MFG62 Joker

dem kann ich 100%ig genau so zustimmen!

@ Falki Ich muss jetzt mal loswerden, dass bei Weitem nicht alle Pfälzer so unentspannt sind. Falken meist auch nicht. :music_whistling: Also ich habe von ED bisher noch nichts gekauft, was ich nicht vorher getestet habe. Updaten muss ich auch nicht, ich werde jedesmal vorher gefragt obs recht is. Das, was ich bei ED gekauft habe, schließt meines Wissens nicht künftige Verbesserungen wie Edge ein. Auch konnte ich mit ED keine Vereinbarung zu Schadenersatz vereinbaren, sollte EdGe nicht fristgerecht und fehlerfrei geliefert werden. Was soll also der ganze Heckmeck? Es geht ja schließlich nicht um eine S Klasse für 90.000 EUR. Wie ich oben schrieb, es gibt immer 3 Optionen, solch gallige Ergüsse zu lesen macht jedenfalls mir keine Freude. Bleibt die Frage: was bringt es Dir?!

...Humor ist , wenn man trotzdem lacht! :music_whistling: Es gibt immer 3 Möglichkeiten: Love it!:) Change it! :book: Leave it! :D Wünsche viel (Heiden)Spaß weiterhin. Außerdem: de liewe Gott verlosst kään Pälzer, was meckerschd also?

From the referenced page, this pump is described to be an emergency fuel dumping pump. Kraftstoff-Ablasspumpe / für Schnellablass :music_whistling: Since this is the only source given, I highly doubt if this pump is able to deliver sufficient fuel flow if 109 K is inverted - or if it was it´s purpose at all. Other than internal MW50/Fuel tank I have no info on a fuel dumping device for maintank of Bf109.

why do you insist riding a dead horse? :music_whistling: As a german native speaker I can tell you for sure it says the horn is sounding but may be not audible clearly. Try to hear yourself whisteling while AC/DC is playing live next to you ...

All the statements of Crumpp sound logically correct. But since there is a wiring diagram for the K4, all we need to do is: follow that. And yes Crumpp you are right, the system may not be outright what one would logically think it should be. But if there is valid documentation that´s all we need, agree?

No need to get crumpy:smilewink: What we dicussed is a G Series document as a source which - from the newer finds - should anyway be in doubt if we could use it. In this source only two facts were mentioned, a third was added through your educated guess. It doesn´t make sense to discuss this without having a clear source. Yo-yo seems to have good documentation on the system in a K series. Therefore I have no doubt it will either already be working correctly or it will be changed to work correctly. Jeez all of us are nitpickers when it comes down to getting things as correct as possible. So let´s have a [good old german] beer together some time ...

What do we know from the sources? Two conditions lead to a sounding horn a) retracted gear b) deflected flap We have an additional information that the sound is heard clearly if the engine is in idle. That's what good sources say. You may think and assume what you like, if you want to proof that the sound is only if engine is in idle, just come up with some proof, not assumption and guess. Btw no German native speaker would understand that sentence in a way that the horn is only sounding while the engine is in idle. There is a clear difference between sounding and being audible.

Just to get that correctly: the manual says the horn sounds if landing gear is not locked and simultaneously flaps are deflected. Only when the engine is idling the sound is to be heard clearly. When engine is revving higher, the horn is still sounding, but may be over-heard due to the loud engine.

nice work! I´m not really into this but like your idea of sharing! Kudos!

As far as I understood Otto the claimed bug is that time passing by until missfire and shutdown of engine occurs after extensive neg G or inverted flight is in doubt. It depends on the time until the rest of fuel in the fuel lines is used up and if - in this specific case - neither the motor mounted fuel suction pump nor the intank boost pump is able to re-establish sufficient fuel pressure as a positive G, not inverted flightpath is re-gained. One could question if the underlying calculation of this consumption is correct. But this needs to be answered by Yo-Yo I think.

If so, he has a great talent in phrasing his points in a way one either gets him wrong or does not understand at all what he wants to point out. :music_whistling: For example how could breathed air mass into the engine be the same at e.g. 6000rpm and boost 1,3 vs 1,4 ata? Most of this is dynamic in flight, many parameters changing rapidly with speed, altitude, temperature, manifold pressure etc. Most of the time the CSP system will not be able to keep the RPM exactly the same value. And that supports the assumption that air mass is proportional RPM?, I mean really??? Maybe thats not his point and I do not understand what he wants to point out? PBKAM (Problem between Keyboard and Monitor) on my side? I dunno ... But like I said, everyone who contributes to the goal of an as perfect as possible modelled and bug-free 109K, I give kudos for!

I find it absolutely valuable that you try to contribute getting the 109k to a status where there is no wrong behavior. Don't be offended but your understanding of the whole concept seems to lack major knowledge. An engine system with constant speed prop will have major differences in mass air flow at constant rpm of the engine linked to the flight path and coarse or fine state of the prop gear and temperature, air density and many more effects. That's the magic behind the system anyway. If you deny the existence of that fact by saying closed throttle means windmilling and stating that rpm and air mass flow is proportional in such a system you simply do not understand what's going on. Again do not feel offended, I value your interest in the topic, after all I'm just a 109fanboy, our goals are the same. :pilotfly:

This assumption is plain false. I could have an engine revving 6000 with throttle closed. It surely has less air mass running through than revving 1500 with throttle full open. And there are tons of effects in the system 'engine' that lead to a total mismatch in terms of rpm being proportional to air mass flow. Then again revving with 6000 throttle full open with 600km level compared to 6000 rpm at airspeed 120km on top of a zoom climb tells a totally different story. Now take the boosting (supercharger) in account. You see: if it was that simple ...:smartass: ... Even I would be able to built a perfect injection system for an engine.

/5 is wrong. Already discussed here, booster pump is to be started before engine start and shut off after landing. http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2308443&postcount=13 Nowadays one tries to get off hours from the boost pump (it's not easy /cheap to get spare parts) and since in flight conditions where no hard maneuvers are flown in terms of moderate descend and climb (no neg G) fuel supply only through suction from engine fuel pumps will be sufficient. That is why normal procedure of red7 say boost pump off (same as historical 109G). For 109 K boost pump on is obligatory. In the Denmark incident of red7 an operating boost pump would most probably saved the pilot with a re-started engine.

1st Galland and Hartmann never made friends, the wouldn´t like to be mentioned in one sentence :music_whistling:. 2nd from the attached picture you can see that within the tank the suction point is at the bottom of the tank(marked 1) . The filter device (marked 2) provides a certain amount of fuel, the filled lines some more. Definetly the capability of the 109 to do neg G maneuvers or fly inverted is at least restricted to a few seconds, you cannot do a sustained inverted or neg G flight path in a 109. What not only Experten but also noobs in a 109 at the times of BoB knew is that pushing the stick forward firmly and by that pressing the 109 into a neg G over the nose type of instant dive was a maneuver the spit and hurri could not follow since their carburator motors would starve immediately when suffering from neg G. Hartmann was the type of pilot not to be surprised, attack, shoot, coffee brake, he never would go into dogfithing with a bogey. Galland would also rather use surprise and better engergy state to engage and disengage right away if the odds turn against him. A good over all recipie to survive. None of them went for inverted flight or sustained neg G.

sischer, sischer is eh kloar ... :smartass:

So sehe ich das auch. Der werte Hobbypilot möge sich doch bitte mit den (englischen) Grundbegriffe vertraut machen. Sonst fliegt er womöglich demnächst in Engeln 20 südwestlich vom Stierauge ... Lol:music_whistling:

Die Begriffsdefinitionen: LINE-OF-SIGHT (LOS) - An imaginary straight line from an observer's eye to a target. Line of Sight Rate - An image's rate of movement across the canopy. Die Geschwindigkeit, mit der die LoSR sich ändert (korrekt eine Beschleunigung), ist von der Entfernung zum Objekt und dem Winkel der Flugbahnen abhängig. Beim Head-on ist dann nur noch ein ggf. vorhandener seitlicher Versatz relevant. Wahrscheinlich fliegt man ja nicht dead-ahead auf einander zu, sondern mit einem seitlichen Versatz. Genau da kommt dann die Aussage her, dass sich die LoSR erst dann deutlich ändert, wenn (resultierend aus dem seitlichen Versatz oder Winkel der Flugbahnen) ca 30° Winkel zwischen Dir und dem Opponenten liegen. Wenn sehr kleiner seitlicher Versatz und Winkel 180° (dead-ahead), kann sich die LoSR ja nur im Bereich zwischen ca 100m vor Dir und Deiner 3/9 Linie ändern, bis dahin bleibt der Opponent im vorderen Bereich des Cockpit quasi statisch und wird nur größer. bei Winkeln deutlich <> 180° kommt die erste Aussage zur Wirkung. Die Bemerkung mit der 3/9 trifft auf den Sonderfall 180° zu. Insofern sind beide Aussagen aus meiner Sicht stimmig.

ATA stands for "technische Atmosphäre (absoluter Druck, nicht Überdruck)". It was a type of pressure measurement used back in the thirties and forties (actually in use until 1978 ) in Germany. It describes the absoulute pressure measurement in contrast to pressure above reference pressure (e.g. 1030 mbar or hPa) aka atü (atmosphären Überdruck). In this case the absolute pressure in the manifold intake is measured (air being compressed by supercharger).

bump :music_whistling:

anything new here?

with sufficient fuel left, fuel cock P1+P2 and booster pump on you should encounter no problem. Make sure that the issue you are seeing is accompanied with a drop of fuel pressure. If not, your problem is different.

After reading again, just let me thank you anyway for your effort, trying to get sources which can make the sim even better. We all might name ourselves enthusiasts for those incredible machines. After all, we are brothers in mind, loving the Me109! Have fun flying it! :joystick::pilotfly:

All references from Messerschmitt Stiftung refer to G-Variants. And nobody is able to do a correct simulation based on 'I believe'. :huh: We have strong evidence with original material from the manufacturer. In that case no one with common sense would go for anything else than that. :music_whistling: No need to feel sorry and no offense meant, you may believe in what ever you like.