109 elevator effectiveness

[VesseL]

Could it be that some test driver is better formula 1 driver than the champions, could that be said too.

[LukeFF]

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.

 

No, I never said they were lying. But, if one has success with a certain plane, then of course they are going to sing its praises. It's very normal, and it even has a term - confirmation bias.

[ZachariasX]

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.

I see not so much of a point in ranking them like that. I guess they are all worth to be appreciated individually.

 

Edit

 

Well second thought... You know, the good pilot is the one that can fly the next day. Marseille coudn‘t do that. A broken oil pump was what it took.

 

Amongst hunters, you can stack rank them after the number of their scores. For pilots, there is just two categories: Living and dead ones. Marseille is a dead one.

 

Brown not only lived through more than half a century of flight at the very edge of technology, he would even take his aircraft to the unknown. What would you think would Gordon Gollob (ace!) have said if he was asked to fly a supposedly supersonic plane that just killed its designer. In the case of Brown, he took another such plane up and came back with the answer why it killed the designer.

 

The sporty nature of scoring that you have was not a common understanding of the situation back then, even though everybody was aware of the glory it gave oneself. St.Exupery once also gave a comment, much in the line of your rather sporty understanding of the situation. Pierre Clostermann was seriously pissed off about that remark, especially looking back at the 20‘000 Free French that joined de Gaule in 1940. But in 1945, only 200 of them would still be alive alongside himself. „Peace to his ashes, he paid his price.“, that is how Clostemann concluded his bitter commentary to that.

 

Anyway, I‘m positive you‘ll enjoy Tom Wolfes book. They made also an ok movie from that book, should you care for that.

Edited November 1, 2017 by ZachariasX

[LukeFF]

No one can say Brown was better pilot than Marseille thou.

 

It depends a lot on the standard one is using to define who / what is "better." There is more to being a pilot in wartime than simple kill count. After all, using that logic that kills = piloting skill.

• Is Chuck Yeager a worse pilot than Marseille ever was? I mean, hey, the guy "only" had 11.5 confirmed kills.
• Eric Brown, only shooting down two Fw 200s? Pssh, average pilot!
• Alexander Pokryshkin - bah, second-rate pilot pilot who only scored 88 kills. Marseille claimed nearly as twice as many!
• Richard Bong, 40 kills and America's highest-scoring ace - with numbers like that, he'd be considered a low-level ace by the Germans.

Edited November 1, 2017 by LukeFF

[VesseL]

Sorry i had  some emotional burst. Pretty much all i know about ww2 planes, i have learned from you all, in this forum or reading the articles you have linked here. Thanks for that. Nothing personal against any of you.   

 

 

Better was wrong word, and you are right. Its no point makeing comparisons like that. Some test drivers and -pilots can be champions or aces too.

 

But, being an ace, one have to know how to fly the ac in its limits, or you will die. Or you cant get the opportunity to shoot the enemy down and get kills.

 

Could someone please calculate how much power is needed to move the stick at 750kph in 109?

 

I think 18kg at 640kmh(IAS) is much lighter, than how it feels in game. What do you think? Or is it more complicated?

Edited November 1, 2017 by VesseL

[SCG_OpticFlow]

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.

 

Hi, this is very interesting report.

 

All the tests were made with nose-heavy trim to be able to reach high dive angle. For example on page 8 it says that the neutral trim (+1.0 deg) had to be changed 0.5 deg to nose-heavy in order to be able to keep down the nose to the 45 deg dive angle at 730 km/h indicated speed.

 

They did two tests (page 9 and the diagram on page 10) at 1.25 and 1.75 degrees nose-heavy. The test was dive from 10.5 km altitude at 75-80 deg. angle reaching 745 km/h indicated and 880 km/h true speed at 3.8 km, after which the pilot pulled out.

 

The report states its possible to pull out of the dive using only the elevator at 1.25 degrees setting. Then at the 1.75 deg. nose-heavy setting the pilot had to use the trim as well.

 

 

Now, in the game we have completely different story. In the game diving in neutral trim gets you splashed into the ground. Not to speak of nose-heavy... In the game you have to trim tail-heavy in advance and push hard to keep the nose down on target which of course ruins your aim...

[VesseL]

Hi, this is very interesting report.

 

All the tests were made with nose-heavy trim to be able to reach high dive angle. For example on page 8 it says that the neutral trim (+1.0 deg) had to be changed 0.5 deg to nose-heavy in order to be able to keep down the nose to the 45 deg dive angle at 730 km/h indicated speed.

 

They did two tests (page 9 and the diagram on page 10) at 1.25 and 1.75 degrees nose-heavy. The test was dive from 10.5 km altitude at 75-80 deg. angle reaching 745 km/h indicated and 880 km/h true speed at 3.8 km, after which the pilot pulled out.

 

The report states its possible to pull out of the dive using only the elevator at 1.25 degrees setting. Then at the 1.75 deg. nose-heavy setting the pilot had to use the trim as well.

 

 

Now, in the game we have completely different story. In the game diving in neutral trim gets you splashed into the ground. Not to speak of nose-heavy... In the game you have to trim tail-heavy in advance and push hard to keep the nose down on target which of course ruins your aim...

 

Yes very interesting, thanks for the translation. Is this scientific enough is the guestion? Atleast 745kmh is not makeing the control too solid to manouver. Does the altitude matter how much power is needed to pull out. 3,8km is where we often start the dive and pull out somewhere 1-2Km 

Edited November 2, 2017 by VesseL

[SCG_OpticFlow]

Yes very interesting, thanks for the translation. Is this scientific enough is the guestion? Atleast 745kmh is not makeing the control too solid to manouver. Does the altitude matter how much power is needed to pull out. 3,8km is where we often start the dive and pull out somewhere 1-2Km 

 

The first step towards being more scientific is to stop mixing together ailerons control force with elevator control force.

 

If I'm not forgetting something, all the pilots comments about controls being hard at 700+ were about the ailerons, not the elevator. At these speeds instead of ailerons they used the rudder to control the aircraft.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

If we could test that there is match between max 109 Gs in game vs real life data with at same condition (ex speed, stabilizer) it would answer questions how much if elevator stiffness is correct or not. IMHO is little to stiff ,and it seems i can't force black outs at speed that to me should be doable. But this is just my opinion after dozen hours testing new 109 FM. Besides who I rl would make such limit test and blackouts can't be compared. If there are rl test at lower speed , tackview can measure G forces.

Edited November 2, 2017 by 307_Tomcat

[E69_geramos109]

I still have that delay operating the 109 trim. Do you know why is that? Has no sense. If i stop pressing the button the weel is still turning for a while. The use of the trim is so broken 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Using stabilizer wheel in 109 is cumbersome that's true ,I have to pay attention to properly trim but many times i fail to adjuste it on the time and when I need to reverse I often in position unknown...

[Dave]

 

 

But, being an ace, one have to know how to fly the ac in its limits, or you will die. Or you cant get the opportunity to shoot the enemy down and get kills.

Well .........

actually the vast majority (circa > 90%) of all victories in WW2 were scored by the victor shooting a completely unaware victim from dead astern straight and level.

I have read countless recollections and seen many interviews on film of WW2 aces from several nations and every last one of them without exception said that the vast majority of their victories were surprise attacks on an opponent, usually flying straight and level, who likely never saw them coming. 

A tiny few involved much in the way of BFM, and an almost statistically insignificant number involved flying to the edge of their planes envelope.

 

The standout criterion among all WW2 pilots I have listened to talk about their experiences in becoming an ace was dumb luck - in not having been killed within the first week while their SA was close to zero. The condor legion had the great advantage of getting up to speed in a relatively benign environment where they enjoyed outrageous technical superiority. The RAF and USAAF - not so much.

[ZachariasX]

IMHO is little to stiff ,and it seems i can't force black outs at speed that to me should be doable.

 

I seriously doubt that you can pull black outs at speeds much higher than corner speed. Usually stick forces are usually such that you can't. These planes are not F-16's. At high speeds or in full power dives, the way to black out is by moving the trim.

 

It is also intentional that controls stiffen up at high speeds. In todays aircraft that are super easy to operate, you have a specific marking in the speedometer where maneuvering speed is (green arc) and where only 1/3rd of control movement is allowed (yellow arc). Another way of doing that, especially when you know that the plane will be operated at elevated speeds, is to make control gearing such that the average pilot will only be able to move the controls within allowed deflections at given airspeeds. You very, very rarely would black out in a dogfight with these aircraft. You just don't pull that kind of G unless in a defensive spiral with certain aircraft or pulling out of a power dive with the help of the trim.

