Jump to content

Bf 109 G and further level flight trim, "zero" trim, dive recover forces, etc DISCUSS


rel4y

Recommended Posts

Ok, I still have two quick questions:

 

1. The K4 had elongated elevator trim tabs to balance the elevator for cruise. The G versions with only one per side were found to be insufficient. Why doesnt our K-4 have these? (In the the 4. picture below - K-4 manual they are mentioned as well and I underlined that part)

 

109 G-6

11408411276_a3984ac75c_o.jpg

 

109 K-4

8717825109_8e2a5b352d_o.png

 

2. The K-4 had differently geared elevators than the G models. Why is our K-4 geared like a G model?

 

elevator G-1

G_elevator.png

 

elevator K-4

elevator_K4.jpg


Edited by rel4y

Cougar, CH and Saitek PnP hall sensor kits + shift registers: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=220916

 

Shapeways store for DIY flight simming equipment and repair: https://www.shapeways.com/shops/rel4y-diy-joystick-flight-simming

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about stick forces and axes curves (pitch/roll).. are they going to be correlated in any way? The 109 stick stiffens at very low speeds which is very weird.. If I set up some curves then I won't be able to move the (FFB) stick at all.. again, very weird.

Are these issues going to be addressed?

Specs:

Asus Z97 PRO Gamer, i7 4790K@4.6GHz, 4x8GB Kingston @2400MHz 11-13-14-32, Titan X, Creative X-Fi, 128+2x250GB SSDs, VPC T50 Throttle + G940, MFG Crosswinds, TrackIR 5 w/ pro clip, JetSeat, Win10 Pro 64-bit, Oculus Rift, 27"@1920x1080

 

Settings:

2.1.x - Textures:High Terrain:High Civ.Traffic:Off Water:High VisRan:Low Heatblur:High Shadows:High Res:1920x1080 RoC:1024 MSAA:4x AF:16x HDR:OFF DefS: ON GCI: ON DoF:Off Lens: OFF C/G:390m Trees:1500m R:max Gamma: 1.5

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
Ok, I still have two quick questions:

 

1. The K4 had elongated elevator trim tabs to balance the elevator for cruise. The G versions with only one per side were found to be insufficient. Why doesnt our K-4 have these? (In the the 4. picture below - K-4 manual they are mentioned as well and I underlined that part)

 

109 G-6

11408411276_a3984ac75c_o.jpg

 

109 K-4

8717825109_8e2a5b352d_o.png

 

2. The K-4 had differently geared elevators than the G models. Why is our K-4 geared like a G model?

 

elevator G-1

G_elevator.png

 

elevator K-4

elevator_K4.jpg

 

I think the discussion will be transferred from this thread with my answers, so I wil answer here.

The increased compensation has very low effect on trim itself, and I think that all changes in 109K was not about hands free flight at HIGHER speeds. In contrary, the nose-heavy range of trim progressivly decreased as dive speeds increased. By the way I answered it before. Mach induced trim changes were significant for the late models, so special tests were conducted to investigate different trim settings.

 

Different angles, gearing, etc were implemented in DCS 109K according the docs.

The post is not about 109K - it is about how data can be mined from the available docs and not from anecdotal evidencies...


Edited by Yo-Yo

Ніщо так сильно не ранить мозок, як уламки скла від розбитих рожевих окулярів

There is nothing so hurtful for the brain as splinters of broken rose-coloured spectacles.

Ничто так сильно не ранит мозг, как осколки стекла от разбитых розовых очков (С) Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
What about stick forces and axes curves (pitch/roll).. are they going to be correlated in any way? The 109 stick stiffens at very low speeds which is very weird.. If I set up some curves then I won't be able to move the (FFB) stick at all.. again, very weird.

Are these issues going to be addressed?

 

No, it's not weird. The stick forces correspond to the real data both for roll and pitch according German and Soviet test reports with regards to Mach changes.


Edited by Yo-Yo
  • Like 1

Ніщо так сильно не ранить мозок, як уламки скла від розбитих рожевих окулярів

There is nothing so hurtful for the brain as splinters of broken rose-coloured spectacles.

Ничто так сильно не ранит мозг, как осколки стекла от разбитых розовых очков (С) Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Yo-Yo,

 

Maybe a silly question but which of the pictures is photo 13? You refer to it several times but none of the screenshots are labeled 13?

 

Thank you for the posts. Very interesting to read.

9./JG27

 

"If you can't hit anything, it's because you suck. If you get shot down, it's because you suck. You and me, we know we suck, and that makes it ok." - Worst person in all of DCS

 

"In the end, which will never come, we will all be satisifed... we must fight them on forum, we will fight them on reddit..." - Dunravin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
Hi Yo-Yo,

 

Maybe a silly question but which of the pictures is photo 13? You refer to it several times but none of the screenshots are labeled 13?

 

Thank you for the posts. Very interesting to read.

 

 

Very sorry, thank you for your observation. Forgot to upload.

See the original post

Ніщо так сильно не ранить мозок, як уламки скла від розбитих рожевих окулярів

There is nothing so hurtful for the brain as splinters of broken rose-coloured spectacles.

Ничто так сильно не ранит мозг, как осколки стекла от разбитых розовых очков (С) Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Yo-Yo. :)

9./JG27

 

"If you can't hit anything, it's because you suck. If you get shot down, it's because you suck. You and me, we know we suck, and that makes it ok." - Worst person in all of DCS

 

"In the end, which will never come, we will all be satisifed... we must fight them on forum, we will fight them on reddit..." - Dunravin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the discussion will be transferred from this thread with my answers, so I wil answer here.

The increased compensation has very low effect on trim itself, and I think that all changes in 109K was not about hands free flight at HIGHER speeds. In contrary, the nose-heavy range of trim progressivly decreased as dive speeds increased. By the way I answered it before. Mach induced trim changes were significant for the late models, so special tests were conducted to investigate different trim settings.

 

Different angles, gearing, etc were implemented in DCS 109K according the docs.

The post is not about 109K - it is about how data can be mined from the available docs and not from anecdotal evidencies...

 

The post should be about the 109 K however, because you are tyring to debunk doubts about the elevator on your flightmodel of the DCS 109 K-4. I think you realize that P elev of a G-2 is irrelevant for a K elevator if the gearing has changed. Furthermore when looking at gear reduction the neutral point was changed as well depending on stab angle. It also fundamentally changes elevator response in relation to Mach number.

 

Those highspeed dive tests up to Mach 0.805 you mentioned concluded only that you should not trim more than +1,15° in a highspeed dive because of the need to trim out of the dive. These settings were then recommended to pilots, but have no relevance on the K-4 elevator because they were done on a F model (with G wings respectively). Yes yes, they also changed the grease on the stab gear, limited ailerons and doubled trim tabs in size in that test.

 

I am also pretty sure that the elevator forces are modeled after the G version, with the difference that you correctly recalculated cog to be a higher % MAC for the tailheavier K-4. I have done the same based on a G-6 Ladeplan before and tested after the german FW190 & Bf 109 vs Mach comparison test that you have posted parts of, it was pretty conclusive.

 

The twice in size trim tabs are completely ignored and are set to neutral or rather not implemented at all. On the other hand the trim tabs have significant influence on the rudder/aileron neutral position which we can freely (and thanks for making that possible) adjust in the menu. If they were as unmportant as you want to make us believe, why were they doubled in size?

 

The way I follow your argumentation line is, F and G type docs are applied to a K airframe and you oversaw that the gearing was changed. Yo-Yo this is the best 109 representation there is and probably will be for a long time, but please have a look at this again.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Cougar, CH and Saitek PnP hall sensor kits + shift registers: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=220916

 

Shapeways store for DIY flight simming equipment and repair: https://www.shapeways.com/shops/rel4y-diy-joystick-flight-simming

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thx Yo-Yo for sharing this, much appreciate this give a deep look inside how things are done...


Edited by MAD-MM

Once you have tasted Flight, you will forever walk the Earth with your Eyes turned Skyward.

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

9./JG27

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
The post should be about the 109 K however, because you are tyring to debunk doubts about the elevator on your flightmodel of the DCS 109 K-4. I think you realize that P elev of a G-2 is irrelevant for a K elevator if the gearing has changed. Furthermore when looking at gear reduction the neutral point was changed as well depending on stab angle. It also fundamentally changes elevator response in relation to Mach number.

 

Those highspeed dive tests up to Mach 0.805 you mentioned concluded only that you should not trim more than +1,15° in a highspeed dive because of the need to trim out of the dive. These settings were then recommended to pilots, but have no relevance on the K-4 elevator because they were done on a F model (with G wings respectively). Yes yes, they also changed the grease on the stab gear, limited ailerons and doubled trim tabs in size in that test.

 

I am also pretty sure that the elevator forces are modeled after the G version, with the difference that you correctly recalculated cog to be a higher % MAC for the tailheavier K-4. I have done the same based on a G-6 Ladeplan before and tested after the german FW190 & Bf 109 vs Mach comparison test that you have posted parts of, it was pretty conclusive.

 

The twice in size trim tabs are completely ignored and are set to neutral or rather not implemented at all. On the other hand the trim tabs have significant influence on the rudder/aileron neutral position which we can freely (and thanks for making that possible) adjust in the menu. If they were as unmportant as you want to make us believe, why were they doubled in size?

 

The way I follow your argumentation line is, F and G type docs are applied to a K airframe and you oversaw that the gearing was changed. Yo-Yo this is the best 109 representation there is and probably will be for a long time, but please have a look at this again.

 

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.

 

Trim tabs was not inteneded for significant changes of prescribed trim, elevator tabs served only for small corrections. Just again - very different aircraft from factory (German report) and NII VVS have very similar trim requiring significant forward pressure at forward CoG and high speed.

The main work for yaw trim does the unsymmetric fin airfoil, aileron correction is very small - what "significant effect" do you mean?

If you take a look not at the controls limits itself but to the tolerences of this angles you can see what is the main purpose of the elevator tabs...

 

Then,do you have documents with evidencies that "significant changes vs Mach" was achieved?

 

Anyway, regarding the hinge moments/stick forces, the minor or even not minor changes levels with a choice of pilot limited forces... it has wide free play.


Edited by Yo-Yo

Ніщо так сильно не ранить мозок, як уламки скла від розбитих рожевих окулярів

There is nothing so hurtful for the brain as splinters of broken rose-coloured spectacles.

Ничто так сильно не ранит мозг, как осколки стекла от разбитых розовых очков (С) Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question about the red, Eng caption on the first graph of the first picture. Shouldn't it say "PUSH" for the whole range of IAS instead of "PULL" as it is now? All the lines are on the push side of the force axis If I undesrtand them correctly, are they not?

i7 9700K @ stock speed, single GTX1070, 32 gigs of RAM, TH Warthog, MFG Crosswind, Win10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
Question about the red, Eng caption on the first graph of the first picture. Shouldn't it say "PUSH" for the whole range of IAS instead of "PULL" as it is now? All the lines are on the push side of the force axis If I undesrtand them correctly, are they not?

 

Oh yes, sorry, my fault. Red caption obviously must be PUSHED :) I have to say, that at least one man have read all graphs carefully before starting arguing... :)

Will fix on Monday.

  • Like 1

Ніщо так сильно не ранить мозок, як уламки скла від розбитих рожевих окулярів

There is nothing so hurtful for the brain as splinters of broken rose-coloured spectacles.

Ничто так сильно не ранит мозг, как осколки стекла от разбитых розовых очков (С) Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all thanks Yo-Yo for your explanations about the trim, stick forces, etc. The flight modeling of old warbirds when there is not much information about must be a considerable effort and any access to data is a treasure. I bought the module a year ago but I didn't started with the Bf 109 in DCS until a few weeks ago, when I also bought the Normandy 1944 Map + WWII Assets Pack.

 

Every time you add or take down power, different airspeeds, altitudes, center of gravity change, etc, the flight dynamics change and you need to change the trim to get level flight. Each aircraft is different, some require a lot of trimming, some very little. Usually it depends on the horsepower and design of the bird, based on what it is made for. The horizontal stabilizer prevents up-and-down, or pitching motion of the aircraft nose to get more stable flight.

 

What I cannot understand, it even shocks me, is why an aircraft design with a variable incidence tailplane (horizontal stabilizer) is limited to use only a small portion of it's trim travel band. Mostly any other setting than +1.5= "FULL AIRCRAFT NOSE DOWN" in the trim scale causes a high nose up condition at all speeds. Even at 200 Km/h, the 0 trim setting it's a very high nose up trim input. Thus most of the tailplane trim settings, from 0.5 to -6, are simply not usuable to get a stable flight at any range of speeds, power setting, etc. That's roughly the 80 percent of the variable incidence tailplane trim travel band not usuable to achieve a stable flight. This is how the Bf109-K4 behaves in DCS.

 

When you spawn in the air the trim scale setting is 0 and the IAS 500Km/h, 1.4 ATA. 100Km/h are lost in just a few seconds if you don't correct inmediatly the trim to 1.5 "full aircraft nose down", that's extremely tail heavy. I really don't like that loss of speed when I launch a dogfight against Spits or P51s. Even for take off I set the tailplane trim to 1.5 full nose down to avoid stall conditions just after lift off.

 

Even more, according the graphs, "how in the hell to gain a sustained climb at Stab incidence=0 (0 setting in tailplane trim band), even at a relative low speed 200 Km/h and 2600 rpm-1.3 ATA, you have to push on the stick!".

 

May be it's exactly the opposite and your red caption statement on the graph "At the whole range of IAS, for stab angle 0...+1.5 the stick must be PULLED more or less" it's really the correct one?. Yes, PULL to obtain a sustained climb at a certain angle with increasing forces as the IAS increases with stab trim settings from 0 to +1.5 aircraft nose down, that's the logical answer. Could it be an error in the graph or missinterpreation of terms used?

 

Or, is the graph really describing forces on the stick to achieve a dive?. That's more correlated to the data shown:

 

First table:

Stab incidence = 0 - Increasing stick forces in the PUSH direction are needed as the IAS increases to achieve a certain dive angle, 23,7 degrees.

Stab incidence = +1.5 (Aircraft Nose Down) - As the plane is trimmed nose down, less PUSH forces are needed on the stick for greater dive angles. A greater push force to achieve a 29,0 degrees angle than 26.0 degrees as the airspeed increases (Km/h).

 

Second table (gliding at idle) shows the same trends in forces.

 

DCS Normandy is really a great step forward from ED for us, the WWII old bird jockeys. Since I started flying the Bf109 in DCS I was very surprised by it's behavior in flight, the stabilizer trim seems simply wrong. I expect the current flight model to be corrected in some way to be a competitive aircraft in the WWII arena.

 

Thanks,

Mezzer

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
First of all thanks Yo-Yo for your explanations about the trim, stick forces, etc. The flight modeling of old warbirds when there is not much information about must be a considerable effort and any access to data is a treasure. I bought the module a year ago but I didn't started with the Bf 109 in DCS until a few weeks ago, when I also bought the Normandy 1944 Map + WWII Assets Pack.

 

Every time you add or take down power, different airspeeds, altitudes, center of gravity change, etc, the flight dynamics change and you need to change the trim to get level flight. Each aircraft is different, some require a lot of trimming, some very little. Usually it depends on the horsepower and design of the bird, based on what it is made for. The horizontal stabilizer prevents up-and-down, or pitching motion of the aircraft nose to get more stable flight.

 

What I cannot understand, it even shocks me, is why an aircraft design with a variable incidence tailplane (horizontal stabilizer) is limited to use only a small portion of it's trim travel band. Mostly any other setting than +1.5= "FULL AIRCRAFT NOSE DOWN" in the trim scale causes a high nose up condition at all speeds. Even at 200 Km/h, the 0 trim setting it's a very high nose up trim input. Thus most of the tailplane trim settings, from 0.5 to -6, are simply not usuable to get a stable flight at any range of speeds, power setting, etc. That's roughly the 80 percent of the variable incidence tailplane trim travel band not usuable to achieve a stable flight. This is how the Bf109-K4 behaves in DCS.

 

When you spawn in the air the trim scale setting is 0 and the IAS 500Km/h, 1.4 ATA. 100Km/h are lost in just a few seconds if you don't correct inmediatly the trim to 1.5 "full aircraft nose down", that's extremely tail heavy. I really don't like that loss of speed when I launch a dogfight against Spits or P51s. Even for take off I set the tailplane trim to 1.5 full nose down to avoid stall conditions just after lift off.

 

Even more, according the graphs, "how in the hell to gain a sustained climb at Stab incidence=0 (0 setting in tailplane trim band), even at a relative low speed 200 Km/h and 2600 rpm-1.3 ATA, you have to push on the stick!".

 

May be it's exactly the opposite and your red caption statement on the graph "At the whole range of IAS, for stab angle 0...+1.5 the stick must be PULLED more or less" it's really the correct one?. Yes, PULL to obtain a sustained climb at a certain angle with increasing forces as the IAS increases with stab trim settings from 0 to +1.5 aircraft nose down, that's the logical answer. Could it be an error in the graph or missinterpreation of terms used?

 

Or, is the graph really describing forces on the stick to achieve a dive?. That's more correlated to the data shown:

 

First table:

Stab incidence = 0 - Increasing stick forces in the PUSH direction are needed as the IAS increases to achieve a certain dive angle, 23,7 degrees.

Stab incidence = +1.5 (Aircraft Nose Down) - As the plane is trimmed nose down, less PUSH forces are needed on the stick for greater dive angles. A greater push force to achieve a 29,0 degrees angle than 26.0 degrees as the airspeed increases (Km/h).

 

Second table (gliding at idle) shows the same trends in forces.

 

DCS Normandy is really a great step forward from ED for us, the WWII old bird jockeys. Since I started flying the Bf109 in DCS I was very surprised by it's behavior in flight, the stabilizer trim seems simply wrong. I expect the current flight model to be corrected in some way to be a competitive aircraft in the WWII arena.

 

Thanks,

Mezzer

 

Welcome to the real world... I only can guess about the reasons why - 6 degrees was chosen. Flaps down, idle, forward limit of COG, etc. And only one thing I can say "You have to PUSH" And this is really right caption. :)

These graphs really shows the directly measured stick forces. I think that main idea was to have the plane trimmed at cruise flight for long time flight and have enough pull authority in combat dives.

I have to say that you misunderstood the %% values. They are CoG position markers in MAC %% the certain point of graph is obtained because they have no "constant fuel mass" feature sim can provide.

Ніщо так сильно не ранить мозок, як уламки скла від розбитих рожевих окулярів

There is nothing so hurtful for the brain as splinters of broken rose-coloured spectacles.

Ничто так сильно не ранит мозг, как осколки стекла от разбитых розовых очков (С) Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the real world... I only can guess about the reasons why - 6 degrees was chosen. Flaps down, idle, forward limit of COG, etc. And only one thing I can say "You have to PUSH" And this is really right caption. :)

These graphs really shows the directly measured stick forces. I think that main idea was to have the plane trimmed at cruise flight for long time flight and have enough pull authority in combat dives.

I have to say that you misunderstood the %% values. They are CoG position markers in MAC %% the certain point of graph is obtained because they have no "constant fuel mass" feature sim can provide.

 

Thanks for the clarification. Pls, forgive and forget my missunderstanding regarding the CoG markers, yep my fault, but my reasoning behind the stick forces is consistent. Regarding the climb and gliding graphs I don't see why greater stick forces in the push direction are needed when the Stab incidence is 0 than when aircraft is trimmed nose down +1.5.

 

Lowering the flaps makes causes a marked nose down pitching moment in the Bf 109, probably that's one of the reasons for the ample tailplane trim travel band and that's why the flap actuating wheel and the tailplane handwheel are mounted concentrically, winding both wheels together the pilot automatically compensates for the change of trim due to flaps. Lowering the flaps in the K4 doesn't seem to create any apreciable nose down pitching moment.

 

Flight modeling with not much data available must be a complicated exercise of calculation and guessing. Don`t get me wrong, but I don't see the point in having the FM with such tail heavy condition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Some of us are still not convinced by your arguments, as there are too many extrapolations in your judgement that definitely bring errors in calculating the trim and stick forces for the K-4.

We, the virtual pilots, only have to press buttons to change the trim. Now, think about the real pilots who had to rotate the trimming wheel AND the flaps wheel together with the stick and throttle and they only had two hands. Something is not right here.. Food for thought..

Specs:

Asus Z97 PRO Gamer, i7 4790K@4.6GHz, 4x8GB Kingston @2400MHz 11-13-14-32, Titan X, Creative X-Fi, 128+2x250GB SSDs, VPC T50 Throttle + G940, MFG Crosswinds, TrackIR 5 w/ pro clip, JetSeat, Win10 Pro 64-bit, Oculus Rift, 27"@1920x1080

 

Settings:

2.1.x - Textures:High Terrain:High Civ.Traffic:Off Water:High VisRan:Low Heatblur:High Shadows:High Res:1920x1080 RoC:1024 MSAA:4x AF:16x HDR:OFF DefS: ON GCI: ON DoF:Off Lens: OFF C/G:390m Trees:1500m R:max Gamma: 1.5

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of us are still not convinced by your arguments, as there are too many extrapolations in your judgement that definitely bring errors in calculating the trim and stick forces for the K-4.

We, the virtual pilots, only have to press buttons to change the trim. Now, think about the real pilots who had to rotate the trimming wheel AND the flaps wheel together with the stick and throttle and they only had two hands. Something is not right here.. Food for thought..

 

I think you just hit on why the flaps and trim wheels are next to each other, and accounts of 109 pilots mention rotating them both together with one hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The DCS developers aren't saying, just by saying many times, they're right in the way the pitch characteristics are modelled, they are presenting factual proof - charts !

 

If we look at those charts ( and I confess I was once one of those convinced there was something wrong ... ) we can't but understand and accept that what DCS is modelling is pretty much accurate and agrees with RW data.

 

Don't forget that the forces used to push the stick at speeds bellow 500 km/h indicated aren't significant. It's certainly very light.

 

Then, no other model of the 109 that I was able to use in any simulation including this aircraft is capable of modelling other details like tail surface authority, prop effects on ground at taxi speeds and power settings, etc... They either present excessive torque effects, or hysteric behaviour like some models I used in MSFS and X-Plane...

 

I believe no one here has ever piloted a real Bf 109. The closest I could once get to that was through the kind answers Klaus Plaza cared to write me in a few exchanged messages. It was very clear to me from his words that indeed full fwd trim is used for takeoff, and this all bearing in mind that the modern 109s do not fly with their CoG displaced further aft due to the use of the MW tank.


Edited by jcomm

Flight Simulation is the Virtual Materialization of a Dream...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the real world... I only can guess about the reasons why - 6 degrees was chosen. Flaps down, idle, forward limit of COG, etc. And only one thing I can say "You have to PUSH" And this is really right caption. :)

These graphs really shows the directly measured stick forces. I think that main idea was to have the plane trimmed at cruise flight for long time flight and have enough pull authority in combat dives.

I have to say that you misunderstood the %% values. They are CoG position markers in MAC %% the certain point of graph is obtained because they have no "constant fuel mass" feature sim can provide.

Indeed, also modern Airbus airliners using variable stabilisers feature a +6º -2º angle of incidence range. I just can't figure out what the engineering reasons behind that are.

 

 

S!

"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

I posted and article recently on "flying the Emil", well it's not like E and K4 are similar in performance but they are in features. Setting aside the good article, it enclosed some terrific pics of the two airworthy Emils in the World. Look at the stabiliser root, look where trim mark is, and think this guy is just mildly cruising for the pics a light weighted restored aircraft and not a war machine…

 

109E04.17.jpg

 

Source:

http://vintageaviationecho.com/bf109e/

 

S!

"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

I posted and article recently on "flying the Emil", well it's not like E and K4 are similar in performance but they are in features. Setting aside the good article, it enclosed some terrific pics of the two airworthy Emils in the World. Look at the stabiliser root, look where trim mark is, and think this guy is just mildly cruising for the pics a light weighted restored aircraft and not a war machine…

 

 

 

Source:

http://vintageaviationecho.com/bf109e/

 

S!

 

I see the THS set near the +2 mark, hence trimmed full nose down - makes sense :-)

 

And as you have put it, it's pretty much a light aircraft, not a K-4 with a fully loaded MW-50...

 

I think this just proves even more that what we have in DCS is correct, no ?


Edited by jcomm

Flight Simulation is the Virtual Materialization of a Dream...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see the THS set near the +2 mark, hence trimmed full nose down - makes sense :-)

 

And as you have put it, it's pretty much a light aircraft, not a K-4 with a fully loaded MW-50...

 

I think this just proves even more that what we have in DCS is correct, no ?

For me charts (as well as dive test paper) prove that since day 1 we saw them, but seems not everybody think/read the same in the charts… :dunno:

 

 

S!

"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

Let's assume that the charts are 100% accurate.. their implementation though..

 

I've just tested and came with these in-game results:

1. @280km/h IAS it takes 5 seconds to move the stick from neutral to full forward => do you find this correctly implemented?

2. @350km/h IAS it takes 7 seconds to move the stick from neutral to full aft, bear in mind that the airspeed drops to ~200km/h in a horizontal turn => do you find this correctly implemeted?

3. I use a FFB stick (G940 and MSFFB2) and I observe NO change in forces when trimming, none whatsoever => do you find this correctly implemented?

4. When trying to do the Californian Giant Slip the rudder is ineffective.. => do you find this correctly implemented?

(see it all)

(check from min 6:35)

5. When looking around in the cockpit the pilot is bouncing his head all over the place. => do you find this correctly implemented?

 

I rest my case..

  • Like 1

Specs:

Asus Z97 PRO Gamer, i7 4790K@4.6GHz, 4x8GB Kingston @2400MHz 11-13-14-32, Titan X, Creative X-Fi, 128+2x250GB SSDs, VPC T50 Throttle + G940, MFG Crosswinds, TrackIR 5 w/ pro clip, JetSeat, Win10 Pro 64-bit, Oculus Rift, 27"@1920x1080

 

Settings:

2.1.x - Textures:High Terrain:High Civ.Traffic:Off Water:High VisRan:Low Heatblur:High Shadows:High Res:1920x1080 RoC:1024 MSAA:4x AF:16x HDR:OFF DefS: ON GCI: ON DoF:Off Lens: OFF C/G:390m Trees:1500m R:max Gamma: 1.5

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's assume that the charts are 100% accurate.. their implementation though..

 

I've just tested and came with these in-game results:

1. @280km/h IAS it takes 5 seconds to move the stick from neutral to full forward => do you find this correctly implemented?

2. @350km/h IAS it takes 7 seconds to move the stick from neutral to full aft, bear in mind that the airspeed drops to ~200km/h in a horizontal turn => do you find this correctly implemeted?

3. I use a FFB stick (G940 and MSFFB2) and I observe NO change in forces when trimming, none whatsoever => do you find this correctly implemented?

4. When trying to do the Californian Giant Slip the rudder is ineffective.. => do you find this correctly implemented?

(see it all)

(check from min 6:35)

5. When looking around in the cockpit the pilot is bouncing his head all over the place. => do you find this correctly implemented?

 

I rest my case..

 

Amazing ! Me asks : do you mean the virtual stick in the cockpit, due to the implemented lag ?

About the sideslip, do you mean you can only reach a minimal beta? At what speed are you flying ?

What do you mean reagarding the "pilot head" ? Are you referring to the virtual pilot head ?

 

Thx

Flight Simulation is the Virtual Materialization of a Dream...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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