New FM

[E69_geramos109]

You can hear prety clear the pilot Volker flying the G4. The trim at cruise speed with full tank is 0 position not +1 and +2. Take off recomendation on the manual doesn´t mean the flight trim setting is +1 also. And what about the delay when you stop using it on the game and the weel is still turning?? No sense. 

I repeat that i am not complaining about the time needed to use the stab.

[LLv24_Zami]

And what about the delay when you stop using it on the game and the weel is still turning?? No sense. 

 

Have you tried this recently? I don`t have it anymore, trim wheel stops immediately after I stop pushing the button.

[Trinkof]

Hey guys ! I am away for traveling for a few months, and not able to test what seems to be the best patch ever. Regarding FM, I am curious, how is the macchi now, as I always felt it was really not fitting the descriptions from pilots i was aware about. Many thanks in advance if someone want to share his feeling ... This is my favorite plane !

S !

[thermoregulator]

I think Macchi is much better than before. It handles really nicely. It´s definitely easier to fly. I have to test it more though....

[thermoregulator]

It rolls fast up to 550 Km/h, turns quite good, it´s easy to fly coordinated. But you take full fuel, i stalls easily in tight turns.

[Boaty-McBoatface]

Macchi is a good roller as it always was. Stalls a little viscously.

[Finkeren]

I seldom fly the Macchi due to the horrible cockpit view, but since the patch I've seen quite a few people flying it online, something I never saw before the update.

[E69_geramos109]

Have you tried this recently? I don`t have it anymore, trim wheel stops immediately after I stop pushing the button.

I still have the problem i have the button just on the joy. I map the trim also in the keyboard to see if was my joy problem but nothing changes. It only happens on the 109

[LLv24_Zami]

I still have the problem i have the button just on the joy. I map the trim also in the keyboard to see if was my joy problem but nothing changes. It only happens on the 109

Strange. I have it on joystick hat, works very well.

[3./JG15_Kampf]

I seldom fly the Macchi due to the horrible cockpit view, but since the patch I've seen quite a few people flying it online, something I never saw before the update.

 Also p40 and la5. Funny how decreased the use of yak

Edited September 5, 2017 by 3./JG15_Kampf

[Finkeren]

 Also p40 and la5. Funny how decreased the use of yak

 

The Yak took a beating in the high speed handling and roll rate department. It's still good, but not clearly the best the VVS has to offer anymore.

 

Personally I love the variety we see on servers now.

[Jizzo]

I seldom fly the Macchi due to the horrible cockpit view, but since the patch I've seen quite a few people flying it online, something I never saw before the update.

I really love the 202 only thing i hate is, that sometimes the axis aircraft are a bigger threat to you than the vvs when flying it.

[Guest deleted@50488]

The P40-E is a very nice aircraft to use in combat, provided I do things by the book, which I usually tend not to do....

 

It got a lot more plausible in terms of what I think should be it's handling characteristics, and while it was already one of my preferred aircraft it is groing on me :-)

 

I also really like the Spitfire Vb

[FTC_Riksen]

I really love the 202 only thing i hate is, that sometimes the axis aircraft are a bigger threat to you than the vvs when flying it.

Lol. True that, I shot one down last month in WoL thinking it was a bloody MiG

[Guest deleted@83466]

I do wonder if the FM changes introduced a little bit too much stability.  Even properly trimmed, could any of these real airplanes be flown virtually hands-off?  Our simulated planes now come close to that.  In the previous FM's there was much complaining about wobbling...now there is hardly any wobbling or very little sensation of gyroscopic affects in any plane.  There was concern about too much roll coupling, but now I wonder if there should be more....like in a power dive, with my ball halfway to the right, the plane is slipping itself fairly substantially, but hardly has a tendency to want to roll at all.  Maybe it's just a matter of being so used to how the planes feel from before, which we know was not quite correct, but I dunno, I'm definitely sensing a little bit of the flying-on-rails feeling.

Edited September 8, 2017 by Iceworm

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

I do wonder if the FM changes introduced a little bit too much stability.  Even properly trimmed, could any of these real airplanes be flown virtually hands-off?  Our simulated planes now come close to that.  In the previous FM's there was much complaining about wobbling...now there is hardly any wobbling or very little sensation of gyroscopic affects in any plane.  There was concern about too much roll coupling, but now I wonder if there should be more....like in a power dive, with my ball halfway to the right, the plane is slipping itself fairly substantially, but hardly has a tendency to want to roll at all.  Maybe it's just a matter of being so used to how the planes feel from before, which we know was not quite correct, but I dunno, I'm definitely sensing a little bit of the flying-on-rails feeling.

