PDA

View Full Version : Still very disappointment bug - (non)stall characteristic of slots planes



Pages : [1] 2

Kwiatos
10-07-2005, 07:55 AM
I must say that im very disappointment with FM of slots planes. From 4.01 ver. planes with slots are too easy to fly at slow speed. You must be very staborn and very brute to make them stall. You could turn even at slow speed (200 km/h) with maxiumum pull up in stick without stall. These cause that these planes feel to arcadish. I know that slots cause more symptom of incoming stall and allow to reach little more in these area for slot planes but dont eliminate stall at all. From 4.01 in slots planes gone acceleration stall too. So at higher speed and slow speed these planes are extremaly easy and unforgiving. I mean expecially LA series, LAggs, Migs but Bf 109 too. I know that in incoming patch things are not change. For every who care about realistic FM these bug is not acceptable. I spoke with my many friends and mates who play these game and we all are very disappointment with actually FM of these planes.

Some RL pilots notes ab Bf 109 stall charactersitic:

Flying Black 6 ( 109 G-2 Trop)

Republished with kind permission of Paul Coggan from Warbirds Worldwide #21

The idle power stall characteristics of the aircraft are very benign and affected little by undercarriage and flap position. Stalling warning is a slight wing rock with the stick floating right by about 2 inches. This occurs 10klph before the stall. <span class="ev_code_RED">The stall itself is a left wing drop through about 15 degrees with a slight nose drop, accompanied by a light buffet.</span> All controls are effective up to the stall, and recovery is instant on moving the stick forward. Stall speeds are 155kph clean and 140kph with gear and flap down. <span class="ev_code_RED">In a turn at 280kphwith display power set, stall warning is given by light buffet at 3g, and the stall occurs at 3.5g with the inside wing dropping.</span> Again, recovery is instant on easing the stick forward. One interesting feature is the leading edge slats. When these deploy at low speeds or in a turn, a 'clunk' can be heard and felt, but there is no disturbance to the aircraft about any axis. I understand that the Bf109E rolled violently as the slats deployed, and I am curious to know the difference to the Gustav that caused this."

Mark Hanna opinion ( 109 G):
Pitch is also delighful at 250 mph and below. It feels very positve and the amount of effort on the control column needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right to me. As CL max is reached the leading edge slats deploy - together if the ball is in the middle, slightly asymmetrically if you have any slip on. The aircraft delights in being pulled into hard manuevering turns at these slower speeds. As the slats pop out you feel a slight "notching" on the stick and you can pull more until the whole airframe is buffeting quite hard. A little more and you will drop a wing, but you have to be crass to do it unintentionally. Pitch tends to heavy up above 250 mph but it is still easily manageable up to 300 mph and the aircraft is perfectly happy carrying out low-level looping maneuvers from 300 mph and below."

Finish test:

Case: Me 109 G-2
There are some trustworthy numbers of the 109s as well. The Finnish test flight report of Me 109 G-2 "MT-215" was flown 6.5.1943 by captain Pekka Kokko, famoust Finnish test pilot, with a regular combat squadron plane with full combat equipment, including all ammo for all guns and full fuel load. The report specifically mentions the radiators opening fully at some points during the climb test. The max-speed tests were run with the radiators manually shut. Its level speed peaked at about 6400 meters at roughly 645 km/h on 30 minute power setting. The climb rate peaked at 2000 meters when the plane grabbed altitude 24,7 meters per minute. Height/climbrate: 3000m / 18,9 m/sec - 4000 m / 17,2 m/sec - 5000 m / 17,2 m/sec - 6000 m / 15,1 m/sec - 7000 m / 13,4 m/sec - 8000 m / 13,7 m/sec, 9000 m / 9,0 m/sec, 10 000 m / 5,9 m/sec. Climb to 4000 meters: 3,2 mins - 5000 meters: 4,1 mins - 6000 meters: 5,1 mins and 8000 meters: 7,6 minutes.
Other data: stall speed clean 170 km/h (could not be clearly defined). The nose sunk and the plane banked calmly to the right wing. At landing configuration the stall speed was 145 km/h. With full power the plane could be held hanging from the prop at 60? nose-up attitude ASI showing 130-140 km/h. <span class="ev_code_RED">Up to 350 km/h with a hard pull in the bank plane could be stalled (!)</span> At 1000m altitude 180? turn required 10 s (G-2), starting speed 450 km/h, final speed 380 km/h. Full circle 18 s with final speed 330 km/h. Full 360? bank required 22 s with 360 km/h, bank angle 70? acceleration 3 g. "

Kwiatos
10-07-2005, 07:55 AM
I must say that im very disappointment with FM of slots planes. From 4.01 ver. planes with slots are too easy to fly at slow speed. You must be very staborn and very brute to make them stall. You could turn even at slow speed (200 km/h) with maxiumum pull up in stick without stall. These cause that these planes feel to arcadish. I know that slots cause more symptom of incoming stall and allow to reach little more in these area for slot planes but dont eliminate stall at all. From 4.01 in slots planes gone acceleration stall too. So at higher speed and slow speed these planes are extremaly easy and unforgiving. I mean expecially LA series, LAggs, Migs but Bf 109 too. I know that in incoming patch things are not change. For every who care about realistic FM these bug is not acceptable. I spoke with my many friends and mates who play these game and we all are very disappointment with actually FM of these planes.

Some RL pilots notes ab Bf 109 stall charactersitic:

Flying Black 6 ( 109 G-2 Trop)

Republished with kind permission of Paul Coggan from Warbirds Worldwide #21

The idle power stall characteristics of the aircraft are very benign and affected little by undercarriage and flap position. Stalling warning is a slight wing rock with the stick floating right by about 2 inches. This occurs 10klph before the stall. <span class="ev_code_RED">The stall itself is a left wing drop through about 15 degrees with a slight nose drop, accompanied by a light buffet.</span> All controls are effective up to the stall, and recovery is instant on moving the stick forward. Stall speeds are 155kph clean and 140kph with gear and flap down. <span class="ev_code_RED">In a turn at 280kphwith display power set, stall warning is given by light buffet at 3g, and the stall occurs at 3.5g with the inside wing dropping.</span> Again, recovery is instant on easing the stick forward. One interesting feature is the leading edge slats. When these deploy at low speeds or in a turn, a 'clunk' can be heard and felt, but there is no disturbance to the aircraft about any axis. I understand that the Bf109E rolled violently as the slats deployed, and I am curious to know the difference to the Gustav that caused this."

Mark Hanna opinion ( 109 G):
Pitch is also delighful at 250 mph and below. It feels very positve and the amount of effort on the control column needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right to me. As CL max is reached the leading edge slats deploy - together if the ball is in the middle, slightly asymmetrically if you have any slip on. The aircraft delights in being pulled into hard manuevering turns at these slower speeds. As the slats pop out you feel a slight "notching" on the stick and you can pull more until the whole airframe is buffeting quite hard. A little more and you will drop a wing, but you have to be crass to do it unintentionally. Pitch tends to heavy up above 250 mph but it is still easily manageable up to 300 mph and the aircraft is perfectly happy carrying out low-level looping maneuvers from 300 mph and below."

Finish test:

Case: Me 109 G-2
There are some trustworthy numbers of the 109s as well. The Finnish test flight report of Me 109 G-2 "MT-215" was flown 6.5.1943 by captain Pekka Kokko, famoust Finnish test pilot, with a regular combat squadron plane with full combat equipment, including all ammo for all guns and full fuel load. The report specifically mentions the radiators opening fully at some points during the climb test. The max-speed tests were run with the radiators manually shut. Its level speed peaked at about 6400 meters at roughly 645 km/h on 30 minute power setting. The climb rate peaked at 2000 meters when the plane grabbed altitude 24,7 meters per minute. Height/climbrate: 3000m / 18,9 m/sec - 4000 m / 17,2 m/sec - 5000 m / 17,2 m/sec - 6000 m / 15,1 m/sec - 7000 m / 13,4 m/sec - 8000 m / 13,7 m/sec, 9000 m / 9,0 m/sec, 10 000 m / 5,9 m/sec. Climb to 4000 meters: 3,2 mins - 5000 meters: 4,1 mins - 6000 meters: 5,1 mins and 8000 meters: 7,6 minutes.
Other data: stall speed clean 170 km/h (could not be clearly defined). The nose sunk and the plane banked calmly to the right wing. At landing configuration the stall speed was 145 km/h. With full power the plane could be held hanging from the prop at 60? nose-up attitude ASI showing 130-140 km/h. <span class="ev_code_RED">Up to 350 km/h with a hard pull in the bank plane could be stalled (!)</span> At 1000m altitude 180? turn required 10 s (G-2), starting speed 450 km/h, final speed 380 km/h. Full circle 18 s with final speed 330 km/h. Full 360? bank required 22 s with 360 km/h, bank angle 70? acceleration 3 g. "

noace
10-07-2005, 08:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:

&lt;edited&gt;

Some RL pilots notes ab Bf 109 stall charactersitic:


The idle power stall characteristics of the aircraft are very benign and affected little by undercarriage and flap position.

&lt;edited&gt;
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, you are making hard turns with the engine idling and no stall happens. Hmmm, thats cool. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

noace

DaimonSyrius
10-07-2005, 08:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:
I must say that im very disappointment (...) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
OK, you have made your point very well. Your disappointment has been displayed and sized, and it does indeed seem to be really huge. Well done, you've made the world aware of how big your disappointment is. If I may comment on it, IMO your disappointment is not overmodelled, it's just like that, intrinsically. Yours are undoubtedly, and strictly, own disappointment production data, straight from the original source.

However, I'm left wondering whether this forum is about fixing your disappointments http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

How about writing to 1C:Maddox and provide them with the true values about the size of your disappointment?

Anyway, 4.02 shouldn't be causing any official disappointments yet, should it?

S.

Kwiatos
10-07-2005, 08:50 AM
I have done it and someone admit that slot planes are bit too unforgive and overmoddeled in stall area but change not happend.

F19_Ob
10-07-2005, 09:13 AM
Are U refering only to the 109?
Remember that the this FM have not been here for long and need some tuning, wich perhaps already have been done. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I'll though post my observations of the 109.
What surprises me is that many less powered rides as p40, Brewsters, IAR-81, p11, G50 and several others seem to have more torque than the 109, especially at slow speeds they require harder work.
The 109 was very potent in slow speeds and could climb steeply at slow speeds, but it still had troubles with the torque and they could, as any of the power rides 109, p51, spits, be thrown out of the climb when close to stall, wich was exploited by p38 drivers wich had no torque and knew the 109 couldn't follow.
In the slow speeds that the 109 excelles on the sim, it had to apply almost full rudder to stay on course, wich was the same for the p51 and spit.
In the sim one can hang in the prop close to stall speed with no tendency to be thrown out of the climb.

The p51 and spit for example seem to suffer from torque, as if this above problem was modelled, but that cant be said about the 109 IMO.
The 109 actually can fight well with the yak3 and yak3P and La5 FN in turnfights (although they are very good aswell), wich I did the other day online. I shot down too many yaks and La5FN compared to how many times they got me, for it to feel good. Also the yak3 seemed to have more torque than the 109.

Now I dont want to sound as if I want the 109 to turn bad, (wich I don't) but I must say that it could use some torque, atleast in slow speeds where others have it.
I also think that the 109 turns too well in high speed where all sources say the elevator was immovable.
The Hurricane cant move at all in slower speeds than the 109's highest so that should be looked at.

One thing that my mates have adressed is that the 109 infact turns better than the spit in more stages of flight.
I did not agree then, but forced to do so now.

Perhaps, If the torque at slow speeds, and highspeed elevator is looked at it might be more at the right direction.

a few thoughts.
--------------------------------------------
Additional note

In the P-38 I flew with both engines burning for a very long time, and then I landed safely. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Needs to be looked at aswell.

DaimonSyrius
10-07-2005, 09:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:
I have done it and someone admit that slot planes are bit too unforgive and overmoddeled in stall area but change not happend. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So there you are.
I seem to recall that Oleg Maddox himself wrote somewhere that, in order to fit the flight parameters for each of 100+ aircraft into one general flight model, allowances had to be made, the allowances going up to as much as something (I can't recall a percentage right now).

That's something similar to what happens with the tolerance values for a structure when building a bridge or with known instrumental errors in a research lab.

So there are tolerance values, allowances. You are disppointed that the allowances are there. You tell Maddox (who happens to be an engineer, if I am correctly informed) about how really really disppointed you are. 1C:Maddox has not modified the allowances so far, so you are here to let us all know how really really really big your disappointment is in actuality.

Point made. Well done, as I said, but... the whole world does not orbit around the slat plane's stall in IL-2. Even Oleg Maddox's local portion of the world does not revolve around IL-2 anymore, if what I hear and see is correct.

However, 1C:Maddox is commited enough to this sim, and kind enough to us, to keep delivering bits of their (IMO great) work to us. All I can say is I cannot find this disappointing at all, even if I try hard.

S.

WWMaxGunz
10-07-2005, 09:22 AM
I sent in a track just after 4.01 came out made with 4.0 which is same FM.
It was La-5FN banked way over in a turn at just over power-off clean stall speed,
98%-100% power and climbing slowly for as long as I wanted.

IMO the plane should have lost alt but I am not the total expert to say if the
thrust should not have been enough. So my email ++asked++ if that was right.

Even the 109G's cannot do so good, I tried and they won't hold as steep a bank at
such low speeds.

Slats allow more AOA but the narrow wings without have less AOA, result is in some
cases equal with wider wings of different profile yet still make less highspeed drag.

Induced drag at higher AOA is where the answer is along with thrust... can the thrust
offset the induced drag? Induced drag is AOA squared, speed squared and wing area.
AOA squared because as AOA increases so does coefficient of lift and it is the square
of that that goes into the fully expanded induced drag formula.

For a long time now I have never seen it shown if induced drag is reduced or if prop
efficiency is just too much at lowspeed or if things are just more close to right than
I know and education is the answer. I don't think the latter is true only because of
the climb at speed curves anyone comes up with are too flat by far, climb is too good
at lowspeed and highspeed still too good but not so much while best climbs are not as
far off at least with some planes while others....

I wait for the patch. Things in the readme I have seen give me hope that at least it
will be fixed somewhat. That is tentative, there is little, only one line really like
a hint but with Oleg a very few words has often meant a lot.

Patience? Changes have been made, the code has already moved for 1C.

Kwiatos
10-07-2005, 09:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:
I have done it and someone admit that slot planes are bit too unforgive and overmoddeled in stall area but change not happend. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So there you are.
I seem to recall that Oleg Maddox himself wrote somewhere that, in order to fit the flight parameters for each of 100+ aircraft into one general flight model, allowances had to be made, the allowances going up to as much as something (I can't recall a percentage right now).

That's something similar to what happens with the tolerance values for a structure when building a bridge or with known instrumental errors in a research lab.

So there are tolerance values, allowances. You are disppointed that the allowances are there. You tell Maddox (who happens to be an engineer, if I am correctly informed) about how really really disppointed you are. 1C:Maddox has not modified the allowances so far, so you are here to let us all know how really really really big your disappointment is in actuality.

Point made. Well done, as I said, but... the whole world does not orbit around the slat plane's stall in IL-2. Even Oleg Maddox's local portion of the world does not revolve around IL-2 anymore, if what I hear and see is correct.

However, 1C:Maddox is commited enough to this sim, and kind enough to us, to keep delivering bits of their (IMO great) work to us. All I can say is I cannot find this disappointing at all, even if I try hard.

S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maby you dont but i yes. For me the most important thing in simulator game is FM and DM not new cars, trains, buses etc. Of course graphic is important too but the first place have FM and DM. So thats why i like to play simulators not games like fpps games like Quake. If something is not right with FM/DM it makes less sense for me to play such game. Less sense mean less satisfaction from playing these game. So if plane like La5 or BF109 have too arcade FM and i dont have satisfaction to get them and fly them. And if you know that these thing could be corrected but they dont you feel disapointment. Just all.

DaimonSyrius
10-07-2005, 09:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
You are disppointed that the allowances are there. You tell Maddox (who happens to be an engineer, if I am correctly informed) about how really really disppointed you are. 1C:Maddox has not modified the allowances so far, so you are here to let us all know how really really really big your disappointment is in actuality.

Point made. Well done, as I said, but... the whole world does not orbit around the slat plane's stall in IL-2. Even Oleg Maddox's local portion of the world does not revolve around IL-2 anymore, if what I hear and see is correct.

However, 1C:Maddox is commited enough to this sim, and kind enough to us, to keep delivering bits of their (IMO great) work to us. All I can say is I cannot find this disappointing at all, even if I try hard.

S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maby you dont but i yes. For me the most important thing in simulator game is FM and DM not new cars, trains, buses etc. Of course graphic is important too but the first place have FM and DM. So thats why i like to play simulators not games like fpps games like Quake. If something is not right with FM/DM it makes less sense for me to play such game. Less sense mean less satisfaction from playing these game. So if plane like La5 or BF109 have too arcade FM and i dont have satisfaction to get them and fly them. And if you know that these thing could be corrected but they dont you feel disapointment. Just all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's why I said that your point was made beyond any shadow of a doubt.
Nobody can deny that you're disappointed. There is absolutely no question that your disappointment exists, and it is big. Becoming huge, possibly. No amount of logic could argue against the self-demonstrating fact of your disappointment showing itself.

And my point was...explained already just a couple of posts earlier, so I won't insist.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

S.

Buzzsaw-
10-07-2005, 10:00 AM
Salute

Rather than making fun of the poster, some of those who reply might take the time to examine the facts.

Kwiatos
10-07-2005, 10:19 AM
Some writing only for writing...

Chuck_Older
10-07-2005, 10:28 AM
I've filtered my X axis for 4.01. I can stall out a Bf 109E4 and G2 at low speed with full stick in a bank turn easily. Slats are supposed to give a low speed handling benefit. Whether it is accurate in this sim or not...I can't say with full confidence. But I have noticed that some folks have had to change stick settings for 4.01 and some have not, and every time I read things like this thread, I can't help but wonder if it's the stick settings

Of course, I can't feel any 'notching' in the stick, but Mr. Hanna's description seems accurate to what I see in the E4 and the G2. Too bad that Mr. Hanna cannot fly this sim and compare it to the real thing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

DaimonSyrius
10-07-2005, 10:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Rather than making fun of the poster, some of those who reply might take the time to examine the facts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Although the first, and apparently main, concept to appear in the Topic for this thread is a rather a feeling than a fact ("very disappointment"), I'll second that, let's look at facts rather than feelings.

In the very little I've read about stall speed, there seems to be some controversy about what 'stall' really is, when it starts exactly, and how it's not easy to precisely define it. Is it when the aircraft cannot sustain a controlled flight? (and 'controlled' means precisely...?) Or is it just when the aircraft cannot sustain a level altitude, no matter what the pilot can or cannot do with the controls? Does stall imply 'one wing dipping' or is it also when just the nose starts to drop, without unbalancing along the roll axis? And then we have to look at what effects slats have on that... Apparently there are several views on all that.

Lots of interesting questions, points of view and some answers and reasons in this site (an excellent read IMO): See How It Flies (http://www.av8n.com/how/)

About humour, I don't think it needs to be absolutely excluded from a forum discussion, especially if kept friendly and polite. That's how I mean it, anyway http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

@Kwiatos: actually, what I disaggree with in your first post (true, I might have started stating that) is your choice of words like disappointment and unacceptable to put your opinion forward, considering other real-life factors that explain how IL-2 is and how its patches keep coming to us. Cheers.

S.

Kwiatos
10-07-2005, 10:45 AM
Sry but im not english language specialist. I'm only Polish glide pilot with some experience with planes ( for ex. Bucker Jungmann if you know what is it). Sorry that i'm disappointment you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
10-07-2005, 11:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
In the very little I've read about stall speed, there seems to be some controversy about what 'stall' really is, when it starts exactly, and how it's not easy to precisely define it. Is it when the aircraft cannot sustain a controlled flight? (and 'controlled' means precisely...?) Or is it just when the aircraft cannot sustain a level altitude, no matter what the pilot can or cannot do with the controls? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really how to determine Stall Speeds is precisely defined. Yes, there are a few of them
like Power Off, Power On, with Clean and Dirty (gear and flaps down) for both as standard
conditions. Loading is also a condition. The rules are literal life and death in cases.

The definitions are made and controlled by Aviation Agencies in different areas.
FAA in US and EAA in Europe have the same definition for _all_ practical purposes.
Mostly they are applied to aircraft makers who have to specify Reference Stall Speeds
for the planes they make as part of law. Different categories of planes have to meet
standards including Stall Speeds.
That what you wrote last though pretty much meets the definition. Except for the no
matter part. Trim and speed change approaching the moment when the plane is unable
to hold 1G, level, flight is also part of the spec so no abrupt change in speed or
playing with excessive trim is allowed. The trim must be for just above the speed
within a close margin, the loss of speed similar. The spec is tight.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Does stall imply 'one wing dipping' or is it also when just the nose starts to drop, without unbalancing along the roll axis? And then we have to look at what effects slats have on that... Apparently there are several views on all that.

Lots of interesting questions, points of view and some answers and reasons in this site (an excellent read IMO): See How It Flies (http://www.av8n.com/how/)

About humour, I don't think it needs to be absolutely excluded from a forum discussion, especially if kept friendly and polite. That's how I mean it, anyway http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

@Kwiatos: actually, what I disaggree with in your first post (true, I might have started stating that) is your choice of words like disappointment and unacceptable to put your opinion forward, considering other real-life factors that explain how IL-2 is and how its patches keep coming to us. Cheers.

S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent site you linked there! A real 'keeper' as long as whole sections are read.
I'm not sure though how he would completely characterize the Cobra Maneuver except
perhaps that it's not exactly flight?

DaimonSyrius
10-07-2005, 11:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
I've filtered my X axis
(...)
Of course, I can't feel any 'notching' in the stick, but Mr. Hanna's description seems accurate to what I see in the E4 and the G2. Too bad that Mr. Hanna cannot fly this sim and compare it to the real thing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can say the same, for both points.

After 4.0, tweaking the axis sensitivities has made the joystick more comfortable for me. And for anyone who is into that tweaking, FoolTrottel's Joystick Tool (http://www.airwarfare.com/Sims/IL2/il2_essential_files.htm#087) is excellent. You can make profiles with different settings, which makes it easier to compare and see how it feels.

I also see the planes, generally, more or less like I would expect them to be (armchair opinion only http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif), and I'm also uncertain that I really can have a strong opinion about the more-or-less... while I have no doubt Maddox people can. I understand that 'allowances' have to be made, it's a sim with a core engine that was engineered for PC's in 2001. But the general 'envelope' of flying feels good to me (yes this is a feeling http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) And, most importantly, it's keeps improving by bits (again a feeling).

On another note, I was shocked to learn just today that M. Hanna's fatal crash actually happened very near to where I was living at the time... I didn't know about him then, but today I was impressed. Good that he's remembered http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

anarchy52
10-07-2005, 11:24 AM
I do not know why the original author thinks 109 is special regarding the torque.

Take a Corsair and fly straight & level just above stall speed with low speed settings. Then ram the throttle to max and come to ORR to complain about 109.

DaimonSyrius
10-07-2005, 11:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Sry but im not english language specialist. I'm only Polish glide pilot with some experience with planes ( for ex. Bucker Jungmann if you know what is it). Sorry that i'm disappointment you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No intention to hint about English expertise, my apologies if you felt it that way, sincerely. I'm no specialist either, not even a native speaker http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Let's just keep the feelings good and the facts (and opinions about them) coming http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

S.

DaimonSyrius
10-07-2005, 11:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Excellent site you linked there! A real 'keeper' as long as whole sections are read.
I'm not sure though how he would completely characterize the Cobra Maneuver except
perhaps that it's not exactly flight? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

S' MaxGunz,

I vaguely remember having read about that manoeuvre somewhere, but not sure if it was in 'See How It Flies'. It has to do with the capability to modify the angle of the vector of thrust in jets? Reading Denker, one is left with the impression that he could explain absolutely anything... or is it absolutely everything? And making an entertaining read at the same time, no less! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

(OT)Btw, do you know if it can be done in LOMAC? (/Back to Topic)

S.

F19_Ob
10-07-2005, 12:11 PM
So what about the less torque and too effective highspeed elevator on the 109. As I posted above. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
All solutions are not complicated. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

p1ngu666
10-07-2005, 12:37 PM
think 15% was what oleg said, which is higher than before..

WWMaxGunz
10-07-2005, 12:46 PM
From my reading of P-38 escaping LW planes by tight, steep spiral climb where the
others stalled and spun down it was FW-190's and not Me-109's. The 190 had strong
torque at high power which also killed some green pilots down low when the jammed
on quick throttle in turn after being bounced, nothing an experienced 190 pilot
would do... he would bring it up slower and smoother.

109 did have a better turn to one side especially at high speed, was it left?

I know of no bad torque characteristics of any 109 although the K model with so
much engine might have had the potential. A good pilot though would either use
or avoid that potential.

Elevator too good? You mean like the P-51 only less exaggerated?
Please, send Tagert a track!

scottmal1
10-07-2005, 12:54 PM
Wheres TAGERT???
Got track??

WWMaxGunz
10-07-2005, 12:57 PM
Daimon, I don't LOMAC. Cobra was first done that I know of by Mig-29's.
When they showed at the British airshow the first time, they overturned the knowledge
of the West completely on Russian capabilities and equipment. Everything changed.

And then the Su-37... what a plane!

I the Cobra, the plane balances on thrust and wings holding alt and moving forward
so slow that doppler radar would miss it completely. The radar would then continue
to turn to scan the skies and the Migs would advance. It is something like what the
North Vietnamese did to foil our ground spotting radars. Their leader carried a
detector as they moved and when the light came on they would all stop moving. It
takes a while to ID the sound of movement within the range gate so you don't catch
them. That way they were able to position whole units right outside US camps.
OTOH a lot of monkeys and water buffalo did get shelled as a result of mistaken
identifies.

DaimonSyrius
10-07-2005, 01:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I the Cobra, the plane balances on thrust and wings holding alt and moving forward
so slow that doppler radar would miss it completely. The radar would then continue
to turn to scan the skies and the Migs would advance. It is something like what the
North Vietnamese did to foil our ground spotting radars. Their leader carried a
detector as they moved and when the light came on they would all stop moving. It
takes a while to ID the sound of movement within the range gate so you don't catch
them. That way they were able to position whole units right outside US camps.
OTOH a lot of monkeys and water buffalo did get shelled as a result of mistaken
identifies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amazing, the doppler trick is really clever http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Fly-by-wire can do wonders, be sure! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
But you need a computer assisting everything... sort of what we do, but the other way round. Sounds confusing... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Badsight.
10-07-2005, 01:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Some RL pilots notes ab Bf 109 stall charactersitic:

Flying Black 6 ( 109 G-2 Trop)


Finish test: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Kwiatos isnt telling the whole truth . his accounts dont match up

the Finns stalled the Right wing

the pilot of Black6 wasnt experienced with bf-109s & he stalled the left wing

so which is it Kwiatos - which account do you want to go with to prove your point http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
10-07-2005, 03:27 PM
Badsight, how you dance on the rudder can make that much difference.
For the Finns it rolled one way, for Southwood the other.

What would you bet that at Rechlin the nose just dropped and then the pilot recovered?
Which would point to a very well balance-able plane.

HayateAce
10-07-2005, 03:41 PM
Bs109 and LaGG are the chief offenders, with the La to a lesser degree.

These slat a/c float, do rediculous low speed moves and recover from stalls in just a few meters. Also agree with other posters that the 109 has not enough torque and that the high speed elevator is gimmicked and falsely boosted.

Bf109 Forgotten Bogus is the real title of Olegster's game.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1931882134.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

carguy_
10-07-2005, 03:59 PM
Why the h@ll is this a 109 only problem again?!

Badsight.
10-07-2005, 05:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
the 109 has not enough torque and that the high speed elevator is gimmicked and falsely boosted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>id belive you on that after i see pigs fly

you realise anything about the speeds that the later (post Emil) 109's experienced elevator lockup ?

if you do , please tell this forum what speeds FB 109s had to suffer this at ?

i thought so . . . .

Tvrdi
10-07-2005, 05:31 PM
wtf are you talking about...i saw numeorus times how spit/p51 goes to insane stall just above the ground just for quick recover...try this in bf109 and then post your tracks and Bs here...

WWMaxGunz
10-07-2005, 08:21 PM
Hayate points a finger and says "offender". Classic.

Buzzsaw-
10-07-2005, 09:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

For the Finns it rolled one way, for Southwood the other.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Salute Max

Since you've decided to discuss the Finnish report, something which you refused to do the last time this issue was discussed on the SimHQ boards, maybe you'd like to explain this part of the report on the G2 and how that compares to the game version:

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

1. Stall [in level flight]

In level flight with the engine on idle, the plane starts stalling at 240-250km/h speed, deploying the slats at the same time. The plane holds its ATTITUDE and is controllable during the stall.

In landing condition the stall begins at 200-210km/h speed, the plane is stable in this case as well.

&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

By the way, for those new the discussion:

This is not just about 109.

The issue is SLAT equipped aircraft.

Von_Rat
10-07-2005, 10:21 PM
AS a mostly blue flyer, who flys 09 alot, i decided to give spit a try.

i think kiawtos has a point. compared to the spit, the 09 is extremly forgiving on stalls, hi speeds and low.

spit still can outurn 09, but you have to be very careful or you lose it. with 09 you can just keep pulling stick.

now because of slats i guess 09 should be a little more forgiving, but the differance is huge.

i don't have any historical data or tracks, but for 09 jocks who don't believe me, all i can say is get in a spit and see if you can yank stick like a 09.

oh the elevator on most 09s is fine in imo, except 09k is stiffer than earlier ones, shouldnt it be other way around. i think 09ks is to stiff.

gkll
10-07-2005, 11:32 PM
I have a feeling that the spit, more stall prone than previously, is also much more immersive to fly than 3.04. You can get more out of it I think, more rewards for good plane control.... and bigger punishment for screwing up... excellent. Still beta04 seemed nicer still.

Relevant to this thread - the spit has been fixed. Too bad for the slobs flying all the slat equipped ships... its like they have the old FM in a way.... pretty easy flight. I find the lagg the toughest opponent for a spit now. Maybe someone needs to kick my butt in a TnB with a 109... rarely happens and never 1v1

Badsight.
10-08-2005, 12:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
i think kiawtos has a point. compared to the spit, the 09 is extremly forgiving on stalls, hi speeds and low.

spit still can outurn 09, but you have to be very careful or you lose it. with 09 you can just keep pulling stick.

now because of slats i guess 09 should be a little more forgiving, but the differance is huge. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>this is the real issue since v4.01 came out

like all other props - the 109 got torque , but it's like the "willingness to stall" is the same as v3.04 & the main fighters that get put up in DF against 109's became harder to control flying on the limit

Spitfires especially

Kufurst said the wing twist was worse on the Spitfire & its been said at this forum that the Spitfires Elliptical wings were not the best at the stall limit -- but that goes against BoB pilots who said the Spitfire was very forgiving leading up to the stall & that the wing tips went into a slight flutter/shake just before the stall & that Spitfires gave better stall warning than the thick winged Hurricanes

but in FB the Spitfire goes into a stall nastier than the 109

still waiting on HayateAce to post the speeds that Bf-109 F & G's should be experiencing elevator lock-up http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Ugly_Kid
10-08-2005, 02:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

1. Stall [in level flight]

In level flight with the engine on idle, the plane starts stalling at 240-250km/h speed, deploying the slats at the same time. The plane holds its ATTITUDE and is controllable during the stall.

In landing condition the stall begins at 200-210km/h speed, the plane is stable in this case as well.

&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

By the way, for those new the discussion:

This is not just about 109.

The issue is SLAT equipped aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This refers to a beginning of stall, with very high likelyhood to a pre-stall and the connected buffeting. The next chapter says that the stall occurs with 175 km/h BUT with full power IT IS 130-140 km/H!!!The plane hangs in 60? attitude from prop! It says that the plane gives an ample warning, initially with slight shaking. Once pulling harder the left wing and nose sink and the plane transits to an oscillating dive, once loosing the pull the plane is under control. In landing configuration the stall speed is 155 km/H (without throttle then)

Quite funny that you hang on the higher figures and ignore the rest. If there is a 25-35 km/h initial stall area with buffeting then the stall is indeed _very_ mild.

This is very much in harmony with Eric Brown who says that the stall occured at 105 mph (168 km/h), preceeded by elevator buffeting and opening of the slats about 30 km/h above the speed. "The stall itself was fairly gentle with the nose dropping and the port wing simultaneously dropping about 10 degrees". In the landing configuration stall occured at 160 km/h.

So be so kind and use the correct figures of the _actual_ stall speed, since you're spreading your selective reading around the aviation forums.

(Landing configuration means also extended landing gear which somewhat raises the stall speed)

Takata_
10-08-2005, 05:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
AS a mostly blue flyer, who flys 09 alot, i decided to give spit a try.

i think kiawtos has a point. compared to the spit, the 09 is extremly forgiving on stalls, hi speeds and low.

spit still can outurn 09, but you have to be very careful or you lose it. with 09 you can just keep pulling stick.

now because of slats i guess 09 should be a little more forgiving, but the differance is huge.

i don't have any historical data or tracks, but for 09 jocks who don't believe me, all i can say is get in a spit and see if you can yank stick like a 09.

oh the elevator on most 09s is fine in imo, except 09k is stiffer than earlier ones, shouldnt it be other way around. i think 09ks is to stiff. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

S~ Von_Rat,

That's a fair comment and a lot of dedicated "blue drivers" should listen it: most of them are not taking enough time to fly opponent's plane in combat and, as a result, what they are "feeling" about opposition is just wrong.

It's always different when you are in one plane cockpit and when you are fighting one with another plane. You really can't judge one plane's FM without taking some time to fly it.

Before AEP, I was myself a dedicated Yak/La player but from AEP release and the introduction of more US planes, I spent most of my time online flying everything, either in blue and red side.

AEP (and following) was a kind of turning point with FMs' as well as the online dogfights tactics. From this time, the 109 tactics changed radically and the same 109 guys I saw previously flying high and carefully started to enter the low stall fight with Spits when they realised they would won it most of the time.

By this time, the Western front game became the opposite of the eastern one: a majority of low figths dominated by blue side. On the other hand, as the late Bf109 recieved another boost for high speed handling (elevators) and, because the US planes are vastly outgunned, the medium/high altitude fight is mostly dominated by Foke Wulf and Bf109 too.

With the late release of late FMs', the situation is almost the same in eastern front: Russian planes are completly dominated above 3.000 m, and the low alt fight is not anymore the right place to fight with a good chance of success.

In actual planeset 1943-45, with equal pilot quality and equal numbers, the german binome Bf109/Fw190 is both dominating the western Spit/P-51 and eastern Yak/La with a very good margin now.

Some may think it's historical, some may doubt about it, but everybody who is not convinced and dedicated to blue side only should try and fly opponent's plane to really talk about it(*).

(*same for reds dedicated)

By the way, a small number amongst us, are very good and experienced pilots, able to survive and make dozens of kill, whatever plane/side they will pick. I believe this point is "historical" too... as it is by far not the case for the big majority of us.

S~!
Takata.

ImpStarDuece
10-08-2005, 06:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:


like all other props - the 109 got torque , but it's like the "willingness to stall" is the same as v3.04 & the main fighters that get put up in DF against 109's became harder to control flying on the limit

Spitfires especially

Kufurst said the wing twist was worse on the Spitfire & its been said at this forum that the Spitfires Elliptical wings were not the best at the stall limit -- but that goes against BoB pilots who said the Spitfire was very forgiving leading up to the stall & that the wing tips went into a slight flutter/shake just before the stall & that Spitfires gave better stall warning than the thick winged Hurricanes

but in FB the Spitfire goes into a stall nastier than the 109
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spitfire had very good qualities in a turn, especially when it comes to stalling.

This is from NACA document L-334 "Measurement of the Flying Qualities of a Spitfire VA"

Page 9;

"the Spitfire airplane had the unusual quality that allowed it to be flown in a partly stalled condition in accelerated flight without becoming laterally unstable. Violent buffeting occured, but the control stick could be pulled relatively far back without causing loss of control. With the gun ports open, lateral instability in the form of a roll occured, but not until an up-elevator deflection of ten degrees had been reached and unmistakable warning in the form of buffeting had occured...

The excellent stall warning made it easy for the pilots to rapidly approach maximum lift coefficient in a turn so long as the speed was low enough to avoid undesirably large accelerations at maximum lift coefficient.

The excellent stall warning possesed by the Spitfire was obtained at the expense of a high maximum lift coefficient. The maximum lift coefficient in accelerated flight was 1.21, while the average lift coefficient through a stalled turn was usually about 1.10.

In turns at speeds high enough to prevent reaching maximum lift coefficient because of the excessive accelorations involved, the small static longitudinal stability of the Spitfire caused undue sensitivity of the normal acceleration to small movements of the stick.... it was necessary for the pilot to pull back the stick then ease it owards almost to its original position in order to enter a turn rapidly without overshooting the desired normal acceleration. Although this procedure appears to come naturally to a skillful pilot, flight records from other airplanes show that a turn may be entered rapidly and the desired normal acceleration may be held constant by a single rearward motion of the stick provided the stability of an airplane is sufficiently large."


The Spitfire had a large buffet warning in stalled flight, but tended to drop a wing and roll, probably due to asymmetries of airflow caused by the gunports. It could be flown in a partially stalled condition in accelerated flight.

carguy_
10-08-2005, 06:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Takata_:
That's a fair comment and a lot of dedicated "blue drivers" should listen it: most of them are not taking enough time to fly opponent's plane in combat and, as a result, what they are "feeling" about opposition is just wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well,you`re not posting any data so I can tell you how it "feels".Spitfire is certainly nasty at stall department since the wing flips violently and it takes time to recognize the situation and counter it.
In a Bf109 wing flips violently too but wings give really alot warning before stall occures.Spitfire has great control but it has no warning IMO.

And no,I think it requires for most allied heoe pilots to examine the 109 closer because the Bf109 is being attacked since the very start of the game.People who don`t know how to fly because all they flown was La,then Spitfire.For an experienced 109 pilot Spifire,Lavochkin and Mustang are better then the 109 because simply the pilot can fly it to the envelope.
Some red pilot tries to take a 109 for a spin sees that it is hard to stall,comes here and brags how uber it is.But the fact that the warning you get before the stall is TOTALLY IGNORED.

If you`re saying that 109 is overmodelled,why don`t you examine the plane closer,fly it for a few weeks?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Before AEP, I was myself a dedicated Yak/La player but from AEP release and the introduction of more US planes, I spent most of my time online flying everything, either in blue and red side. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite a coincidince here.Yaks and Las were vastly overmodelled before AEP got patched.
A typical red pilot experience.Flying overmodelled red planes,then you get on a very well modelled RAF/USAAF plane and the whining begins.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">AEP (and following) was a kind of turning point with FMs' as well as the online dogfights tactics. From this time, the 109 tactics changed radically and the same 109 guys I saw previously flying high and carefully started to enter the low stall fight with Spits when they realised they would won it most of the time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


AEP pretty much ubered the 109 to a silly extent.The plane felt like it had half of the wingloading.Patched AEP and PF did a great change.Modelled stalls more accurately.As a result the plane like the Bf109(and all slat planes) have far bigger possibilities to get the most out of them since before the stall you have LOTS of warning.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">By this time, the Western front game became the opposite of the eastern one: a majority of low figths dominated by blue side. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spitfire dominates totally below 4500m.Vb is weak but IX dominate.Although if you go into a stall fight with a 109,you lose.This has been agreed upon long ago.
P51 and P47 shine above 5000m,dominate above 6000m.P38 is able to fight above 3000m.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">On the other hand, as the late Bf109 recieved another boost for high speed handling (elevators) and, because the US planes are vastly outgunned, the medium/high altitude fight is mostly dominated by Foke Wulf and Bf109 too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In AEP 109 elevator was overmodelled above 400km/h.Presently it stiffens to the right extent over 420km/h.You will find a twice the number of LW planes up low then Spits because most Spits stay between 500m-3300m altitude,US planes don`t have much chance below 4500m.
Outgunned?You call twin Hispano and six .50cal being outgunned?!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">With the late release of late FMs', the situation is almost the same in eastern front: Russian planes are completly dominated above 3.000 m, and the low alt fight is not anymore the right place to fight with a good chance of success. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Too big of an exeggeration.Please do not state such things if you do not fly eastern front.Do you have 400 sorties in eastern front like me?
Russian planes are dominated above 5000m.Almost totally.Yaks are deadmeat for a FW190 with a speed advantage but if you encounter any Russian plane at coalt(below 5000m) there is trouble,you will dive or die.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In actual planeset 1943-45, with equal pilot quality and equal numbers, the german binome Bf109/Fw190 is both dominating the western Spit/P-51 and eastern Yak/La with a very good margin now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bf109/FW190 is the very same mix as those two above.If a Bf109/FW190 mix encounters one of those chances depend on altitude and numbers.

F19_Ob
10-08-2005, 07:41 AM
Carguy m8 don't get personally offended because someone critisizes or question the 109 abilities.

I personally don't want less turning ability in the 109's since I also have many ears of reading about it and totally belive it could keep it's own against La's and Spits.
However when comparing the torque on other less powerful planes in the sim one finds they have more torque than 109 (and other higher powered rides) I also would like the 109 (and others) to have some of it. Not to make it worse but truer ( or atleast equal to the low powered torque in game).
As example p40, Brewsters, IAR-81, p11, G50 and several others seem to have more torque than the 109, especially at slow speeds they require harder work.
The 109 was very potent in slow speeds and could climb steeply at slow speeds, but it still had troubles with the torque and they could, as any of the power rides 109, p51, spits, be thrown out of the climb when close to stall, wich was exploited by p38 drivers wich had no torque and knew the 109 couldn't follow.
In the slow speeds that the 109 excelles on the sim, it had to apply almost full rudder to stay on course, wich was the same for the p51 and spit.
In the sim one can hang in the prop close to stall speed with no tendency to be thrown out of the climb.
This goes for La5Fn aswell.

If underpowered rides get the effects of torque as I wrote in my first post I think it would be fair for the high powered planes to have some aswell (note not only the 109, but spits ,p51, La5-7, yak3 and so on. )

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

The 109 elevator problem.
I have no issue whatsoever with its turning capabilities, but I would expect the 109, spit and some others to freeze up in elevator in high speed the same way as the Hurricane do in even moderate speeds compared to these above mentioned.

The 109 have some small tendencies to freese in highest speed but far to little compared to littereature, as do the spit.
so again , not at all only a problem for the 109. I guess that is important to include.

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

GR142-Pipper
10-08-2005, 01:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
In the very little I've read about stall speed, there seems to be some controversy about what 'stall' really is, when it starts exactly, and how it's not easy to precisely define it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It's very easy to define it. It's simply when there isn't enough airflow over a wing to keep the aircraft flying. Some aircraft drop a wing (because one wing stalls a bit earlier than the other) while others don't. If it's a power-on stall, the stall speed can be lower. Regardless, defining a stall is a very known matter.

GR142-Pipper

Buzzsaw-
10-08-2005, 02:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

1. Stall [in level flight]

In level flight with the engine on idle, the plane starts stalling at 240-250km/h speed, deploying the slats at the same time. The plane holds its ATTITUDE and is controllable during the stall.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:

This refers to a beginning of stall...

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. Using the FAA definition which Max is so fond of, it refers to the point at which the aircraft begins to lose altitude.

Now look at the IL-2 109G2. At zero throttle, does it start to lose altitude at 240/250 kph? Do the slats open at that speed?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:

The next chapter says that the stall occurs with 175 km/h BUT with full power IT IS 130-140 km/H!!!

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All aircraft should stall at lower speeds with full throttle than they do at idle. In any case, we are not talking about full power, we are discussing idle speed stall. The stall at 175 kph occur at idle power.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:

Quite funny that you hang on the higher figures and ignore the rest.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not correct, I posted all of the information regarding speeds in the Finnish test in complete form on the SimHQ thread, including the lower speeds. The reason I only mentioned the 240/250 kph onset of stall speed here is that MaxGunz had already referred to the lower speed, while excluding mention of the onset speed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:

This is very much in harmony with Eric Brown who says that the stall occured at 105 mph (168 km/h), preceeded by elevator buffeting and opening of the slats about 30 km/h above the speed.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the Eric Brown quote. It reinforces my argument. Now again, I ask: Does this resemble the behaviour of the aircraft in IL-2?

In fact, not. The G2 starts to lose altitude at about 150 kph, and departs at 130/140 kph.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:

So be so kind and use the correct figures of the _actual_ stall speed, since you're spreading your selective reading around the aviation forums.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My comments were not selective. I have presented all the data relating to the 109's stall that I have been able to acquire. That would not seem to be the case with yourself. You have obviously had the Finnish test for some time now, having posted original tables from it on several threads. Why then did you not post the data regarding stalls in the earlier threads on this subject I posted on this board? Perhaps because the 240/250 and 170 kph figures do not reflect well on the way the game aircraft performs?

p1ngu666
10-08-2005, 02:13 PM
ob, the spit didnt freeze up at highspeed, atleast from what ive read. some stiffing obivous tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

same with the hurri, stiffens up too easily and early imo

Ugly_Kid
10-08-2005, 03:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Exactly. Using the FAA definition which Max is so fond of, it refers to the point at which the aircraft begins to lose altitude.

Now look at the IL-2 109G2. At zero throttle, does it start to lose altitude at 240/250 kph? Do the slats open at that speed?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it says zero, zilch, nada about loosing altitude, that's your very own fabrication. The actual departure occurs at the lower speed. It seems you haven't flown a real aircraft.

Takata_
10-08-2005, 04:21 PM
S~ Carguy,

I think you should read me first down to the end before quoting me:

1. I'm not such a dedicated "red" whiner (anymore...)
2. I flew the 109 for few hours, days, weeks (and month...)
3. Yes sorry, I respectufully apologise for the time I was flying "vastly overmodelled Yaks' and Las'" but for my own defence, I may confess to you that I've never been able to shoot you down, nor any of your good friends (or maybe once... or twice... be sure, it was the plane, I vastly agree).

4. I'm not fighting by mail (I can't fly any Spit to the enveloppe without being stamped "red whiner")

5. You are fully allowed to disagree with me, beside being such an objective ace (and me, such a biased noobish whiner...)

6. Sorry again, I'm wrong about Luftwaffe firepower. I didn't remember the way it works (you are right, 6 + 2 is better than few...)

7. My bad, I should have calculated first my "number of sortie" (on each front?) before stating anything about the relative performance of opposite fighters. What the hell are you calling a sortie? (about hours I spent online, you may count an average of 4-5 hrs per day during 30+ month or so and divide it by 0.59 East, 0.04 Pacific and 0.37 West. Then, you take the number of flyable per front, substract the bombers and jets, count Yaks/Las/P-47 twice each, divide the whole stuff by phi and you've got the circonference of my girlfriend's boobs)

S~
Takata.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Takata_:
That's a fair comment and a lot of dedicated "blue drivers" should listen it: most of them are not taking enough time to fly opponent's plane in combat and, as a result, what they are "feeling" about opposition is just wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well,you`re not posting any data so I can tell you how it "feels".Spitfire is certainly nasty at stall department since the wing flips violently and it takes time to recognize the situation and counter it.
In a Bf109 wing flips violently too but wings give really alot warning before stall occures.Spitfire has great control but it has no warning IMO.

And no,I think it requires for most allied heoe pilots to examine the 109 closer because the Bf109 is being attacked since the very start of the game.People who don`t know how to fly because all they flown was La,then Spitfire.For an experienced 109 pilot Spifire,Lavochkin and Mustang are better then the 109 because simply the pilot can fly it to the envelope.
Some red pilot tries to take a 109 for a spin sees that it is hard to stall,comes here and brags how uber it is.But the fact that the warning you get before the stall is TOTALLY IGNORED.

If you`re saying that 109 is overmodelled,why don`t you examine the plane closer,fly it for a few weeks?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Before AEP, I was myself a dedicated Yak/La player but from AEP release and the introduction of more US planes, I spent most of my time online flying everything, either in blue and red side. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite a coincidince here.Yaks and Las were vastly overmodelled before AEP got patched.
A typical red pilot experience.Flying overmodelled red planes,then you get on a very well modelled RAF/USAAF plane and the whining begins.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">AEP (and following) was a kind of turning point with FMs' as well as the online dogfights tactics. From this time, the 109 tactics changed radically and the same 109 guys I saw previously flying high and carefully started to enter the low stall fight with Spits when they realised they would won it most of the time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


AEP pretty much ubered the 109 to a silly extent.The plane felt like it had half of the wingloading.Patched AEP and PF did a great change.Modelled stalls more accurately.As a result the plane like the Bf109(and all slat planes) have far bigger possibilities to get the most out of them since before the stall you have LOTS of warning.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">By this time, the Western front game became the opposite of the eastern one: a majority of low figths dominated by blue side. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spitfire dominates totally below 4500m.Vb is weak but IX dominate.Although if you go into a stall fight with a 109,you lose. This has been agreed upon long ago.
P51 and P47 shine above 5000m,dominate above 6000m.P38 is able to fight above 3000m.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">On the other hand, as the late Bf109 recieved another boost for high speed handling (elevators) and, because the US planes are vastly outgunned, the medium/high altitude fight is mostly dominated by Foke Wulf and Bf109 too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In AEP 109 elevator was overmodelled above 400km/h.Presently it stiffens to the right extent over 420km/h.You will find a twice the number of LW planes up low then Spits because most Spits stay between 500m-3300m altitude,US planes don`t have much chance below 4500m.
Outgunned?You call twin Hispano and six .50cal being outgunned?!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">With the late release of late FMs', the situation is almost the same in eastern front: Russian planes are completly dominated above 3.000 m, and the low alt fight is not anymore the right place to fight with a good chance of success. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Too big of an exeggeration.Please do not state such things if you do not fly eastern front.Do you have 400 sorties in eastern front like me?
Russian planes are dominated above 5000m.Almost totally.Yaks are deadmeat for a FW190 with a speed advantage but if you encounter any Russian plane at coalt(below 5000m) there is trouble,you will dive or die.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In actual planeset 1943-45, with equal pilot quality and equal numbers, the german binome Bf109/Fw190 is both dominating the western Spit/P-51 and eastern Yak/La with a very good margin now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bf109/FW190 is the very same mix as those two above.If a Bf109/FW190 mix encounters one of those chances depend on altitude and numbers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

F19_Ob
10-08-2005, 05:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
ob, the spit didnt freeze up at highspeed, atleast from what ive read. some stiffing obivous tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

same with the hurri, stiffens up too easily and early imo </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right m8. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
I was perhaps too generalizing in grouping the 109 and spit.
What I ment was that these planes and some others need more stiffening in the elevator at highest speeds, and the 109 should be even harder.
In the highest speeds trim was required to get it to turn.(according to Finnish and German pilots)

I also want to add that I belive these kinds of tunings must be very difficult, change one thing and it may lead to other , unwanted effects.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
10-08-2005, 08:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 WWMaxGunz:

For the Finns it rolled one way, for Southwood the other.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Salute Max

Since you've decided to discuss the Finnish report, something which you refused to do the last time this issue was discussed on the SimHQ boards, maybe you'd like to explain this part of the report on the G2 and how that compares to the game version:

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

1. Stall [in level flight]

In level flight with the engine on idle, the plane starts stalling at 240-250km/h speed, deploying the slats at the same time. The plane holds its ATTITUDE and is controllable during the stall.

In landing condition the stall begins at 200-210km/h speed, the plane is stable in this case as well.

&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

By the way, for those new the discussion:

This is not just about 109.

The issue is SLAT equipped aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that all the slat equipped planes have not only extra AOA but extra stability
that frankly I don't find discussed on any aero sites, slats as stability enhancers.

As far as the 109 holding its attitude then the nose did not drop for them when those
slats deployed. But when the slats deployed, the plane should have been able to pull
a few more degrees AOA once they were out -- the pilot should have been able to increase
pitch and held altitude while the speed bled off a little more. From the text, the pilot
just held the pitch where it was.

Isn't roll part of the planes attitude? I wonder if attitude is correct word translated
or if pitch should be the word. Someone good at Finnish could say. Because if a wing
drops then attitude has changed whether pitch does or not. Or the wing could drop later
even soon later.

The plane can lose alt while holding pitch or attitude as well, something several pilots
here and elsewhere have described.

Stall is a region of flight where AOA is at or more than critical, where the peak lift
is obtained and then lost, and where drag increases more and more even while lift decreases.
You can depart flight while stalled and technically then one or more wings can be stalled,
but that is not immediate nor is it integral to the stall condition.

Ya want better than that, try NonWonderDog, Blotto, Oryx, or quite a few others here that
have already posted about these things. They know it +all+ better than I may ever do.

WWMaxGunz
10-08-2005, 08:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
The next chapter says that the stall occurs with 175 km/h BUT with full power IT IS 130-140 km/H!!!The plane hangs in 60? attitude from prop! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is exremely interesting to me as I have not been sure how under power I should be able
to get such very lowspeed performance.

Do you know, is it just some planes?

And can you put some light on this whole thing, power and flight at lowspeed?
Like should I be able to bank the La5FN over 60 or 70 degrees and proceed to make a shallow
spiral climb at say, 190kph?

GR142-Pipper
10-08-2005, 09:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Takata_:
...Then, you take the number of flyable per front, substract the bombers and jets, count Yaks/Las/P-47 twice each, divide the whole stuff by phi and you've got the circonference of my girlfriend's boobs) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, the only test result that really matters. S! Tak.

GR142-Pipper

WWMaxGunz
10-08-2005, 09:07 PM
Perhaps a picture for demonstration purposes?

Buzzsaw-
10-08-2005, 09:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:

No, it says zero, zilch, nada about loosing altitude, that's your very own fabrication. The actual departure occurs at the lower speed.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe you'd like to point out the fabrication? The translation was done by a Finn, who has spent quite a bit of time in the U.S. studying at a University, and whose English/Finnish skills are excellent.

What the translation says is quite clear. I will quote in whole form:

"1. Stall [in level flight]
In level flight with the engine on idle, the plane STARTS STALLING at 240-250km/h speed, deploying the slats at the same time. The plane holds its attitude and is controllable during the stall. In landing condition the stall begins at 200-210km/h speed, the plane is stable in this case as well.

2. Pulling into a stall [using the elevator]
With the engine on idle, the plane can be pulled through into a stall at 175km/h. With full throttle [1.31ata] the speed is 130-140km/h. In the latter case the plane is hanging on its prop at an approximately 60 degree angle. The plane announces the approaching stall by a slight tremble. If
the pull [of the stick] is tightened, the left wing and nose start to sink and the plane drops into a dive, shaking. If the pilot reduces the pull, the plane is controllable again. In landing condition the speed is 155 km/h."

The translation clearly notes that stall begins at 240/250 kph. It also notes that the slats open.

If you bothered to do some study of the function of slats, you'd understand that they do not deploy until a stall has already begun, and that their function is to delay stall at the wingtips.

NACA did a detailed examination of stalling behaviour and the factors which influence it in this report:

http://img321.imageshack.us/img321/3861/titlepage8lm.jpg

Aircraft are designed so that stalls begin on the inboard sections of the wing, and move outwards, this is done by creating a downward twist in the wing, called 'washout'.

Stall typically occurs in the type of pattern seen in these diagrams from the above report:

http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/7543/stallprogression6ot.jpg

The last section of the wing to stall are the tips, so the pilot retains control of his ailerons and thus control of the aircraft up to the last moments before complete stall.

Slats, as they are installed on WWII aircraft, are a means to delay the onset of stall on the wingtips. Slats only affect the area of the wing directly behind where they are installed.

From the same report:

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/9418/slatfunction5vv.jpg

In the following diagram, you can see the effects of slats on stall, this time on a Me-163 type of wing design:

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/811/stallprogressionslats5gj.jpg

You can see the rest of the wings are stalled, but the area behind the slats is not. If slats are deploying, wing stall is already underway.

Slats do not indefinitely prevent a stall from developing, they delay it, and only in the area behind where they are installed. The NACA report noted a 9% improvement in the lift coefficient of the aircraft with slats installed as opposed to one without:

http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/6247/slatbenefit9ow.jpg

I provided this detailed examination, because I wanted to illustrate the fact that if the Finnish pilot saw his slats deploying, (in an idle speed level flight mode), at 240/250 kph, then his aircraft is beginning to stall, and thus to lose altitude.

The above material relates to power off stalls. Power on stall behaviour is different, due to the effects of propellor slipstream causing asymetrical stalling patterns on the wings.

TX-EcoDragon
10-08-2005, 10:21 PM
I agree that the roll authority at and beyond the critical angle of attack is too great in all planes in the sim, in particular those with slats. I also agree that some aircraft have gotten less of the new torque modeling than others of similar design have. However, what I see as the real problem in this aspect of the sim FM is the lack of adverse yaw and the underlying physics behind it. Adverse yaw is the product of asymmetric lift generation on each wing of an aircraft, ie the effects of aileron input that roll and aircraft. If you think of each wing individually it's clear that as a pilot rolls, say, to the left, the aileron of the left wing moves upwards, and reduces the angle of attack and lift on that wing, the right wing with the dropping aileron experiences an increase in the angle of attack, and an increase in drag as it generates an increase in lift. The resultant aircraft behavior is that the nose swings away from the direction you are rolling because the outer wing experiences higher drag than the inner wing. . . canceling this yaw outside of the turn using the rudder is what is known as maintaining coordinated flight. This is an important aspect of generating a realistic FM for the reasons already mentioned, but it also has some significance when we are talking about stalls as well. These rules of course still apply near the stall. Imagine flying just above the critical angle of attack (such as when flying level near the stall speed. Both wings are just below the critical angle of attack but now if we give any aileron input one wing experiences a localized increase in drag and angle of attack (on the wing with the low aileron), and the other experiences a decrease in drag and angle of attack (on the wing with the rising aileron). . . and given that we had been just above the stall angle of attack the wing with low aileron will stall while the other wing will move farther away from the stall angle of attack. In short, the pilot inputs a command to roll the aircraft left, but instead it will roll right. Given this phenomenon it is important that pilots learn to use rudder to control the bank attitude at and post stall and generally avoids any aileron input at all. In the sim aileron works normally no matter how deep the stall, and the win with the dropping aileron will not drop as it should when aileron input is fed in at and beyond the stall. If proper techniques are used, i.e., if rudder inputs are used to attempt to maintain wings level, or to prevent a wing from dropping the effect is less than desirable (rudder inputs destabilize the sim aircraft), in particular compared to the effect that aileron inputs have which allow the pilot to simply roll away from the dropping wing. Because of this, maneuverability in the sim is higher than it should be at the critical angle of attack when using ailerons conventionally (ignoring dynamic surge techniques), proper pilot technique is not rewarded, and poor technique is not punished.

Oh and here are a few points in reply to various other posters:

It doesn't take fly by wire to do a "cobra" or similar post stall maneuvers ("3D" Flying). Factors that help these maneuvers are: aft CG, high power loading (thrust to weight), large control surface travel to transition aggressively clean through the stall angle of attack, much of the control surface should be in the propwash (if there is a prop of course), and perhaps most importantly is the training/experience of the pilot in particular with respect to the utilization of what we call dynamic surge which enables a pilot to effect attitude changes on any axis even well beyond the critical angle of attack (stall) and often at low enough speeds to hover the aircraft even while maneuvering. This aspect of aerodynamics changes the rules of flight, and can be confusing to a topic like this one. On the other hand, there are some maneuvers that people often complain about as being impossible which are in fact possible given that there are ways to bend some of the rules. Generally though the sim doesn't model this side of the FM.

When talking about stall speed we are talking about the speed at which the wing generates 1G equivalent of lift when approaching the critical angle of attack. That is the only way in which we can have a "stall speed." A wing doesn't stall at a speed. I can fly a plane at 0 Knots and not stall the wing, I can also stall it at a speed that might be three times the "stall speed". Fundamentally, stall is exceeding the critical angle of attack, and most basically it means that the current G state can not be maintained, thusly there is really not multiple ways to identify a 1G stall. There is only one that is always true for a power off stall, and that is the inability of the aircraft to maintain 1G, in other words, the inability to maintain altitude. An aircraft can stall without a wing drop in particular with a skilled pilot at the controls, it can stall without the nose dropping depenidng on design or loading, it can stall and be in control of the pilot, etc etc. . . it can not stall at one G and maintain altitude. . .bottom line. Additionally, as G on the wing decreases below 1G the stall speed decreases as well, until the wing in effect has no stall speed whatsoever. . . and example is the hammerhead turn in which the wings are held in the zero lift attitude with 0G on them, and as such are never stalled even though the aircraft may have zero forward airspeed.

Slats and leading edge cuffs do in fact increase stability on the roll axis as they can delay separation of the airflow over the ailerons and outboard portions of the wing by, in effect, creating a different airfoil over that section of wing, and one that is optimized for slower speed flying than is the rest of the wing's airfoil. As you probably know, it is desirable for the wing to stall initially at the root of the wing and move forwards and towards the tips as it develops, this is why washout is designed into wings (so the root experiences a higher angle of attack than do the wing tips). As such a stall will start to develop and roll control may be initially retained until the stall deepens, even in those aircraft without cuffs/slats. Like all aspects of design, there is a balance to be achieved and for this reason washout is limited to only a few degrees of twist in the wing, as this leads to a decrease in efficiency of the wing. The cuffs on the other hand will increase the roll authority much like washout does, but it can do it without a higher speed/ low angle of attack performance penalty. Remove the slats or leading edge cuff and the critical angle of attack will reward aileron inputs with aileron reversal more rapidly. ( as posted earlier, since the pilot attempts to lift a wing with a drooping aileron the pilot is also increasing angle of attack of that wing, as such the will not rise as commanded, but will stall, and drop). For an example of the use of leading edge modifications specially designed to provide roll stability, aileron authority (without reversal), and spin resistance, even when in a fully developed stall, see the Cirrus SR 20 and 22, as well as the Lancair Columbia 300 and 400 series aircraft

Here are a couple pics of this:

http://www.lancair-builders.com/photopost/showphoto.php...ort=1&cat=all&page=1 (http://www.lancair-builders.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=573&amp;password=&amp;sort=1&amp;cat=all&amp;p age=1)

(scroll down and look at the outboard portions of the wing leading edges)
http://www.lancairpilots.org/article.php?story=20041011164739694&mode=print (http://www.lancairpilots.org/article.php?story=20041011164739694&amp;mode=print)

WWMaxGunz
10-08-2005, 10:26 PM
EDIT: reply to Buzzsaw, not EcoDragon. END EDIT

109 slats are tip slats?

Slats as in the general type of slats allow the wing to use a higher AOA.

Many planes use slats or slots to increase CLmax of the wings.

Didn't Rall say that 109 slats are about 2 meters long? Each?
Total wingspan is under 10 meters, some room for fuselage, tip slats, tips 2 meters???

http://142.26.194.131/aerodynamics1/controls/Page5.html

109 needed slats for lowspeed flight including takeoff and landing. The wings are
narrow and without slats the stall speed would be too high. Planes with wider wings
don't usually need the things but there are other tradeoffs like drag always for those.

109 slats did lower the stall speed when they were deployed. That was what they were
for. For what plane did that last NACA bit get the 9% improvement with slats over the
same plane with slats removed? Why don't you show the complete article, btw, as you
would demand of K? Is there a coin with his head on one side and yours on the other?

================================================== =====================================
How about someone else without a special goal in mind post 109-specific data?
I'd trust Ugly Kid on this in a heartbeat......

TX-EcoDragon
10-08-2005, 10:45 PM
Buzzsaw, the issue with the statement that the stall onset is at 250 is one of semantics, and perhaps poor observation/phraseology by the pilot who reported it, or maybe instrument error. Many aircraft will start to buffet well in advance of a stall or in certain configurations, this isn't however the same as a stall, even if someone calls it a pre-stall buffet(and I€d bet that the 109 isn€t in a pre-stall buffet at 250!). You could stay that a stall begins as a wing begins generating lift since the angle of attack must increase to do so, and as such it is moving towards a stall, that's obviously not correct though, and neither is it correct to say that the 109 is in an incipient stall at 250 kph all the way down through 175 kph. Slat deployment is also not a measure of the onset of a stall, the point at which they deploy is a matter of design. Ideally they won't deploy at AOA lower than that which they provide a benefit, but they certainly CAN deploy at lower AOA. I know two pilots who own 109s, I'll ask them what speed their slats deploy in level 1G flight. . . it would be interesting to see if it's more or less the same for each.

Buzzsaw-
10-08-2005, 10:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

109 slats are tip slats?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

By wingtip I mean outer portion of the wing. Anyone who plays the game knows the slats are located on the outer 1/2 of the wing, close to the tip, and that is what they affect.

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/7315/g2toplate6lx.jpg

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

Slats as in the general type of slats allow the wing to use a higher AOA.

Many planes use slats or slots to increase CLmax of the wings.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes to both, as is already mentioned in the NACA excerpts I posted.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

For what plane did that last NACA bit get the 9% improvement with slats over the
same plane with slats removed?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It looks like a Me-163 copy. The tests were done with full scale models in the NACA windtunnel. The slats on that aircraft affected a larger proportion of the wing area than the ones on the 109, so it is unlikely that the 109 would see as much of a CL Max increase.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

Why don't you show the complete article, btw, as you
would demand of K? Is there a coin with his head on one side and yours on the other?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, unlike posters like Isegrim/Kurfurst or Ugly Kid, who won't post material which they have, I'd be happy to supply the entire report to anyone who PM's me. I will be out of the loop for the next two days due to the fact it is the Thanksgiving long weekend in Canada and I'm visiting the relatives, but will send material on Tuesday. People should be aware it is a large report and will take time to download by their e-mail.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

How about someone else without a special goal in mind post 109-specific data?
I'd trust Ugly Kid on this in a heartbeat......

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Presumably that was a joke. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Buzzsaw-
10-08-2005, 11:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TX-EcoDragon:

Buzzsaw, the issue with the statement that the stall onset is at 250 is one of semantics...

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's a certain irony in your comment... However, MaxGunz is the one who insists on evaluating the words in all pilot reports EXACTLY on the basis of the official FAA definitions.

This happens to cut both ways. In the past, when examining the comments by Dave Southwood regarding the stall behaviour of the 109G2 Warbird "Black Six", Max insisted that pilot's words must be taken in exact context with FAA definitions.

So your comment suggesting that the Finnish pilot "didn't really" mean Stall, when he said Stall, is something which I am going to have to take with a grain of salt.

The whole issue in this discussion is what point the aircraft should begin to lose altitude and what point it should depart control.

We have two pilot accounts re. the 109G2 which note the aircraft losing altitude and control at speeds which are considerably higher than what we see in the game.

Which suggests that something is wrong with the modelling of the 109's. (and there is evidence that the other slat equipped aircraft such as the La-5's/La-7's are also modelled incorrectly and that this has resulted by compensation in the overmodelling of the Spitfires)

WWMaxGunz
10-08-2005, 11:17 PM
Dave Southwood tells of the stall in one sentence.
He gives us the Stall Speed in another.
There is nothing wrong with his words or the use he puts them to.

OTOH someone who insists that he can determine Stall Speed as the speed at which a wing
drops even while the plane is losing alt is definitely making up his own rules.

Keep on making your own interpretations Buzz. It don't make you right.

It's a SIM, the speed won't be perfect but 250kph? And best climb is at how fast?

Try this one... what is the TAKEOFF SPEED?

ElAurens
10-08-2005, 11:51 PM
I'm not going to get into the stall definition debate here, but I do wish to comment on the torque (or lack of it) issue in reference to the Bf 109 series.

To do this I will suggest a little comparison flight. First, take off in a Aichi D3A Val. A large, heavy, big winged dive bomber. Notice the very pronounced torque effects. Now, take off in a Bf 109 G series. A light, short span, small airframe, high powered, nimble fighter. Notice any torque? Anything like the Val? Nope, not at all. The Bf 109 series aircraft should be very difficult to handle on the ground and take off or land in because of a very pronounced P factor. This torque effect should be present throughout the 109's flight envelope.

It's simple physics. And in this version of the sim it is flat wrong.

The 109 should be an expert's ride, currently it's a n00b plane.

Now add in the incorrect stall behaviour of all slat equipped aircraft and you have a clown car.

Be sure.

Buzzsaw-
10-08-2005, 11:58 PM
Let's have those words again in their complete form.

Dave Southwood on "Flying Black Six"

(original 109G2 with no Guns or ammunition loaded, ie. 200 kgs lighter than combat G2)

"Stalling warning is a slight wing rock with the stick floating right by about 2 inches. This occurs 10klph before the stall. The stall itself is a left wing drop through about 15 degrees with a slight nose drop, accompanied by a light buffet. All controls are effective up to the stall, and recovery is instant on moving the stick forward. Stall speeds are 155kph clean and 140kph with gear and flap down."

Finnish Report on 109G2 MT-215

"1. Stall [in level flight]
In level flight with the engine on idle, the plane STARTS STALLING at 240-250km/h speed, deploying the slats at the same time. The plane holds its attitude and is controllable during the stall. In landing condition the stall begins at 200-210km/h speed, the plane is stable in this case as well.

2. Pulling into a stall [using the elevator]
With the engine on idle, the plane can be pulled through into a stall at 175km/h. With full throttle [1.31ata] the speed is 130-140km/h. In the latter case the plane is hanging on its prop at an approximately 60 degree angle. The plane announces the approaching stall by a slight tremble. If
the pull [of the stick] is tightened, the left wing and nose start to sink and the plane drops into a dive, shaking. If the pilot reduces the pull, the plane is controllable again. In landing condition the speed is 155 km/h."

In the game, in clean condition, the 109G2 starts to lose altitude at 150 kph, and departs at 130/140 kph. Does this sound like the same aircraft?

Ugly_Kid
10-09-2005, 12:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Ugly_Kid:

No, it says zero, zilch, nada about loosing altitude, that's your very own fabrication. The actual departure occurs at the lower speed.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe you'd like to point out the fabrication? The translation was done by a Finn, who has spent quite a bit of time in the U.S. studying at a University, and whose English/Finnish skills are excellent.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gladly, the pilot is using older terminology from the era. Your fabrication is the phrase "loosing altitude" already at the given higher speed, he's not saying it - you're assuming it, wrongly.Perhaps if you repeat it few times more someone might think that it was actually said, eh?

Not to criticize Camo's translation, all glory to a guy bothers and you seem to be the only one coming out with a weird way of reading.


Kokko's using words (titels of the chapter):
1. Sakkaus
2. Yliveto

It doesn't say:
1. Stall [in level flight]
2. Pulling into a stall [using the elevator]

the points in the brackets are Camo's addition and not really correct (Sry Camo http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).

Everybody else seems to be able to read it correctly but I do you a personal service:

Literal translation is:
1. Stall
2. Departure (word:yliveto is not used today)

whereas he's talking with the terminology of 40s , additionally we may talk about his literal talent as an author of a technical document, he' saying:
1. Approaching Stall
2. Departure into the Stall (or simply Stall)

Alternatively you can just delete the second title, that's how Kokko could have written it. He wanted obviously to make a separate point of approaching the stall and how it can be recognized so that the people reaching the stall know about the warning. The second chapter is then a description of what really happens if you inspite of the warning go and actually stall the aircraft.

Now this is splitting the hairs, frankly. People with flying experience and some knowledge about flying know what he means. You purposedly seem to be on another track(again).

EcoDragon says it actually all in his second mail I agree 100% and frankly I just heartily recommend to try once to keep your cob shut try to read and try to learn. Then this forum indeed has some use.

You're just showing p1ss poor judgement all over the board all the time explaining your father how to conceive.

Ugly_Kid
10-09-2005, 12:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
This is exremely interesting to me as I have not been sure how under power I should be able
to get such very lowspeed performance.

Do you know, is it just some planes?

And can you put some light on this whole thing, power and flight at lowspeed?
Like should I be able to bank the La5FN over 60 or 70 degrees and proceed to make a shallow
spiral climb at say, 190kph? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find it also very interesting. I talked with Oryx about it long time ago and we sort of concluded it being a feature in prop planes featuring a pulling prop. Probably only in propplanes featuring a very high propwash/power, so most likely in this extent a very own Warplane feature. The NACA report, which Buzzsaw is so fondly quoting provides also some measurements of it.

There are probably several factors. First is probably the propwash itself providing wing root still a sufficient flow. Another one is simply part of the thrust vector that points down at higher AoA. Another interesting factor could be the prop itself creating a circulation: the airflow enters the prop at a given angle and it is "turned" while going through this. This creates a phenomenom similar to a wingprofile -&gt; lift.

I am not sure about the La-5FN question, probably you get a benefit but I am not sure whether you can manouver that much. I recall seeing a chart where this factor is dropping with gees. Also yawing or another change may result in a sudden loss of this effect...

I think this is pretty much what we are seeing in the game. The stall is much improved from the previous versions - I personally still don't think it as good as in some other games, TW i.e. but that's just my opinion.

This said, once you think about the previous versions and the previous vehemant insistence of a certain person about the stall behaviour back then. The same discussion again - you can just grin and take another beer.

GR142-Pipper
10-09-2005, 01:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TX-EcoDragon:
Given this phenomenon it is important that pilots learn to use rudder to control the bank attitude at and post stall and generally avoids any aileron input at all. In the sim aileron works normally no matter how deep the stall, and the win with the dropping aileron will not drop as it should when aileron input is fed in at and beyond the stall. If proper techniques are used, i.e., if rudder inputs are used to attempt to maintain wings level, or to prevent a wing from dropping the effect is less than desirable (rudder inputs destabilize the sim aircraft), in particular compared to the effect that aileron inputs have which allow the pilot to simply roll away from the dropping wing. Because of this, maneuverability in the sim is higher than it should be at the critical angle of attack when using ailerons conventionally (ignoring dynamic surge techniques), proper pilot technique is not rewarded, and poor technique is not punished. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>If this situation was modeled into the game, you could cross control the ailerons at high AOA while directional control was maintained with the rudder. If the aileron cross controlling is done correctly, smoothly and the control input held only briefly, it will allow you to pivot the aircraft on the wing of choice. What's happening is that the aircraft is really placed in a controlled departure with control input being removed shortly after the nose begins to swing to the desired side. However, if these control inputs are held for even a little too long the situation will rapidly proceed from a controlled departure/pivot to an uncontrolled departure and will place the aircraft at the doorstep of a spin situation. One has to be VERY ginger on the controls to be effective with this maneuver...but if done correctly it is a handy skill to have in your bag of tricks.

GR142-Pipper

Ugly_Kid
10-09-2005, 01:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
If this situation was modeled into the game, you could cross control the ailerons at high AOA while directional control was maintained with the rudder. If the aileron cross controlling is done correctly, smoothly and the control input held only briefly, it will allow you to pivot the aircraft on the wing of choice. What's happening is that the aircraft is really placed in a controlled departure with control input being removed shortly after the nose begins to swing to the desired side. However, if these control inputs are held for even a little too long the situation will rapidly proceed from a controlled departure/pivot to an uncontrolled departure and will place the aircraft at the doorstep of a spin situation. One has to be VERY ginger on the controls to be effective with this maneuver...but if done correctly it is a handy skill to have in your bag of tricks.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, really snappy hammerheads seem to be next to impossible.

WWMaxGunz
10-09-2005, 02:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Like should I be able to bank the La5FN over 60 or 70 degrees and proceed to make a shallow
spiral climb at say, 190kph? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not sure about the La-5FN question, probably you get a benefit but I am not sure whether you can manouver that much. I recall seeing a chart where this factor is dropping with gees. Also yawing or another change may result in a sudden loss of this effect... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's just something I did when looking at what someone else described. It struck me as
possibly wrong that I should be able to do it, hold such a high bank and hard turn at
below 200 kph, very close to power off 1g stall and actually climb instead of losing alt.
I expected it was possible if losing alt and wanted to see how much but instead climbed.
Yet if stall with power appx 100% should be much lower then ... well I'm not sure as I
don't know how much lower the stall with wings flat should be but hey the cos of that
bank angle easily 60 deg is only 1/2 the lift.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think this is pretty much what we are seeing in the game. The stall is much improved from the previous versions - I personally still don't think it as good as in some other games, TW i.e. but that's just my opinion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It occurs to me that there is another explanation for full power extremely low stall
speed -- if the plane is flying the back side of the curve and got there by steady nosing
up while steady power increase. At some point when there is no more power to add, nose
up more and alt in lost. Recover by nose down, never need to notice control reverse and
fill in the report as full power stall speed. Maybe?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This said, once you think about the previous versions and the previous vehemant insistence of a certain person about the stall behaviour back then. The same discussion again - you can just grin and take another beer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I laugh but then some time later I see the same losing mess being foisted back again.
You remember the first time around when FAA/EAA definitions were dismissed as "theory"?
He does his peculiar kind of reading, thinks himself into a circle and gets convinced
he has the full truth based on what? Interpretation of very little from hand picked
accounts and certainly not having anything to do with volumes of actual aero-science.
Truely he does the methods of Aristotle credit! And we do know what those did for the
advancement of knowledge... screwed it right into the ground for what, 1000 years?

Ugly_Kid
10-09-2005, 03:12 AM
Yeah, it's like explaining a Jesuit the evolution http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I recall a story from middle age where prevailing philosophy was that everything has to be solved by logic and debate. Monks of an abbey had been pondering like weeks or something about a question how many teeth a horse has...They tried to approach the problem on the basis that human has this many and a donkey that many so horse can have this or that...Well, they got a new novice who then heard of the debate and asked the monks why they just simply don't count the teeth...The monks were laughing at his lack of knowledge and immaturity http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

VVS-Manuc
10-09-2005, 03:50 AM
useless academic discussion. Just say: Me 109 is overmodelled !

Kwiatos
10-09-2005, 04:14 AM
See that Finns reported deploying slats at 240/250 km/h when engine on idle and plane at these speed dont losse alt yet. Next they reported power off stall when plane drop nose and wing (stall) at 175 km/h in plane at combat weight. Accordind to test in Black Six G-2 at power-off drop nose and wing at 155 km/h (non combat weight). So we have:
Finn G-2 combat weight clean - 175 km/h
lnd confg - 155 km/h

Black Six G-2 noncombat weight clean - 155 km/h
lnd conf - 140 km/h

So if we know that stall speed of plane depends of its weight (if weight raise stallspeed raise too) these test and reports sound resonable for me.

In game G-2 have the lowest stall speed of any 109 version. Its totally nonsense. The lowest stall speed should have Bf 109 E then F then G-2, G-6 etc. In game G-2 drop wing and nose at speed 130/140 IAS at idle engine which is too low. Next variants from G-6 to K-4 stall (wing drop and nose drop) at the same speed - 140/150 km/h which is also incorrect and much too low.
Bf 109 is not only plane in game which have too low stall speed - LA5 familly probably have the same problem.

Too much low stall speed, lack of stall at full stick deflection in turn, nonexist acceleration stall, too low torque effect cause that planes like Bf 109, LA series and others with slots are too easy to fly and fight. Dont need required attention from pilot in manouvers and other phases. I miss here little from old Il2 Sturmovik stall/spin area where pilot mut care about speed and stick deflection in manouvers to prevent stall ( in old il2 was possible inverted spin which is not possible in PF).

Takata_
10-09-2005, 08:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Takata_:
...Then, you take the number of flyable per front, substract the bombers and jets, count Yaks/Las/P-47 twice each, divide the whole stuff by phi and you've got the circonference of my girlfriend's boobs) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, the only test result that really matters. S! Tak.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

S~! Pipper,
Jennifer just read what you wrote. Now, she will hate you even more than before (is it possible?). In short, Pipper = Devil's tail. About what I post, she's furious and whine that she's not overmodelled on any department. And blue is a nicer color than red.
... tsss!
Now she's playing XIII.

Tak.

Chadburn
10-09-2005, 08:38 AM
Wasted four-pages-of-space-troll on the eve of a new patch.

Belongs in GD with all the other whines.

ElAurens
10-09-2005, 09:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chadburn:
Wasted four-pages-of-space-troll on the eve of a new patch.

Belongs in GD with all the other whines. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Says the man who primarily flies the aircraft that would most be affected by a proper FM, and who belongs to a squad that tried to recruit me a couple of years ago and one of the members said he could teach me the "secrets" of the 109...

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

Chadburn
10-09-2005, 09:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chadburn:
Wasted four-pages-of-space-troll on the eve of a new patch.

Belongs in GD with all the other whines. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Says the man who primarily flies the aircraft that would most be affected by a proper FM, and who belongs to a squad that tried to recruit me a couple of years ago and one of the members said he could teach me the "secrets" of the 109...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Proper FM? You got some facts you've been holding back, or like Kwiatos, are you just "disappointed" and thought you'd let Oleg know?

Kocur_
10-09-2005, 10:46 AM
For most of 3.04 Bf109 was my fav. ride. It isnt anymore since 4.00, or to be more accurate: since I found out it can be flown carelessly in turn fight, because, like all slats equipped planes, doesnt suffer from accelerated stall. What a shame!

And more: which FM is proper late Bf109's FM: late G's or K's? There is difference in handling between G6AS/10/14 and K4, or at least was in 3.04. The difference, which didnt exist IRL, because all of them had similar wingloading - their weight was similar and wing area - the same.

Capt.LoneRanger
10-09-2005, 11:52 AM
My 2 cents

As Oleg said:

"IL2 is not 100% realistic, but it is the most realistic WW2-FlightSim out there."

I doubt these problems stated here are the only problems of IL2 as it currently is. But I also doubt that many more fixes will happen with the current capability of the flight model and the old engine, that is still a remake from the original IL2, which happens to be over 4 years old, now!

ElAurens
10-09-2005, 01:09 PM
Chadburn, I am hardly "dissapointed", perplexed is more to the truth.

Anyone who understands the historical context of these aircraft knows that the best flyers of the series are the Fs, as far as maneuverability is concerned. This is far from the case in game. As Kocur has pointed out the later models,Gs and Ks, should be much harder to fly in the turn, and they all are far too easy to handle on the ground and on takeoff or landing due to the almost total lack of torque effects on this airframe in the game.

In short the 109s (especially the later versions) have a kiddycar, n00b flight model.

I used to enjoy the F4, but now I don't even bother.

carguy_
10-09-2005, 01:18 PM
Ok, all I see is "my Spit can`t turn with a Bf109 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif" posts...again.
Aaaw bitte unm Entschuldigung!There are like 2 lines about LaGG uhuh!

Why is this a 109 discussion only.AGAIN???

WWMaxGunz
10-09-2005, 01:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:
In game G-2 have the lowest stall speed of any 109 version. Its totally nonsense. The lowest stall speed should have Bf 109 E then F then G-2, G-6 etc. In game G-2 drop wing and nose at speed 130/140 IAS at idle engine which is too low. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? Is this without loss in altitude before then?
And how do you know? Speedbar?

Please, something that dire really needs a track. I can process those too, NP. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Grey_Mouser67
10-09-2005, 02:20 PM
Why is this a 109 discussion only.AGAIN???


Because 109's have no weaknesses...which simply is not correct...they are good slow and they are good fast. They climb like crazy and dive like a brick...the roll great at all speeds...they have the most dampened controls of any aircraft in this sim. They are a rock stable gun platform with formidable weapons and exibit a titanium like pilot armor. They turn as good as anything and maintain E and have a slower stall speed than most of their contemporary enemies. The visibility issues the existed in real life do not exist in this game due to modelling and they have 30mm cannons that exibit better than rifle like accuracy. They do not pitch or yaw excessively and there is virtually no oscillation. They can turn great at all speeds now and exibit no heavyness in controls that a little trim can't fix. The plane picks up and keeps energy unbelievably fast and yet decelarates on the drop of the dime and you have a wonderful prop pitch feature that creates a wonderful advantage for those that understand how to use it.

In short, they behave like both a high wingloaded aircraft and a low wing loaded aircraft. They enjoy awesome powerloading and tremendous weapons packages including the new and improved mg151/20 and the mk108 sniper cannon...the latter with no penalty. They behave like an aircraft that is both heavily armored and one that is light in construction...the 109 has properties that overcome torque at low speed yet allow for phenominal high speed handling. Its control surfaces work great at all speeds while being cusioned from the outside forces that cause other aircraft to be jittery.

I feel better since there are few who would say these things...but bottom line is, the 109 (not all marks) are a contradiction of physics. They have no in game combat deficits...only combat assets as currently modelled...

Well I take that back...whey you are not at cruising speed and trimmed for level flight you can't go to the bathroom and come back a minute later because the plane won't fly straight with its engine at full power.

If you need proof, fly the plane and bring back to the forum something it does poorly...

Aside from the sarcasm in the above post, which I hope you all can read into it...from an online perspective, the G-6 is slow...it was in real life too but there are few servers that feature it even though it was the most produced and flown late war 109 Germany had. I think its stability in flight relative to other aircraft is way too good...but that is a subjective thing. Also dive and E modelling are off...the 109 should be poor in E retention due to high drag design and poor in dive which it is not ingame.

All in all...as a gross generalization...I think this sim falls off the mark as speed increases and fightning goes downwards...many planes get more jittery and controllable as speed increases where in real life manuevers got slower due to increased stick forces...and E and Dive is off more than the current rate of roll is off. The threads on roll rate show me, as good as the game is!, just how off some aircraft are...and I thought roll was pretty good overall.

Slot planes are going to be adjusted in the patch so we'll just have to wait and see if it takes those aircraft...not just the 109...out of the VTOL category.

Kwiatos
10-09-2005, 02:34 PM
Yes speedbar and thats why i wrote 130-140 km/h. G-2 still fly without wing and nose drope at speed 140 km/h IAS speedbar until reach 130 km/h at speedbar. F-4 drop wing and nose at 140 km/h IAS speedbar the same like G-6, G-10, K-4 which is also wrong. Dont know why G-2 have such wonderfull abillites to have the lowest stall speed and the best turn rate then rest bfs which is surly not correct with RL physics, tests, raports and others sources?

Capt.LoneRanger said:
" doubt these problems stated here are the only problems of IL2 as it currently is. But I also doubt that many more fixes will happen with the current capability of the flight model and the old engine, that is still a remake from the original IL2, which happens to be over 4 years old, now!"

Most think that PF have more advance FM then old Il2 but how explain that in old il2 was possible inverted spin which is not possible to repeat in PF?

BTW as i remember correct in old Il2 Sturmovik ver 1.2 Bf 109 G-2 was better in climb and speed then F-4 but was surly worse in turn rate ( g-2 was feel more heavy then F-4 like should be) So i think that is possible to make some things in correct way.

carguy_
10-09-2005, 02:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
blah blah blah </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aaah.File this under "Y" for YAOI!

Grey_Mouser67
10-09-2005, 03:06 PM
Come on Carguy...you can do better than that!

OT http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

TX-EcoDragon
10-09-2005, 03:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:

. . .Most think that PF have more advance FM then old Il2 but how explain that in old il2 was possible inverted spin which is not possible to repeat in PF?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd say the spin dynamics upright and inverted were probably the most accurate in version 2.04 of PF, with a slow and steady decrease in fidelity towards 3.04, and a big step backwards in 4.XX. I have always been able to do inverted spins, and still can, however I certainly agree with your basic point that the overall spin dynamics are worse now then they have been before. The only improvement I've seen is that snap rolls are more accurate now than they have ben in the past (when done against the rotation fo hte engine). The trouble I think is that they are adding some more advanced aspects of the FM, such as more inertia, and gyroscopic action of the prop, and these things change the character of the spin in unexpected ways. Overall I think the foundation for a better FM is being built, and hopefully with fine tuning and tweaking spins and snaps and such will be better than anything we've had before, and certainly better than any other sim out there.

Buzzsaw-
10-09-2005, 04:03 PM
Salute

Ho hum...

As usual, when impeccable sources such as NACA testing, and/or Axis tests are presented, rather than deal with them, the discussion is taken away from the facts, to other regions.

How about personal ego inflation?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:

"...People with flying experience and some knowledge about flying know..."

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

or insults?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:

...try once to keep your cob shut...

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

then there are the dubious allegations:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

...interpretation of very little from hand picked accounts...

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So Max, since you are accusing me of being selective in the material I present, then I assume you are saying you have more original sources on the subject of the G2's stall characteristics which I have deliberately overlooked? If so, PLEASE PRODUCE THEM, AND PROVIDE PROOF I HAVE DELIBERATELY IGNORED THEM.

In fact, I have very carefully searched for every single piece of original data I could find and posted each of those in threads on this subject. I have yet to see you provide a single original test.

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

But enough of dodging mudballs...

Why don't we get back to the empirical data.

UGLY KID insists that the 175 kph speed mentioned in the 2nd part of the Finnish test of MT-215 refers to 'departure'.

I have no problem with accepting that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

So, operating on that assumption, what do tests of the game aircraft reveal?

The Finnish test notes a fully combat loaded, clean condition, 109G2 at zero throttle could be pulled into a departure from level flight at 175 kph IAS. I have done a series of tests of this, and I would urge others to do the same. The tests are done, reading the kph off the speedbar, not the TAS you can get in no cockpit mode.

My results? The 109G2 does not depart till 130/140 kph IAS, even when you yank the stick quite hard, something which the pilot would be unlikely to do in a zero throttle test, which aims to ascertain stalling behaviour for aircraft which have lost power. Manuals for the 109 specifically require the pilots to be very gentle in their motions with the stick in situations where engine power is lost.

Perhaps the two giant minds of the boards could provide some context for this?

Buzzsaw-
10-09-2005, 04:32 PM
Salute

In regards to those who insist this is nothing but 109 bashing, I'm always happy to present some data on the odd behaviour of the La-5 series

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

First, the tests I have done of the La-5FN show it exhibits quite strange behaviour. At zero throttle, 100% fuel, in clean condition, the aircraft begins to lose altitude at 160 kph. But then something very strange begins to happen. It then will basically 'hover' at 150 kph, losing 10 meters every short while, but no matter how far back you pull the stick, the aircraft WILL NOT depart, and can be maintained in a wings level attitude.

What do the historical tests tell us?

Here is a translated page from the La-5FN manual: (original language available for anyone who PM's me)

http://img330.imageshack.us/img330/4782/la5fn168tc.jpg

There seems to be some question regarding exactly what the Soviet manual is talking about, whether it is a stall or spin, the description is of a pilot inducing a spin, but in any case, the departure happens just below 180 kph.

The Germans captured a La-5FN, and tested it for stall behaviour. Below is a photo, you can clearly see the extended air intake which was a feature of the La-5FN.

http://img328.imageshack.us/img328/707/sideviewla5fn9jg.jpg

Below is a translated page which refers to stalls:

http://img328.imageshack.us/img328/1580/la5stallsmall3ck.jpg

The same figure of 180 kph is mentioned as being the last point at which flight can be sustained. Any reduction results in departure.

The German report's results for stall behaviour can probably be taken as accurate, since the aircraft was tested at zero throttle, unlike max. speed or climbtests, which are dependant on the engine being at full throttle, and developing power similar to a factory fresh aircraft, to get accurate results.

Together, these two reports tend to suggest that the aircraft should be departing at approx. 170-175 kph.

Very different from what we get in the game.

Chadburn
10-09-2005, 05:37 PM
All this is very interesting. But what exactly is the point of the thread? If you want to discuss this stuff, it belongs in GD. If you want to report these as bugs and haven't yet, then you better hurry up since 4.02 will probably be out next week.

DaimonSyrius
10-09-2005, 06:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 DaimonSyrius:
In the very little I've read about stall speed, there seems to be some controversy about what 'stall' really is, when it starts exactly, and how it's not easy to precisely define it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It's very easy to define it. It's simply (...) Regardless, defining a stall is a very known matter.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 TX-EcoDragon:
Buzzsaw, the issue with the statement that the stall onset is at 250 is one of semantics...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
There's a certain irony in your comment... However, MaxGunz is the one who insists on evaluating the words (...)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Exactly. Using the FAA definition which Max is so fond of, it refers to the point at which the aircraft begins to lose altitude.
Now look at the IL-2 109G2. At zero throttle, does it start to lose altitude at 240/250 kph? Do the slats open at that speed?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, it says zero, zilch, nada about loosing altitude, that's your very own fabrication. The actual departure occurs at the lower speed. It seems you haven't flown a real aircraft.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
There seems to be some question regarding exactly what the Soviet manual is talking about, whether it is a stall or spin, the description is of a pilot inducing a spin, but in any case, the departure happens just below 180 kph.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So... is it actually confusing or was I confused? (Am I hearing "Both!" being shouted? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) Was I right in saying that (from what -little- I've read) it's not an easy task to characterize and define the nuances, like are we talking stall as in dropping nose or wing? Or do we mean departure? Was that source from an earlier, less standardized period in aviation, referring to stalling speed, or was it actually meaning stalling AoA, or proper spin, or...?

*Still confused*

Cheers all, slow Sunday here too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

S.

P.S. Oh, and thanks Buzzaw for posting the La-5 manual bits, I hadn't read those before. No matter the nuances about concepts, I found it really interesting, good read http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

*Edit* "Both" added

WWMaxGunz
10-09-2005, 09:26 PM
Someone post a track of the sim G-2 flying straight and level power off at 140kph.

If the plane is not holding alt which is checkable in a track then don't blah-blah
about stall speed being any 140kph or less. That is where some people are making
up their own aero science ... what a pilot writes is based on training.

Stall does not equal Stall Speed. The plane does not upon crossing Stall Speed
immediately go into full stall nor instant departure. So looking for departure
while letting the plane drop is NOT how to check Stall Speed.

Interpret that how you like but post a track.

Engine idle: in the IL-2 series throttle zero is still not engine idle since the start.
All you are seeing is where your throttle position is set. Back from the start it was
either 10% or 15% actual fuel flow.

karost
10-09-2005, 09:34 PM
this is good post to point out the area of FM which we should focus for over three years , but this topic are not easy to come by ,coz less then 20% of our friends are a real pilots who have more close to the meaning of "FM" from their life with real risk , and other friends point out from "book"'s reference , to gether with alot of friends who are the A/C enginering.

if three group of this friends are agree in same direction that would be nice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Oops, but one big group with big power are a common players who domain a customer sigment , are they happy if we turn this game close to the true meaning for "AIR COMBAT IN WWII SIMULATION" ?


[btw, sorry for my bad english]
S!

GR142-Pipper
10-09-2005, 09:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TX-EcoDragon:
...The trouble I think is that they are adding some more advanced aspects of the FM, such as more inertia, and gyroscopic action of the prop, and these things change the character of the spin in unexpected ways. Overall I think the foundation for a better FM is being built, and hopefully with fine tuning and tweaking spins and snaps and such will be better than anything we've had before, and certainly better than any other sim out there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It's not spins and snap rolls that are really at issue here although I think I see where you're coming from. It's the BASIC flight modeling of many of these aircraft. These involve turn rates, acceleration/deceleration rates, slow speed characteristics, etc., all of which significantly impact aircraft performance in close-in engagements. IMO, many of these are simply incorrect. So while these basic issues remain unresolved, the developer (already resource limited) enters yet more complex variables into the modeling equations. It's amazing to watch this being done when the basics are so in need of attention.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
10-09-2005, 10:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by karost:
Oops, but one big group with big power are a common players who domain a customer sigment , are they happy if we turn this game close to the true meaning for "AIR COMBAT IN WWII SIMULATION" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That's what supposed to differentiate a game from a sim. IL-2 is truly a remarkable product but sometimes it's hard to tell if it's one or the other.

GR142-Pipper

Ugly_Kid
10-10-2005, 12:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Ho hum...

As usual, when impeccable sources such as NACA testing, and/or Axis tests are presented, rather than deal with them, the discussion is taken away from the facts, to other regions.&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

But enough of dodging mudballs...

Why don't we get back to the empirical data.

UGLY KID insists that the 175 kph speed mentioned in the 2nd part of the Finnish test of MT-215 refers to 'departure'.

I have no problem with accepting that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Right, rest on the other hand doesn't interest me a bit, just as long as you read the "impeccable sources" correctlyhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. As you see there are at least three similar accounts concerning that stall speed of yours yet you come up with the rather far fetched interpretation of one single source (not to mention, inserting a good bit of your own prosa in it!).

Now you generously "accept" one speed? Like this is some friggin consensus, or what? Hey let's go to ORR and make another 109 stall speed vote. I start with 220 km/h and let's see what's the luftwhiners counteroffer?Sheesh...

Your very opening:
"&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

1. Stall [in level flight]

In level flight with the engine on idle, the plane starts stalling at 240-250km/h speed, deploying the slats at the same time. The plane holds its ATTITUDE and is controllable during the stall.

In landing condition the stall begins at 200-210km/h speed, the plane is stable in this case as well.

&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;"

Not even one mentioning the existence of the lower speed in that report, are you? "Getting back to the empirical data." LMAO, rather gradually getting there to begin with.

If the game performance is your concern and if you are so sure of a bug, why don't you just go ahead and write another email to him?

Buzzsaw-
10-10-2005, 12:40 AM
Salute Ugly

I have posted the complete translation of the Finnish report several times, both on this board and others.

Here's an example in this thread on page 3:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/4621089463/p/3

Unlike you, who in the past studiously avoided posting it when you had the opportunity and when it could have shed light on the subject. You clearly had the complete report on MT-215, and in fact had posted excerpts months ago relating to speed and climb. You obviously didn't want the material from the report regarding Stall to come to light, and now you are doing your best to avoid discussing it.

Now to the actual issues:

You still haven't answered the questions I've posed, or done the comparative tests.

1) Does the Game 109G2 depart at 175 kph when pull into a stall from idle speed level flight as the historical G2 did in the MT-215 test?

2) Do the slats on the game G2 open at 240/250 kph in idle speed level flight as reported on the same Finnish test?

Both you and Max are avoiding answering these questions, because you know the game modelling does not replicate either of these real life examples.

Instead you seem to prefer to voice claims of intellectual superiourity seemingly based on the fact you may or may not have had flight experience. Sorry, but I wasn't aware that only pilots could post on this board.

Complete translation as received from Camo:

"1. Stall [in level flight]
In level flight with the engine on idle, the plane STARTS STALLING at 240-250km/h speed, deploying the slats at the same time. The plane holds its attitude and is controllable during the stall. In landing condition the stall begins at 200-210km/h speed, the plane is stable in this case as well.

2. Pulling into a stall [using the elevator]
With the engine on idle, the plane can be pulled through into a stall at 175km/h. With full throttle [1.31ata] the speed is 130-140km/h. In the latter case the plane is hanging on its prop at an approximately 60 degree angle. The plane announces the approaching stall by a slight tremble. If
the pull [of the stick] is tightened, the left wing and nose start to sink and the plane drops into a dive, shaking. If the pilot reduces the pull, the plane is controllable again. In landing condition the speed is 155 km/h."

Here's YOUR translation of the two headers:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:

"Kokko's using words (titels of the chapter):
1. Sakkaus
2. Yliveto

It doesn't say:
1. Stall [in level flight]
2. Pulling into a stall [using the elevator]

the points in the brackets are Camo's addition and not really correct (Sry Camo ).

Everybody else seems to be able to read it correctly but I do you a personal service:

Literal translation is:
1. Stall
2. Departure (word:yliveto is not used today)

whereas he's talking with the terminology of 40s , additionally we may talk about his literal talent as an author of a technical document, he' saying:
1. Approaching Stall
2. Departure into the Stall (or simply Stall)

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm perfectly happy to accept your translations, (although Camo is obviously perfectly capable of doing the same) since they don't change the basic facts.

That being, the speeds obtained in the historical tests are considerably higher than those we see from the 109G2 in the game.

WWMaxGunz
10-10-2005, 04:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Both you and Max are avoiding answering these questions, because you know the game modelling does not replicate either of these real life examples.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, no. I'm just tired of your BS word games.

Of course the sim does not exactly replicate real life. None CAN.

What matters at all is how close it does get and this business of what you claim is based
on your interpretation and manipulation of some pilots accounts that were never meant to
be flight instruction manual material coupled with your utter lack of RL flight instruction.

YOU MAKE THE CLAIM, YOU BACK IT UP.

Let's see a track of a sim G-2 hitting 1G power off loaded clean configuration stall speed
at somewhere below 175kph enough to make a real difference in true manner, not while losing
altitude. That would be 155kph without ammo according to Mr. Southwood? Huh?

The sim won't get those exact. The fact is that we don't know completely about those planes
or what the air was like when they were checked, or the rigging, or the pilots, or the fact
that actually being in the plane is not like sitting behind a PC. What a freaking joke to
push for the same numbers without stating reasonable margins.

All the rest is just people trying to educate your untrained six and your own avoidance of
that, this insistance that you can rely upon your own interpretation of terms by replacing
exact meanings with your own.

Buzz wants to talk about ignoring things, there are people been posting here that are as
much or more qualified on the subject than the ones who wrote those accounts. They have
addressed specific parts of the subject of stalls and stall speed. They all say the SAME
THING and yet... you won't see Buzz argue those except to point at those accounts and then
go about reinterpreting pieces of sentences like "the plane starts stalling at 240-250km/h
speed, deploying the slats at the same time" as proof of reference stall speed. It is not
and that has been pointed out by people here with enough credentials to be called experts.

Stupid word games. Not piloting. Not aero. Just "common sense" which is neither.
Just end it, this game has gone too long, too many times. Learn something real, Buzz.
Drop the blanket and bottle.

Kurfurst__
10-10-2005, 05:06 AM
Another Buzzsaw/maxglunz-heavy thread.

I wonder why there is no "ignore" function to filter out the BS. It`s really like an old broken record of a bad marriage, Mrs. Buzzsaw arguing with MR. Glunzy, and it keeps jumping back to the same track.

DaimonSyrius
10-10-2005, 05:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I wonder why there is no "ignore" function to filter out the BS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, deliberately stepping into it and throwing it around isn't the smartest way of 'ignoring' BS either, is it? (if that's what you think this thread is).


From my point of view, however, even with the theatrical bits now and then, I find the info interesting, both on the thread generally and on Buzzaw's and MaxGunz's posts specifically. Even on yours occasionally, when you're kind enough to contribute with something other than comedy acts and BS stirring.

S.

Kurfurst__
10-10-2005, 06:33 AM
Dunno. There are dozens of threads like this about "slotted aircraft are overmodelled", 90% of them beign started by Buzzsaw, whining about the Bf 109 being "overmodelled".

It's boring old business, and apart from Uglykids great comments, plus a few others, these two mentioned gentlemen doesnt seem to be interested in anything else expect posing in being smarter on anything than anybody else here. Both have their "own versions" which is of course the only correct version, neither of them appearantly did any studies on aerodynamics but are keen to point out how wrong are all those who did... Apart from BS being totally biased and manipulative, always givin his one-man whining show about the 109, Glunz isn't much better when you disagree with him and show him in what he is wrong, he will start getting a heart attack and screaming all over the place EXTRAPOLIERT EXTRAPOLIERT, ROFLOL. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

No, I am really bored with the poor comedy of these two, and frankly I'd welcome an ignore function to save some time by not reading the smartass/whining posts. Feel free to point out where I am wrong, and where these two gens have pointed out anything of interest which isn't the same line, copy-paste test we heard from them for the 16th time.

Kurfurst__
10-10-2005, 06:54 AM
BTW, on that wingtip-stall sillyness from mr BS.. generally designers seek to make planes which will stall the wingroot first, and only later the outer wing sections. The reason being that they want the ailerons remain effective during the stall. Hence why you see the leading edge slats in front of the ailerons on the 109 or any other slatted aircraft. Yep the general purpose is to improve stall characteristics, without increasing wing area and drag, but at the same time they ensure the outer wing section - the slatted area - stalls last.

The Spitfire also aimed for the same thing. They designed the aircraft with deep, elliptical wings to mount all the machineguns the RAF required. However elliptical planform is rather bad in stalling since it stalls at the same time, the plane falling out of the sky, so they used some washout (twist) in the outer wings to keep the ailerons effective at stall - this otoh hand led to an airflow shadow over the Frise ailerons at high speeds, hence the high aileron forces and turbulances encountered. Reginald was told about this by one of his fellow engineers, but he put the concern down. Like everything, it was a compromise between design requirements.

WWMaxGunz
10-10-2005, 07:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Another Buzzsaw/maxglunz-heavy thread.

I wonder why there is no "ignore" function to filter out the BS. It`s really like an old broken record of a bad marriage, Mrs. Buzzsaw arguing with MR. Glunzy, and it keeps jumping back to the same track. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good way to ignore the ravings of KursedFussy.

In your own style, what have you to add by this?

Kurfurst__
10-10-2005, 07:06 AM
KursedFussy? Now that's really EXTRAPOLATED! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
Idiot.

WWMaxGunz
10-10-2005, 07:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Both have their "own versions" which is of course the only correct version, neither of them appearantly did any studies on aerodynamics but are keen to point out how wrong are all those who did... Apart from BS being totally biased and manipulative, always givin his one-man whining show about the 109, Glunz isn't much better when you disagree with him and show him in what he is wrong, he will start getting a heart attack and screaming all over the place EXTRAPOLIERT EXTRAPOLIERT, ROFLOL. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really think you are as dense as Buzzsaw. I actually have apologized to you and admitted
on more than one occasion when I was wrong which btw, is MORE than you have EVER done here.

As for me studying aerodynamics, yes I have and for a time I received professional training
as part of a job I had in both systems and flight. I have yes, flown two planes and three
different full motion sims also for training purposes. What have you done KissyFist? Oh,
right, you read books for small references to make huge claims with.

No heart attack here, btw. Should I scream like a *** for the mods as has been done for me?
Should I go to threads where you post and everywhere bring up you as a troublemaker?

Well at least on this subject you have to put aside your accusation of me as a detractor
of the precious 109 who is only out to destroy it, dum-de-dum-dum, lah-de-da and whoopie.
If you can't cast me in one light, find another. It's all to suit your mood but never good.

Mrs. Buzzsaw doesn't belong with me but but rather you as the two of you think that debate
makes reality somehow. Please don't be so jealous, I don't want either of you.

Kurfurst__
10-10-2005, 07:34 AM
Could you just... EXTRAPOLATE yourself from here ? I don't want to hear all that whining about how bad everyone was with you, and how nice you were to everybody. To be honest, I don't give a f. about you, or your extrapolated ego, or your displays of grievences with Buzzsaw, with me, or other. I just want you to STFU unless you finally have something meaningful to say... now, could you do that for all of us?

WWMaxGunz
10-10-2005, 07:52 AM
Kranky's getting up-set, Kranky's getting up-set!

Extrapolate, extrapolate, extrapolate your flaming ego,
Shout, shout, shout, the people you don't like awayyyyyyy!

Where is your MEANINGFUL anything Kranky? Is STFU meaningful?
How about find something wrong with what I wrote besides your
opinion of you don't like it? Stick to the facts. Oh wait,
that's just not you at all. You have to make more of everything.
You have never been happy with truth or reason at least posting.
Always got to stretch what you like, cut out what you don't, and
make up what you wish.

What you don't give about me, do to yourself.

Nobody put you in charge of this forum or of me. Remember that.

DaimonSyrius
10-10-2005, 08:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
Well, deliberately stepping into it and throwing it around isn't the smartest way of 'ignoring' BS either, is it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Dunno. (...)

Feel free to point out where I am wrong </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, I will, and I suggest you repeat it aloud a few times, maybe in front of a mirror. Here it goes:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
Well, deliberately stepping into it and throwing it around isn't the smartest way of 'ignoring' BS either, is it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please try.

S.

P.S: I would add that, although convenient, an "ignore function in the software" is not the only possible way to ignore something; but a feeling of futility is slowly creeping in http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif That's where the concept of smart, intelligent ways would apply mostly. Cheer up.

HayateAce
10-10-2005, 08:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chadburn:
All this is very interesting. But what exactly is the point of the thread? If you want to discuss this stuff, it belongs in GD. If you want to report these as bugs and haven't yet, then you better hurry up since 4.02 will probably be out next week. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point of the thread is to educate the newer players and enlighten the rest who have sadly bought in to Oleg's fantasy version of the 109. This should quadruple the number of email flowing into 1C's box so we can finally have an accurate 109 FM.

KlownKar is what we have now.


"With my legions of Klown09s, I can RULE the world!"

http://www.alfredolissoni.com/italia/hitler.jpg

DaimonSyrius
10-10-2005, 09:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
The point of the thread is to educate the newer players and enlighten the rest who
(...) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Up to this point, you were correct, IMO. Possibly not the main point of a thread in ORR, but certainly a beneficial aspect of it.

From there on... more noise, to try and put it technically, just more futility, to put it mildly.

S.

Chadburn
10-10-2005, 10:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Chadburn:
All this is very interesting. But what exactly is the point of the thread? If you want to discuss this stuff, it belongs in GD. If you want to report these as bugs and haven't yet, then you better hurry up since 4.02 will probably be out next week. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point of the thread is to educate the newer players and enlighten the rest who have sadly bought in to Oleg's fantasy version of the 109. This should quadruple the number of email flowing into 1C's box so we can finally have an accurate 109 FM.

KlownKar is what we have now.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would be just as "edifying" in the GD forum.

In all previous versions, the 109 exhibited a flip stall (every bit as non-historical as its current model) despite ample evidence that the 109 had very benign behaviour at the stall.

So for years, that's how the 109 was modelled and all these sanctimonious purists who claim their only goal is an accurate fm for the 109 never said squat about it.

The fact remains that slats affect the stall characterisitcs of planes, therefore slat equipped planes SHOULD stall differently than planes designed with washout. In order to INCREASE the accuracy of the game's flight model, an attempt was made by Oleg and company to reflect this. It wasn't perfectly implemented, so report it as a bug.

Or..do what Kwiatos does in a noble effort to keep the ignorant masses enlightened, and start a new thread about it every couple of weeks.

HayateAce
10-10-2005, 10:44 AM
Ok, maybe we're being too technical. How 'bout, "the 109 flies weird."?

ElAurens
10-10-2005, 10:47 AM
Rather, the 109 has issues due to improper torque modeling and the accelerated stall bug afflicting all slat equipped aircraft. Oh yeah, I forgot, why do the late models out turn the Fs? this flys in the face of all reports.

It's not the end of the world, just something that needs fixing.

Ugly_Kid
10-10-2005, 12:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute Ugly

I have posted the complete translation of the Finnish report several times, both on this board and others.

Here's an example in this thread on page 3:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/4621089463/p/3

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now I really don't care if you have posted it in the previous discussions, the way you posted and quoted it here and inserted a good bit of yours on the top of it, is way off.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Unlike you, who in the past studiously avoided posting it when you had the opportunity and when it could have shed light on the subject. You clearly had the complete report on MT-215, and in fact had posted excerpts months ago relating to speed and climb. You obviously didn't want the material from the report regarding Stall to come to light, and now you are doing your best to avoid discussing it.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Right, since when do I have an obligation of translating the whole report and presenting it to your highness, if, for instance, climb performance is under discussion, huh? What are these particularly, embarrassing facts that I am trying to keep from seeing the daylight, huh? Pray tell...A bit paranoid there, are we? Big conspriracy, d@mned Camo, now it's all in open http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Now to the actual issues:

You still haven't answered the questions I've posed, or done the comparative tests.

1) Does the Game 109G2 depart at 175 kph when pull into a stall from idle speed level flight as the historical G2 did in the MT-215 test?

2) Do the slats on the game G2 open at 240/250 kph in idle speed level flight as reported on the same Finnish test?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1) I don't care

2) I don't care either

The thing I do care is that you _also_ in this discussion at least post the whole facts and not the partial facts before you inflate a typical ORR mass moan.

You are the one making claims of the game performance and screaming a bloody murder, I believe it is really your job to back it up, isn't it? By all means ask the Hayate person to join you in that quest too. After you're done, wrap it up nicely and mail it to Oleg, mind, don't forget also including that chapter 2, now there's a good boy.(you may even include the Eric Brown bit that I was so desperately hiding too, but it just somehow slipped...) I don't see where's your problem?

Buzzsaw-
10-10-2005, 01:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:

since when do I have an obligation of translating the whole report and presenting it to your highness...

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, there are more people than myself who read these boards. You're not presenting it to me, your providing information to the whole community. When we participate in these boards, (at least when most people participate) there is an understanding that there is an open and honest presentation of all the facts.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:

1) I don't care

2) I don't care either

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, that's obvious.

WWMaxGunz
10-10-2005, 01:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
Ok, maybe we're being too technical. How 'bout, "the 109 flies weird."? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How about "the 109 is far from the weirdest."?

Buzzsaw-
10-10-2005, 01:49 PM
Salute

In an effort to educate my poor pathetic 'six' up to the high standards of the more elevated members of the board, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I have been continuing to look through various publications and online material.

One of the best examinations of the subject of stalls and stalling is from a publication called "AVIATION LITIGATION QUARTERLY", published for lawyers who deal with the aftermath of aero accidents. Accidental stall being a major cause of such accidents, the following article deals with that subject.

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

By Mark Macabe P.E., Inc. Aeronautical Engineering


Introduction

Aerodynamic stalls are a factor in many aircraft accidents and in litigation arising from those accidents. A stall is a complex event with characteristics that are highly sensitive to numerous contributing factors. Furthermore, stalls are generally outside the direct experience of anyone who has not undertaken flight training. All of this can make explaining the stall to lay audiences a daunting task. When those lay audiences are triers of fact in accident litigation, the job of explaining the stall falls to attorneys and expert witnesses.

The objective of this article is to present an explanation of aerodynamic stall using concepts that make it more accessible to non-technical audiences without compromising technical accuracy. It begins with an explanation of basic stall aerodynamics. A summary of regulatory requirements related to stall in aircraft certification, along with a discussion of the stalls required in initial pilot training, follows. The article concludes with a review of several typical stall related accidents. Fixed wing aircraft are the primary focus. Although the broader concepts presented here also apply to rotary wing aerodynamics, the subtleties of helicopter stalls will not be addressed.



Stall Aerodynamics

Nomenclature

The concepts of attached and detached flows are central to understanding an aerodynamic stall. To explain the meanings of the words "attached" and "detached" in this context, consider the following simple demonstration.

The demonstration requires a working kitchen sink and faucet, one or more drinking glasses, and a towel. Adjust the flow of water at the faucet to establish a steady trickle. Take one of the glasses and hold it horizontally off to the side of the trickle so that if there is a beverage in the glass it runs out into the sink. Move the glass toward the water until the flow just touches its side. What you will observe is that the water will cling to the side of the glass and follow its curve for some distance before dropping off, hopefully falling into the sink. The length of the flow that sticks to the glass is dependent on many factors but is most strongly influenced by the speed of the water and the diameter of the glass. By changing these parameters, you can achieve a variety of results. Another phenomenon you are likely to observe is that the point on the glass where the water drops away is not constant, but instead oscillates steadily between two different locations. Once you have completed these experiments, use the towel to clean up your mess.

The portion of the flow that clings to the side of the glass is referred to as the attached flow. The flow that drops away from the glass is called detached, or separated. The location at which the flow transitions from attached to detached is known as the separation point. The flow of water around a glass is a loose analog to similar flows of air. Air flowing over an aircraft can have areas of attached flow, where the air closely follows the aircraft surface, and areas of detached flow, where it has separated from the surface. However, as with most physical analogies, this one is an imperfect model. A stream of water following the outside curve of a glass is heavily influenced by the surface tension of the water and gravity, both of which are routinely neglected when analyzing flows of air over an aircraft.

A stall is a condition in which there are large areas of detached flow on the aircraft, usually on the upper surface of the wing, which produce significant deviations from the unstalled characteristics of the aircraft. There is no universally accepted quantitative definition of how large an area must be separated or how significant the deviations must be to declare a stall. This makes the stall a somewhat subjective event and adds an element of perception into the definition.

Angle of attack, or AOA, is another important concept in understanding stall aerodynamics. For any given airspeed, atmospheric conditions, and aircraft configuration, AOA is the premier indicator of how much lift an airplane will produce, and when different elements of a stall will occur. AOA is the angle formed by the intersection of the relative wind and some reference line fixed to the aircraft. The terms "relative wind" and "reference line" deserve some explanation. If you imagine the aircraft as being stationary with the air blowing past it, as if it were in a wind tunnel, then the relative wind is specified by the speed and direction of the air as it approaches the aircraft. The reference line on the aircraft is defined by the manufacturer and is somewhat arbitrary. However, it is usually within a few degrees of being aligned with the floor of the aircraft cabin.

Stall Development

To explain the development of an aerodynamic stall, we will consider the case of an aircraft beginning in level flight. Our imaginary pilot will manipulate the controls as required to increase the angle of attack.

In the normal flight range at a constant airspeed, lift varies directly with the angle of attack. This is the so-called linear flight range, and in it the flow is attached over the entire upper surface of the wing. As AOA continues to increase it will eventually reach an angle where the flow over the wing will begin to separate. This separation almost always begins at the trailing edge of the wing and is likely to be unsteady. Like the oscillation of the separation point that you may have observed in the glass demonstration, the flow of air over parts of the wing will cycle between separated and attached. The strength of the oscillation will increase as AOA increases and will eventually reach an intensity that the pilot can detect through aircraft vibration, vibration in the flight controls, or the noise produced by the oscillation. This is known as the initial buffet, an early indicator of an impending stall. The linear relationship between AOA and lift starts to break down once buffet begins. Lift continues to increase with increasing AOA, but not to the magnitude it did in the linear range. As the AOA moves closer to the stall, the area of detached flow grows larger and the increases in AOA produce smaller and smaller increases in lift. Eventually the AOA will reach an angle at which lift stops growing. This is sometimes referred to as the Critical Angle of Attack, which corresponds to the maximum lift that the airplane can produce under the prevailing conditions. Further increases in AOA beyond the Critical AOA result in a reduction in lift. At some AOA, the flow over the upper surface of the wing will completely separate. This is a fully developed stall. It is a desirable handling quality for an aircraft to pitch nose down when it reaches a fully developed stall. This is commonly known as the stall break.

Factors that influence stalls

The description in the previous paragraph is a narrative of how an ideal stall develops. However, numerous factors influence stalls, giving each a measure of individuality. Some aircraft enter a stall very gradually, giving the pilot ample warning before gently nosing over to initiate the stall recovery. Others may give very little warning before stalling abruptly, requiring prompt action by the pilot to avoid excessive altitude loss or to prevent undesirable attitude changes.

Most of the character of a stall is set during the airplane design. Stall characteristics are one of the many factors considered as an airplane design evolves. Often the configuration choices that result in desirable stall characteristics are detrimental to airplane performance, so the designers must strike a balance. As the design moves off the drawing board, there will often be significant discrepancies between the expected stall characteristics and what is demonstrated in flight test. Designers faced with this situation have sometimes used one or more aerodynamic "band-aids" to try to recover the desired characteristics. You can find examples of these on many certificated aircraft, usually mounted on or near the leading edge of the wing and close to the wing root. They are often used to aerodynamically weaken the wing root, so that it will stall before the wing tip. These band-aids usually become required elements of the configuration once the aircraft is certificated.

There are many other factors that also influence stall characteristics. Three of the more significant factors are summarized below.

Rigging and configuration: Stalls demonstrated during certification testing are performed with the aircraft in the certificated configuration. After manufacture, most aircraft accumulate a variety of nicks and dings that normally have a negligible effect on stall characteristics. However, each aircraft has a threshold beyond which those variations from the certificated configuration will produce changes in the stall characteristics. Also, any deviations from the design rigging of the flight control system can alter stall behavior. These types of changes typically result in a tendency of the aircraft to consistently roll in a preferred direction during the stall. If an accident aircraft was routinely flown by many pilots and interviews with those pilots produce multiple reports of a tendency for the aircraft to roll in one direction at stall, rigging or configuration discrepancies should be suspected.

Contamination: Any contamination that changes the shape or roughness of a lifting surface may have a significant effect on the AOA at which that surface stalls, and the characteristics of that stall. Many surface contaminants, including structural ice, frost, bug carcasses, anti-icing fluid, and even rain, have been shown to alter stall characteristics. With very few exceptions, limited to highly specific circumstances, contamination always causes stall at a lower AOA and lower lift.

Power: Aircraft engines generate thrust by changing the momentum of the air on which they act, causing that air to accelerate to a higher speed. Engine power can have a significant influence on the aerodynamics of those aircraft that are arranged such that the air moving over a lifting surface can be acted on by an engine. Usually the effect will be to accelerate the air going around a portion of the wing, reducing the local AOA in that region. This results in delaying the stall AOA for the aircraft to a higher angle and a higher lift.

Stall recovery

The only way to recover from a stall is to restore attached flow by reducing the AOA. The AOA required to break a stall is often measurably less than the AOA at which the stall took place. Most aircraft within their normal operating envelopes will pitch nose down after the stall, automatically beginning the stall recovery. The pilot must manage the pitch attitude of the aircraft and apply the maximum allowable power to establish attached flow without excessive altitude loss.

An airplane that has stalled will have a lower flight path than that for the same aircraft flying the same maneuver without stalling. If the lift becomes less than the weight, then the aircraft, under the influence of gravity, will begin to accelerate downward. Even if the stalled aircraft continues to produce lift equal to the weight, it does not produce that lift as efficiently. Higher drag relative to the unstalled condition causes the airplane to descend more quickly in the case of a descent, or to climb more slowly in the case of a climb. In critical situations where terrain clearance is already marginal, a stall can often make a collision inescapable.

Post-stall aerodynamics

If the AOA continues to increase subsequent to a fully developed stall, the airplane may enter a post-stall flight mode. The tendency for an airplane to have, and to enter, a post-stall flight mode is highly dependent upon the aircraft configuration.

The most common post-stall flight mode is a spin. In a fully developed spin the airplane, as if it were descending a spiral staircase, descends in an almost vertical path while rotating about its vertical axis. The necessary precursors for a spin are a stall and some initiator of the directional rotation. The most common spin entry is from an uncoordinated stall, in which the airplane stalls with the nose pointed to the right or left of the relative wind. In such a stall, the airplane€s natural tendency to turn into the relative wind will start the directional rotation. Normal flight can be recovered from a spin for most modern aircraft if the pilot has sufficient altitude and time available to effect the recovery. The spin recovery technique is somewhat aircraft dependent, and applying an incorrect technique can sometimes aggravate the spin.

A less common post-stall flight mode is called deep stall. In a deep stall, the airplane is extremely stable, overpowering the ability of the flight controls to reduce the angle of attack. Such a stall occurred for an amateur-built Velocity aircraft when the pilot was flight testing post-stall handling qualities. (NTSB Identification: MIA89LA117) After stall the aircraft entered a nearly vertical, slow descent with the wings level, and with no directional rotation. All conventional efforts to break the stall failed. Several unconventional attempts to regain control, including the pilot climbing out of the cockpit and leaning as far forward as possible in an attempt to produce a nose down pitch, also failed. The pilot considered bailing out, but elected to stay with the airplane because of the slow, stable, vertical descent. After a hard vertical landing, the pilot stepped out of the airplane uninjured. The accident investigation found modifications to the control surfaces that increased control power. The increased control power allowed the aircraft to enter the uncontrollable post-stall flight mode.

Stall speed

Up to this point, this article has relied on angle of attack to demarcate different aspects of aerodynamic stall. However, when pilots, instructors, engineers, and regulators gather to discuss stalls, the discussion is nearly always conducted in terms of stall speeds. This can be a source of great confusion if care is not taken to fully specify the conditions for which a particular stall speed is quoted. While a stall AOA for a particular configuration is relatively insensitive to changes in other conditions, stall speed can vary drastically in response to normally occurring changes in other flight parameters.

The convention of using stall speeds instead of stall AOA is largely due to both historical and practical considerations. From aviation€s beginnings to the present, measuring airspeed has been more accurate, less expensive, and more robust than measuring angle of attack. Airspeed indicators were one of the first instruments to gain widespread use in aircraft panels. When authors and regulators began writing flight manuals and rules for aircraft operation and certification, the convention of using stall speeds was established.

Aircraft manufacturers publish demonstrated stall speeds in their approved airplane flight manuals. Naive interpreters of this fact could convince themselves that, as long as an airplane is always flown faster than its published stall speed, the airplane will not stall. Nothing could be farther from the truth or more potentially dangerous if believed. Nearly all of the accidents reviewed in this article involve a stall that occurred at airspeed higher than the published stall speed.

Two factors that influence stall speed are frequently involved in stall/spin accidents. They are aircraft weight and maneuvering.

The effect of weight on stall speed is usually small, but in the most inopportune circumstances that small effect can have inordinately great consequences. Stall speed changes as the square root of the weight ratio. In more concrete terms, reducing aircraft weight by 10% below the maximum certificated gross weight will cause the stall speed to be reduced by 5%. Conversely, an airplane loaded 10% over the maximum weight will have the stall speed increased by 5% relative to the stall speed at maximum weight. That increase may equate to a difference of only two or three knots in stalling speed. If, however, the pilot is counting on operating the airplane within two or three knots of the published stalling speed, a 10% overloaded condition can reduce that expected stall speed margin to zero.

The effect on stall speed of maneuvering can be much more significant. When an aircraft is cruising in straight and level flight, the total lift produced is equal to the airplane weight. By banking the aircraft, the pilot can direct a portion of the airplane lift to the side, causing the airplane to turn. A greater bank angle increases the component of lift directed to the side, producing a tighter turn. To keep the airplane at a constant altitude, the pilot must increase the total lift that the airplane produces so that the vertically directed part of lift is again equal to the aircraft weight. If the pilot attempts to increase the lift beyond the maximum lift that the airplane can produce, a stall will result. In a fairly shallow turn, with a bank angle of 20 degrees, the stall speed increase is only 3% greater than the stall speed in straight and level flight. A steep turn at 40 degrees bank increases stall speed by 14%. A 60 degree banked turn produces a 41% stall speed increase. Beyond 60 degrees, the effect on stall speed grows rapidly. At 70 degrees, the stall speed increase is 71%.



Stall Related Regulations for Aircraft Certification

Stall demonstrations and characteristics

The requirements for U.S. certification of aircraft that relate to stalls are contained in 14 CFR 23 (FAR 23) for Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter category aircraft, and 14 CFR 25 (FAR 25) for Transport category aircraft. These standards differ somewhat as needed to address the variety of aircraft covered, but they are largely in agreement on what stall maneuvers, stall characteristics, and stall warning an applicant for certification must demonstrate.

Stalls must be demonstrated starting from level flight and turning flight, both with power off and power on. The level flight stalls are entered at a relatively slow rate, not to exceed one knot per second until the stall is produced. Turning stalls are performed at this low stall entry rate and a higher rate of around three knots per second. The airplane is considered to be stalled when it exhibits a definite nose-down pitch, the pitch control reaches its limit, or the airplane experiences buffet that deters further speed reduction. These cues can occur either individually or in combination.

For the speeds obtained from these demonstrations to be used as the published stall speeds, the airplane must meet specific controllability requirements during the stalls. Up to the stall the airplane must remain controllable, and the pilot must be able to prevent stalling and recover from a stall by normal use of the flight controls. The stall may not be so violent or extreme as to require exceptional piloting skills to recover. There are also absolute limits on the bank angle that an aircraft must not exceed during these maneuvers.

Stall warning

FAR 23 and FAR 25 both require that an aircraft provide a clear and distinctive stall warning to the pilot. This warning must begin sufficiently in advance of the stall to allow the stall to be avoided if the pilot takes corrective action after the warning begins. The regulations allow the stall warning to be furnished through the inherent aerodynamic characteristics of the airplane or by a device that provides stall warning throughout the expected flight envelope.

Usually some kind of artificial stall warning system is required to satisfy the regulations. The simplest such systems use a stall warning horn that is activated electrically or by an air pressure difference between the cabin and a location on the wing. Horns are found on most propeller-driven general aviation aircraft. They produce an audible tone similar in volume and character to a common party horn. Transport category aircraft, high-end GA aircraft, and commuter category airplanes are often equipped with a stick shaker stall warning system. These systems include an electrical transducer that measures AOA, a computer that interprets data from the AOA sensor and other systems to determine when the stick shaker should activate, and the stick shaker actuator. When the stick shaker is activated, the control column vibrates violently, accompanied by a loud audible warning. The combination is particularly compelling and impossible for a trained pilot to misinterpret. These systems may also be coupled to an actuator, known as a stick pusher, that will push the stick forward to initiate stall recovery. The stick shaker computer is often programmed with multiple activation schedules, one for normal operation and one or more for abnormal aircraft configurations. An example of an abnormal configuration could be an asymmetric deployment of flaps or leading edge high-lift devices.

Potential concerns

In spite of these extensive regulations, it is possible for a certificated airplane to exhibit undesirable stall characteristics. Aircraft certification is a lengthy and complex process, often involving extensive negotiations between the applicant and the certifying authority. Many of the airworthiness standards are at least partially subjective. Negotiations frequently center on the intent of those standards, how they should apply to a specific airplane, and what must be done to demonstrate compliance. As with all negotiations, there is significant give and take on both sides, and sometimes the authority will choose to accept marginal stall characteristics in exchange for something else.

There are two broad classes of potential failures in the stall warning system; absent or inappropriate stall warning, and inappropriate pilot response. Checking or testing the stall warning system prior to takeoff is typically on an aircraft checklist, but this is not always sufficient to prevent failures of the system. An inappropriate stall warning is much more insidious. If a stall warning activates too early it can prevent the pilot from using the full capability of the airplane, which may be necessary to avert an accident. A stall warning that fires too late may not give enough time for the stall to be avoided. For the warning system to be effective the pilot must take immediate corrective action when the warning is received. In a recent accident, a crew flew an airplane for approximately the final 90 seconds of the flight with the stick shaker activated and made no apparent attempts to break the stall.



Regulations for Pilot Training

Requirements and limitations

Persons applying in the United States for a private pilot certificate, the entry level rating for most pilots, are required to demonstrate stalls in flight. This fact comes as a shock to many and to some even seems irresponsible. This is understandable considering the long and varied history of accidents in which a stall was involved. Sometimes it becomes important to disabuse people of this notion.

The goals of stall training are to prepare the student pilot to recognize the cues that signal the onset of a stall and to react properly once a stall occurs. There are some situations in which it is advantageous to operate an airplane as close as possible to stall. One such maneuver is a soft-field takeoff, in which the pilot attempts to liftoff at an AOA just below stall and at as low an airspeed as possible. Stall training allows the pilot, with an acceptable degree of safety, to operate the airplane in these situations.

The FAA Practical Test Standards (PTS) are guidelines intended to standardize the instruction and examination of students pursuing pilot certificates and ratings. The PTS requires applicants for the private pilot rating to demonstrate flight proficiency in straight-ahead and turning stalls, both with power off and power on. These stalls are limited to a bank angle of not greater than 30 degrees and must be initiated at an altitude that allows for stall recovery at not less than 1,500 feet above the surface. It is routine for a student pilot to practice these maneuvers several times before the practical exam, beginning with the instructor aboard and finishing with solo practice. Instructors may, at their discretion, demonstrate more challenging stalls to their students if they are properly qualified and in an aircraft certificated for those maneuvers. These stalls include secondary stalls, accelerated stalls, crossed-control stalls, and elevator trim stalls. These demonstration stalls are more typical of the maneuvers that can result in accidents and should never be practiced by a student on a solo flight.

Applicants for the private pilot rating are not required to demonstrate flight proficiency in spins, and spins are usually not taught in basic flight instruction. However, the student pilot is required to demonstrate aeronautical knowledge of spins, spin entry, and spin recovery. As with the demonstration stalls mentioned above, demonstration spins may be flown by qualified instructors in aircraft certificated for spins.

Stall recognition is an important skill a student pilot must master during instruction. As an aircraft nears stall, control responsiveness will often be reduced relative to cruising flight, and greater control displacements will be required to achieve the desired results. Students will be coached on buffet recognition, stall warning, and stall characteristics of the aircraft type that they will use for the practical exam. Depending on the preferences of the inspector or examiner conducting a practical test, the applicant may be instructed to initiate stall recovery at stall warning, initial buffet, or after the stall break.

Potential concerns

Many factors combine to reduce the probability that a pilot will be prepared to prevent or deal with an unexpected stall. Very few pilots continue to practice stalls after they earn their ratings. Stalls in flight do not occur as a part of a normal trip. Many pilots are uncomfortable with the physical sensations that accompany a stall and the uncommanded and sometimes abrupt pitch down at the stall break. The historical convention of publishing stall speeds and having students memorize those speeds can reinforce a mistaken impression that a higher speed will always prevent a stall. Finally, the stalls that a student must practice and demonstrate are not typical of the kinds of stalls that usually precipitate accidents.



Typical Stall Related Accident Scenarios

The six accidents summarized below are representative of typical crashes in which aerodynamic stall is a contributing factor. NTSB Identification numbers are included for those readers who wish to review these accidents in greater depth.

Stalls During Departure

A Cessna 180, modified to haul parachutists, was operating from a soft sod runway with the pilot and four jumpers aboard. (NTSB Identification: NYC97FA099) The pilot elected to take off from the right side of the runway to avoid muddy areas in the center. Winds at the time of the accident were gusty with peak crosswind around 15 knots from the left. After liftoff the aircraft began to drift to the right, over a fence and toward a telephone pole. The pilot attempted a climbing turn to the right to avoid the pole. During this maneuver, the airplane stalled and crashed. Eyewitness statements indicated that the maximum bank angle was nearly 90 degrees. One of the parachutists, a commercial rated pilot, reported that the stall warning horn was sounding from liftoff to ground contact. The estimated aircraft weight at liftoff was 11% over the maximum certificated gross weight.

Many factors contributed to this stall accident. Although it is not explicitly stated in the accident report, the pilot likely used a soft-field takeoff technique. As previously noted, this high-performance takeoff procedure involves lifting off at just below the stall AOA. Once the aircraft was airborne, the pilot had very little lift margin available for maneuvering. The higher stall speed and lower aircraft performance associated with exceeding the maximum certificated gross weight aggravated an already hazardous situation.

A similar accident occurred with a float-equipped Luscombe L-8F airplane. (NTSB Identification: ANC99LA050) Climbing out after takeoff, the pilot recognized that the aircraft was not gaining sufficient altitude to clear a ridge the airplane was approaching. The pilot turned the airplane in a steep bank to avoid the ridge. During the steep turn, the airplane stalled, entered a spin, and crashed. As with the previous example, the accident airplane was loaded in excess of the maximum allowable takeoff weight.

Stalls During Maneuvering

A Beech 95-B55 was on a routine fire reconnaissance patrol when it crashed in a narrow river canyon. (NTSB Identification: LAX97GA198) The canyon was bounded on each side by steeply rising terrain. The aircraft came to rest on a sandbar at a bend in the river. No ground scars were observed outside the immediate area of the main wreckage, which is indicative of a nearly vertical descent at impact. The river bend had a measured 400-foot turn radius. The cruise speed of the aircraft based on the position of the elevator trim tab and estimates of the aircraft weight and CG location was calculated at 120 knots. At 120 knots, a 73 degree bank angle is required for an aircraft to make a constant-altitude, 400-foot radius turn. The stall speed at that bank angle is 111 knots, and in a constant-altitude turn at 120 knots the airplane will stall at a bank angle of 76 degrees. From these data we can see that the pilot had very little margin for error in this turn. Losing more than 9 knots of airspeed during the turn would cause a stall, as would turning more sharply with the bank angle 3 degrees more than the minimum required angle. The aircraft is likely to have stalled and entered a spin that terminated in a crash on the canyon floor.

This crash is a somber reiteration that it is possible for an airplane to stall at speeds significantly greater than the stall speed listed in the airplane flight manual. The published stall speed for the aircraft in the crash configuration was 60 knots, half the estimated speed of the aircraft at the time of the accident.

Stalls During Approach

A Glasair III took off and climbed to approximately 500 feet above ground level. (NTSB Identification: ATL00LA070) At that altitude the pilot initiated an aggressive turn for an immediate return to the runway. While maneuvering to align with the runway, the airplane stalled, rolled inverted and crashed in a 20 to 30 degree nose down attitude. One eyewitness reported observing a problem with the accident aircraft€s canopy during takeoff.

An airplane stalling in the final stages of a landing is a frequent cause of accidents during approach. Aircraft AOA in this flight phase is already close to stall. If a pilot overshoots the final approach path during the turn to final, there is a strong temptation to tighten the turn and get the airplane back over the extended runway centerline. If the pilot turns too sharply, the aircraft will stall. There is seldom sufficient altitude for the pilot to recover from the stall.

During an instrument landing system (ILS) approach to landing in low visibility, a Beech 200 crashed 1.3 nautical miles short of the runway. (NTSB Identification: SEA97FA067) Analysis of radar data showed that the aircraft was above the glide slope until approximately 1.8 nautical miles from the runway at a radar ground speed of 103 knots. After the airplane was established on the glide slope, the aircraft speed began to decrease. For approximately 30 seconds the speed decayed at about one knot per second until it stalled at about 70 knots and 400 feet above the surface. Manufacturer€s data indicates that up to 800 vertical feet may be required to recover from a stall.

Stalls during emergency landing

During cruising flight at 800 feet above ground level and 80 knots airspeed, a Pietenpol Air Camper 1933 experienced an engine stoppage. (NTSB Identification: MIA01LA186) Attempts to restart the engine were unsuccessful. The pilot attempted an emergency landing on a nearby field. At about 80 feet altitude and 50 knots the pilot executed a sharp turn, causing the aircraft to stall and crash.

An emergency landing is one of the most challenging events a pilot will ever experience. The conditions are almost never ideal, and obstacles or hazards that may not have been visible when the pilot selected a landing site become all too obvious as the approach nears its end. This presents the pilot with an unenviable choice between continuing the landing or attempting an evasive turn that may result in a stall and crash.

&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;



The essence one can derive from the article, beyond the techical descriptions, is that "Stall" is a phenomenom, as TX-EcoDragon has commented, which cannot be catagorized to a particular speed or AOA, but in fact is variable.

"Departure", and "Stall Speed", (thanks to Max for his continued emphasis) also are variable, depending on the attitude of the aircraft, throttle settings, etc.

The main core of the disagreement which unfortunately persists between myself and MaxGunz, is in our reading of the description by Dave Southwood of the stall behaviour of the Warbird "Black Six".

The paragraph in question is:

"The idle power stall characteristics of the aircraft are very benign and affected little by undercarriage and flap position. Stalling warning is a slight wing rock with the stick floating right by about 2 inches. This occurs 10klph before the stall. The stall itself is a left wing drop through about 15 degrees with a slight nose drop, accompanied by a light buffet. All controls are effective up to the stall, and recovery is instant on moving the stick forward. Stall speeds are 155kph clean and 140kph with gear and flap down."

And the key sentence is:

"Stall speeds are 155 kph clean and 140 kph with gear and flap down."

Max insists the speeds mentioned in this sentence are meant by the pilot to be referenced the strict FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY definition of "Stall speed", which is the speed at which an aircraft starts to lose altitude, or cannot maintain level flight altitude at zero throttle.

I am not so locked into a defintion. It may be the pilot meant what Max claims, or perhaps he was referencing the earlier sentence, "The Stall is a left wing drop through abut 15 degrees with a slight nose drop, accompanied by a light buffet." and the speeds mentioned are related to the departure point.

In any case, this question has resulted in all kinds of bad mannered commentary, both by myself and Max. For my part, I am sorry this bad feeling persists, certainly I am guilty of losing my temper at times, so is Max.

But I don't feel the issue is such that we can assume that Max's interpretation is correct, and it is a closed subject, especially in light of the data which has come to light in the Finnish test, which notes speeds very different from what we get when testing the game's 109G2.

Max has asked for a track showing the 109G2 departing at speeds much lower than 175 kph noted in the Finnish test. I will provide those in a few days.

Chadburn
10-10-2005, 01:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
Rather, the 109 has issues due to improper torque modeling and the accelerated stall bug afflicting all slat equipped aircraft. Oh yeah, I forgot, why do the late models out turn the Fs? this flys in the face of all reports.

It's not the end of the world, just something that needs fixing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obviously the later model 109's shouldn't out turn the F model. But what evidence do you have to show that the F model fm is so spot on that it should therefore be the benchmark?

For example, in yet another thread about the stalling of 109.s, NonWonderDog used device link to show the following in-game stall speeds:

"To test this in the sim, fly as slow as you can while maintaining 1.00 g. You'll have to pull back further on the stick as you decellerate. Eventually you'll need the critical angle of attack from the wings in order to maintain altitude. If you continue pulling back smoothly on the stick the aircraft will depart at *exactly* stall speed. That is how I arrived at my figures:
Me-109E4 -- 150 km/h
Me-109F2 -- 152 km/h
Me-109G2 -- 146 km/h
Me-109G6 -- 152 km/h
Me-109G14 -- 152 km/h
Me-109G10 -- 152 km/h
Me-109K4 -- 155 km/h
Me-109K4/R4 -- 164 km/h"

Note the in-game stall speed of the E4. But according to RAE testing, the r/l stall speed of a captured 109E was only 75 mph or 120 kph. The fact could be that there's an error in the F's flight model.

And the 109's torque modelling is improperly modelled? As opposed to what, the Corsair's whose torque is so benign it hardly replicates historical accounts I've read. I think most won't be happy with the 109 unless it's corkscrewing through the sky and almost impossible to take off and land in.

Buzzsaw-
10-10-2005, 02:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chadburn:

For example, in yet another thread about the stalling of 109.s, NonWonderDog used device link to show the following in-game stall speeds.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chadburn: If you look at the stall speeds listed by Non-Wonderdog, you will note that the speeds are obviously taken from a TAS reading off the no-cockpit mode, since we get figures such as "164 kph", "152 kph", etc.

The historical testing took the readings in IAS, and so people testing should take the stall speed readings off the speedbar, which reads IAS.

In regards to the stall speed of the 109E as tested by the RAF, it was 130 kph, not 120, as you can see below.

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/6258/me10955va.jpg

Chadburn
10-10-2005, 02:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Chadburn:

For example, in yet another thread about the stalling of 109.s, NonWonderDog used device link to show the following in-game stall speeds.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chadburn: If you look at the stall speeds listed by Non-Wonderdog, you will note that the speeds are obviously taken from a TAS reading off the no-cockpit mode, since we get figures such as "164 kph", "152 kph", etc.

The historical testing took the readings in IAS, and so people testing should take the stall speed readings off the speedbar, which reads IAS.

In regards to the stall speed of the 109E as tested by the RAF, it was 130 kph, not 120, as you can see below. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

NonWonderDog's tests used device link and were done at 1000m on the Crimea map. Adjust for altitude and you still come up with an IAS of 140kph.

The reported stall speed of 75mph was given by M.B. Morgan and R. Smelt of the RAE when they lectured on 'The aerodynamic features of German aircraft'in 1944. The plane they referenced was the captured 109E Wn:1304.

Edit: My point is that while it's obvious later 109's should stall at higher speeds than the E or F, there's some question about the current stall speed of those early models.

ElAurens
10-10-2005, 04:18 PM
Chadburn, I'm not trying to draw, or be drawn into a long discussion about this. And I don't have any kind of benchmark to know which is wrong, all I know is the F models in game are out turned by the later 109s. This is not correct. Either the Fs are wrong or the late models are.

BTW, the BF 109 as a series had some of the worst ground handling of any fighter of the war, yet in game they are easy to deal with, and like the Corsair, their torque effects are totally bogus.

WWMaxGunz
10-10-2005, 05:13 PM
Chadburn, what was the loading, flaps and gear configuration in that RAE test?
Just trying to cut down on the variation of pure numbers only being thrown in here.

Finnish G-2 test was done full ammo, was it full fuel?, power at idle, clean config.
Dave Southwood, no ammo, no idea of fuel load, was it power off?, clean config.
I'd be amazed if the speeds were the same.

Pilots do not check stall speed in descending aircraft. It would have no useful meaning.
Harp away about definitions, bring in lawyers with their typical cloud the issue mountain
of related and semi-related text ---
but in the end there is one simple way to check stall speed and that's it.

Reference stall speed is when the plane cannot hold altitude in straight and level flight.
Other stall characteristics may occur but it's the loss of alt that defines it. A wing
won't drop if the plane will stay at alt. If you lose alt and still wait for a wing to
drop then you're not checking stall speed but something else.

This is like someone who insists that cat is spelled kat and can't take a dictionary
definition of the word but has to run around quoting every instance where 'kat' is
used as evidence of that being the correct spelling. Something so simple and yet it
can be so screwed just to push for changing one set of planes. Nobody has to be a
professor to get this right, just go read the definition which is simple and clear.

Viper2005_
10-10-2005, 07:21 PM
Heck there's a lot of hate going on around here!

I would have thought that most of the issues people have with this sim could be solved by some straight forward flight testing.

Such testing would take place in 2 phases.

i) Test the aircraft in the sim to work out what they represent accurately*; much information is currently missing, which makes it very difficult to make accurate pronouncements on the subject of aircraft performance.

ii) Replicate NACA or similar test flights, correct as required, and then compare like with like to critique the flight model.

*eg exact aircraft type, mod state, weight and balance, atmospheric conditions etc...

Buzzsaw-
10-10-2005, 07:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chadburn:

NonWonderDog's tests used device link and were done at 1000m on the Crimea map. Adjust for altitude and you still come up with an IAS of 140kph.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is quite likely that the game 109E4 is undermodelled in both its turnrate and its stall speed. The Soviet tests of the aircraft did not give very good results for turn times. British turn times showed the aircraft to be better. If you are getting 140 kph, that would be 10 kph too high, based on the documents from the RAE.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chadburn:

The reported stall speed of 75mph was given by M.B. Morgan and R. Smelt of the RAE when they lectured on 'The aerodynamic features of German aircraft'in 1944. The plane they referenced was the captured 109E Wn:1304.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I quite familiar with that article. It not a first hand report, but rather, taken from earlier RAF tests. The lecture was not given till 1944, so there is a possibility that the two lecturers confused their figures.

Entire article can be found here:

http://www.bf109.com/flying.html

The page I showed, was from a test of that exact same aircraft, 109E3 Wn:1304. The fact that the original document shows a stall speed of 130 kph, suggests the later lecturers might have made a mistake with their figures.

Buzzsaw-
10-10-2005, 07:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:

I would have thought that most of the issues people have with this sim could be solved by some straight forward flight testing.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly.

GR142-Pipper
10-10-2005, 09:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chadburn:
Obviously the later model 109's shouldn't out turn the F model. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You're right but the problem is in this game they do. At low altitude the G-2 also nearly turns as well as a Yak-3 and it shouldn't by a long shot. Respectfully Chadburn, it's clear something is very wrong and before anyone pipes up and says it has to do with the game engine, it doesn't. This is a 109-specific programming issue. It appears that either the program coding of its engine power capabilites make it overpowered or that the program code for its wing area provides it with an artifically low wing loading value. Whatever it is, something in the code is making the 109G/K into turners they never were in real life.

GR142-Pipper

Chadburn
10-10-2005, 09:39 PM
I wouldn't want to make any assumptions about the discrepancies in the tested stall speeds of the 109E. They exist, but why is unclear. I can't remember if the report you cite says anything about throttle position on the 109 during the stall. Does it mention gliding or cruising? (I've read that report online but the link I have to isn't working)

As for testing, Viper, it's been done at various points by different people on different aspects of the game but it isn't as simple a solution as it seems.

For example, here are NonWonderDog's device link tests on the game's Spits. 1000m, Crimea map, standard loadout, 100% fuel, throttle at 15%. What do you make of them?

(BTW, as Buzz pointed out, these are TAS, so subtract 10kph for the IAS to compensate for the alt. above s/l)

Spitfire Mk. Vb -- 136 km/h
Spitfire Mk. Vb (CW) -- 137 km/h
Spitfire Mk. Vc (2) -- 138 km/h
Spitfire Mk. Vc (4) -- 139 km/h
Spitfire Mk. VIII -- 151 km/h
Spitfire Mk. VIII (CW) -- 151 km/h
Spitfire Mk. IXc -- 151 km/h
Spit L.F. Mk. IXc (CW) -- 153 km/h
Spitfire Mk. IXe -- 153 km/h
Spit L.F. Mk. IXe (CW) -- 154 km/h

GR142-Pipper
10-10-2005, 09:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chadburn:
As for testing, Viper, it's been done at various points by different people on different aspects of the game but it isn't as simple a solution as it seems.

For example, here are NonWonderDog's device link tests on the game's Spits. 1000m, Crimea map, standard loadout, 100% fuel, throttle at 15%. What do you make of them? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The problem with DeviceLink is that it simply parrots what the game code is saying. If the game code is wrong so are any results provided by DeviceLink.

GR142-Pipper

Viper2005_
10-10-2005, 10:02 PM
Well without actually sitting down to do the maths, I'd say that the numbers seem sort of reasonable.

Remember that the Spitfire was designed around grass runways. You really don't want to be landing on grass at high speed with a tail-dragger.

Grass is a rather deceptive surface. It is generally rather less flat than you think it is.

The fact is that if you're limited to working from grass airstrips, landing speeds greater than about 100 knots are going to be bad for your health.

All Spitfires pre the Mk 20 had the same basic wing. Whilst there were clipped and extended wing versions, the basic wing was retained.

As such the power off stall speed of all the important Spitfires of standard wingspan ( I, II, V, IX, XIV, XVIII) will vary simply as the square root of the mass. It should therefore be simple to use stall speed to validate aircraft mass, assuming that CoG is constant.

Of course CoG won't be constant... life is never that simple! ...

Buzzsaw-
10-10-2005, 10:56 PM
Salute

The stall speeds of the Spitfires are actually pretty close to historical, but the aircraft turn times are too low, the same as the La-5/La-7 series and the 109's. I suspect the problem is the Spits have not enough speed bleed.

karost
10-10-2005, 11:30 PM
I think if stall character in 109 come close to IL2 original again .... wow that will be more advantage for 109 to make a vertical stall turn faster http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

btw, I like to read a real pilot comment batter.

S!

Kurfurst__
10-11-2005, 09:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
You're right but the problem is in this game they do. At low altitude the G-2 also nearly turns as well as a Yak-3 and it shouldn't by a long shot. Respectfully Chadburn, it's clear something is very wrong and before anyone pipes up and says it has to do with the game engine, it doesn't. This is a 109-specific programming issue. It appears that either the program coding of its engine power capabilites make it overpowered or that the program code for its wing area provides it with an artifically low wing loading value. Whatever it is, something in the code is making the 109G/K into turners they never were in real life.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know. Could you post some real life turn data for the 109 and turn data for the in-game 109s?

Because, you see, "109 turns too good! Make it worser!" then repeating it aka the Buzzsaw-method isn't very convincing.

Scientifically, there is some answer, sustained turn rates of the later 109s chould easily be as good or even better than the previous models, since it depends on no small extent on available thrust (ie. engine power) which of course was greatly increased through the development when more powerful engines were added. Such can be traced down in British Spitfire tests, which also showed the same pattern, ie. later, much heavier ones were able to match the sustained turn rates of previous models, or even beat them at altitude, since their power outputs, especially with the two-staged engines at altitude, was much greater.

Instanenous turn rate is a different matter, it should favour the earlier models with the lower wingloading (true since otherwise they are near-identical aerodynamically) - however I don't think anyone here can seriously claim the instanenous turn rate of the late 109s would be better than the early ones.

Ugly_Kid
10-11-2005, 10:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chadburn:
(BTW, as Buzz pointed out, these are TAS, so subtract 10kph for the IAS to compensate for the alt. above s/l) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He pointed it out wrongly, sry http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif If the data is indeed from devicelink, it is in IAS, devicelink doesn't provide TAS, a problem which BBB_Hyperion tried desperately to solve in the past if my memory serves me right. (Oleg's TAS formula is also something peculiar, IRC, which was the particular problem in that one). Sry no TAS...

Having figures such as 164 kph and 152 kph does not vouch for TAS, you do get IAS even in decimals from Devicelink if you wish (but no TAS).

GR142-Pipper
10-11-2005, 01:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I don't know. Could you post some real life turn data for the 109 and turn data for the in-game 109s?[/quot]That's been done ad nauseum.

[quote]Because, you see, "109 turns too good! Make it worser!" then repeating it aka the Buzzsaw-method isn't very convincing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>This isn't a "whodunit". Even the 109G-2 turns better than the 109F in this game. Engage a 109G-2 with a Yak-3 in a close-in engagement and see for yourself. You'll probably still be unconvinced dispite this and the real world pilot accounts of the 109G/K series not being turners.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Scientifically, there is some answer, sustained turn rates of the later 109s chould easily be as good or even better than the previous models, since it depends on no small extent on available thrust (ie. engine power) which of course was greatly increased through the development when more powerful engines were added. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> The problem with that theory is that the 109s weight increased with the later versions and with it their wing loading increased. The net result is that they didn't turn as well...except in this game.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Such can be traced down in British Spitfire tests, which also showed the same pattern, ie. later, much heavier ones were able to match the sustained turn rates of previous models, or even beat them at altitude, since their power outputs, especially with the two-staged engines at altitude, was much greater. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Show us ANY data which shows that late model 109s turned better than the earlier F models. Show us ANY data where late model 109s turned better than Spits IXs or Yak-3s. Show us ANY pilot accounts where Yak-3s and Spits were out turned by 109G's and later. I'll save you the effort. There isn't any because 109s couldn't in real life, unlike in this game.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Instanenous turn rate is a different matter, it should favour the earlier models with the lower wingloading (true since otherwise they are near-identical aerodynamically) - however I don't think anyone here can seriously claim the instanenous turn rate of the late 109s would be better than the early ones. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>If they were nearly identical aerodynamically (which is true) but the later models were heavier with higher wing loading (which is also true), the later models should NOT be superior in either instantaneous or sustained turn rates.

GR142-Pipper

Aaron_GT
10-11-2005, 02:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The problem with DeviceLink is that it simply parrots what the game code is saying. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ditto the IAS or TAS displays or anything else in the sim. DeviceLink, until proven otherwise, is the gold standard for getting data out.

Aaron_GT
10-11-2005, 02:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Engage a 109G-2 with a Yak-3 in a close-in engagement and see for yourself. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you are flying against an AI Yak-3 I'd reserve judgement as the AI still does odd things. The test would be for two pilots online, both familiar with each type, to fly the 109 and the Yak, swap, and repeat a few times.

Aaron_GT
10-11-2005, 02:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If they were nearly identical aerodynamically (which is true) but the later models were heavier with higher wing loading (which is also true), the later models should NOT be superior in either instantaneous or sustained turn rates. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kurfurst said that the later models should not do so well in instantaneous turns. Instantaneous turns will depend on wing loading and to a certain extent elevator authority. Sustained turns will depend on wing loading and power loading. Kurfurst does actually have it right - you can't make a hard and fast judgement based on just wing loading. As to whether the sim has the balance of all the factors right, that's another matter.

Aaron_GT
10-11-2005, 02:44 PM
Soviet 1943 fighter manual:
"Horizontal maneuverability in a Me-109 is not that great. An experienced pilot can make a full turn in 20-21 seconds. Sharp horizontal turns are hard to do as the plane easily stalls; you rarely see snap turns in a Me-109."

This is for the 109F and G-2.

WWMaxGunz
10-11-2005, 03:13 PM
Viper, it would be simpler if people ran tests correctly or even nearly so.
We have members who have argued and are still not convinced that what is
known and printed as 'stall speed' cannot be measured while the plane is
losing alt. To them a wing must drop in the 109 since Dave Southwood wrote
in his article that the 109G-2 stall occurred with a wing drop. This has
been raised now for the third time and the "stall speed" obtained by losing
alt nose up until finally a wing drop occurs has been quoted unchanged as
proof that there's something massively wrong with the 109's.

Yes there is a problem but it's not just the 109's.

Pipper, try the Lavochkins some time, the La5FN especially and then come
back and say how the 109's are the worst please.

It's anything with slats. It's really all the planes or almost all.
Check the climb vs speed sometime and plot a curve.

If thrust in general were off scale in relation to all else, we would see
things like heavy but powerful planes out turning lighter versions of
themselves. But that may not be it or may only be part of what is goofy.

Pointing at one model of plane or another and screaming for change doesn't
get general problems fixed. It just gets more tweaks to planes.

Chadburn
10-11-2005, 03:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chadburn:
(BTW, as Buzz pointed out, these are TAS, so subtract 10kph for the IAS to compensate for the alt. above s/l) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He pointed it out wrongly, sry http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif If the data is indeed from devicelink, it is in IAS, devicelink doesn't provide TAS, a problem which BBB_Hyperion tried desperately to solve in the past if my memory serves me right. (Oleg's TAS formula is also something peculiar, IRC, which was the particular problem in that one). Sry no TAS...

Having figures such as 164 kph and 152 kph does not vouch for TAS, you do get IAS even in decimals from Devicelink if you wish (but no TAS). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for pointing that out, Kid.

That means that stall speeds for the E and F models are even worse since no adjustment for IAS is required. British tests say 130 for E model, IAS. Game would be about 150 IAS. That's pretty dramatic.

Again, the G2 may out-turn the earlier E and especially F models, but it seems the stall and turn of the E and F are off by a fair margin.

GR142_Astro
10-11-2005, 03:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Engage a 109G-2 with a Yak-3 in a close-in engagement and see for yourself. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you are flying against an AI Yak-3 I'd reserve judgement as the AI still does odd things. The test would be for two pilots online, both familiar with each type, to fly the 109 and the Yak, swap, and repeat a few times. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Already done.

This info comes from 1,000s of online engagements on each patch version. Most of the engagements are versus Russian players, which have a reputation of being among the best online players. Oh yeah, and they know and use all the eploits available to the 109.

