Hurricane Roll Rate

[chappy]

those are the same graphs ive managed to find today .

1: the 109 is superior in roll rate below approx 280mph (ias or tas not specified), comparable in the 280-310mph bracket, while the spitfire is marginally superior above 320mph

2: Unless im reading the legend wrong, kinda a rough image, the spitfire and hurricane are comparable in roll rates at IAS of 200mph and above.

experience for me thus far is the hurricane is 30-50% slower in the roll at various speeds above 200mph to the spitfire.


the subjective accounts are varied, the one you quote contradicts other accounts.(and the images posted)

While working out this Hurricane roll thing, see if there is ANY difference in initial roll rate between full ammo and no ammo. In previous IL-2 engine initial roll rate was not modeled.

Just curious ...

[Space Communist]

Well I am no expert, and I know that the original IL-2 isn't exactly a historical source, but I always found hurricanes to roll like pigs.

Of course I never flew them that much and my memory isn't great and I might well be remembering flying a IIc with the huge heavy cannon wings so take this with a grain of salt.

[b101uk]

Be wary of info from the RAE produced during war, the British were very good at misinformation and smoke and mirrors so are generally on the conservative side of true figures when it comes to publishing spec for British stuff, so I would suggest that 45deg roll in >1.9sec or more is misinformation when there is no end of footage of 360deg rolls in ~5sec during gentle air display in 60+ year old aircraft.

[madrebel]

well then its a good thing the RAE weren't the only ones to write down their test results then isn't it?

[b101uk]

You will find almost all performance characteristics documented for British military equipment is on the conservative side of what its true value is and that has been the ethos long before ww2, this is also true for no end of different countries military equipment.

Perhaps if you wanted more true values you would perhaps use the RAE ME109 times then find the test by the war time German equivalent of the “RAE” on captured spitfires, given there is no need for the British to occlude true performance figures of ME109 test results & the same is true of the Germans with true spitfire performance figures.

Also with respect to very heavy ailerons etc at speed (spitfire and hurricane), what may be heavy or physically limiting during testing over the relative safety of your own country soon becomes much lighter at the same speed when in combat as the adrenalin is racing threw your system, so the implication is a physically strong pilot engaged in combat will achieve better roll rates at high speed than a weaker pilot in the same situation BUT both will achieved better comparative roll rates than the “tests flights” due to the adrenalin of combat giving strength.

[Biggs]

Originally Posted by b101uk

You will find almost all performance characteristics documented for British military equipment is on the conservative side of what its true value is and that has been the ethos long before ww2, this is also true for no end of different countries military equipment.

Perhaps if you wanted more true values you would perhaps use the RAE ME109 times then find the test by the war time German equivalent of the “RAE” on captured spitfires, given there is no need for the British to occlude true performance figures of ME109 test results & the same is true of the Germans with true spitfire performance figures.

Also with respect to very heavy ailerons etc at speed (spitfire and hurricane), what may be heavy or physically limiting during testing over the relative safety of your own country soon becomes much lighter at the same speed when in combat as the adrenalin is racing threw your system, so the implication is a physically strong pilot engaged in combat will achieve better roll rates at high speed than a weaker pilot in the same situation BUT both will achieved better comparative roll rates than the “tests flights” due to the adrenalin of combat giving strength.

so then wheres my "adrenalin button" in the game?

next patch, be sure.

[madrebel]

Originally Posted by b101uk

You will find almost all performance characteristics documented for British military equipment is on the conservative side of what its true value is and that has been the ethos long before ww2, this is also true for no end of different countries military equipment.

not really no. i've found brit reports are fairly standard. the only airforce who is often conservative i have found is the germans but only in some cases. examples being the finnish tests of their F4s and G2s were all quite a bit higher than the german tests (above standard deviation).

Perhaps if you wanted more true values you would perhaps use the RAE ME109 times then find the test by the war time German equivalent of the “RAE” on captured spitfires, given there is no need for the British to occlude true performance figures of ME109 test results & the same is true of the Germans with true spitfire performance figures.

which are all similar to the british tests. as are US tests

Also with respect to very heavy ailerons etc at speed (spitfire and hurricane), what may be heavy or physically limiting during testing over the relative safety of your own country soon becomes much lighter at the same speed when in combat as the adrenalin is racing threw your system, so the implication is a physically strong pilot engaged in combat will achieve better roll rates at high speed than a weaker pilot in the same situation BUT both will achieved better comparative roll rates than the “tests flights” due to the adrenalin of combat giving strength.

same goes for all planes then, right?