[DBS]TH0R

I've yet to nose over both when using brakes after landing or taxing with full stick forward. Again, could you share a nose over track?

Having watched this video it seems to me the power changes / requirement needed to taxi are also very small in the G-4 Red 7: Also note the (I think manual) pitch settings at 11:45.

+1 What we have now, on the current map, feels like a demo of what could come. Occasionally I come back to DCS to enjoy flight and system modeling but for the most part DCS is on the shelf for me. Waiting for EDGE and DCS 2.0. Thankfully there have been some improvements in the MP netcode recently, but I've only tested it on one server.

Is that your interpretation or what says in the document (that particular image) or do you have it on you? 15-20% from what base value, same wing without slats or the same wing with washout? Would like to see more info about the document from messermeister, who mentioned it in the first place. Yeah, from what Yo-Yo told us earlier the flaps should help in instantaneous turn. Not sustained one. I too would like to know why this is so. :joystick: How much do they help? Low and slow the 109 turns far better from my experience, especially if you turn left. Perhaps another thread with Tacview data comparing the two together would be interesting...

Another locking I suppose. :D OP question was answered several times now. Hence the difference between power on and power off stalling behavior. With that being said, 109 root section of the wing that gets "energized" doesn't have any high lift devices except normal flaps that are used during landing / TO and perhaps heavy maneuvering. My in-game tests show level power off matching IAS values Dave Southwood wrote after flying the G-2: When we stop beating around the bush, this is the premise of certain people around here. That the slats provide higher AOA and increase lift is not a question - when they cover full span of the wing. Whether they also do all of that when they are placed on the outboard 1/3 of the wing (in power on condition), or simply "complete the stall" still needs to be proven to / by some. So far I haven't seen anyone posting anything proving that having slats on the outboard 1/3 of the wing yields in any CLmax increase or results similar to those of full span slats. Merely theory. (Mind you in engineering terms, or in my language at least, everything is a theory. Be it proven in practice or not.) While on the other hand we have seen full-scale wind tunnel measurements on Bf 109 V24 mentioned before saying they only complete the stall, and a quick Wikipedia search showed the same answer pointing to a source from this book: "Clancy, L.J., Aerodynamics, Section 6.9" Saying that I trust Wikipedia is a long shot, at best, however the article about slots (general purpose as slats being the same) with a source is there.

Naturally, for that the slats need to be mechanically driven. Automatic, air pressure driven slats would then never deploy on a 109 if they were in the propeller stream. The other solution are fixed slots. In the context of the above, do please explain to me the conclusion of the test you yourself shared some time ago: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19940025432.pdf In this test the high lift devices (including leading edge) are directly in the propeller stream. We saw it mentioned and certain pieces from it extracted, not the full document. Unless he provides documents or mentions where he got this information from - there is a word for it: baloney.

Back to the topic, here is a video showing what happens with the airflow around the wings with the slats (circa 1938 ):

And it says the P-51 engine was running rough under climb and maneuvering tests. Still, after reading it I now wish to test if there is actually any difference between in-game P-51D and TF-51D related to Yo-Yo's comments Solty linked... EDIT: Upon re-reading I see that P-47 had its turbocharger removed, and exhaust lines re-routed. The only two planes in that test that somewhat resemble their war time configuration are Hellcat and Corsair. Without ordinance, that is.

Thanks for the article Otto. The Mustang will snap on you if not careful, in any sim I've flown it thus far. As for stick forces, the pitch stiffness was described as similar to that of a P-51 by Dave Southwood: What is interesting about this article Otto posted are the TO figures in Table I. Lightest of them all, it takes P-51 to TO about the same distance as the P-47 to lift off while the latter being 2500 lb heavier and the 51 takes off at a higher speed. Unlike what the manual says P-51 is capable off (whether that being true or not is a matter of another discussion). On the following page it says the Mustang suffered from rough running at 4000 ft and was thus flown at METO (Maximum Except Takeoff Power) power which smoothed out engine operation. So at least the climb chart together with the TO one are not representative. Speaking of control stiffening, seeing how pilots often mention using both hands on the stick for heavy maneuvering at high speeds - it would be cool if something like using one or two hands on the stick could be modeled. Having to use both hands should disable you from using any other control. Perhaps having a key binding for a two hand pull that disables all other controls, or some other way might be useful. Knowing whether ED models single hand on the joystick at all times would also help in understanding how stick forces are modeled.

I meant nose wheel brake, sorry. Haven't flown the thing in a while.

Unless I am mistaken those planes are some 2-4 times lighter than those with which you are comparing them in DCS. However, I agree there should be some rudder authority. And from my experience there is - but you need to be careful not to wreck your plane with engines this powerful. 109 requires (when on manual pitch and fully fine - 12:30 on the gauge) just a touch of right brake to start swinging to the right when turning stationary, while in P-51 I've done circles just on account of the rudder without touching the brakes. Especially when moving into a parking slot for a 180° turn. That was some patches ago, will test as soon as I can to verify again. P-51 tail wheel turns 6° in each direction with stick held back.

Do you enable nose wheel catering before you start turning?

While I find K4 reluctant to change the direction of the turn when you are not moving (SiThSpAwN's tail wheel bearing remark), I find no problems with it as far as ground handing goes. Heavy use of differential braking is a must. Once it starts moving you can push the stick fully forward and to some extent use prop wash with rudder to turn, but I prefer differential braking and don't use rudder much. From the above posted link: (1) nose down trim works for me and I use it for TO without a problem. I don't use more than 1.4 ATA on normal TO. I've even pulled off a wheel landing yesterday. Have you tried using some kind of a curvature on your throttle? A buddy of mine finds P-51's throttle too sensitive and ever since he dialed in curvature its a joy to fly for him. EDIT2: Upon some further testing... Switching to manual PP and just a touch of right rudder is required combined with full stick forward for the plane to start turning right when stationary. From there on propwash alone is enough.

Some people simply find 190 to be the most difficult to TO, while others find 109 and even P-51. ctguy1955, what power settings are you using on TO and can you share a track?

From the above linked article:

Thanks. :) Quick Google search revealed a lot more detailed report from the same pilot, Dave Southwood: http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/articles/airframes/black6/bk6_flight.htm

G came in 1943, to be more precise. Later on G was modified, the most obvious change was the "Cheyenne turret": There were some other modifications throughout the rest of the war IIRC, such as removal then return of the fire extinguishers, removal of the radio operator .50cal etc.

I found this documentary sitting in my watch list for quite some time. I can't remember who or where posted it, but I'm glad that I finally found some time to watch it today. Been flying DCS 109 recently more than any other module, and I do have to say I am getting quite fond of it. This documentary is from 1995 when two DB 109s visited IWM Duxford. Includes lots of footage, even in-cockpit shots where you can see how much stick movement is used during maneuvers. Since this is 1995 we're talking about, don't expect GoPro quality. :) The part I found most interesting starts at 8:57, with comments from Dave Southwood about how the plane handles, from TO, through maneuvers, to landing: https://youtu.be/IbeRn1rgoIo?t=8m57s - Which very closely correlates to my own experience with DCS module. Lots of rudder use through all the maneuvers with "fairly low directional stability" both on TO and landing, and in the air. Another interesting (and new) info for me was the expected engine life: 150 hours.

I second ZaltysZ's comments. 109 requires a lot of work on all controls during all the maneuvers. With 190 on the other hand, you only have one throttle to worry about while the Mustang can be trimmed at all speeds to minimize stick input. Yes, more details are needed. An extension like what can be found on Warthogs definitely helps but creates larger movement. And the Hog is tiresome after a prolonged use when not extended. Extending a joystick with less resistance in its default configuration like X-55 would further lower forces required to move it. There are relatively cheap solutions for extending a stick, see mine from the sig.

I guess this explains a lot. :) Same here. It was interesting to read Kurfürst's thoughts on the the module. What joystick are you using Otto? I tested 109 with a shorter MSFF2 and the difference is obvious. If you have the time (I'd do it but lack free time in the next couple of days), it would be interesting to back your tracks up with TacView to see if you really maintained a constant AOA like OP was trying to do, while we tried to explain to him that he in fact did not.

Same here. I find DCS 109 loves rudder input, in particular during turns. It is even mentioned in the document he linked. There is also talk about rudder getting heavy above 500 km/h.

None taken. I guess I should just throw my masters degree in mechanical engineering out through the window then. :) Joking aside, I was replying to your claim that you maintained a constant AOA established at a higher speed. What we all are trying to explain to you is how sick stiffening dependent on your speed is simulated in this sim. With that being said, please read my last post again, don't just cherry pick a piece of it as a quote. EDIT in order not to double post: Exactly. This is somewhat how old IL2 simulated stick forces. Sadly, MS dropped their support for the FF2 stick and we're stuck with default setting with any such controls or fine tuning absent both in DCS or in OS.

It has been answered to you several times already in this thread. Above 400 km/h the stiffening starts to become more apparent. Between 300 - 400 km/h it is hardly noticeable, you can almost disregard it. The 380-420 km/h is a "transitional" area. You started your turn at 500 km/h and speed dropped to that particular range. You can not, and I repeat can not, simply hold your desktop joystick at a constant pull throughout this maneuver. As you lose your speed, the forces required to hold your virtual stick will decrease thus moving the virtual joystick further back to match the physical joystick on your desk and as such increasing AOA. This is evident when looking at the 3D joystick in the cockpit. The joystick indicator, at least for me, doesn't show such small movement. Now, what might be causing problems for some is the relatively short travel required to do any meaningful maneuver with a desktop joystick. I will draw a comparison here. Coming back from IL21946 I always flew with 100 settings on all axes. I just like to have the full control over my plane. For some people this was unthinkable and way too sensitive. DCS 109 is just like that. It requires very little stick input in any direction for all maneuvers. That is why I presume some people have problems with it. But this is how DCS simulates pitch and roll for all WWII birds. It doesn't try to accommodate for desktop joysticks last I checked - for that you need to add some curves under controller settings. Based on what Yo-Yo said - if you think 109 is "twitchy" just wait until we get the Spitfire... ^^ Edited and underlined for (even) more clear explanation. Having tested FF last night I will say that even though buffeting feels nice and gives you 2-3 times more warning and ability to fly on the edge, I dislike the rest of the FF implementation / modeling. After using an extended joystick for quite some time now I can never go back. The added fidelity is greater advantage than FF.

Just pluged in my MSFF2 and oh boy, what a difference in comparison to the extended Hog. :joystick: It doesn't take much stick movement to move this plane around the sky with a short desktop stick. And that FF gives perhaps 3-4 times more buffeting than when I fly with the Hog. FF is a definitely an advantage with this plane. I can understand why some want increased buffeting effect for those without FF. After trying to replicate OP's videos you might just be right. Instead of relying on the virtual controller in the lower left, I kept my eyes on the 3D virtual joystick moving in the cockpit. And sure enough - you really do need to move it juuuust slightly ahead in order to maintain the same AOA you entered the turn with at a higher speed. The virtual joystick indicator in the lower left didn't budge at all. But I need to test this more, I've only done a couple of turns. No time for it tonight I'm afraid.

Happy to read any provided documents and give you my feedback. Unless I missed something both of you continue referencing one single document (with the exception of post #111): From this document, you commented earlier: What would the marked conditions correspond to in DCS 109 K4? I saw your ATA well in the 1.8 area (@ 6:40 in the video):