Ala13_ManOWar
-
Posts
3637 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Ala13_ManOWar
-
-
Sorry to say but, do you use DCS even the free modules? :shocking: :shocking: :shocking:Does DCS offer axis sensitivity tuning on a per-module basis?Of course you can, and it's good and bad, good to customize everything you want, bad because setting up every module every time is painful.
S!
-
Glad you like it, and you'll see the difference :smilewink:. And sorry for the OT,
Indeed. I wanted to keep it simple and avoid machinery use (dremel, you know) as much as possible. PVC is tough to work with, you have to heat a lot without burning it and warm up as much homogeneously as you can.I have a few questions though. Hope you could help. =)1) If I understood correctly (my Spanish is not that good :smartass:) you heated up a 40mm sleeve and forced it so it would mold itself around the Gardena connector. Is that right?
Affirmative. Elbows are for my own use clearing the seat, but you can keep it straight if you want to and your place allows it. You have to keep in mind using elbows also prevents joystick spring to center the jostick any more in positive pitch movement (but does in the other three directions) because Warthog stick is quite weighted. At least mine doesn't even though the really hard spring, but it doesn't falls itself, just keeps the position where you left it.2) Then you used a 40mm ==> 32mm reducer and from there on added two 45º elbows.
Affirmative, and affirmative. Male gardena screw is plastic so fits perfectly. Anyway I put some PVC glue inside after joining both parts just in case and it's quite strong till now. It's also possible to eliminate the screw threads leaving plastic straight, but I didn't IIRC and works fine. Again PVC is a tough one and heating requires same care as previously, this time to prevent any elbow bending or shape losing.3) The top elbow was threaded. Did the thread from the PVC elbow adapt perfectly in the female joystick base? Did you have to make any extra adjustments?
That's the reason for using that model, Warthog uses English screw measure (no metric) so you need one fitting perfectly to prevent damaging the original Joystick plastic screw threads. Depending in your result you can put some stop in female gardena screw to prevent screwing too far. It isn't needed to screw the base to the end and if you do it you can find extension hitting the Joystick base. To stop the screw you can make an o-ring using spare thick electrical cable, for instance the remnants of the PS2 long cable if you weld your own are good enough. You can use one, two or as wished o-rings. It's important also if you use elbows because you want your extension elbows to look backwards, if not stopped screw can end facing everywhere.4) Does the Gardena hose adapter fits perfectly in the joystick base? Is it necessary to make and extra refinement in the piece?
Indeed I took ideas from others also, so half idea :smilewink:.Thank you so much for your ideas.S!
-
I think mine is more or less like Bf109 stick :lol:. Of course I have trim issues if I want to hold it using maximum power, but I can hold it easily. Anyway will tests a bit thoroughly tomorrow, using cruise setting, changing speeds, and so.PS some one with a flight stick the same length as a 109K-4 tell me they have the same issues as someone with a short stick sitting on their desktop...S!
-
Yup, as Thor said. You need a cable extension that depending on length can be already found as PS2 mouse extender or keyboard/mouse spliter, or if you go the long way you have to weld some cables, but easy enough. It's a wonderful mod, and keeps original hardware unaltered. Take a look on mine. I helped a friend doing his extension also, a bit shorter and straight (mine had to be curved because seating reasons only). Any extension improves vastly Warthog use (specially in WWII warbirds), but after trying both I prefer my length.Really! No work on the wiring or anything?S!
-
Indeed it is. I've to say I've seen some examples of it owned by friends and strength change from softly nice to uncomfortable strong (mine is the strongest I've use... :(). Anyway, not the reason I made my long stick mod but looking for realism. That and also after one instructor told me he clearly identified my shakes in a centre stick aircraft with a short joytick user :lol:. But yes, spring stiffness is too high. Just Warthog has the easiness of a couple screws to mod its length so we can easily have quite a nice long stick for DCS level (WWII yes, but Helicopters... or 50's fighters... or...).I've never had the opportunity to lay my hands on either stick, myself, so I can't speak from personal experience, but I used to duel many high-scoring VFPs back in the day, and I always would ask them their equipment setup (& often discuss it at length). The most common complaint about the Warthog was indeed the stiffness, from users of all skill levels. In fact, other than the fact that it doesn't have force feedback, it was the only complaint I ever heard about it.S!
-
Exactly :smilewink:. I have almost 20cm in mine, and I think even a bit more would be needed to squeeze the precision available. Flying with every aircraft and helicopter available in DCS is a joy with a long stick. In DCSWII it would be mandatory IMHO. 109 just yells asking for a long stick.With a 10 cm extension, the centering force is very low. You almost don' t feel it. You also gain a lot in precision. It goes from 2cm to 5-6cm each way at full deflection.Since I got mine I am starting to think that it is mandatory to really exploit the warthog' s sensors precision.
S!
-
Thank you hegykc!!!
I tried to say exactly that over a bunch of posts, but your explain is definitive ;) .
S!
-
I think it's blocked right now, it doesn't means it will for ever. May be next version have it, hope so.
S!
-
Anddddd that's the Clue. You Can't hold aircraft nose using only trim in 109, and even less if you want that using maximum power setting. You can do it for a Cruise, as talked in the other thread, but not for max power. Also you can do it pretty well using a long stick, like the real one.I am having a pain flying the K-4. Even with maximum nose down trim and the power setting at 1.4 ata the aircraft still wants to climb.S!
-
1
-
-
I wouldn't rely on any Clostermann's statements for accuracy. He's a very well known storyteller... He just wrote an adventures novel, not a history book, and you know novels don't have to be any accurate at all. So if he talks about the biggest and mightiest Luftwaffe in front of himself alone just to appear as the big pilot he wasn't is a novelist mind only.It's funny, it is that exact quote I was thinking of: "Clipped, Cropped and Clapped".I read it in P. Clostermanns "The Big Show". a book that has been my companion for many years, and the base for my interest in WW II fighters.
According to him, the reason for the pilots' animosity towards the Spitfire LF Vb was that it was very optimized for low level flight, where it was very fast and had high climb rate.
However, due to the cropped compressor, the engine power curve fell sharply with altitude, so that at 12000 feet it had on 500 Hp(!).
Add to that that they got worn out airframes, and were told to do high altitude long range bomber escort for a while before they could get more modern fighters.
Not a popular combination.
Regarding the discussion about how many Bf 109 K4's were available in mid 1944, it is interesting to see P. Clostermanns opinion:
According to a 1964 report from Allied historical services which he read after the war, one Jagdgeschwader, JG-300, in July 1944 had no less than approximately 100 FW 190 A8s or D9s available, together with around 90 Bf 109 K.
To me that doesn't sound like the 109 K was such a rare airplane that some people in here claim it to be?
Anyway, I still look forward to the Spitfire Mark IX.
S!
-
Ooookkk, I see, so it's 25lbs over atmosphere and you have to add 1atm. Thanks mates ;).
So roughly 81'' seems a lot... I see also in reports linked a Mustang III saying he used +25lbs :shocking: . But in theory P-51 handbook states overboost is useless under a certain altitude (if I recall 14000ft?). If it's 81'' but still 3000 revs at low level, would it be any huge gain in performance without damaging the engine?
S!
-
Talking about performances, I was curious to know what means 25lbs manifold pressure, and it turns out corresponding roughly 51'' if I'm not mistaken. Can anybody confirm?
So having in consideration P-51 using a Packard roughly the same as Merlin but @67'' isn't a match for 109K4 I don't know why 51'' in a Spit would be any problem. You can give thanks we don't have Spit XVI using Packard engine... :lol:
S!
-
Interesting enough I found this discussion....
Yeah, 25lbs Spit has been a tough discussion in the pass over old sims. The problem with those old sims was the lack of real data use and absence of a platform capable of real hardcore simulations. BUT, while we only have three modules right now in DCS, I think ED has yet demonstrated enough they don't follow old arcadish paths, so IMHO any discussion about the aircraft is worthless until we have it. AND, I'm pretty sure even if we have the 25lbs variant it'll have it's RL performances and no more, so even with the 25lbs Dora will still be the best low level runner, and 109K4 will outperform the Spit easily mid and high altitudess like it does right now with P-51 (when you use them both correctly, of course :smilewink:).
S!
-
It was great to see, a joy to the eyes :D.
It would be even greater to have the chance of watching it again, may be listening Wags this time. Even when he lowered in game sound I barely listened to him. Would like to listen his comments.
S!
-
Ala13_ManOWar,
This thread is infected with too much emotion, and you and others are making it personal. It doesn't need to be that way.
I will politely ask again: if we can adjust the trim tabs on the Fw 190D-9, why does ED prevent us from adjusting them on the 109K-4? Forget the charts and graphs, and focus on this very simple question.
Sorry mate, you are right as Otto and Supongo are friends and we know each other :smilewink: .
I said before, I would like to see fixed trim tabs available like Dora. Why they aren't already? I don't know, may be because like other updates they're waiting for DCSW 2 release. Anyway, I also said before, don't expect trim tabs to be magic, it will change forces on stick but no more (and no less of course). Also I wouldn't be surprise to see trim tabs compromise stability at high speeds (as we also said before...). May be when available people start to complain about they get killed easily while diving... Anyway, if that happens I would prefer people getting killed (and quiet...) than this kind of discussion :lol:.
S!
-
I wouldn't assume any previous sim used real data to the point DCS needs it. It's easier to match 0 trim to some comfortable control for player than modelling it the closest to available data whatever it takes.The pattern does hold assuming the increasing weights are producing more and more tail heavy aircraft. They all use roughly the same frame don't they? And of course assuming the three sims all used true data.
So you didn't read the whole thing :lol:. Tail heavy available trim doesn't means anything nor proves it. On the other hand I don't like 109 behaviour of course but graphs available says what they say and I can't tell it's wrong just because I don't like.After finally reading the whole thread, nothing more needed to be said after Solty's post.
Nope, you don't need to be Einstein, you need to be a pilot who knows how it works :lol: :lol: :lol: . Flaps deployment lowers AoA (so your nose) but that doesn't mean you need to retrim raising it again (that's stupid after nose down lets you see the runway... you would know if you had ever flown). If you retrim raising nose again after flaps deployment that means retrimming for a lower airspeed, that is retrimming tail heavy, not nose heavy. Do you know something about how AoA works :smilewink:. That change has nothing to do with cruising trim and nose heavy trim available.Do you know anything about pitch down moment with flaps deployed.??Nobody question why the Bf-109K4 have 6 degrees of THS trim travel for nose-up, without apparent utility??
No need to be Einstein for see that something is wrong.
S!
-
Indeed Otto tried to use that same conclusion as "evidence" of the module's "great mistake" :D :D :D .It certainly makes sense to design the plane to cruise with trimmable stab very close to inline with the airflowIf we talk about making sense, all RL aircraft I have flown use 0 trim (or neutral, or whatever meaning 0º deflection in every case) as take off setting :smilewink:. Of course I mean Cessnas and similar GA, but P-51 works the same, neutral for TO (may be a bit nose down carrying high loads), and 109 handbook says 0 trim for TO? :shocking: :music_whistling: Is it surprising really? :smilewink:
Of course another "evidence" from Otto use to be you can TO with a bit nose heavy trim (not neutral, -hence it's a big mistake!!!- and so :lol:). As I mentioned P-51 handbook also tells using a bit nose heavy, and I can't tell I know any of those GA aircraft (may be some does of course) telling the same, but you don't have 1500HP and high weapons loads in GA making a soon take off dangerous as it can be in those fighters. So, does it really make sense neutral trim must be for cruising? :thumbup:
S!
-
It's said to be Take Off trim setting. And it's 0º AoA deflection for stabilizer. It's important since finding stabilizer position isn't as easy as regular trims just aligned 0º with elevator.I still don't understand why the German mechanics would bother to put the plane up on blocks and hang plumbobs off the stabilizer to work out exactly where zero was on the trim, when it is never used and doesn't matter. Seems like a lot of wasted effort. Unless they thought it was important for some reason.S!
-
That isn't what he said. He said that the Russian test had a more rear-ward CoG than the German test, not that the CoG changed while climbing.
Oh, OK, I reread. So he just misread what messermeister said and then I misread his attepmt :lol:.
Well, so, messermeister don't say a thing about climbing Otto. Climbing still doesn't change tests results :smilewink:.
S!
-
I'm with regular wing version, but I have to admit it's just a matter of aesthetics :). If we talk about having better performance or a beautiful aircraft I'm sure we all would want the performances :thumbup:.
S!
-
You didn't try to explain a thing so you didn't understood what graph said until I explained you both :smilewink:. Whatever, CoG doesn't change while climbing Otto... :thumbup: Climb or slight dive is only used to get the IAS quickly or when it's hardly or impossible to achieve by aircraft itself. You need to climb or dive to get data enough for the graph. In any case IAS is constant through the atmosphere so also it doesn't matters climb or dive as long as you have a certain IAS at a certain altitude as stated in graphs.This that Messermeister says is what Supongo and I are trying to explain you, last night in TS when we show you this German tests chart.The Russian test as Yo-Yo says is in climb attitude, NOT at leveled flight, and the CoG is displaced more rearward than the German test curves.
S!
-
Is it saying for level flight, I didn't get that anywhere? I can only get that its the results of speed on stick force (which we see), but I don't understand it all, so I will defer to Yo-Yo :)
Well, I'm not an engineer, but I read forward stick forces in Kg needed at different airspeeds (not told IAS or TAS, I guess IAS because the numbers shown but) and different altitudes and it has to be to keep level flight because every curve shows constant altitudes. All in a single CoG configuration as messermeister says, 21,2%, and using +0,75º trim which is a short one.
Also shows deflection degrees needed of right rudder, I guess to keep ball centered, under same conditions. We don't know short or long tail.
But I don't talk German, may be someone can translate it better. Anyway I think it's pretty clear you have to push to keep nose levelled, and after further dive test paper reading I'm starting to think it was intentional to keep pilots alive in high speed dives because aircraft behaviour and design.
S!
-
Regarding Yo-yo posted graph, may be this graph is related to something similar? If I understand it says stick has to be pulled to keep level flight, with force in kilograms instead of elevator surface deflection degrees like Yo-yo. So, means that the need to pull stick to keep levelled the 109 at high speed is correct? :music_whistling:
S!
-
I lot for sure... :beer:I wonder how difficult the Spitfires will be when they are released?S!
Cannot maintain level flight with maximum nose down trim
in DCS: Bf 109 K-4 Kurfürst
Posted
The most probable scenery after what I saw along this thread is pilots just hold 109 stick with not much effort until very high speeds like you can do in many aircraft, so they had any problem at all with that. You do have a problem with that using your short joystick hardware. Also you're obsessed about that neutral trim setting and neutral doesn't means "high speed cruise" as you want to, it doesn't means in any other aircraft and what we have seen in graphs and papers is it also doesn't in Bf109.
S!