RISE OF FLIGHT media from Leipzig.

Direct from Germany and the Leipzig Game Con 2008:

http://www.sebuga.de/

English translation (check out the videos too):

http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url...TrUrl=Translate

Thanks FR, looking very good

Ming

It looks terrific! Interesting to see the amount of detail given to ground units. Can't wait!

WOW !

Wow, thanks FlyR.

That looks very impressive.

Looks like we won't have to wait too long, menus and tutorial etc mentioned ....

Damn. I can't get to the videos? Mozilla or Explorer.

That's a great update! Thanks FR!

Nice!! There's the real meat an potatoes we've all been wanting. Videos, system specs, development team info, and some pics from GC!

Waiting on an official update, but this is official enough :).

Edit:
Just had a chance to view the full vids. I'm not one to get emotional, but I got the shivers when I saw the gameplay video with the dogfights. It really reminded me of my time in Red Baron 3D, only so much better. The handling of the plane looks perfect, the graphics are great, and there's great ground scenery (a train, tanks, armored cars, etc). It was epic! Yes, I want it now

Ooooh - looking so good.

Bah, it's a fake as the Moon Landings. It's vaporware, I tell you, VAPORWARE!!!!



Simply stunning!

I do wonder about how far to the right that fellow was leaning in the 6DOF preview. He'd be unstrapped and nearly falling out of the cockpit!

Oh, man! That last video is stunning. I so greatly hope that the copy protection scheme is acceptable.

Great Stuff, the gameplay video particularly has made me want this product on my HD now

Very impressive graphically, lovely muted relections and lighting effects, very close to photoreal. AI flight model looks very smooth, no jerking around like we've got used to in IL2 recently.

Can we have a high res version of the vid please, I want to be able to view it full screen like I'm in control.

I love the way the Germans never much bothered with Camo in those days

The D VII had the Lozenge painted over on the top and was bare underneath!!

Guess they were more worried about looking good than being

Fantastic in game footage btw, more please.

VikS - if you have higher res vids, I'll be happy to post them on my site!

Hi Mogster

Interesting. What do you mean by jerking around in IL-2 recently? I don't have any jerking around to get used to.

Lovely videos, especially "the last" one with the dogfighting...

Is it only me or do they look more "IL2" again? Not that it is bad thing... I guess the fancy lighting effects have not been fine tuned yet (an a low res video "masks" them).

/Mazex

I mean the mechanical way the AI flies the aircraft in IL2FB, the aircraft jerk from one position to another when you watch them. They sort of snap into a bank then snap back to level as they turn, that sort of thing.

It doesn't look like a human's flying the aircraft and spoils the fun of watching back videos. It wasn't always that way in IL2, it started with FB from what I remember. It was a response to people claiming that the AI wasn't challenging enough so Oleg gave it some help.

The KOTS AI looks great so far, it seems to move the aircraft around the sky in a convincingly human way.

The lighting effects on the player aircraft look fantastic. As for the terrain and non player aircraft it looks good but its a bit hard to tell from such a low res video.

Indeed Mogster.

(can't see well any tracer trails in this low-res footage)

The cockpit sounds seem to be nicely detailed, good engine and wind rush effects.

I like the birds tweeting in the quiet at the start and finish of the vid A nice touch, adds that bit of soul.

For me, the train puffing while passing the bridge was one cool thing; still i don't know why

I am impressed by everything I saw. The moving ground units blew me away! I'm in aw of the broken tail on the D7 as it falls to earth. I like that there is the ability to have icons and other things to make it easier or not have that stuff.

I just hope that if it really only starts out with only 2 planes that add-ons will follow quickly like as in every month. I don't care what they charge, I'll sell off what ever I need to and eat cat food if thats what it takes.

I'm getting so excited thinking about 128 planes in a server. Imagining huge formations clashing in the skies over no mans land WOW! It'll be like RB3d was 10 years ago only 10 times better with 10 times the people. and we all won't get booted to our desk tops every time someone flames!

"....no jerking around like we've got used to in IL2 recently."

Very important remark, I agree too, aircraft movements look natural and real :-))))

Btw, very good rendition of the trenches areas.

Perhaps a little too much magenta in the render engine, or this is perhaps only the video?

Those videos were awesome!

...now I have to buy RoF AND TrackIr.

Had a chuckle at the end of the first video - "Wise... of Fwight."

Looks incredible.

I could not tell so much from the grainy video but the planes and lighting looked like that in First Eagles. The ground and sky were far better than FE. I expect the online will be much better. I do so hope that the phase from stall to spin is done right, as it is now in FE.

Uriah

That's something you will probably never know (like all of us).... since most of the peoples that entered a spin in thos old-design rear-centered biplanes generally didn't survive to tell how it was...
... and since that the few that succeeded and then developped the experience to master it and teach the others (as you can read in some WWI flight manuals) are dead today (and never described in details this transition phase.... at my knowing...).
Nobody today will be fool enough to try a spin with a WWI replica... so nobody has the experience to tell if the stall to spin transition in whatever WWI sim is correct or not.

Stalls and spins were commonly used in ww1 dogfights both defensively and at times for advantage.

Its pretty hard to imagine that any pilot in ww1 would not stall or spin a plane many times in dogfights, given their comparatively high stall speeds (to their top and fighting speeds), often sensitive controls, and propensity of these planes to stall and spin anyway.

like today, the greatest danger is really when you are near the ground and/or inexperienced. In addition they weren't that robust, there were risks in everything - dives, going into clouds, turning engines off etc. yes it was all risky, but stall/spin recovery was reasonably well understood.

and the aerodynamics involved in stalls and spins are the same as today. So its not like the developers have to invent some new type of stall, just a matter of deciding/guessing what would be reasonable - eg Spad probably should have a high stall speed (around 55 mph), easily spun, preferably accelerated stalls as well etc....completely recoverable given its robust.

I too like Uriah hope the game incorporates good stall spin characteristics - its essential for a realistic ww1 flight model, or any period for that matter.

It is not only easy to imagine, it was a fact that for the first two years of WWI any spin was going to result in death for the pilot. The Airco DH2 earning the nickname of "whirling incenerator" because it had a nasty habit of entering spins and catching fire (usually mutually exclusive events), which lead to a dead pilot.

Poor seat belts, no parachutes, and it wasn't until into the war that anyone figured out how to get out of a spin - let alone want to intentionally want to spin a fragile aircraft as they were flying.

You'll have to provide reference where spins were "commonly used" in WWI dogfights.

Aye it's called ambience, important and what you do to create an atmosphere. If you start up at the airfield in OFF (even Phase 1) you hear the birds, dogs barking etc as you sit on the field.

You can't fill all the senses with a flat world on a monitor, but you can have a good go at many

I'd imagine that you start intentionally spinning these early aircraft and you run the danger of over stressing the structure and having the wings fold up on you, no? I've just read Winged Victory and Sag Rising. The only intentional spins I can remember being mentioned were used to try to convince the attacker that the pilot had been killed.

I'm no expert but The aerodynamics are totally different from those of even WW2 biplanes. These were early aircraft with none of aerodynamic conventions that have been the norm since the 1930s.

Other have allready replied to this... better than I would.
I will just add that for most of the WWI planes, the controls were not as sensitive as you seems to think. For a lot of planes for example, the ailerons were quite heavy. I know one test pilot of WWI replica (that tested the Breguet XIV replica for exemple), and for him, without logger's arms, you can't start an aileron roll with a BXIV... you need to use rudder and induced roll)
It's certainly not the case for all WWI biplanes, and probably each one has its own responsivity.



Absolutly wrong. The first intentionnal in-flight tests to recover from spin started late 1916, and the first written report about spin and recovery theory was published in 1918 (F.A. Lindemann: "The Experimental and Mathematical Investigation of Spinning.")... and don't search in this report, you wont find in ths report a description of stall to spin transition.



