Innacurate 109 stall behaviour on COD - Add this to bugtracker, please!

[Ernst]

More from http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/

Me 109 E:
"The airplane was equipped with a 60 foot trailing static head and a swiveling pitot head. Although, as may be imagined, operation of a trailing static from a single-seater with a rather cramped cockpit is a difficult job, the pilot brought back the following results:
Lowering the ailerons and flaps thus increases CL max of 0.5. This is roughly the value which would be expected from the installation. Behaviour at the stall. The airplane was put through the full official tests. The results may be summarized by saying that the stalling behaviour, flaps up and down, is excellent. Both rudder and ailerons are effective right down to the stall, which is very gentle, the wing only falling about 10 degrees and the nose falling with it. There is no tendency to spin. With flaps up the ailerons snatch while the slats are opening, and there is a buffeting on the ailerons as the stall is approached.. Withs flaps down there is no aileron snatch as the slats open, and no pre-stall aileron buffeting. There is no warning of the stall, flaps down. From the safety viewpoint this is the sold adverse stalling feature; it is largely off-set by the innocuous behaviour at the stall and by the very high degree of fore and aft stability on the approach glide.
It is important to bear in mind that minimum radii of turn are obtained by going as near to the stall as possible. In this respect the Bf.109E scores by its excellent control near the stall and innocuous behaviour at the stall, giving the pilot confidence to get the last ounce out of his airplanes turning performance."
- RAF Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) Farnborough handling trials,Bf.109E Wn: 1304. M.B. Morgan and R. Smelt of the RAE, 1944.

Me 109 E-4:
"I was amazed at how docile the aircraft was and how difficult it was to depart, particularly from manoeuvre - in a level turn there was lots of warning from a wide buffet margin and the aircraft would not depart unless it was out of balance. Once departted the aircraft was recovered easily by centralizing the controls."
- Charlie Brown, RAF Flying Instructor, test flight of restored Me 109 E-4 WN 3579. Source: Warbirds Journal issue 50.

Me 109 G:
"- How the Messerschmitt reacted to hard pull? Did she stall?
There is the general opinion that you could not make her stall by pulling but she could 'slip'."
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

I would like to comment the following: "It is important to bear in mind that minimum radii of turn are obtained by going as near to the stall as possible. In this respect the Bf.109E scores by its excellent control near the stall and innocuous behaviour at the stall, giving the pilot confidence to get the last ounce out of his airplanes turning performance."

Acctualy in CloD we can not feel this confidence.

[TomcatViP]

It's not the 109's FM, it's still the stupid SPit.

Try to slow turn in your 109 with a Hurri and I swear that if her pilot fly regular game (no AI FM or whatever some are using), it will be a close match.

I am myself flying the Hurri with BOTH HANDS (on the stick) in that situation. Quite a big wew to what the devs managed here to achieve.

IMHO I even have a tendency to think that the 109 FM is a bit surrealistic in turn (what I am use to call "too optimistic")

~S!

[Ernst]

About the overall 109 performance (dive, speed, acceleration etc) on that test you have to account that it was a British test and the 109 captured, probably far away from its original performance and conditions. However some of it fighting qualities and low speed handling were evident. More:

[Glider]

I don't disagree with the posting above but it does emphasise the importance of training and experienced. An experienced pilot in the SPitfire will outturn the experienced pilot in an Me109, but an inexperienced pilot in the Spitfire is at serious risk against an experienced 109 pilot.

[bw_wolverine]

Originally Posted by Ernst

About the overall 109 performance (dive, speed, acceleration etc) on that test you have to account that it was a British test and the 109 captured, probably far away from its original performance and conditions. However some of it fighting qualities and low speed handling were evident. More:

The same document is saying that the Spitfire and Hurricane have superior turning at slow speeds and that pilots aren't likely to attempt it because they're worried about the flick stall.

Well, CloD pilots probably are a little more risky with their turns than real life ones, so they're getting that better performance at low speeds.

If the 109 doesn't stall out as bad as the game is modelled (ie, the plane settles out into a slip and the pilot can easily recover by leaving the turn - centering the controls) that doesn't explain some people then saying that the 109 should be able to turn inside the Spit or Hurricane?

I'm confused now.

[Ernst]

My understanding is that the Spitfire should add AoA very smothly, and the maximum turn ratio was anchieved in a progressive way. If the pilot pull too much very fast the spit should stall violently and spin. This is because the 109 can initially outurn the spit, time enough to shot it down before it reaches the maximun turn rate. However acctually in CloD we can see the spits pulling very fast with no prejudice, anyone can pull the spit to its limits with no stall.

The 109 certainly should keep with the spitfire initially in the turn.

[gimpy117]

It would make sense with it's thin wing. Pulling fast will result in a stall from too much AoA too fast...