Jump to content


Photo

Ridiculous 109 pitch rates


  • Please log in to reply
228 replies to this topic

#81 AndyJWest

AndyJWest
  • Founder
  • Posts: 1440
  • Location:London, England

Posted 18 March 2017 - 09:40

Got to agree with Dakpilot here. I'm not entirely convinced that any supposed benefits to this exploit are anything more than a placebo effect. 


  • 0

#82 Caudron431Micha

Caudron431Micha
  • Founder
  • Posts: 343
  • Location:Alsace, France

Posted 18 March 2017 - 14:49

People complaining about one 109 control mechanism being easier to handle then it was IRL, while to get the most out of the La5 IRL you had to adjust seven different handles accordingly - i wonder how that is represented in the game.

Interesting. How is the trim and engine system in the La5 specifically different than in any other allied type? Could you give some more info or reference, it would be appreciated.


Edited by Yak9Micha, 18 March 2017 - 14:50.

  • 0

#83 JG13_opcode

JG13_opcode
  • Member
  • Posts: 993

Posted 18 March 2017 - 18:18

I suspect Manu is referring to the necessity for the pilot to adjust mixture, RPM, radiators, etc.  The demanding workload of managing these engines is a big reason why Messershmitt and Focke Wulf developed their automation systems and why all other manufacturers moved in the same direction eventually.


  • 1

#84 Hutzlipuh

Hutzlipuh
  • Member
  • Posts: 74

Posted 18 March 2017 - 20:11

I suspect Manu is referring to the necessity for the pilot to adjust mixture, RPM, radiators, etc.  The demanding workload of managing these engines is a big reason why Messershmitt and Focke Wulf developed their automation systems and why all other manufacturers moved in the same direction eventually.

But its not really more workload as everyone is making it out to be. its basically just set rpm one time ,set radiator as needed ,set mixture one time (mostly 100% and its ok,maybe go down to 85% if flying higher). you just cant call that more workload , the "manual" russian planes are trivially easy to manage and fly... no worries about overstressing the engine with combat power or emergency power,basically full power at all times . trivially easy to get out of stall in a lagg or i16...and it goes on and on... even the yak can climb continously despite it being mentioned that it had to cool off after 2k or the higher dive limit it got ingame despite the manual stating it to be 680 it gets 720 here....also the governor works 100% without getting into overrevs even at high speed dives it normally couldnt handle...

if you want to really manage a engine (even if its only radiators and rpm , try the 109e1 or 109e3 in CloD...really easy to overrev and takes time to get used to)

 

yet everyone here seems to complain about a not even combat effective probable exploit (only usable in really slow  turning fights,which you shouldnt get into to begin with a 109).

 

TL,DR : dont start complaining about a basically non-issue....you should complain about inconsistencies in controller/axis assignments...


  • 2

#85 AndyJWest

AndyJWest
  • Founder
  • Posts: 1440
  • Location:London, England

Posted 18 March 2017 - 20:37

I'm fairly certain that Manu was referring to the workload in the real aircraft, not in BoS.


  • 0

#86 JG13_opcode

JG13_opcode
  • Member
  • Posts: 993

Posted 18 March 2017 - 21:11

Indeed.  In real life it was (and is) a huge workload.  In real life you can't leave mixture at full rich from sea level all the way to 13000 feet on a summer day, but you can do that in the Yak we have ingame.  In real life you'll overspeed the engine but at full throttle and full RPM I break the wings off every time before the Klimov overspeeds.

 

And I think that that is Manu's point:  there's much ado about this 109 exploit (and how does anyone know if it's in fact being used?  feelings?) but why aren't the same people clamoring for more realistically difficult engine management in their rides of choice?  Same thing as when the 190 was porked and we had several prominent forum members saying it was fine and that everyone who thought it was wrong were just idiots/whiners/should learn how to fly/etc.  There are just certain people who are more interested in demonstrating how the other side is wrong, and this is true of both Axis and Allied pilots.  A bunch of "me too"s and "yeah but"s aren't helping anyone.

 

Unless someone has hard data showing that the 109's pitch rate is being exceeded there's really no point in this thread.


Edited by JG13_opcode, 18 March 2017 - 21:17.

  • 6

#87 Ishtaru

Ishtaru
  • Founder
  • Posts: 320
  • Location:Terra

Posted 19 March 2017 - 04:13

I think, sry if im wrong, Manu just criticised rather subtile the easy engine management and little helpers we have in russian planes and he find it funny that people are more interested in this nonsense because "109" while nobody criticices EEM (Easy Engine Managment) when it comes to russian planes, on german planes every little detail will be criticiced if its not in line with manuals but if the M105PF engine for instance dont overheat at way too high temps according to manuals, 15°c over boiling point to be precise, then nobody seems to care, no you get negative response when you speak about that the guys who fixed the 190 for us know what i mean, all feelings right.

 

And dont jump me on the boiling point, i know that water mixtures for cooling can have higher temps before evaporating because of pressure and mixture in the system but i dont know if this is the case in this particular example here, the manual says 100°c max and not 115°c so it must have a purpose why it is stated there, if german planes get nerfed in engine output duration because the manuals tell us that there is a 1 or 3 min time limit for max boost then i want the same accuracy in limiting russian engines, no let me be precise, in any engine.

 

Foot for the BoS Justice Warriors, go on and tell me how wrong i am im waiting. ;)

 

What Hutzlipuh said didnt sound like a sim, it dosent match with the good FM/DM we have, its like from another game imported into ours.

 

We might never see good engine managment in BoX, it would be a serious nerf when we would get more realistic thermodynamics and cooling and more drag out of radiators who are built like an airbrake just at the look of it, the outcry would be loud so not worth it i guess.

 

Sry for offtopic but this fred is done anyway, all is said and i still agree, get rid of multiple axis binding, it should be not that big of a problem to prohibit this, i dont know if that helps but just do it so there is another minor bug removed and we can concentrate on important stuff.


Edited by Ishtaru, 19 March 2017 - 04:20.

  • 2

Windows 7 64bit, Intel i5-3570k @4,3 Ghz, 16 Gig RAM, Palit GTX 980ti SuperJetstream, Samsung 128 Gig SSD, TrackIR5, TM Warthog HOTAS, MFG Crosswind Pedals


#88 unreasonable

unreasonable
  • Founder
  • Posts: 3002
  • Location:Bangkok

Posted 19 March 2017 - 06:46

I think, sry if im wrong, Manu just criticised rather subtile the easy engine management and little helpers we have in russian planes and he find it funny that people are more interested in this nonsense because "109" while nobody criticices EEM (Easy Engine Managment) when it comes to russian planes, on german planes every little detail will be criticiced if its not in line with manuals but if the M105PF engine for instance dont overheat at way too high temps according to manuals, 15°c over boiling point to be precise, then nobody seems to care, no you get negative response when you speak about that the guys who fixed the 190 for us know what i mean, all feelings right.

