PDA

View Full Version : two engineering innovations i would have introduced on the 109, have they been tried?



raaaid
07-27-2006, 06:41 AM
the two biggest mistakes i find in the real 109 are two:

heavy elevator control and the nose of the plane blocking your view on deflection shots

to solve heaviness of elevator i would have just controlled the elevator trim tabs with the stick instead of the wheel and the normal elevator with the trim wheel

to solve blocked view by nose i would have aimed the gun 15º up to the direction the plane takes, i would also avoid collision course when aiming the enemy in face on

do you have any idea is this have been tried?

i think the nazi engineers were so stupid not to solve heavyness of elevator just by controlling with the stick the trim tabs

raaaid
07-27-2006, 06:41 AM
the two biggest mistakes i find in the real 109 are two:

heavy elevator control and the nose of the plane blocking your view on deflection shots

to solve heaviness of elevator i would have just controlled the elevator trim tabs with the stick instead of the wheel and the normal elevator with the trim wheel

to solve blocked view by nose i would have aimed the gun 15º up to the direction the plane takes, i would also avoid collision course when aiming the enemy in face on

do you have any idea is this have been tried?

i think the nazi engineers were so stupid not to solve heavyness of elevator just by controlling with the stick the trim tabs

danjama
07-27-2006, 06:43 AM
here we go again.

HotelBushranger
07-27-2006, 06:48 AM
Think about it man. Have you ever flown a plane? Controlling the surfaces and tabs at the same time...pointless isn't it?

raaaid
07-27-2006, 06:55 AM
no the point is to control with the stick just the trimtabs to avoid heaviness and let the force of wind do your work you only need to use the stick this way not the trim wheel

and yes i flew for real a paraglide and controls were way heavy

Charos
07-27-2006, 06:56 AM
Firstly the vast majority of BF109 never utilised Trim tabs, other than the fixed variety.

The forward view from the BF109 in all cases was fine due to the inverted DB.

Raaid your getting sidetracked - you'll never get a COP >1 device this way.

Airmail109
07-27-2006, 06:56 AM
Give us trim on a slider back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jagdgeschwader2
07-27-2006, 07:09 AM
I'd have added rudder trim and a drink holder.

http://home.earthlink.net/~jagdgeschwader26/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/jagdgeschwader2s.jpg

WB_Outlaw
07-27-2006, 07:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
to solve heaviness of elevator i would have just controlled the elevator trim tabs with the stick instead of the wheel and the normal elevator with the trim wheel
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not even gonna touch this one.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

tigertalon
07-27-2006, 07:59 AM
There were many experiments with fighters that had guns pointed not in the direction of flight, none sucseeded except german schraege musik.

Problem is if you want to shoot at anything that does not fly with exactly the same speed as you and not exactly straight. You have to keep in mind in WW2 aerial battles they were not shooting (on average) at such high deflection angles as we do. I read somewhere that 80% of fighters that were shot down by a fighter, were not aware of their attacker.

JG53Frankyboy
07-27-2006, 08:09 AM
-bubble canopy , like in the radial driven two 109 protoypes

-rudder trim, oh yes !

- perhaps the fences instead of the slats - like in the spanish Buchons. they were tried in WW2 by Messerschmitt

Chuck_Older
07-27-2006, 10:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
the two biggest mistakes i find in the real 109 are two:

heavy elevator control and the nose of the plane blocking your view on deflection shots

to solve heaviness of elevator i would have just controlled the elevator trim tabs with the stick instead of the wheel and the normal elevator with the trim wheel

to solve blocked view by nose i would have aimed the gun 15º up to the direction the plane takes, i would also avoid collision course when aiming the enemy in face on

do you have any idea is this have been tried?

i think the nazi engineers were so stupid not to solve heavyness of elevator just by controlling with the stick the trim tabs </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

On the real Bf 109? I never flew one myself, much less shot at another plane while really flying a 109

But for me, personally, after studying aeronautics at University, I found that it was really easy to look at any engineering problem from the past, apply modern wisdom and methods to it, and decide that folks like the Montgolfier brothers did stupid things

The fallacy of that thinking of course was that hindsight is always accurate

German engineers did what their contemporaries did- built on existing ideas, or expand them, and in very rare cases, come up with new technology

It's all well and good to say, "well, why didn't they just design the F/A-18 in 1939? What were they, stupid??" but it's not very realistic

The old car I own was built in 1970. It is vastly superior in performance to cars built in 1939

So were the engineers stupid in 1939? No. Anything that is new and great today can be surpassed by the new and great thing of next year

As far as the 109 goes, shooting under the nose was a problem common to ALL fighters. It wasn't a case of 'nazi engineers' being 'stupid'. All fighters were built this way- US, Japanese, British, Italian, French, German- with the exception of planes like thew Boulton-Paul Defiant, which used a rear turret- which was a failure

In regards to the heaviness of the stick, if they wanted a machine with lighter controls, they just would have built one that way. The 109 was deemed fit for service so they used it. It was accepted that these controls were good enough for a front line fighter

LStarosta
07-27-2006, 10:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
to solve heaviness of elevator i would have just controlled the elevator trim tabs with the stick instead of the wheel and the normal elevator with the trim wheel
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not even gonna touch this one.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will:

How the f*ck do you think a little trim tab is going to move the whole ******* elevator against the airflow?

There is a reason why aircraft had thick control cables. YOU NEEDED STRENGTH TO MOVE THE CONTROL SURFACES AGAINST THE FLOW OF AIR.

It's Newton's third law for Christ's sake. You can't make an airplane suddenly change its course of motion if you do not apply a large force to change it.

Divine-Wind
07-27-2006, 11:21 AM
It'd be very very very hard for a pilot used to controlling the pitch of a plane with the stick to have to use the trim tab to do that.

Can you imagine using the rotaries on a HOTAS to coontrol your pitch?

raaaid
07-27-2006, 11:30 AM
do you remember when we had trim on a slider?

the point would have been switch the elevator and elevator trim controls

on this way the elevator wouldnt feel heavy

youll say yes but elevator trim has delay so cant be done, ill say that the delay is due to the time it takes to spin the wheel that wouldnt happen if the control was in the stick

my father warned me about this he explained me that if he told others he investigated on maths they would get jealous because they did nothing

just look how people get pissed of with me just because i use the brain more than them

so plz trim back on a slider so i can play even to be engineer

i bet that if i had had this idea when there was trim on a slider all 109 pilots would switch controls(trim for elevator) and still be calling me things

raaaid
07-27-2006, 11:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's Newton's third law for Christ's sake. You can't make an airplane suddenly change its course of motion if you do not apply a large force to change it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you have bloody no idea of how a trim tab works

why with the elevator trim you can turn harder at high speed that just with the elevator

LStarosta
07-27-2006, 11:38 AM
No, people get pissed off with you keep trying to shove ridiculous theories of free energy in their face. Maybe you don't use your brain enough. If you had, you wouldn't be posting this bullsh*t. Nobody really gives a flying fack about your nonsense thoughts that you percieve as fact.

LStarosta
07-27-2006, 11:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's Newton's third law for Christ's sake. You can't make an airplane suddenly change its course of motion if you do not apply a large force to change it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you have bloody no idea of how a trim tab works

why with the elevator trim you can turn harder at high speed that just with the elevator </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL. Ok, "Mr. I Flew An Ultralight Once."

You cannot substitute trim tabs for direct control surface control whether by cable, pushrod, or electric motor.

If you don't believe me, build yourself a plane like you describe and have fun flying through turbulence or doing stalls.

Trim works when you want to fly an aircraft gently. It would NOT work as a primary way to control a fighter airplane such as the 109. You need DIRECT control of the entire control surface to maintain proper authority over the aircraft.

raaaid
07-27-2006, 11:40 AM
im talking of the way the game is what i said everybody knows it

youve seen that when im wrong i admit it

thats another difference between you and me

LStarosta
07-27-2006, 11:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
im talking of the way the game is what i said everybody knows it

youve seen that when im wrong i admit it

thats another difference between you and me </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the two biggest mistakes i find in the real 109 are two: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, my mistake.

MrMojok
07-27-2006, 11:45 AM
about half of your posts lately consist of proclaiming your superiority, combined with this martyr-complex you have begun exhibiting.

I assume this is why you got banned from the physics forum? You're well on your way to the same fate here.

raaaid
07-27-2006, 11:47 AM
i must have let known about gyro propulsion at least 50000 persons

enough as for the nasa denying publically this devices working:

http://www.asps.it/errors.htm

im shaping the world for good

on your previous life i bet you set on fire giordano bruno for saying thers life in other worlds you fit the kind

Bandit.426Cdn
07-27-2006, 11:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
no the point is to control with the stick just the trimtabs to avoid heaviness and let the force of wind do your work you only need to use the stick this way not the trim wheel

and yes i flew for real a paraglide and controls were way heavy </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A paraglider *blink*?

A paraglider is basically nothing more than an oversized, man-sized kite with a lightweight framework. The paraglider is controlled by the pilot weight-shifting or wing warping, they have no 'control surfaces' to be heavy.

raaaid
07-27-2006, 11:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">they have no 'control surfaces' to be heavy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

it must be my english

what i meant is that i had to pull two strings and they were tuff as hell

MrMojok
07-27-2006, 11:53 AM
I have never said anything in any of your previous threads about your ideas. I agree that you are a deep thinker. What I am talking about is your attitude lately. Notice your other thread has been locked?

Bandit.426Cdn
07-27-2006, 12:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">they have no 'control surfaces' to be heavy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

it must be my english

what i meant is that i had to pull two strings and they were tuff as hell </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The two strings are wing warping.

In which case, you are fighting

a) resistance of the basic tube structure of the wing itself against deformation (wing warping).

b) aerodynamic flow forces acting in concert
with the wing surface.

c) the strings are acting pretty well directly against the wings, without benefit of pulleys or leverage that you'd find in a more conventional aircraft's pulleys, levers and cable setup.

Your limited experience with a wing-warper, and a ME109 have no comparison.

raaaid
07-27-2006, 12:03 PM
i got really annoyed at this forum because i thought i had friends

trully they are people who know how to beahve well but not my friends at all

proof is that they waste time searching for pictures of norman bates and alike to annoy me

but when i ask if they could plz take a screenshot for me of a webcam pointing at the screen leaning 45º because im eager to see what it looks like of 676 peple nobody gave a damm

raaaid
07-27-2006, 12:06 PM
my friends here spend hours searching for annoying pictures or trying to prove me wrong

but spend 30 seconds taking a screenshot with the webcam?

no way im not doing a favour to this smart ***, he is too good and too inquisitive

LStarosta
07-27-2006, 12:07 PM
You were all right before you started stating that your ideas of free energy were fact and that anyone who denied it was simply not as smart as you and that you were some sort of sacrificial lamb, "taking one for the team".

FoolTrottel
07-27-2006, 12:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">webcam pointing at the screen leaning 45º </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/fooltrottel/Something2.jpg

raaaid
07-27-2006, 12:29 PM
hehe im glad to be proven wrong on my statement of not having friends

its a pity because i was kind of enjoying the fighting mode

you dont know how much appreciate it you are the kind of person that makes the world turn around

Scragbat
07-27-2006, 12:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrMojok:
about half of your posts lately consist of proclaiming your superiority, combined with this martyr-complex you have begun exhibiting.

I assume this is why you got banned from the physics forum? You're well on your way to the same fate here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Out of curiosity I registered on the physics forum.

Same superiority complex exhibited there. What is starting to happen here, happened there. It's an eye opener be sure... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

raaaid
07-27-2006, 12:54 PM
i trully got so mad at nobody posting the screenshot that i had intended to leave, many people is not gonna forgive you for posting the screenshot

it would have been a shame because im learning a lot about myself and others here

i realize how odd i am unable to see what everybody else sees but at times able to see what nobody else does

forget about trying to piss me off you wont get it knowing there are some good people makes worth stand any negativity

back to topic:

when there was trim on a slider it was posible to switch elevator and trim controls in such a way that 109 stick wouldnt be heavy any more

but then why the nazi engineers didnt implement it

two posible options:

the game was wrong and in reality doesnt work

or im so bloody odd i realize of something the nazis engineers didnt realize of

of course i had this idea in my previous life as a nazi pilot i think i just remembered it

luftluuver
07-27-2006, 01:04 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

The 109 had a good over nose view. That inverted V-12 resulted in a sloping cowling. It was much better than on the upright V-12 engined a/c.

An electric elevator trim (like on the 190) instead of the wheel would have helped.

Since you are so smart raaaid, how are you going to angle the Mk108 upwards 15* when it had to shoot through the prop hub. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Oh and the cowl mgs were angled slightly upwards.

raaaid
07-27-2006, 01:13 PM
everybody keeps saying im smart ill say it again

i have an average iq and this is the last time ill answer negative answers

i already got the answer no engineer thought of this i was curious to what extend i have original ideas

WB_Outlaw
07-27-2006, 01:55 PM
I have decided to give in to peer pressure. My buds want to know where this one will go before the lock and if I don't get in I will forever have to hang my head in shame.

The answer is so obvious it's not even funny but here goes...

If the elevator position is controlled by the former trim wheel and trim by the stick, then no matter how you move the stick, the elevator won't move unless you move the "elevator" wheel. Since the wheel is geared, it will either not move at all or be spinning like mad as the elevator moves. Not a good idea.

If you're stupid enough to think that the above is not a problem since you don't need to move the elevator b/c the airflow will do it for you, consider that with the above system, the elevator travel is now limited by the amount of force that the trim tab can exert. This force decreases as airspeed decreases. So at low speed, you can't get much elevator deflection with just the "trim stick". This will force you to drop your left hand to the "elevator wheel" and start spinning it back and forth like mad in an attempt to get enough deflection. With the proper initial settings take off might be possible. It would be expensive though as you would have to do two things after each flight. First, buy a new aircraft to replace the wreck in the smoking hole. Second, repack your parachute.

--Outlaw.

MrMojok
07-27-2006, 02:11 PM
The thought of the guy spinning the wheel like mad, watching the ground looming larger and larger in the canopy, amuses me for some reason.

raaaid
07-27-2006, 02:27 PM
you are right if you control the trim tabs with the stick theres no need for elevator so how to use usual trim

with a solution as easy as to connect the trim wheel with the trim tabs as well so you can fly hands off with whatever pitch

if theres no air flow you cant fly

but then again the problem with the heavy stick is solved

raaaid
07-27-2006, 02:29 PM
its know in the game you can turn fully just with the trim

are you implying the game is wrong?

Chuck_Older
07-27-2006, 02:32 PM
The sim is faulty in many areas; no sim is perfect.

For example- have you ever selected an internal fuel tank in any plane in the sim?

Consider this- if a trim tab in real life was just as effective as the elevator, why would you need an elevator?

raaaid
07-27-2006, 02:37 PM
well we dont need nowadays because we have hidraulic systems but back then you could make trim tabs as big as needed and with as much deflection as necessary to turn the plane at all speeds wind assisted

its guranteed that as long as you fly youll have wind on the tabs to do the job for you

WB_Outlaw
07-27-2006, 02:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
its know in the game you can turn fully just with the trim

are you implying the game is wrong? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh man this is great.

Please post the track along with the corresponding DeviceLink data showing that you can achieve the same load factor using only trim as you can achieve with full elevator deflection.


You have previously complained about the 109 flight model b/c you can haul the stick back all the way and turn forever without stalling and now you say it's a 100% perfect model of the real 109. Which is it?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
if theres no air flow you cant fly </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please point out where I said "no airflow".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
well we dont need nowadays because we have hidraulic systems but back then you could make trim tabs as big as needed and with as much deflection as necessary to turn the plane at all speeds wind assisted

its guranteed that as long as you fly youll have wind on the tabs to do the job for you </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So your solution is to make a giant trim tab on the elevator. Wow, what a genius!

--Outlaw.

Aaron_GT
07-27-2006, 03:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">no the point is to control with the stick just the trimtabs to avoid heaviness and let the force of wind do your work you only need to use the stick this way not the trim wheel </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


This was essentially the system used on the Britannia airliner.

raaaid
07-27-2006, 04:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This was essentially the system used on the Britannia airliner. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This was essentially the system used on the Britannia airliner </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

thanks its nice to see i have ideas that somebody else tried before and that not almost everybody is against me

but i still wonder why the heavyness of 109 stick wasnt solved this way

it seems so easy to me

well i suppose they didnt have games to make their brains work at that time

WWMaxGunz
07-27-2006, 05:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
the two biggest mistakes i find in the real 109 are two:

heavy elevator control and the nose of the plane blocking your view on deflection shots

to solve heaviness of elevator i would have just controlled the elevator trim tabs with the stick instead of the wheel and the normal elevator with the trim wheel </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stick moves through less than 180 degrees. Much less. Trim wheel turns more than 360
degrees. Much more. Figure it out from there.
If the pitch trim was electric then perhaps something could have been worked but if
*anything* had happened to disable that motor while trimmed far then you would be in
serious trouble so really, a very bad idea.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">to solve blocked view by nose i would have aimed the gun 15º up to the direction the plane takes, i would also avoid collision course when aiming the enemy in face on </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then your shots would not be going in the direction of flight. Every shot would have a
forward vector of your speed times sin 15 deg and be like shooting while turning hard.
You know that is not good for gunnery?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">do you have any idea is this have been tried? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because the designers knew what they were doing and thought things completely through?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">i think the nazi engineers were so stupid not to solve heavyness of elevator just by controlling with the stick the trim tabs </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is why they designed working fighter planes I guess. And you?

Chuck_Older
07-27-2006, 05:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
well we dont need nowadays because we have hidraulic systems but back then you could make trim tabs as big as needed and with as much deflection as necessary to turn the plane at all speeds wind assisted

its guranteed that as long as you fly youll have wind on the tabs to do the job for you </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A hydraulic system doesn't replace a control surface http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Anyhoo, hydraulics are old hat. Piezo-electrics are the new thing my friend; no moving parts, and you change the shape of the 'control surface', a bit like wing warping

raaaid
07-27-2006, 05:20 PM
its been answered that the deviated guns were tried but didnt work well

its been answering that the brittania airliner controlled with the stick the elevator tabs

ive got my answers and the extra answer that ill be attacked however good just because of thinking by myself

this forum is great

raaaid
07-27-2006, 05:24 PM
piezo electric is not that new, according some people pyramids were full of quartz and by piezoelectric phenomena raised the phrequencies of earth or schumann phrequency

they some how seemed to have used energies unknown to us today

raaaid
07-27-2006, 05:29 PM
and certainly i do better for the world bumming around than the nazi engineers did working for hitler

i think theres a big difference between me and them and im free to call them stupid

berg417448
07-27-2006, 05:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:

they some how seemed to have used energies unknown to us today </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah..its called manpower.Try to get men to work that hard today! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WB_Outlaw
07-27-2006, 05:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
its been answering that the brittania airliner controlled with the stick the elevator tabs </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Show me any reference that backs this up.

Your giant trim tab solution is just too funny.

Since raaaid is an aerodynamical genius he doesn't need to know this, but for those that aren't...

For nose down trim, the trim tab moves UP. So if you make a giant trib tab for low speed handling, you've got a large trim tab moving UP trying to get nose DOWN trim.

As I said before, what a genius!



--Outlaw.

raaaid
07-27-2006, 05:34 PM
i dont know aaron_gt said so, ask him

WB_Outlaw
07-27-2006, 05:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
i dont know aaron_gt said so, ask him </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note that I added to my previous post.


So, with absolutely no corroborating evidence, you accept the statement as fact. Why don't you accept anyone else's statement as fact?

--Outlaw.

WWMaxGunz
07-27-2006, 05:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
do you remember when we had trim on a slider?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We still do. It's just that it is not instantly as fast as the slider any more.
This is important because on real planes it takes a while to adjust trim. Much longer
than pulling the stick. And pulling the stick will not move trim far enough to equal
elevator since stick throw is only a fraction of how far trim must be turned.\

Trim is a fine-levered thing, usually a screw jack that must turn many times to equal
even partially the movement of elevator by direct action of the stick. That is why the
stick is harder to pull than the trim wheel is to turn, stick has far less leverage than
the trim but is also far quicker.

The game mechanics were unreal as to trim speed so the first trim on a slider is not
possible.

And hydraulics takes a bigger plane than 109 or 190. You know that Learjets at least
up to the 35 series do not have hydraulic activated controls? No lie, I know this from
direct training at the Lear plant in Witchita, Kansas. They have the rods, cables and
bell cranks. They are also much cheaper than other corporate jets. However when you
pull or turn the yoke on a Lear, you get near instant response where with the hydraulic
control jets you move the column and you wait while the fluid is pumped -- slower to
the point of 'majestic'. Now on a jet fighter I am sure there is a lot more energy to
the flow, bigger diameter pipes and fast moves but put a WWII fighter next to one and
it is like a small sportscar next to a full sized hemi-engined truck with 4-door cab
and cap!

You know also that many private planes have no hydraulics? Too much weight and need
too much power. Too much cost and maintenance. Too much to go wrong and kill you for
small plane pilots.

Chuck_Older
07-27-2006, 05:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
piezo electric is not that new, according some people pyramids were full of quartz and by piezoelectric phenomena raised the phrequencies of earth or schumann phrequency

they some how seemed to have used energies unknown to us today </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

errr...I believe that that stuff is garbage. Von Danikken may buy it but I don't

Anyway, we aren't discussing pyramids http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I'm talking airplanes

Jasko76
07-27-2006, 05:51 PM
Chuck, I applaude your persistence in this thread. If you explain long enough, some of these guys may actually learn a thing or two about aeronautics.

WWMaxGunz
07-27-2006, 05:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
piezo electric is not that new, according some people pyramids were full of quartz and by piezoelectric phenomena raised the phrequencies of earth or schumann phrequency

they some how seemed to have used energies unknown to us today </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? Energies unknown to us today?
They used the entire Hebrew nation as whipped slaves for 1000 years is what the effing used!
What kind of garbage you learned that ignores that? You don't keep so many 10's of 1000's
of people captive and fed just for the jollies of having them there. Jeeze Raaaid, wake
to F up!

You have any idea how sh!++y those blatherings the new-age dorks put out in the face of
facts and histories? Take into account that not one of those clowns that advance
that tripe ever make anything practical? They sell books to the credulous and naieve.
None of it is facts or even reasoned supposition. It is just words strung together and
not a peep of anything actually done except to fleece money from simpletons.

WWMaxGunz
07-27-2006, 05:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Von Danikken may buy it but I don't </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He don't buy it, he sells it.

WB_Outlaw
07-27-2006, 06:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
They used the entire Hebrew nation as whipped slaves for 1000 years is what the effing used!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not germaine to the discussion at hand, but just FYI, the pyramids were built by Egyptians who were paid for their work, not by slaves.

--Outlaw.

Chuck_Older
07-27-2006, 06:04 PM
I'm no expert, Jasko http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif To actually discuss this stuff I'd need to dust off some very boring books and re-learn a few things

LStarosta
07-27-2006, 06:17 PM
Raaaid, you're not being attacked because people think you're smart.

You're being attacked because people think you're ******ed.

Stop trying to make yourself a victim here. You post nonesense with your typical "I am right, you are stupid if you deny it" arrogance, and people are going to fire back.

Basically what you suggested is to make a very large elevator trim tab. Looks like you reinvented the wheel. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

IIJG69_Kartofe
07-27-2006, 06:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">i think the nazi engineers were so stupid not to solve heavyness of elevator just by controlling with the stick the trim tabs </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes they are!

And they are also so stupids they are unable to create jet engine planes, ergonomic cockpits, missiles, komandogerats, ...



But they do nices bretzels! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

LStarosta
07-27-2006, 06:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IIJG69_Kartofe:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">i think the nazi engineers were so stupid not to solve heavyness of elevator just by controlling with the stick the trim tabs </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes they are!

And they are also so stupids they are unable to create jet engine planes, ergonomic cockpits, missiles, komandogerats, ...



But they do nices bretzels! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That they do! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

DHC2Pilot
07-27-2006, 07:21 PM
I think what raaaid might be thinking of is a trim tab system like what is found on some aircraft today. Let's say for instance the pilot pulls back on the stick - ok, the elevator goes up, however the elevator trim tabs would move down. The air moving over the elevator would hit the trims and and a small amount of force would be transferred back into the elevator assisting it upward. This would have the effect of lightening the force required to pull the stick back. Move the stick forward, the elevator moves down, and the trim tabs move up, and hence the downward force is applied to the elevator. This is accomplished VERY simply via a linkage to the horizontal stabilizer. Cockpit adjustments to this system simply move the "centered" position up or down, thus altering the position throughout the range of trim tab movement.

Other simple ways to reduce the force needed to move a control surface is by applying counter balances to the surface. Not in terms of weight, but aerodynamic force. Take for instance the rudder of the simple Piper J-3. The rudder is shaped such that the top 1/5 or so extends forward of the hinge point. When you apply right rudder for instance, all of the surface behind the hinge point moves to the right, however, the portion of the rudder in front of the hinge point moves to the left. The aerodynamic force here is split. In flight, the airstream striking the portion of the rudder behind the hinge point PUSHES the tail to the left, whereas the smaller portion in front of the hinge point PULLS the the tail to the left.

Another concept used by several high performance aerobatic aircraft are the so called "aerodynamically boosted" control surface (in this example ailerons). There are rods coming off of the aileron which extend in front of the hinge approximately 45 degrees from the chord line of the ailerons. At the ends of these rods are small horizontal surfaces which are parallel to the chord of the aileron. As the aileron moves up, the aerodynamic force on the boosting surface (which has moved down and is now pointed down) assists in countering forces experienced by the pilot. A photo of this concept can be found at:

http://community.webshots.com/photo/548625628/2073262180012442885pXRALb

The one for the lower left aileron can be seen below and to the left of the "O" in Oracle (just peeking out from underneath the fuselage), and the right one can be seen clearly from this perspective.

WB_Outlaw
07-27-2006, 07:52 PM
raaaid specifically states that his idea is to control the trim tab with the stick and the elevator with the trim wheel. His idea has nothing to do with linking the trim tab to an elevator controlled by the stick.

When shown how his idea obviously won't work, he comes up with using a very large trim tab. When shown why that obviously won't work, he just disappears from the thread like he's done with every other thread he's started.

--Outlaw.

Taylortony
07-27-2006, 08:10 PM
Gentlemen

I have the sad news to inform you are all wrong in this case.....

You can control Aircraft elevators by linking the elevator trim tab to the stick. this system is called a Servo tab. Indeed the BA46 which has manual controls has the whole of the moving elevators so built, they are not connected to anything, the tab is connected to the elevator control, by moving the elevator cockpit control you move the tabs on the back and these fly the elevators into the desired position.... as you are simply moving a small tab the control forces required are very light..


see

http://avstop.com/AC/FlightTraingHandbook/Trim.html

http://www.answers.com/topic/aircraft-flight-control-systems

LStarosta
07-27-2006, 08:23 PM
Yes, and of course, this would be VERY useful on a fighter aircraft. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

We're not denying the ability to fly the plane using trim tabs. We're denying the practical application of such a control system in a fighter aircraft such as the Bf-109.

Like one of your links states, this type of system is used on larger aircraft which typically do not engage in the type of maneuvers a Bf-109 would.

By all means, if you want to fly your plane with trim, do it. Though your air-to-air engagements may resemble a turn-based RPG rather than a dogfight.

There is no substitute for direct control of the control surfaces.

luftluuver
07-27-2006, 08:36 PM
On the P-51 if the elevator went up, the trim tab went down, easing the force required. The trim tabs were also adjustable from the cockpit.

Taylortony
07-27-2006, 08:37 PM
You are missing the point the system would work on any aircraft, you all here have spent 4 pages ridiculing his and indeed the idea of flying an aircraft utilising the tabs alone something that has been proven to work in commercially operated aircraft without a sound basis in aircraft engineering........... It does work and has been employed on military aircraft in the past too

Sorry to say you are all wrong on this, but I am afraid you are... to say but it would not work on a fighter is fundamentally flawed, 10 minutes ago you were all saying it would not work full stop, I have simply provided you with sound information based on 30 years of Aircraft experience and training, do with it what you will, but please do not ridicule him for being correct

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/b707.htm

Boeing 707 Design

The elevators and ailerons are aerodynamically balanced and are manually operated by aerodynamic servotabs. In this type of control system, the pilot's primary flight controls deflect tabs on the main control surfaces. The hinge moment of the control surface is altered by deflection of the tab, and, consequently, the floating angle of the surface is altered. This change in angle of the main surface provides the necessary control moments for the aircraft. The spoilers and rudder on the 707 aircraft are operated hydraulically. Small changes in longitudinal trim are made with the use of trim tabs on the elevators. Changes in trim, such as those caused by flap deflection, are balanced, by adjusting the angle of the horizontal stabilizer. Movement of this surface is power actuated.

Taylortony
07-27-2006, 08:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
On the P-51 if the elevator went up, the trim tab went down, easing the force required. The trim tabs were also adjustable from the cockpit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the other effect is the PA28, being an all moving tailplane you have an anti balance tab, this is in effect geared and works in the opposite sense so if you move the control one way the tab works against you and loads it to stop you over controling the aircraft.

WB_Outlaw
07-27-2006, 08:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Taylortony:
Gentlemen

I have the sad news to inform you are all wrong in this case.....

You can control Aircraft elevators by linking the elevator trim tab to the stick. this system is called a Servo tab. Indeed the BA46 which has manual controls has the whole of the moving elevators so built, they are not connected to anything, the tab is connected to the elevator control, by moving the elevator cockpit control you move the tabs on the back and these fly the elevators into the desired position.... as you are simply moving a small tab the control forces required are very light..


see

http://avstop.com/AC/FlightTraingHandbook/Trim.html

http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/aerodynamics1/controls/Page2.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not that it matters but the two links you provide have two different definitions of a servo tab.

High speed jet transports are not WW-II fighters. I never stated that you couldn't control the elevators with the trim tab alone. Obviously you can or there would be no use for a trim tab. What I don't believe is that a tiny trim tab can produce sufficient elevator authority at the low landing speeds of a 109 (and similar aircraft) in any situation except perfect calm and a perfect approach. Throw in some turbulence or a little bit of error and you'd be toast. It would be interesting to know how much elevator authority a tab control DC-9 has at 75 knots. Enlarging the trim tab alleviates the low speed problem, but, since it moves in the opposite direction of the control surface, at some point it will begin to significantly counteract the control surface force. If you stick with the traditional trim tab on one surface only, you've now got a rolling moment at the tail.

Post the pitching moment calcs that show it'll work better than the traditional controls on an aircraft like a 109 and I'll hang my head in shame and shut up.


--Outlaw.

Taylortony
07-27-2006, 08:40 PM
there are 2 variants of the servo tab so I have shown you both

Taylortony
07-27-2006, 08:48 PM
If you want to see it on a fighter aircraft and comparisons in loadings I would suggest you read this

they trialed the system against the P40

Happy now? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


http://history.nasa.gov/monograph12/ch6.htm

Treetop64
07-27-2006, 08:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
the two biggest mistakes i find in the real 109 are two:

heavy elevator control and the nose of the plane blocking your view on deflection shots

to solve heaviness of elevator i would have just controlled the elevator trim tabs with the stick instead of the wheel and the normal elevator with the trim wheel

to solve blocked view by nose i would have aimed the gun 15º up to the direction the plane takes, i would also avoid collision course when aiming the enemy in face on

do you have any idea is this have been tried?

i think the nazi engineers were so stupid not to solve heavyness of elevator just by controlling with the stick the trim tabs </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

raaaid. Bro. We've been through this before already. Let it go...

LStarosta
07-27-2006, 09:15 PM
Servotabs do not respond well at lower airspeeds. Spring tabs still do not work as well as directly controlled control surfaces. The website also states that spring tabs are prone to fluttering and says that they have "reduced the maximum moment produced by the control"

It is a nice design, but like I said, it is not practical in raaaid's Bf-109, unless you want to trade lighter stick forces for a decrease in performance.

Also, I am not convinced as to the reponsiveness of control-by-trim, most importantly in a situation where you are jerking and jinking the controls and switching rapidly from positive to negative deflections of a particular control surface.

raaaid
07-28-2006, 05:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Raaaid, you're not being attacked because people think you're smart.

You're being attacked because people think you're ******ed </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Raaaid, you're not being attacked because people think you're smart.

You're being attacked because people think you're ******ed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


isnt this against the forum policies?

i never said i was smart quote me on that

you fascists (you cant stand my saying any nazi was stupid) have been beaten before and you will be in the future as well

im only attacked by leratosta and outlaw and little more i suppose they cant stand the free thinkers

raaaid
07-28-2006, 06:34 AM
hehe do i enjoy reading this thread over and over

servotabs i love that word

WB_Outlaw
07-28-2006, 06:36 AM
Come off it raaaid, you've been attacked by many more people than just myself and LStarosta!

You brought it all on yourself anyway with your, "I don't understand what you're saying so I'm right and you're wrong" attitude. Furthermore you continually ignore points/questions that if you addressed/answered would undermine your position. Add to that your, "even a child could understand" statements and what do you expect?

Also, the whole "I'm a 'free thinker' so I'm better than you" attitude doesn't work unless you're right all the time.


--Outlaw.

WOLFMondo
07-28-2006, 06:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
and certainly i do better for the world bumming around than the nazi engineers did working for hitler

i think theres a big difference between me and them and im free to call them stupid </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can call them stupid but idiology aside, your wrong. You think both the USA and the USSR could have got a man into space by the 60's without a certain group of Nazi scientists? I very much doubt it. Guys like Kurt Tank were the cream of the crop when it comes to aircraft design.

LStarosta
07-28-2006, 07:00 AM
Raaaid, in the past you've called me an indian killer, an anglo saxon, stupid, fascist, and nazi among other things.

Forgive me if I only voice what the majority of people here believe about you.


Anyway, ironic as it is that you think I'm a Nazi, you do a fairly good job of proclaiming superiority over untermensch like me.

Heil raaaid!

DIRTY-MAC
07-28-2006, 07:00 AM
COT IT OUT BOYS!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

WB_Outlaw
07-28-2006, 07:03 AM
Once again raaaid has brought the nazi issue into a thread. I must hang my head in shame for missing it earlier. It now appears that the reason we disagree with raaaid is b/c we're fascists.

Free thinking has once again triumphed over the evil nazis!

--Outlaw.

Beuf_Ninja
07-28-2006, 07:13 AM
raaid

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> i never said i was smart quote me on that </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
yes you do all the time, it seems to be the driving force behind all your posts!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> just look how people get pissed of with me just because i use the brain more than them </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Arrogance! Oh and this one I loved

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> im shaping the world for good </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And of course anyone who challenges your ideas is evil, stupid and jealous of your immense intellect.
Let me hazard a guess, you're 18-20 and this is your first semester of community college in some kind of engineering degree and you've decided that you'll flex your intellectual muscle here until someone gives you a pat on the head and tells you that you're a goood clever boy. Unfortunatley most people here are adults and aren't as impressed by obscure trivialities as you would hope they are so you trot out the old misunderstood genius, I am Capernicous circumnavigating the globe shpiel. Listen, give up the cerebral highhorse you're on, get down and meet a girl before you back yourself into a corner in every relationship that you have in your adult life with this confrontational addiction to validation that you have!

raaaid
07-28-2006, 07:26 AM
so now you dont discuss any more the servotabs now its my person the point of discussion

why do you want to make me feel bad?

whats wrong, that i had an idea the nazis engineers didnt have?

so i can be called a sh*teater because i said anglosaxons dont provide info on a certain thing in which i admitt i was wrong but when i deffend myself reminding of the genocide of indians in america i cant

ill make a poll if im not wellcome here ill leave dont worry

im just here because i thought i had many friends who liked me because im good an inquisitive though too arrogant but thats myself and i wont let anybody change me for bad

SeaNorris
07-28-2006, 07:55 AM
Yes because you can really tilt a cannon in a plane where the cannon is in the propellor hub, you're a gulf of knowledge.

I think you'd find the engine would block your view of "deflection shooting" on any World War 2 fighter you come across unless you're flying the P-39 or P-63 and even then these have problems.

So it's not an idea just formulated bull****.

Beuf_Ninja
07-28-2006, 07:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">im good an inquisitive though too arrogant but thats myself and i wont let anybody change me </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Change is good for a person, especially a young person like yourself and kudos to you for having interests but.. You're building a dangerous psycological pattern of segregating yourself from others by choosing only to explore subjects of limited relevence and interest to most people which you are misinterpreting as a lack of intelligence on their part. Its absolutley clear to all that you consider your intellect to be your strongest attribute but please don't fall into the trap of constantly and aggresivley trying make the people around you feel stupid, I've seen it happen to others and they end up very lonley people. You may have all the answers but the impression that comes across is that what is more important to you is that others don't have the answer.

Servotabs work but are of limited capability, the maintenance downtime for a fighter aircraft with such a complex control system would have negated its effectiveness in the field.

Grue_
07-28-2006, 07:59 AM
I'm suprised Messerschmitt didn't invent the jet engine in 1933 and install it behind the pilot to provide him with a better view.

WB_Outlaw
07-28-2006, 08:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
so now you dont discuss any more the servotabs now its my person the point of discussion
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you want to discuss servotabs, go ahead. Servotabs, however, are NOT what this post was initially about. Your first post called the German engineers "stupid" for not simply hooking the stick up to the trim tab and the elevator control to the trim wheel.

A servotab control system is NOT the same as controlling the existing trim tab with the stick and the existing elevator with the trim wheel. It is a completely new control system.

Simply switching the controls as you suggested is what's stupid.

--Outlaw.

raaaid
07-28-2006, 08:11 AM
i said change for bad not just change, youre twisting my words

i think that my strong point is not being intelligent but thinking a lot

and yes i think from my experience that this long time thinking gets me to see things few people else sees

i ask why nazis didnt use servotabs on the 109 and im called a knowitall

it could have been not working on a plane which is been proved wrong

it could be that the nazi engineers didnt think of it

do you think outlaw, leratosta and many others have good intentions with me or that they just dislike me and wish me no well and try to make me feel bad wasting as much time as necessary for that

raaaid
07-28-2006, 08:13 AM
i called them stupid cause i cant stand no nazi all right

raaaid
07-28-2006, 08:15 AM
and yes i was wrong about switching controls but i was right of using the stick to control the tabs which was my main point

WB_Outlaw
07-28-2006, 08:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
i ask why nazis didnt use servotabs on the 109 and im called a knowitall
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, that's not what you asked. Now you're twisting your words.

If you had posted the links that TT did and asked why the German engineers didn't use that on the 109, this thread would be COMPLETELY different.

--Outlaw.

SeaNorris
07-28-2006, 08:21 AM
You assume everybody who fought for the German army was a Nazi? That's very stupid thing to say.

luftluuver
07-28-2006, 08:22 AM
Since you are such the engineering genious raaaid, please tell us how you would angle the MK108 upwards 15*.

WB_Outlaw
07-28-2006, 08:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
and yes i was wrong about switching controls but i was right of using the stick to control the tabs which was my main point </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you weren't. Tab control systems were NEVER used on any production WW-II piston prop fighter, even though the concept had been tried as early as WW-I.

--Outlaw.

raaaid
07-28-2006, 08:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Since you are such the engineering genious raaaid, please tell us how you would angle the MK108 upwards 15*. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i dont consider myself a genious but a free thinker

i would have put the whole 108 on the propeller axe leaned 15º and make a shot every 1 revolution at 12 position

WB_Outlaw
07-28-2006, 08:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
i dont consider myself a genious but a free thinker </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Free thinking? raaaid, you ain't thinking at all.

--Outlaw.

WB_Outlaw
07-28-2006, 08:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
i would have put the whole 108 on the propeller axe leaned 15º and make a shot every 1 revolution at 12 position </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please show a quick sketch of how that would fit into the 109 front end.

--Outlaw.

raaaid
07-28-2006, 08:39 AM
i ask plz the moderators to lock this thread this is going nowhere good

constructiveness is lost long ago

SeaNorris
07-28-2006, 08:47 AM
There was none to start off, it's virtually impossible to rotate the cannon in the propeller.

WWMaxGunz
07-28-2006, 08:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
They used the entire Hebrew nation as whipped slaves for 1000 years is what the effing used!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not germaine to the discussion at hand, but just FYI, the pyramids were built by Egyptians who were paid for their work, not by slaves.

--Outlaw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The slaves did the grunt work, and bled. I'm sure they weren't the only ones either,
including draft animals.

I don't mean the artisans and engineers, the 'power source' is not mysterious at all.

WB_Outlaw
07-28-2006, 08:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
They used the entire Hebrew nation as whipped slaves for 1000 years is what the effing used!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not germaine to the discussion at hand, but just FYI, the pyramids were built by Egyptians who were paid for their work, not by slaves.

--Outlaw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The slaves did the grunt work, and bled. I'm sure they weren't the only ones either,
including draft animals.

I don't mean the artisans and engineers, the 'power source' is not mysterious at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Most scholars believe that the pryamid labor force was paid labor. Some slaves were obviously around but they were not used en masse as a labor force.

--Outlaw.

WB_Outlaw
07-28-2006, 08:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
i ask plz the moderators to lock this thread this is going nowhere good

constructiveness is lost long ago </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the face of overwhelming facts, he bails out.

--Outlaw.

marc_hawkins
07-28-2006, 08:58 AM
This gives a good basic indroduction to the pyramid builders, based on a documentary i recommend if you can catch it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/pyramid_builders_01.shtml

Personally I find the egyptians boring through over exposure. Give me the Hittites anyday.

WWMaxGunz
07-28-2006, 09:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
and yes i was wrong about switching controls but i was right of using the stick to control the tabs which was my main point </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where was that established? 707 and other examples given are not capable to move as fighters
had to in WWII.

Those engineers you proclaim yourself better than did cause real working planes to be made.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You instead arrange words only and claim to have results.

If you can't understand the difference at least make it work before making claims. By the
time you have either made something, even a working model, or failed you will have learned
that stumbling around words is a far shot less than what those you criticise had done.

raaaid
07-28-2006, 09:21 AM
in the beggining it was no plane could work with the tabs stick controlled

now is the 109 so we have aeronautics sperts on 109

well i have invented independently the servotabs and by that i mean i had the same working idea an engineer had before me

thats why and only why people gets on me jelousy

i dont bail out i just get sick of seeing how humans can degradate

even myself by answering back

raaaid
07-28-2006, 09:23 AM
and those dammned engineers like von brown workd with slaves

plain nazis, ask their slaves what they think of them

raaaid
07-28-2006, 09:27 AM
what about the trilithons of baalbek

http://www.prophecy.worthyofpraise.org/baalbek/

1000 tons stones rised 20 m high on a wall

how many slaves do you need for that?

WB_Outlaw
07-28-2006, 09:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
in the beggining it was no plane could work with the tabs stick controlled

now is the 109 so we have aeronautics sperts on 109
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excuse me, but YOU are the one who claimed the 109 engineers were STUPID for not connecting the stick to the trim tab. You are the only one proclaiming to be a 109 expert here.

My exhortations against the TRIM tab controlled by the stick idea were specifically limited to low speed handling (especially during landing) and the fact that the tab moves opposite to the control surface so increasing tab size to offset low speed handling is counterproductive. Both of those issues are covered as problems with the original Flettner tab control system in TT's references. Many things were tried to overcome these problems, none of which were satisfactory enough to enable any production fighter aircraft in WW-II to be equipped with such a control ssytem.

--Outlaw.

WB_Outlaw
07-28-2006, 09:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
what about the trilithons of baalbek

http://www.prophecy.worthyofpraise.org/baalbek/

1000 tons stones rised 20 m high on a wall

how many slaves do you need for that? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh come on. It has been shown OVER AND OVER how it is possible to lift huge stones with nothing but man power and levers.

--Outlaw.

raaaid
07-28-2006, 09:43 AM
i dont know outlaw i hope we get to be better friends at the future

but i hope you understand i just use the anonimity of this forum to be myself

it upsets me you dont like me because i think im good though i also admmit im arrogant

i dont think you are a bad person but i think you and others are being childish with me

WWMaxGunz
07-28-2006, 09:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
in the beggining it was no plane could work with the tabs stick controlled

now is the 109 so we have aeronautics sperts on 109 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read the title of the thread that you have made. From the start you made it is the 109.

And read more carefully that control by trim is not impossible but rather not feasable
for that plane or any other WWII fighter.

There is record of one WWII pilot taking a new guy who ran his mouth about flying only by
trim being impossible on a complete flight takeoff to landing just using trim. But on a
calm day and not with any enemy planes around, not with combat.

Trim is too slow. It takes many turns to make the same change that a little stick move
will make directly to the surfaces. If you get to where the stick is hard to pull, trim
is easier JUST BECAUSE IT IS SLOW THROUGH LEVERAGE. You make trim fast then it gets hard
to move. That's all there is to it.

If you balance out the controls for light forces then light counter forces will cause your
plane to bounce all over and Raaaid, you get a lot of that near the ground.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">well i have invented independently the servotabs and by that i mean i had the same working idea an engineer had before me

thats why and only why people gets on me jelousy </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What you described is not the servotabs. Now you claim those. Invention is not everything
that is like something you thought about.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">i dont bail out i just get sick of seeing how humans can degradate </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The best example of that is your own posts. How about take a break and cool off?
Listen to some good music and get on with your life. Please when you make a cake that you
do all the steps, don't just simply get a pan out and declare you have invented a better
cake.


even myself by answering back[/QUOTE]

WB_Outlaw
07-28-2006, 10:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
it upsets me you dont like me because i think im good though i also admmit im arrogant

i dont think you are a bad person but i think you and others are being childish with me </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What makes you think I don't like you b/c you think you're good? I don't like you for many reasons but that's not one of them. Here are a couple...

First, you make ridiculous claims that you can't back up with any knowledge and then attack those that disagree with you.

Second, you claim to be such a great thinker but in reality you don't think at all. A prime example is angling the nose cannon up 15 degrees in the 109. You play the game, miss some high g deflection shots, think for a few seonds and then proclaim that if the gun were angled up 15 degrees the problem would be solved. At that point your thinking is done and the problem is solved, no doubt about it. What you didn't think about was if it is even possible to angle the nose cannon. There are many things to consider before doing this including space restrictions, strength restrictions, and flight dynamics to name just a few. You didn't even think about any of those. Another example is your "NASA never went to the moon b/c the spacesuits are not reflective" claim. Did it ever occur to you that heat dissipation is not the only criteria for a spacesuit? What about ease of manufacture? Funding? Schedule? Durability? Sure, a purely reflective suit is the best way to dissipate heat but a spacesuit has to do many other things besides dissipate heat. You have no concept of engineering yet you spout off like everyone else is a moron for not seeing it your way.

I don't care what you think of me. You shouldn't care what I think of you.

--Outlaw.

raaaid
07-28-2006, 11:11 AM
great so you dont like me because i have certain opinions like man didnt go to the moon or that free energy is posible and hidden because of petrol interests

or for just plainly being stupid

so you dont judge me for being a good or bad person but for my ideas or mental level

i wonder whats the name for that

raaaid
07-28-2006, 11:14 AM
99.99% of people believe in luck, thats because they dont know the natural laws of rebirth and karma

hows your luck?

WB_Outlaw
07-28-2006, 11:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
great so you dont like me because i have certain opinions like man didnt go to the moon or that free energy is posible and hidden because of petrol interests

or for just plainly being stupid

so you dont judge me for being a good or bad person but for my ideas or mental level

i wonder whats the name for that </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't "judge" you at all! I could care less whether you are a good or bad person. I just respond to your posts.

--Outlaw.

WB_Outlaw
07-28-2006, 11:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
99.99% of people believe in luck, thats because they dont know the natural laws of rebirth and karma

hows your luck? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's the definition of "luck" used here?

--Outlaw.

raaaid
07-28-2006, 11:24 AM
judge means liking or disliking

luck means destiny treats you well or bad

Aaron_GT
07-28-2006, 11:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> its been answering that the brittania airliner controlled with the stick the elevator tabs



Show me any reference that backs this up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was in the articles on the Britannia in Aeroplane around 18 months ago. I just had a look on my shelves for it. I just had a clear out of old magazines, but I thought I'd only taken the computer ones to the recycling, but I think I must have swept up the copies of Aeroplane too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif. They might still be in the car but the boot is completely full of old cardboard boxes and plastic bottles, so I'll have to have a look after I've done the recycling.

However, I wasn't sayingthe Brittania used what raaaid is suggesting, just that there were some similarities (using tabs to effect movement in the main control surface in the case of the Britannia).

Aaron_GT
07-28-2006, 11:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's not germaine to the discussion at hand, but just FYI, the pyramids were built by Egyptians who were paid for their work, not by slaves.

--Outlaw.



The slaves did the grunt work, and bled. I'm sure they weren't the only ones either,
including draft animals. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Outlaw is correct - even the common labourers were paid. The artisans were professionals at their particular trade. Those employed for moving the stones and other grunt work were employed during off-times in the general agricultural cycle of Egypt. This is becoming more and more apparent as more ancient Egyptian writings are discovered showing rates of pay, disputes over pay and conditions from labourers, and so on.

raaaid
07-28-2006, 12:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think what raaaid might be thinking of is a trim tab system like what is found on some aircraft today. Let's say for instance the pilot pulls back on the stick - ok, the elevator goes up, however the elevator trim tabs would move down. The air moving over the elevator would hit the trims and and a small amount of force would be transferred back into the elevator assisting it upward. This would have the effect of lightening the force required to pull the stick back. Move the stick forward, the elevator moves down, and the trim tabs move up, and hence the downward force is applied to the elevator. This is accomplished VERY simply via a linkage to the horizontal stabilizer </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

thats much better than my initial idea of just linking the stick with the tabs

oh gosh somebody had a better idea than mine im not the smartes guy on earth http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

Scragbat
07-28-2006, 12:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
well i have invented independently the servotabs and by that i mean i had the same working idea an engineer had before me... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh that old nutshell again, 'Invented independently' LOL

Let us take a moment to thank all the inventors throughout the centuries for what we have today...

...and don't forgot to thank Raaaid also because he might have invented something independently years later because he had a similar idea...

I'd bloody sue Alexander Graham Bell if he were still around today I can tell you!

Aaron_GT
07-28-2006, 12:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'd bloody sue Alexander Graham Bell if he were still around today I can tell you! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


It wasn't he who invented the telephone, though...

WB_Outlaw
07-28-2006, 02:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scragbat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
well i have invented independently the servotabs and by that i mean i had the same working idea an engineer had before me... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh that old nutshell again, 'Invented independently' LOL

Let us take a moment to thank all the inventors throughout the centuries for what we have today...

...and don't forgot to thank Raaaid also because he might have invented something independently years later because he had a similar idea...

I'd bloody sue Alexander Graham Bell if he were still around today I can tell you! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think raaaid is being arrogant here, just using the word "invented" incorrectly. What he really means is that he thought of a similar idea without having any knowledge of other's work.

--Outlaw.

WB_Outlaw
07-28-2006, 02:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> its been answering that the brittania airliner controlled with the stick the elevator tabs



Show me any reference that backs this up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was in the articles on the Britannia in Aeroplane around 18 months ago. I just had a look on my shelves for it. I just had a clear out of old magazines, but I thought I'd only taken the computer ones to the recycling, but I think I must have swept up the copies of Aeroplane too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif. They might still be in the car but the boot is completely full of old cardboard boxes and plastic bottles, so I'll have to have a look after I've done the recycling.

However, I wasn't sayingthe Brittania used what raaaid is suggesting, just that there were some similarities (using tabs to effect movement in the main control surface in the case of the Britannia). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No need to look for it Aaron, I know what you're talking about. I jumped the gun a bit by not reading raaaid's post correctly, which only mentioned "tabs" on the elevator, not "trim tabs". I should have noted his change of nomenclature in my post. I hang my head in shame.

--Outlaw.

WB_Outlaw
07-28-2006, 02:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
judge means liking or disliking

luck means destiny treats you well or bad </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In English, "judge" is a poor word to use for like/dislike. Just use like/dislike instead.

As I said before, I could care less whether or not you are a good/bad person. Furthermore, my opinion of you is not based on my perception of your mental capacity either. It's based on your attitude.

--Outlaw.

Taylortony
07-28-2006, 03:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
so now you dont discuss any more the servotabs now its my person the point of discussion
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you want to discuss servotabs, go ahead. Servotabs, however, are NOT what this post was initially about. Your first post called the German engineers "stupid" for not simply hooking the stick up to the trim tab and the elevator control to the trim wheel.

A servo tab control system is NOT the same as controlling the existing trim tab with the stick and the existing elevator with the trim wheel. It is a completely new control system.

Simply switching the controls as you suggested is what's stupid.

--Outlaw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again on an all moving tailplane you control the movememnt of the elevator surface by connecting the trim to the whole surface as in connecting it to the elevator itself................ Incidentally take a look at the Mooney, on that the trim is used to tilt the whole rear of the aircraft up or down, thats everything aft of the horizontal stabliliser, fin, rudder, the whole works, so that statement in it's way is also correct.

Quote

"tabs work but are of limited capability, the maintenance downtime for a fighter aircraft with such a complex control system would have negated its effectiveness in the field."

What utter rubbish........ I work on Aircraft day in day out and know aircraft and systems. I have also worked on Modern Military Aircraft from fighters down to WW2 Fighters.... you think a system like this is Complex? LOL it is one of the most simplest systems there is, If you want complex start on Elevons and Spine bending detection...

This thread seems to have turned into a let's have a go at Raaaid time thread...... as shown I have proved the existence and usage of both systems, both of which work well in aircraft, AND CONTINUE TO DO SO TO THIS DAY, on top of this Aaron GT has also provided you with information regarding the Brittania, (you are correct on this) again which is correct, but rather than say Ok..... hands up..... yes it will work you have tried to turn this thread away from that and have started to have a pop at Raaaid again............

Shame on you, have at least the courtesy to admit that what he is asking is both in the realms of the possible and indeed is IS in use to this day and you both are wrong, instead you are trying to deflect the post away from the facts that he was theorising about and have been shown to be possible and indeed in use today by turning this into a personal slanging match to deflect from that.

raaaid
07-28-2006, 03:50 PM
im kind of dumb on english

i got that you can use servotabs as an aid so when the elevator goes up the tabs go down

but would it be posible to control with the stick just the tabs and let the elevator surfaces free just controlling the tabs?

Taylortony
07-28-2006, 04:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
im kind of dumb on english

i got that you can use servotabs as an aid so when the elevator goes up the tabs go down

but would it be posible to control with the stick just the tabs and let the elevator surfaces free just controlling the tabs? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

YES the Ba146 has similar.. so have several other aircraft, the position of the tab operated by the stick " flies" the elevators into the position the pilot requires... the elevators are not connected to any control as such.

raaaid
07-28-2006, 04:21 PM
thanks tailortony i kind of think i had this idea in my posible previous life as a nazi 109 pilot(i get this from my dreams) but the stupid engineers wouldnt listen

WB_Outlaw
07-28-2006, 04:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Taylortony:
Shame on you, have at least the courtesy to admit that what he is asking is both in the realms of the possible and indeed is IS in use to this day and you both are wrong, instead you are trying to deflect the post away from the facts that he was theorising about and have been shown to be possible and indeed in use today by turning this into a personal slanging match to deflect from that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hate to be repetitive but, nowhere did I say it wasn't in the realm of possiblity to fly AN AIRCRAFT with a tab control system or that tab control systems were not in use today. This thread, however, is not about AN AIRCRAFT or a well designed TAB control system. It is about the TRIM TAB as installed on a BF-109. From my earliest posts I pointed out specific problems and flight regimes with such a system USING THE TRIM TAB AS INSTALLED ON A Bf-109. Nothing more, nothing less. More specifically I pointed out poor low speed handling qualities and (in response to raaaid's suggestion to just make the tab as big as it needs to be for low speed handling) the fact that the tab is generating aerodynamic forces opposite to the desired aerodynamic forces. Both of those issues are pointed out in one of your links.

I will gladly admit I'm wrong when the calcs are provided that show using the trim tab on the 109 as the primary pitch control will provide better combat performance than using the elevator as the primary pitch control.

Without the calcs, calling the engineers "stupid" is pathetically asinine.


--Outlaw.

raaaid
07-28-2006, 05:20 PM
consider that in the game you control the plane just with the tabs

not enough control at low speeds?

put double size elevator and tabs

double surface double force

P=F/S F=P*S 2F=P*2S the pressure is the same but doubling the surface you double the force

WB_Outlaw
07-28-2006, 05:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
consider that in the game you control the plane just with the tabs

not enough control at low speeds?

put double size elevator and tabs

double surface double force

P=F/S F=P*S 2F=P*2S the pressure is the same but doubling the surface you double the force </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please forget the game. The game is meaningless when discussing real aircraft.

If you double the elevator and tab, then you have done nothing to improve low speed handling. The double sized tab still can't make the double sized elevator move against the airflow. If you double the tab but not the elevator, you have more elevator deflection but the aerodynamic forces of the tab are now acting against your elevator.


----edit----
F=PA is a rather simplistic equation to be using. These are airfoils we're dealing with.

--Outlaw.

WWMaxGunz
07-28-2006, 10:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:
Another example is your "NASA never went to the moon b/c the spacesuits are not reflective" claim. Did it ever occur to you that heat dissipation is not the only criteria for a spacesuit? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Reflective is the worst at dissipating heat. Also the worst at absorbing heat.
Black is the best at both. White is a good middle ground. Get in the shade on the moon
and it's real cold for example.

Those suits are insulated and have plastic tubing circulating fluid for temperature control.
They circulate air to deal with sweat. They are anything but easy or cheap to make since
what they protect is worth the entire mission and all the equipment.

Try this out. Get two steel wrenches about the same weight, one black and the other silver.
Lay them out in the sun a short time and check which feels hotter. Leave them out another
minute and then put them in the shade for a while and see which one will still burn your
fingers the longest.

raaaid
07-29-2006, 03:58 AM
i have to say i changed my mind about the moon landings now i do believe they were real

i changed my mind also on the way to make 109 elevators feel lighter

i would move at the same time elevator up and tabs down all with the stick

this are used in aerobatic

i think the nazi engineers were brilliant but just to work for a despising system makes them stupid imho

raaaid
07-29-2006, 05:42 AM
btw outlaw you may not like me but i still kind of like you because once you said i was like a breeze in the morning or something alike and that throws light in your shades to me

WB_Outlaw
07-29-2006, 08:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
i changed my mind also on the way to make 109 elevators feel lighter

i would move at the same time elevator up and tabs down all with the stick
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is most likely the best all around solution considering all of the engineering factors involved. Like Chuck said, the performance was deemed acceptable at the time so there was no attempt made to lighten the elevator forces.

It probably wasn't as big a problem in real life as in the game b/c there were very few dogfights in real life. Anything over 2g and you were shooting blind in most aircraft. Even if you were an awesome shot, it wasn't worth the chance of getting bounced while concetrating on lining up a maneuvering target. I wouldn't be suprised if many of us have read about 70% of all the actual dogfights that took place.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
btw outlaw you may not like me but i still kind of like you because once you said i was like a breeze in the morning or something alike and that throws light in your shades to me </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't recall ever saying that, think you have me confused with someone else.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
i think the nazi engineers were brilliant but just to work for a despising system makes them stupid imho </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can't argue with that, however, keep in mind that at some point they passed the point of no return. By that I mean they probably couldn't just refuse to work without suffering consequences (most likely starting with their families). Stalin was similar, but more "straight up" about it. He'd execute a few of your coworkers, put you in jail, and THEN tell you it was time for you to get to work.

--Outlaw.

diomedes33
07-29-2006, 09:17 AM
I got about halfway through the thread before the bickering got to much for me and skipped to the end. So if I repeated something already said, I appologize.

I saw that TaylorTony touched on it, but no one has seemed to have explicitly said it. Bf-109 does not have trim tabs. It has riggings for aileron and rudder trim and a moveable tail plane for elevator trim.

What I wondered is why did it take so long to adopt a flying tail for fighter aircraft . The X-1 was the first I read about this and I believe the F-86 was the first fighter in servce to use it. This seems like a good solutionfor the 109 where the wing blanking of the elevators was a known issue and sometimes the only way out of it would be trim. My first guess would be that it was a legacy or logistics issues. It could have been that the whole elevator control system (cables, lever arms, etc ...) would need to be replaced due to the added leverege needed to move such a big surface.

Taylortony
07-29-2006, 09:23 AM
The Miles M52? was the first to feature an all moving tailplane, this was brought about due to problems encountered on control stability and effectiveness on the approach to mach 1 and was adopted onto the X-1 to eleviate the problem...

Aaron_GT
07-29-2006, 09:49 AM
Just to add to what TaylorTony said:

There was a prop test-bed that Miles used before the M.52. The M.52 was, AFAIIK, the first aircraft designed with one from the outset. The engineering information was passed to Bell and Chuck Yeager is on record saying that Bell explicitly used the information on the all-flying tail in the X-1.

diomedes33
07-29-2006, 10:24 AM
Thanks TaylorTony and Aaron_GT, I knew about the Miles M.52, but didn't know it had an all flying tail.

Can either of you recommend any books that cover the early jet designs and the problems they had to overcome?

WB_Outlaw
07-29-2006, 01:09 PM
My head hangs in shame. Especially since deep in the depths of my brain I knew that.

Now the question begs to be asked, how effective would a "servotailplane" have been?

--Outlaw.