Roll Rates

[Kurfurst]

16 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

The RAAF report (which is a separate report) for the Mosquito states 30lbs is full column deflection, so yes it is full travel. The RAAF report shows the maximum rate of roll. 

 

I don't think so, its decreasing all the way down and there is no break in it on the RAAF charts. 

 

The RAAF report imo shows what was possible at 30 lbs stick force on the Mosquito, and it's not very much, it is quite clear the stick forces were so high from the get go that already at 150 mph full deflection was not possible with 30 lbs, so it was already decreasing as speed went up.  If it would have been enough there would be a 'break' in the curve at the point where the force is just enough to maintain maximum deflection.

 

Having such a modest roll rate with medium stick forces is quite understandable, its a big plane with big control surfaces and two large engines in the wings, it takes quite a lot of force to move all that around. The P-38 had similar issues until they added hydraulic boosters. 

 

That being said, the Mossie's roll rate is just absurdly high in Il2GB at cc. 100 deg/sec as there is no way that adding a mere 20lbs would allow for the ailerons to be fully deflected another whopping +150 mph (up to 275 mph) compared to what it was 30 lbs force. The Spitfire (another one beset by very high aileron stick forces) for example, also only gains about 40 mph when going from 30 to 50 lbs. Extrapolating the RAAF Mosquitos chart from 30 lbs to 50 lbs in the same way (i.e. looking at where the curve could possibly be at +40 mph with 50 lbs) maybe yields about 50-60 deg/sec, but definietely not 100 deg /sec...

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

So @=DW=_Drewm3i-VR Where is the bias exactly? Cujo tested values of planes in game and put them against real life data available. And he also puts in data on other planes as test are done. So hardly a bias?The discrenpacy between in game vs published charts is more than 2-3% on the Fw190A compared to what devs themselves have said it to be on any plane.

 

The FW190A was noted to have sluggish and slow roll already from it's appearance in game years ago, negating it's best feature being able to do quick reversals due very high roll rate and harmonic controls. This is well described on the RAE tests as well.

 

Again the LagG-3/5 has been a high performing plane in that department even when CCCP and other sources indicate they suffered from high control forces, especially in roll. It is snappy, like an Extra 300L in roll at the moment performing way over any other plane in the game.

 

TL;DR Everyone wants good FM, The rest is up how well you use the plane. 

Edited February 5, 2024 by LLv34_Flanker

[CUJO_1970]

P-47D28 and P-51D added. Both of these models fit well with the NACA 868 report, especially the P-47. I'll check the charts from America's Hundred Thousand later to see how they compare.

 

P-47D28:

 

P-51D:

 

 

 

Edited February 5, 2024 by CUJO_1970

[Gavrick]

Hi all.
Good topic.
Fw 190 was created a long time ago, and, if my memory serves me correctly, the last time it was generally corrected was in 2016. And A-modifications in terms of behavior are quite similar to each other. A lot of time has passed since then.
In principle, apparently, yes, it’s worth taking a closer look at the 190th. If we have time, we’ll check it and, if necessary, correct it (although at first glance, based on the available figures for the adjustment times of the 190th, the measurement seems quite correct).
About Mosquito - again, if we have some free time, we’ll also pay attention. I don’t remember such a source, then I’ll ask the person who worked with Mosquito.
I’ll also note about the 109th - a couple of years ago we reconfigured it. Based on a German report on tests on roll angular rate, aileron reverse and control cable pulling.
P.S.
When there is adequate and consistent data during work on an aircraft, it turns out something like what you see above P-51 and P-47.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

@Gavrick Just a question. How come does La-5 and Even LagG-3 roll better than FW190A, by a considerable margin in game? No information that can be found supports this. By combining info from both Rechlin 1944 test(bit better than 109G but much slower than 190A) and Russian tests(very vague in this)the maximum roll rate of La-5 would be around 110deg/s. Not to mention FW190 used control rods vs cables in La-5. 

Edited February 6, 2024 by LLv34_Flanker

[Roland_HUNter]

On 2/4/2024 at 8:55 AM, CUJO_1970 said:

P-51B added.

