DD_Fenrir

Video taken at Biggin in 1943: I believe this is taken at the E Pen adjacent Old House Farm, as notice the hay shed in the background - also bear in mind the cameraman would have wanted good light from the south, and as this pen is southerly facing that would assist in getting good light on his subjects.

Looks like the large building to the left of the picture is a Side-opening Aeroplane Shed: https://www.abct.org.uk/airfield-buildings/hangar-types/

Officers Mess (Western side of A233 opposite the site of the 3 bay Belfast hangar destroyed in 1940): https://www.facebook.com/KentsHistoricalSites/photos/officers-mess-at-the-former-raf-biggin-hill/1561098867249517

Detail of a dispersal hut at Biggin Hill: http://www.mfryer-architects.com/biggin

The second extension to the SSW-NNE (206-26°T) seen on some maps/plans was created in 1957 according to this source: https://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=1385321

I have been attempting to marry some photos showing buildings with their position on the field. I believe this image: is located here:

The station HQ and a grainy shot of the Gable ended hangar just prior to Group Captain Grice's decision to demolish it: http://www.bigginhill-history.co.uk/rafhq.htm A good modern shot of the HQ building: https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/4156308

I've been cross referencing as many photos and sources as I can and I believe that Fred901s post here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4368766&postcount=3 Contains the most accurate late war layout that we have seen thus far; any later imagery appears to be from the '50s and '60s, with T2 hangars having been erected in multiple locations and a variety of civil & GA aircraft (including a Lockheed Constellation) appearing on the images. I attach an annotated version describing some of what can be seen:

Good look at the blister hangar types that predominated at the airfield after the summer of 1940 when the Luftwaffe blew up the Belfast-truss types that it was built with originally: https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205212731 https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205210839

Wow. So many of you who've never ever seen the cockpit of a real Hornet let alone been in the position to use a HARM so quick to assume that it's implementation is inaccurate based on a single F-16C video. Well done gents. No, really.

Pimicelli is right in principle - though perhaps would be better to rudder trim is useless in all sims not just DCS. This is because we have no air load that can be transmitted through our rudder pedals. The most important thing to understand is that rudder trim has absolutely no effect on the total amount of rudder authority; this is restricted by the size, shape and limits of travel of the rudder. Trim cannot increase this. Trim simply allows you to set a dynamic 0 foot force position for making flight comfortable or in the case of take-off, easing foot load and allowing better control. As such, unless you own force feedback pedals, use of rudder trim would not be that beneficial.

Source? Conditions? Your reaching. Again. No intentional about it. We are discussing takeoff characteristics. In any case you are using an unquantified subjective opinion to support an argument based on your own subjective interpretation. There is no data to compare, ergo it is irrelevant. Let's leave that for an appropriate topic, hmmm? Again, this is not the topic for it, and in any case it could be there is a difference between a G-10 and a K-4 that accounts for this. The MW-50 tank springs to mind for one. I highly doubt that modern restorations fly with this filled. You will have to ask Yo-Yo. I used the G-10 a stand-in in the case of the directional characteristics on takeoff as the vertical tail format is virtually unchanged and horsepower, wing planform and undercarriage geometry are very similar for the two aircraft, and a far closer match than the earlier G variants referenced in your videos.

Enough to get on and off the ground without inducing the "FM bugged" hysteria you seem to suffer with. Clue: "Tail is coming up now, and the rudder is becoming effective." Kind of insinuates that it wasn't very effective beforehand, n'est pas? As for roll rate, seems to marry pretty much with what most contemporary pilots describe; faster then the Mustang, similar to the Spit. I get good roll rates (particularly to the left) as long as I coordinate with a good bootful of rudder. This correlates to descriptions by by every pilots notes I have ever referenced regards flying the 109, of any variant - that is that good 109 flying requires good rudder work. This indicates a marginal stability around the normal axis. Which further indicates that Willy made the vertical surfaces as small as he dared and only increased them as a last resort and to the smallest possible area he could get away with.

And... the Bf 109 is not a Spitfire. Control surface areas = different Vertical tail area = different Control surface moment arms = different Propellors = different Engine output = different Wing area = different Wing planform = different Tail wheel geometry = different Fuselage geometry = different Ergo, Reaction to torque forces on take-off = ....... Hazard a guess.

Bearing in mind these reports come from pilots WHO HAVE ACTUALLY FLOWN REAL late Bf 109 variants. These tally with my experiences of getting the DCS 109 off the ground. In response you provide nothing more than a couple of videos which show competent experienced pilots who know how to take-off safely in the 109 to justify you claims that the 109 is wrong. And yet there are DCS pilots here, who have demonstrably proven that they are able to takeoff in the 109 without the level of drama and inaccuracy that you imply is inherent to the DCS 109. So it boils down to "you are doing it wrong".

Further elaboration on a G-4 variant here: https://www.warhistoryonline.com/guest-bloggers/newly-restored-messerschmitt-bf109g-flies-test-pilot-shares-experience.html

The closest example to a Bf 109K that is currently airworthy is actually a HA-1112-M1L re-engined with a DB601. From here: http://goodall.com.au/warbirds-directory-v6/messerschmitt.pdf and here is Mark Hannah's description of the takeoff : http://www.eaf51.org/newweb/Documenti/Storia/Flying_%20109_ENG.pdf)

As usual with 1-oh-whiners, lots of moaning, lots of feelings, zero evidence. And no, one dismally grainy video of a completely different model of 109 does not count as evidence.

So, can we declare this pointless pissing contest over yet?

The higher power and lower airspeeds associated with takeoffs result in torque effects being more noticeable - I suspect you'll be getting left wing drop, yes? In this case, check your slip-ball - it's more likely your wing drop is being induced by flying with side slip so trim the rudder first. You will find that as the fuel burns off from your left wing tank that you'll gradually have to start feeding in a little aileron trim after a while, but it shouldn't be significant.

It isn't? Works fine for me as long as I am a) in A2A mode and b) using anything but guns.

Odd. I took the Cat out for 2 separate sorties on a public multiplayer server over the weekend and scored a record for me of 8-for-8 with the Phoenix, 7 of which were under TWS. Jester didn't drop once, even after I had asked for an elevation-at-range adjustment for one engagement. In my experience the AWG-9 is much happier when there is a good amount of air between the targets and the ground. I only ever get ghosting when trying to track low flying contacts with hilly/mountainous terrain in the radar picture. This aligns with some crew reports that I have seen; the AWG-9, whilst look-down-shoot-down is a first gen radar of that type, and is far happier discriminating targets against sea/flat terrain and tomcat crews had to account for this.

Perhaps you need to be less lazy and look around the forum some; expecting a personalised response to an impolite post every time there is an update is entitlement personified.

Thanks chaps. Like you dalan, I could have done with these 18 months ago, but if they're of use to anyone else now, so much the better. I'd love to be able to make a dynamic 3D model with adjustable mode, elevation, azimuth, and bar scan inputs with an animated antenna icon so that you can really start to visualise just how the radar is scanning over time - that would really help those new to modern jets to get a grip on how their radar behaves and what it cannot see, as I get the feeling that some assume that a radar = 180* Situational Awareness in front of your aircraft and are surprised when it doesn't meet that expectation.

Hi all, I made these for my squad to help them visualise the scan patterns of the AWG-9 and just how little of the sky the antenna is actually covering at any given moment and give them impetus to start being a bit more proactive with asking Jester to slew their scan patterns around. I have attached here in case any one else finds them useful. ​ ​​ ​