Kwiatek

I think that something is not right with all prop planes spin charactersitic in DCS. I got P-51, D-9 and now K-4. I made some test of stall and spin all of these planes and i found that all of them behave very similar in stall/spin area or i have to say all of them are rather spin proof. Mostly after stall occurs and you keep stick back planes made 1/4 of flick roll then suddenly stop roatation and recovery byself even with stick still full back. With stick full back planes making repeatable mechanical 1/4 flick roll then sudden stop. All behaves in similar manner. I think all of these planes lack of some spin interia here. It looks really unnatural. Even idiot plane like C152 is not such spin proof IRL. C152 could make nice spin only in climbing turn at slow speed with pilot error ( last year was exacly such accident in my country - pilot didn't have time to recover plane was made one full spin before crash). Similar situation is also with flick rolls with prop rotations. Planes reacts strangly - suddenly stop in the air like it was a invisible wall there. The same with spin into direction of prop rotation. I tried for comparsion F-86 Sabre and i think it is much better simulated. In hard turns after stall with stick back planes get into spin and got much more interia then DCS prop planes. F-86 Sabre got another problem - always flick into opposite way then rudder kick - but i suppose it is something with very weak rudder effectivness in Sabre or with different charactersic) As i real life aerobatic pilot ( Zlin 526) i think that prop planes in DCS still need some rework reagarding stall/spin characterstic. Yes in DCS there is nice stall buffeting but there is lack of spin interia. These is really annoying thing in DCS flight phycis engine for me and truly speaking it is dissapointment as prop planes behave in the DCS air. Could it be that DCS engine is more likely for jet planes?

Unfortunately i got problem with find exacly at which speed IAS/MAch and altitude there was reverse in Fw 190 trim :( Also still got problem to imagine how pull up stick force is icreasing ( from 0.62 Mach) where still is need to keep elevator down position ( push stick up to 0.7 Mach). In 109 it was more logical - there was need to constant keep push elevator ( ab 2 deg) and push stick force was icreasing with speed from 20 kg initialy to 25-30 kg at higher speeds. Im only pilot not flight engineer :P

If ailerons in K-4 was the same like in G version there shouldn't be noticable difference between. So at high speeds 109 should got decrasing roll rate like in NACA chart. I dunno if K-4 got flettner tabs on ailerons, probably it got the same frise airleons like earlier versions?

I think BOS A-3 got some problem with trim settings. Firstly "0" position on trim guage mean 0 degree angle on horizontal stab. "0" on guage IRL mean +2 deg on horizontal stab ( like it is done in DCS D-9). Also what i read RL FW 190 dont need to much trim change in wide speed range. In BOS there is need consant trim change in A-3 depend of speed. At slow to medium speed it is need about +3 deg to prevent stall in turns, at high speed (from 600 kph IAS) to pull up from dive and for effective elevator in turns it is need about 0 deg trim, but when speed is decresing is again need +3 deg to prevent stall. Well German test proved that Fw 190 got reversal trim change in dive with constant trim settings - +2.5 deg so it was modeled in BOS. Question is if these revelsal change is start at correct speed. In BOS it is about 600-650 kph IAS. Maby Yo-Yo could say something more at which speed Fw 190 should start to reversal? At 0.7 Mach or 0.62 Mach ? Is these TAS on these chart or IAS? For me it looks like in BOS A-3 got reversal trim at ab. 0.62 Mach at 4 km.

Yo-Yo from German chart it looks that to keep 109 in dive there is need near const 2 deg elevator down but at higher speeds load force on stick are incresing to about 25-30 kg? I got book " Oblatywacze ( Test Pilots)" by Wolgang Spate. There is info about dive test in 109 F-G made by pilot Lukas Szmid. After series of dives he found that: - at trim +1 deg 45' he need initialy push stick then trim was reversal change at ab. 800 TAS/ 7km and he need to pull stick to keep dive angle, moreover he need to keep push stick during out of dive - at trim +1 deg 15' - he need constantly push stick with increasing load, push load was decresing to moment ( ab. 900 TAS / 4.5 km) where he was initializing pull up from dive

Looking at USA raport about D-9 is not clearly that D-9 got so much better controlability at high speed then Anton: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/wright-field-fw190d-9.pdf They found that up to 375 mph IAS ( 600 kph) forces are moderate and controlablilty was good but from these speed elevator control became heavy and lateral forces are excessive.

I checked G-2 in BOS and with constant trim +1 deg with icreasing speed there is need high stick force to keep plane in dive. 109 in BOS got strong tendency to pull up byself. It is like in German test posted above. Fw 190 A-3 in BOS with increasing speed at trim +2 deg got increasing nose down tendency like in DCS but opposite to D-9 at high speed there is need high stick force to pull up from dive - A-3 recovery very slow. D-9 in DCS response imidietly and has no problem with pull up from dive even at 800 kph IAS at the same +2 deg trim settings.

Im trying understand these German test 109 vs Fw 190 For me it looks that 109 need high stick forces ( 20 to 30 kg) push the stick to keep dive with increasing speed. Fw 190 initialy need more elevator angle with low stick forces but with incresing speed there is reversal trim for nose heavy when there is need to pull stick with increasing stick load. Dunno how much stick forces would need to out of dive for 109 but looks that 109 got tendency to nose up in dive at high speed where Fw 190 got tendency to nose down. So its mean that with no change in trim settings 109 could pull up more easly from high speed dive then Fw 190. I dont know how it is with K-4 in DCS casue i dont have it yet but i tried Fw 190 D-9 and it looks that it has not too much stick forces during pull up from high speed dive with constans trim settings ( + 2 deg). D-9 is flying with slighty nose down with speed increasing but stick forces are very low. Fw 190 in German test need high stick force ( pull up) to keep plane flying straight so for pull up from dive with no change in trim would need even much more stick force to recover. It looks that Il2 BOS made it better then DCS in these are but in BOS A-3 got too fast nose down tendency in dive ( at too low speed). Also roll rate in video with 109 K-4 looks really high at these speeds but these need to be checked by numbers ( how much degree per second).

MAby these could be usefull:

Blackout at 4.8 G is too low. Maby it could happend with some people but most could stand it without blackout. I got sometimes passengers in aerobatic ZLin and they could stand 5 G without any blackout symptoms. I could stand 5-6 G also with no problems. So for a fighter pilot 4.8 G is nothing special. I think prolonged 6 G could make a difference.

I think it is bug in DCS P-51 manual where they put data from Packard V-1650-3 engine instead of Packard V-1650-7. Looking at performance of DCS P-51 there is clearly modeling V-7 version ( lower altitude version - Merlin 66)

It looks that Dora was more stable then Anton regarding pitch manouvers and stall behaviour in straight flight. But still in hard manouvering it could stall with little symptoms. Also it looks that above 375 mph elevator became quite heavy. Interesting is that report mentions heavy and excesive elevator forces at higher speeds. In DCS there is not feelable too much. I wonder what Yo-Yo could say about it. I would like to see also Yo-Yo opinion about stability in flight both Fw 190 and 109 but also about stick forces and elevator effectivness at high speeds?

Yea i still wonder if DCS D-9 is not too forgive in spin charactersitic. There is really hard to push it in spin. Other hand A version was known for harsh spin characteristic. It got quite strong wing drop during straight stall. In turn it could be even more nasty casuing flick roll. Also i wonder if or how different was D-9 comparing to A regarding trim settings and high speed stick forces expecially in pitch.

Hard to say casue your video is little too jerky. I have some doubts about spin characteristic of prop planes in DCS which are somewhere too spin forgiving to me. Other hand stircte stall are quite nice simulated with good buffeting.

Any convencial FF stick can similate real stick forces at high speeds. Game is need to simulate it in other way ( controls stiffnes at higher speeds) other way we got unrealistic planes behaviour at high speeds.

ED should find a way to simulate stick forces for all planes which got not bosted controls.

You cant compare in game planes visibility with real word visibility. In game there is way too hard spot contacts expecially in DCS. So such things like more dirty cocpit make things even more harder then it should be.

Hmm strange i think K-4 should eat P-51 in turns quite easly.

But any home FF stick can reproduce real force which was need to move stick and controls during high speeds flight. So unfortunately game need to simulate it in other way like it is done in other sims - control stiffness at higher speed. Unfortunately DCS don't simulate these at all for prop planes. Maby becasue DCS engine was initialy made for modern planes which use fly by wire or boosted controls ( hydraulic) system. I think ED shoud do something with these in the future like with visibility of planes from distance

I think DCS prop planes got very nice stall symptoms ( stick shake, control surface bufffeting) and stricte stall is nicely done. But i think also that after that there is some lack of spin behaviour. Even in deep stall there is really hard to get into spin. I tried Fw 190 D-9 again and yes it could do quite good spins with cross control power off but other hand in hard turns or manouvering it could only stall there is no spin tendency even with full stick back in stall turns. IRL Fw 190 was known that in hard turns it was prone to get spin which pilot often used to shake enemy from tail. In DCS Fw 190 seemed to me too easy in such hard manouvers. I really dont need to care about spin. If we compare to BOS or CLOD there is no possible to fly such way without a spin like we could do in DCS.

From the same discussion http://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=90079&d=1382782154

Fw 190 D-9 behave in similar way ( or even more arcadish) like you describe 109 behavior. It just make some quarter of flick roll even if you still got stick back then recovery byself. P-51 in DCS is little more prone to spin during such stall. I was expected that Fw 190 would be not too much different here but in DCS is very easy to fly and too much spin proof.

Should be not impossible but more difficult to enter the spin then wing without slats. Also 109 dont have slats on the whole wing lenght. So it should be possible to enter spin with 109 but just its need more brutal crosscontrol force i think. I also think that spin characterterictis is little off in DCS - expecially with Fw 190 D-9 which dont like to enter a spin just quarter of flick roll even with keeping full stick back. Dunno about 109 casue i dont have it still. I think most close in spin/stall behaviour actually is BOS.

109 is the king :)

I would like to fly real 109 some day but i think DCS 109 K-4 would be good place to start :) Merry Christmas