Any thoughts on new neg G cutout post beta patch?

[Viper2000]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

Thanks there Viper, but that didn't quite get to the Ivank's pilot's quotes.

I had noticed earlier though in that thread, the references to the "general pilot's notes1943".






remember, this is late 1940 era, not '41/ '42/ or '43

The current pilot's quote is here:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...5&postcount=93

The health warning I would apply to any current pilot's account is that the mod state of the airframe & engine will not be exactly as it was in 1940, and as the pilot says, the way that the machine is operated is also somewhat different.

In particular, a lot of display pilots will tend to stay at or below max continuous for the whole display. This reduces fuel flow, which means that the lean cut onset will be somewhat delayed under reduced positive g; the rich cut will actually be worse however.

The challenge is therefore to track down the mod state of the aeroplane and engine, and also the power settings used, so that we can make a reasonable apples to apples comparison with what we've got in the sim.

I think that this is complicated by the fact that there may well be other issues with the fuel metering model at the moment (ie misbehaviour at high altitude, at least in the last official patch for both Merlin and DB600 series), and so there may be an interaction between multiple bugs.

I think that we'll get there in the end, but since the model is much more complex than in IL2 it will inevitably take longer to get it right.

As for AP2095, these things get updated periodically, but since old equipment was still around in 2nd line units etc it still contains relevant material on old equipment.

As with all of these things, you've got to sift through carefully to build up a clear picture of what was really going on; most sources make all manner of assumptions as to the reader's frame of reference, which can make things complicated 70+ years later.

[Deadstick]

I seem to remember reading that the developers wanted to make this 'the most realistic flight sim/combat sim ever' (or words to that effect).

They will of course not be able to get every Aircraft absolutely correct. But it sounds as if too much of a change in the other direction has been made. ( I have not run the new patch yet, so I have no personal experience in the change meade to the neg G cut-out).

Now the developers statement of intent about realism seems to have been compromised because a bunch of people (some seemingly more informed than others), pulled out 'facts' from sources that seem to fit in with how THEY think it SHOULD be.

Disappointed.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Actually there was no Pilot's Notes General in 1940, the first edition was published in mid 1941 (June/July, I'm not sure about the month).
I have here a Pilot's Notes General (1st Edition), I just checked for anything about negative g cut-out, but didn't find any sentence. It mainly includes stuff about propellers and superchargers, though. Compared to the 2nd Edition it's rather short.

I also checked AP 129 Flying Training Manual Part 1 Landplanes (1937, reprint of 1941) but I didn't find a detailed description of negative g cut out so far.

[Moggy]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

Actually there was no Pilot's Notes General in 1940, the first edition was published in mid 1941 (June/July, I'm not sure about the month).
I have here a Pilot's Notes General (1st Edition), I just checked for anything about negative g cut-out, but didn't find any sentence. It mainly includes stuff about propellers and superchargers, though. Compared to the 2nd Edition it's rather short.

I also checked AP 129 Flying Training Manual Part 1 Landplanes (1937, reprint of 1941) but I didn't find a detailed description of negative g cut out so far.

The 2nd edition is where I found the information about negative G cutouts, starts on page 49. I took a few scans and posted them here;

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...2&postcount=92

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by Moggy

The 2nd edition is where I found the information about negative G cutouts, starts on page 49. I took a few scans and posted them here;

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...2&postcount=92

Yes I know, I have the 2nd edition as well. Problem is that the 2nd Edition is always critized that it wouldn't fit into the time frame

[Moggy]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

Yes I know, I have the 2nd edition as well. Problem is that the 2nd Edition is always critized that it wouldn't fit into the time frame

LOL uh huh, despite the fact...it actually does!

[effte]

So we have a pilot with Hurri experience stating around 0.3 G, and a POH warning that it will happen at 0.5 G.

Now, consider the fact that the POH was intended to keep 19-year-olds from getting themselves into trouble. Which source is likely to err on the conservative side?

What we had before was almost certainly incorrect. Engines coughing due to turbulence - I don't think so! This had a huge impact on game play, as aircraft misbehaved during normal flight.

What we have now may be incorrect in the opposite direction, as engines perhaps should start coughing after prolonged reduced G and not only during actual -ve G. However, this has next to no impact on game play. The tactical advantage still goes to the pilots of the fuel injected planes, as the tactic employed should be a negative G push - in which case the Merlins will still flood and lose power if the unvary Allied pilot follows. I think we can be fairly certain that LW pilots didn't gently reduce the G load when they found a spit on their tail, waiting for the spitfire carb to empty and produce a lean cut.

Oh, it does have an impact but of course under non standard circumstances. So it should be there if it was there.

[Viper2000]

I suspect that the problem is that IRL there would have been a lag between application of reduced or negative g and engine misbehaviour, such that flying around in bumpy air wouldn't cause problems. The model that we had in the last general release version had no lag, so going below 0.5 g for 0.01 second or something would cause engine trouble.

So at the simplest level what we need is the g limits from the previous patch, plus a lag so that misbehaviour only starts if the limits are exceeded for a length of time.

Since the lag was a function of the degree to which the limit was exceeded, the best solution would be to model the rates of fuel flow into and out of the carburettor as a function of g and just let the simulation sort itself out; that way you'd naturally generate both the lean and rich cuts without the need to hard-code behaviour...

[Viper2000]

"Another thing we did was to devise a manoeuvre which was aimed at getting us out of a difficult corner if we ever got into one. This may sound very extraordinary, probably, to practising pilots today, but it consisted of putting everything into the left-hand front corner of the cockpit. If you saw a 109 on your tail, and it hadn't shot you down at that point, you put on full throttle, fine pitch, full left rudder, full left stick and full forward stick. This resulted in a horrible manoeuvre, which was in fact a negative-g spiral dive. But you would come out of it with no Me 109 on your tail and your aeroplane still intact."

(Roland Beamont)

Harvey-Bailey, A. 1995. The Merlin in Perspective - the combat years. Derby: Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust.

Of course, the engine should be somewhat unhappy during the manoeuvre; then again, the same might be said for the pilot's stomach...