A 109´s "pilot" needs to thanks by this wonderfull sim and plane.

I don't know what data Yo-Yo used to make the Bf controls act like that.. maybe you can show us..

 

Sent from my Redmi 5 using Tapatalk

 

Yo-Yo has.

 

It's posted on these forums somewhere, but I got more important stuff to do than be your lackey, so if you want it, YOU go find it.

Here it is: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3367023&postcount=3

 

These data used are for the G-6 that was probably captured by the Russians and EXTRAPOLATED (estimated) to be used on the K-4. The main problem with polynomial extrapolation is that for order of magnitude higher than 1 it can yield errors or unusable data (Runge's phenomenon), which in our case translates in:

 

1. @280km/h IAS it takes 5 seconds to move the stick from neutral to full forward => do you find this correctly calculated?

 

2. @350km/h IAS it takes 7 seconds to move the stick from neutral to full aft, bear in mind that the airspeed drops to ~200km/h in a horizontal turn => do you find this correctly calculated?

 

It is just nonsense that we need to always HEAVILY trim the plane when pulling the stick. The trimming is used in level flight when the CoG is changing due, for example, to flaps deploying, and definitely NOT when turning the plane at constant speeds, as we must do in DCS. And last, but not least, the bearings in K-4 were changed, as opposed to the G-6, also, the trim tabs surfaces were increased which made the trimming itself more efficient and, of course, less needed.

 

Unless there are REAL LIFE data and not just extrapolations and estimates we have to listen to the pilots who flew the plane and I've never heard that it was THAT hard to pull the stick at speeds below 500km/h IAS, on the contrary. The current behavior is NOT compatible with real pilots testimonies.

It has been explained that K-4 data is as yet unavailable but given the commonality between the types that the use of the data is logical.

 

It's one thing inferring Yo-yo's extrapolations are inaccurate but another thing entirely to prove it; I see you are very keen to accuse him of mistakes in this regard (which is the easy/lazy route) but you make no effort to provide any counterpoint calculations of your own to actually demonstrably prove your argument holds any water.

 

Given the latter, who is more legitimate - Yo-yo, with proven years in the field of advanced aeronautics and with results that are trusted by actual Air Forces to assist in the training of their aircrews, or you, with credentials unknown, unverified supplying sweet fanny Adams in the way of any comparitive data?

 

Hmm. Let me think.....:

Edited October 12, 2020 by DD_Fenrir

It has been explained that K-4 data is as yet unavailable but given the commonality between the types that the use of the data is logical.

 

It's one thing inferring Yo-yo's extrapolations are inaccurate but another thing entirely to prove it; I see you are very keen to accuse him of mistakes in this regard (which is the easy/lazy route) but you make no effort to provide any counterpoint calculations of your own to actually demonstrably prove your argument holds any water.

 

Given the later, who is more legitimate - Yo-yo, with proven years in the field of advanced aeronautics and with results that are trusted by actual Air Forces to assist in the training of their aircrews, or you, with credentials unknown, unverified supplying sweet fanny Adams in the way of any comparitive data?

 

Hmm. Let me think.....:

I do believe that the data used are incomplete and/or inaccurate, with all due respect, and not only me. Have you ever read pilots testimonials about the K-4 and the 109 in general? The 109 best turning speed is ~450km/h IAS, it's just silly how we have to trim the nose up and down like crazy because the normal stick controls are useless. Never ever seen or heard about that behaviour we see in DCS. Without REAL life data is just pointless to calculate by extrapolating using that method. And why there are no data? Well we all know well why..

 

Sent from my Redmi 5 using Tapatalk

...And why there are no data? Well we all know well why..

Why?

 

Do you have any real life data about the K-4 regarding this subject matter? Don't throw random charts, that won't prove anything.

At top of the page, open "User CP" --> on the left side bar, click "Edit Ignore List" and add any users whose posts you do not want read.

 

You'll still see their name when they post but the contents will be hidden (until you remove them from your "ignore list").

 

Thanks, Ramsay. Much appreciated.

Do you have any real life data about the K-4 regarding this subject matter? Don't throw random charts, that won't prove anything.

So because it is about the Gustav, it is useless? Do you have something better?

 

 

I'm still waiting for your answer to my question.

.... And why there are no data? Well we all know well why..

Why? Enlighten me please.

 

 

Fox

So because it is about the Gustav, it is useless? Do you have something better?

 

 

 

 

 

I'm still waiting for your answer to my question.

 

 

 

Why? Enlighten me please.

 

 

 

 

 

Fox

Ironically, I might say, they were taken by the Red Army after the war, together with the factories.. just sad..

 

Sent from my Redmi 5 using Tapatalk

Less feels, more data.

 

I totally agree here, and Yo-Yo has explained quite well where his calculations are based.

 

But i still believe something went wrong at some point. For example with current low speed high stick forces it's nearly impossible to use evasive maneuver wich was popular with real 109 pilots (you can read this from multiple memoirs),

 

push the stick fully (as much as you can) forward and give rudder at same time, forcing the attacker to overshoot and manouver was nearly impossible to follow. Try that in DCS 109 for example at 400km/h even with full nose-heavy trim, and you're soon dead meat

 

because your movement will be so slow that any other fighter will be able to follow you easily.

 

Also most of the test report notes elevator responsiveness at lower speeds is praised, that's not exactly the feel you get now in DCS.

 

Couple quotations from british performance and handling tests: "Flying Controls.—The flying controls have excellent response and " feel " at low speeds, but are far too heavy for manoeuvring at high speeds." and "it handles well and has excellent response to the controls at low speeds, all the controls become far too heavy at speeds in excess of 300 m.p.h., "

 

As said before, i have no problem at high speed stiffness, that agrees pretty much everyting i've read, and other than than slow speed stiffness i really enjoy of flying the DCS 109 and other warbirds too.

 

Development is slow and sometimes very painful to wait but step by step this game is getting better and better, looking forward to damage model/ AI update and hopefully new clouds too.

"all the controls become far too heavy at speeds in excess of 300 m.p.h."

 

So according to this report, they'd become too stiff when you pass 480km/h or thereabouts. A conversion error somewhere, since ours becomes too heavy in excess of 300km/h?