But the aerodynamic solutions used for the planes were totally different (wing profiles, plane centering, responsivity of controlling surfaces, drag ratios, etc...)
the spinning transition (and most other aerodynamic transitions) can't be described just by mathematics (or wind tunnels wouldn't have been necessary to test some aerodynamic designs...)



And that would be only guesses...

So.... when you will get your game copy... how will you be able to explain than your guesses are better than the dev guesses?

Again, nobody will know, neither you, the dev or anybody else.

BigBouncer is completely correct, and by 1917-18, stalling, spinning, and spin recovery was being taught by all the combatant air forces as part of advance pursuit pilot training for combat (even by the British). Excerpts from Earning Their Wings: British Pilot Training, 1912-18:





Link to Earning Their Wings: British Pilot Training, 1912-18 online (here in PDF):

http://library2.usask.ca/theses/availabl...inalVersion.pdf

Another good online reference to the war's training regimens for the main protagonist (also PDF):

https://www.afresearch.org/skins/rims/q_...?rs=enginespage

I did a report some years ago that I linked here on SimHQ, about the training in combat manuevers that the Americans received in France (primarily using the "French System" of instruction), so maybe that would be useful to include here (you'll need to learn these stunts if you're going to become a proficient air warrior in Rise Of Flight):

In June of 1917, Lieuntenant Albert Louis Deullin of the Aviation Militaire wrote down the principles he had learned from combat fighting as a chasse pilot and leader in his "Pursuit Work in a Single-Seater". These ideas were adopted by the United States Army Air Service, and Deullin's doctrine became a part of the "French System" of instruction that American pilots received at their training fields in France. In the matters of airmanship, the Deullin monograph had the following to say about mastering the techniques of aerobatic maneuver:

As a pilot, he should be, before everything else, skillful in maneuvering. He can never practice too much aerial acrobatics; the short turn without change of height, climbing and descending spirals, nose spins, renversements," "retournements," looping the loop, short climbs at a very steep angle (What is known as a "chandelle" in French is the maneuver executed, when a plane has acquired an excessive speed in a dive, by pulling the plane into an angle greater than the best climbing angle. By using full motor a very steep ascent may thus be made until the machine begins to lose its speed, when a more normal angle is adopted. The height which can be gained in this manner will of course depend upon the machine and the amount of excess speed at the beginning of the ascent), dives and so on are the beginning of his period of instruction. He will only be ready for the "chasse" when he can execute them with precision relative to an adversary who manoeuvres likewise.

When Lieutenant-Colonel Hiram Bingham (renowned explorer of S. America, and eventual U.S. Senator) assumed command of the Third Aviation Instruction Center at Issoudun, France in the spring of 1918, the training of American airmen at the sprawling complex had been under way for many months. Although some streamlining of the "French System" of training was to take place, the American Air Service largely maintained the syllabus as originally set forth, and in his book An Explorer in the Air Service, Bingham described the daily routine that pilots experienced in their effort to qualify as single-seater or two-seater airmen at Issoudun. Much of the following details on aerobatic maneuver comes from Bingham's book and drawings, and his references as to the manner of service instruction conducted at the Center's various airfields was invaluable in preparing this article.

One of the first advanced maneuvers that American airmen trained on, was how to initiate and recover from a spin, or as the French called it the Vrille. For reasons that became obvious as the war progressed, it was deemed imperative that pilots learned how to master the spin as part of their basic training, before more advanced instruction continued. In letters home, Lt. Waldo Heinrichs describes doing a Vrille as chronicled in the book First To The Front, by Charles Woolley:

The first thing on the program was the Vrille, where you pitch with your wings spinning around the fuselage as an axis, very spectacular, but pretty easy so long as you don't lose your head. I climbed up to a thousand meters, cut the engine and after waiting a few seconds to lose speed, I yanked the stick into one comer and kicked the rudder over to the same side. The sensation is more or less like falling over a cliff in a bad dream. You rear up in the air, go over on your back and then start spinning round in a dive. To come out, you straighten your rudder, move the stick back to the center and push it slightly forward until you come out in a dive, when you can pull up the plane, put on the motor again, only it seems as if the earth were still spinning around underneath you.

Here's what Bingham wrote about the spin:

The spin or vrille was executed by throttling down the motor, holding up the nose of the plane until its flying speed as almost lost, then kicking the right rudder violently over and pulling the stick sharply back and to the right. This caused the plane to fall immediately into a vrille or "spinning nose dive." In order to come out of the spin, the rudder is at first placed exactly in neutral, then the stick is brought into the neutral position and pushed slowly forward. This causes the plane to stop spinning and start a straight nose dive. After flying speed has been attained by the nose dive, the plane is gradually pulled up to a level flying position and the throttle opened.

The chief danger is that the student in his excitement will over-control and send the plane into a reverse spin or else will push the stick too far forward and turn a somersault, coming out of the spin on his back. Consequently, it was very important to see that the student went up high enough so that he had plenty of room to come out of any positions into which he might get before falling too close to the ground.



Once proficiency at spirals, and in entering and recovering from a spin was demonstrated by the student pilot, additional instruction in aerobatics continued at Issoudun, with increasingly tighter turns at greater degrees of bank being taught. Next for the budding American pusuit pilots to learn was the Immelmann Turn, or what was encompassed in the French repertoire known as Virages. Called a "Vertical Virage" because the required bank exceeded 45 degrees, Bingham describes the maneuver's execution technique:

After satisfying the instructor of his ability to do tight spirals, the pilot was next taught to do vertical banks or virages, beginning at an elevation of about five thousand feet. The movements of the controls in this manoeuvre are the same as those in tight spirals, except that the plane is banked over to 90° and the speed is increased to a point where dizziness is brought on very rapidly.



If the French monitors were satisfied with the progress of their American charges, the student pilots advanced to Fields 5 & 6 at Issoudun, to learn the final two aerobatic maneuvers of their training program, and to fly these in the single-seat Nieuports of 15 Meter wing area, such as the N.21.

Bingham continues with his description of the Split-S:

After this the pilot learned the renversement, the quickest method of doing an aerial "about-face." This manoeuvre is performed by first pulling smartly on the stick and then turning the plane over on its back with a sharp, quick kick on the right rudder, at the same time throttling the motor. Just as the plane comes over on its back, the rudder is kicked sharply back into a neutral position and the stick pulled back into the seat, which causes the plane to come out into a normal glide.

In letters written to home, 1st Lieutenant William Muir Russel described his mastering of the Renversement during his training days at the Center:

The third, which is really beautiful and looks really difficult, but is not, is what the French call a "renversement." This is also very valuable in fighting, as it is the quickest way to turn when being pursued by an enemy. While flying along level you suddenly pull up the nose, let her slip to one side over on her back, then nose her down to the ground and come out going in the opposite direction. All these movements in five seconds. Many beginning to learn this stunt get into the vrille, or tail spin, the first couple of times they try it! It is pretty to watch, and remarkable because no altitude is lost in the maneuver.



Greatest excitement for Russel, as well as for most other pilots, was reserved for mastering the vertical Side-Slip maneuver, and perhaps understandably so:

In my letter of some time ago, I described the acrobatics which are compulsory for each chasse pilot to take. Our machines have been strengthened to stand the extra strain. All of the sensations are pleasant except the side-slip, where you fall off to one side perpendicularly. This is the worst I have yet encountered, and you may be sure that one does it only when he is ordered to. You are actually torn away from your seat, and your life belt is all that holds you in the machine. At the same time, your stomach rests in your mouth. You can probably understand why the rain is such a friend in need after you have worked for a week endeavoring to perfect such stunts. After satisfying certain French monitors that these maneuvers have been mastered, we were assigned to another field to perfect our squadron flying. This is most interesting work, but a little tedious, as you have to do almost too much flying.

