[CLOSED] K-4 module completely stops rolling at high speeds

[Solty]

VNe is more of a guideline than a hard rule. The Spit was often dived to much faster than its VNe as well.

 

Also the VNe is 750 km/h IAS, whereas that test might have been 800 km/h TAS at an unspecified altitude.

 

Cool, because in DCS at VNe of 505mph the P51 losses all control surfaces.

;)

Also, even if it was dove over the limit, it doesn't mean there was a roll test done over that limit and any data might be just extrapolated.:detective:

Edited December 12, 2016 by Solty

[rel4y]

That doest mean it is easily and quickly achievable and especially during prollonged dogfights. Also show me a test at 800kph if the max safe speed for the 109 was 750kph

 

Are you kidding me? You even commented on the thread with the test... :huh:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=170388

 

Here you go, almost 900 kph TAS at 3.x k m. Read the finnish pilot reports, for the P-51 you always quote them. They dove above 850 kph indicated to the deck and lived to tell the tale..

 

Cool, because in DCS at VNe of 505mph the P51 losses all control surfaces.

 

Also, even if it was dove over the limit, it doesn't mean there was a roll test done over that limit and any data might be just extrapolated.

 

Cool story. Altitude, TAS or IAS, ambient temperature?

 

Have you ever seen the 109 roll test? Then you wouldnt ask the question..

Edited December 12, 2016 by rel4y

[Solty]

Can you stop being snarky? I saw data that kurfurst has shown in some thread where the document has indicated that the data over certain speeds was extrapolated mathematically. I cannot check it right now. I am at work.

[rel4y]

Yeah right.. he only posted 2 graphs. The most important graph is the following and you have obviously never read the report..

 

For your convenience gemessen = measured.

 

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

I believe it's pretty much like that in as far as aileron goes, but we can still use rudder well above 750 kph IAS, and the elevator is also effective at higher speeds without the need for stabilator, unless you're really close to the ground...

 

 

really? what 109 are you flying? if you can deflect any control surfaces to max deflection at an indicated airspeed of 300kph, then i would be impressed...i dont manage.

[Solty]

Yeah right.. he only posted 2 graphs. The most important graph is the following and you have obviously never read the report..

 

For your convenience gemessen = measured.

 

 

Exactly what I said above 750kph the line changes to dotted one and the description says its extrapoliert. That means extrapolated. So they never got to 800kph and 30kg.

[rel4y]

I give up

[Kurfürst]

That doest mean it is easily and quickly achievable and especially during prollonged dogfights. Also show me a test at 800kph if the max safe speed for the 109 was 750kph

 

Dive limit for the Bf 109K (and all 109G with the enlarged rudder) was increased to 850 km/h.

 

The dive tested Bf 109F/G hybrid (with early tall tail was dived to 906 km/h.

 

See 109K operating manual

 

Normal speed gauge (IAS)

 

 

 

Dive limits for altitude compensating speed gauge (same as in Me 262)

 

Edited December 12, 2016 by Kurfürst

[Solty]

The kurfurst, that makes sense, but still, we do not have measured roll test at speed above 850kph. But I would say it is safe to assume that roll otherwise would be similar to older G types.

[rel4y]

Who ever said it was measured at 850 kph?

 

First you said above 700 kph ailerons can not be moved.

 

While at 700kph the force needed would be too much for an average man to move the ailerons

So I showed you test results that it could indeed.

 

Then you said the 109 cockpit disallows this movement as the pilot couldnt put the same amount of force onto the stick as a spit.

 

Yes, but the stick length, available room and sitting position differ, which make for different results.

So I showed you that the pilot in the test put above 30 kg of force onto that stick.

 

Then you said the 109 couldnt do above 750 kph anyway.

 

Also show me a test at 800kph if the max safe speed for the 109 was 750kph

So we showed you several tests of 109s exceeding this speed by far and going to critical Mach at about 0.8.

 

Then you said all test over 750 kph were extrapolated.

 

Also, even if it was dove over the limit, it doesn't mean there was a roll test done over that limit and any data might be just extrapolated

So I pointed you to that even in this test the measured at above 750 kph which according to you the "109 couldnt do anyway".

 

Then you suddenly say "ahhh they never reached 850 kph, told you!" Wait why? Who ever said that?

 

Ok final question: If the pilot can pull above 30 kg stick force, the aileron deflection is limited at high speeds by pilot strength and critical Mach number is ~ 0.8, then what would the polar look like below critical Mach and why is it a completely valid approach?

 

Just FYI the allies did it in the same way. ;)

Edited December 12, 2016 by rel4y

[DB 605]

I give up

 

I think is just best to ignore that guy. He doesen't even own the 109 module.

[Krupi]

I think is just best to ignore that guy. He doesen't even own the 109 module.

 

+1

 

For someone that doesn't own the 109 he sure spends a lot of time talking about, perhaps he is in denial and actually has fallen for the charms of the 109 (like so many before him) but is unwilling to admit his naughty secret. :smartass:

 

Salty it is okay to like the 109, your ancestors won't be offended :music_whistling:

[Solty]

+1

 

For someone that doesn't own the 109 he sure spends a lot of time talking about, perhaps he is in denial and actually has fallen for the charms of the 109 (like so many before him) but is unwilling to admit his naughty secret. :smartass:

 

Salty it is okay to like the 109, your ancestors won't be offended :music_whistling:

LOL. One doesn't have own a plane to read about it:smartass: BTW you talk a lot about the Spitfire and do not even have it? Is that some indication?

 

109 was one of my primary planes of choice when I was a teen. Flying in good old IL2 46 where the 109 was one of the best airplanes. Especially the 109G2 and F4.

 

One of the two main types of airplanes that I "flew" at that time. 109 and the Spitfire. P-51 was my fav looking airplane, but was too hard for me at that time. Later, when I read more about air combat, it became clear to me that P-51D is my all time fav, but without 109 and Spit and later P40, I wouldn't have achieved the P-51 :)

[MiloMorai]

How much aileron deflection with 30kg of force being applied?

[Krupi]

LOL. One doesn't have own a plane to read about it:smartass: BTW you talk a lot about the Spitfire and do not even have it? Is that some indication?

 

109 was one of my primary planes of choice when I was a teen. Flying in good old IL2 46 where the 109 was one of the best airplanes. Especially the 109G2 and F4.

 

One of the two main types of airplanes that I "flew" at that time. 109 and the Spitfire. P-51 was my fav looking airplane, but was too hard for me at that time. Later, when I read more about air combat, it became clear to me that P-51D is my all time fav, but without 109 and Spit and later P40, I wouldn't have achieved the P-51 :)

 

But to make comments on a sim forum on the 109 page I would say they should!

 

Oh it was mine as well at one point, I flew for JG52 in my teens probably the most sod awful wingman to have ever graced the skies in il2... never stuck with the pack always going lone wolf and inevitably hitting the silk more times than hitting an E/A... :doh:

 

It all started off loving the Zero joined a Imperial Japanese Navy squad in fact, then it was the spitfire, followed by the 109 and JG52 for a few years before finally appreciating how to really fly the Fw 190 which has been a favourite ever since :)

 

At some point you realise it is not a particular aircraft you have fallen for but what each represents, now I appreciate all ww2 aircraft including the pros and their cons :pilotfly: apart from the La7 that is an over performing aircraft only flown by n00bs :D ;)

Edited December 12, 2016 by Krupi

[Krupi]

How much aileron deflection with 30kg of force being applied?

 

How long is the piece of string I am holding... on the moon! :smilewink:

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

[rogonaut]

 

now i understand - thats very interesting indeed! hopefully some ed guys have a look. She´d turn like HELL

 

@solty thanks for the funny read haha!

[DefaultFace]

Wow. Those results certainly raise some questions IMO.

 

Regardless of all that stuff above I think the pure force limits aren't the main problem with the stick forces atm. As some people mentioned above at certain speeds two hands on the stick are needed to control the 109, and at higher stick forces it takes considerable time to reach 'max' deflection at this speed. The way this seems to be modeled in DCS is that as soon as the pilot releases the stick he switches back to 1 hand. This means that in any maneuvers with a lot of large stick movements the 109 pilot seems to let go and then realize he needs to pull again and take longer than he theoretically would need to to pull.

 

All of this combines into what often feels like a strange sort of input lag which makes gunnery and flying things like flat scissors close to impossible. It also only gets worse as server performance decreases where you can often feel like you are at 500kph when turning at 300.

 

Just to make things clear here, I'm not saying that high stick forces don't affect time to max deflection, or that the stick forces are wrong, just saying that something in the one handed-two handed switching feels very unnatural.

[Little_D]

Hi gents,

 

wow, what a nice discussion without this bannana forum behavior, as on other flightsim forums +1.

 

Could this also aplay to the 190 witht the snaproll behavior at 400 km/H. I know she was known for this behavior, when you pull to hard she stalls, also i know that it was used by german pilots as an last change manover if they spot a enemy close in there six. Its onle a question as what ever i do, even at high speed she make this snaproll / stall allway around 400 Km/H not at 600 kM/H or more. You can pull here nice and hard at 600 Km/H or more but as soon you reach 400 Km/H she stalls/snaprolls without give here more control imput.

 

regards

 

Little_D

[Solty]

now i understand - that.s very interesting indeed! hopefully some ed guys have a look. She´d turn like HELL

 

@solty thanks for the funny read haha!

 

No she wouldn't turn like hell, she would stall. You don't even understand what is being said.

 

Listen i am not trying to disagree that the low speed stick deflection is right. What i am saying is that the 109 is not an easy airplane to operate at higher speeds but lowered operating speed of the stick movement and lowered max deflection should occur at higher speeds.

 

Again, the data at above 750kph is extrapolated and is only an estimation.

 

And I will not stoop down to your petty insults. One can speak about the 109 without owning it. Its not as if money gives knowledge. I would also like to point out that DavidRed is the first man to reject the control stiffness as a whole when it came out.

[Kurfürst]

Looking at DavidRed's trial (thanks David for such through test!) I think the problem is clearly that our Bf 109 pilot's physical attributes are... well... probably modeled after that of Woody Allen, at least as far as his physical abilities go.

 

This virtual chump cannot deflect to ailerons/stick on the 109 fully until down to about 280 kph indicated at about 2.5-3 km altitude, or about 300-310 km/h TAS. Looking at the Bf 109F roll graph this would tell you he isn't putting more than about 7.5 kg on the stick.

 

The Bf 109F roll graph reposted by Rel4y shows that the 15 degree (i.e. full stick sideways deflection) force limit at 300 km/h TAS is about 7.5 kg sideways force, i.e. at 7.5 kg you can fully deflect the stick on the 109F (K) at 300 km/h TAS at 3 km altitude. And 7.5 kg is a ridiculously low force limit, and for any reasonable physical build it should be roughly double than that with even one hand. Usually I see 25-30 pounds shown in tests, and for example the real pilot in the DVL 109F roll test was recorded in one graph to apply cc. 12 kg on the stick within roughly 0.3 sec.

 

As far as I know, the DCS physical force model works like that even higher force threshold are possible (pilot uses both hands on stick), but the speed of applying deflection will slow down (pilot struggling to apply higher forces).

 

Naturally the amount of force considerably varies from person to person, and the Gov'nor of California would probably tell you jokes while exerting the full 30 kg force with one hand. But any reasonably fit man should be able to do 10-15 kg with one and so IMO our current virtual pilot struggling to go anywhere above 7.5 kg is a sign that he should have been thrown off the Taygetus right after his coding. Well, in any case, he will probably die from over straining himself once the Spit is out, given the forces acting on the aileron there, the 109 is like lifting a feather compared to that..

 

 

Probably the same goes to elevator forces. The virtual pilot is probably just too week.

[Krupi]

Lol Kurfürst

 

I am afraid you are yet again incorrect, with the addition of the metal ailerons the force required to deflect the Spitfire ailerons was significantly improved. The 109 was known to suffer from heavy controls past a certain speed and the ailerons could only be deflected so much.

 

The 190 on the other hand was known to have very good aileron deflection at high speed hence it's impressive roll rate, an area in which both the 109 and Spitfire were lacking.

 

I have a document from a pilot where he measured the stick forces, when I get home I will upload it.

[Krupi]

I have attached a sample from it :)

 

Spitfire Mk XVI

 

Bf109G2

 

Apologise for the low quality.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Krupi

[Kurfürst]

You have posted Spitfire and 109 elevator forces.

 

Topic is 109 aileron forces.

 

Stick to it, if you'd please.