109 elevator effectiveness

[Panthera]

One could try that. Just reduce axis movement in „settings“ and log in on Berloga, see how you‘re doing. A slow G-4 shouldn‘t be that different from a slow K-4.

 

In any way, it seems it was used only in few aircraft. So it maybe should be a mod as well, rather than standard. But if anyone has records showing otherwise, I‘d be happy to see it.

 

Might have been used in all K-4's, we don't know. It would interesting to know what difference it made though, I suspect a paper on that is hidden away somewhere in German, US or Russian archives

 

Based on the DCS K-4 you'll have good elevator authority up to around 600 km/h.

[ZachariasX]

Might have been used in all K-4's, we don't know. It would interesting to know what difference it made though, I suspect a paper on that is hidden away somewhere in German, US or Russian archives

 

Based on the DCS K-4 you'll have good elevator authority up to around 600 km/h.

With that gearing, I would expect so. Problem is, as you say we cannot know how widely that gearing was used. If included as a MOD, people could have what they want and servers could provide what they think creates best mission.

[303_Kwiatek]

I think if all planes got less maximum diving speeds situation would be more historically fair in game. Now maximum speed in dive for most planes was move to very high value and boundary.  I think that 50 kph IAS more then manuals says is really more fair.  Expecially when at different altitutdes maximum IAS in dive mean different TAS. For exampe if at low alt 109 got maximum 750 kph IAS  at high alt it would be much less. Such restriction concern all planes.  Now in game maximum dive speed is only IAS value which is independed of height. So if 109 or Yak could dive safetly for 850/ 750 kph IAS at low alt it also could do it at high alt.   So bring maximum safe speed more close  to value in manual would be much more fair then add for these another 100 kph.

 

So example if Yak-1 got 650 kph IAS in manual -   maxium dive speed above these speed should be in cautions ( hard manouvering could broke a plane) and when pass 700 kph IAS it should be deadline. Similar 109 750 IAS should lost part from 800 kph IAS.    Etc etc.  I think it would be move game regarding maximum speed in dive to much more realistic and historical level.

 

Reading original VVS manuals for Yaks, Laggs and LA series it looks that VVS got also problem at high speed dive cause manulas were gave quite restrictive maximum speeds for these.

 

For example:

 

Lagg3 ( 1943 year manual )  -  max speed 600 kph IAS

LA5 ( 1942) - max speed 625 kph IAS

LA5FN (1944) - max speed 650 kph IAS

Yak1 ( 1942)  - max speed ?

Yak3 ( 1944) - max speed 650 kph IAS

 

Speeds above these certain values should be in caution range which mean that any agressive manouvering above these speeds could broke parts of planes.  50 kph buffor above these speed for careffuly pull up should be really enough for all planes expecially when we think about  IAS and TAS changing with alt and surly droping maximum safe IAS value for dive.

Edited January 4, 2018 by 303_Kwiatek

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I think if all planes got less maximum diving speeds situation would be more historically fair in game. Now maximum speed in dive for most planes was move to very high value and boundary.  I think that 50 kph IAS more then manuals says is really more fair.  Expecially when at different altitutdes maximum IAS in dive mean different TAS. For exampe if at low alt 109 got maximum 750 kph IAS  at high alt it would be much less. Such restriction concern all planes.  Now in game maximum dive speed is only IAS value which is independed of height. So if 109 or Yak could dive safetly for 850/ 750 kph IAS at low alt it also could do it at high alt.   So bring maximum safe speed more close  to value in manual would be much more fair then add for these another 100 kph.

 

So example if Yak-1 got 650 kph IAS in manual -   maxium dive speed above these speed should be in cautions ( hard manouvering could broke a plane) and when pass 700 kph IAS it should be deadline. Similar 109 750 IAS should lost part from 800 kph IAS.    Etc etc.  I think it would be move game regarding maximum speed in dive to much more realistic and historical level.

I just wonder why the Yak. despite having the 2nd lowest Dive Speed of any ingame fighter has the best High Speed elevator Authority of all ingame Aircraft. 

[303_Kwiatek]

I dunno about Yak-1 maximum dive from manual casue i dont have confirm about these. Yak-3 from 1944 in manual got 650 kph IAS.

 

We dont have too much info about elevator effectinvess of VVS planes.

 

I found some about early LAgg3 :

 

"The LaGG-3 proved immensely unpopular with pilots. It was somewhat hard to control as it reacted sluggishly to stick forces. In particular, it was difficult to pull out of a dive, and if the stick was pulled too hard, it tended to fall into a spin. As a consequence, sharp turns were difficult to perform."

Edited January 4, 2018 by 303_Kwiatek

[Dakpilot]

I just wonder why the Yak. despite having the 2nd lowest Dive Speed of any ingame fighter has the best High Speed elevator Authority of all ingame Aircraft. 

 

Yak-3 is not normally criticised for lack of easy control, in fact mostly the opposite, from what I have read there is not much different from Yak-1 regards elevator/system

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[303_Kwiatek]

Dunno about controlability of Yaks at higher speeds but fact is that there were several accidents with Yak-3 at dive above manual speeds where Yaks loose their wings covers. ( French Normandie Niemen pilots also experienced these)

 

About Yak 1-7-9 i found such info

 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PILOTS ABOUT THE USE AND FLIGHT TECHNIQUES OF THE YAK-1, YAK-7, YAK-9 WITH M-105P, M-105PA Y M-105PF ENGINES Third edition
Military Edition
People's Commissariat of Defense
Moscow, 1944

 

Dive 92. The dive must be made starting with a twist or a half roll to prevent the fall of oil pressure. It allows for any dive angle, reaching the output speed of 650 km / h by the indicator. During the dive disallow propeller overrev above 2800 rpm During prolonged dives not allow the water to cool: - For aircraft equipped with M-105P engine - below 40 ° C; - For aircraft equipped with M-105PF engine - below 60. The output should be done gently stretching the stick and at a speed not inferior to 340-350 km / h. Dont make sudden movements with the rudder during exit of the dive, otherwise the airplane, regardless of speed, starts to wobble a wing to the other and the exit of the dive will be longer.

Edited January 4, 2018 by 303_Kwiatek

[Panthera]

The low max permissable speeds for Russian fighters points toward a general structural weakness, question is what part in particular would have a habbit of failing. On Japanese fighters it was typically the skin, I wonder if it could've been the same on the Russian aircraft?

[JtD]

Typically high speed limits come from dynamic issues, transonic airflow and the like. Control flutter, controls locking up, change in trim. Static issues, like failure of structural components were rarely the reason, because they can be easily fixed.

 

That said, the primary issue with the Yak-3 was the wing skin, more precisely the glue, which either was too weak or damaged the plywood or both, so that under high stress (high speed pull outs, mainly, low pressure on the top of the wing), the entire wing could disintegrate with fatal results. The problem was solved later on.

[303_Kwiatek]

Could be different things skin on airframe (expecially wings cover), controls flutter, bad production quality.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

The low max permissable speeds for Russian fighters points toward a general structural weakness, question is what part in particular would have a habbit of failing. On Japanese fighters it was typically the skin, I wonder if it could've been the same on the Russian aircraft?

Balooning Control Surfaces would be my Guess. There is a Reason why the German Surfaces are so small, they are fabric covered, and in order to keep them from destroying themselves, very small, it's also one of the most important Reasons for it's very stiff High Speed Controls. 

 

The Yaks have very large Fabric Surfaces on Elevators and Rudders, so they would most likely enounter the same Problems as the P-47 and Spitfire did, which is why their Surfaces were replaced with Metal Ones, as time progressed. 

 

And the Yak Fuselage is of course also Fabric Covered and would start balooning as well the faster you went. 

[Panthera]

Typically high speed limits come from dynamic issues, transonic airflow and the like. Control flutter, controls locking up, change in trim. Static issues, like failure of structural components were rarely the reason, because they can be easily fixed.

 

That said, the primary issue with the Yak-3 was the wing skin, more precisely the glue, which either was too weak or damaged the plywood or both, so that under high stress (high speed pull outs, mainly, low pressure on the top of the wing), the entire wing could disintegrate with fatal results. The problem was solved later on.

 

Well it was a similar structural issue that limited the max permissable speed on Japanese fighters, i.e. the skin coming off. The Japanese increased skin thickness to overcome this issue, as did the Russians in many cases.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

I just wonder why the Yak. despite having the 2nd lowest Dive Speed of any ingame fighter has the best High Speed elevator Authority of all ingame Aircraft.

