PDA

View Full Version : Thanks for the Torque and inertia...good job IMO



Blackdog5555
06-11-2005, 07:09 PM
To Dev team...great job on the engine and prop torque. The P47 actually feels like it weighs 7 tons as its ineria causes it to slide in its turn. The no torque "late" P38L is worth the price of admission. Ground handling is just like as the ole pilots state..

on the F4U
""One "vice" plagued the Corsair throughout its production run. At low speeds, the huge R2800 engine produced huge amounts of torque. If an inexperience pilot jammed the throttle to the firewall on takeoff, the torque could easily twist the airplane onto its back and "ruin the pilot's afternoon." This tendency earned the Corsair the nickname "Ensign Eliminator." Experienced pilots said the F4U was no more challenging to fly than any other high-performance fighter then in service." End quote"

you need to use full rudder on the F4U on take off just like IRL..


You now need to trim the planes all the time just like in real life. ....

i can feel the winds aloft....man what a blast..

new high benchmark IMO. persons with no proper rudder control need not apply!...Only thing missing is the map of the "slot"....

VF-29_Sandman
06-11-2005, 07:23 PM
take-off's are more of a challenge now..and equalizing the damage caused by aaa fire makes it alot more realistic. 4 stars on this patch http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

F4U_Flyer
06-11-2005, 08:00 PM
.Only thing missing is the map of the "slot"....

since i havent got the patch yet , i agree 100% with this remark! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

mortoma
06-11-2005, 09:58 PM
I feel some or all of the Yaks have too much torque now though. But I do agree with most people who say they like the FM. As far as the YAKs, I think they already had quite a bit of torque before and only needed a touch more. But the extra torque was added across the board to all aircraft,
leaving some with too much. I don't think the Yaks should have any more torque reactions than the Me-109s or similar planes. But now they have too much ( IMO ) and are a bit on the squirrely side. Hane never flown a real one but should they have a lot more than a 109?? I doubt it unless they swung a heavier prop or something.

Blackdog5555
06-12-2005, 12:03 AM
For taking off I just make sure the tailwheel is locked and use alot of rudder...once airborne and up to speed- no problemo...IMO I dont feel the gyro effect of the prop when i nose up. Im not sure if its coded but watching planes slide slip and skid in front of me is fantastic.

Yaks should have some torque..a Yak 3 with monster 1300hp in a 6000lb plane with a 30ft wing span should be squirrly.

here is a clip of a Yak 3s torque causing its demise at a Reno race.


"after speaking with numerous eye witnesses it appeared that during take-off Jim caught a cross-wind which sent the Yak-3M towards the far side of the runway - actually causing his left main gear to come off of the tarmac and onto the sand/gravel apron. Faced with what obviously would have been a bad situation getting worse, Jim tried to apply power and get the aircraft aloft..... however he was too low on airspeed to make it work. Soon after the aircraft was aloft - engine torque caused his aircraft to pitch to the left and nose-in, cart wheeling several times and eventually coming to rest some distance away from the runway. Amazingly enough Jim escaped any serious injury - hopping out of the stricken aircraft moments after it came to a full stop on the desert floor. " Mark Kallio"
http://www.samolet.co.uk/yankyaks.html



"

mortoma
06-12-2005, 11:35 AM
Well after flying some Yaks again I now feel it's only the Yak-9B bomber version that has too much torque, the others are ok. But that Yak-9B is a squirrely critter, that's for sure. Try flying it with and without bombload, let me know what you think. I find it unstable even in regular flight, making it require absolute concentration to keep in formation with AI aircraft. I can do it but it's grueling, whereas I can fly nearly perfect formation in a 109 and chew gum at the same time..

archie3101
06-12-2005, 01:08 PM
i do enjoy the challenge of flying this sim, but i think that the new patch went a bit far with torque. IMO more torque was needed from the 3.04 but not to the extent of 4.0

arch

BluesmanSF
06-12-2005, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by archie3101:
i do enjoy the challenge of flying this sim, but i think that the new patch went a bit far with torque. IMO more torque was needed from the 3.04 but not to the extent of 4.0

arch

I haven't tried all the planes, still I'm extremely grateful of the new FM, the torgue is just great IMO, perhaps even too minor in roe exemple F4U, because it is said to flip itself when the throttle is yanked at 100% too fast..

msalama
06-12-2005, 02:22 PM
Too much torque? Naaah... U just gotta trim properly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But is the current amount historically correct, and thus realistic? You tell me. But _only_ if you've got some RL experience with these birds, because everyone can always guess...

Eraser_tr
06-12-2005, 03:23 PM
I think they got fighters like the corsair and P-47 correct torque wise, but inadvertently $%^ed up planes with less powerful engines by having too much torque.

mortoma
06-12-2005, 10:35 PM
Anybody tried the Yak-9B fighter-bomber?? It is one insane puppy in the torque department. Considering it was underpowered and heavy, it probably should get a torque reduction. I can think of no reason it would have more torque than similar fighters, but it sure does.

IL2-chuter
06-13-2005, 01:36 AM
As far as the Corsair torque is concerned . . . (I don't have the patch installed) . . . Beside the torque effect on roll (which, by itself wouldn't likely roll a non-stalled airplane) there is the propwash effect on the inboard wings: At full throttle and slow speed the left inboard wing has a very high angle of attack and the right wing has a much lower angle of attack (the propwash twisting around the fuselage). When planes were just above stall and aborted landing with full throttle the suddenly increased AOA on the left inboard wing could stall it and the stall could creep outboard a bit (or a lot, made worse by opposite aileron which could lead to stalling the left outboard wing) causing the "torque roll" (made worse by the engine torque). This is (partly) why the stall strip was added to the right wing outboard of the propwash. As long as you have a few MPH cushion above stall speed you shouldn't have any more difficulty with torque roll than the vast majority of Corsair pilots that were waved-off and went to full power and didn't tip over (that was the procedure, by the way).

And now, to fire up the wayback machine . . . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif