Question re. 109s handling

[LukeFF]

I do not understand how the developers can have these serious bugs.

 

51%

[AX2]

 

The canopy stayed essentially the same as that of the E-4 although the handbook for the 'F' stipulated that the forward, lower triangular panel to starboard was to be replaced by a metal panel with a port for firing signal flares. Many F-1s and F-2s kept this section glazed. A two-piece, all-metal armour plate head shield was added, as on the E-4, to the hinged portion of the canopy, although some lacked the curved top section. A bullet-resistant windscreen could be fitted as an option.^[36] The fuel tank was self-sealing, and around 1942 Bf 109Fs were retrofitted with additional armour made from layered light-alloy plate just aft of the pilot and fuel tank. The fuselage aft of the canopy remained essentially unchanged in its externals.

The tail section of the aircraft was redesigned as well. The rudder was slightly reduced in area and the symmetrical fin section changed to an airfoil shape, producing a sideways lift force that swung the tail slightly to the left. This helped increase the effectiveness of the rudder, and reduced the need for application of right rudder on takeoff to counteract torque effects from the engine and propeller. The conspicuous bracing struts were removed from the horizontaltailplanes which were relocated to slightly below and forward of their original positions. A semi-retractable tailwheel was fitted and the main undercarriage legs were raked forward by six degrees to improve the ground handling. An unexpected structural flaw of the wing and tail section was revealed when the first F-1s were rushed into service; some aircraft crashed or nearly crashed, with either the wing surface wrinkling or fracturing, or by the tail structure failing. In one such accident, the commander of JG 2 "Richthofen", Wilhelm Balthasar lost his life when he was attacked by a Spitfire during a test flight. While making an evasive manoeuvre, the wings broke away and Balthasar was killed when his aircraft hit the ground. Slightly thicker wing skins and reinforced spars dealt with the wing problems. Tests were also carried out to find out why the tails had failed, and it was found that at certain engine settings a high-frequency oscillation in the tailplane spar was overlapped by harmonic vibrations from the engine; the combined effect being enough to cause structural failure at the rear fuselage/fin attachment point. Initially two external stiffening plates were screwed onto the outer fuselage on each side, and later the entire structure was reinforced.^[33]

The entire wing was redesigned, the most obvious change being the new quasi-elliptical wingtips, and the slight reduction of the aerodynamic area to 16.05 m² (172.76 ft²). Other features of the redesigned wings included new leading edge slats, which were slightly shorter but had a slightly increased chord; and new rounded, removable wingtips which changed the planview of the wings and increased the span slightly over that of the E-series. Frise-type aileronsreplaced the plain ailerons of the previous models. 

Edited June 8, 2014 by Mustang

[AX2]

 

BF 109 G at Airshow

Handling 

 

The initial reaction is of delight to be flying a classic airplane, and the next is the realization that this is a real fighter.

The roll rate is very good and very positive below about 400 km/h, and the amount of effort needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right. The aircraft delights in being pulled into hard manoeuvring turns at these slower speeds. 

Pitch tends to be heavy above 400km/h, but it is still easy to manage up to 500km/h, and the aircraft is perfectly happy carrying out low-level looping manoeuvres from 550km/h and below.

Above 550km/h, one peculiarity is a slight nose-down trim change as you accelerate. This means that when you run in for an airshow above 500km/h, the airplane has a slight tucking sensation-a sort of desire to get down to ground level. This is easily held on the stick, or it can be trimmed out, but it is slightly surprising initially. 

When you maneuver above 500km/h, two hands are required for a more aggressive performance.

Either that or get on the trimmer to help. Despite this heavying up, it is still quite easy to get 5G at these speeds. The rudder is effective and of medium feel up to 500km/h. It becomes heavier above this speed, but regardless, the lack of rudder trim is not a problem for the type of operations we carry out with this airplane. Initial acceleration is rapid up to about 560km/h-particularly with nose down.  

Edited June 8, 2014 by Mustang

[AX2]

I do not understand how the developers can have these serious bugs.

I think is work in progress , now is an alpha test at 51% only   , but few people feel the problem at the BF 109, apparently...

and maybe I'm crazy ???  

 

51%

+1.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 x 1.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000   

Edited June 8, 2014 by Mustang

[BlackDevil]

I was in the ILA2012 airshow (Berlin)  next to the man who filmed this video, and I've seen fly this Bf-109G. He did all sorts of aerobatics, and not stall or spin, this plane flies marvellously.  (see the bf-109 aerobatics show  in minute 15:50  and onwards)

 

And you did see him using full control inputs ? Or did he move his stick by centimeters ? 

[Brano]

I miss pictures out of that airshow video with green and red lines.  

[sturmkraehe]

Feels like we are having 25% of all posts dealing with the same flaw of the 109 and this since week. We are spammed with the same posts over and over again. I guess I will simply stop reading threads that have the three numbers 1, 0 and 9 in its title because they just add more to the 1000th+ repetition of the same topic without any new information.

 

I have the strong feeling that some people here are extremely impatient. They will continue to bombard the forum with the same issue despite it has already brought up in various places because they perhaps hope that the devs will pulverize their work plan and take immediate care to their personal core issue instead of just waiting until the devs can phase this into their work plan. I remember when I was a kid and could not understand that I sometimes had to wait for something. I guess I gave my Mom (and all the other people in the vicinity) a not so pleasant time then.

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

And you did see him using full control inputs ? Or did he move his stick by centimeters ?

According to several documents that I have read, these Bf-109, restored from a Spanish fuselage HA-1112 has limited manoeuvrability for reasons of preservation.

to +6 and -1 G´s, ..but it´s capable to reach +9 G´s turns without any problem. 

http://www.caa.co.uk/AANDocs/20915/20915030000.pdf

 

 

The Bf-109 of that video was equiped with a -4 and  +12 G,s top scale accelerometer.. 

You can see that G-meter clock in this 360º view, it´s in the main panel, the first  at right hand below. 

http://www.flugmuseum-messerschmitt.de/Me109G4/360Cockpit/

 

 

Feels like we are having 25% of all posts dealing with the same flaw of the 109 and this since week. We are spammed with the same posts over and over again. I guess I will simply stop reading threads that have the three numbers 1, 0 and 9 in its title because they just add more to the 1000th+ repetition of the same topic without any new information.

 

I have the strong feeling that some people here are extremely impatient. They will continue to bombard the forum with the same issue despite it has already brought up in various places because they perhaps hope that the devs will pulverize their work plan and take immediate care to their personal core issue instead of just waiting until the devs can phase this into their work plan. I remember when I was a kid and could not understand that I sometimes had to wait for something. I guess I gave my Mom (and all the other people in the vicinity) a not so pleasant time then.

This is a curious phenomenon, which has been repeated in all Russian WWII aircombat simulators. 

The flight model of the German airplanes always breaks down, or change to worse, after the first months of fighting on-line against Russian planes.

 

The historical reality was that the Germans had air superiority on the Russian front, until the appearing of the La-5 in August 1942.

If the simulator is well done, .. this should be so, unless someone intends to manipulate history.

 

http://issuu.com/joete6/docs/aviation_classics_018._messerschmit/63?e=0

Edited June 8, 2014 by III/JG52_Otto_Mas

[sturmkraehe]

This is a curious phenomenon, which has been repeated in all Russian WWII aircombat simulators. 

The flight model of the German airplanes always breaks down, or change to worse, after the first months of fighting on-line against Russian planes.

 

 

In all Russian ww2 aircombat simulators? Are there more than two (including this under development) which I don't know of?

 

This really sounds terribly like a conspiracy theory. Like "America never landed a man on the moon" and "911 was an inside job"...

[BlackDevil]

I have the strong feeling that some people here are extremely impatient. They will continue to bombard the forum with the same issue despite it has already brought up in various places because they perhaps hope that the devs will pulverize their work plan and take immediate care to their personal core issue instead of just waiting until the devs can phase this into their work plan. I remember when I was a kid and could not understand that I sometimes had to wait for something. I guess I gave my Mom (and all the other people in the vicinity) a not so pleasant time then.

 

 

According to several documents that I have read, these Bf-109, restored from a Spanish fuselage HA-1112 has limited manoeuvrability for reasons of preservation.

to +6 and -1 G´s, ..but it´s capable to reach +9 G´s turns without any problem. 

http://www.caa.co.uk/AANDocs/20915/20915030000.pdf

 

 

The Bf-109 of that video was equiped with a -4 and  +12 G,s top scale accelerometer.. 

You can see that G-meter clock in this 360º view, it´s in the main panel, the first  at right hand below. 

http://www.flugmuseum-messerschmitt.de/Me109G4/360Cockpit/

 

 

This is a curious phenomenon, which has been repeated in all Russian WWII aircombat simulators. 

The flight model of the German airplanes always breaks down, or change to worse, after the first months of fighting on-line against Russian planes.

 

The historical reality was that the Germans had air superiority on the Russian front, until the appearing of the La-5 in August 1942.

If the simulator is well done, .. this should be so, unless someone intends to manipulate history.

 

http://issuu.com/joete6/docs/aviation_classics_018._messerschmit/63?e=0

 

sorry, but i don´t see anything in this post, that has something to do with my question.

 

You can refly your vid with the BoS 109. The problem you see with the BoS 109 arises, whenever the stick is mistreated. That´s why I asked, wether you did see the pilot using full inputs in this vid. A short yes or no would have answered my question.

Edited June 8, 2014 by BlackDevil

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

In all Russian ww2 aircombat simulators? Are there more than two (including this under development) which I don't know of?

 

This really sounds terribly like a conspiracy theory. Like "America never landed a man on the moon" and "911 was an inside job"...

You are in the world because God likes the biodiversity...   

 

 

# 1/ IL-2 sturmovik- 1946 Made, by 1C Company and Oleg Maddox, from Russia  

# 2/ IL-2 Sturmovik- Cliffts of Dover,  Made by 1C Company from Russia  

# 3/ IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Stalingrad,  Made by 1C Company from Russia and  Jason «Burnin» Williams owner of 777 studios, ONLY ONE GUY from USA. 

# 4/ Warthunder; Made by Gaijin Entertainment from Russia, the CEO is Anton Yudintsev.

# 5/ DCS WWII: Europe 1944, Made by Eagle Dynamics from Russia, Projected by Ilya Shevchenko.

  

I can go on ... there are more ..

Edited June 8, 2014 by III/JG52_Otto_Mas

[ShamrockOneFive]

Pretty sure there were the same arguments with Aces High, WWII Online, etc. It's funny reading old posts from a forum before realizing they were talking about the same stuff 15 years ago

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

 

sorry, but i don´t see anything in this post, that has something to do with my question.

 

You can refly your vid with the BoS 109. The problem you see with the BoS 109 arises, whenever the stick is mistreated. That´s why I asked, wether you did see the pilot using full inputs in this vid. A short yes or no would have answered my question.

 

I have not seen the pilot of the 109 using full imput, and is possible that's not necessary use full imput, It's capable to do hard turn and aerobatics more than we can do in the BoS, Il2-CloD, and a lot of more than Warthunder.

[sturmkraehe]

Clod is not based on Russian scenario, nor DCS WW2. Why should Russians, if at all, make American and British planes appear better than what they were?

 

Warth ***cough* is not really a flightsim as far as I understand.

Edited June 8, 2014 by sturmkraehe

[FuriousMeow]

Interesting. Please tell me more how cramped cockpit limited leverage of rudder pedals? And source for that info too.

 

 

Because you are taking what I said and singling out one point with the intention of turning into a nonsensical retort. Obviously cramped cockpit doesn't apply to rudder pedals, it was stick forces the cramped cockpit meant. You know just as well as I do that the lateral movement of the 109's stick allows only 40lbs of pressure and only four inches of movement. The leverage statement's clear intent was the stick. http://donzorro.hu/bf109.html

I think "Mustang" has explained very well in this post, and this according to what he says.

 

I was in the ILA2012 airshow (Berlin)  next to the man who filmed this video, and I've seen fly this Bf-109G. He did all sorts of aerobatics, and not stall or spin, this plane flies marvellously.  (see the bf-109 aerobatics show  in minute 15:50  and onwards)

 

 

 

I do not understand how the developers can have these serious bugs.

 

He did not push the 109 to the limits. No airshows push these warbirds to the edge of their envelopes. Do not use airshows as any evidence of how well these planes can fly at the edge, or beyond, of their envelopes. I could put up a youtube of the 109 that went inverted and its engine died after a few seconds, but that doesn't matter one bit on how the real 109 flew inverted. Stop with this "well look at this youtube video" stuff, it doesn't matter to how these planes flew through all areas of the flight envelope.

 

Yes I saw you at my six.

I make a fast escape from you over a small village on deck

Later I perform a climb followed by a hard neg G´s  dive ... my 109 lost all controls and enter in a uncontrolled spin... like my video...

Can you remember the uncontrolled spin ?

 

I was killed 

 

 

You mean when I saw you cross control? You do know that this title shows control surface deflection on other player's planes online unlike most other titles? I saw you kick rudder and pull back full elevator with full left aileron deflection. You didn't lose control, you induced a spin - and not just once. You were in level flight when this "loss of control" occured.

Edited June 8, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[AX2]

 

There is no perfection, this is being done on a home computer. Simulators for Boeing require many computers in parallel to simulate as best they can, but its not perfect. There is no perfect. Its a computer program. We're lucky if this is within 80% of simulating reality. Fact is, it is more likely closer to 50%, because there are so many variables that have to be accounted for a $100 program still won't be able to simulate them all.

 

III/JG52_Otto_Mas I must agree with FuriousMeow, Fact is, it is more likely closer to 50% ,So we should all be calm. 

 

Clod is not based on Russian scenario, nor DCS WW2. Why should Russians, if at all, make American and British planes appear better than what they were?

 

Warth ***cough* is not really a flightsim as far as I understand.

 

 

Related to sales and major buyers at market, 

 

At ColD in the past existed a nasty bug with the  radiator  of the Spitfire .

At CloD, The 109 water radiators were 109 made in paper under enemy shots , The Spitfire Radiator could not be perforated by gun fire.

But Team Fusion fix the " bug - cheat " at the Spitfire, 

 

Look where are the fuel tanks at P38 and P51, then think  about when they catch fire at il2 1946, 

Also you have there a P 40 with  glass  engine   

If I start talking about the old Il2 1946 , Many of us will start to  cut the veins ... so I keep silent

The artificial balance in games always exists. 

 

I have to be neutral and let my personal feelings out ot this.

 

Otto

I must tell you ,  Kurfust is pilot tester at BoS,  

http://kurfurst.org/

 

And he remains silent abot the 109 FM. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 8, 2014 by Mustang

[dburne]

 

 

I must tell you ,  Kurfust is pilot tester at BoS,  

http://kurfurst.org/

 

And he remains silent abot the 109 FM. 

 

 

 

Which that being the case, means he is likely under NDA, hence the silence...

[SCG_Neun]

Well that for me is very reassuring that Kurfust is a pilot tester at BOS.  We just have to give this some time.

[Nonolem]

IF there is anything to fix up...

[DD_bongodriver]

There is, the 109 shouldn't spin from a moderate negative g bunt, the rudder is too effective and it wobbles like a jelly.

[DB605]

Because you are taking what I said and singling out one point with the intention of turning into a nonsensical retort. Obviously cramped cockpit doesn't apply to rudder pedals, it was stick forces the cramped cockpit meant. You know just as well as I do that the lateral movement of the 109's stick allows only 40lbs of pressure and only four inches of movement. The leverage statement's clear intent was the stick. http://donzorro.hu/bf109.html

 

Ah, again that one E-model test. How surprising.

Quote from "109 myths and facts":

 

"- There was large differences between various types in the high speed controls. Each newer version handled better in high speeds, the best being the 109 K series which had flettner tabs for enhanced aileron control - at least in theory, as it is debated whether many Me 109 K-4s actually had those flettners enabled. 109 G series were much better on this regard compared to 109 E, which yet again wasn't such a dog as many claim. 109 test pilots, Russians included, have said that the 109 had pretty good roll at higher speeds - again not as good as the 190s, P-51 or P-47 - but it maintained a good lateral control ability. Recovering from extremerely fast 750-900 km/h vertical dives was the problem - not level flight or even normal combat flying.

- Spitfire and a 109 had equal roll rates at up to 400 mph speeds. Not even the favourite warhorse of the Americans, P-51, exactly shined with its roll rate at high speeds. P-51 pilots have actually said that flying P-51 at high speeds was like driving a truck.

- An often quoted British report made of a Me 109 E talks about the "short stick travel", "due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick" and "at 400 mph with 40 pounds side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4 seconds to get into a 45 degree roll or bank. That immediately classifies the airplane as being unmaneuverable and unacceptable as a fighter."

- The report claims that The 109-E needed 37lb stick force for a 1/5 aileron deflection at 400mph. Coincidentally, the Spitfire 1 required 57 lb stick force from the pilot for similar deflection at similar speed. This is a 54% higher stickforce for the Spitfire pilot.

- 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."

[Nonolem]

What I mean is :

To know how these planes flew you need a lot of research work. It's a huge work which deserve a lot of time. It is not because you have read some books, some testimonies, or some wikipedia (or assimilated) on internet that you can have a good idea of what it realy was.

Some here say that the way the Me 109 is flying in BoS is not what you can read in most of pilotes's testimonies, but :

If a lot of planes of this categorie had this kind of behaviour, if it is what was expected for a fighter of this time, nobody will mention it in war or test report. Note that most of the planes in this game are oscillating, etc. As I have write a few pages before, nothing is physically odd about this behaviour (even if it is exaggerated, I don't know...).

This not means that nothing has to be fixed, I don't know, as I said, it requires a lot of time to know, time I don't have, time that most of contributors here do not have either. Time the devs and third parties have, because it's their job. My opinion is that we have to trust them. What I have learned so far by following RoF from the beginning, is that they are really passionate and perfectionists.

Yes, no dive of the left wing on high negative G on other planes in BoS, but :

1) Is this manoeuvre possible in a real 109? To have hight negative G, you need to fly fast, and was it possible, even for an athletic pilot, to push the stick so fast in a real 109 flying at high speed?

2) As said above, the strength applyed on the stick is not modelized (yet?). But the torque of the propeler can explain such behaviour if the 109 is engaging in such a manoeuvre. So nobody has reported this IRL, even if it is physically correct.

What i don't want, and why this thread is worrying me :

I want that planes in BoS virtualy fly as close as possible than real planes. I don't want that under very high pressure the devs change anything about what (after a lot of research) they think is correct.

I don't want polemics and fights which will last years. The FM will evolve, but if they don't evolve in the way requested in this thread, it will be because the complaint was wrong, I have no doubt about that.

[Brano]

1.All soviet aircrafts has trim tabs on elevator ailerons.Watch your stick when you do nosedown trim in lets say Yak.Stick is moving forward

2.Only 109 has kind of ''floating'' elevator.It changes its AoA when ''trimmed''.Watch your stick when you do nosedown trim .Stick stays where it was.

 

These are 2 different approaches and I would say that 109's adjustable stabilizator is not one of the best solutions.Complete control over such ''floating'' surfaces was made possible only in modern jets with introduction of fly-by-wire technology.

