[CLOSED]Bf-109 Trim controls

[gavagai]

Oh, well good to know.

 

I find that our 109 flies hands off at about 405km/h IAS, with pitch trim at about +1.5, ata around 0.9.

 

At the cruise speeds recommended, ~300km/h, I need constant right rudder pressure and a little bit of aileron, too.

[Yo-Yo]

Oh, well good to know.

 

I find that our 109 flies hands off at about 405km/h IAS, with pitch trim at about +1.5, ata around 0.9.

 

At the cruise speeds recommended, ~300km/h, I need constant right rudder pressure and a little bit of aileron, too.

 

I have the diamond and the rudder tick centered... possibly depends on throttle setting. But at LOWER speed and power setting it tends to be slightly right... I think it was 1.05 or 1.15 ata to adjust it at.

 

I can contradict myself... :) possibly the side trim was adjusted for higher speed.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Yo-Yo

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

Ok Yo-Yo,

 

I'll test the Bf109 k4 again, which means... I will re-install DCS World instead of continuing waiting for EDGE to be released.

 

But please promise you'll address the control forces also for the rudder. As it is right now, with control getting less effective with Q only in pitch and roll, it feels weird ...

 

And... just one more thing - As "gavagai" already asked, why are the adjustable aileron, rudder and elevator trim tabs "blocked" in the 109, but still editable and effective in the Fw190 ?

Edited June 23, 2015 by jcomm

[IIIJG52_Otto_]

Though both available graphs from very different sources recorded for different CoG and stabiliser setting, there is a simple way to check how these data match.

First of all, both graphs have the area near 400-450 kph where differencies in Mach number are negligable at German graph (Gr). So, 400 kph will be a good point to start at because in the Russian (Ru) graph the difference due to different CoG can be measured at the graph.

 

Then, please track my hands:

at (Ru) 400 kph 3% of CoG gives about 0.2-0.3 degrees of elevator deflection required to compensate (see the curves (Ru) for different CoG and the same stab position).

The curve for stab angle = 0 and CoG = 23.7 gives about 3.5 degrees (plus - to push!) for 400 kph. So, shifting forward for 2.5% of CoG to 21.2% (Gr) will give about 3.7-3.8 degrees of elevator.

Then set the stab to +0.75 degree. As the (Ru) graph shows, 1.5 degrees of stab gives approx. 2 degrees of opposite elevator to maintain the same trim. So, if the stab angle is changed from 0 to +0.75 (Gr) the required elevator angle REGARDING ONLY (Ru) wll be 3.7...3.8 - 1 = 2.7-2.8 degrees. (Gr) graph shows 2.2 degrees.

Regarding the fact that measurements had their own errors (see the curves plotted out of experimental points to have good spline) these engineering calculations allows to say that both reports show the same trim for the 109G.

 

Then, please track my hands::smilewink:

2.2 degrees (Gr) x 27.3% = 0.6 degrees +2.2=2.8 degrees (Ru)

Are you saying that you assume an error of 27% in the elevator control travel when the tolerance for this item of the BF-109K4 Manual was only 10%??:cry:..and when the tolerance to the ZERO set, in the horizontal stabilizer is ZERO (0%) in the Bf-109K4 manual?? :doh:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2416774&postcount=199

please, If I'm wrong, correct me

Edited June 23, 2015 by III/JG52_Otto_+

[NineLine]

 

No, i think we need a miracle for we got a good modeled bf-109K4 :D

 

If you cant participate in this discussion without being rude, I suggest you stop. This comment is not helpful at all.

[IIIJG52_Otto_]

If you cant participate in this discussion without being rude, I suggest you stop. This comment is not helpful at all.

 

I'm sorry, ..joke edited &deleted. Please, let's go to re-center in resolve the elevator trim problem.

[NineLine]

I'm sorry, ..joke edited &deleted. Please, let's go to re-center in resolve the elevator trim problem.

 

There is no problem, nothing has been shown to prove otherwise so far.

[gavagai]

Apparently, the MSFFB2 *does* recenter for some people when they trim the 109K-4. I tried the axis-swap option, and there was no change.:helpsmilie:

 

I do not have any change of force when I trim the 190, either.

[Supongo]

Can you tell me why a graph comparing (supposedly a G2) with a graphic of a fuselage F4 with wings G?

Where is the graph of K4?

 

Regards

 

Supongo

[gavagai]

Why it should?

 

Yo-yo,

 

Another msffb2 user says that his stick does change center position when he trims the 109, similar to the P-51.

 

For me the stick recenters with every DCS module I've tried except for the 109 and 190. I think there is a problem here.:joystick:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=144552

Edited June 23, 2015 by gavagai

[Yo-Yo]

Yo-yo,

 

Another msffb2 user says that his stick does change center position when he trims the 109, similar to the P-51.

 

For me the stick recenters with every single DCS module except for the 109 and 190. I think there is a problem here.:joystick:

 

There must be very slight changes for D9 and possibly for K4 because of kinematic linkage and downwash changes. But they are very minor in comparison with true trimmers.

 

If somebody's MSFF2 behaves different, I have no idea. I have MSFF2 and the FM programmer himself. We use this type of FFB device as a feference (regarding this axes swap trick).

Edited June 23, 2015 by Yo-Yo

[gavagai]

Thank you for your replies, yo-yo. Again, what about the below?

 

And... just one more thing - As "gavagai" already asked, why are the adjustable aileron, rudder and elevator trim tabs "blocked" in the 109, but still editable and effective in the Fw190 ?

[DB 605]

There is no problem, nothing has been shown to prove otherwise so far.

 

Except some pilot notes/comments but i understand that those can't take as a proof.

[gavagai]

DB 605, proving a negative is a futile exercise. Be thankful that the burden of proof is almost never on you to prove someone else wrong.:music_whistling:

 

That said, yo-yo has made a good case for the 109's pitch behavior, but nothing is ever proven. If we were only allowed to adjust the trim tabs like we can do for the 190 this thread would sink into obscurity.:yes:

[Solty]

DB 605, proving a negative is a futile exercise. Be thankful that the burden of proof is almost never on you to prove someone else wrong.:music_whistling:

 

That said, yo-yo has made a good case for the 109's pitch behavior, but nothing is ever proven. If we were only allowed to adjust the trim tabs like we can do for the 190 this thread would sink into obscurity.:yes:

Does this manual change work in multiplayer?

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

It worked for the Fw190 D9 :-) at least on the last version of DCS World I had installed some 2 months ago...

 

But something very specific to the Bf109 K4 flight dynamics model must have prevented them from making it available for modding....

Edited June 24, 2015 by jcomm

[Siegfried]

Maybe config file is blocked because this module is Beta and they need it is a fixed value. That way all data of people's reports are about the same model and more homogeneous.

 

If were changeable, every people had his own value and the data collected would be a mess... In this case is fixed and we can see how threads like this was created.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

I think it's blocked right now, it doesn't means it will for ever. May be next version have it, hope so.

 

S!

[NineLine]

Honestly dont count on the trim tabs being accessible for the 109. For the 190 it was added for FM tuning, Yo-Yo shared it for people to play with. It very well could be disabled in the future again because as with the 109, the trim tabs were used for initial flights, not for pilot tweaking every flight.

[Echo38]

Objectively, it doesn't make sense for something which was able to be adjusted between flights (in reality) to be actively disabled from being adjustable between flights (in the sim).

 

I can understand if Yo-Yo didn't feel that the ability to adjust between flights was worth modelling (even if I disagree), because that was the ground crew's job, rather than the pilot's, and because many pilots surely never bothered with having it adjusted. However, while taking the time (& other resources) to model it might thus be fairly considered unnecessary, if it's already modelled, it truly doesn't make sense to disable it. If pilots could & did ask their crews to set it IRL, then--ideally--it should be so in the sim.

 

Suggesting that it should be disabled in the future, because it wasn't meant for pilots to be tweaking it between flights, is like suggesting that we shouldn't be able to choose a fuel load of 15% capacity, because the pilots weren't meant to be taking off with such a low fuel load. It's a high-fidelity simulator; it's not a simulator's job to artificially dictate user behavior, to force them to conform to real-life recommended operating procedures. The simulator's job is to simulate the tools as they are in reality, and let the users decide what to do with those tools within the simulation (and let them see what happens when they use the simulated tools in a manner contrary to the recommended operating procedures--e.g. engine failure due to fuel starvation, or being wildly out of trim because of unwise adjustments in the hangar).

 

Sithspawn, I agree that some of the { proponents of being able to adjust this between flights } aren't being reasonable in their demands. In particular, the accusation that the aircraft is "incorrect," because the pilot is unable to ask the ground crew to adjust the trim ... if this logic were applied elsewhere, then all of the aircraft would be incorrect, because we aren't able to adjust other things that the real ground crews could adjust, such as the engine governors--and that argument is, of course, silly. I would never say that the sim is "incorrect," merely because it does not simulate the ability of the ground crew to tweak & modify everything which could be altered in reality; at most, one could call it "incomplete" in this regard. I myself would simply say, "Some features of ground-crew operation are outside the scope of the simulation, which is primarily meant to realistically simulate the experience of the pilot's operation of the aircraft presented to him, rather than that of a pilot in full command of a ground crew." Would I prefer the sim to include more historical ground-crew options? Sure, all else equal, of course! But, I like to think I'm understanding of the difficulty of the development process.

 

So, Sithspawn, I think we are largely in agreement on the core point--it isn't fair for them to call the sim "wrong" here. However, while I understand that it must be frustrating for Yo-Yo and yourself to see people accusing the sim of being "wrong," when you have a very reasonable basis for saying that it isn't, I urge you not to take the opposite extreme viewpoint from theirs, out of reflex. This is a grey area, and I see validity on both sides. In an ideal world, our sim would feature a ground crew that could do anything a real ground crew could do, and it would be up to the mission maker to decide what were and were not allowed in a given mission. However, that's an impossible ideal, of course, and we the simmers must understand that not everything is able to be built at once, and so different things must be prioritized differently. And we won't always agree on priorities.

 

TL;DR? On one hand, Yo-Yo's right--it isn't actually an error, 'coz the adjustment function can reasonably be said to fall outside the scope of the sim, which is focused on the pilot's operation of the aircraft rather than the ground crew's. On the other hand, those stating it'd be a more complete & realistic simulation of the 109 if the trim tabs could be adjusted in the hangar, have a valid point, too. Both sides really ought to acknowledge that the other side has a reasonable stance, at core, and in the end, what it comes down to, is what Eagle Dynamics has time & manpower to add.

 

So, Yo-Yo, I certainly don't call it an "error" to not be able to adjust them, but--if you should ever find the time to make all of the German trim-tabs adjustable in the hangar, if they were in reality, then I'm hoping for this. : )

Edited June 25, 2015 by Echo38

[NineLine]

Objectively, it doesn't make sense for something which was able to be adjusted between flights (in reality) to be actively prevented from being adjustable between flights (in the sim).

 

I can understand it if Yo-Yo didn't feel that it was worth modelling (even if I disagree), because it was something that the ground crew did and not the pilot, and many pilots surely never bothered with having it adjusted. However, while taking the time (& other resources) to model it might be fairly regarded as unnecessary, if it's already modelled (e.g. in the FW 190D), it truly doesn't make sense to disable it.

 

I dont know that they will... I just know that its not considered valuable or needed for this simulation. You have to ask yourself when it might have been adjusted during service, most likely after some for of damage or change to the airframe... not by pilot mood for the day :)

 

At the very most, it would stay a code change, probably wont end up in the interface ever. And as I said, doubtful for the 109 at this point.

[Echo38]

You have to ask yourself when it might have been adjusted during service, most likely after some for of damage or change to the airframe... not by pilot mood for the day

 

In fairness, the people I've seen wanting to adjust it in the sim don't seem to intend to do casually from flight to flight, but are just trying to set it once to fly more hands-off at their normal power settings. In the other thread, there's even someone who has the problem of holding the Thrustmaster Warthog against the spring being painful for his hands. With my own hand issues (and these old injuries are the only reason I don't own the 109K module, by the way), I understand that very much!

 

And as I said, doubtful for the 109 at this point.

 

Why? Is there a reason why it being hangar-adjustable (when it's out of beta, at least) would cause problems? Or is the problem that it'd be a lot of work to make it hangar-adjustable? I thought it was already adjustable, and it was just "locked," which sounds like a relatively easy change. Am I misunderstanding something? I don't recall seeing anything concrete about this.

Edited June 25, 2015 by Echo38

[NineLine]

There are also other fixes for things like the Warthog, like extensions. I understand that some people don't find the 109 comfortable to fly in some cases, but its arguable whether or not the trim tabs would do much to help, as I have said over and over, I can trim the 109 level in cruise. If you are trying to trim the 109 for max speed, I am not sure what you are doing.

 

Personally I would much rather development time would go to other things for the WWII stuff... this just doesnt seem that important based on how much benefit it would bring.

[gavagai]

Personally I would much rather development time would go to other things for the WWII stuff... this just doesnt seem that important based on how much benefit it would bring.

 

What development time? It is just a file that has to be unlocked for user adjustment.

 

Echo has explained everything very well, so I will leave it at that.

[NineLine]

What development time? It is just a file that has to be unlocked for user adjustment.

 

Echo has explained everything very well, so I will leave it at that.

 

Not on the 109.

 

And I meant to develop it properly, not to be a lua file edit.