MFG62 Joker

I second that. Hope one day soon this is going to be produced.

:megalol::lol::lol: Made my day!

:thumbup: woow, Du klingst ja richtig beigeistert ... :pilotfly::joystick:

OK I read you now! But still I see no indication that the graphs refer to rudder. Maybe if one had the text that accompanied the graph ...

Just another hint: The headline for the first graph is Ruderausschlag bei festem Staudruck ... here one could argue what the meaning of Ruder would be, rudder or elevator or aileron. The headline for the second graph on the same page is Höhensteuer-Handkraft bei festem Staudruck ... Höhensteuer is german for control actuator (hinged to elevator). So the english term for Höhensteuer-Handkraft would be stick-force (for elevator, not aileron) :joystick: The overall headline is Me 109 Einfluß der Mach´schen Zahl auf Staudruckhandkräfte und Höhenruderwinkel im Vergleich zur FW190 So it´s about stick-force and angle of deflection of elevator over speed (Mach), comparing Me109 and FW190

@ crumpp OK, lets put aside that the graph you are quoting is showing ordinate (y-axis) as ziehen and drücken, which in no way would refer to Seitenruder (rudder), what would be your conclusion how Seitenruder would affect change in stickforce of Höhenruder (elevator) over [static -- edit: I got that wrong] pressure? Please explain, I think I miss something here?!:huh: I really want to understand the issue here! My assumtion would be that in the documentation in english language rudder also is a collective term for aileron, elevator and rudder.

No! In German language Ruder is the generic term for a control surface. The specific control surface would be Höhenruder (elevator) Querruder (aileron) and Seitenruder (rudder). Even more upper graph shows the deflection type of the control surface as ziehen and drücken. This only applies for elevator! Sorry but for a German native speaker this documents shows nothing about Seitenruder deflection. It's just speculation to put it into a different context other than elevator.

:thumbup: both charts are about Höhenruder (elevator) Yo-yo: you is wrong! It´s ziehen (not zichen) and drücken, but not really bad for not being Deutscher :smilewink:

Ah! Nice! So there is going to be a german cockpit?!:pilotfly: ... just kidding ... Need to see if my g-suit still fits ... aahh too much kilos ...

Moi, je ne peux pas résisté à la tentation. :music_whistling: Now trying to hone my french skills ... will surely be necessary ... it´s been some years since school :smartass:...

Thank you Sir!

Our AoA gauge of the A10C shows AoA from 0 to 30 units. The gauge has 3 sections highlighted. From 15 to 16 17 to 18 19 to 21 I assume it shows best climb, best endurance, best glide. But I'm not sure. Anybody knows exactly which limits indicate what? :helpsmilie:

The real Bf 109 had no in-cockpit-adjustable trim for aileron and rudder. As a consequence the DCS:Bf109-K4 module has none either. Maybe it´s not the perfect ride for transfer flights. There have been many discussions about the trim tabs being adjustable on ground and by that one could pre-set for certain cruise speeds. We will see if this is finding its way into the module ... Anyway to me this sounds like someone complaining that the clutch of his Porsche is so hard to depress, especially if he´s driving in the mud and needs to shift gear so very often ...:music_whistling:

:lol: I mean: what did you expect? You really take in account that ED does think about what would happen if a 1930 warfare technologie is used in a 1980 + scenario? :smartass: With all the features requests that everybody hopes ED would code in, you really expect that in-game a flare-gun (purpose is visual) has a heat signature high enough to attract an IR sensor of a SAM? c'mon!? :helpsmilie:

which makes perfect sense if using a back-pack parachute.

?? What a pitty :music_whistling: :smilewink:

Exactly that, everything else would be ... ... wishful thinking. Even Hartmann would not have been able to overcome certain constraints in availability of his preferred load out. He'd take what was there, was it Minengeschoss or Leuchtspur. In his case it wouldn't have made a difference anyway since his doctrine was not to shoot out of range greater than approx. 60m or closer. In this case every load out had a devastating if not lethal effect.

I really like, that you put so much work into this video. :thumbup: What I really do not like at all is this always picking on things. Even if you were right, I dislike the 'smartassy' aproach that you take. To be honest: this is pickin on my nervs! :mad: Sometimes it´s just better to show some respect for what others achieve. You dont like it? Surely with such an aproach there will not many people out there listening. Did you ever wonder?

Serial #: 0014 Callsign: Falke Location: Frankenthal, Germany

it´s the normal penalty for wasting energy. Why would one let the system run with DCS up for one hour while being afk? :helpsmilie: For sure if a DB605 is running on idle for excessive time, it will die due to over temperature and insufficant lubrication. Running such a big engine without airflow and only low revs, it sure will hit max temp and suffer from low oilpressure. An overall good way to kill the engine.

the manual explains it all ... pg 33: The wing of the 109 is made with no washout, i.e. with the same angle from wing root to wingtip. Most Allied fighters of the time were designed with the angle of incidence greater at the wing root and decreasing across the span, becoming lowest at the wing tip. This gives the 109's wing increased lift compared to similar Allied fighters, while the tip stalling problem normally solved by washout on other designs is solved on the 109 with the use of automatic leading-edge slats that normally extend before the wingtip can stall. The overall result is an excellent high-lift wing that is also difficult to stall.

I still don´t see much evidence for 34 seconds. For me the Rulskilde incident has not enough flesh to the bone to deliver more than an educated guess.

Very nice results! So I think this issue is ironed out.:thumbup:

Again it´s not that easy. It depends on how tolerant the engine driven pumps will be to air in the fuel line. If there is air in the line and the airplane is put into a normal flight situation it might be that the air in the fuel line is no problem because the suction of the pump is able to overcome the uncompressing air in the line. Only if the volume of air in the fuel line is to high the pump fails to overcome the degrading suction (by the expanding air in the line) so in the end the flow of fuel is interrupted. Looking at the given system the timeframe of 5-8 seconds of possible inverted flight /neg G maneuver variing with the amount of throttle seems plausible to me.

Auf seems indeed to be wrong. I didn't find a picture as reference but the original Flugzeughandbuch Werkschrift 2109 vom November 1944, Teil 2 Fahrwerk describes on page 2-11 Druckknopfschalter and Merkleuchten for Fahrwerk "Aus". Therefore I would say AuF is a Typo.