[Pringliano]

1.All soviet aircrafts has trim tabs on elevator ailerons.Watch your stick when you do nosedown trim in lets say Yak.Stick is moving forward

2.Only 109 has kind of ''floating'' elevator.It changes its AoA when ''trimmed''.Watch your stick when you do nosedown trim .Stick stays where it was.

 

These are 2 different approaches and I would say that 109's adjustable stabilizator is not one of the best solutions.Complete control over such ''floating'' surfaces was made possible only in modern jets with introduction of fly-by-wire technology.

 

I agree. Indeed the "stabilator" approach was not the best one.

 

In gliders we also have both systems, but glider aerodynamics fall into a different class...

[AX2]

2.Only 109 has kind of ''floating'' elevator.It changes its AoA when ''trimmed''.Watch your stick when you do nosedown trim .Stick stays where it was.

 

3. These are 2 different approaches and I would say that 109's adjustable stabilizator is not one of the best solutions.Complete control over such ''floating'' surfaces was made possible only in modern jets with introduction of fly-by-wire technology.

 

2) Adjustable Horizontal Stabilizer works close to perfect at BoS , no complaints here, only noticed insufficient settings for G2 nose down.

 

3. "" is not one of the best solutions""    YES and NOT   the Adjustable Horizontal Stabilizer has a limited range of movement allowed, has a larger surface than a standard trim so requires less movement.

Have a Adjustable Horizontal Stabilizer is very positive at low speeds, when a standard trim have less response, ( Like in takeoff carrying a bomb )

 

Also the BF 109 have trim tabs in rudder and ailerons, elevator, But they must be set that the ground crew before flight, 

 

 

BF 109 is currently very unbalanced while flying,   for my flying style.   

At the real Life,  I can ask the ground crew , apply my custom settings to the trims tabs at BF 109. 

I would like to see that modeling at BoS.

 

Also I develop a external script by  mouse software to mouse wheel settings for rudder. 4 setting for 4 speeds levels

Now my 109 flies very well. 

Nearly autopilot on takeoff , and cut the air like a razor.

 

 

 

But this would have been the best, do not know why they remove it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cDEPlBnQ4g

Edited June 9, 2014 by Mustang

[Bearcat]

Pretty sure there were the same arguments with Aces High, WWII Online, etc. It's funny reading old posts from a forum before realizing they were talking about the same stuff 15 years ago

 

,,, on the same planes .... Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm ..........

[LukeFF]

Also I develop a external script by  mouse software to mouse wheel settings for rudder. 4 setting for 4 speeds levels

Now my 109 flies very well. 

Nearly autopilot on takeoff , and cut the air like a razor.

 

So, in other words, you still like to use cheats.

[AX2]

LukeFF

Cheats ???

If I do not  have tools in BoS .....

why can I do ? 

Find my own way !!!   

 

I'm not kidding

I just understand

What it is a Flight Model for a flight simulator  ?        = A  lot of money

 

 

 

just the Eagle Dynamics developed and funded flight model for the Bf-109K has already cost us about 120k USD (that does not include external model, cockpit model, cockpit systems, etc.). Developing such products is not cheap!

 

An FM for a single plane like a BF 109  is very expensive. 

BoS has 10 aircraft , to complain about flight models, That means a 1.2 million dollars , of  complains.... is a madness OMG!

 

The FM 109 is good enough, to hear children crying as me.

I must repeat the flight model of the 109 is good enough at BoS.... REALLY  .. I have to keep my neutrality!

 

I think there are more important things to spend the money.

But the developers  should give tools for users to feel happy like ROF response curves settings, And it all ends.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cDEPlBnQ4g

Edited June 10, 2014 by Mustang

[ShamrockOneFive]

,,, on the same planes .... Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm ..........

 

Well..yep.

[FuriousMeow]

BF 109 is currently very unbalanced while flying,   for my flying style. 

 

And finally the reality hits. As I said, based on what I saw pursuing you - it isn't the 109. If you expect a plane to perform to your flying style, then you've made a huge mistake. "Flying styles" (whatever that is) need to be adjusted to the plane, not vice versa.

 

I have been unable to spin the 109 going negative Gs. I spent the weekend in the 109F4 climbing like a homesick angel, downing Yaks at will and just generally wondering how this plane is so terrible that so many 109 pilots will be in an uproar upon release when it is quite clearly very superior to the Yak. It is an awesome plane, and I kept it at 1.3 ATA because it needs to be (I do believe the engine limitation/burn out should get a second look, this isn't a Jumo 004) - only a few times going above it. Current K/D with this past weekend's 109 adventure - 8:1 over 3 flights, and I was only shot down because I thought the Yak I had just blown past was the one behind me when I looked back, but it wasn't - it was another Yak with an E-state I hadn't known. Two kills were Il-2s, sure - and two were LaGG-3s but the other four were Yaks - and one of those Yaks was downed less than 2 minutes after gears up. My landing gear just being retracted, not his. He had superior E state, was diving to attack AA and then he saw me - we passed head on and he fired at me, and yet there I was riding the edge of the envelope for three quick manuevers to shoot up his engine and then shoot off his right wingtip. He would auger in a few moments later. I never lost control as you claim to have experienced (and somehow you did that while flying level), but the obvious evidence was that it was clearly intentionally induced by you, the 109 performed very well for me - and I was a half a bottle of wine in.

 

I will happily use the 109 if none of the actual German squads won't, because its about as feeble as a lion in a cage of rabbits.

Edited June 10, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[Pringliano]

I tend to agree with FuriousMeow regarding the 109 F4 flight characteristics.

 

I can't tell for real if they're accurate, and I do find rudder authority needs to be addressed as well as the trimming of ailerons ( performed using the fixed trim tabs on the ground ) because there is, IMO, way too much roll due to torque, but other than that, and although I am a bigger fan of the Yak-1, sometimes I fly the F4 for team equity in MP sessions, and I am becoming more and more "proficient" flying it, and feeling it's peculiarities.

[303_Kwiatek]

Thats why im sure that these game never be better regarding flight characteristic of 109 if we have such experten.

 

Mustang leave it some never understand BOS 109 flight model problems. Thats why for some time i lost my interest for flying BOS and posting on these forum.

Edited June 10, 2014 by Kwiatek

[IVJG4-Knight]

And finally the reality hits. As I said, based on what I saw pursuing you - it isn't the 109. If you expect a plane to perform to your flying style, then you've made a huge mistake. "Flying styles" (whatever that is) need to be adjusted to the plane, not vice versa.

 

I have been unable to spin the 109 going negative Gs. I spent the weekend in the 109F4 climbing like a homesick angel, downing Yaks at will and just generally wondering how this plane is so terrible that so many 109 pilots will be in an uproar upon release when it is quite clearly very superior to the Yak. It is an awesome plane, and I kept it at 1.3 ATA because it needs to be (I do believe the engine limitation/burn out should get a second look, this isn't a Jumo 004) - only a few times going above it. Current K/D with this past weekend's 109 adventure - 8:1 over 3 flights, and I was only shot down because I thought the Yak I had just blown past was the one behind me when I looked back, but it wasn't - it was another Yak with an E-state I hadn't known. Two kills were Il-2s, sure - and two were LaGG-3s but the other four were Yaks - and one of those Yaks was downed less than 2 minutes after gears up. My landing gear just being retracted, not his. He had superior E state, was diving to attack AA and then he saw me - we passed head on and he fired at me, and yet there I was riding the edge of the envelope for three quick manuevers to shoot up his engine and then shoot off his right wingtip. He would auger in a few moments later. I never lost control as you claim to have experienced (and somehow you did that while flying level), but the obvious evidence was that it was clearly intentionally induced by you, the 109 performed very well for me - and I was a half a bottle of wine in.

