PDA

View Full Version : Extreme climb angles...



robban75
01-19-2005, 06:17 AM
Hi everyone!

I've been doing some testings when it comes to climb angles for certain planes. Especially the Spitfire MkIXc and the 109G-2. It is now possible to climb at a 40-45 degree nose-up attitude at an airspeed ranging from 150-170km/h up 5000m. Realistic or not I don't know, however, what strikes me is that there is no need for any rudder input whatsoever. The planes climb almost straight as an arrow.
Also, I have a track where I perform a full loop with an entry speed of just 230km/h in a Spit IXc, also there's hardly any need for rudder input. I'm sure this can be replicated with other fighters aswell, but for now I have concentrated on these two.

Could this be correct? I have some 260h in in Cessnas, Mooneys and Pipers and so on, and none of these are as gentle(especially the Mooney) in this aspect as these WW2 fighters planes.

robban75
01-19-2005, 06:17 AM
Hi everyone!

I've been doing some testings when it comes to climb angles for certain planes. Especially the Spitfire MkIXc and the 109G-2. It is now possible to climb at a 40-45 degree nose-up attitude at an airspeed ranging from 150-170km/h up 5000m. Realistic or not I don't know, however, what strikes me is that there is no need for any rudder input whatsoever. The planes climb almost straight as an arrow.
Also, I have a track where I perform a full loop with an entry speed of just 230km/h in a Spit IXc, also there's hardly any need for rudder input. I'm sure this can be replicated with other fighters aswell, but for now I have concentrated on these two.

Could this be correct? I have some 260h in in Cessnas, Mooneys and Pipers and so on, and none of these are as gentle(especially the Mooney) in this aspect as these WW2 fighters planes.

Hetzer_II
01-19-2005, 07:06 AM
Hehe the magic prop syndrom.....

WWMaxGunz
01-19-2005, 07:48 AM
Turn smoke on and see where the plane is going.

Maybe it's because of all the posts about stalls a ways back?

BBB_Hyperion
01-19-2005, 08:05 AM
Sounds unrealistic .)

LEXX_Luthor
01-19-2005, 08:06 AM
Yup, turn smoke on, and use external view. Plane may be mushing -- not climbing at 45 degree flight path.

Also, if your tests show [or do not show] the same thing with Brewster, Bf~109Email, Hurricane, G.50, I~16, MiG~3, etc...then you are doing real tests. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

robban75
01-19-2005, 08:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Turn smoke on and see where the plane is going.

Maybe it's because of all the posts about stalls a ways back? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I'm aware of the AoA, and that's what puzzles me, as no rudder input is needed even at these low airspeeds. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/robban75/spitclimb5.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/robban75/spitclimb4.jpg

robban75
01-19-2005, 08:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Also, if your tests show [or do not show] the same thing with Brewster, Bf~109Email, Hurricane, G.50, I~16, MiG~3, etc...then you are doing real tests. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm getting there LEXX! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

LEXX_Luthor
01-19-2005, 08:42 AM
Ya, we hardly need rudder for takeoff torque, so this is not surprising. I see your point about lack of rudder needed in slow high power climb. In fact I often fly feet off rudder except during gun aim and landing/takeoff now that I think of it -- on planes with rudder trim at least. Oleg is very aware of the problem. Don't think we will get heavy torque in this sim, hopefully for BoB and Beyond.

Read story of P~38 pilot caught low and slow with half a dozen Fw~190 behind him. P~38 climbed turned and looked back and saw all the Fw with fully deflected rudder trying to match P~38, then one by one all the Fw flipped over upside down out of control. During one of the Romanian raids I think.

JG5_UnKle
01-19-2005, 10:06 AM
No way a high HP fighter can climb like that at low airspeed (esp. just over stall speed) and not be affected by torque.

This is one of the major beefs that BnZ pilots have, the guy you just passed can pitch up and get a gun solution on you as you climb away http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

A while back JaRa did some climb comparisons and found you only lost an average of 20% climbrate by climbing at very low speeds (vs optimum climb speed) which is very suspect IMHO.

