So what's the deal with the 109 G-2 pitch trim?

[ducs]

It only goes to +2 on the trim wheel while the F4 goes to +3... This is causing me to have to put constant forward pressure on my stick at all time at anything above 450, its really quite horrible after a while..

 

Is there a reason for this? Was trim in the G-2 historically that different from the F4? I would like to try the G-2 a little more but at this point it just plain sucks to fly (hurts my wrist).

[BeastyBaiter]

If it makes you feel better, it goes to 6 or something in the other direction.

 

Seriously though, there is something off about BoS's physics engine. The yaw stability is a bit too weak and most of the planes are unusually tail heavy. It almost feels like the stabilizers aren't modeled and only the control surfaces are considered.

[indiaciki]

In all german manuals and checklists it says - trim by "feel". In the finnish manual it is recomended to trim -3 at full flaps at landing as does the USAF evaluation for landing "very nose heavy at full flaps" trim nose up - as you use flaps wheels down, trim her up with the same hand, same time. same direction. That's why flaps wheel and trim wheel were next to each other. There's no other instruction for trim from E to K as to do it by feel. I don't believe it's a bug. It's willy messeschmitt.

Edited October 14, 2014 by indiaciki

[SKG51_robtek]

In all german manuals and checklists it says - trim by "feel". In the finnish manual it is recomended to trim -3 at full flaps at landing as does the USAF evaluation for landing "very nose heavy at full flaps" trim nose up - as you use flaps wheels down, trim her up with the same hand, same time. same direction. That's why flaps wheel and trim wheel were next to each other. There's no other instruction for trim from E to K as to do it by feel. I don't believe it's a bug. It's willy messeschmitt.

Did you really read the OP??

When a plane can't be trimmed for zero stick force at level flight in the normal flight envelope, then something is very wrong!

[Jaeger55]

Yes, this issue needs to be fixed, pronto!

[Dakpilot]

Did you really read the OP??

When a plane can't be trimmed for zero stick force at level flight in the normal flight envelope, then something is very wrong!

 

Unless it was that way in R/L...with the larger engine there must have been some difference from F4....there are many accounts of various models of 109 having very heavy and tiring stick forces during certain aspects of flight envelope 

 

My point is that I don't know how the real G2 flies, but there is plenty of info available, just like the now "debunked" 190 roll rate maybe historical info proving a point is better than "fix it now!"

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[DD_bongodriver]

Come on Dak, don't get carried away with the elation of the apparent 190 victory, you know......or should do as a pilot, that not being able to trim is a problem, and you are now doing exactly what you have been complaining about, the 'I read somewhere in a book....', the 109 was famously heavy in pitch forces and that is all.

[unreasonable]

It only goes to +2 on the trim wheel while the F4 goes to +3... This is causing me to have to put constant forward pressure on my stick at all time at anything above 450, its really quite horrible after a while..

 

Is there a reason for this? Was trim in the G-2 historically that different from the F4? I would like to try the G-2 a little more but at this point it just plain sucks to fly (hurts my wrist).

 

That is very odd - I found that the G-2 flies level nicely at 2300 rpm (continuous power, combat cruise) at 520-540 kph with a trim setting of about 1.5. Are you sure you have your trim buttons calibrated correctly?

 

This leaves a little left over for combat power, but then if you have combat power on you are going to be maneuvering and not concerned about flying straight and level anyway.

[Dakpilot]

Bongo..I don't see how asking for actual historical data

 

"maybe historical info proving a point is better than "fix it now!""

 

is the same as you saying that I "read it in a book...but anyway, the only 'elation' I have with the FW190 is that facts prevailed...don't see the harm in that...how that is an "apparent"  victory..besides that was not a fight I participated other than saying bring the facts to the fore and present it to the devs in a sensible manner rather than 30 pages of anecdotal waste of internet

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited October 14, 2014 by Dakpilot

[DD_bongodriver]

 

 

Bongo..I don't see how asking for actual historical data

 

 

 

there are many accounts of various models of 109 having very heavy and tiring stick forces during certain aspects of flight envelope

[Dakpilot]

 

 

And I then say MY POINT is that I DONT know how the 109 flies so it would be better to find out the facts...

..

Cheers Dakpilot

[ducs]

That is very odd - I found that the G-2 flies level nicely at 2300 rpm (continuous power, combat cruise) at 520-540 kph with a trim setting of about 1.5. Are you sure you have your trim buttons calibrated correctly?   This leaves a little left over for combat power, but then if you have combat power on you are going to be maneuvering and not concerned about flying straight and level anyway.

