Solty

I have a question. Yesterday I flew on the server and I have noticed that I could see Nicknames and plane names from the distance, as well as distance to them. More than 20km was a dot. At 20km it started to state the name of the plane. Then the plane disapeared, no name, no nothing. Then at about 5km the airplane showed up again and name tag was visible together with all other details. At 1km everything disapeared and I had no more feedback on what the airplane was doing. I flew with two people that day. One had it the same way as I did, while the other had real issues finding anything in the sky. My question is... was it a bug, or is it a feature? Thx. PS. I had no such problems on ACG server.

In multiplayer they are usually disabled. That is because 3rd person perspective makes SA too easy and denies many tactics and conditions under which pilots had to fly. Best example, the Me109 has bad visibility to the back. Compare that to the Fw190 and you will get much better SA If external view is on, both airplanes loose on depth when it comes to the aspect of acquiring and keeping track of the target. In singleplayer you do what you want.

You have a problem with completely realistic behaviour of the supercharger. P51D has good perfoance at low and high altitude, try to avoid that medium alt at which low blower gear is hindering the engine power. Follow the 67'hg curve and look at the performance dip at around 10.000ft and high blower started to work at 14.000ft increasing performance again. It depends on atmospheric pressure when that second gear starts to work. The problem is that IRL P51 since B version was using higher octane and power setting. At that point standard 109 was G6, then a new 109 model was developed few months after P51D, the G14, then the G10 and only after that K4. So those stories you know are about higher power P51's and older 109 models.

Yep, seems like someone flies with emergency rich. P51D has two stage two speed supercharger, you need to remember that between 10.000ft and 15.000ft it will loose power and until the second gear starts to work it will feel sluggish.

------------------------- I am checking the data. Also, Kurfurst claims it is for the Bf109F, not Bf109K4, so it will be a bit different. Again, the chart doesn't state that its for any 109. Also, test was done at 3000m, so at different speeds and alitudes the difference will be more noticible. From my observation and test done by my friend, the above mentioned roll tests were done with full rudder coordination. Thefore, it is not aileron effectivness alone. What I've gathered from the document and tests performed by my friend: Document ~550kph the airplane is capable of 1,2ωx/sec=67,4°/sec to achieve full 360° roll it requires 5,34sec. Seems to be the best possible roll rate achievable. My friend's test shows: 7,19sec; 7,47sec at 550kph without rudder. 5,32sec; 5,48sec; 5,50sec at 550kph with rudder. Now try rolling the airplane at 750kph and use both ailerons and rudder to do so and at 3000m. These tests were done in shallow dives, and there are reports from BoB and I think it was Africa, where Spitfire pilots would pull up and the 109 would go into the ground in a steep dive. I think I've read a report of a P-38 encounter where a Me109 went into a dive and never recovered. Also, it is possible to recover from a dive in a 109 at 750kph by using the horisontal stabilizer trim wheel. One other note, we are talking about aileron effectivness, and that is much harder to achieve when you have no room to move your shoulders and your body. It is a movment of different muscles and in a different way.

Or if the pilot doesn't have enough room and strenght to deflect them. It is not about the plane itself but pilot as well, and we know that because of the tight and small 109 cockpit and due to very high stick forces, moving the stick at 700+ kph is a superhuman feat. EDIT: Also the graph doesn't state its for any 109, I will read it when I translate it.

As far as I remember the pitching up moment is accurate. The document below (if I remember correctly) shows elevator movment and force used on the stick to keep the airplane in level flight, meaning that the 109 pilot had to push the stick to keep it level.

I am suprised you do not know about that. Thats how it was IRL, I even wrote a post about it. Meaning that elevator was operational but very stiff and required lots of force and rudder still worked, but ailerons were disabled. Much depends on a pilot, as it is the physical froce that he has to overcome, so a very strong man, could possibly move aileron control 1cm, but that doesn't mean an average pilot would. Kurfurst talks about aileron control, not rudder control.

Looking through aircraft performance site, my friend have found this "little" document. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/Naca_TN_2899__F-47D-30_Flight_Test.pdf It is going to be a long read for me :)

Have u added anything to your PC? Like RAM or HDD?

Ummmm, maybe this should be pinned, so YoYo doesn't have to repeat it every time someone finds this document? :)

http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/variants/p51d This site says that with D25 attachments for rockets were added. I also watched a documentary where pilot said that they would go and attack airfields with rockets during the last day of the war. So seems that they could have been used in the pacific, but I have yet to see any data on use in Europe :book:

I would presume that the Turbocharger might be the issue there. But thats just speculation. It is very bad news though, P-47 is the most important airplane for 1943-44 air combat. Without it the DCS WW2 project would be lacking a vital part of combat.:cry:

To me the main problem with the server is the 3rd person camera. It allows to check 6 way too easily and blind spots are non issue. I also disliked the involvement of AI fighter planes.

We do not hate what the real aircarft is capable of. It is the stuff that it is not capable of that makes us, and should make everyone mad. I am glad the slats work now, and that it did impact the roll rate making it slower and allowing for higher aoa at low speeds as it is closer to the correct behaviour. I still think that old compression was a better idea, so that you would feel the airplane stiffen up gradually.

Sounds great.

Yes, option to have 67'hg boost should still be there, if anyone wants to make a mission with 9th AAF FG's. We have to remember that Pacific theater is coming up from Leatherneck who are developing F4U-1D and that will be a perfect place for the 67'hg Mustang too. BTW, 72'hg with lower grade fuel 100oct would be deadly to the engine, but with 150oct 44-1fuel the overheating will not be as big of a problem as Kurfurst makes it out to be. BTW, Merlin, you are flying without WEP anyway, so it won't affect you too much :)

So, you basically bought an airplane to fly it like was IMPOSSIBLE in real life... Why? Why don't you just buy a P-51 instead? It has all triming capabilitites. Or just by an F-15 and you don't have to touch a single thing in the aircraft, it will always keep level. Why do you even play simulations if all you want from the airplane is something it was incapable of. The 109 is stable if you have the right right speed and right power, so called cruise setting. Also IRL you always use rudder to keep the plane coordinated. Do not use ailerons, they create lots of drag.

And how is YoYo or any other FM modeler going to fix any of the netcode issues again? They have people working on it, it is not as if one person makes the whole game. I would like to make sure that ergonomics play a crucial role in FM. Many speak how "it is the pilot not the machine that is important" and yet it seems that a very small group of people actually cares how the airplane handles or what are the limitations. Pilot and airplane are both just as important parts of the equasion. If IRL the pilot is having problems with stiff controls it is just as important as modeling the horsepower of the engine. It strikes me that many people do not care about the flying characteristics of the airplane. They say "some people are never satisfied", as if I had anything to be satisfied with when an airplane doesn't perform as it should IRL. That's what simulations are for. It sometimes matters more than acceleration and best turn time. It is how the pilot can act and how his airplane reacts. It is what makes planes feel unique. It is what makes pilot say that they "feel" their aircraft. Each of them needs a different approach. Sure I do not have the 109 (anymore), but that doesn't mean I do not care. If 109K doesn't perform as it should, it takes away value from the Fw190D and P-51D, because their capabilities are unique and interesting as long as the 109 has its own characteristics in check. It is somewhat a symbiosis.

Its not just MAP that goes up, you get 44-1 fuel with it and it helps to keep temps in check. Secondly, sorry, but 72'hg makes a big difference. I love how you bring normandy each time. Germans had 0 K4 and 0 D9 over Normandy. Stop bringing it up as any benchmark. It is a fuel and power setting. Of course there are planes with higher and lower power settings. Can we take away MW50? Like for ever? Lets see how you fly with 1.45ata.

If you do the roll right, you will not hit your head on the cannopy because you will not move at all. It also depends on how tall the pilot is. I beeing quite tall, wouldn't even fit into the 109.

@Otto, and that design choice comes with consequence. The pilot is more stable but looses the ergonomics of other aircraft.

Sure. Except other, even modern pilots have very similar experiences with the airplane. Some like it more, some like it less for what it is. But it is what it is. German pilots that had the ability to have a contrast between Fw190 and Bf109 or other airplanes have very similar experience as well. Each airplane has its limitations. If we look at roll rate compared to the Typhoon, you would say its "pretty good" but you have Fw190, P-51 and P47 to compare to and many other aircraft that have their own limitations. If we take the P-51D which has good aileron control at medium and high speed ranges but it doesn't allow for such a good aileron control as the 109 at low speeds and is nowhere close in midspeed ranges to the awesome rolling Fw190. Design limitations are what make aircraft unique and amazing. Thats why pilots say that you do not fly modern jets, just operate them. Thats because they all feel the same as they do not have those limitations of the old school era airplanes. I don't mind my P-51D beeing average turner at low speeds and having a pretty underwhelming roll rate at those speed ranges. Thats how P-51D is, and I am ok with that I am also ok with bad control when the fuel feuselage tank is full. Me109 should be treated the same way it has its share of advantages, its easy to produce, small (little drag), good gun platform with very good ROC and quite good low speed handling, but it lacks high speed maneuvrability that SOME other airplanes have. Again if you compare it to Yak1, Typhoon, Zero or LaGG3, it will have some better control capabilities and will loose in other aspects. Because design cannot be perfect. Either you like the aircraft for what it is, or you want it something that it isn't.:huh:

What interests me the most is how for example is it possible for a 109 pilot to use 30kg of force on aileron if the stick travel blocks it at 18kg. Let me quote one thing: TLDR So according to that, the pilot is not able to black himself out at speed range of 400mph (roughly 640kph) and above. Ailerons are inefective at high speeds and pilot is capable of using only 40 pounds of force on the stick because of the bad ergonomics of the cockpit. 40pounds (around 18kg) Rudder control is sluggish. But we have K4 which has a flettner so that should be easier at high speeds.