stick forces-please make them optional

[Flagrum]

Fixed means fixed by the pilots foot as he puts in the amount of rudder required to keep it trimmed.

Uhm, I know nothing about the matter at hand, but "fixed" is, well, fixed - as in the opposite of "varying".

 

In this case, an amount of input that stays the same and does not vary over time.

 

How could it mean something different?

[Yo-Yo]

TAS or IAS? I think D.S. meant IAS.

 

Peak roll rate should be at in the speed range of 500-620 km/h TAS, a little above 80 deg/sec - or roughly 450 km /h IAS. Perhaps very, very slightly greater because this is for the roll of the 109F, and if not else the G/K wings were stiffer and there should be less loss due to wing elasticity.

 

Also try 3000 m meter altitude for testing, because this is where the figures are for (as are the NACA 868 aggregate of various roll tests). Rolling rate slowly decreases with altitude and vica versa. At 10 000 meter the difference is quite noticeable.

 

Roll rate increases with the altitude for the same IAS.

[DB 605]

Roll rate increases with the altitude for the same IAS.

 

Yes, i just re-did same tests at 3000m, 400 and 450km/h IAS. Results were around 5 sec, without using rudder at all (to compare my previous test). I guess it's very close to real one, finnish test for G2 says 4-5 seconds. :thumbup:

 

Anyway, after couple hours of flying, stick forces doesen't feel excessive at all anymore. I just needed to get used to them.

 

Flying the K4 is now better than ever.

Edited March 2, 2015 by DB 605

[Schnarre Aggro]

i just made some rolls and stopped the time for various speeds .... no rudderinput(close to zero)

I know that its not "exact" but i dont think that i have a margin of error in my measurements of more than 5-10%.

 

so ... i basically just want to know if this comes close to the real values... cause i dont have proper documents ...ill act more like a MP testpilot ;)

 

left rolls

500kph - 6,9sec - 51degree/sec

600kph - 9,2sec - 39degree/sec

640kph - 11,7sec - 30degree/sec

650kph - 11,2sec - 32degrees/sec

 

right roll

630kph - 9sec - 40degree/sec

 

 

and please remember ... this is not a perfectly structurized test...i dont complain about 2-5Degrees per sec... but i read sth of 80deg/sec and just want to know if either I or the other guy forgot something... some detail ?

 

P.S. no curvature in axissettings

[Kurfürst]

Roll rate increases with the altitude for the same IAS.

 

Doh! :doh: Thats what I wanted to write, but evidently I have utterly failed at it... thanks for spotting and correcting! :thumbup:

[Merlin-27]

Fixed means fixed by the pilots foot as he puts in the amount of rudder required to keep it trimmed.

 

I agree with you.

From my interpretation of the wording used... seems to suggest the rudder deflection is maintained after trimmed flight is achieved as to specifically measure the effect of the aileron roll. Having the rudder fixed straight as with gust locks would produce sub-par results and pilot assisted varying rudder input during the roll would produce inconsistencies in repeated tests from different pilots. Just my .02

[effte]

Fixed means fixed by the pilots foot as he puts in the amount of rudder required to keep it trimmed.

No. Just no.

 

Google stick fixed. Fixed is constant deflection.

[Yo-Yo]

No. Just no.

 

Google stick fixed. Fixed is constant deflection.

 

Yes, you are right, and it is alpha and omega of aileron roll measurements.

[GrapeJam]

TAS or IAS? I think D.S. meant IAS.

 

Peak roll rate should be at in the speed range of 500-620 km/h TAS, a little above 80 deg/sec - or roughly 450 km /h IAS. Perhaps very, very slightly greater because this is for the roll of the 109F, and if not else the G/K wings were stiffer and there should be less loss due to wing elasticity.

 

Also try 3000 m meter altitude for testing, because this is where the figures are for (as are the NACA 868 aggregate of various roll tests). Rolling rate slowly decreases with altitude and vica versa. At 10 000 meter the difference is quite noticeable.

So you're saying that the 109 should almost have the same roll rate as the 190 at 500-620km/h?

 

Ok.

 

I personally don't think 3000 meters altitude would make a significant difference.

 

If you don't mind I'd like to see your source, preferably more than once.

[Kwiatek]

I got such RL roll rate comparison :

 

Edited March 2, 2015 by Kwiatek

[Kurfürst]

So you're saying that the 109 should almost have the same roll rate as the 190 at 500-620km/h?

 

Nope. At 500-620km/h TAS the 109F-2 rolls about 80-90 deg/sec, at 3 km altitude.

 

No comparison was made with the 190, which should roll about twice as good than that at these speeds.

 

Its not a source issue, its a read-what-was-posted-as-it-was-posted issue.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Kurfürst

[Solty]

Nope. At 500-620km/h TAS the 109F-2 rolls about 80-90 deg/sec, at 3 km altitude.

 

No comparison was made with the 190, which should roll about twice as good than that at these speeds.

 

Its not a source issue, its a read-what-was-posted-as-it-was-posted issue.

If there is no source... no hard data, no way to prove it. It could very well be your own imagination

[Kurfürst]

Elaborate.

[NineLine]

Guys lets not stray too far off the topic, the discussion was on the implementation of stick forces on the 109.

 

A couple points, this is all still a WIP and Yo-Yo has stated that it wont change, the implementation that is (which I can for the life of me imagine a reason why it would anyways)

Edited March 2, 2015 by NineLine

[Kwiatek]

From chart i posted above it looks that at 260 mph IAS at 10 000 ft Fw 190 A rolls near 2 times faster then 109 G.

[GrapeJam]

Elaborate.

That we're not supposed to just take your words for it?

[Solty]

From chart i posted above it looks that at 260 mph IAS at 10 000 ft Fw 190 A rolls near 2 times faster then 109 G.

That is one of many reasons why even during WW2 the Fw190A was percieved as the better fighter aircraft, even though the 109G was faster at higher altitudes. Yes 109 can turn tighter in sustained turns and is faster at certain altitudes, but the control and maneuvrablity at all speeds is inferior to the Fw190

 

Sith, I can't understand why people are so against it and can't just understand that 109 is not a master in every field and that it has its own shortcommings too.

 

I am glad that YoYo went this way.:pilotfly:

[Kwiatek]

It is just broken child's toy effect :P

[Kurfürst]

From the test results several members have kindly provided, it doesn't seem to be 'broken', in fact the results are quite close to RL data.. the problem as so often is that the RL data is taken at the raw, face value, without considering the flight regimes it appies to, whereas actually it has very precise conditions at which they are valid.

 

I.e. to replicate the RL data in the sim, you have to fly the exact same parameters the data is for - same altitude, same TAS (some of the confusion is actually due to the IAS / TAS getting mixed up) and no rudder assistance.

[5tuka]

I was suprised the 109 didn't feature any stick forces back when I bought it.

 

After the patch announcement I briefly tested it and I have not been suprised any how. It just feels better and more according to anecdotal data.

 

It also emphasizes the great effect of the adjustable stabilizer. Pilots were instructed to make small stabilizer adjustments in order to be able pull out of dives.

 

The effeciency of the stabilizer was great enought to rip the whole airframe apart if one applied to much of it at high speed which is what I observed in DCS as well.

 

Overall I'm satisfied with the reuslts and take it for what it is.

[DB 605]

 

Sith, I can't understand why people are so against it and can't just understand that 109 is not a master in every field and that it has its own shortcommings too.

 

I am glad that YoYo went this way.:pilotfly:

 

If you re-read this thread carefully you may note that majority of people is not against it - it's other way round actually. I'm personally very glad it's done like it's done, we just want to make sure it's close as possible to reality.

 

Everyone who knows a bit aviation history knows 109 has it shortcomings, it's probably better known by it's faults than good points.

[Crumpp]

No. Just no.

 

Google stick fixed. Fixed is constant deflection.

 

Yes...just YES!!

 

You and Yo-Yo are correct from the point of view of the calculator.

 

I am correct from the point of view of the test pilot. Yo-Yo should have access to trained test pilots at The Fighter Collection to confirm.

 

 

That was the real breakthrough at the NACA, developing the instrumentation and methods to measure the stick forces, hinge moments, and control deflections in flight needed to advance stability and control engineering as a science.

[SlipBall]

that makes sense

[Crumpp]

I.e. to replicate the RL data in the sim, you have to fly the exact same parameters the data is for - same altitude, same TAS (some of the confusion is actually due to the IAS / TAS getting mixed up) and no rudder assistance.

 

That should be "and coordinated rudder".

 

:smilewink:

[Crumpp]

that makes sense

 

Yep!

 

Rudder "fixed" at the trim point simply means the pilot keeps the roll coordinated with his foot.