WWII warplanes vs combat sim realism

Posted this on a thread but the guys were too busy flaming each other to
notice or give an intelligent answer. Trying again.........

I am having a debate on the subject of whether planes like the BF109 and
FW190 were really as unstable and prone to stalls and spins at the drop of a
hat as modelled in the PC sim IL2 Sturmovik, Forgotten Battles. I am saying
not and that the air war would never have been won if planes of that era
could barely fly. Does anyone know of real stories/reports on this issue or
maybe know some vintage pilots who flew them? I have already read of a
Mustang pilot who says the sim feels about right if the 'stalls and spins'
setting is turned off.

The debate extended into 'blackouts and redouts'. In the sim, a hard pull on
the stick and the screen goes black, very annoying and I believe
unrealistic. How many G's could those WWII planes pull without tearing off
the wings? Should 'blackouts and redouts' even be modelled in a WWII sim?

What was the "real" story?
(I'm not a pilot but I have flown a real plane. I know that PC sims are
unrealistic so nobody has to tell me that........)

I was fortunate enough to be able to afford to charter a Hawker Hunter out
of Thunder City, Cape Town, South Africa, I was very at home on the stick
and was immediately capable of basic flight manouvres, thanks to playing
flight sims. It took only seconds to get over the initial tendency to make
'too big' movements. That's because I got a serious fright when I yanked on
the stick, the Hunter is as agile as a cat!. The pilot only took over for
the seriously rough aerobatics (and of course take off and landing). So,
unrealistic as they may be and although they will never make me a pilot, PC
flight sims do teach you something.

I blacked out at around 5 G's in the Hunter and the pilot reckons he has
bult up a
tolerance quite a bit hight than that (I'm glad, otherwise who would have
been watching where we were going?!)

wrote in message
...
Posted this on a thread but the guys were too busy flaming each other to
notice or give an intelligent answer. Trying again.........



The debate extended into 'blackouts and redouts'. In the sim, a hard pull
on
the stick and the screen goes black, very annoying and I believe
unrealistic. How many G's could those WWII planes pull without tearing off
the wings? Should 'blackouts and redouts' even be modelled in a WWII sim?

I think that blackouts probably do belong. I read in a book (it was a
serious BoB analysis, if I can find the title I'll let you know) that when
the RAF captured an Bf109 they found that the pilots could take more "G" in
it without tunnel vision / blackout. The reason? The rudder pedals were
mounted higher in relation to the rest of the body on the Bf109. Hence less
blood rushing to the feet. A small detail, but that could be the one that
decides the fight! Alas for the luftwaffe the Bf109 wings were not designed
for guns etc so were not terrifically robust, the pilots were often more
worried about the wings falling off than blacking out......



I blacked out at around 5 G's in the Hunter and the pilot reckons he has
bult up a
tolerance quite a bit hight than that (I'm glad, otherwise who would have
been watching where we were going?!)

OK, 3.5 G in a Glider is all I have managed to pull and then not for very
long (for obvious reasons!). 5G in a Hunter, now envy is a really bad
thing........ Must have been a great trip!

Mark

decides the fight! Alas for the luftwaffe the Bf109 wings were not designed
for guns etc so were not terrifically robust, the pilots were often more
worried about the wings falling off than blacking out......

Incorrect.

Having guns or not doesn't have anything to do with the strenght of the
wings. 109s from A-E had wing weapons, again one of the K models was
designed for wing weapons. The wings were also one single structure,
which made it possible to make them very strong.

"- Are the stories true, that the 109 had weak wings and would loose
them easily?
He has never heard of a 109 loosing its wings from his experience or
others. The wings could withstand 12 g's and since most pilots could
only handle at most 9 g's there was never a problem. He was never
worried about loosing a wing in any form of combat."
- Franz Stigler, German fighter ace. 28 victories. Interview of Franz
Stigler.

