Jump to content

109 control limeter is too high on low speed


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, DD_Fenrir said:

the G-6 and 'K-4' are so close in tailplane-wing coupling, wing shape and elevator profile that it is not only logical but necessary at this tage to use some B 109G-6 data in the calculation of the FM.

As far as we konw E.D. team is using data from a Bf-109 G2/R6 with gunpods cannons, nothing to do with a G6 or a K4  because G6/AM and K4 were equipped with a MW-50 tank behind the fuel tank instead of a radio. If they known as much about weight & balance as they show off, they would never have used that soviet G2 elevator force charts, as reference for a K4.
Moreover gunpods are not modelled in DCS:Bf-109K4,.. what will they did if finally model the gunpods?

bf109g2_1.jpg


Edited by IIIJG52_Otto_
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, IIIJG52_Otto_ said:

As far as we konw E.D. team is using data from a Bf-109 G2/R6 with gunpods cannons, nothing to do with a G6 or a K4  because G6/AM and K4 were equipped with a MW-50 tank behind the fuel tank instead of a radio. If they known as much about weight & balance as they show off, they would never have used that soviet G2 elevator force charts, as reference for a K4.

 

Gunpods ys MW50 tank is a weight and stability issue. If the profile and area of the elevator is unchanged, it will still generate the same amount of down force for a given stick deflection at a given speed, and there will be no change to stick forces.

 

True, a rearward shift in CoG will reduce the moment arm of the elevator, reducing effectiveness, but will in no way effect the actual stick forces required to deflect the stick.

 


Edited by DD_Fenrir
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, DD_Fenrir said:

 

True, a rearward shift in CoG will reduce the moment arm of the elevator, reducing effectiveness, but will in no way effect the actual stick forces required to deflect the stick.

 

 

Wouldn't it reduce elevator deflection per G ??

I7 8700k 4.7GHz, MSI Z370 Krait Gaming, Ram 32 GB G.skill, Palit Gamerock OC 3090,Hotas Warthog, T.Flight Rudder Pedals

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2021 at 8:27 AM, DD_Fenrir said:

True, a rearward shift in CoG will reduce the moment arm of the elevator, reducing effectiveness, but will in no way effect the actual stick forces required to deflect the stick

I think you forget that when flying the Bf-109 trimmed for specific CoG, due to weapons and fuel load.
If you move the THS (Trimmable Horizontal Stabilizer) it change the AoA of the whole Horizontal Stabilizer, and this fact change the elevator forces needed in the stick.
As we can see in the E.D. manual of K4, If we have the Bf-109 Trimmed for FULL nose-heavy attitude, we have more elevator angle travel and authority for dive direction, ..and viceversa.
Soo if the travel angles change, the gear ratio change too, and the aerodynamic pressure and the forces of the stick will be different. ..pure physics laws.

image.png

By the way these angles in the GUSTAV, ARE DIFFERENT !! .. soo stick forces of russian captured G-2 model, are not applicable for the K4
image.png
 


Edited by IIIJG52_Otto_
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DD_Fenrir said:

Tell me again how difference in elevator travel changes results in a change in stick forces - really, I'm intrigued as to the physics you use to reach that conclusion.


This is the basic idea, just in case that you missed any physic class in the school.
The basic formula is, Force = Pressure x Surface
As i said previously, K4 and Gustav had different elevator travel angles, and this mean they show different frontal areas against the ram air, when elevator is deflected, moreover if we take in account, that K4 had larger trim tab plates than Gustav series..

image.png

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Which only proves you failed to grasp my point. 

 

At higher air speeds the movement of the elevator is airload limited- whether it moves further or not is irrelevant; whether you ask the elevator to move 1 degree or 15 degrees the same stick force is required.

 

It also shows you fail to understand the function of the mass balance.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, DD_Fenrir said:

higher air speeds the movement of the elevator is airload limited

I´m not here for teach you about aerodynamic balance and force compensation systems, and how the horn balance work.
..But try to apply same think way about "elevator is airload limited" to the Spitfire or P-51D ...and tell me why they have not controls stiffening problems in this game. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, IIIJG52_Otto_ said:

I´m not here for teach you about aerodynamic balance and force compensation systems, and how the horn balance work.

 

Tell me, since you're so sure, what is the difference in area, and horn balance area/mass of the the K-4 vs the G series?

 

 

20 minutes ago, IIIJG52_Otto_ said:

..But try to apply same think way about "elevator is airload limited" to the Spitfire or P-51D

 

And here is where we get to the crux.

 

Spitfire and P-51 elevators having different profile, area, different positioning in airflow relative to wing, differing moment arms on the CoG, differing horn balance sizes etc, etc, etc.

 

 

23 minutes ago, IIIJG52_Otto_ said:

 ...and tell me why they have not controls stiffening problems in this game. 

 

Jesus.

 

BECAUSE HISTORICAL DOCUMENTATION - I.E. E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E - TELLS US SO.

 

IT'S THAT SIMPLE.

 

You want the DCS K-4 to not have the stick forces of a G-2? Then find a stick force chart for a K-4.

 

GET DATA. Your uneducated suppositions are useless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DD_Fenrir said:

You want the DCS K-4 to not have the stick forces of a G-2? Then find a stick force chart for a K-4.

 

E.D. team are applying the stick forces charts in full power climb attitude and gliding at idle, of other different airplane!! .. for modelling the stick forces at CRUISE speed and CRUISE power, in neutral trim (ZERO) position.  I'm trying to explain that it is wrong.
I don´t want explain the same again and again, only you need is to asking you why elevator trim tabs plates of the K4 are "blocked" by Yo-yo.
 

9 minutes ago, DD_Fenrir said:

And here is where we get to the crux.

 

Spitfire and P-51 elevators having different profile, area, different positioning in airflow relative to wing, differing moment arms on the CoG, differing horn balance sizes etc, etc, etc.

This mean that they don't have "elevator is airload limited" as you stated for Bf-109??   ..are you kidding me?
.....and Now surprisingly you have learned the difference between horn balance and mass balance ??  hahahaha 😄
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hinge moment can be calculated using Jan Roskam's method.. It has been used in other sims with great success.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1005/1/012020/pdf

  • 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 post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, amazingme said:

Hinge moment can be calculated using Jan Roskam's method.. It has been used in other sims with great success.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1005/1/012020/pdf

Aerodynamic calculation is a good approximation to real aircraft behaviour, ..and it would be always better than copy/paste data from other different aircraft, in a different flight attitude.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, well, you guys enjoy your little "K-4 elevators were l33tz!!!" circle jerk

 

1 hour ago, Supongo said:

Can you publish those evidences?

 

Thanks

 

Cosmic facepalm. Go find it yourself. Hint: IT'S LIERTALLY IN THESE FORUMS.

 

Christ I understand that pigeon chess analogy all too well now.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fenrir, just save your breath. I've always said to all complainers, Red and Blue alike, the very same thing about evidence needed and it's like talking to a brick wall. So I've just decided to ignore all these idiotic "I-feel" complaints - and ED will no doubt do alike.


Edited by msalama

The DCS Mi-8MTV2. The best aviational BBW experience you could ever dream of.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2021 at 12:53 PM, Supongo said:

Can you publish those evidences?

 

Thanks

Search for P-51 manual, then scroll down to diving/ dive recovery section and read.

KJhe6hZ.png

Interesting , when i dive P-51 in dcs i have to do same thing i need to pull stick in order to maintain dive angle, higher mach more i need to pull.

I think ED have this spot on, at least for P-51.

10 pounds it is still ridiculous light compare to 60-70 pounds in Bf-109 hue hue.


Edited by grafspee

I7 8700k 4.7GHz, MSI Z370 Krait Gaming, Ram 32 GB G.skill, Palit Gamerock OC 3090,Hotas Warthog, T.Flight Rudder Pedals

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...