K4 Accelerated Wing Stall

[Hummingbird]

Based on what? What evidence do you have to show this is occurring too early?

 

The amount I have to move the stick to stall the aircraft in comparison to the -190 & -51.

 

That and the lack of progressively worsening buffeting during the last travel section leading up to the stall. In otherwords you get very little warning, the buffeting occuring almost at the same stick travel as the stall, which means that the aircraft becomes overly sensitive to stick movements and is very difficult to turn near the edge - which again goes against all that is known about the real aircraft, it being very easy to fly to the edge in turns once you knew that the slats are there to help and not to tell you that you're about to stall as many a young LW boys and the British test pilots obviously thought.

[Page.Down]

What is telling you that it is occurring prematurely?

 

I started my AOA at 500km/h NOT 380-420km/h

 

As speed decreases IF I managed to maintain my initial AOA without changing it, then buffeting should stop as speed decreases. Which in turn maintains a given speed at some point because of no change in AOA.

 

But given I'm human and not perfect; it's impossible to test with any consistency; However, the devs can create a sandbox test environment where the PC flies the plane to those limits at a constant AOA, and get a better idea IF that is indeed happening correctly, or if it is not.

 

If it is not, then the K4 FM is not correct where buffeting and accelerated wings stalls are concerned.

 

And that also means the Dora and P51 would have to best tested as well, because I suspect it to be a universal issue and not limited to just one plane.

 

 

The reason why I feel it's not right, is because I've seen, and felt the issue occur at "lower AOA's" than what I started with.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Page.Down

[NineLine]

But this is where I am stuck at right now.

 

1) The 109 is still in beta and still getting tweaks to the FM.

 

2) ED not only has vast amounts of FM design experience, but also an actual WWII pilot they can talk to, one with 109 experience in combat.

 

3) As an example I will pluck the first post and its video, can you show me an example of the 109 being flown in the same manner and having different results from real world? Otherwise see my first 2 points.

 

Not picking on you guys, but if I am going to tell a professional FM builder, as a Tester, that there is problems with their FM, I need to bring hard evidence. Now Yo-Yo has commented in this thread, I assume that means he has read it, I am going to defer to him, but in my mind, aside from more polishing, the 109 feels pretty good to me.

Edited April 28, 2015 by NineLine

[Hummingbird]

I'm wondering what 109 that experience is related to then, because if it's the 109E then that's obviously a problem. Either way it would probably be a great idea to talk to someone who's flown it recently about it, such as Skip Holm, esp. since he lives in the US and flies the aircraft regularly. You couldn't wish for a better person to ask.

[NineLine]

I'm wondering what 109 that experience is related to then, because if it's the 109E then that's obviously a problem. Either way it would probably be a great idea to talk to someone who's flown it recently about it, such as Skip Holm, esp. since he lives in the US and flies the aircraft regularly. You couldn't wish for a better person to ask.

 

I believe it was a G something, and I think I would take combat experience over a joy ride. But that is just me...

[[DBS]TH0R]

As for stick travel, again when'ever mentioned a long travel is mentioned to make the aircraft stall.

 

At what speeds? Just like Echo38 pointed it out to you earlier, this quote is useless without some numbers behind it.

[Page.Down]

But this is where I am stuck at right now.

 

1) The 109 is still in beta and still getting tweaks to the FM.

 

2) ED not only has vast amounts of FM design experience, but also an actual WWII pilot they can talk to, one with 109 experience in combat.

 

3) As an example I will pluck the first post and its video, can you show me an example of the 109 being flown in the same manner and having different results from real world? Otherwise see my first 2 points.

 

Not picking on you guys, but if I am going to tell a professional FM builder, as a Tester, that there is problems with their FM, I need to bring hard evidence. Now Yo-Yo has commented in this thread, I assume that means he has read it, I am going to defer to him, but in my mind, aside from more polishing, the 109 feels pretty good to me.

 

Respectfully,

 

1. It's beta is an excuse that often gets thrown around when people can't see what I see to be obvious. Everyone has different perceptions; Some are more attuned to certain things while others are not; It does not invalidate my concern at all.

 

2. Pilot accounts are not a viable source of information; As several people in this thread have already pointed out; And Yes, I've talked to real pilots as well who currently fly those planes and when I presented that information it was promptly dismissed as irrelevant by the community at large. And I don't mean this community specifically. This community seems more open minded about it which is what I appreciate most about DCS.

 

3. Can you show me an example in the real world that has the same results you and others have suggested? The fact others have seen what I am suggesting validates my concerns; The fact others see it, but try to explain it, and have not been able to do so adequately further validates my concerns for consideration.

 

But, DCS is one of the most accurate FM's I've seen for these particular planes; And I'm in fact doing my job as a "beta tester" challenging the validity of certain mechanics, because I suspect they may not be right yet. It is beta after all isn't it?

 

Now, yes, I could be wrong, but saying I'm wrong, and proving I'm wrong are 2 different things. I made a suggestion for the devs to test my concern. Either they will or they won't. That is up to them. But my suggestion will prove me correct, or prove me wrong.

 

Either way, I have anticipation anxiety, because I really want them to test this; And it's so easy to test in a controlled environment. One that no player can test consistently and get the same results.

[Page.Down]

At what speeds? Just like Echo38 pointed it out to you earlier, this quote is useless without some numbers behind it.

 

Echo should have actually read some of the data we posted, because it does talk about stiffening specifically at certain speeds.

 

I can't force anyone to do anything, but I can disagree with them.

 

Thor you seem to be more receptive than Echo is, how about you review the data posted in previous pages and come to your own conclusion?

 

 

And as Sith, pointed out if 1 man's pilot account that the devs have access to is valid, then why shouldn't another's?

[NineLine]

Respectfully,

 

1. It's beta is an excuse that often gets thrown around when people can't see what I see to be obvious. Everyone has different perceptions; Some are more attuned to certain things while others are not; It does not invalidate my concern at all.

 

I am not using beta as an excuse, its a fact. ED are the only ones that truly know what is still a WIP on the aircraft, they usually dont share that for obvious reasons.

 

2. Pilot accounts are not a viable source of information; As several people in this thread have already pointed out; And Yes, I've talked to real pilots as well who currently fly those planes and when I presented that information it was promptly dismissed as irrelevant by the community at large. And I don't mean this community specifically. This community seems more open minded about it which is what I appreciate most about DCS.

 

You need to read my entire point. The point is that ED collects documents from all over, historical testing data, flight testing, etc. ON TOP OF THAT, they tracked down an actual combat pilot to compliment their own pilots from a little place you might have heard of The Fighter Collection. SO you are correct. Pilot accounts are not viable when used on their own, but when a professional FM builder combines all their knowledge, then that becomes something.

 

3. Can you show me an example in the real world that has the same results you and others have suggested? The fact others have seen what I am suggesting validates my concerns; The fact others see it, but try to explain it, and have not been able to do so adequately further validates my concerns for consideration.

 

I dont have to show you anything, and honestly I couldnt, as with you, I am only going on my unexperienced impression of how the 109 should fly, like you are. But if you are going to call foul on any aspect of the FM, then yes, you better bring evidence. Its up to you to prove there is something wrong, ED's already proved their capability in building an FM.

 

But, DCS is one of the most accurate FM's I've seen for these particular planes; And I'm in fact doing my job as a "beta tester" challenging the validity of certain mechanics, because I suspect they may not be right yet. It is beta after all isn't it?

 

Now, yes, I could be wrong, but saying I'm wrong, and proving I'm wrong are 2 different things. I made a suggestion for the devs to test my concern. Either they will or they won't. That is up to them. But my suggestion will prove me correct, or prove me wrong.

 

Either way, I have anticipation anxiety, because I really want them to test this; And it's so easy to test in a controlled environment. One that no player can test consistently and get the same results.

 

You are in no way doing your job as a beta tester, I am showing you why you are not, you are not doing Yo-Yo or ED any good with making claims that have no real numbers or examples to back it up. Yo-Yo has testing data and such on his side. In order to report a bug or issue, you need to show what is wrong and why it is wrong... a feeling or impression is not good evidence.

Edited April 28, 2015 by NineLine

[[DBS]TH0R]

Echo should have actually read some of the data we posted, because it does talk about stiffening specifically at certain speeds.

 

I can't force anyone to do anything, but I can disagree with them.

 

Thor you seem to be more receptive than Echo is, how about you review the data posted in previous pages and come to your own conclusion?

 

 

And as Sith, pointed out if 1 man's pilot account that the devs have access to is valid, then why shouldn't another's?

 

Happy to read any provided documents and give you my feedback. Unless I missed something both of you continue referencing one single document (with the exception of post #111):

 

http://www.eaf51.org/newweb/Documenti/Storia/Flying_%20109_ENG.pdf

 

 

From this document, you commented earlier:

 

Altitude below 1000m; Weights exactly the same, same exact weather conditions, no WEP

 

Now that is pertaining to the videos; Unless you mean specifically the document?

 

Edit: In which case the document doesn't give those conditions.

 

 

What would the marked conditions correspond to in DCS 109 K4? I saw your ATA well in the 1.8 area (@ 6:40 in the video):

 

Edited April 28, 2015 by T}{OR
post #111

[NineLine]

 

What would the marked conditions correspond to in DCS 109 K4? I saw your ATA well in the 1.8 area (@ 6:40 in the video):

 

 

yes he was in WEP throughout the video it seemed.

[[DBS]TH0R]

Just pluged in my MSFF2 and oh boy, what a difference in comparison to the extended Hog. :joystick:

 

It doesn't take much stick movement to move this plane around the sky with a short desktop stick. And that FF gives perhaps 3-4 times more buffeting than when I fly with the Hog. FF is a definitely an advantage with this plane.

 

I can understand why some want increased buffeting effect for those without FF.

 

 

Yes it does. As you are bleeding off speed the stiffening forces will drop off and your virtual pilot will pull back automatically increasing your AOA. To achieve your described manouver you have to maintain AOA, and to do that you have to slowly push your physical stick forward to maintain the virtual stick in the same position it was when you started the manouver.

 

 

After trying to replicate OP's videos you might just be right. Instead of relying on the virtual controller in the lower left, I kept my eyes on the 3D virtual joystick moving in the cockpit. And sure enough - you really do need to move it juuuust slightly ahead in order to maintain the same AOA you entered the turn with at a higher speed. The virtual joystick indicator in the lower left didn't budge at all. But I need to test this more, I've only done a couple of turns. No time for it tonight I'm afraid.

Edited April 28, 2015 by T}{OR
spelling

[Bucic]

Are you saying there shouldn't be any movement in the virtual stick during buffeting? I would imagine depending on the situation and how extreme the buffeting is, the stick would move accordingly...

I've been skeeming through the topic and this cought my attention. Control limitations and forces on flight controls are my area of interest and to my knowledge, despite of the ED's reputation with flight modeling, there have been no oficial statements on the actual fidelity of FFB implementation in DCS. In fact I haven't even seen any statements on the FFB implementation being anything more than generic effects.

ForceFeedback in DCS - realistic or gimmick?

 

As for whether there should be any stick forces during accelerated stall and buffeting. The buffeting phenomenon responsible for airframe shaking occurs on the wing. From this fact you know instantly what indicates a bad FFB implementation:

- shaking of the stick in pitch axis occurs always when buffeting occurs; should only occur during elevator stall

- shaking of the stick in pitch axis most of the time in-phase with airframe shaking; even if the elevator is stalled the unstable airflow conditions are completely different than on the wing. I can't imagine the frequency of both buffets to be even remotely similar

- shaking of the stick in pitch axis corresponds in any way to shaking of the stick in roll axis

 

I'm talking about an evident level of control stick shaking, not some secondary induced effects.

[NineLine]

I'm not sure he was talking about FFB in this case. I personally dont use a FFB controller so I have no idea on that subject.

 

I've been skeeming through the topic and this cought my attention. Control limitations and forces on flight controls are my area of interest and to my knowledge, despite of the ED's reputation with flight modeling, there have been no oficial statements on the actual fidelity of FFB implementation in DCS. In fact I haven't even seen any statements on the FFB implementation being anything more than generic effects.

ForceFeedback in DCS - realistic or gimmick?

 

As for whether there should be any stick forces during accelerated stall and buffeting. The buffeting phenomenon responsible for airframe shaking occurs on the wing. From this fact you know instantly what indicates a bad FFB implementation:

- shaking of the stick in pitch axis occurs always when buffeting occurs; should only occur during elevator stall

- shaking of the stick in pitch axis most of the time in-phase with airframe shaking; even if the elevator is stalled the unstable airflow conditions are completely different than on the wing. I can't imagine the frequency of both buffets to be even remotely similar

- shaking of the stick in pitch axis corresponds in any way to shaking of the stick in roll axis

 

I'm talking about an evident level of control stick shaking, not some secondary induced effects.

[Bucic]

I'm not sure he was talking about FFB in this case. I personally dont use a FFB controller so I have no idea on that subject.

I had real flight controls in mind* since I don't know if discussing FFB fidelity in DCS even makes sense (no statements form ED, no personal experience with FFB).

 

*or a 'if we had a perfect FFB implementation' scenario.

[DB 605]

Well i'm only going to say this: you guys who are still flying DCS WW2 birds without FFB stick are missing so much. I would never fly without it again. Over and out...:joystick:

[Echo38]

As for stick travel, again when'ever mentioned a long travel is mentioned to make the aircraft stall.

 

Exactly how long? Until you come up with sourced figures, you're just tossing about subjective adjectives. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you didn't read my earlier post about those subj. adj., but I am disappointed.

 

(If you reply with "very long," I'm going to break my monitor with my scream.)

 

Echo should have actually read some of the data we posted, because it does talk about stiffening specifically at certain speeds.

 

I did read it. You(pl) listed speeds, but no real data for the degree of stiffness at those speeds. In which case, the speed alone is useless, because you're ignoring the vital question of "how stiff." By giving the speed but no figures for stiffness, you're giving a condition but not the data for it!

 

Don't you(pl) understand that "it gets very stiff at X MPH" isn't hard data? In order for that to be useful data for the purposes of flight sim development, it would have to be something like "at X MPH, a pull of C lb. of force is required to move the stick D% past E% deflection," or whatever. The point is, how stiff is "very stiff"? (Replace "stiff" with any other adjective you wish--gentle, far, fast, whatever!) Do you(pl) still not get this, after all I've said?

Edited April 28, 2015 by Echo38

[Solty]

I'm wondering what 109 that experience is related to then, because if it's the 109E then that's obviously a problem. Either way it would probably be a great idea to talk to someone who's flown it recently about it, such as Skip Holm, esp. since he lives in the US and flies the aircraft regularly. You couldn't wish for a better person to ask.

I am sorry but if it was E, then we wouldn't have the issue you are talking about as E version was a far better turner than the 109K4.

Exactly how long? Until you come up with sourced figures, you're just tossing about subjective adjectives. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you didn't read my earlier post about those subj. adj., but I am disappointed.

 

(If you reply with "very long," I'm going to break my monitor with my scream.)

 

 

 

I did read it. You(pl) listed speeds, but no real data for the degree of stiffness at those speeds. In which case, the speed alone is useless, because you're ignoring the vital question of "how stiff." By giving the speed but no figures for stiffness, you're giving a condition but not the data for it!

 

Don't you(pl) understand that "it gets very stiff at X MPH" isn't hard data? In order for that to be useful data for the purposes of flight sim development, it would have to be something like "at X MPH, a pull of C lb. of force is required to move the stick D% past E% deflection," or whatever. The point is, how stiff is "very stiff"? (Replace "stiff" with any other adjective you wish--gentle, far, fast, whatever!) Do you(pl) still not get this, after all I've said?

 

+1

[Page.Down]

Exactly how long? Until you come up with sourced figures, you're just tossing about subjective adjectives. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you didn't read my earlier post about those subj. adj., but I am disappointed.

 

(If you reply with "very long," I'm going to break my monitor with my scream.)

 

 

 

I did read it. You(pl) listed speeds, but no real data for the degree of stiffness at those speeds. In which case, the speed alone is useless, because you're ignoring the vital question of "how stiff." By giving the speed but no figures for stiffness, you're giving a condition but not the data for it!