 

With the fix, can you test please the P-47 and Fw-190? Please ^^
Please retest the La-5FN as well, because feels like tha La-5FN is still better than the 190A.

[CUJO_1970]

On 2/6/2024 at 3:46 AM, Gavrick said:

Hi all.
Good topic.

 

Hello and thank you very much for update on FW190 roll rates!

 

It is greatly appreciated.

[CUJO_1970]

3 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

With the fix, can you test please the P-47 and Fw-190? Please ^^
Please retest the La-5FN as well, because feels like tha La-5FN is still better than the 190A.

 

P-47 looks to be unchanged - but it was OK already anyway so that part of P-47 FM didn't require any change. It's fine. I tried a couple of tests and it's same 84-89 deg/sec - agrees with info from NACA as well as charts posted in AHT.

 

For FW190 average of ten tests for peak roll per NACA 868 test I got 150 deg/sec...so it is very close with update and I can test better/more thoroughly when time allows.

(If you make even one mistake in testing it changes roll rate 10-15 deg/sec or more).

 

I'm quite happy the developers took the time to work on it. It is much appreciated.

[Roland_HUNter]

I found 2 interesting thing:

1. In 2018 in IL-2 the FW-190 A-3 had historical roll rate:

 

Why, and when it was nerfed?

 

It is worth reading the whole thread. For comments like this one:

 

A second topic about roll rates: (maybe old, but maybe somebody can find something useful in it)

 

 

2.I'm trying to find a source on how well the LA-5 FN could roll.

I found a War thunder topic where they talk about it rolling too well, as well as in IL-2.

https://old-forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/116084-the-rate-of-rolls-bugs-happened-on-la-5fn38la7/

 

160 deg/sec.

 

Unfortunately, they didn't get to the bottom of it on the forum, but I tested it in WT, currently there, according to some historical source, it can roll 100 deg/sec.

 

This, however, stands up to what I have read elsewhere:

The German experience is that the La-5 FN has a slightly better rolling pattern than the 109.

The 109 should be about ~90 deg/sec.

https://www.asisbiz.com/il2/La-5/pages/Lavochkin-La-5F-captured-by-German-Forces-01.html

 

If anyone has official measurement results, please send them in.

 

Similar data are needed for Lagg-3as, because something is needed to back up the current definitely too good roll rate, or its opponent, if it was in reality.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

12 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

Why, and when it was nerfed?

I don't remember exactly but I remember when A3 were dropping the wing and spin to the ground when pulled to hard in lead shot. After outcry they eliminate this behavior. This is  of course not  roll rate  related but making the plane more "accessible for new players" ? maybe it has same timeframe. BTW only one aircraft stayed not changed and could be pullet to violent stall- i16 . I think it was not touched because it's not a popular plane anyway. 

[the_emperor]

As long as we dont get shown any documents (hard numbers) that support the current Lagg/La series roll rates (which we probably wont) or disprove them, it will probably stay as it is.

They even chose the keep the 10min WEP time for the La 5fn though proven otherwise and that is an easy and fast fix. 

Edited February 27, 2024 by the_emperor

[nesher666]

On 2/6/2024 at 9:46 AM, Gavrick said:

Hi all.
Good topic.
Fw 190 was created a long time ago, and, if my memory serves me correctly, the last time it was generally corrected was in 2016. And A-modifications in terms of behavior are quite similar to each other. A lot of time has passed since then.
In principle, apparently, yes, it’s worth taking a closer look at the 190th. If we have time, we’ll check it and, if necessary, correct it (although at first glance, based on the available figures for the adjustment times of the 190th, the measurement seems quite correct).
About Mosquito - again, if we have some free time, we’ll also pay attention. I don’t remember such a source, then I’ll ask the person who worked with Mosquito.
I’ll also note about the 109th - a couple of years ago we reconfigured it. Based on a German report on tests on roll angular rate, aileron reverse and control cable pulling.
P.S.
When there is adequate and consistent data during work on an aircraft, it turns out something like what you see above P-51 and P-47.