 

And dont jump me on the boiling point, i know that water mixtures for cooling can have higher temps before evaporating because of pressure and mixture in the system but i dont know if this is the case in this particular example here, the manual says 100°c max and not 115°c so it must have a purpose why it is stated there, if german planes get nerfed in engine output duration because the manuals tell us that there is a 1 or 3 min time limit for max boost then i want the same accuracy in limiting russian engines, no let me be precise, in any engine.

 

Foot for the BoS Justice Warriors, go on and tell me how wrong i am im waiting. ;)

 

 

 

It is not the Justice Warriors telling you you are wrong it is the Yak 1 manual, kindly translated into English and posted on this forum a while ago by someone (sorry - forgotten who).

 

62. Do not allow the water temperature exceeds 110 ° C for more than 10 minutes and the oil 115 ° C for more than 5 minutes. If temperatures exceed the permitted parameters, coarse the prop and make the ascent to higher speeds.

 

63. The maximum oil temperature without time limit must not exceed 110°C. The recommended water temperature and oil is between 90°C and 100°C.

 

Engine management for the Soviet planes is easy in game because - it was made easy by design. 


  • 0

Nullius in verba


#89 Hutzlipuh

Hutzlipuh
  • Member
  • Posts: 74

Posted 19 March 2017 - 09:19

It is not the Justice Warriors telling you you are wrong it is the Yak 1 manual, kindly translated into English and posted on this forum a while ago by someone (sorry - forgotten who).

 

62. Do not allow the water temperature exceeds 110 ° C for more than 10 minutes and the oil 115 ° C for more than 5 minutes. If temperatures exceed the permitted parameters, coarse the prop and make the ascent to higher speeds.

 

63. The maximum oil temperature without time limit must not exceed 110°C. The recommended water temperature and oil is between 90°C and 100°C.

 

Engine management for the Soviet planes is easy in game because - it was made easy by design. 

 

If your at it , what is the stated dive limit in the manual? please check and post here will you?

 

also there it is again , the legend of the easy-to-fly and idiot-proof-russian-plane...

im sorry i dont believe that super-high-performance planes of this era were anything easy to fly or that getting maximum performance out of a engine is done by just setting mixture to full,boost to full and let the magical governor take care of rpm.

same with the legend about no engine limit in russian planes....sorry EVERY OTHER plane , be it a british,american,japanese or german plane of this era had engine limits.

 

russian planes were just built with the equal power output to other nations planes but without limits? come on, dont be a fool to believe that. they may have been built so that the "standard" pilot didnt have access to time-limited/emergency power , but why is it the power output that high then? if you believe klimov built better engines then rolls-royce , pratt&whitney , allison , daimler-benz or BMW then you have to be pretty deluded.the m105 was based on the hispano-suiza 12y , which also had limits...

 

dont you think all other nations would have built their engines and planes this way if it was a viable way to get the maximum performance out of the design? combat aircrafts were bleeding edge of technology in this time...

 

managing fuel mixtures is normally nothing trivial and done wrong can lead to engine damage (overheat,knocking/detonation,spark-plug fouling,stuttering/misfires and so on...) , yet in this "sim" i see nothing of that ...


  • 1

#90 unreasonable

unreasonable
  • Founder
  • Posts: 3002
  • Location:Bangkok

Posted 19 March 2017 - 09:46

Do your own research. In game dive speed limits = manufacturers/manuals limits plus a safety margin IIRC.

 

The point is that if there is some specific area that you can show with an in-game test contradicts documentary evidence no-one is stopping you from sending your findings to Han.

 

Ranting here in general terms about the alleged shortcomings of the "sim" achieves nothing, and simply makes people look ridiculous, especially if they post "factual" information which is easily shown to be false.

 

The Yak manual translated from a Spanish version = Attached File  Yak Manual.pdf   238.01KB   15 downloads

 

There is also a Russian site with a contemporary Russian language document on how to fly the Yak. I have forgotten the url - no doubt anyone with a sincere desire to learn will be able to find it.

 

 


  • 0

Nullius in verba


#91 Hutzlipuh

Hutzlipuh
  • Member
  • Posts: 74

Posted 19 March 2017 - 10:05

"It allows for any dive angle, reaching the output speed of 650 km / h by the indicator"

 

so its even actually lower dive limit then the 680 i posted above or even the 720 ingame.... quite a generous "safety margin" if you ask me....


Edited by Hutzlipuh, 19 March 2017 - 10:05.

  • 1

#92 Hutzlipuh

Hutzlipuh
  • Member
  • Posts: 74

Posted 19 March 2017 - 10:12

"35. Reduce the throttle up to 2400 rpm and test the performance of the propeller and the speed controller R-7; for that, change the propeller pitch fine to coarse, and vice versa."

"73. If the flight regime is altered by increasing the speed, it is necessary: a) close the mixture control (if it was open); b) using the pitch propeller control increase the engine revs till the corresponding to the new flight speed; c) with throttle, increase airspeed. Note: aircraft with the unified gas and propeller pitch control, must move both levers (gas and propeller pitch) simultaneously."

 

doesnt read like fully automated rpm/pitch control to me.....


Edited by Hutzlipuh, 19 March 2017 - 10:15.

  • 0

#93 II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn

II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn
  • Member
  • Posts: 176

Posted 19 March 2017 - 10:22

The point is that if there is some specific area that you can show with an in-game test contradicts documentary evidence no-one is stopping you from sending your findings to Han.

 

Actually ranting is ok. This is the forum after all, that´s what it is there for. It is ok for topics to be discussed without sending a report right away. Some ideas need to evolve in a discussion.

 

As far as I can see, the manual does read 650 km/h as the limit. The big problem that I see here, is the consistency with the use of other sources. IIRC the devs based their 750 km/h dive limit on pilot accounts.

My question would be, why is there no consistency to time limits (combat mode, emergency mode) in german planes, where values are taken directly out of manuals and pilot accounts are neglected? Either the manuals should be set as a standard or not, but then for both sides.

 

Please note, I am not claiming any dev bias, just saying this consistency problem could be dicussed...


Edited by II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn, 19 March 2017 - 10:23.

  • 1

#94 6./ZG26_5tuka

6./ZG26_5tuka
  • Tester
  • Posts: 3932
  • Location:Germany

Posted 19 March 2017 - 10:43

Dive speeds are a totally different topic and hard to implement properly. The document I linked a few pages back for example revealed that the Bf 109 F's max dive speed was 650km/h. However, as the test analyses in detail there is more to that number than danger of structual failure. Incase of the Friedrich it was found that when exeeding this speed it became unstable along the longitudinal axis and that ailerouns as well as elevator became ineffective therefore calling for a savety limit that does not apply for structual failure but controllebility reasons.

 

Since compressebility isn't modeled the only side effect you can acchieve ingame when overspeeding is loosing your controll surfaces. Thus this safe limit is obsolete and should not be taken to calculate structual failure.

 

Point is, it's not as simple as to take a manual value and giving it a 10% safety margin if the reason for this value is not tied to structual integrity.


Edited by 6./ZG26_5tuka, 19 March 2017 - 10:45.

  • 0

  YdcExnd.jpg Ju 87 D-3 4K Skin Template
Beta Tester Ju-52 Early Supporter Ju 52/3m g4 4K Skin Template


#95 unreasonable

unreasonable
  • Founder
  • Posts: 3002
  • Location:Bangkok

Posted 19 March 2017 - 11:03

Actually ranting is ok. This is the forum after all, that´s what it is there for. It is ok for topics to be discussed without sending a report right away. Some ideas need to evolve in a discussion.

 

 

Discussion about the issues, of course - but that is not ranting. I rant occasionally myself, of course: but I know the difference!  Ranting is a useful safety valve for frustration but it does not achieve anything except to stoke partisan opinion.

 

BoS is an imperfect model of reality, only a fool would deny that, but also only a fool would expect that it can be a perfect representation of a complex reality long lost to history.

 

So the question is focusing on the areas that a) matter and b) can be sensibly judged against the evidence. I have no problem with any of that, but talking about Justice Warriors and putting "sim" in inverted commas is hardly conducive to productive discussion, particularly when combined with partial or incorrect factual information.

 

The Russian Yak link is here, btw. http://www.airpages.ru/dc/doc100.shtml


  • 0

Nullius in verba


#96 307_Tomcat

307_Tomcat
  • Tester
  • Posts: 1880

Posted 19 March 2017 - 12:09

How to fly Yak1 to the limits - 1947 r.

http://www.airpages.ru/dc/doc100.shtml
  • 1

#97 II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn

II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn
  • Member
  • Posts: 176

Posted 19 March 2017 - 12:11

I agree with you, except in one point

 

 

 

b) can be sensibly judged against the evidence

 

There is no hard evidence for every aspect of the flight model. In this case reasonable assumptions have to be made. I think you would agree that these assumptions should be made on simialr bases for both sides. As 5tuka correctly points out the maximum dive speed, may well be a more complicated issue than a number stated in a manual, but so is the maximum performance times for the German engines.


Edited by II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn, 19 March 2017 - 12:12.

  • 0

#98 unreasonable

unreasonable
  • Founder
  • Posts: 3002
  • Location:Bangkok

Posted 19 March 2017 - 15:21

Well yes, but my starting reasonable assumption is that the developers have made reasonable assumptions, and it is up to those who disagree to prove otherwise.

 

Given the complexity of the FM this can only be done if you take a little piece at a time.  And just saying "it is very complicated" does not really help the team - they still have to plug specific numbers into specific fields in their models.

 

The engine issue is indeed complicated but it seems to me that what we have here is the "MP solution" if I may call it that. A complex SP campaign with squadron management RPG elements might be able to handle the trade-off between the limits in manuals and engine life.  MP cannot do that (or more likely, is simply unwilling) - no-one cares how much they have reduced the service life of their engine, they will just run at the maximum they can get away with all the time. So limits "by the book" are not unreasonable, even if it limits the flexibility of pilots more than they might like.

 

Do not get me wrong, there are errors in there for sure, the developers are humans in a hurry. Fw190 AoA/CLmax example, also the P-40 fuel gauges example. Fixed by focused, evidence based feedback. I have no doubt that there will be others.


Edited by unreasonable, 19 March 2017 - 15:21.

  • 0

Nullius in verba


#99 6./ZG26_5tuka

6./ZG26_5tuka
  • Tester
  • Posts: 3932
  • Location:Germany

Posted 19 March 2017 - 18:55

Well yes, but my starting reasonable assumption is that the developers have made reasonable assumptions, and it is up to those who disagree to prove otherwise.

At least incase of dive speed limits the previously 'reaosnable assumtions' will be reconsidered as per anecdotal data:

 

Additional research of dynamic airflow compressibility and its influence on plane diving and control effectiveness (previously we based FM adjustments on manuals that stated 750 km/h velocity limits, while some test reports contain data of planes achievieing significantly faster speeds in dive, when dynamic airflow compressibility is ought to be taken into account);

Source: DD120

 

There might be a possebility that sth like this could come for engine limits as well. Maybe not for all aircraft but those supported by similar evidence might get a special treatment.


Edited by 6./ZG26_5tuka, 19 March 2017 - 18:57.

  • 0

  YdcExnd.jpg Ju 87 D-3 4K Skin Template
Beta Tester Ju-52 Early Supporter Ju 52/3m g4 4K Skin Template


#100 Hutzlipuh

Hutzlipuh
  • Member
  • Posts: 74

Posted 19 March 2017 - 18:59

Well yes, but my starting reasonable assumption is that the developers have made reasonable assumptions, and it is up to those who disagree to prove otherwise.

The main point i see is that "reasonable assumptions" have to be based for both sides equally , e.g. if one sides gets limts by the books it should also be exactly by the books for the other side... 

 

example dive limits : FW 190 850 dive limit (by the book),while other sources and accounts say 900+.... and yak 720 limit and by the book it should be 650 while other sources/accounts say more (750)... = double standards?

you just cannot say limits by the books for one side and the other side gets reasonable assumptions with generous leeway....

either all sides are treated equally or not....

 

EDIT for unreasonable: i put "sim" in inverted commas , because its pretty generous calling a game with sim elements (flight characteristics) really a flight simulation if you leave out the additional complex engine management and additional associated workload and substitute it with a simplified controls like mixture between 85 and 100 , rpm max,youre done approach....additionally leave out the ability to go through things like startup-sequence manually , leave out clickable cockpits,leave out the ability to set own ammobelts and separated convergences...etc : in MY opinion.


Edited by Hutzlipuh, 19 March 2017 - 19:14.

  • 0

#101 -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

-=PHX=-SuperEtendard
  • Member
  • Posts: 448
  • Location:Buenos Aires, Argentina

Posted 19 March 2017 - 19:45

Dive speeds are a totally different topic and hard to implement properly.

 

^This. In the manual that limit is a safety limit, I guess it would give a security window for the pilot. In game if you go over 750 kph you will start losing ailerons/elevators/rudders in little time. Wether or not the real Yak starting to break appart at 750 km/h... I don't really know how could it be proved (maybe an account of a pilot diving, losing an aileron then managing to pull out before it was too late?)

 

Afaik the manual for the Spiftire has 725 km/h as dive limit, but apparently in high dive speed tests a couple Spits got as far as 975 kph, getting damage to the nose and propeller ripped off, but managing to land.

 

 

Speaking of the La-5 requiring a lot of input to get from cruise to combat settings, I think that is portrayed in the sim with the different controls you would need to adjust.

If i'm cruising at low speed, caring to conserve fuel and having cool temperatures, then suddenly noticing an enemy flight in the vicinity and I want to get away from there at combat speeds I would need:

 

Increase RPM (joystick lever)

Increase manifold pressure (2nd joystick lever)

Increase mixture (Shift + D)

Close a bit oil radiator (Shift + R)

Close a bit the external shutters (Ctrl + R)

 

It would take some time and effort for my settings at least, than just increasing from 1.0 to 1.3 ata in a Bf 109...  Well ppl could bind all of these controls in a single key I guess... but imho it wouldn't make much sense as you lose flexibility for the other situations in which you would need to have the controls individually. I'm in favour of limiting the controls to not allow unrealistic combinations, for both sides ofc. The only controls I have multi assigned in single keys are the different radiators for different planes (R/Ctrl + R  for both water radiator and radial engine shutters for example). It would also be funny to have the I-16/F4F landing gear like in the old IL-2, spamming that G key :lol: or just having to mantain it pressed to not destroy the keyboard after a couple of flights :P

 

In the Yak manual linked a couple posts above, these are the cruising specs:
 

The operational flights, ferry flights, sorties (before the engage with the enemy), patrol missions, waiting (in a fixed area), flights performed in the Air Reserve Regiments, in order to achieve the greatest range and duration of flight, must be made in the following regimes:

Engine revs: 1700 rpm

Airspeed: - till 5.000m: 280 km/h - above 5.000m: 270 km/h

 

This is another important thing to consider, as I guess most ppl online don't follow the cruise settings, they don't have to follow orders about keeping the procedures, most of the time ppl cruise in combat settings, or very close to those.


Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard, 19 March 2017 - 19:49.

  • 1

#102 II/JG17_HerrMurf

II/JG17_HerrMurf
  • Founder
  • Posts: 3725
  • Location:PST, USA

Posted 19 March 2017 - 20:03

The main point i see is that "reasonable assumptions" have to be based for both sides equally , e.g. if one sides gets limts by the books it should also be exactly by the books for the other side...

example dive limits : FW 190 850 dive limit (by the book),while other sources and accounts say 900+.... and yak 720 limit and by the book it should be 650 while other sources/accounts say more (750)... = double standards?
you just cannot say limits by the books for one side and the other side gets reasonable assumptions with generous leeway....
either all sides are treated equally or not....

EDIT for unreasonable: i put "sim" in inverted commas , because its pretty generous calling a game with sim elements (flight characteristics) really a flight simulation if you leave out the additional complex engine management and additional associated workload and substitute it with a simplified controls like mixture between 85 and 100 , rpm max,youre done approach....additionally leave out the ability to go through things like startup-sequence manually , leave out clickable cockpits,leave out the ability to set own ammobelts and separated convergences...etc : in MY opinion.


The basis for your opinion of what a "sim" is, is rather apparent. This sim will never be that sim. You should just accept that. On the other hand, it's a pretty good sim in most respects.
  • 0

If the argument against expanding to the Western Front is simply the Luftwaffe was overwhelmed and defeated then there is absolutely no reason to ever go back to the late war Eastern Front either. 

 

Falcon NW Talon, Z97 Ranger, Intel i5 4670, 32 gb RAM, nVidia GTX 780ti, Hotas Warthog with 10cm extension, MFG Crosswind, Track ir5, 42" Sharp TV/Monitor 60 hrz, Self designed PVC center mount cockpit, PVC collective for DCS helicopters


#103 Hutzlipuh

Hutzlipuh
  • Member
  • Posts: 74

Posted 19 March 2017 - 20:23

^This. In the manual that limit is a safety limit, I guess it would give a security window for the pilot. In game if you go over 750 kph you will start losing ailerons/elevators/rudders in little time. Wether or not the real Yak starting to break appart at 750 km/h... I don't really know how could it be proved (maybe an account of a pilot diving, losing an aileron then managing to pull out before it was too late?)

 

whats hard to implement dive limits please other then shoving numbers in the code at which damage starts to occur?

 

why does the yak get 100+km/h leeway based on pilot accounts/later tests/whatever while the 190 gets the number by the handbook and not also 100+ leeway like the yak? that is treating 2 planes differently , massively benefitting one side ,while the other doesnt get the same leeway/treatment?

like i said... either same standards for all planes or someone runs the risk of being called "biased" or "trying to balance"...

NOTE: i dont say the devs are biased or are balancing !


  • 2

#104 II/JG17_HerrMurf

II/JG17_HerrMurf
  • Founder
  • Posts: 3725
  • Location:PST, USA

Posted 19 March 2017 - 20:25

And yet you do.....
  • 1

If the argument against expanding to the Western Front is simply the Luftwaffe was overwhelmed and defeated then there is absolutely no reason to ever go back to the late war Eastern Front either. 

 

Falcon NW Talon, Z97 Ranger, Intel i5 4670, 32 gb RAM, nVidia GTX 780ti, Hotas Warthog with 10cm extension, MFG Crosswind, Track ir5, 42" Sharp TV/Monitor 60 hrz, Self designed PVC center mount cockpit, PVC collective for DCS helicopters


#105 JG27_Kornezov

JG27_Kornezov
  • Member
  • Posts: 183
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 19 March 2017 - 21:16

I just wanted to test the things with the so called exploit versus Yak flaps. Not against a random pilot but against a Russian ace. Guess what **** off (I censure myself), the 109 achieves nothing. You loose energy and the yak is gaining energy over you. If you want to get outurned in less a minute you are welcome. This is red bias paranoia.

 

youtube.com/watch?v=3opA-vG9OZs


Edited by JG27_Kornezov, 19 March 2017 - 21:30.

  • 2

RIP my old friend bf 109 f4. Born Version 1.003 died Version 2.012


#106 Ishtaru

Ishtaru
  • Founder
  • Posts: 320
  • Location:Terra

Posted 20 March 2017 - 13:32

It is not the Justice Warriors telling you you are wrong it is the Yak 1 manual, kindly translated into English and posted on this forum a while ago by someone (sorry - forgotten who).

 

62. Do not allow the water temperature exceeds 110 ° C for more than 10 minutes and the oil 115 ° C for more than 5 minutes. If temperatures exceed the permitted parameters, coarse the prop and make the ascent to higher speeds.

 

63. The maximum oil temperature without time limit must not exceed 110°C. The recommended water temperature and oil is between 90°C and 100°C.

 

Engine management for the Soviet planes is easy in game because - it was made easy by design. 

So it looks like that i did a mistake assuming that the ingame manual is correct, not the first time i criticised that but i did read for the first time that its kind of a typo, sry for that, its embarrassing i regret what a said.

 

But still these temps are not for continous mode, they are the extremes and should not be reached for extended times, when you model factory fresh planes you should also model factory fresh engines in my opinion and not give some a new engine and the rest with super old ones who break after a few minutes of full boost wheras a few others can fly forever at the absolute maximum.

 

It feels kind of insulting as a german myself to imply that our engines could not whitstand an equal amount of pressure as long as 105s and 82s, with all our regulations for all kind of stuff and safety messures we are known for, look what we did with some engines, we limited them mechanically if they could not reliable work at boosted pressure, do you think we would let our pilots fly with such dangerous engines back then without doing everything possible to avoid malfunctioning, i guess not.

 

So 115°c unlimited is still more then 110°c for 10mins which is not much to be honest but heat limitation is not comparable to time limits, as long as you keep temps 1°c below you are fine but for time limits they start from a certain point and if you reached the max you will lose much more speed then a Yak for excample where you have to open the rad just a bit, of course the 190 is still faster at combat which is also limited but wait till we see more advanced designs in the future when these are still unlimited which i dont know yet.

