PDA

View Full Version : Ok, so do we FINALLY get corrected elevator for the 109..?



Pages : 1 2 [3]

Badsight.
03-31-2005, 11:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
But in IL-2 I can't do any better than 34 seconds; but I don't know if anyone else has turned better (probably have) I'm confident no-one has managed it in &lt;=25 seconds though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>there is the Problem , a beta tester who also flys classic planes did manage to get 24 seconds , a JG11 memeber (australian squad at HL)

but . . . . . & its a Big but

he went nose down , max trim , & pulled as hard as it was possible to , blowing much more speed that this test did

so in other words , he totally did not follow this test at all

& no-one else who has ever tried to repeate his results (remember this is not a new issue , it was brought up back when AEP was just out / or just before AEP was released)

Oleg then posted for people to realise this was a Joystick Driver issue & that the K4 was accurate

i repeat , no one has ever posted as getting under 30 seconds here at UBI beside this JG11 member (cant remember his name for the callsign for the life of me , tip of my bleeding tounge) , he can be found at HL as can other JG11 members

i have gotten under 33 seconds following a level turn , but with massive speed loss

TAGERT.
03-31-2005, 11:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
OK the track isn't very good and I did lose altitude http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif but it really is easy to test yourself. I managed it in about 30 seconds BUT I lost altitude. If I maintained altitude it would have been slower.

Anyway here is the track :: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/quick0127.zip

Like I said though it could have been done a lot better http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I wont have time to look at your track until the weekend to run it through my analysis tool.. But in the mean time I thought I would take a stab at it.. I did it like like Blutarski2004 described.. I started high dove down to 6k meters and then pulled a flat turn at 6k meters.. Applied a little el trim.. first try I got 23 seconds.. And I actually started to black out abuot 1/2 the way through the turn.. So maybe I was not pullin as hard as I could if I would have not pulled so hard so soon.. That and I actully gained a little alt.. went from 6000ish to about 6200 ish.. couldnt really control it that well was kind of black out. Also, I configued with no ammo and only 25% fule. I think if I took a few more stabs and it I could shave off a few more seconds and get it down to 20ish.. maybe even the high teens? Maybe this weekend.. Im just too bz at work right now.

PS here is a link to the trak if your interested
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/FLIGHT_TESTS/109K_25FUEL_NO_AMMO_6KMETER_TURN_24SEC.zip

JG5_UnKle
04-01-2005, 02:00 AM
TAGERT the test is done will level flight trim so no elevator trim UP if you know what I mean. Level flight trim for 6000M 650kph is a fair bit of nose-down trim.

Badsight.
04-01-2005, 02:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Medvedya why don't you go back to your own Forum where you can be King of the hill and crow with all your friends about how great it is to troll on another forum?

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/about1095-0-asc-0.html

I figured you to be an old fart losing his mind but I realise now you are just a kid getting his kicks by trolling in one forum and then running back to show mommy how clever he was. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>quite surprising , they have their own little circle-jerk fest going on , "Big fun ! look at the losers !"

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Medvedya :
I'm fed up of trying to gode them into a response.

Instead of trying to defend their view, they imagine that I think in the same way as they do, and bang on about you not knowing what the rate of fire for a MG1102/3421-GpHwk Ultra Cannon is, and fail to grasp that I-just-do-not-care!

Maybe geekdom has reached it's high water mark. Through all the troll posts I've put up, maybe being anti-geek will be the new black over there!

That would be a pity as I lurve a good flame war.

<span class="ev_code_RED">Because - I'm a TROLL! A really nasty one, who's hard to ban, because I don't attack individuals or use rude words! Ha ha ha!</span>

Need to get some more info for the next assault though.

I used to care about it, but I realised that the geeks count for very little in the wider scheme of things, so now it's just for evil kicks.

There's not much to it really, just always be civil (up to a point), and always make sure of your facts - and spelling and grammar (very important that)

too awkward to get round the mods. Took them long enough to do something though! My bad for using Medvedya on everything. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

JG5_UnKle
04-01-2005, 02:21 AM
I missed Badsight's post on the previous page which basically said what I just said http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

The idea is to begin at 6000M with level flight trim applied and have the 109 nice and steady. Then without any elevator trim changes complete the turn and not lose any altitude - preferably with the same bank angle of about 78 odd degrees.

Even in a flat out slicing turn (losing altitude) I can't get much better than the result Badsight managed around 33-34 seconds.

For the record after using an X36/X45 and now a Cougar I don't beleive it is a Joystick driver issue - if it is then it affects a whole lot of Joysticks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

EJGr.Ost_chamel
04-01-2005, 04:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:

But in the mean time I thought I would take a stab at it.. I did it like like Blutarski2004 described.. I started high dove down to 6k meters and then pulled a flat turn at 6k meters.. Applied a little el trim.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FYI

The headline of the chart says (sorry for rough translation):
Instationary horizontal curve with emergency power out of (note: better translation "proceeding from" ?) stationary horizontal flight with climb and fight performance

The numbers at the curve at point 1 state the speed at the entry of the curve as 180 m/s (648 km/h).

Greetings
Chamel

msalama
04-01-2005, 04:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Please consider doing everyone a favour and ban Msalama from this forum. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well...

I first thought that this thread is just another example of useless/baseless moaning unfortunately very prevalent on these boards. Now that I checked the background of this a bit more closely, I found out that I was wrong.

Thus, apologies for my undoubtedly hasty reaction - and rude comments - earlier in this thread.

Satisfied?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Consider it as a friendly warning <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ivan,

Consider your warning understood.

Blutarski2004
04-01-2005, 07:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

..... Entry speed into the turn was only 405 mph (if I deciphered the numbers accurately. Would a 109K do that speed at 6,000 m without special WEP configurations? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe. Looks to me like whatever data they had was converted into true speed to make the plot
so perhaps I wonder what the IAS of the plane should have read at the start of the turn?

Or are the speeds IAS? I don't read German much at all (few words) and don't see anything
to say, but the plot looks like it was made to scale so.... enter turn IAS 290 kph? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... It must be TAS.

Blutarski2004
04-01-2005, 07:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
I missed Badsight's post on the previous page which basically said what I just said http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

The idea is to begin at 6000M with level flight trim applied and have the 109 nice and steady. Then without any elevator trim changes complete the turn and not lose any altitude - preferably with the same bank angle of about 78 odd degrees.

Even in a flat out slicing turn (losing altitude) I can't get much better than the result Badsight managed around 33-34 seconds.

For the record after using an X36/X45 and now a Cougar I don't beleive it is a Joystick driver issue - if it is then it affects a whole lot of Joysticks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Don't be too stressed about maintaining a 78 degree bank angle throughout the entire turn. That = 5G which could not be sustained (as a level turn) after speed had bled off to 170 m/sec.

Buzzsaw-
04-01-2005, 08:45 AM
Salute

While I believe that the document that Kurfurst/Isegrim posted is an original German document, there are a lot of questions as to what exactly the material is derived from.

In most German tests, there is included, a note of the weight, loadout, etc. of the test aircraft. Unusually, this test does not include this information. What this raises, is the possibility that this is not an actual test, but a theoretical calculation, based ideal circumstances, and that no actual flight test was flown.

I would welcome being disproved on this theory, by having Isegrim/Kurfurst post or give a link for, the entirety of the test documents.

There is also the issue that it has been revealed that particular aircraft has been 'modified', without giving any of the details of exactly what the modifications were. As we know from some of Isegrim/Kurfurst's past postings, in particular the one which he claimed showed a 109F diving to high speeds, he sometimes neglects to include all the material from the test, which then reveals more of the truth, ie. in the case of the 109F, when the full test became available it was immediately apparent that speeds were in TAS, not IAS as he suggested, and that aircraft had been considerably modified to prevent damage.

Again, a post of all the documents from this K4 test could prove all my speculations incorrect.

Blutarski2004
04-01-2005, 08:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

While I believe that the document that Kurfurst/Isegrim posted is an original German document, there are a lot of questions as to what exactly the material is derived from.

In most German tests, there is included, a note of the weight, loadout, etc. of the test aircraft. Unusually, this test does not include this information. What this raises, is the possibility that this is not an actual test, but a theoretical calculation, based ideal circumstances, and that no actual flight test was flown.

I would welcome being disproved on this theory, by having Isegrim/Kurfurst post or give a link for, the entirety of the test documents.

There is also the issue that it has been revealed that particular aircraft has been 'modified', without giving any of the details of exactly what the modifications were. As we know from some of Isegrim/Kurfurst's past postings, in particular the one which he claimed showed a 109F diving to high speeds, he sometimes neglects to include all the material from the test, which then reveals more of the truth, ie. in the case of the 109F, when the full test became available it was immediately apparent that speeds were in TAS, not IAS as he suggested, and that aircraft had been considerably modified to prevent damage.

Again, a post of all the documents from this K4 test could prove all my speculations incorrect. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... It would indeed be good to see the entire report document.

TAGERT.
04-01-2005, 09:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
I missed Badsight's post on the previous page which basically said what I just said http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The part about another guy hitting 24 seconds? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
The idea is to begin at 6000M with level flight trim applied and have the 109 nice and steady. Then without any elevator trim changes complete the turn and not lose any altitude - preferably with the same bank angle of about 78 odd degrees. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I started higher to get the speed up to the entry point of around 648 km/h.. That is I swooped down from above to get to the 648 km/h range, then leveled out around 6km and started the turn.. As for trim.. what part of that german text says they didnt use any during the turn? Anyway, like I said that was my first and only stab at it.. I dont even remember what my entry speed was.. but the neat thing is that with very little effort I got into the low 20s. Using a little extra trim may be needed to account for what Oleg said about stick drivers and that he models a stick force limit. So, I think with a few more trys I can dive down from above, to get the speed up, level off at 6km for a bit, then begin the turn and hit the 20ish mark again.. The only BIG difference is Ill have to trim for sligtly nose up flight.. Which is not reall a BIG deal imho.. The BIG deal is that the 109K can do it imho.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Even in a flat out slicing turn (losing altitude) I can't get much better than the result Badsight managed around 33-34 seconds. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What was your entry speed?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
For the record after using an X36/X45 and now a Cougar I don't beleive it is a Joystick driver issue - if it is then it affects a whole lot of Joysticks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I dont know if it is a driver of an individual JS, but the way Oleg limits stick inputs to a certain amount of force.. Thus simulating that all pilots have the same strengh.. So, maybe the real test pilot was a strong guy? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ill give it another shot this weekend.. I feel confident that I can meet the test set up of level flight at 6km but with a slightly nose trim up condition.

TAGERT.
04-01-2005, 09:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

While I believe that the document that Kurfurst/Isegrim posted is an original German document, there are a lot of questions as to what exactly the material is derived from.

In most German tests, there is included, a note of the weight, loadout, etc. of the test aircraft. Unusually, this test does not include this information. What this raises, is the possibility that this is not an actual test, but a theoretical calculation, based ideal circumstances, and that no actual flight test was flown.

I would welcome being disproved on this theory, by having Isegrim/Kurfurst post or give a link for, the entirety of the test documents.

There is also the issue that it has been revealed that particular aircraft has been 'modified', without giving any of the details of exactly what the modifications were. As we know from some of Isegrim/Kurfurst's past postings, in particular the one which he claimed showed a 109F diving to high speeds, he sometimes neglects to include all the material from the test, which then reveals more of the truth, ie. in the case of the 109F, when the full test became available it was immediately apparent that speeds were in TAS, not IAS as he suggested, and that aircraft had been considerably modified to prevent damage.

Again, a post of all the documents from this K4 test could prove all my speculations incorrect. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... It would indeed be good to see the entire report document. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>ALLWAY! In light of the fact that izzy is know to leave out key facts... aka laywer like! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT.
04-01-2005, 09:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
there is the Problem , a beta tester who also flys classic planes did manage to get 24 seconds , a JG11 memeber (australian squad at HL)

but . . . . . & its a Big but

he went nose down , max trim , & pulled as hard as it was possible to , blowing much more speed that this test did

so in other words , he totally did not follow this test at all <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Does the test specificlly say they did not use trim during the turn? Or does it just say it was trimed for level flight upon entry of the turn? I guess Ill have to do the google translation thing to see for myself. I know that during the dive tests that heinrich beauvais talked about adj elevator trim during manuvers.. so why not now?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
& no-one else who has ever tried to repeate his results (remember this is not a new issue , it was brought up back when AEP was just out / or just before AEP was released) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Until now, first try, 24ish.. And I dont even fly the 109 much! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
Oleg then posted for people to realise this was a Joystick Driver issue & that the K4 was accurate <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My guess is he was NOT talking about specific drivers per JS and talking about the JS driver (his driver/code) in IL2-PF that limits the force input to any and all JS.. That is to say full deflection of YOUR JS does not mean your getting FULL deflection of the elevator.. It simply means you have input your full force... And Oleg limits the amount of force input.. Thus simulating that eveyone has the same strength. Hence the need for a little more trim imho.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
i repeat , no one has ever posted as getting under 30 seconds here at UBI beside this JG11 member (cant remember his name for the callsign for the life of me , tip of my bleeding tounge) , he can be found at HL as can other JG11 members <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Untill now! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
i have gotten under 33 seconds following a level turn , but with massive speed loss <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I got 24, bet I can get under that too with a little effort.. But wont know till this weekend.. If I can find the time to do it.. Got a bunch of stuff to do this weekend! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

TAGERT.
04-01-2005, 09:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... Good point Tag. It is not clear under what exact conditions the test was conducted.

I can give a partial translation of the doc -

H (height) = 6000 m (meters)
From t (time) = 1 to t = 8. the value n (???) = 5, and the "hongewinkel" (bank angle?) = 78.5 degrees. From t = 8 sec onward, the value C(a) = 7.73 ??? C(a)max and falling.

I believe that "Steig- und Kampfleistung" = Climb and War Power.

I cannot sort out the heading language. Hopefully our German colleagues can fill out the technical references more accurately. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Cool! Does it say anything about trim? Or anything that would indicate that trim was not used? Many test might start off at level trim per alt and speed.. but why would someone assume that it was not adj during the manuver? I recall reading about heinrich beauvais talking about adj the elevator trim during the high speed dive tests of the 109.. It sticks in my head because the trim actully froze up due to the weight of the oil they used.. Which allmost caused him to do the lawn dart! So, I would not assume that trim is not adj during the test unless it specifcly says it did not use it. The goal here is to see if we can do *it* with all the *tools* at our disposal.. With that said, the only thing I need to focus on is the entry speed of the test.. And then check the exit speed to see how far off it is.. But 24 sec's does not seem to be a problem.. I did it my first time out.

Blutarski2004
04-01-2005, 10:12 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 Blutarski2004:
..... Good point Tag. It is not clear under what exact conditions the test was conducted.

I can give a partial translation of the doc -

H (height) = 6000 m (meters)
From t (time) = 1 to t = 8. the value n (???) = 5, and the "hongewinkel" (bank angle?) = 78.5 degrees. From t = 8 sec onward, the value C(a) = 7.73 ??? C(a)max and falling.

I believe that "Steig- und Kampfleistung" = Climb and War Power.

I cannot sort out the heading language. Hopefully our German colleagues can fill out the technical references more accurately. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Cool! Does it say anything about trim? Or anything that would indicate that trim was not used? Many test might start off at level trim per alt and speed.. but why would someone assume that it was not adj during the manuver? I recall reading about heinrich beauvais talking about adj the elevator trim during the high speed dive tests of the 109.. It sticks in my head because the trim actully froze up due to the weight of the oil they used.. Which allmost caused him to do the lawn dart! So, I would not assume that trim is not adj during the test unless it specifcly says it did not use it. The goal here is to see if we can do *it* with all the *tools* at our disposal.. With that said, the only thing I need to focus on is the entry speed of the test.. And then check the exit speed to see how far off it is.. But 24 sec's does not seem to be a problem.. I did it my first time out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Nothing on the posted page (that I could translate) discusses trim either way.

On another related point - If my theory is correct, I believe that the value "n" refers to the G-factor of the initial part of the turn up to 8 seconds. This would coincide with the 78.5 deg bank angle value. If so, then this document supports the ability of a 109K to pull up to 5 G's.

As mentioned above, it would be nice to see the complete report in order to determine whether there were any special qualifiers to either the test itself or the a/c performaing it.

Ugly_Kid
04-01-2005, 10:41 AM
"...aus dem station¤ren Horizontalflug..."

"...from the stationary level flight", that is a definition for steady state horizontal flight, (trimmed, more or less hands of).

n is the acceleration and yes the chart more or less says only that 109 was able to pull from these initial conditions 5 g. Doesn't sound like an impossible feat, does it?

Blutarski2004
04-01-2005, 11:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
"...aus dem station¤ren Horizontalflug..."

"...from the stationary level flight", that is a definition for steady state horizontal flight, (trimmed, more or less hands of).

n is the acceleration and yes the chart more or less says only that 109 was able to pull from these initial conditions 5 g. Doesn't sound like an impossible feat, does it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Agreed. All the arithmetic clearly makes sense to support the case.

WWMaxGunz
04-01-2005, 02:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
"...aus dem station¤ren Horizontalflug..."

"...from the stationary level flight", that is a definition for steady state horizontal flight, (trimmed, more or less hands of).

n is the acceleration and yes the chart more or less says only that 109 was able to pull from these initial conditions 5 g. Doesn't sound like an impossible feat, does it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, yes, but nothing there saying what effort the pilot had to make to get the turn.
And that right there is the disconnect between the reality and the simulator, we cannot
make our pilots expend extra effort. Not like I haven't posted this before........

The *Issue* has been made that the *Plane* cannot make the turn and it is an *FM* problem.
The actuality is coming to that if it can be done with trim then *the problem* is not *FM*
at all but one of player control. FM is what can be done, not how the stick is used, and
yes trim is part of the stick-control aspect of the sim.

If the FM was changed so the turn could be made with nose trimmed down and SIM LIMITS on
pilot strength still in force then that would totally uberize the 109's so changed, and
I believe that at least some people demanding such change know this well.

When Tagert has to back off the stick and can't hold level because of blackout, that makes
a number of posts I've read about how that is impossible and the FM is wrong because of
that into just so much BS.

It is very easy to ==instantly== make neutral trim in the sim, so how many seconds with
that? Something less that 33 perhaps? But... then there would be less to yell about.

Von_Rat
04-01-2005, 04:20 PM
do other planes in this sim have to use trim to meet their turn times.

if not then why is k4 the exception.

TAGERT.
04-01-2005, 06:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
"...aus dem station¤ren Horizontalflug..."

"...from the stationary level flight", <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Cool! Thanks Kid!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
that is a definition for steady state horizontal flight, (trimmed, more or less hands of). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Definition.. or Interpetation? I think that could be taken a few different ways.. but basiclly it means that you were not diving or climbing at the start of the flight.. I dove down a bit to get up to the speed, but leveled off for a bit before making the turn.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
n is the acceleration and yes the chart more or less says only that 109 was able to pull from these initial conditions 5 g. Doesn't sound like an impossible feat, does it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I wish we had a g meter.. I think the device link data has soemthing close too it.. Ill check.. But, just to be clear, no where did it say the pilot did not adj trim during the turn.. In light of the test being all about the best trun rate.. I would think the pilot would use what ever means made for the best turn rate.. As did I! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT.
04-01-2005, 06:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
do other planes in this sim have to use trim to meet their turn times.

if not then why is k4 the exception. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Get some data and find out for yourself!

TAGERT.
04-01-2005, 06:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... Nothing on the posted page (that I could translate) discusses trim either way.

On another related point - If my theory is correct, I believe that the value "n" refers to the G-factor of the initial part of the turn up to 8 seconds. This would coincide with the 78.5 deg bank angle value. If so, then this document supports the ability of a 109K to pull up to 5 G's.

As mentioned above, it would be nice to see the complete report in order to determine whether there were any special qualifiers to either the test itself or the a/c performaing it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger thanks! Hey, could you expand on how your calculating that turn, g, inital speed thing.. Next time I do the test I want to make sure my inital speed is correct.. At the start of the turn.. I may have been going too fast before, thus the onset of the black out.. If I slow down a bit I might be able to turn faster.. And any info on the speed at the end of the turn would be great too!

TAGERT.
04-01-2005, 06:14 PM
By the way.. Am I the first guy to try this in 27 pages? You would think that one of the many people whining about this would have tried it before they whined about it?

ECV56_Rolf
04-01-2005, 06:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
do other planes in this sim have to use trim to meet their turn times.

if not then why is k4 the exception. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, the 190 achieves the stated turn rate without any trimming. The same for the Spit.

If we are going to compare relations in between modelled planes, all planes must have the same settings, unless some results are specifically stated that they were achieved with some special configuration. All the rest is pure speculation.

Tried the comment about the joys... NO WAY!

The elevator allways reach the same angle, whatever the joystick, or speed.

TAGERT.
04-01-2005, 07:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
do other planes in this sim have to use trim to meet their turn times.

if not then why is k4 the exception. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, the 190 achieves the stated turn rate without any trimming. The same for the Spit.

If we are going to compare relations in between modelled planes, all planes must have the same settings, unless some results are specifically stated that they were achieved with some special configuration. All the rest is pure speculation.

Tried the comment about the joys... NO WAY!

The elevator allways reach the same angle, whatever the joystick, or speed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And let the rumors begin!

GR142-Pipper
04-01-2005, 08:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by msalama:
(...snip...)The only conclusion I can make is that _someone_ here is definitely a moron. But _if_ THAT MORON IS OLEG, then why the f**k do you guys _still_ hang around, because the man is then obviously too thick to understand the f**king truth even when _you_ Luft-herren ooh so courteously hand it to him on a f**king silver platter??? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Because something is believed to be incorrect does not make the other party a moron. It could mean that they simply made a mistake. BIG difference. It's clear that although I believe that Oleg and Company have definitely erred in the 109 flight model, it's equally clear that the guy is no moron.

On this forum, some people are far too quick to call someone a moron or (worse) a liar when they have simply made a mistake. It really is amazing how dialog can continue at all under these circumstances.

GR142-Pipper

ECV56_Rolf
04-01-2005, 11:06 PM
<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 ECV56_Rolf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
do other planes in this sim have to use trim to meet their turn times.

if not then why is k4 the exception. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, the 190 achieves the stated turn rate without any trimming. The same for the Spit.

If we are going to compare relations in between modelled planes, all planes must have the same settings, unless some results are specifically stated that they were achieved with some special configuration. All the rest is pure speculation.

Tried the comment about the joys... NO WAY!

The elevator allways reach the same angle, whatever the joystick, or speed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And let the rumors begin! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the rumor is that disabling the joystcik and flying with just the keyboard, elevator will move exactly the same.
Keyboard drivers are also included in that comment?

Maybe I stated things badly. No matter the speed, the joysticks and keyboard I have tried
obtain the same results.

Rereading myself it could be read that elevators could achive the maximum angle of deflection, independent of it's speed. I didn't mean that.

I have allready tried completing the circle by trimming, I confirm your test results, and without any altitude loss nor gain. Speed decreases about 100Km/h.

Now... if other in game planes, adjust their trims in the same way, they will also turn better, getting results better than specified?

BTW... I don't like the way the P38 behaves either.

Both planes have some kind of problem at high speeds, on both of them these problems are represented at too slow speeds.

The 109 is correct on stiffening the elevator, but at the wrong speed.

The P38 is wrong on only stiffening the elevator, and also at the wrong speed.

Maybe on the P38, the compressibility could not be fully modelled because of limitations on the engine. So if the best they can do, is stiffen the elevator so be it, but also at higher speeds.

I won't complain too much about the P38 because there are some limitations on simmulating it on this sim. like they can't make it have 0 torque. So complaining about the P38 weird global behavior must be postponed till BOB arrives.

Von_Rat
04-01-2005, 11:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
By the way.. Am I the first guy to try this in 27 pages? You would think that one of the many people whining about this would have tried it before they whined about it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

if im not mistaken all this about the k4 being able to meet turn times using trim has already been discussed, maybe not in this thread, but the search is broken so i can't find it.

the conclusion was the same as its going to be here, other planes don't need trim to meet turn times so why should the k4.

i'm not going to go over the same arguements and redo the same tests that have already been done and discussed.

i wish they would fix the search function, it's like reinventing the wheel here somtimes, over and over. people keep crying for proof and tests about somthing that has been tested and proven to death.

btw fix the p38 too.

TAGERT.
04-02-2005, 12:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
Well, the rumor is that disabling the joystcik and flying with just the keyboard, elevator will move exactly the same. Keyboard drivers are also included in that comment? Maybe I stated things badly. No matter the speed, the joysticks and keyboard I have tried obtain the same results. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As would be expected.. In that what is modeled is the max force that can be applied.. Say 40lb.. Then full deflection of the JS or KB would result in 40lbs. Be it JS, KB, or mouse.. The limit is the force that can be applied.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
Rereading myself it could be read that elevators could achive the maximum angle of deflection, independent of it's speed. I didn't mean that.

I have allready tried completing the circle by trimming, I confirm your test results, and without any altitude loss nor gain. Speed decreases about 100Km/h. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That makes two of us.. Now, are we special? Or are others just trying to trick Oleg into making further changes to give the 109 an unrealistic edge? Or are we just special? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
Now... if other in game planes, adjust their trims in the same way, they will also turn better, getting results better than specified? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Doubt it.. But if you have some test data instead of *guessing* please provide it and we can test it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
BTW... I don't like the way the P38 behaves either. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Like or Love, neither is proof.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
Both planes have some kind of problem at high speeds, on both of them these problems are represented at too slow speeds.

The 109 is correct on stiffening the elevator, but at the wrong speed.

The P38 is wrong on only stiffening the elevator, and also at the wrong speed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Got data? Got track? And just how did you determine the stiffness?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
Maybe on the P38, the compressibility could not be fully modelled because of limitations on the engine. So if the best they can do, is stiffen the elevator so be it, but also at higher speeds.

I won't complain too much about the P38 because there are some limitations on simmulating it on this sim. like they can't make it have 0 torque. So complaining about the P38 weird global behavior must be postponed till BOB arrives. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>They cant? Funny, the torque looks 0 to me.. Or are you talking about the stall behavior? Sooner or later, one wing is going to stall b4 the other and you will spin..

TAGERT.
04-02-2005, 12:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
if im not mistaken all this about the k4 being able to meet turn times using trim has already been discussed, maybe not in this thread, but the search is broken so i can't find it.

the conclusion was the same as its going to be here, other planes don't need trim to meet turn times so why should the k4. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So easy to say others.. So hard to prove others.. Would you care to actually give us just ONE example of a plane that meets the turn rate data without trim.. Which would require you to provide some data. Or, is this just a *feeling* or *guess* on your part that others can and only the 109 cant? Also, it would help if you can find turn data on another plane at the same alt.. In that, maybe the problem is the alt.. Maybe planes will meet their turn rates at lower alts but not high? Wouldnt be the FIRST TIME Oleg admited that the high alt stuff in IL2-Pf is not all that great.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
i'm not going to go over the same arguements and redo the same tests that have already been done and discussed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thats fine.. But I hope you dont expect me to just take your word for it?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
i wish they would fix the search function, it's like reinventing the wheel here somtimes, over and over. people keep crying for proof and tests about somthing that has been tested and proven to death. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Crying for proof, only second to crying for no reaon.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
btw fix the p38 too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger, as soon as you got some proof we can test for.

Badsight.
04-02-2005, 12:53 AM
the search function has been stuffed for like forever

i dont think UBI is worried

WWMaxGunz
04-02-2005, 02:41 AM
I dunno Tagert. I can think of at least one plane that meets turn time without trim.
Fly em slow and 109G-2 possibly exceeds turn performance without trim, hehe. But that
is not a problem, is it? The idea is to find some way, some condition and way that the
FM can be faulted and improvement demanded and then reap the benefits. If it takes not
just not using trim nose up but trimmed nose down to do it then that is what it takes.
I'm only saying this because the claims are aimed at the FM and point at compression,
etc, and call exactly for ELEVATOR EFFECTIVENESS INCREASE. And that sucks gas.

How about, Oh Please Oleg, model all LW pilots as the exceptional strongmen they were?
Or maybe, Oh Please Oleg, fix the pilots as wimps (in the opinion of the complainer at
least with paragraph on how much you can easily lift) part of the sim.
Or maybe, Oh Please Oleg, do to the 109's what you did to the P-51's, it's only fair!

NOT Oh Please Oleg, crank up the elevator effect of the 109's till we can outturn a
biplane at low speed, with flaps of course.

Ugly_Kid
04-02-2005, 03:02 AM
Trim is slower than elevator. For those without the trim on some slider it is also difficult to a) get precise control (adjust the pull) b) use it at all with hand on the throttle and stick.

I personally don't have a problem with the elevator like I said earlier.

What is actually way more faulty on elevator (for all AC actually) is complete lack of really negative elevator (and the peculiar redout, kicking in on inverted level flight already). Bunt was used as an effective counter measure in 109 i.e, in the game really negative g-manouvers are not usable.

Von_Rat
04-02-2005, 03:57 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 Von_Rat:
if im not mistaken all this about the k4 being able to meet turn times using trim has already been discussed, maybe not in this thread, but the search is broken so i can't find it.

the conclusion was the same as its going to be here, other planes don't need trim to meet turn times so why should the k4. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So easy to say others.. So hard to prove others.. Would you care to actually give us just ONE example of a plane that meets the turn rate data without trim.. Which would require you to provide some data. Or, is this just a *feeling* or *guess* on your part that others can and only the 109 cant? Also, it would help if you can find turn data on another plane at the same alt.. In that, maybe the problem is the alt.. Maybe planes will meet their turn rates at lower alts but not high? Wouldnt be the FIRST TIME Oleg admited that the high alt stuff in IL2-Pf is not all that great.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
i'm not going to go over the same arguements and redo the same tests that have already been done and discussed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thats fine.. But I hope you dont expect me to just take your word for it?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
i wish they would fix the search function, it's like reinventing the wheel here somtimes, over and over. people keep crying for proof and tests about somthing that has been tested and proven to death. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Crying for proof, only second to crying for no reaon.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
btw fix the p38 too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger, as soon as you got some proof we can test for. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

target just cause you missed the posts about all the testing that was done before on this subject, doesn't mean im going to rerun those tests just for you, i could care less if you believe me or not. the data has already been collected and posted and discussed to death. im not doing it again for some internet troll.

Kurfurst__
04-02-2005, 04:50 AM
Could anyone repeat this in the latest patch? Or it`s still 50% worser, 35-36 seconds?

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1105021432_5026-33_turndiagram.jpg

JG5_UnKle
04-02-2005, 04:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I dunno Tagert. I can think of at least one plane that meets turn time without trim.
Fly em slow and 109G-2 possibly exceeds turn performance without trim, hehe. But that
is not a problem, is it? The idea is to find some way, some condition and way that the
FM can be faulted and improvement demanded and then reap the benefits. If it takes not
just not using trim nose up but trimmed nose down to do it then that is what it takes.
I'm only saying this because the claims are aimed at the FM and point at compression,
etc, and call exactly for ELEVATOR EFFECTIVENESS INCREASE. And that sucks gas.

How about, Oh Please Oleg, model all LW pilots as the exceptional strongmen they were?
Or maybe, Oh Please Oleg, fix the pilots as wimps (in the opinion of the complainer at
least with paragraph on how much you can easily lift) part of the sim.
Or maybe, Oh Please Oleg, do to the 109's what you did to the P-51's, it's only fair!

NOT Oh Please Oleg, crank up the elevator effect of the 109's till we can outturn a
biplane at low speed, with flaps of course. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Neal it isn't just the 109 - don't take most of what is said here as a whine to get the 109 turning tighter. I don't have an issue with it - these tests point to something more fundamental with IAS/TAS at altitude and this affects more than just one a/c.

&lt;cough&gt; P-38... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

I certainly don't want the 109 to become anything like the P-51 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

WWMaxGunz
04-02-2005, 07:17 AM
Well we have someone here who with, he says a little up trim is blacking out in the turn
at 6km alt which I have read is supposed to be impossible ~~ but I suppose that's with the
nose trimmed down for highspeed level flight. So what else is not quite as being claimed?
Or claimed with unspecified handicaps because in the sim you have limits on more than view,

We need to use trim all the time, whenever flight conditions change it seems. I just hit
the neutralize trim key when it comes time to get tricky at all. And no, Ugly, I don't
have dials or sliders for any of that and yes, the trim has been one of the sore, weak
opints of the series for me. I have flown enough to feel how whacked and out of touch the
system we have there is. It is possibly worse than trying to view around by 8-way hat.
But that is what we have. It is also what we must use. I don't worry as much about using
trim in "unreal ways" since it's so unreal in the first place. I just tap 12 times up going
into moves that I know will slow me down and hope it's done by the time I need it.

JG5_UnKle
04-02-2005, 07:31 AM
With full dial trim I think you can complete the turn in about 17 seconds. OK you blackout but still... - or at least you could in the previous patches when I tested it (v2.04) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif says more about trim than anything else...

Lets say the 109 pilot in the real test DID use trim....

Let's say he was trimmed for LEVEL FLIGHT at the beginning of the test 650kph....

How long would it take (In real life - real seconds) to work the trim wheel in a 109 enough to get the turn time in the chart?

Does anyone know how quickly the trim wheel could turn?

Either way it points to a problem when some aircraft have good elevator authority at these regimes and others don't. Not a luftwhine, not a bias laden BS statement just a query of the way the FM works at 6000M compared to test data.

TAGERT.
04-02-2005, 10:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
target just cause you missed the posts about all the testing that was done before on this subject, doesn't mean im going to rerun those tests just for you, i could care less if you believe me or not. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I understand, and dont blaime you one bit, I too have not bothered posting things twice, becaue I dont care if they belive me or not either.. So as long as your *good* with me not beliving you, then Im *good* with it too. But in light of me being able to turn the 109K, 360?, in 24sec, at 6km.. I not only dont belive you, but it appears that if it was done, it was done wrong, because I did it myself in the first try.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
the data has already been collected and posted and discussed to death. im not doing it again for some internet troll. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger, is this the part where you tell me about the little green men that took you to another planet?

TAGERT.
04-02-2005, 10:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Could anyone repeat this in the latest patch? Or it`s still 50% worser, 35-36 seconds?

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1105021432_5026-33_turndiagram.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As a mater of FACT I have *repeated* it. I turned the 109K 360? at 6000m in 24 seconds.. So it is NOT broke now IF EVER!

TAGERT.
04-02-2005, 10:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I dunno Tagert. I can think of at least one plane that meets turn time without trim.
Fly em slow and 109G-2 possibly exceeds turn performance without trim, hehe. But that
is not a problem, is it? The idea is to find some way, some condition and way that the
FM can be faulted and improvement demanded and then reap the benefits. If it takes not
just not using trim nose up but trimmed nose down to do it then that is what it takes.
I'm only saying this because the claims are aimed at the FM and point at compression,
etc, and call exactly for ELEVATOR EFFECTIVENESS INCREASE. And that sucks gas.

How about, Oh Please Oleg, model all LW pilots as the exceptional strongmen they were?
Or maybe, Oh Please Oleg, fix the pilots as wimps (in the opinion of the complainer at
least with paragraph on how much you can easily lift) part of the sim.
Or maybe, Oh Please Oleg, do to the 109's what you did to the P-51's, it's only fair!

NOT Oh Please Oleg, crank up the elevator effect of the 109's till we can outturn a
biplane at low speed, with flaps of course. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yup.. seems they are not willing to understand that things might be a little off with the high alt modling.. Thus demand change.. But when the low alt modling gives them a better turn rate SILENCE! Too funny.

TAGERT.
04-02-2005, 10:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Neal it isn't just the 109 - don't take most of what is said here as a whine to get the 109 turning tighter. I don't have an issue with it - these tests point to something more fundamental with IAS/TAS at altitude and this affects more than just one a/c.

&lt;cough&gt; P-38... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Got Data?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
I certainly don't want the 109 to become anything like the P-51 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Care to provide just ONE example of which you speak so I can prove it wrong too?

TAGERT.
04-02-2005, 10:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Well we have someone here who with, he says a little up trim is blacking out in the turn at 6km alt <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not just *saying* it, I provided a TRACK of me *doing* it. Something 99% of the people never do! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
which I have read is supposed to be impossible ~~ but I suppose that's with the nose trimmed down for highspeed level flight. So what else is not quite as being claimed? Or claimed with unspecified handicaps because in the sim you have limits on more than view, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Did you notice that *after* I did it, the SPIN DOCTORS rammped up the RUMOR MILL and started saying

"Well. if *other* planes can do *thier* rated truns without trim then why cant the 109 do it's rated turn without trim?

Note *they* did not mention one other plane by name, let alone provide any data on the nameless plane as to what alt and what time.. Just another RUMOR that will get picked up as TRUTH in a week or two and in a few months SOME PEOPLE will be refering back to this post as some big test that was debated and is now FACT.. but they dont have the time to post a link to it and dont care if you belive them or not! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
We need to use trim all the time, whenever flight conditions change it seems. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>BINGO! It is crazy to think the pilot did NOT adj trim from level flight at 650km during the turn.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:I just hit the neutralize trim key when it comes time to get tricky at all. And no, Ugly, I don't have dials or sliders for any of that and yes, the trim has been one of the sore, weak opints of the series for me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have it programed on a spare hat, one press, one notch.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:I have flown enough to feel how whacked and out of touch the system we have there is. It is possibly worse than trying to view around by 8-way hat. But that is what we have. It is also what we must use. I don't worry as much about using trim in "unreal ways" since it's so unreal in the first place. I just tap 12 times up going into moves that I know will slow me down and hope it's done by the time I need it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally.

Kurfurst__
04-02-2005, 10:38 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__:
Could anyone repeat this in the latest patch? Or it`s still 50% worser, 35-36 seconds?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, I repeated it, did it in 24 sec on my first attempt. It was pretty easy actully. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Could you post a track of that, because everyone else other than you is having difficulty doing it.

TAGERT.
04-02-2005, 10:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Lets say the 109 pilot in the real test DID use trim....

Let's say he was trimmed for LEVEL FLIGHT at the beginning of the test 650kph.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Let's say it because it is just makes total sense that he would.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
How long would it take (In real life - real seconds) to work the trim wheel in a 109 enough to get the turn time in the chart?

Does anyone know how quickly the trim wheel could turn? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Carson noted how easy it was to do in the P51 with regards to rudder, think he said just a few flicks and wala.. Heinrich Beauvais talked about it during the 109 high speed dive tests.. At first it was VERY HARD for him to adj the trim during flight.. it turns out that the oil/grease they used froze up at high alts, so, they changed it and they it was not a problem for him to adj trim during the dive

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Either way it points to a problem when some aircraft have good elevator authority at these regimes and others don't. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Neat rumor.. Care to provide just ONE example of a plane that does not have a problem.. Along with the data to test and prove that?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Not a luftwhine, not a bias laden BS statement just a query of the way the FM works at 6000M compared to test data. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It is a whine if you allude to *other* planes not having problems as if the 109 is the only plane with this problem imho. So, provide me some data of *another* plane at 6000m that can make the rated term in the data sheet without trim and I belive it is not a whine.. Until then.. its a whine in my book.

TAGERT.
04-02-2005, 10:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Could you post a track of that, because everyone else other than you is having difficulty doing it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Could I? I allready did, the link is on page 26, you should really read the post before you post! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

PS Im not the only one.. HAD YOU READ some of the posts here you would have noticed that Badsight said there was a guy who did it.. And.. It look like JG5_UnKle is starting to come around too.

JG5_UnKle
04-02-2005, 11:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Yup.. seems they are not willing to understand that things might be a little off with the high alt modling.. Thus demand change.. But when the low alt modling gives them a better turn rate SILENCE! Too funny.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Put simply that is just BS. Almost all the a/c in FB turn better than they should at sea level and (for example) the G-2 turns in 19 seconds - right on the money. If any aircraft LW or otherwise turns better than it should then it should get changed.

Anyway, if the pilot started to adjust trim at the beginning of the turn how come the rate of turn is steady?. Surely he would turn slowly at first (with his crappy elevator http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif) and then tighter and tighter - almost blacking out? Hmmm the data suggests 5G, look at the speed when exiting the turn.

I think you have made your mind up already about this and you are not even open to the suggestion that there is something wrong with the high-alt FM.

Oleg responded that it was a joystick problem and that is why the K-4 in game could not match this real world data. Basically saying that the K-4 didn't match the data for 'some' people. This doesn't hold water though - clearly.

TAGERT.
04-02-2005, 11:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Put simply that is just BS. Almost all the a/c in FB turn better than they should at sea level and (for example) the G-2 turns in 19 seconds - right on the money. If any aircraft LW or otherwise turns better than it should then it should get changed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Only simple thing here is the FACT that you *simply* didnt provide any data to back up your claims that ALL aircraft, except the 109, turns better.. Not one plane mentiond by name, let alone any data, let alone any track. Which is BS imho.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Anyway, if the pilot started to adjust trim at the beginning of the turn how come the rate of turn is steady?. Surely he would turn slowly at first (with his crappy elevator http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif) and then tighter and tighter - almost blacking out? Hmmm the data suggests 5G, look at the speed when exiting the turn. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actully I think BLUTARSKI noted the turn got tighter at the end.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
I think you have made your mind up already about this and you are not even open to the suggestion that there is something wrong with the high-alt FM. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Think again, Im one of the few (3 tops?) with an open mind in this thread, Open enough to ask for tracks from others and Open enough to make a track myself, and Open enough to consider that trim is part of it all. So, open I am, jumping on the whine band wagon, Im not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Oleg responded that it was a joystick problem and that is why the K-4 in game _could not match this real world data_. Basically saying that the K-4 didn't match the data for 'some' people. This doesn't hold water though - clearly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>He did not say it was a problem, he said it had to do with the JS driver.. So Im told.. I have yet to see that post by Oleg.. It is probally as fake as this thread and the others people allude to that the 109 elevator is porked.

PS Is it safe to expect the Lwhine SOP will take place next? That is to say can I expect all the Lwhiners to start attacking me personally to take the topic in a new direction in the hopes that no one will notice that I did turn the 109K, 360?, @6000m in 24sec.

JG5_UnKle
04-02-2005, 11:56 AM
Well you have already made your mind up. If the FM is so perfect why does it change in every single patch?

If trim is all there is to it then what makes that OK?

I remember the post by Oleg pretty well and if the bloody search worked http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif I would pull it. You clearly didn't read it. It isn't fake and you are just getting insulting now. Call me a liar, hell call us all liars. If you want to accept this FM then great go ahead it's pointless arguing with you about it anyway.

TAGERT.
04-02-2005, 12:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Well you have already made your mind up. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So what parts of my examples of me having an open mind did you not understand? It is simple really, got data? Ill test it, got nothing but *feelings* sorry, dont give a rat a$$ about your *feelings* cant test them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
If the FM is so perfect why does it change in every single patch? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Get a pen and pen.. This is complcated.. you will want to right this down.. Ready? Ok, here goes.. No flight simulation ever was, is, or WILL BE perfect. Got it? Good, read that note everytime you get confused between a conspericy and a simple bug that was fixed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
If trim is all there is to it then what makes that OK? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Your kidding right?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
I remember the post by Oleg pretty well and if the bloody search worked http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif I would pull it. You clearly didn't read it. It isn't fake and you are just getting insulting now. Call me a liar, hell call us all liars. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I really dont care, all I wanted to point out is how you REWOREDED it from JS driver to JS problem.. and to imply that the JS driver only effected the 109 and not the other planes in the same manor.. Pure Lw conspericy stuff right there.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
If you want to accept this FM then great go ahead it's pointless arguing with you about it anyway. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Pointless.. Only after I PROVED the thing that all you whiners were whining about was not broke in the first place.. Most problems with the FM can be fixed by simply looking in the mirror imho! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG5_UnKle
04-02-2005, 12:59 PM
LMAO Who is worried about a conspiracy? No wonder you guys have the reputation you deserve.

ECV56_Rolf
04-02-2005, 01:39 PM
<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 Von_Rat:
if im not mistaken all this about the k4 being able to meet turn times using trim has already been discussed, maybe not in this thread, but the search is broken so i can't find it.

the conclusion was the same as its going to be here, other planes don't need trim to meet turn times so why should the k4. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So easy to say others.. So hard to prove others.. Would you care to actually give us just ONE example of a plane that meets the turn rate data without trim.. Which would require you to provide some data. Or, is this just a *feeling* or *guess* on your part that others can and only the 109 cant? Also, it would help if you can find turn data on another plane at the same alt.. In that, maybe the problem is the alt.. Maybe planes will meet their turn rates at lower alts but not high? Wouldnt be the FIRST TIME Oleg admited that the high alt stuff in IL2-Pf is not all that great.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
i'm not going to go over the same arguements and redo the same tests that have already been done and discussed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thats fine.. But I hope you dont expect me to just take your word for it?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
i wish they would fix the search function, it's like reinventing the wheel here somtimes, over and over. people keep crying for proof and tests about somthing that has been tested and proven to death. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Crying for proof, only second to crying for no reaon.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
btw fix the p38 too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger, as soon as you got some proof we can test for. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would you mind to edit and correct this?

You are not quoting me.

TAGERT.
04-02-2005, 01:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
LMAO Who is worried about a conspiracy? No wonder you guys have the reputation you deserve. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's nice.. Anyway, Im just glad I could help you and izzy see the error in your ways.. Oh, and tell Badsight too next time you guys have your meeting! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT.
04-02-2005, 01:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
Would you mind to edit and correct this?
You are not quoting me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Whoops, sorry Rolf, fixed it! Dang cut n paste error!

ECV56_Rolf
04-02-2005, 03:49 PM
<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 ECV56_Rolf:
Well, the rumor is that disabling the joystcik and flying with just the keyboard, elevator will move exactly the same. Keyboard drivers are also included in that comment? Maybe I stated things badly. No matter the speed, the joysticks and keyboard I have tried obtain the same results. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As would be expected.. In that what is modeled is the max force that can be applied.. Say 40lb.. Then full deflection of the JS or KB would result in 40lbs. Be it JS, KB, or mouse.. The limit is the force that can be applied. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fine, I could accept the force stuff, but I was talking about the driver behavior statement as an element of cause.
The whole thing about pilot fitness is useless since stamina is not simulated here, still I will really like it to be implemented.

<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 ECV56_Rolf:
Rereading myself it could be read that elevators could achive the maximum angle of deflection, independent of it's speed. I didn't mean that.

I have allready tried completing the circle by trimming, I confirm your test results, and without any altitude loss nor gain. Speed decreases about 100Km/h. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That makes two of us.. Now, are we special? Or are others just trying to trick Oleg into making further changes to give the 109 an unrealistic edge? Or are we just special? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I don´t think there is any need to be special here. I just do it to see if the statement was OK. It was. But the point was the plane behavior without trimming it. Since this patch I started using trims on Me109 and P38 dives to be sure I could recover the plane at the end of it. But I don't need them on any other plane in the same situation, or at least the planes I have been flying lately.

The strange thing I can't repeat in this 24s turn with trim of the 109 is Black out. I repeated it many times without entering into blackout. I'am confused with that.

<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 ECV56_Rolf:
Now... if other in game planes, adjust their trims in the same way, they will also turn better, getting results better than specified? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Doubt it.. But if you have some test data instead of *guessing* please provide it and we can test it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is some trouble here... I can't verify this because on the FW, the Spit, and the P47 turn rate is more limited by blackout, and stall condition than elevator authority. In the 109 I apply full elevator on the turning, with max trim, and there is no blackout nor stalling. On all the other planes I cannot apply full elevator because either of blackout or stalling.
This is weird, I don´t know the blackout speed of every plane, but the 109 appears to have it higher than all the other planes I tried.

<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 ECV56_Rolf:
BTW... I don't like the way the P38 behaves either. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Like or Love, neither is proof.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This was almost insulting, and really not needed.

<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 ECV56_Rolf:
Both planes have some kind of problem at high speeds, on both of them these problems are represented at too slow speeds.

The 109 is correct on stiffening the elevator, but at the wrong speed.

The P38 is wrong on only stiffening the elevator, and also at the wrong speed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Got data? Got track? And just how did you determine the stiffness? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Got data? Got track?
I have seen many data supporting this claim in this thread, and in many others.
The P38 is far better documented than the 109 and the speed when it starts having trouble is higher than the ingame speed. Find it by yourself.
You are asking for a track? why? I didn't see your track. I just followed your claims and repeated the test myself. There is some reason not to just go by word and confirm/denny what someone else states? Maybe there is, but it is too much asking for the benefit of doubt?

Just repeat you own test with the 109, and see how much the elevator moves. Every plane here simulates some elevator stiffening. Even the Spit. But the 109 elevator is actually not moving from lower speeds, while the spit elevator will keep moving even at 900Km/h.
Still I don´t want to enter the spit vs 109 discussion here.

<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 ECV56_Rolf:
Maybe on the P38, the compressibility could not be fully modelled because of limitations on the engine. So if the best they can do, is stiffen the elevator so be it, but also at higher speeds.

I won't complain too much about the P38 because there are some limitations on simmulating it on this sim. like they can't make it have 0 torque. So complaining about the P38 weird global behavior must be postponed till BOB arrives. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>They cant? Funny, the torque looks 0 to me.. Or are you talking about the stall behavior? Sooner or later, one wing is going to stall b4 the other and you will spin.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nope... you level the plane and it keeps allways banking to the right. And I can´t achieve a level flight by trimming.
I am not sure if it is torque or something else, because putting both engines off, the plane keeps banking to the same side. But on a spit the plane starts banking to the other side when the engine is off.
I blamed the torque simulation, but not knowing exactly what is the real intention on this effect, I may be wrong.

ECV56_Rolf
04-02-2005, 03:50 PM
<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 ECV56_Rolf:
Would you mind to edit and correct this?
You are not quoting me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Whoops, sorry Rolf, fixed it! Dang cut n paste error! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thks! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
04-02-2005, 04:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
With full dial trim I think you can complete the turn in about 17 seconds. OK you blackout but still... - or at least you could in the previous patches when I tested it (v2.04) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif says more about trim than anything else...

Lets say the 109 pilot in the real test DID use trim....

Let's say he was trimmed for LEVEL FLIGHT at the beginning of the test 650kph....

How long would it take (In real life - real seconds) to work the trim wheel in a 109 enough to get the turn time in the chart?

Does anyone know how quickly the trim wheel could turn?

Either way it points to a problem when some aircraft have good elevator authority at these regimes and others don't. Not a luftwhine, not a bias laden BS statement just a query of the way the FM works at 6000M compared to test data. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A little understanding problem;

You don't seem to understand that in the sim we can't pull extra hard with both arms.

It's no good to try to strictly apply the sim to reality one to the other. You have to
do what you can. Time to trim? Instantly you can have trim from anywhere to neutral in
the sim. From there to a little bit up is perhaps 2 seconds but full up which you don't
need takes 20 seconds if I have it right or maybe it's 20 from full down to full up and
"only" 10 from neutral to full up... I never tried timing it partly because I never know
just where the @#$% trim is! If they FIX THE TRIM for BoB then that alone will be a
major improvement.

WWMaxGunz
04-02-2005, 04:40 PM
Tagert, the elevator response, the stick force per G, of the P-51 was upped by Oleg
I'm pretty sure in response to emails and whining if I've read a couple of posts by
him right. People demanded it and then they or others came back crying when they
were breaking wings off in high G pullouts they didn't quite want to make.

from what I read the 109, P-38, at least one Japanese plane and one Russian plane
all have stiffening on the stick at high speed and especially high alt.

With 4.0 coming along, people should give it a rest maybe but it also seems like a
time to send reminders to check the new patch for behaviour how people think it
should be and why. Trouble is that a diagram of what may be a two-arm turn (or may
not but it don't say either way, do it?) should not be a performance standard for
a one-arm pull sim regardless of who thinks so.

What limit there is, is set for reasons and I can think that one is combat is not
the way of a flown test where you do one thing measured. It is not like taking the
speed of a 50 meter sprint and saying this is a man running when the simulation will
have the run go 1 to 3 km or more. There is no pilot stamina or ability to make an
extra effort and really, how would that be done? I pull the stick so far and it means
this but now I change strength mode and it means 2 or 3 times more for so much time,
when it falls back or possibly reduces as consequence? The confusion... your stick
feels the same regardless of 'mode'. Well maybe no worse than trim as now, maybe
even easier than trim as now -- and come to think of it the trim original was like a
strength extra control with no pilot exhaustion at all. Lots of people really did
not like that, but they didn't think of it in terms other than as real trim... what
a joke because real trim you feel the stick force lessen AS you dial it in and STOP
turning when it is right, what CANNOT POSSIBLY BE DONE WITH SIMPLE JOYSTICK. Our
hardware is not as real so control cannot be, cannot be used as such yet people will
demand things like must use trim in the real way, or the sim is 'arcade'! What BS!

Just use the frikking trim! Neutralize with one key instantly and make your turn.
See how long that takes. A few more weeks and it won't matter anyhow.

TAGERT.
04-02-2005, 08:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
Fine, I could accept the force stuff, but I was talking about the driver behavior statement as an element of cause. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger on the force,as for JS driver being the cause.. IF it was, than it would affect all planes the same.. Guess the qestion is does anyone have any data on any plane other than a 109 for a turn test at 6000m?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
The whole thing about pilot fitness is useless since stamina is not simulated here, still I will really like it to be implemented. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, good thing I said nothing about stamina than! I only noted that all pilots have the same strengh.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
No, I don´t think there is any need to be special here. I just do it to see if the statement was OK. It was. But the point was the plane behavior without trimming it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A strange point at that.. In that there is no mention of not adj trim during the turn.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
Since this patch I started using trims on Me109 and P38 dives to be sure I could recover the plane at the end of it. But I don't need them on any other plane in the same situation, or at least the planes I have been flying lately. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I wouldnt expect other planes to need it as much as a 109 and P38 what with all the horror storys about the 109 cement elevators and the P38 compreabilty problems. But that is just a *feeling* I get from what I have read, I dont have any real data to say one way or the other.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
The strange thing I can't repeat in this 24s turn with trim of the 109 is Black out. I repeated it many times without entering into blackout. I'am confused with that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Strange, because I blacked out pretty darn soon when I did it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
There is some trouble here... I can't verify this because on the FW, the Spit, and the P47 turn rate is more limited by blackout, and stall condition than elevator authority. In the 109 I apply full elevator on the turning, with max trim, and there is no blackout nor stalling. On all the other planes I cannot apply full elevator because either of blackout or stalling. This is weird, I don´t know the blackout speed of every plane, but the 109 appears to have it higher than all the other planes I tried. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I find that hard to belive.. Just how are you determing the G force on the Fw, Spit and P47 to make that claim?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
This was almost insulting, and really not needed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>On the contrary, I think it is needed more and more around here. To highlight that *feelings* dont mater.. Only data that you can test for.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
Got data? Got track? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Is what Im saying

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
I have seen many data supporting this claim in this thread, and in many others. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Many huh? Well than it should be no problem for you to present it.. yet you did not? why?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
The P38 is far better documented than the 109 and the speed when it starts having trouble is higher than the ingame speed. Find it by yourself. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No need for me to find it because Im not complaing about it or asking for change.. If I was I would, I just prove or disprove data people present and make note of how useings *feelings* are for making the call on something being modeled right or wrong.. This whole thread is a perfect example of *feelings* out of control! All the whinners jumpped on the band wagon before even trying it.. and some 27 pages.. YES 27 PAGES LATER I come along a do what they said could not be done for 26 pages. Here we have a great chunk of data.. Yet nobody tested it very well.. Sad how the group mind set and take over and one rumor becomes fact.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
You are asking for a track? why? I didn't see your track. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Guess you missed my link than, take a look on pg 26 it is there.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
I just followed your claims and repeated the test myself. There is some reason not to just go by word and confirm/denny what someone else states? Maybe there is, but it is too much asking for the benefit of doubt? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes it is too much to ask. Too many people here with motives for an edge instead of realism.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
Just repeat you own test with the 109, and see how much the elevator moves. Every plane here simulates some elevator stiffening. Even the Spit. But the 109 elevator is actually not moving from lower speeds, while the spit elevator will keep moving even at 900Km/h. Still I don´t want to enter the spit vs 109 discussion here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Then dont make baseless claims. And dont judge movement visually, use DeviceLink to see how far it moved. And why would you expect a 109 elevator to move as far as another planes?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Nope... you level the plane and it keeps allways banking to the right. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Got Track? Because mine dont


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
And I can´t achieve a level flight by trimming. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Got Track? Because I dont have that problem.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
I am not sure if it is torque or something else, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yet in your last post you had no problem blaiming torque.. now? See, *feelings* suck dont they?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
because putting both engines off, the plane keeps banking to the same side. But on a spit the plane starts banking to the other side when the engine is off.
I blamed the torque simulation, but not knowing exactly what is the real intention on this effect, I may be wrong. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Got track.. Because I dont see that at all.. And I can run your track file through my DeviceLink utility to see if any stick inputs or trim inputs are being applied during that drift.. Maybe your JS is messed up? Calibrate latly?

TAGERT.
04-02-2005, 08:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Tagert, the elevator response, the stick force per G, of the P-51 was upped by Oleg I'm pretty sure in response to emails and whining if I've read a couple of posts by him right. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I remember the orginal one the P51 had alot of elevator.. then next patch it didnt.. then next it did.. I dont know which one is correct in that I dont have any data.. I just find it hard that Oleg would cave to pressure on that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
People demanded it and then they or others came back crying when they were breaking wings off in high G pullouts they didn't quite want to make. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Good serves them right! Booners jerking the stick like that! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
from what I read the 109, P-38, at least one Japanese plane and one Russian plane all have stiffening on the stick at high speed and especially high alt. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As some should.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
With 4.0 coming along, people should give it a rest maybe but it also seems like a time to send reminders to check the new patch for behaviour how people think it should be and why. Trouble is that a diagram of what may be a two-arm turn (or may not but it don't say either way, do it?) should not be a performance standard for a one-arm pull sim regardless of who thinks so. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I dont know if they say how many arms, but they typically will record the applied force.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
What limit there is, is set for reasons and I can think that one is combat is not the way of a flown test where you do one thing measured. It is not like taking the speed of a 50 meter sprint and saying this is a man running when the simulation will have the run go 1 to 3 km or more. There is no pilot stamina or ability to make an extra effort and really, how would that be done? I pull the stick so far and it means this but now I change strength mode and it means 2 or 3 times more for so much time, when it falls back or possibly reduces as consequence? The confusion... your stick feels the same regardless of 'mode'. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There actully was a sim that tried to do that a few years back.. Hmmm what sim was it? I forget, but the more g's you pulled.. it added up and took time for you to regain some stamina back.. I think it caused more problems.. Because people whining that one guy could turn better than another.. blaiming the FM or some hack when all it was is one guy was more wore out than the other. I want to say Falcon 4 or was it that F15 strike fighter? Hmmm I forget which one it was.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Well maybe no worse than trim as now, maybe even easier than trim as now -- and come to think of it the trim original was like a strength extra control with no pilot exhaustion at all. Lots of people really did not like that, but they didn't think of it in terms other than as real trim... what a joke because real trim you feel the stick force lessen AS you dial it in and STOP turning when it is right, what CANNOT POSSIBLY BE DONE WITH SIMPLE JOYSTICK. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Works with Force Feedback Joysticks. As you trim the stick force gets less.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Our hardware is not as real so control cannot be, cannot be used as such yet people will demand things like must use trim in the real way, or the sim is 'arcade'! What BS! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed.. without a FF stick trim would be pretty hard to figue out imho.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Just use the frikking trim! Neutralize with one key instantly and make your turn. See how long that takes. A few more weeks and it won't matter anyhow. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger that! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ECV56_Rolf
04-02-2005, 11:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Many huh? Well than it should be no problem for you to present it.. yet you did not? why?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? well... you tell me which kind of sources you accept as valid and I will do my homework. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

And please... remember that the whole complain is not about the 600Km/h elevator stiffness, but the 400Km/h stiffness. (easilly corrected by trimming)
The whole thing here was that the 400Km/h elevator in game response, must start near the 600Km/h figure.

About the blackouts, I do suffered them, but under 450Km/h.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Got track.. Because I dont see that at all.. And I can run your track file through my DeviceLink utility to see if any stick inputs or trim inputs are being applied during that drift.. Maybe your JS is messed up? Calibrate latly? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Joy is fine, cared to check. Or so it seems from the input menu.

How do I send you the track?

WWMaxGunz
04-02-2005, 11:36 PM
I'm thinking that an FF stick should be my next upgrade.

Current stick, the center position represents "wherever the zero force is".
Which means wherever the trim would have the real stick be hands off, that
is where my stick would be hands off and that position moves with trim while
for my joystick it is always in the center.

So I need to watch outside the plane and the VSI and let up on my joystick
as the trim winds in or out. That's fine as long as I hadn't held down on
the trim key or tapped too many times in which case trim may keep feeding
even after the point I wanted it to be has passed. My #1 trim peeve. I'd
like to be able to hit a key and the trim would move to wherever the stick
is at the time the button was hit. That way, it would stop right about when
I got the joystick to center -- any difference would be from conditions
changed after I hit the 'trim' key. Well, either that or a key to stop the
trim motion would work even more real. I could hit that just as my joystick
reaches center... like the way I stop turning the real trim when the yoke
is no longer pulling on my fingers. The first way though, it could use the
existing code of trim movement by replacing taps or key hold down time or
dial movement with the precise distance the stick is away from center while
the other... would need to be able to send a signal to the trim move process
that it's time to stop, which seems to be im-frikking-possible.

Don't bother asking for tracks of a player and plane not meeting some spec.
These guys set up test conditions that include nose down trim not to be moved.
And then... it's an FM problem, the elevator isn't effective enough. But
really, I don't expect most see the two as a whole package. It's "hey, do
this, you see that?". "oh yeah, is that right?". "no. look at this diagram,
something's wrong". "hey, you're right.". "and we have the proof!". "sure
do, we are right, it is wrong". "c'mon, post on this thread and let's force
Oleg to change it, the 109 needs more effective elevator". "right, it must
be the elevator!". IE, take one step with me and I'll tell you where the
next one goes. It's okay since I was right the first time.

If I only find white houses, does that mean there are no blue houses? Find
one house of any other color and whoever says "all houses are white" is proved
wrong. Finding 1 billion white houses still does not prove all houses are
white unless there's only 1 billion houses to be any color. Ditto with flight
tests that are inside any envelope -- no matter how many stay inside (like in
our case, are seen as underperformance) it only takes one outside to prove it
can be done.

And btw... since your turn did involve a rise of what, 200m?, the 24 seconds
don't count. Sorry but that part of the maneuver had to have slowed you down
and would tighten the turn. Using the vertical to any degree is always better
for turns in my experience at least. But still I'd say you made a huge cut
from ... it was 36 seconds was the best and then 33 but IIRC at least one admits
to either 30 or 32 while the "common knowledge" and "proved" is still "10 seconds
too much" with a passion.

Back when this issue was first raised along with the diagram, a Russian player
posted a track with 26 or 25 seconds, IIRC, but he lost a minor amount of alt.
When it was revealed that he trimmed nose up (and I believe that full trim was
instantly assumed) the whole track was dismissed by 'sim experts' as irrelevant
which to me don't fit in an FM discussion of "what the plane can do". If it
can do it with trim, then it's what the plane itself can fly. Don't argue about
elevator, argue about stick and bring proof of stick forces and not just flight
path, speed and altitude.

TAGERT.
04-03-2005, 01:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I'm thinking that an FF stick should be my next upgrade.

Current stick, the center position represents "wherever the zero force is".
Which means wherever the trim would have the real stick be hands off, that
is where my stick would be hands off and that position moves with trim while
for my joystick it is always in the center. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, I highly recomed them.. Even though I currently have it disabled in IL2.. I dont like the shakes.. I know that can be edited out.. But with the old MS FF JS, if you alt tab out of the game it would go limp.. So I disabled it.. At that point I found out that it acts like a regular JS with spings.. constant pressure.. But.. A little more than that.. The trim still works for some reason.. I can feel the stick pressure ease up as I adj trim.. It is grate feedback!! Prob is MS does not make it anymore.. And I dont know who makes a good FF these days.. Satick has one.. But I dont know if it is good or not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
So I need to watch outside the plane and the VSI and let up on my joystick
as the trim winds in or out. That's fine as long as I hadn't held down on
the trim key or tapped too many times in which case trim may keep feeding
even after the point I wanted it to be has passed. My #1 trim peeve. I'd
like to be able to hit a key and the trim would move to wherever the stick
is at the time the button was hit. That way, it would stop right about when
I got the joystick to center -- any difference would be from conditions
changed after I hit the 'trim' key. Well, either that or a key to stop the
trim motion would work even more real. I could hit that just as my joystick
reaches center... like the way I stop turning the real trim when the yoke
is no longer pulling on my fingers. The first way though, it could use the
existing code of trim movement by replacing taps or key hold down time or
dial movement with the precise distance the stick is away from center while
the other... would need to be able to send a signal to the trim move process
that it's time to stop, which seems to be im-frikking-possible. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That has to suck! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Don't bother asking for tracks of a player and plane not meeting some spec.
These guys set up test conditions that include nose down trim not to be moved.
And then... it's an FM problem, the elevator isn't effective enough. But
really, I don't expect most see the two as a whole package. It's "hey, do
this, you see that?". "oh yeah, is that right?". "no. look at this diagram,
something's wrong". "hey, you're right.". "and we have the proof!". "sure
do, we are right, it is wrong". "c'mon, post on this thread and let's force
Oleg to change it, the 109 needs more effective elevator". "right, it must
be the elevator!". IE, take one step with me and I'll tell you where the
next one goes. It's okay since I was right the first time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, what alot of them dont realise is that via DeviceLink I can see what thier trim settings are.. And debunk them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
If I only find white houses, does that mean there are no blue houses? Find
one house of any other color and whoever says "all houses are white" is proved
wrong. Finding 1 billion white houses still does not prove all houses are
white unless there's only 1 billion houses to be any color. Ditto with flight
tests that are inside any envelope -- no matter how many stay inside (like in
our case, are seen as underperformance) it only takes one outside to prove it
can be done. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally.. and as far as combat pilot storys.. We only hear from the guys who lived to tell about it! Talk about an invalid statistical sample! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
And btw... since your turn did involve a rise of what, 200m?, the 24 seconds
don't count. Sorry but that part of the maneuver had to have slowed you down
and would tighten the turn. Using the vertical to any degree is always better
for turns in my experience at least. But still I'd say you made a huge cut
from ... it was 36 seconds was the best and then 33 but IIRC at least one admits
to either 30 or 32 while the "common knowledge" and "proved" is still "10 seconds
too much" with a passion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Good ponit! I did climb a bit.. but that was more due to black out.. I lost ctrl of the plane near the end of the fligh.. note I did more than a 360. Ill do it again on sunday.. Im sure I can beat my last time and keep it at 6000m with just a dab of trim.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Back when this issue was first raised along with the diagram, a Russian player
posted a track with 26 or 25 seconds, IIRC, but he lost a minor amount of alt.
When it was revealed that he trimmed nose up (and I believe that full trim was
instantly assumed) the whole track was dismissed by 'sim experts' as irrelevant
which to me don't fit in an FM discussion of "what the plane can do". If it
can do it with trim, then it's what the plane itself can fly. Don't argue about
elevator, argue about stick and bring proof of stick forces and not just flight
path, speed and altitude. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Typical.. Which makes me thing they just want and edge, but claim to be doing it for realism! Sad.. truly sad.

TAGERT.
04-03-2005, 01:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
Why? well... you tell me which kind of sources you accept as valid and I will do my homework. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, ok, so it is not *many*? I didnt think so because I didnt see any.. which is why I asked when you said there were *many* right here in this thread. So, if not here where were these *many* you were refering to? Just a link is all I need.. Should be easy what with *many* to choose from? As for accept.. flight data much like this docment that izzy posted on page one. You know, enough info to recreate the situation in the sim and test to see how well the sim meets the data.. Which is very differnet than say a combat pilot report where he says something like "I was faster". Well how fast is fast? Is it 1mph? 10mph? 100mph? Hard to test **** like that.. Just not enough info to set up the same situation.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
And please... remember that the whole complain is not about the 600Km/h elevator stiffness, but the 400Km/h stiffness. (easilly corrected by trimming) The whole thing here was that the 400Km/h elevator in game response, must start near the 600Km/h figure. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That may be.. thread can go in many directions, but, Im refering to the PART wher Izzy and others said the 190K in the game could not make the turn in 24sec.. When it actually could.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
About the blackouts, I do suffered them, but under 450Km/h. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Got track?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
Joy is fine, cared to check. Or so it seems from the input menu. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ok

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
How do I send you the track? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hmmmm so you dont have some web space that you could link to?

ECV56_Rolf
04-03-2005, 11:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tagert:
Ah, ok, so it is not *many*? I didnt think so because I didnt see any.. which is why I asked when you said there were *many* right here in this thread. So, if not here where were these *many* you were refering to? Just a link is all I need.. Should be easy what with *many* to choose from? As for accept.. flight data much like this docment that izzy posted on page one. You know, enough info to recreate the situation in the sim and test to see how well the sim meets the data.. Which is very differnet than say a combat pilot report where he says something like "I was faster". Well how fast is fast? Is it 1mph? 10mph? 100mph? Hard to test **** like that.. Just not enough info to set up the same situation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't take me wrong. I don't like to relly on that kind of info either.
But even the graph that Izzy posted showed to be of no use, just because the trim setting it's not clearly stated on it. So looking for a resource so clear to everybody that will put all statements absolutely out of the cuestion is not an easy finding. Let my do my homework as I said before. I won't look for it on the net.

<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 ECV56_Rolf:
How do I send you the track? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hmmmm so you dont have some web space that you could link to? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not right now, but I can fix that in the meedle of the week.

TAGERT.
04-03-2005, 11:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
Don't take me wrong. I don't like to relly on that kind of info either. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, good! You would not belive how many people do!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
But even the graph that Izzy posted showed to be of no use, just because the trim setting it's not clearly stated on it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No use? I dissagree.. You dont need to know what the pilot had for breakfast for it to be uesful. As long as you know the general configuraiton of the plane, the alt the test was done at, the speed it was done at, that is enough to set up the test in the simulation. More info is better.. but that is the min amount of info you need to do any test. Something that 99% of the combat pilot reports dont give you.. That and they can NEVER GIVE YOU the state of the *OTHER* plane let alone what the *OTHER* pilot was thinking. As for using trim.. Trim is something any good pilot would make use of during flight.. It is such a DUH that they didnt even bother to mention it. So if we can *DO* what the test *DID* using the *BASIC* tool then it is reasonable to me.. Except for flaps.. That I think should be called out in a report.. They typically do when they use flaps to do something.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
So looking for a resource so clear to everybody that will put all statements absolutely out of the cuestion is not an easy finding. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No flight test is that detailed.. But if you have the min amout of info I listed above it is enough imho.. And anyone that would try and discount it would just look silly.. Take for example how silly all the people here look saying the test is invalide becuse I used trim.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
Let my do my homework as I said before. I won't look for it on the net. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Good Luck!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
Not right now, but I can fix that in the meedle of the week. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger!

DarthBane_
04-03-2005, 05:32 PM
Lets all hope that 109 will be a plane to fly after this patch. The way it is now is pathetic and unplayable. Realy sad.

WWMaxGunz
04-03-2005, 06:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:

But even the graph that Izzy posted showed to be of no use, just because the trim setting it's not clearly stated on it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What it doesn't say that is most important in relation to the SIM is the stick force needed
as the turn was made.

A sim works by numbers, not what people imagine should be. Even if it said "one arm used"
that is still subject to interpretation which is no good for sim. Either the pilot used
less or equal force (trim is a factor, yes) to what the sim allows or the manuever cannot
be done as a straight pull.

I would be upset if the plane could not even with trim make the turn in time. Then I
would back the "issue" with a whole heart. As it stands there is not enough to question
the FM or compression or even stick force on grounds presented. The sim does not allow
beyond certain strength to be used so documents or stories without force noted or with
pilot needing full strength are not relevant. People who don't like that should get over
it and use the trim, at least it works.

TAGERT.
04-03-2005, 10:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
Lets all hope that 109 will be a plane to fly after this patch. The way it is now is pathetic and unplayable. Realy sad. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Neat *feeling* got any proof?

DarthBane_
04-04-2005, 09:42 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 DarthBane_:
Lets all hope that 109 will be a plane to fly after this patch. The way it is now is pathetic and unplayable. Realy sad. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Neat *feeling* got any proof? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wasnt talking about proof, there are meny presented here by others, i like to read tham but i am not a tech guy, it feels bad, i dont fly it any more and thats what i was talking about. You see when you see an ugly women you dont need her x-rays shoot or measurment of her proportions to say you dont like it (from the number of your posts i am not certain how desperate you are). Anyway flying with 109 has became bad, it FEELS BAD in game, this is A GAME REMEMBER? I use trim for level flight and pulling out of blackout, but using it for turning is something i would like to see out of this game. It is silly. Stupid trick. Same as 100% auto 100% auto- stupidest trick i ever saw.

TAGERT.
04-04-2005, 10:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
I wasnt talking about proof, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Clearly, which is why I asked

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
there are meny presented here by others, i like to read tham but i am not a tech guy, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Did you happen to read the part where that so called proof was proven wrong?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
it feels bad, i dont fly it any more and thats what i was talking about. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which is why I said "neat feeling"

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
You see when you see an ugly women you dont need her x-rays shoot or measurment of her proportions to say you dont like it (from the number of your posts i am not certain how desperate you are). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree, the 109 does kind of look like the chick who came to the prom by herself.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
Anyway flying with 109 has became bad, it FEELS BAD in game, this is A GAME REMEMBER? I use trim for level flight and pulling out of blackout, but using it for turning is something i would like to see out of this game. It is silly. Stupid trick. Same as 100% auto 100% auto- stupidest trick i ever saw. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Neat *feelings* got any proof?

ZG77_Nagual
04-04-2005, 10:11 AM
Darthbane - You do know the 109 is the plane favored by many of the top virtual pilots for online competitions - right?

Clearly the elevator doesn't go all the way to the top.

HayateAce
04-04-2005, 10:41 AM
Hi DarthBainer,

The P47, P51 and P38 don't *feel* right. Would you fix those please?

Thanks!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

DarthBane_
04-04-2005, 11:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
Hi DarthBainer,

The P47, P51 and P38 don't *feel* right. Would you fix those please?

Thanks!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong thread and please change your dipers next time you come close.

DarthBane_
04-04-2005, 11:25 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 DarthBane_:
I wasnt talking about proof, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Clearly, which is why I asked

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
there are meny presented here by others, i like to read tham but i am not a tech guy, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Did you happen to read the part where that so called proof was proven wrong?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
it feels bad, i dont fly it any more and thats what i was talking about. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which is why I said "neat feeling"

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
You see when you see an ugly women you dont need her x-rays shoot or measurment of her proportions to say you dont like it (from the number of your posts i am not certain how desperate you are). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree, the 109 does kind of look like the chick who came to the prom by herself.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
Anyway flying with 109 has became bad, it FEELS BAD in game, this is A GAME REMEMBER? I use trim for level flight and pulling out of blackout, but using it for turning is something i would like to see out of this game. It is silly. Stupid trick. Same as 100% auto 100% auto- stupidest trick i ever saw. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Neat *feelings* got any proof? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is obvious how desparate you are. I feel sad for you no matter what side your on. This is 109 thread and maybe you could find help on some group therapy. Just stop trashing this thread. And who are you to ask proofs around here? You dont work for UBI or 1C?
Than STFU.

Von_Rat
04-04-2005, 12:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
<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 DarthBane_:
I wasnt talking about proof, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Clearly, which is why I asked

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
there are meny presented here by others, i like to read tham but i am not a tech guy, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Did you happen to read the part where that so called proof was proven wrong?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
it feels bad, i dont fly it any more and thats what i was talking about. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which is why I said "neat feeling"

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
You see when you see an ugly women you dont need her x-rays shoot or measurment of her proportions to say you dont like it (from the number of your posts i am not certain how desperate you are). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree, the 109 does kind of look like the chick who came to the prom by herself.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
Anyway flying with 109 has became bad, it FEELS BAD in game, this is A GAME REMEMBER? I use trim for level flight and pulling out of blackout, but using it for turning is something i would like to see out of this game. It is silly. Stupid trick. Same as 100% auto 100% auto- stupidest trick i ever saw. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Neat *feelings* got any proof? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is obvious how desparate you are. I feel sad for you no matter what side your on. This is 109 thread and maybe you could find help on some group therapy. Just stop trashing this thread. And who are you to ask proofs around here? You dont work for UBI or 1C?
Than STFU. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah i was thinking the exact same thing. why should anybody redo test that have already been done, posted, and dicussed to death, just because some troll missed them the first time around and now demands proof. sorry but your a day late and a dollar short target.

NVP1
04-04-2005, 01:55 PM
S!all
I'm in no way trying to get involved into the conversation http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ,just trying to be of help to those who complained about the broken "search" function(imho,broken indeed)-i've got two bookmarked threads on the subject:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=789103624&p=1
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=26210663&p=4

JG5_UnKle
04-04-2005, 02:33 PM
Thank you thank you and thank you NVP1 - I wish some of the posters would have read these discussions first before accusing us of lying http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

WWMaxGunz
04-04-2005, 03:00 PM
After Tagerts track, all those continuing to claim;

109K elevator is not effective enough to cause blackout at 6km alt... are true?
Full turn in under 30 seconds is impossible... is true?

It is not the elevator, it is not the FM. So-called PROOF has NO measure of stick force.
You have no issue yet the postings go, ignoring disproof JUST AS BEFORE.

If I fly a P-51 like ****, should it be made better just so ***any jacka$$*** can meet
some spec with it? I hope not because then Hayate will be pushing the P-51, P-47, P-38,
I can't do the turn with nose down trim whine, which is what the lobby I'm seeing here.

At least try the 109K with neutral trim, it is instant. I can be some nose up grom there
in 2 freaking SECONDS on any plane. It beats #ell out of LAMING the plane and pretending
there's an FM problem.

JG5_UnKle
04-04-2005, 03:21 PM
OK Neal - I understand where you are coming from.

Riddle me this though - Why can I manage the turn (without the aid of trim) in the Bf-109 G-2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Now, the 109 G-2 could be overmodelled and I'm open to that but it doesn't mean it's OK now does it? I managed the Turn in about 22 seconds with no aid from trim. You can't do that in the K-4.....

JG5_UnKle
04-04-2005, 03:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Typical.. Which makes me thing they just want and edge, but claim to be doing it for realism! Sad.. truly sad. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just to set the record straight - the original post was stating that you couldn't match the turn time with level flight trim. You haven't "proven" anything at all. The test still stands - you can't complete a turn in 24 seconds in a K-4 without trim. That's it.

The track was NEVER posted or made publicly available - you know why? Because you can't perform a level turn at 6000M 650 kph within 24 seconds without trim? Get it? That was ALL that was posted originally unless you can prove that wrong then you have to agree by default.

Anyway this is getting boring - round and round in circles we go (pun intended) but no closer are we to an answer....

EJGr.Ost_chamel
04-04-2005, 05:45 PM
@Tagert: Plz, can you give us a track of your 24 sec turn in the *.trk format (not *.ntrk).

Thanks in advance
Chamel

WWMaxGunz
04-04-2005, 06:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
OK Neal - I understand where you are coming from.

Riddle me this though - Why can I manage the turn (without the aid of trim) in the Bf-109 G-2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Now, the 109 G-2 could be overmodelled and I'm open to that but it doesn't mean it's OK now does it? I managed the Turn in about 22 seconds with no aid from trim. You can't do that in the K-4..... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1) What trim state did you have in that G-2? Nose down to match level flight at speed?

2) I would expect the G-2 to flat turn quicker than any K which is a heavier plane, so
what should the flat turn time at that start speed and alt be for the G-2?

3) How about the different G-6 models? Remember how all this time G-2 has compared so
well to the G-6's, except for the G-6/AS in some areas?

4) How about the F's for that matter?

5) Does choice of nose gun where you can make a difference seeing as gun & ammo weights
differ and elevator force on the plane has to raise nose weight against G's?

6) As the 109 series progressed, the noses got heavier and longer didn't they? How about
the center of lift to center of mass, weight distribution including distances, length of
fuselage to the tail and size of the tailplanes and elevators?

These weren't just the same plane only heavier one to the next and I'm not going to pretend
I can say how it all works out, but I can note some of the factors. It's one reason I like
even the idea of accurate FM's and models, I'd like to be able to trust these basic things
and felt that I could. That's why I've gotten such laughs when people write things like
asking Oleg to increase "the climb number"... I know that climb is a result of many things
that only come together when the sim runs.

IF the G-2 overmodelled then it would be good to say how much? Maybe not much at all in
one place and some bit under in another.

The 109K has some places over and then there's people screaming about it can't turn a turn
that should take 24 seconds in any less than 33. Not a small amount. But it can make the
turn much closer and now there's been 2 tracks showing so.

News Flash: the physical forces flight model cannot be perfect for every effect at speed
and altitude. A flight model that can do all that has to be the direct result of formula
per effect even if the formulae use the same values. IE, it would be on rails, not truely
physics based.

There will be some people unhappy no matter what. Different people for different whats but
somebody will feel screwed and say so, come what may. Let them make their case but when it
turns out it's either no big thing or unproved then it's time to leave the baby cry itself
to sleep.

WWMaxGunz
04-04-2005, 06:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:

Just to set the record straight - the original post was stating that you couldn't match the turn time with level flight trim. You haven't "proven" anything at all. The test still stands - you can't complete a turn in 24 seconds in a K-4 without trim. That's it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the title says the elevator needs to be corrected too, which the above does not "prove".

Target is the SECOND person to post a track very near the 24 second mark and showing that
yes, with trim it can be done. And not even much trim. But at least not trim in direction
against the turn!

Where is proof that the turn should be doable +++IN THE SIM+++ with trim for level flight
at entry speed? This is a COMBAT FLIGHT SIM not a TEST PILOT MANEUVER SIM. Certain
decisions were made by the developer about the sim environment and that's what we got.

You know that if Oleg increases available stick strength of pilots that it will apply to
all? Do you have any idea how badly that is likely to backfire?

But no... some people only want their plane amped and... I'm beginning to wish it would get
the P-51 treatment -- nooooo I'm not!

And sadly, some want it game-ified for play balance reasons, eh, Darth?

Buzzsaw-
04-04-2005, 08:29 PM
Salute

Let's all be aware:

All experienced German pilots used elevator trim during high speed combat and especially when pulling out of dives.

I have talked to Franz Stigler, and he said it was something which students were made aware of as part of the instruction process at training schools.

TAGERT.
04-04-2005, 09:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
It is obvious how desparate you are. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Really? And did you use that same *feeling* logic that served you so well to prove the 109 elevator was wrong? If so, you may want to reconsider.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
I feel sad for you no matter what side your on. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks.. It is nice to know there are so many people out there like you who have such stong *feeling* for so many people and things in the world.. Why nutting like a big group hug to fix everything.. right?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
This is 109 thread and maybe you could find help on some group therapy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Speaking from experance?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
Just stop trashing this thread. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Get a mirror! I did more for this thread in by actually taking the time to fly the 109 before I comment on it.. unlike 99% of the band wagon lwhiners

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
And who are you to ask proofs around here? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What part of TAGERT did you not understand?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
You dont work for UBI or 1C? Than STFU. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>WOW bad thing about people who ware thier *feelings* on thier sleaves.. They can be so moody.. One second they want to hug you next their telling you to stfu! Someone needs to get that perscription refilled ASAP!

TAGERT.
04-04-2005, 09:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
yeah i was thinking the exact same thing. why should anybody redo test that have already been done, posted, and dicussed to death, just because some troll missed them the first time around and now demands proof. sorry but your a day late and a dollar short target. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Than think again bright eyes because that extra day turned out to prove your previous thread all wrong!

TAGERT.
04-04-2005, 09:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Just to set the record straight - the original post was stating that you couldn't match the turn time with level flight trim. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Just to set the record staright, that was you and yours mistake.. No where in the test data provided does it say that trim was not adj during the turn.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
You haven't "proven" anything at all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think I proved that some peps are too stupid to use trim in a turn when trying to obtain the maximum turn rate

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
The test still stands - you can't complete a turn in 24 seconds in a K-4 without trim. That's it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nope, the only thing that stands is your ignorance about trim.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
The track was NEVER posted or made publicly available - you know why? Because you can't perform a level turn at 6000M 650 kph within 24 seconds without trim? Get it? That was ALL that was posted originally unless you can prove that wrong then you have to agree by default. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nope, sorry, but your still wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Anyway this is getting boring - round and round in circles we go (pun intended) but no closer are we to an answer.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Typical.. hit and run tatics.. works in 5th grade.. but not here.

TAGERT.
04-04-2005, 09:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EJGr.Ost_chamel:
@Tagert: Plz, can you give us a track of your 24 sec turn in the *.trk format (not *.ntrk).

Thanks in advance
Chamel <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Give me one good reason? ntrk is a beter format, it is the results not the inputs. A trk file is very susptable to differnt pc speeds and may not play back correctly on a different pc.

TAGERT.
04-04-2005, 09:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Let's all be aware:

All experienced German pilots used elevator trim during high speed combat and especially when pulling out of dives.

I have talked to Franz Stigler, and he said it was something which students were made aware of as part of the instruction process at training schools. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As did Heinrich Beauvais during the 109 high speed dive test.. It was 2nd nature to adj the trim during a maneuver.

JG5_UnKle
04-05-2005, 03:17 AM
Quit with the personal attacks Tagert I'm not interested, thanks.

OK some new tests. Conditions for all tests are as follows:

Neutral elevator trim (easiest way to be sure it's the same)
Fuel 25%
Map Crimea (over water)
650 Kph in wonderwoman view
6000M
Ammo load - empty

Started a left hand turn max elevator pull timed to nearest second for completion of a 360 degree turn.

Results:
Bf-109E4 18 seconds
Bf-109F2 18 seconds
Bf-109F4 20 seconds (was almost stalling)
Bf-109G2 20 seconds (as above)
Bf-109G6 26 seconds
Bf-109G6/AS 26 seconds
Bf-109G10 28 seconds
Bf-109G14 25 seconds
Bf-109K4 33 seconds

Anyone can try this for themselves it's a pretty easy test. Maybe I should start a new thread called "Oleg please fix all 109's except the K-4 as they all turn too fast at 6000M" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

I think those results are pretty weird especially the G-14 not sure why it performs so much better.

Von_Rat
04-05-2005, 04:26 AM
thanks unkie for the info. im not sure about all planes, but i'll think you'll find that if you use trim, most planes will beat their real life data by quite abit. not just 109s.

oh i took a glance at those links that someone posted. it seems that far from being the 1st to discover that k4 could meet time with trim, hes about a year late. lol.

as i said before all this is old news. i guess targert new around here.

JG5_UnKle
04-05-2005, 04:38 AM
Rgr that Von_Rat even with neutral trim I suspect some of those turn times are a little too "optimistic" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

anarchy52
04-05-2005, 05:01 AM
On the subject of trim, why don't You allied fans head over to P-38 elevator threads and ask them to use the trim exploit and stop whining?

Von_Rat
04-05-2005, 05:02 AM
i agree many planes are optimistic in turn times.

it was much worse before they slowed trim down. alot of people were complaining about bat turns using trim. even now with slow trim alot of planes can beat real life turn times using trim.

but according to targert i guess oleg should of left the bat turns in, because we're supposed to use it to meet our realife turn times. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

good point about the p38 anarchy52, i think it needs fixing to.

EJGr.Ost_chamel
04-05-2005, 05:59 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 EJGr.Ost_chamel:
@Tagert: Plz, can you give us a track of your 24 sec turn in the *.trk format (not *.ntrk).

Thanks in advance
Chamel <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Give me one good reason? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, here is one good reason!
The ntrk format is no proof, on what version of IL-2 the mission was flown.
I don't want to suspect anyone of anything, but as a "proof" for the 109s abilities in version 3.04m it is only viable, if everyone can play it back from trk format in 3.04m and see the result there.

Greetings
Chamel

Buzzsaw-
04-05-2005, 08:29 AM
Salute

Couple comments:

First of all, to repeat:

Experienced 109 pilots used trim in combat maneuvers when their aircraft was travelling at high speeds. This was taught in the Flight Academies. So there is no reason to expect that trim was not used in the test shown in Isegrim/Kurfurst's chart. (if the test wasn't a theoretical paper test, that is unclear, see my post earlier) There is no reason to believe that testers of the IL-2/FB aircraft should not employ it to get results.

It is somewhat hypocritical of the 109 backers to insist that the test be done without trim, knowing very well that players on the servers use trim all the time to gain an advantage. In effect, they are attempting to gain the same advantage that they already have for the 109 in regards to Manual Pitch. Ie. insist that climbrates be set while the aircraft is in auto pitch, knowing full well that every decent 109 pilot uses manual pitch when flying on the servers, and gets a climbrate 25% better than historical.

Second in regards to UnKles tests:

There are no other turn charts which I am aware of which show turn times at 6000 meters for aircraft other than the K4, so while UnKle's doing the tests are commendable, the results cannot be compared to anything.

(A) The tests show us is that the 109E models are turning too well at high speeds. The 109E had notoriously poor elevator response at high speed, as reported in a series of British tests.

-----

ROYAL AIRCRAFT ESTABLISHMENT test of 109E3:

"Throughout the speed range the elevator is heavier than that of the Hurricane or Spitfire, but up to 250 m.p.h. this is not objected to, since it is very responsive. Above 250 m.p.h. the elevator becomes definitely too heavy for comfort, and between 300 m.p.h. and 400 m.p.h. is so heavy that manoeurvability in the looping plane is seriously restricted; when diving at 400 m.p.h. a pilot, pulling with all his strength, cannot put on enough "g" to black himself out if trimmed in the dive... It is much inferior at speeds in excess of 250 m.p.h. and at 400 m.p.h. recovery from a dive is difficult because of the heaviness of the elevator. This heaviness of the elevator makes all manoeuvres in the looping plane above 250 m.p.h. difficult including steep climbing turns."

Turn times by Soviet tests revealed a best of 24 seconds for a 360 at lower speeds, it is not realistic to expect a better time at 650 kph.

(B) Turn times for the F models essentially match their lower speed turn times, not a likely occurance at high speeds. Also 109F2 and F4 times should be almost identical, unlike what we see in the UnKles tests, where there is a two second difference. There was only 120 lbs, or 54.5 kgs difference in weight, and the F4 had better powerloading. Most likely the F2's times are too good.

(C) 109G2 turn times should not match the F4's, it was 650 lbs or 295.5 kgs heavier, with no changes to the elevator or wings between the F4 models and the G1/G2. Wingloading was 9.5% worse on the G2 than the F4, with a powerloading improvement of only 2.5%.

(D) The test results show a sharp increase in the turn times of the K4 when compared to the G10 or G14, not entirely believable when one considers that the wingloading and powerloading of these aircraft was very similar. In fact a K4 was really just a G10 or G14 with standardized features and some small improvements.

The question is whether the earlier 109's are turning too well at high speeds, or the K4 is turning too poorly. I lean towards a middle ground, likely the K4 needs to be improved a bit and the others have their turn times increased.

Fehler
04-05-2005, 08:33 AM
Shouldnt all *best* turn times be accompanied with positive trim? After all, if you can match a *best* turn time without trim, but then add trim to get a better turn time, the first time wasnt *best* at all, now was it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Has anyone actually asked Oleg if the game is coded to get *best* turn times with use of trim for all planes? If so, then nothing about the K-4's high alt turn is broken if you can get pretty close to *best* with trim. However, if say a FW190 (For example)can achieve better than *best* turn with trim, yet a 109 cant, then something is wrong. Understand the logic here? All *best* turn times should be accomplished using trim. Just as all best speeds are accomplished by trimming the plane in level flight.

Sorry if this has already been discussed in this thread, but honestly after 30 pages of bull$hit whining and name calling, it is quite hard to read through for any information... (Which is a common tactic for all that oppose an open discussion or have an agenda that is in opposition of the topic in question.) For me, I have no agenda. I neither like the Bf109, nor fly it very often, and I gave up turning a long time ago when I started flying the FW190 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But I like most of us here want accuracy in the game; after all isnt that why we are all addicted to sims in the first place?

@tagert you do realize that you could do better in convincing others if you learned to be a bit more civilized to them, dont you? Civility is the key to any constructive communication, so if you refuse to be civil, then you must not be interested in good open discussion. (Deductive reasoning there) It's really that simple.

I realize that you are confrontational by nature, but in the realm of forum discussion that is not conducive to effective communication. For example, earlier in the thread you had this long cut and paste post where you belittled the guy you were trying to give some advise to. After reading through it about 5 times, I finally got your point that he should send you a track so you could run it through devicelink and see if his joystick was giving him the problems he was experiencing. You had a good idea to extend to him, but your mode of operation was not conducive to relaying that point.

You would have been better served by simply saying, "Hey, send me a track file and I will see if your joystick needs calibrating, or here is a link to devicelink and you can test it yourself. I can do "X" with the same flight configuration, so perhaps your stick is what is giving you your problems."

That would have been civilized discussion. Posting in that manner would relay to the reader that you are interested in his problem.

On the other hand, the way you posted relays to the reader that you are interested in appearing superior to him, and are absolutely NOT interested in his problem. To others, it relays that you have a serious problem and need help. The fact is, the easiest way to elevate yourself is by your own works, not by putting others down. You may think it cute, or funny, but others actually look down upon those that act this way.

One way is effective communication (My example to you), the other is self-placating trollism (Your original reply to the post).

Now, given that you are obviously against trolling, wouldnt you like to think that others view you as a person whom they can ask questions of and get valuable information? Wouldnt it be better to be viewed as a forum expert instead of an antagonistical troll? The fact is you do have good information and ideas to convey, but your delivery blows. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Not many people have the ability or patience to filter through your text to get the information. I, for one have read a lot of your rhetoric and gotten angry at you in the past. A simple change of delivery and I would have understood better the topic you were trying to relay. I admit you do have valuable things to convey at times. Just as in the example post, I used device link to review a track I had and found my joystick was slightly off center, even though the calibration software looked pretty good. I never thought of using devicelink to check that. But I had to read your cr@p post 5 times to get the information because of your delivery.

Others probably wouldnt have even bothered with it, so your thoughts would have been wasted. You can at least thank me for taking the time to apply my tagert-filter and get the information you wanted to relay. hehe http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Just a little friendly advice.

TAGERT.
04-05-2005, 09:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Quit with the personal attacks Tagert I'm not interested, thanks. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I *feel* your pain

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
OK some new tests. Conditions for all tests are as follows:

Neutral elevator trim (easiest way to be sure it's the same)
Fuel 25%
Map Crimea (over water)
650 Kph in wonderwoman view
6000M
Ammo load - empty

Started a left hand turn max elevator pull timed to nearest second for completion of a 360 degree turn.

Results:
Bf-109E4 18 seconds
Bf-109F2 18 seconds
Bf-109F4 20 seconds (was almost stalling)
Bf-109G2 20 seconds (as above)
Bf-109G6 26 seconds
Bf-109G6/AS 26 seconds
Bf-109G10 28 seconds
Bf-109G14 25 seconds
Bf-109K4 33 seconds

Anyone can try this for themselves it's a pretty easy test. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Got Tracks?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Maybe I should start a new thread called "Oleg please fix all 109's except the K-4 as they all turn too fast at 6000M" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Without supporting data I dont know if I would go that far yet.. but the trend you have there does show the trend in the 109 development.. Where the development was due to it's changing roll throughout the war.. That is it went from a light turn fighter to a heavy high speed bomber chaser that didnt turn that well.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
I think those results are pretty weird especially the G-14 not sure why it performs so much better. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Got Track?

TAGERT.
04-05-2005, 09:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
thanks unkie for the info. im not sure about all planes, but i'll think you'll find that if you use trim, most planes will beat their real life data by quite abit. not just 109s. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Neat *feelings* Got data? Got Track?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
oh i took a glance at those links that someone posted. it seems that far from being the 1st to discover that k4 could meet time with trim, hes about a year late. lol. as i said before all this is old news. i guess targert new around here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>you might want to pull your head out and take not that I never claimed to be the first to do it, just the first in this thread. Because too many, like yourself, never bothered to test it because they were just basing the error off of some old thread that everyone thought they read and didnt need to re-post it.

Fehler
04-05-2005, 09:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:

It is somewhat hypocritical of the 109 backers to insist that the test be done without trim, knowing very well that players on the servers use trim all the time to gain an advantage. In effect, they are attempting to gain the same advantage that they already have for the 109 in regards to Manual Pitch. Ie. insist that climbrates be set while the aircraft is in auto pitch, knowing full well that every decent 109 pilot uses manual pitch when flying on the servers, and gets a climbrate 25% better than historical. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree with this statement, and here is why.

As posted by wastel and backed by Butch2K over a year ago, the climb tests were very specific with the 109's. They stated the pitch settings at auto and specific radiator settings to achieve the specified times.

I do agree that manual pitch can be exploited to gain *Better* times, but that is a game engine fault that should be fixed.

Your statement leaves me, the reader, the impression that these climb times should only be obtainable with use of manual pitch which is totally incorrect according to the RLM documents provided by wastel and Butch2K.

It would be better to take away the ability to achieve these *better than best* speeds with manual pitch, not penalize those that use auto pitch. That is, unless documentation could be provided that switching off the Kommandgarant (Spelling) would enable the real life pilot to achive better climb times than with it on. There was documentation provided about using manual pitch with heavy configurations on smaller runways to shorten takeoff distance. So one could assume that you get slightly better performance with manual settings.

In the game, you are penalized quite rapidly for using manual pitch with heat and engine damage. A smart pilot that can manage his manual pitch can get gains over auto pitch settings (I agree). But just because he can, does not mean that it is not historical.

Oleg knows of this *Trick* as you label it, but has left it in the game. Why? Perhaps it is not as *Exploitable* as you believe, or perhaps it is a game bug that cannot be fixed? I dont know, but certainly there is a reason it was not addressed.

I for one, when forced to fly the baby plane (Bf109) never use manual pitch. I do use it in the D-9 almost exclusively. I am not sure if that is historical or not for I dont have the documentation. If it is historical to get these slight gains that I see in the dora, then great, I have learned to milk all the extra power out of my preferred crate. I still screw up on occassion and have been known to blow a motor or two at the worst of times! If it is not historical, it should be fixed because I would rather lighten the work load and concentrate on situational awareness anyway! Besides most of us "Luftwhiners" want historical accuracy, not bugged advantaged gameplay.

Your perception of gaining a game advantage may well be accurate. But did you stop to think that perhaps, just perhaps, these people are aware that other planes in the game get their best times without trim, then get better times using it? Why not the same parameters for all?

I dont know for certain that this is the case, no more than you know for certain that 109 flyers want an unhistoric advantage.

This is why I quoted your post. 1. I find it misleading, and 2. I find it an unfair perception based on what?

If you are interested in historical accuracy as you appear, then it is more important to know the parameters of the original test than whether or not someone wants to game the game.

It is logical to assume that trimming for a turn to get a best time would be the way an experienced test pilot would conduct his testing. Aircraft trim is taught in basic flight schooling! But I have to follow up that with a simple question. Do *ALL* planes get their best turn times with trim? If logic is held for one, then the same logic must be applied for the other, dont you think? Unless, of course, there was a specific parameter set for a test, ie. This time at XXX alt with no trim. I can only assume that special parameters would be outlined specifically in a flight test if they deviated from the norm.

Thus, I conclude that the K-4's time should be accomplished using positive trim as any normal pilot would do it. BUT, so should all the other aircraft *Best* turn times.

Agree? Disagree? See my logic? Looking for discussion here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TAGERT.
04-05-2005, 09:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EJGr.Ost_chamel:
Ok, here is one good reason! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ok let her rip!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EJGr.Ost_chamel:
The ntrk format is no proof, on what version of IL-2 the mission was flown. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>hmmmm good point.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EJGr.Ost_chamel:
I don't want to suspect anyone of anything, but as a "proof" for the 109s abilities in version 3.04m it is only viable, if everyone can play it back from trk format in 3.04m and see the result there. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, in light of them just re-spinning what ever proof is presented and totally ignoring trim as an option it is not really worth my time to make a trk file.. They will just ignor it too.. So, you will just have to take my word for it.

JG5_UnKle
04-05-2005, 09:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
There are no other turn charts which I am aware of which show turn times at 6000 meters for aircraft other than the K4, so while UnKle's doing the tests are commendable, the results cannot be compared to anything.

(A) The tests show us is that the 109E models are turning too well at high speeds. The 109E had notoriously poor elevator response at high speed, as reported in a series of British tests.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Couldn't agree more! There is something pretty weird going on when you look at the G-14 especially http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif I know we don't have the data for all the 109's to compare which is a shame but with a bit of basic deduction you can figure that with Wingloading/powerloading of the 109's that the turn times I managed don't make any sense.

I completed the turn tests mainly for myself so I could be sure that I wasn't dreaming it or just going mad http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I have all the tracks too if anyone wants them I just couldn't be arsed to post them because of all the "negative waves" man http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

@Fehler - Thank you for putting it more eloquently than I could have managed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I'm pretty much a "committed" 190 pilot now (90%+ of the time) and have no agenda or interest in bias or trying to get anything overmodelled. If we turn fight in JG5 it's a week cleaning the latrines and peeling potatoes - be sure.

I just don't understand how the turn times are working in IL-2 at the moment. I just don't get why the K-4 has worse elevator authority compared to an E-4 I mean come on! That doesn't make any sense.

Roll on V4.0 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

JG5_UnKle
04-05-2005, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by TAGERT.:
I *feel* your pain

- Nevermind, if you are trying to goad me into a response then the only thing I can assume is that you are suffering from Coprolalia and so I feel your pain too.

Got Tracks?

-Yes thanks

Without supporting data I dont know if I would go that far yet.. but the trend you have there does show the trend in the 109 development.. Where the development was due to it's changing roll throughout the war.. That is it went from a light turn fighter to a heavy high speed bomber chaser that didnt turn that well.

-Well you don't know much about the Emil then. Plus the "trend" doesn't include the G-14.

Got Track?

-Yes thanks

I may as well just filter out your posts as you strike me as an inept troll. Fehler has more patience than me I guess but you are getting pretty tiring now. Take his advice.

Von_Rat
04-05-2005, 10:39 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 Von_Rat:
thanks unkie for the info. im not sure about all planes, but i'll think you'll find that if you use trim, most planes will beat their real life data by quite abit. not just 109s. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Neat *feelings* Got data? Got Track?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
oh i took a glance at those links that someone posted. it seems that far from being the 1st to discover that k4 could meet time with trim, hes about a year late. lol. as i said before all this is old news. i guess targert new around here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>you might want to pull your head out and take not that I never claimed to be the first to do it, just the first in this thread. Because too many, like yourself, never bothered to test it because they were just basing the error off of some old thread that everyone thought they read and didnt need to re-post it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

error? every informed person was already aware that k4 could meet time with trim, you were just one of the uninformed.

what do you call what unkie posted, thats data. he has tracks to, though why he bothers for a troll like you i'll never know. i sure won't.

according to his data 109s except for k4 will turn to good with trim. hell some are turning to good without trim. so why is k4 the exception?

if this means all 109s but k4 are turning to good, fine fix them, along with all other planes that are turning to good.

if you don't beleive him try it yourself. but of course you won't.

EJGr.Ost_chamel
04-05-2005, 10:41 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 EJGr.Ost_chamel:
Ok, here is one good reason! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ok let her rip!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EJGr.Ost_chamel:
The ntrk format is no proof, on what version of IL-2 the mission was flown. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>hmmmm good point.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EJGr.Ost_chamel:
I don't want to suspect anyone of anything, but as a "proof" for the 109s abilities in version 3.04m it is only viable, if everyone can play it back from trk format in 3.04m and see the result there. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, in light of them just re-spinning what ever proof is presented and totally ignoring trim as an option it is not really worth my time to make a trk file.. They will just ignor it too.. So, you will just have to take my word for it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

C'mon Tagert, I am a bit disappointed of your sportsmanship http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ! Making your trials a real proof (which they are NOT so far, no matter how often you claim that they are) should be worth a little time.
You told us, that in your first attempt to try this turn you managed to make it in 23 seconds. So it should be a snap for you to redo it and provide a trk file.

Greets
Chamel

Von_Rat
04-05-2005, 11:22 AM
does it strike anybody else that its strange that tagert advocates that 109s should use what many red players refer to as the trim cheat.

yes im aware that in real life pilots used trim in turns. but many players complain about 109s turning to good using trim, i guess he's not one of them,,lol.

Buzzsaw-
04-05-2005, 04:44 PM
Salute Fehler

You have completely misunderstood me.

I am NOT suggesting that climbrates for the 109's in IL-2/FB be determined by doing manual pitch climbs and comparing that to historical climbs using auto pitch.

The issue I want addressed is the later 109's stall speed. These aircraft are stalling at much lower than historical speeds, thus speed bleed and drag, (which cause stall, when cumulative induced drag overcomes lift, the wing stalls) are lower than historical.

The 109's are thus able to use the lower than historical stall speed and drag to climb at steep angles, and using Manual pitch, are then able to gain altitude at much better than historical rates.

As I mentioned, you can set the 109's throttle to 100%, (equivalent to the throttle setting used in the historical 109 climbtests) and climb in manual pitch at much lower speeds than were optimum in the historical aircraft.

I want the stall speed issue addressed. This is the aspect of the FM which desperately needs to be looked at.

And it is not only the late 109's which are at fault, although they are the most glaringly overmodelled. The Spitfire IX's are also slightly overmodelled for stall speed, and the the La-5/La-7 series are considerably overmodelled. And there are a few other aircraft which need to be tweaked.

This stall speed overmodellng is the reason for some of the UFO type behaviour we see in the Sim. And it is also the reason for the ahistorical climbrates of many aircraft.

If the Stall speed issue is addressed, then we will have much more realistically modelled aircraft, as well as more realistic climb behaviour. No more hanging on the prop at ridiculously low speeds.

faustnik
04-05-2005, 04:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:


This stall speed overmodellng is the reason for some of the UFO type behaviour we see in the Sim. And it is also the reason for the ahistorical climbrates of many aircraft.

If the Stall speed issue is addressed, then we will have much more realistically modelled aircraft, as well as more realistic climb behaviour. No more hanging on the prop at ridiculously low speeds. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're making sense to me Buzzsaw!

LLv34_Stafroty
04-05-2005, 06:45 PM
what if we remove Elevator authority totally from 109? just constand climb curve for it and reduce aileron atuhority to 1/10 part after 150mph speed is reached..

SkyChimp
04-05-2005, 06:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:


This stall speed overmodellng is the reason for some of the UFO type behaviour we see in the Sim. And it is also the reason for the ahistorical climbrates of many aircraft.

If the Stall speed issue is addressed, then we will have much more realistically modelled aircraft, as well as more realistic climb behaviour. No more hanging on the prop at ridiculously low speeds. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're making sense to me Buzzsaw! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But that would take away some of the advantage of the Yak-3 and La-7. And we can't have that, now. Can we?

TAGERT.
04-05-2005, 09:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
@tagert you do realize that you could do better in convincing others if you learned to be a bit more civilized to them, dont you? Civility is the key to any constructive communication, so if you refuse to be civil, then you must not be interested in good open discussion. (Deductive reasoning there) It's really that simple.

I realize that you are confrontational by nature, but in the realm of forum discussion that is not conducive to effective communication. For example, earlier in the thread you had this long cut and paste post where you belittled the guy you were trying to give some advise to. After reading through it about 5 times, I finally got your point that he should send you a track so you could run it through devicelink and see if his joystick was giving him the problems he was experiencing. You had a good idea to extend to him, but your mode of operation was not conducive to relaying that point.

You would have been better served by simply saying, _"Hey, send me a track file and I will see if your joystick needs calibrating, or here is a link to devicelink and you can test it yourself. I can do "X" with the same flight configuration, so perhaps your stick is what is giving you your problems."_

That would have been civilized discussion. Posting in that manner would relay to the reader that you are interested in his problem.

On the other hand, the way you posted relays to the reader that you are interested in appearing superior to him, and are absolutely NOT interested in his problem. To others, it relays that you have a serious problem and need help. The fact is, the easiest way to elevate yourself is by your own works, not by putting others down. You may think it cute, or funny, but others actually look down upon those that act this way.

One way is effective communication (My example to you), the other is self-placating trollism (Your original reply to the post).

Now, given that you are obviously against trolling, wouldnt you like to think that others view you as a person whom they can ask questions of and get valuable information? Wouldnt it be better to be viewed as a forum expert instead of an antagonistical troll? The fact is you do have good information and ideas to convey, but your delivery blows. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Not many people have the ability or patience to filter through your text to get the information. I, for one have read a lot of your rhetoric and gotten angry at you in the past. A simple change of delivery and I would have understood better the topic you were trying to relay. I admit you do have valuable things to convey at times. Just as in the example post, I used device link to review a track I had and found my joystick was slightly off center, even though the calibration software looked pretty good. I never thought of using devicelink to check that. But I had to read your cr@p post 5 times to get the information because of your delivery.

Others probably wouldnt have even bothered with it, so your thoughts would have been wasted. You can at least thank me for taking the time to apply my tagert-filter and get the information you wanted to relay. hehe http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Just a little friendly advice. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Been there done that.. So thanks but no thanks! I do have to give you a big gold star for the big-brother effort.. Your advice is very good and very true of a perfect world.. Problem is the real world aint perfect. I tried the perfect world ways 12+ years ago in the Compuserve FSFORUM.. then later on the usenet.. Then when the world wide web hit I tried it again.. But I learned it aint worth it. I say what I got to say, take it or leave it, aint here to sugar coat it for you or spend alot of time gramer checking it or spell checking it or trying to make it all PC for everyone.. Because like I have told you so many Many MANY times in the past.. I DONT GIVE A RAT A$$ WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT ME. I care even less about what you think about WHAT I said.. And even less about what you think about the WAY I said it. It really is that simple.

TAGERT.
04-05-2005, 09:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EJGr.Ost_chamel:
C'mon Tagert, I am a bit disappointed of your sportsmanship http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sportsmanship?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EJGr.Ost_chamel:
Making your trials a real proof (which they are NOT so far, no matter how often you claim that they are) should be worth a little time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh they are, no mater how often you claim the are not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EJGr.Ost_chamel:
You told us, that in your first attempt to try this turn you managed to make it in 23 seconds. So it should be a snap for you to redo it and provide a trk file. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Even easier.. I could just make a trk of the ntrk. Which is the problem really.. anyone could take an old version trak, play it on a newer version, and save the trk file and present it as if it was flown on the current version. So, you see, your request is not worth it because some one would just point that out next. So you will have to take my word for it.. Or figure out how to use a hex editor to veiw the heder of the ntrk to see what version it is.. But even that can be faked.. So it all boils down to you having to take my word for it.. I in advance of your reply, know this, I dont give a RAT A$$ if you do belive me! The trk file would cause more problems then answer becuse there will be some roob out there that does not realise that a different speed PC could result in different playbacks. The ntrk is the only good way to record things. About the only way to insure it is of the current version is to place a plane or item on the map that only eixits in the current version.

TAGERT.
04-05-2005, 09:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
- Nevermind, if you are trying to goad me into a response then the only thing I can assume is that you are suffering from Coprolalia and so I feel your pain too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well at least you got the ASSume part right.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
-Yes thanks <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Your welcome.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
-Well you don't know much about the Emil then. Plus the "trend" doesn't include the G-14. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Got Track?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
-Yes thanks <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Your Welcome

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
I may as well just filter out your posts as you strike me as an inept troll. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Is what most people use as an excuse after I proved them wrong.. I alluded to this earlier, the Lwhiner will try and change the topic to take the focus off the fact they are wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Fehler has more patience than me I guess but you are getting pretty tiring now. Take his advice. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Take a nap.

TAGERT.
04-05-2005, 09:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
error? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It means you made a mistake.. go here http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=error

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
every informed person was already aware that k4 could meet time with trim, you were just one of the uninformed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not ture.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
what do you call what unkie posted, thats data. he has tracks to, though why he bothers for a troll like you i'll never know. i sure won't. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Takes one to know one?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
according to his data 109s except for k4 will turn to good with trim. hell some are turning to good without trim. so why is k4 the exception? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You dont seem to know the difference between data and sim results. Go get a pad of paper and a pen.. This is important for you to remember.. Ill wait....... Ready? Ok, know this.. Data is from real airplane tests.. ntrk files are from simulated airplanes tests. Now tuck that away in a safe place! I dont want you to look like a total tard again in the future!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
if this means all 109s but k4 are turning to good, fine fix them, along with all other planes that are turning to good. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed, as soon as some data is presented that shows they are turing too good.. But other than the data for the 109K none has been presented yet to see if the others are turing too good.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
if you don't beleive him try it yourself. but of course you won't. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ill try it as soon as there is some data to test for.

Fehler
04-05-2005, 09:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute Fehler

You have completely misunderstood me... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All the points you made int he post make a great deal of sense to me as well. I have my opinion that this is still an issue because of the inclusion of carrier based planes, but I really dont know. Ever since PF, I am able to maintain slower speeds at higher AoA, and this may be for the exact reasons you outlined.

Fehler
04-05-2005, 09:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Because like I have told you so many Many MANY times in the past.. I DONT GIVE A RAT A$$ WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT ME. I care even less about what you think about WHAT I said.. And even less about what you think about the WAY I said it. It really is that simple. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, so you are a troll.. point taken, lets all move on....

TAGERT.
04-05-2005, 09:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
OK, so you are a troll.. point taken, lets all move on.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Only if the definition of a TROLL has changed to someone who does not GIVE A RATS A$$ about what Fehler thinks.

p1ngu666
04-05-2005, 10:11 PM
for what its worth, the last time i flew lagg3, it was very very stally http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

maybe they are updating fms, other russian aircraft have gotten worse recently, i16, il2..
guess german aircraft would be next tobe updated, if they going from order included, then usa, RAF and japan...

LLv34_Stafroty
04-06-2005, 03:43 AM
Agree with Fehler, Tagert is pure troll.
never seen him post anything useful or something which is called proof. lets just ignore him, all of us. dont pay any attention to his posts.

JG5_UnKle
04-06-2005, 03:45 AM
OK Tagert just for you - (not sure why I'm even bothering as you are being such a **** about about it) but anyway as you somehow think you proved me wrong with insults alone here are the tracks:

Just for Tagert my new special friend (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/109tracks.rar)

You haven't proved anything other than how arrogant and pig headed you are, your whole squad has a reputation for it and I wouldn't be surprised if it was you alone who managed to uphold it. Take that as an insult - that's how it was intended. I'm surprised you even have posting privileges here. If I get banned for saying that then so be it, I'm not interested in your level of "discussion" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Somehow you mixed me up with a Luftwhiner who gives a sh1t http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Hell I'm even agreeing with Buzzsaw http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif and that takes some doing.

Only kidding Buzz http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Von_Rat
04-06-2005, 06:41 AM
unkie i wouldn't even bother with him anymore. we can have disagreements with guys like buzzsaw or p1ingu666, and still have a civilised discussion. with tagert it just degenerates into arguing semantics and name calling.

LLv34_Stafroty
04-06-2005, 07:01 AM
just forget that Tagert, dont pay attention.

DarthBane_
04-06-2005, 09:03 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 Fehler:
OK, so you are a troll.. point taken, lets all move on.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Only if the definition of a TROLL has changed to someone who does not GIVE A RATS A$$ about what Fehler thinks. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are a seriously sick person, therefore i wont be paying attention to your posts any more. And reconsider some therapy, because your very lucky for behaving like this on forum where you cant be reached by hand. If you talk to someone like this in RL your life must be in danger all the time. Mala forumska pickice.

TAGERT.
04-06-2005, 09:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
OK Tagert just for you - (not sure why I'm even bothering as you are being such a **** about about it) but anyway as you somehow think you proved me wrong with insults alone here are the tracks:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/109tracks.rar <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Cool! Thanks, now, what DATA did you use with these tests? I only see the DATA izzy provided for the 109K. Do you have simular DATA for all these planes? I guess what Im asking is what makes you think these planes in these track files SHOULD or SHOULD NOT be turing like they are.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
You haven't proved anything other than how arrogant and pig headed you are, your whole squad has a reputation for it and I wouldn't be surprised if it was you alone who managed to uphold it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Knowing all the memebers of the 214th. Only two of us have short tempers for ignorant and biased people who wont accept the truth when it is standing right in front of them.. And Pappy *appears* to have clean up his act a bit.. But it only *appears* that way because he basically just STOPPED bothering to even try and teach/talk to those types.. Me, unfortintly I still try. I guess it might have to do with the FACT that Pappy and I got burned out dealing with S-Head privites in the military? But I digress.. Note that most of the people who talk negative about me are people who I have proven wrong.. and thus made look rather silly in the past.. Like Von_Rat, LLv34_Stafroty, Fehler, DarthBane, etc. So they got a *thing* for me.. have for some time.. Because it takes a man to admit they are wrong.. They couldnt do that so they attacke the messenger every chance they get. As for the rest of the 214th.. Dont be small minded and pass judgement on them all based on what you know about me.. Same as you should not have a small mind and pass judgement on the 109G turn rate based off of DATA from the 109K! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Just remember, I dont have the time or inclination to sit here and spoon feed someone.. I just present what I got.. If your not man enough to acept it.. That is your problem not mine.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Take that as an insult - that's how it was intended. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And I would be all upset if I gave a rat a$$ about what you and yours thinks about me.. IF!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
I'm surprised you even have posting privileges here. If I get banned for saying that then so be it, I'm not interested in your level of "discussion" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Care to post ONE example of something I said that you consider to be BANNABLE? Probally not.. Just like you dont care to post any DATA to support your track file tests.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Somehow you mixed me up with a Luftwhiner who gives a sh1t http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Hell I'm even agreeing with Buzzsaw http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif and that takes some doing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I do admit your not the typical LWhiner.. You do seem to have a bit of an open mind.. But why you dont think trim would be used during a maxium turn test is beyond me.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Only kidding Buzz http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Me too.

TAGERT.
04-06-2005, 10:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
You are a seriously sick person, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Takes one to know one?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
therefore i wont be paying attention to your posts any more. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Gee I *feel* so empty inside.. what is this void in my chest? Oh the pain.. Why wont DarthBane return my calls! How shall I ever go on in life without his guiding hand! Poooor Meeeee!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
And reconsider some therapy, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Speaking from experance?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
because your very lucky for behaving like this on forum where you cant be reached by hand. If you talk to someone like this in RL your life must be in danger all the time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A short thin skinned 98lb geek at the key board would think that.. But, me, being 6'4" at 225lbs does not live in fear of a hand from a short thin skinned 98lb geek at teh key board.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
Mala forumska pickice. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Bless You.

WWMaxGunz
04-06-2005, 10:14 AM
Really, taking things to opinting at every other perceived problem of the sim is excuses.
I suggest that that tactic is a noisy road to nowhere. Sim cannot be perfect and we see,
the bigger it is the more things to find not right. One error justifies no other.

From a post previous to this (page before) I see that everyone always knew that the turn on
the document can be made in the sim 109K by using positive elevator trim. And it don't say
full trim, and I don't disbelieve that Tagert was able to cut the turn time down with some
amount of positive trim, probably less than half. Isn't full from neutral something like
50 taps? But anyway, just that to try and establish sanely; there is no denying the turn
can be at least brought in close using less than a great amount of positive trim.

Also, since the thread is about elevator authority; with some positive trim, you can black
the pilot out at that alt and speed.

What I think I'm reading otherwise is that since it was possible to do those things in real
with a 109K trimmed for level flight at that alt and speed (and zero indication that the trim
was kept that way, but it is MOOT to the following) and an unknown amount of pilot effort to
pull the stick back in that plane, that it should also be possible in the sim.

But the sim has a limited pilot strength applyable to the stick. Think not? Well then, in
the stick sensitivity I can adjust 0 to 100 percent... of what?

So is this about 109 elevator or is this about pilot strength or something else?
If it is elevator, then is it saying the stick force to the pilot should be less in the sim?
Is it compression? What is the mach of the turn start speed at 6km and down lower, how fast
is the same mach to compare turn ability to rather than IAS same at both alts?

What is the real 'issue'? What 'correction' is the elevator supposed to get?
You want Oleg to recognize... what? Because if he reads and looks at what he thinks you say
and finds no problem, then what will he think of the whole 'issue'? Starts with 'W'?

WWMaxGunz
04-06-2005, 10:33 AM
Hey Fehler thanks for posting about the German climb tests were yes done on auto prop.
Also I remember way back Oleg posting exctly that people running fully manual prop can
get the extra performance at risk of blowing the engine. My understanding is you just
have to be good and know what you're doing. Look on the roads today and see how many
people can't even drive a stick shift on a stock vehicle let alone something built fine
and high performance, and they aren't trying to fight in those!

It is not an exploit/cheat to use modes that are modelled as real! When they used the
prop, engine, trim, whatever in real life it was worst, 'a trick I used', often 'good
piloting' and many times 'how you're supposed to fly that plane'.

Buzz says Franz Stigler said the LW pilots used trim. Bud Anderson writes explicitly
about it even during combat, and it wasn't anything special. Is there anywhere that a
LW pilot writes about using manual prop? We have seen links here to a Russian Ace who
also preferred the P-39 before the model with fully linked controls... he was able to
use throttle and prop rpm seperately.

Any good pilot who knows his plane well and is experienced enough not to be swamped by
combat... wouldn't that pilot use what he had to maximise his flying, his chances of
surviving if not downing enemies, to achieve his mission? And me, I would expect that
sometimes he would do one way and other times, the other way as suited his situation.

Exploits? Hey, just flying is an exploit!

p1ngu666
04-06-2005, 10:56 AM
max, ive read one account of using manual prop pitch for performance gain on a plane using db engines...
110 night fighter, he was trying and failed to catch a mossie. probably why he did it, as mossie's where near impossible to shoot down, being so fast vs the average german night fighter.

he didnt catch the mossie either

JG5_UnKle
04-06-2005, 12:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> So is this about 109 elevator or is this about pilot strength or something else?
If it is elevator, then is it saying the stick force to the pilot should be less in the sim?
Is it compression?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good questions - I don't have the answers but I'm pointing out an obvious difference in these turn times that I think is worth investigating, that's all. I couldn't care less if the K-4 can't turn with XYZ because I don't fly it and I sure as hell wouldn't turn in it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I'll post these again :

Bf-109E4 18 seconds
Bf-109F2 18 seconds
Bf-109F4 20 seconds (was almost stalling)
Bf-109G2 20 seconds (as above)
Bf-109G6 26 seconds
Bf-109G6/AS 26 seconds
Bf-109G10 28 seconds
Bf-109G14 25 seconds
Bf-109K4 33 seconds

Just to clarify (and for Neal who asked) these tests were completed with neutral trim, I'm not opposed to the idea of using trim in the turn but just for this test it was more logical to remove it entirely. That way I could ensure a constant through the tests.

So we have a situation here where the E-4 has better elevator authority than the K-4... right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif and if you take a look at some of the data posted on page 1 and some of the data Buzz referenced then it doesn't really make sense.

In the F-4 and the G-2 I nearly blacked out and actually had to hold off from pulling full elevator or I would have stalled out. For some reason they had quite different responses.

The G-14 really stands out and doesn't make any sense (to me anyway) as there shouldn't be much difference between the G-10/G-14 based on wingloading. I can't see a logical reason for an 8 second difference in K-4 and G-14 turn times. If stick forces are equal why such a difference?

If I can perform those turns without trim then guess what I can do WITH trim? I managed a 17 second turn time with the K-4 by applying full trim (and blackout) and I'm no turnfighter http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As for Tagert (christ only knows why I'm bothering) the point you have consistantly failed to "prove wrong" is that the K-4 cannot perform the turn in the data provided with level flight trim. If you can do that then post a track. We are not arguing the same point otherwise. Yes the turn *Might* have been completed with trim in the test but that's not what was stated anyway. The fact is you can't acheive the turns without trim, full stop - end of story. Prove that wrong and I'll accept I'm wrong, otherwise we aren't even talking about the same subject.

You don't need data to know there is something odd about my turn times. I can't be bothered to spoon-feed it to you either, go find it yourself.

BfHeFwMe
04-06-2005, 12:41 PM
109's never had elevator trim, how many times does one have to repeat that fact. Stab trim and elevator trim are not the same, repeat that 100 times. Trimming a stab has no effect on stick force, it does have one huge of an effect on pitch trim, more than you'll ever possibly get from any tab.

But show your smarts and continue the argument over it's elevator trim........ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

TAGERT.
04-06-2005, 07:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
109's never had elevator trim, how many times does one have to repeat that fact. Stab trim and elevator trim are not the same, repeat that 100 times. Trimming a stab has no effect on stick force, it does have one huge of an effect on pitch trim, more than you'll ever possibly get from any tab.

But show your smarts and continue the argument over it's elevator trim........ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I know the 109 didnt have any alieron trim.. but it had elevator trim.. move the tab or the whole stab, end result is the same.

TAGERT.
04-06-2005, 07:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Good questions - I don't have the answers but I'm pointing out an obvious difference in these turn times that I think is worth investigating, that's all. I couldn't care less if the K-4 can't turn with XYZ because I don't fly it and I sure as hell wouldn't turn in it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I'll post these again :

Bf-109E4 18 seconds
Bf-109F2 18 seconds
Bf-109F4 20 seconds (was almost stalling)
Bf-109G2 20 seconds (as above)
Bf-109G6 26 seconds
Bf-109G6/AS 26 seconds
Bf-109G10 28 seconds
Bf-109G14 25 seconds
Bf-109K4 33 seconds

Just to clarify (and for Neal who asked) these tests were completed with neutral trim, I'm not opposed to the idea of using trim in the turn but just for this test it was more logical to remove it entirely. That way I could ensure a constant through the tests.

So we have a situation here where the E-4 has better elevator authority than the K-4... right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif and if you take a look at some of the data posted on page 1 and some of the data Buzz referenced then it doesn't really make sense.

In the F-4 and the G-2 I nearly blacked out and actually had to hold off from pulling full elevator or I would have stalled out. For some reason they had quite different responses.

The G-14 really stands out and doesn't make any sense (to me anyway) as there shouldn't be much difference between the G-10/G-14 based on wingloading. I can't see a logical reason for an 8 second difference in K-4 and G-14 turn times. If stick forces are equal why such a difference?

If I can perform those turns without trim then guess what I can do WITH trim? I managed a 17 second turn time with the K-4 by applying full trim (and blackout) and I'm no turnfighter http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Bingo! IF the stick forces are equal.. Something you DONT KNOW is true during or after the test.. There is a way to test all 109 for the exact.. and I mean EXACT inputs at the EXACT time by manually editing an *.trk file.. but it takes time.. but it is about the only way to test two different plaans and INSURE you have the same exact inputs applied at the same exact times between tests. Than an only then could you be sure that each test was flown the same and the deltas are not due to YOU flying it differently.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
As for Tagert (christ only knows why I'm bothering) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My guess, you can not admit your wrong and hope thta if you re-spin it that maybe some people wont notice you were wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
the point you have consistantly failed to "prove wrong" is that the K-4 cannot perform the turn in the data provided with level flight trim. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>the point you have consistantly failed to "prove" is that the K-4 was not trimed during the test. Which is silly imho when you consider the test was all about trying to obtain the best turn rate.. It only makes sense.. to reasonable people.. that the pilot would do what ever it takes to obtain the best turn rate.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
If you can do that then post a track. We are not arguing the same point otherwise. Yes the turn *Might* have been completed with trim in the test but that's not what was stated anyway. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It did not state is wasnt either.. it just said that on the onset of the test the plane was trim for level flight at 6000m.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
The fact is you can't acheive the turns without trim, full stop - end of story. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What ever gets you to sleep at night.. If beliving no trim was used during a turn test is what floats you boat.. Knock youself out! But most reasonable people here dont see it that way. On that note.. Oleg must be one of those reasonable people.. In that as was pointed out in this thread, Oleg said they did the test, the 109K FM is fine.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Prove that wrong and I'll accept I'm wrong, otherwise we aren't even talking about the same subject. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Easty to prove wrong, look at the data and note it does not say trim was not altered during the turn.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
You don't need data to know there is something odd about my turn times. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Never said they were or were not odd, I simply pointed out the FACT that you dont have any DATA to go by.. Just you feelings.. And which point it means nothing.. Because without numbers one mans odd is another mans normal and both are right about thier *feelings* but without DATA we wont know who's *feelings* are actully correct.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
I can't be bothered to spoon-feed it to you either, go find it yourself. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Im not the one that presented a track witout data, you are, burden is on you.

WWMaxGunz
04-06-2005, 07:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
109's never had elevator trim, how many times does one have to repeat that fact. Stab trim and elevator trim are not the same, repeat that 100 times. Trimming a stab has no effect on stick force, it does have one huge of an effect on pitch trim, more than you'll ever possibly get from any tab.

But show your smarts and continue the argument over it's elevator trim........ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Technically, no it doesn't have "elevator trim". Now everyone who uses the term is some
kind of fool?
Functionally it does. And in the sim we refer to labels. With CSP planes we refer to
prop pitch settings as well, perhaps you can http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif about that?

Long ago one forum member mailed me that he knew an acrobatics pilot who told him that
stab adjustment is more efficient than elevator trim. For all I know, it feels different
too but hey the IL2 series has a finite scope in spite of wish lists and criticisms that
it's missing la-dee-dah this and that. What Oleg sez; find another as good.

WWMaxGunz
04-06-2005, 08:55 PM
Salute Unkle, and good work you have done!

Why are the times as they are? Is there something wrong? Maybe, but just what part I dunno.

Most aero sites I read it is the wings that are the main factor of turning, the lift vector
that is turned inwards but then getting more AOA on that should get more lift -- nowhere do
I see the turn formulae say a thing about elevator, only bank angle, speed and lift. Maybe
it is because they are only about standard turns or maybe something else where elevator is
already taken into consideration.

Highspeed control, the stiffness of control surfaces play a part. I have one chart of P-39
pounds of stick pull per G at some fixed alt and as speed increases. There are 3 curves on
the chart. One is pull per G without compression or control surface warp, it is a straight
line. One is with calculated compression and no control surface warp (they used the word
'bulging') and the last, solid line was for real results including noted bulging of the
surfaces at high speed.

At 15,000 ft, real results pounds per G started climbing from straight line at 300 mph IAS.
Calculated compression only begain to climb at 360 mph IAS. Real, the force was more than
double at 400 mph IAS while calculated (again, without surface bulging taken into it) force
is the same more than doubled at 420 mph.
Approximate Real : Calculated at different speeds IAS; 300 mph, both at 4 lbs/G if I read
the chart right. 360 mph, 7 : 4; 380 mph, 8.5 : 5; 400 mph, 10 : 6.5, 420 mph, 15 : 10.5,
430 mph, 20 : 16; 440 mph, 30 : 24, 450 mph, 45 : 35; 460 mph, 62 : 45.
You can see how fast the backforce on the stick curve was rising. The slope is steep in
400-420 and up, IAS.
350 IAS is listed as about .6 Mach, 400 is about .7 and 460 is .78. Don't take those as
exact, the squares of the graph are not large and it is a scan of a NACA chart, maybe it
says ACR No. 5T13 (or 5113?) Fig 21 and there is an A-60 on the left edge.
The conditions are specified as a P-39N-1 in clean condition, trim neutral and center of
gravity at 0.288 M.A.C. as well as the 15,000 ft alt. What other conditions I don't see
on that page are probably on others that were not posted, but matter.

Okay, there is something showing the difference between reality and straight calculated
well but not factoring what they had no way to, the bulging of control or possibly wing
surfaces or more. And the difference is enough that some sim player/forum member would
howl! Just one example.

What is with the sim? Maybe there are places where more data was available for a plane
so it is modelled a bit better. Maybe in the rounds of FM tweaks, some planes are more
real one area and less in others then you throw in relative performances and it becomes
like machine parts made in different places and perhaps loose tolerances, not all the
holes line up. Easier to think of the series as a work in progress but here I am one who
wishes there was a single standard and the time taken or even available to meet it.
Maybe FM 4.0 will require total take them all to state zero, no tweaks just straight data
and we will get something less to question... if we should be questioning.

Since I don't don't know all the details down to what prop is used in the model, I don't
think I want to question Oleg too hard. Better to ask and hope he's got time to give up
a clue. Trouble is, whe he don't say you can't be sure why really but that don't stop
some people from going off not even half loaded. be sure that I wouldn't want to hunt
with those guys, they shoot without checking at any movement or noise.

Yeah you got a puzzle for us, the G-10 to G-14 to K time on your turns. All I can say is
it is probably better to ask why and try to find out than to make noise or let others do
it. Maybe it is a problem... I would guess but again, which plane(s) and how much?

Best thing is to find the Rechlin data and work from that if you can ever be sure of the
plane in the data being the same as the one in the sim. People already messed up there
with 190 climbs and speeds over prop differences. And stick with only original data as
some people take the best from different planes, same basic model (differences like props
that climb better or fly faster... so they use the best climb and the best speed) for their
fansite web pages. It leaves us with wrong pictures and they back it up with mixed quotes.

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

109's got heavier and heavier noses, got heavier and heavier. Wings got bulges, nose got
bulges, other changes were made. They got longer in the nose, how about the tail? There
were wing changes besides bulges, the F's got longer wings with elliptical tips at least....
And I read of the H series that had an extra 2 meters of wings for high alt work but also
they had vibration problems bad enough that very few were made at all.

What anyone would think it would do to turn performance, to keep adding weight even with
power. The tighter the turn, the less all that thrust is really going to help at least
at the start. It is going to tend to throw the plane outwards against the wing lift.
Anyone good at sims and I think real flying will cut the power from full going into a
turn until it is started, and then bring the power back up. Something pulling from the
front 'HARD' is not going to help beginning to change direction. Only way I've kept the
power full starting a turn is when I went into a rise from the start and that was steep
and when I was safe for a time... nose high turns as a habit is a rookie habit.

Really, that is what I have... why I don't make so many questions.
Here, I can point out that there is a flaw in the reasoning of demanding change based on
Izzys'/Kurfy's document, and it is very basic. I'm not saying nothing is wrong except for
that line of reasoning definitely is missing some links, one of them critical.

TAGERT.
04-06-2005, 11:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
109's got heavier and heavier noses, got heavier and heavier. Wings got bulges, nose got
bulges, other changes were made. They got longer in the nose, how about the tail? There
were wing changes besides bulges, the F's got longer wings with elliptical tips at least....
And I read of the H series that had an extra 2 meters of wings for high alt work but also
they had vibration problems bad enough that very few were made at all.

What anyone would think it would do to turn performance, to keep adding weight even with
power. The tighter the turn, the less all that thrust is really going to help at least
at the start. It is going to tend to throw the plane outwards against the wing lift. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Bingo!

JG5_UnKle see's a TREND that he can not explain.. i.e.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
Bf-109E4 18 seconds
Bf-109F2 18 seconds
Bf-109F4 20 seconds (was almost stalling)
Bf-109G2 20 seconds (as above)
Bf-109G6 26 seconds
Bf-109G6/AS 26 seconds
Bf-109G10 28 seconds
Bf-109G14 25 seconds
Bf-109K4 33 seconds</pre>

But as Max alluded to there is another TREND that I think explains JG5_UnKle TREND.. i.e.
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
Plane: Weight (Empty/Loaded/Max) Wing Area Wing Loading
Bf 109E-4 4,189lb / #,###lb / 5,875lb 174sq ft 24.0lb/sq ft / ##.#lb/sq ft / 33.8lb/sq ft
Bf 109F-4 5,523lb / 6,063lb / 6,392lb 173sq ft 31.9lb/sq ft / 35.0lb/sq ft / 36.9lb/sq ft
Bf 109G-6 5,893lb / 6,945lb / 7,491lb 173sq ft 34.0lb/sq ft / 40.1lb/sq ft / 43.3lb/sq ft
Bf 109K #,###lb / 7,400lb / #,###lb 173sq ft ##.#lb/sq ft / 42.0lb/sq ft / ##.#lb/sq ft</pre>

NOTE: I didnt do a whole lot of verification of these numbers.. So sue me if your book or web sight rounds off or does not point out if it is empty, loaded, or max. In any case the TREND is pretty clear.. Nearly the same wing area, but more weight.. more in the nose due to bigger engines, which ment sticking BALLEST in the rear to recover the CG.. Something Kit Carson ponied out.. They had to stick a 60lb weight in the rear that did nothing but add weight to regain the CG of the plane due to the lager engine.. The larger engiens were more for climb rates.. Got to get up there to chase a bomber! Dont need to turn fast to chase a bomber! So, the TREND is pretty clear imho.. The 109 started out a pretty nice fighter vs. fighter and was morphed into a dog catcher (buff chaser).

Kurfurst__
04-07-2005, 04:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:


But as Max alluded to there is another TREND that I think explains JG5_UnKle TREND.. i.e.
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
Plane: Weight (Empty/Loaded/Max) Wing Area Wing Loading
Bf 109E-4 4,189lb / #,###lb / 5,875lb 174sq ft 24.0lb/sq ft / ##.#lb/sq ft / 33.8lb/sq ft
Bf 109F-4 5,523lb / 6,063lb / 6,392lb 173sq ft 31.9lb/sq ft / 35.0lb/sq ft / 36.9lb/sq ft
Bf 109G-6 5,893lb / 6,945lb / 7,491lb 173sq ft 34.0lb/sq ft / 40.1lb/sq ft / 43.3lb/sq ft
Bf 109K #,###lb / 7,400lb / #,###lb 173sq ft ##.#lb/sq ft / 42.0lb/sq ft / ##.#lb/sq ft</pre>

NOTE: I didnt do a whole lot of verification of these numbers.. So sue me if your book or web sight rounds off or does not point out if it is empty, loaded, or max. So, the TREND is pretty clear imho.. The 109 started out a pretty nice fighter vs. fighter and was morphed into a dog catcher (buff chaser). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Interesting. The Bf 109 went from the 109E`s 5900 lbs weight to 7400 lbs on the Bf 109K. 25% increase of weight/wingloading, but at the same time, power DOUBLED, the airframe was improved and cleaned up considerably.... hmm. Maybe that was a counter-TREND.

One can make similiar study of other fighters, and find the same TRENDs. Tagert, why don`t you dig the TREND on P-51s, P-47, too, to see what was the relative TREND, did it effect the 109 worser or better than the others?

Let`s see this TREND with other fighters... ie., the Spit take off weights.

Spit I (1939) 5900 lbs
Spit V 1941 - 6525 lbs
Spit IX 1942 - 7400 lbs
Spit VIII 1943 - 7700 lbs
Spit XIV 1944 - 8500 lbs
Spit 21 1945 - 9000 lbs

5900 to 8500(9000), an increase of takeoff weight and wingloading by 44%. Going up about 3100 lbs above the original.



Hmm, it appears there was a TREND among WW2 fighters to get heavier and heavier, and after they 'started out a pretty nice fighter vs. fighter and was morphed into a dog catcher (buff chaser)'. And 109 was certainly not the worst example of this happening.

Kurfurst__
04-07-2005, 04:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
109's got heavier and heavier noses, got heavier and heavier. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really. The 109E/F used the DB 601 engine, weighting ca 610 kg. The G/K got the DB 605 version, differring only marginally in weight between 720-745 kg. And thats it. It`s true for Spits, though (Merlin went from 610 to 740, then the Griffon from 820 to 890 kg, and much longer. )

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Wings got bulges, nose got bulges, other changes were made. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bulges come, bulges go, thats the way bulges go. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Seriously, the late Gs/Ks replaced to old ad hoc bulges for the mainwheel and HMG with more smoothly lined ones with better aerodynamics. I doubt those things would effect handling much, or at all. They added, then reduced drag of few mph worth.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>They got longer in the nose, how about the tail? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They never got longer in nose like Spitfires, all DB engines in the 109 had the same dimensions. Thats why the 605 could replace the 601. Mind you, the 605A was basically a slightly upbored 601E. The 109G was the same airframe as the 109F, expect the engine. Almost same lenght on the entire 109 family, few cm of variation, and thats it.

The only difference to tail unit that it was made taller and increased in area by ca 1,5 sq,ft, to improve directional stability with the higher speeds. And that cant hurt.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>There were wing changes besides bulges, the F's got longer wings with elliptical tips at least.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed the F got redesigned wings, and this was shared with all 109Gs and Ks with minor differences. But everything I have read suggest this improved the F(/G/Ks) manouveribility over the Emils.

JG5_UnKle
04-07-2005, 04:52 AM
I wouldn't absolutely trust Kit Carson's "opinion" of the 109, especially WRT ballast - the 109 (60lbs) wasn't the only aircraft to receive ballast &lt;cough&gt; Spitfire... (87lbs)

Kurfurst__
04-07-2005, 05:01 AM
IIRC that laughable amount of weight, err, 25 kg, that Carson whines about so much was only put in the 109E, which was designed with retractable tailwheel, but it didnt enter production as such, and the 'ballast' was to make up for the weight of the retractive mechanism.

I bet that 25 kg effected the 2.5+ton 109E hard. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BfHeFwMe
04-07-2005, 12:09 PM
Well well, typical. Who was just crying alound in another thread about unmanly 'others' who can't ever admit when 'they're' wrong.

There's no force change in control linkages when adjusting a stab. That's not debatable, that's fact.

C-141's, C-5's, C-17's all have both systems, they set the stab angle based on CG and gross weight prior to takeoff. If the load is correct, the stab will automatically rotate the plane right at computed speed. That's not possible to do with trim tabs on any of those aircraft. They are not the same, trim tabs work well for taking force off the control surface, but with tabs alone these planes could never carry the loads or do the missions they do.

So now it's game parameters, limitations, yada yada. But that sure doesn't stop you from arguing the validity of some stupid turn test using 'elevator trim'.

Oh, the usual suspects............ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

WWMaxGunz
04-07-2005, 12:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Well well, typical. Who was just crying alound in another thread about unmanly 'others' who can't ever admit when 'they're' wrong.

There's no force change in control linkages when adjusting a stab. That's not debatable, that's fact.

C-141's, C-5's, C-17's all have both systems, they set the stab angle based on CG and gross weight prior to takeoff. If the load is correct, the stab will automatically rotate the plane right at computed speed. That's not possible to do with trim tabs on any of those aircraft. They are not the same, trim tabs work well for taking force off the control surface, but with tabs alone these planes could never carry the loads or do the missions they do.

So now it's game parameters, limitations, yada yada. But that sure doesn't stop you from arguing the validity of some stupid turn test using 'elevator trim'.

Oh, the usual suspects............ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really John?

If I'm flying along level in an adjustable stabilizer plane by holding the stick back a
bit and then I adjust the stab trim to bring the nose up, wouldn't I also need to let up
on the stick?

Stab trim -- would you argue that 109 pilots did not use it in high power dives to increase
their ability to pull out? With all the accounts of them doing just that?

Call it what you want, the function is close enough the same... more control authority.

Hey, did I make any spelling errors, while you're here? Punctuation perhaps?

lrrp22
04-07-2005, 12:28 PM
Isegrim,

From the Mk I to Mk XIV the Spitfire increased approx 30% in weight vs the 109's 25% increase from the E to K. Still, the mk XIV still enjoyed nearly a 20% advantage in wing loading over the K-4. Just another indication that the Spitfire, and its wing, had more room for growth than the very small 109.

And can you honestly claim that the Bf 109K-4 was more 'cleaned-up' than the F or G-2? Seems like a regression to me.

WWMaxGunz
04-07-2005, 12:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Let`s see this TREND with other fighters... ie., the Spit take off weights.

Spit I (1939) 5900 lbs
Spit V 1941 - 6525 lbs
Spit IX 1942 - 7400 lbs
Spit VIII 1943 - 7700 lbs
Spit XIV 1944 - 8500 lbs
Spit 21 1945 - 9000 lbs

5900 to 8500(9000), an increase of takeoff weight and wingloading by _44%_. Going up about 3100 lbs above the original.


Hmm, it appears there was a TREND among WW2 fighters to get heavier and heavier, and after they 'started out a pretty nice fighter vs. fighter and was morphed into a dog catcher (buff chaser)'. And 109 was certainly not the worst example of this happening. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What, did someone say your mama is ugly?

Guess what? The late war heavies turned heavier in general.
In some cases there were improvements made especially for high speed performance.
But I don't think that in low to mid speed and mid to low alt that anyone wants to
say a Spit IX will turn tighter than a Spit I. At least I don't.

None of that adds to answers what Unkle has shown so now is it paranoia and persecution time?
Quick! Make with the B-word!
Or maybe it's the turn everything into accusations time?

Where in your library are the turn times of those 109's? Actual Rechlin data?
Is ANY of it complete as to conditions and stick forces used?

LR55
04-07-2005, 12:55 PM
Just a question:

How many of you guys actually fly aircraft that have only a stab trim system?

I currently fly Lear 35/55 that has elevator pitch control and stabilizer trim control.

Meaning that there are no trim tabs on the elevator, when the aircraft is trimmed it moves the whole stabilizer.

And I can guarantee you that there are control forces if it is not trimmed correctly.

In training we do a pitch trim runaway emergency that even with two pilots pushing or pulling to hold zero pitch from 150 kts to Mach .78 it's almost impossible to hold it.

So as stated with stabilizer trim control only there are stick forces applied.

THAT'S FACT.

Buzzsaw-
04-07-2005, 03:55 PM
Salute

Here is something which is relevant to high speed elevator authority.

Since we all know, (or should know) that turn performance is a function of wing lift, ie. the elevator simply increases the angle of attack of the wings, and the resulting lift generated by the wings turns the aircraft. Lift is always exerted against the bottom of the wing, thus when an aircraft is banked, the lift forces the aircraft inwards, ie. turning it. A wing which is generating low lift is not going to turn an aircraft well.

NACA, (the forerunner to NASA) did quite a number of tests of aerofoils at high speeds, too determine how they responded.

If you look at this chart, you will see a number of aircraft with conventional aerofoils compared at high speed to other aircraft with low drag or laminar flow aerofoils. The aircraft's lift coefficient is compared at various Mach numbers. (Mach being the speed of sound)

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1946/naca-tn-1044/0028.gif

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1946/naca-tn-1044/index.cgi?page0028.gif

Notice how the conventional aerofoils lose lift rapidly as the Mach number increases, whereas the low drag aerofoils retain lift.

This loss/maintanance of lift can be directly correlated to how well the aircraft in question will turn at high speeds.

And while the 109 is not included in this comparison, the aerofoil used on the Messerschmidt would more closely correspond to the one's used by the P-38, P-39 and F6F-3. In fact, it would have worse response, since it has slats on its leading edge, which increase turbulence and drag dramatically at higher speeds.

TAGERT.
04-07-2005, 04:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Interesting. The Bf 109 went from the 109E`s 5900 lbs weight to 7400 lbs on the Bf 109K. 25% increase of weight/wingloading, but at the same time, power DOUBLED <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But, lookin at the turn rate numbers it is clear that the doubling of the power was not enough to offset the negative effect the extra weight had on the turn rates. Probally made for a better lawn dart.. But turn fighter? Nope.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
the airframe was improved and cleaned up considerably.... hmm. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which is not really saying much when you consider just how un-clean the 109 was before the clean up, even the final K version had bumps and lumps.. The 109 was like an old matress.. You press down one bump here.. and another one would pop up over there.. That is what happens when you try and cram 15lb of S#IT in a 10lb bag! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Maybe that was a counter-TREND. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But not enough to COUNTER the negative effect of the extra weight.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
One can make similiar study of other fighters, and find the same TRENDs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Note that no one said it couldnt be, but, the topic at hand is the 109K turn rate.. I would think you would realise that what with you being the orginator of this thread?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Tagert, why don`t you dig the TREND on P-51s, P-47, too, to see what was the relative TREND, did it effect the 109 worser or better than the others? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Because the topic at hand in this thread is the 109, where we are trying to come to grips as to why the turn rates got worse even though the power doubled.. The answer is pretty clear imho.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Let`s see this TREND with other fighters... ie., the Spit take off weights.

Spit I (1939) 5900 lbs
Spit V 1941 - 6525 lbs
Spit IX 1942 - 7400 lbs
Spit VIII 1943 - 7700 lbs
Spit XIV 1944 - 8500 lbs
Spit 21 1945 - 9000 lbs

5900 to 8500(9000), an increase of takeoff weight and wingloading by _44%_. Going up about 3100 lbs above the original.



Hmm, it appears there was a TREND among WW2 fighters to get heavier and heavier, and after they 'started out a pretty nice fighter vs. fighter and was morphed into a dog catcher (buff chaser)'. And 109 was certainly not the worst example of this happening. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Neat, why dont you get some data on the Spit and start yet another thread? Because this thread is about the 109K and the turn rate that some NOOB thought was not being simulated very well unitl I showed how it is simulated very well via a track file.

PS I noticed that you have been very silent about the simulation 360? turn rate time of 24sec @6000m matching the data you provided.. Does this mean you missed that part of the post, or that you saw it and realise you were wrong and are just not man enough to admit it?

TAGERT.
04-07-2005, 04:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
I wouldn't absolutely trust Kit Carson's "opinion" of the 109, especially WRT ballast - the 109 (60lbs) wasn't the only aircraft to receive ballast &lt;cough&gt; Spitfire... (87lbs) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well in light of the fact he NEVER said the 109 was the only one to recive it.. And your implying that he did, I think it is you I will choose not to trust.

EJGr.Ost_chamel
04-07-2005, 04:33 PM
<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 EJGr.Ost_chamel:
Making your trials a real proof (which they are NOT so far, no matter how often you claim that they are) should be worth a little time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh they are, no mater how often you claim the are not. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, i think you had to admit before, that they are only a proof that 109k was able to turn in 24 secs at 6000 m in any unknown version of IL-2.

<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 EJGr.Ost_chamel:
You told us, that in your first attempt to try this turn you managed to make it in 23 seconds. So it should be a snap for you to redo it and provide a trk file. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Even easier.. I could just make a trk of the ntrk. Which is the problem really.. anyone could take an old version trak, play it on a newer version, and save the trk file and present it as if it was flown on the current version. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Really? I don't know about this possibility! How would you save it as trk file after viewing it? There is no such feature in the game. Maybe I have been missing something, but are you sure this is possible?

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

So you will have to take my word for it.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Just like you take other peoples word? Some examples:
<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 JG5_UnKle:
Even with 25% fuel and no ammo I can't get 24-25 seconds nowhere near. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Got Track? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<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 ECV56_Rolf:
Both planes have some kind of problem at high speeds, on both of them these problems are represented at too slow speeds.
The 109 is correct on stiffening the elevator, but at the wrong speed.
The P38 is wrong on only stiffening the elevator, and also at the wrong speed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Got data? Got track? And just how did you determine the stiffness? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<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 ECV56_Rolf:
About the blackouts, I do suffered them, but under 450Km/h. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Got track? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<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 JG5_UnKle:
OK some new tests. Conditions for all tests are as follows:
Neutral elevator trim (easiest way to be sure it's the same)
Fuel 25%
Map Crimea (over water)
650 Kph in wonderwoman view
6000M
Ammo load - empty
Started a left hand turn max elevator pull timed to nearest second for completion of a 360 degree turn.
Results:
Bf-109E4 18 seconds
Bf-109F2 18 seconds
Bf-109F4 20 seconds (was almost stalling)
Bf-109G2 20 seconds (as above)
Bf-109G6 26 seconds
Bf-109G6/AS 26 seconds
Bf-109G10 28 seconds
Bf-109G14 25 seconds
Bf-109K4 33 seconds
Anyone can try this for themselves it's a pretty easy test. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Got Tracks?

...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
I think those results are pretty weird especially the G-14 not sure why it performs so much better. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Got Track? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<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 JG5_UnKle:
-Well you don't know much about the Emil then. Plus the "trend" doesn't include the G-14. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Got Track? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can't expect others to take your word if you do everything to discredit the trust in other peoples word in this forum!

Anyway, I don't want to go into a flame war here. I think you have a wrong impression of what I want!
Yes, I am in a squad that flies mainly for LW. Yes, I like it if LW planes are corrected to become better. No, I do NOT want LW planes to be modelled unreallistically. So if the elevator of the 109K is ok, then be it.
Yes, I hate these very long threads which loose their original topic out of sight and lead to a lot of ugly finger pointing. So if you can bring a track (*.trk) which really prooves, that the turn can be done like it should in v3.04m, than I will be happy and we can close this case! So plz, give us a trk file. Even if it will not play correctly on some PCs, enough people will see it and this ugly discussion should (hopefully) come to an end!

Greetings
Chamel

TAGERT.
04-07-2005, 05:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EJGr.Ost_chamel:
Well, i think you had to admit before, that they are only a proof that 109k was able to turn in 24 secs at 6000 m in any unknown version of IL-2. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, what?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EJGr.Ost_chamel:
Really? I don't know about this possibility! How would you save it as trk file after viewing it? There is no such feature in the game. Maybe I have been missing something, but are you sure this is possible? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Whoops, your right, Im wrong! I got it a$$ backwards.. You can make a *.ntrk while playing back a *.trk or *.ntrk file via the quick record key.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EJGr.Ost_chamel:
Just like you take other peoples word? Some examples: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Just like that.. And I wont be a bit upset if you dont belive me like I dont belive them! Note, it is an option, take my word for it or dont.. No skin off my back either way!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EJGr.Ost_chamel:
You can't expect others to take your word if you do everything to discredit the trust in other peoples word in this forum! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You are 100% Correct! I dont *expect* them to, it is an option. Difference here is they care if I do or dont belive them, where as I dont give a rats a$$ if they belive me or not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EJGr.Ost_chamel:
Anyway, I don't want to go into a flame war here. I think you have a wrong impression of what I want! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, I know what you want, but, knowing how poorly the *.trk files can play back on different machines I know it would cause more problems than solve. That and I know how to verify the version the *.ntrk file was recored with via a hex editor. So it is not a problem for me like it is you.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EJGr.Ost_chamel:
Yes, I am in a squad that flies mainly for LW. Yes, I like it if LW planes are corrected to become better. No, I do NOT want LW planes to be modelled unreallistically. So if the elevator of the 109K is ok, then be it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is nice to know.. But know this, even the Lw fliers who do want an edge claim the same thing you just did.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EJGr.Ost_chamel:
Yes, I hate these very long threads which loose their original topic out of sight and lead to a lot of ugly finger pointing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>me too

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EJGr.Ost_chamel:
So if you can bring a track (*.trk) which really prooves, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No need because the *.ntrk file proves it just fine if you know how to use a hex editor and the *.ntrk will play back properly on any PC, where as a *.trk hardly ever does.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EJGr.Ost_chamel:
that the turn can be done like it should in v3.04m, than I will be happy and we can close this case! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I guess you wont be happy

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EJGr.Ost_chamel:
So plz, give us a trk file. Even if it will not play correctly on some PCs, enough people will see it and this ugly discussion should (hopefully) come to an end! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ill put it on my list of things to do.. but know that it will be very Very VERY low on the list.. So dont hold your breath! But, do take note that sense I did it there are alot of Lwhiners now admiting it can be down with a little trim.. So factor that in when you poo poo my *.ntrk file.

EJGr.Ost_chamel
04-07-2005, 05:59 PM
<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 EJGr.Ost_chamel:
So if you can bring a track (*.trk) which really prooves, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No need because the *.ntrk file proves it just fine if you know how to use a hex editor and the *.ntrk will play back properly on any PC, where as a *.trk hardly ever does. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, you have pointed out before, that you know how to fake this version number in the header - so the ntrk file really doesn't bring us any further.

Greetings
Chamel

Buzzsaw-
04-07-2005, 06:06 PM
Salute Tagert and Chamel

It may not seem obvious to you, but with the repeated posts on the same subject, on and on, we tend to get away from the issue at hand.

Both of you have made good points, but the personal back and forth does not advance the issue, in fact tends to lower the value of both of your posts in the eyes of most readers.

ZG77_Nagual
04-07-2005, 06:09 PM
It is regrettable that this thread has become yet another playground for the chronically bored.

There is, I think somewhere, some actual information.

I would say among the many threads I've see discussing various modeling questions this is the most deranged..

though perhaps not by much.

Fehler
04-07-2005, 06:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute Tagert and Chamel

It may not seem obvious to you, but with the repeated posts on the same subject, on and on, we tend to get away from the issue at hand.

Both of you have made good points, but the personal back and forth does not advance the issue, in fact tends to lower the value of both of your posts in the eyes of most readers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is basically what I said. I wager he wont attack you since you are an allied flyer. Trolls are like that, you know...

TAGERT.
04-07-2005, 06:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EJGr.Ost_chamel:
Well, you have pointed out before, that you know how to fake this version number in the header - <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Fake it? In the *.trk file you can cut and paste and replace, but in the *.ntrk? I dont know if that can be faked? But I do know that different version encode different version numbers in the *.ntrk

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EJGr.Ost_chamel:
so the ntrk file really doesn't bring us any further. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Us? No, it does not bring YOU any further.. Espically in light of the fact that you wont take my word for it LET ALONE ALL THE LWHINERS that are now admting it can be done.. But, hey that is your choice!

TAGERT.
04-07-2005, 06:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute Tagert and Chamel

It may not seem obvious to you, but with the repeated posts on the same subject, on and on, we tend to get away from the issue at hand. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger, Izzy wants to get off this topic and start talking about the Spit or Mustant.. Which I can understand what with his inital post being wrong and all.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Both of you have made good points, but the personal back and forth does not advance the issue, in fact tends to lower the value of both of your posts in the eyes of most readers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which would upset me greatly if I gave a rat a$$ about the value of my post in the eyes of others.

TAGERT.
04-07-2005, 06:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
are you dense or what tagert,, its been known for over a year the k4 could meet time with trim. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe so, but you wouldnt know it from this thread prior to me doing it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
you have added nothing new with your silly test. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Dissagree 100%! We pointed out how wrong that thread was from over a year ago to assume that trim was not used... But either way would you pass it on to your buddy EJGr.Ost_chamel, he does not want to take my word for it.. Maybe he will take a fellow Lwhiners?

Von_Rat
04-07-2005, 06:49 PM
<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 Von_Rat:
are you dense or what tagert,, its been known for over a year the k4 could meet time with trim. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe so, but you wouldnt know it from this thread prior to me doing it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
you have added nothing new with your silly test. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Dissagree 100%! We pointed out how wrong that thread was from over a year ago to assume that trim was not used... But either way would you pass it on to your buddy EJGr.Ost_chamel, he does not want to take my word for it.. Maybe he will take a fellow Lwhiners? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

how exactly have you proved that trim was not used in test, i don't know if it was or wasn't. and niether do you.

the only real conclusion that old thread reached on the subject was that most planes will turn to good if trim is used. except k4 of course.

TAGERT.
04-07-2005, 06:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
Which is basically what I said. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Pretty much, only he did it in one sentence, you took a few pages. Funny part is that is like the 5th or 6th time you have *said* that.. Still got that chip on your shoulder from why back when I make you look so silly?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
I wager he wont attack you since you are an allied flyer. Trolls are like that, you know... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>How did I attack you? Or do you consider it an attack when I say I dont care about what you think of me? Is that the part you consder to be an attack? Grow up son! Dont take it personal! Im just being honest! Why do you care so much about what I think of what you say? Are you trying to be my buddy? Am I like a father figure to you and you need my approval? What is it that keeps you comming back for more?

TAGERT.
04-07-2005, 06:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
how exactly have you proved that trim was not used in test, i don't know if it was or wasn't. and niether do you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Never said I did, all I said is I think it is just as silly to assume that it was not used! The good news is that with just a little trim the 109k in IL2-PF does a very Very VERY good job at simulating the real world data. Which is trully amazing imho! Oleg should be proud!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
the only real conclusion that old thread reached on the subject was most planes will turn to good if trim is used. except k4 of course. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Of course.. Got Track? Got data?

Von_Rat
04-07-2005, 06:55 PM
wow tagert, just go back to being insulting and calling people names.

your last post to fehler is just scary.

Von_Rat
04-07-2005, 06:58 PM
<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 Von_Rat:
how exactly have you proved that trim was not used in test, i don't know if it was or wasn't. and niether do you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Never said I did, all I said is I think it is just as silly to assume that it was not used! The good news is that with just a little trim the 109k in IL2-PF does a very Very VERY good job at simulating the real world data. Which is trully amazing imho! Oleg should be proud!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
the only real conclusion that old thread reached on the subject was most planes will turn to good if trim is used. except k4 of course. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Of course.. Got Track? Got data? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

you want data and track, hunt down that old thread, its full data and tests. im not doing your homework for you.

TAGERT.
04-07-2005, 06:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
wow tagert, just go back to being insulting and calling people names.

your last post to fehler is just scary. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I know what you mean.. He is following me around like a dog that needs to be petted on the head or something.. What is tha all about? Now you, see, your a man about it, you dont define yourself around what I think about you and what you say! Bravo!

TAGERT.
04-07-2005, 07:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
you want data and track, hunt down that old thread, its full of it. im not doing your homework for you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, Im not the one making unfounded claims that all planes EXCEPT the 109K turn better.. You are, thus you should be the one to back up your claims. Sense your not, I can only assume your talking out your A$$ again and just hoping people will belive you.

TAGERT.
04-07-2005, 07:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
ohoh i think tagert paid me a compliment,, now i really am scared, lol. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Well, if you can consider being compared to Felner a complment? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
anyway before i get banned im outta here. its been fun targert. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif we'll have to do it again somtime soon. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not if I see you first! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Von_Rat
04-07-2005, 07:08 PM
<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 Von_Rat:
you want data and track, hunt down that old thread, its full of it. im not doing your homework for you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, Im not the one making unfounded claims that all planes EXCEPT the 109K turn better.. You are, thus you should be the one to back up your claims. Sense your not, I can only assume your talking out your A$$ again and just hoping people will belive you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i don't have to prove whats already been proven.just because your not aware of it, just like you weren't aware of using trim on k4. it doesn't mean i have to prove it to you. go find it yourself.

TAGERT.
04-07-2005, 07:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
i don't have to prove whats already been proven. just because your not aware of it, just like you weren't aware of using trim on k4. it doesn't mean i have to prove it to you. go find it yourself. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What ever gets you to sleep at night! But the FACT is you have not providing anything to support your claims. Thus all I can assume is your talking out your A$$ and just hoping people will belive you.

Von_Rat
04-07-2005, 07:11 PM
are you seriosly saying you missed all the posts about bat turns using trim. or the so called trim exploit. just how long have you been playing anyway.

TAGERT.
04-07-2005, 07:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
are you seriosly saying you missed all the posts about bat turns using trim. or the so called trim exploit. just how long have you been playing anyway. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Your kidding right? The bat turn trim exploit stuff from way back? You do know that Oleg added code to limit the responce of the trim so guys like you and RBJ could not do those moves anymore. Not to mention that is a totally differnt topic then what we are talking about here.

Von_Rat
04-07-2005, 07:18 PM
its not a differant topic, because even after the so called fix, people were still complaining that planes were turning to good with trim. it was a thread after the fix that im talking about, it was full of tests and data. i just tried searching for it, but search is still broke. so i'll just leave it at that.

later.

TAGERT.
04-07-2005, 07:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
its not a differant topic, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Dissagree 100%! The rate at which trim could be adj before the fix is differnet from the effect a trim setting has.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
because even after the so called fix, people were still complaining that planes were turning to good with trim. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Got a news flash for you.. This sim could be 100% correct and there would still be people complaning.. Why? Because there are people who are so dumb that they dont even realise that what they are seeing is correct. So, the number of people complaning means nothing to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
it was a thread after the fix that im talking about, it was full of tests and data. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>By *data* do you mean real world data like izzy provided here on the 109K that gives you the alt, speed, time of turn.. Or some boobs interptation of what some combat pilot said once about one situtaion.. The later is not what I would call data. As for tests, did they provide trak files or did they just write down some numbers they read off the screen while trying to do the test.. The later is not what I call a test.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
i just tried searching for it, but search is still broke. so i'll just leave it at that.

later. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Figured.. Well big gold star for effort! But probally better you didnt find it.. Because Im sure that 99% of it is that crud that is not data or a valid test imho.

Fehler
04-07-2005, 08:25 PM
Hey tagart,

I really wish we lived close together. We could go out for a drink and discuss all this.

PM me if you are ever in Ft. Worth. My treat.

TAGERT.
04-07-2005, 09:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
Hey tagart,

I really wish we lived close together. We could go out for a drink and discuss all this.

PM me if you are ever in Ft. Worth. My treat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger, and if your ever out here in So, Cal, it will be my treat.

Fehler
04-07-2005, 09:57 PM
<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 Fehler:
Hey tagart,

I really wish we lived close together. We could go out for a drink and discuss all this.

PM me if you are ever in Ft. Worth. My treat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger, and if your ever out here in So, Cal, it will be my treat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

EJGr.Ost_chamel
04-08-2005, 05:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute Tagert and Chamel

It may not seem obvious to you, but with the repeated posts on the same subject, on and on, we tend to get away from the issue at hand.

Both of you have made good points, but the personal back and forth does not advance the issue, in fact tends to lower the value of both of your posts in the eyes of most readers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you think my former three postings here were the ones that made this thread of 34 pages get away from topic? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Greetings
Chamel

Petey78
04-08-2005, 07:16 AM
Now, I've put on my asbestos underpants in anticipation of getting blowtorched because there appear to be some fiery characters in this here thread but I€m going to say it anyway: I get the impression that you guys really need to get out a bit more. Take a walk in the park, take your wife/girlfriend to the cinema or a restaurant, put up some shelves, clean the car, do whatever else you do when you€re not typing snidey comments at each other. Seriously, I use this sim for FUN, and for RECREATION. I'm as interested in WW2 history and aviation as anybody else on this forum but thirty four pages on ONE tiny aspect of the sim and furthermore thirty four pages of the same dozen or so people getting aggressive and whiny at each other... Whilst I accept that any improvement in accuracy is a bonus, is it worth this and furthermore, do you think that Oleg has got the message yet? (I€m guessing that the remainder of the community who finds this subject so banal that they aren€t commenting are certainly aware of your concerns).

I log on to the forums daily in order to be enlightened and informed of progress and developments in my favourite sim, it's nice to see and participate in new ideas and discussions being raised especially when the participants are able to do so in a civil manner (rare though that might be). It isn't nice to get the same few people banging on about something so trivial and constantly seeing this same relatively inconsequential subject at the top of the discussion forum. The Bf109 elevator response modelling may well be slightly incorrect but do you guys really think that Oleg is going to change anything when faced with thirty four pages of whining, petty, name-calling by a tiny minority of people? Or is it that you don€t actually care what Oleg thinks and have decided instead to take the chance to try to appear cleverer or better read than other flight simmers? I can€t stop this thread running on forever but I can at least appeal for you all to try to think of something else to write about if not for yourselves, then for the rest of us. For the love of God, I think that if Oleg wants to change it now, he will, especially if he€s had the time and patience to trawl through this eternal thread and pick out the tidbits of information that are useful amongst the childish b*tching that it appears to mostly consist of. In short, the elevator modelling on the Bf109 may be incorrect, as may the appearance and effect of the 50 cals, as may the handling and controllability of the P38, as may the Spitfire/Hurricane flap controls, as may the view from the FW190 €˜pit, as may the accuracy achieved by AI air gunners, as may a thousand and one other issues that matter not to the vast majority of people who do this for fun and accept the limitations of a PC, it isn€t actually real, lives are not at stake here and I've never actually been in a real Bf109 at VNE so I'll hold up my hands, shrugg my shoulders and admit that I don't actually know who's right and who's wrong. You€ve made your point/s and I wish that you could now just respect the ability and judgement of the development team to act accordingly. Even if you don't respect them, you can't sway them by being childish with each other. I reckon that Oleg is fully aware of your concern and will change it IF HE WANTS TO. If anyone finds that they are no longer enjoying this sim because of that darned Bf109 elevator may I suggest that they fly one of the other types for a bit? There's plenty to choose from. If it STILL bothers you too much, you really could do with choosing another hobby (like sitting in a cool dark space, taking deep breaths and eating pacifier pills by the handful). Now, can anyone think of anything else to talk about, in a grown up manner (if at all possible)?

JG5_UnKle
04-08-2005, 07:51 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 JG5_UnKle:
I wouldn't absolutely trust Kit Carson's "opinion" of the 109, especially WRT ballast - the 109 (60lbs) wasn't the only aircraft to receive ballast &lt;cough&gt; Spitfire... (87lbs) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well in light of the fact he NEVER said the 109 was the only one to recive it.. And your implying that he did, I think it is you I will choose not to trust. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If Kit Carson had flown a 109 I might be more inclined........ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG5_UnKle
04-08-2005, 07:57 AM
I still can't see why there is 8 seconds difference between the K4 and G14. The earlier 109's could be argued to turn better - sure, but those turn times I posted with tracks still don't add up. Without trim we have a K-4 turning in 33 seconds and the G-14 in 25 seconds. The K4 elevator authority untrimmed is quite a bit different. If you can't see that then well.....

Ergo if trimmed a lot of those turn times would be much lower - overmodelled IMHO. If that makes me a Luftwhiner then I guess I'm one of those special luftwhiners that thinks LW aircraft turn too well http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

HayateAce
04-08-2005, 08:00 AM
I agree with all you chaps.

Teh Fantasy Bogus 109 late models must be adjusted to have realistic higher stall speeds, take away clown jacko prop-pitch, and fake high speed elevator trim. Also we must add higher stick forces for less aileron control at high speed. Until this is done, all 109 lates are KlownWagon.

FB109 as it is now including shot of Whine-O-Nine occupant:

http://www.heathlandsdaynursery.co.uk/ToyShop/SitnRide/Aeroplane.jpg

JG5_UnKle
04-08-2005, 08:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
I agree with all you chaps.

Teh Fantasy Bogus 109 late models must be adjusted to have realistic higher stall speeds, take away clown jacko prop-pitch, and fake high speed elevator trim. Also we must add higher stick forces for less aileron control at high speed. Until this is done, all 109 lates are KlownWagon.

FB109 as it is now including shot of Whine-O-Nine occupant:

http://www.heathlandsdaynursery.co.uk/ToyShop/SitnRide/Aeroplane.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL well that goes for just about all the other late war aircraft too. Stall speeds are off for a lot of the aircraft. Never mind climbrates - K4/La7 spring to mind....

But I know you are only being 'Teh Joker' - right ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Fehler
04-08-2005, 08:17 AM
Well, we can discuss this til we turn blue in the face...

Why dont we just sit and wait until the new FM changes and see what comes of it?

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

JG5_UnKle
04-08-2005, 08:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
Well, we can discuss this til we turn blue in the face...

Why dont we just sit and wait until the new FM changes and see what comes of it?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Roll on Version 4 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I think it's for the best, we can always pick it up again later http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

TAGERT.
04-08-2005, 08:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
If Kit Carson had flown a 109 I might be more inclined........ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And that has to do with what about trust? You clearly and most likly purposly miss quoted him trying to further your point, and when I pointed that out you try and switch the topic once again?

JG5_UnKle
04-08-2005, 08:54 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 JG5_UnKle:
If Kit Carson had flown a 109 I might be more inclined........ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And that has to do with what about trust? You clearly and most likly purposly miss quoted him trying to further your point, and when I pointed that out you try and switch the topic once again? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Got Data?

Are you really that paranoid?

TAGERT.
04-08-2005, 09:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
I still can't see why there is 8 seconds difference between the K4 and G14. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>could be something as simiple as YOU did something a little different between the to flight tests.. Maybe you bumped the trim a little during the turn? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
The earlier 109's could be argued to turn better - sure, but those turn times I posted with tracks still don't add up. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Add up RELITIVE to what? Your *feelings* are do you have some DATA like Izzy posted on the 109K for that ALT and SPEED?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Without trim we have a K-4 turning in 33 seconds and the G-14 in 25 seconds. The K4 elevator authority untrimmed is quite a bit different. If you can't see that then well..... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>We have two seperate tests where it is posiable that the pilot may have dones something a little different.. I wont know until I have some time to look at your track files to know if that was the case, at which point I can plot the deflection of the elevator vs. the heading. Or, in the mean time you could try a few more tests in each and come up with a statistical value.. because hoenestly one test per does not weed out pilot error. Perfect example is you went from 35sec in the K to 33sec.. A varation of 2sec.. What is so hard to belive that due to the pilot a varation of +/-5sec in the G-14?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Ergo if trimmed a lot of those turn times would be much lower - overmodelled IMHO. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Key word here being OPINION! In that you have not presented any data like Izzy did for those other planes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
If that makes me a Luftwhiner then I guess I'm one of those special luftwhiners that thinks LW aircraft turn too well http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And one of those special people that thinks Carson is bias, but, only when he is talking about the 109.. Or is it only when he says anything negative?

TAGERT.
04-08-2005, 09:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Got Data? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Better than that, I got proof.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Are you really that paranoid? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! See, the typical Lw tatic.. Got caught in a lie.. Let change the topic and attack the messenger.. Classic Lw SOP! Nice try!

JG5_UnKle
04-08-2005, 09:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
could be something as simiple as YOU did something a little different between the to flight tests.. Maybe you bumped the trim a little during the turn? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In a word, "no". I even netralised the trim (Shift + Up Arrow) and even remove any joystick mapping to be sure that there was not even the slightest influence. Test it yourself.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Add up RELITIVE to what? Your *feelings* are do you have some DATA like Izzy posted on the 109K for that ALT and SPEED? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Relative to each other - simple. I'm trying to get hold of Reichlin test data, if you have some which would help to explain the G-14 then that would be great http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>We have two seperate tests where it is posiable that the pilot may have dones something a little different.. I wont know until I have some time to look at your track files to know if that was the case, at which point I can plot the deflection of the elevator vs. the heading. Or, in the mean time you could try a few more tests in each and come up with a statistical value.. because hoenestly one test per does not weed out pilot error. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cool, you check the tracks. I made 2-3 each but didn't post all of them. I had to find the balance between best rate and almost stalling out and spinning with the F-4/G-2. However I don't see how "Pilot Error" would have helped me turn 8 seconds quicker http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Key word here being OPINION! In that you have not presented any data like Izzy did for those other planes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yep, that's what I said. I took in game data and shared my "opinion".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And one of those special people that thinks Carson is bias, but, only when he is talking about the 109.. Or is it only when he says anything negative? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL that's a good one I never said Carson was biased he's simply wrong about certain things. Read his article for air power - I'm not special in thinking that about Carson - be sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But what does that have to do with LW aircraft turning too well? Nothing really, and you accuse me of changing the subject. Laugh-O-rama you crack me up.

JG5_UnKle
04-08-2005, 09:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Better than that, I got proof. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have proof that Carson didn't say the 109 had ballast and that it was a terrible design error? Wow, I would like to see that.

Edit: Oh, you mean you have proof he flew a 109? Now that's different, I would like to see that - no reason to not believe you have it, I'm not the biased paranoid type http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

karost
04-08-2005, 10:56 AM
Ok. I make shot cut link for some good info. inside 35 page to save time for a new comming to read. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kurfurst (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=3361077062&r=1861015162#1861015162)
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit109turn.gif
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1105021432_5026-33_turndiagram.jpg


Holtzauge A (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=3361077062&r=2591061162#2591061162)
Holtzauge B (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=3361077062&r=9701059162#9701059162)
"From t=1 to t=8 sec the load factor n=5 and the bank angle is 78.5 degrees. From 8 sec on Ca is 1.13 which is about Ca max. The load factor (n) decreases after this"
IMHO this means that after 8 sec into the turn the turn is limited by the wings potential to produce lift and not by stick forces. Thus the chart shows that it should be possible to turn up to the stall limit IRL under these conditions.


Blottogg (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=3361077062&r=9061003262#9061003262)
Concerning the doghouse plots comparing the E-3 and Spitfire, the g curves are for instantaneous turn, as Neal correctly observed back on page 1 of this thread. The "angle of straight climb" curves are another way of saying Ps=0, which I hadn't heard before. Leave it to the Brits to introduce another aeronautical term I'm unfamiliar with. Other than that I don't see many surprises in the plots. The 109 has a slightly higher Clmax (thanks to the slats) than the Spitfire (the elliptical wing isn't worth as much as the slats for Clmax.) The Spitfire has lower stall speeds at low g (due to the much lower wing loading), but the 109's stall curve steepens at high g's, which I'm not sure about. Perhaps the slats work better at high AoA than I thought, or perhaps the curve was extrapolated. Again, this diagram reveals nothing about pitch trim or stick forces.


BBB_Hyperion (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=3361077062&r=3831043262#3831043262)
http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/structures/tails/109.05e43_report/05e43-p1.htm
You can get the g data from devicelink interface.

LBR_Rommel (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=3361077062&r=1411081282#1411081282)
Bf109g2 (manual) page 15 for diving speed ... I think some programer mixed 400mph with 400kmh

AndyHigh (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=3361077062&r=3961094982#3961094982)
Here is quickly translated excerpt from a book called "Punalenta"jien kiusana"

Ugly_Kid (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=3361077062&r=6381012292#6381012292)
For clarification I have no beef with Bf as it is (except the ****ed gun) I am just generally annoyed by some unqualified inputs here. Guys preaching long analysis of aerodynamic qualities wing profiles etc. and then not being able to name the correct profiles nor any of the relevant performance aspects for them. Guys guessing about ailerons and recommending the others to educate themselves whereas their primary source seems to be biggles comics. This used to be a place with useful information.

anarchy52 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=3361077062&r=9391039003#9391039003)
I believe the original test documents should outweight pilot's accounts as far as performance numbers are concerned. Especially those of pilots flying the enemy's plane since they tend to be overly subjective. As for Carson's analysis of 109 - there were some very harsh critics: http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/Carson/Carson.html

JG5_UnKle (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=3361077062&r=2641036103#2641036103)
Slightly modified version to help with visibility:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/k4turn.jpg


NVP1 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=3361077062&r=3721039303#3721039303)
I'm in no way trying to get involved into the conversation Wink ,just trying to be of help to those who complained about the broken "search" function(imho,broken indeed)-i've got two bookmarked threads on the subject:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=789103624&p=1
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=26210663&p=4

( ..... Thanks alot NVP1 )


Petey78 April 08 2005
I get the impression that you guys really need to get out a bit more. Take a walk in the park, take your wife/girlfriend to the cinema or a restaurant, put up some shelves, clean the car, do whatever else you do when you're not typing snidey comments at each other. Seriously, I use this sim for FUN, and for RECREATION. I'm as interested in WW2 history and aviation as anybody else on this forum but thirty four pages on ONE tiny aspect of the sim and furthermore thirty four pages of the same dozen or so people getting aggressive and whiny at each other...

I agree that... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

...... Well.......

"corrected elevator for the 109..." is not easy thread to convice the community to accept like 151/20 which require alot of help from many friends and alot of constructive information to support .

Kurfurst__ and many good friends who provide alot of good constructive information ( with out personal e-go emotion ) I would like to say "Thank you" for your time contribute for this community.

I / we still need to read more constructive information ( with history document support .... that's wonderful...) about "corrected elevator for the 109..." from all of you who like to help and share us .


Regards,


"I like to read same thing was pointed from difference ppl and from difference source then soon I will see a wonderful knowledge...."
Karost.

JG5_UnKle
04-08-2005, 01:11 PM
Yes Karost you are right man. I'm calling it quits this has gone too far already. Peace to Tagert and everyone.

ZG77_Nagual
04-08-2005, 01:37 PM
Nicely done Karost. I too am signing off this thread.

WWMaxGunz
04-08-2005, 02:44 PM
In Grendels post I kept reading that the slats come out at low speed. Never when fast is
it said, no example. Well, there is Rall who spoke of slat coming out in a rough turn by
gravity and not saying speed so.

In a turn you have lift force divided into vectors if you will. Some holds the plane up
and some pulls the plane into the turn. When the plane is going slow, there is less of
lift to go around, to use in turning. You can increase AOA to get the extra lift, yes,
but it comes also with increased drag. Thrust decreases with very low speed (depending
on the prop is how much) while AOA to maintain level turn keeps increasing along with drag.
So is the best turn really going to be slats out? And if so, is that for all models of
109?

Speed of slats out... is this at or lower than any speed on the 109K diagram posted?

And last, for Unkle (S!) I wonder if the 109K prop used in the sim is specially optimal
for high speed and perhaps as modelled, the G-14 prop is not? Then the K would not get
as good thrust efficiency in the turn as the G-14. It *could* be something so simple.
It *could* be the G-14 is a bit over, the K a bit under, and then some things right just
as well. And without being able to reach in and know, we have only Oleg to say.

So I hope he has seen and perhaps it is things like this and other FM issues that has
brought the decision to fit the new FM in. Perhaps we get no answer partly for the
explanation would be too much to write and only make more questions, most of which he
would not consider good.

Buzzsaw-
04-08-2005, 03:48 PM
Salute

Karost has cleverly (?) left out any posts in this thread which do not support the original premise that the 109K4 should turn better.... Hmmmm.... Pretty good indication that he is not interested in an objective discussion.

I will say this to start:

1) We need to see the complete report on this K4 turn test. Not just the single document we have been presented with. In the past, (the maximum dive speed chart for the 109 which Kurfurst posted comes to mind) Kurfurst has posted charts or edited excerpts which when taken out of context, lead to false conclusions. (in the 109 dive speed chart, the suggestion was made by Kurfurst that the speeds achieved were IAS when in fact they were TAS) We need to know the weight of the K4 at the time of the test, whether it was an experimental aircraft, whether it had been modified, etc. None of this is clear on the chart. Unlike most performance reports distributed by the Luftwaffe, this one has NO weights, NO engine power rating, etc. etc.

2) We already have established the fact that the K4 can execute turn times which match what is shown on this chart, when trim is used. And we know that Luftwaffe pilots routinely used trim in high speed situations. Yet the Luftwaffe side continues to insist that the turn must be executed successfully in the same time as shown on the chart when NO trim is used. Of course, that means, that when trim IS used, the turn times will be MUCH less than shown on the chart.

So the only conclusion we can draw, is that the Luftwaffe pilots want to be able to do the turn in 24 seconds when using level trim, and then be able to turn in 18... 19... or perhaps 20 seconds??? when using trim. Which would be completely ahistorical. (even if the chart is not from an experimental aircraft or one at lower weight)

We already have a situation whereby the 109 achieves its historical climbrate in auto pitch and at 100% power. And additionally, by switching to manual pitch, Luftwaffe pilots are able to climb 25% better than historical. (still at 100% power)

So the question is this:

How many ahistorical advantages do the 109 flyers really need? And why is it that they continue to insist that all of these advantages be given?

TAGERT.
04-08-2005, 05:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Karost has cleverly (?) left out any posts in this thread which do not support the original premise that the 109K4 should turn better.... Hmmmm.... Pretty good indication that he is not interested in an objective discussion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Noticed that too

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
I will say this to start:

1) We need to see the complete report on this K4 turn test. Not just the single document we have been presented with. In the past, (the maximum dive speed chart for the 109 which Kurfurst posted comes to mind) Kurfurst has posted charts or edited excerpts which when taken out of context, lead to false conclusions. (in the 109 dive speed chart, the suggestion was made by Kurfurst that the speeds achieved were IAS when in fact they were TAS) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, lawyers tend to *filter* the info they provide.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
We need to know the weight of the K4 at the time of the test, whether it was an experimental aircraft, whether it had been modified, etc. None of this is clear on the chart. Unlike most performance reports distributed by the Luftwaffe, this one has NO weights, NO engine power rating, etc. etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Good ponit, but, you have to admit this *data* is alot more than they typically supply us with.. Typically it is just some *interptation* of what some pilot said. As if *thier* interptation is the only one. Now, had the 109K in the game not been able to do the turn under any situtaion, then they could have an argument. But, the simple fact that it does do it with just a little trim means they dont have an argument. Thank god *they* didnt realise that from the get go and made the mistake that no trim was used.. Otherwise we would not have seen the data provided.. Or maybe they would have dont the lawyer things and zoomed in to only certain parts of the picture and left out the discription of the test.. As was done with some of the stuff on page 1. You have to wonder what was said just before and after the paragraph that was shown, let alone the page before and after.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
2) We already have established the fact that the K4 can execute turn times which match what is shown on this chart, when trim is used. And we know that Luftwaffe pilots routinely used trim in high speed situations. Yet the Luftwaffe side continues to insist that the turn must be executed successfully in the same time as shown on the chart when NO trim is used. Of course, that means, that when trim IS used, the turn times will be MUCH less than shown on the chart. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
So the only conclusion we can draw, is that the Luftwaffe pilots want to be able to do the turn in 24 seconds when using level trim, and then be able to turn in 18... 19... or perhaps 20 seconds??? when using trim. Which would be completely ahistorical. (even if the chart is not from an experimental aircraft or one at lower weight)

We already have a situation whereby the 109 achieves its historical climbrate in auto pitch and at 100% power. And additionally, by switching to manual pitch, Luftwaffe pilots are able to climb 25% better than historical. (still at 100% power)

So the question is this:

How many ahistorical advantages do the 109 flyers really need? And why is it that they continue to insist that all of these advantages be given? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Seems to be no end to it really.

TAGERT.
04-08-2005, 05:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Yes Karost you are right man. I'm calling it quits this has gone too far already. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Didnt you say that on page 26? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Peace to Tagert and everyone. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Big Libral Hug's and Kisses fer all you touchine *feelie* types out there! Have a merry weekend!

TAGERT.
04-08-2005, 05:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Relative to each other - simple. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, ok, so your saying a 109E does not turn like the 109K data shows? Isnt that kind of a DUH statement?

JG5_UnKle
04-08-2005, 05:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Have a merry weekend! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Will do thanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif You too

TAGERT.
04-08-2005, 05:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Will do thanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif You too <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Back So Soon? LOL! I knew it!

JG5_UnKle
04-08-2005, 05:21 PM
<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 JG5_UnKle:
Will do thanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif You too <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Back So Soon? LOL! I knew it! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well you have to say goodbye properly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT.
04-08-2005, 05:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Well you have to say goodbye properly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thought I did when I said have a merry weekend all you tochie feelie types? But welcome back for.. for.. is this the 2nd or 3rd time you got upset and left only to come back?

faustnik
04-08-2005, 05:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
LOL! See, the typical Lw tatic.. Got caught in a lie.. Let change the topic and attack the messenger.. Classic Lw SOP! Nice try! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I try to read your posts with an open mind Tagert but, this kind a cr@p just spells troll. If you're so biased as to label everybody who flys blue that way then your posts are just a waste of bandwidth. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

TAGERT.
04-08-2005, 05:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
I try to read your posts with an open mind Tagert but, this kind a cr@p just spells troll. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which would mater if I cared what you thought abuot me.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
If you're so biased as to label everybody who flys blue that way then your posts are just a waste of bandwidth. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Biased? When did I say EVERYONE that flys blue? I Dont recall saying that? Must be that same logic/reasoning visual filter the Lwhiner use when they say Carson is biased?

Von_Rat
04-08-2005, 05:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Karost has cleverly (?) left out any posts in this thread which do not support the original premise that the 109K4 should turn better.... Hmmmm.... Pretty good indication that he is not interested in an objective discussion.

I will say this to start:

1) We need to see the complete report on this K4 turn test. Not just the single document we have been presented with. In the past, (the maximum dive speed chart for the 109 which Kurfurst posted comes to mind) Kurfurst has posted charts or edited excerpts which when taken out of context, lead to false conclusions. (in the 109 dive speed chart, the suggestion was made by Kurfurst that the speeds achieved were IAS when in fact they were TAS) We need to know the weight of the K4 at the time of the test, whether it was an experimental aircraft, whether it had been modified, etc. None of this is clear on the chart. Unlike most performance reports distributed by the Luftwaffe, this one has NO weights, NO engine power rating, etc. etc.

2) We already have established the fact that the K4 can execute turn times which match what is shown on this chart, when trim is used. And we know that Luftwaffe pilots routinely used trim in high speed situations. Yet the Luftwaffe side continues to insist that the turn must be executed successfully in the same time as shown on the chart when NO trim is used. Of course, that means, that when trim IS used, the turn times will be MUCH less than shown on the chart.

So the only conclusion we can draw, is that the Luftwaffe pilots want to be able to do the turn in 24 seconds when using level trim, and then be able to turn in 18... 19... or perhaps 20 seconds??? when using trim. Which would be completely ahistorical. (even if the chart is not from an experimental aircraft or one at lower weight)

We already have a situation whereby the 109 achieves its historical climbrate in auto pitch and at 100% power. And additionally, by switching to manual pitch, Luftwaffe pilots are able to climb 25% better than historical. (still at 100% power)

So the question is this:

How many ahistorical advantages do the 109 flyers really need? And why is it that they continue to insist that all of these advantages be given? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

they want just as many ahistorical advantages that the other planes get. including all those allied planes that turn ahistorically well when using trim.

don't even bother with the got data got tracks ****. its been proven in the past and im not redoing all those tests for anybody.

TAGERT.
04-08-2005, 05:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
they want just as many ahistorical advantages that the other planes get. including all those allied planes that turn ahistorically well when using trim. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Got Dat... Oh.. Wait, that's right.. Your the guys who just makes whild a$$ unfounded claims and when asked to present something the support his claims he says there is plenty but he does not have the time to provide the link.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
don't even bother with the got data got tracks ****. its been proven in the past and im not redoing all those tests for anybody. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Aint asking fer you to re-do them, you would problly screw them up like you must have done last time.. What we want is the DATA that you based your tests on. Then, someone like me can come along and prove it is actully hitting the numbers just fine.. and it was pilot error.. Much like Im sure was the case in ALL THOSE tests you did but dont have the time to do now.

Von_Rat
04-08-2005, 06:04 PM
you know dam well that search is broke. im not going to dig up that data again for a troll.

go do it yourself, get you off these forums for awhile.

i don't have to prove anything to the likes of you.

JG5_UnKle
04-08-2005, 06:23 PM
<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 JG5_UnKle:
Well you have to say goodbye properly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thought I did when I said have a merry weekend all you tochie feelie types? But welcome back for.. for.. is this the 2nd or 3rd time you got upset and left only to come back? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not upset, I'm having a great time actually FLYING this sim instead of just talking about it and posting between COOPs. I'm sure as hell not going to waste my time arguing with you - be sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Whatever floats your boat though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Gotta go !

TAGERT.
04-08-2005, 06:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
you know dam well that search is broke. im not going to dig up that data again for a troll.

go do it yourself, get you off these forums for awhile.

i don't have to prove anything to the likes of you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL!

TAGERT.
04-08-2005, 06:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
I'm not upset, I'm having a great time actually FLYING this sim instead of just talking about it and posting between COOPs. I'm sure as hell not going to waste my time arguing with you - be sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Whatever floats your boat though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Gotta go ! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Clearly you are.

JG5_UnKle
04-08-2005, 07:14 PM
OK whatever makes you happy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif I'll be sure to cry myself to sleep over it tonight.

What a ******!

faustnik
04-08-2005, 09:43 PM
Yeah, the level of ******* being reached is pretty impressive. Can't you make a point without being insulting Tagert? I understand if you are too much of an internet tough guy to care what people think about you, but, don't you have anything of value to say? If you post like a total asshat every time, people ignore your posts and miss anything valuble that you might have to say.

I little mutual respect will go a long way to keeping this forum interesting and possibly productive.

TAGERT.
04-08-2005, 09:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Yeah, the level of ******* being reached is pretty impressive. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It's a gift

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Can't you make a point without being insulting Tagert? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Scroll back a few pages and you will see that I did and do.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
I understand if you are too much of an internet tough guy to care what people think about you, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah good.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
but, don't you have anything of value to say? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If it is about simulation, then it could be of value, if I have just proved you wrong and you decide to take the focus off of that fact by telling me how you feel about me and what I say.. That has no value to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
If you post like a total asshat every time, people ignore your posts and miss anything valuble that you might have to say. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry bout thier bad luck!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
I little mutual respect will go a long way to keeping this forum interesting and possibly productive. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, go back and check out how it started.. I think you will find that I was respectful.. it was only after several denile post and tanget topics about how they feel about me is when I swiched modes.

Longjocks
04-08-2005, 10:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
If you post <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You're just jealous
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
like a total asshat <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>because you don't have
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
every time, people <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>the nerve to post
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
ignore your posts and miss <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>in broken points
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
anything valuble <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>that gets you banned
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
that you might <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>in many other forums
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
that you might have to say. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>because it's considered abuse
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
I little mutual respect <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>and not a proper form of conversation.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
will go a long way <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Instead you are uncool
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
to keeping <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>and communicate like 'normal' people.

Longjocks
04-08-2005, 10:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
this forum interesting and possibly productive. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You also have a problem with just making a single insightful post making your opinion clear and leaving it alone until you have another new and important point to make further down the line. I think you're rather highly strung and should seek help.

You're probably also jealous of Tagert because at least he doesn't multi-post just to answer every person. Maybe you should give give it a try instead being so jealous... be pro-active. Or maybe you could be like me and use poor attemps at satire and sarcasm to make a point. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

faustnik
04-08-2005, 10:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Longjocks:
You also have a problem with just making a single insightful post making your opinion
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Longjocks:
Maybe you should give give it a try instead being so jealous...; <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

will

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Longjocks:
Or maybe you could be like me and use poor attemps at satire and sarcasm to make a point. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

try. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Buzzsaw-
04-08-2005, 10:58 PM
Salute Tagert and Longjocks

Don't insult Faustnik please.

He is an objective thinking player who is interested in the facts and not gaining an advantage.

For example, he is a big 190 fan, he flys 190's by preference, loves the plane, (and is one of the best 190 pilots I have yet run into) yet when I try to tell him the 190A4 should be operating at 1.42 boost, instead of 1.35, he says he is convinced that the lower performance Oleg has modelled is correct. And lists a couple of reasons why. Ie. he is arguing that the aircraft he flys should be modelled with a lower performance. That is someone interested in the facts, not self interested gain.

So once again, take a few seconds and ask yourself if you get anywhere by attacking someone who may just be someone who will support you when you make a good point.

I am also tiring of this thread, most notably because of the atmosphere. And won't be making any further comments here.

WWMaxGunz
04-08-2005, 11:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:

they want just as many ahistorical advantages that the other planes get. including all those allied planes that turn ahistorically well when using trim.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What can I say? Some things of many planes currently in the sim are overdone or underdone.
So 109K should turn overmodel because P-51 has pitch control too good? Then should P-47 be
able to overclimb as well as 109K??? That is a ladder of increase where each step is made
by standing on the last. You might as well go buy CFS and make your own UFO's. Why even
bother with logic and justifies in that case? Tell them to change it just because some
other plane is overdone.

It all started when Oleg made two 190's meet ideal Rechlin specs back in spring 2002.

WWMaxGunz
04-08-2005, 11:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Yeah, the level of ******* being reached is pretty impressive. Can't you make a point without being insulting Tagert? I understand if you are too much of an internet tough guy to care what people think about you, but, don't you have anything of value to say? If you post like a total asshat every time, people ignore your posts and miss anything valuble that you might have to say.

I little mutual respect will go a long way to keeping this forum interesting and possibly productive. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've had to start paging past his posts and any replies that quote them.
I just don't have the time, the content is never anything worth it.

TAGERT.
04-09-2005, 12:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute Tagert and Longjocks

Don't insult Faustnik please.

He is an objective thinking player who is interested in the facts and not gaining an advantage. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Dont worry, Longjocks wasnt.. He was just trying to be funny.. TRYING! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif As for me and faustnik.. Let me see if I understand this *insult* thing correctly.. In his 1st post to me at the top of the page he calls me a troll and calls me bias for somethig I never said.. I in return simply told him that I dont care what he thinks about me.. And Im the insulting one here? Huh? Ok, I guess super man flys backwards in this world too?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
For example, he is a big 190 fan, he flys 190's by preference, loves the plane, (and is one of the best 190 pilots I have yet run into) yet when I try to tell him the 190A4 should be operating at 1.42 boost, instead of 1.35, he says he is convinced that the lower performance Oleg has modelled is correct. And lists a couple of reasons why. Ie. he is arguing that the aircraft he flys should be modelled with a lower performance. That is someone interested in the facts, not self interested gain. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is good to know.. But just to be clear here.. I didnt say faustnik is making up stuff like some of the others here.. It all started with him calling me a troll and saying Im bias for something I did not say.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
So once again, take a few seconds and ask yourself if you get anywhere by attacking someone who may just be someone who will support you when you make a good point. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, I have no time for people who will hold a grudge for me pointing out errors.. Because someone like that is not the kind of support I would want in the first place! I dont hold a grudge for anyone that correct a mistake I have made.. I have made plenty and will surly make more! I have no problem with not being perfect.. Many here do! If a guy is right, Ill agree with him no mater who! If I think a guy is wrong, Ill dissagree with him no mater who! I wont provide falus support like some of the gang minded folks here. Perfect example, Stiglr.. I think he is wrong about 99% of the time.. So much so that *he thought* I would take the other side of the topic just to dissagree with him.. And when I agree with him last week he about fell out of his chair! So suprised that *I* would agree with him on something. See, that is what you get and expect when you play those YOU AGREE WITH ME AND ILL AGREE WITH YOU GAMES! Im not here to kiss the A (aka FALSE SUPPORT) of someone in the hopes that they might agree with you one someting in the future.. I dont need that, Ill let the data and or test speak for themselfs. Thus I dont need to be nice to Faustnik just because there is a chance he *might* agree with me in the future, espically when he *starts off* calling me a troll and saying Im bias for something I didnt say.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
I am also tiring of this thread, most notably because of the atmosphere. And won't be making any further comments here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger! Wasnt like it was going anywhere anyways! Took them 26 pages to figure out how to use trim!

TAGERT.
04-09-2005, 12:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I've had to start paging past his posts and any replies that quote them.
I just don't have the time, the content is never anything worth it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Pffffffft! Because eveyone of your posts is above it all and just full of perls! Give me a break!

faustnik
04-09-2005, 12:24 AM
Buzzsaw,

Thanks for the support. I appreciate it. Just like you, lots of the members of this forum want to see the sim as accurate as possible. We may argue a little, but, we all have the same goal.

Fehler
04-09-2005, 12:37 AM
http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/mysteries/images/toilet.jpg

Longjocks
04-09-2005, 06:11 AM
Tagert, if my mum says I'm a funny guy, then it's true, ****it!

Von_Rat
04-09-2005, 06:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:

they want just as many ahistorical advantages that the other planes get. including all those allied planes that turn ahistorically well when using trim.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What can I say? Some things of many planes currently in the sim are overdone or underdone.
So 109K should turn overmodel because P-51 has pitch control too good? Then should P-47 be
able to overclimb as well as 109K??? That is a ladder of increase where each step is made
by standing on the last. You might as well go buy CFS and make your own UFO's. Why even
bother with logic and justifies in that case? Tell them to change it just because some
other plane is overdone.

It all started when Oleg made two 190's meet ideal Rechlin specs back in spring 2002. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i was being a little sarcastic wwmaxguns,, sorry i should of specified that i to want all the planes to be as real as possiable.

karost
04-09-2005, 07:16 AM
From the good help form NVP1 share us two bookmarked threads from
broken "search" function(imho,broken indeed) ...

there have many good read behind "broken search" that concern this thread ( and other) ....
hope this may help a new comming not miss a good things http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


...... Are you ready ? ......
Ok..... Lets Go !



CHDT November 20 2003 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=26210663&r=38210663#38210663)
"there is not a single reliable test or pilot account to support this - just some allied pilots with no knowledge of how to fly a 109 - post ONE account from a german 109 pilot complaining about a concrete 109 elevator. no - you can't."
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/hist/WW2History-KyostiKarhilaInterview.html


SkyChimp November 20 2003 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=26210663&r=88210663#88210663)
At higher speeds of 350 or 400 mph I think they are modelled well.


johann_thor November 20 2003 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=26210663&r=59210663#59210663)

trying to dig something up on the difference between buchon and gustav - but in the meantime thought this might be interresting ... totally off topic though
http://www.nzfpm.co.nz/images/other/mark.jpg
http://www.nzfpm.co.nz/articles/ratacwd3.htm


Lunix November 20 2003
http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/Carson/Ruderkraefte.gif


Oleg_Maddox November 21 2003 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=26210663&r=43310663#43310663)

I have the curve that show all the forces on a stick at different speeds recovering of dive.. These curves are from Messerscmitt original tests. So really such tests were done at speeds close to 1000 TAS km/h in dive recover (however the aircraft after that was retried due to micro cracks of longerons and other structural details
Trust me, 109 is harder to recover than most other aircraft in a dive. But it doesn't means that it was impossible. Harder for sure and sometime in comparison very harder. Thats true and here I agree with you, that this thing is really great 109th myth about impossiblity to recove



BBB_Hyperion November 22 2003 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=26210663&r=90410663#90410663)

Can confirm this . at higher speeds difference gets even higher .

950 Ias = 950 / 1.60934 = 590,30 mph

Indicated in Cockpit = 525 mph

Cant be a TAS readout on mph gauge cause value is lower
1191 km /h TAS with 525 * 1.60934 = 844,90 km /h

Maybe gauge needs some time show correct data but
590,30 mph - 525 mph = 65,3 mph = 65,3 * 1.60934 = 105,09 Km/h is surely a slow gauge .

Someone may have the documents to proof that the gauge needs that much time to spool up in dive . So that Pilots did actually know that the indicated real dive speed was way higher than the indicated airspeed on mpg gauge .)


ladoga November 22 2003 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=26210663&r=91410663#91410663)

Have you read this article?
http://members.aol.com/dheitm8612/breed.htm

Article is quite interesting even if Col. Carson simply doesn't seem to understand reasons behind 109 design. It isn't very scientific either but repeats some often mentioned points of main handling differences between 109 and 190.


Abbuzze November 27 2003 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=26210663&r=70510663#70510663)

The chart is from
http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/structures/tails/109.05e43_report/05e43-p1.htm
click right into the image to see the next one...

the Werksnummer of the "unknown" plane is W.Nr.9228 It was a 109F (which reached the terminal dive speed 0.805 Mach )

The plane was equiped with 109G wings and it had the new tall tail!
The test had not the aim to evaluate the max. divespeed, it should only test if the new tail increase the stability in highspee- diving, the tall tail did the job good...

With the wrong trimset the pilot was not able to pull out of the dive, he had to correct the trim to recover the dive, but then the reaction of the plane was so violant that he had to pull the stick foreward to be not blacked out...

with the right trimset +1?15 it was possible to pull out of the dive without using the trim, just pull the Stick (its the graphic Isegrim posted!) the interesting fact is... BOTH flightpaths, with (and with the danger to be blackout) and without use of the trim are nearly the same... so even if you only use your stick (and right trimset!) you can pull a 109 so hard that you get close to a blackout...


ZG77_Nagual November 20 2003 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=26210663&r=87210663#87210663)

P-51D, at corner speed, measures 48 lbs in a 3g pull. Up to 86 Lbs at
5g's. The P-47D, OTOH, requires just 16 lbs at 3g and 27 lbs at 5g's.
The testers state that the Mustang was a true "two hander".

from here
http://www.yarchive.net/mil/p51.html



butch2k May 25 2004 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=789103624&r=323100134#323100134)
the afore mentionned document
http://mapage.noos.fr/olefebvre/bf109k4-turn-time.jpg


Ivank May 25 2004 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=789103624&r=777106134#777106134)

Looking closely at the diagram the following comes to light.

1. The turn is not sustained and at a negative Ps value
2. Avg Ps loss during during the turn is -1.98Msec/-6.49Ftsec/-389Ftpm
3. Avg TAS (Start-end) 156.76Msec = 563.76KMH TAS
4. Using IAS-&gt;TAS chart on FB CD2 this is Avg IAS of 409Kmh
5. So at 6000M at 5G at 409Kmh 109K4 Ps= -1.98Msec
6. 360deg Turn Time is 24desc so Avg rate is 15.2Deg sec

In FB Ver2.01 Crimea 6000m, 50% Fuel, Flps up, 110% MW50, Prop Auto, Left turn
Start 410Kmh, 360deg turn maintaining 410-400Kmh (Since we dont have a G meter) The best I can achieve is 40sec for 360degress, or a Turn rate of 9deg sec. This equates to 2.7G Total altitude loss 150m.

BUT
The fact is No Piston aeroplane in FB can sustain more than 3.7G even at Sea Level.
If you dont believe go and try it out. III/JG11 have tested most aircraft and the best is the LA7 with a sa level sustaind G of 3.68 In fact even a modern fighter like an F5E can only sustain 5G at 15,000feet! So something is not right with this graph or its interpretation

.....

B (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=789103624&r=296108134#296108134)

Well Here is the solution. The Chart reflects a full backstick turn, accepting whatever energy loss comes about. It is not SUSTAINED TURN.

III/JG11_IvanK and III/JG11_Bobcat have duplicated the Chart results. As part of the test we also using DeviceLink had a continously (at 1sec intervals) display of Turn rate,G,IAS. In our tests Full backstick was applied for 360degrees of heading change. We achieved an average Turn Time of 24seconds, Average G of 3.5G but the energy loss was huge 120Kmh IAS.

Taking another look at the chart the energy loss is also evident. Start TAS was 180.0Msec (648KMH) with an end TAS of 133.2msec (480KMh). So the chart turn cost him 168Kmh worth of TAS. At 6000m this works out at close to 120KMH IAS. This in effect what both Bob and I achieved in our tests.

TRIM EFFECT
Again refering to the G readout via DeviceLink the effect of Trim is amazing. With the aircraft trimmed for 400KMH IAS A full backstick turn gets you 3.5G. Repeat the test but this time gradually wind n Full back trim, using forward stick to hold 6000m. The roll the bank on and apply Full backstick, 5+G can easily be achieved and sustained if nose position is lowered.

So The Chart turn is "Doable". Like all real world performance charts read all the notes and examine every single bit of the chart. This also reinforces just how good the FMs really are !
Thanks Oleg and team

.......
C (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=789103624&r=197109134#197109134)

Err No Kurfurst please reread my post. The test was flown with "On Speed" trim. i.e Trimmed out to start IAS of 410Kmh IAS, then rolling into the turn and applying full backstick,and losing altitude throughout the turn without further trim input. This test was repeated on two seperate PCs one using TM cougar the other with CH Combat Flight stick.

With Full backstick stick and NO further trimming we achieved the 3.5G, and 24second turn time. (In my first post the 40 sec time was done whislt maintaining performance i.e 400Kmh or so with varying backstick)

The Trim comment is seperate to the test. repeating the test with Full backstick and full back trim we did even better than the chart, we got 4.9---&gt; 5.01G., with commensurate greater performance loss.


Oleg_Maddox May 26 2004 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=789103624&r=414109134#414109134)
I recommend to trust IvanK, becasue he is real pilot with experience to fly real WWII planes, including Mustang.



Ugly_Kid May 26 2004 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=789103624&r=424103334#424103334)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" Can someone grab this and translate it into English please."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll try somebody with better pair of eyes and german knowledge please correct...

The headline:
"Instationa"re Horizontalkurve mit Notleistung aus dem stationa"ren Horizontalflug mit Steig- und Kampfleistung"

Means:
"Unstationary horizontalturn with Emergency Power from the stationary horizontal flight with climb- and combat power"

Roughly meaning add power and start turning, this is not sustained this is turning as hard as possible allowing speed loss BUT horizontal meaning maintaining altitude.

Second note is even more important:

"H=6000 m
von t=1 +t= 8sec ist n=5 und d Ha"ngewinkel nyy=78,5? von t=8 sec ab ist ca=1.13 ~ camax n nimmt ab"

This goes on guessing a bit... from t=1+t = 8 sec the load factor is 5 g and the roll is 78.5? - (logical 78.5 ? IS 5 g in a horizontal curve.) from 8 sec on the "nyy" is 1.13 about the maximum and the load factor is sinking. I take ca could be the max. lift factor allthough 1.13 is rather low for it, so it would be reaching stall boundary here and the speed and thus load factor (gees) are dropping, but this is a guess I don't know what ca is. Germans had different designations at that time.

This chart shows that the dude was able to exercise 5 g at ~650 km/h AFAIK this would require about 40-45 kg force on the stick in a Bf-109.

Buzzsaw is wrong, - naturally... Stick force per gee is a constant without drastic Mach effects, for instance. And where are the Mach effects? ... yes in the altitude. Meaning? If the dude can pull this out in 6 km he can do it just as well in 3 km. Sorry...I can't see the theoretical bit anywhere, to me it looks quite practical...

It looks to me as if a human being was able to perform a curve (not sustained) from 650 km/h with initial 5 g in 24 sec. Speed bleed in this manouver is 160 km/h.

......

B (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=789103624&r=186103334#186103334)

In clear language. Start of the manouver at t=23 s, 360? turn completed at t=56 s -&gt; 33 s.
Roll angle ~70? pulling as hard as possible -&gt; only max 3.2 g!!! And what do we have speed bleed 78 km/h IAS ~ 110 km/h TAS

So we get less speed bleed with less g, it would hint that the only missing part is the gee...

........

C (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=789103624&r=363107334#363107334)

The elevator does not provide 5 g in the game. I, for example, get only 3.2 g, this is it essentially. Had I banked harder (steeper angle) I would have started loosing alt


crazyivan1970 June 13 2004 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=789103624&r=680100664#680100664)

I would like to point out to "some" participans of this topic that there are better methods then personal attack... I would hate to see you going on vacations Big Grin

There is a problem with K4, there is no doubt about it in my mind...but the only way of fixing it is convincing data. So, if someone can compile solid report i`d be happy to be your messanger



Ugly_Kid June 13 2004 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=789103624&r=807109564#807109564)

It says "Unstationary turn from stationary level flight" IMO it means that the plane is trimmed for level flight.

The difference here is initially almost 2 g. Almost half of the force.

Now imagine that you could then with neutral trim exercise only a force equal to that 3 g.
Now if it was as some people claim that you get the additional 2 g with trim it would mean that 3+2 g = 5 g but you would have to fly that preceeding straight level flight by exercising a pushing force equalling almost to the force that you can barely apply in pushing to keep the plane straigth for plane trimmed to noselight. (you can't push as hard as pull btw.) The trim in real Bf isn't that fast to use.

There was also an earlier chart from Isegrim, which showed a pull-up with Bf-109F IRC this had the trim setting for the manouver as well. Could someone post this?

(Kurfurst is wrong BTW, Mustang had lighter elevator controls than Bf - about factor 2, Bf had a heavy elevator but not impossibly heavy about 7.5 kiloponds per g - stick force)


Magister__Ludi June 13 2004 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=789103624&r=407100664#407100664)

There is plenty of material supporting this. One such source is the well known warbird pilot Jeff Ethell, he flew most of the ww2 fighters, he had plenty of hours on P-51, he could compare it with other warbirds.

He says about P-40: "With all in place, I tried a few turns and was surprised by the rapid ailerons. By comparison, the P-51 is locked in cement. A glance down the nose gives the pilot a more pronounced feeling of sitting far back behind things than the Mustang due to the pronounced carburetor scoop atop the cowling."
link: http://rwebs.net/dispatch/output.asp?ArticleID=38

Or in another article: "The fighter is so well balanced, with just the right compromise between maneuverability and stability, any pilot can look smooth and capable in only a few hours. The only real drawbacks are ever increasing control pressures as speed increases, particularly over 300 mph, and immense fluctuations in yaw with power or speed changes, requiring a fair amount of fiddling with the trim wheels. It is also incredibly hot (120oF or more under that bubble at low level) and loud (130+ dB) inside...or freezing cold at altitude. Heat, air conditioning and noise proofing were future concerns in World War II. This can make flying the aircraft for any length of time extremely fatiguing. I know why 20-year-old pilots were recruited to fly these fire breathers."
http://www.airspacemag.com/ASM/Web/Special/Ethell/pirep3.html



Ugly_Kid June 14 2004 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=789103624&r=550102764#550102764)

The value is from a book called "Pilot's view" - a book summarizing equipment of finnish airforce, sort of AHT in small. So this is a value for Gustav but should apply for the late versions anyway.

It is valid at all altitude as long as you don't mix in Mach effects and completely different Reynold's number.

Kit Carson's article had a mention of 20 lbs/g (7.5 kp/g ~ 16.5 lbs/g)

He also gives 9 lbs/g for FW-190 at 300 mpg and 14 lbs/g at 400 mph (he does not give altitude but I assume these values are IAS and thus the latter is probably already in compressability)

I think AHT mentions a value for Mustang, I'll check it at home. IRC it being below 7 lbs/g.
I just know that they had to install bobweight on the system as the stick was so light that it even had a bad control feel. P-39 had even lower value, combined with its spin it was almost a design error.



Kurfurst__ June 14 2004 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=789103624&r=613100864#613100864)

Jeff Ethell's Pireps - P-51 Mustang
http://www.airspacemag.com/ASM/Web/Special/Ethell/pirep3.html ( dead link )

"The fighter is so well balanced, with just the right compromise between maneuverability and stability, any pilot can look smooth and capable in only a few hours. The only real drawbacks are ever increasing control pressures as speed increases, particularly over 300 mph, and immense fluctuations in yaw with power or speed changes, requiring a fair amount of fiddling with the trim wheels. "


From 'Flying Old Aeroplanes in the 21st Century; The Handling Qualities of WW2 Fighters' by Dave Southwood.

"The next interesting characteristic is appearant manouvre stability (Stick force per G). The Mustang (P-51D) , Bf 109 and P-40 are all very heavy in pitch, requiring approx. 20 lbf/G at ariound 250 KIAS abeit with gradients that appear to be linear. Thus, two hands are required on the stick for manouvers above apprx. 3 G."



Ugly_Kid June 14 2004 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=789103624&r=853100864#853100864)

America's Hundred Thousand gives XP-51 8.3 lbs/g for forward c.g position for rearward somewhat less. For P-39 the value was less than 2 lbs/g.

Some other values Fokker D.XXI 2.5-3.5 kp/g
Bristol Bulldog 4-5 kp/g
Gloster Gladiator 4-5 kp/g
Morane Saulnieer 406 ~2kp/g
Hurricane MK I - low so I assume 4-5 kp/g as well
Brewster B239 3 kp/g
Bf-109G-6 7.5 kp/g

1 kp ~ 9.80665 N ~ 2.2 lbs

As one can see even from the chart from Magister the value is constant below Mach effects (practically up to Ma~.55 in this case)
The values are given to the area without compressability effects (don't know about the stuff from Carson, though, he seems to give FW two values, one could be below and the other one is clearly in the compressability) - so the values can be compared, if one wants to that is.

7.5 kp/g ~ 16.5 lbs/g is not a value which limits manouvering to 3 g - no. The manouver in the earlier chart is performed from 180 m/s this is Ma=0.57 it is not realistic to expect excessive stick force, instead the value 16.5 lbs/g can be used and this tells me that the manouver could be performed without trimming around.

Exaggerating and posting horsedung is just going to muddle a clear issue. I can live with realistically performing Bf, don't need an arcade kite for airquake. To me it seems K is slightly underperforming, it would be nice if they did something. If not it's also o.k since once they take it under the hammer again probably the whole FM is getting a royal porking and generally excluding F, Bfs aren't badly made at all.

================================================== ================================================== =========
Karost: this all above is very useful info and intel for me. hope it can help to bring up the current situation feel batter

btw. I sorry if I miss by did not link other good friends up here but when a new comming visit original post they can read all your real "intension" that contribute for this community ......
S~

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Oops... [ here below is not relate to main topic but sound very smart idea for this current situation..... ]


T_O_A_D April 06 2005 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=1221016403&r=2531008403#2531008403)
I'ts the Internests fault. It allows the little bastids to big of a voice. Problem is It takes 10 adda boys to clean up one Oh sh ite! Or a Mod to delete the post,good points and bad, rather than edit all the c rap out. It's easier that way and faster, thinking of our flyin time here.


FatBoyHK April 06 2005 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=1221016403&r=6881076403#6881076403)

what is the best way to do if a whiner swear to you? Ignore him, and you win. If you try to argue with him, he win.

So what is the best way to do if a whiner criticize your server? You know it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Don't wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty but the pig actually enjoy it.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



I hope this "tactic" will help this thread to look more useful and have more good value for our community.... and a history education and enjoyment.


Regards,
Karost

WWMaxGunz
04-09-2005, 08:20 AM
I think we have to take Olegs' view. It is not impossible if you accept trim use as he does.
Full trim allows more G's than needed, btw, so not necessary. Trimmed nose down is just the
opposite, ensures impossiblity.

Hyperion made a try at some disproof with TAS to IAS but I didn't see any correction for
altitude in there, only sea level mph to kph change which would be true if the pullout was
done at sea level, which is kind of hard to do start a pullout of 1000 kph at sea level.

But after that, it devolves between should trim be used or not with sideshows into other
planes and stick forces.

I have a chart that shows 'a' P-39D at 15,000 feet using 4 lbs per G at lower than
compression effects speeds, about 300 mph for that plane as it was, then the force increases.

HayateAce
04-09-2005, 01:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/mysteries/images/toilet.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Feeler, stop drinking outta that and you'll feel much better.

http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/mysteries/images/toilet.jpg

BSS_CUDA
04-09-2005, 02:24 PM
this is truly comical 725 post and 37 pages whining about the elevator response of the 109, YOU CANT BE SERIOUS!!!!
do you really think the 109 is the only plane that has this problem?????? and you guys say the allied pilots whine here we have 37 pages on the 109, there we have 17 pages on the 151 ammo, here's a little secret for all of you NONE of you know. there most likley is not one single person that plays this game that flew any of these aircraft PERIOD!! so let it die. all it's turning into anyways is a flame fest http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Von_Rat
04-09-2005, 04:35 PM
pffft,,,, if you think this is bad, you shoulda saw the .50 cal thread,,,lol.

Badsight.
04-09-2005, 05:20 PM
omg i dont know how you dug it up with the search function the way it is , but heres the original thread

the original K4 elevator thread (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=789103624&p=1)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
YOU CANT BE SERIOUS!!!!
do you really think the 109 is the only plane that has this problem?????? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>please Cuda , please read from the beginning before you post stuff like that

p1ngu666
04-09-2005, 06:50 PM
so if trim is used, u can do the test and get similer results to real one
just oddness of stiffness of various models of 109 to wonder about then, compaired to each other http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

also yaks freeze up worse than 109, and other planes too

BBB_Hyperion
04-09-2005, 08:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Hyperion made a try at some disproof with TAS to IAS but I didn't see any correction for
altitude in there, only sea level mph to kph change which would be true if the pullout was
done at sea level, which is kind of hard to do start a pullout of 1000 kph at sea level.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhmm really no.

Thats a instrument check for the mph gauge on p51 which didnt indicate correct speed and have larger spread increasing with value.

Tas readout was from Wonderwoman , IAS From Speedbar readout taken at jumpover to next digit. Then compared to mph gauge readout which showed significant difference to both values that couldnt be explained with air compression nor that it maybe shows in tas as some suggested . Only conclusion was that gauge works incorrect or has a big delay .
This Event can only be observed at high speed error is not big enough to notice on lower speeds.

But didnt retest this again in newer versions thought other would find when it is not corrected . http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WWMaxGunz
04-10-2005, 12:10 AM
Oh! Very sorry then, Hyperion! I thought... well you know I messed up. My apologies.

As far as guages, IAS should read high at high speeds and more with higher altitude but I
had not hoped that such would be modelled in the sim and from what you show if I read it
right now, the IAS shows less than speedbar. (and ? and !) Read in a dive, I think you
have it covered by either delay or bug. I rarely play by the guages because there is no
easy way for me to glance down and back quickly though I will keep an eye on VSI and in
109's the tachometer and boost when I did fly by manual, once in a while with sound being
the way I kept track to raise or lower pitch by keys. 2600 rpm is plenty good target rpm
for power with heat control.

Blutarski2004
04-11-2005, 09:30 AM
Karost wrote -
&gt; Looking closely at the diagram the following comes to light.

1. The turn is not sustained and at a negative Ps value
2. Avg Ps loss during during the turn is -1.98Msec/-6.49Ftsec/-389Ftpm
3. Avg TAS (Start-end) 156.76Msec = 563.76KMH TAS
4. Using IAS-&gt;TAS chart on FB CD2 this is Avg IAS of 409Kmh
5. So at 6000M at 5G at 409Kmh 109K4 Ps= -1.98Msec
6. 360deg Turn Time is 24desc so Avg rate is 15.2Deg sec &lt;



..... I disagree with your point 1.

The data points, in terms of the relationships between rate of turn, airspeed, and bank angle, are fully consistent with a sustainable turn at 6000 meters altitude. The a/c in question went into the turn at a 5G bank, which was sustainable at the entry airspeed of 405 mph. As speed bled off, it is clear that the bank angle was reduced after the initial part of the turn; the overall rate of turn shows an average G load og +/- 3G for the complete 360 degree turn. Its exit speed after 360 degree of turn was still above 3G stall at 6000 meters.

Furthermore, no data were provided in the document regarding any altitude loss during the turn - the element which distinguishes a non-sustainable turn from a sustainable turn. Considering the detail in which all other performance aspects were recorded, it would be quite unusual to omit altitude loss data if this were indeed a report on non-sustainable turn performance.

BfHeFwMe
04-11-2005, 01:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:


Really John?

If I'm flying along level in an adjustable stabilizer plane by holding the stick back a
bit and then I adjust the stab trim to bring the nose up, wouldn't I also need to let up
on the stick?

Stab trim -- would you argue that 109 pilots did not use it in high power dives to increase
their ability to pull out? With all the accounts of them doing just that?

Call it what you want, the function is close enough the same... more control authority.

Hey, did I make any spelling errors, while you're here? Punctuation perhaps? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But if your flying along at a static speed, adjust that stab for nose up, readjust engine speed back to a simular level of airflow over the stab to regain static, there's no change in force required regardles of stab position. Not true with a tab, your making no modifications of flow onto the elevator but on the elevator itself, the flow over the stab to the elevator remains static throughout a tabs range.

Spitfire, Corsair, Wildcats, you name it, all had trimed stabs set, the verticle was twisted twords the rotation force of the prop. You start reading operation manuals and you'll see even with a preset stab trimmed tab for rudder was often required on takeoff checks. Once at safe speed trim could be released or set as required.

US Navy did extensive test after the war on the F-4F one of it's better turners. They discovered some of the stick force they thought due to accelleration was actually a product of force on the hinge itself. It was generating measurable leverage when using excessive trim tabs, that leverage was transmitted throughout the elevator, affecting the hinge assembly itself. That's not possible on a stab trimmed aircraft.


Elevator force without a trim tab is solely dependant on airspeed, whether you manipulate by stab angle for flow diferential or engine power/flight attitude. Not so with tabs they're affected by airspeed, no doubt, but also changable in a static flow situation.

Tabs produce a linear response curve, thus are effective throughout the flight envelope, right down to stall speeds. But is it so with stab trim? They obviously lose effectiveness at lower speeds, see Corsair, Spitfire.... verticle stabs. Yet gain greater effectiveness with higher speeds, liniar or a curve?

Model it right and you won't have those rediculous 109 turn fights on the deck. But you may have them zooming with speed increases alone.

WWMaxGunz
04-11-2005, 05:17 PM
WRT stab/elevator trim, I do know there's differences but how we deal with them is the same.

I can take any plane I know of configured running level, normal flight and increase speed
then the nose comes up and I am climbing.

Elevators with trim tab; trim nose up a bit and the plane climbs, cut power a bit and back
to level flight the opposite action of the line above. Don't need stab trim to do that.

IMO, stab trim is better in terms of efficiency in flight because you angle the whole stab
more to the direction the tail of the plane will go. Aren't there jets where the whole
surface acts as the elevator, even if just experimentals?

Anyway, I don't think it makes any difference to my argument about the "109 elevator
effectiveness issue" at all. Whatever the trim is, if it is in the right direction you
either have less force to pull to get the turn or you have less distance to pull which...
means less force anyway.

Possibly the only real difference in the types is something you can see in the real aircraft
stick position? Or can you? It's not something I particularly noted back when I had the
chance in the late 80's. I flew FSI sim boxes as part of a job and the Lear 35 was one of
those. Flies really well, btw. Very very responsive but then there's no hydraulics, just
cables and the trim. All the other jets we made training modules for felt like cement
trucks compared but I know I'd be a bit safer in the cement truck.

From my limited air time I note mainly that I hold the stick and adjust a tab, the stick
puts pressure on my hand. If I let go of the stick it will more till there is no pressure.
Now if I have stab trim and adjust that... will there be no change in what my hand holding
the stick feels? Really, I would hope so since the plane will be flying different, but I
can see a difference right there... with tabs the plane wouldn't fly different until I move
the stick while with stab it will. But I dunno just what I would feel compared. But I am
sure that stab trimmed nose up, I'd get extra effect from whatever stick pull I made.

karost
04-11-2005, 10:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Karost wrote -
&gt; Looking closely at the diagram the following comes to light.

1. The turn is not sustained and at a negative Ps value
2. Avg Ps loss during during the turn is -1.98Msec/-6.49Ftsec/-389Ftpm
3. Avg TAS (Start-end) 156.76Msec = 563.76KMH TAS
4. Using IAS-&gt;TAS chart on FB CD2 this is Avg IAS of 409Kmh
5. So at 6000M at 5G at 409Kmh 109K4 Ps= -1.98Msec
6. 360deg Turn Time is 24desc so Avg rate is 15.2Deg sec &lt;


..... I disagree with your point 1.

The data points, in terms of the relationships between rate of turn, airspeed, and bank angle, are fully consistent with a sustainable turn at 6000 meters altitude.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Blutarski2004 , I did not wrote ( created ) this content but Ivank (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=789103624&r=777106134#777106134) did , I just Paste and Copy to share a good point form other thread. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

1) yor right the document not show a altitude loss, but how much about :
Stall Speed , Corner Velocity , Sustain turn Speed for bf109K4 at 6000M ( in real / sim ) compare to speed in the document. ?
2) what kind of sustained turn that loss air speed from T=1 , 180.0m/s to T=24 , 133.2m/s that show speed bleed 30 % from initial ,are you sure that is a sunstained turn , from T=1 to T=24 when is a constance ... ?

-------------------------------------------------------------
T m/s deaccilation speed m/s
-------------------------------------------------------------
1.0 180.0
2.0 178.5 1.5
3.0 175.9 2.6
4.0 173.2 2.7
5.0 170.4 2.8
6.0 167.6 2.8
7.0 164.7 2.9
8.0 161.7 3.0 --&gt; max speed bleed at 5G the maximum load factor and the roll 78.5 degrees left bank
9.0 158.8 2.9
10.0 156.1 2.7
11.0 153.3 2.8
12.0 151.3 2.0
13.0 149.1 2.2
14.0 147.1 2.0
15.0 145.2 1.9
16.0 143.4 1.8
17.0 141.8 1.6
18.0 140.3 1.5
19.0 138.9 1.4
20.0 137.6 1.3
21.0 136.4 1.2
22.0 135.2 1.2
23.0 134.2 1.0
24.0 133.2 1.0 ---&gt; Oh yes I see "constance" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


3) for T=1, 180m/s to T=8 , 161.7m/s is a big interesting for me bf109K4 can pull "5G" ( oh yes level turn , not pull up from dirve )
- for over one year still noone can repeatedly to view the Track that apparently shows the 24 Second 360 Deg turn at 6000M and starting at 650TAS like a history did. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


S~

TAGERT.
04-11-2005, 11:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by karost:
- for over one year still noone can repeatedly to view the Track that apparently shows the 24 Second 360 Deg turn at 6000M and starting at 650TAS like a history did. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Until now

(Link to 360? in 24sec at 6000m Seeing is Believing.. Well, for some that are not in Denial) (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/FLIGHT_TESTS/109K_25FUEL_NO_AMMO_6KMETER_TURN_24SEC.zip)

WWMaxGunz
04-12-2005, 05:17 AM
LB, isn't a sustained turn one where you keep your alt, speed, and rate of turn?
As in you can sustain that turn for however many times around as you have fuel for?
The posted turn doesn't do speed and rate, and if he lost alt then he could have,
if he lost enough alt.

BfHeFwMe
04-12-2005, 01:36 PM
There's one other piece of evidence that points tword an exponential curve with stab trim, and that's in gunnery documents and limitations placards on certain aircraft. Specifically British and US fighters with verticle stabs offset. Gun calibrations were required to set for specific altitude and airspeeds.

Gunnery training docs mention the improbability of hitting anything when exceeding these speeds, due to an out of trim rudder. They knew pilots had other priorities besides adjusting trim on a gun run.

WWMaxGunz
04-13-2005, 12:50 AM
I don't doubt that it's not linear in an increasing way depending on the mechanism.
Look at how AOA increase makes lift increase by the square of AOA. And if the mech
behind the adjustment is not arranged carefully it will get more angle per turn of
the screw. Of course if it's engineered with effect in mind, then it would be smooth
as you'd get less angle per turn.

But that is a problem of efficiencies and maybe why there are quotes about the dangers
of using trim to make highspeed pullouts. Or at least, I have seen some posted here.

How do they model strength and fatigue in a way that lets the player control how much
extra is used? If it is just "I pull more on the stick." then what will the player
do when his pilot gets tired? Will he know? Will he just keep pulling more stick and
saying something is wrong with the game? How many will decide that their pilot should
effectively be an international triathlon winner, not even to mention the effect of G's?
One answer; most DF players will and then some.

Vipez-
04-14-2005, 05:11 AM
.

Heinz_Schuss
04-18-2005, 07:02 PM
Yes WWMaxGunz is correct with respect to the stab/tab trim stick forces.

Which-ever method is used to trim the aircraft, the result will be the same. More nose up trim = less stick force required to raise nose same amount.

Some of the work is being done by whatever it is that you're trimming, wether it is a tab or the stab.

I suspect that the efficiency difference between the trim methods is probably microscopic.

Schuss