PDA

View Full Version : Ok, so do we FINALLY get corrected elevator for the 109..?



Pages : [1] 2 3

Kurfurst__
01-06-2005, 07:42 AM
British report of 109 E-3 :

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit109turn.gif

As per the graph, at 5Gs 24 secs were required for a 400mph/644kph TAS turn!


British test report of 109F-1/2 in 1941 :

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1104920338_109f_highspeedman.gif

420mph IAS, the tests were done up to 10k feet.
THEY say somewhere between 680-810 kph TAS the plane could turn 'fairly tightly'.

British test report of 109G in 1943 :

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1105021514_109g_turning.jpg

Shows no problem of achieving high Gs, the pilot`s resistance being a factor, not the control heaviness !


German turning diagram showing 5 G turn is possible even at 650kph, 6000m altitude.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1105021432_5026-33_turndiagram.jpg
24 seconds! In AEP, it`s still 33-36 seconds!

Kurfurst__
01-06-2005, 07:42 AM
British report of 109 E-3 :

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit109turn.gif

As per the graph, at 5Gs 24 secs were required for a 400mph/644kph TAS turn!


British test report of 109F-1/2 in 1941 :

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1104920338_109f_highspeedman.gif

420mph IAS, the tests were done up to 10k feet.
THEY say somewhere between 680-810 kph TAS the plane could turn 'fairly tightly'.

British test report of 109G in 1943 :

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1105021514_109g_turning.jpg

Shows no problem of achieving high Gs, the pilot`s resistance being a factor, not the control heaviness !


German turning diagram showing 5 G turn is possible even at 650kph, 6000m altitude.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1105021432_5026-33_turndiagram.jpg
24 seconds! In AEP, it`s still 33-36 seconds!

Vipez-
01-06-2005, 08:57 AM
yup, i hope it gets fixxed.. crappy elevators completely forced me to abandon my favourite plane in favour of fw190, due to crappy elevator, and lack of effective b&z response.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

JG52_Meyer
01-06-2005, 09:28 AM
The problem is due of the saitek drivers... be sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

KGr.HH-Sunburst
01-06-2005, 09:37 AM
although i dont fly the 109 that much anymore i do agree especially on the K4 wich is the worst

for now just keep it trimmed nose up

Hetzer_II
01-06-2005, 10:22 AM
Ohh ohh, Kurfurst you can realy be lucky that copper-clown is banned for a while.

;-)

But yes, im for it

Enofinu
01-06-2005, 11:39 AM
Looks good http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif hope that i can ride with my old love again http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
01-06-2005, 11:56 AM
kurfy, could u pm me some k4 climb data? time to height would be handy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

i say pm, cos otherwise itll vere offtopic rather quickly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Sig.Hirsch
01-06-2005, 11:56 AM
Excellent post Kurfurst , elevator response is severely porked in the Bf 109 K4 of about 9-10 seconds wich is enormous indeed (33 instead of 24 sec ) especially for a high alt fighter .

i hope you emailed Oleg with all the documents to fix this bug , as the "joystick drivers " argument is not correct ( MFF2 , wingman is same etc..) , and that he will have time to fix it in order to get this sim more realistic .
It's probably the last Great bug in FM addressing in this superb simulator .

butch2k
01-06-2005, 12:11 PM
AFAIK he already has them since a long time as i sent them maybe something like a year ago.

WWMaxGunz
01-06-2005, 12:24 PM
You see those nice curves on the top diagram, the ones labelled Angle of Straight Climb?
Those are the sustained turns right there. You happen to see the 109 Straight Climb
curve reach any 400 mph? NO. That 109 cannot sustain a flat turn at any such speed.
Now in a diving spiral, I could agree. And as for that hand drawn CIRCLE... tell me where
the data came from besides someone calculating it?

Oh yeah, like we don't have 109 turn-fighters already to go with the P-51 super elevator
marks and I dunno what-all. At least the F4U's are getting dragged a bit down closer to
reality so now it's time for the 109 to make an asscape (spelled wrong on purpose) into
fantasy land.

JG5_UnKle
01-06-2005, 12:27 PM
I still think it is some wierd TAS/IAS mix up http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif especially the high-alt effectiveness.

Well, lack of it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kwiatos
01-06-2005, 12:34 PM
Dont forgot about elevator effectivity at high speed of Mig3 which has even worse elevator than BF 109 in FB/PF. Mig3 was known at good high speed handling better than bf 109. I hope Oleg M. if fix bf109 elevator make the same with Mig3.

WWMaxGunz
01-06-2005, 01:03 PM
Yes, a lot of things to tone down if possible without making more problems that fixing.

Von_Rat
01-06-2005, 02:56 PM
i have ch setup and k4s elevator is porked for me to.

WUAF_Badsight
01-06-2005, 03:03 PM
please confirm . . . . was the 24 second turn @ 6K a level turn ?

Oleg has replied about his & a member of the JG11 squad backed him up (think he was abeta tester) saying he could get the K4 to turn at6K in 24 seconds

but he went nose down with max trim in order to achieve this

WUAF_Badsight
01-06-2005, 03:05 PM
i ask because oleg believes that a 24 second turn @ 6K is possible in the K4

best i can get it down to is 30-ish seconds

HayateAce
01-06-2005, 03:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
You see those nice curves on the top diagram, the ones labelled Angle of Straight Climb?
Those are the sustained turns right there. You happen to see the 109 Straight Climb
curve reach any 400 mph? NO. That 109 cannot sustain a flat turn at any such speed.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

WWMaxGunz
01-06-2005, 03:14 PM
Only a sustainable turn will be circular and AFAIK these WWII fighters might have been
able to sustain 3G's flat turning, maybe, and that's the ballpark. If there is exceptions,
I expect any will be posted shortly and maybe even something real. In a dive there is as
much energy available as you have altitude.
Also since the actual path of a diving turn is longer for 360 degrees heading change it's
not quite the same dynamics as a flat turn.
Anything like this that I know, Oleg knew even much better way before.

JG52_Meyer
01-06-2005, 04:14 PM
MaxGunz, NO ONE said anything about sustained turns.. so I don't know why are you saying all this.

The K-4 did in that test a turn at constant altitude (6000m), entering at 650km/h and complete the 360º turn in 24secs.

That's IMPOSSIBLE to repeat in the game. Period.

crazyivan1970
01-06-2005, 04:15 PM
Please keep the images resonable.

Thanks

p1ngu666
01-06-2005, 04:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Please keep the images resonable.

Thanks <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

no goatse then? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

crazyivan1970
01-06-2005, 04:25 PM
Wha? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
01-06-2005, 04:33 PM
i suggest u google for goatse http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JG5_UnKle
01-06-2005, 04:42 PM
Level turn starting at 650Kph @ 6000M.

Not sustained - just maintained altitude.

The best I get is 33 seconds, starting the timing when I'm at about 80degrees bank and turning already - not counting the roll and pull as part of it.

Cougar here, the Saitek driver thing is pure BS. I used to have an X-45 before and it was the same.

JG5_UnKle
01-06-2005, 05:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
i suggest u google for goatse http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And that is just wrong... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif even by internet folklore standards..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

WWMaxGunz
01-06-2005, 06:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG52_Meyer:
MaxGunz, NO ONE said anything about sustained turns.. so I don't know why are you saying all this.

The K-4 did in that test a turn at constant altitude (6000m), entering at 650km/h and complete the 360º turn in 24secs.

That's IMPOSSIBLE to repeat in the game. Period. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see a drawing of the supposed turn and it is a circle. If going through such a turn
and losing speed but maintaining G's, the path would be far from a circle.

I also understand that in the sim we are limited to 50 lbs stick force which IRL was
not always the case. We can overcome the force limit through trim in the sim. How
close while using trim can this be done? We don't have a use both arms on the stick
mode in the sim.

What would it mean if trim was not needed to do that or get close in the sim?
Simply throw the FM away, I think you would be told.

meh_cd
01-06-2005, 06:59 PM
Goatse is my homepage. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

carguy_
01-06-2005, 07:21 PM
109 has been kicked in the bottom twice this patch.

Elevator authority messes up B&Z big time and makes the P51 almost untouchable for Me109.

Yaks can now hold their high speed up to 680kph much longer.I have handed my bottom to me on a platter by yaks 4 times in a row because everytime I was in trouble I ran like always and it always worked but since 3.03 Yaks not only can stay with me,they can catch up aswell.

LW is dead meat since `43 all over to the end now.

p1ngu666
01-06-2005, 08:22 PM
i find the opposite http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

109 seems better than ever to me

KGr.HH-Sunburst
01-06-2005, 09:00 PM
bleh 109s are more annoying then ever now especially the G6A/S with mk108s ,makes me such a loner while flying the Dora

dare i say it ,the G6A/S with mk108 is a noob plane http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

dont be angry at me im still die hard LW http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

p1ngu666
01-06-2005, 09:37 PM
so whats bigger, 109 turning circle or goatse http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

LEXX_Luthor
01-06-2005, 10:01 PM
Kwiatos:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Dont forgot about elevator effectivity at high speed of Mig3 which has even worse elevator than BF 109 in FB/PF. Mig3 was known at good high speed handling better than bf 109. I hope Oleg M. if fix bf109 elevator make the same with Mig3. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Forgotten. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

It may be correct I don't know, but it seems to have similar type of high speed elevator stiffness as Bf~109.

The sad thing is exploring "issues" in more than just one plane would lead to a solution if there is a problem.

WOLFMondo
01-07-2005, 01:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
i suggest u google for goatse http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sicko!

clint-ruin
01-07-2005, 01:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
i suggest u google for goatse http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sicko! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You think that's bad - PF ships with selectable US noseart going by the name of "tubgirl".

BBB_Hyperion
01-07-2005, 03:30 AM
A side questions which test allows us to say if ias or tas is used for rudder forces ?

MEGILE
01-07-2005, 04:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> suggest u google for goatse <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My eyes, my eyes!!!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Elevator authority messes up B&Z big time and makes the P51 almost untouchable for Me109.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> LW is dead meat since `43 all over to the end now. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Vipez-
01-07-2005, 05:00 AM
Well, can you prove, that Mig-3 had good elevator authority ? Afaik, it was a plane full of quality problems, with many manufacturer problems. Many mig pilots were lost for attempting to do highspeed passes, when planes was suddenly falling apart.

It had good potential in 1941, but quality problems was it's downfall..

WWMaxGunz
01-07-2005, 05:15 AM
IL2 series never put in manufacture problems that were solved later.
That's one trouble with reputations accounts is you find words for one part of the
war, they don't tell you the later on or even the whole story. Something that did
happen less than 1 of 50 or even 500 sorties becomes a big chance without really
saying so just by words quoted.
Problems with many planes and many countries got fixed or the planes taken out.
Some day maybe a sim where the missions can load planes with specified damage or
problems to create conditions of the history or fully dynamic campaign, but not
this sim.

BelaLvgosi
01-07-2005, 06:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
You think that's bad - PF ships with selectable US noseart going by the name of "tubgirl". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pfffeww, I'm glad I wasn't the only one to notice!

Holtzauge
01-07-2005, 08:38 AM
I think the Me 109 elevator control issue is another symptom of weakness in the high alt FM in this SIM.

For a 109, I think the critical Mach number should be in the order of 0.7 to 0.8 or higher(ref Hoerner Fluid Dynamic Drag) which at 6000m translates to around 780 to 910 km/h TAS so I think we can leave compressibility effects aside since the we are talking about only 640 km/h TAS.

Discounting compressibility effects, the stick forces you should experience in a plane are proportional to the dynamic pressure (q=1/2 x air density x speed**2).

I did a 109 K4 test at s/l and tried at turn at 470 km/h IAS and had no trouble with the stick forces and could execute as tight a turn as I wanted.

At 6000m 640 km/h TAS (which is in the same ballpark as the K4 turn chart posted above shows for a 360 degree turn) equates to around 470 km/h IAS. Now when one tries the same at 6000m at 470 km/h IAS (keeping q constant) the SIM shows it's weakness and the going is way to slow. Mayby the SIM uses TAS instead of IAS as input to model control authority? Whatever it is it's way off the mark.

So it seems that the stick force problem is accentuated at high alt. This is strange, since by all accounts this was where the 109 was most pleasing to fly and where it excelled in reality.

Incidentally, I tried the P-47 which also by all accounts was at it's best at high alt and I must say that here again it seems that control authority is undermodelled.

I wonder why the developers put this strange effect into the SIM? And what was the rationale for including the effects on some a/c and not others?

Instead, at high alt, the problem should be that you have to treat your elevator with the utmost care with small inputs and refrain from pulling to hard in order not to stall out. The stick forces should be light.

At high alt, flying should be more like trying to control a glob of butter in a hot frying pan, small delicate control inputs instead of what we experience today in PF: Joystick in the belly type of flying which is totally off IMHO.

Ugly_Kid
01-07-2005, 09:00 AM
The heaviness comes from the Mach number eventually.

p1ngu666
01-07-2005, 10:08 AM
id agree with the tas stuff
a while ago i ran some coops, i played both p38 and 109 (on seporate occasions) 109 is like locked up due to high tas, while p38 is ok cos of low ias.

this was a few patches ago tho

p1ngu666
01-07-2005, 10:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> suggest u google for goatse <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My eyes, my eyes!!!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

geetarman
01-07-2005, 10:11 AM
Fine - give them their better turning K at 25000' Just get rid of the earlier 109's ridiculous turn ability and cement block deceleration.

Holtzauge
01-07-2005, 10:35 AM
Geez, I'm not talking about the 109 only. I'm saying that all a/c that show this strange behaviour (loss of elevator control authority at moderte IAS) should be fixed. It just seems that some people familiar with how the 109 behaves in the SIM have noticed this shortcoming and brought it up. I do not see any bias in this. Seems to be a legitimate question to me.

What needs to be fixed seems to be the high alt FM.

By the way, if you have a grievance with the 109 turn rate and deceleration and can show some RL data or reasoning to indicating this I would support your case to get this fixed.

You have something to support this claim?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by geetarman:
Fine - give them their better turning K at 25000' Just get rid of the earlier 109's ridiculous turn ability and cement block deceleration. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

geetarman
01-07-2005, 12:24 PM
Don't worry it was all tongue and cheek. I can still shoot them down, even if they get constantly improved patch after patch, particularly at low alt.

Adjust them or don't adjust them - it makes no difference to me. I fly a P-38 and if anyone should be complaining... never mind

JG5_UnKle
01-07-2005, 01:16 PM
Yep IAS/TAS mixup or limitation, whatever you want to call it. I've been banging on this one for months....

Well, from page one of this thread at least http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif This issue seems to affect many aircraft. But some aircraft are affected much more than others.

Kurfurst__
01-08-2005, 05:56 AM
Here`s another curve, showing the dive recovery of a Bf 109F-2 at very high airspeeds (800-900kph TAS) :

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1105186613_109f_pullout.jpg

The problem comes from that we simply cannot pull enough Gs with the elevator. IF we could pull 5Gs, then we could do 24 secs turns, no problem, the FM is the same for all planes, same G pulled results in the same turn time (turning circle will be different due to stall speeds). BUT we cannot pull those 5Gs at all! This is evident from the fact you CANNOT blackout in the 109 at high speeds - right now we can pull only about 3Gs.


So let us agree in that the problem is we cannot pull enough Gs.

This could be due :

a, "Saitek Driver problems", Oleg says this, but it`s false, EVERYBODY with any kind of joystick has the problem.
b, The elevator authority (elevator effectiveness, Gs produced per elevator deflection) is too low for the 109
c, Too high stickforces per G on the 109.

B and/or C seems to be the problem that needs to be solved. Pulling more Gs on the 109 should be possible at higher speeds. It is perhaps possible that the game models the increase of stickforces w. speed as linear, or if non-linerar, but with too high steepness.

It cannot be, as some would suggest, that to produce this, trimming of the aircraft was neccesary IRL due to stick forces. In Reference 2 (British test report of 109F-1/2 in 1941) it is stated that the aircraft was trimmed for low speeds (level flights), yet at very high speed (680 kph IAS = 680-880kph TAS) the aircraft could turn FAIRLY TIGHTLY. That are not the words you would use to desribe how the 109 turns above ca450 in-game..

Neither cannot be the decrease of elevator effectiveness at high speed, for if that was the case, NONE of these flight tests could ever produce a fairly tight turn with any 109, regardless of the force the pilot exerted on the stick.

Which leaves too high stickforces on the stick. However Reference 3 (British test report of 109G in 1943) disproves these stickforces would limit the aircraft`s manouveribility, though they were probably a discomfort for the pilot : "Some force is needed on the stick at high speeds, but acceleration as great as the pilot can stand can be put up." In other words, it was the pilot`s physical resistance to blackouts was the limiting factor, not his inability to force the stick moving!

Southwood`s article underlines this (109G-2): "At 520kph it is possible to pull 4g with one hand, but I find it more comfortable to use both hands on the stick for looping manoeuvres, normally entered at 420kph and 3g. "

and Hanna : "Maneuvering above 300[mph=483kph), two hands can be required for more aggressive performance. EIther that or get on the trimmer to help you. Despite this heavying up it is still quite easy to get at 5G's at these speeds. "


I have some stick force numbers for the 109, but cannot find them now. In any case, the exaggrevated loss of elevator authority at high speeds in the game is something that plagues game experience for years and nothing was done about it so far, despite the research and postings of evidence in order to help the developers work. I am very unpleased with that.

WWMaxGunz
01-08-2005, 10:33 AM
If the plane can make the G's at high speed using full trim then it is not elevator.
Simple as that, no need for mystery.

Sim stick force ability is limited to 50 pounds pull. You have a test or data saying
that much or less using numbers? None of 'this must mean that' interpretation like
what FAIRLY TIGHT must mean. How hard those guys pull? How hard Reference 3 pull?

If the plane can do the turn with full trim then how about ask Oleg please raise the
force limit a pilot can use and while he is at it, lower P-51 stick force into reality?

Holtzauge
01-08-2005, 04:15 PM
But even if the limit is set at 50 pounds, how do you explain that you can pull as tight a turn as you want at s/l but not at 6000 m with the same IAS?

I still think stick forces should be proportional to the dynamic pressure which does not seem to be the case in the FM. So if 50 lb is enough at s/l it should be enough at 6000m to.

As an example: why should the stick forces be greater at s/l at 470 km/h IAS than at 6000m 640 km/h TAS for a 109K4? In both cases the IAS is about the same and hence the stick forces should be the same. IMHO compressibility effects should not be a factor at 640 km/h TAS.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
If the plane can make the G's at high speed using full trim then it is not elevator.
Simple as that, no need for mystery.

Sim stick force ability is limited to 50 pounds pull. You have a test or data saying
that much or less using numbers? None of 'this must mean that' interpretation like
what FAIRLY TIGHT must mean. How hard those guys pull? How hard Reference 3 pull?

If the plane can do the turn with full trim then how about ask Oleg please raise the
force limit a pilot can use and while he is at it, lower P-51 stick force into reality? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ugly_Kid
01-08-2005, 04:42 PM
50 pounds limit "legend" was started by roll rate lobbyists, elevator has other limits of human performance (roughly 3 times higher in push/pull). This "limit" for 50 lbs doesn't come from Oleg neither, AFAIK, but I may err.
I personally can lift comfortably more than weight of case of beer with one hand once the earth starts rushing towards my face...

Yet, heaviness is one thing and it is a a factor of IAS. Sure stick gets heavier to stir around but so does the effectivity. So in the end effect stick force per g remains actually constant. That means you get less movement with the same force but you still get the aircraft reaction out of it. This is until Mach starts kicking in...So don't get too stuck with IAS Ma has a big meaning, although 640 km/h TAS doesn't result in a notable Mach at any altitude...

LEXX_Luthor
01-08-2005, 05:02 PM
Vipez:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Well, can you prove, that 109K had good elevator authority ? Afaik, it was a plane full of quality problems, with many manufacturer problems. Many 109K pilots were lost for attempting to do highspeed passes, when planes was suddenly falling apart.

It had good potential in 1944, but quality problems was it's downfall.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
oops http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif lol I typed in 109K and 44 instead of MiG and 41 by accident, but then 109K had Quality problems too, sorry I got all mixed up in Quoting you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif We can try to talk again if you wish.

WWMaxGunz
01-08-2005, 06:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Holtzauge:
But even if the limit is set at 50 pounds, how do you explain that you can pull as tight a turn as you want at s/l but not at 6000 m with the same IAS? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't. Though perhaps it has something to do with compression effects modelling, mach is
at a lower TAS with increasing alt. Perhaps interesting is a graph that was posted here
long ago showing P-39 stick force gradient at 15,000 ft... G's per pound of pull was flat
until compression forces started to take effect which was 300mph. By 400mph the force was
double and at that point the curve was turning upward pretty heavily. There is also a curve
of calculated stick force and the big difference noted had to do with "bulging" which could
may be tailplane or control surface or both. That's at 400mph in a plane designed to be
more for speed than climb, if I understand the P-39 much at all as opposed to the 109's.

It might be good for some people to note that some people flying 109's have noted that the
stick is short which I take to mean compared to what they were used to. Also that the pit
is very tight which would neccesitate a shorter stick than a roomier plane. Less lever,
less leverage.

We have a strength based stick system and that is from Oleg back in 2002. Find out how
the stick settings work and the rest can be understood as the only way it can function.
What is the strength limit? I have always understood it to be 50 pounds pull. Easy
enough to pull, everyone says... so lift the weight and don't just see how long you can
hold it up but also move it around with precision needed to fly. What some pilot could
do short time to get the most for a test of a plane is not the same as dogfighting. We
have even had threads about wishing that pilot stamina is modelled.

If there is no limit of strength then the whole system we have cannot work. Loads of
mistakes about FM happen because people don't understand the dynamic of the strength
based stick interface.

JG5_UnKle
01-09-2005, 02:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> It might be good for some people to note that some people flying 109's have noted that the stick is short which I take to mean compared to what they were used to. Also that the pit is very tight which would neccesitate a shorter stick than a roomier plane. Less lever,
less leverage. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If we are discussing roll I would be inclined to agree. They isn't much travel to get aileron deflection in a 109 cockpit. But elevator is different. You could pull the stick back quite a way (right into your guts!) with both hands if needed and I don't think (and pilot quotes back this up) that the elevator was any worse than contemporary types like the Mustang.

Small point but you know what I'm getting at.

Vipez-
01-09-2005, 06:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Vipez:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Well, can you prove, that 109K had good elevator authority ? Afaik, it was a plane full of quality problems, with many manufacturer problems. Many 109K pilots were lost for attempting to do highspeed passes, when planes was suddenly falling apart.

It had good potential in 1944, but quality problems was it's downfall.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
oops http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif lol I typed in 109K and 44 instead of MiG and 41 by accident, but then 109K had Quality problems too, sorry I got all mixed up in Quoting you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif We can try to talk again if you wish. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

eh you know what i mean LExx.. K- was the ultimate 109 (means the best), it did not fall apart at 630 kh like MIGs did.. Try to fly combat in ww2 with a plane with so limited horizontal stability, and inability to pull up at high speeds. If you think Mig is undermodelled, learn to fly it .. or find =FB=Viks, who scored some average 3-5 kills with MIG (early VEF2 times) .

Kurfurst__
01-09-2005, 06:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
You could pull the stick back quite a way (right into your guts!) with both hands if needed and I don't think (and pilot quotes back this up) that the elevator was any worse than contemporary types like the Mustang.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BINGO. The sentence before the qoute :

"The Bf109G is heavy to manoeuvre in pitch, being similar to a Mustang. At 520kph it is possible to pull 4g with one hand, but I find it more comfortable to use both hands on the stick for looping manoeuvres, normally entered at 420kph and 3g."

This I have seen underlined by at least 2 other persons btw.

Otherwise MAxGunz I don`t quite get you. Your agenda is quite clear, you don`t want the 109 get any better, so you throw in things you make up in the very moment like "50 lbs limit", "you should use trim so there is no problem", "109 was not designed for speed" (gee... tiny airframe with tiny wings, world speed record breaker etc.), "you cant PULL because the NARROW cocpit" etc.

What I dont get is what use it is for you if we 109 pilots find ourselves in a situation in the game that totally NOT corresponds to real life!

HayateAce
01-09-2005, 08:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
You could pull the stick back quite a way (right into your guts!) with both hands if needed and I don't think (and pilot quotes back this up) that the elevator was any worse than contemporary types like the Mustang.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Instead of crying about it, why don't you lufts learn how to fly and use what has been given to you. You already climb like helicopters and fire lazer mk108 torpedos with "Unrealistic Tight Grouping" ~ Oleg Maddox.

The FACT is that 109s had this stiff elevator problem. So what do you guys want? You want history changed........yet again.

Sad really.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

WWMaxGunz
01-09-2005, 08:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Otherwise MAxGunz I don`t quite get you. Your agenda is quite clear, you don`t want the 109 get any better, so you throw in things you make up in the very moment like "50 lbs limit", "you should use trim so there is no problem", "109 was not designed for speed" (gee... tiny airframe with tiny wings, world speed record breaker etc.), "you cant PULL because the NARROW cocpit" etc.

What I dont get is what use it is for you if we 109 pilots find ourselves in a situation in the game that totally NOT corresponds to real life! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gone paranoid again?

The 50 pound pull limit is what I remember from since summer 2002. You know what the limit is
something else then please, say. There IS a limit otherwise there can be no 100% for stick
settings... 100% of WHAT? Please? Really ODD that when people have charts that say roll or
pitch with this speed and this many pounds pull that the sim planes most often match the 50
pound curves... but those are NACA charts, thow them out or perhaps use the B-word!

109 is designed for speed but also climb as well. With thinner wings it could have been even
faster. Of course you don't agree... it was best at everything!

I wrote that if the plane can do the G's at the speed with full trim then it is not the
elevator that is the problem. At full trim you can get full elevator. IRL the pilot who did
what you say, and that drawing tells me nothing about it was real, was able to pull as hard
as he could find to and not limited as the sim. See above.

Narrow cockpit also tight. Try and follow this... the stick is actually noted as short and
needs to be to get good side angle. Pulling back, the stick does not get longer just for
pulling back so you have a shorter stick to pull and that makes more work on the arm. Anyone
with mechanical aptitude can figure that out. It gives quicker response just as tighter ratio
steering does for a fine car but you still have less leverage.

No agenda from me but from you... you find something, anything that says "more for my side"
and you push like #ell for it, the same as the P-38, P-51, P-47 fans do. Small reference to
make a plus and not anything that says different means a thing. No, I don't buy what you are pushing so you claim I am the one pushing. It matters not anyway, you will get whining going
as you can because the "issue" already went nowhere for the same reasons and now it is time
to revert to making "pressure".

There was once a Spitfire caught in a dive and claimed reaced .89 mach... should we have .89
mach Spitfires??? I'd also argue against that!

WWMaxGunz
01-09-2005, 08:40 AM
I really think that the P-51 elevator is a case of Mustang fans sliding exactly this same
thing by and PLEASE OLEG CORRECT THAT!

If pilots are to be able to pull with full strength both arms then let it be for ALL, not
just this one here and that one there. Oleg did say the P-51 is exaggerted elevator
response, that says to me "special case".

And Hayate-Ace, P-51 people would just have to get used to it.

Vipez-
01-09-2005, 09:13 AM
stiff? if Hartman would have flown with elevators like this, he would have gotten Killed way faster .)

Holtzauge
01-09-2005, 09:20 AM
You know what sad is? Sad is people who cannot absorb facts and are attack legitimate questions based on facts without being able to back it up http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Kurfurst made an excellent post backed up by facts. I think he proved the issue in the first post really.

If you bother to go back to the first post by Kurfurst, open up the link to to see the RL 109 K turn chart at 6000m 648 km/h TAS. In the upper right corner you can read the following:

"From t=1 to t=8 sec the load factor n=5 and the bank angle is 78.5 degrees. From 8 sec on Ca is 1.13 which is about Ca max. The load factor (n) decreases after this"

IMHO this means that after 8 sec into the turn the turn is limited by the wings potential to produce lift and not by stick forces. Thus the chart shows that it should be possible to turn up to the stall limit IRL under these conditions.

The SIM does not allow this but limits the turn rate due to elevator effectiveness. This proves that the SIM is off and should be corrected. period.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
You could pull the stick back quite a way (right into your guts!) with both hands if needed and I don't think (and pilot quotes back this up) that the elevator was any worse than contemporary types like the Mustang.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Instead of crying about it, why don't you lufts learn how to fly and use what has been given to you. You already climb like helicopters and fire lazer mk108 torpedos with "Unrealistic Tight Grouping" ~ Oleg Maddox.

The FACT is that 109s had this stiff elevator problem. So what do you guys want? You want history changed........yet again.

Sad really.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

NN_EnigmuS
01-09-2005, 10:06 AM
it will never be changed as the fw190 forward view

i remenber asking for this on a previous patch and some said it was a known bug and will be corrected and remeneber oleg saying this was my saitek driver lol and that they succeed to do the k4 test

we had never seen the track hehe

so to your question kurfust and proof i think nobody will care even if it's the truth

JG5_UnKle
01-09-2005, 10:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_EnigmuS:
it will never be changed as the fw190 forward view

i remenber asking for this on a previous patch and some said it was a known bug and will be corrected and remeneber oleg saying this was my saitek driver lol and that they succeed to do the k4 test

we had never seen the track hehe

so to your question kurfust and proof i think nobody will care even if it's the truth <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree 100% unfortunately http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif The "promised track" never came about I remember it well. I have been through and X45 and a Cougar - LMAO at it being a driver issue.....

JG5_UnKle
01-09-2005, 10:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Instead of crying about it, why don't you lufts learn how to fly and use what has been given to you. You already climb like helicopters and fire lazer mk108 torpedos with "Unrealistic Tight Grouping" ~ Oleg Maddox.

The FACT is that 109s had this stiff elevator problem. So what do you guys want? You want history changed........yet again.

Sad really.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif While Copperhead is on holiday you will do nicely for entertainment - cheers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

p1ngu666
01-09-2005, 11:04 AM
is k4's elivator ok at low alt, but high speed?

DarthBane_
01-09-2005, 11:07 AM
I heard tons of rubbish about how acurate this sim is BUT than we have LAGG plane that flushes this acurate story down the toilet. Proofs for handling are presented, a quick answer is required: it will be corrected because me109 was porked in this sim due to wrong developers sorces (again some wrong story from old general?), or: we developers have porked fw190 in many ways, porked mg151 damage, made view from axis planes impossible due to giant bars and now sistematicaly porking the 109 series!

I flew g2 before, now it is a pig, i HATE that slider trim trick and it is discusting to fly like that.

Developers LOOK at the charts and UNDERSTAND the numbers presented. It is not necesary to think, yust READ the numbers. No more stories about what someone aged around 100 thinks he remembers about anything.

karost
01-09-2005, 11:43 AM
from this community I read and learn alot of good infomation from many friends here about

- elevator for the bf-109
- black bar of fw-190
- mg151/20

this top three popular issure was posted over and over for over two years and seem no chance to put these things to the right place

but this year we can smell some good news that we are looking for.

S!

WUAF_Badsight
01-09-2005, 03:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
. . . . . . . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
hey look , theres a moron in this thread

please do take time out to learn something , it will help your posting no end

zugfuhrer
01-09-2005, 03:19 PM
You can publish all the figures of the world it wont be any difference. The Me will get what Maddox makes.
This game is not and will not be correct in every detail.

Sig.Hirsch
01-09-2005, 04:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_EnigmuS:
it will never be changed as the fw190 forward view

i remenber asking for this on a previous patch and some said it was a known bug and will be corrected and remeneber oleg saying this was my saitek driver lol and that they succeed to do the k4 test

we had never seen the track hehe

so to your question kurfust and proof i think nobody will care even if it's the truth <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree 100% unfortunately http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif The "promised track" never came about I remember it well. I have been through and X45 and a Cougar - LMAO at it being a driver issue..... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ok , then bump this thread until Oleg answers you , i don't doubt of his honesty so far , i hope he will answer about the Greatest FM bug of IL-2 .
We have proof on real life datas , evidences in game , he needs to see that or at least his programmers and tell him .

LEXX_Luthor
01-09-2005, 06:29 PM
Vipez:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>eh you know what i mean LExx.. K- was the ultimate 109 (means the best), it did not fall apart at 630 kh like MIGs did.. Try to fly combat in ww2 with a plane with so limited horizontal stability, and inability to pull up at high speeds. If you think Mig is undermodelled, learn to fly it .. or find =FB=Viks, who scored some average 3-5 kills with MIG (early VEF2 times) . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
MiG seems to suffer the same elevator 109 suffers in the game, and it possibly should not. I too think 109 suffers, but MiG suffers the same way. Looking at both may show were a problem lies.

It may interest you that 109K and MiG never met in combat, if that is what you are Panicking about. If you don't know why they didn't meet, see the Object Viewer for dates (or years when in service). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LeadSpitter_
01-10-2005, 05:33 AM
If anyone want to go online and take some tracks using all 100 100 100 100 inputs of high speed handling let me know on HL.

I guess im the only one in here who thinks since 3.0 to 3.03m the 109s elevator has been greatly improved highspeed I guess oleg could share some light on this topic.

carguy_
01-10-2005, 06:01 AM
Oleg won`t be here for a while nuff said.

LeLu_Repo
01-10-2005, 06:04 AM
I have 100-100 stick settings and still 109 elevator stiffens useless in about 450-470km/ IAS. That is why it is like playing chess up in high with 109http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

JG5_UnKle
01-10-2005, 07:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
I guess im the only one in here who thinks since 3.0 to 3.03m the 109s elevator has been greatly improved highspeed I guess oleg could share some light on this topic. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I agree. You are the only one who thinks this. I haven't found this to be true. Above 450kph the elevator begins to stiffen which it has done for some time.

I didn't see anything in the readme though about high-speed changes, and I still can't perform the turntime at 6000M that 1C's team say they could.

But if it has changed then yes, maybe OM could shed some light on it.

LeadSpitter_
01-10-2005, 08:08 AM
manueverablity is gained in the elevator 600-900kmh IAS greatly 3.0 3.02 3.03 compaired to 2.04.

But we also have the ability of popping the wing off at those fast speeds with quick elevator movement.

I have to disagree with you all and im sure oleg does too.

Post some high speed elevator test tracks vs the spits in power dives or come online with me to show the la lag3 spits will lock up elevator high speed before the 109s. The senseless whining is ridiculous.

For the first time in the game the hurricane spit p40s are out turning the 109g lowspeed low alt in turnfights and thats where the complaining is coming from and those aircraft breakup earlier.

the latest spit breaksup at 880 the k4 at 900, at 700-880 the k4 has better elevator authority then the last varient of the spit and 20kmph advantage before breakup.

Do a test with a buddy from 10,000m in a dive k4 following the spit try to breakoff at 750+ in the spit and try shaking the k4 with elevator use only then do the test with the k4 leading in the dive and have the spit try to stay on the k4s tail.

I'd be glad to help out if you need someone to test with, but i have done this before and know the result maybe then this whine can be killed for most in this thread but im sure others will start same topic.

p1ngu666
01-10-2005, 09:05 AM
when i flew a k4 i think i noticed the elivator is good entialy, then goes concreate, ill haveto test again tho

ku101-Shrike
01-10-2005, 09:17 AM
K4, Mig, what are you guys going on about, suppose im not going to be very popular when i point out that the graph given, please read above the graph on first post, was for a 109E3, which isnt even in the sim, and neither can you compare it to a 109K4 can you?, i mean, they dont even look the same!!

JG5_UnKle
01-10-2005, 09:37 AM
LS : If you can repeat the 6000M turn in a K-4 and post a track I would be much obliged. Otherwise you are missing the point of this thread.

I can and will test the Spit vs 109 - which models? I will complete an online test - I am also assuming this is without trim?

JG5_UnKle
01-10-2005, 09:39 AM
Besides, it is more to the point that the 109 elevator locks up at LOW speed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Blottogg
01-10-2005, 10:14 AM
A lot of interesting data in this thread. To clarify a few points, the turning circle diagram for the K is in TAS. The 5 g Clmax is given as 161.7 m/s = 582 kph = 361 mph. Assuming this is TAS yields an IAS of ~ 270 mph. This is in line with the 5 g stall speed for the E-3 given in the other diagram of 250 mph TAS at 12,000 ft, or ~ 210 mph IAS (the Emil has a lighter wing loading, giving a reasonable expaination for the 60 mph difference.) Assuming the opposite for the K diagram gives a 5 g stall speed of 480 mph TAS! The K diagram mentions nothing about trim settings (thanks to Holtzauge for translating the German... I had figured out the bank angle and g, but my technical German still stinks.) Given the information from previous threads on the same topic however, it is not unreasonable to assume the test was conducted at other than level flight trim (previous posters have provided pilot accounts mentioning flying the 109 out of level fight trim as an unremarkable practice.) The K test was constant altitude and Ps&lt;0. That the first 8 seconds were flown at 5 g indicates that that was either 1) the structural limit of the aircraft under the test conditions,2) the most the pilot could pull,3) an arbitrary value that could be established consistantly at the start of the test and/or 4) a controlability limit. Without further info, I don't know what combination of 1-4 is correct, though starting the test at 400 mph IAS and 5 g is consistant with previous pilot reports posted in this and other threads as being the upper limit of reasonable stick forces. It is not an indication of what the aircraft was capable of in a level, constant speed turn (the conditions used to generate the turn times in Il-2/FB/AEP/PF's object viewer), either in real life or the sim.

Concerning the RAF report on the F-2, if the aircraft had been trimmed for level flight, then dived to 420 mph IAS, the tendency would be for the nose to pitch up (420 mph is well above level flight speed for the F-2), aiding the turn. This is as I would expect, along with the report of elevator heaviness.

Concerning the snippet from the Gustav report, that is the first I've read of the trim becoming heavy at speed. I had assumed the mechanical advantage of the trim mechanism was enough to trivialize increased q, and that the horizontal stab trim mechanism pivoted around the approximate aerodynamic center. Apparently these assumptions aren't completely true, or the mechanism was incorrectly maintained.

Concerning the doghouse plots comparing the E-3 and Spitfire, the g curves are for instantaneous turn, as Neal correctly observed back on page 1 of this thread. The "angle of straight climb" curves are another way of saying Ps=0, which I hadn't heard before. Leave it to the Brits to introduce another aeronautical term I'm unfamiliar with. Other than that I don't see many surprises in the plots. The 109 has a slightly higher Clmax (thanks to the slats) than the Spitfire (the elliptical wing isn't worth as much as the slats for Clmax.) The Spitfire has lower stall speeds at low g (due to the much lower wing loading), but the 109's stall curve steepens at high g's, which I'm not sure about. Perhaps the slats work better at high AoA than I thought, or perhaps the curve was extrapolated. Again, this diagram reveals nothing about pitch trim or stick forces.

One final side note. This is the first graph I've seen showing Ps=0 and stall curves for WWII fighters. Unlike jet fighters, these two curves intersect at almost right angles, indicating that best sustained turn really is right on the ragged edge of the stall. At higher wing loadings (typical of jet fighters) sustained corner speed is slightly faster than stall airspeed.

I haven't tried the 109 recently in-game, but if folks can't get 5 g at 400 mph IAS and nose up trim (either high or low altitude... the aircraft should fly the same at the same IAS, compressibility notwithstanding), then the problem may be with the available trim authority, not primary pitch authority. Without a g meter, it's tough for me to determine instantaneous g (a stopwatch could be used too, but I'm not that dedicated.) If available instantaneous g varies with altitude at a constant IAS and trim, then that should be corrected if possible.

BBB_Hyperion
01-10-2005, 11:39 AM
You can get the g data from devicelink interface.

Good post Blottogg wish there would be more of these .)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Concerning the RAF report on the F-2, if the aircraft had been trimmed for level flight, then dived to 420 mph IAS, the tendency would be for the nose to pitch up (420 mph is well above level flight speed for the F-2), aiding the turn. This is as I would expect, along with the report of elevator heaviness. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See the difference in control forces here for different trim here.
http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/109f4trimm.jpg

Ziehen = Pull Drücken = Push Flugbahn = Flightpath Wirkliche Geschwindigkeit = TAS

JG5_UnKle
01-10-2005, 11:55 AM
Just tested level turn at 6000M with 650Kph TAS
Level flight trim.

I lost about 100M http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif in the turn even though I tried to keep it smooth - my bad. I managed 360 degree turn in 35 seconds.

Holtzauge
01-10-2005, 12:32 PM
Yeah, that was an informative post Blottogg!

Concerning the modelling of stick forces for the 109K in the SIM I still think this is off. Either the stick forces are to light at 470 km/h IAS s/l or they are to large at the same IAS at 6000m. I still tend to think it is the latter:

If you try pulling at tight turn at s/l at 470 km/h IAS from a trimmed out flight path you have no problems. If you try the same at 6000m also trimmed out at the same IAS the going is very slow. There no way you can pull enough alfa to approach stall conditions and get a tight instantaneous turn like the one the 109K chart shows.

I do not think anyone is contesting that the 109 series should have less elevator authority at high speeds. This has been qouted as a tactical restriction by many sources (Cpt Eric Brown's 109G6 test included). I've seen figures like 400 mph quoted a presenting a problem but IMHO to have the controls seize up at 470 km/h IAS in the SIM seems a bit early.

I still think the excellent source material (the 109K turn chart) provided by Hyperion supports that view.

BBB_Hyperion
01-10-2005, 02:49 PM
109 K turnchart is from Issy/Kurfürst . I am too lazy to scan such things in mostly .)

The Data above is from High speed diving test of a 109f with g wings and "new" tailfin .

Test in complete detail can be found here .

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/index1024.htm

Under technical reference / structures /empennage / tall tails

bottom of the the site
http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/structures/tails/109.05e43_report/05e43-p1.htm

WWMaxGunz
01-10-2005, 03:14 PM
Try setting all you stick sensitivity pitch sliders to 100 in order to quicken how
fast you can enter the full pull turn and then be sure and trim up so that before
even starting you are holding the stick a ways forward. Maybe you don't get the
24 seconds but you will beat the 35.
You may just be able to find out what the plane model is capable of by using full
trim and that would be much better ground to base arguement on, even if the arguement
comes to "shouldn't need full trim".

OTOH you can insist on handicapping the plane as "right". Think Oleg will listen?
If it wasn't for him, you guys and the P-38 fans would be like Congress debating their
next pay raise -- a sure thing.

WUAF_Badsight
01-10-2005, 03:49 PM
holding 6K altitude , ive never beaten 30 seconds .

the people who did beat 30 seconds , they managed 24 seconds apparently , were max trim , max deflection , & went way nose down cutting the circle

speed loss is to be expected , but what they did when this was originally pointed out those months back didnt match how this K4 turn test was carried out IRL

JG5_UnKle
01-10-2005, 04:17 PM
I'm just trying to replicate the real life test. Of course it is possible with trim http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif but that isn't the point.

Von_Rat
01-10-2005, 07:56 PM
don't alot of people here consider using full trim to make a faster turn,exploiting the game.

it seems funny that we are supposed to use what some consider a exploit in order to come even close to real life turn performance.

WWMaxGunz
01-10-2005, 09:01 PM
Real life turn performance because a test pilot was able to do it special, now it should
be regular combat everyday ability. Sure. Just like the P-51 got made so WTF not?
Every plane should get both arms all the time for as long as you can play stick pull.
Every last one. All pilots are muscle builders who can hold and move the stick with
ease as long as they want, it is nothing. And when that test flight was made, the
pilot used no trim at all either because some people don't believe in trim.

Really. Please Oleg dispense with strength limits and stick forces totally. If the
control surface could be moved then it should be easily done by gamers who need to see
results they have read of, they should get those any and every time. Just make the
joystick position set the control surface position and if you have to then make it a
realism setting where that is the full real and the way it works now is not real. The
109K test proves how silly the sim really is and that is completely proven.

Besides, there are people who want that.

Von_Rat
01-10-2005, 09:59 PM
other planes can match their test pilot turn numbers, why is 109 singled out not to be able to.

WWMaxGunz
01-10-2005, 10:18 PM
Now there is a good question. Is it true for all planes at all speeds in the sim?
AFAIK the turns like the climbs are only good in some places, not all. Ditto for
speeds. If that is true then there is a lot of singling or there is just a whole
lot of can't make everything right.

IMHO the P-51 elevator is too responsive and gets special treat FM for it, only
for players who don't abuse it at high speed and snap the wings, then they cry
about weak wings. The 109K can become the same way. So can they all (why not?).
Or instead, the P-51's get a reality check and maybe the 109's, P-38's and I
think there is one or two VVS planes have the compression effects on elevator
set in at higher speeds possibly, if the FM works in a way it can be tuned?
It must be somehow since all planes don't have that! if so then it is not a
matter of simple stick force adjustment but something deeper (compression in
FM) and more universal.

When I read that the turn is possible near SL and not at 6k meters, and then I
read the P-38 threads and some others then I think along those lines, not bias.

Stiglr
01-10-2005, 10:28 PM
von Rat, it is not considered an exploit to use trim. What is considered an exploit is to map it to a rotary dial on your gear where you can move between the full range of the control and back again in less than a second.

These wheels required a bit of "notching" to adjust them, and fairly careful application, it wasn't like spinning a pinwheel. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

OldMan____
01-11-2005, 05:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
von Rat, it is not considered an exploit to _use_ trim. What is considered an exploit is to map it to a rotary dial on your gear where you can move between the full range of the control and back again in less than a second.

These wheels required a bit of "notching" to adjust them, and fairly careful application, it wasn't like spinning a pinwheel. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well I see no way of using trim during combat to adjut to current speed without this. Simple key strokes are too slow. If each key stroke was 5 of current strokes.. think would be no problem on using it without a rotary.

Also you cannot fight properly in P38J and 109 on proper BnZ techniques without using trimm. Why? because it seems that both planes get their elevator stuck too early and they cannot use " both hands" manual emergency strenght to compensate it.


If I was in a plane going down at 600 kph and could not pull the stick.. I would use 2 hands.. an 2 Feet on the front pannel to do it!!!

Fehler
01-11-2005, 08:13 AM
Bah, get out of those baby planes and get into a real man's fighter!

Fly the FW-190!

More guns!
More roll!
More side view!
More character!
And lastly! Better looks!

(Just to lighten the thread up a bit...)

DarthBane_
01-11-2005, 08:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
don't alot of people here consider using full trim to make a faster turn,exploiting the game.

it seems funny that we are supposed to use what some consider a exploit in order to come even close to real life turn performance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is so STUPID, it is going beyond words, developers should learn to read charts, and avoid placing STUPID exploits in game. Yust read the numbers developers instead of using imagination for the FM of planes. What is the point of presenting proofs here? I mean if its Axis related. Spits fly like X-wing more and more with every patch released. This is all starting to stink bad. The stench is unberable after i tried pony, the plane flies incredible.
Argh i cannt breath...blue side is condemned to pigs with wings flying on warm fart. Ahh....

WWMaxGunz
01-11-2005, 11:37 AM
Trim exploit was HALFWAY fixed when delay was added to trim.
Other half still there is instant neutral trim by key.
Otherwise it is real. If trim took as long to go from full
to neutral as it does to go neutral to full then it would
have the full dangerous consequences of too easy over use.

What is is called when something real is exploited? Oh yes,
the word then is skill.

Old Man... wouldn't you be cranking the trim on a real plane?
Or thumbing the trim hat in something real cushy?

Von_Rat
01-11-2005, 03:05 PM
when i said full trim, i meant using a slider, otherwise its way to slow to get full trim to be really useful when turning.

my point is,, to getting even close to the test turning numbers, you better be using trim on a slider, and using trim on a slider is called a exploit by many here.

WWMaxGunz
01-11-2005, 06:00 PM
Trim on a slider or knob is still with delay. Supposed to take 20 seconds to go full
but I forget if that is from one extreme to the other or from neutral to full travel.
I know that holding down a trim key for more than 1/4 second (may be adjusted) and the
trim is not by taps but by 1 second held down gets a few seconds trim travel so you
let go and then wait and wait and hope it will stop where you needed, which eats it
badly as IRL you feel the stick while you turn the wheel and stop when the thing is
in trim, not keep turning the wheel because you thought before starting "about 8 turns
should do it, so 8 turns it is and screw everything till then".

Once the trim move is commanded, nothing can stop the trim until it is done at least
with keys. I believe it is because of how they wedged in a delay action and not by
some kind of warped design... maybe the way the system works it is the best they could
do.

Try this with a slider. Flying level, crank in a whole bunch of trim and then move
it back nearly to the start point. See if the trim takes it's time going all the
way out to the first point and then works its' way back to the latter or just goes
from the start to the last in short time. That would be very interesting to know.
Or maybe it goes to the first, farther move and stops leaving you with uncalibrated
slider. My stick is cheap and my head is wired with throttle IS throttle when I am
doing other than simple tests... so yes I can try too if I want.

LeadSpitter_
01-11-2005, 08:57 PM
I repeated to ask many of you who posted here the 109k elevator is worse then the spit9 high speed 600-900km/h IAS which is complete rubbish.

I seen alot of you on HL today and yesterday and all gave me excuses when i asked to do the test from 10,000m in a dive. have the spit try to esvade with just elevator once past 600-890 then vice versa and got the responses, dont feel like it now, going to fly bw got to eat dinner, etc etc. I know the result, no point in sending a track to get called fake etc he had these settings blah blah. Thats why it has to be done with those who claim the 109k4 has worse elevator then spit9 600-890km/h.

p1ngu666
01-11-2005, 09:37 PM
i wouldnt say the spit has got more ufo, its got less... now the 109 has got better recently, or all other planes worse.

no one answered my question about low alt but highspeed elivator either, a few tests at various alts, and we would know if its a ias/tas mixup, which it could well be imo

WUAF_Badsight
01-11-2005, 09:42 PM
wow i see the opposite

to me , the Spitfire was always better at high speed turns , & now its just as good / better at slow speed turns over the Bf109s

WWMaxGunz
01-12-2005, 12:37 AM
Please don't say the 109 should be better at mid and slow speed turns, or any turns
really than a contemporary or earlier Spit?

BoB the 109's were competitive at what was then high alts because they had better chargers
than the Spits and kept more of their power, still even there they had to fly smart to win.
It was the Hurris that took it hard up high. IMHO the 109E had the speed edge up high over
the Spits, but not enough fuel to really capitalize on it.

Edit: fixed a bad spelling error.

JG5_UnKle
01-12-2005, 05:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
I repeated to ask many of you who posted here the 109k elevator is worse then the spit9 high speed 600-900km/h IAS which is complete rubbish.

I seen alot of you on HL today and yesterday and all gave me excuses when i asked to do the test from 10,000m in a dive. have the spit try to esvade with just elevator once past 600-890 then vice versa and got the responses, dont feel like it now, going to fly bw got to eat dinner, etc etc. I know the result, no point in sending a track to get called fake etc he had these settings blah blah. Thats why it has to be done with those who claim the 109k4 has worse elevator then spit9 600-890km/h. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With level flight trim? Or is that using trim?

If I get chance I will try a high-speed test - like you say from 10K down. To be honest I'm more concerned with the elevator locking up at 450kph but I do see your point LS.

Will try it and give an honest appraisal http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. If the 109 elevator is actually more effective than the Spit at 600Kph+ then I think that's wrong. The Spit had a pretty good elevator that was (as far as I can tell from pilot accounts) better than the 109. In fact it was AFAIK 'known' to be quite light.

Kurfurst__
01-12-2005, 12:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Please don't say the 109 should be better at mid and slow speed turns, or any turns
really than a contemporary or earlier Spit? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

RAF pilot Pierre Clostermann says that Spitfire certainly wasnt better in turns at low speeds, only at high speeds. The Spitfires elevator forces were extremely low, which made this possible, but was critized by both the RAF and NACA as it gave way to new problems, structurals overloads and failures in dive, easily overapplied stick and high speed stalls etc.

I can also show you several 109 who were convinced that a properly flown 109 could turn inside a Spit.. on my part, as we can also see many Spit pilots claiming the opposite, Id say, in agreement with Mark Hanna that the differences were probably too small at slow/medium speeds to give the advantage to either plane.

Kurfurst__
01-12-2005, 12:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
I repeated to ask many of you who posted here the 109k elevator is worse then the spit9 high speed 600-900km/h IAS which is complete rubbish.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is the perception of everyone except you. The Spits elevator is LIGHTYEARS better at high speed. Only its ailerons suck, and this I see as correct.

Now cut the flattery and post tracks to prove your claims. Anyone can recover WAY-WAY easier in a Spit than in a 109 in a dive - which I believe is also OK, but the 109 wasnt nearly the sucker in this regard as in the sim.

LeadSpitter_
01-12-2005, 01:08 PM
109 a sucker in this sim, man you crack me the hell up its one of the best planes in game a matter a fact probally the best in game same category as ki84 la7 spit etc. ufo floater

Look for me on HL so we can test both a couple times and post a track of the tests. Then we can come back here and have you say you were wrong and I was correct.

Vipez-
01-12-2005, 04:56 PM
uh.. again this turned into US/SPit whiners vs 109...

If you think current 109 heavy elevators at airspeeds as low as 450 kmh is realistic, then your view of the world is seriously twisted.. esspecially yours leadspitter, if you still claim G-6 goes 560 kmh tas in sealevel http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I, for one, think 109 is now one of the crappiest b&Z planes.. such heavy elevators make it extremely difficult to fly in B&Z-role.. often forcing it to turnfights... which is in my taste usually prove very fatal to my flying style. Sure its great plane in other areas,, but heavy elevators is really serious handicap for current historical 109-flying style...

WUAF_Badsight
01-12-2005, 09:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
109 a sucker in this sim, man you crack me the hell up . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
he said "in this regard"

i.e. the "regard" is the heavy elevator at high speed

he wasnt talking about its all round ability

WUAF_Darkangel
01-12-2005, 09:40 PM
Didn't the 109 turn like the zero at high speed in RL?

WUAF_Badsight
01-12-2005, 10:00 PM
yea , but the trouble is there is this RL K4 test , its been posted here at this forum before

it shows the K4 doing a 24 second turn at 6K with a 650 Kmh entry speed & the turn is a level turn (apparently)

no way in hell will the K4 in FB replicate this test , not even max trim (well it didnt when i tested it last in 2.x)

BlackStar2000
01-13-2005, 05:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
109 a sucker in this sim, man you crack me the hell up its one of the best planes in game a matter a fact probally the best in game same category as ki84 la7 spit etc. ufo floater

Look for me on HL so we can test both a couple times and post a track of the tests. Then we can come back here and have you say you were wrong and I was correct. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Go find a professional medical help man to help you with this illusions,

109 for sure is:
one shot and no chance to fight(i dont see that in LA7 or Ki84 )
its only a heavy piece of wood

Complete Bulsheet man i like to fly 109 everyday, you are maybe confused because some guys fly it very well, but that its not for all.

ZG77_Nagual
01-13-2005, 06:15 PM
Ummm... I normally avoid the 109 - because it's such a killing machine. But all this got me curious - I am able to grey out at 440MPH with set for level flight at 300mph in the g6as and no combat flaps. - you may not be able to snap the wings off like in a ki or mustang - but is that a bad thing? This beast turns very well at all speeds near as I can tell. I was able to sustain a full deflection turn - with fairly intense grey-out - no flaps from 480mph down to about 180mph. that's extremely reasonable handling. Roll rate remains decent even at those high speeds. notch it up to 480 mph for the k4. I see nothing to complain about with this one.

Bull_dog_
01-13-2005, 06:28 PM
The answer to the poster's original question: I think we already did!

I like the 109 as is actually....now it is challenging and I've been flying alot more Luftwaffe lately too. I do have to be careful at speed but I like it....what I don't like are ultra spectacular do it all planes. I find the F4 to be a particularly satisfying aircraft to get kills in...competitive if not superior for energy tactics but will kill you if you get in a low and slow turning fight with Laggs, Yaks and Spits

ZG77_Nagual
01-13-2005, 06:32 PM
I hear ya, but I think the late 109s definitely fit into the uber slot as far as I can see. I think they may have some of the better modeling in the simm - but their performance envelope makes them outstanding performers while leaving them very difficult to over control. They are also steady gun platforms and great energy fighters. Candidates for best dogfighter in my opinion.

Bull_dog_
01-13-2005, 06:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
I hear ya, but I think the late 109s definitely fit into the uber slot as far as I can see. I think they may have some of the better modeling in the simm - but their performance envelope makes them outstanding performers while leaving them very difficult to over control. They are also steady gun platforms and great energy fighters. Candidates for best dogfighter in my opinion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny you say that cause one plane I almost never fly online or offline is the 109K followed by the G10... I actually don't like those mk108's either. I'm probably one of the few guys that takes a Fw out with 20mm cannons instead of 30mm wing cannons. I do like the G6AS against Mustangs and Spits as long as they aren't all hanging out at 25K ft....at that altitude only the K has a chance.

The exception to that is cockpit only servers...then I fly with the uber cannons. Quick kills are very important in that arena....but I fly most of the time on UK Dedicated.

WWMaxGunz
01-13-2005, 07:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
Ummm... I normally avoid the 109 - because it's such a killing machine. But all this got me curious - I am able to grey out at 440MPH with set for level flight at 300mph in the g6as and no combat flaps. - you may not be able to snap the wings off like in a ki or mustang - but is that a bad thing? This beast turns very well at all speeds near as I can tell. I was able to sustain a full deflection turn - with fairly intense grey-out - no flaps from 480mph down to about 180mph. that's extremely reasonable handling. Roll rate remains decent even at those high speeds. notch it up to 480 mph for the k4. I see nothing to complain about with this one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting. Can you do the grey-out at 6km alt and high speed? And can you hold it for
you know how long? Because the special turn is 5G's for so many seconds, starting speed
so much, 6km alt and flat turn supposed to work out in 24 seconds I think it is. If the
plane can turn hard enough to grey the pilot out... something funny a bit between the
lines somewhere from Q to D and "what other planes can do". If you are able to do that
at 6km then I want to find a way to do with money what someone else does with claims of
FM's. I could get rich yet!

p1ngu666
01-13-2005, 08:13 PM
i agree on the uber thing, few patches ago, nope but now..

i think whats happened is its retained the ufoish fm from 3.0/1/2 while other planes havent (or to such a extent).

like 1 example, il2 doing a full break turn, 109 coming down even faster, 109 seemed todo a uber bunt and hit me with mk108 = my il2 dead instantly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

also the low speed climb and handling is vastly better than contempories.
109s are also tougher now, my friend who fly many different planes agree..

ZG77_Nagual
01-13-2005, 09:16 PM
Rgr Max; that turn was on the deck. Starting at 460 in the g6as - I see grey at 440 and keep it to 180 - full deflection - trim level at 300 (these are MPH) K4 does it faster - turn at 480- hit grey at 460. No flaps. If I get the urge I'll try it at 6km. (ps - I agree on the 190 - prefer the a6 or dora)

n

WUAF_Badsight
01-14-2005, 12:28 AM
well its the 6K K-4 test that we are comparing dude . . .

& P-1 you cant be serious , the Bf109s are not better than ever , the Spitfires sure are tho

carguy_
01-14-2005, 02:38 AM
Maaaan I think LS is facing best ME109 pilots recently!?

Really,I know the plane more than any other in the game and yet in a G6 I often find myself thinking "CLIMB YOU STINKING PIECE O F S###!!!".However I would agree it holds energy better than before.

Yaks can go 680kph and actually hold the speed so if a Me109 gets in 200m range with them the show is over!

WWMaxGunz
01-14-2005, 03:09 AM
Between both Nagual (say hi to Tonal for me!) and Badsight... these are IAS?

BlackStar2000
01-14-2005, 06:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
i agree on the uber thing, few patches ago, nope but now..

i think whats happened is its retained the ufoish fm from 3.0/1/2 while other planes havent (or to such a extent).

like 1 example, il2 doing a full break turn, 109 coming down even faster, 109 seemed todo a uber bunt and hit me with mk108 = my il2 dead instantly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

also the low speed climb and handling is vastly better than contempories.
109s are also tougher now, my friend who fly many different planes agree.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sry pingu666 my dog, but dont push it!, 109 is far from being a Uber, except for the UBER HEAVY elevator, but, if took a few shots of 30mm in your IL2, you have to notice that IL2 became less heavy armored than before, try use a 109f4(and talking about the pop corn shooting machine MG 151) jump on the Il2 six shoot the tail in the blue part and you will see it fall apart.

Von_Zero
01-14-2005, 07:05 AM
indeed, the il2 seems to be not-that-hard to kill lately. a few days ago i "chewed" one of those to death with the Buffalo. those guns were ripping the poor Sturmovik apart quickly

ZG77_Nagual
01-14-2005, 08:07 AM
Rgr - speedbar mph. ola!
You know the 109 is what most of the hard-core competition guys fly.

LeadSpitter_
01-14-2005, 08:35 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/503_1102168826_fw190_and_me109quirks.jpg

flame away majority of lufters who post in these forums

JG5_UnKle
01-14-2005, 08:57 AM
Bah! It's just British propaganda! I refuse to believe it....

Where in the test does it say the elevator should begin to stiffen at 450Kph....

Oh wait, it doesn't http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

carguy_
01-14-2005, 09:00 AM
If I can read this document describes flight behaviour of FW and Me so how can you prove that the point b) referrs to Me109?

Describing fits the FW but Me109 is mentioned only in the upper part.

Holtzauge
01-14-2005, 12:15 PM
Why thank you Leadspitter for providing some more proof that the elevator modelling on the 109 is off! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Under a) it in the chart you so graciously posted it says "difficulties appear in the behaviour of the elevators at an airspeed of":

"880 km/h at 6000m"

"corresponds to M=0.76"

(Can't help being a bit smug about the post I did in this thread the 7th january were I said "For a 109, I think the critical Mach number should be in the order of 0.7 to 0.8")

Now 880 km/h TAS at 6000 m equates to about 682 km/h IAS which is way above the 470 km/h IAS at which the K4 IRL test at 6000m was done and which has been used to prove the point in this thread.

The chart says that the elevator difficulties appear at M=0.76 and say nothing about elevator difficulties below 682 km/h IAS so I think your chart can be added to the already comprehensive evidence to support a fix for this problem adding up in this thread!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/503_1102168826_fw190_and_me109quirks.jpg

flame away majority of lufters who post in these forums <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ZG77_Nagual
01-14-2005, 01:11 PM
the info in that article is way to vague to be of much use - 'difficulties' could refer to anything from stiffness to control reversal - my bet is the latter. Current elevators in the 109 are really not functionally stiff unless you compare with something like the mustang - which has overmodeled elevator response. At turn fight speeds the 109 is fantastic - and it's also great at bnz. I'd advocate more for changing some of the overmodeled elevator response elsewhere than altering the 109 - which seems fairly realistic.

Von_Rat
01-15-2005, 01:35 AM
its hard as heck to bnz in any 109, you have to slow down so much to be able to aim,because of elevator, that if you miss your in big trouble.

Von_Rat
01-19-2005, 10:15 PM
bump

p1ngu666
01-21-2005, 01:35 PM
vonrat, rather than diving onto your oppent, aim to dive and level off behind him, aim from dead 6, blast away, zoom up

its what i do when i bnz when in zero, and most planes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

carguy_
01-21-2005, 01:57 PM
Pingu,I don`t have anything against you,but I`d just like to inform you that you`re very wrong on some points.

I thought I say it maybe you aren`t aware of it.

Von_Rat
01-21-2005, 02:07 PM
cough,,, i know how to fly a 109,,,cough

ive tried it everyway there is. you still lose to much energy slowing down so you can line up to hit anything while bnz in a 09. espceilly the k4, which should be best bnz 09, others not so bad. because of @$$#@#$ elevator

p1ngu666
01-21-2005, 03:21 PM
hm?

ive bnz'ed with zero's, and they get stiff just like 109, yes u have some speed issues to manage, but u can do it

von rat, im not saying u dont, but many ppl cant see other ways, for whatever reason, we all have that.

k4 would be considered great for bnz cos of high speed and great climb

but then i fly at lowish alts, if u up higher, i think the 109 elivator locks pretty bad

Vampiric666
02-17-2005, 06:01 PM
Fix it because it is really weird..... k4 at 400 kmh handles 1000 times worse than corsair at 700 kmh...... really weird.

LBR_Rommel
02-18-2005, 02:12 PM
Lets go!


This original German test document refers to dive tests of 109s with the tall tail. Result of this test was that the new tail reduced highspeed diving ozillations (which sometimes appeard with the old tail). More interesting is the fact, that in this tests, which had not the aim to estimate the highest mach number or to test the structure, they reached
max. Mach 0,805@7.0km
max. TAS 906km/h@5.8km
max. IAS 737km/h@4.5km
Even more interesting is the fact that they tried different positions of the trimming. With the wrong trimset - the one for cruising at high altitude it was not possible to pull out of the dive just by using the stick. They needed to use the trimwheel to recover the plane from the dive. This happened in such violent manner that the testpilot had to push the stick foreward to be not blacked out...
If the trim was set to +1.15? it was possible to recover without using the trimwheel - both flightpaths, with and without the trimwheel, are very similar. So even with the concrete stick the limitating factor seems to be the pilot.
Also interesting in the dive the canopy iced, also the mechanism of the trim, so it was not possible to set it smooth, but in \"jumps\", but it was still adjustable...
- Source: Hochgeschwindigkeitsversusche mit Me 109, Messerschmitt AG, Augsburg.


The maximum speed not to be exceeded was 750kmh. Once I was flying above Helsinki as I received a report of Russkies in the South. There was a big Cumulus cloud on my way there but I decided to fly right through. I centered the controls and then something extraordinary happened. I must have involuntarily entered into half-roll and dive. The planes had individual handling characteristics; even though I held the turning indicator in the middle, the plane kept going faster and faster, I pulled the stick, yet the plane went into an ever steeper dive.
In the same time she started rotating, and I came out of the cloud with less than one kilometer of altitude. I started pulling the stick, nothing happened, I checked the speed, it was about 850kmh. I tried to recover the plane but the stick was as if locked and nothing happened. I broke into a sweat of agony: now I am going into the sea and cannot help it. I pulled with both hands, groaning and by and by she started recovering, she recovered more, I pulled and pulled, but the surface of the sea approached, I thought I was going to crash. I kept pulling until I saw that I had survived. The distance between me and the sea may have been five meters. I pulled up and found myself on the coast of Estonia.
If I in that situation had used the vertical trim the wings would have been broken off. A minimal trim movement has a strong effect on wings when the speed limit has been exceded. I had 100kmh overspeed! It was out of all limits.
The Messerschmitt's wings were fastened with two bolts. When I saw the construction I had thought that they are strong enough but in this case I was thinking, when are they going to break
- What about the phenomenon called "buffeting" or vibration, was there any?
No, I did not encounter it even in the 850kmh speed."
- Ky¶sti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source





source: http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/109myths/#dives

the document
http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/structures/tails/109.05e43_report/05e43-p1.htm

WWMaxGunz
02-18-2005, 02:42 PM
What one pilot did with a 109K using unmeasured stick force should be the basis of the sim?
Why not? Over pushing for points, other things are bent strang so now 109's get a new extra.
So many seconds at such speed at 6500m and then down below that they will turn utmost.
All because of one paper with a turn described in some detail but not all. Very good.
If diplomats were so good there would maybe be no wars.

LeadSpitter_
02-18-2005, 04:29 PM
give it a rest lufties PLEASE.

LBR_Rommel
02-18-2005, 06:44 PM
the Bf109k4 manual in german

http://www.luftwaffebrasil.com/bf109k4.pdf

Bf109g2 page 15 for diving speed

http://www.luftwaffebrasil.com/bf109g2.pdf


On May 4, 1940, a Bf 109E (Wn: 1304) was flown to RAF Boscombe Down, where it was appraised by the Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment (A & AEE); then later flown to the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) at Farnborough for handling trials, and allocated the serial number AE479. The results of the RAE's evaluation were discussed on Thursday, March 9, 1944 at a meeting of the Royal Aeronautical Society in London, at which M.B. Morgan and R. Smelt of the RAE lectured on 'The aerodynamic features of German aircraft'. About the Bf 109E they had this to say:

During a dive at 400 mph all three controls were in turn displaced slightly and released. No vibration, flutter or snaking developed. If the elevator is trimmed for level flight at full throttle, a large push is needed to hold in the dive, and there is a temptation to trim in. If, in fact, the airplane is trimmed into the dive, recovery is difficult unless the trimmer is moved back owing to the excessive heaviness of the elevator.


source: http://www.bf109.com/flying.html
I think some programer mixed 400mph with 400kmh

steiner562
02-18-2005, 07:43 PM
*Throws brick on evelvators at LS*http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

LBR-GuntherRall
02-18-2005, 08:01 PM
Salute!

Good, I fly that simulator to a long time, and flight only German airplanes, I already read several publications, documentaries, etc etc... Good IL2 that you see playing, and he/she reads or and totally liar or the game has mistakes that favor the allies. Good who wins the war writes her recounts. Few admit that the German aircrafts were very good or then the German pilots 80% of them were excellent a lot above the normal. (German pilots UBER).
The subject and: 70% of who it flies in HL that Germans don't fly, fly of spitfire (after the patch 3.04m) 90% of them! My god the guy makes a curve with the spit and he still has energy to catch a ME 109 WITH EASINESS, unless you catch the guy, because if the guy wants him will get right you!
He/she not looks and wanting to demerit the airplane, but this too much wrong; he tolerates more damages than a P47! LBR=Ostermann made some tests here the spit IXe 1944, arrived to 715kmh, to 8000mts... Now all know that the spit MK IX doesn't arrive to 700kmh... to not to be in dive.
As the inefficiency of the controls of the 109, that already comes from a distance, only to explain to an American pilot it counts that in a dive the 109 came out a lot before him, and him in miraculous P51... a report of American pilot... ops no and ally? Ahh he should have psychological possessions....
To conclude, Mr: Leadspitter you don't play with German airplanes, because it ties today didn't see you flying of me 109, Fw 190, to emit opinions on those aircrafts, and more you only know how to use Ctrl+C and Control+V... then she cannot please help doesn't disturb, or be making campaign " The Germans have to be bad!!!!! " if you don't like German aircrafts, to be inventing kids history that it shot down that or that allied airplane with a FW 190 or Bf 109, (if you in fact don't fly with them) with only 2ou 3 shots it doesn't help for the I contradict you only make fool's paper... I don't think so and that that you want. Am I wrong?
Good in any way I don't believe that they will repair the German airplanes, for the that I have been seeing, you ally, the torrent of allied airplanes, and the things that are put for us of the Axis fly (BF 109Z, Fiat Cr 42) and of immense help. Because nobody models him/it me 410, or it puts Panel in the 210, Hs 129, among other airplanes of important paper in the confrontation. Once again a simulator that only pleases the allies...

And remember, who won the war was the amount, and no the quality!

Bis Bald.

JG5_UnKle
02-19-2005, 03:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
give it a rest lufties PLEASE. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Will do, just as soon as it gets fixed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JuHa-
02-19-2005, 07:54 AM
Just my 0.02Eur.

Regarding the "Saitek driver" claim made by OM.
I used a Logitech product until recently, until
it had its hours up and was worn out. With this
stick I could spin the Me109F4 easily with excessive stick use. Every (almost) time I pulled the stick all the way back, 109 would enter a spin. Only at landing finals the full movement didn't induce a spin. Generally
speaking, I used normally only 30-50% of the
movement range of the stick, this was more than
enough to control the Me109F4.

Ok. Now, with a Saitek stick - I find myself pulling the stick all the way and _not_ inducing
a spin! Be sure, my trim usage hasn't changed.
My plane is still the same - only the stick has changed.
Nowadays I find myself using 80...100% of the movement range of the stick, and I did already changed my controller profile to more aggressive
as the old profile (for Logitech) provided me
with very slow controls.

So: With Saitek, I can/have to use most/all of
the stick movement range to find the Me109's
stall/spin limits in fast moves.
For the reference, the controller profiles do
have 100% at the edges of range ie. full control
range is in use.

Conculusion: O.Maddox's claim that something is
up with Saitek's drivers seems true to me.
This isn't btw. a Me109 specific issue as the
enlightened reader has realised on his/hers own.

--

Could someone explain it to me, why using trim
should improve the sustained turn rate?
I assume that elevator movement range isn't the
limiting factor in this scenario, as I flew
some turn tests with F4 at s/l and the stick was
never even close to max position, ie. elevators
weren't on their limits. Result for me was that
using trim added ~0,3s in my sustained turn
times. And this is add odds with everything I
read from the forums, and my own assumption is
that it shouldn't matter, as long as were not
reaching the effective limits of the elevator
control planes.

Thank you.

WWMaxGunz
02-19-2005, 11:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LBR_Rommel:
During a dive at 400 mph all three controls were in turn displaced slightly and released. No vibration, flutter or snaking developed. If the elevator is trimmed for level flight at full throttle, a large push is needed to hold in the dive, and there is a temptation to trim in. If, in fact, the airplane is trimmed into the dive, recovery is difficult unless the trimmer is moved back owing to the excessive heaviness of the elevator.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That really is such an intelligent reporting of the flight, controls and conditions that I
wonder if 109's reported set in cement in dives and needing trim to come out were not already
trimmed nose down for at least fast level flight before those dives if not into those dives.
If so then this what you posted could be at the crux of much misunderstanding of the 109.

But in turns, there is still the wing loading and wing shape even with the slats able to
pop out at very low speed. The idea is to keep speed in the turn and have it on exit,
and that K6 turn so quoted is not lowspeed at all.

6500m alt, mach is how fast? Not as slow as 9km, yes.

LBR_Rommel
02-19-2005, 03:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LBR_Rommel:
During a dive at 400 mph all three controls were in turn displaced slightly and released. No vibration, flutter or snaking developed. If the elevator is trimmed for level flight at full throttle, a large push is needed to hold in the dive, and there is a temptation to trim in. If, in fact, the airplane is trimmed into the dive, recovery is difficult unless the trimmer is moved back owing to the excessive heaviness of the elevator.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That really is such an intelligent reporting of the flight, controls and conditions that I
wonder if 109's reported set in cement in dives and needing trim to come out were not already
trimmed nose down for at least fast level flight before those dives if not into those dives.
If so then this what you posted could be at the crux of much misunderstanding of the 109.

But in turns, there is still the wing loading and wing shape even with the slats able to
pop out at very low speed. The idea is to keep speed in the turn and have it on exit,
and that K6 turn so quoted is not lowspeed at all.

6500m alt, mach is how fast? Not as slow as 9km, yes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well the only thing you can do its wonder...
If you really read it you will see thats about EMIL Bf109E behavior on the SPEED OF 400MPH

I dont such fine tunnings modelled in this game, such as trimm doing some changes as you can see above.

by the way thers enough to realy show how bf109 behave in a dive, right now you are only trolling so....

http://www.luftwaffebrasil.com/EvilTroll1.jpg

IM IMPRSSED EVERY POST ABOUT SOME CHANGE OF GERMAN PLANES WWMaxGunz ONLY SHOW UP TO SAY SOMETHING NEGATIVE ABOUT IT, SOMEBODY PAY YOU TO DO IT?

LBR-GuntherRall
02-19-2005, 05:35 PM
Salute.

Good and the campaign ' Germans continue bad continues ' now with with one more follower Mr: MaxGunz, that should also belong to the team ' spitfire, P51 ' because I never saw flying of 109 or 190...

Are necessary proofs not and? I think already a lot of were posted them, it ties a Russian pilot spoke ' a lot of well ' of the Me 109 as good fighter of curves.

I think those illustrations that are always dirtying the German airplanes, before so many proofs and reports think you should be quiet she cannot help, don't disturb, and more that already this becoming an annoying subject, because countless times already the mistakes were shown, they don't only correct if they don't want, and for oh it goes.

It is personal of her campaign work ties here this giving fruits because potency, fire power, was removed maneuvers, they only lack to remove the resistance of the landing gear and the parachute of the Germans!

Bis Bald!

Repeating: The amount won the quality!

WWMaxGunz
02-20-2005, 12:05 AM
Repeating that LW planes very often achieved local superiority and still took losses.

I'm not talking of the pullouts. 109 and P-38 share the same problem in seeming to get
extra compression and worse at higher altitudes. They lose effect at too low speeds.

But I don't want to see the pendulum swing all the way over the other way. The game
works with pilot strength to limit on the stick and then you must trim for more which
okay in reality you use both arms and your back... the game does not have this so if
it is put in by simple effectiveness adjustment (P-51 I feel is overdone this way) then
you end up with unreal capabilities in the slower flight envleope. We see this in some
planes and ask for correctness while so many yell for their precious relative performance.
Relative performance means all behaviours ratchet up on each other into arcade.

Call me against German planes? Hey, you don't read much for long. You want the 151/20
ammo mix fixed? You see me fight against that? HUH? Maybe you forget? Those guns are
not on any Allied plane I know of. There are and have been other issues where my stance
has been opposite of the smear Rommel wants to paint on me. He is wrong.
I see problems with any line of argument on any plane or gun, I point those out and people
who can't take that need to grow some more. Or they can cry someone doesn't love them,
give them candy now! I have been wrong, have been shown so and do learn. Can you?

DarthBane_
02-20-2005, 03:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG52_Meyer:
The problem is due of the saitek drivers... be sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That story stinks! I cannot belive that someone wrote that stupidity!

DarthBane_
02-20-2005, 04:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
i have ch setup and k4s elevator is porked for me to. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly, game is inacurate, story about drivers stinks bad. Someone has a problem of reading charts and likes to imagine how a k4 flew? Developers call this game a sim? Than stop using your imagination for FM data! Try to read instead.

Sig.Hirsch
02-20-2005, 12:38 PM
Oleg had a couple of mails about this bug in the past .
i never followed it , i dunno his answer since it became clear that it's not a driver problem .
Someone should mail him maybe , it's likely to stay as it is if we don't remind him that or if he doesn't fix anything anymore in FB/AEP .

WWMaxGunz
02-20-2005, 01:12 PM
Thread title says elevator effectiveness but issue seems to be effect at high altitude
and not great speed combined, not overall effectiveness.

Jah but would be goot to getta little bonus! Right? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Chust to make up for before!

At least some, not all but some give me that impression.

HayateAce
02-20-2005, 05:29 PM
High speed elevator stiffness for 109 is historically correct. The game is wrong, in that the elevators are not stiff enough, and become stiff too late.

Oleg, please increase the elevator stiffness and add to the ailerons as well. This is wrong in game at moment to have no aileron stiffness.

Keep historical accuracy and ignore the gameboys.

Badsight.
02-20-2005, 10:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
High speed elevator stiffness for 109 is historically correct. The game is wrong, in that the elevators are not stiff enough, and become stiff too late.

Oleg, please increase the elevator stiffness and add to the ailerons as well. This is wrong in game at moment to have no aileron stiffness.

Keep historical accuracy and ignore the gameboys. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>im Glad he listened to you about the P-51 , seeing as how its fixed now in 3.04

WWMaxGunz
02-21-2005, 01:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
High speed elevator stiffness for 109 is historically correct. The game is wrong, in that the elevators are not stiff enough, and become stiff too late.

Oleg, please increase the elevator stiffness and add to the ailerons as well. This is wrong in game at moment to have no aileron stiffness.

Keep historical accuracy and ignore the gameboys. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you read the quote of the British evaluation at the top of the page?
You think just maybe that condition of trim in dive might have had any effect
and resulted in inaccurate quotes by pilots less knwoing than the test pilots
who arrived at the top conclusion were?

Stiff too late?? Where is your data?
Just as bad as the people who want the right thing the wrong way is... what you wrote.

Badsight.
02-21-2005, 02:09 AM
you just wasted however long it took you to type that max

did you actually think that Hayate_Hater can contribute with anything in a serious non-biased manner ? well you is wrong if you did

Hayate_Hater is a Troll 100% proof

nothing he ever types carries any weight , he isnt out for accuracy & he is using this login to hide his real squad login from recieving the YankWhiner title he deserves

only thing Hayate_Hater wants is easy-to-kill axis planes

JG5_UnKle
02-21-2005, 10:26 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I think they got TAS/IAS mixed up at higher altitude for some types.

Medvedya
02-21-2005, 11:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
24 seconds! In AEP, it`s still 33-36 seconds! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See, this is what I mean about taking a game too far - who in their right mind would really give one!

LBR_Rommel
02-21-2005, 02:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
High speed elevator stiffness for 109 is historically correct. The game is wrong, in that the elevators are not stiff enough, and become stiff too late.

Oleg, please increase the elevator stiffness and add to the ailerons as well. This is wrong in game at moment to have no aileron stiffness.

Keep historical accuracy and ignore the gameboys. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://www.luftwaffebrasil.com/troll2.jpg

WWMaxGunz
02-21-2005, 05:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
you just wasted however long it took you to type that max

did you actually think that Hayate_Hater can contribute with anything in a serious non-biased manner ? well you is wrong if you did

Hayate_Hater is a Troll 100% proof

nothing he ever types carries any weight , he isnt out for accuracy & he is using this login to hide his real squad login from recieving the _YankWhiner_ title he deserves

only thing Hayate_Hater wants is easy-to-kill axis planes <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He must be attracted to his opposite but equals.
Only it takes two of them to equal the garbage of one of him!
His is so pure, it must be diluted before adding to the potting soil.

When will he post his child-avatar being loud?

Sig.Hirsch
02-21-2005, 06:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Medvedya:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
24 seconds! In AEP, it`s still 33-36 seconds! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See, this is what I mean about taking a game too far - who in their right mind would really give one! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ok no problem , so let's ask Oleg to pork all the planes in Il-2 FB of 12 seconds (Ki-43 turns in 14 sec) , and we'll see after if you still call it a sim , or maybe go play Crimson Skies http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Medvedya
02-22-2005, 05:51 AM
Pork? What on Earth are you talking about?

Anyway, the FM on the planes seem good enough to me. I certantly think it's deeply sad to sit there with a stopwatch measuring the turn times. Someone who does that really needs to get out more.

Crimson Skies - nah, not my thing. I like to have some realism in games I play, I just don't make a God of it.

dadada1
02-22-2005, 09:43 AM
This thread is becoming very amusing is it not ?

Sig.Hirsch
02-22-2005, 10:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Medvedya:
Pork? What on Earth are you talking about?

Anyway, the FM on the planes seem good enough to me. I certantly think it's deeply sad to sit there with a stopwatch measuring the turn times. Someone who does that really needs to get out more.

Crimson Skies - nah, not my thing. I like to have some realism in games I play, I just don't make a God of it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ok then accept that Bf-109 K4 turned in 24 seconds at 6500 m in reality : FACT

In this game it's 32 to 35 sec wether u use trim or not , and as you said , we are seeking for realism , not bias http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Nubarus
02-22-2005, 10:39 AM
What are the turn conditions Sig Hirsch?

I ask because I can complete a 360 turn in less then 24 seconds in a K4 at 6500 m.
Slow speed turn without combat flaps deployed.

Medvedya
02-22-2005, 12:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:

Ok then accept that Bf-109 K4 turned in 24 seconds at 6500 m in reality : FACT

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow...Is that the case? I don't doubt it for a moment, but so what?

It's just the way I see it, but as I said before, I feel Maddox has created a pretty good facsimile of all the planes in Il2.

They all look good, and their foibles and qualities have been reproduced to a high standard. Surely that's enough?

Am I seeking realism? Yes, up to a point, but I see no profit in labouring over pettyfogging details - which they are.

Sig.Hirsch
02-22-2005, 12:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
What are the turn conditions Sig Hirsch?

I ask because I can complete a 360 turn in less then 24 seconds in a K4 at 6500 m.
Slow speed turn without combat flaps deployed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Can you post the track here please ?
we are more than twenty person who tested since March 2004 , i'd love to have your version of FB if it's the case .

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> It's just the way I see it, but as I said before, I feel Maddox has created a pretty good facsimile of all the planes in Il2.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm the first to say it too , thanks to the remarks and suggestions of thecommunity , the sim got better and better , that's why we ask http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

12 seconds is enormous , not exactly a detail , but a big bug , think about it , it could have been a Spitfire if that can help , it would have been the same .

Stiglr
02-22-2005, 12:56 PM
One nagging question about turn rates:

When you do these tests, is it a condition to perform the flat turn with no loss of speed, or is it simply how fast you can go from straight and level to a bank, and make a circle while losing no altitude (and end speed doesn't matter)???

Nubarus
02-22-2005, 01:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
Can you post the track here please ?
we are more than twenty person who tested since March 2004 , i'd love to have your version of FB if it's the case . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I asked what conditions you guys test at, not your snotty sarcasm.

EFG_beber
02-22-2005, 01:46 PM
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1105021432_5026-33_turndiagram.jpg

Max turn at 650Km/h and 6000m with loss of speed.

Nubarus
02-22-2005, 02:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EFG_beber:
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1105021432_5026-33_turndiagram.jpg

Max turn at 650Km/h and 6000m with loss of speed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am looking at the test paper but I see no speed indication, only the alt of 6000 meters is listed on it.
Where does the speed of 650km/h come from that is supposed to match this document?

mortoma
02-22-2005, 05:53 PM
If it were joystick drivers than why do I get stuck 109 elevator using my old analog gameport joystick?? It's only two button and three axis and it uses the old standard default Windows 98 joystick drivers, that came built into the OS itself. No fancy manufacturer hardware drivers here!!!

JG52_Meyer
02-22-2005, 09:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

I am looking at the test paper but I see no speed indication, only the alt of 6000 meters is listed on it.
Where does the speed of 650km/h come from that is supposed to match this document? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


180m/s http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG52_Meyer
02-22-2005, 09:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG52_Meyer:
The problem is due of the saitek drivers... be sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That story stinks! I cannot belive that someone wrote that stupidity! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ever heard of sarcasm ?

WWMaxGunz
02-22-2005, 10:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EFG_beber:
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1105021432_5026-33_turndiagram.jpg

Max turn at 650Km/h and 6000m with loss of speed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you for the diagram.
I see a constant loss of speed there, energy for angle.

If you find a doghouse chart for the 109K at that configuration and alt you will see the alt
it would have to lose at any G's pulled to maintain speed and one point where it will turn
without needing to lose alt to keep speed, inside of that where it can climb and maintain
speed even. But no WWII fighter could hold more than so many G's and maintain speed.

What I don't see on that chart is HOW HARD THE PILOT HAD TO PULL ON THE STICK.

This is where so many people fail to understand, the sim has strength limit modelled into
the stick pull. What it is can be debated, but there is the limit and it is not so high.
Anyone in good shape can pull more than 50 lbs force for so many seconds especially if
they are not being subjected to G forces themselves while doing it, so don't bother argue
what you can lift, I curled 110 lbs one armed for tone back before I got hurt and I did
that multiple reps per set. Somehow I don't think that should apply to the sim, do you?

Can agree that for a test or stunt or in combat that short time and both arms the stick
can be pulled more than usual or for prolonged periods? Can anyone see that what the
limit is set to becomes a matter of more than short term strength? Can anyone see that
where the line is made has been a matter of the art of the sim? If you can then you must
acknowledge that what that diagram represents may be outside the scope of the sim, pure
and simple, and to push for it is demanding that the sim be twisted yet more, not fixed
except for "fixed" in the way of "give us this special thing and all that comes with it".

So how do I fly that curve, WHICH IF YOU LOOK IS LESS THAN 360 DEGREES, DRAW THE TANGENT
TO THE END POSITION, when the sim pilot cannot pull with both arms and full strength?
In REALITY he could. Show me where it is anywhere there he did not, then talk proof!

I believe that P-51 has it and that should be fixed downwards. Not this business of each
plane getting bonus for excuses (what can I find in a book today?) until we are comparing
UFO's to UFO's. Bad enough the climbs are the way they are, and I do blame the whiners
of 2002 for that. Too much "gimmie more" going on since almost the start, and it happens
with EVERY SIM I'VE SEEN.

Medvedya
02-23-2005, 12:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
12 seconds is enormous , not exactly a detail , but a big bug , think about it , it could have been a Spitfire if that can help , it would have been the same . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've thought about it, and...

....nah. I still really don't care about those 12 seconds.

Its a game. A bit of fun on an otherwise dull Sunday evening. Gives you an idea of what it was like, but how could a computer sprite ever compare with the real thing?

ECV56_Rolf
02-24-2005, 10:07 AM
Well, just looking for consistency of this turning values into the game itself, I tried to compare the 109K4 not against a Spitfire, but against a 190A8, at 6000m, starting the turn at 650KM/h TAS, and over the crimea map.

I didn´t use flaps, no trims, no nothing. Same fuel conf for all of them. All of them in default armament.

The 109 turned in the figures everyboy is talking about 32-36.

The 190A8 taked 26-28...

Tried the Spit and the result was allways less than 20.

Now.. I hope this won´t lead to someone claiming that the 190 is overmodelled... but my point is that I don´t believe that nobody can sustain that the 190 was a better turner than a 109 in this conditions.

And... I can´t really figure out how a 109 could perform some B&Z tactics without smashing into the ground more often than getting a kill with this kind of behavior...

In the game I counteract this applying flaps, or trimming the plane... but it just doesn´t seem right... And I could accept that this effect on the P-38 it is wrong either. The compressibility make the plane uncontrolable, not only elevator heavy.

I don´t pretend to claim about exact figures, but about reasonable planes performance relations. Maybe the 109 was adjusted too much.

JG5_UnKle
02-24-2005, 03:30 PM
Word!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
Well, just looking for consistency of this turning values into the game itself, I tried to compare the 109K4 not against a Spitfire, but against a 190A8, at 6000m, starting the turn at 650KM/h TAS, and over the crimea map.

I didn´t use flaps, no trims, no nothing. Same fuel conf for all of them. All of them in default armament.

The 109 turned in the figures everyboy is talking about 32-36.

The 190A8 taked 26-28...

Tried the Spit and the result was allways less than 20.

Now.. I hope this won´t lead to someone claiming that the 190 is overmodelled... but my point is that I don´t believe that nobody can sustain that the 190 was a better turner than a 109 in this conditions.

And... I can´t really figure out how a 109 could perform some B&Z tactics without smashing into the ground more often than getting a kill with this kind of behavior...

In the game I counteract this applying flaps, or trimming the plane... but it just doesn´t seem right... And I could accept that this effect on the P-38 it is wrong either. The compressibility make the plane uncontrolable, not only elevator heavy.

I don´t pretend to claim about exact figures, but about reasonable planes performance relations. Maybe the 109 was adjusted too much. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

HayateAce
02-24-2005, 04:23 PM
Realism my

http://www.udel.edu/studyabroad/pix/china/pong_00w/donkey.jpg

These arcade gamists will never stop the un-ending 109whining until it out-turns every last plane in the sim that they cannot out-run.

It has never been, nor will it ever be the style of 109whiners to become better pilots and learn some tactics. They just don't have any pride.

FACT: Servers are full of K4s at weed top level turning and burning. Get shot down by a Yak or Spit, then it's off to the forums to cry.

sikira_SG
02-24-2005, 04:30 PM
Realism my........what Hayateace?....you did not finish your sentence.
Btw...nice of you to post your pic,so we all can see that your look fits to your posts.

Cheers

JV44Sikira.

LeadSpitter_
02-24-2005, 08:01 PM
keep whining they will probally change it for you.

Hetzer_II
02-25-2005, 06:43 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

BlackStar2000
02-25-2005, 07:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
keep whining they will probally change it for you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe they Give us .50s http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

DarthBane_
02-25-2005, 01:02 PM
Bump for this subject. amero-english funboys stop trashing this thread. To ofer you some help, that jug cockpit looks awfull (the only BIG allied problem). Common girls ride your ponys and pukes, err..spits.

DarthBane_
02-25-2005, 01:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
keep whining they will probally change it for you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From your extensive expirience? You must have posted around 1000 posts about 50's, only the gibbage made more whines..err..posts than you.
Speaking of whining and squiling, none can beat your quantities funboys. You dont rule skies, but you own the forum with force of sheer number of whines.

Medvedya
02-25-2005, 01:18 PM
So...let me get this straight, there are some people who fly a particular kind of aircraft type to the exclusion of all others featured in the game?

mortoma
02-25-2005, 03:13 PM
HayateAce and Leadspitter are not interested in historically accurate FMs for the 109, they want it weak only so they can beat it. They say these guys are whining but they are really not whining since the 109 elevator in this sim locks up at LOW speed, not high speed!!!! The late 109s were supposed to start suffering from elevator stiffness at 470MPH, not 470KPH!! 470Kph is very slow and I doubt ANY W.W.II fighter had it's elevator start to suffer from compressibility at only 470KPH!!! That's only 291MPH!!!! There's no way the late war 109s had elevators getting too stiff at less than 300MPH!! It ain't happening!! I have read that it was 470MPH ( 756 KPH ) where the late 109 elevators started to get heavy, which makes sense since that's getting a lot closer to the transonic speed effect area, at least at higher altitudes. Why would anything start suffering from compressibility at only 291MPH?? Even at low altitude??

I think HayateAce and Leadspitter are just showing their selfish bias against LW planes and want to continue to dominate them in combat. If they ever flew as well as they should they'd start crying and whining.

By the way, I'm not a LW fan or flier, I'm an american that flies everything really, except for the 109s and that's only because they have that inaccurate elevator response at LOW SPEED in the first place!!

Medvedya
02-25-2005, 03:57 PM
Huh. - they really shou....
Well, you know my views on that already. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Sig.Hirsch
02-26-2005, 10:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
HayateAce and Leadspitter are not interested in historically accurate FMs for the 109, they want it weak only so they can beat it. They say these guys are whining but they are really not whining since the 109 elevator in this sim locks up at LOW speed, not high speed!!!! The late 109s were supposed to start suffering from elevator stiffness at 470MPH, not 470KPH!! 470Kph is very slow and I doubt ANY W.W.II fighter had it's elevator start to suffer from compressibility at only 470KPH!!! That's only 291MPH!!!! There's no way the late war 109s had elevators getting too stiff at less than 300MPH!! It ain't happening!! I have read that it was 470MPH ( 756 KPH ) where the late 109 elevators started to get heavy, which makes sense since that's getting a lot closer to the transonic speed effect area, at least at higher altitudes. Why would anything start suffering from compressibility at only 291MPH?? Even at low altitude??

I think HayateAce and Leadspitter are just showing their selfish bias against LW planes and want to continue to dominate them in combat. If they ever flew as well as they should they'd start crying and whining.

By the way, I'm not a LW fan or flier, I'm an american that flies everything really, except for the 109s and that's only because they have that inaccurate elevator response at LOW SPEED in the first place!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
They always manage to destroy the thread by accusing us of bad intentions , while we bring the historical documents , the tracks , the objectivity , and we don't ask for impossible things , just to fix a bug .

Butch2k who knows a lot about 109 ( because it's his job ,and he's writing a book about it ) already sent all the historical datas to Oleg a long time ago , and he even did the translation for him , but no response was ever given by Oleg or 1:C here , except by telling us it might be a joystick driver problem (which we know is not now ) .

Realistically , the only way to get it fixed , is to directly write to Oleg , and ask him if he still can fix stuffs for IL-2 FB , cause he told me some months ago that he will concentrate on PF only for bugfix , and for BoB for the rest of his work , so , there are few chances to get it fixed , but we can try anyway .

Recon_609IAP
02-26-2005, 12:37 PM
Maybe after the p38 and p51 are fixed they can work on the 109 - lol

Medvedya
02-26-2005, 03:38 PM
But I'm still none the wiser as to why any of it really matters - please, enlighten, inform and entertain!

LeadSpitter_
02-28-2005, 07:40 AM
[2.0] Second Generation Bf-109s / Unusual Variants
v2.0.0 / 2 of 3 / 01 mar 02 / greg goebel / public domain

* Although the Bf-109E was an excellent aircraft, Willy Messerschmitt felt he could do more with the machine. As a result, the Messerschmitt concern developed the substantially modified and faster "Bf-109F", which would lead to the heavily produced "Bf-109G" and the final German variant of the line, the "Bf-109K". These fighters were mainstays of the defense of the Reich, struggling on against ever-worsening odds as the Allies gained the upper hand.

Given the large numbers of Bf-109s built, it was no surprise that all through its evolution there were side-branches in the form of special modifications and unusual variants that didn't reach full production. This chapter describes the second-generation Bf-109s and the unusual variants.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2.1] BF-109F
[2.2] BF-109G / BF-109K
[2.3] UNUSUAL BF-109 MODIFICATIONS
[2.4] BF-109T / BF-109H / BF-109TL / BF-109Z

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[2.1] BF-109F
* Though the Emil was more or less what Willy Messerschmitt had in mind when he designed the Bf-109, he didn't intend to stop there. In early 1940, design work had begun on an evolved version of the Bf-109 to take advantage of improved streamlining and accommodate even more powerful engine types.

The result was the "Bf-109F". The most noticeable difference was a longer and more streamlined cowling ending in a large prop spinner, giving the new variant a cigar-shaped appearance that would be retained in subsequent Messerschmitt Bf-109 variants.

The propeller blades were made 10 centimeters (4 inches) shorter, and wider. The underwing radiators were streamlined, with a ducting system introduced to divert airflow through the wing around them to reduce drag. The bracing struts for the horizontal stabilizer were deleted; the wings were extended and had rounded wingtips; and there were other modifications to the wing, tail, and fuselage. The Bf-109F also featured a semi-retractable tailwheel.

The planned powerplant was the DB-601E, with 1,350 horsepower for take-off. However, since this advanced engine wasn't available in time for initial tests, the first "Bf-109-V21" used the DB-601Aa while the next three prototypes, "Bf-109-V22" through "Bf-109-V24", evaluated the DB-601E.

Manufacturing problems with the DB-601E continued, and so the ten preproduction "Bf-109F-0s" built in late 1940 used the DB-601N engine. Despite the fact that the Bf-109F-0 used the same engine as late production Bf-109s, there was still a definite improvement in performance due to the aerodynamic refinements.

Deliveries of the very similar initial production "Bf-109F-1" variant began in early 1941. The pilots nicknamed the new version the "Frederick". Some of the early F-1s suffered a mysterious loss of control and crashed, and so they were all grounded while Messerschmitt engineers investigated. It turned out that eliminating the bracing struts from the horizontal stabilizer led to resonant vibration of the horizontal tailplane at certain engine RPM levels. Reinforcing plates were added to ensure a solid connection of the horizontal tailplane to the fuselage, and the problem went away.

The Frederick was an impressively streamlined aircraft, and in maturity was fast, with a top speed of 628 KPH (390 MPH). It was to be arguably the best of the Bf-109s, and leveled the balance of air power with the RAF Spitfire Mark V, which had been challenging the Emil.

* Early Bf-109F variants were armed with two MG-17 7.9 millimeter machine guns in the cowling and an MG-FF/M 20 millimeter Motorkanone. While moving back to the engine-mounted gun must have had Messerschmitt engineers worried, they had received feedback that concentrating firepower in the nose provided more focused and effective firepower than could be obtained by placing guns in the wings.

This decision was to prove controversial, since although Luftwaffe aces could make effective use of such armament, other pilots would protest that they required heavier armament and a wider field of fire than needed by the sharp-shooting aces.

The "Bf-109F-2" replaced the MG-FF/M 20 millimeter cannon with an electrically operated MG-151/15 15 millimeter cannon, with higher muzzle velocity; faster rate of fire; and 200 RPG, using belt rather than drum feed. The Bf-109F-2 was also produced in modifications such as the "Bf-109F-2/B" Jabo aircraft, the "Bf-109F-2/Z" high-altitude fighter with GM-1 nitrous oxide boost, and the "Bf-109F-2/Trop" tropicalized fighter.

* When Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941, the Frederick was in the lead, although many Emils participated as well, and would continue to serve in the Jabo role. On the first day of the attack, a thousand Soviet aircraft were destroyed on the ground, while over 300 were shot down.

Samples of the Bf-109E had been provided to the Soviet Union during the period of Nazi-Soviet "friendship", but the Soviets, possibly blinded by chauvinism and dulled by totalitarian bureaucracy, were dangerously unimpressed by the aircraft. Pitted against obsolete Soviet types like the I-16, Luftwaffe aces flying the Bf-109 began to rack up incredible lists of kills.

On 16 July, Werner Moelders became the first ace to score 101 kills. He was quickly recalled to Germany to train new pilots, only to be killed in a crash while on his way to attend Ernst Udet's funeral.

Other Luftwaffe pilots were to exceed the hundred-kill mark, with a good portion of those kills provided by the Frederick in the Russian campaign. By the end of the war, the top Luftwaffe aces would be Erich Hartmann, with 352 kills, Gerhard Barkhorn, with 301 kills, and Guenther Rall, with 275 kills. Hartmann would be sent to Russian POW camps for ten years after the war, but returned to serve in the post-war Luftwaffe, along with Barkhorn and Rall. Rall would be the first Luftwaffe pilot to solo in the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter.

* The large number of kills claimed by Luftwaffe aces remains somewhat controversial, as they far exceed the kills claimed by aces of all other combat forces. While it is certainly true that all air arms tend to exaggerate their kills, the Luftwaffe was apparently strict in their accounting standards. There were also other reasons, most of them essentially disadvantages to Germany, why some Luftwaffe fighter pilots could score so many kills.

Germany engaged in combat over several fronts for a long period of time. Luftwaffe aces had a relatively soft time of it in Russia at first, engaging large numbers of obsolete Soviet aircraft that were comparatively easy kills. Even later in the war when the Red Air Force had better tactics and fighters like the Yak-3 and La-5, the Soviets tended to trade quantity for quality both in terms of aircraft and pilots, and could still win playing that game.

The numeric imbalance that favored the Red Air Force was increasingly reflected in the West as well, meaning that those Luftwaffe pilots that survived had many opportunities to engage Allied aircraft, while Allied fighter pilots found German aircraft relatively scarce.

The Luftwaffe's limited resources also meant that while Allies could afford to pull their aces out of combat to train the next generation of fighter pilots, the Luftwaffe simply couldn't do it, no matter how much it paid off over the long run.

* In early 1942, the Bf-109F-2 was replaced on the assembly line by the "Bf-109F-3", which was very similar but finally incorporated the DB-601E engine. The definitive "Bf-109F-4" was produced in parallel with the Bf-109F-3 but in far greater numbers. It also featured the DB-610E engine, but replaced the MG-151/15 cannon with an MG-151/20 20 millimeter cannon with 150 RPG, and added improved self-sealing fuel tanks and better cockpit armor protection.

Later Bf-109F-4 production dispensed with the tailplane reinforcements, as the internal structure of the tailplane had been redesigned to eliminate the vibration problem. The Bf-109F-4 was also produced in "Bf-109F-4/B" Jabo, "Bf-109F-4/Z" high-altitude fighter, and "Bf-109F-4/Trop" tropicalized fighter modifications.

MESSERSCHMITT BF-109F-4:
_____________________ _________________ _______________________

spec metric english
_____________________ _________________ _______________________

wingspan 9.92 meters 32 feet 6 inches
length 9.05 meters 29 feet
height 2.6 meters 8 feet 6 inches

empty weight 2,590 kilograms 5,270 pounds
loaded weight 3,120 kilograms 6,880 pounds

max speed at altitude 625 KPH 390 MPH / 340 KT
service ceiling 12,000 meters 39,400 feet
range with drop tank 710 kilometers 440 MI / 385 NMI
_____________________ _________________ _______________________


* Hans Joachim Marseille, the Luftwaffe pilot who scored the highest number of kills against Western aircraft, a total of 158, achieved most of his victories in a "Bf-109F-4/Trop" in North Africa.
Having scored five kills in the Battle of Britain, he rapidly accumulated victories over the desert due to his excellent marksmanship. Marseille died at age 22 on 30 September 1942 when his Bf-109G caught fire and he struck the tailplane while trying to bail out. He would be remembered as the "Star of Africa".

* A total of about 2,200 Fredericks were built. While some sources indicate that there were "Bf-109F-5" through "Bf-109F-8" subvariants, the details are unclear except for the fact that if any were produced, it wasn't in any quantity. There were, however, a number of new subvariant modifications of the Bf-109F-4 built in limited numbers, which became another confusing issue that is addressed in the next section.

There were also a number of experimental conversions of the "Frederick", including fits of the Junkers Jumo 213; pressurized cockpit; wing fences; tricycle landing gear; a "vee" or "butterfly" tail; and even a BMW-801 radial engine.

BACK_TO_TOP


[2.2] BF-109G / BF-109K
* The "Bf-109G" was direct follow-on to the Bf-109F. The"Gustav", as it came to be known, was fitted with the still more powerful DB-605-series engine, with was effectively a DB-601 with bored-out cylinders, higher compression, and 1,450 horsepower for takeoff. The new engine was heavier and generated higher torque, requiring airframe reinforcement and changes. Some Gustav variants also featured a pressurized cockpit. Initial deliveries of the Gustav began in early 1942.

By this time, the Bf-109 was clearly past its prime, and the Focke-Wulf 190 would equip Germany's leading fighter squadrons. However, the Reich had lagged in introducing new fighters. There were never enough FW-190s to go around, while development of advanced jet fighters was delayed for technical and bureaucratic reasons until they were, fortunately for the Allies, too few and too late to make a difference.

Uprating the Bf-109 helped plug the gap for a while, but at a price. While the Bf-109 was maneuverable, it had never been light on the controls, and as it became faster it also became more difficult to fly. Its handling on the ground, never good, only kept getting worse. The Gustav was a handful for experienced pilots, and downright dangerous to inexperienced ones.

Ironically, while the Spitfire was upgraded in a similar fashion through the war, the basic Supermarine design proved more adaptable to increased horsepower, armor, firepower, and weight, and later model Spitfires like the Mark IX were more than a match for contemporary Bf-109s.

A Luftwaffe pilot would land his Bf-109G at RAF Manston by mistake later in the war and allow comparison of the Messerschmitt against current Allied types, showing it to have few advantages and many disadvantages relative to the Spitfire Mark IX and XIV, as well as the P-51C Mustang. This Gustav was lost in an accident before it could be tested against a Tempest Mark V.

Despite the limitations of the type, as conditions became increasingly desperate, the Bf-109G would roll off the production line in tremendous numbers, with as many as 24,000 produced by Germany and her allies. Over 14,000 of these were built in 1944 alone.

* Work on 12 preproduction "Bf-109G-0s" began in the summer of 1941, with the last of this batch delivered in October. Due to problems with obtaining the new engines, the preproduction Gustavs were fitted with DB-601E engines. They had the same armament fit as the Bf-109F-4, with twin MG-17 7.9 millimeter guns in the cowling plus an MG 151/20 20 millimeter Motorkanone, and had a pressurized cockpit.

The initial production "Bf-109G-1" began to arrive at Luftwaffe units in March 1942. It was identical to the Bf-109G-0, except that it was fitted with the proper DB-605A-1 or DB-605B-1 engine, with two new small cooling intakes in tandem on each side of the nose, just behind the propeller. The four intakes were added because the DB-605 engine tended to overheat or even catch fire while the aircraft was idling on the runway on hot days. GM-1 nitrous oxide boost was standard.

The Bf-109G-1 was built in a number of modifications, one of the most significant being the "Bf-109G-1/Trop" tropicalized fighter. This modification replaced the MG-17 7.9 millimeter guns in the cowling with MG-131 13 millimeter guns with 300 RPG for additional punch, in case the nose-mounted MG-151/20 jammed.

To accommodate the MG-131s, a pair of bulged fairings were fitted to the cowling just ahead of the cockpit, giving the Bf-109G-1/Trop and similar variants the nickname "Beule (bump)". The fairings did nothing to improve the Bf-109's already poor field of vision while on the ground.

* The topic of Gustav modifications is extremely complicated. Messerschmitt had moved to a process of modification through factory conversion kits, or "Umrust-Bausatz", designated by "U" modification codes, and field upgrade kits, or "Rustsaetze", designated by "R" modification codes. These kits were implemented in late Frederick production, but reached full development with the Bf-109G.

There were many of these kits; sources tend to give the same codes for different kits; and it appears that the same modification code might have different meanings when applied to different subvariants. To complicate matters, a single Gustav might have several kits, or be adapted to different kits over time, but its designation might only reflect one of them. Finally, towards the end of Gustav production many of these modification kits were built in as standard. The issue is very confusing, is unlikely to ever be sorted out with any certainty, and is little more than a headache for anyone who doesn't consider it their life's work.

In general outline, kits included Jabo conversions (codes variously given as "R1" and "R2"); long-range fighters with a centerline rack for a drop tank ("R3"); reconnaissance fighters ("R2", again, and "R4"); and "bomber destroyers". The bomber destroyer fits were particularly interesting and significant, as they were used in numbers to help defend the Reich against Allied bombers.

The first bomber destroyer modification ("R6") involved fit of an MG-151/20 cannon in a gondola under each wing, giving the Bf-109G a total of five guns. This fit adversely affected the aircraft's handling, increasing its weight, reducing its roll rate, and causing roll instability. Such modifications were at a disadvantage in tangling with Allied fighters. The bomber destroyer modification was referred by pilots as the "Kanonboote (Gunboat)".

This armament fit led to kits that provided an MK-108 30 millimeter cannon under each wing instead of the MG-151/20 cannon ("R5"), or fit of 21 centimeter (8.27 inch) WGr-210 "Dodel" rocket launch tubes in place of the underwing cannon ("R21"), for use as a "Polk Zerstoerer (formation breaker)". The big rockets were not very accurate and rarely hit anything, but they were useful for disrupting formations.

There was also a modification kit that exchanged the MG-151/20 Motorkanone for an MK-108 30 millimeter cannon ("U4"), and a similar kit that swapped the MG-151/20 for an MK-103 30 millimeter cannon.

The MK-108 was a short barreled, low-velocity weapon that could fire mine shells. It didn't have much range, but it could be devastating if it scored a hit. Crews called it the "Jackhammer" because of its appearance and the sound of its firing.

The MK-103 was a long barreled weapon and more potent than the MK-108, as it used a full-length round. It could fire tungsten-core armor-piercing rounds for use as an anti-tank weapon or incendiary rounds for air combat. Lack of availability of these heavy cannon meant they were a somewhat unusual weapons fit.

There were specialized kits, such as a radiocompass ("R7"); GM-1 nitrous oxide boost ("U2"); and "MW-50" water-methanol engine boost system ("U3"). This scheme permitted higher combat power by spraying the water-methanol mixture into the cylinders as a cooling measure. The water actually did the cooling, the methanol was added as anti-freeze for winter and high-altitude operation.

Another set of modification kits were implemented to provide a tail assembly with a wooden frame ("U2" again) in order to avoid use of increasingly scarce metals, and then a similar wooden tail assembly with a taller rudder ("U4" again).

* The "Bf-109G-2" was produced in parallel with the Bf-109G-1, and differed in lacking the pressure cabin and GM-1 nitrous oxide boost. The Bf-109G-2 was built in substantially larger numbers than the Bf-109G-1, and was produced in a wide range of modifications.



* Although a "Bf-109G-3" variant was produced, the next version of the Gustav to be introduced was actually the "Bf-109G-4", with initial deliveries in October 1942. It was very similar to the Bf-109G-2, the major difference initially being that the FuG-7A radio was replaced with an FuG-16ZY radio with longer range.

After initial production, the Bf-109G-4 was also fitted with larger mainwheel tires, to handle the greater weight of the Gustav, and to accommodate the bigger tires a bump was built into each wing. This particular bump may have also led to the Gustav being known as the "Beule".

The Bf-109G-3 followed the Bf-109G-4 into production, and was basically a Bf-109G-1 with an FuG-16ZY radio. Some later production featured the wooden tailplane assembly.

* Again, although a "Bf-109G-5" was built, the "Bf-109G-6" was introduced into service first, and in fact was the major Gustav production variant.

The Bf-109G-6 was the first subvariant to feature the twin MG-131 13 millimeter cannon as standard fit, along with the MG-151/20 Motorkanone. It did not have cockpit pressurization. Late Bf-109G-6 production featured items such as a taller rudder and longer tailwheel leg to improve ground handling; radio compass as standard fit; and the new "Galland hood", a bulged canopy to improve visibility.

The Bf-109G-6 was the most heavily produced of the Gustavs, with different subvariants using different versions of the DB-605. It was sometimes fitted as a Jabo but particularly used as a bomber destroyer, with the "gunboat" modifications.

MESSERSCHMITT BF-109G-6:
_____________________ _________________ ___________________

spec metric english
_____________________ _________________ ___________________

wingspan 9.92 meters 32 feet 6 inches
length 9.03 meters 29 feet 7 inches
height 2.5 meters 8 feet 2 inches

empty weight 2,673 kilograms 5,890 pounds
max loaded weight 3,400 kilograms 7,500 pounds

maximum speed 621 KPH 385 MPH / 335 KT
range with drop tank 1,000 kilometers 620 MI / 540 NMI
_____________________ _________________ ___________________


One of the more interesting Bf-109G-6 modifications was the "Bf-109G-6/N", eferred to in some sources as the "Bf-109G-6/U4N", which was fitted as a night-fighter with "FuG-350 Naxos Z" electronics to home in on centimetric radars used by RAF bombers. The night fighter was also fitted with exhaust flame dampers and a radio compass, with the directional loop antenna fitted to the bottom of the aircraft as the Naxos Z antenna was fitted to the top, and was configured as a "gunboat".
The Bf-109G-5 was identical to the Bf-109G-6 except that it had cockpit pressurization. There was no production "Bf-109G-7". The "Bf-109G-8", introduced in late 1943, was a reconnaissance fighter modification of the Bf-109G-6, with a camera in the rear fuselage, a gun camera in the left wing, and the twin cowling guns deleted.

* Gustavs gunboats were one of the mainstays of the Luftwaffe's defense of the Reich against Allied bombers, and many techniques were used to knock down the attackers. Gustavs were even used to drop fragmentation bombs with time-delay fuzes to break up the formations, but this approach met with little success.

As a night fighter, the Gustav was used in what were referred to as "Wilde Sau (Wild Boar)" tactics, in which day fighters fitted with little or no night-fighting equipment were sent to fly at high altitude over the target area. The target area, far from being blacked-out, would then be illuminated by searchlights and fires to reveal the black silhouettes of RAF bombers below the Wilde Sau fighters.

The Wilde Sau program was the idea of a bomber pilot, Major Hajo Hermann, and many of its warriors were bomber pilots as well. Initial experiments in the tactic were conducted starting in the spring of 1943, but Wilde Sau became the "only game in town" when the RAF starting dropping "window", or strips of aluminum foil designed to jam radar, in July 1943, blinding German air-defense radars and night fighters.

Wilde Sau proved effective in killing RAF bombers, but night flying in aircraft poorly equipped for the task proved dangerous, particularly in bad winter weather. Trying to find someplace to put down could be a problem, and in many cases Wilde Sau pilots simply bailed out of perfectly good aircraft when their options ran out.

Only a few of the Bf-109G-6/N night fighters were built, since by the time they began delivery the Wilde Sau groups were being disbanded, both because of combat attrition and the fact that the Germans had been able to overcome RAF electronics countermeasures to an extent. Had the Bf-109G-6/Ns been available earlier, they might have made a difference since they also had beacon-homing electronics, allowing them to find their way back to base at night.

* The "Bf-109G-10" was basically an attempt to standardize Gustav production, incorporating gear provided in various modification kits for earlier subvariants as standard, and fitted with a DB-605D engine with MW-50 water-methanol injection that gave it a top speed of 690 KPH (429 MPH) at altitude. Armament consisted of an MG-151/20 20 millimeter Motorkanone and twin MG-131 13.7 millimeter guns in the cowling, and the subvariant was fitted with the FuG-16ZY radio. Later production featured the taller tail, longer tailwheel leg, and Galland hood introduced with late-production Bf-109G-6s.

The "Bf-109G-12" was a tandem two-seat trainer, field-modified from the Bf-109G-1 to help the inexperienced pilots the Reich was throwing into battle obtain survival skills from their elders. A trainer subvariant derived from the Emil, to be designated "Bf-109S", had been considered in 1940, but it wasn't until 1942 that the idea was finally implemented using the Gustav. The Bf-109G-12s were all field conversions from other Gustav variants.

The "Bf-109G-14" was the last operational Gustav, with a DB-605AS or DB-605AM engine, three-gun armament, and Galland hood. The new Daimler-Benz engines had improved supercharging, which had been judged to be more effective than either nitrous oxide or water-methanol boost.

The "Bf-109G-16" was similar, but had the earlier DB-605D engine, standard five-gun armament, and a centerline rack. It was apparently intended for the ground attack role. It was not produced in any numbers, if at all.

The Gustav was the main player in "Operation Bodenplatte", in which the Luftwaffe launched a major attack against Allied airfields in France and the Low Countries in hopes of smashing enemy fighter-bombers on the ground. The attack destroyed about 450 Allied aircraft, but resulted in serious losses for the Luftwaffe. The Allies could make good their losses easily, while the Luftwaffe couldn't replace them at all, and most of the pilots who were shot down and survived fell into Allied hands.

* The extraordinary number of modifications of the Gustav proved counterproductive, and led to a desire to come up with a smaller set. The lack of standardization of the aircraft made maintenance and supplying spares a difficult problem. Attempts to solve the problem with later Gustav subvariants such as the Bf-109G-10 didn't prove successful, and so the RLM, in effect, ordered Messerschmitt to try harder.

The result was the "Bf-109K" or "Konrad" series, which was based on the Bf-109G-10. The preproduction "Bf-109K-0" was very much like the final Gustav production subvariants, but featured a raised cowling, a longer prop spinner, a Galland hood, raised vertical tailplane, and fully retractable tailwheel with an extended leg to improve visibility on take-off.

They were fitted with a DB-605B engine with GM-1 nitrous oxide boost as standard. By default they were armed with twin MG-131 guns in the cowling and an MG-151/20 Motorkanone, but they were also evaluated with an MK-108 or MK-103 30 millimeter cannon and twin MG-151/15 15 millimeter cowling guns.

The initial production models were the "Bf-109K-2" and the "Bf-109K-4", with deliveries beginning in October 1944. The Bf-109K-2 was fitted with the DB-605ASC or DB-605DC engine, with GM-1 nitrous oxide boost as standard, and three-gun armament, featuring an MK-108 or MK-103 Motorkanone and twin MG-151/15 cowling guns. The Bf-109K-4 was identical, but featured cockpit pressurization.

The "Bf-109K-6" was a bomber-destroyer derivative of the Bf-109K-4. It differed in that MG-131s were used for the cowling guns instead of MG-151/15s, and two MK-108 guns were fitted in the wings, not in gondolas, for a total armament of three 30 millimeter and two 13.7 millimeter guns. It also had a gun camera. Few were produced as the Reich was falling apart at this time.

There were a few other Konrad variants, but they were produced in very small numbers, if any were actually built at all. The "Bf-109K-8" was a reconnaissance fighter version of the Bf-109K-6, with a camera in the rear fuselage and no cowling guns, the troughs for the barrels being faired over. The "Bf-109K-10" was very similar to the Bf-109K-4, but had MG-131 cowling guns instead of MG-151/15s and a DB-601D engine. The "Bf-109K-14" featured a DB-601L engine with a two-stage supercharger and MW-50 water-methanol injection, plus three-gun armament. It could attain a speed of 725 KPH (450 MPH).

* Something like 34,000 Bf-109s were built to the end of the war, and the type had fought all through the conflict. In the beginning they swept all before them. In the end, there were about 400 Bf-109Gs and 400 Bf-109Ks left to oppose the Allied air fleets, when the Luftwaffe could find gas to fly or pilots to fly them. In the air, they lived the lives of the hunted, fighting on in desperation as Allied fighters roamed the skies in swarms.

One of the last acts of the Bf-109 in combat was "Operation Wehrwulf", where the Messerschmitts were stripped down and used to ram USAAF bombers. A "Rammkommando Elbe" unit was formed under Hajo Hermann, and flew its first and last mission on 7 April 1945, destroying 8 bombers for a loss of 60 fighters.

Adolf Galland's autobiography was titled THE FIRST AND THE LAST. The same title could just as easily be applied to the story of the Bf-109.

BACK_TO_TOP


[2.3] UNUSUAL BF-109 MODIFICATIONS
* Given the large quantity of Bf-109s built, unsurprisingly there were many odd experiments and unusual variants.

Limited experiments were performed early in the war with a Bf-109E-8 fitted with skis for winter operations, but the skis caused a performance penalty, and regular production Messerschmitts proved to suffer no undue hardship in their use of wheels under winter conditions. The idea went no further.

Another idea that went nowhere were experiments in 1942 with underwing and overwing fuel tanks, fitted to a Bf-109E-4. They did little to interfere with the aircraft's flying characteristics, but centerline drop tanks had proven generally about as effective, so the idea of wing tanks was dropped.

It was revived again a year later in the form of overwing containers that could each carry a parachutist and his gear. This was apparently intended for saboteur drops, and could also be used for medical evacuation. In any case, although the containers, like overwing fuel tanks, proved to hardly impair the Bf-109's performance, mercifully for those who would have had to ride in the thing the idea generated little interest and was forgotten.

Some unusual armament fits were experimentally applied to Gustavs. One involved fit of a pack with twin rearward-firing MG-17 7.9 millimeter machine guns to a reconnaissance fighter as a means of self-defense. Another involved fit of three MG-151/20 cannon gondolas, one under each wing and the third under the centerline.

Fiesler also experimented with a Bf-109G-0 that was refitted with a DB-605A engine and could carry a 500 kilogram (1,100 pound) bomb and dual wing drop tanks. This experimental aircraft was redesignated the "Bf-109G-2/R1". The bomb was so large that it could not clear the ground on takeoff, and so a fixed landing-gear leg was attached to the aircraft just behind the bomb to jack the aircraft's tail up.

The spare leg was ejected by an explosive charge after takeoff and returned to earth by parachute for re-use. The idea was not adopted for operational use. Some sources say the tests went well, but others plausibly claim the aircraft was so overloaded as to be dangerous to fly.

* Another unorthodox idea was to use the Bf-109 as a glider tug. A Bf-109E was experimentally mounted on struts above a DFS-230 troop transport glider, but the idea was not adopted. In a similar scheme, however, the Bf-109 was mounted on top of an unmanned Junkers Ju-88 bomber that was packed with explosives and used as a flying bomb. The FW-190 was also used as a controller aircraft with the Ju-88 and other bombers.

The two aircraft took off together, with the fighter releasing the bomber and guiding it to target. The scheme was known as "Mistel" ("Mistletoe") or "Beethoven", and saw little operational use. It is described in more detail in a companion document, CRUISE MISSILES.

BACK_TO_TOP


[2.4] BF-109T / BF-109H / BF-109TL / BF-109Z
* The Bf-109E-1 was used as the basis for a German naval fighter built by Fiesler, the "Bf-109T", with the "T" standing for "Traeger (Carrier)". The "Toni" was to be used on board the German aircraft carriers GRAF ZEPPELIN, which was launched but never completed for operations, and PETER STRASSER, which was never built.

The Bf-109T featured folding wings with longer span, arrester hook in front of the tailwheel, catapult attachment gear, spoilers on top of the wings, interconnected ailerons and flaps, and full-span leading-edge slats. Ten "Bf-109T-0" preproduction aircraft and 60 "Bf-109T-1" production aircraft were ordered from Fiesler, since Messerschmitt was too heavily committed to existing production orders to do the job themselves.

Fiesler delivered the ten Bf-109T-0s. However, work on the carriers was abandoned and the 60 Bf-109Ts were completed in 1941 as land-based fighters designated the "Bf-109T-2", stripped of such carrier-specific gear as could be removed. They had twin MG-17 7.9 millimeter guns in the cowling and an MG-FF cannon under each wing, and were fitted with a centerline rack for bombs or drop tank.

They had excellent short-field performance and were assigned to short-length fields in Norway, where they provided excellent service. In 1942, they were moved to the German island of Heligoland and remained in service until 1944.

* The "Bf-109H" was a high-altitude fighter ("Hochleichtungsjaeger"), featuring extended wings, a pressurized cockpit, and high-altitude engine fits, built in response to an RLM requirement issued in early 1943.

At first, the Bf-109H was concieved as basically a Frederick with wing inserts to provide extended span for high-altitude operation. The wing inserts had the incidental effect of moving the main landing gear outward, giving the aircraft a wider ground track.

However, this concept was abandoned as it could not meet RLM requirements. Messerschmitt then suggested that their new "Me-209H" fighter, then in development and discussed in more detail later, could do the job. The Me-209H was to have a new DB-628A or DB-603A turbocharged engine for high-altitude operation, but delivery of the Me-209-II was not expected until 1944. As an interim measure, the RLM ordered Messerschmitt to go ahead with the Bf-109H and redesign it for use with the new engines.

A Gustav, designated "Bf-109-V49", had already been fitted with a mockup of the DB-628A as part of the Me-209-II program, and so it was a straightforward step to install an operational DB-628A in another Gustav for Bf-109H flight tests as the "Bf-109-V50". While this aircraft was undergoing trials, a third Gustav was fitted with both the DB-628A and the extended wings.

While Messerschmitt worked on Bf-109H prototypes with the DB-628A engine, they also built of up a batch of "Bf-109H-0" fighters for engineering tests and "Bf-109H-1" fighters for field evaluation, all modified from Fredericks and powered by the more conventional DB-601E engine with GM-1 nitrous oxide boost.

The Bf-109H-1s were evaluated by the Luftwaffe in France in early 1944. The trials went well, except for the fact that the aircraft demonstrated an unhealthy wing flutter in dives. Tests were conducted on some of these aircraft back in Augsburg, and in April 1944 one lost a wing during a dive.

This apparently stalled the program, which was then presently cancelled in favor of the Focke-Wulf Ta-152H. A number of additional H-series subvariants were considered but never reached prototype stage.

* Messerschmitt even considered development of a jet-powered version of the Bf-109, tentatively designated the "Bf-109TL", as a backup plan in case the Messerschmitt Me-262 jet fighter project ran into serious obstacles. The Bf-109TL used a modified Bf-109 fuselage with armament in the nose, and a new wing with two Junkers Jumo-004B turbojets.

The idea was that the Bf-109Tl would be able to leverage off existing production tooling, but to no great surprise as the design evolved, the details of the Bf-109TL diverged from those of standard Bf-109 production enough to ensure that the design provided no real advantages. The idea was abandoned in 1943.

* Another extreme variant was the "Bf-109Z Zwilling (Siamese Twin)", which consisted of two Bf-109F-4 airframes joined together to make a single aircraft. It was conceptually similar to the American P-82 Twin Mustang, except that only the left fuselage had a cockpit. Messerschmitt proposed the idea as a means of providing the Luftwaffe with a long-range Jabo that would leverage off existing Bf-109 production tooling.



Messerschmitt got the go-ahead from the RLM in early 1942. Two variants were planned, including the "Bf-109Z-1" bomber destroyer ("Zerstoerer") with five 30 millimeter guns, and the "Bf-109Z-2" Jabo with twin 30 millimeter cannon and a one-tonne bomb load. Advanced versions with the Junkers Jumo 213 engine were considered.

The prototype was finished in mid-1943, but damaged by Allied bombers before it could fly. Attempts were made to repair it, but then the RLM ordered that the program be abandoned, as interest had moved on to improvements to the Focke-Wulf FW-190 and new jet-powered aircraft.

I think alot of you people dont realize how cramped the 109cockpit was, especially from 30lbs of aileron stickpressure and 60lbs of of elevator pressure the pilots could usually only pull 40lbs elevator becuase of the cramped cockpit.

btw the 109g and k should tear wings off at 750kmph under 5000m in a dive im sure oleg has the charts now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Keep ze whining up

Platypus_1.JaVA
02-28-2005, 07:49 AM
A: Does anyone really read this entire previous message?
B: What does it prove?

GR142_Astro
02-28-2005, 08:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Platypus_1.JaVA:
A: Does anyone really read this entire previous message?
B: What does it prove? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course you and others won't read it, because it contains facts that you just aren't able to accept. The 109 in ForgottenBattles is far better than it really was, but that fact won't and hasn't slowed wave after wave of complaining and false improvements.

Keep on complaining though.

Sig.Hirsch
02-28-2005, 10:24 AM
The original documents (German documents ) were posted by Kurfurst and Butch2k , and you can find it on this thread after intensive tests by pilots of the LW , all professionals trust these documents .

Bf-109 K has the best elevator response of all BF-109 Messerschmitt series : Not ingame especially over 6000 m .

turnrates datas are common knowledge , the article of LS proves absolutely nothing ,it's just a basic description of Bf series , read it .

We are willing to accept anything that come from a trusted source and we have plenty , LS ain't going to make revolution in aeronautical history.

There is no overmodelling nor undermodelling of the 109 , there is a BUG with 109 K elevator control and flat turnrate at 6500 and higher and we ask it to be fixed .

Medvedya
02-28-2005, 10:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Platypus_1.JaVA:
A: Does anyone really read this entire previous message?
B: What does it prove? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course you and others won't read it, because it contains facts that you just aren't able to accept. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course I accept it - whatever it is. It's just I can't be bothered wading through it all. I imagine it took you three whole minutes to cut and paste the whole lot though.

WWMaxGunz
02-28-2005, 07:20 PM
Holy Truth Gospel of Messerschmidt, Book of the 109, according to ... somebody or other.

I like the original docs best and still they get interpreted with varying degrees of
"inspiration" at times.

Next most important is how they apply to the sim as modelled and what that also may
say about the form of the sim as well.

The gap in pullout speed at altitude is not so small as to be just a detail however.
I find myself wondering if indeed a mph speed was taken as kph especially when the
values match so well and the gap is so large. Kinda getting used to being told something
is right and later finding it has not actually been checked.

Not like I own anything but perhaps my own time and opinion. I don't much care what
Medvedya thinks of that but I do know it affects my own choices.

mortoma
03-01-2005, 12:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Platypus_1.JaVA:
A: Does anyone really read this entire previous message?
B: What does it prove? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course you and others won't read it, because it contains facts that you just aren't able to accept. The 109 in ForgottenBattles is far better than it really was, but that fact won't and hasn't slowed wave after wave of complaining and false improvements.

Keep on complaining though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I read the whole thing and it proves nothing at all really.
For one thing almost all fighters are FAR easier to fly in this sim than they were in real life. Especially planes like the P-40. If the P-40 flew in the sim like it did in real life, even some of us experts would have a great deal of trouble getting it off he ground and back on it again. So what you're trying to say is almost entirely moot. And while Leadspitter's article does say that the 109 became harder to fly and more dangerous to fly and that the high speed handling became worse, it doesn't say at what speeds it starts to indulge in this behavior. Now does it?? The fact is, from all of the evidence I've read, the elevator forces did not start to get heavy at ONLY 291 MPH!! I've read of pilots that fly the few examples of Gustavs today ( yes, some exist ) and they never say anything about the elevator getting heavy at low speeds. Get it into your head, 460/470KPH IS NOT HIGH speed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do half you anti 109 people around here even have a clue of any kind??? Even a slight clue??
The testimony I saw from some pilots in an airshow interview that fly both the P-51 and a Gustav said that the Gustav turns much beter than the P-51 does at most speeds, period. But yet our precious P-51 doesn't have any elevator heaviness even at transonic speed. Oh, you forgot about that didn't you??
So I hereby declare the entire Leadspitter article null and void and too vague since it fails to mention at what speed the onset of the mentioned trouble or quirkiness begins. And for that matter, half of the articles you read contain errors, myths and the people who write them often perpetuate hearsay without any knowledge except that's which been passed on, which may be highly flawed. Just one article and the opinion of one person can hardly be considered gospel truth. Did the author ever fly a 109?? I have read much from those that did and still do.

WWMaxGunz
03-01-2005, 03:39 AM
"Only" 291 mph?

Is that IAS? Hope it's not TAS because then you've stripped most of the meaning of
the speed from the handling by not including the altitude. Saying #number# 'speed'
alone is like saying somebody is being fooled, or fooling, or both.

How much those days they didn't know about compression including the effects on
instruments and design of instruments does make enough to fill a thick book. I read
accounts of pilots diving high to low and reading off speeds then people taking them
for actual "it was just that fast" "Facts(TM)" and just shake my head.

291 mph IAS is fast at any altitude regardless of how much faster it was possible
to get. That is not to say what should happen to any plane at that speed, just that
it is into good combat speed where combat is pushing along well. Not the best, but
not shabby at all!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the P-51 as it has been modelled... hey the overmodelling of one plane is no excuse
or justification for what any other should be.

What is meant about 109 outmaneuvering P-51 at most speeds, get out the charts of test
pilots. Else it is subjective words, too easy to find another such account that says
different. Then you get nowhere. Besides, what is meant to you by 'most speeds' and
what was meant by the person saying that... probably still doesn't stretch to cover
the P-51 in AEP/PF but then the overmodelling of one plane is no excuse or justification,
etc.

BlackStar2000
03-01-2005, 06:53 AM
____________________________________________
LeadWhinerSpitter Wrote:
btw the 109g and k should tear wings off at 750kmph under 5000m in a dive im sure oleg has the charts now Keep ze whining up
____________________________________________

Once again you want ppl to believe in YOUR assumptions or what you wonder maybe RL, so far you prove that Santa Claus and Eastern Bunny Exists, but now lets deal with some RL data for change.


____________________________________________
The Me 109 was dived to Mach 0.79 in instrumented tests. Slightly modified, it was even dived to Mach 0.80, and the problems experimented there weren't due to compressility, but due to aileron overbalancing. Compare this to Supermarine Spitfire, which achieved dive speeds well above those of any other WW2 fighter, getting to Mach 0.89 on one occasion. P-51 and Fw 190 achieved about Mach 0.80. The P-47 had the lowest permissible Mach number of these aircraft. Test pilot Eric Brown observed it became uncontrollable at Mach 0.73, and "analysis showed that a dive to M=0.74 would almost certainly be a 'graveyard dive'."
- Source: Radinger/Otto/Schick: "Messerschmitt Me 109", volumes 1 and 2, Eric Brown: "Testing for Combat".

This original German test document refers to dive tests of 109s with the tall tail. Result of this test was that the new tail reduced highspeed diving ozillations (which sometimes appeard with the old tail). More interesting is the fact, that in this tests, which had not the aim to estimate the highest mach number or to test the structure, they reached
max. Mach 0,805@7.0km
max. TAS 906km/h@5.8km
max. IAS 737km/h@4.5km
Even more interesting is the fact that they tried different positions of the trimming. With the wrong trimset - the one for cruising at high altitude it was not possible to pull out of the dive just by using the stick. They needed to use the trimwheel to recover the plane from the dive. This happened in such violent manner that the testpilot had to push the stick foreward to be not blacked out...
If the trim was set to +1.15? it was possible to recover without using the trimwheel - both flightpaths, with and without the trimwheel, are very similar. So even with the concrete stick the limitating factor seems to be the pilot.
Also interesting in the dive the canopy iced, also the mechanism of the trim, so it was not possible to set it smooth, but in \"jumps\", but it was still adjustable...


But what about a spit9 diving after Ta in more then 1000kmh and dont break wings, very good SPITFIRE MADDOX

source
<A HREF="http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/hist/109myths/#dives" TARGET=_blank>



http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/hist/109myths/#dives (http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/hist/109myths/#dives</A>)[/url]

lrrp22
03-01-2005, 08:53 AM
Mortoma,

First, it does seem that the 109K has had its elevator response modeled to TAS, and not IAS. I haven't tested it at 6000+ meters, but at low level I dont't see the elevator heviness at 470 kph that seems to happen at 20,000 ft.

BUT....that 'interview' is just about the weakest bit of evidence imaginable. For one thing, only one of the two had actually flown any kind of 109 and even he was flying civilianized versions of both planes that bear little resemblance to the wartime examples. For another, the leading questions of a couple sim nerds coupled with the dismissive responses of the pilots hardly qualify as 'testimony'.

What about the testimonials of countless wartime veterans of both sides? Very few (if any) will claim that the 109G/K out-turned the Mustang at "most" speeds. At low speeds- yes, at high speed- no way. The numbers don't support the claim either.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
The testimony I saw from some pilots in an airshow interview that fly both the P-51 and a Gustav said that the Gustav turns much beter than the P-51 does at most speeds, period. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Medvedya
03-01-2005, 12:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

Not like I own anything but perhaps my own time and opinion. I don't much care what
Medvedya thinks of that but I do know it affects my own choices. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

By mentioning me by name, it suggests that you do. In any case, people can go on and on throwing as much data as they like at this tiresome matter, but it's still mind-blowingly boring and very unimportant.

Oleg, I beseech you to pay no heed to any of these eleven pages of dreary rambling, the planes are quite acceptable as they are!

WWMaxGunz
03-01-2005, 03:01 PM
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-GuntherRallEnglish.html

"Anyway, I was chased by P-47. I knew exactly that in a dive P-47 is much faster than 109.
And P-47 has a much higher structural strength. They can go up to 1400 kilometers per hour."

This is what the guage reads, which is false, btw. All those airspeed guages read really high
at very high speeds. -- WWMG

"The 109, if you go to 1000, pull it up, you risk the wings come off."

I quote this because it does not match what I read at the top of the page.

Of course Rall had flown captured Allied planes and liked the P-51 very much, calls it
maneuverable in text about the advantages and disadvantages compared to 190 and 109.
Strange how a plane that was "really so mediocre" from what I occasionally read should
be called maneuverable by Gunther Rall who actaully flew some... he must be a secret
Allied fanboy and traitor to Germany, no? Well, he didn't say "more maneuverable", did
he? No. perhaps he was only trying to please his audience?

WWMaxGunz
03-01-2005, 03:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Medvedya:
By mentioning me by name, it suggests that you do. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To you maybe.
If I cared, I'd be posting differently.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In any case, people can go on and on throwing as much data as they like at this tiresome matter, but it's still mind-blowingly boring and very unimportant.

Oleg, I beseech you to pay no heed to any of these __eleven__ pages of dreary rambling, the planes are quite acceptable as they are! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Arf. You think the planes are acceptable so everyone else should be ignored.
So kind of you.

As long as I can take so many planes and fly them slow to the edge of stall shudders
then bring up power and the nose at the same time and climb extremely well still in
the stall shudders, I for one do not find that acceptable after a lot of reading.
Same goes for climb rates at above best climb speed. These two errors make a joke
of energy tactics which is what WWII combat flying became more and more about. Even
if the name and practices were not defined as such right then, they were developed
to a good degree and used right then.

faustnik
03-01-2005, 03:15 PM
Yeah, what's up with those Germans evaluating the P-51?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/LWp51test.jpg

- from Luftwaffe Test Pilot, Hans-Werner Lerche

I don't think Herr Lerche found the P-51 to be "mediocre".

Medvedya
03-01-2005, 03:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
To you maybe.
If I cared, I'd be posting differently.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ooh! handbags at dawn missus! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Anyhow, come off it, no plane stalls as viciously in real life as they do in the game - but, you know, I don't lose sleep at night over it. It's just one of its little foibles that gives it its charm.

Incidentally, I've never said people who take such an extreme view as yourself should be ignored per se, it's just that the extreme view seems to be the only one with validity round these 'ere parts.

P.S I'm intrigued, how would you be posting if you cared?

WWMaxGunz
03-01-2005, 03:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
I don't think Herr Lerche found the P-51 to be "mediocre". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. But then, he hasn't been posting here either!

WWMaxGunz
03-01-2005, 03:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Medvedya:
Anyhow, come off it, no plane stalls as viciously in real life as they do in the game <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's that got to do with climb at 5 to 10 kph above stall?
Or is it extremeist to try and stay with a point instead of trolling away from it?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Incidentally, I've never said people who take such an extreme view as yourself should be ignored per se, it's just that the extreme view seems to be the only one with validity round these 'ere parts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's because this sim is supposed to have a higher fidelity FM, which in this area it DID.
If I represent extreme in not accepting such huge error in climb then you I am guessing are
representing the dumbing down side of things. Tactics must not mean much to you, it's just
a game you have fun with, a pretty arcade game is all you really seem to feel it should be.
Of course, anything more is "extreme". It's not like everyone wants a hard core sim. We
should all forget about realism options and STFU.

Medvedya
03-01-2005, 04:12 PM
Okay, fair enough, but what I said about the stalls was just an example to illustrate what I'm trying to get at.

Do I want PF to be Space Invaders? No, of course not, but I feel it's about striking a balance between a good representation of the planes modeled, and at the same time recognising that it is just a game at the end of the day.

As said before, if you want to play with all the bells and whistles attatched then please don't let me stop you, but this game is for everybody at all levels - not just the 'hard-core' simmer.

To read these forums however, that seems to be the only voice that's heard and given any credence to. I'm sorry, but that's not fair at all.

Finally, you're quite right, I have fun with it. If it wasn't fun the whole point would be a bit lost wouldn't it?

LeadSpitter_
03-01-2005, 05:39 PM
Col. "Kit" Carson
Airpower, July 1976
Vol. 6 No. 4

Me-109 g6

Series of mock dogfights were conducted by the British in addition to the flight test and the following was revealed:

If the airplane was trimmed for level flight, a heavy push on the stick was needed to hold it in a dive at 400 mph. If it was trimmed into the dive, recovery was difficult unless the trim wheel was wound back, due to the excessive heaviness of the elevator forces.
Ailerons:
At low speeds, the ailerons control was good, response brisk. As speed increased the ailerons became too heavy but the response was good up to 200 mph. At 300 mph they became "unpleasant". Over 300 mph they became impossible. At 400 mph the stick felt like it was set in a bucket of cement. A pilot exerting all his strength could not apply more than one fifth aileron at 400 mph; that's 5 degrees up and 3 degrees down. The aileron situation at high combat speeds might be summarized in the following way:
(1) Due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick as compared to 60 pounds or more possible if he had more elbow room.
(2) Messerschmitt also penalized the pilot by designing in an unsually small stick top travel of plus or minus 4 inches, giving very poor mechanical advantage between pilot and aileron.
(3) At 400 mph with 40 pounds side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4 seconds to get into a 45 degree roll or bank. That immediately classifies the airplane as being unmaneuverable and unacceptable as a fighter.
Elevator:
This was a good control at slow speeds but became too heavy above 250 mph and at 400 mph it became so heavy that maneurverability became seriously restricted. When diving at 400 mph a pilot, pulling very hard could not pull enough "g" force to black himself out. The stick force per "g" was an excess of 20 pounds in a high speed dive. To black out, as a limit to the human factor in high speed maneuvers, would require over 100 pounds pull on the stick.
Rudder:
At low speeds the rudder was light, but sluggish in response. At 200 mph the sluggishness disappears, at 300 mph the absense of trim control in the cockpit became an acute problem. The pilot's leg force on the port rudder above 300 mph to prevent sideslip became excessive and unacceptable.
Control Harmony:
At low speed, below 250 mph, control harmony was good, only a little spoiled by the suggishness of the rudder. At higher speeds the aileron and elevator forces were so high that the word "harmony" is inappropriate.
Aerobatics
Not easy to do. Loops had to be started from about 280 mph when the elevator forces were getting unduly heavy; there was also a tendency for the wing slats to bang open the top of the loop, resulting in aileron snatch and loss of direction.
Below 250 mph the airplane would roll quickly, but there was a strong tendency for the nose to fall through the horizon in the last half of the roll and the stick had to be moved well back to keep the nose up.
Upward rolls were difficult, again because of elevator heaviness at the required starting speed. Due to this, only a moderate pull out from a dive to build up speed was possible and considerable speed was lost before the upward roll could be started.


Summary:
Good points:
(1) Reasonable top speed and good rate of climb.
(2) Engine did not cut out under negative "g," also reliable.
(3) Good control response at low speeds.
(4) Easy stall, not precipitous.
Bad Points:
(1) Ailerons and elevator far too heavy at high speed.
(2) Poor turning radius.
(3) Absence of rudder trim control in cockpit.
(4) Aileron snatch (grabbing -- uneven airflow) when slats opened.
(5) Cockpit too cramped.
(6) Visibility poor from cockpit.
(7) Range and endurance inadequate.

Me-109 E
The very bad maneuverability at high speed of the Me 109e quickly became known to the RAF pilots in 1940. On many occasions 109 pilots were led to self-destruction when on the tail of a Hurricane or Spitfire at moderate or low altitudes. The RAF pilot would do a snappy half roll and "split ess" pull out, from say 3,000 feet. In the heat and confusion of the moment the 109 pilot would follow, only to discover that he didn't have enough altitude to recover due to his heavy elevator forces and go straight into the ground or the Channel without a shot being fired.
Turning Radius:
At full throttle, at 12,000 feet, the minimum turning radius without loss of altitude was about 890 feet for the Me 109E with its wing loading of 32 pounds per square foot. The corresponding figure for the Spit I or Hurricane was about 690 feet with a wing loading of 25 pounds.

I wonder what eric brown would say about kit carson, and why does all other documented and historical data get thrown out the window just becuase you say eric brown says so. I have read his interviews as well and thought they were great in pc pilot magazine and did not see or read the mach numbers you say he did.

I have also researched many interviews of design problems and flaws of the 109g series from croatia, finnish, bulgarian hungry and slovak, all speak of the same problems among others, so its many different axis nations pilots experiencing the same thing.

faustnik
03-01-2005, 06:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:

I wonder what eric brown would say about kit carson, and why does all other documented and historical data get thrown out the window just becuase you say eric brown says so.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wait, where does it say Eric Brown had positive comments about the Bf109? From everything I've read of his, he had a low opinion if it. He liked the Fw190, a lot, but, not the Bf109.

LeadSpitter_
03-01-2005, 06:57 PM
In BlackStar2000's post saying the 109 out dove the p47 and was able to achieve a higher mach #.

Chadburn
03-01-2005, 06:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
Col. "Kit" Carson
Airpower, July 1976
Vol. 6 No. 4 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lead, which model of the 109 did 'Kit' Carson personally test that he bases his summary on?

LeadSpitter_
03-01-2005, 07:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-GuntherRallEnglish.html

"Anyway, I was chased by P-47. I knew exactly that in a dive P-47 is much faster than 109.
And P-47 has a much higher structural strength. They can go up to 1400 kilometers per hour."

This is what the guage reads, which is false, btw. All those airspeed guages read really high
at very high speeds. -- WWMG

"The 109, if you go to 1000, pull it up, you risk the wings come off."

I quote this because it does not match what I read at the top of the page.

Of course Rall had flown captured Allied planes and liked the P-51 very much, calls it
maneuverable in text about the advantages and disadvantages compared to 190 and 109.
Strange how a plane that was "really so mediocre" from what I occasionally read should
be called maneuverable by Gunther Rall who actaully flew some... he must be a secret
Allied fanboy and traitor to Germany, no? Well, he didn't say "more maneuverable", did
he? No. perhaps he was only trying to please his audience? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First off you must have never seen or heard gunther rall speak, unlike most people he is direct and tells you how it was weather you like it or not. Great guy and definatly one of the highest admired pilots of wwii, i'd take his word over chucks anyday

GR142_Astro
03-01-2005, 07:25 PM
Capt. Eric Brown from Flight Journal Special Issue, Summer 2002:

The more than 33,000 Me 109s produced from 1938 to 1945 gave the Luftwaffe an abundance of continuously updated air weapons. They were capable of beating their implacable enemies, even in the terrible conditions of Russia and North Africa. Many Luftwaffe pilots racked up scores in the hundreds tht will dazzle the minds of air historians and fighter buffs for years to come.

But the 109's deficiencies almost equal its fabulous assets. The Luftwaffe lost 11,000 of these thoroughbred fighting machines in takeoff and landing accidents, most of them at the end of the War when they needed them most. The inexcusably poor visibility from the cockpit greatly reduced their pilots' ability to fight. The snatching of the automatic wing slats not only caused many of the numerous ground accidents but also contributed to a great many aerial accidents. The slat, canopy and landing-gear problems all had known, simple production fixes. Perhaps Prof. Willy Messerschmitt and the Luftwaffe generals were too busy patting themselves on their backs and counting 109 victories to find time to listen to the pilots or to digest the significance of the 109's accident rates.

The Me 109 was, indeed, a prolific, necessary and timely fighter but was not as great as the Spitfire, the Mustang or the Hellcat, which all had many fewer vices for the wartime pilots to overcome.

- Capt. Eric Brown

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


So Brown doesn't seem all that keen on the 109, and of the 3 problems he mentioned here, it is clear the 109 is not all that well represented in FB.

1 - Cockpit view is very good, and better to the rear than the P47 with Bubble Canopy.

2 - Very easy to land in FB.

3 - I've never had the slats open and snatch the air or cause any problem at all. They only serve to give the 109 very, very sharp turns.

To consider Leadspitter's post, the 109 ailerons do not stiffen up at high speed in forgotten battles either.

To consider a previous post by Buzzsaw, the fact that the K has the same low speed stall as the F is just kind of funny.

Finally, I think there may be some hidden horsepower allocated to the later 109s that doesn't belong. How can you test something like that, other than to watch some of the silly things being done in the 109 series, made even more noticeable by the prop pitch exploit/bug.

Recall that the P47s suffered through several patches with somewhere around 300-600 missing horsepower that was eventually attributed to a typo. How can we test the 109 series to see if the horsepower is accurate? Too much horsepower would certainly explain some very strange things about the 109s.

WWMaxGunz
03-01-2005, 07:30 PM
That last part had a heavy dose of sarcasm, in case you missed it.

I accept Gunther Rall as being very knowledgable not just from his great amount of combat
experience but also his many hours flying captured Allied planes as Opfor training LW pilots.

Edit: perhaps you do know that Chuck Yeager became a test pilot by virtue of talent?

Chadburn
03-01-2005, 07:38 PM
Thomas L. Hayes, Jr., a P-51 ace of the 357th Fighter Group with 8 1/2 victories, recalled diving after a fleeing Me-109G until both aircraft neared the sound barrier and their controls locked. Both pilots took measures to slow down, but to Hayes' astonishment, the Me-109 was the first to pull out of its dive. As he belatedly regained control of his Mustang, Hayes was grateful that the German pilot chose to quit while he was ahead and fly home instead of taking advantage of Hayes' momentary helplessness. Hayes also stated that while he saw several Fw-190s stall and even crash during dogfights, he never saw an Me-109 go out of control.

WWMaxGunz
03-02-2005, 07:46 AM
For almost any account of this or that happening, there is usually others saying different.
And it's not always from easily questionable sources, either way.
So what frikking use is it to bring these up except to be playing "the story game" after
no time flat. Nobody brings up counter-story, does that mean there is none? Bad.
Worse yet is when someone brings up stories to one way and knows but does not mention the
stories to the other even if you have seen them non-respond to those not long ago.

Story Game (TM) is not a good way to make, adjust, criticise or debate a sim. It is only
a way to counter stories trying to be used like that.

Some day I think there should be a game where people could have cards with those stories
and play the cards against each other till one runs out and is then "shot down". It
should sell given the number of people who play like that on forums over 10 years now.

Abbuzze
03-02-2005, 08:15 AM
If Carson came out here is anotherone...

Gordon Levett:
Levett spent WWII as a trainer of other pilots and as a transport pilot, rising to Squadron Leader in the process. Drummed out of the RAF after taking an unauthorized vacation from his remote post in Burma and so without RAF references, Levett could not find employment as a pilot, and ended up working in a Jewish-owned diaper laundry. In April 1948, he volunteered to fly for the Jews in Palestine.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Gordon Levett compares the three combat aircraft flown by the 101:
In mock dog-fights, we concluded that the Messerschmitt could out-climb, out-dive and out-zoom the Spitfire and Mustang. The Spitfire could out-turn the Messerschmitt, the most important manoeuvre in air combat, and both could out-turn the Mustang. The Mustang was the fastest, the Messerschmitt the slowest, though there was not much in it. The Mustang had the best visibility, important for a fighter aircraft, the Messerschmitt the worst. The Spitfire cockpit fitted like a glove, the Messerschmitt like a strait-jacket, the Mustang like a too comfortable armchair. The Spitfire had two 20mm cannon and four .303 machine guns (sic, actually, the 101 Squadron Spits had two .50s, not four .303s), the Mustang six 12.7mm machine guns (a.k.a. .50 calibre), and the Messerschmitt two 20mm cannon and two 7.92mm machine guns (sic, actually two 13.1mm machine guns) synchronised to fire through the arc of the propeller.... Despite the pros and cons the Spitfire was everyone's first choice. (Levett 1994)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The "Me" was an Avia S199 with gunpods.

Buzzsaw-
03-02-2005, 09:25 AM
Salute

In regards to the tests by the Israeli pilots:

The Spitfire was an early model Mk IX, and was not operating at +25 boost or it would have outclimbed the 109. Neither was the Mustang operating at the higher boost used by both the RAF and USAAF at the end of the war.

Second, the tests were of low speed dogfights, which of course, benefit the Spitfire the most. High speed dogfights at higher altitudes were not undertaken, something in which the Mustang would have excelled.

And the 109 did not have gunpods fitted for the test.

I am at work now, so don't have access to as many of my files, but will post some more later in regards to comparison testing.

Cheers Buzzsaw

P.S. The tests of the "G6" posted above which referred to the elevator and ailerons locking up were actually excerpts from a test of a 109E3. The E model had the worst elevators and ailerons of all the 109's, and the later models were better, although all suffered from lack of response at high speeds.

Buzzsaw-
03-02-2005, 09:34 AM
Salute

Some data on the turnrates of a G6.

Go here to get the english translation of a 109G6 manual, done by the people at Virtualpilots, which includes turn times as tested for the 109G6:

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/pdf/bf109g6_english.pdf

If you go to page 3 of the PDF of the manual, you will see some performance figures.

You will note that the turn time for a 180 degree turn at 400 kph is 13 seconds.

When the speed rises to only 50 kph faster, ie. 450 kph, it then takes the aircraft 14 seconds to execute a 100 degree turn.

So you can see how, as the speed rises, the ability of the 109 to use its elevator decreases rapidly.

Everyone who has tested the 109 has commented on how responsive its elevator and ailerons were below 400 kph/250 mph. But they also mention the quick deterioration over that speed.

The 109 was designed at the same time as the Hurricane, (in fact even earlier) and its original airframe was equipped with engines which only took it to 290 mph. As it was equipped with heavier and heavier engines, and its top speed moved up over 400 mph, the limitations of its wing design became very apparent. Its flow characteristics caused it to enter compressibility at comparitively low speeds. Even though there was a major redesign with the F model, the original slats and aerofoil type were retained. Both of these were helpful at lower speeds, but caused excessive turbulence over the wing at high speeds, which caused the entry into compressibility.

Aerofoils are a tradeoff. You can have a relatively thick aerofoil, heavily cantilevered, and it will give very good lift at low speeds. Examples of this are the 109, Hurricane, Typhoon, and Zero/Zeke. But as mentioned, as speeds rise, so does the amount of turbulence.

The 2nd alternative is a thinner wing, such as the Spitfire's. This gives less lift at low speeds, but in the Spitfire's case, the overall wingloading was so low, (25% better than the 109's, 35% better than 190's) that the aircraft's stall speed was still very low and turnrate at low speeds good. The thinner wing tends to give less turbulence at higher speeds, and thus enters compressibility later.

Turbulence also adds hugely to drag.

The third alternative is the laminar flow aerofoil, such as was on the P-51 or Tempest. This generated very low turbulence at higher speeds, meaning it was less likely to enter compressibility, meaning its ailerons and elevators remained effective. However, the downside of this was that the laminar flow aerofoil generated comparatively low lift at high angles of attack, and was prone to more sudden stalls.

Aircraft such as the P-47 and FW-190 had wings which were not laminar flow, but were compromises between the thick wings of a Hurricane/109 and the thin wings of a Spitfire. They were also very clean wing designs, ie. with no radiators present or slats as in the case of the 109. Slats and Radiators on the wing cause additional turbulence at higher speeds, which again reduces lift and increases the chance of a wing entering compressibility.

Wingroots were another area where turbulence was heavy. The Corsair was an interesting design, the bend in the wing caused it to mate with the fuselage at exactly a 90 degree angle, which greatly reduced turbulence and gave it the lower drag and good energy retention characteristics it had.

Cheers Buzzsaw

As mentioned, the above document was translated by the Finns at Virtualpilots, who certainly are not biased, and in fact are very supportive of the 109's performance.

WWMaxGunz
03-02-2005, 09:50 AM
Turns are supposed to be more about lift than elevator.
At least aero sites would have it that way.

http://142.26.194.131/aerodynamics1/

Starting a turn properly will have a big impact on turn time.
Yank and Bank (then whine) is a newb sign to old WB and AW players for some reason.
Yank and Bank is also a term applied to sims with loose FM's.

Of course there are planes where it's gonna work better even in a decent sim.
Kinda makes me wonder why turns aren't all better than real in PF, or at least
much better than real at very low speeds and high engine with the climbs as they are.

Buzzsaw-
03-02-2005, 10:55 AM
Salute Max

Turbulence over the wing reduces lift.

Turbulence causes two things:

1) The formation of an atmospheric shock wave on the leading and trailing edges of the wing which reduces lift and eventually freezes the control surfaces. (compressibility)

2) Increased drag.

Look at the La-5 series. This aircraft has a wing with a similar aerofoil to the 109, and also has the leading edge slats.

At high speeds it very quickly loses control authority, in fact it suffers more heavily from the effects of the onset of compressibility than does the 109, even though the 109 has the additional handicap of wing mounted radiators, which would increase turbulence. I suspect in fact, that the 109 has been let off too easy, partly as a result of the tremendous vocal outcry that greets any attempt to rein in its performance.

The La-5 series can be very easily outmaneuvered at high speeds by aircraft such as the 190 which have a cleaner wing design.

It is no coincidence that in IL-2/PF aircraft with aerofoils designed for high lift characteristics at low speeds, do not perform well at high speeds. Oleg's physics model does a generally good job with this.

Look at the Hurricane, an aircraft with one of the thickest aerofoils, with excellent low speed characteristics.

Take the Hurricane over 450 kph in IL-2/PF and its turn rate goes south FAST. In fact it maneuvers worse than the 109E, although tests done by the RAF showed that the Hurricane maneuvered better than the German aircraft at high speeds:

"...the attack can be easily broken off by the attacked by pulling up fairly quickly from a dive. The pilot of the Me-109 would never be able to follow due to the heaviness of the controls."

(the above relates particularly to the 109E, which as mentioned was the worst of the 109's for control authority at high speeds)

In contrast to the Hurricane, take the Spitfire up to higher speeds, and it still retains an excellent response, due to the fact its thin wing is less susceptible to the onset of compressibility. As mentioned, the Spitfire owes its low speed maneuverability and low stall speed more to very low wingloading than to a high lift aerofoil. It does not need to generate a high angle of attack to get enough lift to turn well, even at moderate angles of attack it generates more than enough lift for the low weight to wing area ratio of the aircraft.

Chadburn
03-02-2005, 11:12 AM
An S 199 is no BF 109. It was a <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

In regards to the tests by the Israeli pilots:

The Spitfire was an early model Mk IX, and was not operating at +25 boost or it would have outclimbed the 109. Neither was the Mustang operating at the higher boost used by both the RAF and USAAF at the end of the war.

Second, the tests were of low speed dogfights, which of course, benefit the Spitfire the most. High speed dogfights at higher altitudes were not undertaken, something in which the Mustang would have excelled.

And the 109 did not have gunpods fitted for the test.

I am at work now, so don't have access to as many of my files, but will post some more later in regards to comparison testing.

Cheers Buzzsaw

P.S. The tests of the "G6" posted above which referred to the elevator and ailerons locking up were actually excerpts from a test of a 109E3. The E model had the worst elevators and ailerons of all the 109's, and the later models were better, although all suffered from lack of response at high speeds. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also, the S-199 was a Czech built G-14 with a Jumo 211F engine, heavier than the DB605 with less power and no MW50 boost. (So this wasn't the G-14 that Hartman flew.)

Buzzsaw-
03-02-2005, 11:47 AM
Salute

Here is an article by Mark Hanna on flying the 109.

This is the particular aircraft:

http://www.bf109.com/images/109flying2.jpg

Track around the canopy though Nine, Eleven and now Twelve O'clock. Rolling out gently and now the specks are becoming objects and I can see wings and start to discern fuselages and engines. We're at five miles and closing at 420 knots and greater than seven miles a minute. Less than 50 seconds to go. There's the '51 escort high and behind the bombers... Good.... they're not a factor for the initial attack, but we will need to worry about them on the egress. 20 seconds and two miles. I've picked my target - the lead ship... I've misjudged the attack slightly, just missed the dead 180 so I've got a slight crosser which is going to foul up my sighting solution. 10 seconds to run... The B-17's light up ! Flashes from all over the airframes and smoke trails streak behind as the gunners let rip and fill the skies with lead. They're out of range buts its still frightening. The lead ship is filling my windscreen and closing rapidly. Now.... Fire ! Two second burst.... flash... flash... flash... HITS ! all in his cockpit and fuselage area... pull slightly on the control column to just clear the port wing, the fin slicing past just by me and roll hard left. World. B-17s gyrating round, stop inverted... pull 5 G's, nose down, down, down. Streamers pouring from the wingtips. I've lost the P-51's, I can't see them but I know they'll be after us. I'm out of here vertically down with a windscreen full of ground, rolling as I go to miss any pursuing Mustangs' sighting solutions - straight towards the Fatherland... only it isn't - it's Suffolk and Ron's calling... "Jimmy says can we do that one again Mark.. ". This is David Puttnam's Memphis Belle and we are airborne with five B-17's, seven P-51s, three '109's and a B-25. I'm leading the '109 formation. We're short on gas, it's cold at 12,000 feet and this is fantastic, tremendous fun. The Bf 109 is, without doubt, the most satisfying and challenging aircraft that I have ever flown.

Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company relates his experiences flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109J (export version to Spain).
To my eye, the aircraft looks dangerous, both to the enemy and to its own pilots. The aircrafts difficult reputation is well known and right from the outset you are aware that it is an aeroplane that needs to be treated with a great deal of respect. Talk to people about the '109 and all you hear about is how you are going to wrap it up on take-off or landing ! As you walk up to the '109 one is at first struck by the small size of the aricraft, particularly if parked next to a comtemporary American fighter. Closer examination reveals a crazy looking knocked-knee undercarriage, a very heavily framed sideways opening canopy with almost no forward view in the three point attitude, a long rear fuselage and tiny tail surfaces. A walk-round reveals ingenious split radiator flaps which double as an extension to the landing flaps, ailerons with a lot of movement and rather odd looking external mass balances. Also independently operating leading edge slats. These devices should glide open and shut on the ground with the pressure of a single finger. Other unusual features include the horizontal stabilizer doubling as the elevator trimmer and the complete absence of a rudder trim system. Overall the finish is a strange mix of innovative and archaic.

Climbing on board you have to be careful not to stand on the radiator flap, then lower yourself gently downwards and forwards, taking your wight by holding onto the windscreen. Once in you are aware that you are almost lying down in the aeroplane, the position reminicent of a racing car. The cockpit is very narrow and if you have broad shoulders (don't all fighter pilots ?), it is a tight squeeze. Once streapped in, itself a knuckle wrapping affair, you can take stock. First impressions are of simplicity and straight forwardness.

From left to right, the co-located elevator trim and flap trim wheels fall easily to hand. You need several turns to get the flaps fully down to 40º and the idea is that you can crank both together. In practice this is a little difficult and I tend to operate the services separately. Coming forward we see the tailwheel locking lever. This either allows the tailwheel to castor or locks it dead ahead. Next is the throttle quadrant, consisting of the propeller lever, and a huge throttle handle. Forward and down, on the floor is an enormous and very effective ki-gass primer and a T shaped handle. DIrectly above this and in line with the canopy seal is the yellow and black hood jettison lever. Pulling this releases two very strong springs in the rear part of the canopy, causing the rear section to come loose and therefore the whole main part of the hood becomes unhinged and can be pushed clear away into the aiflow. Looking directly forwards we have clustered together the standard instument panel with vertical select magnetos on the left, starter and booster coil slightly right of center and engine instruments all grouped together on the right hand side. Our aeroplane has a mixture of British, Spanish and German instruments in this area.

The center console under the main instrument panel consists of a 720 channel radio. E2B compass and a large placard courtesy of the Civil Aviation Authority warning of the dire consequences if you land in a crosswind equal to or greater than 10 knots, or trim the aircraft at speeds in excess of 250 knots. Just to the left of the center console, close to your left knee is the undercarriage up/down selector and the mechanical and electrical undercarriage position indicator. On G-BOML this is a rotary selector with a neutral position. Select the undercarriage up or down then activate a hydraulic button on the front of the control column. This gives 750 psi to the system instantly. Immediately beneath the undercarriage selector is the control for the Radiator flaps. These are also hydraulically controlled with an open/close and neutral position, and activated by the trigger on the stick at 375 psi. If you leave the radiator flap control in anything other than neutral and then try to activate the undercarriage you will not have enough pressure to enable the gear to travel.

Right hand side of the cockpit sees the electrical switches, battery master boost, pumps, pitot heat and a self contained pre-oil system and that's it ! There is no rudder trim, or rudder pedal adjust; also the seat can only be adjusted pre-flight and has the choice of only three settings. If you are any bigger than 6 feet tall, it's all starting to get a bit confined. Once you are strapped in and comfortable close the canopy to check the seating position. Normally, if you haven't flown the 109 before you get a clout on the head as you swing the heavy lid over and down. Nobody sits that low in a fighter ! The OFMC aeroplane has the original flat top ot it - however the Charles Church aircraft has a slight bulge to the top of the canopy - about an inch or so. This is practically indescernable externally, but gives a very helpful lift to the eyeline over the nose.

It's getting dangersously close to going flying now ! OK, open the hood again (in case we catch fire and have to get out in a hurry!). To start, power ON, bost pumps ON. Three good shots on the very stiff primer. Set the throttle about 1/2 inch open. "CLEAR PROP". Push the start button, a few blades and boost coil and mags together. It's a good starter and with a brief snort of flame the '109 fires up immediately. Checking oil pressure is rising right away... Idle initially at 700 RPM, then gently up to 1000 to warm up. Less than 1000 RPM and the whole aeroplane starts to rock from side to side on the gear with some sort of harmonic. This is a most unusual sensation and is quite good fun ! One is immediately aware after start that the aeroplane is "Rattley"; engine, canopy, reduction gear all provide little vibrations and shakes transmitted directly to the pilot.

Close the rad flaps with the selector, and activate the hydraulic trigger. Check the 375 psi and that they close together. Reopen them now to delay the coolant temperature rise. The '109 needs a lot of power to get moving so you need to allow the engine to warm a little before you pile the power onto it. Power up to 1800 RPM and suddenly we're rolling... power back... to turn, stick forward against the instrument panel to lighten the tail. A blast of throttle and a jab of brakes. Do this in a Spitfire and you are on your nose ! The '109 however is very tail heavy and is reluctant to turn - you can very easily lock up a wheel. If you do not use the above technique you will charge off across the airfield in a straight line ! Forward view can only be described as apalling, and due to the tail/brake arrangement this makes weaving more difficult than on other similar types. I prefer to taxy with the hood open to help this a little. By the time we are at the end of the strip the aircraft is already starting to get hot. So quickly on with the run-up. Hood closed again with a satisfying thud. I'm sitting as high as I can and my head is touching the canopy. I am not wearing goggles as they scratch and catch the hood if they are up on your head. A large bonedome is out of the question and in my opinion is a flight safety hazard in this aircraft. Hood positively locked... and push up on to it to check, Oil temperature is 30º, coolant temperature is greater than or at 60º. Brakes hard on (there is no parking brake), stick back and power gently up to 0 boost (30") and 2300 RPM. Exercise the prop at least twice, RPM falling back to 1800 each time, keep an eye on the oil pressure. The noise and vibration levels have now increased dramatically. Power back down to 1800 RPM and check the mags. Insignificant drop on each side. We must hurry as the coolant temperature is at 98ºC and going UP - we have to get rolling to get some cooling air through the radiators. Pretake off checks... Elevator trim set to +1º, no rudder trim, throttle friction light. This is vital as I'm going to need to use my left hand for various services immediately after take-off. Mixture is automatic, pitch fully fine... fuel - I know we're full (85 gallons); the gauge is unserviceable again, so I'm limited to a maximum of 1 hour 15 minutes cruise or 1 hour if any high power work is involved. Fuel/Oil **** is ON, both boost pumps are ON, pressure is good, primer is done up. Flaps - crank down to 20º for take off. Rad flaps checked at full open; if we take off with them closed we will certainly boil the engine and guaranteeed to crack the head. Gyro's set to Duxford's runway. Instruments; temps and pressures all in the green for take off. Radiator is now 102º. Oxygen we don't have, hood rechecked down and locked, harness tight and secure, hydraulics select down in the gear and pressurise the system check 750 psi. Controls full and free, tail wheel locked. Got to go - 105º. There's no time to hang around and worry about the take off. Here we go... Power gently up and keep it coming smoothly up to +8 (46")... it's VERY noisy ! Keep the tail down initially, keep it straight by feel rather than any positive technique... tail coming up now... once the rudders effective. Unconcious corrections to the rudder are happening all the time. It's incredcibly entertaining to watch the '109 take off or land. The rudder literally flashes around ! The alternative technique (rather tongue in cheek) is Walter Eichorn's, of using full right rudder throughout the take-off roll and varying the swing with the throttle !

The little fighter is now bucketing along, accelerating rapidly. As the tail lifts there is a positive tendancy to swing left - this can be checked easily however, although if you are really agressive lifting the tail it is difficult to stop and happens very quickly. Now the tail's up and you can see vagualy where you are going. It's a rough, wild, buckety ride on grass and with noise, smoke from the stakcs and the aeroplane bouncing around it's exciting !

Quick glance at the ASI - 100 mph, slight check back on the stick and we're flying. Hand off the throttle, rotate the gear selector and activate the hydraulic button. The mechanical indicators motor up very quickly and you feel a clonk, clonk as the gear comes home. Relect Neutral on the undercarriage selector. Quick look out at the wings and you see the slats fully out, starting to creep in as the airspeed increases and the angle of attack reduces. 130 mph and an immediate climbing turn up and right onto the downwind leg just in case I need to put the aeroplane down in a hurry. Our company S.O.P. is to always fly an overhead orbit of the field to allow everything to stabilize before setting off - this has saved at least one of our aeroplanes.

Start to frantically crank the flap up - now up the speeds, increasing through 150, power back to +6 (42") and 2650 for the climb. Plenty of airflow through the narrow radiators now, so close them and remember to keep a careful eye on the coolant gauge for the next few minutes until the temperature has settled down. With the rad flaps closed the aircraft accelerates postively. I'm aware as we climb that I'm holding in a little right rudder to keep the tail in the middle, but the foot loads are light, and it's no problems. Level off and power back to +4(38") and 2000 RPM. The speed's picked up to the '109 cruise of about 235-240 mph and now the tail is right in the middle and no rudder input is necessary.

Once settled down with adrenalin level back down to just high, we can take stock of our situation. The initial reaction is of delight to be flying a classic aeroplane, and next the realization that this is a real fighter ! You feel agressive flying it. The urge is to go looking for something to bounce and shoot down !

The roll rate is very good and very positive below about 250 mph. This is particularly true of the Charles Church's Collection clipped wing aircraft. Our round tipped aeroplane is slightly less nice to feel. With the speed further back the roll rate remains good, particularly with a bit of help from the rudder. Above 250 mph however the roll starts to heavy up and up to 300 or so is very similar to a P-51. After that it's all getting pretty solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningfull roll rates. Another peculiarity is that when you have been in a hard turn with the slats deployed, and then you roll rapidly one way and stop, there is a strange sensation for a second of so of a kind of dead area over the ailerons - almost as if they are not connected ! Just when you are starting to get worried they work again !

Pitch is also delighful at 250 mph and below. It feels very positve and the amount of effort on the control column needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right to me. As CL max is reached the leading edge slats deploy - together if the ball is in the middle, slightly asymmetrically if you have any slip on. The aircraft delights in being pulled into hard manuevering turns at these slower speeds. As the slats pop out you feel a slight "notching" on the stick and you can pull more until the whole airframe is buffeting quite hard. A little more and you will drop a wing, but you have to be crass to do it unintentionally. Pitch tends to heavy up above 250 mph but it is still easily manageable up to 300 mph and the aircraft is perfectly happy carrying out low-level looping maneuvers from 300 mph and below. Above 300 mph one peculiarity is a slight nose down trim change as you accelerate. This means that running in for an airshow above 300 mph the aeroplane has a slight tucking in sensation - a sort of desire to get down to ground level ! This is easily held on the stick or can be trimmed out but is slightly surprising initially. Maneuvering above 300, two hands can be required for more aggressive performance. EIther that or get on the trimmer to help you. Despite this heavying up it is still quite easy to get at 5G's at these speeds.

The rudder is effective and if medium feel up to 300. It becomes heavier above this speed but regardless the lack of rudder trim is not a problem for the type of operations we carry out with the aeroplane. Initial acceleration is rapid, particularly with nose down, up to about 320 mph. After that the '109 starts to become a little reluctant and you have to be fairly determined to get over 350-360 mph.

So how does the aeroplane compare with other contemporary fighters ? First, let me say that all my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12 (54") and 2700 rpm. I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor. At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109. Other factors affecting the '109 as a combat plane include the small cramped cockpit. This is quite a tiring working environment, although the view out (in flight) is better than you might expect; the profuseion of canopy struts is not particularly a problem.

In addition to the above the small cockpit makes you feel more a part of the aeroplane and the overall smaller dimensions make you more difficult to spot. There's no doubt that when you are flying the '109 and you look out and see the crosses on the wings you feel aggressive; if you are in an allied fighter it is very intimidating to see this dangerous little aeroplane turning in on you !

Returning to the circuit it is almost essential to join for a run and break. Over the field break from 50 feet, up and over 4G's onto the downwind leg. Speed at 150 knots or less, gear select to DOWN and activate the button and feel the gear come down asymmetrically. Check the mechanical indicators (ignore the electric position indicators), pitch fully fine... fuel - both boost pumps ON. If you have less than 1/4 fuel and the rear pump is not on the engine may stop in the three-point attitude. Rad flaps to full open and wings flaps to 10º to 15º. As the wing passes the threshold downwind - take all the power off and roll into the finals turn, cranking the flap like mad as you go. The important things is to set up a highish rate of descent, curved approach. The aircraft is reluctant to lose speed around finals so ideally you should initiate the turn quite slow at about 100-105. Slats normally deploy half way round finals but you the pilot are not aware they have come out. The ideal is to keep turning with the speed slowly bleeding, and roll out at about 10 feet at the right speed and just starting to transition to the three point attitude, the last speed I usually see is just about 90; I'm normally too busy to look after that !

The '109 is one of the most controllable aircraft that I have flown at slow speed around finals, and provided you don't get too slow is one of the easiest to three point. It just feels right ! THe only problem is getting it too slow. If this happens you end up with a very high sink rate, very quickly and absolutely no ability to check or flare to round out. It literally falls out of your hands !

Once down on three points the aircraft tends to stay down - but this is when you have to be careful. The forward view has gone to hell and you cannot afford to let any sort of swing develop. The problem is that the initial detection is more difficult. The aeroplane is completely unpredictable and can diverge in either direction. There never seems to be any pattern to this. Sometimes the most immaculate three pointer will turn into a potential disaster half way through the landing roll. Other times a ropey landing will roll thraight as an arrow !

When we first started flying the '109 both my father and I did a lot of practice circuits on the grass before trying a paved strip. Operating off grass is preferred. Although it is a much smoother ride on the hard, directionally the aircraft is definitely more sensative. WIthout doubt you cannot afford to relax until you are positively stationary. I would never make a rolling exit from a runway in the '109. It is just as likely to wrap itself up at 25 as it is at 80 mph. Another promlem is that you have to go easy on the brakes. Hammer them too early in the landing roll and they will have faded to nothing just when you need them ! The final word of advice is always three point the aircraft and if the wind is such that it makes a three pointer inadvisable it's simple: the aeroplane stays in the hanger !

Having said all this, I like the aeroplane very much, and I think I can understand why many of the Luftwaffe aces had such a high regard and preference for it. Our intention is to eventually re-engine our aeroplane with a Daimler-Benz 605 and convert it to a late '109G or perhaps even a 'K'.

----------

Notice his comments about the controls getting heavy at higher speeds, as well as his comments about its relative dogfighting worth versus the Spitfire and P-51.

Sig.Hirsch
03-02-2005, 01:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The rudder is effective and if medium feel up to 300. It becomes heavier above this speed but regardless the lack of rudder trim is not a problem for the type of operations we carry out with the aeroplane. Initial acceleration is rapid, particularly with nose down, up to about 320 mph. After that the '109 starts to become a little reluctant and you have to be fairly determined to get over 350-360 mph.

So how does the aeroplane compare with other contemporary fighters ? First, let me say that all my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12 (54") and 2700 rpm. I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor. At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109. Other factors affecting the '109 as a combat plane include the small cramped cockpit. This is quite a tiring working environment, although the view out (in flight) is better than you might expect; the profuseion of canopy struts is not particularly a problem.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


First thx Buzzaw , it's an excellent article , at least far more trusted than any comment from Kit Carson ( listen to him , and all planes are crapp except his country's planes ) .

Comments are very interesting and match many others pilot comments (unlike Carson's ) i've seen about this plane , and indeed early "G" model can't compete with any Spitfire and P-51 at high speed

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Having said all this, I like the aeroplane very much, and I think I can understand why many of the Luftwaffe aces had such a high regard and preference for it. Our intention is to eventually re-engine our aeroplane with a Daimler-Benz 605 and convert it to a late '109G or perhaps even a 'K'.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

However this thread is about corrected elevator response of the Bf-109 "Kurfurst" , K series with far more effective elevator controls , and the bug in IL-2FB about his turnrate at 6500 m with 12 seconds more than the true test figures .

I thank you for sharing informations with us and being fair http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

regards,

lrrp22
03-02-2005, 03:00 PM
Sig_Hirsch

Why would you think that the 109K would have better elevator response than the G? Both versions used the same elevator/horizontal stabilizer while the K was heavier.

Also, Carson had nothing but good things to say about the Fw 190.

Edit: *BUT*...I do support fixing the in-game Kurfurst's (Konrad?) high altitude/low speed elevator response.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:

However this thread is about corrected elevator response of the Bf-109 "Kurfurst" , K series with far more effective elevator controls , and the bug in IL-2FB about his turnrate at 6500 m with 12 seconds more than the true test figures .

I thank you for sharing informations with us and being fair http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

regards, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Blutarski2004
03-02-2005, 03:19 PM
For what it's worth .....

Shore & Ring's book, FIGHTERS OVER THE DESERT, quotes a German JG27 pilot commenting about very heavy elevator effort in his 109F in a high speed dive. The pilot got into an accelerated dive from 4,000 meters (IIRC) during combat and discovered that he could not pull out using the stick. He ultimately was able to recover by very carefully trimming out.

Sig.Hirsch
03-02-2005, 04:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Sig_Hirsch

Why would you think that the 109K would have better elevator response than the G? Both versions used the same elevator/horizontal stabilizer while the K was heavier.

Also, Carson had nothing but good things to say about the Fw 190.

Edit: *BUT*...I do support fixing the in-game Kurfurst's (Konrad?) high altitude/low speed elevator response.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok nice to hear http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
109 K had a lower steering angle (sorry maybe it's wrong in english )of ailerons , which made it more efficient elevator at high speed .

Concerning Carson , i don't agree with you , but that's not the subject and will be to long here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
What is important are the figures , the document that Kurfurst (Butch2k first i think ) showed which is authentical , if we look at them , we see that it has indeed better elevator than it has ingame (high speed turns ) , hopefully that will save tons of justification messages .
i hope too it'll be fixed by Oleg if he has time for it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

regards,

DarthBane_
03-02-2005, 04:45 PM
So will the elevator be corrected? Its no good the way it is now, i have strong constitution, can work biceps with 60+ kg (both hands) in meny series, and i dont think elevator would stiffen for me like for some skiny guys. It wasnt equaly hard for all to pull in RL, why is that same for all here?

WWMaxGunz
03-02-2005, 04:49 PM
I definitely liked mark Hanna's commentary there. Loads of full detail where so many older
stories left things I guess taken for granted between pilots on those planes unsaid. Mark
gives you the full plate as it were.
300 mph (is that IAS?) and you can easily enough get 5 G's? You want easier, trim it up?
I paraphrase but am I off there? I take that as a two and add the WWII British test pilot
comments about if you have it trimmed for a dive then the stick force will be very hard on
pullout (again, I paraphrase) as another two and come up with four, being the reputation
that is often all we read. Most unfair to the 109.

What I don't know is what information Oleg used in the sim because, he has sources to put
so many to shame and as good as any others. But he is also not, despite what many say, on
par with the creator and capable with help of the occasional mistake especially when doing
rush work under extreme pressure. I doubt any of us thinks we are so good but still an
error corrected is a better sim, so it's for the better I think we try to show these things
and hash them out best we can... maybe somethings get noticed, it's happened before.

Buzz, I agree about airfoil shape with the lift at speeds. There is also the wingloading
and wing area drag at high speed, and the wing shape (like elliptical) affecting induced
drag at AOA and those slats, and probably has to be more judging from what Blotto and Oryx
used to post. Like thrust. So I wouldn't try and draw too many parallels one plane to
another on any limited set of characteristics, myself.

I do feel that there is for any plane, configuration and altitude, a best maneuver speed
that should be compared to the opponent to determine what tactics the pilot should use
and try to force the enemy into. I think that Mark Hanna missed the point a just a tiny
bit (as do others on the forum here, only worse) when saying that in the slow speed fight,
plane X will do better than Y and worse than Z. Yes, right, but the approach seems to
leave that the fight goes however it will and plane whatever wins when knowledge such
as that should be "If you are flying plane X against plane Y then you should do this
but against plane Z you should avoid the same.". That first thought when you engage
quickly, it's better you don't have to think through long enough to get trapped. It
also keeps open that every plane has ranges depending on opponent that work best, not
just one way to fight where you either win or lose.

lrrp22
03-02-2005, 05:35 PM
I'm not sure what you mean about the ailerons. Like the elevators, the K-4 used the same wing and ailerons as the 109G. And no, there were no Flettner tabs on the K's ailerons (but we don't want to go there again http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:

ok nice to hear http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
109 K had a lower steering angle (sorry maybe it's wrong in english )of ailerons , which made it more efficient elevator at high speed .

Concerning Carson , i don't agree with you , but that's not the subject and will be to long here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
What is important are the figures , the document that Kurfurst (Butch2k first i think ) showed which is authentical , if we look at them , we see that it has indeed better elevator than it has ingame (high speed turns ) , hopefully that will save tons of justification messages .
i hope too it'll be fixed by Oleg if he has time for it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

regards, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sig.Hirsch
03-02-2005, 06:40 PM
oh yes sorry for my english , i meant the elevator aileron ,its angle , which was lower on the K ,it helped at hig speed to keep more autority in the elevator http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
sorry for my mistake thx for understanding http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
03-02-2005, 10:49 PM
Your English beats my German to pieces but maybe you mean elevator trim tab?
Aileron is the control surface on the back of the wing to work roll control,
like for banking to turn.

Marc-David
03-03-2005, 12:54 AM
IRRP: I'm not sure about the same wings and ailerons in G and K models.

To add somthing spicy (spelling correct?):

1992 article by Dave Southwood on flying the magnificent Messerchmitt Bf109G-2 W.Nr. 10639.
Source: http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/index1024.htm

Introduction: The article does not (!!!) talk about elevator authority or effectiveness, but about the forces needed to pull. This is an interesting sidenote to the 50lbs-Stickforce-chain of our discussion here. Reading the article makes me assume, that the pilot is talking about flying the ME in an airshowdisplay. So I conclude, that the statement with "520kph/pull 4g with one hand" refers to this situation at a hight normally under 2000m/6600ft. Which means, that IAS and TAS do not diverge too much at this altitude, as they would do in 6000+m/19800+ft.

Smilies put in by me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Bf109G is heavy to manoeuvre in pitch, being similar http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif to a Mustang [but, alas, he say nothing about the effectivity, MD]. At 520kph it is possible to pull 4g with one hand, but I find it more comfortable to use both hands on the stick for looping manoeuvres, normally entered at 420kph and 3g. Pitch trim changes with speed are moderate, and the tail plane trim wheel mounted abeam the pilots' left hip is easy to use. For a display, I run it at 420-450kph in trim, and then do not retrim. This causes no excessive stick forces during the display. Overall the aircraft is straightforward to handle in pitch. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I find some time today, I fire up devicelink IAS to confirm theses numbers (=pulling 4g/520kph and loop 3g/420kph @some altitudes (or my unable flying http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

Yours, MD

LeadSpitter_
03-03-2005, 05:25 AM
Dont forget the 109 did not bank left and pull back on elevator for the turn times. One of the best things about the 109 was its rudder and sensativity of the rudder which made it not the most stable ac but had the ability of some of the best deflection shots out of any ac of the war and ability to crab the ac. This gave the 109 one of the best abilities to direct the nose much further then many other ac.

Kurfurst__
03-03-2005, 07:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
I'm not sure what you mean about the ailerons. Like the elevators, the K-4 used the same wing and ailerons as the 109G. And no, there were no Flettner tabs on the K's ailerons (but we don't want to go there again http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, the Japo 109K book has a few pics, a 109K in the factory, the rod for the flettner is visible, another one in post-war junkyard, where a detached wing with aileron flettner clearly is visible, next to a G-10 fuselage. A bit - well,QUITE http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif - off topic though.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1109860306_109_aileronflett.jpg
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1109860349_109_aileronflett2.jpg



As for the Mustang`s better high speed elevator, we only have reports to the contrary, ie. both the Society of Experimental Test Pilots and Dave Southwood notes the Mustang`s elevator stickforces being 20 lbf/G, same as the 109s. I have seen no indication of the Mustang`s alleged turn advantage at high speed, so I think let`s leave that topic instead of repeating that statement which wasn`t/couldn`t be proven yet.

lrrp22
03-03-2005, 09:11 AM
Isegrim,

I don't see any indication of a Flettner tab on the K-4 picture, but, the G-10 wing obviously does have one. That fits with what Vincent Kermogrant (sp?), a.k.a. 'Doc 109', has said about Flettner tab ailerons being fitted to some, IIRC, Erla-built G-10's. The position of the wing in that photo makes it virtually impossible to determine if that G-10 features the distinctive Erla Type 110 cowling.

If that is an actuator rod for a Flettner tab on the K-4 picture, then the rod is too short and the tab is missing. Also, I believe that the actuator rod for the Flettner tab was on the top of the aielron, not the bottom, although I acould be wrong. Every other photo of a 109K that I have seen to date shows nothing but standard ailerons.

As for the Mustang's vs. the 109's high speed elevator authority- that argument is a bit of a red herring. "We" do not only have reports to the contrary- instead, *you* choose to hand-pick references that fit your argument while ignoring numerous data indicating the opposite. The part you always omit from your favorite Mark Hanna account indicates that the 109's elevator becomes heavy at 300 mph and that the Mustang was clearly superior at high speed. It becomes obvious from the Hanna account that the 109's he flew became very heavy in both pitch and roll above 300 mph. Further, look at the results of the 1944 Joint Fighter Conference, as well as the countless references to the Mustang's high speed turn ability made by the pilots that flew them in combat. They did not add a bob weight to the Merlin Mustang's elevator control cable because the control forces were too heavy, after all.


Again though, I *do* think that AEP/PF's Kurfurst has broken elevators at higher altitudes and hope that it gets fixed.

Buzzsaw-
03-03-2005, 09:39 AM
Salute

Since someone has decided to mention the "Flying Black 6" article by Paul Coggan on his flight in the British museum's 109G2, I thought I'd post the entire thing.

From Warbirds Worldwide #21


--------

The Bf109 is a fascinating aircraft. It was produced in greater numbers than any other fighter aircraft, and was the main single-engined fighter opponent of the Spitfire and Hurricane in the Battle of Britain. Ever sinec I first flew a Spitfire I had a great desire to fly the '109. I soon had the opportunity to fly a Hispano HA-1112M1L Buchon and this made me even more curious about what a real Bf109 was like to fly.

John Allison did not have to ask me twice if I would like to be the other pilot to fly the Bf109G-2 that had been rebuilt by Russ Snadden and his team at RAF Benson. I still feel very privileged to be able to fly this aircraft so when I was asked to write an article for Warbirds Worldwide on flying it, how could I refuse!

The Bf109G has conventional elevators, ailerons, and rudder. Pitch trim is achieved by a variable incidence tail plane, and there is a ground adjustable fixed tab on the rudder and on the aileron for yaw and roll trim. The wing trailing edge incorporates manually operated simple flaps and radiator cooling is controlled by split flaps on the trailing edge which droop with the main flaps to increase flapped area. The outboard half of each wing leading edge incorporates an independent automatic slat, which extends at low speed or in hard manoeuvres. The main undercarriage legs retract outwards and when fully lowered the mainwheels feature a marked toe-in, i.e. the wheels are closer together at the front than at the rear. I believe that this unusual characteristic is caused by the problems of fitting the wheel well and undercarriage leg pintle into the wing due to the position of the main spar. The tailwheel is lockable from the cockpit. The engine is a Daimler-Benz DB605, driving a VDM variable pitch propeller which rotates clockwise when viewed from behind.

On approaching the aircraft it looks sleek, compact, and quite small compared to other World War II fighters. These characteristics are emphasised by the cockpit, which is small, cramped, and neither the seat nor rudder pedals are adjustable. Once the canopy is closed, there is very little headroom either. I am 6feet 3 inches tall, and to the question "How do I fit in it?" all I will say is that 'where there is a will there is a way!' However, the cockpit of this particular airframe is almost totally original, the only significant difference being that the gunsight has been removed and a Becker VHF radio and standby magnetic compass fitted in its place. This degree of originality adds much to the feel and character of this airframe and sets it apart from many rebuilt warbirds that have modernised cockpits, a practice that I dislike greatly. It must be added that this original cockpit has all of the labelling in German, airspeed in kilometres per hour (kph) and altitude in Kilometres. Manifold air pressure is in atmospheres (ata), 1 atmosphere being 30 inches of mercury.

Starting the engine requires one or two willing helpers standing on the starboard wing root to wind up the inertia starter with a crank-handle. The engine is then primed with about 10 strokes of a Ki-gas type pump, the fuel pump switched on and the starter handle pulled which engages a clutch connecting the inertia starter to the engine; hopefully the engine starts! There are two points about this starting procedure. Firstly, you cannot overprime the engine. Secondly it is not feasible to take the aircraft away from Duxford without the groundcrew!

Taxying is achieved using differential braking via rudder pedal mounted toe brakes. The aircraft is reluctant to turn sharply and my technique is to apply full rudder in the required direction of turn to give me better leverage and to then stamp on the toe brake. This is aided by pushing the stick fully forward to unload the tailwheel, an action which is totally unnatural to someone used to the Spitfire! However, the '109 is tail heavy and the tail never lifts. It is during taxying that the very poor forward field of view is first realised. You can see virtually nothing within 30 or 40 degrees either side of the nose, definitely worse than anything that I have ever flown.

Take off is made with 1 degree nose up tailplane trim, 20 degrees of flap lowered and always with the tailwheel locked. After lining up the throttle is smoothly opened to 1.1 ata, controlling the moderate left swing with rudder. Once the take-off power is set and the aircraft is directionally under control, the tail is gently raised just clear of the ground. The aircraft lifts off at around 150 kph with slight back pressure on the stick. This may sound simple, but is one of the most difficult tasks in flying the '109. If any swing is allowed to develop the toe-in on the outside wheel turns the aircraft even more i.e. it is directionally unstable. It will then roll about the outside wheel, leading to the classic ground loop. This problem is accentuated because the forward field of view is so poor that it is difficult to detect any swing starting. The only saving grace is that the lockable tailwheel gives some directional stability, and so it is kept on the ground for as long as possible. The gyroscopic effect of the propeller and loss of directional stability from the tailwheel once the tail is raised is marked, hence the tail is raised very gently and only slightly.

Once airborne, engine handling is markedly different from similar British and American engines, due to the lack of a constant speed unit on the propeller. The operating philosophy is that the engine has a running line of optimum rpm for a given manifold pressure; 2000 rpm at 1.0 ata, 2300 rpm at 1.15 ata (max. continuous) and 2600 rpm at 1.3 ata (30 minute limit). These rpm are also the minimum for the manifold pressure without overboosting the engine. The pilot sets the manifold pressure with the throttle, and engine rpm is controlled either automatically (when it is governed to the running line) or manually. Manual control is by a rocker switch on the throttle and this varies the propeller blade pitch. Once set, the propeller runs with fixed pitch, RPM increasing with increasing airspeed and vice versa. Cockpit of blade pitch is on a clock. For example, 12:00 is set for take-off and 11:45 for landing. Initially, we always flew the aircraft with manual RPM control, until we were happy with the automatic control functioning. In a display, 1.15 ata is set and RPM controlled manually to 2400-2500 to prevent overboosting. This requires a setting of around 11:05 at high speeds such as for loop entries, and an increase to around 11:20 over the top of a loop. This results in a lot of head-in-cockpit time and propeller adjustment during a display, greatly increasing the workload.

The Bf109G is heavy to manoeuvre in pitch, being similar to a Mustang. At 520kph it is possible to pull 4g with one hand, but I find it more comfortable to use both hands on the stick for looping manoeuvres, normally entered at 420kph and 3g. Pitch trim changes with speed are moderate, and the tail plane trim wheel mounted abeam the pilots' left hip is easy to use. For a display, I run it at 420-450kph in trim, and then do not retrim. This causes no excessive stick forces during the display. Overall the aircraft is straightforward to handle in pitch.

Roll performance is similar to a Hurricane or elliptical wing tipped Spitfire. A full stick roll through 360 degrees at 460kph takes 4 to 4.5 seconds without using rudder, and needs a force of around 20 lbf. One interesting characteristic is that rolls at lower speeds entered at less than 1g, such as a roll-off-the-top or half Cuban, have a markedly lower roll rate to the right than to the left. Therefore, I always roll left in such manoeuvres.

There are two problem areas in yaw control with the '109. Firstly, directional stability is low and marked slip ball excursions occur with any changes of speed or power. Also, there is moderate adverse aileron yaw (right yaw when left aileron is applied, and vice versa). The rudder force to centralise the slip ball is low, but constant rudder inputs are required during manoeuvres to minimise sideslip. If the slip ball is not kept central, the lateral force on the pilot is not uncomfortable and no handling problems occur, but it looks very untidy in a display. At the top of a left wing-over, you are very cross-controlled, with left aileron and lots of right rudder applied. This lack of directional stability makes it hard work to fly the aircraft accurately and neatly, although there are no safety problems. However, it must have made accurate tracking for a guns 'kill' very difficult. I suspect that many '109 kills were made at very close range! It also says a great deal about the shooting skills of the Luftwaffe Aces. The second problem is the lack of a cockpit adjustable rudder trimmer. The fixed tab is set so that the rudder is in trim during the cruise, reducing footloads during long transits. However, for all other airspeed and power combinations, a rudder force must be applied. This is an annoying feature, and I am surprised that a rudder trim tab was never fitted to later models such as the Gustav.

The idle power stall characteristics of the aircraft are very benign and affected little by undercarriage and flap position. Stalling warning is a slight wing rock with the stick floating right by about 2 inches. This occurs 10klph before the stall. The stall itself is a left wing drop through about 15 degrees with a slight nose drop, accompanied by a light buffet. All controls are effective up to the stall, and recovery is instant on moving the stick forward. Stall speeds are 155kph clean and 140kph with gear and flap down. In a turn at 280kphwith display power set, stall warning is given by light buffet at 3g, and the stall occurs at 3.5g with the inside wing dropping. Again, recovery is instant on easing the stick forward. One interesting feature is the leading edge slats. When these deploy at low speeds or in a turn, a 'clunk' can be heard and felt, but there is no disturbance to the aircraft about any axis. I understand that the Bf109E rolled violently as the slats deployed, and I am curious to know the difference to the Gustav that caused this.

Back in the circuit, the '109 is straightforward to fly, except that it takes around 25 secs to lower the flaps, using a large wheel mounted next to the tail plane trim wheel and on the same shaft. A curving final approach is flown at 200kph, and once aligned with the runway the forward field of view is poor. The threshold is crossed at 175kph, the throttle closed, and the aircraft flared to the 3 point attitude. The '109 floats like a Spitfire and controls are effective up to touchdown. After touchdown, directional control is by using differential braking. The three point attitude is easy to judge, and although it bucks around on rough grass it does not bounce significantly on touchdown. however, the landing is not easy. From approaching the threshold up to touchdown the forward view is very poor, and it is difficult to assess drift. if the aircraft is drifting at touchdown, the toe-in on the wheel towards which it is drifting causes a marked swing, and you are working very hard to keep straight and avoid a ground loop. Each landing is a challenge, and just a bit unpredictable. Hard runways have higher friction than grass surfaces, and so the wheels dig in even more if drifting on touchdown, making ground-loops more likely on runways than on grass. The possibility of drifting on touchdown increases with a crosswind, and so for these two reasons, we are only flying the Gustav off grass and with a 10kt crosswind limit. I have flown the Buchon off the runway, and landed with a 10kt crosswind on concrete, but it is something that I would never do out of choice!

The Buchon flies very much the same as the Gustav, although directional stability is even worse. The biggest differences are engine handling and cockpit noise levels. The Buchon is very noisy due to the high exhaust stacks of the Merlin, the low exhausts of the DB605 giving a considerably quieter cockpit.

In summary, the Bf109G is a demanding aircraft to fly. The workload is high maintaining directional control on take-off and landing, although in flight the stalling and pitch characteristics are god. I would advise anyone planning to fly a '109 to get lots of experience and confidence in other large piston-engined taildraggers first. However, if its peculiarities are understood and the take-off and landing limits are strictly adhered to the '109 can be operated perfectly safely. I treat the '109 with greater respect than anything else that I fly, but the challenge of trying to fly it well gives me greater satisfaction and enjoyment than probably any other aircraft. But I am never satisfied- I now have an ambition to fly an Emil; the Bf109E.

---------------

Notice several points:

1) First of all, he says he can pull 4g's with one hand, but not easily, prefers two hands. And that is only 4g's.

2) It takes 25 seconds to fully deploy flaps. Try this in the game, much faster.

3) Stall speed for the G2 is listed as 155 km/hr with flaps up, 140 kph with flaps down. Try the G2 in the game, and you will notice it stalls with flaps up at 130 kph. So obviously grossly overmodelled for low speed controllability.

4) Rollrate for a 360 degree roll is 4 - 4.5 seconds, or approximately 85 degrees per second. Try the G2 in the game, it rolls at 120 degrees per second, again grossly overmodelled.

5) Takeoff and landing is described as extremely tricky, requiring a lot of skill. Again, the 109 in the game is incredibly easy to takeoff and land with none of the problems described.

6) Lack of directional stability makes gun solutions at anything but very close range very difficult. Not a problem with 109 in game.

7) Cockpit described as extremely cramped, and difficult to move around in.

Sig.Hirsch
03-03-2005, 10:50 AM
Yes , Maxguns , i got it approx right with the auto translator , it might be it , thx http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
the lower steering angle of the elevator trim tab, which helped at high speed , but it wasn't only the K , i've read most of MW50 late bf 's too

lrrp22
03-03-2005, 11:15 AM
Sig.Hirsch

I think what you are referring to is a different 'neutral' stabilizer trim setting for MW-50 equipped 109G/K's. All Bf 109F/G/K's had a variable incidence horizontal tailplane instead of conventional trim tabs. I believe the adjustment you are referring to was intended to counteract the increased rear fuelage weight caused by the MW-50 tank. Does that sound about right?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
Yes , Maxguns , i got it approx right with the auto translator , it might be it , thx http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
the lower steering angle of the elevator trim tab, which helped at high speed , but it wasn't only the K , i've read most of MW50 late bf 's too <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sig.Hirsch
03-03-2005, 01:45 PM
yep i think so , thank you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WWMaxGunz
03-03-2005, 03:26 PM
All believe that all 109 elevators were this way... no trim tabs, my error forgetting to
even say. All 109's at least from 109E and I bet before then. It is better design but
more sensitive in change?

Buzzsaw-
03-03-2005, 10:00 PM
Salute

Amazing.

I just posted a test of a fully original 109G2 which clearly shows that the game model has too low a stall speed, too high a rollrate, and a better than historical view out of the cockpit.

Which also means that the 109K4, the seeming subject of this thread, also is clearly overmodelled in regards to its low speed controllability and rollrate, since it is heavier, thus has more inertia, with wings which are less aerodynamic.

Yet this thread continues on blithely as though nothing has happened.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Von_Rat
03-03-2005, 10:46 PM
i don't follow buzzsaw, even if g2 is wrong in stall etc, how does it follow that k4 is wrong. its low speed stalls and handling are much worse than a g2, which it should be, because of its heavier weight, inertia etc.

isn't this thread about incorrect hi speed elevator resonse of k4.

Ugly_Kid
03-04-2005, 12:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Yet this thread continues on blithely as though nothing has happened. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If your posting has a same content as a swine detailling a satellite it'd better go unnoticed.

"Aerofoils are a tradeoff. You can have a relatively thick aerofoil, heavily cantilevered, and it will give very good lift at low speeds. Examples of this are the 109, Hurricane, Typhoon, and Zero/Zeke. But as mentioned, as speeds rise, so does the amount of turbulence.

The 2nd alternative is a thinner wing, such as the Spitfire's."

Now spitfire's profile actually did not provide less lift than that of Bf - wing did.(funny that LW enthusiast has to break you the news) Also if you look at the chord thickness ratio I'd like to hear what's thick? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"The thinner wing tends to give less turbulence at higher speeds, and thus enters compressibility later."

"The third alternative is the laminar flow aerofoil, such as was on the P-51 or Tempest. This generated very low turbulence at higher speeds, meaning it was less likely to enter compressibility, meaning its ailerons and elevators remained effective."

Nopehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif it isn't very difficult to show you an excellent transonic profile with fairly early transition and thus minimal laminar flow vs. large turbulent area, way more superior to a traditional laminar profile.

Additionally, elevator compressibility problems are sort of elevator's business its profile and have less to do with wing, quite opposite to what you write.

Also laminar/turbulent is a matter of definition how big the laminar flow region is before transition - it is not on/off as you seem to indicate - would it surprise you to know that a laminar profile falls turbulent at higher Reynold's number? You seem to oppose turbulent flow to high speed, I am really sorry but it is sort of a consequence of a higher Reynold's number, perhaps you should consult another internet site for further studies in flow dynamics?http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"Wingroots were another area where turbulence was heavy. The Corsair was an interesting design, the bend in the wing caused it to mate with the fuselage at exactly a 90 degree angle, which greatly reduced turbulence and gave it the lower drag and good energy retention characteristics it had."

Sure was - not http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The wings were botched in order to give the prop some ground clearance, not because of aerodynamic innovative. These kinks on the wings themselves were a right aerodynamic catastrophe - how much of this revolutionary concept is/was used? Stuka? oh yeah the low drag stuka...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"Turbulence over the wing reduces lift."

Sorry errr no http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif - and you were already saying quite the opposite earlier when dissing of turbulent for higher speed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Turbulent flow attaches much better to the surface thus delaying separation.

"Turbulence causes two things:

1) The formation of an atmospheric shock wave on the leading and trailing edges of the wing which reduces lift and eventually freezes the control surfaces. (compressibility)"

Wrong...like said it isn't very difficult to come up with a profile with considerably early transition plenty of turbulence and yet superior transonic handling. Furthermore, once you have shockwave formation progressing to leading and trailing edge you're past the point of fighting compressibility problems of early compressible subsonic flow. And at this stage I doubt traditional laminar profile really excels...elevator is not located on wing BTW.

"2) Increased drag.

Look at the La-5 series. This aircraft has a wing with a similar aerofoil to the 109, and also has the leading edge slats.

At high speeds it very quickly loses control authority, in fact it suffers more heavily from the effects of the onset of compressibility than does the 109"

You mean 190 - no, it's obvious from the next one that you indeed mean 109. Why post at all if you don't get the facts right? La worse of than Bf, then in your books of suffering it must have been a right purgatory, eh? Hmmm, the slats on the other hand (opposite to innovative low drag gullwing are still used today) freed the wing of geometric twist (which in turn freed spitfire of the intended pure elliptical lift distribution, might have been just better of with slats and no twist)

Again you talk about wing profile as it would be behind elevators problems? You do it later ranting over Hurricane too...

"The La-5 series can be very easily outmaneuvered at high speeds by aircraft such as the 190 which have a cleaner wing design."

Hmmm...of course considering that La-5 and Fw both had NACA 230XX series profiles and I am sure some soviet ac afficianado can put an additional good word for the wingplanform.

AndyHigh
03-04-2005, 04:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute
As mentioned, the above document was translated by the Finns at Virtualpilots, who certainly are not biased, and in fact are very supportive of the 109's performance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Somewhat off-topic, but this document also states that G6's speed was:
540 km/h at 0m
650 km/h at 5000m
620 km/h at 8000m

Now in the game max speeds at these altitudes are about 530, 605, 630 km/h (for G6 Late) according to IL2 Compare. Comparing with other (also finnish) sources, the speed at around 4000-5000 m seems to be much lower in the game.

Wonders why...

Kurfurst__
03-04-2005, 05:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Notice several points:

1) First of all, he says he can pull 4g's with one hand, but not easily, prefers two hands. And that is only 4g's.[/QOUTE]

'Only' 4Gs? Hmm, most pilots couldn`t sustain more than 5-6 Gs without blacking out, nor there was many airframes that`s safety limit would tolerate more than 6.5Gs; the guy can pull 4Gs with one hand without much of a problems, he will be able to pull 8Gs with two hands - rather easily.

But he also said :

"The Bf109G is heavy to manoeuvre in pitch, being similar to a Mustang. "

So if he take his words, the 109G needs to have Mustang-like pitch characteristics. Or the the Mustang needs to have 109G-like pitch characteristics. Or both needs to be brought to more realistic levels.

This is in agreement with other statements of Southwood and the SOETP who both state the 109G/Mustang require a pitch force of 20 lbf/G.


Hanna said :
"Maneuvering above 300mph, two hands can be required for more aggressive performance. EIther that or get on the trimmer to help you. Despite this heavying up it is still quite easy to get at 5G's at these speeds. "



2) It takes 25 seconds to fully deploy flaps. Try this in the game, much faster.

FYI, I mentioned this all the way of the orig Il-2 beta testing, to have manual flaps on the 109, like as manual u/c for some planes.


3) Stall speed for the G2 is listed as 155 km/hr with flaps up, 140 kph with flaps down. Try the G2 in the game, and you will notice it stalls with flaps up at 130 kph. So obviously grossly overmodelled for low speed controllability.

He says... "The idle power stall characteristics...".
In the game we have power-on stall characteristics with combat, the slipstream decreasing the stall speeds - on all planes.


4) Rollrate for a 360 degree roll is 4 - 4.5 seconds, or approximately 85 degrees per second. Try the G2 in the game, it rolls at 120 degrees per second, again grossly overmodelled.

This roll rate had been given for ca450kph, and when I last tested it was about this. Naturally higher roll rates can be achieved at lower speeds, 300mph is fairly high, all plane`s roll rate start to drop by this speed.

Interestingly, one of the chief test pilots of Messerscmitt, Heinrich Beuvais noted the 109`s roll rate was only 25% inferior to the FW 190A. Well, 120 deg/sec would comply with this statement nicely, as with Hanna`s :

"The roll rate is very good and very positive below about 250 mph. This is particularly true of the Charles Church's Collection clipped wing aircraft. Our round tipped aeroplane is slightly less nice to feel. With the speed further back the roll rate remains good, particularly with a bit of help from the rudder. Above 250 mph however the roll starts to heavy up and up to 300 or so is very similar to a P-51."

It`s quite clear that below the 85deg/sec @ 300mph the roll rate was _much_ nicer.


5) Takeoff and landing is described as extremely tricky, requiring a lot of skill. Again, the 109 in the game is incredibly easy to takeoff and land with none of the problems described.

That`s is because the game doesn`t model engine torque too much, otherwise quite a few aircraft would run into directional problems during takeoff.


6) Lack of directional stability makes gun solutions at anything but very close range very difficult. Not a problem with 109 in game.

Pure BS, if you don`t pay attention to the rudder in the game, the ball won`t be centered and gunnery will become much more unpredictable as the aircraft slips.
Totally obvious to anyone who have ever flown the 109 in the game, and just played a litte bit

[QUOTE]7) Cockpit described as extremely cramped, and difficult to move around in. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For a guy 6feet 3 inches tall, yes... otherwise, irrevelant.