Jump to content

V_S_N Responds - Strictly Flight Model Questions


Best answer

I am ready to answer your questions again. Please be correct and concise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone, I would like to introduce you to V_S_N our lead FM designer. From now on he will take responsibility to answer to your FM related questions.

 

Please keep questions strictly on Topic, FM related ONLY!!!

 

Thread will be opened, once questions from old one are answered.

  • Upvote 22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Developer

Before you write message in this topic, you should strictly follow those instructions. In a case of violation of even one point of the instructions, the message will be hidden and there will be no reply to it. Thank you for understanding:

 

1) Question should be strictly FM related

2) If you want to report FM issue, then this topic is not suited for it. All bug reports should be created on the bug report forum http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/forum/590-flight-and-damage-model-issues/

3) Messages with huge images or with many of them should be created with using spoilers to hide the images. Same goes for videos.

4) If you want to respond to user message - use private messaging.

  • Upvote 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Questions about Shinden (J7W1)
 
I had been using it like the Shinden, but there are many that wonder.
 
In particular, is a mobility problem.
When you calculate the wing loading of Shinden, it's roughly Fw-190D-9 with the same position.
Those of Shinden could do slightly lighter than it.
But in the game, Fw-190D-9 more than turning performance is poor, it does not bend at all.
In addition, the Japanese fighter in the discussion of the page,
Also data of detailed Shinden.
I think it's likely data used effectively also in the production of flight model.
Personal problem of flight model of this J7W1 Shinden To (bad mainly turning performance),
Not a bug, but I think that it is something that is due to the mistake of fighting weight calculation,
Do you have a plan of correction?
 
Finally, I'm sorry in clumsy English.
 
You have answer to this question and I am very happy.
  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest

Hello V_S_N,

 

Here's my question; I have realized that, instead of implementing the 109-011 engine on Ho 229, the developers put the 109-004D engine with throttle regulator mechanism and double fuel injection... Is there a reason why you developers chose it, or it just cut the work time needed on tweaking the aircraft? Also, AFAIK 109-004D does not have higher thrust and engine RPM than 109-004B IRL...

 

Thanks for asking! 8)s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello V_S_N,

Here's my question; I have realized that, instead of implementing the 109-011 engine on Ho 229, the developers put the 109-004D engine with throttle regulator mechanism and double fuel injection... Is there a reason why you developers chose it, or it just cut the work time needed on tweaking the aircraft? Also, AFAIK 109-004D does not have higher thrust and engine RPM than 109-004B IRL...

Thanks for asking! 8)s

The jumo 004D had almost 1.5kN more thrust than the 004B.
The HeS 011 was a bit wider than the 004, and therefore, would likely necessitate an entirely new aircraft if a 229 with those engines was added.
So my assumption is that the 004D was added to the current 229 to make it competitive, and we may get a new one later on powered by 011s.

Question:
Do you work with how damage to aircraft affects their performance? Edited by Brogan1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you base the maximal permissible speeds (speeds at which wings come off) on planes on? It's a value that seems fairly hard to find and often seems to be bit too low for what one would expect (for instance airplanes like La-15 having lower maximal permissible speed than some straight wing aircraft like F-80C) and I am wondering where did that value come from.

Edited by TealMillan
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and thanks for answering our questions.

what i would like to know is, if you plan to update the FM of the Do 217 series. since the big FM mechanic update it feels really sluggish. are you going to change the effect of damage on the FM a bit? it seems stronger for some planes than for others, for example the Do 217 is sometimes unflyable after just a couple minor hits.

Edited by Asgar1205
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there plans to improve the automatic engine management? Operating outside of 90 - 110% throttle means you are losing significant amounts of horsepower when using the same settings under manual engine controls

 

The flaws of the auto engine management can quite evidently be seen here http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/216037-allison-v-1710-engine-tests/

Edited by SubRyan
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Developer

 

Questions about Shinden (J7W1)
 
I had been using it like the Shinden, but there are many that wonder.
 
In particular, is a mobility problem.
When you calculate the wing loading of Shinden, it's roughly Fw-190D-9 with the same position.
Those of Shinden could do slightly lighter than it.
But in the game, Fw-190D-9 more than turning performance is poor, it does not bend at all.
In addition, the Japanese fighter in the discussion of the page,
Also data of detailed Shinden.
I think it's likely data used effectively also in the production of flight model.
Personal problem of flight model of this J7W1 Shinden To (bad mainly turning performance),
Not a bug, but I think that it is something that is due to the mistake of fighting weight calculation,
Do you have a plan of correction?
 
Finally, I'm sorry in clumsy English.
 
You have answer to this question and I am very happy.

 

At this aircraft maneuverability problem is not with wing and weight. The biggest drawback to a very small area of the stabilizer and elevator. Plus a small length of the fuselage.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Developer

What do you base the maximal permissible speeds (speeds at which wings come off) on planes on? It's a value that seems fairly hard to find and often seems to be bit too low for what one would expect (for instance airplanes like La-15 having lower maximal permissible speed than some straight wing aircraft like F-80C) and I am wondering where did that value come from.

All speed restrictions are taken exclusively from the technical description of the airplane.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Developer

Hi and thanks for answering our questions.

what i would like to know is, if you plan to update the FM of the Do 217 series. since the big FM mechanic update it feels really sluggish. are you going to change the effect of damage on the FM a bit? it seems stronger for some planes than for others, for example the Do 217 is sometimes unflyable after just a couple minor hits.

Soon no changes are planned.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Developer

Are there plans to improve the automatic engine management? Operating outside of 90 - 110% throttle means you are losing significant amounts of horsepower when using the same settings under manual engine controls

 

The flaws of the auto engine management can quite evidently be seen here http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/216037-allison-v-1710-engine-tests/

Yes, there are plans to improve the automatic control of the engine.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is there no automatic prop pitch and radiator on the BF 109 G-6?

 

Also it has some serious overheating problems and we were flying in the event with the winter map yesterday.

Is it the version equiped with MW-50? In this case it should be possible to fly maximum power+MW50 for 10 minutes with a cooldown of 5 minutes afterwards before MW50 engagement is possible again.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1)What is the status of the elevator problem and engine performances of the He-162 ?

 

2)Is it normal to be able to turn off and on the rocket of the Me-163 ? It's nice and usefull, but quoting Eric Brown here : "The slightest irregularity in the set ration of C-Stoff to T-Stoff being fed to the motor, such as might result from a momentary interruption in the flown of one or other, could produce an explosion, ..." I'm wondering if it was feasible ?

 

Thanks for your answers, and sorry if it was already asked and I didn't see.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you ever going to create an in-game tool for us to be able to a test plane's performances (FM) in a standardized fashion? Right now, it's too complicated and requires a lot of time from one to make proper FM tests.

  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this (old) thread,

http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/161906-data-sheet-ju-87-d-5/

 

the Junkers 87 D-5 is listed with a Jumo 213J engine, but since the recent reclassification to the newer Junkers 87 D-5 Attacker, it should be switched to a Jumo 213 P engine, developing 1500 HP.

Should I create a bug report, or is it enough to mention it here?

 

On a side note, you should save that FM from the link above for the Junkers 87 D-5 Dive bomber when we get it back.

  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(1) The Yak-1 and Yak-9 so different flight models then Yak-1b and Yak-9T (engine power, propeller efficiency, drag is completely different - the Yak-9T produces a lot less induced drag then the lighter Yak-9 when flying at low airspeed)? Are you working on new flight models?

 

(2) Why are there no rudder trim changes with speed in (most of, I did not test all) Yak-series fighters?

Edited by Cpt_Branko
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Developer

Why is there no automatic prop pitch and radiator on the BF 109 G-6?

 

Also it has some serious overheating problems and we were flying in the event with the winter map yesterday.

Is it the version equiped with MW-50? In this case it should be possible to fly maximum power+MW50 for 10 minutes with a cooldown of 5 minutes afterwards before MW50 engagement is possible again.

 

Automatic prop will be soon on all 109G. We make new logic for automatic props now.

G-6 is equipped with MW-50 now.

 

 

1)What is the status of the elevator problem and engine performances of the He-162 ?

 

2)Is it normal to be able to turn off and on the rocket of the Me-163 ? It's nice and usefull, but quoting Eric Brown here : "The slightest irregularity in the set ration of C-Stoff to T-Stoff being fed to the motor, such as might result from a momentary interruption in the flown of one or other, could produce an explosion, ..." I'm wondering if it was feasible ?

 

Thanks for your answers, and sorry if it was already asked and I didn't see.

 

1) work in progress

2) we know about this problem with accumulation of fuel after rocket shutdown in combustion chamber but i can't say is it normal for game or not. But i think it is good idea to make discrete thrust control for this rockets type.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Developer

Are you ever going to create an in-game tool for us to be able to a test plane's performances (FM) in a standardized fashion? Right now, it's too complicated and requires a lot of time from one to make proper FM tests.

Be sure to do. But not in the near future.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Developer

In this (old) thread,

http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/161906-data-sheet-ju-87-d-5/

 

the Junkers 87 D-5 is listed with a Jumo 213J engine, but since the recent reclassification to the newer Junkers 87 D-5 Attacker, it should be switched to a Jumo 213 P engine, developing 1500 HP.

Should I create a bug report, or is it enough to mention it here?

 

On a side note, you should save that FM from the link above for the Junkers 87 D-5 Dive bomber when we get it back.

Suffice it to mention here.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Developer

(1) The Yak-1 and Yak-9 so different flight models then Yak-1b and Yak-9T (engine power, propeller efficiency, drag is completely different - the Yak-9T produces a lot less induced drag then the lighter Yak-9 when flying at low airspeed)? Are you working on new flight models?

 

(2) Why are there no rudder trim changes with speed in (most of, I did not test all) Yak-series fighters?

1) Yes of course.

2) Construction features.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for doings this VSN!  I've got some somewhat specific questions I'm hoping you can answer.


1) Is the wep duration on the p47d-25/28 going to be corrected to correspond to the 30 gallon adi tank all p47d-25 and forward had?  Currently the adi lasts exactly 10 minutes which is correct for a 15 gallon tank, not 30.  Correct duration for 30 gal tank should be about 20 minutes at 56" wep and just over 14 minutes at 64" wep.  AAF 51-127-3 Pilot Training Manual for the P-47 Thunderbolt: "The capacity of the tank is 15 gallons on planes up to the d-25.  On this and subsequent series, the capacity has been doubled."

2) Is the turbine rpm going to be increased from 18250 rpm max to the correct 22,000 rpm max that was present on the d-25 and forward?  Flight tests from march 44 forward show turbine rpms at 22,000, flight manual for d-25 and forward indicates 22,000 rpm for 15 minutes max.  The pilot training manual for p47d bubbletop (d-25 and forward) also mentions 22,000 rpm max for the d-25.  
http://www.avialogs.com/en/aircraft/usa/republic/p-47thunderbolt/aaf-51-127-3-pilot-training-manual-for-the-p-47-thunderbolt.htmlhttp://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/usa/republic/p-47thunderbolt/an-01-65bc-1a-pilots-flight-operating-instructions-for-p-47d-25-26-27-28-30-and-35-airplanes.html , http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-75035-level.jpg

3) Is the manifold pressure gauge in the p47d-25/28 going to be corrected to show 56" for wep and 52" for military?

4) Are we ever going to see a 72"/75" p51d/b fm or 67" p47d fm variants?  Currently both aircraft are modeled off of worst case engine performance available during their service periods.  Both aircraft spent the vast majority of their European careers running "150 octane" fuel, not 100.  IF you've not followed the threads about this particular issue and would like explanation, I can link you to AS_deckards post with lots of documentation.

5) If best case scenario and most commonly used engine outputs (in europe) are to be denied for these aircraft, why?

6) Are aircraft with relatively very large fuel tanks ever going to be able to take 30 minutes of fuel like was done for the p51d?

Edited by taco86

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The amount of planes that can "helicopter" is too high. Are you going to resolve this issue?

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Developer

Thanks for doings this VSN!  I've got some somewhat specific questions I'm hoping you can answer.


1) Is the wep duration on the p47d-25/28 going to be corrected to correspond to the 30 gallon adi tank all p47d-25 and forward had?  Currently the adi lasts exactly 10 minutes which is correct for a 15 gallon tank, not 30.  Correct duration for 30 gal tank should be about 20 minutes at 56" wep and just over 14 minutes at 64" wep.  AAF 51-127-3 Pilot Training Manual for the P-47 Thunderbolt: "The capacity of the tank is 15 gallons on planes up to the d-25.  On this and subsequent series, the capacity has been doubled."

2) Is the turbine rpm going to be increased from 18250 rpm max to the correct 22,000 rpm max that was present on the d-25 and forward?  Flight tests from march 44 forward show turbine rpms at 22,000, flight manual for d-25 and forward indicates 22,000 rpm for 15 minutes max.  The pilot training manual for p47d bubbletop (d-25 and forward) also mentions 22,000 rpm max for the d-25.  
http://www.avialogs.com/en/aircraft/usa/republic/p-47thunderbolt/aaf-51-127-3-pilot-training-manual-for-the-p-47-thunderbolt.htmlhttp://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/usa/republic/p-47thunderbolt/an-01-65bc-1a-pilots-flight-operating-instructions-for-p-47d-25-26-27-28-30-and-35-airplanes.html , http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-75035-level.jpg

3) Is the manifold pressure gauge in the p47d-25/28 going to be corrected to show 56" for wep and 52" for military?

4) Are we ever going to see a 72"/75" p51d/b fm or 67" p47d fm variants?  Currently both aircraft are modeled off of worst case engine performance available during their service periods.  Both aircraft spent the vast majority of their European careers running "150 octane" fuel, not 100.  IF you've not followed the threads about this particular issue and would like explanation, I can link you to AS_deckards post with lots of documentation.

5) If best case scenario and most commonly used engine outputs (in europe) are to be denied for these aircraft, why?

6) Are aircraft with relatively very large fuel tanks ever going to be able to take 30 minutes of fuel like was done for the p51d?

1) ,2), 3) At 1.47 will be fixed.

4) yet I have no such plans. In the future, might be, but not in the near future.

5) It is not a question to the FM.

6) We plan in the future changes in the fueling.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...