 

I will happily use the 109 if none of the actual German squads won't, because its about as feeble as a lion in a cage of rabbits.

 

It's irrelevant how many yaks you have killed.

The point we are trying to make is not how much more effective the 109 is as a fighter.Pilot skill is the only thing that is important.That does not mean the FM of the 109 is not weird in certain ways:

 

Bongodriver's statement captures the essence : The 109 shouldn't spin from a moderate negative g bunt, the rudder is too effective and it wobbles like a jelly.

 

I want the FM to get a fix not because i will make me shoot down more yaks but because it's not normal for a plane to behave like jelly. The immersion flies out the window.

[6S.Manu]

Thats why im sure that these game never be better regarding flight characteristic of 109 if we have such experten.

 

Mustang leave it some never understand BOS 109 flight model problems. Thats why for some time i lost my interest for flying BOS and posting on these forum.

 

 

To me this seems like the old Ubizoo discussions about the 190: A -> "Why is this plane so strange?" B -> "Shut up and learn to fly!" 

Edited June 10, 2014 by 6S.Manu

[Sternjaeger]

FuriousMeaow, I think we're missing the original point here: the problem with the current 109 model is that, unlike the Russian aircraft, it's not stable as you'd expect on the three axis, and some of the behaviour when giving certain control inputs is totally wrong.

 

There has been a slight improvement on the 109 F4, but the G2 is still pretty much a mess.

 

I think the frustration comes from the fact that even if we're at 51%, the Russian aircraft seem to be much more "polished" in their response than the German ones, and this unavoidably and perhaps even understandably brings back ghosts from the past.. I'm sure they'll address problems though, what I would have liked to see though, especially from the devs, is a bit more clarity on FM development, since we're almost done with the number of aircraft to implement.

Edited June 10, 2014 by Sternjaeger

[DD_bongodriver]

The game is at 51% but we were told the FM's are at 90% and that's the worrying part

[Sternjaeger]

The game is at 51% but we were told the FM's are at 90% and that's the worrying part

 

yeah, I see your point mate, I still think the issue here is not about the generic FM per se (which I think it's what they're referring to), but about control response (which is specific to the FM of each aircraft). I have faith in the generic FM because you see it working well on the Russian aircraft.

[Finkeren]

The game is at 51% but we were told the FM's are at 90% and that's the worrying part

 

Playing Devil's advocate here, I'll say 90% means, that 90% of the FM features are implemented, not that 90% of the FM is set in stone and not subject to fixes, tweaks and overhauls during the next few months of testing. 

[DD_bongodriver]

yeah, I see your point mate, I still think the issue here is not about the generic FM per se (which I think it's what they're referring to), but about control response (which is specific to the FM of each aircraft). I have faith in the generic FM because you see it working well on the Russian aircraft.

 

Not quite.

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/7067-big-problems-fm/?do=findComment&comment=126796

[Cpt_Branko]

No, sorry guys but I'm now convinced, we just have to go and re write history, the Luftwaffe really lost the battle of Britain because  in actual fact a 109 'couldn't' do a negative g bunt to evade the RAF and their infamous merlin 'cough'

 

Rapidly "jerking" the stick is most likely the issue - bear in mind your joystick takes like a few lbs to move, so it's very easy to "jerk" your stick all the way. A lot of the percieved jerkiness of this or that plane has to do with how stick forces translate from a very light and very responsive joystick to a stick which might require 5-20 lbs/g depending on plane and speed.

 

Anyway, airfoils have critical AoA both ways, you can stall out doing both + and - Gs. Maybe there's a problem with modeling, sure, but you cannot liberally push as hard as you like if the elevator is effective enough.

 

As for the Merlin, doing the same would take about half a minute or more to restart on the early marks, later with the modification they added it again only speeded up the restart. It wasn't until the IX series that you could do -Gs without engine cutting out, and even then the allowed duration of -G flight is severely restricted on many aircraft.

Edited June 10, 2014 by Cpt_Branko