Hurricane Roll Rate

[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.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

This is for a Spitfire Mark VA, with metal ailerons, tested by NACA in 1941. Not a Mark I with fabric ailerons.

I have a British mid-1940 report for the Spit I/Hurri I, basically it says the Hurricane is much better with regards to aileron control, though both are 'locked in cement' at high speed. Couldn't upload it yet..

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

This is for a Spitfire Mark VA, with metal ailerons, tested by NACA in 1941. Not a Mark I with fabric ailerons.

I have a British mid-1940 report for the Spit I/Hurri I, basically it says the Hurricane is much better with regards to aileron control, though both are 'locked in cement' at high speed. Couldn't upload it yet..

Not true. These chart above is for SPit MK1/ Hurri MK1 with fabrics ailerons.


Here is roll rate for Spitfire with metal ailerons:

[madrebel]

kwiatek what relevance does that chart have on the game? it only shows spitVs. when there is a late 41/42 africa or channel mod with LF spitVs and 190A2s/3s then we can worry about that.

iirc the first test of metal ailerons were done on a spit2 in early 41.

[TheGrunch]

To show that the previous chart he posted was *not* a Spitfire with metal ailerons.

The conversion to the Merlin 45 engine would not affect the roll rate.

[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?

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

Not true. These chart above is for SPit MK1/ Hurri MK1 with fabrics ailerons.

The roll chart you posted - from http://mitglied.multimania.de/luftwa...f/rollrate.pdf - above is for the Mark VA W3119 tested by NACA and the report says metal covered ailerons.

See page 2 and 13: http://mitglied.multimania.de/luftwa...pit_flying.pdf

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by madrebel

kwiatek what relevance does that chart have on the game? it only shows spitVs. when there is a late 41/42 africa or channel mod with LF spitVs and 190A2s/3s then we can worry about that.

iirc the first test of metal ailerons were done on a spit2 in early 41.

not that is particularly relevant, but Jeffrey Quill first tested a spit in Nov 1940 with metal ailerons and then flew it to Tangmere, where it was also flown by the commander of 602 squadron Sandy Johnstone.

afterwards a crash program was initiated to fit all front line spits with these ailerons.