[CLOSED] K-4 module completely stops rolling at high speeds

[rel4y]

Pilot Magazine not long before Black 6 was permanently grounded :(

 

Ah Ok sorry, didn't read it was about Black 6.

[rel4y]

I had to redo the earlier graph, because I messed up the EAS to TAS conversion in excel... damn. I added another Spitfire Mk V test (max 50 lbs), but at 6000 ft instead of 10000 ft. At 10k ft the rollspeed would be higher. Interestingly it has a completely different shape though. Remember this is steady rate of roll and doesnt give a full picture about actual roll performance in combat.

 

[Kurfürst]

mh...yeah sure...not surprised the 109 should handle well at slow speeds, but more about the "by far the best of the three" comment...as i would consider that spit not bad in that regard either, far from it in fact...

 

I am not so surprised, its pretty consistent with every account (for example, Morgan's report in 1940 for the 109E, or Southwood's comments on the 109G Black Six) I wrote, they all praise the 109 for having the 'right' control for anywhere between 200 and 300 mph IAS. Its just that the controls are well matched, you have the right amount of control movements, right amount of matching forces between the elevator and ailerons, and a nice linear force curve. Resulting in that the aircraft could be flown precisely to the edge and thus the pilot finding that utilizing its maneuverability close to the maximum possible is relatively easy.

 

The Spit is another matter.. lets just say the good part about its controls is that that the elevator stick forces and very light and require little physical effort from the pilot, and that there's ample stall warning. The rest can be read from its manuals and flight test reports. :music_whistling:

[Krupi]

In the Pilot Magazine comparison between the XVI and the G2 while he likes the low speed of the 109 he praised the Spitfire for its medium speed "effortlessly manoeuvrable" "Can find little to criticise"...

 

Why do you always have to be so rabid Kurfürst, why can't you accept that the 109 was not the very best aircraft in every department and in fact others were just as capable and in areas superior, between you and Solty's endless propaganda war I am becoming quite fed up of this forum, you both seem determined to drag this place into the toxic environment of the banana forums.

 

I honestly wish they would ban you both, you had no reason to bash the Spitfire in your post just stop trying to get a raise out of others it is incredibly immature.

Edited December 14, 2016 by Krupi

[Solty]

In the Pilot Magazine comparison between the XVI and the G2 while he likes the low speed of the 109 he praised the Spitfire for its medium speed "effortlessly manoeuvrable" "Can find little to criticise"...

 

Why do you always have to be so rabid Kurfürst, why can't you accept that the 109 was not the very best aircraft in every department and in fact others were just as capable and in areas superior, between you and Solty's endless propaganda war I am becoming quite fed up of this forum, you both seem determined to drag this place into the toxic environment of the banana forums.

 

I honestly wish they would ban you both, you had no reason to bash the Spitfire in your post just stop trying to get a raise out of others it is incredibly immature.

 

You seem to not realise that your last comments were not only snarky but also pretty much in line with what I said about the 109's handling. But sure, feel free to vindicate your self.

 

The 109 has predictable controls they progressively get stiffer with speed.

Spit on the other hand has very light if not overly light elevator forces and very similar aileron forces to the 109. That makes the pilot concentrate more to use them in sync.

Edited December 14, 2016 by Solty

[Krupi]

You don't even own the module why are you even in this sub forum!?

 

Kurfürst might spout rubbish and hatred for the Spitfire however I am sure he will be purchasing the module so he can at least have an informed opinion.

 

Stiffening up of controls at high speed is something that impact all aircraft of this era, I don't think anybody is actually saying that this is incorrect Solty.

[Solty]

You don't even own the module why are you even in this sub forum!?

 

Kurfürst might spout rubbish and hatred for the Spitfire however I am sure he will be purchasing the module so he can at least have an informed opinion.

 

Stiffening up of controls at high speed is something that impact all aircraft of this era, I don't think anybody is actually saying that this is incorrect Solty.

 

What kind of argument is that?

 

You are basically saying I cannot have an opinion on the 109 and Spit without purchasing them?

 

Show me a forum rule that says so, or abandon that argument at once. This is material discrimination at best.

 

And yes the stiffness is normal and kurfurst is right in a way that 109 had "better controls" than Spit, but it is very much dependant on preference and not objective statement.

[rel4y]

See there is one problem, while we are talking facts you give opinions. Quite irrelevant in a bug report, dont you think? Second problem being that once your opinion is disproved you change it to a different one, which you then again state as fact. Shall I link my post on "your opinions" again? This is completely unnecessary and I for example have a personal dislike for the M2000C and still I am not haunting their subforum...

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2981984&postcount=35

[amazingme]

C'mon guys.. This is getting absurd. You are arguing about a known issue which will eventually be fixed by ED. Bear in mind that this is not a simulation that runs on IBM Blue Gene supercomputer but on our pathetic computers.. and besides that, you can't have everything as in real life.. e.g. pilot stamina/fatigue.

Just enjoy the planes and let's see how you settle this dispute 'in air' not 'on line' ;)

[golani79]

@Solty

Sure you can have an opinion - but you can´t tell for a fact how certain aspects are in module X when you don´t own and fly it.

 

 

thx btw David for doing a test about the stick forces.

As the roll rate apparently already is fixed internally maybe the other inputs got looked at as well or will be looked at.

Or at least we can get a confirmation about how this is the way it is supposed to be.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

@Solty

Sure you can have an opinion - but you can´t tell for a fact how certain aspects are in module X when you don´t own and fly it.

Sorry to say, but this time I've to agree on this point, Solty. You make good comments many times, and you're a valuable member of the community, but this is getting to a nonsense point provided you don't even own the module. You can have opinion, YES, but can you comment aspects of a module you don't own? I hardly doubt, since you have to "trust", or "believe", or "have faith", in what others comment and suppose it's a sharp, precise and exact description of the issue with no mistake. Really complicated mate.

 

 

S!

[Solty]

See there is one problem, while we are talking facts you give opinions. Quite irrelevant in a bug report, dont you think? Second problem being that once your opinion is disproved you change it to a different one, which you then again state as fact. Shall I link my post on "your opinions" again? This is completely unnecessary and I for example have a personal dislike for the M2000C and still I am not haunting their subforum...

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2981984&postcount=35

 

This is not a bug report section. It is in the main section of the K4 module.

 

It is not changing opinions, it is a typo. Nothing above 750kph was actually tested. It was extrapolated and the dotted line supports this.

 

And I never said 109s couldn't do 750kph. That's the max permisable speed for safety, but Kurfurst has shown data that proved it was moved in later models to 800kph, which I accepted. Still, no document has shown test data on roll rate at that speed.

Edited December 14, 2016 by Solty

[Solty]

Sorry to say, but this time I've to agree on this point, Solty. You make good comments many times, and you're a valuable member of the community, but this is getting to a nonsense point provided you don't even own the module. You can have opinion, YES, but can you comment aspects of a module you don't own? I hardly doubt, since you have to "trust", or "believe", or "have faith", in what others comment and suppose it's a sharp, precise and exact description of the issue with no mistake. Really complicated mate.

 

 

S!

 

I had the module when the stifnes was implemented. And I am basing my comments on the real life data. It is DCS that should strive to reach reality, not the other way around.:huh:

[Kurfürst]

Nothing above 750kph was actually tested. It was extrapolated and the dotted line supports this.

 

Well technically speaking, the highest data set measured was for 760 km/h TAS.

 

Still, no document has shown test data on roll rate at that speed.

 

As I said, they did tests up to 760 km/h TAS. The rest could be calculated, they have like 20 tables for various roll characteristics like stick force per deflection, aileron effectiveness per deflection, reversal speeds etc. etc.

 

Like everybody else did BTW.

 

Thats what math is for. Copernicus have not been space, now has he, yet he came up with all sort of extrapolations how our Solar system looks like. As if he seen it. What a load of rubbish, aint it, we should believe him until he goes out and personally measures this stuff with a centimeter. While standing on the surface of the Sun. For accurate measurements.

[NineLine]

Not sure this is going anywhere anymore, ED is set to fix the issue with the 109, lets wait for that.

[NineLine]

Are we happy wit this issue now, seems fixed now.

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

roll rate yes,....but elevator and rudder forces? is ED really convinced that a pilot would not be able to give full deflection above 210kph indicated on the elevator, and 150kph on the rudder?

 

the behaviour and deflection seems plausible at high speeds, but i think its questionable at these low speeds mentioned above.

Edited December 23, 2016 by 9./JG27 DavidRed

[kubanloewe]

roll rate yes,....but elevator and rudder forces? is ED really convinced that a pilot would not be able to give full deflection above 210kph indicated on the elevator, and 150kph on the rudder?

 

the behaviour and deflection seems plausible at high speeds, but i think its questionable at these low speeds mentioned above.

 

 

i have a air race mission on NEvada map and the K4 is the worst plane in that !

It´s not that slow but you always have to trim that beast nose up like hell otherwise the pilot seems unable to pull the stick backwards enough to fly around the pylons at 580km/h !

It´s always the same in Sim´s with the 109; they read about the higher stickforce on high speeds or diving and prgram it down to sealevel speeds; lol.

190D9 and P51 are so much easier with the elevator.

[DefaultFace]

What David said. Rolling is rather nice now, the elevator and rudder need looking at IMO.

[Yo-Yo]

roll rate yes,....but elevator and rudder forces? is ED really convinced that a pilot would not be able to give full deflection above 210kph indicated on the elevator, and 150kph on the rudder?

 

the behaviour and deflection seems plausible at high speeds, but i think its questionable at these low speeds mentioned above.

 

 

276 kph, to be accurate... at least. At this IAS the gradient is about 2.8 kg/cm in the real plane, the full travel is 18 cm... I guess 50 kg for emergency pulling is enough?

 

For sure, the force range for precise control is less...

 

And yes, if you see the tests for aircrafts of 40' the full travel was possible only for 100-105 mph.

Edited December 23, 2016 by NineLine
Added Screenshot

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

do you mean 276 indicated? because as often as i try, the controls indicator never reaches full deflection at those speeds for me...

and what about the rudder? indicated the barrier seems to be 150kph.

[Yo-Yo]

do you mean 276 indicated? because as often as i try, the controls indicator never reaches full deflection at those speeds for me...

and what about the rudder? indicated the barrier seems to be 150kph.

 

And even 320 kph indicated. But this is an emergency limit that is a bit laggy.

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

we tested again Yo-Yo....and you are correct...we indeed managed to get full deflection now at 320kph indicated on the elevator..(dont know if it got anything to do with today's patch?)

the thing is,...the delay is really really long...we only manage to get full deflection with enough altitude, and a spiral down, and keeping the stick pulled back for like felt 20seconds(i did not measure the time)....that seems rather long for 50kg?

and the rudder...no matter how long i keep pushed my pedals completely, above ~150indicated, i cannot reach full deflection in the sim.

[DefaultFace]

Was something changed in today's patch? Feels different. Only minimal but there is a difference.

[Yo-Yo]

we tested again Yo-Yo....and you are correct...we indeed managed to get full deflection now at 320kph indicated on the elevator..(dont know if it got anything to do with today's patch?)

the thing is,...the delay is really really long...we only manage to get full deflection with enough altitude, and a spiral down, and keeping the stick pulled back for like felt 20seconds(i did not measure the time)....that seems rather long for 50kg?

and the rudder...no matter how long i keep pushed my pedals completely, above ~150indicated, i cannot reach full deflection in the sim.

 

150 is normal for rudder