Experienced BF-109 pilots - help needed - right roll level flight - Page 3 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-08-2018, 08:15 PM   #21
edgtho
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 32
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilWillis View Post
And your reason for making that leap is what exactly edgtho? A lack of information doesn't mean that alternative similar examples are correct.

The simple fact of the matter is that the G and the K are very different animals. Bung a V8 in a Mini Cooper, and I suspect there may be some subtle differences between it and a standard one. Bung a different engine AND a different CofG in a 109, and guess what?...
My reasons??? Nope, those aren't mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yo-Yo View Post
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.
edgtho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2018, 02:45 PM   #22
Sporg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,015
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JIMJAM View Post
Right from the horse's mouth with no conjecture. Bottom line is the 109 was a pooch in the air with very little torque roll and flies "hands off". All the nasty habits were on the ground. Still we must fly the model we are given which appears to be more harsh than the real aircraft.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDMzZOOIFro

A good vid of a current pilot "chief test pilot Airbus" of a restored 109 having his brain picked from simmers like us about very specific quirks and how the 109 behaves. They ask him the EXACT question about torque roll during cruise and trim. NO RUDDER DURING CRUISE NEEDED. NO HANDS ON NEEDED. ELEVATOR NEUTRAL. MINIMAL TO NO TORQUE ROLL ADDING THROTTLE. IIRC he says 10mm from idle to full power. ALL issues with the 109 appear to be ON the ground. In the air it's a pooch.
Listen to him and he clears up a lot of misconceptions about the 109. After listening it appears DCS 109 is a little aggressive in the roll during cruise. He comments the 109 was trim neutral and harmonized but added 10 thousand were destroyed during t/o and landing. Another nugget was +1 trim on takeoff.

I have time in a few high powered, some overpowered small experimental aircraft. One was a small 2 seat Glasair 3 with 300+ HP engine that can hit almost 300 mph. Almost instant throttle and control response being very crisp but light. It's probably the closest thing I've flown to a warbird where you "fly the prop". Of course the 109 is made to kill and having trim neutral ability for pilot's comfort during cruise wasn't a concern.

All have a roll tendency and yes for sport flying that tilt does irk one accustomed to straight and level but that bird is made to kill. Don't recall the numbers but at cruise iirc I pulled prop back and can achieve a comfortable level flight which does have that slow creep from level. I keep it on auto as I do not fly the 109 worrying about a passenger in the back spilling her glass of wine.
Fly it hard. She is leaning cause it want's to turn towards the enemy and bring out the teeth.
JIMJAM, you should be very aware that the video you posted was made to "prove" a specific point that especially one of the interviewers was totally obsessed with (and which he refused to understand rebuttals of, again and again).
Try to look for comments and posts by user "III/JG52_Otto_+" and you will see what I mean.
(III/JG52_Otto_+ was eventually banned because he would not stop opening thread after thread on the subject, despite being warned time and again.)

As far as I recall, one of ED's responses was that the flight characteristics described in the video was when flying a lightly loaded (no weapons) and lightly fuelled 109, versus a fully loaded and fuelled DCS version.
Secondly that the DCS model is based on both several data sources and on several discussions with both actual and former pilots (incl. Volker Bau), not just one single interview.

You can also try to read the threads and comments Yo-Yo (ED's FM specialist) has written on the subject.
In my opinion he explains himself very well.

In other words, I wouldn't put too much credit into that particular video.
It should be seen for what it is, a very biased attempt to "prove" a point that has been rejected many times both before and after that interview.

The reason I post this late response is that I'm sad to again see the issue popping up, and being lent credibility, when it is actually an issue that has been well explained and refuted a long time ago
Sporg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 05:20 PM   #23
Burning Bridges
Member
 
Burning Bridges's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by edgtho View Post
The 109 was a working horse of the Luftwaffe, so obviously, new versions must not be very different. For example, proof was 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. Indeed,the base model for the DCS 109 was a Russian test of a G2/R6.
It was Brunottes video that eventually kept me from buying the D-9. He seemed totally not happy about the stalls, and seemed to indicate all those planes were rather easy to fly and land, not the flying coffins we now have in the sim. Might be just me but I think that's what he said.

The Bf 109 is rather flyable by the way, but worst offender imo would be the Spitfire. I just cannot imagine that it was that difficult to take off, wanted to lose control almost every time you moved the stick and tore off its wings when you pull back too hard.

Last edited by Burning Bridges; 03-05-2018 at 05:22 PM.
Burning Bridges is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2018, 05:24 PM   #24
NineLine
Community Manager
 
NineLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 22,515
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Burning Bridges View Post
It was Brunottes video that eventually kept me from buying the D-9. He seemed totally not happy about the stalls, and seemed to indicate all those planes were rather easy to fly and land, not the flying coffins we now have in the sim. Might be just me but I think that's what he said.
He was flying a version what was before even the internal testers had, the whole point of his communication was to better improve the sim, it doesn't make sense that he was flying the final FM, his input was used to improve on it. I doubt that there is any such thing as an easy to fly WWII aircraft, unless you are something like Erich, someone that has had years of experience with these aircraft, and not that does not equate to years of experience in other WWII games.

Also most pilots have difficulties adapting from the real thing to a simulator, nothing feels the same as the real thing. Understand when Erich flew 109s and 190s, his control set up was better than ours, he could feel the plane with every part of his body, now cut him off from that, and see how he does.

Feel free to read my sig concerning the Spitfire.
__________________
Nick Grey - "I have had the privilege of flying most marks of Spit, the I, V, IX, XIV, XIX and enjoyed working with Eagle to make this simulation of the IX the 'mutt's nuts'."
Artist formerly known as SiThSpAwN
Forum RulesForum Rules Guidelines
ED Facebook PageED YouTube PageWags YouTubeMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine #0440
**How to Report a Bug**

Last edited by NineLine; 03-05-2018 at 05:49 PM.
NineLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2018, 01:22 PM   #25
Burning Bridges
Member
 
Burning Bridges's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 257
Default

That may all be, and I appreciate the time and effort you invested in making these birds realistic. But in the end my verdict is also final. I now own 2 WW2 planes that cannot fly straight for more than a few seconds. Realistic or not, I probably don't want any more of those.
Burning Bridges is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2018, 03:15 PM   #26
NineLine
Community Manager
 
NineLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 22,515
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Burning Bridges View Post
That may all be, and I appreciate the time and effort you invested in making these birds realistic. But in the end my verdict is also final. I now own 2 WW2 planes that cannot fly straight for more than a few seconds. Realistic or not, I probably don't want any more of those.
Sorry to hear that, ED is trying to strive for realism, not fly-ability, unless the two are the same end result. Might try the A-10C, it has many autopilot and trim options for your liking
__________________
Nick Grey - "I have had the privilege of flying most marks of Spit, the I, V, IX, XIV, XIX and enjoyed working with Eagle to make this simulation of the IX the 'mutt's nuts'."
Artist formerly known as SiThSpAwN
Forum RulesForum Rules Guidelines
ED Facebook PageED YouTube PageWags YouTubeMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine #0440
**How to Report a Bug**

Last edited by NineLine; 03-06-2018 at 03:24 PM.
NineLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2018, 03:38 PM   #27
Burning Bridges
Member
 
Burning Bridges's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NineLine View Post
Sorry to hear that, ED is trying to strive for realism, not fly-ability, unless the two are the same end result. Might try the A-10C, it has many autopilot and trim options for your liking
But that's what I meant. ED and customers should be striving for realism, flyability and sales. If one goes to the detriment of others there will be a problem, and as I said. it might be realistic, but for now: no more corkscrewing WW2 birds for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NineLine View Post
Might try the A-10C, it has many autopilot and trim options for your liking
Yes, I can fly the Mig15 and L39 just fine, the jets in general are great.
Burning Bridges is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2018, 05:35 PM   #28
NineLine
Community Manager
 
NineLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 22,515
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Burning Bridges View Post
But that's what I meant. ED and customers should be striving for realism, flyability and sales. If one goes to the detriment of others there will be a problem, and as I said. it might be realistic, but for now: no more corkscrewing WW2 birds for me.



Yes, I can fly the Mig15 and L39 just fine, the jets in general are great.
If your are having that much trouble with the WW2 birds, there might be something up with your set up, I cant see this issue with mine.
__________________
Nick Grey - "I have had the privilege of flying most marks of Spit, the I, V, IX, XIV, XIX and enjoyed working with Eagle to make this simulation of the IX the 'mutt's nuts'."
Artist formerly known as SiThSpAwN
Forum RulesForum Rules Guidelines
ED Facebook PageED YouTube PageWags YouTubeMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine #0440
**How to Report a Bug**
NineLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2018, 05:49 PM   #29
Mud
Member
 
Mud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Sweden
Posts: 493
Default

On that note I'd like the possibility to allow us to set trim sensitivity. Even in the P-51D I find it rather hard to trim properly using the 4-way hat switch because the increments are too big.

A small touch in any direction results in a bit too much trim.
__________________

Spoiler:
W10-x64 | Asus P8Z77-V | Core i5 3570K @ 4.5Ghz | Noctua NH-D14
Corsair 32Gb 1600 @ 2133 10-12-12-20 | MSI GTX 1070 Gaming X OC
SB Audigy 2 Platinum | TM Hotas Warthog
MFG Crosswind pedals | TrackIR 5
Oculus Rift CV 1
Mud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 03:07 PM   #30
LeCuvier
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: South of France
Posts: 1,166
Default

I'm struggling to understand the negative attitude I read in some of these posts. The two German fighters were harder to fly than their allied counterparts, and many Bf-109's were lost in takeoff and landing. Takeoff and landing are challenging indeed, but we don't risk our lives and I like the challenge. While the takeoff and landing with an undamaged A-10C is child's play, you have to be very concentrated with the Bf-109 every time. I ike this challenge, but I guess some people need it to be easy and I can understand that.
But I cannot understand the hype about the "lack of roll trim problem".
In the "Special" tab, the Bf-109 has the ground trim for ailerons and rudder. I have set these to -22 and -20 respectively, and I can fly hands off for long times when I'm cruising. It flies like a charm! Seems to me that some people have not set these options.
__________________
LeCuvier
Windows 10 Pro 64Bit | i7-4790 CPU |16 GB RAM|SSD System Disk|SSD Gaming Disk| MSI GTX-1080 Gaming 8 GB| Acer XB270HU | TM Warthog HOTAS | VKB Gladiator Pro | MongoosT-50 | MFG Crosswind Pedals | TrackIR 5
LeCuvier is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:20 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.