Page.Down

Don't quote me, but I've researched the props at one point. The 199 is the better prop that was used on the K4. The 159 is the initial prop that started with the K4 and later was converted to the 199 prop. It's a little disheartening for me, that the K4 is using the DB config rather than the DC config which has a wider and higher range of power than the DB with the inclusive 199 prop. The only difference between the DB and DC engine performance patterns that I saw was at lower altitudes; The DC produced more power, but above 6000m they were nearly identical in power.

In the recent video I made no attempt to turn at all; Nor did I say I was going to? I was testing out surface lock and trimming in that video; Now I just tested it again, and apparently I cannot reproduce surface lock at over 700km/h where I am 100% positive the surfaces were locked in my recent video; Because I was physically moving the joystick all over the place and the plane did not respond at all, nor did it pull out of the dive or even attempt to pitch up. Now when I try to test the same conditions with the intention to test the rudder This is what I am now seeing. 700-800km/h Elevator authority is clearly present; The K4 does pull out even with a +2 trim setting; Aileron lock does not occur; And Rudder authority is fully present. Sigh, I give up; Apparently I'm lying, and cannot reproduce anything. Feel free to lock or delete this thread; Sorry for wasting everyone's time.

So I'm not flying the plane correctly, but you can't point out what I did wrong? Well ok, assuming I was flying wrong, because I didn't attempt to use the rudder at 700km/h+ I'll make a new video of those conditions with me attempting to use the rudder. Would that be a more accurate representation of the correct way of flying in the test I was attempting to conduct?

Can you instruct me on how to fly the plane correctly for the purpose of testing the issues I saw in my recent video? What exactly did I do wrong?

Funny, I was just looking at his vid again and was going to ask about that, there is very limited to no use of rudder it seems... Using rudder and performing similar turns I don't get the same results he is talking about here. That is why I specifically noted it in my video that I didn't test rudder control at 700km/h+. Because I didn't think to try until after I made the video. At some point I will test the situation again only this time trying to see if rudder control will balance out the roll on the K4 when all other surfaces are locked. It might allow me to recover from that dive.

400mph = 643.738 km/h My video was estimated of surface lock at 650km/h+ on the elevator but not the ailerons which lock up at 700km/h + (Obviously the max on the speedometer is 700km/h so it's impossible to get exact speed numbers there) And I said average stick forces was about 10lbs, but can get as high as 20lbs; I made no error in my statement especially at the speed the thread is talking about which is 380km/h to 420km/h a HUGE difference in stick force from 643km/h don't you think Grape? So to pull 6G's at 500km/h 120lbs of stick force; You do realize some planes had 80-120lbs of stick force at lower speeds? So while yes it required 2 hands, it wasn't impossible or even close to it at 500km/h. And I don't think your per G suggestion is correct either since there are pilot accounts of pulling the elevator at 700km/h in the 109. And I said nothing about a Spit V which had a redesign of the fuselage compared to early model spitfires. And if you saw the same report I did; Stick forces at 380-420km/h is a non factor; When several people in this thread mentioned it regarding the basis of the thread.

Fair point Zalty, no, I'm human, and not perfect. But I also said multiple times in this thread how the devs can test it under perfect conditions. IF what I claim to see is represented in that controlled perfect environment, then it confirms that the buffeting and stall mechanic is occurring to soon at lower speeds when the AOA is initiated and maintained from a higher speed. This goes against the laws of physics and aerodynamics as I understand them. Maybe my understanding of those principals might be in question, but at this point I have no reason to think so yet.

No offense then Thor, and don't take this the wrong way, but I don't think you have a firm grasp on physics, or aerodynamics to say that. I don't mean that the way it sounds; But, everything I know of physics and aerodynamics tells me that something is wrong with the K4 at those speeds. I've made it clear why people cannot simply assume that's how it is: 1. The AOA was established at 500km/h NOT 380-420km/h 2. IF AOA is maintained from the initial point; Then according to physics and aerodynamics as speed decreases buffeting stops at lower speeds; Why? Because given the use of slats, and the way physics and aerodynamic relationships work; You can now increase your AOA to the point of buffeting which changes with speed, temperature, air pressure, and altitude. 3. Furthermore according to Physics and Aerodynamic properties; Given the AOA was established at the higher speed and is theoretically more shallow than the possible AOA at 380-420km/h At some point the plane will hit a speed at which it simply will not go below and begin to maintain that speed. Any real life pilot, or veteran of simulators can attest to that fact. I don't know how many ways I can say that so that people can understand it; I'm not a teacher, but I am a student and always will be.

The only thing I understood in your post was this: Firstly; Yes it is logic; Something that escapes Echo. Secondly, to answer your question, why should I? I asked a question people answered, However, echo found it more constructive not to make a single post in this thread to contribute to it in any way shape or form. Instead, he chose to argue with otto and hummingbird; None of the drivel that he spewed in this thread had anything to do with the thread itself. So; He demands of me proof of my claims; He clearly fails to logically understand what the videos I have posted show. What gives him the right when he hasn't contributed to the discussion like you have? I don't require proof of it from you because you contributed to the discussion in a respectable way. In a logical way. I didn't require it of anyone in this thread at any point in time; But I have no right to challenge Echo when he demands it of me? Is that logical to you? I didn't think so either. Needless to say; I have no obligation to entertain him any further.

Does this sound familiar Echo? I make no such assumption. I never said, nor implied, that the FM is 100% right. You are (falsely) assuming that I believe that. Do not put words in my mouth. Quote: I have seen a veritable plethora of evidence to support my claim that various people use the same word to mean different things. I am not going to bother throwing it before you, however, because I cannot believe that you are unaware of the truth of this; rather, you look to be trolling me. Enjoy. Where's that proof Echo? Why am I suddenly bound to prove my point to you when you can't even prove your point to others? Does this look familiar Echo? I don't have to fly the 109 to be able to point out logical fallacies others are making in their discussions about the aircraft. Don't assume, simply because I oppose someone who's making (with a fallacious argument) one claim about a subject, that I believe the polar opposite claim. The world isn't black & white, see. That is, one can point out the invalidity of someone's weak evidence, without proving (or making a claim about) the contrary position. That is exactly what I am doing with you now Echo. Therefore; I absolve myself of any burden of proof just like you do. This isn't a binary problem. My point isn't whether or not the virtual 109 is right or wrong; in this, I make no claim in either direction, because I see insufficient evidence for either case. An assumption based without facts or obligatory proof. Look who's talking? Rather, I pointed out that the things which your friend is using to try to support his case, cannot be used to support his case, and I explained why. Note: Without obligatory burden of proof; If you truly do not understand this, then I am sorry for you. But I still believe you to be trolling me, instead, as a glance at your past posts indicates that you "stalk" me (the fact that you knew that I don't own the 109 module, when I didn't even remember your name, was a red flag; a quick check confirmed that you have a history of attacking my posts). Sooo what exactly are you doing here in this thread then if you don't fly a K4 anyways? What burden of experience are you drawing from exactly that justifies your opinion without proof? I personally call what you are doing right now trolling? But, that of course is an opinion without the obligation of proof I have elected myself personally. Sound familiar? Echo Stop me if you've heard me say this before: How about this fact: For those of us who know how to convert km/h to mph: 300km/h = 186.411 mph. Anyone still think control stiffening is an issue at 300km/h? If you remember discussions earlier in the thread the 109 is a dream to handle at or below 250 mph. Note: 250 mph = 402.336 km/h. I repeat my question Echo; Why is the K4 stalling like it is at 380-420km/h? or 236 to 260 mph? According to others in this thread, and pilot accounts; The K4 should get it's best AOA and turn radius at those speeds when you factor in slats; My Videos clearly show the possibility of premature buffeting & stall mechanic at not only lower speeds but lower AOA's. But for some odd reason Echo, you absolve yourself from burden of proof, and simply say that I am wrong, but I need to prove my point. Ok; Here's a new video with some peculiar inconsistencies with the K4 Flight Model. That being said, I will no longer indulge you from this point forward. You are entitled to your opinions.

I fly at +2 at all altitudes. If I set to 0 the K4 pitches hard up to the point of stall unless I put a negative G force on the nose. It's unnatural. And it doesn't matter what speed either. Which is why I use +2 all of the time.

And the same argument can be said about stick forces; I believe avg stick forces for a 109 was said to be about 10lbs, but can get as high as 20lbs. Unlike a spitfire which can get as high as 50lbs. This data is available in actual test reports; However, doesn't mean anything regarding control stiffness does it? And the idea that control stiffening is HUGE at 300km/h to 400km/h to me is laughable at best. 500km/h sure, there's something to it... 600km/h definitely as modeled in game. Some people here claim to be able to pull out at 650-700km/h My question is how? Because at 600km/h the surfaces lock up; That pull out you "appear" to be doing in the K4, are in fact the purpose of Fletner tabs, and the natural lift of the wings that is pulling the 109 out. You have no input on the surfaces at speeds exceeding 600km/h currently in game. Especially in a dive. Ironic as it were there are pilot accounts of pilots being able to move the surfaces at 700km/h. So what makes the Dev's Pilot's account any more credible than an Ace who fought in the war? It doesn't. But there are accounts for it at 700km/h. I personally wasn't going to open this can of worms, but I will now; The dive speed on the K4 regarding surface lock I believe isn't accurate either. Which implies stiffening is even less of an issue at speeds of 300-400km/h. Unlike the Dora however, where it is responsive up to 700km/h. All of this can be tested in game currently by anyone. But it's clear to me Echo I don't think you've actually flown the K4 yet to realize what you are saying about control stiffening. And I challenge you Echo to find "real data" on control stiffening related to given speeds that were ACTUALLY tested. Because they were tested in Spitfires and 109's specifically, but I am unsure about other planes. And in all of those accounts compared to a spitfire the 109's stiffening or stick forces was less than that of a spitfire in the same maneuver. In short Echo, your idea of control stiffening is that all planes react the same, when in fact they don't by design; For example a Spitfire is going to struggle a lot more to pull out of a high speed dive over a 109, while a P51 will struggle far less than a 109, likewise for a Dora.

Echo should have actually read some of the data we posted, because it does talk about stiffening specifically at certain speeds. I can't force anyone to do anything, but I can disagree with them. Thor you seem to be more receptive than Echo is, how about you review the data posted in previous pages and come to your own conclusion? And as Sith, pointed out if 1 man's pilot account that the devs have access to is valid, then why shouldn't another's?

Respectfully, 1. It's beta is an excuse that often gets thrown around when people can't see what I see to be obvious. Everyone has different perceptions; Some are more attuned to certain things while others are not; It does not invalidate my concern at all. 2. Pilot accounts are not a viable source of information; As several people in this thread have already pointed out; And Yes, I've talked to real pilots as well who currently fly those planes and when I presented that information it was promptly dismissed as irrelevant by the community at large. And I don't mean this community specifically. This community seems more open minded about it which is what I appreciate most about DCS. 3. Can you show me an example in the real world that has the same results you and others have suggested? The fact others have seen what I am suggesting validates my concerns; The fact others see it, but try to explain it, and have not been able to do so adequately further validates my concerns for consideration. But, DCS is one of the most accurate FM's I've seen for these particular planes; And I'm in fact doing my job as a "beta tester" challenging the validity of certain mechanics, because I suspect they may not be right yet. It is beta after all isn't it? Now, yes, I could be wrong, but saying I'm wrong, and proving I'm wrong are 2 different things. I made a suggestion for the devs to test my concern. Either they will or they won't. That is up to them. But my suggestion will prove me correct, or prove me wrong. Either way, I have anticipation anxiety, because I really want them to test this; And it's so easy to test in a controlled environment. One that no player can test consistently and get the same results.

I started my AOA at 500km/h NOT 380-420km/h As speed decreases IF I managed to maintain my initial AOA without changing it, then buffeting should stop as speed decreases. Which in turn maintains a given speed at some point because of no change in AOA. But given I'm human and not perfect; it's impossible to test with any consistency; However, the devs can create a sandbox test environment where the PC flies the plane to those limits at a constant AOA, and get a better idea IF that is indeed happening correctly, or if it is not. If it is not, then the K4 FM is not correct where buffeting and accelerated wings stalls are concerned. And that also means the Dora and P51 would have to best tested as well, because I suspect it to be a universal issue and not limited to just one plane. The reason why I feel it's not right, is because I've seen, and felt the issue occur at "lower AOA's" than what I started with.

I think it happens to soon, as I said before. I don't think buffeting should be occurring at the lower AOA's than what I started with. And that's what I'm seeing. As I said many times in this thread; IF you establish and maintain a given AOA from high speed, regardless of how low your speed gets buffeting should stop; Especially when slats are out, because slats specifically increase AOA. And if I have not increased that AOA that I established at 500km/h (Assuming I can maintain the AOA with little to no variance) then buffeting occurs to soon at the speeds in question, which means the stall is premature as well. And Force Feedback discussion is irrelevant to that assessment. FF allows you to feel the buffeting, but it doesn't tell you if that buffeting and stall is occurring prematurely. The devs can easily simulate these conditions without the use of a real pilot; In a make-shift sandbox test environment. And as such determine when AOA is constant from a high start speed, that as speed decreases should buffeting persist and/or stall at the speeds in question. Most people can agree with this assessment based on physics principals; The issue isn't the physics it's the FM specifically of the K4 I'm questioning... under those precise testing conditions. Which a human player cannot simulate consistently, but a sandbox simulation without a human pilot can.

It's ratio'd via the gear synchronization. Meaning it's speed of the prop dependent. Edit: Let me simplify the example Let's say your maximum prop speed is 3000rpm Let's say your MG is 1000 rounds per minute At 3000rpm prop speed the gun fires 1 round every 3 full turns of the prop. At 1000rpm prop speed the gun fires 1 round every 1 full turn of the prop. So it's reasonable to assume like this person said that below 1000rpm or a certain given RPM you cannot fire your weapons.

True enough, but the problem is the 109 speaks to you after buffeting, not during. And if you watch the virtual joystick during buffeting, while maintaining AOA, you see it all over the place; To me, I see that as a stall, not a buffet. That is the plane changing vectors without stick inputs. I'm not sure if buffeting causes a change in vectors which can instigate the stall making it worse?

I think what I'm trying to say is; Buffeting is occurring too soon without an increase in AOA. And the Virtual joystick position confirms this in my videos; Note the Second Video at the 1:00 mark which Zalty pointed out, was clearly a crass pilot error on my part, pulling almost 70% deflection according to the Virtual Joystick. But at no point outside of that did I duplicate that same error. And to be blunt, I can easily avoid the buffeting just by letting up on the stick, but if I did that, I wouldn't be maintaining my established AOA from the start of 500km/h. I think the testing standard people can do would be to start at 500km/h. Pull into a bank turn at that speed and quickly increase AOA to the point of buffeting, then maintain that AOA. As speed decreases buffeting should cease unless you increase your AOA as speed decreases. The fact I'm bleeding off speed doesn't matter pertaining to normal stall aerodynamics.

And then I'll quote Eric Brown: Since I did not attempt to increase AOA, since my AOA was established at a higher speed, it means the stall should be impossible at the lower speed of 380-420km/h (assuming of course I could maintain the same AOA when I started the maneuver at 500km/h) The fact that slats deploy doesn't negate the fact I can increase my AOA and not stall the plane at the same speed 380-420km/h. The problem is I do not see that increase in AOA and the stall in fact occurs at a lower AOA which was established at 500km/h initially.

Ahh ok. Eyecandy then. Or Earcandy.... :)

Fair enough, But rather or not it is modeled is not an indication of stall. I don't think people should get in the habit of that assumption. Especially since it only required one finger's worth of pressure to collapse them. They were not meant as a stall warning mechanic.

Also note: The slats were described in flight test reports as being collapsible with one finger's worth of pressure. Hardly representative of an indication of stall.

The slats were not a warning point for a stall; Inexperienced German pilots used it as such, and were under the presumption that they were pulling to many G's. An experienced Ace pilot has always contradicted this pilot account, and even stated newer inexperienced pilots were afraid to push a 109 that hard. ME-109E's were known to turn with early model spitfires in sustained turns; But an inexperienced pilot would not have been able to.

Thor: Quote: Originally Posted by Page.Down View Post Of course with a extended warthog the 109 might be a joy to fly. What do I know. I never said this. I think you might be quoting someone else.