rel4y

The hinge moments, mach response and neutral position changed. It absolutely does, there is simply no arguing about that! The pilot in his analysis said he needed to reverse the stick force to keep the dive angle constant at this stab setting. The data presented in this paper and also in seperate elevator mach dependency tests show no force reversal in its sense. At no point the aircraft is acting reversly to the input.

I am and always have been civilized. The new elevator gearing is linked to (btw nose heavier MK108) armament. F/G elevator G-10 (note the G-10/U4 remark) K-4 I am not saying the same thing. Elevator gearing fundamentally influences recoverability, because it changes stick forces, deflection, mach characteristics, neutral position, everything... There is no stick force reversal as in eg the Spitfire aileron reversal happening, the stick in the 109 does what it always does. It is certainly lacking authority, but it does at no point reverse. I think you are misinterpreting the graph. The elevator area was certainly not enlarged for the K-4, just the mechanism and hinge moments were significantly reworked. Besides many german anecdotes of trimming out of a high speed dive there are also finnish reports: Also let me cite something from the highspeed trials: I am sorry but I cant agree with anything you are suggesting.

Not true! They proposed based on highspeed dive tests up to Mach 0.805 that pilots should not trim more than +1,15° because if you trim out of the dive afterwards a violent pitch moment will occur. It was common in that time for pilots to trim out of dives. This test was done on a 109 F model and has little relevance for a K-4 because the elevator gearing was reworked. What is portrayed in DCS is a 109 K-4 with F/G elevator, nothing more and nothing less.

Here is my version of an encoder PCB for these abundant EC11 type encoders from Aliexpress. (link) It is hardware debounced and pullups can be added for A, B and push button. Here is the Osh Park link: https://oshpark.com/shared_projects/4gvesbVp

Sorry, I was on vacation. 10K pullup is the way to go, glad you got it sorted out. Btw does anyone know if I need to hardware debounce encoders or if MMJoy2 does that in software?

The Me 262 was already planned, the cockpit is done from what I can tell. Finish this bird and then do a Tempest Mk. V! :thumbup: 1. Me 262 2. Hawker Tempest Mk V. 3. Mosquito

Your button state is floating. You either need to add a pullup or or pulldown resistor. Best use around 10k Ohms.

Thanks Baur! It means a lot to me coming from you! Salute! :)

I have recently uploaded the latest versions of the BRD DS to Thrustmaster, Virpil and VKB adapter. Choose version A is if you own a Cougar/ Warthog and you dont mind "recycling" the 5-PIN mini DIN connector of the base and version B if not. Version B therefore additionally needs a female 5-PIN mini DIN connector, as such: Only things left to do are: deburring the 25 mm pipe, glueing 4x M4 nuts into the recessed areas in the adapter, setting in either the female 5-PIN mini DIN or the Thrustmaster equivalent and fixing it to the pipe with 4x M4x0.7 screws (or similiar). Done. :thumbsup: I have been using a slightly different version since December last year and it works great. I use it in combination with a modified CH Combatstick, which I fitted with a DIY shift register. For connection I use a Gardena metal nut (GARDENA 8167), although the plastic one works just as well. I have uploaded two versions of the CH adapter to shapeways as there are slight differences between the Gameport and USB variant. It fits both the Combatstick and Fighterstick. Ver A http://shpws.me/Pziy Ver B http://shpws.me/Pzii

The post should be about the 109 K however, because you are tyring to debunk doubts about the elevator on your flightmodel of the DCS 109 K-4. I think you realize that P elev of a G-2 is irrelevant for a K elevator if the gearing has changed. Furthermore when looking at gear reduction the neutral point was changed as well depending on stab angle. It also fundamentally changes elevator response in relation to Mach number. Those highspeed dive tests up to Mach 0.805 you mentioned concluded only that you should not trim more than +1,15° in a highspeed dive because of the need to trim out of the dive. These settings were then recommended to pilots, but have no relevance on the K-4 elevator because they were done on a F model (with G wings respectively). Yes yes, they also changed the grease on the stab gear, limited ailerons and doubled trim tabs in size in that test. I am also pretty sure that the elevator forces are modeled after the G version, with the difference that you correctly recalculated cog to be a higher % MAC for the tailheavier K-4. I have done the same based on a G-6 Ladeplan before and tested after the german FW190 & Bf 109 vs Mach comparison test that you have posted parts of, it was pretty conclusive. The twice in size trim tabs are completely ignored and are set to neutral or rather not implemented at all. On the other hand the trim tabs have significant influence on the rudder/aileron neutral position which we can freely (and thanks for making that possible) adjust in the menu. If they were as unmportant as you want to make us believe, why were they doubled in size? The way I follow your argumentation line is, F and G type docs are applied to a K airframe and you oversaw that the gearing was changed. Yo-Yo this is the best 109 representation there is and probably will be for a long time, but please have a look at this again.

Ok, I still have two quick questions: 1. The K4 had elongated elevator trim tabs to balance the elevator for cruise. The G versions with only one per side were found to be insufficient. Why doesnt our K-4 have these? (In the the 4. picture below - K-4 manual they are mentioned as well and I underlined that part) 109 G-6 109 K-4 2. The K-4 had differently geared elevators than the G models. Why is our K-4 geared like a G model? elevator G-1 elevator K-4

Here, have a look at this. I drew it based on the MMJoy profile, should be in the ballpark. That one green wire might have been a column instead of a row. I didnt update the profile afterwards. The top one is completely correct though. :D

I know Sokol. I had one of these as well (just sold it on the ATAG forums) and I also had it set up with MMJoy2. I had a handdrawn layout somewhere, Ill have a look at where it is. The reason I kept the old gameport CH Pro Throttle is that its market value is much less than the USB version. I bought the gameport one for 4€ on ebay and sold the USB one for 45, while they both are pretty much the same with MMJoy2 + dupont cables (and a PS3 stick).

Yeah I did! Works like a charme, only I mislabled GND and VCC for the shift reg connectors in the first version. Have a look here: https://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26942&p=300039&viewfull=1#post300039 The CH Pro Thottles are a piece of cake to adapt to MMJoy2. I did it just a few weeks ago and simply connected dupont wires from the connector. You can make full use of the button matrix/ PCB that is already there. https://s9.postimg.org/igj3441tb/IMG_20180109_195051.jpg

Just wanted to link to a thread I opened that same day on the ATAG forums. Just another option I guess. ;) https://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28049&p=302269#post302269

Well, at least to me it is not. But I am not sure what more stable through buffeting is supposed to mean anyway. The aoa zone of flow seperation is dependent on airfoil profile. We all agree Anton and Doras have the same 230 type profile, which has a rather quick onset of flow seperation. So respectively we are talking maybe a perceivable 5% envelope here, which is hard to control and compare. So which other factors do we wanna look at? Body lift? Form drag? Weight compared to a coexisting A type? Thrust? If anything the Dora should be buffeting rather stable then. ;) The pilots werent lying and the numbers arent lying either, a Dora should handle better in all regimes than an A type. Well, maybe it rolls a tad worse due to the inline engine, but grass doesnt grow silently either.

The pilot knows flow seperation is occuring only through buffeting, which means stall is imminent. If the Anton turned better than the D-9 after flow seperation, that would be quite the feature wouldnt it? :megalol:

These threads do have their right to exist. Many FM changes for the better were triggerd by such threads. From the top of my head eg 109 roll rate, parasitic drag, wing slats, rudder forces. Initially the official stance there was all is good as is, but then came a change for the better and more realistic. Yo-Yo has asked several times the community for data and thats a valid thing to do, because just like ED the community has been collecting data fo decades and are in possession of stuff ED has missed. The sheer amount of data and the problematic of aquiring it make that a given.

The devs of 777 also argued vehemently that a value of 1.17 for a FW 190 was right, which they calculated from a test they didnt even understand, only had small parts of the data, for a completely irrelevant Reynolds number. So please just ignore what they are doing... they even said the Luftwhiners have to adapt to reality. Bunch of BS.

Sure, but not in the next week. I'm off skiing. Don't put the mod in the saved games folder for the reason I mentioned above! It's better to use it as I uploaded.

I can't check since I'm on my phone, but I guess you did it the same way I had it for years as well: replacing the 109 cross dds. But then only half of the models displayed the sucker, as the other half had an EMPTY decal placed in the description.lua. So some adjustment was necessary even before. Now the only way to pass IC is the way I uploaded it. Really annoying. If you place my files in the saved games folder, it works but all default planes will show up twice in the selection menu. Been there, done that. :/ Usually I'm lazy and you can trust that I'll do things the easiest way possibly that works. :p

Your swastika mod most likely won't pass IC, have you tried it?

I did a historical insignia mod for all the default skins. If anybody would like to have it, ill attach it. It replaces the missing or indicated swastika with the historical one. Tested on Burning Skies and fully IC compatible. Bf 109 historical Skins.zip

That is the texture layer number. If you want to extract the description.lua from the edm, the check this tool. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/1744284/ The cockpit EDM is in DCS World 2 OpenAlpha\Mods\aircraft\Bf-109K-4\Cockpit\Shape\Cockpit_Bf-109K-4.EDM

Haha no problem Huligan, thanks to you too! :) Yeah it makes no sense at all, it is just that this folder is not affected by the IC for some reason. The IC in its current state is pretty stupid in general.