Jump to content


Photo

Ridiculous 109 pitch rates


  • Please log in to reply
185 replies to this topic

#161 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Founder
  • Posts: 473

Posted 22 March 2017 - 08:53

clearly supprts what 5tuka and other people have posted here and directly contradicts Dave, who said that "You try your damnedest to turn the stab wheel but it might as well be welded there".

 

You shall not use the trim wheel to pull out of a high speed dive (it most certainly works, even at highest speeds) because the trim travel required for a pull-out at speeds near the critical Mach number is that as soon as you have "a gentle pull enough to nicely pull out", speed will drop and rapidly you will gain A LOT of up trim due to the almost instantaneous move of the pressure point on the wing, resulting in a sudden huge pull-out causing you to black out and very likely structurally damaging your aircraft.

 

It can make you destroy your aircraft or/and let you pass out such that you cannot recover the aircraft anymore. Pilots who used the trim to pull out of such dives often enough found themselves waking up sometimes later on at altitude. And being grateful the aircraft didn't enter a spiral and killing them before waking up.

 

Only if you hold the stick forward and keep the aircraft in trim as applicable for speeds well below critical Mach you can circumvent the issue.

 

Anyway, people will always use existing tools to their limits if they are in a match against each other. The mere fact that we are not in these small cockpits with all their restrictions makes us use controls different as they did back then in those cockpits. Be it.

 

Besides, has anyone ever tried siting in such a cockpit and timed how long it takes to hand crank that thing while holding the stick? I also wonder how long it actually takes to turn those "faucets" in the Ruski rides...


  • 0

Felix qui potuit rerum cognocscere causas.

1oIJ5hv_zpsgii92uwd.jpgYak1b_zpsr0h3cnxx.png


#162 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann
  • Founder
  • Posts: 1545
  • Location:Aachen, Germany

Posted 22 March 2017 - 08:55

"nerfed" is a term that does not apply in a realism driven simulation, it would only apply if balance were being sought at the expense of historical accuracy - which is not the case

 

 

but then again - since this is about the 109, let us hear from a USAF col. who got around testing it out - these are his opinions on the type (a lengthy read, but worthwhile)

It's a Load of Bullshit. He's basing his Assessment of the entire 109 family on the Emil mostly, and then contiues Speculating from the Perspective of Fighting an offensive War. And then he just makes some stupid Points only an American could make. 

 

 

-Every Fighter in WWII went through changes, becoming more and less clean all the time. The Spitfires grew Bumps and Lumps, Tailwheel Retraction was on and off depending on Model and thus comparing the Cleanest Spit (Mk.Ia) with the least clean 109E doesn't really tell us anything. I could take a Mk.Vc with Desert Stuff Oil Cooler and Filter and Compare it to an F-2 and come to the opposite Conclusion. 

 

 

-I think it was Stigler, but it may not have been, who in a Comparison Mustang v 109 remarked that as a General Aviation Aircraft he would prefer the P-51 as it was more comfortable, but that the Snug Fit, Aerobatic, almost lying down Seating Position, Simplicity, Panel Layout and Controls would place the 109 ahead of it since it would allow him to Manouver much more sharply and precisely without being thrown around in the Cockpit.

 

He also felt that the Amount of Levers and identical Switches in the Cockpit and Chaotic Panel were a definite Disadvantage of the American Fighters. And being used to the 109 he also felt as if he wouldn't be able to reach all the Levers on the Quadrant in sharp Manouvering.

 

He also made the Point that in a 51 you had to actively Lean Over to the Side you wanted to look down to, whereeas in the 109 you only ever had to turn your head, and also had much better View of your Lower Six. 

The Simplicity and Small Size of the 109 Cockpit and the more Ergonomic Panel were a definite Upshot. It was much more clearly visible, the Instruments were in better View and you could read them from the Corner of your Eyes. 

 

Having had the same Opportunity in the Laatzen 109 and 190 and a Museum P-51 in the States I feel much the same. The 109 virtually "falls into your hands", every Control is easy and comfortable to reach, read and control. It's a tight fit around the Shoulders, like a Racing Seat in a Sports Car. 

 

 

-The 109s main Opponents in the West were B-17s, B-24s, B-25s, B-26s, Lancasters etc. I hope you get the Point. And the Fighter Opposition were P-38s, P-40s, P-47s and Spit Mk.IXs, and later P-51B which still had tons of teething Problems. 

 

 

-The 109 went through different Engines and the difference in Weight was adjusted with Trim Weights, and 25kg are virtually nothing in a 2.5 ton plane. And who is that American berating anyone about adding weight to a fighter anyways? The Fitting of Cockpit Armor reduced the need for Weights drastically.

The 109A-D all had weights fitted in the Spinners, and since the DB601 was heavier than the originally intended DB600 they added a bit of Weight in the Tail. 

This is such a trivial and normal thing to do in Aviation that I don't get the Point he's trying to make at all. Trim Weights are a normal Fact of Life for any Aerobatic or Performance Oriented Aircraft. 

On the F and later the heavier Rudder/Elevator/Tailband/Rear Fuselage Assembly negated the Need for these Weights altogether anyways.

 

-The Emil Wings weren't perfect as he explains, and I won't mention the Aileron Reversal Issues of early Spitfire Marks as well. 

 

-Considering the Control Forces: I think it was mentioned by the Test Pilot of the recently finished 109G who actually explained that there is a huge Difference between 109G and E in Aileron Force and Effectiveness. Same for the Elevator. 

The Aerodynamics were completely Reworked between 109E and F. The Wings were a completely new Design, and by Completely I mean they didn't share a single Bolt, Rivet or Nut. 

The New Wings worked significantly better at High Speeds with Reduced Control Force and more Control. 

 

-WTF? Why would an Interceptor need more than an hours worth of Endurance? "The 109 wasn't a P-51, that's the Problem". Seriously?

 

-A shiny, bare Metal Front Line Fighter in a Defensive War? That's gonna be easy to hide. 

-He's never seen the Erla Haube apparently. 

-"I'm American, I don't understand Slats, make them go away hurr durr"

-But we already have Slats that also increase Lift and actually reduce Stall Speed, something Washout doesn't do. 

-He's never actually Looked at a 109F or G Radiator

-He's never actually Left the American Desert and Asphalt Landing Strips. Dirt and Mud apparently don't exist in his World. The Complete Wheel Coverings of the G-10 and K-4 were more often than not removed.

-He has never actually seen a 109F or G. Repeat Point made above. 


  • 2

Ceterum autem Censeo that Airfields must be moved further away from the Fronts. 

9dNzTpe.jpg

2iW21Np.jpg


#163 Dave

Dave
  • Founder
  • Posts: 313
  • Location:Eastern Oz

Posted 22 March 2017 - 08:57

Interesting read indeed, but could not find anything there that supports the claims against stab trim. On the contrary, he said that "If it was trimmed into the dive, recovery was difficult unless the trim wheel was wound back, due to the excessive heaviness of the elevator forces[/size]" So, recovery was difficult unless you used stab trim. Nothing to indicate that using stab trim was hard, but instead, it was the easy way out in dive recovery. That clearly supprts what 5tuka and other people have posted here and directly contradicts Dave, who said that "You try your damnedest to turn the stab wheel but it might as well be welded there".


You are seeing what you want to see rather than what is written. The Colonel did not mention at what point trimming out was necessary and you have assumed that it was at the bottom of a dive after maximum airspeed had already been reached. I will post the RAE reports again as soon as I have some spare time - I am currently at work.
  • 0

Asus Rampage IV Extreme + G-Skill 16GB 1866MHz DDR3 + Intel Core i7 3930K 3.8GHz Hex Core + 2 x EVGA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK + 2 x Asus GeForce GTX670 DCU-II 2GB + 3 x LG 27EA83B 2560x1440 27" IPS 2 x Samsung 850 EVO 500GB SATA3 SSD 2 x Samsung 840 EVO 250GB SATA3 SSD + Thermaltake Water 2.0 Extreme Liquid Cooling + Corsair AX1200i PSU + TM Warthog HOTAS + Saitek Pro Flight Combat + 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

 


#164 Holtzauge

Holtzauge
  • Member
  • Posts: 488

Posted 22 March 2017 - 09:28

You are seeing what you want to see rather than what is written. The Colonel did not mention at what point trimming out was necessary and you have assumed that it was at the bottom of a dive after maximum airspeed had already been reached. I will post the RAE reports again as soon as I have some spare time - I am currently at work.

 

Excellent. Looking forward to seeing those reports because until I see them I agree with Kemps interpretation which incidentally can be found almost word for word here in RAE R&M 2361, “Messerschmitt Me. 109 Handling and Manouverability Tests”,  which has this to say on page 12, section 4.5:

 

“If the elevator is trimmed for level flight at full throttle, a moderate large push is necessary to hold the aircraft in the dive, and there is a temptation to wind the trimmer forward. If this is done, recovery is very difficult unless trimmer is first wound back again, owing to the excessive heaviness of the elevator at high speeds”


  • 3

Engineering is merely the slow, younger brother of physics. -Dr. Sheldon Cooper

 

On Kurfurst's new sig: We all say stupid things sometimes, me too. I deeply regret what I wrote then (10 years ago) because I soon realized it was actually the other way around……


#165 Ishtaru

Ishtaru
  • Founder
  • Posts: 206
  • Location:Terra

Posted 22 March 2017 - 14:46

Me again sry, i just wanted to apologise for me being disrespectful to dave a few posts earlier while he responded without anger, im sorry dave.

 

Also i have a question about trimtabs, just from looking at them i think i kind of understand how they work, i dont mean stabi trim, these little flaps moving into the airflow and that airflow is pushing the controlsurface up or down dpends on the the setting, do i understand this correctly?

 

And if so how can this little flap can produce so much force that it is able to push the controlsurface to the needed angle while the airflow pushes a much larger surface down or up or better say to a neutral position, of course i dont think that this is impossible, im just curios to know and thought here could i find a simple answer because here seems to be great knowledge present.


  • 0

Windows 7 64bit, Intel i5-3570k @4,3 Ghz, 8 Gig RAM, Palit GTX 980ti SuperJetstream, Samsung 128 Gig SSD, TrackIR5, TM Warthog HOTAS, MFG Crosswind Pedals


#166 71st_AH_Barnacles

71st_AH_Barnacles
  • Member
  • Posts: 7

Posted 22 March 2017 - 19:31

Me again sry, i just wanted to apologise for me being disrespectful to dave a few posts earlier while he responded without anger, im sorry dave.
 
Also i have a question about trimtabs, just from looking at them i think i kind of understand how they work, i dont mean stabi trim, these little flaps moving into the airflow and that airflow is pushing the controlsurface up or down dpends on the the setting, do i understand this correctly?
 
And if so how can this little flap can produce so much force that it is able to push the controlsurface to the needed angle while the airflow pushes a much larger surface down or up or better say to a neutral position, of course i dont think that this is impossible, im just curios to know and thought here could i find a simple answer because here seems to be great knowledge present.

I think it's is because, as the tab is further away from the pivot point of the control surface than the centre of aerodynamic force, the leverage effect causes a net force to move the control surface away from the direction the trim tab is deflected.
  • 0

#167 Dakpilot

Dakpilot
  • Founder
  • Posts: 3842
  • Location:Afrika

Posted 22 March 2017 - 20:52

One aircraft I used to fly, used only trim tabs (or 'servo tabs') to move the control surfaces, the stick was only connected to, and moved trim tabs with no physical connection at all to elevator rudder or aileron, it is an interesting type of system

 

Although Wiki this gives a reasonable explanation of trim tabs

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trim_tab

 

Barnacles is correct, the distance from the hinge point of the control surface gives the tab a larger moment of force than the control surface

 

Cheers Dakpilot


  • 0

i5 3570K at 4,46Ghz//H100i//P8Z77-I-DELUXE//16GB 1600mhz ram//Galax GTX970 4GB EXOC//Samsung Evo840 128gbSSD x2//LG 49" 3840 X 2160//MSFFB2// Saitek throttle quadrant//Win10-64bit


#168 JtD

JtD
  • Founder
  • Posts: 2444

Posted 23 March 2017 - 12:34

The tactic you are incorrectly referring to was to push hard negative G and enter a steep dive, then execute an aileron roll and exit in the pursuer's blind spot...


The tactic I am correctly referring to was to dive away from combat at high speed, steepness of the dive depending on the urgency of disengagement. Both the Western Allies and the Soviet Union imposed strict tactical limits on their air forces in terms of proximity in support of the mission goals for a large part of the war. Even as the dive performance advantage of the German aircraft diminished over the course of the war, the tactical restrictions meant that a steep dive followed by a high speed extension would have the enemy break off because mission parameters did not permit an extended chase away from the target area into enemy territory.

If you haven't heard of this, you may want to go read up on the subject instead of telling people what they are supposedly thinking.

Edited by JtD, 23 March 2017 - 13:35.

  • 0

Facts are the best defence against the experts.


#169 JtD

JtD
  • Founder
  • Posts: 2444

Posted 23 March 2017 - 13:00

But another household work, the highly propagandized Me 109G, was obsolete when it was built and was aerodynamically the most inefficient fighter of its time.


Well, that article has been posted over and over and over and over. I doesn't get any better as time goes on. Just to address the above statement to give an impression about the overall quality of the assessment:
Bf109G6: ~1200hp for ~390mph@~6000m
Typical Western front opposition:
Spitfire IX: ~1400hp for ~390mph@~6000m
Typhoon: ~1800hp for ~390mph@~6000m
P-47: ~1900hp for ~390mph@~6000m
One exception:
P-51: ~1100hp for 390mph@~6000m

Turns out that the allegedly aerodynamically least efficient design is the second most efficient one. Because as it is, small size is an aerodynamic quality on its own.
  • 1

Facts are the best defence against the experts.


#170 Ishtaru

Ishtaru
  • Founder
  • Posts: 206
  • Location:Terra

Posted 23 March 2017 - 16:52

Thank you Branacles and thank you Dakpilot, it makes more sense now to me and i will read the wiki alter.

 

Im surprised that you Dakpilot answer a question to me hehe, i think i did have made a mistake in another thread and im sorry, dont wanted to really insult you i thought you deliberately misunderstood me so i was a jerk. :salute:

 

Sry for this little offtopic but im sure you guys forgive me.


  • 1

Windows 7 64bit, Intel i5-3570k @4,3 Ghz, 8 Gig RAM, Palit GTX 980ti SuperJetstream, Samsung 128 Gig SSD, TrackIR5, TM Warthog HOTAS, MFG Crosswind Pedals


#171 Dave

Dave
  • Founder
  • Posts: 313
  • Location:Eastern Oz

Posted 24 March 2017 - 07:26

The tactic I am correctly referring to was to dive away from combat at high speed, steepness of the dive depending on the urgency of disengagement. Both the Western Allies and the Soviet Union imposed strict tactical limits on their air forces in terms of proximity in support of the mission goals for a large part of the war. Even as the dive performance advantage of the German aircraft diminished over the course of the war, the tactical restrictions meant that a steep dive followed by a high speed extension would have the enemy break off because mission parameters did not permit an extended chase away from the target area into enemy territory.

If you haven't heard of this, you may want to go read up on the subject instead of telling people what they are supposedly thinking.

 

This is what you said sarcastically in dispute of my assertion that attempting to recover from a fast (near airframe limit) dive close to the ground would likely result in a CFIT.

 

 

 

Right to the wars end their standard escape tactic was a steep dive at full throttle. Given that they couldn't pull out of it, they must have lost thousands of aircraft and pilots that way.

I responded with the factual tactic advocated for use in that circumstance. You now supply a very different scenario where your comment seems appropriate, absent the original context, to steer the debate well away from your earlier tripe. 

 

"Mission parameters did not permit blah blah ..." 

It seems that you are now talking about bomber escorts not leaving their bomber formation to chase the interceptors as they dove away. While true, this has nothing to do with the topic of low recovery from a steep dive at Vmax or the validity of my statement that operation of the stabiliser trim in said circumstances was practically futile.

I have never proposed that 109s can't dive away at high speed, nor disputed that would-be pursuers may have a multitude of reasons for not giving chase. 

I presented a very constrained scenario - you ridiculed that statement with a claim that was factually inaccurate if we are to assume that you were attempting to directly refute my own position - I corrected you.

 

No need to "read up on" it thanks. Already did that during my military education.


Edited by Dave, 24 March 2017 - 07:51.

  • 0

Asus Rampage IV Extreme + G-Skill 16GB 1866MHz DDR3 + Intel Core i7 3930K 3.8GHz Hex Core + 2 x EVGA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK + 2 x Asus GeForce GTX670 DCU-II 2GB + 3 x LG 27EA83B 2560x1440 27" IPS 2 x Samsung 850 EVO 500GB SATA3 SSD 2 x Samsung 840 EVO 250GB SATA3 SSD + Thermaltake Water 2.0 Extreme Liquid Cooling + Corsair AX1200i PSU + TM Warthog HOTAS + Saitek Pro Flight Combat + 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

 


#172 II./JG77_Kemp

II./JG77_Kemp
  • Member
  • Posts: 364

Posted 24 March 2017 - 07:47

I have never proposed that 109s can't dive away at high speed

 

Indeed. You did not say that 109's could not dive away, just that pilots would die as a result.

 

5. You reach 650km/h and the ground is rushing up at you

6. You chop the throttle and pull back on the stick but it just won't budge

7. You try your damnedest to turn the stab wheel but it might as well be welded there

8. You die


Edited by II./JG77_Kemp, 24 March 2017 - 07:48.

  • 0

#173 unreasonable

unreasonable
  • Founder
  • Posts: 2383
  • Location:Bangkok

Posted 24 March 2017 - 07:48

I am not a moderator but I think you two (Dave and JtD) should knock it off or get a room. I am sure you both have enormous... qualifications. @Kemp - I am sure you have enormous qualifications too - no offense meant :)

 

@Dave, once you have a track or movie of a 109 going above it's critical AoA without stalling please share. While I agree that stab on a slider allows you to change trim 50% faster than with buttons - and I do not think it should - this is just a matter of degree. It is faster, but also less precise.  We just do not have any quantitative evidence from anyone about how fast the wheels could be moved, (do we?) and we all know that ergonomic/physical constraints are modeled in, at best, a rudimentary fashion.

