So, tell me please....

[Crumpp]

even "deeply sexual" kind of stall

 

Wow....

 

Thank you for scaring me for life. Once a picture has formed in the mind, it cannot be unseen.

 

:cry:

[Crumpp]

Omega X and omega Z are angular velocities for roll and pitch, sigma эл - means ailerons deflection and РВ index means elevator.

 

V and H are IAS and altitude.

 

 

One can see the pilot's tryings of the aileron effectiveness - omegaX follows the aileron deflection.

 

It's interesting that not so much elevator deflection is necessary to stall the plane. Unfortunately the exact CoG position is not specified for this record, but it can be estimated form the power-off trim curves - approx. 27%.

 

The stall itself is caught where both omegaX and omegaZ gave peaks. Rolling velocity reached 13 deg/s, and overall bank angle can be obtained by integrating this peak - approx 16 degrees for sine-like curve.

 

The pilot tried to counteract the roll with active ailerons input and foward the stick immidiately.

 

Case closed.

 

Thank you Yo-Yo!! :thumbup:

[[DBS]TH0R]

Alright, finally installed beta 1.5 and examined 2 tracks provided by Sprog and Hummingbird. I have a problem with running them, anyone else experienced that?

 

Second Sprog's track on first 3 attempts at running showed him crashing on TO. Only after I ran it like 5th time it showed him successfully TO and then flying straight and doing some maneuvers.

 

Hummingbird's both track end with him crashing into the ground after pulling back on the stick and not really attempting to do a level turn.

 

I've attached two of my tracks in this post, first one showing Instant Take off mission (Sprog used on his tracks), and the other Instant Free fly mission (Hummingbird used on his tracks).

 

Based on the limited info I was able to gather from these tracks I think both of you are (almost) completely disregarding the rudder in turns which is essential to riding her on the edge of stall. In both tracks I flew low level, ATA 1.8 and on the edge of stall over the trees. In second track I flew figure 8 around two buildings for like 5 minutes straight. Average speed during those maneuvers was around 250-260 IAS.

 

I hope someone can run these tracks else I will need to do a video. On first one I end up crashing on TO just like on Sprog's tracks, and on the second one I crash after 3-4 minuted into the track even though it should run for 10+ minutes.

 

 

My controllers:

- TM Warthog extended 7cm and mounted in my foldable simpit

- MFG Crosswind rudder pedals

 

All controllers featuring Hall sensors thus no noise or jitter. For accurate hardware calibration (better than one in Windows) I used TM Warthog calibration tool v1.13.. Only time it got off center was last time I changed grease on mine. This software works like advertised. I would recommend it over Win calibration since that doesn't fix the problem entirely.

 

 

PS: The brakes on this thing are now much more powerful. For the first time in 1.5 I was able to lift my tail when braking. One does need to be careful.

TH0R_109_test_1.trk

TH0R_109_test_2.trk

Edited October 8, 2015 by T}{OR

[Sporg]

Alright, finally installed beta 1.5 and examined 2 tracks provided by Sprog and Hummingbird. I have a problem with running them, anyone else experienced that?

 

Second Sprog's track on first 3 attempts at running showed him crashing on TO. Only after I ran it like 5th time it showed him successfully TO and then flying straight and doing some maneuvers.

 

Hummingbird's both track end with him crashing into the ground after pulling back on the stick and not really attempting to do a level turn.

 

I've attached two of my tracks in this post, first one showing Instant Take off mission (Sprog used on his tracks), and the other Instant Free fly mission (Hummingbird used on his tracks).

 

Based on the limited info I was able to gather from these tracks I think both of you are (almost) completely disregarding the rudder in turns which is essential to riding her on the edge of stall. In both tracks I flew low level, ATA 1.8 and on the edge of stall over the trees. In second track I flew figure 8 around two buildings for like 5 minutes straight. Average speed during those maneuvers was around 250-260 IAS.

 

I hope someone can run these tracks else I will need to do a video. On first one I end up crashing on TO just like on Sprog's tracks, and on the second one I crash after 3-4 minuted into the track even though it should run for 10+ minutes.

