PDA

View Full Version : Stiffened elevators on all 109!



Pages : [1] 2

carguy_
02-10-2006, 06:25 AM
What is going on here?!Finnish pilots certainly said the plane can maneuver very well up to 680km/h.In the game all 109s elevators become so stiff it`s hard to perform basic maneuvers.


From 4 hours of flying I take it below 370km/h maneuverability is de facto increased but the plane is useless over 420km/h because elevators allow like 60% deflection.

I`d like to ask Mr.Oleg if he finds that stiff setting correct.If yes then forget what I wrote here.

Oleg_Maddox
02-10-2006, 06:50 AM
Originally posted by carguy_:
What is going on here?!Finnish pilots certainly said the plane can maneuver very well up to 680km/h.In the game all 109s elevators become so stiff it`s hard to perform basic maneuvers.


From 4 hours of flying I take it below 370km/h maneuverability is de facto increased but the plane is useless over 420km/h because elevators allow like 60% deflection.

I`d like to ask Mr.Oleg if he finds that stiff setting correct.If yes then forget what I wrote here.

We model force applied to a stick as ~23 kg (or 50lb) for all planes.

But I think that this Finnish pilot tells about way greater force on the stick... and the term maneuverable in his words could be also saying that it was still controlable and possible to turn or loop (but with way greater forces on the stick and greater curves...)

All other refences say that 109s became very hard in control comparing to other planes on high speed. Hard measn heavy. Pilot was way more quicker tired in dogfight comparing to allied pilots (say even compring to Las and Yaks... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

carguy_
02-10-2006, 06:55 AM
Whoa! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Didn`t know the same force is put on the stick in all planes.

Point taken and I hope all other 109 jocks get to see this answer too.Explains a lot!

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

Brain32
02-10-2006, 07:07 AM
This is ONLY thing that bothered me so far in the game. Well, answer is good and pretty much explanis it, I'm not happy with that fact but it's a fact anyway http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.
I will most certanly adjust my controls for trimming elevator on 109 with max efficiency because there is no other way to fight the Spits in a Me109 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif.
BTW I'm very happy with the patch, and I'm looking foward to future releases http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

jurinko
02-10-2006, 07:27 AM
Use trim, men.

RAF74_Poker
02-10-2006, 07:53 AM
Originally posted by jurinko:
Use trim, men.

uh, they already were. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Oleg_Maddox
02-10-2006, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
This is ONLY thing that bothered me so far in the game. Well, answer is good and pretty much explanis it, I'm not happy with that fact but it's a fact anyway http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.
I will most certanly adjust my controls for trimming elevator on 109 with max efficiency because there is no other way to fight the Spits in a Me109 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif.
BTW I'm very happy with the patch, and I'm looking foward to future releases http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

I personally think that 109 isn't the plan that coud outturn the spit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Remeber the force is for Spit the same on a stick....

How isn't happy should think how to amke it more real and equal to all.... If to do not limit such things then the plane will do something that isn't possible really... Say to stay in turn with 90 kg on a stick...

Better was to limit for all one the same force. This fair enough.

AKA_TAGERT
02-10-2006, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Better was to limit for all one the same force. This fair enough. Agreed 100%

Brain32
02-10-2006, 08:22 AM
I personally think that 109 isn't the plan that coud outturn the spit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
No, not outturn, I never try that anyway, what bothers me is 109's vertical manouverbility. Now I'm not saying it's incorrect or anything like that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

How isn't happy should think how to amke it more real and equal to all.... If to do not limit such things then the plane will do something that isn't possible really... Say to stay in turn with 90 kg on a stick...
About happyness, I meant I'm not happy with that charateristic of the plane itself, not the way it is modelled in game, same stick forces for all planes seem pretty good and fair solution to me.

stathem
02-10-2006, 11:00 AM
Bump for more of Oleg's wisdom http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Tator_Totts
02-10-2006, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
Bump for more of Oleg's wisdom http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Bump again for Olegs wisdom. Good to see Oleg is not a Waffle revisionist.

Texan...
02-10-2006, 11:40 AM
Thank you Oleg for trying to keep the Bf109 realistic. This is interesting because it's the first I've heard mention of pilot fatigue.

Here's a bit more on the ailerons, elevator and rudder. Be happy Oleg is allowing 50lbs force on stick, when apparently only 40lbs was realistic:

"The absense of a rudder trim control in the cockpit was a bad feature at speeds above cruise or in dives. Above 300 mph the pilot needed a very heavy foot on the port rudder pedal for trimmed flight with no sideslip which is absolutely essential for gunnery. The pilot's left leg quickly tired while keeping this load on, and this affected his ability to put on more left rudder for a turn at 300 mph or above. Consequently, at high speeds the 109 could turn far more readily to the right than to the left.

Fighting Qualities:
A series of mock dogfights were conducted by the British in addition to the flight test and the following was revealed: If the airplane was trimmed for level flight, a heavy push on the stick was needed to hold it in a dive at 400 mph. If it was trimmed into the dive, recovery was difficult unless the trim wheel was wound back, due to the excessive heaviness of the elevator forces.

Ailerons:
At low speeds, the ailerons control was good, response brisk. As speed increased the ailerons became too heavy but the response was good up to 200 mph. At 300 mph they became "unpleasant". Over 300 mph they became impossible. At 400 mph the stick felt like it was set in a bucket of cement. A pilot exerting all his strength could not apply more than one fifth aileron at 400 mph; that's 5 degrees up and 3 degrees down. The aileron situation at high combat speeds might be summarized in the following way:

(1) Due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">40 pounds</span> side force on the stick as compared to 60 pounds or more possible if he had more elbow room.

(2) Messerschmitt also penalized the pilot by designing in an unsually small stick top travel of plus or minus 4 inches, giving very poor mechanical advantage between pilot and aileron.

(3) At 400 mph with <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">40 pounds</span> side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4 seconds to get into a 45 degree roll or bank.

Elevator:
This was a good control at slow speeds but became too heavy above 250 mph and at 400 mph it became so heavy that maneurverability became seriously restricted. When diving at 400 mph a pilot, pulling very hard could not pull enough "g" force to black himself out. The stick force per "g" was an excess of 20 pounds in a high speed dive. To black out, as a limit to the human factor in high speed maneuvers, would require over 100 pounds pull on the stick."

===========================================

The 109 made a great showing for itself in WW2 and will go down in history. But, for several patches it has been a little unrealistic.

Looking forward to BoB.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Stigler_9_JG52
02-10-2006, 11:55 AM
Texan paraphrased...

Elevator:
This was a good control at slow speeds but became too heavy above 250 mph and at 400 mph it became so heavy that maneurverability became seriously restricted. When diving at 400 mph a pilot, pulling very hard could not pull enough "g" force to black himself out. The stick force per "g" was an excess of 20 pounds in a high speed dive. To black out, as a limit to the human factor in high speed maneuvers, would require over 100 pounds pull on the stick."

And here's the rub: you notice in game (this is 4.02, I haven't yet tested the new one!!) that the elevator stiffness starts at about 300kph; that's just 180 mph, give or take. It seems the onset of this stiffness comes a bit too quick; especially if it's considered that we get 50lbs of "pilot elbow grease" as opposed to 40.

According to this quote, "unpleasant" forces should begin at about 400kph, or 240mph.

This is why I feel the 109 has been "singled out" for heavy elevator forces, when many planes suffered the same fate if you didn't mind your throttle before diving in.

Oleg, care to respond to this?

Professor_06
02-10-2006, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
What is going on here?!Finnish pilots certainly said the plane can maneuver very well up to 680km/h.In the game all 109s elevators become so stiff it`s hard to perform basic maneuvers.


From 4 hours of flying I take it below 370km/h maneuverability is de facto increased but the plane is useless over 420km/h because elevators allow like 60% deflection.

I`d like to ask Mr.Oleg if he finds that stiff setting correct.If yes then forget what I wrote here.

We model force applied to a stick as ~23 kg (or 50lb) for all planes.

But I think that this Finnish pilot tells about way greater force on the stick... and the term maneuverable in his words could be also saying that it was still controlable and possible to turn or loop (but with way greater forces on the stick and greater curves...)

All other refences say that 109s became very hard in control comparing to other planes on high speed. Hard measn heavy. Pilot was way more quicker tired in dogfight comparing to allied pilots (say even compring to Las and Yaks... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for fine attention to detail. Those big Fins with their big hands could really pull on their stick, it seems.

Maybe, you could implement a pilot fatigue bar on one of your next release(s) with pilot moaning as he strains against the pull.

Thanks again for this last patch.

Texan...
02-10-2006, 12:28 PM
And the P38 Stig, it becomes heavy early on as well, and I always thought it was "singled out" due to the fact that it was one of the first aircraft noted to have the problem.

Now we enter the grey area. Without sensors attached to the plane and pilot, trying to define "heaviness" is difficult. What you think is heavy compared to me are two different things. The only concrete determination we can make in this game is at what speed the controls become useless. Still, most players are still getting around this with the uber-fast trim.

Maybe Oleg has determined the initial heaviness speed based on the trim speed concession they have had to make?

Kocur_
02-10-2006, 12:42 PM
No big deal. Just do what was tried in Rechlin and recommended to frontline pilots: trim the plane nose up - it will be as manouverable at high speed as you like http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


P-38 problem was not elevator effectiveness or elevator forces. Lightning wing was not optimised for high speeds, as it was quite early plane yet capable of high speeds later during developement and with changes in tactics, and center of lift moved backwards along wings cord much earlier than in other planes. Wing got 'stalled' in a way at high speed. Dive recovery flaps were disrupting airflow, to restore more proper CoL position. so nose could be risen.

p1ngu666
02-10-2006, 12:51 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
just think of a pilot capable of pulling 90kg on stick, wouldnt fit in 109 pit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

i think most planes stiffen up early

BfHeFwMe
02-10-2006, 01:29 PM
Your asking the wrong question, what you should be asking is 'will 109 get it's historical adjustable horizontal STAB modeled'. It never had flight trimmable tabs. And also if everyone believes it's the same difference explain why so many modern aircraft are equipped with both systems.

But if you wish to fly a Spitfire trimmed 109 system around, knock yourself out. You'll be at a disadvantage throughout the whole flight envelope and all speeds. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Abbuzze
02-10-2006, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by Texan...:


Here's a bit more on the ailerons, elevator and rudder. Be happy Oleg is allowing 50lbs force on stick, when apparently only 40lbs was realistic:

"The absense of a rudder trim control in the cockpit was a bad feature at speeds above cruise or in dives. Above 300 mph the pilot....
[...]
===========================================

The 109 made a great showing for itself in WW2 and will go down in history. But, for several patches it has been a little unrealistic.

Looking forward to BoB.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

First you should mention that this test is from a damaged and reapaird but misstrimmed 109E.(with an inferior design compared to later F,G,K - especially the ailerons)
That the cause why the plane didn´t flew straight and need permanent pressure to the rudder. At cruising speed a 109 which was well trimmed simply fly straight with none or very little manual compensation.

No possible to blackout the pilot? So he didn´t trimed the plane correct. No noseheavy plane can be pulled out of a dive with just pulling the stick! If you pull out of a dive with using the trim it was such effective that you need to press the stick foreward(!) to be not blackout. But no doubt the 109 needed to be more carefully than other planes.

And we should not forget, that at this time the Spitfire still used fabric covered ailerons.

Here is a quote of a pilot who described how an Spitfire of the same timeperiod was flown and how effective it ailerons were - it seems limited space could be and advantage sometimes... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



Flying the Spitfire was like driving a sports car. It was faster than the old Hurricane , much more delicate. You couldn't roll it very fast, but you could make it go up and down much easier. A perfect lady. It wouldn't do anything wrong. The Hurricane would drop a wing if you stalled it coming in, but a Spitfire would come wafting down. You couldn't snap it into a spin. Beautiful to fly, although very stiff on the ailerons - you had to jam your elbow against the side to get the leverage to move them. And so fast!!! If you shut the throttle in a Hurricane you'd come to a grinding halt; in a Spitfire you just go whistling on.
[1] P/O H.G.Niven 601 & 602 Squadrons, having flown both Hurricane and Spitfire.


Back to the topic, I think it is a good decission till we will have pilots strengh is modelled. 109 Pilots used the trim, we have to do the same now in our 109.

In further games it would be nice that 2-handed turning would be simulate, but with decreasing turnrate if you change enginesettings or other things, where you need your 2nd hand...
and decreasing turnrate if the fight went longer at high g-forces.

Xiolablu3
02-10-2006, 05:02 PM
The quote above is about general stiffness. Nothing to do with high speed manouvres.

Also he is talking about ailerons not elevators.

Grey_Mouser67
02-10-2006, 05:14 PM
I really love when Oleg pops in here and explains his reasoning or where there are opportunities...it answers soooo many questions.

It is comforting to know that Oleg does, in fact, pay attention to pilot accounts and anecdotal evidence to help guide some of the more subjective modelling things. It is comforting to know, that by and large, Oleg feels the Spitfire should out turn the 109! Where it doesn't in this game, then an opportunity exists for improvement...nothing more, nothing less.

When he pops in here and says 50#'s for all planes...suddenly rational discussion about how pilots could not pull the same on a stick depending on pilot stature, stick configuration and cockpit layout/size spring up!

Thank you Oleg!

VMF-214_HaVoK
02-10-2006, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:
What is going on here?!Finnish pilots certainly said the plane can maneuver very well up to 680km/h.In the game all 109s elevators become so stiff it`s hard to perform basic maneuvers.


From 4 hours of flying I take it below 370km/h maneuverability is de facto increased but the plane is useless over 420km/h because elevators allow like 60% deflection.

I`d like to ask Mr.Oleg if he finds that stiff setting correct.If yes then forget what I wrote here.

Carguy I recall you on many occasions discredited Allied claims in reguards to how thier planes perform. This zoo never ceases to amaze me. As far as the 109 its the top fighter in the game. And the elevator response is fine. Whats the problem?

p1ngu666
02-10-2006, 05:36 PM
it cant outturn spitfires http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

thats the problem, and secondly, yaks, la's etc

bodaw
02-10-2006, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
... As far as the 109 its the top fighter in the game. And the elevator response is fine. Whats the problem?

Whatever you were smoking while you were flying that 109, I want some of that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif. The elevator barely deflects at speeds above 400 kph, sure, you can pull the joystick all the way back but the plane ain't responding. We could all send you tracks, if you'd like.

Stigler_9_JG52
02-10-2006, 05:46 PM
Well, Havok, that's great that you feel the elevator response is "fine" without any comment about the facts we're supposedly being presented here.

That and $3.00 will get you a big latte at Starbucks.

Care to chime in on the fact that the onset of this stiffness is about 50mph too slow?

Nobody's saying a 109 should out-turn a Spit, least of all me. But it shouldn't immediately lock up when sticking its nose down, either.

The control stiffness we have now is limiting the 109s ability to fight "its fight", vertical maneuvering, dive, fire and climb out.

carguy_
02-10-2006, 05:48 PM
Yes,you can say that.I discredited allied claims posted after exactly opposite LW claims were posted.

One thing I`m wondering why this got changed.Thought the 109 el.authoority can`t be worse than this in 4.02 @high speeds.Why it has been changed so many times?

If you flew some more you`d know the el.authority is lessened bout the very same amount at 420kph as at 620kph.Go try it out.

If I understood you correctly you`re saying that 109 is the best fighter in the game.
Wonder why cuz we both know it aint got nothin on Las,Spits,Corsairs,P51s,P47s,Tempests.


As far as elevator problem goes,I`m not happy with the change in the least.It renders B&Z tactics unsuable.

All I could do was ask Oleg if it wasn`t FM programming mistake.It`s not.Things will be pretty hard from now on.All I can do is learn the new FM though testing the K4 hour by hour brings shocking results.


With all that said I will always say that the most important thing which would help me and all other B&Zers is changing the dots/LODs.


The big change is here.Luftwaffles got f#cked again,so what.Better get some more training.

Texan...
02-10-2006, 05:58 PM
As someone mentioned, 4.03 must be patch perfection. Now both the reds AND the blues are whining. Blues were pretty content during the 4.02 "Happy Days."

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

carguy_
02-10-2006, 06:17 PM
And may I point out that I`m not happy meaning in the "pilot role play" thing.It`s as if one beatiful mornin I was awaken in a beaaatiful France barrack for aces.I went to check my 109 and found out that my mechanic installed some stuff on the elevators that made them heavier.

He says:"Herr Oberleutnant,we`re ordered to install those devices that would protect you from overdosing Geeforces.Special order by the O man himself." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

My handsome self: "Verdammt!How are we supposed to pull the angles on Ivan`s Lavochkins if we get stabbed in our back patch after patch?!" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Mechanic:"Order is an order,Herr Oberleutnant". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

My handsome self:"Yeah,yeah whatever.Lemme fly this plane before I get killed.AGAIN. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif"



As a gamer I`m pissed over the dot/LOD system.Really getting tired of trying too spot a lod from 300m.

WWMaxGunz
02-10-2006, 06:42 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:

And here's the rub: you notice in game (this is 4.02, I haven't yet tested the new one!!) that the elevator stiffness starts at about 300kph; that's just 180 mph, give or take. It seems the onset of this stiffness comes a bit too quick; especially if it's considered that we get 50lbs of "pilot elbow grease" as opposed to 40.

According to this quote, "unpleasant" forces should begin at about 400kph, or 240mph.[\QUOTE]

What I'd like to see now is what "unpleasant" forces means in terms of pounds.
Nothing much to ask really, just your expert answer based on data and devoid of opinion.

Unless of course you have no actual data, just a subjective word "unpleasant" stripped of
specific meanings and ready to attach necessary suppositions to.

What is the meaning in numbers and why? I do believe that stick force charts for most or
all of these planes do exist and I have yet to see a domain point labelled "unpleasant".

ZG77_Nagual
02-10-2006, 06:51 PM
I can black out pretty quick with neutral trim and no combat flaps at 460mph on the deck in a g6as.

Chadburn
02-10-2006, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
I can black out pretty quick with neutral trim and no combat flaps at 460mph on the deck in a g6as.

Can I see the track of you going 740kph and pulling enough to black out?

ZG77_Nagual
02-10-2006, 07:31 PM
109 Track file (http://webpages.charter.net/cmorey/pics/)

I stand corrected - I can grey out at that speed - quick and dirty flight - neutral trim, no flaps

Chadburn
02-10-2006, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
109 Track file (http://webpages.charter.net/cmorey/pics/)

I stand corrected - I can grey out at that speed - quick and dirty flight - neutral trim, no flaps

Thanks Nagual. I'll watch it later.

Stigler_9_JG52
02-10-2006, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:
One thing I`m wondering why this got changed.Thought the 109 el.authoority can`t be worse than this in 4.02 @high speeds.Why it has been changed so many times?

If you flew some more you`d know the el.authority is lessened bout the very same amount at 420kph as at 620kph.Go try it out.

If I understood you correctly you`re saying that 109 is the best fighter in the game.
Wonder why cuz we both know it aint got nothin on Las,Spits,Corsairs,P51s,P47s,Tempests.

As far as elevator problem goes,I`m not happy with the change in the least.It renders B&Z tactics unsuable.

All I could do was ask Oleg if it wasn`t FM programming mistake. It`s not. Things will be pretty hard from now on.All I can do is learn the new FM though testing the K4 hour by hour brings shocking results.

With all that said I will always say that the most important thing which would help me and all other B&Zers is changing the dots/LODs.

The big change is here.Luftwaffles got f#cked again,so what.Better get some more training.

I pretty much agree here. Why, indeed, has almost EVERYTHING been changed so much, when the fanbois will always tell ya, "It's right, be sure; trust Oleg." Well, which version do we trust, and what then if that turns out to be wrong??

Highly agree on the dots being another (calculated?) decision that renders boom and zoom all but useless, and neuters altitude advantage. It also is one big reason why the I-16s of the world are so competitive. You can't beat them at their game, certainly, and you can win using yours. Game, set, match to the little gnats at 100 feet altitude.

BfHeFwMe
02-10-2006, 11:22 PM
Us P-38 guys will happily swap you! Than you'll see how a famous energy fighter really performs. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Stafroty
02-11-2006, 12:24 AM
so they took the weakest guys to pilot planes yes?
I thought pilots were quite well trained physically. Some 13 years old boy can pull as hard as our virtual pilots in sim at max!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) wow.

How weak they were, they for sure were as we, worked in real like typing with computers or such.
such sissygirls with bodypower they were!


Or make delays for MAX power to arrive to the stick force due the body movement in cockpit to allow MAX power to use, now our pilot only use force of arm, nothign less nothing more and such an weak arm. now can those RL jockeys say that pilots were tied up on seat with seabelts, i remember that i readed on books of real pilots who fought, that they let the seatbelt bit not too tight, so they could turn their heads backwards for checkin and airspace, otherwise they would been horses with eyecovers seeing only front sector.

WWMaxGunz
02-11-2006, 04:00 AM
Have the 13 year old boy hold the stick back while under 3+ G's.... whoops.

TheGozr
02-11-2006, 04:05 AM
@ 3G's it's not quite hard to hold the stick... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif the neck is first to take the g's next are the eyes than the rest http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ugly_Kid
02-11-2006, 06:48 AM
HAven't tested Bf-109s so much with the new patch in order to form an opinion. Yes, I noticed it on new K4 but did not feel that impossible.

However, IMO it is not very correct to use same 50 lbs limit on pull that you use for the sideways movement in ailerons. Push/Pull is two to three times more effective than sideways. Here the exertable forces:
http://koti.mbnet.fi/hausberg/sim_stuff/etkin.JPG

Also note Table 1.3

RegRag1977
02-11-2006, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
One thing I`m wondering why this got changed.Thought the 109 el.authoority can`t be worse than this in 4.02 @high speeds.Why it has been changed so many times?

If you flew some more you`d know the el.authority is lessened bout the very same amount at 420kph as at 620kph.Go try it out.

If I understood you correctly you`re saying that 109 is the best fighter in the game.
Wonder why cuz we both know it aint got nothin on Las,Spits,Corsairs,P51s,P47s,Tempests.

As far as elevator problem goes,I`m not happy with the change in the least.It renders B&Z tactics unsuable.

All I could do was ask Oleg if it wasn`t FM programming mistake. It`s not. Things will be pretty hard from now on.All I can do is learn the new FM though testing the K4 hour by hour brings shocking results.

With all that said I will always say that the most important thing which would help me and all other B&Zers is changing the dots/LODs.

The big change is here.Luftwaffles got f#cked again,so what.Better get some more training.

I pretty much agree here. Why, indeed, has almost EVERYTHING been changed so much, when the fanbois will always tell ya, "It's right, be sure; trust Oleg." Well, which version do we trust, and what then if that turns out to be wrong??

Highly agree on the dots being another (calculated?) decision that renders boom and zoom all but useless, and neuters altitude advantage. It also is one big reason why the I-16s of the world are so competitive. You can't beat them at their game, certainly, and you can win using yours. Game, set, match to the little gnats at 100 feet altitude. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you both Carguy and Stigler http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif: your posts are showing some great problems...
What has been said about energy fighting and about spotting enemy is really intersting http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
I agree 100% http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Stigler_9_JG52
02-11-2006, 09:59 AM
Hey, UglyKid:

That text you posted is of a guy using a YOKE control. We're talking about stick forces in fighters, not so much bombers, which you can't throw around so easily in any situation.

What kind of sissy fighter pilot uses a yoke?

[ducks debris thrown by P-38 pilots] http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Brain32
02-11-2006, 10:20 AM
Guys I don't think some of you actually understanded what O.Maddox said. I'll give it a try: ALL planes in the game have "only" 50lbs of stick force modelled, but some planes(just like in RL) require more or less stick force to move an elevator at certain speeds. The only appropriate way to simulate this correctly(IMHO) would be that; IF we all had force feedback joysticks, Oleg could simply adjust force feedback effect to be much stronger for a ME109 than it is for let's say Spitfire. Since we unfortunetly don't all have FF joysticks he has to model stick force, BUT imagine what would happen if he would model higher stick force; some planes(those with moderate to excellent elevator authority) may become literary unflyable(stall,spin).
Did you notice how much fuss was there about P51's elevator before 403? Now some people may ask can't this be done in some other way, but we don't know anything about the (game)engine they are using or how complicated all that is so IMO I think we should belive developers when they say this is the best solution the sheer fact that they changed it few times means they tried to come up with the best solution. BOB is coming, when it comes who knows...
Until then we have a trim, so let's work with what we have.

Ugly_Kid
02-11-2006, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Hey, UglyKid:

That text you posted is of a guy using a YOKE control. We're talking about stick forces in fighters, not so much bombers, which you can't throw around so easily in any situation.

What kind of sissy fighter pilot uses a yoke?

[ducks debris thrown by P-38 pilots] http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

It lists both hands separately and, no, it is not about a wheel control column. As you can see, for example, it gives sideways movement too this is not how you'd move a wheel - you'd rotate it. It is pretty much appicable here. This is also exertable forces so one can pretty much exercise 50 pounds pull with one hand without getting exhausted in the process. Aileron control is only some 14-20 pounds - so it is wrong to apply same force criteria for elevator and for ailerons...

joeap
02-11-2006, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by carguy_:
Yes,you can say that.I discredited allied claims posted after exactly opposite LW claims were posted.

One thing I`m wondering why this got changed.Thought the 109 el.authoority can`t be worse than this in 4.02 @high speeds.Why it has been changed so many times?

If you flew some more you`d know the el.authority is lessened bout the very same amount at 420kph as at 620kph.Go try it out.

If I understood you correctly you`re saying that 109 is the best fighter in the game.
Wonder why cuz we both know it aint got nothin on Las,Spits,Corsairs,P51s,P47s,Tempests.


As far as elevator problem goes,I`m not happy with the change in the least.It renders B&Z tactics unsuable.

All I could do was ask Oleg if it wasn`t FM programming mistake.It`s not.Things will be pretty hard from now on.All I can do is learn the new FM though testing the K4 hour by hour brings shocking results.


With all that said I will always say that the most important thing which would help me and all other B&Zers is changing the dots/LODs.


The big change is here.Luftwaffles got f#cked again,so what.Better get some more training.

A page ago you accepted Oleg's explanation and said it was cool and all of a sudden you're whining??? I don't get it. Of course I don't care any more. Blue and red sh1te is too much. Anyway I do well in the 109, well as well as any other plane. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Stafroty
02-11-2006, 11:06 AM
i gotta correct that pilots are like weak boys, at least most of the young boys can see well, while our pilots in sim cannot http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif we got old paps in pit here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

cant we just make exhaust meter in game, plane like P51 doesnt much use the energy from exhaust meter, but 109 does if you throw ur stick allaround, after some time, or is it again, that pilots dont even got fitness at all, but loysy heart as well, again we are old mens in stick http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif like WW2 vets in future, flying their rides when they got 80 years in the meter.

Stigler_9_JG52
02-11-2006, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Guys I don't think some of you actually understanded what O.Maddox said. I'll give it a try: ALL planes in the game have "only" 50lbs of stick force modelled, but some planes(just like in RL) require more or less stick force to move an elevator at certain speeds. The only appropriate way to simulate this correctly(IMHO) would be that; IF we all had force feedback joysticks, Oleg could simply adjust force feedback effect to be much stronger for a ME109 than it is for let's say Spitfire. Since we unfortunetly don't all have FF joysticks he has to model stick force, BUT imagine what would happen if he would model higher stick force; some planes(those with moderate to excellent elevator authority) may become literary unflyable(stall,spin).
Did you notice how much fuss was there about P51's elevator before 403? Now some people may ask can't this be done in some other way, but we don't know anything about the (game)engine they are using or how complicated all that is so IMO I think we should belive developers when they say this is the best solution the sheer fact that they changed it few times means they tried to come up with the best solution. BOB is coming, when it comes who knows...
Until then we have a trim, so let's work with what we have.

I'm fine with the stick forces Oleg chose to model for, provided all pilots are equally weak or strong. The problem is, the need to use more stick force to combat "uncomfortable" amounts of resistance comes at too low a speed in the Bf109. It occurs around 300kph (or 180 mph) when the ONSET of the stiffer forces should occur more like 425kph (or 255mph). That figure is one that seems to be agreed on as the "line" for a transition between normal and "stiff" stick resistance.

Stafroty
02-11-2006, 11:42 AM
should we go to local doctors, or meet everyone Oleg himself, and he measures our hand our own muscles and strength himself, and gives everyone invidual code strips that we would fly with our virtual body http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) I bet Oleg would be really happy with this! not possible?? yes it is possible, we already got our faces in the sim, or whatever "face" we want to use, why not our body strenghts?
it would make it much more realistic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

joeap
02-11-2006, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by Stafroty:
should we go to local doctors, or meet everyone Oleg himself, and he measures our hand our own muscles and strength himself, and gives everyone invidual code strips that we would fly with our virtual body http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) I bet Oleg would be really happy with this! not possible?? yes it is possible, we already got our faces in the sim, or whatever "face" we want to use, why not our body strenghts?
it would make it much more realistic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

You have no clue. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif Measure 1000s of folks yea real practical. How much force is average anyway for a fighter pilot? How much for an ill-fed starving Russian pilot in Leningrad in 42 or Japanese in Japan in 45? Or overfed American? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

OldMan____
02-11-2006, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Guys I don't think some of you actually understanded what O.Maddox said. I'll give it a try: ALL planes in the game have "only" 50lbs of stick force modelled, but some planes(just like in RL) require more or less stick force to move an elevator at certain speeds. The only appropriate way to simulate this correctly(IMHO) would be that; IF we all had force feedback joysticks, Oleg could simply adjust force feedback effect to be much stronger for a ME109 than it is for let's say Spitfire. Since we unfortunetly don't all have FF joysticks he has to model stick force, BUT imagine what would happen if he would model higher stick force; some planes(those with moderate to excellent elevator authority) may become literary unflyable(stall,spin).
Did you notice how much fuss was there about P51's elevator before 403? Now some people may ask can't this be done in some other way, but we don't know anything about the (game)engine they are using or how complicated all that is so IMO I think we should belive developers when they say this is the best solution the sheer fact that they changed it few times means they tried to come up with the best solution. BOB is coming, when it comes who knows...
Until then we have a trim, so let's work with what we have.

I'm fine with the stick forces Oleg chose to model for, provided all pilots are equally weak or strong. The problem is, the need to use more stick force to combat "uncomfortable" amounts of resistance comes at too low a speed in the Bf109. It occurs around 300kph (or 180 mph) when the ONSET of the stiffer forces should occur more like 425kph (or 255mph). That figure is one that seems to be agreed on as the "line" for a transition between normal and "stiff" stick resistance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


On the other side.. if all forces ae greater. The advantage of FW (that is already reduced) on having VERY light controls will be gone.


Best is to think in a better way to solve tis issue for BOB. Lets use our brains... how do we give heavier and light planes differences without making neither of them non playable?

Stafroty
02-11-2006, 11:58 AM
joeap, yea i dont have http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif quess what you are missing here? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stafroty
02-11-2006, 12:01 PM
why not red out the screen when using stick forces near the limits of strengts? or implement pilot voices as they scream when pullin hard, like weight lifters do http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
or make screen shake as do shake weight lifters head when pullin big weight http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif hehe

jermin122
02-11-2006, 12:20 PM
I have to say I am whit carguy on this piont. Right after the 4.03 is released, my squadmates and I all together started to test the 109s. But the result was very astonishing and upset. 109 has been tampered again. From 4.0 to now, 109 has been tampered again and again: very big dot in distance, climb rate declines, roll rate declines, speed declines, turn rate delines, firepower(including the muzzle speed) and armor reduced, engine overheats easily, MPP disabled, terrible E-bleeding, terrible vertical maneuverability (big hammer gone forever), single wing stall turn maneuver not supported, terrible high speed maneuverabilty (Hartmann Escape unusable) . All this make the 109 a BZee not a BZer-----being BZed by spit, p47, P51, Tempest. I have to say it is unrealistic, very. Everyone could see that bues are now overwhelmed by red.

Mr. Oleg, you should notice that since the 109 changes took place, many players has left this game. In China the percentage is at least 50%. Perhaps this patch will drive more players away, maybe including me. For the long living of the ever best WWII sim, I sincerely hope you seriously consider the current situation and make your desicion.

At last, for you all 109 whinners, have you ever seriously flown the 109?

I/JG53_jermin

Stafroty
02-11-2006, 12:26 PM
third reich didnt last forever man!

(First leads and we will follow)

carguy_
02-11-2006, 01:04 PM
For those who did not get skilled enough to read with comprehension I repeat I`m cool with the change.

Stafroty
02-11-2006, 01:15 PM
Carguy, i understand you too well, in these issues and ur last comment, as i understand that option for your coolines would be your hotness http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif that doesnt maybe mean that you would be se-xy!

Gwalker70
02-11-2006, 02:43 PM
Jermin does have a point.. when I started this game a few years ago, I flew with around 15 guys that all knew eachother and we flew in a certain server,,.. our group lost a few to other games or real life stuff ect.. but when 4 series patches came, most of the group just got sick of everything.. wierd game performance, BS FM's , clowns that fly only the broke (in a uber way) planes and the nutering of various planes--which has been blue for the most part. Now there is like 3 of us

they basicly got tired of false hopes.. then when the patch FINALLY comes, its a huge let down as in right now with this patch.

Gibbage1
02-11-2006, 02:53 PM
Instead of you guys whining and crying "Your loosing 109 pilots because of your nerfing" why dont you find evidence that proves what Oleg did was wrong?

All the pilot quotes that I remember reading about the 109 in a dive say it stiffens up. Maybe what you guys have been flying all this time was not historical and slightly overmodeled? Now that its modeled, your crying foul and leaving the game? Lol.

If you want something too change, PROVE it is HISTORICALLY wrong. A few less 109 pilots wont sway Oleg, be sure!

Stigler_9_JG52
02-11-2006, 03:01 PM
Damn, Gibbage READ the information.

This is...repeat with me...NOT ABOUT PILOT FORCE. That is fine and applied across the board.

It's the onset of heavy forces is at TOO LOW A SPEED in the Bf109.

Oleg has said NOTHING about that. (And you wonder why...)

Stafroty
02-11-2006, 03:11 PM
how can beliefs be changed Gibbage?

Tator_Totts
02-11-2006, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by Gwalker70:
Jermin does have a point.. when I started this game a few years ago, I flew with around 15 guys that all knew eachother and we flew in a certain server,,.. our group lost a few to other games or real life stuff ect.. but when 4 series patches came, most of the group just got sick of everything.. wierd game performance, BS FM's , clowns that fly only the broke (in a uber way) planes and the nutering of various planes--which has been blue for the most part. Now there is like 3 of us

they basicly got tired of false hopes.. then when the patch FINALLY comes, its a huge let down as in right now with this patch.

Welcome to the Allied club.

Badsight.
02-11-2006, 03:51 PM
personally , the elevator sitffness came on too soon speed wise in v4.02 let alone v4.03 from what ive read

besides - the Emil were the worst offenders , the tail is redesigned from the F onwards

pourshot
02-11-2006, 04:33 PM
I am having no problems turning the 109, maybe you guys need to learn how to trim.

Gibbage1
02-11-2006, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by Stafroty:
how can beliefs be changed Gibbage?

How can .50 cal's be fixed?

Stigler_9_JG52
02-11-2006, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by pourshot:
I am having no problems turning the 109, maybe you guys need to learn how to trim.

Says a clown from an RAAF squadron.

I know how to trim. But, of course, that's irrelevant, and doesn't say anything about the fact that the onset of elevator stiffness is some 50mph too slow.

This is NOT about Allied and Axis. Or Blue vs. Red. It's about correct and incorrect.

I'm not saying anything about P-38s because I don't have any data on P-38s to quote from. Up in this thread we have data from the ALLIED command on the 109, and they specifically outlined at what speed compressiblity began to set in. This is about 50mph faster than it happens with IL-2's 109s.

Does that make it simple enough for you?

Stafroty
02-11-2006, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stafroty:
how can beliefs be changed Gibbage?

How can .50 cal's be fixed? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Change the belief.

Stafroty
02-11-2006, 06:14 PM
Stigler, they dont think simple, remember that. you gotta try to explain these issues more in hard way to understand, so hard that they dont understand anymore, what they are reading, when this point comes, it gotta be truth, because they cant admit that they are stupid.

Stigler_9_JG52
02-11-2006, 06:26 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

geetarman
02-11-2006, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by jermin122:
I have to say I am whit carguy on this piont. Right after the 4.03 is released, my squadmates and I all together started to test the 109s. But the result was very astonishing and upset. 109 has been tampered again. From 4.0 to now, 109 has been tampered again and again: very big dot in distance, climb rate declines, roll rate declines, speed declines, turn rate delines, engine overheats easily, PP disabled, terrible E-bleeding, terrible vertical maneuverability (big hammer gone forever), single wing stall turn maneuver not supported, terrible high speed maneuverabilty (Hartmann Escape unusable) . All this make the 109 a BZee not a BZer-----being BZed by spit, p47, P51, Tempest. I have to say it is unrealistic, very. Everyone could see that bues are now overwhelmed by red.

Mr. Oleg, you should notice that since the 109 changes took place, many players has left this game. In China the percentage is at least 50%. Perhaps this patch will drive more players away, maybe including me. For the long living of the ever best WWII sim, I sincerely hope you seriously consider the current situation and make your desicion.

At last, for you all 109 whinners, have you ever seriously flown the 109?

I/JG53_jermin

See ya Jermin - leavin the game because your favorite ride is what you thought it was http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Badsight.
02-11-2006, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:

I know how to trim. But, of course, that's irrelevant, and doesn't say anything about the fact that the onset of elevator stiffness is some 50mph too slow.? thats true , but Pourshot is also correct - the trim does work

if you go even further for realisim & get a proper speed for elevator heavyness - would you be willing to sacrifice the trim on the elevator also ?

you can see that it is a kind of compromise no ?

Stigler_9_JG52
02-11-2006, 08:00 PM
You guys act like this is some kind of "balancing game".

The trim helps, yes, and you can use it...

But the speed at which the elevator gets stiff is STILL too low.

TWO different things.

I'm not interested in a frickin' tradeoff. Oleg should just fix the speed at which it locks up and leave the trim the way it is.

WWMaxGunz
02-11-2006, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by TheGozr:
@ 3G's it's not quite hard to hold the stick... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif the neck is first to take the g's next are the eyes than the rest http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Stick forces must not only be reached, they must be held steady with no shaking.
Really that 13 year old is not up to the task. 3G's is only halfway to blackout.
How many dogfights have been decided by the pilot with the most right-then endurance?
Over Vietnam the F-4 pilots wanted to fight MiG-17's because they had no hydraulics and
could not hold the turns so well as those with.

Stafroty
02-11-2006, 08:52 PM
remember saburo sakai, he was attacked by squadron http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif he had endurance as his life was dependand on ithttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

would someone fly stang if it would not turn almost at all? because pilot fear factor with ripping wings off would been modelled as well.

we got partial modelled things in sim, like ammo count in 109 in 20mm cannon, to prevent cannon jams without jams even being modelled http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

WWMaxGunz
02-11-2006, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by jermin122:

At last, for you all 109 whinners, have you ever seriously flown the 109?

I/JG53_jermin

You know back at the start of IL2, we learned that Oleg has flown a real 109.
Maybe he does know something besides words from stories.

WWMaxGunz
02-11-2006, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Damn, Gibbage READ the information.

This is...repeat with me...NOT ABOUT PILOT FORCE. That is fine and applied across the board.

It's the onset of heavy forces is at TOO LOW A SPEED in the Bf109.

Oleg has said NOTHING about that. (And you wonder why...)

By just what method are you determining force at speed in both PF and RL?
Let's have more data and less mouth.

WWMaxGunz
02-11-2006, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by Stafroty:
remember saburo sakai, he was attacked by squadron http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif he had endurance as his life was dependand on ithttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

would someone fly stang if it would not turn almost at all? because pilot fear factor with ripping wings off would been modelled as well.

we got partial modelled things in sim, like ammo count in 109 in 20mm cannon, to prevent cannon jams without jams even being modelled http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

Stafroty please get your head into the light. Pulling a bunch of stick and holding it is
not the way to survive a fight vs multiple enemies. I'm sure he worked hard that day and
I'm just as sure that luck was on his side.

Funny but I have to be very careful turning P-51 as just a bit too much and it stalls into
a very fast spin. Compared to any slats-equipped plane the P-51 (and many others) is very
twitchy and stall prone in turns. FW has not this problem near so much... it must be
because why? Oh right, we don't talk about any positives of LW planes so forget I wrote.

Players get on and don't do things right so it is the fault of the game of course.
Next patch if there is one, we see what it becomes. Till then it's gonna be like someone
has taken the favorite show from TV.

BfHeFwMe
02-11-2006, 09:19 PM
Apparently not one of you blue flyers has tried the new Italian rides. You do know Oleg introduced a new trim system that's corrected for Stab adjustment and takes zilch force away or added to the stick and elevator itself.

I've been fighting this evening on the desert map Spit's vs 109's and eating Spitfires alive. Half my kills have been manouver without a shot fired. Once you figure out how to fly a constant force to speed elevator using trim at the high and low extremes life is good.

I finally felt like I was in a 109 the way it should be. Little underpowered and slow, but it was still able to kick some serious @zz.

I'd suggest you quit the whining and check these planes out, than if you can figure em out, ask Oleg politely to introduce the correct trim system in your rides.

Go Oleg, you rock man http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WWMaxGunz
02-11-2006, 09:20 PM
Has anybody a stick force per G chart for these planes or is "unpleasant" now a number?
Somehow I think that it will be hard to convince Oleg of that.

WWMaxGunz
02-11-2006, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
I've been fighting this evening on the desert map Spit's vs 109's and eating Spitfires alive. Half my kills have been manouver without a shot fired. Once you figure out how to fly a constant force to speed elevator using trim at the high and low extremes life is good.

Go Oleg, you rock man http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

OMG! You're not suggesting... you're NOT suggesting that people go and LEARN are you?
ROFLAFAO!

No! No! NO! Flying is just full power, full revs, pull the stick hard and shoot!
**Everyone** (in the whiner-munity) KNOWS that's how it's done!

Stafroty
02-11-2006, 09:41 PM
BfHeFwMe, how many times did you die there? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif sounds like noob rich day.

Maxgunz, can you get data you ask from others`?

or are you just bashing your mouth here as well? what makes you the god of these forums, you should know that it is me. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

jermin122
02-11-2006, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Instead of you guys whining and crying "Your loosing 109 pilots because of your nerfing" why dont you find evidence that proves what Oleg did was wrong?

All the pilot quotes that I remember reading about the 109 in a dive say it stiffens up. Maybe what you guys have been flying all this time was not historical and slightly overmodeled? Now that its modeled, your crying foul and leaving the game? Lol.

If you want something too change, PROVE it is HISTORICALLY wrong. A few less 109 pilots wont sway Oleg, be sure!

I have provided my evidence in my post. Please read it carefully. BTW, I was not crying foul and sway Oleg, be sure. I just want to make this sim long living.


Originally posted by geetarman:
See ya Jermin - leavin the game because your favorite ride is what you thought it was http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Yes, my favorite ride is what I tought it was. But not only in the older version of this sim, also in the WW2. BTW, you should know that new things are not certainly better than the old ones. I dont think I have to give examples.


Originally posted by pourshot:
I am having no problems turning the 109, maybe you guys need to learn how to trim.

I have to say I dont need u to teach me how to fly 109, really.

As for whinning, we Luftwaffe pilots are not as good as you Allied ones. This forum is full (famous) of stinkers of LW whinners, I suggest mods rename this forum LW whinners' sweet home.

Gibbage1
02-11-2006, 10:53 PM
So far I spoke too a few 109 pilots. None of them can feel any greater stick force at high G's. Have you guys tested this at all? Maybe you should put the forum down for a moment and go fly.

WWMaxGunz
02-11-2006, 11:09 PM
109 fan grail. 109K-4 trimmed for 650kph level to turn a complete flat circle in under
25 seconds without any change in trim. Until then "it is wrong, it was done" (we will whine).
Right now the 'call' is dormant but soon I feel it will return as loud as before.

BfHeFwMe
02-12-2006, 12:32 AM
Originally posted by Stafroty:
BfHeFwMe, how many times did you die there? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif sounds like noob rich day.

Maxgunz, can you get data you ask from others`?

or are you just bashing your mouth here as well? what makes you the god of these forums, you should know that it is me. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://warbirdsofprey.game-host.org/fbd2stats-02/aircraftmatchups.php

Put in MC-205-III for plane,


Those two were mine, even richer, they were MkVIII's. Unfortunatly manouver kills give no stats. Zero deaths for me in operation torch, server on a Saturday night filled with noobs?

Who are you kidding. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

jermin122
02-12-2006, 12:43 AM
I wonder if you guys are hanging on the forum muttering all day long and never go online and join a single air battle (just like pingu666). You even cant fly this sim well, how can you deeply understand the performance of every A/C? We LW pilots love competing with Aces from all around the world in the air with our outstanding skills, immersed in this sim as if we are the real WW2 pilots, we love this feeling. We are seeing the most wonderful scenery of this sim. So we dont have time hanging on this forum and argue with you guys. But the under modelled 109 has ruined the beautiful scenery and our feelings, it make the sim unplayable. A BnZer actually became a BnZee! So we jumped out. We dont need any so called test. We love to speak by facts. Just go to WC and fly several 109 sorties to see whether it is that easy.

Most of the players of this sim cant speak english, so they cant comunicate with Oleg like us. They will leave the game and just dont imagine he will change to the Allied. They wont! That is something called dignity.

Buzzsaw-
02-12-2006, 12:51 AM
Salute

Actually, 109 tests showed pilots could not apply more than 40 lbs laterally, so be happy Oleg is giving you 50.

Which 109 did Oleg fly Max? Which aircraft serial number. Not too many 109's flyable anymore, and getting less.

Stafroty
02-12-2006, 01:14 AM
wtf you buzzaw write here? are you talkin about yourself with those powers, as for your finger thick wrist would broke if you lift pen and eraser in same time. you seem to think that those values are high http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif poor boy. who made those tests and with with who?
which is unpleasant? who is strong? what is strong?
for you, these MAX values suits well for some purpose, and i dont afraid that i dont have to say what purpose.

drop that bias righaway and start thinkin with brains, not with ideology which really died when war was over. you still continue the war in your mind even if you dont have any experience from it, only tales and statistics. i can twist statistics in every way i want, as can others, on what can you believe? what is truth for you?

jermin122
02-12-2006, 01:33 AM
Buzzsaw, people like you are ruining this sim, do you know?

pourshot
02-12-2006, 01:44 AM
Originally posted by pourshot:
I am having no problems turning the 109, maybe you guys need to learn how to trim.


Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:

Says a clown from an RAAF squadron.

This is NOT about Allied and Axis. Or Blue vs. Red. It's about correct and incorrect.

If it has nothing to do with your hatred for anything allied why even mention that I am in a RAAF squadron.

And while I am at it why call me a clown for having a opinion unless you think I was being sarcastic when I was not.

FYI I fly the 109 offline all the time and online only occasionally so I stand by my comment that I have no problem turning the 109 so long as I trim, the same thing has to be done in my p40 at high speed but I dont whine about it I just fly the bloody thing the best I can.

Your a nasty guy stigler.

Kocur_
02-12-2006, 01:45 AM
One thing is certain: as Lukas Schmid established in his dive tests of Bf-109 in march 1943, setting trim at 15deg15' made stick forces at recovery from dive at 700kmh IAS at least - not excessive, as he says the only moment, when he had to overcome serious resistnace was when PUSHING stick to enter dive. So I wonder how in-game Bf-109 F/G/K works at THAT angle of trim http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif?

GR142-Pipper
02-12-2006, 02:14 AM
Originally posted by carguy_:
One thing I`m wondering why this got changed.Thought the 109 el.authoority can`t be worse than this in 4.02 @high speeds.Why it has been changed so many times? Your post seems to reinforce a view of mine regarding change implementation. Given the wide swings in aircraft performance as you have correctly noted it's become crystal clear that there really is no meaningful beta program. Each patch is really an operational beta for the next patch.

GR142-Pipper

Jetbuff
02-12-2006, 02:31 AM
Errrrm... who wants to turn that hard in a 109 anyway? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

pourshot
02-12-2006, 02:32 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
One thing I`m wondering why this got changed.Thought the 109 el.authoority can`t be worse than this in 4.02 @high speeds.Why it has been changed so many times? Your post seems to reinforce a view of mine regarding change implementation. Given the wide swings in aircraft performance as you have correctly noted it's become crystal clear that there really is no meaningful beta program. Each patch is really an operational beta for the next patch.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree 100%

Gibbage1
02-12-2006, 03:21 AM
Originally posted by pourshot:
<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 carguy_:
One thing I`m wondering why this got changed.Thought the 109 el.authoority can`t be worse than this in 4.02 @high speeds.Why it has been changed so many times? Your post seems to reinforce a view of mine regarding change implementation. Given the wide swings in aircraft performance as you have correctly noted it's become crystal clear that there really is no meaningful beta program. Each patch is really an operational beta for the next patch.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree 100% </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Double agree 100%!

Since 1.01, nothing has been right. Every patch everyone must re-learn to fly.

Ratsack
02-12-2006, 03:40 AM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
Errrrm... who wants to turn that hard in a 109 anyway? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Uuuuhhhh...

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ratsack

PS - If you want to use your elevators at high speed, the answer is simple: fly a Focke-Wulf.

joeap
02-12-2006, 05:35 AM
Originally posted by Stafroty:
joeap, yea i dont have http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif quess what you are missing here? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Yea read your other post about the energy meter, get what you mean now. Still seems difficult to do for this code...we'll have to wait for BoB?

Stafroty
02-12-2006, 06:46 AM
dunno, cant trust BOB to rock! i let others tests it first, before i soak my money on it. i nowadays got much more to do, like feeding the big ladies in brisk http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif i really like to fork forage and stumble S hit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif i do it smile on my face D:

joeap
02-12-2006, 06:59 AM
Originally posted by pourshot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pourshot:
I am having no problems turning the 109, maybe you guys need to learn how to trim.


Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:

Says a clown from an RAAF squadron.

This is NOT about Allied and Axis. Or Blue vs. Red. It's about correct and incorrect.

If it has nothing to do with your hatred for anything allied why even mention that I am in a RAAF squadron.

And while I am at it why call me a clown for having a opinion unless you think I was being sarcastic when I was not.

FYI I fly the 109 offline all the time and online only occasionally so I stand by my comment that I have no problem turning the 109 so long as I trim, the same thing has to be done in my p40 at high speed but I dont whine about it I just fly the bloody thing the best I can.

Your a nasty guy stigler. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

...and a jerk for saying what he did, regardless of whether it is right or not.

Just ignore him, I do. He is a spammer out to push his sim here and to be as rude and know it all as possible.

ZG77_Nagual
02-12-2006, 07:37 AM
Awhile back in this now mostly stupid thread, I posted a track wherein I grey out very quickly in a g6as - untrimmed and with no flaps - at over 460mph, with blackout occurng around 380 or so. Also, buzz said 40lbs LATERALLY - because of the cramped cockpit. The 109 now rolls very fast - probably too fast from what I've read - at least at higher speeds.
The 109 may be the best balanced dogfighter in the simm - it's very fast, climbs very well, is a stable platform and a very good turner.

carguy_
02-12-2006, 08:35 AM
Nagual,your test is totally irrelevant.

Why is everyone testing turning with the 109 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

It`s the vertical
Because of the stiffness a correct B&Z attack is now mostly for experts only.Too many cases where already diving 109 must adjust course to find new firing solution.That is next to impossible now.It takes as much as a little change of enemy`s course to make me fail my attack.That is what I`m talking about.

Above 370kph 109 is owned by Spit,La,P40,P51,P47,FW190,P39,Hurric`n,Yak both in vertical and horizontal.As soon as you reach 370kph you have to either trim to gain more stick deflection or go straight and run.

Trim lacks practical usage.After you trim to gain more deflection you must trim it back again.Which takes 3-5 seconds.Now whoever trims in a high speed DF or a slash attack succesfully must have like 3 hands.


Under 370kph it`s a different deal,especially with flaps.109 gains wonderfully here.However this method is the last I use - either in numeric superiority,1v1 or a last hope.


Elevator authority proves to be the main flaw of the 109 because of next to no B&Z skills.

My friendly advice to those why watched "Battle of Britain" one too many times is to evade doing exactly what pilots in this movie do.


Stigler,
my data seems to be the same others posted here about the stiffness.It begins @370-400kph.In the game everytime I get the same figure of 370kph too.As far as this goes seems to be right on the money.


I have not been able to find data that states clearly what forces are needed for full stick deflection at certain speeds.So maybe at 370kph 40lbs is still enough and at 450kph it`s clearly not?

In the game I see elevator having exactly the same stiffness from 370kph.A wild guess tells me it either
should be that stiff at the start and becoming stiffer with increase of speed
or
it should be lighter than that at the start (370kph) and reach the current stiffness level at say 620kph.

Sounds reasonable.

Oleg?

OldMan____
02-12-2006, 08:50 AM
I think you are exagerating. At 370 kph the 109 is no longer the best turner, but no way it is taken by the planes you point.


Antons for example can only outturn 109 at almost 500 kph. About same for P47. P51 needs (at least in the small number of test I made with it afeter 4.03) at least >400 kph.

And I have at least one biography of a german pilot that at very time he describes a high speed combat he states that he gets his arms VERY tired and shaking at end of it. At certain point of story he had an accident, since he lost most strenght of his right arm (after a few months in hospital with it imoblized) he changed to a 190 squadron where he could continue to fight.

I bet there was a reason for it.

Stigler_9_JG52
02-12-2006, 10:02 AM
pourshot wrote:

FYI I fly the 109 offline all the time and online only occasionally so I stand by my comment that I have no problem turning the 109 so long as I trim,

Well, you demonstrated your "red nose" when you're talking about turning, and we're talking elevator authority. This is about dive recovery, not turning. Please sit over at the kiddie table while the adults hash this out.

As for "have you even tried the 109s in 4.03", well, the rather obvious answer is YES. I can say that the 109F4 and the G6 Standard in particular are prey to the "early elevator stiffness". The G2 not so much, I have to say. Have yet to fly an Emil (dogfight servers being what they are, you can't use anything pre-43)

And, through this whole discussion, nobody will come to grips with the very simple fact that it's pretty clear that the "detente" has been assigned to the wrong speed. Really, that's it. The effect is fine, if applied to speeds greater than 250 mph, and not kph, which is the likely culprit.

Brain32
02-12-2006, 10:22 AM
Look guys I think you are exaggerating, I have all 100 for pitch and roll(linear response is IMHO a must have) and I struggle with elevator at 300MPH(487kmh) before that it's quite controllable. All that with my favourite Messer G6AS and without gunpods. What I struggle with is Spit's insta-pullup-loose-no-energy-catch-you-in-a-dive kind of operation. You simply can not follow him, I mean essentially he just has to turn climb and he will leave you in the dust and return at you with his guns blazing and I'm not talking about the new monster Spit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
But I say OK, bounce-cloud-bounce is fine with me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Stafroty
02-12-2006, 10:23 AM
way i see it is that some people lack skills so they need themselfs better planes and for enemy lousier planes. Ignore those ****** who come in without knockin or invite. They dont have anything to say even if they think they have.

joeap
02-12-2006, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
joeap wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">FYI I fly the 109 offline all the time and online only occasionally so I stand by my comment that I have no problem turning the 109 so long as I trim,

Well, you demonstrated your "red nose" when you're talking about turning, and we're talking elevator authority. This is about dive recovery, not turning. Please sit over at the kiddie table while the adults hash this out.

As for "have you even tried the 109s in 4.03", well, the rather obvious answer is YES. I can say that the 109F4 and the G6 Standard in particular are prey to the "early elevator stiffness". The G2 not so much, I have to say. Have yet to fly an Emil (dogfight servers being what they are, you can't use anything pre-43)

And, through this whole discussion, nobody will come to grips with the very simple fact that it's pretty clear that the "detente" has been assigned to the wrong speed. Really, that's it. The effect is fine, if applied to speeds greater than 250 mph, and not kph, which is the likely culprit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You quoted the wrong person that was pourshot not me. You demonstrated your " red nose " yourself and ouight to recognise your mistake as well as your attitude. BTW I don't say you are wrong here...just for the record.

Stigler_9_JG52
02-12-2006, 11:52 AM
edited.

But, I'm still right about the elevator issue. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Stigler_9_JG52
02-12-2006, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Look guys I think you are exaggerating, I have all 100 for pitch and roll(linear response is IMHO a must have) and I struggle with elevator at 300MPH(487kmh) before that it's quite controllable. All that with my favourite Messer G6AS and without gunpods. What I struggle with is Spit's insta-pullup-loose-no-energy-catch-you-in-a-dive kind of operation. You simply can not follow him, I mean essentially he just has to turn climb and he will leave you in the dust and return at you with his guns blazing and I'm not talking about the new monster Spit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
But I say OK, bounce-cloud-bounce is fine with me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Well, this is all part of the same equation that basically renders the 109 helpless in many situations. The Spitfire DID have a very light elevator, but stiffer ailerons (hence, didn't roll as good as change vertical direction...and it wasn't particularly well harmonized until later in its development). So, modifying the Spit isn't the answer here.

When other planes, like Yaks, fer instance, get a pass on "elevator stiffness" they can often just pull up into any Bf109 attack. They loop easily and continuously while the 109 driver is fighting the "concrete elevator". The longer this goes on, the more angles the 109 pilot loses in the vertical regime. And, as stated earlier, the worst of this dynamic is when a 109 attempts to boom and zoom and exploit an early alt advantage: the 'target' easily pulls up to evade, the 109 blows the shot and is forced into the cardinal mistake of overshooting the victim UNDERNEATH; by the time he manages to pull back up, he's ceded a great % of his initial advantage.

BfHeFwMe
02-12-2006, 01:04 PM
Sheesh, nobody gets it. It's never been a stick force problem, always has been a trim implemented problem.

Simple demonstration, hop in any 109 on the deck and trim the nose full up. What happens? You lose a pretty much a third of your stick back range of motion as the trim moves it back. Now is this realistic, ignore zero airspeed on deck, for an elevator with no trim tab directly on it? No

Hop in one of the MC-202/205's and try it. Trim full nose up, note ZERO stick movement whatsoever. Now move the stick and you have 100% range of motion, also the elevator is moving through the entire range of stick motion.

In practical terms what is it doing for you? You don't have a sudden brick wall where your elevator quits, it's a smooth transition in the MC series to a heavy loaded elevator. Whereas the 109's already have the stick loaded and back due to modeled tabs directly on the elevator itself. These are loaded according to trim amount applied before you ever pull the stick. That doesn't happen in the MC's.

Don't see any of the Italian guys whining like some were predicting, seems they had the proper documents and basic understanding on how their planes actually worked. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Kocur_
02-12-2006, 01:25 PM
Khem... I spent most of 3.04 flying Bf-109s. I flew it trimmed nose up CONSTANTLY and kept pushing stick to maintain level flight. Yes rough, but simple and effective http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

carguy_
02-12-2006, 05:26 PM
Yes,Kocur this works fine.I have to find some other setup settings to make trim instantly available now that it`s needed to be.

pourshot
02-12-2006, 10:33 PM
Well, you demonstrated your "red nose" when you're talking about turning, and we're talking elevator authority. This is about dive recovery, not turning. Please sit over at the kiddie table while the adults hash this out.

Turning in the horizontal and pulling up in the vertical or a mixture of both depend on the exact same thing elevator deflection.

And don€t patronize me mate, you should talk to people on the internet the same way you would face to face and believe me you would not use that tone twice with me.

Stigler_9_JG52
02-12-2006, 10:53 PM
We could debate all this over a cold beer, and it wouldn't be a problem.

You seem to forget that typed responses leave out a lot of nuance, a lot of humor, and lack any kind of physical cues. Sorry, but I don't have time for all the "walking on eggshells" maybe-squishy-feely **** with people on this board. Or anywhere on the net for that matter.

So, I'm not all impressed with your "I'm such a big guy, come over HERE and say that" playground bluster. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

pourshot
02-12-2006, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
We could debate all this over a cold beer, and it wouldn't be a problem.

You seem to forget that typed responses leave out a lot of nuance, a lot of humor, and lack any kind of physical cues. Sorry, but I don't have time for all the "walking on eggshells" maybe-squishy-feely **** with people on this board. Or anywhere on the net for that matter.

So, I'm not all impressed with your "I'm such a big guy, come over HERE and say that" playground bluster. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Stigler I am afraid I could not sit down and a have beer with you mate I am very selective about who I drink with, and for what it€s worth it takes no more time to be polite than it does to be rude.

As for the school yard threats, again you missed the mark I am just telling it like it is. I don€t pick fights often but I will be damned if I will let people talk down to me like I was a child.

Anyway to the other people reading this thread I am sorry for side tracking it please carry on.

jermin122
02-12-2006, 11:33 PM
Your nothing but a clown in my eyes, pourshot, you know? Compared to Stigler, you are just a kiddle, really.

Kurfurst__
02-12-2006, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Actually, 109 tests showed pilots could not apply more than 40 lbs laterally, so be happy Oleg is giving you 50.

Actually it is very funny when people with no idea about the subject comment on it...

Appearantly buzzsaw can't even tell apart that the rather dubious quality british tests say they can't apply 40lbs laterally (ie. ailerons), whereas oleg says "the limit is We model force applied to a stick as ~23 kg (or 50lb) for all planes. ", ie. for elevators.


Which is kind odd then... I presume, and given the roll rates curves, the generic max stick force applyable by our virtual pilot is the same for the ailerons and elevator, 50 lbs.

But that's odd play, since sideways you can exert much less force with your one hand then bakc-and-forth. on avarage a man can exert with ONE hand 23 lbs force sideways, but ca50lbs bakc-and-forth.

Now that would mean we have a TWO-hander pilots for roll, but a ONE-hander for pitch. Maybe that's the source of problem, and the pitch stick force should be raised to TWO-hander standards, too (ie. apprx. double that of the sideways force), because it's really odd from even a virtual pilot to be willing to grab the stick with 2 hands for roll at high speed, but he'd rather go pancake while trying to come out of a 90-degree dive with only one hand on stick...

Jetbuff
02-12-2006, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Actually, 109 tests showed pilots could not apply more than 40 lbs laterally, so be happy Oleg is giving you 50.
Lateral force != longitudinal force, which is what is being discussed here. Not only is it a lot easier to pull/push the stick towards/away from you than it is to deflect it to either side, but the space restrictions and mechanical aspects for these movements are quite different. Heck even the two directions of lateral movement differ significantly in the force applicalble. Right-handed pilots would find it a lot easier to roll left and vice-versa.

I don't have a problem with the 109's personally, never turn that hard at such a high speed anyway, but please do not confuse the issue.

Stafroty
02-13-2006, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
edited.

But, I'm still right about the elevator issue. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Stigler, are you too proud or higher than joeap that you cannot even ask forgiveness from him like good christians should do for everything they do. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Stafroty
02-13-2006, 12:48 AM
why dont we implement button which has delay in it, that when its pressed, rightaway we cannot use throttle or anything which is in near throttle with virtual pilots hands, theres half sec pause when he moves his hand to stick, then, there would be 2 hand power in stick in every move is made, but no using of throttle, mixtures or anything, but only what is situated on stick, like gun buttons and radio. nothing else. of course legs still use rudder. how would this sound? it would made it more real in my visions of mind. and when you press it again, your virtual hand goes back with half sec delay to the throttle? would that be great?

TheGozr
02-13-2006, 02:50 AM
That is so wrong, Small Cockpit if great to apply big forces..

All blablabla for actually no one did it in Real life. Please stop the non sens...

Stafroty
02-13-2006, 03:29 AM
Gozr, you are right. in small cockpit you can lean on wall when moving ailerons, when you pull up, you can push with your legs and hands all together, when you push, you got seat behind your back..

if you sit in chair, without anything to back up ur back, sides or legs, and try to pull/push/etc with stick in ur hands, it would be REALLY hard.

pourshot
02-13-2006, 03:40 AM
Originally posted by jermin122:
Your nothing but a clown in my eyes, pourshot, you know? Compared to Stigler, you are just a kiddle, really.

I am sorry who are you ?

Stafroty
02-13-2006, 03:43 AM
pourshot, how hard it is to swallow own proudness?
is he bravest who fight longest? or is it the one who understands where the fight began, and fixes it, and that way ends it?

pourshot
02-13-2006, 03:45 AM
What the hell are you talking about?

I made a statment that I have no problem with the elevator on the 109 and I stand by it, do you have a problem understanding?

Von_Rat
02-13-2006, 03:59 AM
pourshot is a good pilot and a nice guy.

can't you guys disagree with someone without being insulting.

carguy_
02-13-2006, 04:09 AM
If I understood correctly that a modified concept appeared here,we want Oleg to consider a wider array of realism factors that influence elevator authority.

IMO we can go on with this for ever.Amount of factors should be the same for all planes to be fair since any of us can`t sit in the cockpit ourselves to make a difference.

We take frame,indiv.pilot preference,small cockpit well we can take the difference by how long the stick on a certain plane was(the longer stick,the easier to pull) aswell.This is goin nowhere.Developers should make a new set of factors involved for each plane from the start next time.
You would find that other aircraft also have features which promote them to be better/worse in high speed combat or low speed stall fight.


For example if you blackout in the game you can sill manage anything else but the stick yet you can`t see anything.How many times I used flaps to pull up in the last second when I was blacked out I I don`t know.

In other words in regards to IL2v4.03 there is no point in proving that a 109 pilot had special pullout abilities.

I`m tryin to find something that denies Oleg`s 370kph stiffness start.So far I come empty handed.

joeap
02-13-2006, 04:57 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
pourshot is a good pilot and a nice guy.

can't you guys disagree with someone without being insulting.

I agree.

Stafroty
02-13-2006, 06:17 AM
Originally posted by pourshot:
What the hell are you talking about?

I made a statment that I have no problem with the elevator on the 109 and I stand by it, do you have a problem understanding?

did i mention something about the elevator? i mention proudness http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
02-13-2006, 06:43 AM
Originally posted by Stafroty:
Gozr, you are right. in small cockpit you can lean on wall when moving ailerons, when you pull up, you can push with your legs and hands all together, when you push, you got seat behind your back..

if you sit in chair, without anything to back up ur back, sides or legs, and try to pull/push/etc with stick in ur hands, it would be REALLY hard.

Being strapped into the seat as real life, you push against the straps.
But that still gives no extra reach or angle.

Grendel-B
02-13-2006, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by carguy_:
What is going on here?!Finnish pilots certainly said the plane can maneuver very well up to 680km/h.In the game all 109s elevators become so stiff it`s hard to perform basic maneuvers.


Friend,
You've misread something. These chaps have basically agreed, that the plane could be controlled, maneuvered. But definitely now well. Maneuvering in this case means they are able to control the plane but yes, it was definitely getting stiff on those speeds. You could still roll and push/pull on the stick, but the reactions of the plane aren't that quick as in lower speeds.

Grendel-B
02-13-2006, 07:00 AM
Originally posted by Texan...:

Here's a bit more on the ailerons, elevator and rudder. Be happy Oleg is allowing 50lbs force on stick, when apparently only 40lbs was realistic:

(1) Due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">40 pounds</span> side force on the stick as compared to 60 pounds or more possible if he had more elbow room.


Unfortunately, your source is not valid throughout the 109 variants range, and not even to the single variant it is about.

Counter-argument:

- An often quoted British report made of a Me 109 E talks about the "short stick travel", "due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick" and "at 400 mph with 40 pounds side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4 seconds to get into a 45 degree roll or bank. That immediately classifies the airplane as being unmaneuverable and unacceptable as a fighter."

- The report claims that The 109-E needed 37lb stick force for a 1/5 aileron deflection at 400mph. Coincidentally, the Spitfire 1 required 57 lb stick force from the pilot for similar deflection at similar speed. This is a 54% higher stickforce for the Spitfire pilot.

- The British test is taken as gospel by many, while it is just one test, made by the enemy, using a worn out and battle damaged airframe. German flight tests report pilots using aileron forces of over 45 lbs and 109's stick was designed for elevator stick forces of up to or over 85kg, over 180 lbs. Finnish Bf 109 G-2 test revealed that at 450 km/h the stick could be still fully taken to the limit with ~10 kg force (20 pounds). Aileron roll without rudder could be performed to both direction from 400-450 km/h in 4-5 s. This is better than the Spitfire with fabric ailerons, about the same as Spitfire with metal ailerons and slightly below clipped wing Spitfire. So it was more matter of the pilot and the test procedures, than maneuverability of the Bf 109. Several details of that test are suspicious and German chief test pilot Heinrich Beauvais disagreed with it and with Eric Brown. Beauvais tried to get into contact after the war with Eric Brown to discuss the matters, but Brown refused to discuss with him. This being the case, it seems that Brown wasn't willing to listen a pilot who'd flown more on the 109 than he ever had, and was more interested on believing his negative findings of the 109 than being proven wrong by a real expert.

jermin122
02-13-2006, 08:14 AM
Nice post, Grendel!

Brain32
02-13-2006, 08:21 AM
Excellent post Grendel, although I fear little to nothing can be done in this point http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
Maybe BOB can bring a brighter 109 future...
EDIT: Or a different future of some other planes...

Buzzsaw-
02-13-2006, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by Grendel-B:

- The British test is taken as gospel by many, while it is just one test, made by the enemy, using a worn out and battle damaged airframe. German flight tests report pilots using aileron forces of over 45 lbs and 109's stick was designed for elevator stick forces of up to or over 85kg, over 180 lbs.

Completely false.

The 109E3 which was captured, had ZERO battle damaged, it had been force landed for non-combat reasons, which it did on its wheels in a field, with no damage. It was restored to perfect condition by British mechanics, who had many parts available from other captured 109's. There were over 30 109's examined by the British, and many more captured but not shipped to England.

Second, 180 lbs stick force is a joke, and nothing of that standard has been used by any airforce as a basis for estimations for what a pilot might apply in ANY aircraft.

carguy_
02-13-2006, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Completely false.

The 109E3 which was captured, had ZERO battle damaged, it had been force landed for non-combat reasons, which it did on its wheels in a field, with no damage. It was restored to perfect condition by British mechanics, who had many parts available from other captured 109's. There were over 30 109's examined by the British, and many more captured but not shipped to England.

Given the fact that the British were unable to reconstruct Daimler Benz with usage of spear parts,your data is highly doubtful.

AKA_TAGERT
02-13-2006, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by Grendel-B:
Several details of that test are suspicious and German chief test pilot Heinrich Beauvais disagreed with it and with Eric Brown. Beauvais tried to get into contact after the war with Eric Brown to discuss the matters, but Brown refused to discuss with him. This being the case, it seems that Brown wasn't willing to listen a pilot who'd flown more on the 109 than he ever had, and was more interested on believing his negative findings of the 109 than being proven wrong by a real expert. I dont recall seeing that said by Heinrich Beauvais in the book test pilots. As a mater of fact he said many things were tried to try and improve the roll rate. Which means there was a problem with the roll rate they were trying to fix. But dont take my word for it.


<span class="ev_code_red">Heinrich Beauvais on Flight Controls page 74 of TEST PILOTS:</span>
One would have liked to have more effective ailerons, as well as <span class="ev_code_yellow">lower control force, at high speeds.</span> I do not remember all the different methods tried to improve this, but the following two are still clear in my mind. One was designed by Blohm & Voss, adding a Flettner trim tab which resulted in a reduction of control forces: <span class="ev_code_yellow">however, performance was not as smooth and effectiveness had NOT improved at all</span>
Heinrich also made note of the large elevator stick forces in his dive tests. All in all he didnt have too many positive things to say about the 109. Check it out, the book called test pilots.

PS tell JG27 Rall I said hey! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Stigler_9_JG52
02-13-2006, 10:42 AM
Carguy wrote:

I`m tryin to find something that denies Oleg`s 370kph stiffness start. So far I come empty handed.

How about the British test report that quotes 250mph as the speed at which stick forces become uncomfortable? 370kph comes out to about 230 mph. The 20 mph (or 35kph) difference within that maneuvering speed range is significant. Meaning the plane is often within that range while doing all manner of things, diving, climbing, turning, whatever. And, the earlier the stiffness is applied, the more impossible it is to move the stick at greater speeds, compounding the problem.

Stigler_9_JG52
02-13-2006, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by Stafroty:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
edited.

But, I'm still right about the elevator issue. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Stigler, are you too proud or higher than joeap that you cannot even ask forgiveness from him like good christians should do for everything they do. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who says I'm a Christian?

Stafroty
02-13-2006, 11:27 AM
who you saw say it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

hehe, what makes 109 elevators to stiff up more than other planes?

is it that the plane is flying in more intense air and that way making controls stiff?

WWMaxGunz
02-13-2006, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Carguy wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I`m tryin to find something that denies Oleg`s 370kph stiffness start. So far I come empty handed.

How about the British test report that quotes 250mph as the speed at which stick forces become uncomfortable? 370kph comes out to about 230 mph. The 20 mph (or 35kph) difference within that maneuvering speed range is significant. Meaning the plane is often within that range while doing all manner of things, diving, climbing, turning, whatever. And, the earlier the stiffness is applied, the more impossible it is to move the stick at greater speeds, compounding the problem. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many pounds force is "uncomfortable"? I can't seem to find it on any chart.

Brain32
02-13-2006, 11:49 AM
How many pounds force is "uncomfortable"? I can't seem to find it on any chart.
A spot on question, actually the most important question regarding disscusions like this one.

Abbuzze
02-13-2006, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:


Completely false.

The 109E3 which was captured, had ZERO battle damaged, it had been force landed for non-combat reasons, which it did on its wheels in a field, with no damage. It was restored to perfect condition by British mechanics, who had many parts available from other captured 109's. There were over 30 109's examined by the British, and many more captured but not shipped to England.



I wouldn´t call a 109 that was mistrimmed by the groundcrew in perfect condition.

AKA_TAGERT
02-13-2006, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
I wouldn´t call a 109 that was mistrimmed by the groundcrew in perfect condition. I don€t think the Britts were that incompetent, but surly your not suggesting that Heinrich Beauvais ground crew didn€t know how to trim? Sure, they might not know what kind of cold weather grease to use, but trim? I think Jerry was more competent than that.

Charos
02-13-2006, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
I don€t think the Britts were that incompetent, but surly your not suggesting that Heinrich Beauvais ground crew didn€t know how to trim? Sure, they might not know what kind of cold weather grease to use, but trim? I think Jerry was more competent than that.


I think they did know how to trim the 109 but for NORMAL flight regime, just like the situation with the Trim wheel greese they used a more standard setup than what was required for the test conditions.

Besides that may infact have been the problem all along that the standard issue trim setup was not what was required for high speed flight.

The dive tests show the marked difference in trim setup can cause to stick forces on the 109.

BM357_Sniper
02-13-2006, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by jermin122:
Nice post, Grendel! If we wanted balance we'd be playing a NASCAR (all in the same, evenly modeled car) game on playstation. Historical accuracy is the name of the game in a sim, at least I thought?

Stigler_9_JG52
02-13-2006, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> How many pounds force is "uncomfortable"? I can't seem to find it on any chart.
A spot on question, actually the most important question regarding disscusions like this one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's likely open for conjecture, but seeing as we've arrived at this 50 lb. of force figure, I'd say it becomes uncomfortable at the point where 50lbs of pressure stops moving the stick, or the movement is significantly slower than before you needed 50 lb. of force.

Again, right now that point is about 25mph too slow.

WWMaxGunz
02-13-2006, 04:23 PM
And if uncomfortable is 40 lbs or say 20kg = appx 45 lbs?

Really Stiglr you are saying that Oleg is wrong because of your opinion of uncomfortable?
Or is it just you want to say Oleg is wrong, draw the line where that is so?

Now let's see some charts. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

AKA_TAGERT
02-13-2006, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
And if uncomfortable is 40 lbs or say 20kg = appx 45 lbs?

Really Stiglr you are saying that Oleg is wrong because of your opinion of uncomfortable?
Or is it just you want to say Oleg is wrong, draw the line where that is so?

Now let's see some charts. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif ROTFL! Good point!

Stigler_9_JG52
02-13-2006, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
And if uncomfortable is 40 lbs or say 20kg = appx 45 lbs?

Really Stiglr you are saying that Oleg is wrong because of your opinion of uncomfortable?
Or is it just you want to say Oleg is wrong, draw the line where that is so?

Now let's see some charts. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

We all know that "comfortable" in what the game is simulating is wholly different than "comfortable for my joystick setup". So let's get that off the table straightaway. I can buy whatever stick I want, and make it as whippy and easy to move as I want, and it'll still have no effect on the throw in the GAME.

We have these flight test reports that state categorically and specifically, at what speed the elevator began to stiffen, which we can easily assume means that the "normal" 50 lb. of applied force from the pilot is insufficient for a reasonable amount of stick (and hence elevator) deflection. We also know that the game is using 50 lb. of stick force as an assumed pilot average.

Do I have to draw any more lines for you to make it more obvious? You're all just dodging the issue, and trying to make this a "personal preference issue" on my part, when it's not. It's a pretty weak argument.

As for charts, they've all been posted a few pages back. The British report on stick forces in the Bf109, the text analysis on how much elbow grease pilots might apply, and posts that state how "50 lbs." is arrived at. What else do you guys need besides a break from being bovine fanbois?

WWMaxGunz
02-13-2006, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
We all know that "comfortable" in what the game is simulating is wholly different than "comfortable for my joystick setup". So let's get that off the table straightaway. I can buy whatever stick I want, and make it as whippy and easy to move as I want, and it'll still have no effect on the throw in the GAME.

Huh? Where did I mention PC joystick?


We have these flight test reports that state categorically and specifically, at what speed the elevator began to stiffen, which we can easily assume means that the "normal" 50 lb. of applied force from the pilot is insufficient for a reasonable amount of stick (and hence elevator) deflection. We also know that the game is using 50 lb. of stick force as an assumed pilot average.

Assumed. I've seen charts listing 30 and 40 lbs as well. One for P-39 I have graphs stick
force per G as a function of speed also showing calculated curves of different methods.


Do I have to draw any more lines for you to make it more obvious? You're all just dodging the issue, and trying to make this a "personal preference issue" on my part, when it's not. It's a pretty weak argument.

As for charts, they've all been posted a few pages back. The British report on stick forces in the Bf109, the text analysis on how much elbow grease pilots might apply, and posts that state how "50 lbs." is arrived at. What else do you guys need besides a break from being bovine fanbois?

I just finished looking through all 8 pages of this thread. No charts.
Brit text from Texans' post includes:

Elevator:
This was a good control at slow speeds but became <span class="ev_code_RED">too heavy</span> above 250 mph and at 400 mph it became so heavy that maneuverability became seriously restricted. When at
400 mph a pilot, pulling very hard could not pull enough "g" force to black himself out.
The stick force per "g" was an excess of 20 pounds in a high speed dive. To black out, as
a limit to the human factor in high speed maneuvers, would require over 100 pounds pull on
the stick.

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

Really we only get meaningful numbers at 400 mph by that and only low approximations at that.
This is with a poorly or mistrimmed 109-E so what use has that for the planes discussed?

Draw all the lines you want, you haven't proved a thing except perhaps your own bias. That
you have proved well many times anyway, no need to prove you have a sour attitude on Oleg.
I will take his work, data and expertise above yours any time. I will also give him and
the team leeway on what can be done as opposed to what is wanted and throw in that I do not
believe the sim is finished yet.

Just how realistic do you think PC sim FM's are at this time? There's some that claim to
within 1% but the FM's are more incomplete in handling than not. I wonder if any combat
sim has passed the 50% mark compared to real? It's more than possible to change things
around and come up with a small net increase so changes don't prove wrongness or rightness.

Stigler_9_JG52
02-13-2006, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
We all know that "comfortable" in what the game is simulating is wholly different than "comfortable for my joystick setup". So let's get that off the table straightaway. I can buy whatever stick I want, and make it as whippy and easy to move as I want, and it'll still have no effect on the throw in the GAME.

Huh? Where did I mention PC joystick?


We have these flight test reports that state categorically and specifically, at what speed the elevator began to stiffen, which we can easily assume means that the "normal" 50 lb. of applied force from the pilot is insufficient for a reasonable amount of stick (and hence elevator) deflection. We also know that the game is using 50 lb. of stick force as an assumed pilot average.

Assumed. I've seen charts listing 30 and 40 lbs as well. One for P-39 I have graphs stick
force per G as a function of speed also showing calculated curves of different methods.


Do I have to draw any more lines for you to make it more obvious? You're all just dodging the issue, and trying to make this a "personal preference issue" on my part, when it's not. It's a pretty weak argument.

As for charts, they've all been posted a few pages back. The British report on stick forces in the Bf109, the text analysis on how much elbow grease pilots might apply, and posts that state how "50 lbs." is arrived at. What else do you guys need besides a break from being bovine fanbois?

I just finished looking through all 8 pages of this thread. No charts.
Brit text from Texans' post includes:

Elevator:
This was a good control at slow speeds but became <span class="ev_code_RED">too heavy</span> above 250 mph and at 400 mph it became so heavy that maneuverability became seriously restricted. When at
400 mph a pilot, pulling very hard could not pull enough "g" force to black himself out.
The stick force per "g" was an excess of 20 pounds in a high speed dive. To black out, as
a limit to the human factor in high speed maneuvers, would require over 100 pounds pull on
the stick.

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

Really we only get meaningful numbers at 400 mph by that and only low approximations at that.
This is with a poorly or mistrimmed 109-E so what use has that for the planes discussed?

Draw all the lines you want, you haven't proved a thing except perhaps your own bias. That
you have proved well many times anyway, no need to prove you have a sour attitude on Oleg.
I will take his work, data and expertise above yours any time. I will also give him and
the team leeway on what can be done as opposed to what is wanted and throw in that I do not
believe the sim is finished yet.

Just how realistic do you think PC sim FM's are at this time? There's some that claim to
within 1% but the FM's are more incomplete in handling than not. I wonder if any combat
sim has passed the 50% mark compared to real? It's more than possible to change things
around and come up with a small net increase so changes don't prove wrongness or rightness. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, if you're saying this is all "my comfort level" you're saying that I can't easily move my stick, and that's the crux of the problem.

Well, you and I both know that has nothin' to do with it. It's just that, at about 220 mph, rather than at 250, the elevator response I get in a Bf109 for the same stick throw is severely restricted. And that this throw is assumed to be based on an 'assumed' pilot force of 40 - 50 lbs. (sure, we can quibble on the 10 lbs of force)

As for "charts" you're again playing semantics. Charts, data, evidence, proof, whatever you want to call it. It's all there. I don't need anything additional to make my point.

And I really don't care if you'll take Oleg's word over mine. Fine. It's not "my word" anyway. It's what those bits of evidence say and what happens when you play the sim. Believe what you want to believe.

AKA_TAGERT
02-13-2006, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
As for "charts" you're again playing semantics. Charts, data, evidence, proof, whatever you want to call it. It's all there. I don't need anything additional to make my point. Monday morning QBs God Love Them! Old saying, those who can do, those who can not, are the critics of those who can. Stig would be the poster boy of the later.

WWMaxGunz
02-13-2006, 07:06 PM
So at 220 mph you pull your joystick all the way back and don't get full deflection of
the elevator by an amount of "severely restricted"?

If 40 or 50 lbs, the onset would be sooner with the 40 lbs.

The "uncomfortable" I am referring to was that of the pilot who flew the test IRL.
Nothing about PC joysticks. When I ask what your uncomfortable is, I mean what is your
interpretation of that word as a number. You say 50 pounds. I cannot agree or disagree
but I can say you have no grounds on that quote to call foul. Perhaps finding what speed
it took 23kg pull to max the stick or an actual graph or chart coupled with reduced
elevator authority from in-game could give something closer to proof but as of yet I don't
see the data.

Chadburn
02-13-2006, 07:10 PM
Bury it. This thread's dead.

carguy_
02-13-2006, 08:25 PM
PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT nobody is burying MY thread ,n00b11! http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/th_boo.gif

BfHeFwMe
02-13-2006, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by Stafroty:
who you saw say it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

hehe, what makes 109 elevators to stiff up more than other planes?

is it that the plane is flying in mode intense air and that way making controls stiff?

It had no moveable trim tab on the elevator, thus airspeed alone dictated stick force. Only a moveable trim tab can relieve pressure on an elevator itself. Moving the stabalizer to which the elevator is attached only changes the pitch angle of the main wing to a new setting based on airspeed. It does nothing to aleviate elevator forces.

Chadburn
02-13-2006, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:
The big change is here. Luftwaffles got f#cked again,so what. Better get some more training.

..and over 2000 posts of your quality make you what exactly? A forum ace?

Stigler_9_JG52
02-13-2006, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
So at 220 mph you pull your joystick all the way back and don't get full deflection of
the elevator by an amount of "severely restricted"?

If 40 or 50 lbs, the onset would be sooner with the 40 lbs.

The "uncomfortable" I am referring to was that of the pilot who flew the test IRL.
Nothing about PC joysticks. When I ask what your uncomfortable is, I mean what is your
interpretation of that word as a number. You say 50 pounds. I cannot agree or disagree
but I can say you have no grounds on that quote to call foul. Perhaps finding what speed
it took 23kg pull to max the stick or an actual graph or chart coupled with reduced
elevator authority from in-game could give something closer to proof but as of yet I don't
see the data.

Last I checked, I didn't know of any data of the same volumes as planes test data on stick forces and average pilots. The one somebody posted up here looked like it was fairly modern. Of course, you already suspect that... just like Tagert and his "got track". He used to throw that in everyone's face for his fanboi purposes. Then he took his own advice and found that Oleg screwed the pooch on nearly ALL planes' roll rates. That was laughable. Truly funny, and sad at the same time. He actually did good work on that, and I'm surprised he actually posted it, rather than just squelch it and pretend all is well in this alternate world of physics. From what i recall, the data appeared off this site, because it just didn't look good that Fanboi In Good Standing #2 found so much evidence that the modeling is wildly off. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

AKA_TAGERT
02-14-2006, 12:14 AM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Last I checked, I didn't know of any data of the same volumes as planes test data on stick forces and average pilots. The one somebody posted up here looked like it was fairly modern. Of course, you already suspect that... just like Tagert and his "got track". He used to throw that in everyone's face for his fanboi purposes. Then he took his own advice and found that Oleg screwed the pooch on nearly ALL planes' roll rates. That was laughable. Truly funny, and sad at the same time. He actually did good work on that, and I'm surprised he actually posted it, rather than just squelch it and pretend all is well in this alternate world of physics. From what i recall, the data appeared off this site, because it just didn't look good that Fanboi In Good Standing #2 found so much evidence that the modeling is wildly off. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I€m not surprised, in that Im sure you can not walk five feet without something surprising you! What with you being so out of touch with reality. The concept is simple.. no sim ever was, is, or will be perfect. Does that stop them from trying to make it as good as they can? Nope, because, reasonable people realize that no sim ever was, is, or will be prefect.

Your closed minded Stigler is always right and Stiglers point of view is the only point of view will for ever keep you from realising that simple fact.

What is truly funny is that you couldn€t simulate a fart if your life depended on it. Yet you come here and accuse Oleg of all kinds of things. When in fact the only error here is with you not realizing that no sim ever was, is or will be perfect.

Stafroty
02-14-2006, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
And if uncomfortable is 40 lbs or say 20kg = appx 45 lbs?

Really Stiglr you are saying that Oleg is wrong because of your opinion of uncomfortable?
Or is it just you want to say Oleg is wrong, draw the line where that is so?

Now let's see some charts. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif


ok, Define which way it is most comfortable to you and in which way it isnt? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stafroty
02-14-2006, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by Chadburn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
The big change is here. Luftwaffles got f#cked again,so what. Better get some more training.

..and over 2000 posts of your quality make you what exactly? A forum ace? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


sounds like you are jeallous about the post numbers.

Stafroty
02-14-2006, 12:37 AM
is it 25kg(50 lbs)the max weight what can man pull with his hand towards him? is that much to you?

is that max what man can do, or is that unpleasant edge, where after pilot really have to start using strenght?

jermin122
02-14-2006, 01:41 AM
Originally posted by BM357_Sniper:
we'd be playing a NASCAR (all in the same, evenly modeled car) game on playstation. Historical accuracy is the name of the game in a sim, at least I thought?

Had M****lle and Hartmann flown 109s in this version, they would have been shot down zillions of times. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Kurfurst__
02-14-2006, 01:53 AM
Originally posted by Stafroty:
why dont we implement button which has delay in it, that when its pressed, rightaway we cannot use throttle or anything which is in near throttle with virtual pilots hands, theres half sec pause when he moves his hand to stick, then, there would be 2 hand power in stick in every move is made, but no using of throttle, mixtures or anything, but only what is situated on stick, like gun buttons and radio. nothing else. of course legs still use rudder. how would this sound? it would made it more real in my visions of mind. and when you press it again, your virtual hand goes back with half sec delay to the throttle? would that be great?



Exactly, that's the very thing I was thinking about this morning... a 'two-hands on stick' button', like it was done in real life, and you'd have to keep it pushed or toggled.

Oleg, could you please implement this? This 'one hand only' setup is surely very unfair to planes with heavier stickforces, like P-38, 109, some Russian fighters etc.

In real life, no pilot would not use two hands if he couldn't pull up otherwise...

DaimonSyrius
02-14-2006, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
a 'two-hands on stick' button', like it was done in real life, and you'd have to keep it pushed or toggled.

Oleg, could you please implement this? This 'one hand only' setup is surely very unfair to planes with heavier stickforces, like P-38, 109, some Russian fighters etc.

In real life, no pilot would not use two hands if he couldn't pull up otherwise...

On the same line of thought, could a 'pilot's relief' button be implemented? Wait, better make it two buttons that need to be pushed simultaneously (at both ends of the keyboard), just like it was done in real life to unzip the pilot's pants... This no-toilet setup is surely very unfair to planes flying long-range missions...

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

Cheers,
S.

DaimonSyrius
02-14-2006, 02:49 AM
Now seriously, modelling pilot's fatigue in a more general way would be a truly relevant factor, IMO. For instance, if the virtual pilot holds the stick at max deflection (like we do all the time at no cost currently), the actual force acting on the virtual control would be decreasing over time, so that 50 lbs maximum could only be recovered after easing up for a while.

The problem might be that many would find that the fun-factor would decrease if continuous extreme manoeuvering were no longer possible. On the other hand... did real pilots really have any 'fun' when struggling for their lives? How many did get killed just because their arms or legs got cramped?

Similarly, airframe structural fatigue would also be a quite relevant factor. Would the real planes be able to sustain the endless extreme manoeuvering that is so fun in our sim?

Cheers,
S.

joeap
02-14-2006, 03:13 AM
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 Stafroty:
why dont we implement button which has delay in it, that when its pressed, rightaway we cannot use throttle or anything which is in near throttle with virtual pilots hands, theres half sec pause when he moves his hand to stick, then, there would be 2 hand power in stick in every move is made, but no using of throttle, mixtures or anything, but only what is situated on stick, like gun buttons and radio. nothing else. of course legs still use rudder. how would this sound? it would made it more real in my visions of mind. and when you press it again, your virtual hand goes back with half sec delay to the throttle? would that be great?



Exactly, that's the very thing I was thinking about this morning... a 'two-hands on stick' button', like it was done in real life, and you'd have to keep it pushed or toggled.

Oleg, could you please implement this? This 'one hand only' setup is surely very unfair to planes with heavier stickforces, like P-38, 109, some Russian fighters etc.

In real life, no pilot would not use two hands if he couldn't pull up otherwise... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ohh GREAT IDEA guys....I'd love that at least for BoB!!!!!!

WWMaxGunz
02-14-2006, 03:57 AM
Such a button with delay and all... OTOH you could just USE THE TRIM already there.

No, wait, then there'd be nuthin to b!tch about.

WWMaxGunz
02-14-2006, 04:15 AM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:

Last I checked, I didn't know of any data of the same volumes as planes test data on stick forces and average pilots. The one somebody posted up here looked like it was fairly modern.

I have stick force per G data on a P-39N. They didn't just do it for that one plane.
Of course that's NACA data and I expect equal from Rechlin.


Of course, you already suspect that... just like Tagert and his "got track".

Oh, you suspect. Wrong again.


He used to throw that in everyone's face for his fanboi purposes. Then he took his own advice and found that Oleg screwed the pooch on nearly ALL planes' roll rates. That was laughable. Truly funny, and sad at the same time. He actually did good work on that, and I'm surprised he actually posted it, rather than just squelch it and pretend all is well in this alternate world of physics. From what i recall, the data appeared off this site, because it just didn't look good that Fanboi In Good Standing #2 found so much evidence that the modeling is wildly off. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You are right he did good work but for the rest you are still 10 lbs in a 5 lb sack.

Tagert found the data while checking the claims and posted with no bias. He did that
instead of constantly b!tching along an agenda. I have NO DOUBT that the results did
actually contribute to a positive change just as I have no doubt that the changes are
not finished. It's a very large task and the community has not the patience to wait
for full completion in one step. That is compounded by advances in hardware that make
a final modelling into a moving target. If you have EVER tried to code anything REAL
in your entire life, I'd be surprised so just thinking that you might have the slightest
idea what that team is accomplishing just shocks me. I have to take into consideration
how mouthy you've been as a strong indicator that you are a USER only and a bad one at
that. USERS should not complain about the code they get, they are LUCKY to get ANYTHING
AT ALL.

And BTW there is something I SUSPECT. I SUSPECT that you have an agenda to push people
away from IL2 series and onto Targetware. You get a kickback for every new joinup who
refers you or just free time in an account somewhere?

WWMaxGunz
02-14-2006, 04:20 AM
Originally posted by Stafroty:
is it 25kg(50 lbs)the max weight what can man pull with his hand towards him? is that much to you?

is that max what man can do, or is that unpleasant edge, where after pilot really have to start using strenght?

Take a 20kg dumbell and hold it out in front of you, elbow about a handwidth in front of
your stomache. Now hold it there. How long before your arm is tired? You do this at one
G. Think on it.

Stafroty
02-14-2006, 05:45 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Such a button with delay and all... OTOH you could just USE THE TRIM already there.

*isnt the same*

No, wait, then there'd be nuthin to b!tch about.

*yes, you cannot anymore whine with this button and feature modelled, If you dont have any bias behind your motives*

Take a 20kg dumbell and hold it out in front of you, elbow about a handwidth in front of
your stomache. Now hold it there. How long before your arm is tired? You do this at one
G. Think on it.

*do pilots have to carry their sticks with shoulder muscles? if there would be and competition, i think i would hold that 10 times longer than you do.
even still its not the same than wanking the stick.*

Think on this: Pilots Dont pull the Stick all the time like you do, as you for sure are TnB full turnrate fighter with sissyfire as you now sound to be. pilots pull for correct lead, pull trigger and release the pull force, you would for sure pull real plane till you stall it and even then you would not understand it when you circle toward ground, as you are simply in panic and totally locked out without capability to act or think.*

Chadburn
02-14-2006, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by Stafroty:

sounds like you are jeallous about the post numbers.

You need to get your tongue out of Carguy's ear long enough to go gather some evidence.

Eight pages of nothing after Oleg was gracious enough to respond to Carguy's first post, which was seeking an answer and ended with
I`d like to ask Mr.Oleg if he finds that stiff setting correct.If yes then forget what I wrote here.

Then just one page later
The big change is here. Luftwaffles got f#cked again,so what. Better get some more training.

The only one that presented any evidence was Nagual, whose track was completely ignored. By the way, it shows that at sea level in a G6/AS you can pull over 6g's of force in excess of 400mph.

That means at 50lbs of pull, you need about 10lbs per g. Not bad for a plane that was reported to need over 20lbs per g when it exceeded 400mph.

If you guys think it's not modelled correctly then provide some proof or do some testing. But it looks to me like we're getting a pretty good deal here. Combine the amount we can already pull with the fast trim available to 109 fliers (which is completely non-historical) and you can pull well over 50lbs.

AKA_TAGERT
02-14-2006, 08:29 AM
I noticed that all the 109 drivers either missed this or are trying to ignor it.. So Ill post it again.


Originally posted by Grendel-B:
Several details of that test are suspicious and German chief test pilot Heinrich Beauvais disagreed with it and with Eric Brown. Beauvais tried to get into contact after the war with Eric Brown to discuss the matters, but Brown refused to discuss with him. This being the case, it seems that Brown wasn't willing to listen a pilot who'd flown more on the 109 than he ever had, and was more interested on believing his negative findings of the 109 than being proven wrong by a real expert. I dont recall seeing that said by Heinrich Beauvais in the book test pilots. As a mater of fact he said many things were tried to try and improve the roll rate. Which means there was a problem with the roll rate they were trying to fix. But dont take my word for it.


<span class="ev_code_red">Heinrich Beauvais on Flight Controls page 74 of TEST PILOTS:</span>
One would have liked to have more effective ailerons, as well as <span class="ev_code_yellow">lower control force, at high speeds.</span> I do not remember all the different methods tried to improve this, but the following two are still clear in my mind. One was designed by Blohm & Voss, adding a Flettner trim tab which resulted in a reduction of control forces: <span class="ev_code_yellow">however, performance was not as smooth and effectiveness had NOT improved at all</span>
Heinrich also made note of the large elevator stick forces in his dive tests. All in all he didnt have too many positive things to say about the 109. Check it out, the book called test pilots.

Kurfurst__
02-14-2006, 09:07 AM
Aileron effectiveness : roll rate per aileron deflection angle.

Flettner tabs decrease the stick forces required for a given deflection, and thus enalbling higher roll rate.. they DO NOT enchance the 'aileron effectiveness'.

Trouble is that Tagert doesn't seem to, or want to understand basic meaning of what HB said. Moreover he has terribly poor reading comprehension as the above quote from HB neither does say anything on the elevators themselves, it's more like wishful thinkin from his part..


British Bf 109G-2/trop trials :



Manouveribility

"...Some force is needed on the stick at high speed, but accelerations as great as the pilot can stand can be put on"


British Bf 109F-2 trials



Manouveribility

"...the Me.109F was dived to 420mph IAS with controls trimmed for level flight and it was found that altough the elevators had become heavy and the ailerons stiffened up appreciably, fairly tight turns were still possible"...



Unlike in Il-2 Sturmovik...

Hawgdog
02-14-2006, 09:43 AM
My .02: I never liked the G2 because it was nearly a death trap if two planes of different strenghts got on your six, example: a P-40 and an La's- you would always fall into the window of one planes strength or the other. Its much much better from a non-109 lovers view since the patch;

Since the patch it is much more a competitor online DF servers.
whoot-

FA_Whisky
02-14-2006, 09:56 AM
Now seriously, modelling pilot's fatigue in a more general way would be a truly relevant factor, IMO. For instance, if the virtual pilot holds the stick at max deflection (like we do all the time at no cost currently), the actual force acting on the virtual control would be decreasing over time, so that 50 lbs maximum could only be recovered after easing up for a while.


me like, me like!!!

This would be great!!! And planes with heavy controls would suffer from this the most. Pilots who fly a plane that can be trimmed on all axis and has very light controls (P51!!!) would almost never suffer from this. Well, maybe after 4 hours of flight the pilot will get a little tired....

luftluuver
02-14-2006, 10:08 AM
Kurfurst, what is this? British testing is not garbage now. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Stigler_9_JG52
02-14-2006, 10:12 AM
I don't suppose anybody even wants to hear that fatigue like that is modeled in Targetware (http://www.targetware.net)...

Nah, didn't think so. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

For those of you not clear on my "agenda", I'll make it crystal for you.

I fly BOTH IL-2 and TW. I own all of the IL-2 titles, so I have just as much interest and stake in this being a good sim as anyone else. I'd prefer to be able to enjoy both. But to enjoy this one, it would have to be a much, MUCH better simulation. That is why I point out the multitude of grievous errors, the poor modeling and the political bias. Sometimes, they do listen and make changes. Sometimes not.

My comments about TW are strictly for comparison purposes (I have no financial stake in TW at all, but I am interested in having more people try it and fly it; I suppose I could be called a TW fanboi, but it's not for blind allegience to anyone, it's because that sim is a better sim). The two sims share a large part of the planeset, and the parallels grow every week. I find it hard to fathom why one title produces the results history tells us, and that the vets tell us, and one does not. Isn't it all based on the same physics? One wonders.

joeap
02-14-2006, 10:56 AM
Prove the political bias please.

anarchy52
02-14-2006, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
I don't suppose anybody even wants to hear that fatigue like that is modeled in Targetware (http://www.targetware.net)...


I actually tried it. It's got similar FM to 4.x series Il-2, but feels more realistic (planes are less manuverable and more stable) at least in normal manuevers. Haven't tried spins and stalls yet. But its an eyesore...looks like games from 10 years ago and sound is even WORSE then Il-2!!!!

Stigler_9_JG52
02-14-2006, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
Prove the political bias please.

You have a history here? Then you should know the story about all sorts of aircraft, and all sorts of fishy anecdotes, "secret data I can't reveal" dodges, etc.

Put another way: prove to me it isn't biased, since it isn't even close to accurate.

@anarchy: fair 5-minute review. You'll notice your biggest knock was about graphics. Hmmm...so it's ok to simply look pretty and get all the modeling wrong? I suppose that's why you're here.

As for the sounds (and much of the graphics, too, for that matter)...well, anyone can do something about that, as these are configurable. TW is very short of really ace 2D artists, and also could use a "sound maven" over there. You game?

AKA_TAGERT
02-14-2006, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Aileron effectiveness : roll rate per aileron deflection angle. Agreed 100%! In that it was I who pointed that out to you well over a year ago!


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Flettner tabs decrease the stick forces required for a given deflection, and thus enalbling higher roll rate.. they DO NOT enchance the 'aileron effectiveness'. Never said they did, all I said is what HB said, there was a problem with the ailerons forces. So bad that they tried many different methods to try and correct it. None of which ever worked well enough to impliment on a large scale, in that as you will note, even with the best solution had problems, i.e. performance was not as smooth. Which means they would kick in all of a sudden, thus causing overshoot, thus making it hard to aim, and potentially causing wing damage.


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Trouble is that Tagert doesn't seem to, or want to understand basic meaning of what HB said. Just what part is it you feel I got wrong? Why bother asking, you wont address what I actuly said, typical.


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Moreover he has terribly poor reading comprehension as the above quote from HB neither does say anything on the elevators themselves, it's more like wishful thinking from his part.. Actually your the one that has the reading comprehension problem here, not I. That combined with you inability to follow along results in you being totally wrong. My response was in response to Grendel-B (aka Rall) response to Texan statement. Where Texan said


Originally posted by Texan...:
Here's a bit more on the ailerons, elevator and rudder. Be happy Oleg is allowing 50lbs force on stick, when apparently only 40lbs was realistic:
(1) Due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick as compared to 60 pounds or more possible if he had more elbow room.

Note, Texan was talking about the ailerons when he said 40 pounds side force.

To which Grendel-B replied to Texan by saying the following..


Originally posted by Grendal-B:
Unfortunately, your source is not valid throughout the 109 variants range, and not even to the single variant it is about.

Counter-argument:

- An often quoted British report made of a Me 109 E talks about the "short stick travel", "due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick" and "at 400 mph with 40 pounds side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4 seconds to get into a 45 degree roll or bank. That immediately classifies the airplane as being unmaneuverable and unacceptable as a fighter."

- The report claims that The 109-E needed 37lb stick force for a 1/5 aileron deflection at 400mph. Coincidentally, the Spitfire 1 required 57 lb stick force from the pilot for similar deflection at similar speed. This is a 54% higher stickforce for the Spitfire pilot.

- The British test is taken as gospel by many, while it is just one test, made by the enemy, using a worn out and battle damaged airframe. German flight tests report pilots using aileron forces of over 45 lbs and 109's stick was designed for elevator stick forces of up to or over 85kg, over 180 lbs. Finnish Bf 109 G-2 test revealed that at 450 km/h the stick could be still fully taken to the limit with ~10 kg force (20 pounds). Aileron roll without rudder could be performed to both direction from 400-450 km/h in 4-5 s. This is better than the Spitfire with fabric ailerons, about the same as Spitfire with metal ailerons and slightly below clipped wing Spitfire. So it was more matter of the pilot and the test procedures, than maneuverability of the Bf 109. <span class="ev_code_green">Several details of that test are suspicious and German chief test pilot Heinrich Beauvais disagreed with it and with Eric Brown. Beauvais tried to get into contact after the war with Eric Brown to discuss the matters, but Brown refused to discuss with him. This being the case, it seems that Brown wasn't willing to listen a pilot who'd flown more on the 109 than he ever had, and was more interested on believing his negative findings of the 109 than being proven wrong by a real expert.</span>

To which *I* replied to Grendel-B statment shown in green with HB's comments on the alerion forces, i.e.


<span class="ev_code_red">Heinrich Beauvais on Flight Controls page 74 of TEST PILOTS:</span>
One would have liked to have more effective ailerons, as well as <span class="ev_code_yellow">lower control force, at high speeds.</span> I do not remember all the different methods tried to improve this, but the following two are still clear in my mind. One was designed by Blohm & Voss, adding a Flettner trim tab which resulted in a reduction of control forces: <span class="ev_code_yellow">however, performance was not as smooth and effectiveness had NOT improved at all</span>

So, as you can see, your totally wrong.

PS a little advice, in the future, before you accuse someone of having poor reading comprehension . You may want to actually read it for yourself at least once in that it is the first step to improving YOUR poor reading comprehension.

Ugly_Kid
02-14-2006, 03:48 PM
Wov you have a book with like 5 pages telling an exiting single story from Heinrich Beauvais' career and now anything you preach here is automatically supported by him or what? They investigated and tested elevator, they investigated and tested ailerons and ways to improve them so it must mean these controls did not work at all to begin with, huh?

He said actually that there was interest to search means to improve ailerons since rolling took something like 5 seconds whereas FW had it in 4 secs. Yeah, well FW was a plane that everybody wished to match where rolling is regarded, big deal. At least in this quest their desperation did not quite reach the level of go and chop the wingtips (which still did not quite hit the mark)

What Grendel wrote there is absolutely correct 109 pretty much outrolled fabric covered spit and more or less matched metal aileron spit. You make it sound like 109 did not roll at all whereas the only figures mentioned in the very book are the given difference between 190 and 109 (and suprisingly pretty much in the league with the figures given by Grendel).

Additionally, maybe it is my poor german reading but I really really really can't read Beauvois having anything like particularly pure view of 109 (so I am afraid that it must be the selective reading on your side). With that book your just scratching a surface - so mind stop acting like some friggin oracle through which Beauvois is preaching new gospel of 109 - probably only support you would get from him for your forum prosa would be a proper thrashing on your naked behind with a bamboo cane and that one is long due.

AKA_TAGERT
02-14-2006, 04:27 PM
Nice spin.. bet it looks good from behind rose colored glasses?

But I digress!

Now you and I know it is hard for blue to read let alone address a sore subject, and when faced with one the typical response is to NOT address anything I *actually* said and go off on some personal attack tanget, or in your case some fantacy of spanking my backside.

But humor me this one time.

Just what part of HB statement do you *feel* I have misrepresented?

Ugly_Kid
02-14-2006, 05:16 PM
Gladly, it is so obvious it isn't misinterpreting it is deliberate misquoting and twisting the facts. As for the concrete facts there is hardly any in the text - it is a nice recollection among the many, yet it gives nothing in concrete figures (I personally found the book very entertaining). You can also try to point out where exactly Beauvois was so burdened by his task to test fly different modification ideas/variants of 109 etc. Actually, he obviously hated the b1tch so much that he, truly, tried discussing some points with Brown after the war - yeah, I bet he felt aggrevated since Brown had put the whole crate in too much of a positive light, wanted to add some further venom on Brown's statements, didn't he?

Grendel wrote what is known concrete figures about the measured performance - exact figures concerning stick force, deflection and roll rate at a given speed. I have seen the same information for spit with fabric and with metal ailerons. Grendel's statement is absolutely true the figures show it. Now please provide the figures from the book "Test pilots", which according to your statement proove Grendel "totally wrong" and contradict this in anyway?

You see it isn't enough of evidence to say Rechlin investigated means and measures to improve 109 roll to claim that the roll was bad to begin with. I would not be suprised even if there was a Rechlin study program to improve roll of 190, surely in your books this would mean 190 rolled lousy, wouldn't it?

As for the figures concerning the elevator stiffness - now please by all means provide the ultimate concrete figures from Beauvois from those 5 pages which give the stick force per g for 109 - mind, cover the different variants too. Allegedly he wasn't happy with it - now please give us just all the figures with which he was unhappy with? This should not be a problem since you already laviscously described what was and wasn't possible with 109, eh? (all promptly backed up by Beauvois, was not it?) "Ey man, Beauvois disagrees with you..."

Spare the sarcasm and wear the rosa glasses along with the stetson when you review brokeback mountain - just figures here mind...

AKA_TAGERT
02-14-2006, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
Gladly, it is so obvious it isn't misinterpreting it is deliberate misquoting and twisting the facts. As for the concrete facts there is hardly any in the text - it is a nice recollection among the many, yet it gives nothing in concrete figures (I personally found the book very entertaining). You can also try to point out where exactly Beauvois was so burdened by his task to test fly different modification ideas/variants of 109 etc. Actually, he obviously hated the b1tch so much that he, truly, tried discussing some points with Brown after the war - yeah, I bet he felt aggrevated since Brown had put the whole crate in too much of a positive light, wanted to add some further venom on Brown's statements, didn't he?

Grendel wrote what is known concrete figures about the measured performance - exact figures concerning stick force, deflection and roll rate at a given speed. I have seen the same information for spit with fabric and with metal ailerons. Grendel's statement is absolutely true the figures show it. Now please provide the figures from the book "Test pilots", which according to your statement proove Grendel "totally wrong" and contradict this in anyway?

You see it isn't enough of evidence to say Rechlin investigated means and measures to improve 109 roll to claim that the roll was bad to begin with. I would not be suprised even if there was a Rechlin study program to improve roll of 190, surely in your books this would mean 190 rolled lousy, wouldn't it?

As for the figures concerning the elevator stiffness - now please by all means provide the ultimate concrete figures from Beauvois from those 5 pages which give the stick force per g for 109 - mind, cover the different variants too. Allegedly he wasn't happy with it - now please give us just all the figures with which he was unhappy with? This should not be a problem since you already laviscously described what was and wasn't possible with 109, eh? (all promptly backed up by Beauvois, was not it?) "Ey man, Beauvois disagrees with you..."

Spare the sarcasm and wear the rosa glasses along with the stetson when you review brokeback mountain - just figures here mind... Nice try.. but no sale.

Ugly_Kid
02-14-2006, 11:22 PM
Now "correct" performance figures for roll and elevator, if you please. Since Grendel is allegedly "totally wrong", shouldn't be a problem for you to give correct ones then "Mr. Beauvais"?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

How do I have a feeling it won't be coming very soon...

Stafroty
02-14-2006, 11:54 PM
Originally posted by Chadburn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stafroty:

sounds like you are jeallous about the post numbers.

You need to get your tongue out of Carguy's ear long enough to go gather some evidence.

how many times has Oleg chanced the 109 FM? how much whine there has been before that has been done with some evidence from it?
we are here speakin the reasons why and how things should be and not to be. you, again trust on Grand O man word, just because it suits your bias.

Eight pages of nothing after Oleg was gracious enough to respond to Carguy's first post, which was seeking an answer and ended with
I`d like to ask Mr.Oleg if he finds that stiff setting correct.If yes then forget what I wrote here.

Then just one page later
The big change is here. Luftwaffles got f#cked again,so what. Better get some more training.

The only one that presented any evidence was Nagual, whose track was completely ignored. By the way, it shows that at sea level in a G6/AS you can pull over 6g's of force in excess of 400mph.

That means at 50lbs of pull, you need about 10lbs per g. Not bad for a plane that was reported to need over 20lbs per g when it exceeded 400mph.

If you guys think it's not modelled correctly then provide some proof or do some testing. But it looks to me like we're getting a pretty good deal here. Combine the amount we can already pull with the fast trim available to 109 fliers (which is completely non-historical) and you can pull well over 50lbs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AKA_TAGERT
02-14-2006, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
Now "correct" performance figures for roll and elevator, if you please. Since Grendel is allegedly "totally wrong", shouldn't be a problem for you to give correct ones then "Mr. Beauvais"?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

How do I have a feeling it won't be coming very soon...
Hey, if you want to disagree with one of the Lw's top test pilots.. Be my guest! I think it only highlights your agenda and unwillingness to face the truth.

You can call it misinterpretation, deliberate misquoting, and twisting the facts, but you know that is a lie and just another weak blue attempt to change the subject from the painful truth about the 109 short comings.

The FACT is what I posted was a DIRECT QUOTE from the book test pilots and is IN CONTEXT in that he was talking about the 109s roll rate.

You have yet to address that FACT and all you got left is to try and turn the topic around to make it about me.. It is not about me, it is about what HB said!

So, try as you must to avoid that fact, but nobody if falling for your tired old blue switch and bait tactics of taking the focus off of the topic at hand.

Like I said, nice try, but no sale.

Stafroty
02-14-2006, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
I noticed that all the 109 drivers either missed this or are trying to ignor it.. So Ill post it again.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grendel-B:
Several details of that test are suspicious and German chief test pilot Heinrich Beauvais disagreed with it and with Eric Brown. Beauvais tried to get into contact after the war with Eric Brown to discuss the matters, but Brown refused to discuss with him. This being the case, it seems that Brown wasn't willing to listen a pilot who'd flown more on the 109 than he ever had, and was more interested on believing his negative findings of the 109 than being proven wrong by a real expert. I dont recall seeing that said by Heinrich Beauvais in the book test pilots. As a mater of fact he said many things were tried to try and improve the roll rate. Which means there was a problem with the roll rate they were trying to fix. But dont take my word for it.


<span class="ev_code_red">Heinrich Beauvais on Flight Controls page 74 of TEST PILOTS:</span>
One would have liked to have more effective ailerons, as well as <span class="ev_code_yellow">lower control force, at high speeds.</span> I do not remember all the different methods tried to improve this, but the following two are still clear in my mind. One was designed by Blohm & Voss, adding a Flettner trim tab which resulted in a reduction of control forces: <span class="ev_code_yellow">however, performance was not as smooth and effectiveness had NOT improved at all</span>
Heinrich also made note of the large elevator stick forces in his dive tests. All in all he didnt have too many positive things to say about the 109. Check it out, the book called test pilots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny that you take that only as evidence http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif there is lots of other information as well, which you would not swallow as easily.

Stafroty
02-14-2006, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Kurfurst, what is this? British testing is not garbage now. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif


just points out that you are yourself selective withyour own information http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

AKA_TAGERT
02-14-2006, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by Stafroty:
Funny that you take that only as evidence http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif there is lots of other information as well, which you would not swallow as easily. If you want to ignore what one of the top Lw test pilots said, be my guest!

Don€t kill the messenger!

I€m just reporting what he said, nothing more, nothing less.

That and pointing out that Krusty was wrong when he said I was confused, when clearly he is the one that does not comprehend what he is reading.

Stafroty
02-15-2006, 12:11 AM
i dont ignore what he says, but i dont also misunderstood his sayings throught the biased mind.

AKA_TAGERT
02-15-2006, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by Stafroty:
i dont ignore what he says, but i dont also misunderstood his sayings throught the biased mind. Nice try! But instead of trying to imply that I misunderstood it or that I am biased, why not try and address what he actually said?

Because imho it is cut-n-dry.

No room for misunderstanding and no amount of bias can change that fact.

But, you like ugly kid won€t touch what he said with a 10 foot pole and will continue with your weak blue attempts to insult me in the hopes of taking the focus off the topic at hand.

Your guys play book is getting old, try something new, nobody is falling for it anymore.

luftluuver
02-15-2006, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by Stafroty:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Kurfurst, what is this? British testing is not garbage now. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

just points out that you are yourself selective withyour own information http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE> UGH? Unlike some here others I shoot straight. And, if you think I am anti-German my ride is the Anton and Dora. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Stafroty
02-15-2006, 01:58 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stafroty:
i dont ignore what he says, but i dont also misunderstood his sayings throught the biased mind. Nice try! But instead of trying to imply that I misunderstood it or that I am biased, why not try and address what he actually said?

Because imho it is cut-n-dry.

No room for misunderstanding and no amount of bias can change that fact.

But, you like ugly kid won€t touch what he said with a 10 foot pole and will continue with your weak blue attempts to insult me in the hopes of taking the focus off the topic at hand.

Your guys play book is getting old, try something new, nobody is falling for it anymore. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i know that there isnt any room left, you yourself show it. what you thought was nice try?
try to make you realize the reality, shake yourself from your dream?
you talk about fact just as you think it is. it hasnt agreed by everyone. its just opinion, not fact. and even if would be fact, it possible would not be truth. or so you know the truth and claim that way yourself as messiah?

Stafroty
02-15-2006, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stafroty:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Kurfurst, what is this? British testing is not garbage now. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

just points out that you are yourself selective withyour own information http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE> UGH? Unlike some here others I shoot straight. And, if you think I am anti-German my ride is the Anton and Dora. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i shot straight as well, or is it only your right?

luftluuver
02-15-2006, 02:28 AM
Originally posted by Stafroty:
i shot straight as well, or is it only your right? Did I say you didn't? By your reply, would say you have 2 nicks? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif The other person does not shoot straight and never will.

Stafroty
02-15-2006, 04:07 AM
you miss the point? or was it me, please explain more.

luftluuver
02-15-2006, 04:28 AM
See PM

Stafroty
02-15-2006, 06:49 AM
did

Stafroty
02-15-2006, 06:50 AM
still didnt understand (your point). can you explain more specifically?

carguy_
02-15-2006, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by Chadburn:
Then just one page later [QUOTE]The big change is here. Luftwaffles got f#cked again,so what. Better get some more training.

Care to explain?


The only one that presented any evidence was Nagual, whose track was completely ignored. By the way, it shows that at sea level in a G6/AS you can pull over 6g's of force in excess of 400mph.


Watched it some time ago,answered why is he turning and not diving and zooming.This aint about horizonta,which he seems not to understand.He said the 109 turns great at high speeds.This I`m afraid wasn`t the case at all.



That means at 50lbs of pull, you need about 10lbs per g. Not bad for a plane that was reported to need over 20lbs per g when it exceeded 400mph.


GOT TRACK?heheh
All ok but why is the elevator stuck to the same extent @390kph as @620kph?
Oleg did not answer that.Pilot accounts obviously talk about elevators getting stiffer with gain of speed.Don`t you think that @390kph elevators should be a bit lighter than @620kph?
At the start of elevator lockup we have nothin nothin nothing and woooosh suddenly the elevator is locked up to the same extent all the way to airframe`s failure due to excessive speed.

Let`s see you give figure 20lbs per G @400mph.What was that value @250mph?


You did not understand the whole concept of my question.I will try to explain in a wider font if this attempt fails it.

Just so you know I`m referring to the post just under Nagual`s post.
So far I haven`t come by the accounts that have been posted by LeLv squad member here some time ago.
I did find one on the net,that a certain pilot could pull easily at high speeds.Few paragraps lower it is said he never exceeded 50kg weight http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif


PS.Do you think that

Bury it. This thread's dead.

adds anything to the discussion? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Stafroty
02-15-2006, 07:52 AM
words?

AKA_TAGERT
02-15-2006, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by Stafroty:
i know that there isnt any room left, you yourself show it. what you thought was nice try? Agreed 100%


Originally posted by Stafroty:
try to make you realize the <span class="ev_code_blue">reality,</span> shake yourself from your <span class="ev_code_blue">dream?</span>
you talk about fact just as you think it is. it hasnt <span class="ev_code_blue">agreed</span> by everyone. its <span class="ev_code_blue">just opinion, not fact.</span> and even if would be fact, it possible would <span class="ev_code_blue">not be truth.</span> or so you know the truth and claim that way yourself as messiah?
Nice try! So tell me.. what part of..


<span class="ev_code_red">Heinrich Beauvais on Flight Controls page 74 of TEST PILOTS:</span>
One would have liked to have more effective ailerons, as well as <span class="ev_code_yellow">lower control force, at high speeds.</span> I do not remember all the different methods tried to improve this, but the following two are still clear in my mind. One was designed by Blohm & Voss, adding a Flettner trim tab which resulted in a reduction of control forces: <span class="ev_code_yellow">however, performance was not as smooth and effectiveness had NOT improved at all</span>
Do you *feel* is not <span class="ev_code_blue">reality?</span>
Do you *feel* is a <span class="ev_code_blue">dream?</span>
Do you <span class="ev_code_blue">not agree</span> with?
Do you *feel* is <span class="ev_code_blue">just opinion, not fact?</span>
Do you *feel* is <span class="ev_code_blue">not truth?</span>

Before you answer, *try* and remember, this is not me saying these words, nor is it just some average combat pilot, no..

This is the top Lw 109 test pilot saying these words!

Let me say that again..

TOP 109 TEST PILOT!

YOU SAVVY?

Ugly_Kid
02-15-2006, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
How do I have a feeling it won't be coming very soon...


This forum is getting so predictable that it's almost scary...

Hmmm have to check it again sometime tomorrow if our top 109 test pilot comes up with something concrete.

I still do have a feeling that it still won't be coming very soon.

AKA_TAGERT
02-15-2006, 09:15 AM
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 Ugly_Kid:
How do I have a feeling it won't be coming very soon...


This forum is getting so predictable that it's almost scary...

Hmmm have to check it again sometime tomorrow if our top 109 test pilot comes up with something concrete.

I still do have a feeling that it still won't be coming very soon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Quoting yourself now? Sad, truly sad.. but I digress.

Like I said, if you want to disagree with the TOP Lw's TEST PILOT's ASSEMENT of the 109 Be my guest!

I think it only highlights your agenda and unwillingness to face the truth.

You can call it misinterpretation, deliberate misquoting, and twisting the facts, but you know that is a lie and just another weak blue attempt to change the subject from the painful truth about the 109 short comings.

The FACT is what I posted was a DIRECT QUOTE from the book test pilots and is IN CONTEXT in that he was talking about the 109s roll rate.

You have yet to address that FACT and all you got left is to try and turn the topic around to make it about me.. It is not about me, it is about what HB said!

So, try as you must to avoid that fact, but nobody if falling for your tired old blue switch and bait tactics of taking the focus off of the topic at hand.

Like I said, nice try, but no sale.

Ugly_Kid
02-15-2006, 10:08 AM
anecdote <> fact, try harder...

Unknown-Pilot
02-15-2006, 10:58 AM
Interesting.

Well no, that's not really true. It's typical and predictable in everyway. Someone mentions the 109 and suddenly all the allied fliers and axis-named trolls (well, they are probably the same guy really) pour in with their torches and pitchforks to proclaim everything is not only just fine, it's actually better than it should (read - than they want it to) be.

They can't see the obvious from their poor view (induced by rectal-cranial inversion), that pilot input forces should not be the same for every plane, or in every direction. As Ugly Kid pointed out (and anyone with half a brain can see as obvious as day light), you can push or pull longitudinally with much more force than laterally.

But beyond that, some planes allow for more force to be exterted than others. As obvious as the above - you can exert more force with 2 hands than you can with 1, so why are the P-38 and Do-335 limited to 50lbs of pull on the elevator? They shouldn't be.

Furthermore, you can apply more force with a lever by pushing than you can apply torque. A stick based plane, particularly one with the stick pivot further away (such as the P-47, F6F, etc, etc), should allow more aileron force to be applied than the P-38.

The Spitfire was (as quoted in this thread) not known for light ailerons either. Notice how short the aileron lever arm (on the stick) is?

Stafroty
02-15-2006, 11:39 AM
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 Ugly_Kid:
How do I have a feeling it won't be coming very soon...


This forum is getting so predictable that it's almost scary...

Hmmm have to check it again sometime tomorrow if our top 109 test pilot comes up with something concrete.

I still do have a feeling that it still won't be coming very soon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

of course he is not, because he got nothing to say, he cant answer on the issues you brought without embarassing himself on public. now all he is doing is denying everything and keeping only himself in situation where he thinks that his dignity is in safe and not humiliated. still , he does it in the eyes of the public, its just other story , which he never hear, if we can trust his own agreemend about:
" Originally posted by Stafroty:
i know that there isnt any room left, you yourself show it. what you thought was nice try?

Agreed 100%"

i think he didnt understand even on what he did anwer, he assumed something else than i meant.

I let himself to dig it out.

NonWonderDog
02-15-2006, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
A stick based plane, particularly one with the stick pivot further away (such as the P-47, F6F, etc, etc), should allow more aileron force to be applied than the P-38.

Well, yeah. That's why it has power-assist ailerons.

Test it out, the P-38L has power-assist ailerons in game -- it rolls faster as speed increases, no matter how fast you go.


And remember, 50 lbs of stick force for every plane does not mean 50 <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">lb-ft</span> of torque on the controls of every plane. I would not at all be surprised if long control sticks were an advantage in the sim.

Ugly_Kid
02-15-2006, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
The FACT is what I posted was a DIRECT QUOTE from the book test pilots and is IN CONTEXT in that he was talking about the 109s roll rate.


I checked tediously the whole thread - you absolutely undeniably and 100% did not post a DIRECT QUOTE and particularly not IN CONTEXT. Now, hurry up and edit your posts before the others see it too.

Before you come with "blue" and "bias" just check that your own isn't hanging mile wide open for even the most ignorant to see...

WWMaxGunz
02-15-2006, 12:17 PM
Was there a time when from there on all serial 109's came out with Flettner tabs?
Was there a time when all existing 109's were modified to have Flettner tabs?

I've seen it claimed that Flettner tabs were only fitted to limited numbers of 109's
and I'm sure if they were worth having then from there on production and mods would
have featured those.

Or does that not make sense?

Stafroty
02-15-2006, 12:27 PM
So is it marketing here again.


anyone, paddle prop?? anyone, flettnet tabs?? anyone??

are you trying to misguide something here?

DaimonSyrius
02-15-2006, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
I checked tediously the whole thread - you absolutely undeniably and 100% did not post a DIRECT QUOTE and particularly not IN CONTEXT. Now, hurry up and edit your posts before the others see it too.


Ugly_Kid,

Maybe that's the post you missed?
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m...491055114#1491055114 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/4631032014/r/1491055114#1491055114)


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><span class="ev_code_red">Heinrich Beauvais on Flight Controls page 74 of TEST PILOTS:</span>
One would have liked to have more effective ailerons, as well as <span class="ev_code_yellow">lower control force, at high speeds.</span> I do not remember all the different methods tried to improve this, but the following two are still clear in my mind. One was designed by Blohm & Voss, adding a Flettner trim tab which resulted in a reduction of control forces: <span class="ev_code_yellow">however, performance was not as smooth and effectiveness had NOT improved at all</span>
Heinrich also made note of the large elevator stick forces in his dive tests. All in all he didnt have too many positive things to say about the 109. Check it out, the book called test pilots.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's on page 7 of this thread, and has been there for 2 days now. In flashy colours, too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Actually... as the discussion (let's just call it that) went along, Tagert posted it again on page 9:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m...861049114#6861049114 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/4631032014/r/6861049114#6861049114)

I haven't read the book, so I can't tell whether it's word-by-word, but the quote was made (twice) and was made in context.

I just happened to have that post in another window because I was trying to figure out the codes for colours http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers,
S.

Ugly_Kid
02-15-2006, 01:43 PM
Yep, I missed that one since he was quoting another post and inserted that one with a similar method of quoting - I oversaw it and though it belonged to a post from Grendel.

So, sorry, tagert indeed quoted the book directly - all four lines and all zero figures about any roll rate, eh? My bad...

Particularly, the figures Grendel gave are for a pretty normal 109 on a sunny day - no flettners - nothing (and clearly show that rolling was in league with spit). So where in these four lines of this impressive work of quoting do we find a mismatch?

He can't find any remark about Beauvais trying to contact Brown after the war - errr, in a five pages long exhaustive autobiography? That was a rather compressed life then since it fitted all in that small chapter...

AKA_TAGERT
02-15-2006, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
Yep, I missed that one since he was quoting another post and inserted that one with a similar method of quoting - I oversaw it and though it belonged to a post from Grendel.

So, sorry, tagert indeed quoted the book directly - all four lines and all zero figures about any roll rate, eh? My bad...

Tagert, however, did say nothing about how a serial aircraft seen on the front rolled, did he?

Particularly, the figures Grendel gave are for a pretty normal 109 on a sunny day - no flettners - nothing. So where in these four lines of this impressive work of quoting do we find a mismatch? Apology accepted, so, now what do you think of what HB said as apposed to what I didn€t say he said? Do you still disagree with the TOP Lw 109 TEST PILOT's Assessment of the 109 aileron forces? And choose to go with Grendel assessment over HB?

Ugly_Kid
02-15-2006, 09:39 PM
You did not provide any top LW 109 test pilot assesment of the 109 aileron forces (no figures -> no facts). Grendel did. So where is there one over another?

AKA_TAGERT
02-15-2006, 11:43 PM
Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
You did not provide any top LW 109 test pilot assesment of the 109 aileron forces (no figures -> no facts). Grendel did. So where is there one over another? Roger, so you take Grendel's assesment of the 109 over the TOP 109 TEST PILOT's assesment.. Got it.. No big suprise.

Von_Rat
02-16-2006, 12:06 AM
hmmm when anybody else quotes pilot accounts its usually shouted loudly,,,,,

that you can't trust pilot accounts, that only facts and figures count.

AKA_TAGERT
02-16-2006, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
hmmm when anybody else quotes pilot accounts its usually shouted loudly,,,,,

that you can't trust pilot accounts, that only facts and figures count.
So, you want me to repost the facts and figures that Texan already posted?

Sure, ok, I can do that


Orginally posted by Texan:
Ailerons:
At low speeds, the ailerons control was good, response brisk. As speed increased the ailerons became too heavy but the response was good up to 200 mph. At 300 mph they became "unpleasant". Over 300 mph they became impossible. At 400 mph the stick felt like it was set in a bucket of cement. A pilot exerting all his strength could not apply more than one fifth aileron at 400 mph; that's 5 degrees up and 3 degrees down. The aileron situation at high combat speeds might be summarized in the following way:

(1) Due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick as compared to 60 pounds or more possible if he had more elbow room.

(2) Messerschmitt also penalized the pilot by designing in an unsually small stick top travel of plus or minus 4 inches, giving very poor mechanical advantage between pilot and aileron.

(3) At 400 mph with 40 pounds side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4 seconds to get into a 45 degree roll or bank.
But wouldnt it have been simpler if you just read page one of this thread? But I digress..

Now, some blue say *that* assessment is not correct.. that it only pertains to the 109E. But, if you read it and then read what HB said, i.e.


<span class="ev_code_red">Heinrich Beauvais on Flight Controls page 74 of TEST PILOTS:</span>
One would have liked to have more effective ailerons, as well as <span class="ev_code_yellow">lower control force, at high speeds.</span> I do not remember all the different methods tried to improve this, but the following two are still clear in my mind. One was designed by Blohm & Voss, adding a Flettner trim tab which resulted in a reduction of control forces: <span class="ev_code_yellow">however, performance was not as smooth and effectiveness had NOT improved at all</span>
I think you will find they are saying the same thing, and HB was talking about all 109s, in that the problem was still present at the time of the 109K production. But, by than they didnt need a nimble fighter.. they needed a bomber chaser.. and since bombers dont jink much.. you dont need a fighter that can jink much either.

Unless your Krusty, Ugly Kid or Starfory who's special rose colored glasses filters out all negative 109 light.

Von_Rat
02-16-2006, 12:33 AM
i had read it already, but as you say its for 09e,,,

can you include the part where it explictly states that the late war 09s suffered to the same extent as the figures posted for 09e.

AKA_TAGERT
02-16-2006, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
read it,,, but can you include the part where it explictly states that the late war 09s suffered to the same extend as the figures posted for 09e. The problem was never solved. Nuff said?

Von_Rat
02-16-2006, 12:46 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
read it,,, but can you include the part where it explictly states that the late war 09s suffered to the same extend as the figures posted for 09e. The problem was never solved. Nuff said? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i don't think anybodys claiming the problem was ever completely solved.

the question is did late war 09s suffer to the same extent as the figures texan qouted for 09e.


remember facts and figures,. or is that to much to ask.

AKA_TAGERT
02-16-2006, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
i don't think anybodys claiming the problem was ever completely solved.

the question is did late war 09s suffer to the same extent as the figures texan qouted for 09e.

remember facts and figures,. or is that to much to ask.
Is it too much to ask you to read what HB said? Pay att to the part about how many methods were tried.
Is it too much to ask for you to realise that the width of the cockpit did NOT change? Thus everything with regards to what Texan posted still holds up to the 109K.

Those two things along with a little comon since should take you the rest of the way, if not, feel free to ignor what HB said and belive what ever you want to belive.. I dont care! The only thing that maters is what Oleg belives, and for that refer to page one. He clearly does not have the same rose colored glasses that some here do.

Von_Rat
02-16-2006, 01:34 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<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 don't think anybodys claiming the problem was ever completely solved.

the question is did late war 09s suffer to the same extent as the figures texan qouted for 09e.

remember facts and figures,. or is that to much to ask.
Is it too much to ask you to read what HB said? Pay att to the part about how many methods were tried.
Is it too much to ask for you to realise that the width of the cockpit did NOT change? Thus everything with regards to what Texan posted still holds up to the 109K.

Those two things along with a little comon since should take you the rest of the way, if not, feel free to ignor what HB said and belive what ever you want to belive.. I dont care! The only thing that maters is what Oleg belives, and for that refer to page one. He clearly does not have the same rose colored glasses that some here do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

so let me see if i got this straight.

the only figures you have are for a 09e.

and some vague statment that the problem was not corrected but doesn't give any figures for late war 09s. so its just basicly a pilots account. as i stated in my 1st post pilot accounts don't count for much here.

in other words you got nothing.

now that i can beleive.

thank you, please come again.

guderian_ente
02-16-2006, 04:48 AM
Tagert is presenting facts and you guys are presenting.......?

Let's flip the coin and imagine how they would fix it. Tagert's quote from the 109 test pilot shows that they tried a lot of stuff that didn't work. We know the width of the cockpit didn't change, which means the pilot couldn't use more muscle power. We also know that they didn't solve the problem the way they did on the P-38, i.e. by installing hydraulically boosted controls.

That leaves........?

luftluuver
02-16-2006, 05:34 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
so let me see if i got this straight.

the only figures you have are for a 09e.

and some vague statment that the problem was not corrected but doesn't give any figures for late war 09s. so its just basicly a pilots account. as i stated in my 1st post pilot accounts don't count for much here.

in other words you got nothing.

now that i can beleive.

thank you, please come again. Not just any pilot but THEE Mtt test pilot.

What have the '<span class="ev_code_BLUE">blues</span>' come up with as to how the a/c was fixed?

Btw, the Flettners were tried on the Gs and they were still trying to perfect them on the Ks.

WWMaxGunz
02-16-2006, 07:11 AM
What does this have to do with elevators? Wasn't the tails changed as of 109F?
What does HB have to say of that? I expect not much in that book. I also do not take
his comments on ailerons to apply to elevators, one does not speak of the other.

Stafroty
02-16-2006, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
read it,,, but can you include the part where it explictly states that the late war 09s suffered to the same extend as the figures posted for 09e. The problem was never solved. Nuff said? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

what if there wasnt any problem to solve?? you think they really were that stupid back then??

we now have problem to solve because we have created the problem.

AKA_TAGERT
02-16-2006, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by Stafroty:
what if there wasnt any problem to solve??
Ah, you want to play the "what if" game?

Ok, I can try and play.

Now *IF* there was NO problem, than when the TOP 109 TEST PILOT said, i.e.


<span class="ev_code_red">Heinrich Beauvais on Flight Controls page 74 of TEST PILOTS:</span>
One would have liked to have more effective ailerons, as well as <span class="ev_code_yellow">lower control force, at high speeds.</span> I do not remember all the different methods tried to improve this, but the following two are still clear in my mind. One was designed by Blohm & Voss, adding a Flettner trim tab which resulted in a reduction of control forces: <span class="ev_code_yellow">however, performance was not as smooth and effectiveness had NOT improved at all</span>

he would be lying.

Oh! Is that what your trying to tell me? That you think the TOP 109 TEST PILOT is lying?


Originally posted by Stafroty:
you think they really were that stupid back then?? No, not at all. I think the TOP 109 TEST PILOT was very smart when he said, i.e.


<span class="ev_code_red">Heinrich Beauvais on Flight Controls page 74 of TEST PILOTS:</span>
One would have liked to have more effective ailerons, as well as <span class="ev_code_yellow">lower control force, at high speeds.</span> I do not remember all the different methods tried to improve this, but the following two are still clear in my mind. One was designed by Blohm & Voss, adding a Flettner trim tab which resulted in a reduction of control forces: <span class="ev_code_yellow">however, performance was not as smooth and effectiveness had NOT improved at all</span>

In that it agrees with the Brit assesment.


Originally posted by Stafroty:
we now have problem to solve because we have created the problem. Realism is not a problem.

AKA_TAGERT
02-16-2006, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
so let me see if i got this straight.

the only figures you have are for a 09e.

and some vague statment that the problem was not corrected but doesn't give any figures for late war 09s. so its just basicly a pilots account. as i stated in my 1st post pilot accounts don't count for much here.

in other words you got nothing.

now that i can beleive.

thank you, please come again. If you want to call the TOP 109 TEST PILOT a liar, be my guest. I just think it is very un-respectful to do so.

Stafroty
02-16-2006, 08:38 AM
<span class="ev_code_red">Heinrich Beauvais on Flight Controls page 74 of TEST PILOTS:</span>
One would have liked to have more effective ailerons, as well as <span class="ev_code_yellow">lower control force, at high speeds.</span> I do not remember all the different methods tried to improve this, but the following two are still clear in my mind. One was designed by Blohm & Voss, adding a Flettner trim tab which resulted in a reduction of control forces: <span class="ev_code_yellow">however, performance was not as smooth and effectiveness had NOT improved at all</span>


Ok, lets see: does he say: controls were too Stiff to operate? or does he mean that controls went unpleasantly Stiff at high speeds. Does he Define where it goes stick goes concrete?
If stick went concrete, how was it then possible to:
"One was designed by Blohm & Voss, adding a Flettner trim tab which resulted in a reduction of control forces: however, performance was not as smooth and effectiveness had NOT improved at all"

how do you understand this? i understand that it was still possible to maneuver in high speeds, even if it was not pleasant as it demanded so much powers. but if you could black yourself still out in the plane in high speeds, do you really need anymore stick authority, just to get blacket out even bit easier?

Pilot limits of withstanding the G forces jumps in as well, not only the plane capability? and how many were using G-suit from all sides of the warmongers pilots that time?

now, 109 is derated so it has no cababilyty to Use tactics what was used, it does straight like dart in Gruising speeds almost. non usable.

What if there is removed totally the authority to stick, for you, that 109:S are darts flying straight without cabability to turn nose at you, so you could at last feel as great ace? is that you are after here?


OH, you said really wisely there:

"Realism is not a problem."

that sure explains, alot.

WWMaxGunz
02-16-2006, 08:38 AM
One would like a full 1+ G's acceleration in level flight and a jacuzzi back at base....

Stafroty
02-16-2006, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
thank you, please come again. If you want to call the TOP 109 TEST PILOT a liar, be my guest. I just think it is very un-respectful to do so.[/QUOTE]

How hard you find to believe in the kill staticstics those were made with 109s??

is it against your biased way of viewing things?

doesnt "Fit" in your "style"?

AKA_TAGERT
02-16-2006, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by Stafroty:
Ok, lets see: does he say: controls were too Stiff to operate? or does he mean that controls went unpleasantly Stiff at high speeds. Does he Define where it goes stick goes concrete?
If stick went concrete, how was it then possible to:
"One was designed by Blohm & Voss, adding a Flettner trim tab which resulted in a reduction of control forces: however, performance was not as smooth and effectiveness had NOT improved at all"

how do you understand this? i understand that it was still possible to maneuver in high speeds, even if it was not pleasant as it demanded so much powers. but if you could black yourself still out in the plane in high speeds, do you really need anymore stick authority, just to get blacket out even bit easier?

Pilot limits of withstanding the G forces jumps in as well, not only the plane capability? and how many were using G-suit from all sides of the warmongers pilots that time?

now, 109 is derated so it has no cababilyty to Use tactics what was used, it does straight like dart in Gruising speeds almost. non usable.

What if there is removed totally the authority to stick, for you, that 109:S are darts flying straight without cabability to turn nose at you, so you could at last feel as great ace? is that you are after here?


OH, you said really wisely there:

"Realism is not a problem."

that sure explains, alot. So now he is not lying? Please make up your mind! For you own sake really, in that as I said, I really dont care what you think. Because what you think does not mater, what Oleg thinks about these issues does. So, you have my permision to try and spin it any way you see fit, it does not really mater.

Brain32
02-16-2006, 09:05 AM
Tagert, true is that you interpret that quote in the way you like it most, here is my way:
"One would have liked to have more effective ailerons, as well as lower control force, at high speeds."
Liked, you see the difference, WWMaxGuns said it but his post went unnoticed obviously. Also reading all pilots accounts nobody said it couldn't be done or plane X couldn't be followed, etc. They all just say it was heavy and unpleasnt. And those British test's are also not taken with a grain of salt, obviously after flying planes like Hurricane and Spitfire they found 109 to be heavy with controls.
And also to hopefully conclude this thread, on page #1 O.Maddox stated that they modell all planes with same max stick force. We also know that historicaly 109 was heavy on the controls, so modelling a 109 that could achieve max deflection with the same stick force as for the Spitfire and other planes would render it unrealistic.
Modelling a two-hand pullout would IMO be a great solution, but we don't know is that possible in regards to game engine...

Stigler_9_JG52
02-16-2006, 09:16 AM
TAGERT wrote:


He clearly does not have the same rose colored glasses that some here do.

Yeah, but has the p*ss-colored ones, he stuck those on the rear of the Erla Haube. And what about the refraction-less eyes he uses to "look at" the FW-190 gunsight problem??

Let's face it, the man has just as much agenda in his modeling kit as anyone here, and more weapons at his disposal to keep from getting busted doing it.

Now, back to the subject at hand.

Now, it seems we're going round and round about whether the stiffness problem existed or not. Surely it did. But what we still haven't managed to get out of the fanbois is an acknowledgement that its onset is simply at too slow a speed. That's the only problem, to my view. Have the onset where it ought to be a problem for our "50 lb. force pilot" to pull back, and worsen the effects from there.

Problem solved. Sitzt, wackelt, hat Luft. But only if you're willing to just want to be accurate about it, rather than create your own little interpretive world.

Stafroty
02-16-2006, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stafroty:
Ok, lets see: does he say: controls were too Stiff to operate? or does he mean that controls went unpleasantly Stiff at high speeds. Does he Define where it goes stick goes concrete?
If stick went concrete, how was it then possible to:
"One was designed by Blohm & Voss, adding a Flettner trim tab which resulted in a reduction of control forces: however, performance was not as smooth and effectiveness had NOT improved at all"

how do you understand this? i understand that it was still possible to maneuver in high speeds, even if it was not pleasant as it demanded so much powers. but if you could black yourself still out in the plane in high speeds, do you really need anymore stick authority, just to get blacket out even bit easier?

Pilot limits of withstanding the G forces jumps in as well, not only the plane capability? and how many were using G-suit from all sides of the warmongers pilots that time?

now, 109 is derated so it has no cababilyty to Use tactics what was used, it does straight like dart in Gruising speeds almost. non usable.

What if there is removed totally the authority to stick, for you, that 109:S are darts flying straight without cabability to turn nose at you, so you could at last feel as great ace? is that you are after here?


OH, you said really wisely there:

"Realism is not a problem."

that sure explains, alot. So now he is not lying? Please make up your mind! For you own sake really, in that as I said, I really dont care what you think. Because what you think does not mater, what Oleg thinks about these issues does. So, you have my permision to try and spin it any way you see fit, it does not really mater. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok, please explain how you want and are understanding his quote?

Ugly_Kid
02-16-2006, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<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 don't think anybodys claiming the problem was ever completely solved.

the question is did late war 09s suffer to the same extent as the figures texan qouted for 09e.

remember facts and figures,. or is that to much to ask.
Is it too much to ask you to read what HB said? Pay att to the part about how many methods were tried.
Is it too much to ask for you to realise that the width of the cockpit did NOT change? Thus everything with regards to what Texan posted still holds up to the 109K.

Those two things along with a little comon since should take you the rest of the way, if not, feel free to ignor what HB said and belive what ever you want to belive.. I dont care! The only thing that maters is what Oleg belives, and for that refer to page one. He clearly does not have the same rose colored glasses that some here do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok congratulations - either it is the most monumental piece of bias or stupidity you're displying here in the history of this forum and that is really an achievement. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

E same as later series?

Nothing changed? LMAO comes nowhere near the way I am feeling at the moment.

Emil had cannons on the wings - oh no, of course no effect in roll.

Emil had aerodynamically completely different wing than the successive models. Particularly different lift distribution and that is not supposed to effect ailerons?

Emil had structurally different wing and for example, torsional stiffness can be easily ignored?

Figures from Grendel absolutely proove your assumptions wrong. These figures are namely based on Gustav tests in Finland.

It is said:"Roll both left and right from 400-450 km/h could be performed without an effort. At last fourth the nose tended to sink, in order to maintain altitude manouver was started slightly sideways up. Without rudder roll took 4-5 seconds with speeds mentioned above. Bringing the stick to the limit at 450 km/h required 10 kg force."

With this information a peak roll rate in league with Spifire with metal ailerons can be derived. Of course, when we extrapolating the given 20 lbs to a higher force in a higher speed that would still keep the stick in the edge we'll get an interesting result. Get my drift http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

British report does not give one single roll rate - instead "unpleasant", "impossible" and "bucket of cement" is an appropriate engineering term? Ok sounds serious testpiloting that one...

Tell you what I take properly documented finnish flight tests any day when I need to assess late-war 109 roll performance rather than Tagert's cooking of the colourful british prosa of Emil and loose reading of Sp¤te's book.

In the next post we will come to all the bad 109 things Tagert's distorted mind evolves and how they are then confirmed by a "Beauvais quote"

Ugly_Kid
02-16-2006, 11:19 AM
Then we come to the "Beauvais"-quote. According to Tagert:
-since trials were made there must have been a problem - it is completely unacceptable for him to even think that they were interested in a further improvement even without "a problem". It sounds as if there was lots of effort made to this direction, doesn't it?
-he has a colourful british quote (without roll rate) and this applies to all Lord's 109s since Beauvais says that B&V flettner did not improve the roll rate (well why should they improve the peak anyway since the idea is to relief forces, which they did http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ). Sidetracking here a bit, B&V was only flettner tried? Implemented later in series in this form? What was the other solution that's mentioned?
-Beauvais said lots of bad things about 109. Since these few pages of Sp¤te's book are supposedly such a juicy reading for bias-whiners I wonder why he did not just post an scan. Normally Carson like stuff appears immediately...


Well ok he's read Beauvais chapter in Wolfgang Sp¤te's book about testpilots, this gives him carte blanché to spread Beauvais gospel about 109's vices, obviously he had nothing good to say about it.

Good this is the background.

Now two scans from book written by Heinrich Beauvais himself detailling flight testing in Germany during the war. Not a second author, mind - the man himself:

http://koti.mbnet.fi/hausberg/sim_stuff/page_1.jpg

and another one:

http://koti.mbnet.fi/hausberg/sim_stuff/page_2.jpg

Highlighted parts:
"I can't recall any systematic trials to change something. The higher rollrate of FW 190 seemed to us only as a small advantage"

Wooot? I thought there was a big desperation to improve 109 roll????What bucket of cement and they don't see FW having any mentionable edge.

For anybody bothering few next lines provide his assesment to important factors in air combat.

Now second page just to show how poorly Beauvais thought of 109.

"But the realization introduced several questions which needed a predicting answer, for example, compromise between quality and quantity. Therefore it was not possible to define "the best fighter". E-Stelle could not do it, nor G.Gollob who performed comparisons FW190/Bf109 year 1941 with his staff. The grading depended on many parameters and priorities - for example performance, armaments, enemy and its resources."

So Mr. Beauvais personally in his book. I see now a certain dilemma here whether to believe Tagert about "a problem" and "displeasure" on 109 or whether just to read myself and draw my own conclusions...oh this is so hard...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

way to go Tagert http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

OldMan____
02-16-2006, 12:41 PM
Well , my opinion, basedon data here presented and that I read in some LW piltos biography is:

109 did not have an exaclty LIGHT control set, specially on roll. In game it rolls very well.

Have biograbhies narrating several combats, and on all of them the pilot writes about having the arms VERY tired at end of it.

Unfortunately this are vague data, with no precise numbers. Target, can you pass again the link to your roll data test? I think I lost my bookmark on it.

Ugly_Kid
02-16-2006, 01:01 PM
No, not light but also not that heavy to count as a disadvantage. Average/typical is about the first word coming to my mind. Now it rolls very well, eh? Does it outroll spitfire? No, I don't think so...so?

Stigler_9_JG52
02-16-2006, 02:19 PM
WHY ARE YOU GUYS STILL ON AND ON ABOUT ROLL???

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ROLL!!!

IT'S ABOUT ELEVATORS, IT'S ABOUT DIVE RECOVERY, SPECIFICALLY.

In addition to being so thickheaded, can you not at least stick to the topic at hand?????

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Stafroty
02-16-2006, 02:44 PM
still, good points here.

OldMan____
02-16-2006, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
WHY ARE YOU GUYS STILL ON AND ON ABOUT ROLL???

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ROLL!!!

IT'S ABOUT ELEVATORS, IT'S ABOUT DIVE RECOVERY, SPECIFICALLY.

In addition to being so thickheaded, can you not at least stick to the topic at hand?????

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Because If i go to elevator issues. The combat reports I have from are full of things like: " pressed both pedals with all strenght of my legs to make it come out of the dive" If you need your legs help to pull it behind it is pretty dam heavy. But on this subject absolutely all data I have are only LW pilot testimony... no numeric data.

Stigler_9_JG52
02-16-2006, 04:44 PM
Still makes roll discussions irrelevant. It might have a little to do with the narrow cockpit not enabling you to spread your elbows enough to get max pulling...but that has nothing to do with trying to roll the aircraft either...

carguy_
02-16-2006, 04:55 PM
Finally some data posted.Very interesting.Mine aswell put it all here instead making new threads.

AKA_TAGERT
02-16-2006, 08:54 PM
Are you guys still playing Stafroty's "what if" game?

As for who you choose to belive, I have no control over that. Belive what you want, I dont care! But, know this, I think it speaks volumes about you and yours when you *choose* to take someone elese word over the TOP 109 TEST PILOT's assesment of the 109. Espically when the TOP 109 TETS PILOT's assesment matches the test results from the Brit testing.

DaimonSyrius
02-16-2006, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
It might have a little to do with
.../...
but that has nothing to do with .../...

Hmmhm...
The transition from "THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH...!!!" to "It might have a little to do with..." is a sign of the process that could be characterized as 'Argument mollification'

Just an observation from an empirical, dispassionate point of view.

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

Cheers,
S.

BfHeFwMe
02-16-2006, 10:35 PM
Ouch,

<span class="ev_code_RED">PAWN'D</span> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

Stigler_9_JG52
02-16-2006, 11:03 PM
Nah, just selective editing... the usual subject matter avoidance... and a hard head.

What I meant is, the only thing relevant about lateral forces in this argument is IF they lessen the total amount of longitudinal pull a pilot can produce, due to the cramped confines of the 109 cockpit.

It has bugger all to do with roll rates or ailerons. Believe me, if your 109 is in lawndart mode, with a "stick stuck in concrete", you need to get the nose up NOW; you're not worried about outturning anything.