 

Do you also have an explanation why my 190A5 overheats short before the 80°c mark, the manual says 85° oil max, is it another typo or is this overheating not oil related but cylinderhead related, if its the cylinderhead, how can we know that that we cooking our engine without technochat i mean we could possibly feel it in real life but this is not modeled ingame, would be kind of nice when the vision gets sweaty or so when we overheat? :)

 

What my solution would be is the old one for a quick and dirty patch, that means get rid of timelimits and make it temp related, that of course would make many cry about but many would also be excited, the same that are not happy now, time for a change and of course we need realistic temp limits first.


Edited by Ishtaru, 20 March 2017 - 13:39.

  • 1

Windows 7 64bit, Intel i5-3570k @4,3 Ghz, 16 Gig RAM, Palit GTX 980ti SuperJetstream, Samsung 128 Gig SSD, TrackIR5, TM Warthog HOTAS, MFG Crosswind Pedals


#107 unreasonable

unreasonable
  • Founder
  • Posts: 3002
  • Location:Bangkok

Posted 20 March 2017 - 14:26

People who I am confident have much more knowledge about engines than I do - which is very little - have posted that some of the heating/cooling behaviour of engines in the game seems to be strange ie many planes overheat too slowly and cool too fast, but whether that is a plane specific or global issue I do not know. If anyone has done a systematic analysis I have missed it. 

 

So there might be room for improvement in that respect, if people can isolate specific behaviours that are clearly wrong and show them to the developers, they may get added to the in-tray.

 

As for heat limit only system for MP vs time limits by the book - I have no particular opinion having retired from MP. It is not really a technical question IMHO, but more about what sort of player behaviour you want to see.


  • 1

Nullius in verba


#108 Ishtaru

Ishtaru
  • Founder
  • Posts: 320
  • Location:Terra

Posted 20 March 2017 - 15:22

Flying with 1.42 ata forever is not what i want, just a more realistic aproach because i just cant imagine 109 drivers had to monitor the clock to not explode.

 

With a good heat model all across the board we maybe would see people using cruise settings more often to fly from a to b and only use high pressure when in danger/dogfight where they then have to look for temps which is better then a popup that tells you "you reached maximum boost mode time".

 

Now it is only possible to guess or using a stopwatch to know when the time limit is reached when not using the technochat, that affects not only german planes, american and russian planes also and british too i think, correct me if im wrong.

 

It sure sounds easyer then actually doing it but just a time increase would be kind of unfitting i think, anyway thx for your thoughts and for correcting me in the case of wrong heat limits in the manual.


  • 0

Windows 7 64bit, Intel i5-3570k @4,3 Ghz, 16 Gig RAM, Palit GTX 980ti SuperJetstream, Samsung 128 Gig SSD, TrackIR5, TM Warthog HOTAS, MFG Crosswind Pedals


#109 BlitzPig_EL

BlitzPig_EL
  • Member
  • Posts: 1693
  • Location:The Great Black Swamp of Ohio

Posted 20 March 2017 - 16:03

Ishtaru, no pilots from any nation used a clock to monitor engine limits.

 

This is a game mechanic, purely and simply.  I wish I/we had another solution for this issue, as it affects the poor P40 far more than it does the 109.  But it does affect everyone, save the Yaks and Lavochkins, to some degree.

 

Other than outright mechanical breakage, or being shot, the three major killers of aircraft engines in warbirds is, temperature (oil, water, or cylinder head), loss of oil pressure, or detonation from either miss handling of the engine or poor fuel quality.  For any of these failure modes there is not a by the book time till failure happens.  Many pilots had seconds till they bailed or crashed, and many also made it home with very sick engines.

 

How this is reconciled in game is the hard part.


Edited by BlitzPig_EL, 20 March 2017 - 16:04.

  • 0

8wxp.jpg

Personally speaking, the P-40 could contend on an equal footing with all the types of Messerschmitts, almost to the end of 1943.
~Nikolay Gerasimovitch Golodnikov


#110 Dave

Dave
  • Founder
  • Posts: 407
  • Location:Eastern Oz

Posted 21 March 2017 - 02:52

Many people seem to be of the misunderstanding that you use trim to recover from a dive, and that the use of the adjustable stabiliser in dive recovery is its purpose. This is absolutely incorrect. You trim for dive recovery *before* entering the dive. You specifically *do not trim into a dive* as this will likely result in your inability to pull out once your velocity has exceeded the point after which trim cannot be actuated due to aerodynamic forces.

 

It is a major flaw in the FM that trim can be used to recover from dives for which elevator movement is impossible. This is evident in all the aircraft I have tried - the P40 and Mig3 for example also allow this. The difference is that those two aircraft do not react so absurdly to rapid alteration of pitch trim. In my testing (which unfortunately I cannot instrument as we are not allowed access) abuse of the stabiliser on the 109 for dive recovery allows the aircraft to recover more like a Flanker than a more historically accurate lawn-dart with AOA well above the static stall angle (in extreme cases of stabilator abuse dynamic stalls should actually occur at lower AOA due to rate-of-change of pitch causing earlier flow separation).

 

It is well documented in multiple sources, both allied and german, that the 109 stabiliser trim wheel is immovable above 600km/h and useless for the purpose of rapid attitude change above about 450km/h. The 109 was a fantastic aircraft with many strengths. I am simply frustrated that its weaknesses aren't so faithfully modelled that I can exploit the VVS aircraft's limited advantages where they exist.

 

My gripes with the stabiliser are:

- it can be actuated more rapidly than is realistic;

- it can be actuated (and rapidly) at all airspeeds;

- it somehow allows the aircraft to exceed stall AOA which is surely an FM bug;

- it allows the 109 to pull out of Vne dives (which historically documented to be impossible) and in doing so operate at AOA that would certainly cause an accelerated stall if it were even possible in the first place, and under load that would have ripped the wings off (this actually occurred in several documented cases - and probably many more undocumented cases);

- in flat, Yak-corner-speed turn fights - where the 109 was comparatively weakest - I have observed 109 drivers time and again, with their aircraft on the edge of stalling, suddenly pitch up 30 degrees for lead and shoot without stalling - ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS; and

- many players, having discovered these issues, exploit them, both with and without mapping the stabiliser trim to the same axis as elevators

 

It is beyond frustrating for someone who deliberately chooses the weaker side and who consciously flies their envelope to minimise the 109's superiority only to find that it defies physical laws.

 

The 109 isn't the only aircraft in game with FM issues (IMHO it benefits the most). But this thread is about my gripes specifically with the 109 stabiliser trim actuation as modelled in the game so please take any other discussions, including those of Russian bias, Stalinium planes and other rubbish to your own threads.


Edited by Dave, 21 March 2017 - 03:51.

  • 1

Asus Prime X299 Deluxe :: 32GB GSkill TridentZ 3200 DDR4 :: Intel Core i9 7900X 4.4GHz Ten Core :: EVGA GeForce GTX 1080Ti Founders :: EVGA GeForce GTX Titan Black SuperClocked (PhysX) :: 3 x LG 27EA83B 2560x1440 27" IPS :: 2 x Samsung 960 PRO 500GB M.2 NVMe :: 2 x Samsung 850 EVO 500GB SSD :: 2 x Samsung 840 EVO 250GB SSD :: Thermaltake Water 2.0 Extreme Liquid Cooling :: Corsair AX1200i PSU :: TM Warthog HOTAS :: Saitek Pro Flight Combat :: Oculus Rift CV1 :: TrackIR 5 :: Really uncomfortable wooden stool - seriously

"I dunno, it's not stopping me from playing the game... just keep your head on a swivel, and remember that when you kill a cheater, deep down their shame burns them, precious. It burns them, and it's a shame they can never share and be rid of, like reverse syphilis." - 80hd


#111 19//Moach

19//Moach
  • Member
  • Posts: 422
  • Location:Langley, near Vancouver BC

Posted 21 March 2017 - 04:03

Many people seem to be of the misunderstanding that you use trim to recover from a dive, and that the use of the adjustable stabiliser in dive recovery is its purpose. This is absolutely incorrect. You trim for dive recovery *before* entering the dive. You specifically *do not trim into a dive* as this will likely result in your inability to pull out once your velocity has exceeded the point after which trim cannot be actuated due to aerodynamic forces.

 

It is a major flaw in the FM that trim can be used to recover from dives for which elevator movement is impossible. This is evident in all the aircraft I have tried - the P40 and Mig3 for example also allow this. The difference is that those two aircraft do not react so absurdly to rapid alteration of pitch trim. In my testing (which unfortunately I cannot instrument as we are not allowed access) abuse of the stabiliser on the 109 for dive recovery allows the aircraft to recover more like a Flanker than a more historically accurate lawn-dart with AOA well above the static stall angle (accelerated stalls occur earlier due to rate-of-change of pitch causing flow separation).

 

It is well documented in multiple sources, both allied and german, that the 109 stabiliser trim wheel is immovable above 600km/h and useless for the purpose of rapid attitude change above about 450km/h. The 109 was a fantastic aircraft with many strengths. I am simply frustrated that its weaknesses aren't so faithfully modelled that I can exploit the VVS aircraft's limited advantages where they exist.

 

My gripes with the stabiliser are:

- it can be actuated more rapidly than is realistic;

- it can be actuated (and rapidly) at all airspeeds;

- it somehow allows the aircraft to exceed stall AOA which is surely an FM bug;

- it allows the 109 to pull out of Vne dives (which historically documented to be impossible) and in doing so operate at AOA that would certainly cause an accelerated stall if it were even possible in the first place, and under load that would have ripped the wings off (this actually occurred in several documented cases - and probably many more undocumented cases);

- in flat, Yak-corner-speed turn fights - where the 109 was comparatively weakest - I have observed 109 drivers time and again, with their aircraft on the edge of stalling, suddenly pitch up 30 degrees for lead and shoot without stalling - ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS; and

- many players, having discovered these issues, exploit them, both with and without mapping the stabiliser trim to the same axis as elevators

 

It is beyond frustrating for someone who deliberately chooses the weaker side and who consciously flies their envelope to minimise the 109's superiority only to find that it defies physical laws.

 

The 109 isn't the only aircraft in game with FM issues (IMHO it benefits the most). But this thread is about my gripes specifically with the 109 stabiliser trim actuation as modelled in the game so please take any other discussions, including those of Russian bias, Stalinium planes and other rubbish to your own threads.

 

very well said

 

another gripe is that it does not move in sync with the flaps control, which is designed to be moved together with as a single operation (so deploying flaps doesn't drop your nose)

 

but I've deliberately tested it out, and it's not possible to follow the correct approach procedures for the 109 - the trim moves much faster than the flaps, and maxes out well in advance of it  - curiously, the wheels modelled in the cockpit are made such that the one which controls trim moves slower, this is because it does not move the documented 5.3/4 turns required to exercise the full range of the stabilizer, it rotates just about one full turn instead... this is unrealistic

 

and also, it's one of those "details" which end up being a much greater deal after its consequences are realized - the speed at which this stabilizer can be moved is one of the main reasons why the 109 can turn at historically impossible rates, and pulls out easily from what would be suicidal dives in the real thing, and moreover, it can much too easily transition from dive to turn fight trim setting, negating the few seconds in which the 109 was its most vulnerable

 

 

also, the fact that the forces on the stick are completely neglected makes it possible to turn at very high rates at very high speeds - which is recorded to have been the greatest weakness of the type - the amount of physical strength required for such a stunt would have been far in excess of what a pilot could apply, especially given the cramped space in the cockpit and the relatively short lever arm of the stick

 

 

 

alas, it seems there is a small but sufficiently destructive number of forum-dwelling "luftwhiners" which will do/say just about anything to ensure that none of their advantages are threatened - despite those being things which most agree will detract from the overall quality of the flying online experience (and offline too) 


  • 0

This reminds me of the time I once built a Time Machine...  uh, no wait - that hasn't happened yet

 


#112 E69_geramos109

E69_geramos109
  • Member
  • Posts: 313
  • Location:Krakow. Poland

Posted 21 March 2017 - 04:20

The elevator trim on the 109 is not really easy to use comparing for example the Lagg3. Is amaicing what a good lag pilot can make using the trim on that plane. And you can moove that much faster than the 109 trim, also happens the same with the flaps where in red planes you can see how fast are mooving the wheels to open that. 

 

You talked about the exceding of the AOA in tight turns pulling hard with the trim, BUT YOU CAN MAKE THE SAME ON A YAK WITH NO SLATS AND NO TRIM. And you can do that on more planes in the game. The 190 is currently for me the most difficult plane to do that. Seems to be nose heavy pulling the stick like that comparing other planes.

I use the stabiliser on the 109 just when im manouvering at hight speeds and there is nothing wrong with that. Is the purpose of the stabiliser and was made for that. If you use tha at low speeds takes time to put it again in 0 comparing other planes and the plane is not flyable anymore if you want to change directon or perform some kind of roll etc.

Maybe you can not recover the dives as well on russian planes because they have no stabilicer. Is just a trim and the 109 can moove all the surface not only the part you moove with pulling the stick.  I dont know what reports you read about impossibility to use that with more than 600 km/h but there are reports from P51 pilots talking about they were afraid to follow 109s in dives near the max dive speed because they could recover easly with that stabiliser and they not. One of my squad mates talked with a real pilot about that. Maybe what you read was from an early 109 not G version.


Edited by E69_geramos109, 21 March 2017 - 04:39.

  • 0

#113 Dave

Dave
  • Founder
  • Posts: 407
  • Location:Eastern Oz

Posted 21 March 2017 - 05:22

You talked about the exceding of the AOA in tight turns pulling hard with the trim, BUT YOU CAN MAKE THE SAME ON A YAK WITH NO SLATS AND NO TRIM. And you can do that on more planes in the game. The 190 is currently for me the most difficult plane to do that. Seems to be nose heavy pulling the stick like that comparing other planes.

I don't think you correctly understood what I said. Are you claiming that in a Yak1 the pilot can have the aircraft in a tight turn on the edge of stall and then trim up to gain ~30 degrees of additional AOA?

Because thats what I see in the 109. 


  • 2

Asus Prime X299 Deluxe :: 32GB GSkill TridentZ 3200 DDR4 :: Intel Core i9 7900X 4.4GHz Ten Core :: EVGA GeForce GTX 1080Ti Founders :: EVGA GeForce GTX Titan Black SuperClocked (PhysX) :: 3 x LG 27EA83B 2560x1440 27" IPS :: 2 x Samsung 960 PRO 500GB M.2 NVMe :: 2 x Samsung 850 EVO 500GB SSD :: 2 x Samsung 840 EVO 250GB SSD :: Thermaltake Water 2.0 Extreme Liquid Cooling :: Corsair AX1200i PSU :: TM Warthog HOTAS :: Saitek Pro Flight Combat :: Oculus Rift CV1 :: TrackIR 5 :: Really uncomfortable wooden stool - seriously

"I dunno, it's not stopping me from playing the game... just keep your head on a swivel, and remember that when you kill a cheater, deep down their shame burns them, precious. It burns them, and it's a shame they can never share and be rid of, like reverse syphilis." - 80hd


#114 Dave

Dave
  • Founder
  • Posts: 407
  • Location:Eastern Oz

Posted 21 March 2017 - 05:33

I use the stabiliser on the 109 just when im manouvering at hight speeds and there is nothing wrong with that. Is the purpose of the stabiliser and was made for that.

Rubbish. The stabiliser trims purpose is to neutralise stick forces due to changes in airspeed and thrust. 


Don't forget also that the tailplane is a lifting surface which generates downward lift. The use of the stabiliser to rapidly exit a fast dive should increase sink-rate (which it doesn't appear to do) while also overstressing the airframe (which it doesn't appear to do) and increasing the stall speed (which it doesn't appear to do) and reducing the stall AOA due to the high Mach (which it doesn't appear to do).


  • 1

Asus Prime X299 Deluxe :: 32GB GSkill TridentZ 3200 DDR4 :: Intel Core i9 7900X 4.4GHz Ten Core :: EVGA GeForce GTX 1080Ti Founders :: EVGA GeForce GTX Titan Black SuperClocked (PhysX) :: 3 x LG 27EA83B 2560x1440 27" IPS :: 2 x Samsung 960 PRO 500GB M.2 NVMe :: 2 x Samsung 850 EVO 500GB SSD :: 2 x Samsung 840 EVO 250GB SSD :: Thermaltake Water 2.0 Extreme Liquid Cooling :: Corsair AX1200i PSU :: TM Warthog HOTAS :: Saitek Pro Flight Combat :: Oculus Rift CV1 :: TrackIR 5 :: Really uncomfortable wooden stool - seriously

"I dunno, it's not stopping me from playing the game... just keep your head on a swivel, and remember that when you kill a cheater, deep down their shame burns them, precious. It burns them, and it's a shame they can never share and be rid of, like reverse syphilis." - 80hd


#115 Dave

Dave
  • Founder
  • Posts: 407
  • Location:Eastern Oz

Posted 21 March 2017 - 05:49

Is just a trim and the 109 can moove all the surface not only the part you moove with pulling the stick.  I dont know what reports you read about impossibility to use that with more than 600 km/h but there are reports from P51 pilots talking about they were afraid to follow 109s in dives near the max dive speed because they could recover easly with that stabiliser and they not. One of my squad mates talked with a real pilot about that. Maybe what you read was from an early 109 not G version.

I'm quite familiar with the design of the 109 tailplane. The reports of excessive aerodynamic forces restricting the use of stabiliser trim were made independently by the RLM, RAF and USAAF. The reports have all been posted on these forums several times in relation to this issue. In the over 30 years I have had an interest in military aviation, and specifically WW2 fighters, I have never read any statement by a P51 pilot that a 109 could not be followed in a dive due to them being able to recover easily due to their adjustable-incidence tailplane. Please post the document if you have a copy. I spoke personally with an RAAF WGCDR about 20 years ago who flew Kittyhawks in North Africa against 109 F and G models (as commander of 3 SQN RAAF he captured and flew Black 6). Amidst his praise for the speed, climb and effortless handling at typical speeds (~300-400km/h) he remarked that the trim was "bloody useless" above about 500 and "immovable" at 600. At these speeds he also commented that the tendency to roll right was very tiring to counteract given the cramped cockpit and short stick throw, and that the 109 was sluggish at those speeds. Now that was a conversation on ANZAC day so I don't have a recording for you. But his statements are corroborated almost to the letter by 3 printed reports by 2 RAE test pilots and 1 USAAF test pilot flying E, F and G model 109s.

 

Edit: IIRC he also mentioned this in an interview he gave for a book on the desert air war to which I posted links some time last year in the forums.


Edited by Dave, 21 March 2017 - 05:57.

  • 0

Asus Prime X299 Deluxe :: 32GB GSkill TridentZ 3200 DDR4 :: Intel Core i9 7900X 4.4GHz Ten Core :: EVGA GeForce GTX 1080Ti Founders :: EVGA GeForce GTX Titan Black SuperClocked (PhysX) :: 3 x LG 27EA83B 2560x1440 27" IPS :: 2 x Samsung 960 PRO 500GB M.2 NVMe :: 2 x Samsung 850 EVO 500GB SSD :: 2 x Samsung 840 EVO 250GB SSD :: Thermaltake Water 2.0 Extreme Liquid Cooling :: Corsair AX1200i PSU :: TM Warthog HOTAS :: Saitek Pro Flight Combat :: Oculus Rift CV1 :: TrackIR 5 :: Really uncomfortable wooden stool - seriously

"I dunno, it's not stopping me from playing the game... just keep your head on a swivel, and remember that when you kill a cheater, deep down their shame burns them, precious. It burns them, and it's a shame they can never share and be rid of, like reverse syphilis." - 80hd


#116 Dave

Dave
  • Founder
  • Posts: 407
  • Location:Eastern Oz

Posted 21 March 2017 - 06:16

As for the OP, I don't think there's any point discussing it unless someone has historical data to compare against the game. Otherwise it's just feelings.
 

What kind of historical data are you hoping for?

Flight testing in 1940 wasn't like it is today. Basically a test pilot flew the aircraft - occasionally accidentally to destruction - through a series of maneuvers at various airspeeds and then wrote up a report. Those reports have been posted in relation to this topic over and over. They state perfectly clearly what the pilot's perception of the aircraft's handling was both in absolute terms and relative to other types the test pilot was familiar with. We have the RAE test reports for captured E, F and G 109s. We have at least one corroborating USAAF test report that I know of, and we even have the RLM reports stating the same thing. I have also posted anecdotal evidence (records of conversation with RAAF pilots who flew capture 109s).

I'm afraid we don't have high speed HD video shot from multiple chase aircraft of 109s with datum points painted from one end to the other or flight data recorder output. 