 

Also very light controls make it easy to overload the structure. For this reason, larger planes have a deliberate increase in control force.

[Dave]

I still have that delay operating the 109 trim. Do you know why is that? Has no sense. If i stop pressing the button the weel is still turning for a while. The use of the trim is so broken 

This is because the variable incidence tailplane has been implemented, as demanded by die hard 109 fans I might add, as an absolute position mapping for an axis. So they can set and forget instantly. The game then has to more slowly catch up with the input to correctly account for the real speed of actuation of the tailplane trim wheel. When what is designed for an axis is then mapped to two keys instead, the input absolute position is the sum of all the key press events up until the actuation catches up with the input. The trim isn't so broken - it is the best the devs could do to make the stabiliser actuation speed more realistic while trying to support both axis and keybinding for human interface devices lacking any form of force feedback.

[SCG_OpticFlow]

I seriously doubt that you can pull black outs at speeds much higher than corner speed. Usually stick forces are usually such that you can't. These planes are not F-16's. At high speeds or in full power dives, the way to black out is by moving the trim.

 

It is also intentional that controls stiffen up at high speeds. In todays aircraft that are super easy to operate, you have a specific marking in the speedometer where maneuvering speed is (green arc) and where only 1/3rd of control movement is allowed (yellow arc). Another way of doing that, especially when you know that the plane will be operated at elevated speeds, is to make control gearing such that the average pilot will only be able to move the controls within allowed deflections at given airspeeds. You very, very rarely would black out in a dogfight with these aircraft. You just don't pull that kind of G unless in a defensive spiral with certain aircraft or pulling out of a power dive with the help of the trim.

 

Also very light controls make it easy to overload the structure. For this reason, larger planes have a deliberate increase in control force.

 

Well the FW-190 feels a bit like F-16.... Boyd would have loved it

[Dave]

I seriously doubt that you can pull black outs at speeds much higher than corner speed. Usually stick forces are usually such that you can't.

While not exactly, this is close to the definition of corner speed. It is the speed at which the aircraft can pull maximum sustained G as permitted by the airframe. I personally could sustain about 6G before blacking out. That was with a G suit and a lot of effort. I never flirted with GLOC without a G suit so I don't really know what my limit would be in that situation - but I regularly pulled 4G without a G suit doing aerobatics in a couple of planes I flew.

In the PC-9 you would pull 4G at the start of a loop at 250kts. Thats about 460km/h. The plane did it easily and it was certainly possible to snatch it and exceed 4G at that airspeed. Max for that aircraft was about 320kts (570km/h) and I occasionally flew it at 300. The controls were noticeably stiffer at only 50kts above loop entry speed. I can't really see anyone pulling black out G (about 6G for a fit veteran fighter pilot with no G suit) at 375kts (695km/h) in a plane that was designed to be most manoeuvrable at half that speed.

[Aap]

 

 

Well second thought... You know, the good pilot is the one that can fly the next day. Marseille coudn‘t do that. A broken oil pump was what it took.

 

You mean that Eric Brown would have flown the plane home, after inhaling all the smoke and going through all the problems like Marseille did in his final flight? How many times did he do that then? It is like saying that if a shark bites Michael Phelps then it means he's not a good swimmer, because all the other swimmers that never even seen an ocean were not bitten by a shark.

 

 

 

Amongst hunters, you can stack rank them after the number of their scores. For pilots, there is just two categories: Living and dead ones. Marseille is a dead one.

 

And that does not mean that he was a worse pilot. Just do a  poll, who was a better Formula One driver, Ayrton Senna or ... Esteban Tuero. 

 

I am not throwing out claims, who was a better pilot, but it is nonsense to say that somebody was worse pilot, because he happened to be killed. 

[SCG_OpticFlow]

You mean that Eric Brown would have flown the plane home, after inhaling all the smoke and going through all the problems like Marseille did in his final flight? How many times did he do that then? It is like saying that if a shark bites Michael Phelps then it means he's not a good swimmer, because all the other swimmers that never even seen an ocean were not bitten by a shark.

 

 

 

 

And that does not mean that he was a worse pilot. Just do a  poll, who was a better Formula One driver, Ayrton Senna or ... Esteban Tuero. 