Commander Bingham described in his book this final requisite maneuver that aspiring pursuit pilots were to display a capability of performing:

The course of instruction at Field 5 was completed by learning what are known as "wing slips." When once in a wing slip, the plane falls very rapidly sideways and is controlled by a slight pressure on the stick and rudder. To get it into the wing slip, our pilots were taught to bank the plane over slowly, reducing the motor gradually and putting on reverse rudder so as to prevent the plane from diving, and at the same time pushing the stick slightly forward in order to overcome any tendency to spiral. To come out of the wing slip, it is necessary to push the rudder down so as to cause the plane to dive, and pull in the stick as though coming out of a spiral.

To follow all these instructions in detail in the single seater Nieuport when they knew that some of their friends had already been killed in attempting to execute these manoeuvres, involved an amount of courage that is not understood by the average soldier on the ground. At the same time it was absolutely necessary for the flyer who wished to become a good pursuit pilot to do exactly as he was told and carry out his instructions to the letter.



With the schooling on "stunting" over, successful pilots were advanced to take formation, gunnery, navigation, and training in tactics with eventual assignment to a pursuit squadron planned. As interesting as this additional instruction at Issoudun was to be, these final phases of the AEF's instruction are beyond the planned coverage of this brief article.

Hopefully you all found this information as much fun to read, as I have in presenting it here.

Suggested readings and sources:

A Happy Warrior: Letters Of William Muir Russel, An American Aviator In The Great War, 1917-1918, by Henry Russel

An Explorer in the Air Service, by Henry Bingham

First To The Front, THe Adventures of 1st Lt. Waldo Heinrichs and the 95th Aero Squadron, 1917-1918, by Charles Woolley

Over The Front Journal, Volume 12, Number 3, Fall 1997

Practical Flying, by Flight-Commander W.G. McMinnies, R.N.

Ok, here's that SimHQ link I mentioned above (I know some of you guys look at this stuff, right)???

http://www.simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2515371&fpart=1

In my first post, I told it... quoting myself:



you could have added that the spin recovery training started only late 1917 (so only in the last war year) and that even if a recovery procedure was developped, tested for some pursuit planes and teached, the whole phenomenom was fully understood only later (see my previous post).

In any case, in none of the flyght manual you give references to, the transition from stall to spin is explained in details (with all the initiating effects for all particular planes).
... and as I said, all the pleoples that spinned these planes are dead today.

It's always interesting to read these old stories about aerial maneuvers. In my book a spin is entered with neutral - or opposite aileron, full rudder deflection and the stick in your stomach. Recovey is done with full rudder deflection in the opposite direction of the spin and stick forward, keeping ailerons netural and idle throttle (I once flew a Zlin that required you to cut the magnetos to get the rpm down enough to recover from a flat spin - scary business!).

Anyway - spin entry with aileron in the same direction as the spin feels very awkward to me, and exit without opposite rudder is equally "weird". I have never flown anything older than a Tiger Moth so I don't know if these WWI kites where different? Anyone knows? Could it be something with the rotary engines?

/Mazex

Well then there's still time for learning how they did it back then Rama (like wartime students did in training on Avro 504K's).



http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachm...ical-flying.pdf

IMHO what RAMA says i think is that, because the pilots at that time didn't understood in detail how the spin develops, they couldn't explain it well enough in their memoirs, interviews etc. (in relation to their maneuvering), so we can't use that information for _accurate_ in-game spin modeling.

S!

Oh I see Laser.

Well, it would be an exercise in futility to try to investigate the various stall/spin characteristics of these aircraft in a forum thread like this, and then how they might be modeled in Rise Of Flight yet. I think Uriah and BigBouncer were making general statements about hoping for good stall/spin dynamics for the sim's aircraft, so that these maneuvers are available for players to use in-game if they choose.

They are correct that spins were intentionally used as defensive maneuvers in combat (1917-18), and that the means of entry and recovery was being instructed in the training centers of the time also, as well as in the field by customary squadron-level "checking out" too (this is much easier to document, as I hope I did). As contained in that first excerpt on training changes above (perhaps this went unread):

"In fact, one could argue that the changes made to the theoretical and, even more importantly, practical nature of instruction was considerably more influential."

I read comments sometimes about WWI aerial combat that tend to dismiss the subject as if it was all an unsophisticated exercise, but these men treated the matter with all the respect and ingenuity that they could muster for something as important to them as any life or death struggle. Tactics, and operations were fully fleshed out, and the science of aeronautical study using wind tunnels, and statistical analysis was well under way. Of course there was much yet to be discovered (learned), especially about dynamic forces expressed in flight, but basic fundamentals were being well understood by the war's end. In fact, in the area of fighting tactics, much was lost in the intervening years between the World Wars, only to be "rediscovered" in the second, and might I add, much of it to be propagandized as new innovative thinking, which instead had all be invented before in the Great War.

You're correct, it does deserve it's own thread - and I'm sure will get many when the simulation is finally out!

I guess I'm such an early WWI guy that the idea of intentionally spinning a kite of the era makes me a bit weak at the knees.

At any rate, spinning was very hazardous, and not something to be done lightly, particularly at lower altitudes.

And you are correct too Dart!

A book recommendation should anyone care to read further about overcoming the spin phenomenon during WWI:

Testing Time, The Story Of The British Test Pilots And Their Aircraft, by Constance Babington-Smith.

That's not what I understood... at least in Uriah's sentence I replyed to:



which to me specifically address the stall to spin transition phase.... and which is the only part I replyed to.

I don't think Uriah was planning on providing us an aerodynamic lecture on the matter, was he???

Well if he was he has the floor (or would that be ceiling).

In retrospect I understand Rama's argument now, as he was indicating that really no one these days flies authentic examples or replicas of these WWI aircraft to the risk of departure and spinning (they're just too valuable for that). So the reference point for comparisons will have to come from deciphering the historical record, and hope that the ROF flight engine replicates the feel of stalls and spinning as convincingly as possible.

I agree completely.



Yes, very much, and very interesting. Thanks for taking the time to post this.

Causes of stalls and spins as well as recovery are well understood, and they apply generically the same way to all aircraft regardless of era. Thats what should be in a realistic flight model (as against a particular aircraft's FM), how I hope it is in RoF. And what I think Uriah was expressing as well.... not all games model the fundamental aerodynamics of stalls/spins/recovery well or correctly. Its important for a ww1 game.

How it is modelled for particular aircraft, ww1 or anything etc, as you say, is up to the developers. As is overall performance of course - roll, climb, turn, rudder, dive. There is no real data to model all this correctly, even replica pilots state quite different views about the same planes, eg roll on the Dr1 springs to mind.

Gee, if no one was willing to make some guesses about these things, supported by some accounts and some data, and basic realistic aerodynamic accuracy, we wouldn't have any ww1 sim of quality... and no doubt we'll discuss all this endlessly once the game is out.

well theres two parts to this.

stall effects (and actual high speed stalls - accelerated stalls) and spins often occur even if flying at speeds well above stated stall speeds. They can occur due to sudden changes in AoA for example. Stall effects would be felt probably continously in any turning fight, because of high AoA, and loss of energy - reducing speeds... even if it didn't cause a stall.... it would be very much be part of the performance envelope of planes in ww1, even ww2 ones. these things should to some extent be part of a realistic flight model too.

you state "the dh2... had a nasty habit of entering spins"...I agree, but I doubt that everyone or even most that went into a stall or a spin died, even the dh2 ...unless landing or taking off or lack of knowledge. Of course recovery procedures were better known later in the war, but us cyber pilots know all this already....

it doesn't take much supposition to believe that in a dogfight in ww1 under threat of being killed, many pilots spun or stalled, on purpose or not, and as a defensive tactic. its either throwing your plane about (with often the chance of spin or stall, depending on your plane and/or your speed), or diving hard ... like picking your poison....

secondly, yes I have read many narratives of spins used and/or occuring. This one i dug up quickly of Lt Beauchamp flying a N28 is an example:

"We were attacked by eight Fokker biplanes east of Fere-en-Tardenois. I tried to bank to the left and fell into a spin. When I came out of the spin there were four enemy aircraft on my tail. I tried to turn again but fell into another spin. I was followed by the four enemy aircraft down to 3000 feet. As I was coming out of the spin a Boche machine was headed straight at me. I fired and he turned to the left. I turned a little to the left and turned back again. Being right on his tail I firred about twenty bullets into him. He fell slowly on his right wing and went into a spin. I turned on the other machines and went into a spin. When I came out they were climbing up.... "

Sadly, they lost a plane and a pilot at Rhinebeck recently, where they fly meticulously re-created WWI aircraft (right down to the engine).