Any news/progress on the Mosquito roll @Gavrick or @LukeFF?

[Roland_HUNter]

When the 109 roll rate will be fixed?
I know, we don't have historical data about it.

But why would we need it, when we have 109s flying around?

At 3:22 the 109 did a half roll around 1.8 sec. Full roll then should be 3.6 sec.

https://youtu.be/ERo0lTyUvOk?t=200

But wait: at 4.58 at climbing the 109 did a 360° roll around ~4 sec.

 

https://youtu.be/ERo0lTyUvOk?t=298

In IL-2 ~5 sec is the best what we can get.
In WT, Clod, MSFS the 109 got ~4 sec, as it should be.
What else evidence is needed?

[LukeFF]

For obvious reasons, a YouTube video is never going to be sufficient evidence on its own to warrant a flight model change.

[Roland_HUNter]

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

For obvious reasons, a YouTube video is never going to be sufficient evidence on its own to warrant a flight model change.

Are you kidding with the whole community right?

So if I have, example: there is a video, about a car, what can go with 180 km/h and I found a video about it AND documents what are certify that 180 km/h (see the DVL wing test, british roll rate report on WW2 performance,org, finnish reports like SIhL 3/2005 "Mäntämoottorihävittäjän suorituskyky) but in the "game" it could go with only 170 km/h, you would say WE will not change the car because of a video, what is a real fact? (What is supported by documents?)

This is getting ridiculous.

First the excuse is that there is no data.
There's no data on 90 degrees per second.
Second: I send you a modern day flying video to back it up, and that's not evidence?

Sorry, what more do you need?

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

59 minutes ago, Roland_HUNter said:

Are you kidding with the whole community right?

So if I have, example: there is a video, about a car, what can go with 180 km/h and I found a video about it AND documents what are certify that 180 km/h (see the DVL wing test, british roll rate report on WW2 performance,org, finnish reports like SIhL 3/2005 "Mäntämoottorihävittäjän suorituskyky) but in the "game" it could go with only 170 km/h, you would say WE will not change the car because of a video, what is a real fact? (What is supported by documents?)

This is getting ridiculous.

First the excuse is that there is no data.
There's no data on 90 degrees per second.
Second: I send you a modern day flying video to back it up, and that's not evidence?

Sorry, what more do you need?

Record a reply and a tacview (this is optional)

[Roland_HUNter]

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

Record a reply and a tacview (this is optional)

Already did in the past:

 

Even Greg's mention it, based on american reports: the 109 roll rate should be not "sluggish" in sim games. Even in the "old" IL-2: 109s had correct ~4s roll rate.

 

What else documentation, videos, are  needed?
Or you claim: every other sim, game, reports are wrong about it, except the IL-2 Great Battles?

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

2 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

What else documentation, videos, are  needed?
Or you claim: every other sim, game, reports are wrong about it, except

My claim?

[LukeFF]

9 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

Are you kidding with the whole community right?

So if I have, example: there is a video, about a car, what can go with 180 km/h and I found a video about it AND documents what are certify that 180 km/h (see the DVL wing test, british roll rate report on WW2 performance,org, finnish reports like SIhL 3/2005 "Mäntämoottorihävittäjän suorituskyky) but in the "game" it could go with only 170 km/h, you would say WE will not change the car because of a video, what is a real fact? (What is supported by documents?)

This is getting ridiculous.

First the excuse is that there is no data.
There's no data on 90 degrees per second.
Second: I send you a modern day flying video to back it up, and that's not evidence?

Sorry, what more do you need?

 

Slow down there. 🙂 As I said, a YT video on its own is never going to be enough evidence to warrant a change to a flight model. Primary source data, i.e., weather conditions, altitude, fuel/ammo load, etc in combination with a roll rate test is what's needed to make a change. There is just no way to extract all of that from a video. So, as always, if you think something is wrong, put together a report here claiming what is wrong and show your sources that back up your argument. 

[Roland_HUNter]

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

My claim?

