F-86A

[Avimimus]

On 7/11/2026 at 7:08 PM, JendaJND said:

With full aileron deflection, the roll rate should be higher than what was achieved in naca report. The speeds are relatively "low" speeds. Be it mach speed or indicated so full deflection of 15° shouldnt be an issue. 
Based on real data.
1 radian of roll under these conditions needs 4,2° of one aileron deflection of already accelerated roll (or 8,4 combined). 
Full 15° of deflection in these conditions should result in approx 3,57 radians of roll = 204°/sec of roll... we have 119°... We have nearly half of the roll we should achieve. 

Is there an assumption here that roll rates can be extrapolated linearly with reflect to aileron deflection?

Ailerons effectiveness is highly non-linear (not to mention the complexities of swept wing designs). Increasing deflection by a certain amount doesn't necessarily increase roll rate by a proportional amount.

[JendaJND]

3 hours ago, Avimimus said:

Ailerons effectiveness is highly non-linear (not to mention the complexities of swept wing designs). Increasing deflection by a certain amount doesn't necessarily increase roll rate by a proportional amount.

Except it pretty much is. In this (F-86) case.
Theres like dozen different charts at different altitudes and different speeds. I calculated roll from most of them where  they varied mostly in speed and altitude and had clearly visible roll rates and aileron positions. Everything is arriving at +-4° of aileron deflection = +-1 radian of roll. There is a bit of difference but its marginal and most likely printing and reading error. 
Additionally i found document where they achieved +-3 radians/s of roll at 35 000ft at speeds between 0,72-75 and 0,85 mach with pretty much same aileron deflection. 
And they didnt even used maximum aileron deflection during these rolls. We cant even touch that roll ingame. 
Same document also talks about stick forces being moderate with up to 60lb stick force during rolling pull-out
Document showing 3 radians of roll per second at 35 000 feet through wide range of speeds. Also shows ability to penetrate mach 0,95 and shows  over 30lb stick forces applied in roll nearing mach 1. (in case our pilot is weak considering he cant fully deflect boosted stick/ailerons at 400kts ias at sea level) 

Also its borderline impossible for 15bis and F86A to have similar roll rates until compression considering 15s ailerons take over 3 times less space and nearly 3 times less % of wing area with same deflection angles. Yet ingame the rolls are highly similar. 

Spoiler

Parts showing 3 radians without full aileron deflection (that roll cant be reached in IL2 and its not even close) Showing stick forces being max up to 60lb and described as moderate overall, not heavy or impossible. I have a hunch that "il-2 pilot" is limited to 30lb  considering low altitude roll rates fits document where they had 30lb stick force limitation and they NEVER used full aileron deflection or full boost available to them in that document data. 

This is very high altitude so higher roll is expected than lower but it still follows 1 radian per 4° of aileron, just sligtly less degrees now as we have about what, 22° of total aileron deflection, thats 11. That gives us one radian per 3,66° of one aileron deflection in "extreme conditions" of 35 000ft and high mach numbers. 
Thats on average 17 000-20 000feet higher than tests shown a bit below while arriving at nearly same aileron deflection per radian of roll. In fact its even better.

Spoiler

Here, bunch of other charts arriving at +-4° of aileron deflection = +- 1 radian of roll including one (first) thats literally 400kts (470mph), 4°aileron = 1 radian of roll. Which is about 7 000 feet and 170 mph less than what i initially reported, yet it arrives at same result. Unless we talk about very very low speeds or very high mach speeds, the ailerons are producing pretty much same roll moment across the speed range and altitudes. 
Here you have differences of up to 200mph indicated at similar altitudes and all but one, reaching 1 radian per 4° of aileron deflection. And that one outliner, gives it even higher roll rate per ° of aileron.

Spoiler

The only outliner giving it even higher roll per ° of aileron deflection. So its either 4 per 1 radian or even better roll. Not worse like game has. 

