IL-2 Series vs real life experiences

[EURO_Snoopy]

Since the inception of the original IL-2 flight sim, Oleg and the 1:C team have continually striven to advance the series with the addition of Forgotten Battles, the Aces expansion pack, Pacific Fighters and now the revolutionary 4.01 patch. This flight model is a bold step forward in realism, and much that the average sim pilot thought he knew is now out the window.

First off, a combat loaded World War II fighter plane is a pilot killer, plain and simple. This is an undeniable fact, historically borne out and indisputable. Losses incured by training, accident, and mechanical failure exceed combat losses by at least 2 times in all airforces involved 60 years ago. The warbirds the you see flying today are radically lightened, governed, and aerodynamically modified both to tame them down and to protect someone's multi-hundred thousand dollar investment. Let's discuss the reasons behind the lengthy and demanding military pilot training, and conversely the consequences to an airforce that shortened or neglected it. It takes an educated aviator, with relatively high hours, who is also a physical specimen screened for the best vision, fastest reflexes, best overall health, and soundest overall flight judgement through training to be assigned to fly a fighter plane.

Previous sims had settable or aided Flight Models which attempted to make up for a lack of aerodymic education and proper maneuvering techniques. An automatic trim feature of all previous sims is not represented in the IL-2 series. If I remember correctly back to the 1970's proper trim application encompassed two weeks of groundschool. Many in the IL-2 community are not utilizing aircraft trim correctly and are thus disappointed in different areas of flight performance. Trim characteristics of the the New Flight model are very fluid and now change radically with throttle pitch and speed settings, which is absolutely proper if u want realism but must be researched and applied. Take-offs and landings now must be approached with a little planning and proper caution. Any one of the planes in this sim will have no mercy if an impatient pilot does not have his "lock tailwheel" button configured or lets the tail rise too soon with no aiflow over the rudder. Again this is proper.

I'm a retired light commercial pilot with fairly high hours. I owned and flew a Cessna 401 for 22 years. I also have alot of hours in my father's Stearman and Citabria aircraft, along with ultra-lights. I've even done some mild stunting in my care-free youth. So, with that in mind, let me tell you the story of the Buchon 109. I flew over to Oshkosh for the airshow feeling like a big-time sky-pilot. Longingly I watched as the warbird pilots happily flew. Well, it so happens that a friend of my father's owns a Buchon 109, which is a Spanish-built 109e series aircraft with a Merlin X up front. Sort of like if a P-40 raped an Me-108. I knew there was no chance on the blue side of hell to even sit in someone's 1.2 million dollar Mustang or Spit, but the Buchon was parked right next to the Stearmann, silently but cruelly beckoning. After much begging and cajoling, the guy finally announced that I could take the Buchon up. Hoooray!! The only thing that made me feel uneasy was that he damanded to hold the Title and manifest for my 401 before he'd let me in it. He said, "Be careful, this isn't like anything you've flown before". Well, maybe just over-cautious..... So, here I am taxiing in an "almost 109", quarter-mile smile... I line up, get clearance, pop the stick to lock the tailwheel and meekly grab a little throttle. She rolls smoothly, the tail comes up and I grab about 90 percent. The thing roars deafeningly and rattles my teeth as the tail swings starboard about 40 degrees and the entire works becomes airborne that way. The aircraft is out of control, full right rudder and it's still swingin right. Terrified, puckered up, barely can think.. I manage a skidding pylon turn to the left and enter the pattern, declaring an emergency. I can see my ma on the front porch waving my insurance policy. Somehow I line up by thinking to throttle down, not quick enuff on letting the rudder out and almost fall off on the left wing, throttle on and land it about 90mph, skidding wildly and burning up $960 worth of bendix airplane brakes. Meekly I crept away to cry. The very next day, with new brakes in place, the owner of the aircraft took it up and stunted it with the greatest of ease in staged mock dogfights the next day. I guess the moral of the story is, are you the pilot u think you are? Do u have enough stick-time to get all your aircraft's performance? Are u getting into situations that your aircraft doesn't react to well then thinking it's "porked"? After testing with the rest of the official beta team, I was duly convinced that the aircraft in this sim are properly relative within the new flight model when flown correctly, and used properly tactically.

About the 4.01 FM itself- I am a very definite fan. With a goodly amount of torque modelling, inertia feel and weight dampening, it feels very real to this sim pilot, but still a little easier than it truly ought to be. This is a trade-off of a sort to promote gamemanship, and made utterly difficult would be little fun to compete within. I feel like all planes gained alot in capabilities through the 4.01 patch and it's gonna take a little sticktime to get the skill level everyone desires. My counsel as some research, sticktime, gunnery practice,convergence theory and deflection radians and patience. Make sure u check in yer pre-flight for a "loose nut on the stick" ;o)

By Jv44<~Boelcke/Kyo*78th*Sentai/VFC*F.Luke

Originally posted by CrazyIvan on UBISoft Forums 22/06/05
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/6921007233

[Luckyboy1]

Stearman?.... good show old man! You are a lucky dog indeed! People look at a Stearman and see an old biplane. I see a Stearman and I see the height of refinement in biplane aviation. It is an excellent performer without being nasty in any way. Having exposer to such a fine aircraft can lead you to a dangerous conclusion that you are stick and old, military plane ready and as you found out, and I'm very glad you were able to save the aircraft... as I was reading, I was yelling to myself, "Let off a bit on that throttle, but not too much now!" Down to about 65% throttle in a smooth action would have done the trick and you would have been telling us about how you crashed it when landing instead of a tale of taxying hell! Of course, anybody who's been unfortunate enough to have a plane rolling sideways down the runway on them (that's me man!) can tell you it is easier said than done. Fear can easily ovetake you and the proof here is that you did NOT let that happen, so with that in my mind, the experience makes you a better pilot than the average bear.

Now, I think I know where you started to go wrong here, and if you are willing to read on, I may, and I repeat may be able to tell you where you went wrong to the point where you will be able to go up to just about any plane, get in it and operate it safely.

The first mistake was that of the person who let you fly the plane in the first place. Saying "be careful" is kinda one of those "no shirt" type statements. Ok, be careful about what? How does this plane deviate from the standard model? For those of you who do not understand the term, the "standard model" flies something like a small Piper plane like an old Cherokee Archer II I used to fly quite a bit and hated every minute of its sluggish, but very mild qualities. Flying a Piper Cherokee Archer II offers few if any surprises regardless of what you do to it. Of course, if you manage to bend a Pipe Cherokee Archer II out of shape enough in a flight pattern, it reaches a point of no return, but has a madenning nautral ability to stay in level flight regardless of how sadly you operate the controls.

The second mistake was on your part. You didn't say something like, "Ok, be careful of what?" I approach an aircraft I've never flown before in a state of pure psychotic paranoia. I literally get out my magnifying glass and look up the pito tubes to see if they are clogged. I pull gasoline samples out of all tanks and spin them in my hand held centrifuge. Why am I the only pilot who owns a hand held centrifuge? Yes, the gas is certified by the FAA, but the guy who certified the tank of supply isn't there right now and condensation and time takes its toll and what about the last laod of fuel? I can't tell you how much FBO's learned to hate me for discovering bad loads of fuel and it happens every day. Contrary to popular belief, you are NOT insulting the owner of the plane by doing this, you are actually paying him or her the compliment of being careful and never, and I mean never apologize for that!

Here's some more tips on flying old, and or high hour crates in general, and specifically military built aircraft...

First, try and think of the military plane in its historic context. No matter what it is, you can generally count on some compromizes being made to enhance performance. As we've all found out playing this game, a few more KPH or a slightly better turn ratio or roll rate is all the difference between the great planes and the dogs of a given years production run. Military aircraft are designed so they can tool up a plant in a hurry to produce them. As a result of these factors and more, the military plane that confronts you usually has these characteristics in common...

1) Smaller control surfaces. This is especially true of the rudder. The smaller the surfaces, the faster you can fly and generally, anything larger than what you find on a military plane is just there to make its low speed characteristics easier to handle. Torque from the engine and one wing wanting to lift before the other leads to a certain pucker factor on takeoffs and landings that you simply will not even consider are acting on the plane (and it acts on all planes, just some compensate better than others) and as a result, you can go away at best... surprised!

2) Large and not so smooth engines as they push the technology of the day to produce as much horsepower as possible out of a given powerplant. Can we say?... How about a little vibration Scarecrow! This is so bad that a common drill with military pilots is to go start the plane, run it up and shut it off, then go someplace, usually next to the plane and pee! Your instruments will vibrate at times so hard you simply cannot read them exactly. Next time you are at an aviation show and you see the P-47 rolling down the runway, chances are, the pilot will let off on the throttle just before lifting off. He's/she's doing this to check the airspeed because the lousy dash is vibrating so hard under full power that it's truly like Grandpa's blurry slide show of his Hawaii vacation!

Then, depending on the military plane, the powerplant will either be warped towards having the largest and most powerful powerplant possible for performance or the smallest for endurance. Most general and commercial aviation pilots are better equipped to deal with the low power end of the equation. You may think it more of a challenge to deal with the low powered engines and yes, you do have to think ahead and you can't power your way out of every problem. However, even if the plane has the power, due to the lack of control surfaces at low speed, you may not be able to use it and all that heavy engine torquing the airframe around becomes an extreme liability.

3) Lack of dihedral angle. Lack of WTF?...

http://142.26.194.131/aerodynamics1/Sta ... hedral.htm

Military planes generally have very little wing angle in this respect except for some true manuvering dogs like the P-40 and Beaufighter in its tail assembly and yes, the dihedral angle back there affects things as well, especially on takeoffs and landings. A big reason why it is a manuvering dog is because it has a good amount of dihredral angle to the wing. On most military planes, you have to actively fly them all the time due to a relatively flat dihedral angle. And this fact brings up a point that's rather a pet peeve of mine. Over at Uber forums and just about everywhere else, the history/technology of the day buffs have never given enough credit to how automatic pilots made long range flight even possible. Think you can muscle a P-51 around in real life for 8-12 hours without an automatic pilot to give you a break? Well, then you are a much better pilot than me Gunga Din! The lack of dihedral angle comes into play at low speeds and takeoffs and landings due to one wing wanting to fly a moment before the other one. Combine this with the other factors discussed and yes, a flat dhihedral angle gives you a fun, but actively managed at all times flight!

My 800 hours in a Vietnam era tail modified P-51 and yes, don't give me a bunch of crap about it, there were P-51's used in the early days, mostly by our friends at Air America and Bahamas Air, my 400 hours in an Avenger, both modified and adapted with different cams, props and STOL kits for agricultural aviation gave me a chance to experience somewhat what a military plane of WWII was like. I also have 0.5 hours in a P-47... I think it was a M model? Did they make an M?... and with that plane, it has like 3 stages of supercharger that while you may think it is vaccum actuated, it is in fact, or at least on this one, vaccum actuated at the cockpit end, but at the engine side of life, it was pure mechanical screw. Knowing how the cluchtes engage will help you. Most modern ones are just like the clutch on the air conditioner for your car. It is an electrical switch running a magnetic clutch. Some were actually hydrolic. Some were simply mechanical spring and plate asemblies. The bottom line is that any plane you approach that you've never flown and I could care less if it's the same model as the last one, in my opinion, is not properly looked at if you don't come away dirty and smelling of avgas at the least.

On all planes, don't just try the control surfaces. Have someone pull and push on them. The hinges can have wear that will only make the control bind just when you need it to save the plane and possibly, your life.

[assam]

Hold me, I'm scared

[T_O_A_D]

Good Read guys.

Just to let know I'm no dummy.

I'm no pilot either.

But I have a freind taking lessons, last spring he was going to take me along for the ride, in a 172 IIRC with him and the Instructor.

Well while they were checking the gas and alL, including the control surfaces.

I being a mechanic on Over the road trucks for 25 years, I looked a bit deeper than the shaking and pulling on the surfaces.

The turnbuckles were shot they had over 1/8" or more slop in them. In a truck I would replace without question. At the trailing edge of the surfaces it had 2 to 4 inches of slop!!!!!!!

Well I said something, ended up getting that plane and the other availabe grounded for the same reason.

So I didn't get my ride, and for some reason never invited back either

And in my sig you can see my latest effort to get in the air.

[TAGERT]

They should make this post a required read before anyone can post in ORR! A very good read, thanks for taking the time to post it!

[MaXMhZ]

Good Read guys.

Just to let know I'm no dummy.

I'm no pilot either.

But I have a freind taking lessons, last spring he was going to take me along for the ride, in a 172 IIRC with him and the Instructor.

Well while they were checking the gas and alL, including the control surfaces.

I being a mechanic on Over the road trucks for 25 years, I looked a bit deeper than the shaking and pulling on the surfaces.

The turnbuckles were shot they had over 1/8" or more slop in them. In a truck I would replace without question. At the trailing edge of the surfaces it had 2 to 4 inches of slop!!!!!!!

Well I said something, ended up getting that plane and the other availabe grounded for the same reason.

So I didn't get my ride, and for some reason never invited back either

And in my sig you can see my latest effort to get in the air.

- Any slop in that storch's trailing edges T_O_A_D ? - or didn't you get that far down yet
"required reading" at ORR - right-on TAGERT!
it's a great read indeed - they don't know what they're missing LB - I'mglad You're posting here! !

[Luckyboy1]

Maybe you didn't get invited back, but those are the kinda smashed @ssh@les who try to fit 5 pounds of their nonsense into a 1 pound bag of safety. All you missed were jammed controls at the critical moment and I'm sure sooner or later, you'll see them on the local news, scratching their heads as to why they ran out of gas and had to land on the freeway.

[Bearcat]

Excellent......

[MudPuppy]

An older thread, but I wanted to throw out a thought or two....I've had a serious jones for WWII airplanes for as long as I can remember. I even had engine types and armament of P-47s and FW-190s committed to memory before I was out of grade school. Even though I've never had the chance to shake the coils of the earth bound and actually fly a plane I thoroughly enjoy this game.

I had the pleasure of touring the Udvair-Hazzy Air/Space Museum in Chantilly, Virginia this past weekend and had to be practically dragged from the fighters and bombers on display. I obviously don't have the background to remark on the accuracy of flight modelling, damage, etc in this flight sim. But as I stood there gawking at the massive radial of a Thunderbolt or the graceful but lethal lines of the 190 I felt a bit overwhelmed. A goofy grin one minute; then somber reflection on what these planes were designed for and the courage/tenacity of the souls that took them in the air. Outside any discussions of partisan politics, I imagine most pilots (and flight crews) must have had considerable intestinal fortitude to sit just 5 feet behind 2,000 horses, strapped in a sheet metal box while your cannons and machine guns rattle your back teeth. Even more impressive to me is that most of them were probably rather ordinary folks thrust into extraordinary circumstances.
As a game/simulation, IL-2 may only give me small shadows of what it really felt like to pop my crosshairs onto an enemies "6" or skirting the edge of a stall to shake someone of my a**...but it has deepened my appreciation for the folks who cast those shadows half a century ago that we are still chasing today.

Anywho...random and rambling thoughts. I just wish I could have snuck under the chains and snuck into one of those cockpits.

[Luckyboy1]

Go see a pylon race Luke!

[Mr.Bob]

My first post here on this forum. I had to respond to the great descriptions provided by EURO_Snoopy and Luckyboy1. I have a few hours in Cessna 150s and 172s taking lessons as well as some 65,000 hours in RC-135s (a KC-135 variant) as a crewmember, backender not pilot.

Luckyboy1's comment about autopilot rings too true. We totally lost our autopilot about 2 hours into a 12 hour mission. The pilot and co-pilot had to fly that beast for 10 hours without the autopilot. Besides the puke-arama during the turblence caused by ham-fisted, auto-pilot challenged pilots, the flight was a nightmare. The pilot and co-pilot almost aborted the mission after 5 hours due to the extreme fatigue from horsing that big beast around. We in the back were all pretty beat up from their efforts. That was one of the longest flights I have ever been on...

Mr. Bob

[Retro-burn]

Closest to IL2 in real life for me was sitting in the cockpit of an A-10 Warthog. That was totally awesome You are sitting so far forward that it is a wonder how the pilot can maintain low airspeeds for tank busting. The HUD is also smaller than I anticipated. Hats off to those dudes!

[Luckyboy1]

Retro, your thoughts are well said and needed to be said! Where did everyone get the idea that the fighter jocks were at the top of the heap skill wise? Now, I know a few know better, but you'd be surprised how many people think the fighter jocks were, are or ever will be the most skilled, trained and effective pilots. Adding insult to injury is the fact that a game built up around a JABO plane does NOT do a better job at dispelling that myth! Think about it; what is an IL-2 anyways?!!!

I wish there was an option in this game for the host to turn off kill assignments to figher jocks. Many reading this may wonder why I'd ever suggest such a thing. Ok, let's get back to why a fighter plane or even air warfare exists in the first place. The purpose is almost always to support or destroy something on the ground. As a result, in WWII and beyond you had the highest trained, highest ranked people by the way flying 4 engine bombers (... must resist desire to complain about lack of 4 engine flyable bombers!) anyways, where was I? Oh yeah, the most expense and the most training was put into those planes. Then the most training and expense went into two engine bombers, then large transports, then JABO planes and then the leftovers were fighter jocks. This game simply doesn't express that culture at all and for all the knee jerking about the feel of real going on, this idea gets wholey ignored!

Here's the way a coop really should be set up. On any given day, the Axis had bombing missions and so did the Allies. The Axis had JABO missions day to day and so did the Allies. As a result, a fighters job was NOT to shoot down enemy fighter planes. I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but it's the way it was and still is. A straight up fighter plane is kinda like the sports car of airplanes. It compromises bomb carrying capability, defensive armor and range for the sake of speed, manuverability and ability to put a large number of hits in a small space all at once. This is why it is NOT a fighter jocks job to shoot down enemy fighters.

When I train new guys to be fighter jocks, I tell them a little story about an old movie called "Paint Your Wagon" which was also a play. After you recover from the trama of hearing Clint Eastwood trying to sing, it's a fun movie. There's a scene where these two guys have one wife and they are arguing about who is going to leave the house and who will stay as long as guests are at the house who wouldn't understand. Finally, the character played by Lee Marvin brains the character played by Clint Eastwood with a miner's pan to settle the argument by knocking Clint Eastwood out!... Hey, at least while he's unconscious, he can't sing!

Anyways, the Lee Marvin Character is dragging the Clint Eastwood character into the house and their wife asks...

Is he hurt?

No Ma'am, just tired!

It's NOT a fighter jocks job to kill the enemy fighters! He's only got enough ammo to make 'em all tired, so I tell my trainee's to do just that and only that. Go make the enemy fighters tired and that means getting in close and giving 'em a short burst and then going on to the next plane. While this rarely immediatley kills the enemy plane, it sure does degrade its' performance capabilities. Then the enemy fighter no longer has its sport car like advantage over the JABO planes like the P-47 who can carry much more ammo. JABO planes are the ones that should be making the majority of the kills.

So in my mind, a coop is poorly setup if only one side has a ground target to support or defend. It is at least partially defective as a coop if both sides don't have a JABO or bombing group to defend.

[Retro-burn]

Your right. It takes the support of the iron birds to finish the job The mudmovers change the landscape as the fighters sweep the bees.