Control stiffening makes this thing flyable.

[Mar]

What is wrong with case 2? It's as realistic as you'll get and you still have the same control. The faster you go the controls get stiffer in the plane so you need to pull your stick more to get the same virtual stick response.

 

In case it's not clear, 0-100% back deflection of your real stick will be used for the full possible virtual range for your given airspeed. Not that you would need it at those speeds, but this would actually give you much better fine control since you can use the full range of your stick to comand the virtual range that is available instead of just up to 30% of your stick and everything else being ignored. It's like scaling to put it simply.

[last1976]

You dont think to the end. case 1 means i can figure out if im pulling beyond the planes limit If I stop there nothing bad will happen if the plane is slowing down.

Case two will lead to oversteering without any stick movement when plane gets slower.

[Mar]

You can't tell where to stop in case 1 unless you look down at the virtual stick. As for oversteer, you are supposed to be paying attention to how your plane is flying and compensating for it anyway. If you want fly-by-wire you're in the wrong place.

[jimcarrel]

They should make the ability to see stick optional, then some wouldn't get hung up on graphics and just fly the darn thing. :D

[last1976]

@ yo-yo I testet last night. For me it seems to be case II as i am getting the biggest deflection at 100% Joystick. It doesnt seem to be limited on input side.

 

Assumed that is correct . I really recommend same corresponding limitations on Input as on Output Side to maintain linear Feedback. As there are few to nobody customer who has Access to real force feedback devices we really are depending on synced in and output.

Edited March 12, 2015 by last1976

[DieHard]

(re: Message #1)

 

I bought the 109 on a good sale a few weeks ago. I set up my CH controllers and have been sim flying her for about a week. I am not snapping wings off. I like this thing better than the P-51.

 

Only thing I question is when I get ready to land I drop a little flaps above 350 kph to start slowing down and nothing breaks or freezes up deploying flaps above recommended speed to do so. Landing the 109 is a lot easier than the 190 currently.

 

For awhile I was snapping wings off the P-51 recovering from a steep dive when it was still in beta, but later after a few update patches, it quit doing that.

Edited March 13, 2015 by DieHard

[Solty]

@ yo-yo I testet last night. seems to be case II as i am getting the biggest deflection at 100% Joystick. It doesnt seem to be limited on input side.

 

Assumed that is correct . I really recommend same corresponding limitations on Input as on Output Side to maintain linear Feedback. As there are few to nobody customer who has Access to real force feedback devices we really are depending on synced in and output.

 

Are u sure that u have your curvature set to 0 and x&y axis set to 100?

[IIIJG52_Otto_]

With due respect you are wrong. That schematics shows that P2 fuel pump is not electrical inside fuel tank and all fuel pump take fuel from bottom forward and rear tank. Electrical internal pump is in the same line that P1 fuel pump and take fuel from rear bottom tank. P2 fuel pump take from forward bottom tank.

 

I've corrected the image by another one with more precise data, from the book Haynes Publishing’s Messerschmitt Bf109 Owner’s Workshop Manual

 

 

(f) = Fuel tank pump (In the top of de tank)

(g) = Pump compensation control

 

The capability of bf-109 for inverted flight, and negative G's, never before had refused, it is well documented by the British that the Bf-109´s had evaded from Spitfire with strong dives, and other maneuvers in negative G's during the battle of britain.

 

the "experten" pilots Adolf Galland and Erich Hartmann used this Bf-109 capability of good flight in negative G's conditions in their combat maneuvers frequently.

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

I am using linear for all axis now in the Bf109 K4, and in the D9 just a 40% curve in the yaw axis.

 

Feels ok to me.

 

Yesterday I experienced for the first time being unable to move the stick to rollout during a highspeed dive. I had checked the speed just a few seconds before, and was around 650 km/h IAS, and I could roll left and right, but then "all of a sudden" I no longer had "roll authority" - the ASI marked 700+km/h

[I.ZG15_FALKE]

the "experten" pilots Adolf Galland and Erich Hartmann used this Bf-109 capability of good flight in negative G's conditions in their combat maneuvers frequently.

 

1st Galland and Hartmann never made friends, the wouldn´t like to be mentioned in one sentence :music_whistling:.

 

2nd

from the attached picture you can see that within the tank the suction point is at the bottom of the tank(marked 1) . The filter device (marked 2) provides a certain amount of fuel, the filled lines some more. Definetly the capability of the 109 to do neg G maneuvers or fly inverted is at least restricted to a few seconds, you cannot do a sustained inverted or neg G flight path in a 109.

 

What not only Experten but also noobs in a 109 at the times of BoB knew is that pushing the stick forward firmly and by that pressing the 109 into a neg G over the nose type of instant dive

was a maneuver the spit and hurri could not follow since their carburator motors would starve immediately when suffering from neg G.

 

Hartmann was the type of pilot not to be surprised, attack, shoot, coffee brake, he never would go into dogfithing with a bogey.

 

Galland would also rather use surprise and better engergy state to engage and disengage right away if the odds turn against him.

A good over all recipie to survive.

 

None of them went for inverted flight or sustained neg G.

Edited March 13, 2015 by I./ZG15_FALKE

[Siegfried]

I've corrected the image by another one with more precise data, from the book Haynes Publishing’s Messerschmitt Bf109 Owner’s Workshop Manual

 

 

 

(f) = Fuel tank pump (In the top of de tank)

(g) = Pump compensation control

 

The capability of bf-109 for inverted flight, and negative G's, never before had refused, it is well documented by the British that the Bf-109´s had evaded from Spitfire with strong dives, and other maneuvers in negative G's during the battle of britain.

 

the "experten" pilots Adolf Galland and Erich Hartmann used this Bf-109 capability of good flight in negative G's conditions in their combat maneuvers frequently.

 

Your new schematics shows an external view of components. The pump can be install over, behind, below the tank or in the tail, but the suction point is a hose or pipeline that take fuel from bottom tank. If you take fuel from other position you have starvation when the fuel level drops below that point.That schematics are from G2, not K4 and shows none system that permits inverted flight.

 

The ability for take negative G instantaneous manouver don't means prolonged more that various seconds. That was for inyection fuel system, not fuel feed system.

 

Sorry for my bad english, and the offtopic.

[Solty]

I've corrected the image by another one with more precise data, from the book Haynes Publishing’s Messerschmitt Bf109 Owner’s Workshop Manual

 

 

 

(f) = Fuel tank pump (In the top of de tank)

(g) = Pump compensation control

 

The capability of bf-109 for inverted flight, and negative G's, never before had refused, it is well documented by the British that the Bf-109´s had evaded from Spitfire with strong dives, and other maneuvers in negative G's during the battle of britain.

 

the "experten" pilots Adolf Galland and Erich Hartmann used this Bf-109 capability of good flight in negative G's conditions in their combat maneuvers frequently.

The main reason for this "feature" is that early Spits and Hurris had problems with carburator. Thus, the negative G dive was very successful.

 

But that doesn't mean that the plane can push negative Gs or fly inverted forever.

 

If your pump can't reach the fuel, there is no way that it can suck it into "veins" of the plane.

 

Also, flying inverted makes the oil float. Wich is not good for the engine either.

 

There was a 109 on airshow in Denmark that went down due to fuel starvation, as the pilot was flying on his back a lot.

 

(By a lot I mean 12seconds)

Edited March 13, 2015 by Solty

[DieHard]

I am using linear for all axis now in the Bf109 K4, and in the D9 just a 40% curve in the yaw axis.

 

Feels ok to me.

 

Yesterday I experienced for the first time being unable to move the stick to rollout during a highspeed dive. I had checked the speed just a few seconds before, and was around 650 km/h IAS, and I could roll left and right, but then "all of a sudden" I no longer had "roll authority" - the ASI marked 700+km/h

 

Yes, I think it locks up; don't know the aeronautical engineering term. To get out of it rig an engine kill---on / off switch and full right or left rudder and opposite aileron to dramatically sideslip to kill energy. Might also play around with manual prop feathering.

 

Don't know if shockwave actually hits the elevator hinge at sub-sound barrier limit, but I suspect it. It might be speed of sound shockwave as the air moves over it.

 

Compression?

Edited February 13, 2016 by DieHard

[codefox]

Rudder helps to roll when having such a "lock"

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

Yes indeed it does codefox,

 

and contrarily to what I had posted above, I am now using the curve for pitch suggested int this thread : http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2677431#post2677431