109 elevator effectiveness

[SCG_OpticFlow]

I would have no problems believing that at 640kph the elevator starts to stiffen up to a point at 700kph+ where it is nearly impossible to pull out without trimming. I just dont believe that the elevator becomes so stiff before 600kph that you cant pull enough Gs to get your nose where you want it in time. A fighterplane that cant pull Gs is a bad fighterplane in my opinion and contradicts the good reputation the 109 got as a fighterplane in real life. Especially when the main tactic was to dive down on enemy planes with high speed till you are close enough to open fire. There are other planes where i think the same but its no issue because you can pull nearly enough to get your nose moving at higher speeds.

 

The Mig3 for example is the same, it feels much to stiff way to early. And no, you dont need to be a muscular bulky guy to be strong. I worked as a scaffolder (dont know if thats the correct translation) and i never was a big bulky guy but i was able to lift and pull heavy stuff like the big guys did. I nkow it is not the same as sitting in a plane and push or pull a stick but you get my point.

 

I also think that BoX is bad at modeling the effects of Gs where it seems impossible to blackout in lower and at higher speeds. Maybe the problem is that we just cant pull enough Gs before snapstalling and to stiff controls at high speeds overall and not just in the 109/Mig3. There is just a thin band of speeds where you can blackout. When i tested TacView it seemed that the data for gforces where not correct, relatively low while pulling hard and blacking out. Maybe it was buggy and has changed now? I should test it again but on the other hand, i dont really know when a trained fighterpilot blacks out without a gsuit. I just know that other games modeled the effects of gforce different and more believable for me!

 

Its very easy to blackout in the FW-190 at 600 km/h, pull maybe 1/4 of the stick travel. I had hard time until getting used to it. Its the 109 that cannot pull anything at those speeds...

[BraveSirRobin]

will not buy any more 109 types after G6.

This made me lol.

[HR_Tofolo]

Not completely off-topic, but on a different aspect of the 109 elevator effectiveness, I'm always wondering how can a 109 still outmaneuver most planes when it has lost one of its elevators but how come that many other planes become completely uncontrollable in the same situation.

 

Is it a matter of visual damage which is not translated into a control surface effect or is it a bug?

[Blutaar]

You be surprised how stiff controls can get much before that speed. To paraphrase Eric Brown, at 240 mph the 109 is a joy to maneuver. From then on it starts to get harder to the point at 400 mph (at low altitude!) where you are significantly restricted in maneuvering the plane.

 

That is what makes a Tempest such a fine plane. 400 mph cruise on the deck and docile, respionsive controls at that speed. At 250 mph, however, well, you're a victim.

 

I dont mean there should be no stiffening at higher speeds just that it is too much to early. Thats why i said "I would have no problems believing that at 640kph the elevator starts to stiffen up to a point at 700kph+ where it is nearly impossible to pull out without trimming." not that the stiffening in general should start at 640kph. I should have been more precise sorry. Of course i am no WW2 pilot and my opinion is just that, in the end im just an armchair pilot with no real life experience.

 

Its very easy to blackout in the FW-190 at 600 km/h, pull maybe 1/4 of the stick travel. I had hard time until getting used to it. Its the 109 that cannot pull anything at those speeds...

 

You are right! But most planes cant pull hard enough at such speeds and the blackout should come faster and also on the lower speeds. Maybe its just me who think so i dont know. But again, i have no real life experience and could be completly wrong. Like i said, maybe the gforce modeling is just bad or that most planes just cant pull enough Gs at lower speeds then highspeed. The question is, is this correct or do i have the wrong impression when blackouts should occur?

Edited October 31, 2017 by Ishtaru

[Holtzauge]

I’m a bit on the fence when it comes to the Me-109 stick forces: Sure it’s a huge difference from how light they were before this was adjusted but then again they were waaaaaay to light before.

 

In addition there is still some control authority left in-game even at such high speeds as 750 Km/h IAS or 466 mph which is the Me-109’s Vne. Not much but neither is it uncontrollable which would have been silly since no manufacturer or procurement agency like the RLM would have OK:ed a Vne at which the aircraft was uncontrollable. So stiff they are but not obviously too high as far as I can see.

 

Based on other anecdotes than Brown’s as from the pilots that actually flew them in earnest and in combat like the Germans and Finns I would have expected a bit more control authority than we currently have in-game but then again I don’t think the current model seems too far off.

 

All in all I like the new stick force model both on the Me-109 and the Spitfire which of course does not stiffen up on the elevator but does so in roll just like it should be.