Imho the plane with the best high speed elevator is the Spit, it blacks out the pilot when max pulling at 700 kmh IAS, iirc other planes cant do that.

[Holtzauge]

Another reason for lower max Vne could be aileron reversal or stiffness problems: There was a discussion about how wood and aluminium compared when it comes to this earlier on but it was inconclusive. I'm still hoping to see some data on Russian wooden wing aileron reversal speeds because I suspect that even if this was not the cause for the low Vne limit, it could well be so that not much aileron authority remained at high speed. As an example, IIRC then the Spitfire only had about 40% of the roll authority left at 400 mph IAS so even if you were superhumanly strong and managed to move the control column, the reward was mostly wing twisting and not much in terms of rolling.

[Guest deleted@50488]

Another reason for lower max Vne could be aileron reversal or stiffness problems: There was a discussion about how wood and aluminium compared when it comes to this earlier on but it was inconclusive. I'm still hoping to see some data on Russian wooden wing aileron reversal speeds because I suspect that even if this was not the cause for the low Vne limit, it could well be so that not much aileron authority remained at high speed. As an example, IIRC then the Spitfire only had about 40% of the roll authority left at 400 mph IAS so even if you were superhumanly strong and managed to move the control column, the reward was mostly wing twisting and not much in terms of rolling.

Well, ingame I can perfectly maneuver in the Spit Mk Vb at & above 400 mph IAS :_/

 

Do you think this is wrong Holtzauge ?

[ZachariasX]

Another reason for lower max Vne could be aileron reversal or stiffness problems: There was a discussion about how wood and aluminium compared when it comes to this earlier on but it was inconclusive. I'm still hoping to see some data on Russian wooden wing aileron reversal speeds because I suspect that even if this was not the cause for the low Vne limit, it could well be so that not much aileron authority remained at high speed. As an example, IIRC then the Spitfire only had about 40% of the roll authority left at 400 mph IAS so even if you were superhumanly strong and managed to move the control column, the reward was mostly wing twisting and not much in terms of rolling.

But on the other hand it requires less deflection at higher speeds for the same roll. Johnie Johnson mentioned in his book that at 700 km/h (respective mph, German translation) the Spit was an affair for "both hands". He made the statement in context of having to undergo surgery for his broken collarbone.

 

At higher speeds you have to limit deflections also for this reason. And in case of geared tabs you have to put in limiters.

 

AFAIR the DC-9, the good old steam gauge freighter, had completely "manual" controls on the outer alierons and therefore care had to be taken not exceeding limits. I remember such because my first class D full motion sim ride was in a DC-9 simulator, and this was something a teenager was told by a grim looking instructor. The flight school would frown on shedding parts of an aircraft, even if it was "just" a simulator.

 

I have to check up on that.

[Holtzauge]

Well, ingame I can perfectly maneuver in the Spit Mk Vb at & above 400 mph IAS :_/

 

Do you think this is wrong Holtzauge ?

 

Is it really such a big difference in-game between the Me-109 and Spitfire you think? Last time I tried the Spitfire did not roll very well at high speeds either. But now that you mentioned 400 mph in this context then this is around 644 Km/h IAS and I will have to try that again with the Spitfire and see how it tabs with Browns statements about the Spitfire at those speeds. But as I recall it both the Spitfire and Me-109 started rolling more poorly at lower IAS in-game than the Russian fighters.

 

But on the other hand it requires less deflection at higher speeds for the same roll. Johnie Johnson mentioned in his book that at 700 km/h (respective mph, German translation) the Spit was an affair for "both hands". He made the statement in context of having to undergo surgery for his broken collarbone.

 

At higher speeds you have to limit deflections also for this reason. And in case of geared tabs you have to put in limiters.

 

AFAIR the DC-9, the good old steam gauge freighter, had completely "manual" controls on the outer alierons and therefore care had to be taken not exceeding limits. I remember such because my first class D full motion sim ride was in a DC-9 simulator, and this was something a teenager was told by a grim looking instructor. The flight school would frown on shedding parts of an aircraft, even if it was "just" a simulator.

 

I have to check up on that.

