Jump to content

I don't think the take-off difficulty is realistic.


sandcat

Recommended Posts

The funny thing is that the OP compared the take off in DCS with the real thing and you guys jumped in to give advice on how to do it in DCS..

 

Sent from my Redmi 5 using Tapatalk

Specs:

Asus Z97 PRO Gamer, i7 4790K@4.6GHz, 4x8GB Kingston @2400MHz 11-13-14-32, Titan X, Creative X-Fi, 128+2x250GB SSDs, VPC T50 Throttle + G940, MFG Crosswinds, TrackIR 5 w/ pro clip, JetSeat, Win10 Pro 64-bit, Oculus Rift, 27"@1920x1080

 

Settings:

2.1.x - Textures:High Terrain:High Civ.Traffic:Off Water:High VisRan:Low Heatblur:High Shadows:High Res:1920x1080 RoC:1024 MSAA:4x AF:16x HDR:OFF DefS: ON GCI: ON DoF:Off Lens: OFF C/G:390m Trees:1500m R:max Gamma: 1.5

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found the 109 to be the easiest module to get airborne in, after the P51.

Gentle on the throttle up to 1.35 or so ATA, a touch of right wheel brake for line then a smidgen of nose forward and right aileron at the fast part of the T/O roll and it gets airborne by itself.

Very docile and easy to get airborne IMO. Landing is also rather pleasant too, especially if you raise the cockpit camera up a bit for forward visibility.

On YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/philstylenz

Storm of War WW2 server website: https://stormofwar.net/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The probwash creates the airflow for rudders but it´s not simulated in DCS. Think, that is the main problem and why it is so difficult. Hope that one far day ED could take a look about it...

 

 

at this Video you can clearly see the lift effect on the tail section forced by the probwash…

so the take off should be much easyer as it is for now.

 

cheers

Tom

Born to fly but forced to work.

 

TomFliegerKLEIN.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The probwash creates the airflow for rudders but it´s not simulated in DCS. Think, that is the main problem and why it is so difficult. Hope that one far day ED could take a look about it...

 

 

at this Video you can clearly see the lift effect on the tail section forced by the probwash…

so the take off should be much easyer as it is for now.

 

cheers

Tom

Thanks for posting this, I wanted to do the same.. but it's just blowing in the wind..

 

Sent from my Redmi 5 using Tapatalk

Specs:

Asus Z97 PRO Gamer, i7 4790K@4.6GHz, 4x8GB Kingston @2400MHz 11-13-14-32, Titan X, Creative X-Fi, 128+2x250GB SSDs, VPC T50 Throttle + G940, MFG Crosswinds, TrackIR 5 w/ pro clip, JetSeat, Win10 Pro 64-bit, Oculus Rift, 27"@1920x1080

 

Settings:

2.1.x - Textures:High Terrain:High Civ.Traffic:Off Water:High VisRan:Low Heatblur:High Shadows:High Res:1920x1080 RoC:1024 MSAA:4x AF:16x HDR:OFF DefS: ON GCI: ON DoF:Off Lens: OFF C/G:390m Trees:1500m R:max Gamma: 1.5

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As usual with 1-oh-whiners, lots of moaning, lots of feelings, zero evidence.

 

And no, one dismally grainy video of a completely different model of 109 does not count as evidence.

 

Watch and learn:

 

 

And please, stop with attacking people and calling names. If you have something smart to say do it, otherwise you're just making noise. Thank you.


Edited by amazingme

Specs:

Asus Z97 PRO Gamer, i7 4790K@4.6GHz, 4x8GB Kingston @2400MHz 11-13-14-32, Titan X, Creative X-Fi, 128+2x250GB SSDs, VPC T50 Throttle + G940, MFG Crosswinds, TrackIR 5 w/ pro clip, JetSeat, Win10 Pro 64-bit, Oculus Rift, 27"@1920x1080

 

Settings:

2.1.x - Textures:High Terrain:High Civ.Traffic:Off Water:High VisRan:Low Heatblur:High Shadows:High Res:1920x1080 RoC:1024 MSAA:4x AF:16x HDR:OFF DefS: ON GCI: ON DoF:Off Lens: OFF C/G:390m Trees:1500m R:max Gamma: 1.5

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The closest example to a Bf 109K that is currently airworthy is actually a HA-1112-M1L re-engined with a DB601.

 

From here: http://goodall.com.au/warbirds-directory-v6/messerschmitt.pdf

 

D-FEHD Hans Dittes, Speyer 29.8.86/95

(rebuilt at Saarlouis, Germany .91/95,

mod. to Bf109G standard with DB601 engine

and parts of Bf 109G-10 WNr151591,

ff 23.3.95 Mannheim as Luftwaffe "2+-")

 

and here is Mark Hannah's description of the takeoff : http://www.eaf51.org/newweb/Documenti/Storia/Flying_%20109_ENG.pdf)


Edited by DD_Fenrir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further elaboration on a G-4 variant here: https://www.warhistoryonline.com/guest-bloggers/newly-restored-messerschmitt-bf109g-flies-test-pilot-shares-experience.html

 

Poor ground handling traits are only partly caused by the narrow wheel track. The extreme tipped outward angle of the wheels as they meet the ground is what instigates most excursions off of the runway. If any more weight is placed on one main wheel than the other, that wheel gets enough traction to turn the plane to the other side. Every bump, crosswind, and the rotational torque from any power change makes this craft carve a turn like a toy wheel rolled while leaning to one side. You are not given the immediate yaw in one place that other tail wheel airplanes experience unless you try to land on a hard runway. Watching a Bf109 take off on grass from behind sheds much light. Once the tail comes up, the aircraft yaws to the side by 10 degrees. Each tire struggles for dominance over the other. Grass is thrown out in little rooster tails. Imagine each wheel as a heavyweight boxer in a title fight, with you as the undersized referee, too weak to guarantee complete control. To stop a divergent arcing turn, there is at your disposal one tiny rudder optimized for high-speed flight and brakes that were designed to taxi on 1000m square fields.

 

Ground stability is further degraded by the high center of mass of the engine and the overpowering gyroscopic behavior of the propeller. Raising the tail fast gives such a large yaw to the left that the small rudder is unable to compensate. Oskar Boesch felt the most important information for me to learn was first, the correct rate of throttle movement from idle until tail raise, and second, the ideal rate of moving the control stick forward to raise the tail into the exact flight attitude. Huge increases in safety would come from that discipline alone. He put his hand on mine and rehearsed the exact speed of all control movements, imagining a glass of champagne sitting undisturbed on the panel through the entire takeoff roll. The Bf109 rudder must be frenetically moved to maintain heading on takeoff, never allowing the aircraft to diverge. It has been said that if the direction of take-off roll is allowed to change, one must not try to correct, but instead accept the new heading until off the ground. Attempts to correct with strong opposite rudder result in such severe oversteer, that the ensuing high-speed ground loop toward the other direction could be deadly. Can you see how this is unlikely to work on a narrow runway with trees on each side?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bearing in mind these reports come from pilots WHO HAVE ACTUALLY FLOWN REAL late Bf 109 variants.

 

These tally with my experiences of getting the DCS 109 off the ground.

 

In response you provide nothing more than a couple of videos which show competent experienced pilots who know how to take-off safely in the 109 to justify you claims that the 109 is wrong.

 

And yet there are DCS pilots here, who have demonstrably proven that they are able to takeoff in the 109 without the level of drama and inaccuracy that you imply is inherent to the DCS 109.

 

So it boils down to "you are doing it wrong".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The closest exmaple to a Bf 109K that is currently airworthy is actually a HA-1112-M1L re-engined with a DB601.

 

From here: http://goodall.com.au/warbirds-directory-v6/messerschmitt.pdf

 

 

 

and here is Mark Hannah's description of the takeoff : http://www.eaf51.org/newweb/Documenti/Storia/Flying_%20109_ENG.pdf)

 

We all know them and it's exactly.. how it ISN'T in DCS.. for example:

 

"Power gently up and keep it coming smoothly up to 40 inches (1.3ATA?). Keep the tail down initially, and keep it straight by feel rather than any positive technique. Tail is coming up now, and the rudder is becoming effective. Unconscious corrections to the rudder are happening all the time. It's incredibly entertaining to watch the 109 lift off the ground; the rudder literally flashes around!"

 

Or.. "The roll rate is very good and very positive below about 400km/h, and the amount of effort needed to produce the relevant noise movement seems exactly right".

 

And so on.. a lot more.. It seems that you have NO experience whatsoever in flying the 109 in DCS.

Specs:

Asus Z97 PRO Gamer, i7 4790K@4.6GHz, 4x8GB Kingston @2400MHz 11-13-14-32, Titan X, Creative X-Fi, 128+2x250GB SSDs, VPC T50 Throttle + G940, MFG Crosswinds, TrackIR 5 w/ pro clip, JetSeat, Win10 Pro 64-bit, Oculus Rift, 27"@1920x1080

 

Settings:

2.1.x - Textures:High Terrain:High Civ.Traffic:Off Water:High VisRan:Low Heatblur:High Shadows:High Res:1920x1080 RoC:1024 MSAA:4x AF:16x HDR:OFF DefS: ON GCI: ON DoF:Off Lens: OFF C/G:390m Trees:1500m R:max Gamma: 1.5

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A video is better than any explanation i suppose;)

Take a look at this one and find a bug please?

There is no tricks or cheat it's the game pure:)

I think you have to search on an other way to find a solution.

the game is OK.

 

PS: if i'm able to do that ,why somebody else could not do same?

 

I think this is some of the best DCS flying I have seen, you really have masterful control on take-off.

 

However, I think that the minimum proficiency required to take off in a 109 is too high. Specifically because it does not allow the pilot to catch mistakes in a take off roll and correct for them. And I think that is the buggy part. In the Dora and Spitfire, it is possible with some rudder and some stick to regain control of the direction. While with the BF109, as you can see in the video I posted, as soon as it drifts left a bit, full rudder and full stick can not correct it. Also the control surfaces appear to have less authority and require more speed for authority than the spitfire. (Spitfire gets rudder at 4km/h, BF at 28km/h)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And... the Bf 109 is not a Spitfire.

 

Control surface areas = different

Vertical tail area = different

Control surface moment arms = different

Propellors = different

Engine output = different

Wing area = different

Wing planform = different

Tail wheel geometry = different

Fuselage geometry = different

 

Ergo,

 

Reaction to torque forces on take-off = .......

 

Hazard a guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It seems that you have NO experience whatsoever in flying the 109 in

 

DCS.

 

Enough to get on and off the ground without inducing the "FM bugged" hysteria you seem to suffer with.

 

Clue:

 

"Tail is coming up now, and the rudder is becoming effective."

 

Kind of insinuates that it wasn't very effective beforehand, n'est pas?

 

As for roll rate, seems to marry pretty much with what most contemporary pilots describe; faster then the Mustang, similar to the Spit. I get good roll rates (particularly to the left) as long as I coordinate with a good bootful of rudder. This correlates to descriptions by by every pilots notes I have ever referenced regards flying the 109, of any variant - that is that good 109 flying requires good rudder work.

 

This indicates a marginal stability around the normal axis. Which further indicates that Willy made the vertical surfaces as small as he dared and only increased them as a last resort and to the smallest possible area he could get away with.


Edited by DD_Fenrir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enough to get on and off the ground without inducing the "FM bugged" hysteria you seem to suffer with.

 

Clue:

 

"Tail is coming up now, and the rudder is becoming effective."

 

Kind of insinuates that it wasn't very effective beforehand, n'est pas?

 

As for roll rate, seems to marry pretty much with what most contemporary pilots describe; faster then the Mustang, similar to the Spit. I get good roll rates (particularly to the left) as long as I coordinate with a good bootful of rudder. This correlates to descriptions by by every pilots notes I have ever referenced regards flying the 109, of any variant - that is that good 109 flying requires good rudder work.

 

This indicates a marginal stability around the normal axis. Which further indicates that Willy made the vertical surfaces as small as he dared and only increased them as a last resort and to the smallest possible area he could get away with.

 

Too bad he doesn't mention the exact speed.. as it's MUCH lower than in DCS and you intentionally missed the part with "the amount of effort needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right" and if you read it further you'll see that "When you maneuver ABOVE 500km/h, two hands are required for a MORE aggressive performance.." whereas in DCS the stick forces are implemented as low as 300km/h!!!.

Or.. "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." And a lot more like these..

Tell me where and when do you notice any of these in DCS.. since you brought it up.

Specs:

Asus Z97 PRO Gamer, i7 4790K@4.6GHz, 4x8GB Kingston @2400MHz 11-13-14-32, Titan X, Creative X-Fi, 128+2x250GB SSDs, VPC T50 Throttle + G940, MFG Crosswinds, TrackIR 5 w/ pro clip, JetSeat, Win10 Pro 64-bit, Oculus Rift, 27"@1920x1080

 

Settings:

2.1.x - Textures:High Terrain:High Civ.Traffic:Off Water:High VisRan:Low Heatblur:High Shadows:High Res:1920x1080 RoC:1024 MSAA:4x AF:16x HDR:OFF DefS: ON GCI: ON DoF:Off Lens: OFF C/G:390m Trees:1500m R:max Gamma: 1.5

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too bad he doesn't mention the exact speed.. as it's MUCH lower than in DCS

 

Source? Conditions? Your reaching. Again.

 

and you intentionally missed the part with "the amount of effort needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right"

 

No intentional about it. We are discussing takeoff characteristics. In any case you are using an unquantified subjective opinion to support an argument based on your own subjective interpretation. There is no data to compare, ergo it is irrelevant.

 

and if you read it further you'll see that "When you maneuver ABOVE 500km/h, two hands are required for a MORE aggressive performance.." whereas in DCS the stick forces are implemented as low as 300km/h!!!.

 

Let's leave that for an appropriate topic, hmmm?

 

Or.. "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." And a lot more like these..

Tell me where and when do you notice any of these in DCS.. since you brought it up.

 

Again, this is not the topic for it, and in any case it could be there is a difference between a G-10 and a K-4 that accounts for this. The MW-50 tank springs to mind for one. I highly doubt that modern restorations fly with this filled. You will have to ask Yo-Yo.

 

I used the G-10 a stand-in in the case of the directional characteristics on takeoff as the vertical tail format is virtually unchanged and horsepower, wing planform and undercarriage geometry are very similar for the two aircraft, and a far closer match than the earlier G variants referenced in your videos.


Edited by DD_Fenrir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The funny thing is that the OP compared the take off in DCS with the real thing and you guys jumped in to give advice on how to do it in DCS..

 

Sent from my Redmi 5 using Tapatalk

 

Nothing funny about that. I don't know how accurate / inaccurate FM is, nor do I care all that much because:

a) we can't mod it anyway;

b) without numerical sources the FM won't be revised by the devs;

c) every sim devs claim their interpretation of 109 is the best one, while they all fly quite different. Go figure. The only thing to do then is learn how the 109 handles in every sim and adjust your technigue accordingly. Hence our tips and advices.

i7 9700K @ stock speed, single GTX1070, 32 gigs of RAM, TH Warthog, MFG Crosswind, Win10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Source? Conditions? Your reaching. Again.

 

 

 

No intentional about it. We are discussing takeoff characteristics. In any case you are using an unquantified subjective opinion to support an argument based on your own subjective interpretation. There is no data to compare, ergo it is irrelevant.