"The maximum speed not to be exceeded was 750kmh. Once I was flying
above Helsinki as I received a report of Russkies in the South. There
was a big Cumulus cloud on my way there but I decided to fly right
through. I centered the controls and then something extraordinary
happened. I must have involuntarily entered into half-roll and dive. The
planes had individual handling characteristics; even though I held the
turning indicator in the middle, the plane kept going faster and faster,
I pulled the stick, yet the plane went into an ever steeper dive.
In the same time she started rotating, and I came out of the cloud with
less than one kilometer of altitude. I started pulling the stick,
nothing happened, I checked the speed, it was about 850kmh. I tried to
recover the plane but the stick was as if locked and nothing happened. I
broke into a sweat of agony: now I am going into the sea and cannot help
it. I pulled with both hands, groaning and by and by she started
recovering, she recovered more, I pulled and pulled, but the surface of
the sea approached, I thought I was going to crash. I kept pulling until
I saw that I had survived. The distance between me and the sea may have
been five meters. I pulled up and found myself on the coast of Estonia.
If I in that situation had used the vertical trim the wings would have
been broken off. A minimal trim movement has a strong effect on wings
when the speed limit has been exceded. I had 100kmh overspeed! It was
out of all limits.
The Messerschmitt's wings were fastened with two bolts. When I saw the
construction I had thought that they are strong enough but in this case
I was thinking, when are they going to break
- What about the phenomenon called "buffeting" or vibration, was there any?
No, I did not encounter it even in the 850kmh speed."
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview
by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

Given that 109s were routinely dived at 800-900 km/hour speeds that
certainly shows that if there was some weaknesses in the plane, wings
werent' them.

jok

"Jukka O. Kauppinen" wrote:

decides the fight! Alas for the luftwaffe the Bf109 wings were not designed
for guns etc so were not terrifically robust, the pilots were often more
worried about the wings falling off than blacking out......

Incorrect.

Having guns or not doesn't have anything to do with the strenght of the
wings. 109s from A-E had wing weapons, again one of the K models was
designed for wing weapons. The wings were also one single structure,
which made it possible to make them very strong.

[...]

Given that 109s were routinely dived at 800-900 km/hour speeds that
certainly shows that if there was some weaknesses in the plane, wings
werent' them.

It's not so much the case the wings were actually breaking off the
Bf 109 [E] during hard maneuvering, but a psychological belief that
it could happen due to the very well known high wing loading.

You've quoted some 109 pilots that indicated this belief wasn't a
concern to them, but I've heard/read the story enough to think there
must be some basis for it in fact.

At least during the BoB period (109 Emil).


SMH

"Jukka O. Kauppinen" wrote in
message ...
decides the fight! Alas for the luftwaffe the Bf109 wings were not
designed
for guns etc so were not terrifically robust, the pilots were often more
worried about the wings falling off than blacking out......

Incorrect.

Having guns or not doesn't have anything to do with the strenght of the
wings. 109s from A-E had wing weapons, again one of the K models was
designed for wing weapons. The wings were also one single structure,
which made it possible to make them very strong.

The wings do however have to be redesigned to carry the guns and the
ammunition. This in turn places stress on the wing. The early 109s with
wing mounted guns had to have an ammuntiion feed belt that went from the
gun, to the wingtip and back round again!

"- Are the stories true, that the 109 had weak wings and would loose
them easily?

snip

I was quoting Len Dieghtons book "Fighter":

The Messerschmitts weak wings were providing it's pilots with a new problem.
The Spitfire pilots had discovered how to make use of the superior strength
of the spitfire wings. Faster in a dive, the Messerschmitts were being
overtaken because they pulled out in a shallow curve, nervous that they
might rip their wings off.

A little later:

(this) gave rise to the widely held belief that the Bf 109 could not turn as
tightly as the Spitfire. In theory it's turn was tighter, but few pilots
were prepared to test this to it's limit.

The Spitfire wing probably was a little stronger as it's main spar is
effectively a leaf spring, capable of taking some stress and recovering.
Part of the Bf 109s reputation may also come however from it's very narrow
undercarraige, and the amount of taxi and landing accidents that resulted.
Certainly the Fw 190 resolved this issue with a very wide undercarraige!

Mark

About a year and a half ago I finished up most of a digital remastering of a
narration of combat footage by a friend and P-47 pilot of the 78th who few 105
missions out of Duxford.

I had heard that the physics model in the Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator for
WWII was excellent and I used it to get some gun and engine sounds. For fun I
added a gun film placard with "Wrongway Springer" at the end of the combat
sequences and a section where I use the simulator and "attacked" a 109 from the
rear. There is some good maneuvering and use of WEP to avoid stalls, fragments
flying by, etc before the 109 goes down. I suppresed the color to make it look
like the other footage.

The very experienced pilot just said he didn't remember that sequence and where
did I find film with a view from the cockpit and showing the instruments and
with sound? I explained and he thought the realism was amazing.

