Experienced BF-109 pilots - help needed - right roll level flight

far too mellow when it comes to engine torque

We've been through this before and AFAIR I asked you whether your controllers in any way replicate the feel, response and stiffness of those of the real machines. You never replied, but accused Yo-Yo of wanting to be right instead, yet regardless of you yourself feeling that you're 100% right, never presented any tangible evidence of this being off-kilter. So let's begin again: how realistic are your controllers and how are they set up?

I find the DCS prop fighters far too mellow when it comes to engine torque. The 109 is the better modeled of the two I own but I think it is far too milquetoast. It feels like a Cessna 210 in torque.

 

Every airplane requires you fly it all the time. There are some that you can carefully adjust the trim and get them to stay relatively stable for a few minutes in very smooth air but absent an autopilot you have to fly all the time, even if it is just with the rudders while your hands are busy with something else.

 

The bigger they are the easier they are in this respect. More mass to be displaced means more stability through the air mass.

 

The 109 is a very small airplane with a big engine. It would definitely require attention. And torque would be very obvious.

 

Those using modern pilot descriptions must remember they are absolutely NOT treating the airplanes like combat machines. Power applications are very slow, as he says in the video and they never get close to war time emergency power levels. If you fly them like that, they are pussycats. Fly them to the edge slamming the throttle stop to stop in a desperate fight and you have a different breed of cat altogether.

pretty much what u say. prop birds in dcs could need an FM update.

for me handling warbirs is preaty hard enough and the tourqe effect is very noticable especialy when flying slow. i very often use full rudder to counter tourqe effects in slow dogfights

slaming throttle from 0 to max is not healthy for engine any way so even in dogfight i move throttle slowly especialy when starting from 0 you have to give some time to let gavernor kick in.

its is very dangerous moment when prop make transition form windmiling to pulling once gavernor kick in i move thottle more rapidly.

pretty much what u say.

Pretty much what you guys feel. Given the myriad amount of wildly different controllers out there, I'm not at all sure this is the general truth.

However, if you can present unequivocal evidence supporting - or even better, proving - this, I'll then of course believe you and join you in requesting an FM change.

We've been through this before and AFAIR I asked you whether your controllers in any way replicate the feel, response and stiffness of those in the real machines. You never replied, but accused Yo-Yo of wanting to be right instead, yet regardless of you yourself feeling that you're 100% right, you never present any tangible evidence of this really being off-kilter. So let's begin again: how realistic are your controllers and how are they set up?

A basic understanding of physics is all that is required to figure out that torque is seriously undermodeled in DCS prop driven aircraft.

In a single engine high performance WWII fighter with a nose mounted engine, there is a large, high horsepower engine swinging a large propeller.

Varying the revolutions per minute of this power package will, as a matter of some very basic physical laws, vary the control inputs required.

The larger the ratio between the power capability and the mass of the aircraft, the more pronounced the effect is.

Control deflection required to counter engine torque is inversely proportional to airspeed. At some minimum airspeed for a given power setting, control deflection is no longer sufficient to counter the engine torque. There is no maximum airspeed at which control deflection becomes unnecessary.

In actual airplanes, of which I have flown many, the pilot must constantly apply the required control deflections to counter torque or the lack of it.

A common aerobatic demonstration maneuver is the hammerhead or stall turn.

In order to perform this maneuver the aircraft is flown on a vertical up line until there is just enough air flow over the rudder to yaw the aircraft around its vertical axis. Airspeed is very low at this point. In order to fly this maneuver correctly in ANY propeller driven aircraft, power must be reduced to idle when the ailerons lose effectiveness or the aircraft will rotate around its longitudinal axis due to engine torque. Without aileron effectiveness the pilot is powerless to arrest this rotation. The only cure is to remove the engine torque.

In DCS, its a pretty easy self-demonstration to see that engine torque is very lightly modeled. Just fly a vertical up line at full power. As speed diminishes, the aileron input required to counter engine torque should steadily increase until there isn't enough to prevent the from rolling.

And then there is anecdotal evidence from countless pilots.

