No.

What is said is that the RAF lacked oxygen bottles with connectors compatible with Luftwaffe oxygen systems.

Without oxygen, 18,000 ft is a hard ceiling for pilots, and even 17,000 is iffy.

IIRC it turned out that the 109 was much better than the Spitfire at very high altitudes, which was a surprise to the RAF because they hadn't tested captured aircraft at high altitude because they didn't have oxygen bottles that fitted the aircraft.

Thanks for that clarification, the pilot's notes didn't make that clear as far as I could see - only said "owing to the absence of oxygen apparatus in the M.E. 109".

My other points stand though I suppose.

I agree, but from the accounts and the above video it would seem that although being big, it was not very fast in adjusting the trim. Also, comparing the 109 design to competing designs (with trimtabs), it was rather different and more effective as such (with more surface to work with), although slower and more difficult to operate at higher speeds - adjustments would happen in jumps and it would not be easy to trim when the speed has buit up already. Also, French tests mention that even vertical manoeveurs trim was needed where D.520 could easily turn with the stick only etc.

My point precisely. Not in a dive I would say but at high speed even in horizontal flight. The behaviour in the dive had nothing to do with the compresibility effect, it was purely loss of effectivity as the speed build up afik. On full real settings I would expect to need to trim before I enter the dive otherwise I would encounter difficulties. I would expect the trim control to be slower (and heavier IRL) as the speed is rising. In the sim I can get full nose up at any speed with the move of my thumb, the aircraft reacts immediately and too swift leading to unrealistic manoeveurs.

The 109 was very agile in the hands of a good and experienced pilot and is more difficult to master than some other designs. This is sort of the case in the game already (at least that's how I see it), one thing that ruins this for me is the trim and few other things that make flying the 109 much less challenging. But let's stay with the trim:

1. THE RANGE. The real thing had the range of 12 degrees from -3 to +8 degrees, neutral being 0, (Take off setting was between 0-1). The indicator and the range is correct BUT it seems to me that the neutral position is not 0 in game. It seems the range is symetrical, therefore the neutral position is at 3. If you set your elevator trim to 0, that will lead to nose-heavy situation in the sim. I believe the 109 should have more range in tail-heavy direction.

2. THE SPEED AND RESPONSE - asstated above, the animation in the sim is certainly wrong (see RAE test quoted beforehand) and the speed and response is too swift as I mentioned earlier. I would expect the trimming becoming more difficult (slower) at higher speeds and ideally, we would have adjustments in 'jumps' as mentioned by Finnish pilots re. hand placement and movement. Anything would be better that what we've got now imho.

This is most certainly wrong, the 109 has had oxygen equipement as a very modern fighter. Perhaps that particular machine (damaged and acaptured iirc) had it removed or they have had no mask or compatible exuipement to refill it or similar reason, but the oxygen bottle is down on your right hand side with the breather tube and hoses and gauges (blue for oxygen in LW cockpits).

This is very interesting and important point. I know nothing about pilot's position in the cockpit regarding blackout. The only thing I recall is that in the Spitfire, the pilot was able to lift his feet from the rudder and rest them on a horizontal bar. Apparently that would also make pulling high Gs easier and I've heard on many accounts that the position in the cockpit was very important.

The difference between Hurricane and 109 should be considered in the sim.

Ah, makes sense. I thought though that Merlin performed better than DB higher up due to higher full throttle height and supercharger designs of bothe engines. I might be wrong but it seems that above 16.500 feet, the Spitfire was faster than the 109 even with 87 octan fuel and also climb performance was slightly better. It was later Spitfire marks and Friedrichs where I've read accounts of Germans being some 2000ft higher and RAF unable to climb any further but I was not aware of any advantage of the Emil over early Spitfire marks. If you could point me out to some sources that would be great!

Depends. The Spitfire in the period of the BoB went on with just two Merlin engines, the III and XII. The latter IIRC was marginally better for lower altitudes and worse for higher altitudes.

On the German side its a bit more complicated - most books will tell you that they used 'DB 601' but in reality 109s/110s had a number of DB 601 variants installed during the Battle:

DB 601A-1 with old type supercharger - this had a rated altitude of just 4000m.
DB 601A-1 with improved type supercharger - this had a rated altitude increased to 4500m.
DB 601Aa - this had increased boost pressures, which meant it developed about 10% more power than the 601A-1 below rated altitude, operating at 1.35/1.45ata instead of 1.30/1.40 ata, but similiar altitude performance. I believe this is the variant we have modelled.
DB 601N - this one was fitted to 109s and 110s and used 100 octane fuel, and had both increased boost pressures, higher compression ratio and a more powerful supercharger with a rated altitude of 4800 m. Off all engines during BoB, British or German, this had the best altitude performance. The one fitted to the 109F had a better supercharger and a rated altitude of 5200 iirc.

In addition, during the Battle the Luftwaffe cleared increased RPMs for the DB 601 A and N-series engines, and this would increase altitude performance (the supercharger's rotation speed was linked to the engine speed, so increasing the engine speed also increased the supercharger performance)

http://kurfurst.org/Engine/Boostclea...rese_nov40.PNG

True and I would like to see a thread/bug on it. The problem is that there is a human aspect to it, blackout varies a lot between people (which is why the Luftwaffe presently test for blackout during pilot candidate selection today). That said I would like to see some extra tolerance built in for 109's on blackout - it makes sense. Robo is correct about the Spitfire pilots raising their feet to increase G tolerance - I have read this in biographies from surviving pilots too, so perhaps there is also a case there too. Alas the poor Hurricane pilot has to suffer again........:eek:

Regarding Kurfursts post, I have a habit now of dismissing his posts for bias however on this occasion he should be congratulated for an informative post, one cannot be sure of the evidence but it does look convincing at least ;) None the less, let us not forget this is about elevator trim and not the other aspects of performance which we are all sidetracked on.

I cannot understand Crumps POV though, how can he dismiss a pilot who works with warbirds, including the 109, based on his own personal view of what is logical because he flies a modern light aircraft? Nonsensical.

Interesting, I always thought that FTH was the main obvious difference between A-1 and Aa versions.

I am not too sure about the develompemt of German superchargers but from what I remember the A-0 (not used in the sim or during the BoB in the 109s) has had FTH of 4000m, then improved supercharger of A-1 made it to 4500m. 601 Aa was at 4000m again with better low alt performance instead. I am bit confused here with what you're saying.

Still, early Merlins had higher FTH than any of the above engines, hence my assumption the RAF had slight advantage at high alt.

DB 601Aa - this had increased boost pressures, which meant it developed about 10% more power than the 601A-1 below rated altitude, operating at 1.35/1.45ata instead of 1.30/1.40 ata, but similiar altitude performance. I believe this is the variant we have modelled.

The DB 601A we've got in game is appartently modelled at 1020PS so I suppose it's the A-1 version with FHT at 4500m.

We haven't got this one modelled (perhaps better to compare with Merlin XX at slightly later stage of the conflict), there are no E-4/N (or E-7/N) or Hurricane Mk.II in the sim.

the interesting thing on this test is, the frencht test THIS airplane before (WerkNr 1304), (with higher results) and reportet that they damaged the plane and must break off the climb test ( motor cooling). And then shipped it to england.
Who knows if the has the correct power?
And no pilot reports the shaking when the slats came out? perhaps they´re not functional?

I still don't understand... let me get this straight

Ok I'm in a BF109 diving at high speed on a hurricane with neutral trim and forward pressure on the stick to hold the nose down, he sees me and breaks right. I roll right and pull back on the stick gradually accelerating the turn and increasing the angle of attack till eventually one wing or the other stalls and I spin. Does trimming the whole horizontal stabilizer delay the high speed stall? Can my plane achieved greater angle of attack with the stabilizer trimmed by wheel compared to the elevator raised by stick?
If either way I reach same maximum angle of attack and stall in same place then what's the difference?

In real life the elevator forces go up at high speed so I can see an advantage to a pilot trimming the nose up at high speed but in this "sim" none of the fighters have heavy controls at high speed so why not just pull back on the stick.

Robo and Osprey, I am saying that when making changes that are in the right direction (realism), we should nonetheless time and implement changes in a manner that respects overall realism - ie, the matchup between aircraft and relative performance, as well as the overall hierarchy of problems in order of importance.

Why are we focussing on the 109 trim here? I have seen no good argument in this thread for why the 109, an aircraft with a huge trim wheel and similar trim times to other planes in the game, should be singled out for changes, and why these should be above fixes to its and other aircraft's performance. Given that all the aircraft in the game trim quite quickly, if the 109 is wrong, its likely they are all wrong (some even more so). This discussion should go beyond just the 109 and the fix should go beyond just the 109, otherwise we are punishing an aircraft with slower trim adjustment that was actually QUICKER to adjust trim in in real life!

Similarly with control heaviness. True, the 109 was worse than contemporaries here. But we can't just fix the 109 to historical performance and leave it at that. It's likely that other aircraft are also pulling too easily/experience too little control heaviness, and to change this on only one aircraft is sacrificing macro realism for micro realism. We'll have one great, realistic plane to fly, but that'll be all.

And that's not even taking into account the undermodelling (apparently, based on discussions here) of all these aircraft, including the 109 (possible exception being Spit IIa). Why should trim be fixed before the performance and speed of the 109?

Look at the Spitfire IIa - because it is probably the most accurate in terms of performance among a crop of inaccurately modelled underperformers, many online servers don't even allow it because it has no equal. Fat lot of good lopsided modelling made there. While I support every effort toward realism, I don't support the implementation of these changes on a timetable that is designed to respond to complaints from multiplayer which focus on only the overmodelled aspects of a favoured opponent's aircraft - a slippery slope. This kind of thing should be done transparently across all aircraft in a manner that focusses on the most major to the minor departures from reality. Trim is somewhere down that order, and having to research the proper values on all aircraft (especially if the trim became heavier, ie slower, with the heaviness of the controls) could take time. I am not sure I support the 109 being changed in the interim on poorly researched values, or only on the 109 and not other aircraft, for the sake of some players' competitiveness online.


Still, and to be clear, I do support fixing trim on the 109 and other aircraft. But maybe not on the timescale and order of importance that some others might. Yes, I hear the complaints about the 109 turning too easily in a dogfight online through the use of trim. But I also hear that the performance of most planes is off, blackout and other effects are not modelled correctly and all planes might be too light on the controls and too easy to trim. I think general performance should be fixed first, then trim heaviness/ease should be changed to historically accurate levels. On all aircraft.

I mean let's not forget, 109 pilots might be abusing trim at the moment, but Hurricane, spit and 109 pilots are flying aircraft that are too slow and spit and hurri pilots are abusing the now incorrect modelling of carburetors and dont have to deal with mechanical guages, which also affects the ability of 109 pilots to use negative g to get away or even have the spit/hurri pilot accidently swamp their engine. We need to be careful about how we go about fixing these issues (or even winding back realism, like was done with carburetors and mechanical guages) in response to player complaints from multiplayer. I think some might not like to hear it, but they should accept that it could take a while to fix something like trim if other issues are being addressed.

Please note the date on the document > Nov 14 1940, which is after the BoB had ended.

lol:-P

Fair enough, what you wrote makes sense. I agree the changes should be systematic.

Just re 109 trim - I have mentioned it was quite different in both design and operation to the 'other' trims. That's why the 109 has been primarily spoken of.

Re ''now incorrect modelling of carburetors and dont have to deal with mechanical guages'' - could you perhaps explain further? I don't know what you mean and from my online experience I'd say the neg-G cutouts are quite harsh and unforgiving.

I would agree with that Robo, especially the inability to restart the engine should it cut out, leaving you deadsticking it home.

This thread started as a personal investigation and I am not aware of a process by 1C to treat threads as bug reports.

To be honest I'm not an expert on the realities and FM's of this sim, I repeat what I have read here and experienced myself ingame.

The carburetors and mechanical guages however, which mostly affect the RAF, were changed in a prior patch to more stable electric versions (apparently people didnt expect mechanical guages to bounce so much) and to a simplified/eased carburetor cut out model that allowed some negative g's, even negative g loops, and didn't swamp the engine if negative g's were sustained.

I'm not saying these are game changers, but I'm just saying that things can go backwards if people's feedback from online play is the metric used.

So often, people complain about online balance based on inadequacies in server setup or particular incidents they are angry about - and their views take on a veneer of objectivity with more and more discussion. Which is not to say their views lack all objectivity, but it does point toward the danger of using their views to set the patch agenda.

I mean hell, the beta patch out now looks to be the last for Clod, and i'd say there's a hell of a lot of things that i'd like to see changed above trim.

EDIT: Fair point Osprey, but many here talk with a view that seems to want far more than just personal investigation. But even if trim is not accurate as is, its probably about 1/2 the real time anyway and in my view isnt nearly as important as control heaviness, black out resistance modelling, etc, let alone the actual FM's which continue to display much more fundamental problems.

This discussion is interesting, but I wouldn't expect (or want really) it to lead to many changes until greater issues were remedied and adequate data on all planes was collated.

It's mind dazzling, I agree.

http://kurfurst.org/Engine/DB60x/DB6...sheets_A1.html
http://kurfurst.org/Engine/DB60x/DB6...sheets_Aa.html

I did check my references. It seems that that Aa had the new type of Lader, it just had higher boosts, which can be maintained to lower altitudes only of course, and so seemingly the high altitude performance is worse than A-1 with new Lader.

However checking the power curves show that the A-1/new Lader has very similiar, practically the same altitude performance.



ie. at SL

DB 601A-1 with old Lader: 990 PS (1.3 / 2400 rpm), 1100 PS (1.40 / 2500 rpm)
DB 601A-1 with new Lader: 990 PS (1.3 / 2400 rpm), 1100 PS (1.40 / 2500 rpm)
DB 601Aa: 1045 PS (1.35 / 2400 rpm), 1175 Ps (1.45 / 2500 rpm)
DB 601N: 1175 PS (1.35 / 2600 rpm)

Merlin III: 880 HP (+ 6 1/4 lbs / 3000 )
Merlin III: 1180 HP (+ 12 lbs / 3000 )
Merlin XII: 990 HP (+ 9 lbs / 3000 )
Merlin XII: 1165 HP (+ 12 lbs / 3000 )

So at SL the Aa is a bit more powerful, the Merlin can only keep up with 100 octane.

4.5 km - this is the FTH of the A-1/new Lader

DB 601A-1 with old Lader: 960 PS (1.3 / 2400 rpm)
DB 601A-1 with new Lader: 1020 PS (1.3 / 2400 rpm)
DB 601Aa: 1000 PS (1.35 / 2400 rpm)
601N, Emil version with lower FTH: 1050 PS

Merlin III: 1015 HP (+ 6 1/4 lbs / 3000 )
Merlin III: 1080 HP (+ 12 lbs / 3000 )
Merlin XII: 1140 HP (+ 9 lbs / 3000 )

Essentially there is very little difference between these engines at the most common BoB fighting height, the 601A with the old lader is a bit poorer, the others are essentially the same. The Merlin XII is the best for these altitudes.

at 7 km (23 000 feet)
DB 601A-1 with old Lader: 705 PS (1.3 / 2400 rpm)
DB 601A-1 with new Lader: 750 PS (1.3 / 2400 rpm)
DB 601Aa: 725 PS (1.35 / 2400)
601N, Emil version with lower FTH: 920 PS (1.35 / 2600)

Merlin III: 780 HP (+ 6 1/4 lbs / 3000 )
Merlin XII: 830 HP (+ 9 lbs / 3000 )

So if we go higher we find the 601A with the old Lader was not competitive, but the new one was practically the same as the Merlin III.

Te rare Merlin XII and 601N trump all the others, the 601N being the best engine at altitude by far.

I was going by the 1.35/1.45ata rating, which would point to the Aa. 1020 PS may well point to the A-1 however, its the A-1's rating at altitude.

I haven't seen the data files myself however, just one post on the board. Can you PM me how to extract these? Thx!

Unfortunately the more obsessive online types are also the most likely to appear on the forums and push their point of view doggedly. This seriously skews perceptions of how the community actually views the game and what it wants from it.

Where do you come up with this stuff??

You guys know what that means in regards to trim, right?

Actually, no idea. Could you explain please? Does that mean the controls DON'T get heavy at speed?

Quite complicated indeed. I have no knowledge of using different types of superchargers for A-1 engines (if you could point me to some reference that would be great!). Only tech. document I have is Betriebs- und Wartungsvorschrift for DB 601A (Aus. C, October '40), unfortunately, it's not going into further detail (obviously) and it does not distinguish between 601 subversions at all. Do you mean the A-0 by 'old Supercharger'?

http://kurfurst.org/Engine/DB60x/DB6...sheets_A0.html

I always thought Aa was basically slightly modified (re-designed head, reinforced valves allowing higher MFP, different supercharger gear ratio (I am not sure about exact details here) leading to slightly lower FTH traded for more power below FTH.

I agree. Plus it wasn't just the engine power but power to weight ratio which was in favour of the German design. Still very interesting discussion (although OT :D). I find it difficult to compare the power of Merlins and DBs as British documents usually mention bHP (brake horse power). The data you posted are correct, of course.

The XII was not so rare during BoB, the XX and 601N were later designs and ones to be directly compared in my opinion.

I also only seen it here and I remember the power of DB 601A-1 was set at 1020PS. I'll try to find that data, I have no idea how to extract anything from the game.

To the trimm topic. I know, it's G, but the trimm mechanics is the same:
(For those who doubt that the trim could be used at any time... :rolleyes:)


"Sarantola recalled that the MT was a very stable plane, but not the most maneuverable. The stick forces were quite large and elevator trim was used quite frequently while maneuvering.
MT was easy to fly and overall a safe plane. Flying and landing was easy."
- Olli Sarantola, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Blitz '01 - Meeting With The Veterans by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.


Even more interesting is the fact that they tried different positions of the trimming. With the wrong trimset - the one for cruising at high altitude it was not possible to pull out of the dive just by using the stick. They needed to use the trimwheel to recover the plane from the dive. This happened in such violent manner that the testpilot had to push the stick foreward to be not blacked out...
If the trim was set to +1.15° it was possible to recover without using the trimwheel - both flightpaths, with and without the trimwheel, are very similar. So even with the concrete stick the limitating factor seems to be the pilot.
Also interesting in the dive the canopy iced, also the mechanism of the trim, so it was not possible to set it smooth, but in \"jumps\", but it was still adjustable...
- Source: Hochgeschwindigkeitsversusche mit Me 109, Messerschmitt AG, Augsburg.


Clarification of the escape dive: "It didn't stay (vertical) otherwise, it had to be kept with the stabilizer. I trimmed it so the plane was certainly nose down. Once I felt it didn't burn anymore and there was no black smoke in the mirror, then I began to straighten it up, and it wouldn't obey. The stick was so stiff it was useless. So a nudge at a time, (then straightening off with trims).
Then the wings came alive with the flutter effect, I was afraid it's coming apart and shut the throttle. Only then I began to level out. To a thousand meters. It was a long time - and the hard pull blacked me out."
- Edvald Estama, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Recollections by Eino and Edvald Estama by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

Tom I was already quoting this reference in this very thread. ;)

Trim could be used at any time but not as it is in the sim now.

Ok then. I did not remember that. :)
Is not working as it should? This means that I lost the thread somewhere :)
There is ticket on the bugtracker about this issue?

No, it means you have a null elevator. Regardless of holding the stick or letting it go, the aircraft is longitudinally stable and will tend to return to the trimmed position.

Though it may seem counter-intuitive, this is not always the case for all aircraft or for all loads in a given aircraft. In fact a statically unstable aircraft may offer some advantages. Modern fighters with computer assisted controls are often not statically stable.

Thanks for the explanation, but isn't it the case that such statically unstable aircraft are not flyable without modern fly by wire systems? Ie, of course the 109 is going to be statically stable if it is a workable pre-fly-by-wire design? (perhaps not at all loads though)

I guess I fail to see how that is particularly relevant to this discussion or the heaviness of the trim controls when the tail is subject to faster moving air.

I suspect the I-16 was statically unstable.

I don't think there is a ticket. The point of this thread, for me, was to clarify the issue. According to what has been discovered there certainly is an issue but I would leave it to a 109 driver to write it up as a bug to be fixed, this would obvious need to include details on what the setting should be and how it should behave.

You've done a few 109 issues Tom, is this one for you perhaps??

I also think that there needs to be some research into the Spitfire and Hurricane trims too, although perhaps nobody has complained really because they are already better turners so it isn't needed (exception of when the trim is used as per the original point of the thread)

It means the aircraft has precise trim control input. It is already stable.

The stability is one of the reasons for the higher control forces. The high elevator control forces is a function of the "stick force per G" of the control design. It is way beyond the scope of a gaming forum to adequately explain stability and control.

I will try and explain it so you get the basic idea.

There is a point in the aircraft's balance that is called the neutral point. If our center of gravity was placed at this point, the aircraft would have no tendency to return to last condition of trim. It would be neutral and continue in whatever direction we told it too. It would also require no force at all to move the stick, only the resistance from the hinge moments.

Do you know the law of levers; it is the basis for all Stability and control? It says that at the fulcrum, two moments or torque force of the levers will be equal.

Our basic formula for determing the torque force:

Moment = Arm x weight

Weight is the weight of the object or amount of force we place on the arm.

Arm is the distance from the Neutral Point in the case of stability.

Moment is the torque force required to move about the nuetral point.

The distance between our center of gravity and our neutral point determines the stability of the aircraft. The longer our arm or farther away we are from the neutral point, the more torque force we generate to return to last trimmed condition of flight. WTE_Galloway was correct in his explaination.
Understand?

Neutral stability, for the most part, is not good in an aircraft. Neutrally stable aircraft are "twitchy" and difficult to precisely control. Stable aircraft are easier to precisely manuver but come at the cost of higher input forces. The only axis Neutral stability is considered acceptable is lateral. Wings inhernetly have a considerable amount of roll stability.

Unstable is even worse and does require modern fly by wire controls to safely fly the aircraft. Most WWII fighters were just barely stable.

Now is above corner speed, you want a high stick force per G gradiant. It keeps the pilot safe by ensuring he does not destroy the airframe.

Just to clarify, trim forces will change over the range of an airfoils angle of attack. In general, for every speed there is a specific trim setting.

I am not saying the Bf-109 does not require trim input. There is a very tenious connection. It is entirely possible to have an unstable aircraft that trims very positively just as it is possible to have a stable aircraft that cannot be trimmed.

Hi. I didn't really understand, what was the exact problem with the 109's trim (I asked the Bugreport, that I read the summary there :P ). The tight turning is not problem if the speed dropped quickly. When you using the trimm, the 109's structure allow the tighter turn, than without trimm (only the end positions), because the whole stabilizer moves, so it generates more force (not only reducing the stick force, like ordinary trim). But this is not recommended, because drop all the energy very fast, and the trimm wheel moving slow (I mean, compare to Il-2. I have no problem the trimm's or Flap's speed in Clod :) ). If the enemy shaking the stick, you can't follow :)

I can not help with RAF types, I have only pilot's manual (no technical info, only aircraft handling and performance)

Hi!

I have very little data of the technical 601Aa, apart from that it seems that it was originally meant as an export version (small a = auslandisch or foreign, ie. export), but about 1/3 of all 601s were of the Aa version (info via butch2k). All E-7s (save the ones with 601N) and all /B versions had the Aa. The rest were probably mixed. As for output, all I can say it had improved output and higher manifold pressures.

As for the improved supercharger, I can attach to technical sheet (showing the increased FTH of the new supercharger, or neue Lader) and power curves for the new supercharger DB 601A-1. I believe the A-0 was an early pre-production model only.


Yes, all things consider regardless of similar outputs the DBs were powering a lighter plane with smaller drag, so even when the powers were similar, it meant a flight performance advantage for the 109s.

I believe the conversion between continental PS and imperial BHP is 0,986 PS = 1 HP. It makes very little difference, especially in practice considering the tolerance for production engines. One 109 report I have for example shows the engine was down about 50 HP compared to nominal..

I agree, the Merin XX was a good engine, and saw some service late in the BoB with Hurri IIs. Personally, I tend to pretty much ignore it, since lets face it, since it was powering the rather obsolate Hurricane airframe, it amounted to little other than 'a kiss to a dead person'. It didn't really change much, the Hurricane was a dead end.

I had asked if 109 drivers were using trim to gain more lead and if so was this accurate to RL. From reading the thread I think there are 2 potential issues:

1. That presently the 109 does not require trim to be pulled out of a high speed dive. In RL trim would have to be set prior to the dive in order to pull out.
2. The trim wheel in game moves too quickly compared to how a RL pilot could make adjustments (there are answers and videos in the thread). Some O/L pilots are using this to gain lead quickly, which is unrealistic.

I suggested that a 109 expert validate the information gathered in order to make the 109 more accurate via the bugtracker.

I do not know if the same problem occurs in RAF fighters however I suspect this would not be required given that they already have the turn advantage.

Does that make sense? ~S~

I tested this and found yes it is too quick and smooth to roll the trim wheel through the whole range of motion. The thing is in a combat turn you don't want to trim the stabiliser more than a degree or two. So red players are not disadvantaged because blue 109 pilots will never want to move it through the whole range of motion unnaturally quickly.
It would be more realistic if the trim wheel moved a little bit slower and in little bursts to simulate the motion of a hand turning the wheel. In practice though it hardly makes much difference.

What I did discover though is that flying the 109 with little adjustments of trim is a very good way to conserve energy and keep the top speed up. I have now bound the trim button next to my throttle so my left hand can easily adjust trim

The hardest thing to simulate the human behavior. In addition the PC controllers produce many false signals, if one of them can block the controller for a while, it's wrong, annoying, and unnecessary. Imho. The PC don't know, you move the controller, or just any contact trouble. If you filtering, it will be sluggish...