Stalls!

[+peter01 2]

This was raised in another thread on my planes, and as I said I'm not doing a lot here yet, no more than anyone else for that matter. So thought I'd start another thread.

 

I am interested in this however. And will start looking at it more ... but have some uncertainty and concerns about some things. And wondering what others think.

 

It was very much a part of the wwi flying of course, probably dominated pilots thoughts, more so I'd say than any other period even tho any combat pilot would push their planes to the limits in action I guess. And for planes going at say 100 -130mph, they were very high comparatively, maybe around 45-60 mph I believe.

 

But do people want such high stalls? There are so many differences in hard and normal modes its not funny - its not just stalls. You have all sorts of effects, the AI are better, you do not climb or turn as well etc. And i'd like people to play hard, it is far better EVEN if you have no stalls whatsoever.

 

But stalls are interesting, and its probably easy to have say for one plane a FM that stalls at 40mph, and an alternate hard one that stalls at 50 mph. Seems small - but it would make quite a difference. That would be quite easy to implement. Difficulty is, you know, installing - its not like ticking an options box. Or maybe it is - there are packages around that swap in and out different mods.

 

Another thing, is it worth doing more realsitic stalls if you can't recover from them. I had a pilots licence some years back, and when I first played FE, I couldn't understand what I was doing wrong recovering from stalls or funny spins until it dawned on me you couldn't recover - at least not with confidence, at least not for TKs early set. I may be wrong. As someone posted, maybe you can, just you do it differently!

 

Lastly, can you do convincing stalls and spins - I'm still undecided about this, probably cos I haven't seen it as a priority for me to date. And if so how much work, is it worth it? A difficulty in FE is you are balancing so many things in the FM - the feel, performance and AI. The last is important, because its 90% of the work getting a good AI really - it probably shouldn't be so hard.

 

So stalls yes. But how high? Can they be realsitic? Can you recover?

 

Do the other games in TKs range have convincing stall behavior? I probably should buy them and try it, don't mind supporting TW, and the games are probably good too.

Edited August 17, 2007 by peter01

[+peter01 2]

Well, once i got home I flew a bit testing stalls, and I'd say, just ignore my earlier post.

 

Probably the only plane you can cause to get into a spin is the first Spad. Quite easy actually. If others. its arbitrary probably the result of randomness of post stall behavior, rather than as an spin stall. And can't work out how its possible to get the fokkerD7 into a spin, at least not mine.

 

The first Spad is interesting - its certainly is the FM not the stall type parameters - and in a way, quite a quirky FM, it seems to fly somewhat strangely at times in Normal Mode too. I can see why TK redid this completely. You also can recover, and recover following the correct procedures (opposite rudder, nose down, power down) for spin recovery, but not always - seems about 50% of the time - and you can lose a lot of altitude, which is realistic.

 

You can do tricky stalls because there are stall parameters - and make them difficult to recover as well as less expected, or easy stalls, and all recoverable, more or less. Like all stalls, probably only really dangerous near the ground (or in dogfight :)).

 

Spins are different, no such thing as spin parameters in the FM, so its got to be in the FM forces and moments themselves, or how its all put together. So my view is you can do them, but its very tricky, and probably with quite a few compromises to other things. If done, they are recoverable, and using the right procedures (unless this is random as well - but that would be okay, probably fair enough with these early planes). if this proves to be the case I won't worry about it. The difficulty in FE to me is that the planes are not jets, they are flown by AI that have trouble flying them well and especially in combat effectively, and when you build the FM you need to keep that foremost in mind. It would be different if this was a flight sim, rather than a combat sim with no AI. But I'll keep an open mind about whether its feasible, at least until TKs new addon.

 

So the questions remaining to me at least are around what speed should these planes stall, with variety of course for different planes and periods?

Edited August 17, 2007 by peter01

[FastCargo 412]

So stalls yes. But how high?

 

That I can't help you with...I'm not smart enough on WWI aircraft to help there...

 

Can they be realsitic?

 

Honestly, that depends on the actual aircraft. Remember, back in aviation's infancy, they were still trying out a lot of stuff...especially when pushing aircraft to the edge of the envelope. And small changes could make for big results.

 

Can you recover?

 

Again, depends on the aircraft. I will say that I think most aircraft back in the day could recover from a straight stall. The problem was always if one wing dropped off first due to torque effects, a bent airframe, etc. Then things got nasty (ie an unrecoverable spin...).

 

Do the other games in TKs range have convincing stall behavior?

 

Well, depends who you talk to. Simulations in general have difficulties emulating post-stall behavior, because of the odd dynamics (vorticies, turbulence, etc). Also, even good designs can have odd quirks that don't show up until operations.

 

Several examples:

 

The early F-100s had a nasty yaw tendency, corrected by increasing the vertical tail size in later models.

 

The early F-4s had an ugly tendency to get into a spin at high AOA if you used the aileron.

 

The F-15E can get into an auto-roll couple in certain configurations.

 

The B-1 is not recoverable if it gets into a stall (doesn't even have to spin...just a straight stall).

 

 

Most aircraft of the WOV/SFP1 area had thin wings to go fast. Thin, fast wings have a much different stall characteristic than big, thick cambered wings (like your Cessna).

 

Cambered wings' stall curve tends to be very well defined...increasing AOA results in increased lift until near stall, then you get buffet, and then pitch down as the wing hits max Cl.

 

Thin, fast wings on the other hand have a much flatter Cl curve, and start buffeting very early. Also, there tends to not be a definite nose drop, just increasing buffet, and increasing sink rate. This characteristic killed a lot of early pilots who normally expected a nose drop and never got it.

 

So, with that being said, the SFP1/WOV/WOE seem to feel 'ok' to me...but remember, that TK programmed the engine probably for docile behavior at the limits...get 95% of the feel correct, because the majority of his customers won't be concerned with the other 5% of the envelope.

 

FastCargo

[Nicholas Bell 117]

Peter,

 

I'd say stick with your original plan and wait until TK releases the next patch. There's plenty of planes awaiting your magic touch regarding AI and basic FM behavior.

 

As far as SF1/WOV/WOE, stalls don't occur as I would expect and experience in other prop sims. FastCargo's post indicates that this may be accurate. For example, pulling max Gs in a vertical bank with a F-100 will rapidly cause the loss of airspeed, turn rate and some altitude. There is a rumbling noise indicating a stall, but there is no nose or wing drop. The plane remains stable but the controls are unresponsive until enough airspeed is regained. Letting off on the stick pressure is usually enough. Going to full afterburner does not help much quickly.

 

Unless highly modified, aircraft do not spin either. I've seen some 3rd party prop aircraft with bizarre stall and spin behavior.

 

Nick

Edited August 17, 2007 by Nicholas Bell

[+Tailspin 3]

Peter. Like other things stall, spin, and spin recovery characteristics varied with the aircraft. Some like the Camel and SPAD were severe and dangerous and recovery was very iffy. Others like the Fokker DVII stalled very gently and were reluctant to spin at all. Some stalled and spun but responded to normal recovery techniques. As I mentioned to you I like the stalls. They add to the game experience. They also force you to think a little more about dogfighting tactics. Since I started flying on HARD again (thanks to your efforts) I have actually crashed a few times due to stalling at too low an altitude. So IMHO stalling without spinning is better than no stalling at all. As far as spins go, I'd rather not have unrecoverable spins unless that was a particular trait of the aircraft.

 

Regarding stall speeds? Hmmm....research and educated guesses I suppose?

[ShrikeHawk 384]

I think the DH.2 was called "Spinning Death" because it's spin characteristics were almost

unrecoverable. I remember fighting that problem a lot in Red Baron. Right now, I get the

easy controllability that the DH.2 was known for without the downside of the nasty spin.

Airacobra was like this too. I guess this is a characteristic of mid-engined designs. Still if

one plane could be given the wicked spin, it should be the DH.2

 

I'd like it if spins were possible, but if it means too many compromises to the rest of the FM

then I'd prefer to live without them.

 

I am no expert, but I would imagine that ww1 aircraft are easier to recover from a stall than

ww2 aircraft. That's because the ww1 wing is built more for slow speeds and lift. These wings

would require less airspeed to regain lift after it's lost. So "generally" stall recovery should be

fairly easy using standard recovery techniques. Although, as Tailspin says, some will recover

more easily than others.

[+peter01 2]

Thanks guys, i agree with all thats been said, and some good stuff/comments - food for thought.

 

Some thoughts from an FM perspective, - I'd like to say this, because I presume many people will talk about stalls if more play hard, which I would like, and which is better and more interesting, and like all the discussions in other TKs games, there will be different views, as FastCargo stated.

 

Well, depends who you talk to.

 

And thats fine...these are just my thoughts (reserve the right to change my mind too ).... but I can't agreee with some other comments posted elsewhere at all.

 

Stalls are in TKs game, and are done pretty well. You can do easy stalls (recoverable, warning on onset, lower stall speed), you can do harder stalls (non-recoverable to a certain extent, little warning so trickier, higher stall speed), AND everything in between. You can make it that stalls occur of course at higher speeds than the stall speed with even minor changes in AoA. You can use stalls for many other things in the FM, make planes trickier to fly (wing warping, I dallied with this, decided it was too hard for everybody including me), and to limit climb without being full blown stalls. Maybe many other things too!

 

And recovery from stalls (as well as spins induced from stalls), is how you would realistically expect, tho its a bit random I think whether you recover from some or not - maybe this is why there is some confusion about recovery?

 

In addition its easy to do all this - once understood - its actually one of the easier parts of the FM.

 

So its all very good, what more could you want on stalls - but I have one concern (not related to TKs game engine), and one quibble on stalls.

 

The reservation relates to what most in the community would like: higher and realitic design stall speeds, or will this be too hard. The reason I say this if you design normal stalls to occur say at 50mph for one plane as an example (average and realistic for wwi period), you will feel onset maybe 10-20mph higher, and depending hows its done you could stall easily at 80-100mph by throwing the aircraft around. If you made it 30 mph (which is why it is generally so low currently or less in many FMs), its completely different. So when I say stall speed, its not just the "design" stall speed, its a lot more.

 

A quibble with the game relates to post stall behavior - it is random to a certain extent (I think) and is also affected in a (relatively minor) way by how the FM is done, but thats all okay, I don't have an issue with this, its good to a certain extent for wwi planes, - but it can at times be...well, weird and unrealistic, IMO. TK has said he is looking at this for the new release, so maybe that will be improved.

 

Now spins....thats different. There aren't any parameters in the FM yet to do this, so you have to design the FM for it. TKs original Spad was great and exhibited true stall-spin behavior. Some planes go into a spin due to post stall behavior (this is not hard to do, its in stall parameters), its not induced by a spin type stall, its caused by a normal stall. The Spad was a true spin - test to me is if you approach stall, drop wing or yaw, then you should spin - thats a true spin-stall to me. Also on Spad if you didn't change lift on wings by those actions, you would just go into a normal stall, as distinct to the spin type stall, and it was recoverable.

 

but I'd agree with fastcargo, its really that extra 5%, and probably takes a lot of work, talent or knowledge, with definite compromises. Have looked at TKs Spad FM in detail now, I think I know how he does it, but on the one hand, it limits EVERYTHING else in the FM (I tried some changes to normal things, it made the plane very unstable, couldn't get it too work properly by modding climb or turn/roll by any significant amounts), and on the other hand, even this one, which I like very much, very expertly done, has some funny characteristics when you fly in normal - you can lift upwards when inverted or rolling. In a way, its more quirky in Normal mode than Hard...why I think TK changed it.

 

If TK included easy to use spin parameters (it must be doable many games do, or at least seem to - it could be more post stalll behavior that seems like you have induced a spin), it would mean you would be flying a bit more dangerously, close to the edge - good for this era. But really in the scheme of things, its probably minor to most (not all, some seem to just like realistic spins, maybe not much else!), certainly to me, I'd rather have AI improvements, new planes, and especially immersion type stuff.

 

so spins are out at the moment ..... probably too hard, or at least beyond beyond my expertise. If I do "have a go" (I do like a challenge), it probably would be for a couple of aircraft only, those that you have said above were well known for these characteristics - despite the fact all WWi planes actually did spin.

Edited August 18, 2007 by peter01

[+p10ppy 2]

I've not much to add on stalls/spins

 

The engine seems to model a variety of stalls nicely as has Peter said

Spins are quite different and in my experience very difficult if not impossible to get out of, (I'm not sure how you guys are recovering the SPAD 13 from its nasty "flat" spin but its 95% fatal to me)

 

Which is unfortunate because it would seem to be a very large part of early aviation (recoverable Spins)

Hence all the "phantom" OOC claims

 

There are a few misconceptions (IMHO) in this thread about the design of WW1 era airfoil sections

Until the D.VII came along designers were labouring under the mistaken belief that very thin low camber wings were best (so there's probably some similarities between the 60's fast movers that Fastcargo is talking about) low CD0 and low CL0 and as Peter has alluded to a small range between normal flight and stalling/spining (not much fun if its unrecoverable)

Side note: The AI flies in a stall regime at "normal" so won't suffer the same…

 

A nice little quote courtesy of the aerodrome in turn courtesy of a Lt Beauchamp flying a N28 of all things (its kinda funny in a terrifying way)

 

"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.... "

Edited August 18, 2007 by p10ppy

[+peter01 2]

Good quote P10ppy. It is frightening!

 

I do find interesting the way he describes it: "but fell into a spin" etc.

 

My understanding is that many proficent WW1 flyers used controlled spins extensively as a tactic in dogfights. If it read more like "went into a spin" at times too, it clicks more with what I know....maybe it just the way he uses words, but doesn't seem like it!

Edited September 4, 2007 by peter01

[+Tailspin 3]

Yeah, it reads to me like Lt. Beauchamp was a lousy pilot.

[+p10ppy 2]

Yeah, it reads to me like Lt. Beauchamp was a lousy pilot.

Yeah

However it looks like the OP at the aerodrome may have been muddled (and by default me too )

And the quoted pilot seems to been (another source) in fact Donald Hudson (Beauchamp didn't make it through that combat)

Apparently a famous dogfight when the 27th aero lost 6 pilots on the 1st Aug 1918 :(

Hudson was (or would become a ace) and was flying a SPAD XIII at the time of the quote (for the first time in combat, they ushally flew N28's) which makes more sense….

and dispite all the spinning claimed 3 in that combat

Edited September 4, 2007 by p10ppy