As you gather speed in a dive with throttle at idle the aircraft gains momentum which increases it's stability in flight (ie 'flying on rails'). The only way an aircraft could gain a roll momentum in a dive is when:

 

1. Your trim is offset.

2. You apply a lot of throttle at low RPM (engine/propellor torque)

3. the aircraft is affected by compressebility

4. the aircraft is designed to produce asymmetrical lift (example: Mc 202) which can lead to such results at high enought speeds

 

The rudder induced roll reaction has been improved by tweaking the slipstream physics to be more realistic so that is out of question to be 'wrong'. As real pilots already said, myself included, it feels closer to the real flying expirience compared to what was there before.

 

Last, pls consider these changes took more than 1/2 year of implementation and carefull, time consuming testing before jumpin conclusions 1 week after release.

Edited September 9, 2017 by 6./ZG26_5tuka

[Guest deleted@83466]

Well then, like I said, I guess my perception might come from being so used to the old flight models...but since the update I've been amazed at how much easier it is to bring a plane's guns on target now with such precision.  Even in planes like the Mig-3, one of my new favorites, but which were said to be unforgiving and unstable as a gun platform in real life, my new perceptions are pretty consistent.  If it's been determined that that's how these birds fly, I'm ok with that, but I thought I'd ask.  I'm overall feeling much better about the ability of the VVS to fight the LW now.

Edited September 8, 2017 by Iceworm

[E69_geramos109]

Is fun to see that you have mig pilot telling how difficult was to land this plane nearly imposible in a  non concrete field and now even a monkey can land this plane. Lests be serious we have to admit that some things on the fm are made to be more easy and to caught new clients for the game. 

[LukeFF]

Lests be serious we have to admit that some things on the fm are made to be more easy and to caught new clients for the game.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

[E69_geramos109]

That's the worst rubbish I've ever heard. And coming from a Luftie-only E69 pilot. You're pissed about your 109 high speed stick forces aren't you?

 

You E69 lot are as bad as the ITAF boys... "109 brick!"

 

Get out of here... And get some skills!

1. You are wrong. I am not complaining about stick forces or the time to use the trim, i am complaining about the wrong position of the take off and cruise configuration now 1 nose down. Is a completelly different materia and is not going to affect the stick forces

2. You are wrong again I use to fly russian often. You can go to see Taw campaigns or random expert to see where E69 were flying

3. My skills are enought for dealing with 6 like you at the same time. I have kills even flying as red so...

 

You can still beliebe that you are a great pilot because you can land a mig 3 and a i16 on a grass field if you want. You are that kind of players that everything is fine and you can say nothing against the fms and after they release a path correcting something you have to close the mouth.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Mig3 landing and take off characteristics changed dramatically - it's simple fact, but we don't know for sure why and why they were different in first place to, as you guessing that they were made easy one can say they are product of more realistic model of aerodynamic forces acting on plane during take off and land.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

There is lots of ignorance about the MiG-3. The chief reason some pilots found it hard to handle was that all of them had converted straight from I-15s and I-16s without much training.

[ITAF_Cymao]

 

 

Get out of here... And get some skills!

War thunder style: in 24.36 h >>>>> 136 sorties - 108 aircraft lost -28 dead - 21 captured (84 airkill and 136 groundkill)  I think you're the last person who can say such things!!!!!

 

 

From what I read some russian planes seem to be improved... (what a strange thing)

 

The BF 109 is changed, some for the better for others for the worse...

Surely the reds who cried for BF109 exploit now seem happy, very happy!

 

S!
 

[ITAF_Rani]

Temujin..you make me really smile..!!

You are a very nice person.

My compliments

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

War thunder style: in 24.36 h >>>>> 136 sorties - 108 aircraft lost -28 dead - 21 captured (84 airkill and 136 groundkill) I think you're the last person who can say such things!!!!!

 

 

From what I read some russian planes seem to be improved... (what a strange thing)

 

The BF 109 is changed, some for the better for others for the worse...

Surely the reds who cried for BF109 exploit now seem happy, very happy!

