109-E3 FM feedback.

[kimosabi]

Been testing this bird for a few hours now, full real, CEM and temps included, and it seems very much like a dumbed down FM compared to IL-2 1946. Here's how I come to that idea:

Taxing: Easiest aircraft of the bunch IMO. Using the brakes are almost a non issue, unlike the Hurricane for example. This bird swerves plenty with rudder only and some throttle play.

Taking off: Temps ok, play around the full right rudder area and ease on the throttle until 100%. Clean config, lift off at ~200kmh, gear up no drama. Over 250kmh and you don't need much right rudder either.

Cruising: Trim it, floor it and keep the rpms at 2000rpm and both rads about 50% open. Water may need a bit more.

Landing: Drop to 200m, drop flaps to your preferred visual landing setting(I use full so you gotta keep the finger on it for a while) and drop your gear. Keep 30-40% throttle and glide in. No drama. Chop the throttle over threshold, pull back on the stick and three point it. EVERY TIME.

In addition I see no buffeting, no shaking or anything else that might indicate that you're close to stalling. Until you actually stall. My impression is that you fly on rails and that the stalls and stall surfaces are some sort of pre-coded thing that is designed to occur at the same spot/time/speed/throttle regardless.

Please chip in if my impressions seem totally off here but nevertheless, I feel that there's some parameters missing here. It shouldn't go this straight forwad, even in no wind circumstances. And I'm one of those that likes to yank the stick around a bit too! :grin:

Cheers!

[fruitbat]

Hi Kimo, i'm deeply underwhelmed by all the fm's, none of the major players perform anywhere near there proper BoB performance.

agree re the 109 landing, kinda funny when you think how many were actually lost in landing incidents, but it was always one of the easist planes to land in il2 as well, go figure.

how you been anyway?

[AnarchyZG]

I played il-2 since 1.x and the thing that bothers me is the sudden stall with no warning whatsoever. If you are looking outside you do not see the speed gauge (I'm nostalgic for good old il2 speed alt heading info) and the damn thing just flips. Recovery is straightforward, IF you have altitude to spare...

Also it is rather slow compared to the real thing, I can't get it to max speed no matter what I do

[Kurfurst]

Real-life handling:

Messerschmitt Me. 109
Handling and Manoeuvrability Tests
BY
M. B. MORGAN, M.A. and D. E. MORRIS, B.SC.
COMMUNICATED BY THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARC (AIR)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
__________________________________
Reports and Memoranda No. 2361
September 1940

http://www.kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109E_UKtrials/Morgan.html

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Interesting. But one has to read very carefully. For instance they say that the ailerons are very heavy at high speeds but later on they say this is due different stick mechanics and infact the 109 could be banked the same rate as a Spit at high speed.

[kimosabi]

Hi Kimo, i'm deeply underwhelmed by all the fm's, none of the major players perform anywhere near there proper BoB performance.

agree re the 109 landing, kinda funny when you think how many were actually lost in landing incidents, but it was always one of the easist planes to land in il2 as well, go figure.

how you been anyway?

Hi mate. Underwhelmed as well. I did another run today and the damn thing KITES like no other virtual 109. Chopped the throttle at 150km/h stable speed and it took almost 15seconds before it wingstalled, from neutral climb, no drop in height just stalled. Miraculously without warning lol. As I understand, the Emils where fairly high wing loaded so how they came up with this characteristic is beyond me.

I'm good. Busy, and lookin forward to our well known "40 days of hell" period, when people up here suddenly wants to get things done again and their barges back on the water for this season. Hope you're peachy as well and say hi to the dawgs.

Real-life handling:

Messerschmitt Me. 109
Handling and Manoeuvrability Tests
BY
M. B. MORGAN, M.A. and D. E. MORRIS, B.SC.
COMMUNICATED BY THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARC (AIR)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
__________________________________
Reports and Memoranda No. 2361
September 1940

http://www.kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109E_UKtrials/Morgan.html

Yup, thanks man. That's exactly what I was talking about. Slow and stall speed testing 1-5 all mention light to heavy aileron buffeting and ample warnings before the stall occurs in a clean config. Among other typical treats of this airframe, but the FM indeed looks severely dumbed down. Even more than IL-2 1946.

And where's the aileron reduced efficiency when the slots pop open for example. Not that IL-2 had it either but I'd expect it to be on this "top-of-the-line" combat sim, as was advertised. Patches I say! Patches!

*edit* In case of the possibilities of "sounding" negative towards the devs abilities, I just want to make it clear that it's NOT an attack on the devs per say. It's my personal objective observation after flying hours of discontinous and medium speed flight and notes taken by me based on my experiences with the virtual aircraft's handling and characteristics. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Sternjaeger II]

meh, I've seen this report before and I still can't take off my head the fact that it's just wrong.. it's like having a toaster and see if you can boil water with it..

[kimosabi]

You gotta explain man. When someone says "yes" and you say "no" doesn't automatically turn everything into "no" as a truth.

In case you were implying that comparing flying a real aircraft compared to a simulation is soooo stupid, how do you explain that the old IL-2 1946 has the characteristics that CloD lacks?

[Sternjaeger II]

the way they conducted tests and the conclusions they reach are simply ridiculous. Among the nonsense:

1) time of climb chart: the discrepancy between the registered time and the German published time is ridiculous. Almost 2 mins difference at ft20k is enough to raise questions on it.

"Owing to cooling difficulties the radiators were open up to 13,000 ft. and then gradually closed up to 26,000 ft. This may account for the discrepancy between the measured times to height and those published in Germany. The top level speed agreed well with the published figure. Absolute ceiling. – 32.000 ft."

oh really? :rolleyes:


2) The Me109 was fully loaded but they don't say either the mk or loadout of the hurricane and spitfire.

3) "As the speed is increased the ailerons gradually become heavier, but response remains excellent. They are at their best between 150 m.p.h. and 200 m.p.h., and are described as " an ideal control " over this speed range. Above 200 m.p.h. they start becoming unpleasantly heavy, and at 300 m.p.h. are far too heavy for comfortable manoeuvring. Between 300 m.p.h. and 400 m.p.h. the ailerons are described as " solid " ; at 400 m.p.h. a pilot, exerting all his strength, cannot apply more than about fifth-aileron.

More detailed aileron tests (measurement of stick forces and time to bank) were-made, and are described in section 5.2. These tests showed that, although the Me.109 ailerons felt much heavier
than those of the Spitfire at speeds between 300 m.p.h. and 400 m.p.h., the aircraft could be made to bank at about the same rate as the Spitfire at these high airspeeds. The more " solid " feel of
the Me.109 ailerons at high airspeeds is attributed to smaller stick travel (+/- 4 in. compared with +/- 8 in. on the Spitfire)., fairly rigid control circuit, and partly to the awkward seating position of the pilot. The matter is more fully discussed in section 5.2."

so what they're saying is that yes, the controls are hard but deliver the same performance of the Spitfire, with the added bonus that unlike the Hurri and Spit, the Me109 does no "snaking"...

4) " After these turns the Me.109 was put into a steep dive at full throttle with the airscrew pitch coarsened to keep the r.p.m. down. It was found that both the Hurricanes and the Spitfires could keep up with the Me.109 in the dive" you don't say :rolleyes:

I could go on, but I reckon this is enough..

[kimosabi]

Yeah, I have to agree that elements are conflicting. I was mainly focusing on the amount of feedback the aircraft gives you at certain speeds. It's the feedback and certain buffeting/reduced authority elements etc. I miss in the sim.

[Lixma]

Don't forget, these FMs are very much v1.0. Thrown out of the door in the same condition as everything else more or less. They'll get better with tuning (I hope).

[speculum jockey]

Regarding the "losses due to landing accidents" in the 109, I have two thoughts.

1. How many of these were with the E3/E4/F and how many were with the G variants with the larger engines and heavier armament. Some pilots said that they had to apply full throttle in later G variants when landing due to the weight of the thing and that made landings quite hairy.

2. How many of these landing accidents were rookie pilots? I know they didn't have dual seat 109 (or Spits or Hurricanes) but the two latter were much easier to land compared to most any other plane and the time.

[kimosabi]

From what I've read about the differences with the Doras and the Emils, the Emils were definitely more difficult to handle at low speeds, due to the new and much more powerful DB601 that replaced the Dora's Jumo 210 engines.

Ulrich Steinhilper got surprised when he took an Emil out for the first time and tried landing it like he landed the Dora. He did not expect the increased torque when correcting at final approach and he crashed the aircraft, according to his book "Spitfire on my tail". But at that time, I'd say he was a rookie pilot without combat experience. But as we all know the 109's only got heavier as the models expanded so I can only speculate that they got more and more difficult to land as the model letters ticked on.

[Sternjaeger II]

Regarding the "losses due to landing accidents" in the 109, I have two thoughts.

1. How many of these were with the E3/E4/F and how many were with the G variants with the larger engines and heavier armament. Some pilots said that they had to apply full throttle in later G variants when landing due to the weight of the thing and that made landings quite hairy.

2. How many of these landing accidents were rookie pilots? I know they didn't have dual seat 109 (or Spits or Hurricanes) but the two latter were much easier to land compared to most any other plane and the time.

au contraire mon ami: meet the Bf109 G12 trainer
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2117/2210568934_180bb48b66.jpg

and the FW190 trainer
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v637/tango35/Fw%20190%20S-5/Fw190TrainerB.jpg

they arrived later in the war to speed up the training process and improve proficiency, but hats off for the courage!!

[Sternjaeger II]

From what I've read about the differences with the Doras and the Emils, the Emils were definitely more difficult to handle at low speeds, due to the new and much more powerful DB601 that replaced the Dora's Jumo 210 engines.

Ulrich Steinhilper got surprised when he took an Emil out for the first time and tried landing it like he landed the Dora. He did not expect the torque when correcting at final approach and he crashed the aircraft, according to his book "Spitfire on my tail". But at that time, I'd say he was a rookie pilot without combat experience. But as we all know the 109's only got heavier as the models expanded so I can only speculate that they got more and more difficult to land as the model letters ticked on.

yeah, Steinhilper was a rookie and made a typical rookie mistake (and miraculously survived!).

The real problem with the 109 is the landing gear configuration: the wheels are diverging, which means that if you don't touch down with your plane in line with your direction... well it will straighten it for you, but not gently..

the difficulty comes in the fact that at lower speeds the controls' authority is very low (small rudder being the biggest issue), so it definitely is an unforgiving machine, you need to come down well if you want to achieve a good landing.

[Kurfurst]

Regarding the "losses due to landing accidents" in the 109, I have two thoughts.

1. How many of these were with the E3/E4/F and how many were with the G variants with the larger engines and heavier armament. Some pilots said that they had to apply full throttle in later G variants when landing due to the weight of the thing and that made landings quite hairy.

From RAE report the 109F was more difficult to land than the E (which RAE said was pretty straightforward after a few landings and the correct landing technique used), but it came down to the fact that the F made its approach in a steeper glider angle, and less could be seen from the cocpit.

Tobak OTOH wrote that after having received his 109 course in an Emil in Germany, the G model was much easier to take off and land exactly because its larger weight - it wasn't so 'nervous' on the ground than it's lighter cousin.

Besides, the tyres were larger on the G series, and the main wheel angle was also changed to give better directional stability on the ground and less tendency for looping (hence the wing bulges on later G series).

Very late G/K and with their long tailwheels and even larger tyres improved ground stability further.

2. How many of these landing accidents were rookie pilots? I know they didn't have dual seat 109 (or Spits or Hurricanes) but the two latter were much easier to land compared to most any other plane and the time.

Spits and esp. Hurris had much lower landing speeds as well. More time for the pilot to make corrections.

But this all said, the 109 landing accidents stuff is a bit a myth; the plane was intolerant on mistakes, but if its landing technique was strictly followed, perfectly safe. To add to that, several people did research on loss records of 109s for landing accidents, and the number was perfectly in line with other fighter types of the era - 1.5% of losses were related to t-o/landing, and mnay of these were resulting in just superficial damage. HoHun compared non-combat losses of 109 units to 190 units, and there was no difference again.