Bf 109 G2 WTF?

[Tyberan]

Hi all

 

I've just returned to playing this after a couple months of not having the time to play. 

 

I decided to start flying the Bf109 G2 after getting bored of the stuka (no not really it has a special place), what I found gave me a WTF moment.

 

First WTF

 

Ground handling, this is seriously borked. Even on manual pitch control and using very little throttle its nearly impossible to turn right without the tail lock off using rudder. Seriously the torque effect cant be that massive that it spins the aircraft around like a top and its only the brakes preventing it from doing so. On that subject I would assume that the real BF109 would have had better rudder response on the ground since the german brakes were pretty terrible, only really used for doing tight turns. 

 

Second WTF

 

Trim

 

At level flight with prop back to normal at 1 atm, i have to use about 90% stabiliser. The torque effect is so bad there is a constant need to use right rudder about 5-10% Or aileron.

 

So that got me thinking, why do we need to constantly use right rudder on the Bf109, Surely the trim tabs on the ailerons would have been set to counter some of this role, or what about the tail actually being built with a slight airfoil to counter this specific issue. 

 

To me the BF109 seems unfinished and neglected in this area, perhaps allowing the player to trim whilst on the ground only for aileron and rudder?

 

I've had this game since early access and I remember the Lagg3 being a pig to fly and the ground handling is was bad. Now the ground handling is great I had no issues with it, despite the fact it has no tail lock. In the air it feels trimmed.

 

To me the BF109 feels like i'm trying to fly a wild stallion or something, whilst the lagg is like riding some petting zoo nag.

 

[BlackDevil]

"......since the german brakes were pretty terrible, only really used for doing tight turns. "

 

This is not true. The right brake was needed at the beginning of take off run to avoid the left ground loop. Too much brake, used by unexperienced pilots, did lead to a right full power ground loop.

[andyw248]

You forgot to mention the throttle on the G-2...

 

The trim issue is a known issue. Trim should go to 3 (instead of 2), like on the F-4.

 

Don't understand your taxi problem. Did you try to taxi the Yak-1? Now that's a handful because of the hand brake, combined with the rudder position...

 

But compared to the Yak, taxiing the 109s feels benign to me. And yes, you would use brakes to steer it, not the rudder. Just use the rudder to counteract the torque effect, and use the brakes for steering. Seems correct to me, and if your equipment allows you to apply gradual brakes it should be really smooth (CH rudders allow gradual brakes).

[Dakpilot]

The ground adjusted trim tabs were set up for cruise, with that being the period of flight where most time was spent, unfortunately or fortunately it is set to a historically correct 'economical cruise speed'

 

perhaps some experts can say/show what the correct historical cruise speed was for G2 and some tests can be conducted  also forcing a sharp turn with the tailwheel locked was not correct procedure and could lead to damage and a chat with your commanding officer

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[StG2_Manfred]

During ground it should be possible to steer with the rudder. Watch the following video at minute 36

 

Messerschmitt Bf.109: http://youtu.be/IbeRn1rgoIo

[9./JG27golani79]

During ground it should be possible to steer with the rudder. Watch the following video at minute 36

 

I don´t think that you have that much rudder authority at such low speeds and what sounds pretty low RPM so I´m pretty sure that he is using brakes as well.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

109 pilots were instructed to use short pushes of brakes only instead of continuesly holding it to prevent overheating. Ingame it seems the F-4 handles way better on ground than the G-2. Don't know if it's a weight or CoG thing here but they actually should handle about the same on ground.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[StG2_Manfred]

I don´t think that you have that much rudder authority at such low speeds and what sounds pretty low RPM so I´m pretty sure that he is using brakes as well.

 

Maybe, yes. I did some more research. Here http://www.pumaszallas.hu/Private/VO101_Tom/docs/Bf109E_Betriebs-und_Rustanleitung.pdf on page 6 the following is mention for the Emil:

 

"For tight turns (on the ground) roll straight with increased power, then induce turn with the brake, then reduce power"

 

So maybe you are right, maybe not. For me the turns in the video are not really tight, but I could be wrong as well.

[BlackDevil]

During ground it should be possible to steer with the rudder.

I did explain it somewhere else in the forum already. You have no rudder authority at taxi speed at idle power. That vid doesnt prove anything, as you dont see the brake use.

[StG2_Manfred]

I did explain it somewhere else in the forum already. You have no rudder authority at taxi speed at idle power. That vid doesnt prove anything, as you dont see the brake use.

 

Maybe we're watching not the same video. There is clearly to see the planes are steered with the rudder. Also, why they would use rudder accordingly if there is no authority at all. This video prove the use of rudder no matter what you say. The use of brakes (which maybe also happens) in contrast is speculative, because it can't be verified.

[303_Kwiatek]

IRL Bf 109 need special technics for ground taxi.

 

It was  tail heavy on the ground and to make a turn need apply power, brake and full stick forward  instead it could just roll straight. 

 

I suppose any sim is actually close here.

 

 

I think in BOS all planes too much drift during ground taxi or behave like it was ice everywhere

Edited January 18, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Maybe we're watching not the same video. There is clearly to see the planes are steered with the rudder. Also, why they would use rudder accordingly if there is no authority at all. This video prove the use of rudder no matter what you say. The use of brakes (which maybe also happens) in contrast is speculative, because it can't be verified.

 

i recommend the german book (for everyone who speaks german) "Fliegerasse und Kanonenfutter" it's about 5 german pilots, from flight school till front line and the end of the war. Their flight school experience is explained pretty detailed. They are all explaining, how they learned to taxi and stuff like that. Taxing, using the brakes to go left or right. Nothing about rudder. Even at takeoff in certain situations (wind conditions) they are using their brakes, because at slow speed the rudder doesn't provide enough. How do some people think, that at 20kph the rudder could turn around a plane??? If you only have little clue about physics you know that this is not possible. We are not talking about a boat rudder in the water here. We are talking about air, and ~20kph wind speed hitting a small surface like a 45°-moved out rudder can't definitely work against 2500rpm propeller torque - that means the propellerpeak has a speed of about ~550 kph (dependent of the propeller size). I think the 3 blades together have at least half the surface of the rudder. The rest is simple math...

 

Edit: And don't forget - in a lot of planes you didn't only control your rudder with the pedals, but also the tailwheel. I think that might be a reason, why some folks are misinterpreting something here..

Edit 2: They didn't learn flying with the 109, but with a Heinkel biplane. This one had no movable tailwheel, so using brakes was apparently the only way to turn your plane in a certain direction at slow speeds. I am not sure how this is with the 109s..might be an explanation for this video 

 

Edit3:

 

 

 

I think in BOS all planes too much drift during ground taxi or behave like it was ice everywhere

 

 

maybe that's because all the snow and ice everywhere   but i have the same opinion

Edited January 18, 2015 by Celestiale

[StG2_Manfred]

Thanks for your book recommendation, I probably gonna get it.

 

"We are talking about air, and ~20kph wind speed hitting a small surface like a 45°-moved out rudder can't definitely work against 2500rpm propeller torque - that means the propellerpeak has a speed of about ~550 kph (dependent of the propeller size). I think the 3 blades together have at least half the surface of the rudder. The rest is simple math..."

 

Lol! When your engine is at 2500 rpm you've got an airspeed of 20 kph at the rudder? Yes, you're right, this is simple math....

 

Again, look at the video, minute 36/37.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

The ammount of air washing along the rudder doesn't need high RPM levels to provide effective rudder authority on ground. The ammount of airstream depends on RPM, prop pitch and your porp's geometical pitch (translation?).

Another important factor is the aerodynamical shape of the fuselage, trubulences and prop wash - it's actully way more than "simple math".

 

I have no sources on ground handling but the 109 is reported for having bad rudder authority from most test pilot's while airborne. To me ground handling seems quite legit for the F-4, haven't flown the G-2 much recently to test it properly.

 

I always roll forward a little with ~1500 RPM to overcome ground resistence and let the pwop build up it's RPM, than ush the stick forward, full rudder into the direction I want to turn in and supporting it with small, short brake inputs. Once in turn I reduce my RPM a little to not accelerate or go into ground looping.

 

Exiting is dont by applying opposite rudder again, increasing RPM and adjusting with short brake inputs as nessecary. Once straight I pull the stick again and lock the tail wheel (if used).

 

For the G-2 I keep prop pitch manual at 12-12:30 till reaching the runway since the Kommandogerät is bugged on it unlike the F-4.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[303_Kwiatek]

 

 

have no sources on ground handling but the 109 is reported for having bad rudder authority from most test pilot's while airborne.

 

I think it was rather opposite. Rudder was the most effective control in 109.  Only problem was that 109 didnt have rudder trim so beside cruise speed there was need constanlty rudder correction to keep ball in the center.

[Tyberan]

Wow a lot of replies so fast. This is good getting some good info here and some ideas to change my approach to controlling the G2

 

 

 

I love that video, Manfred.

 

You can definitely tell at 37min mark that both brake and rudder where used, however watching them taxi down the strip right rudder does have authority, when the engine is revved up to produce the backwash.  We can only assume what the pilots are doing to control them on the ground but it really doesnt look that hard, not as hard and as frustrating as BoS.

[303_Kwiatek]

 

Here is video where is good example of real 109 ground taxi.

 

Look at 2:10 min and watch for a elevator position.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Thanks for your book recommendation, I probably gonna get it.

 

"We are talking about air, and ~20kph wind speed hitting a small surface like a 45°-moved out rudder can't definitely work against 2500rpm propeller torque - that means the propellerpeak has a speed of about ~550 kph (dependent of the propeller size). I think the 3 blades together have at least half the surface of the rudder. The rest is simple math..."

 

Lol! When your engine is at 2500 rpm you've got an airspeed of 20 kph at the rudder? Yes, you're right, this is simple math....

 

Again, look at the video, minute 36/37.

 

yeah my bad, i was totally forgetting that the airspeed is a little faster with the prop on then just the wind going past the plane, probably not a good idea to write just after getting up 

but i think it shouldn't be that fast, should it? as soon as the wind goes past the propeller it should dispense in pretty much every direction in an ~90° angle?! so the further the rudder is away from the prop, the lesser the windspeed gets. But it's definitely a little more then "simple math", like i stated before. Unfortunately i was never standing behind a plane with so much power. I was standing just behind (~1m) a Cessna with 300hp before it took off, the wind wasn't too strong. I would guess around 50kph. No problem to stand straight. But this could of course be way more at a 1000hp+ plane. Any physicist here who could tell us more?

 

 

You can definitely tell at 37min mark that both brake and rudder where used, however watching them taxi down the strip right rudder does have authority, when the engine is revved up to produce the backwash.  We can only assume what the pilots are doing to control them on the ground but it really doesnt look that hard, not as hard and as frustrating as BoS.

 

It's not that hard mate. You just need a little practise, then it's just as easy as it looks on this video. And those pilots who are allowed to fly WW2 birds nowadays have a looot of practise, you can guess

Edited January 18, 2015 by Celestiale

[StG2_Manfred]

 

Here is video where is good example of real 109 ground taxi.

 

Look at 2:10 min and watch for a elevator position.

 

...and look at the rudder position.

 

probably not a good idea to write just after getting up 

Accepted

 

I didn't say brakes are not needed. I've stated this above with the linked document (for tight turns...). I just don't believe the rudder had no authority at all.

 

And to be fair, as soon as the tailwheel is unlocked the 109 in BoS turns very well. Problem is maybe too well....

Edited January 18, 2015 by StG2_Manfred

[303_Kwiatek]

Yes prop wash affect rudder effectivnes even during taxi.  I remember that long time ago after landing i was taxi in Bucker Jungmann biplane from first cabin and i didnt have brakes at all ( only second cabin got brakes)  -  so my taxi technics was to use power burst and full rudder.

 

Generally for taxi technics there is need to use power burst, rudder and brakes in the same time.  109 aditionally need also full stick forward to unload tailwheel

Edited January 18, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[II./JG77_Manu*]

109 aditionally need also full stick forward to unload tailwheel

Good to know, i had no idea but works also pretty well without (in game)

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

I feel the opposite way. If you knwo how to load and unload your wheel properly you can even taxi without ever lockign your tailwheel. The effect is pretty noticeably in BoS and helps taxiing for all planes ingame, not onnly the fighters.

 

On russian aircraft in particular you want to practise this to improve your taxi capebilities with no tailwheel lock. Most important thing about taxiing wiht rudder is that you always require proper thrust to make it turn properly. Also note that while being within the turn your plane will slow down naturally so you need higher revs for both reasons.

[BlackDevil]

Yes prop wash affect rudder effectivnes even during taxi.  I remember that long time ago after landing i was taxi in Bucker Jungmann biplane from first cabin and i didnt have brakes at all ( only second cabin got brakes)  -  so my taxi technics was to use power burst and full rudder.

 

As far as I remember, the Jungmann has a steered tailwheel. The 109 does not, as far as I know.

 

PS: I heard from 109 pilots, that they never locked their tailwheel. It might have been in the procedures for take off and landing, but it was obviously not necessary.

[Willy__]

As far as I remember, the Jungmann has a steered tailwheel. The 109 does not, as far as I know.

 

PS: I heard from 109 pilots, that they never locked their tailwheel. It might have been in the procedures for take off and landing, but it was obviously not necessary.

 

I really do find necessary to lock the tail wheel for take off and landing rollouts. But I keep it unlocked for taxing though.

Edited January 18, 2015 by istruba

[SvAF/F16_Dark_P]

I think it was rather opposite. Rudder was the most effective control in 109.  Only problem was that 109 didnt have rudder trim so beside cruise speed there was need constanlty rudder correction to keep ball in the center.

 

From: http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/feature/articles/109myths/

 

"109 needs constant rudder pressure to fly straight?

 

This is interesting subject, with much disinformation floating around. Take a moment to read there two quotes:

 

Me 109 G:

"The first 30 of the Me 109 G-2s (delivered to Finnish Air Force 1943) were delivered right from the factory production line. After that the delivered planes were more or less used, they were rebuilt. Also the first of the G-6s (delivered in 1944) were new, then later deliveries were rebuilds. The Germans did not make any distinction between new and rebuilt planes, the rebuilds were upgraded with new gear. The used planes were however found to be more awkward in use. They were unfinished. Some individuals could in higher speeds be held in straight course by constant application of vertical rudder. You had to throttle back as your leg began to shake and you were no more able to keep the pedal down. It got the worse the more speed you had. This kind of things. The planes used to veer to the right at takeoff and when airborne to the left. Products of the wartime, I say. Yet some 32000 of them were made after all."

- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

 

Me 109 E:

"Absence of rudder trimmer is a bad feature, although at low speeds the practical consequences are not so alarming as the curves might suggest, since the rudder is fairly light on the climb. At high speeds, however, the pilot is seriously inconvenienced, as above 300 mph about 2 1/2 degrees of port (left) rudder are needed for flight with no sideslip and a very heavy foot load is needed to keep this on. In consequence the pilot's left foot becomes tired, and this affects his ability to put on left rudder in order to assist a turn to port (left). Hence at high speeds the Bf.109E turns far more readily to the right than to the left."

- RAF Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) Farnborough handling trials,Bf.109E Wn: 1304. M.B. Morgan and R. Smelt of the RAE, 1944.

 

- Take notice: this RAE report seems to be the primary source of all the claims, that 109 needs foot pressure to fly straight. But RAE tested a captured and battle damaged 109 E, which clearly wasn't even trimmed correctly. As the 109 DID have a ground adjustable rudder trim, which was incorrectly aligned, making the plane sideslip.    So far we haven't found a single primary 109 pilot source, which would support the RAE statement in general. On the other hand the Finnish ace Kyösti Karhila mentions the quality problems with the used 109 airframes - some airframes were so bad that they really did require foot pressure. This demonstrates that the problem could have been more about the quality of the airframe - was it re-built, used, poorly put together? - than a design problem."

 

As far as I remember, the Jungmann has a steered tailwheel. The 109 does not, as far as I know.

 

PS: I heard from 109 pilots, that they never locked their tailwheel. It might have been in the procedures for take off and landing, but it was obviously not necessary.

 

"The usual reason for turning (when taking off) was that they forgot to lock the heel. 

If you forgot to lock the heel, the plane began to turn when speeding up. When the plane was taxiing to starting place, the heel was locked from the cockpit and you began to speed up. By pulling the stick you kept the tail in the ground until you felt in the pedals that the plane is responding to the fin. Then you let the tail rise and kept the plane level, until you took off. It wasn't difficult to take off, but if you left the heel to turn freely, the plane began to turn when speeding up, and the results were often destructive." 

Edited January 18, 2015 by Dark_P

[wtornado]

Humm I do not even lock the tail wheel I just use the German brakes and rudder and accelerate slowly get the nose

down and juice the goose when she starts rolling.

 

Now you know why the Germans lost a minimum of 10% of their aircraft in takeoffs and landings before the tailwheel lock.

 

Some even say that the first 2 years of the war takeoffs and landings killed more pilots than combat.

 

I would not be surprised.

[voncrapenhauser]

You forgot to mention the throttle on the G-2...

 

The trim issue is a known issue. Trim should go to 3 (instead of 2), like on the F-4.

 

Don't understand your taxi problem. Did you try to taxi the Yak-1? Now that's a handful because of the hand brake, combined with the rudder position...

 

But compared to the Yak, taxiing the 109s feels benign to me. And yes, you would use brakes to steer it, not the rudder. Just use the rudder to counteract the torque effect, and use the brakes for steering. Seems correct to me, and if your equipment allows you to apply gradual brakes it should be really smooth (CH rudders allow gradual brakes).

+1

 

I do not use brakes at all, except if I'm running out of runway lol.

I have  had no ground running issues provided you stay on top of things from the very start of your run.

 

Now taxing ....that's whole different picture.

 

I have CH rudder pedals too BTW.

 

Ps what's wrong with the throttle?

I haven't had any problems??? Mine is smooth and linier.?

Should it have the Kommandergerat? Excuse my spelling if wrong.

Edited January 27, 2015 by voncrapenhauser

[indiaciki]

Humm I do not even lock the tail wheel I just use the German brakes and rudder and accelerate slowly get the nose

down and juice the goose when she starts rolling.

 

That's true with the Sopwith Camel... not true with the 109. She was problematic at TO amd Landing but not leathal.

 

Now you know why the Germans lost a minimum of 10% of their aircraft in takeoffs and landings before the tailwheel lock.

 

Some even say that the first 2 years of the war takeoffs and landings killed more pilots than combat.

 

I would not be surprised.

Edited January 28, 2015 by indiaciki

[SYN_Ricky]

Ps what's wrong with the throttle?

I haven't had any problems??? Mine is smooth and linier.?

Should it have the Kommandergerat? Excuse my spelling if wrong.

 

I also have a problem with the G2 and the A3 throttles, which act like they're not linear, The ATA gauge doesn't move until I'm at more than 50% throttle and then cemose extra sensitive between 1.0 and 1.4 ATA, making very difficult to settle to a given value....

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

Lots of text. In short: use manual prop pitch when ground handeling, setting 11-12.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Apparently devs confirmed the G-2's throttle is non linear and think it's fine as it is.

[Brano]

If you are not able to handle the airplanes in BoS during taxiing,you are not very good pilot and all you need is not WTF but training.

[voncrapenhauser]

I also have a problem with the G2 and the A3 throttles, which act like they're not linear, The ATA gauge doesn't move until I'm at more than 50% throttle and then cemose extra sensitive between 1.0 and 1.4 ATA, making very difficult to settle to a given value....

Hmmmm Strange?

All my aircraft seem to have completely linear throttle.

I use MS FF2 stick BTW.

IDK what's up there then, its like the wobble phenomena some people have it some don't. 

I lost a lot of the wobble(rubber band on yaw) by adjusting all my control throws to absolute max=100%.

Edited January 28, 2015 by voncrapenhauser

[voncrapenhauser]

 

Humm I do not even lock the tail wheel I just use the German brakes and rudder and accelerate slowly get the nose

down and juice the goose when she starts rolling.

 

That's true with the Sopwith Camel... not true with the 109. She was problematic at TO amd Landing but not leathal.

 

Now you know why the Germans lost a minimum of 10% of their aircraft in takeoffs and landings before the tailwheel lock.

 

Some even say that the first 2 years of the war takeoffs and landings killed more pilots than combat.

 

I would not be surprised.

 

The 109 was notorious for catching out or even killing inexperienced pilots on take off and landing.

I read Eric browns assessment of the 109 in the Haynes book on the 109 he says " once you are rolling no attempt to correct your direction should be attempted unless risk of collision "

" Only a ground loop or worse will occur "

 

BTW I always go with the prop setting set to auto and have no problem.

Edited January 28, 2015 by voncrapenhauser

[voncrapenhauser]

If you are not able to handle the airplanes in BoS during taxiing,you are not very good pilot and all you need is not WTF but training.

Not a good virtual pilot?

 

Controlling the aircraft in a game is so different from IRL.

 

I'm probably stating the obvious here.

 

All I want from a Game/Sim is for the aircraft to get as close as possible to RL as can be made.

 

IMO actual flying in general is actually easier than a Sim because you have way more feedback.

So I find myself flying round these problems, but if they can be corrected , all well and good.

Edited January 28, 2015 by voncrapenhauser

[voncrapenhauser]

As far as I remember, the Jungmann has a steered tailwheel. The 109 does not, as far as I know.

 

PS: I heard from 109 pilots, that they never locked their tailwheel. It might have been in the procedures for take off and landing, but it was obviously not necessary.

I quote Eric Brown, and the latter Charlie Brown and Dave Southwood (the second and third pilots here pilots of Black six).

"The tail wheel is unlocked for taxi and always locked for take off ".

"If not locked it will always result in a ground loop or worse".

 

However, they are as you say not wartime German pilots so I cannot comment on these.

Edited January 28, 2015 by voncrapenhauser