Ridiculous 109 pitch rates

[E69_geramos109]

You are going to make a large hole on the ground if you put too much trim on the dive due to the forces so what is wrong on the game? 

[19//Moach]

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.

 

exactly - it has limits, except that they are not fully modelled in the game

 

p40 only has electric ailerons also, the other two are by cables and pulleys

 

 

mind also, a trim tab is much different from a variable stabilizer - the former being usually quicker to actuate, while the latter relies on a jackscrew system to handle the huge forces involved. that makes the stabilizer much slower to operate than the tab, requiring many more turns than the simpler tab

 

the stabilizer is more efficient than the tab, in terms of how it affects lift and drag - but this being at the expense of responsiveness is a shortcoming that only more modern (not the 109) electrically driven designs can overcome 

 

 

what's wrong with the game is simple:  the stabilizer is as quick to operate as the trim-tab -- this is wrong, and confers impossible maneuverability (and makes correct flap operation impossible) in the 109

Edited March 21, 2017 by 19//Moach

[JtD]

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?

Which has nothing to do with trim on a slider, but with effective trim and elevator in addition to a rearward centre of gravity. The Yak can't do it because the control balance is foolproof and the CoG more forward, making excessive angles of attack impossible.

 

The P40 does not have a variable incidence tailplane - it uses trim tabs actuated by electric motors.

p40 only has electric ailerons also, the other two are by cables and pulleys

Can you please try to get the facts right? The P-40E as electrically actuated aileron trim tabs, everything else is mechanical. That covers ailerons, rudder, elevator, rudder trim tab and elevator trim tab.

[Dave]

You are going to make a large hole on the ground if you put too much trim on the dive due to the forces so what is wrong on the game? 

Here's what would happen ...

 

1. Nose over into a steep dive

2. Airspeed increases making the nose want to pitch up

3. You trim nose down

4. Repeat 2 & 3 a few times

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

 

Here's what happens in the game ...

1 - 5 as above

6. You flick the stab trim full aft (if bound to a slider - some just pull back on the stick and have both elevator and stabiliser move)

7. The 109 performs something reminiscent of Pugachev's cobra

8. You go from 20,000f/m descent to easily pull vertical again behind the Yak that saw you diving and waited to pull up until you couldn't possibly make the pitch rate required to follow

 

Which has nothing to do with trim on a slider, but with effective trim and elevator in addition to a rearward centre of gravity. The Yak can't do it because the control balance is foolproof and the CoG more forward, making excessive angles of attack impossible.

 

 

Can you please try to get the facts right? The P-40E as electrically actuated aileron trim tabs, everything else is mechanical. That covers ailerons, rudder, elevator, rudder trim tab and elevator trim tab.

You ignored the bit where the 109 doesn't stall. And I've never mentioned the "trim on a slider". The Yak can't do it because it shouldn't happen.

Regarding the P40 - I have already been corrected thanks. I do try to get the facts right but sometimes we slip up - I was thinking of the ailerons for some reason - probably because I map them to the same coolie hat, not having a trim wheel next to my seat. I was pretty obviously talking only about trim tabs. Given the context it was also clear that Moach was - not sure why you think he was talking about the primary control surfaces.

Edited March 21, 2017 by Dave

[JtD]

Here's what would happen ...

 

1. Nose over into a steep dive

2. Airspeed increases making the nose want to pitch up

3. You trim nose down

4. Repeat 2 & 3 a few times

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

Now we finally know why the Germans lost the air war. 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. And they never learned anything from it - not only did they not change their tactics, they even refused to reduce the dive limit of the 109 from 750 to anything controllable.

[JtD]

You ignored the bit where the 109 doesn't stall.

Yes, because that claim is so ridiculous, that I couldn't produce an even borderline polite response if I was to respond to that.

Edited March 21, 2017 by JtD

[E69_geramos109]

Here's what would happen ...

 

1. Nose over into a steep dive

2. Airspeed increases making the nose want to pitch up

3. You trim nose down

4. Repeat 2 & 3 a few times

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

 

Here's what happens in the game ...

1 - 5 as above

6. You flick the stab trim full aft (if bound to a slider - some just pull back on the stick and have both elevator and stabiliser move)

7. The 109 performs something reminiscent of Pugachev's cobra

8. You go from 20,000f/m descent to easily pull vertical again behind the Yak that saw you diving and waited to pull up until you couldn't possibly make the pitch rate required to follow

 

You ignored the bit where the 109 doesn't stall. Slats are made for that. I read also reports from 109 pilots about yaks  that they sometimes go stall even at hight speeds due to push too tight turn like happens in the 190. They use that advantage to breack hard.

 

Thats is what happens in game a couple of times to me.

 

In pursuit of a yak or la5

1-5 as abobe

6. The russ has the canopy open but who cares, he is still fast and can reach an optimistic 700 km/h

7. The russ has a surprisingly better control at hight speed and can easily out turn you in a tight fast breack where surprisingly theyr wooden wings are capable to hold (game description shows an optimistic 11 gs for the red planes even more on the lagg)

8. You still closing to the ground and now your bf dont want to turn.

9. If you have space you can use the trim and pull with care 

10. If you are too close to the ground you use too many trim and you lose your wing. 

 

You say that some people use the trim on the same axis than the pith. I just test it and the plane is unflyable making combat aT slow speed where you have to use so rude the stick to keep the plane on the air and the stabilicer becomes cracy making you to stall most of the times. In normal flight with the stick neutral the position of the stabilicer is not 0, is -2 and you can not change the curve so your plane has allways tendency to nose up and makes quite difficult to aim because is too sensible. So i have a lot of doubt about someone using that configuration to fly the Bf109. 

 

Is true that is too easy to use the stab and maybe is to fast and you can work with flaps at the same time. I have on my hotas the flaps and the trim in a way that is not possible to operate on the same time to make it more real but is my choice. We have not a 109 cockpit on our home to make it real and is normal that we can easily use some things that in real plane is not like that. 

 

But really. Please go check how fast the small weel of the lagg turns to use flaps or trim and after that compare how people fly both planes. You can go watch Fi rambo twitch channel and see his videos and look how he use masively the flaps and trim just to make every turn and now go to see my you tube channel, karaya, MkMx channel or some good luft pilot and compare how we use the 109.

 

We can also talk about how easy is to change the stage of the supercharger or manage all the engine controls on rus planes comparing to the real one so...

Edited March 21, 2017 by E69_geramos109

[Holtzauge]

Some info from Messerschmitt report “High speed tests with Me 109”, report number 109 05 E 43 dated 15th April 1943:

 

Results from a series of flight tests done up to a speed of 737 km/h IAS  and 906 km/h TAS:

 

Tests were done pulling out both with elevator alone or with stabilizer. Conclusion was that trimming into the dive was not recommended since it was then impossible to pull out WITHOUT using the stabilizer. However, pulling out with the stabilizer could be problematic since as speed was reduced the plane tended to tighten up the pullout which would lead to excessive g-loads unless the pilot pushed forward on the stick. So no problem using the stabilizer to pull out, rather the opposite.

 

The report also notes an interesting fact: The movement of the stabilizer at high speed in the direction of nose heavy was difficult where as it was easy to move in the direction of tail heavy meaning it was easy to turn the trim wheel towards tail heavy at high speeds thus initiating a pull out using the stabilizer.

 

So the conclusion from this official Messerschmitt flight test report based on a series of actual high speed flight tests was that the stabilizer is very effective in pulling out of dives…….

[Asgar]

i don't know a single 109 pilot that uses the "trim exploit" ...you do realize the 109 is actually a maneuverable aircraft, right?

[Holtzauge]

I know one pilot who did use the "exploit": He is listed as  "Flugzeugfuhrer" L. Schmid in the report I referenced and apparently he had the audacity to use the stabilizer to pull of of the test dives even though what he was doing was impossible......

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Here we go again...

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.

Well how is it than that the document "Hochgeschwindigkeitsversuche mit der Me 109" I posted 2 pages back very much disagrees with all other "well documented sources" from "allies and german" (not that allied documents really matter, no one knows in what kind of state their captured and beat up machines were)?

 

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

Bunch of unsupported claims with no factual support so rather useless.

 

"it somehow allows the aircraft to exceed stall AOA which is surely an FM bug;" it's been explained why this claim if outright wrong and does physically not make any sense.

 

"it allows the 109 to pull out of Vne dives (which historically documented to be impossible)" again look at the document i liked, should be easy to find out how much it contradicts this statement.

 

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.

Again allied test reports don't matter much. No one knows about the condition of those aircraft nor the way they were operated. Still you have not linked any proof for your claims so this coudl as well be made up for the purpose of making a point where there is none.

 

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. 

Proof? I have a bunch of flight manuals for different types of 109s and I don't recall stumbeling across this 'warning'.

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.

Frustration and ranting about totally unsupported claims don't go anywhere. Didn't work out for the Yak flaps, neither for the 190. Why should this get any different treatment especially if there is proof to counter it already?

Edited March 21, 2017 by 6./ZG26_5tuka

[Asgar]

Holtzauge i was talking about 109 pilots here in the sim...

[Dave]

Right to the wars end their standard escape tactic was a steep dive at full throttle.

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 point of the negative G was to take advantage of the DB's fuel injection. Until Schilling's orifice was retrofitted to the Merlin the carburettor float would not deal well with negative G causing fuel starvation, making it difficult for Allied aircraft, with their carbureted engines, to follow.

Emphasis on dive entry. The point of the dive entry was the negative G not to continue a steep dive and pull out on the deck.

Another tactic was to shallow the dive after the initial entry and use the 109s superior acceleration downhill to extend. This didn't work so well against jugs which go downhill like a cannonball

Edited March 21, 2017 by Dave

[Dave]

I just test it and the plane is unflyable making combat aT slow speed where you have to use so rude the stick to keep the plane on the air and the stabilicer becomes cracy making you to stall most of the times.

You couldn't figure it out and from that representative sample set of ... one... you deduce that it must not be possible. 

 

 

But really. Please go check how fast the small weel of the lagg turns to use flaps or trim and after that compare how people fly both planes. You can go watch Fi rambo twitch channel and see his videos and look how he use masively the flaps and trim just to make every turn and now go to see my you tube channel, karaya, MkMx channel or some good luft pilot and compare how we use the 109.   We can also talk about how easy is to change the stage of the supercharger or manage all the engine controls on rus planes comparing to the real one so...

We can do all of that in your thread entitled "Stuff that I think is wrong with VVS aircraft". This line of retort is like saying "its ok to cheat on my test because the other guy did it too".

Edited March 21, 2017 by Dave

[Dave]

 

 

Again allied test reports don't matter much. No one knows about the condition of those aircraft nor the way they were operated. Still you have not linked any proof for your claims so this coudl as well be made up for the purpose of making a point where there is none.

No - nothing that threatens your wishful visions of unassailable German superiority matters much. We do know the condition they were in. Funnily enough it was documented at the same time as the test reports - who'da thunk it - as were the precise details of their operation. I haven't linked anything in this thread because I've already done so before in other threads on this forum on the very same topic. I could go and find them again for you but I have a job and if you really care you can go find them yourself. 

[unreasonable]

As the locals here say "When elephants fight the grass is trampled" so I am not going to get into this, except to say that generally I find complaints about aspects of the FM made on the basis of in game observations of other players' behaviour far less convincing than those made on the basis of tests carried out in the plane with the alleged fault.

 

The allegation that 109s can pull AoAs way over the quoted Tech Spec limits without stalling really requires a track of a 109 pilot doing it to be taken seriously. 

[Blutaar]

Dave cmon, dont be a fool and let it go, you are wrong, time to apololgise.

 

I thought we just talking about some exploit and now you are talking about nerfing the stabi, why didnt you say that in the beginning so people would already know what you want and stop taking you serious?

 

You sound like a luftwhiner just one that flys red planes, so what do you want the devs to do, how much stabi nerf is enough, doubling the needed revolutions on the trimwheel or better get rid of it and make it fixed, removing the ability to bind it to an axie?

 

I find low visibilty ranges and bad AIs much more unenjoyable then what you think is unenjoyable, of course im no onliner but if i where one i for sure would not play on an icons on dogfight server where you can expect cheaters.

 

No No No, i dont mean thgat most people on that kind of server are cheaters but this is a typical type of gameplay that attracts cheaters more then a boring empty feeling server, with empty feeling i just mean when you not able to find your enemys which is on realsitc navigation and settings possible, i dont know for sure but people will correct me then.

 

A real exploit would be something that gives you an adventage, i didnt try your exploit out but from what i read here its not a real issue and makes your plane worse, thats not how exploits work.

 

edit: Dave, may i ask you how many airkills you got back in WW2, you sure sound like a real experten, i thought they extinct now?

Edited March 21, 2017 by Ishtaru

[Dave]

The allegation that 109s can pull AoAs way over the quoted Tech Spec limits without stalling really requires a track of a 109 pilot doing it to be taken seriously. 

I would dearly love to do this in a way that allows me to record all the FM parameters but I haven't yet found a way. I have made the request a couple of times in the appropriate forum for us to be able to output this data either to a file or over UDP but the devs have no interest in it.

 

The best I can do is record a track and then analyse the video but without numbers no interpretation of the results will ever be accepted by some.

My claims are based on observations in MP. At first I was puzzled by aircraft performance that just didn't make sense but I put it down to lag, or me misreading initial energy state or whatever. But when it kept happening over and over and I was able to view the entire engagement I became suspicious. So I tried it myself flying the 109 (I tested the F specifically) and was easily able to game the FM by treating the stabiliser like a hyper-elevator. I tried both mapping it to its own axis and to the joystick Y axis. I also had success simultaneously binding it to both the joystick Y axis and an axis on my Warthog throttle allowing me to have hyper elevator without geramos' issue.

[Dave]

Dave cmon, dont be a fool and let it go, you are wrong, time to apololgise.

 

I thought we just talking about some exploit and now you are talking about nerfing the stabi, why didnt you say that in the beginning so people would already know what you want and stop taking you serious?

 

You sound like a luftwhiner just one that flys red planes, so what do you want the devs to do, how much stabi nerf is enough, doubling the needed revolutions on the trimwheel or better get rid of it and make it fixed, removing the ability to bind it to an axie?

 

I find low visibilty ranges and bad AIs much more unenjoyable then what you think is unenjoyable, of course im no onliner but if i where one i for sure would not play on an icons on dogfight server where you can expect cheaters.

 

No No No, i dont mean thgat most people on that kind of server are cheaters but this is a typical type of gameplay that attracts cheaters more then a boring empty feeling server, with empty feeling i just mean when you not able to find your enemys which is on realsitc navigation and settings possible, i dont know for sure but people will correct me then.

 

A real exploit would be something that gives you an adventage, i didnt try your exploit out but from what i read here its not a real issue and makes your plane worse, thats not how exploits work.

 

edit: Dave, may i ask you how many airkills you got back in WW2, you sure sound like a real experten, i thought they extinct now?

I am talking about an exploit. I'd like the stabiliser to not perform as a magic elevator which performs as quickly at 700km/h as it does sitting on the hardstand. You should be free to use the stabiliser trim as much as and in whatever scenario you please - it just shouldn't work the way it does.

This thread is about the stabiliser but I will bite:

Regarding spotting, I personally find the current visibility to be OK. It seems a bit off when you are at altitude and looking at ground objects, but aircraft become visible at about the range they do in real life given their size. Regarding cheaters and choice of server - you are actually more likely to find cheats on the non-icons servers like WOL where the advantage conferred by the exploit is greater.

I have tested stabiliser abuse and it gives you a MASSIVE advantage. When using it there is no area of the envelope where the 109 doesn't enjoy a clear superiority margin.

 

I wasn't alive in WW2. I am an ex-Air Force pilot though. While that doesn't make me an expert on the 109 or any other aircraft I haven't personally flown, my "feelings" have more real world flying experience in comparably performing aircraft than most people here.

Edited March 21, 2017 by Dave

[unreasonable]

@Dave - Not having in-game data on AoA etc certainly limits the ability to analyse flights, no question, but some evidence we can all look at is still better than a second hand account of MP. I know you can bind the stab in various ways, which may make it easier to manipulate the stab than it should be, but given the programmable nature of joysticks it is hard to see how that can be stopped. The question I am more interested in is: does this really allow the plane to do things that the FM should disallow?  (I am too lazy to find out myself, I do not play MP and I use the buttons normally).

 

For instance, if you could run a track showing a turn or pull up against some reference line like an airfield a) without stab change, b) with normal button stab change, c) with stab slaved to elevator then it would at least give something concrete for people to argue about, even if it is not totally conclusive. 

Edited March 21, 2017 by unreasonable

[19//Moach]

a thing that must be brought up, which I think most of the ppl here are overlooking -- there's not just one kind of 109

 

 

the Gustaf will stall when driven too hard - I find this the most believable of the variants (the stabilizer on it seems slower than on the Friedrich, though I can't confirm off the top of my head right now)

 

the Emil, I don't have any comment about - very little experience with it in this sim...

 

the Friedrich is a thing apart - that one seems to not understand what a stall is and quite simply doesn't care -- it wobbles a bit more than I would like, and I find it somewhat jittery for my preferred style of fighting, which the G suits better....  it is very clear to me, from flying the F (mind you, not from "getting shot down by it") that it is indeed a tad off, and most likely should stall somewhat more in the way its younger brother does - 

 

 

 

so this MUST be made absolutely clear:

 

whenever I (and others, most like) say anything in the lines of "the 109 has an impossible turn radius", regardless of reason - it is regarding the Friedrich

 

 

if you're disagreeing with the well founded claim that these planes behave a just little too "extraterrestrial-like" - I will agree with your retort as long as you had thought of the non-F variants - otherwise, I must agree with Dave, and anyone else who says the same:  the F's are unnaturally impervious to stalls and spins

 

 

 

I would like to believe that the ppl here saying that "it's supposed to be like this" are not just trying to expand the frontlines over to the forums, by defending unhistorical/wrong behavior that happens to give them an "edge" -- alas, I find that is too naive an interpretation of many retorts we read here, having come to know how a few of these minds operate...

 

please understand that we're not "lobbying to nerf your plane" -- the only acceptable argument here is that which promotes REALISM -- anything else is just pubescent self-entitled bickering

Edited March 21, 2017 by 19//Moach

[Dave]

@Unreasonable - that should be reasonably simple to do. This weekend - time permitting - I will do it. I generally prefer to fly a mission with my mates than spend hours recording tracks and editing video for the benefit of people who will simply dismiss it as "feelings".

Edited March 21, 2017 by Dave

[unreasonable]

I share your preferences. You could make it into a comic movie.      

 

Alternately, better just post the tracks rather than edit a movie - that way no-one will be able to say your editing is biased!

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

No - nothing that threatens your wishful visions of unassailable German superiority matters much. We do know the condition they were in. Funnily enough it was documented at the same time as the test reports - who'da thunk it - as were the precise details of their operation. I haven't linked anything in this thread because I've already done so before in other threads on this forum on the very same topic. I could go and find them again for you but I have a job and if you really care you can go find them yourself. 

Thx for making it easier for me by discrediting yourself with statements like 'wishful visions of unassailable German superiority'.

 

Making a lot of noise is not going to make you win an argument. Instead you need to back your point up to make it viable. I backed up mine, you just continue claiming without evidence. Your lack of evidence is not my or anybody else's issue, it's your's.

 

No idea who is supposed to be We?

[Dave]

Thx for making it easier for me by discrediting yourself with statements like 'wishful visions of unassailable German superiority'.

 

Making a lot of noise is not going to make you win an argument. Instead you need to back your point up to make it viable. I backed up mine, you just continue claiming without evidence. Your lack of evidence is not my or anybody else's issue, it's your's.

 

No idea who is supposed to be We?

 

Hmmm lets see ... you made the arrogant statement twice that allied reports carried no weight as though allied crews were incapable of accounting for the condition of the aircraft. I admit that when I just went back and checked - an earlier statement that I had attributed to you regarding performance claims being invalid because ... German engineering ... was actually made by someone else.

 

I have referenced supporting documents - you simply choose to disregard the reports which we (ie English word in this context referring to those assembled and participating in this conversation) are all perfectly well aware of (they have been trotted out for time and again on just about every forum since the dawn of combat flight sims) - evidently because they weren't authored by Germans. Sounds like you have an issue to me.

[Blutaar]

Pls read till the end before jumping me about the 109 FM.

 

 

Dave, if you can prove that the rate of stabi change is not right im all for it to change but its just a minor little bug, nothing i would push for, i mean it is already very slow in my opinion, how slow should it be?
 

You know what, i claim that the 109 fm is wrong, no plane should fly like this as long as it has wings, i cant back it up with evidence its just a feeling but sure it feels wrong to me so devs go and fix it.

 

What do you think is the chance of it actually getting fixed, i bet the chance is as low as your chance is to get the stabi nerfed without any kind of data or evidence.

 

Dont take me to serious, i really think the 109 fm is not 100% right but i just exaggerate a bit, it just feels odd at certain speeds while maneuvering, i can live with it if people are for the most part ok with that because it is realistic i dont really know.

Edited March 21, 2017 by Ishtaru

[Irgendjemand]

Funny thread.
Whats the equivalent term for Luftwhiner on VVS side btw?
Anyone knows?

[Blutaar]

How about "RedSissy"?

 

Sry im not good at this.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Well I see no reason to complain about the 109's stabilizer so yea I'm not the one with issues.

 

If you wish to continue your personal attacks, go ahead, I will not really care about it.

You know what, i claim that the 109 fm is wrong, no plane should fly like this as long as it has wings, i cant back it up with evidence its just a feeling but sure it feels wrong to me so devs go and fix it.

You forgot the part were everybody diagreeing with your statement is obviously a believer of 'unassailable German superiority'.

Edited March 21, 2017 by 6./ZG26_5tuka

[Holtzauge]

Holtzauge i was talking about 109 pilots here in the sim...

 

I get that: That was why I referred to the IRL use of the stabilizer as a "exploit"

[Holtzauge]

Well unless someone comes up with some better data, as far as I can see the report 5tuka posted and I referenced above is the best we have.

 

My conclusion from that report is that it was perfectly possible to pull out from high speed dives using the stabilizer since it was easy to move towards tail heavy. That being said, in-game it is easy to move freely in both directions and it also seems quite fast to me but that is just subjective and I have not personally measured it so if someone wants to change that I suggest they get some data on how quick it could be done IRL and compare that to how quick it can be done in-game. If there is a definable delta then that would be a basis to call for a change.

 

This is a perfectly reasonable request I think and as such should not only be reserved for FM alterations requested by “Luftwhiners” but applicable to any request or else we are dealing with a double standard. I’m not pointing any fingers but I have noticed that some of those who are the most vociferous in shooting down FM change requests unsupported by data only appear selectively and are strangely absent from this thread…….

 

When it comes to the so-called mapping exploit I confess I have not tried to set it up but I’m sure if someone came up with an idea of how to retain decent mapping possibilities without allowing the possibility to use it to gain an in-game manouvering advantage I’m sure it would be looked into as well. However, just complaining without making any constructive suggestion how to avoid it seems unproductive.

 

Concerning the stalling characteristics this seems to be a general issue with some aircraft in the BoX FM since to me when I fly the Yak it is very docile in stall and nice to prop hang with so I don’t see that the Me-109 is a particular offender in this respect?

[19//Moach]

this isn't unsubstantiated data - we have documents and publications clearly stating that the 109 trim wheel was designed to move at the same speed as the flaps, and this took 5 and three quarter turns of the wheel between both ends 

 

 

logic thus dictates, the trim wheel has to move at the exact same rate as the flaps wheel - currently in the game, it's about twice as fast (and it accelerates with a button if held down a few secs) - most inconvenient on landings - rather unhistorical on dogfights

 

here's one, of many available sources with this same information: http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?151221-Flying-the-Messerschmitt-Bf-109

 

 

also - argumenting to keep an unfair aspect of one plane with "another plane does something else that justifies this as a response" is as rhetorically evolved as a 5 year old, who when in trouble for smacking his little brother says: "oh, but HE started it, mom!"

Edited March 21, 2017 by 19//Moach

[unreasonable]

this isn't unsubstantiated data - we have documents and publications clearly stating that the 109 trim wheel was designed to move at the same speed as the flaps, and this took 5 and three quarter turns of the wheel between both ends 

 

 

 

 

The quotation in your link says  "Five three-quarter turns of a 11.7 in diameter wheel on the pilot's left are needed to move the adjustable tailplane through its full 12-degrees range. " Ie it does not say "5 and three quarter turns".

 

5 * 3/4 = 15/4 = 3.75 turns.  In game, the trim wheel (F-4 [edit E-7 is exactly the same - just checked]) has to be turned 4 rotations to give the full range. Close enough.

 

The in game flaps wheel needs 8 turns. edit:  There is a slight lag before the trim wheel starts to turn for some reason, then it starts turning more slowly than the flaps wheel, then  gets faster than the flaps wheel. Total time elapsed is about half that of the flaps wheel - but then it has to do half the revolutions, so the average speed is about the same. I do find it odd that the flaps wheel turns at a constant pace when the button is depressed while the trim wheel starts slower and ends up faster. It would seem make more sense to have them turn at the same speed as though they were both being turned with one hand together,  but this may be a mechanic needed to give the trim wheel sufficient sensitivity that we can make small corrections without overshooting.

 

Incidently, I have looked at various of these sources and have not spotted anywhere that explicitly states that the two wheels had the same number of turns for their full travel. They are obviously meant to be easy to be turned together - but that does not necessarily mean what you are claiming. Indeed I find it rather unlikely - you will be trimmed very tail heavy on the landing approach well before you are anywhere near maximum flap extension.

 

But I could of course be wrong - so if you have got specific wording, please share it. 

Edited March 21, 2017 by unreasonable

[Holtzauge]

also - argumenting to keep an unfair aspect of one plane with "another plane does something else that justifies this as a response" is as rhetorically evolved as a 5 year old, who when in trouble for smacking his little brother says: "oh, but HE started it, mom!"

 

Well what I wrote about it being a general FM thing obviously flew over your head so I'll leave you to your kindergarten analogies where you seem to be quite knowledgeable.

[Holtzauge]

The quotation in your link says  "Five three-quarter turns of a 11.7 in diameter wheel on the pilot's left are needed to move the adjustable tailplane through its full 12-degrees range. " Ie it does not say "5 and three quarter turns".

 

5 * 3/4 = 15/4 = 3.75 turns.  In game, the trim wheel (F-4) has to be turned 4 rotations to give the full range. Close enough.

 

The in game flaps wheel needs 8 turns. 

 

Incidently, I have looked at various of these sources and have not spotted anywhere that explicitly states that the two wheels had the same number of turns for their full travel. They are obviously meant to be easy to be turned together - but that does not necessarily mean what you are claiming. Indeed I find it rather unlikely - you will be trimmed very tail heavy on the landing approach well before you are anywhere near maximum flap extension.

 

But I could of course be wrong - so if you have got specific wording, please share it. 

 

In addition, how many degrees change in stabilizer angle on the Me-109 does it take to pull out of a dive? Say to initiate a 3 or 5 g pullout? How many turns does it take? I wager the stabilizer is very effective so a small angle should do it. However, I'm not the one saying the current FM is wrong so if Dave and Moach say what we have today is wrong I would be very interested to hear how many turns was needed? Source?

Edited March 21, 2017 by Holtzauge

[Blutaar]

 

 

You forgot the part were everybody diagreeing with your statement if obviously a believer of 'unassailable German superiority'.

 

I dont know if i misunderstood you but i dont believe in 'unassailable German superiority', i just think we make good stuff like other nations also do, didnt know that this is something you should not be proud of as a german.

 

Just in case i wasnt precise enough in my post before, i intentionally exaggarated as i said the 109 fm is wrong and i thought i made it clear one sentence later, if i am honest, im more of a 190 guy so it affects me not much if the 109 get nerfed.

 

If i misunderstood you then im sorry, language barrier i think.

[19//Moach]

"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)

 

 

 

 

The Best of the Breed
by Col. "Kit" Carson
Airpower, July 1976
Vol. 6 No. 4
Anyone who believes that he can satisfactorily demonstrate which WWII fighter was the "best" out of the whole bag that appeared from 1940 to 1945 is incredibly naive. There are so many performance variables and kinds of missions, that arguing them to all to a bedrock conclusion that would convince everyone is virtually impossible. There were a few generally acknowledged leaders, however, fighters which became household words the world over: the Spitfire, Mustang, Thunderbolt, Focke-Wulf 190 all proved themselves in the crucible of war. The Me 262 was the first operational jet fighter and a dazzling achievement, years ahead of anything we had. 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. It was a hopeless collection of lumps, bumps, stiff controls, and placed its pilot in a cramped, squarish cockpit with poor visibility.
Putting aside the relative merits of one fighter versus another, there was a simple truth that quickly emerged from your first engagement with the enemy: whichever one of you saw the other one first had the winning advantage.
The most subjective variable is the experience and ability of the pilots. Their state of training was certainly an essential factor. Thus Clair Chennault was able to recruit experienced Army and Navy reserve pilots and civilians with a solid log book into the AVG "Flying Tigers", who flew for China in 1941, and chalked up a 12 to 1 victory loss ratio with P-40s. However, he warned new arrivals, "You've got to be good out here; when you tackle a Zero in a P-40 you are already outnumbered 3 to 1." He despaired of the P-40 as a weapon, but it was all he could get. The ultimate measure of combat effectiveness in fighter operations is the victory-to-loss ratio and there are several factors in the equation that one can juggle if necessary, but you deal yourself all the high cards that you can. Chennault's low cards were the P-40 and rotten logistic support; his high cards were experienced pilots, tactical genius, and dogged determination. That's another way of saying that unless you were willing to close with the enemy in decisive combat, using all the advantages that you have, and carve your initials on him, then your government made a mistake in pinning those wings on you.
So I must leave it to the reader to conjecture about pilots and crews while we talk about airplanes. What follows is intended to give the average aviation enthusiast some idea of how the fighters in Europe compared with each other in performance and maneuverability. The data on British and German aircraft come from the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough. Data on the American fighters come from the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics test reports and, in addition, figures on the Mustang have been verified by data from North American Aviation flight test reports where it was possible to do so.
The first German aircraft that was shot down over England and which landed intact was a Heinkel 111 brought down on 28 October 1939. Two of the four crew were dead but the airplane survived in one piece except for a few bullet holes. A Ju 88 was shot down a few days before, but it crashed into the sea, a total loss. As the war went on into 1940 and the Battle of Britain was engaged, German aircraft fell all over England. Different types were quickly recovered in various stages of disrepair and subsequently arrive at experimental stations for analysis and to be made flyable again, if possible. Those that were brought down by fighters or antiaircraft guns were usually basket cases. The more favored carcasses were those that landed because of engine failure, exhausted fuel or bad navigation. Abundantly provided by thes sources, the British soon had a "flying circus" of captured German aircraft with RAF markings that toured the air bases in Britain to allow familiarization of new crews with the armament, performance and weaknesses of the opposition.
The idea of building a fighter to meet every performance requirement is out of the question. At best, each design is a compromise with priority emphasis on one or two qualities. Thus the Spitfire was a true interceptor designed primarily for the defense of the British Isle, a sprint climber with a small turning radius. The Mustang, after its conversion to the Merlin engine in 1942, was a fast, long-range, strategic escort fighter with an easy 8-hour endurance. Like the T-bolt it would dive like a banshee, well ahead of the Spit and all German craft. However, in rate of climb the Me 109G was 200-500 feet per minute ahead of the Mustang upto 20,000 feet, then the '51 pulled ahead on up to 40,000 feet, while the Spit 14 would climb faster than any of them at any altitude from sea level up.
Generalizations in narrative form are difficult to make and by the time you get to the end, the conclusions are so fogged up the reader can't tell where he's at. We will, therefore, deal primarily in numbers of two kinds -- One group is those that are measured against time: speed, endurance, rate of climb and acceleration in a dive. The second kind is those that are measured by distance: range and turning radius. Speed, most emphatically, is not everything.
Before we get into the performance comparison competition, some acquaintance with the features of the aircraft that we're talking about is necessary for understanding of why things turned out as they did. If you're handy with a slide rule you can do your own mission profiles and performance variations.

Me 109
General Characteristics:
The characteristics of two Me-109 models are of historical interest, the "E" and the "G". The "E" formed the backbone of the German fighter strength during the Battle of Britain, its opposition being the Spitfire I and the Hurricane I. The "G" was the prevailing type in 1944 during the Battle of Europe and its main opponents were the Spit 14, the Thunderbolt, and the Mustang. So it is worthwhile to explore more fully the characteristics of the Me-109 because it was the longest-lived of the fighters produced in Germany. It was a most worthy opponent in 1939, but it was outclassed by 1942 and by 1944 was manifestly obsolete.
An intact Me-109E with wing cannon was captured by the French in the summer of 1940 and was flown to England for flight test and evaluation. There were three stages of development prior to the "G". First was an early version of 109 flying in 1938 with a 670hp Jumo 210 engine, a fixed pitch wooden prop and two synchronized guns. Second was the variable-pitch two-bladed prop model and the addition of two wing guns. Third was the "E" model, with a far more powerful engine, the DB 601, which was an inverted V-12 of 1100hp with direct fuel injection driving a 3-bladed variable-pitch prop. Its wing structure was beefed up, but in the process of "designing" in the additonal engine and structural weight, the engineers screwed up the center of gravity, and 60 pounds of permanent ballast had to be added to the rear of the fuselage to get the C.G. back. As a pilot and an engineer I can only be sympathetic with 109 pilots. Who needs that kind of milstone around his neck in a fighter? Pilots had nothing to say about the design faults of airplanes in Germany. They had damn little to say about them in England or in this country, at that time. Designers didn't have to fly their mistakes; they just produced them. Most of them didn't know how to fly and didn't want to learn, but more about that later.
In size the Me 109, all models, was the smallest fighter produced by Germany or the Allies. That gave it a high wing loading for that time, about 32 lb./sq. ft. for the "E". The Spit I and the Hurricane I were about 25 lb./sq. ft. at their normal combat weight. The 109-G was about 38 lb./sq. ft. as compared to 35 lb./sq. ft. for the P-51B.

Me-109E Me-109G
Mean weight, lbs. 5580 6450
Engine DB 601 DB 605A
Horsepower 1100/15,000 ft. 1475/22,000 ft.
Power loading, lbs./HP 5.07 4.37
Wing loading, lbs./sq. ft. 32.1 37.5
Prop. diameter, ft. 10.2 9.83
Gear Ratio 14/9 16.85/10
Wing Geometry:
Area sq. ft. 174 172
Span, ft. 32.4 32.6
Mean Chord, ft. 5.36 5.38
Aspect Ratio 6.05 6.10
Dihedral, degrees 5.75 5.75
Sweepback, degrees 1.0 1.0
Root chord, ft. 7.03 7.0
Tip chord, ft. 3.42 3.42
Root thickness, percent chord 14.8 14.2
Tip thickness, percent chord 10.5 11.3
Slat length/span, percent 46.2 Approx. same
Slat Chord/local chord, percent 11.8 Approx. same
Wing Twist, Root to tip 0 0
Speed, mph 354/12,500 ft. 387/23,000 ft.

