Tail Coming up at ~70 km/h on Takeoff

Behave guys...

 

Did anyone test in sim with different fuel loads? I see a big difference in (the 109) the default full load compared to 33% fuel, no ammo, and no contents in the MW50 tank...

 

Where is the rest of this sentence?

It becomes ridiculous... what model was it? What wind speed?

 

looks like Emil...and no, not ridiculous.i never said i expect our K4 to behave like that.not at all.

Have I already posted this video?

 

 

 

And,please, who told you that 109 SHOULD taxi with rudder?

 

I see some references to Mr. Brunotte... then watch this video again and listen to his notes on 109 at takeoff.

 

Kalifornischer Riesenslip is a common german funny reference and nothing that Mr. Brunotte made up himself. This is the Dora though in the video. Remember what you responded to my question some weeks ago?

 

For the large rudder with Flettner tab? The russian docs dont cover this one as far as I know. So far I think I have never come across data for this one at all tbh.

You said this: And I understand the problem, as there are no documents on this exact rudder variant. I am not saying anything is wrong, I am just asking e.g. why I cant slow down at idle throttle in a full sideslip with prop pitch at 12, say in the steady range of 300 to 500 kph.

 

If it's really 150 it could be extended to 170... But what will it change?

Edited January 11, 2017 by rel4y

i just rewatched Brunotte's interview...really love that you guys made this interview available to the public...being austrian and german my mothertongue, i dont need the translations luckily...

 

and what i always have scratching my head in regards of the 109...Brunotte is especially talking about the 109 when he talks about the Kalifornischen Riesenslip. he clearly states, that on short field landings they didn't only slip, but needed a big slip, what they called then the californian sideslip...im aware, that his gesture isn't anything accurate neither scientific, but the way he waves his hand showing what he means with the slip, is something, other planes are easily capable of doing...a proper slip...but in our dcs 109 we really are far away from a proper slip. i said already, that what he says is nothing measurable, but the way he talks about it indicates, that the 109 was capable of proper slips. he really pronounces that in his speech and even supports it with his gesture.

and the word itself, californischer riesenslip, really means, a big a** slip.

the best what we can achieve in our 109 more resembles a student pilot who doesnt know what to do with the rudder once in the air..flying a little uncoordinated, loosing a couple of kph. far off a proper slip, let alone a Kalifornischer Riesenslip. the interview, and what we have in dcs just doesnt fit together.

 

ps: Brunotte claims that with the Dora a sideslip wasnt necessary at all, as it bleeded the speed on the ground quicker, and therefore possible on short fields without it...the californian slip is something at least in that video specific to the 109.

 

Edited January 11, 2017 by 9./JG27 DavidRed

When can we expect the second part of that interview?

2 and 3rd... but we need a translation from German to English. Never thought that it could be a problem. But it is.

 

really? well if really nobody's doing it, i could probably help.

Right, but no one claimed Erich invented it though :) I thought that is what rel4y said above.

 

Yes, I wasnt sure if you guys knew that it wasnt a reference to Mr. Brunotte but is a rather common german phrase in aviation. No smart ass intentions, I for example wouldnt know such phrases in english being a non native speaker.

 

 

I would gladly offer my help in translation as well.

Edited January 12, 2017 by NineLine
Removed the OT stuff

Sooo friends, I did a takeoff without MW50, 0% ammo and 33 % fuel (2999 kg total weight). Flew around for a while, burnt some fuel at that and tried sideslipping starting at 1 - 1,5k m altitude. Atmosphere at ICAO values. At downwards angles of merely 7° I am actually gaining speed in a full deflection sideslip, with prop pitch at 12 and idle throttle.

Edited January 12, 2017 by rel4y

^^this test reminded me of a related test i wanted to do with a friend of mine a while ago...ill see whether we can manage to make it today...

in some of the gliders I fly/flew, specially the modern plastic gliders, it doesn't suffice to sideslip because although you can considerably increase your descent rate, in order not to gain speed you also have to pull the elevator, and set a considerably high AoA.

 

how did you sideslip? clean? flaps ? flaps an gear out ?

Oh yeah, the new gliders are aerodynamically very clean, with low parasite drag. Without airbreaks you are not slowing down any time soon. But you can't really compare that to a WWII prop job, especially as the prop if creating no thrust essentially acts as a 3m diameter airbrake. You can assume the whole disc area as creating drag when the prop is being pushed by the airflow. You want high RPM to maximize drag effect, that's why I put the prop pitch at 12.

Edited January 13, 2017 by rel4y

What combination of fuel, MW50 tank, and ammunition results in the most forward CG?

as little fuel as possible, empty MW50, full guns

Makes sense.

Just watched that awesome interview with Erich again, and found it interesting that he said the D9 had better turning ability than the 109 and that it was uniquely beautiful for turn fighting.

Edited January 14, 2017 by Brigg

yes, Erich says repeatedly, that they were more or less flying 600+ all the time until they reached their airfields again.and at this speed, the 190 is way more agile in dcs than the 109...so nothing surprising or contradicting

But regarding forward slips, I find very reduced beta in the 109. With gear down, full flaps, idle engine ( RPM manually set at 12:00 or 11:30 ), a full rudder deflection doesn't create that much of a beta...

Edited January 14, 2017 by jcomm

I may have found something a few days ago that could possibly be related to the whole trim discussion. In construction documents I saw that the wings chord line is angled 1°42' (1.7°) upwards in comparison to the fuselage main axis (109 G-10). To that the wing beam is angled forward by the same amount so it is again orthogonal to the fuselage main axis. The motor (part# 8-209.710) is angled 88°58'14'' to the Rumpfstirnwand which is often falsely called firewall. That translates to an upward angle of ~ 1.03° to the fuselage main axis. I looked this up after the MK 108 discussion, which has an initial elevation of -0.069 in DCS, which is downwards if I interpret correctly.

 

So the engine is angled about 1° upwards compared to the fuselage main axis but about 0.67° downwards to the wing chord line.

 

The 109 F apparently has an motor angle of 43' (0.7167°) to the fuselage main axis and ~ 1° to the wing chord line.

 

Do you have the same data Yo-Yo?

Edited February 19, 2017 by rel4y