Cruising is painful..

Who is VW?

Who is VW?

 

I interpret this as a jab at the Volkswagen emission test scandal.

Whatever, then.

Whatever, then.

 

But, now speaking seriously, I think that it's very difficult to evaluate what those flight tests really mean... I don't believe it would be easy for an 109 to fly hands off for a long period of time, even if properly trimmed to reduce control forces.

 

Roll corrections would easily be input given the lightness of the stick, at such speeds ( 400 km/h ), as compared to rudder.

Edited September 26, 2015 by jcomm

"Statically stable"? Now what does that mean? Any practical aircraft, unless equipped with a FBW system, has to be naturally stable on all axii. So am I missing something profound here?

I think I agree with jcomm when it comes to rudder usage.

 

In P-51, I always reduce throttle AND RPM to a value that gets the ball centered so much as requiring only elevator and aileron trims only. Of course that changes every few minutes as fuel is consumed from right and left tanks, but if I have a back tank, I usually trim ailerons first, then elevators.

 

So the conclusion is, all WWII birds had rudder kept in at all times, be it by trim, foot, etc.... (etc being an unknown to me mechanism). Bombers I think were not requiring trim as four props may be counter right and left, omitting torque, or thereof..

 

 

:D

"statically stable" as opposed to stability during maneuvers.

 

There is no need to go full-internet on the reports from those who flew the plane 70 years ago. We're free to take them at face value or to discard them in favor of what we already believe.

 

TTFN

"Statically stable"? Now what does that mean? Any practical aircraft, unless equipped with a FBW system, has to be naturally stable on all axii. So am I missing something profound here?

 

Actually, there are quite a few aircraft that are not stable. They require double control inputs and can be tiring to fly.

 

Static stability is the initial tendency of an airplane.

 

A statically stable aircraft will move toward trim speed after an impulse the moment the stick is released. A statically unstable aircraft will move away from trim speed initially. Statically neutral aircraft will stay at whatever speed the stick was released at after the impulse.

 

Dynamic stability refers to stability over time. The more dynamically stable, the fewer oscillation periods and faster the impulse is dampened and the aircraft returns to trim speed.

http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-static-stability-and-vs-dynamic-stability/

Actually, there are quite a few aircraft that are not stable. They require double control inputs and can be tiring to fly.

 

Static stability is the initial tendency of an airplane.

 

A statically stable aircraft will move toward trim speed after an impulse the moment the stick is released. A statically unstable aircraft will move away from trim speed initially. Statically neutral aircraft will stay at whatever speed the stick was released at after the impulse.

 

Dynamic stability refers to stability over time. The more dynamically stable, the fewer oscillation periods and faster the impulse is dampened and the aircraft returns to trim speed.

Modern aerobatic are unstable indeed, and a hell to cruise with them.

 

 

If we go for a 1944 qualified source not "telling stories" but going to the principles of flight, "Stick & Rudder" book for instance, it details the fly of an airplane quite clearly, and even civil aircraft back then weren't always so stable or "well behaved" as author says. It seems some people look for a modern Cessna stability and "well behaviour" in a 30-40's fighter aircraft, what doesn't happens. 109 is clearly a not "well behaved" aircraft as today standards, she doesn't try to keep speed when throttle lowers for instance and pilot has to keep an eye on airspeed, approach are critical not only but also because that. But for the 40's standard I have read 109 just behaves as a small fighter aircraft with straight aerofoil and high engine torque is expected to.

 

Funny after so many years asking for simulators absolute realism when we finally get it people complains having a real aircraft :lol:.

 

 

Anyway, even for a painful cruising this aircraft isn't design for, I keep saying having a long stick eases the matter, as happens in real aircraft. For the sake of realism and not only what we have yet but what will come in the future, people should start looking for long sticks like hell.

 

S!

Edited September 27, 2015 by Ala13_ManOWar

 

Anyway, even for a painful cruising this aircraft isn't design for, I keep saying having a long stick eases the matter, as happens in real aircraft. For the sake of realism and not only what we have yet but what will come in the future, people should start looking for long sticks like hell.

 

S!

 

Or at least having a controller not so stiff as the default Warthog or Cougar HOTAS.

 

I bought an inexpensive T16000, which is light and precise and makes a good difference. Having a stick the size of the one used in the real aircraft and with proper force feedback simulation mechanisms would be the only way of really acknowledging the quality of the DCS flight dynamics.

 

As it is right now, I am already satisfied, and look forward for the additional tuning before the K4 goes final.

Modern aerobatic are unstable indeed, and a hell to cruise with them.

 

 

If we go for a 1944 qualified source not "telling stories" but going to the principles of flight, "Stick & Rudder" book for instance, it details the fly of an airplane quite clearly, and even civil aircraft back then weren't always so stable or "well behaved" as author says. It seems some people look for a modern Cessna stability and "well behaviour" in a 30-40's fighter aircraft, what doesn't happens. 109 is clearly a not "well behaved" aircraft as today standards, she doesn't try to keep speed when throttle lowers for instance and pilot has to keep an eye on airspeed, approach are critical not only but also because that. But for the 40's standard I have read 109 just behaves as a small fighter aircraft with straight aerofoil and high engine torque is expected to.

 

Funny after so many years asking for simulators absolute realism when we finally get it people complains having a real aircraft :lol:.

 

 

Anyway, even for a painful cruising this aircraft isn't design for, I keep saying having a long stick eases the matter, as happens in real aircraft. For the sake of realism and not only what we have yet but what will come in the future, people should start looking for long sticks like hell.

 

S!

 

The Luftwaffe measured stability curves for the Bf109G series show a strong static and dynamic longitudial stability.

 

Static stability is the initial tendency of an airplane.

 

A statically stable aircraft will move toward trim speed after an impulse the moment the stick is released. A statically unstable aircraft will move away from trim speed initially. Statically neutral aircraft will stay at whatever speed the stick was released at after the impulse.

 

Dynamic stability refers to stability over time. The more dynamically stable, the fewer oscillation periods and faster the impulse is dampened and the aircraft returns to trim speed.

 

I concur. Huey for example is statically stable into winds with a disc to wind cyclic, but under no winds, it will dynamically move on its own.

The Luftwaffe measured stability curves for the Bf109G series show a strong static and dynamic longitudial stability.

And those graphs conflicts with the module?

 

S!

Not that I am aware of....

 

A stable airplane does not necesarily mean a hands off airplane. It means it will seek the speed for which it is trimmed.

 

In RL, it is natural and intuitive to most pilots to feel the trim but can be difficult on a computer due to lack of feel. Just as in RL...fixed trim tabs are a non-issue but on a computer require constant attention. In RL....you simply hold a small of control input. It has never been excessive or even noticable. It is just natural.

 

If you have "trim on a slider" you can simulate this by simply triming the axis to hold the control input. My feet are not lazy RL because with the exception of the transport category aircraft I fly at work, my piloting has been mostly in high performance taildraggers. My brain and feet are attuned to keeping the ball centered and wngs level.

With a msffb2 joystick:

 

I find that the 109K is statically stable until you get to about 500km/h. Then it will hunt earthward despite a trim setting that holds the aircraft level at 300km/h.

A stable airplane does not necesarily mean a hands off airplane. It means it will seek the speed for which it is trimmed.

Thank you :smilewink:. Indeed a so stable aircraft will go out of trim speed easily wanting to keep the initial position so it will even stall by itself. Not a good thing to be "very stable".

 

109 is nicely stable I think, but has some of its age flaws. Have you notice at low speed while landing you can't do it like a Cessna? When you cut throttle she tries to keep the nose position, not like a Cessna looking for trim speed. Still stick controls speed (you know, the crossed controls, throttle pitch and stick speed, doesn't fully work), but you've to move it intentionally and if you keep stick fixed expecting to control landing path only with throttle you'll stall. That's a typical 30-40's aircraft behaviour.

 

S!

Thank you :smilewink:. Indeed a so stable aircraft will go out of trim speed easily wanting to keep the initial position so it will even stall by itself.

 

I'm pretty sure it's the opposite.

 

 

A statically stable aircraft will make a sin wave. A statically unstable aircraft can auger into the ground after a small disturbance.

Edited September 28, 2015 by gavagai

A statically stable aircraft will make a sin wave. A statically unstable aircraft can auger into the ground after a small disturbance.

Well, yeah I don't mean that but may be didn't explained myself. A "really stable aircraft" would keep the path whatever happens, even going stalling itself just trying to keep that path and "stability". An aircraft going "unstable" looking for the "trim stability" (the static stability you mean) has to be design for that. Right now I don't know English slang for that.

 

S!

http://avstop.com/ac/flighttrainghandbook/elevatortrimstall.html

 

The stability curves were measured in clean configuration. Configuration changes can move the Aerodynamic center and change the stability characteristics of the aircraft. CG position changes the stability margin and can also change the stability and control characteristics.

 

The Spitfire for example was statically and dynamically stable at forward of normal CG position all the way to the forward limit. It was only at normal to the aft limit that it exhibited longitudinal instability. In landing configuration many World War II designs exhibited instability.

Instability also does not mean maneuverability. That is a common misconception. Modern maneuverability criteria include demonstrating the pilot can perform a turn and hold a precise acceleration. Usually 3-G's IIRC...

 

An unstable aircraft will not maintain a precise acceleration but will fluctuate overshooting and under shooting the targeted G load. The pilot has to constantly control it to maintain load factor.

Thank you :smilewink:. Indeed a so stable aircraft will go out of trim speed easily wanting to keep the initial position so it will even stall by itself. Not a good thing to be "very stable".

 

109 is nicely stable I think, but has some of its age flaws. Have you notice at low speed while landing you can't do it like a Cessna? When you cut throttle she tries to keep the nose position, not like a Cessna looking for trim speed. Still stick controls speed (you know, the crossed controls, throttle pitch and stick speed, doesn't fully work), but you've to move it intentionally and if you keep stick fixed expecting to control landing path only with throttle you'll stall. That's a typical 30-40's aircraft behaviour.

 

S!

 

If you're comparing it to a Cessna, you're doing it wrong. You're talking about a high wing, fixed pitch trainer and a complex, high performance, high altitude and tail wheel aircraft all wrapped into one. They aren't even close to being in the same category.

If you're comparing it to a Cessna, you're doing it wrong. You're talking about a high wing, fixed pitch trainer and a complex, high performance, high altitude and tail wheel aircraft all wrapped into one. They aren't even close to being in the same category.

Nope, I'm not. Definitely I'm not explaining myself at all (or you all don't read what I'm writing :lol:). I say IMO some people seems to look something like a modern aircraft stability in 109 which is NOT the case :smilewink:.

 

S!

Nope, I'm not. Definitely I'm not explaining myself at all (or you all don't read what I'm writing :lol:). I say IMO some people seems to look something like a modern aircraft stability in 109 which is NOT the case :smilewink:.

 

S!

 

I cruise at 0,9 up to 1,0 ATA. At such settings I am even forced to input nose up trim.

 

The aircraft is a charm to fly at such cruise power settings, and keeps a good speed, at all altitudes up to around 6,000 feet.

 

I have ( again ) been using it online on several sessions and I am yet to experience what was so common before, even flying the same version - a wing breaking. What changed ? Simply skill... That's how I have to interpret it, because I do not believe secret updates are fed into the releases, and when they are they're announced, like with the upcoming v1.5

 

So, let's simply wait for the upcoming ( major ) update and re-evaluate the quality of this already very plausible simulation of what I believe must be a 109...