Jump to content

Tail Heavyness exaggerated


fapador
 Share

Recommended Posts

All answers were given here:

 

 

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

@NineLine I am sorry but now you label my post as correct as is while its not. The g-12 video shows this. I am finding it very hard to believe you, as you just answer with a vague yes answer just to resolve the matter. Well it ain't gonna pass. There is a discrepancy but you just dont want to admit it. You remind me the  Huey left pedal issue I have raised a couple months ago. It has been admitted even by you @Yo-Yo but nothing has still changed or improved.....

Couple of months ago I build my own bf109 k-4 FM in X-planes plane maker from all the data I have collected over the years (correct control sizes throws airfoils Cg etc. as close to the real thing as possible) . I was not surprised it displayed different characteristics from dcs, that in my opinion resembled the real aircraft better. Such a trait is the left pedal need in high speeds which dcs completely lacks...

Its sad... no respect is given in the community inputs...

Its fine if you dont want to change cg but you should still give an option to the user to adjust it in his personal taste as others sims have...

 


Edited by fapador
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@fapador Just for the sidenote record, all warbirds in DCS seem to raise their tails on takeoff very late. Not that it bothers me at all, but keep it in mind - it's more of a general feature of FM in DCS, not strictly a 109-thing.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, fapador said:

Now compare with the DCS k-4...  

Why?

Why would the tail lifting characteristics of an aircraft with a different thrust line, different wing profile, different control surface area, different CoG position and different weight distribution have any bearing on those for the 109?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@DD_FenrirWell its quite similar despite common belief. They have comparable engines and layout. A tandem is also even more tail heavy it should be even worse... see the g-12 video I provided. A 40kmh difference is a big discrepancy Sure the elliptical wing of the spitfire is more efficient and provides more lift but the spit doesnt takeoff with flaps deployed..


Edited by fapador
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DD_Fenrir said:

Besides which the developers have answered.

They have not answered the reason of delayed tail lift. 

and from my experience  I believe their calculations don't result in correct outcome. 


Edited by fapador
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, wooden tail is a long time overruled myth due to a misunderstanding. Fuel tank is beneath the pilot, you seat on top of it, as always was in all 109 variants, it's not K4 special feature. So, your "facts" for this claim seem a bit off at the very least.

On the other hand, I've tested landings with low fuel, the usual at the end of a mission, and CoG isn't that off at all, it's just if you go landing with a still too much filled fuel tank CoG hadn't time to change yet. Warbirds on the contrary usually fly with minimum fuel, those aren't representative of anything at all unless under the very same conditions.

"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

4 hours ago, fapador said:

@DD_Fenrir Instead of trolling I would recommend you look at the video and see for yourself 

 

This is the plane of the modern condition that is way lighter than the WWII plane.  Is it not clear why it rises tail easier?

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

I realize now how rusty I am in the 109, at least in on take offs, but I think even without labeling them, you can guess which one was set more like a civilian load out and which was a military one. Again, excuse the poor take offs, but I think you get the point, and its easy to test yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

SigDCSNew.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, fapador said:

Its sad... no respect is given in the community inputs...

Oh the hypocrisy is strong in this one. 🤣 This has got to be the most cringe thread I have ever read on these forums! 🤣

Give respect, receive respect. Simples.

2 minutes ago, grafspee said:

Those recordings are very choppy on my side.

Fine for me

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Yo-Yo said:

This is the plane of the modern condition that is way lighter than the WWII plane.  Is it not clear why it rises tail easier?

Its an empty airframe but a tandem layout which means more rearheavy. It should respond close to an armed k-4*, as far as tail rise with speed is concerned . At least not have a 40kmh discrepancy. That  surely is not ballpark...

@Bagpipe I speak of experience not from likeness  or to express my support to ED... They already have my money no need to further countenance

@NineLine The videos tell me nothing. Apart a 3 point attitude takeoff  in the first one... No speed information to compare no weight or other configuration data

*Even an armed K-4 without regarding fuel load will rise tail without a large declination as most of the load is further forward than 27%MAC @Yo-Yo With all respect don't rush in conclusions


Edited by fapador
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, fapador said:

Its an empty airframe but a tandem layout which means more rearheavy. It should respond close to an armed k-4*, as far as tail rise with speed is concerned . At least not have a 40kmh discrepancy. That  surely is not ballpark...

 

I will not agree here, even it is 2 seater additional seat and gauges and controls will not be heavier then MW50 tank and accessories, on top of it radio equipment which was very heavy back in ww2 as well as retractable tail wheel instalaton which sits at very end of the tail oh forgot about armor plating as well 🙂

By my feeling this G-12 is less tail heavy by far then combat K-4


Edited by grafspee

Windows 11, I7 12700KF Stock, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, Ram 32 GB G.skill, Palit Gamerock OC 3090, Hotas Warthog, Thrustmaster Pendular Pedals, OLED 48" 120Hz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@grafspee Read below I say without regarding fuel load. 40kmh discrepancy is not within ballpark. I would expect an absolute max of 10kmh. Also the tailheavyness is countered by the armament. K-4 is not more tailheavy as you say but Heavier overall. When compared to that g-12 at least not to a significant margin


Edited by fapador
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cannon and mgs are mounted behind engine they counter tail heaviness no as much. Your conclusion that by removing mw50 tank and radio equipment and armour plates and putting  in that place empty space for 2nd pilot supposed to make plane more tail heavy? That is just weird.

Windows 11, I7 12700KF Stock, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, Ram 32 GB G.skill, Palit Gamerock OC 3090, Hotas Warthog, Thrustmaster Pendular Pedals, OLED 48" 120Hz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, grafspee said:

by removing mw50 tank and radio equipment and armour plates and putting  in that place empty space for 2nd pilot supposed to make plane more tail heavy

Of course I think it is more tail heavy if u remove Mgs and cannon. Mgs weight with ammo are 212 kg Cannon is 98kg and not 90kg as @razo+r said. MW50 tank is 85 litres that is less than 85 kg but lets say 85kg say an other 10kg in radios and another 10kg in armor. Now add pilot seat instrument panel control linkages seatbelts extended canopy... 


Edited by fapador
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, fapador said:

Of course I think it is more tail heavy if u remove Mgs and cannon. Mgs weight with ammo are 212 kg Cannon is 98kg and not 90kg as @razo+r said. MW50 tank is 85 litres that is less than 85 kg but lets say 85kh say an other 10kg in radios and another 10kg in armor. Now add pilot seat instrument panel control linkages seatbelts... 

But check where cannon sits, it is almost at CG of the plane same with mgs most mass is cramped in bolting mechanism with ammo, mw50 tank and radio and armor plate is far from cg it affect it a lot more despite heaving less mass.

It will make plane heavier but it don't affect CG as much as stuff mounted in tail.


Edited by grafspee

Windows 11, I7 12700KF Stock, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, Ram 32 GB G.skill, Palit Gamerock OC 3090, Hotas Warthog, Thrustmaster Pendular Pedals, OLED 48" 120Hz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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