 

True, it requires less deflection to roll at higher speeds but the problem with aileron reversal is that even for small deflections you still don’t get much for your efforts and once you pass the reversal speed the aileron starts working like a flettner tab and you start rolling in the wrong direction even for small deflections. IIRC then the Spitfire had an even lower aileron reversal speed than the Me-109 and the 40% roll authority left at 400 mph in combination with the high stick forces on both planes meant you did not have much in terms of roll performance at those speeds. I think this is well modelled right now on the Me-109 but TBH I would have liked to see the Russian planes adjusted as well when they did this change on the Me-109’s.

 

Concerning the geared tabs: AFAIK this worked out very well on the Tempest but maybe the reason it was not widely adopted on the Me-109K4 was due to the relatively low aileron reversal speeds of the Spitfire and Me-109: Not much use in giving the pilot extra capability to deflect the ailerons if in the end you end up with a couple of “flettner tabs” working together to twist the wing in the wrong direction and you are only left with a fraction of the stiff wing rolling capability.

[303_Kwiatek]

Another strange thing is that most planes from BOS got reduced roll ability at high speeds after last FM update but there were no info about roll changes for La5 and LAgg3 in changes list.

 

Regarding 109 elevator effectivness according to these test

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/Me_109_Dive_Test.pdf

 

109 F need about 1500 m to recovery at 745 kph IAS with  +1 deg 15 minutes elevator settings.

 

For comparision LAgg3 from manual ( also tested by Fins) need about 1400m to recovery from dive speed 600 kph IAS.

 

In BOS LAgg3 need half of these distance -  700 m  instead 1400m.

 

 

Pullout from Power On Vertical Dives in the LaGG, Full Combat Load, Elevator Trim at -50% Cruise Setting takes.

550 IAS, less than 400m,

580 Maximum IAS in Pull Out 600 IAS, about 700m,

670 Maximum IAS in Pull Out 650 IAS, about 800m,

725 Maximum IAS in Pullout

Edited January 11, 2018 by 303_Kwiatek

[CUJO_1970]

What is the basis for the difference in handling between LaGG-3 and 109G2?

 

LaGG-3 mightily out turns and out rolls 109G2 over 474kph - I flew several hours last week online - LaGG-3 has similar roll rate with FW-190.

[Panthera]

What is the basis for the difference in handling between LaGG-3 and 109G2?

 

LaGG-3 mightily out turns and out rolls 109G2 over 474kph - I flew several hours last week online - LaGG-3 has similar roll rate with FW-190.

 

Well I'm thinking the basis is "guesswork"   

 

But I'm hoping we'll see things ironed out in the end

[LLv34_Stafroty]

For it seems that 109 has really narrow authority scale on how much the elevator can move compared to other planes. If you trim it to be able to turn tight then you cant much push nose down anymore. And when plane is nose heavy you cant pull anymore tight turns but at least you can push nose down then.. its bit like trim is extension to elevator movement itself kinda. A bug perhaps even.

 

What comes to stiffness of it is imo way badly overdone especially when compared to other planes. Heck even fw if more stiff in high speeds than some russian planes.

 

It seems that there is lots to do still in the sim

[SAS_Storebror]

its bit like trim is extension to elevator movement itself kinda. A bug perhaps

 

Isn't that exactly what it's supposed to feel like?

The trim adjusts the stabs' elevation and since the elevators are attached to it, this will naturally change the range of elevator authority.

While trim is used to fly the plane without stick forces, it can of course as well be used to give the plane a certain attitude if desired, for instance make it tail heavy when you want to turn tight for a prolonged time or when you have to pull out of a dive with too heavy stick forces.

 

Cheers!

Mike

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

And when plane is nose heavy you cant pull anymore tight turns but at least you can push nose down then.. its bit like trim is extension to elevator movement itself kinda. A bug perhaps even.

That's how a stabilizer trim works...it changes the lift portion of the tail without moving the elevator by increasing / decreasing it's incidence.

 

Furthermore adjusting the stabilizer also changed the effective range of movement of the elevator as seen in the picture.

 

Some ressearch before calling things out to be bugged would certainly help.

Edited January 23, 2018 by 6./ZG26_5tuka

[unreasonable]

<Snip>

 

Some ressearch before calling things out to be bugged would certainly help.

 

I agree -but it will never catch on - see graph for why. (And we have all been guilty of this occasionally, I expect).

 

[ZachariasX]

I agree -but it will never catch on - see graph for why. (And we have all been guilty of this occasionally, I expect).

 

Dunning-Kruger-Effect-300x238.jpg

You might want to add that "Valley of Despair" is where you are at when you get your PhD. "Stage of Enlightnement" is when you get your second Nobel Prize. "Plateau of Sustainability" is where you are administred stong medication along with cranial electrotherapy stimulation by nurse Ratchet.

[unreasonable]

You might want to add that "Valley of Despair" is where you are at when you get your PhD. "Stage of Enlightnement" is when you get your second Nobel Prize. "Plateau of Sustainability" is where you are administred stong medication along with cranial electrotherapy stimulation by nurse Ratchet.

 

I am not sure about that - one meets people who have done PhDs in subjects like Sociology, Women's Studies etc who are most certainly still at the peak of Mt. Stupid, along with their Professors. For anyone who has done advanced studies in a serious academic subject I agree that the first thing that takes a while to sink in is how little one knows.  As for the chemical and electrotherapy stimulation - the key point of the Plateau of Sustainability is to know the precise doses one needs for a session with nurse Rachet to have the desired effect.  

[Venturi]

As Gibbon famously said, it requires both knowledge AND reflection.

[=X51=VC_]

Sorry to resurrect an old topic but has the 109 elevator stiffness at speed been tweaked recently? I've started flying again after a long-ish break and was pleasantly surprised by my ability to pull tight turns in the 500-600 km/h range without reaching for the stabiliser control. Maybe I'm mis-remembering or I just haven't got into those situations yet, but I recall the 109 was very frustrating due to being borderline impossible to aim with beyond 500km/h. Again, possible memory and perception bias so just checking if anything actually changed.

[I./ZG1_Radick]

placebo effect

[E69_geramos109]

For me is the same brick as allways. Maybe g4s, g6w and g14 are little bit better than G2 and F4 but thats all. 

 

[JtD]

In the most recent topic on the issue Kwiatek linked a post to the DCS forums, which contained some info on the manner.

 

It takes a look at a German test chart and the Soviet trial of a Bf109G-2. Where the extensive Soviet information would need to be extrapolated (and can be), the German, less extensive German chart contains info for high speed elevator response. The downside of the German data is that it shows only one (averaged) centre of gravity position and only one trim setting.

 

I'm taking the German 3km data at face value without any extrapolation or interpretation. Here we have about 5kg of push force at the lowest document IAS of ~385km/h and 24kg of push force at the higher documented IAS of ~640km/h, both for 1g flight. Going with simple physics (same as used by Yoyo on DCS), maintaining the same elevator position used at 385km/h also at 640km/h would result in 2.75g, at forces of about 14kg push (both go up with the square of the speed ratio (640/385)²). That means in order to change from 1g to 2.75g, one would need to change stick forces by 10kg, or about 6kg/g. The 2 km line shows slightly less, the 4km line about 9kg/g. The 7km line is somewhat off, but also shows about 6kg/g.

 

The absolute values depend on trim, in the charts case it's a change from strong push to less push, but it could just as well be push pull or slight pull strong pull.

 

It's also worth mentioning that the stick force per g depends a lot on the position of the centre of gravity. The further forward, the higher the kg/g at high speed, and the more stable the aircraft. In the German test it's placed at 21.2% mean aerodynamic chord. As far as I know, a Bf109G-2 had a CoG range of about 26% at take off and 19% when empty, so 21.2% is a fairly forward CoG position. The test reports however states this was just 15 minutes into flight, so I can't tell for certain how representative the data is.

 

For what it's worth, Yoyo went with the Soviet data and came up with about 3-4kg/g with CoG at 25% MAC at 540 km/h IAS.

[PainGod85]

On 1/23/2018 at 6:58 AM, 6./ZG26_5tuka said:

That's how a stabilizer trim works...it changes the lift portion of the tail without moving the elevator by increasing / decreasing it's incidence.

 

Furthermore adjusting the stabilizer also changed the effective range of movement of the elevator as seen in the picture.

 

Some ressearch before calling things out to be bugged would certainly help.

 

Never let mere facts get in the way of your chosen narrative.

Also, what was said directly below your post.

E: Goddamnit, I didn't check the date. Why was this even necro'd?

Edited November 7, 2018 by PainGod85

[303_Kwiatek]

Interesting is these VVS chart casue to tell something about elevator "heaviness" of 109 comparing to VVS planes.

 

]

 

It show that 109 G-2 ( version with gunpods -  3235 kg!) got less elevator forces then ex. Mig-3 and P-39 is not far much better.

 

How it is in game?  Mig-3 got better elevator response trimmed for level flight then G-2 up to 600 kph.   Mig3 is possible to get blackout by pilot quite easly when in G-2 it is not possible at all. According to these test Mig3 should got much heavier elvator control then G-2 at whole range of speed and G-2 without pods shoundn't be much worse then P-39.

 

It looks like that 109 familiy in BOX got way too fast elevator heaviness comparing to RL counterparts. Also it should be possible to get blackout at range of speed 500-600 kph IAS trimmed for level flight  so G load about 6 G.  Not possible to do in BOX.  Other game make it more beliveable casue there is possible to get 6 G when trimmed to level flight at range of speeds of 500-600 kph with not such problem then above 600 kph IAS elevator beacame stiffnes also.

Edited November 8, 2018 by 303_Kwiatek

[JtD]

This is a chart that tells you how hard or easy it is to move the stick. It doesn't tell what aircraft response you get from moving the stick. You could put a P-39 into a stall from level cruise by moving the stick 2cm. The Bf109 needed a lot more, so even though the two curves of kg/cm of stick travel are close, control forces weren't.

[303_Kwiatek]

Yep but in BOX 109 got control heaviness much more faster then ex. Mig3 and the same worse elevator response.

 

According to Mark Hanna flying 109 Buchon:

 

" Pitch is also delighful at 250 mph and below. It feels very positve and the amount of effort on the control column needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right to me. As CL max is reached the leading edge slats deploy - together if the ball is in the middle, slightly asymmetrically if you have any slip on. The aircraft delights in being pulled into hard manuevering turns at these slower speeds. As the slats pop out you feel a slight "notching" on the stick and you can pull more until the whole airframe is buffeting quite hard. A little more and you will drop a wing, but you have to be crass to do it unintentionally. Pitch tends to heavy up above 250 mph but it is still easily manageable up to 300 mph and the aircraft is perfectly happy carrying out low-level looping maneuvers from 300 mph and below. Above 300 mph one peculiarity is a slight nose down trim change as you accelerate. This means that running in for an airshow above 300 mph the aeroplane has a slight tucking in sensation - a sort of desire to get down to ground level ! This is easily held on the stick or can be trimmed out but is slightly surprising initially. Maneuvering above 300, two hands can be required for more aggressive performance. EIther that or get on the trimmer to help you. Despite this heavying up it is still quite easy to get at 5G's at these speeds. "

 

And other test and pilots opinion:

 

AFDU 28 October 1941: TACTICAL TRIALS - Me.109F AIRCRAFT
- 7. No manoeuvrability trials were carried out against other aircraft but the Me.109F was dived up to 420 m.p.h., I.A.S., with controls trimmed for level flight and it was found that although the elevators had become heavy and the ailerons had stiffened up appreciably, fairly tight turns were still possible. [...]

 

Me 109 G:
- How difficult was it to control the 109 in high velocities, 600 kmh and above?
The Messerschmitt became stiff to steer not until the speed exceeded 700kmh.  The control column was as stiff as it had been fastened with tape, you could not use the ailerons. Yet you could control the plane."
-  Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

 

300 mph is near 500 kph IAS.   109 should be capable to get 5-6 G at speed 500-600 kph with trimmed for level flight. In BOX it is not possible casue elavator become too stiffness.  In all other planes ( Mig3, P-39, etc) it is easy possible to achive such G.  In other game where 109 is moddeled it is also possible to get 6 G at 500-600 kph IAS  with trimmed for level flight ( nose heavy) then above 650 kph IAS elevator beacame noticable heavier ( still plane is controlable to pull up up to 750 kph IAS)

 

Also roll rate comparison is interesting expecially regarding higher speeds controllability of different fighters.

 

From NACA charts  ( where was put also 109 G roll rate) it looks that at speed 300 mph and above  ex. 109, Spitifire MK V with metal airleons and P-40 should be close ( P-39 noticable worse)

 

 

 

How it looks in BOX?

 

 

 

P-40 is about 20 deg/s better then 109 when it should be better about 5-10 deg/s only .

 

King of rollers at high speed are La5  ( dunno about La5FN which isnt tested here), Fw 190 and Lagg3.  Fw 190 was close to RL data in roll rate but Lagg3 and LA5 was known ( from VVS test pilots opinion - no other data avaliable) from heavy controlls when banking from one side to opposite even at moderate speeds. It is no good that with some BOX update most planes got more stick force at higher speeds (  some cases like with 109 elevator stiffnes not exacly well done) but for some reason LA5 and Lagg3 was omitted here...

Edited November 8, 2018 by 303_Kwiatek

[JtD]

2 hours ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

When was that roll rate data graph compiled? Do you know if it was for the current flight model or before the revision?

 

September 2017, so, it's not up to date.

 

WRT the P-40 it is worth mentioning that the curve in the above NACA chart comes from a test executed with less than 50lb stick force. The Bf109 curve manually added to the chart should peak out at a good 80°/s, not near 90°/s, with 50lb stick force and be at a good 60°/s not near 70°/s at 160mph.

[303_Kwiatek]

2. This forum is provided by 1C-777 Ltd. as a courtesy and its usage is a privilege and 1C-777 Ltd. reserves the right to ban any member temporarily or permanently for any reason at any time. Any penalties listed below for violations of the rules are guidelines only and forum administration may take additional action if they feel it is warranted. Use of the forum is not connected to usage of the game and access to this forum is not guaranteed to users as a consequence of purchasing the game.
 
3. This forum is not a means of official support. When following recommendations from community members on the board, you do so at your own risk. Any failure, damage or malfunction resulting from recommendations made by fellow users on the forum is not the responsibility of the forum administration or 1C-777 Ltd.
 
4. The forum is not pre-moderated and objectionable material may occur without our knowledge; messages posted on the forum have not previously been viewed and have not been edited by forum administration. However, forum administration and moderators reserve the right to edit messages after being posted.

 

5. Moderators oversee the different sections of the forum and they have the right to edit and delete posts or close the entire topic without explanation.

 

15. Posting messages that are not relevant to the topic of discussion (off topic) except as specifically allowed in a section is prohibited.

 

17. Spreading false or harmful information about the product is prohibited and will be deleted by forum administration. Claiming ignorance of the subject to justify harmful or obviously untrue info will not be tolerated.

 

19. Systematic message spam on the forum, unfounded negative comments about the game, derogatory comparison of the game with other products without pointing out specific flaws, constant distraction of forum administration and developers by repetitive complaints about false problems are prohibited.

 

23. The forum rules embody the will of 1C-777 Ltd., but may be enforced at the discretion of the moderators or other forum administrators and punishment may be softer or more serious than listed in the forum rules.

 

Keep it on topic or topic will be locked. Also bias or false accusations against the devs wont be tolerated at all. PMs sent.

Edited November 10, 2018 by SYN_Haashashin

[Galgotin]

6. It is forbidden to discuss the actions of moderators and administrators in any form on the forum. All questions are to be sent via "personal message" to the administrator/moderator.

Edited November 11, 2018 by SYN_Haashashin

[Galgotin]

2. This forum is provided by 1C-777 Ltd. as a courtesy and its usage is a privilege and 1C-777 Ltd. reserves the right to ban any member temporarily or permanently for any reason at any time. Any penalties listed below for violations of the rules are guidelines only and forum administration may take additional action if they feel it is warranted. Use of the forum is not connected to usage of the game and access to this forum is not guaranteed to users as a consequence of purchasing the game.

 

5. Moderators oversee the different sections of the forum and they have the right to edit and delete posts or close the entire topic without explanation.

 

7. Comments containing profanity, personal insults, accusations of cheating, excessive rudeness, vulgarity, drug propaganda, political and religious discussion and propaganda, all manifestations of Nazism and racist statements, calls to overthrow governments by force, inciting ethnic hatred, humiliation of persons of a particular gender, sexual orientation or religion are not allowed and will result in a ban.

 

17. Spreading false or harmful information about the product is prohibited and will be deleted by forum administration. Claiming ignorance of the subject to justify harmful or obviously untrue info will not be tolerated.

 

23. The forum rules embody the will of 1C-777 Ltd., but may be enforced at the discretion of the moderators or other forum administrators and punishment may be softer or more serious than listed in the forum rules.

Edited November 11, 2018 by SYN_Haashashin

[JtD]

Thank you Hash for trying to get this topic back in line.