PDA

View Full Version : The Bf 109s have become excellent turn´n´burners?



DIRTY-MAC
09-06-2004, 07:03 AM
I have noticed
when I now days fly planes that were said to "historically" turn better than the Bf109s series and also did so in IL2/FB before,
It often happens that I get surprised that they can stay, and on many times turn inside me in a continius turn, and they who flies the BFs are also often has very differcies in fighting skills,(some are good but some are not) but what they have incomon is that they can outturn both yaks and Las,
has anybody else experienced this
and if so what is your thoughts on this?

Is it a joystick settings thing
or a trim thing or something else,

And please all wiseguys spare me the ordinary
"learn how to fly" ****.

try to keep this a serius thread http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

THIS IS NOT A WHINE! I LOVE THIS GAME AS IT IS.
ITS JUST SOMETHING I HAVE NOTICED.

DIRTY-MAC
09-06-2004, 07:03 AM
I have noticed
when I now days fly planes that were said to "historically" turn better than the Bf109s series and also did so in IL2/FB before,
It often happens that I get surprised that they can stay, and on many times turn inside me in a continius turn, and they who flies the BFs are also often has very differcies in fighting skills,(some are good but some are not) but what they have incomon is that they can outturn both yaks and Las,
has anybody else experienced this
and if so what is your thoughts on this?

Is it a joystick settings thing
or a trim thing or something else,

And please all wiseguys spare me the ordinary
"learn how to fly" ****.

try to keep this a serius thread http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

THIS IS NOT A WHINE! I LOVE THIS GAME AS IT IS.
ITS JUST SOMETHING I HAVE NOTICED.

VW-IceFire
09-06-2004, 07:05 AM
They weren't bad TNB fighters actually. Depends on the speed...at higher speeds Spitfires easily out turn them and so do alot of fighters.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RAF No 92 Squadron
"Either fight or die"

Kurfurst__
09-06-2004, 07:29 AM
Well said Icefire. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

VW-IceFire
09-06-2004, 08:43 AM
Indeed.

My recommendation to anyone flying a 109 in a turn fight is to keep their speed around 300 kph IAS which seems to be the sweet spot between maintaining your turn and your power. In this range few fighters can turn as well or have their best roll rate so you generally have a roll and turn advantage in this speed.

Of course, this is sort of a last resort place to be in.

With the 109K-4 its a little different I think. The plane is heavier and it feels heavier.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RAF No 92 Squadron
"Either fight or die"

DIRTY-MAC
09-06-2004, 10:28 AM
so the Bf109 will turn "outturn" both Yaks and Las
at around 300km/h

does anybody have info on other planes turning sweetspot?

OldMan____
09-06-2004, 11:59 AM
It will outturn SOME yak and LA's not all of them. And that only for the nimble 109 ones (g2 and F4)

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

BigganD
09-06-2004, 12:11 PM
blue players are often more skilled then red players...get some skills http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

"Get close .. when he fills the entire windscreen ... then you can't possibly miss." Erich Hartmann

WWMaxGunz
09-06-2004, 01:33 PM
Different 109's, different best speeds I am sure. K is faster best speed?

Also check for people using combat flaps in turns.


Neal

F19_Ob
09-06-2004, 01:48 PM
The 109's good turning ability depends greatly on its acceleration.
When a hurricane or spit loses their speed they are in deep trouble because they wont be able to accellerate as fast as the 109 and thus 109 have the advantage, even in turn.

Historically most pilots tried to get altitude and speed, and this was the doctrine for all 109 drivers, to dive on thir pray and climb out of harms way.
This is also one of the reasons why hurricanes and spits got away from the attacking 109 in horisontal turn. The 109 had simply too high speed to be able to turn and the 109 pilots also wanted to live so they zoomed back up.

Marseille often used the 109 in hard turning and often attacked several enemies alone, leaving his wingman as topcover.
Many of Marseilles collegues did however not adopt or like his tactics although Marseille proved that turning worked against spits, hurricanes and p40's if u had the advantage of attack.

The spit or p40 can be very equal to the 109 as long as they keep their energy up.
I still belive that the outcome of many battles
depends on who had the initial advantage in the fight. Just a slightly better angle on the enemy can make a worse turning ac win.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ofcourse in FB the 109 pilots are free to explore the turningcapabilities in a way that real pilots could and would not, since death is a small thing in a sim.
If u had speed and hight U wouldnt risk to lose that in an unnescessary turnfight, because if u got low and slow u could be targeted your self, and in reality that would be a stupid move.


a few thoughts http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

DIRTY-MAC
09-06-2004, 03:16 PM
F19_Ob
thats what I call a great input http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Its interesting how this game have Change
Peoples thoughts on many of these fighters.
and how they performed.

I have full comfidence that Oleg gives these birds correct historical behaviors. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

please more good inputs!

by the way what continius turning direction is the best to go in a Bf109, left or right?
I have forgotten :/

VMF513_Sandman
09-06-2004, 03:22 PM
have also noticed that some 109's turn alot better 1 way than the other from engine torque. historically, the zero's had major problems in hard right hand turns, vice versa for american. even though it had no torque, the 38 in this sim seems to prefer right hand turns vs left hand turns. f-19 said it best...death in this sim is no factor. we can hit the respawn and fly again. real pilots only had 1 chance and to take unnecessary risks was guarenteed suicide. maybe we'd fly these things better having just that kind of mindset...u only have 1 life.

WUAF_Badsight
09-06-2004, 03:52 PM
Bf109s only have turn advantages at "hanging onto your prop" speeds

they out-turn very few fighters in FB at normal DFing speeds

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WUAF_Badsight
09-06-2004, 03:54 PM
most people who mainly fly the Bf109 have been doing so for over 3 years now

you expect them to still be "easy kills" after all that experience ? ! ? ! ? !

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Zmir88IAP
09-06-2004, 03:59 PM
In real its impossible that a 109 turns better than a Spitfire at low speed-even a SpitMk.IX should turn MUCH better than a Bf109E!

Thats very strange in FB-not only with the Spit and Hurricane-but everybody knows that these planes turned better...in special at low speeds.

There other examples: The Ki84 turns better than a SpitMk.IX and a Yak3 turns better than a yak9 or 1b and -of course- it couldnt turn better than a Spit(every Spit). Thats all wrong in FB(by my feeling cause turning is "subjektiv"-thats the problem).

I mean only turns at low-level and low speed.

WUAF_Badsight
09-06-2004, 04:06 PM
actually the Bf109 E & the best turning Spitfire , the Mk1 , were near equal at turning

the Bf109 were not the poor turners you think they were

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

BBB_Hyperion
09-06-2004, 05:30 PM
Here is a turning comparison early spit vs early 109.

http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/1092spitturn.tif

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

KGr.HH-Sunburst
09-06-2004, 06:38 PM
in sustained turning all 109s are not that good
almost all allied fighters will beat the 109 in sustained turning, even planes like the P40/P39 will keep E longer and beat any 109 in sustained turning ,sure the 109 can turn inside of almost any plane but thats the same for any other a/c in the sim.

what the 109 does very good is E dumping more so than any other plane (left out P47 and FW190)
thats why you can make those very tight turns for short periods and turn with or inside your opponent but the 109 wont hold out for long

just try it sometimes against the LaGG for example both low speed (190/250kph) with combat flaps or higher,the LaGG will fly circles around it in no time http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.hell-hounds.de
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v94/sunburst/FW190A6sigHH.jpg
''All your Mustangs are belong to us''

Zmir88IAP
09-06-2004, 06:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
the Bf109 were not the poor turners you think they were<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thats true-they were much bader.

steiner562
09-06-2004, 07:02 PM
Sorry orginal allied author I wont spare you the usual "learn to fly" garbage,obivously you were out manouvered and now its time to whine,the 109s esp the late cannot sustain a a true turn rate doing so is suicide unless you have a wing man covering your big black and yellow stripped prussian *** http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

http://www.bf109.com/gallery/grayeagle/gallgray01sm.jpg
"The 109? That was a dream, the non plus ultra. Just like the F-14 of today. Of course, everyone wanted to fly it as soon as possible. I was very proud when I converted to it."
Major Gunther Rall, German fighter ace, NATO general, Commander of the German Air Force. 275 victories.

WWMaxGunz
09-06-2004, 10:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
actually the Bf109 E & the best turning Spitfire , the Mk1 , were near equal at turning

the Bf109 were not the poor turners you think they were

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It depended on the speed and also the altitude.

I have read that at low altitudes the Hurricane I would sustain turn better, but
only down low. Have a Polish pilots' account of that, he was getting outturned
up high about 16k feet and spiral dived down with the 109E spiralling after him.
The contest went from 109 closing in to holding even to losing angle as the got
lower under 8k feet. The Pole wondered why the 109 pilot did not cut out at that
point, he had the chance and would get away clean but did not. The 109 ended up
getting outturned by the Hurricane but I think finished off by yet another, the
pilot who did that died an hour or so later in another fight.

Having the better supercharger (I read of fluid-coupling that saved them from using
extra power down low over fixed gear.) really gets a performance gain up high over
something like the Hurricane I. But big wings and no need for a breather down low
is another place altogether.


Neal

LuftLuver
09-06-2004, 11:32 PM
The Fb109 turn performance has been falsely boosted in order to pacify axis players, history be damned.

Horrido! (translated means "To Whine")

http://www.safensoundkids.com/pacifier.jpg

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://members.cox.net/kinetic/SigImages/tonystewartchevy.jpg
"All your road courses are belong to us."

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
09-06-2004, 11:52 PM
As long as you don't fly yaks or Lavochkins a simple "turn into him" wont save your butt.
most 109 pilots tend to induce spiral dive in which they can easily keep E while turning. Even more of them apply flaps (some of our chaps even apply landing flaps to stall the enemy out) and when energy gets critical use their one and only boost namely the proppitch to stay out of harm and spiral out.
In sustained horizonatal turns it's easy to stay on a 109 especially in a spitfire (regardless of mark) and a mustang.

Also what a lot of people don't see is that the 109 and the 190 bleed E-faster in turns which at one point can even be an advantage when it comes to getting a firing solution when you're already near the desired position.

However, the controls of a 109 are damn sluggish once the speed goes over 450 and tend to call them bricks from that point on...

I think it's partially the arrogance some players have which makes them pay the price. When I sometime take a ride in a p51 or a Spit(really rare...) it's easy to fall for the virtues of pleasant turning.

I think the only pilots on allied side which fly more with the brains than with muscles are flying p47s or p38s. You'll find that these pilots will judge their opponent way better in most of the cases.
The 109 was a good turner otherwise it wouldn't be such a respected plane on the eastern front..

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/gotcha.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
09-07-2004, 01:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftLuver:
whaa whaa whaa whaa<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol dude all planes in FB turn too good

take a look at SUSTAINED turn times in FB


I-153 M62..............10,8
Fiat Cr.42.............12,8
A6M2...................12,8
A6M5a..................13,3
I-16 T24...............14,0
PZL P.11c..............14,8
B-239..................15,0
La-7...................15,1 &lt;--- funny how LuftLuver never mentions this plane
P-40E FM...............15,1
P-39Q-10...............15,1
LaGG-3 S66.............15,3
Spitfire Mk.Vb.........15,4
Fiat G.50..............15,4
LaGG-3 S35.............15,5
Yak-3..................15,5
Spitfire Mk.VbLFCW.....15,5
La-5F..................15,7
Yak-9..................15,8
P-39N-1................15,8
La-5...................15,9
La-5FN.................15,9
Yak-1b.................15,9
P-63C-5................15,9
Spitfire Mk.IXeHF......16,0
LaGG-3 S29.............16,1
Spitfire Mk.IXeLFCW....16,1
P-40E..................16,2
P-40M..................16,2
Bf 109 G-2.............16,3

ok luftLuver , you got me . . . . the above list sure looks in the bf109s favour . . . . http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif , http://img32.exs.cx/img32/1489/tug.gif

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

DIRTY-MAC
09-07-2004, 02:29 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by steiner562:
Sorry orginal allied author I wont spare you the usual "learn to fly" garbage,obivously you were out manouvered and now its time to whine,the 109s esp the late cannot sustain a a true turn rate doing so is suicide unless you have a wing man covering your big black and yellow stripped prussian *** http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

That was mature. . . .

by the way, I in no way just fly allied planes,
Im an old Bf109 flyer from the earlier patches, I just wanted to change
my main ride for a bit and thought of testing a turnfighter instead but I havent found my ride yet so im just checking them all out,
Im really not whining I am just not used to the TurnnBurners and were just a bit surprised to what I found out trying that tactic against
a plane I thought not was a turnfighter,
I wouldnt wanna change a thing in this game
its pefectly fine with me,
what I will change is my tactics against Bf109s http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

steiner562
09-07-2004, 03:13 AM
Sorry DIRTY-MAC thought you would see I was only messing with ya take no offence please,LEFTLOVVVVVER on the other hand,well Im starting to beleive that rumour he was dropped on his head as an infant(allegedly from a high flying jug!),would explain alot of the http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gifm he comes out with http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Regards Stein

http://www.bf109.com/gallery/grayeagle/gallgray01sm.jpg
"The 109? That was a dream, the non plus ultra. Just like the F-14 of today. Of course, everyone wanted to fly it as soon as possible. I was very proud when I converted to it."
Major Gunther Rall, German fighter ace, NATO general, Commander of the German Air Force. 275 victories.

BBB_Hyperion
09-07-2004, 04:38 AM
most Planes would need some seconds more http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Thx for Posting Badsight .)

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

DIRTY-MAC
09-07-2004, 04:52 AM
NP! steiner562 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

but please everyone keep it clean.
no throwing pancakes at eachother.
AND NO WHINING!

609IAP_Recon
09-07-2004, 05:21 AM
try it with full trim and combat flaps - LOL

S!
609IAP_Recon
http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg


Full Real Virtual Online War: Forgotten Skies (http://www.forgottenskies.com)

ElAurens
09-07-2004, 05:24 AM
Badsight, where did that list come from? Because something is fishy about it.

IMHO online the Bf109 sustained turn is altogether wrong. I too have noticed that since the last patch the 109s have a distinct advantage in the sustained turn over every allied type that I have flown. And I don't want to hear any of that learn to fly ****. I've been here virtually since the beginning of IL2.

If those turn times were made offline they are not valid for the online experience. Things work differently online. I don't know why, but they do.

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

anarchy52
09-07-2004, 06:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>IMHO _online_ the Bf109 sustained turn is altogether wrong. I too have noticed that since the last patch the 109s have a _distinct_ advantage in the sustained turn over every allied type that I have flown.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, 109s can outturn jugs & P-38s, take a mustang in slow speed tight turning (although P-51 turns way to good at low speed in FB) and even stay in turn with Spit (for a while at least using flaps before his engine cooks). At around 300-350 kmh low to medium alt 109 is a very good turner as it should be. So if You went T'n'B P-51 on 109 or get yourself suckered into stall speed fight in Spit...I must say: it's your own mistake. If you got outturned in a Yak or La...then I must say you could use some "learn to fly" or stick adjustments.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
If those turn times were made offline they are not valid for the online experience. Things work differently online. I don't know why, but they do.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually - they don't.

WWMaxGunz
09-07-2004, 09:43 AM
Badsight --- most of those times are close. A little difference in flying and the
turning times in play can be wider or reversed. Also - what altitude are they from?


Neal

arrow80
09-07-2004, 11:01 AM
hey and don't you take in account how much fuel does the 109 have on board if he outturns you? Turn time is other with full loaded plane than in a plane that has 20% of fuel on board...So if you are outturned by 109 and you thin you shouldn't be, spend a thought on fuel...

edit: spelling

OldMan____
09-07-2004, 11:40 AM
This kind of thing can only come from the people that think commiting to a infinite circle at 240 kph is the only measure of turning! The same kind of person that says a 190 cannot turn, .. try turning at 550kph with a FW190 and with ANY other plane.. no one, but P51,can outturn him before it goes under 400.

at this speed (240kph) Bf109 can outturn most planes... but a spitfire will keep with him. At any reasonable COMBAT speed, Bf109 cannot outturn any of the more agile allied planes.

You all wanna know why your spits are being turned by Bf109? SIMPLE.. your spits are TOO GOOD, they loose no energy, they keep speed much higher than 109 one.. so your turn radius is much bigger!!! That keeps like that until bf109 reaches low 200 kph.. and after this point nothing can easily outturn him.

For the ones that are interested in runnign in circles.. good energy mantainance is not wanted.. you are looking for turn radius.

This is the proof that " learn to fly " is a good advice! Spitfire ditingshed turning ability was because it has LOW ENERGY BLEED!!! So it can commit to turning without major concerns! If you can't use this to your advantage (after depleting 109 speed to 200 kph) than .. by all means.. go learn to fly.

Wanna change? Give Bf109 the spit energy conservation and vice versa? So you guys will be happy..

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

WWMaxGunz
09-07-2004, 11:46 AM
OTOH they can just throttle down the Spits or whatever in slowspeed circle-jer-err-fights
and realize there's more to tactics than full power. Spits SHOULD lose less speed in a
lowspeed turn than 109's. How slow you get in a 109 before your smallest and best turn is
an uncoordinated slide only held up by full power? Spit is still flying clean then if the
power matches the maneuver.


Neal

OldMan____
09-07-2004, 11:52 AM
Well.. don't ask this to me. I never get under 350 in any fight (unless in a hammer head). And prefer to stay above 400 kph.

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

VonHeide
09-07-2004, 11:59 AM
Very Well Said Oldman!!

As a dedicated and id like to say highly experienced 109 driver I would have to say that is an excellent representation of what is happening in my TnB victories over all US/UK plane types in my G10. There is hardly a living sole save &lt;PF&gt;MadMoses in his P39(SALUTE) who I havent been able to outturn in WC44(my IL2 home, thx Sparrx!!)in a G10 or G14! Though it is a last resort to see me TnB'ing with any one save 47's and 38's...and if I'm in a TnB contest with any more tahn one other type of plane im on the Mic Howling for support!

Dora is the Love
G-10 is the Way

WUAF_Badsight
09-07-2004, 01:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
Badsight, where did that list come from? Because something is fishy about it.

__BlitzPig_EL__<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the numbers are from JtD's sustained turn time test

heres how he said he performed the tests :

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
"I turned 5 turns with every plane, than diveded the time by 5. I entered these turns at same speed and alt as I left them. So the turn is sustained.