 

S!

 

What BF109 exploit?

[unreasonable]

1. You are wrong. I am not complaining about stick forces or the time to use the trim, i am complaining about the wrong position of the take off and cruise configuration now 1 nose down. Is a completelly different materia and is not going to affect the stick forces

2. You are wrong again I use to fly russian often. You can go to see Taw campaigns or random expert to see where E69 were flying

3. My skills are enought for dealing with 6 like you at the same time. I have kills even flying as red so...

 

You can still beliebe that you are a great pilot because you can land a mig 3 and a i16 on a grass field if you want. You are that kind of players that everything is fine and you can say nothing against the fms and after they release a path correcting something you have to close the mouth.

 

My bold - The take off position for 109 G2-4 is +1 according to the manual. It is not wrong. When you cruise, change it to whatever you want - you do know how to change the trim, right?  Judging from the fuss you are making I would have to guess no.

[E69_geramos109]

There is lots of ignorance about the MiG-3. The chief reason some pilots found it hard to handle was that all of them had converted straight from I-15s and I-16s without much training.

You have here a non experienced pilot talking about the landing on the mig3 and i16. And with the 109 happens the same. On the interview i post on this forum with Volker the pilot of the Red7 explains perfectly how difficult is to handle the 109 gas imput and here you can go just 100 % on a second and pull the stick like cracy to take off. 

 

Remember that Voker Bau is the oficial Test pilot of the messer fundation. They have the most valid data about the plane. Is so retarded, is like if you go to the USAAF to tell them that the DCS f15 is correct and no what they say. Is retarded.

 

My bold - The take off position for 109 G2-4 is +1 according to the manual. It is not wrong. When you cruise, change it to whatever you want - you do know how to change the trim, right?  Judging from the fuss you are making I would have to guess no.

You seem to not understand that to set the trim to 0 on cruise speed now makes the plane to have a quite force nose up and this should be not like that. If you read some of the previous post on this forum you can find why the +1 on the manual is a mistake on the translation. You have 4 test pilots ( Black7, Red7, Ha buchon, White 14) Talking about how they use -1 (1 nose up) trim on the take off but for sure theyr opinion as testexpert pilot matters nothing.

 

This post is from Otto explaining all of that    https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/30351-bf-109-real-life-pilots-overview/

 

What manual are you talking about?  all Bf-109G and Buchón are trimmed one degree nose-up for take off (-1º indicated) .."Trim +1º for take off" is a old translation mistake.

The trim setting for take off that 

is in accordance with Dave Southwood (RAF tests pilot) said, about his flights in the Bf-109G2 trop "Black-6" (German origial Erla airframe) Both trimmed the aircrafts "one degree nose-up" in spite of the original manual who required trim zero for take off.

 

You can see in the following spoiler

1/ Original Bf-109G  Pilots practices manual requiring "Trimmung auf null" (trim to zero) for take-off. 

2/ Report of Dave Southwood (ex-RAF tests pilot) about the Bf-109G2/trop "Black-6". He set  "one degree nose-up" in spite of the original manual who required trim zero for take off, due to a propeller ground strike in the first sortie. 

Spoiler 

1/ Original Bf-109G Pilots practices manual requiring "Trimmung auf null" (trim to zero) for take-off.

 

2/ Report of Dave Southwood (ex-RAF tests pilot) about the Bf-109G27trop "Black-6" He set  "one degree nose-up" in spite of the original manual who required trim zero for take off, due to a propeller ground strike in the first sortie. 

• Founder
• Posts: 156

Posted Today, 02:29

[TWB]Jizzo, on 08 Sept 2017 - 16:46, said:

Both Messerschmitt Manuals you can find in the net for Emil and Gustav say +1° and recommend the later especially for night takeoff?

 

2x translation mistake?

That's not true and you should know it...because.

There is a placard, in the top left side of main panel (even in the game) in the Bf-109 E cockpit, with the take-off and landing configuration of flaps and tailplane trim.

It say "for take off":

Flaps position: 20º; Tailplane position: 0º (ZERO) 

 

 

Note that that the placard, show a landing configuration with Flaps position: 40º, but without any number for tailplane, because in acording with fuel load, aircraft need about -3º (with fuel tank almost full) or ; -6º (for fuel tank almost empty and none munition weight).

Spoiler 

...Do you find it?

