PDA

View Full Version : BF-109 F-2/F-4 Elevator response?



XyZspineZyX
12-09-2003, 07:29 PM
Just wondering the Friedrich is modelled, I think this plane is completely useless for fast B&Z-passes now.. elevators are extremely heavy, compare it to other Gustavs, G-2 for example is much better.. even Yak-1 has better elevator responses..

Just wondering what others think? Imho this needs to be definately to be fixxed. If you don't believe it fly Yak-1 as 8km altitude and you can outturn F-4 easily in highspeed passes.. F-4 is only a good Diver, but B&Z is very hard with such heavy elevator response.

____________________________________



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/sig3.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
12-09-2003, 07:29 PM
Just wondering the Friedrich is modelled, I think this plane is completely useless for fast B&Z-passes now.. elevators are extremely heavy, compare it to other Gustavs, G-2 for example is much better.. even Yak-1 has better elevator responses..

Just wondering what others think? Imho this needs to be definately to be fixxed. If you don't believe it fly Yak-1 as 8km altitude and you can outturn F-4 easily in highspeed passes.. F-4 is only a good Diver, but B&Z is very hard with such heavy elevator response.

____________________________________



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/sig3.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
12-09-2003, 09:08 PM
The old fight. Do we beleive that the test of the Emil was applicable to all 109s, or do we beleive that things were changed and really not much worse than their contemporaries in the west.

Each side has it's zealots and will tell you how wrong you are, which ever way you go. To be honest, the evidence is mounting that the latter is the case and the excessively heavy ("excessively" being the key word) elevators of the 109 vs other aircraft of the day is a myth. (2nd qualifier equally as important)

Either way, my campaign experience in the F2 shows it to be a good BnZ plane. Yes, at 700+ it gets real heavy and following a hard turn is difficult, however, I try not to get over 700 with that plane, VNE shows up RIGHT quick after that, and, it's not the best idea to turn hard on a B pass anyway, so the heavy response isn't *too* much of an issue.

Under 600 though it is very responsive. It's a black out machine between 400 and 600kph.

Again, that's the F2. Haven't gotten to the 4 yet.

What is the exact problem you are having? Are you trying to follow the opponent through a turn as you are making your B pass?

XyZspineZyX
12-09-2003, 10:30 PM
700kph is 420mph!!!! You're NOT expecting lock up at that speed for a 1941 airplane?????

Try throttling back before diving in and manage your speed.

I'll be the first to complain that the "stiff elevator" is a mite overdone in 109s, but at that speed, you're asking for trouble to begin with. My quibbles would come in pulling 109Gs at about 400kph (or 240 mph) out of a dive.

Windows 98SE
Athlon 1700+ 1.4GHz
Mobo: FIC AU13 (TFA42 BIOS)
nVidia onboard sound
1GB of 2100 DDR memory
Video Card: ATI Radeon 8500 128MB w/Catalyst 3.5
Cougar HOTAS
CH Pedals

XyZspineZyX
12-10-2003, 12:38 AM
From a interview with Franz Stigler www.bf109.com (http://www.bf109.com)

Q=What's the fastest you ever had a 109 in a dive?

A=I've taken it to about 680 to 750 km/hr at which point you needed 2 hands to pull it out of the dive

XyZspineZyX
12-10-2003, 12:49 AM
Exactly. At that speed all bets are off.

Windows 98SE
Athlon 1700+ 1.4GHz
Mobo: FIC AU13 (TFA42 BIOS)
nVidia onboard sound
1GB of 2100 DDR memory
Video Card: ATI Radeon 8500 128MB w/Catalyst 3.5
Cougar HOTAS
CH Pedals

XyZspineZyX
12-10-2003, 01:27 PM
<U>TACTICAL TRIALS - Me.109F AIRCRAFT</U>


"7. Manouveribility

No manouveribility trials were carried out against other aircraft but the Me.109F was dived up to to 420 mph I.A.S. [=676 km/h IAS], with the controls trimmed for level flight and it was found that altough the elevators become heavy and the ailerons had stiffened up appreciably, fairly tight turns were still possible."


IMHO the problem is not that the 109s elevators become heavy at speeds - that`s historical - , it`s more like that they become heavy from too early at fairly low speeds already at 4-450 km/h IAS in the game. I think it should be much less linear, the noticable heavying up should be occur above 600 or so, and as the report says, at 680 km/h it should be still possible to do "fairly tight turns" - that is, worser then most, in my reading, but still tighter than some.

http://www.mit.bme.hu/~tade/ac-pict/Hung-AF/pre-1945/Bf-109/Bf109col.gif

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

Message Edited on 12/10/0303:22PM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
12-11-2003, 12:52 PM
Anyone informed Oleg, that the heavy elevators takes place at too low a speed?

XyZspineZyX
12-11-2003, 03:48 PM
109s often dived away from spitfires in BoB.. As the spit had the carb prob - it was hard to dive after them and most pilots just gave up and let them dive away with their superior dive speed.

However.. Bader found that if one executed a half roll and continued to dive after them - even though they could dive faster - they would pull out the dive early (due to the elevators stiffening up at high speed) allowing the spit pilot a good shot.

So.. I think there's some truth there

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.su27flanker.flyer.co.uk/spitire.jpg


~ Supermarine Spitfire Mk.IX LF

XyZspineZyX
12-11-2003, 04:46 PM
nixon-fiend wrote:
- 109s often dived away from spitfires in BoB.. As the
- spit had the carb prob - it was hard to dive after
- them and most pilots just gave up and let them dive
- away with their superior dive speed.
-
- However.. Bader found that if one executed a half
- roll and continued to dive after them - even though
- they could dive faster - they would pull out the
- dive early (due to the elevators stiffening up at
- high speed) allowing the spit pilot a good shot.
-
- So.. I think there's some truth there
-


Negative, Emil was the only 109 to suffer from weak elevators at high speeds, but not anymore in Friedrich-series and onwards.

I Just don't like beeing outmanouvered by Lagg3s and Yaks at high speed turns because of poor elevators.






____________________________________



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/sig3.jpg </center>

____________________________________



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/sig3.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
12-11-2003, 05:21 PM
Well the really damned thing is that it sux royally at high alt at around 7000 m. There BnZ becomes pain in the butt because recovery from 500 km/h (IAS) dive takes almost 1500 m or so. It works much more effectively at low alt and here the stiffness should still be more like a function of IAS rather than TAS as it would appear now.

-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
12-11-2003, 06:24 PM
Long and short of it:

manage your speed. You can't expect to be rip-roaring around at 100%+ throttle all the time. Going to dive? Throttle back, then dive in.

Expect that the VVS planes are going to have faster response transitioning between a dive and a climb. Don't get sucked into "loopdy" fights.

Know your plane and know your enemy's, because if you don't, a guy who knows your plane and his better than you do will come along and kick your @rse.

Windows 98SE
Athlon 1700+ 1.4GHz
Mobo: FIC AU13 (TFA42 BIOS)
nVidia onboard sound
1GB of 2100 DDR memory
Video Card: ATI Radeon 8500 128MB w/Catalyst 3.5
Cougar HOTAS
CH Pedals

XyZspineZyX
12-11-2003, 07:32 PM
Vo101_Isegrim
could you email me that 109F report please..

fw190@cox.net

thanks..

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 01:56 AM
Stiglr wrote:
- Long and short of it:
-
- manage your speed. You can't expect to be
- rip-roaring around at 100%+ throttle all the time.
- Going to dive? Throttle back, then dive in.
-
- Expect that the VVS planes are going to have faster
- response transitioning between a dive and a climb.
- Don't get sucked into "loopdy" fights.
-
- Know your plane and know your enemy's, because if
- you don't, a guy who knows your plane and his better
- than you do will come along and kick your @rse.
-

eh just go fly a test.. Dive with Yak-1 you following him in F-4.. you simply cant pull up in time, like Yak1 now can, you are going some 1500-2000 meters below him and only then you are pulling up slowly.. now try it in G-2 and no problems following a Yak in same situation.

____________________________________



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/sig3.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 02:19 AM
I agree with Isegrim.

Pull out was possible yes, but after losing how much alt?

I'd also like to see it in a less linear pattern - getting stiffer in excess of 650km/h, but retaining fair control below that(although in real life, the pilot maybe grunting and snorting like a pig).



-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 09:05 AM
This may be a dumb one but at what speed are you trimed for?





"The Heavens were the grandstands, and only the Gods were spectators. The stake was the World. The forfeit was the Player's place at the table; and the Game had no recess. It was the most dangerous of all sports-- and the most fascinating. It got in the blood like wine. It aged men 40 years in 40 days; it ruined nervous systems in an hour. It was a fast game-- the average life-span of a pilot at the Front was 48 hours. And, to many, it seemed an Age."
- Elliot White Springs, WWI ace

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 09:58 AM
As far as I know the last time Oleg was asked about this he said that elevator response is mapped according to the original messerschmitt tests per type. Can't make search work at the moment to find the message.


http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 09:59 AM
Ugly_Kid wrote:
- Well the really damned thing is that it sux royally
- at high alt at around 7000 m. There BnZ becomes pain
- in the butt because recovery from 500 km/h (IAS)
- dive takes almost 1500 m or so. It works much more
- effectively at low alt and here the stiffness should
- still be more like a function of IAS rather than TAS
- as it would appear now.
-

Right spot on ! I brought up this a good time ago, not specifically in regards of the 109s, but in general : all planes seem to be a lot less manouverable at the same IAS speed at high altitude than at low levels.. which seems strange to me, as if I think about it logically, say, 400 km/h IAS would mean the same air pressure over the control forces regardless of altitude, ie. the same amount of limitation in deflection should exist... does this mean that the plane should turn just as well at same IAS at high alt as at low alt ? Of course 500 km/h IAS at say 6000m would equal around 700 km/h TAS, quite unlikely to be reached during level dogfight, but still...

I have been also thinking of that its the higher amount of G forces applying to the pilot at higher alt/same IAS (as G loads depend on TAS and angular turn rate) is what limiting his ability to pull the stick with full force, but then again, what we have is some planes having almost _NO_ decrease in turning at very high altitude/speed combination (ie. FW 190), which makes the G-load theory dubious (unless its modelled on some planes only..). Anyone with some solid idea on this phenomenon has something enlightening to add ?


http://www.mit.bme.hu/~tade/ac-pict/Hung-AF/pre-1945/Bf-109/Bf109col.gif

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 04:16 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- Ugly_Kid wrote:
-- Well the really damned thing is that it sux royally
-- at high alt at around 7000 m. There BnZ becomes pain
-- in the butt because recovery from 500 km/h (IAS)
-- dive takes almost 1500 m or so. It works much more
-- effectively at low alt and here the stiffness should
-- still be more like a function of IAS rather than TAS
-- as it would appear now.
--
-
- Right spot on ! I brought up this a good time ago,
- not specifically in regards of the 109s, but in
- general : all planes seem to be a lot less
- manouverable at the same IAS speed at high altitude
- than at low levels.. which seems strange to me, as
- if I think about it logically, say, 400 km/h IAS
- would mean the same air pressure over the control
- forces regardless of altitude, ie. the same amount
- of limitation in deflection should exist... does
- this mean that the plane should turn just as well at
- same IAS at high alt as at low alt ? Of course 500
- km/h IAS at say 6000m would equal around 700 km/h
- TAS, quite unlikely to be reached during level
- dogfight, but still...

About the issue of manoverability at altitude.... reduced air density lessens the effectiveness of control surfaces at a given deflection when compared to the same deflection in greater air density.

IAS is a measure of the velocity of air molecules as they enter the airplanes pitot tube (well not exactly.... see this link http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/pitot.html to see how the calculation is made). 400 kph IAS at 7000m shows the airspeed is 400 kph.... just as is the case with 400 kph at 100m. Of course, at 7000m the atmosphere still has a lower density than that at 100m.

Hence as a IAS is calculated relative to the local air density, the same "air pressure" over the control surfaces will not exist at the same IAS at different altitudes.

I think /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif


"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg


Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

Message Edited on 12/12/0303:18PM by NegativeGee

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 04:51 PM
Assuming that EAS~IAS V(IAS)=sqrt(roo/rooSL)*V(TAS)

dynamic pressure of air is roo*V(TAS)^2
Now for example drag force is D=0.5*roo*V(TAS)^2*S*Cd
put the information above into the formula and you'll
have

D=0.5*rooSL*V(IAS)^2*S*Cd

What does this mean? Constant IAS and drag _force_ is the same. Only TAS (true air speed raises) but in this respect the aerodynamic forces more or less still orient themselves to IAS.

additionally, clint, I am sure there is lots of data according to which everything is modeled. Unfortunately, some of this modeling does not always match those documents. This can be quite easily seen by just looking at the proud patch history: 1.0 quite bad, 1.1b good (maybe too good), 1.11 again worse etc. It's obviously quite a difficult task to tune it nevermind what that real life data says.

There is AFAIK no reason why F-models should differ considerably from G-models in terms of controllability but at high alt F is a bit difficult.


-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif


Message Edited on 12/12/0304:33PM by Ugly_Kid

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 06:12 PM
The cramped cockpit of the 109 made it very difficult to apply high stick forces. Thus, a lard *** wimp like me would not be able to pull back hard enough to take-off, much less maneuver at high speeds.

You can't take one pilot's statements and then apply that to how an airplane performed. It only applies to how the airplane performs for him. If he's stronger than Popeye after a four can binge, then he will be able to do much more than most in something like a 109 where strength makes a tremendous difference.

Another example of this point I've read about is how the harsh accelerated stall characteristics of the early Spits made many pilots hold back when turning. The relatively smooth stall characteristics of the 109s allowed the pilots to turn closer to the edge of a stall. If you asked the more timid British pilots, they would tell you that the 109 would turn MUCH better than the Spitfire while the better British pilots would tell you that they could hold their own or even excel against the 109.

Note that I'm not saying that the 109 as modeled is correct, just that some of the anecdotal "evidence" provided does not mean much.

I'll shut-up now.

-WhtBoy.

P.S.
Heresay and conjecture, while being kinds of evidence, are in the same lot as anecdotal evidence.

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 07:33 PM
UglyKid wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>There is AFAIK no reason why F-models should differ considerably from G-models in terms of controllability <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, but then again, there's no reason F-models should snap left out of coordinated turns and enter the "Oleg Flat Spin of Death" either...

Windows 98SE
Athlon 1700+ 1.4GHz
Mobo: FIC AU13 (TFA42 BIOS)
nVidia onboard sound
1GB of 2100 DDR memory
Video Card: ATI Radeon 8500 128MB w/Catalyst 3.5
Cougar HOTAS
CH Pedals

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 07:36 PM
UglyKid wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>There is AFAIK no reason why F-models should differ considerably from G-models in terms of controllability <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The F should actually be *better*, since its a lighter and more aerodynamic plane. Less engine weight to have to pick up, fewer "bulges" and aerodynamic mess to contend with, and less speed overall, so less inertia to fight pulling up.

But then again, there's no reason F-models should snap left out of coordinated turns and enter the "Oleg Flat Spin of Death" either...




Windows 98SE
Athlon 1700+ 1.4GHz
Mobo: FIC AU13 (TFA42 BIOS)
nVidia onboard sound
1GB of 2100 DDR memory
Video Card: ATI Radeon 8500 128MB w/Catalyst 3.5
Cougar HOTAS
CH Pedals

XyZspineZyX
12-15-2003, 01:47 PM
take a yak1 and talk about "stiff" elevators again , lol , u really dont know how good the bf109F series responses...

XyZspineZyX
12-15-2003, 06:01 PM
F-4 gets cramped elevators after 400kmh IAS.. i Believe the correct figure should be beyoind 650 kmh Ias.. i just hope this get fixxed in next patch.. the poor elevators has caused me collide dozens of times with F-2/F-4 because of poor elevator responses compared to other 109s.. (Not Emils ofcourse)

____________________________________



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/sig3.jpg </center>

ahhrg
12-19-2003, 02:13 PM
its a must to fix this

clint-ruin
12-19-2003, 02:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
additionally, clint, I am sure there is lots of data according to which everything is modeled.Message Edited on 12/12/0304:33PM by Ugly_Kid<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That wasn't a judgemental call on the work you guys are doing in this thread, I think it's good to see the slide rules out again :>

Just that this has already been brought up with Oleg and he's already given the typical short sharp post on it. Probably if you want to get the issue fixed the best bet is to try and track down the data Oleg is probably using and see if it matches what we get in FB. Since Oleg usually doesn't say what that might be, the job is slightly easier on this issue :>

If there is actually original ME data on the BF109F series I wonder why noone here is posting it or making reference to it. Surely it would be a better thing to quote than pilot accounts?

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Ugly_Kid
12-19-2003, 11:02 PM
I am completely aware that this topic has been discussed before. I also know of Oleg's answers, this isn't about this or this isn't about that. This is simply about F being now different from before, is this how it was intended?, period. You see it is different from the last one...(again)

Then on the other hand this isn't probably the appropriate place to put up such a question, after all development team is probably only group who does not read this forum.

Isegrim can post two documents he's posted before. A curve showing Bf pull-up. Then the document showing the applicable stick forces when pilot extends himself and pushes with the feet on the pedals. But this isn't about Bf being all wrong, it's about F being a bit funny at altitudes, IMO. Not bad not catastrophic but something to bring up a questionmark, nothing else.

Hanni8
12-26-2003, 02:33 PM
Eric Brown states in his test, flying a captured 109 G-6, that elevators become heavy at speeds above 300 mph and can be considered frozen above 400 mph. Don't know how far this would be true for the F series. However the findings for the G correspond very close to the ones with the E-series.
I think therefore, that all 109s in IL are overmodeled in that respect.

Abbuzze
12-26-2003, 03:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hanni8:
Eric Brown states in his test, flying a captured 109 G-6, that elevators become heavy at speeds above 300 mph and can be considered frozen above 400 mph. Don't know how far this would be true for the F series. However the findings for the G correspond very close to the ones with the E-series.
I think therefore, that all 109s in IL are overmodeled in that respect.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, 109 got heavy controls at highspeed, but with the correct trimset it was possible to pull out of a 800km/h @ 80? dive without using the trimset.
If you dove with the wrong trimset you need to adjust the triming to recover the dive, but then the plane reacts so violant (the trimming of the 109 was very good!) that you have to push the stick foreward, to be not blacked out by the geforces... beside, both flightpaths.. with use of trimming and without, are very similar, so even with the "concrete" stickforces the pilot could pull so hard that he got close to a blackout!!! So even the with the heavy stickforces in the 109- the Pilot seems to be be the limiting factor !

JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
I./Gruppe

http://www.jg53-pikas.de/

http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam.gif

Vipez-
12-27-2003, 10:14 AM
A good article concerning 109 heavy elevators-myth http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/109myths/

-- Vipez

boohaa
12-28-2003, 08:36 PM
How I understand it is that the cramped cockpit of the 109 gave way to this very difficult stick at high speeds.BUT here is the clincher,it was only for banking since the pilots arms were locked close to his sides.Now you need to remember that a 109 pilot was almost laying down in the cockpit.Wouldnt this allow the pilot to exert alot more pressure than if he was sitting more upright?I figure being able to pull with the legs will help out tremebndosuly.I think Oleg needs to look into this fact more and not just lump all stick force together.Certain planes allowed more pull in different directions than othershttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif