Patch 4.10 - Development Updates by Daidalos Team

[ImpalerNL]

Hello team daidalos, i like the work you've done for il2.

But theres a thing that i noticed when flying the SM79: it turns like a spitfire.
I think this isnt accurate, maybe this needs a fix from the upcomming patch.

thanks

[koivis]

Well, indeed, most aeroplanes turn exactly like the Spitfire: when wings are not level, you pull the stick and move the elevators. Result = a turn. I really can't see how this is not accurate. SM-79 has ailerons on wings so it can roll, and also has elevators in the back.

Also, if you pull e.g. 3 Gs with SM-79 and 3 with Spit, yes, your turn rate at the same speed is pretty much the same. Can SM-79 handle even that much after 4.10 for longer periods, is another question.

[WWFlybert]

Originally Posted by koivis

Well, indeed, most aeroplanes turn exactly like the Spitfire: when wings are not level, you pull the stick and move the elevators. Result = a turn. I really can't see how this is not accurate. SM-79 has ailerons on wings so it can roll, and also has elevators in the back.

Also, if you pull e.g. 3 Gs with SM-79 and 3 with Spit, yes, your turn rate at the same speed is pretty much the same. Can SM-79 handle even that much after 4.10 for longer periods, is another question.

so much wrong here ..

You start a turn with rudder at the same time banking with ailerons, as well as applying elevator

just pulling on the stick, thus moving the elevators doesn't result in a turn at all !!! .. it results in a change of pitch .. in a diving turn from level you might even push on the stick a bit to properly make the turn

it's the correct application of yaw (rudder), roll (ailerons) and pitch (elevators) at a particular speed that result in the best turn rate

G-force equality does not co-relate directly to turn rate / radius at all between different aircraft !

[AndyJWest]

Originally Posted by WWFlybert

so much wrong here ..

You start a turn with rudder at the same time banking with ailerons, as well as applying elevator

just pulling on the stick, thus moving the elevators doesn't result in a turn at all !!! .. it results in a change of pitch .. in a diving turn from level you might even push on the stick a bit to properly make the turn

it's the correct application of yaw (rudder), roll (ailerons) and pitch (elevators) at a particular speed that result in the best turn rate

G-force equality does not co-relate directly to turn rate / radius at all between different aircraft !

Sorry, but this is demonstrably false in IL-2 and also in real life. Fly straight and level, roll the plane into a bank using ailerons alone - it will start to turn. With any significant bank, the nose will also tend to drop, so you need to pull back on the stick to compensate.

The only use for rudder in turning is to 'keep the ball centred' - to avoid sideslipping or skidding. In tight turns with a prop-driven aircraft, most of the forces generated by the rudder are needed to counteract the gyroscopic forces from the prop, which is why you find yourself having to apply 'inside rudder' when turning one way, and 'outside rudder' when turning the other.

And at a given pressure altitude, airspeed and angle of bank, in a coordinated turn (i.e. no sideslip), the radius/rate will for most practical purposes be the same for any aircraft. This is down to simple physics.

[WWFlybert]

<sigh> .. gotta love bank and yankers .. or was that yank and bankers ?

you roll a plane using ailerons, not elevator

of course, once you are in a bank, it's the application of elevator that results in a turn

it's to greater degree engine (and prop) torque than gyroscopic precession that results in the need for rudder compensation depending on direction of turn, even in WWI rotaries .. just go check technical articles at Old Rheinbeck to confirm

and though I've directly asked Oleg, TD, and others familiar with the IL-2 FM. I've never been able to get an answer whether IL-2 FM simulates gyroscopic precession at all .. something I'd like to know for putting WWI aircraft into IL-2, where the effect is needed for proper fm on rotary engined planes.

regardless .. from my experience, *kicking* the rudder slightly in IL-2 can result in a quicker turn . and I make slight rudder compensation during the turn with good effect as you describe

Read carefully combat flight training manuals, and you'll find judicious rudder use is an important component in starting turns and maintaining them

the physics are not "simple" .. weight, wing area, wing foil profile, control surfaces' design, prop thrust and several other factors come into play regarding potential turn radius .. easy to demonstrate in IL-2 or even in a 12+ year old Red Baron II/3D Advanced Flight Model, that does simulate gyroscopic precession

or we can just agree to disagree

[AndyJWest]

Ok, I'll admit to an obvious typo - now corrected.