 

 

I'm very sure, Its the only plane I have this issue with. It flies straight as an arrow at 2200 on +2 (max forward stabilizer) under 400 kph. Otherwise, i'm constantly fighting to keep it from nosing up at all times. It's most painful when diving in. In the F4 you can stabilize your dive with ease and keep it from nosing up, not the G2.

 

But yeah the stabilizer range is -6 to +2 on the G-2 vs +3 on the F4.

Edited October 14, 2014 by [TWB]ducs

[indiaciki]

maybe these might help:

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/Bf-109-G-2-mit-Motor-DB-605-Bedienungsvorschrift-Fl-Bedienung-und-Wartung-des-Flugzeugs.pdf

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9v109g.html

 

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/articles/airframes/black6/bk6_flight.htm

[Dakpilot]

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/articles/airframes/black6/bk6_flight.htm

 

Interestingly that paints a picture very similar to many of  the complaints of the handling isssues of the BoS 109's

 

should not be too hard to find out if F4 and G2 had different trim limitations

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited October 14, 2014 by Dakpilot

[avlSteve]

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/articles/airframes/black6/bk6_flight.htm

 

Interestingly that paints a picture very similar to many of  the complaints of the handling isssues of the BoS 109's

 

should not be too hard to find out if F4 and G2 had different trim limitations

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

The paragraphs regarding taxi and takeoff sound remarkably like the experience in BOS to me.

 

Great find!

[Trooper117]

Yep, good find!... many thanks

[unreasonable]

Good little article on the G2, also identified with the difficulty of keeping the ball in the middle during any maneuver or power change - I think BoS has got this one spot on.

 

Just been trying the G2 on circuits, first with automatic then with manual prop control. With automatic the prop ends up at 12.30 on idle, as opposed to the recommended 12.00 for manual (in my G2 manual), but other than that it feels much the same.  The only time my G2 manual says manual prop must be used is on economy cruise - presumably because the boost is too high at the cruise rpm otherwise - but in game I have just used automatic throughout without problems.

 

I suspect the limit on nosedown trim to +2 might have been because of worries about pilots trimming the plane into dives they could then not get out of, but this is just a hunch.  If you are diving and the pitching up is a bother you can always turn inverted!

[KoN_]

There are many German aircraft still flying today , airshows ect , fw190 and the me109 , all developers should  visit to the airshows , and ask for info and data input from real pilots that fly these awesome machines , we could spend all day arguing on paper about data. ...

 

 

Too do list please fix .................

smoke ...disappears to quick..

bombs...disappear on flight path.

crash site , no smoke .

bombs ..no secondary explosions .

bombs ..no radius ..has to be pin point on target to get the kill.

Trim 109 ..bouncy bouncy nose ....

skins ....historic please not  this war-thunder... BS.

 

 

Red arrow away gents ...

[Dakpilot]

While not G model a lot of what is talked about in this article is very relevant to handling of 109, and the pilots experience is quite similar to the previously posted article on the G2 test flight. I am in no way suggesting that their is any actual relevant data to be gathered but as a general "opinion of  Messerschmitt  handling characteristics" it is a useful and interesting read  particularly related to stability an often criticised BoS  109 topic

 

http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tabid/116/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/124/language/en-CA/Bouncing-Clouds--Flying-the-Messerschmitt-Bf-109.aspx

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[1./JG42Nephris]

We got remainig pilots of the former Flugwerk (FW190 restaurator) and we got the Messerschmitt Foundation, which still flies the 109 here in Germany, actually not far away from me.

Dunno if it has already been done or considered, but making a RL pilot test the german planes of BoS would be a statement, even for the devs to be on the correct side.

I mean the russian planes got judged by a russian test pilot who still fly the old warbirds, when I am correct. So just fair enough to get the same done to the german ones.

The russian planes do not fly too bad compared to the hyper sensitivy of german ones.I dont want to hook into the FM discussion as I cant deliver test charts nor am I interested to spend hours of reading and testing in the game although I appreciate everyone who does.However an objective judge wouldnt be the worst thing.At the end there should be also german warbirds still flying in US, maybe it is easier for them to reach someone there .... if it would be wanted at all.

[sturmkraehe]

We'd need a pilot who has flown the g2 with the engine modelled in the game. 

