fapador

+2 more degrees deflection. Is a more than 4times ineffectiveness compared to video reasonable? I think not.....

Summary: Extra 300 Rudder Area : 0.51 m^2 Extra 300 rudder deflection : 30 degrees BF-109 K-4 Rudder Area : 0.57 m^2 Bf109 K-4 Rudder deflection: 32 degrees P51D Rudder Area : 0.96 m^2 P51D Rudder deflection : 30 degrees Spitfire MkIx Rudder (Pointy type) Area : 0.99 m^2 Spitfire MkIx Rudder deflection: 28.5 Compared to Bf109 K-4, Extra 300 is 4 times lighter than Bf109 K-4, However it has smaller moment arm as its shorter by 2 meters. The conclusions are always yours.

No I dont think they weigh the same. but Extra 300 notably shorter so smaller/less moment arm... Weak rudder is common on all DCS warbirds, whoever think its ok is completely benighted, fooled or mislead. HAHA you are the one who said to look at the surface areas... Now you see that its indeed smaller you change your argument...

@DD_Fenrir Extra 300 Rudder Area : 0.51 m^2 BF-109 K-4 Rudder Area : 0.57 m^2 P51D Rudder Area : 0.96 m^2 Spitfire MkIx Rudder (Pointy type) Area : 0.99 m^2 It actually doesn't take much... Any serious pilot, with experience should be able to confirm that WWII birds in DCS are notoriously weak in Yaw and there is NO way they handled or handle like that... I am not saying they should hammerhead like an extra 300 but being almost 4x times weaker in yaw authority is definitely not right...

Rudder authority at zero airspeed is actually zero and only propwash comes to play.... unless you are trying to speak of the low airspeed regime in general.. where authority is actually directly affected by the way propwash interacts with the vertical surface, which in turn is an equation of all the design factors you state and the additional examined speed. And no I disagree. though the Video depicts an extra 300 and indeed they are design differences when compared to WWII bird's, most symmetrical and some assymetrical airfoils used on aircrafts today were actually designed in the 1920's. Such an example is the Air Tractor AT-802 first flown in 1990 which uses airfoil designs from 1920's. Also from quick comparison. though I am pretty sure surface area will differ: Extra 300 rudder deflection = 30 degrees BF109 K-4 rudder deflection = 32 degrees BF109 E-4 rudder deflection = 34 degrees Spitfire MkIx rudder deflection = 28.5 degrees P51D rudder deflection = 30 degrees The conclusions are yours.

No its not fine. Hate to break it for ya but in fact some Fm's in DCS aren't even ballpark... In fact, my suspicions have been confirmed through discussions with pilots, both high rank militants and civil aviation people... , not with some random enthusiasts in cyberspace saying otherwise...

@Hobel NEED EVIDENCE . is the first thing you are going to hear. Personally I have stated the same thing in the past only to be massively discredited by lurking keyboard vultures, benighted in most cases. Some DCS fm's actually SCREAM this, provided the fact that you have some hours in actual aircraft controls....

Ghost trim tabs with abscent visual models and no way of manipulating them. Great Stuff. I wonder if this happens also with zero airspeed while landed.

No and No. You are exaggerating in a hopeless effort to prove your claims. A Cessna 152 doesn't fly or handles notably differently than even a similarly loaded triple blade Centurion 2.0. And that is not personal opinion, it's actually one of the reasons training schools like mine, allowed me to complete Night qualifications/Instrument ratings while I had initially trained on a C152. Your BS is ignored.

It does if you put flight model at hard. Claims to be "ATPL" certified Pilot. He then urges somoene to go deliberately try spinning a Cessna 152 and then try another spin in a Cessna 172 and compare them. He also states that because of this the planes compared fly differently. Cherry on top is that its a complete irrelevant conversation about level cruise flight characteristics.

Remember, when you point a finger at someone you have 3 more pointing to you. This is the last time I am replying to your insulting assumptive allogations. First read my previous posts. Maybe there is still a small chance you will manage to see the forest and not the trees. E through K changes are a lot but there is no theoretical justification for such a large deviation when it comes to flight handling. I will never believe that a 109 Emil flies substantially differently than a 109 K-4 nor that it displays by a large margin different flight characteristics. Luftwaffe at that time swapped pilots from 109's to Fw-190's in an instant without thorough training, and that is indeed a different airplane... And no, on the contrary of your speculations, I don't base my opinion on what it does in another simulator. Infact, I dont like the BF-109 flight models in the competition sim either.

I guess you overestimate the possible differencies between, for example, G and K regarding trim changes. First of all, 109 was a working horse of the Luftwaffe, so obviously, new versions must not be very different. Indirect proof was, for example, Erich Brunotte's experience - he flew K but not in combat just for ferry flight. He did not mention any significant differencies. So, if there are no valued sources for K the best way is to use real gocs for G than to create fictional dependancies. Above text from Yo-Yo himself for those who state that the 109 variants have massive handling difference.

And reason why this is happening here.

Jesus I said A drag reduction as in general, not drag and weight distribution is comparable. No wonder its difficult to comprehend...

Never said that the drag is comparable between E-K please don't put words on my mouth.

Moreover. that interview with Volker Bau was made by members efforts of a Virtual Squadron known to be very dissapointed with DCS 109 flight handling. Personally, as I have seen this video before and the ED video showing an Erich Brunotte clearly dissapointed with Fm handling of the Dora, is more than enough for me to doubt the sims Fm's

Also please stop delibaretely choosing to opt out mentions and what they replaced like this:. Its very misleading to clueless people reading the posts. .

Numero 1 strike : 7.92 mg17 with more ammo replaced by 13mm with less ammo. Numero 2 strike : Bf109 f models and all after used a propeller and hub mechanism a lot lighter than emil + as I said read my previous post were its clearly seen that there is not so much difference Weight distribution wise if you consider the sum of all changes. Numero 3 strike : Elevator trim range is infact so comparable designers opted to keep exactly the same mechanism with +2 -6 degrees range Numero 4 strike : wings are exactly on the same position It seems you cant see the forest for the trees. You are free to believe whatever you like just don't insist on making others believe what you want. Nevertheless I would always opt for a K-4 FM handling like an exact EMIL 109 with more speed rather this absurd FM we have currently with massive AoA differences compared to Emil level flight test data and even G-K flight testimonial reports in relation to yaw and rudder pedal requirements at various speeds.

Not as much as you think, considering there is also an increase to wing area, a drag reduction and the weight distribution remains very comparable to an E model . Especially when talking about cruise speed level flight regime. Sure will try that on the next chartered flight.... What a reckless statement, What a complete imbecile...., you say you have ATPL... yeah right, Yet you invoke someone to go and try aerobatic maneuvers in a non certified airplane.... That's how people in GA planes get killed, from pulling that <profanity>. Nonetheless if you had a grain of brain you would have realised that I described normal flight regimes. Not extreme handling maneuvers nor stall characteristics or stall speeds beyond any normal flight envelope...

A step in the right direction... Finally I can pull those sharp rolls. Also New DFLCS feels Awesome. Tanks/ stores drag feels reasonable good aswell. I have judged Vipers FM in the past so I make this post in order to point the good things too. Don't get me wrong I still find some issues here and there with the Viper's handling like most notably an excessive nose drop when banking still making Knife Edge maneuvers hard IMO however I recognize the progress made... Keep up the good work.

Further more you are isolating my statement without reading the explanation below. Speed doesn't affect center of lift. AoA increases in SLOW Flight to compensate from loss of lift. I am not examining slow flight characteristics of the BF-109. @Jafferson did tests at 400+ kmh that ain't slow flying....

Next lesson will be charged

Also Speed which most clueless people here suggest that plays a major role to AoA in level flight is in reality not so significant in Subsonic Flight. That is because the center of lift or pressure, doesn't change in speeds lower than 0.9-1Mach. Its only the overall lift that is affected. Thus in majority the AOA changes we might see are only because of possible stabilizer design counteracting insufficiencies which again don't happen as abruptly as DCS tries to make us believe