The fastest "G" subtype was the G-10 capable of 344 mph at SL or 428 mph at 24,000 ft. with a meager range of 350 miles and an endurance of 55 minutes, but it wasn't introduced until the spring of 1944. Too little, too late, and still lacking in range and endurance.
Engine and Propellor:
In principle the DB 601 and 605 series engines were the same as the Allison or Merlin, except they were inverted and had direct fuel injection; otherwise they were 12-cylinder, 60 degree Vee, glycol-cooled engines. The prop was a 10.2 foot, 3 blade variable pitch mechanism of VDM design. Here is another major difference between their design approach and ours. The pitch on the Me-109 prop could be set at any value between 22.5 and 90 degrees, a visual pitch indicator being provided for the pilot. There was no provision for automatically governing the rpm. We did just the opposite, using a constant speed governor and flying by a constant tachometer indication of rpm. For any flight condition the rpm remained constant. We didn't know, or care, what the blade angle was.
Wings and Controls:
The wings had straight leading and trailing edge taper and no geometric twist from root to tip. The airfoil section had a 2 percent camber with the maximum thickness at the 30% chord position. The "E" thickness ratio was 14.8 percent at the root and 10.5 percent at the tip. All that was standard design practice of the mid-1930s. What was new for fighter design was the leading edge slats which ran 46% of the span. There was no damping device fitted to the slat mechanism, they'd bang open at 120 mph with the airplane clean or at 100 mph with the gear and flaps down. Each control surface was mass-balanced. Another unusual feature was that as the flaps were lowered, the ailerons automatically drooped, coming down 11 degrees for the full flap movement of 42 degrees.
There were no movable trim tab controls on the ailerons or rudder, although both had fixed tabs that could be bent on the ground. Pitch trim was affected by changing the stabilizer incidence thrugh a range of 12 degrees. The design scheme was that both the flaps and the stabilizer were coordinated mechanically from two 12-inch wheels mounted concentrically on the left side of the pilot's seat. By twirling both wheels in the same direction the pilot could automatically compensate for the change of pitch trim due to lowering or raising the flaps. Differential coordination could be set by moving one wheel relative to the other.
Performance Evaluation:
The first surprise you get in planning a test hop in the Me-109 is that you're limited to about an hour with some aerobatics at combat power, because the internal fuel capacity is only 88 gallons; with the drop tank, the "G" carried a total of 154 gallons. I'll never understand why the fuel capacity designed in Luftwaffe fighters was so limited. It was a major design deficiency that contributed to the loss of the air war, but even more puzzling is the fact that it could have been quickly changed anytime after 1940 onward, but it wasn't.
Takeoff was best done with 30 degrees of flaps. The throttle could be opened quickly without loading or choking up the engine. In fact, the Daimler-Benz engine was the best thing about that airplane. The stick had to be held hard forward to get the tail up, and it was advisable to let the airplane fly itself off. If it was pulled off at low speed the left wing would not respond and on applying aileron the wing would lift and fall again with the aileron snatching a little. If no attempt was made to pull it off quickly, the takeoff run was short and the initial climb good.
The absense of a rudder trim control in the cockpit was a bad feature at speeds above cruise or in dives. Above 300 mph the pilot needed a very heavy foot on the port rudder pedal for trimmed flight with no sideslip which is absolutely essential for gunnery. The pilot's left leg quickly tired while keeping this load on, and this affected his ability to put on more left rudder for a turn at 300 mph or above. Consequently, at high speeds the 109 could turn far more readily to the right than to the left.
Fighting Qualities:
A series of mock dogfights were conducted by the British in addition to the flight test and the following was revealed:
If the airplane was trimmed for level flight, a heavy push on the stick was needed to hold it in a dive at 400 mph. 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.
Ailerons:
At low speeds, the ailerons control was good, response brisk. As speed increased the ailerons became too heavy but the response was good up to 200 mph. At 300 mph they became "unpleasant". Over 300 mph they became impossible. At 400 mph the stick felt like it was set in a bucket of cement. A pilot exerting all his strength could not apply more than one fifth aileron at 400 mph; that's 5 degrees up and 3 degrees down. The aileron situation at high combat speeds might be summarized in the following way:
(1) Due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick as compared to 60 pounds or more possible if he had more elbow room.
(2) Messerschmitt also penalized the pilot by designing in an unsually small stick top travel of plus or minus 4 inches, giving very poor mechanical advantage between pilot and aileron.
(3) At 400 mph with 40 pounds side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4 seconds to get into a 45 degree roll or bank. That immediately classifies the airplane as being unmaneuverable and unacceptable as a fighter.
Elevator:
This was a good control at slow speeds but became too heavy above 250 mph and at 400 mph it became so heavy that maneurverability became seriously restricted. When diving at 400 mph a pilot, pulling very hard could not pull enough "g" force to black himself out. The stick force per "g" was an excess of 20 pounds in a high speed dive. To black out, as a limit to the human factor in high speed maneuvers, would require over 100 pounds pull on the stick.
Rudder:
At low speeds the rudder was light, but sluggish in response. At 200 mph the sluggishness disappears, at 300 mph the absense of trim control in the cockpit became an acute problem. The pilot's leg force on the port rudder above 300 mph to prevent sideslip became excessive and unacceptable.
Control Harmony:
At low speed, below 250 mph, control harmony was good, only a little spoiled by the suggishness of the rudder. At higher speeds the aileron and elevator forces were so high that the word "harmony" is inappropriate.
Aerobatics
Not easy to do. Loops had to be started from about 280 mph when the elevator forces were getting unduly heavy; there was also a tendency for the wing slats to bang open the top of the loop, resulting in aileron snatch and loss of direction.
Below 250 mph the airplane would roll quickly, but there was a strong tendency for the nose to fall through the horizon in the last half of the roll and the stick had to be moved well back to keep the nose up.
Upward rolls were difficult, again because of elevator heaviness at the required starting speed. Due to this, only a moderate pull out from a dive to build up speed was possible and considerable speed was lost before the upward roll could be started.
The very bad maneuverability at high speed of the Me 109 quickly became known to the RAF pilots in 1940. On many occasions 109 pilots were led to self-destruction when on the tail of a Hurricane or Spitfire at moderate or low altitudes. The RAF pilot would do a snappy half roll and "split ess" pull out, from say 3,000 feet. In the heat and confusion of the moment the 109 pilot would follow, only to discover that he didn't have enough altitude to recover due to his heavy elevator forces and go straight into the ground or the Channel without a shot being fired.
Turning Radius:
At full throttle, at 12,000 feet, the minimum turning radius without loss of altitude was about 890 feet for the Me 109E with its wing loading of 32 pounds per square foot. The corresponding figure for the Spit I or Hurricane was about 690 feet with a wing loading of 25 pounds.
Summary:
Good points:
(1) Reasonable top speed and good rate of climb.
(2) Engine did not cut out under negative "g," also reliable.
(3) Good control response at low speeds.
(4) Easy stall, not precipitous.
Bad Points:
(1) Ailerons and elevator far too heavy at high speed.
(2) Poor turning radius.
(3) Absence of rudder trim control in cockpit.
(4) Aileron snatch (grabbing -- uneven airflow) when slats opened.
(5) Cockpit too cramped.
(6) Visibility poor from cockpit.
(7) Range and endurance inadequate.
While the 109 may have been a worthy opponent in the Spanish Civil War or during the Battle of France in early 1940, it became a marginal airplane against the Spits during the attack on Britain in September of that year. By 1942, even with the appearance of the "G," it was definitely obsolete. However, the Germans continued to produce it as the backbone of the Luftwaffe fighter forces. The attitude of Nazi high command was that this was going to be a quick "blitz" war and if they lost three 109s for every Spitfire shot down, that was acceptable. In fact, in 1940 the official policy was laid down that the development of all other aircraft types requiring more than 6 months for completion was prohibited. They'd turn out the existing designs like hot cakes and swamp the RAF with production.
That doesn't say much for any charitable concern they should have had for the unnecessary loss of pilots caused by going into combat with a sub-standard airplane. But, after all, no one has ever said that the Führer and Göring had any anxiety about their pilots or troops. Quite the contrary, the record of history shows that they had none.
Furthermore, no designer in that period would pretend that he could stretch the combat effectiveness of a fighter for 7 years, 1935 to 1942, without major changes in power plant or aerodynamics, or, better yet, going to a new design. Technology in design in that era was changing too fast. The reader might well say, "The Spitfire was certainly a long line of fighters, about 10 years, how come?"
The Spitfire was an aerodynamically clean airplane to start with, having a total drag coefficient of .021 at cruise. The Me-109 had a coefficient of .036; drag coefficiency and of the horsepower required to haul 'em around. Like golf scores, the lower the better, and no fudging.
The British, in particular the staff at Vickers Supermarine, had done their homework in aerodynamics and put out a clean airplane that had the potential of longevity and increased performance. They had only to wait for Rolls-Royce to pump up the horsepower on the Merlin, which they did by going from 790 hp in 1934 to well over 2,000 by 1945. The Merlin, in my (Col. Carson's) opinion, was the best achievement in mechanical engineering in the first half of the century.
Messerschmitt practically ignored the subject of low-drag aerodynamics and one can tell that by an inspection of the 109E or G. The fact is evident even in close-up photographs. It was aerodynamically the most inefficient fighter of its time. That's a puzzling thing when one realizes that much of the original work on high speed drag and turbulent surface friction was done in Germany in the '20s and '30s. Messerschmitt was surrounded by it. Further, the work in England and the U.S. in this field was in the open literature, at least until 1938.
I also suspect, again from the record of history, that Willy Messerschmitt was too busy becoming a Direktor of Messerschmitt A.G. to concentrate on improving his status as an ingenieur.
Having gone this far, let me carry this affront to Messerschmitt's engineering reputation one step further.
An airplane factory can get things done awfully fast, in any country and in any language, once the engineers and sheet metal benders understand what is wanted. Every factory has a "development shop" or its equivalent, which is a full scale model or prototype shop with 100 or 200 old pros in every skill. Having that many coffee drinkers, pipe smokers and "yarn spinners" around on the payroll, let's clobber 'em with a bundle of shop drawings on a clean up of the Me 109. Object: to make it a 400 mph plus airplane. Time... 30 days. The information and techniques required are currently available as of 1940. It's all written up in unclassifed reports.
(1) Cancel the camouflage paint and go to smooth bare metal. Besides the weight, about 50 pounds, the grain size is too large when it dries and it causes turbulent friction over the entire airplane surface. That may take a phone call to the brass. They're emotional about paint jobs. "Image," you know.
(2) Modify the cockpit canopy. Remove the inverted bathtub that's on there now and modify as necessary to fit the Me 209V-1 canopy. That's the airplane that set the world speed record in 1939.
(3) Get rid of the wing slats. Lock them closed and hand-fit a strip, upper and lower surface, that will close the sheet metal gaps between the slat and wing structure. That gap causes the outboard 15 feet of each wing to be totally turbulent.
(4) As aerodynamic compensation for locking the slats, setup jigs and fixtures on the assembly line to put in 2 degrees of geometric twist from the root to tip, known as "washout."
(5) Modify coolant scoop inlet fairings. The square corners that are there now induce an unnecessary amount of drag. Also lower the inlet 1 to 2 inches below wing surface to get it out of the turbulence of the wing surface.
(6) Install complete wheel well farings that cover the openings after the gear is retracted.
(7) Retract tail wheel.
All of the above could have been done in 30 days but it wasn't. I don't know why. Someone would have to ask Willy...it's for him to say.

