Jump to content

Center of Gravity


Europa

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, fapador said:

Moreover. that interview with Volker Bau was made by members efforts of a Virtual Squadron known to be very dissapointed with DCS 109 flight handling.

Personally, as I have seen this video before and the ED video showing an Erich Brunotte clearly dissapointed with Fm handling of the Dora, is more than enough for me to doubt the sims Fm's

 

 

The interview with Erich Brunotte was done before the release of the Dora, and the flightmodel was tweaked afterwards. 

About the efforts of the virtual squadron.... it's all explained here.

 


Edited by Nirvi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess you overestimate the possible differencies between, for example, G and K regarding trim changes.

First of all, 109 was a working horse of the Luftwaffe, so obviously, new versions must not be very different.

Indirect proof was, for example, Erich Brunotte's experience - he flew K but not in combat just for ferry flight. He did not mention any significant differencies. So, if there are no valued sources for K the best way is to use real gocs for G than to create fictional dependancies.

 

Above text from Yo-Yo himself for those who state that the 109 variants have massive handling difference.

Obsessed with FM's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, fapador said:

I guess you overestimate the possible differencies between, for example, G and K regarding trim changes.

First of all, 109 was a working horse of the Luftwaffe, so obviously, new versions must not be very different.

Indirect proof was, for example, Erich Brunotte's experience - he flew K but not in combat just for ferry flight. He did not mention any significant differencies. So, if there are no valued sources for K the best way is to use real gocs for G than to create fictional dependancies.

 

Above text from Yo-Yo himself for those who state that the 109 variants have massive handling difference.

You misquote me. I stated that the difference between the E and K is substantial, I mentioned nothing about the G. 

I suggest if you’re going to try and discredit me at least get your bloody facts straight. 

As it stands I’m with Yo-Yo - given that the K-4 was an attempt to rationalise the various G model improvements plus add the increased power it makes a great deal of sense to use that model to provide references for any specific data missing from the K-4.

The mistakes that you and those of your rather petulant band of 109-o-philes keep making are:

1. Assuming that you know more than Yo-yo when it comes to calculating complex aerodynamics.

2. Assuming a civilian Bf 109G flown at nothing near the combat weights and power settings behaves anything like a Bf 109K-4 at the combat weights and power settings used in DCS.

3. Turning up to threads like this without a shred of incontrovertible period evidence to justify your beliefs.

4. Basing your opinion of what the K-4 flight model should be on what it does in another simulator. All warbirds in DCS have far more nuanced and challenging FMs compared to… other simulators… and having had the privilege of flying a real world example I can tell you who’s got the more authentic flight models; it ain’t the competition…

The truth is you’ve been mollycoddled by the competition and now you’re faced with an aircraft that takes actual skill to master and it’s found you wanting. And you’re offended by that.

If you had any actual motivation other than emotional backlash you’d pour your efforts into finding useful evidence to support your suppositions.

Instead you present overtly simplified aerodynamic theories of which you have limited comprehension and jump on the smallest rumour or anecdotal snippet that tenuously could be spun to support your position and do so in a petulant, aggressive and frankly obnoxious manner because you’re an angry little man boy who’s toys aren’t pandering to his whims.

So, before you post next, grow the hell up. 


Edited by DD_Fenrir
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, fapador said:

Jesus I said A drag reduction as in general, not drag and weight distribution is comparable.

No wonder its difficult to comprehend... 

Sorry then, didn't mean to.

  • Like 1

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DD_Fenrir said:

You misquote me. I stated that the difference between the E and K is substantial, I mentioned nothing about the G. 

I suggest if you’re going to try and discredit me at least get your bloody facts straight. 

As it stands I’m with Yo-Yo - given that the K-4 was an attempt to rationalise the various G model improvements plus add the increased power it makes a great deal of sense to use that model to provide references for any specific data missing from the K-4.

The mistakes that you and those of your rather petulant band of 109-o-philes keep making are:

1. Assuming that you know more than Yo-yo when it comes to calculating complex aerodynamics.

2. Assuming a civilian Bf 109G flown at nothing near the combat weights and power settings behaves anything like a Bf 109K-4 at the combat weights and power settings used in DCS.

3. Turning up to threads like this without a shred of incontrovertible period evidence to justify your beliefs.

4. Basing your opinion of what the K-4 flight model should be on what it does in another simulator. All warbirds in DCS have far more nuanced and challenging FMs compared to… other simulators… and having had the privilege of flying a real world example I can tell you who’s got the more authentic flight models; it ain’t the competition…

The truth is you’ve been mollycoddled by the competition and now you’re faced with an aircraft that takes actual skill to master and it’s found you wanting. And you’re offended by that.

If you had any actual motivation other than emotional backlash you’d pour your efforts into finding useful evidence to support your suppositions.

Instead you present overtly simplified aerodynamic theories of which you have limited comprehension and jump on the smallest rumour or anecdotal snippet that tenuously could be spun to support your position and do so in a petulant, aggressive and frankly obnoxious manner because you’re an angry little man boy who’s toys aren’t pandering to his whims.

So, before you post next, grow the hell up. 

Remember, when you point a finger at someone you have 3 more pointing to you. This is the last time I am replying to your insulting assumptive allogations.

First read my previous posts.  Maybe there is still a small chance you will manage to see the forest and not the trees.

E through K changes are a lot but there is no theoretical justification for such a large deviation when it comes to flight handling. I will never believe that a 109 Emil flies substantially differently than a 109 K-4 nor that it displays by a large margin different flight characteristics. Luftwaffe at that time swapped pilots from 109's to Fw-190's in an instant without thorough training, and that is indeed a different airplane...

And no, on the contrary of your speculations, I don't base my opinion on what it does in another simulator. Infact, I dont like the BF-109 flight models in the competition sim either.

 

 

 

 

Obsessed with FM's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, kablamoman said:

 I vaguely recall this guy saying he thought 1998's "Jane's Combat Simulations: WWII Fighters", had a better 109 in terms of flight modeling.

It does if you put flight model at hard.

 

11 hours ago, kablamoman said:

He seems to me a bit of a troll. Probably best to ignore

Claims to be  "ATPL" certified  Pilot. He then  urges somoene to go deliberately try  spinning a Cessna 152 and then try another spin in a Cessna 172 and compare them. He also states that because of this the planes compared fly differently🤣🤣. Cherry on top  is that its a complete irrelevant conversation about level cruise flight characteristics.


Edited by fapador

Obsessed with FM's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, fapador said:

aims to be  "ATPL" certified  Pilot. He then  urges somoene to go deliberately try  spinning a Cessna 152 and then try another spin in a Cessna 172 and compare them. He also states that because of this the planes compared fly differently🤣🤣. Cherry on top  is that its a complete irrelevant conversation about level cruise flight characteristics.

You claimed the two handled the same. They don’t. They are different aircraft.

Both are certified under the Utility category for intentional spins for the purposes of training. Both models are routinely put into spins as part of the regular training curriculum for both Private and Commercial students in my country, and their behavior in this regard are drastically different. Just as other aspects of their handling are different: Such as their attitudes for level flight. Other GA aircraft are even more drastically different in their handling and attitudes in all regimes.

All of them share certain commonalities, though, such as the requirement for pitch attitudes for level flight (each of which is unique to specific aircraft models) to change with speed.

It’s one of the most basic concepts a student has to grasp when learning how to fly — that every change in speed, whether 5 knots or 50 knots, requires a pitch attitude adjustment to maintain level flight. The slower you go, the more nose-high it ends up being; the faster, the more nose-low. You seem to be struggling with the concept and should maybe review the following basic lessons: In my country they are called “Attitudes and Movements” and “Straight-and-Level Flight”. They are preceded only by your fam flight, lessons about the pre-flight, ancillary controls of the aircraft, and taxiing.

Sounds like you have some remedial training to do.


Edited by kablamoman
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kablamoman said:

Just as other aspects of their handling are different

 

1 hour ago, kablamoman said:

Such as their attitudes for level flight

No and No. You are exaggerating in a hopeless effort to prove your claims. A Cessna 152 doesn't fly or handles notably differently than even a similarly loaded triple blade Centurion 2.0. And that is not personal opinion, it's  actually one of the reasons  training schools like mine, allowed me to complete Night qualifications/Instrument ratings while I had initially trained on a C152.  Your BS is ignored.

Obsessed with FM's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, kablamoman said:

@DD_Fenrir I vaguely recall this guy saying he thought 1998's "Jane's Combat Simulations: WWII Fighters", had a better 109 in terms of flight modeling.

He seems to me a bit of a troll. Probably best to ignore.

Did you see me running away several posts ago? Now you get it 😅 . This kind of discussion, any of them but specially on this matter in particular, is an imposible task against people thinking they know it all and not reading or trying to understand facts and whatever hard evidence is presented to them. They think they're NASA engineers at the least, but they didn't understood a thing at all, even the minimal basics you must start with when confronting them. It's like trying to explain science to flat-earthers and hoping to make them understand scientific facts they don't even care about. Sadly, it's not going to happen they understand, or even try to, so what's the point in taking their lies misleading statements one by one and explaining/debunking them if they don't even read… 🙄

  • Like 1

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, fapador said:

No and No. You are exaggerating in a hopeless effort to prove your claims. A Cessna 152 doesn't fly or handles notably differently than even a similarly loaded triple blade Centurion 2.0. And that is not personal opinion, it's  actually one of the reasons  training schools like mine, allowed me to complete Night qualifications/Instrument ratings while I had initially trained on a C152.  Your BS is ignored.

You were the one splitting hairs about the attitude of the plane in the game and making claims that fast, slow, or even entirely different models of aircraft shouldn't make a difference in an attempt to push whatever weird agenda you've got. You made ridiculous comments about how all GA aircraft have the same attitudes when even things as simple as your seat/eye height, or cowling shape can make drastic differences.

I have hundreds of hours of instruction on lots of those GA aircraft and can tell you personally they do not look or feel exactly the same in terms of handling and their attitudes. Yes they are all fixed-wing aircraft and so many of the basic principles apply to all of them and there are many similarities, but in no way do those similarities lend weight to your arguments here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, kablamoman said:

I have hundreds of hours of instruction on lots of those GA aircraft and can tell you personally they do not look or feel exactly the same in terms of handling and their attitudes. Yes they are all fixed-wing aircraft and so many of the basic principles apply to all of them and there are many similarities, but in no way do those similarities lend weight to your arguments here.

I'm just PPL but the C152 I learnt in had a twin in the club they bought it from, it was always stated the flew quite different and the one I flew was the best behaving by far. Go tell this people they handle different when they're trying to match a Bf109E with a Me109K4… They even think a Centurion flies the same as good old 152 if it serves their purposes (stated a couple posts ago), how can you counter that… 🤣

I'm a teacher by trait and I would never give up on any student genuinely trying to learn, when they have doubts about the matter, or anything (I'm guessing the same as you as an instructor, specially given their lives depend on it), but with this kind of people I cannot stand any more. I did in the past, I tried to explain things to my best and everything, but here you see them again, years later, talking the same BS and proving they didn't understood a thing (they're the same forum users, yes). So…

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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