Center of Gravity

It feels that K4's center of gravity is way too aft as it erects the nose immediately when the whells lift off the ground. Which is unnatural. To compansate this situation I need to trim the aircraft full nose down +2. This does not seem correct. Even than the full trim is barely enough. I keep the full nose down setting at all speeds and power setting. Even at low speeds.

I am fully aware that the aircrafts have their characteristics to pitch the nose up or down at various speeds and power settings. But while flying the K-4 it feels more than a trim setting but a weight balance issue due to miss alligned center of gravity.

Does anyone having the same issue or is this happens particulary to my self?

It's definitely not you.. Also, the trim axis cannot be fully used in the positive part which is, at least, annoying as it forces us to use buttons instead of the analog axis. The implementation of trimming is just.. not right

This has been discussed exhaustively before.

Just look through older threads and especially notice Yo-Yo's replies on the subject. (He is ED's chief FM designer.)

To sum it up, yes, the 109-K4 has a definitly tail-heavy trim, which it apparently shares with its RL counterpart.

The limited forward trim is due to the Germans trying to counteract some incidents where pilots could not pull out of steep dives due to too much forward trim.

You feel it extra much with full fuel load, since that means that the aft fuel tank is filled as well, which moves the CG aft.

Additionally we feel it extra, due to our joysticks having a fixed centre point, which means that we need to overcome the centering spring's resistance when flying aircraft that needs the joystick to be placed "out of centre".

Apparently it would feel more natural in the real aircraft.

(Maybe also with FFB, but haven't tried that.)

My way of handling it in DCS is to adjust propeller pitch manually.

By doing this you can achieve more neutral trim in level flight.

(You will still need +1 - +2 on the trim wheel most of the time though.)

I am still not convinced that Yo-Yo's artickle explains this problem. It only says it is normal not to expect hands off driving of a Bf109 which is I totally agree but...

I still claim that it is unbalanced because even when you start a quick mission in the air the airplane instantly erects the nose which is evident that it has some issues about the balance.

The airplane erects the nose up when take off. This is not natural due to the low speed unless the center of gravity is way too back. Bf109 must be nose heavy as of its design. There is more mass in front of the plane. And the wings are relativly frontal.

Did you check your controls? Is your stick definitely at center point? (RCTRL+ Enter) When you start an mission in air start your throttle is normally at full throttle, so it´s normal to raise the nose.

During take off you´re also at full throttle which raises your nose. Also the 109 was taken off in a 3 point attitude to reduce the risks of imbalances due to the narrow undercarriage.

Please don´t let this be another "It doesn´t feel right" thread without hard facts, sheets or graphs from actual 109´s and just some "feelings" how it should be based on expectations and experiences from other sims. We´re here in a situation where we are dependend on facts and data collected by ED and put into this awesome flight model we´re enjoying.

Don´t ask to adapt the flight model to your flight style. Adapt your flight style to the model and deal with it.

I was preparing a reply, but Kappi said it much better than I could. ;) :thumbup:

I only have this additional tip for you:

At take off I use ATA 1.2, manual propeller pitch at 12.00 and trim at +1 after advice from a fellow player, and she lifts beautifully and almost in perfect balance

Flight at ATA 1.2 is quite pleasant too.

Maybe try that.

Play with manual propeller pitch in flight also, and learn how she responds to that.

It will teach you a lot about how the propeller pitch (and throttle settings) affects flight and trim.

Did you check your controls? Is your stick definitely at center point? (RCTRL+ Enter) When you start an mission in air start your throttle is normally at full throttle, so it´s normal to raise the nose.

 

During take off you´re also at full throttle which raises your nose. Also the 109 was taken off in a 3 point attitude to reduce the risks of imbalances due to the narrow undercarriage.

 

Please don´t let this be another "It doesn´t feel right" thread without hard facts, sheets or graphs from actual 109´s and just some "feelings" how it should be based on expectations and experiences from other sims. We´re here in a situation where we are dependend on facts and data collected by ED and put into this awesome flight model we´re enjoying.

 

Don´t ask to adapt the flight model to your flight style. Adapt your flight style to the model and deal with it.

No this attitude will not solve anything. This is a forum where we are allowed to discuss. You have no right to mute me. If we wont discuss here where will we.

You say full throttle it is normal then why does not the P-51 do the same behaviour.

Speaking of hard facts then please be kind enough to prove that I am wrong with hard facts.

This is not about adapting my style which is a rude claim also and ED is not the only Bf109 developper I have tried every simulator out there none has such FM about Bf109. Obviously they are WW2 specialized sims.

Have you ever flown a Bf109 yourself so how can you say that I am wrong. Please then show me the hard fact data that says the bf109 is out of center of gravity that it looses its balance significantly towards back on take off in every phase of flight. (Fact) Bf109's center of gravity is a bit aft of main carriage (but not towards the tail to lift the nose up).

There are real world pilots reports that it will lift its tail off the ground on take off which is opposed to this FM.

What if I am right?

When you asked we told you to buy Dora for a reason… just saying...

S!

When you asked we told you to buy Dora for a reason… just saying...

 

 

S!

:) Lol. I immediately realized that. But as a collector I will buy it eventually. Just did not expect this. I am not complaining because I can't fly it. I perfectly do. I can fly it with +max trim at all times. If I can ignore it no problem but I cant. I dont complain but claim that there is something wrong with the weight balance. . IT IS WAY TOO OBVIOUS.

Take 20 Degree of Flaps for Take Off, this shift the COG Forward with 0.5 Nose Trim, and the 109 is lifting off like Butter..

You can take off with full Power, after some time you don't even bother to secure the Tail wheel with Training..

With some Burn of Fuel, that doesn't take a long Time the COG shifting slowly Forward and it gets much more handy to Fly...

Take 20 Degree of Flaps for Take Off, this shift the COG Forward with 0.5 Nose Trim, and the 109 is lifting off like Butter..

You can take off with full Power, after some time you don't even bother to secure the Tail wheel with Training..

 

 

With some Burn of Fuel, that doesn't take a long Time the COG shifting slowly Forward and it gets much more handy to Fly...

Thanks for the tip. I will try

:) Lol. I immediately realized that. But as a collector I will buy it eventually. Just did not expect this. I am not complaining because I can't fly it. I perfectly do. I can fly it with +max trim at all times. If I can ignore it no problem but I cant. I dont complain but claim that there is something wrong with the weight balance. . IT IS WAY TOO OBVIOUS.

In short, no, she's like that and I'm sorry about all of those Luftwhiners (not you, I know) that found their almighty 109 wasn't what they thought it to be. It's not a weight and balance "problem", it's not a "trim" problem, it was designed like that. Just bear in mind we usually don't fly with long sticks (well, I do ) like the real deal and that makes a big difference, we don't fly with FFB long stick that'd be the most desirable in order to fully understand what happens, so with a short stick one has to hold it against a spring and that is tiring, yes. IRL that isn't half a problem until really high speeds and even there it's not such a big deal, you hold the stick a bit further and that's all, there's no spring. Also, people tend to forget, trim and IAS aside, torque does have a big effect in such a small aeroplane as 109 is, even more when you have 1800HP in front of you and such a small rudder as 109 features. K4 cruises fairly well at 1.15ATA and even in a sort of "hands off", just you can't pretend that to happen at 1.4ATA or beyond, even at lower speeds, it's torque, not trim or W&B, or not only, though there are a combination of them all obviously but torque has the last word here.

So, just cruising at "sane" manifolds, taking off also in manageable manifold (Spitfire doesn't like full throttle at take off either), and using wisely the trim available she's a pretty damn good and pleasant ride. Squeeze the throttle recklessly and with "bad manners" and she'll punish you. That's all. Anyway, you'll like her at the end :smilewink: .

Good luck!!

The limited forward trim is due to the Germans trying to counteract some incidents where pilots could not pull out of steep dives due to too much forward trim.

Not true! They proposed based on highspeed dive tests up to Mach 0.805 that pilots should not trim more than +1,15° because if you trim out of the dive afterwards a violent pitch moment will occur. It was common in that time for pilots to trim out of dives. This test was done on a 109 F model and has little relevance for a K-4 because the elevator gearing was reworked.

What is portrayed in DCS is a 109 K-4 with F/G elevator, nothing more and nothing less.

Not true! They proposed based on highspeed dive tests up to Mach 0.805 that pilots should not trim more than +1,15° because if you trim out of the dive afterwards a violent pitch moment will occur.They proposed based on highspeed dive tests up to Mach 0.805 that pilots should not trim more than +1,15° because if you trim out of the dive afterwards a violent pitch moment will occur.

It was common in that time for pilots to trim out of dives. This test was done on a 109 F model and has little relevance for a K-4 because the elevator gearing was reworked.

 

What is portrayed in DCS is a 109 K-4 with F/G elevator, nothing more and nothing less.

F model was the one with the elevator reworked due to Emil not being able to recover +700Km/H dives because stick forces, in all this time nobody said K had again the elevator gear reworked and still if true that would influence stick forces, not trim or dives recoverability. Furthermore remember dive couldn't be recovered due to a stick command reversal at high speeds with +2º trim, not due to stick forces. The model in the dive test is a F one, yes, but don't try to fool us, they used prototypes from what they had and F model is perfectly valid for G models tests and so they did use it. Also the dive test (F) model (prototype) featured the high tail of later G10 and K4 as well as G14 late so obviously it worked and that change made it to the final models. We don't know what more changes could that "F" model feature being a test-bed as it was, now I think did they say it featured a G model wings? Funny. Aerodynamics still are the very same no matter if they used a F prototype in 1943 for the tests or any other model they could have available and trim recommendation made it to K model so that is how module is made. Again, it's your assumption that DCS features an F/G elevator, elevator IIRC were indeed a bit larger in K model and module depicts that AFAIK so I don't see where your assumption came from.

S!

Please mate, keep it civilised. You're saying the same with other words, both stories you told relates to the same dive test paper, so it's true.

 

You don't know if "they used trim to go out of dives", a highly experienced test pilot did use trim to go out of an irrecoverable dive and proposed a solution of limiting maximum trim, I guess because he probably didn't trust average pilots to realise the same in a combat environment… so it's only your assumption they used trim all of the time to recover dives.

 

F model was the one with the elevator reworked due to Emil not being able to recover +700Km/H dives because stick forces, in all this time nobody said K had again the elevator gear reworked and still if true that would influence stick forces, not trim or dives recoverability. Furthermore remember dive couldn't be recovered due to a stick command reversal at high speeds with +2º trim, not due to stick forces. The model in the dive test is a F one, yes, but don't try to fool us, they used prototypes from what they had and F model is perfectly valid for G models tests and so they did use it. Also the dive test (F) model (prototype) featured the high tail of later G10 and K4 as well as G14 late so obviously it worked and that change made it to the final models. We don't know what more changes could that "F" model feature being a test-bed as it was, now I think did they say it featured a G model wings? Funny. Aerodynamics still are the very same no matter if they used a F prototype in 1943 for the tests or any other model they could have available and trim recommendation made it to K model so that is how module is made. Again, it's your assumption that DCS features an F/G elevator, elevator IIRC were indeed a bit larger in K model and module depicts that AFAIK so I don't see where your assumption came from.

 

 

S!

I am and always have been civilized.

The new elevator gearing is linked to (btw nose heavier MK108) armament.

F/G elevator

G-10 (note the G-10/U4 remark)

K-4

I am not saying the same thing. Elevator gearing fundamentally influences recoverability, because it changes stick forces, deflection, mach characteristics, neutral position, everything...

There is no stick force reversal as in eg the Spitfire aileron reversal happening, the stick in the 109 does what it always does. It is certainly lacking authority, but it does at no point reverse. I think you are misinterpreting the graph.

The elevator area was certainly not enlarged for the K-4, just the mechanism and hinge moments were significantly reworked.

Besides many german anecdotes of trimming out of a high speed dive there are also finnish reports:

Edvald Estama disengaged after being damaged by a Yak-9's cannon shell by pushing into full power vertical dive from 7000 meters.

" The speedometer went over the top as the speed exceeded 950 km/h. The wings began to shake and Estama feared the fighter would come apart. It didn't stay (vertical) otherwise, it had to be kept with the stabilizer. I trimmed it so the plane was certainly nose down. Once I felt it didn't burn anymore and there was no black smoke in the mirror, then I began to straighten it up, and it wouldn't obey. The stick was so stiff it was useless. So a nudge at a time, (then straightening off with trims).

Then the wings came alive with the flutter effect, I was afraid it's coming apart and shut the throttle. Only then I began to level out. To a thousand meters. It was a long time - and the hard pull blacked me out."

Also let me cite something from the highspeed trials:

The limiter for the first flights was at +1,45°. The elevator forces at this setting were not sufficient to go beyond 60° dive angle at 100% motor power. For this reason elevator trim tabs double the size of the normal ones were installed.

I am sorry but I cant agree with anything you are suggesting.

In a simulated environment, no, it doesn't affect recoverability. May be a FFB joystick should depict that increased/decreased forces, but any of that affects a regular joystick user in recoverability. I'm sure deflection angles of control surfaces what they should be in the module. Still that doesn't affect trim.

There is no stick force reversal as in eg the Spitfire aileron reversal happening, the stick in the 109 does what it always does. It is certainly lacking authority, but it does at no point reverse. I think you are misinterpreting the graph.

S!

In a simulated environment, no, it doesn't affect recoverability. May be a FFB joystick should depict that increased/decreased forces, but any of that affects a regular joystick user in recoverability. I'm sure deflection angles of control surfaces what they should be in the module. Still that doesn't affect trim.

The hinge moments, mach response and neutral position changed. It absolutely does, there is simply no arguing about that!

Look again at the graph, of course there are a forces reversal. Not only the graph, but the written report says it. At a certain moment the aircraft needed to pull the stick instead of push to keep the dive, that's clearly said in the paper and it's the final reason why the test pilot recommends to limit trim from 2º to 1.15º. In a second attempt with the new trim setting reversal doesn't happen. All of that is in the paper.

S!

The pilot in his analysis said he needed to reverse the stick force to keep the dive angle constant at this stab setting. The data presented in this paper and also in seperate elevator mach dependency tests show no force reversal in its sense. At no point the aircraft is acting reversly to the input.

The hinge moments, mach response and neutral position changed. It absolutely does, there is simply no arguing about that!

The pilot in his analysis said he needed to reverse the stick force to keep the dive angle constant at this stab setting. The data presented in this paper and also in seperate elevator mach dependency tests show no force reversal in its sense. At no point the aircraft is acting reversly to the input.

Eppur si muove…

S!

I feel that the 109 is more tail heavy than the Spit or the P-51, but it's definitely not too tail heavy. I can take off just fine at 1.3 ATA, prop pitch at 12:00, 20 degrees of flaps and trim set to 1 nose down.

As someone mentioned before me you need to fly the 109 at reasonable manifold settings. If you cruise at 1.15 ATA, you can fly it hands off. When I go online I usually realize most people fly at nearly full throttle all the time, when I try to form up on them. It's not going to behave well at those settings, you can't expect that. In my view our 109 matches every anecdote I've read about flying a real 109.

No this attitude will not solve anything. This is a forum where we are allowed to discuss. You have no right to mute me. If we wont discuss here where will we.

 

You say full throttle it is normal then why does not the P-51 do the same behaviour.

 

Speaking of hard facts then please be kind enough to prove that I am wrong with hard facts.

 

This is not about adapting my style which is a rude claim also and ED is not the only Bf109 developper I have tried every simulator out there none has such FM about Bf109. Obviously they are WW2 specialized sims.

 

Have you ever flown a Bf109 yourself so how can you say that I am wrong. Please then show me the hard fact data that says the bf109 is out of center of gravity that it looses its balance significantly towards back on take off in every phase of flight. (Fact) Bf109's center of gravity is a bit aft of main carriage (but not towards the tail to lift the nose up).

There are real world pilots reports that it will lift its tail off the ground on take off which is opposed to this FM.

 

What if I am right?

"every one else does it so it must be right"?

Did you read the post regarding pulling out of dives and the resulting action taken by the Luftwaffe? When the Kurfurst appeared, the standard of pilot training had become mediocre. Adding negative trim prior to take off will make the beast docile enough until you get airborne and trim it out correctly. Who in their right mind spawns into an airborne aircraft anyway if they want realism?

Yes, we are happy to discuss any topic, providing it hasn't already been discussed ad infinitum, and the result of that debate was that ED are still sticking to the deeply researched, and implemented flight model. Surely, in a debate where it has all been discussed at length, the onus is on you to produce the evidence, not everyone that contradicts you based on those previous discussions.

I suggest you do a search on the forum, and read everything that has already been said on this matter. Just because it doesn't suit you does not mean it must be wrong.

To assume that it is up to everyone else to do your research for you is just plain wrong, wouldn't you agree? Surely the civilised way of proving your point is for you to come up with hard evidence. Why should everyone else have to disprove your hunch based on inferior flight models of the past?

"every one else does it so it must be right"?

 

Did you read the post regarding pulling out of dives and the resulting action taken by the Luftwaffe? When the Kurfurst appeared, the standard of pilot training had become mediocre. Adding negative trim prior to take off will make the beast docile enough until you get airborne and trim it out correctly. Who in their right mind spawns into an airborne aircraft anyway if they want realism?

 

Yes, we are happy to discuss any topic, providing it hasn't already been discussed ad infinitum, and the result of that debate was that ED are still sticking to the deeply researched, and implemented flight model. Surely, in a debate where it has all been discussed at length, the onus is on you to produce the evidence, not everyone that contradicts you based on those previous discussions.

 

I suggest you do a search on the forum, and read everything that has already been said on this matter. Just because it doesn't suit you does not mean it must be wrong.

 

To assume that it is up to everyone else to do your research for you is just plain wrong, wouldn't you agree? Surely the civilised way of proving your point is for you to come up with hard evidence. Why should everyone else have to disprove your hunch based on inferior flight models of the past?

Don't get confused I do not expect "Zero-trim-hands-off-flight" from a Bf109. This is not about to suit me. I can well suit the simulator that is why I pay and buy it. ... to experience how a Bf109 is in the confort of my living room without spending a 5million euros.

Besides I am not against Yo-Yo's article. To your surprise I totally do agree with it. But I still think that there is a weight balance issue and the CoG is way too back.

People seems to be divided to 2 groups here. One side says there is a problem and one side says there is not. What is strange is "the there is nothing wrong you silly ignorant who know nothing about how to fly the K4, shut up and obey" side beats and mutes the protesters.

But the king is naked.

Yes, there is always that.

Thinking there is a weight balance issue is a genuine concern of course. Doesn't it all shift with different fuel loading anyway? Have you tried comparing different loads? That isn't made clear.

Are there any facts associated with different CofGs in different ausf, and if so, why not add them to support your case?

People seems to be divided to 2 groups here. One side says there is a problem and one side says there is not. What is strange is "the there is nothing wrong you silly ignorant who know nothing about how to fly the K4, shut up and obey" side beats and mutes the protesters.

If you didn't participate in the discussions of the subject before I can easily understand how you can get that impression. The thing is that the "other side" you mention, the ones saying it must be wrong b̶e̶c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶I̶ ̶d̶o̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶l̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶i̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶m̶i̶g̶h̶t̶y̶ ̶1̶0̶9̶,̶ ̶n̶o̶ ̶w̶a̶y̶ had been really harsh, impolite, stubborn, and you don't want to know what more for a really long time. If they think it's wrong, and ED has no secrets as they have shown their sources and available data since first day, it's up to those thinking it's wrong to prove it is by showing new evidences saying so. But, after months of merciless war with regard to the 109, they have come with what? absolutely nothing. Their evidences for the wrong behaviour were bluff, usually just "this pilot said this", "that pilot said that" as their best try, but no hard evidences at all.

So, it's not "one side bashes the other for they to shut up", no, there have been plentiful of "debate" about it. It is that the naysayers based on no evidence got banned several times, still they came over again with the same with no results or evidences whatsoever so got banned more times and the "it's wrong" because I say so debate just luckily cooled down. The module of course has evolved as first Beta versions lacked features that has actually changed the behaviour, though general feeling was there since start and is still the same but now it's somewhat easier and more comfortable to fly her still with the trim design not very suitable for modern joysticks, but hey, you called for realism so there you have it.

So, don't get me wrong, if you have any real clue, evidence, prove, whatever that Mr. Willy design is not like that despite the German original charts saying so you are welcome to show us all as everybody here, and I think ED the first, want this as well as any other module in DCS to be the best and more real to the knowledge we have about them. But saying "it has to be wrong because I don't like it and I paid for a mighty 109 not a kicking mule…" well, you aren't the first one around here but that doesn't make you right :thumbup: .

S!

P.S.: you're welcome either to read some of the documents arisen in the many discussions about the subject and point out what doesn't match the actual module

Diving_Test_109F_W.Nr.9228_ger_eng.pdf

Of course there's no discussion, in the real plane… Since at home one can move the joystick all the way from one extreme to another effortlessly it's not that important in the simulation even though of course it's taken into account since the input model change we had, but still what would you "feel" about that at home and what would stick force change in aircraft not being able to trim further with regards to you joystick? I would like to know.

Let me tell you why I think it is very important. The forces applied in the real plane translate to different control surface forces when the transmission = leverage and effector hinge moments change. That means for a fixed size elevator I can apply 300N of force on my stick and this may result in a hinge moment that is sufficient to deflect the elevator fully up to M = 0.3. But now I change the transmission and all of the sudden I can reach the same deflection with 300N of stick force easily at M= 0.6. Do you realize the relevance now? The reduced maximum elevator deflection in G-10/U4 and K-4 models was initially a clear indicator that transmission leverage have increased in these aircraft. And what I have calculated so far from blueprints is that there is a quite significant change in hinge moments. (https://www.ebay.de/itm/WW2-German-Flugzeug-Bauplan-Blueprints-Me109-Fw190/391441687123?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649)

I'm pretty sure since I read all the document carefully it said what I already said, no question about the chart showing a reversal in stick forces, but since you're so sure and insistent and my head is not what it used to be you get to shed a shadow of doubt on me so well, until I can read it again I won't insist.

S!

If you really think there should be any control reversal then I suggest you take out the DCS K-4 dive it to Mach 0.8 and check if your controls reverse. If it doesnt it must be modeled incorrectly and you should tell YoYo, right?

Im glad you dont insist on this. :)

S!

If you didn't participate in the discussions of the subject before I can easily understand how you can get that impression. The thing is that the "other side" you mention, the ones saying it must be wrong b̶e̶c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶I̶ ̶d̶o̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶l̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶i̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶m̶i̶g̶h̶t̶y̶ ̶1̶0̶9̶,̶ ̶n̶o̶ ̶w̶a̶y̶ had been really harsh, impolite, stubborn, and you don't want to know what more for a really long time. If they think it's wrong, and ED has no secrets as they have shown their sources and available data since first day, it's up to those thinking it's wrong to prove it is by showing new evidences saying so. But, after months of merciless war with regard to the 109, they have come with what? absolutely nothing. Their evidences for the wrong behaviour were bluff, usually just "this pilot said this", "that pilot said that" as their best try, but no hard evidences at all.

 

So, it's not "one side bashes the other for they to shut up", no, there have been plentiful of "debate" about it. It is that the naysayers based on no evidence got banned several times, still they came over again with the same with no results or evidences whatsoever so got banned more times and the "it's wrong" because I say so debate just luckily cooled down. The module of course has evolved as first Beta versions lacked features that has actually changed the behaviour, though general feeling was there since start and is still the same but now it's somewhat easier and more comfortable to fly her still with the trim design not very suitable for modern joysticks, but hey, you called for realism so there you have it.

 

 

So, don't get me wrong, if you have any real clue, evidence, prove, whatever that Mr. Willy design is not like that despite the German original charts saying so you are welcome to show us all as everybody here, and I think ED the first, want this as well as any other module in DCS to be the best and more real to the knowledge we have about them. But saying "it has to be wrong because I don't like it and I paid for a mighty 109 not a kicking mule…" well, you aren't the first one around here but that doesn't make you right :thumbup: .

 

 

S!

 

P.S.: you're welcome either to read some of the documents arisen in the many discussions about the subject and point out what doesn't match the actual module

No hard evidence but I have some magic.

Well maybe I am not an aeronautical engineer but can you explain me if this is normal?

So you guys say this is very normal.

Edit: Change the video. More detailed. Please enable the subtitles by pressing the CC button on the video. And sorry for the audio. There is an issue about the audio. I will fix it when I get back home. For now simply lower the volume.