Jump to content
Pringliano

Flight dynamics after the latest patches...

Recommended Posts

No, it is a well known behaviour of the 190 to stall abruptly. But it only goes into a spin, if the pilot doesn't react. It will not spin, if you release the stick as soon as the wing drops. No plane is safe against pilot error.

 

I do not known about overall flight characteristics of the 190 but the high speed handling is wrong for sure. There is no need to be an specialist to known (take a look at jaws' post). Many sources stated that at high speed 190 is more confortable to fly than 109. If the developers give a solution to this 190 will be a beast. I am not worried about curves, stalling characteristics etc... If you fly fast, you ll not have any problems!

Edited by Tales

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BOS-Jcomm said.

 

 

So, to the Dev team, please:

 

1) review the stall buffeting ( or absence of it ) in il-2 BoS FDM(?) or aircraft models(?);

2) that unwanted, unrealistic flick roll followed by inverted spin the Fw 190 still get's into when being pitched down more aggressively also needs your attention;

3) ground handling must be completely out of sync with reality specially in the G2 - turning right during taxi is a completely un-plausible nightmare... Having to lock the tailwheel to taxi more easily simply doesn't make sense...

 

I say Absolutely + 1 on this


Indeed, I agree with the stall issue, that's what I described as the slipping on a banana peel feeling.

 

Or perhaps a giant hand that flicks your wingtip and sends you spinning as if the aircraft was made of paper. 

Banana slip is exactly the right analogy Its just plane wrong. 

Edited by voncrapenhauser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I remember ( no longer have it installed ) that il-2 CloD did have huge pre-stall buffeting on most aircraft... Also the spin characteristics looked pretty plausible. "

 

I dont't think CloD should be taken as reverence, especially when discussing FMs. I never heard about "huge pre-stall buffeting" of any german WW2 fighter. Can you please provide your sources ?

 

Scripted spins have been one of the reasons I deinstalled CloD. I don't know, wether the real 190 or 109 did spin like the BoS models, but at least they appear to follow physical laws.

 

 

"ground handling must be completely out of sync with reality specially in the G2 - turning right during taxi is a completely un-plausible nightmare.."

 

I guess a pilot error is causing your problems. Or can you confirm, that you keep your prop pitch at 12:30 when taxiing ?

Edited by BlackDevil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it is a well known behaviour of the 190 to stall abruptly. But it only goes into a spin, if the pilot doesn't react. It will not spin, if you release the stick as soon as the wing drops. No plane is safe against pilot error.

I agree with the release or stick forward usually recovers from a spin developing if the signs are there for you too feel that you are about to stall/spin , IRL I have done this many times.

I know what you mean by Scripted spins The ones in Clod always felt that way to me.

Edited by voncrapenhauser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not known about overall flight characteristics of the 190 but the high speed handling is wrong for sure. There is no need to be an specialist to known (take a look at jaws' post). Many sources stated that at high speed 190 is more confortable to fly than 109. If the developers give a solution to this 190 will be a beast. I am not worried about curves, stalling characteristics etc... If you fly fast, you ll not have any problems!

If you fly fast you'll have no problems?? 

I agree with Jaws and yourself on pretty much everything you have said and shown.

I was taught when fling at higher speeds If you made a tight turn the wing loading goes up and a stall is still possible irrelevant of what speed, only when there is no wing loading is a stall not possible.

Although this is true the snap stall/spin is just way too severe on fw190 and a little less on the Yak and Lagg, as black devil says it feels scripted and wrong.

In general I am happy with most FMs in this game they just need a tweak. :)

Edited by voncrapenhauser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dunno what has changed but at least on 190 I now get stick shudders near stall. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3) ground handling must be completely out of sync with reality specially in the G2 - turning right during taxi is a completely un-plausible nightmare... Having to lock the tailwheel to taxi more easily simply doesn't make sense...

 

Did you experience any difference between the F-4 and the G-2 regarding taxiing?

 

I just flow both of them, one after the other, and did not experience any difference in taxi behavior. Both can be taxied easily with the usual combined application of rudder, differential braking, and occasional power changes, with the prop in automatic setting. However, as was stated before not everybody shares my view of taxiing being realistic for high performance taildraggers so please take this as just my opinion... :(

 

There is one big difference between the F-4 and the G-2 though: The engine/prop combinations react quite differently to power changes:

  • In the F-4, power changes seem to have a very direct effect on RPM. For example, on a typical landing approach I would keep the RPM between 1,500 and 2,000; small power changes (to reduce or increase the rate of descent) have a direct impact on the RPM.
  • In the G-2, power changes affect the RPM less directly. On a typical landing approach, I would again apply small power changes to control the descent rate, but this does not necessarily translate into an immediate RPM change.

