rel4y

For the large rudder with Flettner tab? The russian docs dont cover this one as far as I know. So far I think I have never come across data for this one at all tbh. PS: Ailerons are really nice and responsive now btw. I havent tested to the charts though and probably will not as I trust you guys on that.

No you are right. If the Sicherungsschalter is switched to on, the blinker should be white to indicate the gun circuit is armed and the breech is in the loaded position. This is a bug!

I got it to work and it wasnt easy... The problem was the file extensions were incorrectly described on the Sprint instruction page of the OCHP site. So what you need to do is not export the SMD mask and change the file extensions to what I did via the button which I marked. The link for the PCB is beneath and now I think all looks correct. Thanks again for the help guys! https://www.oshpark.com/shared_projects/Omol0oNq

Thanks Sokol! The problem is with the soldermask layers. On OSH Park the manufacturing cost is the same for one or two sided boards, so its not really a problem to me. For some reason the soldermask on the OSH Park upload are off, but only for the JST pads/vias. You can see it on the pictures of the project. I think cutting areas here wont help, because then the soldermask is completely gone in this area. Its probably how the vias are saved in the Gerber export.. or I am missig some tricks in this regard. www.oshpark.com/shared_projects/pciZta4o Edit: But you are right, if I put everything on one side I dont need the vias there at all. So youre right, that would be a solution!

Thanks Sokol! I see that Mega_Mozg doesnt use these in his newer sketches anymore but he said this somewhere in the SimHQ thread: Well and since I already bought these Tantal Caps I need to get rid of them, right? :smilewink: I am getting closer to a good upload on OSH Park. I got the drill file right this time. Only problem remaining is my Pads/Vias for the 1.25 JST connector are masked. How can I unmask them so the copper is exposed?

Thanks again debolestis! Do you think this PCB layout would work? PCB dimensions are 40x10 mm, the big outer holes are spaced 30 mm. The vias are 0.5/0.8 mm and the pads are 0.6/0.8 mm as I would like to fit a 1.25 Micro connecter in there. Sadly I dont know the pins diameter of these. (https://www.aliexpress.com/item/50Sets-6-Pin-Single-End-SH-Pitch-1-25mm-15cm-28AWG-Wire-To-Board-Connector/32584475511.html?spm=2114.13010208.99999999.264.nzHKEu) Is it possible to solder these into the via pads? I have never done a two sided PCB before. For some reason my OSH Park uploads alway go sideways.. :cry: The drill file seems to be incorrect and bottom copperlayer is missing. Could you guys please help me?

See there is one problem, while we are talking facts you give opinions. Quite irrelevant in a bug report, dont you think? Second problem being that once your opinion is disproved you change it to a different one, which you then again state as fact. Shall I link my post on "your opinions" again? This is completely unnecessary and I for example have a personal dislike for the M2000C and still I am not haunting their subforum... https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2981984&postcount=35

I had to redo the earlier graph, because I messed up the EAS to TAS conversion in excel... damn. I added another Spitfire Mk V test (max 50 lbs), but at 6000 ft instead of 10000 ft. At 10k ft the rollspeed would be higher. Interestingly it has a completely different shape though. Remember this is steady rate of roll and doesnt give a full picture about actual roll performance in combat.

Ah Ok sorry, didn't read it was about Black 6.

You don't perform these kind of tests at trimmed speeds, but instead at known incidence levels eg 0° stab to make it comparable. Trim speed obviously varies from aircraft to aircraft for unlimited amount if reasons and depending on weather as well. But I am sure you knew that. Krupi is that test from flight magazine? Cause that was an E model.

That's some nice aim right there. :P

Who ever said it was measured at 850 kph? First you said above 700 kph ailerons can not be moved. So I showed you test results that it could indeed. Then you said the 109 cockpit disallows this movement as the pilot couldnt put the same amount of force onto the stick as a spit. So I showed you that the pilot in the test put above 30 kg of force onto that stick. Then you said the 109 couldnt do above 750 kph anyway. So we showed you several tests of 109s exceeding this speed by far and going to critical Mach at about 0.8. Then you said all test over 750 kph were extrapolated. So I pointed you to that even in this test the measured at above 750 kph which according to you the "109 couldnt do anyway". Then you suddenly say "ahhh they never reached 850 kph, told you!" Wait why? Who ever said that? Ok final question: If the pilot can pull above 30 kg stick force, the aileron deflection is limited at high speeds by pilot strength and critical Mach number is ~ 0.8, then what would the polar look like below critical Mach and why is it a completely valid approach? Just FYI the allies did it in the same way. ;)

With a mine shell hits from the top or bottom of a wing are actually by far the most lethal. Its in the nature of the shell really. In the trials they were using seemingly only AZ, with ZZ effects are gonna be even worse. German trials paint a similar picture. There is just not much a aircraft structure can put up against this amount auf high explosives (75 to 90 g HA 41). http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/Messerschmitt/Diverses/Flugwerkschutzes.pdf

Yeah these graphs are kinda meh at times. Mk 108 is devastating. Have a look here: http://thunder-games.livejournal.com/232906.html http://thunder-games.livejournal.com/232610.html (This was posted over at ATAG)

I give up

Yeah right.. he only posted 2 graphs. The most important graph is the following and you have obviously never read the report.. For your convenience gemessen = measured.

Are you kidding me? You even commented on the thread with the test... :huh: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=170388 Here you go, almost 900 kph TAS at 3.x k m. Read the finnish pilot reports, for the P-51 you always quote them. They dove above 850 kph indicated to the deck and lived to tell the tale.. Cool story. Altitude, TAS or IAS, ambient temperature? Have you ever seen the 109 roll test? Then you wouldnt ask the question..

How do you think the testpilots pulled the 30 kgs to measure the graphs? Oh boy..

Test source? From test reports high speed aileron forces in the 109 are similar to the Spitfire eg. Spitfire: (10000 ft alt = 3048 m) 50 lbs (22.7 kg) for 90 °/s at 300 mph (483 kph) 50 lbs (22.7 kg) for 60 °/s at 400 mph (644 kph) 109: (3000 m alt) 19 kg (41.9 lbs) for 79 °/s at 300 mph 18 kg (39.7 lbs) for 40 °/s at 400 mph 30 kg (66 lbs) for 30 °/s at 497 mph (800 kph)

Sounds great! +1

Thanks. OK, so does flux density matter for a TLE5011? For the normal Hall sensors I can vary the output/resolution via putting it closer to the sensor. So why are always diametrically magnetized round or ring magnets recommended. I meant whats the advantage of these over cubic ones.

Here you can download the whole report. Its a quite interesting read. http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA800394

Do I need to orientate the TLE5011 IC towards the magnet or away from the magnet (so that the PCB is between magnet and IC). And what is the advantage of a diametral magnet vs the normal cubes.

Ailerons completely stop working above some speed in DCS. Kurfürst already has a Bug report open with quotes from the DVL report. (https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=174867) I hope this gets fixed rather sooner than later. Even at Mach 0.8 the ailerons were effective in the high speed trials of 109 F with G wings. That was also around the Mach speed when compressibility caused artifacts in aileron control. Max speed reached was Mach .81 (at 4,5 km altitude). In the same report with the "new" larger rudder (= K-4 rudder minus flettner tab) the pilot was able to compensate the yawing forces in all high speed dives up to the tested max Mach of .81. Even with the small "old" rudder only above 800 kph yaw forces could not be compensated. In DCS it is starting at about 700 kph with the "new" rudder and flettner tabs. This cant be right. With increasing speed the "wing" shaped rudder produces more "lift" to the left, so that seems to be the answer. I am guessing "pilot strength" is the problem here in DCS, as the test pilot didnt seem to have a problem compensating the yaw. I wrote a report in July (https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=170388), but nothing has happened so far. I guess ED is busy with the Spit release. Hopefully afterwards some corrections will quickly find its way into the sim. But I think even while taxiing the rudder seems to lack authority. When I have RPM at 2600 and the rudder still has no effect I am always a bit confused.

My old Saitek Rudder pedals broke a few days ago and although I cant judge if I deserve them, I would be really happy about a new set of gear. :thumbup: