PDA

View Full Version : Bf109K4 high-speed handling



KaRaYa-X
04-26-2004, 10:11 AM
Hi everybody!

I did some testing lately and came to the conclusion that in ACES 2.0 the Kurfürst seems to have far worse high-speed handling than any other late Bf109 for some unknown reason. It can also stand no chance in a turn fight against any other late Gustav.

That's odd because the K4 is basically a G10 with a better engine (DB605DB with 1800 [which we have inFB] or DB605DC [with 2000hp; 1800 even without MW50 engaged! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif]) and more efficient propellor. It is also only heavier by some 50/60kg which will be easily compensated by the more powerful engine and propellor.

I'm still working on some representative tracks which clearly show the different speed handling but you can expect them soon... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif

-- flying online as JG=52Karaya-X --

KaRaYa-X
04-26-2004, 10:11 AM
Hi everybody!

I did some testing lately and came to the conclusion that in ACES 2.0 the Kurfürst seems to have far worse high-speed handling than any other late Bf109 for some unknown reason. It can also stand no chance in a turn fight against any other late Gustav.

That's odd because the K4 is basically a G10 with a better engine (DB605DB with 1800 [which we have inFB] or DB605DC [with 2000hp; 1800 even without MW50 engaged! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif]) and more efficient propellor. It is also only heavier by some 50/60kg which will be easily compensated by the more powerful engine and propellor.

I'm still working on some representative tracks which clearly show the different speed handling but you can expect them soon... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif

-- flying online as JG=52Karaya-X --

VW-IceFire
04-26-2004, 11:15 AM
I noticed that...

I also noticed the wing has some slight differences to the other versions. I always assumed weight was the primary factor...the other thing being that the K-4 picks up speed so quickly that the high speed handeling characteristics fall into place much quicker.

I also believe that the G-10 and the K-4 do turn about the same. The G-14 and the G-6A/S feel about the same...but the nicest to fly is the G-2.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

KaRaYa-X
04-26-2004, 12:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I noticed that...

I also noticed the wing has some slight differences to the other versions.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you mean these long wing bumps on the inner wing structure: You can also find them on the G14... IIRC they were needed because of a completely reworked landing gear


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I always assumed weight was the primary factor...the other thing being that the K-4 picks up speed so quickly that the high speed handeling characteristics fall into place much quicker.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it indeed does pick up speed faster than all other 109s but only by a really small degree. But if you try to turn with various late 109 you WILL notice that they K4 is a LOT worse in turning performance. The G14 is the closest to the G2...

-- flying online as JG=52Karaya-X --

Kurfurst__
04-26-2004, 01:14 PM
Indeed the K-4 is undermodelled in high speed, perhaps for special reason*. A real K-4, travelling at 650 km/h TAS could make a full 360 degree, 5G turn in 24 seconds and on 550m turn radius, at WEP.

Under similiar conditions in AEP, it requires 35-36 seconds, 50% worser. Thze reason for this you cant pull it enough high Gs, ie. no stalling or popping out of the slats.

I brought it up to Oleg not long ago, and the answer was on his system it works close to the original specs. Joystick drivers, especially Saitek (thats what I own) are cause of this, so 1C cannot fix it. He told me using the original Microsoft joy drivers instead of supplied drivers solves the problem, but I could not find improvement, perhaps I am using the wrong driver etc.

It would worth a testing with MS and manufacturer drivers if the problem still exists. If somebody could solve it for himself, please tell me how http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

As for historically, the K4 was the heaviest 109 to see service, but the weight increase was not serious compared to earlier models when compared to tendencies with other planes. Increaseing a/c weight also increases the stick forces because of the inertia, but I doubt this would be a serious factor here, the K-4 being only 10% heavier than the early G-2, and only a few dozen kgs heavier than the G-10.

The rectangular wing bulges were introduced to cover the increased sized mainwheel, and could also be found on G-10s and G-14s if those were built with large mainwheels. I doubt it would effect characteristics much, in fact they may be even better than the smaller bulges on G-6, as the transition is smoother.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

BlitzPig_DDT
04-26-2004, 03:36 PM
All the 109s are off. Someone pointed out earlier that it's as if the curve is linear, which is wrong. The stick just gets too heavy too soon and way too heavy overall. (this might be based on the report of the Emil which included the infamous reference to the stick being in a bucket of cement, F through K had a different system that was an improvement - also, people forget that the P-51 was known for heavy sticks at high speeds (well all WWII planes were, really). Perhap's they forget that intentionally? lol)

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

XyZspineZyX
04-26-2004, 05:36 PM
Consider ourselves a little blessed in this regard.

In Warbirds, the online sim I came from, the K4 was a plane that couldn't handle its own speed.

As you got closer to the top end of the speed range, it would begin to roll right and nose down, no matter WHAT you were trying to do with stick and rudder. It could get so bad that you had to forget about anything else around you, including enemy and devote 100% of your effort into saving the plane from augering in. It was the only plane then in Warbirds' set that would do that. You sure learned about managing throttle flying that bird. It would climb like nothing else, but what goes up has to go down, and when you started adding speed, look out below.

And, the 30mm gun was *cough* playbalanced so that you had to make long, magazine-draining bursts to be more sure of killing a plane...and even then, it might not make a difference. That kept the Pony fans happy. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

Fennec_P
04-26-2004, 06:23 PM
I tried that test myself, a 360deg, descending turn at a continuous 650km/h TAS, 3000m altitude, with neutral trim, and I get only 26 seconds time. Certainly nowhere near 35 seconds.

With even just a hair of tail heavy, like how I normally fly, I can do it in less than 22 seconds (but black out).

There doesn't appear to be anything terribly ahistorical about the 109K control forces.

But in generally the forces are screwy. Like how some planes can have basically no control forces whasoever at any speed or altitude (FW, P-51, Ki-84, YP-80) and other planes freeze up at medium speeds at medium altitudes. Also how some, like the P-47, can start off with extremely heavy forces, that magically get feather light in the next patch. Mig-3 used to be light, now in AEP it is rock solid at anything past 500.

http://members.shaw.ca/fennec/urban.jpg

SkyChimp
04-26-2004, 07:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Indeed the K-4 is undermodelled in high speed, perhaps for special reason*. A real K-4, travelling at 650 km/h TAS could make a full 360 degree, 5G turn in 24 seconds and on 550m turn radius, at WEP.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But if Oleg modelled it that way, it might stand a chance against a Yak-3 or a La-7. And we can't have that, now can we?

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

crazyivan1970
04-26-2004, 07:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Indeed the K-4 is undermodelled in high speed, perhaps for special reason*. A real K-4, travelling at 650 km/h TAS could make a full 360 degree, 5G turn in 24 seconds and on 550m turn radius, at WEP.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But if Oleg modelled it that way, it might stand a chance against a Yak-3 or a La-7. And we can't have that, now can we?

_Regards,_
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all K4 stands chance against any plane in the game...so let`s make that clear.
Second, i started seeing some nice changes in your postings Chimpy, and now you just proved me wrong. Unfortunately.


As far as all 109s being dogs at high speed, they are not...it starts from G10 and goes up to K4 - the worst one. I never flew real K4 and probably never will lol, but .. take a look at G6/AS which is not that different from K4... and somehow handles whole alot better at high speeds. No russian plane can follow, well american planes can... So? What was that about La7 or Yak3?

Oh ya, i did report K4 numbness over 550km/h and still waiting on some changes. I hope it will be changed.

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

WWMaxGunz
04-27-2004, 05:37 AM
See if cutting the throttle a bit at least in the start of the turns doesn't help. Also setting the stick pitch sliders to all 100's but be real steady after that.

You all can also try asking Oleg for a track of a 20-some second turn at speed in the K-4 and maybe just learn something not in a history book, like how it's done instead of just that it was done. OTOH maybe you won't get any track.


Neal

CaptainGelo
04-27-2004, 06:04 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gifthis what I say about it (http://www.hmp16.com/hotstuff/downloads/Justin%20Timberlake%20-%20Cry%20Me%20A%20River.mp3)

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/Animation3.gif
"Big Bills suck, small Bills don't"&lt;----WRONG!!!! all Bills suck http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

CaptainGelo
04-27-2004, 06:11 AM
test...

Plane is 2 slow, guns are too week etc..?Here you go... (http://www.hmp16.com/hotstuff/downloads/Justin%20Timberlake%20-%20Cry%20Me%20A%20River.mp3)
http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/Animation3.gif
"Big Bills suck, small Bills don't"&lt;----WRONG!!!! all Bills suck http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

dazza9806482
04-27-2004, 07:30 AM
so is the g6/as or the g10 /14 better than the K? I love the bf109's and naturally assumed the k was best?

climbs like a rocket...

ZG77_Nagual
04-27-2004, 08:02 AM
The P47 did have pretty light control inputs, particularly in comparison to the mustang - which I agree is too light on the controls fast (as is the ki84 and probably even th 190 a bit)It does get problematic though - modeling stick forces - at what point do you decide they are prohibitive? I don't fly the 109s much because I consider them sorta uber planes - like the ki and yaks. But it's my understanding the k4 was the least maneuverable of the lot. This may be wrong given Kurfurst's data - to which I gather Oleg had no objection. However, to those still complaining about the k4's performance I'd like to point out Fennec's thread above:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I tried that test myself, a 360deg, descending turn at a continuous 650km/h TAS, 3000m altitude, with neutral trim, and I get only 26 seconds time. Certainly nowhere near 35 seconds.

With even just a hair of tail heavy, like how I normally fly, I can do it in less than 22 seconds (but black out) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This corresponds to my experience as well. I've allways found the 109s in general quite easy to fly and get kills in against any piston engined types in the simm - my favs being the g6as and g2. Like I said though, my taste is more toward 190s on the axis side

Bewolf
04-27-2004, 10:40 AM
109s uberplanes? *coughs*

as far as i know, 109s in this game handle worse then the originals, though not by much.

Now i wonder why 109s were said to be "outtdated" and "not up to it anymore" at the end of the war, acoording to often stated real life accounts. Taken statements like "uberplanes" as said here...how does this match up?

Bewolf

Never discuss with stupid people.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

ZG77_Nagual
04-27-2004, 11:05 AM
Sorry for using the evil 'uber'. What I meant to say is that the 109s handle very nicely and perform on a par with most other types in the simm - the late models have a great rate of climb and really rule as bnz aircraft while being maneuverable enough at modeerate speeds to stay with just about anything long enough to get a solution. Currently the only plane I really think of as 'uber' is the ki84 - which can decimate a dogfight server while still allowing the pilot time to get a snack and watch a little TV.

In some planes you get a sense of real limits relative to other fighters in the simm whereas the 109s from the g2 on are really pilots planes and have a fairly large tactical envelope.

Kurfurst__
04-27-2004, 11:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fennec_P:
I tried that test myself, a 360deg, descending turn at a continuous 650km/h TAS, 3000m altitude, with neutral trim, and I get only 26 seconds time. Certainly nowhere near 35 seconds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try it at 6000m, 78,5 degree bank, and keep at same altitude all the time. I did not use trimmer either. To me it gives about 35 seconds, I cant even stall the plane, nor the slats open out, because I cant pull it enough hard... As said, increasing a/c weight also increaes stick forces, so the K should be worser than a G, at least for elevator input, but as I said, its not a big difference. The G-10, or G-6/AS weights some 3300 kg, the K-4 3362kg... G-6 3150kg, G-2 3050 kg... not much of a difference.

Also its likely to be related to joystick driver problems, ie. same as the problem of some getting the correct P-38 roll rates on certain configs.

What joystick/driver/system you have, Fennec?

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

KaRaYa-X
04-27-2004, 11:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Oh ya, i did report K4 numbness over 550km/h and still waiting on some changes. I hope it will be changed.

V!
Regards,
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you very much Ivan! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif
At least one serious post in here http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

-- flying online as JG=52Karaya-X --

KaRaYa-X
04-27-2004, 11:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Try it at 6000m, 78,5 degree bank, and keep at same altitude all the time. I did not use trimmer either. To me it gives about 35 seconds, I cant even stall the plane, nor the slats open out, because I cant pull it enough hard... As said, increasing a/c weight also increaes stick forces, so the K should be worser than a G, at least for elevator input, but as I said, its not a big difference. The G-10, or G-6/AS weights some 3300 kg, the K-4 3362kg... G-6 3150kg, G-2 3050 kg... not much of a difference.

Also its likely to be related to joystick driver problems, ie. same as the problem of some getting the correct P-38 roll rates on certain configs.

What joystick/driver/system you have, Fennec?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is what I have been discussing with Oleg about the Bf109s numbness at high alts (but low IAS speeds!)

me:
"Plane: all Bf109s

Bug: At altitudes of 6500-7000m and above the rudders almost freeze up. It takes eternity to do a 360? turn. However the Bf109 series of fighters is well know for its very good control responses at speeds up to 350km/h IAS (at 7000m you will only rarely fly faster than 350 IAS)

This bug has moved from IL2 original to FB to ACES - would be nice to have it fixed as it is an EXTREME disadvantage when fighting other high-alt fighters at these altitudes..."

Oleg:
"All planes change (begins to be worse) the maneuverability with altitude. Its a physical law.
No bug here.
Just one sample for you: Its why was born such as Ta-152.
With altitude the air denciry decreases, so..... think yourself about the result!"

then me again:
"Thank you for your reply!
&gt;
&gt; However there still some questions:
&gt; I know that air density decreases as you climb - that's the reason why the
&gt; difference between TAS and IAS increases... but shouldn't a plane at
300IAS
&gt; at about 7000m be able to turn the same way as when it is flying at 300IAS
&gt; at sea level...?"

Oleg:
"Absolutely no. If you compare the TAS speeds then try to calculate which
forces applied to the plane in maneuvers at these TASs"
(I dont understand his arguments here... I was talking of constant IAS... such as 300km/h IAS at 500m and 6000m... shouldn't be much different, should it!? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif)

me:
"I understand there is a huge difference between 2 fighters flying at about
&gt; 300 TAS one at sealevel and one at high alt - but I dont understand why
&gt; there should be such an extreme difference between planes of the same IAS
&gt; of course fighter engines also drop in performance the higher you get but
&gt; that is only important for sustained turn of course not for the
theoretical
&gt; maneuvrability."

Oleg:
"See above. The picture of physics is much more complex http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Sorry no time to
explane details."

me again (last question):
"One more question if you allow:
&gt; I dont understand why for example the P51 turns a lot better at high alt
at
&gt; 300IAS than the Bf109. Both fighters have about the same power/weight
ration
&gt; and power loading (with even a slight advantage for the 109K4 maybe)
&gt; I also never read that the Bf's control surfaces froze up at high alts at
&gt; such slow IAS speeds."

Oleg:
"Controls no froze. The law is other. And the physics laws are not linear
for the flight from low to high alt. A lot more parameters changes, but not
only these that you described."

-- flying online as JG=52Karaya-X --

hos8367
04-27-2004, 01:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I brought it up to Oleg not long ago, and the answer was on his system it works close to the original specs. Joystick drivers, especially Saitek (thats what I own) are cause of this, so 1C cannot fix it. He told me using the original Microsoft joy drivers instead of supplied drivers solves the problem, but I could not find improvement, perhaps I am using the wrong driver etc.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm just wondering how joystick drivers can affect the game in this way. Please elaborate.

BlitzPig_DDT
04-27-2004, 02:13 PM
Karaya - what he was talking about was the fact that, as you pointed out, 300IAS at 6Km is a much higher TAS than 300IAS at 0m. IOW, you are actually moving much faster, even though the pressure over your wings is roughly the same. The result of that is you'd have a higher inertia and require more air pressure (higher IAS) to pull off a given turn rate. The increased inertia from speed would act much like extra weight.

The problem is, that would not affect control forces, so far as I can see. IAS would determine the pressure applied to the controls, and thereby, the stick. The only thing that should be different is that you might stall out at 6Km and 300IAS with the a certain amount of defelction, whereas you would not with the same IAS and defelction at 0m.

Hope that came out well enough to make sense. lol

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

Ugly_Kid
04-27-2004, 02:19 PM
Here is couple of points from Etkin'S "Dynamics of Flight":

Examination of the equations that describe the stick force per g for both tailed and tailless airplanes shows the following significant points.

1. The stick force per g increases linearly from zero as the C.G is moved forward from the stick-free maneuver point, and reverses sign for h&gt;hm'
2. It is directly proportional to the wing loading. High wing loading produced "heavier" controls
3. For similar aircraft of different size but equal wing loading dP/dn a Sece i.e, to the cube of the linear size
4. Neither CL nor V enters the expression for dP/dn explicitly. Thus, apart from M and Reynolds number effects dP/dn is independent of speed
5. The factor nyy, which appears in Eqs 3.2,9 and 3.2,17, causes the separation of the stick-freee neutral and maneuver points to vary with altitude, size and wing loading in the same manner as the interval (hm-hn)


So from this litany only point for applies here to control heaviness. Basically in a very large speed area you always need constant force to pull the same amount of g. Only Reynolds number and Mach number changes have an effect here. The latter applies then quite notably to maneuvering at high speed high alt...So IAS or TAS is not necessarily the point of control heaviness at all the Mach number is...I assume that's what Oleg wanted to say, or maybe not.

JG7_Rall
04-27-2004, 07:52 PM
This isn't really the point of the thread, I know, but I've always wondered, out of the G-10, G-14, and K-4, which is best for high speed handling, maneuverability, speed, and climb? Sorry if its a dumb question http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

"Son, never ask a man if he is a fighter pilot. If he is, he'll let you know. If he isn't, don't embarrass him."
Badges!? We don't needs no stinkin' badges!

JG7_Rall
04-27-2004, 07:53 PM
double post sorry

XyZspineZyX
04-27-2004, 08:58 PM
Crazy Ivan wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>it starts from G10 and goes up to K4 - the worst one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It starts at the 109E. No 109 can be recovered from even a moderate, throttled back dive without losing significant position in the horizontal vs. nearly ALL opponents. It is singled out for poor performance in this regard.

crazyivan1970
04-27-2004, 09:09 PM
Stiglr, let`s make a little test, follow my G6/AS in any plane you chose, i dare ya http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. The only two can follow... P-51 and P-47.. be sure, but as speed drops, those will be left in the dust as well.

p.s. if i dump combat flaps, K4 will suprize you as well. Bottom line 3 latest 109s are effected by this feature...others, not even close. Check out G2, that baby handles pretty damn good at any speed hehe

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

WWMaxGunz
04-27-2004, 10:42 PM
S! Ugly!

Feeling just a tad slow tonight and not following all your text so maybe can you clarify some ends for me?

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

With speed increasing towards mach is it harder to turn, yes?

Is that linear as approaching mach?

With increase in size for same wingloading is it harder or easier to turn?

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

I realize that many other factors play like you show the balance point I think it is between center of gravity and center of lift plus others not shown clear to me at least there.

What is dP/dn the change rate of?

Just like to know so it makes more useful sense to me especially the questions between those lines.


Neal

CaptainGelo
04-27-2004, 11:49 PM
bf109 is a last plane you should cry about...I mean,..ITS GREAT! use trim and no problem.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''
http://www.danasoft.com/vipersig.jpg

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''


plane is 2slow, guns are 2weak and DM suck?...Then click here (http://www.hmp16.com/hotstuff/downloads/Justin%20Timberlake%20-%20Cry%20Me%20A%20River.mp3)



http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/Animation3.gif
"Big Bills suck, small Bills don't"&lt;----WRONG!!!! all Bills suck http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ugly_Kid
04-28-2004, 12:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
With speed increasing towards mach is it harder to turn, yes?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that's the general assumption, but it is individual to each aircraft. Just manouvering, pulling g but essentially turning too.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Is that linear as approaching mach?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the drag increase is also not linear with Mach but here it's different. The control heaviness is influced, for example, by shock wave formations - so again individual for different aircraft. For lower sub-sonic speed Ma=0.6, maybe to give a safe figure, the stick force should be constant. Note, it is stick force per gee. In lower speed you have to use lots of controls in order to pull gee in higher speed you need less control but the force you put on the stick is still the same. Lower speed much control input, resulting force equals to high speed small control input force.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
With increase in size for same wingloading is it harder or easier to turn?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Basically but it's not that simple, the last unclear part (Se * ce) refers to elevator dimensions (well with size there is increase on your elevator size as well http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
What is dP/dn the change rate of?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

that's symbol for stick force per g. Sorry, if it was a bit unclear. P is stick force n is load factor. Actually only point 4 is really relevant here, I should have quoted that alone. So this should mainly remain constant unless Mach and Reynold's number plays a role.

Note pilot's almost regularly speak about compressibility when talking about heavy controls. Taking couple of useful bits from the article from Kit Carson, FW had about 9 lbs/g at 300 mph and 12 lbs/g at 400 mph, he gives Bf-109 value of 20 lbs/g at 400 mph. Now he is probably talking about IAS as a pilot and the altitude is also unknown. Another a more reliable source gives Bf-109G 8-9 kp stick force/g ca. 17-20 lbs/g. This is heavy but not cement.

Skalgrim
04-28-2004, 02:19 AM
http://www.tilt.clara.net/strat/Page09.jpg

http://www.tilt.clara.net/strat/Page10.jpg


when the k4 turn time 24sec 6000m right,

is very good compare 44 la-7

44 la-7 turntime

1000m 20-21sec, g2 20sec g6 21sec


5000m 27-28sec, k4 only 24sec 6000m



when you look at second link,

la-7 in fb match more the sealevel speed and turntime from 45 la-7 type


seem we have 45 la-7,



when the chart is right,is that not peanuts,

44 la-7

sealevel speed

592km/h

turn 1000m

20-21sec 1000m

initial climb 22,6m/sec



45 la-7

sealevel speed

616km/h

turn 1000m

18,5-19,5sec 1000m

initialclimb 24,2m/sec


45 la-7 is 24km/h faster sealevel and turn 1,5sec better as 44 la-7 1000m



.

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Wed April 28 2004 at 07:36 AM.]

RAF74_Buzzsaw
04-28-2004, 02:30 AM
Franz Stigler says:

Now, the first plane you flew in the Luftwaffe was the 109?
Yeah...
Which was the first Model was it?
F
How did you like it?
I liked it a more than any other one...this is an F model.
(Franz points back to the massive painting behind me)
Cool...it has the tropical filter as well.
Yeah...and where is a G...(Franz looks around date the multitude of painting and photographs)... that is a G model here...(Franz points to another smaller painting, again featuring a G-6 in his original colours)...that's the last 109 I was flying. The last one you flew was a G?Yeah...actually it was a K model, but uh...we used it as a G model, you know...and then I was a...a pilot for the 262 also.
...But most pilots preferred, like yourself, the F models and the earlier G's, like the G-2. What was the reason behind that?
The G6 basically had a heavier motor and could fly higher...not more speed, but that's it...it starts getting heavier every time they put something new in.
Did you ever have the GM-1 boost or MW-50 in any of your planes?
Oh yeah, we used it quite often...in combat you know.
How long did it last?
Uhh...you were not allowed to have it at more than 5 min., you know...if you used it 10 minutes, then motor has to come out.
It makes the engine worse?
It wrecks the motor.
And this was for the higher altitude?
Higher...yes...
And at what speed could you get up to?
Oh boy...I don't remember...450 or 500 km...
Like you said, you could only use it for 5 min. otherwise you would burn out the engine. How many 5 min. intervals could you use? Did you have to shut it down for a period of time to let the engine cool?
That's okay...that uh...it didn't matter. You...but you never used it for five minutes...a minute, minute and a half and that's it.
The armament, you used on the Messerschmitt...you used the Mk108 cannon...
Yeah we had it in the middle...we had two centimetre...or later a three centimetre Cannon...and then a thirty millimetre on top...two of them.
Was there a fairly big muzzle flash from the cannon?
Oh yeah...oh yeah...(Franz pints to a picture of his Me262). Up there we had four, three centimetre cannons...I shot a wing off a B-17 once...
Did the aircraft move quite a bit when you fired the weapon?
No, no, not at all.
Really? I assumed that because of the large calibre cannon, the plane would move quite a bit.
No, no...only very small...but that's all.
What about the gun pods...a lot of pilots had the option of these...they found that -
Oh, I never... I hated them!! I never had them on my airplane. As soon as I got a new airplane... I say, "That's a damn part, off with them!"...Made it sluggish, you know.
Yeah, I heard a lot of pilots hated them...so, if most pilots didn't like them, as it made the airplane sluggish, poor manoeuvrability, why do you suppose they kept trying to incorporate them?
Just more firepower...
Now, in the F model, you had the automatic Prop Pitch control... I know the early Emils it was all manual. Did you ever switch to manual settings?
You could...have uh, have it not automatic, but uh...as soon as we were off the ground we would put in automatic.
So it just handles the engine better?
Because uh...in the air... you might overrev it, and the motor will start to burn
Okay...so you would only switch it to manual for take off and landing?
Yeah...
I know on your left side you had the throttle and adjustments for prop and the mixture lever.
Yeah...
Where did you adjust the prop?
Oh, you can FORGET about the mixture control!! It's not like in a...in a...like in an American airplane or British airplane they had their mixture control. Forget about it, we never had to...it was automatic. Like once throttle had a button on...for prop control...and uh...you could shift it like a gear thing and it would make the motor...you just push it and could adjust it and make it more...
And that was on the throttle?
Yes, there was a button and you could switch it. There was a clock there... in the air...on the control panel... that showed you how your prop...and uh, how it works and was condition.
I've actually seen pictures of Galland, and it looked like he mounted a telescopic gun sight to the Revi...like a rifle scope. Have you ever seen that?
(Franz laughs) No, never...
Now the view from the Me109...backward was really difficult. Did you keep yourself completely strapped it when you were flying?
Oh yeah..
And how did you compensate for the lack of being able to see behind.
Well you could turn your head hundred-eighty degrees around. We didn't have any mirrors in like the Spitfire...what you did was when you strapped yourself in, you had your shoulder straps loose...and uh...and not so tight...so you could move...you could put it in autopilot too... you know...
You flew the Me110 as well correct?
Yeah...(Franz makes a "disgusted" face)
Did you ever fly the Focke Wulf 190?
Oh yeah, I flew it for a few hours, but not in combat.
Did you like it?
I liked it very much...but we were all so used to the 109. But uh, Focke Wulf 190 D model, was far better than we had...and the 152 was even so better.
Yeah...the 152 was the final one...How was the view...the canopy was a lot bigger...
Oh yeah,
...Than that of the 109...did you find the view a lot easier?
Oh yeah, it was...but...the landing gear you had to be careful, because we had a narrow landing gear, the FW had uh...a wider one.

Maple_Tiger
04-28-2004, 04:46 AM
Lmao, lol.

That was funny Buzzsaw.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

KaRaYa-X
04-28-2004, 10:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:
Franz Stigler says:
.
.
.
.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now can you tell us what this interview adds to this discussion at all!? It did not mention high speed handling at all... which IS what we are discussing here!
And somehow that interview with Franz Stigler seems to be pretty useless because at one point he is asked about muzzle flashes and the only thing he says is he shot down B17s with the 4xMk108 on his Me262...

-- flying online as JG=52Karaya-X --

XyZspineZyX
04-28-2004, 12:12 PM
It may be in another interview with Franz, but he did mention that at high speeds, you'd need two hands to pull out of a dive.

That's not really what's in dispute. What IS in dispute is how 109s seem to be highly penalized in this regard, yet other planes which likely suffered control stiffness at speed (and that's nearly ALL planes before 1943, and many afterwards, with the exception of a few noted speed demons that owe their success to stellar performance at speed) get almost instantaneous response from elevator input at speed.

Also, the stiffness and lack of response seems to start in the high 300s/low 400s kph on 109s, which is barely above a decent cruise speed. The effect is, you can climb sustained really well, but you can't dive to the attack to save your life if the opponent sees you. All he has to do is pull up and you can't follow without losing a LOT of angle and position (not to mention frittering away your energy advantage by piling on G)

WWMaxGunz
04-28-2004, 12:27 PM
S! Ugly!

With the mach I was thinking more about in the same plane about turns as altitude increases and I know that machspeed lowers slowly with increase in altitude just as air pressure does.

Stick force is more I think I read clear enough.

Weight is same but aero forces are less due to thinner air and then at highspeed the shockwaves form, depending on AC design of fuselage and wings plus in some cases small seeming things sooner or later somewhere over .6 mach in general, if I have all that right.

With size I did mean about Reynolds number but really the only compares are between planes different in many other aspects, large planes like P-47 as opposed to smaller like 109's. Still I'm wondering if higher Reynolds numbers (bigger airframes) in general get a maneuver performance boost or the other way around (and remember that very large commercial jets do cruise at higher mach limits than smaller ones), i.e. does approach to mach favor bigger planes?


Neal

Kurfurst__
04-28-2004, 12:49 PM
There is another factor I can think of, that is the high G forces at high TAS during, even if the IAS remains relatively low. High G forces would, I belive limit the PILOT`S ability to exert force, even though I have not flown planes or been under high G forces, I would except he would be able to pull a lott less force with his hands at 5Gs. Since G force is a matter of TAS, and TAS is relatively high at high altitudes, this could be an explanation.

Even with the abovementioned fact, I have no doubt that currently the 109s are heavily penalized at their high speed elevator effiency, ie. compared to real life trials that say the plane (109F-2) could do "fairly tight" turns at 420 mph IAS speed, the Lukas dives which show recovery from very high speeds w/o much of a problem..

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

Ugly_Kid
04-28-2004, 01:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Still I'm wondering if higher Reynolds numbers (bigger airframes) in general get a maneuver performance boost or the other way around (and remember that very large commercial jets do cruise at higher mach limits than smaller ones), i.e. does approach to mach favor bigger planes?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think (don't know it though) that required Reynold's change is quite in a different order of magnitude as the the mere differences caused by different reference length. Don't know how powerfull it is though. However, large aircraft have heavy controls and large commercial jets have boosted controls. So the analogy is not that straight forward. The simple comparison P-47, larger (also larger control surface) and higher wingloading would be worse than Bf-109...BUT there is an issue about gearing, long stick more lever etc. The analogy would be valid only again if this factor was constant...In the reverse case stick force per g can be inreased by building a bobweight into the system.

p1ngu666
04-28-2004, 03:50 PM
the yak9u maybe similer
outturned by a zero onwhine just now
thing is, it was at high speed http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Bewolf
04-28-2004, 06:43 PM
Goshz, poor Oleg must rotate.

I clearly remember the discussions about 109s controls were too light. Oleg stiffend it, everybody was content..now it gets going again.

I personally feel that 109 controls shouldn't be that bad...but this forum should come to gripes to what it wants.

Bewolf

Never discuss with stupid people.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

BlitzPig_DDT
04-28-2004, 08:16 PM
The trim trick doesn't work on the K4. It's still reacting like the pilot is holding his hand out of the canopy to change directions.

I had thought that if the trim was fast like it used to be I could just write a profile to link trim to the stick (to get something more realistic in terms of response), but, it doesn't seem to matter anyway.

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

Fehler
04-28-2004, 08:24 PM
Well, all I can say is, "The Purple Banana should be nose down."

And, "The grass should not degrade your carwash."

All switch to code AY37F on your secret decoding ring!

More info later...

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

KaRaYa-X
04-30-2004, 09:07 AM
bump!

-- flying online as JG=52Karaya-X --