 

On a general note I would be very much interested how far they modelled longitudinal stability taking into account fuel consumption (thus draining from the tank). This should - depending on tank location - change pitch behaviour and trim requirement throughout the flight.

 

 

[However the fuel consumption should not lead to exceed the trim limitations of a plane.]

Edited October 16, 2014 by sturmkraehe

[1./JG42Nephris]

We'd need a pilot who has flown the g2 with the engine modelled in the game. 

 

Maybe the same screws and same varnish and aswell the same fuel?

Seriously it is not about 5kmh/h more or less but about the behaviour.

You probably wont get a limited G2 DB anymore buidl, which is rediculess willing to obtain.

However the G4 in Manching would be an example.

A RL pilot being able to judge a Bf109 or Fw190 behaviour would be far enough and the best you could reach.

[sturmkraehe]

It's not about speed but yes, also about traction force developed by the engine, weight of the engine that are factors in pitch behavior. If you cannot recreate same conditions you may test what you want there will always be a doubt left over.

Edited October 16, 2014 by sturmkraehe

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

It's not about speed but yes, also about traction force developed by the engine, weight of the engine that are factors in pitch behavior. If you cannot recreate same conditions you may test what you want there will always be a doubt left over.

Doesn't make much sense. The early G-2 engine was the same as the latter one, only difference was the enhenced the oil tank and some minor parts replaced with higher quality material. The engien output didn't change at all, the later G-2 still had the same 1.3 power setting as the first models, it could only go beyond that.

 

Apart from that probably no modern 109 pilot is allowed to fly it with max power simply because engines and parts are scare and lifetime of these birds asa well as working hours needs to be preserved.

[Matt]

I suspect the limit on nosedown trim to +2 might have been because of worries about pilots trimming the plane into dives they could then not get out of, but this is just a hunch. 

 

Or maybe the bigger oil cooler and other differences made the +3 trim down unnecessary, if these changes made the G-2 already a bit nose-heavier.

[sturmkraehe]

Doesn't make much sense. The early G-2 engine was the same as the latter one, only difference was the enhenced the oil tank and some minor parts replaced with higher quality material. The engien output didn't change at all, the later G-2 still had the same 1.3 power setting as the first models, it could only go beyond that.

 

Apart from that probably no modern 109 pilot is allowed to fly it with max power simply because engines and parts are scare and lifetime of these birds asa well as working hours needs to be preserved.

 

It does make sense if the engine produced more thrust force. Engine thrust goes straight into the pitch moment equation. Isn't the G2 faster with same airframe than the F4? This means that its engine could produce more thrust to overcome the drag created by the airframe. Thus you have - same z-position of cog provided - higher moment around pitch axis. 

 

But if G2 is as fast as F4 with same airframe then of course it doesn't matter.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Kraehe the discussion was about a modern and the ingame rated engined Bf 109 G-2, don't knwo why you mention the F4

 

There are G-2s still flying so I see no point in considering other machines for testing.

[Dakpilot]

Don't have exact figures but the DB605 was about 170kg heavier than DB601 not sure what was done to make allowance of large Cof G change that would have made

 

Interesting Factory test of G1 airframe with 601 and 605 fitted to compare performance

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109g-14026.html

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[sturmkraehe]

Kraehe the discussion was about a modern and the ingame rated engined Bf 109 G-2, don't knwo why you mention the F4

 

There are G-2s still flying so I see no point in considering other machines for testing.

 

I was not aware of a G2 still flying so if we need to know if the G2 modelled in BoS is right by checking with flyable planes than that's where we would have to look for. I knew about a G6 (sat in the cockpit of one by luck ).

Edited October 16, 2014 by sturmkraehe

[Dakpilot]

I was not aware of a G2 still flying so if we need to know if the G2 modelled in BoS is right by checking with flyable planes than that's where we would have to look for. I knew about a G6 (sat in the cockpit of one by luck ).

 

Read this recent flight test  of G2 (mentioned above)

 

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/articles/airframes/black6/bk6_flight.htm

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[LukeFF]

I was not aware of a G2 still flying so if we need to know if the G2 modelled in BoS is right by checking with flyable planes than that's where we would have to look for. I knew about a G6 (sat in the cockpit of one by luck ).

 

The only G-2 I'm aware of that's even close to flying is Black 6, but after its last crash it was decided to make it a static display.