  • 0

Asus Prime X299 Deluxe :: 32GB GSkill TridentZ 3200 DDR4 :: Intel Core i9 7900X 4.4GHz Ten Core :: EVGA GeForce GTX 1080Ti Founders :: EVGA GeForce GTX Titan Black SuperClocked (PhysX) :: 3 x LG 27EA83B 2560x1440 27" IPS :: 2 x Samsung 960 PRO 500GB M.2 NVMe :: 2 x Samsung 850 EVO 500GB SSD :: 2 x Samsung 840 EVO 250GB SSD :: Thermaltake Water 2.0 Extreme Liquid Cooling :: Corsair AX1200i PSU :: TM Warthog HOTAS :: Saitek Pro Flight Combat :: Oculus Rift CV1 :: TrackIR 5 :: Really uncomfortable wooden stool - seriously

"I dunno, it's not stopping me from playing the game... just keep your head on a swivel, and remember that when you kill a cheater, deep down their shame burns them, precious. It burns them, and it's a shame they can never share and be rid of, like reverse syphilis." - 80hd


#117 E69_geramos109

E69_geramos109
  • Member
  • Posts: 313
  • Location:Krakow. Poland

Posted 21 March 2017 - 06:29

I don't think you correctly understood what I said. Are you claiming that in a Yak1 the pilot can have the aircraft in a tight turn on the edge of stall and then trim up to gain ~30 degrees of additional AOA?

Because thats what I see in the 109. 

Yes, and on the lagg is even bigger all of that with no slats. 

I really don´t know how players can do what are you telling me on the 109. The stabilicer mooves much slower than in other planes on the game And the neutral point is harder to find. 


Rubbish. The stabiliser trims purpose is to neutralise stick forces due to changes in airspeed and thrust. 


Don't forget also that the tailplane is a lifting surface which generates downward lift. The use of the stabiliser to rapidly exit a fast dive should increase sink-rate (which it doesn't appear to do) while also overstressing the airframe (which it doesn't appear to do) and increasing the stall speed (which it doesn't appear to do) and reducing the stall AOA due to the high Mach (which it doesn't appear to do).

Yes and on a dive the stick forces are so high and the plane has less control and a nose up tendency so im using the stabilicer to compensate that so i can´t understand what is wrong with that if the trim allows you to handle more stable on a dive.


  • 0

#118 E69_geramos109

E69_geramos109
  • Member
  • Posts: 313
  • Location:Krakow. Poland

Posted 21 March 2017 - 06:35

I'm quite familiar with the design of the 109 tailplane. The reports of excessive aerodynamic forces restricting the use of stabiliser trim were made independently by the RLM, RAF and USAAF. The reports have all been posted on these forums several times in relation to this issue. In the over 30 years I have had an interest in military aviation, and specifically WW2 fighters, I have never read any statement by a P51 pilot that a 109 could not be followed in a dive due to them being able to recover easily due to their adjustable-incidence tailplane. Please post the document if you have a copy. I spoke personally with an RAAF WGCDR about 20 years ago who flew Kittyhawks in North Africa against 109 F and G models (as commander of 3 SQN RAAF he captured and flew Black 6). Amidst his praise for the speed, climb and effortless handling at typical speeds (~300-400km/h) he remarked that the trim was "bloody useless" above about 500 and "immovable" at 600. At these speeds he also commented that the tendency to roll right was very tiring to counteract given the cramped cockpit and short stick throw, and that the 109 was sluggish at those speeds. Now that was a conversation on ANZAC day so I don't have a recording for you. But his statements are corroborated almost to the letter by 3 printed reports by 2 RAE test pilots and 1 USAAF test pilot flying E, F and G model 109s.

 

Edit: IIRC he also mentioned this in an interview he gave for a book on the desert air war to which I posted links some time last year in the forums.

Link me that post please. I think you are making refernce about the normal trim other planes have or just the normal control of the stabilicer at high speeds. Thats true but i never hear about the imposibility to use the109 full trimable horizontal stabilicer. 

Has the Kittyhawks that kind of full trimable stabilicer or just normal trim like most of the planes?

 

I will try to find that reference to post it here. A long time ago from that but should be on some part 


  • 0

#119 Dave

Dave
  • Founder
  • Posts: 407
  • Location:Eastern Oz

Posted 21 March 2017 - 06:37

Yes and on a dive the stick forces are so high and the plane has less control and a nose up tendency so im using the stabilicer to compensate that so i can´t understand what is wrong with that if the trim allows you to handle more stable on a dive.

I know what you are doing and why you are doing it but its plain wrong and the flight manual even warns against it.

The issue isn't that you are doing it (we should all fly the aircraft you have rather than the one it should be) - the issue is that you aren't punished for it by the plane making a smoking hole in the ground. 


  • 0

Asus Prime X299 Deluxe :: 32GB GSkill TridentZ 3200 DDR4 :: Intel Core i9 7900X 4.4GHz Ten Core :: EVGA GeForce GTX 1080Ti Founders :: EVGA GeForce GTX Titan Black SuperClocked (PhysX) :: 3 x LG 27EA83B 2560x1440 27" IPS :: 2 x Samsung 960 PRO 500GB M.2 NVMe :: 2 x Samsung 850 EVO 500GB SSD :: 2 x Samsung 840 EVO 250GB SSD :: Thermaltake Water 2.0 Extreme Liquid Cooling :: Corsair AX1200i PSU :: TM Warthog HOTAS :: Saitek Pro Flight Combat :: Oculus Rift CV1 :: TrackIR 5 :: Really uncomfortable wooden stool - seriously

"I dunno, it's not stopping me from playing the game... just keep your head on a swivel, and remember that when you kill a cheater, deep down their shame burns them, precious. It burns them, and it's a shame they can never share and be rid of, like reverse syphilis." - 80hd


#120 Dave

Dave
  • Founder
  • Posts: 407
  • Location:Eastern Oz

Posted 21 March 2017 - 06:43

I think you are making refernce about the normal trim other planes have or just the normal control of the stabilicer at high speeds. Thats true but i never hear about the imposibility to use the109 full trimable horizontal stabilicer. 

Has the Kittyhawks that kind of full trimable stabilicer or just normal trim like most of the planes?

 

I will try to find that reference to post it here. A long time ago from that but should be on some part 

 

I'm crystal clear about what I'm referring to - the 109 stab isn't magical - it has operating limits just like all other control surfaces. The P40 does not have a variable incidence tailplane - it uses trim tabs actuated by electric motors.


Edited by Dave, 21 March 2017 - 06:44.

  • 0

Asus Prime X299 Deluxe :: 32GB GSkill TridentZ 3200 DDR4 :: Intel Core i9 7900X 4.4GHz Ten Core :: EVGA GeForce GTX 1080Ti Founders :: EVGA GeForce GTX Titan Black SuperClocked (PhysX) :: 3 x LG 27EA83B 2560x1440 27" IPS :: 2 x Samsung 960 PRO 500GB M.2 NVMe :: 2 x Samsung 850 EVO 500GB SSD :: 2 x Samsung 840 EVO 250GB SSD :: Thermaltake Water 2.0 Extreme Liquid Cooling :: Corsair AX1200i PSU :: TM Warthog HOTAS :: Saitek Pro Flight Combat :: Oculus Rift CV1 :: TrackIR 5 :: Really uncomfortable wooden stool - seriously

"I dunno, it's not stopping me from playing the game... just keep your head on a swivel, and remember that when you kill a cheater, deep down their shame burns them, precious. It burns them, and it's a shame they can never share and be rid of, like reverse syphilis." - 80hd





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users