yes!finally mighty wings with open beta!

[GrapeJam]

Ok then model elevator stiffness for the P-51...

And I presume it shouldn't, because..?.

You'ven't test dived the Mustang, have you? Because I assure you, there's elevator stiffness near Vmax.

Its still unclear wheter you want mushed control reaction (force effecting the time required to reach deflection) or limited control reaction (force too high to overcome).

 

How about both?

 

No really, try standpulling, you don't pull 4 springs as fast and as far as 2 springs.

Edited April 7, 2015 by GrapeJam

[DB 605]

You'ven't test dived the Mustang, have you? Because I assure you, there's elevator stiffness near Vmax.

 

 

 

In open beta? Because i just tested "normal" version and didn't noticed any elevator stiffness at 450mph/sealevel when i leveled it from dive. And i was in believe that elevator forces are only modelled to K4 so far.

[GrapeJam]

In open beta? Because i just tested "normal" version and didn't noticed any elevator stiffness at 450mph/sealevel when i leveled it from dive. And i was in believe that elevator forces are only modelled to K4 so far.

Try tuning your stick sensitivity down you'll certainly notice it.

[DB 605]

Try tuning your stick sensitivity down you'll certainly notice it.

 

Already down to zero. But i did re-test it and yes there is slight stiffening at over 480mph or so.

[DB 605]

 

The 109 right now has increase in roll rate that it still can match P-51 at high speed due to lack of rudder stiffness alone.

 

 

Not really, did some tests and at 400mph p-51 rolls around 3sec while K4 takes 5-6 secs. At 600km/h K4 takes 4-5 sec, mustang around 2-3 sec. But i believe Yo-Yo said there will be some stiffening to rudder too once they will find some figures.

Edited April 7, 2015 by DB 605

[Solty]

Ok then model elevator stiffness for the P-51... because its also described 'heavier'. :doh: I suppose for the pilots used to the Spitfire everything bar the ailerons were heavier, because for some reason the ppl at supermarine always aimed at delicately light controls.

 

 

 

And I presume it shouldn't, because..?

 

Its still unclear wheter you want mushed control reaction (force effecting the time required to reach deflection) or limited control reaction (force too high to overcome).

Who said I don't want P-51 to have its correct stifness? I asked even for clarification and YoYo told me this.

 

 

Originally Posted by Solty

Hello! I'm new to the DCS. I bought the P-51D in December. I don't know if those questions weren't asked before, but I didn't see them. So I am very sorry if they were answered.

 

To buisness:

1. Why is the pilot so strong? You can rip your wings in a dive by pulling half of the stick. I though there would be some force representation and control stiffening at high speeds modeled in the game that is a sim?

2. Why is the compressibility portrayed in a way that you loose all your control surfaces instead of lost of control?

3. Is the damage model going to be reworked? The P-51 seems to be made out of napalm, and every damage is portrayed as if the plane was hit with a thermobaric wepon. Even places that have nothing to do with flames (wing tips) if shot off or just damaged during a landing are burning like a hay stack.

 

When I am damaged the plane doesn't feel too different. I was once hit by a Fw190 to my right wing and didn't even notice it before I killed him and checked my plane...Also, P-51 seems to fly quite ok with half of a wing missing...

 

Before somebody asks, my settings are on full-real and I don't even have "landing assist" on.

 

1. Because in Mustang there is no problem to pull the stick for overcome G-limit AT ANY IAS you can create sufficient lift to create enough G's. It's a fact that force gradient per 1g being very pleasant at low at moderate g's became NEGATIVE for high g maneuvers. It means that after you pull certain g the stick force stops to rise and then begins diminish as you pull. Up to zero. THis effect is especially noticable with aft CG.

2. Do not mix excessive dynamic pressure and Mach effects (compressibility). Compressibility effect is noticable during a steep diving from the high altitude (more than 30000 ft). You can see trim changes, violent buffeting, increased stick travel to create certain g. Excessive dynamic pressure or max IAS causes structural damages, especially control surfaces.

3. Yes, visual model now must be reworked. Anyway, massive structural damage can cuse the fire because not only hundreds litres of petrol get free but electric wires catch short circuit. You have fuel and you have strong arcs.

 

 

Also, next time please try to read the rest of the post. I said that we don't exactly know what "fairly heavy" means. We need more data.

 

If loosing wings just by kicking rudder at high speed is ok with you... then I am deeply worried.

This is P51 rudder authority at different speeds

This is 109 authority at different speeds.

 

From the P-51 we can see that the plane that is known for its very good high speed handling still is affected by this effect. So even though it is a minor change, it is implemented. Ergo, your argument about ruder forces beeing too minor to model is false.

 

With 109 we can see that the rudder has 0 changes to the ruder authority at all speeds. What that creates is.

1. Major increase at roll rate that gives unrealistic fighting characteristic to Bf109K.

2. This excessive rudder force is able to destroy the plane completely at high speeds.

3. It feels out of place with both alerions and elevator stifness implemented.

And I presume it shouldn't, because..?

 

Its still unclear wheter you want mushed control reaction (force effecting the time required to reach deflection) or limited control reaction (force too high to overcome).

It shouldn't because in real life it was not capable.

 

I want both.

 

Don't get me wrong. I don't want to fly planes that don't behave like real planes.

 

If you want a chocolate bar and I will give you, a bar of chocolate substitute that looks exactly like the chocolate you wanted. But its taste doesn't feel right.

 

Bf109 was one of my favourite planes alongside spitfire when I was a kid.(Bf109G2). I liked how simple it is to fly in the, now, 10 year old game. And I want that plane to feel right. Not to make any mistakes other sims did, and for the plane in a sim to feel right, we need that stifness to feel like a part of the plane and the plane to be the part of the world. Not only for the 109. For Spitfire, Thunderbolt, Me262, Fw190D, finaly the Pony, all of them deserve that. It is not "crippling" a plane, it is giving it the proper characteristic.

 

We are the virtual pilots. We fly virtual planes. Don't treat DCS like another game. It is a sim with high aspirations.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Solty

[Kurfürst]

From the P-51 we can see that the plane that is known for its very good high speed handling still is affected by this effect. So even though it is a minor change, it is implemented. Ergo, your argument about ruder forces beeing too minor to model is false.

 

With 109 we can see that the rudder has 0 changes to the ruder authority at all speeds. What that creates is.

1. Major increase at roll rate that gives unrealistic fighting characteristic to Bf109K.

2. This excessive rudder force is able to destroy the plane completely at high speeds.

3. It feels out of place with both alerions and elevator stifness implemented.

It shouldn't because in real life it was not capable.

 

1. Rudder increases rolling ability of the aircraft and the 109 has a rather powerful rudder. Wheter full deflection could be made with the late type rudder with Flettner (which reduces control forces) is open to debate but I am yet to be convinced that "heavy, but not unpleasant" remark

 

2. Historically correct. See TAGL for dive instructions for 109F/early 109G on assymetric yawing stresses. Its also valid for all planes of course, but not all planes have similary powerful rudders. It also points that the rudder being well usable in dives:

 

(2) Yawing in a dive leads to high one-sided wing stresses which, under certain circumstances, the wing tip cannot support. When a yawing condition is recognised the dive is to be broken off without exercising force. In a flying condition of yawing and turning at the same time correction must be made with the rudder and not the ailerons. The condition of wing tips is to be examined and checked with TAGL. Bf 109 Nos. 5/41 and 436/41.

 

So with some special flight conditions (combination of yaw with other change in pich/roll?) yawing in dive will lead to structural failure.

 

3. Agreed. However that sensation is the physcal sensation of the real life pilot. A hand can excert about 20-30 kg sideways force for the ailerons, a bit more for the elevators, say 50-60 kg, but the legs can push 100-200 kg easily for the rudders. Try pushing you body weight in on a single leg for example. I find it very unlikely that with that much of force you would be in difficulty operating the rudder. Perhaps they'd be a bit more mushy in operation at high speed because of the larger forces, but very likely still very much deflectable.

 

Bf109 was one of my favourite planes alongside spitfire when I was a kid.(Bf109G2). I liked how simple it is to fly in the, now, 10 year old game. And I want that plane to feel right. Not to make any mistakes other sims did, and for the plane in a sim to feel right, we need that stifness to feel like a part of the plane and the plane to be the part of the world. Not only for the 109. For Spitfire, Thunderbolt, Me262, Fw190D, finaly the Pony, all of them deserve that. It is not "crippling" a plane, it is giving it the proper characteristic.

 

Then the question is, lacing any sorts of rudder force data, should we introduce an hoc "stiffness" factor which may well be a completely fictional aspect?

[GrapeJam]

2. Historically correct. See TAGL for dive instructions for 109F/early 109G on assymetric yawing stresses. Its also valid for all planes of course, but not all planes have similary powerful rudders. It also points that the rudder being well usable in dives

Yeah, the problem is he broke it with the K model. And seeing that 7G was the ultimate safety load of the 109, if the pilot was able to use the rudder to get past that 7G to overstress the the wings at high speed, it would have been reported like the earlier F/G models. In DCS you get past 7G you just break the wings instantly instead of overstressing, but you get my point?

[Kurfürst]

Physics don't get effected by plane models. The ultimate g limit of about 10 g (not 7, that was the safe limit w/o the safety limit) is for one-axis acceleration, ie. a clean pullout. It can be much less when there is a yaw on, or if the ailerons are used at the same time, these will twist the structure due to asymmetric loading. AFAIK however, planes were not stressed for twisting damage, and combined forces can present you with forces the structure is not prepeared for, nevermind the more violent and self-inducing things like flutter oscillations which can be encountered at high speeds. Those will break any plane.

 

The TAGL mentioned seems to be specific about the wingtips and yaw conditions, I suppose where there was some yaw effect it may exposed a much larger surface of the wingtips that they simply could not support, since they were not sized for such force vectors. I am sure they have worked on it, but there is no solution that will completely eliminate structural limits.

 

AFAIK the persistent wing break bug on the 109K was caused by some hiccup with the wing fatigue model, that is, the plane may survived a 7 or 8 g pullout at the bending limit, but the damage and reduced load bearing capacity of the structure was recorded and subsequently less load could break your wings. The problem was apparently that this fatigue appeared abnormally quickly, or something like that.