Ala13_ManOWar
-
Posts
3504 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Ala13_ManOWar
-
-
Several times, did you? :huh:Did you even read the Dive test Document?
:doh: Rotte 7 is a Spanish built Ha1112, circa ~1956, later on re-engined with DB605. I don't have to drive, I'm sitting right now at nº88 street, she was built in the nº90 :music_whistling:. Even though Merlin powered Spanish manual of the aeroplane also stated you cannot trim beyond a certain speed. Clues are in the air :lol:.You cant compare a 70 years old klaus plasa bird from the Museum with a new BF109 from 1944 under war conditions.S!
P.D.: 900Km/H TAS, you know what is True Air Speed versus Indicated Air Speed, do you? :noexpression:
-
And if that's not enough, here is a small thread of 41 pages that you can digest:
https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=135453
There are others.
The error is you are late and missed the previous hundred threads about the subject. You can try translating again what you want it to be. Charts say what they say, in that same reading and others, you translate it like that or not, still the chart is there.Can you guys see the error?Let me point out just one thing, for your known, and may be you understand better the whole paper after that,
DCS don't have a 2.0º trim setting, look closer and you'll see number 2 isn't reached. DCS feature a 1.15º trim like the paper says. And an extra detail, 500Km/H in the paper is always TAS, not your IAS reading.The DCS bf109 is pitching up at a Speed of 500kph with a 2.0 nose heavy trim, to do a high Speed dive you have to push the stick Forward.Please, read the previous threads before jumping again on the same.
S!
-
Well true, and we could say also even being better fighters than allied ones none of them achieved any aerial superiority over Germany :lol:. Still they both are fighters dedicated to a same role :smilewink:.The only Air Superiority Fighter here is the Mustang and P47 if it gets those big drop tanks. Both 109 and 190 are classified as Interceptors due to their short range and good climb rate/acceleration.But both can not stay long enough over enemy territory and cannot fly far enough to actually win the air superiority.
:lol::lol::lol: Good choice, you won't regret. Dora module is gorgeous. Well like all of them :music_whistling::lol:.Well, just to let everyone know, I picked the d9. I couldn't decide, so I put a pic of a K4 next to a d9 and asked my wife which plane looked better. She said the d9... Downloading the bundle and modules now for 2.0.
However, I should have looked at the store before downloading because the p51 is on sale and so is the dcs nttr map for less than 60 bucks. Damnit Thank you all for the help and reviewing, but in the end my CO was the deciding factor.S!
-
Affirmative, thanks :thumbup:.Is this the high speed dive test document referenced?http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach§ion=attach&attach_id=21158
(Versuchs-Bericht Nr. 109 05 E 43 'Hochgeschwindigkeitsversuche mit Me 109' dated 1943-04-15, with English translation included in the above link)
S!
-
If you allow me, it's not a true dilemma. Should you asked a year ago, even though both were fully operatives, someone could argue 109 were still a Beta WIP. Right now both are finished, setting aside minimal details that might be polished at any moment, now or in the future and for both of them. Both are a same type, aerial superiority fighters, both features a minimal Jabo capabilities with same loadouts (a 500Kg bomb), Dora can use aerial rockets but that's a tricky weapon not intended for an air-to-ground use and IIRC still WIP, 109 on the other hand has devastating 30mm cannon. The Fw190 has a few quirks you'll have to get used to, but 109 is even quirkier with a tough ground handling, take off and landing (even more than Dora or Mustang I mean), but 109 is faster and the best climber. P-51 and Dora are quite similar, Dora a bit better for my taste but by a whisker, 109 is better than both by far, anyway it all depends on how you use them and bad pilots waste 109 superiority.My question is, which module offers more bang for my buck. Which aircraft has more options in missions, configurations, weapons, etc? Which is more polished and optimized?It's not a matter of which worth the while, all of them worth the while, it's a matter of which one do you like more. Or…
He's absolutely right. But if you have to choose you won't regret any choice you make, you'll buy the other one sooner or later so you can decide which one suits you more.Buy both.S!
-
I don't have it located right now. Please use forum search, something related to high speed dive test (English translated), also stick force charts, and look for old trim/stabilizer threads (many of them) and you're plenty of read. Kürfurst web also should be hosting those charts and dive test.Really interesting, i have read a lot of original german documents to investigate this and i never read a instruction for full forward trim with the problem nose pitching up, but i saw some real life pictures from a BF 109 with bricks in his tail for extra weight.Can you show me this German documents pleas?
S!
-
I noticed your comments, good one :thumbup: . Are you a tank modeller? Not everybody knows about that kind of stuff.Yeah, because it's MID-production Tiger, not early or late...That was noted several times in first page. :smilewink:S!
-
Whatever, don't think this thread was useless anyway, I have a Tiger I early model in the stash and all this discussion was very informative :lol: :thumbup: .
S!
-
FM has changed Jcomm, it's not like night and day but changes are apparent. She's more comfortable to fly for you guys lacking a long stick, but still even myself having one can feel the difference. Overall she's a nicer model, it's not like she wasn't already but now is even more.Ok,at least you got me re-installing DCS 1.5.4 beta just to check how the 3 ww2 fighters have progressed through the latest patches...
Didn't have much time to test yet... but on a takeoff using 60% fuel, with trim set for +1.0, I found less pitching up moment than I used to the last time I tried it some 3 months ago...
Will test further ASAP and report.
S!
-
Hence after four thread pages we discover DCS model is right since it's using old double wheels despite depicting some later production features. Nice :lol:.In short: You wouldn't see the rear wheel hub from said angle on the early to mid war variants of the Tiger, but you would see it on the late war variants where the outer roadwheels were eliminated.S!
-
It's being already posted like 3 thousand times in these forums, charts and also the famous dive test. Look for it, I'm not losing any time looking for or posting again what's being posted and discussed so many times :smilewink:. When you find it read again with a better open-minded attitude, may be you realize K4 should be even worst regarding trim and stick positionVsTAS (not to mention force applied to stick to keep straight flight, another chart already posted) than it is right now :lol:. Don't fool yourself, or try to do others, you do think you're right since you clearly said "nobody knows why it's like that", so you are absolutely convinced in your claims that it is wrong. Why would you say that otherwise?Yes, please do show me the report.:smilewink: Asking for historical documents before the other guy does not automatically place the burden of proof on him. The burden of proof is on the one who is convinced he is correct, and I do not claim to be correct about anything.If there is a published procedure for the 109K-4 that says the elevator trim should be set fully nose-down that would be something.
On the contrary my friend, the "burden of proof" is on the people who claim it's wrong. ED makes their work, you buy it or not (and I mean both buy meanings here), they are professionals dedicated to simulation since 25 years ago but still they are open to mistakes correction given anybody provides a real evidence of it. To the day no one provided such an evidence. Who claims it's wrong has to prove it's wrong, so not me. Anyway, what I'm not as a user is being blind, I've followed those threads, I've read them, and I've seen those reports and charts, and you know what? I'm not an engineer but charts are obvious, they say what they say, they say you have to apply a determined amount of force to keep straight flight, they say why trim was limited to 1.15º nose down, and I see everything matches charts quite truthfully. Perfect? probably no and never would be as we don't have a time machine to get needed info, but with the current info available I see 109 module is outstanding in every bit. And don't get me wrong, I don't complain either about 109 or P-51, it's not a matter of "sides" here, not for me.
S!
-
I don't "accuse" you mate, never mean that :smilewink:, but you cannot say "we don't know why it's like that" because it's been discussed exhaustively right here, we know exactly why and it's perfectly consistent with sources. Those "reports" some of you claim, usually grandpa's stories collected from the internet, aren't "sources", not to mention some members like to cherry pick when not misread the ones matching what they want it to be. Show us those German reports again, I repeat German 1940's engineering reports, and demonstrate us how everybody is mistaken because we read them wrongly even though they said in 1943-44 109 was exactly like it currently is in DCS.You are being very uncharitable if your first conclusion is that I'm being dishonest. I'm not the best writer, so please take it easy with the accusations. I am very aware of the technical documents that have been presented, and other pilot reports have been presented here that tell a different story.I remain respectfully not-fully convinced.:no:
Who says I nor anybody wants it just difficult? I don't want it just difficult, I want it real. But realism, even though sometimes means "easier" than RL, usually are not because aeroplanes has quirks and vices that regular games don't bother to represent. DCS is easier than other simulators indeed in many aspects, just featuring a RL behaviour, but in other ones it is quite more difficult as it is RL because DCS features those behaviours, unseen in any other simulator out there to the day. It would be stupid just doing it "difficult" to make it appear more realistic than it is… oh wait, I know a couple "simulators" doing that :lol:. One of them had a patch today, it completely changed all the FM and physics in every aircraft. Can you please exaplin how on Earth a real simulator, not a game, can change everything from patch to patch just because gamers complain about they don't like this or that on game balance? That's the difference between realism and games mate :smilewink:.Wanting a sim to be as hard as possible doesn't make it as realistic as possible.I would say that playing il2 46 with the stick i used to play it the first time is more difficult than playing DCS with a quality stick.Also when the 109 Fm changed it made it easier to control on the edge of the stall.So sometimes easy means more realistic.
You mean engine torque? Yes, it's a matter of engine torque indeed :thumbup:.Are we still talking about this when the lift up effect is only present at take off (like every report of the 109 states) and with proper settings you don't get this lift up effect during flight anymore?S!
-
Sorry mate, but you aren't being honest here :mad:. It's being posted several times at these forums some Germans charts trying to disprove that feature, just to prove it is perfect as it is (and proving also people don't know how to read charts…). Trim limit is a feature due to movable stabilizer as you can over-trim for high speeds leading to a crossed controls situation where you have to pull from stick to keep nose down and vice-versa so trim was limited to prevent that situation. Also real examples nowadays fly like that, confirmed by test pilots flying those. So yes, 109 was like that, and no other ""simulators"" out there aren't right, just they make it easy and comfortable for playstation users, but not real. So, no only DCS model is perfect as it is but the reason why it is like that is very clear and proven by German documents. Please stop saying "nobody knows why" :doh:.This has been discussed a lot already. No one can figure out why the trim would work that way, but ED insists that it is correct. They went so far as to make the aileron and rudder trim tabs adjustable in the settings, but not the elevator trim tabs...:music_whistling:S!
-
You're right and I'm one of the person who started threads about that. Still Dora has mayor flaws regarding volumes and forms I gave up time ago on trying to point out, even though some details were fixed after all. But, something somebody said back then (may be Sithspawn) is also plain truth, they are professional modellers but they don't live and breath the subject all the time of their lives, so what is clearly flawed and out of shape for me having my model maker eyeball quite developed after working and having in my hands a real 3D model since my childhood, not to mention the picture comparing we do all the time, is not necessarily so easy for them. That being said, IMHO a tank is a quite easier model to eyeball than aircraft, although rounded shaped tanks may be harder to get correctly.I would say the same, but abysmal windscreen and front fuselage modelling errors in Fw-190 and F-86 after release (discussed ad nauseam and partially fixed later) indicate these guys are not superhumans after all :D. I'm not all that much bothered by it nowadays, but I guess I can see where OP comes from, so a bit of additional research we're doing here won't do any harm.Anyway, here with the Tiger, I don't see so mayor flaws. As somebody pointed out it's a mix in early and late features, but still quite correct model just representing a certain date. The last Tiger picture is enlightening (good old red 131 at Bovington, I've stood up right next to it :smartass:), it shows clearly how ED model isn't incorrect after all, at least for the wheel hub.
S!
-
Let's start from the very beginning. Yes, that's a subject that has being talked at length here in the forums, so if you read those previous threads you would know there's no correct way to start whether P-51 or any aircraft engine, there's always a couple or three ways in which engine starts and all of them are correct, only depends on what's the pilot or owner's liking usually. P-51 manuals has changed a lot of times while model was operative, all manuals has changes (and almost all also has mistakes) and start up procedure also varies from one to another, when it happens it doesn't mean you cannot use the "old procedure" any more, or engine won't start up if you don't follow current manual procedure. So after discussing that last thread something is clear, you can start up DCS model with a variety of procedures and all of them are true to life. That said, there's no need to leave magnetos off to start the Merlin, many pilots like to do that way but there's no need nor it's the only procedure, you can check on a variety of youtube RL videos. Also prop blades could be previously hand wind by ground crew, so you don't need to wait those six blades to start up. DCS engine model appears with the engine ready to start, like already hand winded propeller, so you can use all the real World variety of start up procedures and all of them work provided you follow them correctly. Anyway,ok so most people who have done some light digging on P-51 operations will probably know that the correct way to start the engine is to leave the mags off while starting it, ...
Check your procedure, last time I checked engine doesn't start up with magnetos off, it is impossible for the engine to start up with magnetos off, and so forth you can burn starter turning bladed a hundred times if you want before engine catches up fire, so something is going on there. Check again.the problem is in DCS you can't count 5-6 blade rotations because the engine catches WITHOUT the mags on which is kind of dishearteningS!
-
Yep, I thought the very same when I saw that news. Provided it's true, we don't know at all what can be left, but who knows. Burma Spitfires turned out to be a bluff, I hope this time it's not just a guy trying to get money from sponsors for nothing.... there was a lot of noise drummed up which came to nothing.S!
-
They had, I saw her flying at Duxford 2012(?) I think, but she was sold to a USA customer afterwards. Anyhow, provided TFC had the required information for a DCS module, and bearing in mind they are DCS partners, wouldn't they already gave that information to ED? So I guess they don't have such information.The Fighter Collection has the razorback version.
You don't gather wind tunnel data from a flight. Devs life would be much easier that way.So then for the most part if they offer fuel for a day there's 95% of the flight test data done right?S!
-
I think you're comparing a first production Tiger with a Tiger E. Anyway, are we still in a flight simulator were you'll see that at 500Km/H? :D
S!
-
Here I don't completely agree with you Cichlidfan. As already said, tiny details adds immersion, life indeed to the maps and from my viewpoint those are very welcome. Bail out and walk in the map to find you're in a living environment is really nice. Also I don't think tiny details has any huge impact in FPS while on the other hand has been sort of an Eagle Dynamics personal seal since the very firsts times. I remember a review back in the 90's about Flanker 2.0 where reviewer were amazed... even missiles slats moves!! Those tiny details means the care put into this sim.
S!
-
+1I really hate rare equipment contaminating a simulation; might as well play War ThunderThere would be no point at all in wasting even a single minute on Paperwaffe, aircraft, tanks or whatever, German or allied. ""Free"" 2 Play games need a source to make people spend money in "new" stuff, real or not, every now and again so paperwaffe stuff is a gold mine for them, but in a simulator like DCS it makes no sense at all, specially when we are currently lacking even the most usual (and RL) units.
S!
-
Did you tried the old trick of rising your screen brightness?
S!
-
If done "just right" it was possible to land a 747 in a carrier in FS :lol:.Sitting here reading and forgot what board I was on. I was thinking of long ago when Aces high was in the early stages you could land a DC 3 on a carrier if done just right. :-)S!
-
Hey, in a couple days it's Friday again and we had some good news last weeks, lets be positive, who knows :lol: :thumbup:.Must be almost finished. Will probably be out in about... *duh*Duh*duh*DUH!* Two Weeks™ *bah*duhm*tshhhh*S!
-
There was a lot of air combat over Iwo Jima. They had to before landings. Anyway, that's not important IMHO, like in any simulator we'll combat a hundred thousand times more than reality whichever the map :thumbup:.Yes, but all I've been able to ascertain is that they will be doing Iwo Jima. I don't think there was much air combat over Iwo Jima.S!
However, I should have looked at the store before downloading because the p51 is on sale and so is the dcs nttr map for less than 60 bucks. Damnit
Thank you all for the help and reviewing, but in the end my CO was the deciding factor.
Horizontal Stabilizer
in DCS: Bf 109 K-4 Kurfürst
Posted
Yes, I know perfectly, trim tabs and set on ground that's why they don't talk at all about them. Pilot needs to use trim because he lacks strength enough to keep controls by himself, you know what I mean? :lol: :thumbup: Even though that, the same pilot recommends 1.15º limit to prevent controls reversing at higher speeds. Really mate, have you read it?
No mate, are you kidding us? :smilewink:S!