This might have been adjusted in 3.03 but the Torque hasn't, like LEXX_Luthor said - it probably won't http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

robban75
01-19-2005, 10:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
A while back JaRa did some climb comparisons and found you only lost an average of 20% climbrate by climbing at very low speeds (vs optimum climb speed) which is very suspect IMHO.

This might have been adjusted in 3.03 but the Torque hasn't, like LEXX_Luthor said - it probably won't http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Climbing at this speed and angle the Spit IXc reached 5000m in 4:38, whereas at best climbspeed it's 3:53. So at least it is worse, but not dramatically worse I'm afraid.

Scen
01-19-2005, 10:30 AM
Ummm

There are many things that aren't very realistic about flying this sim and torque is one of them.

Although this sim is probable the most complex and realistic WWII sim to date it flys nothing like a real airplane. And yes I'm a real pilot and I have quite a bit of acrobatic time in tail draggers and high performance airplanes. Not WWII stuff but enough to know how a plane feels and works.

I've never liked the stalls spins or the strange torque effects. They are the best when it comes to a commercial WWII sim but they are not realistic.

I'm sure there is a ton of compromise given we are running the sim on PCs and the sheer number of aircraft modeled you can't get it perfect there just isnt' enough horsepower in a PC.

Keep one thing in mind this is entertainment software and not an industrial flight sim.

Scendore

LEXX_Luthor
01-19-2005, 10:59 AM
Ya, in our beginning Baby Circuits course, we used a free Student Version of P-Spice, an electrical circuit simulator for Windows.

The real thing cost maybe 10,000 dollars. And companies Pay for it.

It was cool though, I called the P~Spice people and they sent me a CD, and I played with it before the course started. TWO WEEKS into the 8 week summer course, everybody else suddenly discovered they didn't have the P-Spice yet, and they Panicked worse then FB Luftwhiner seeing pre~releace screenshot of TB~3/I~16 Zveno combination for the first time (some 1946 Russian thing, has to be). No, I won't loan out my CD to anybody. I did much P~Spice tutoring though. Calling and asking them to send you a free CD is so simple, and only I thought of it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Come to think of it, Full Mission Builder For Windows is very similar to P-Spice circuit building. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
01-19-2005, 05:00 PM
Robban, that top picture shows me the same thing that I reported on SimHQ with the
P-38 when 3.0 came out, only I was cutting it closer to stall and the smoke angle
was flatter but about the same speed, 105mph, and in P-38J still getting very good
climb over half of best climb. Are these props really able to pull that much?

Really, is thrust heavy enough that the forward and up vectors could nearly account
for what the wing doesn't and drag does? HALLO, OLEG? Please say something!
Till then, I don't pretend to know if or how much but . it . don't . look . right .

faustnik
01-19-2005, 05:18 PM
Neal,

I don't know the technical description but, in 3.04 the planes seem to "float" at the top of zoom climbs. Is this caused by what you are talking about?

It effects all planes that I have tried so, it's not like anybosy gets and unfair advantage.

p1ngu666
01-19-2005, 05:32 PM
robban how did u get on with the g2? i flew it awhile ago and it was really surprising in helicopter climb

it worsenes the slow speed climb advantage of ki43 for example, and if u bnz 109s, cos they climb so good they can climb right up at u :\

also the speed bleed is slight on these very steep climbs, if u pull up into them

TX-EcoDragon
01-19-2005, 05:38 PM
Not a new problem. . . since FB was released we've seen this in varrying degrees, there is very little induced drag with teh increase in angle of attack, and this manifests itself in the way you describe, as well as much better than expected climb rates at speeds other than best rate of climb speed (Vy), and renders vertical maneuvers such as the spiral climb type figure much less effective if done in the conventional way. At this point I feel like the addition of carrier ops complicates things even more. . . I will have higher hopes that this is fixed in BOB, as I think the game engine is limited in this regard, however I do remember that this was not nearly as much of an issue in original IL-2.

WUAF_Badsight
01-19-2005, 09:18 PM
so .. . .

all eyes on the new guy BoB then is it ?

