Open beta flight dynamics...

Say what now? There are sniper kills with .50BMG far in excess of 1km. You wont hit anything in an airborne scenario but against unarmored targets, the bullets are still extremely effective.

Closer to two and a half kilometers for the longest... but it's accuracy, not kinetic energy, that prevents longer shots. Curious if this GT bloke had ever actually *shot* a gun, because I have it on good authority that even .30 will ruin your whole day to 1000m and beyond. Bounce off, indeed :lol:

There was a comment made in the il2 PF manual put up for discussion a while back

 

- Wings still break apart more or less easily.

I have determined that about six seconds of flap application delays the onset of wing stress while maneuvering and causes stall to interrupt breaking damage. I have noticed the wings will still break depending on:

- Left or right back in a turn I managed to pop the tip off on the downwind wing

- Sharp pull (back to the hard stop) will break both tips

- Increased maneuverable tolerance raising the g limit before break

this wingbreak is getting a joke. In not a single book I read about the 109 or it's Aces ripping of wingtips is even mentioned. I never heard of it until the DCS 109. I just did a left bank turn and rolled to the right just to level the plane. bang, left wingtip gone. A joke, not funny anymore.

Show me a source which proofs this or fix it!

this wingbreak is getting a joke. In not a single book I read about the 109 or it's Aces ripping of wingtips is even mentioned. I never heard of it until the DCS 109. I just did a left bank turn and rolled to the right just to level the plane. bang, left wingtip gone. A joke, not funny anymore.

 

Show me a source which proofs this or fix it!

Ok; but first show me proof that the P-51D regularly broke wings. You aren't likely to find either. First, because any pilots that did it probably didn't live to report it, and second, because control forces required to exceed wing stress limits were pretty high - certainly on the Bf109.

You are, in essence, complaining because you have been gifted with a gorilla- strength pilot in DCS Bf109. The down side is that he's strong enough to pull the wings off, but at the same time, you have been given the ability to pull maneuvers that a real pilot would have been incapable of in real life because of high stick forces.

TL; DR: learn to fly the envelope, instead of whining about your magically 'roided out beefcake of a pilot.

In 1992, while serving at the Portuguese Airforce at Sintra Airbase, nearby Lisbon, I was given the awful experience of watching a terrible fatal accident with a T-37 breaking it's left wing when pulling from a low pass during a training session of the "Asas de Portugal" aerobatic team. This accident put an end to the history of the T37 in the Portuguese Airforce, and it's a reminder to me, along my pilot and simmer life, that it can really happen.

Latter it was found, during investigation, that the T37 had a problem with "material fatigue" near the root of it's wings.

Anyway, I agree that probably the "problem" with DCS has it's root in the absence of proper force feedback from our controllers... ED could have followed an approach like other sims use, both regarding control force feedback for users without a FF controller and the fact that our joysticks have a much smaller "arm" than the real sticks, but they chose to make it precise to the real thing, and so, unless we use the proper hardware we can't fully profit from the quality of it's FDM.

But any home FF stick can reproduce real force which was need to move stick and controls during high speeds flight.

So unfortunately game need to simulate it in other way like it is done in other sims - control stiffness at higher speed.

Unfortunately DCS don't simulate these at all for prop planes. Maby becasue DCS engine was initialy made for modern planes which use fly by wire or boosted controls ( hydraulic) system.

I think ED shoud do something with these in the future like with visibility of planes from distance

Ok; but first show me proof that the P-51D regularly broke wings. You aren't likely to find either. First, because any pilots that did it probably didn't live to report it, and second, because control forces required to exceed wing stress limits were pretty high - certainly on the Bf109.

Unfortunately DCS don't simulate these at all for prop planes. Maby becasue DCS engine was initialy made for modern planes which use fly by wire or boosted controls ( hydraulic) system.

 

I think ED shoud do something with these in the future like with visibility of planes from distance

100% ! :thumbup:

Ok; but first show me proof that the P-51D regularly broke wings. You aren't likely to find either. First, because any pilots that did it probably didn't live to report it, and second, because control forces required to exceed wing stress limits were pretty high - certainly on the Bf109.

 

You are, in essence, complaining because you have been gifted with a gorilla- strength pilot in DCS Bf109. The down side is that he's strong enough to pull the wings off, but at the same time, you have been given the ability to pull maneuvers that a real pilot would have been incapable of in real life because of high stick forces.

 

TL; DR: learn to fly the envelope, instead of whining about your magically 'roided out beefcake of a pilot.

No. If you can reproduce wing breaking with rolling from one side to another (e.g a spiral and a change of direction) and you loose your wingtip with around 5g this is not "normal" or missing stick forces. If this would be common or there is a danger that this could happen, don't you think this would be mentioned in a manual? like never exceed speeds? Or any of the pilots would have mentioned it like "you had to be carefull with g-rolls" like with the landing gear that caused much trouble?

loosing wingtips is nowhere mentioned, not in a single historic document, not stated from a single pilot (axis or allies). And loosing a wingtip would not lead to instand death so nobody could tell about it...

Nowhere in the real world this happend, in no simulation, just in DCS. It's an DCS thing, nothing else

€dit: just checked tackView: 6.3g in a right bank and wing tip falls of

€dit2: I played a bit with TacView:

right bank turn 7g - no problem

dive 690km/h pull out: wingtip gone at 3.4g

dive 610km/h pull out: wingtip gone at 2.5g(!!!)

€dit 3:

I manipulated the axis curves ingame: 6g or 7g turn all day long with full nose down trim. while turning at maximum deflection I slowly trimmed nose up and and bang, wingtip gone.

A 7.5g turn with 19.4°/s turn rate no problem. But once I start to trim nose up the wingtip fails at 6.6g at 25.5°/s turnrate.

All this feels like it's not related to g-forces, it's related to the ° of stick deflection. You exceed a certain amount of ° and your wingtips snapp off, even if it's only 2.5g. This must be an FM problem

109K4 wingbreak.trk

Tell me what you think. I attempted to make a snap roll and try a power off stall.

Hard to say casue your video is little too jerky.

I have some doubts about spin characteristic of prop planes in DCS which are somewhere too spin forgiving to me. Other hand stircte stall are quite nice simulated with good buffeting.

No. If you can reproduce wing breaking with rolling from one side to another (e.g a spiral and a change of direction) and you loose your wingtip with around 5g this is not "normal" or missing stick forces. If this would be common or there is a danger that this could happen, don't you think this would be mentioned in a manual? like never exceed speeds? Or any of the pilots would have mentioned it like "you had to be carefull with g-rolls" like with the landing gear that caused much trouble?

Air-frame load factors assume one axis is loaded. Asymmetrically load the air-frame and it will fail at a much lower load factor.

It is part of pilot training to avoid certain situations such as a spiral dive and how to recover.

Anytime you do a rolling pull out, you are in danger of structural failure in an aircraft with the structural failure limiting load factors being reduced as much as 75%.

Unload before rolling if you’re in a high-g situation and need to level the wings.

An accelerometer is not going to tell you if you asymmetrically load the air-frame. It will only read the average load factor and does not divide it into vectors.

Anytime you load the air-frame on more than one axis above Va, you can experience structural damage. Here, rudder inputs caused air-frame failure in a large transport category aircraft killing all on board.

The NTSB has pointed out that this broader definition, although widespread among pilots, is incorrect. Engineers consider each axis separately in designing for the air loads

accompanying an abrupt, full control input at maneuvering speed. “Full inputs in more than one axis at the same time and multiple inputs in one axis are not considered in designing for these [VA] flight conditions.”2 The particular “multiple inputs” that prompted NTSB comment were the rudder reversals leading to a yaw over swing followed by a final reversal that destroyed the vertical tail of American Airlines Flight 587 on November 12, 2001. (Under FAR 25.351, rudders are tested for sudden displacement in a single direction at a time, and then returned to neutral, at speeds up to design dive speed.)

See FlightLabs excellent paper on maneuvering load factors attached.

I have lost the wings on both the P-51 and the Dora. Each time it has been my fault as I looked back on a rolling pull out above Va. It does not have to be full control deflection above Va to experience structural damage or failure.

Va is a safety speed that is used to prevent such air-frame damage.

The design maneuvering speed (Va)is the speed at which the airplane will stall before exceeding its design limit-load factor in turbulent conditions or when the flight controls are suddenly and fully deflected in flight.

http://flighttraining.aopa.org/magazine/1999/March/199903_Flying_Smart_A_New_Look_at_Maneuvering_Speed.html

Games in the past have allowed player to ignore Va for the most part. The reality is design speeds are the most important aspect of flying an airplane in terms of desired performance.

At work, when I expect to hit turbulence, I slow the jet down to turbulent penetrations speed.

You wouldn't drive over speed bumps in your car at 60 mph so why would you do that same thing in your airplane?

When I am out in the practice area just enjoying flying my airplane, I hit Va before cutting up the sky.

My thoughts on this are "welcome to the first sim you have to pay attention to some of the things real pilot's do"!!

Adjust your thinking, learn to fly and fight the planes and have fun.

Tell me what you think. I attempted to make a snap roll and try a power off stall.

What I saw...

Your snap roll did not look bad but you stalled it and kept pulling.

Then you did a nice power off stall but never recovered and held it all the way into the ground.

Those slats will make spin entry more difficult in the Bf-109 than airplanes not equipped with LE slats.

It is a little jerky on the video.

What I saw...

 

Your snap roll did not look bad but you stalled it and kept pulling.

 

Then you did a nice power off stall but never recovered and held it all the way into the ground.

 

Those slats will make spin entry more difficult in the Bf-109 than airplanes not equipped with LE slats.

 

It is a little jerky on the video.

I mean. I did that on purpose. The stall, and how recovers on itself, how uneaven the snaps are. I have never experienced this in any other sim. It is realy easy to recover.

But the power off stall is... um wierd to me too. Because I though that it should get worse and actually go into a spin, but it just snaps out of it after one revoltuion. Again very esay to get out of. Very forgiving, but those "snaps" are realy wierd. Are they because of the slats? They just stop the spin?

But the power off stall is... um wierd to me too. Because I though that it should get worse and actually go into a spin, but it just snaps out of it after one revoltuion. Again very esay to get out of. Very forgiving, but those "snaps" are realy wierd. Are they because of the slats? They just stop the spin?

It sounds like normal spin behavior for an LE slat equipped aircraft.

The slats do not stop the spin, they energize the boundary layer over the wingtip and aileron. It is possible to spin an LE slat equipped aircraft, it just takes work to do it as the slats are resisting the basic aerodynamics of spin entry.

You cannot spin unless that inboard wing stalls.

To get it to spin, you have to violently input controls and force it.

This is typical LE slat spin entry behavior:

Now, spinning. Some would say that the Rallye couldn't enter a true spin because you couldn't maintain a stalled wing as the a/c yawed due to the slats and all you were doing was a tight spiral dive. However, the old C150 trick of 1500RPM, pull smartly up then stamp on the left rudder pedal was pretty dramatic and went round plenty fast enough for me! Spinning was just being taken out of the syllabus then so I didn't have to do it for the GFT.

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/295434-aerobatics-rallye.html

LE slats tend to self recover the airplane from a spin too.

They are like training wheels for your wing!! Can you tip a bike with training wheels over? Sure you can but you gotta work harder than normal to do it.

Just experienced a wing failure with combat flaps down. Very cool.

Made the same turn without flaps several times, decided to lower combat flaps and increase my rate....

Wing fails.....

Flaps lower the structures load factor limits on actual aircraft....doah!!!! Guess I need to be smarter in my combat flap use.

I'll leave that here. Might be useful. Those are tets of some 109F aparently with G wings... well it might be useful. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/Diving_Test_109F_W.Nr.9228_ger_eng.pdf

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/tig28aug42.jpg