Actually, the Airco DH2 was, for most, a potential death trap. I doubt it got the nickname of "spinning incenerator" out of sarcasm. Remember it was a twitchy pusher!

Indeed, few WWI pilots survived very long. Life expectancy of Scout pilots was measured in hours, not weeks or months.

The few that lived long enough to master their planes are the ones we read about, as they lived to write or be written about. Remember that a large number of kills were gained from the enemy pilot entering a spin and failing to recover it before smacking the ground.

[edit]

This is probably the reason they're starting out late in the war, when planes were far more robust.

Yep, the DH2 was one of the first biplane fighters, coming right after the bat-winged monos. I wonder who in his sane mind would try even TODAY to spin intentionally in that plane

nobody today, absolutely. maybe in war? not many sane people liking being shot at either.

certainly had some problems, but funnily enough, the dh2 was considered by some to be "a strong and easy plane to fly"...Lamberton

One more.. Lamberton...Fe8, nice little pusher too, in August 1916.

"Like the Dh2 the Fe8 was at first involved in several spinning fatalaties. Major Gooden, the Factory test pilot, therefore demonstrated how to bring an Fe8 out of a spin, and therafter the machine became popular."

I interpret that as spins were very much a part of a pilots life in ww1, intentional or not, and that once they learnt how to recover from a spin, well, they recovered...they survived.

In August 1916 two squadrons had just been re-equipped with a new type of single-seat fighter, a scout called the F.E.8, which had been designed at the Factory (Royal Aircraft Factory) and tested by Frank Goodden. The first F.E.8, sent out to France some months earlier, had been quite a success, but as soon as the first production machines reached the squadrons a series of disastrous spinning accidents began. Inevitably they reflected on the Farnborough designers and also the Farnborough test pilot. Goodden took up the challenge. According to one of the Farnborough scientist, Sir William Farren, this was mainly on his own iniative, but also as a result of discussions with some of the scientist and engineers, including Lindemann, Glauert, and Farren himself. Goodden resolved to test the F.E.8 by putting it deliberately, in cold blood, into a series of spins ; in order, so he hoped, to show that it could be righted perfectly well if handled in the proper way.

On a hot summer's day at the end of August 1916 (some records indicate it was August 22nd, others August 23rd), Goodden took off in his F.E.8. The aircraft was a biplane of the 'gun-bus' type, with the pilot sitting right forward in the nose--the whole thing looked rather like a wheelbarrow with wings. Goodden in his flying wheelbarrow climbed to a height of 3,500 feet. There he made a flat turn to lose speed, the nose 'gradually dropped', and suddenly the spinning started. As it continued it 'gradually got steepr' and Goodden thereupon switched off the motor, put the stick central and forward, and centralized the rudder. 'This resulted in a nose dive', he wrote afterwards in his report, 'from which the aeroplane, having once got up speed, can easily be pulled out with the control stick pulled back slightly.' Thus he made three spinning tests to the left, and three to the right. Three spins in each direction! One in any direction was more than enough for most pilots.

Goodden's report probably the first full account of recovery from spinning ever written by the pilot concerned, ended triumphantly as follows:

This aeroplane is perfectly stable, and is as safe from spinning as any aeroplane I have flown. There are large elevator, rudder and wing flap surfaces...if care is taken to make the correct movements required by the particular conditions, these powerful controls will enable the aeroplane to be readily brought under control again.

I could only succeed in making the aeroplane spin by the misuse of the controls...and from reports I have of the spinning accidents to F.E.8 aeroplanes, this seems to have been the cause.

From Testing Time, The Story Of British Test Pilots And Their Aircraft, by Constance Babington-Smith.

You're quite right... except maybe for some plane designs (even today some 3-axes ultralights are known not being able to recover from a spin).
Regarding spins, WWI chronology was:
1916: after a few pilots succeeded (by luck) to exist spin, some test pilots (starting with factory then army test pilots) started to test spins and invented the first recovery procedures late 1916.
1917: in early 1917, some recovery procedures were included in flight manuals, in middel 1917, the spin recovery was part of the standard "first level" stunt training (as shown by FlyRetired)
1918: Spin recovery was quite usual in flight combats End of 1918 saw the first theoretical reports about spin and recovery (allowing to fully understand the procedures and to upgrades them).

This doesn't mean that spin recovery is easy. It's quite tricky (you can easilly stall if you recover to quickly, and thus create another spin), asking for good nerves and a "cool-head" attitude... and regarding spin start and spin recovery, each particular plane type has its own caracteristics that you must learn and master.

Okay Rama. But one thing: spin recovery procedures are the same for all planes. Yes, harder to recover for some, actually harder for ww1 planes as you say, probably because of relatively thin airfoils, but nonetheless, exactly the same for all planes, old or modern.

LOL FlyR. You have it all at your fingertips. When I have a question, I know who to ask!

Heavy engine at the front end, flimsy wood and wires behind. Turn off the engine and the plane should drop nose-first like a stone. That'll help if you're not being chased down

Ming

Not really...
As an example, modern jets usually requires "stick inside turn" for an efficient recovery (using induced yaw of the applied roll moment) instead of rudder (who may be masked from relative wind, and thus unefficient).
Some alternative as the "standard" procedure also exists (and are more efficient) for stable airplanes (with strong enough dihedral angel).
I still agree with you that for WWI planes, the only efficient procedure would be the standard "PARE", since the rudder will generally be much more efficient than ailerons on these planes... except for planes with too rear-CoG, that would in most case not recover (like Camel with full tank for example).



That's a common missunderstanding of the WWI pursuit planes aerodynamics... most of them were rear-centered (sometimes a bit too much like the Camel with full tanks).
You must remember that the more rear-centered a plane is, the more manoeuvrable he is (and that's exactly what the designers wanted to do... they knew empirically that rule). A forward-centered plane would be clumsy to fly (more stable, less prone to spin... but there were not reasearched qualities for pursuit planes...), with large turn radius, etc....

I was talking about the plane's centre of gravity Rama, which must not be near the centre of the plane's mass or it is very difficult to get out of a spin once the spin is initiated. P-39.

Where is the largest mass in the plane if not the engine? Planes then were not as lightly-built as I imagine maybe. But I know that they are large heavy engines

planes with too rear-CoG, that would in most case not recover (like Camel with full tank for example)

Oh no I have it completely wrong. Eek what have you done to my Camel!

Ming

Oh yes!!!!, they do have large and heavy engines (if I remember well, it should be around 1/3 of the total weight for the Camel)... but who are not too much forward to the wings and the center of lift... so globably the center of gravity is at the rear of the center of lift.

For the Camel, the gaz tank was at the back of the pilot. When it was full (at take off), it pushed the center of gravity a little bit too rearward.

Ming, most WWI planes are "tail heavy" (as most pilots describes it). As example on Fokker Dr.I - the whole plane is around 580 kg, engine is 150, so to take a level flight you need to push stick forward all the time.
But as always - the truth as somewhere in the middle, as it hugely depends on AC`s construction.