 

Claiming that the 109 can pitch beyond critical AoA without departure is however an objective FM matter. Given that we do not have in-game AoA meters, G meters etc it may be hard to demonstrate, but unless you provide evidence you can hardly be surprised if people are sceptical.  (Except perhaps Soviet side only MP types -  and they deserve as much credence as the Wehraboos).


Edited by unreasonable, 24 March 2017 - 07:50.

  • 0

Nullius in verba


#174 Dave

Dave
  • Founder
  • Posts: 313
  • Location:Eastern Oz

Posted 24 March 2017 - 07:56

Indeed. You did not say that 109's could not dive away, just that pilots would die as a result.

No I did not.

It's possible to dive away at max speed at 5 degrees declination. You can also dive away at full throttle at 90 degrees if you like. I have not said anything to contradict this. 

You've posted my exact words and yet you still fail to comprehend their meaning.

 

Rather than cherry pick the bits you want to attack out of context please try to be mature about it and consider my entire statements.  


  • 0

Asus Rampage IV Extreme + G-Skill 16GB 1866MHz DDR3 + Intel Core i7 3930K 3.8GHz Hex Core + 2 x EVGA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK + 2 x Asus GeForce GTX670 DCU-II 2GB + 3 x LG 27EA83B 2560x1440 27" IPS 2 x Samsung 850 EVO 500GB SATA3 SSD 2 x Samsung 840 EVO 250GB SATA3 SSD + Thermaltake Water 2.0 Extreme Liquid Cooling + Corsair AX1200i PSU + TM Warthog HOTAS + Saitek Pro Flight Combat + 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

 


#175 Dave

Dave
  • Founder
  • Posts: 313
  • Location:Eastern Oz

Posted 24 March 2017 - 08:02

I am not a moderator but I think you two (Dave and JtD) should knock it off or get a room. I am sure you both have enormous... qualifications. @Kemp - I am sure you have enormous qualifications too - no offense meant :)

 

@Dave, once you have a track or movie of a 109 going above it's critical AoA without stalling please share. While I agree that stab on a slider allows you to change trim 50% faster than with buttons - and I do not think it should - this is just a matter of degree. It is faster, but also less precise.  We just do not have any quantitative evidence from anyone about how fast the wheels could be moved, (do we?) and we all know that ergonomic/physical constraints are modeled in, at best, a rudimentary fashion.

 

Claiming that the 109 can pitch beyond critical AoA without departure is however an objective FM matter. Given that we do not have in-game AoA meters, G meters etc it may be hard to demonstrate, but unless you provide evidence you can hardly be surprised if people are sceptical.  (Except perhaps Soviet side only MP types -  and they deserve as much credence as the Wehraboos).

As I have already said I intend to do exactly this to the extent possible within the restrictions of the game, and I had no intention of commenting further until I had done so, but some individuals feel compelled to ridicule any perfectly reasonable question around FM fidelity when it requests a re-evaluation of the in-game capability of their favourite aircraft.

When ridicule devolves into assertions of ignorance and stupidity I feel compelled to respond.


  • 0

Asus Rampage IV Extreme + G-Skill 16GB 1866MHz DDR3 + Intel Core i7 3930K 3.8GHz Hex Core + 2 x EVGA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK + 2 x Asus GeForce GTX670 DCU-II 2GB + 3 x LG 27EA83B 2560x1440 27" IPS 2 x Samsung 850 EVO 500GB SATA3 SSD 2 x Samsung 840 EVO 250GB SATA3 SSD + Thermaltake Water 2.0 Extreme Liquid Cooling + Corsair AX1200i PSU + TM Warthog HOTAS + Saitek Pro Flight Combat + 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

 


#176 JtD

JtD
  • Founder
  • Posts: 2444

Posted 24 March 2017 - 08:19

You now supply a very different scenario where your comment seems appropriate, absent the original context, to steer the debate well away from your earlier tripe.


No, I'm not. Still a steep high speed dive at full throttle. It doesn't really matter why they got away with that manoeuvre, what counts is the fact they did. As opposed to making a hole in the ground.

The Tilly orifice was widely used as early as 1941 in the west and modern Soviet fighters never had issues with neg g fuel supply, and still the Luftwaffe would dive away from combat (and live) in countless cases for the entire war. The manoeuvre you've described works in a Battle of Britain scenario, for the rest of the war it is useless. Personally, I'd take that discrepancy as an indication to check my opinion, however, I can see you know it all already. No reason to continue that debate.

As for your very specific scenario, please provide the evidence that in a high speed dive, a 109 could be trimmed nose down, but could not be trimmed nose up.
  • 0

Facts are the best defence against the experts.


#177 VO101Kurfurst

VO101Kurfurst
  • Member
  • Posts: 290

Posted 24 March 2017 - 09:40

"nerfed" is a term that does not apply in a realism driven simulation, it would only apply if balance were being sought at the expense of historical accuracy - which is not the case

 

 

but then again - since this is about the 109, let us hear from a USAF col. who got around testing it out - these are his opinions on the type (a lengthy read, but worthwhile)

 

Then again, Col. Carson never flew the 109. He is merely paraphrasing an earlier British report on the 109E made in Britain by Morgan in 1940, and not very accurately. There is some visible attempt to give credence to that by pointing out that its 'supported' by the very same doc the good colonel was paraphrasing in the first case. Aka. circular referencing. 

http://kurfurst.org/...als/Morgan.html

 

In any case, SOP in the 109 was NOT to trim into the dive, but maintain level trim hold the plane in the dive and let the plane pull itself out at the end. This was obviously on account on the high forces on the elevator in dives. Curiously, the Spit had the opposite SOP for dives, to trim FOR the dive, as elevator control was excessively light and it was a good safety measure against the pilot incidentally ripping the plane apart by exerting too much control movement during recovery.


  • 0

"Vezérünk a Bátorság, Kísérőnk a Szerencse!"

www.kurfurst.org - The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site.

'I must congratulate you on your Me 109 site, I have visited it a few times and it is really a good and necessary counterweight to the Spitfire propaganda page.' - Holtzauge


#178 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann
  • Founder
  • Posts: 1545
  • Location:Aachen, Germany

Posted 24 March 2017 - 09:47

Personally I would prefer the 109 Option in being unable to pull myself into a Blackout, unlike a Spit which will pull an involuntary Stuka Pull Out on you. 


  • 0

Ceterum autem Censeo that Airfields must be moved further away from the Fronts. 

9dNzTpe.jpg

2iW21Np.jpg


#179 Holtzauge

Holtzauge
  • Member
  • Posts: 488

Posted 24 March 2017 - 15:09

You are seeing what you want to see rather than what is written. The Colonel did not mention at what point trimming out was necessary and you have assumed that it was at the bottom of a dive after maximum airspeed had already been reached. I will post the RAE reports again as soon as I have some spare time - I am currently at work.

 

Just a friendly reminder about the reports you mentioned above. If you can't post the complete reports or excerpts, a reference to report number and appropriate page number and section would go a long way as well.


  • 0

Engineering is merely the slow, younger brother of physics. -Dr. Sheldon Cooper

 

On Kurfurst's new sig: We all say stupid things sometimes, me too. I deeply regret what I wrote then (10 years ago) because I soon realized it was actually the other way around……


#180 Dave

Dave
  • Founder
  • Posts: 313
  • Location:Eastern Oz

Posted Yesterday, 04:30

Very busy with work today but here are two:

The report on the captured G-2 "Black 6" mentions that the stabiliser trim wheel becomes almost solid at high speed, indicating that a more accurate model for trim actuation would consider a rate inversely proportional to airspeed with a some limit (which we can argue over) beyond which it become practically inoperable (and certainly not easily operable as it is now). I believe this is the reason SOPs instructed pilots to trim for dive recovery before entering such dives and use forward stick pressure to maintain a nose down attitude.

 

" 13. The Elevators harden up at high speeds and retrimming is necessary, which is difficult as the twin wheel hardens up and becomes almost solid in a dive."

 

http://www.wwiiaircr...109g2-trop.html

 

A report on the G-6 also discusses the difficulty in adjusting pitch trim at such speeds (it is my understanding that the 350 IAS is expressed in miles per hour so as to avoid confusion of allied pilots - this equates to about 564km/h but even the 350 would be a rounded and slightly imprecise figure) ...

 

"11.           The rudder is fairly heavy but not uncomfortably so. As there is no rudder trimming device, it is necessary to apply right rudder for take-off and left rudder at high speeds. The ailerons become increasingly stiff with the increase in speed especially at speeds in excess of 350 I.A.S. At speed below 180 I.A.S. the ailerons are not positive and as the stall is approached they are almost non-effective. The elevators also become increasingly difficult to operate as the speed increases. Above 350 I.A.S. this unpleasantness is accentuated as the elevator trim is practically impossible to operate."

 

http://www.wwiiaircr...6-tactical.html


  • 0

Asus Rampage IV Extreme + G-Skill 16GB 1866MHz DDR3 + Intel Core i7 3930K 3.8GHz Hex Core + 2 x EVGA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK + 2 x Asus GeForce GTX670 DCU-II 2GB + 3 x LG 27EA83B 2560x1440 27" IPS 2 x Samsung 850 EVO 500GB SATA3 SSD 2 x Samsung 840 EVO 250GB SATA3 SSD + Thermaltake Water 2.0 Extreme Liquid Cooling + Corsair AX1200i PSU + TM Warthog HOTAS + Saitek Pro Flight Combat + 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

 


#181 19//Moach

19//Moach
  • Member
  • Posts: 208
  • Location:Langley, near Vancouver BC

Posted Yesterday, 06:25

have you seen today's Dev. Diary?

 

 

seems this is not just been all acknowledged - but the 109s (and most similarly quick-turning planes) have, or had long already, been revised rather substantially, as have all the planes...  

 

today's DD specifically mentions how the F series should be a lot more like the E models are currently modeled in the sim

 

 

which in my view - makes a lot (if not all) of this discussion moot... we may easily be talking about a thing that's been already covered and isn't really a thing at all on the developer's internal versions of the game

 

all this debate is about what we have on OUR side - yet, it may all change whenever this new set of flight models gets released

 

 

what was said today has addressed all of my main concern with the (non-E) 109s, not that the stabilizer can be exploited for supermaneuverability -- but that it doesn't even need to be to achieve that same effect, as the simulation of forces on the controls, and stability characteristics were not up to the same specs as some of the more recently released planes will demonstrate.... and I largely suspect also, the Yak 1b has similarly over-tolerant handling to it, since it was most likely modeled "over" its predecessor (which is also a very "early" plane in the history of our sim)

 

 

I'm very much looking forward to these new features mentioned today...  it really does make for a completely new conversation here


Edited by 19//Moach, Yesterday, 06:29.

  • 0

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

 


#182 6./ZG26_5tuka

6./ZG26_5tuka
  • Founder
  • Posts: 3718
  • Location:Germany

Posted Yesterday, 06:44

today's DD specifically mentions how the F series should be a lot more like the E models are currently modeled in the sim

It doesn't say any of that. I'm not even convinced this changes were a response to this thread (or previous complain threads) at all but rather a consequence of introducing one big change that required a ton of other micro changes to balance it out.

 

Anyway, I agree this discussion is obsolete until the patch is released and that I'm also very much looking forward to this update. To me the 'springy' pitch behaviour of the 109 is a much bigger issue than the stabilizer or slightly better aileroun feedback at high airspeeds.


  • 0

   YdcExnd.jpg                                                                                      Ju 87 D-3 4K Skin Template        - Released                                                    

                        Ju-52 Early Supporter                                                                                                         Ju 52/3m g4 4K Skin Template   - Released

  


#183 Holtzauge

Holtzauge
  • Member
  • Posts: 488

Posted Yesterday, 07:01

Very busy with work today but here are two:

The report on the captured G-2 "Black 6" mentions that the stabiliser trim wheel becomes almost solid at high speed, indicating that a more accurate model for trim actuation would consider a rate inversely proportional to airspeed with a some limit (which we can argue over) beyond which it become practically inoperable (and certainly not easily operable as it is now). I believe this is the reason SOPs instructed pilots to trim for dive recovery before entering such dives and use forward stick pressure to maintain a nose down attitude.

 

" 13. The Elevators harden up at high speeds and retrimming is necessary, which is difficult as the twin wheel hardens up and becomes almost solid in a dive."

 

http://www.wwiiaircr...109g2-trop.html

 

A report on the G-6 also discusses the difficulty in adjusting pitch trim at such speeds (it is my understanding that the 350 IAS is expressed in miles per hour so as to avoid confusion of allied pilots - this equates to about 564km/h but even the 350 would be a rounded and slightly imprecise figure) ...

 

"11.           The rudder is fairly heavy but not uncomfortably so. As there is no rudder trimming device, it is necessary to apply right rudder for take-off and left rudder at high speeds. The ailerons become increasingly stiff with the increase in speed especially at speeds in excess of 350 I.A.S. At speed below 180 I.A.S. the ailerons are not positive and as the stall is approached they are almost non-effective. The elevators also become increasingly difficult to operate as the speed increases. Above 350 I.A.S. this unpleasantness is accentuated as the elevator trim is practically impossible to operate."

 

http://www.wwiiaircr...6-tactical.html

 

OK, this explains a lot I think: Notice how the report says that retrimming is difficult since “the twin wheels harden up and become almost solid”? Well certainly if you try to operate the flaps and trim i.e. both wheels together at such high speeds then you would be in trouble! No wonder they started getting problems already at 563 km/h IAS (350 mph)!


  • 0

Engineering is merely the slow, younger brother of physics. -Dr. Sheldon Cooper

 

On Kurfurst's new sig: We all say stupid things sometimes, me too. I deeply regret what I wrote then (10 years ago) because I soon realized it was actually the other way around……


#184 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Founder
  • Posts: 473

Posted Yesterday, 21:18

OK, this explains a lot I think: Notice how the report says that retrimming is difficult since “the twin wheels harden up and become almost solid”? Well certainly if you try to operate the flaps and trim i.e. both wheels together at such high speeds then you would be in trouble! No wonder they started getting problems already at 563 km/h IAS (350 mph)!

When it is stated "twin wheels" you really think the author would try to wind *both* at the same time to get out of a dive? Deploying flaps as well? I mean who in the right mind would try to wind the flaps in a high speed dive?
If not, and trim only was locked at high speeds, then it would be contradicting other reports talking about this being possible (and avoided). It is a strange statement indeed.

Edited by ZachariasX, Yesterday, 21:22.

  • 0

Felix qui potuit rerum cognocscere causas.

1oIJ5hv_zpsgii92uwd.jpgYak1b_zpsr0h3cnxx.png


#185 hrafnkolbrandr

hrafnkolbrandr
  • Member
  • Posts: 33

Posted Yesterday, 22:33

When it is stated "twin wheels" you really think the author would try to wind *both* at the same time to get out of a dive? Deploying flaps as well? I mean who in the right mind would try to wind the flaps in a high speed dive?
If not, and trim only was locked at high speeds, then it would be contradicting other reports talking about this being possible (and avoided). It is a strange statement indeed.


I tried that in-game when I got speed-locked in a dive with the fw190.

Didn't turn out well!
  • 0

#186 Dave

Dave
  • Founder
  • Posts: 313
  • Location:Eastern Oz

Posted Today, 02:38

It doesn't say any of that. I'm not even convinced this changes were a response to this thread (or previous complain threads) at all but rather a consequence of introducing one big change that required a ton of other micro changes to balance it out.

There is no way the change would be in response to this thread - the issue they refer to in the DD was identified last year. Besides, changes to a software product follow a process which, beyond show-stopping bugs, takes longer to effect this degree of change than the two weeks this thread has existed.

 

It also isn't a "consequence of introducing one big change that required a ton of other micro changes to balance it out" if the developers' own statements are to be believed.

It seems the fluid-dynamic modelling they had used previously to build their FM didn't correctly account for some flow interactions caused by airflow around the empennage. Perhaps they had only modelled the lifting and control surfaces independently - I don't know. Based on the explanation given in the DD it would seem also that the aerodynamic force changes due to increasing airspeed had been incorrectly computed or neglected. Specifically trim operation in 3 aircraft which I mentioned to have implausibly high rates of change at high speed is affected - the P40, Mig3 and Bf109.

It read to me as though the engineering team:

- had previously applied per-aircraft "tweaks" to what was otherwise a globally physically-modelled system because at the time they simply couldn't account for the observed errors in behaviour;

- have finally discovered the root cause of the problem in a rather unexpected part of their modelling process;

- have resolved to correct the global root cause which will require recalculation of flight model parameters for every aircraft (I assume they perform offline precalculation for multidimensional arrays which are used in game as current comsumer hardware just doesn't have the grunt to do this in real time); and

- plan to update each aircraft as their recalculated FM parameters are complete.

So I don't think there is any "balancing out" going on here - just a much needed fix to a weakness in the core assumptions of their FM generation.

 

NB: I may have read between the lines a bit due to being employed as a software engineer in the development of physical system modelling for fluid mechanical systems.


Edited by Dave, Today, 02:40.

  • 0

Asus Rampage IV Extreme + G-Skill 16GB 1866MHz DDR3 + Intel Core i7 3930K 3.8GHz Hex Core + 2 x EVGA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK + 2 x Asus GeForce GTX670 DCU-II 2GB + 3 x LG 27EA83B 2560x1440 27" IPS 2 x Samsung 850 EVO 500GB SATA3 SSD 2 x Samsung 840 EVO 250GB SATA3 SSD + Thermaltake Water 2.0 Extreme Liquid Cooling + Corsair AX1200i PSU + TM Warthog HOTAS + Saitek Pro Flight Combat + 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

 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users