Aaron_GT
10-11-2005, 04:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This info comes from 1,000s of online engagements on each patch version. Most of the engagements are versus Russian players, which have a reputation of being among the best online players. Oh yeah, and they know and use all the eploits available to the 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm... sustained turn rate should be about the same for the 109G-2 and the Yak-3 from what I've read, but the Yak-3 should bleed more energy in the turn and thus have a smaller radius. In a hard TnB fight the advantage should go to the Yak-3 according to the VVS manuals, but then the VVS manuals reccomend not turn fighting with a 109 even then as it the additional energy bleed will give the 109 a potential advantage in the vertical and leave the Yak open to being caught with its pants down by a BnZ attack. Even then the VVS manuals seem more optimistic than some VVS pilot accounts.

If the 109G-2 is reliably managing faster turn rates (which might be ok, depends on what you read whether the 109 or the Yak has the sustained rate advantage) and turn radius then something is up. It might not be much, though. If each plane is hitting its performance +- a few percent then it wouldn't be hard for two planes with closely matched turn to have their relative strengths reversed. If so that's an argument for more FM refinement and a bug report indicating that whilst performances relative to specs might be fairly close the relative performances aren't. I think ultimately the right thing to do is to try to model each plane to the specs and have the relative performances fall out from that, though.

GR142-Pipper
10-11-2005, 05:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The problem with DeviceLink is that it simply parrots what the game code is saying. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ditto the IAS or TAS displays or anything else in the sim. DeviceLink, until proven otherwise, is the gold standard for getting data out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It's not the "getting data out" that's at issue. It's whether or not the data that's obtained is any good. If the game code is incorrect, data derived from DeviceLink based on incorrect data will likewise be incorrect.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
10-11-2005, 09:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Hmmm... sustained turn rate should be about the same for the 109G-2 and the Yak-3 from what I've read </div></BLOCKQUOTE> What document was it that you read?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">but the Yak-3 should bleed more energy in the turn and thus have a smaller radius. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>1. Where did you read that the Yak-3 should bleed more energy in the turn?
2. In a sustained turn fight, the winner is usually the one with the higher sustained turn RATE (not smaller radius).

GR142-Pipper

Aaron_GT
10-12-2005, 12:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's not the "getting data out" that's at issue. It's whether or not the data that's obtained is any good. If the game code is incorrect, data derived from DeviceLink based on incorrect data will likewise be incorrect. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you follow this line of reasoning any data of any sort obtained from the game is incorrect in which case there is no point looking at IAS and stall speeds of the 109s either. You have to take at face value some of the data coming from the game.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What document was it that you read? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

VVS fighter tactics training manual from 1943. Yak-3 turn rate: 19 seconds for 360, 109G-2: 20-21 seconds. It notes that the Yak turn is superior at lower speeds, although it doesn't state what the case is at higher speeds so I am not sure it is safe to infer what the relative turns are like at higher speeds.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">1. Where did you read that the Yak-3 should bleed more energy in the turn? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is surmised from the VVS fighter training manual which states similar turn rates but a much smaller turn radius for the Yak and warns of losing lots of speed in turns. From this I deduce that the Yak is tightening its turn by giving up energy.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">2. In a sustained turn fight, the winner is usually the one with the higher sustained turn RATE (not smaller radius). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the rates are similar then having a smaller radius will allow you to turn inside the enemy and bring your guns to bear (again from the VVS manual and from RAF sources) and is so advantageous, except that if it requires a larger energy bleed to accomplish this it can leave you slow and vulnerable.

GR142-Pipper
10-12-2005, 12:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
[QUOTE]From Pipper: It's not the "getting data out" that's at issue. It's whether or not the data that's obtained is any good. If the game code is incorrect, data derived from DeviceLink based on incorrect data will likewise be incorrect. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">From Aaron: If you follow this line of reasoning any data of any sort obtained from the game is incorrect in which case there is no point looking at IAS and stall speeds of the 109s either. You have to take at face value some of the data coming from the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>IMO the data is clearly suspect when 109G-xx/Ks below 10K feet out turn Yak-3s in the game. Furthermore, there are no pilot accounts that I'm aware of which cite that 109Gs/Ks are even able to turn with (let alone out turn) Yak-3s.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">From Pipper: What document was it that you read? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">From Aaron: VVS fighter tactics training manual from 1943. Yak-3 turn rate: 19 seconds for 360, 109G-2: 20-21 seconds. It notes that the Yak turn is superior at lower speeds, although it doesn't state what the case is at higher speeds so I am not sure it is safe to infer what the relative turns are like at higher speeds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>From 1943? The Yak-3 didn't come out until 1944. It doesn't sound like a Yak-3 is being compared. Anyway, I'd like to have a look at that VVS tactics manual and review the charts and commentary. Do you have a link?

GR142-Pipper

Aaron_GT
10-12-2005, 03:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">IMO the data is clearly suspect when 109G-xx/Ks below 10K feet out turn Yak-3s in the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm a bit confused as to why you say the DATA is wrong. Why would the DATA be wrong. Surely if the behaviour it is wrong it is the FM that is likely to be wrong, not DeviceLink?

Aaron_GT
10-12-2005, 03:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">From 1943? The Yak-3 didn't come out until 1944. It doesn't sound like a Yak-3 is being compared. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My mistake, it was the Yak-1. All the talk previously about Yak-3s had given me Yak-3s on the brain.

Kurfurst__
10-12-2005, 07:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Kurfurst said that the later models should not do so well in instantaneous turns. Instantaneous turns will depend on wing loading and to a certain extent elevator authority. Sustained turns will depend on wing loading and power loading. Kurfurst does actually have it right - you can't make a hard and fast judgement based on just wing loading. As to whether the sim has the balance of all the factors right, that's another matter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, and when we look at power- and wingloading :

All wings are 16,05 m2 area.

Bf 109 F-4 :
W= 2890 kg
P= 1350 PS

W/L = 180 kg/m2
P/L = 467 PS/t


Bf 109 G-2 :
W= 3037 kg
P= 1475 PS

W/L = 189 kg/m2
P/L = 485 PS/t


Bf 109 K-4 :
W = 3362 kg
P = 2000 PS

W/L = 209 kg/m2
P/L = 595 PS/t

Ie. going from 109F to 109K, wingloading got 16% worser, powerloading became [/b]27% better.[/b].
This is true for SL, but at altitude things would favour even more the later models, having a lot better more output at altitude, so the P/L difference would be probably even greatr in the favour of the late moderls, while the W/L is constant, of course.

Kocur_
10-12-2005, 08:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Kurfurst said that the later models should not do so well in instantaneous turns. Instantaneous turns will depend on wing loading and to a certain extent elevator authority. Sustained turns will depend on wing loading and power loading. Kurfurst does actually have it right - you can't make a hard and fast judgement based on just wing loading. As to whether the sim has the balance of all the factors right, that's another matter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, and when we look at power- and wingloading :

All wings are 16,05 m2 area.

Bf 109 F-4 :
W= 2890 kg
P= 1350 PS

W/L = 180 kg/m2
P/L = 467 PS/t


Bf 109 G-2 :
W= 3037 kg
P= 1475 PS

W/L = 189 kg/m2
P/L = 485 PS/t


Bf 109 K-4 :
W = 3362 kg
P = 2000 PS

W/L = 209 kg/m2
P/L = 595 PS/t

Ie. going from 109F to 109K, wingloading got 16% worser, powerloading became [/b]27% better.[/b].
This is true for SL, but at altitude things would favour even more the later models, having a lot better more output at altitude, so the P/L difference would be probably even greatr in the favour of the late moderls, while the W/L is constant, of course. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

...and to continue:

Yak-3:

wing area 14,85m^2

W = 2692 kg
P = 1240 PS
W/L = 181 kg/m^2
P/L = 460 ps/t

I.e. Yak3 had slightly better wingloading, but OTOH slightly worse powerloading than G2.

But I tried using RL data before in similar occasion before - it doesnt work: "Yak-3 was turning wonder, PERIOD!".

Ugly_Kid
10-12-2005, 09:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
IMO the data is clearly suspect when 109G-xx/Ks below 10K feet out turn Yak-3s in the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Proove it!, a track will do just nicely, best sustained turn you can muster from each one of them - I recommend Crimea 1000 m and at least 3x360? maintaining speed and alt. My copy of game did not come with one single 109 which outturn yak-3 in sustained, maybe you master a secret 109 trick, hem hem...

Aaron_GT
10-12-2005, 10:16 AM
A while ago someone posted sustained turned rates for a whole load of planes including Yaks and 109s. They are probably for old patch versions but might be interesting. They can be done again. If they match the specs (about 18-19 seconds for a Yak-1, 20-21 for a 109G-2) then that bit is correct. I am not sure quite how to measure turn radii and the spiral as energy is bled that would help the Yak turn inside a 109 but I am sure someone is clever enough with DeviceLink to do it.

arrow80
10-12-2005, 11:13 AM
You are simplifying too much...lift isn't just a function of powerloading and wingloading. I can certainly build a wing with area of 25 m^2 with zero lift.

Buzzsaw-
10-12-2005, 11:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Bf 109 K-4 :
W = 3362 kg
P = 2000 PS

W/L = 209 kg/m2
P/L = 595 PS/t

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kurfurst is claiming 2000 hp for the K4, when as we all know, 98% of the K4's in operational usage were limited to 1.80 boost and 1800 hp.

Buzzsaw-
10-12-2005, 11:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:

A while ago someone posted sustained turned rates for a whole load of planes including Yaks and 109s. If they match the specs (about 18-19 seconds for a Yak-1, 20-21 for a 109G-2) then that bit is correct.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tests here:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m...641084933#7641084933 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/3501094933/r/7641084933#7641084933#7641084933)

They do not match. Turntimes are much better than historical for 109's, La-5/La-7's and Spitfires.

GR142-Pipper
10-12-2005, 01:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
IMO the data is clearly suspect when 109G-xx/Ks below 10K feet out turn Yak-3s in the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Proove it!, a track will do just nicely, best sustained turn you can muster from each one of them - I recommend Crimea 1000 m and at least 3x360? maintaining speed and alt. My copy of game did not come with one single 109 which outturn yak-3 in sustained, maybe you master a secret 109 trick, hem hem... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Try getting into a few engagements with people who know how to fly each aircraft and see for yourself. You'll find out quickly enough the ridiculous turning capabilities the 109G/K (especially the G-2) now possess in this game.

GR142-Pipper

Ugly_Kid
10-12-2005, 01:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Try getting into a few engagements with people who know how to fly each aircraft and see for yourself. You'll find out quickly enough the ridiculous turning capabilities the 109G/K (especially the G-2) now possess in this game.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sry, but getting your tail waxed doesn't proove one thing or another, I do get mine regularly, yet I don't blame the hardware. You claimed 109 in game puts up a better sustained turn than Yak-3 or Spitfire, I doubt it, particularly the yak bit so feel free to proove it...

faustnik
10-12-2005, 02:09 PM
Well, it really isn't that simple UglyKid. The Yak will turn better at higher speeds but, as speeds drop the Bf109 will have much more stability in the turn and the Yak will spin out of the turn sooner. This question is not just about turn times, but, about stability in a turn. The Bf109 simply is more stable in a turn than any other a/c in 4.01 by a large factor. I don't know if it right or wrong, but, that's the way it is now.

???????????

WWMaxGunz
10-12-2005, 02:25 PM
I was able to put the La5FN into a much harder turn at lower speed than the 109G-6A/S
(or any other 109 I tried) and hold it there. La's seem more stable to me.

OTOH, P-51 is just twitchy in a bank under 200 mph.

Ugly_Kid
10-12-2005, 02:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Well, it really isn't that simple UglyKid. The Yak will turn better at higher speeds but, as speeds drop the Bf109 will have much more stability in the turn and the Yak will spin out of the turn sooner. This question is not just about turn times, but, about stability in a turn. The Bf109 simply is more stable in a turn than any other a/c in 4.01 by a large factor. I don't know if it right or wrong, but, that's the way it is now.

??????????? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yak spin out sooner, sure thing, with 2 s superior turn I can still easily earn to fly it a bit more tongue on the cheek and pick my nose for good measures. Yak as I see it, is still rock solid - it used to be more twitchy - Spit, currently, is much more complicated, yet still puts up a notable turning performance. If you have problems with sensitivities and handling, doesn't mean that the "performance" part of the FM is all wrong. That said, I don't see Spit or Yak performing subpar to 109 in sustained turn, by a large margin, but I'll gladly see a proof of the opposite.

Kocur_
10-12-2005, 02:58 PM
All planes with slats are bugged, i.e.are too stable in turn, almost unstallable (accelerated that is). Guess its new "beta FM" bug. ALL, that includes Bf109 (unfortunately).

Pipper! Please look at numbers - not those from the game but RL ones: Bf109G2 had wingloading only a bit greater than Yak-3's and a bit better powerloading - why in the world is it so hard to belive G2 was capable of turning close to Yak-3's abilities!? CAPABLE doesnt mean used that way IRL. And dont ask for any pilots accounts on Yak-3 vs. G2 in turning, because Yak-3s appeared two years after G2 did!

Aaron_GT
10-12-2005, 03:35 PM
Based on those tests, Buzzsaw, both the 109G AND the Yak-1 are overperforming, edit: the Yak-1 is pretty close, though, but the 109G2 (if taken as the 109F) is too good by a bigger margin. The relative performance is correct (if only just) but it should match the historical performance too.

But something is seriously wrong with the 109E - it's stall speed is too high and according to the tests you posted the turn rate is very wrong.

Aaron_GT
10-12-2005, 03:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">La's seem more stable to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe it's the slats.

I remember back in original IL2 days playing against a German squad online in Mig-3s and they had vicious departure behaviour. I can't remember (it's a while since I've taken up a Mig-3) if the game just has the versions with slats or early Mig-3s without slats, nor can I remember which version we were flying.

Aaron_GT
10-12-2005, 03:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">CAPABLE doesnt mean used that way IRL. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 1943 VVS manual suggests that the Yak's capabilities were clearly superior in TnB, but also warns not to get into long, drawn out TnB fights due to the better ability of the 109 in the vertical. Part of that will be due to better power loading enabling a 109 to go into a spiral climb and beat a Yak, and then come back in a BnZ maneouver.

Team tactics can change the picture dramatically, of course. Even if your plane has great turn and great power loading for a spiral climb you don't want to get slow if you are fighting many-on-many as someone can simply set up a BnZ on you. In a many-on-many fight BnZ and winging is the way to go, and then having slightly inferior sustained turn isn't very important. Good control authority for last minute control corrections when heading onto target and stability at speed is more important. Obviously there is a certain tension between those two as you want course corrections to be responsive but positive and not send you skidding all over the sky at high speed.

GR142-Pipper
10-12-2005, 03:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Try getting into a few engagements with people who know how to fly each aircraft and see for yourself. You'll find out quickly enough the ridiculous turning capabilities the 109G/K (especially the G-2) now possess in this game.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Sry, but getting your tail waxed doesn't proove one thing or another, I do get mine regularly, yet I don't blame the hardware. You claimed 109 in game puts up a better sustained turn than Yak-3 or Spitfire, I doubt it, particularly the yak bit so feel free to proove it... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't know what you're talking about when you reference blaming hardware. I've certainly never said that. What I have said is that the 109G/K (especially the G-2) turn way too well. The G-2 can just about turn with a Yak-3 which is completely ficticious. So engage some 109G-2s with your Yak-3 and see if what I say isn't true. The choice is yours and the results of those engagements will no doubt be educational.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
10-12-2005, 04:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
...Yak as I see it, is still rock solid - it used to be more twitchy - Spit, currently, is much more complicated, yet still puts up a notable turning performance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> In 4.01 you're saying that the Yak-3 is "rock solid" but it used to be more twitchy prior to 4.01? If so, there is just NO way that's true. The Yak has been my plane of preference for about 3 years now and it is a completely different flying aircraft in 4.01...much less stable, with lower roll rates and WAY overtorqued. Most of the time the aircraft is flying in an "out of rig" trimming condition dispite the fact that rudder trim is available and the trim ball is centered. You're entitled to your view but that runs completely counter to my experience as well as several other Yak pilots I regularly fly with.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
10-12-2005, 06:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
All planes with slats are bugged, i.e.are too stable in turn, almost unstallable (accelerated that is). Guess its new "beta FM" bug. ALL, that includes Bf109 (unfortunately).

Pipper! Please look at numbers - not those from the game but RL ones: Bf109G2 had wingloading only a bit greater than Yak-3's and a bit better powerloading - why in the world is it so hard to belive G2 was capable of turning close to Yak-3's abilities!? CAPABLE doesnt mean used that way IRL. And dont ask for any pilots accounts on Yak-3 vs. G2 in turning, because Yak-3s appeared two years after G2 did! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It's easy to ask for several reasons: 1) the G-2 hadn't disappeared from the Luftwaffe inventory so it doesn't make any difference if it appeared two years prior or not, 2) the Luftwaffe itself warned its pilots not to engage Yak-3s, 3) the Yaks have been widely recognized as superb turners while the 109Gs and later have NEVER been recognized as good turners be it against Yaks or Spits, 4) in this game the 109G-2 out turns a 109F-4 (which is another piece of game bogusness), 5) the Yak-3 was optimized for performance at and below 10K feet and is recognized as being THE premier Allied low-level specific fighter (above that not so but at 10K' and below, yes). These are the reasons why it's not reasonable to believe that the G-2 was competitive with the Yak-3 below 10K feet.

GR142-Pipper

WWMaxGunz
10-12-2005, 07:00 PM
How did Yak-3 turn compared to Yak-1b?

G-2 in IL2 series is the lightweight of the G's with G-6 early showing the heavy side.
Look at the guns and armor difference. Was G-2 so big different from late F models?
I mean, not by the letters but by the parts, the differences... G-2 was how from F-4?

GR142_Astro
10-12-2005, 08:33 PM
Someone here is trying to say the 4.01 Yak 3 is more stable? That is completely untrue. Part of the reason the Yak 3 cannot compete with the G2 in TnB is that the 4.01 version is wildly unstable. This runs counter to all historical accounts about the handling of this aircraft:

"Indeed by 1944 a general directive had gone out to Luftwaffe units on the Eastern Front to <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">"avoid combat below 5,000 m with Yakovlev fighters lacking an oil cooler under the nose"</span> To show what thje Yak-3 could do when bravely handled, despite its armament - which was trivial compared with that of the German fighters - on 14th July 1944 a force of 18 met 30 Luftwaffe fighters and destroyed 15 for the loss of one Yak-3. Small wonder that, offered all available Soviet, British or American fighters, the famed Normandie-Niemen Group changed from the Yak-9 to the Yak-3 and scored the last 99 of their 273 victories on these machines."


More info on the Yak 3. (http://www.btinternet.com/~lee_mail/Yak-3.html)

No Oil Cooler

http://koti.mbnet.fi/~jjuvonen/duxford2001/_yak-3_3.jpg

Kocur_
10-12-2005, 10:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Kocur_:
All planes with slats are bugged, i.e.are too stable in turn, almost unstallable (accelerated that is). Guess its new "beta FM" bug. ALL, that includes Bf109 (unfortunately).

Pipper! Please look at numbers - not those from the game but RL ones: Bf109G2 had wingloading only a bit greater than Yak-3's and a bit better powerloading - why in the world is it so hard to belive G2 was capable of turning close to Yak-3's abilities!? CAPABLE doesnt mean used that way IRL. And dont ask for any pilots accounts on Yak-3 vs. G2 in turning, because Yak-3s appeared two years after G2 did! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's easy to ask for several reasons: 1) the G-2 hadn't disappeared from the Luftwaffe inventory so it doesn't make any difference if it appeared two years prior or not, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are Luftwaffe historians around here who will tell you how many Bf109G2 were flying operationally in june 1944 when Yak-3s were operationally tested in 91IAP (operational tests: 20june - 02august 1944). Something tells me the number will be close to ZERO.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> 2) the Luftwaffe itself warned its pilots not to engage Yak-3s, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it is being mentioned very often but you know what? I never saw that document scan or reprint. I asked if anyone had it, even someone said would check his microfilmed Luftwaffe orders collection but there is silence till now. Could anyone show that document, please?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">3) the Yaks have been widely recognized as superb turners while the 109Gs and later have NEVER been recognized as good turners be it against Yaks or Spits, 4) in this game the 109G-2 out turns a 109F-4 (which is another piece of game bogusness), 5) the Yak-3 was optimized for performance at and below 10K feet and is recognized as being THE premier Allied low-level specific fighter (above that not so but at 10K' and below, yes). These are the reasons why it's not reasonable to believe that the G-2 was competitive with the Yak-3 below 10K feet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Again opinions and beliefs. And the numbers remain the same: wingloading Yak-3: 180kg/m^2, G2 189km/m^2, powerloading: Yak-3 2,17kg/ps, G2 2.05 km/ps.

Kocur_
10-12-2005, 10:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Someone here is trying to say the 4.01 Yak 3 is more stable? That is completely untrue. Part of the reason the Yak 3 cannot compete with the G2 in TnB is that the 4.01 version is wildly unstable. This runs counter to all historical accounts about the handling of this aircraft:

"Indeed by 1944 a general directive had gone out to Luftwaffe units on the Eastern Front to avoid combat below 5,000 m with Yakovlev fighters lacking an oil cooler under the nose". To show what thje Yak-3 could do when bravely handled, despite its armament - which was trivial compared with that of the German fighters - on 14th July 1944 a force of 18 met 30 Luftwaffe fighters and destroyed 15 for the loss of one Yak-3. Small wonder that, offered all available Soviet, British or American fighters, the famed Normandie-Niemen Group changed from the Yak-9 to the Yak-3 and scored the last 99 of their 273 victories on these machines."


</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That order scan please.

Dont belive too easily such stories. VVS overclaimed its WW2 victories about 8-10times...

Oh, and dont belive in anything from sites, which say that "Yak-3/VK-107A: about 100 built, in operation 1945", which is another propaganda fairytale.

What worries me is you guys insist to be blind for technical data but very much willing to belive everything "propaganda of success" is making of you favourite plane. Thats not very serious approach.

GR142-Pipper
10-13-2005, 03:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
[[QUOTE] 2) the Luftwaffe itself warned its pilots not to engage Yak-3s, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yes it is being mentioned very often but you know what? I never saw that document scan or reprint. I asked if anyone had it, even someone said would check his microfilmed Luftwaffe orders collection but there is silence till now. Could anyone show that document, please? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> It's clear you've never seen a lot of things so they must not exist either. No matter. The document has been quoted in many authoratative documents on the subject....and has been refuted by NONE. So you seem to be saying if there isn't an actual copy of this German wartime directive still in existance you don't believe it, right?<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">3) the Yaks have been widely recognized as superb turners while the 109Gs and later have NEVER been recognized as good turners be it against Yaks or Spits, 4) in this game the 109G-2 out turns a 109F-4 (which is another piece of game bogusness), 5) the Yak-3 was optimized for performance at and below 10K feet and is recognized as being THE premier Allied low-level specific fighter (above that not so but at 10K' and below, yes). These are the reasons why it's not reasonable to believe that the G-2 was competitive with the Yak-3 below 10K feet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Again opinions and beliefs. And the numbers remain the same: wingloading Yak-3: 180kg/m^2, G2 189km/m^2, powerloading: Yak-3 2,17kg/ps, G2 2.05 km/ps. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, opinions and beliefs based on facts by people (including the Luftwaffe) who were THERE who knew first-hand how deadly the Yak-3 was below 10K'. If the capabilities of the two aircraft were so close, the Luftwaffe would not have needed to warn its pilots to avoid it...but they knew better. So, show us ANY document where the 109G/K would out-turn a Yak-3 or even be competitive with it below 10K feet...ANY document.

So, dispite your disbelief, at the end of the day, 109G/K series wasn't competitive in real life with the Yak-3 below 10K feet at all....except in Oleg's programming sandbox.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
10-13-2005, 03:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
What worries me is you guys insist to be blind for technical data but very much willing to belive everything "propaganda of success" is making of you favourite plane. Thats not very serious approach. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So eye-witness accounts (including that of the Luftwaffe), the success of the Yak-3 in its design element and the fact that there are NO documents which support the notion that 109Gs could even be competitive with (let alone out-turn) Yak-3s have now all been declared by Kocur to be nothing more than "propaganda". I'm in a generous mood tonight, Kocur. I'll give you a big mulligan for that one.

GR142-Pipper

Kwiatos
10-13-2005, 03:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
How did Yak-3 turn compared to Yak-1b?

G-2 in IL2 series is the lightweight of the G's with G-6 early showing the heavy side.
Look at the guns and armor difference. Was G-2 so big different from late F models?
I mean, not by the letters but by the parts, the differences... G-2 was how from F-4? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


BF 109 E-3
take off weight 2505kg , wing area 16,2 m2 - 156 kg/m2

BF 109 F-4
take off weight 2890 kg, wing are 16,1 m2 - 179 kg/m2

Bf 109 G-2
take off weight 3100 kg, wing area 16,1 m2 - 192 kg/m2

Bf 109 G-6
take off weight 3196 kg, wing are 16,1m2 - 198 kg/m2

Bf 109 G-10
take of weight 3343 kg, wing are 16,1 m2 - 207 kg/m2

GR142_Astro
10-13-2005, 04:24 AM
Not "blindly" doing anything.

The only reason the Yak3 has been brought up is as an idicator that something is very fishy with the 109 FM. Olegs game simply is not meshing up with history in its 4.01 version.

Anyway, back to the topic: 1C fix the FM for aircraft equipped with slats.

http://www.ares.cz/hobby/smer/picture/0836.jpg

WWMaxGunz
10-13-2005, 05:05 AM
Only difference I see at one site on variants is the machineguns.
96kg difference in weight yet in the sim the handling is much more apart.

I remember from years ago people kept saying the G-2 is a poor compare, overmodelled even
in the original IL2 set. Maybe it's never been a good one to judge the others by.
You want to make the 109's look too good then use the G-2. Then it was climb of the K's....

Ugly_Kid
10-13-2005, 05:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
I don't know what you're talking about when you reference blaming hardware. I've certainly never said that. What I have said is that the 109G/K (especially the G-2) turn way too well. The G-2 can just about turn with a Yak-3 which is completely ficticious. So engage some 109G-2s with your Yak-3 and see if what I say isn't true. The choice is yours and the results of those engagements will no doubt be educational.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You said initially, or at least that's how I read it, that 109 G/K _outturn_ Yak-3 and Spitfire, now you say "just about turn with", now what is it? Sorry, in my experience there is a substantial margin between yak and spit sustained turning to that of 109s even with this patch, you can gladly proove me wrong. Track will do...IMO this margin allows plenty of less hamfisted yanking and jerking on the stick.

Ugly_Kid
10-13-2005, 05:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:
BF 109 E-3
take off weight 2505kg , wing area 16,2 m2 - 156 kg/m2

BF 109 F-4
take off weight 2890 kg, wing are 16,1 m2 - 179 kg/m2

Bf 109 G-2
take off weight 3100 kg, wing area 16,1 m2 - 192 kg/m2

Bf 109 G-6
take off weight 3196 kg, wing are 16,1m2 - 198 kg/m2

Bf 109 G-10
take of weight 3343 kg, wing are 16,1 m2 - 207 kg/m2 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As a nice little remainded there is earlier a quote about 109 being able to fly much below 0 throttle stall speed with full throttle. Thrust increases max. lift factor that's also part of the previously mentioned NACA report. Thrust also allows one to overcome the drag related to a higher lift factor. So wingloading isn't it all simple as that. Don't underestimate the power of the ...well power.

Emil, BTW had a different wing planform, F putting up an improved design. I do not recall where but there's somewhere IRC Oleg's quote where he said that Emil was turning worse than F, i.e. (I believe it is also visible in Object Viewer). I can't say true or untrue, I only know that Emil's performance, particularly that turn is intentionally worse.

Ugly_Kid
10-13-2005, 05:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
These are the reasons why it's not reasonable to believe that the G-2 was competitive with the Yak-3 below 10K feet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First time Helmut Lipfert met Yak-3 in his POS G-6, he shot it down after lengthy dogfight. So much for the competitive, I think you still have to work for that kill.

BTW, according to Chuck Yeager's autobiography US Mustangs were initially prohibited to engage german fighters at all, at all altitudes. Maybe we should make another ORR typical conclusion?

luftluuver
10-13-2005, 07:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
BTW, according to Chuck Yeager's autobiography US Mustangs were initially prohibited to engage german fighters at all, at all altitudes. Maybe we should make another ORR typical conclusion? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ugly you read that incorrectly. Escort fighters were not to leave the bombers. They could chase them away for a very short distance and then had to return to the bombers.

Buzzsaw-
10-13-2005, 08:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:

BTW, according to Chuck Yeager's autobiography US Mustangs were initially prohibited to engage german fighters at all, at all altitudes.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Complete nonsense and disinformation.

The USAAF had two Officers primarily in charge of the 8th AAF in the years 1943 to 1945. They were Gen. Ira Eaker, and Gen James Doolittle. (of Tokyo bombing fame)

Eaker, who was in charge during 1943, had a policy of 'close escort', whereby Fighters were prohibited from leaving the bombers to pursue German fighters. This was partly a function of the fact the USAAF did not have many escorts, and the German Fighters would usually outnumber them. Additionally during that time period, P-47's, which did not uniformly have either water injection or paddle blade props, were told not to engage below 15,000 ft. There was NEVER any policy which said USAAF Fighters were prohibited from engaging Luftwaffe fighters. The very idea is completely nonsensical. What would be the point in assigning escorts if they are not going to actually try to shoot down enemy fighters who are attacking the bombers they are assigned to protect?

When Gen. Doolittle took over, things changed to a certain extent. Now the P-47's, (which were by far the largest proportion of the escorts) had paddle blades and water injection, plus the Mustang was in service, plus the numbers of USAAF Fighter Groups had increased substantially. Now Doolittle adopted the policy which was essentially a 'loose escort' mode, whereby the USAAF aircraft could range out in front of the bombers, and were assigned to pursue and shoot down Luftwaffe Fighters anywhere they encountered them. Additionally, after they finished their part of the 'escort leg', {Fighter Groups, including Mustangs, because they had a higher cruising speed than the bombers, and had to zig zag, and thus burned more fuel, were only able to escort part of the bomber route, and several Groups were required to escort even one section of a Bomber Stream) were told to dive down to ground level and strafe and attack any targets of opportunity, with a special focus on Luftwaffe Fighter fields, where they might catch Germans taking off or landing.

After thia policy was introduced, Luftwaffe losses went up considerably. USAAF losses also rose, primarily due to aircraft being shot down by flak during strafing.

In this later stage of the 8th AAF campaign, it was routine for USAAF Fighters to be encountered at all altitudes. And they were told to be as aggressive as possible and engage anything they saw. In fact, the RAF Squadrons operating near the USAAF, especially the Typhoon Squadrons which apparently looked like a 190A from the front, got so tired of USAAF aircraft attacking them, that whenever they sighted a USAAF formation, they turn their noses towards it and started waggling their wings so they could avoid having a Mustang or Thunderbolt on their tail. And I was told that on one occasion, lthough it was never reported officially, that a Canadian Typhoon which was being attacked repeatedly by a P-47, finally responded and shot down the Thunderbolt.

Ugly_Kid
10-13-2005, 09:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Ugly you read that incorrectly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really?, nothing wrong with that in ORR, mind http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

GR142_Astro
10-13-2005, 11:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
some suff </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cool, then we should now take into account a story in the current Fllight Journal where a P51B engages a 109 from 20k feet in a turnfight until they both end up on the deck. The Stang jock shot down the 109 and rtb weighing some 15lbs less as a result of the struggle.

Try dogfighting a 109 with a P51 in Forgotten Bottles.