Let's not also forget that "tail heaviness" is not always a CG term in regards to WWI aircraft, but a rigging term. That is, the angle of incidence for the wing and tailplane are independently set at angles of attack that would require the pilot to provide forward stick pressure to maintain level flight.

These rigging guidelines for tail heaviness set the incidence of the horizontal surfaces to produce a desired lifting configuration, where for example, the Camel's wing incidence was set at 2 degrees positive and the horizontal stabilizer at 1.5 degress positive. The tailplane acts as a fulcrum to align the mainplanes in flight, but in the Camel's instance forward stick pressure is still needed.

For an aircraft like the German Pfalz D.III series, the mainplanes were rigged at 4 degrees positive upper wing incidence, and 3.5 degrees positive lower wing incidence, with the horizontal tailplane fixed at 0 degrees. Imagine the take off behavior of a tail dragger like the Pfalz, where it's wings are already at around 4 degrees angle of attack to the relative wind, and then the angle of the fuselage resting on the tail skid pitches the plane another 14 degrees positive (nose high and wing's AOA even greater)....this is very near the critical angle of attack for the Pfalz's airfoil (the stalling angle). Thus, it can be seen how important it is for the tailplane to rotate the rear of the aircraft upwards, and reducing the angle of attack of the wings on take off. For shorter take offs yet, the pilot would provide positive forward stick pressure to raise the tail early and fly the aircraft tail high (horz. stab. level with the ground) into the air.

For the Camel, the gaz tank was at the back of the pilot. When it was full (at take off), it pushed the center of gravity a little bit too rearward.

Thanks Rama

...most WWI planes are "tail heavy" (as most pilots describes it)...you need to push stick forward all the time

Ah thanks VikS that explains why your WW1 FSX plane mod had me pushing the stick forward hard all the time, very interesting

Ming

"Dihedral" was the word I was trying to come up with yesterday! These birds were build much by trial and error, and from personal experience gained by making many designs by developers. Slide rules were the highest art form of technology.

Btw, this is one of the best threads I've read in a long time - disagreement and discussion in a friendly manner with lots of historical references backed by logic.

Good job, one and all.

Ok we fooled the guard he's on his way back to the guardhouse

Corky will make a start on Tunnel Two after lights out, the rest of you act natural

Ming

Well I'll try again, because the Camel's "tail heaviness" was a rigging preference, so in the middle of the flight on half fuel tanks the aircraft trimmed neutral, and on the return flight and before landing with the tanks nearly drained, the plane would automatically trim forward in the longitudinal axis.

Captain Ronald Sykes, DFC, who flew Camels with Nos 9 (Naval), 201 and 203 Squadrons RAF:



It's about how the plane's incidence angles were rigged, since on the Camel they were fixed. On aircraft like the S.E.5a, the Bristol F.2b, the Sopwith Strutter, Pup, and Snipe, the R.E.8, and the D.H.4 & 9 for example, the tailplane incidence could be adjusted from in the cockpit to trim the aircraft for level, ascending, or gliding, and to compensate for weight shifts due to fuel levels, bomb loads, and crew weight differences.

Yes! This is exactly how the Dr.I behaves in RB3D if using Greybeard's latest FMs! You have to push the stick a lot, and if you want to dive ... well you have big problems doing that at full throttle.

What I meant about stall to spin phase. I did not mean that each plane would go into a spin just like the real particular plane would. We will likely never know. What I did mean is akin to how this is done in EAW, flight models made for CFS3 by the AVHistory folk, some of the modes done for RB3D, and BoBII Wings of Victory. What I do not mean is how IL2 does it. That is not to say that IL2 flight models are all wrong, I just don't think it does this particular part right. Take First Eagles - the original release did not do spins at all. TK just did not put that code into the game. But, because he has deep knowledge of aerodynamics and my request (I flatter myself) he did change it. So now I can 'feel' the stall and start of the spin. It even matches what I see in films (yes Hollywood can lie).

Uriah

Oh wauw, "the weight of the stick"... - It must have been even more fidgety to fly than I thought!

Agreed! Thanks especially to FlyRetired for the fascinating data and references.

As many here know, I consider stalls to be the most interesting and fun part of flight (quite apart from the fact that they are such a significant part of training and combat), and stall physics to be the benchmark of a flight model. If the physics are good, then the stalls will be accurate for any aircraft the data points of which are entered correctly. As pointed out, we can't know the specifics for each aircraft of that time period, but we can know how the general physics should work. As long as the general flight model is correct, that's good enough for me. I don't expect individual flight models to be accurate, since the data is likely unknown to anyone living.



Interesting! Do you mean to say that the officially patched version of First Eagles has reasonably accurate stalls and spins? That is, without unofficial modifications? If only there were a playable demonstration.

Thanks Freycinet

Adjusted to be slightly tail-heavy on takeoff, falls nose first, very interesting. That guy had me worried for a minute there

Ming

Thanks Benny!

Longitudinal stability can also be affected by incidence angles as I mentioned, and also play their part in what the pilot perceived through his stick. The actual experience may not be fully contemplated through the stick's reaction, but veteran WWI pilots did at times change their plane's fixed rigging to modify trim.

Well, in other simulators, since virtual trim is never anything like real trim, I have always trimmed the aircraft to neutral elevator before takeoff and left it there. This means that, at full throttle, I have to hold a lot of forward stick to stay level. It looks like this habit may serve me well in Rise of Flight, assuming that I am able to buy the game.

See Benny, all your hard work in other sims will pay of in Aces here (we hope).

Actually, I think we're hoping for new levels of high-fidelity flying (I know, sounds good on paper).

Benny Moore, you asked 'Interesting! Do you mean to say that the officially patched version of First Eagles has reasonably accurate stalls and spins? That is, without unofficial modifications? If only there were a playable demonstration.'

I do mean the officially patch version of First Eagles. TK completely redid the flight model base. All the fm that the modders did had to be redone by them to work with the patch that came out. I do not know what 'reasonably accurate stalls and spins' are, but I can say if I take a rc model and fly it and make it go into a stall and then it falls into a spin it looks to my untrained eye to be the same thing I see in FE. I do not see that kind of behavior in IL2 or CFS3 or Over Flanders Fields phase II.

Uriah

You are correct that IL-2 and Combat Flight Simulator series do not model stalls and spins accurately or well. What I meant by "reasonably accurate stalls and spins" was primarily that all types of stalls spins are possible, happen under the right conditions, and look like the real occurence.

The one part that is most often neglected in simulators is the straight-forward accelerated stall. As you probably noticed, in the IL-2 series the aircraft cannot fall straight forward in an accelerated stall, as most real aircraft can do (including most of the real counterparts of the aircraft portrayed in the IL-2 series). Therein, spin status is a three-state switch; left, right, and none.

So, while your description of the spins in First Eagles is very helpful, the part I most want to know is this: can any of the aircraft in that simulator fall straight forward in slow and accelerated stalls, under any conditions? A real aircraft, barring a few odd designs, should be able to (at least under certain conditions) stall straight forward and be held indefinitely in the stall without entering a spin.

Benny.... please stop telling the same mistake again and again.

I have absolutly no problems to fly straghtforward in an accelerated stall in IL2... the only think you need is to keep the ball perfectly centered.
... and when you enter a straightforward accelerated stall (only way is to pull harder than allowed in a normal straight fly at cruise speed), YOU DON'T FALL (in fact, even if both of your wings stalls, you climb because of the momentum inertia of the trajectory taken by pulling the stick)... as soon you release the stick (or as soon the speed decrease under stalling speed), the stall will stop, and you will not have lost any altitude.

What you describe, isn't accelerates stall at all, it is chute stall (what you get if you idle the engine, and try to keep same altitude by pulling the stick... once the speed will drop below stalling speed).
and YES... IL2 doesn't moddel chute stall correctly, because of a discontinuity of the flight model momemtum at the horizontal (that you can also feel if you try to "perfectly trim" your plane)

This is the only stall case that IL2 does'nt model correctly... the spins are correct (in general... I'm not talking for particular plane caracteristics).