 

 

My controllers:

- TM Warthog extended 7cm and mounted in my foldable simpit

- MFG Crosswind rudder pedals

 

All controllers featuring Hall sensors thus no noise or jitter. For accurate hardware calibration (better than one in Windows) I used TM Warthog calibration tool v1.13.. Only time it got off center was last time I changed grease on mine. This software works like advertised. I would recommend it over Win calibration since that doesn't fix the problem entirely.

 

 

PS: The brakes on this thing are now much more powerful. For the first time in 1.5 I was able to lift my tail when braking. One does need to be careful.

 

Thanks for taking the time. :)

 

Yes, I have had serious problems with the tracks as well.

Took up the challenge posted in the Dora forum about taking off with unlocked tail wheel on the 109.

I made it in the second attempt or so, but the track shows me crashing in different ways every time I run it.. :(

 

I have reported the issue in the beta bugs forums.

 

About rudder, I do use it, but probably not enough.

I think I used it correctly in second attempt though, where I was able to make a hard consistent turn at 280 Km/h and pull 4-4.5 G?

 

I have Saitek Combat rudder Pedals, so absolutely nothing to brag about.

Spiking a bit as well, so will have too see if I can improve that somehow.

 

But anyway, with such unreliable tracks, we can't even be sure what we see, because on the tracks I mentioned earlier, the airplane certainly did not maneuver the way I did when recording it.

 

For my Warthog I also used the calibration tool you show there.

However, it only got centered when I reset the Windows calibration.

 

I use an extension as well, 150 mm, but my stick is still on the desk until I can place it better.

 

I will try to look at your tracks, and see if I can make them work, and maybe (probably) learn something. ;)

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Yes, I have had serious problems with the tracks as well.

Took up the challenge posted in the Dora forum about taking off with unlocked tail wheel on the 109.

I made it in the second attempt or so, but the track shows me crashing in different ways every time I run it.. :(

 

I have reported the issue in the beta bugs forums.

Good to know it's not just me. So I can't tell a thing about Hummingbird tracks I tried to view.

 

S!

[Crumpp]

Alright, finally installed beta 1.5 and examined 2 tracks provided by Sprog and Hummingbird. I have a problem with running them, anyone else experienced that?

 

Second Sprog's track on first 3 attempts at running showed him crashing on TO. Only after I ran it like 5th time it showed him successfully TO and then flying straight and doing some maneuvers.

 

Hummingbird's both track end with him crashing into the ground after pulling back on the stick and not really attempting to do a level turn.

 

I've attached two of my tracks in this post, first one showing Instant Take off mission (Sprog used on his tracks), and the other Instant Free fly mission (Hummingbird used on his tracks).

 

Based on the limited info I was able to gather from these tracks I think both of you are (almost) completely disregarding the rudder in turns which is essential to riding her on the edge of stall. In both tracks I flew low level, ATA 1.8 and on the edge of stall over the trees. In second track I flew figure 8 around two buildings for like 5 minutes straight. Average speed during those maneuvers was around 250-260 IAS.

 

I hope someone can run these tracks else I will need to do a video. On first one I end up crashing on TO just like on Sprog's tracks, and on the second one I crash after 3-4 minuted into the track even though it should run for 10+ minutes.

 

 

My controllers:

- TM Warthog extended 7cm and mounted in my foldable simpit

- MFG Crosswind rudder pedals

 

All controllers featuring Hall sensors thus no noise or jitter. For accurate hardware calibration (better than one in Windows) I used TM Warthog calibration tool v1.13.. Only time it got off center was last time I changed grease on mine. This software works like advertised. I would recommend it over Win calibration since that doesn't fix the problem entirely.

 

 

PS: The brakes on this thing are now much more powerful. For the first time in 1.5 I was able to lift my tail when braking. One does need to be careful.

 

Common problem.

 

I started a thread a while back trying to teach folks rudder coordination. It might help.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=140143

[NineLine]

When you view the tracks, try no changing anything, views and such, just watch the track and see if you have better luck then. There are some known issues with tracks right now.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Common problem.

 

I started a thread a while back trying to teach folks rudder coordination. It might help.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=140143

Nice thread indeed.

 

 

I watch this video time ago showing it's not just "combat pilots" who are in trouble with that. I liked how he explains the thing,

 

 

 

S!

[Hummingbird]

Alright, finally installed beta 1.5 and examined 2 tracks provided by Sprog and Hummingbird. I have a problem with running them, anyone else experienced that?

 

Second Sprog's track on first 3 attempts at running showed him crashing on TO. Only after I ran it like 5th time it showed him successfully TO and then flying straight and doing some maneuvers.

 

Hummingbird's both track end with him crashing into the ground after pulling back on the stick and not really attempting to do a level turn.

 

I've attached two of my tracks in this post, first one showing Instant Take off mission (Sprog used on his tracks), and the other Instant Free fly mission (Hummingbird used on his tracks).

 

Based on the limited info I was able to gather from these tracks I think both of you are (almost) completely disregarding the rudder in turns which is essential to riding her on the edge of stall. In both tracks I flew low level, ATA 1.8 and on the edge of stall over the trees. In second track I flew figure 8 around two buildings for like 5 minutes straight. Average speed during those maneuvers was around 250-260 IAS.

 

I hope someone can run these tracks else I will need to do a video. On first one I end up crashing on TO just like on Sprog's tracks, and on the second one I crash after 3-4 minuted into the track even though it should run for 10+ minutes.

 

 

My controllers:

- TM Warthog extended 7cm and mounted in my foldable simpit

- MFG Crosswind rudder pedals

 

All controllers featuring Hall sensors thus no noise or jitter. For accurate hardware calibration (better than one in Windows) I used TM Warthog calibration tool v1.13.. Only time it got off center was last time I changed grease on mine. This software works like advertised. I would recommend it over Win calibration since that doesn't fix the problem entirely.

 

 

PS: The brakes on this thing are now much more powerful. For the first time in 1.5 I was able to lift my tail when braking. One does need to be careful.

 

Huh? I didn't crash in ANY of them??

 

Also I did A LOT of low level sustained turns, applying plenty of rudder. Infact I'd say 75% of the track is level turns... and again, no crashes as I ended both flights in the air.

 

Something is seriously wrong here...

Edited October 8, 2015 by Hummingbird

[[DBS]TH0R]

I can't even play my own tracks correctly, track recording or just playback is obviously broken in 1.5...

 

EDIT: When viewing them I didn't try to use custom views or mess with time acceleration.

Edited October 8, 2015 by T}{OR

[NineLine]

As I said, there are known/reported issues.

[Hummingbird]

Something is definitely not working right as I wasn't doing much else than sustained level turns with plenty of rudder, and of course no crashing.

[NineLine]

Something is definitely not working right as I wasn't doing much else than sustained level turns with plenty of rudder, and of course no crashing.

 

Did you not read what I said lol... tracks and 109 (more so than other modules) dont get along especially if different things are involved like FFB sticks and trackIR, many times if you just view the track it will work, but with the OB it can be hit or miss.

[Hummingbird]

Did you not read what I said lol... tracks and 109 (more so than other modules) dont get along especially if different things are involved like FFB sticks and trackIR, many times if you just view the track it will work, but with the OB it can be hit or miss.

 

I read it and confirmed it, no need to take offence ;)

[jester_]

Thanks for taking the time. :)

 

Yes, I have had serious problems with the tracks as well.

Took up the challenge posted in the Dora forum about taking off with unlocked tail wheel on the 109.

I made it in the second attempt or so, but the track shows me crashing in different ways every time I run it.. :(

 

I have reported the issue in the beta bugs forums.

 

This has always been a problem, as far back as I can remember in the LOMAC games. Tracks are next to worthless. Watching them will give you a different movie every time :)

 

Hopefully they get fixed soon. It would be nice to have them functional and consistent.

[Solty]

I have no problem flying the ingame plane, that's not the issue, the issue is that it doesn't fly as it should, which contrary to your claims I have proven multiple times with actual pilot testimony; of which all the say the same, thus there goes the cherry picking thoery out the window.

 

Thus the burden is actually on you to defend an unrealistic flight model, which so far you have been completely unable to do.

 

Anyway I have hope that the FM will be corrected sometime in the future and that these lovely aircraft will eventually all be represented in an objective and true to life manner.

What about the testimony that the 109:

"you had to treat the 109 as you would treat a diva, you had to handle it with care like a raw egg or something that needs to be loved and cared for" Hans- Ekkehard Bob

 

... they had to be careful with it. And its a talk about the 109E and not the K4 which is even heavier and has even more torque from the engine.

https://youtu.be/moreRketqek?t=1m47s

 

If you rely so heavy on the pilot feedback, why do you ommit comments like that?

Edited October 10, 2015 by Solty

[Crumpp]

Did you read the conversation, Solty? Or are you just trolling? :music_whistling:

 

"you had to treat the 109 as you would treat a diva, you had to handle it with care like a raw egg or something that needs to be loved and cared for" Hans- Ekkehard Bob

 

True of any high performance aircraft. I saw the youtube video.

 

I would chalk it up to history channel theatrics because the measured data says different.

 

What the vets say is easily taken out of context and skewed to the producers beliefs.

 

Test 1, Determination of Stalling Speed; Flaps and undercarriage up:

 

At 83mph the aircraft becomes unsteady and aileron buffeting sets in which increases in intensity as the stall is approached. There is thus ample warning of the approach of the stall.

 

The lateral instability that is warning them of an impending stall. Do we think we should be able to fly past it or it should not exist?

 

It is part of the personality of the airplane. Use it, because the airplane will not turn tighter if you encounter it. It is about to stall. Great clue to ease the back-pressure on the stick and stay in the airplanes best turning portion of the envelope.

 

 

If the stick was then pulled back a little more the aircraft suddenly shuddered, and either tended to come out of the turn or dropped its wing further, oscillating meanwhile in pitch and roll and rapidly losing height ; the aircraft immediately unstalled if the stick was eased forward. Even in a very tight turn the stall was quite gentle, with no tendency for the aircraft to suddenly flick over on to its back and spin

 

That is normal slat equipped aircraft behavior. Because of how slats work in the physical world, makes the Youtube video producers conclusions highly unlikely.

 

:thumbup:

 

Which is why the RAE came to a completely different conclusion...one that is 180 degrees from the Youtube video producers conclusions.

 

When the Me.109 was following the Hurricane or Spitfire, it was found that our aircraft turned inside the Me.109 without difficulty when flown by determined pilots who were not afraid to pull their aircraft round hard in a tight turn. In a surprisingly large number of cases, however, the Me. 109 succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire or Hurricane during these turning tests, merely because our Pilots would not tighten up the turn sufficiently from fear of stalling and spinning.

 

http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109E_UKtrials/Morgan.html

 

Read the Spitfire Mk I POH and the stall behaviors, compare it to the measured data.

 

In fact, the Spitfire would fail one today's test for aircraft maneuverability. That is the ability for the pilot to hold a precise load factor in a turn. Usually 3G's is test for how fast can the pilot apply 3G to the airframe in a constant altitude turn and how steady can he hold it.

 

That is not Spitfire bashing statement and the Spitfire would not be alone in "failed to hold a steady load factor" category in World War II fighter.

[Crumpp]

The lateral instability that is warning them of an impending stall. Do we think we should be able to fly past it or it should not exist?

 

Stall warning does not always come in the form of wild fluctuations in load factor in the form of a harsh buffet.

 

Many designers would like to stay away from that for good reason.

[Solty]

Did you read the conversation, Solty? Or are you just trolling? :music_whistling:

 

 

Hummingbird takes just people's opnions and says "this doesn't work in DCS like it should" while he also uses only those that fit him the most, but he ommits negative or less positive opinions about the 109. It just becomes tiresome realy to argue with him and all those 109 "fans" that want it to be something it was not IRL.

 

Its the main goal to achieve "superiority" instead of creating good FM.

Edited October 11, 2015 by Solty

[Crumpp]

Thats what I am talking about. Hummingbird takes just people's opnions and says "this doesn't work like it should in DCS" while he also uses only those that fit him the most, but he ommits negative or less positive opinions about the 109. It just becomes tiresome realy to argue with him and all those 109 "fans" that want it to be something it was not IRL.

 

Its the main goal to achieve "superiority" instead of creating good FM.

 

Why are you whining to me about someone else on the board? I do not care and form my own opinion.

 

A quick search of the boards for "Solty and P-51" might give you a dose of reality on "fandom". Maybe like an adult, you will then delete your last post or apologize to Hummingbird. I will be happy to follow suit.

 

Like you, he is simply searching for answers. :music_whistling:

[Solty]

First of all I wasn't whining to you. I was responding to Hummingbird and you responded to me and now you have problems with that? C'mon man.

 

You are not a mod and don't play one. You are wrong, fandom is good but wanting a plane to perform better than IRL is something different. It's not the first time I've had a conversation about the 109 and 190 turning not good enough or beeing not fast enough or having wrong stall characteristics.

 

Now focus back on the thread and stop playing a saint Crump.

Edited October 11, 2015 by Solty

[klem]

I can't see that this has need said in here so...

 

when I assign the elevator trim to an axis (which works just fine in other aircraft like the P-51D) I find that it does nothing until I reach about 90% rotation. Then it hits a spot where it acts like a switch so that either side of that spot the wheel rotates fully forward or full aft. I can, with micro-adjustments, get it to move partially but it is completely impractical to fly like that.

 

Does anyone else have this problem or know an answer? I thought I'd ask here before posting as a "1.5 bug".

 

EDIT: no the axis isn't 'banded', it's a virgin axis.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

I can't see that this has need said in here so...

 

when I assign the elevator trim to an axis (which works just fine in other aircraft like the P-51D) I find that it does nothing until I reach about 90% rotation. Then it hits a spot where it acts like a switch so that either side of that spot the wheel rotates fully forward or full aft. I can, with micro-adjustments, get it to move partially but it is completely impractical to fly like that.

 

Does anyone else have this problem or know an answer? I thought I'd ask here before posting as a "1.5 bug".

 

EDIT: no the axis isn't 'banded', it's a virgin axis.

It's been discussed before. They made that way so you can't go one extreme to another in less than a second so it would be an exploit. It works like a button, it moves when you reach one extreme, void most of the centre axis, and works again the other extreme of the axis. I don't like it either but they're right it would be kinda exploit if you can retrim wildly in combat, and the possibilities you break the aircraft also raises so people would complain and so. I use a hat as trim and it's fine, I even use a hat in P-51 where axis works as they should and IMHO it's a better choice. Anyway a time compensated axis like the P-51 would be better for those using an axis.

 

S!

[klem]

It's been discussed before. They made that way so you can't go one extreme to another in less than a second so it would be an exploit. It works like a button, it moves when you reach one extreme, void most of the centre axis, and works again the other extreme of the axis. I don't like it either but they're right it would be kinda exploit if you can retrim wildly in combat, and the possibilities you break the aircraft also raises so people would complain and so. I use a hat as trim and it's fine, I even use a hat in P-51 where axis works as they should and IMHO it's a better choice. Anyway a time compensated axis like the P-51 would be better for those using an axis.

 

S!

 

Many thanks for the answer.

 

To be honest I think that's ridiculous. Many of us would like to have the nearest representation possible to the modelled a/c, most designers try to achieve that and it's what we've come to expect from DCS. Why is it that the 109 gets this odd treatment and no others do (please, no others!)

 

It must be a big downer for people building cockpits and for someone like me who has 10-turn pots for trims. And even with a one turn pot, if people are daft enough to whack their one-turn trim pots from one end to the other and break the a/c that's their lookout. A time-delayed rotation of the trim/animation cant be that difficult to achieve and as you say the HAT option is always their anyway for those that can't come to terms with using an Axis. All they've done is remove it for those that can rather than solve the problem.

 

This is still in beta, correct?

 

Anyway, the sim has curves adjustments, people can use JoystickCurves and of course 10-turn pots if they want to build something or adapt an old stick. Fortunately for me I don't fly the 109 often and was only trying it out in 1.5 but that's a complete cop-out.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Well, as said I use a hat for trimming even in P-51 as delayed trim wheel in an axis isn't optimal IMO if you don't have a 1:1 scale hardware with the very same number of turns and feeling, but I think something similar in 109 would be a better approach. Probably I would still be using the hat, but people with the hardware (like Saitek Cessna trim wheel for instance, not only DIY) would have a real choice. And same for flaps wheel, a delayed axis would be better for the sake of realism.

 

S!