Edited March 22, 2017 by 19//Moach

[JG13_opcode]

Why do people keep posting opinions?  Opinions are useless because they lack context and quantifiable data.  How do you program an opinion into a flight simulator?

 

I note without surprise that nobody has posted conclusive data, yet.

 

Why does this thread still exist?

[unreasonable]

Why does this thread still exist?

 

So that:

 

1) Dave can post his tracks showing the 109 exceeding it's critical AoA without stalling by using the slider-trim exploit, ie there is a serious FM mistake.

 

2) Moach can post his documentary evidence explicitly stating that the trim wheel and the flap wheel required the same number of turns for full travel. 

 

3) Anyone can post a track/video showing how using the trim-slider exploit actually changes the incidence of the stab faster than pressing and holding a button.  Note that it does, this is easy for anyone to check for themselves.  I timed it as 6 seconds for full travel using buttons, 4 seconds using a axis. I did not try with slaved to elevator - to worried about messing up my settings. (Stationary on the ground, as far as I can see the time is not affected by airspeed. Also counting not a stopwatch so not precise, but the difference is obvious).

 

I do think that is wrong in principle, the times should be the same and should be corrected, although whether the higher or lower time is closer to being "right" I have no idea. Faster speed might seem better, but also makes it harder to trim precisely. 

 

So it is true that not only will an axis re-trim your stabilizer faster, but as it only takes a second to move the wheel, you have an extra 5 seconds to do whatever it is that you do with your left hand while flying......  

Edited March 22, 2017 by unreasonable

[Aap]

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)

 

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" 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".