Ground physics - any change in new patch?

[LoBiSoMeM]

Bye. Be happy.

[SQB]

But... it can't be the wind because my plane does full revolutions.

So, uh, what is it then? (test done engine off brakes off)

[LoBiSoMeM]

Originally Posted by SQB

But... it can't be the wind because my plane does full revolutions.

So, uh, what is it then? (test done engine off brakes off)

So it's a bug. Here mine plane never do full revs, always stop facing wind.

[rfa]

Another observation:

Crashlanded a Blenheim "gear-up" on an upslope, only to have it slide back down the hill tail first - at a decent rate I might add.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by rfa

Another observation:
Crashlanded a Blenheim "gear-up" on an upslope, only to have it slide back down the hill tail first - at a decent rate I might add.

I had a simular thing happen.. spawned in a Spitfire.. it started to spin.. held the breaks until it stopped spinning.. than released the breaks and it remained still..

Than I fired up the engine, let it warm up a bit.. started to roll and the plane fliped up into the air and landed upside down..

The spawn point was near the edge of the runway and the plane landed upside down on the slope.. and it too started to slide DOWN the hill upside down..

So.. something seems up with either the ground physics or the plane ground contact physics..

The good news is the plane did not slide UP the hill

[Blackdog_kt]

What you guys miss is the effect of wind on the wings.

It's perfectly possible for a heavy aircraft to spin in a crosswind if the wind is fast enough, because the wind generates lift that acts against its weight. A 6000lbs Spitfire is not a concentrated 6000lb brick, it has forces acting on a wide range of its body during a wind situation and we all know from basic newtonian physics about the torque effect: the same force can produce more rotation if it's applied further out from the center of rotation.

There's so many variables here that trying to convince people if it's a bug or not seems a bit simplistic. If enough lift is generated by the Spit's wing, then during a crosswind the side meeting the wind will experience a "lighten up" effect due to the produced lift, if the edges of the wing create enough drag it will result in increased torque, add the effects of the tail fin and non-lockable tailwheels and you have a 6000lbs aircraft spinning on the ground.

So, is it accurate? We don't know because we don't have the numbers to judge.

Is it impossible? Definitely not, it's perfectly possible.

Case in point, take a look at some videos of bushplanes, floatplanes, etc on youtube. Why do you think they all have tie-down attachment points if weight alone is enough to keep them immobile?

Well, it's not enough and since they also have high-lift wings by design and sizable control surfaces, wings and fins for stability and ease of maneuvering at low speeds while getting in and out of improvised fields and lakes, it's quite possible to cause damage by leaving them unattended during a windy day.

A good gust of wind and your shiny piper cub can almost flip over on its back if it's not tied down and the controls are not locked into place. That's not only because it's light, tie-downs are common on the majority of civil/general aviation aircraft regardless of weight, including heavier designs like DeHavilland Beavers/Otters and so on. These might not outright flip over, but a high-lift wing and a gust of wind could easily cause them to stand on one gear/float and come smashing down again once the gust subsides. All sorts of things can go wrong depending on a host of variables and specific aircraft design, from oil leaking out of the filler cap to fuel getting disturbed and bubbly in a half-full tank, to striking a prop-blade into the ground, to stressing a float mount, to a wingtip scraping against the ground, etc etc.

The Spit might or might not be heavier than some of these GA aircraft but we all know its wing design is focused on optimal lift generation, so parallels can definitely be drawn.

Weight is just the tip of the iceberg in all the variables concerned here and making a judgement of whether it's a bug or not is impossible without having the relevant aerodynamic data for a spitfire, much less trying to convince others about our opinion.

So, in closing, i have no way to know if what's happening with the in-game Spit is accurate, but it's basic physics to understand that it's certainly possible if certain aerodynamic properties meet some criteria. Until we get numbers an accurate judgement is impossible and the debating of it futile. Just my 2c and if anybody disagrees with it i don't mind at all.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

What you guys miss is the effect of wind on the wings.

Nope..

That was covered a long time ago..

We have narrowed it down to a simple test that proves it is not wind, but something else

That being when you spawn your plane (most notable the Spitfire) it starts to spin into the direction of the wind..

And, if you apply the breaks the plane will STOP spinning.. As expected

But, if you release the breaks the plane does NOT START spinning again

via deductive reasoning

1) The wind speed and direction is the same before and after you apply the breaks..
2) The plane spins before you apply the breaks
3) The plane does not spin after your apply the breaks

Therefore.. something changes when you applied the breaks.. What? Not certain, but knowing a little about flight modeling I would start looking at the planes initial contact force vales (coefficients) and how they get initialized.

[senseispcc]

It seems that since the patch the landings are a little more floating when not the nose in the wind? A impression I could be wrong!

Have a nice game.