Patch 4.10 - Development Updates by Daidalos Team

[WWFlybert]

<sigh> .. gotta love bank and yankers .. or was that yank and bankers ?

you roll a plane using ailerons, not elevator

of course, once you are in a bank, it's the application of elevator that results in a turn

it's to greater degree engine (and prop) torque than gyroscopic precession that results in the need for rudder compensation depending on direction of turn, even in WWI rotaries .. just go check technical articles at Old Rheinbeck to confirm

and though I've directly asked Oleg, TD, and others familiar with the IL-2 FM. I've never been able to get an answer whether IL-2 FM simulates gyroscopic precession at all .. something I'd like to know for putting WWI aircraft into IL-2, where the effect is needed for proper fm on rotary engined planes.

regardless .. from my experience, *kicking* the rudder slightly in IL-2 can result in a quicker turn . and I make slight rudder compensation during the turn with good effect as you describe

Read carefully combat flight training manuals, and you'll find judicious rudder use is an important component in starting turns and maintaining them

the physics are not "simple" .. weight, wing area, wing foil profile, control surfaces' design, prop thrust and several other factors come into play regarding potential turn radius .. easy to demonstrate in IL-2 or even in a 12+ year old Red Baron II/3D Advanced Flight Model, that does simulate gyroscopic precession

or we can just agree to disagree

[AndyJWest]

Ok, I'll admit to an obvious typo - now corrected.

I can't see much point in arguing torque vs gyroscopic precession unless you can explain how the torque changes as the result of a turn.

And please read what other people have written regarding turns:

And at a given pressure altitude, airspeed and angle of bank, in a coordinated turn (i.e. no sideslip), the radius/rate will for most practical purposes be the same for any aircraft. This is down to simple physics.

Do you agree or disagree with this statement? And if you disagree, can you explain why?

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Do you agree or disagree with this statement? And if you disagree, can you explain why?

Well, at first read I agreed with it, or thought I did. On second look however, it doesn't mention the g force generated by the turn, and if that's not the same, the rate of turn will be different. Different aircraft can sometimes pull different maximum g forces at the same speed and altitude, this is as I understand it largely, but not entirely, down to the wing loading.

[AndyJWest]

Originally Posted by Igo kyu

Well, at first read I agreed with it, or thought I did. On second look however, it doesn't mention the g force generated by the turn, and if that's not the same, the rate of turn will be different. Different aircraft can sometimes pull different maximum g forces at the same speed and altitude, this is as I understand it largely, but not entirely, down to the wing loading.

If the angle of bank is the same, the speed is the same, and the aircraft isn't sideslipping, the G force will be the same too.

For a fairly simple discussion of the issue, see here:http://www.auf.asn.au/groundschool/umodule1b.html#turns

Some aircraft can withstand higher G forces than others (greater structural strength), and some aircraft can sustain higher rates of turn than others (more power), but this doesn't alter the relationship between bank angle, speed, and rate of turn.

[WWFlybert]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Ok, I'll admit to an obvious typo - now corrected.

I can't see much point in arguing torque vs gyroscopic precession unless you can explain how the torque changes as the result of a turn.

And please read what other people have written regarding turns:

Do you agree or disagree with this statement? And if you disagree, can you explain why?

I'm not really going to get in complex discussion on this here Andy

How it is not completely obvious to you that a small light weight plane traveling at a lower speed will turn tighter than a larger heavier plane traveling at greater speed, yet both can be achieving the same G-force ... well .. I don't know what to say .. think Zeke vs P-38 ..

Turning with the direction of torque will result in slightly better turn, with regards to WWII and modern single engine aircraft

Gyroscopic effects are relatively minor with inline engines because the rotating mass is relatively minor in relation to the mass of the plane

Perhaps I've not paid close enough attention, however I've not noticed Gyroscopic precession effects in IL-2 and only torque effects on take-offs

Again, it would be useful to know whether or not IL-2 models gyroscopic precession at all .. in these aircraft types, even single prop ( 2 or 4 engined planes cancel out with counter rotation ) types, the effect is likely so minor in real terms, that it may not have been worth the CPU cycles to include.

Rheinbeck pilots of rotary engined Camel claim the aircraft's ability to turn to the right so much better than to the left is more due to torque than gyroscopic precession .. though to some degree they too notice the tendency for the nose to rise and the requirement to apply down - inside rudder , which in turn slows the plane to stall speed if one tries to maintain altitude .. where to the right, the nose will tend to dive requiring up - outside elevator to maintain level flight .. however, it seems (not sure here) that because one is going in the direction of the torque and tending to dive, speed can be maintained better to prevent stalls

regardless .. I'm here to get news about the release and features of 4.10 and don't desire to add more pages to this thread