No, not yours

[Roland_HUNter]

On 1/18/2024 at 12:47 PM, the_emperor said:

Here is a good example.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109g6-tactical.html

the 109 rated equal in terms of roll rate to the Mustang, but it is not specified, at which speed and heights.

Additionally the 109 carried the underwing cannon gondolas, so roll rate might even be better and the Aircraft was a captured one, this might contribute to lesser perfomance overall

 

2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

Slow down there. 🙂 As I said, a YT video on its own is never going to be enough evidence to warrant a change to a flight model. Primary source data, i.e., weather conditions, altitude, fuel/ammo load, etc in combination with a roll rate test is what's needed to make a change. There is just no way to extract all of that from a video. So, as always, if you think something is wrong, put together a report here claiming what is wrong and show your sources that back up your argument. 

Emperor already did.
P-51B and 109 G:
"Rate of Roll
42.           The rate of roll of both aircraft is almost identical. "

Greg also, shows an US report.
Or here another one:
http://www.kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/Bf109G-6_US_EB102/109G-6_US_EB102.html

 

@VO101Kurfurst@the_emperor do you guys have any more evidence/proof?

 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

3 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

Emperor already did.
P-51B and 109 G:
"Rate of Roll
42.           The rate of roll of both aircraft is almost identical. "

So, how much exactly is "almost identical"? 1 second difference? 0.5 seconds? 2?

 

3 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

Or here another one:
http://www.kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/Bf109G-6_US_EB102/109G-6_US_EB102.html

This doesn't say anything except "a very high rate of roll". How high exactly is "very high"?

 

LukeFF already said what you need to provide for the Devs to take another look at this: "Primary source data, i.e., weather conditions, altitude, fuel/ammo load, etc in combination with a roll rate test". I'm not sure why you think that singular and vague mentions such as "very high rate of roll" and "almost identical" fall under this category.

[Roland_HUNter]

2 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

So, how much exactly is "almost identical"? 1 second difference? 0.5 seconds? 2?

 

This doesn't say anything except "a very high rate of roll". How high exactly is "very high"?

 

LukeFF already said what you need to provide for the Devs to take another look at this: "Primary source data, i.e., weather conditions, altitude, fuel/ammo load, etc in combination with a roll rate test". I'm not sure why you think that singular and vague mentions such as "very high rate of roll" and "almost identical" fall under this category.

In the past we already talked about the DVL test. (German testing graph about roll rate)
It was rejected as the videos.
[There is also a report in Greg's videos, what says: "if the US testers said about the ailerons, it was good, and the plane had a high roll rate at cruising speed, then it has to be equal with US fighters at cruising speeds" or another report at 53:00 the British report says the P51 and 109 G-6 rate of roll almost identical--->But if you would listen to that, you would not ask silly questions as you did]
What else should I show up? Hmm?
Why are u here for "asking" when you know nothing about the topic past?

[AEthelraedUnraed]

7 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

In the past we already talked about the DVL test. (German testing graph about roll rate)

Can you show me this test that provides "Primary source data, i.e., weather conditions, altitude, fuel/ammo load, etc in combination with a roll rate test"? I'm pretty sure nothing of the like was posted in this thread

 

7 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

"if the US testers said about the ailerons, it was good, and the plane had a high roll rate at cruising speed, then it has to be equal with US fighters at cruising speeds" or another report at 53:00 the British report says the P51 and 109 G-6 rate of roll almost identical

That's a straw man fallacy. You do not and can not know what the various testers meant with terms such as "good" and "high" roll rates or "almost" identical.

 

7 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

What else should I show up? Hmm?

Why are you even asking when it's been told countless times already? "Primary source data, i.e., weather conditions, altitude, fuel/ammo load, etc in combination with a roll rate test". That means hard data; numbers instead of vague descriptions of "high roll rate".

 

7 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

Why are u here for "asking" when you know nothing about the topic past?

The fact that I haven't replied to this topic yet doesn't mean that I haven't followed it. I didn't reply to it before because I don't feel myself qualified to say anything about aerodynamics - it's not my area of expertise.

 

However, I am very qualified to judge the merit of someone's reasoning, and your chain of argumentation has the demonstrative worth of a pineapple.

[LukeFF]

@AEthelraedUnraed is right, Roland. You've posted nothing here that would prompt our engineers to take another look at the 109's roll rate.

[Roland_HUNter]

8 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

The fact that I haven't replied to this topic yet doesn't mean that I haven't followed it. I didn't reply to it before because I don't feel myself qualified to say anything about aerodynamics - it's not my area of expertise.

 

However, I am very qualified to judge the merit of someone's reasoning, and your chain of argumentation has the demonstrative worth of a pineapple.

This roll rate topic with @LukeFF did not start here and not today.
You don't know about those topics.
I'm not going to repeat to Luke when I've already reported it. Or others did....
 

But good:
Let there be numbers.
I'll turn it around, okay?
 

I'd like all the readers here to see what data and calulations are used to give the roll rate of the current machines in the game:
Bf-109
Lagg-3
La-5(s8, F, FN)
Yak-1,Yak-1b, Yak-7B, Yak-9, Yak-9T.

 

Thank you!

[CUJO_1970]

You need to do what I did to get FW190 corrected. You need to test per NACA chart conditions on Kuban Autumn at 10k feet and then express the test results against the historic test chart.

 

It takes a lot of time I did it for several aircraft but got burnt out it takes forever to get the test right.

Oh, and also be prepared to have people claim you got an "axe to grind" like happened to me, lol.

12 minutes ago, Roland_HUNter said:

I'd like all the readers here to see what data and calulations are used to give the roll rate of the current machines in the game:
Lagg-3
La-5(s8, F, FN)
Yak-1,Yak-1b, Yak-7B, Yak-9, Yak-9T.

 

 

There is no published La-5 series or Lagg series roll rate charts. And I mean, they likely and very simply do not exist ANYWHERE...I've looked and asked about them for 18 years. For La-5 the best data publicly available is the German test by Lerche where it is said to roll similar to 109. FWIW I'd say that's how it should be modeled to be accurate.

 

If the sim is correct, the La-5 series were the best rolling fighters of WW2, and you'd think we would know about that historically (we don't). The La-5 (etc) rolling velocity is based mostly on wing/aileron geometry and aileron travel is my guess.

Edited May 1, 2024 by CUJO_1970

[the_emperor]

On 4/30/2024 at 8:42 PM, Roland_HUNter said:

 do you guys have any more evidence/proof?

No, sorry. 
I am really no expert on that issue. 
this probably a topic for experts in aerodynamics. 
one has to keep in mind that the 109 did not have any weapons/ammo or fuel tanks in the wings. 
and was rated equal to the P-51 with the 20mm Gondolas installed

[ACG_Cass]

On 5/1/2024 at 12:57 AM, Roland_HUNter said:

In the past we already talked about the DVL test. (German testing graph about roll rate)
It was rejected as the videos.

The 109 roll rate aligns with the DVL test up to a point no?

 

Keep in mind the DVL test went up to 30kg of stick force. Most of the other data we have (NACA chart that @CUJO_1970 has tirelessly been testing against) is based on 50lb (23kg) of stick force.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

17 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

This roll rate topic with @LukeFF did not start here and not today.
You don't know about those topics.

I've been around on these forums for a couple of years now. I'm very curious as to why you're so certain I haven't seen "those topics"

 

17 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

I'm not going to repeat to Luke when I've already reported it. Or others did....

Well, the Devs are certainly not going to search the forums for hours for all data that may or may not have been posted somewhere. They have better things to do than dig through old forum topics. You want the Devs to adjust the 109 rolling speed, then I suggest you put all this combined real-world and in-game data together in a single package. Like the Devs have already suggested multiple times.

 

17 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

But good:

Let there be numbers.
I'll turn it around, okay?

Eh, I am not the one who tries to get the 109 roll rate changed. Why on earth would I want to dig for numbers for something that is entirely your problem?

 

17 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

You need to do what I did to get FW190 corrected. You need to test per NACA chart conditions on Kuban Autumn at 10k feet and then express the test results against the historic test chart.

CUJO is correct here @Roland_HUNter. The tests need to be done under the same conditions as the original test, which is why LukeFF asked for "Primary source data, i.e., weather conditions, altitude, fuel/ammo load, etc in combination with a roll rate test". If this data is provided, history shows the Devs are willing to adjust the flight model of aircraft.

 

Right now, the data you've posted shows the 109 rolls somewhere between "good" and "almost P-51" speeds, at a velocity of somewhere between ~120 and 642kph (stall and max speeds), an altitude of somewhere between 0 and 12000m AMSL (max ceiling), with a weight of somewhere between 2247 and 3148 kg (empty and max weights), and an air pressure of 870 to 1083 hPa (min and max recorded air pressures). I hope you can agree that this is pretty much useless if you want to realistically model the 109 rolling speed.

Edited May 2, 2024 by AEthelraedUnraed

[the_emperor]

 

 

i think this is from W. Ribnitz The influence of the elastic properties of the wing on the rolling efficiency of Me 109 F-2 22.6.44

[Avimimus]

On 5/1/2024 at 12:55 AM, AEthelraedUnraed said:

That's a straw man fallacy. You do not and can not know what the various testers meant with terms such as "good" and "high" roll rates or "almost" identical.

 

People have radically different meanings assigned to words (i.e. go into a room with a dozen people and ask them all to define 'many').

 

Human perceptions are notoriously unreliable, influenced by a lot of factors (things like cockpit layout, control forces could throw things off etc.) If they have to remember experiences between flights (e.g. flying one airplane in the morning and another in the afternoon) they'll be even less reliable - let alone if they are remembering things that happened weeks or years ago. There is a huge forensic psychology literature on this type of thing.

 

In actual dogfights it is very hard to judge an enemy airplane's actual performance (people have better things to do), and even out-turning an airplane might be a result of issues that aren't generalisable to other aircraft (e.g. worse sustained turn-rate due to lower energy retention due to worse engine maintenance leading to a 15% drop in engine power on that particular day). 

 

So I don't think that any anecdotal evidence will be considered reliable.

 

The engineers in this company are good enough that they are very close to being scientists - they will need precision (i.e. actual numbers) and reports which ideally can distinguish between things like absolute roll-rate and initial roll rate (i.e. how quickly you can accelerate into the rolling motion). Along with the hard data there needs to be the complete information on how it was obtained - the methods, assumptions, context.

 

If you can find hard numbers (along with how they were obtained) it will likely be taken seriously.

[Roland_HUNter]

@AEthelraedUnraed

@Avimimus

Nobody thinks the devs do not know what are they doing. 

 

This is why I asked, please show us the documents about the roll rates. 

 

I think everybody would read it gladly. 

 

So please share it with us.

Thank you. 

 

PS

I've already posted the older topics in this topic:

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/87074-roll-rates/?do=findComment&comment=1307896

[357th_KW]

I converted the Ribnitz data for the 109F2 that @the_emperor shared from TAS to IAS and radians per sec to degrees per sec, assuming the same 50 lbs of stick force and pasted it onto the NACA roll chart.  The plots are rough - within about a degree per second or so.

 

 

 

Edit: After discussing this with a few others it looks like the max extrapolated data I used wasn't achievable in the aircraft due to wing warping.  I'll make a new graph with corrected data points.

Edited May 3, 2024 by 357th_KW

[AEthelraedUnraed]

11 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

This is why I asked, please show us the documents about the roll rates.

But why would they want to do that? You're the one who wants to change something, so the burden of proof is on you.

 

I'm quite sure the Devs have something better to do than dig through their archives to find any docs they might have on the issue. Like, actually fixing issues and working on Korea. Besides, it's possible these docs cannot even be shared - they might come from a non-public source (e.g. a collector or commercial archive) with restrictions on their usage.

 

Finally, we already know what their source is going to say - it's what they based the current roll rate on so it's rather obvious that their source will correspond to that.

[the_emperor]

On 5/1/2024 at 6:54 PM, CUJO_1970 said:

There is no published La-5 series or Lagg series roll rate charts. And I mean, they likely and very simply do not exist ANYWHERE...I've looked and asked about them for 18 years. For La-5 the best data publicly available is the German test by Lerche where it is said to roll similar to 109. FWIW I'd say that's how it should be modeled to be accurate.

 

If the sim is correct, the La-5 series were the best rolling fighters of WW2, and you'd think we would know about that historically (we don't). The La-5 (etc) rolling velocity is based mostly on wing/aileron geometry and aileron travel is my guess.

 

My guess would also be, that this is just calculated. but maybe (most certain) the devs have documents we dont have and sourcing (especially if one is not native in that language) soviet docs in particular is not very easy.

 

But yeah, Laggs/La-5 beeing the best rolling aircrafts of WW2...is at least questionable.

 

On 5/1/2024 at 6:50 PM, Roland_HUNter said:

I'd like all the readers here to see what data and calulations are used to give the roll rate of the current machines in the game:
Bf-109
Lagg-3
La-5(s8, F, FN)
Yak-1,Yak-1b, Yak-7B, Yak-9, Yak-9T.

 

That will probably never happen. You would have to bring up the documents/data yourself and challenge the current rolling rates.

and even if you bring forth the correct documents its no certainty, that it will get reviewed (as I have experienced with the La-5fn WEP time limit😥) or corrected.

[Roland_HUNter]

3 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

But why would they want to do that? You're the one who wants to change something, so the burden of proof is on you.

 

I'm quite sure the Devs have something better to do than dig through their archives to find any docs they might have on the issue. Like, actually fixing issues and working on Korea. Besides, it's possible these docs cannot even be shared - they might come from a non-public source (e.g. a collector or commercial archive) with restrictions on their usage.

 

Finally, we already know what their source is going to say - it's what they based the current roll rate on so it's rather obvious that their source will correspond to that.

Sorry but if they ask numbers from me, I guess that is not rude, to ask them, show their numbers then. 

[Avimimus]

I think it'd be extremely interesting if the devs showed their process - it is always fascinating when they share.

 

I think it is worth recognising that writing such an article would take a lot of work, especially as it might require teaching a certain amount of aerodynamics - and the effort might be better spent working on new (or refined) flight-models though.

 

But I agree it'd be very neat - especially discussions around performance values which aren't usually well documented (e.g. roll rates, third derivative components of motions).

 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

1 hour ago, Roland_HUNter said:

Sorry but if they ask numbers from me, I guess that is not rude, to ask them, show their numbers then. 

I don't remember the Devs asking for any numbers. It's a requirement if you want to see changes, yes, but don't mistake that for "asking for numbers". They already have their numbers. They do not want anything from you - on the contrary, you want something from them, i.e. adjust a flight model.

 

Again, you want the Devs to change the 109 roll rate - then the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that shows the current FM is wrong.

 

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

I think it'd be extremely interesting if the devs showed their process - it is always fascinating when they share.

 

I think it is worth recognising that writing such an article would take a lot of work, especially as it might require teaching a certain amount of aerodynamics - and the effort might be better spent working on new (or refined) flight-models though.

 

But I agree it'd be very neat - especially discussions around performance values which aren't usually well documented (e.g. roll rates, third derivative components of motions).

It'd be very cool if they could write a Dev Blog or something on FM development - how the whole process works from gathering data to interpreting test results to implementing it in the game. But yes, it's a difficult subject and writing such a dev blog would indeed take a long time.

 

Similarly, it would be cool to read some of their sources, including those referring to the 109, if only for their historical value. But "being cool" is quite far from any obligation, which is what Roland is forgetting here.

Edited May 3, 2024 by AEthelraedUnraed

[JV69badatflyski]

Have Fun.....
i dropped at page2...
https://archive.aoe.vt.edu/lutze/AOE3134/AircraftDynamics.pdf