Kocur_
10-13-2005, 01:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Kocur_:
[[QUOTE] 2) the Luftwaffe itself warned its pilots not to engage Yak-3s, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yes it is being mentioned very often but you know what? I never saw that document scan or reprint. I asked if anyone had it, even someone said would check his microfilmed Luftwaffe orders collection but there is silence till now. Could anyone show that document, please? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's clear you've never seen a lot of things so they must not exist either. No matter. The document has been quoted in many authoratative documents on the subject....and has been refuted by NONE. So you seem to be saying if there isn't an actual copy of this German wartime directive still in existance you don't believe it, right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Naa, dont bring it down to kindergarten level. Im not asking to show me a neutrino, but to guide me to a credible source containing that order. CREDIBLE excludes anything based soviet on soviet propaganda. You know, like those naming Il-2 a great attack plane called "black death" by Germans and being a "flying tank". Oh and please guide me to one of those "authoratative documents on the subject", but not to that Astro's webpage again, because it contains BS.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">3) the Yaks have been widely recognized as superb turners while the 109Gs and later have NEVER been recognized as good turners be it against Yaks or Spits, 4) in this game the 109G-2 out turns a 109F-4 (which is another piece of game bogusness), 5) the Yak-3 was optimized for performance at and below 10K feet and is recognized as being THE premier Allied low-level specific fighter (above that not so but at 10K' and below, yes). These are the reasons why it's not reasonable to believe that the G-2 was competitive with the Yak-3 below 10K feet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Again opinions and beliefs. And the numbers remain the same: wingloading Yak-3: 180kg/m^2, G2 189km/m^2, powerloading: Yak-3 2,17kg/ps, G2 2.05 km/ps. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, opinions and beliefs based on facts by people (including the Luftwaffe) who were THERE who knew first-hand how deadly the Yak-3 was below 10K'. If the capabilities of the two aircraft were so close, the Luftwaffe would not have needed to warn its pilots to avoid it...but they knew better. So, show us ANY document where the 109G/K would out-turn a Yak-3 or even be competitive with it below 10K feet...ANY document.

So, dispite your disbelief, at the end of the day, 109G/K series wasn't competitive in real life with the Yak-3 below 10K feet at all....except in Oleg's programming sandbox. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Kocur_:
What worries me is you guys insist to be blind for technical data but very much willing to belive everything "propaganda of success" is making of you favourite plane. Thats not very serious approach. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So eye-witness accounts (including that of the Luftwaffe), the success of the Yak-3 in its design element and the fact that there are NO documents which support the notion that 109Gs could even be competitive with (let alone out-turn) Yak-3s have now all been declared by Kocur to be nothing more than "propaganda". I'm in a generous mood tonight, Kocur. I'll give you a big mulligan for that one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Something must have distracted you while writing so you lost focus. I wasnt talking about "109G/K" od "109Gs" but Bf109G2. For what is "109G/K"? G2 with wingloading and powerloading like said above or G14 with those parameters like said above and CoG somewhat aftwards? Or maybe G6/R6? So lets keep it detailed.
Now:imagine you read about two planes: one with wingloading 180kg/m^2 and powerloading 2,17kg/ps, and another plane with wingloading 189km/m^2 and powerloading 2.05 km/ps, both in similar airframe configuration, designed the same era. Would you think they probably were similar in turning or would you think they were worlds apart in turning?

Again: we were talking about G2 ("G TWO") vs Yak-3. Dont demand any document on their fight for most probably there were none. So all we have to judge how it would be if they had turning fight is REAL WORLD TECHNICAL DATA of both.

Btw I belive I read on those pages what was VVS thinking on turning with Bf109 and I think I saw pilots account on fight of Yak-3 vs G6. Not very good for Yak-3...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm in a generous mood tonight, Kocur. I'll give you a big mulligan for that one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Umm I guess that was supposed to make me feel bad, but you see English isnt my mothers tongue and I dont get all idioms. It didnt work Im affraid http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif


YAK-3 DESIGN? Oh dont tease me, dont provoke me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif


To sum up: there is slats bug in 4.01 which makes all slats equipped turn to well and even more importantly too safe. But if it was removed and Bf109G2 ("G TWO") was still able to turn close, worse but close to Yak-3, it would not mean there is anything wrong with the game, because their both REAL WORLD TECHNICAL DATA indicates it must have been so. And certainly Im not one of so called Oleg's fanboys.

GR142-Pipper
10-13-2005, 01:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
These are the reasons why it's not reasonable to believe that the G-2 was competitive with the Yak-3 below 10K feet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">First time Helmut Lipfert met Yak-3 in his POS G-6, he shot it down after lengthy dogfight. So much for the competitive, I think you still have to work for that kill. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> The Luftwaffe didn't put out a warning to its pilots avoid the Yak-3 based on *ONE* engagement that its pilot happened to win. Geez.

GR142-Pipper

faustnik
10-13-2005, 02:04 PM
I don't understand why anyone would think a LW directive "avoid combat at low altitude with the Yak-3" is unreasonable or unlikely? The Bf109s held no advantage over the Yak at low altitude, while at higher altitudes the Bf109s had much more power. It would only make sense to restrict combat to levels at which you have an advantage if at all possible.

Kocur_
10-13-2005, 02:19 PM
Geez! Pipper! Please! Take all your books on Yaks and look in their bibliographies for Bundesarchiv reference number of that order. Or at least its detailed translation or at very least detailed content (with source of course)! I would really like what those staff officers adviced to do in case of meeting Yak-3s? Runaway horizontally? Climb? Were Germans aware of Yak-3's diving characteristics?

Chadburn
10-13-2005, 02:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
some suff </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cool, then we should now take into account a story in the current Fllight Journal where a P51B engages a 109 from 20k feet in a turnfight until they both end up on the deck. The Stang jock shot down the 109 and rtb weighing some 15lbs less as a result of the struggle.

Try dogfighting a 109 with a P51 in Forgotten Bottles. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Didn't one bank of the P51's guns jam they were turning such high g turns? If it's the same account I read about a year ago, it made me wonder about the lack of elevator authority the pre 4.01 messy had back then.

Does he mention whether the 109 had wing mounted canons? I can't recall.

Kocur_
10-13-2005, 02:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
I don't understand why anyone would think a LW directive "avoid combat at low altitude with the Yak-3" is unreasonable or unlikely? The Bf109s held no advantage over the Yak at low altitude, while at higher altitudes the Bf109s had much more power. It would only make sense to restrict combat to levels at which you have an advantage if at all possible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh I think such a directive would be reasonable and likely for Bf109G6 pilots. But what did that supposed directive contain? Does anyone know its detailed content?
I spent half of my life in communist Poland, that includes first years of my interest in military technology. Books published before 1989 are full of notions like Il2 being a durable and deadly "flying tank", PPSh smg having greater effective range than M1 carbine, T-34 killing easily PzKpfw V and VI, and PTRD/PTRS crews doing the same etc. And then Soviet Union fell and Russian authors could finally get access to archives and write freely - not forced to write propaganda praises on soviet equippment. Confrontation of pre-1990 and 1990+ sources makes all soviet propaganda myths fall. That experience would make anyone, to say the least: careful about things like that LW directive, which is always mentioned but never any details about it are given: who, where, when (so summer 1944 or Kursk battle time? - both are mentioned), what level of chain of command, to what units flying what planes, ordering to do what if Yak-3s were encountered, etc?. It sure could have happened, but has it really? And if so anyone please give me any way to make sure its not another propaganda bogus. Is it too much to ask if its brought as argument on FM modelling in the game?

GR142-Pipper
10-13-2005, 03:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Umm I guess that was supposed to make me feel bad, but you see English isnt my mothers tongue and I dont get all idioms. It didnt work Im affraid http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It wasn't supposed to make you feel bad whatsoever. It was an (apparently missed) attempt a light humor. Ths is merely a discussion about a game...not a cure for cancer. Relax a little.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">YAK-3 DESIGN? Oh dont tease me, dont provoke me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, design. The Yak-3 was SPECIFICALLY designed to operate in cooperation with the army at altitudes of 10K feet and below.

GR142-Pipper

faustnik
10-13-2005, 03:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Yak-3 was SPECIFICALLY designed to operate in cooperation with the army at altitudes of 10K feet and below. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure what you mean here Pipper??? Do you mean use from rough, short airfields close to the front?

The Yak-3 was designed to get the maximum performance and maneuverability out of the existing M-105 right?

Kocur_
10-13-2005, 05:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yes, design. The Yak-3 was SPECIFICALLY designed to operate in cooperation with the army at altitudes of 10K feet and below.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yak-3 wasnt designed SPECIFICALLY to do anything special. It was a desperate attempt to give VVS a fighter from Yakovlev, which would not be lost by thousands (in 1943 VVS lost about 11.000 fighters).

The limitation was M-105 of course. A derivative of Hispano-Suiza 12ybrs which could produce 1240ps @ the most - in PF2 version. To make a Yak powered with it any better they needed to reduce drag. The most effective way was shortening wings. But to do that and keep the plane easy to fly for poorly trained pilots, its wingloaing had to be kept low. And thus started Yak-1 weight reduce program. There wasnt much equippment or armour or weaponry to be reduced (for example Yaks fuel tanks were protected by 2mm (two milimeters) layer of rubber inside and another 2mm layer outside...), so they had to make airframe structure itself lighter. Since there was little time and Yakovlev had zero experience with semi-monocoque and/or metal technology, technologically Yak-3 was similar to all Yaks. I.e. Yak-3 still was build in Fokker technology dating back to early 1920's, i.e. wooden wings (but with composed steel/aluminium spar) plus fuselage of welded steel tubes framework with wooden construction around it providing aerodynamical shape. All of this was covered with thin plywood (2mm on fusleage, 3-5mm on wings) mostly glued on to inside structure. The same technology was used in I-26 back in 1940, so Yak-3 was, technologically speaking, as the-most-obsolete fighter of 1943/44 as I-26 was the most obsolete and the worst of fighters coming to service in 1940/41.

Since technology was not changed and had the same poor weight efficiency, reducing airframe weight came at cost of reducing its strenght and durability. Problems with airframe strenght caused kinda of delay between completion of first prototype (15 february 1943) and beginning of frontline tests (20 june 1944)... What would be more surprising, if one didnt know, that Yakovlev was deputy minister of airplanes production, is that first serially produced (in Tbilisi) Yak-3s were ready in april of 1944, even though the type passed state trials on 15 october 1943 and GKO's decusion to start it was made on 26 october 1943. Hmm...any problems, still?

The result was a fighter light (2123kg empty, 2692kg t/o) and agile but pathetically weak for a fighter to enter service in mid 1944 with its overheating and losing oil engine producing 1240ps @ 700m (seven hundred) and 1180ps @ 2700m engine, diving speed limited to 650kmh by pilots manual, not able to provide pilots comfort of flying plane able to take more gs then they themselves, landing gear struts breaking off from wings while taxing, etc.

Before you make any conclusins on the engine ("specially designed for low alt operations"), note that the same type powered also all Yak-9s starting from later Yak-9Ms (until Yak-9U and P) and Pe-2, simply put: they had nothing better. They never stopped looking for engine with greater power at higher alt, but M-106 and -108 were failures. Sucessful one was VK-107A. It was installed in two experimental Yak-3s in 1944 but light airframe wasnt able to stand this a bit heavier and more vibrating engine, so they mounted it in heavier but stronger Yak-9, i.e Yak-9U.

carguy_
10-13-2005, 05:12 PM
Indeed most books on military and history are doscounted as incredible.Soviets didn`t just lie,they missed facts,coloured some events deliberately.

In my childhood the T34 was described as the best WWII tank in thw world that feared no other.
The IL2,ofcourse,was described as THE plane that banished Germans from USSR.

WWMaxGunz
10-13-2005, 05:20 PM
There seems to have been no real high alt bombing from either side in the East Front.
So that didn't get to be a real important strategic region. Still there were high alt
planes to go recon and recon intercept, but how many do you need?

WWMaxGunz
10-13-2005, 05:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
In my childhood the T34 was described as the best WWII tank in thw world that feared no other.
The IL2,ofcourse,was described as THE plane that banished Germans from USSR. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When it came out in 1941, the T-34 was such a tank. Compare the gun, armor and speed
to any other medium tank in the world. Then look at numbers. Except for radio, I'd
stack it up to the PzIVD's which weren't everywhere in German armor.

Also find numbers on the German armor destroyed at Kursk by Sturmos, tanks and light
armor. 100's. Kursk was the turning point, wasn't it? Had that armor not been
destroyed the battle might well have gone the other way.

T-34/85 was also a good tank. Not KV, but better in maneuver.

GR142_Astro
10-13-2005, 05:41 PM
Chadburn,

I think it is fact the same account. I know FJ recycles these old tales quite a bit. All but one gun jammed (how annoying) yet he was still able to inflict enough damage to bring it down.

The account mentioned nothing about gondolas. I don't think this is an elevator authority thing as much as a pure turn radius thing, which is the main gripe of this thread against 109s, LaGGs and Las.

GR142-Pipper
10-13-2005, 05:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Yak-3 was SPECIFICALLY designed to operate in cooperation with the army at altitudes of 10K feet and below. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure what you mean here Pipper??? Do you mean use from rough, short airfields close to the front? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> The Yak-3 was designed for operation at altitudes up to 10K feet. Basically, it wasn't designed to perform higher up with the bombers but down low in support of the army. It's design, engine and utilization were all focused on flying qualities at 10K feet and below. It was a superbly performing fighter in every way when flown in its element.

GR142-Pipper

WWMaxGunz
10-13-2005, 05:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chadburn:
Didn't one bank of the P51's guns jam they were turning such high g turns? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If they fired in the manuever and it got fixed by changing the ammo path. So not all
turns and not all P-51's.

If ya want then maybe some day we can have a sim where the planes all have every
worst thing that happened to any of them and got written about. That'd be fun.

Chadburn
10-13-2005, 06:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Chadburn,

I think it is fact the same account. I know FJ recycles these old tales quite a bit. All but one gun jammed (how annoying) yet he was still able to inflict enough damage to bring it down.

The account mentioned nothing about gondolas. I don't think this is an elevator authority thing as much as a pure turn radius thing, which is the main gripe of this thread against 109s, LaGGs and Las. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rgr, I know this isn't about elevator authority. It's just that back when I read that account (we were still flying 3.04) it made me wonder why I couldn't pull such high g's in a 109 then.

But ten pages and still going strong...well hopefully someone emailed 1C about the bug in slat-equipped planes in time for it to be fixed in the new patch.

Not sure that will pacify complaints about the 109 turning too well, but at least there'll be a price to pay if you push it past the edge, unlike now.

EDIT: Max, just saw your post. You misunderstand the point I'm making. The jammed guns indicated how tight and hard the 2 planes were turning. (It wasn't a criticism of P51's or that I think failures like that need to be introduced into the game.) It's just that back then, you couldn't get a 109 to turn that tight because the elvator authority was so poor in 3.04.

carguy_
10-13-2005, 06:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
When it came out in 1941, the T-34 was such a tank. Compare the gun, armor and speed
to any other medium tank in the world. Then look at numbers. Except for radio, I'd
stack it up to the PzIVD's which weren't everywhere in German armor. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You`re forgetting that most fighting the T34 did on eastern front.German tanks werent meant for that kind of enviromnent.Only few T34 reached the front by `41.They were common on EF in late `42.Also had many letdowns as very bad turret design and too weak engine.Production quality at first was marginal.Quantity is a quality of itself???

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also find numbers on the German armor destroyed at Kursk by Sturmos, tanks and light
armor. 100's. Kursk was the turning point, wasn't it? Had that armor not been
destroyed the battle might well have gone the other way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


That resoning leads me to believe that Bf109 beat Poland,Danemark,Netherlands,Norway,France and nearly led England to its knees.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">T-34/85 was also a good tank. Not KV, but better in maneuver. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A good tank with additional quality in quantity.A very good proof that USSR was a too big of a country to be beaten.

luftluuver
10-13-2005, 08:52 PM
How was the LW pilot to recognize this Yak-3 if he could not see the underside of the nose of the Yak?

A/c recognition was hard enough with P-51 and 109s being continually wrongly IDed. Same for the 190 and P-47/Typhoon. Yet some small little detail of an a/c was to be clearly seen to give an ID from a distance so that the LW pilot could safely not engage.

If one is close enough to make a positive ID, one is already in trouble.

I don't fly the Yak so can someone tell me if the wing drops on landing if the speed is not kept up. They were also notorious for swinging on take off and ground looping, especially with 'green' pilots. Is this modelled?

GR142-Pipper
10-13-2005, 08:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yes, design. The Yak-3 was SPECIFICALLY designed to operate in cooperation with the army at altitudes of 10K feet and below.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yak-3 wasnt designed SPECIFICALLY to do anything special. It was a desperate attempt to give VVS a fighter from Yakovlev, which would not be lost by thousands (in 1943 VVS lost about 11.000 fighters). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You're wrong. The Yak-3 was SPECIFICALLY designed to operate in low/medium altitudes (up to 10K'). Why you stubbornly choose to contradict easily verifiable facts is puzzling.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
10-13-2005, 09:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Geez! Pipper! Please! Take all your books on Yaks and look in their bibliographies for Bundesarchiv reference number of that order. Or at least its detailed translation or at very least detailed content (with source of course)! I would really like what those staff officers adviced to do in case of meeting Yak-3s? Runaway horizontally? Climb? Were Germans aware of Yak-3's diving characteristics? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Here's a reference for you that discusses the Yak-3 in detail as well as mentions the avoidance of the Yak-3 by the Luftwaffe:
The Encyclopedia of Aircraft of WW II, Amber Books Ltd.; Paul Eden, Editor; 2004 Aerospace Publishing Ltd., Pages 502-503.

GR142-Pipper

luftluuver
10-13-2005, 09:38 PM
That source does not cut it Pipper. The original LW order would though.

What most likely has happened is some author heard about a warning to LW pilots to be wairy(sp?) of the new Yak fighter with the different nose and then made up a story that had more spice in it. It was then parroted by others, just like the twin MG151s in the nose of the 109 done by Green has been parroted.

p1ngu666
10-13-2005, 10:14 PM
yak3 was used as a interceptor mostly, it didnt have the range of the yak9.

kocur states it has hte same rough specs as a 109F. hmm whats 109 drivers favourite? (irl..) F series.

russians do good designs, but often the quality was lacking... but then again, the russians pushed the germans back... with less industrial capacity, and having completed the biggest industrial migration ever, to often incomplete factories. they produced a few il2s in -40c with little food, shelter etc, in a open factory that was actully intended tobe a power station. quality wasnt that good, but -40, thats over twice as cold as my freezer.

the yaks hadto use that engine, all others going on the il2, or on La series, plus limits on materials, skilled labour, plus friendly old stalin for encouragement.

so its not as good as the 109 which most german supporters love, but its not *that* bad in comparison.

btw, german tank production, well pretty much anything, was surprisingly low in early war and tanks would soon get worn out in russia, with dust/mud, and the constant need for them.

incidently, i agree with stalin, quantatity has a quality all of its own or whatever.
after all, the germans who favoured quality, seem to have lost somewhat, while the russians (stalin mostly) favoured quanitity and won. granted the cost was very high...

p1ngu666
10-13-2005, 10:17 PM
oh, and german pilots didnt like to take risks,

like when the IX came out, and the 190 pilots found out (somewhat to there alarm) they became much more careful, because they couldnt tell a IX from a Vb until very close...

Kocur_
10-13-2005, 10:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yes, design. The Yak-3 was SPECIFICALLY designed to operate in cooperation with the army at altitudes of 10K feet and below.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yak-3 wasnt designed SPECIFICALLY to do anything special. It was a desperate attempt to give VVS a fighter from Yakovlev, which would not be lost by thousands (in 1943 VVS lost about 11.000 fighters). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You're wrong. The Yak-3 was SPECIFICALLY designed to operate in low/medium altitudes (up to 10K'). Why you stubbornly choose to contradict easily verifiable facts is puzzling.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Umm, read also what follows those two sentences in my post http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif You could note, that your beloved Yak-3 had engine which top power alt was seven hundred meters http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Geez! Pipper! Please! Take all your books on Yaks and look in their bibliographies for Bundesarchiv reference number of that order. Or at least its detailed translation or at very least detailed content (with source of course)! I would really like what those staff officers adviced to do in case of meeting Yak-3s? Runaway horizontally? Climb? Were Germans aware of Yak-3's diving characteristics? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's a reference for you that discusses the Yak-3 in detail as well as mentions the avoidance of the Yak-3 by the Luftwaffe:
The Encyclopedia of Aircraft of WW II, Amber Books Ltd.; Paul Eden, Editor; 2004 Aerospace Publishing Ltd., Pages 502-503. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didnt ask for "a reference for you that discusses the Yak-3 in detail " but for that LW order's "detailed translation or at very least detailed content(with source of course)".

And dont try to scare me away with yours "The Encyclopedia...", I think my book on Yak-3 is more detailed than that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

p1ngu666
10-13-2005, 10:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
These are the reasons why it's not reasonable to believe that the G-2 was competitive with the Yak-3 below 10K feet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First time Helmut Lipfert met Yak-3 in his POS G-6, he shot it down after lengthy dogfight. So much for the competitive, I think you still have to work for that kill.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hmmmm, why was the dogfight lengthy if the yak3 wasnt competative?

there 2 uses of competative, 1 is we are really competative, when it actully means we are better
2 is when whatever things are closey matched.

a mclrean driver would say hes really competative against the minardi's, but if u watched such a race, would u say it was a competative race? no.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

p1ngu666
10-13-2005, 10:42 PM
http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666//mossiegraph.jpg

MS gear, 914metres or so
FS gear, 2 438.4 meters

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
and yes, yaks seem to need to fly sideways now, cos of huge torque, and if u trim it u often end up lookin like colin mcrea, holding it nicely sideways all the time...
il2 the same, massive torque on takeoff, plus they have worse handling in teh air

Ugly_Kid
10-14-2005, 12:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
hmmmm, why was the dogfight lengthy if the yak3 wasnt competative?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You misread that bit. He described it as a very difficult fight, he was taken by suprise by the hard opposition. I meant to say, even a G-6 can put up a lengthy fight with yak and still win. To assume that you automatically win with yak at alts below 10k is a joke.

Kocur is probably very right about the structure - funny how that thing eats 30 mm...

Ugly_Kid
10-14-2005, 12:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
and yes, yaks seem to need to fly sideways now, cos of huge torque, and if u trim it u often end up lookin like colin mcrea, holding it nicely sideways all the time...
il2 the same, massive torque on takeoff, plus they have worse handling in teh air </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am positive the new FM will go through changes - also without the constant moaning. Is this part of the masculinity act? My ride is so hard I am really a tough guy to fight with it. Just go on 'DF' server and press 'S' - it's not about
guys flying their favourite WW II ride - it's about FPS afficianados flying the one thing that brings the easiest kill with as little work as possible. They fly I-185 or yak and come back here to moan about P-47.

Particularly that torque part - I would like to have much more pronounced torque in the 109 - yes you need constant rudder but not much of it. I'd like to have more difficult take-offs too. On the other hand I'd like 190 to be as it really was - no need to trim at all.

Don't expect yak to be nice cosy fighter that you just yank and jerk into a turn, like it was in some previous patches. From what I've understood it had peak performance but it was simultaneously somewhat ill tempered. I saw one in an airshow about an year ago. They damaged landing gear in the landing, that bit looked really tricky. Flying bit was all impressive. I think I have some photos or videos somewhere...

GR142-Pipper
10-14-2005, 12:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
That source does not cut it Pipper. The original LW order would though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> You might want to catch up with the thread. A source was provided that is reputable which both explains the Yak-3 in detail as well as mentions the Luftwaffe warning.

GR142-Pipper
10-14-2005, 12:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
And dont try to scare me away with yours "The Encyclopedia...", I think my book on Yak-3 is more detailed than that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, so you reject the reference without even checking it out. That's exactly what I expected you to do. You're so predictable it aches.


GR142-Pipper

WWMaxGunz
10-14-2005, 01:48 AM
Quantity is a quality when 'quality' places hard limits on quantity.

A regiment with bolt rifles will beat a company with SMG's and LMG's on average.
That same regiment won't fare so well versus a more modern brigade.

I've read historical comments on early German tanks and even later German tanks
that didn't show them as reliable wonders. That was on average km before breakdown
just from travel.

OTOH, things like the supply pipeline and keeping mass production flowing did keep
the US from having improved tanks like the Pershing on line when they should have.
With Sherman tanks, quantity was the major quality.

Kocur_
10-14-2005, 01:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Kocur_:
And dont try to scare me away with yours "The Encyclopedia...", I think my book on Yak-3 is more detailed than that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, so you reject the reference without even checking it out. That's exactly what I expected you to do. You're so predictable it aches.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Reject? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
First: I asked for details on that supposed LW order, not details on Yak-3. So there is nothing to reject yet.
Second: does your book provide info on type of water radiator on Yak-3 or type of steel of those tubes, which made Yak-3's fuselage framework? Mine does http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif So not rejecting your book I still hold mine for more detailed - please prove me wrong, by, say, posting info on said above Yak-3's radiator and type of steel http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Lets sum up: you reject info on Yak-3 design forced by weak engine, still insisting it was what it was because Yakovlev WANTED a fighter with engine producing maxium power of 1240ps at 700 meters and of Vne=650kmh (in summer of 1944!).
You reject notion that two planes of similar powerloading and wingloading (Bf-109G2 and Yak-3) might be comparable in turning.
You reject or are unable to respond positively to my humble plea to show any details of supposed LW order which is one main strongpoints of your notion about Yak-3 total superiority in combat below 5km.

So who is "so predictable it aches" around here? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

GR142-Pipper
10-14-2005, 03:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Kocur_:
And dont try to scare me away with yours "The Encyclopedia...", I think my book on Yak-3 is more detailed than that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, so you reject the reference without even checking it out. That's exactly what I expected you to do. You're so predictable it aches.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Reject? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">First: I asked for details on that supposed LW order, not details on Yak-3. So there is nothing to reject yet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, since you haven't even bothered to look at the reference and yet you tell me what it says, you're really not interested in knowing the truth. Your problem.
{Second: does your book provide info on type of water radiator on Yak-3 or type of steel of those tubes, which made Yak-3's fuselage framework? Mine does http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Psssst....we're talking about performance, not manufacturing so no one cares about the type of steel in the tubes...except you and maybe one or two of your fellow nose-picking friends, of course. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So not rejecting your book I still hold mine for more detailed - please prove me wrong, by, say, posting info on said above Yak-3's radiator and type of steel http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE> So you've never bothered to read it...well golly gee Mildred...what a surprise. (Not)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Lets sum up: you reject info on Yak-3 design forced by weak engine, still insisting it was what it was because Yakovlev WANTED a fighter with engine producing maxium power of 1240ps at 700 meters and of Vne=650kmh (in summer of 1944!).
You reject notion that two planes of similar powerloading and wingloading (Bf-109G2 and Yak-3) might be comparable in turning.
You reject or are unable to respond positively to my humble plea to show any details of supposed LW order which is one main strongpoints of your notion about Yak-3 total superiority in combat below 5km.

So who is "so predictable it aches" around here? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, let's do sum it up.
1. You're unwilling to even look at a source that contradicts your point of view. Can we all say "technical dishonesty"? Or perhaps we should categorize your debating style as very freshman-like (look it up). I vote for "both".
2. Speaking of things technical, no one gives a $h1t about your steel tube manual. It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Keep it handy on your nightstand though as a sleeping aid or perhaps as a reference for some meaningless tidbits to spew when attending a cocktail party for nerds.
3. Your protestations notwithstanding, Yak-3's were indeed SPECIFICALLY built to operate in the sea level to 10K feet environment in cooperation and support with the army. They were highly regarded as superb turners and excellent all-around performers below 10k' feet....while 109G's of ANY version were not. (As an aside, I'm sure you find it interesting that the 109F-4 is out-turned by the 109G-2 in this game. Oh, that's right...this too blows your bogus theories straight out the window. Oh well.)
4. Just as I predicted, if you can't see the LW directive, you dismiss it as non-existant and any reference to it as "propaganda" (by whom, you don't say. No matter. Don't let that slow your rant down).
5. Cite us ANY testing agency which concluded that the 109G-2 could turn as well as a Yak-3 below 10k feet. Don't cite your wing loading numbers...provide a reference from a credible testing establishment (USAAF, RAF, etc.) where the 109G-2 and Yak-3 were actually compared and the 109G-2 was judged as good as a Yak-3 below 10k feet. (Oh, can't do it? Well then, using your own logic standard against you, the 109G-2 must not have been able to do it in real life...but can in this game. Maybe it's just a load of YOUR "propaganda".) Btw, if the 109G-2 was that good a turner, it would have been well documented by the Allies to that effect...and it wasn't. Again, no matter. Don't let pilot accounts, LW directives, the Yak-3's superb turning qualities, the 109G's non-superb turning qualities, the Yak-3's war record against LW aircraft as well as its well-earned reputation for being nothing less than very deadly below 10K feet stand in the way of your unfounded personal biases. (Hey, maybe your "new information" could serve as the basis for a post-graduate thesis with the published result being world-wide fame, endorsements, a mouse pad with your name on it, your own line of designer ouiji boards...the possibilities are endless.)

Anyway at the end of the day, you're most welcome to remain in your own private Idaho regarding the 109G/K series and how their non-turning performance relates to the well-regarded Yak-3's. Having said this, our discussion on this matter politely concludes. S!

GR142-Pipper

Ugly_Kid
10-14-2005, 04:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
(As an aside, I'm sure you find it interesting that the 109F-4 is out-turned by the 109G-2 in this game. Oh, that's right...this too blows your bogus theories straight out the window. Oh well.)
4. Just as I predicted, if you can't see the LW directive, you dismiss it as non-existant and any reference to it as "propaganda" (by whom, you don't say. No matter. Don't let that slow your rant down).
5. Cite us ANY reference which states that the 109G-2 could turn as well as a Yak-3 below 10k feet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting claim that G-2 outturn F-4 in the game...proove that just as well, again track will do just nicely.

It would be actually really nice since F's been a bit of a cow since the last outcry, to which Oleg reacted, of F outturning I-16. Maybe he could remove some of that "virtual" 400 kg he packed on it to "balance" the act a bit, hmmm...

And again you're still short of delivering a track where G-2 shows superior sustained turn, compared with yak or spitfire, eh? Is it still coming or is this discussion not worth further reading?

Seems to be habitual making generous claims here, it is really hard to judge which part is actually based on anything, without some tiny bit of evidence, isn't it?

The stall dude didn't bother in the end either, did he? So was that also completely baseless that one? Also, it seems to be habitual singling one aircraft out and start ranting, who'd bother to have a larger look at an issue and get a picture of the complete sim?

Ugly_Kid
10-14-2005, 04:29 AM
Aw sod it, if the demonstration wasn't coming during the first 11 pages it's probably never going to come, so I take his word for it:

http://www.azitaliancharms.com/images/Barbrady.jpg
Ok people nothing to see here, move on

GR142-Pipper
10-14-2005, 04:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
Interesting claim that G-2 outturn F-4 in the game...proove that just as well, again track will do just nicely. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Great. Then make one and see for yourself. You might want to also consult the Internet as well as your local library and read up on the 109 and Yak-3.

GR142-Pipper

Ugly_Kid
10-14-2005, 04:41 AM
I am afraid it's all your job, since you were the one making that claim among the others, which you haven't yet bothered to evidence, now have you. I gradually think you're just a naughty boy, just trying to confuse us with misinformation and just trying to lead us into a mindless witchhunt, now that is not nice... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

If I was think about buying the game, came to the forum and read and believed all Mr. Hayateace and alike are writing, I'd be disappointed.

Ugly_Kid
10-14-2005, 04:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
You might want to also consult the Internet as well as your local library and read up on the 109 and Yak-3. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't recall making the claims about, i.e. real 109 outturning yak, if that's what you mean? I merely expressed another doubt that this is happening in the game...I am sure that it is not how Oleg would intend it to be and that is what counts. So it is very easy, just show it, show it to Oleg and he'll fix it, unless...YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO SHOW IT?

Ugly_Kid
10-14-2005, 04:47 AM
Back to Barbrady then, ta...

WWMaxGunz
10-14-2005, 05:00 AM
Some people can fly one style or plane better than others.
What one person can do with a plane does not mean what can be done.

luftluuver
10-14-2005, 05:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Here's a reference for you that discusses the Yak-3 in detail as well as mentions the avoidance of the Yak-3 by the Luftwaffe:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">The Encyclopedia of Aircraft of WW II, Amber Books Ltd.; Paul Eden, Editor; 2004 Aerospace Publishing Ltd., Pages 502-503.</span>GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This book is not a reputable source, dispite what you think.

Fehler
10-14-2005, 08:51 AM
Pipper, if you could make a scan about the referenced material from the book. I dont have this publication and have found books of this nature to be good generalization information but less than 100% accurate for specific detail. I would like to read about the doctrine telling Bf109 pilots to avoid battle with Yak-3's below 10k Feet at all cost, but I am not willing to part with 30 dollars just to read a line or two of text. So, if you could please scan the page so I (Or we for that matter) could all read it, it would be appreciated.

As a matter of fact, the whole page would be greatly appreciated as t could lead me to understand the style of this publication and see if it is worth the money to invest in such a book... You may make a sale for the publisher! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Oh, and BTW, I hope that the patch will address the lack of accelerated stall in slat configured aircraft. They all (Not just the Bf109) feel "Toyish" in their current state, but perhaps my settings are too dumbed down from flying the FW for so long.

p1ngu666
10-14-2005, 09:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
and yes, yaks seem to need to fly sideways now, cos of huge torque, and if u trim it u often end up lookin like colin mcrea, holding it nicely sideways all the time...
il2 the same, massive torque on takeoff, plus they have worse handling in teh air </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am positive the new FM will go through changes - also without the constant moaning. Is this part of the masculinity act? My ride is so hard I am really a tough guy to fight with it. Just go on 'DF' server and press 'S' - it's not about
guys flying their favourite WW II ride - it's about FPS afficianados flying the one thing that brings the easiest kill with as little work as possible. They fly I-185 or yak and come back here to moan about P-47.

Particularly that torque part - I would like to have much more pronounced torque in the 109 - yes you need constant rudder but not much of it. I'd like to have more difficult take-offs too. On the other hand I'd like 190 to be as it really was - no need to trim at all.

Don't expect yak to be nice cosy fighter that you just yank and jerk into a turn, like it was in some previous patches. From what I've understood it had peak performance but it was simultaneously somewhat ill tempered. I saw one in an airshow about an year ago. They damaged landing gear in the landing, that bit looked really tricky. Flying bit was all impressive. I think I have some photos or videos somewhere... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

nah, i just think its somewhat odd thats all. the fix for the stability problems is fairely simple, increase the side area, the japanease training planes had extra strakes and things to increase keel area, and also to help when recovering from spin.
and yes, victory is hardly ever assured http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


incidently, when i first started flying FB, there where alot of 109 drivers who flew it because of the challenge etc.. and now its probably the easiest fighter to fly.

the steel frame structure can be strong, its whats used in aerobatic planes that the red bull airracers use. and u probably retain strength fairly well when hit, or rounds may miss the framework. but yes yak3 is surprisingly tough, moreso than yak9 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

also the lw may be right in avoiding combat, because "fighters" arent worth intercepting, they can pottle around at 10k or whatever all day, but unless they actully do recon, attack ground stuff, there not worth attacking http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Kocur_
10-14-2005, 09:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Yes, let's do sum it up.
1. You're unwilling to even look at a source that contradicts your point of view. Can we all say "technical dishonesty"? Or perhaps we should categorize your debating style as very freshman-like (look it up). I vote for "both". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im sorry but I dont owe a copy of your book but feel free to send me one so I can "look at a source that contradicts my point of view". As said above I asked not to guide me to another source to merely MENTION that LW order, but to one that would GIVE ANY DETAILS on it, like data, author, his place in chain of command, to whom it was adressed etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">2. Speaking of things technical, no one gives a $h1t about your steel tube manual. It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Keep it handy on your nightstand though as a sleeping aid or perhaps as a reference for some meaningless tidbits to spew when attending a cocktail party for nerds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I simply tried to prove that my source is more detailed and so, more credible.
Btw: does your book mention ~100 Yak-3s powered with VK-107 in service during WW2? If so, close that book and dont open it again (if you want to learn anything on Yaks). That €œ100 Yak-3/VK-107€ is one of most common and typical soviet propaganda myths on their WW2 weaponry superiority €" any source to mention it you should consider unreliable, becaused based on soviet (not Russian) publications without any verification with post-soviet, Russian sources.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">3. Your protestations notwithstanding, Yak-3's were indeed SPECIFICALLY built to operate in the sea level to 10K feet environment in cooperation and support with the army. They were highly regarded as superb turners and excellent all-around performers below 10k' feet....while 109G's of ANY version were not. (As an aside, I'm sure you find it interesting that the 109F-4 is out-turned by the 109G-2 in this game. Oh, that's right...this too blows your bogus theories straight out the window. Oh well.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LF Spitfires were €œSPECIFICALLY built to operate€ lower than F version, because Supermarine and RAF had CHOICE €" they could build planes to operate at various alts (LF, F, HF) by changing Merlin supercharger gear ratios to make it produce greatest power at alts of choice. Yakovlev did not CHOOSE to make any decisions to €œSPECIFICALLY built (Yak-3) to operate in the sea level to 10K feet environment€. He was FORCED to use the only engine he had, i.e. M-105PF2, engine able to produce its top power at SEVEN HUNDRED METERS. He could not make it produce that 1240ps at 1000m or 1500m or 2000m or 2500m etc. I think he would like to have those options but didnt. So if you insist to belive that Yak-3 was €œSPECIFICALLY built to operate€ at certain alt, make that real, i.e. say that Yak-3 was "indeed SPECIFICALLY built to operate in the sea level to 700meters or 213feet environment€. But again I bother you with that awful, boring technical data. You read your opinion once and nothing can change it, I know.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">5. Cite us ANY testing agency which concluded that the 109G-2 could turn as well as a Yak-3 below 10k feet. Don't cite your wing loading numbers... was judged as good as a Yak-3 below 10k feet. (Oh, can't do it? Well then, using your own logic standard against you, the 109G-2 must not have been able to do it in real life...but can in this game. Maybe it's just a load of YOUR "propaganda".) Btw, if the 109G-2 was that good a turner, it would have been well documented by the Allies to that effect...and it wasn't. Again, no matter. Don't let pilot accounts, LW directives, the Yak-3's superb turning qualities, the 109G's non-superb turning qualities, the Yak-3's war record against LW aircraft as well as its well-earned reputation for being nothing less than very deadly below 10K feet stand in the way of your unfounded personal biases. (Hey, maybe your "new information" could serve as the basis for a post-graduate thesis with the published result being world-wide fame, endorsements, a mouse pad with your name on it, your own line of designer ouiji boards...the possibilities are endless.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You made a statement so proving it burdenes you, so YOU provide a reference from a credible testing establishment (USAAF, RAF, etc.) where the 109G-2 and Yak-3 were actually compared and cite us that testing agency, which concluded that Yak-3 could turn so much better than 109G-2 below 10k feet, to call Yak-3 better by large margin, say 30%, or actually any you belive in.
And do post any pilot accounts please, you know: name of Yak-3 pilot, his unit, time, place, his oponent plane, all circumstances, and dont forget to add if his claim is supported by the other side, i.e. if they in fact lost a plane of that type in that time and place. I must insist on that confirmation because of VVS overclaiming reaching 8 €" 10 times. THAT would be credible pilots account. Its more than you did so far in the field of pilots accouts, i.e. you merely kept mentioning opinion, that there are many pilots accounts.



Yak-3 was a very good tnb fighter, with ability to make tight, horizontal turns at very low alt. Not any magic casused that, but its paremeters, i.e. low €œwingloading€ 180kg/m^2 and good €œpowerloading€ 2,17kg/ps as the most important factors. Now what do you want Oleg to do Pipper, when he has to put into the same equations of FM €œwingloading€ 189kg/m^2 and €œpowerloading€ 2,05kg/ps, i.e. those of Bf-109G2. What in the world do you expect him to do? Put into equation another variables like €œnumber of webpages stating Yak-3 was superb turner€ or €œnumber of Yak-3 fans not wanting to hear about tech specs€ or €œnumber of threads in which Pipper accused Oleg of being biased against soviet planes€, so that Bf109G2 was modelled to turn not only worse than Yak-3, but worse by 50% or more? What do you want Oleg to do TECHNICALLY with this game to make it meet your expectations?

Oh and suggesting that Oleg wants to make Yak-3 worse than real would be absurd and hilarious! They dive safely far beyound their Vne=650kmh, never burn and being about equal with A6M5c Reisen 53c in empty weight, while being built using lower weight efficiency technology, have DM very much stronger than that of Zero.

GR142-Pipper
10-14-2005, 11:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Yak-3 was a very good tnb fighter, with ability to make tight, horizontal turns at very low alt. Not any magic casused that, but its paremeters, i.e. low €œwingloading€ 180kg/m^2 and good €œpowerloading€ 2,17kg/ps as the most important factors. Now what do you want Oleg to do Pipper, when he has to put into the same equations of FM €œwingloading€ 189kg/m^2 and €œpowerloading€ 2,05kg/ps, i.e. those of Bf-109G2. What in the world do you expect him to do? Put into equation another variables like €œnumber of webpages stating Yak-3 was superb turner€ or €œnumber of Yak-3 fans not wanting to hear about tech specs€ or €œnumber of threads in which Pipper accused Oleg of being biased against soviet planes€, so that Bf109G2 was modelled to turn not only worse than Yak-3, but worse by 50% or more? What do you want Oleg to do TECHNICALLY with this game to make it meet your expectations? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I merely want him to model all aircraft properly, absolutely if possible but if that can't be done then at the very least relative to its peers...no more, no less. Right now this isn't being done.

Oh btw, your insistence on wing loading and power as the ONLY measures of aircraft performance show how truly limited your thinking is. Things such as shape, configuration, aspect ratio, etc. all play important parts as well. Perhaps that wasn't mentioned in your "steel tube manual". No matter, Kocur, you just rant right on. [/QUOTE]

GR142-Pipper

faustnik
10-14-2005, 11:59 AM
Pipper,

Is you complaint about radius of the Yak-3's turn, or the Yak's stability in turns, or both? Are you talking about the Yak-3 in absolute terms or just relative to the Bf109?

Kocur_
10-14-2005, 12:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Kocur_:
Yak-3 was a very good tnb fighter, with ability to make tight, horizontal turns at very low alt. Not any magic casused that, but its paremeters, i.e. low €œwingloading€ 180kg/m^2 and good €œpowerloading€ 2,17kg/ps as the most important factors. Now what do you want Oleg to do Pipper, when he has to put into the same equations of FM €œwingloading€ 189kg/m^2 and €œpowerloading€ 2,05kg/ps, i.e. those of Bf-109G2. What in the world do you expect him to do? Put into equation another variables like €œnumber of webpages stating Yak-3 was superb turner€ or €œnumber of Yak-3 fans not wanting to hear about tech specs€ or €œnumber of threads in which Pipper accused Oleg of being biased against soviet planes€, so that Bf109G2 was modelled to turn not only worse than Yak-3, but worse by 50% or more? What do you want Oleg to do TECHNICALLY with this game to make it meet your expectations? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I merely want him to model all aircraft properly, absolutely if possible but if that can't be done then at the very least relative to its peers...no more, no less. Right now this isn't being done.

Oh btw, your insistence on wing loading and power as the ONLY measures of aircraft performance show how truly limited your thinking is. Things such as shape, configuration, aspect ratio, etc. all play important parts as well. Perhaps that wasn't mentioned in your "steel tube manual". No matter, Kocur, you just rant right on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Khem, whatever is my thinking, your reading is not so perfect, as I never said those parameters were the "ONLY measures of aircraft performance, but I said "€œwingloading€ 180kg/m^2 and good €œpowerloading€ 2,17kg/ps as the most important factors".
Suddenly you started to care about technical aspect of the issue! Im proud of you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Btw: aspect ratio:
Yak-3.....5,67
Bf109G....6,13

So your last hope to prove how wrong is my "limited thinking" that of two planes of similar wing-and powerloading, the one with higher aspect ratio and having leading edge slats should not turn dramatically worse than the other, is finding some kind of reason to think that Clark YH 14% at wingroot, Clark YH 10% at wingtip was so much superior over NACA 2R1 14.2% at wingroot, NACA 2R1 11.35% at wingtip. Or perhaps wings shape is that key feature to make ALL that difference in Yak-3 favour http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif?

Im all ears! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

alert_1
10-14-2005, 12:52 PM
@Kocur_ : good reading sir! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

WWMaxGunz
10-14-2005, 01:23 PM
Kocur, you should add total drag to that list as power alone without drag misleads.

Yaks did not need to fly high did they? How high did close air support bombers and
ground attack aircraft tend to fly? Russian ones stayed low. German level bombers
ran about how far up? 700 meters for most power, how much less at 3km? Yak-1b was
capable against 109G-2 even up to 4km alt according to Major Kozhemyako talking to
Finnish players well past 1989. Was the Yak-3 so much less or the newer 109's so
much better? Did you read the interviews? He described in detail what it was like,
how each side did operations, what kinds of results between planes and pilots, etc.
Or perhaps since he is Russian it is propaganda? If it was he could have painted a
much different picture.

I don't say they were super planes but they met a need. Max power on those engines
was not some special mode either, was it? Or was there special WEP and it was less
most of the time?

Here, try another measure of the planes; what speed was high cruise, say 90% as the
sim would apply? That tells me a lot of both airframe and engine/thrust.

It is a shame those Yaks were wood because they did not last for history. I have
read that in warm, moist places there was mold or like that would get into the plys
of the wood sometimes in six months or less. Not a problem in North and Mid Russia
except over long term... had any original Yak wood coverings survived long?

And... from IL2 I thought that the MiG-3's were the twitchy planes. Then we got I-16.

Kocur_
10-14-2005, 02:00 PM
Excuse me: I should add drag to anything? My aerodynamical knowledge is limited and data I know and posted indicate that Yak-3 and Bf109G2 were similar in turning. I can agree easily that Yak-3 was better but what I know and understand leads me to notion that Bf109G2 was not far behind due to, again: similar wingloading (slightly worse), similar powerloading (slightly better), higher aspect ratio, slats.
Perhaps indeed Yak-3 airfoil and all the rest of wing configuration was dramatically better than Bf109g2 - Im waiting for Pipper to post data to support such an idea! For it is Pipper who claims Bf109G2 to be incomparable, very much worse in turning than Yak-3 and thus the game is wrong supposedly making Bf109G2 able to turn closely to Yak-3! Not me! So I guess he should support his claim and show reasons like, say, data to indicate Yak-3 total drag was dramatically lower than Bf-109G2's, in fact so much lower to not only cancel out Bf109G'2 advantage in induced drag due to higher aspect ratio, but also create advantage far beyound both types similar wingloading and powerloading. Im here waiting to be convinced!

p1ngu666
10-14-2005, 02:13 PM
yaks are fairely clean aircraft, actully most russian planes of ww2 era are, so it has less drag than others because of less rivits, panel joins etc.

clean lines aswell, u can imagine the air would flow nicely around it.

the main radiator is in the ideal position, middle of the plane (i think oleg said that was best place awhile ago), and wingroot radiators are low drag aswell.

in terms of making a plane with what was avalible, the yaks where decent, minium http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

WWMaxGunz
10-14-2005, 02:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Excuse me: I should add drag to anything? My aerodynamical knowledge is limited and data I know and posted indicate that Yak-3 and Bf109G2 were similar in turning. I can agree easily that Yak-3 was better but what I know and understand leads me to notion that Bf109G2 was not far behind due to, again: similar wingloading (slightly worse), similar powerloading (slightly better), higher aspect ratio, slats.
Perhaps indeed Yak-3 airfoil and all the rest of wing configuration was dramatically better than Bf109g2 - Im waiting for Pipper to post data to support such an idea! For it is Pipper who claims Bf109G2 to be incomparable, very much worse in turning than Yak-3 and thus the game is wrong supposedly making Bf109G2 able to turn closely to Yak-3! Not me! So I guess he should support his claim and show reasons like, say, data to indicate Yak-3 total drag was dramatically lower than Bf-109G2's, in fact so much lower to not only cancel out Bf109G'2 advantage in induced drag due to higher aspect ratio, but also create advantage far beyound both types similar wingloading and powerloading. Im here waiting to be convinced! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, drag for size of the plane and streamlining, things like that that powerloading alone
does not convey. Thick wings or big plane needs the extra power regardless of weight.

Can you compare Yak-1b to Yak-3? Because we have the detailed info on matchup 109G-2 to
Yak-1b right on this forum. Overall, 109G-2 was better. Horizontal turning, not. The
difference was enough there was no advantage for the 109G-2 without surprise and in two
turns a non-rookie in the Yak-1b at under 4km could be on the tail of or force the 109G-2
to dive away. Also that the Yak-1b could not catch the 109G-2 in a dive... I assume that
the 109G-2 dove before the Yak-1b was close to shooting.
For some odd reason I think that the Yak-3 was superior to the Yak-1b, but maybe not in
flat (horizontal) turning.

Kocur_
10-14-2005, 04:11 PM
Yak-1b:
wingspan 10m
area 17,15
t/o weight 2900kg

Two engines powered Yak-1b: M-105PA - 1050ps on few early ones, overwhelming majority had M-105PF1 - 1180ps.

So we have:
..................Yak-1b...............Yak-3
wingloading: 170kg/m^2.................180kg/m^2
powerloading: 2,78 or 2,47kg/ps........2,17kg/ps
aspect ratio:5,83......................5,67


So AFA my understanding of aerodynamics goes it looks like to achieve the same turning as Yak-1b, a Yak-3 would have to fly at higher AoA, due to higher wingloading and more induced drag caused by lower aspect ratio (UglyKid! Heeelp!). Those losses would have to be compensated by higher power, but Yak-3s advantage in power would be 190ps to merely 60ps (depending on Yak-1b version) depending on alt.
Increase of power in PF1 over PA come from higher mainfold pressure: from 950mmHg to 1050mmHg. Further increase of power in PF2 came from the same, this time pressure was risen to 1100mmHg, but use of that higher pressure was limited to first supercharger gear critial alt, which was 700m. At second gear alt which was 2700m, power of both engines was equal, i.e.1180ps. At 4000m both achieved 1050ps. So above about 2500m, the Yak-3 was...worse turner than Yak-1b...? That would not surprising (assuming my aerodynamical thinking has anything to do with RL) because, as I said previously, Yak-3 had its wingspan reduced to achieve better speed out of the only available, weak engine but that cost loss of wing area. Decrease of weight improved also climb (at cost of weakening the airframe).


VVS pilots experience you mention is logical to me: lower Yak-1b wingloading made it easy to put in and keep in tight turn. Because of lower than Bf109G2 powerloading Yak1b would quickly reduce its turn radius at cost of losing speed. So careful Bf109G2 pilot would not choose to try to turn at lower speed but would prefer to conserve his E and either disengage diving away to possibly come back later bnzing or would use his plane better powerloading to make it more vertical, i.e by high yoyos or spiral climb.


Oh and let me remind, that its Pipper who says the game is wrong making Bf109G2 turning worse but close to Yak-3, so HE should provide data to support that, right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kwiatos
10-14-2005, 04:24 PM
....but how explain that G-2 in our game could turn even with Yak 1b?

Kocur_
10-14-2005, 04:35 PM
Found something interesting:
http://wunderwaffe.narod.ru/Magazine/AirWar/33/28.htm

Our Yak-3 is "¯º-3/1944 ³.", its turning time in seconds: "'Ñ€µмя ²¸Ñ€?¶?, сµº:" 21s.

GR142-Pipper
10-14-2005, 05:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Oh and let me remind, that its Pipper who says the game is wrong making Bf109G2 turning worse but close to Yak-3, so HE should provide data to support that, right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So tell us, how is it that the 109G-2 wasn't regarded as much of a turner but the Yak-3's were? If the two were truly equal as Kocur infers, then the 109G-2 would have had a sterling reputation as a turning fighter and there would be widespread Allied documentation to that effect. Gee, I wonder why there isn't ANY to support that position? Hmmm....Maybe Willy M. never told the LW pilots that their aircraft really could out turn Yak-3s so they just didn't know and never found out on their own. Nah. The truth is that the Yak-3 ate 109s for lunch below 10K feet. (Kocur, have the missus put a little more mustard on your sandwich next time please.)

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
10-14-2005, 05:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
So your last hope to prove how wrong is my "limited thinking" that of two planes of similar wing-and powerloading, the one with higher aspect ratio and having leading edge slats should not turn dramatically worse than the other, is finding some kind of reason to think that Clark YH 14% at wingroot, Clark YH 10% at wingtip was so much superior over NACA 2R1 14.2% at wingroot, NACA 2R1 11.35% at wingtip. Or perhaps wings shape is that key feature to make ALL that difference in Yak-3 favour http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That's easy. If what you say is true, the 109G-2 would have the reputation of being a sterling turner....it wasn't but the Yak-3 was. Therefore your thinking is obviously incorrect based on the most important data possible...real world pilot accounts and the EARNED reputations of the respective aircraft (one being not noted for turning, the 109G/K series and the other for being an excellent high performance turner, the Yak-3). You and reality just don't seem to get along well. Oh well.

GR142-Pipper

Kocur_
10-14-2005, 05:43 PM
Oh and I had hope... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
So you lost interest in technical issues and went back to "reputation", "regarded" and "opinions". So sad.

And now lets all have a read. (http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=004876)
Read it carefully Pipper not to lose a bit of INFORMATION. Not that I hope anything could make you change your thinking.

GR142-Pipper
10-14-2005, 05:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Oh and I had hope... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
So you lost interest in technical issues and went back to "reputation", "regarded" and "opinions". So sad. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't be sad. Just learn what's important and what's not. Numbers from your little "steel tube manual" will never equal actual pilot reports and earned reputations.

GR142-Pipper

Kocur_
10-14-2005, 05:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Kocur_:
Oh and I had hope... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
So you lost interest in technical issues and went back to "reputation", "regarded" and "opinions". So sad. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't be sad. Just learn what's important and what's not. Numbers from your little "steel tube manual" will never equal actual pilot reports and earned reputations. Speaking of earned reputations, too bad the 109G-2 never had a positive one as a turner...except in this game and in Kocur's world, of course.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

READ Pipper AND LEARN SOME REAL THINGS (http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=004876)

GR142-Pipper
10-14-2005, 05:54 PM
Here's something real, Kocur...the 109G-2 was never regarded as a turner but the Yak-3 was. Perhaps that's a bit too real for you. Choke it down hard.

GR142-Pipper

Kocur_
10-14-2005, 06:01 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

CUJO_1970
10-14-2005, 08:49 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

This thread cracks me up.

p1ngu666
10-14-2005, 09:33 PM
and me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

ElAurens
10-14-2005, 09:35 PM
All I know is a G6 with gunpods will out turn a Spit IX in game. This is absolute nonesense. Regardless of how Yak 3s and G2s performed in real life, the 109Gs we have in the game are totally incorrrectly modeled, especially at low speed high angle of attack maneuvors. It's the slats...

p1ngu666
10-14-2005, 09:38 PM
http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666//yak3vsg2.jpg

luftluuver
10-15-2005, 12:56 AM
p1ngu666

You forgot the roll rate graph. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WWMaxGunz
10-15-2005, 01:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Yak-1b:
wingspan 10m
area 17,15
t/o weight 2900kg

Two engines powered Yak-1b: M-105PA - 1050ps on few early ones, overwhelming majority had M-105PF1 - 1180ps.

So we have:
..................Yak-1b...............Yak-3
wingloading: 170kg/m^2.................180kg/m^2
powerloading: 2,78 or 2,47kg/ps........2,17kg/ps
aspect ratio:5,83......................5,67


So AFA my understanding of aerodynamics goes it looks like to achieve the same turning as Yak-1b, a Yak-3 would have to fly at higher AoA, due to higher wingloading and more induced drag caused by lower aspect ratio (UglyKid! Heeelp!). Those losses would have to be compensated by higher power, but Yak-3s advantage in power would be 190ps to merely 60ps (depending on Yak-1b version) depending on alt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And here I see that if the wings of both have the same angle of incidence (wing chord to
axial centerline angle) and fly the same path and speed then AOA is the same by geometry.

There would be more induced drag for sure... at some alt the Yak-3 would not be able to
match the Yak-1b especially in tight turns. Where the Yak-3 has higher power then it
comes to G's it can sustain. But try and find doghouse charts for those Yaks! Prolly
don't exist for real.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Increase of power in PF1 over PA come from higher mainfold pressure: from 950mmHg to 1050mmHg. Further increase of power in PF2 came from the same, this time pressure was risen to 1100mmHg, but use of that higher pressure was limited to first supercharger gear critial alt, which was 700m. At second gear alt which was 2700m, power of both engines was equal, i.e.1180ps. At 4000m both achieved 1050ps. So above about 2500m, the Yak-3 was...worse turner than Yak-1b...? That would not surprising (assuming my aerodynamical thinking has anything to do with RL) because, as I said previously, Yak-3 had its wingspan reduced to achieve better speed out of the only available, weak engine but that cost loss of wing area. Decrease of weight improved also climb (at cost of weakening the airframe).


VVS pilots experience you mention is logical to me: lower Yak-1b wingloading made it easy to put in and keep in tight turn. Because of lower than Bf109G2 powerloading Yak1b would quickly reduce its turn radius at cost of losing speed. So careful Bf109G2 pilot would not choose to try to turn at lower speed but would prefer to conserve his E and either disengage diving away to possibly come back later bnzing or would use his plane better powerloading to make it more vertical, i.e by high yoyos or spiral climb.


Oh and let me remind, that its Pipper who says the game is wrong making Bf109G2 turning worse but close to Yak-3, so HE should provide data to support that, right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From Kozhemyako the 109's flew where they had clear advantages or dove to extend and
return from above. So the 109's almost always faster, the Yak-1b's slower from go means
even tighter turns initially. Yet they also get great acceleration from the slower speed
as they have extra excess power. Only, once the speeds get high the 109 is favored in
the fight as long as he doesn't slow down to Yak-1b favoring speed.

Look, a 109 with dive smash can do a hard angle change with some but not all loss of
advantage speed, but the climbout will take longer -- he might have to dive off and
come back after a long extension and there he might just get caught low alone and
trying to climb. So does he try? Perhaps in a surprise attack where the Yak saw late
and turned late, I think I would. Kozhemyako I think says things like that happened.
Who took stupid chances and stayed flying that way for long?

The parts of the interviews I can't get, Kozhemyako rated the turns both horizontal and
others. He rated the standard maneuvers such as combat climb and another climb saying
which the Yak pilot would do, which the 109 pilot would do. He rated both planes as 4's,
4.5's and 5's by the school grade system. IIRC on horizontal turns he gave the 109G-2
a 4 and the Yak-1b a 5 while in the vertical it went the other way around. You need the
speed and roll to excell in the vertical. If the 109 slowed and the Yak even started to
gain, the 109 dived and got away. I've posted to Jurinko more than once asking if he can
get his friend to repost that part of the interview but so far nothing.

WWMaxGunz
10-15-2005, 01:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Kocur_:
Oh and let me remind, that its Pipper who says the game is wrong making Bf109G2 turning worse but close to Yak-3, so HE should provide data to support that, right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So tell us, how is it that the 109G-2 wasn't regarded as much of a turner but the Yak-3's were? If the two were truly equal as Kocur infers, then the 109G-2 would have had a sterling reputation as a turning fighter and there would be widespread Allied documentation to that effect. Gee, I wonder why there isn't ANY to support that position? Hmmm....Maybe Willy M. never told the LW pilots that their aircraft really could out turn Yak-3s so they just didn't know and never found out on their own. Nah. The truth is that the Yak-3 ate 109s for lunch below 10K feet. (Kocur, have the missus put a little more mustard on your sandwich next time please.)

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

109G-2 from when? It was meeting Yak-1b's. Earlier lighter, slower, less well armed and
armored (on average only!) planes were on the same average also better flat turners.

Yak-3 1944 model... how many G-2's you think fought it? And no, the G-2 sould still not
outturn it ***at the same speed***.

Thing is in online fighting how do you keep track of the changing energy states and speeds
throughout these turns? As in all the way throughout? You wrote before about 109's IIRC
that you were following and suddenly the guy just comes around on you, he pulls hard
inside and comes right around while you are trying to follow. By any chance do you think
he slowed down enough get a better radius? Were you also burning E and maybe not in a
nicely coordinated turn which with this sim... you know, you can't really as you have
complained about game data enough I know you see it that way.

So how do you judge all that online with the funky view and only partial knowledge of
what the other is really doing? Hey, you shouldn't unless you can get tracks from you
and the opponent then spend hours deconstructing the battle.

I'd say the Yak-3 should well outfight the 109G-2 below 3km. But also the Yak-3 should
do that by flying relative strengths of the two and keep the speed good where the 109G-2
can't outclimb or outturn. In that regime I think the Yak-3 should even keep up in yoyos,
better than the Yak-1b would. It can also do more damage when it does get a shot.

EDIT: And hey, from all I've seen of slats planes in the sim there is something not right
with those. Extra AOA doesn't mean more than any other does it? Or extra stability?

WWMaxGunz
10-15-2005, 01:59 AM
After reading Cube's post in the archives, I get this feeling that it should be possible
for an IL2Compare to be able to generate doghouse charts at user-given alts. That alone
would attract attention, maybe more sales and surely more complaints. But hey, shouldn't
it also make a good tool for Maddox Games?

Ugly_Kid
10-15-2005, 02:25 AM
Yep, Kocur you're right about aspect ratio, allthough, probably the governing difference with yak-1b and 3 is the wingloading. Did they have same profiles? Yak-3 design indicates that they were simply pursuing higher speed and climb, and that is what made 3 more competitive, not the turn. So perhaps russians also realized that just turning circles isn't the key element?

Notably the zero drag, is less important in low speed and turning than induced drag.

What book did you say you have? Sounds good...

It's also to be noted that, probably the short stubby wings quite heavily tapered didn't really promote stability or nice stalling characteristics...

Reputation is also such a nice word...there were few german pilots who were reputed dogfighters (Lipfert, Marseille, i.e.). It wasn't that the
planes weren't capable of a or b, but even this game should tell you that turning and DF gets you killed faster than hit and run, as simple as that. LW doctrine or schooling didn't promote turning. They hardly bothered to measure turning times. It was first considered alarming that FW-190 prototype didn't turn with Bf-110, hence to the Tank's dislike they required area increase, but that's about that. Sorry, but for them the turning circles ended at WW I, Russians did not start to think so until mid war. Notably Germans learnt from Spanish Civil War and the modern way of aircombat, russians shot and imprisoned their own vets.

Finns applied "pendelum" tactics first with Brewster, later with 109. This combines vertical element to the turning and for this 109 was "reputed"(tm) good. Also, in diving they said, 109 could show any russian pair of heels if the fight started going wrong.

Perhaps the "reputed"(tm) is handled more closely here:

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/

109 G:
It turned well too, if you just pulled the stick"
- Mauno Fr¤ntil¤, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif