E-7 vs F-2 Roll rate/Elevator Air Grab

[Roland_HUNter]

Greetings!

I have to admit, the new FM on the F-G-K 109s are very good!
Since the update I have not flown with the E-7.

I know the developers said they did not touch the E-7 FM, but I wonder, why not?

The E-7 Roll rate/Elevator Air Grab efficiency above 600 km/h is worse than a 109 F-2,
And
The Roll rates under 600 km/h are starting to equalize.
While, both planes have the same elevator, and the E-7 has bigger ailerons.

I made a comparison video about this, I consider the Developers to decide on this question.
 

 

[Bilbo_Baggins]

10 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

Greetings!

I have to admit, the new FM on the F-G-K 109s are very good!
Since the update I have not flown with the E-7.

I know the developers said they did not touch the E-7 FM, but I wonder, why not?

The E-7 Roll rate/Elevator Air Grab efficiency above 600 km/h is worse than a 109 F-2,
And
The Roll rates under 600 km/h are starting to equalize.
While, both planes have the same elevator, and the E-7 has bigger ailerons.

I made a comparison video about this, I consider the Developers to decide on this question.
 

 

 

I remember reading many times that they reduced aileron travel on the F models to assist roll rate at higher speeds (giving it better gearing when stick forces start getting heavy). They are completely different wing designs at the end of the day though, so is it possible make a comparison?

 

Don't know about elevator changes however. Personally I think the devs have got this airframe performing more accurately now. It was an absolute pig on the ailerons before. The elevators look exactly the same but I don't know if the travel was different on the Emil machines?

Edited March 27, 2022 by Bilbo_Baggins

[Roland_HUNter]

7 hours ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

 

I remember reading many times that they reduced aileron travel on the F models to assist roll rate at higher speeds (giving it better gearing when stick forces start getting heavy). They are completely different wing designs at the end of the day though, so is it possible make a comparison?

 

Don't know about elevator changes however. Personally I think the devs have got this airframe performing more accurately now. It was an absolute pig on the ailerons before. The elevators look exactly the same but I don't know if the travel was different on the Emil machines?

E-7 lighter, has cutted wing, and a bigger aileron.
But as I said, the Developers should decide it.

[Kurfurst]

The Emil has plain type ailerons, the F-K has Friese ailerons which should help a bit at high speeds.

 

By accounts the video (very illustrative btw!) seems to be spot on: the Emil has been said to be very lively at rolling and the low medium speed regions, but very quickly detoriated above that.

 

It seems to be entirely plausible to me that MTT has been aiming for roll to be optimized for  higher speeds with its later F series airframe. Certainly the high aileron forces remained a feature, but in contrast on the F the aileron effectiveness (degree of roll / degree of aileron deflection) was maintained well up to high speeds.

[Roland_HUNter]

3 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

The Emil has plain type ailerons, the F-K has Friese ailerons which should help a bit at high speeds.

 

By accounts the video (very illustrative btw!) seems to be spot on: the Emil has been said to be very lively at rolling and the low medium speed regions, but very quickly detoriated above that.

 

It seems to be entirely plausible to me that MTT has been aiming for roll to be optimized for  higher speeds with its later F series airframe. Certainly the high aileron forces remained a feature, but in contrast on the F the aileron effectiveness (degree of roll / degree of aileron deflection) was maintained well up to high speeds.

What is the difference?

 

I've not found any picture about plain aileron, only about Frise:

[354thFG_Rails]

http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109E_UKtrials/Morgan.html

 

something that might help you @Roland_HUNter . Hinge points are different between E and F not mention shape and length as well. I’m not an expert when it comes to aerodynamics but to me a bigger aileron is harder to deflect at high speed compared to a smaller one.

[Cpt_Siddy]

43 minutes ago, QB.Rails said:

http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109E_UKtrials/Morgan.html

 

something that might help you @Roland_HUNter . Hinge points are different between E and F not mention shape and length as well. I’m not an expert when it comes to aerodynamics but to me a bigger aileron is harder to deflect at high speed compared to a smaller one.

 

Yeah, but the Newton has something to say about that, mainly both forces act on each other, hence smaller deflection is needed on bigger ailerons to create same force. 

 

So the difference must be in how the lever action is done and or any other action, the area alone can not be the explanation here unless you want to invoke some sort of aerodynamic woodoo that only hinders large aileron. If this was true then high subsonic wing airfoil aileron would be tiny. 

[354thFG_Rails]

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/me-109-ailerons-and-roll-rate.56006/
 

“Increasing aileron area help roll rate at low speed but actually reduces it at high speed due to reduced deflection.”

 

Again, I have no idea but this makes sense to me. You have more pressure acting on the surface of the aileron, causing you to input more force to the control for the same deflection. Not even taking into account the wing or even aileron flexing/bending or what have you from forces acting on it. I would have to look up more info on the area of the ailerons from the E to the F to see if it’s more or not. 

 

[CUJO_1970]

Aileron control linkage will also play a part here.