This seems plausible and nicely modeled, since the G-model did not only have a more powerful engine, but also a prop that was different from the prop used on the F-model (with broader blades). It's similar to cars - a car with a bigger engine will use its power before the transmission shifts down one gear, and therefore a car with a bigger engine appears a bit more sluggish, with less RPM changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you experience any difference between the F-4 and the G-2 regarding taxiing?

 

I just flow both of them, one after the other, and did not experience any difference in taxi behavior. Both can be taxied easily with the usual combined application of rudder, differential braking, and occasional power changes, with the prop in automatic setting. However, as was stated before not everybody shares my view of taxiing being realistic for high performance taildraggers so please take this as just my opinion... :(

 

There is one big difference between the F-4 and the G-2 though: The engine/prop combinations react quite differently to power changes:

  • In the F-4, power changes seem to have a very direct effect on RPM. For example, on a typical landing approach I would keep the RPM between 1,500 and 2,000; small power changes (to reduce or increase the rate of descent) have a direct impact on the RPM.
  • In the G-2, power changes affect the RPM less directly. On a typical landing approach, I would again apply small power changes to control the descent rate, but this does not necessarily translate into an immediate RPM change.

This seems plausible and nicely modeled, since the G-model did not only have a more powerful engine, but also a prop that was different from the prop used on the F-model (with broader blades). It's similar to cars - a car with a bigger engine will use its power before the transmission shifts down one gear, and therefore a car with a bigger engine appears a bit more sluggish, with less RPM changes.

 

Sorry, but the G's throttle is wrong. It's current behavior is non-linear (when it should linear) and it's a bug.

 

These aircraft have no multi-speed transmission and the lack of RPM changes you are experiencing is due to the curved input of the G-2's throttle as it is currently modeled in this sim.

 

The DB601 in the F-4 and the DB605 in the G-2 are throttled the same way. The fact that the DB605 used in the G-2 had a MP (ata.) limiter has no bearing on the physical operation of the throttle itself. 100% throttle in the unlimited F-4 is 1.42ata @ 2600 and 100% throttle in the G-2 is 1.3ata @ 2600 - no lost %'s of input and no curved loss of RPMs in between.  :)

 

I think it is probably a lower priority to be patched out but I can wait for the G-2's throttle to get fixed. 

Edited by FalkeEins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see... must have missed the debate over the curved throttle input when it happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is information that I posted much earlier from a document published by the Zhukovskiy Air Force Academy in February 1942. In the summarization it states that all of the new Russian fighters are inferior in all the main flight categories to the German ME-109 and FW-190 fighters below 2000 m. Also the document fails to indicate any Russian fighter flight categories that are superior to the German fighters above 2000 m. Even Joseph Stalin stated that the LaGG-3 was "seriously inferior".


 


It appears that the developers have not taken to heart their own Russian documentation. Consequently it seems that most of the frustration about the game is focused on the aircraft flight models and ground handling. Focusing on the major issues first and the minor issues later would probably improve the game's acceptance.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is information that I posted much earlier from a document published by the Zhukovskiy Air Force Academy in February 1942. In the summarization it states that all of the new Russian fighters are inferior in all the main flight categories to the German ME-109 and FW-190 fighters below 2000 m. Also the document fails to indicate any Russian fighter flight categories that are superior to the German fighters above 2000 m. Even Joseph Stalin stated that the LaGG-3 was "seriously inferior".

 

It appears that the developers have not taken to heart their own Russian documentation. Consequently it seems that most of the frustration about the game is focused on the aircraft flight models and ground handling. Focusing on the major issues first and the minor issues later would probably improve the game's acceptance.

 

 

I don't understand the point you are trying to make. The FW190 and Bf109 are superior on the whole to all VVS aircraft in BoS. Every aircraft is a tradeoff in design goals, however, so you can't expect aircraft A to outperform B under all conditions at all times. The better pilots succeed in forcing their opponent to fight in the worst area of their EM diagram. Less experienced players read anecdotes (or flight test report excerpts) about relative performance and incorrectly infer that superiority in a characteristic holds under all operating conditions.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FW190 high speed elevator lock and somewhat slow to react roll makes this plane kind of "unusable" as a fighter plane from my perspective.

It seems like both largest advantages (supposedly) of FW190 are not here or other planes are too good regarding these characteristics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FW190 high speed elevator lock and somewhat slow to react roll makes this plane kind of "unusable" as a fighter plane from my perspective.

It seems like both largest advantages (supposedly) of FW190 are not here or other planes are too good regarding these characteristics.

 

Exacly. I would add also still not correct climb rate of BOS A-3 comparing to other fighters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When i am talking about high speed handling i am refering to the forces to deflect the stick or the control surfaces.

Agreed +1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, in regard to the topic and overall improvements to flight models I had opposite feeling in regard to the Il-2. After a month break from playing any game, I came back to BoS to fly some nice missions with Il-2 and strafe some stuff on MP. As usual I loaded my Il-2 with bombs, fuel (about 75 %) and rockets and went for tanks.

Thing I spotted trying to aim was completely new - I had a problems stabilizng the plane and aiming at vehicles. It is funny as previously I had quite a bit of experience with Il-2 and strafing missions, also there was not change in regard to my flight controls (same stick) or options. Everything was same except of the stability of Il-2. 
Will have to spend more time on this to draw a conclusion but first flights were very unpleasent. I would expect Sopwith or Albatros to wobble in RoF, not a WWII airplane which is quite heavy (and ever more loaded) and trimmed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, in regard to the topic and overall improvements to flight models I had opposite feeling in regard to the Il-2. After a month break from playing any game, I came back to BoS to fly some nice missions with Il-2 and strafe some stuff on MP. As usual I loaded my Il-2 with bombs, fuel (about 75 %) and rockets and went for tanks.

Thing I spotted trying to aim was completely new - I had a problems stabilizng the plane and aiming at vehicles. It is funny as previously I had quite a bit of experience with Il-2 and strafing missions, also there was not change in regard to my flight controls (same stick) or options. Everything was same except of the stability of Il-2. 

Will have to spend more time on this to draw a conclusion but first flights were very unpleasent. I would expect Sopwith or Albatros to wobble in RoF, not a WWII airplane which is quite heavy (and ever more loaded) and trimmed. 

 

In the beginning i found the aircraft very unstable, but it's a matter of getting used to it. BoS differs from other flight sim in this aspect, but once you get used you ll be fine! You have to learn to use your rudder and maintain the slipball centered for ground attack. You must adjust your rudder gently.

 

It's desirable to get some distance from the target since you need time to adjust your aircraft for a perfect strafing run. Do not fly too slow. More slow, more unstable.

 

 

p.s.: I am using 50% curve for all control surfaces, it´s perfect for me. What is yours? You must try my settings.

Edited by Tales

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the IL-2 might be an exeptional case since it was a very tailheavy and - in the begining - unsuccesfull design. It's tailheaviness gave it unstable flight characteristics and was seriously dangerous during takeoff. It was a real widowmaker and hated by it's pilots.

 

May be the case I'm flyin regularily but apart from the Fw 190 I don't notice any differnece for any of the present planes ingame. Such FM changes weren't mentioned in the patch notes either.

Edited by Stab/JG26_5tuka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the Russians who tested that crash landed A4 found the controls at high speed to be a big plus:

 

"They also noted the obvious Focke-Wulf advantages: excellent all-round view without object distortion, good horizontal handling in all speed ranges, and automatic supercharger gear switchover during combat. The Fw 190 was very heavily armed. It had four 20mm cannon and a pair of synchronized standard-caliber machine guns. The aircraft was stable while diving, accelerated rapidly, transitioned from bank to bank easily, and rolled vigorously but, nevertheless, the pilots felt that the German fighter was more difficult to handle than domestic Yakovlevs and Lavochkins."

 

http://www.airpages.ru/eng/ru/fw190a.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FW190 high speed elevator lock and somewhat slow to react roll makes this plane kind of "unusable" as a fighter plane from my perspective.

It seems like both largest advantages (supposedly) of FW190 are not here or other planes are too good regarding these characteristics.

Every VVS pilot wishes they had a 190.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the G2 trim wheel behaves strangely somtimes ( like someone called it - like a wheel of fortune ... )

 

There is some inertia/smoothing on the axis to simulate having to turn the wheel around, which can make it difficult to control precisely depending on your controller axis and settings, but I haven't had any trouble once I learned (more or less) how to move my axis (Saitek throttle wheel) in this sim.

 

Is there less smoothing on the F4 wheel? (I haven't noticed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally got to spend some time in multiplayer and flew on a DF server just to get into things a bit quicker... I'm a RL pilot with 100s of hours in tail draggers and my current plane (A36 Bonanza). Generally speaking the ground handling is a bit over done. Yes in tail draggers you have to keep the elevator back to keep pressure on that tail wheel for ground control also to prevent ground looping. Currently the game takes this to an all new level and it's over exaggerated IMO. No I don't have experience in 1000Hp tail draggers but I can assure you they can turn which ever direct they want using differential braking and rudder control. It's almost impossible to taxi correctly in these aircraft.

 

A couple comments on the FW-190. I highly doubt Oleg and crew got things completely wrong as well as many of the other FM guys that have tried to model the FW when it comes to elevator control at high speeds. 600Kmh and there is very little if any elevator authority. By all accounts the plane had plenty of authority at the cost of taking something off or blacking out.

 

I'm still spending a bit more time with the 109s then I will move on to the others.

 

Generally all aircraft seem a bit too unstable. Certainly there were aircraft that had unstable characteristics and killed people. I just don't think that is the case here. The FW in particular is swirling around at high speeds even with mild control inputs. Aircraft flying well within their normal regime and properly trimmed should be almost hands off. The only planes that I know of that are dynamically unstable are racing aircraft with Aft CGs. Remember they built these planes to be flown by regular folks. I would hate to imagine what the game will offer for planes like the P-39.

Edited by 14./JG5CaptStubing
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's almost impossible to taxi correctly in these aircraft.

Really ? I have three brake buttons mapped at the throttle and can taxi all planes very easily. Edited by BlackDevil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll agree with CaptStubing on the ground handling.

 

While I am now fairly proficient on my landings (though I still don't think it's modeled correctly)  the end of the roll out for the VVS fighters is still fraught with control instablilty.

 

Example:  I am landing in a Yak 1, nice long approach, touch down at just under 160 KPH,  rollout long, everything going smoothly, plane has slowed to a veritable crawl, I need to turn right onto the taxi way, so I add right rudder.

The aircraft start to swing left.  I add full right rudder to counter, I have the stick pulled back into my gut and and I apply the brakes and the thing spins like a top to the left.

 

You can praise this FM as much as you want, but something is porked here.

 

I shudder to think how they will model the ground handling of the P 40.  It's over the fence speed on approach was 90mph, that's 144.841 kph.  The LaGG 3 falls out of the sky at that speed.  Couple that low speed with it's narrow track landing gear and I predict hilarity at best, and totally wrong handling guaranteed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really ? I have three brake buttons mapped at the throttle and can taxi all planes very easily.

Perhaps my Saitek Pro Rudder with Brakes aren't working correctly... I will try them again but my last test it was pretty terrible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Planes on the ground in BOS during taxi behave like everywhere was ice. Too much drift.  If there is a ice on the ground everywhere i think it is correct if it is snow i think planes drift way too much. For example IRL 109 to make turn on the ground required full stick forward apply power and side brake in other way it doesn't want a turn at all ( it had such heavy tail that it blocked tail wheel if not unloaded)

 

Russian planes ( most notice in Lagg3)  got the same strange behaviour during end of landing run on the ground when some invisible strange force plane to swing in some way  - it is similar behaviour which was strange to me in some ROF planes. 

 

I think Russian planes regarding stability on the air are quite natural done the most strange to me are Germans planes which are very unstable and wobble much more in the air.  Maby im not flown IRL such high powered fighter but looking at real life video from 109 flying or Fw 190 ( from cocpit view also) never see such instablity like we got in BOS now.

 

Other hand BOS simulate immersion from flying very good if not the best from all other sims i have played.

Edited by Kwiatek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Russian planes ( most notice in Lagg3)  got the same strange behaviour during end of landing run on the ground when some invisible strange force plane to swing in some way  - it is similar behaviour which was strange to me in some ROF planes.    I think Russian planes regarding stability on the air are quite natural done the most strange to me are Germans planes which are very unstable and wobble much more in the air.  Maby im not flown IRL such high powered fighter but looking at real life video from 109 flying or Fw 190 ( from cocpit view also) never see such instablity like we got in BOS now.  

 

 

You can land the russian planes without ground looping if you keep some power, something like 10-20% throttle, keep braking until you fully stop, then chop the throttle. Only then start to turn/taxi.

 

About the unstability: I guess its related to somehow with the horizontal stabilizers, because every other plane behave naturally and they dont have those hor stabs.

Edited by istruba
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can land the russian planes without ground looping if you keep some power, something like 10-20% throttle, keep braking until you fully stop, then chop the throttle. Only then start to turn/taxi.

 

 

As I said earlier, we are just applying work-arounds to this thing to be able to play it. 

 

I've watched warbirds taxi many times at airshows, and they never have to do what you described to turn on the ground.

 

These in game behaviors are clearly not correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can land the russian planes without ground looping if you keep some power, something like 10-20% throttle, keep braking until you fully stop, then chop the throttle. Only then start to turn/taxi.

 

I know how to land without such ground loop but i just wonder what strange force casue these in BOS. I experienced some similar behaviour during my RL flying taildraggers only with strong crosswind but still i could keep straight only with rudder and brakes without adding any power.

Edited by Kwiatek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, taildraggers do groundloop easily... I once saw a Cessna 180 groundlooping during the last part of its landing roll; one of the wingtips touched the ground and got damaged during the loop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally got to spend some time in multiplayer and flew on a DF server just to get into things a bit quicker... I'm a RL pilot with 100s of hours in tail draggers and my current plane (A36 Bonanza). Generally speaking the ground handling is a bit over done. Yes in tail draggers you have to keep the elevator back to keep pressure on that tail wheel for ground control also to prevent ground looping. Currently the game takes this to an all new level and it's over exaggerated IMO. No I don't have experience in 1000Hp tail draggers but I can assure you they can turn which ever direct they want using differential braking and rudder control. It's almost impossible to taxi correctly in these aircraft.

 

A couple comments on the FW-190. I highly doubt Oleg and crew got things completely wrong as well as many of the other FM guys that have tried to model the FW when it comes to elevator control at high speeds. 600Kmh and there is very little if any elevator authority. By all accounts the plane had plenty of authority at the cost of taking something off or blacking out.

 

I'm still spending a bit more time with the 109s then I will move on to the others.

 

Generally all aircraft seem a bit too unstable. Certainly there were aircraft that had unstable characteristics and killed people. I just don't think that is the case here. The FW in particular is swirling around at high speeds even with mild control inputs. Aircraft flying well within their normal regime and properly trimmed should be almost hands off. The only planes that I know of that are dynamically unstable are racing aircraft with Aft CGs. Remember they built these planes to be flown by regular folks. I would hate to imagine what the game will offer for planes like the P-39.

 

Thank you for being another voice of reason on this matter. I have minimal time in tail draggers, but I suspected that behavior was off as well.

 

Some things with the ground handling are just off no matter how hard you argue the opposite: for instance, aircraft are easier to take off if you slam the throttle forward rather than steadily increase power (as you do in real life). People give advice as if this is the right way and realistic way to take off when people new to flight sims post about having trouble taking off, yet these same people are quick to say in threads like these that the fact that aircraft are extremely ground-loop prone -- even when power is kept low and brakes are applied properly -- is so realz.

 

Again, thank you for adding your real life experience to the thread. Be prepared, however, for people to start giving you advice on how real planes work, to question your skill as a (virtual) pilot, and to suggest you try their series of macros and clever HOTAS bindings to get the planes to do simple things. 

Edited by Prefontaine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL

 

Well played quite a bit more today... It's clear to me this is pretty early work. There where some strange things like not hearing any rounds impact my plane but I could here gunfire and engines while flying. I know my observations are anecdotal but I suspect I'm not too far off in some of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

aircraft are easier to take off if you slam the throttle forward rather than steadily increase power (as you do in real life). 

 

...or just rev up the engine to 2,000 rpm while holding the aircraft with the brakes; then release the brakes and gradually but steadily apply more power while gradually moving the stick forward. Seems to get me a takeoff run straight as a ruler in any aircraft...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...or just rev up the engine to 2,000 rpm while holding the aircraft with the brakes; then release the brakes and gradually but steadily apply more power while gradually moving the stick forward. Seems to get me a takeoff run straight as a ruler in any aircraft...

 

Yes, that works too, and that's fine.

 

As does the method that I posted, which is incorrect. That was the point I was making. 

LOL

 

Well played quite a bit more today... It's clear to me this is pretty early work. There where some strange things like not hearing any rounds impact my plane but I could here gunfire and engines while flying. I know my observations are anecdotal but I suspect I'm not too far off in some of them.

 

That's another bag of worms that's up for debate! (the impact sounds I mean)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to come across as arrogant, but after test flying some of the planes again over the weekend, and after seeing this thread growing, I'm really having trouble to understand some of the criticism:

 

  • The unstability or "wobbliness" of the 109: I think in most flight regimes the 109 is a very stable platform now.
    • Slow flight down to about 135 kph (dirty) and down to about 150 kph (clean). Almost no corrections required.
    • Fully developed stalls: The aircraft stalls at about 135 kph (dirty); it will drop wings slowly, and can be leveled by applying medium amounts of rudder (falling leaf maneuver). The aircraft stalls at about 150 kph (clean); it will drop wings with medium intensity, and can be leveled by applying full rudder as required (falling leaf maneuver). The falling leaf can be held consistently, and the optical impression matches what can be seen for example in the US Navy training video at: http://youtu.be/jLDM8jQFRvs?t=19m8s.The aircraft does not spin easily; instead it will go into a spiral turn.
    • Accelerated stalls - this means entering a steep turn at high speed, then maintaining it as speed bleeds off, then maintaining accelerated stall speed. There is a difference between left and right turns: In left turns, the aircraft can be kept at about 80 degrees bank angle and about 210 kph clean and is very stable (riding the stall). In right turns, however, the aircraft goes into a spiral turn at 80 degrees; it can be kept at between 60 and 70 degrees and about 210 - 220 kph clean, and is then very stable as well. I'm not sure whether the prop direction warrants this difference between left and right turns, it may or it may not.
    • Stall warning: I did not observe any significant amount of buffeting at the onset of a stall. However, the changing sound of the wind makes it clear that a stall is impending; this is true for all kinds of stalls.
    • The yaw instability that was there in the early days of the early access pre-release phase is completely gone. Yaw stability is as good as in the La-5 or the Yak-1.
    • Left rudder is necessary since there is no rudder trim. This appears to be aligned with what is reported at: http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/feature/articles/109myths/.
    • The aircraft can be trimmed with the vertical stabilizer. Trim authority covers the available airspeed range.
  • Ground handling:
    • In calm wind, taxiing can be done with just rudder input, except for sharp turns where a burst of power and differential brakes are required.
    • In a crosswind of 5 m/s (18 kph, 10 kts) from the left, occasional application of differential brakes is required to counter a left turning tendency. This is expected because the wind is acting on the tail structure (weather vaning), while at the same time the authority of right rudder has already been exhausted to counter the left turning tendency caused by p-factor, torque, etc.
    • A straight takeoff can be flown when the tailwheel is locked, and airflow is generated by revving up the engine. This can be accomplished by for example holding the aircraft with the brakes until RPMs are at 1,800 - 2,000; but even if power is added without holding the brakes, and the locked tailwheel is held down by pulling the stick back, the left turning tendency can easily be countered by applying full right rudder. This appears to be aligned with what is reported at: http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/feature/articles/109myths/.
  • Advanced flight maneuvers:
    • All maneuvers, including aileron rolls, barrel rolls, split-s, immelman, hammerhead, wingover, and chandelle can be flown without the aircraft becoming "wobbly" or sliding away.
    • Spin recovery is conventional. The aircraft does not have any tendency to go into a reversed spin.
  • Approach and landing:
    • Approaches can be flown at 180 - 200 kph on final, at about 1,600 - 1,700 rpm. The aircraft is very stable on final, and can be flared by gradually reducing power to idle and gradually pulling the stick back at the same time.
    • There is no tendency to bounce when touching down at about 140 - 150 kph.
    • The landing rollout is straight thanks to the locked tailwheel; with a crosswind of 5 m/s (18 kph, 10 kts) a medium amount of rudder is necessary to counter the weathervaning effect.

These observations apply to the Bf-109 F-4. The G-2 does not behave as nicely because it has two issues:

  • The throttle is sluggish at low settings, and too sensitive at high settings. I have been informed that this is due to hard-coded curves. Not sure if this corresponds to the real thing; if not it must be a bug.
  • Trim authority is not sufficient to establish level flight when faster than 400 - 450 kph. The maximum trim setting is "2" in the G-2, while it is "3" in the F-4. Not sure whether this difference is historically correct; if not it would be a bug for the G-2.

 

All in all, my observations make me wonder what exactly in the flight model of the 109 is being criticized. It would be interesting to hear something a little more detailed than "slipping like on a banana peel", or "flies like a biplane".

 

Finally I have some observations made while flying other aircraft:

  • I can't get the La-5 to groundloop at the end of the landing run unless I apply too much rudder or differential brakes. As long as I keep my inputs gentle, and brake only when the rudder is neutral, it does not groundloop. BTW this is superbly explained in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMwDXeys5yY.
  • The Yak-1 seems to be the most difficult aircraft to taxi (and to me it is the only one that is difficult). Taxiing is normally done with the tailwheel unlocked, but in the Yak this can only be done with frequent small bursts of differential brake. I'm not sure whether this is historically correct. No problem on takeoff run though since the Yak has a lockable tailwheel.

And, again, I'm using CHPro rudders and a Warthog with a 15cm extension.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to come across as arrogant, but after test flying some of the planes again over the weekend, and after seeing this thread growing, I'm really having trouble to understand some of the criticism:

 

  • The unstability or "wobbliness" of the 109: I think in most flight regimes the 109 is a very stable platform now.
    • Slow flight down to about 135 kph (dirty) and down to about 150 kph (clean). Almost no corrections required.
    • Fully developed stalls: The aircraft stalls at about 135 kph (dirty); it will drop wings slowly, and can be leveled by applying medium amounts of rudder (falling leaf maneuver). The aircraft stalls at about 150 kph (clean); it will drop wings with medium intensity, and can be leveled by applying full rudder as required (falling leaf maneuver). The falling leaf can be held consistently, and the optical impression matches what can be seen for example in the US Navy training video at: http://youtu.be/jLDM8jQFRvs?t=19m8s.The aircraft does not spin easily; instead it will go into a spiral turn.
    • Accelerated stalls - this means entering a steep turn at high speed, then maintaining it as speed bleeds off, then maintaining accelerated stall speed. There is a difference between left and right turns: In left turns, the aircraft can be kept at about 80 degrees bank angle and about 210 kph clean and is very stable (riding the stall). In right turns, however, the aircraft goes into a spiral turn at 80 degrees; it can be kept at between 60 and 70 degrees and about 210 - 220 kph clean, and is then very stable as well. I'm not sure whether the prop direction warrants this difference between left and right turns, it may or it may not.
    • Stall warning: I did not observe any significant amount of buffeting at the onset of a stall. However, the changing sound of the wind makes it clear that a stall is impending; this is true for all kinds of stalls.
    • The yaw instability that was there in the early days of the early access pre-release phase is completely gone. Yaw stability is as good as in the La-5 or the Yak-1.
    • Left rudder is necessary since there is no rudder trim. This appears to be aligned with what is reported at: http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/feature/articles/109myths/.
    • The aircraft can be trimmed with the vertical stabilizer. Trim authority covers the available airspeed range.
  • Ground handling:
    • In calm wind, taxiing can be done with just rudder input, except for sharp turns where a burst of power and differential brakes are required.
    • In a crosswind of 5 m/s (18 kph, 10 kts) from the left, occasional application of differential brakes is required to counter a left turning tendency. This is expected because the wind is acting on the tail structure (weather vaning), while at the same time the authority of right rudder has already been exhausted to counter the left turning tendency caused by p-factor, torque, etc.
    • A straight takeoff can be flown when the tailwheel is locked, and airflow is generated by revving up the engine. This can be accomplished by for example holding the aircraft with the brakes until RPMs are at 1,800 - 2,000; but even if power is added without holding the brakes, and the locked tailwheel is held down by pulling the stick back, the left turning tendency can easily be countered by applying full right rudder. This appears to be aligned with what is reported at: http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/feature/articles/109myths/.
  • Advanced flight maneuvers:
    • All maneuvers, including aileron rolls, barrel rolls, split-s, immelman, hammerhead, wingover, and chandelle can be flown without the aircraft becoming "wobbly" or sliding away.
    • Spin recovery is conventional. The aircraft does not have any tendency to go into a reversed spin.
  • Approach and landing:
    • Approaches can be flown at 180 - 200 kph on final, at about 1,600 - 1,700 rpm. The aircraft is very stable on final, and can be flared by gradually reducing power to idle and gradually pulling the stick back at the same time.
    • There is no tendency to bounce when touching down at about 140 - 150 kph.
    • The landing rollout is straight thanks to the locked tailwheel; with a crosswind of 5 m/s (18 kph, 10 kts) a medium amount of rudder is necessary to counter the weathervaning effect.

