a couple of tries to get the hang of it.  The only real trick is to take rudder out of the roll as you pass 90 degrees and make sure to get it pretty much exactly inverted or else it will flop out back to level flight.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2021 at 7:01 AM, =IRFC=SmokinHole said:

The autorotation comes from the fact that the outside, less stalled, wing is producing more lift than the inside wing creating a rotation which further propagates the low airflow and higher AoA experienced by the inside wing. 

 

 [Spin recovery] just needs a little help in reducing the AoA and ending the conditions that started the autorotation in the first place. For that the first place to go is rudder and the second is elevator.  Recovery may not be immediate but if the CG is not too far aft, recovery WILL happen.

 

There is nothing at all fuzzy about a spin.

 

I cannot explain the spin in the FC Camel or Dolphin.  There is no aerodynamic explanation for it.  But the spin is nonsense.  In the FC Camel, recovery requires aft elevator [again, complete nonsense] which in any real airplane would give you a very pleasant ride to impact. 

I completely agree with the above statements and I, also, have lots of spins under my belt in RL including most of the Cessna 100 and 200 series (my first spins as well as intro to aerobatics were in the 152 Aerobat) Pitts S2 series, Extra 300 and, the worst for recovery, Piper Tomahawk... the Tomahawk has a bad reputation for spin recovery but it only took about two and a half turns after doing the standard recovery controls (idle, full forward, full opposite rudder and neutral ailerons) to resume controllable flight. Hell, I've even unintentionally spun (if you call 1/2 turn a spin) a King Air while adjusting the stall warning lift transducer.

 

The key to understanding is that (as SmokinHole states) the spin is related to the disparity in the AOA of the respective wings... one wing has exceeded the critical AOA and has ceased to produce lift (or lift is greatly reduced... stalled). To stop the spin, all that is needed is to reduce the AOA of the stalled wing below the critical angle. How applying UP elevator (or pumping the elevator) accomplishes this is just nonsense. But, somehow, this is what the algorithm requires. It's not really high on my list of things to fix in the game... but it would be nice.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JG1_Vonrd said:

How applying UP elevator (or pumping the elevator) accomplishes this is just nonsense. But, somehow, this is what the algorithm requires. It's not really high on my list of things to fix in the game... but it would be nice.

I assume this is due to the way induced drag is modelled in the sim. Increasing AoA by pulling makes the faster wing draggy to the point that rotation cannot be sustained. There is a slight shaking when you pull enough on the stick to make (e.g.) the Camel stop rotating, indicating that the outer wing nears stalling angle and experiences high drag.

 

Generally, having the edges of the envelope right seems to be extremely difficult whe balancing lift, drag, induced drag, etc. such that they also compute acceptable performance figures for different loadouts in normal flight. I don‘t see this fixable without a general overhaul of the entire FM throughout the sim. Not practical.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/18/2021 at 12:01 AM, =IRFC=SmokinHole said:

 

I cannot explain the spin in the FC Camel or Dolphin.

 

5 hours ago, JG1_Vonrd said:

How applying UP elevator (or pumping the elevator) accomplishes this is just nonsense

 

I just hope you chaps don't use the FC "spin recovery" procedure in real life through repetition of gameplay habit ... or you'll both be smokin' holes. 

 

I wish they would/could fix it. But it seems it is not a simple one to correct yes?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ST_Catchov said:

 just hope you chaps don't use the FC "spin recovery" procedure in real life through repetition of gameplay habit ... or you'll both be smokin' holes. 

 

I wish they would/could fix it. But it seems it is not a simple one to correct yes?

 

This game sim suffers from what is commonly known as 'artificial difficulty'. Because certain game mechanics cannot be implemented effectively to pose a challenge to the player, the choice instead is made to make it unfairly difficult. Criticism is then usually met with "git gud" — become better at the game through practice and experience — especially coming from peers who will defend the difficulty as a conscious design decision, which it usually is.

 

Mind you, some of the best games use such mechanics. The most infamous example being the third person ARPG Dark Souls, for which the expression was coined. Make one mistake and you have to start over again, if not from the very beginning then at least a large part of your progress is lost. The solution is simple: don't make any mistakes.

 

For us flightsim boys, this elitist approach works exceedingly well. Increased difficulty is typically perceived as realism. In reality flying planes should be easy, even basic WWI designs past the era of the pusher and wing warping (though the Eindecker was quite advanced for its time). These machines were built to be flown by people with zero aviation experience. Perhaps not even riding a horse or driving an automobile. There were countless accidents in training through lack of knowledge and experience, technical failure, rapidly changing weather conditions and good old human nature (fear, bravado, disorientation...). Even after more than a hundred years of aviation advances written in blood, student and experienced pilots alike still manage to kill or seriously hurt themselves in far more advanced aircraft built primarily for training. As my favourite and most knowledgeable flight instructor once told me: flying is easy, flying well is hard.

 

 

So can they correct this? I don't know. Given enough time and money, without a doubt.

 

From the way I understand the sim engine works, stalls and spins happen (mostly) aerodynamically. There are (mostly) no scripts involved as was the case in older sims. What you see is the engine attempting to simulate an aerodynamic spin, and getting it (mostly) wrong. Because the Camel spin is hard to recover from and leads to excessive player deaths, a point will be made by both the developers and the players that the result is historically accurate. The Camel killed a lot of its pilots. Just don't spin it. The end result in this case supposedly outweighs factual accuracy. See also: Pfalz 10g tolerance and N28 turn performance.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2021 at 7:59 AM, US28_Baer said:

 

"Only plane mentioned by name in the armistice..."  Dunno man, this isn't War Thunder. Simplifying relative performance helps no-one, and certainly doesn't help improve the Sim. The DM has serious issues which affects all player groups, its not an Entente or Central thing. The Albatros is rendered almost useless and the CL2 not much better by the same wing issues. Then there is the crazy high frequency of control 'jams'. If all these are addressed it will greatly help the Sim and all who use it.

 

The D7f was already the 'best' in the Sim before a DM based on wing spar size was created and the D7's wing spar size increased by 300%. The forums were not full of pilots expressing their dissatisfaction with the D7f performance or damage model prior to 4.005 right?

 

TBF my point was exactly that this isn't War Thunder.  Hence saying that the "best" plane should be the "best" plane regardless of any notions of balance in MP.  I wasn't commenting on the DM either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

From the way I understand the sim engine works, stalls and spins happen (mostly) aerodynamically. There are (mostly) no scripts involved as was the case in older sims. What you see is the engine attempting to simulate an aerodynamic spin, and getting it (mostly) wrong. Because the Camel spin is hard to recover from and leads to excessive player deaths, a point will be made by both the developers and the players that the result is historically accurate. The Camel killed a lot of its pilots. Just don't spin it. The end result in this case supposedly outweighs factual accuracy. See also: Pfalz 10g tolerance and N28 turn performance.

 

You make some good points Bender. Although it doesn't explain why the Pfalz spin recovery is similar to the Camel as noted by Cynic (I don't fly it myself). But I take your point that the Camel is a dangerous plane for noobs until the (unrealistic) spin recovery technique is learnt. Then it's a piece of cake providing one has enough altitude. And I guess that is realistic in a weird sim way. It's an interesting argument. But I would still prefer a realistic recovery, if that is at all possible?

 

The performance of the FC Nieuport 28 I await with some trepidation and anxiety. But she is a fine looking bird for sure.

  • Upvote 1
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...