FM questions...

[kubanskiloewe]

Hi,
I really enjoy the 190 Long Noses and now I know why the Germans loved the negative G maneauver...
cant believe that this is full realism or is it a FS2004 Problem ?
2,3mb video

[Point-man]

I think I see what you are meaning. Inverted you can seem to go forever but right side up you only have energy for about 1 and a half loops. Is that what you are meaning?

[kubanskiloewe]

not alone the energy but in the forward looping the plane rotate near on a point and never stalling and for a normal loop you need a great diameter and much more speed otherwise you stall.
Seems they change the wingsprofile from upwards to downwards

[SD_Research]

Hi,
I really enjoy the 190 Long Noses and now I know why the Germans loved the negative G maneauver...
cant believe that this is full realism or is it a FS2004 Problem ?
2,3mb video

You must understand that the human body cannot tolerate negative gs for any length of time. Likewise, the airframe is not designed to take the stress of an outside loop unless it is done very gently. Thus, the outside loop is something that simply is not practiced in real-life combat. It is not considered part of the aircraft's bag of tricks, and if performed in real life, the pilot would be dead of a hemmorhage in very short order.

There are certain things that are so well understood to be completely out of the normal flight envelope that we don't even worry about addressing them. You would not spend all day spinning the airplane or flying upside down, but you can also do that in Flight Simulator. Likewise for the inside loop; it's very hard on the airframe, it's a dangerous maneuver, and deadly for the pilot. The checklist indicates which aerobatics air approved, and the outside loop is definitely not in that last.

All that said, we can certainly modify the flight model so that those few folks determined to fly completely outside the normal flight envelope and beyond the bounds of human endurance won't be able to pull this off any longer. We do have to say we have never encountered anyone who was interested in testing the outside loop capabilities of our aircraft, but now that it's been explored, we'll need to lock out that "flaw".

[kubanskiloewe]

hm, for comparison the 190D9 in IL2/FB/PF where it´s quite different to the shockwaves. There you have to trim full nose down and get slow before get into the forward loop and that´s what 109 Pilots f.e. did well and easy with their big Trimhandwheel on the leftside.
http://www.kubanskiloewe.de/Filme/fs200 ... oopil2.wmv

[SD_Research]

hm, for comparison the 190D9 in IL2/FB/PF where it´s quite different to the shockwaves. There you have to trim full nose down and get slow before get into the forward loop and that´s what 109 Pilots f.e. did well and easy with their big Trimhandwheel on the leftside.
http://www.kubanskiloewe.de/Filme/fs200 ... oopil2.wmv

IL-2's flight dynamics engine is completely different from FS9, and that battle has been fought elsewhere -- we just can't go there!

[SD_Research]

Hi,
I really enjoy the 190 Long Noses and now I know why the Germans loved the negative G maneauver...
cant believe that this is full realism or is it a FS2004 Problem ?
2,3mb video

Just watched the video and must point out a couple of things, in addition to the fact that no combat pilot in his right mind would ever use an outside loop unless he wanted to commit suicide...

You begin an outside loop with a descent, and the process involves constant descent, which means an increase in airspeed. Thus, it is theoretically possible to continue outside loops from a high altitude all the way to the ground, if it weren't for the fact the the pilot would have a stroke and/or brain aneurysm long before he got there.

By contrast, and inside loop begins with a climb and a rapid decrease in airspeed. Therefore you cannot continue to do inside loops repeatedly in a heavy combat aircraft. An aerobatic airplane is a different matter altogether.

This outside loop stuff is arcade game maneuvering, real combat pilots never used it.

What we're trying to say here is that what you're doing in the video, while theoretically possible if the plane were flown by remote control, is never done in real life. Just because it's possible to do in a simulator is no indication of a flaw in the flight model or the simulator itself. Actually the outside loop is quite common in radio control model flying and not uncommon in civil aerobatics, but is virtually unheard of in actual air combat.

[Scott - A2A]

I just tried this a few times, and first I keep redding out. I can complete these maneuvers from external view, but I can also do this with all the high performance pistons loaded on this system (wings of power and others). It's possible the FS FM programming doesn't really take the drag, lift,. etc. areas into account to properly model something like this. I don't really think it matters (first time I think i've ever done this on a sim - it feels wacked even doing this).

Either way, I don't believe we'll be giving this much thought. I don't want to take time away from the real world tests we put these aircraft through or to compromise something that matters with something that is never done.

However, kubanskiloewe, thanks for taking the time to bring this up.

Scott.

[SD_Research]

I think I should take a moment explain why the outside loop is just a stunt and is never used in combat.

First, some history. Jimmy Doolittle was the first pilot to ever perform the outside loop. At the time, it was thought to be impossible.

The outside loop differs drastically from the more common inside loop in several very critical ways. First, the aircraft's airframe is stressed to take the highest load in the positive plane. Most aircraft can withstand three times the positive g-load as compared to the negative. A typical late WWII fighter can physically withstand up to 12 g's before breaking but can only take 3-4 negative g's. This does not mean to say that any pilot could ever pull 12 g; it's just that the airframes have been stress-tested to 12 g, which provides a little comfort to the pilot. Even with g-suits, the limit for pilots is about 7 g maximum.

Next, like the aircraft, the pilot's body is also equipped to handle far more positive g's than negative. The human body can withstand up to about 4 g without passing out and up to 6-7 g using a g-suit, but even then there are still time limitations before the blood drains from the brain and he loses consciousness. However, the human body is not designed to withstand negative g to any degree. The blood pressure in the skull and head increases dramatically, and bursting blood vessels, brain hemmorhaging, blindness, and death can quickly result from too much negative g force.

Moreover, a plane simply turns a lot faster using positive g's. If you can pull 5 positive g's, you're going to get turned a lot quicker than pulling 2 negative g's.

Lastly, the engines in these combat planes cannot endure inverted flight for more than 30 seconds or so. The outside loop is much worse than inverted flight, since you are only pulling -1 g while flying upside down.


That's why outside loops are an airshow stunt, not a combat maneuver, combat planes are not designed to handle them, and combat pilots are not trained to use them.

[Scott - A2A]

In general, when thinking of the 109 vs the carburated spit during the Battle of Britain, the 109 pilots had the advantage to push the stick forward hard and go into a dive, whereas the carburated engines would cut out when in negative g. This would give the 109 that quick option and edge in a dogfight, but the maneuver is over in seconds.

Interstingly, this advantage is modeled in our Battle of Britain 2 game. When you are in a Spit of Hurricane, if you push forward hard on the stick, the engine cuts out. In the DB fuel-injected engines in the 109, they don't experience this cut out.

Scott.