That was my squawk. I noticed that around 300 MPH, before someone modified the model to what it is currently, that there was a severe response issue with pitch authority. I agree with that issue existing at something like 25,000 ft. However, this issue was occurring at <10,000 ft. and at an airspeed that was at least 100 MPH slower than it should occur at those altitudes (something like 420 MPH or so is when Mcrit is reached <10,000 ft). IIRC, the reason this issue came about is due to the LuftWhiners complaining about antred's P-38 antics at +FL200. They looked up some bullshit just like everyone else to support their theory and essentially neutered the P-38 at all altitudes. That happened, I think, because the physics model in WB2.77 does not fully support atmospheric effects to the degree of accuracy that everyone is expecting (e.g. compressibility effects are programmed to occur at X speed, regardless of altitude).
I think the question of elevator response is not about compressibility effects (that depend more on TAS), but just a question of force on stick in real plane, just like it is with ailerons. And this force depends almost only on IAS.
Dont tell me we simulate real force on stick on real plane? Because our joys are plastic ones, point is not to break it , nor to hurt ur hand. Problem here is we have some extreme planes like I16 for example, which roll is perfect for player's pleasure, thus making roll in f6f extremly painful.
Surely we are, there are special parameters in flight model and everything is adjusted with this thing in mind. In other case all planes would have perfect pitch and roll at any speed (ok, at any speed below sonic ). For example data we plan to use for roll rates correction (may be) is called by NACA "roll rate obtainable by 50 pounds stick force". Same with elevator (with different numbers, but same nature), planes with bad elevator response are just planes with stick too heavy at some speed. 100 and 400 TAS or IAS? If u mean same IAS with 100 and 400mph TAS (on different alt), than yes, difference will be little. For example, when u calculate TAS with given IAS and air density u need to add compressibility ajustment if speed is high, for 400 mph IAS at 10km (30000+ feet) alt its about 25 mph. The slower and the lower the less. IAS is function of TAS and air dencity. If u have 2 times more alt, 2 times more TAS, and this TAS is not close to sound speed, u will have about same IAS and most air forces applied to ur plane almost same too.
My joy cant support to be jerked like stick in real plane.Do not expect for us to be happy with " Child could roll I16 at 200km/h, while 100 kg man would be needed to roll F6f" .My joy simply is not made to receive power of 100kg man just because program ur using says it should. "At some speed" could be also compressibility issue as Mumble mentioned . Now just apply this to what u wrote earlier.
@gil: With the P-38, elevator responsiveness WAS largely a matter of the plane's speed in relation to the speed of sound at any given altitude. Granted, a lot of air flowing over a plane's control surfaces at very high speeds will also contribute toward stiffening up its controls, but I've never heard of P-38s having trouble with their elevators locking up because they were going too fast at low altitudes. All the P-38's compressibility -related problems occurred at high altitudes, where the ratio IAS / TAS is comparatively lower than at high alt, which means IAS can definitely not be the deciding factor here. Using IAS instead of Mach number to model compressibility paradoxically results in planes having the opposite behavior with regard to compressibility as they should in real life. In reality, the denser air at low altitudes means that high speeds correlate to lower Mach numbers (since sound travels a lot faster in dense air than it does in thin air), which means a P-38 buzzing along at 400 mph TAS at 2kft would not suffer any compressibility issues, while one going at only 300 mph TAS but doing it at 35 kft very well might. In War Birds, it's the exact opposite. High (true) airspeeds translate to greater indicated speeds at low alt than they do at high alt, which means a P-38 flying at high speeds may suffer from reduced elevator response while turning low in the weeds, but would have no such problems doing the same up at 30 kft. P.S. I realize that the way War Birds models compressibility is pretty much set in stone, so I guess debating about this isn't going to change things anyhow. P.S. #2: Have a look at the compressibility chart posted by mumbles over in the P-38-thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Compressibility010.png
Next interesting thing is roll rate. The P-38J-25-LO production block introduced power-boosted ailerons. These consisted of ailerons that were operated by a hydraulically-actuated bell-crank and push-pull rod, making it easier for the pilot to maneuver the airplane at high airspeeds. This boosting system was one of the first applications of powered controls to any fighter, and required only 17 percent of the previous stick forces. The hydraulic aileron booster system vastly improved the roll rate and thereby increased the effectiveness of the P-38 in combat. P-38Js with power-boosted ailerons proved to have the highest roll-rates of any fighter. Maybe I am wrong but I think roll rate is the same for all fh-P-38 models.
For the wreckord, the speed of sound in air is very close to: (400*T)^.5 in m/s "The square root of 400 times the temperature in Kelvin" Pressure and density have equal and opposite effects on the speed of sound, making temperature the only important factor for altitudes where planes fly.
I thought most of us fly the F model sooner or later..... Will there be any random cross-winds featured in FH ever? I'm wondering how do you factor "stick heaviness" in a non feedback joystick? Is the player expected: to hold the stick longer in the direction? move the stick faster? move the stick further? does the server measure how fast the stick is moved? wouldn't this just promote stick jerking at a frequency faster than a Paris Hilton video?
One thing I've also noticed. In WB, the P-38 aircraft respond differently at certain conditions. One which is interesting is that while a person has auto trim on, if you turn it off, watch what the plane does. The F and J models start to nose down and sink, the L model starts to raise it's nose. I've read documentation that the Lightnings had a natural tendency to want to raise/climb without controller input. Also, what's kind of odd, and should be corrected, is that the F & J models with auto trim turned off will not only start nose down, but will also start rolling to the left. The L model will not only raise nose up, but also will start to roll to the right. Interesting considering these aircraft have counter-rotating props. Another thing, has anyone noticed how the WEP in the RED zone on the tachometer won't travel to the full extent as higher altitudes are reached?
Should also note: Not sure if this is a beta error but, the P-38 Lightning is the only aircraft which when you airstart in the TA, will begin flight going into a nose dive. Only the Lightnings are doing this. Maybe this behavior would explain some of the performance issues with the Lightnings.
It isn't autopilot either, it's auto-trim for this simulator. This function is the same for ALL other aircraft, but not for the P-38? Aerodynamics are to be the same for all aircraft. It's a matter of control surfaces. And auto-pilot didn't control trims. Auto-pilot: Invention of Lawrence Sperry, USA
That's the issue I recently mentioned to exec in one of the other threads, but I'm surprised that you say that the L model doesn't do this while the F and J models do. From what I remember, the effect actually was the most pronounced in the L model, which, even if you trimmed your elevator tab all the way up, was unable to remain level with the horizon until your airspeed exceeded 210 - 220 mph IAS. If you wanted to climb or even just keep the aircraft from descending, you had to fly it by hand.
I do recall you mentioning that. And check this out, start at 25% throttle....compare any other similar aircraft, multi-engined, large, heavy, loaded with ordinance, etc to the P-38 with 20% fuel, no ammo, you'll notice the P-38 starts to lose alt right away, even after auto-trim pulls it back up. And what's more ridiculous, is that while it is losing alt, going nose down, it picks up speed, and this is over 200 mph IAS. Consider this: When climbing, 200 MPH IAS is actually a good climb speed which will yield about 20,000 ft in less than 10 minutes. Tell me that isn't messed up. Thrust, wind drag, coefficients, weight distribution are all off in my opinion. If the current P-38 was tied to another aircraft and dragged as a glider, it would probably drag on the ground like a rock. It's almost like the P-38 is creating it's only lift for the wings when the engine runs. Always bugged me when I would dive to deck, and once there, it felt like I was dragging a chute, and when gliding home, engines off, losing alt was quick. I'm conducting speed tests and researching online information, and will present valid data for examples.
