PDA

View Full Version : Oleg why in 4.01 planes with slots dont have acceration stall like in 3.04 have?



Kwiatos
06-18-2005, 10:41 AM
I did some test planes from 4.01 patch about stall and spin beahaviour of all planes and i must say that is something wrong with some russian planes!!!
I tried near all fighters planes starting from 300km/h and made hard turn with max deflection of the stick and generally most planes got stall and spin. But not all. There are some - dont know why only russian planes - which dont stall and spin like others.

Planes which dont stall and spin in these way are:
- Migs family ( mig3 1940 stall a little)
- Laggs from 35 series to 66 series
- La series from La5 to LA7
- I-185 series

These planes could turn with max deflection of stick without stall and spin - just some needed small reaction of rudder to keep correct path of turn.

I tried the same planes with 3.04 version and found that these planes stall in such turn.

I dont know why in 4.01 they not. These planes have no dynamical stall at all. Even planes like A6M Zeke, Yaks, Ki43, Chaika have dynamical stall and cant do the same what Migs, Laggs, La could.

Im sure that something is not right here with these planes and they are need correct FM!!!!

Kwiatos
06-18-2005, 10:41 AM
I did some test planes from 4.01 patch about stall and spin beahaviour of all planes and i must say that is something wrong with some russian planes!!!
I tried near all fighters planes starting from 300km/h and made hard turn with max deflection of the stick and generally most planes got stall and spin. But not all. There are some - dont know why only russian planes - which dont stall and spin like others.

Planes which dont stall and spin in these way are:
- Migs family ( mig3 1940 stall a little)
- Laggs from 35 series to 66 series
- La series from La5 to LA7
- I-185 series

These planes could turn with max deflection of stick without stall and spin - just some needed small reaction of rudder to keep correct path of turn.

I tried the same planes with 3.04 version and found that these planes stall in such turn.

I dont know why in 4.01 they not. These planes have no dynamical stall at all. Even planes like A6M Zeke, Yaks, Ki43, Chaika have dynamical stall and cant do the same what Migs, Laggs, La could.

Im sure that something is not right here with these planes and they are need correct FM!!!!

ICDP
06-18-2005, 10:53 AM
Hi Kwaitos http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I tried the test you outlined and each of the fighters you listed stalled and spun out of control. I used the Crimea map and at 300kph I used max stick delfection and lost control every time in each fighter tested. I even tried using 25% fuel in the fighters and the esult was the same.

Maybe you should reset your stick settings in 4.01, just a suggestion.

S!

Kwiatos
06-18-2005, 11:00 AM
Dont think so i have default stick settings in all 3 axes : 10-20-30-40-50-60-70-80-90-100.


I tried 3.04 - these planes stall and spin
and 4.01 - they dont - you could fly in such turn without dynamical stall at all only during turn you must make rudder correction to keep correct fly path.

Other planes like i said stall and spin even A6M, Yak3 , Spitfire etc.

ICDP
06-18-2005, 11:20 AM
Please outline your exact procedure for the test. Speed of entry, fuel etc.

I honestly am not seeing this problem. I stall and spin every time when pulling full deflection at 300kph.

CHDT
06-18-2005, 11:27 AM
I especially like too the P-39 which climbs as fast as a 190D!

Urufu_Shinjiro
06-18-2005, 11:39 AM
I'm starting to get the impression that the input curves have changed slightly in the new FM. I have all my input curves at all 100 so I have only noticed improvements in the way the stalls and spins work, several of my friends had the opposite reaction. I started to think this when I said to myself "self, wow, the mustang no longer snap spins with no notice, I can feel it coming and stop the stall.", then the very next day my friends tried the new patch (still 4.0 at this time) and said something that made me think something was off "Oh my god, they've KILLED the mustang it stalls at the drop of a hat and is totally unflyable!" After talking to several people it's starting to sound like they need to retune thier curves. Any thought on why or if the input curves have changed with the new FM?

Kwiatos
06-18-2005, 11:46 AM
Yea recenlty i fight wiht my mate - i was in Bf 109 G-6 late and he was in P-39 N-1 i was tried to outclimb him in spiral climb from 4 km and Cobra was still close to me. We climb too near 6 km and his Cobra was still close and try shooting me. Dont think its realistic difference in performance of these planes. P-39 should have big drop performance from 5 km and should have worse climb rate than Bf 109 at all hight. The same thing with P-40 and Spitfires MK V ( besides Merlin 46) - they dont lose much their performance (climb rate) at high alt like should.

Kwiatos
06-18-2005, 11:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ICDP:
Please outline your exact procedure for the test. Speed of entry, fuel etc.

I honestly am not seeing this problem. I stall and spin every time when pulling full deflection at 300kph. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Testing procedure is simple:

-QMB, 1000m, 100% fuel load, maximum realism settings
- when speed is at 280-300 km/h start turn no metter what side at 90 deg. bank with maximum pull up in turn

For sure planes like Migs (beside 1940) Laggs (beside 4 and 29 series), La series, I-185 dont have dynamical stall in hard turn.

For sure i have good stick settings. Other planes stall and spin like should less or more but have dynamical stall. These what i said dont.

ICDP
06-18-2005, 01:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CHDT:
I especially like too the P-39 which climbs as fast as a 190D! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What speeds and what type of P39?

Contrary to popular belief the P39 had a pretty good climbrate at lower altitudes. The P39Q had an initial climbrate of 4,000 ft per minute and would reach 15,000 ft in 4.5 minutes (combat power). The P39Q would reach 25,000 ft in about 10.5 minutes.

The Fw190D9 would reach 13,123 ft in 4.62 minutes (combat & climb settings). With emergency power (Notleistung) it would reach the same altitude in 4.01 minutes. Using combat & climb settings The Dora takes 10.58 mins to reach 26,247 ft, it would take 9.24 minutes using Notleistung.

So there is nothing wrong with a P39 climbing with an Fw190D at lower altitudes. If you climb at slower speeds then the P39Q will stick with you or even outclimb your D9.

Kocur_
06-18-2005, 02:55 PM
QMB,Smolensk map, 1000m, 400kmh, 1/4 roll left or right and pulling stick to maximum deflection. Result is that if you make the turn without any care for other axis-u will have a stall, yet at very low speed. But if u do a little and very simple effort to control roll with ailerons and/or rudder La-7 DOES NOT STALL DYNAMICALLY!
But the problem is bigger! Bf-109 of all versions act the same - the difference is that you must do more, but still little, effort to control roll during the turn.
Ergo: seems that all planes with leading edge slats are unstallable dynamically. I do hope that its the new FM bug of overmodelling slats in their role of lowering stall speed. It really needs fixing!

Pinker15
06-18-2005, 03:06 PM
I've checked those russian planes and they really dont stall at all. Dont know why but it is. I have checked Mig3, Lagg3, and La family. From Lagg3 family 4 series is stalling corectly but later models are flying like arcade toys. No stall at all.

ICDP
06-18-2005, 03:10 PM
I have tried this again and have found that it is indeed possible to hold max full deflection with a little care.

I was able to hold a 270-280kph hard trun with the aircraft shaking heavily but no sign of a departure. It is also possible to maintain altitude through use of the rudder.

I have total faith in Olegs desire and ability to get this right. Post a bug report to the usual place and he will no doubt look into it. That is of course unless this is normal behaviour (which I doubt).

Kwiatos
06-18-2005, 03:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ICDP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CHDT:
I especially like too the P-39 which climbs as fast as a 190D! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What speeds and what type of P39?

Contrary to popular belief the P39 had a pretty good climbrate at lower altitudes. The P39Q had an initial climbrate of 4,000 ft per minute and would reach 15,000 ft in 4.5 minutes (combat power). The P39Q would reach 25,000 ft in about 10.5 minutes.

The Fw190D9 would reach 13,123 ft in 4.62 minutes (combat & climb settings). With emergency power (Notleistung) it would reach the same altitude in 4.01 minutes. Using combat & climb settings The Dora takes 10.58 mins to reach 26,247 ft, it would take 9.24 minutes using Notleistung.

So there is nothing wrong with a P39 climbing with an Fw190D at lower altitudes. If you climb at slower speeds then the P39Q will stick with you or even outclimb your D9. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Climb of P-39 Q-1 from original manual(combat settings - 3000RPM, 44,5 in hg))

Weight(lb) climb rate at sea level

7200----------------3,450 ft/min ( ab 17 m/s)

7800----------------3,200 ft/min

8100----------------2,700 ft/min

D-9 have 22 m/s with Mw50.

robban75
06-18-2005, 04:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ICDP:
The Fw190D9 would reach 13,123 ft in 4.62 minutes (combat & climb settings). With emergency power (Notleistung) it would reach the same altitude in 4.01 minutes. Using combat & climb settings The Dora takes 10.58 mins to reach 26,247 ft, it would take 9.24 minutes using Notleistung.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those numbers are with the ETC504 rack fitted. Without it the climbrate would increase with around .5m/sec. A D-9 using Sonder-Notleistung, would reach 16400ft in less than 4 minutes. Max climb rate would be ~4430ft/min. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

SeaFireLIV
06-18-2005, 05:18 PM
SONUVAGUN! He`s right! I just took the LA5 up and pulled hard in a turn... It won`t stall. It buffets but nothing else. I cannot believe it, it`s held up by wires.

I really thought i`d come here and say the opposite, but he`s right. LA5`s one of my favourite aircraft as well...

This is a SERIOUS bug! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Oleg please correct this.

ICDP
06-18-2005, 05:19 PM
The number I quoted came from the USAAF official P39 climb chart for the P39-Q1. The climbrate I quoted (4000fpm) is for the initial (max) climbrate, not sustained. The fact that I quoted 4.5 minutes to 15,000ft it is easy to conclude that average climbrate is around 3330 or so feet per minute.

Sorry Robban I didn't realise those numbers were for ETC504 rack fitted D9's. It does seem a bit much to explain the difference though! Do you have a link to the D9 climb charts?

Never the less it is not out of the question for a P39Q to stick with a D9 at lower climb speeds. The Fw190 had a significantly higher climb speed than most other fighers. It is for this reason that I asked what type of P39 at at what climb speed.

Ironically this is the kind of issue that crops up very regularly online. People fly an aircraft outside its best perfomance envelope then cry foul when they get shot down. Many times I was caught in a climb by a Spitfire MkVb while flying an Fw190A4 at 260kph. My initial reaction was to blame the FM when it was my lack of experience that was the culprit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

S! guys, I am not trying to start an argument, more of a debate. Thank you to both of you for the info http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Josiv_
06-18-2005, 05:23 PM
Tested it too, also I add more planes to it:
he-162
yp-80 (in very nasty combination with max rudder and stick to right it stall)...well not stick

Why not stick? I used keyboard to test it, I just hit "down" key and keep'et it pushed, it works in la7, i185, he162 (migs don't tested)

Now you don't need to have joystick to play http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif that seems to be more r... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ICDP
06-18-2005, 05:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
SONUVAGUN! He`s right! I just took the LA5 up and pulled hard in a turn... It won`t stall. It buffets but nothing else. I cannot believe it, it`s held up by wires.

I really thought i`d come here and say the opposite, but he`s right. LA5`s one of my favourite aircraft as well...

This is a SERIOUS bug! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Oleg please correct this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the same bug that afflicted many aircraft from the out of the box PF. It was possible to pull full deflection with no posibility of a stall.

My point is it was fixed and it will be fixed again http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

NonWonderDog
06-18-2005, 05:25 PM
So...

The problem is that most Russian planes don't have enough elevator authority? Or do automatic slats have too much effect? Do slats have too little drag associated with their operation? *Is* there a problem?

Why do you think it's wrong that you can pull all the way back on the stick without spinning? Stick deflection has very little to do with anything at all.

Until someone gives a rational, detailed explanation of what *should* happen and explains -- in detail -- why the current behavior is wrong, this thread is useless. Sorry to be harsh, but it's really the truth.

The *VERY* first thing you should do is determine turn rates, turn radii, maximum G at several speed, etc. If the plane is in spec there, there is no reason for hysteria. If you still want the plane to go into an accellerated stall at full deflection (and for no other reason than pulling full deflection), the only way it can be achieved is by increasing elevator effectiveness. Is that really what you want?

ICDP
06-18-2005, 05:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
So...

The problem is that most Russian planes don't have enough elevator authority? Or do automatic slats have too much effect? Do slats have too little drag associated with their operation? *Is* there a problem?

Why do you think it's wrong that you can pull all the way back on the stick without spinning? Stick deflection has very little to do with anything at all.

Until someone gives a rational explanation of what *should* happen and explains why the current behavior is wrong, this thread is useless. Sorry to be harsh, but it's really the truth.

The *VERY* first thing you should do is determine turn rates and radii. If the plane is in spec there, there is no reason for hysteria. If you still want the plane to go into an accellerated stall at full deflection (and for no other reason than pulling full deflection), the only way it can be achieved is by increasing elevator effectiveness. Is that really what you want? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a good point, did you try to replicate this problem yourself? The La7 for example seems to have ample elevator authority at all speeds. The problem with this bug is that the pilots of the afflicted aircraft can fly like UFO's. If it is realisitic then fine, IMHO this is not normal behaviour.

robban75
06-18-2005, 05:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ICDP:
Do you have a link to the D9 climb charts?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm guessing you took you're numbers from the excellent jagdhund Dora site? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Here's the original document. It's a real mess. http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/d9climb_1.jpg

There's another climbchart in Dietmar Hermann's book about the longnosed Fw 190D that presents the climbrates without the ETC. I don't have it here with me now, so I can't scan the page. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

NonWonderDog
06-18-2005, 05:40 PM
Yes, I did, and it feels fine. Yes, I can pull all the way back on the stick without going into a snap-roll. So?

The plane mushes and tries to roll away, you loose a whole lot of speed, and you don't turn any faster (in fact the plane seemed to turn a bit slower) than if you didn't pull all the way back on the stick. Why is this so horribly wrong?

A.K.Davis
06-18-2005, 05:54 PM
He is right about continuous full deflection turning in La's. Not even Ki-43, I-153 or Gladiator can do this. Very odd.

Kocur_
06-18-2005, 05:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
Yes, I did, and it feels fine. Yes, I can pull all the way back on the stick without going into a snap-roll. So?

The plane mushes and tries to roll away, you loose a whole lot of speed, and you don't turn any faster (in fact the plane seemed to turn a bit slower) than if you didn't pull all the way back on the stick. Why is this so horribly wrong? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
La-7 used to stall under coditions previously stated in 1.22, 2.04, 3.04 at about 320kmh. Which FM is wrong? One of them surely is http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Terribly wrong is making certain planes unstallable. High wing loading planes like WWII fighters do stall dynamically. And this is supposed to be a simulator, right?
About turn radius: whatever is relation between RL and in-game turn radiuses, making planes unstallable is not realistic way to achieve proper performace. And yes-giving them more elevator authority is a better way IMO. Very terribly wrong is also to have stallable biplanes and unstallable monoplanes with wing loading higher by 2,3 and more times.

NonWonderDog
06-18-2005, 06:05 PM
It's certainly not unstallable. The wing roots seem very stalled when you do this. The plane shudders, it looses speed, and it turns more slowly. Attempting to roll the plane too quickly will usually initiate a snap roll in the opposite direction.

If anything, the slats are having too much effect in maintaining airflow over the ailerons. In planes without slats, the wingtips stall only slightly later than the wing roots and then your ailerons reverse. With slats the wingtips will stall significantly later and you will have full aileron control until then. Now which should be more powerful, the slats or the elevator? I surely don't know.

ICDP
06-18-2005, 06:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
Yes, I did, and it feels fine. Yes, I can pull all the way back on the stick without going into a snap-roll. So?

The plane mushes and tries to roll away, you loose a whole lot of speed, and you don't turn any faster (in fact the plane seemed to turn a bit slower) than if you didn't pull all the way back on the stick. Why is this so horribly wrong? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The turnrate is not the problem, as you state it doesn't give a turn advantage. The problem is that it makes these aircraft far to easy to turn fight. It should not be possible to simply pulling full delfection at slow speeds without losing control.

Kocur_
06-18-2005, 06:25 PM
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
If anything, the slats are having too much effect in maintaining airflow over the ailerons. In planes without slats, the wingtips stall only slightly later than the wing roots and then your ailerons reverse. With slats the wingtips will stall significantly later and you will have full aileron control until then.QUOTE]
Agreed! But slats dont make planes THAT much safe from stall IRL! As i wrote before it simply looks like overmodelling of slats effectiveness in the new FM.

IHI.OuTcAsT
06-18-2005, 06:45 PM
LA7 turns good, but it has some sudden inevitable stall deaths. I won about 5 dogfights with my BF. Las stall all the time.

Yaks stall too, but you feel it when it is going to happen.

A.K.Davis
06-18-2005, 07:06 PM
I don't think anyone is claiming "they don't stall." The point is they don't stall in under particular conditions where other planes with very low wing-loading do stall. There is an inconsistency here that is not easily explained away.

Yes, you can stall any aircraft in the sim, including these.

SeaFireLIV
06-18-2005, 07:07 PM
The LA5/ LA7 DOES stall. If you pull up and slow down you`ll eventually enter a stall. It`s just that a continuous pulling turn all the way with the joystick will NOT induce a stall, just a lot of buffeting.

OK, I am not an aeronautical engineer, but common sense says something`s wrong. The LA5 stalled pre-4.01 why not in 4,01? Are you saying in these cases an LA5 compared to even the early war good turners is unstallable in a fully pulled horizontal turn - the stick is held right back continuously?

