What happened to LW?

[Charge]

Henshaw's quote?

Wazzat?

-C+

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Angus
Yes, the 109's flaps were lowered by turning a wheel. I have not seen any data about it being hydraulic though, always thought it was a gearing issue. Same as the UC of the 109, and the Spitfire Mk I.

Don't know about the Mustang, it was just a lever, so it was definately not physical/geared. Rather electrical/hydraulical/pneumatic. Well, HiTech flew a P51, I am sure he can tell us!

Yep it's correct that the 109 had mechanical gearing to the flaps, operated by the pilots muscles. But you guys miss a point about flap lowering times..
From the data we see it says that full lowering would take ca25 seconds on the 109 and 15 secs on the P-51. But... that's the fully deployed flaps, for landing, 40-60 degrees, which is a LOT; we are talking here about combat flaps, which only mean small deployment, 5-10 degrees only. On the P-51 with hydraulic operation, the deployment was most likely constant speed, ie. say 4 secs (1/4 time) required to deploy combat flaps by pressing the switch. On the 109 the time is less linear, since with more flap deflection, more airflow pushing against it and the forces getting higher towards the end of the path, slowing it down - you can turn less fast the wheel with your muscles. You only put out landing flaps when landing, when the speed is not an issue.

When you lower them only a little, ie. combat flaps, the forces are less and  could be applied more quickly.

That's not the whole issue however, with flap deployment you also have to change the trim of the aircraft, which could be done simultaniously on the 2-axe wheel (trim and flaps), whereas on the P-51 you first put the flaps out, and then adjusted the trim with another switch.

All in all it's not a major difference in practice imho.

[Waffle]

p-51s hydraulic system was charged to around 1050lbs per sq inch....with recharging starting from the engine pump when pressure got to around 850lbs sq in. after use (flaps / gears)

There was also a restrictor valve in the flap hydrualic line which was adjustable depending if the flaps were deploying too quickly or too slowly...
I presume this could mean from flaps slamming down to barely moving...

4 seconds for a 8-11 degree deployment seems pretty slow for a hydraulic system.

Now on the 109 hand cranked system, It would be interesting to see the mechanisms / drawings of the gearing and to see if theres a way to figure out how much force would have to be apllied to move those flaps at speeds in excess of 200kmh.

The 51s I'm sure would have more of a chance to deploy flaps, than the 109s at higher speeds, even if incurring risk to damage

[Angus]

Charge:
"Henshaw's quote?

Wazzat?"

My mistake, got mixed with threads.
Anyway, it's about flick rolling the Spitfire, the earlier marks flicking more than the later marks. It's somewhere here in another thread.
My mistake, - me bad

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Waffle BAS
Now on the 109 hand cranked system, It would be interesting to see the mechanisms / drawings of the gearing and to see if theres a way to figure out how much force would have to be apllied to move those flaps at speeds in excess of 200kmh.

The Messi pilot could only move the wheel ~ 1/4 turn for each arm movement.

here are some images of the cockpit,

http://aircraftresourcecenter.com/Fea1/301-400/Fea398_Bf-109_Mustafa/Fea398.htm

[Crumpp]

The Messi pilot could only move the wheel ~ 1/4 turn for each arm movement.

Where in the world do you get this claim??

Prove it.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Waffle]

Just the ergonomics of the wheel position would dictate that the pilot would grab low rear on the wheel -(say at heading 270 if it were a compass)...then rotate it forwards 0. Prob more like 300 to 30 degrees would be the easiest.

There's no physical way a pilot could rotate that wheel 360 degrees with one arm movement...

180 degress would be pushing it...  90-130 degrees more likely

so if from the translated g6 manual - 4 turns for 20 degress...would be somewhere between 16 and 8 arm movements given a 90 degree rotation of the wheel per arm movement, and a 180 degree rotation respectivly

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Waffle BAS
The 51s I'm sure would have more of a chance to deploy flaps, than the 109s at higher speeds, even if incurring risk to damage

Question is why you'd want to deploy flaps at high speeds... they'd just bleed your speed quickly. Remember flaps are lift-increasing devices, and you already got plenty of lift at high speeds. Using combat plaps has meaning at low speeds, but then it's fairly easy.

Now going by the data posted in the thread, ie.

10 degrees defined as combat flaps
1 complete turn required for 5 degrees
pilot can turn 1/3 at one time -> 6x1/3 turns required (2 complete turns
and assuming the pilot can do 2x 1/3 turn in 1 sec (forces neglected)
...then a 109 pilot can apply combat flaps pretty quickly, in 3 secs.