WWMaxGunz
01-19-2005, 09:22 PM
I really believe that it was in response to the howling cries that certain planes and
the FW's most especially had too much speed bleed, that German planes were unfairly
singled out, bias and worse. Whining is easier than learning how to fly right.

Simple that with IL2 if you didn't pull any plane in too hard a turn it was good and
energy fighting tactics played out much better. If you crossed the edge, it showed.
If you had a plane that could build and store energy better, it paid off only if you
kept from blowing it but it paid off better.

IMHO the crowd proved one thing, that flying had to be made easier and more to expectations.
That's the way it's went ever since even with other FM improvements and refinements, the
falseness of needing to turn easier than it should keeps showing up.

JG5_UnKle
01-20-2005, 10:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TX-EcoDragon:
Not a new problem. . . since FB was released we've seen this in varrying degrees, there is very little induced drag with teh increase in angle of attack, and this manifests itself in the way you describe, as well as much better than expected climb rates at speeds other than best rate of climb speed (Vy), and renders vertical maneuvers such as the spiral climb type figure much less effective if done in the conventional way. At this point I feel like the addition of carrier ops complicates things even more. . . I will have higher hopes that this is fixed in BOB, as I think the game engine is limited in this regard, however I do remember that this was not nearly as much of an issue in original IL-2. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Word! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

MIGHAIL
01-20-2005, 10:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Turn smoke on and see where the plane is going.

Maybe it's because of all the posts about stalls a ways back? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I'm aware of the AoA, and that's what puzzles me, as no rudder input is needed even at these low airspeeds. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/robban75/spitclimb5.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/robban75/spitclimb4.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hi, u make wrong test, look at smoke, this say what u get around 10deg aoa, is extracritical!!! lets test it 90deg atitude and u can fly 0deg aoa, and ur engine will winer of gravity and ur wing no any more make troble 4 fly craft, ,, guys, say befor but againe,
thru beetwin, no 270km/h(how example) optimal if u use no full load tank is wil slower, cuz wingload will lower, no 270km/h with max power, cuz for climb no use wep, buuuuuuut, no how now,, 45 attitude, speed 160 tas, and just 10 aoa? i just lamer, god c

WWMaxGunz
01-20-2005, 07:29 PM
I've done my looking at with full fuel. And AOA is AOA regardless of weight.
The planes have been flying with high lift right down to the edge of stall,
just barely above buffets.

BBB_Hyperion
01-21-2005, 09:34 AM
Here a test track with spit 3.04

www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/spitixhf44climb.zip (http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/spitixhf44climb.zip)

@faustnik chk pm cwos

faustnik
01-21-2005, 09:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:

@faustnik chk pm cwos <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Got it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Buzzsaw-
01-21-2005, 11:06 AM
Salute

When you talk about performing acrobatics in aircraft and you speak of the 109G2 and Spit IXc in the same breath, suggesting they both are overmodelled, you are comparing apples and oranges.

The Spit IXc had FAR better wingloading, better powerloading, and better turn circle at low speeds. (which would allow it to loop in a tighter circumference circle)

The G2 had a powerloading of .216 hp per lb based on a weight of 6820 lbs driven by 1475 hp. (and that is assuming the G2 has the higher boost engine, when in fact it wasn't approved till '44) The Spit IXc at +18 boost had a powerloading of .223 hp per pound based on a weight of 7440 lbs driven by 1660 hp.

The G2 had a wingloading of 39.5 lbs per Sq/ft based on a weight of 6820 lbs and a wing area of 172.73 Sq/ft. The Spit IXc had a wingloading of 30.75 lbs per Sq/ft based on a weight of 7440 lbs and a wing area of 242 Sq/ft.

BBB_Hyperion
01-21-2005, 12:10 PM
Just trying to figure out what buzzaw- tries to say ... well dont get it.

Question is :Was this extreme climb ability possible irl ? If not shouldnt be in the sim. Thats for all planes not only spit. I noticed same on K4 ta etc .

Does someone have a windtunnel aoa table data for spit ix wing or g2 ?