Well, if someone produces info to prove this great. If Oleg says this is correct, then ok. But even so, this is a strange change from previous versions and makes the LA series a somewhat `super` plane...

Kwiatos
06-18-2005, 07:14 PM
There aren't only LA series. There are Migs3 too and Lagg family.
Mig3 was known as a plane with difficulty handling expecially at slow speed and bad stall characteristic. The same was with Lagg series - later series had some improvement but not such level to be a plane without stall and spin http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
06-18-2005, 07:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:
These planes could turn with max deflection of stick without stall and spin - just some needed small reaction of rudder to keep correct path of turn. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Take a look at the 109 series while making that claim. The G2 mainly. Funny thing is I find Russian planes some of the easiest to kill.

Takata_
06-18-2005, 09:50 PM
You all wrong !
The real russian UFO is... the TB3! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I have made few gliding-test with planes with no fuel starting at 1000m at 300km/h:

TB3-M34R
Linear distance covered: 7.16 km
Flight time: 3 mn 41 sec
Linear average speed : 117 km/h !!!

in fact, she's stalling from 1000m at 110km/h IAS all the way long... When she hit the sea, she hasn't even damaged her propellers and sink slowly, all the crew having a vodka waiting for the rescue boat! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Anyway, it's not a real advantage when she turnfight with an He-111 wilch is another UFO by herself.

I-153-M62 under the same condition:
Linear distance covered: 7.61 km
Flight time: 3 mn 10 sec
Linear average speed : 144 km/h

Takata

WWMaxGunz
06-18-2005, 10:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
It's certainly not unstallable. The wing roots seem very stalled when you do this. The plane shudders, it looses speed, and it turns more slowly. Attempting to roll the plane too quickly will usually initiate a snap roll in the opposite direction.

If anything, the slats are having too much effect in maintaining airflow over the ailerons. In planes without slats, the wingtips stall only slightly later than the wing roots and then your ailerons reverse. With slats the wingtips will stall significantly later and you will have full aileron control until then. Now which should be more powerful, the slats or the elevator? I surely don't know. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well gee --- don't you know by now? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Stalls HAVE to drop a wing and spin! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

EVERYBODY knows that! Or it wouldn't be reeeeee-all! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

And then there's the part about FULL DEFLECTION. You know that when you have your joystick
all the way back, that's full elevator deflection! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif Right?

Seriously, it starts with garbage and doesn't get any better. This is why flying cars or
anything like that never happenned. Better to keep people like these on the ground and bad
enough the majority are allowed to drive cars.

Equilizer
06-18-2005, 11:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ICDP:
It should not be possible to simply pulling full delfection at slow speeds without losing control. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not true. An accelerated stall is pretty much that. An ability to continue pulling back on the stick (at extreme ranges), without losing control. You just don't have any aileron authority or turn rate as you have no lift in (air flow over) either wings. This tends to happen at higher speeds too.

GR142-Pipper
06-19-2005, 12:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pinker15:
I've checked those russian planes and they really dont stall at all. Dont know why but it is. I have checked Mig3, Lagg3, and La family. From Lagg3 family 4 series is stalling corectly but later models are flying like arcade toys. No stall at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I fly Russian planes almost exclusively or Spits when the Russian planes aren't available. I can tell you flat out that the Russian aircraft definitely do stall. As a matter of fact, they're more squirelly in 4.01 than they were in 3.0x. The roll rate is worse in 4.01 as well.

GR142-Pipper

NonWonderDog
06-19-2005, 12:50 AM
Yeah, I swear the MiG wants to kill me if I fly it below 4,000 m. She's especially homicidal if I mount gunpods.

I can pull full stick deflection at low speeds without going into a snap roll (if I'm careful), but again, so what? It gains me nothing. Accellerated stalls are not necessarily snap rolls unless you aggravate them. And the MiG is easily aggravated...

Planes with slats might be a bit too docile in an accellerated stall, but I don't have anything to base that off of whatsoever. It's definitely better than the automatic-snap-rolls-no-matter-how-you-stalled of 3.04 and previously, so I'm not going to complain.

What about the Me-262? It has automatic slats along the entire wing, right? Might want to check that one to see how it compares.

LeadSpitter_
06-19-2005, 01:36 AM
the 109 190a and 190d are very similiar.

Even the spit goes flopping easily. and other allied ac 350-600km/h

forexample right after take off look at the 190 and 109 they can loop right after a short take off with 100 fuel.

But most others cannot with 25 50 fuel with a even longer takeoff run.

The 109s 190s and russian ac are acting very similiar to the 3.04 spitfire it turn and burn when e should be bled off and still have e for a huge climb and extremely low stall speeds.

faustnik
06-19-2005, 02:03 AM
Leadspitter,

Please post a track of the Fw190A performing a loop right after a short takeoff. I'd be interested in seeing that.

AWL_Frog
06-19-2005, 02:12 AM
From what I've read the effect of slats should be to increase the maximum AOA of a wing before a stall happens by 5?. This is exactly how it is in the game, you can see it easily by turning wingtip smoke on.

So, when you say that you can pull maximum deflection without stalling, this could mean:

-It was meant to be that way, ie the plane was designed in a way that the wing design was harmonized with the elevator design to only allow a safe AOA in this kind of turn. I don't know if this is the case, do any of you?

-It's an error, ie those planes do not have enough elevator authority, meaning that we cann¶t exploit a historical advantage of those planes to the fullest. Again this is something that we cannot judge without having precise technical data.

On the other hand, suggesting that this gives an unfair advantage to the planes affected is, well, not really thought out well.

Cheers,

Frog

faustnik
06-19-2005, 02:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
the 109 190a and 190d are very similiar.

Even the spit goes flopping easily. and other allied ac 350-600km/h

forexample right after take off look at the 190 and 109 they can loop right after a short take off with 100 fuel.

But most others cannot with 25 50 fuel with a even longer takeoff run.

The 109s 190s and russian ac are acting very similiar to the 3.04 spitfire it turn and burn when e should be bled off and still have e for a huge climb and extremely low stall speeds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Leadspitter,

A quick power off stall test yields the following:

Fw190A - 180kph
P-51D - 170kph
P-47D - 170kph
Spit IXc - 140kph

The Fw190A does not have an extremely low stall speed in 4.01.

SeaFireLIV
06-19-2005, 02:56 AM
It`s quite frustrating feeling that something`s not right, but knowing that I cannot say because I don`t know. This could be how it`s meant to be.

All the waffle from several different armchair experts means nothing to me. I`ve seen guys talk like they know when they don`t.

Why do I get the feeling I`m going to have go and start really studying aerodynamics in flight? Maybe even fly an aircraft? Without some real idea of what the reality is I can say nothing, no matter how I feel.

Oleg, you`ve forced me to have to try and learn more about aircraft than anyone else on this planet! 3 years ago I would have laughed at the thought!

ICDP
06-19-2005, 03:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Equilizer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ICDP:
It should not be possible to simply pulling full delfection at slow speeds without losing control. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not true. An accelerated stall is pretty much that. An ability to continue pulling back on the stick (at extreme ranges), without losing control. You just don't have any aileron authority or turn rate as you have no lift in (air flow over) either wings. This tends to happen at higher speeds too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh dear, if you take my statement in the context of the test outlined it is very very true. You yourself state there is no control on the ailerons, in this context there is! You state there is no turn rate, in this context here is!

So it is plainly clear that I am refering to pulling full deflection in a turn with full control and good turnrate.

jurinko
06-19-2005, 04:37 AM
I want to see the track where Fw 190A with 100% fuel does a loop just after taking off.

ICDP
06-19-2005, 05:12 AM
Leadspitter has a habit of making VERY outlandish claims and he has never once backed them up with a trak file IIRC.

I have tried to loop the Fw190 after take off and have stalled every sinlge time. Take what LS says with a large pinch of salt.

carguy_
06-19-2005, 06:12 AM
Leadspitter actually makes true points which leads me to believe that he also believes in those of his opinions which have no support nor a value that is called truth.

alert_1
06-19-2005, 07:02 AM
I guess LeadSpitter is NOT happy ... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

quiet_man
06-19-2005, 07:19 AM
this thread is a bit confusing
I try to summarize:

1000m alt, 100% fuel, ~300kph speed, IAS or TAS?

Test:
maintain turn with full joystick input for elevator until plane stalls out of the turn

Result so far:
with more or less effort airplanes with slats can turn without stalling out of the turn


please comment if this is correct and if the speed is IAS or TAS?

quiet_man

ICDP
06-19-2005, 07:36 AM
You are correct in your assumptions Quiet Man. The test is at IAS and it does indeed seem to be the slat equipped fighters that exhibit this behaviour (apart from Bf110). I cannot say for sure if this is normal behaviour but it seems unrealisitc IMHO.

Kocur_
06-19-2005, 07:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by quiet_man:
this thread is a bit confusing
I try to summarize:

1000m alt, 100% fuel, ~300kph speed, IAS or TAS?

Test:
maintain turn with full joystick input for elevator until plane stalls out of the turn

Result so far:
with more or less effort airplanes with slats can turn without stalling out of the turn


please comment if this is correct and if the speed is IAS or TAS?

quiet_man </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes that is the conclusion. And it doesnt matter really if its TAS or IAS because if u turn starting at 1000m and at 400kmh and set power to 0% u will lose speed and alt. Bottom is i can spiral down La-7 and still have it unstalled at like 100m alt and at 180KMH!!! Keeipng of course joystick and thus elevators (input set to 100% on all bars)at maximum deflection!

Kwiatos
06-19-2005, 09:03 AM
Ok some info about accelerated stalls:

Accelerated Stalls: Occurs above the usual power-off stall speed when too much elevator control is inputted too quickly. This type of stall is usually far more violent than a wings-level, power-off stall. However, an airplane can be stalled at any speed if too much elevator is applied to fast.

http://jimsrc.com/terminology.html

Next one:
Excessive Back Pressure (Accelerated) Stall
This demonstration stall, as in all stalls, is accomplished by exerting excessive back elevator pressure. Most frequently it would occur during improperly executed steep turns, stall and spin recoveries, and pullouts from steep dives. The objectives are to determine the stall characteristics of the airplane and develop the ability to instinctively recover when a stall occurs at other than normal stall speed or flight attitudes. A high speed stall, although usually demonstrated in steep turns, may actually be encountered any time excessive back pressure is applied and/or the angle of attack is increased too rapidly. This stall should never be practiced with wing flaps in the extended position due to the lower "G" load limitations in that configuration.

http://avstop.com/AC/FlightTraingHandbook/ExcessiveBackPressure.html

An accelerated stall can also be produced when:
€ the control column is jerked back whilst the aircraft is climbing or in level flight, see the flick roll
€ an aircraft in level cruising flight encounters a strong vertical gust [see manoeuvring speed below]
€ any other abrupt flight path change, applying acceleration loads, is made
€ an excessive bank angle, coupled with excessive control column back pressure, is applied during a level, climbing or descending turn.

http://www.auf.asn.au/groundschool/umodule2.html#accel_stall

And some interesting stuff:


Accelerated Stalls and Compression Effects

An accelerated stall is any stall that occurs when the airspeed is higher than the normal 1G stall speed. As aircraft speed increases, the likelyhood of a stall decreases and eventually goes to zero. The reason lies in real-world aerodynamics - as airspeed increases, air compression effects increase the stability of the aircraft.

In fact, that same increase in stability also limits how fast an aircraft can turn. Beyond a certain speed, the air compression effects increase to the point where the pilot simply cannot generate enough force to turn the aircraft, let alone stall it. In some aircraft, air compression effects increased stick forces so much that the elevator seemed to freeze up. Remember, these are WWII aircraft with mechanical control linkages, not post-WWII aircraft with hydraulic controls.

When air compression effects are added to the simulated flight dynamics, the control characteristics of the flight models behave more like the real aircraft do. At low speeds, a virtual pilot can pull hard enough to force an aircraft model into an accelerated stall. But at high speeds, compression effects reduce the ability to turn; and the aircraft simply won't stall.

Air compression effects can also cause rapid changes in pitch trim. Most WWII aircraft, particularly those with 'thick' conventional airfoils, had a tendency to nose-down as the airspeed increased. And by the way, this nose-down tendency also works against high-speed turning ability, further reducing the likelyhood of high-speed accelerated stalls.

Air compression effects were first experienced by pilots in high-performance WWII aircraft. The P-38 in particular gained a reputation for having 'compressibility problems', but it wasn't the only aircraft with this problem. It was simply the first production aircraft that was fast enough to encounter compression effects, and in a dive, the P-38 could easily achieve speeds where air compression became a serious problem.

The solution for the P-38, first seen on the P-38J-25, was to install dive flaps. When deployed, the dive flaps would simultaneously counteract the nose-down pitch and slow the aircraft. So you'll not only find compression problems modeled in the Mudpond Upgrade package, but the solution to it as well - at least on the aircraft that actually had the real-world solutions.

Each aircraft type has a different personality. Despite the limitations imposed by compression effects, most can exceed their structural limits at high speeds, so watch the g-forces in turns! Most of them also have a tendency to tuck the nose under at high speeds, so don't ignore the maximum speed limits in a dive or you'll find that some of them also make excellent lawn darts. Most models tend to float around and feel somewhat mushy and harder to control at low speeds. Prop torque effects can also be felt more at low speeds as well. But as the speeds increase, the controls start to firm up and the aircraft become a lot more stable above 200 mph.

http://www.mudpond.us/cfs3_autoinstall.html


Dont think slots help here - they could only allow slighty higher AoA until stall but not prevent acceleration stall causing by exssive control column back pressure

arrow80
06-19-2005, 09:44 AM
I haven't read the whole thread, but the planes that are harder to stall as late Migs or Las or 109's all have slats and when they deploy it's hard to stall such plane in a turn...so it appears that this issue has something to do with slats modeling. I am no pilot, and don't have a degree in aeronautical engineering, so I cannot tell how realistic it is, but I take it as it is and have to believe oleg's team

A.K.Davis
06-19-2005, 11:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Arrow80:
I haven't read the whole thread, but the planes that are harder to stall as late Migs or Las or 109's all have slats and when they deploy it's hard to stall such plane in a turn...so it appears that this issue has something to do with slats modeling. I am no pilot, and don't have a degree in aeronautical engineering, so I cannot tell how realistic it is, but I take it as it is and have to believe oleg's team </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I am seeing same behavior in planes with slats and this includes the 109, so...

CHANGE THE TITLE OF THE THREAD AND WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO HAVE A CONSTRUCTIVE DISCUSSION!

CHAV_
06-19-2005, 11:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:
I did some test planes from 4.01 patch about stall and spin beahaviour of all planes and i must say that is something wrong with some russian planes!!!
I tried near all fighters planes starting from 300km/h and made hard turn with max deflection of the stick and generally most planes got stall and spin. But not all. There are some - dont know why only russian planes - which dont stall and spin like others.

Planes which dont stall and spin in these way are:
- Migs family ( mig3 1940 stall a little)
- Laggs from 35 series to 66 series
- La series from La5 to LA7
- I-185 series

These planes could turn with max deflection of stick without stall and spin - just some needed small reaction of rudder to keep correct path of turn.

I tried the same planes with 3.04 version and found that these planes stall in such turn.

I dont know why in 4.01 they not. These planes have no dynamical stall at all. Even planes like A6M Zeke, Yaks, Ki43, Chaika have dynamical stall and cant do the same what Migs, Laggs, La could.

Im sure that something is not right here with these planes and they are need correct FM!!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
.........................................
Just made a quick flash movie of the LA5 stall and spin seems realistic to me do you think its urealistic? its here http://www.gamespec.co.uk

Kwiatos
06-19-2005, 11:44 AM
CHAV try little rudder corection and you dont stall.
The point is that there isn't acceleration stall from these reason - when too much elevator control is inputted too quickly at higher speed.

TAGERT have you some reasonable arguments to stay in these topic?

CHAV_
06-19-2005, 11:56 AM
OK ill try some rudder correction and see what happens http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Kwiatos
06-19-2005, 12:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Arrow80:
I haven't read the whole thread, but the planes that are harder to stall as late Migs or Las or 109's all have slats and when they deploy it's hard to stall such plane in a turn...so it appears that this issue has something to do with slats modeling. I am no pilot, and don't have a degree in aeronautical engineering, so I cannot tell how realistic it is, but I take it as it is and have to believe oleg's team </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I am seeing same behavior in planes with slats and this includes the 109, so...

CHANGE THE TITLE OF THE THREAD AND WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO HAVE A CONSTRUCTIVE DISCUSSION! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did some more test and i must say that not olny russian planes dont accleration stall but Bf 109 too!!! With rudder correction dont stall when hard pull up in turn.
I checked the same in 3.04 and i found that Bf's 109 made accceleration stall immidietly after hard pull back like other planes!!!

So the fact is that in 4.01 ALL PLANES WITH SLOTS (which i tested) DONT HAVE ACCELERATION STALL IN HARD TURN WITH MAXIMUM DEFLECTION OF STICK!!!

A.K.Davis
06-19-2005, 12:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Arrow80:
I haven't read the whole thread, but the planes that are harder to stall as late Migs or Las or 109's all have slats and when they deploy it's hard to stall such plane in a turn...so it appears that this issue has something to do with slats modeling. I am no pilot, and don't have a degree in aeronautical engineering, so I cannot tell how realistic it is, but I take it as it is and have to believe oleg's team </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I am seeing same behavior in planes with slats and this includes the 109, so...

