Bf109K4 Doesn't stall.

My friend who owns the module, but is not able to write here, has noticed that the Me109K is impossible to stall. The airplane only falls down when not enough speed is available. He used full stick deflection during the test.

It doesn't look right at all.

Would need to see the control indicator in that Vid - while his joystick might be fully deflected - in game it may not be.

Nate

Would need to see the control indicator in that Vid - while his joystick might be fully deflected - in game it may not be.

 

Nate

It doesn't matter, the airplane is capable of flying in the air below stalling speed and at very high AoA at that. It recovers in level flight and never even realy drops a wing. The only thing that makes it roll is the torque of the engine.

It just falls down to the ground. if there is not enough speed. Stall and spin do not occur.

i would love to have people make bug reports who actually own the module and know it...of course the 109 stalls and drops wings if angle of attack is too hig or speed is too slow.

one thing to keep in mind is, that the stick forces of the 109 are implemented in a way, that the pilot has a hard time to fully deflect the stick or rudder even at speeds of ~200kph.

i would love to have people make bug reports who actually own the module and know it...of course the 109 stalls and drops wings if angle of attack is too hig or speed is too slow.

 

one thing to keep in mind is, that the stick forces of the 109 are implemented in a way, that the pilot has a hard time to fully deflect the stick or rudder even at speeds of ~200kph.

It would be great if people that own the module actually did their own research and knew what they are talking about. Also, we can clearly see the stick travel in Scharfi's video, it's fully deflected back and right and the airplane is gaining speed because it is pulmeting but still holds its attitude.

The airplane clearly doesn't stall, and my friend couldn't make the thread because he is already banned.

If you want to buy me a copy of Me109, please go ahead, but as long as you do not, we will have do that stuff through proxy.

Anyway, both Scharfi's and my friend's videos show clearly that the plane doesn't stall even with the nose up attitude and stick held back, nearly acomplishing Cobra maneuvers of the Su27.

go buy yourself copy if you want to appear credible. i see people stalling the 109 every day.so research done.

and 1 more time,... due to how the stickforces are implemented, its very hard for the virtual pilot to oversteer the plane even at low speeds...thats probably more the problem than the fm itself.

go buy yourself copy if you want to appear credible. i see people stalling the 109 every day.so research done.

Wouldn't be too hard for you to make a video of yourself stalling the 109, right?

Wouldn't be too hard for you to make a video of yourself stalling the 109, right?

for what? to convince you? :lol: i have better things to do....also, im sure the devs will look into it. is the 109 perfect?probably not...is it possbile to stall?...hell yeah

for what? to convince you? :lol: i have better things to do....also, im sure the devs will look into it. is the 109 perfect?probably not...is it possbile to stall?...hell yeah

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Surely you could spare 15 minutes to make a video, instead of hours arguing on the forums?

My friend made another test with power off:

https://youtu.be/MKexcVYbY04

For all we know, it could be "arcade" mode...

For all we know, it could be "arcade" mode...

S!

Well, I've just tested the plane, definitely in sim mode, and the behaviour is rather similar to the vids above, although I think I had to use much more frequent rudder and aileron input to keep the ball centered and prevent wing from dropping, especially in level, power off test, or in power-on turns when speed gets low. Don't use rudder and the plane will roll eventually, use too much of it and the plane will spin. Not that it matters really, unless while recovering from failed landing approach.

I guess some might be more concerned/curious about stable attitude in high speed hard turns in combat, getting some more deflection angle on the target - should the plane with spring-loaded slots be that well behaved? I don't know and don't care much, but I understand where "the friend" is coming from.

The slats are not spring loaded, it is pure aerodynamic forces that control their deployment.

In combat turns the K4 drops wings at around 20° AoA, fits pretty well to the data. Maybe people should read about how slats work and how they retain directional stability up to the increased stall AoA. This kinda reminds me of the thread about two months ago where people complained the engine can sustain vertical prop hanging indefinitely. Then it turns out the plane really was doing 210 kph TAS, with both rads fully open and the engine still did overheat eventually... ED is really patient with some people, I wonder for how long.

Hmm, just had a play with this.

From what I could see, stalls as expected when you start the stall at around 10k alt with eventually stalling so much the nose/wing drops and you can't stop it.

However, I seemed to get different behaviour when doing the same stuff at about 1500 meters. I could (with rudder use to counteract the slight wing drop) keep the nose up and in a stable position while travelling about ~90 knots on F2 view, but dropping height. Think I could have kept it nose high until I hit the deck.

I'm definitely not an expert in stall behaviours though, so take this post with a pinch of salt.

I would agree with Sith that this is to do with the slats. The 109 was known for having fairly gentle stall characteristics and not having too many sudden wingdrops etc. At low speed you just can't get any more aoa out of the elevators and at high speed the stick forces mostly cause the same. I tried it out with full back trim at high speed and it is possible to make it drop the wing a bit but it takes some doing.

I wonder what the tail incidence was set to during this "test". Given that the flaps appear to be fully down, its not unlikely that the tail incidence was also set nose heavy and thus interfering with the "fully" back stick.

In short, it looks like a landing configuration and someone was trying to land mid air, which obviously did not work out but looked silly, hence this "bug" report about airplanes. Flying. At high angle of attack. With all high lift devices (slats, flaps).

Also known as "aircraft fly".

It would be great if people that own the module actually did their own research and knew what they are talking about. Also, we can clearly see the stick travel in Scharfi's video, it's fully deflected back and right and the airplane is gaining speed because it is pulmeting but still holds its attitude.

 

The airplane clearly doesn't stall, and my friend couldn't make the thread because he is already banned.

 

If you want to buy me a copy of Me109, please go ahead, but as long as you do not, we will have do that stuff through proxy.

 

Anyway, both Scharfi's and my friend's videos show clearly that the plane doesn't stall even with the nose up attitude and stick held back, nearly acomplishing Cobra maneuvers of the Su27.

Solty, I'm finding myself agreeing with DavidRed here. You really need to buy the module. It just sounds like you're complaining all the time. Also, the title of your post is misleading or you don't know what a stall is. The aircraft in your video enters a full (stall). It should probably read "Spin does not occur in stall". As others have mentioned it would appear the slats are what prevent this.

I'm not sure if you own FC3, but you can get in a Su-27 which also has leading edge slats, and stall her in the same manner as that 109 video portrays.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Surely you could spare 15 minutes to make a video, instead of hours arguing on the forums?

I keep seeing you, and Solty harp on the 109 so much. Does it shatter some imaginary world you live in?

I wonder what the tail incidence was set to during this "test". Given that the flaps appear to be fully down, its not unlikely that the tail incidence was also set nose heavy and thus interfering with the "fully" back stick.

 

In short, it looks like a landing configuration and someone was trying to land mid air, which obviously did not work out but looked silly, hence this "bug" report about airplanes. Flying. At high angle of attack. With all high lift devices (slats, flaps).

 

Also known as "aircraft fly".

 

Are you realy trying to compare the Me109K with a Bush plane class?

109G6 (which is lighter than K4) empty wight is:

2,247 kg

loaded:

3,148 kg

Wing Loading: 196 kg/m²

The Bushcaddy L-162 Max empty weight:

567 kg

loaded:

1,202 kg

Wing Loading: 68.5 kg/m2

Not to mention different design of the wing and airframe.

Sure, airplanes, especially STOL and Acrobatic ones, are realy good at low speeds and are capable of flying at high AoA, but 109 has only slats at the lenght of the ailerons, not full wing. And again, the 109 stalling speed is way higher than the Bush class, while our 109 plummits without stalling below its stall speed.

Are you realy trying to compare the Me109K with a Bush plane class?

 

109G6 (which is lighter than K4) empty wight is:

2,247 kg

loaded:

3,148 kg

Wing Loading: 196 kg/m²

 

The Bushcaddy L-162 Max empty weight:

567 kg

loaded:

1,202 kg

 

Wing Loading: 68.5 kg/m2

 

Not to mention different design of the wing and airframe.

 

Sure, airplanes, especially STOL and Acrobatic ones, are realy good at low speeds and are capable of flying at high AoA, but 109 has only slats at the lenght of the ailerons, not full wing.

As if wing-loading having ANYTHING to do with critical angle of attack of a wing design.

:doh:

And again, the 109 has stalling speed is way higher than the Bush class, while our 109 plummits without stalling below its stall speed.

A statement which merely shows that you mix up stalling and spinning out of control.

On the videos, all I can see is that the 109 is in landing configuration, and at its landing configuration stall speed of cc 150 km/h, it rapidly looses altitude, which means the inner wings are already stalling, but the outer ones are still hangin onto the air, because the slats mean they would stall only at a higher AoA than the inner wing.

Which is why the ailerons are still effective and the plane can be effectively flown in semi-stalled condition.

Which is exactly why the slats are there. To maintain control and prevent spinning.

Which is exactly why the Bf 109 was choosen in the end against its Heinkel rivel during the final acceptence tests.

Which is exactly why it was designed in such way - spin resistance was something the Luftwaffe demanded from its new fighter.

Which is exactly does what it needs to do.

Truth to be told, based on my flying around below 2000 m, that's the behaviour in power-off, flaps UP, trim 0 config: about 150 km/h IAS, average 15 m/s descent, 21-22 degrees of AoA (as reported in F2 view). Other trim settings don't seem to affect it much.

Mind You, it might be correct for all I care, just wanted to point it out.

She does stall but slats actually are engaged with airflow and its well written in the manual. If the stick is held and not moved back, she will stall. This may be due to the coordinated flying giving clean performance with a good set of rudder pedals, but I just tested it and it does stall, less than 180 kmh shaking occurs and below that the left wing drops followed by spin.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm a frequent flyer of the DCS 109. I did a test yesterday, and also found the behavior quite odd. Ok, it doesn't spin. I managed to keep the wings level thanks to the slats. However,I also managed to keep the nose above the horizon with the throttle at idle and a sink rate of more than 20 mps. Not sure if it's normal...

It does have issues I think