I can't see much point in arguing torque vs gyroscopic precession unless you can explain how the torque changes as the result of a turn.

And please read what other people have written regarding turns:

And at a given pressure altitude, airspeed and angle of bank, in a coordinated turn (i.e. no sideslip), the radius/rate will for most practical purposes be the same for any aircraft. This is down to simple physics.

Do you agree or disagree with this statement? And if you disagree, can you explain why?

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Do you agree or disagree with this statement? And if you disagree, can you explain why?

Well, at first read I agreed with it, or thought I did. On second look however, it doesn't mention the g force generated by the turn, and if that's not the same, the rate of turn will be different. Different aircraft can sometimes pull different maximum g forces at the same speed and altitude, this is as I understand it largely, but not entirely, down to the wing loading.

[WWFlybert]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Ok, I'll admit to an obvious typo - now corrected.

I can't see much point in arguing torque vs gyroscopic precession unless you can explain how the torque changes as the result of a turn.

And please read what other people have written regarding turns:

Do you agree or disagree with this statement? And if you disagree, can you explain why?

I'm not really going to get in complex discussion on this here Andy

How it is not completely obvious to you that a small light weight plane traveling at a lower speed will turn tighter than a larger heavier plane traveling at greater speed, yet both can be achieving the same G-force ... well .. I don't know what to say .. think Zeke vs P-38 ..

Turning with the direction of torque will result in slightly better turn, with regards to WWII and modern single engine aircraft

Gyroscopic effects are relatively minor with inline engines because the rotating mass is relatively minor in relation to the mass of the plane

Perhaps I've not paid close enough attention, however I've not noticed Gyroscopic precession effects in IL-2 and only torque effects on take-offs

Again, it would be useful to know whether or not IL-2 models gyroscopic precession at all .. in these aircraft types, even single prop ( 2 or 4 engined planes cancel out with counter rotation ) types, the effect is likely so minor in real terms, that it may not have been worth the CPU cycles to include.

Rheinbeck pilots of rotary engined Camel claim the aircraft's ability to turn to the right so much better than to the left is more due to torque than gyroscopic precession .. though to some degree they too notice the tendency for the nose to rise and the requirement to apply down - inside rudder , which in turn slows the plane to stall speed if one tries to maintain altitude .. where to the right, the nose will tend to dive requiring up - outside elevator to maintain level flight .. however, it seems (not sure here) that because one is going in the direction of the torque and tending to dive, speed can be maintained better to prevent stalls

regardless .. I'm here to get news about the release and features of 4.10 and don't desire to add more pages to this thread

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by ImpalerNL

Hello team daidalos, i like the work you've done for il2.

But theres a thing that i noticed when flying the SM79: it turns like a spitfire.
I think this isnt accurate, maybe this needs a fix from the upcomming patch.

thanks

According to IL2 Compare with the 4.09 data tables the SM.79 doesn't have anywhere close to the Spitfires turn rate. What it does have is very low speed turning capabilities which is not unusual for bombers. It's still not very fast at all.

I was very impressed with the turn rate of a B-17 I saw at an airshow once. It can really turn quickly when not weighed down by bombs and ammunition. It doesn't mean it turns at fighter speeds like the Spitfire does.

[ElAurens]

That's my experience taking a hop in a B-25 a few years ago...

She felt pretty spritely with no bombs, guns, crew with full gear/parachutes/sidearms, and with the very heavy tube radio equipment replaced by modern solid state gear. And this was on the current 100 Octane Low Lead Avgas that limits maximum manifold pressure. (They did run it up to 41" on takeoff though...).