CHANGE THE TITLE OF THE THREAD AND WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO HAVE A CONSTRUCTIVE DISCUSSION! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did some more test and i must say that not olny russian planes dont accleration stall but Bf 109 too!!! With rudder correction dont stall when hard pull up in turn.
I checked the same in 3.04 and i found that Bf's 109 made accceleration stall immidietly after hard pull back like other planes!!!

So the fact is that in 4.01 ALL PLANES WITH SLOTS (which i tested) DONT HAVE ACCELERATION STALL IN HARD TURN WITH MAXIMUM DEFLECTION OF STICK!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes Kwiatos, so please change the title of the thread. You are pulling in the trolls and troglodytes with your inflamatory, national bias thread title.

Kocur_
06-19-2005, 12:08 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
So the thread diserves change of name. As its starter i ask you Kwiatos to change it, please. Otherwise it might get ignored as ''luftwhinning'', which it is not the issue. Funny to see often stalling Spitfires and very rarely stalling Bf-109's in online games...

Kwiatos
06-19-2005, 12:12 PM
Ok so how to change TOPIC NAME?

Kwiatos
06-19-2005, 12:25 PM
Ok topic name was changed.

CHAV_
06-19-2005, 01:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:
CHAV try little rudder corection and you dont stall.
The point is that there isn't acceleration stall from these reason - when too much elevator control is inputted too quickly at higher speed.

TAGERT have you some reasonable arguments to stay in these topic? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
..........................................

OK tried it with a bit more rudder correction.yes agood pilot would certainly be able to ride out the turn, on the edge of the stall it becomes unstable and with full application of elevator results in a stall and spin not unlike the movie i showed you which i find realistic ,are you saying they dont stall and spin (shown in flash movie it does) here http://www.gamespec.co.uk
Or are you saying turns with the application of rudder delays the stall unrealistically?

QUOTE FROM YOUR INITIAL POST
I tried near all fighters planes starting from 300km/h and made hard turn with max deflection of the stick and generally most planes got stall and spin. But not all. There are some - dont know why only russian planes - which dont stall and spin like others.

Well ive tried the la and they cetainly do stall in these circumstances with my stick setting max deflection results in a stall and spin with the la delayed but not stopped by the application of rudder

Kocur_
06-19-2005, 01:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CHAV_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:
CHAV try little rudder corection and you dont stall.
The point is that there isn't acceleration stall from these reason - when too much elevator control is inputted too quickly at higher speed.

TAGERT have you some reasonable arguments to stay in these topic? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
..........................................

OK tried it with a bit more rudder correction.yes agood pilot would certainly be able to ride out the turn, on the edge of the stall it becomes unstable and with full application of elevator results in a stall and spin not unlike the movie i showed you which i find realistic ,are you saying they dont stall and spin (shown in flash movie it does) here http://www.gamespec.co.uk
Or are you saying turns with the application of rudder delays the stall unrealistically? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I dont think it takes any really good pilot to stay in turn without a stall. As for me it takes really little and simple rudder and/or aileron correction to prevent rolling out of turn and into a stall. Anyone can master it in a minute.
I dont think ''delays'' is proper word here. I was able to keep La-7 unstalled until speed dropped down to about 170kmh. Bf-109's behave in basically the same way.
IMHO it is obvious, that we have a new FM bug. IRL slats simply do not work as good as a method of delaying stall as they do here, nor they did in previous versions of the game. Its nothing unnatural to see that kind of bug since this patch is declared as publick testing of the new FM.

CHAV_
06-19-2005, 01:33 PM
OK im no expert but someone calling russian planes ufo's caught my attention if it is a bug this subject will go on for months lol personally full stick deflection a turn results in a stall and spin delayed with rudder . nuff from me see what the aces say

Buzzsaw-
06-19-2005, 01:47 PM
Salute

I raised this issue with the stall behaviour of certain aircraft prior to this patch and had the Luftwhiners shout me down. (even though I pointed out the problem was the La-5/La-7 series too)

Now we are seeing and even more skewed version of stall behaviour for the slat equipped aircraft.

It's a joke and should have been addressed in 4.00 but for some strange reason wasn't.

And in regards to Max's claim that wingdrop doesn't happen with the 109's, I will requote Dave Southwood's flight report on the 109G2:

=====

"Stalling warning is a slight wing rock with the stick floating right by about 2 inches. This occurs 10klph before the stall. The stall itself is a left wing drop through about 15 degrees with a slight nose drop, accompanied by a light buffet."

faustnik
06-19-2005, 02:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
It`s quite frustrating feeling that something`s not right, but knowing that I cannot say because I don`t know. This could be how it`s meant to be.

All the waffle from several different armchair experts means nothing to me. I`ve seen guys talk like they know when they don`t.

Why do I get the feeling I`m going to have go and start really studying aerodynamics in flight? Maybe even fly an aircraft? Without some real idea of what the reality is I can say nothing, no matter how I feel.

Oleg, you`ve forced me to have to try and learn more about aircraft than anyone else on this planet! 3 years ago I would have laughed at the thought! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

SeaFire,

There are many people on this forum that have a good understanding of aerodynamics that "N00bs" like us would really have a hard time catching up to. All we can really do is ask a lot of questions about real life aerodynamics and report what we see in the sim.

I can't tell anyone "this is right" or "this is wrong" with regards to real life aerodymics, but, what I can do is make observations of the sim. Leadspitters post about the sim a/c was not true and it was very easy for me to test it, that's why I pointed it out. It isn't all that important because we are lucky enough to have the "Oleg BS Filter" which means Oleg can decide what is valid and what isn't. That's one of the great things about this sim in my opinion. Sometimes people read the forums and think complete fabrications are true, and that unfortunately leads to a lot of complaining online.

I agree with you that Oleg has forced us to learn a lot all these aircraft. It never hurts to ask questions and there are some great answers to be found on this forum and others. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

S!

Faustnik

Buzzsaw-
06-19-2005, 02:32 PM
Salute

Below are the locations of various manuals for slat equipped Soviet aircraft, written in cyrillic. If someone can translate them, they hopefully should be able to tell us the stalling speeds and stalling behaviours of these aircraft.

LaGG-3:

http://www.airwar.ru/other/bibl/lagg3.html

La-5:

http://www.airwar.ru/other/bibl/la5manual.html

La-5FN:

http://www.airwar.ru/other/bibl/la5fn.html

Kwiatos
06-19-2005, 03:14 PM
I dont think that we find in any manual info about acceleration stall. I read many manuals ww2 planes i i never saw info about acceleration stall. Ususally there are only info about 1G stall speed and spin recovery.

Buzzsaw-
06-19-2005, 03:29 PM
Salute Kwiatos

You are correct, the manuals normally do not have information on accelerated stalls.

However, if the game aircraft's stall behaviour in 1G stall is not correct, then we can assume the same problems are affecting stall behaviour in accelerated stall, since stall is all about loss of lift, whether it is in an accelerated stall or a 1 G level flight stall.

And most manuals have the 1G stall information.

Kocur_
06-19-2005, 03:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute Kwiatos

You are correct, the manuals normally do not have information on accelerated stalls.

However, if the game aircraft's stall behaviour in 1G stall is not correct, then we can assume the same problems are affecting stall behaviour in accelerated stall, since stall is all about loss of lift, whether it is in an accelerated stall or a 1 G level flight stall.

And most manuals have the 1G stall information. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am very affraid we can not assume this! I am very affraid that modelling of flight in this game in its very basis has little to do with aerodynamics or even basic physics! Wasnt it you Buzzsaw who discovered that P-47 would reach the same alt in zoom as Bf-109G would (I saw a thread about P-47 loss in erformance but couldnt find it again)? I did kinda similar test and it seems that P-51 with 5% fuel and P-51 with 100% would zoom to the very same alt with power at 0%. Which would mean that MASS of a plane is not modelled if flight modelling. If it is the case we cannot assume anything which would depend on modelling anything more complicated than mass...

CHAV_
06-19-2005, 03:58 PM
You know what gents you may be right ..tried the lagg and mig buffeting but know stall stick set at full settings yanking the stick back all the way.but the la5 did on a few occasions but a lower speeds it was the same with the la.

Buzzsaw-
06-19-2005, 04:05 PM
Salute

We do have a German report on a captured La-5FN.

Here are the photos of this aircraft:

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/mike/Captured%20La-5.jpg

You can see that the air intake on the top of the cowling extends right forward to the the front of the cowling, something which only was used on the La-5FN model, not the La-5F or La-5.

Here is a translated version of the German report. I have the original German version if people want a copy by e-mail.

http://allaboutwarfare.com/files/pictures/aviation/ww2/germany/captured_russian/la5-german-report1.jpg

http://allaboutwarfare.com/files/pictures/aviation/ww2/germany/captured_russian/la5-german-report2.jpg

http://allaboutwarfare.com/files/pictures/aviation/ww2/germany/captured_russian/la5-german-report3.jpg

http://allaboutwarfare.com/files/pictures/aviation/ww2/germany/captured_russian/la5-german-report4.jpg

You will note the stall speed in a zero throttle 1G condition is noted as just below 180 kph. You can also note that it clearly states that the aircraft drops a wing at stall.

An accelerated stall is noted as occurring at 320 kph in a 2.6 G turn at 2400 meters.

Even if we take into acccount this is a captured aircraft, it is clear that the game's La-5FN is stalling at much lower speeds. Obviously there is a problem.

This is the same problem which exists with the 109G2. As has been noted many times previously, the test of an original condition 109G2, ("Black Six") found it stalled in the zero throttle 1 G condition at 155 kph. And the G2 in the game stalls at much lower speeds.

All the slat equipped aircraft's behaviour at slow speeds, is to simply 'mush', ie. gradually sink if they are in level flight, or mush outwards if in a turn. There is no penalty for stalling, and the pilot can easily compensate and in fact remain in control of his aircraft.

Buzzsaw-
06-19-2005, 04:07 PM
Salute Kocur

I am not sure why it is that the thread on the P-47's dive behaviour was censored and deleted.

Jetbuff
06-19-2005, 04:13 PM
It was not censored or deleted... it was moved to GD.

TAGERT.
06-19-2005, 04:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:
TAGERT have you some reasonable arguments to stay in these topic? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>clearly I did, in that you changed the title based on my comments

A.K.Davis
06-19-2005, 04:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jetbuff:
It was not censored or deleted... it was moved to GD. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's also off the topic, so please don't get this thread moved by dredging it up here. Kocur's post is ill-informed at best and totally unhelpful to the discussion at hand.

p.s. Thank you for changing thread title. Much more helpful.

Jetbuff
06-19-2005, 04:24 PM
Not my intention to dredge up anything. Just dispelling yet more misinformation provided by Buzzsaw. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

A.K.Davis
06-19-2005, 04:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Below are the locations of various manuals for slat equipped Soviet aircraft, written in cyrillic. If someone can translate them, they hopefully should be able to tell us the stalling speeds and stalling behaviours of these aircraft.

LaGG-3:

http://www.airwar.ru/other/bibl/lagg3.html

La-5:

http://www.airwar.ru/other/bibl/la5manual.html

La-5FN:

http://www.airwar.ru/other/bibl/la5fn.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

La-5FN manual, translated:

http://www.airwarfare.com/guides/la5_manual.htm

NonWonderDog
06-19-2005, 04:38 PM
The slats do seem to be too effective in maintaining roll damping. The La-5FN does stall at ~180 with the power off, but the nose just drops straight down as you keep full aileron control.

It seems as if automatic slat equipped aircraft don't lose roll damping except at extremely high angles of attack. Strangely, the elevator seems to stall well before the wings in these planes, preventing you from reaching critical AoA in many instances. With full back pressure on the stick the only way to drop a wing is to kick the rudder over. This probably isn't how it should be. It's hard to say whether it's a slat problem, an aileron problem, or an elevator problem, but there's a problem nonetheless.

But in all seriousness, it's not a very important problem. The planes don't perform any better than the specs say; they're just easier to fly outside the envelope than the test documents say.

Kocur_
06-19-2005, 05:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NonWonderDog:

But in all seriousness, it's not a very important problem. The planes don't perform any better than the specs say; they're just easier to fly outside the envelope than the test documents say. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I must disagree on seriousness of the problem. It might be very true that turn radius in not affected in any way. The serious problem is removing the danger of stall for some planes pilots. Too many times i won/lost engagments because of loss of huge quantity of E in stall and spin. Lower probability of that is a very serious advantage.

ICDP
06-19-2005, 05:15 PM
Kocur is correct, this gives an unfair advantage to the pilot of the affected aircraft. In a dogfight if I have to work very hard not to stall or spin due to high AoA or over use of the elavotors and my opponent does not, he has a big advantage.

Jetbuff
06-19-2005, 05:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NonWonderDog:

But in all seriousness, it's not a very important problem. The planes don't perform any better than the specs say; they're just easier to fly outside the envelope than the test documents say. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I must disagree on seriousness of the problem. It might be very true that turn radius in not affected in any way. The serious problem is removing the danger of stall for some planes pilots. Too many times i won/lost engagments because of loss of huge quantity of E in stall and spin. Lower probability of that is a very serious advantage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I concur... finding and riding the edge of the stall while not necessarily the smartest thing to do is definitely a good thing in a turn fight. I wonder if the problem is too much aileron/rudder control and not enough pitch authority at these low speeds? Sure, slats gave you a little bit more leeway... but this much?

Buzzsaw-
06-19-2005, 05:28 PM
Salute

Thanks to Davis for link to translation.

Here is relevant passages to stalls from the La-5FN manual:

http://airwarfare.com/guides/images/la-5%20manual/La-5%20manual%20p16.jpg

http://airwarfare.com/guides/images/la-5%20manual/La-5%20manual%20p17.jpg

Note that the passage confirms that stall happens just below 180 kph.

It also confirms that the aircraft enters a rotation, ie. the wing drops to either the left or right, and that the rotation continues, and that the pilot must take action to counter the spin which has been entered by addding rudder.

This behaviour is in contrast to what we see with the game La-5FN.

WWMaxGunz
06-19-2005, 07:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:

And in regards to Max's claim that wingdrop doesn't happen with the 109's, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Buzzsaw, get professional help. I never ever made that claim.
It's weird how you morph things you have no understanding of.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I will requote Dave Southwood's flight report on the 109G2:

=====

"Stalling warning is a slight wing rock with the stick floating right by about 2 inches. This occurs 10klph before the stall. The stall itself is a left wing drop through about 15 degrees with a slight nose drop, accompanied by a light buffet." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is with Southwood at the stick of a BUCHON 109. The description is of full stall.
Of course to you, that is everything and for all planes as well if I understand you idea
of stall speed tests!

Should I start a thread? Oleg! When I don't know WTF is going on, the planes act funny!

NonWonderDog
06-19-2005, 07:20 PM
Buzzsaw:
Not really. It looks like the translation uses "stall" and "spin" interchangeably. Maybe the Russian words are the same/similar or something, but the "practice stall" is a good description of a spin entry.

If you pull back to 180 km/h and give it full rudder in the game you will indeed spin to that side. That matches the manual. The manual doesn't really say anything about wing drop in a controlled stall or behavior in an accellerated stall.

Buzzsaw-
06-19-2005, 07:41 PM
Salute Wonderdog

I didn't write the manual, the VVS did. If they say 'Stall', then that's what they mean.

Now go back and read the German report.

Re-read the Russian manual.

All planes have a point at which they depart controlled flight and behavior during that departure.

It's clear from the manual and the German evaluation that the La-5FN as modelled in the game is incorrect.

Clear that is, to anyone who doesn't have a Luftwhining or VVS whining agenda.

NonWonderDog
06-19-2005, 07:51 PM
The VVS didn't write it in English, of that I can assure you. It should be obvious anyway that controlled stalls are not practiced with full rudder deflection, especially when the manual itself states that no rudder is to be used in a stall! The manual is describing a practice spin, and for some reason the translator called it a "stall."

The point is that the manual has no bearing on this discussion, because it says nothing about a controlled, wings-level stall or the behavior of an accellerated stall.

WWMaxGunz
06-19-2005, 07:56 PM
EDIT: this is for Buzzsaw, NWD's post got in while I was typing.

I know that all those actual pilots and all the pro training... they are wasting their time!
All you need to do is grab a few quotes here and there and you know it perfectly! Flying
sims helps too, but it's those short quotes that make you smarter than real pilots.

What part of TRANSLATION isn't getting through?

WWMaxGunz
06-19-2005, 07:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The point is that the manual has no bearing on this discussion, because it says nothing about a controlled, wings-level stall or the behavior of an accellerated stall. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

See it's this way. If a wing don't drop, it's just not stalled. Right? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Hey everybody! I'M a LUFTWHINER! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Buzzsaw-
06-19-2005, 08:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
That is with Southwood at the stick of a BUCHON 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Salute

There goes Max again... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Max, you still don't have your facts right.

Quote from Dave Southwood from his article, "FLYING BLACK SIX":

"John Allison did not have to ask me twice if I would like to be the other pilot to fly the Bf109G-2 that had been rebuilt by Russ Snadden and his team at RAF Benson. I still feel very privileged to be able to fly this aircraft so when I was asked to write an article for Warbirds Worldwide on flying it, how could I refuse."

Notice the number on the fuselage Max:

http://www.bf109.com/gallery/favourites/gall02favemed.jpg

This is the same original 109G2 Wk #10639 that was captured in Tunisia in 1943 and often believed to have been piloted by Heinz Lüdemann of 2./JG77.

It was subsequently flown in a number of tests against RAF aircraft.