I tested at low fuel. I wanted to eliminate range. A 100% fuel P-47 gets seven times as far as a Bf 109 G-2 does.

Online8aislands, 50meters alt, full power, rads closed if possible, auto pitch, just enough fuel to complete the test (from 1% to 5%)."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WUAF_Badsight
09-07-2004, 02:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
You all wanna know why your spits are being turned by Bf109? SIMPLE.. your spits are TOO GOOD, they loose no energy, they keep speed much higher than 109 one.. so your turn radius is much bigger!!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

you realise OldMan that the answer to this is to neuter all opposition to the Spitfires so they can keep their speed advantage & be able to out-turn everything with ease http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

its as pathetic as the pony complainers who say the planes to weak bla bla bla , . . . when what they should be asking for is for the elevator to be neutered a tad

but ohhhhhhh no , . . . the thought that a part of their plane is actually causing the problem & that it might actually need to be neutered a little NEVER crosses their minds

its all the OTHER planes that need to be neutered http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

BBB_Hyperion
09-07-2004, 03:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Badsight --- most of those times are close. A little difference in flying and the
turning times in play can be wider or reversed. Also - what altitude are they from?
Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most Turntimes need at least 2+ Seconds.


La7 Turntime 1000 m about 19 seconds 360
La7 3bx20 1000 m about 21

Here more detailed
http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/Perform.html

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

OldMan____
09-07-2004, 03:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
You all wanna know why your spits are being turned by Bf109? SIMPLE.. your spits are TOO GOOD, they loose no energy, they keep speed much higher than 109 one.. so your turn radius is much bigger!!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

you realise OldMan that the answer to this is to neuter all opposition to the Spitfires so they can keep their speed advantage & be able to out-turn everything with ease http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

its as pathetic as the pony complainers who say the planes to weak bla bla bla , . . . when what they should be asking for is for the elevator to be neutered a tad

but ohhhhhhh no , . . . the thought that a part of their plane is actually causing the problem & that it might actually need to be neutered a little _NEVER_ crosses their minds

its all the _OTHER_ planes that need to be neutered http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

most would still complain if fighting with an Spit MK9 agaisnt an Emil

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

BigganD
09-07-2004, 03:52 PM
whine whine whine, stop whining and you will live longer.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

"Get close .. when he fills the entire windscreen ... then you can't possibly miss." Erich Hartmann

p1ngu666
09-07-2004, 05:05 PM
g10 14 are **** for me, k4 a lil better
in combat in turns u just wanna get a gun solution, so u do anything to get that, its more about radious than time imo
i use another 10whine http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt;NO SPAM!
&lt;badsight&gt;my name is tracy and pingu is the Anitchrist of Combat Flight Simmers
&lt;lexx_luthor&gt;flowers across the land in BoB

OldMan____
09-07-2004, 07:03 PM
It is only about radius if the high E conservation plane does not use its adavantage. Just keep track of enemy turn.. if he start gaining angle too fast.. he is loosing speed... so go up in a very extended vertically Yo yo. He Will not have energy to point its nose to you.. you. in other side.. is now higher.. with speed equaly reduced (due to climb) so you can easily roll reverse...point your nose to him and dive on him.

I would consider myself a fool if I decided to exchange hundreds kilometers per hour just to gain a snapshot.

Today, on VWF, I had to make on realy hard reverse in my 109 .. cause a P47 was chasing me, since he is faster. I had dived and brought him to deck at 520 kph more or less. tryed to see if he was going to quit pursuit.. but no..he kept on me. I made a single 2/3 circle turn.. iwith so many degrees/second that he would never be able to follow me. But I left it at 270 kph!!! A ridiculous speed!!! If it was a spit on my tail.. I would be dead doing so. By other hand... if I was on a spit. I would be able to make a same degree/second turn .. and leave it at 370-400 kph.. enought to attack the p47.

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

WWMaxGunz
09-07-2004, 07:29 PM
Wingloading.... G's.... what is the mystery?

Ugly_Kid
09-08-2004, 10:44 AM
The fact that Bf-109 bleeds like a russian heartsurgery is now considered unfair advantage/exploit? Some characters never stop to amaze me!

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/oksennus_1.jpg

WWMaxGunz
09-08-2004, 11:05 AM
Any plane should be able to bleed speed --if you push it past critical AOA--.
One way to do that is by turning too hard for the plane, speed, alt and config
(flaps, gear, load, what else as well?).

But if people started using the planes right then what would they have to feel
so bad about? If you find yourself stuck being outturned so much, you probably
have not approached the situation right and you may treat every plane pretty
much the same. Good tactics begins many steps before taking the shot. Poor
tactics is "get in there and go right for his tail" even if getting in there
is by diving. Getting caught in a turnfight when your plane isn't a turnfighter
compared to the other means you didn't plan your exit, for example. For that
alone just change your name to "Meat" if anybody half good comes along.

Or you can just blame the planes, the FM and the sim for not being like &lt;insert
the name of your former/other sim here&gt;.

Cripes, even EAW took more than circling around at 140 to 190 mph!


Neal

crazyivan1970
09-08-2004, 11:11 AM
Will this ever stop? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif
V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/band.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

LeadSpitter_
09-10-2004, 08:35 PM
its from the 109s ability to trottle back so quickly like there is a dragster parachute behind them and thier super accelaration.

historically the 109 was able to bleed its speed quickly and have very descent accelaration. But now way can it loose that much speed just by trottling back and even in a steep dive like they do in game. (cough luftberry circle descent is what people should have to do.)

I remember all the vvs and us people use to switch thier magnetos off to slow down a bit but still not even close to what the 109s are capable of and the removed the magento exploit and now make it stall the engine and not able to switch back on. I guess many didnt notice that change made to 2.04

Without trottling back the 109s can still turn inside US and British aircraft under 640kmph with flaps but over that noway. And they emil cant even give a half descent fight vs the 41 spit but the f2 does extemely well against the spitfire, ever since the 120 mix was removed the emil has been so dogged even vs i16s and i153s. Also the later 109s f2 and up can not turn inside the p39 or maybe not many of these people are using 100 100 100 100 inputs for all settings which is why it seems so easy for many of us to do this in 109s.

But then against the russian aircraft with out the super delceleration dragster parachute effect the 109 has now we would stand no chance against russian aircraft. We hardly do now with the la5 for example which gains 140kmph in a 50m dive and is able to maintain the high speed of 670 for a good 7-15 seconds. under 4000m with 120 mix supercharger 1 95 trottle and 100 pitch rad close and will never overheat and be able to have the speed of 670+ in level flight.

Im still so amazed at the russian dm's as most players are who fly all sides. Hopefully the last patch will fix alot of these issues spit up high performance, 190s elevator effectiveness increased. Dive accelaration in american planes not just the breakup speed p-38 accelaration to 400mph . Energy bleed and zoom climb management, ta152 and dora high alt performance, g2 super manuverability over the f2 f4. individual bomb dropping on aircraft that had seperate release mechanisms and correct placement of the p47 payload 2x1000lb wing max 500lb centerline max bomb among other things. Aircraft that were good gunplatforms and very little rudder sway 190 p38 tempest bf110. It seems the exact opposite the russian and japanese aircraft have the most stable gunplatforms in game it should be the exact opposite light aircraft have very loose control rudder and sway alot more then heavier aircraft which remain more stable.

But who knows we been thru this for so long even in sturmovik and learned to deal with it, nothing out there compairs to this game currently. but heres to hoping, maybe pf will make enough money so they can higher some more programmers map makers"most importantly (flown each map over 100,000 times) and some wwii historians, wwii vets and have a group of people decide flight models instead of one persons final descision.

one in charge of russian aircraft , one brit, one french, one german/finn , one japanese, one american historian and have them all work together to decide with correct information and have a voting system if they find some inaccurate things so none will get away with aircraft that exceed thier real life performances.

And please bring back difficult to recover stalls and more flat spins. This instant center stick and catch full control again in a second looks silly number one, is very bad looking for netplay and is the number one way of shaking a bandit rather then real jinks and defensive tactics. BUt i understand oleg is trying to make the snap roll ability but it need refining.



http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

[This message was edited by LeadSpitter_ on Fri September 10 2004 at 08:00 PM.]

Kurfurst__
09-11-2004, 06:08 AM
I am thinking about an explanation. Bf 109s have considerable higher wingloading than other planes, so at the same Angle of Attack, they will produce less lift as other planes with similiar drag. But as we know, the 109 designers solved this with aerodynamic devices that allow higher critical angle of attack than other planes and so produce as much or more lift in turns - but since it`s have to be made at higher AoA, the drag factor is also higher in turns.

So this is the 109 design : low drag with the small wings and high wingloading at level flight, enabling for high speed, but still high lift at higher AoO - at the expense of increased drag and more E-bleed in turns. Which is to be outweighted again, when throttled full forward, by combining a powerful engine with small, light airframe, resulting high power-weight ratio and excellent acceleration.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

p1ngu666
09-11-2004, 07:40 AM
109 surely shouldnt be able to comfortably be able to sit behind a il2, thats TRYING to force a overshoot, like they do now http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt;NO SPAM!
&lt;badsight&gt;my name is tracy and pingu is the Anitchrist of Combat Flight Simmers
&lt;lexx_luthor&gt;flowers across the land in BoB

LBR_Rommel
09-11-2004, 08:41 AM
Stick forces and maneuvering in high speeds
Bf 109 D:
The most delightful features of the Messerschmitt were, first, in spite of its remarkably sensitive reaction to the controls, the ship showed no disposition to wander or "yaw" as we call it; neither was there any tendency to "hunt". It was a ship where the touch of a pianist would be right in keeping with the fineness of the response. And, likewise, I am sure that any ham-handed pilot who handled the controls in brutal fashion would soon be made to feel ashamed of himself.
Seldom do we find a single-seater that does not stiffen up on the controls as the ship is pushed to and beyond its top speed.
In about cruising speed, a movement of the control stick brought just exactly the reaction to be expected. And at high speed, wide open, the control sensitivity checked most satisfactorily.
Then I wanted one more check and that was at the bottom of the dive where the speed would be in excess of that ship's straightaway performance. So down we went about 2,000 feet with the air speed indicator amusing itself by adding a lot of big numbers - to a little over 400 mph. A gentle draw back on the control effected recovery from the dive; then up the other side of the hill.
- US Marine Corps major Al Williams. Source: Bf 109D test flight, 1938.

Me 109 E-4:
"I established a recommended minimum looping speed of 450 kmh and found that the gearing of the propellor control was just right for looping with a little practise it was easy to keep the RPM at 2300 throughout looping manoeuvres. The ailerons were light and extremerely effective. The rate of roll is at least 50 % faster than a Mk V Spitfire with full span wingtips. During the VNE dive I achieved an IAS of 660 kmh. The original limit was 750 kmh. I was only limited by the height avalable, not by any feature of the aircraft which was extremerely smooth and stable at 660 kmh."
- Charlie Brown, RAF Flying Instructor, test flight of restored Me 109 E-4 WN 3579. Source: Warbirds Journal issue 50.
109 G-2/Trop:
"Roll performance is similar to a Hurricane or elliptical wing tipped Spitfire. A full stick roll through 360 degrees at 460 kph [=285 mph] takes 4 to 4.5 seconds without using rudder, and needs a force of around 20 lbf. One interesting characteristic is that rolls at lower speeds entered at less than 1g, such as a roll-off-the-top or half Cuban, have a markedly lower roll rate to the right than to the left. Therefore, I always roll left in such manoeuvres."
- Dave Southwood, test pilot.

109 G:
It turned well too, if you just pulled the stick"
- Mauno Fr¤ntil¤, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories. Source: Finnish Virtual Pilots Association: fighter ace Mauno Fr¤ntil¤ was creating the glory of the war pilots.

Me 109 G:
- How difficult was it to control the 109 in high velocities, 600 kmh and above?
The Messerschmitt became stiff to steer not until the speed exceeded 700kmh. The control column was as stiff as it had been fastened with tape, you could not use the ailerons. Yet you could control the plane."
- Ky¶sti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

Me 109 G:
"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.

109 G:
"The roll rate is very good and very positive below about 250 mph. Above 250 mph however the roll starts to heavy up and up to 300 or so is very similar to a P-51. After that it's all getting pretty solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningfull roll rates. Pitch is also delighful at 250 mph and below. It feels very positve and the amount of effort on the control column needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right to me. The aircraft is perfectly happy carrying out low-level looping maneuvers from 300 mph and below. Above 300 mph one peculiarity is a slight nose down trim change as you accelerate. The rudder is effective and if medium feel up to 300. It becomes heavier above this speed but regardless the lack of rudder trim is not a problem for the type of operations we carry out with the aeroplane."
- Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109 G (Spanish version).

Me 109 G:
"-Many claim that the MT becomes stiff as hell in a dive, difficult to bring up in high speed, the controls lock up?
Nnnooo, they don't lock up.
It was usually because you exceeded diving speed limits. Guys didn't remember you shouldn't let it go over.
The controls don't lock up, they become stiffer of course but don't lock. And of course you couldn't straighten up (shows a 'straightening' from a dive directly up) like an arrow."
- V¤in¶ Pokela, Finnish fighter ace and Me 109 trainer. 5 victories. Source: Interview of V¤in¶ Pokela by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.


"109's controls locked up in high speed."
- Another very mythical subject. Before answering one must be asked: "What model are you talking about?"
There was large differences between various types in the high speed controls. Each newer version handled better in high speeds, the best being the 109 K series which had flettner tabs for enhanced aileron control. 109 G series were also much better on this regard compared to 109 E, which yet again wasn't such a dog as many claim. 109 test pilots, Russians included, have said that the 109 had pretty good roll at higher speeds - again not as good as the 190s, P-51 or P-47 - but it maintained a good lateral control ability. Recovering from extremerely fast 750-900 km/h vertical dives was the problem - not level flight or even normal combat flying.
Please see sections diving and stick forces for pilot comments on the subject.




source

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/109myths/#intro

Major LBR=Rommel

http://www.luftwaffebrasil.com
http://www.luftwaffebrasil.hpg.ig.com.br/rommel_ban.jpg

SeaFireLIV
09-11-2004, 10:57 AM
No matter what anyone says flying against a 109 and finding it out turn me just feels really wrong. It reminds me of when I first flew the anti-grav Hurricane out-of-the-box.

It just doesn`t feel right.

I also rememember a couple of years ago when everyone said that bfs were no good at keeping a sustained turn with other planes (like the Spit)...

Now I see people saying the exact opposite. I`ve not read much on 109s ability to turn but I was always of the mind that 109s turned worse and dived best.

I guess using IL2/FB as Educational Entertainment is simply not valid any more.

CHDT
09-11-2004, 11:06 AM
Yo-Yo fm's!

I would be glad to have them fixed definitely for one time. Wrong or right, but fixed!

TAGERT.
09-11-2004, 11:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LBR_Rommel:
the best being the 109 K series which had flettner tabs for enhanced aileron control.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Talk about mythical.. This has to take the cake! As a mater of fact, out of the all the 109K pictures I have NONE of them show a flettner tab. There are SOME drawings that show them, but I have yet to see one on a 109K. This is not to say you can not find a picture of a 109 with them.. In that I'm sure they were tested.. But if they ever made it to a unit for other than testing it was the exception and not the rule. But don't take my word for it..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Heinrich Beauvais:
Flight Controls
One would have liked to have more effective ailerons, as well as lower control forces, at high speeds. I do not remember all the different methods tried to improve this, but the following two are still clear in my mind. One was designed by Blohm & Voss, adding a Flettner trim tab which resulted in a reduction of control forces: however, performance was not as smooth and effectiveness had not improved at all. A later form was the 'Keulenquerruder' (a shape of aileron tested at Memmingen in 1944) which had seemed promising, but had never been introduced.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
He tested the 109 from start to finish.. But again don't take my word for it

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Heinrich Beauvais:
My first flight in the Me109 (serial number 884, Reg.: D-IXZA) was comparison flight, a Me 109 against a He 51. My flight experience as that point in tie included the B-1 license and all type rating up to the He 112; On that day, 14th April 1937, Thoenes was my 'opponet'. y last flight in the aircraft type (actually a Buchon) was in Seville, Spain in 1956. It was fitted with a license-buod Merlin engine - incredibly there had been two decades between the flights.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And before you try to discredit Heinrich Beauvais.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Wolfgang:
In the Thirties and Forties, it was said that Dipl. Ing. (Doctor of Engineering) Heinrich Beauvais was the safest, yet the most critical and discerning examiner of military aircraft. His meticulous evaluations did not miss even the smallest faults in any of the new aircraft he checked. In the years of expansion of the German military aviation, he flight checked hundreds of aircraft. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It goes on to say how his word was taken as if it were the word of the Pope.. But in a nut shell he knew the 109.

PS all those quotes you listed.. As far as stick forces in dives.. I think the trend actually shows it got worse not beter.. If needed I have some info on that too and how they tried flettner tabs on that.. Which didnt turn out so good either.

As for my source.. a real book not a web sight
TEST PILOTS
by Wolfgang Sp¤te
ISBN 1-872836-20-8
Chapter 7 "My Experiences During Trials of the Me109"

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/UBI_FORUMS/MyUbiSig.jpg
TAGERT

[This message was edited by TAGERT. on Sat September 11 2004 at 11:14 AM.]

faustnik
09-11-2004, 12:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
No matter what anyone says flying against a 109 and finding it out turn me just feels really wrong. It reminds me of when I first flew the anti-grav Hurricane out-of-the-box.

It just doesn`t feel right.

I also rememember a couple of years ago when everyone said that bfs were no good at keeping a sustained turn with other planes (like the Spit)...

Now I see people saying the exact opposite. I`ve not read much on 109s ability to turn but I was always of the mind that 109s turned worse and dived best.