So please, if you want to continue to chew the same song... at least use the right words.

An accelerated stall, in the real world, does indeed result in an altitude loss, though it is slight if recovered from instantly. If you do not recover immediately, then the altitude loss is greater. If you don't recover for thirty seconds, then the altitude loss will be very great indeed.

In the real world, under the right conditions (a high-performance fighter would probably have to be at a somewhat reduced throttle setting so that the rudder authority is as strong as the engine torque), you can at any speed yank the stick back into your chest and hold it there, and with proper use of rudder the aircraft (assuming that it's not one of the few which have a poor wing design) will fall, fully stalled, straight forward. The U.S.A.A.F. termed it "falling directly away from the pilot." "In an accelerated stall with the ball centered, the airplane will fall directly away from the pilot," and "It will stall straight forward even in an accelerated stall" are similar quotations.

Obvously, ball centered isn't the only condition. The aircraft's lateral weight should be balanced; flaps and gear may need to be raised and external stores may need to be gone; ailerons must be in the correct position; the aircraft must not have more torque than the rudder can counter (this is not a concern with counter-rotating propellers, obviously); et cetera.

As for IL-2, unless they drastically changed the flight model after version 4.04, a straight-forward stall isn't possible under any conditions in the Lockheed P-38, except for power off (which is ridiculous because the P-38's counter-rotating propellers counter each other's torque). The real P-38, by all accounts, had no tendency to drop a wing in any type of stall. It would stall straight forward even in an accelerated stall, according to numerous sources (including training materials).

And not even the spins were right. Anyone who has spent a fair amount of time closely studying spinning aircraft can see that. In that game, the "spinning" aircraft simply rotate about a single axis as if they didn't have wings, but were simply set in motion and possessed no friction.

I think Benny is talk about high speed stalls, i mean when on high speed, lets say 500kmh, if youll pull too much on stick - ac can catch a spin, and you cant do it in IL2, try to speed up on any AC and pull stick fast - plane will stall only after lost of speed below 300kmh, and thats is a problem with IL2 FM.

FM from IL2 is almost 10 yrs old

That is, I think, a trim issue. My objection is more that in any power-on accelerated stall in that simulator, a wing arbitrarily drops and, if held in the stall, the aircraft will arbitrarily spin. That's not right.

Not if you fly level before above stall speed (which is the condition to call it an accelerated stall). I allready explained why... I won't do it twice.



If you don't recover quickly, then the speed will fall under stall speed, and the accelerated stall will become a chute stall.... then YES... you will loose altitude, but not during the accelerated stall.


Exactly the definition of a chute stall...

.../...



I did real spins in a real CAP10... and the feeling is the same as in an IL2 spin.
Don't study.... feel the stuff...

[Sigh.] If people really want to discover how flight works, they can. I've given a heads-up to the ones who don't yet know but want to learn. Now they can research it for themselves.

Oh yes you can do it in IL2 (BtW, it isn't a spin, but a stall roll that may developp into a spin if you don't recover from it quickly)

just use some rudder while you pull stick fast.
I'm still a member of the VireVolet stunt virtual patrol... we used to integrate stall rolls for our demo of stunt flying on IL2... it works quite well, both for positive or negative (pushing the stick) stall rolls.

You will have hard time to do the same with the other sims I know... something which also shows thats stalls are quite well done in IL2 (except for symetric chute stall which is impossible to do in IL2)

Are you talking about a snaproll or an incipient spin? I assume you're refering to snaprolls. Aces High II does them well. This isn't exactly a snaproll, but there is a snaproll involved: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDXRKB17s-Q. Full back stick, full rudder, and hold both until the nose is pointing at the ground. If I felt like messing with the simulator again, I could record an actual snaproll to demonstrate.

the thing is that - you cant do it on high speeds
You can try it right now - but watch your speed.

VikS, I think it is because the virtual stick forces are too high for the virtual pilot to be able to pull back the stick far enough to exceed the critial angle of attack. In other words, the virtual pilot is too weak to overcome the stick forces enough to stall at high speed. If you use lots of positive trim, you may be able to do it.

This is a problem fairly universal to simulators, not just IL-2, and is a result of trim being impossible to model correctly due to the greatly different nature of real aircraft sticks and gaming joysticks, and due to the necessity of a virtual pilot. I am glad that this will not be a problem with Rise of Flight, since Great War aircraft didn't have trim controls.

Sure.
Just done it with a P39-Q10, IL2 V4.08 at 250 mph (so around 400 Km/h), both positive and negative.

I agree it becomes very difficult above, and almost impossible starting at 300 mph (because of modelled stick handling force limitations)

For Benny:
- you're right, snaprolls are stall rolls.
- for accelerated stall, I'll try a last time to explain. In "accelerated stall", the word "accelerated" means that your plane is subject to G forces higher than 1g (either because of a high bank angle, or because you're pulling hard on the stick). If you don't recover from this initial accelerated stall, you will suffer a loss of lift that wont allow you to pull any G from the craft, thus the G forces will return to 1g... and the stall will not be "accelerated" any more, it will become a standard chute stall.
- I just tried a straight-forward stall with a P38 (IL2 V4.08), engines on and idle, and could stall straight-forward from 2000m to the ground... so it's possible (with a P38... as I said before can't do this kind of symetric chute stall with mono-engines planes... most probably because the resultant roll moment of the different forces, (torque, helicoïdal blow, gyroscopic forces, etc...) never reach a 0 value in IL2 modelling).

If the power is at idle, that would be a "power-off" stall. I specified "power on" because I remember that in version 4.00, they brute-forced in symmetric power-off stalls for the P-38. Basically, they reduced elevator authority at idle power so that it can't quite pull enough alpha to do a real stall. It's like having a second person in the cockpit putting his hands on the stick and preventing you from pulling it all the way back, and when you lose altitude as a result of his resistance (rather than from exceeding critical angle of attack) he tells you, "See, you're stalled!" The actual physics are still borked.

As for your term, "chute stall," I think that we are having a language barrier problem. I've been studying aircraft for my entire life, and even briefly took flying lessons. But I've never heard the term "chute stall." I've also read many F.A.A. articles on stalls without any such references. I just looked up the term on Google, and there are no relevant matches within two pages. Is it a translation of a French term?

it is, but the problem is, as example, that La7`s stick (on real La7 by test trials) had became even easyer at high speeds, and test pilots noted this feuture as negative side of La7 controll.



yep, it varyes on different planes, but these limitations are the main problem, cause even with different stick curves - the same AC can behave differently...

But, well, time will show

PS: im just tellin about negative sides, wich are critical to me, but at all - IL2 bring for us one of the best FM`s in aviasims history, what made me to fly only IL2 once.

No.
Idle isn't "power off", engine still turning, torque, helicoïdal blow and gyroscopic effects are still there (low, but not nul)
Btw, I just tried it again at 10% throttle, and 20% trhottle and it works like a charm.



Language barrier or not, when G forces are equal to 1g, stall isn't accelerated... call it what you want (dynamic, standard, etc...), but it ain't "accelerated".

Well all very interesting maybe, but stalls are stalls - accelerated stalls (I agree with VikS on what that actually is) and spins are just stalls too. Its a basic flight phenomenon. Its not even complex. People seem to be implying there are all these different types of stalls, which isn't really the case...

What is far more complex is the effect on a particular plane once stalls/spins are underway....it seems this is the point of some of all these posts? That, and how to initiate and control them...which is really based on trials or testing results, not theory.

Of course different planes respond differently to stalls, accelerated stalls, or spins - up or down pitchings moments, stall hysterisis etc for many reasons ... including obviously the physical characteristics of the plane (weight, wing area, airfoil design, cog, gyro effects, torque effects, loadouts etc)and how the stall/spin was initiatated. Maybe this is well documented for some planes...but I doubt theres much real data on this available to us, on even most ww2 planes. Test data or documentaion is needed, it'd take a brave man to say that a plane stalled a certain way due to a particular physical attribute of that plane...they all combine.

That a plane will fall down/away in a stall, maybe true of one, its not true of another, at all. As an accelerated stall is just another stall based on the same physical phenomenon, accelerated stall behavior (and control, before losing control of course) would also be quite different from one plane to another... many will pitch right up, or spin immediately.

Modelling stalls/spins and recovery aerodynamically correctly including accelerated stalls in a game is one thing, and is necessary. But modelling stalls correctly for each and every plane is completely another. One doesn't follow the other IMO to have decent and realistic stalls/spins...realistic, as against perfect representations.

So a discussion about post stall effects on planes or how to control/use them for a particular plane, needs documentation....and thats what these posts are about. Can't say an accelerated stall effects all planes the same way at all.....and most certainly, strong statements on how to initiate, and pre-stall control any type of stall requires proof, AFAIC.

Perhaps we are fortunate that its not documented at all/well for ww1 planes? Or the developers of ww1 sims are :).

Stalling with engine idle is considered a "power off" stall. You don't actually turn off the engine.



Not the same as a power on stall, which is full power or close to it.

when G forces are equal to 1g, stall isn't accelerated... call it what you want (dynamic, standard, etc...), but it ain't "accelerated".

Neglecting acceleration towards the planet at 1g, not to be picky sorry Rama, enjoying reading your stuff

Ming

I'm not neglegting anything Ming.
I just gave the definition of an accelerated stall (which occurs when the load force is bigger than just the standard earth gravity). You can check on Internet, you'll see many scheme explaining this.

On full power stable level flight with a P38, the speed will be quite high, and the modelled stick force limitation will not allow you to stall with just pulling on it (you will go vertical long before stalling).... so you can't have experimented assymetric stall on IL2 on this condition, since you can't stall at all.
Or you fly low speed (with low throtle), and apply full throttle and full back stick at the same time... something that in all plane everybody's told NOT to DO, and which is fully stupid to try, even in combat (In French, this is called "voler au second régime"... correct translation should be "flying to the second mode"... but I'm not fully sure)

Me think you don't really want to discuss this... you just want to sing the old same complaint...
... ok with me, I stop my last attempt to have a comprehensive technical discussion with you.

I never said "full power, stable, level flight." Try this; fly level, or in a coordinated bank, at full throttle. Airspeed can be say, 230 M.P.H. Now yank back on the stick and hold it there. Guess what? You will spin in IL-2. Not so in the real P-38.



Actually, in the real P-38, this would result in a symmetric stall, assuming the other conditions were right (rudder coordinated, weight balanced, no external stores, et cetera).

'Neglecting' there means 'If one neglects' Rama not 'You neglected'

'Neglecting gravity...' means 'Gravity isn't important for this calculation' not 'Why are you neglecting gravity?'

It's a standard English construction with no emotional content to the word 'neglect' (which does have the alternate meaning 'Doesn't feed his kids') and let's leave it at that, on with the show thanks

'On with the show' there means 'Ignore me' btw

Ming

So the problem you have with IL2 is not accelerated stalls as such generally, its how the P38s accelerated stalls are modelled. Seem to recollect various posts about Il2, but oh well...

"Not so in the real P-38." Do you have that proof? Not that I am interested, it just seems so important to you, and of course Oleg always could sometimes be swayed by conclusive proof.

BTW accelerated stalls are nearly always stronger than a stall at stall speed...so that proof would need to be for higher speed stalls.

Not just the P-38, but especially the P-38. Other aircraft should behave similarly, though not all of them; and of course none of the others will be quite as docile because of the torque (which can still be overcome with rudder). Which ones would be apparent if you cared to find out. Yes, I have conclusive proof. No, I'm not very interested in sending it to Mr. Maddox, as he has previously been regaled with these very official U.S.A.A.F. sources and has accused them of being "American propaganda." And no, I'm not much interested in digging out the links for you, as by your own admission you don't much care.

Edit: Apologies to Big Bouncer; the third and last sentences in the previous paragraph were meant to be addressed to Rama.

Actually at 1g, it is known as .... the aircrafts stalling speed.

Anyway, when held in the stall an aircraft will be pulling zero gees, not one.

Still submitted to gravity, like anything flying, including stones, so load is 1g.
But you seems to begin to understand... when an aircraft is "held in the stall", the stall isn't accelerated any more.

submitted to gravity, like anything flying, including stones, so load is 1g.

There you go Galileo

Ming

I'll have to try that, but I don't think that's been the case since they removed the torque values on Jets and the P38 in the patch with the more advanced FM.

I know I can take a P38 totally vertical, stall it out, slam the throttle forward with full back pressure on the stick and cause it to flip without a spin. It will even drop altitude in a nose level attitude for a few meters before it dips its nose.

EDIT: They didn't take out the torque values for the P38, they just reversed the values on the other engine so that it actually has counter-rotating props now.

No. A free-falling object is said to experience zero gravity, or 0 G. Do you know how astronauts practice weightlessness? Zero gees in an atmospheric aircraft which is descending at free-fall velocity. If an airplane is held in a symmetric stall, the gee indicator will read 0.



Yes. But the reason why the P-38 still can't symmetrically stall with power on has to do with poor stall modelling, not torque. As I said earlier, the only reason that it is able in IL-2 to symmetrically stall with power off is because the programmers artificially reduced elevator authority so that it can't reach the critical angle of attack unless the propwash increases the elevator effectiveness. With power off, the elevator is unable to exceed real-world maximum wing alpha. With power on, the propwash increases the elevator effectiveness so that the wing can exceed maximum A.o.A. So it's not poor torque modelling that's the problem; it's poor stall modelling.

There were, in reality, plenty of other World War Two fighters besides the P-38 which were able to stall without dropping a wing. The P-38 was simply the most docile because of the counter-rotating propellers; other aircraft required heavy rudder use to make them stall straight forward.

Reading U.S.A.A.F. training manuals and watching U.S.A.A.F. training films will confirm what I have said about many World War Two aircraft being able to stall symmetrically. "World War Two fighters couldn't stall symmetrically" is an IL-2 community myth.

A free-falling object is said to experience zero gravity

Why is it accelerating towards the planet in free-fall if it is experiencing no force of gravity?

It'll find out if it's experiencing zero gravity when it reaches the bottom, just a matter of time

In the capsule Major Tom floats around with a big grin hoovering up popcorn experiencing no gravity, down is the mass of the planet and up is the mass of the rest of the Universe. He's nicely balanced. For a short while

Ming

Please Benny.... try to understand what you read and to THINK before replying...

When an object is "free-falling" (supposing there's no atmosphere), it is subject to gravity.... or it wont fall at all... it would just move straight along the path of its initial speed vector (if any).
It is the guinea-pig INSIDE the object (assuming the object has a room inside...) that will eventually experience "O-gravity", not the object itself.

Your understanding of the basics of physic is quite low.... no wonder you've "studied aircraft for your entire life" without understanding much.

[Sigh.] You seem to study posts a lot without understanding them. I should forgive you since you're not a native English-speaker, but it's getting most tiresome. In my last post, I indicated that I understand that Earth's gravity is still being exerted on the aircraft. None the less, in the aviation world an aircraft in a stall (or diving at the correct velocity) is said to be "pulling zero gees." If you think it's a physical misnomer, take it up with the pilots. Accost the F.A.A. Don't bother me with it.

And are you trying to imply that when an aircraft is experiencing two gees, Earth's gravity has actually doubled? That's absurd. And you say that I'm bad at physics. You know, I don't think I can recall any of your posts in which you have not attacked me, rather than simply arguing with my statements.

Ming_EAF19, are you familiar with accelerometers? Do you know what that instrument reads, in an aircraft so equipped, during a stall?

