Page.Down

I fully understand that; But the fact is it wasn't at higher speeds where it was a problem, it was at lower speeds. Where technically if an AOA was maintained without variation then the stall shouldn't occur unless I pull harder or I reach such a low speed that the deflection becomes more or less nullified due to lack of speed. What I see and felt in the video was: At higher speed the K4 performed well with a certain deflection, but at lower speeds that same deflection became to much for the stability of the plane. And I notice the K4 banks left far easier and with a higher AOA than banking right. (I assume because of torque of course) This doesn't make sense to me; Given the 109's best sustained turn radius is in fact at lower speeds and higher AOA's. The only thing that makes sense to me atm, is what David said that the VR joystick is actually pulling more even though I have not done so physically on the joystick. I guess the question is why is that?

Oh I clearly saw the stall; But, I was deliberately not letting up and trying to maintain the AOA. I'm trying to get the feel on the joystick where the limitation is. At that speed and (hopeful maintaining) of the AOA, It just feels like the stall is instigated at a speed it shouldn't be as pronounced is what I'm wondering. Yes I know the harder you pull on the stick the easier it is to produce that stall, but when maintaining the pull assuming I wasn't letting up or increasing the AOA, the 109 should technically not stall at that speed. The 109's best turn radius is in fact at lower speeds, so maintaining that AOA should not have induced the stall, if anything at lower speeds I should be able to pull harder without inducing the stall. Or at least I would think so.

I noticed the exact same thing just a little while ago when I did the same mission. But, even before this patch and campaign, I find the Trim indicator to be extremely hard to see what setting it is set at currently. The Magneto lever was also nearly invisible if it wasn't for the green light on the mouse cursor I wouldn't know if I was clicking on it.

David's response does make sense, because if he's right, then it's possible I increased my AOA without knowing it.

Sadly, I know what control stiffening is as well; And it mostly occurs above 500km/h IAS and surface lock occurs at around 600km/h IAS. At 380-420km/h IAS there is no control stiffening at all. It's entirely dependent on Leading Edge Slats, and AOA in that situation. The issue I have is my AOA was unchanged, but the plane still stalled. And the purpose of Leading Edge Slats is to reduce the stall and allow for greater AOA. In the case of ALL 109's the greatest AOA they have is at much lower speeds than what I showed in my video. What I am experiencing is called an Accelerated Wing Stall. It's when the speed of wind over the top and bottom of the left wing are different. Which forces the wing to lose lift, and hence the 109 rolls left. It does not matter if you are banking right or left as shown in my video. The wing stall mechanic is accurately modeled, but what I'm questioning is the speed at which it occurs. At higher speeds for example it's easier to read if you have to induce it, at lower speeds harder to read; But if your AOA remains unchanged from high speed of 500km/h and you drop to 380-420km/h that wing stall should not be present at all unless I increased my AOA, which I do not believe I had done. Edit: Clarified my last statement

So you are saying there is an artificial deflection of sorts in order to maintain the deflection input I was giving the joystick?

Forgive me, As I am still new to DCS don't fly to often, and I do know what an accelerated wing stall is; But is it normal for a K4 to wing stall at 380-420km/h IAS? Is that not the purpose of Leading Edge Slats? Note I don't believe I went past 50% stick deflection in fact probably less than that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14KMUihNl4I

Tell that to Spitfire pilots! :joystick: You say it was actively avoided, that simply is not true. German pilots were taught to use negative G maneuvers in WW2. Especially against early model spitfires. And what exactly does an aerobatic plane do that differs from a military combat plane? Aside from perform better that is... :P And that excess weight you are talking about might be less than a few kg's at most. It's not going to break the flight profile any if that's what your concern is.

Obviously it's not as simple as I make it sound, but the idea is simple; The trick being to eliminate air pockets in the line. Still working on that one! :D

Parallel fuel systems electronically controlled via a vertical gyroscopic switch. Like I said have you never hung upside down as a kid before? I know what effects are attributed by negative G's, I'm just wondering how is it excessive enough to be a problem? The avg pilot can withstand up to -4.5G's. Flying inverted doesn't increase negative G forces unless you deliberately do so right? Like a negative G push-over? Edit, I highlighted more than what was necessary in that picture too. The vertical gyroscopic switch would work cohesively in determining rather or not a plane was inverted, as such it would switch off the primary pump, and turn on the secondary pump. When the plane rolls back correctly; The secondary pump is turned off and the primary pump is turned on.

Honestly, the only reason I made the thread was because I was concerned about stalling the K4 when flying inverted, because in some cases pulling a steep high yo-yo against a P51 in a bank turn sometimes can leave you almost inverted. So I've had to consciously make an effort to continue the maneuver keeping a positive G force hoping the fuel in the tank would stay where it needs to be so I wouldn't stall out.

All the time as a kid you've never hung upside down on a jungle gym? I've never passed out because of it, and I've sat there for 10 minutes as a kid. People also said the avg human being can't withstand 9+ G's of force too. Yet, trained military pilots can withstand 8-8.5G's in excess of times of 30seconds before having to let off. And, there is documented proof that the human body can withstand upwards of 40-50G's, before experiencing major injury. Why make it more complex? Simple, rolling inverted to check below the plane for any targets at lower altitudes? Targets that you may not be able to see if they are directly below you? 10 seconds should be sufficient of course in the case of a K4. I was just saying it was odd that I didn't suspect any design changes even now almost 100 years after maned flight began.

Found it #7 is the fuel pump. Makes sense now. I'm surprised after some 100 years of aviation, they haven't redesigned fuel systems to account for this? :x

Do you have a technical schematic of the fuel system, and tank, which includes placement of the fuel pump system specifically? Or do you know of a source I can read about it?

To my understanding; The pump only has to be submerged, rather the lines were submerged or not doesn't matter regardless of inverted flight or not. Would that be what you mean, the fact the pump no longer becomes submerged when inverted? If that is true, then would it not be logical to assume with a full fuel tank the 109K4 could in fact fly inverted indefinitely, until lower fuel loads?

According to some sources, that was the purpose of fuel injection systems. Fuel injection systems were forced in nature. Which means there was a pump of sorts. The fuel lines may not have been submerged, but the fuel in the lines would have been forced through via fuel pump. I don't really understand why the lines would run dry? This also allowed 109's to perform negative G maneuvers without killing it's engine like early model spitfires which used float carbs. The issue of spitfire stalls in negative G maneuvers, and/or inverted flight wasn't fixed until the Spitfire Mk. VC which encompassed the redesigned carb known as "Miss Shillings Oriface." It wasn't until that time that spitfires could perform negative G maneuvers. Even the ME-109E's could perform negative G's and inverted flight which was a real tactic used by them against spitfires knowing the spitfire engine couldn't perform negative G maneuvers.

I thought I read some where here that the K4 cannot fly inverted for more than 10 seconds as the engine would cut out. My question is: Is that true, because I was under the impression late model 109's used direct fuel injection systems which was designed to allow later model 109's to fly inverted. Note: This feature was available on 109G models. If that is true, why is this not modeled on the K4? Or is it modeled?

Bare in mind, I am not a real life pilot. I have never flown anything in real life. So some of the terminology is foreign to me right now. Let alone what the proper procedure would be to compensate for certain things. I don't know what you mean RW line; And I know I slipped on take off, but I was more focused on not over compensating, because the last time I tried to correct slip I rolled over and crashed. I can't use trim at -1; The plane pulls up sharply on take-off naturally at +1; let alone without flaps; I didn't use flaps during take off at all. And, +2 made it perfect such that it doesn't pull up and it's easier to fly level. At any given speed, I actually fly at +2 normally anything less and the plane has to be compensated with nose down on the stick. This is unnatural for anyone to maintain. IF it can be avoided via trimming, then it makes the plane easier to fly in general. I have been able to take off in bad weather conditions using this method as well such as at night, in snow, with a cross wind when I was playing the campaign mission through. I still need to perfect the technique obviously, but for a first time trying that technique it was way easier, than trying to maintain control with the toe brakes, which can cause top heavy roll and the wings can clip the ground at higher speeds. I dread having to learn to land because I know I'm going to have a huge problem with slowing down.

My first successful take-off utilizing a different method I saw on another video. Feel free to skip ahead to the take off part. 5:10 mark He said to use +1 nose down trim, I use +2. You do not need to push forward doing it this way. Pull full back on stick and full right aileron, 70% right rudder authority while accelerating. Slowly move the stick to center when speed reaches 50-100km/h but keep on the rudder authority 50-70% Then let the plane take off by itself. Try not to over compensate during slip if it occurs.

Well if that's the case, then the mission is bugged, as are the compass coordinates. Because i was between 6 and 0 and it never said I was doing anything wrong. When I actually went to 4 it said I was not going in the right direction. I obviously take modern compass' for granted. So used to N being 0, while East being 90, and so forth. It's the same ya, but the 0 throws me off on the compass. IF they had used an E in place of the 0 I would have been fine lol.

You can tell basic math wasn't my strong suit. Now Synthetic Division. Pfft... easy.

Well, I passed the first leg on the first try, then it tells me to turn to 40 degrees; I am not even sure I'm reading the compass right at this point, because my turn was at around 6 on the compass, and yet it said I was going the right way no warning nothing... Then it just said I failed to get to my target location and quit out. I even looked in the manual to see if maybe I was reading the compass wrong, but I don't think I was. 125 degrees minus 40 degrees = 85 degrees on the compass right? So I should be between 6 and 0 marks with the pointer yes? I'm pretty sure I'm doing something wrong, just not sure exactly what. Do I turn to 40 degrees heading, or do I turn to 75 degrees heading?

I've come to the conclusion just not to get that slow unless it's an intentional stall. As such I am finding I don't use flaps at all.

I noticed the same thing, but, I think the concept is you should be using combat flaps as well once you get below 300km/h for added stability.

Oh hey solty, have you see oz around?