Hurricane Roll Rate

[chappy]

Just did a quick comparison, very rough at this time cause i have to head out, but it appears to me that the hurricane's roll rate is significantly lower than it otherwise should be.

i cant garauntee that this isnt caused by some other issue such as controller input, but the fact that i can achieve other roll rates in differnt aircraft suggests that isnt a factor.

For a full 360 roll i'm counting approx 9seconds. giving it a roll velocity of 40deg/sec

compared to the spitfire 1, which is about 5.5 seconds which = roughly 60deg/sec

the 109 is between the 2, coming in at about 6.5 seconds = ~55deg/sec


now from my previous sim time i would have expected the hurricane to be comparable if not slightly better than the spitfire, and obviously the 109. I did a quick search online for roll rate date the only thing i could find in a hurry was this

http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/...f/rollrate.pdf

which suggests comparable roll rates for the spitfire and hurricane. This corroborates with descriptive accounts of ways of evading a BNZ 109 for hurricane pilots from what i understand.

[madrebel]

Originally Posted by chappy

and obviously the 109.

why is this obvious? 109s should just barely out roll a spit with non clipped wings at maneuvering speeds and they're equally awful at 400mph.

[Viper2000]

It appears from the 3d model that the hurricanes we have in the sim have metal wings. However, it's not immediately obvious that the 3d models and the flight models directly correspond (eg look at spinners on the different Spitfire Marks; they all look the same despite the fact that they probably shouldn't).

So the first question is whether the performance in the sim is meant to reflect a metal or a wooden wing. The second question is whether the ailerons are metal or fabric covered; fabric covered ailerons tended to "balloon" and greatly reduce in effectiveness at high speed.

Finally, I would observe that IRL the handling of aeroplanes is an extremely subjective business. Some years ago I used to fly gliders at a certain club which owned 2 ASK13s. One seemed much nicer than the other. I spent ages trying to work out why. In the end, I discovered that the reason was that the airbrake handle on the "good" aeroplane was recessed, whilst on the "bad" aeroplane it stuck out about 2".

This meant that when I flew the "bad" aeroplane, my left leg was about 2" further to the right, and I therefore had about 2" less left stick travel available than in the "good" aeroplane. The subjective result of this was that I found the "bad" aeroplane a heck of a lot more difficult to fly (especially because we tended to fly left hand circuits).

From an aerodynamic perspective, the two aeroplanes were basically identical, but the subjective handling experience was like night and day.

Personally, I find the Hurricane rather heavy in roll, but in the absence of really concrete data (both from historical references and from the sim) I don't feel in a position to complain about it.

I the short term, you'll find that rudder helps, especially if you add a little up elevator.

[chappy]

Originally Posted by cheesehawk

are the speeds equal for each aircraft under the same atmospheric conditions? Weight will also affect how each plane behaves. I believe you are oversimplifying the "roll rate" for each a/c, and of course, there could still be some other factors (joystick setup, etc) on the hardware end that might cause an apparent difference.

that above count was done at the same alt, same conditions, same speed. all with full fuel and ammunition load


generally speaking i've not seen the hurricane roll rate be anything faster than that at all alts and speeds so far in game.

hardware imo is not the issue, because if it was, i would be stating issues in roll rate for all aircraft not just one. its the same config after all.

[chappy]

Originally Posted by madrebel

why is this obvious? 109s should just barely out roll a spit with non clipped wings at maneuvering speeds and they're equally awful at 400mph.

theres some varying information around from what i've been able to look up in the immediate timeframe, suffice to say its fairly obvious that all 3 were considered roughly compareable in roll rate, the discrepencies in data ive searched is minimal and theyre all around the 55-60 deg/sec mark. with the 09 slightly better at some speeds, the spitfire better above about 320mph. I guess the point mainly here is that for comparable conditions, i would think a 50% slower roll rate as unusual for the hurricane.

dont get me wrong, if its supposed to be that way and there's solid evidence of that then no worries. would be good if some other peeps could try it out and see if they see any marked differnces

[Kwiatek]

Major Werner Mölders, JG 51, compared the British fighters to his own prior to the Battle:

It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. The Hurricane is good-natured and turns well, but its performance is decidedly inferior to that of the Me 109. It has strong stick forces and is "lazy" on the ailerons.
The Spitfire is one class better. It handles well, is light on the controls, faultless in the turn and has a performance approaching that of the Me 109. As a fighting aircraft, however, it is miserable. A sudden push forward on the stick will cause the motor to cut; and because the propeller has only two pitch settings (take-off and cruise), in a rapidly changing air combat situation the motor is either overspeeding or else is not being used to the full.


The RAE reported: "At 400 m.p.h. the Me.109 pilot, pushing sideways with all his strength, can only apply 1/5 aileron, thereby banking 45 deg. in about 4 secs.; on the Spitfire also, only 1/5 aileron can be applied at 400 m.p.h., and again the time to bank is 45 deg. in 4 secs. Both aeroplanes thus have their rolling manoeuvrability at high speeds seriously curtailed by aileron heaviness."

[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.