 

I am not throwing out claims, who was a better pilot, but it is nonsense to say that somebody was worse pilot, because he happened to be killed. 

 

Yes I think its disrespectful to compare soldiers who flew into combat, doing their duty, day after day, facing the enemy and prevailing (or dying), seeing their friends die one after another, to someone who found a safe job far from the front line and stayed on it the entire war.

 

Adolf Galland said "Our aces fought until they were killed."

[Dave]

My Dad can beat up your Dad.

[ZachariasX]

While not exactly, this is close to the definition of corner speed. It is the speed at which the aircraft can pull maximum sustained G as permitted by the airframe. I personally could sustain about 6G before blacking out. That was with a G suit and a lot of effort. I never flirted with GLOC without a G suit so I don't really know what my limit would be in that situation - but I regularly pulled 4G without a G suit doing aerobatics in a couple of planes I flew.

In the PC-9 you would pull 4G at the start of a loop at 250kts. Thats about 460km/h. The plane did it easily and it was certainly possible to snatch it and exceed 4G at that airspeed. Max for that aircraft was about 320kts (570km/h) and I occasionally flew it at 300. The controls were noticeably stiffer at only 50kts above loop entry speed. I can't really see anyone pulling black out G (about 6G for a fit veteran fighter pilot with no G suit) at 375kts (695km/h) in a plane that was designed to be most manoeuvrable at half that speed.

 

Precisely. I mean, "corner speed" is more a concept for newer planes. And jets especially. In the P-51 you have "corner speed" at 270 mph. This is where you can pull the structural limit of the aircraft. But a real world pilot would do much less, that I'm sure. Especially since stick forces really are getting considerable there.

 

I'm still tying to convince my better half that I absolutely must spend 5000 quid for an hour in the Spit Mk.IX that is readily available at Duxford. So I can get a personal feeling of it.

 

What you are telling of the PC-9 is very consistent with what I hear from friends flying the PC-7.

 

When flying aerobatics, unless in flicking maneuvers I would rarely go over 4 g, 3.5 g being the rule for the pull up in a loop, be it with an ASK-21 glider or a Bücker Jungmann. They wouldn't come around the top in a nice circle if you do less.

Edited November 2, 2017 by ZachariasX

[LukeFF]

 

 

Adolf Galland said "Our aces fought until they were killed."

 

...because Germany had no other choice (besides putting bomber pilots and minimally-trained recruits at the controls of high-performance fighter planes). 

[ZachariasX]

Yes I think its disrespectful to compare soldiers who flew into combat, doing their duty, day after day, facing the enemy and prevailing (or dying), seeing their friends die one after another, to someone who found a safe job far from the front line and stayed on it the entire war.

 

Adolf Galland said "Our aces fought until they were killed."

You are not really familiar with the perils of being a test pilot it seems. Best not rank other persons sercives according to ones gut feel at all. Doing so wouldn‘t even make you popular amongst the people you think were „better“.

[Holtzauge]

When it comes to the handling part, I have never flown anything hotter than Pipers, Cessnas and gliders so when it comes to stick forces and how much you can comfortably pull then I gladly defer to people like Dave and Zacharias who have more hands on experience in that department.

 

However what I can say something about is the engineering aspect and I can tell you that fixing (as in lowering) the elevator stick forces (g/lb) this is not rocket science and was not back then either. There are plenty of options available but I would go for a geared tab solution (Google it if you don’t know what I mean).

 

This was actually done on the Me-109 K4 ailerons but for some reason it was not widely adopted. I don’t know why but from an engineering standpoint I can guess: Either it was because it did not work because the pilots increased aileron control authority only twisted the main wing so it did not do that much in terms of improved roll rate due to the Me-109’s rather modest aileron reversal speed. Or, it could have caused flutter problems since even if you mass balance the tab, moving parts far out on the wing which has a lot of degrees of freedom can cause problems. There are many different modes of wing flutter and what I have seen on film does not look pleasant…….

 

Happily this is not the same problem on a stabilizer/elevator combination: This stuff is usually pretty stiff in itself and there is no problem to do a hefty geared tab unit and use a lot off mass balance because late war fighters usually carried a lot of ballast in the tail anyway. In addition, you can place the elevator tab right up against the rudder so it has virtually no degrees of freedom at all when it comes to exciting a flutter problem. So to conclude, you can get a good and overly strong geared tab in place with no weight penalty and minimal risk of flutter, i.e. a very low hanging fruit from an engineering perspective.

