FM-sideslips and drag

If pilot is good he rather woudn't spin accidentally.

But if You use some brutes movement of these kind of planes you should expect rather nasty stalls and spins ( flick rolls) which also should take some altitude to recovery ( watch vidoes i posted - even if there were no agressive movements on controls).

Im sure that many of WW2 pilots dont even stall or spin casue they dont push the planes to the limits. Some of them tried - like ex. Joachim Marsielie.

From my experience with 5000 kg taildragger with 1000 HP radial engine ( Ash 62IR) and big 4 blades prop, big wings ( 18m span and 40 m2 area) it could spin accidentaly which at low alt its mean crash ( there were some accidents where pilots just making climbing turn with water load and get stall and spin or even after drop water bomb when they try to look behind to check how they hit fire target).

Of course if pilot is good and feel the plane he shouldn't spin accidentaly but i mean that in DCS You could really make violent controls movement without too much risk of spin at all and even if plane stall recovery is immidietly. Such planes in game are so just too forgiving to me.

Other hand i tried F-86 and i think it is much more beliveable then prop fighters.

S!

just too forgiving to me

Nah, it spins pretty convincingly. This guy demonstrates how:

And yeah, the last time I tried myself this was how the bird behaved then as well.

What kind of prop driven aircraft effects DCS models poorly for your mind?

Torque for starters but you already know this.

You aren't interested in actually correcting it.

You are interested in being right.

I have already seen how you will respond so I am not going to bother engaging again.

I have the real world experience to know how high performance piston engine aircraft perform.

I also have the real world experience to know the handling differences between swept wing jets and straight wing props

I have direct contact with individuals flying a DCS prop fighter in the real world.

It just doesn't match up.

The DCS props fly like jets to one degree or another and are missing large chunks of the unique characteristics of prop driven aircraft.

If you suddenly become interested in correcting that, please feel free to PM me.

Nah, it spins pretty convincingly. This guy demonstrates how:

 

 

And yeah, the last time I tried myself this was how the bird behaved then as well.

These is not dynamical stall and spin. Most of these planes make such spins.

I got in mind different situations not typical exercise for spin ;) ----- look at videos i posted in spin topic ;)

Try to make hard climbing turns with full back stick in Fw 190, 109 K-4 or even P-51. P-51 from all these planes is more prone to spinining but still got some strange behaviour like game engine cant hang some different effects.

I think you overestimate the spin possibility for some fighters...

 

Anton as a predecessor of Dora and it was possible (as Erich Brunotte tells me) to make a snap rol in 190A from a turn to the opposite turn that is a kind of pre-spin movement (post-stall AoA and autorotation).

He also said that he never got in a spin in fighters accidentally.

 

And as an example of extremely spin-proof aircraft:

About some spins in P47 and P-51 - expecially interesting is about high speed spin ( dynamical) and moreover altitutude needed to recovery and spin turns ;)

And rest interesting notes Yo-Yo from Your P-47 manual ;)

and some focus on spin in P47

"I have" is not an argument in technical discussion. "It just doesn't" isn't an argument too.

That's just how it is with these guys. Nothing quantifiable, just bitching how things are "wrong". No supporting evidence, just claims, or presenting ambiguous data that is interpreted subjectively. And calling anyone sceptical of their claims "fanboys", as if these bozos themselves were anything but complete nobodies off the Internet.

And the claim that no-one at ED understands the behavioral difference between jets and prop planes is just laughable. The Fighter Collection is a (part?) owner of ED and last I checked, they had like 20 single-engine hi-perf propeller AC in their posession. So the previously mentioned "direct contact" most certainly is right there, too.

Now I'm not saying things are perfect as they are and there's no room for improvement, but please, some unequivocal and quantifiable data to back up your claims or shut up!

And Kwiatek: Do you realize that none of the data you present actually contradicts what Yo-Yo is saying? Because the difference lies in how you interpret it.

well said :)

And Kwiatek: Do you realize that none of the data you present actually contradicts what Yo-Yo is saying? Because the difference lies in how you interpret it.

You saw videos i posted? There are similar planes which got spin accidentaly and it cost their lives.

In manuals of P-51 or P-47 accelerated stall and spin is forbiden. Why? Beacause it is very dangerous. Even simple spin is dangerous at altititude below 10 000 :) In DCS K-4 or Fw 190 D-9 are very easy in stall and spin - there is no problem. Even P-51 which is more prone to spin is quite easy to recovery also if You want force these plane to spin expecially in right side planes behave very strangle - like something want to stop it ( i mean dynamical stall during steep climb right turn and full elevator pull). Even if P-51 got spin it is very easy to recovery. I mean power on spins not power off :)

For me DCS is lack of power on spin characteristic in most prop planes.

P-51 was got in an intentional spins in tests and there were no accidents. So, the problem was not in the plane itself but mostly in the skill of pilots, wrong safe altitude estimation, possible desorientation and wrong recovery sequence. That's why the direction to CENTRALISE ALL CONTROLS AND WAIT existed as an ultimate countermeasure. :)

DCS P-51 was tested to match this test report regardiong recovery delays and so - the altitude to recover from the start of recovering to level flight.

