PDA

View Full Version : Mark Hanna on 109 LE Slats



Pages : [1] 2

Blutarski2004
05-23-2005, 02:43 PM
Here is a flight report by Mark Hanna on the Me109, in which he describes the behavior of its Leading Edge Slats. It should clear up some of the recent speculation about the influence of slat deployment on flight behavior. Basically Hanna says there isn't any to speak of -

Quote -

The roll rate is very good and very positive below about 400 km/h, and the amount of effort needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right. As the stall is reached, the leading-edge slats deploy-together, if the ball is in the middle; slightly asymmetrically, if you have any slip on. The aircraft delights in being pulled into hard maneuvering turns at these slower speeds. As the slats pop out, you feel a slight "notching" on the stick, and you can pull more until the whole airframe is buffeting quite hard. A little more and you will drop a wing, but you have to be crass to do it unintentionally.

- Unquote


Go here -

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_199912/ai_n8870616

- for the complete article.


It's about 4:45pm my time on the 24th of May. Let's see how long it takes Commander Kurfurst to drop in.

Kurfurst__
05-23-2005, 02:55 PM
Your point?

Buzzsaw-
05-23-2005, 03:25 PM
Salute Blutarski

The test Hanna did is of a G model. The F and later 109's did not suffer from the aileron snatch problem when the slats opened, unlike the 109E models. The wing and aileron design on the later 109's was specifically modified during the re-design to eliminate this problem.

However, that did not eliminate the issue of the slats opening unevenly.

Buzzsaw-
05-23-2005, 04:02 PM
Salute

The most important part of the article in regards to proving the IL-2/FB/PF 109's flight model is incorrect is the description of the takeoff.

------

"Pre-takeoff checks: elevator trim set to +1 degree, no rudder trim, throttle friction tight. This is vital, as you will need your left hand for various services immediately after takeoff. Mixture is automatic, pitch to fine. Fuel **** is ON, both boost pumps are ON, pressure is good, primer is locked. Flaps crank down to 20 degrees for takeoff. Radiator flaps checked at full open; if you take off with them closed, you will certainly boil the engine and are guaranteed to crack a head. Gyros set to Duxford's runway. Instruments: temps and pressures all in the green for takeoff. Radiator is now 102 degrees. Oxygen, you don't have; hood rechecked down and locked; harness tight and secure; hydraulics, no check. Controls full and free, tailwheel locked. Got to go-105 degrees. There's no time to hang around and worry about the takeoff. Here you go!

Airborne

Power gently up and keep it coming smoothly up to 40 inches. Keep the tail down initially, and keep it straight by feel rather than any positive technique. Tail is coming up now, and the rudder is becoming effective. Unconscious corrections to the rudder are happening all the time. It's incredibly entertaining to watch the 109 lift off the ground; the rudder literally flashes around!

This little fighter is now bucketing along, accelerating rapidly. As the tail lifts, there is a positive tendency to swing left. This can easily be checked; however, if you are really aggressive in lifting the tail, the left swing tendency is difficult to stop and happens very quickly. Now the tail is up, and you can vaguely see where you are going. It's a wild, rough ride on grass, and with all the noise and the smoke from the stacks, it's exciting.

Quick glance at the airspeed indicator (ASI): 160km/h, a light pull-back on the stick, and you're flying!"

-------

Note from the description that the flaps are down, in the takeoff position, radiator full open, and that liftoff is at 160 kph.

In the IL-2/FB/PF 109G10, (this appears to be a description of a G10 or later 109, since the equipment includes a Galland hood) a 109G10 will liftoff with rad full open and flaps in takeoff position at 130 kph. The IL-2/FB/PF 109G10 also has a zero throttle stall speed of 140 kph with flaps UP when it should stall at 155-160 kph.

This complete overmodelling of the 109's low speed stall and lift characteristics is why the game aircraft is able to perform its UFO style maneuvers.

Another interesting point is how quickly the aircraft's engine overheats during the takeoff preps. Hanna has to hurry his takeoff or he'll smoke the engine.

NorrisMcWhirter
05-23-2005, 04:26 PM
How about some other Hanna reports to compare against Il-2 FMs?

I'm not defending the 109 because I don't particularly like it but I'll bet you a tenner that the 109 isn't the only FM that's wrong and which, as you put it, permits 'UFO style maneuvers.'

Ta,
Norris

Buzzsaw-
05-23-2005, 04:33 PM
Salute

AFAIK this is the aircraft which I think Hanna tested, Black 2, a restored G10

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/walkaround/151591/151591-10oclock.jpg

Buzzsaw-
05-23-2005, 04:44 PM
Salute

I have already mentioned several times on these boards the issue of low speed stall behaviour is an issue for quite a number of aircraft.

The worst offender by far are the later model 109's, (G and later, the E and F's are correct for stall speed) which stall between 20 and 35 kph slower than they should.

The Spitfire IX's and VIII's are also incorrectly modelled, and stall 10 kph slower than they should.

I also suspect the La-5/La-7 series are overmodelled in their low speed handling, since they stall at 130/140 kph, when all the data suggests they should do so at approx. 150 kph. But I am not sure since I have been unable to translate the La-5/La-5FN manual which I only have in Cyrillic.

Many other aircraft are slightly overmodelled, but not to the same degree.

HayateAce
05-23-2005, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
......liftoff is at 160 kph.

In the IL-2/FB/PF 109G10 will liftoff 130 kph. The IL-2/FB/PF 109G10 also has a zero throttle stall speed of 140 kph with flaps UP when it should stall at 155-160 kph.

This complete overmodelling of the 109's low speed stall and lift characteristics is why the game aircraft is able to perform its UFO style maneuvers.


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

http://www.broweb.com/bizzyb/tubes/preview/bizzyb_toy_airplane.jpg

p1ngu666
05-23-2005, 04:49 PM
maybe with new fm 109 will be difficult to take off, its not hard for me anyways. p40early and 190 are harder and scarier. probably the most difficult, and i153 and b25 canbe difficult too

VW-IceFire
05-23-2005, 05:21 PM
I think all the stall speeds were dropped lower (unintentionally or not) to make carrier landings with the carrier aircraft (which really DID have lower stall speeds) possible. Previous to PF...I was sure that I would never let speed in a FW190 drop below 200 on landing until I was right over the field.

Now I can get to 160 and still hold her in...not sure if thats right or not but its definately lower.

faustnik
05-23-2005, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I think all the stall speeds were dropped lower (unintentionally or not) to make carrier landings with the carrier aircraft (which really DID have lower stall speeds) possible. Previous to PF...I was sure that I would never let speed in a FW190 drop below 200 on landing until I was right over the field.

Now I can get to 160 and still hold her in...not sure if thats right or not but its definately lower.

Yeah, they really dropped the Fw190 stall speed in PF.

anarchy52
05-23-2005, 05:59 PM
First, let me say that all my comments are based on operations below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding 40 inches and 2,600rpm. I like the airplane, and with familiarity, I think it will give most of the Allied fighters I have flown a hard time-particularly in a close, hard-turning, low-speed dogfight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of fight because the roll rate and slow-speed characteristics are much better. The Spitfire, on the other hand, is more of a problem for the 109, and I feel it is a superior close-in fighter. Having said that, the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot ability would probably be the deciding factor.

I guess He wasn't flying the FB Spitfire http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

heywooood
05-23-2005, 06:51 PM
The LATE Mark Hanna?...may the lucky s.o.b. rest in peace after a lifetime of flying every frickin' warbird ever made practically -

There is a photo of him flying an I-16 with this big ol' sh1t eating grin on his face in the gallery section of Flight Journal mag. I have cut it out and framed it because the look on his face is what flying is.

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

edit: you know, I wrote that about the smile from memory as the picture is hanging in my workshop and the computer is in my sons room - so I went out and looked at it and you know, he is wearing an oxygen mask but you can see the grin right through it....as if there were no mask.

SkyChimp
05-23-2005, 06:57 PM
Just before he passed, he leaned to me an whispered, "I lied. The Bf-109 suck slow, sucked fast, sucked all over." He said it, so it must be true.

BTW, I'm the only one that heard it.

Buzzsaw-
05-23-2005, 07:00 PM
Salute

It was a terrible loss to the Flight, and Sim communities that Mark was killed. He always made a point of letting people know, through articles and interviews, what these wonderful old aircraft were like to fly.

Ironically, considering his comment: "The Bf 109 is, without a doubt, the most satisfying and challenging aircraft I 11ve ever flown.", it was a 109 which killed him.

Buzzsaw-
05-23-2005, 07:04 PM
Salute

In regards to the stall speeds being dropped for PF so that carrier takeoffs and landings could be achieved:

That would be somewhat acceptable if the stall speeds were dropped by the same ratio. But the fact is that certain aircraft are completely out of whack compared the majority of aircraft when it comes to low speed handling.

heywooood
05-23-2005, 07:28 PM
I imagine that could be caused by the effort to establish various aicraft weights and mass/inertia and then it not translating well - maybe the new physics chips will be able to remedy some of this.

Then again - I know very little about this new fangled stuff 'cause I'm older than VCR's

LeadSpitter_
05-23-2005, 07:53 PM
It would be great if Ray Hanna would compair all his experience and knowledge of all the ac he has flown, compaired to in game performances.

Aaron_GT
05-24-2005, 02:24 AM
In the IL-2/FB/PF 109G10, (this appears to be a description of a G10 or later 109, since the equipment includes a Galland hood) a 109G10 will liftoff with rad full open and flaps in takeoff position at 130 kph. T

Perhaps the one that Mark Hanna tested could be pulled off the ground at 130, but for safety' sake 160 is better? There are all sorts of procedures and restrictions we regularly ignore in IL2/PF.

Kurfurst__
05-24-2005, 04:16 AM
Hanna flew a Buchon (merlin 45 powered G-2 from spain), not that restored G-10 in the condition on the picture with the original Daimler engine. Unlikely it`s the same plane, Hanna died in it, isn`t he? Think it`s another Buchon for the Black 2 (that wears the camouflage of a wartime K-4 btw, from a night fighter unit) of Friedrich Karl Muller iirc.

Now back on Hanna, appearantly he died as he passed out from exhaust gases.. i have read that those who seen him on his final noted he flies strange.. I can imagine that the problem layed in the engine conversion, the Merlin had the exhaust pipes high, the DB had them low (being inverted Vee) and shielded with a metal plate over them to prevent gases getting into the cocpit and s/c intake. the cocpit ventillation of hanna`s plane may have sucked in the exhaust gases, as it was located near the windscreeen.. especially at high attitue. no problem if the gases pass well below it, but if they are high, they pump the gas directly into it... poor Hanna :/

As for the slats opening unevenly, sigh, this has been discussed to boredom already. Slats open when a wing begins to stall. One wing will begin to stall earlier is there is sideslip during the turn, as the aerodynamic forces are assymetric to the line of movement. So assymetric opening of the slats are natural things on all slatted aircraft - in the same condition, a plane with no slats would simply drop a wing and begin to stall already... not a specific 109 problem, but an aerodynamic problem, should work the same all planes with slats.

Blutarski2004
05-24-2005, 08:30 AM
With all due respect to Hanna's untimely death, we seem to have strayed a bit off-topic. Based upon Hanna's hands-on experience, I think it is pretty clear that the effects of LE slat deployment (at least for 109F and later models) upon handling were quite benign, even when opening asymmetrically.

Buzzsaw-
05-24-2005, 09:47 AM
Salute

The aircraft Hanna flew in the test quoted earlier in this thread was not a Buchon. It was either the aircraft I mentioned, or a G6.

The aircraft Mark died in was a Buchon. The accident took place at Sabadell near Barcelona. The accident took place on landing.

Mark mentions in both of his reports on 109's, (both the report on Black 6, the G2, and also this later one) that the 109's were dangerous to land and that it was easy to lose them during the last seconds before touchdown and also immediately afterwards:

"The only problem is getting too slow. If this happens, you very quickly end up with a high sink rate and with absolutely no ability to check or flare to round out. It literally falls out of your hands!

Once down on three points, it tends to stay down, but be careful; the forward view has gone to hell, and you cannot allow any swing to develop. Initial detection is more difficult-- the aircraft being completely unpredictable-and can diverge in any direction. Sometimes the most immaculate three-pointer will turn into a potential disaster halfway through the landing roll."

Kurfurst/Isegrim's attempt to blame the accident on a Merlin engine is complete speculation and is not bourne out by any fact.

Of the approximately 33,000 109's built, some 11,000 were destroyed or damaged in landing accidents. By the end of the war, with the higher landing speeds required for the heavier G and later models, and the weak undercarriage, and tendency to ground loop, the poorly trained young pilots were killing themselves in accidents frequently.

Ironically, in the game, the 109 is one of the easiest aircraft to land, when it should be more difficult than the 190 for example.

Buzzsaw-
05-24-2005, 09:50 AM
Salute Blutarski

The issue in regards to the slats, is how much benefit that Oleg has modelled for these devices. Both of the fighter aircraft in the game which use slats, ie. the 109's and La-5/La-7 series stall at lower than historical speeds. Obviously Oleg has allowed more lift for them than was actually the case.

Kurfurst__
05-24-2005, 09:51 AM
The same is stated by Dave Southwood who flew the 'authentic' Bf 109 G-2/trop Black 6 (109lair.com , articles, evaluations, flying black 6).

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

The difference was probably the change from plain type ailerons used by the 109E to Frise-type ailerons on the 109F/G/K. Probably the slats effected the older ailerons snatching when the airflow suddenly changed. Also, from later 109F batches onwards, roller type leading edge slat mechanism replaced the swing arms of the Emil and early Friedrich, perhaps these added to smoother deployment as well. Or perhaps not.


Hanna`s own article on the G-2/Buchon, with very slight differences, can be also read at bf109.com .

Buzzsaw-
05-24-2005, 09:59 AM
Salute Kurfurst

Thankyou for your quotation of the stall speed of the 109G2 Black 6.

155 KPH CLEAN.

Now try a zero throttle stall test of a G2 in the game.

They stall at 120-130 kph clean.

Clear proof that the game 109's are completely overmodelled in their low speed handling.

Kurfurst__
05-24-2005, 10:04 AM
Buzzsaw,

you make a sport about being wrong and making up things. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Take your guess, how many of us here take you seriously?

faustnik
05-24-2005, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Buzzsaw,

you make a sport about being wrong and making up things. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Take your guess, how many of us here take you seriously?

Buzzsaw doesn't make things up. Try the test yourself and report the numbers.

ICDP
05-24-2005, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Buzzsaw,

you make a sport about being wrong and making up things. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Take your guess, how many of us here take you seriously?

Buzzsaw doesn't make things up. Try the test yourself and report the numbers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think Kurfurst is refering to the stall speed. I think he is refering to the fact that Buzzsaw mistakingly believes that slats on the 109 casues serious stability problems when they deployed.

I am of the opinion that all of the agile fighters in this sim retain energy far to easily. A lot of this might be down to the fact that all of these aircraft are remarkably easy to control at low speeds. Maybe patch 4.0 with the increased torque, inertia and (hopefully) drag at high AoA will eliminate this problem.

GR142_Astro
05-24-2005, 11:07 AM
"The only problem is getting too slow. If this happens, you very quickly end up with a high sink rate and with absolutely no ability to check or flare to round out. It literally falls out of your hands!"

Wow, a polar opposite of what we have in game. 109 folks ROUTINELY go into purposeful stalls at very low alt in order to evade gunfire. Recovery is easily made, sometimes by simply releasing the stick and it will auto-level itself. Subsequent energy recovery just seems way over the top since they can immediately go over to the offensive.

I have seen 2 or 3 get into flat spins but it is very rare. I think an honest flight model does lurk somewhere in the 109 coding, we just have to find it. I wonder how far correcting the stall speed will take us towards a realistic 109 FM.

I think one problem is that there are so darn many gimmicks that are in practice by the better 109 guys that it makes the ac behave quite silly, relative to what Oleg/1C originally intended. This would explain why some newer or lesser-learned players don't understand the complaints against the 109. They obviously haven't been taught the exploits yet.

~S

AnaK774
05-24-2005, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
"The only problem is getting too slow. If this happens, you very quickly end up with a high sink rate and with absolutely no ability to check or flare to round out. It literally falls out of your hands!"

Wow, a polar opposite of what we have in game. 109 folks ROUTINELY go into purposeful stalls at very low alt in order to evade gunfire.

~S

He is talking about 109 in landing outfit running off airspeed too high...

stathem
05-24-2005, 12:02 PM
With respect to the topic, I'm sorry but I have to go off it slightly here,

I can't believe Kurfurst can accuse Buzzsaw off making things up after his treament of Mark Hanna's death. It takes his bias and disinformation of all things Merlin and Spitfire to new depths.

At work i have the copy of Aeroplane which details the response of some of those close to the Hanna family to the offical Spanish report of Hanna's accident, which was badly received. But in neither the offical report or the response do I recall anyone report that Hanna was flying 'strangely' nor any indication that he was affected by fumes. I'm sure that would have come out at post mortem.

The conclusion of people who responded to the offical report (which was a little inconclusive) was that it was likely that Hanna crossed a vortex from an earlier fast pass as he was turning for final, leading to a disruption of lift and stall.

That's what I can remember from the top of my head, I will dig out the magazine and post more tomorrow, but I couldn't let this pass.

Mark Hanna's death was contentious at the time and I'm sure Kurfurst's conjecture would prove offensive to those close to him, not to mention the plane builders, were they to read it.

Blutarski2004
05-24-2005, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by stathem:
With respect to the topic, I'm sorry but I have to go off it slightly here,

I can't believe Kurfurst can accuse Buzzsaw off making things up after his treament of Mark Hanna's death. It takes his bias and disinformation of all things Merlin and Spitfire to new depths.

At work i have the copy of Aeroplane which details the response of some of those close to the Hanna family to the offical Spanish report of Hanna's accident, which was badly received. But in neither the offical report or the response do I recall anyone report that Hanna was flying 'strangely' nor any indication that he was affected by fumes. I'm sure that would have come out at post mortem.

The conclusion of people who responded to the offical report (which was a little inconclusive) was that it was likely that Hanna crossed a vortex from an earlier fast pass as he was turning for final, leading to a disruption of lift and stall.

That's what I can remember from the top of my head, I will dig out the magazine and post more tomorrow, but I couldn't let this pass.

Mark Hanna's death was contentious at the time and I'm sure Kurfurst's conjecture would prove offensive to those close to him, not to mention the plane builders, were they to read it.


..... I have not read anything regarding the death of Mark Hanna. If hiscrash was indeed the result of unwitting inhalation of exhaust gases, it is possible that any "strange" flying behavior observed on the part of Hanna might have been the result of his disorientation due to oxygen deprivation.

How exhaust fumes might have found their way into his cockpit must be a matter of conjecture.

Blutarski2004
05-24-2005, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Buzzsaw,

you make a sport about being wrong and making up things. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Take your guess, how many of us here take you seriously?


..... My point? You unfortunately just made it.

Tachyon1000
05-24-2005, 04:28 PM
If the 109 can pull off some sort of UFO behaviour, I wish someone would show me how to do it. I am always getting my butt shot up by Spitfires pulling UFO manuevers from my personal experience. The more I fly the 109, the more I think it bites. It can go fast, sure, but it ain't the fastest and when it does go its fastest it can't manuever in the slightest, while the typical Allied fighter can certainly BnZ as well as the 109 and it can actually manuever at high speed.

Yes, I'd love a spot-on FM as well, but to claim the 109 is somehow aberrant or uber in relation to other planes in this sim is clearly ridiculous. I've actually come to the conclusion that the stagnation of Germany's fighter development and heavy reliance on the 109 was one of its many strategic errors.

MEGILE
05-24-2005, 05:01 PM
Hey now, don't be so harsh on Kurfurst. He is simply trying to create a realistic representation of the BF-109 in FB.
We have all seen his threads in ORR begging Oleg to lower the BF-109K4's rate of climb to that of the real version.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Buzzsaw-
05-24-2005, 07:30 PM
Salute ICDP

Re-read the WHOLE thread.

You will see that I clearly said there was no aileron snatch instability in F model and later 109's, and that it was limited to the 109E's.

As far as I'm concerned the issue of stability when the slats open is a red herring.

The issue is simply the fact that the game versions of the 109G and later models stall at much lower speeds than they did historically.

That is what allows a 109 pilot, (especially those who use manual pitch) to hang on his nose, at ridiculously low speeds, while rolling back and forth, and getting a gun solution. Or rolling out of a 140 kph near vertical climb into level flight. Or going over the top in a loop in perfect stability at 100 kph. Anyone who has marginal skill in these aircraft can accomplish this type of behaviour.

Kurfurst__
05-25-2005, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... My point? You unfortunately just made it.

Indeed. The thread served no other purpose than flaming and provocation. Typical for your record here on the board, blutarski. Another unneccesary thread with heavy participation from the most notorious 109 haters, Blutarski, Buzzsaw, stathem. Buzzsaw participates in every and all threads on the 109, telling how bad it should be. He makes newer and newer claims on it, yet he isn`t aware of the very basics, ie. he wasn`t aware that the 109 had stressed flush-riveted skin, that there were wheel well covers on later variants (which is so obvious even if you look at the game model!!)... claim, claims and never backed up. And I feel something as missing from the boards if Blutarski doesn`t makes his weekly 'my truth on the 109' thread... LOL.

All this whining, this 1000th thread just to nerf the 109s.. truly pathethic. You know it won`t happen just because some discredited clowns whine all over the place, do you? Why is that you guys wage a crusade How can one hate a plane so much? You are concentrating only a single aircraft to make it worser on the whole a/c set . We all know the 109s had overmodelled and undermodelled issues, then what, so does 90% of the rest of the planes... but your only concern is the 109.Your bias is far too obvious to all of us here.

The point of the thread... nothing. B and B keeps us entertained, that it.I miss HayateHater though. The show is not complete without him.

anarchy52
05-25-2005, 08:35 AM
1) Wait for the 4.0 patch for new FM. Low speed handling will be changed signifficantly. FM limitations of the current version make discussion about low speed handling pointless. It's more or less arcade for ALL planes.

2) This or that aircraft haters and ultra-patriots should restrain themself from waisting forum space and bandwidth. No need to increase enthropy of the universe further by spilling their intellectual 'masterpieces' and comic-book-and-breakfast-cereal wisdom for the world to see. Instead - write a scenario for WWII movie for Hollywood, leave the forum to the more open-minded.

3) Bf-109 is not the only aircraft with incorrect stall speed. There are many offenders in this category and I don't think Bf-109 made it to top 10 (try fully loaded Jug with extra ammo). Bf-109 is one of the best modelled planes in FB both in FM and DM. Did you know that there are planes in this game that are literally UNSTALLABLE.

Kurfurst__
05-25-2005, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
1) Wait for the 4.0 patch for new FM. Low speed handling will be changed signifficantly. FM limitations of the current version make discussion about low speed handling pointless. It's more or less arcade for ALL planes.

Indeed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Passed my mind to mention it, but then, I looked on the participants... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
Newbie t/o and landing will be a no-no in 4.0. Same to spit/yak/laggdweebing and snapshot victories.

WWMaxGunz
05-25-2005, 08:42 AM
Strange. the thread didn't start with flames or any 109 bashing.
Everything about stall speeds is admitted general case in the sim except for Buzzsaw
always kicks in that the 109's are the worst, but we know he has to. I guess that's
just like someone else who has to get paranoid-hostile and go insult mode over even
a mention of certain planes.

Blutarski, you shouldn't discuss what "belongs" to someone else. Or any plane that
might have flown opposition to it. Or was targetted by it. Or existed at all, just
to be safe. Or ships, etc, etc, etc. All it does is invite trouble, someone might
get insulted or see an insult possibly on the way. You bad person, you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Blutarski2004
05-25-2005, 09:35 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 Blutarski2004:
..... My point? You unfortunately just made it.

Indeed. The thread served no other purpose than flaming and provocation. Typical for your record here on the board, blutarski. Another unneccesary thread with heavy participation from the most notorious 109 haters, Blutarski, Buzzsaw, stathem. Buzzsaw participates in every and all threads on the 109, telling how bad it should be. He makes newer and newer claims on it, yet he isn`t aware of the very basics, ie. he wasn`t aware that the 109 had stressed flush-riveted skin, that there were wheel well covers on later variants (which is so obvious even if you look at the game model!!)... claim, claims and never backed up. And I feel something as missing from the boards if Blutarski doesn`t makes his weekly 'my truth on the 109' thread... LOL.

All this whining, this 1000th thread just to nerf the 109s.. truly pathethic. You know it won`t happen just because some discredited clowns whine all over the place, do you? Why is that you guys wage a crusade How can one hate a plane so much? You are concentrating only a single aircraft to make it worser on the whole a/c set . We all know the 109s had overmodelled and undermodelled issues, then what, so does 90% of the rest of the planes... but your only concern is the 109.Your bias is far too obvious to all of us here.

The point of the thread... nothing. B and B keeps us entertained, that it.I miss HayateHater though. The show is not complete without him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Gee, Captain K, you're a tough audience. I posted something NICE about the 109 - Hanna's remarks that LE slats did NOT cause any flight handling problems in the later 109 models. And I even posted the entire Hanna article in which he stated his opinion to that effect, so that everyone could make sure that I was not MIS-QUOTING him, or taking his statements OUT OF CONTEXT. Did you see me say a single word about stall speeds or anything else? Nope.

Unfortunately, you just keep making my point. Sad, really.

Blutarski2004
05-25-2005, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Strange. the thread didn't start with flames or any 109 bashing.
Everything about stall speeds is admitted general case in the sim except for Buzzsaw
always kicks in that the 109's are the worst, but we know he has to. I guess that's
just like someone else who has to get paranoid-hostile and go insult mode over even
a mention of certain planes.

Blutarski, you shouldn't discuss what "belongs" to someone else. Or any plane that
might have flown opposition to it. Or was targetted by it. Or existed at all, just
to be safe. Or ships, etc, etc, etc. All it does is invite trouble, someone might
get insulted or see an insult possibly on the way. You bad person, you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif


..... Gunz, you make me feel so ashamed.

faustnik
05-25-2005, 10:05 AM
Ivan,

Can we make "slats" a filtered word on this forum along with "190 forward view". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif They both elicit the same type of reaction.

ICDP
05-25-2005, 11:30 AM
Buzzsaw,

I appologise for my mistake, I should have read this thread fully instead of a quick browse. My intention was to clarify to Faustnik what I felt Kurfurst meant with his reply to your post.

I think of you as largely objective with a slight bias towards the Spitfire, your obvious 109 bashing has done you no favours I'm afraid. I do agree that the later 109s have some flaws in their FM but that accusation can be levelled at most agile aircraft in the sim. I am refering mainly to energy retention and the later 109's, Spitfires, Yak's and La's. These aircraft and others are one of the biggest culprits in this regard. Simply singling out one type of fighter in the game for almost exclusive condemnation re UFO ability is a blinkered view IMHO.

p1ngu666
05-25-2005, 12:04 PM
anyone else notice this about oneohwhine threads?

someone points a fault, issue etc, then ppl say OH NOES!!!! there are other planes worse than ours from overmodeling, dont fix our plane nooo http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

btw, g6late (no mw50) is abit worse than spitfire all round, not a big margin at all in various performance things, e retention is probably what makes it so scary...

the talk of landing stuff is that your low, slow and things could go rapidly beyond your control and into a crash, stalling at 15000ft is fine cos uve got 15000ft to make a recovery, stalling at 50ft would be a crash....

if 109 and 190 was fixed (190 is missin speed at some alts) then 190 would be considered better in most peoples eyes

i also dont think anyone set out to dis the 109 in this thread either.

MEGILE
05-25-2005, 12:25 PM
Indeed p1ngu http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
It is a shame that the loudest group on these forums are in the minority of players.

ICDP
05-25-2005, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
anyone else notice this about oneohwhine threads?

someone points a fault, issue etc, then ppl say OH NOES!!!! there are other planes worse than ours from overmodeling, dont fix our plane nooo http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

btw, g6late (no mw50) is abit worse than spitfire all round, not a big margin at all in various performance things, e retention is probably what makes it so scary...

the talk of landing stuff is that your low, slow and things could go rapidly beyond your control and into a crash, stalling at 15000ft is fine cos uve got 15000ft to make a recovery, stalling at 50ft would be a crash....

if 109 and 190 was fixed (190 is missin speed at some alts) then 190 would be considered better in most peoples eyes

i also dont think anyone set out to dis the 109 in this thread either.

Have you ever noticed how people with Spitfires in their sigs get all defensive when people dare to draw attention to their favourite UFO http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

It not a case of dissing the 109 (though I do agree it is a UFO). It is the fact that some people seem to bash nothing but the 109, largely ignoring the fact that ALL agile aircraft in the sim are also UFO's. There can be no argument from ANYONE that the current undermodelled energy bleed in hard manouvers is wrong.

stathem
05-25-2005, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
With respect to the topic, I'm sorry but I have to go off it slightly here,

I can't believe Kurfurst can accuse Buzzsaw off making things up after his treament of Mark Hanna's death. It takes his bias and disinformation of all things Merlin and Spitfire to new depths.

At work i have the copy of Aeroplane which details the response of some of those close to the Hanna family to the offical Spanish report of Hanna's accident, which was badly received. But in neither the offical report or the response do I recall anyone report that Hanna was flying 'strangely' nor any indication that he was affected by fumes. I'm sure that would have come out at post mortem.

The conclusion of people who responded to the offical report (which was a little inconclusive) was that it was likely that Hanna crossed a vortex from an earlier fast pass as he was turning for final, leading to a disruption of lift and stall.

That's what I can remember from the top of my head, I will dig out the magazine and post more tomorrow, but I couldn't let this pass.

Mark Hanna's death was contentious at the time and I'm sure Kurfurst's conjecture would prove offensive to those close to him, not to mention the plane builders, were they to read it.


..... I have not read anything regarding the death of Mark Hanna. If hiscrash was indeed the result of unwitting inhalation of exhaust gases, it is possible that any "strange" flying behavior observed on the part of Hanna might have been the result of his disorientation due to oxygen deprivation.

How exhaust fumes might have found their way into his cockpit must be a matter of conjecture. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I understand the mechanism of Kurfurst's implication, however, that implication is entirely wrong, I believe wilfully so. He is trying to deflect criticism of the 109, and deliberately apportion unwarranted blame on the fact the Buchon is powered by the Merlin engine.

A number of people on these forums appear to believe that Kurfurst is the ultimate authority on the 109, and swallow everything he posts. By displaying the following, I hope to convince some of them of the depth of his bias and dis-information (although I'm not holding my breath).

It also details some of the effects of 109 slow speed behaviour, and so has at least a little revelance to this thread.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/griffnav/Gallery/Hanna1.JPG
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/griffnav/Gallery/Hanna2.JPG
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/griffnav/Gallery/Hanna3.JPG

For those without the time to read all of it, please note the phrase in the last column of the offical report (first picture)

"there was no evidence of pilot incapacitation; he was conscious when rescued"

Jetbuff
05-25-2005, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Buzzsaw,

you make a sport about being wrong and making up things. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Take your guess, how many of us here take you seriously?

Buzzsaw doesn't make things up. Try the test yourself and report the numbers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes he does... at least in this case...


Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute Kurfurst

Thankyou for your quotation of the stall speed of the 109G2 Black 6.

155 KPH CLEAN.

Now try a zero throttle stall test of a G2 in the game.

They stall at 120-130 kph clean.

Clear proof that the game 109's are completely overmodelled in their low speed handling.
I just tested it, Crimea, QMB, 100% fuel + default loadout, power off, stick back to maintain level flight. I could not get slower than 150kph IAS without stalling.

After further attempts, I was able to achieve 140kph at best before dropping the right wing. Tracks available.

Jetbuff
05-25-2005, 04:50 PM
i.e. I call BS!

anarchy52
05-25-2005, 05:05 PM
all speed TAS and 25% fuel. Power off then trying to keep the nose up until stall occurs.
Test is not accurate but can be an illustration of relative stall performance

P-47 100% fuel + extra ammo http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif 205km/h
with 25% fuel 195km/h LOL


P-51 176km/h
F4-U 176km/h
IL-2M3 155km/h (khmm....)
La-73B20 160km/h
YP-80 unstallable!!! (managed to do 165km/h then with full elevators just kept sinking and gaining speed - propably would have to use trim to stall it)
109G6 156km/h
Zero 1940 135km/h
109F4 164km/h
109K4 167km/h
Spit mkV 142km/h
B-25 189km/h
Ki431a 126km/h
P-39Q10 153km/h (very gentle?!?!)
Spit mkIX 158km/h
FW-190D945 202km/h
FW-190A8 (default) 198km/h
FW-190A6 (default) 189km/h
Me-262A1 unstallable!!! (managed to do 203km/h then it started gaining speed with full elevator deflection)
Me-163 202km/h (the most violent stall encountered)
He-162 176km/h
Bf-110G2 180km/h
P-38L 164km/h (!)

p1ngu666
05-25-2005, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
i.e. I call BS!

your previous post was nearly as long as my peenuss

please, think of teh scroll wheels.

Jetbuff
05-25-2005, 05:36 PM
LOL, lone me some web space Pingu and I'll link my tracks in the future... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

p1ngu666
05-25-2005, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by ICDP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
anyone else notice this about oneohwhine threads?

someone points a fault, issue etc, then ppl say OH NOES!!!! there are other planes worse than ours from overmodeling, dont fix our plane nooo http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

btw, g6late (no mw50) is abit worse than spitfire all round, not a big margin at all in various performance things, e retention is probably what makes it so scary...

the talk of landing stuff is that your low, slow and things could go rapidly beyond your control and into a crash, stalling at 15000ft is fine cos uve got 15000ft to make a recovery, stalling at 50ft would be a crash....

if 109 and 190 was fixed (190 is missin speed at some alts) then 190 would be considered better in most peoples eyes

i also dont think anyone set out to dis the 109 in this thread either.

Have you ever noticed how people with Spitfires in their sigs get all defensive when people dare to draw attention to their favourite UFO http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

It not a case of dissing the 109 (though I do agree it is a UFO). It is the fact that some people seem to bash nothing but the 109, largely ignoring the fact that ALL agile aircraft in the sim are also UFO's. There can be no argument from ANYONE that the current undermodelled energy bleed in hard manouvers is wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hm sometimes i think it should be better, sometimes worse, zero and 190 come to mind, should probably lose less energy imo. with zero now u struggle against corsair, even if the guys decides to turn fight etc http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

ill jump to defend spitfire if its warrented, i mean its abit better than g6late in performance, where ud expect it tobe really, but id jump to other planes too, as i fly them also http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

anarchy, u could probably get the stall speeds abit lower
also the il2 had a huge wing, 2x 109's wing i think, only 10%less area than the blehiem

kurfy probably knows more about 109 than any of us tbh, hes a big fan of the plane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

just a shame he often is terribly biased, and recently paranoid http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Jetbuff
05-25-2005, 05:56 PM
Then let me put your objectivity to the test if you don't mind Pingu. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Take the Spit IXc out for a spin. Execute a max deflection turn, nose-level and post back your opinion on it's E-bleed.

Cheers..

Arm_slinger
05-25-2005, 06:20 PM
Stall speeds of the 109's in existance now, compared to those of 60 years ago are all off. The 109's today are more than likely a few hundred kilo's lighter from where arament, and armour, lighter and stronger materials are used etc etc have been used or removed. Comparing how the in game 109 with 109's in flyable condition today, or that did fly, is not the best idea in the world http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ok so i might of got this a bit wrong but i got bored of all the whining and crying back at page 2...

Buzzsaw-
05-25-2005, 07:35 PM
Salute Jetbuff

I have serious reservations about your test.

I have done hundreds of tests with the 109's and have recorded many of them. Anyone who would like to see my tests, please indicate by sending me a private message, and I will send them the tracks.

Jetbuff, please either send me a private message with a link to your track, (the collection of numbers you provided in your post is not of any use) or post a link to a file here, or ask me to provide an e-mail so you can send the file to me.

If you are unable to achieve 120/130 kph stall speed with the 109G2, then you are obviously either an incompetent pilot, or doing something to cripple the performance of the aircraft.

In regards to the criteria:

As with all of Oleg's beta tester criteria, the tests are done on the Crimea map, in this case at 100 meters over SEA LEVEL and are recorded in IAS, off the speedbar. Aircraft are at 100% fuel, clean condition, with no drop tanks, bombs, and no flaps deployed.

Stalls as are represented in the current flight model, are noted as the moment when the aircraft drops a wing, prior to rolling inverted and going into a dive. A sink with wings level remaining controllable is NOT a stall. The definition of a stall is an aircraft departing controlled flight. Players should attempt to keep the aircraft in level flight and in control.

Speeds are NOT recorded in TAS in no cockpit mode. The reason? Pilots read speed off an aircraft instrument which shows INDICATED speed. There would be no use in providing pilots with figures in TAS, which is the reason that all pilot's manual provide landing/stall speed figures in IAS.

In regards to people accusing me of bias, please provide concrete examples of where I have made claims which are false.

Second, in regards to my so-called bias in favour of the Spitfire:

1) I don't fly this plane, as anyone who sees me on the dogfight servers know.

2) I specifically mentioned that the Spit IX and VIII's stall speeds are also too low.

Jetbuff
05-25-2005, 09:40 PM
It was IAS, not TAS. I did wait for wing-drop and the track will be there shortly.

Buzzsaw-
05-25-2005, 10:08 PM
Salute

Although Anarchy's figures are in TAS and thus not relevant to the actual figures seen in historical data, they are interesting to compare the various aircraft.

Note that the 109F4 has a higher stall speed than the 109G6, despite the fact it is 615 lbs lighter on the same wing area. And also notice the K4 has almost the same stall speed as the F4, despite being more than a 1000 lbs heavier on the same wing area.

An apparent contravention of the basic laws of Physics which I have pointed out in the past and which Anarchy has re-discovered.

Buzzsaw-
05-25-2005, 10:17 PM
Salute

Interesting results which Anarchy noted about the P-38L. Because TAS usually shows higher than IAS when getting stall results, it probably means that it is stalling at too low a speed. However, best to also check the stall speed with flaps down. The P-38's had very good stall speeds with flaps deployed.

The P-38J manual shows an IAS stall speed in clean condition of 94 mph (150 kph) at a weight of 15,000 lbs, 100mph, (160 kph) at at weight of 17,000 lbs.

But with the big Fowler flaps down, and gear, it stalled at 69 mph,(110 kph) at 15,000 lbs, 74 mph, (118 kph) at 17,000.

You can see that the flaps make a huge difference, much more than they do for most aircraft. This is one of the reasons that many P-38 pilots reported, that while they were unable to outturn German fighters at high speed, they could do so at low speed.

heywooood
05-25-2005, 10:56 PM
Everything is modeled perfectly - Oleg said so.
Rather I think some people have their sentiments and affections for certain planes (along with some National pride) mildly overmodeled.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Everyone knows the P47 Thunderbolt and the P51D Mustang won the war in R/L...its in all the history books and on the TV in the US so it must be so. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Spitfire and Me109's were marginal planes at best. Its all so well documented. Spits had no range so could not take the fight to the enemy, had to wait for Gerry to come calling... and the Me109's snatchey slats and uberlame ground handling scratched more planes off their inventory than airial combat did.

I really like these threads - keep 'em coming.

WWMaxGunz
05-25-2005, 11:29 PM
Good of you to demonstrate overmodelling of national pride so well.
Surely now we will all know when we see it.

WWMaxGunz
05-25-2005, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Stalls as are represented in the current flight model, are noted as the moment when the aircraft drops a wing, prior to rolling inverted and going into a dive. A sink with wings level remaining controllable is NOT a stall. The definition of a stall is an aircraft departing controlled flight. Players should attempt to keep the aircraft in level flight and in control.

Who decided that? Oleg??

The definition of stall speed is:
"the minimum speed at which the wings can produce sufficient lift for level flight"
http://142.26.194.131/aerodynamics1/Lift/Page9.html
which, btw, is an aero course for RL pilots.

Perhaps you can ask a real pilot about flying in stall sometime, they practice it and
spinning is not part of the exercise. FAA requires recovery to include not more than
a 20 degree wing dip.


Speeds are NOT recorded in TAS in no cockpit mode. The reason? Pilots read speed off an aircraft instrument which shows INDICATED speed. There would be no use in providing pilots with figures in TAS, which is the reason that all pilot's manual provide landing/stall speed figures in IAS.


And at or very close sea level, what is the difference between the two at low speed?
How about, nil?

Badsight.
05-26-2005, 05:10 AM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Wow, a polar opposite of what we have in game. 109 folks ROUTINELY go into purposeful stalls at very low alt in order to evade gunfire. Recovery is easily made, sometimes by simply releasing the stick and it will auto-level itself. Subsequent energy recovery just seems way over the top since they can immediately go over to the offensive. wow , your sounding like Hayate_****** here

power off in a Bf-109 & power back on , it has one of the slower engine spool-up speeds of any FB fighter

this idea that the Bf109 can accelerate instantlyseems to come from what people see in a DF where they dont know exactly what the bandit is doing & assume instead

as for the stalls , i defy anyone to say that the most used planes online are easy to stall , or to recover , unless your ham-fisted planes in FB are eaisly controlled as per v3.04

Badsight.
05-26-2005, 05:46 AM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
I just tested it, Crimea, QMB, 100% fuel + default loadout, power off, stick back to maintain level flight. I could not get slower than 150kph IAS without stalling.
under the exact same conditions im getting the wing to drop as the speed falls under 140 & hits 130 kmh

gental stick back to try & maintain alt , speed washs off slow due to being carefull

buffeting happens

speed gets down to 140 , lots of buffeting , then wing over happens as gental stick back increases & speeds drops to 130

default spawn condition , 100 fuel + ammo , 200 meters that drops to uder 100 meters when the stall starts

130 kmh everytime

Jetbuff
05-26-2005, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jetbuff:
I just tested it, Crimea, QMB, 100% fuel + default loadout, power off, stick back to maintain level flight. I could not get slower than 150kph IAS without stalling.
under the exact same conditions im getting the wing to drop as the speed falls under 140 & hits 130 kmh </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
After numerous tests, yes I can achieve 140kph, but not 130 or 120 as Buzz states. PM me your email address for the tracks. The speed only drops to 130kph after the wing-drop due to the violent initial nose-up of the plane.

Meanwhile, I would like Buzzsaw to forward me a track of the 109G-2 stalling at 120-130kph.

Buzzsaw-
05-26-2005, 07:57 AM
Salute

Thankyou Jetbuff for admitting your mistake and agreeing the IL-2/PF 109G2 stalls at a speed lower than the 155 kph shown by the historical aircraft tested by Mark Hanna. Remembering of course, as someone else mentioned, that Black 6 was not carrying ammo, and therefore would be lighter than a combat loaded G2. (although Hanna did always carry full fuel because of the potential of landing gear failure or other issues requiring him to stay up and orbit while help arrives)

And thankyou to Badsight for confirming the low stall speed too.

I will be happy to e-mail Jetbuff my track when he sends me a PM with his e-mail addy.

By the way Jetbuff, please delete the post in this thread where you attempted to provide in numerical form, your track. It is cluttering up the thread and hindering people reading it.

Buzzsaw-
05-26-2005, 08:08 AM
Salute

Thanks for your info Max, you can be counted on for your accuracy, objectivity and precision, but in this case, as mentioned, I was not talking about stall speed, but stall, which fits pretty closely to what I mentioned. A more complete definition:

"A condition in which an aircraft or airfoil experiences an interruption of airflow resulting in loss of lift and a tendency to drop."

Ie. it is a state which occurs whereby the aircraft departs the conditions which allow normal flight.

Blutarski2004
05-26-2005, 08:17 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Thanks for your info Max, you can be counted on for your accuracy, objectivity and precision, but in this case, as mentioned, I was not talking about stall speed, but stall, which fits pretty closely to what I mentioned. A more complete definition:

"A condition in which an aircraft or airfoil experiences an interruption of airflow resulting in loss of lift and a tendency to drop."

Ie. it is a state which occurs whereby the aircraft departs the conditions which allow normal flight.


..... It strikes me that we are skirting the edges of a discussion on handling behavior, which is almost impossible to quantify or enumerate. As we all have come to understand, the stall and near-stall behavior of a/c can differ quite markedly. I'm not sure that we have enough processing power or FM code sophistication to properly render these differences, unless the differing characteristics are scripted.

Kurfurst__
05-26-2005, 08:26 AM
Typical thread with Blutarski, Buzzsaw, and MaxGunz.... no wonder Oleg left his own forum with these kidky business around.

The thread is useless, but it was not intended to serve any meaningful purpose in the first place - Indeed Blutto made his point, but not the one he intended to..I wonder why there are absolutely NO 'normal' threads when you participate.

Now let it die.

karost
05-26-2005, 09:21 AM
stathem, Thanks for your post for Mark Hanna info , that what I'm looking for S~


and Gentleman..! we all know that FM mostly flyable planes in FB was down grade for 1G vertical stall speed in FM to make game more easy to play with enjoyment... ( if I wrong then we no need patch 4.0... right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )

when I see a picture that stathem's post about Mark Hanna accident .... reflex me how terrify for a "real" 1G vertical stall is look like.

anarchy52, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif what do you think if we have a "correct" 151/20 MG together with a "real" terrify landing problem of bf-109's narrow landing gear in path 4.0 ? sound fair right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


S~

Blutarski2004
05-26-2005, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Typical thread with Blutarski, Buzzsaw, and MaxGunz.... no wonder Oleg left his own forum with these kidky business around.

The thread is useless, but it was not intended to serve any meaningful purpose in the first place - Indeed Blutto made his point, but not the one he intended to..I wonder why there are absolutely NO 'normal' threads when you participate.

Now let it die.


..... Ladies and Gentlemen, the Crown Prince has issued his official edict. This thread is officially dead. Anyone who wishes to carry on further discussion or post any new discussion involving the Me109 in any particular, please check first with Kurfurst for permission.

p1ngu666
05-26-2005, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
Then let me put your objectivity to the test if you don't mind Pingu. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Take the Spit IXc out for a spin. Execute a max deflection turn, nose-level and post back your opinion on it's E-bleed.

Cheers..

well, if u want we could test together http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
i havent flown for a week or so, so ill be rusty, i prefer comparative tests too doing it solo, u see the results much more quickly and with less error http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

but like i said, g6late is abit worse than spit

109g2 is also renowned for being uber, when i tested ages ago it was very very close to spitfire performance..

WWMaxGunz
05-26-2005, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
"A condition in which an aircraft or airfoil experiences an interruption of airflow resulting in loss of lift and a tendency to drop."

Ie. it is a state which occurs whereby the aircraft departs the conditions which allow normal flight.

Honestly Buzz. Loss of lift. Once you can't maintain level flight, you are in a stall even
if a wing hasn't dropped. Pilots do this, it is part of the training as is stall recovery.
Spins and spin recovery used to be part of the training but no longer are, but stalls are.
Go find threads discussing the inability to ride a stall in the sim. Read what the CFI's,
pilots and acrobatics team guy wrote about stalls. Wing drop is not required for stall.
The complaint was and is the inability to stall in the clean stall region that you can do
in real aircraft.

Regardless of all that, I think what I have been reading from you is STALL SPEED OF 109's.
And STALL SPEED is the slowest you can fly while maintaining altitude. So perhaps your
method of waiting for a wing to drop and checking speed there is just a bit wrong?

And KURFURST, go blow it out your rear -- I am in a sense defending your precious even if
you don't have the grace to admit or the sense to understand. But then for you, it is the
knee jerk attack reaction as usual. Did you grow up being picked on always, or just not
grow up?

Jetbuff
05-26-2005, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Thankyou Jetbuff for admitting your mistake and agreeing the IL-2/PF 109G2 stalls at a speed lower than the 155 kph shown by the historical aircraft tested by Mark Hanna.
No problem. I'm still waiting for you to do likewise and delete all that BS about the 109G-2 stalling at 120-130kph. Those numbers are as far off from the in-game stall speeds as your quoted 155kph.

heywooood
05-26-2005, 08:55 PM
heywooood
Enter Sandman
Picture of heywooood

Posted Wed May 25 2005 21:56
Everything is modeled perfectly - Oleg said so.
Rather I think some people have their sentiments and affections for certain planes (along with some National pride) mildly overmodeled.... Mocking

Everyone knows the P47 Thunderbolt and the P51D Mustang won the war in R/L...its in all the history books and on the TV in the US so it must be so. Wink

Spitfire and Me109's were marginal planes at best. Its all so well documented. Spits had no range so could not take the fight to the enemy, had to wait for Gerry to come calling... and the Me109's snatchey slats and uberlame ground handling scratched more planes off their inventory than airial combat did.

I really like these threads - keep 'em coming.

__________________________________________

Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Good of you to demonstrate overmodelling of national pride so well.
Surely now we will all know when we see it.

-----------------------------------
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif another example of someone with absolutely no sense of humour...thanks for stopping by...

WWMaxGunz
05-26-2005, 11:18 PM
Hey, I just called it a demonstration. I didn't include you.

WWMaxGunz
05-26-2005, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Thankyou Jetbuff for admitting your mistake and agreeing the IL-2/PF 109G2 stalls at a speed lower than the 155 kph shown by the historical aircraft tested by Mark Hanna.
No problem. I'm still waiting for you to do likewise and delete all that BS about the 109G-2 stalling at 120-130kph. Those numbers are as far off from the in-game stall speeds as your quoted 155kph. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If they had tested stall speed as the point where your wing drops back in the 40's, be sure
that it would have been less than 155 kph. First you define stall as departure from all
controllability, then you define stall speed as the speed where that happens rather than
what test pilots used when the charts were made. Instant overmodel.

BTW Jetbuff, at what speed were you no longer able to hold level flight?
Did the nose drop? That for some, not all planes is also the signature of a stall.
Riding them out a ways should be a matter of rudder use as much as elevator.

Kurfurst__
05-27-2005, 04:25 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... Ladies and Gentlemen, the Crown Prince has issued his official edict. This thread is officially dead. Anyone who wishes to carry on further discussion or post any new discussion involving the Me109 in any particular, please check first with Kurfurst for permission.


http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1117189479_stfu.jpg

MEGILE
05-27-2005, 04:41 AM
That's not a very nice picture http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

MEGILE
05-27-2005, 05:08 AM
120KPH seems a bit low I think.
Holding the plane level I get wing drop in the BF-109G2 100% fuel & default loadout on Crimea map at about 139KPH indicated.

Quite a bit lower than the 155KPH as quoted by Dave Southwood. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Aaron_GT
05-27-2005, 05:42 AM
But since wing drop is not the same as a stall (which will occur before the wing drop) it might be totally reasonable.

anarchy52
05-27-2005, 06:37 AM
Originally posted by karost:
anarchy52, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif what do you think if we have a "correct" 151/20 MG together with a "real" terrify landing problem of bf-109's narrow landing gear in path 4.0 ? sound fair right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
S~

Spitfire had even narrower landing gear http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

We asked Mr. Vladimir Kreš (15/JG52 ace) about the suposedly "incredibly difficult landing". He said that Bf-109 was not difficult to land but the conditions on the rough improvised fields were terrible and were the main cause of accidents.

Also his opinion on MG151/20 was quite similar to what it was said to be like in 4.0 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Jetbuff
05-27-2005, 06:53 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
BTW Jetbuff, at what speed were you no longer able to hold level flight?
Did the nose drop? That for some, not all planes is also the signature of a stall.
Riding them out a ways should be a matter of rudder use as much as elevator.
I could not maintain level flight below 150kph I believe becaue I admit I used the same definition of wing-drop for the stall. I'll have to check once more.

Jetbuff
05-27-2005, 07:01 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
120KPH seems a bit low I think.
Holding the plane level I get wing drop in the BF-109G2 100% fuel & default loadout on Crimea map at about 139KPH indicated.

Quite a bit lower than the 155KPH as quoted by Dave Southwood. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
As stated, the point of stall is before wing-drop. Even if we assume that it is at the point of wing-drop, that still makes Buzzsaw's claim of 120-130kph ludicrous. Your number of 139kph is only marginally better than what I was able to achieve.

Nonetheless, regardless of where you consider the stall to be, it is patently obvious at this juncture that Buzzsaw's assertion that the 109's were exceptionally overmodelled in this area is wrong. It suffers from this proposed "low stall" aflliction no less/worse than other aircraft in FB.

Had he come out and said that the later 109's shouldn't be stalling at a lower speed than the Emil, I would have agreed. Instead, he comes bearing incredible numbers that cannot be reproduced calling the whole line overmodelled. Then he accuses all who argue with him of bias and/or incompetence... oooh the irony!

I still have not received a track from him or a PM with his email to send him mine.

Kurfurst__
05-27-2005, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
Spitfire had even narrower landing gear http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

We asked Mr. Vladimir Kreš (15/JG52 ace) about the suposedly "incredibly difficult landing". He said that Bf-109 was not difficult to land but the conditions on the rough improvised fields were terrible and were the main cause of accidents.

Also his opinion on MG151/20 was quite similar to what it was said to be like in 4.0 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


This might be of interest, a Hungarian ace :

"Apart from performance, it was also very important the plane to possess a sort of 'goodwill'.
The Bf 109 - except for take-offs - was an easy-to-fly airplane, and in addition it brought back the pilot even with serious damage. My plane, 'Blue 1' received hits multiple times, in one case when attacking a Boston formation the skin on the left wing was ripped off on half square meter, the main spar was damaged and the undercarriage tire was blown to pieces, yet it dropped without a problem and the plane landed just like it was a training session. Not to mention it`s valuable quality that it never caught fire during landing on the belly after a fatal hit, in contrast to many other type, with which such emergency procedure put us at a serious risk because of the danger of fire and explosion. To summerize : we loved the Bf 109.
We did not like war. Alas, as we were soldiers, we performed our duty. The end of this sad story is marked by white marble in the world`s cemeteries."

- Pinter Gyula,
2nd Lt., RHAF. 101st Fighter Regiment, 1991.


Another of his squadmates, Tobak Tibor, who also wrote a very good book said landing and takeoff could be made perfectly safely, but one should pay attention and dont go easy on the throttle - threat every takeoff as your first one. He said those pilots who treated the plane and throttle too lightly groundlooped - he never did, even though he flew over 1000 hours in the Me 109. Once he landed it nighttime when he could not see the airfield at all - his buddies fired flares for him to know where it is!

So it was not a special quirk, other planes could easily groundloop just as well, the Bf 109 was only more prone to the torque forces, having a powerful engine/torque, relatively narrow track, and rearward CoG. Torque was no small thing in any of these planes, I have read from a US pilot in Italy who went easy with his Mustangs throttle right after takeoff : the sudden torque change immidiately flipped him on his back, and flying upside down, he almost hit the ground...

Blutarski2004
05-27-2005, 08:18 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 Blutarski2004:
..... Ladies and Gentlemen, the Crown Prince has issued his official edict. This thread is officially dead. Anyone who wishes to carry on further discussion or post any new discussion involving the Me109 in any particular, please check first with Kurfurst for permission.


http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1117189479_stfu.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Kurfurst,

Back to the "four letter words" are we? Did you run through your standard list of insults already? Too bad. You really are a pathetic person. Grow up.

Kurfurst__
05-27-2005, 08:24 AM
Blutarski`s contribution to this thread so far :

"It's about 4:45pm my time on the 24th of May. Let's see how long it takes Commander Kurfurst to drop in."

"..... My point? You unfortunately just made it."

"..... Gee, Captain K, you're a tough audience. I posted something NICE about the 109 - Hanna's remarks that LE slats did NOT cause any flight handling problems in the later 109 models. And I even posted the entire Hanna article in which he stated his opinion to that effect, so that everyone could make sure that I was not MIS-QUOTING him, or taking his statements OUT OF CONTEXT. Did you see me say a single word about stall speeds or anything else? Nope.

Unfortunately, you just keep making my point. Sad, really."

"..... Gunz, you make me feel so ashamed."

"..... Ladies and Gentlemen, the Crown Prince has issued his official edict. This thread is officially dead. Anyone who wishes to carry on further discussion or post any new discussion involving the Me109 in any particular, please check first with Kurfurst for permission."

"Too bad. You really are a pathetic person. Grow up."


Very constructive, as always. All can see, Blutarski`s only intent with this thread was to start a nice flamefest. CONGRATULATIONs, you have succeded, mission successful. Happy? Can you leave now?

Buzzsaw-
05-27-2005, 08:30 AM
Salute

Well I see the revisionists are hard at work backpedaling to avoid admitting their mistakes and actually acknowledging the facts... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

The fact of when exactly the stall occurs, ie. obviously it occurs prior to the wing drop, but exactly how long before... 1/8 second, 1/4 second, 1/2 second, blah, blah, blah.

The measureable moment that we actually can quantify in the game is at wingdrop. Which is why I took it as my reference point. If someone else can point out another indicator which would deliniate the exact boundary between normal flight and stall condition, then I'd be happy to hear of it. Until then, when doing measurements to ascertain the point of stall, I'll take the wingdrop as my indicator.

HOWEVER... If we are to take the point of stall as occurring BEFORE wingdrop, then OF COURSE, I will have to revise my findings regarding the stall of the Spitfire VIII and IX. In this case, these aircraft ARE modelled correctly, and need no changes.

Also, using the revisionist criteria, the other aircraft which I took as being correctly modelled, ie. P-47's etc. are obviously UNDERMODELLED for their stall characteristics.

Gentlemen, you can have it one way, or the other, but a consistent method is required for ALL aircraft.

In regards to Jetbuff's exaggerations, I have never said 120 kph was the stall speed. REREAD MY POST. I said approximatly 120/130 kph, ie. the point at which the readout displayed on the speedbar at the bottom of the screen changes its 10 digit increment from 130 kph to 120 kph. Because the measurement is a coarse one it is not possible to determine exactly what speed the aircraft is actually travelling at. Does the change from the 130kph marker to the 120 kph marker indicate a change from 130 kph to 129 kph, or from 121 kph to 120 kph? Until Oleg tells us, we won't know.

In any case, the facts, never mind the tortuous pseudo logical convulsions and thrashings about of the 109 fanatics, are:

The 109G2 as modelled in the game, stalls at considerably less than the 155 kph noted for a completely authentic, original condition 109G2 tested in the modern era, WITHOUT its ammo load. (ie. less 100 lbs)

And of course, as I mentioned several months ago, the G and later 109's either stall at a lower speed than the F's, or much the same, something which considering the later 109's had a wing with the same sq/ft area, but less aerodynamic, ie. with the bulges added for the larger wheels, makes this anomaly even more questionable.

------

Jetbuff: Still waiting for you to PM me with your e-mail, so I can send you my track of the G2 stall, and you can send me yours.

Blutarski2004
05-27-2005, 08:31 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 anarchy52:
Spitfire had even narrower landing gear http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

We asked Mr. Vladimir Kreš (15/JG52 ace) about the suposedly "incredibly difficult landing". He said that Bf-109 was not difficult to land but the conditions on the rough improvised fields were terrible and were the main cause of accidents.

Also his opinion on MG151/20 was quite similar to what it was said to be like in 4.0 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


This might be of interest, a Hungarian ace :

"Apart from performance, it was also very important the plane to possess a sort of 'goodwill'.
The Bf 109 - except for take-offs - was an easy-to-fly airplane, and in addition it brought back the pilot even with serious damage. My plane, 'Blue 1' received hits multiple times, in one case when attacking a Boston formation the skin on the left wing was ripped off on half square meter, the main spar was damaged and the undercarriage tire was blown to pieces, yet it dropped without a problem and the plane landed just like it was a training session. Not to mention it`s valuable quality that it never caught fire during landing on the belly after a fatal hit, in contrast to many other type, with which such emergency procedure put us at a serious risk because of the danger of fire and explosion. To summerize : we loved the Bf 109.
We did not like war. Alas, as we were soldiers, we performed our duty. The end of this sad story is marked by white marble in the world`s cemeteries."

- Pinter Gyula,
2nd Lt., RHAF. 101st Fighter Regiment, 1991.


Another of his squadmates, Tobak Tibor, who also wrote a very good book said landing and takeoff could be made perfectly safely, but one should pay attention and dont go easy on the throttle - threat every takeoff as your first one. He said those pilots who treated the plane and throttle too lightly groundlooped - he never did, even though he flew over 1000 hours in the Me 109. Once he landed it nighttime when he could not see the airfield at all - his buddies fired flares for him to know where it is!

So it was not a special quirk, other planes could easily groundloop just as well, the Bf 109 was only more prone to the torque forces, having a powerful engine/torque, relatively narrow track, and rearward CoG. Torque was no small thing in any of these planes, I have read from a US pilot in Italy who went easy with his Mustangs throttle right after takeoff : the sudden torque change immidiately flipped him on his back, and flying upside down, he almost hit the ground... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... Here's another perspective:

From Corky Meyer (Former Grumman Test Pilot during WWII) in an article he
wrote in Flight Journal about the Me-109:

"...was a most promising fighter, but 11,000 of the 33,000 were destroyed
during takeoff and landing accidents - one third of its combat
potential! I was amazed when my friend and 176-kill ace the late Gen.
Johannes Steinhoff told me this. It seems incredible that the primary
cause of this outrageous statistic - a splayed-out wheel landing gear known
to have an incorrect geometry - was not rectified immediately by the powers
to be. Chief aerodynamicist for the Me 163 rocket fighter, Josef Hubert,
who came from Germany in 1946, told me that Willi Messerschmitt had
adamantly refused to compromise the Bf 109's performance by adding the
drag-producing wing surface bumps and fairings that would have been
necessary to accommodate the wheels with the proper geometry. This would
have reduced its accident rate to within expected military fighter ranges
and made it a world standard."

Blutarski2004
05-27-2005, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Blutarski`s contribution to this thread so far :

"It's about 4:45pm my time on the 24th of May. Let's see how long it takes Commander Kurfurst to drop in."

"..... My point? You unfortunately just made it."

"..... Gee, Captain K, you're a tough audience. I posted something NICE about the 109 - Hanna's remarks that LE slats did NOT cause any flight handling problems in the later 109 models. And I even posted the entire Hanna article in which he stated his opinion to that effect, so that everyone could make sure that I was not MIS-QUOTING him, or taking his statements OUT OF CONTEXT. Did you see me say a single word about stall speeds or anything else? Nope.

Unfortunately, you just keep making my point. Sad, really."

"..... Gunz, you make me feel so ashamed."

"..... Ladies and Gentlemen, the Crown Prince has issued his official edict. This thread is officially dead. Anyone who wishes to carry on further discussion or post any new discussion involving the Me109 in any particular, please check first with Kurfurst for permission."

"Too bad. You really are a pathetic person. Grow up."


Very constructive, as always. All can see, Blutarski`s only intent with this thread was to start a nice flamefest. CONGRATULATIONs, you have succeded, mission successful. Happy? Can you leave now?


..... Well, that was a quick reversal. You have dispensed with the four letter words and now assumed your "dignified" pose. I must say that it is much more flattering to you. But, please don't hand me that old line about how I have hurt your delicate feelings Kurfurst. You are always the first out of the gate with the venomous remarks. I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that spewing insults is actually more important to you than defending the performance of the Me-109.

As far as my "contributions" to the thread are concerned, you apparently missed my very first post. Go back and read it. Then ask yourself exactly why you are so upset.

Buzzsaw-
05-27-2005, 09:04 AM
Salute

Yes, it is quite amusing to see Kurfurst's rabid attack on Blutarski, when in fact Blutarski's original post suggested lack of stability when slats deployed was not a factor for the 109's, ie. supporting the performance of the aircraft, and has made the most original points counter to my arguments.

But as Blutarski says, it seems Kurfurst is more interested in the personal, he's given up on logic, since he knows the data does not support him.

Frankly, unless Issy/Kurfy makes a mistake, as he did earlier by quoting the stall speed in Hanna's pilot account, I ignore him. I'd suggest Blutarski does the same. It would mean these type of threads would be a lot less cluttered.

Blutarski2004
05-27-2005, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Yes, it is quite amusing to see Kurfurst's rabid attack on Blutarski, when in fact Blutarski's original post suggested lack of stability when slats deployed was not a factor for the 109's, ie. supporting the performance of the aircraft, and has made the most original points counter to my arguments.

But as Blutarski says, it seems Kurfurst is more interested in the personal, he's given up on logic, since he knows the data does not support him.

Frankly, unless Issy/Kurfy makes a mistake, as he did earlier by quoting the stall speed in Hanna's pilot account, I ignore him. I'd suggest Blutarski does the same. It would mean these type of threads would be a lot less cluttered.


..... You're right.

MEGILE
05-27-2005, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:


The 109G2 as modelled in the game, stalls at considerably less than the 155 kph noted for a completely authentic, original condition 109G2 tested in the modern era, WITHOUT its ammo load. (ie. less 100 lbs)



Agreed.

And here is why:


Dave Southwood who flew the 'authentic' Bf 109 G-2/trop Black 6

The stall itself is a left wing drop through about 15 degrees with a slight nose drop, accompanied by a light buffet. All controls are effective up to the stall, and recovery is instant on moving the stick forward. Stall speeds are 155kph clean and 140kph with gear and flap down.

In game I get wing drop just as the speed drops into the 130KPH indicated range.
Dave Southwood is quite explicit that the stall is a wingdrop.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
05-27-2005, 10:01 AM
Buzz, you were able to agree on definition of stall speed as I showed, even linked.

Then you move to definition of stall which you add interpretation of wing drop as the
definitive sign.

Then you go another step and compare historic stall speeds to the speed at which you
get wing drop.

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

I tell you again, real pilots fly through stall while dropping alt, not 1 second or 2
but many as a practice and training technique. Please go find a CFI and ask if you need.

STALL SPEED is the speed at which the plane can no longer maintain level flight.
When they made the charts, THAT was the condition, not the wing drop.
So maybe just perhaps the stall speeds are not so very far off in the sim?

WWMaxGunz
05-27-2005, 10:08 AM
BTW Megile, stall is a region. Wing drop is full stall, the very end before going
into spin if you try and hold the plane. Stall begins before that. It can be
quick, it can be slow. In the right circumstances you can ride right in the middle
while losing alt but you won't have much control.

EDIT ADD: If you look at wing design since about 1930 you will find that parts of
the wing generally stall before other parts, usually the inner wing to keep clean
air going over the ailerons as long as possible. When those are swamped it is the
rudder only that keeps you level until you lose energy even for that which is why
you can ride a stall while losing alt to supply that energy.

Jetbuff
05-27-2005, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
In regards to Jetbuff's exaggerations, I have never said 120 kph was the stall speed.
Now who's backpeddling? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

OK, I'll bite, please show me a track of you stalling the G-2 at less than 130kph. (that's when the readout flips to 120) Perhaps more achievable though would be for you to turn off the cockpit and read the exact IAS (it's shown too) when wing-drop occurs.

Oh and my email is pritzl @ youknowwhere.org

Jetbuff
05-27-2005, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
And of course, as I mentioned several months ago, the G and later 109's either stall at a lower speed than the F's, or much the same, something which considering the later 109's had a wing with the same sq/ft area, but less aerodynamic, ie. with the bulges added for the larger wheels, makes this anomaly even more questionable.
I would never have argued with you had you just said that. But no, you go on to make the claim that the entire 109 series is grossly overmodelled in this domain and then quote numbers that are simply non-reproducible. Why don't you re-read my posts and note how I made it abundantly clear that I thought the later 109's stalled later than they should when compared to the earlier (usually lighter) models.

MEGILE
05-27-2005, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
BTW Megile, stall is a region. Wing drop is full stall, the very end before going
into spin if you try and hold the plane. Stall begins before that. It can be
quick, it can be slow. In the right circumstances you can ride right in the middle
while losing alt but you won't have much control.

EDIT ADD: If you look at wing design since about 1930 you will find that parts of
the wing generally stall before other parts, usually the inner wing to keep clean
air going over the ailerons as long as possible. When those are swamped it is the
rudder only that keeps you level until you lose energy even for that which is why
you can ride a stall while losing alt to supply that energy.

That's interesting enough.. but my point still stands.
For the BF-109G2, Dave says explicitly what the stall is, and at what speed it occurs at.

He doesn't say he feels the plane buffet, can no longer hold level flight at 155KPH and then after a further drop in speed of around 15 KPH the left wing drops.

If the plane did drop a wing in the 130-140 KPH region, a whole 15KPH slower than the "stall" speed, you might think he would have mentioned it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Buzzsaw-
05-27-2005, 01:41 PM
Salute Jetbuff or Pritzl or whoever...

You really need to READ my posts.


Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

I have already mentioned several times on these boards the issue of low speed stall behaviour is an issue for quite a number of aircraft.

The worst offender by far are the later model 109's, (G and later, the E and F's are correct for stall speed) which stall between 20 and 35 kph slower than they should.

The Spitfire IX's and VIII's are also incorrectly modelled, and stall 10 kph slower than they should.

I also suspect the La-5/La-7 series are overmodelled in their low speed handling, since they stall at 130/140 kph, when all the data suggests they should do so at approx. 150 kph. But I am not sure since I have been unable to translate the La-5/La-5FN manual which I only have in Cyrillic.

Many other aircraft are slightly overmodelled, but not to the same degree.


Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:

Salute Kurfurst

Thankyou for your quotation of the stall speed of the 109G2 Black 6.

155 KPH CLEAN.

Now try a zero throttle stall test of a G2 in the game.

They stall at 120-130 kph clean.

Clear proof that the game 109's are completely overmodelled in their low speed handling.

As clearly indicated above, I did not suggest the entire 109 series was overmodelled. Neither did I say 120 kph.

WWMaxGunz
05-27-2005, 02:08 PM
FAA regs -- reference stall speed may not be less than a 1-g stall speed.

http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part25-103-FAR.shtml

You can't be at 1 G while your plane is losing alt.

Also from that site posting FAA definitions:

http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part1-1-FAR.shtml

"VS means the stalling speed or the minimum steady flight speed at which the
airplane is controllable."

Huh? What is that? Stall speed is NOT the speed where control is lost?

Ahhh but what does the FAA know? Buncha amateurs really, huh? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

No, you guys know better than flight instructors, AE's and actual pilots.
Those guys need to wise up, play combat flight sims and decide what is real
by consensus with people who never flew except for PC sims.

Badsight.
05-27-2005, 02:50 PM
trying to fly slower than 150 kmh in a G2 with the power off causes you to sink

staying level at 150 kmh with the power off isnt possible ,& to try requires a lot of back-stick

going under 150 causes a Lot of buffeting to occur , which increases a Lot as you get to 140 & below

Buzzsaw-
05-27-2005, 03:43 PM
Salute Max

At what EXACT point during our testing are we to then judge stall speed according to your criteria. Since we can't judge it at wingdrop. Or perhaps you don't have a point in mind at which we can judge it? Perhaps you are just indulging in Rhetoric?

In any case, since you seem determined to do whatever you can to support the current incorrect stall speed, and UFO like behaviour of the later model 109's, by using whatever form of semanticism which comes to mind, perhaps you'd like to apply the same criteria to the other aircraft in the game.

Using the same rationale as you have indicated re. the 109's stall speeds, could you please be so kind as to assess the stall speed of the following randomly selected game aircraft:

P-47D27

According to Government documents, the P-47D30, which is almost identical to the D27, except for a few EXTRA pounds on the D30, should stall at 87 mph, (139.2 mph) with full landing flaps deployed, and at 1/4 fuel and 1/4 ammunition. (load EXTRA ammo, then fire 24 seconds of the 32 total seconds of total ammo available prior to test)

Spitfire V

According to the Spitfire Vb manual, the aircraft, fully loaded, with normal wingtips, in clean condition, should stall at 73 mph. (116.6 kph)

Mustang III (P-51C)

According to the RAF manual, the Mustang III should stall, fully loaded, at 90 mph. (144 kph)

109E4

According to a RAF test of the 109E3, which was very similar in weight and the same in design as the E4, it stalled at 130 kph in clean condition.

By my testing criteria, ie. wingdrop, these aircraft were correct in their stall speeds, however, your set of criteria would seem to suggest otherwise. So if you should find by your rigourous standards, that these aircraft stall at higher speeds than they should, we will of course, expect you to advocate to Oleg, with the same enthusiasm you show in defence of the 109's, that these aircraft should be immediately improved in their low speed behaviour.

Once you have finished supporting them, I will be happy to post some additional examples which of course I have every confidence you will immediately devote your attention too.

Buzzsaw-
05-27-2005, 03:44 PM
Salute Badsight

Buffeting is an indication of the onset of stall, ie. sections, (but not the whole) of the wing are beginning to stall.

Jetbuff
05-27-2005, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute Jetbuff or Pritzl or whoever...
Feigning you don't know me now? No worries, I'd rather you didn't anyway... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


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

Salute Kurfurst

Thankyou for your quotation of the stall speed of the 109G2 Black 6.

155 KPH CLEAN.

Now try a zero throttle stall test of a G2 in the game.

They stall at 120-130 kph clean.

Clear proof that the game 109's are completely overmodelled in their low speed handling.

As clearly indicated above, I did not suggest the entire 109 series was overmodelled. Neither did I say 120 kph. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh man... reduced to quibbling now? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

OK, please send me a track of you stalling the 109G-2 at 129kph IAS. Thanks...

FYI, there's something to be said for admitting when you're wrong. When I discovered I could go below 150kph after repeated tries, I immediately posted that information. Please have the decency to admit it when you make a mistake; it doesn't take anything away from you.

WWMaxGunz
05-27-2005, 07:19 PM
Well Buzz, I suggest you read again from the Federal Aviation Administration definition
of stall speed and quit deciding it means the speed at which a stall becomes critical.

It is not.

It is the very onset of stall condition where the plane is still minimally controllable.
It is the lowest speed the plane can fly level under stated conditions of the test, those
being power, flaps and gear generally. Hey, the FAA regs even specify about that. Trimmed
straight and level flight are part of the conditions in all cases, hard to do when the wing
drops or the nose drops. That's =regulation= for declaring stall speed of a plane.

Or do you want to insist that the FAA is just playing with words?

Really, when a chart uses a term like stall speed you might do well to check the meaning.
Ask pilots and instructors, "Can you stay in flight at stall speed?". They will tell you
yes, it is the slowest speed that you can do so. They will also tell you it is a bad idea
and you should go faster.

p1ngu666
05-27-2005, 08:38 PM
most pilots would say stall is when theres a wingdrop or it falls, depends on aircraft. the buffeting which is probably from some parts of wing being stalled, pilot would say on the verge of stall or similer

buffet isnt a big issue, a full on stall is.

karost
05-27-2005, 09:58 PM
I agree with Jetbuff,

Gentlemen, this thread will look more high value for a community if we have a track files.


I/we may not happy if we proved that stalls in bf109(what type ?) was model not concern to history data when compare to "other planes".

S~

btw any one have more "technical info" about Mark Hanna accident , I/we would like to study more .
Thanks.

Aaron_GT
05-28-2005, 01:37 AM
Megile,

It might be that in the real 109 wing drop rapidly follows the initial part of the stall. This may not be the case in the game. However the correct definition of the stall is when lift is insufficient to maintain level flight so we need to take this point as the point of stall and leave any possible deficiencies of the further development of stalls in the game to one side. This is why taking wing drop as the point of stall in the game is unsafe.

Flying something like X-Plane, which is FAA approved, it is possible to get planes into stalls, without wing drop, which last anything up to 30 seconds or more (normally the ground intervenes for me before this develops any further). X-Plane does have the reputation of being a little too hard to get into a stall, though. Basically you get the plane into a regime where it begins to lose altitude and hold the stick back gently and let it sink. You can do this in IL2, but the planes are prone to then dropping a wing and possibly spinning than they are in X-Plane. And some WW2 planes dropped a wing easily too.

In any case the more dangerous stall is an accelerated stall as that comes on much more rapidly.

Aaron_GT
05-28-2005, 01:40 AM
the buffeting which is probably from some parts of wing being stalled, pilot would say on the verge of stall or similer


You might technically be in a stall at this point! But then stalls at this point are generally easy to recover from (release pressure on the stick in most instances, if you have sufficient altitude).

When landing pilots were actually trained to come in, flare, and essentially stall the plane onto the ground. Even now a friend of mine who flies Pipers and a stunt plane stalls the tail dragger a couple of feet off the ground to get the three point landing. Now if stalling meant wing drop he wouldn't do this... but the stall warning horn comes on and he loses lift.

MEGILE
05-28-2005, 03:28 AM
Ok forget about the definition of a stall, and look at what Dave is Actually using as a reference for a point in the stall.
The wing drop occurs at 155KPH seems clear as day to me.


The stall itself is a left wing drop through about 15 degrees with a slight nose drop, accompanied by a light buffet. All controls are effective up to the stall, and recovery is instant on moving the stick forward. Stall speeds are 155kph clean and 140kph with gear and flap down.

I wonder, Gunz, if Dave is using 155KPH as the "condition where the plane is still minimally controllable.", then in your opinion how far thereafter should the wing drop occur? 5KPH? 10KPH? 15KPH?

Please, when you reply with a number, try to tell us where the number came from, because I missed the part in Dave's quote where he seperates wing drop, and stall at 155KPH.

p1ngu666
05-28-2005, 07:59 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the buffeting which is probably from some parts of wing being stalled, pilot would say on the verge of stall or similer


You might technically be in a stall at this point! But then stalls at this point are generally easy to recover from (release pressure on the stick in most instances, if you have sufficient altitude).

When landing pilots were actually trained to come in, flare, and essentially stall the plane onto the ground. Even now a friend of mine who flies Pipers and a stunt plane stalls the tail dragger a couple of feet off the ground to get the three point landing. Now if stalling meant wing drop he wouldn't do this... but the stall warning horn comes on and he loses lift. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

oh yes, your stalling, but its not in working or laymans terms
i cant explain it well tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

CUJO_1970
05-28-2005, 10:39 AM
Cool, a six page thread about whether or not some of the 109s low speed stall is off by 10-15mph.

WWMaxGunz
05-28-2005, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
most pilots would say stall is when theres a wingdrop or it falls, depends on aircraft. the buffeting which is probably from some parts of wing being stalled, pilot would say on the verge of stall or similer

buffet isnt a big issue, a full on stall is.

You can say loads about STALL all you want.

The issue is STALL SPEED which was tested and recorded over 60 years ago.

They are two different animals.

STALL SPEED is not the speed of deep stall. It is and has been well defined long before
WWII. If you have doubts, go look it up or read the definitions from the non-gamer links
I've provided.

You wanna measure speed in a stall and call that stall speed? Fine, talk about semantics,
stall ranges a variety of speeds and the range gets wider if you turn, climb or lose alt
in which case the speed gets lower.

Re-read or maybe for some just try reading the first time the very strict FAA rules on
flight, trim and the mandatory 1-g condition concerning the stating of STALL SPEED. Then
re-read or read the FAA definition of VS which is stated as STALL SPEED.

It is really NUTS to declare the sim stall speeds as too low based on a home baked definition
of stall speed. Do it right, when the plane starts dropping -- that is the speed.

WWMaxGunz
05-28-2005, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
Ok forget about the definition of a stall, and look at what Dave is Actually using as a reference for a point in the stall.
The wing drop occurs at 155KPH seems clear as day to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The stall itself is a left wing drop through about 15 degrees with a slight nose drop, accompanied by a light buffet. All controls are effective up to the stall, and recovery is instant on moving the stick forward. Stall speeds are 155kph clean and 140kph with gear and flap down.

I wonder, Gunz, if Dave is using 155KPH as the "condition where the plane is still minimally controllable.", then in your opinion how far thereafter should the wing drop occur? 5KPH? 10KPH? 15KPH?

Please, when you reply with a number, try to tell us where the number came from, because I missed the part in Dave's quote where he seperates wing drop, and stall at 155KPH. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The number is not in question when the labels are so misunderstood.

Stall is not Stall Speed. Stall Speed is the speed at which the plane cannot maintain
level flight. Tests determining stall speed include being trimmed within a very narrow
margin of speed above the stall and include loss of speed parameters. Read the FAA reg.

Stall is a region of flight. Stall is when the wing reaches an AOA where the airstream
departs the upper wing surface and the lift to drag ratio drops off from the practically
straight line of lesser AOA's from zero up to the stall angle. There is still lift in
stall but at a greater and greater cost in drag per lift as the AOA increases deeper into
stall. Study the lift-AOA curves sometime and you can see that the greatest lift of a
wing occurs after the wing is stalled.

Wing drop is the point where the stall is going into a spin. That is the far end of
stall. The stall began before that. For a poor pilot the two may be close but that is
part of why people train in stalls. Gamers don't get the motion feedback that pilots
do so it's harder to know... watch your VSI and work your rudder opposite to the wing
that should drop and you should be able to see what you can't in your chair feel, the
real stall starting out. The ailerons should -begin- to mush about then or soon after
too.

WWMaxGunz
05-28-2005, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the buffeting which is probably from some parts of wing being stalled, pilot would say on the verge of stall or similer


You might technically be in a stall at this point! But then stalls at this point are generally easy to recover from (release pressure on the stick in most instances, if you have sufficient altitude).

When landing pilots were actually trained to come in, flare, and essentially stall the plane onto the ground. Even now a friend of mine who flies Pipers and a stunt plane stalls the tail dragger a couple of feet off the ground to get the three point landing. Now if stalling meant wing drop he wouldn't do this... but the stall warning horn comes on and he loses lift. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Landing like that has another advantage. The plane likely hasn't enough energy to bounce
and hop and have people tell him he can only log one landing.

It may be a tiny exploit but I'll bring the flaps up just a hair before touchdown for the
same basic reason, I'm by then too slow to lift without them.

Jetbuff
05-28-2005, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Cool, a six page thread about whether or not some of the 109s low speed stall is off by 10-15mph.
I agree... it's an overly long thread. Keep in mind though that Buzzsaw's original assertion was that the G-2's stall was off by more than 25kph. (155 vs "120-130kph") I have a track that proves the difference is less significant (barely more than 15kph in line with Megille's results) but he refuses to email me his track or request mine.

MEGILE
05-28-2005, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:

I agree... it's an overly long thread. Keep in mind though that Buzzsaw's original assertion was that the G-2's stall was off by more than 25kph. (155 vs "120-130kph") I have a track that proves the difference is less significant (barely more than 15kph in line with Megille's results) but he refuses to email me his track or request mine.

Indeed jetbuff, I too would like to see a track of the G2 dropping a wing at 130KPH. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


The number is not in question when the labels are so misunderstood.

Stall is not Stall Speed. Stall Speed is the speed at which the plane cannot maintain
level flight. Tests determining stall speed include being trimmed within a very narrow
margin of speed above the stall and include loss of speed parameters. Read the FAA reg.

Stall is a region of flight. Stall is when the wing reaches an AOA where the airstream
departs the upper wing surface and the lift to drag ratio drops off from the practically
straight line of lesser AOA's from zero up to the stall angle. There is still lift in
stall but at a greater and greater cost in drag per lift as the AOA increases deeper into
stall. Study the lift-AOA curves sometime and you can see that the greatest lift of a
wing occurs after the wing is stalled.

Wing drop is the point where the stall is going into a spin. That is the far end of
stall. The stall began before that. For a poor pilot the two may be close but that is
part of why people train in stalls. Gamers don't get the motion feedback that pilots
do so it's harder to know... watch your VSI and work your rudder opposite to the wing
that should drop and you should be able to see what you can't in your chair feel, the
real stall starting out. The ailerons should -begin- to mush about then or soon after
too.

MaxGunz, do you believe the stall is modelled correctly for the BF-109G2 in game?
I have the wing drop occuring at 139KPH, and I am interested to know where did this figure come from?

I am very interested to know at what speed does wing drop occur after the stall speed on the real BF-109G2. Please if you have any figures, post them.
So far all I can go on, is Dave's quote http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WWMaxGunz
05-28-2005, 01:49 PM
I guess you'll just have to wait until I can check it in a real G-2 unless you will?

Stall speed is supposed to be 155 kph clean... it should be able to hold alt clear
down to that speed. Below that, it should lose alt. Full stall and the wing drops.
It's not like you go from not stalled directly to wing drop and no, I am not a 109
pilot. DAVE didn't say either, nor either way. He probably assumed that anyone who
was interested knows what stall speed is.

Tell you what... go find a real qualified aeronautics reference that says stall speed
is not the lowest speed at which the plane can maintain straight level flight and I'll
have a look. That does not include web fansites and board discussions among non-pilots
who base their understanding on how the words work out, ie stall speed must be the speed
in the stall which is where this quote here says. That latter is ladder of abstraction
that goes of into the unreal.

Badsight.
05-28-2005, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
Indeed jetbuff, I too would like to see a track of the G2 dropping a wing at 130KPH. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Just make one yourself

here is where level flight no longer becomes possible , 150 Kmh IAS & the wings are trailing

http://img182.echo.cx/img182/7383/wdstall15be.jpg

& heres the moment the wing drops , 130 Kmh IAS

http://img182.echo.cx/img182/4924/wdstall26hd.jpg

Jetbuff
05-28-2005, 03:10 PM
Depends on what you mean by moment Badsight... I can get to 130kph during the drop but it starts at 140kph IAS. It is due to what is akin to adverse yaw in the turn - i.e. as the wing drops the nose goes high reducing speed further. Even assuming I granted you the leeway that that is the point at which Buzzsaw, incorrectly mind you, calculated wing drop as occuring, well it's still not between 120 and 130kph.

One more thing, why pictures? Send us a track of that please.

Kurfurst__
05-28-2005, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... Here's another perspective:

From Corky Meyer (Former Grumman Test Pilot during WWII) in an article he
wrote in Flight Journal about the Me-109:

"...was a most promising fighter, but 11,000 of the 33,000 were destroyed
during takeoff and landing accidents - one third of its combat
potential! I was amazed when my friend and 176-kill ace the late Gen.
Johannes Steinhoff told me this. It seems incredible that the primary
cause of this outrageous statistic - a splayed-out wheel landing gear known
to have an incorrect geometry - was not rectified immediately by the powers
to be. Chief aerodynamicist for the Me 163 rocket fighter, Josef Hubert,
who came from Germany in 1946, told me that Willi Messerschmitt had
adamantly refused to compromise the Bf 109's performance by adding the
drag-producing wing surface bumps and fairings that would have been
necessary to accommodate the wheels with the proper geometry. This would
have reduced its accident rate to within expected military fighter ranges
and made it a world standard."


Another perspective from a man who never flew a 109 in all his life.. qouted by Blutarski who hates the 109s more than anything in his life, expect maybe my person, which feeling he expressed by opening this thread and dedicating it to me.

It`s worth to note that Blutarski constantly uses Steinhoff`s name to validate his claims with authority, however last time he attempted to, claiming that as per Steinhoff the Jaggwaffe still relied on 109Fs in 1943, and that it`s ailerons badly ballooned and reduced roll rate.. it was found that it was nothing more than the madeup lies of Blutarski, who invented 90% of the story. It can be read here, together how his claims were debunked : http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/7751086013

As I corrected him througly, Blutarski now feels emberassed and humilated.. now this pathethic whining thread is his reaction. I feel pity for him.


A few notes :

a, The '11 000 destroyed during landing accidents' is pure BS number. No sources underlines it, in fact the Luftwaffe`s strenght reports promptly refuse it, stating about 7000 Bf 109 types being lost to ALL non-enemy related causes : that includes t-o accidents but also many others - running out of fuel, engine failure, everything that was not directly related to the enemy. Moreover, the ratio of 109`s enemy/non-enemy related loss rate is not at all different from the the FW 190s.

b, Whoever claims that "Willi Messerschmitt had adamantly refused to compromise the Bf 109's performance by adding the drag-producing wing surface bumps and fairings that would have been necessary to accommodate the wheels with the proper geometry" is simply out of his mind. As I know Blutarski`s record, he could have simply made that one up, or his source is mistaken.

Actually, it`s quite funny to see the tender relationship forming between Blutarski and Buzzsaw. Perfect agreement between the couple, expect that Mr. BS speaks all the time of those bad-bad wing bulges that as per Blutarzki were never implemented... funny, ignorance is not only a bliss, but common ignorance gives birth of affection, too! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Here`s a brief overview of what Willy M actually did to improve the 109`s landing characteritics :

- Unlike blutarseki says, Messerschmitt introduced enlarged mainwheels in the fall of 1942 to the late 109 G-2 production. Most G-4s were already built this way, and all G-6s and later subtypes. Not only that, but the angle of the main wheels was changed for better traction, now being vertical relative to ground - previously the wheels feater an toe-in. This latter modification made the introduction of wheel well bulges on the top wing, as clearly seen on the photo posted before :

The 'wheel bulges that never were' - as per blutarki - in real life on a

G-2...

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/walkaround/14753/14753.19.jpg

G-4..

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/walkaround/19310/19310js_01.jpg

G-6 ...

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/walkaround/160756/160756d.jpg


G-10...

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/walkaround/151591/151591-engine2.jpg

Not only the main wheels were enlarged, but also the tailwheel increased in size. This OTOH made it non-retractable.

Another change introduced in 1943 was increasing the vertical units size by increasing it`s height - this improved directional stability.

From 1944 a new, tall tail unit appeared. This raised the aircraft`s tail during the t-o/landing, providing much better forward view for the pilot (and a plus, allowing enough ground clearance to carry a 500kg bomb). This modification was installed on the late G-6s, G-14s, G-10. Unlike the 109Gs, the 109K always received the the tall tail unit, a single exception (probably field repair) is known.

During the 109Ks development, the tail unit lock mechanism was also improved. Mtt engineers studied the proven FW 190 tail unit. As a result the allowed side angle movement was of the tailwheel was reduced. Result : better directional stability on the ground.

Just to prove Blutarski even more wrong, Messerschmitt further enlarged the mainwheels of the Bf 109. The main tire size grown to 660x190mm. To accomodate these, larger, rectangular shaped wheel well covers were introduced, which had more smoothly curved surface. It was introduced on late production G-10, G-14 and all K-4s.

Despite it`s greater size it`s barely visible on this czech 'Mule', which utilized leftover G-10 airframes :

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/walkaround/199.178/199-02.jpg


In brief, just another example of Blutarski`s deep hatred and bias.

When will be your next 109bashing thread, Blutty ? I think by now most of the community puts you and Buzzsaw in the same category - the forum clowns.

Badsight.
05-28-2005, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
Depends on what you mean by moment Badsight... I can get to 130kph during the drop but it starts at 140kph IAS.. i can get 100 IAS during the drop , 80 even but that just speed loss

the moment the wing drops 130 is showing , i can also stall it at 140 & 150 easy , as with any other plane

Jetbuff
05-28-2005, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
i can get 100 IAS during the drop , 80 even but that just speed loss

the moment the wing drops 130 is showing , i can also stall it at 140 & 150 easy , as with any other plane
You mean 130-140, right? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

If you would, send the track to pritzl and the domain is jg1 with a dot org.

Kurfurst__
05-28-2005, 04:06 PM
The stall speed problem is simple.. post the track in which you fly with the slowest speed possible, and still don`t loose altitude... that`s your stall speed.

The fact that BS and his buddy Blutarski failed to provide any is more telling than any long rhetorics.

Badsight.
05-28-2005, 04:14 PM
Kufurst , look at the 2nd to last pic posted on page 6

Jet Buff , it says 137 on the TAS indicator & 130 on the IAS speedbar

& that is the "moment" the wing started

what im trying to get at here is that its possible to keep the G2 level under 150 kmh , its not possible to keep gliding level at 150 kmh , & its not possible to keep the plane level under 130 kmh

Aaron_GT
05-28-2005, 05:06 PM
By way of comparasion with the 109, here are the stats for the F4U series in WW2:

2140 lost
189 in air combat
349 to anti-aircraft fire
164 to crash landings
992 for other various accidents (take off, navigation, structural failure, etc)
remainder to other causes.

So on this basis loses due to accidents were 1164 out of 2140, or 54%.

p1ngu666
05-28-2005, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
By way of comparasion with the 109, here are the stats for the F4U series in WW2:

2140 lost
189 in air combat
349 to anti-aircraft fire
164 to crash landings
992 for other various accidents (take off, navigation, structural failure, etc)
remainder to other causes.

So on this basis loses due to accidents were 1164 out of 2140, or 54%.

thats pretty low, especialy considering it did a year or 2 on carriers

kurfy, from the pics u post it looks to me like the wheels are still angled, both camber and toe. i remmber reading how the toe out of the wheels, if u got onto 1 wheel ud turn in that direction, thus u get a nasty chain reaction leading to brown pants. also the narrow undercarriage was like that to get a better wing

also on teh stall thing, if we go with the "sink" speed, then other aircraft are probably wrong, and the 109s in relation to each other are probably wrong, i only tested on wingdrop, and the k4 should be worse than f4, but its not really http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Blutarski2004
05-28-2005, 07:47 PM
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 Blutarski2004:
..... Here's another perspective:

From Corky Meyer (Former Grumman Test Pilot during WWII) in an article he
wrote in Flight Journal about the Me-109:

"...was a most promising fighter, but 11,000 of the 33,000 were destroyed
during takeoff and landing accidents - one third of its combat
potential! I was amazed when my friend and 176-kill ace the late Gen.
Johannes Steinhoff told me this. It seems incredible that the primary
cause of this outrageous statistic - a splayed-out wheel landing gear known
to have an incorrect geometry - was not rectified immediately by the powers
to be. Chief aerodynamicist for the Me 163 rocket fighter, Josef Hubert,
who came from Germany in 1946, told me that Willi Messerschmitt had
adamantly refused to compromise the Bf 109's performance by adding the
drag-producing wing surface bumps and fairings that would have been
necessary to accommodate the wheels with the proper geometry. This would
have reduced its accident rate to within expected military fighter ranges
and made it a world standard."


Another perspective from a man who never flew a 109 in all his life.. qouted by Blutarski who hates the 109s more than anything in his life, expect maybe my person, which feeling he expressed by opening this thread and dedicating it to me.

It`s worth to note that Blutarski constantly uses Steinhoff`s name to validate his claims with authority, however last time he attempted to, claiming that as per Steinhoff the Jaggwaffe still relied on 109Fs in 1943, and that it`s ailerons badly ballooned and reduced roll rate.. it was found that it was nothing more than the madeup lies of Blutarski, who invented 90% of the story. It can be read here, together how his claims were debunked : http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/7751086013

As I corrected him througly, Blutarski now feels emberassed and humilated.. now this pathethic whining thread is his reaction. I feel pity for him.


A few notes :

a, The '11 000 destroyed during landing accidents' is pure BS number. No sources underlines it, in fact the Luftwaffe`s strenght reports promptly refuse it, stating about 7000 Bf 109 types being lost to ALL non-enemy related causes : that includes t-o accidents but also many others - running out of fuel, engine failure, everything that was not directly related to the enemy. Moreover, the ratio of 109`s enemy/non-enemy related loss rate is not at all different from the the FW 190s.

b, Whoever claims that "Willi Messerschmitt had adamantly refused to compromise the Bf 109's performance by adding the drag-producing wing surface bumps and fairings that would have been necessary to accommodate the wheels with the proper geometry" is simply out of his mind. As I know Blutarski`s record, he could have simply made that one up, or his source is mistaken.

Actually, it`s quite funny to see the tender relationship forming between Blutarski and Buzzsaw. Perfect agreement between the couple, expect that Mr. BS speaks all the time of those bad-bad wing bulges that as per Blutarzki were never implemented... funny, ignorance is not only a bliss, but common ignorance gives birth of affection, too! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Here`s a brief overview of what Willy M actually did to improve the 109`s landing characteritics :

- Unlike blutarseki says, Messerschmitt introduced enlarged mainwheels in the fall of 1942 to the late 109 G-2 production. Most G-4s were already built this way, and all G-6s and later subtypes. Not only that, but the angle of the main wheels was changed for better traction, now being vertical relative to ground - previously the wheels feater an toe-in. This latter modification made the introduction of wheel well bulges on the top wing, as clearly seen on the photo posted before :

The 'wheel bulges that never were' - as per blutarki - in real life on a

G-2...

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/walkaround/14753/14753.19.jpg

G-4..

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/walkaround/19310/19310js_01.jpg

G-6 ...

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/walkaround/160756/160756d.jpg


G-10...

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/walkaround/151591/151591-engine2.jpg

Not only the main wheels were enlarged, but also the tailwheel increased in size. This OTOH made it non-retractable.

Another change introduced in 1943 was increasing the vertical units size by increasing it`s height - this improved directional stability.

From 1944 a new, tall tail unit appeared. This raised the aircraft`s tail during the t-o/landing, providing much better forward view for the pilot (and a plus, allowing enough ground clearance to carry a 500kg bomb). This modification was installed on the late G-6s, G-14s, G-10. Unlike the 109Gs, the 109K always received the the tall tail unit, a single exception (probably field repair) is known.

During the 109Ks development, the tail unit lock mechanism was also improved. Mtt engineers studied the proven FW 190 tail unit. As a result the allowed side angle movement was of the tailwheel was reduced. Result : better directional stability on the ground.

Just to prove Blutarski even more wrong, Messerschmitt further enlarged the mainwheels of the Bf 109. The main tire size grown to 660x190mm. To accomodate these, larger, rectangular shaped wheel well covers were introduced, which had more smoothly curved surface. It was introduced on late production G-10, G-14 and all K-4s.

Despite it`s greater size it`s barely visible on this czech 'Mule', which utilized leftover G-10 airframes :

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/walkaround/199.178/199-02.jpg


In brief, just another example of Blutarski`s deep hatred and bias.

When will be your next 109bashing thread, Blutty ? I think by now most of the community puts you and Buzzsaw in the same category - the forum clowns. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... As has already been pointed out by another poster, the issue at hand was NOT tire size, which had to unavoidably grow along with the increasing weight of the later 109 models. It was the geometry of the wheel axes in relationship to the ground surface when the gear was extended.

I do not "use" Mr Steinhoff's name. I simply have quoted words attributed to him. I'm sorry if those words upset you.

I presume that Mr Meyer, another MIT Engineering grad and career pilot, will now be accorded the "Kit Carson" treatment - another maniacal American conspirator who secretly hates the Me 109. How DO these guys manage to cozy up to people like Macki Steinhoff and Walter Hubert? Beats me. What do you think?

Catching up here on your later post, the reality of the matter is that I have not spoken a single word whatsoever about Me 109 stall speeds. Of course, reality has never intruded upon you in the past, so I'm not really holding my breath here for an apology. In case it does, you need not bother with an apology. Just pursue your stall speed problems directly with Buzzsaw. I can't help you on that topic.

Very nice photos, though. Thanks for posting them. Looking forward, of course, to your next hyper-ventilation.

Buzzsaw-
05-28-2005, 10:06 PM
Salute

Here is why MaxGunz definition of a stall, (and the stall is what we are talking about) is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand here.

By claiming that the moment of 'Stall' happens prior to wingdrop, he is ignoring the fact that wing stall is a progressive event.

THE MOMENT A PILOT START TO LOAD HIS AIRCRAFT WITH G'S, AND A HIGHER ANGLE OF ATTACK, PORTIONS OF HIS WING WILL BEGIN TO STALL.

Here is a page from a NACA report dealing specifically with the issue of stall.

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1945/naca-report-829/09.gif

This test was done in a wind tunnel, the only place where instruments can actually measure stall effects. The measurement of the onset of stall during normal aircraft flight was out of realm of possibility in WWII.

You can see the progression of stall on three aircraft examples. Stall begins to happen on sections of the wing, but in the earlier stages of wing stall, the aircraft remains flyable. IT HAS NOT YET ENTERED COMPLETE STALL.

What is being analyzed in detail in this report, is a mirror of what we see happening with our tests of the 109. Areas of the aircraft's wing begin to stall, but the aircraft itself remains flyable. It is not until we actually reach a situation where the percentage area of the wing which is in stall , outweighs that which is still generating lift, that the aircraft actually 'Stalls', and wingdrop occurs.

So for MaxGunz to claim that just because buffeting is happening, and the aircraft is generating less lift, that 'Stall' has occurred is clearly wrong.

Using that rational, someone might claim that the moment a pilot starts to load his wing, and very small areas of his wing start to enter stall condition, that he is in stall. Which is of course, incorrect.

The fact is, for the pilots who actually fly these planes, the onset of stall is not the moments when buffeting starts to happen, or even the moment when the aircraft begins to lose some lift.

FOR A PILOT, THE MOMENT OF STALL IS WHEN HE LOSES COMPLETE CONTROL OF HIS AIRCRAFT.

That for example, is why Paul Coggan, in his report on the 109G2, says:

"...The stall itself is a left wing drop through about 15 degrees with a slight nose drop, accompanied by a light buffet. All controls are effective UP TO THE STALL, and recovery is instant on moving the stick forward. Stall speeds are 155kph clean and 140kph with gear and flap down."

When one reads Pilot manuals describing stalls for the Combat Pilot's benefit, the same type of language is used.

From the Spitfire IX manual:

"Warming of thte approach of a stall is given by tail buffeting, the onset of which can be felt some 10 mph before the stall itself. AT THE STALL either wing and the nose drop gently."

From the Spitfire V manual:

"AT THE STALL one wing will usually drop flaps either up or down and the aircraft may spin if the control column is held back."

P-51C manual:

"...a series of stick reversals occurs just above stalling speed, AT THE STALL the right wing drops sharply..."

Mosquito manual:

"...Warning of the approach of the stall is given by pronounced buffeting of the control surfaces, the onset of which can be felt some 10 knots before the stall itself. AT THE STALL the aircraft pitches, the ASI fluctuates and the nose drops gently."


I could quote you many more examples from manuals.

The fact is, wing drop is the best indicator of 'Stall' that we have from the game's Flight Model, and the closest event to what real pilots might experience. To insist that the 109G2 is 'stalling', simply because it is experiencing buffeting or some sink, is completely false. Those events may be occuring, but the pilot is still in control of his aircraft.

I have previously had the greatest respect for MaxGunz's posts, and I hope he will acknowledge the essential error he has made in introducing this extended semantic argument regarding the 'definition' of stall. While he may have had the best of intellectual intentions, in effect he is providing a spurious excuse for the clear mismodelling of the later model 109's.

Complete NACA report on stalling is here:

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

Jetbuff
05-28-2005, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
what im trying to get at here is that its possible to keep the G2 level under 150 kmh , its not possible to keep gliding level at 150 kmh , & its not possible to keep the plane level under 130 kmh
Buzzsaw says he can - keep the plane level under 130kph IAS that is. I'm still waiting for his track though.

Jetbuff
05-28-2005, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
also on teh stall thing, if we go with the "sink" speed, then other aircraft are probably wrong, and the 109s in relation to each other are probably wrong, i only tested on wingdrop, and the k4 should be worse than f4, but its not really http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
I whole-heartedly agree. The later 109's were much heavier than the thoroughbred F-4. I find it surprising that their stall speed is equal or lower than that of the F-4.

What gets me though is how one can jump to the conclusion that the entire 109 line is vastly overmodelled based on that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Sure, I have my biases, we all do, but I make conscious efforts to overcome them at every turn.

Buzzsaw-
05-28-2005, 11:23 PM
Salute

I have sent copies of my record of the G2's stall speed to Jetbuff/Pritzl.

I had done my previous testing with Version 3.0 of PF where I got 120/130 on both the live flight and playback of the track.

However with 3.03, when flying the aircraft, I get 120/130 results for stalling, but when playing back the track, it shows 130/140 results. I took freeze frame grabs from the live stall showing the 120/130 speeds and sent them to Jetbuff as well.

In any case, whether it shows 120/130 or 130/140, stall is clearly 15 kph at least below the stall speed of a present day completely original authentic condition G2 with NO AMMO. Ie. a combat loaded G2 would stall at a higher speed.

People can make whatever excuses they want, the fact is the 109G2 is mismodelled.

And 15 kph is not a small increment. That is essentially the difference between a historical Spitfire I and a 109E, or Spit V and 109F4. It is the difference between being able to outturn an opponent's aircraft or not.

-----

Now I just got my e-mail returned:

Your message could not be delivered.

The recipient's e-mail address was not found. Please verify the e-mail address
and resend.

Buzzsaw-
05-28-2005, 11:34 PM
Salute

The fact is, despite the 109 pilot's usually frenetic defence of their favourite, this is an issue which affects a lot of aircraft in the Sim.

All the complaints we routinely hear about UFO like performance from late 109's, La-7's, Spitfires and other aircraft are related to too low stall speeds, and the ability of aircraft to maneuver successfully at very low speeds.

Its an issue which should be addressed.

Badsight.
05-29-2005, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
All the complaints we routinely hear about UFO like performance from late 109's, La-7's, Spitfires and other aircraft are related to too low stall speeds, and the ability of aircraft to maneuver successfully at very low speeds. its _never_ been about low stall speeds with the LA's & Spitfires

with those planes its about their speed & momentum retaining abilities through manouvers

Aaron_GT
05-29-2005, 01:00 AM
Here is why MaxGunz definition of a stall, (and the stall is what we are talking about) is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand here.

By claiming that the moment of 'Stall' happens prior to wingdrop, he is ignoring the fact that wing stall is a progressive event.

THE MOMENT A PILOT START TO LOAD HIS AIRCRAFT WITH G'S, AND A HIGHER ANGLE OF ATTACK, PORTIONS OF HIS WING WILL BEGIN TO STALL.


MaxGunz has quite specifically said that stall is a region of flight. In any case what we are looking at is a 1G stall so loading the aircraft with additional Gs is excluded.


It is not until we actually reach a situation where the percentage area of the wing which is in stall , outweighs that which is still generating lift, that the aircraft actually 'Stalls', and wingdrop occurs.

Actually what we see are symmetrical losses of lift. If the effect of the prop is low (the prop will change airflows to non symmetrical) then there is no reason why there should be any pronounced wing drop (other than the balance might become difficult). Some planes have been noted to stall without any tendency to wing drop to one side or the other, some without any obvious tendency to drop a wing at all.


FOR A PILOT, THE MOMENT OF STALL IS WHEN HE LOSES COMPLETE CONTROL OF HIS AIRCRAFT.

By which definition some very stable trainer aircraft don't stall at all...

Also note that the wing configuration of a plane does not change with weight, but the stall speed does, because the stall speed is the point at which generated lift is insufficient to counteract weight.


All controls are effective UP TO THE STALL,

All these things could be true if the loss of lift is first at the wing roots leaving sufficient airflow over control surfaces. And it is entirely possible that the point where control is lost is simultaneous with the point at which lift is insufficient to counteract weight, but it isn't necessarily the same point. Now it could be that IL2/PF has the modelling wrong and stall (insufficient lift) is occurring too much before total loss of control (note that in the Mosquito this does not involve wing drop).

WWMaxGunz
05-29-2005, 01:09 AM
Semantics, Buzz? You've got to be joking!

I drag up the definition of stall speed even from the FAA no less and you insist on going
on and on about stall to the point of redefining stall speed as the speed at full stall,
which it is not. It is the speed at the beginning, the onset of stall. Read the definition
of stall speed, VS, Velocity Stall, from the FAA that I linked to.

You show a complete article on stall with the whole stall progression. Why do you decide
that stall speed is at the moment of full stall when the experts do not? Semantics by Buzz,
somehow it must now be full stall.

I am not playing at words when I bring up those definitions. I am taking them from the source.
And I am not confusing issues of stall with the definition of stall speed. I have tried to
explain but I have no need of proving squat since IT WAS ALREADY DEFINED AS STALL SPEED NOT
STALL. I've only tried to show and illustrate why the sim may just possibly be more accurate
than someone so amateur he doesn't know what "Stall Speed" means and can't admit it.

I assume you've tried to find an official or creditable definition of the term Stall Speed
that counters what I have shown and you can't -- because there isn't any. Keep looking and
maybe some day you will realize the truth. There is no way to come up with a hard speed in
real conditions for wing drop that will hold for all airplane makers since by dropping alt
during the stall, before complete stall, you can hold off the point of wing drop. Not only
that but THERE IS NO POINT IN SPECIFYING SUCH A THING.

Stall speed is the speed that pilots don't want to fly under for the conditions of their
plane. It is something they carefully watch for most of all during landing approach and
takeoff, any time the plane is going low and slow. In those times it would be useless to
know some number where you have already dropped and the whole plane is tipping over.

Stall Speed that PILOTS (as opposed to some desperate gamers) want to know and remember is
where the plane can't fly slower. The haven't got their heads up their butts over something
that's going to get them killed during takeoff or landing because they have to watch the
nose and guages. Do you somehow really think that they would chart the speed of certain
crash and NOT ANYWHERE note carefully the minimum safe speed of flight??? Are you that BLIND?
Why bother posting the speed that "somewhere above here but it doesn't say is where you should
have been keeping your speed"? NO, they don't do that. They record the MINIMUM SAFE SPEED in
different configurations and they have since before WWI named that Stall Speed.

Here is yet another actual Official definition:
-------------------------------------------------------
http://ww.safetydata.com/manual/ap.htm

This one is an EAA document, btw.

10. Discuss the following airspeeds.

Vso - Stall speed in the landing configuration; the calibrated power- off stalling speed
or the minimum steady flight speed at which the airplane is controllable in the landing
configuration.

Vs - Stall speed clean or in specified configuration; the calibrated power-off stalling
speed or the minimum steady flying speed at which the airplane is controllable in a
specified configuration.

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

Please NOTE that absolutely no discussion of the nuances of stall conditions is needed.
Just like the FAA, the EAA "just" makes these things up and somehow they match. Most
unsporting of them not to leave it open to interpretation and debate.

Aaron_GT
05-29-2005, 02:15 AM
thats pretty low, especialy considering it did a year or 2 on carriers

That's a good point, pingu. Although in defence of the 109 it often had to fly from unimproved fields on the Eastern Front and soft ground was a problem for many planes. Certainly, though, the narrow track of the 109 undercarriage was problematic. This having been said the 109 was preferred by many as a catseye night fighter because the undercarriage was weak and would tend to collapse if the landing was too heavy whereas there was a danger of the 190 flipping over.

Kurfurst__
05-29-2005, 05:24 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... As has already been pointed out by another poster, the issue at hand was NOT tire size, which had to unavoidably grow along with the increasing weight of the later 109 models. It was the geometry of the wheel axes in relationship to the ground surface when the gear was extended.

... and as already pointed out by me in my previous posts, the wheel axes in relationship to the ground surface when the gear was extended WAS changed during the Bf 109G-2 and later production. Up to the G-2 the wheel axes were at ca90 degree relative to the u/c legs but not the ground because of the spread out nature of the 109 main wheels (this increased track width otoh and reduced loads on the wings and made maintaince easier as the u/c could be attached to the fuselage), but from late production G-2 onwards, the wheel axe were changed that they were appx. 90 degree angle to the ground. This was the thing that made the wheel well bulges neccesary, not the increased tire size.

See Prien/Rodeike 109F/G/K, page 84, Chaper 109G-4 :

"... in late summer 1942, it was decided to increase the size of the aircraft`s mainwheel and tailwheel. [from 660x150 to 660x160] [...].. Along with the enlargement of the mainwheels came a change in the angle they were mounted. Instead of being almost parellel to the u/c leg, the wheel`s vertical axis now approached the vertical.Both changes made neccesary the addition of shallow, roughly teardrop shaped fairings on the upper wing surface, neccesary to accomodate the upper part of the mainwheels which now projected furhter from the u/c leg when retrected...[..] A 350x135 tailwheel replaced the earlier 290x110 one."

The below picture demonstrates this change nicely the angle the wheel axis closes with the undercarriage leg :

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1117364404_messerschmitt20bf20109g-10_02.jpg

In brief, your source was completely wrong that the wheel axis geometry was not changed.



I do not "use" Mr Steinhoff's name. I simply have quoted words attributed to him. I'm sorry if those words upset you.

And I am deeply sorry if I had upset or emberassed you - again - by pointing out the truth, that the words you attribute to Steinhoff had no connection with him in the past, and are in no connection with the facts displayed by the LW`s own strenght and loss reports.


I presume that Mr Meyer, another MIT Engineering grad and career pilot, will now be accorded the "Kit Carson" treatment - another maniacal American conspirator who secretly hates the Me 109.

Funny that Mr Meyer was up to recent times a former Grumman Test Pilot during WWII... " From Corky Meyer (Former Grumman Test Pilot during WWII) in an article he wrote in Flight Journal about the Me-109""

Now Blutarski suddenly turned him into "another MIT Engineering grad and career pilot"...
Seems Blutarski changes the facts when it fits to him, Grumann test pilot today, Messerschmitt test pilot tomorrow. See the previous thread from him where he used Steinhoff name to cover his own nonsense claims and agenda to nerf the 109 roll rate.

Now as for Mr. Meyer, it`s obvious he is wrong. I guess you are right that his case is similiar to the one of Kit Carson, ie. the statements are being based on his failing memory, and ignorance on the 109 development. He could get those facts from any book from a trusted 109 expert, but he choosed not to do even minimal research, much like you.


Catching up here on your later post, the reality of the matter is that I have not spoken a single word whatsoever about Me 109 stall speeds. Of course, reality has never intruded upon you in the past, so I'm not really holding my breath here for an apology. In case it does, you need not bother with an apology. Just pursue your stall speed problems directly with Buzzsaw. I can't help you on that topic.

I believe your paranoid symptoms took over you, as I have not addressed you or any claims you may or may not made about stall speeds. I merely corrected your flawed and heavily biased representations.

Jetbuff
05-29-2005, 07:05 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

I have sent copies of my record of the G2's stall speed to Jetbuff/Pritzl.
Please check that you sent to the right address, I have not received any tracks.

I had done my previous testing with Version 3.0 of PF where I got 120/130 on both the live flight and playback of the track.

However with 3.03, when flying the aircraft, I get 120/130 results for stalling, but when playing back the track, it shows 130/140 results. I took freeze frame grabs from the live stall showing the 120/130 speeds and sent them to Jetbuff as well.
I'm guessing all of Buzz's numbers are from live tests. I further suspect you hit the nail on the head - i.e. Buzzsaw tested an earlier version and relayed the numbers from it. 3.04 does not show as severe a problem.

In any case, whether it shows 120/130 or 130/140, stall is clearly 15 kph at least below the stall speed of a present day completely original authentic condition G2 with NO AMMO. Ie. a combat loaded G2 would stall at a higher speed.

People can make whatever excuses they want, the fact is the 109G2 is mismodelled.

And 15 kph is not a small increment. That is essentially the difference between a historical Spitfire I and a 109E, or Spit V and 109F4. It is the difference between being able to outturn an opponent's aircraft or not.
Disagree, it is no more significant than for most other planes if the rest of Buzzsaw's numbers are to be believed - at least not exceptionally so. That said, I would probably not base anything on Buzz's numbers from now on. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


-----

Now I just got my e-mail returned:

Your message could not be delivered.

The recipient's e-mail address was not found. Please verify the e-mail address
and resend.

It's pritzl#jg1.org just switch the pound sign.

p1ngu666
05-29-2005, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
also on teh stall thing, if we go with the "sink" speed, then other aircraft are probably wrong, and the 109s in relation to each other are probably wrong, i only tested on wingdrop, and the k4 should be worse than f4, but its not really http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
I whole-heartedly agree. The later 109's were much heavier than the thoroughbred F-4. I find it surprising that their stall speed is equal or lower than that of the F-4.

What gets me though is how one can jump to the conclusion that the entire 109 line is vastly overmodelled based on that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Sure, I have my biases, we all do, but I make conscious efforts to overcome them at every turn. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah, :\ i tend to say 109 but often mean the latewar ones u find on servers :\. how f and g2 perform ingame tho is odd also, f should fly more like g2...

stall issue thing, i think its more likely tobe the wing drop rather than buffet, u can fly around all day in buffet, but stall normaly makes aircraft drop a wing and or nose, a large movement compaired to buffet.
so imo the working deffintion of stall is the wingdrop for us. yes when it buffets its stalling in places but a full stall needs more of the wing tobe stalled

Blutarski2004
05-29-2005, 09:00 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 Blutarski2004:
..... As has already been pointed out by another poster, the issue at hand was NOT tire size, which had to unavoidably grow along with the increasing weight of the later 109 models. It was the geometry of the wheel axes in relationship to the ground surface when the gear was extended.

... and as already pointed out by me in my previous posts, the wheel axes in relationship to the ground surface when the gear was extended WAS changed during the Bf 109G-2 and later production. Up to the G-2 the wheel axes were at ca90 degree relative to the u/c legs but not the ground because of the spread out nature of the 109 main wheels (this increased track width otoh and reduced loads on the wings and made maintaince easier as the u/c could be attached to the fuselage), but from late production G-2 onwards, the wheel axe were changed that they were appx. 90 degree angle to the ground. This was the thing that made the wheel well bulges neccesary, not the increased tire size.

See Prien/Rodeike 109F/G/K, page 84, Chaper 109G-4 :

"... in late summer 1942, it was decided to increase the size of the aircraft`s mainwheel and tailwheel. [from 660x150 to 660x160] [...].. Along with the enlargement of the mainwheels came a change in the angle they were mounted. Instead of being almost parellel to the u/c leg, the wheel`s vertical axis now approached the vertical.Both changes made neccesary the addition of shallow, roughly teardrop shaped fairings on the upper wing surface, neccesary to accomodate the upper part of the mainwheels which now projected furhter from the u/c leg when retrected...[..] A 350x135 tailwheel replaced the earlier 290x110 one."

In brief, your source was completely wrong that the wheel axis geometry was not changed.


..... If you had simply posted the item you quote above, I would have applauded a nice and informative post to clarify the matter. But I suppose that wouldn't give you half the pleasure you spparently find in your normal insulting behavior. In any case, nice find - it clarifies an interesting point.




I do not "use" Mr Steinhoff's name. I simply have quoted words attributed to him. I'm sorry if those words upset you.

And I am deeply sorry if I had upset or emberassed you - again - by pointing out the truth, that the words you attribute to Steinhoff had no connection with him in the past, and are in no connection with the facts displayed by the LW`s own strenght and loss reports.

..... I suggest you take this particular point up directly with Mr Meyer, who claims to have known Messrs Steinhoff and Hubert personally.




I presume that Mr Meyer, another MIT Engineering grad and career pilot, will now be accorded the "Kit Carson" treatment - another maniacal American conspirator who secretly hates the Me 109.

Funny that Mr Meyer was up to recent times a former Grumman Test Pilot during WWII... " From Corky Meyer (Former Grumman Test Pilot during WWII) in an article he wrote in Flight Journal about the Me-109""

Now Blutarski suddenly turned him into "another MIT Engineering grad and career pilot"...
Seems Blutarski changes the facts when it fits to him, Grumann test pilot today, Messerschmitt test pilot tomorrow.

..... This is too stupid and obtuse even for you Kurfurst. It may come as a shock, but Mr Meyer was both an MIT Engineering graduate AND a test pilot for Grumman. They are not mutually exclusive. Oh, and by the way, I have never made any sort of claim that Meyer ever flew any model of the Me 109. Yet another example of you putting words in people's mouths to suit your needs. You're getting really boring with these sorts of adolescent antics.



Now as for Mr. Meyer, it`s obvious he is wrong. I guess you are right that his case is similiar to the one of Kit Carson, ie. the statements are being based on his failing memory, and ignorance on the 109 development. He could get those facts from any book from a trusted 109 expert, but he choosed not to do even minimal research, much like you.

..... See above. Mr Meyer simply quoted conversations he claims to have had with Messrs Steinhoff and Hubert. Perhaps they were incorrect, or perhaps Meyer is stupid, or perhaps Meyer is lying as part of the great Trilateral conspiracy to make your life a living hell. Or perhaps they were referring to a period prior to a reluctant decision to add bulges for the gear. I don't know. What do you think?



Catching up here on your later post, the reality of the matter is that I have not spoken a single word whatsoever about Me 109 stall speeds. Of course, reality has never intruded upon you in the past, so I'm not really holding my breath here for an apology. In case it does, you need not bother with an apology. Just pursue your stall speed problems directly with Buzzsaw. I can't help you on that topic.

I believe your paranoid symptoms took over you, as I have not addressed you or any claims you may or may not made about stall speeds. I merely corrected your flawed and heavily biased representations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... Maybe you forgot you posted this a few messages ago:

QUOTE > The stall speed problem is simple.. post the track in which you fly with the slowest speed possible, and still don`t loose altitude... that`s your stall speed.

The fact that BS and his buddy Blutarski failed to provide any is more telling than any long rhetorics. < UNQUOTE

It's always a "pleasure" corresponding with you, Kurfurst.

Kurfurst__
05-29-2005, 11:15 AM
This forum would be a so much nicer place without Blutarski`s overblown and hurt ego.

Do you really don`t recognize how awful your attitude and behaviour is? And why you hate the 109 so bad?

Buzzsaw-
05-29-2005, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

You show a complete article on stall with the whole stall progression. Why do you decide
that stall speed is at the moment of full stall when the experts do not?



I'm not the one making the decision. I didn't write the article "Flying Black 6", someone else did. The writer of that article laid out his own definition of stall, and the moment it occurred. Not surprisingly, his means of defining stall was exactly the same as used by countless other pilots or instructors. The FAA did not testfly the aircraft, a pilot did. And his account is what we are basing our observations about the simulated 109G2 on.


I am not playing at words when I bring up those definitions.

The definitions you have provided are applicable in a purely empirical sense, but in terms of practical use, they are irrelevant. For pilots actually flying the aircraft, what matters is the speed at which full stall occurs. A combat pilot in a dangerous situation with an enemy aircraft on his tail does not back off on a turn just because his aircraft displays some aspects of a stall. He knows what speed his aircraft will depart, and flys accordingly.


Stall Speed that PILOTS (as opposed to some desperate gamers) want to know and remember is
where the plane can't fly slower.

EXACTLY!!

That is why for example, Paul Coggan lists 155 kph as the stall speed for the G2. A pilot with that knowledge, knows he can't take his aircraft below 160 kph in level flight. This is crucially important for landings, etc.

Max, your definitions are perfectly accurate in a technical sense, but in relation to the quote from the article "Flying Black 6", they are irrelevant to how that writer defines stall. He defines it as the moment of wingdrop. So when we look at the simulated 109G2, and test it, we also must use the same criteria.

Please, by the way, do not feel the need to insult me in regards to my understanding of the technical definition of stall speed or stall. I understand those definitions perfectly. But the issue here is not technical definitions, it is the practical experience of a pilot actually flying the aircraft.

Buzzsaw-
05-29-2005, 11:27 AM
Salute Jetbuff/Pritzl


...I would probably not base anything on Buzz's numbers from now on. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

If that is the case, then you will of course apply the same penalty to your own credibility since you also provided incorrect data in this thread.


I just tested it, Crimea, QMB, 100% fuel + default loadout, power off, stick back to maintain level flight. I could not get slower than 150kph IAS without stalling.

The fact is, my test results, and the test results posted by several others clearly prove the 109G2 as modelled in the game is stalling at too low a speed, when tested to the same methodology as Paul Coggan used, contrary to your assertions.

So ultimately, who is actually putting forward a false claim? And whose credibility is really at stake?

Buzzsaw-
05-29-2005, 11:57 AM
Salute

Here are some more modern day evaluations of aircraft stalling characteristics by pilots:

Mark Hanna on the I-16 "Flying the Rata"

"Stalling clean and dirty, is an interesting experience - below 250 km/h you are holding a pull force which is slightly perturbing until you get used to it. She stalls slower clean than with the gear down! Stall is at about 135-140 km/h and again is very gentle power off with a gentle wing drop that stops immediately when back stick is released. "

Full article here:

http://www.nzfpm.co.nz/articles/ratacwd3.htm

Tom Middleton on the I-153, "Flying the Polikarpov I-153 Chaika"

"Stalls are typical of what seems to be Russian with a fairly sudden wing drop, especially in an accelerated stall and plenty of rudder is needed to prevent further yaw once the nose drops and rotation starts. However, 1000 hp and full right rudder enables the Chaika to fly almost instantly out of a stall, which will happen with just moderate power on at about 90 kph."

Full article here:

http://www.nzfpm.co.nz/articles/i153wings.htm

Richard Lee on flying all metal replica 80% scale Spitfire, "Flying the Spitfire"

"Control effectiveness was diminished below 50 knots though full control in all axis was easily maintained, a light airframe buffet was experienced at 45 knots, the nose dropped at 40 knots with a slight roll left."

Full article here:

http://www.supermarineaircraft.com/Pilot.htm

Hurricane I by Keith Skilling, "Pilot's Report, Hurricane 3351"

"Stalling presents no problems with the usual wing drop, vicious with the under carriage and flap down, but is easily controlled. Stalling speeds are surprisingly slow varying from 75mph clean to 55mph in the landing configuration."

Full article here:

http://www.nzfpm.co.nz/articles/pilots3351.htm

You will notice that all these pilot reports mention the moment of stall and the speed, ie. either wingdrop, nose drop etc.

This is the information which is relevant to a pilot flying the aircraft.

WWMaxGunz
05-29-2005, 12:41 PM
And not one of them labels that with the term Stall Speed with or without caps.
That is because there is and was a true definition of that term as I have shown.

Why is that so important? Because if you read a performance chart that includes
that term, it has the meaning of the known definition as opposed to some "common
sense which ain't" translation by non-pilots.

Buzz, you'll never pass ground school with that bit of misunderstanding you have.
Not that I give a dump, but you're smearing the sim with your BS I do care about.
I have no problem people pointing out legitimate faults of the sim. I join in to
try and get them fixed and improve the thing. But what you are doing, Oleg and
crew know better and it only sours their attitudes more against wasting time on
player complaints. That results in making it harder to get real issues dealt with
so please go out and check your own self made conclusions that Stall and the speed
of deep stall is actually the same as the term Stall Speed.

I have posted enough times for you the actual definitions, even FAA and EAA, that
are used when aircraft makers set Stall Speed on charts. To counter that you show
two sentences from "Black 6" that yes, one is after the other but YOU have taken
the second to be linked to the first. He says what the plane is like throughout
the stall to wing drop. Then he gives the Stall Speed in two configurations. YOU
have applied the first to the second in your own furtherance. Any PILOT who has
gotten his license will not and knows that the second is its own statement, the
speed before full stall where the stall has just begun.

You keep posting about stall.
Post a counter definition of Stall Speed stated as such.
Or you can keep insisting that apples = oranges on grounds that both are fruit.

Buzzsaw-
05-29-2005, 12:53 PM
Salute Max

For the purposes of clarity:

Since you seem to be dug in on the subject of the 109's stall speed, then in the interest of clearly deliniating your position, perhaps you'd like to reply to my post earlier in the thread.


Salute Max

At what EXACT point during our testing are we to then judge stall speed according to your criteria. Since we can't judge it at wingdrop. Or perhaps you don't have a point in mind at which we can judge it? Perhaps you are just indulging in Rhetoric?

In any case, since you seem determined to do whatever you can to support the current incorrect stall speed, and UFO like behaviour of the later model 109's, by using whatever form of semanticism which comes to mind, perhaps you'd like to apply the same criteria to the other aircraft in the game.

Using the same rationale as you have indicated re. the 109's stall speeds, could you please be so kind as to assess the stall speed of the following randomly selected game aircraft:

P-47D27

According to Government documents, the P-47D30, which is almost identical to the D27, except for a few EXTRA pounds on the D30, should stall at 87 mph, (139.2 mph) with full landing flaps deployed, and at 1/4 fuel and 1/4 ammunition. (load EXTRA ammo, then fire 24 seconds of the 32 total seconds of total ammo available prior to test)

Spitfire V

According to the Spitfire Vb manual, the aircraft, fully loaded, with normal wingtips, in clean condition, should stall at 73 mph. (116.6 kph)

Mustang III (P-51C)

According to the RAF manual, the Mustang III should stall, fully loaded, at 90 mph. (144 kph)

109E4

According to a RAF test of the 109E3, which was very similar in weight and the same in design as the E4, it stalled at 130 kph in clean condition.

By my testing criteria, ie. wingdrop, these aircraft were correct in their stall speeds, however, your set of criteria would seem to suggest otherwise. So if you should find by your rigourous standards, that these aircraft stall at higher speeds than they should, we will of course, expect you to advocate to Oleg, with the same enthusiasm you show in defence of the 109's, that these aircraft should be immediately improved in their low speed behaviour.

Once you have finished supporting them, I will be happy to post some additional examples which of course I have every confidence you will immediately devote your attention too.

Please provide an answer. If you refuse to, then obviously you are not really interested in accuracy in the Sim, and rather are setting up a double standard, by which the 109's are judged by one set of criteria, and all other aircraft are judged by another.

Kurfurst__
05-29-2005, 02:16 PM
"According to the Spitfire Vb manual, the aircraft, fully loaded, with normal wingtips, in clean condition, should stall at 73 mph. (116.6 kph)"


I can fly the Spitfire V at 90 kph without stalling. All Spitfires in the game are vastly overmodelled in their stall characteristics.

WWMaxGunz
05-29-2005, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute Max

At what EXACT point during our testing are we to then judge stall speed according to your criteria. Since we can't judge it at wingdrop. Or perhaps you don't have a point in mind at which we can judge it? Perhaps you are just indulging in Rhetoric?

You can do like the FAA and EAA; it is the lowest speed at which the plane can maintain
steady controlled flight without losing altitude. Lose alt and you are below Stall Speed
as per their definitions.

Unless you feel that the FAA is full of it? You demand I answer questions or "lose".
You have yet to dispute the actual authorities in the US and Europe. Why? Are they wrong?


In any case, since you seem determined to do whatever you can to support the current incorrect stall speed, and UFO like behaviour of the later model 109's, by using whatever form of semanticism which comes to mind, perhaps you'd like to apply the same criteria to the other aircraft in the game.

I am only saying that you want to judge how well planes in the sim meet Stall Speed then you
should at least use the known official test of Stall Speed. Read the full FAA reg for the
determination of stall speed as well as the FAA definition of VS, Stall Speed, and try to
follow those as close as possible. The reg is very tight and the definition is explicit
plus it is not something I made up -- please get that through your head.


Using the same rationale as you have indicated re. the 109's stall speeds, could you please be so kind as to assess the stall speed of the following randomly selected game aircraft:

P-47D27

According to Government documents, the P-47D30, which is almost identical to the D27, except for a few EXTRA pounds on the D30, should stall at 87 mph, (139.2 mph) with full landing flaps deployed, and at 1/4 fuel and 1/4 ammunition. (load EXTRA ammo, then fire 24 seconds of the 32 total seconds of total ammo available prior to test)

You say "should stall at 87 mph". Is that the words they use?

I have a Corsair document that lists V-Stall (aka VS aka Stall Speed) Gross Weight not giving
flaps and gear so I can only say "probably" in clean condition in 4 different weights of
12,175, 12,175, 12,175 and 13,265 lbs as 87.5, 87.5, 87.5 and 92.5 mph.

That V-Stall would be the lowest speed at which straight and level controlled flight could
be maintained for that MODEL-F4U-1D-1C (stated at the bottom) in those conditions of weight.

It also lists the same way V-Stall without fuel, as in coming back near empty, in the same
weights as 82.5, 82.5, 82.5 and 84.0 mph.

As near as I can tell the document is from NAVAER-1519A (rev. 9-44) page 1 dated August 1945.


Spitfire V

According to the Spitfire Vb manual, the aircraft, fully loaded, with normal wingtips, in clean condition, should stall at 73 mph. (116.6 kph)

Is that the words they used, "should stall at"?


Mustang III (P-51C)

According to the RAF manual, the Mustang III should stall, fully loaded, at 90 mph. (144 kph)


Any CHARTS in there listing V-Stall, VS, VS0, or Stall Speed in configurations and weights?

I show data from one above, why don't you go and "test" that?

Ohhhh, funny thing is that you can "test" differently the same plane by allowing loss of alt
or not, as well as use of rudder. You want a lower speed at stall, you drop a bit more and
ride the rudder better and if you desire a higher result, you don't. But then that would be
suggesting some kind of agenda, wouldn't it?


109E4

According to a RAF test of the 109E3, which was very similar in weight and the same in design as the E4, it stalled at 130 kph in clean condition.

Once again.


By my testing criteria, ie. wingdrop, these aircraft were correct in their stall speeds, however, your set of criteria would seem to suggest otherwise. So if you should find by your rigourous standards, that these aircraft stall at higher speeds than they should, we will of course, expect you to advocate to Oleg, with the same enthusiasm you show in defence of the 109's, that these aircraft should be immediately improved in their low speed behaviour.

I'm not playing your stupid word game. All above is either in your words or theirs exactly.
I am not going to agree on your interpretations of text I don't have or see quoted.


Once you have finished supporting them, I will be happy to post some additional examples which of course I have every confidence you will immediately devote your attention too.


Please provide an answer. If you refuse to, then obviously you are not really interested in accuracy in the Sim, and rather are setting up a double standard, by which the 109's are judged by one set of criteria, and all other aircraft are judged by another.

I am not interested in games, Buzzsaw. You want to equate different things with others and
ask me to agree or not with your ideas of the meanings. Nope. Sorry.

Of course if I don't play your game that means I'm wrong, does it? Uh-uh.

Clarify what they say by quoting it, not what you make of it in your own words.
If they say "IT STALLS AT" then I can't take that as VS, V-Stall or Stall Speed exactly since
those are DEFINED TERMS and "IT STALLS AT" is not.

Capish?

Blutarski2004
05-29-2005, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
This forum would be a so much nicer place without Blutarski`s overblown and hurt ego.

Do you really don`t recognize how awful your attitude and behaviour is? And why you hate the 109 so bad?


..... Thank you for your reply. It was perfect Kurfurst.

Buzzsaw-
05-29-2005, 03:05 PM
Salute

Here are original documents from two of the above mentioned. Other original pages are available if you PM me with your e-mail.

Spit V

http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/files/air-manuals/raf/spitV%20manual/SpitVAVBVC/spit22.jpg

http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/files/air-manuals/raf/spitV%20manual/SpitVAVBVC/spit23.jpg

109E

http://www.lanpartyworld.com/smallwoy/me1095.jpg

You will note that the documents mention pilots taking action to delay the onset of stall, they are not just sitting there passively.

Buzzsaw-
05-29-2005, 03:15 PM
Salute

I am not really sure why I am bothering to continue this discussion, when it is clear that Max is uninterested in replicating in game terms the conditions as described by Paul Coggan in his test of the G2.

Unfortunately it seems, when you get beneath the semantics and pseudo objectivity, he is just another Luftwhiner/109 apologist.

Jetbuff
05-29-2005, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute Jetbuff/Pritzl

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...I would probably not base anything on Buzz's numbers from now on. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

If that is the case, then you will of course apply the same penalty to your own credibility since you also provided incorrect data in this thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Unlike you, I readily admitted my mistake. I still await your retraction. Since it is obvious you will not this argument is pointless.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I just tested it, Crimea, QMB, 100% fuel + default loadout, power off, stick back to maintain level flight. I could not get slower than 150kph IAS without stalling.

The fact is, my test results, and the test results posted by several others clearly prove the 109G2 as modelled in the game is stalling at too low a speed, when tested to the same methodology as Paul Coggan used, contrary to your assertions.

So ultimately, who is actually putting forward a false claim? And whose credibility is really at stake? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And yet you continue to fail to produce a track of your claims of 120-130kph? Both you and Badsight provided freeze-frames instead. Why is that?

Have fun...

Badsight.
05-29-2005, 03:37 PM
i dont have the best Joystick there is , yet i can keep a 100% fuel G2 level untill 130 kph is showing

you can too because thats what the G2 is capable of right now 3.04

WWMaxGunz
05-29-2005, 04:14 PM
In those scans you show above, I believe that those are the speeds just above or right at
the point where the aircraft would start losing altitude.

But then, check the definitions of Stall Speed, it is not about 5 mph or 10 kph above the
line but right at the line.

How long after losing alt are you getting wing drop?

You might also want to read the archived thread in General Discussion started last May
titled "The planes don't stall" and read just the posts from the Pilots and Instructors
saying over and over that you can stall a real plane without dropping a wing... how do
you get a stall speed for those planes that don't drop a wing if that's possible? Huh?
They will still still stall right down to the ground, they still list stall speeds.

Skalgrim
05-29-2005, 04:52 PM
less training is more reason for the many accident by landing and start later at the war,

it seem more and more you are has weak logic

should more test own plane like p47, lol this bird can 150km/h 30-40 deg climb without stalling problem


Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

The aircraft Hanna flew in the test quoted earlier in this thread was not a Buchon. It was either the aircraft I mentioned, or a G6.

The aircraft Mark died in was a Buchon. The accident took place at Sabadell near Barcelona. The accident took place on landing.

Mark mentions in both of his reports on 109's, (both the report on Black 6, the G2, and also this later one) that the 109's were dangerous to land and that it was easy to lose them during the last seconds before touchdown and also immediately afterwards:

"The only problem is getting too slow. If this happens, you very quickly end up with a high sink rate and with absolutely no ability to check or flare to round out. It literally falls out of your hands!

Once down on three points, it tends to stay down, but be careful; the forward view has gone to hell, and you cannot allow any swing to develop. Initial detection is more difficult-- the aircraft being completely unpredictable-and can diverge in any direction. Sometimes the most immaculate three-pointer will turn into a potential disaster halfway through the landing roll."

Kurfurst/Isegrim's attempt to blame the accident on a Merlin engine is complete speculation and is not bourne out by any fact.

Of the approximately 33,000 109's built, some 11,000 were destroyed or damaged in landing accidents. By the end of the war, with the higher landing speeds required for the heavier G and later models, and the weak undercarriage, and tendency to ground loop, the poorly trained young pilots were killing themselves in accidents frequently.

Ironically, in the game, the 109 is one of the easiest aircraft to land, when it should be more difficult than the 190 for example.

WWMaxGunz
05-29-2005, 04:58 PM
Gee Buzz;

I keep looking and looking... if you are holding the stick back and achieve critical AOA,
you stall and the plane drops. In every case, the plane losing altitude is the primary
sign of a stall, with or without wing drop either immediate or delayed.

Now if you can manage to get wing drop before losing alt and hehehe, without losing alt
then I'd really love to see that! If you can get wing drop before or just when you lose
alt then hey, you stalled at the wing drop and tell us the speed. But if you are already
losing alt before the wing drop then well, you were already stalled, nice try at smearing
the 109 which also if you want to call .ME. a luftwhiner then go right ahead, be a fool!
I'm sure that Kurfurst will either laugh or cry, maybe both as I've bucked him on more
than a couple 109 claims, not to mention LW claims! I am on his list of 109-haters! LOL!

Maybe the planes you "tested" as wing dropping at the speeds you show -=on charts above=-
are undermodelled IF they also lost alt before those speeds AND you flew them right (hey,
not every pilot achieves what test pilots did... fact) while the G-2 may be overmodelled
by not losing alt below stall speed -=on a chart=- enough that IL2 HUD round-off can't be
the source of mistaken data. The pilot in "Black 6" gave stall speed as 155 kph so see if
you lose alt below 155, or 150 as you should. And if you can hold alt at 130 kph then I
will agree with you about 'badly overmodelled', especially if the others lose alt trying
best at the rated airspeeds. That includes F4U-1D/1C loaded as the chart I have loses
alt above the speeds I showed above this in the thread. Okay?

And have some heart, it IS a SIMULATION and CAN'T BE PERFECT so we're looking for more
than a slight margin before doing a bash-march.

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

NonWonderDog
05-29-2005, 05:56 PM
What the heck is wrong with you people? Arguing about the definition of "stall speed"?

LOOK IT UP!

Don't look through pilot accounts trying to piece together their meaning, look it up in the regs! It's very clearly defined; if it wasn't it wouldn't be recorded for nearly every aircraft that has ever flown.

WWMaxGunz is correct, but he seems far too irritated by all of you to argue in any coherent manner. To be honest, I don't blame him.

If you want to test stall speed, go as slow as possible without losing altitude. Is that so hard to understand? This speed being termed "stall speed" may be somewhat confusing to someone without any flight school, but it's very logical. Below this speed, at 1G, the wing will be in a stall condition such that maintaining altitude is not possible.

And as I think Max probably tried to say, the speed at which a plane will go into a full stall is somewhat proportional to g-loading. If a plane is sinking, it is experiencing less than 1G. This, combined with the proper definition of "stall speed," means a sinking plane can enter a full stall and incipient spin at a much lower speed than the stated "stall speed." But none of this matters, because you shouldn't have been flying that slowly anyway!

I have no idea if the 109 is correct in the sim, but neither do any of you if you refuse to test properly.

p1ngu666
05-29-2005, 06:54 PM
well, in the stuff various ppl have posted shows the stall as the wingdrop or flopping.

so while max is correct, we are looking at where it becomes critical or complete, when the wing decides u need to see the ground.

from what ive read buffet which max says is stall, is used as a warning.
from my point of view, maybe we should use the term stalles(ed) out?

NonWonderDog
05-29-2005, 09:55 PM
Why? Why are you looking for the onset of a spin in an already stalled and sinking plane?

And more importantly, why the heck are you comparing the speed at which that happens to the stated stall speed? There's really no reason the two would be related to any greater extent than "the stall speed is greater than the speed at which you'll probably go into a spin in a high performance aircraft while already stalling, sinking, and experiencing less than one G."

The buffeting is really completely inconseqential, and is almost certainly an abstraction in the sim. (I seriously doubt the current flight model models the airflow over the wings to such a high resolution.) Buffeting occurs when parts of the wing stall before others. It can also occur when turbulent air from a stalled or stalling wing passes over the tail surfaces. This can occur gradually or somewhat suddenly, before or during a stall. It has no direct relation to the listed stall speed of a plane. At all. Especially in the sim.

Wings still produce lift after the critical (stall) angle of attack. You can still fly in a stall. You have limited, but still not wholely ineffective, flight controls in a stall (how else would down elevator accomplish anything?). The big difference is that you're creating a heck of a lot more drag than you would be if you weren't stalling.

Normally, wings create greater lift as you increase the angle of attack. After reaching the critical angle of attack, however, the lift created by the wing *decreases* with further increasing AoA. The lift created by the wing at any given speed is *greatest* at the critical AoA. The critical angle of attack is *constant.* Flying at angles of attack greater than the critical AoA is a basic definition of a "stall." The "stall speed" is the speed at which the AOA needed to sustain level flight is equal to the critical AOA. At speeds less than the stall speed of an airplane, level flight is no longer possible; the wings don't have enough lift to give, no matter what angle of attack is used.

Once again, stall speed is the minimum speed at which level flight can be indefinitely maintained, flying with the wings at the critical AoA. It is *not* the speed at which any part of an irregular wing begins to stall, it is *not* the speed at which noticibly increased buffeting occurs, it does *not* apply except in 1G conditions, and it is definitely *not* the speed at which an assymetrically built, high torque warbird goes into a spin while in a less than 1G stall.


An AE *student* should not have to explain such things.

WWMaxGunz
05-29-2005, 10:15 PM
S! NoWonder;

I started out giving the definition from an aero site and the FAA no less.
Later I pulled out word for word (as with the others) the EAA definition.

Irritation is that someone reads a quote stating stall speed clean and with gear and flaps down
that was preceeded by a sentence describing the full stall action of the plane and has decided
that the speed applies to the full stall action. From there it is a simple matter to fly the
same plane in the sim and check speed at the full stall action point, the wing drop, and declare
that the plane is highly overmodelled. And once you've done that, how can you accept an FAA
definition that contradicts it?

P1ngu;
I could give a rats' **** for how you want to define stall. It begins when any part of the
wing exceeds critical AOA. If the inner wing stalls before the rest then results in either
a gentler full stall or no full stall at all where you drop but don't spin.
None of that matters much to me here. I care about taking labelled stall speed and testing
for something different, ie apples and oranges, to come up with the sim being badly off or
the plane being badly overmodelled when it just might not be. The WHY is very simple. With
cr@p claims like that that Oleg can see through certainly faster than I ever will, it is just
another reason for him not to waste time reading posts or taking reports serious at all.

Stall is a region, not a point. Stall speed is just at the very top of the region. The
boundary in a real sense. Not a good place to be flying at at all either. One little snag
and you're going down.

ICDP
05-30-2005, 03:39 AM
I am no fan of the Bf109G2 and I am of the opinion that it and most other agile AC in PF have very optimistic energy retention/recovery. After initial tests I concluded that it was overmodelled in stall speed but after further testing I realised it actually starts to stall at around 150kph clean. I can cannot maintain level flight at 150kph which to me is the definition of a stall, the problem was in my initial tests I was waiting for wing drop. The wing will drop at 130+kph BUT the aircraft is already loosing altitude from a speed of around 150kph.

In the Spitfire Vb I can maintain level flight right up until until the wing drops at 120+kph.

During my tests (around 5 in each aircraft) I found that the 109G2 would begin to stall at just under 150kph (10kph increments) and a wing would drop at 130kph, the aircraft would lose around 25-30m alt before wing drop. The Spitfire Vb would hold altitude until wing drop at 120kph.

My testing criterea:
100% fuel &ammo
Clean aircraft condition
Crimea Map
12:00 noon
Clear weather
100m altitude as per Buzzsaw's criterea. Strange alt as no real pilot would carry out stall testing at this alt as he/she would MOST CERTAINLY DIE

I saved a trak of each flight. I replayed the trak at 1/4 speed in no cockpit view, watching IAS with the accurate alt scale (1m increments).

I am not a pilot but if an aircraft loses 25-30m altitude during landing approach the occupants are in a world of trouble. No amount of reassurance from the pilot that "everything is OK, this is not a real stall" will change the fact they are going to die http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Buzzsaw-
05-30-2005, 08:10 AM
Salute

ICDP has hit the nail on the head.

The later 109's, (G2 but most particularly the K4 are notable for this) all display considerable sink at low speeds, prior to the plane departing. Meanwhile, most other aircraft, drop the wing immediately without the sink.

This 'floating' action on the part of the late 109's is what allows them to maintain control and perform actions at low speed which they should not be able to.

MaxGunz calls this extended drawn out sinking process on the part of the late 109's a 'Stall', and he insists that the onset of the sink, must be defined as the G2's 'Stall speed'. But it is a stall without a penalty. The pilot does not lose control, and he can easily counter the 'sink' by adding throttle and increasing AoA.

ICDP notes that the Spit V drops its wing at 120 kph. (real stall speed as shown in the manual posted above was 116 kph) It departs, and the player loses control. There is no sink beginning at 120 kph, no grace period before the actual departure.

Conversely, he notes the 109G2 begins to lose altitude at 150 kph. (lower than the noted stall speed for this aircraft) At that speed, it is entirely controllable, and players can perform any number of maneuvers. It then continues to lose altitude while remaining in control right down to 130 kph.

But more importantly, if the flying player adds power, he can actually do some quite amazing things at that low speed, without departing. It is easily possible to climb on 100% manual pitch and full throttle with the nose pointed skyward in the 109G2 at 150 kph. Players can roll, spiral, etc.

All of this clearly points to the unrealistic advantage of the late 109's in their low speed behaviour.

Essentially, they can drop below their 'stall speed', and still maintain control and maneuver.

The question is, why should they have this advantage of a 'no-penalty stall', when nothing in the actual observations of the real aircraft's stall behaviour suggests it would perform like this.

Buzzsaw-
05-30-2005, 08:57 AM
Salute

By the way, the Spit V should be tested with the ammo 'Empty'. The 6400 lb weight listed in the manual is without ammo.

S.taibanzai
05-30-2005, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

ICDP has hit the nail on the head.

The later 109's, (G2 but most particularly the K4 are notable for this) all display considerable sink at low speeds, prior to the plane departing. Meanwhile, most other aircraft, drop the wing immediately without the sink.

This 'floating' action on the part of the late 109's is what allows them to maintain control and perform actions at low speed which they should not be able to.

MaxGunz calls this extended drawn out sinking process on the part of the late 109's a 'Stall', and he insists that the onset of the sink, must be defined as the G2's 'Stall speed'. But it is a stall without a penalty. The pilot does not lose control, and he can easily counter the 'sink' by adding throttle and increasing AoA.

ICDP notes that the Spit V drops its wing at 120 kph. (real stall speed as shown in the manual posted above was 116 kph) It departs, and the player loses control. There is no sink beginning at 120 kph, no grace period before the actual departure.

Conversely, he notes the 109G2 begins to lose altitude at 150 kph. (lower than the noted stall speed for this aircraft) At that speed, it is entirely controllable, and players can perform any number of maneuvers. It then continues to lose altitude while remaining in control right down to 130 kph.

But more importantly, if the flying player adds power, he can actually do some quite amazing things at that low speed, without departing. It is easily possible to climb on 100% manual pitch and full throttle with the nose pointed skyward in the 109G2 at 150 kph. Players can roll, spiral, etc.

All of this clearly points to the unrealistic advantage of the late 109's in their low speed behaviour.

Essentially, they can drop below their 'stall speed', and still maintain control and maneuver.

The question is, why should they have this advantage of a 'no-penalty stall', when nothing in the actual observations of the real aircraft's stall behaviour suggests it would perform like this.

Wrong !!!!

Thats why the slats where made http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Buzzsaw-
05-30-2005, 09:40 AM
Salute

Despite what some Luftlovers seem to think, Slats were not an early anti-gravitational device which allowed UFO style maneuvers.

Read the original document on the 109E stall characteristics earlier in the thread.

MEGILE
05-30-2005, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:

Max, your definitions are perfectly accurate in a technical sense, but in relation to the quote from the article "Flying Black 6", they are irrelevant to how that writer defines stall. He defines it as the moment of wingdrop. So when we look at the simulated 109G2, and test it, we also must use the same criteria.



Agreed Buzzsaw, same as the point I was tring to make before about the pilot's definition of the stall is what counts.

MEGILE
05-30-2005, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:

& heres the moment the wing drops , 130 Kmh IAS

http://img182.echo.cx/img182/4924/wdstall26hd.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif 2 KPH slower than I managed... Although its impossible to tell the difference between TAS and IAS from that screenshot alone, any chance of telling us the exact indicated air speed badsight? Presumably it would be slightly lower than the True Airspeed of 137 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

p1ngu666
05-30-2005, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Slats are not some kind of magical device that allows UFO maneuvers.

Read the original document on the 109E stall characteristics earlier in the thread.

u is wrong.
ingame anyways, the slatted aircraft are some of the most dodgy ingame, 109, la5,7 lagg3 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Buzzsaw-
05-30-2005, 10:52 AM
Salute Pingu

You are correct. The La-5/7 series displays the same type of sinking behaviour as the 109's.

So this ahistorical behaviour may be related to how Oleg models the slats.

NonWonderDog
05-30-2005, 12:01 PM
Excuse me if I'm wrong, but isn't the most often levelled complaint on these forums the perception that "it's impossible to stall a plane without spinning"?

Now, Buzzsaw is complaining that the 109G goes into a controllable level stall before spinning??!?!

You can't have it both ways!


Personally, my uninformed opinion is that most of the planes should stall more like the IL2 in the sim than the P39 in the sim. The Bf109 stalls more like the IL2 in the sim than the P39 in the sim. So I'm sitting here, happy as a clam, wondering what the heck you're all arguing about. I guess I just haven't flown a wide enough selection of planes in the sim, but the ones I concern myself with most (BF109E/F/G, MiG 3/MiG 3ud, Yak 1/7/9, LaGG 3, La5/La5F/La5FN, IL2) seem to have very well modelled stall characteristics. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

I'm withholding any and all flight model critques until after 4.0. We are, after all, getting a new flight model... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

WWMaxGunz
05-30-2005, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:

MaxGunz calls this extended drawn out sinking process on the part of the late 109's a 'Stall', and he insists that the onset of the sink, must be defined as the G2's 'Stall speed'. But it is a stall without a penalty. The pilot does not lose control, and he can easily counter the 'sink' by adding throttle and increasing AoA.



Funny, the FAA, the EAA and all the aero sources I can find put stall speed at the point
just where the plane begins to sink.

Buzz, are you such a dweeb that you cannot tell the difference between Stall Speed and
STALL even given definition after definition of both? Even after showing... well there
you are, you have NEVER shown a definition of Stall Speed from anywhere but your own made
up term... the speed you are in when the plane is fully stalled in wing drop!

I really believe that you are unable to understand the difference. That you are unable
to understand how the flight path and G's impact on stall condistions, or even what stall
conditions really are. You can post articles and pick out words to play semantical
algebra with (shades of Bergman's Metaphysics!) but you don't get it at all about flying!

Or maybe you can but having committed yourself you will grasp at anything while ignoring
all else to hang onto your deluded point?

Read the EAA definition, the plane being controllable is EXPLICIT. The FAA definition,
flight MAINTAINED. This is at STALL SPEED, not FULLY STALLED. Get the difference, your
continued use of quoting STALL, STALL, STALL is nothing but Emporers Clothes.

Once the plane cannot hold a 1-G path approached slowly and trimmed to that path, you
have stall speed as the last speed before altitude is lost -- according to the FAA, the
EAA and the aero-engineer folks.

I DIDN'T MAKE THAT UP. IT WASN'T MY DECISION.

You, on the other hand have made your own decision of when stall speed occurs based on
from what I've seen as a short passage of seperate sentences in the book "Black 6" and
perhaps, gee if the words are stall speed then that must be the speed the plane is at
when it is stalled. If the latter is the case then good one Sherlock, you have failed
to note the effects of lowered G-state on a plane losing alt. You have failed to know
that the Stall Speeds given are 1-G only. They only apply to level flight which is
WHY once the plane starts to lose alt the line is drawn.

You want to talk STALL and SPEED then you've left the realm of stated reference Stall
Speeds in any condition. There are more classes of Stall than you seem to think and
this under 1-G wing drop is only one of them.

WWMaxGunz
05-30-2005, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
But more importantly, if the flying player adds power, he can actually do some quite amazing things at that low speed, without departing. It is easily possible to climb on 100% manual pitch and full throttle with the nose pointed skyward in the 109G2 at 150 kph. Players can roll, spiral, etc.


What? You've never heard of flying the back side of the level flight power curve?

That's the place power on where you have lowered power until you reach stall speed
and then... you add power which enables you to go slower yet or rise out of level
flight at any point you still have extra power and don't slow down.
One amazing feature is that in that region of FLIGHT your elevator shows what is
known as control reversal, pulling back on the stick causes the plane to sink and
pushing the stick forward while in that region will gain you lift. I ain't lieing!

Read up on it, there's whole pages and parts of pages dedicated exactly to that as a
danger to pilots. Normally they get there while during a long approach the tower tells
them to slow down for traffic ahead and they are warned not to let themselves get into
that region by continually nosing up and adding power.

BTW, you can get out only by adding power that will allow you to climb or by nosing
down (stick forward) which you have to have alt to lose to do. I guess there is one
other thing, to allow the plane to drop until you hit the ground and hope the carriage
and frame can take it.

Look again at that posted article with the 3 planes and wings and the LIFT CURVES.
Note that as long as you are on the curve, you have lift even in stall. Not until
you lose airflow over the ailerons do you lose the ability to roll with those and
nowhere in there do you lose rudder or elevator unless the latter is placed high
enough to be in the slipstream of the stalled wings (a design feature of some planes
to provide stall warning). The rudder is what pilots use to maintain level flight
even when flying and dropping through stalls, there are MANY articles on the web
about that, dancing on the rudder pedals to keep the wings level. Gee, that is also
discussed by pilots and instructors posting in the Stall Thread on General Discussion
which hey if you CAN'T UNDERSTAND then don't bother reading, you might learn something
if you actually did... about 5 times.

Hey Buzz, answer NonWonderDog. Oh wait, you can't. Nothing there for you to pick at
is there?

NonWonderDog
05-30-2005, 06:22 PM
Honestly, I would think flying a warbird like that would get you killed. Propwash, assymetric wings, heaping gobs of torque, all that.

So, once again, it looks like the simplistic torque model is at fault. From what I've gathered, the torque model is the biggest change in the new FM.

So, in civil terms, quit yer *****in'!

WWMaxGunz
05-30-2005, 07:25 PM
Please don't read intentions into that post about making tactics out of that.
And be careful reading 'reports' of what players do by others who misjudge energy states
and don't tell everything that happened among other things. "Impossible" happens a lot
to some players.

It is very un-reccomended, but knowing about it saves lives when it happens. This is
in real life aviation and yes good aviation sites do cover it as part of landing info.

There is no reason to get slow in combat flying, it's a waste of energy.

The thing is, it is possible to fly the backside of the power curve, even to power out
of it and does happen even with GA planes so saying it is unreal and can't happen is not
true. One AF jet jockey over on SimHQ noted that it does have application in jet combat
and they do practice it on each other. Another very similar maneuver with jets is the
Cobra Maneuver. But that is all with high power military jets, not torquey props.

As far as the modelling in the sim; many planes and ground objects, bullets and shells
all over the place, all in realtime on a PC desktop with loads of eye candy. Anyone
expects too much deserves to be disappointed.

TX-EcoDragon
05-30-2005, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Here is why MaxGunz definition of a stall, (and the stall is what we are talking about) is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand here.

By claiming that the moment of 'Stall' happens prior to wingdrop, he is ignoring the fact that wing stall is a progressive event.

THE MOMENT A PILOT START TO LOAD HIS AIRCRAFT WITH G'S, AND A HIGHER ANGLE OF ATTACK, PORTIONS OF HIS WING WILL BEGIN TO STALL.

Here is a page from a NACA report dealing specifically with the issue of stall.

(pic removed)

This test was done in a wind tunnel, the only place where instruments can actually measure stall effects. The measurement of the onset of stall during normal aircraft flight was out of realm of possibility in WWII.

You can see the progression of stall on three aircraft examples. Stall begins to happen on sections of the wing, but in the earlier stages of wing stall, the aircraft remains flyable. IT HAS NOT YET ENTERED COMPLETE STALL.

snip. . . .



Sorry, but there are some misconceptions here. Yes the stall is progressive (partially by design) such that the root stalls before the outboard portions, it is also progressive from the trailing edge towards the leading edge, but loss of control does not need to happen in a stall, nor does wing drop. In fact as has been stated in this thread, it is fairly common practice for a pilot to practice deep oscillation/falling leaf stalls in which a normal stall is entered and at the stall(which is not an uncontrollable wing drop, but rather a nose down pitching moment as well as a perceptible loss of lift) the elevator is pulled fully aft, and held there, the ailerons are held in the neutral position and the wings are kept level with rudder work. A healthy descent rate ensues that varies during the nose up and nose down oscillation cycle, but otherwise the aircraft remains wings level, fully stalled, and not out of control. In many of these aircraft this is a challenging excercise for pilots with lazy feet, and that's why it's done, but that doesn't mean that the aircraft is out of control, and it doesn't mean that a wing must drop. These aspects are variables, the stall does have some contants though.

Put simply, the 1G stall is the point at which the aircraft can not maintain altitude in level flight. If you look at a lift/drag curve you will see that initially lift as AoA increases there is an increase in both lift and drag, follow this curve up and you will see that after the point where the lift is at it's maximal value any further increase in AoA provides less than maximal lift, and you will also see that drag increases rapidly in this region. The point beyond this lift maxima can be thought of as the stall and post stall region of the envelope. In the real world (and in conventionally designed aircraft such as those in the sim) this area of the envelope comes with an associated nose down pitching moment as the relationship between the center of lift of the wing, and the center of gravity lowers the nose. Any skidding of the aircraft will cause one wing to stall before the other, and this is the wing drop, but keep in mind, as said before, this is a variable aspect of the stall. Ideally the outboard portion of the wing doesn't stall before the AoA is reduced, but if it does, then there may be some wing drop depending on the pilot's inputs, torque effect if at higher power settings, asymmetric thrust in a twin, etc. If the pilot fails to maintain coordinated flight as the stall occurs, has un equal power on each engine of a twin, has a high power setting and thusly high torque, or poor piloting technique at the stall then a wing will probably drop. This drop thusly can not be a definition of a stall since it generally only happens when a stall is aggravated. What makes the stall a bit hard to define in this sim is that it does not have any nose down pitching moment, but the fact remains that the most accurate way to evaluate the 1G stall in this sim is to determine the minimal speed at which altitude can be maintained for a given configuration and power setting.

The wing drop character (if any) is generally more pronounced when an accellerated stall is encountered (a stall that occurs witha greater than 1G loadfactor on the aircraft), however recovery is generally very quick and usually only requires a reduction in elevator pressures and some roll recovery.

TX-EcoDragon
05-30-2005, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
Why? Why are you looking for the onset of a spin in an already stalled and sinking plane?

And more importantly, why the heck are you comparing the speed at which that happens to the stated stall speed? There's really no reason the two would be related to any greater extent than "the stall speed is greater than the speed at which you'll probably go into a spin in a high performance aircraft while already stalling, sinking, and experiencing less than one G."

The buffeting is really completely inconseqential, and is almost certainly an abstraction in the sim. (I seriously doubt the current flight model models the airflow over the wings to such a high resolution.) Buffeting occurs when parts of the wing stall before others. It can also occur when turbulent air from a stalled or stalling wing passes over the tail surfaces. This can occur gradually or somewhat suddenly, before or during a stall. It has no direct relation to the listed stall speed of a plane. At all. Especially in the sim.

Wings still produce lift after the critical (stall) angle of attack. You can still fly in a stall. You have limited, but still not wholely ineffective, flight controls in a stall (how else would down elevator accomplish anything?). The big difference is that you're creating a heck of a lot more drag than you would be if you weren't stalling.

Normally, wings create greater lift as you increase the angle of attack. After reaching the critical angle of attack, however, the lift created by the wing *decreases* with further increasing AoA. The lift created by the wing at any given speed is *greatest* at the critical AoA. The critical angle of attack is *constant.* Flying at angles of attack greater than the critical AoA is a basic definition of a "stall." The "stall speed" is the speed at which the AOA needed to sustain level flight is equal to the critical AOA. At speeds less than the stall speed of an airplane, level flight is no longer possible; the wings don't have enough lift to give, no matter what angle of attack is used.

Once again, stall speed is the minimum speed at which level flight can be indefinitely maintained, flying with the wings at the critical AoA. It is *not* the speed at which any part of an irregular wing begins to stall, it is *not* the speed at which noticibly increased buffeting occurs, it does *not* apply except in 1G conditions, and it is definitely *not* the speed at which an assymetrically built, high torque warbird goes into a spin while in a less than 1G stall.


An AE *student* should not have to explain such things.

There we go! Well said. I could have saved myself the trouble of a reply if I had read this far!

TX-EcoDragon
05-30-2005, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute


But more importantly, if the flying player adds power, he can actually do some quite amazing things at that low speed, without departing. It is easily possible to climb on 100% manual pitch and full throttle with the nose pointed skyward in the 109G2 at 150 kph. Players can roll, spiral, etc.

All of this clearly points to the unrealistic advantage of the late 109's in their low speed behaviour.

Essentially, they can drop below their 'stall speed', and still maintain control and maneuver.


Actually, remember that the "stall speed" is also known as the "1G stall speed", and that we can stall at any speed provided the critical angle of attack is exceeded, so 300 mph is also the stall speed if you pull to the critical angle, in this case you could call 300 mph the 10G stall speed (or whatever), and as you might expect, this relationship also works the other way. As G approaches 0, stall speed also approaches 0. In the situation you mention with the aircraft in the vertical the wing is not loaded, or is minimally loaded (to fly 90 degrees it must be at or very nearly at 0G, and therefore 0 AoA). Any reduction in G will come with a decreased stall speed and because of this it is more than possible to maneuver below stall speed if the G on the wing is less than 1G. The problem you seem to have with the 109 G2 in that quote is thusly not the stall, but the power loading.

Badsight.
05-30-2005, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by ICDP:
In the Spitfire Vb I can maintain level flight right up until until the wing drops at 120+kph. this sounds better than what the G2 has happen just before stalling

Megile , i dont have the smoothest of joysticks anymore , its a little "notchy" in small movements , with a smoother action on the X & Y i might have done a better job (maybe)

when the wing dips for me the IAS speedbar always says 130 , i dont know if its 139 or 130.1 kmh , but 140 definantly dissaperes before the wing drops

NonWonderDog
05-31-2005, 12:33 AM
WHAT?!?

ICDP reports that the Spit Vb does not stall without dropping a wing. You say this is *good.*

EVERYWHERE else on the forums is the complaint that the planes in the sim automatically drop one wing and go into a spin whenever they stall.

On the other hand, you, Buzzsaw, and ICDP have, even if you don't realise it, fairly conclusively shown that the Me109 stalls without automatically dropping a wing. You've even managed to get it down below 140 kph in the stall and maintain control. Good job!

I still don't understand what the heck is going on. Two pilots and and aerospace student have given the definition of the stall and the stall speed, and yet you don't listen. You still somehow fail to realise that what you are seeing with the Me109 is nearly *exactly* what we told you *should* happen. I am now of the opinion that the Me109 stall is more accurately modelled than at least the stall of the Spitfire Vb, and yet you don't care.

I give up!

Ratsack
05-31-2005, 05:10 AM
G'day NonWonderDog,

It€s not the official definition of the stall that matters in this comparison. It€s the definition used by the pilot who wrote €˜Flying Black 6€ that matters. The point is as follows:

1. the pilot who reported on Black 6 reported a €˜stall speed€ of X;
2. in the article, he described €˜stall speed€ as the speed when €˜the wing dropped€;
3. if we wish to compare the modeled Bf109G2 against the restored Black 6, we must use the same definition.

I haven€t read the article in a long time, and no longer remember the details (and I€m not going out to the shed in minus 2 centigrade to dig out a dog eared copy of Flypast!). However, the point is simply that if we want to compare the modeled G2 to the data gathered from Black 6, we must compare apples with apples, not with standard Eurobananas.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Ratsack

PS €" this discussion is a waste of space: we€re getting a new flight model, so there€ll plenty more to b1tch about then http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif. Add a post to the €˜What about one lousy bomb for Friederichs€ thread instead. Forget this pointless gobsh1te.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Aaron_GT
05-31-2005, 08:01 AM
It€s not the official definition of the stall that matters in this comparison. It€s the definition used by the pilot who wrote €˜Flying Black 6€ that matters. The point is as follows:

Both are relevant, though. It could be that Oleg has modelled the point of stall (loss of lift) correctly, but the wing dip may not be correctly modelled. I don't know how the flight models are parameterised but it might be hard to set both to be correct without lots of work, or it might be a lack of testing, oversight, a bug. t Basing the figures on just one test (from Black 6) is fine if that is all the data that there is to have, but I am sure that the LW and VVS must have additional test data. If Black 6 test data was the only test data available, then fair enough, but it would mean you'd be sensitive to the vagaries of a particular plane, and there are variations in planes, and a lack of aerodynamic balance in the stall could lead to earlier wing drop than average.

I wonder if, in BoB we'll get more individual variation between planes, or if that would just be a headache causing more bug reports.

LLv34_Stafroty
05-31-2005, 08:03 AM
Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
WHAT?!?

ICDP reports that the Spit Vb does not stall without dropping a wing. You say this is *good.*

EVERYWHERE else on the forums is the complaint that the planes in the sim automatically drop one wing and go into a spin whenever they stall.

On the other hand, you, Buzzsaw, and ICDP have, even if you don't realise it, fairly conclusively shown that the Me109 stalls without automatically dropping a wing. You've even managed to get it down below 140 kph in the stall and maintain control. Good job!

I still don't understand what the heck is going on. Two pilots and and aerospace student have given the definition of the stall and the stall speed, and yet you don't listen. You still somehow fail to realise that what you are seeing with the Me109 is nearly *exactly* what we told you *should* happen. I am now of the opinion that the Me109 stall is more accurately modelled than at least the stall of the Spitfire Vb, and yet you don't care.

I give up!


Well said Man, but, dont give up! maybe he´s on pills and can go on and on like duracell bunny.

He really have shown that slats really do their job in this sim and yea, ur comment i quoted opened my eyes much, thx for this.
Good thread as well.
Im myself bit "offline" now so cant much come along in arguing in here. S! anyway folks..


and Buzzaw, take some distance on this issue u have about stall speeds and so, and look it from different aspects, and think this issue as well in other sides view of point, step forward and get out from continuing same loop in way of your thinkin.. just a free tip.

Ratsack
05-31-2005, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It€s not the official definition of the stall that matters in this comparison. It€s the definition used by the pilot who wrote €˜Flying Black 6€ that matters. The point is as follows:

Both are relevant, though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the broader sense yes. In relation to the figures Buzz is quoting, they're not.

That's the point.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ratsack

WWMaxGunz
05-31-2005, 11:16 AM
Dave Southwood who flew the 'authentic' Bf 109 G-2/trop Black 6

The stall itself is a left wing drop through about 15 degrees with a slight nose drop, accompanied by a light buffet. All controls are effective up to the stall, and recovery is instant on moving the stick forward. Stall speeds are 155kph clean and 140kph with gear and flap down.

Here is the text.

A) In one sentence DS describes the wing drop as a condition of the stall.
B) In another he gives the Stall Speeds, most likely from a chart as he lists clean and landing.

1) He does not say that stall begins with wing drop.
2) He does not say that wing drop occurs at stall speed.
3) Those are conclusions drawn by some readers and then taken as the means to run "tests".
4) The same readers don't have the sense to check their assumptions to real world.

TX-EcoDragon
05-31-2005, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
G'day NonWonderDog,

It€s not the official definition of the stall that matters in this comparison. It€s the definition used by the pilot who wrote €˜Flying Black 6€ that matters. The point is as follows:

1. the pilot who reported on Black 6 reported a €˜stall speed€ of X;
2. in the article, he described €˜stall speed€ as the speed when €˜the wing dropped€;
3. if we wish to compare the modeled Bf109G2 against the restored Black 6, we must use the same definition.

I haven€t read the article in a long time, and no longer remember the details (and I€m not going out to the shed in minus 2 centigrade to dig out a dog eared copy of Flypast!). However, the point is simply that if we want to compare the modeled G2 to the data gathered from Black 6, we must compare apples with apples, not with standard Eurobananas.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Ratsack

PS €" this discussion is a waste of space: we€re getting a new flight model, so there€ll plenty more to b1tch about then http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif. Add a post to the €˜What about one lousy bomb for Friederichs€ thread instead. Forget this pointless gobsh1te.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


The underlying point that the posters here are after is at what speed is the aircraft in a restricted flight envelope due to the stall onset. At speeds higher than stall speed the aircraft can maintain altitude/maneuver at 1G (and higher), at and below the stall speed it can't. . .this point also happens to be the stall speed, and this point also happens to be the point at which the aircraft can no longer maintain altitude. The sim doesn't model this perfectly, but the reality is that there is a speed at which the aircraft can not maintain alt and there for can not maneuver at 1G (and is therefore post-stall) and in this range can not be an effective combatant. They are saying that it stalls too slowly, and that this affords some sort of maneuverability advantage at low speeds, well, there can be no 1G maneuvering post stall so determine the point of that stall is important to their argument, in particular in a sim that doesn't really handle to 1G stall itself very well. . . are we on the same page yet?? Of course in combat most of us are not at idle power, nor are we at only 1G so that complicates things further, because all this talk of 1G stalls is only marginally relevant but the available G on the 109 at a given speed seems just fine to me.

Time to post some devicelink data I guess.


Oh and yeah. . . it might be wise to see what happens in 4.0!

WWMaxGunz
05-31-2005, 04:38 PM
I find it hard to believe that a test pilot would redefine the term Stall Speed
arbitrarily.

OTOH maybe Black 6 dropped a wingtip before losing alt for whatever reason?

There is nothing in that text to say that the wing drop stall he described was
a 1-G stall either, but that's a restatement of my post above. In describing
the stall he could have been describing the stall in general. Providing info
on the stall speed soon after does not connect the two.

TX-EcoDragon
05-31-2005, 05:34 PM
Well, in the accelerated stall the drop is far more common than at the 1G, power off stall that people here are using to test the G2 stall character. Power on stalls add increased nose high attitude, higher torque, p-factor, and slipstream effect to contend with so here again there is greater wing drop character. I didn't mean to imply that the wing drop should be debated, rather that it isn't the indicator of a stall, it is a byproduct of the stall in some instances, and there are more accurate (but perhaps less obvious) indicators of the stall. It appears that it is assumed that the stall character of the aircraft at the 1G stall is an indicator of the accelerated stall character as well.

It doesn't really matter what they found in "Black 6" other than what the stall speed was, since the point here is at what speed is the aircraft not an effective combatant in level flight. . . if the wing drop and nose drop happen at the same time then the wing drop is the most attention getting thing, but whether or not the wing drops in the stall the common event is nose drop and an inability to maintain altitude. You still won't be an effective combatant in the aircraft even if wings level but unable to maneuver or maintain alt. The first positive sign of exceeding the critical angle of attack should be used as the criteria. Not the buffet, not increased slipstream noise, the most fundamental component of the stall is the shift in the lift/drag character, where drag increases and lift decreases, this comes with nose down tendency which we lack in the sim, and if at high power, or uncoordinated, or in some designs there will also be wing drop. . . what we don't lack, and what isn't variable within the designs in this sim is the reduction in lift post stall, that leads to the inability to maintain altitude let alone maneuver in 1G flight.


Now if we want to improve the fidelity of the stall at the 1G point, that's another issue, and a long-standing one in the sim. As far as the type of stall we encounter in combat, that is generally the power on accellerated stall, and nobody will contest that the 109, and all planes in this sim drop a wing in that that situation, in my apprasial the drop is usually a little too pronounced when in coordinated flight. . . and more important is that coordinated or uncoordinated flight, at either high or low power settings results in much the same type of wing drop in each instance.

WWMaxGunz
05-31-2005, 06:19 PM
I agree entirely, as much of what I've posted the last few pages attests though not so
well worded as what you and NonWonderDog have done.

It's whay I think that the 109G-2 1-G stall speed in the sim is not far off at all and well
above 130kph, I take the first sign which is loss of altitude... well okay initially from
what I read FAA and EAA I only accepted loss of altitude but now in the face of people who
know far more than I do, the first sign will do, even wing drop if it precedes alt loss.

Besides, it's a sim, it runs on the PC at realtime with loads of other action, I don't
expect full replication of every last characteristic not complete 100 % fidelity of any.
I'd have to be insane to expect either, IMHO. And I don't think for 1 NY second that you,
EcoDragon nor NonWonderDog nor the large majority of members here do either! I'm just
stating what I take to be facts there. We have a wonderful sim that is improving yet
again soon!

NonWonderDog
05-31-2005, 10:19 PM
Alright, I took the time to do a few stalls in the 109G2 myself and... hey! The stall model of this plane is really good! I really haven't done many 1G stalls in the sim, so I didn't really know how good it already *was.* All I ever hear on the forums are complaints. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

There are a couple of niggles: the nose doesn't seem to drop as much as I would expect, riding a stall at idle throttle is *hard,* and I have no way of feeling the loss of lift through my bum-cheeks... but that's true of all the planes in the sim.

Oh, but test results:

It's aggravatingly difficult to test stall speed without a VSI. (It's aggravatingly hard to test it with a VSI, too, that's why the speed is calculated indirectly.) So none of this can possibly be very accurate. I did several stalls at about 1,000m altitude with the wingtip smoke on so I could judge vertical speed afterwards when reviewing my track, but I couldn't do any corrections while flying.

Anyway, the plane goes all mushy at about 180-200km/hr, requiring noticibly more stick input to maintain altitude. This is how it should be.

Between 145-160 km/hr, I could not keep the plane level at any angle of attack, signifying the onset of a stall. This is how it should be. The elevator authority at this point was HUGE, however. Lots and lots and lots of elevator authority. Anything past 75% deflection of the stick sent me deep into a stall and incipient spin. The nose tried to come down, but I could *easily* counter this, reverse it, and flip the plane over by pulling back. I can't help feeling that this is very wrong.

Keeping the nose up deep into the stall is an incredible challenge because of this and the high sensitivity of your joystick near the edges of its travel(*). I was still able to ride the stall for 5 seconds or so before I was unable to keep the wings level with the rudder, at something south of 140 km/hr. I'm sure I could have done better with pedals instead of a twist-stick. At any point during the maneuver, however, pulling back too far (!!!) on the stick would pull the wings up far enough that they generated almost no lift, leading to a swift departure. Lots of elevator authority. Lots and lots and lots of it.

(*) Default joystick settings use a low sensitivity near center. These settings, however, still allow full virtual stick deflection. Obviously, something has to give, and that something is precise control at large deflections. Normally all this does is force you to use trim if you want to shoot anything. Using the arrow keys to trim is really hard, however, so I couldn't trim correctly in the stall. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Just for a masochistic lark, I decided to see how long I could keep it on the back end of the power curve. I slowed into a stall and added power with the wings up at about 150km/hr, figuring I'd be able to keep the wings stalled for a while. I was wrong. I immediately went into an unrecoverable spin. I guess there's lots and lots of torque, too. Maybe I should have tried the IL2...


Conclusions? The stall speed is fine. Stall behavior is close enough that I can't argue. In fact, the whole stall model is fine. Control authority at very low speed is still a problem, but as far as I can tell it's always been a problem, in every plane.

Just to illustrate that: as far as I can tell, there isn't any differential braking in the sim. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif We turn with the rudder, even at taxi speed! If stationary, we can only turn because of propwash over the rudder! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
Try it if you don't believe me! See what happens if you land a plane without a rudder... you can't taxi! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif


....ahem. That's my only real gripe with the sim, but it's understandable if ground handling was simplified like that; they don't have to model wheel traction and whatnot. It actually works pretty well as long as you have a rudder and you aren't flying a YP80, too. Apparently this is fixed in 4.0, however. (Yesh! Woohoo!)

.......ahem. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Maybe it just disables rudder control (and thus differential brake control) if you lose your rudder. It sure doesn't *feel* that way, though...

Kurfurst__
06-01-2005, 01:27 AM
Try using 'B' + rudder for differential breaking.

BTW, what do you think of the P-80? I tried it a long time ago, but was quite ridiculus back then, no E loss, simply impossible to stall spin it at full power... maybe it`s changed ever since, but to me, it`s completely ridiculus.

WWMaxGunz
06-01-2005, 01:31 AM
Try using your trim for elevator adjustment during your 1-G stall tests. It will enable
you to always be working the center region of the stick where your sensitivity is high.

Part of the problem there is obvious if you do some math, the delta inside and outside
any point along the stick travel from about halfway on they get very different. IOW,
less stick by some increment gets less to far less force difference than more stick by
the same increment. My solution and I think ICDP is to run a linear slider setup, all
100's. It's not nearly as bad as it might seem once you get used to it and the plus
is that changes in modelled backforces due to changes in speed far less swamp out your
pilot strength applied inputs, if you know what I mean here. Sorry but I'm not that
great with words, the sensitive stick region is more easily overcome as the plane gets
out of trim... it is a direct artefact of not the FM but the hardware limitation of the
stick and the method of user interface via the strength based stick model. Strength
based stick model is that where you move your stick is not positioning the virtual plane
stick but rather how hard the virtual pilot pulls or pushes the virtual stick. So as
the plane slows down, it gets easier and easier for him to move the stick and you have
to know that a little bit is going farther and farther... this is not the FM at all.

HayateAce
06-01-2005, 01:35 AM
Well geee whiz, there you have it folks. After his ehaustive (1 min session) "testing" our expert flier here has laid teh proclamation that the 109 stall is juuust fine.

Phew! I for one am glad you came in and cleared up all the mystery.

BogusFantasy~109:

http://www.p4a.com/item_images/medium/03/83/26-01.jpg

Badsight.
06-01-2005, 01:59 AM
its 60 seconds more than youll ever do

which means 100% more credible than youll ever be

when are you going to post what your normall login name is for us ?

or are your squadmates too embarrassed

IIJG69_Kartofe
06-01-2005, 03:23 AM
Geeez Bozo the Clown is back to send us his exeptional science. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

Hayateclown ... Shut our big mouth up, wake up yous small brain, and learn to read.

There is a lot of exellent post here about a-e-ro-dy-na-mics (open a dictionary an search).

If you don't want (or will) go back to your crimson skyes game, holywood studios squadron is still recruiting clowns like you! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

corsairf4u
06-01-2005, 05:11 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Here is a flight report by Mark Hanna on the Me109, in which he describes the behavior of its Leading Edge Slats. It should clear up some of the recent speculation about the influence of slat deployment on flight behavior. Basically Hanna says there isn't any to speak of -would tou like too see some great pics of his father putting mh434 through its paces at my old home ,,,biggin hill ?

Quote -

The roll rate is very good and very positive below about 400 km/h, and the amount of effort needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right. As the stall is reached, the leading-edge slats deploy-together, if the ball is in the middle; slightly asymmetrically, if you have any slip on. The aircraft delights in being pulled into hard maneuvering turns at these slower speeds. As the slats pop out, you feel a slight "notching" on the stick, and you can pull more until the whole airframe is buffeting quite hard. A little more and you will drop a wing, but you have to be crass to do it unintentionally.

- Unquote


Go here -

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_199912/ai_n8870616

- for the complete article.


It's about 4:45pm my time on the 24th of May. Let's see how long it takes Commander Kurfurst to drop in.

NonWonderDog
06-01-2005, 10:48 AM
Is there no satisfying you people?

Of course I only did a cursory examination; nothing showed up as wrong and we're probably getting a new flight model within a week so this will all be completely moot. I wasn't going to spend more than 20 minutes when the only purpose is to allow me to argue over the internet.

Fact is, after doing 15-20 stalls in the thing, it stalls when it's supposed to stall and feels like a plane in a stall, albeit one with crazy high elevator authority. The elevator authority at stall speed might be correct for all I know, but my observation was that it had very high elevator authority even deep into a stall.

I was easily able to fly in a stall down to 140 km/hr and below. This does *not* mean that the stall speed is below 140 km/hr. It doesn't it doesn't it doesn't it doesn't. All it means is that there probably isn't enough pilot feedback telling you that you're in a stall. It's impossible to maintain level flight below ~150-155km/hr, and that's all that matters in a dogfight.

However this compares to Black 6 is completely inconsequential. You'll always find that certain Piper Cherokee that drops a wing in a stall, too; it doesn't mean they all do it. But even allowing that all Me109G2s dropped a wing in a 1G stall (which is pretty likely), having that behavior come late in the sim does absolutely nothing to make the 109 "uber." Unless you like dogfighting on the back side of the power curve?

And just to clarify: yes, the stall model is less than perfect. It could stand to be improved. It is being improved for 4.0. Despite all that, it's one of the best I've encountered in a flight sim.

But just to stir everyone up to biting each others' heads off again, think about this: the tailwheel in a P51 (in real life) is rigged to automatically lock in the center position when you pull all the way back on the stick. This is used as a convenience to the pilot during 3-point landings. Pulling all the way back on the stick during the landing flare ingame will invariably send you plummeting to your death. It won't lock the tail wheel either. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

And there was just a touch of irony to the braking thing. I made a crazy claim, suggested a test that did nothing but highlight a shortcoming in the sim, and justified it by "feel" alone. Sounds like a certain stall speed conversation, huh? It's still annoying that it's impossible to taxi without a rudder - B+rudder does nothing - and I can't figure out why.

But in any case, it would make me proud to be the author of the last conspiracy theory of 3.04. Go, run with this! There is no differential braking! B+rudder is a lie! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

p1ngu666
06-01-2005, 12:30 PM
u could try the k4, the biggest, heaviest, worse cog, worse areodymanics.

its also pretty clear to me also, that anyone saying, hey 109 is too good at X will get drowned out, nit picked to death etc

seems to me very few want a correctly modeled 109 if it would be worse...

IIJG69_Kartofe
06-01-2005, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:

& heres the moment the wing drops , 130 Kmh IAS

http://img182.echo.cx/img182/4924/wdstall26hd.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif 2 KPH slower than I managed... Although its impossible to tell the difference between TAS and IAS from that screenshot alone, any chance of telling us the exact indicated air speed badsight? Presumably it would be slightly lower than the True Airspeed of 137 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hum...


Look @ the altitude !

Under 500M there is NO noticeable difference between TAS an IAS (FYI @ 500 M The difference between TAS and IAS is 3 Kmph for 100 Kmph indicated).

Kurfurst__
06-01-2005, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
u could try the k4, the biggest, heaviest, worse cog, worse areodymanics.

Huh? K`s CoG was the same as previous version, I dunno where this stuff came up from. Nothing indicates that, what would have caused different CoG, hmm? As for aerodynamics, it was also one of the cleanest forms of the 109s, with wheel well covers and fully retractable tailwheel and more smoothly faired wheel well covers. One experimental version of it with swept backed propeller blades was good for 741 kph at altitude..

And of course it was the heaviest 109.. technically, as the weight diffo the K-4 and the G-10/U4 we have in the game was... 20kg! Geez. That must have truly effected the CoG! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

WWMaxGunz
06-01-2005, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
its also pretty clear to me also, that anyone saying, hey 109 is too good at X will get drowned out, nit picked to death etc


As long as you pick a BS claim about any plane there's people who will point that out if
they spot it and others who will back it up like they'll die if they don't!

So many times, common sense is only 'common', sometimes not even that. Especially here.

You got some way to prove something, p1ngu? Or just having fun keeping the stir going?
I know, you're bored and like a good flamewar. It's like your calling sometimes.......

EDIT:ADD -- Even before I could finish this post, looks like you caught a big one!

WWMaxGunz
06-01-2005, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
Is there no satisfying you people?

<snip>

I was easily able to fly in a stall down to 140 km/hr and below. This does *not* mean that the stall speed is below 140 km/hr. It doesn't it doesn't it doesn't it doesn't. All it means is that there probably isn't enough pilot feedback telling you that you're in a stall. It's impossible to maintain level flight below ~150-155km/hr, and that's all that matters in a dogfight.

However this compares to Black 6 is completely inconsequential.

<big snip>

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

Your first post in this thread, you noted my frustration. I think you are beginning to
catch on now!

Truely, had you read the previous pages to that first post you made? I think if you had,
you wouldn't be so surprised, LOL! It's about like a fact, either the worst cases just
skip anything bigger than a political slogan slash sound bite or it all just goes over
their heads. They dig through entire texts and if they find some short bit that gives
rise to imagination then, hey that's the most real 'flight' they can make! And then
along comes someone to take it away from them trying to use numbers and a lot of mumbo
jumbo semantics... it just ain't fair!

You write like you actually fly planes! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif That puts you 10 levels above the likes
of hayate-ace-hole. And... you actually know something about the science of flight gives
you even more alt! And you write it all so clearly and clean but don't expect it to be
absorbed because that's just too much to ask!

I do thank you for so far and any other additions to my limited understandings.

Neal

p1ngu666
06-01-2005, 03:27 PM
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 p1ngu666:
u could try the k4, the biggest, heaviest, worse cog, worse areodymanics.

Huh? K`s CoG was the same as previous version, I dunno where this stuff came up from. Nothing indicates that, what would have caused different CoG, hmm? As for aerodynamics, it was also one of the cleanest forms of the 109s, with wheel well covers and fully retractable tailwheel and more smoothly faired wheel well covers. One experimental version of it with swept backed propeller blades was good for 741 kph at altitude..

And of course it was the heaviest 109.. technically, as the weight diffo the K-4 and the G-10/U4 we have in the game was... 20kg! Geez. That must have truly effected the CoG! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well, the wheel covers where often removed, and i think the tailwheel often locked down too, against the g2 its got wheel covers only http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

it was in a pilots interview who flew the 109 in combat, said the cog had gotten worse and wasnt nice or something.

also the k4 weighs more than the f4 by a fair bit and the g2 also but by a lesser amount.

if i remmber corrently, the k4 stalls the same as a f4, but is notibly softer in the stall...


also max, im just pointing out how i see things, and im not alone in my views http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

NonWonderDog
06-01-2005, 03:41 PM
Actually, after a bit more goofing around I think I can see where they're coming from.

With the power off, the stall speed is almost exactly 155km/hr. I wouldn't expect anything less; it can be easily calculated from a few flight model factors that are almost certainly readily available to Oleg and co.

But everyone's gone and forgotten all about propwash. There's a lot of propwash in this sim. A whole lot. I don't know how much there should be, and I have no reason to think it's wrong, but there's a lot of it.

All of this propwash means that if you add enough power, there's enough flow over the wings to allow you to "fly" level at about 145-150 km/hr. It was hard, but kind of fun to do. I ended up with the nose sticking up at a rediculous angle at 100% pitch and 40% throttle. It took a heck of a lot of rudder input, but I could maintain this indefinitely. The funniest part was that the huge p-factor meant I could only fly around in big left-hand circles. Going straight wasn't possible. Happily enough, the ailerons were nearly useless.

Now, maybe (probably) a few aerodynamic effects are exaggerated in the sim, but I can't think of any *technical* reason why what I did should have been impossible. Any turbulence would have ruined my day for sure... but there's no real turbulence in the sim.

Is this goofiness what people are complaining about? I can't imagine it having any combat relevance whatsoever. I don't see any point in complaining about things like this now, though, with 4.0 on the way. Things like this are definitely due to the overall flight model.

Badsight.
06-01-2005, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
also the k4 weighs more than the f4 by a fair bit and the g2 also but by a lesser amount.

if i remmber corrently, the k4 stalls the same as a f4, but is notibly softer in the stall... ok ive heard this a lot , it seems it taken as gospel now

will test after work & post back

i doubt it as the F4 is the far better Turn Fighter in my experience , compared to the F4 , the K4 is **** at turning

IIJG69_Kartofe
06-01-2005, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
also max, im just pointing out how i see things, and im not alone in my views http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ok ... So if i understand well your point is the number of people thinking like you ... Hmmm?

If i use the same thinking i can say that kind of B***Sh***.

"Billions of flies in the world eat dirty things... They can't all be wrong ... so we are wrong, we must join their advise because they are the majority, .... Enjoy YOUR MEAL! "

...Personally i will keep my advice, my opinion forged after thousend hours of flight in this sim, an i will leave you with your "shared by many" views.

WWMaxGunz
06-01-2005, 04:48 PM
P1ngu... I "feel" certain things about some of the planes and in some cases I can make
a case though the <cough> 190 gunsight view isn't going to change nor is the <cough>
trim and that's just how it is. I could rail on about the P-51 elevator and maybe a
half dozen other easy targets as well since dead horses are big don't dodge, <cough>
151/20 ammo mixes.

Feel don't equal prove.

You got something real and can show it and it holds up then you'll get my backing at
least and I'm sure the backing of others. But then you come up with pseudo-facts that
support a side or view that someone is cheated and you'll get instant backing that way.
The difference is that you won't fool Oleg with BS, you won't even get a review without
solid original data so pick your crowd.

Common pattern has been; get a feeling, make a decision, round up support and then dig
for anything no matter how small and unsubstantiated to call proof then wail like it's
the end of the world while making demands. Sometimes it's even right and something big
enough to need changing and... sometimes it actually gets changed! We have a pattern of
abusive posters who keep lowering the chances of changes or any improvements as well.

Screw all that! If BS is allowed to float freely then that's all there will be and the
ORR as any kind of feedback from the community will be effectively 100% broken instead
of just, it seems, mostly so. It is already a source of BS complaints spread among the
community to credulous newbs, cretins, jerks and other agenda-mongers already. Anyone
looking for good understanding of where the line between sim and reality is has to sift
through a pile of trash posts (but what about my little peeves?) to find any real
discussion. If just anything and everything was let alone to be recited and spread as
facts then the board would end up as total BS since anyone who knows what's real would
leave, as most have anyway.

NonWonderDog
06-01-2005, 05:46 PM
Enough hostility...time for funny pictures!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v226/KnowNothingBozo/f44e3844.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v226/KnowNothingBozo/7cdc197d.jpg

Here I am, flying level at 145 km/hr at what should logically be a stalled angle of attack, keeping the wings level with the rudder because the ailerons don't work, and flying in a 12deg sideslip, carving out a huge circle because of p-effect.

Logically, it should not be possible to fly at this speed and angle of attack. The trick is, I'm not actually flying at that angle of attack. My wings aren't seeing that airspeed, either. (Well, the wingtips are, but they're not at the same AoA because of twist. You can even see the twist in the 3d model!)

Propwash is fun! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Just FYI: propwash *DOES* shift the power curve (and the stall speed) in real life. It's not noticible much with a Cessna. Should it have as much effect in game as it appears to be having here? I have no idea.

(Hopefully I won't be able to do this in 4.0...)

Willey
06-01-2005, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
In the IL-2/FB/PF 109G10, (this appears to be a description of a G10 or later 109, since the equipment includes a Galland hood) a 109G10 will liftoff with rad full open and flaps in takeoff position at 130 kph. The IL-2/FB/PF 109G10 also has a zero throttle stall speed of 140 kph with flaps UP when it should stall at 155-160 kph.

This complete overmodelling of the 109's low speed stall and lift characteristics is why the game aircraft is able to perform its UFO style maneuvers.

This is a general problem. Many planes have it. Most obviously: FW-190, P-47, P-51 and maybe some others...


Another interesting point is how quickly the aircraft's engine overheats during the takeoff preps. Hanna has to hurry his takeoff or he'll smoke the engine.

Here it comes to the engine temperature modelling which is quite simplified in FB. Too simplified IMHO. It's realistic that planes overheat quite much at low speeds, especially on the ground. But the higher the speed (IAS), the better the cooling. The same goes for altitude, just because of the temps. -60?C is better for the engine than 20?C. We don't have that modelled in FB, there's just a really small difference between low speed and high speed. Real examples would be:
La-7 Takeoff with boost - max 30 seconds!
La-7 boost time up to 10 minutes - for high speeds obviously.
P-39s have to shut (!) the coolers in landing approach and at high altitudes not to undercool. Nevertheless this plane was quite a heater...
Steinhoffs had to close his 109G radiators at 6000+m at high speeds, also not to undercool the engine.
To make a short point: Heat development and coolance should vary very much depending on outer influences.

Another issue: At high altitides engines will produce less power because of the lower air/oxygen density -> lower fuel mixture setting -> less fuel/oxygen in the combustion chamber. FB doesn't model this heat-wise. 110% is 110% for temperatures, regardless if it's 1500hp on the ground or 1000hp at x000m.

p1ngu666
06-01-2005, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
P1ngu... I "feel" certain things about some of the planes and in some cases I can make
a case though the <cough> 190 gunsight view isn't going to change nor is the <cough>
trim and that's just how it is. I could rail on about the P-51 elevator and maybe a
half dozen other easy targets as well since dead horses are big don't dodge, <cough>
151/20 ammo mixes.

Feel don't equal prove.

You got something real and can show it and it holds up then you'll get my backing at
least and I'm sure the backing of others. But then you come up with pseudo-facts that
support a side or view that someone is cheated and you'll get instant backing that way.
The difference is that you won't fool Oleg with BS, you won't even get a review without
solid original data so pick your crowd.

Common pattern has been; get a feeling, make a decision, round up support and then dig
for anything no matter how small and unsubstantiated to call proof then wail like it's
the end of the world while making demands. Sometimes it's even right and something big
enough to need changing and... sometimes it actually gets changed! We have a pattern of
abusive posters who keep lowering the chances of changes or any improvements as well.

Screw all that! If BS is allowed to float freely then that's all there will be and the
ORR as any kind of feedback from the community will be effectively 100% broken instead
of just, it seems, mostly so. It is already a source of BS complaints spread among the
community to credulous newbs, cretins, jerks and other agenda-mongers already. Anyone
looking for good understanding of where the line between sim and reality is has to sift
through a pile of trash posts (but what about my little peeves?) to find any real
discussion. If just anything and everything was let alone to be recited and spread as
facts then the board would end up as total BS since anyone who knows what's real would
leave, as most have anyway.

well, awhile ago it was found teh 109s had add stall behavour, and i was under the impression stall speed was when the aircraft flips or dips a wing in PF atleast. stuff ive read about real flying backs this up. and no, u dont need to repeat your various sources http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

depends which deffinition of stall speed u want to go along with.

NonWonderDog
06-01-2005, 07:09 PM
The thing to keep in mind through all of this is that wings do not stall at a certain speed. Your definition of stall speed is thus not a definition, but an abstraction. Wings can generate lift right on down to 0km/hr.

Instead of stalling at some certain speed, wings stall at an angle of attack. This angle of attack is constant for each wing configuration. Slats increase this angle of attack. Flaps raise the entire lift curve. Both add drag.

Stall speed is thusly not defined as the speed at which the wings on a plane stall, believe it or not. It's called stall speed because below this speed, lift can no longer counter gravity. *Trying* to maneuver at 1G (such as in level flight) below this speed *will* result in an aerodynamic stall. The plane is not flyable beneath this speed, because it can only fly down. Note, however, that it *can* still fly downwards. It can also fly upwards, if it has enough engine power (and is already heading in that direction). If the wings aren't past the critical angle of attack, they aren't stalled.

Stall is accompanied by a nose-down motion and possible wing drop, but these things do not define a stall. They are the symptoms, caused by the increased drag, loss of lift, and vertical instability of an airfoil flying beyond its critical angle of attack.

So just be a man and admit that you can be wrong once in a while, ok? There's probably something wrong with the 109 at low speed, but the 1G, power-off stall speed is pretty close.

NonWonderDog
06-01-2005, 07:45 PM
Here's another test to try, if you don't believe me. Fly in wonderwoman view at low altitude (below 500 meters). Give yourself just enough throttle that you can control your sink rate, and use 100% prop pitch.

Doing those things, make every effort to keep the meatball *exactly* on the horizon. If it's not quite on the horizon, it's OK, but keep it *exactly* where it already is. We want to be at 1G the whole time. You'll have to slowly pull back on the stick the whole time to accomplish this.

When I do this in the 109G2, the nose pops up and I drop the right wing at the *exact* moment that the airspeed indicator switches from 156 to 155! Try it yourself.

This is wrong, by the way. The nose should drop instead of rise and I thought the 109 usually dropped the left wing. Oh well, at least the stall speed is OK. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I think this means that I have to admit I was wrong, too. Apparently it still isn't possible to ride a stall; I was merely flying *at* the critical angle of attack the whole time when it felt like a stall. The low speed flight model is really goofy.

*waits for 4.0* http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

WWMaxGunz
06-01-2005, 09:06 PM
Let's see now:

FAA explicit definition and regulation with exact conditional tolerances or -

There's this paragraph in this book, see. One sentence says the wing drops in a stall.
And a couple sentences later it says stall speed clean is 155 kph. Yeah, dat's gotta
be da real definition, George, it's da wing drop every time George, da rabbit is when
da wing drops fer sure. A test pilot rote da book an I know how ta read real good, I
even got a red star in spelling last year.

Sure, sounds like a definition. But not of stall speed, just lack of reading skills.

Jetbuff
06-02-2005, 12:05 AM
Like I said way back in this thread, some people argue without the least intention of actually hearing what the other side is saying. That kind of thing is a waste of time for both parties. The key to a good argument is a willingness to not only objectively examine counter-arguments but to accept the possibility that (God forbid) you might be wrong.

Ratsack
06-02-2005, 04:42 AM
I have three words for you people:

new

flight

model

Enough of this cr@p already.


Ratsack

Functio
06-02-2005, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
also the k4 weighs more than the f4 by a fair bit and the g2 also but by a lesser amount.

Yes, but bear in mind that the available engine power between the F-4 and the K-4 is different. The K-4 has a more powerful engine pulling it along, and thus also is more capable of pulling any extra weight. In fact, IIRC the K-4 has some weight reductions made (compared to the G-6, for example). The K-4 was an attempt to produce a fighter with improvements over the G series - they didn't simply slap on a bigger engine and hope for the best. The design of the aircraft was an evolutionary process derived from earlier variants, as was the case with other aircraft (i.e. the Spitfire).

WWMaxGunz
06-02-2005, 08:49 AM
If you apply a bad test to the new FM and the new FM is good then we will still see the
same complaint from the same people. They want the 109's cut down and this is a way to
'prove' what they feel is wrong about them.

109 climbrate is known to be high in history. It is not due to stall speed but rather
the power to weight even for such high wingloading that really isn't terribly bad, just
not as low as some others. The same power allows for other surprises that yes, there
were pilots who did them, there's enough quotes.

Good pilots in many different planes had their own techniques to use unique properties
of those planes and against average pilots flying anything else in average ways, they
came out on top and sometimes wrote about it. That is why you can find for almost every
plane used testimonies of how it was so great while really the difference of who met who
counted for 90% of what transpired.

Members of the USAAF unit that the AVG became used to have a thing they'd do to teach
that to rookies. The rookie would be talking up his new P-51 and boasting skill so the
old wheel would talk P-40 until he'd get the rookie to make a bet. Then the old wheel
would take his P-40 in mock fight against the rookie in his super P-51 and win every
time. At the right speeds, the P-40 will outturn a P-51. It has other strengths. It
is the better plane when flown by the right pilot against the wrong pilot in anything.

Now suppose, just suppose that happened online? Be sure that the loser would have a
solid "feeling" and try to come up with any explanation for what happened besides he
didn't really know what happened and wasn't as hot as he thought?

LOADS of men died in that war because they thought the enemy couldn't do just what they
did. LOADS of combat pilots did what they did without knowing exactly how or knowing
much at all about the other guy. It happened.

Chuck_Older
06-02-2005, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Now back on Hanna, appearantly he died as he passed out from exhaust gases.. i have read that those who seen him on his final noted he flies strange.. I can imagine that the problem layed in the engine conversion, the Merlin had the exhaust pipes high, the DB had them low (being inverted Vee) and shielded with a metal plate over them to prevent gases getting into the cocpit and s/c intake. the cocpit ventillation of hanna`s plane may have sucked in the exhaust gases, as it was located near the windscreeen.. especially at high attitue. no problem if the gases pass well below it, but if they are high, they pump the gas directly into it... poor Hanna :/


Who said it was exhaust? I had breif contact with someone who was close to Mark Hanna on a personal level, whose name I agreed to never mention, that it was not pilot error or aircraft failure at all

LeadSpitter_
06-02-2005, 05:35 PM
Dont mind kurfurst hes a bigger whiner then me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kurfurst__
06-02-2005, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Who said it was exhaust? I had breif contact with someone who was close to Mark Hanna on a personal level, whose name I agreed to never mention, that it was not pilot error or aircraft failure at all

I am all ears and open minded, what WAS it then?
And LS, is it an instinct 4 u to jump into 109-bashing threads ASA a 'Mustang wing failures' thread pops up?

heywooood
06-02-2005, 08:37 PM
If not pilot error or aircraft/mech failure, then an atmospheric wind sheer or possibly a transient vortex effect from another aircraft is responsible

...but why would such a thing be kept quiet?...
to prevent insurance companies from increasing their premiums or?...what.

Aaron_GT
06-03-2005, 03:45 AM
If not pilot error or aircraft/mech failure, then an atmospheric wind sheer or possibly a transient vortex effect from another aircraft is responsible

I'd also heard the suggestion that it was a sudden downdraft and that the particular airfield in use was well known for experiencing such sudden downdrafts.

anarchy52
06-03-2005, 05:05 AM
Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
Dont mind kurfurst hes a bigger whiner then me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But at least he isn't on HL every night preaching about overmodelled 109s...

Chuck_Older
06-03-2005, 07:19 AM
What I was told dovetails with what both Aaron and Heywoood have posted.

What I was told is that when Mr Hanna was coming into the area of the airstrip, a combination of unsual air pressure in the local area (the downdraft), and another aircraft making a vortex- a large aircraft, from the explanation I heard, a commercial jet- were both contributing factors. Air traffic control brought the Buchon in behind the jet, and the Buchon flipped over on it's back. What I was not told is just which one of the phenomena actually was responsible for the crash, or if it was a combination of both. I don't want to appear to place blame on an air traffic controller or another pilot, but this is what i ws told was occuring at the time.

Mark Hanna was a combat vet from the Falklands and most likely the most experienced warbird pilot in the world at the time of his death. He died from injuries sustained from the crash some short time after the accident, is my understanding. His skills as a pilot were great, but less than his skill at being a genuine human being with time for anyone. What I've been told is that he was a much better person than a pilot, and he was a superb pilot.

Of course any pilot can have a mishap that results in a crash, but it's so improbable that Mr Hanna was in error in this case. A huge loss for the warbird movement as well as friends and family

Chuck_Older
06-03-2005, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by heywooood:
If not pilot error or aircraft/mech failure, then an atmospheric wind sheer or possibly a transient vortex effect from another aircraft is responsible

...but why would such a thing be kept quiet?...
to prevent insurance companies from increasing their premiums or?...what.

It isn't being hushed up, it's just that aircraft accident inverstigation can take years and years to finish. Mr Hanna died in 1999, it's been not quite six years (September 4, 1999 is the date, I beleive)

In those six years, the invetsigation may be over, but it's not exactly international news when a warbird pilot dies, or when every plane crash investigation is concluded. Some online digging may reveal the investigation's findings, I never looked

p1ngu666
06-03-2005, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by Functio:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
also the k4 weighs more than the f4 by a fair bit and the g2 also but by a lesser amount.

Yes, but bear in mind that the available engine power between the F-4 and the K-4 is different. The K-4 has a more powerful engine pulling it along, and thus also is more capable of pulling any extra weight. In fact, IIRC the K-4 has some weight reductions made (compared to the G-6, for example). The K-4 was an attempt to produce a fighter with improvements over the G series - they didn't simply slap on a bigger engine and hope for the best. The design of the aircraft was an evolutionary process derived from earlier variants, as was the case with other aircraft (i.e. the Spitfire). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

im sure that more powerfull engine does so much when its at 0% power http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

TX-EcoDragon
06-03-2005, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
It isn't being hushed up, it's just that aircraft accident inverstigation can take years and years to finish. Mr Hanna died in 1999, it's been not quite six years (September 4, 1999 is the date, I beleive)

In those six years, the invetsigation may be over, but it's not exactly international news when a warbird pilot dies, or when every plane crash investigation is concluded. Some online digging may reveal the investigation's findings, I never looked

Actually. . I have the final report. . .there was no mention of wake turbulence, or any atmospheric factors. The descriptions I have of the airshow routine do not include any aircraft in the air other than a Piper Seminole (light twin) which would not be any factor, in fact it would invoke less wake than the Buchon would when maneuvering. There wasn't much info in it, they did not cite a cause that I can remember, though a wind shear or even his own wake could certain have been a factor if it was strong or if the pilot failed to maintain adequate airspeed for any gust factor. He was at a low enough altitude and approx aiirspeed that any departure would be difficult to recover from. I don't remember what the winds were reporting. I will find a link.

Chuck_Older
06-03-2005, 02:07 PM
That's interesting. It was my understanding that he was doing a photo shoot/film shoot previous to the accident. I wonder if I was told a fish story by someone?

TX-EcoDragon
06-03-2005, 02:44 PM
Yeah, he had flown into Sabadell as a flight of two with the Seminole (often a photo ship) and performed a breif display but I don't remember the details. I haven't been able to find a link yet, but in any case, Chuck, let me say this, it wouldn't be the first time an accident report got it wrong, you should read the report the ntsb did on Wayne. . . it doesn't even make sense. . . but that's the report. What really happened might be a bit different.

Ratsack
06-04-2005, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Dave Southwood who flew the 'authentic' Bf 109 G-2/trop Black 6

The stall itself is a left wing drop through about 15 degrees with a slight nose drop, accompanied by a light buffet. All controls are effective up to the stall, and recovery is instant on moving the stick forward. Stall speeds are 155kph clean and 140kph with gear and flap down.

Here is the text.

A) In one sentence DS describes the wing drop as a condition of the stall.
B) In another he gives the Stall Speeds, most likely from a chart as he lists clean and landing.

1) He does not say that stall begins with wing drop.
2) He does not say that wing drop occurs at stall speed.
3) Those are conclusions drawn by some readers and then taken as the means to run "tests".
4) The same readers don't have the sense to check their assumptions to real world. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

G'day Max,

€˜The idle power stall characteristics are very benign and affected little by undercarriage and flap position. Stall warning, which occurs at about 6 mph (10 km/h) above the stall, is given by a slight wing rock with the stick floating right by about 2 inches (5 cm). The stall is characterized by a left wing drop through about 15 [degrees], accompanied by light buffet. All controls are effective up to the stall and recovery is instant on moving the stick forward. Stall speeds are 96 mph (155 km/h) clean and 87 mph (140 km/h) with undercarriage and flap down.€

This from Dave Southwood, €˜Flying €œBlack 6€€, Luftwaffe Eagles: the Messerschmitt Fighters, (Key Publishing, Stamford, 1997), p. 62.

He doesn€t say that the wing drop occurs after the stall, he says the stall is characterized by a wing drop. If the wing didn€t drop straight away, he€d probably have mentioned that the stall is characterized by a nose drop or something similar. He doesn€t. In order to assert that Buzzsaw€s reading of this is wrong, you€ve had to build your argument on the proposition that this passage doesn€t mean what it says.

Just to be clear here, I€m not disputing your definition of a stall. Nor am I saying that the stall speed is incorrectly modeled if you can reach a stalled condition at 155 km/h (I dunno, I haven€t tried, and I€m not going to bother with 4.0 around the corner). What I am saying is that this passage in Southwood€s description of the flight characteristics of Black 6 implies that the wing drops at the stall, not afterward.


On another note, re-reading Southwood€s description, the other thing that is clear is that there are a whole raft of €˜minor€ things (like sideslip, aileron-induced adverse yaw, etc) that aren€t modeled:

€˜For example, at the top of a left wing-over it feels quite unnatural to be cross controlled with left aileron and a large amount of right rudder.€

I suspect that it was these little things that €" combined €" made the 109 the handful it was frequently reported to be. Unfortunately, none of these €˜little€ quirks are modeled in any of the flyables in FB, which is not surprising.

Southwood gives the clear impression at the end of the piece that Black 6 is a more demanding aircraft to display than the Mustangs and Spits. In the game, you€d have to say the 109 is more forgiving than the Pony.

€˜In summary, Black 6 is a demanding aircraft to fly€¦It is an aeroplane that needs to be treated with a great deal of respect. As my experience on it has grown, I have gained a good degree of understanding in its peculiarities. In some aircraft, this level of confience can lead to one being able to fly in more demanding situations. With the €˜109, I become more and more convinced that our stringent limits for take-off and landing are essential!€

I suspect it's a lot harder than the data suggests.

Ratsack

WWMaxGunz
06-05-2005, 01:34 AM
I have not defined a stall here except to state that it is a REGION OF FLIGHT.
I say FLIGHT because yes, people do fly through stalls or in stalls however you want
to say it. We have pilots here who testify to this.

So we have Dave Southwood characterizing the stall, he is not talking about one
moment you are not stalled and the next you have the wing dropping. The process
takes some time as it covers a region.

STALL SPEED however is not a region. It is one set speed per set of conditions.
It is determined at 1 G flight and frankly, it is the point when you lose the
ability to maintain 1 G, also known as straight and level, flight.

It is NOT stall. It is NOT deep stalled. Stating what happens into the stall
is NOT part of Stall Speed. You fly along straight and level with power off and
once you cross that line, you get into your region and you are stalled. It is
not AFTER the stall, in the drop and oh no, the wing has dropped we must be there!

Please try and get that through your head. Try re-reading what NonWonderDog has
written so well. FerPetesSake there are planes that don't drop a wing but just nose
down and that happens just after they cross stall speed, not before.

STALL is not STALL SPEED. Southwood gives the stall speed. Good. Nowhere does
he say that wing drop is IMMEDIATELY AT STALL SPEED. Learn to read.

WWMaxGunz
06-05-2005, 01:46 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:

He doesn€t say that the wing drop occurs after the stall, he says the stall is characterized by a wing drop. If the wing didn€t drop straight away, he€d probably have mentioned that the stall is characterized by a nose drop or something similar. He doesn€t. In order to assert that Buzzsaw€s reading of this is wrong, you€ve had to build your argument on the proposition that this passage doesn€t mean what it says.


The nose don't have to drop either. As soon as the plane cannot maintain altitude, that's
your stall speed. It is not the stall.

The wing may well drop the instant of reaching stall speed as well, BTW. I don't dispute
that one tiny bit. I think I even posted exactly that above.

Here again is the pernt. Trying to use the wing drop as proof of the sim being badly off
on stall speed while ignoring that the conditions of stall speed have been reached is BS.

Couch it however you will. The FM is not perfect or all encompassing. That is impossible.
The plane in the sim loses alt at or so close to the given stall speed it is a tribute to
the sim, not some kind of black mark proof of overmodelling. Got that? THE TEST IS WRONG.
IT IS A WHINEY LITTLE B!+CH LATCHING ONTO A SMALL DETAIL TRYING TO MAKE A BIG ISSUE OUT OF
NEXT TO NOTHING.

NonWonderDog
06-05-2005, 02:07 AM
Quick summary if you don't want to reread everything:

The stall speed is correct for the 109G2. To test this, fly in wonderwoman view and keep the little pipper dead set on the horizon. Throttle down slowly, pull back to keep the pipper from moving... you should drop a wing at 155 km/hr *exactly.*

It is very possible in the sim to accellerate downwards while flying below stall speed without pulling the wings past the critical angle of attack, especially if the plane is equipped with leading edge slats. This is what people were doing towards the beginning of the thread, when they were reporting "stall speeds" of 130km/hr. While below the true stall speed of 155km/hr, the plane is completely incapable of maneuvering at 1G -- i.e. level flight. This is the very definition of stall speed. If you *try* to pull 1G the plane will stall violently; it is simply not possible for the wings to counter the force of gravity below this speed.

You will *only* enter a stall exactly at stall speed if you are holding exactly 1G throughout the entire maneuver leading up to the stall with the engine idling. If you are accellerating downwards without enough lift to fly level and with the slats keeping you from going over the critical angle of attack, you will not technically be in an aerodynamic stall. I don't know if it should be as easy to get in that situation as it is, and strangely enough it feels more like a stall in some ways than the "real" stall in the sim, but that's the way it is. I've never been in any plane equipped with leading edge slats outside of an airliner, though, so take this with a grain of salt.

The stall itself is *very* strange in the sim. Instead of dropping the nose and rolling a bit to the left, the nose of the plane pops up 5-10 degrees and the plane yaws violently to the right. This is very wrong. 4.0 should hopefully fix it.

To complicate matters a bit, there is a very large effect of propwash in the sim in 3.04. You can see this easily by throttling up on a moving carrier, holding the brakes, and releasing the chocks; you'll have a surprising amount of elevator authority for a landed fighter! In low speed flight, your propwash passes over your wings, giving a small amount of assymetrical lift. This will lower your stall speed, but make the plane much harder to control. The much harder to control bit doesn't seem to be very well modelled. The effects of propwash on stall speed *may* be exaggerated -- I was able to fly level at ~147 km/hr with a bit of throttle and full rudder -- but I have no evidence either way.

Ratsack
06-05-2005, 03:09 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I have not defined a stall here except to state that it is a REGION OF FLIGHT.
I say FLIGHT because yes, people do fly through stalls or in stalls however you want
to say it. We have pilots here who testify to this.

So we have Dave Southwood characterizing the stall, he is not talking about one
moment you are not stalled and the next you have the wing dropping. The process
takes some time as it covers a region.

STALL SPEED however is not a region. It is one set speed per set of conditions.
It is determined at 1 G flight and frankly, it is the point when you lose the
ability to maintain 1 G, also known as straight and level, flight.

It is NOT stall. It is NOT deep stalled. Stating what happens into the stall
is NOT part of Stall Speed. You fly along straight and level with power off and
once you cross that line, you get into your region and you are stalled. It is
not AFTER the stall, in the drop and oh no, the wing has dropped we must be there!

Please try and get that through your head. Try re-reading what NonWonderDog has
written so well. FerPetesSake there are planes that don't drop a wing but just nose
down and that happens just after they cross stall speed, not before.

STALL is not STALL SPEED. Southwood gives the stall speed. Good. Nowhere does
he say that wing drop is IMMEDIATELY AT STALL SPEED. Learn to read.

Learn to read yerself, you arrogant berk.

The way the article's written he describes what is happening at each point. There's no reason to suppose he's doing otherwise in this passage. Read what NoWonderdog's posted in reply, take a deep breath, and get off your high horse.

If the stall speed is right, fine. I'm not disputing that one way or the other. However, the behaviour of the plane in the stall seems different to Southwood's description. He says the stall is characterised by wing drop. O.K. He doesn't say, '...but it only happens in deep stall,' or, '...and the wing drops at 130 km/h..' or some other similar qualification. You're just reading that into the silences in his text. That's very post-modern of you, Max, but it's not evidence that your contention is correct.

If - as a few people have posted - the 109's stall speed is close to 155 km/h, it is also clear that the wing drop is not evident until a much lower speed is reached (~130 km/h). If this is what Southwood experienced, I expect he would have said so. He didn't say it. There is no compelling reason to infer it.

That said, I agree with NoWonderdog that it's amazing the general performance of so many flyable planes modeled in this amazing sim is so good. But I see no need to make shavian points in a desperate attempt to demonstrate that all things are modeled correctly. They're not. Buzzsaw has a point.

Ratsack

TX-EcoDragon
06-05-2005, 03:50 AM
Ratsack,
The issue with wing drop versus loss of altitude or nose down is an issue of the 1G stall model fidelity (which isn't all that great) and that is confusing the issue at hand, which was the implication that the stall speed was too low. People were flying in situations that were in effect post stall but looking for the wing drop as the indicator. This meant that they were, under certain conditions, getting a speed that was artificially low. In addition, as stated before, wing drop is usually not a required component of a stall provided coordinated flight, a normal CG, and a reduced power setting (or a pilot with good rudder skills). Also worth mentioning is that each individual aircraft has subtle and perhaps not so subtle differences from others of the same type. I have flown many like models of the same type, with the same loadings, and had very different stall characteristics. I fly many aircraft that tend to drop a wing at the stall, but when I stall them they don't. . . why? I am used to the stall characteristics and keep the drop from developing with rudderwork. Another pilot unfamiliar with that aircraft or one that doesn't train in this aspect of flight extensively may find a more aggressive drop. These variances make it important to recognize the fundamental components of the stall if you wanted to compare something like stall speed between different aircraft flown by different pilots.


Regarding propwash, I actually think it is too low(based on tests I can mention later if you're interested). I think the problem is that the CG and the gear location is too close together. This may make the aircraft nose over a bit too easily in some cases. that said, most of these aircraft will nose over if the brakes are held and the power in run up fully. . . and that is without pushing forward on the stick, that's why during runup and initial takeoff rolll the elevator is held int he aft position, it's simply the thrust available and the relative ease of lifting the tail. Generally the weight that the tailwheel feels is only a very small fraction often around 1/12th the overall weight. And the stall test with power on isn€t simply pointing at propwash effect, there is also now a vertical componnet of thrust something like a helicopter has, this will in effect decrease the weight of the aircraft as felt by the wings so that 1G stall will decrease somewhat simply due to that. For a perfect example of what this can do watch this video of much higher power to weight aircraft aerobatic aircraft. Sure this performance beyond that of the aircraft in this sim, but my point is just that in a high powered aircraft the powerplant itself can contribute quite a lot to the ability of the aircraft to maintain altitude post stall, as well as to reduce the stall speed somewhat.

http://www.10374.com/3dbatix/videos/tucker/seantucker2.wmv

Ratsack
06-05-2005, 03:58 AM
Hi EcoDragon,

I understand the point made by you and others about stall speed and post stall behaviour. Honest. What I'm disputing is MaxGunz's unsupported inference that the wing drop described by Southwood is a post-stall phenomenon. It could be - I certainly don't deny the possibility - but that is not what Southwood says or implies. In the absence of anything from Southwood to say so, there's no good reason to infer that it is.

Is there any good reason why the stall would not commence with the 15 degree wing drop Southwood describes? Remember, he does mention the stall warning, so if the stall began with a nose drop, or sink or whatever, I believe he would have mentioned this.

I understand that this does not make a difference to stall speed. What I'm saying is that the behaviour of the plane when stalled is different to Southwood's description.

Ratsack

WWMaxGunz
06-05-2005, 04:42 AM
Not post stall, INTO the stall. Once the wing drops, where does it go? You either
recover or you spin. You sure as H don't fly it and I'm very sure that there were
LW pilots who could fly a stall in a 109G-2, having more training and time in type
than Dave Southwood.

I also NEVER said that the FM has all things modelled correctly. In fact I've stated
explicitely and implicitely that it does not and can not.

Buzzsaw has a point? Well he tried to make a point that the 109G-2 stall speed in the
sim is 120-130 kph, and based on what he provided I've shown as well as I can that that
is not true. His other point has been that because of that the 109G-2 is overmodelled.
Well, make the first point first because he hasn't.

I read just fine. It's been a long time since I took my SAT's but my verbal score was
650. I haven't gotten so old since that I can't figure a passage like Southwoods' but
then I understand them piloty terms so I don't have to invent things from context that
are not there.

Once again, his wing may have dropped just as he lost the ability to maintain alt. In
the sim it is different. I don't find that cause to go flying along losing alt in the
sim and when the wing finally drops, calling that stall speed and claiming overmodelling.
That is the mistake, taking wing drop even if it's just that plane as the defining moment
of reaching stall speed, equating wing drop with stall, equating wing drop with stall
speed and generally for page after page insisting that is so. Wiggle on out, go ahead.
Southwood wrote about the stall. One thing. He gave the reference stall speeds. Another
thing. Apples and oranges, not 1 plus 1. But you have to be able to tell the two apart
and no amount of people giving that has seemed to work until today... so it's time to
change the issue into "it doesn't behave like Dave wrote" and away from "the 109 is
overmodelled by this test gotten from reading Black 6".

THE TEST IS WRONG. IT NEVER SHOWED STALL SPEED AS STATED.

Badsight.
06-05-2005, 05:51 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
Buzzsaw has a point. what was it again ?

too low / good stall ability of the Bf109s ?

is he also de-crying the Spitfires that DONT drop in alt untill stalled completely ?

Buzzsaw-
06-05-2005, 10:41 AM
Salute Max

You haven't proved a thing.

What you and the rest of the Luftwhiners are INSISTING through your continuous blather about theoretical 'stall speed' is as follows:

The later 109's 'Stall' should occur WITHOUT the penalty of the aircraft departing pilot control, UNLIKE the majority of the rest of the aircraft in the Sim. According to you, loss of control should only occurs 20-25 kph below the speed at which the historical aircraft stalled.

Meanwhile, you are also insisting that it IS perfectly normal for almost all other aircraft as modelled in the Sim to depart control EXACTLY at their historical 'Stall speed'. No 20-25 kph cushion for these aircraft to remain in control prior to departure.

This hypocrisy and double standard is typical of the type of rationalisation which Luftwhiners post on this board on a regular basis.

This argument ignores the fact that stalls and spins as modelled in this Sim are far from perfect, and that the designer has made a number of compromises in the interests of standardizing stall behaviour for all aircraft in the sim. Ie. stall modelling represented by wingdrop and loss of control.

Your contorted and deliberate misinterpretation of what was clearly stated by the writer of "FLYING BLACK SIX" is also typical. But just because you insist your nonsensical interpretation is correct, that doesn't mean anyone else who can actually read has to believe you.

Buzzsaw-
06-05-2005, 11:49 AM
Salute Badsight

If you go back to the beginning of this thread, you will note that I made the comment that the Spitfire IX and VIII stalled at too low a speed.

In regards to the Spitfires not losing altitude till they stall: What advantage is that?

For example, according to the Spitfire V manual, it is supposed to stall at 73 mph clean and fully loaded, or 116 kph. The game Spit V drops its wing and loses control at 120 kph. No modelling like the G2, with gradual loss of altitude at the stall speed, followed by wingdrop 20 kph later. (which would be 100 kph for the Spit V)

No, it spins right at 120 kph.

Personally, if I flew the Spit V, (which I rarely do) I'd prefer a nice cushion of 20 kph before I lost control.

JG5_UnKle
06-05-2005, 12:02 PM
Doesn't it bother anyone that he was flying a Buchon?

It isn't really a 109 if you want to be pedantic about it.....

LLv34_Stafroty
06-05-2005, 12:36 PM
Buzzaw, did Spits have slats?
seems like someones head is only solid bone equipped with only one vinyl record to play.

NonWonderDog
06-05-2005, 12:53 PM
If you test incorrectly, you will get incorrect results.

Stall speed only applies at 1G. To test stall speed, then, you have to maintain 1G.

If and only if you make every effort to keep the direction-of-travel meatball that wonderwoman view comes with right on the horizon throughout the whole maneuver, you will drop a wing at *exactly* 155 km/hr. I can't be the only one that gets that result.

The 109 and a few others are a bit different because of the leading-edge slats. These increase the critical angle of attack while adding lots of drag. In the sim, flying with the slats out pitches the nose of the plane down a bit and slows you down rapidly as you approach stall speed. If you let it, the plane will start to accellerate downwards with the wings hovering right at the critical angle of attack. You'll be below the 1G stall speed, but you'll also be below 1G. It won't be possible to pull 1G and fly level, because you're below stall speed.

You are wrong on this point. That does not mean that the 109's handling is perfect. The sim really isn't that great at low speed. This applies to all planes, though; there's no conspiracy to help the Germans.


And I have most definitely not gotten the results you mention with the spitfire. You can do a halfhearted falling leaf at below 112km/hr in the spit, too -- it's just a lot harder to keep from spinning because it doesn't have slats.

WWMaxGunz
06-05-2005, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
In regards to the Spitfires not losing altitude till they stall: What advantage is that?


Just in case you haven't paid attention:

When it comes to flying slower and slower while trying to maintain straight level flight...
WHEN they lose altitude, HOWEVER they lose altitude, THEN they are stalled.

That is exactly how stall speed is determined.

You have interpretation of one passage in a single book, interpretation only against
EVERY KNOWN OFFICIAL, PROFESSIONAL AND PRACTICED AMATEUR DEFINITION FOUND.

Congratulations, you are as deeply out of touch as that Iraqi telling us there were no
US troops in Bagdad while one is waving to the camera in the background. It is time
for you to go join the action in DC at the highest level of government where having a
clue is just a form of handicap.

WWMaxGunz
06-05-2005, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Doesn't it bother anyone that he was flying a Buchon?

It isn't really a 109 if you want to be pedantic about it.....

That would explain the left wing dropping instead of right, the prop turns the opposite way
with the Merlin engine doesn't it?

Also there is to wonder if the 109 wings were not made with wing twist set just for the prop
torque and wash to be from left turning instead of right turning and if so would that make
the Buchon more squirrelly with higher tendency to dip the left wing or did they reverse the
wing twist on the Buchon as well?

Very good question, Unkle!

WWMaxGunz
06-05-2005, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute Max

You haven't proved a thing.

What you and the rest of the Luftwhiners are INSISTING through your continuous blather about theoretical 'stall speed' is as follows:

The later 109's 'Stall' should occur WITHOUT the penalty of the aircraft departing pilot control, UNLIKE the majority of the rest of the aircraft in the Sim. According to you, loss of control should only occurs 20-25 kph below the speed at which the historical aircraft stalled.

Meanwhile, you are also insisting that it IS perfectly normal for almost all other aircraft as modelled in the Sim to depart control EXACTLY at their historical 'Stall speed'. No 20-25 kph cushion for these aircraft to remain in control prior to departure.

This hypocrisy and double standard is typical of the type of rationalisation which Luftwhiners post on this board on a regular basis.

This argument ignores the fact that stalls and spins as modelled in this Sim are far from perfect, and that the designer has made a number of compromises in the interests of standardizing stall behaviour for all aircraft in the sim. Ie. stall modelling represented by wingdrop and loss of control.

Your contorted and deliberate misinterpretation of what was clearly stated by the writer of "FLYING BLACK SIX" is also typical. But just because you insist your nonsensical interpretation is correct, that doesn't mean anyone else who can actually read has to believe you.

Blather about my nonsensical interpretation, blah, blah, blah.

Yes, it is now so clearly obvious to me! Your reading of a short passage of "Flying Black Six"
totally disproves the entire science of aerodynamics as practiced for over 75 years!

All those ***** who went to college and spent lifetimes designing and building airplanes are
wrong. All the pilots trained with all the hours they flew are wrong. The FAA is wrong. The
EAA is wrong.

The only people who have it right are a few non-pilot PC sim jockeys who can read a non-technical
book describing the flying of one plane and come up with the real truth to redefine the term
stall speed to suit their own needs and in so doing invalidate all those who came before!

Oh, how can I have been so blind as to believe the people who taught me about aerodynamics?
How can I have believed in precise, exact definitions laid out by official sources?
How can I believe anyone without consulting you first, Buzzsaw?

Sorry, EcoDragon and NonWonderDog! You guys must be wrong! Stall is only with departure!
Buzzsaw has spoken, he has handed down the tablets from Mount Black Six! REPENT! REPENT!

LMAO! ROFLMFAO!

Buzzsaw, if understanding was a jigsaw puzzle then you would be the guy who brings his own
extra pieces and a hammer.

Jetbuff
06-05-2005, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Buzzsaw, if understanding was a jigsaw puzzle then you would be the guy who brings his own
extra pieces and a hammer.
You finally figured that one out? I gave up on trying to convince him of anything a long time ago.

The funny thing is, even with his flawed interpretation of stall, he still managed to provide numbers that were about 10kph lower than what everyone else was able to achieve. He keeps insisting on 120-130kph when no one, aside from himself, (which he could not back up*) could replicate. After numerous attempts, the lowest speed for wing-drop achieved was in the 130-140kph range.

Obstinacy does not a good argument make. This is a useless endeavour if the aim is to get Buzzsaw to actually acknowledge that he may have been wrong.

* In response to my track request, he sent a 109 stalling at 130kph in a screen capture because... it wouldn't show in the track? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

WWMaxGunz
06-05-2005, 03:04 PM
Hey, if you want to get 10 kph less then just be a little less honest in "testing"
by lowering the nose very slightly and letting the plane drop a bit faster.

Then come up and post that losing altitude makes no difference, only wing drop and
loss of control/departure from flight are signs of stall -- all else is semantics!

I like the part where wing drop of other planes in the sim confirms his picture of
real flight terms! The rightness of the sim proves the sim is wrong!

WoooHooo! Hahahahahahahaaaa!

HayateAce
06-05-2005, 03:34 PM
3,276 posts.

You need a girl M8.

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