 

Please, If you have a original manual (not a bad translation) of the Bf-109E, with information different than airplane cockpit placard, that i show now, link here.

 

My conclusion is that in all bf-109´s the trim model, is completely wrong, after the patch 2.012.,

 

Edited September 9, 2017 by E69_geramos109

[L3Pl4K]

 

 

Please, If you have a original manual (not a bad translation) of the Bf-109E, with information different than airplane cockpit placard, that i show now, link here.

http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.com/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/b/Me%20109e/Bf109%20e%20Handbuch.pdf

page 11

[unreasonable]

@ geramos  - Well at least you are documenting claims now, so credit for that.

 

I do not read German, but have had to rely on Google and then compare with my English language G2 version, but it seems to me that the section you highlight - Startvorbereitung etc - is not the instructions for take-off but the begining of the section on start-up, warm-up and run-up. The English manual says set stab to tail heavy for that.

 

Would need to see the entire document to be sure.

 

Also, you show an extract from the Haynes "Users Manual". This is not, of course, a primary source. But it does indeed say that -1 was used after a prop strike - then right underneath says "frankly it made no difference".  Hardly a ringing endorsement of your view that the current trim setting is a problem. 

Edited September 9, 2017 by unreasonable

[L3Pl4K]

Germoas is right. Here a link for the complete card.

http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.com/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/Messerschmitt/Me%20109/Exerzierkarte%20Bf%20109%20G.pdf

[ITAF_Cymao]

What BF109 exploit?

21 march 2017 reds cried about the alleged exploits of BF 109

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/28114-ridiculous-109-pitch-rates/

 

24 march 2017 devs announced new FM for BF 109 and others planes

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/168-developer-diary/?p=454597

 

29 august 2017 the update with the new FM is released

 

[edited]

Edited September 12, 2017 by SYN_Haashashin

[Alexmarine]

21 march 2017 reds cried about the alleged exploits of BF 109

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/28114-ridiculous-109-pitch-rates/

 

24 march 2017 devs announced new FM for BF 109 and others planes

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/168-developer-diary/?p=454597

 

29 august 2017 the update with the new FM is released

 

 

But I know very well that these are just coincidencess...

 

 

S! and sorry for my intrusion

Coincidences? Nope, just an unrealistic behaviour corrected

[unreasonable]

Germoas is right. Here a link for the complete card.

http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.com/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/Messerschmitt/Me%20109/Exerzierkarte%20Bf%20109%20G.pdf

 

Thank you. I am perfectly happy to accept this is a good source. It is, however, a totally different document from the English language document I have - which is apparently from Finnish original   - which is much longer with more steps at each heading: not a translation of the document you have posted, but a separate source.

 

So we have conflicting sources. My point remains - on take off it does not really matter: as one of  Geramoas's pieces of evidence itself states. The trim is trivially easy to change - you should check your trim at the start of a mission.  

 

In terms of the correct trim for cruise speed, the document you post has nothing to say that I can see. (?) It just says to re-trim at various points, but does not say to what.  Ie you trim to whatever works given your aircraft and what you are doing.  

 

If anyone thinks there really a problem there is a well defined way of dealing with it - set out a PM to Han with full documentation of your issue. 

 

The developers do listen, even if they do not always agree and implement your suggestions - many of the improvements and changes in the FMs and other details have come about because of community feedback. But it needs to be specific and documented. 

Edited September 9, 2017 by unreasonable

[Guest deleted@50488]

The only aspect I still question, although having no documentaion, and even less personal experience to sustain, is the fact that all aircraft still appear to be effective on rudder too early, particularly noticeable at taxi speeds and power settings.

 

I have to keep permanent right rudder deflection, specially on the Me109s during taxi, even when I iddle the engine. If I increase RPM to 10 ( 1000 ) in the tachometer, then I have to permanently press the right rudder, or the aircraft will drift left, even with tailwheel locked, but even at such low speeds and power settings, full right rudder is enough to steer...

 

OTOH, if I try to takeoff with the tailwheel unlocked, which not being recommended is also not forbidden afaik, I can use rudder only to steer, even if I add full throttle at the start of the takeoff. I would expect that under such conditions and while the rudder is not effective, differential braking might be required ?