 

Now maybe this was all a bit long winded but the point I am trying to make is that IF the Germans, as in the pilots that flew them, the technical officers at the Staffeln, or the engineers and procurement officers of the RLM would have seen elevator stick forces as something that lowered the 109’s tactical potential they would have DONE SOMETHING ABOUT IT because it is quite simple to engineer and retrofit a solution. But they never did, did they? I wonder why……..

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

Yes I think its disrespectful to compare soldiers who flew into combat, doing their duty, day after day, facing the enemy and prevailing (or dying), seeing their friends die one after another, to someone who found a safe job far from the front line and stayed on it the entire war.

 

Adolf Galland said "Our aces fought until they were killed."

Funny you call it a safe job when being a test pilot was and still is one of the most dangerous jobs.

Edited November 2, 2017 by RoflSeal

[VesseL]

When it comes to the handling part, I have never flown anything hotter than Pipers, Cessnas and gliders so when it comes to stick forces and how much you can comfortably pull then I gladly defer to people like Dave and Zacharias who have more hands on experience in that department.

 

However what I can say something about is the engineering aspect and I can tell you that fixing (as in lowering) the elevator stick forces (g/lb) this is not rocket science and was not back then either. There are plenty of options available but I would go for a geared tab solution (Google it if you don’t know what I mean).

 

This was actually done on the Me-109 K4 ailerons but for some reason it was not widely adopted. I don’t know why but from an engineering standpoint I can guess: Either it was because it did not work because the pilots increased aileron control authority only twisted the main wing so it did not do that much in terms of improved roll rate due to the Me-109’s rather modest aileron reversal speed. Or, it could have caused flutter problems since even if you mass balance the tab, moving parts far out on the wing which has a lot of degrees of freedom can cause problems. There are many different modes of wing flutter and what I have seen on film does not look pleasant…….

 

Happily this is not the same problem on a stabilizer/elevator combination: This stuff is usually pretty stiff in itself and there is no problem to do a hefty geared tab unit and use a lot off mass balance because late war fighters usually carried a lot of ballast in the tail anyway. In addition, you can place the elevator tab right up against the rudder so it has virtually no degrees of freedom at all when it comes to exciting a flutter problem. So to conclude, you can get a good and overly strong geared tab in place with no weight penalty and minimal risk of flutter, i.e. a very low hanging fruit from an engineering perspective.

 

Now maybe this was all a bit long winded but the point I am trying to make is that IF the Germans, as in the pilots that flew them, the technical officers at the Staffeln, or the engineers and procurement officers of the RLM would have seen elevator stick forces as something that lowered the 109’s tactical potential they would have DONE SOMETHING ABOUT IT because it is quite simple to engineer and retrofit a solution. But they never did, did they? I wonder why……..

 

They could have put 190´s control in 109, and it would have been a monster. Maybe some lite version would have been enough, Increased strength for the wings too. Perfect fighter

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

This is because the variable incidence tailplane has been implemented, as demanded by die hard 109 fans I might add, as an absolute position mapping for an axis. So they can set and forget instantly. The game then has to more slowly catch up with the input to correctly account for the real speed of actuation of the tailplane trim wheel. When what is designed for an axis is then mapped to two keys instead, the input absolute position is the sum of all the key press events up until the actuation catches up with the input. The trim isn't so broken - it is the best the devs could do to make the stabiliser actuation speed more realistic while trying to support both axis and keybinding for human interface devices lacking any form of force feedback.

I´m not agree, The trimmable horizontal stabilizer behavior of the bf-109 is badly modelled after the ver.2012 patch.

I think, that the devs have done a re-fried from the early versión flight model of the game.

Now in game, We haven´t the proper neutral trim in zero at cruise speed in the bf-109, as Volker Bou said in our interview.

..and we have the trim control retarded as Geramos said previously.

 

Do you knows that the elevator control surface travel change when the Stab trim is changed??

 

 

This is the controls adjustment chart for Bf-109G series.

You can see in this chart, if we don´t fly with the trim in zero position, we don´t have the complete travel of the elevator in both directions. 

 

 

Edited November 2, 2017 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

[Holtzauge]

They could have put 190´s control in 109, and it would have been a monster. Maybe some lite version would have been enough, Increased strength for the wings too. Perfect fighter

 

Well the Me-109 was only good enough up to 1943 according to Galland: He actually advocated that it should have been phased out after that. That is at least what he said at a debriefing after the war in England: He considered that continuing to produce the Me-109 after 1943 was a mistake and that it should have been phased out by Tank's Fw-190 and Ta-152 designs and that this never occurred was due to a wish to keep up the volumes of produced fighters, nothing else!

[SCG_OpticFlow]

Funny you call it a safe job when being a test pilot was and still is one of the most dangerous jobs.

 

As compared to being shot at by a competent and intelligent opponent determined to kill you?

 

And why are people coming again and again, talking about pilots and every other thing, instead on the topic, 109's Elevator?

[SCG_OpticFlow]

Well the Me-109 was only good enough up to 1943 according to Galland: He actually advocated that it should have been phased out after that. That is at least what he said at a debriefing after the war in England: He considered that continuing to produce the Me-109 after 1943 was a mistake and that it should have been phased out by Tank's Fw-190 and Ta-152 designs and that this never occurred was due to a wish to keep up the volumes of produced fighters, nothing else!

 

Galland flew Me-262 prototype in May 1943 and since then was pushing hard to get it adopted as a fighter, but please, stay on the topic -- 109's Elevator!

[VesseL]

The first step towards being more scientific is to stop mixing together ailerons control force with elevator control force.

 

If I'm not forgetting something, all the pilots comments about controls being hard at 700+ were about the ailerons, not the elevator. At these speeds instead of ailerons they used the rudder to control the aircraft.

 Yes, elevator was stiff too, i think ailerons rip of at some point. Elevator is almost solid somewhere between 700-850kmh. 2cents only

[Holtzauge]

Galland flew Me-262 prototype in May 1943 and since then was pushing hard to get it adopted as a fighter, but please, stay on the topic -- 109's Elevator!

 

Nope, he was talking about prop fighters not jets. He considered the Me-109 an obsolescent propeller powered design by 1943 (Source: The Luftwaffe Fighter force, Adolf Galland & David Ishby page 232) and if you are going to correct people and ask them to shut up get your facts straight.

[VesseL]

Well the Me-109 was only good enough up to 1943 according to Galland: He actually advocated that it should have been phased out after that. That is at least what he said at a debriefing after the war in England: He considered that continuing to produce the Me-109 after 1943 was a mistake and that it should have been phased out by Tank's Fw-190 and Ta-152 designs and that this never occurred was due to a wish to keep up the volumes of produced fighters, nothing else!

 

Ok, interesting thx. Wouldn´t have change the big picture much, either way i guess.

[Holtzauge]

Ok, interesting thx. Wouldn´t have change the big picture much, either way i guess.

 

No, they would have lost the war anyway but I was quite surprised the first time I read that statement by Galland so that's why I thought I would share it.

[SCG_OpticFlow]

Nope, he was talking about prop fighters not jets. He considered the Me-109 an obsolescent propeller powered design by 1943 (Source: The Luftwaffe Fighter force, Adolf Galland & David Ishby page 232) and if you are going to correct people and ask them to shut up get your facts straight.

 

Ok, thank you for setting me straight. I tried to comment on the topic of the blowing engine, the thread got quickly derailed into name calling and what not. I tried to comment on a single technical topic, the 109's elevator, the thread quickly derailed and we're discussing who said what and who's the greatest aviator. Maybe its my fault for taking part in it. I'd try to refrain from commenting on this forum. It's obvious that I don't have anything to add to it.

[VesseL]

 

I´m not agree, The trimmable horizontal stabilizer behavior of the bf-109 is badly modelled after the ver.2012 patch.

I think, that the devs have done a re-fried from the early versión flight model of the game.

Now in game, We haven´t the proper neutral trim in zero at cruise speed in the bf-109, as Volker Bou said in our interview.

..and we have the trim control retarded as Geramos said previously.

 

Do you knows that the elevator control surface travel change when the Stab trim is changed??

 

 

This is the controls adjustment chart for Bf-109G series.

You can see in this chart, if we don´t fly with the trim in zero position, we don´t have the complete travel of the elevator in both directions. 

 

 

 

 

It feels like the nose down stab -100%is not full 100% ( compared what i have used to) . Cant read the chart.

Im using MSFFB2

Edited November 2, 2017 by VesseL

[ZachariasX]

This is the controls adjustment chart for Bf-109G series. You can see in this chart, if we don´t fly with the trim in zero position, we don´t have the complete travel of the elevator in both directions.

So, checking that in the sim, "-50%" trim (half way nose down) would correspond to +1 degree on the stabylo, conversely "+50%" would mean -3 degrees on the stabylo?

 

In game, the 109 F and G seem to be trimmed out at 400 km/h in the -50% trim range. Is that what you get, Otto? Instead of the stated "0 degree" trim that Volker would talk about?

 

But I'm not sure this being directly related to the stick authority that the pilot has at progressively fast speeds. The missing 1 degree or so pull on the elevator is not what restricts you. What restricts you is that you cannot pull the stick back as much as you wanted at high speeds.

 

 

Reading throug Holtzauge's post, I wonder why they didn't change the control gearing such that you could move the stick easier. One thing for sure, there are structural issues. You have to be very, very careful moving your controls at high speeds. Older "analog" airliners like the DC-9 (mostly just Flettner control) or the DC-10 with added inboard (just inside the engine nacelles) hydraulic ailerons show how you can realize such. Didn't the P-38 have geared tabs in the elevator? Yes why not doing such on the 109? It is no secret that, even though the 109 was extensively redesigned over the different types, it did not have the structural rigidity of the Fw-190. This sets limits. So i'm not so sure if you can take an airframe and just give it good high speed stick authority without asking for troubles.

 

One thing to keep in mid is, properly trimmed, you can speed up and shoot someone in the back and then run with the 109. But what you cannot do is take a fight at 400 mph with a Tempest or a Mustang. And I doubt that any of the aces really did that with the 109. Once it came to maneuvering, planes were probably much slower soon.

 

The 109 was maybe a fast plane, but it had a comparably low combat speed by late war standards. So if one gets used to that, why change it? People got used to it, and the ones that lived to talk back to Willy were even rather sucessful with it. So why change it all?

[Dakpilot]

There is a German aviation anecdote that said when a Focke Wulf crashed, Kurt Tank would find the parts that broke and made them stronger, when a Messerschmitt crashed Willi would find the parts that survived and make them lighter..

There are a number of instances where 109 tails failed when pushed beyond limits, this is not to try and say 109's are weak but that Messerschmitt 'ideology' was to make things as light as possible to do the job and not a bit more

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited November 2, 2017 by Dakpilot

[Inkophile]

 

 

This sets limits. So i'm not so sure if you can take an airframe and just give it good high speed stick authority without asking for troubles.

 

This was a real problem afaik. One of the reasons to trim tail-heavy in in dives to get smooth control and "automatic" pull-out from the dive with the 109 was the rapid changes in stick force and elevator authority: If a pilot wasn't aware of/familiar with them he might use too much force in the pull-out and then not let back on the stick when the plane transitions from being very stiff into getting a fair bit of elevator authority, and that could damage and in extreme cases even break off the rear fuselage or the horizontal stabilizer.

 

This would suggest that there just doesn't exist any safety-margin in the 109's structural strength which could be used for increased authority at high speed.

[Dave]

I´m not agree

 

Whether or not you agree is irrelevant. Geramos asked why there was a delay. I explained why by stating the facts of the matter. I can't see where there is any room for disagreement. Its like saying you disagree that the Earth is an oblate spheroid.

Edited November 3, 2017 by Dave

[150GCT_Veltro]

There is a German aviation anecdote that said when a Focke Wulf crashed, Kurt Tank would find the parts that broke and made them stronger, when a Messerschmitt crashed Willi would find the parts that survived and make them lighter..

There are a number of instances where 109 tails failed when pushed beyond limits, this is not to try and say 109's are weak but that Messerschmitt 'ideology' was to make things as light as possible to do the job and not a bit more

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

This did happen some days ago.

Pe-2 downed, and soon after my tail section has been ripped off by a burst of three 12,7. Pe-2 was grounded.

 

http://il2stat.aviaskins.com:8008/en/sortie/log/2474897/?tour=28

 

Nobody here says it was not, but just only that probably the 109 structure, in the tail section, is a bit too fragile or again, that the AP are overmodelled a bit.

 

..i don't have the track.

Edited November 3, 2017 by 150GCT_Veltro