If you are visiting MP servers you can see time to time stalled planes hitting the ground exactly as in your videos. :)

 

 

This an example of unitentional spin in DCS Spitfire during working video recording (during the track record the view was normal - forward) - a tiny delay in recovering costed one lost plane... :). And, by the way, take a look at the 1g elevator position :)...

 

In your video I can only see that the Spit can pull 8.6G in an instant and lose only 40 km/h speed. How is this 'real'.. Would you care to explain? Thanks.

Of course I can draw, but are there actual real life data of the Spit tested at those Gs?

P-51 was got in an intentional spins in tests and there were no accidents. So, the problem was not in the plane itself but mostly in the skill of pilots, wrong safe altitude estimation, possible desorientation and wrong recovery sequence. That's why the direction to CENTRALISE ALL CONTROLS AND WAIT existed as an ultimate countermeasure. :)

DCS P-51 was tested to match this test report regardiong recovery delays and so - the altitude to recover from the start of recovering to level flight.

If you are visiting MP servers you can see time to time stalled planes hitting the ground exactly as in your videos. :)

 

Yo-Yo power on spins also flick rolls were quite dangerous on these beast.

Flick roll was most forbidden in all these planes.

From the same P-51 manual:

So power on spins are possible and if happend it was not such fast to recovery. It take some time to recovery also need a lot of alt. Thats why it should be dangerous at low alt for all these type of planes ( P-51, Fw 190, even 109 )

Even in light Zlin 526F when you make more then 3 spin turns there is need some time and another few turns to recovery. At low alt it is very dangerous bisnes.

Warbirds are really beast surly spin above 1-2 turns should take a lot of time to recovery also power on spins/ dynamical one should be really dangerous at low alt.

It is not exacly the case in DCS actually.

Yo-Yo power on spins also flick rolls were quite dangerous on these beast.

 

Flick roll was most forbidden in all these planes.

 

From the same P-51 manual:

So power on spins are possible and if happend it was not such fast to recovery. It take some time to recovery also need a lot of alt. Thats why it should be dangerous at low alt for all these type of planes ( P-51, Fw 190, even 109 )

 

Even in light Zlin 526F when you make more then 3 spin turns there is need some time and another few turns to recovery. At low alt it is very dangerous bisnes.

 

Warbirds are really beast surly spin above 1-2 turns should take a lot of time to recovery also power on spins/ dynamical one should be really dangerous at low alt.

 

It is not exacly the case in DCS actually.

You would never do or try these maneuvers in the real world, like you have pointed out here. For safety and in some cases structural integrity.

This is a very high fidelity simulator, you can try these maneuvers in a sim when your life doesn't depend on anything going wrong "one time".

Birdstrike for what it's worth I agree with you and find that both sideslip and high AOA bleeds very little energy and makes dogfighting much less interesting because you don't have to manage energy loss very much. The lack of people on mulitplayer suggests many of us feel the same way.

Others will say "very little energy compared to what", and again I agree with you that the energy loss shouldn't be zero until you pull extreme AOA, it should register something.

Birdstrike for what it's worth I agree with you and find that both sideslip and high AOA bleeds very little energy and makes dogfighting much less interesting because you don't have to manage energy loss very much. The lack of people on mulitplayer suggests many of us feel the same way.

 

Others will say "very little energy compared to what", and again I agree with you that the energy loss shouldn't be zero until you pull extreme AOA, it should register something.

yes...we tested this and came to the sad conclusion, that drag due to slips are not modeled detailed enough. it seems very simplified, where slipping/skidding with too much rudder will cause some drag above a certain threshold , while at the same time slipping with too little rudder or no rudder at all will not...everybody is welcome to test it with their friends online. take the exact same trim and fuel settings, same engine settings and fly next to each other with one flying coordinated, keeping the ball in the middle, while the other doesnt give any rudder and flies in a slipped attitude...u will not notice a speed difference even after several minutes.

another nice example is when both go into a vertical climb...guess who is falling out of the skies first. the one using rudder to coordinate the climb, or the one not using any rudder but countering with ailerons? :)

dcs was orignially supposed to be a jet simulation, and i have the feeling thats why we see these behaviours in the prop FM.

and yeah, u are absolutely correct in with that energy retention doesnt feel natural at all. slightly off topic, but flaps in dcs are a very nice example on the warbirds in this case. again take a buddy with same aircraft (in this case not the spitfire as it only has no or full flaps) same fuel settings and be surprised that the one without using flaps will never extend from the one using them, as long as they manouver and not fly completely straight. again flaps do cause drag, but as soon as u start to manouver the lift will greatly outweigh the drag as long as the flap setting is not too extreme....

the one without using flaps will never extend from the one using them, as long as they manouver and not fly completely straight. again flaps do cause drag, but as soon as u start to manouver the lift will greatly outweigh the drag as long as the flap setting is not too extreme....

I agree and see guy extent flaps in turning fights without losing energy -- another reason I believe there are so few people on multiplayer. Flaps obviously should great significant drag if fully extended, and cause some drag when partially extended at least more than they're currently modeled to do.

at least more than they're currently modeled to do

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Now let's see the measurements and calculations you base this claim on.

See the previous posts from birdstrike. His point isn't one of personal taste, its that there's NO speed loss under conditions that should bleed some energy. No calculations necessary since there should be at least some speed loss if there's some sideslip or flap extension.