109 elevator trim

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Robo.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Robo.

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.

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!

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

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.

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 ). 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.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

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

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

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

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

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.

[VO101_Tom]

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... )


"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.

[Robo.]

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.

[VO101_Tom]

Originally Posted by Robo.

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?

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by VO101_Tom

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?

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)

[Crumpp]

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

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.

[VO101_Tom]

Originally Posted by Osprey

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)

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 ). 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)

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Robo.

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.

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.

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 ). 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.

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..

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 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.

[justme262]

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