109-E3 FM feedback.

Interesting. But one has to read very carefully. For instance they say that the ailerons are very heavy at high speeds but later on they say this is due different stick mechanics and infact the 109 could be banked the same rate as a Spit at high speed.

[kimosabi]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

Hi Kimo, i'm deeply underwhelmed by all the fm's, none of the major players perform anywhere near there proper BoB performance.

agree re the 109 landing, kinda funny when you think how many were actually lost in landing incidents, but it was always one of the easist planes to land in il2 as well, go figure.

how you been anyway?

Hi mate. Underwhelmed as well. I did another run today and the damn thing KITES like no other virtual 109. Chopped the throttle at 150km/h stable speed and it took almost 15seconds before it wingstalled, from neutral climb, no drop in height just stalled. Miraculously without warning lol. As I understand, the Emils where fairly high wing loaded so how they came up with this characteristic is beyond me.

I'm good. Busy, and lookin forward to our well known "40 days of hell" period, when people up here suddenly wants to get things done again and their barges back on the water for this season. Hope you're peachy as well and say hi to the dawgs.

Originally Posted by Kurfurst

Real-life handling:

Messerschmitt Me. 109
Handling and Manoeuvrability Tests
BY
M. B. MORGAN, M.A. and D. E. MORRIS, B.SC.
COMMUNICATED BY THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARC (AIR)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
__________________________________
Reports and Memoranda No. 2361
September 1940

http://www.kurfurst.org/Tactical_tri...ls/Morgan.html

Yup, thanks man. That's exactly what I was talking about. Slow and stall speed testing 1-5 all mention light to heavy aileron buffeting and ample warnings before the stall occurs in a clean config. Among other typical treats of this airframe, but the FM indeed looks severely dumbed down. Even more than IL-2 1946.

And where's the aileron reduced efficiency when the slots pop open for example. Not that IL-2 had it either but I'd expect it to be on this "top-of-the-line" combat sim, as was advertised. Patches I say! Patches!

*edit* In case of the possibilities of "sounding" negative towards the devs abilities, I just want to make it clear that it's NOT an attack on the devs per say. It's my personal objective observation after flying hours of discontinous and medium speed flight and notes taken by me based on my experiences with the virtual aircraft's handling and characteristics. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Sternjaeger II]

meh, I've seen this report before and I still can't take off my head the fact that it's just wrong.. it's like having a toaster and see if you can boil water with it..

[kimosabi]

You gotta explain man. When someone says "yes" and you say "no" doesn't automatically turn everything into "no" as a truth.

In case you were implying that comparing flying a real aircraft compared to a simulation is soooo stupid, how do you explain that the old IL-2 1946 has the characteristics that CloD lacks?

[Sternjaeger II]

the way they conducted tests and the conclusions they reach are simply ridiculous. Among the nonsense:

1) time of climb chart: the discrepancy between the registered time and the German published time is ridiculous. Almost 2 mins difference at ft20k is enough to raise questions on it.

"Owing to cooling difficulties the radiators were open up to 13,000 ft. and then gradually closed up to 26,000 ft. This may account for the discrepancy between the measured times to height and those published in Germany. The top level speed agreed well with the published figure. Absolute ceiling. – 32.000 ft."

oh really?


2) The Me109 was fully loaded but they don't say either the mk or loadout of the hurricane and spitfire.

3) "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."

so what they're saying is that yes, the controls are hard but deliver the same performance of the Spitfire, with the added bonus that unlike the Hurri and Spit, the Me109 does no "snaking"...

4) " After these turns the Me.109 was put into a steep dive at full throttle with the airscrew pitch coarsened to keep the r.p.m. down. It was found that both the Hurricanes and the Spitfires could keep up with the Me.109 in the dive" you don't say

I could go on, but I reckon this is enough..

[kimosabi]

Yeah, I have to agree that elements are conflicting. I was mainly focusing on the amount of feedback the aircraft gives you at certain speeds. It's the feedback and certain buffeting/reduced authority elements etc. I miss in the sim.

[Lixma]

Don't forget, these FMs are very much v1.0. Thrown out of the door in the same condition as everything else more or less. They'll get better with tuning (I hope).