Edited September 9, 2017 by jcomm

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

21 march 2017 reds cried about the alleged exploits of BF 109

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/28114-ridiculous-109-pitch-rates/

 

24 march 2017 devs announced new FM for BF 109 and others planes

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/168-developer-diary/?p=454597

 

29 august 2017 the update with the new FM is released

 

 

But I know very well that these are just coincidencess...

 

 

S! and sorry for my intrusion

I was for preventing binding pitch and stabilizer on the same axis which gives me some additional help during my test (using MSFF2). Wheel rotation speed I don't know if was wrong I know for sure it was wrong in alpha stage.

For me the big question is why you can bind stabilizer to axis and can't do same with trims , using keys is cumbersome I prefer HOTAS.

Edited September 9, 2017 by 307_Tomcat

[Yogiflight]

 

 

What manual are you talking about? all Bf-109G and Buchón are trimmed one degree nose-up for take off (-1º indicated) .."Trim +1º for take off" is a old translation mistake.

I think, what he is talking about, is the user manual. 'Bedienungsvorschrift Bf-109 G-2, mit Motor DB 605, Juni 1942, 44S.' You can find it on            'Deutsche Luftwaffe.com'.

In the first line on page 12 you can read. '19. Höhenflosse auf etwa +1° (besonders nachts beachten)'

But I also know the 'Exerzierkarte Bf 109 G', which advises the pilot to set '0°'. So it is a bit strange.

[Jizzo]

I think, what he is talking about, is the user manual. 'Bedienungsvorschrift Bf-109 G-2, mit Motor DB 605, Juni 1942, 44S.' You can find it on            'Deutsche Luftwaffe.com'.

In the first line on page 12 you can read. '19. Höhenflosse auf etwa +1° (besonders nachts beachten)'

But I also know the 'Exerzierkarte Bf 109 G', which advises the pilot to set '0°'. So it is a bit strange.

exactly those two i was refering to http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.com/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/Messerschmitt/Me%20109/Bf%20109%20G-2.pdf page 12 and http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.com/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/b/Me%20109e/Bf109%20e%20Handbuch.pdf page 6.

Edited September 9, 2017 by [TWB]Jizzo

[3./JG15_Kampf]

That's the worst rubbish I've ever heard. And coming from a Luftie-only E69 pilot. You're pissed about your 109 high speed stick forces aren't you? You E69 lot are as bad as the ITAF boys... "109 brick!" Get out of here... And get some skills!

 

Attacks like this can only start from a troll. Geramos109 is a great pilot, do not worry about your skills.The same for ITAF boys

Edited September 9, 2017 by 3./JG15_Kampf

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

I think, what he is talking about, is the user manual. 'Bedienungsvorschrift Bf-109 G-2, mit Motor DB 605, Juni 1942, 44S.' You can find it on            'Deutsche Luftwaffe.com'.

In the first line on page 12 you can read. '19. Höhenflosse auf etwa +1° (besonders nachts beachten)'

But I also know the 'Exerzierkarte Bf 109 G', which advises the pilot to set '0°'. So it is a bit strange.

The problem in the Bf-109 is not the number in the trim indicator. The main problem is that ,if the number is diferent to ZERO, we have the elevator surfaces with the angular travel limited  upward or downward, and pitch axis authority limited, also with the new FM the aircraft is not flying in neutral trim (zero position) level and ball centered  "hands-off" as Volker Bau confirmed in the real Bf-109.

The change of angular travel when tailplane AoA is trimmed is a feature only in the Bf-109, and this increase de autorithy of the elevator according with the flight phases that pilot is trimming, ..take-off, landing, climb, dive or cruise.

Now in game we are fliying the Bf-109G at cruise speed  about 450 km/h , at 1 ATA/2000, trim +1 (nose down) almost "hands off" but with the tailplane and elevator angular travel increased downward , configured for long diving not for cruise, or combat.

Edited September 10, 2017 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

[Guest deleted@50488]

Probably they changed the default ground adjustable trim tab setting ?

In the previous versions one could easily see the elevator moving as power was applied on ground. I'll check it latter...

But I am much more worried about how all aircraft are so effective in rudder at taxi speeds and power settings, and also about the torque effects at those power settings, calling for permanent right rudder to taxi the 109 even at idle power...

 

Appears to be really not the case IRL:

 

 

among many available from youtube...

 

In IL2 Bo, practically all aircraft require permanent application of right rudder during taxi, at any power settings... 

Edited September 10, 2017 by jcomm