I guess using IL2/FB as Educational Entertainment is simply not valid any more.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What Seafire, now Oleg is wrong because you can't easily out-turn a 109? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Sure, whining is evil until it is your turn to do it.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

SeaFireLIV
09-11-2004, 01:06 PM
Actually, I can outturn them, it`s just WAY tougher than feels realistic (even in the I16). You realy have to be on top of the ball to succeed. On the other hand it seems almost ANY 109 flyer can turn with little difficulty.

anarchy52
09-11-2004, 02:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Actually, I can outturn them, it`s just WAY tougher than feels realistic (even in the I16). You realy have to be on top of the ball to succeed. On the other hand it seems almost ANY 109 flyer can turn with little difficulty.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes and why do I have to aim with hispano's, I mean you saw BoB?
Why can't I kill tiger tanks with 50cals.
And why can't I kill K4 easily when everyone knows that P-51 won the war?
Why I can't prop hang P-47 under 180km/h. I mean it only weights 7000kg?
Why is it that sometimes my P-38 breaks after 5-6 mk108 hits?
Yesterday I got a brief "overheat" message in my Spit MkIX after 35 minutes of 100%+WEP: this is wrong Spit - never overheated.

Man do those luftwhiners suck...all those stupid charts, docs, and photos & stuff.

Seafire: Did you fly those planes?

If planes relative performance was anything like what we have in the game, war would have been over in 1942. Germans would not have any planes left.

Ugly_Kid
09-11-2004, 02:50 PM
Already the very subject of this discussion strikes me as odd. 109s have become...? Is it just me but as more or less mainly 109 flier I don't have a feeling that 109 has become anything AFAIK it is exactly the same as in the previous patch and in the patch before that etc.

There are, however, some _very_ interesting changes on the opposition. Anyway instead of going third page on 109yayayasobsobsob there is Devicelink and there is the game, now anyone can just go ahead and measure surprise noone Bf-109 makes it even below 19 s sustained (whereas F actually should). Once you do and once you find something, come back. Additionally, you can cut that "it just doesn't feel right" crappola, unless you have real-life experience in an aircraft and even better, in that particular aircraf, your feel just doesn't mean a jack. If the feel is based on things that were in some previous patch which happened to please the gaming better it doesn't matter either, in this game these things tend to change, 109s, however, IMO have changed amazingly little.

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/oksennus_1.jpg

faustnik
09-11-2004, 03:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Actually, I can outturn them, it`s just WAY tougher than feels realistic (even in the I16). You realy have to be on top of the ball to succeed. On the other hand it seems almost ANY 109 flyer can turn with little difficulty.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You get three http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif for that post. That one was really bad.

Anyway you missed my point, which is that there are some legitimate issues with FB, so your earlier rants about "whiners" were unwarranted.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

anarchy52
09-11-2004, 03:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Actually, I can outturn them, it`s just WAY tougher than feels realistic (even in the I16). You realy have to be on top of the ball to succeed. On the other hand it seems almost ANY 109 flyer can turn with little difficulty.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Can we have "the most lame post of the week" sticky? This one would win first week, and probably make it to the "The lamest post of the year" finals.

SeaFireLIV
09-11-2004, 05:08 PM
hmm. Guess I`m doing well today.

I just made my simple opinion known. I felt like it, so posted.

I`m not in the mood for an argument, so I refuse to engage in one, no matter how much faustnik tries to goad me into one. I just got too many important things to do offline and was just having a quick look (and post) here.

Sorry, old chaps, if my words offended you.

[This message was edited by SeaFireLIV on Sat September 11 2004 at 04:33 PM.]

Korolov
09-11-2004, 07:42 PM
109 = 400 litres of suck

190 = 400 litres of godliness

Ooh, I'm gonna get it good for this...

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

faustnik
09-11-2004, 07:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
hmm. Guess I`m doing well today.

I just made my simple opinion known. I felt like it, so posted.

I`m not in the mood for an argument, so I refuse to engage in one, no matter how much faustnik tries to goad me into one. I just got too many important things to do offline and was just having a quick look (and post) here.

Sorry, old chaps, if my words offended you.

[This message was edited by SeaFireLIV on Sat September 11 2004 at 04:33 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your still missing the point SeaFire. Please post your opinions, especially the ones you might have some data or reference to back up. This is a discussion forum after all isn't it?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

faustnik
09-11-2004, 07:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
109 = 400 litres of suck

190 = 400 litres of godliness

Ooh, I'm gonna get it good for this...

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you Korolov, finally somebody gets it straight! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

WWMaxGunz
09-11-2004, 08:29 PM
Some people got a bit better at 109's online and now it's an issue?
Of course the best part is it's like some kind of bonus point, 'the side that wins'
gets to feel the FM should change 'in their favor'? 109's, all of em or just some
'could be worse' or 'could be better'. Call in your votes and requests now, girls!
Who will be number one?

If this was CFS or any truely file-hacked sim then how many 'realities' would be
spawned?

For some reason I do expect that Oleg has heard of slats, might even know how they
worked. Only the ones in the sim never seem to deploy asymetrically, what I have
read of from German pilots themselves.


Neal

LBR_Rommel
09-11-2004, 09:58 PM
Theres a solution to all the guyd who think that German planes must suck, Go play CFS3 there Germans only fly straight ahead, dont climb dont dive dont turn, maybe, but only maybe u guys can shot somebody.

Major LBR=Rommel

http://www.luftwaffebrasil.com
http://www.luftwaffebrasil.hpg.ig.com.br/rommel_ban.jpg

crazyivan1970
09-11-2004, 11:29 PM
Why is this still around http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/band.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

Kurfurst__
09-12-2004, 03:36 AM
Serial produced Bf 109 G-6 with aileron flettner tabs :

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1094981724_g-6_flettner.jpg

Radinger/Otto also has pictures of 109s being built with aileron Flettners at WNF factory.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

FZG_Mined
09-12-2004, 03:48 AM
Neal, we're just saying that 109 shouldn't be a turn and burner..

actually we want it back boom and zoomer.

We passed the two past years learning to fly it like a b&Z and now its become a T&B.....two wasted years...:-D

Davide

http://mined86.free.fr/banniere.jpg

lookatsix
09-12-2004, 04:08 AM
http://www.airbattle.co.uk/b_research_1.html

al go there

TAGERT.
09-12-2004, 10:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Serial produced Bf 109 G-6 with aileron flettner tabs :

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1094981724_g-6_flettner.jpg

Radinger/Otto also has pictures of 109s being built with aileron Flettners at WNF factory.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I use to wonder why they had Flettners tabs on the ailerons way back in the G-6 days... But failed to make them part of the standard production.. Which would have made them the RULE and not the EXCEPTION... Thus showing up in more pictures..

Well I use to wonder until I read what Heinrich Beauvais said.. Heinrich Beauvais the German test pilot who's word was taken as if it were the 'word of the Pope'

After reading what Heinrich Beauvais said in the book TEST PILOT I now understand why they didnt make it standard production. Which is why it is hard to find a picture of flettner tabs on any and all 109s after the 109G-6. For example.. Here are some pictures of 109Ks without them.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/Bf109/SANS_FLETTNER/bf109k4_023-swfoto.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/Bf109/SANS_FLETTNER/bf109k-4-r1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/Bf109/SANS_FLETTNER/bf109k4_001-swfoto.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/Bf109/SANS_FLETTNER/bf109k4_008-swfoto.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/Bf109/SANS_FLETTNER/bf109k4_013-swfoto.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/Bf109/SANS_FLETTNER/bf109k4_026-swfoto.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/Bf109/SANS_FLETTNER/bf109k4_033-swfoto.jpg


If anybody has a picture of a 109K with them I would sure like to see it! Again.. there are some drawings that show them.. But I can not find any pictures of a real 109K with them.. But Im sure there may be a one? In that Heinrich Beauvais also said that attempts to improve the roll rate of the 109 had never ceased.. Thus from day one to the end of the war they were *trying* to and thus *testing* things which would explane why you can find a few pictures of 109's with them and thousands of pictures without them.

In summary it seems that Willy took Heinrich Beauvais *word* and didnt make it standard production.. Because they all realized that the Flettner tabs on the ailerons made the performance not as smooth and effectiveness had not improved at all..

So why bother?

On top of all that they were probably afraid the same thing might happen to the flettner tabs on the ailerons at high speed that happed with the flettner tabs on the elevators during a high speed dive.. i.e. they kick in all of a sudden and just about destroyed the plane!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/UBI_FORUMS/MyUbiSig.jpg
TAGERT

[This message was edited by TAGERT. on Sun September 12 2004 at 11:34 AM.]

WWMaxGunz
09-12-2004, 07:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FZG_Mined:
Neal, we're just saying that 109 shouldn't be a turn and burner..

actually we want it back boom and zoomer.

We passed the two past years learning to fly it like a b&Z and now its become a T&B.....two wasted years...:-D

Davide

http://mined86.free.fr/banniere.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is a good time to collect logs in-game and get the numbers better than judging while
trying to control the planes. Especially for how online judge of events is. There are
ways to compare one person to the other in coarse ways as online is imprecise, at least
things like energy states should be somewhat determinable between cooperating players
and eliminate if one had misjudged the state of the other who caught up, whatever. The
ways to get information have opened up -- from what I read if the server has DeviceLink
enabled then players can get data logs with game-hour timestamps in them, that gamehour
(decimal hours into the game from the server, good to less than a second) will be the
same within lag one player to the next. With as few players on the server as needed the
server bandwidth should not be overloaded and things like collecting logs while one
player does the magic move on the other can show maybe if there is a trick (he is trading
energy=speed/alt/power for that angle or whatever) or is there grounds for complaint.

Whether or not the 109's are 'right' (some or all) the thing about flying BnZ vs Turn is
that it should not be a locked-in decision. How you fly any fighter must depend on what
other plane you are fighting against. I believe that early to mid 109's should fly the
turning fight against P-47's and P-51's for example if they are caught. If they have a
chance to bounce those same planes and those are not already moving towards fast speed
then hey, BnZ!

Almost every plane is suited to fly either way given the opponent so if the 109's are
turning against planes newly introduced to the sim with people still getting a handle on
them then surely to see the 109's adopting a turnfight role in cases should be no surprise.
To see people try the wrong style in cases should also be no surprise. And to see people
who work a trick or tactic to make one thing seem as another... well they're just good!
Too many conditions prevents any one size fits all blanket rules anyway so if you see
a plane flown doing something impossible in so many situations that doesn't mean it is
wrong in the one you see, or that you have seen the whole workings of the situation.
That is why I say it would be very good to gather the data as logs, to work out the
techniques of collection, what to collect and the ways to view the data.


Neal

BBB_Hyperion
09-13-2004, 12:32 AM
For the Flettner tabs that have been discussed last year and before already .)

http://p069.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm9.showMessageRange?topic ID=113.topic&start=1&stop=20

Here the idea of it.
http://www.aviation4u.de/school/steuerwerk%20contab%2001.gif
Much other drawings here

http://www.aviation4u.de/school/steuerwerk.htm
(too bad site is in german but drawings are pretty self explaining.)


High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

[This message was edited by BBB_Hyperion on Sun September 12 2004 at 11:44 PM.]

TAGERT.
09-13-2004, 01:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
For the Flettner tabs that have been discussed last year and before already .)

http://p069.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm9.showMessageRange?topic ID=113.topic&start=1&stop=20<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I noticed no one there had an answer for Felix99 when he pointed out what Heinrich Beauvais said.. Almost as if they were ignoring it in the hopes it would go away! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Here the idea of it.
http://www.aviation4u.de/school/steuerwerk%20contab%2001.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
An idea that didn't work very well for the 109! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Much other drawings here
http://www.aviation4u.de/school/steuerwerk.htm
(too bad site is in german but drawings are pretty self explaining.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And drawings is about all you will find! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Funny how things never change.. A year ago they pointed out Heinrich Beauvais comments.. And *they* avoided them then and now... Just like they avoid the simple question.. If the Flettner tab were good.. And they knew about it way back on the G-6 series.. Why can you find hundreds of pictures of later 109s without them?

They will only reply with a tangent topic and never address it.. Because in doing so they would realize that Heinrich Beauvais comments on the Flettner tells the whole story.. Why Bother? Especially in light of the negative effect Flettner tabs had on the elevators!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/UBI_FORUMS/MyUbiSig.jpg
TAGERT

BBB_Hyperion
09-13-2004, 01:22 AM
You can find pictures for 109 with it too http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif. I dont have any numbers how much were with flettner tabs and how much didnt have them. I wont rely on quantity of pictures in this case cause this can be misleading. Regardless to the performance issues they existed.

Same like the endless tail fin discussion there are lots of different tail sections for late 109 some Wood, some Metal with trimm tabs with flettner tabs some without. You never know which plane has which performance http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

For the drawings i wanted to point out what the discussion is about there are only drawings how things work nothing plane specialised http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif for educational use.

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

Kurfurst__
09-13-2004, 04:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
After reading what Heinrich Beauvais said in the book TEST PILOT I now understand why they didnt make it standard production. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have seen no quote by Heinrich Beauvais that wqould say Flettners were not introduced into production. Certainly he couldn`t say that, as there`s picturial evidence of aileron flettners on late 1944/45 109s.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
In summary it seems that Willy took Heinrich Beauvais *word* and didnt make it standard production..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How could he taken a word that was never spoken out ? It`s one thing what Beauvais said, and another what Tagert claims he said...


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Because they all realized that the Flettner tabs on the ailerons made the performance not as smooth and effectiveness had not improved at all.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Craptalk. Flettners always increase effectiveness at high speed by reducing the control forces and allowing for greater deflection. Perhaps you misunderstood the term "aileron effectiveness". Do you know what does it mean ?

Here are some quote from Felix99 at the LEMB board:

"The latest test I have found on the ailerons has been from October 1944. In that test, yet again, it was found that the Flettner increased aileron response. "

I`d trust Felix, being in email contact with him, and he was the 109 business for decades.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Which is why it is hard to find a picture of flettner tabs on any and all 109s after the 109G-6.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not at all. The picture I posted was taken in the late automn of 1944, and shows one the last batch of G-6s, which were built at the same time the 109K was already in production. I remember you tried everything to discredit that evidence, claiming the pilot wearing a "heavy test suit" etc. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Here`s it again. The photo shows a 109G-6 with the RHAF, the pilot being Varjas Tibor.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1094981724_g-6_flettner.jpg


Here`s another G-6 of Griflawski, photographed September 1943.

http://www.luftwaffe39-45.historia.nom.br/ases/grislawski1_gr.jpg

Aileron Flettner tabs are visible on the right wing.

Apperatnly, we now have a G-6 from late 1943 and a G-6 from late 1944 with aileron Flettners. Butch2k also said he seen some photos of 109Ks with aileron Flettners.


Here`s a picture of 109 G-6s in mass production, equipped with aileron Flettner tabs at WNF factory :

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1095071514_wnfg6_flettner.jpg

And it also gives you some idea on why Flettner can`t be seen on most photos... you see it on two aircrafts in this picture, but probably all of them have it - you just can`t see the wings, or make out the Flettner tabs as they are so small.. you can hardly make them out on Grislawski`s plane.

Just as well we can`t see any of your 109Ks having a retractable tailwheel... but of course half dozen other photos exist that show a retractable tailwheel.. of course based on your photos, we would wrongly assume that the retractable tailwheel was never seen in production.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Thus from day one to the end of the war they were *trying* to and thus *testing* things which would explane why you can find a few pictures of 109's with them and thousands of pictures without them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tagert, despite you are fixated in repeating the prototype/testhack/never-seen-production story, the photos were taken at operational combat units, not test units, and also at the final assembly halls of factories, not

All that points to that aileron Flettners did see limited production and service. There`s evidence for the use of them on the G-6 and K-4. Why so few pictures? For example, you posted photos about 5 aircraft, out of the 1700 K-4s built. That`s a "representative" 0.3%..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
On top of all that they were probably afraid the same thing might happen to the flettner tabs on the ailerons at high speed that happed with the flettner tabs on the elevators during a high speed dive.. i.e. they kick in all of a sudden and just about destroyed the plane!.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Flettners were not installed on the 109 elevator at any time so cut the fictional stories "about the horrible things happened in dives". And tell me, why weren`t they afraid to put Flettners in standard production on the rudder, if they were "so afraid"? An excessive rudder input at high speeds is far more dangerous stress than what you can produce with ailerons. Besides you are in contradiction with yourself, at one part you say aileron Flettners were completely useless, and now you claim they were afraid to use them because they were too effective! You should really decide. But you seem to be just as determined to "prove" that Flettners were not in use as you want to tell others the 109K wasn`t in service in any numbers... both views of you appear to be wrong and deceptive.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

FZG_Mined
09-13-2004, 05:50 AM
Kurfurst i'm with you !! smack em!!
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Davide

http://mined86.free.fr/banniere.jpg

TAGERT.
09-13-2004, 09:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
After reading what Heinrich Beauvais said in the book TEST PILOT I now understand why they didnt make it standard production. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have seen no quote by Heinrich Beauvais that wqould say Flettners were not introduced into production. Certainly he couldn`t say that, as there`s picturial evidence of aileron flettners on late 1944/45 109s.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
In summary it seems that Willy took Heinrich Beauvais *word* and didnt make it standard production..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How could he taken a word that was never spoken out ? It`s one thing what Beauvais said, and another what Tagert claims he said...


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Because they all realized that the Flettner tabs on the ailerons made the performance not as smooth and effectiveness had not improved at all.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Craptalk. Flettners always increase effectiveness at high speed by reducing the control forces and allowing for greater deflection. Perhaps you misunderstood the term "aileron effectiveness". Do you know what does it mean ?

Here are some quote from Felix99 at the LEMB board:

"The latest test I have found on the ailerons has been from October 1944. In that test, yet again, it was found that the Flettner increased aileron response. "

I`d trust Felix, being in email contact with him, and he was the 109 business for decades.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Which is why it is hard to find a picture of flettner tabs on any and all 109s after the 109G-6.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not at all. The picture I posted was taken in the _late automn of 1944_, and shows one the last batch of G-6s, which were built at the same time the 109K was already in production. I remember you tried everything to discredit that evidence, claiming the pilot wearing a "heavy test suit" etc. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Here`s it again. The photo shows a 109G-6 with the RHAF, the pilot being Varjas Tibor.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1094981724_g-6_flettner.jpg


Here`s another G-6 of Griflawski, photographed September 1943.

http://www.luftwaffe39-45.historia.nom.br/ases/grislawski1_gr.jpg

Aileron Flettner tabs are visible on the right wing.

Apperatnly, we now have a G-6 from late 1943 and a G-6 from late 1944 with aileron Flettners. Butch2k also said he seen some photos of 109Ks with aileron Flettners.