 

 

 

Let's leave that for an appropriate topic, hmmm?

 

 

 

Again, this is not the topic for it, and in any case it could be there is a difference between a G-10 and a K-4 that accounts for this. The MW-50 tank springs to mind for one. I highly doubt that modern restorations fly with this filled. You will have to ask Yo-Yo.

 

I used the G-10 a stand-in in the case of the directional characteristics on takeoff as the vertical tail format is virtually unchanged and horsepower, wing planform and undercarriage geometry are very similar for the two aircraft, and a far closer match than the earlier G variants referenced in your videos.

 

Extract from an interview with Franz Stigler who flew the real deal back then: "Fanz Stigler liked the 109G as well and also enjoyed flying the K-4. The K-4, he said was very much like the G yet could leave all other fighters behind in climb. In control feel he said the K felt identical to the G. He described on many occasions where they would just bank away from the fighters and climb away from them"

Specs:

Asus Z97 PRO Gamer, i7 4790K@4.6GHz, 4x8GB Kingston @2400MHz 11-13-14-32, Titan X, Creative X-Fi, 128+2x250GB SSDs, VPC T50 Throttle + G940, MFG Crosswinds, TrackIR 5 w/ pro clip, JetSeat, Win10 Pro 64-bit, Oculus Rift, 27"@1920x1080

 

Settings:

2.1.x - Textures:High Terrain:High Civ.Traffic:Off Water:High VisRan:Low Heatblur:High Shadows:High Res:1920x1080 RoC:1024 MSAA:4x AF:16x HDR:OFF DefS: ON GCI: ON DoF:Off Lens: OFF C/G:390m Trees:1500m R:max Gamma: 1.5

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread echoes the discussions disputing the Spitfire's realism on take off on the grounds of its difficulty. So, before this escalates into something nasty, as heralded by the first reply to this thread, should smooth-takeoff-disbelievers consider that if some of us can do it, then it is possible? :)

 

What I can add to this is that the statement about opening the throttle gently is a little inaccurate. You have to open it dead slowly so engine torque does not throw you hard to the left before you gain any rudder authority. If you do that, and if you have your tailwheel locked, it's much easier than the spitfire. No toe brakes, no dancing on the pedals. Easy :)

 

Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread echoes the discussions disputing the Spitfire's realism on take off on the grounds of its difficulty. So, before this escalates into something nasty, as heralded by the first reply to this thread, should smooth-takeoff-disbelievers consider that if some of us can do it, then it is possible? :)

 

What I can add to this is that the statement about opening the throttle gently is a little inaccurate. You have to open it dead slowly so engine torque does not throw you hard to the left before you gain any rudder authority. If you do that, and if you have your tailwheel locked, it's much easier than the spitfire. No toe brakes, no dancing on the pedals. Easy :)

 

Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk

Yeah.. but it doesn't match reality..

 

Sent from my Redmi 5 using Tapatalk

Specs:

Asus Z97 PRO Gamer, i7 4790K@4.6GHz, 4x8GB Kingston @2400MHz 11-13-14-32, Titan X, Creative X-Fi, 128+2x250GB SSDs, VPC T50 Throttle + G940, MFG Crosswinds, TrackIR 5 w/ pro clip, JetSeat, Win10 Pro 64-bit, Oculus Rift, 27"@1920x1080

 

Settings:

2.1.x - Textures:High Terrain:High Civ.Traffic:Off Water:High VisRan:Low Heatblur:High Shadows:High Res:1920x1080 RoC:1024 MSAA:4x AF:16x HDR:OFF DefS: ON GCI: ON DoF:Off Lens: OFF C/G:390m Trees:1500m R:max Gamma: 1.5

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too bad he doesn't mention the exact speed.. as it's MUCH lower than in DCS and you intentionally missed the part with "the amount of effort needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right" and if you read it further you'll see that "When you maneuver ABOVE 500km/h, two hands are required for a MORE aggressive performance.." whereas in DCS the stick forces are implemented as low as 300km/h!!!.

Or.. "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." And a lot more like these..

Tell me where and when do you notice any of these in DCS.. since you brought it up.

 

 

He was talking about the takeoff.. you know.. the bit that this thread is about. All that 500kph flight business is for another thread.

Leave the goalposts where they are.

On YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/philstylenz

Storm of War WW2 server website: https://stormofwar.net/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All i will say is that engine torque is defo a factor in most warbirds, most warbirds also dont take off from full power static when they have a tail wheel due to said torque effect, when the tail is down it is less effective, true however there are various techniques for this, a modern spitfire pilot managed to crash one after he used too much brake with too high power on take off and nosed over, while a lot of pilots tend to land with the tail slightly low of level for a wheeler, yet the manual states 3 pointers if i recall correct.

 

as for aliaron being inneffective sure, it might be less effective then at higher speeds however i can say from experiance that you can still wing scrape by using aliarons, i had a rearwin up on one wheel at 40mph due to wind picking up the wing, it took near to full aliaron to counter it.

 

Another point is the method for taking off and landing, short take offs such as in a mustang are from a 3 point attitude and i believe it describes this in the manual, it also states to be cautious due to the torque and less effective controls. the second way is by raising the tail and then letting the aircraft fly off the runway which from what i have seen is the prefered way of taking most taildraggers off. the sketch part of this is the transition between tail down and tail up as the controls will require changes and as such over correction can occure.

 

another point about using high power on take offs is engine cooling, it is very easy too cook a merlin or db if you have the radiators closed while at high power, a 109 pilot damaged their engine and ended up in a field due to having closed radiators and overshooting the runway.

 

as others have pointed out with the spitfire thread this pandaros box, every aircraft behaves differently for every player with every control setup. i would say its generally about right, he said he hasnt flown it in a while, he might have control reset, nostalgic memory or something else.

 

all i'd suggest is lock the tailwheel, stick back, gradual increase to 1.4 ata, use a small amount of brake in jabs at lower speed the same as you would the rudder, then as the rudder becomes more effective, stick forwards, use more rudder to counter the swing, increase power and your off once you get the speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

behaves differently for every player with every control setup

 

Indeed. This is more of a factor than people realize, or are willing to admit. And hence all the whining about how everything is incorrectly modelled. Seen this in all the CFSs I've ever flown, and both sides are equally guilty of it.


Edited by msalama

The DCS Mi-8MTV2. The best aviational BBW experience you could ever dream of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ground handling of these aircraft was so hairy it was damn near legendary.

 

Tiny, lightweight plane. Whopping powerful engine, and huge propeller. Narrow-track, taildragger landing gear that gives the ground handling properties of a three-legged ass that's had a few too many beers. Oh yeah, you can't see anything in front of you on the ground, either.

 

Many young pilots were killed just trying to learn how to take off and land these metal monsters. World War 2 wasn't all guts and glory, a good portion of fatalities were attributed to young people just trying to learn to fly an airplane type that no young inexperienced pilot has any business trying to fly in any situation except a desperate, all-out war.

 

Never flown before? Hell, never seen an airplane before? No problem, here's a little introductory course, and now we'll put you in the seat of an 1800 horsepower fighter. Good luck!

 

AD

  • Like 1

Kit:

B550 Aorus Elite AX V2, Ryzen 7 5800X w/ Thermalright Phantom Spirit 120 SE, 2 x 16GB Kingston Fury DDR4 @3600MHz C16, Gigabyte RTX 3070 Windforce 8GB, EVGA SuperNova 750 G2 PSU, HP Omen 32" 2560x1440, Thrustmaster Cougar HOTAS fitted with Leo Bodnar's BU0836A controller.

--Flying is the art of throwing yourself at the ground, and having all the rules and regulations get in the way!

If man was meant to fly, he would have been born with a lot more money!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...