I'm still trying to get a good sound recording of engine noise from inside a
maneuvering P-47. I think it is unlikey I will find a modern recording of gun
sound!

-- Charlie Springer

I'm still trying to get a good sound recording of engine noise from inside a
maneuvering P-47.

I might be able to help in this department.
VL

Subject: WWII warplanes vs combat sim realism
From: (MLenoch)
Date: 11/20/03 10:56 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

I'm still trying to get a good sound recording of engine noise from inside a
maneuvering P-47.

I might be able to help in this department.
VL
..
I've got a sound effect on my website of an R-2800 winding up. That's the same
engine that was on the P-47. You might want to contact Bob McKellar and see if
he will let you use it. If that is a problem I think I may have some R-2800
sound effects around somewhere. Nothing sounds quiet like an R-2800. (grin)

Regards,


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Thanks for that Mark. Maybe blackouts should be in the game, but then the
problem lies, not with the aircraft flight models but with the modelling of
the pilots G-force tolerence.

Yeah, my Hunter seat time was the most intense hour of my life, very
extreme!

"Mark Irvine" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
Posted this on a thread but the guys were too busy flaming each other to
notice or give an intelligent answer. Trying again.........



The debate extended into 'blackouts and redouts'. In the sim, a hard
pull
on
the stick and the screen goes black, very annoying and I believe
unrealistic. How many G's could those WWII planes pull without tearing
off
the wings? Should 'blackouts and redouts' even be modelled in a WWII
sim?

I think that blackouts probably do belong. I read in a book (it was a
serious BoB analysis, if I can find the title I'll let you know) that when
the RAF captured an Bf109 they found that the pilots could take more "G"
in
it without tunnel vision / blackout. The reason? The rudder pedals were
mounted higher in relation to the rest of the body on the Bf109. Hence
less
blood rushing to the feet. A small detail, but that could be the one that
decides the fight! Alas for the luftwaffe the Bf109 wings were not
designed
for guns etc so were not terrifically robust, the pilots were often more
worried about the wings falling off than blacking out......



I blacked out at around 5 G's in the Hunter and the pilot reckons he has
bult up a
tolerance quite a bit hight than that (I'm glad, otherwise who would
have
been watching where we were going?!)

OK, 3.5 G in a Glider is all I have managed to pull and then not for very
long (for obvious reasons!). 5G in a Hunter, now envy is a really bad
thing........ Must have been a great trip!

Mark

"Jukka O. Kauppinen" wrote in
message ...
decides the fight! Alas for the luftwaffe the Bf109 wings were not
designed
for guns etc so were not terrifically robust, the pilots were often more
worried about the wings falling off than blacking out......

Incorrect.

Having guns or not doesn't have anything to do with the strenght of the
wings. 109s from A-E had wing weapons, again one of the K models was
designed for wing weapons. The wings were also one single structure,
which made it possible to make them very strong.

"- Are the stories true, that the 109 had weak wings and would loose
them easily?
He has never heard of a 109 loosing its wings from his experience or
others. The wings could withstand 12 g's and since most pilots could
only handle at most 9 g's there was never a problem. He was never
worried about loosing a wing in any form of combat."
- Franz Stigler, German fighter ace. 28 victories. Interview of Franz
Stigler.

snip

The reference that I was using was Len Deightons book "Fighter" which
examines the Battle of Britain. When discussing tactics he asserts that the
Bf109 pilots used the tactic of diving away as the Bf109 engine maintained
power during the dive unlike that generation of Merlin. However the 109
pilots tended to pull out of their dives in a shallower curve, due to fears
over the wings. The spitfire pilots would continue the dive longer and then
pull out harder, so overhauling them and pushing home their attack. This is
of course a generalisation, and it is not a claim that the Bf109 was a bad
aircraft.

I do wonder how much of this stemmed from the narrow undercarraige, which
while it allowed wing removal while the aircraft sat on its own wheels, also
forced a narrow undercarraige. Presumably if the thing toppled over the
main area of damage would be the wings. Something like 5% of Bf109s made
were reportedly lost in landing accidents. One would assume that a
contributing factor was the narrow undercarraige. Something that was
certainly looked at in the Fw190, which had one of the widest fighter
undercarraiges of the war!

In summary the Bf109 could probably take a lot of stress and it is not as
though they were falling out of the sky due to wings falling off. However
in all likelyhood the pilots did have a concern. It could be one of those
cases where perception is everything....


Mark