 

However what does stick out right now IMHO is the very high roll authority that the Russian crates still have but I’m guessing the developers will adjust them as well in due time?

[ZachariasX]

If we buy a lot of 109‘s, then the devs have the money to have another look at the great roll authority of some russian planes. But I have little data on the russian crates, so I don‘t know what they ideally should be. Just on average, I think with the last FM patch, this sim made a great step forward.

 

Whatever divergence between the sim and reality/data there supposedly is would better be documented by hard numbers and a track to illustrate the point.

[Holtzauge]

If we buy a lot of 109‘s, then the devs have the money to have another look at the great roll authority of some russian planes. But I have little data on the russian crates, so I don‘t know what they ideally should be. Just on average, I think with the last FM patch, this sim made a great step forward.

 

Whatever divergence between the sim and reality/data there supposedly is would better be documented by hard numbers and a track to illustrate the point.

 

Sure, I will definitely buy the G6 to support! 

 

But even if we don't have any hard data on the Russian planes, is it really plausible that they roll as well as the Fw-190? I mean the Fw-190 was THE benchmark when it came to outstanding roll performance in WW2 and I don't recall seeing Me-109 pilots complaining that they had problems with Russian fighters flicking out in wicked rolls leaving them in the dust? You know, the type of complaints the Spitfire pilots had with the Fw-190's? But maybe we better save that discussion for a dedicated thread or risk derailing this one.....

[SCG_OpticFlow]

Not completely off-topic, but on a different aspect of the 109 elevator effectiveness, I'm always wondering how can a 109 still outmaneuver most planes when it has lost one of its elevators but how come that many other planes become completely uncontrollable in the same situation.

 

Is it a matter of visual damage which is not translated into a control surface effect or is it a bug?

 

I noticed the same with the IL-2 and Yak-1. Probably just visual damage...

[SCG_OpticFlow]

I trust Eric Brown to know how to sit in an aircraft.

 

 

And he doesn't fly it at 700 km/h and 1.4 ata.

 

Neither our G-2

[Holtzauge]

One more thing about the Me-109 elevator stiffness: I think the perceived stiffness should go up with the dynamic pressure q so that you should be able to manouver quite well up to reasonably high IAS speeds and then when you get up to the really high speed range (closer to Vne) then the stiffness should rise markedly like with the square of the speed. However, it seems to set on early like Ishtaru pointed out above so maybe it would be good to do some more testing to see that it does not hinder manouvering at moderate speeds too much.

[ZachariasX]

Sure, I will definitely buy the G6 to support! 

 

But even if we don't have any hard data on the Russian planes, is it really plausible that they roll as well as the Fw-190? I mean the Fw-190 was THE benchmark when it came to outstanding roll performance in WW2 and I don't recall seeing Me-109 pilots complaining that they had problems with Russian fighters flicking out in wicked rolls leaving them in the dust? You know, the type of complaints the Spitfire pilots had with the Fw-190's? But maybe we better save that discussion for a dedicated thread or risk derailing this one.....

Yes, I also have the impression that some russian planes are performing rather well in roll compared to the 190. But I have little hard data to make an argument other than „I think that...“.

[VesseL]

Two things can be measured. The kg´s needed to move the stick ( aileron and elevator)at different speeds And we can compare that needed power to other planes. I cant but luckily some here can, thx.

Simply 18kg doesnt sound too much. It would be heavy, especially if using one hand. But doable for some minutes i think. How much it is if flown 109 at 750kmh? over 100kg?

 

5tuka, the IAS, TAS is confusing. When those veterans are telling how they flyed, do you think they mean IAS ( i think so) or TAS?

Edited October 31, 2017 by VesseL

[SCG_OpticFlow]

On the topic of opinions, another one to support mine -- http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/#whyhard

 

and another quote from the same link:

 

 

- The British test is taken as gospel by many, while it is just one test, made by the enemy, using a worn out and battle damaged airframe. German flight tests report pilots using aileron forces of over 45 lbs and 109's stick was designed for elevator stick forces of up to or over 85kg, over 180 lbs. Finnish Bf 109 G-2 test revealed that at 450 km/h the stick could be still fully taken to the limit with ~10 kg force (20 pounds). Aileron roll without rudder could be performed to both direction from 400-450 km/h in 4-5 s. This is better than the Spitfire with fabric ailerons, about the same as Spitfire with metal ailerons and slightly below clipped wing Spitfire. So it was more matter of the pilot and the test procedures, than maneuverability of the Bf 109. Several details of that test are suspicious and German chief test pilot Heinrich Beauvais disagreed with it and with Eric Brown. Beauvais tried to get into contact after the war with Eric Brown to discuss the matters, but Brown refused to discuss with him. This being the case, it seems that Brown wasn't willing to listen a pilot who'd flown more on the 109 than he ever had, and was more interested on believing his negative findings of the 109 than being proven wrong by a real expert.

Edited October 31, 2017 by OpticFlow

[ZachariasX]

On the topic of opinions, another one to support mine -- http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/#whyhard

There is a lot of opinion on that page.

[VesseL]

It amazes me how little weight anecdotal evidence get here. One test (which might made with broken plane or something..) are more than all the opinions those real ace´s are telling us. The scientific was sometimes not absolutely exact. The way it was and how it is now.

Edited October 31, 2017 by VesseL

[Holtzauge]

Yes, I also have the impression that some russian planes are performing rather well in roll compared to the 190. But I have little hard data to make an argument other than „I think that...“.

 

Of course: It's difficult to get it exactly right but I think you could treat this like most pilots think the Spitfire turned tighter than the Me-109 (Even though Leykauf will tell you different ). I'm not opposed to anecdotal evidence: Just as long as a sufficient number of pilots tell the same story then I would tend to believe that. In a similar fashion, there are plenty anecdotals about Me-109's in combat with Russian fighters and if the Russian fighters really did roll as well as they do in-game versus the Me-109 do you think they would have left that out?

 

Two things can be measured. The kg´s needed to move the stick ( aileron and elevator)at different speeds And we can compare that needed power to other planes. I cant but luckily some here can, thx.

Simply 18kg doesnt sound too much. It would be heavy, especially if using one hand. But doable for some minutes i think. How much it is if flown 109 at 750kmh? over 100kg?

 

5tuka, the IAS, TAS is confusing. When those veterans are telling how they flyed, do you think they mean IAS ( i think so) or TAS?

 

I'm pretty sure they mean speed as in the IAS they read of the dial. This is also why the Vne is given in IAS and, to be picky, usually the IAS Vne is given with an altitude (to account for Mach effects) since that is the speed the pilot relates to. Unless it's about navigation of course, but in combat, IAS for sure.

 

On the topic of opinions, another one to support mine -- http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/#whyhard

 

Exactly. That was what I was thinking about when I said you hear a different story from Brown's when you hear about the Me-109 from those who flew them in combat on a regular basis.

[Holtzauge]

There is a lot of opinion on that page.

 

Just like Brown's statement about the controls "seizing up" is an opinion........

[SCG_OpticFlow]

Exactly. That was what I was thinking about when I said you hear a different story from Brown's when you hear about the Me-109 from those who flew them in combat on a regular basis.

 

I'd rather believe the Finnish Ace Karhila with 32 victories, including multiple La-5 and Yak-9 than a British snob who couldn't even reach the rudder pedals during the single time he flew a captured 109E for a 'test'.

[Holtzauge]

Test question: How do we "know" the P-47 outdived the Me-109? No wait, we don't: We only have anecdotal evidence to support that and no hard figures so we don't really know do we?

[SCG_OpticFlow]

I'm beginning to think that even if we somehow convince Volker Bau to record on video high speed rolls and pulls that won't be enough proof for some of the people here...

[ZachariasX]

It amazes me how little weight anecdotal evidence get here. One test (which might made with broken plane or something..) are more than all the opinions those real ace´s are telling us. The scientific is sometimes not absolutely exact the way it was and how it is now.

They get weight. Why not? There are plenty anectotes saying what we have in game is not very wrong. All anectotes are to be taken with a grain of salt. Especially when they are compiled like the list you linked.

 

One can read through the page you linked and get the impression that the 109 is just about the next best thing thing to sliced bread and that you can‘t possibly have a better fighter as it was at least equal to the competition when in fact it imposed painful limitations operationally on the Luftwaffe.

 

It does not reflect how the plane was used and that for instance in the West it was just so damn lucky that, from the later Gustavs on, getting vulched became bread and butter busines for it aside from moving from airfield to airfield with the whole squadron to not get wasted on the ground. Now directly comparing the 109 that gives you one hour of excitement (if you make it that long, outnumbered 10:1) to a plane that can fly three hours, do what the 109 does and fly another three hours is just a bit dishonest. It is largely irrelevant if you gain 1 sec in max. substained turn. Or 10 km/h speed. But it matters wether you can fly your assigned mission or not.

 

This just one example. it is not about better or worse, it is all about the capability of fulfilling a mission. If you know nothing about how the planes were used, simple direct comparisons don‘t help much in appreciating the aircraft.

 

I don‘t want to bash the plane. It is a great aircraft. But without context, anectotes don‘t always help. There is a reason why RAF pilots thought more of the long nose Dora than the 109K. Even though the K is maybe even a bit faster. And this is control at high speed. Plenty of anectotes for that too.

Just like Brown's statement about the controls "seizing up" is an opinion........

All opinion to be taken with a grain of salt. True. Edited October 31, 2017 by ZachariasX

[Inkophile]

Another shining example to add to Zacharias' excellent post is how the Russians appreciated the P-40 and still found it fully adequate in combat long after other nations had removed them from any prioritized battlefront. Why did they find it adequate when other nations didn't it? Same reason as he stated: They were fully sufficient to perform their mission. Flown "right" (for that airplane, and in case of the P-40 meaning removing two guns to save weight, and run the engine harder than the manual recommends) and if avoiding prolonged fights it works quite fine, and it's a fine ground-pounder (which its use in Italy also shows).

 

In addition I'd also like to add that we have to keep in mind that the front isn't completely full of the newest and fanciest planes. Even when the Yak-3 came and the standing order for the German pilots was to avoid the planes, did that mean they stopped flying and that Bf 109s were objectively worse? Nopes. Just that if they could they'd go find something else to shoot which usually wasn't impossible with the amount of Yak-1s, Yak-7s and La-5s in the sky, not to mention all ground-attackers, and that the Yak-3 was good enough to on average remove the Germans' advantages, i.e. making the fight even. And an even fight is a fight you should avoid at all costs because it has a 50/50 chance of you not making it back home.
Turning the tables the same was of course true for the Germans, in that it took plenty of time to re-equip the squadrons with the new models of planes, and both sides suffered from worn out engines and airframes which means the actual plane performance is purely theoretical, kind'a like physics class in school: It's all in "ideal" situations, and not with actual and complex RL factors added.

 

So everything is relative, including stick forces and such. That diving on the enemy was such a successful tactic IRL for the Germans doesn't mean that German planes necessarily were better at doing that than anyone else, just that the planes could do it just fine and that the doctrine worked in practice. Everyone shot down unaware pilots from behind though, so that's nothing unique to 109s and Germans, and it was a preferred method for all nations. The difference was that the 109s had better altitude performance than the Russians and as such could routinely maintain an altitude advantage, which meant they could pick and choose their fights more often than the Russians could. In other words the Germans had more favourable conditions under which to initiate such attacks, no matter how good their planes were at them. Any fighter is capable of doing them. Of course we know that the top speed of the 109s certainly help in extending from and if necessary disengaging from the targets, and if anything that is what made them so good at it: They could do such attacks without an enemy at their tail catching up with them five minutes later.

 

If looking at actual test reports for 109s (for example Versuchs-Bericht Nr. 109 05 E 43 - Hochgeschwindigkeitsversuche mit Me 109 (dated April 15, 1943)) they do take note of significant required stick forces at high speeds (meaning about 750 km/h indicated at ca. 3.5 km), and that it not only was recommended but pretty much necessary to trim out of a high-speed dive, because the pilot couldn't safely do it in a controllable manner with just muscle power. That was done in a Bf 109 F-2 (I looked up the Werknummer), modified to match a G-series (enlarged vertical stabilizer without radio wire horn, and for the sake of the test also enlarged static trim tabs and reduced aileron travel to prevent airplane loss due to aileron reversal).
Basically the report supports the already pre-existing recommendation in the flight manuals to trim the 109 tail-heavy in a high-speed dive, so that you need to push the stick forward to stay on the dive path, because otherwise maintaining an even dive path and in particular pulling out of the dive will be a bitch.

 

 

Might be that the elevator is a tad too stiff, but we also have a propensity to dive at Mach 0.8 (basically at the plane's V_ne-speed) in straight-winged planes with wire-and-rod controls and fabric-covered control surfaces and then complain about control stiffness. If diving at actually sensible speeds - like 650 km/h at 3.5 km - stiffness isn't really much of a problem unless the enemy spots you and actively evades, but I'd like to see anyone who can show me that wasn't the case IRL too.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Inkompetent

[LukeFF]

I'd rather believe the Finnish Ace Karhila with 32 victories, including multiple La-5 and Yak-9 than a British snob who couldn't even reach the rudder pedals during the single time he flew a captured 109E for a 'test'.

1. Of course, the Finns are going to be biased towards a plane that gave them a lot of success.
2. Mr. Brown flew a lot more 109s than that single 109E. That, and I fail to see how his supposed inability to reach the pedals invalidates his opinion.

[Dave]

 

 

No he doesn't, but ingame, the 109 controls feels too early to heavy.

Based upon what exactly? Do you have stick time in a 109?

[Dave]

It amazes me how little weight anecdotal evidence get here. One test (which might made with broken plane or something..) are more than all the opinions those real ace´s are telling us. The scientific was sometimes not absolutely exact. The way it was and how it is now.

I'm not agreeing with your assessment that anecdotal evidence receives little weight when I say this:

 

The case could be made that the number of subjective observations supporting a point is far less relevant than the intent of and procedural integrity of the measurement being undertaken.

In other words, all those Axis pilots who nostalgically recall flying their 109s weren't there with the sole purpose of objectively quantifying the handling characteristics and performance of their aircraft, both in absolute terms and relative to a database of other types. Nor were their "measurements" made in a remotely scientific manner. While we would be silly to discount them, they can't be considered in exactly the same light as the output of flight tests of captured aircraft, the purpose of which was to map as precisely as possible the envelope of the test aircraft so its weaknesses could be identified and exploited.

As a side effect of the two different aims and viewpoints, test reports tend to dispassionately compare strengths and weaknesses, while pilots almost universally remember only the good things about the aircraft that carried them through the war unscathed.

[SCG_OpticFlow]

 

1. Of course, the Finns are going to be biased towards a plane that gave them a lot of success.
2. Mr. Brown flew a lot more 109s than that single 109E. That, and I fail to see how his supposed inability to reach the pedals invalidates his opinion.

 

 

 

A lot of success is proof to me somehow. People tend to talk a lot but in the end its the results that matter.

 

Just a selective quote from a biased site ( http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths )

 

 

- The top 3 aces (of any conflict) all flew 109's exclusively. Of the 20 top aces (of any conflict) 12 flew 109's exclusively.

- Me-109 was credited with shooting down more enemy aircraft and producing more aces than any single fighter in the annals of aerial warfare.

 

I googled but couldn't find the count of Eric Browns aerial victories. Also couldn't find any reference of him being an 'Ace'. Did he spent the war not fighting?

[ZachariasX]

A lot of success is proof to me somehow.

 

A lot of success means in your terms a lot of air kills. Well, in order to have a lot of air kills, you need a lot of opportunity. For German aircrews in the second half of the war, the sky was full of enemy aircraft. Wherever they would fly, they would see them. They could pick their fights. For allied pilots, it was not uncommon finishing a whole tour not ever seeing one enemy aircraft. Especially in the Pacific. So, yes, air kills as a tool for metering aircraft or pilot capabilities is very, very biased.

 

 

Just a selective quote from a biased site

 

It is not that the site is biased, but you need to be careful how you read the compiled info there. It is a great site that puts a lot of claims made into perspective. This is great. But the "performance" of the 109 is simply not the sum of all statements there. The site is honest in what it does. But the reader often puts a bias to the information by not taking it for what it is.

 

Same goes to the "anectotal evidence". Sure, you always have to take it with a grain of salt. But there is different kind of anectotal evitence. You have everything from a test report to stories of very old people recounting some memories in front of a fireplace. Now, all of these accounts can be correct. Or at least be correct enough to give them consideration.

 

But if you have someone singing about his darling ride that gave him the time and success of his life, especially decades down the road you get a different picture than someone would give that flies dozens of aircraft types and assessing them to make a living when handing in a report after a flight.

 

Making a good systhesis of these accounts is not trivial. Looking for accounts that tell you what you want to hear will kill your efforts to really learn something.

 

It is hard to correctly interpret hard data. It is even harder to do so with "soft data".

 

 

I googled but couldn't find the count of Eric Browns aerial victories. Also couldn't find any reference of him being an 'Ace'. Did he spent the war not fighting?

 

He did fly combat missions. He served aboard the HMS audacity protecting the convoys. He downed some Fw-200 Condors. But unlike in TV shows where the evil guy sends wave after wave of his stooges toward the hero, the Germans were not just sending one after the other to certain doom. He must have shot down one or two, One had to check back with German logs to see which of the Condors that he traded blows with actually managed it back to base. And operating off a less then 100 m airstrip in Atlantic weather and swell is not for everybody. It ruled out more than 99% of the active fliers in the service.

 

He also flew combat missions together with "Johnnie" Johnsons Canadian wing. They were supposed to learn carrier landings with their Spitfires for the invasion of Sicily. Even though the majority of those respected combat fliers were rather far from being proficient in such flying, they would not really respect the Navy man just like that. So he agreed to fly a combat / fighter sweep mission for each turn practicing how to land a Spitfire on a deck. He saw plenty action, as at that time the JG26 was rather active in dealing with the fledging Americans. He didn't shoot down any fighter. Later he would say of those missions that they were fantastic, "...with Spitfires and 190s everywhere and the Americans firing at everybody. [...] Never a dull moment!" Needless to say, most of the Canadians still couldn't land their planes properly and they trashed most of the Spits during the invasion of Sicily later on.

 

It is also of note that the life expectancy of test pilots like Brown was far lower than the average combat pilots life expectancy. Most combat pilots were good fighters, but not good enough as pilots. Tom Wolfe had a famous way of diagnosing that. They lacked the right stuff. Some combat pilots had it. But not all.

 

No, he was not an "ace". I guess he was more than that.

Edited November 1, 2017 by ZachariasX

[ZachariasX]

Just for curiosity, looking through the document posted above, I decided to take the 109 F for a short spin. Two things beacame apparent.

 

1) The elevator authority is not far off what is stated on the document.

2) The 109 lives no where near up his actual structural strenght. Just look at that.

 

 

 

 

 

What is most apparent, is that the way the "engine timers" are implemented, it negates an often applied strategy to disengage. Prop overspeed is punished right away, even though full speed power dives were the rule to disengage, not the exception. Even at speeds that are well below actually reached speeds, we lose contol surfaces. Also the engine gets killed by the overrev. They absolutely should not quit like this. But it seems that the hard wired engine timers play us a trick here.

 

What is also nonsense, is that the engine (in the 109 F4 tested), way above critical altitude still has a power timer. This means 100% throttle gets punished even though I am nowhere near a power output that could be harmful to the engine. At 10'000 meters, you can open up as much as you want, you NEVER reach "Combat Power" or whatever power. But there, the evil RPM probably play us the trick, even though the engine runs at half the power.

 

We definitely need to buy more stuff from the dev team giving them the opprtunity to re think some strategies.

 

 

So I agree that there are issues with the 109 and its elevator. But not as long as they stay attached.

 

[SCG_OpticFlow]

Just for curiosity, looking through the document posted above, I decided to take the 109 F for a short spin. Two things beacame apparent.

 

1) The elevator authority is not far off what is stated on the document.

2) The 109 lives no where near up his actual structural strenght. Just look at that.

 

 

 

 

 

What is most apparent, is that the way the "engine timers" are implemented, it negates an often applied strategy to disengage. Prop overspeed is punished right away, even though full speed power dives were the rule to disengage, not the exception. Even at speeds that are well below actually reached speeds, we lose contol surfaces. Also the engine gets killed by the overrev. They absolutely should not quit like this. But it seems that the hard wired engine timers play us a trick here.

 

What is also nonsense, is that the engine (in the 109 F4 tested), way above critical altitude still has a power timer. This means 100% throttle gets punished even though I am nowhere near a power output that could be harmful to the engine. At 10'000 meters, you can open up as much as you want, you NEVER reach "Combat Power" or whatever power. But there, the evil RPM probably play us the trick, even though the engine runs at half the power.

 

We definitely need to buy more stuff from the dev team giving them the opprtunity to re think some strategies.

 

 

So I agree that there are issues with the 109 and its elevator. But not as long as they stay attached.

 

Thank you for taking the effort to actually experience what we're complaining about.

 

FW-190 now is the plane I use in the historical role of Bf-109 -- dive from higher altitude, fire quickly on target and disengage...

[Dave]

 

 

What is most apparent, is that the way the "engine timers" are implemented, it negates an often applied strategy to disengage. Prop overspeed is punished right away

It isn't the only aircraft to suffer this, but the engine modelling hasn't received its makeover yet.

[Max_Damage]

Another shining example to add to Zacharias' excellent post is how the Russians appreciated the P-40 and still found it fully adequate in combat long after other nations had removed them from any prioritized battlefront. Why did they find it adequate when other nations didn't it? Same reason as he stated: They were fully sufficient to perform their mission. Flown "right" (for that airplane, and in case of the P-40 meaning removing two guns to save weight, and run the engine harder than the manual recommends) and if avoiding prolonged fights it works quite fine, and it's a fine ground-pounder (which its use in Italy also shows).

 

In addition I'd also like to add that we have to keep in mind that the front isn't completely full of the newest and fanciest planes. Even when the Yak-3 came and the standing order for the German pilots was to avoid the planes, did that mean they stopped flying and that Bf 109s were objectively worse? Nopes. Just that if they could they'd go find something else to shoot which usually wasn't impossible with the amount of Yak-1s, Yak-7s and La-5s in the sky, not to mention all ground-attackers, and that the Yak-3 was good enough to on average remove the Germans' advantages, i.e. making the fight even. And an even fight is a fight you should avoid at all costs because it has a 50/50 chance of you not making it back home.

Turning the tables the same was of course true for the Germans, in that it took plenty of time to re-equip the squadrons with the new models of planes, and both sides suffered from worn out engines and airframes which means the actual plane performance is purely theoretical, kind'a like physics class in school: It's all in "ideal" situations, and not with actual and complex RL factors added.

 

So everything is relative, including stick forces and such. That diving on the enemy was such a successful tactic IRL for the Germans doesn't mean that German planes necessarily were better at doing that than anyone else, just that the planes could do it just fine and that the doctrine worked in practice. Everyone shot down unaware pilots from behind though, so that's nothing unique to 109s and Germans, and it was a preferred method for all nations. The difference was that the 109s had better altitude performance than the Russians and as such could routinely maintain an altitude advantage, which meant they could pick and choose their fights more often than the Russians could. In other words the Germans had more favourable conditions under which to initiate such attacks, no matter how good their planes were at them. Any fighter is capable of doing them. Of course we know that the top speed of the 109s certainly help in extending from and if necessary disengaging from the targets, and if anything that is what made them so good at it: They could do such attacks without an enemy at their tail catching up with them five minutes later.

 

If looking at actual test reports for 109s (for example Versuchs-Bericht Nr. 109 05 E 43 - Hochgeschwindigkeitsversuche mit Me 109 (dated April 15, 1943)) they do take note of significant required stick forces at high speeds (meaning about 750 km/h indicated at ca. 3.5 km), and that it not only was recommended but pretty much necessary to trim out of a high-speed dive, because the pilot couldn't safely do it in a controllable manner with just muscle power. That was done in a Bf 109 F-2 (I looked up the Werknummer), modified to match a G-series (enlarged vertical stabilizer without radio wire horn, and for the sake of the test also enlarged static trim tabs and reduced aileron travel to prevent airplane loss due to aileron reversal).

Basically the report supports the already pre-existing recommendation in the flight manuals to trim the 109 tail-heavy in a high-speed dive, so that you need to push the stick forward to stay on the dive path, because otherwise maintaining an even dive path and in particular pulling out of the dive will be a bitch.

 

 

Might be that the elevator is a tad too stiff, but we also have a propensity to dive at Mach 0.8 (basically at the plane's V_ne-speed) in straight-winged planes with wire-and-rod controls and fabric-covered control surfaces and then complain about control stiffness. If diving at actually sensible speeds - like 650 km/h at 3.5 km - stiffness isn't really much of a problem unless the enemy spots you and actively evades, but I'd like to see anyone who can show me that wasn't the case IRL too.

The only reason why SOME pilots enjoyed p40 is because they didnt have to fly early i16 anymore. Early i16 are diffirent from i16 type 24. They had only 2x 7.62 mm MG and a weaker engimne. P40 had closed canopy and somewhat faster speed plus automatic landing gears and better weapons :D

 

Otherwise it is a super trash plane much worse then a lagg3. Even the late i16 that we have in game is perhaps preferable.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Max_Damage

[ZachariasX]

Thank you for taking the effort to actually experience what we're complaining about.

 

FW-190 now is the plane I use in the historical role of Bf-109 -- dive from higher altitude, fire quickly on target and disengage...

We're just one heap of mercyless SOB's here.    We won't let the devs get away with nothing...

 

..but look at what they delivered so far! Did you notice that the 109 in this starts to get longitudinally unstable, just as stated in the report? The devs surely went through all this. I thought that was pretty cool!

 

Now we better give them a good reason to look at engine limits.

[L3Pl4K]

 

 

What is most apparent, is that the way the "engine timers" are implemented, it negates an often applied strategy to disengage. Prop overspeed is punished right away, even though full speed power dives were the rule to disengage, not the exception. Even at speeds that are well below actually reached speeds, we lose contol surfaces. Also the engine gets killed by the overrev. They absolutely should not quit like this. But it seems that the hard wired engine timers play us a trick here.

The devs knows, that overrev is not correct. AnPetrovich wrote in russian forum, they will correct this if they have the correct VDM Prop data.

[VesseL]

 

1. Of course, the Finns are going to be biased towards a plane that gave them a lot of success.
2. Mr. Brown flew a lot more 109s than that single 109E. That, and I fail to see how his supposed inability to reach the pedals invalidates his opinion.

 

Oh the BIAS word. And of course for sure. Are the finns lying, or are they just fools who cant make objective observations? But You can just by flying a game.

[VesseL]

I'm not agreeing with your assessment that anecdotal evidence receives little weight when I say this:

 

The case could be made that the number of subjective observations supporting a point is far less relevant than the intent of and procedural integrity of the measurement being undertaken.

In other words, all those Axis pilots who nostalgically recall flying their 109s weren't there with the sole purpose of objectively quantifying the handling characteristics and performance of their aircraft, both in absolute terms and relative to a database of other types. Nor were their "measurements" made in a remotely scientific manner. While we would be silly to discount them, they can't be considered in exactly the same light as the output of flight tests of captured aircraft, the purpose of which was to map as precisely as possible the envelope of the test aircraft so its weaknesses could be identified and exploited.

As a side effect of the two different aims and viewpoints, test reports tend to dispassionately compare strengths and weaknesses, while pilots almost universally remember only the good things about the aircraft that carried them through the war unscathed.

 That plus from me was mistake, i should push the quote button, sorry.

I dont agree with you. What you think is scientific is not. Those were random test at best. Lots of mistakes and the results are all over. If you collect enough anecdotal evidence then you get some statistical truth there and it is half sscientific. I dont see anecdotal evdence would have made any difference here. Yak is still useing the flaps whole time but it was not like that in real life.etc........

Do you think its not possible to make subjective observations objectively. 

[VesseL]

At speed 650kph would make about 20kg needed to move the stick? Not much but in game when flown 650kmh it feels like 50kg. 109 feels like u-boat in the sky. Its possible to pull out of dive but its almost impossible to hit a moving target.

[VesseL]

..............

It is also of note that the life expectancy of test pilots like Brown was far lower than the average combat pilots life expectancy. Most combat pilots were good fighters, but not good enough as pilots. Tom Wolfe had a famous way of diagnosing that. They lacked the right stuff. Some combat pilots had it. But not all.

 

No, he was not an "ace". I guess he was more than that.

 

Lol, ace´s are not good enough pilots. What right stuff they lacked? How is Brown more than an average ace as a pilot?

Edited November 1, 2017 by VesseL

[VesseL]

We're just one heap of mercyless SOB's here.    We won't let the devs get away with nothing...

 

..but look at what they delivered so far! Did you notice that the 109 in this starts to get longitudinally unstable, just as stated in the report? The devs surely went through all this. I thought that was pretty cool!

 

Now we better give them a good reason to look at engine limits.

We better tell them all our observations if we want this game be the best sim around.   They then deside how relevant those observation are. If they even have time to read our opinions.

[ZachariasX]

Lol, ace´s are not good enough pilots. What right stuff they lacked? How is Brown more than an average ace as a pilot?

You seem to like colorful stories. Why don‘t you read Tom Wolfes book „The Right Stuff“. You shall be well entertained. This not to advertise any sort of truth to you. But you will see that there is more to flying aircraft than shooting down airplanes with your pet ride. Plus you have a good read.

 

For instance, Marseille belly landed his borrowed Italian fighter. Reversed throttle in those crates. Engine out, wheels stayed it. He wanted to find out how good the plane is. But instead the Italian crowd got an impression of how good he is.

[VesseL]

You seem to like colorful stories. Why don‘t you read Tom Wolfes book „The Right Stuff“. You shall be well entertained. This not to advertise any sort of truth to you. But you will see that there is more to flying aircraft than shooting down airplanes with your pet ride. Plus you have a good read.

 

For instance, Marseille belly landed his borrowed Italian fighter. Reversed throttle in those crates. Engine out, wheels stayed it. He wanted to find out how good the plane is. But instead the Italian crowd got an impression of how good he is.

 

Thanks, i might try to read it. The ace is an expert, but only his current ac? But Brown was expert of many ac´s? Is that the difference? No one can say Brown was better pilot than Marseille thou.

Edited November 1, 2017 by VesseL