PDA

View Full Version : Bf109's Pulls out of maximumspeed dives too easy.



F19_Ob
06-17-2005, 08:40 AM
This cant be considered a bug, so the betatesters may have just forgotten to check dives.
I have a clean install of 4.01m over 3.04.
----------------------------------------

In a 109 I was diving on some bombers in QMB and noticed I could pull out of highspeed dives like nothing, without flaps enabled aswell as do hard sustained turns without combatflaps until I blacked out.
I have no problems with good turning ability in the 109's but the elevator was close to imovable close to 800km/h.
This is so in all descriptions by pilots I've read. Finnish, German, and the allies test of captured 109's.
The pilots who succeeded to pull out at these highest speeds that I read about had to use the elevator trim to slowly get out of the dive.
Ilmari Juutilainen the finnish ace and Heinz Knoke are two pilots who come to mind at the moment and the episodes are described in their books.

I had speedbar enabled so I could see the speed although I blacked out and the speedfigures are from that.The 109's I tested are following:

109e -could pull out hard without flaps at 760km/h (it breaks at 780km/h).

109G2 - could pull out without flaps at 810km/h
No problems in 800km/h
(edited G2 divespeed after correction by Lixma)

109G6late- pulled out at 860kmh without problems.

109K4- pulled out at 900km/h and lost one elevator but still could turn.

--------------------------------------------
Just wanted to notify you.
Perhaps I should post it in the bugreport aswell?

Regards

F19_Ob
06-17-2005, 08:40 AM
This cant be considered a bug, so the betatesters may have just forgotten to check dives.
I have a clean install of 4.01m over 3.04.
----------------------------------------

In a 109 I was diving on some bombers in QMB and noticed I could pull out of highspeed dives like nothing, without flaps enabled aswell as do hard sustained turns without combatflaps until I blacked out.
I have no problems with good turning ability in the 109's but the elevator was close to imovable close to 800km/h.
This is so in all descriptions by pilots I've read. Finnish, German, and the allies test of captured 109's.
The pilots who succeeded to pull out at these highest speeds that I read about had to use the elevator trim to slowly get out of the dive.
Ilmari Juutilainen the finnish ace and Heinz Knoke are two pilots who come to mind at the moment and the episodes are described in their books.

I had speedbar enabled so I could see the speed although I blacked out and the speedfigures are from that.The 109's I tested are following:

109e -could pull out hard without flaps at 760km/h (it breaks at 780km/h).

109G2 - could pull out without flaps at 810km/h
No problems in 800km/h
(edited G2 divespeed after correction by Lixma)

109G6late- pulled out at 860kmh without problems.

109K4- pulled out at 900km/h and lost one elevator but still could turn.

--------------------------------------------
Just wanted to notify you.
Perhaps I should post it in the bugreport aswell?

Regards

Kurfurst__
06-17-2005, 08:49 AM
Then it means it`s finally fixed. No lock-ups at ridiculusly slow speeds like 300mph... right now it seems to me as quite reasonable : still worser than many, but could be handled.

It`s would be interesting how much is the altitude loss vs. other planes from near vertical dives, with neutral trim at the same speed/altitude.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1105186613_109f_pullout.jpg

Here`s a RL chart of Bf 109F/G pullout. As can be seen, it was done from extreme speeds (900 kph)

F19_Ob
06-17-2005, 09:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1105186613_109f_pullout.jpg

Here`s a RL chart of Bf 109F/G pullout. As can be seen, it was done from extreme speeds (900 kph) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep I know it could pull out of the high speeds but does that chart show the elevatorpull or just shows it can come out of a dive?

Test yourself to pull out at around 860-870km/h in a G2 with elevator only. No heavyness to speak of.
I ofcourse would expect it to be able to pull out, but much slower. It now feels just as a normal turn in medium speed.
But then I never flew it in RL.
Lets see what Oleg makes of it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
--------------------------------------

Other than that, the question isn't really if the 109 'could' pull out of such a dive, more if it could pull out so 'fast'.

WWMaxGunz
06-17-2005, 10:06 AM
Full P-51 treatment or just partial?

HayateAce
06-17-2005, 12:27 PM
G A M E P L A Y

You still haven't seen the last of the sobbing from the 109noobs. It will continue.

False boosted elevator is just the latest joke.

Chadburn
06-17-2005, 12:45 PM
As far as I can tell, F19_Ob, the effects of compression seem to be greatly reduced in this latest patch. It seems a shame in a way since compression and loss of controls was a serious concern for real pilots, but it's not for us in version 4.01. Dive recovery is easy even if you haven't trimmed for it as described in 109 manuals.

I commented on this a while back in reference to the speeded up trim. The 109 was crippled before by the onset of compression effects at too low a speed, but now it appears to have no compression problems at all.

Even if Oleg did put in compression effects similar to those in previous patches, the insta-trim could be used to overcome it anyway, so I'm not sure where the sim is headed in this regard.

F19_Ob
06-17-2005, 01:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chadburn:

......I commented on this a while back in reference to the speeded up trim. The 109 was crippled before by the onset of compression effects at too low a speed, but now it appears to have no compression problems at all......

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Perhaps it's complicated to fix?

It's a new flightmodel so I can imagine that it's not easy to get all stages of flight right at once and perhaps it's also easy to miss something on a plane or two because they are so many.
Note that I only tested the 109 in dive since I stumbled over the divething more by accident while playing in QMB.
Perhaps also other planes are a bit off in this respect.

Changing the FM perhaps is a big issue and since it has been timeconsuming to fix characteristics earlier I think it's fair to assume that it will take some time now aswell.

NonWonderDog
06-17-2005, 02:48 PM
The 109 has to have a compromise flight model because the stabilizer trim isn't modelled. As far as I've been able to ascertain, the 109 should have poor-to-middling elevator authority but have the ability to trim the stabilizer to compensate. Trim up you can pull up further at full deflection but can't push negative Gs, trim down you can push more negative Gs but can't pull up as far, etc. This wasn't used to pull tighter turns as much as to allow full control at various speeds.

None of this is modelled. It would probably be abused to high heaven if it was, too. The 109's elevator is very effective and trims just like anything else. It's not correct, but the main difference is that we don't have to fiddle with the trim as much.

TooCooL34
06-17-2005, 02:53 PM
Seems way better than lock-up thread. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

F19_Orheim
06-17-2005, 03:26 PM
So when will we have you back online Ob? miss your snipershots with the IL2http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BigKahuna_GS
06-18-2005, 03:28 AM
S!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The 109 was crippled before by the onset of compression effects at too low a speed, but now it appears to have no compression problems at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The 109 was never crippled, it has always been one of the beat planes in the sim. If you want to see an elevator crippled fly the P38. It is the ONLY plane in the sim to suffer from compressibility. In the warm thick air of low altitude, the P38 should not compress but it does.


__

bolillo_loco
06-18-2005, 07:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The 109 was crippled before by the onset of compression effects at too low a speed, but now it appears to have no compression problems at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The 109 was never crippled, it has always been one of the beat planes in the sim. If you want to see an elevator crippled fly the P38. It is the ONLY plane in the sim to suffer from compressibility. In the warm thick air of low altitude, the P38 should not compress but it does.


__ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

here we go :O

bazzaah2
06-18-2005, 07:47 AM
I just happened to play around with the F4, G2 and G6.

Not sure I see the problem here, elevator response is still slow, whether it's accurate is another issue but my feeling is that it's substantialy unchanged since 3.04.

Chadburn
06-18-2005, 10:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bazzaah2:
I just happened to play around with the F4, G2 and G6.

Not sure I see the problem here, elevator response is still slow, whether it's accurate is another issue but my feeling is that it's substantialy unchanged since 3.04. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny how we all fly the same patch but have such differing experiences. One of the very first differences I noticed in 4.00 and 4.01 was the near total absence of compression in the late 109's as compared to 3.04. To me, it's like day and night.

ICDP
06-18-2005, 11:16 AM
There is definately more elevator response in the 109's with 4.01. I even tried trimming the 109G2 to keep the nose pointed down in the dive and it would pull out of the dive with little effort.

I do agree that the 109's needed elevator response improved slightly but they seem a bit too agile at higher speeds now.

Here is a quote from Franz Stigler when asked

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

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

Kurfurst__
06-18-2005, 03:29 PM
That merely refers to the stickforces on the elevator. They were high, but managable : 20 lbs/G.


Note that the P-51 also had 20 lbs/G stickforce, nobody whines about it...

F19_Ob
06-18-2005, 04:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
That merely refers to the stickforces on the elevator. They were high, but managable : 20 lbs/G.

Note that the P-51 also had 20 lbs/G stickforce, nobody whines about it... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, perhaps p51 and others also need some examining.


I also want to point at that I dont mean that the 109 is the only plane that needs a closer Look. Make no mistake about that.
The new FM along with gentler stalls and spins automatically gives a greater range of turning for all planes (as I see it) and perhaps some stages of flight aren't tuned perfectly yet.
Remeber how much tuning of FM there has been in the earler patches until now. The tuning of different stages of flight must be very difficult because there are so many variables to count in. If we then count all the flyable planes it becomes clear that it must take an incredible amount of time to do it, and perhaps thats why it has taken so long time to get the patch ready?

As I said earlier I don't at all doubt that the 109 could pull out of such a dive , and it's well documented and confirmed that it could.
What I wonder is if it could pull out so fast, meaning a tight curve, instead of a slower curve at its maximum speed.

Perhaps there are testcharts wich show how long it took to complete maneuvers in different speeds and if so Oleg likely have them aswell.

bolillo_loco
06-18-2005, 05:29 PM
20 lbs per G in the mustang during pull outs at high speed.........are you sure? I thought the major issue with the mustang was its light controls. Since the addition of weight to the mustang and its light controls caused some over zealous pilots to over stress the mustang during high speed dive pull outs, so some where along the lines a bob weight was added to the elevator to make stick forces heavier on the mustang.

LeadSpitter_
06-18-2005, 06:37 PM
Kurfurst is posting a chart from aluminum rudder and aluminum skinned elevator test trials. His chart was test results for the f series only. You noticed thats the only proof he gives and posted that little chart multiple times as proof. For those interested of the test you can read it here.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/cover1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/highspeedtrailsFseries.jpg

Im scanning the g series tests now which had a max dive speed of 750km/h because of vibration problem of the wooden rudder.

LeadSpitter_
06-18-2005, 06:53 PM
G series

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/highspeedtrailsGseries.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/highspeedtrailsGseries2.jpg

climb

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/gustavclimb.jpg

I will post some of the koneig K reports as well in a little bit.

LeadSpitter_
06-19-2005, 01:03 AM
f19 kurfurst you two alive?

bolillo_loco
06-19-2005, 03:17 AM
leadspitters right about the br 109 f-k book I have it and thats what it says.

F19_Ob
06-19-2005, 03:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
f19 kurfurst you two alive? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yep, still alive.
I think U missed what I ment though.

My question still is if a 109 can pull out of a maximumspeed dive as fast as in the sim, and not if it could pull out of the dive wich I didn't dispute.
(It's only this part wich feels out of place to me, nothing else.)

I speculate a bit here but since all planes are a bit easier to turn now because of the gentler stall and spin perhaps all stages of flight aren't tuned?
Perhaps many planes need a closer look but the 109 was the plane I happened to fly at that particular moment.

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

BTW I liked the charts although they weren't dealing with my issue. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Lixma
06-19-2005, 04:32 AM
Dunno which version of the G2 you're flying Ob, but mine starts breaking up at 810/820 kph. Same as it ever was.

Lixma
06-19-2005, 04:53 AM
I wasn't pulling; I was pushing the stick to keep the nose down.

F19_Ob
06-19-2005, 05:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lixma:
I wasn't pulling; I was pushing the stick to keep the nose down. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I must correct myself.
Perhaps I mixed up G2 and g6 in my former tests by accident because I just tested the G2 and couldn't get it over 810 km/h on the speedbar without breaking up, just as u said Lixma.
I'll correct it in the first post.

The strange thing though is that I now can dive and pull out in the G6 to 910 km/h (on speedbar) without any damage at all. In earlier tests it broke up at 880 km/h??
(saved a track of it).

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

Anyway the issue is still If the 109 could pull out this fast of it's maximum dive.

Lixma
06-19-2005, 07:02 AM
Ahhh...rgr.

Thought I was missing a trick there somewhere hehe.

Vipez-
06-19-2005, 01:22 PM
again for these anti 109-whiners i suggest to read (like LS, and Buzzsaw) ME109-myths.. (http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/#dives)

Abbuzze
06-19-2005, 04:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
Kurfurst is posting a chart from aluminum rudder and aluminum skinned elevator test trials. His chart was test results for the f series only. You noticed thats the only proof he gives and posted that little chart multiple times as proof. For those interested of the test you can read it here.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know the original test and there is nothing mentioned about aluminum skinned rudders, or elevators! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The testplanes is a 109F with Gustav wings and the tall tail of the late versions.
Or do you want to tell us that the later 109 had metall skinned ailereons? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Changes that are made at this plane is an increased size of the "Bügelkante" trimtab at the elevator and a tall tail which should be standard in later versions (the wooden one).
Also the max. deflection of the ailereons are limited to 50%.

So, sorry Leadspitter, but I have to say, your Book is wrong!
You can found the scanned german testsheets at
http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/index1024.htm

WKN Number and all machtes but the first failure in the translation it that this test is made to estimate the max. diving speed.

Translation from the orignial:
1st Page: Cause for this test:

1st. Clarivication of accidents in the forces.
(overequalisation of ailereons, and insufficient effect of the elevator in highspeed dive.)

2nd. Stability proof for high mach numbers.

So the goal of this test was not to estimate the highest possible mach number, but to proof that the dive limit given by Willy M. was ok.

For the freezing oil in the elevator trim, yes it was mentioned, but this test just say that the trimmechanism was rough running and just moveable in "jumps", but it was possible to move it in level flight at 9k where it freezed.(page 9)

There is a sentence where the pilot stated that the elevator was unmoveable in a dive cause of the freezing and the airstream, BUT the problem was that the pilot tried to trim the nose DOWNWARDS to increase the angle of the dive.
It was much more difficult to trim downwards than upwards! A behavior that is not modelled in FB but reported in this test! (page 4)

It´s interessting that the lost ailereon was not mentioned in the official test. Maybe it was a differnet test, but even the name of the pilots is correct. But the test also mentioned an iceing of the canopy at 5km in the descent.(page8)

Even the conclusion of the book is different to the conclusions of the test. (page 10)

The breaking apart of some 109´s was related to the overequalisation of the ailerons, to counter this oszilations the rudder should be used, using of the ailerons could end in a desaster.
But this oszilations where fixed by the tall tail, intruducted with the G6Late.
Nothing mentioned by L. Schmid about the freezed elevatortrim in this combination.

Regards

LeadSpitter_
06-20-2005, 02:18 AM
by you saying this book is wrong among others makes you say flugzwerks and many other german air test and development comittees transcripts from pilots and engineers as sources are wrong.

Same thing the finnishs pilots did with 109 myths and use 109liar as a source which is a very inaccurate website. Virtual Pilots does some fantastic and great interviews and data. The research things alot.

I have about 17 books on the 109 b-k which are very good, i also have swiss finnish romanian slovakian and romanian books on the 109 so why do they all state this as well?

even on the finns site it says his controls froze up completelym he thought he was going to die and he almost crashed into the gulf only to recover 50 feet above it yanking back multiple times as hard as he can on the stick.

Abbuzze So why are all these pilots reports and documents saying this from all nations finn german romanian swiss solvakian hungarian??? are they all wrong and your correct.

Abbuzze
06-20-2005, 03:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
by you saying this book is wrong among others makes you say flugzwerks and many other german air test and development comittees transcripts from pilots and engineers as sources are wrong.

Same thing the finnishs pilots did with 109 myths and use 109liar as a source which is a very inaccurate website. Virtual Pilots does some fantastic and great interviews and data. The research things alot.

I have about 17 books on the 109 b-k which are very good, i also have swiss finnish romanian slovakian and romanian books on the 109 so why do they all state this as well?

even on the finns site it says his controls froze up completelym he thought he was going to die and he almost crashed into the gulf only to recover 50 feet above it yanking back multiple times as hard as he can on the stick.

Abbuzze So why are all these pilots reports and documents saying this from all nations finn german romanian swiss solvakian hungarian??? are they all wrong and your correct. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm Leadspitter your answer is very common, I just said that the quote from your book don´t fit to the original test they mentioned or at least have a "interesting" kind of interpretation http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I didn´t took 109lair at a source but I said that they host the original test! If you can read german you can compare both, the interpretation in the book and what is wrote in the test.

Where in my post could you read that I say that the 109 controlls didn´t get stiff? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
The problem was simply the fact that with high alt trim for cruising speed the 109 had to use the trim to get out of the dive (with pressing the stick foreward to being not blacked out cause of the violant reaction) with correct trimset you could recover a dive just using the stick.

And for the finnish reports, I like them very much, they are interesting to read.
And you will also find a report there, that a finnish pilot is not using the trim for dive recover cause he feard the violant reaction of the plane, he said that he feard that the nose will came up so fast that the tail will torn away.
There are also reports of pilots using the flaps in a high speed dive to recover...

So maybe my english is mistakeable, but I never said (or at least don´t want) to say that your books and all other tests are wrong... but for the posted part of the book I have to say it is at least a mistakeable translation/interpretation. And I stand by the things I wrote in the post abouve.

Link to the original Test:
http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/structures/tails/..._report/05e43-p1.htm (http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/structures/tails/109.05e43_report/05e43-p1.htm)
for the other pages change p1 into p2.. p3...
At page 1 you can find the WKN 9228 and in the lower left corner the Pilot L. Schmid. Date of this report is the 14th of April 1943.