PDA

View Full Version : Want to get a taste of present-day dogfighting? Fly the Lerche



SterlingX
04-29-2009, 03:33 AM
I was on a jet server the other day, and I got into a dogfight with a he-162. I was in a Lerche and we eventually ended up flying in a circle at ground level. The Lerche turns just as well as the He-162 and I must have gone around the circle three or more times when it hit me: why am I doing this? I am flying an aircraft with better than 1 thrust-to-weight ratio! So I pointed the nose vertically upwards and off I went like a rocket, the he-162 tried to follow briefly, shot a bit, missed (I was too far up by that time) and fell out the sky.
So that got me thinking about what present day dogfighting might be like. What if the other guy had been flying a Lerche too? He'd have zapped me with a rocket or the guns; it seems to me that with better than 1 T:W ratio all dogfight becomes linear (in the line of travel-fighting), and everything is scissoring and barrel-rolling. You can't just use more height to escape in a zone of invulnerability, because an opponent with better than 1 T:W can point his nose in any direction at any time regardless of his E-state, and keep it there, especially with thrust vectoring.
If it had been two Lerches dogfighting, we'd be scissoring all the way up to 5K, or reducing throttle to zero briefly then going full throttle, trying to get _behind_ one another, which is the opposite of what WW2-era BnZ is, at least in-game. Normally you zoom as straight as possible to reach more height than your opponent.
In other words, with better than 1 T:W all axis become nearly equivalent to one another and you are close to dogfighting in space. The aircraft with better T:W will still win in the vertical, but that's because it can reach the same zero forward speed max alt with more maneuvering than an aircraft with less T:W.

na85
04-29-2009, 03:45 AM
Flying the Lerche is like playing X-wing vs TIE Fighter.

general_kalle
04-29-2009, 03:51 AM
based on my Lock on Experience.

If you use Missiles you rarily dogfight..mostly the engagement happens before the planes merge,
altitude is good because it will increase your missile range and decrease your opponents as the missile has to climb...for dogfighting its all about keeping your optimal turn speed, thats all there is to it. unless you have the faster plane.

CUJO_1970
04-29-2009, 05:54 AM
The Lerche doesn't belong in ANY server IMO.

If someone wanted simulate the earth being invaded by aliens, then I suppose the Lerche could represent the aliens.

SterlingX
04-29-2009, 06:37 AM
That's beside the point. Even if the in-game Lerche isn't 100% what the real Lerche might have been, both are still >1 T:W aircraft, like contemporary fighter airplanes.
If the game engine could faithfully model a Lerche that would fly the same way in RL as in game (if made and debugged), then I would still have described that very same gaming experience and would have said the same things as here. Because the difference wouldn't be T:W, it would be differences in general handling, compared to what we have now.
A real Lerche, had it been made to fly, would have been flown in a dogfight like a present day fighter is, by virtue of T:W alone.

DuxCorvan
04-29-2009, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by SterlingX:
That's beside the point. Even if the in-game Lerche isn't 100% what the real Lerche might have been, both are still >1 T:W aircraft, like contemporary fighter airplanes.
If the game engine could faithfully model a Lerche that would fly the same way in RL as in game (if made and debugged), then I would still have described that very same gaming experience and would have said the same things as here. Because the difference wouldn't be T:W, it would be differences in general handling, compared to what we have now.
A real Lerche, had it been made to fly, would have been flown in a dogfight like a present day fighter is, by virtue of T:W alone.

A real Lerche would have never flown, less achieved production.

It's a design full of flaws, and most likely inviable.

triad773
04-29-2009, 09:51 AM
Lerch = Luftfantasy

The most 'toylike' aspect of IL-2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Choctaw111
04-29-2009, 10:11 AM
Although the Lerche is fun, it would not have flown. Oleg had to double the power of the engines before it would lift off, plus a couple of design issues had to be overcome.

mortoma
04-29-2009, 11:20 AM
I could never land the thing. If I can't land it, I ain't flyin' it......

Mr_Zooly
04-29-2009, 11:29 AM
landing is easier than I expected.

Urufu_Shinjiro
04-29-2009, 02:00 PM
Most people who can't land the Lerche hasn't read the readme file. You have to point the nose straight up then engage the airbrakes, this will act as a sort of vertical autopilot, just let go of the stick and start working the throttle to slowly descend, it's kinda fun to land. Doesn't work when you're damaged much though.

SterlingX
04-29-2009, 02:10 PM
@Dux & Choctaw
The general design is viable, because thrust-to-weight is not a matter of engine power, it is rather a matter of propeller diameter in the same way a car engine can be geared to give you any torque at the wheels. Good power-to-weight ratio is desirable in order to keep propeller diameter low, otherwise it would become a helicopter.
Here's a more modern example/concept:

http://www.esotec.co.nz/hb/HTML/HomePage2_F.html
http://www.esotec.co.nz/hb/HTML/SA.html

M_Gunz
04-29-2009, 02:30 PM
Thrust for piston engine planes being power divided by speed, how is power not a limit?

SterlingX
04-29-2009, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Thrust for piston engine planes being power divided by speed, how is power not a limit?

I suppose a real flying Lerche may have had propellers that are up to 1,5 times bigger and a lower top speed, given the same engines, but a lower top speed might still be high enough to place it in the same top speed range as the best WW2 conventional designs.

DuxCorvan
04-29-2009, 05:05 PM
Oh yes, so we only need propellers the size of a stadium to have a 'viable' design... Of course, structural and material endurance are not a problem, nor is it manufacture or maintenance, not to talk about operational using.

Of course, doing many unlikely things you can get the thing to fly, but you can do it also with Ader's Éole or Leonardo's designs.

Come on, that was just Heinkel's toilet paper. As a theoretic study is too fine. Theoretically. No way that thing could have worked around WW2 era.

Nor beyond. How many Lerche-inspired aircraft do you see around?

DrHerb
04-29-2009, 05:13 PM
Anything with a ducted fan http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

However, that might have been invented before the Lerche, Im just too lazy to research it at the moment

Choctaw111
04-29-2009, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:


Nor beyond. How many Lerche-inspired aircraft do you see around?

Ooh, Ooh, I know the answer

R_Target
04-29-2009, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by triad773:
Lerch = Luftfantasy

The most 'toylike' aspect of IL-2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Indeed. The novelty wore off after about.......



.......two weeks. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

tagert
04-29-2009, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by SterlingX:
Even if the in-game Lerche isn't 100% what the real Lerche might have been
I don't know if I should laugh or cry?

See.. here is a perfect example of why the HISTORY CH should be banned!

They show an animated 'SECRET WEAPONS' story where they pose questions like..

What if monkeys with red hats and ray guns flew out of Hitler's but in 42?

And the next thing you know someone is posting statements like The Lerche was a viable design! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

When in fact the Lerche is the king of the fantasy planes that never made it off the napkin it was scribbled on..

let alone a blue print..
let alone a model machup..
let alone a wind tunnel..
let alone a prototype..
let alone production!

deepo_HP
04-29-2009, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by tagert:
I don't know if I should laugh or cry?

don't bother about not knowing... do both.


Originally posted by tagert:
When in fact the Lerche is the king of the fantasy planes that never made it off the napkin they were scribbled on!
that is hardly an argument. many planes never made it to production, for many reasons.

i am sure, the lerche wouldn't have flown at the level when development stopped. i have no clue, which flaws there were and i don't watch 'channels' of any kind.
however, i remember a model, which had been made for a diploma at my university (other institute) for windchannel-studies of the wing-profile and concluding approximate calculations for the thrust needed. by my fading memory, the study didn't find principal flaws in the aerodynamics. they had a rc-version as well, where controls had issues... don't know how well it worked.


if you have recovered from laughing and crying, you could perhaps give me some insight, what your concerns about the design are? not to argue about the early state, the project was stopped or what kind of representation we have ingame. just to know, why you get emotional about what i'd find an interesting, or at least creative thought.
as i said, i have only a hearsay of an anecdote and not much knowledge, but i can't see the connection to monkeys right now. or is it the way, your creativity is expressed?

M_Gunz
04-29-2009, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by SterlingX:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Thrust for piston engine planes being power divided by speed, how is power not a limit?

I suppose a real flying Lerche may have had propellers that are up to 1,5 times bigger and a lower top speed, given the same engines, but a lower top speed might still be high enough to place it in the same top speed range as the best WW2 conventional designs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Given untweaked engines...

Look at the vertical performance of piston-engine helicopters even in the 50's with better engines.
They flew at all but were quite limited.
Given that thrust drops pretty much directly with speed, how fast can it go straight up with engines that
may not be able to lift it at all or do so slowly from zero? Could it reach 180 kph going up in order
to rotate into horizontal flight? I seriously doubt it.

I looked at the Hummingbird pages and saw the RC models btw. I've seen video of an RC flying lawnmower too.
Power to weight in the RC world is well beyond even what Oleg and the devs did to the Lerche model.
I won't be holding my breath for the Hummingbird as advertised. I put it with those moon bases we were
supposed to have by the 90's according to projections made around 1968.

SterlingX
04-30-2009, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SterlingX:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Thrust for piston engine planes being power divided by speed, how is power not a limit?

I suppose a real flying Lerche may have had propellers that are up to 1,5 times bigger and a lower top speed, given the same engines, but a lower top speed might still be high enough to place it in the same top speed range as the best WW2 conventional designs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Given untweaked engines...

Look at the vertical performance of piston-engine helicopters even in the 50's with better engines.
They flew at all but were quite limited.
Given that thrust drops pretty much directly with speed, how fast can it go straight up with engines that
may not be able to lift it at all or do so slowly from zero? Could it reach 180 kph going up in order
to rotate into horizontal flight? I seriously doubt it.

I looked at the Hummingbird pages and saw the RC models btw. I've seen video of an RC flying lawnmower too.
Power to weight in the RC world is well beyond even what Oleg and the devs did to the Lerche model.
I won't be holding my breath for the Hummingbird as advertised. I put it with those moon bases we were
supposed to have by the 90's according to projections made around 1968. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's true that RC models are no indication because they can have any P:W and T:W, at that scale.

A helicopter is a bad comparison because it has to lob all that fuselage and cargo around, autorotate safely and still be able to tilt forward and move. A Lerche has nothing but a tube for a fuselage, no induced drag from wing tips, and very good power-to-cross-section area ratio because the two engines are behind each other.

For forward flight, it's the same kind of design as the Do-335, except it is even better aerodynamically because of the circular wing and the lack of induced drag, as well as the counter-rotating props that are more efficient, and the Do-335 is faster than anything. Drag is exponential and at that speed range doubling of power to a prop adds less than 100 km/h to the top speed, so a reduction of Do-335s top speed, as a conservative estimate, by 100 km/h, is still very fast by WW2 standards.

For hover, even with no more than 1:1 T:W, the Lerche doesn't need to be moving upwards to transition to forward flight, it just needs to have enough height. It should be controllable throughout the transition because the control surfaces are in the prop wash and that gives it some thrust vectoring.

The only problems with a design of this kind, that are good enough reasons to keep it from production are purely operational- can't bail out, can't crash-land, can't autorotate - there is no inherent margin of safety anywhere.

M_Gunz
04-30-2009, 01:05 AM
No induced drag??

1) Any wing has to have AOA to make lift.
2) The lower the speed, the more AOA required.
3) The more AOA, the more the lift vector is tilted backwards and that backwards-pointing
lift component is a measure of induced drag.

Even if you don't have wingtip vortices you still have trailing edge vortex.
No vortex, no downwash, no circulation, no real lift. Best way to do that is have no AOA,
no AOA=no lift.

Induced drag is the price for staying aloft. It is not some unfortunate accident that can
be designed away. Ask Viper or Crumpp or Brems or any other of the trained aerodynamicists
that are members here or just wait for them to reply to this post.

SterlingX
04-30-2009, 01:08 AM
My mistake, I meant wing-tip drag only.

tagert
04-30-2009, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by deepo_HP:
that is hardly an argument.
disagree 100%


Originally posted by deepo_HP:
many planes never made it to production, for many reasons.
Allow me to fix that for yah..


Originally what deepo_HP meant to say:
many planes never made it off the napkin they were scribbled on to blue print let alone production..
many planes never made it off the napkin they were scribbled on to model machup let alone production..
many planes never made it off the napkin they were scribbled on to wind tunnel let alone production..
many planes never made it off the napkin they were scribbled on to prototype let alone production..

SAVVY?


Originally posted by deepo_HP:
i am sure, the lerche wouldn't have flown at the level when development stopped.
Ill go one step further..

i am POSITIVE, the lerche wouldn't have flown at the level when development stopped.


Originally posted by deepo_HP:
i have no clue, which flaws there were and i don't watch 'channels' of any kind.
however, i remember a model, which had been made for a diploma at my university (other institute) for windchannel-studies of the wing-profile and concluding approximate calculations for the thrust needed. by my fading memory, the study didn't find principal flaws in the aerodynamics. they had a rc-version as well, where controls had issues... don't know how well it worked.
Is why Universities like DeVry should stick to tech degrees..


Originally posted by deepo_HP:
if you have recovered from laughing and crying, you could perhaps give me some insight, what your concerns about the design are?
Sorry..

I am not retired and thus don't have that much time on my hand to list all my concerns about the design.


Originally posted by deepo_HP:
not to argue about the early state, the project was stopped
early state the project was stopped..

translated.. When the waiter pick up the dirty dishes and the napkin it was scribbled on


Originally posted by deepo_HP:
or what kind of representation we have ingame. just to know, why you get emotional about what i'd find an interesting, or at least creative thought.
Only if laughing out loud can be considered getting emotional! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Originally posted by deepo_HP:
as i said, i have only a hearsay of an anecdote and not much knowledge,
Agreed 100%


Originally posted by deepo_HP:
but i can't see the connection to monkeys right now. or is it the way, your creativity is expressed?
It is what it is..

Now..

Far be it from me to crush your dreams..

If you want to belive rain deer pulled Santa's slay and that the Lerche was only moments away from fighting in combat..

You go sim pilot!

I care not!

Just don't expect me to not laugh each time I see such things stated! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Bobbo_Tabor
05-01-2009, 04:51 PM
Lets be fair here gentlemen. The Lerche fulfilled its intended purpose successfully; it kept a Heinkel design team from being used as cannon fodder in the Volksturm.

mortoma
05-03-2009, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
Most people who can't land the Lerche hasn't read the readme file. You have to point the nose straight up then engage the airbrakes, this will act as a sort of vertical autopilot, just let go of the stick and start working the throttle to slowly descend, it's kinda fun to land. Doesn't work when you're damaged much though. You're right, I never read the readme on this one. I'll try that technique but I have no interest in the Lerche as a fighter in the game. It's just a toy to mess with.

Bremspropeller
05-03-2009, 05:30 PM
Well, the concept kept to be promising well into the fifties:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_7_gMFng3OpY/Rk4nrlGQl6I/AAAAAAAABlU/AbUZHNW_vFk/s400/c450_15.jpg

http://www.laesieworks.com/ifo/lib/VTOL-pict/C450-07.jpg


http://www.vstol.org/wheel/VST...el/SNECMAC450Col.htm (http://www.vstol.org/wheel/VSTOLWheel/SNECMAC450Col.htm)

deepo_HP
05-03-2009, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by tagert:
Allow me to fix that for yah..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally what deepo_HP meant to say:
many planes never made it off the napkin they were scribbled on to blue print let alone production..
many planes never made it off the napkin they were scribbled on to model machup let alone production..
many planes never made it off the napkin they were scribbled on to wind tunnel let alone production..
many planes never made it off the napkin they were scribbled on to prototype let alone production..

SAVVY? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>no, i won't allow...
see, if i am participating in a forum, some things would never come to my mind. one of them is abusing the quote-tag.

in your 'fix', you didn't even bother to get your own words in the right sense.
anyway, there is still no argument in your post. an argument has to relate to the subject...
in your latest posts i could hardly find anything else than... i would say cynical or provocative, but you lack the wit needed for that - so: i could hardly find anything.
since i seem to get off-topic, when i reply for some reason nevertheless, i will try to resist more often (note to myself).



on-topic:
i am not interested much in the sim's representation of 'lerche'. however, it is sometimes fun (especially when it shows a strange kind of 'hopping' or 'crash-dancing'), and as such i always saw it. in the way of just having it, i find it a nice idea to implement... i don't think, it was much time spent and for online-purpose it is the only responsibility of the host to make it available.
but the topic is imo hypothetical and interesting.


hi bremspropeller,

quite a neat discovery you made, even if it 'vibrated in all axes' and made it only 30m :-)
i wonder about the french naming: calling it 'bug'... and 'snecma' sounds strange as well.

Feathered_IV
05-04-2009, 02:17 AM
Inclusion of the Lerche in Il-2 is proof positive that Oleg Maddox no longer endorses the product. If Oleg were still taking an active interest in the sim, he'd have beaten the guy with a stick when he tried to get it accepted. I blame Luthier and RRG for polluting the sim with that rubbish. God help us that they are in charge of SoW's offline content. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Bremspropeller
05-04-2009, 02:23 AM
It was included for fun.
As a couple of '46 planes were.

Get over it or STFU.

Feathered_IV
05-04-2009, 03:20 AM
Shant. http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif

joeap
05-04-2009, 03:53 AM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
Shant. http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif

Come on man, yes it was maybe a waste of dev time that could have better been used to make up some missing stuff...I still think it was an experiment for adding helicopters to a possible Korean sim but whatever.

"Pollution"? You never have to fly it, and the RRG guys gave us some great content too. 80-90% of 1946 is a great package, and still the thing to get for the numbers of newbies we're still getting.

Yellow14150
05-04-2009, 04:23 AM
Wait wait wait... Thats the pogo. First experiments with VTOL (Vertical Takeoff and Landing). It could be said that Lerche is actually a great grandfather of the Harrier jumpjet. Vertical takeoff was a great mystery to the designers of the Lerche and Sikorsky, until one of them found a way to do it.


I am 100% sure that something like the Lerche could actually fly. Maybe it would need some large modifications, but the overall structure and shape of the aircraft would work. Its just a crappy version of the Pogo, which was pretty crappy too, but replaced by a chopper.

Xiolablu3
05-05-2009, 05:36 AM
SHarkey Ward flew Sea Harriers vs the Agentinians in the Falklands and still stated at the end of his book that the horizontal turn was one of the most important manouvres in air combat, so I see what you mean.

steiner562
05-05-2009, 05:44 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
It was included for fun.
As a couple of '46 planes were.

Get over it or STFU.
Be nice or don't comment at all.

Sillius_Sodus
05-05-2009, 05:07 PM
I don't care what planes we get, just as long as we get 'em! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

skarden
05-05-2009, 09:35 PM
Ah the return of tagert,it was all getting a bit dull around here anyway,good stuff http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

SterlingX
05-06-2009, 01:42 PM
Alright, I had to test the doubling of power by Oleg to make the Lerche flyable argument.
The in-game Lerche, when flown at 54% throttle and 100% fuel, takes off, climbs by 30 m/s and has a top speed of 494 km/h at ground level (still is a hell of a fighter with this climb rate and its acceleration at 54% thr.)
Track:
http://www.datafilehost.com/download-653d99df.html

So, I guess that if power had been doubled compared to what the real Lerche was supposed to have, it is to make it fun in the game, not for the purpose of flyability.

PS. And since I just had to go through all my tracks, here's a bonus track for your entertainment http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif
http://www.datafilehost.com/download-b0d40484.html