It was subsequently taken over by the RAF, and after being on display at various locations, was then in the late 80's given an extensive restoration by Russ Snaden and a team of RAF technicians.

It was then flown in numerous airshows by various pilots during the early and mid 90's. This was the period during which the aircraft was test flown by Dave Southwood.

The aircraft was unfortunately damaged on a landing in 1997, and reduced to non-airworthy status.

It has now been restored to display status at the RAF museum and is seen by many visitors there.

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/walkaround/10639/10639-a.jpg

It is typical of Max that he comes up with these inaccuracies. He is uninterested in realities and seems to prefer to live in his imaginary theoretical world.

WWMaxGunz
06-19-2005, 08:16 PM
What engine?

Buzzsaw-
06-19-2005, 08:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
What engine? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look at the plane Max.

What engine do you think?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

A Merlin equipped 109 has the distinctive profile of one with an engine which is mounted with the cylinders up and crankcase down. The exhaust stacks are at the top of the cowling:

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/walkaround/k1l/1109_3.jpg

Conversely, a Daimler Benz equipped 109 has the look of a standard historical 109, ie. an aircraft equipped with an engine which has the crankcase at the top and the cylinders below. The exhaust stacks are at the bottom of the cowling:

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/walkaround/10639/10639-e.jpg

It might be difficult for someone as uneducated as you to understand, but for the rest of us who actually do the research, it is relatively simple. My tremendous apologies that I didn't take the time to explain the details to you... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Buzzsaw-
06-19-2005, 08:35 PM
Salute

Also of course, there are different intakes for the oil cooler air, carburator air, etc. etc. etc.

Really obvious.

Buzzsaw-
06-19-2005, 08:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NonWonderDog:The point is that the manual has no bearing on this discussion... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wonderdog:

The manual confirms what the German Test documents tell us. I know you are desperate to avoid considering that source, but in fact it is quite clear.

I suggest you read it again:

http://allaboutwarfare.com/files/pictures/aviation/ww2/germany/captured_russian/la5-german-report3.jpg

To quote again:

"...at Va 180 km/h (112 mph) roll damping seems to disappear, with yaw or further airspeed reduction the aircraft drops a wing."

Yes, you can induce a stall by adding rudder, (yaw) at 180 kph, as per the Soviet manual, but the same efffect also results from reduction of airspeed below 180 kph.

WWMaxGunz
06-19-2005, 09:09 PM
Well Buzzsaw, in that other thread it was posted time and time again that Black Six was a
Buchon 109 with Merlin engine and neither you nor anyone else posted to the contrary.

I don't really care to tell the truth. The plane drops a wing in stall. And we know the
stall speed. But you don't seem to grasp that the plane may not drop a wing the very
second it hits stall speed or that this is common in aviation. With the right rudder
play, that 109 may not have dropped the wing for quite a while or just for a few seconds.
But that would take a lot of effort. You are taking Southwood's words and interpreting
them how you want which is at a bit of variance with people who actually fly. But you
blow them off anyway. NonWonderDog and TxEcoDragon tried to get sense through to you
but you won't have it and hey, they are both far more expert than I ever hope to be.

Stall does not require that control is lost.

Buzzsaw-
06-19-2005, 09:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Well Buzzsaw, in that other thread it was posted time and time again that Black Six was a
Buchon 109 with Merlin engine and neither you nor anyone else posted to the contrary. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Salute Max

Go back and re-read that thread.

You will find I corrected someone who said exactly the same thing, in fact posted the same photo of Black Six.

But then, you never do pay much attention to what other people are saying.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:Stall does not require that control is lost. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, is that the case?

Too bad that in the game it seems that ONLY the 109's and other slat equipped aircraft don't lose control at the stall. Every other aircraft does... But that fits with your double standard for the magical slats.

The fact is, the only REAL data we have, (not imaginary theoretical musings from some guy who loves to mention his SAT scores) comes from a Soviet manual and a German test report on a captured aircraft of the same model.

I would tend to place more reliance on those documents.

WWMaxGunz
06-19-2005, 09:23 PM
La5's, 109's, all those with slats, etc....

When you pull the stick back full does the plane lose speed and/or altitude heavily?
Does the turn rate go down much?

If you see those things happen, the planes is stalled and there is no real advantage in it.
You're blowing your energy badly and can hardly maneuver, who would do that for a choice?
Only an idiot. If there's a trick about it then only a bigger idiot would fall to it.

Buzzsaw-
06-19-2005, 09:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

When you pull the stick back full does the plane lose speed and/or altitude heavily?
Does the turn rate go down much?

If you see those things happen, the planes is stalled and there is no real advantage in it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As others have said previously in this thread, there is a HUGE advantage in it for those planes with slats.

What would any sane pilot prefer:

1) Dropping a wing and immediatly going into a spin, which results in a large loss of altitude and complete change of flight direction.

2) Mushing outwards and dropping a little altitude but maintaining control and direction of flight.

Any pilot I know would prefer the second choice.

If you don't think so, then obviously you don't have a grasp of what makes a combat advantage.

Buzzsaw-
06-19-2005, 09:38 PM
Salute

I am still waiting for someone to actually provide real historical documents which contradict those which I have posted.

Until I see them, what I am hearing is opinion, not fact.

WWMaxGunz
06-19-2005, 09:54 PM
Any sane pilot would go with choice 3;

Don't stall in the first place.

You do that by not doing stupid things like pulling full stick and holding it.

Buzzsaw-
06-19-2005, 10:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Don't stall in the first place.

You do that by not doing stupid things like pulling full stick and holding it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You really don't read the threads do you Max?

As several people have said, with current modelling of the slat equipped planes, you can pull back to full deflection and maintain it without stalling.

Do you actually fly the Sim?

WWMaxGunz
06-19-2005, 10:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

When you pull the stick back full does the plane lose speed and/or altitude heavily?
Does the turn rate go down much?

If you see those things happen, the planes is stalled and there is no real advantage in it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As others have said previously in this thread, there is a HUGE advantage in it for those planes with slats.

What would any sane pilot prefer:

1) Dropping a wing and immediatly going into a spin, which results in a large loss of altitude and complete change of flight direction.

2) Mushing outwards and dropping a little altitude but maintaining control and direction of flight.

Any pilot I know would prefer the second choice.

If you don't think so, then obviously you don't have a grasp of what makes a combat advantage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

**** I **** don't read the posts Buzzsaw?

Do you remember posting that above?

Look at your choice #2 there. You understate it a bit to slant things as usual.

Choice #2, and what I described above your reply IS A STALL.

No sane combat pilot would do that on purpose given the choice of using less stick and
not stalling.

There is no only 2 choices in the situation so your #2 is NO ADVANTAGE AT ALL to what a
pilot may do.

How daggone stupid is it pull and hold full deflection in combat?
No, wait! At no extra charge I am supposed to believe that that's my only way to fly?
And of course one stuck with being terminally stupid, let's judge what plane has the
advantage? Because surely no one can spot going into the edge let alone over it and
take corrective action? Oh no! The stick stays back cause... it's an advantage!

Man, you tell me I'm off in a world of theory? And you take things like that to these
lengths? What's this garbage about other people with agendas? WTH is yours?

There is no advantage in pulling and holding full stick. Fly right instead.

WWMaxGunz
06-19-2005, 10:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
As several people have said, with current modelling of the slat equipped planes, you can pull back to full deflection and maintain it without stalling.

Do you actually fly the Sim? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As above, if the plane bleeds speed badly, the turnrate drops, the controls mush, then
the plane is stalled *** even if it doesn't roll over and spin ***.

Yes, I fly the sim and yes, I have identified places that probably it's not so real.
BIG DEAL because so far none of them are exploitable or important enough to me to ruin
the sim.

In flight sim combat I just don't do stupid stunts on purpose, so what happens in stupid
stunts on the sim that is not exploitable doesn't phase me. If you think that stalling
the La5 or 109 without losing total control is an advantage then go online and use that.
Run across some of my mates, or Dart, or anyone else competent and do that. I'll laugh
when I read about the idiot who made himself such an easy target. It'd be harder to hit
a plane in a spin, surely, than one that all but hangs there in a nice steady drop.

Let's see, there's also the 109G not dropping a wing right at stall speed! Oh no! What
will we do! The wing didn't drop so it can't be stalled! It can't hold alt but it's
still controllable! Oh no! Uber! Uber! Look out, there it is, hardly moving! Oh! Uber!
It's soooooo scarey! Panic! The sky is falling! It's the end of the world! Panic!

Uh-huh. Yeah, just ruins the whole sim for me.

The planes fly and they do so very well when reasonably controlled. Find a real exploitable
problem and I'll feel different. I haven't seen any UFO's this patch to begin to compare
with say, FB 1.0 and the climbs. But maybe I will and then I'll present evidence and
relevance with it. That reminds me, I need to check the effects of speed on climb... a
bit of a peeve in PF that may well be straightened out.

If you have to look as hard as you have to find anomalies then this FM may just be the
best we've ever had.

crazyivan1970
06-20-2005, 01:51 PM
.

Kwiatos
06-20-2005, 01:57 PM
Thx now is better http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

marcocomparato
06-20-2005, 02:45 PM
its funny because this actually resolves an issue for the next guy like me...

for instance i always felt that it was unlikely that any aircraft ever stalled as easily and ridiculously as the MIG and LAGG. they were virtually unusable and thats the reason no one ever flies them ever.

i think it would be nice to get a larger variety of planes to be used in the games with more of a wide spectrum of strengths and weaknesses. I think that the MIG's lack of ammo, armor and speed, should maybe at least allow it to fly in more than a simple maneuver without completely flat spinning as it was in the past.

this makes me want to pull out some of my old sweet Russian campaigns and get back into them.

A.K.Davis
06-20-2005, 03:06 PM
To make this clear: this is not a question of game balance or relative strengths. There is a very simple question to answer here:

Should aircraft equipped with slats be able to perform continuous horizontal turns with full elevator deflection?

I don't know the answer, but it seems strange if true, considering the wide variance in design of the affected aircraft.

Also, please keep it civil and take it to PM if you feel the need to deride or question the intelligence of someone else or to take the discussion off the current topic, lest this just get locked again.

Kwiatos
06-20-2005, 03:17 PM
Question should be 2 not 1:
1. Should be planes with slots dont make acceleration stall causing by quickly maximum pull up in hard turn like do all other planes without slots?

2. Should aircraft equipped with slats be able to perform continuous horizontal turns with full elevator deflection?

p1ngu666
06-20-2005, 03:23 PM
the torque from the engine should have a larger effect as speed drops, too the point where it rotates the plane.

slats should delay the stall however u define it but its still should happen

Takata_
06-20-2005, 03:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
the torque from the engine should have a larger effect as speed drops, too the point where it rotates the plane.

slats should delay the stall however u define it but its still should happen </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't over-estimate torque force produced by an engine. The amount of torque force is mostly relative to fast increase of engine power. When power is constant, the torque force won't affect the plane stability as you think, and trim is designed to neutralise it.

Takata

p1ngu666
06-20-2005, 04:07 PM
a change in power would give a yanking force. but say at full power at say 200kph u have full corrective rudder to hold the plane straight, if the speed goes down u will turn and roll as your controls can no longer conteract the torqoe p factor etc.

the p38 article when the guy flys a p38 like his father did explains it much better than me if anyone has the link..

Takata_
06-20-2005, 06:02 PM
Pingu, when you are full throttle at maximum speed, do you need to apply full rudder to counter the torque forces?... if so, you will never achieve any kind of speed. Even at 200 km/h with a constant thrust, you don't need to use you rudder like if you apply a brutal increase of engine power. And P-38 is supposed free of torque.

Buzzsaw-
06-20-2005, 06:06 PM
Salute

Thanks for Ivan re-instating this thread.

I will endeavor to restrain my remarks to the content of the discussion, and I hope that others will do the same.

Takata_
06-20-2005, 06:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
I will endeavor to restrain my remarks to the content of the discussion </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Buzz! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif... do you really think that your last post is related to this thread subject and that it will help Prof.Grr to stay quiet? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Buzzsaw-
06-20-2005, 06:38 PM
Salute

The issue of the asymetrical stall seems to be at the heart of this discussion.

Slat equipped aircraft as modelled, do not suffer from wingdrop as a result of asymetrical wingstall, unlike other aircraft in the Sim.

The question is whether this is accurate.

NACA, the American National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, the forerunner to NASA, did a series of examinations of stall behaviour and the factors influencing it.

One of the major factors affecting stall, was discovered to be propellor thrust at low speed.

Here are some excerpts from one of their reports, with specific reference to propellor thrust causing longitundinal instability at the stall. (ignore the diagram of the twin engined aircraft and scroll down to the discussion of slipstream)

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1945/naca-report-829/14.gif

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1945/naca-report-829/15.gif

From these two pages, one can see that a normal expectation of an aircraft operating in a non-gliding condition at the stall, is that the aircraft will display longitudinal instability at the stall due to propellor thrust effects. Ie. one wing will stall before the other, thereby causing wingdrop on one side or the other.

That would be the case, whether or not the aircraft is equipped with slats.

There is no doubt that as a slat equipped aircraft approaches stall, that as the slats deploy, they do reduce the tendency for the area behind the slats to stall, and increase the overall lift coefficient for that area of the wing.

However, they do not change the characteristics of the rest of the wing, neither do they remove the fact that a highly loaded wing requires a higher Angle of Attack to maintain lift at low speeds.

All of the descriptions of the stalling characteristics of slat equipped aircraft indicate that asymetrical stalls are a fact.

We have already seen the descriptions by the Luftwaffe test unit on a captured La-5FN, as well as the La-5FN manual.

Tests of the stalling behaviour of the slat equipped 109 reveal similar behaviour.

Below is the RAF test report on the slat equipped 109E3:

http://www.lanpartyworld.com/smallwoy/me1095.jpg

You can see clearly from the report, that as the aircraft approaches stall, it displays the classical pattern of the asymetrical stall. And if the aircraft is held in pre-stall condition, a spin will develop immediately. To avoid this, a pilot must move his controls to the recovery position, ie. forward into a dive. Pulling back the stick position will result in a spin.

This is not the case in the current flight model for the 109's or other slat equipped aircraft in IL-2/PF. A pilot can continue to pull back on the stick, and he only suffers a loss of altitude, non of the asymetrical stall behaviour as described occurs.

Obviously there is a problem.

A.K.Davis
06-20-2005, 07:34 PM
nt

Buzzsaw-
06-20-2005, 07:49 PM
Ok Davis, edited the post.

Now, I'd appreciate your comments on the substance of what I posted re. the discussion.

NonWonderDog
06-20-2005, 08:17 PM
Now we're at least getting somewhere with the spiral/asymetric propwash bit. I can't say how much of that is modelled, but we do have asymetric thrust from the prop disk and we do have propwash of some sort...it would be fairly surprising if the prowash wasn't asymetric as well.

I did find something that should be VERY useful to help in testing, though. I'm not sure how well known this is, but the LaGG-3 series 29 has the slats removed. It doesn't seem like their removal affects the plane anything like what's said here, though. While the LaGG-3s with slats are harder to stall, the slatless LaGG-3 is already very docile. Pulling the stick all the way back in the slatless LaGG-3 will eventually put you into a spin if you're completely daft, but it's nothing like a Corsair.

It's possible that we don't have asymetric propwash effects modelled correctly, I guess. The old flight model spun planes when they stalled by default (not by physics), and asymetric propwash wasn't really needed. The Corsair still has that nasty left wing drop and the 190 and 109 roll to the right (??) when they stall in 4.01, though, so something's still there to make them spin.

The Bf-109s seem much easier to stall at low altitudes, by the way. The Bf-109F series even has a (very) slight tendency to drop the right wing when stalled at low altitudes.


I'm not at all sure how you come to the conclusion that maintaining a pre-stall attitude will immediately drop the plane into a spin from reading that passage, though. It just says that you have to correct to hold it straight, and keeping the controls in that position will cause the wing to drop before the nose in the stall. "The left wing drops" does not mean that the plane enters a spin. "The aeroplane falls into a spin" means that the plane spins, and the document only mentions that when abrupt elevator inputs are given.

I'll admit that the ingame Me-109 doesn't really show this. It tends to move to the right before the stall and we don't have enough elevator authority to push it any further than that. Although something's not correct, it's impossible to say that the plane doesn't stall at the correct angle of attack if we don't have that data (or a way to test it). It's also worth pointing out that Oleg *very* likely does have that data. What most likely isn't available is detailed information on the effects of spiral or asymetric propwash at various power settings and angles of attack. An undermodelling of these forces is probably the most likely culprit for all of this, but there's not much we can point to in order to get it changed.

Buzzsaw-
06-20-2005, 09:48 PM
Salute

I should be clear:

The problem with stalling behaviour is not really an issue with the early 109's, ie. the 109E's through 109F's. As far as I'm concerned, there is no real problem with these aircraft.

The 109's at issue here, are the later models, G2 and onwards. These are the aircraft which exhibit the most benign behaviour at stall, when in fact, they should be more abrupt with their considerable extra weight.

They drop a wing at nearly the same speed as the 109F's, (the 109G2 actually earlier!) although they do start the 'sinking but in control' stall behaviour earlier.

I suggest people do their tests with the G's and later 109's.

Conversely, the La-5FN is slightly lighter than a La-7, although the La-5 and La-5F are lighter than both.

WWMaxGunz
06-20-2005, 10:09 PM
Well I tried it in the La5FN and I'm kinda STUNNED.