 

Edited July 13 by JendaJND

[Gavrick]

 

I've been following the discussion.
We tuned the roll rates based on the data we had available (both from flight recorder graphs and from maximum roll rate diagrams).
There might be a discrepancy in the data — in which case we'll need to look into it more closely. It's also possible that something has drifted in the aerodynamics (which should be checked).
In any case, I will make a note of this (not necessarily in the very near future, but still). Likewise for the slats. The aileron drop and possible wing drop will also be revisited. And a few other points as well.
I can't promise that all of this will be done "by August" — rushing isn't the best approach for this kind of work.
But none of this will be left unattended.

[JendaJND]

38 minutes ago, Gavrick said:

 

I've been following the discussion.
We tuned the roll rates based on the data we had available (both from flight recorder graphs and from maximum roll rate diagrams).
There might be a discrepancy in the data — in which case we'll need to look into it more closely. It's also possible that something has drifted in the aerodynamics (which should be checked).
In any case, I will make a note of this (not necessarily in the very near future, but still). Likewise for the slats. The aileron drop and possible wing drop will also be revisited. And a few other points as well.
I can't promise that all of this will be done "by August" — rushing isn't the best approach for this kind of work.
But none of this will be left unattended.

Thank you, 
Ive tried to use google AI to get through some roll calculations at low altitudes and if the AI is correct, then low altitude roll atleast at high speeds (400kts IAS) is spot-on. Dont know how much we can deflect ailerons ingame but document i have says 10° at boost limit at 400kts ias and afaik, we should be able to always push to the boost limit? I suppose its pretty much impossible to push through boost limit at these speeds and with sizes of sabres ailerons. 

Its the high altitude that seems to be off. I cant reach roll speeds using full deflection they achieved with less aileron deflection and at 35 000ft and mach 0,8, i couldnt even touch 3 radians per second. 
Frankly, i have no idea where the roll starts to depart from the charts i posted, as i tested ingame the one i posted with video (21500ft) and then i tested another without video at 35 000 ft. The low altitude i did, fits atleast with AIs help calculating from data i supplied from the charts = 4° deflection = 1 rad of roll at 20 000ft and 475mph ias and it recalculated with tas and whatever else and arrived at 3,51 seconds of full roll at sea level 400kts indicated with 10° of aileron deflection, same exact time i did ingame. 

In the span of 14 500-22 000ft and speeds ranging from 275 up to 475mph indicated, the roll seems to be more or less same based on data and too slow ingame. 

Please look into the nose drop tendency while pushing through mach 0,95-96 too. I couldnt find any mention of this issue whatsoever and there is data of mach 1 flight available but it lacks any mention of this problem. The only thing mentioned is increasing pull up tendency. 

[JendaJND]

I did some recalculating because times i used for ingame rolls were incorrect, i didnt realize it was seconds and frames. So i used timeframe that can be changed into decimals for easier calculations of rolls. Its now even worse. 
All these flights are at alts and speeds that were plotted into charts with real data. All underperform, low altitude is dunno, because they never used full aileron boost even though it should be possible.
Low alt ingame roll with full left stick almost corresponds to data without full boost utilization. 

 

Edited July 13 by JendaJND

[FuriousMeow]

The in-game flight manual states the F86 has a J33 engine. Looks like a copy paste from the F80. Hopefully the actual performance is a J47 and not a J33.

Edited July 14 by FuriousMeow

[FuriousMeow]

Spoiler

Also, a blown right tire causes more pull to the left on the ground. Think the blown out right wheel/tire should cause a pull to the right?

EDIT: Never mind, apparently I still had high wind.

Edited July 14 by FuriousMeow

[MaximumLarry]

Question on the  speed brakes.  The IL-2 Korea version has a lot of shake and shudder when deployed.  The DCS version on the 86F model has almost no vibration at all when deployed.  I'm sure the real answer is someplace in the middle.  I looked at the MSFS F86 - which appears to be an A model as well...also zero vibration caused by the speed brake there.  This cockpit video - an actual flight -  also shows zero shake when speed brakes are deployed.  So is the IL-2 version a little "over dramatic" with the shaking caused by the speed brake?