 

Don't you(pl) understand that "it gets very stiff at X MPH" isn't hard data? In order for that to be useful data for the purposes of flight sim development, it would have to be something like "at X MPH, a pull of C lb. of force is required to move the stick D% past E% deflection," or whatever. The point is, how stiff is "very stiff"? (Replace "stiff" with any other adjective you wish--gentle, far, fast, whatever!) Do you(pl) still not get this, after all I've said?

 

And the same argument can be said about stick forces; I believe avg stick forces for a 109 was said to be about 10lbs, but can get as high as 20lbs. Unlike a spitfire which can get as high as 50lbs.

 

This data is available in actual test reports; However, doesn't mean anything regarding control stiffness does it?

 

And the idea that control stiffening is HUGE at 300km/h to 400km/h to me is laughable at best. 500km/h sure, there's something to it... 600km/h definitely as modeled in game. Some people here claim to be able to pull out at 650-700km/h My question is how? Because at 600km/h the surfaces lock up; That pull out you "appear" to be doing in the K4, are in fact the purpose of Fletner tabs, and the natural lift of the wings that is pulling the 109 out. You have no input on the surfaces at speeds exceeding 600km/h currently in game. Especially in a dive. Ironic as it were there are pilot accounts of pilots being able to move the surfaces at 700km/h. So what makes the Dev's Pilot's account any more credible than an Ace who fought in the war? It doesn't. But there are accounts for it at 700km/h. I personally wasn't going to open this can of worms, but I will now; The dive speed on the K4 regarding surface lock I believe isn't accurate either. Which implies stiffening is even less of an issue at speeds of 300-400km/h.

 

Unlike the Dora however, where it is responsive up to 700km/h.

 

All of this can be tested in game currently by anyone. But it's clear to me Echo I don't think you've actually flown the K4 yet to realize what you are saying about control stiffening.

 

And I challenge you Echo to find "real data" on control stiffening related to given speeds that were ACTUALLY tested. Because they were tested in Spitfires and 109's specifically, but I am unsure about other planes. And in all of those accounts compared to a spitfire the 109's stiffening or stick forces was less than that of a spitfire in the same maneuver.

 

In short Echo, your idea of control stiffening is that all planes react the same, when in fact they don't by design; For example a Spitfire is going to struggle a lot more to pull out of a high speed dive over a 109, while a P51 will struggle far less than a 109, likewise for a Dora.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Page.Down

[Echo38]

And I challenge you Echo to find "real data" on control stiffening related to given speeds that were ACTUALLY tested.

 

The burden of proof is on you. You are making the claim that the simulator's modelling of the Me 109K is incorrect, so the burden is on you to prove this statement.

 

I do not make the claim that the simulator's modelling of the Me 109K is correct (nor the claim that it is incorrect), so I have no burden of proving it correct (nor incorrect). I never made any such claim, nor do I hold a belief to the effect of either claim--as I said earlier.

 

But it's clear to me Echo I don't think you've actually flown the K4 yet

 

I already addressed this, earlier in this thread. I will not repeat myself needlessly. If you are interested in having a conversation, I suggest going back and reading what I wrote.

 

to realize what you are saying about control stiffening

 

What is it, exactly, that I said about control stiffening? I'm curious as to which of my statements you're referring to, because what you imagine I said about control stiffening appears to be rather different from what I said about control stiffening.

 

In short Echo, your idea of control stiffening is that all planes react the same

 

Incorrect. I never said that, nor did I imply it. I understand quite well that different aircraft react differently to various things, and have understood this ever since I first flew several different aircraft, in reality, years ago. I restate: I did not say anything which could be interpreted, by any stretch, as a suggestion that all aircraft react the same to control stiffening; your accusation is baseless & false. Do not put words in my mouth, please.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Echo38

[Page.Down]

The burden of proof is on you. You are making the claim that the simulator's modelling of the Me 109K is incorrect, so the burden is on you to prove this statement.

 

I do not make the claim that the simulator's modelling of the Me 109K is correct (nor the claim that it is incorrect), so I have no burden of proving it correct (nor incorrect). I never made any such claim, nor do I hold a belief to the effect of either claim--as I said earlier.

 

 

 

I already addressed this, earlier in this thread. I will not repeat myself needlessly. If you are interested in having a conversation, I suggest going back and reading what I wrote.

 

 

 

What is it, exactly, that I said about control stiffening? I'm curious as to which of my statements you're referring to, because what you imagine I said about control stiffening appears to be rather different from what I said about control stiffening.

 

Incorrect. I never said that, nor did I imply it. I understand quite well that different aircraft react differently to various things, and have understood this since I flew several different aircraft in reality, years ago. I restate: I did not say anything which could be interpreted, by any stretch of imagination, as a suggestion that all aircraft react the same to control stiffening; your accusation is baseless & false. Do not put words in my mouth, please.

 

Does this sound familiar Echo?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by otto View Post

Do you even fly the 109 in game ? No. So you're just making assumptions that the FM is 100 righ .

I make no such assumption. I never said, nor implied, that the FM is 100% right. You are (falsely) assuming that I believe that. Do not put words in my mouth.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by otto View Post

Unless you have evidence or numbers this is just an assumption.

 

I have seen a veritable plethora of evidence to support my claim that various people use the same word to mean different things. I am not going to bother throwing it before you, however, because I cannot believe that you are unaware of the truth of this; rather, you look to be trolling me. Enjoy.

 

Where's that proof Echo? Why am I suddenly bound to prove my point to you when you can't even prove your point to others?

 

Does this look familiar Echo?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by otto View Post

You don't even fly the 109.

 

I don't have to fly the 109 to be able to point out logical fallacies others are making in their discussions about the aircraft. Don't assume, simply because I oppose someone who's making (with a fallacious argument) one claim about a subject, that I believe the polar opposite claim. The world isn't black & white, see.

 

That is, one can point out the invalidity of someone's weak evidence, without proving (or making a claim about) the contrary position. That is exactly what I am doing with you now Echo. Therefore; I absolve myself of any burden of proof just like you do. This isn't a binary problem. My point isn't whether or not the virtual 109 is right or wrong; in this, I make no claim in either direction, because I see insufficient evidence for either case. An assumption based without facts or obligatory proof. Look who's talking?

 

Rather, I pointed out that the things which your friend is using to try to support his case, cannot be used to support his case, and I explained why. Note: Without obligatory burden of proof; If you truly do not understand this, then I am sorry for you. But I still believe you to be trolling me, instead, as a glance at your past posts indicates that you "stalk" me (the fact that you knew that I don't own the 109 module, when I didn't even remember your name, was a red flag; a quick check confirmed that you have a history of attacking my posts). Sooo what exactly are you doing here in this thread then if you don't fly a K4 anyways? What burden of experience are you drawing from exactly that justifies your opinion without proof? I personally call what you are doing right now trolling? But, that of course is an opinion without the obligation of proof I have elected myself personally. Sound familiar?

 

Echo Stop me if you've heard me say this before:

 

When I saw this discussion on another forum, a long time ago, I think the consensus concluded that the 109E had a different slat mechanism than later 109's, and it was these early-type slats that tended to "stick" and thus "go bang," with the later ones presenting fewer or no such problems. I do not have a reliable source for this; it's just a memory I have of hearsay. Still, it might serve as a pointer for someone with access to good sources, to go digging. : ) Issues with your Assumptions: No proof of source which you fully admit, but what you say is indeed fact because you are not obliged to prove anything: Ok, how about this fact which is in test reports you obviously never researched where I have seen them; Early Model Spitfires required almost 50lbs of stick force; I think it was specifically stated the Spitfire MkII's. Maybe the slat system was different maybe it wasn't. Rather it was or wasn't is irrelevant it doesn't change the fact 109E's were know to turn fight with early model spitfires now does it? But what doesn't make sense is if control stiffening was an issue at 186mph or 300km/h surely the 109E's would have never been able to turn fight a spitfire anymore than a spitfire would be able to turn fight a 109E? See the issue with your assumptions? Are we to really take your assumptions as the final word, yet you demand proof from me when I have videos depicting everything I have said regarding my concerns. Further more, I actually do know a lot more about certain things than I've let on until now; But, I wanted to avoid discussions with someone like you for example which is why I wanted to take a back seat roll and actually listen to people's suggestions and explanations. But, I find myself wanting to ignore everything you have to say from this point forward.

 

 

How about this fact: For those of us who know how to convert km/h to mph: 300km/h = 186.411 mph. Anyone still think control stiffening is an issue at 300km/h?

 

If you remember discussions earlier in the thread the 109 is a dream to handle at or below 250 mph. Note: 250 mph = 402.336 km/h.

 

I repeat my question Echo; Why is the K4 stalling like it is at 380-420km/h? or 236 to 260 mph? According to others in this thread, and pilot accounts; The K4 should get it's best AOA and turn radius at those speeds when you factor in slats; My Videos clearly show the possibility of premature buffeting & stall mechanic at not only lower speeds but lower AOA's.

 

But for some odd reason Echo, you absolve yourself from burden of proof, and simply say that I am wrong, but I need to prove my point.

 

Ok; Here's a new video with some peculiar inconsistencies with the K4 Flight Model.

 

 

That being said, I will no longer indulge you from this point forward. You are entitled to your opinions.

[Flagrum]

Page.Down ....

 

You require a proof that "I have seen a veritable plethora of evidence to support my claim that various people use the same word to mean different things."

 

Erm, really?

 

And the proof of how one can point out errors in an argument without even having to support any side of that argument ... it is called "logic".

 

The rest of your quotation hell I can not really comprehend - only that he might really lacking to provide some proof for the "bang theory". But to be honest, that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread anyways. You don't now require that everyone gives hard evidence for any off topic remark in this thread, don't you?

[Hummingbird]

I believe it was a G something, and I think I would take combat experience over a joy ride. But that is just me...

 

Joy ride? Now you're just grasping at straws mate. If one thing is clear it's that Skip Holm hasn't just been joy riding the 109 if that's what you think, and neither was Hanna, or Southwood for that matter. Unless of course you call pushing the aircraft into accelerated stalls joy riding ;)

 

Reading the detailed descriptions by Holm, Hanna & Southwood it's quite clear that they've all pushed the aircraft to its limits, albeit obviously whilst keeping power settings below a certain level, however airframe wise they've been there.

 

But if you're only interested in veteran accounts then you can rest assured that there are plenty who agree completely with all that has been said by Holm, Hanna & Southwood. So how about we stop with the grudge based criticism and instead accept the facts and start figuring out how we can improve the flight model?

Edited April 29, 2015 by Hummingbird

[NineLine]

.... start figuring out how we can improve the flight model?

 

Thanks, but I will leave that to the experts at ED, I think they are doing fine without these threads...

 

Reading the detailed descriptions by Holm, Hanna & Southwood it's quite clear that they've all pushed the aircraft to its limits, albeit obviously whilst keeping power settings below a certain level, however airframe wise they've been there.

 

I have no doubt they flew their aircraft to the limits set by safety standards, nobody is going to risk as much as might be risked in a life or death combat experience... that said, ED takes the opinions from many different sources, as I pointed out in this thread already, which you missed or ignored, they are a part of TFC, they have access to pilots from now and then. Sorry if quoting some article on the internet doesnt float my boat as much as what ED throws at these FMs.

Edited April 29, 2015 by NineLine

[Page.Down]

it is called "logic".

You don't now require that everyone gives hard evidence for any off topic remark in this thread, don't you?

 

The only thing I understood in your post was this:

 

Firstly; Yes it is logic; Something that escapes Echo.

 

Secondly, to answer your question, why should I? I asked a question people answered, However, echo found it more constructive not to make a single post in this thread to contribute to it in any way shape or form.

 

Instead, he chose to argue with otto and hummingbird;

 

None of the drivel that he spewed in this thread had anything to do with the thread itself.

 

So; He demands of me proof of my claims; He clearly fails to logically understand what the videos I have posted show. What gives him the right when he hasn't contributed to the discussion like you have?

 

I don't require proof of it from you because you contributed to the discussion in a respectable way. In a logical way.

 

I didn't require it of anyone in this thread at any point in time; But I have no right to challenge Echo when he demands it of me?

 

Is that logical to you?

 

I didn't think so either.

 

Needless to say; I have no obligation to entertain him any further.