Page.Down

The stall does not line up; with the virtual joystick. And based on feel what the virtual joystick shows as my location or pull intensity is what I have said from the start of the thread. The point is the stall is occuring at lower AOA's than should be possible. The videos show this consistency.

Ok, that I can understand. :thumbup: I just disagree with it; But, David put it another way, that does make sense, maybe it's something that cannot be seen to a similar extent that Zalty tried to explain that he may not have made clear. It would explain the stall still being there the way zalty tried to explain it. Rather it's right or not isn't what I'm discussing; The stall feels out of place at the speed in which it occurs based on the AOA used according to the Virtual and my physical inputs, and the fact that slats are deployed; I think what I'm ultimately trying to say is the stall shouldn't be there because the K4 hasn't bled off enough speed yet. This stall behavior is even visible in the vertical on the K4, and is naturally amplified to a higher degree on the Dora. It would explain why I can't seem to follow "AI" P51's in the vertical at the same energy states on the Dora. And is likely to be an issue with the P51 as well. That's all I'm trying to say. Either I'm right or I'm not. It just doesn't feel right at that speed.

Solty, Think about it. If it is impossible to deflect the elevator past a certain point as "supposedly" simulated by the virtual joystick. Then how far I pull on my physical joystick is irrelevant since the stall would be impossible to induce. What that actually means is there is no control stiffening at lower speeds and a pilot can use full deflections as needed, any other scenario makes it impossible to induce the stall otherwise. The point is he's describing it wrong to a point that doesn't make logical sense. That is NOT what happens in game virtually or physically. IF I pull to hard physically on my joystick, I WILL INDUCE that stall; And the Virtual joystick confirms it at every point in those videos. He is wrong in his description of how it works. In either case that isn't the basis of the discussion. The issue is the stall is too pronounced relative to the speed at which it occurs relative to the slats being extended, and relative to the virtual and physical inputs of the joystick. In short the stall characteristic is overly sensitive/exaggerated. And it's even worse on the Dora and P51 based on what others have said simply because Doras and P51's didn't have slats. The purpose of slats specifically is to reduce the stall characteristic while increasing the available AOA. And the stall is induced by increasing AOA at relative speeds, which means control stiffening or "simulated artificial" limitations of deflections in the virtual control is an incorrect observation.

Edited my post read again.

Correction: No I didn't say that: You made it impossible when you said the Virtual Joystick stops at a certain deflection with no regard to the speed at which it occurs. It basically means that stalling is impossible regardless of deflection of the virtual joystick or the physical. What you are not understanding is, what the virtual joystick shows as my location of control is EXACTLY where my physical control on my joystick is. So there's a 1:1 relationship there, and you are implicating that is false, while at the same time saying the stall is impossible. I never said it was impossible, I said it's characteristic doesn't match the speed and purpose of slats relative to the AOA. It is clearly shown in the videos as such.

You are missing my point. An accelerated wing stall would be impossible if the virtual joystick worked that way. You said it yourself. IF I'm limited to 50% or 60% virtual, but I can wrench 100% on my physical joystick, the extra 40% is meaningless and non existent, which means the stall is impossible at any speed. In short you are saying the Virtual Joystick limits AOA to a maximum without stalling. And as such how far I physically move my joystick is meaningless since I am unable to push beyond that limit to stall the aircraft. Best example of what you are saying, vs what I am saying is the difference between Mousaim in War Thunder vs full realistic controls. Mouseaim has a feature called instructor (think of it as a virtual joystick that flies the plane for you) Not only does this virtual joystick fly the plane for you... It prohibits ANY maneuver that can stall the aircraft. Making Snap rolls impossible, flying inverted, to name a few maneuvers. It simply doesn't work that way in DCS. In WT with mouseaim you can't even do a 0 power glide, without disabling the engine aspect of instructor. It will not allow you to stall out due to lack of speed and will automatically throttle up to maintain speed.

Yes, I understand. But you are contradicting yourself with how it really works in game. IF that was true. Let's say 400km/h IAS let's say 50% deflection is best case real world scenario. The Virtual joystick limits movement beyond that point. So what happens based on what your saying is; I can wrench 100% physical stick deflection and it means NOTHING at all since the Virtual Joystick stops at 50%. You care to test that scenario in game? Don't say I didn't warn you about the Accelerated Wing Stall, because that's exactly what happens when you physically push beyond the thresh hold. The Virtual Joystick mimics that maneuver 1:1 at nearly ALL SPEEDS up to 500km/h Even pilot accounts attest to that fact. It's not the Virtual Joystick catching up. You can test this yourself, and when you wing stall, that is me saying I'm right, and the the virtual joystick does NOT limit your physical travel on your joystick.

Well in theory, and I've seen and tested it in game... throttling back would be unnecessary... If I lessen up on my pull the 109 will maintain speed indefinitely unless I pull a harder AOA and as such speed drops and the stall issue becomes more relevant. I dunno honestly.... What I wouldn't give to get a feel for the real stick forces of the 109.

Yo-Yo since we are talking about 190's as well; I have an issue with the Dora that I have been wondering about. 190's were notorious for vertical reversals; It was one of their trademark maneuvers. Yet, I struggle to follow a P51 in a vertical loop with equal energy states. In short I see "AI" P51's out maneuvering the dora in the vertical, but not in the horizontal. Is that supposed to be like that? Granted I know a human player is completely different, but I'm struggling to grasp how a mid to low energy P51 can do a loop at low altitude, when the Dora cannot follow them?

Well I don't have a problem with the stall being there, what I have a problem with is the stall occurring at 380-420km/h IAS with slats out, and less than 50% deflection. Again, that is not low speed for a 109 and the stall is more pronounced at lower speeds, but the purpose of slats was to alleviate that stall and allow for greater AOA. Based on the videos, such doesn't seem to be the case. And I do believe if that's true, then the Dora and P51's may be too pronounced as well. Even considering they didn't have slats. I haven't flown the P51, so I don't know how bad it is, but it's VERY bad in the Dora. A Snap roll is damn near suicidal to perform. Which was conveyed to new pilots in 190's.

True but by the end of the war there weren't pilots like him lol. Newer pilots were taught not to do it. And there is documentation to support that as well. Question 180 degree snap roll would leave a 190 inverted... or ready to enter a Split S maneuver. I don't see exactly how that is similar since a true snap roll is 360 degrees. Given the roll rate of 190's a snap roll is over kill.

Modern Day Jet's use slats as well. The difference from a 109 and an F-18 Super Hornet however, is that the slat technology was re-engineered and it looks like it's hydraulically controlled via yoke inputs from the pilot. Here's a video showing exactly that on the F-18. Watch the leading edge of the wing under a high G maneuver; You will notice it angles down, and then back up when the pilot lets off the G's. Start Watching at the 3:40 mark.

Thanks otto. And if I'm not mistaken Russian planes did use slats such as the MiG but also Yaks, and even the IL2's.... I do not know but I suspect it was an idea adopted from captured German 109's. Slats were used on the earliest of 109's as well right down to the ME-109E's. Although I think the IL2 may have had them before a german 109 was captured by Russia... Not sure.

Zalty 3:00 mark is a better example of it, albeit cut short due to altitude as I was forced to correct or crash if I kept on it.

Yes and no. at 1:00 that was the highest extreme in the video; Other maneuvers are less than 50% deflection on the Virtual; And I was lightening up on the joystick to maintain the shudder but not exceed it. Until my altitude was to low to continue then I corrected. If I had pulled harder up to 50% deflection it would have snapped in other parts of the video.

I'd have to do some research, but rarely is the information available to that extent with precise testing parameters. And that holds true for pretty much any plane of the time. There just wasn't a testing standard for stalls under precise controlled conditions. Let alone specified of Accelerated Wing Stalls. Most of what is said is pilot accounts from people who have flown the 109, both in the war and in air shows. There are also reports of 109's nose diving into the ground without any attempt at recovery; This was due to high speed dives and surface locks which made it impossible to pull out of, the Plane/Trimming was the only means to pull a 109 out of a high speed dive in such cases. But one thing all planes have in common are accelerated wing stalls. How severe, they were varied from plane to plane. For example a 190 pilots were taught NOT to use snap rolls because it would induce the stall and eventually a flat spin. Given the roll rate of 190's a snap roll wasn't necessary as a defensive maneuver.

Altitude below 1000m; Weights exactly the same, same exact weather conditions, no WEP Now that is pertaining to the videos; Unless you mean specifically the document? Edit: In which case the document doesn't give those conditions.

Updated Video with Virtual Joystick: Note the last few minutes of the video I was trying to induce a flat spin, which was impossible to do. That is pulling hard on the stick with full rudder into the roll and maintaining that indefinitely until a flat spin results. Basically a continuous snap roll. I was disappointed when I could not induce a flat spin.

And here are 2 more pilot accounts of the 109 as well from Eric Brown, and Mark Hanna Which confirms what Hummingbird is saying almost to the letter. http://www.eaf51.org/newweb/Documenti/Storia/Flying_%20109_ENG.pdf You will want to read the Handling Section specifically. As it pretty much addresses everything everyone has said thus far, but imho isn't representative either fully or correctly of how the K4 handles in game currently and at relative speeds in question.

Fair enough, at what point did I say this was at high speed exactly? I clearly stated 380-420km/h and this can be seen in the video. So I guess I don't understand your point regarding high speed which isn't in question? Note: This new video will show you I wasn't even remotely close to 80% physical. According to the Virtual Joystick I ranged between 25% and 50%, stalling occurred at closer to 50%. According to the Virtual Joystick. Let me finish this video so you can see.

This new video will show that I was in fact increasing my AOA, so I believe that's more than likely what was happening in the first video. But the issue remains: The increase in AOA is small, and in some cases barely noticeable. So why is the 109 wing stalling at speeds of 380-420km/h IAS with slats deployed? This is not considered low speed for a 109; it's considered medium to medium high speed for a 109. Low speed for a 109 is when you start dropping down to 220-280km/h IAS. Note: At low altitude. At higher altitude this changes obviously.

If that was true, then the plane wouldn't stall at all. What you basically just said, was my physical input on the joystick is irrelevant because the game won't allow deflection past 30% IF we are to assume 30% in game deflection does not stall, then regardless of how far I pull on the joystick is irrelevant. But, that isn't the case in game. Pulling to much on the joystick = stall and it is translated as such on the Virtual Joystick as well. The difference is, I was presumably NOT pulling harder on the joystick and attempting to maintain a steady AOA, which in turn should mean the plane shouldn't stall if that AOA was established at higher speeds. As such at lower speeds AOA can be increased without the loss of stability; In addition to the fact Slats were designed for that purpose to increase AOA. What this means is at some point the 109 will begin to maintain speed, because I have not increased my AOA, and as such a stall is pretty well impossible under a constant speed without increasing AOA. In short Control Stiffening is irrelevant at lower speeds. And what most people don't understand is the amount of force required to move the stick in real life; It's at I believe 20lbs of force for a 109, EASY for any average person to do. At some point relative to HIGH speed. the stick force is exceeded. For example in game the K4 has surface lock at 600km/h IAS, not 380-420km/h IAS. In the case of 600km/h it does not matter how hard or far you pull on the stick you simply will not move the control surface. As such fletner tabs were used to pull out of high speed dives in such case, the rest has to do with altitude rather or not a 109 pilot survived that dive. There was even some pilot accounts that you can move the surfaces at 700km/h but it was very very difficult. Unlike some Russian and British planes for example where stick forces reach as high as 50lbs of force. There are some planes whose stick forces can reach even higher yet upwards of 80lbs or more. http://www.eaf51.org/newweb/Documenti/Storia/Flying_%20109_ENG.pdf Read the handling section; It talks about slats allowing for higher AOA at lower speeds. And in order to induce that wing stall it was described as crass to get the wing to drop. The video I showed wasn't crass, or at least I thought it wasn't. I have a new video now with the Virtual Joystick on. I'm cutting the video some because it's 15 minutes long. Unfortunately, I'm used to the handling now, so instinctively I know not to pull harder in the maneuvers. Bottom Line Zalty: The speeds we are talking about here has nothing to do with control stiffening, or an artificial Virtual Joystick limitation. This can be tested in game, and is clearly seen in the video I provided.

I can make another video with it if that would help people.

I have tried to use the rudder to compensate for this as well, and I find the rudder induces the stall more so than not using it; The only thing I've found to avoid it, is simply to lessen my pull on the stick. But that creates an unstable sustained turn such that it's more like an outward stairway of turn radius; Starting first as a sharp turn radius then stair stepping to a wider turn radius; This contradicts what reports I've read about all 109's at lower speeds; The initial turn radius should be wider, while the turn radius decreases with lower speed not the other way around. Which is what I was experiencing. Does that make sense? And if I'm right, then I think the Dora and P51 suffer from the same issue. I certainly can attest for the Dora, but not the P51 since I haven't flown the P51 yet.

This particular stall is a lot more pronounced on the Dora for example; I imagine the P51 has a similar feel to that extent as the Dora.