 

Edited July 16 by MaximumLarry

[Valis]

I did some acceleration tests - F-86 vs F-84.

0-500mph

Methodology - Nothing fancy; spooled up the engine and held it on the brakes until the one minute mark. Rotated, best I could, around, 160mph. Gentle climb to 200ft then engaged Auto-Level. Paused the game when I hit 500mph.

Both aircraft fully fuelled with maximum gun ammunition. F-84E without tip tanks.

Takeoff weights (according to in-game figures)...

F-86A - 14,076 lb

F-84E - 14,506 lb

Thrust available (according to in-game figures)...

F-86A - 5198 lb/s

F-84E - 4862 lb/s (as noted in-game the thrust figure for the F-84E is approximate)

On the basis of those figures the Sabre is, give or take, 400 lb lighter with 350 lb/s extra thrust.

Results -

F-86A - 1 min 28 seconds

F-84E - 1 min 31 seconds

That surprises me; I wouldn't have expected the Thunderjet to be within just 3 seconds of the Sabre in a sprint. If only by reputation I always thought the F-84 was notoriously leisurely to pick up speed.

Vids...

 

 

 

Edited July 14 by Valis

[Dash,Polder]

Master Engine Switch is in the OFF position on a runway start with engine already running ready to roll, so is the Pitot Heat, its switch should be in the ON position for takeoff. 

[jocko417]

On 7/15/2026 at 12:01 AM, Dash,Polder said:

Master Engine Switch is in the OFF position on a runway start with engine already running ready to roll, so is the Pitot Heat, its switch should be in the ON position for takeoff. 

To add to the list, if tanks are installed the drop tank pressure switch should be in the ON position. Also, if the aileron boost switch is in the ON (normal position for flight), shouldn't the switch cover be closed?

[MGMSwordsman]

I know that the Sabre (A model) service ceiling is around 49,600 ft.  That being said, I have not been able to achieve that altitude before stalling out.

Has anyone been able to do it?  If so, can you share some tips?

Thanks.

Sorry, I should have also told you that I was able to get to around 45,000 ft.

[Stolz]

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19930087504/downloads/19930087504.pdf

Could you explain why the Sabre’s ultimate load factor was reduced in the latest patch when the documentation specifies different values?

[Valis]

The windshield got the green tint! 🙂

[Gavrick]

1 час назад, Stolz сказал:

Could you explain why the Sabre’s ultimate load factor was reduced in the latest patch when the documentation specifies different values?

Mistake in description. Should be approx. 11.5 now (little more or less).

[FuriousMeow]

Still need RPM helper enabled for cold start?

I tried every throttle position and wouldn't start until I enabled the RPM helper.

Also taxi lights and code lights don't work? Pressed the keys but they do nothing. Nav and formation lights work. 

Edited July 22 by FuriousMeow

[JendaJND]

F-86A-5 high mach number issues and inability to pass mach 0,95, let alone reach mach 1 in dive. 
Right now, F-86 cant reach mach 1. In dive it hits wall at mach 0,95 and pretty much stops accelerating, the second it actually gets past mach 0,95 it starts to pitch up and down. One of these happen, usually combination.
1) Rapid deceleration (result of below issues)
2) Engine stall
3) Snap roll
4) Fully breaks off wings (result of fighting the pitch up and then erratic pitch down moment past 0,95 resulting in breaking wings) 

NACA clocked F-86A-5 in dive doing mach 1,05. Recorded flight data show NO erratic pitch up and down issues that cant be calmly controlled. 
Nor does manual describe any issue currently encountered ingame at mach 0,95. It does describe wing roll, but no pitch up and down. 
Only pitch up that can be countered by pushing stick or by trim and describes same tendency in flight ABOVE mach 1. 

