Jump to content

Tail Heavyness exaggerated


fapador

Recommended Posts

Please move cg slightly forward, this has been also discussed before. I know that the tail is wooden on the k-4 thus heavier if I am not mistaken also the fuel tank rests behind pilot, but this has been depicted heavily in dcs . I have read reports that  most pilots landed the plane with -3-4 trim full flaps but doing this in dcs results in massive nose up behavior when landing in game.

I am mentioning this because I just read on a rare source (and have not seen that anywhere else before) that  the propeller on bf109 weighs   a whopping 138kg!  did the developers considered this when building fm? Now add prop cone, weapons and cannon, front fuselage reinforcements to accomondate engine, other front mounted subsystems etc.. and of course engine weight. I think all that would of course negate the slightly heavier tail... which has been so much overstated in past claims.

 Now I know that a small change would result In a need for other adjustments too, so I would also recommend  a small brake nerf to balance this and maintain the full brake No nosedive characteristic as Erich Brunotte has mentioned and has been well implemented on the FM. A more forward cg will cause propstrike when braking!  Nevertheless the brakes are slightly strong as of now.

A small tweak would be greatly appreciated! 

 

 


Edited by fapador

Obsessed with FM's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

 

On 11/23/2021 at 9:52 PM, NineLine said:

Our plane would be set to source documents, I don't think making changes would do much more than cause issues in other places.

@NineLine All I am asking is If the prop has been simulated with a 138kg mass. This is a very rare info and is very hard to find mentioned in documents but it is true. 

Of course I acknowledge that a change  will result in other necessary "accomondation" acts, this is why if moving cg forward the brakes should be "nerfed". Even an   option to set  a small cg  range by ourselves would be appreciated


Edited by fapador

Obsessed with FM's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, NineLine said:

Yeah I am sorry, we would never create the FM without such FM. Of course this is included. Thanks

????

I dont know if I really believe this, or you just trying to briefly terminate me prematurely... because the plane is really tail heavy. Currently -3 -4 trim, even with empty fuel load full flaps results in massive unrealistic nose up behavior yet it was the standard procedure  german pilots used to land the plane. -3,-4 trim in dcs* is totally unusuable in any circumstance thus I am pretty sure something is not accounted for, or modelled correctly...

PS: @NineLineyou tagged my thread as "investigating" are you indeed? because your reply considers the matter as never existent...

Nevertheless, I dont expect things to change here they never do (As that requires Hard Work and Reavaluation!). Just dont consider customers as completely idiots that will never notice or bother with discrepancies being modelled in your products. 

*(its just a tad better in IL2 BOS but not good enough either)

 


Edited by fapador

Obsessed with FM's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just tested it.

 

Standard day, 1000ft above SL, 20% fuel no ammo, landing configuration.

-3 Trim is good to keep altitude with slight power at around 160-170 kph. Minimal to no stick forward required to maintain altitude and attitude.

-4 Trim is good for briefly keeping altitude and descent with very low to idle power. Minimal to no stick forward required to maintain attitude.

 

Basically just like you read in your reports.


Edited by razo+r
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@razo+rBf109 lands at 200kph approach speed. 180kph minimum at most is the touch down speed which is the speed after being bleeded from flare...  going to 160 170 would be too dangerous if not suicidal as it would result in limited control authority in reality... Also 20%is an ideal scenario. So No modelled FM is not good enough.

That is according to the documented luftwaffe procedures which you should have known before replying. 

Obsessed with FM's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, fapador said:

@razo+rBf109 lands at 200kph approach speed. 180kph minimum at most is the touch down speed which is the speed after being bleeded from flare...  going to 160 170 would be too dangerous if not suicidal as it would result in limited control authority in reality... Also 20%is an ideal scenario. So No modelled FM is not good enough.

You are missing some key factors though. I tested at level flight. Do you land in level fligh?

This means different speeds, engine settings and different forces acting on the airframe.

If you tested it yourself, you'd see -3 keeps the aircraft pretty neutral during final with 190-180kph.

So your "massive nose up" is massivly exagerated.

Also, what if you attach your reports here so I can read them aswell? Not that you talk again about an E variant while flying the K variant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  I have some taildragger hours and I can say an experienced operator would almost instantanouesly realize that CG tends to be more aft happy from the prolonged tail rise delay which K-4 in dcs exhibits. This is at the default -1 trim 20degrees flap procedure. neutral stick even at 100kph will not raise the tail with 80% fuel load~


Edited by fapador

Obsessed with FM's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, fapador said:

For starters you dont mention level flight nowhere on your post. Please go away find another thread to harass @razo+r

 

Then read again my post below.

45 minutes ago, razo+r said:

I just tested it.

 

Standard day, 1000ft above SL, 20% fuel no ammo, landing configuration.

-3 Trim is good to keep altitude with slight power at around 160-170 kph. Minimal to no stick forward required to maintain altitude and attitude.

-4 Trim is good for briefly keeping altitude and descent with very low to idle power. Minimal to no stick forward required to maintain attitude.

 

Basically just like you read in your reports.

 

If you still don't see it, let me help you:

image.png

In case you don't know english very well, maintaining altitude is the same as level flight.

14 minutes ago, fapador said:

Also No -3 doesnt keep the plane neutral with full flaps, Throttle idle @180kph

 

 Depending on the throttle settings you set (but still as close to maintain speed as possible) you only need minimal to no stick forward for keeping attitude.

And I'm still waiting for you to attach or link your reports so I can read them aswell.

Edit: To add to the above, I tested it. The more throttle you add, the more stick forward you need. And to keep 180 kph on a more or less approach angle I had to add a little power, but still needed almost no forward stick to keep attitude.

 


Edited by razo+r
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, grafspee said:

And where is written that at -4 trim no stick apply was needed for landing ?

I dont say that. There have been previous claims that the plane is modelled too tail heavy but the response from the developers was that this was due to the heavier k-4 wooden tail.  I just mention that I recently found out that the prop weights 138kg from a trusted friend I have at a restoration project and I am asking if the developers are aware of this.  

@razo+r Go away you are not welcome here

Obsessed with FM's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, fapador said:

I dont say that. There have been previous claims that the plane is modelled too tail heavy but the response from the developers was that this was due to the heavier k-4 wooden tail.  I just mention that I recently found out that the prop weights 138kg from a trusted friend I have at a restoration project and I am asking if the developers are aware of this.  

@razo+r Go away you are not welcome here

Stop being so hostile.

It's not my fault that you exagerate with your wordings, that you don't attach any of your sources or base all of your findings on feelings in the first place.

 

Edit: Did you also take account for the additional fuel tank, radios, tail wheel retracting mechanism etc that have been installed in the K as opposed to E-G variants?


Edited by razo+r
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only if you finally decide to:

 

1) Show your reports

2) Ask your friend which 109 he's working on and tell us

3) When you also take into account the additional radio equipment, tail wheel mechanic, additional fuel tank (and type of fluid) and other newly installed equipment into the K variant as opposed to your 138kg prop.

 

Oh also, how come you read on a rare source of the weight of the prop in the first post and now he turned into a friend working on a 109?


Edited by razo+r
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, razo+r said:

When you also take into account the additional radio equipment, tail wheel mechanic, additional fuel tank (and type of fluid) and other newly installed equipment into the K variant as opposed to your 138kg prop.

 

These are simply negated by the fact that k-4 had the heavier MK-108 cannon and larger front wheels. No base in your claims . 

Obsessed with FM's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, fapador said:

These are simply negated by the fact that k-4 had the heavier MK-108 cannon and larger front wheels. No base in your claims . 

I'm not using 100% exact figures but basically

Mg151/20 = 43Kg + 200*0.205Kg = 84Kg

Mk108 = 58Kg + 65*0.5Kg = 90Kg

 

And those 6Kg difference should negate the effect on the Cg from the additional (110Kg) fuel tank, radio equipment and mechanical mechanics in the back?

Yeah right. 

 

In the meantime, I'm still waiting for your reports to be added.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, razo+r said:

And those 6Kg difference should negate the effect on the Cg from the additional (110Kg) fuel tank, radio equipment and mechanical mechanics in the back?

Its weight at the foremost aircraft station. not some slight radio addition in the back. 

Obsessed with FM's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, fapador said:

Its weight at the foremost aircraft station. not some slight radio addition in the back. 

No it's not. The foremost station is the propeller and spinner. The cannons are further behind, actually, they are behind the wheels. And by the way, the Mg-151 is much longer, having a greater effect on CG than the short MK-108, which then again is probably elliminated by its slightly higher weight.

 

And you forgot the 110Kg of additional fluids in the back and many BIG radios in the back and tail wheel assembly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bf109 in game at 80~fuel raises tail at 120kmh with +1 trim and 20degrees flaps neutral stick. Any taildragger I have flown will raise from even ~40kmh no flaps neutral trim calm wind full fuel.

I am not saying bf109 should raise tail at that speeds but 120kmh with such powerful engine points to that something is off. I would expect something to at least 100kmh

The Cg might be perhaps correctly set but the MOI might not. 

Obsessed with FM's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
4 hours ago, fapador said:

????

I dont know if I really believe this, or you just trying to briefly terminate me prematurely... because the plane is really tail heavy. Currently -3 -4 trim, even with empty fuel load full flaps results in massive unrealistic nose up behavior yet it was the standard procedure  german pilots used to land the plane. -3,-4 trim in dcs* is totally unusuable in any circumstance thus I am pretty sure something is not accounted for, or modelled correctly...

PS: @NineLineyou tagged my thread as "investigating" are you indeed? because your reply considers the matter as never existent...

Nevertheless, I dont expect things to change here they never do (As that requires Hard Work and Reavaluation!). Just dont consider customers as completely idiots that will never notice or bother with discrepancies being modelled in your products. 

*(its just a tad better in IL2 BOS but not good enough either)

 

 

Yes, I am talking with our FM creator as I type this, but I will do nothing but tell you the truth, we would not lie to you about this. 

Honestly you are being somewhat insulting, suggesting if there was an issue we wouldnt fix it, or that I ever suggested you were an idiot, I have only answered your questions to the best of my abilities, if that is not good enough for you, I am sorry.

Our FM is correct to the historical documents, if you cannot accept this, then I am sorry. But there is no bug.

Thanks.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can see the tandem g-12 which is supposed to be even more tail heavy than the k-4 raising tail in speeds less than 90kmh as in the timestamp I have provided. Exactly as I would expect in my experience... 

and must even has its guns removed @NineLine


Edited by fapador

Obsessed with FM's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...