[CLOSED]Bf-109 Trim controls

[Pilum]

Apparently this bears repeating: The current DCS Me109K4 adjustable tailplane trim range may well be correct for a certain elevator trim tab angle. So the Me109G6 Klaus Plasa flies may well mirror the Me109K4 in DCS with the trim tab set at a certain angle.

However, the point is that the Me109K4 elevator was equipped with a trim tab that allowed the trim range of the adjustable tailplane to be moved and what we are asking for is that this tab be adjusted slightly to allow the tailplane trim range to a more nose heavy range that is all. Again, a DCS pilot controlled option would be nice but a change of the elevator hinge moment coefficient mimicking a tab adjustment upwards would be OK as well. :)

[NineLine]

Apparently this bears repeating: The current DCS Me109K4 adjustable tailplane trim range may well be correct for a certain elevator trim tab angle. So the Me109G6 Klaus Plasa flies may well mirror the Me109K4 in DCS with the trim tab set at a certain angle.

However, the point is that the Me109K4 elevator was equipped with a trim tab that allowed the trim range of the adjustable tailplane to be moved and what we are asking for is that this tab be adjusted slightly to allow the tailplane trim range to a more nose heavy range that is all. Again, a DCS pilot controlled option would be nice but a change of the elevator hinge moment coefficient mimicking a tab adjustment upwards would be OK as well. :)

 

So now you got that in, you dont have to repeat it anymore, ED has already answered this, and at this time it wont be added, as ED doesnt see that it adds any value. You can trim the aircraft level under 400-450 kph without it, so they dont feel its needed.

 

Now that its been addressed AGAIN, I dont think it needs to be brought up anymore.

[Echo38]

If it were just repeating it for the sake of reminding Yo-Yo that some of us would like this feature, if implementing it is ever viable, then I agree that there's less than no point in rehashing once more. Yo-Yo knows, and he's given his answer, and it's a reasonable stance. There are bigger fish to fry, and--within the cockpit--it's pretty accurate the way it is.

 

However, I don't believe Pilum was repeating it for the sake of repetition. Rather, he posted in response to Rogue Trooper's inaccurate implication that "our side's" stance is baseless & irrational. As I stated before (link), both sides have a solid foot to stand on. Bottom line is what Sithspawn said: ED doesn't feel that the benefit of the extra "ground-crew feature" would be worth the development time, at least at present. And that's fair.

 

That isn't the same as saying that the "naysayers" have no factual basis for their request, though. Certain people on both sides of this debate need to take a chill pill [looking at Rogue Trooper]. This isn't a binary question--right vs. wrong--and I've demonstrated why, in that post.

 

In short: "The simulation is inaccurate, the trim is wrong" isn't a fair statement, but on the other hand, neither is "the simulation is complete, the trim system works entirely like the real thing." The truth is somewhere in the middle. No one, regardless of which of the two "sides" they take on this issue, should be implying that the other side has an unreasonable stance, at core; I've already explained at length how both sides have a valid point.

 

I hope that this concludes the now-pointless debate, reserving this thread for new information & discussion which consists of something better than simply repeating what's already been said several times before, within this thread and others. In any other Internet forum, I would consider that an overly-optimistic objective, but this is DCS; I expect better.

Edited July 12, 2015 by Echo38

[Yo-Yo]

If it were just repeating it for the sake of reminding Yo-Yo that some of us would like this feature, if implementing it is ever viable, then I agree that there's less than no point in rehashing once more. Yo-Yo knows, and he's given his answer, and it's a reasonable stance. There are bigger fish to fry, and--within the cockpit--it's pretty accurate the way it is.

 

However, I don't believe Pilum was repeating it for the sake of repetition. Rather, he posted in response to Rogue Trooper's inaccurate implication that "our side's" stance is baseless & irrational. As I stated before (link), both sides have a solid foot to stand on. Bottom line is what Sithspawn said: ED doesn't feel that the benefit of the extra "ground-crew feature" would be worth the development time, at least at present. And that's fair.

 

That isn't the same as saying that the "naysayers" have no factual basis for their request, though. Certain people on both sides of this debate need to take a chill pill [looking at Rogue Trooper]. This isn't a binary question--right vs. wrong--and I've demonstrated why, in that post.

 

In short: "The simulation is inaccurate, the trim is wrong" isn't a fair statement, but on the other hand, neither is "the simulation is complete, the trim system works entirely like the real thing." The truth is somewhere in the middle. No one, regardless of which of the two "sides" they take on this issue, should be implying that the other side has an unreasonable stance, at core; I've already explained at length how both sides have a valid point.

 

I hope that this concludes the now-pointless debate, reserving this thread for new information & discussion which consists of something better than simply repeating what's already been said several times before, within this thread and others. In any other Internet forum, I would consider that an overly-optimistic objective, but this is DCS; I expect better.

 

This "fixed trm tab feature" was implemented as a DEVELOPERS tool. And the way it works (you can write to this trim tab the value even for full control surface deflection) is the way only for people who knows what is fixed trim tab authority. If you take a look at this tabs comparing to full functional trimmer tabs, you can see that they have much less length along the stab chord and the much less length along the span (much, less area). So, as it was written above these tabs are not for RETRIMMING the airplane in the way a pilot wants, but only to compensate any manufacturing deviation form the standard.

If you take a look at the rudder trim tab, for example, you can see that this tab is nothing in comparison on non-symmetric airfoil.

If the 109 had lack of nose-heavy trimming Germans would easily increase stab travel limits - but we see that this limit was DECREASED with the G-K evolution, though the plane became more tail-heavy due to MW-50 tank.

 

If somebody is trying to say that red 7 are flying with 400-450 kph trim limit is a particulary case... the German 109G tested in the USSR is a particulary case... the German tests is a particulary case.... it looks weird now, doesn't it? Only somebody's opinion that it must be as he believes it must be is right....

 

And yes, if any new even concrete solid argument has no effect , I think the discussion is pointless now.

There are always some people who always know better.

Edited July 12, 2015 by Yo-Yo

[Wolf Rider]

 

I never got this thread.

you got a true "twitchy" turning fighter that you can't trim for Yaw and you can't trim for roll and you could only trim for cruise but not for combat speed. It was what I expected for a late war machine.

 

~

 

 

Given the fact that I'm not a WWII fighter pilot, as many of us here are not either... it would seem that Cruise" and "Combat" are two different worlds... very draining it would be for a pilot to have work at the stick to maintain level flight in a cruise situation, but trimming getting in the way of acm combat

 

Trim came about, eventually, to reduce the pilots' workload whilst cruising (in getting to the combat arena, the pilot wants to conserve his own personal energy as much as possible - so that when the whatsit hits the Westinghouse, the pilot wants to be in as fresh a condition as possible to avail his/ her skills to tackle the adversaries' ACM skills)- having to hold the stick and rudder in a certain position to maintain level cruise flight and relieving the pilots' workload in achieving that... meanwhile, when in combat, the pilot is working that stick, driving those pedals and riding that throttle

Edited July 12, 2015 by Wolf Rider

[Echo38]

If you take a look at this tabs comparing to full functional trimmer tabs, you can see that they have much less length along the stab chord and the much less length along the span (much, less area). So, as it was written above these tabs are not for RETRIMMING the airplane in the way a pilot wants, but only to compensate any manufacturing deviation form the standard.

If you take a look at the rudder trim tab, for example, you can see that this tab is nothing in comparison on non-symmetric airfoil.

If the 109 had lack of nose-heavy trimming Germans would easily increase stab travel limits - but we see that this limit was DECREASED with the G-K evolution, though the plane became more tail-heavy due to MW-50 tank.

 

Understood; esoteric aircraft modifications are generally outside of the scope of a warbird sim, anyway. My point on "completion" was that, in theory, one could reasonably say that a complete simulation of the aircraft would allow the user to make such modifications (along with others, e.g. fuel grade & governor limits, and gun convergence/harmonization pattern) in the virtual hangar.

 

But, then, too, one could also say that this goes beyond a pilot's simulation of the aircraft itself, being rather a simulation of a ground crew & such, in which case the simulation can be considered complete without such modification features. (Especially if such modifications--at the behest of the pilot--were uncommon or unheard of, as it seems to have been in this case.) So, in the end, I'm "on your side," as well as on the side that'd like in-hangar control over such things. As odd as that might seem, I don't think it's self-contradictory for me to recognize "both sides" as having at least some validity. : )

 

At any rate, I agree with you, that implementing such a "hangar work" trim limit-adjustment feature, in the forseeable future, would be largely a waste of resources (such as your time), which should be (and are being) spent on more important & relevant things. I'm guessing that you have your hands quite full with many, many things which are more valuable to us sim-users, than being able to modify Me 109 trim-limits for the purpose of making up for deficiencies in our gaming joysticks.

 

But, I do have a hope that, perhaps years from now, when there is less to do in the field of flight simulators (because more of it has been done), then such a "virtual hangar & ground crew" feature might be created. Not that I'm saying it should be on the visible priority list. Like I said, I understand that it'd be a lot of work, it isn't particularly relevant to the present scope of DCS, and you're working on many more important things. But one can dream. In the meantime: one can thoroughly enjoy an accurate simulation of a given factory-fresh Me 109K, from the pilot's perspective, without possessing the ability to tweak trim tabs in the hangar. Perspective, folks ...

Edited July 12, 2015 by Echo38

[Pilum]

If it were just repeating it for the sake of reminding Yo-Yo that some of us would like this feature, if implementing it is ever viable, then I agree that there's less than no point in rehashing once more. Yo-Yo knows, and he's given his answer, and it's a reasonable stance. There are bigger fish to fry, and--within the cockpit--it's pretty accurate the way it is.

 

However, I don't believe Pilum was repeating it for the sake of repetition. Rather, he posted in response to Rogue Trooper's inaccurate implication that "our side's" stance is baseless & irrational. As I stated before (link), both sides have a solid foot to stand on. Bottom line is what Sithspawn said: ED doesn't feel that the benefit of the extra "ground-crew feature" would be worth the development time, at least at present. And that's fair.

 

That isn't the same as saying that the "naysayers" have no factual basis for their request, though. Certain people on both sides of this debate need to take a chill pill [looking at Rogue Trooper]. This isn't a binary question--right vs. wrong--and I've demonstrated why, in that post.

 

In short: "The simulation is inaccurate, the trim is wrong" isn't a fair statement, but on the other hand, neither is "the simulation is complete, the trim system works entirely like the real thing." The truth is somewhere in the middle. No one, regardless of which of the two "sides" they take on this issue, should be implying that the other side has an unreasonable stance, at core; I've already explained at length how both sides have a valid point.

 

I hope that this concludes the now-pointless debate, reserving this thread for new information & discussion which consists of something better than simply repeating what's already been said several times before, within this thread and others. In any other Internet forum, I would consider that an overly-optimistic objective, but this is DCS; I expect better.

 

This "fixed trm tab feature" was implemented as a DEVELOPERS tool. And the way it works (you can write to this trim tab the value even for full control surface deflection) is the way only for people who knows what is fixed trim tab authority. If you take a look at this tabs comparing to full functional trimmer tabs, you can see that they have much less length along the stab chord and the much less length along the span (much, less area). So, as it was written above these tabs are not for RETRIMMING the airplane in the way a pilot wants, but only to compensate any manufacturing deviation form the standard.

If you take a look at the rudder trim tab, for example, you can see that this tab is nothing in comparison on non-symmetric airfoil.

If the 109 had lack of nose-heavy trimming Germans would easily increase stab travel limits - but we see that this limit was DECREASED with the G-K evolution, though the plane became more tail-heavy due to MW-50 tank.

 

If somebody is trying to say that red 7 are flying with 400-450 kph trim limit is a particulary case... the German 109G tested in the USSR is a particulary case... the German tests is a particulary case.... it looks weird now, doesn't it? Only somebody's opinion that it must be as he believes it must be is right....

 

And yes, if any new even concrete solid argument has no effect , I think the discussion is pointless now.

There are always some people who always know better.

You know what Yo-Yo? I think Echo38’s post above was dead on and a good summary of where things stand and would have been a good point to end the debate.

 

However, now you introduce new unfounded claims that ” If you take a look at this tabs comparing to full functional trimmer tabs, you can see that they have much less length along the stab chord and the much less length along the span (much, less area). So, as it was written above these tabs are not for RETRIMMING the airplane in the way a pilot wants, but only to compensate any manufacturing deviation form the standard.”

 

Based on what evidence? How can you ”see” this? I don’t agree and here the argument is being rehashed again and not by me and then topped off with the Parthian arrow ”There are always some people who always know better”. Well, I agree to this only it seems applicable to more than one person in the debate. So I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Narushima]

If anyone has problems holding the joystick forward all the time then you can configure your stick to act like the aircraft is trimmed nose heavy.

 

Like this:

 

The lower the middle value, the more forward yaw input will be given to the aircraft.

[NineLine]

Consider Yo-Yo our ground crew, and he has set all trim tabs to the optimum settings. ;)

 

The 'hangar work' would be cool if our aircraft were dynamic and we kept the same one after ever flight, but beyond the desire to have extra stuff to tinker with, most of it wont be very useful I dont think, not in a sim where the goal is to get up and shoot others down, or drop some bombs, then sign off after you are done.

 

In this case, the tabs might make sense, maybe if your aircraft was dynamic, you would have a random factor flying a new airframe, and you have to set the trim tabs to dial in the new aircraft, but this is all just pie in the sky stuff as ED isnt going in any sort of dynamic aircraft direction.

 

I would rather see more effort on more weapons/load outs, new variants of the aircraft, etc...

 

Understood; esoteric aircraft modifications are generally outside of the scope of a warbird sim, anyway. My point on "completion" was that, in theory, one could reasonably say that a complete simulation of the aircraft would allow the user to make such modifications (along with others, e.g. fuel grade & governor limits, and gun convergence/harmonization pattern) in the virtual hangar.

 

But, then, too, one could also say that this goes beyond a pilot's simulation of the aircraft itself, being rather a simulation of a ground crew & such, in which case the simulation can be considered complete without such modification features. (Especially if such modifications--at the behest of the pilot--were uncommon or unheard of, as it seems to have been in this case.) So, in the end, I'm "on your side," as well as on the side that'd like in-hangar control over such things. As odd as that might seem, I don't think it's self-contradictory for me to recognize "both sides" as having at least some validity. : )

 

At any rate, I agree with you, that implementing such a "hangar work" trim limit-adjustment feature, in the forseeable future, would be largely a waste of resources (such as your time), which should be (and are being) spent on more important & relevant things. I'm guessing that you have your hands quite full with many, many things which are more valuable to us sim-users, than being able to modify Me 109 trim-limits for the purpose of making up for deficiencies in our gaming joysticks.

 

But, I do have a hope that, perhaps years from now, when there is less to do in the field of flight simulators (because more of it has been done), then such a "virtual hangar & ground crew" feature might be created. Not that I'm saying it should be on the visible priority list. Like I said, I understand that it'd be a lot of work, it isn't particularly relevant to the present scope of DCS, and you're working on many more important things. But one can dream. In the meantime: one can thoroughly enjoy an accurate simulation of a given factory-fresh Me 109K, from the pilot's perspective, without possessing the ability to tweak trim tabs in the hangar. Perspective, folks ...

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

- Intentionally left blank -

Edited August 17, 2015 by jcomm

[NineLine]

Actually, for me DCS is a high fidelity flight simulator. I use it just for the pleasure of being able to profit from the flight dynamics and systems modeling.

 

I would rather have more detail, just as was after all available in the Fw190 and I we were/are able to fine-tune it's aileron tabs for cruise ...

 

I know you keep bringing up the 190, but Yo-Yo has stated that was used to fine tune on his end, that it was never really meant to be a user feature, I personally have never ever touched those as I dont see the need to. If it was removed down the road, I wouldnt miss it. I highly doubt I will get beaten in a dog fight because some one tweaked their trim tabs. Much of the info we have seen on these tabs point to them being adjusted when the airframe came into service, and not a pilot play thing.

 

OTOH, I really don't think that adjusting the elevator ground adjustable tab would be the only way to solve that pitching-up tendency... It would introduce a deflection of the elevator that wouldn't be "synchronized" with the stabilizer, and that would mean unnecessary additional drag, I believe. IMO the trim settings should be sufficient to overcome the pitching up tendency. Also, it doesn't occur only above cruise speed ( 400-450 km / h ) but rather at any speed bellow it, unless you're using flaps, gear is down, or low speeds.

 

I wonder what the end result will be when the power is fie tuned ( WIP I know... ).

 

I will say again, I don't have issues trimming my 109 under 400-450. So if you have this issue, you need to look at other possible causes. Many times, when I am jumping into an instant actin mission I wont even trim, its just not that important unless you have an itch only your right hand can scratch.

 

With my testing duties, in order to report something I have to replicate it, if I cant replicate it, you have to go back to the person and ask them to look at other factors. This is the case here, I cant replicate the issue of not being able to trim the aircraft level under 400-450 kph. Its not reportable. As well, the trim tabs are not reportable, because the plane functions fine without them, it becomes a useless feature then (whether some dont agree).

[Supongo]

Frankly, it was my typo about G6 (it even could be G7 or G8-1 because of really hot days here), but it does not change things - it is not necessary and even dangerous having the aircraft trimmed at higher speed. I mean pitch trim, of course. So, i discussed taxiing, takeoff - it's correspond with the model and Erich Brunotte memoirs.

So, any speculations on the trim are useless, gentlemen... :)

 

YOYO please, can you explain to us what is saying this German training manual of Bf-109G?

I think understand , TRIM to ZERO for takeoff and 20 degrees flaps deployed.

YOYO where is the nose-down pitch moment with flaps deployed in DCS?

Edited July 13, 2015 by Supongo

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

- Intentionally left blank -

Edited August 17, 2015 by jcomm

[Yo-Yo]

YOYO please, can you explain to us what is saying this German training manual of Bf-109G?

I think understand , TRIM to ZERO for takeoff and 20 degrees flaps deployed.

YOYO where is the nose-down pitch moment with flaps deployed in DCS?

 

What do you want to be explained? Zero trim? What do you expect from this magic zero? Automatic takeoff?

And yes, the nose-down effect is exactly where it should be. If you know how to find it.

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

- Intentionally left blank -

Edited August 17, 2015 by jcomm

[Echo38]

Anyway, after this rather ingenious suggestion, by Narushima, that I tested and works JUST PERFECT!

 

Not to pick a nit, but it does have the unavoidable side-effect of reducing pitch-control precision in a certain range of the pitch axis. So, technically, not perfect ... but I think those with un-modded Warthogs won't mind. : )

[Solty]

Not to pick a nit, but it does have the unavoidable side-effect of reducing pitch-control precision in a certain range of the pitch axis. So, technically, not perfect ... but I think those with un-modded Warthogs won't mind. : )

I would guess that most of us have sticks that are even shorter than the 109 stick which was already described as "short" by Gunther Rall. It was way shorter than anything US airplanes had. So that calibration might actually work.

To put things into prespective :

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It seems we are on the shorter end of the stick (wink wink, nudge nudge. HINT HINT! :P)

[Paradox]

I've certainly got the wrong end of the stick

[Echo38]

I would guess that most of us have sticks that are even shorter than the 109 stick which was already described as "short" by Gunther Rall. It was way shorter than anything US airplanes had. So that calibration might actually work.

 

Far from solving the decreased-precision problem I mentioned, the short-stick problem compounds it.

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

- Intentionally left blank -

Edited August 17, 2015 by jcomm

[Echo38]

Right; I didn't mean to overstate it in my last post. In the post before that, I pointed out that those who are having joystick problems specific to the 109 will probably find the (small) reduction in pitch precision worth the benefit gained from no longer having to hold the stick forward constantly at high speeds / power-settings.

 

What I meant by my previous post was merely that those with a short-throw joystick will be affected more by this pitch-precision reduction than those with a full-size (chair/floor-mounted) stick. Not that it'll be a deal-breaker for those with un-modded Warthogs; due to the spring force, I expect that it'd be overall much easier with this pitch-forward curve, even though it does mean some loss elsewhere.

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

- Intentionally left blank -

Edited August 17, 2015 by jcomm

[Echo38]

As best as I can tell without having actually tried it, the Warthog still isn't going to feel much like a real aircraft stick; the point is rather about having high precision & durability (both micro and macro) compared to the average controller. Not trying to talk you out of getting it--it still seems to be the best spring-centered stick, other than custom jobs--but just be aware that if you're expecting a stick that feels like a real aircraft stick, you're likely to be disappointed, even with a length mod. Springs just can't replicate the feel of airflow, balanced mass, & cables.

 

It's a shame there isn't a force-feedback stick of this quality level, without paying into the four digits. Which, by the way, is pretty relevant to the original complaint, given that this is the ultimate cause of it: most of us have spring-centered short sticks, and few or none of us have full-size force-feedback sticks of sufficient quality to accurately mimic the real-life behavior & feel. : /

Edited July 18, 2015 by Echo38

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

- Intentionally left blank -

Edited August 17, 2015 by jcomm

[Wolf Rider]

is the JoyRange.cfg file in the Config Folder still applicable? does this adjust the "throw range" of the stick?

 

it contains 1 (only) entry:

 

JoyRange = 400