rel4y

So after the latest patch and the B-17G mod I am practicing a lot of high alt bomber intercept missions and I noticed in a high speed dive above 750 kph the roll moment to the right is pretty strong. Then I checked against documentation and realized two things. First of all the instability the DCS K4 exhibits is not being described in the documents at speeds below ~ Mach 0.8 (900 kph TAS) and the ailerons are effective (or the pilot is strong enough to do corrections) even above Mach 0.8. After instability problems were seen for the small rudder (with horn) of the F and early G series, the rudder heigth was increased by 135 mm and the horn removed. This is the commonly known as the "tall" rudder which is also installed on the K4. As stated in the following picture the instability was gone and yaw axis movement could be compensated by rudder inputs. Even with the old rudder typ instability onset was above 800 kph TAS (~Mach 0.72) as seen in the following text. The text mentions explicitly "Schieberollmoment", which is exactly what can not be compensated in DCS and is caused by insufficient yaw authority which in turn leads to a roll moment. The yaw axis is called Hochachse in german. 9 highspeed testflights were conducted with W.Nr. 9228 and the old type rudder. In a second series of tests the same aircraft W.Nr 9228 was fitted with the "tall" type rudder and 14 highspeed tests were conducted. The tests done at max of Mach 0.78 showed no instability issues only for the last test at which almost Mach 0.81 was attained instability issues arose. The last test describes roll moment to the right and oscillations which both could be compensated by aileron input. The descriptions sounds to me like the test pilot encountered critical Mach speed somewhere between Mach 0.78 and 0.81. Aileron movement in the test even was restricted to 50% preventing aileron overcompensation at high speed which is assumed to have caused some accidents in the field. So in essence the rudder & aileron conrol surface authority seems to be a tad too low at high speeds, which is likely due to too low "pilot srength" or too strong control stiffening. Furthermore the instability effects/ oscillations at ~ Mach 0.8 are not modelled and may be a nice detail addition.I would appreciate if ED takes a look at this as the tests are well documented and distinct in depiction for the most part. Thank you! :thumbup: What I forgot to mention, the K4 also has a Flettner tab at the rudder which would further reduce rudder input strength. The tests shown had no rudder Flettner tab installed. Fun fact: the 109 tested was fitted with an ejection seat. Last but not least I will attach the TAS and Mach diagrams of the test, so you get the whole picture. The whole test can be found here for example: deutscheluftwaffe.com/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/Messerschmitt/Me%20109/Hochgeschwindigkeits_Versuche_Me109.pdf

I suspect some of the FM changes are based on Klaus Plasas notes, who has experience with several G models of the Flugmuseum Messerschmidt. If you are looking for credible present day information on the 109, these guys are the way to go. http://www.flugmuseum-messerschmitt.de/messerschmitt/flugzeug/me109-g10/index.html The G models are said to have virtually no buffeting, gentle stall characteristics and easy recovery. These attributes are probably mostly due to the slats allowing some aileron control and lateral stability even after most of the wing has stalled. The complete absence of buffeting seems a little weird though. In another thread a while ago someone had posted a really nice NACA study film about slats.

Another thing I noticed is the powder smoke of the guns has been increased to a somewhat excessive level. Especially if you first fire the MGs and then the cannon the particle shading is bugged. Try it out for yourself and enjoy the epilepsy! :( Sometimes I get sound stutters firing all three guns simultaneously as well.

Is the same path a viable option for view settings and cockpits? At the moment I always disable and reenable these for updates via JSGME.

From my testing I dont see you can sustain turns above 18° AoA even with MW, riding the stall in 1.5.3 was also at about 18° AoA. So I would say sustained turn rate should not have changed much but instantaneous turn rate improved quite a bit. Its hard to judge now, as I dont want to revert back to 1.5.3 just to test the turn time. Subjectively I feel the sustained rate may have improved somewhat but its hard to put in numbers. At 300 kph sustained the ac is already very unstable. I suggest optimal turn speed thus to be higher, probably upwards of 330 kph. I dont think you even can sustain 18° AoA for several turns tbh.

Well you can now go over the 18° AoA hard limit as it was before, but the speed loss is crazy. You need to be aware of your energy state. Thats pretty much what you read about the 109s: for a short amount of time you can turn tight with slats deployed and trade speed for angles, keep doing it and you are a sitting duck.

Thank you and good job snowsniper! The windshield is nice and clean! :thumbup: Now there is just one smudge an the left window (upper right) and one on the right window (lower central). :D But I am also happy as is!

