[JG14_Josf]

As I had guessed.

I do not know what that means.

As to the advice of moving up to Windows 7, again off-topic, the advice is sound enough since that was the way I went to actually get the game to work.

As to the other advice, or challenge, to actually fly Combat Maneuvering I can reply to anyone including TUSA/TX-Gunslinger whose handle sounds familiar in my long term memory concerning those efforts to discuss the topic on the IL2 Forums if not earlier.

So far in Clod our Squad, which is now a combination of JG14 and IV. JG53, has our first organized mission scheduled on the ATAG server for tonight, Sunday, and we plan on Simulating a small scale, escorted, bomb raid on an airfield or radar station - type mission.

This is off-topic too.

In preparation for that mission I have spent time with the Squad and time alone off-line, becoming more familiar with the game. Our teamwork is returning to some semblance of effectiveness in Combat Air Patrol, Hit and Run, Drag and Bag, Mutual Support, Line Abreast Formations, etc. On my own I have repeated a Target Practice Off-Line Drill (Training) with Single Player Quick Missions involving a mid altitude frontal attack on a formation of light twin engine bombers. Bombers that look almost like a twin engine Bonanza, King Air or whatnot.

The gunnery is more difficult than IL2, so far, as expected, and during this Drill I can shoot at multiple air targets from many angles since the King Air type twin bombers have meek gunners and top down or bottom up attacks tend to avoid the tracking capacity of the A.I. gunners, as expected.

During the continuous zooms and dives during the repetitive Gunnery Drill it is becoming clear that the Flight Model, and Pilot physics model (or whatever is the term for modeling black out and alterations in control of the plane) are not the same as in IL2, and to me, so far, the feel of control, loss of control, buffet, stall, slowness of response to control inputs under load, etc., are better that IL2, including the Stall, as exemplified by the methods used to recover from a Stall, or the methods used to avoid a stall: there appears, so far, to be more feedback (sound or response time = I do not have Force Feedback but if there is a good Force Feedback stick then I think this game may drive me to get one) on the edges of the flight envelope, which allows the pilot to remain in the flight envelope while utilizing those "signs" that inform the pilot of impending departure (buffet for example).

That brings me to the point at which the topic may return into view as the Gunnery Drills I have been running may include an ending Windup Turn Test as described in the Navair Web site. In other words I have begun to quantify Corner Speed for the 109.

So far, with the 109, I have Corner Speed (Pilot g limited not plane g limited) at about 350 km/h indicated. If I fly at 400 km/h for the Windup Turn Test the plane, so far, buffets and eventually sticks into a more or less coordinated diving turn, where the airspeed indicator is showing a needle that is dancing around, and my ability to smooth the turn out is as yet not refined enough to nail down an Instantaneous Maximum Performance Turn well, but the initial test confirm that 400 km/h is definitely above the pilot g limited Corner Speed since it is possible to grey out the pilot.

So far I have not blacked out the pilot as was possible in IL2, where the screen goes black (or grey if the software was exploited in some versions I've heard) and the pilot is no longer able to control the controls of the plane for some time that could "feel" like an eternity.

I've tried to target 300 km/h as Corner Speed in at least one Windup Turn Test so far and so far that appears to be under Corner Speed since the effort to reach black out was an effort that found buffet, severe buffet, and then stall before grey out was even possible.

Returning to Naviar, to return solidly on the topic, the following is a restatement of the definition of Corner Speed and a restatement of the Windup Turn (for anyone who may be interested in the topic):

6.3.4.6 CORNER SPEED
The significance of the corner speed can be seen in figure 6.15. At the speed corresponding to the intersection of the lift boundary and the structural limit, the minimum instantaneous turn radius and maximum instantaneous turn rate are achieved. Thus, VA is the speed for maximum turn performance when energy loss is not a consideration.

6.4.1 WINDUP TURN
Instantaneous turn performance is documented usually with the windup turn technique. In this technique the load factor is smoothly and steadily increased with constant Mach number. The end point of the data run is the accelerated stall or the structural limit, whichever is reached first. To perform the windup turn, momentarily stabilize at the desired Mach number. Set the thrust for the test as you roll into a turn and smoothly increase load factor. As load factor and drag increase, reduce the pitch attitude in order to keep Mach number constant. Use bank angle to adjust the pitch attitude. When the limit condition is reached, record the g level. Increase the load factor no faster than 1/2 g/s to minimize the effects of unsteady flow.

In the game, in place of "record the g level" is a condition of simulation whereby the user of the software will either find black out or the user of the simulation with find the stall.

If the user of the simulation finds black out, then the user of the simulation has found out where the game software determines Corner Speed for that plane, but only if the user of the software (any user) can't reach black out at a slower speed.

If one user of the game software (without cheating some way) can fly slower and reach Black Out at a slower speed, then that user will be turning a smaller radius at a faster rate than the user of the game software who cannot pilot the plane at a slower Corner Speed.

If one user is hamfisting the controls, or has very poor hardware, or for whatever reason (other than comparing a cheater with an honest player) is stalling at the same speed than another user flying at black out (or in grey out, which should be before severe buffet), then it is the Player that is not "feeling" well, not the software playing favorites, assuming that both pilots are flying the same plane configured the same way, with the same amount of fuel, total weight, flap setting, etc.

This is where the rubber meets the road, and the Forum users are no longer fighting with English words, and the game software users are fighting with simulated airplanes in simulated air combat: back to the topic.

The region of buffet, or that place in the real (or well simulated) flight envelope where Maximum Turn Performance, Maximum Lift, CL Max, highest turn rate, lowest turn radius, lowest Corner Speed, and highest g limit (pilot not plane limited) is FLOWN, and to go past the initial instances of buffet, to fly beyond the beginning of buffet, to hamfist the controls past the most efficient angle of attack, and to enter well into the buffeting zone of wing angle of attack, is to reduce turn rate, increase turn radius, lower g load, and slow down below Corner Speed IN FACT.

So...practice may make worse, or more experience may help in finding the TRUE Corner Speed as the developer has modeled into the present form of the Software.

That may be what this means:

As I had guessed.

I don't know what that means, I guess that I am supposed to guess what that means, so that is my guess - in English.

That is off-topic.

On topic is that the 109 Corner Speed, so far as I can tell, is about 350 km/h indicated and relevant to about 2,000 meters altitude in a shallow diving Windup Turn Test Off-Line where this pilot was well into the buffet zone during that test, so that One test so far may be well off the precisely identified software coded Corner Speed.

If someone can fly the 109 in a Windup Turn Test at 300 km/h and reach black out, then they may be doing the test with a lighter fuel load, which is entirely possible, since I have so far done all my testing starting with full fuel.

More weight will move the Accelerated Stall line to the right on a Maneuvering Diagram (accelerated stall line), assuming that I understand Energy Maneuverability well enough.

Note: If a plane was loaded very heavy the Maneuvering Diagram (accelerated stall line) moves so far to the right that the 1 g stall is past Top Speed Level Flight and the plane can never take off on Earth, it can roll down a runway going all around the planet and never reach the Corner Speed or even the Take-off speed, since it is so heavy that the wings stall before 1 g. How would that look on an EM Chart?

Since more weight will move the Accelerated Stall line to the right on a Maneuvering Diagram, which is merely a record of how changes in weight cause the plane to stall at a higher speed (less weight) or lower speed (more weight) the heavier plane (same plane with more weight loaded) will have a higher corner speed, which means it will turn a larger Maximum Performance Turn Radius, and the heavier plane will turn a slower Maximum Performance Turn Rate, and the heavier plane (same plane loaded with more weight) will reach the SAME pilot g load unless the game software changes the pilot g load tolerance as the plane is loaded with more or less weight and that returns to the warning concerning Game Developer Transparency and how to get around the lack of information made available.

Windup Turn Tests document Corner Speed. Some users/players/gamers/flight sim pilots/combat flight sim pilots, whatever, may be better (not cheating) at reaching the Software CODED Corner Speed compared to another player - all things being equal (not cheating or not using a different fuel load, different testing altitude, different plane, etc.) - all things being equal except the Game CODED software as it was CODED by the developer and not re-CODED by the player who may mod the code to get a better Corner Speed (any exploit not yet know by anyone other than the person doing the exploiting).

Some players can be trusted as players who would never cheat, other players can be trusted as players who will always cheat if they are afforded any opportunity to cheat.

That is off-topic.

This is on-topic:

Cornering Speed: "The lowest air speed at which a fighter can obtain the structural or aerodynamic limiting G force."

In the "dogfight" situation, this is the speed I'm trying to maintain in order to "out-turn" an adversary. It's also the speed above which I must excercise caution to prevent "Over-G" damage. Below this speed I must remain "Stall vigilant.

Is there a central location where the cornering speeds of CLoD aircraft can be found?

My initial, rough, tests peg the 109 Corner Speed (heavy with fuel) in between 300 and 400 km/h, at about 350 km/h.

Note: Changes in weight may not change Corner Speed significantly within the normal ranges of Combat Weight for any given plane while changes in weight may be more significant concerning changes in Sustained Turn Performance which may be a function (theory on my part) of that all too familiar squaring factor of drag as airspeed increases.

Sustained Turn Performance is flown at a much lower airspeed compared to Maximum Turn Performance and therefore the Total Drag is exponentially higher (square with velocity) at the higher Corner Speed relative to the lower Sustained Turn Performance (lufberry circle) Speed - if I have this understood.

JG14_Josf offers an initial estimate of 109 Corner Speed to be 350 km/h.

Flying slower than 350 km/h is increasing the difficulty of reaching black out before stall.

Flying faster than 350 km/h is increasing the ease at which the pilot can generate enough g force to black out the pilot instead of stalling.

Maximum Turn Performance is the condition of flight where the higher g force is generated at the lowest possible airspeed, and then the turn radius is the smallest possible turn radius, the turn rate is the highest possible turn rate, air speed is slowest while g force is highest (pilot not plane g limit).

That is on topic.