Here`s a picture of 109 G-6s in _mass production, equipped with aileron Flettner tabs_ at WNF factory :

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1095071514_wnfg6_flettner.jpg

And it also gives you some idea on why Flettner can`t be seen on most photos... you see it on two aircrafts in this picture, but probably all of them have it - you just can`t see the wings, or make out the Flettner tabs as they are so small.. you can hardly make them out on Grislawski`s plane.

Just as well we can`t see any of your 109Ks having a retractable tailwheel... but of course half dozen other photos exist that show a retractable tailwheel.. of course based on your photos, we would wrongly assume that the retractable tailwheel was never seen in production.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Thus from day one to the end of the war they were *trying* to and thus *testing* things which would explane why you can find a few pictures of 109's with them and thousands of pictures without them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tagert, despite you are fixated in repeating the prototype/testhack/never-seen-production story, the photos were taken at operational combat units, not test units, and also at the final assembly halls of factories, not

All that points to that aileron Flettners did see limited production and service. There`s evidence for the use of them on the G-6 and K-4. Why so few pictures? For example, you posted photos about 5 aircraft, out of the 1700 K-4s built. That`s a "representative" 0.3%..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
On top of all that they were probably afraid the same thing might happen to the flettner tabs on the ailerons at high speed that happed with the flettner tabs on the elevators during a high speed dive.. i.e. they kick in all of a sudden and just about destroyed the plane!.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Flettners were not installed on the 109 elevator at any time so cut the fictional stories "about the horrible things happened in dives". And tell me, why weren`t they afraid to put Flettners in standard production on the rudder, if they were "so afraid"? An excessive rudder input at high speeds is far more dangerous stress than what you can produce with ailerons. Besides you are in contradiction with yourself, at one part you say aileron Flettners were completely useless, and now you claim they were afraid to use them because they were too effective! You should really decide. But you seem to be just as determined to "prove" that Flettners were not in use as you want to tell others the 109K wasn`t in service in any numbers... both views of you appear to be wrong and deceptive.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg
_
We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Got to run to work.. I reply to this when I get home.. I just wanted to capture what you said before you realise how wrong you are and go back and change it! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/UBI_FORUMS/MyUbiSig.jpg
TAGERT

TAGERT.
09-13-2004, 09:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
You can find pictures for 109 with it too http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No Doubt! But for every ONE you find I can show you 10 that dont.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
I dont have any numbers how much were with flettner tabs and how much didnt have them. I wont rely on quantity of pictures in this case cause this can be misleading. Regardless to the performance issues they existed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Im not relying on pictures.. Im relying on what Heinrich Beauvais said. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Same like the endless tail fin discussion there are lots of different tail sections for late 109 some Wood, some Metal with trimm tabs with flettner tabs some without. You never know which plane has which performance http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes that is to be expected with a FIELD MOD like the tall tail to upgrade older 109s. But by the time the 109K started rolling off the assembely lines it should have been standard.. One of the main reasons of building the K was to standardise things.. Yet to this day I have not seen one pictue of a K with a flettner tab... Again, for every one you show me I can show you 10 without. That tells me the realised what Heinrich Beauvais said..

"however, performance was not as smooth and effectiveness had not improved at all."

If is HURTS performance (not as smooth) and didnt inmprove effectiveness (roll rate) than WHY BOTHER!?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
For the drawings i wanted to point out what the discussion is about there are only drawings how things work nothing plane specialised http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif for educational use.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/UBI_FORUMS/MyUbiSig.jpg
TAGERT

Kurfurst__
09-13-2004, 10:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Got to run to work.. I reply to this when I get home.. I just wanted to capture what you said before you realise how wrong you are and go back and change it! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That`s sounds like as an example of extremely clever and through planning, Tagert. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

Ugly_Kid
09-13-2004, 10:47 AM
I don't know where that Flettner stuff popped out again. However, according to Hannu Valtonen's book "Messerschmitt Bf 109 and German War Economics", which is significantly more accurate than quite a few others, Radinger etc. included. He says that _typically_ ailerons were equipped with flettner, however not the early series. Additionally he says that the tab was adjustable from the cockpit (which sounds as if it had trimfunction as well)

Additionally, the "versions" were not really standardized anymore. There are lots of G-10, which was anyway rather a retrofit repair of earlier models to reach K-like performance than an actual production model, some of these have K-like enginecovers.

As for the tail wheel, according to Valtonen there are fotos of few K with G-6-like non-retractable tail-wheel whereas, the "standard" if you like was retractable http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I take his study anyday rather than from some internet expert.

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/oksennus_1.jpg

PE_Sushi
09-13-2004, 10:49 AM
109 F anf G2 (didn't tested others) can use combat flaps at high speed (700 kph and no jam). On other planes, flaps would jam at these speeds. Maybe this helps

http://img4.imgspot.com/u/04/213/20/do17zi.jpg

Ugly_Kid
09-13-2004, 10:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PE_Sushi:
109 F anf G2 (didn't tested others) can use combat flaps at high speed (700 kph and no jam). On other planes, flaps would jam at these speeds. Maybe this helps
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Combat flaps do not jam at any aircraft at any speed .

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/oksennus_1.jpg

Kurfurst__
09-13-2004, 11:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
I don't know where that Flettner stuff popped out again. However, according to Hannu Valtonen's book "Messerschmitt Bf 109 and German War Economics", which is significantly more accurate than quite a few others, Radinger etc. included. He says that _typically_ ailerons were equipped with flettner, however not the early series. Additionally he says that the tab was adjustable from the cockpit (which sounds as if it had trimfunction as well)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ugly Kid, is this book available in English, and do you know how can I get it? It certainly sounds an interesting which I didn`t hear up to know. Looks like a worthy piece to add to my library, and good help with my site on 109K.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

PE_Sushi
09-13-2004, 11:43 AM
Uglykid : I checked and you are right

Bf with take off or landing flaps will jam like other planes also

http://img4.imgspot.com/u/04/213/20/do17zi.jpg

Ugly_Kid
09-13-2004, 12:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Ugly Kid, is this book available in English, and do you know how can I get it? It certainly sounds an interesting which I didn`t hear up to know. Looks like a worthy piece to add to my library, and good help with my site on 109K.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think so but there is a remote hope that it will be one day:
"Valtonen, Hannu. Messerschmitt BF 109 ja Saksan sotatalous; Tikkakoski: Finnish Air Force Museum, 1999 420 p. ISBN 951-95688-7-5
This will correct a lot of erroneous info circulating among authors not having done their homework. This book would easily become one of the standard books on the Bf 109 - if and when available in English/German. Carl-Fredrik Geust "

Maybe you can ask from the aviation museum
Email: keski-suomen.ilmailumuseo@kolumbus.fi
Fax +358 14 375 3620

Another good series that would be internationally very interesting is "pilot's view" from Jukka Raunio which goes through lots of the equipment from the finnish air force - particularly interesting since lots of performance and stuff is documented and also while they operated such a huge variety of the equipment.

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/oksennus_1.jpg

butch2k
09-13-2004, 12:25 PM
Ugly Kid, unfortunately Valtonen did not do such a good job. Some of the stuff he published is a rehash from older sources, moreover i took an extensive look at some of his original sources and discovered that the documents did not give the same results as the ones he published.

Isegrim the book is only published in Finnish AFAIK.

As far as the Flettner are concerned they were not standard as underlined by the production spare part sheets in my possession (covering late Gustav as well as K-4). But they were mounted on some batches from WNF, and there only.

------
Admin of the AAW aviation history forums
http://forums.allaboutwarfare.com
(registration required)

Kurfurst__
09-13-2004, 12:38 PM
Thanks Ugly Kid, I certainly hope so for a translation, my Finn is a bit rusty nowadays. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

butch2k
09-13-2004, 12:55 PM
here is the 1/25th drawing of the 109 wing with Flettner.

http://mapage.noos.fr/olefebvre/Bf109F-K_Flugel.jpg

------
Admin of the AAW aviation history forums
http://forums.allaboutwarfare.com
(registration required)

Ugly_Kid
09-13-2004, 12:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by butch2k:
Ugly Kid, unfortunately Valtonen did not do such a good job. Some of the stuff he published is a rehash from older sources, moreover i took an extensive look at some of his original sources and discovered that the documents did not give the same results as the ones he published.

Isegrim the book is only published in Finnish AFAIK.

As far as the Flettner are concerned they were not standard as underlined by the production spare part sheets in my possession (covering late Gustav as well as K-4). But they were mounted on some batches from WNF, and there only.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Certainly but he did quite a job correcting quite a few misinterpretations too. It's not as if he takes everything for face value, which you will notice when reading it. Until something better comes out (yours? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) I'll rather stay with him. The book gives a good idea what the production was all about and particularly what it wasn't and one thing the thousand times slaughtered wrecks passing as late war "models" weren't, is "standard". I assume that you can't finnish so I am not 100% sure about that "not such a good job". However being myself not the most fanatic 109 expert I can't say one thing or another, for me it's a better work than the others I have and have seen.

Not that I care so much for the flettners just wanted to mention that there are other good (here IMO) literature sources than mentioned here stating about the presence of them as well - right or wrong.

(BTW on the WNR list there's no mention of Wiener Neustadt for K?)

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/oksennus_1.jpg

[This message was edited by Ugly_Kid on Mon September 13 2004 at 12:04 PM.]

Kurfurst__
09-13-2004, 01:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by butch2k:
As far as the Flettner are concerned they were not standard as underlined by the production spare part sheets in my possession (covering late Gustav as well as K-4). But they were mounted on some batches from WNF, and there only.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


That`s curious, for AFAIK the development work on the 109K was at WNF, which was seen as being safe place from bombing when the development started in early 1943. Perhaps some things like Flettners that were developed for the K was added to the earlier models as well in the maeantime. I wonder which WNF blocks had the Flettners, late 1943 blocks, or late 1944 blocks - I am curious because the hungarian plane of Varjas`s was probably from the nearby Wiener Neustadt factory... since you said you seen some pics of 109Ks with Flettners, I assume they are WNF? Did production even started there? AFAIK most were produced by Regensburg, and some by Erla... WNF was supposed to, but I don`t know they started before they were overrun by Soviet forces.

BTW thanks for the wing scheme, it gives me a lot of dimensions I need...

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

Ugly_Kid
09-13-2004, 01:06 PM
BTW butch, what do you say about the "adjusting" part - did they do the work as aileron trim as well or not?

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/oksennus_1.jpg

TAGERT.
09-13-2004, 06:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
That`s sounds like as an example of extremely clever and through planning, Tagert. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes... you should try it some time.. Get your facts staright and such.. As for my reply.. Note.. I didn't reply to everything you said.. In that most of what you said was nothing more than answering a question with a question. Which to me indicates you don't have an answer.. Just a weak attempt to muddy the waters in the hopes of taking the focused off the subject at hand. Therefore I only replied to the things that you actually tried to answer.. Which didn't leave much by the way! And consisted mostly of you calling Heinrich Beauvais a liar.. Now I can understand your *need* to disagree with my conclusions that are based on what Heinrich Beauvais said, Pictures and common sense.. But you didn't have refer to Heinrich Beauvais words as **** talk and Fictional Stories.. That says more about you than him IMHO. So with that said, lets continue.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
**** talk. Flettners always increase effectiveness at high speed by reducing the control forces and allowing for greater deflection.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So you disagree with Heinrich Beauvais statement? Where he said...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Heinrich Beauvais on 109 Flight Controls:
One would have liked to have more effective ailerons, as well as lower control forces, at high speeds. I do not remember all the different methods tried to improve this, but the following two are still clear in my mind. One was designed by Blohm & Voss, adding a Flettner trim tab which resulted in a reduction of control forces: however, performance was not as smooth and effectiveness had not improved at all. A later form was the 'Keulenquerruder' (a shape of aileron tested at Memmingen in 1944) which had seemed promising, but had never been introduced.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just what part of him saying "EFFECTIVENESS HAD NOT IMPROVED AT ALL" do you disagree with when you said "ALWAYS INCREASE EFFECTIVENESS"? Now.. please don't take this personal.. But I will have to take Heinrich Beauvais *words* over yours.. As I'm sure most people will.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Perhaps you misunderstood the term "aileron effectiveness". Do you know what does it mean ?

Here are some quote from Felix99 at the LEMB board:

"The latest test I have found on the ailerons has been from October 1944. In that test, yet again, it was found that the Flettner increased aileron response."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I wont jump on you too hard here.. In that I'm sure your misunderstanding of the words Performance, Effectiveness, and Response is due to some Language barrier. But in summary an Increased Response is not allays a good thing.. That increase is Response Time is what Heinrich Beauvais was talking about when he said "performance was not as smooth". That is to say IT'S A BAD THING! Sense the flettner tabs increased the RESPONSE TIME it make the aircraft OSCILLATE.. In a classical controls description it went from DAMPED to UNDER-DAMPED and thus had more OVERSHOOT and RINGING.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/CONTROLS/overvsunder.jpg

As you can see.. a UNDER DAMPED system RESPONDS FASTER but it also OSCILLATES a lot before settling down.. Or as Heinrich Beauvais said.. NOT AS SMOOTH!

As for EFFECTIVENESS.. For you to understand you have to first ask yourself.. "What do ailerons EFFECT?" The answer is the ROLL of the aircraft.. Thus when Heinrich Beauvais said "EFFECTIVENESS had not improved at all" That means the Flettner tab did not increase the ROLL of the aircraft. Pretty simple when you break it down like this and understand the words used.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Here`s a picture of 109 G-6s in _mass production,
equipped with aileron Flettner tabs_ at WNF factory:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
A little off topic.. But I could not pass up this one.. Kurfurst.. Tell me.. How many things have to be *produced* in a day to refer to that production as mass production? 10,000 aircraft per day? 1000 aircraft per day? 100 aircraft per day? Or 10 aircraft per day? Even if you said 10 aircraft per day that would be TWICE as many as they produced at WNF. At least that is what is says on that page you got that picture from.. Here is what is says on that page.. Just left of that picture you posted.. I wonder why you left it out?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Original German on page 130:
Nicht nur in Regensburg oder Leipzig lief die Serienfertigung der Bf109 auf Hochtouren, sondern auch in den Wiener-Neust¤dter Flugzeugwerken verließen t¤glich bis zu fünf Bf109G-6 die Endmontagehallen. Gut zu erkennen die neue Kabinenhaube, die zu einer Verbesserung der Rundumsicht führte<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Translated in English:
Production of the Bf 109 ran at a high pace, not just at Regensburg or Leipzig, but also in Wie-ner-Neustadt. As many as five Bf 109 G-6s per day left the assembly halls of Wiener-Neust¤dter Flugzeugwerke. Note the revised canopy which offered the pilot a better all-round view.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So.. you might want to re-spin.. I mean re-word that MASS PRODUCTION statement in the future! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Flettners were not installed on the 109 elevator at any time so cut the fictional stories "about the horrible things happened in dives". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Once again.. Heinrich Beauvais *words* not mine! Once again.. please don't take this personal.. But I will have to take Heinrich Beauvais *words* over yours.. As I'm sure most people will. And here is the REAL TRUTH (i.e. not what Kurfurst claims to be truth) about the installation of Flettner tabs on a 109 elevator and how it about destroyed the aircraft in a high speed dive test.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Heinrich Beauvais on 109 Diving on page 70 of TEST PILOTS:
During each development of an aircraft, the designers attempt to achieve a wider range in the centre of gravity. The designers at Messerschmitt believed the had achieved this with a NEW ELEVATOR and FLETTNER TAB (trim tab). I did not quite share this OPINION: however, I was willing to make a test fight. After take-off from Augsburg on this particular flight, I saw a parachute some distance ahead and wondered what type of cargo-dropping trial this could be. On closer inspection and watching its decent to the ground, I saw a man hanging from the parachute. I considered landing and going to his aid, but saw it was not necessary, since help was on its way form a nearby anti-aircraft battery. Later, after having landed myself, I learned it was Wendel who had baled out from an Me 109T.

Continuing with the test, I climbed to an altitude of 6,000m and, going into a DIVE, noted that careful movements on the elevator showed NOTHING UNUSUAL. I then encountered and area of turbulence, and the aircraft showed a MARKED tendency to remain in the vertical. The indicated airspeed was about 650km/h (403.8mph) and I had to pull fairly hard on the stick until any perceptible change was evident. Then the change became UNCOMFORTABLY VIOLENT: I was pressed into the seat in a way which led me to expect that the aircraft would BEGIN TO BREAK UP. The typical 'bath tub effect', as I called it, had begun. you might ask where this comparison comes from. Just imagine a bath tub full of water, one end resting on a lever, the other end on the floor. In order to balance the tub, you muse exert considerable effort and use a fair amount of strength. When you finally manage to balance the tub, the water shoots up to the other end. This is exactly what the aircraft did, in that there was very little initial response to the control input, and then a sudden and violent over-response. I was able gradually to reduce the OSCILLATIONS and, most importantly, to reduce the speed and pull out of the VERTICAL DIVE. Afterwards, back on the ground, a CRACK in the main mounting of the wing was detected! It appeared possible that I had gone through the same area of turbulence which had caused Wendel's accident. (This must have been 3rd April 1941). The 'IMPROVEMENT' to the ELEVATOR prove to be of NO USE WHATSOEVER.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So.. as you can see Kurfurst.. You were wrong and the only fictional stories here are the ones that stem from your ignorance and miss-understanding words like Performance, Effectiveness, and Response.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/UBI_FORUMS/MyUbiSig.jpg
TAGERT

[This message was edited by TAGERT. on Mon September 13 2004 at 07:22 PM.]

Ugly_Kid
09-14-2004, 12:01 AM
Do you have ISBN author and title for that Beauvais book? Is it a test-pilots autobiography or something like that if so it could make great reading.

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/oksennus_1.jpg

BBB_Hyperion
09-14-2004, 02:45 AM
Tagert there is a reason why planes are Testflown http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. But this doesnt mean the modification was not done. Maybe with a little alternation trial and error method was very common . Special when the designers though out new promising ideas it might need some bigger redesigns until its finaly accepted.

Or can you show us a report that this modiefication has been dropped from production cause it is classiefied ineffective or useless . If so why they build them at all ? Which 109 did Beauvais fly a late K4 in 3.04.41 (most likely not) ?

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

Kurfurst__
09-14-2004, 03:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Yes... you should try it some time.. Get your facts staright and such.. As for my reply.. Note.. I didn't reply to everything you said.. In that most of what you said was nothing more than answering a question with a question. Which to me indicates you don't have an answer.. Just a weak attempt to muddy the waters in the hopes of taking the focused off the subject at hand. Therefore I only replied to the things that you actually tried to answer.. Which didn't leave much by the way! And consisted mostly of you calling Heinrich Beauvais a liar.. Now I can understand your *need* to disagree with my conclusions that are based on what Heinrich Beauvais said, Pictures and common sense.. But you didn't have refer to Heinrich Beauvais words as **** talk and Fictional Stories.. That says more about you than him IMHO. So with that said, lets continue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


= senseless cr@ptalk, instead of an excuse for not being able giving an answer to my questions. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/1241.gif



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Just what part of him saying "EFFECTIVENESS HAD NOT IMPROVED AT ALL" do you disagree with when you said "ALWAYS INCREASE EFFECTIVENESS"? Now.. please don't take this personal.. But I will have to take Heinrich Beauvais *words* over yours.. As I'm sure most people will.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What does aileron effectiveness means, tagert ? Still no answer ?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I wont jump on you too hard here.. In that I'm sure your misunderstanding of the words Performance, Effectiveness, and Response is due to some Language barrier.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You won`t because you couldn`t.

You still didn`t answer.

WHAT DOES AILERON EFFECTIVENESS MEANS, TAGERT?

Why don`t you answer, because you don`t even understand the very basics?

It appears so.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
But in summary an Increased Response is not allays a good thing.. That increase is Response Time is what Heinrich Beauvais was talking about when he said _"performance was not as smooth"_. That is to say IT'S A BAD THING! Sense the flettner tabs increased the RESPONSE TIME it make the aircraft OSCILLATE.. In a classical controls description it went from DAMPED to UNDER-DAMPED and thus had more OVERSHOOT and RINGING.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Nice attempt putting words into Beauvais mouth to make it look like he is the authority behind all your fictional theories about damping, oscillation, overshoot, ringing and all the rest of the BS you could think of to make aileron Flettners look bad.

Now, the facts vs. cr@ptalk :

"The following is from a test dive on 7.10.44 in good old W.Nr. 18550 (I say that because that a/c was used in just so much of the 109 testing): the test was made by "Willemsen" (he's not known to me. Does anyone have info on him?), on an a/c equipped with ailerons with Flettners, large stabilizer and rudder, a/c weight: 333o kg, and CofG at take-off: 24.6%.

At a corrected speed of 770 kph (.75 Mach at the test altitude), Test pilot Willemsen was able to get the ailerons to travel to 2/3 of their available range (no approx. force required is mentioned), forces were the same to either side, and there was no overbalancing observed.

Appearantly, no overbalancing observed on either side.

Now tagert, when you finally managed to find out what "aileron effectiveness" means, care to assure us that you also know what "overbalancing" means ?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/CONTROLS/overvsunder.jpg

As you can see.. a UNDER DAMPED system RESPONDS FASTER but it also OSCILLATES a lot before settling down.. Or as Heinrich Beauvais said.. NOT AS SMOOTH!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heinrich Beauvais said nowhere that aieleron flettners would increase oscillation. That`s tagerts own desperate deception attempt. He tries to mix up Beuvious with his own BS. And it`s not even funny, it`s sad.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
As for EFFECTIVENESS.. For you to understand you have to first ask yourself.. "What do ailerons EFFECT?" The answer is the ROLL of the aircraft.. Thus when Heinrich Beauvais said "EFFECTIVENESS had not improved at all" That means the Flettner tab did not increase the ROLL of the aircraft. Pretty simple when you break it down like this and understand the words used.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


No, that`s not the definition of aileron effectiveness. Totally wrong. You can hear such responses in TV shows for the 50 $ question. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

It appears that tagert does not understand at all the technical terms he is throwing around.

So what is aileron effectiveness, tagert ? Can`t you answer ?



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tagert :

A little off topic.. But I could not pass up this one.. Kurfurst.. Tell me.. How many things have to be *produced* in a day to refer to that production as _mass_ production? 10,000 aircraft per day? 1000 aircraft per day? 100 aircraft per day? Or 10 aircraft per day? Even if you said 10 aircraft per day that would be TWICE as many as they produced at WNF. At least that is what is says on that page you got that picture from.. Here is what is says on that page.. Just left of that picture you posted.. I wonder why you left it out?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Original German on page 130:
Nicht nur in Regensburg oder Leipzig lief die Serienfertigung der Bf109 auf Hochtouren, sondern auch in den Wiener-Neust¤dter Flugzeugwerken verließen t¤glich bis zu fünf Bf109G-6 die Endmontagehallen. Gut zu erkennen die neue Kabinenhaube, die zu einer Verbesserung der Rundumsicht führte<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Translated in English:
Production of the Bf 109 ran at a high pace, not just at Regensburg or Leipzig, but also in Wie-ner-Neustadt. _As many as five Bf 109 G-6s per day_ left the assembly halls of Wiener-Neust¤dter Flugzeugwerke. Note the revised canopy which offered the pilot a better all-round view.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So.. you might want to re-spin.. I mean re-word that MASS PRODUCTION statement in the future! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Typical. Serienfertigung = mass/serial production in English...

Now, Tagert argues that the WNF didn`t mass produced G-6s, to prove this he gets the caption, which says WNF mass produced Bf 109s... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif
5 a/c per day is 150 fighters each month, and 1800 a year. In a single factory... well, if this isn`t mass production...


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
So.. as you can see Kurfurst.. You were wrong and the only fictional stories here are the ones that stem from your ignorance and miss-understanding words like Performance, Effectiveness, and Response.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

= more cr@ptalk. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/1241.gif


So, tagert, would you tell us what aileron effectiveness is, or you just contiue with craptalk and denial in a style resambling drunken blubbering ? Sorry if I misunderstood it, and this is not your style, but you are actually drunk, and thus prevented to tell us anything sensible. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

Plebanos
09-14-2004, 01:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Why is this still around http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/band.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

TAGERT.
09-14-2004, 03:47 PM
Yet again Kurfurst has avoided the question(s) by answering a question with a question.. Which is typical of someone who does not have an answer for the question. Kurfurst only does this to muddy the waters in the hopes that some readers wont notice he is actually just avoiding the question. Kurfurst is also employing another desperate muddy water tactic of accusing someone of not doing something.. even though it was done.

Example.. In Kurfurst last reply to me he accused me of not answering the EFFECTIVENESS question 4 times prior to the point where I did answer the question.. i.e....

1) What does aileron effectiveness means, tagert ? Still no answer ?
2) You still didn`t answer.
3) WHAT DOES AILERON EFFECTIVENESS MEANS, TAGERT?
4) Why don`t you answer, because you don`t even understand the very basics?

Then at the point where I did answer the question he even acknowledge that I answered it in the following reply.

No, that`s not the definition of aileron effectiveness.

Now the SAD part here isn't that he accused me of not answering it 4 times prior to me answering it.. The REAL SAD part is that *after* I answered it and Kurfurst replied to the my answer he GOES BACK to accusing me of NOT answering 2 more time!! i.e.

1) So what is aileron effectiveness, tagert ? Can`t you answer ?
2) So, tagert, would you tell us what aileron effectiveness is

This muddy water tactic may work on some people.. Or people who *want* to belive Kurfurst's twisted reasoning... But not on anyone else.

Again.. I would like to reply to things that Kurfurst did answer.. But that would leave NOTHING because he did not answer one question put to him.

But in the hopes of putting this train back on track.. Let's take a look a close look at Kurfurst's muddy water tactics.. Basically he is avoiding the what Heinrich Beauvais said.. That THE EFFECTIVENESS HAD NOT IMPROVED AT ALL... Instead of commenting on what Heinrich Beauvais said about EFFECTIVENESS Kurfurst avoids it by accusing *me* of not answering his EFFECTIVENESS questions..

It doesn't really mater what I think EFFECTIVENESS is.. WHAT EVER IT *IS* Heinrich Beauvais said *IT* HAD NOT IMPROVED AT ALL!

For the record.. You will never see Kurfurst address what Heinrich Beauvais said.. Kurfurst will just avoid it by asking more questions.

Just as he avoided what Butch2k said about the flettner tabs NOT being standard on the 109K.
Just as he avoided that Kurfurst was wrong about the Flettner tab never being used on the elevator.

In summary it would be nice if Kurfurst followed his own rules and answered a question... Instead of accusing others of not answering his questions.. But don't look for it any time soon! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Just put on your boots before reading any of his posts.. Jump in and hold your nose.. Because not only is the mud deep.. It is full of Cr@ptalk from Kurfurst himself.. As with the NOT ANSWERED accusations... Kurfurst will blame the smell (Cr@aptalk) on you.. Even though the description fits him better.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/UBI_FORUMS/MyUbiSig.jpg
TAGERT

TAGERT.
09-14-2004, 04:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> BB_Hyperion:
Tagert there is a reason why planes are Testflown.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Let me guess.. for testing? Oh Master of the obvious! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> BB_Hyperion:
But this doesnt mean the modification was not done.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree 100%! I would assume it had to in that Heinrich noted it didn't really fix the problem.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> BB_Hyperion:
Maybe with a little alternation trial and error method was very common . Special when the designers though out new promising ideas it might need some bigger redesigns until its finaly accepted.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed 100%! And just to be clear I never said otherwise.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> BB_Hyperion:
Or can you show us a report that this modiefication has been dropped from production cause it is classiefied ineffective or useless. If so why they build them at all ? Which 109 did Beauvais fly a late K4 in 3.04.41 (most likely not)?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I guess you missed what Heinrich Beauvais said or didn't see it when you read it the first time. So here is the quote one more time.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Heinrich Beauvais on 109 Flight Controls:
One would have liked to have more effective ailerons, as well as lower control forces, at high speeds. I do not remember all the different methods tried to improve this, but the following two are still clear in my mind. One was designed by Blohm & Voss, adding a Flettner trim tab which resulted in a reduction of control forces: however, performance was not as smooth and effectiveness had not improved at all. A later form was the 'Keulenquerruder' (a shape of aileron tested at Memmingen in 1944) which had seemed promising, but had never been introduced.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

NOTE that Heinrich Beauvais pointed out that *after* the flettner tab they tried a Keulenquerruder (shaped aileron)... Now ask yourself.. Why would they continue looking for a *FIX* to the aileron EFFECTIVENESS as well as the CONTROL FORCES after the introduction of the Flettner tab? That is to say if the flettner tab *FIXED* it.. Why were they still looking for a *FIX*? I don't know what that *tells* you but it *tells* me that the flettner tab didn't *FIX* it.

Heinrich Beauvais also pointed out that attempts to improve the roll rate had never ceased and that he was the one to re-test and evaluate nearly all new series productions, as well as the odd trial versions. He also pointed out that he tested 109s from 1937 in Germany to 1956 in Spain.. So if anyone knew 109s it was Heinrich Beauvais.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/UBI_FORUMS/MyUbiSig.jpg
TAGERT

WWMaxGunz
09-14-2004, 08:31 PM
Well improving the roll rate can be an ongoing process even if some improvement is made.
It doesn't necessarily mean that none was made.

However the answer in definite terms should be original test documents (Rechlin?) showing
roll rate of *serial production planes* and not calculation, extrapolation or interpretation
of various bits and pieces of information.

Nice to know about flettners and all but what is the point compared to the data? Will it
change what the documents have? Will measurements of this or that detail on different
planes for comparisons ever change the end results? My dads' car is bigger than your dads'
car! Well but my dads' car is faster and that means this part of the sidewalk is mine!

BFD. Just get a ruler or tape measure and be done with it.


Neal

TAGERT.
09-14-2004, 09:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Well improving the roll rate can be an ongoing process even if some improvement is made.
It doesn't necessarily mean that none was made.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Heinrich didn't say none was made.. As a mater of fact he noted they reduced the control forces.. But at a cost.. The cost being in performances not as smooth and effectiveness not improved at all.

But, it *sounds* like the control forces reduction was not even that much.. In that as Kurfurst pointed out in the dive test on 7.10.44 even with the flettner tabs the pilot was only able to get 2/3's travel of their full range. That and it clearly pointed out that "no approx force required is mentioned". So another pilot may have been able to get more travel? That is to say a stronger pilot might have got the full travel.. But if that is true, then even a stronger pilot could also do it without flettner tabs! In that as Heinrich pointed out.. The only benefit was a reduction in the force needed. So.. the real question is did the positives (less force/travel) out weigh the negatives (less smooth).

As for effectiveness, i.e. the ability to roll the plane did not improve at all.. So a 2/3 deflection with flettner tabs provided the same roll rate as a 2/3 deflection without flettner tabs. As a mater of fact the flettner might actually be less effective then an aileron without them.. In that you loose some of the surface area due to the flettner itself.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
However the answer in definite terms should be original test documents (Rechlin?) showing roll rate of *serial production planes* and not calculation, extrapolation or interpretation of various bits and pieces of information. Nice to know about Flettners and all but what is the point compared to the data? Will it change what the documents have? Will measurements of this or that detail on different planes for comparisons ever change the end results?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If that data exists.. I just wonder if they have it for both flettner and non-flettner.. For force/travel and the corresponding roll rate.. In that it appears that the flettner equip plane was the exception not the rule.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
My dads' car is bigger than your dads' car! Well but my dads' car is faster and that means this part of the sidewalk is mine!

BFD. Just get a ruler or tape measure and be done with it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah.. Ok.. I guess?

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/UBI_FORUMS/MyUbiSig.jpg
TAGERT

[This message was edited by TAGERT. on Tue September 14 2004 at 10:30 PM.]

BBB_Hyperion
09-15-2004, 03:27 AM
Tagert you edited your message just noted .)

The 2/3 Deflection was under which conditions ? In Dive.

So what we need to have now are following things.

Deflection under same test conditions with / without Flettners.

Which speed,alt was optained ?
Compression reached ?
How was the deflection measured ?
How was the effect measured ?
Which force was needed to optain the deflection ?
Was the idea really to increase rollrate or/and to reduce pilot force needed to allow better rollrate at high speed which needs more force normaly ?

As sitenote reduced force feeling is a bad thing for controlling a plane special for 109 pilots that did use direct control all the time.

The control forces on 109 can get heavy in dive so even when the controls get more unprecise you can sustain the forces longer. Thats important on B&Z planes.

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

TAGERT.
09-15-2004, 09:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Tagert you edited your message just noted .)

The 2/3 Deflection was under which conditions ? In Dive. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not 100% sure on that test, you will have to ask Kurfurst.. But I doubt he will know because it is just a cut and paste from the what Felix99 said on the LEMB forums... And it is not real clear where he got that quote from.. In that he talks about the boot test pilots.. then talks about Radinger/Otto/Schicks book and "diving trals narrative" I have the book by Radinger adn Otto (Schicks not on that one) called Bf 109 F-K and on page 16 it talks about the High-Speed Trials.. And it never makes mention of Flettners.. But it does say

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>later aileron deflection was reduced to 50 percent of normal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And it appears the reason for doing that under high speeds test is due to the following..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It should also be mentioned that there was an enormously strong aileron over-balance during this last dive, almost ripping the stick from my hand. Had it not been for the limit on the ailerons this would have lead to disaster<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But they were not the same tests.. I have not found that test that Felix99 was talking about.. It may be in the test pilots bood.. Because it covers the above test too.

In reading about the dive tests above.. I find it odd that purpose of the flettner tab was to reduce the force/travel of the aileron.. Which was needed at high speeds.. But in the high speed dive tests they purposly limited aileron travel becuase it could lead to disaster.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
So what we need to have now are following things.

Deflection under same test conditions with / without Flettners.

Which speed,alt was optained ?
Compression reached ?
How was the deflection measured ?
How was the effect measured ?
Which force was needed to optain the deflection ?
Was the idea really to increase rollrate or/and to reduce pilot force needed to allow better rollrate at high speed which needs more force normaly ?

As sitenote reduced force feeling is a bad thing for controlling a plane special for 109 pilots that did use direct control all the time.

The control forces on 109 can get heavy in dive so even when the controls get more unprecise you can sustain the forces longer. Thats important on B&Z planes.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Some may need that.. And some only need to read what Heinrich Baeuvais's said.. "adding a Flettner trim tab which resulted in a reduction of control forces: however, performance was not as smooth and effectiveness had not improved at all"

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/UBI_FORUMS/MyUbiSig.jpg
TAGERT

[This message was edited by TAGERT. on Wed September 15 2004 at 08:57 AM.]

DIRTY-MAC
09-15-2004, 10:10 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif

TAGERT.
09-15-2004, 10:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/353.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hmmmm
We are talking about the 109.. CHECK!
We are talking about how the 109 turned.. CHECK!
Hmmmm sorry Disagree 100%

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/UBI_FORUMS/MyUbiSig.jpg
TAGERT

WWMaxGunz
09-15-2004, 10:38 AM
From what I read from pilots of the 109, the trouble wasn't just stick force for roll
but the narrowness of the cockpit made it hard to gain good leverage for side pull.
Couldn't get the elbows out very far, easier to brace and pull back or push forward.

Did the cockpits get any wider as the series progressed, just as a thing of interest?


Neal

TAGERT.
09-15-2004, 11:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
From what I read from pilots of the 109, the trouble wasn't just stick force for roll
but the narrowness of the cockpit made it hard to gain good leverage for side pull.
Couldn't get the elbows out very far, easier to brace and pull back or push forward.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That fact was confirmed in Kit Carsons book PURSUE & DESTROY.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Did the cockpits get any wider as the series progressed, just as a thing of interest?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not that I know of.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/UBI_FORUMS/MyUbiSig.jpg
TAGERT

Kurfurst__
09-15-2004, 11:11 AM
In an attempt to raise the intellectual level of this discussions, here are a few things of interests :

Aileron effectiveness aka a definition tagert has no idea of.

A.E. means the amount of roll rate an aileron design will produce per aileron deflection angle. Ie. it doesn`t show the the rolling ability of the plane directly, since it will also depend on the deflection angle of the ailerons, being mutliplied with it to get the actual roll rate. Of course since deflection is limited primarly by the control forces (to sideways, an avarage human being can exert 20-25 lbs with one hand, and about 50 if he uses both hands), which inreasing with airspeed. And naturally, the same, say 20 degrees deflection at 500mph will yield greater roll rate than at 250 mph, since the the forces acting on the controls are also greater. This effect also makes up somewhat for the greater limitations of possible aileron deflection. Reducing the control forces will allow greater aileron deflection, and with the same aileron effectiveness it will lead greater roll rate of the airplane. The Bf 109 was designed with a relatively wide angle of motion of the ailerons, so this was an important point, ie. to maintain aileron deflection as long as possible, even though ailerons were relatively light on the 109s, being fairly good contruction (using Frise type ailerons on F/G/K already helped with the control forces, Frises having an effect similiar like Flettner tabs, helping out the pilot`s muscles)


As a sidenote to tagert`s deception attempts with the 50% limited ailerons in those dive tests... Fact 1, those dive tests were performed at dive speeds 100-150 km/h IAS above the maximum dive limits of the Bf 109 at that time. And nothing happened. In those trials, 906 kph TAS was obtained. Before that, in previous dives the ailerons were not limited at all, yet 850 to 890 kph dive speeds were obtained without accidents. With NON limited aileron travel. Make up your own mind how much that +16 kph would mean for safety... I`d say nothing, but they were very cautious, the last trials being forced out by the curiousity of the test pilot, Lukas Schmidt. Another important thing to note that Frise type ailerons are needed to be balanced out well, if they were not properly balanced, that may give some reason why aileron overbalance was noted with the aircraft (which was a hybrid, a 109F airframe, mated with increased tail size and - stronger but heavier - Bf 109 G wings). And perhaps it`s interesting to note that aileron overbalance is unlikely to be experienced if the aileron`s control forces are heavy...

I think the rest of tagert`s cr@ptalk is unworthy to be answered. Basically he engaged into a little anti-109 crusade a while ago, claiming it couldn`t roll at all at high speeds. Counter evidence was shown to him, including the use of Flettners, which is being denied by him in every detail, but he only gets deeper and deeper in the mud, and getting more and more desperate. It would be a lot smarter of him if he would just shut up and put up.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

ZG77_Nagual
09-15-2004, 11:25 AM
Kurfurst, the chick in you sig is freaking me out.

I flew a 109k the other day, by the way - very easy ride - almost as easy as the mustang.

TAGERT.
09-15-2004, 12:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
In an attempt to raise the intellectual level of this discussions, here are a few things of interests :<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>How can you do that if you keep replying?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Aileron effectiveness aka a definition tagert has no idea of. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hardly! But it is clear you don't realize the difference between the force applied and effectives of the aileron.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
A.E. means the amount of roll rate an aileron design will produce per aileron deflection angle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Is what I said.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Ie. it doesn`t show the the rolling ability of the plane directly, since it will also depend on the deflection angle of the ailerons, being mutliplied with it to get the actual roll rate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Duh! Like saying you have to turn the wheel on the car for it to turn.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Of course since deflection is limited primarly by the control forces (to sideways, an avarage human being can exert 20-25 lbs with one hand, and about 50 if he uses both hands), which inreasing with airspeed. And naturally, the same, say 20 degrees deflection at 500mph will yield greater roll rate than at 250 mph, since the the forces acting on the controls are also greater. This effect also makes up somewhat for the greater limitations of possible aileron deflection. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Another Duh!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Reducing the control forces will allow greater aileron deflection, and with the same _aileron effectiveness_ it will lead greater roll rate of the airplane. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Note here "WITH THE SAME AILERON EFFECTIVENESS" *it* will lead to greater roll rates.. You confusing the FORCE apply with the EFFECTIVENESS of the aileron. Reducing the control force (i.e. *IT*) does not change the EFFECTIVENESS of the aileron to deflect # amount of air per # amount of deflection.

Back to my 2/3 deflection of a flettner equipment aileron will have the same EFFECTIVENESS as a 2/3 deflected aileron with NO flettner tabs. Actually the flettner equipment will have a little less in that some of it's surface area is lost do to the flettner itself pointing the other way, thus REDUCING it's EFFECTIVENESS.

In summary a strong pilot could apply more force than a weaker pilot.. So if the stronger pilot could deflect it 3/4's and the weak pilot under the same conditions might only be able to deflect it 1/2. But a weaker pilot with flettner tabs might be able to equal the stronger pilot under the same conditions.. But at that time they would both have the same roll rate because the EFFECTIVENESS of an aileron at 3/4 deflection is the SAME! The forces/deflection is different, but not the EFFECTIVENESS of the aileron to deflect air.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The Bf 109 was designed with a relatively wide angle of motion of the ailerons, so this was an important point, ie. to maintain aileron deflection as long as possible, even though ailerons were relatively light on the 109s, being fairly good contruction (using Frise type ailerons on F/G/K already helped with the control forces, Frises having an effect similiar like Flettner tabs, helping out the pilot`s muscles)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Enh!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
As a sidenote to tagert`s deception attempts with the 50% limited ailerons in those dive tests... Fact 1, those dive tests _were performed at dive speeds 100-150 km/h IAS above the maximum dive limits of the Bf 109 at that time._ And nothing happened. In those trials, 906 kph TAS was obtained. Before that, in previous dives the ailerons _were not limited at all_, yet 850 to 890 kph dive speeds were obtained without accidents. With NON limited aileron travel. Make up your own mind how much that +16 kph would mean for safety... I`d say nothing, but they were very cautious, the last trials being forced out by the curiousity of the test pilot, Lukas Schmidt. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Without accidents.. But not without problems.. It says In the area between 850 and 890kph - an aileron over-balance became apparent. Aileron deflection was subsequently limited by half, which certainly prevented a later crash.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Another important thing to note that Frise type ailerons are needed to be balanced out well, if they were not properly balanced, that may give some reason why aileron overbalance was noted with the aircraft (which was a hybrid, a 109F airframe, mated with increased tail size and - stronger but heavier - Bf 109 G wings). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I find it hard to belive that in such a test where they took all those precautions they would forget to adj the Frise type ailerons.. And even it they did, they would have simply done so, but they didn't, they went as far as to limit the travel of the ailerons by 50%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
And perhaps it`s interesting to note that aileron overbalance is _unlikely to be experienced if the aileron`s control forces are heavy..._<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Says who?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I think the rest of tagert`s cr@ptalk is unworthy to be answered. Basically he engaged into a little anti-109 crusade a while ago, claiming it couldn`t roll at all at high speeds. Counter evidence was shown to him, including the use of Flettners, which is being denied by him in every detail, but he only gets deeper and deeper in the mud, and getting more and more desperate. It would be a lot smarter of him if he would just shut up and put up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Hey Kurfurst.. Is that your weak attempt to try and side step the fact that you have NOT YET addressed the following!

For the record.. You will never see Kurfurst address the following..

Kurfurst continues to avoid what Heinrich Beauvais said.. i.e. "THE EFFECTIVENESS HAD NOT IMPROVED AT ALL"
Kurfurst continues to avoid what Butch2k said.. "As far as the Flettner are concerned they were not standard"
Kurfurst continues to avoid admitting he was wrong about the flettner tab used on the elevator.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/UBI_FORUMS/MyUbiSig.jpg
TAGERT

Kurfurst__
09-15-2004, 12:31 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/1241.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
Kurfurst, the chick in you sig is freaking me out.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The sheer terror her sight provides to some is a valuable tool to convince others. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Yet rejoice, for you are spared from the greater evils :

http://www.nightwish.com/pics/promo/nw2004set8.jpg

She does a bit better with her voice than with her make-up though :

http://www.nightwish.com/files/nemo_192.mp3
http://www.nightwish.com/files/wita-hi.mp3
http://www.nightwish.com/files/othafa-hi.mp3

You know, it`s the inner beuty that really counts ! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif .

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

TAGERT.
09-15-2004, 12:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/1241.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! You know your wrong.. Because if the force applied was part of the definition of effectiveness than Heinrich Beauvais would be wrong.. In that he said the forces were reduced.. but he also said the effectiveness was not changed. Which is just the opposite you would have us belive.. But Heinrich, Others, and I realize the force applied is not part of the definition of the effectiveness of the ailerons.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The sheer terror her sight provides to some is a valuable tool to convince others. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Yet rejoice, for you are spared from the greater evils :<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yikes! I hope she got the extended warranty on that face lift!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
She does _a bit better_ with her voice than with her make-up though :<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well.. it would be hard not to!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
You know, it`s the inner beuty that really counts ! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>For her sake I hope your right! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/UBI_FORUMS/MyUbiSig.jpg
TAGERT

Kurfurst__
09-15-2004, 12:49 PM
Do you read what you write ?

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

TAGERT.
09-15-2004, 12:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Do you read what you write ?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes.. Well at least I try to.. Why? Did you see a problem with what I said when I said the following?

For the record.. You will never see Kurfurst address the following..

Kurfurst continues to avoid what Heinrich Beauvais said.. i.e. "THE EFFECTIVENESS HAD NOT IMPROVED AT ALL"
Kurfurst continues to avoid what Butch2k said.. "As far as the Flettner are concerned they were not standard"
Kurfurst continues to avoid admitting he was wrong about the flettner tab used on the elevator.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/UBI_FORUMS/MyUbiSig.jpg
TAGERT

Kurfurst__
09-15-2004, 01:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
For the record.. You will never see Kurfurst address the following..

Kurfurst continues to avoid what Heinrich Beauvais said.. i.e. "THE EFFECTIVENESS HAD NOT IMPROVED AT ALL"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In which B. is right, Flettners don`t improve the roll rate yielded by given deflection, as they allow for greater deflection via reduction of control forces at high enough speeds that limit aileron deflection, and thus higher roll rate.

Note that Tagert had absolutely no idea of what aileron effectiveness meant until I told him, he throws around expressions of which`s meaning he is totally ignorant off, then continously changes his arguement from the original one.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Kurfurst continues to avoid what Butch2k said.. "As far as the Flettner are concerned they were not standard"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As opposed to Tagert who hysterically denies they operational use of aileron Flettners and their installation in series production on 109G and 109K, despite it is proven by photographic evidence, and is confirmed by butch as well.

You won`t see tagert admit he was wrong in that, and that Flettners were used in service. He will try to find, and even more likely make up, excuses for that fact.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Kurfurst continues to avoid admitting he was wrong about the flettner tab used on the elevator.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So which 109 had Flettners on the elevator? 109F? 109G? 109K?
Oh, I guess there will be a switch in that line as well... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

PS I am feeling it`s a bit of a generous use of time to argue with someone so inconsistent with himself, and who still tries to read, whereas most human beings advance past that stage of intellectual development at a very early age.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

TAGERT.
09-15-2004, 01:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
In which B. is right, Flettners don`t improve the roll rate yielded by given deflection, as they allow for greater deflection via reduction of control forces at high enough speeds that limit aileron deflection, and thus higher roll rate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes! It worked! I knew if I could bait you into addressing what he said you would finally understand how wrong you are! Nice work Kurfurst, you now realize that the applied force has nothing to do with the aileron effectiveness! But, what other choice did you have but to agree with Heinrich Beauvais said.. Which now means you agree with what I said! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Note that Tagert had absolutely no idea of what aileron effectiveness meant until I told him, he throws around expressions of which`s meaning he is totally ignorant off, then continously changes his arguement from the original one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Huh? Is this another case of trying to muddy the water? Note that BEFORE you gave your INCORRECT DEFINITION today that I said yesterday..

As for effectiveness, i.e. the ability to roll the plane did not improve at all.. So a 2/3 deflection with flettner tabs provided the same roll rate as a 2/3 deflection without flettner tabs.

and the day before that I said

As for EFFECTIVENESS.. For you to understand you have to first ask yourself.. "What do ailerons EFFECT?" The answer is the ROLL of the aircraft.. Thus when Heinrich Beauvais said "EFFECTIVENESS had not improved at all" That means the Flettner tab did not increase the ROLL of the aircraft.

Which in both cases talks about how the aileron *effects* the roll. That is to say I have been consistent! You on the other hand have NOW REVERSED you stance and now admit that force is not part of the definition.

That is to say more of less force does not change the size or shape of the aileron, all it changes is it's amount of deflection. At each deflection point an aileron will *effect* the roll by a certain amount. If you reduce the force per deflection all you have done is changed the amount of force per deflection, but not the *effect* the aileron has *at* that amount of deflection.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
As opposed to Tagert who hysterically denies they operational use of aileron Flettners and their installation in series production on 109G and 109K, despite it is proven by photographic evidence, and is confirmed by butch as well.

You won`t see tagert admit he was wrong in that, and that Flettners were used in service. He will try to find, and even more likely make up, excuses for that fact.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh well, one out of two aint bad! Kurfurst has still managed to avoid what Butch2k said about the flettner NOT being standard. He has also put words into my mouth to muddy the waters and is trying to say that I said they were never used! As a mater of fact I have pointed out they were used! Surely in testing! As for in service.. One thing for sure, they were the exception and not the rule! Pictures prove that and Butch2k's statement agrees with the picture evidence.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
So which 109 had Flettners on the elevator? 109F? 109G? 109K? Oh, I guess there will be a switch in that line as well... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The one that Heinrich Beauvais tested and said "The 'IMPROVEMENT' to the ELEVATOR prove to be of NO USE WHATSOEVER." For the full text see page 5 of this thread

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
PS I am feeling it`s a bit of a generous use of time to argue with someone so inconsistent with himself, and who still _tries_ to read, whereas most human beings advance past that stage of intellectual development at a very early age.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Talking to yourself again?

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/UBI_FORUMS/MyUbiSig.jpg
TAGERT

ZG77_Nagual
09-15-2004, 01:46 PM
"She does _a bit better_ with her voice than with her make-up though :"

Not my cup of tea musically - but yes, very nice voice. I could almost see 109s slashing through the air http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kurfurst__
09-15-2004, 02:08 PM
Unfortunately tagert, your posts, especially the last one in which you repeat yourself and heavily engage in self-contradiction, appear to lack the slightest rational coherence, and are of little informative value on the subject. As such, I think it`s a royal waste of time to attempt to engage in a rational discussion with you, for I am not interested in reading your endless flip-flop, evasions and excuses, and certainly it is not my task to provide you with company. I firmly believe the data and evindence posted on this thread is sufficient for other intelligent beings in this board to make up their mind, therefore I`ll leave it as it is. I wish you good luck and good company in your future crusade zealotry, in which so far you have proven to be extremely unconvincing.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

TAGERT.
09-15-2004, 02:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Kurfurst:
Unfortunately tagert, your posts, especially the last one in which you repeat yourself and heavily engage in self-contradiction, appear to lack the slightest rational coherence, and are of little informative value on the subject. As such, I think it`s a royal waste of time to attempt to engage in a rational discussion with you, for I am not interested in reading your endless flip-flop, evasions and excuses, and certainly it is not my task to provide you with company.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Self-Contradiction?
Flip-Flop?
Evasions?
Excuses?

Kurfurst..You just described yourself.. Not me! Here is the timeline proof of it too.. With regards to just ONE aspect of your Self-Contradictions, Flip-Flops, Evasions, and Excuses!

Way back on page 3 of this thread I posted what Heinrich Beauvais said about EFFECTIVENESS. i.e.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> of Heinrich Beauvais by Tagert on page 3:
adding a Flettner trim tab which resulted in a reduction of control forces: however, performance was not as smooth and effectiveness had NOT improved at all<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To which you replied.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by Kurfurst on page 4:
Cr@ptalk. Flettners always increase effectiveness at high speed by reducing the control forces and allowing for greater deflection. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which is in contradiction to what Heinrich Beauvais said, and thus the first indication that misunderstood the term "aileron effectiveness". But it did not stop you from accusing others of misunderstanding the term.. Which is evident when you continued on and said

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> by Kurfurst on page 4 continued:
Perhaps you misunderstood the term "aileron effectiveness". Do you know what does it mean <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thus I set out to correct your misconception of aileron effectives in the hopes you would realize what Heinrich Beauvais was talking about when he said "effectiveness had NOT improved at all".

It is clear that Heinrich Beauvais, Others and I realized early on that the applied force is not part of "aileron effectives" otherwise Heinrich Beauvais could not say what he said it resulted in a reduction of control forces however effectiveness had not improved at all.. Which is EXACTLY the OPOSITE of what you said!! i.e. "Flettners always increase effectiveness at high speed by reducing the control forces"

So, now you should be able to understand that it was *I* that should have been asking *YOU* the question

"Perhaps you misunderstood the term "aileron effectiveness". Do you know what does it mean?"

In that it is clearly OPPOSITE of Heinrich Beauvais, Others, and my definition.

And that is just on the EFFECTIVENESS topic.. You are still EVADING what Butch2k said... You are still making EXCUSES and EVADING the fact that you were wrong about flettner tabs being used on a 109 elevators.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Kurfurst:
I firmly believe the data and evindence posted on this thread is sufficient for other intelligent beings in this board to make up their mind, therefore I`ll leave it as it is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Kurfurst:
I wish you good luck and good company in your future crusade zealotry, in which so far you have proven to be extremely unconvincing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't be too hard on yourself.. Some things take time.. What might seem unconvincing today might make sense to you tomorrow.. So, hang in there!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/UBI_FORUMS/MyUbiSig.jpg
TAGERT

[This message was edited by TAGERT. on Wed September 15 2004 at 01:55 PM.]

FZG_Mined
09-15-2004, 04:21 PM
Correct me if i'm wrong....

be Ae aileron effectiveness( no unit ?..), be Ad aileron deflection (in rad), be Rr the roll rate (rad.s^-1).

Be Ae = Rr/Ad

now, be Af the applied force ( in N )and k a constant (in rad.s^-1.N^-1)

we have Ad = k.Af, therefore : Ae = Rr/(k.Af)

Thus, at a constant Rr, if Ae increase, Af decrease, k being a constant.

For the same reason, when Ae is constant, Rr and Af have to evolve in the same way.

What i'm trying to explain is that it is not possible that the controls where not as smooth and the effectiveness had not changed... because if it was so, the k would change, which is not possible because it is a constant.

Mr Beauvais says : "EFFECTIVENESS had not improved at all"

let's make in equations !

we have a constant Ae, therefore, greater Af will lead to greater Rr ( because Ae=Rr/(k.Af), k being a constant).

Stigler you said : " Heinrich didn't say none was made.. As a mater of fact he noted they reduced the control forces"

if u reduce the control force, you increase the constant k (in rad.N^-1). Let's equationate it!

Ae = Rr/(k.Af)&lt;==&gt; Ae.k=Rr/Af

let's say Af doens't change ( we apply on the stick the same force as before ), if Ae is constant, and k is greater, Rr is greater.

i hope i didn't do any unit/algebra mistake, its late here http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Davide

http://mined86.free.fr/banniere.jpg

CTO88
09-15-2004, 05:30 PM
tagert

forget it, you won't convince kurfürst, it's impossible, like if germany had won war. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

btw: also günther rall stated that 109 elevator freezes at high speeds.

TAGERT.
09-15-2004, 06:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FZG_Mined:
Correct me if i'm wrong....

be Ae aileron effectiveness( no unit ?..), be Ad aileron deflection (in rad), be Rr the roll rate (rad.s^-1).

Ae = Rr/Ad <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hmmm something doesn't *feel* right here? You propose the following..

Ae = Rr/Ad

Ae = (rad/sec)/rad
Ae = 1/sec
Ae = sec^-1

Which is.. what? I don't know what the units of effectiveness are.. if any? But for aileron effectiveness I would have expected an it to depended on the surface area of the aileron, how it is shaped and or it's location on the wing.. So, from the get go, something does not seem right about this equation?

To me effectiveness means the ability of the aileron to produce a roll. Sense the surface area, location, and deflection of the aileron did not change one would expect it to have the same effectiveness! Put another way, given a situation both flettner and non-flettner ailerons for a set amount of deflection would produce the same roll rate. Which is what you would expect sense the surface area, location and range is the same!

The flettner tab did lower the force per deflection.. But at that deflection both would have the same effect and thus the same roll rate and thus same effectiveness.. just less force needed to get there.. So you might be able to say the flettner was more efficient with regards to pilot energy.. But it didn't affect the surface area, location, and deflection range of the aileron, thus it didn't change the effectiveness. It just made it easier for the pilot.. But at a cost, in that performance was not as smooth.

In summary, for a given situation a strong pilot could deflect a non-flettner type aileron as far as a weak pilot could deflect a flettner type aileron. But, without the down side of performance was not as smooth. So maybe instead of flettners they just had the pilots do more push ups? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As a side note.. with the flettner tab you actually loose a little surface area to the flettner tab (it points in op direction) thus it might actually be a little less effective for a given amount of deflection. Note Heinrich Beauvais said the effectiveness had NOT improved at all.. Which means it might have actually been worse! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/UBI_FORUMS/MyUbiSig.jpg
TAGERT

TAGERT.
09-15-2004, 06:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CTO88:
tagert

forget it, you won't convince kurfürst, it's impossible, like if germany had won war. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

btw: also günther rall stated that 109 elevator freezes at high speeds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well at first I didnt know for sure.. It wasnt until afterwards that I realised it was isgrim that it would be a hopless case.. But.. I had to give it another try.. Im just a nice guy like that! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/UBI_FORUMS/MyUbiSig.jpg
TAGERT

FZG_Mined
09-15-2004, 06:32 PM
I checked:

-Effectiveness has no unit,

-the definition of aileron effectiveness in a mechanic of flight book is what Kurfurst has given us...

Davide

http://mined86.free.fr/banniere.jpg

TAGERT.
09-15-2004, 06:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FZG_Mined:
I checked:

-Effectiveness has no unit, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Than something is not right about your equation.. In that it has a unit of 1/sec

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FZG_Mined:
-the definition of aileron effectiveness in a mechanic of flight book is what Kurfurst has given us...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks! But in the mean time Ill stick with Heinrich Beauvais discription over Kurfurst!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/UBI_FORUMS/MyUbiSig.jpg
TAGERT

TAGERT.
09-15-2004, 08:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FZG_Mined:
-the definition of aileron effectiveness in a mechanic of flight book is what Kurfurst has given us...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>God I love google!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>U.S. Centennial of Flight Commission:
Control effectiveness is a measure of how well a control surface, e.g., the rudder, elevator, or aileron, does its job. In general, the larger the control surface is with respect to the entire surface to which it is fitted, the greater the control effectiveness<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Theories_of_Flight/control/TH28.htm


http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/UBI_FORUMS/MyUbiSig.jpg
TAGERT

WWMaxGunz
09-15-2004, 08:30 PM
Surface area is not a biggie for highspeed control effectiveness with unboosted controls, IMO.
Reason being the very large ailerons of the Zero that made for great low and midspeed control
but were a liability at about 250mph and up. Smaller surfaces can be deflected more at high
speeds but not so great at lowspeeds. It might have been kinda neat if ailerons would have
been split or double jointed to give both but probably impossible or impractical to do. Ditto
elevators and rudder.


Neal

WWMaxGunz
09-15-2004, 08:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
_A.E. means the amount of roll rate an aileron design will produce per aileron deflection angle. _Ie. it doesn`t show the the rolling ability of the plane directly, since it will also depend on the deflection angle of the ailerons, being mutliplied with it to get the actual roll rate. Of course since deflection is limited primarly by the control forces (to sideways, an avarage human being can exert 20-25 lbs with one hand, and about 50 if he uses both hands), which inreasing with airspeed. And naturally, the same, say 20 degrees deflection at 500mph will yield greater roll rate than at 250 mph, since the the forces acting on the controls are also greater. This effect also makes up somewhat for the greater limitations of possible aileron deflection. Reducing the control forces will allow greater aileron deflection, and with the same _aileron effectiveness_ it will lead greater roll rate of the airplane. The Bf 109 was designed with a relatively wide angle of motion of the ailerons, so this was an important point, ie. to maintain aileron deflection as long as possible, even though ailerons were relatively light on the 109s, being fairly good contruction (using Frise type ailerons on F/G/K already helped with the control forces, Frises having an effect similiar like Flettner tabs, helping out the pilot`s muscles)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do agree about the point (not quoted above) of diving 100+ kph past rated divespeed but
then you have pushed the point of 109's diving to such incredible speeds and then more,
still being able to pull out. I guess those pilots didn't try rolls....

Anyhow I read above and note some things mechanical.

Pilot may push 20lbs force sideways one handed part. just how much depends on room in the
cockpit.

Force on the stick making force on the control surface. Yes there is a direct connection
there but it's not directly comparable plane to plane. 20 lbs force in a 109 is not the
same as 20 lbs force in a 190 or P-47 or Yak. There's this trick called leverage and you can do the most amazing things by using different control stick lengths and changing the linkage points, but keep that secret okay? Well, not a secret and yes I am being highly sarcastic but then with you spitting out the word cr@ptalk so often I figure you can take it like a man.

I am sure that each variant of 109 had adjustments made to control mechanisms to suit a designed speed range. And I am very sure that the controls were superb in that range withing limits of the airframe. 109 is somewhat like a Porsche in my view for sontrol response and power although what model Porsche and what car the competition is I don't say except maybe the FW's are nice heavy, safe and still damn good Mercedes' (hey, I learned to drive in a 70's 4 door and it did kick a$$!). But the metaphor only carries so far, the Porsche has a wider range AFAIK in terms of groundcars. Perhaps BMW is more apt?


Neal

WWMaxGunz
09-15-2004, 08:58 PM
Dunno bout anyone else but I'm past beginning to identify two members by their sigs, or at least their attitudes.

That chick is marginally less an eyesore than RBJ's monobrow and Tagert, it may be Hitler but on first glance the Kick Me comes off as being on someone else's back.


Neal

TAGERT.
09-15-2004, 09:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Surface area is not a biggie for highspeed control effectiveness with unboosted controls, IMO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well.. never said it was a biggie.. My only point is on the effectiveness of the aileron itself. In general, the bigger a control surface is (area wise) the greater the control effectiveness. But sense a bigger control surface is more effective you wont have to move it as far as a smaller one to obtain the same effect. Thus at high speed there would be more force on the bigger ailerons.. because it is bigger more force pushing on it.. But you wont need to move it much to equal a smaller one at less force.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Reason being the very large ailerons of the Zero that made for great low and midspeed control but were a liability at about 250mph and up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Liability in the force required to move them.. And the more drag they caused when moved.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Smaller surfaces can be deflected more at high speeds but not so great at lowspeeds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
More as in easier.. Then yes I agree.. And "but not so great" in that they are not as effective.. Then yes I agree.. It has to be a happy mix! Too small.. easy to move at high speed.. But not effective enough at slow speeds.. That is you might deflect them the full range, but because the surface area is so small the *effect* is small to, i.e. less effectiveness

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
It might have been kinda neat if ailerons would have been split or double jointed to give both but probably impossible or impractical to do. Ditto elevators and rudder.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Back then maybe.. That and the added complexity might not have been worth it?

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/UBI_FORUMS/MyUbiSig.jpg
TAGERT

FZG_Mined
09-18-2004, 10:22 AM
ok tagert, since u don't seem to have a big mathematical sense, i'll just point out what i think in a logical way.

u say that aileron effectiveness depends on aera of aileron right? ok.

with flettner tabs, the aera is smaller right? if effectiveness has remained the same, that means that a pilot will be able to apply more force to the aileron with than without flettner tabs.

If a pilot is able to put more force, then the aileron will deflect more right?

if the ailerons deflect more, the plane rolls better, right?

Davide

http://mined86.free.fr/banniere.jpg

NN_Tym
09-18-2004, 12:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FZG_Mined:
ok tagert, since u don't seem to have a big mathematical sense, i'll just point out what i think in a logical way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So called logic and Physics don't go well together...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>u say that aileron effectiveness depends on aera of aileron right? ok.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It seems completely false to me. The Zero had very big ailerons, and they made him sluggish when the speed increased.

There are many parameters that come into play : speed ; altitude ; shape and rigidity of the wing ; shape, size and rigidity of the aileron ; stick and cockpit conception ; efficiency of the transmission of stick movement to the ailerons (cables ? rods ?) etc.

With different speeds, those parameters change. At a certain speed one is negligible, while another is of premium importance. While on another set of speed, the importance are reversed...

It is very complex.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>with flettner tabs, the aera is smaller right? if effectiveness has remained the same, that means that a pilot will be able to apply more force to the aileron with than without flettner tabs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This would be true only if the Flettner Tabs are efficient : if they do what they are intented for.

Sometimes, a subsystem doesn't give the advantage one could expect from it, simply because other factors made it less efficient than it could/should be.

If your "logic" was good, then, each and every plane should have had flettner tabs...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If a pilot is able to put more force, then the aileron will deflect more right?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>NO... There could be a lot of parameters that could simply make it impossible.

For example, early Spitfires, with canvas on the some control surfaces, were not very efficient at high speed because the control surface had its shape changing with speed...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>if the ailerons deflect more, the plane rolls better, right?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It seems too logical and too simple to be true. It may be true, but I would like a reference to the assumption.

FZG_Mined
09-18-2004, 02:36 PM
have u read the previous posts tym?

i'm not saying at all that aileron effectiveness depends on aera of aileron...i'm only taking what tagert says as truth...if u had read my previous posts, you would have realized what I think and what Tagert thinks..

before teaching me something, u should know what i actually know on the subject, i produced equation which i think are right, so please don't take it bad, just read the previous 7 pages of posts, and don't tell me that physics and logic don't go well together...if i throw my computer through the window, is it likey to go the upper floor instead of falling down? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Davide

http://mined86.free.fr/banniere.jpg

NN_Tym
09-19-2004, 03:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FZG_Mined:
Correct me if i'm wrong....
be Ae aileron effectiveness( no unit ?..), be Ad aileron deflection (in rad), be Rr the roll rate (rad.s^-1).
Be Ae = Rr/Ad
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Roll rate (Rr) varies with Speed, and Air Density (at least...). So, according to your relation, Aileron Effectiveness (Ae) should change with speed and air density (at least).

It should be : Ae(V;d) = Rr(V;d)/Ad

It also seems that Aileron deflection maximum values depends on external parameters...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>now, be Af the applied force ( in N )and k a constant (in rad.s^-1.N^-1)
we have Ad = k.Af, therefore : Ae = Rr/(k.Af)
Thus, at a constant Rr, if Ae increase, Af decrease, k being a constant.
For the same reason, when Ae is constant, Rr and Af have to evolve in the same way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I doubt there is such a simple (linear) relation between Aileron deflection and Applied force...

Once again, it heavily depends on speed, altitude (air densiy), stick design, aileron design and transmission between the stick and the aileron.

So you so-called constant (k) is not a constant at all. It depends at the very least on speed.

I have a document compairing roll rates of a Corsair and a FW190 at different speed with an Applied force "not exceeding" (sic) 50lb.

For the FW190, the roll rate increases until the speed reaches 250mph, then it decreases. If your relation was true, then the Roll Rate (Rr) would be the same at every speed, as Applied Force (Af) is constant and Aileron Effectiveness (Ae) does not depend on speed in your reasoning.

Your k "constant" is no constant, it depends obviously on speed at least, so the whole demonstration is false.

For the Corsair there is a note that, at 400mph, control deflection was limited by "structural limitations". This invalidates even more the fact that your "k" is a constant.

You will have derivates that get rather complicated, especially as there are several variables. So you shall end up with a differential equation. Nothing as simple as you found. It is rather unsure that values change with the simplistic relation you try to establish between them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What i'm trying to explain is that it is not possible that the controls where not as smooth and the effectiveness had not changed... because if it was so, the k would change, which is not possible because it is a constant.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>When I was taught Physics, I was told that if experiment invalidates the equation, then the equation is wrong...

Once again k CANNOT be constant.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Mr Beauvais says : "EFFECTIVENESS had not improved at all" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I guess you are well aware the he simply doesn't talk about the same thing as you...

Mr Beauvais simply says that the aileron flettner did not improve control lightness, smoothness and rate roll.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>let's make in equations !
we have a constant Ae, therefore, greater Af will lead to greater Rr ( because Ae=Rr/(k.Af), k being a constant).[/QHOTE]False Ae is not constant, the way all your parameters change with speed and air density (at least) makes this reasoning false. You simply don't know how the evolve with changing parameters.

[QUOTE]Stigler you said : "Heinrich didn't say none was made.. _As a mater of fact he noted they reduced the control forces_"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This doesn't mean it made the ailerons more efficient. Just remember the note on the Corsair roll rate. Control deflection was not limited by applied force, but by "structural limitations".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>if u reduce the control force, you increase the constant k (in rad.N^-1). Let's equationate it!

Ae = Rr/(k.Af)&lt;==&gt; Ae.k=Rr/Af<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>How can you change a "constant" ? Is it a constant or not ? If not, what variables does it depend on ? nly one ? Several ? It makes a lot of difference !!!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>let's say Af doens't change ( we apply on the stick the same force as before ), if Ae is constant, and k is greater, _Rr is greater_. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>??? So if it suits you, the constant may change its value in order to have another value varying as it suits your needs. It seems a very weird way to treat equations to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>i hope i didn't do any unit/algebra mistake, its late here<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In my opinion, your equations are false from the very beginning.

The evolution of a value depends on the way the varaibles do. You simply disregard variables, and transform canstants into functions when it suits you.

You also seem to thing that each and every function is increasing with variables values. It seems overly "simplistic" Mathematics.

For me your equations are simply false. Can you tell me where they come from ?

FZG_Mined
09-19-2004, 04:09 AM
Ok u've read the previous posts, and u make good points here, thx! I will try to answer.

"Roll rate (Rr) varies with Speed, and Air Density (at least...). So, according to your relation, Aileron Effectiveness (Ae) should change with speed and air density (at least).

It should be : Ae(V;d) = Rr(V;d)/Ad

It also seems that Aileron deflection maximum values depends on external parameters...
"

You are right, it depends on speed, but whenever speed doens't change ( we assume speed and density as constants ) we can omit it from the equation. ( remember we are studying the case at a give speed...).

"I doubt there is such a simple (linear) relation between Aileron deflection and Applied force...

Once again, it heavily depends on speed, altitude (air densiy), stick design, aileron design and transmission between the stick and the aileron.

So you so-called constant (k) is not a constant at all. It depends at the very least on speed.

I have a document compairing roll rates of a Corsair and a FW190 at different speed with an Applied force "not exceeding" (sic) 50lb.

For the FW190, the roll rate increases until the speed reaches 250mph, then it decreases. If your relation was true, then the Roll Rate (Rr) would be the same at every speed, as Applied Force (Af) is constant and Aileron Effectiveness (Ae) does not depend on speed in your reasoning.

Your k "constant" is no constant, it depends obviously on speed at least, so the whole demonstration is false.

For the Corsair there is a note that, at 400mph, control deflection was limited by "structural limitations". This invalidates even more the fact that your "k" is a constant.

You will have derivates that get rather complicated, especially as there are several variables. So you shall end up with a differential equation. Nothing as simple as you found. It is rather unsure that values change with the simplistic relation you try to establish between them."

it is linear since i am talking about a static case. My constant which is the control force doens't depend on speed, it depends on the aileron. at higher speed, aileron effectiveness decrease in the fw190 maybe...?

"When I was taught Physics, I was told that if experiment invalidates the equation, then the equation is wrong...

Once again k CANNOT be constant."

k is a constant once inflight...i think.

"I guess you are well aware the he simply doesn't talk about the same thing as you...

Mr Beauvais simply says that the aileron flettner did not improve control lightness, smoothness and rate roll."

bah...this is a hard point actually http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"How can you change a "constant" ? Is it a constant or not ? If not, what variables does it depend on ? nly one ? Several ? It makes a lot of difference !!!"

the constant is changed because the aileron structure has changed.

"??? So if it suits you, the constant may change its value in order to have another value varying as it suits your needs. It seems a very weird way to treat equations to me.
"

i know i'm weird :-) but i told you, k depends on the aileron construction....

"In my opinion, your equations are false from the very beginning.

The evolution of a value depends on the way the varaibles do. You simply disregard variables, and transform canstants into functions when it suits you.

You also seem to thing that each and every function is increasing with variables values. It seems overly "simplistic" Mathematics.

For me your equations are simply false. Can you tell me where they come from ?"

well, they come from my genius mind, grounded with kurfurst's definition of aileron effectiveness http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

i will take in account your opinion but i cannot change the game so it will just make me clever...

and by the way, no need to have that "ton assez aggressif", as you see i never use it, it deviates the subject of the discussion...

My equations are simple because if i had the real one we would have big bad navierstokes equations, which are not the most beautifull thing to see are they http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

i'm still of my mind, maybe u will convince me otherwise but that will be hard since i begin university tomorrow and i won't have time to read orr very often

feel free to drop some lines to : mined86@tiscali.it if u want to continue the topic!!

sorry, and thx for the constructive critics!!

Davide

http://mined86.free.fr/banniere.jpg

k5054
09-19-2004, 04:40 AM
Hesitating to get into this on page 7, but...the roll rate doesn't depend directly on the applied force. If there is still a net force on the wing, of any magnitude, the roll will continue to accelerate without limit. What there really is, in real life, is a countering force called roll damping. Basically the downgoing wing has an increase in angle of attack due to the roll which increases with roll rate. The upgoing wing likewise but a reduction in AOA also counter-roll.
So the roll rate depends on when the applied force balances the roll damping force. That is subject to variation with speed as the roll damping also depends on dynamic pressure q, half x density x speeed squared.
Also the aileron area is a bit misleading here, its a contributing factor, but aileron span may be more important. At subsonic speeds lift is altered over the entire wing area in front of the aileron, not just the aileron itself. The area of the tab is not relevant really, its too small to make a difference. You can't really make assumptions about roll rate from the kind of data we have. Even in a/c of the same type, small differences in aileron rigging may lead to considerable differences in roll control linearity or effectiveness. Unrecorded changes or modifications to ailerons may make a difference between a/c of different production dates or sources. It's a sterile debate.

Kurfurst__
09-19-2004, 07:07 AM
I am somewhat amazed by the ability of some people here to come to more and more surreal conclusion. Appearantly, some here made themselves believe that Flettners tabs, originally designed and employed widely and successfully to improve the effectiveness of control surfaces at high applied forces, suddenly are not only completely ineffective in that, they make things even worser. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif LOL. And all that being "proven" by a single jolly joker quote, which is alone supposed to prove every single unfounded, increasingly more surreal statements of some, taking great liberty in using that single sentence... well, that`s called fooling yourself. People who argue on captions which show serial production, actually use the word serial production, that this isn`t a proof of serial production... people who argue that a tiny loss of aileron area, about 1% will outweight a great descrease of control forces; people who argue about experimental planes, whereas they shown pictures of aircraft with operational units... people who refuse to understand the meaning of what a test pilot said, because they want it contain their own thoughts instead, people who ignore all other test reports done, and hang onto that single line, distorted but supporting their increasingly surreal point of view... well, have good fun. At least you have a good company with each other, you few, happy few... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

ZG77_Nagual
09-19-2004, 07:54 AM
Omage to the compulsory vitriol..lalala.
So - in short - in unboosted alerons surface area becomes a liability above certain speeds (see Zero) while it is a big plus at lower speeds. However - relative effectiveness of surface area increases with speed - that is - you get more effect in terms of roll rate at higher speeds with less sa. Not rocket science.
However - in unboosted planes you are limited to mechanical leverage to move any aleron - plus if you stick a small aleron on for high speeds your low speed roll will suck. Flettners were an obvious attempt to get around this problem.

right so far?

I personally thing the 109 performs pretty well in game - maybe one of the better modeled birds (I don't usually fly em - too easy) - however I do think the p38 should have a tad better low speed turn relative to them - and mustang a little less.

NN_Tym
09-19-2004, 07:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FZG_Mined:
Ok u've read the previous posts, and u make good points here, thx! I will try to answer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't get me wrong, I shall snip what is redundant...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>NN_Tym wrote :
Once again k CANNOT be constant."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
k is a constant once inflight...i think.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, to make my point clearer. Your "k" constant will change with speed. Let me show a simple reason. With speed, when the aileron deflects it is somehow bent by the air pressure. This pressure changes with deflection and speed, it depends on aileron design. At some speeds, it will not affect the aileron enough to be a problem. At high speed it's quite different. It is just the same with the cables transmitting the stick movement, their tension will vary with the speed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"How can you change a "constant" ? Is it a constant or not ? If not, what variables does it depend on ? nly one ? Several ? It makes a lot of difference !!!"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>the constant is changed because the aileron structure has changed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So you think the constant only changes with aileron design ? It seems very unlikely to me.

For example, with your way of thinking, the roll rate of clipped wings Spitfire would not improved. I think, you mean that your "constant" depends on aileron, and wing design.

Anyway, there would be only one limit to aileron deflection : the amount of applied force. So, at slow speed, it would be good to have a lot of deflection, so ailerons should be design with almost no limitation to deflection, to be able to take avantage of the fact that, at slow speed, enough force is available to achieve 90? deflection... Seems very strange to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"??? So if it suits you, the constant may change its value in order to have another value varying as it suits your needs. It seems a very weird way to treat equations to me.
" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>i know i'm weird :-) but i told you, k depends on the aileron construction...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If there is such a number (ie "linear" relation between Ad and Af) at a given speed, then your constant would vary with speed. Just think about the example of the Zero...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"In my opinion, your equations are false from the very beginning.
The evolution of a value depends on the way the variables do. You simply disregard variables, and transform canstants into functions when it suits you.
You also seem to thing that each and every function is increasing with variables values. It seems overly "simplistic" Mathematics.
For me your equations are simply false. Can you tell me where they come from ?"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
well, they come from my genius mind, grounded with kurfurst's definition of aileron effectiveness.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Is the "Ad=k*Af" relation your invention or Kurfurst one ?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>i will take in account your opinion but i cannot change the game so it will just make me clever...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't understand what you mean there.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>and by the way, no need to have that "ton assez aggressif", as you see i never use it, it deviates the subject of the discussion...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You seem to know that I am not a native English speaking guy. So my tone is difficult to set at the level I would like to use.

All I tried to point were your errors in manipulating formulas.

TAGERT.
09-19-2004, 11:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FZG_Mined:
ok tagert, since u don't seem to have a big mathematical sense, i'll just point out what i think in a logical way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Actually it is you that is mathematically lacking.. In that your the one that said effectiveness is unitless.. Yet in your equation it has units of 1/sec. I noticed you avoided that even though I pointed it out to you several times. I understand.. though.. it takes a big man to admit he is wrong.. Your just not a big man.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FZG_Mined:
u say that aileron effectiveness depends on aera of aileron right? ok.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is one of the things I said early on.. But than I went one step better and posted the DEFINITION of effectiveness from the U.S. Centennial of Flight Commission web sight.. i.e.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> U.S. Centennial of Flight Commission web sight:
Control effectiveness is a measure of how well a control surface, e.g., the rudder, elevator, or aileron, does its job. In general, the larger the control surface is with respect to the entire surface to which it is fitted, the greater the control effectiveness<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As you can see I back up what I say... Unlike you.. Even though you said the following a few posts back.. i.e.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FZG_Mined:
the definition of aileron effectiveness in a mechanic of flight book is what Kurfurst has given us...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You have yet to post that quote.. Let alone where you got it from.. That might work on the kids you hang out with.. But here in the big people world we require more than "My Daddy Said So"

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FZG_Mined:
with flettner tabs, the aera is smaller right? if effectiveness has remained the same, that means that a pilot will be able to apply more force to the aileron with than without flettner tabs.

If a pilot is able to put more force, then the aileron will deflect more right?

if the ailerons deflect more, the plane rolls better, right?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>All true.. One might even say DUH! But also note, that the same is true for a strong pilot vs. a weak pilot. A strong pilot without balance tabs could apply more force to the ailerons and thus deflect the ailerons more.. That and the strong pilot with regular ailerons does not have to contend with the NEGATIVE effect balance tabs had on the 109 with regards to smoothness.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Heinrich Beauvais:
adding a Flettner trim tab which resulted in a reduction of control forces: however, performance was not as smooth and effectiveness had NOT improved at all<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So in summary, the Germans knew about balance tabs way back in 1941.. Yet they didn't make them part of STANDARD production.. And the Germans never stopped looking for ways to improve the roll rate.. Logic would tell you that the balance tabs were not the FIX they were looking for.. That is the NEGATIVES did not out weight the POSITIVES. Easier to just have your pilots do a few push ups! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/UBI_FORUMS/MyUbiSig.jpg
TAGERT

TAGERT.
09-19-2004, 11:55 AM
I have noticed something... Kurfurst (aka Barbarossa, aka Isegrim) will *tailor* his definitions to *fit* his needs in an argument.

It all started when I posted this quote by Heinrich Beauvais that didn't speak too highly of flettner tabs used on Bf109 ailerons.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Heinrich Beauvais on Flight Controls page 74 of TEST PILOTS:
One would have liked to have more effective ailerons, as well as lower control force, at high speeds. I do not remember all the different methods tried to improve this, but the following two are still clear in my mind. One was designed by Blohm & Voss, adding a Flettner trim tab which resulted in a reduction of control forces: however, performance was not as smooth and effectiveness had NOT improved at all<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now it should be CLEAR that Heinrich Beauvais was talking about the AILERONS EFFECTIVENESS when he said "ONE WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE MORE EFFECTIVE AILERONS". Heinrich Beauvais went on to point out that Flettner tabs DID NOT IMPROVE THERE EFFECTIVENESS... But that would be a negative statement about Flettner tabs. Something that is in direct conflict with what Kurfurst (aka Barbarossa, aka Isegrim) has saying for nearly a year now. To Kurfurst the Flettner tab was what saved the Bf109.

Therefore Kurfurst had to avoid what Heinrich Beauvais said by coming up with Kurfurst's OWN definition by lumping everything into a general EFFECTIVENESS definition. Here is an example of Kurfurst doing just that.. Here is Kurfurst's response to Heinrich Beauvais statement.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Kurfurst on page 4:
Cr@ptalk. Flettners always increase effectiveness at high speed by reducing the control forces and allowing for greater deflection.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Notice how he avoided AILERON EFFECTIVENESS by lumping everything together into EFFECTIVENESS.

Which would be fine if you we were talking about the system as a whole.. But Heinrich Beauvais wasn't, Heinrich Beauvais was very specific. So to avoid that Kurfurst trys to muddy the waters by *FIRST* coming up with his own lump sum definition of EFFECTIVENESS and then proceed to accused me of not knowing or understanding what AILERON EFFECTIVENESS is. In that after his cr@aptalk statement his switches back to the specifics by saying..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Kurfurst on page 4 continued:
Perhaps you misunderstood the term "aileron effectiveness". Do you know what does it mean<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice try, might work on some people. But I have been watching Kurfurst (aka Barbarossa, aka Isegrim) for over a year now and I know how he operates. He will switch back and forth like this several times.

Also note that Kurfurst has yet to comment on the following that I posted.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> U.S. Centennial of Flight Commission:
Control effectiveness is a measure of how well a control surface, e.g., the rudder, elevator, or aileron, does its job. In general, the larger the control surface is with respect to the entire surface to which it is fitted, the greater the control effectiveness<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which agrees with what Heinrich Beauvais, Others and I have been saying.

Now the funny part is that less than a year ago when Kurfurst (aka Barbarossa, aka Isegrim) was trying to argue that Flettner tabs were NOT needed because the regular ailerons are *LIGHT* enough as is...

http://p069.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm9.showMessageRange?topic ID=113.topic&start=21&stop=33

Note that Kurfurst (aka Barbarossa, aka Isegrim) had this to say.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Kurfurst aka Barbarossa aka Isegrim at the LEMB message boards:
Still, I am inclined to believe the reason he told me they were light is simply because they were indeed light.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is very different then what he says now! But the real funny part to notice here is Kurfurst's definition of EFFECTIVENESS about a year ago vs. today.. Less than a year ago he did NOT lump everything together and call it EFFECTIVENESS.. Because a year ago it *helped* his argument to break it down into several factors where ONE of the factors was AILERON EFFECTIVENESS.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Kurfurst aka Barbarossa aka Isegrim at the LEMB message boards:
One should keep in mind that stick forces, possible aileron deflection and aileron effectiveness are three factors that determine roll rate.. planes can exist with high stickforces and still high roll rate, high stick forces and low roll rate, low stickforces and low roll rate... One factor alone is insufficent to get an idea of the whole.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But somewhere along the way sense that post Kurfurst has come to realize that *light* was not the case.. Thus time to change his definition of AILERON EFFECTIVENESS and LUMP all three factors into ONE and call it EFFECTIVENESS.

So now Kurfurst's argument (and definitions) are Flettners were needed and that they were "originally designed and employed widely and successfully". So now what he once broke down into THREE factors (stick forces, aileron deflection, and aileron effectiveness) he LUMPS into ONE and incorrectly defines it as "effectiveness of control surfaces".

Yes.. Funny.. In a sad sort of way.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/UBI_FORUMS/MyUbiSig.jpg
TAGERT

[This message was edited by TAGERT. on Sun September 19 2004 at 03:56 PM.]

TAGERT.
09-19-2004, 04:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I am somewhat amazed by the ability of some people here to come to more and more surreal conclusion. Appearantly, some here made themselves believe that Flettners tabs, originally designed and employed widely and successfully to improve the effectiveness of control surfaces at high applied forces, suddenly are not only completely ineffective in that, they make things even worser. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif LOL. And all that being "proven" by a single jolly joker quote, which is alone supposed to prove every single unfounded, increasingly more surreal statements of some, taking great liberty in using that single sentence... well, that`s called fooling yourself. People who argue on captions which show serial production, actually use the word serial production, that this isn`t a proof of serial production... people who argue that a tiny loss of aileron area, about 1% will outweight a great descrease of control forces; people who argue about experimental planes, whereas they shown pictures of aircraft with operational units... people who refuse to understand the meaning of what a test pilot said, because they want it contain their own thoughts instead, people who ignore all other test reports done, and hang onto that single line, distorted but supporting their increasingly surreal point of view... well, have good fun. At least you have a good company with each other, you few, happy few... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sad.. truly sad.. I knew Kurfurst would avoid what Heinrich Beauvais said.. But I didnt think he would go as far as to say his words were nothing more than that of a single jolly joker!

Well we know what Kurfurst thinks of Heinrich Beauvais.. But now read what Heinrich Beauvais pears think of him.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Page 68 of TEST PILOTS:
In the Thirties and Forties, it was said that Dipl. Ing. (Doctor of Engineering) Heinrich Beauvais was the safest, yet the most critical and discerning examiner of military aircraft. His meticulous evaluations did not miss even the smallest faults in any of the new aircraft he check. In the years of the expansion of German military aviation, he flight-checked hundreds of aircraft. We, the less experienced flyers, looked upon him as a 'Judge of the Inquisition'. His infallible instinct, his talent for fling and his unique expert knowledge led him to identify each and every advantage of a flying machine. It also enabled him to ruthlessly to diagnose any fault, however major or minor.

For a long time his judgement was taken as if it were the 'word of the Pope'. However, he was also forced to accept doubts as to his infallibility. At times, his natural self-confidence seemed a little too pedantic, sometimes even bureaucratic, especially when he had to yet again uncover a fault or dangerous flight characteristic. Although he was expected, especially during wartime, to expedite the examination and certification of aircraft, he never wavered from his duty, even thought the holdups caused increased production costs and delayed the arrival in service of new and innovative aircraft.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I choose to their definition of him over Kurfurst's

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/UBI_FORUMS/MyUbiSig.jpg
TAGERT

Kurfurst__
09-19-2004, 06:22 PM
...and who`d be the benevolent audiance to actually believe all that flip-flop, up and down BS that was just posted by somebody who didn`t even know the basic definition of the thing he is blubbling all about, the meaning of aileron effectiveness ?

Logically, that is only yourself. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif Apperantly, you are talking to yourself. Do you know what does that mean? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

TAGERT.
09-19-2004, 06:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
...and who`d be the benevolent audiance to actually believe all that flip-flop, up and down BS that was just posted by somebody who didn`t even know the basic definition of the thing he is blubbling all about, the meaning of aileron effectiveness ?

Logically, that is only yourself. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif Apperantly, you are talking to yourself. Do you know what does that mean? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg
_
We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You Have Been...
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/SA_REPLY/OWNED/owned_02.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/UBI_FORUMS/MyUbiSig.jpg
TAGERT

Fehler
09-20-2004, 04:37 AM
Yeah, that Beavis dude was a fine plane tester.

http://j-walkblog.com/blog/images2/beavis2.jpg

But what about his co-pilot? He r0xx0r 2!

http://www.kidbiz.org/periodicgenius/Celebrity/images/********.gif

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/Fehler44.jpg

OldMan____
09-20-2004, 04:42 AM
Aileron EFFECTIVENESS is the capability of a given aircraft part to make any useful thraed in a discussion forum turn into an infinite self propeled arguing contest about any random statement that will change the life of no single human in the last 60 years.

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

BlackStar2000
09-20-2004, 07:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
...and who`d be the benevolent audiance to actually believe all that flip-flop, up and down BS that was just posted by somebody who didn`t even know the basic definition of the thing he is blubbling all about, the meaning of aileron effectiveness ?

Logically, that is only yourself. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif Apperantly, you are talking to yourself. Do you know what does that mean? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg
_
We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You Have Been...
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/SA_REPLY/OWNED/owned_02.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/UBI_FORUMS/MyUbiSig.jpg
__TAGERT__
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you have a TRACK?
CAN YOU PROVE IT?
THE POPE WROTE TO YOU TELLING ITS OK?
NUMBER OF YOU DRIVER LICENCE?
NUMBER OF SOCIAL SECURITY OF THE MENTIONED PILOT?
YOU DONT HAVE IT?
SO IT IS BS http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

TAGERT.
09-20-2004, 09:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
Aileron EFFECTIVENESS is the capability of a given aircraft part to make any useful thraed in a discussion forum turn into an infinite self propeled arguing contest about any random statement that will change the life of no single human in the last 60 years.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! But nothing random in what HB said.. Nothing out of context either.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/UBI_FORUMS/MyUbiSig.jpg
TAGERT

TAGERT.
09-20-2004, 09:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackStar2000:
Do you have a TRACK?
CAN YOU PROVE IT?
THE POPE WROTE TO YOU TELLING ITS OK?
NUMBER OF YOU DRIVER LICENCE?
NUMBER OF SOCIAL SECURITY OF THE MENTIONED PILOT?
YOU DONT HAVE IT?
SO IT IS BS http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Another disapointed 109 driver?

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/UBI_FORUMS/MyUbiSig.jpg
TAGERT