First and foremost: very good update overall ED! I am really impressed and enjoy it a lot! It is now possible to control the aircraft to higher AoA then it was possible before and I love the new sounds the slats cause! I always was frustrated how the ac got a complete pos to handle when winging over. The stall buffeting and wing breakout happened quite early on, the wing breakout was hard to control and felt like a hard scripted limit. Now it seems like I would expect a slatted ac to handle, evolving loss of aileron control and a docile wing drop. The roll moment (torque, P-factor, etc) seems to have increased a bit overall, which seems reasonable for a 1850 HP monster. The pilot model looks lovely and I will be using it from now on. The sharper reticule is also a much welcomed change. Very impressed ED! Good job! There are two things left I wish ED could improve on till final release though! :thumbup: First of all, the shaking when firing the MGs. It is of the same intensity as the "pneumatic hammer" MK 108, which seems unreasonable as the moving mass of the MK 108 breech is about the same as the total mass of a MG 131! :D I really dont expect any shaking of a > 3 ton aircraft when two fuselage mounted 13 mm are being fired. Please correct me if I am wrong! Second thing being the dreaded smudges on the cockpit glass. I have been flying the 51 a lot lately and there are no annoying smudges on the cockpit glass, but instead a very slight homogenous dirt film. I personally find the dirt smudges really distracting and would rather like it similar to the 51 or even better completely removed. I think a bit of dirt close to the frame adds to immersion, but these smudges in the middle of the windshield are completely unnecessary. :smilewink:

Thanks for the dl, sadly for me this still doesnt remove all the dirt. There is a big smudge on the lower left windshield for example which really is somewhat annoying! :(

Hey IronJockel! Any plans to throw the odd B-17 or He-111 into the brawl now that Markindel and co have made it possible? That would open up the possibilities to simulate a small scale tactical air war similar to the CloD servers. Really neat stuff! :) https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/?arrFilter_pf%5Bfiletype%5D=&arrFilter_pf%5Bgameversion%5D=&arrFilter_pf%5Bfilelang%5D=&arrFilter_pf%5Baircraft%5D=&arrFilter_DATE_CREATE_1_DAYS_TO_BACK=&CREATED_BY=markindel&sort_by_order=TIMESTAMP_X_DESC&set_filter=Filter

Awesome work! Thank you very much!

I recommend reading the manual first before getting mad at ED for "effing up".. But open the rads fully before breaking the seal or your engine will be toast in your first vertical maneuver. Alternatively dial back on RPM as said earlier. "Whats this?" - good advice

Throw this file into [..DCS..]\CoreMods\WWII Units and every second shell will be a tracer. It is fully compatible with the newest build. Bf-109K-4.lua

Thanks guys! :)

Is the server online? I cant seem to find it. I am on 1.5.3.52724.74.

So acquiring and transport of materials to a refinery is not logistics? :huh: What are you saying kid?! I am out of this nonsense.

So they were pumping war demand of crude oil out of the rocks in Scottland? And that did not need to go through refinery to be enriched with aromatic hydrocarbons and scarce high octane additives? These additives that the US had problems acquiring on the world market at that time?

You mean these ones? Well these are exactly the projections I was talking about, where are the consumptions? http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C202866 http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C202861 Let me show why it is important to differentiate between projection, production and consumption. Here is a chart for 130 octane fuel, recommended target level being projection. There is also big factor which causes discrepancy in production and consumption and that is logistics. How do you get all this stuff to where its really needed. It is well known that supply lines make or break a military at war.

Thanks for lecturing me but I can google people myself. Now were does it say Alfred Cyril Lovesey is the author of the article? Looks to me like a write up of a journalist. It does say the article is based on one of his lectures in 11/45, the journal was published in 6/46. As for jap turners, I think an Extra 300 can also turn tighter than a spit. Maybe I should have said europe WWII? :D Now please dont come up with biplanes that were involved in europe. I just wanted to praise the qualities of the spit. Got that from Mike Williams site? Because he calculated the "consumed quantities" from requirements set in 5/44. I wonder what kind of maths that is. So any data to back this up? Besides, how does the 150 grade fuel consumption of NW Europe prove the use of it by the whole of ADGB in 44? Sure 2nd TAF was flying on 150 grade in 45.. I just dont believe in the numbers, because US data shows production bottlenecks.

Its all about acceleration, baby! Nothing turns tighter than a spit and with 25 psi, climbrate and acceleration are insane. With level speed all he can do is run for his life. In a dogfght you have all the advantages.

No reason. The paper was written by a journalist and is based on a lecture. There simply is no primary data or it would have been somewhere in the national archives. Irrespective the fact Id love to see a 25 boost Spit, it would be a beast!

Well lucky for us the guy who did the CloD damage model is working on it. Which means its gonna be awesome when its done! ;)

Hey thanks! But you linked the CL Eye driver which I already have btw. :P Can you please post the correct link?

I tried putting the files in the new location of vfstextures eg Mods\terrains\CaucasusBase\vfstextures\LandTextures but it doesnt work. What am I doing wrong? Please release an update for 1.5, the textures are really good looking! :)

I am currently flying the 51 a lot, its really a fun plane. Thanks for the tip, with emergency rich mixture I didnt overheat at WEP at all. Before that I always tried to open the radiators manually a bit, have you tried that as well? Btw is there any delay fuse settings for the bombs I dont know of? I lost my tail controls twice today when low level bombing..