4.09 - Support & Bug Reporting

[IvanK]

No changes were made to BF109 flight controls they are the same as they have been since way back.

So Brook please be more specific other than Porked ? How about a detailed list of what you consider is wrong, how it should be unporked and provide the references to support your case.

[JG27CaptStubing]

Originally Posted by IvanK

No changes were made to BF109 flight controls they are the same as they have been since way back.

So Brook please be more specific other than Porked ? How about a detailed list of what you consider is wrong, how it should be unporked and provide the references to support your case.

Mark Hanna's comments about the BF109 from an article written in Flight Journal Magazine.

Handling

Once settled down, with your adrenaline level back down to just plain high, you can take stock of the situation. The initial reaction is of delight to be flying a classic airplane, and the next is the realization that this is a real fighter. You feel aggressive flying it. The urge is to go looking for something to bounce and shoot down!

The roll rate is very good and very positive below about 400 km/h, and the amount of effort needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right. As the stall is reached, the leading-edge slats deploy-together, if the ball is in the middle; slightly asymmetrically, if you have any slip on. The aircraft delights in being pulled into hard maneuvering turns at these slower speeds. As the slats pop out, you feel a slight "notching" on the stick, and you can pull more until the whole airframe is buffeting quite hard. A little more and you will drop a wing, but you have to be crass to do it unintentionally.

Pitch tends to be heavy above 400km/h, but it is still easy to manage up to 500km/h, and the aircraft is perfectly happy carrying out low-level looping maneuvers from 550km/h and below. Above 550km/h, one peculiarity is a slight nose-down trim change as you accelerate. This means that when you run in for an airshow above 500km/h, the airplane has a slight tucking sensation-a sort of desire to get down to ground level. This is easily held on the stick, or it can be trimmed out, but it is slightly surprising initially.



Kinda interesting isn't it...

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by JG27CaptStubing

Kinda interesting isn't it...

I think it is. Mark Hanna had plenty of experience flying Spits and 109s (such a pity he was killed), but without any information about the model of 109, details about its restoration and any kind of comparison to other contemporary aircraft it's not so much use to DT as otherwise. I'm sure you can easily provide the first two, though. Was it a Merlin-powered Buchon? Decent reference for an Emil, at least.

[IvanK]

There are plenty of references both modern and from WWII evaluations of most BF versions describing pitch response versus airspeed.

Out of interest in game BF109G2 at 500Kmh IAS you can obtain 6.8G and maintain it in a descending spiral.

Now where does that fit into the Porked index scale ?

We all know the in game 109 gets heavy on the stick at the higher speeds. Its been that way since IL2 hit the shelves many moons ago. The attempt to recreate the known pitch heaviness of the real aeroplane. Now if you think its overdone then at least detail what you expect. References to support your argument will also help.

There is some reasonable achievable G versus Airspeed data for late model BF109 available, and slightly more detailed than Pork ratings...

[JG27CaptStubing]

Originally Posted by IvanK

There are plenty of references both modern and from WWII evaluations of most BF versions describing pitch response versus airspeed.

Out of interest in game BF109G2 at 500Kmh IAS you can obtain 6.8G and maintain it in a descending spiral.

Now where does that fit into the Porked index scale ?

We all know the in game 109 gets heavy on the stick at the higher speeds. Its been that way since IL2 hit the shelves many moons ago. The attempt to recreate the known pitch heaviness of the real aeroplane. Now if you think its overdone then at least detail what you expect. References to support your argument will also help.

There is some reasonable achievable G versus Airspeed data for late model BF109 available, and slightly more detailed than Pork ratings...

Ironically nobody tends to complain about the G2s elevator response. It's all the other 109s.

You would be incorrect about the 109s behing heavy on the stick since it hit the shelves. I think it was 4.04 that introduced the cement elevator. Regardless of references most other planes in the game don't have this problem.

If it's supposed to be modling accuracy then I would ask the same from you. What references were used to support the idea of heavy controls at certain speeds. I can't find any so far. Most of what I have seen said it had excellent handling through out the entire flight regime but then again these aren't tests.

[Hood]

This is a bug reporting thread, not a flight model whine (even if that whine may be justified) thread. Take the argument elsewhere fellas.

[IvanK]

Hood I am a DT member.

Capt Stubbing try ANY of Eric Browns or the RAF's evaluations of the 109. There are numerous discussions of all 109 variants and elevator pressures and pitch response.

Get a copy of Wings of the Luftwaffe by Eric Brown or Augsberg Eagle by William Green which contains numerous reproductions of RAF evaluations.
Another good source is Peter Caygill's "Flying to the limit Testing World War II Single engine fighter aircraft". Messerschmitt BF109 at war by Armand van Ishoven also contains large junks of RAF evaluation reports describing BF109 control forces etc. Just about every single evaluation of the 109 makes reference to heavy elevator loads.