NACA test flight for wing roll, they flew past mach 1. 
Recorded flight data show pretty much flat pitch velocity at 0,95. Its basically flat till they pulled out. 

Spoiler

Manual describes no such issues and talks about ignoring red line limit. Also describes 25 000ft limit as being imposed due to rolling tendency, not breaking up. 
The actual speed limit is below 5 000ft. Above that, its all about if you can actually control the planes rolling tendency and considering unmodded MiG-15 can have no roll even at mach 0,97-8 and can roll both sides as i tried, i dont think this should be even an issue once wing drop is fixed on sabre and added (after all, they reduced rolling tendencies on worse sabres by rigging flaps).
 


Here is test flight and more manual mentions including mach 1. 

 

 

Edited July 24 by JendaJND

[Valis]

This is just a sanity check, it may be correct but I have to ask.

Here is a clean F-86A (14076 lb) rolling at 500mph compared with a practically fully-laden F-84E (21481 lb) rolling at 500mph

 

[JendaJND]

15 hours ago, Valis said:

This is just a sanity check, it may be correct but I have to ask.

Here is a clean F-86A (14076 lb) rolling at 500mph compared with a practically fully-laden F-84E (21481 lb) rolling at 500mph

 

Well, Sabre is in knots so thats 575 MPH. 
F-84s aileron angles are higher than sabres, i dunno at this moment size of them and their % of wing. 
But i know that F-86 underperforms in roll according to all NACA data i found. 
Sabre flies in line with data where they never used full available aileron deflection but in IL2, it does these numbers with full available deflection. 
 

[Uriah]

I don't see elevator trim for the F-86F in the Flight Manual.  The closest i see is the 

'Stabilizer, servo: pitch up and down'.  Is there an elevator trim different that the stabilizer?  

[BlitzPig_EL]

The stabilizer trim servo is operationally the "elevator" trim.

[SquidTorgar]

Can the Sabre shedding its wings when it goes over 450 Kts be looked at? I cant find a single reference saying that the F86 was prone to structural failure at high speeds, yet often in game the sabre will lose one or more wings performing any kind of bank or climb above 450. Is it something to do with the leading edge slats deploying and providing more lift and hence G-Loads? It isnt consistant, sometimes you are fine other times a merest touch of the stick and you break your wings off.

Edited August 5 by SquidTorgar

[EstevaoWaterloo]

Hello, I've recently started flying in IL2 korea and I ran into a problem with the F86 sabre. All other aircraft work perfectly fine, but the rudder on the F86 doesn't seem to work. I've tried with the engine off, on, flying, on the ground, changing the keybind, activating the nosewheel steering, even reinstalling IL2. I don't know what else to do and couldn't find any tutorial that would say something about that. Does anyone know I can fix it?

[DEMON]

6 часов назад, EstevaoWaterloo сказал:

Hello, I've recently started flying in IL2 korea and I ran into a problem with the F86 sabre. All other aircraft work perfectly fine, but the rudder on the F86 doesn't seem to work. I've tried with the engine off, on, flying, on the ground, changing the keybind, activating the nosewheel steering, even reinstalling IL2. I don't know what else to do and couldn't find any tutorial that would say something about that. Does anyone know I can fix it?

У меня точно такая же проблема. Педали в кабине ходят, носовая стойка тоже, руль направления не шевелится, реакции самолёта на руль нет. Появляется баг постоянно и в быстром вылете и в карьере. Оси переназначал, не помогает. Игру переустанавливал. На других самолётах всё нормально, в настройках упрапвления ось видно, индикатор за осью тоже ходит. 

 

 

Edited August 6 by DEMON

[Andrey78]

В справочнике есть описание переключателя бустера элеронов, но его нельзя выбрать с помощью команд "следющий прибор" и"предыдущий прибор".
И соотв. нельзя его выключить/включить! (хотя на всех других реактивных самолетах это можно сделать)
 

Edited August 7 by Andrey78