The P-51, a large single engine fighter, was well known to kill pilots who slammed the throttle in a panic at low airspeed. The torque of the engine exceeded the ability of the aircraft controls to counter it and it was probably one of the most docile of the WWII single engine high HP fighters in this regard. One WWII pilot described having his new P-51 pilots go up high, slow to 140 with the gear and flaps out at 15 inches and slam the throttle to 60 inches. The resulting torque roll was dramatic enough for this to be a lesson that he believed saved many of his students from "torquing one in"

It is widely known that p-38 pilots would turn right with a 109 behind them because at air speeds well above stall speed the 109 engine torque would overpower the ability of the flight controls to counter it.

The P-51 engine torque is great enough to cause the left main tire to wear MUCH faster than the right as the torque drives it into the runway on takeoff.

The F4U was known as the "ensign eliminator" because it was especially unforgiving at low airspeed and high power and had some airflow issues over the wing that made the issue even worse.

The Spitfire 16 was reported to be impossible to takeoff in a straight line at full power.

In DCS, none of this behavior is demonstrated. There are some canned effects in the P-51 with a left roll as the wing stalls but you can go stop to stop on the throttle and not touch the flight controls and the aircraft reacts very mildly at air speeds reported to be "eye opening" in the real thing. The 109 is a bit better in this regard but still very mellow. it seems to acknowledge the existence of engine torque but mildly. Again, there is the canned left wing drop on takeoff but not much else.

I am not sure what you think my control setup has to do with anything but I fly on an extended Warthog with Slaw pedals with no silly curves but that really has nothing to do with anything. Replicating real world control pressures has even less to do with it.

I do have extensive real world experience in single engine propeller driven aircraft and every single one requires the pilot account for engine torque. The DCS 109 feels like a 285 hp Cessna 210, which is about the same size as a Bf-109. It weighs about 30% less. Most of that difference is in the engine.

One can even feel the engine torque at the beginning of takeoff roll in a modern jet. There is just no way around the physics of large chunks of spinning metal.

I understand games de-tuning torque for game play. DCS is meant to be something altogether different and this is a major hole in the FM.

You don't have to believe me. All of the evidence for the under modeling of torque is out there with just a bit of research and a basic understanding of physics.

Prop swings one way, rest of aircraft reacts by spinning the other way. It really is that simple.

If the pilot can go stop to stop on the throttle with no change in control inputs, engine torque doesn't exist.

If increasing aileron input is not required as airspeed decreases at a given power setting, engine torque doesn't exist.

If the above effects are implemented but are extremely mild and counter to the anecdotal evidence, one should naturally question if there are correctly modeled.

I really want DCS to do the propeller aircraft justice not just make them easy mode although that might sell more modules.

Nothing would make me happier than to fire up the DCS P-51 or 109 and have them replicate the real world behaviors. It seems that would be everyone's goal here.

NOTE: I am referring to the rotational torque of the engine/propeller combination only. I am not touching upon the various other forces acting upon a single engine aircraft in low airspeed/high power/high AOA flight regimes. One thing at a time.

NOTE2: I understand this was a total waste of my time.

NOTE2: I understand this was a total waste of my time.

I understand that you, for some reason, want to come across as a haughty b*d again.

The P-51 engine torque is great enough to cause the left main tire to wear MUCH faster than the right as the torque drives it into the runway on takeoff.

Apparently a myth. "It makes a good story, but the very small amount of extra weight on the left tire during takeoff, produced by torque, contributes very little to tire wear."

And there're other pretty interesting anecdotes in that article as well, such as being able to take off with your feet on the floor if you knew how:

https://captainbillywalker.com/aviation-history-people/nazy/

slow to 140 with the gear and flaps out at 15 inches and slam the throttle to 60 inches. The resulting torque roll

...has happened to me a couple of times just as you explain, even with less power applied. I augered in every time, so here's again one difference between our experiences.

stop to stop on the throttle with no change in control inputs

Huh? No change needed? Not the last time I flew. Yet another difference in experiences.

increasing aileron input is not required as airspeed decreases

Huh? Not required? Not the last time I flew. And yet another difference.

More anecdotes: another interesting quote as regards engine and prop effects during takeoff. "I had forgotten to use the recommended 6 degrees right rudder trim, but I had applied power so slowly that the torque/P-factor buildup had been negligible": http://www.airbum.com/pireps/PirepMustangBurch.7.html

But I don't know. To wrap this comment up, I suggest you convince Yo-Yo of your being right, and this you can't do without presenting tangible evidence. Just to say that it's EVIDENT because you say so doesn't cut it, regardless of how much you like to tout your superiority. Anyway, I'm not the one to win this debate regardless of what I say, so what says Yo-Yo again? Care to comment please?

EDIT: And oh yeah:

what you think my control setup has to do with anything

You don't? Well THINK on it. Being such a know-all clever guy, you'll undoubtedly get it some day.

EDIT2: And since I don't want to come across as another haughty b*d, I'm only really questioning these large differences between our experiences and perceptions flying the DCS WW2 birds, since I'm seeing significant aerodynamical and engine/prop-induced forces at play and am also having to counteract them with large controller inputs. Are you sure you don't have any training-wheel aids accidentally turned on? Because the last time I asked, you couldn't be bothered to answer.

A basic understanding of physics is all that is required to figure out that torque is seriously undermodeled in DCS prop driven aircraft.

 

In a single engine high performance WWII fighter with a nose mounted engine, there is a large, high horsepower engine swinging a large propeller.

 

Varying the revolutions per minute of this power package will, as a matter of some very basic physical laws, vary the control inputs required.

 

The larger the ratio between the power capability and the mass of the aircraft, the more pronounced the effect is.

 

Control deflection required to counter engine torque is inversely proportional to airspeed. At some minimum airspeed for a given power setting, control deflection is no longer sufficient to counter the engine torque. There is no maximum airspeed at which control deflection becomes unnecessary.

 

In actual airplanes, of which I have flown many, the pilot must constantly apply the required control deflections to counter torque or the lack of it.

 

A common aerobatic demonstration maneuver is the hammerhead or stall turn.

 

In order to perform this maneuver the aircraft is flown on a vertical up line until there is just enough air flow over the rudder to yaw the aircraft around its vertical axis. Airspeed is very low at this point. In order to fly this maneuver correctly in ANY propeller driven aircraft, power must be reduced to idle when the ailerons lose effectiveness or the aircraft will rotate around its longitudinal axis due to engine torque. Without aileron effectiveness the pilot is powerless to arrest this rotation. The only cure is to remove the engine torque.

 

In DCS, its a pretty easy self-demonstration to see that engine torque is very lightly modeled. Just fly a vertical up line at full power. As speed diminishes, the aileron input required to counter engine torque should steadily increase until there isn't enough to prevent the from rolling.

 

And then there is anecdotal evidence from countless pilots.

 

The P-51, a large single engine fighter, was well known to kill pilots who slammed the throttle in a panic at low airspeed. The torque of the engine exceeded the ability of the aircraft controls to counter it and it was probably one of the most docile of the WWII single engine high HP fighters in this regard. One WWII pilot described having his new P-51 pilots go up high, slow to 140 with the gear and flaps out at 15 inches and slam the throttle to 60 inches. The resulting torque roll was dramatic enough for this to be a lesson that he believed saved many of his students from "torquing one in"

 

It is widely known that p-38 pilots would turn right with a 109 behind them because at air speeds well above stall speed the 109 engine torque would overpower the ability of the flight controls to counter it.

 

The P-51 engine torque is great enough to cause the left main tire to wear MUCH faster than the right as the torque drives it into the runway on takeoff.

 

The F4U was known as the "ensign eliminator" because it was especially unforgiving at low airspeed and high power and had some airflow issues over the wing that made the issue even worse.

 

The Spitfire 16 was reported to be impossible to takeoff in a straight line at full power.

 

In DCS, none of this behavior is demonstrated. There are some canned effects in the P-51 with a left roll as the wing stalls but you can go stop to stop on the throttle and not touch the flight controls and the aircraft reacts very mildly at air speeds reported to be "eye opening" in the real thing. The 109 is a bit better in this regard but still very mellow. it seems to acknowledge the existence of engine torque but mildly. Again, there is the canned left wing drop on takeoff but not much else.

 

I am not sure what you think my control setup has to do with anything but I fly on an extended Warthog with Slaw pedals with no silly curves but that really has nothing to do with anything. Replicating real world control pressures has even less to do with it.

 

I do have extensive real world experience in single engine propeller driven aircraft and every single one requires the pilot account for engine torque. The DCS 109 feels like a 285 hp Cessna 210, which is about the same size as a Bf-109. It weighs about 30% less. Most of that difference is in the engine.

 

One can even feel the engine torque at the beginning of takeoff roll in a modern jet. There is just no way around the physics of large chunks of spinning metal.

 

I understand games de-tuning torque for game play. DCS is meant to be something altogether different and this is a major hole in the FM.

 

You don't have to believe me. All of the evidence for the under modeling of torque is out there with just a bit of research and a basic understanding of physics.

 

Prop swings one way, rest of aircraft reacts by spinning the other way. It really is that simple.

 

If the pilot can go stop to stop on the throttle with no change in control inputs, engine torque doesn't exist.

 

If increasing aileron input is not required as airspeed decreases at a given power setting, engine torque doesn't exist.

 

If the above effects are implemented but are extremely mild and counter to the anecdotal evidence, one should naturally question if there are correctly modeled.

 

I really want DCS to do the propeller aircraft justice not just make them easy mode although that might sell more modules.

 

Nothing would make me happier than to fire up the DCS P-51 or 109 and have them replicate the real world behaviors. It seems that would be everyone's goal here.

 

NOTE: I am referring to the rotational torque of the engine/propeller combination only. I am not touching upon the various other forces acting upon a single engine aircraft in low airspeed/high power/high AOA flight regimes. One thing at a time.

 

NOTE2: I understand this was a total waste of my time.

when i tried fly bf109 streigh up it start spining along properel axis

but dont know about cesna but in warbirds rudder have significant roll authority

and if your speed drop down you catn prevent plane from spining along long axis anymore.

can you link me those sources about pilots reports about those tourqe effects ??

but i will agree on one thing when i fly on multiplayer i see ppl taking off in way that lookd like fatal but they somehow geting out of it for example (lifting at stall speed, droping wing 20m above ground etc how the heck they manage to take off this is most wierd thing for me)

but tourqe effect is preaty mean in take off roll if it were bigger then now it would be impossible to take off using RL procedure

some of the statements I read here sound like people are fighting. There should not be fighting in the public forum; better use PM for that!

Personally I have a lot of dogfighting hours in the Bf-109 mostly against AI P-51 and Spit. And I have to use controls a lot to compensate the propeller torque. At very low speed I have to almost cut the engine in order to turn or roll right.

I would laught my ass off if this guy was flying with rudder assist :P

thanks msalama for the link very interesing article

Pretty much what you guys feel. Given the myriad amount of wildly different controllers out there, I'm not at all sure this is the general truth.

 

However, if you can present unequivocal evidence supporting - or even better, proving - this, I'll then of course believe you and join you in requesting an FM change.

So, you're saying that the FM has nothing to do with the 'feel' of the aircraft and it all depends on the controller. If that's the case, which obviously is not, then ED should tell us EXACTLY how the controllers should be set up to mimic the real aircraft with charts and everything..

So I'm saying nothing of the sort, actually. Take your strawmen elsewhere, please.

So I'm saying nothing of the sort, actually. Take your strawmen elsewhere, please.

I've just followed YOUR logic.. now you know ;)

I never said the FM has no affect on this, so you're not following anything, you're just putting words in my mouth. But that's your problem and yours only.

So, you're saying that the FM has nothing to do with the 'feel' of the aircraft and it all depends on the controller. If that's the case, which obviously is not, then ED should tell us EXACTLY how the controllers should be set up to mimic the real aircraft with charts and everything..

A) your stick is longer/shorter, has more/less throw than the real life airplanes. It is pretty rare you have the exact Bf-109 replica at home, so your inputs will be different between joysticks.

B) you cannot feel the wind forces acting on the control surfaces like in real life so you easily give control inputs that are different from the real world airplane.

So in fact you will have difficulties to match the real world inputs between setups and the FM can still be as accurate as it may.

And finally you cannot feel the torque, yaw and general movement of the plane, unless you sit in a high end full motion platform simulator or a real plane. So when the real thing would give you plenty of hints from stick/control surfaces "feeling" different and maybe rattling, to your sense of motion telling you, you are drifting sideways etc., you are stuck with some shaking of the screen and some rattling sound.

All the above requires you, to pay more attention to the instruments and the cues the sim gives you, than a real pilot would need, because he can in fact feel the plane flying...

A) your stick is longer/shorter, has more/less throw than the real life airplanes. It is pretty rare you have the exact Bf-109 replica at home, so your inputs will be different between joysticks.

B) you cannot feel the wind forces acting on the control surfaces like in real life so you easily give control inputs that are different from the real world airplane.

 

So in fact you will have difficulties to match the real world inputs between setups and the FM can still be as accurate as it may.

 

And finally you cannot feel the torque, yaw and general movement of the plane, unless you sit in a high end full motion platform simulator or a real plane. So when the real thing would give you plenty of hints from stick/control surfaces "feeling" different and maybe rattling, to your sense of motion telling you, you are drifting sideways etc., you are stuck with some shaking of the screen and some rattling sound.

 

All the above requires you, to pay more attention to the instruments and the cues the sim gives you, than a real pilot would need, because he can in fact feel the plane flying...

I couldn't agree more with you. But, these are two distinct topics.. the FM and how ED implemented, for example, the stick forces and so on. Unless you flew the airplane yourself you cannot but guess HOW you should set up your joystick to be as close as the real deal. So, what I'm saying is that the purpose of 'flying' a simulation is defeated by not knowing how you should properly set up the virtual joystick. Am I making any sense to you?

I couldn't agree more with you. But, these are two distinct topics.. the FM and how ED implemented, for example, the stick forces and so on. Unless you flew the airplane yourself you cannot but guess HOW you should set up your joystick to be as close as the real deal. So, what I'm saying is that the purpose of 'flying' a simulation is defeated by not knowing how you should properly set up the virtual joystick. Am I making any sense to you?

And as Nineline said, your best bet, is an extension (custom one for the Warthog, or a VKB Stick plus extension) and that covers at least the stick throw.

Still remaining problems to tackle are: you don't feel the plane's movement, resistance of control surfaces and G-Forces like a pilot does, making it much harder to fly the plane in a simulation.

So we need to learn to fly our "simulated" plane, with our simulated cues like a pilot needs to learn his plane's cues. Only we have the luxury of unlimited lifes. ;)

The major issue for control inputs, is the dynamics of wind force against, your control surfaces at higher speeds.

Without "hydraulic power steering" you need to pull and yank the stick to force the control surfaces against the wind. This naturally limits the control input gradually, like a dampener, the more you want to move the stick at higher speeds, the more force is required, to the point, where even with both hands you can't move it further. Even force feedback can't do this 100% realistic... we need to accept certain limitations when flying a simulation on home PCs. :)

Yes, indeed, but I do prefer that the limitations should be hardware related and not software related.. if you know what I mean. ;)

Yes, indeed, but I do prefer that the limitations should be hardware related and not software related.. if you know what I mean. ;)

That's where you would need hardware, that isn't currently available on the market. Some "Ultra-Force feedback" or the like. Springs can only represent a static force...

I know all of that, but in the 109 you can have 2m long stick and that would not make any difference because the 'software' limits the actual stick throw.. I highly doubt that IRL the stick stiffens at ~ 450km/h or less as it's depicted in this simulation. The stiffness should appear above 700km/h IAS and not @ 450km/h. And we're not even talking about 1 hand pull vs 2 hands pull on the stick which obviously cannot be simulated.

I know all of that, but in the 109 you can have 2m long stick and that would not make any difference because the 'software' limits the actual stick throw.. I highly doubt that IRL the stick stiffens at ~ 450km/h or less as it's depicted in this simulation. The stiffness should appear above 700km/h IAS and not @ 450km/h. And we're not even talking about 1 hand pull vs 2 hands pull on the stick which obviously cannot be simulated.

There was an elaborate thread about the forces required to move the stick.

If you are up for an experiment, take 50x50cm piece of wooden hobby plate and drive on an empty Autobahn or highway, secure the wood to your arms and hold it out the window with both(!) hands. Now accelerate and try to keep a deflection of 45° or more... try to imagine what 450 km/h will do.

Just o mention the limitations had been removed at one point during the Early Access phase, as per "request of the community". Quickly the community was going haywire, because "the damage model must have changed", as everybody pulled the stick beyond physical limits and disintegrated the airplane. I am not 100% sure if they changed anything on the limitations in the time after 2.x launch. Never tested that in depth anymore.

You may request to remove the limitations, but after the results earlier I doubt they will do that, again. :dunno:

If the majority of pilots who flew the 109 said it was perfectly flyable @450-500km/h and only after 700km/h the stick would stiffen, who do you think I should trust more, them or ED? Then we can take this into deeper analysis.

If the majority of pilots who flew the 109 said it was perfectly flyable @450-500km/h and only after 700km/h the stick would stiffen, who do you think I should trust more, them or ED? Then we can take this into deeper analysis.