These observations apply to the Bf-109 F-4. The G-2 does not behave as nicely because it has two issues:

  • The throttle is sluggish at low settings, and too sensitive at high settings. I have been informed that this is due to hard-coded curves. Not sure if this corresponds to the real thing; if not it must be a bug.
  • Trim authority is not sufficient to establish level flight when faster than 400 - 450 kph. The maximum trim setting is "2" in the G-2, while it is "3" in the F-4. Not sure whether this difference is historically correct; if not it would be a bug for the G-2.

 

All in all, my observations make me wonder what exactly in the flight model of the 109 is being criticized. It would be interesting to hear something a little more detailed than "slipping like on a banana peel", or "flies like a biplane".

 

Finally I have some observations made while flying other aircraft:

  • I can't get the La-5 to groundloop at the end of the landing run unless I apply too much rudder or differential brakes. As long as I keep my inputs gentle, and brake only when the rudder is neutral, it does not groundloop. BTW this is superbly explained in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMwDXeys5yY.
  • The Yak-1 seems to be the most difficult aircraft to taxi (and to me it is the only one that is difficult). Taxiing is normally done with the tailwheel unlocked, but in the Yak this can only be done with frequent small bursts of differential brake. I'm not sure whether this is historically correct. No problem on takeoff run though since the Yak has a lockable tailwheel.

And, again, I'm using CHPro rudders and a Warthog with a 15cm extension.

 

Andy,

 

Nothing you posted came across as arrogant. Your post contains a lot of good information.

 

I fear, in what I'm about to say, that I'm the one who will come across as arrogant. It's not my intent, honestly.

 

I think, at this point, I've spoken my peace about what I believe to be inconsistent with reality regarding the FMs in BOS. A big part of the issue is that many people have posted what they think is wrong, but we're all using different terminology and explanations, and we don't all agree with *exactly* what the issue is. 

 

This thread has taken a turn for ground handling in recent posts, which is fine, because I still believe it needs some attention. However, my biggest criticism is that aircraft have far too great a delta between their velocity vector and the longitudinal axis of the aircraft (commonly known as the angle of attack), even under mild maneuvering. You can witness this by initiating any turn of nearly any "intensity" (aside from the most benign maneuvers) and, once the aircraft goes from a loaded state to neutral stick deflection, the nose "bounces" backwards toward the velocity vector. Some movement to establish a "neutral" angle of attack (i.e. one required simply to keep the aircraft flying) is expected, but it is way, way overdone in the current state of BOS.

 

The common belief is that this is because aircraft lack "inertia" or weight, and are behaving like WWI aircraft. Again, this is just a simple convention people are using to describe the effect; who knows what's really causing it, it's just something with the FMs at the moment.

 

The biggest issue before this was the yaw problem, which was far, far worse. It was even worse in the past during the beta stage! I argued forever with people about how it is inaccurate, and was told how wrong I was by the majority of folks around here. Well, guess what, the dev team fixed it. And this isn't a team to fix things on a whim or to quiet people down -- the man in charge of FMs will only fix things that are truly wrong. The FMs are significantly better and more realistic now; you can thank us "complainers" for that ;)

 

I have a lot of faith in this sim. I think it's a great product that will improve over time, as long as we continue to address its short comings in a civilized manner. 

 

With that being said, however, I'm going to take a tactical pause from this topic for now. Seriously, if I have one more joystick jockey think he needs to explain to me how to fly, or link me to another YouTube video, or suggest I do things that are completely irrational and UNSAFE in real life flying (20% power while braking on landing? any idea what that would do to your brakes and, more importantly, your TOLD assumptions?), I might just get a little bit frustrated. I have hundreds of hours flying fighters (yes, the kind in real life) and hundreds more in all other types of aircraft, both civilian and military. I make a living understanding exactly how aircraft behave.

 

Anyways, feel free to debate the merits of the current FM as much as you wish. I look forward to reading along, and I'll keep hoping for continued tweaking over time.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

andyw,

 

You have a highly modified stick that is twice the length of what the VAST MAJORITY of us use.  Your comments should be circumscribed by that fact.

 

Your in game experience is NOT the same as most here are having because of your equipment.  Please try to see it from our perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...