[Angus]

And how were the 109 flaps deployed? Nobody yet explained that.
And the UC?

[Crumpp]

Just the ergonomics of the wheel position would dictate that the pilot would grab low rear on the wheel -(say at heading 270 if it were a compass)...then rotate it forwards 0. Prob more like 300 to 30 degrees would be the easiest.

Just spoke with some associates who operate a Bf-109E.  We have some erroneous assumptions going on here.

1.  A "turn" of the wheel is not a 360 degree revolution.  It is one complete motion of the wheel in the direction needed using the full range of motion.

So when the Flugzeug-Handbuch instructs "4-turns" the pilot reaches down and in 4 arm movements moves the wheel 4 times.

All the best,

Crumpp

[DoKGonZo]

FWIW ...

I kind of like the "in the cockpit" feel of the LW planes. Most of the rest feel like you're riding more in an open-topped roadster. Except for the Russian planes where it seems like the cockpit is half the length of the plane.

I do think the framing is too thick as rendered. Not just because of the fish-eye of computer modelling, but also because of the way the human eye and brain work together in real life.

I rarely fly 109's but it seems from my research that the LW were the masters of the bolt-on. Late war 109's should have plenty of add-on packs - gondolas, rockets, you name it. Maybe not the K, but certainly the G.

The Fw's all feel heavy to me. Roll rate is dizzying, of course. But the plane departs if you look at it wrong and I really have trouble accepting that it's low speed handling is as limited as modeled. It just doesn't "feel" like the tight little plane it was. Just an opinion.

Anyone who thinks HT has a bias against LW planes never flew with him in AW. As I recall HT flew the Fw almost exclusively.

[Crumpp]

Anyone who thinks HT has a bias

IMHO lack of data is the problem not bias.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Angus
And how were the 109 flaps deployed? Nobody yet explained that.
And the UC?

Flaps were lowered mechanically, by rotating that double wheel on the left of the cocpit, visible on the 109E cocpit picture (iirc outer one adjusted the tailplane ("Flosse"), the inner one adjusted the flaps, so you could the two at the same time, re-trimming the plane which is neccesary if you deploy flaps)

Undercarriage (and radiator flaps) were operated hydraulically. The prop angle was set by an electric motor.

[Kurfürst]

Just checked the 109G Bedienungsvorschrift. It says:

"C. Abflug
...
2. Landeklappen auf 20* stellen.
Ladeklappenverstellrad links, Anzeiger auf linker Landeklappe. 20* Anzeige entrsprechen 4 umdrehungen am Handrad."

Note : This should mean takeoff flaps. I am not sure though what's the precise meaning of 'umdrehungen', though it seems unlikely that they'd instuct pilots to make four 360 degree turns, if that was physically impossible...

[Bruno]

The 190 and 109 cockpits do look like that and that is how they should be modelled IMO. For ALL planes. Being a TIR user I understand that this is a bit unfair as for TIR users the frames do not present such obstruction for views as for hat view users. I think that what should be determined is the physical size of the actual windshield for all the planes and a desicion for the common "modelling distance" which guarantees that all aircraft would have their forward views exactly at right proportions. I know its a huge task but again members of this board could help a lot in this.

I agree, this red herring argument about canopy bars is silly especially with AHs generous head view movement, this just for 'hat users'. Not to mention trackIR. This is more or less just a 'look at the Allied planes, its unfair' then anything else.

It doesn't even matter about distance from the windscreen because you can set and save whatever distance you want using the arrow keys. I use track IR alone, no hat switch is mapped no keyboard commands for view ect and I don't find the views in LW planes all that 'limiting'.

Flaps are another red herring. As Kurfürst said flaps will just bled your energy faster, especially on LW planes. It's not that big of an issue. Especially on the 109s where their acceleration and climb make them excellent dog fighters. If your claim that HTC hates LW planes is based upon 'flaps' and 'canopy bars' then thats nothing more then whining. Or is it just about gondolas and bombs?

Also, those of you who don't think the Spitfires could fight you need to know that the best of the Spitfires aren't even in AH. Hell, if we use the Spit XVI as a gage then I imagine a simple LF.Vc with CW would be enough to send half of you over the edge. Imagine that Spit XVI with 25lbs boost (it runs 18 max now).

I am still not sure what you all are claiming has changed with the LW planes? 109 speed and climb are about the same (G-14 is the exception and as I said above Pyro said he would look at it), Kweassa did some turn tests and posted in another thread that these haven't changed. Fork is working acceleration tests and I imagine those haven't changed much either.