Edit: I see the problem that Ming_EAF19 pointed out; namely, that gees are a measure of acceleration rather than simply force. I think I erred in my statement about free fall. Still, Rama's statement is wrong; an aircraft in which the pilot is experiencing weightlessness is not considered in the aviation community to be pulling one gee. Gees are not simply measured by "Earth's gravity plus whatever acceleration the aircraft is experiencing," or else a two-gee turn would be measured as three gees (Earth's one gee plus the two from the pull). It's more complex than that, with vectors and such. The accelerometer simply records what it "feels," and that number is the one that the pilot uses.

Quite aside from the confusion about gees (either way), my statement about the results of the various stall conditions are correct and backed by plenty of official sources, which are freely avaiable to anyone who cares to check them (which Rama, by his own admission, does not).

You're damn right... I agree with you on this statement.

End of the discussion for me... (for real this time...)

* what is a G?

Let's first define what a "g" is. We start by looking at Newton's second law of motion that says the force (F) acting on an object is equal to its mass (m) multiplied by its acceleration (a), or

You may not realize it, but each of us is being accelerated at all times. The force we experience as a result of this acceleration is our weight, or the force that gravity exerts on our mass. If we drop a ball from some height, it will fall towards the Earth's surface at some constant rate of acceleration (if we neglect air resistance). This rate of acceleration is independent of mass, and we call the value of the acceleration due to Earth's gravity "g." Substituting into the above equation, we therefore obtain the following relationship for the weight (W) of any object being acted upon by Earth's gravitational force.

The value of g (near the Earth's surface) is a constant measured as 32.2 ft/s² or 9.81 m/s². Under normal conditions, this is the acceleration we are accustomed to experiencing in our daily lives, so it is often referred to as 1g or 1G. When we ride a roller coaster, drive over hills at high speed, or experience turbulence on an airplane, we are subjected to additional accelerations that add to or subtract from normal 1g conditions. For example, think of a time you rode a roller coaster and felt your stomach "jump." Or perhaps you've driven over a hill at high speed and were lifted up off your seat. Maybe you've seen pictures of astronaut trainees floating for brief periods aboard the C-135 "Vomit Comet" or the Russian Il-76 equivalent. In each of these cases, you experience an acceleration that partially or completely cancels the acceleration due to gravity. You actually lose weight, or even become temporarily weightless in the case of the C-135, because the gravitational acceleration acting on you is reduced by some acceleration a1.

In this case, you are experiencing less than 1g conditions. If the value of a1 is smaller than the value of g, you will actually experience negative g's or negative weight.

Similarly, when you reach the bottom of a steep descent on a roller coaster or when you travel up a high-speed elevator, you may feel like some invisible force is pushing down on you and making you heavier. You do indeed weigh more because the gravitational acceleration acting on you is increased by some acceleration a1:

You are now experiencing positive g's that produce more than 1g conditions.

You will notice that g-limits are provided for a number of aircraft in The Aircraft Museum, typically a positive and a negative value. These limits define the maximum and minimum g-loads that an aircraft structure can take before it begins to fail. For example, the Eurofighter Typhoon has g-limits of +9 and -3. This means that the Typhoon can withstand vertical accelerations up to 9 times normal 1g conditions in positive acceleration (meaning the pilot will feel like he weighs 9 times as much as he normally does) or -3 times normal 1g conditions in negative acceleration.

Having established that a "g" is an acceleration, it makes sense that the device used to measure g's is called an accelerometer. Although these devices come in many shapes, sizes, and flavors depending on the application, the principal of how an accelerometer works is not very complicated. The simplest example I can think of is to tie a piece of string to the hole at the bottom center of a protractor while tying a small weight to the other end of the string. Holding the protractor upside down, the string will hang at 90°. When you accelerate the protractor horizontally, the weight will move and displace the string by a constant angle. This angle can then be related back to the actual acceleration of the protractor by simple geometry.

There are many other devices that work similarly to this example, like springs or pendulums for example. All employ the same basic idea--if there is a relationship between the force and the displacement (either linear or angular), then for a measurable displacement, there is a measurable force, and hence a measurable acceleration.

* What is G-Force?

The term "g force" is misleading, because a "g" is really an acceleration and not a force. We explained this issue in more detail in a question on how g's are measured. It was here that we explained how the effect of gravity exerts an acceleration on all objects that have mass. You and I feel this gravitational influence on our masses as weight. But even though objects have different weights, the acceleration due to Earth's gravitational attraction is the same for every object on our planet. This acceleration is a constant called "g".

***answer by Aaron Brown, http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/instruments/q0040.shtml

Don't tell Bugs Bunny!!!

S!

Rama has managed to turn this into two seperate discussions; one is about the manner in which different aircraft stall under various conditions, and the other is about the measurement of gees during stalls. The former I am rather knowledgeable about, but the latter I am not. I am no physicist, so I do not know how the mathematics work out. However, one does not need to be a physicist, or understand the mathematics, in order to know the manner in which a certain airplane will stall under certain conditions. One only needs to experience it, or else learn from a reliable source created by those who have (such as the training manuals).

I do know this from experience: the accelerometer does go to zero gees (or close to it) and you do experience weightlessness, or near-weightlessness, during a stall. The question is how long that lasts. Judging from the last few posts, I assume that weightlessness (0 gees) lasts as long as the aircraft is accelerating downward at 1 gee. So that would be until the aircraft reaches free-fall speed? Does that mean that during a free fall, no weightlessness is experienced? That doesn't sound right at all. I wish that an native English-speaking, knowledgeable party would join the discussion.



Back to this statement; it must be wrong, whether or not mine was also. Anything flying, including stones, will experience weightlessness when accelerating towards the Earth at the proper acceleration (namely, one gee). The positive gee will counter the negative gee. The overall gee will be measured as zero.

I've got what Benny means now when he said about a body in free-fall not experiencing gravity - sorry Benny

The man that was in the lift that plunged to the bottom of the lift-shaft was reported as saying that he felt no gravity. That helped Einstein

He said he 'felt' no gravity, he 'experienced' no gravity

The word 'experience' was a bad choice, it has a subjective element.

Feeling something as a human falling is very different from the use of the word

experience

'Experience' is a subjective word when applied to humans falling

BM: A free-falling object is said to experience zero gravity

A human may experience no gravity. But he is subject to gravity, all objects on the planet are subject to gravity, whether they are 'experiencing' it or not

'Subject to', rather than 'experiencing' - fits the bill.

Ming

are you familiar with accelerometers?

Yes mate I work in electronics within a research group, an instrument development unit at a well-known UK university

Do you know what that instrument reads, in an aircraft so equipped, during a stall?

The instrument reads volts, millivolts or microvolts. Not what you thought it did

Ming

This statement is right, except the last part (the last 3 words)... since I missused the word "load". I should have said "the force applying to the CoG has a value of 1g" instead of "load is 1g".
Load definition is lift/weight, which should be above 1 for "accelerated conditions".
Except the missuse of this word, all the rest is correct, also in the stall discussion.
(including for the guinea pig inside of the falling object room which is free from gravity in the falling object referential... which is what Benny call "weightlessness" and by such confounding the forces that apply to the plane and the forces that apply to the passengers of the plane)

This to correct myself... not to continue the discussion.

And BTW... I'm not the one who started the discussion on Free-falling... Benny did.

The name is not inspiring. Why did they have to drop KOTS? I'm afraid the uninspiring name will not attract non-simmers to the sim.

KOTS was a copywright issue I think. 'Rise of Eagles' might have been nice.

Uriah

They had to drop it because of THIS.

Cheers

Ming

Ahhh... I remember that sim Red Baron was superior - but after watching the footage of Rise of Flight, I'm pumped.

Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Gadgets

Ming

Knight Of The Sky: The Search For Spackmann

We're on to something here

Ming

MiG Avenue

Ming