I don't care about the joystick deflection. I was able to bank over hard right about 75
degrees and keep turning even at 200 kph, not only without losing alt -- I CLIMBED!

I couldn't even get that started with the 109G-2 which was much more stable than the P-51C
at such low speed shennanigans. I climbed 1200 meters in that La5FN though it took quite
a while. Wingtips were stalled, speed 200 kph... the downward vector of even a 60 degree
bank is 1/2 --- is La5FN stall speed 100 kph or less? It would have to be less because I
climbed! I feel like Ron White telling about his van wheel falling off when leaving the
Sears Service Center with new tires. It's so unbelievable I just keep saying it hoping
it sinks in! I climbed like that! Ouch!

So I sent a track in with short report and some questions.

Why bother with stick position, etc? It's just more details to confuse them. How the
plane flies at what speed and attitude speaks for itself don't it?

It climbed, 1200 meters before I quit the mission... at 200 kph, banked over hard.

p1ngu666
06-21-2005, 06:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Takata_:
Pingu, when you are full throttle at maximum speed, do you need to apply full rudder to counter the torque forces?... if so, you will never achieve any kind of speed. Even at 200 km/h with a constant thrust, you don't need to use you rudder like if you apply a brutal increase of engine power. And P-38 is supposed free of torque. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i was pulling imaginary figures, at highspeed the plane will straighten naturally more, but at lowspeed with high power u can haveto use alot of rudder on some planes.

no time to read everything here today tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

A.K.Davis
06-21-2005, 08:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Why bother with stick position, etc? It's just more details to confuse them. How the
plane flies at what speed and attitude speaks for itself don't it?

It climbed, 1200 meters before I quit the mission... at 200 kph, banked over hard. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but "banked over hard" is an indication of stick position. I do think it is partially relevant, but as you say, the resulting behavior is more important.

Also, as indicated in documents above, La-5FN stall speed is 180km/h.

Kurfurst__
06-21-2005, 10:04 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
The 109's at issue here, are the later models, G2 and onwards. These are the aircraft which exhibit the most benign behaviour at stall, when in fact, they should be more abrupt with their considerable extra weight.

Mark Hanna describing the Bf109G/Buchon :

"Pitch is also delighful at 250 mph and below. It feels very positve and the amount of effort on the control column needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right to me. As CL max is reached the leading edge slats deploy - together if the ball is in the middle, slightly asymmetrically if you have any slip on. The aircraft delights in being pulled into hard manuevering turns at these slower speeds. As the slats pop out you feel a slight "notching" on the stick and you can pull more until the whole airframe is buffeting quite hard. A little more and you will drop a wing, but you have to be crass to do it unintentionally. Pitch tends to heavy up above 250 mph but it is still easily manageable up to 300 mph and the aircraft is perfectly happy carrying out low-level looping maneuvers from 300 mph and below. Above 300 mph one peculiarity is a slight nose down trim change as you accelerate. This means that running in for an airshow above 300 mph the aeroplane has a slight tucking in sensation - a sort of desire to get down to ground level ! This is easily held on the stick or can be trimmed out but is slightly surprising initially. Maneuvering above 300, two hands can be required for more aggressive performance. EIther that or get on the trimmer to help you. Despite this heavying up it is still quite easy to get at 5G's at these speeds. "


Dave Southwood flying black six Bf 109g-2/trop. :

"The idle power stall characteristics of the aircraft are very benign and affected little by undercarriage and flap position. Stalling warning is a slight wing rock with the stick floating right by about 2 inches. This occurs 10klph before the stall. The stall itself is a left wing drop through about 15 degrees with a slight nose drop, accompanied by a light buffet. All controls are effective up to the stall, and recovery is instant on moving the stick forward. Stall speeds are 155kph clean and 140kph with gear and flap down. In a turn at 280kphwith display power set, stall warning is given by light buffet at 3g, and the stall occurs at 3.5g with the inside wing dropping. Again, recovery is instant on easing the stick forward. One interesting feature is the leading edge slats. When these deploy at low speeds or in a turn, a 'clunk' can be heard and felt, but there is no disturbance to the aircraft about any axis. I understand that the Bf109E rolled violently as the slats deployed, and I am curious to know the difference to the Gustav that caused this."



Buzzsaw says the stall should not be benign on the G-2. He did not flew the 109G nor he knows much on it.
Dave Southwood says the stall should be benign on the G-2. He DID flew the 109G and he knows it.
Mark Hanna says the stall should be so benign on the G-2 that you have to be crass to do it unintentionally. He DID flew the 109G and he knows it.

A.K.Davis
06-21-2005, 10:54 AM
Above is not the current discussion and is an attempt to reignite pissing contest. Important part lifted here:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In a turn at 280kphwith display power set, stall warning is given by light buffet at 3g, and the stall occurs at 3.5g with the inside wing dropping. Again, recovery is instant on easing the stick forward. One interesting feature is the leading edge slats. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WWMaxGunz
06-21-2005, 12:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Why bother with stick position, etc? It's just more details to confuse them. How the
plane flies at what speed and attitude speaks for itself don't it?

It climbed, 1200 meters before I quit the mission... at 200 kph, banked over hard. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but "banked over hard" is an indication of stick position. I do think it is partially relevant, but as you say, the resulting behavior is more important.

Also, as indicated in documents above, La-5FN stall speed is 180km/h. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In a real plane you don't hold sidestick once the wings are banked.
IL2 did that wrong and then was fixed... my memory is not so good I think during FB around 1.1.

Well if the stall speed is 180 kph then it should not keep alt with much wing bank at all.
Wing bank tilts the lift force out so only part is holding the plane up (the fraction is by
the cosine of the bank angle from flat). At least that's what the aero site shows in turns
and turn performance in the lift chapter. LOL, you're not supposed to be able to make much
of a turn at just over stall speed! I turned hard and climbed while doing it!

At least it seems to be not all of the planes... most are too unstable to get that far.

I think that power-on clean stall speed is higher than power-off clean, isn't it? Because
of the propwash shown in those NACA pages?

p1ngu666
06-21-2005, 03:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Why bother with stick position, etc? It's just more details to confuse them. How the
plane flies at what speed and attitude speaks for itself don't it?

It climbed, 1200 meters before I quit the mission... at 200 kph, banked over hard. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but "banked over hard" is an indication of stick position. I do think it is partially relevant, but as you say, the resulting behavior is more important.

Also, as indicated in documents above, La-5FN stall speed is 180km/h. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In a real plane you don't hold sidestick once the wings are banked.
IL2 did that wrong and then was fixed... my memory is not so good I think during FB around 1.1.

Well if the stall speed is 180 kph then it should not keep alt with much wing bank at all.
Wing bank tilts the lift force out so only part is holding the plane up (the fraction is by
the cosine of the bank angle from flat). At least that's what the aero site shows in turns
and turn performance in the lift chapter. LOL, you're not supposed to be able to make much
of a turn at just over stall speed! I turned hard and climbed while doing it!

At least it seems to be not all of the planes... most are too unstable to get that far.

I think that power-on clean stall speed is higher than power-off clean, isn't it? Because
of the propwash shown in those NACA pages? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah max power on tends tobe higher, as the propwash basicaly is like the wing traveling faster.

ive just remmbered something, AGES ago i joined a HL server with odd settings, like stalls or torque off or both. but with that the i185 could outturn teh ki43 at low speed, sustained turns http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

btw max u would probably hold alittle side stick as the dyhedral (ive got a headache :\) the angled wings like \____/ upwards will make the plane try to level up if i remmber correctly

TX-EcoDragon
06-21-2005, 04:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
btw max u would probably hold alittle side stick as the dyhedral (ive got a headache :\) the angled wings like \____/ upwards will make the plane try to level up if i remmber correctly </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the dihedral effect does play a role (no pun intended) in yaw/roll stability but in this case the wing leveling behaviour is only when rather close to a wings level atttitude, in a normal turn of normal bank angle some aileorn input will need to be made *opposite* the direction of the turn to maintain a constant bank angle due to overbanking tendency (which sadly the sim lacks).

WWMaxGunz
06-21-2005, 07:35 PM
We don't have the overbank but before I remember you coming here we did have to hold
the bank, every last degree of it, which made turns a study in... what's the proper
term for using diagonal stick I've forgotten? Normally in efficient flying it is to
pull along one axis at a time whenever possible and only diagonal for short periods
as that results in two sources of control drag at once... or so the heavies we had
at Delphi did teach.

p1ngu666
06-22-2005, 08:00 PM
oks im wrong and right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

max u saying u moved stick right and that made the plane go X amount but when u got to edge of stick travel u couldnt roll anymore? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

WWMaxGunz
06-22-2005, 11:47 PM
No. How far you hold the stick over makes your roll rate. You get your bank by
how long you roll and how fast, then you center the stick and do your back pull.

Kwiatos
06-23-2005, 11:05 AM
We have info about stall and spin behavoiur of Lagg3 and LA5 here

"П˜"žТЖ н? "?""-3

'¸Ñ€?¶¸
'¸Ñ€?¶¸ с ºÑ€µном 60€"70? ²Ñ"¿олняÑ"ÑŒ н? сºоÑ€осÑ"¸ 320 ºм/Ñ"?с. ПÑ€¸ ²Ñ"¿олнµн¸¸ ²¸Ñ€?¶µ' сб?л?нс¸Ñ€о²?Ñ"ÑŒ с?молÑÑ" Ñ"Ñ€¸ммµÑ€?м¸ ² Ñ€µ¶¸мµ ³оÑ€¸зонÑ"?лÑŒно³о ¿олÑÑ"?. КооÑ€´¸н¸Ñ€о²?ннÑ"м¸ ´²¸¶µн¸Ñм¸ руÑ"º¸ ¸ ¿µ´?л¸ ²²о´¸Ñ"ÑŒ с?молÑÑ" ² ²¸Ñ€?¶; о´но²Ñ€µмµнно с у²µл¸Ñ"µн¸µм ºÑ€µн? ´об?²ляÑ"ÑŒ ³?з Ñ"?º, Ñ"Ñ"обÑ" ¿Ñ€¸ ºÑ€µнµ 60€"70? ³?з бÑ"л ´?н ¿олнÑ"'.
ПÑ€¸ ²Ñ"²о´µ ¸з ²¸Ñ€?¶? ³?з уб¸Ñ€?Ñ"ÑŒ ´о ноÑ€м?лÑŒно³о. ? лµ²ом ²¸Ñ€?¶µ с?молÑÑ" сÑ"Ñ€µм¸Ñ"ся у²µл¸Ñ"¸²?Ñ"ÑŒ ºÑ€µн, Ñ"Ñ"о лµ³ºо ¿?Ñ€¸Ñ€о²?Ñ"ÑŒ руÑ"ºо'. ? ¿Ñ€?²ом ²¸Ñ€?¶µ с?молÑÑ" о¿ÑƒÑº?µÑ" нос, Ñ"Ñ"о лµ³ºо ¿?Ñ€¸Ñ€о²?Ñ"ÑŒ ¿µ´?лью, ¿Ñ€оÑ"¸²о¿оло¶но' ²¸Ñ€?¶Ñƒ.
? ²¸Ñ€?¶µ с?молÑÑ" усÑ"о'Ñ"¸². ПÑ€¸ ¿µÑ€µÑ"я³¸²?н¸¸ руÑ"º¸ с?молÑÑ" Ñ"µÑ€ÑµÑ" ¿о¿µÑ€µÑ"ную усÑ"о'Ñ"¸²осÑ"ÑŒ ¸ сÑ"Ñ€µм¸Ñ"ся ²Ñ"'Ñ"¸ ¸Ñ ²¸Ñ€?¶?. ПÑ€¸ ´?лÑŒнµ'шµм ¿µÑ€µÑ"я³¸²?н¸¸ руÑ"º¸ с?молÑÑ" срÑ"²?µÑ"ся ² шÑ"о¿оÑ€.
"ля ²Ñ"¿олнµн¸Ñ ²¸Ñ€?¶? с ºÑ€µном 60€"70? нµобÑ...о´¸мо 22€"23 сµºÑƒн´Ñ".

С¿¸Ñ€?лÑŒ
С¿¸Ñ€?лÑŒ ²Ñ"¿олняÑ"ÑŒ н? сºоÑ€осÑ"¸ 280 ºм/Ñ"?с ¿о ¿Ñ€¸бору с ºÑ€µн?м нµ болµµ 45?. С?молÑÑ" н? с¿¸Ñ€?л¸ ÑƒÑÑ"о'Ñ"¸².
"? о´¸н ²¸Ñ"оº Ñ¿¸Ñ€?л¸ Ñ убÑ€?ннÑ"м¸ Ñˆ?сс¸ с?молµÑ" Ñ"µÑ€ÑµÑ" 600 м ²Ñ"соÑ"Ñ".

СºолÑŒ¶µн¸µ
СºолÑŒз¸Ñ" с?молÑÑ" усÑ"о'Ñ"¸²о, бµз Ñ€?з²оÑ€?Ñ"¸²?н¸Ñ ² сÑ"оÑ€ону сºолÑŒ¶µн¸Ñ, с ºÑ€µном ² 30?. С ²Ñ"¿ÑƒÑ"µннÑ"м¸ Ñ"¸Ñ"º?м¸ ÑºолÑŒ¶µн¸µ нµ ¿Ñ€о¸з²о´¸Ñ"ÑŒ. СºоÑ€осÑ"ÑŒ ²²о´? ² сºолÑŒ¶µн¸µ 250€" 260 ºм/Ñ"?с. СºоÑ€осÑ"ÑŒ ²Ñ"²о´? €" нµ мµнµµ 220 ºм/Ñ"?с,
"ля ²²о´? ² сºолÑŒ¶µн¸µ оÑ"²µÑ€нуÑ"ÑŒ с?молÑÑ" н? 10€"15? ² сÑ"оÑ€ону, ¿Ñ€оÑ"¸²о¿оло¶ную сºолÑŒ¶µн¸ÑŽ, соз´?Ñ"ÑŒ ºÑ€µн ² сÑ"оÑ€ону сºолÑŒ¶µн¸Ñ ¸ у´µÑ€¶¸²?Ñ"ÑŒ с?молÑÑ" оÑ" Ñ€?з²оÑ€оÑ"? обÑ€?Ñ"но' ¿µ´?лью.
'Ñ"²о´ с?молÑÑ"? ¸з сºолÑŒ¶µн¸Ñ з?º?нÑ"¸²?Ñ"ÑŒ н? ²Ñ"соÑ"µ нµ н¸¶µ 50 м. ? эÑ"о' ²Ñ"соÑ"µ ¿олÑÑ" ´о붵н бÑ"Ñ"ÑŒ ¿Ñ€Ñмол¸нµ'нÑ"м.

Иоµ²о' Ñ€?з²оÑ€оÑ"
"ля ²Ñ"¿олнµн¸Ñ боµ²о³о Ñ€?з²оÑ€оÑ"? Ñ€?зо³н?Ñ"ÑŒ с?молÑÑ" ´о м?ºÑ¸м?лÑŒно' сºоÑ€осÑ"¸. '²о´¸Ñ"ÑŒ с?молÑÑ" ² боµ²о' Ñ€?з²оÑ€оÑ" с ºÑ€µном 15€"20?; о´но²Ñ€µмµнно у²µл¸Ñ"¸²?Ñ"ÑŒ у³ол н?боÑ€? ¸ ¿л?²но ´?²?Ñ"ÑŒ ¿олнÑ"' ³?з.
'Ñ"²о´¸Ñ"ÑŒ с?молÑÑ" ¸з боµ²о³о Ñ€?з²оÑ€оÑ"? ² ³оÑ€¸зонÑ"?лÑŒнÑ"' ¿олÑÑ" н? сºоÑ€осÑ"¸ 280 ºм/Ñ"?с с Ñ€?боÑ"?ÑŽÑ"¸м н? ¿олно' моÑ"носÑ"¸ моÑ"оÑ€ом.
ПоÑлµ ²Ñ"²о´? ¸з Ñ€?з²оÑ€оÑ"? ³?з сб?²¸Ñ"ÑŒ ´о ноÑ€м?лÑŒно³о. ПÑ€¸ ²Ñ"¿олнµн¸¸ боµ²о³о Ñ€?з²оÑ€оÑ"? с?молÑÑ" н?б¸Ñ€?µÑ" ²Ñ"соÑ"у 800 м.
? боµ²ом Ñ€?з²оÑ€оÑ"µ с?молÑÑ" усÑ"о'Ñ"¸². ?зн¸Ñ"*Ñ" ² ²Ñ"¿олнµн¸¸ лµ²о³о ¸ ¿Ñ€?²о³о боµ²о³о Ñ€?з²оÑ€оÑ"? нµÑ".

ž´¸н?Ñ€нÑ"' ¿µÑ€µ²оÑ€оÑ"
СºоÑ€осÑ"ÑŒ ¿Ñ€¸ .²Ñ"¿олнµн¸¸ о´¸н?Ñ€но³о ¿µÑ€µ²оÑ€оÑ"? ´µÑ€¶?Ñ"ÑŒ 260 ºм/Ñ"?с. "ля ²²о´? ² ¿µÑ€µ²оÑ€оÑ" о´но²Ñ€µмµнно ´?Ñ"ÑŒ но³Ñƒ н? ¿олÑ...о´? ¿µ´?л¸ ¸ ² Ñ"у ¶µ сÑ"оÑ€ону руÑ"ºÑƒ º боÑ€Ñ"у ¸ нµÑºолÑŒºо н? сµбя (¿о ´¸?³он?л¸). По мµÑ€µ Ñ"о³о º?º с?молÑÑ" бу´µÑ" ¿µÑ€µ²оÑ€?Ñ"¸²?Ñ"ься ²²µÑ€Ñ... ºолÑс?м¸, ² ¿оло¶µн¸¸ з? 30€"40? ´о ¿µÑ€µ²ÑÑ€нуÑ"о³о ¿олÑÑ"? ¿л?²но ¿осÑ"?²¸Ñ"ÑŒ Ñ€Ñƒл¸ н? ²Ñ"²о´ ¸ убÑ€?Ñ"ÑŒ ³?з. Пл?²но ²зяÑ"ÑŒ руÑ"ºÑƒ нµÑºолÑŒºо н? сµбя ¸ ¿µÑ€µ²µÑÑ"¸ с?молÑÑ" ² ¿¸º¸Ñ€о²?н¸µ. По ´осÑ"¸¶µн¸¸ сºоÑ€осÑ"¸ н? ¿¸º¸Ñ€о²?н¸Ñ 330€"350 ºм/Ñ"?с ¿л?²но ²Ñ"²о´¸Ñ"ÑŒ с?молÑÑ" ² ³оÑ€¸зонÑ"?лÑŒнÑ"' ¿олÑÑ".
ПоÑ"µÑ€Ñ ²Ñ"соÑ"Ñ" з? о´¸н ¿µÑ€µ²оÑ€оÑ" сосÑ"?²ляµÑ" 700€"800 м. µ ´о¿ÑƒÑº?Ñ"ÑŒ энµÑ€³¸Ñ"нÑ"Ñ... ´²¸¶µн¸' рулÑм ²Ñ"соÑ"Ñ" ¿Ñ€¸ ²Ñ"²о´µ с?молÑÑ"? ¸з ¿¸º¸Ñ€о²?н¸Ñ. ' ¿Ñ€оÑ"¸²ном слуÑ"?µ с?молÑÑ" нµз?²¸Ñ¸мо оÑ" сºоÑ€осÑ"¸ Ñ"µÑ€ÑµÑ" ¿о¿µÑ€µÑ"ную усÑ"о'Ñ"¸²осÑ"ÑŒ ¸ у¿Ñ€?²ляµмосÑ"ÑŒ, ¸ ¿Ñ€оÑ"*µÑÑ ²Ñ"²о´? с?молÑÑ"? ¸з ¿¸º¸Ñ€о²?н¸Ñ у´л¸няµÑ"ся.

"²о'но' ¿µÑ€µ²оÑ€оÑ" (боÑ"º?)
ИоÑ"º? ²Ñ"¿олняµÑ"ся н? сºоÑ€осÑ"¸ 300 ºм/Ñ"?с. ПÑ€µ´²?Ñ€¸Ñ"µлÑŒно ¿Ñ€¸´?Ñ"ÑŒ с?молÑÑ"у у³ол º?бÑ€¸Ñ€о²?н¸Ñ 15€"20? ¸ о´но²Ñ€µмµнно ´?Ñ"ÑŒ но³Ñƒ ¸ руÑ"ºÑƒ ² сÑ"оÑ€ону ¶µл?µмо³о ¿µÑ€µ²оÑ€оÑ"? ¸ нµмно³о н? сµбя. С?молÑÑ" н?Ñ"нÑÑ" ²Ñ€?Ñ"?Ñ"ься ²оºÑ€Ñƒ³ с²оµ' ос¸. "? 30€"40? ´о ³оÑ€¸зонÑ"?лÑŒно³о ¿олн¸Ñ ¿осÑ"?²¸Ñ"ÑŒ Ñ€Ñƒл¸ н? ²Ñ"²о´, ´?Ñ"ÑŒ но³Ñƒ ² сÑ"оÑ€ону, ¿Ñ€оÑ"¸²о¿оло¶ную ²Ñ€?Ñ"µн¸ÑŽ, з? нµ'Ñ"Ñ€?лÑŒноµ ¿оло¶µн¸µ ¸ руÑ"ºÑƒ ¿осÑ"?²¸Ñ"ÑŒ нµ'Ñ"Ñ€?лÑŒно.
?зн¸Ñ"*Ñ" ² ²Ñ"¿олнµн¸¸ ¿Ñ€?²о' ¸ лµ²о' боÑ"ºо' нµÑ", ¿Ñ€?²ÑƒÑŽ боÑ"ºÑƒ с?молÑÑ" ²Ñ"¿олняµÑ" ²Ñло. "ля Ñ"о³о Ñ"Ñ"обÑ" Ñ"µм¿ ¿Ñ€?²о' боÑ"º¸ ¿олуÑ"?лся Ñ"?ºо' ¶µ, º?º ¸ лµ²о', ну¶но н? ²²о´µ энµÑ€³¸Ñ"нµµ ´µ'сÑ"²о²?Ñ"ÑŒ рулям¸.

ПµÑ"ля
Сб?л?нс¸Ñ€о²?Ñ"ÑŒ с?молÑÑ" Ñ"Ñ€¸ммµÑ€ом руля ²Ñ"соÑ"Ñ" н? сºоÑ€осÑ"¸ 380 ºм/Ñ"?с ² Ñ€µ¶¸мµ ³оÑ€¸зонÑ"?лÑŒно³о ¿олÑÑ"?.
"ля бÑ"сÑ"Ñ€о³о н?боÑ€? сºоÑ€осÑ"¸ Ñ€?зо³н?Ñ"ÑŒ с?молÑÑ" с нµбольш¸м у³лом Ñн¸¶µн¸Ñ ´о сºоÑ€осÑ"¸ 450 ºм/Ñ"?с. Пл?²нÑ"м ´²¸¶µн¸µм руÑ"º¸ н? сµбя ¿µÑ€µ²µÑÑ"¸ с?молÑÑ" ² Ñ€µ¶¸м н?боÑ€? ²Ñ"соÑ"Ñ". ПÑ€¸ ¿о´Ñ...о´µ º ²µÑ€Ñ...нµ' Ñ"оÑ"ºµ ¿µÑ"л¸ н?³Ñ€Ñƒзº? н? руÑ"ºÑƒ зн?Ñ"¸Ñ"µлÑŒно умµньш?µÑ"ся.
µобÑ...о´¸мо ¸збµ³?Ñ"ÑŒ º?º ¿µÑ€µÑ"я³¸²?н¸Ñ, Ñ"?º ¸ нµ´об¸Ñ€?н¸Ñ руÑ"º¸. ПÑ€¸ ¿µÑ€µÑ"я³¸²?н¸¸ руÑ"º¸ с?молµÑ" мÑ" с´µл?Ñ"ÑŒ с?мо¿Ñ€о¸з²олÑŒнÑ"', нµ¿Ñ€?²¸лÑŒнÑ"' ¸ммµлÑŒм?н. ПÑ€¸ нµ´об¸Ñ€?н¸¸ руÑ"º¸ Ñ€?´¸ÑƒÑ ºÑ€¸²¸знÑ" ¿µÑ"л¸ Ñƒ²µл¸Ñ"¸²?µÑ"ся, ¸ сºоÑ€осÑ"ÑŒ с?молÑÑ"? бу´µÑ" ¿оÑ"µÑ€Ñн? µÑ"Ñ ´о ¿о´Ñ...о´? º ²µÑ€Ñ...нµ' Ñ"оÑ"ºµ. ПÑ€¸ нµÑƒÑÑ"о'Ñ"¸²ом ¿о²µ´µн¸¸ с?молÑÑ"? ² ²µÑ€Ñ...нµ' Ñ"оÑ"ºµ ¿µÑ"л¸ Ñ€ÑƒÑ"ºÑƒ нµзн?Ñ"¸Ñ"µлÑŒно оÑ"¿ÑƒÑÑ"¸Ñ"ÑŒ. ПоÑлµ ¿µÑ€µÑ...о´? с?молÑÑ"ом ²µÑ€Ñ...нµ' Ñ"оÑ"º¸ ¿µÑ"л¸ ÑƒбÑ€?Ñ"ÑŒ ³?з ¸ ¿л?²нÑ"м ´²¸¶µн¸µм руÑ"º¸ н? сµбя ²²о´¸Ñ"ÑŒ с?молÑÑ" ² ¿¸º¸Ñ€о²?н¸µ. СºоÑ€осÑ"ÑŒ ²Ñ"²о´? ¸з ¿¸º¸Ñ€о²?н¸Ñ 330€"350 ºм/Ñ"?с. ПÑ€¸ ¿Ñ€?²¸лÑŒном ²Ñ"¿олнµн¸¸ ¿µÑ"л¸ Ñ?молÑÑ" ²Ñ"соÑ"Ñ" нµ Ñ"µÑ€ÑµÑ".

˜ммµлÑŒм?н
Сб?л?нс¸Ñ€о²?Ñ"ÑŒ с?молÑÑ" Ñ"Ñ€¸ммµÑ€ом руля ²Ñ"соÑ"Ñ" н? сºоÑ€осÑ"¸ 380 ºм/Ñ"?с ² Ñ€µ¶¸мµ ³оÑ€¸зонÑ"?лÑŒно³о ¿олÑÑ"?. "ля ²Ñ"¿олнµн¸Ñ ¸ммµлÑŒм?н? нµобÑ...о´¸мо сºоÑ€осÑ"ÑŒ ¸мµÑ"ÑŒ нµ мµнµµ 460 ºм/Ñ"?с. "о ¿µÑ€µ²оÑ€оÑ"? ² ²µÑ€Ñ...нµ' Ñ"оÑ"ºµ ¸ммµлÑŒм?н ²Ñ"¿олняµÑ"ся Ñ"?º ¶µ, º?º ¸ ¿µÑ€²?я ¿оло²¸н? ¿µÑ"л¸. ЧÑ"обÑ" нµ Ñƒ¿ÑƒÑÑ"¸Ñ"ÑŒ момµнÑ"? ¿µÑ€µ²оÑ€оÑ"?, ´µÑ€¶?Ñ"ÑŒ ³оло²Ñƒ нµмно³о з?¿Ñ€оº¸нуÑ"о'. К?º Ñ"олÑŒºо º?¿оÑ" моÑ"оÑ€? оº?¶µÑ"ся ¿?Ñ€?ллµлÑŒнÑ"м ³оÑ€¸зонÑ"у, ´?Ñ"ÑŒ о´но²Ñ€µмµнно но³Ñƒ ¸ руÑ"ºÑƒ энµÑ€³¸Ñ"нÑ"м ´²¸¶µн¸µм ² сÑ"оÑ€ону ¶µл?µмо³о ²Ñ€?Ñ"µн¸Ñ.
Ñƒл¸ ´?²?Ñ"ÑŒ н? ²Ñ"²о´, ºо³´? с?молÑÑ" нµ ´о'´ÑÑ" ´о л¸н¸¸ ³оÑ€¸зонÑ"? 20€"30?, ¿оÑлµ Ñ"µ³о ¿осÑ"?²¸Ñ"ÑŒ Ñ€Ñƒл¸ ² нµ'Ñ"Ñ€?лÑŒноµ ¿оло¶µн¸µ.
"?¿омн¸Ñ"ÑŒ. ПÑ€µ¶´µ²Ñ€µмµнн?я ¿о¿Ñ"Ñ"º? ¿µÑ€µ²µÑ€нуÑ"ÑŒ с?молµÑ" ¿о²лµÑ"ÑÑ" з? собо' ¿оÑ"µÑ€ÑŽ сºоÑ€осÑ"¸. ТµÑ...н¸º? ²Ñ"¿олнµн¸Ñ ¿Ñ€?²о³о ¸ лµ²о³о ¸ммµлÑŒм?н? о´¸н?ºо²?.
ПÑ€¸ ²Ñ"¿олнµн¸¸ ¸ммµлÑŒм?н? с?молÑÑ" н?б¸Ñ€?µÑ" ²Ñ"соÑ"у 700€"800 м.


?н²µÑ€Ñм?н
'Ñ"¿олняµÑ"ся Ñ€?н²µÑ€Ñм?н н? сºоÑ€осÑ"¸ болµµ 400 ºм/Ñ"?с. С´µл?² ³оÑ€ºÑƒ ¿о´ у³лом 70€"80?, ´о²µÑÑ"¸ сºоÑ€осÑ"ÑŒ ´о 250 ºм/Ñ"?с, з?Ñ"µм ¿л?²но ´?Ñ"ÑŒ но³Ñƒ ² сÑ"оÑ€ону ¶µл?µмо³о Ñ€?з²оÑ€оÑ"?, руÑ"ºÑƒ ¿Ñ€¸´µÑ€¶¸²?Ñ"ÑŒ оÑ" сµбя ¸ ² сÑ"оÑ€ону, ¿Ñ€оÑ"¸²о¿оло¶ную Ñ€?з²оÑ€оÑ"у€" с?молÑÑ" Ñ€?з²µÑ€нÑÑ"ся ² сÑ"оÑ€ону ´?нно' но³¸ ¸ ¿µÑ€µ'´ÑÑ" ² ¿¸º¸Ñ€о²?н¸µ.
ПоÑлµ Ñ€?з²оÑ€оÑ"? н? 90? н?Ñ"¸н?Ñ"ÑŒ уб¸Ñ€?Ñ"ÑŒ ³?з Ñ"?º, Ñ"Ñ"обÑ" º ²Ñ...о´Ñƒ ² ¿¸º¸Ñ€о²?н¸µ ³?з бÑ"л ¿олносÑ"ью убÑ€?н.
ПоÑ"µÑ€Ñ ²Ñ"соÑ"Ñ", сÑ"¸Ñ"?я оÑ" ²µÑ€Ñ...нµ' Ñ"оÑ"º¸ ³оÑ€º¸ ´о ²Ñ"Ñ...о´? ² ³оÑ€¸зонÑ"?лÑŒнÑ"' ¿олÑÑ" ¿оÑлµ ¿¸º¸Ñ€о²?н¸Ñ, сосÑ"?²ляµÑ" 700 м.

П¸º¸Ñ€о²?н¸µ
'²о´ ² ¿¸º¸Ñ€о²?н¸µ ¿Ñ€о¸з²о´¸Ñ"ÑŒ с Ñ€?з²оÑ€оÑ"? ¸л¸ ¿µÑ€µ²оÑ€оÑ"? ¿Ñ€¸ Ñ€?боÑ"µ моÑ"оÑ€? н? срµ´н¸Ñ... обоÑ€оÑ"?Ñ....
µ ´о¿ÑƒÑº?Ñ"ÑŒ обÑ€?Ñ"нÑ"Ñ... ¿µÑ€µ³Ñ€Ñƒзоº ¿Ñ€¸ ²²о´µ ² ¿¸º¸Ñ€о²?н¸µ ²о ¸зᵶ?н¸µ оÑ"л¸²? м?сл? ¸ бµнз¸н? ² с¸ÑÑ"µм?Ñ....
'²о´ ² ¿¸º¸Ñ€о²?н¸µ с ³оÑ€º¸ з?¿Ñ€µÑ"?µÑ"ся.
ПµÑ€µ´ ²²о´ом ² ¿¸º¸Ñ€о²?н¸µ Ñƒбµ´¸Ñ"ься, Ñ"Ñ"о ш?сс¸ ¿о´няÑ"о €" ³оряÑ" ºÑ€?снÑ"µ л?м¿оÑ"º¸, ¸ мµÑ...?н¸Ñ"µÑº¸µ уº?з?Ñ"µл¸ ¿олносÑ"ью ²оÑˆл¸ ² ºÑ€Ñ"ло. "?Ñ"я¶µл¸Ñ"ÑŒ ²¸нÑ" ´о 2200€"2300 об/м¸н.
µ ´о¿ÑƒÑº?Ñ"ÑŒ ¿Ñ€¸ ¿¸º¸Ñ€о²?н¸¸ сºоÑ€осÑ"¸ болµµ 600 ºм/Ñ"?с ¿о ¿Ñ€¸бору ¸ Ñ€?сºÑ€ÑƒÑ"º¸ ²¸нÑ"? с²Ñ"шµ 2800 об/м¸н. ? с?молµÑ"?Ñ..., нµ ¸мµÑŽÑ"¸Ñ... б?л?нс¸Ñ€о² н? Ñ€Ñƒлµ н?¿Ñ€?²лµн¸Ñ, сºоÑ€осÑ"ÑŒ ¿¸º¸Ñ€о²?н¸Ñ нµ ´ол¶н? ¿Ñ€µ²Ñ"ш?Ñ"ÑŒ 550 ºм/Ñ"?с ²о ¸зᵶ?н¸µ ¿оя²лµн¸Ñ Ñ"л?Ñ"Ñ"µÑ€?.
ПÑ€¸ Ñ€?сºÑ€ÑƒÑ"ºµ ²¸нÑ"? ´о 2800 об/м¸н нµобÑ...о´¸мо ²Ñ"²о´¸Ñ"ÑŒ с?молÑÑ" ¸з ¿¸º¸Ñ€о²?н¸Ñ.
П¸º¸Ñ€ÑƒµÑ" с?молÑÑ" усÑ"о'Ñ"¸²о. ПÑ€¸ сÑ"Ñ€µмлµн¸¸ с?молÑÑ"? у²µл¸Ñ"¸Ñ"ÑŒ у³ол ¸л¸ ²Ñ"'Ñ"¸ ¸з ¿¸º¸Ñ€о²?н¸Ñ сб?л?нс¸Ñ€о²?Ñ"ÑŒ с?молÑÑ" Ñ"Ñ€¸ммµÑ€ом руля ²Ñ"соÑ"Ñ".
'Ñ"²о´¸Ñ"ÑŒ с?молÑÑ" ¸з ¿¸º¸Ñ€о²?н¸Ñ ¿л?²но.
ПÑ€¸ ¿¸º¸Ñ€о²?н¸¸ ¿о´ у³лом 60? ¸ ´осÑ"¸¶µн¸¸ сºоÑ€осÑ"¸ 600 ºм1Ñ"?с ¿о ¿Ñ€¸бору с?молÑÑ" ¿Ñ€¸ ²Ñ"²о´µ Ñ"µÑ€ÑµÑ" 1400 м ²Ñ"соÑ"Ñ".

¨Ñ"о¿оÑ€
µ¿Ñ€µ´н?мµÑ€µннÑ"' шÑ"о¿оÑ€ (´ля ²ÑµÑ... ²Ñ"соÑ")
С?мо¿Ñ€о¸з²олÑŒнÑ"' срÑ"² с?молÑÑ"? ² шÑ"о¿оÑ€ ²о ²ÑµÑ... слуÑ"?яÑ... ¿Ñ€о¸ÑÑ...о´¸Ñ" ¸з-з? ош¸бº¸ ² Ñ"µÑ...н¸ºµ ¿¸лоÑ"¸Ñ€о²?н¸Ñ: ¿Ñ€¸ ¿µÑ€µÑ"я³¸²?н¸¸ руÑ"º¸ н? сµбя н? лÑŽбом Ñ€µ¶¸мµ ¿олÑÑ"? (особµнно н? ²¸Ñ€?¶µ ¸ ¿Ñ€¸ энµÑ€³¸Ñ"ном ²Ñ"²о´µ с?молÑÑ"? ¸з ¿¸º¸Ñ€о²?н¸Ñ).
? больш¸Ñ... ²Ñ"соÑ"?Ñ..., особµнно ¿Ñ€¸ н?боÑ€µ ²Ñ"соÑ"Ñ", ºо³´? ¿олÑÑ" ¿Ñ€о¸ÑÑ...о´¸Ñ" н? больш¸Ñ... у³л?Ñ... ?Ñ"?º¸, срÑ"² ² шÑ"о¿оÑ€ ¿Ñ€о¸ÑÑ...о´¸Ñ" Ñ€µзºо, с?молÑÑ" шÑ"о¿оÑ€¸Ñ" ºÑ€ÑƒÑ"о ¸ энµÑ€³¸Ñ"но.

µ¶¸м шÑ"о¿оÑ€?
С?молÑÑ" срÑ"²?µÑ"ся ² лµ²Ñ"' шÑ"о¿оÑ€ н? ¿?Ñ€?шюÑ"¸Ñ€о²?н¸¸ ¿Ñ€¸ нµ'Ñ"Ñ€?лÑŒном ¿оло¶µн¸¸ ¿µ´?лµ' ¸ руÑ"ºµ, ²зяÑ"о' н? Ñ"µÑ"²µÑ€Ñ"ÑŒ Ñ...о´? н? сµбя. С?молÑÑ" шÑ"о¿оÑ€¸Ñ" ¿Ñ€¸ ¿оло¶µн¸¸ ¿µ´?л¸, ´?нно' н? Ñ"µÑ"²µÑ€Ñ"ÑŒ Ñ...о´? ² сÑ"оÑ€ону шÑ"о¿оÑ€?, ¸ руÑ"ºµ, ²зяÑ"о' н? Ñ"µÑ"²µÑ€Ñ"ÑŒ Ñ...о´? н? сµбя оÑ" нµ'Ñ"Ñ€?лÑŒно³о ¿олн¸Ñ.
' ¿Ñ€?²Ñ"' шÑ"о¿оÑ€ с?молÑÑ" срÑ"²?µÑ"ся с ¿?Ñ€?шюÑ"¸Ñ€о²?н¸Ñ ¸ шÑ"о¿оÑ€¸Ñ" ¿Ñ€¸ ¿оло¶µн¸¸ ¿µ´?л¸, ´?нно' н? ¿оло²¸ну Ñ...о´? ² сÑ"оÑ€ону шÑ"о¿оÑ€?, ¸ руÑ"º¸ 쵶´Ñƒ нµ'Ñ"Ñ€?лÑŒнÑ"м ¸ ´ооÑ"º?з? н? сµбя.
"о ´²ÑƒÑ... ²¸Ñ"ºо² с?молÑÑ" ²Ñ€?Ñ"?µÑ"ся Ñ€?²номµÑ€но. уÑ"º? сÑ"Ñ€µм¸Ñ"ся ¿Ñ€¸¶?Ñ"ься º с¸´µнью. ЧÑ"обÑ" у´µÑ€¶?Ñ"ÑŒ µÑ ² ¿Ñ€µ¶нµ' ¿оло¶µн¸¸, Ñ"Ñ€µбуµÑ"ся ус¸л¸µ.
С?молÑÑ" шÑ"о¿оÑ€¸Ñ" с н?ºлоном º ³оÑ€¸зонÑ"у ¿о´ у³лом 60€"75?; ºолµб?н¸Ñ нос? с?молÑÑ"? ² ¿Ñ€µ´µл?Ñ... 10?.
ПÑ€¸ срÑ"²µ ² шÑ"о¿оÑ€ ¿оÑ"µÑ€Ñ ²Ñ"соÑ"Ñ" з? о´¸н ²¸Ñ"оº Ñ ²Ñ"²о´ом ¸з ¿¸º¸Ñ€о²?н¸Ñ н? сºоÑ€осÑ"¸ 400 ºм/Ñ"?с оÑ"сÑ"?²ляµÑ" 600€"700 м. ПоÑ"µÑ€Ñ ²Ñ"соÑ"Ñ" з? ´²? ²¸Ñ"º? сосÑ"?²ляµÑ" 1000 м. ? больш¸Ñ... ²Ñ"соÑ"?Ñ... ¿оÑ"µÑ€Ñ ²Ñ"соÑ"Ñ" з? о´¸н ²¸Ñ"оº ÑˆÑ"о¿оÑ€? с ²Ñ"²о´ом ¸з ¿¸º¸Ñ€о²?н¸Ñ зн?Ñ"¸Ñ"µлÑŒно большµ.
"µ²Ñ"' шÑ"о¿оÑ€ энµÑ€³¸Ñ"нµµ, Ñ"µм ¿Ñ€?²Ñ"'.

'Ñ"²о´ с?молÑÑ"? ¸з шÑ"о¿оÑ€?
ЧÑ"обÑ" ²Ñ"²µÑÑ"¸ с?молÑÑ" ¸з шÑ"о¿оÑ€?, сн?Ñ"?л? н?´о ´?Ñ"ÑŒ но³Ñƒ ´ооÑ"º?з? ¿Ñ€оÑ"¸² шÑ"о¿оÑ€?, з?Ñ"µм руÑ"ºÑƒ оÑ" сµбя з? нµ'Ñ"Ñ€?лÑŒноµ ¿оло¶µн¸µ. К?º Ñ"олÑŒºо ¿Ñ€µºÑ€?Ñ"¸Ñ"ся ²Ñ€?Ñ"µн¸µ с?молÑÑ"?, нµмµ´лµнно ¿осÑ"?²¸Ñ"ÑŒ ¿µ´?л¸ нµ'Ñ"Ñ€?лÑŒно. "?´µÑ€¶º? ¿µ´?л¸ ² ºÑ€?'нµм ¿оло¶µн¸¸ ¿Ñ€¸ м?ло оÑ"´?нно' руÑ"ºµ мÑ" ¿Ñ€¸²µÑÑ"¸ º ¿µÑ€µÑ...о´Ñƒ с?молÑÑ"? ² обÑ€?Ñ"нÑ"' шÑ"о¿оÑ€.
µÑоблÑŽ´µн¸µ ¿оÑлµ´о²?Ñ"µлÑŒносÑ"¸ ´²¸¶µн¸Ñ рулÑм¸ (но³? €" руÑ"º?) мÑ" ¿Ñ€¸²µ

Kwiatos
06-23-2005, 11:21 AM
Ok here we have:

PILOTAGE on La5

Before the fulfillment of acrobatic maneuvers: loop, the loop Of shaviara, renversement, Immelman turn and hill, by the trim tab of elevator to create aircraft the pitching moment under the conditions of maximum horizontal speed.

Turn
Turn on the aircraft is produced at the speed 330 - 340 km/h. Aircraft on the turn is steady. With pulling of knob at the turn rocking aircraft from the wing to the wing appears. With the sharp pulling of knob the disruption into the corkscrew is possible. The transfer of aircraft from the turn into the turn occurs rapidly. The aircraft is obedient to the ailerons. Load on the control knob from the ailerons is somewhat great. In the case of speed loss on the turn and wing heaviness it is necessary to apply control column from itself and to derive aircraft into the level flight.

Dive
Introduction into the dive is produced from the turn or from the revolution. Dive is permitted to produce to the speed of 625 km/h according to the instrument. Aircraft dives stably and with the gas and without the gas. Tendencies toward the unwinding or the pulling in the dive is not located. With the dive not to allow number of revolutions it is higher than 2600 per minute during not more than 30 s. to avoid the spinup of screw.
Not to allow on the dive of cooling cylinder heads below 120'? Q.

The chandelle
Chandelles are carried out normally. The aircraft behaves stably on the chandelle. Chandelle is carried out at the speed of entry 450 km/h. On leaving from the turn to hold the speed of 250 km/h.

Revolution
Revolution is carried out at the speed of 250 km/h by the smooth motion of knob. Speed on the conclusion 350 - 370 km/h. Loss of height for the revolution 700 - 800 m.

Slip
Slides aircraft stably, without the unwinding to the side of slip, with the bank to 40 - 45'?. Speed of entry into the slip 230 - 240 km/h. The speed of conclusion - is not less than 220 kmychas.

Eight
Eight to make at the speed of 320 km/h according to the instrument. The technology of its fulfillment is the same as normal turn. Time of the fulfillment of eight - 45 - 50 s.

Spiral
Spiral is carried out, having completely removed throttle control, with the bank not more than 45'?, at the speed 280 - 300 km/h according to the instrument. To introduce into the spiral to smoothly and carry out it just as turn, to 45'?.
The aircraft, adjusted with the insignificant pitching at the maximum horizontal speed, during the fulfillment of spiral slightly "will hang" on the knob.

Loop
Loop is carried out in the level flight without the loss of height at the speed 460 - 480 km/h. With the fulfillment of loop one ought not to stretch knob to itself, since otherwise aircraft can fall down to the wing or make a spontaneous Immelman turn.
After the passage of the upper point of loop to make possible to aircraft to collect speed 350 - 370 km/h, after which to smoothly derive it in the level flight.

Loop Of shaviara
For fulfilling the loop Of shaviara to a little lower aircraft and to drive away it to the speed of 460 km/h according to the instrument.
With the introduction into the loop it is necessary to simultaneously create, bank about 45'?. Subsequently the loop Of shaviara is carried out just as normal loop, but during the fulfillment of it it is necessary to preserve initial bank.
There are no differences between the right and left loops Of shaviara. Derive aircraft from the loop at the speed 370 - 380 km/h according to the instrument. Loop is carried out without the loss of height.
Time of fulfillment 26 - 28 seconds.

Immelman turn
For fulfilling the Immelman turn, having a little lowered aircraft, to drive away it to the speed of 500 km/h according to the instrument. The rate of the selection of knob to itself in the first part of the Immelman turn is the same as with the fulfillment of loop to the upper point. With reaching of the upper point, when aircraft will be located in the position "on the spin", and the line of the cowling of motor at the level of the horizon, apply foot and control column to that side, to which it is desirable to overturn aircraft.
For fulfilling the right Immelman turn knob to give smoothly as far as possible to the right, to simultaneously smoothly apply right rudder to polkhoda.
For fulfilling the left Immelman turn knob to energetically give completely to the left; to simultaneously energetically apply left rudder as far as possible.
After revolution to place controls in the neutral position in order to hold aircraft from further rotation, to apply control column several to the reverse side and to select it insignificantly to itself, without making possible for aircraft to nose down.
Speed on leaving from the Immelman turn 220 - 230 km/h according to the instrument. Climb for the Immelman turn 800 - 900 m.
Time of fulfillment 15 - 17 seconds.

Corkscrew
Only precision spin is possible on the aircraft. With the controls, been short changed half, the aircraft spins limply; with the controls, undertaken completely on the corkscrew, corkscrew is more energetic.
The aircraft into corkscrew does not enter with the selection of knob in the level flight, but at the speed of 180 km/h it is brought down to the nose. With pulling of knob on the turn, if gas is not removed, aircraft into corkscrew does not enter, but make half-rolls.
With throttled down, with pulling of knob, the aircraft on the turn is buried by nose.
Recovery from the corkscrew (for all heights)
1. with the disruption into the corkscrew not to select knob to itself, but to hold it near the neutral position.
2. for the recovery to first apply reverse rudder as far as possible and following this to apply control column from itself to the neutral position.
3. after the curtailment of the rotation of aircraft to immediately place feet neutrally, and knob to hold from itself in the position in front of the neutral.
After collecting speed 350 - 370 km/h, smoothly to leave in the level flight, it be sultrying the tendency of aircraft toward too rapid a pullout.
4. if with the pullout aircraft throws from the wing to wing, means tightened knob; to return knob from itself and to derive is more smooth.

Hill
Hill to carry out at the maximum speed of level flight. After the acceleration of aircraft to smoothly select knob to itself and to establish the undercut of approximately 60'?. Speed on the hill after the taking of aircraft to the lift should not be allowed less than 250 km/h according to the instrument. With reaching of the speed of 270 km/h according to the instrument to smoothly wring out by knob aircraft into the level flight or into the turn with the small bank into 15 - 20'? to the desired side, following so that the speed would be not less than 250 km/h according to the instrument.
Climb for the hill of approximately 1000 m. the time of fulfillment 12 - 15 seconds.

Renversement
For fulfilling the renversement from the maximum speed of level flight, smoothly selecting knob to itself, to bring aircraft to the position relative to the horizon at 70 - 80'?. With a decrease in the velocity to 230 - 220 km/h according to the instrument to completely remove throttle control and, if is carried out left renversement, to apply left rudder and simultaneously knob slightly to the right and from itself. If is carried out right renversement, on the contrary, to apply right rudder and simultaneously knob slightly to the left, also, from itself. Aircraft will bring in tail, it falls over itself and passes into the dive in the opposite direction.
Speed of conclusion 350 - 370 km/h according to the instrument.
There is no difference between the right and left renversement.
Loss of height, counting from the upper point of renversement to the output in the level flight after dive; are about 700 m.
Time of fulfillment 38 - 40 seconds.

Barrel
Barrel is carried out at the speed of 300 km/h according to the instrument without the loss of height.
Right barrels are carried out more energetically, leftists - are more slowly and with a large radius.
For the execution of right barrel it is necessary to slightly take knob for itself (to pull up of aircraft to 10 - 15'?), to apply right rudder to 3/4 motions and simultaneously knob as far as possible to the right.

INSTRUCTION TO THE PILOT
ON THE EXPLOITATION OF AIRCRAFT Caress With THE MOTOR M-82
NKAP OF THE USSR OBORONGIZ 1942



PILOTAGE to LaGG-e

Turns
Turns with bank 60 - 70'? to carry out at the speed of 320 km/h. With the fulfillment of turns to balance aircraft by trim tabs in the horizontal flight condition. By coordinated motions of knob and pedal to go into the turn; with an increase in the bank to simultaneously add gas so that with the bank 60 - 70'? gas would be given complete.
With the conclusion from the turn gas to remove to the normal. On the left bank the aircraft is attempted to increase bank, which is easy it to be sultry by knob. On turn to starboard the aircraft noses down, which is easy it to be sultry by the pedal, opposite to turn.
The aircraft is steady on the turn. With pulling of knob the aircraft loses lateral stability and it attempts to leave ie turn. With further pulling of knob the aircraft falls into a spin.
For fulfilling the turn with bank 60 - 70'? it is necessary 22 - 23 seconds.

Spiral
Spiral to carry out at the speed of 280 km/h according to the instrument to banks not more than 45'?. Aircraft on the spiral is steady.
For one turn of spiral with the retracted landing gears the aircraft loses 600 m of height.

Slip
Aircraft slides stably, without the unwinding to the side of slip, with the bank into 30'?. With the released shields slip not to produce. Speed of entry into the slip 250 - 260 km/h. The speed of conclusion - is not less than 220 km/h,
For the introduction into the slip to turn away aircraft to 10 - 15'? to the side, opposite to slip, to create bank to the side of slip and to retain aircraft from the turn by opposite pedal.
Recovery from the slip to conclude at the height not below 50 m. at this flight altitude must be rectilinear.

The chandelle
For the execution of chandelle to drive away aircraft to the maximum speed. To put aircraft into the chandelle with bank 15 - 20'?; to simultaneously increase the angle of collection and to smoothly apply full throttle.
To derive aircraft from the chandelle into the level flight at the speed of 280 km/h with working at the total horsepower.
After conclusion from the turn gas to reduce to the normal. With the fulfillment of chandelle the aircraft gains altitude of 800 m.
The aircraft is steady on the chandelle. There are no differences in the fulfillment of left and right chandelle.

Single revolution
Speed with vypolnenii of single revolution to hold 260 km/h. For the introduction into the revolution to simultaneously apply rudder to polkhoda of pedal and to the same side knob alongside several to itself (along the diagonal). In proportion to the aircraft will be turned over upward by wheels, in the position 30 - 40'? prior to inverted flight smoothly place controls on the conclusion and throttle down. To smoothly take knob several for itself and to transfer aircraft into the dive. On reaching of speed to the dives 330 - 350 km/h to smoothly derive aircraft into the level flight.
The loss of height for one revolution is 700 - 800 m. not to allow energetic motions by elevator with the recovery from the dive. Otherwise the aircraft speed independent of loses lateral stability and controllability, and the process of recovery from the dive is lengthened.

Dual revolution (barrel)
Barrel is carried out at the speed of 300 km/h. To preliminarily give to aircraft the angle of pitching 15 - 20'? and to simultaneously apply foot and control column to the side of the desired revolution and a little to itself. Aircraft will start up around its axis. 30 - 40'? prior to horizontal position to place controls on the conclusion, to apply rudder to the side, to counterrotation, for the neutral position and knob to place neutrally.
There is no difference in the fulfillment by right and left barrel, right barrel aircraft carries out limply. So that the rate of right barrel would be the same and leftist, it is necessary on the introduction more energetically to act by controls.

Loop
To balance aircraft by the elevator trim tab at the speed of 380 km/h in the horizontal flight condition.
For the rapid acceleration to drive away aircraft with the small angle of descent to the speed of 450 km/h. By the smooth motion of knob to itself to transfer aircraft into the climb regime. The load on the knob considerably decreases with the approach to the upper point of loop.
It is necessary to avoid both the pulling and nedobiraniya of knob. With pulling of knob the aircraft can make a spontaneous, incorrect Immelman turn. The radius of curvature of loop increases with nedobiranii of knob, and the speed of aircraft will be lost even to the approach to the upper point. With the unstable behavior of aircraft at the upper point of loop knob to insignificantly let go. After passage by the aircraft of the upper point of loop to throttle down by the smooth motion of knob to itself to put aircraft into the dive. Speed of pullout 330 - 350 km/h. With the correct fulfillment of loop the aircraft does not lose height.

Immelman turn
To balance aircraft by the elevator trim tab at the speed of 380 km/h in the horizontal flight condition. For fulfilling the Immelman turn it is necessary speed to have not less than 460 km/h. To the revolution at upper point Immelman turn is carried out just as first half of loop. In order not to miss the moment of revolution, to hold the head of that a little thrown back. As soon as the cowling of motor it will prove to be parallel to the horizon, to apply simultaneously foot and control column by energetic motion to the side of the desired rotation.
Controls to give to the conclusion, when aircraft does not reach the line of horizon 20 - 30'?, after which to place controls in the neutral position.
To memorize. The premature attempt to overturn aircraft will involve speed loss. The technology of the fulfillment of right and left Immelman turn is identical.
With the fulfillment of Immelman turn the aircraft gains altitude 700 - 800 m.


Renversement
Renversement at the speed more than 400 km/h is carried out. After making a hill at angle of 70 - 80'?, to bring the speed to 250 km/h, then smoothly to give foot to the side of the desired turn, knob to hold from itself and to the side, opposite to turn - aircraft will unroll to the side of this foot and will pass into the dive.
After turn on 90'? to begin to throttle down so that gas would be completely removed to the entrance into the dive.
The loss of height, counting from the upper point of hill to the output in the level flight after dive, is 700 m.

Dive
Introduction into the dive to produce from the turn or the revolution with the work of motor on the average revolutions.
Not to allow reverse overloads with the introduction into the dive to avoid the ebb of oil and gasoline in the systems.
Introduction into the dive from the hill is forbidden.
Before the introduction into the dive to ascertain that chassis is raised - burn red lamps, and mechanical indicators completely entered into the wing. To make heavy screw to 2200 - 2300 r/min.
Not to allow with the dive of the speed more than 600 km/h according to the instrument and spinup of screw is more than 2800 r/min. On the aircraft, which do not have beams on the rudder, the diving speed must not exceed 550 km/h to avoid the appearance of a flutter.
With the spinup of screw to 2800 r/min it is necessary to derive aircraft from the dive.
Aircraft dives stably. With the tendency of aircraft to increase angle or to leave the dive to balance aircraft by the elevator trim tab.
To derive aircraft from the dive is smooth.
With the dive at angle of 60'? and reaching of speed 600 kmychas according to the instrument aircraft with the conclusion loses 1400 m of height.

Corkscrew
Unpremeditated corkscrew (for all heights)
The spontaneous stalling of aircraft into the corkscrew in all cases occurs because of the error in the technology of the piloting: with pulling of knob to itself in any flight conditions (especially on the turn and with the energetic recovery from the dive).
At high altitudes, especially with the gain of altitude, when flight occurs at the high angles of attack, disruption into the corkscrew occurs sharply, aircraft spins steeply and energetically.

Regime of the corkscrew
Aircraft is torn away into the left corkscrew on the parachuting with the neutral position of pedals and the knob, undertaken fourth of motion to itself. Aircraft spins with the position of the pedal, given to fourth of motion to the side of corkscrew, and to the knob, undertaken fourth of motion to itself from the neutral position.
In the right corkscrew the aircraft is torn away from the parachuting and spins with the position of the pedal, given to half of motion to the side of corkscrew, and the knobs between the neutral and as far as possible to itself.
The aircraft revolves evenly to two turns. Knob attempts to be forced against seat. In order to hold it in the previous position, effort is required.
Aircraft spins with the inclination to the horizon at angle of 60 - 75'?; the fluctuation of the nose of aircraft in limits of 10'?.
With the disruption into the corkscrew the loss of height for one turn with the pullout at the speed of 400 km/h sets aside 600 - 700 m. the loss of height for two turns it is 1000 m. at the large loss levels of height for one turn of corkscrew with the pullout considerably more.
Left corkscrew is more energetic than right.

Recovery from the corkscrew
In order to derive aircraft from the corkscrew, it is first necessary to apply rudder as far as possible against the corkscrew, then knob from itself for the neutral position. As soon as will cease the rotation of aircraft, to immediately place pedal neutrally. The delay of pedal in the end position with the little returned knob can lead to the passage of aircraft into the reverse corkscrew.
The nonobservance of the sequence of motion by controls (foot - knob) can lead to the delay of airplane recovery.
After will cease the rotation of aircraft, in proportion to acceleration on the dive and with the pullout, aircraft spontaneously attempts to pass to the high angles of attack, moreover stick force increases. At this moment it is especially necessary to hold aircraft from the energetic passage to the high angles of attack and to derive from the dive, smoothly freeing knob.

The attempt to accelerate pullout can lead to the repeated stalling of aircraft into the corkscrew. With the accelerated pullout the aircraft throws from the wing to wing. This testifies about too prompt a motion of knob on the pullout. In similar cases to avoid repeated disruption into the corkscrew it is necessary to return a little knob from itself and then to more smoothly derive aircraft from the dive.
The aircraft on the conclusion of delay does not have and recovers from spin normally with the correct action of control surface.

Rule of deductions of aircraft from the corkscrew
(for all heights)
With stalling of aircraft into the corkscrew not to select knob to itself, but to hold it near the neutral position.
In order to derive aircraft from the corkscrew, to first apply rudder as far as possible against the rotation of aircraft and following this to return knob from itself for the neutral position.
As soon as will cease the rotation of aircraft, to immediately place pedal neutrally, and knob to detain in the position from itself after the neutral position. After collecting speed 350 - 370 km/h, to smoothly derive aircraft into the level flight, it be sultrying its tendency too rapidly to pull out.
If with the pullout aircraft throws from the wing to wing, it means conclusion it occurs sharply. In this case it is necessary to return knob from itself and to derive aircraft from the dive more smoothly.
If aircraft does not recover from spin, then, after placing controls on the conclusion, to smoothly apply full throttle.

Note. Aircraft LAGG-E, equipped with slats, commits more blunders in the technology of piloting and into corkscrew enters unwillingly.

AIRCRAFT LAGG-E
With THE MOTOR M of y0shchP and M-105PF
MILITARY PUBLISHING HOUSE OF THE PEOPLE'S COMMISSARIAT OF DEFENSE 1943



And the most important:


Lagg3:

"The aircraft is steady on the turn. With pulling of knob the aircraft loses lateral stability and it attempts to leave ie turn. With further pulling of knob the aircraft falls into a spin."

"Corkscrew

Unpremeditated corkscrew (for all heights)
The spontaneous stalling of aircraft into the corkscrew in all cases occurs because of the error in the technology of the piloting: with pulling of knob to itself in any flight conditions (especially on the turn and with the energetic recovery from the dive).
At high altitudes, especially with the gain of altitude, when flight occurs at the high angles of attack, disruption into the corkscrew occurs sharply, aircraft spins steeply and energetically."



La5:

"Turn
Turn on the aircraft is produced at the speed 330 - 340 km/h. Aircraft on the turn is steady. With pulling of knob at the turn rocking aircraft from the wing to the wing appears. With the sharp pulling of knob the disruption into the corkscrew is possible."

"In the case of speed loss on the turn and wing heaviness it is necessary to apply control column from itself and to derive aircraft into the level flight."

"Corkscrew
Only precision spin is possible on the aircraft. With the controls, been short changed half, the aircraft spins limply; with the controls, undertaken completely on the corkscrew, corkscrew is more energetic.
The aircraft into corkscrew does not enter with the selection of knob in the level flight, but at the speed of 180 km/h it is brought down to the nose. With pulling of knob on the turn, if gas is not removed, aircraft into corkscrew does not enter, but make half-rolls.
With throttled down, with pulling of knob, the aircraft on the turn is buried by nose."

A.K.Davis
06-23-2005, 11:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Note. Aircraft LAGG-E, equipped with slats, commits more blunders in the technology of piloting and into corkscrew enters unwillingly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I think that settles it.

Kwiatos
06-26-2005, 02:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Note. Aircraft LAGG-E, equipped with slats, commits more blunders in the technology of piloting and into corkscrew enters unwillingly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I think that settles it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How about these in La5 with slots:

"Turn
Turn on the aircraft is produced at the speed 330 - 340 km/h. Aircraft on the turn is steady. With pulling of knob at the turn rocking aircraft from the wing to the wing appears. With the sharp pulling of knob the disruption into the corkscrew is possible."


"With the sharp pulling of knob the disruption into the corkscrew is possible."

IvanoBulo
06-26-2005, 03:00 AM
Please pay attention to this too:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Revolution
Revolution is carried out at the speed of 250 km/h by the smooth motion of knob. Speed on the conclusion 350 - 370 km/h. Loss of height for the revolution 700 - 800 m. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just took regular La-5 with 100% of fuel at 3000m to reproduce.
At the conclusion the speed is a bit more then 400km/h and the loss of height is only 500m.

Will test other manuvers...

Also tested "Loop Of shaviara" on the same La-5. It took 23 seconds and the speed at the end of the loop was 440 km/h.

So comparing with Kwiatos's info La-5 greatly overmodeled...

Kwiatos
06-27-2005, 01:32 PM
I made short test not much detalided because i read IAS from speedbar (i think ab. 10km/h margine of error). PF 4.01 version
Default load:100% fuel, ammo, clean configuration, power 0%.

Spitfire MK VB - 130 km - too high stall speed comp. to RL (73mph=118 km/h)!!!
Spitfire MK IXC - 140 km/h - correct

Bf 109 F-4 - 140km/h
G-2 - 130/140 km/h !
G-6 - 140 km/h !!!
G-10 - 140 km/h!!!!!!!
K-4 - 140 km/h!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LA5 - 150 km/h - too low stall speed comp. to RL -180km/h !!!
La5fn - 160 km/h !!!!
LA7 - 140 km/h !!!!!!!!!!

P-51B - 160km/h
P-51D - 170 km/h
P-47D - 170/180km/h

Fw190 A-4 - 170km/h
A-8 - 180 km/h
D-9 -180/190 km/h


Concluding my test and in my opinion some planes have too slow stall speed - Bf 109 later models, La5 family.
Some planes have too high stall speed like Spitfire MK V.

I think that that these should be definetly checked and fixed by Oleg M and 1C.


So we see that stall speed of some important planes are not correct. If there is a bug with stall speed and bug with acceleration stall of planes with slots i think that we have some serious SHORTCOMING IN FM OF 4.01!!!

Wolf-Strike
06-27-2005, 02:15 PM
so there is a differenece in stall speeds....i didnt think that was modeledmthanks kwiatos.

Kwiatos
06-28-2005, 09:55 AM
Some more about stall speed planes in RL and PF.


---------------------PF 4.01---------RL

Fw 190 A-4----------170 km/h-------204 km/h---30 km diffrence

Bf 109 G-2----------130 km/h-------155 km/h---25 km

La5-----------------150 km/h-------180 km/h---30 km

Spitfire MKV--------130 km/h-------118 km/h---12 km

Spitfire MK IX------140 km/h-------144 km/h---4 km

Kwiatos
06-29-2005, 12:08 PM
Probably there is some error in translation books expecialy about tested FW190 by Eric Brown where is that Fw190 A-4 had 204 km/h stall speed. I found brithis documentcs where is that Fw 190 A probably A-3 or A-4 have 110 mph stall speed which is 177 km/h. I think that in some books and raports is bug and instead 110 mph (177 km/h) there is 110 knots (204 km/h).

So backing to test game vs real life we have:

Fw190 A-4:
in game - ab. 170 km/h
in RL - 177 km/h

So Fw 190 should be ok in stall speed.

But still is problem with:
- Bf 109 - for sure sth is incorrect with later models
- La 5/7 family - i dont have detailed info about RL stall speed. I think that 180 km/h could be too high for LA5.

Kwiatos
06-29-2005, 12:26 PM
I found Mustang III stall speed from manual:

RL - 90 mph - 145 km/h) clean configuration

Game - 170 km/h

WWMaxGunz
06-29-2005, 02:11 PM
Physics based FM is a great idea for making real type handling. So you pour in the real weights
and thrusts as close as you can figure, the real physical details you can get and....

The planes don't have the historic top speeds, climbs, etc, that chart waving fans want.
It just won't happen like that. Close performance but not real close everywhere is the price
for realistic handling.

But the fans won't let up because... it's just so important that plane X is N mph faster than Y!
Not to mention the rest of the charts here, there's too many.

So the values get "tweaked" until the FM gets stretched and crunched to fit the charts except
it can't, get the ones that matter at combat speeds close and the rest fall where they may.

I've seen it once before. Hope everyone likes where chart and table demands get ya.

Buzzsaw-
06-29-2005, 03:34 PM
Salute Kwiatos

Thanks for confirming what my own testing discovered.

Basically, most aircraft are pretty close to what they should be, with a couple of glaring exceptions, those being the late, (G2 and later) 109's and all the slat equipped La-5/5fn/7 and LaGG-3 series. The Spit IX and VIII also probably stall at slightly lower speeds than they should.

The 109 and La series basically throw out the entire modelling for the sim.

Max likes to talk about the physics engine, but in fact there is clearly something wrong with how the FM engine deals with how slats affect stalls. While certainly it is clear that these devices mitigate the onset of stall, as well as facilitating recovery, they DO NOT cancel out the major result of an aircraft entering stall, that being a departure from controlled flight.

WWMaxGunz
06-30-2005, 05:49 AM
That's because entry into stall is not any guarantee of departure from control, only the
loss of ability to maintain alt power off. TxEcoDragon posted here about flying controlled
falling leaf stalls and other stalls. MANY other pilots here have written about flying
through stalls while losing alt and not losing control. There is an entire thread studded
with such posts in the GD from before 4.0 about not being able to stall without losing
control and going into spins being wrong.

But those are just many real pilots saying that 'theoretical' garbage they must hallucinate
because you know better from a short passage in Flying Black Six and perhaps inspiration?

If the weights and other parameters of the planes have been tweaked enough, and as above I
do say they have, then how they fly does not invalidate the FM itself. It invalidates the
tweaks and as I say above, points to the problems of trying to stretch fit a good handling
FM to a bunch of chart numbers.

gkll
07-01-2005, 12:01 AM
Max I agree with most of your last post, the record shows I have said many of the same things myself... but as time passes I start to have sympathy for those stretching for the tweaks to their bird... each patch is a bit of a thrill to take out the favorite ride amd see how she goes..

Great FM beta04 and 401, generally however I'll reserve judgement on relative tnb perf until I have maybe 10 hours in. For starts though, with my regular flying buds all the old rankings hold true.....

except a highly unpleasant experience involving my sparring partner in a (slat-equipped?) late lagg3... me in my fav spit... shot down 5 times in a row.... ouch

Our tnb are pretty variable however I was beat on turning rate issues, not bad tactics it seemed to me.

slats anyone? still it could all easily be in our heads ha ha - we should let the fm settle.

&lt;edit I believe there were some special and secret spitfires made with slats - could we please have this version oleg please please..&gt;

WWMaxGunz
07-01-2005, 06:02 PM
Those must be the wooden Spitfires....

I don't get the feel of a need to preserve energy, especially speed, very much since FB.
You get slow and you can still jink which to me is just wrong let alone the climbs, turns
and ability to peel out.

That coupled with the disappearing plane LOD's just make a joke of realistic veterans
tactics in these planes. Slow it down a little more, add the right biplanes; we can
have a nice WWI sim without changing tactics at all.

I'm done flying this thing for a while. The EAW FM might be wrong but it's just in
different places AFAIC. At least when I ran that, the tactics that worked were more
real than now and that just kinda burns me up. Not that I fly EAW now, but when I can
compare to it in those terms it doesn't make me feel very good.