Kurfürst

Thank you Sith!

Any update on this..?

Thank you Racoon. That was my impression too - as if the pilot's 'sideways hand force' would cease too early.

This graph shows achieved roll rate with various stick deflections angles., i.e. 7,6 degrees stick deflection. Maximum stick deflection was 15 degrees. So even at 750 kph half stick deflection was possible by pilot. There are about a dozen such graph, the testing was done at the German Aero Reasearch Instutite (DVL) on an old 109F-2 in 1944, the research subject was actually measuring wing flexing effects on roll rate, but as a side result they also plotted practically everything you want to know on 109F(~G, K) roll behaviour. YoYo has that full report already, perhaps he can enlighten us why aileron deflection is nonexisting in DCS module.

And why is that, exactly? I have been in the 109 cocpit. There is nothing extraordinary in moving the stick left and right. Its exactly the same as in the Mustang, for example.

Making a bug report of this. I put the new version K-4 moduel through some brief trials today, personally I like the new "clipping" controls a lot more, even with the non-FFB joystick, it feels far more natural. But there is one serious issue though, which is that during dive trials as ca 2-3 km altitude and at around 700 km/h indicated the ailerons suddenly stop working. Completely. Pitch is still controllable. I believe this may be down to odd clipping of the aileron control forces. There is definietely something wrong with this, since its not that the roll rate would get reduced roll rate (with the increased stick forces), but the rolling ability is completely gone. The aircraft does not react to rolling inputs at all, not even slowl. It rolls to the right somewhat though, but I believe its entirely down to propeller torque. The issue is that even if the pressure on the control surfaces is very great at low speeds and seriously limit deflection, you should still get some effect. This is shown on actual trials of Bf 109F-2 by DVL in 1944. The guy behind the stick in a 109F-2 was still measuring about 0.6 radians (cc 34 degrees per sec) at 780 km/h TAS, there is no reason why our pilot couldn't do that. Perhaps the new "clipping stick" model prevents us from rolling. See attached graph. The phenomenon I encountered in the DCS module appears at about 700 IAS. Now, 700 kph IAS, which at around 1500 meters would still work out as around only as cc. 770 TAS, so according to the graph, you should be still able to get a modest roll rate with the plane. Thing is, the aileron reversal and "0 degrees of roll" point is far, far higher than that, even on this tested F-2 (and as an educated guess, even higher on the K, since wings were reinforced already on the G), at around 1000 km/h TAS.

I don't there is an issue with the control surfaces ripping off at 900 TAS. The max permissiable dive speed after all was 850, so anything above that is just pushing your luck. Now, the dive tests in 1943 with the 109F did indeed note very rough aileron overbalance encountered, so in the max speed dives that resulted 906 kph TAS they actually limited aileron deflection by half to prevent a possible flutter. The thing is the ailerons just magically stop working at around 700 kph IAS, which at around 1500 meters would still work out as around only as cc. 770 TAS. Thing is, the aileron reversal and "0 degrees of roll" point is far, far higher than that, even on this tested F-2 (and as an educated guess, even higher on the K, since wings were reinforced already on the G), at around 1000 km/h TAS. The guy behind the stick in a 109F-2 was still measuring about 0.6 radians (cc 34 degrees per sec) at 780 km/h TAS, there is no reason why our pilot couldn't do that. Perhaps the new "clipping stick" model prevents us from rolling. see attached graph. Nonsense, Solty, nonsense. How can a control be just 'disabled'..?? The subjective feeling may be that it's very hard to move, but however high the aileron stick forces raise with speed, you could still deflect them somewhat, the controls WILL react to force, WILL deflect the surface. Meaning that they would have still some effect, not diminished to ZERO. That can only happen if either the surfaces are in a aerodynamic shadow, stalled position or if you reach the aileron reversal point... which is not happing until at transsonic speeds on the 109F-K. Something is seriously botched up in the aileron model I am afraid. See attached graph.

Put her through some brief trials today, personally I like the new "clipping" controls a lot more, even with the non-FFB joystick, it feels far more natural. There is one serious issue though, which is that during dive trials as ca 2-3 km altitude and at around 700 km/h indicated the ailerons suddenly stop working. Completely Pitch is still controllable. Could be down to the There is definietely something wrong with this, since its not that the roll rate would get reduced roll rate (with the increased stick forces), but the rolling ability is completely gone. The aircraft does not react to rolling inputs at all, not even slowly. Even if the pressure on the control surfaces is very great at low speeds and seriously limit deflection, you should still get some effect. And I am pretty sure its not hitting aileron reversal speed since that would (theoretically) happen only at transsonic speeds on the 109F-K...

The problem is that as you noted, we supplement real control devices with some magical equivalents, i.e. computer peripherials. Ideally, you would apply force on a rudder-like computer device, at which point you are already deviating from the simulation of a real 109 since there is no way you would be applying the same leg forces on that plastic thing as a real 109 pilot would in a dive, for example. Same goes to joysticks, especially as FFB controllers regrettably died out. There is plently of simplification in control already. Not everyone has a rudder, either, if they have a twist on the stick they can use that for rudder and apply some constant twist force on that, or on the pedal, but then how is that so entirely different from telling your little virtual pilot to apply that small constant force all the time? Certainly its not 100% the same thing, but it isn't worlds apart either. Real life pilots would do that as a second nature on a far larger stick and rudder, just as you maintain the throttle position in a car. And as others have noted, it basically has no practical effect at all on combat flying. I don't think its something to worry much about. Certainly it could be more, and more hardcore, but not everyone wants to do that, and as long there is no unfair aspect of it effecting other player's enjoyment, I could not care less of it myself.

Other than what DefaultFace explained (twice), I don't know what "online anti cheating" is built in the DCS that would prevent client programs hack into the main FM files and apply those to the server. And that is if there is any such protection, that is...

They already model the relatively high stick forces in pitch and roll. For all planes, to the same standard as I understand. You get reduced roll rate and slower pitching speed from the data available on that. There's nothing else to model, especially not based on opinion and hearsay. Now how about clearing out the thread of off topic posts and let us discuss changes in the module we bought and fly. And I phrased that in the most polite way.

I do not see either, as long as the thermal load increase from 72" and other side effects are modelled either. Preferably as a fuel switch, because I am not sure all P-51D module buyers, for example those just like to try the plane offline would suddenly want to deal with all the side effects because a handful of highly vocal posters do not feel that they are competitive enough online. While we are at it, I do not see any reason why the 109K-4 shouldn't get a realistic "boost" to 1,98 ata with the high octane fuel either.

Did you try checking the deadzones of your joystick? Sometimes spikes in potmeters can cause sudden virtual stick displacements, even if the RL joystick is held steady.

I am pretty sure they (G-6s) were built with MW by this time and essentially were the same thing as G-14s.

I see you try very hard to a stance of superiority and I find it very impressive that you are familiar with basic KE formulae. Not to mention plexiglass deflector shields that fend off heavy machinegun bullets. :D Also, to answer your question, if a "a 640 grain 12.7mm API moving at 2910 feet per second" hit the said armor plate, I think the most certain outcome is a barrel rupture on the M2.

Judging from ED's development period (K-4 took what, 2 years? And loadouts still missing.), I will be happy if we even get the 3 remaining planes originally promised...

Well dude, you need to re-read I guess. Starting with the sources I have posted.

Hi Man-o-War! Perhaps the choice of words was re G14/K4 weights was not the best, alas, with such lenghty post, I am happy that I made not too many errors and it made some sense in the end. Overall the point wasis, the G-14 was lighter, with a prop that better for medium and low altitudes and that this was shown how its actually better dogfighter in several ways than our K-4 in our DCS environment, with low altitude dogfights being so prevelent. I agree that the CoG can't be very different, if at all, since both planes major CoG changing element was the MW tank, present on both aircraft. Its a pity that there are no such detailed Ladeplan for these late aircraft to confirm it. Now as for corresponding parasitic drag and induced drag elements, I think that relevant this can be fairly accurately assessed from the speed and climb charts, which basically show the K-4 (the comparable 1850 PS version of course) being slightly faster, but slightly slower. Since this essentially translates to excess thrust available at high and low speeds, the conclusion is that the G-14 has more excess thrust at lower speeds, and only at high speeds the K-4 has more. Now, whether it is because the G-14s narrower propeller is that much efficient at converting power to thrust or because the the L/D point is better on the G-14 because of lower induced drag at lower speeds is an important detail that however does not change much on that the G-14 has obviously has more excess thrust in the end. Certainly parasitic drag was higher on the G-14 and all speeds, but if the condition of greater excess thrust is true, this would either point to lower induced drag and/or higher thrust. Considering the G-14 is lighter, but has less power, the lower induced drag version seems to be more convincing to me. It is also certainly true that as speed increases, the two eventually meet and the K-4 overtakes the G-14. However this at least underlines that the G-14 would be, at even the most conservative conclusion, no easier foe to face than the K-4, and IMO, it would be actually a meaner one of the two. Hence from purely the point of self-interest of Pony fliers, the oft declared wish for having a G-14 instead of the K-4 is an odd one, to say at least. Not that this would ever happen IMO, but the notion certainly deserved some in-depth analyisis and discussion.

Now leaving AKs, ARs and other nonsense aside, in which statements you are equally wrong anyways, I can tell that on 31st January 1945, there were but 71 G-6s around with 1st line units. Out of 1435 109s, 314 of which were K-4s, Yup, the G-6 was truly overwhelmingly prevalent until the end days, no doubt. :music_whistling:

Actually IIRC there was some 30% chance of a penetration occuring, if I recall the report's finding correctly. Firstly, the fuel tank is always full since in practice a droptank was carried and it topped the main tank, rather than direct feed. Secondly, whatever the laboratory paper figures for M8 API were, they were not enough in real life conditions as live fire trials showed. Thirdly, the tank was self sealing. Define particularly difficult. It was not completely proof of course, but it offered reliable protection against all but the shitt***st situations. That's only so much you can do in a fighter, however, but as far as the 109 went, it did pretty well in the pilot protection department.

Surely not! In fact that kind of plate is easy to be pierced even by .30 cal ammunition - provided that armor is not hardened, perfectly aligned for a 90 degree impact, not angled, and there is nothing the slow down and thumble the bullet before it actually hits the armor. However once those factors come in, penetration drops very significantly, as trials demonstrated. Sure thing Solty! I say it might have even had 100 mm! And was invisible too, since nobody ever mentioned it. Unless its a real firing test and it just can't. Now there are of course limits to that - at close range, with good conditions it very well can - but as far as the typical combat scenario goes, the pilot in the 109 is pretty well protected against .50 API. See also "Vulnerability of 109F to attack from .303, 50 cal, 20mm ball and 20mm HEI" report from March 1943.

I wished to finish with the climb analysis, which is IMO more interesting than the (at DCS altitudes, rather minor) speed differences, unfortunately, there has not been enough time. The first issue to deal with when establishing the G-14 climb rates is that there is no known flight reports for methanol boosted conditions, though there are several factory calculations. Luckily enough, there are both performance calculations from Messerschmitt for both the K-4 and G-14/U4 and G-14/AS/U4 variants, which were, as luck has it, made to identical conditions. These have been referred to previously. 3) Calculated CLIMB figures for G-14/U4 and G-14/AS/U4, both with gondola cannons. http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G14_PBLeistungen/Leistungen_g14u4_am-asm.html 4) Calculated CLIMB AND LEVEL SPEED figures for K-4 (and K-4 with triple MK 108s, with various propellers). http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109K_PBLeistungen/Leist_109K_EN.html The only issue is that both G-14s climb figures seen below were calculated for a condition with Gondola weapons equipped on both, increasing takeoff weight to 3546 kg and 3501 kg respectively; as seen earlier the gondolas would normally came with a -8 km/h parasitic drag penalty and calculated with some 215 kg extra weight, complete with ammo, which would induce some further induced drag penalties; in addtion, the /U4 signifying the MK 108 engine cannon comes with some weight penalty in the order of 40-50 kg. Despite the extra bulk, it can be seen though that the climb performance is still pretty good, especially for the G-14 (AM engine) which still manages to hit 21 m/sec climb rates with the gondolas as compared to the 22 m/sec climb figures calculated for the K-4 without gondolas. Worthy of note also that the gondie G-14 yields 1 m/sec better climb figures than the gondie G-14/AS, despite identical power output (1800 PS), and is superior to about 5 km altitude. This difference can be only partly explained with the lighter weight, and the reason is more likely to be found in the difference in propellers. So to compare the 'clean' relative figures and get comparable data to the 'clean' K-4 climb figures, the G-14s will need to virtually loose their gondolas and their associated climb performance loss in climb. As a method, for the purposes of this admittedly rough and dirty comparison, I choose to simply directly apply the differences shown on the K-4/K-6 climb curves in two conditions - one that assumes a K-4 in a clean configuration (3400 kg), and one that assumes a K-6 (3600 kg, with 2 extra MK 108s in wing installations). This saves me quite a bit of time and, given the very similar weight and drag implications, probably not any less accurate for the purpose than working with calculated estimate riddled with numerous guessamptions on base data. As it is, the difference between these (G-14 w. and w/o gondolas vs K-4 vs K-6) configuration is not great, for example the K-6 wing installation came with cc. 5 km/h speed loss, the gondolas came with -8 km/h speed loss; the weight difference between the the K-4 and K-6 installations was cc. 200 kg in the calculations, while as noted the loaded Gondolas weighted some 215 kg. Therefore, it is well within acceptable error margins for this purpose if the the climb figures for the gondola equipped G-14s are corrected with the difference between the K-4/K-6 curves; if anything, since the drag and weight difference is slightly bigger in the case of the gondolas, and that it does not account for the extra weight from the /U4 (MK 108 engine cannon) installations, the results, if anything are even a bit pessimistic for the G-14s. The correspondly corrected G-14 curves are seen below, and represent a rough estimate of how the clean (no gondies) G-14 compares to the K-4 in the climb department. The most striking observation is of course, that the G-14/U4 (low/medium altitude DB 605AM engine with 1800 PS) is flat out superior in climb to the K-4 up to about 5 km, which is seldom exceeded in DCS engagements, and despite the extra 50 PS output of the K-4; this difference is again partly down to the propeller, but its worthy of note that w/o gondolas the G-14/U4 weights only 3286 kg whereas the K-4 datasheet t/o weight was 3362 kg (3400 kg in the calculation - probably just rounded figures though). Even the G-14/AS is slightly superior/comparable. The importance of the relative climb rates is that they give you very good idea about the excess thrust of the aircraft at climbing speeds, since climb rates are defined by this. This also transverses into similar tendencies for acceleration, turning capabilities etc at those speeds, since those are too highly defined by excess thrust. Naturally of course as the speed increases, the lower parasitic drag of the K-4 will become more accentuated the formulate and the K-4 at a point will take overtake the G-14. Those are neither maneuvering nor normal climbing speeds however, and the K-4s relation the the G-14 is very reminiscent to the relation of the K-4 and the P-51D, except in this case it is the K-4 that is outclimbed, outturned and takes a bit longer to get to its very slightly higher top speed, as the practical speeds are very much dependent on how fast they could be actually reached (i.e. acceleration). The difference with the base variants (non-U4) is slightly greater (approx. +0.5 m/sec), and IMO the 20 mm cannon armament is easier to use in most combat situations, more easier to hit enemies at a distance, with a generous ammo load. And the morale of the story? Several discussions revolved around how a G-14 would be a better choice, and the underlying motive being quite clearly that it is difficult to compete with the K-4.. so perhaps if it was a G-14, the situation would be easier. Why a lighter, practically equally powered opponent with a long range cannon with plenty of ammunition would be easier was never really explained though. So as the saying goes - be careful what you ask for, you might as get it. The above estimations, especially the climb charts, show, the G-14 is far from being the easier case. As the typical DCS engagement happens well under 5000 meter, and in that altitude range, the G-14 is something that even worse to face than the K-4 in a Mustang, as it is generally even superior to the K-4 below 5000 meter in climb, acceleration and turns. These findings actually directly correspond to the real world opinion of the pilots who flew the thing - the /AS, G-10/K-4 variants were high altitude fighters and their larger superchargers did not translate into any advantage under 4000 meters, and that G-14s are the better rides under 4k. And while the K-4 (or the G-14/AS for that matter, which is practically identical to the K) is a much superior fighter at higher altitudes (hence why the high altitude variants were developed, real fighting took place at those altitudes against USAAF raids), in DCS it mostly doesn't matter since seldom anybody goes up there to fight!

The 109 pilot back armor was 8 mm and slanted slightly, head armor was 10 mm thick with a 60mm armored glass in it. Under the pilots buttocks and seat there was curved 4 mm plate joining the back plate, which however would be at an extreme angle from rounds coming from behind. To actually hit the pilot, the bullet would first need to pass through the fuel tank, in most cases the MW tank and in some cases the radio sets mounted further back in the fuselage, all of these will slow down the bullets. Depicted is a G-2, where the only difference to the K is that the G also had a multi (20+) layered 0.8mm aluminium plates behind the fuel tank, this was removed and replaced by the MW tank on the late G/K variants. At least with the extra aluminium layer the combined effect was such in tests that the .50 AP could not go through the pilot armor from 200 yards if it hit below the fuel line in the tank (and chancy if it hit above), so the effect of going through liquids must have been considerable. The armor coverage is pretty good though in the vertical and proves cover for +/-10 degrees deflection shots. Now, it seems my memory misserved me, I must have had the Spit's armor plates in my head. At least on the P-51B - and I assume the P-51D was similar - the armor back plates were 5/16" (7.9mm) with a 6/16" (9.5mm) head piece, though there is considerably less "stuff" behind them to slow down the bullets, except for at head level where some radio sets were put. Note that its just a bulkhead behind the pilot, but there is no "butt" or curved head armor to give some protection against deflection shots from under/above. In short the P-51s armor protection for the pilot is pretty simple, and apart from piercing the skin (which isn't a small factor as it hits at high angle and could lead to tumbling of the bullet) and truth to be told, it provides rather marginal protection even against the 13mm rounds with their weaker ballistics, see the German pen curves - the cc. 8mm back seat seems to still penetratable at 300 m if the round passes through a 1.5mm skin first at 70 degrees deflection and a 20 degrees sideways deflection, same for the head plate since it doesn't have skin to penetrate first, despite its greater thickness.

Or the fact the pilot in the 109 is just better covered and protected by thicker armor plates and more structrural elements behind him - including the fuel tank and occasially, and MW 50 tank. Earlier 109 variants arrangements basically rendered .50 AP unable to penetrate the armor plates from 200 yards if the round passed into the tank below the fuel line.

+2 since the 109K also had this. I suppose the reasoning behind this device was primarly providing a de-icer option for the planes.