PDA

View Full Version : Bf109 has very little torque....why?



HayateAce
08-23-2005, 02:02 AM
Oleg & 1C, please explain why high-power, low-weight aircraft such as Bf109 has almost no torque effect in game. This aircraft in history crashes on takeoff/landing 11,000 out of 33,000 produced, yet remains one of the easiest to takeoff, fly and land in the entire game.


http://www.hasegawa-model.co.jp/KIKAKU/109/P/Bf109.jpg

Badsight.
08-23-2005, 02:18 AM
nice PS filter

Bf-109s are easy to handel in v4.01 yes

Abbuzze
08-23-2005, 04:08 AM
All planes are to easy to fly, especially while taking of and landing!
For the 1/3 109 losts while TO and Landing, this includes battledamaged bellylanding planes. I would like to know the numbers of B17 that are "destroyed" while of after landing and write off.

For a practiced pilot landing a 109 was not a problem, they used them as nightfighters, with very few landing accidents (in the night- the pilots who land them without troubles in the deepest darkness crashed at daylights http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)

Beside it was not the torque that let the 109 having troubles in TO/landing it was the narrow gear and the center of gravity. We nearly fly without any serious wind in FB so the biggest problem for the 109 is simply not there!

Why should a 109 have much more torqueinfluence than a Spit for example - I think it is modelled "correct" or at least not worse than any other plane.

butch2k
08-23-2005, 04:12 AM
FYI checking my 109 incident/accident list mentions less than 1000 takeoff/landing accident out of 26000 cases...

Abbuzze
08-23-2005, 04:15 AM
Originally posted by butch2k:
FYI checking my 109 incident/accident list mentions less than 1000 takeoff/landing accident out of 26000 cases...

Interesting information, what especially do you mean with cases- airplaneslosts?

Ankanor
08-23-2005, 05:10 AM
Originally posted by butch2k:
FYI checking my 109 incident/accident list mentions less than 1000 takeoff/landing accident out of 26000 cases...

You know nothing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif You must believe hayateace. He's a graduate of the YAIO academy, you know http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

AFJ_Skyghost
08-23-2005, 05:28 AM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
Why should a 109 have much more torqueinfluence than a Spit for example - I think it is modelled "correct" or at least not worse than any other plane.
I have no doubts it might be so correct but in that case explain me why the Spit has a much bigger torque effect than the 109????

Abbuzze
08-23-2005, 05:40 AM
Originally posted by AFJ_Skyghost:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Abbuzze:
Why should a 109 have much more torqueinfluence than a Spit for example - I think it is modelled "correct" or at least not worse than any other plane.
I have no doubts it might be so correct but in that case explain me why the Spit has a much bigger torque effect than the 109???? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In which situation especially? Will do a test when I´m at home again. Never had the impression that there is a big difference in all the planes.

JG53Frankyboy
08-23-2005, 05:54 AM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AFJ_Skyghost:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Abbuzze:
Why should a 109 have much more torqueinfluence than a Spit for example - I think it is modelled "correct" or at least not worse than any other plane.
I have no doubts it might be so correct but in that case explain me why the Spit has a much bigger torque effect than the 109???? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In which situation especially? Will do a test when I´m at home again. Never had the impression that there is a big difference in all the planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

test the IAR80 series http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Abbuzze
08-23-2005, 06:24 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AFJ_Skyghost:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Abbuzze:
Why should a 109 have much more torqueinfluence than a Spit for example - I think it is modelled "correct" or at least not worse than any other plane.
I have no doubts it might be so correct but in that case explain me why the Spit has a much bigger torque effect than the 109???? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In which situation especially? Will do a test when I´m at home again. Never had the impression that there is a big difference in all the planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

test the IAR80 series http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe I´m just in better physical conditions than you Franky and so I have a better "Torqueresistance" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
You are right, also the B239 have a lot of torque. I should say it more precisely - planes with similar layout, weight, size are similar in torquebehavior http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

There are other planes that are much more strange the japanese Bomber (forgot the name) for example.

USAF_pilot
08-23-2005, 06:59 AM
Butch Im glad you posted the facts so Hayate can stop his spamming and trolling and lies and everyone can see the nut in his lying glory

carguy_
08-23-2005, 07:15 AM
Bring on the torque!I liked in in b4! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


As for takeoff accidents....it was more of a 109 gear problem more than anything else.

Kocur_
08-23-2005, 07:52 AM
The bet(tAr) 04 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Or 06 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Buzzsaw-
08-23-2005, 08:01 AM
Salute Butch 2k

Please provide more detail on the number of accidents re. the 109 figure you gave out.

1000 aircraft does not fit with any of the figures I have seen, or the anecdotal reports which noted this aircraft had serious ground loop problems as well as issues with landing gear collapse.

Were these figures solely relating to accidents which involved injury and not to accidents which did not involve injury?

I know that for example, that WWI, the Idflieg did not report aircraft losses from combat, but rather referenced pilot casualties. Pilots who for example, crashlanded with no injury, were not reported as shot down. I suspect this was also the case with WWII.

Hayate Ace usually does not have anything of substance to report, but in this case, he has made a valid comment. The 109 was a very small light aircraft, and the effect of the torque from a 35 litre, 1700-1800 hp engine would be considerable. (in the case of the 109G10/K4)

Jaws2002
08-23-2005, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:


test the IAR80 series http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Yeah, that was the first shock when i tested it, it has more torque then all the late monsters. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Jaws2002
08-23-2005, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AFJ_Skyghost:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Abbuzze:
Why should a 109 have much more torqueinfluence than a Spit for example - I think it is modelled "correct" or at least not worse than any other plane.
I have no doubts it might be so correct but in that case explain me why the Spit has a much bigger torque effect than the 109???? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In which situation especially? Will do a test when I´m at home again. Never had the impression that there is a big difference in all the planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

test the IAR80 series http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe I´m just in better physical conditions than you Franky and so I have a better "Torqueresistance" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
You are right, also the B239 have a lot of torque. I should say it more precisely - planes with similar layout, weight, size are similar in torquebehavior http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

There are other planes that are much more strange the japanese Bomber (forgot the name) for example. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

what is so similar between b-238 and IAR-80/81 other then radial engine?
and why would 109 have less torque for more HP?

Grue_
08-23-2005, 10:12 AM
I agree, more torque for the 109. Puts hairs on your chest.

Hopefully 4.02 FM changes will increase torque effect across the range.

AFJ_Skyghost
08-23-2005, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AFJ_Skyghost:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Abbuzze:
Why should a 109 have much more torqueinfluence than a Spit for example - I think it is modelled "correct" or at least not worse than any other plane.
I have no doubts it might be so correct but in that case explain me why the Spit has a much bigger torque effect than the 109???? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In which situation especially? Will do a test when I´m at home again. Never had the impression that there is a big difference in all the planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

test the IAR80 series http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe I´m just in better physical conditions than you Franky and so I have a better "Torqueresistance" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
You are right, also the B239 have a lot of torque. I should say it more precisely - planes with similar layout, weight, size are similar in torquebehavior http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

There are other planes that are much more strange the japanese Bomber (forgot the name) for example. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

what is so similar between b-238 and IAR-80/81 other then radial engine?
and why would 109 have less torque for more HP? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I ve been flying Spits since they are avaiable in this sim.
Spits have been my main ridein all the WWII sims since 1998, they are my fav plane.
~However, since patch 4.01 Spit is maybe the most instable late years plane in the game.
No matter how much trim you use you just can t fly a spit straight. Rudder trim, elevevator trim, aileron, it doesn t matter, you just can t fly it steady.
Try to do a high speed diving and shoot someone.. what a joke, all you get is your plane pulling the nose up and left... and when you try to pull back up you have to use so much rudder to keep it steady you loose all your energy... don t tell me I don t know to fly the spit, in the servers I used to fly I had a 10/1 kill ratio and I hardly lost a 1 vs 1 no matter who I fight with...
Now I pick up a spit and I m lucky if I can get 2 kills by plane but if I grab a 109 I take off, shoot 4 or 5 planes down and go land, easy. And I don t even have to worry with the torque...
I remember everybody whinning about the guns of the Ki84 1c... tell me is there any diference to the Mk108 now?

faustnik
08-23-2005, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Oleg & 1C, please explain why high-power, low-weight aircraft such as Bf109 has almost no torque effect in game. This aircraft in history crashes on takeoff/landing 11,000 out of 33,000 produced, yet remains one of the easiest to takeoff, fly and land in the entire game.


Wow! HayateAce with a legitimate question!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

I'd like to read the answer to this one too.

butch2k
08-23-2005, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute Butch 2k

Please provide more detail on the number of accidents re. the 109 figure you gave out.

1000 aircraft does not fit with any of the figures I have seen, or the anecdotal reports which noted this aircraft had serious ground loop problems as well as issues with landing gear collapse.

Were these figures solely relating to accidents which involved injury and not to accidents which did not involve injury?

I know that for example, that WWI, the Idflieg did not report aircraft losses from combat, but rather referenced pilot casualties. Pilots who for example, crashlanded with no injury, were not reported as shot down. I suspect this was also the case with WWII.

Hayate Ace usually does not have anything of substance to report, but in this case, he has made a valid comment. The 109 was a very small light aircraft, and the effect of the torque from a 35 litre, 1700-1800 hp engine would be considerable. (in the case of the 109G10/K4)
An example :
Bf 109G-2 (wknr 10619) of I./JG 5 on 27-Aug-43 suffered a lanfing accident in Norwegen, at Fl.Pl. Oslo-Fornebu and was 20% damaged.
It's a typical accident, pilot not injured and a/c slightly damaged on landing.

When introduced the Bf 109 had a relatively high rate of failure/accident but in line with the other a/c being introduced at the time. For instance in 1937 there were just 29 accidents each resulting in injuries.

This stuff is detailled in either the medical corps documents relative to a/c accidents or the Quartermaster listing for damaged a/c.

RAF74_Poker
08-23-2005, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
There are other planes that are much more strange the japanese Bomber (forgot the name) for example.

You mean the Val ?
With the heavy roll to the left as you pass the end of the deck ??

WWMaxGunz
08-23-2005, 12:41 PM
Answers due out. Oleg announced upcoming patch including "FM tunes" (for iPod? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )
on the way.

Knowing there's changes already made, why bother critiquing the current FM?
IMHO, there's too many bored forum members with bad manners.

p1ngu666
08-23-2005, 01:01 PM
just odd that 109 has hardly any torque

even k4, mw50 slam full throttle is fine to takeoff http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

HayateAce
08-23-2005, 01:15 PM
Faustnik brother,

I'm changin' my ways. No more klown-around for me, no-sir. Anyway, yes Badsight 109 is easy to fly in 4.01, AS ARE some others, notably the LaGG3. La5/7 have huge torque so this is no slat problem.

I noticed this a few days ago when I took up the Bf109G2 and the differences to other planes was astonishing. Very smooth and steady with the ability to put the gun right on target. This task is almost impossible with planes such as Spitfire.

Blue conspiracy NO! Just an oversight that we hope is fixed with teh patch. Why gripe so much about 109? Simple, one of the 5 most important ships of WW2.

Get it right.

JG5_UnKle
08-23-2005, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Faustnik brother,

I'm changin' my ways. No more klown-around for me, no-sir. Anyway, yes Badsight 109 is easy to fly in 4.01, AS ARE some others, notably the LaGG3. La5/7 have huge torque so this is no slat problem.

I noticed this a few days ago when I took up the Bf109G2 and the differences to other planes was astonishing. Very smooth and steady with the ability to put the gun right on target. This task is almost impossible with planes such as Spitfire.

Blue conspiracy NO! Just an oversight that we hope is fixed with teh patch. Why gripe so much about 109? Simple, one of the 5 most important ships of WW2.

Get it right.

Wow! Who kidnapped HayateAce?

Seriously though I agree, torque needs to be looked at as it affects aircraft in all sorts of different ways, hard to explain...

BlackStar2000
08-23-2005, 02:14 PM
Why not give the correct model to Yaks with wings o falling off, or with diferent sizes, ans some other failures of all planes but not only about the 109 to be more precise.

BTW the correct numbers for the VVS planes instead protipe numbers.

Jaws2002
08-23-2005, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by AFJ_Skyghost:
I ve been flying Spits since they are avaiable in this sim.
Spits have been my main ridein all the WWII sims since 1998, they are my fav plane.
~However, since patch 4.01 Spit is maybe the most instable late years plane in the game.
No matter how much trim you use you just can t fly a spit straight. Rudder trim, elevevator trim, aileron, it doesn t matter, you just can t fly it steady.
Try to do a high speed diving and shoot someone.. what a joke, all you get is your plane pulling the nose up and left... and when you try to pull back up you have to use so much rudder to keep it steady you loose all your energy... don t tell me I don t know to fly the spit, in the servers I used to fly I had a 10/1 kill ratio and I hardly lost a 1 vs 1 no matter who I fight with...
Now I pick up a spit and I m lucky if I can get 2 kills by plane but if I grab a 109 I take off, shoot 4 or 5 planes down and go land, easy. And I don t even have to worry with the torque...
I remember everybody whinning about the guns of the Ki84 1c... tell me is there any diference to the Mk108 now?

Hey Skyghost. I'm on your side buddy. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
If you look closer I was hitting on Abbuzze there not you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Buzzsaw-
08-23-2005, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by butch2k:

When introduced the Bf 109 had a relatively high rate of failure/accident but in line with the other a/c being introduced at the time. For instance in 1937 there were just 29 accidents each resulting in injuries.

This stuff is detailled in either the medical corps documents relative to a/c accidents or the Quartermaster listing for damaged a/c.



Where are these reports accessible?

And second, are you suggesting the accident rate went down with the later models of the 109?

This completely flys in the face of all comments I have read in various sources re. the 109, pilot reports, as well as simple physics.

The aircraft's later models had a higher landing speed than earlier ones. That is clear from the manuals. And with higher landing speeds and the same setup for the landing gear, iie. narrow and unstable, you can expect to have more accidents. That is obvious.

HayateAce
08-23-2005, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:

Wow! Who kidnapped HayateAce?

Seriously though I agree, torque needs to be looked at as it affects aircraft in all sorts of different ways, hard to explain...

Badsight put a mickey in my Shirley Temple. And don't call me Shirley.

faustnik
08-23-2005, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:

The aircraft's later models had a higher landing speed than earlier ones. That is clear from the manuals. And with higher landing speeds and the same setup for the landing gear, iie. narrow and unstable, you can expect to have more accidents. That is obvious.

I don't know, just a guess here, but, didn't the Bf109 series go through some improvements to the landing gear? Weren't a lot of early accidents the result of gear failure?

Kocur_
08-23-2005, 04:06 PM
Early Bf-109's, A,B,C,D had first type of landing gear and their accident rate was very high, gear broke easily unless landing was very gentle. All later history of Bf-109 is mainly history of making its gear strongerhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Anyway Bf-109 is full of "mistakes" since 4.01: slats thing, very high endurance against cannon fire and little torque too! No RL reason at all for it to be less affected than, say, IAR-80/81.

faustnik
08-23-2005, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
No RL reason at all for it to be less affected than, say, IAR-80/81.

You mean the IAR that requires 20 clicks of rudder and aeleron trim with every 25kmh speed change? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

p1ngu666
08-23-2005, 05:14 PM
109 did get better gear, but still problems. many pilots where completely terrified on takeoff and landing, specialy there first ones..

if anyones got aircraft of aces spitfire mk1-2 then look in the back, think a german pilot called wick compaired early spit hurri to his 109, think he said it was like childsplay in spit or hurri compaired to 109

HayateAce
08-23-2005, 06:02 PM
More info, not torque-only related but showing where the IL2 game Bf109 is "off".

Bf 109G / Bf 109K

Uprating the Bf 109 helped plug the gap for a while, but at a price. While the Bf 109 was manouverable, it had never been light on the controls, and as it became faster it also became more difficult to fly, and its handling on the ground, never good, only kept getting worse. With a heavier engine, more firepower and armor, and increased weight 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 much more adaptable to more 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 Messerschmidt 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.


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

Not what we see in 4.01. Shall we see in 4.02?

Abbuzze
08-23-2005, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:


what is so similar between b-238 and IAR-80/81 other then radial engine?
and why would 109 have less torque for more HP?

You maybe misunderstand me, I never compared a IAR80 with a Brewster, the IAR is maybe overmodelled in torqueeffects. I wanted to say that I expect similar planes with similar torque effects in this game.

Why should a plane like the B239 have more torqueeffects than a 109 in some circumstances? - NOT Torque, we just discuss the effects of torque here.

There are a lot of answers for this question. I mentioned size, the Brewster is a short plane, for example like the Rata. If they are short they are less stable at the ground if they are rolling. This is the same in the air. Lenght gives stability (same for cars).

If a plane is short there is also the question of balace - where is the center of gravity? The 109 have it closer to the tail than most planes. This increase stablity at the ground compared to the spit for example hard breaking was possible without danger to flip over. There was also less oscillation with the tail while taxiing. Spitfires needed more work with the rudders.

From a british 109 test:
http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/9378/flybf109.html


Take-off

This is best done with the flaps at 20 degrees. The throttle can be opened very quickly without fear of choking the engine. Acceleration is good, and there is little tendency to swing or bucket. The stick must be held hard forward to get the tail up. It is advisable to let the airplane fly itself off since, if pulled off too soon, the left wing will not lift, and on applying aileron the wing lifts and falls again, with the ailerons snatching a little. If no attempt is made to pull the airplane off quickly, the take-off run is short, and initial climb good.

This sounds similar to the 109 behavior we have in FB-PF.
Other tests mentioned the left wing drop. Counter this with ailerons let the wing drop again - sounds familar.

Beside I can imagine that the weight of the plane is not that important cause most of the weight of a single engine plane is close to the longitudinal axis. So this don´t help to avoid the rolling in the air.


I ve been flying Spits since they are avaiable in this sim.
Spits have been my main ridein all the WWII sims since 1998, they are my fav plane.
~However, since patch 4.01 Spit is maybe the most instable late years plane in the game.
No matter how much trim you use you just can t fly a spit straight. Rudder trim, elevevator trim, aileron, it doesn t matter, you just can t fly it steady.
Try to do a high speed diving and shoot someone.. what a joke, all you get is your plane pulling the nose up and left... and when you try to pull back up you have to use so much rudder to keep it steady you loose all your energy... don t tell me I don t know to fly the spit, in the servers I used to fly I had a 10/1 kill ratio and I hardly lost a 1 vs 1 no matter who I fight with...
Now I pick up a spit and I m lucky if I can get 2 kills by plane but if I grab a 109 I take off, shoot 4 or 5 planes down and go land, easy. And I don t even have to worry with the torque...
I remember everybody whinning about the guns of the Ki84 1c... tell me is there any diference to the Mk108 now?


I don´t know how stable the real live Spit was. Usually instability goes hand in hand with agility - best example Rata. The "fire button" needed so much force to be pressed that many pilots missaimd cause they moved the stick to much in this moment...
The 109 in PF is very instable at lower speed till 300-350km/h I fly it a lot and I´m not able to hold the ball centered in a climb.

I tested the high speed diving of the Spit IX a bit, you are right (beside the fact that my spit pulls up to the right upper side http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif doesn´t matter) The problem is that this seems not to be related to the engine torque.
try a dive from 10000m accelerate and then cut of the engine. The plane still rolls to the upper right corner the 109 behave in the same way I think this is a result of the fact that planes are not 100% symetric
They are build to counter torque. (The spanish 109 / Buchon needed some rework cause of the fact that the merlin they got was conterrotating to the DB engine)
Did you ever try to trim your spit in a dive? Maybe this eat less energy than rudder, and I think this was build in for this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Edit: A small detail I forgot to mention. The DB605 worked with different compression at the two cylinder row to compensate torque effects.

Regards

Grey_Mouser67
08-23-2005, 06:45 PM
To the original poster...

Because the torque and lack of trim would make gameplay suffer...at least that is my speculation.

Spits and 109's developed in unison...they were similar in many respects through their development with the MkV and F model being considered by both sides as the best in terms of flying and handling qualities....I suspect torque had a whole lot to do with that assessment.

As power increased...MKIX to Mk XIV and the G model on up to the K model, there should be an increase in torque and I'd think they would be similar...the G less than the Mk IX less than the K model just based on RPMs and Horsepower.

In real life, the 109 was trimmed manually to be level and steady at cruise speed...above it and below it, rudder input is required to fly straight....lots of luftwaffe pilots had strong legs as a result!

I think the torque in some planes will be toned down because of the disparity...there is no logical "realism" related explanation....both planes had torque and as they got more powerful, torque increased on both models. This is not modelled in game well.

In the end, I came to the conclusion that there are a few opportunities...
1. Instataneous trim is now a necessity because of the new flight model...time delay would make flying a Spit or Mustang a nightmare!
2. There should be an area with 109's and other planes...not sure how large the spread should be that the plane should fly level...it doesn't ever...in fact, even the spitfire still wants to roll about its axis even when rudder trim is correct...requires aileron trim too! Same with 109...never settles in to a spot..at least I can't get it to.
3. Reality dictates we all don't have rudder pedals and rocker switches that are condusive to constant rudder input. When the game came out, I even mapped the rudder to a rotary knob on my X-45 and it actually works quite well except I lose my elevator trim knob which is not a good thing online these days so i switched it back.....I think this is a gameplay compromise. I only hope that aircraft are brought closer together as it isn't right for one aircraft to be different from a comparable aircraft...model it correct for all or don't model it.

The 109 is perhaps the easiest plane to fly and the most stable gun platform in game...I don't think it was the hardest but I do believe that it was more difficult to fly in a general sense than a Spitfire in real life and the opposite is true in game...Oleg mentioned FM changes and I suspect torque, yaw oscillations will be addressed...hopefully that godaweful pitch suffered by some aircraft too!

Some aircraft were known for their ease of flight and handling...Wildcat, Hellcat, Spitfire, Fw, Lightning, and jug come to mind...some were pretty good but had quirks...Mustang, 109, Corsair seem to slip into that class... others were deadly to their pilots if not flown right...B-26, P-39 and even the P-40 had violent stalls that were difficult to recover from.

HelSqnProtos
08-23-2005, 07:44 PM
S~! Again another great thread.

There is in fact a torque or shall I say non-existant torque problem with the bf109. There is a specific reason for it, which I can't disclose. The proper people are aware. Whether or not they fix it remains to be seen.

Keep your fingers crossed.

HayateAce
08-23-2005, 07:50 PM
Grey_Mouser67, nice work on that post.

Some very good theory there. Couldn't agree more that it would be nice to level out the disparity. I wonder if they can work on the ground trimming so that as you say, at least the 109 can fly straight and level at some speed. The torque issue allows the throttle to be rammed home with little to no consequence.

Waiting for the final patch is like playing musical chairs, hope we get a good one.

FritzGryphon
08-23-2005, 08:35 PM
Also, be careful not to confuse torque with slipstream.

Once in the air, the torque merely causes the rolling motion. The yawing motion is caused by the slipstream from the propeller.

This is the main reason why most planes have twisted vertical stabilizers. They're twisted to make them parallel with the relative airflow (which won't be perfectly straight b/c of the prop) at cruise speed and power.

The slipstream yaw effect has more to do with the length of the tail, the area of the vertical stabilizer and wing length/aspect ratio than anything else. It's why, for example, the Yaks yaw like crazy at low speeds, and the 109 does not.

Torque roll, on the other hand, is completely a function of the engine, propeller and roll stabilibity (dihedral and whatnot).

SkyChimp
08-23-2005, 08:45 PM
It doens't have any torque effects because it is an overperforming fantasy plane put in FB just to satisfy the loudmouthed Luftwhiners.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

p1ngu666
08-23-2005, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
It doens't have any torque effects because it is an overperforming fantasy plane put in FB just to satisfy the loudmouthed Luftwhiners.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

hehe

and yes, fritzgryphon, yaks are sideways alot at low speeds, length and side area also help

http://www.silentflight.com/images/Newimages/Gee%20Bee%202.jpg

gee bee racer, was a unstable and very scary plane to fly by many accounts, small as possible to get maxium speed.

also with rudder trim only u should be able to get planes flying well (irl anyways), thats why many planes had only rudder trim, it was sufficent. american planes where designed to fly longer distances(and time), so all axis trim was very desireable

and abbuzze that link is for 109E, later 109s have more power, so the handling deterates.

also spitfires tended to run straight, once plane had landed and was rolling down runway

taxing a single engine fighter isnt much fun, as u haveto weave to see where your going, nose is in the way http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Badsight.
08-23-2005, 10:47 PM
torque exists in the 109 , fly hands off - you wont fly stright & level for more than a few seconds

but flying it in a DF you are in a much more stable plane than say the Spitfires have become in v4.01 , this can mislead you into thinking it doesnt have torque effects
Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
S~! Again another great thread.

There is in fact a torque or shall I say non-existant torque problem with the bf109.

HayateAce
08-24-2005, 01:07 AM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
It doens't have any torque effects because it is an overperforming fantasy plane put in FB just to satisfy the loudmouthed Luftwhiners.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

My brainwash of SkyChimp has worked.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00000JRGV.01.MZZZZZZZ.gif

GR142-Pipper
08-24-2005, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute Butch 2k

Please provide more detail on the number of accidents re. the 109 figure you gave out.

1000 aircraft does not fit with any of the figures I have seen, or the anecdotal reports which noted this aircraft had serious ground loop problems as well as issues with landing gear collapse.

Were these figures solely relating to accidents which involved injury and not to accidents which did not involve injury?

I know that for example, that WWI, the Idflieg did not report aircraft losses from combat, but rather referenced pilot casualties. Pilots who for example, crashlanded with no injury, were not reported as shot down. I suspect this was also the case with WWII.

Hayate Ace usually does not have anything of substance to report, but in this case, he has made a valid comment. The 109 was a very small light aircraft, and the effect of the torque from a 35 litre, 1700-1800 hp engine would be considerable. (in the case of the 109G10/K4) Here are a couple of links that describe the 109's landing characteristics. Read the narative on the second link. The bibliography is on the bottom of the article. Good read.

http://frhewww.physik.uni-freiburg.de/~jaensch/109/s109g.htm

http://modelingmadness.com/reviews/axis/luft/cleaver32109k.htm

GR142-Pipper

quiet_man
08-24-2005, 02:49 AM
I don't think you can compare airplane torque simply by size and hp. Wasn't the 190 designed to run straight at different speeds without changing rudder trim?

quiet_man

Abbuzze
08-24-2005, 03:08 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Here are a couple of links that describe the 109's landing characteristics. Read the narative on the second link. The bibliography is on the bottom of the article. Good read.

http://frhewww.physik.uni-freiburg.de/~jaensch/109/s109g.htm

http://modelingmadness.com/reviews/axis/luft/cleaver32109k.htm

GR142-Pipper

The part with the full power landing is nonsense. Maybe with the rocket tubes.
Beside this is the "usual" Text of the full power landing circuit. You will find it often without any serious source... like the MK103 in the K4- just noticed the author even mentioned it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif as the precursor of the MK108.
Nevertheless nice read, good reports there, thanks!

Here are a lot of reports from pilots that real landed 109´s and not just retyped some text.
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/#landing


Me 109 G:
"It was beneficial to keep the throttle a little open when landing. This made the landings softer and almost all three-point landings were successful with this technique. During landings the leading edge slats were fully open. But there was no troubles in landing even with throttle at idle."
-Mikko Lallukka, Finnish fighter pilot.

"The worst thing about Me109 was its bad reputation which caused unnecessary nervousness on many (new) pilots. The tendency to swing was related to this. As a plane the Me was a typical wartime fighter equipped with a powerful engine. If you pushed the throttle to full suddenly you might lose control, if the pilot's legs were stiffened because nervousness. But if one was calm, he could control the plane. A cool pilot could easily control the plane's direction and change it when accelerating.


I like this report:

- About the MT training, how badly did it pull to the side? Was it really difficult to take off?
It was a big problem.
The reason was that the new pilots had flown Pyry before, which was sensitive as hell to fly. Old pilots had Fiat experience, and that one has stiff stick. The usual reason for turning (when taking off) was that they forgot to lock the heel.
If you forgot to lock the heel, the plane began to turn when speeding up. When the plane was taxiing to starting place, the heel was locked from the cockpit and you began to speed up. By pulling the stick you kept the tail in the ground until you felt in the pedals that the plane is responding to the fin. Then you let the tail rise and kept the plane level, until you took off. It wasn't difficult to take off, but if you left the heel to turn freely, the plane began to turn when speeding up, and the results were often destructive.
It was a difficult plane. You had to learn it all over from the beginning, to climb into tree's top from the ground.


I don´t want to say that the 109 was troubleless at the ground - this would be stupid!
But a practiced pilot could land it without serious troubles. At least without strong wind from the side. But this is allways a troublesome thing for all planes.


The mainproblem was that german pilots later in the war were educated to land this plane with "highspeed" landings at two wheels. Resulting a long run at the runway. It was much better to came in for a 3-point landing and much safer.




and abbuzze that link is for 109E, later 109s have more power, so the handling deterates.


Hi p1ngu666,
you are right it´s from an Emil test. On the other side allready the 109F got a wider gear, the angle of the tires was also changed.
But no doubt, you are right, same like other planes, there is a cause for developments like the XIV with counterrotating propellers.


Hmm, much focusing on landing a lot, at the end I´m more interested in fighting in the air. Beside the fact that 109 pilots had strong asymetric legs there are not many reports about this theme http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

HayateAce
08-24-2005, 07:36 AM
You may dance around the truth pik, but the fact remains 109 too easy to fly in 4.01. Compare to wobble-nose spit, La5/7, and most US birds.

BelaLvgosi
08-24-2005, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
just odd that 109 has hardly any torque

even k4, mw50 slam full throttle is fine to takeoff http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

On a funny note, just try doing that in a carrier (I used a lot k4 on carrier to practice short landings). I remember that if you went 100% you could take off with minor trouble, but 100%+WEP would result in a very violent and unrecoverable roll after the weels get in the air.

Abbuzze
08-24-2005, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
You may dance around the truth pik, but the fact remains 109 too easy to fly in 4.01. Compare to wobble-nose spit, La5/7, and most US birds.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I don´t know if the 109 is undermodelled or all others overmodelled - I would say all planes are undermodelled.

So I would prefer more torque! All I quoted is from reports of people that flew a 109... but maybe you are right and all this guys had an overmodelled torque in their FM. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
And yes the Spit in FB has a lot of torqueeffects even with a non running engine. Seems to be related to the lift, the downspiral of the spit is much wider than the 109 if they are in a dive without engine.

I don´t want to proof that the 109 was a zero torque plane, but it wasn´t worse or better than most other planes with similar power and size. Thats all I want to say. I would have no problem with a increased torque for the 109 if it still say in the same area like similar planes. Spit/P40/P51..

But sometimes if I read comments about the 109 I have the impression that the 109 is a pure Monster unable to fly, eating it pilots alive, crashing all the times...

Beside, wobble nose, did you notice that all planes you mentioned are high agile and nimble planes? Maybe there is a conection in the FM between torque effects and high agility?

But no need to discuss anymore 4.02 is on the way - We will see what will happen http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Buzzsaw-
08-24-2005, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:

...did you notice that all planes you mentioned are high agile and nimble planes? Maybe there is a conection in the FM between torque effects and high agility?



Now you are trying to tell us that the 109 is not an agile plane... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

p1ngu666
08-24-2005, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by BelaLvgosi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
just odd that 109 has hardly any torque

even k4, mw50 slam full throttle is fine to takeoff http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

On a funny note, just try doing that in a carrier (I used a lot k4 on carrier to practice short landings). I remember that if you went 100% you could take off with minor trouble, but 100%+WEP would result in a very violent and unrecoverable roll after the weels get in the air. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

not done it off a carrier, was off a airfield, incidently i didnt have tail wheel locked, infact i didnt have a key set to that untill 2 weeks ago i guess.

109 much easier to fly than its contempories currently, just get in and fly, no major worries at all

and http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif @ buzzsaw

AFJ_Skyghost
08-24-2005, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
I tested the high speed diving of the Spit IX a bit, you are right (beside the fact that my spit pulls up to the right upper side http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif doesn´t matter) The problem is that this seems not to be related to the engine torque.
try a dive from 10000m accelerate and then cut of the engine. The plane still rolls to the upper right corner the 109 behave in the same way I think this is a result of the fact that planes are not 100% symetric
They are build to counter torque. (The spanish 109 / Buchon needed some rework cause of the fact that the merlin they got was conterrotating to the DB engine)
Did you ever try to trim your spit in a dive? Maybe this eat less energy than rudder, and I think this was build in for this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Edit: A small detail I forgot to mention. The DB605 worked with different compression at the two cylinder row to compensate torque effects.

Regards

=S=
Try to test this:
Get a Spit VIII or IX, go uo to 6 or 7 thousand high, speed up to 500Km/h and then shut your engine off, feather your prop pitch,set all the trims to neutral and do a very light dive, just the enough to maintain your speed.
Shoudn t the plane fly steady without any kind of torque? check if that is what happen http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

P.S. This thread is one of the most usefull threads I see in long time here on UBI Foruns, SALUTE you all

JG5_UnKle
08-24-2005, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by AFJ_Skyghost:
=S=
Try to test this:
Get a Spit VIII or IX, go uo to 6 or 7 thousand high, speed up to 500Km/h and then shut your engine off, feather your prop pitch,set all the trims to neutral and do a very light dive, just the enough to maintain your speed.
Shoudn t the plane fly steady without any kind of torque? check if that is what happen http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

P.S. This thread is one of the most usefull threads I see in long time here on UBI Foruns, SALUTE you all

Yes bizzare isn't it? And it seems the same with most aircraft (all the ones I have looked at anyhow) - try the FW-190

After you power the engine off there is a weird "bump" as torque works the other way and then settles. Hard to explain but easy to test. I first noticed it after running out of gas in a 190.

JG5_UnKle
08-24-2005, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
It doens't have any torque effects because it is an overperforming fantasy plane put in FB just to satisfy the loudmouthed Luftwhiners.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

My brainwash of SkyChimp has worked.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00000JRGV.01.MZZZZZZZ.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not required, I think he was joking and is now busy polishing his Jack-Boots for the final domination! Be sure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Unless he really believes that **** along with all the other morons http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

JFC_Woody
08-24-2005, 10:23 AM
I dont know what the torque should be like in the 109, because, quite frankly, ive never flown one. If FB flight model is correct to real life, or remotely accurate, it may be because the 109 has a greater bend than in other planes. I think its called that anyway. Basically the Fuselage of the plane is shaped to help counter-act the torque and propsteam. This was a big problem with later model spitfires that had been converted from earlier airframes, with just an engine upgrade because the Gryphon engine ran the opposite direction to the Merlin. So the Bend in the aircraft actually increased these effects, Especially bad news for seafires http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

Just a thought, its not just about the power and size of the airframe, They did try to at least dampen out these effects using aerodynamics, though i really am not sure how affective they were. Just an idea really

Abbuzze
08-24-2005, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by AFJ_Skyghost:


=S=
Try to test this:
Get a Spit VIII or IX, go uo to 6 or 7 thousand high, speed up to 500Km/h and then shut your engine off, feather your prop pitch,set all the trims to neutral and do a very light dive, just the enough to maintain your speed.
Shoudn t the plane fly steady without any kind of torque? check if that is what happen http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

P.S. This thread is one of the most usefull threads I see in long time here on UBI Foruns, SALUTE you all


I know this effect. You are right, and of course this is strange, the only explanisation I have is the slightly asymetic layout of single engine fighters (vertical stabilisator) or that 0% pitch is not feather position, this would result a torque effect.

Another thing- the the directional change of torque if the plane went faster at ~450km/h they are stable without torque effects then they start to turn in opposite direction. At the moment I have no idea why this happens, maybe it´s simple and easy to explain .
Or it´s just a general failure in torque FM. If anyone has an idea please share it.

Buzzsaw-
08-24-2005, 10:42 AM
Salute

We've had a lot of speculation and wishful thinking on the part of the Blue side in an effort to justify the 109's lack of torque effects, but it is simply that: Speculation and Wishful thinking.

All single engined aircraft are subject to asymetrical stall progression as a result of slipstream effect.

NACA did a study on various factors affecting stall, including slipstream. Here is a section of that study. (begin reading half way down first page with the text)

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1945/naca-report-829/14.gif

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1945/naca-report-829/15.gif

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1945/naca-report-829/16.gif

Basically the observation is that at low speeds when aircraft forward speed is not generating much movement past the wing, the slipstream is a major source of lift. However the nature of the slipstream movement is such that it causes asymetrical lift, one wing genrerating more lift than usual, and the other less. The result is that one wing will stall sooner than the other.

The more slipstream effect, (ie. the more thrust being generated by the prop) the more pronounced this asymetrical effect. Aircraft with wider span wings and larger wing area are going to be less affected than aircraft with smaller wingspan and smaller wing areas, since the slipstream effect is concentrated just behind the propellor. For an aircraft such as the 109K4, with its small wingspan and small wing area, plus its 1800 hp engine, the slipstream effects are going to be very great.

At higher speeds, propellor slipstream is a much smaller portion of the overall airflow past the wing, so asymetrical stall effect from slipstream is much less. Slipstream effect is most noticeable at low speeds.

The 109's wing slats are not going to have any beneficial effects in counteracting slipstream effect, since they are located on the outer part of the wing, and area not affected by slipstream, and their effect is to delay the onset of stall on the wingtip.

faustnik
08-24-2005, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
It doens't have any torque effects because it is an overperforming fantasy plane put in FB just to satisfy the loudmouthed Luftwhiners.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

My brainwash of SkyChimp has worked.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00000JRGV.01.MZZZZZZZ.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow! No kidding HayateAce, you are the MonkeyMaster. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Grendel-B
08-24-2005, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
This aircraft in history crashes on takeoff/landing 11,000 out of 33,000 produced, yet remains one of the easiest to takeoff, fly and land in the entire game.


Incorrect numbers.

"11,000 of the 33,000 built were destroyed during takeoff and landing accidents - one third of its combat potential!" (direct quote)
"Me-109 had an astonishing 11,000 takeoff/landing accidents resulting in destruction of the a/c! That number represents roughly one-third of the approximately 33,000 such a/c built by Germany." (usual internet claim)
- Source: FLIGHT JOURNAL magazine

In reality:

- 5 % of the 109's were lost in take off/landing accidents.
- The magazine has it wrong or has misintepretated the numbers. Luftwaffe lost about 1500 Me-109's in landing gear failures. Note that German loss reports often lump destroyed and damaged (10 to 60% damaged) together. It was also a standard practise to rebuild even heavily damaged airframes. While rebuilding/refurnishing these planes were also upgraded to the latest standards and latest equipment. This means that large proportion of these damaged/destroyed planes were not complete losses, but returned to squadron service.

Grey_Mouser67
08-24-2005, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by quiet_man:
I don't think you can compare airplane torque simply by size and hp. Wasn't the 190 designed to run straight at different speeds without changing rudder trim?

quiet_man

Oddly, with all the technology at their hands, the Germans never addressed the lack of trim or the cramped cockpit/visibility issues with the 109....so they manually trimmed aircraft on the ground to fly straight at cruising speed...above and below that you had to add rudder input to keep the plane flying straight.

While engine power isn't the only factor, it is driving a screw that is displacing air...the more air that is displace the more the torque...if there was no opposing force...at 3000 rmps, the propeller would be turning at 1500rpms and the plane at 1500 rpms...for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

There are forces opposing the torque...namely gravity and mass and some lever principles depending on how far apart the wheels are etc....and in the air, there are control surfaces that are the primary opposing forces...A good way to look at the torque effects is through control surfaces...especially the vertical stabilizer...but there are other things like dihedral and such that come into play...for example the Hellcat...had a very poor rate of roll and the Navy tried many aileron configurations including the very same configuration of the Corsair which had a higher roll rate....just didn't do much...the plane was inherently stable in the lateral plane and resisted rolling...by contrast, the Fw is inherently unstable in the lateral plane and thus rolls very well...small, short wings with powerful engine and high air displacement...span:cord ratio and effective control surfaces...

Alot to it...but in the end, the Spit and 109 should probably handle much closer to each other than they do...in fact, I suspect the change to the rudder made to the Spitfire was to increase stability by reducing torque effects...same reason a fin was added to the P-51 and P-47 bubble tops...they lost stability when the razor back was removed.

109 has much less torque than most...if I were a betting man, I'd bet that Oleg will tone down the torque of the Spit and other planes and reduce the yaw instability...I only hope he doesn't forget to dampen the pitch also on those US planes because they are unhistorically unstable in that plane too.

Abbuzze
08-24-2005, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

We've had a lot of speculation and wishful thinking on the part of the Blue side in an effort to justify the 109's lack of torque effects, but it is simply that: Speculation and Wishful thinking.

All single engined aircraft are subject to asymetrical stall progression as a result of slipstream effect.

NACA did a study on various factors affecting stall, including slipstream. Here is a section of that study. (begin reading half way down first page with the text)

Basically the observation is that at low speeds when aircraft forward speed is not generating much movement past the wing, the slipstream is a major source of lift. However the nature of the slipstream movement is such that it causes asymetrical lift, one wing genrerating more lift than usual, and the other less. The result is that one wing will stall sooner than the other.

The more slipstream effect, (ie. the more thrust being generated by the prop) the more pronounced this asymetrical effect. Aircraft with wider span wings and larger wing area are going to be less affected than aircraft with smaller wingspan and smaller wing areas, since the slipstream effect is concentrated just behind the propellor. For an aircraft such as the 109K4, with its small wingspan and small wing area, plus its 1800 hp engine, the slipstream effects are going to be very great.

At higher speeds, propellor slipstream is a much smaller portion of the overall airflow past the wing, so asymetrical stall effect from slipstream is much less. Slipstream effect is most noticeable at low speeds.

The 109's wing slats are not going to have any beneficial effects in counteracting slipstream effect, since they are located on the outer part of the wing, and area not affected by slipstream, and their effect is to delay the onset of stall on the wingtip.

Interesting documents thank you for sharing!

There is only one thing, you wrote that a plane like the K4 suffers more through the slipstream effect cause of the fact that it has smaller wings. And you also wrote that the slipstream effect is concentrated just behinde the propeller. Thats logical, no problem.

But if I don´t misunderstand you there is a small failure in your remarks. P47 and 109 are not only different in total size, they have also different sized propeller. The angle of the slipstream "spreed" will be indentical.

So a P47 has a span of ~40ft/12,25m has a propeller of 13ft/4m.
A 109 with a span of ~10m has a 3m propeller.

So if you scale the 109 to the size of the P47 the 109 propeller would be aprox. 3.66m in diameter. So if there is no effect I misunderstand, there would be even a small advantage to the 109 compared with a Jug. But this is more a kind of hairsplitting. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

It seems I have to repeat. I have NO problem if the 109 will get more torque - I just want to avoid a silly "too much power to fly" situation for the 109. It was not better in torque effects than similar planes but also not worse. That´s all I want to say with my posts.

Buzzsaw-
08-24-2005, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:

...a P47 has a span of ~40ft/12,25m has a propeller of 13ft/4m.
A 109 with a span of ~10m has a 3m propeller.



You are forgetting it is not the size of the propellor that is the only issue relating to thrust, it is also the horsepower turning it.

Yes, the 109 has a smaller propellor, but its powerloading is better, and thus it is able to turn the smaller propellor more powerfully.

Abbuzze
08-24-2005, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Abbuzze:

...a P47 has a span of ~40ft/12,25m has a propeller of 13ft/4m.
A 109 with a span of ~10m has a 3m propeller.



You are forgetting it is not the size of the propellor that is the only issue relating to thrust, it is also the horsepower turning it.

Yes, the 109 has a smaller propellor, but its powerloading is better, and thus it is able to turn the smaller propellor more powerfully. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats the question (I can´t answer). For example in a wall (brick for example) every force from the top, independed from the strenght of the force is transfered downward in a 60? angle. Therefore gothic churches used the material better than romanic - small excursion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
So I think the slipstream behind the propeller will behave similar spread with a certain angle.

You are right for the powerload, but for example I´m not able to judge how much the weigth is able to resist the torque, cause the mainpart of the planes weight is in/close to the torque axis...

So to say powerload is the key, or pure torque or HP of the engine, size of the propeller combined with HP, or size of the propeller with powerload... difficult

I fear it´t to much for us/me hobby aerodynamic engeneers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Last sentense, all this planes had a lot of torque... enough to be a deathtrap for us simpilots if we would try to fly a wwII warbird... they would kill us, P51 Spit or 109 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

p1ngu666
08-24-2005, 03:44 PM
p47 has wider undercarage, so the effects of torque on the ground not so bad http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

and yes the pointed fin on the spits is to conteract torque and make it more stable

and agree on the we dont want too much torque to fly thing. it would be highly amusing to pop on warclouds after such a patch tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

found my aircraft of aces - spitfire mk1/2 book http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

a 2 pitch spitfire and hurri, tested by werner molders

"both types are very simple to fly compaired to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take off and land (compaired to bf109)"

i may not have typed that exactly same as book, in a rush..

Badsight.
08-24-2005, 10:56 PM
Bf does seem stable in power on when you are taxiing . who cares . what matters is how it flys , & the entire Bf-109 family have torque

try flying one hands off , you corkscrew over & into the ground

what makes the 109 different to alot of its competitors is that it is more stable

discussing torque is missing the reason that the 109 feels eaiser to fly

Ugly_Kid
08-25-2005, 12:00 AM
Perhaps you're mixing now several factors, one of which is take-off and flying. The in-flight torque in 109 isn't that badly modeled at all but the take-off comes off too easy IMO. They did not crash the G-4 lately just for fun. If you look at the game B-239 or FW has the most problematic behaviour in take-off (very opposite was known to be the case). However, the factors behind this difficulty and in particular in 109's difficulty are a bit more complex than wingspan or horsepower. The distance between the main landing gear wasn't for example narrower than in some other aircraft, i.e. Spitfire (which is quite comparable in other parameters too). The difficulty came from the centre of gravity and the heavy" tail. Because of this 109 had to taxi tail-down longer than many others before one could lift the tail in the take-off run. It also meant that if the "swing" started to develop it was most difficult to control anymore.

HayateAce
08-25-2005, 01:27 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
Bf does seem stable in power on when you are taxiing . who cares . what matters is how it flys , & the entire Bf-109 family have torque

try flying one hands off , you corkscrew over & into the ground

what makes the 109 different to alot of its competitors is that it is more stable

discussing torque is missing the reason that the 109 feels eaiser to fly

I assume you are referring to the fact that the nose of the 109 series is very steady, while the likes of the Spitfire and P47 tend to wander around.

Badsight.
08-25-2005, 02:41 AM
& also to how you can be "hamfisted" & throw it around & it handels it well , doing what you want

in the Yaks & Spitfires on the other hand , they feel less "User-Freindly"

II_JG1Schpam
08-25-2005, 06:02 AM
There really is no reason why a 109 should have less of a torque effect than other planes. Rather I'd think that as more powerful engines were added to essentially the same aerodynamic shape then you'd get more of a torque effect.

Abbuzze
08-25-2005, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by II_JG1Schpam:
There really is no reason why a 109 should have less of a torque effect than other planes. Rather I'd think that as more powerful engines were added to essentially the same aerodynamic shape then you'd get more of a torque effect.

You are right if you compare an Emil to a G10, but it´s the same for spitI to late IX or even a XIV.
I would say there is no real difference if you take a G10 and IX for example.

But even with the increased power you should not overestimate this. A G10 at 100% without MW50 has just slightly more power than a F4 at 110%(WEP) but more weight, so which one should have more torque effect flying at this setting?

p1ngu666
08-25-2005, 09:31 AM
if ugly kid is right, then the weight distribution would mean ud haveto keep it inline more, as a movement would devlop momentum (pendulum effect) and u would spin round or similer, ud lose control sooner than a plane with better weight distribution.

i think badsight is right, BUT its easy or easier to conteract the torque in flight than other planes, plus its stable.

the narrow track undercarriage means that any waywardness is more likely to result in a crash/damage, as its less stable than wider track, is same for any plane, wider track undercarrage is better http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

stathem
08-25-2005, 12:38 PM
Regarding the Spitfire dive, I read in a book - and unfortunatley I can't for the life of me remeber which one, might be Closterman's - the line

(apropros the Spitfire)

"the torque built up alarmingly in a dive"

Apologies for being sketchy, perhaps someone else remembers it too? Ki43 (in game) suffers from this as well.

II_JG1Schpam
08-25-2005, 12:46 PM
Abbuzze,

I don't know which is worse or better but I think it would be close. If one plane is showing larger effects than another then something is probably off.

As Buzzsaw pointed out this has a lot to do with forward airspeed. At lower airspeeds on you should feel the effects more. There is a story of Kurt Tank (I think) testing a Fw190 and when he was at the top of a loop (low air speed) and the supercharger changed gears he nearly lost it due to the torque change.

How are you all judging relative torque effects?

mortoma
08-27-2005, 12:50 PM
I-16 is also low on torque but it had a radial engine, which should be high torque!! I can keep the I-16 dead nuts centerlined on the runway, despite it not having tailwheel lock capability.
All you have to do is slowly advance the throttle and the I-16 will make anybody look like an expert on the take off roll! Even a newbie!

But try out the Mig-3 lately?? That thing is a torque monster!! Takes a good while to get good at taking off in the Mig-3...........

Kurfurst__
08-27-2005, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Yes, the 109 has a smaller propellor, but its powerloading is better, and thus it is able to turn the smaller propellor more powerfully.

I wonder how a 1475 to 2000 HP DB 605 can turn a propellor more powerfully than a 2300+ HP PW 2800 of a P-47.. anything is possible in B.S. world I guess.

JuHa-
08-27-2005, 03:15 PM
Quote:
"Another thing- the the directional change of torque if the plane went faster at ~450km/h they are stable without torque effects then they start to turn in opposite direction. At the moment I have no idea why this happens, maybe it´s simple and easy to explain .
Or it´s just a general failure in torque FM. If anyone has an idea please share it."

Didn't see any comments on this, so her comes my "theory".

Assuming that the airframe uses aerodynamic means to counter the twisting caused by
engine/prop torque, then this 450 point could be the balance point between the torque and
aerodynamic force. Faster you go, more aerodynamic force is generated.

Why it happens at 450, might just be a pre-programmed point in the FM that is shared
by all planes. Just a guess.
But this really is just a guess.
A guess. Got that?

--

The previously mentioned effect that when gliding w/o engine running and the torque
effect changes direction, I think it has to do with the movement of the prop.

I've linked the phenomenon to the exact moment when the prop stops - then the twist also
changes direction. So likely the prop is generating the twist to the other direction as
the air is now pushing against it, not pulled through it.

Ok, these were observed while doing emergency landings in hostile environment so I wasn't
100% concentrating on this aspect...

HayateAce
08-27-2005, 03:34 PM
P51 hasn't much torque either.

I can see this ac having less effect than 109 since it is larger and heavier, but still something is strange.

p1ngu666
08-27-2005, 03:56 PM
ud need more torque to move the bigger, heavier object.

SS great britain people feared the engine would produce so much torque that it would rip itself apart. it didnt but the prop hadtobe changed as it couldnt stand the power/torque. 3-4inch thick iron/steel prop, huge thing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Hoarmurath
08-27-2005, 06:39 PM
All this discussion about torque is rather pointless, as it is one of the things that will be changed in the new patch...

And btw, yes, P51 and F4U, both known for being planes with high torque, have low one in 4.01. Bf 109 wasn't known for having a high torque, but for having a narrow undercarriage that gave it nasty ground handling characteristics.

BfHeFwMe
08-27-2005, 07:44 PM
The answer is even if you get more torque, it'll still be an easier plane to gun with, since it has nose guns. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

You really want to ***** over the blue, wise up and throw the drag off their planes. Till you do, your barking at the moon. Put a little on yours, even than I'm for betting they'll still kill you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Abbuzze
09-01-2005, 06:32 AM
I think here is someone who answer the riddle of the to less torque effect...


Originally posted by Mysha76:
german planes are pre-trimmed on the ground by spec. tabs. So, torque effect is smaller "by default". Spit must be trimmed manually in cockpit - it is our job. Important factor, isnt it?

Badsight.
09-01-2005, 07:05 AM
yes the Bf-109 didnt have rudder trim in the cockpit , it had to be set for a "cruise' speed

meaning you had to counteract the torque yourself helping pilot fatigue

hardly a "feature" & in no way excusing the 109 to be more stable in fast hard manouvers

JG53Frankyboy
09-01-2005, 07:20 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
yes the Bf-109 didnt have rudder trim in the cockpit , it had to be set for a "cruise' speed

meaning you had to counteract the torque yourself helping pilot fatigue

hardly a "feature" & in no way excusing the 109 to be more stable in fast hard manouvers

i never flew a plane in combat (cessnas on cruise yes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ) but i doubt that trimm is very usefull in dogfight because the speeds are changing to much . so, in fight every plane has to be "trimmed" from the pilots inputs.

on cruise, with a static speed, ok, the spitifre pilot will trimm , the 109 pilot fly "automatic" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif - that most propably not worked always perfeclty and 109 pilots had most times to saty a little bit on the rudder. "fortunatly" they didnt have to fly from Berlin to London and Back with their messers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


and about stall in sharp manouvers, normaly the Spitfire is flying much more sharper manouvers, means higher AOAs , than a 109 - as i think it should. but at high AOA, i doubt any WW2 plane liked "just push the stick in your stomach"


but by no mean im saying the whole game is perfect ! espacially if you campare the different planes how well they are programmed in FM and DM......................

Badsight.
09-01-2005, 07:30 AM
& what if the Bf-109 user is cruising slower or faster than the tabs setting ?

a even more limiting feature than having to trim & should help explain why bf-109s are less stable than the opposition

in FB they are more stable which is the other way round - which is rediculous

JG53Frankyboy
09-01-2005, 07:45 AM
you can trimm out a Spitfire at every speed you fly perfect at all axis.

the 109 is flying only at a given speed stable without input stable around the two axis, horizontal axis can be trimmed.

at every other speed the pilot cant let the pedals and stick "alone".

but sure a Spitfire pilot too in combat when the speeds are changing from manouver to manouver .


actualy , we should awlays seay at which "set" we are talking about.
normal cruise ore close in combat !

i never was able to pull so sharpe in a 109 and fly so high AOAs like in a Spitfire.
and no, i dont use the so called "Trimcheat".

Abbuzze
09-01-2005, 08:07 AM
There are two differnt things in this thread mixing up sometimes, there is a differnce between torque effects and flight stability.

The explanation by Mysha tells us why a 109 has less torque influence in levelflight than a untrimmed spit/any other plane. Nothing more nothing less.

Mysha76
09-01-2005, 08:12 AM
where is my original post? Ok, nevermind...
Batsigh, I dont know, if Bf is modeled bad or not.
But in simple logic. If you have plane trimed by default for cruising speed, it is means your plane has (small) yaw input constantly-all the time, in all situation and speeds. IT IS better than fly no-trimed plane, right?
To handle yaw input in maneuvers was the most important thing after 4,01 for me. Bf has yaw input by default, so it was easier for me, than work out proper yaw trim for RED planes.
Mabybe "stability-bug" is real (and Oleg knows it better). If so, IMO is connected with exaggeration of "default trim". Software input is more precise, cleaner than human inputs from joystick... (90% from all my spins comes from bad handling with yaw)

Mysha76
09-01-2005, 08:39 AM
and btw: how many people trim yaw after take off? Just wonder.
And how many real pilots trimmed yaw during combat, Badsight? In this regard, I see no difference between ac trimmed on the ground or
from cocpit. All pilots starting comabat had pre-trimmed yaw and differencies in speed during maneuvers were conducted by legs, right? If no, why you need pedals in spitfire (you have manual trimhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif? So, no special stability handicap for Bf in this regard, right?
The problems is: properly trimmed spitfire has the same stability during maneuvers like non-trimmed spitfire? If so, the default trim for Bf is bad modeled.

Mysha76
09-01-2005, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by Mysha76:
where is my original post? Ok, nevermind...
Batsigh, I dont know, if Bf is modeled bad or not.
But in simple logic. If you have plane trimed by default for cruising speed, it is means your plane has (small) yaw input constantly-all the time, in all situation and speeds. IT IS better than fly no-trimed plane, right?
To handle yaw input in maneuvers was the most important thing after 4,01 for me. Bf has yaw input by default, so it was easier for me, than work out proper yaw trim for RED planes.
Maybe "stability-bug" is real (and Oleg knows it better). If so, IMO is connected with exaggeration of "default trim". Software input is more precise, cleaner than human inputs from joystick... (90% from all my spins comes from bad handling with yaw)

Mysha76
09-01-2005, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by Mysha76:
and btw: how many people trim yaw after take off? Just wonder.
And how many real pilots trimmed yaw during combat, Badsight? In this regard, I see no difference between ac trimmed on the ground or
from cocpit. All pilots starting comabat had pre-trimmed yaw and differencies in speed during maneuvers were conducted by legs, right? If no, why you need pedals in spitfire (you have manual trimhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif? So, no special stability handicap for Bf in this regard, right?
The problems is: properly trimmed spitfire has the same stability during maneuvers like non-trimmed spitfire? If so, the default trim for Bf is bad modeled.

Mysha76
09-01-2005, 10:15 AM
where is my original post? Ok, nevermind...
Batsigh, I dont know, if Bf is modeled bad or not.
But in simple logic. If you have plane trimed by default for cruising speed, it is means your plane has (small) yaw input constantly-all the time, in all situation and speeds. IT IS better than fly no-trimed plane, right?
To handle yaw input in maneuvers was the most important thing after 4,01 for me. Bf has yaw input by default, so it was easier for me, than work out proper yaw trim for RED planes.
Maybe "stability-bug" is real (and Oleg knows it better). If so, IMO is connected with exaggeration of "default trim". Software input is more precise, cleaner than human inputs from joystick... (90% from all my spins comes from bad handling with yaw)

Mysha76
09-01-2005, 10:15 AM
and btw: how many people trim yaw after take off? Just wonder.
And how many real pilots trimmed yaw during combat, Badsight? In this regard, I see no difference between ac trimmed on the ground or
from cocpit. All pilots starting comabat had pre-trimmed yaw and differencies in speed during maneuvers were conducted by legs, right? If no, why you need pedals in spitfire (you have manual trimhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif? So, no special stability handicap for Bf in this regard, right?
The problems is: properly trimmed spitfire has the same stability during maneuvers like non-trimmed spitfire? If so, the default trim for Bf is bad modeled.

p1ngu666
09-01-2005, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
All this discussion about torque is rather pointless, as it is one of the things that will be changed in the new patch...

And btw, yes, P51 and F4U, both known for being planes with high torque, have low one in 4.01. Bf 109 wasn't known for having a high torque, but for having a narrow undercarriage that gave it nasty ground handling characteristics.

news to me, it always had a reputation of always having torque, certainly enuff for some pant browning moments..

Buzzsaw-
09-01-2005, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:

...and about stall in sharp manouvers, normaly the Spitfire is flying much more sharper manouvers, means higher AOAs , than a 109..."



Wrong. An aircraft with lower wingloading and higher lift will need to set a smaller Angle of Attack of its wings to accomplish the same radius of turn. In comparable radius turns, the historical Spitfire would be able to set a lower AOA than a 109 in a similar radius turn. That is the issue with the game 109's. They have the slats to delay the onset of stall, but they should be getting to the stage where they need to stats to prevent a stall QUITE A BIT before a Spitfire or other better wingloaded aircraft. In the game they stall at very nearly the same speed as the Spitfires.

Hoarmurath
09-01-2005, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
news to me, it always had a reputation of always having torque, certainly enuff for some pant browning moments..

News to me, can you direct us to where you got these informations?

berg417448
09-01-2005, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
news to me, it always had a reputation of always having torque, certainly enuff for some pant browning moments..

News to me, can you direct us to where you got these informations? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is one Me-109 pilot's opinion on torque:

"Hermann Weber was a Luftwaffe pilot from 1941 to 1945, ending the war as Gruppen technical officer for I/JG4. Although he flew many types of aircraft during the war, almost all of his combat time was in Bf-109s (F, G, and K models).

In 1943, Hermann was sent to Romania to help defend the Ploesti oilfields. During Operation Tidal Wave, the low-level B-24 raid, Hermann was in the fighter control centre, helping to coordinate the fighter response to the raid. Throughout the war, Hermann had his own personal aircraft. When he commanded 4./JG4, his plane was Yellow 5, a Bf-109G-6 named "Whisky." Upon leaving Romania, Hermann gave that plane to the Romanians, and got a reconnaissance version for his personal plane. This was a much different aircraft from any other he flew. First off, it had a rear view mirror, which none of his other planes were ever equipped with. Second, the plane was built to a much higher level than standard fighters. All of the rivets had been filled and sanded, and the plane had outer gear doors (like the Bf-109K-4) which sealed the wheel wells very well. This gave his plane much better performance and endurance than the other aircraft in his unit, so he was always the last man in the formation to land.

....

As one would expect, Hermann had many things to say about the Bf-109. He pushed the Bf-109 about as far as it would go with regards to performance, having once flown a Bf-109F-4 up to 13 000 metres (over 40,000 feet), where he had to breathe direct pressure oxygen and the temperature was -70 degrees C. He also dove a Bf-109 to an indicated air speed of 950 km/h, and had a wing root fairing pop off! Hermann remembers all Bf-109s as having very strong torque, which could be quite unforgiving to a novice pilot. The interrupter gear for the cowl guns would fail on occasion; if the aircraft had an aluminum propeller, then a small hole would be left. The wooden propellers, however, would splinter.

.....

neural_dream
09-01-2005, 05:24 PM
When i fly the P-40 i am always afraid that i accidentally switched off torque. It's that non-existent. I don't see any reason to complain though. I've never flown it in RL.

However, as mentioned above this discussion is quite pointless, since the new patch will come in a few days and then we will have brand new things to complain. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif YYEEEAYYY http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.

p1ngu666
09-01-2005, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by neural_dream:
When i fly the P-40 i am always afraid that i accidentally switched off torque. It's that non-existent. I don't see any reason to complain though. I've never flown it in RL.

However, as mentioned above this discussion is quite pointless, since the new patch will come in a few days and then we will have brand new things to complain. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif YYEEEAYYY http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.

yeah, new features and bugs http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
but if we dont report things they wont get fixed

and 109 has 1000+hp engine with low revs, torqueorama really. there was a 109 pilot who put on full rudder and adusted the swing with the power instead http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

im fairly sure u want me to go away and find 12 sources saying high torque, then argue with me for no real reason http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif. tbh im too lazy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

GR142-Pipper
09-01-2005, 07:34 PM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
There are two differnt things in this thread mixing up sometimes, there is a differnce between torque effects and flight stability.

The explanation by Mysha tells us why a 109 has less torque influence in levelflight than a untrimmed spit/any other plane. Nothing more nothing less. Actually, a wings level flight condition has nothing to do with it. The level of torque experienced has everything to do with the aircraft's airspeed and the amount of power being applied.

GR142-Pipper

Stanger_361st
09-01-2005, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
news to me, it always had a reputation of always having torque, certainly enuff for some pant browning moments..

News to me, can you direct us to where you got these informations? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is one Me-109 pilot's opinion on torque:

"Hermann Weber was a Luftwaffe pilot from 1941 to 1945, ending the war as Gruppen technical officer for I/JG4. Although he flew many types of aircraft during the war, almost all of his combat time was in Bf-109s (F, G, and K models).

In 1943, Hermann was sent to Romania to help defend the Ploesti oilfields. During Operation Tidal Wave, the low-level B-24 raid, Hermann was in the fighter control centre, helping to coordinate the fighter response to the raid. Throughout the war, Hermann had his own personal aircraft. When he commanded 4./JG4, his plane was Yellow 5, a Bf-109G-6 named "Whisky." Upon leaving Romania, Hermann gave that plane to the Romanians, and got a reconnaissance version for his personal plane. This was a much different aircraft from any other he flew. First off, it had a rear view mirror, which none of his other planes were ever equipped with. Second, the plane was built to a much higher level than standard fighters. All of the rivets had been filled and sanded, and the plane had outer gear doors (like the Bf-109K-4) which sealed the wheel wells very well. This gave his plane much better performance and endurance than the other aircraft in his unit, so he was always the last man in the formation to land.

....

As one would expect, Hermann had many things to say about the Bf-109. He pushed the Bf-109 about as far as it would go with regards to performance, having once flown a Bf-109F-4 up to 13 000 metres (over 40,000 feet), where he had to breathe direct pressure oxygen and the temperature was -70 degrees C. He also dove a Bf-109 to an indicated air speed of 950 km/h, and had a wing root fairing pop off! Hermann remembers all Bf-109s as having very strong torque, which could be quite unforgiving to a novice pilot. The interrupter gear for the cowl guns would fail on occasion; if the aircraft had an aluminum propeller, then a small hole would be left. The wooden propellers, however, would splinter.

..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yea but that was a real pilots opinion. And we know real pilots opinoin do not count much here especially if it ruins someones dream machine.

Badsight.
09-01-2005, 11:43 PM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
you can trimm out a Spitfire at every speed you fly perfect at all axis. really .

can you post a track because to me the Spitfire does not like to fly straight & level at all . its a very fussy plane when it comes to trim

discussing torque tho is confusing the issue

the real issue is why the Bf-109 is so much more stable in a hard manouvering DF than most other fighters , its very user freindly where most planes in v4.01 lost that & became harder to control when riding the envelope

Abbuzze
09-02-2005, 01:23 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Abbuzze:
There are two differnt things in this thread mixing up sometimes, there is a differnce between torque effects and flight stability.

The explanation by Mysha tells us why a 109 has less torque influence in levelflight than a untrimmed spit/any other plane. Nothing more nothing less. Actually, a wings level flight condition has nothing to do with it. The level of torque experienced has everything to do with the aircraft's airspeed and the amount of power being applied.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course, but i mean the torque effects. The fact that the 109 is set to fly straigt at cruising speed means nothing more that the rudders, aileron, elevatortabs are set in a way to compensate the complete torque effect. The 109 still have torque but no effects for the pilot. A pilot in an untrimmed plane has to counter the torque effect by himselfe.

Result: 109 seems to have less torque in level flight

Hoarmurath
09-02-2005, 04:00 AM
Originally posted by berg417448:
Here is one Me-109 pilot's opinion on torque:

"Hermann Weber was a Luftwaffe pilot from 1941 to 1945, ending the war as Gruppen technical officer for I/JG4. Although he flew many types of aircraft during the war, almost all of his combat time was in Bf-109s (F, G, and K models).

In 1943, Hermann was sent to Romania to help defend the Ploesti oilfields. During Operation Tidal Wave, the low-level B-24 raid, Hermann was in the fighter control centre, helping to coordinate the fighter response to the raid. Throughout the war, Hermann had his own personal aircraft. When he commanded 4./JG4, his plane was Yellow 5, a Bf-109G-6 named "Whisky." Upon leaving Romania, Hermann gave that plane to the Romanians, and got a reconnaissance version for his personal plane. This was a much different aircraft from any other he flew. First off, it had a rear view mirror, which none of his other planes were ever equipped with. Second, the plane was built to a much higher level than standard fighters. All of the rivets had been filled and sanded, and the plane had outer gear doors (like the Bf-109K-4) which sealed the wheel wells very well. This gave his plane much better performance and endurance than the other aircraft in his unit, so he was always the last man in the formation to land.

....

As one would expect, Hermann had many things to say about the Bf-109. He pushed the Bf-109 about as far as it would go with regards to performance, having once flown a Bf-109F-4 up to 13 000 metres (over 40,000 feet), where he had to breathe direct pressure oxygen and the temperature was -70 degrees C. He also dove a Bf-109 to an indicated air speed of 950 km/h, and had a wing root fairing pop off! Hermann remembers all Bf-109s as having very strong torque, which could be quite unforgiving to a novice pilot. The interrupter gear for the cowl guns would fail on occasion; if the aircraft had an aluminum propeller, then a small hole would be left. The wooden propellers, however, would splinter.

.....

Nice, it had strong torque... All ww2 fighters do. Some had more than others. This text don't say anything about how strong it was compared to other ww2 fighters. Compared to a Cessna, or a Blucher, 109 have strong torque, no doubts. Strong torque is quite unforgiving for novice pilots, especially with a narrow undercarriage.

Abbuzze
09-02-2005, 04:51 AM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:

Nice, it had strong torque... All ww2 fighters do. Some had more than others. This text don't say anything about how strong it was compared to other ww2 fighters. Compared to a Cessna, or a Blucher, 109 have strong torque, no doubts. Strong torque is quite unforgiving for novice pilots, especially with a narrow undercarriage.

Thats right, and there was a cause for constructions like this:

http://airventure.de/oppenheim2005/oppenheim05_spitfire_7014.jpg

Kurfurst__
09-02-2005, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
& what if the Bf-109 user is cruising slower or faster than the tabs setting ?

Err, like the ball won`t be centered and there will be slideslip?


a even more limiting feature than having to trim & should help explain why bf-109s are less stable than the opposition

Bad, bad 109, hate them, hate them!



in FB they are more stable which is the other way round - which is rediculous

The statement is quite ridiculus... have even flown the 109 in the game just once? It`s one of the most unstable planes in the yaw axis, which is how it was in real life. Mid-war models had too little tailplane for the increased speed, that`s why it was increased in area. Same thing happened to Spits with the 'pointy' rudder... increased speed required increased stability, which was achieved by increasing the stabilisiation surfaces.

And, FYI, the 109 had a tailplane design feature which was not very common in WW2 to eliminate much of the torque : the vertical tail was assymetric, having a profile like a wing, which helped to neutralize the torque, and naturally, the greater the speed was, the more effective it become. Plus the rudder was quite effective. No rudder trim, right. It was no requirement in Germany to have rudder trim for planes under 5 tons. The FW 190 neither had rudder trim.

Kurfurst__
09-02-2005, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
the real issue is why the Bf-109 is so much more stable in a hard manouvering DF than most other fighters , its very user freindly where most planes in v4.01 lost that & became harder to control when riding the envelope

Perhaps because the 109 had very good stall characteristics in real life, was very stable longitudally - Erich Brown described it as too stable - and the slats enabled it to pull higher AoAs than other fighters?

"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..."


"...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..."

"...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."

-Mark Hanna

Kurfurst__
09-02-2005, 07:40 AM
Bf 109 rudder profile (K-4) :

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1125668347_109rudderprofile.jpg


You can see the profile is made to compensate for torque. It`s one solution, another interesting solution - of italian origin - is found on the Yakovlev fighters, which have assymetric wing area to compensate, in fact, cancel out torque.

p1ngu666
09-02-2005, 09:57 AM
these aerodynamic things are only effective within a speed range?

p1ngu666
09-02-2005, 09:59 AM
your now upto 3 quotes, in the pingusig http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

HayateAce
09-02-2005, 10:06 AM
Usual smoke and mirror routine from 10-Whiners.
Fact is, when 109 is more stable at knife-fight than Yak3 and SpiteFire, we all know the LuftWhiners have whined this sim into a game.

Abbuzze
09-02-2005, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Usual smoke and mirror routine from 10-Whiners.
Fact is, when 109 is more stable at knife-fight than Yak3 and SpiteFire, we all know the LuftWhiners have whined this sim into a game.

dudidum di dum... tune down your joystickinput.... dumdidumdidum... could help, but then you would be satisfied - awfull imagination http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif isn´t it?

Kurfurst__
09-02-2005, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
these aerodynamic things are only effective within a speed range?

Hmmm. The fixed trim tabs work just the same as the adjustable trim in other aircraft: ie. they good for a given speed, at any other speed, the aircraft is more or less noticably out of trim.

The profiled tail unit`s effect is I guess depends from the speed. It creates a kind of counter force against the slideslip generated by the torque.

But now as I am thinking of it, the torque afaik not as much a function of airspeed rather than the engine power/throttle position or something like that..

I guess we need UglyKid, he knows aerodynamics for real, to tell how the stuff works, unlike the wannabees inc. me on this board.

p1ngu666
09-02-2005, 11:59 AM
be airspeed over the tail or wing in the case of a yak.

what we refer too as torque also includes p factor or whatever, swinging a heavy prop round

BfHeFwMe
09-04-2005, 10:46 AM
CSP Prop works by keeping RPM's stable and high, allowing the harnessing of power nearly instant. 109 doesn't have a CSP, greater delay, you can't pour on the coals instantly, RPM must come up along with the prop.

Asymetrical vert stab already mentioned, but there's more to it, also was set off center a bit specifically to counter prop torque.

If we ever see horizontal stab trim effects, they will give a distinct advantage at slower speeds over tabs.

Interesting the Yak-3 would be used to compare manouverability. The classic example of a fighter evolved from the Yak-1 series that sacraficed a little of everything for speed. Clip it's wing surface nearly 1/3, shrink it a bit putting in nearly the same engine with marginal power gain. Now it's a superplane that can outmanouver a Yak-1B.

It was faster and did meet the latest required speed directives, but it never so much as matched the heavier ground attack Yak-9's in manouverability or turns, let alone tackle a Yak-1 or -1B in a turn fight. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif