Jump to content

rel4y

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    969

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by rel4y

  1. rel4y
    The trim tabs and stab angle adjustment serve completely different purposes, I hope you realize that. The trim tabs regulate the neutral aerodynamic elevator position at corresponding stabilizer setting. The stabilizer incidence adjusts basal downforce at load neutral elevator position but also elevator zero incidence as well as elevator maximum deflection angle. The 109 K models (as well as G-10 & ASB/ASC engined G-14 models) had double the trim tab area compared to earlier 109 models because the elevator authority at a perticular horizontal stab setting, was limiting the nose down capacity to an unsatisfactory maximum at full motor output. (Sounds familiar?) The aerodynamic elevator zero incidence (at a stab incidence of 1,45°) was in a position where the test pilot was not able to produce the necessary force to depress into a dive angle beyond 60°. The solution was to change the aerodynamic elevator zero incidence at unchanged & safe stabilizer incidence (in respect to the pullout capability) by doubling the trim tab area. Btw they tested to Mach 0.81. These trim tabs then were set to produce a downforce on the elevator (trim tabs physically angled upwards), so the elevator was producing lift (physically angled downward) at the tailplane. Seems confsing at first, but is the simplest of aerodynamics. In level flight this obviously also produces more lift at the tailplane and changes the elevator neutral position to a more nose down attitude. Report 109 05 E 43 "Hochgeschwindigkeitsversuche mit 109" cites: This btw, is the very report you guys credit falsely with stating something about limiting nose down capability for safety reasons and protecting pilots. Since you are a fellow German I urge you to read it and tell me where exactly it states this! The reason for this test was named as: The conclusion of this test was a completely different one, namely that you couldnt put enough force on the elevator in the first place to reach any dangerous dive angle above 60°.... Then double sized trim tabs were introduced which could yield elevator force reversal at high Mach numbers, so in turn the stab angle was limited to +1,15°, where elevator force reversal did not happen anymore. This test resulted in a production line change of later models to double elevator trim tabs and limiting the stab angle to +1,15° / +1,10°. I have posted bits and pieces of this information before, as well as that we have a G model elevator on our DCS K-4 and all of the trim difficulties we have stem from exactly these two problems! G model elevator on a K-4 and no trim tabs on the elevator, even though the quoted report above states the very function and importance of these trim tabs. Please compare the trim tabs on a G-6 and K-4: G-6 K-4 And the K-4 horizontal stabilizer setting + marked double trim tab area (verlängerte Bügelkante in german) 109 K-4 manual page 126 Please also compare maximum elevator deflection at the corresponding horizontal stabilizer setting to other models... You will realize that K & G-10 models have a diferently geared elevator and using soviet G-2 documentation wont work for a correct K-4 elevator. F G-2 G-10 (important is the part G-10/U4 teilweise 27° up 24° down) so G-10/U4 with MK108 has the same elevator as the K-4
  2. rel4y
    They are obviously talking about the fixed trim tabs (Bügelkanten) mate and all 109s had these. The late G and K versions even had double the trim tab area installed compared to earlier models. Many people posted about this multiple times over the year's and I even provided pictures in Yoyos sticky flight trim thread. Also the K elevator is geared differently than F/G model elevators, with a different neural point and the DCS elevator is based mainly around a russian Bf 109 G-2 test. It's either an engine limitation, which I don't believe and would be pretty poor, or ED simply doesn't want to fix it for whatever reasons. Link 1:https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3235602&postcount=7 Link 2: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3455106&postcount=15
  3. rel4y
    Thank you Rudel and glad to hear! I am honestly amazed by how much interest there still is in the Cougar HOTAS, I didnt expect that. I mean I love my Cougar as well, but you would have thought most people switched over to Warthogs or the russian stuff. :)
  4. rel4y
    Just a quick headsup, the next batch is underway with the Cougar Joystick sensors being almost done. By the end of this week I will make the new Throttle sensors and the USB adapters will most likely be made at the beginning of next week. It is really a lot of soldering, but I am going as quick as I can! :) I had to increase shipping prices by 0.5€ as the mail service increased its prices. Also the Throttle digital GMR sensor is now 15€ because TLE5011 prices have somehow skyrocketed. The preorders will most likely be shipped mid next week.
  5. rel4y
    Well, what do you know, that was actually very interesting. I didnt really remember the story behind the buchons rudder, so maybe I should have kept my mouth shut in the first place. Do you have any articles or sources for this by chance? I would honestly be interested in the real story. However aerodynamically speaking I do know for a fact that the DB engine on G models was installed angled 1° upwards to the main fuselage line (and 0.7° downwards in reference to the wing chord line) while the Merlins were installed straight to the fuselage line. Maybe this was in response to the initially higher prop position or they didnt know about it. So the whole AoA regime should be different from the Bf 109s by design. I dont know the exact weight of the Merlin 500/45, but going by wartime models these engines were usually also around 50kg heavier than DB models in total dry weight. If anything this should put the CoG in a more stable position. To this I have read reports on how roll and climb rate suffered significantly through the HS 404/808 cannon wing armament. Basically similiar effects of 109 cannon pods.
  6. rel4y
    Substitute Merlin with Hispano Suiza and you got what I wanted to say. The later Merlin Buchons have a completely reworked front fuselage, cog, thrust line, shaft angle and cooling array. No comparison really.
  7. rel4y
    The 109s have airfoil shaped rudders and for some reasons the Spaniards failed to notice. This was done to compensate for the prop slipstream. Considering that Merlins spin the prop the other way around compared to DBs, a Buchon is bound to handle like crap. And that's consistent with all reports I have read.
  8. rel4y
    How about switching to a 5$ Arduino ProMicro with MMJoy and get rid of all the Thrustmaster software and mainboard. You would just need to connect the two axis to pins and VCC + ground to the sensors. If your hardware is fine, this may definitely be worth a try.
  9. rel4y
    Ok, I did a print last night. The whole thing took over 14h and overall it looks and feels really good. Sadly there are some layer shifts on the top, which make it impossible to mount it on the Crosswinds. Now I have to investigate where those come from... :wacko: I think I will give it another try this weekend, but with different slicer settings. Anyway, here are some pictures.
  10. rel4y
    Could mods please stop deleting valid posts in this thread? I did not put my thread into this subforum, instead a mod moved it here. It was from the very beginning about more than just Thrustmaster mods, but I cant change titles myself nor move the thread. Hi Wittman, I actually had a lot of requests for the antenna pot lately, but it is not as straightforward as you may think to make that one. It has a center detent and the axle type is conceivably inappropriate for a 3D printed model. i will have a look at it eventually, as at the ministick, but as of currently it is not of very high priority to me. Sorry mate. :/
  11. rel4y
    Mmm, that looks like a tough one! Thank you for the pictures though. Now I finally know whats inside. But arent the white plastic parts holding the pots tightly onto the black plastic cover? If that is the case then my replacement sensors might actually work. I think soldering the sensors in place may not be very hard if they are not held in place by the PCB only. Another problem could be friction. Is there any sort of friction mechanism or are the levers held in place only ba the pots? If that is the case then my sensors are not a good choise since the ball bearings make them nearly frictionless. :(
  12. rel4y
    The K-4 had a critical altitude of 6.8 km (22300 ft) and the ASM engined G-14 had 7.8 km (25600 ft). P-51 should be around 25000 ft with 67 inHG as you said, with higher manifold settings a bit lower.
  13. rel4y
    True, at lower altitude the supercharger isnt heating up the charge air as much, but the ambient temperature also isnt -50°C. That means that the resulting charge air temps will still be more than enough to boil Methanol. So you are saying that gaseous Methanol does not provide ADI effects because suddenly its octane rating changes, am I understanding that correctly? Why would you need 100% evaporation to cool the charge air? A direct injection engine already has a bunch of cylinder nozzles for, well, direct injection. So why not put the Methanol into the fuel like in racing fuel? Instant higher octane rating, no detonation, done! Thats not easier than a bunch of piping and a MW tank and pressured gas tanks and a supercharger injection nozzle and an extra throttle mechanism and a seperate pump etc.?
  14. rel4y
    Ok, thanks Sokol. My normal CH pots work quite fine, I initially had some trouble because of the reasons you mentioned however. They had to be able to take non axial loads, but the ball bearings inside handle that quite well. Then I guess I cant help people with the CH quadrant if these are using different pots. For some reason I can find no inside pictures of the CH quadrant on the webs...
  15. rel4y
    I dont believe you understand most of what I am saying... You commented some partly correct stuff in another thread where I explained in high detail how MW50 actually works. I am pretty sure I know how it works. Of course it acts as antidetonant, but charge cooling is the second major desired effect! I have been saying that the whole time. Why is it easier for a "field kit" to inject into the supercharger than through the cylinder injection nozzles which are there anyway in a DI engine? Where on earth was I talking about water fuel ratios? But since you brought it up, please show me the water/fuel ratio to charge temp graphs in that NACA doc, because I cant find it (and dont know what it could possibly tell me about inlet charge temp). MW50 consists of methanol and water btw. How could a sudden charge pressure increase not be from the blower? Where else is it supposed to come from? But the temperature of this air is hugely important and that is independent of what pressure you inject it into the cylinders. Do you realize that in a highly supercharged engine ambient temperature and charge air temperature differ by a vast amount? Why do you think a intercooler gives you no benefit in natural aspirated engine? I tried to give you an example with the Merlin 61, but I am not sure you read that part. Let me explain to you the basics. If ambient temp is -50°C then after compression the charge air has a temperature 155°C. What levels of Methanol evaporation could possibly be expected by a temperature of 155°C with its (sea level) boiling point of 65°C? Or water? Do you know how the fuel ratio is calculated by the ECU in 109?
  16. rel4y
    MW50 does not have a primary job, it is injected into the supercharger for a reason and its effects are twofold. If charge cooling wasnt a major expected effect you could inject it into the carb (not in case of the DB since DI) or into the charge air duct or into the cylinders directly. But you dont. You inject it into the supercharger with all the detrimental effects due to droplet damage to the very high RPM supercharger. Why is that you ask? Water and methanol injected into the charge air cause a big enthalpy delta due to vaporization. And no, you take away no volume at all, on the contrary you increase the oxygen supply when measured at same temp because the charge air is densified through cooling. Around a 100 HP increase can be expected due to MW charge cooling alone, keeping boost pressure constant. So thats 5,4% of total engine output at SL. The charge temp rise of the Merlin 61 was 205°C at max F.S. revs and intercooler efficiency was ~35%. That is a delta of 72°C. So, rule of thumb ~13% engine output gain at FTH. That means MW charge cooling alone provides 42% of the benefit of a heavy intercooler. It is a bit of apples to oranges because we are comparing SL vs FTH and at low ambient temperature an intercooler gives better performance. Also a single stage blower will not heat up the air as drastically in the first place. I just tried to explain that german "low grade" fuel was the same as allied fuel on the western front, because germans classified their fuel in lean rating and allies in rich! At the end of the war the german C3 fuel was pushing a 145/100 rating. Whatever boost the 109, Dora and Mustang are running is not comparable because they run different compression ratios. The DB605 runs at 7.5:1 and the Jumo at 6.5:1 with B4 fuel. Both higher with C3 fuel. The Dora blowing its engines after a few seconds at 1.9 ata is a bug and not an engine design feature. With the lower compression ratio it can obviously sustain higher boost pressure than a DB605 engined 109.
  17. rel4y
    I actually got asked this question last week already and my answer was I honestly dont know. I expect CH to use the same type of pots in this piece of hrdware as in all their products, but I have no experience with it. I asked him to send me some pictures of the internals, as I cant find any on the internet. But he is currently not at home if I understood correctly. If you could send me a picture, or maybe link me one from the internet I could probably give you an answer.
  18. rel4y
    Nonsense, the charge cooling effect persists even above rated altitude. As long as the supercharger tap can provide higher than ambient pressure to the tank, the MW system will increase power output. With high octane fuel such as allies or germans in form of C3 had (145 grade fuel in the allied rating scheme) you will be able to run your engine with even higher boosts. If you understand the effect of MW50 charge cooling as it was injected into the supercharger you may be able to recognize why a heavy intercooler makes no sense at all in this configuration and just how similiar the effect is. The germans used lean ratings to describe their fuels and the allied used rich ratings. The B fuels were made from natural hydrocarbons (eg from Ploesti) and were complete crap by the end of the war. While the C fuels were made by coal hydration (eg in Leuna) and were completely synthetic with controlled aromatic additives that made for very high octane ratings and constant quality fuel production. The eastern front was supplied mainly with B4 fuel while the western front was mainly supplied with C3 fuel. Considering logistics and demand that made a lot of sense. Eg DB605 in DC config with C3 fuel at 2.0 ata or the P&W R2800 with water injection. Same engines just higher octane fuel + MW50 = further increased boost ratings. PS: It makes absolutely no sense to compare boost ratings without looking at least at engine compression as well, it tells you nothing.
  19. rel4y
    Sorry posted the wrong layout... The ProMicro has almost the same pinout as the Leonardo however and both dont have pin A0. Use the pin numeration of the following scheme then. You probably want to put in F7 instead of A0. MISO is B3. :)
  20. rel4y
    The ProMicro does not have an A0 pin broken out. You need to use the correct pin numeration. MISO is B5 eg. Use the following scheme: (wrong scheme)
  21. rel4y
    Another cool thing about MMJoy is that you can adjust both VID and PID, so you can adjust the order of your HID device in terms of hardware numeration as you like. And I can also make it TARGET compatible. :)
  22. rel4y
    Next week! :) I bought a 3d printer in November but it was defective at first, then came holiday season and now it's January already. But I did talk to a foundry already, let's hope this works out.
  23. rel4y
    Well, pretty much the same except for the mil afterburner stuff and I have only added the 10 buttons the Throttle actually uses. You can easily set anything you like however in MMJoy and add another 118 buttons if you feel like it. The Windows controller view doesnt really tell you anthing about the capability however. Just have a look at MMjoy and what it can do if you like, it is pretty much the favorite software of the flight simming/ racing DIY community. If you dont want to dive into that software then you can just leave as is and it is already plug and play. PS: I am not saying mine is better than the other, I am just saying it can do the same and is also very customizable. You can obviously spend your money wherever you feel it is best invested and I didnt want to push for anything here. Just wanted to get the alternative out there! :)
  24. rel4y
    Just wanted to chime in (for some shameless self promotion :music_whistling:). I am also offering a "TUSBA", at half the price with an extension bay that can add shift registers or/and hall sensors / digital SPI 14 Bit GMR sensors. And chance has it, that I am also offering these sensors for very reasonable prices. The digital 14Bit GMR sensor is 20€ extra to the USB standalone adapter (TUSBA), the hall sensor is 22€. Feel free to check my thread in the signature. Btw these vipergear guys miraculously came up with a similiar design after I posted mine on simHQ.. but I use magnetoresistive technology. :D
  25. rel4y
    Looks like you took a bit of inspiration from my pedal solution. :D Btw I made them adjustable for two widths depending on personal choice. The wider one fits flush with the pedal side. I made the screws go in from the back, that looks a bit neater.
×
×
  • Create New...