PDA

View Full Version : How serious factor was the torque in slow speeds really? (a few thoughts)



F19_Ob
09-16-2005, 02:28 AM
I remember some torque related reading.......a few examples:

1. A p51d was hard to even fly straight in really slow speed and almost full rudder was required. Still the aircraft wanted to depart. This was especially troublesome with full fuselagetank and climbing after takeoff, where spinning p51's wasn't too uncommon.


2. Mark hanna liked the slowspeed characteristics of the 109, and the gentle stall made it more suitable for lowspeed maneuvers than the p51 for example.
The 109 also required almost full rudder in slow speeds as the p51 but the p51 really was better suitable at high speeds and high altitudes.
Mark flew spits aswell but thought the 109's lowspeed handling was nicer although the spit won in turn(his opinion) 109 and spit = very close.

3. most p38 pilots liked the no torque-feature of the counterrotating engines wich enabled them to climb away from single engined fighters (often at slow speed).
The 109 pulls to the left from the torque wich makes slow steep climbs to the right specially hard, and although the 109 is one of the better lowspeed handlers of its cotemporaries in the same class, it couldn't follow a p38 easily in this move, climbing steeply to the right from slow speeds, wich was smooth and easy to perform in the p38 and they could hold it to the edge.
Single engined fighters couldn't do this and was thrown out of the climb close to stall.
Some p38 pilots used this repetedly to get away from attacking 109's.



In my opinion there are no such benefits of less torque in the p38, and I have no troubles climbing and hanging in my prop in above singleengined fighters, wich leads me to the question; Is the torque still too gentle in single-engined fighters in the sim?

Ruy Horta
09-16-2005, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by F19_Ob:
The 109 pulls to the left from the torque wich makes slow steep climbs to the right specially hard, and although the 109 is one of the better lowspeed handlers of its cotemporaries in the same class, it couldn't follow a p38 easily in this move, climbing steeply to the right from slow speeds

You should not overlook that it is easier to make a left hand turn looking over your left shoulder with your left hand on the throttle and right hand on the stick. The coordination is more natural than that of a right hand (combat) turn while rubbernecking.

Just try it yourself, it is an easy test.

3.JG51_BigBear
09-16-2005, 11:28 AM
Although I don't think torque is to realistic levels yet, I do feel pleasently surprised when I find I'm not giving almost constant rudder input when I sit in a P-38 or ME262. Its one less thing to thing about. And in tight manuevers where a single engined fighter might snap over a wing, a plane like the P-38 with counter rotating props will pull itself through quite nicely.

F19_Ob
09-17-2005, 02:38 AM
Well , I guess that the lesser torque is an adaptation to the market aswell.
Full rudder often would likely result in worn joysticks and perhaps pedals too.
Some of my earlier twiststicks got the rudder spring bent so finally it gave constant rudder when stick was released.

Grey_Mouser67
09-17-2005, 12:15 PM
The torque is there, but the original poster did point out some shortcomings in the programming.

I seriously doubt that the current FM supports the mathmatical calculations and manages the variables that affect all these things....

Some obvious examples...gun your engine at take off...torque does not seem to change with speed and altitude properly. Some aircraft like the finless P-47 should slip sideways when landing if too much throttle is added...of course the original poster really pointed out where it is weakest...left hand vs right hand turns and climbs...I see some planes hang on their props when they aught to be spinning like propeller themselve from torque with little air over the control surfaces...that sort of thing.

I wouldn't dispare...this is a beta FM for BoB and I suspect that Oleg will put much more into that FM than this one and it will surely not be perfect but much closer than anything we've had so far.

The only thing I've had a hard time with with the yaw and pitch oscillations with heavy aircraft and the control dampening of others...4.02 should be revealing because there are not quantitative nor qualitative arguements that I can find to explain those things...I have to assume at this time that the FM just needed more tuning...we shall see shortly.

IL2-chuter
09-17-2005, 02:40 PM
As a pilot I have a lot issues with the edges of the flight model's envelope (one flight model with variations for each aircraft). "Torque" is another interesting effect. Still, it's an amazingly entertaining game that comes closer than any other to the complexities of flight. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif