109 e1 fm

5card · #1 05-12-2012, 12:30 AM

I don't know what has happened to E1 FM but it is now almost
unflyable. The nose bounce when trying to track a target is all
over the place. It goes into a stall now very easy and is almost unrecoverable.

Please put back pre-patch E1.

notafinger! · #2 05-12-2012, 12:37 AM

Same with the E3. The nose is all over the place even with joystick sensitivity on 1.00. Trying to correct aim with small adjustments with elevator results in disproportionate movement of the nose. Also the E1/E3 have the rudder trimmed for a much slower speed than before. At high speed the E1 & E3 are poor gunnery platforms & very jittery in the beta patch. Oddly, the E4 has a very different FM with few of these problems.

David198502 · #3 05-12-2012, 03:34 AM

i dont agree....all the 109variants have this problem now,the E4 included.its really almost impossible to hit a thing now...if its more realistic, i would swallow that pill, but i doubt that they really know what they do...

Kwiatek · #4 05-12-2012, 08:01 AM

I found something is not right with rudder working in all planes. I think there is too much roll interia during press rudder pedal. These is expecially noticable in 109.

Im sure also that slats in 109 work too late - they open at too low speed and too high angle of attack. It is since relase of CLod and wasn't fixed until now.

IvanK · #5 05-12-2012, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

I found something is not right with rudder working in all planes. I think there is too much roll interia during press rudder pedal. These is expecially noticable in 109.

Im sure also that slats in 109 work too late - they open at too low speed and too high angle of attack. It is since relase of CLod and wasn't fixed until now.

The 109 Slat operation errors have been fully documented and reported directly to the devs.

I agree their current operation from an animation point of view is wrong.... as are the BF110 slats.

Kwiatek · #6 05-12-2012, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IvanK

The 109 Slat operation errors have been fully documented and reported directly to the devs.

I agree their current operation from an animation point of view is wrong.... as are the BF110 slats.

Good to know IvanK.

I hope they will at least make correct speed and climbs for these planes too beacuse in beta patch it is really off - even more then before.

What you think about rudder working in most planes? I think something is wrong here - there is way too much roll movement expecially noticable in 109s.

Kurfürst · #7 05-12-2012, 08:57 AM

I do not know how the thing flies in the beta, I have not installed it yet, waiting for the final.

However RAE noted the ailerons snatch for a moment, moving the stick sideways several inches (maximum stick deflection on 109F was 6-6 inches both ways, RAE writes for the 109E its 4-4 inches) and was sufficient to upset aiming. The snatching should only last during the time the time the slats open or close (a fraction of a second), then ceases.

The issue was fixed with the Bf 109F-K with redesigned wings, slats and ailerons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5card

I don't know what has happened to E1 FM but it is now almost
unflyable. The nose bounce when trying to track a target is all
over the place.

See: http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/...ls/Morgan.html

4.6. Flying Controls. – 4.61. Ailerons. – At low speeds the aileron control is very good, being similar to that of the Curtiss H-75 ; there is a positive " feel ", there being a definite resistance to stick movement, and response is brisk. In these respects the Me.109 ailerons are better than those of the Spitfire, which become so light at low speeds that they lose all " feel ".

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.

Throttling back the engine does not alter the effectiveness of the ailerons at any speed. Lowering the flaps at low speeds (the ailerons come down 11 deg. with the flaps) makes the ailerons considerably heavier and slightly reduces their effectiveness, although response is. still amply adequate.

Apart from their excessive heaviness at high speeds, the most serious defect of the Me.109 ailerons is a tendency to snatch as the wing tip slots open. This is particularly noticeable when manaeuvring. For example, if the stick is pulled back in a tight turn, putting additional g on the aircraft, the slots open at quite a high airspeed ; as they open, the stick suddenly snatches laterally through several inches either way, sufficiently to upset a pilot's aim in a dog fight.

The snatch appears to be associated with the opening of the slots, for once they are fully open a steady turn can be done, with no aileron vibration, until the stall is approached.

As mentioned in section 4.42 (ADM. 293) some aileron snatching also occurs when gliding near the stall with flaps up and slots open; it disappears on lowering the flaps fully, and so does not worry the pilot during the approach glide.

Quote:

It goes into a stall now very easy and is almost unrecoverable.

Unrecoverable stalls sound very silly for the 109.

When doing tight turns with the Me.109 leading at speeds between 90 m.p.h. and 220 m.p.h. the Spitfires and Hurricanes had little difficult in keeping on the tail of the Me. 109. During these turns the amount of normal g recorded on the Me. 109 was between 2½ and 4 g. The aircraft stalled if the turn was tightened to give more than 4 g at speeds below about 200 m.p.h. The slots opened at about ½ g before the stall, and whilst opening caused the ailerons to snatch ; this upset the pilot's sighting immediately and caused him to lose ground. When the slots were fully open the aircraft could be turned quite steadily until very near the stall. If the stick was then pulled back a little more the aircraft suddenly shuddered, and either tended to come out of the turn or dropped its wing further, oscillating meanwhile in pitch and roll and rapidly losing height ; the aircraft immediately unstalled if the stick was eased forward. Even in a very tight turn the stall was quite gentle, with no tendency for the aircraft to suddenly flick over on to its back and spin. The Spitfires and Hurricanes could follow the Me.109 round during the stalled turns without themselves showing any signs of stalling.

The good control near the stall during these turns at full throttle contrasts with the results obtained from the ADM. 293 tests (section 4.42)) for when gliding the aircraft becomes unsteady at 10 m.p.h. above the stall. Slipstream thus appears to have a steadying influence on the behaviour of the Me.109 near the stall.