Will 109s and Fw-190s be fixed before ToD release

[gatt]

Widewing,

the funny thing is that many if not all the so called Luftwhiners of this and many other threads are quite good at using the 190-190 family in the arena. Check the stats of many of them. Do you think they have problems using the 109 or need a training session? I dont think so.

Many of them have flown allied planes as well, and I'm sure that 99% of them feel that flying a Pony or a Spitfire or a Jug is 200% easier not in terms of stall/spin/torque but in general terms: they feel on rails, very stable, no wobble ... even at the very edge of the envelope. I fly 109-190 and 205. Some days ago I took a Spitfire XVI for a first trial in the Main and I laugh, really I laugh at how easy it is to do EVERYTHING with her. You can fly without taking a look at the main gauges: the a/c forgive everything. You can drive the edge of the envelope with no fear. And the Pony, mutatis mutandis, is almost the same. The point is that the differences in handling/stability at that edge are too much for some planes.

Was Hanna drunk when he mock-dogfighted a Pony with a rebuilt G-10? Anecdotal evidences of tens of AARs are not enuff? Well, should the results of a subjective flight model be the ultimate law then? You all feel/are safe becouse some feelings cannot be demonstrated with numbers and equations. However, do we need maths to demonstrate that a 110 should not outloop many light aircraft? Or a P-47N should not loop like a zeke slow and low on the deck? Or a Lanc should not outfly a light fighter performing wingovers and other acrobatics? Or that some fighters should not do a 180 flat turn and loose almost ZERO speed? Or that some fighters after performing a couple of hard scissors rolls should not lift their noses and follow a 400mph low-g zoomer up in the sky? Or that the t/o or landing should not be SO easy? Or that torque during t/o is practically non existent?

Are these the proof that our FM is so good that our feeling about some a/c behaviour is wrong? C/mon .....

[Sable]

The problem is that there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that points to the opposite conclusion that some of you draw.  We could play "lets post anecdotes" all day, and end up with no idea of how the airplanes should really perform, because the anecdotal results were all so different.  For instance, here is Mark Hanna's statement, taken from his experience flying restored aircraft half a decade after the fact:

It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better.

But then look at what the results of British Air Ministry testing were in Dec 1943:

BRIEF COMPARISON WITH Me.109G
Turning Circle
49.            The Mustang III is greatly superior.

COMBAT PERFORMANCE WITH LONG-RANGE TANKS
Turning Circle
56.            The tanks do not make quite so much difference as one might expect. The Mustang III can at least turn as tightly as the FW.190 (BMW.801D) without stalling out and therefore definitely more tightly than the Me.109G.

Who is right?  The only unbiased way to model it is the way HTC does - by doing the math.  Is it pefect?  The only way any of us are in a position to say is if we can bring some objective data to the table.

[gatt]

Out-turn doesnt mean out-maneuver, doesnt mean better in every meaning and above all doesnt justify such a big difference in handling like the one we have in AH.

I dont want to rely on anecdotal evidences of course but our FM is so full of weird behaviours that I'm really puzzled you guys blindly rely on it in this discussion when it fits the plane you prefer.

I remember very well when the crowd of the slow and low turn&burners whined so much and made HTC change the whole FM. From that point on, since the turning performances were supposed to be right then everything else *had* to be right. Like the "lift your nose" and "hang on your prop" behaviours we can see everyday in the Main.

Right numbers about max speeds at alts, stall speeds and turning times/radius dont necessarily mean that *every other flying attitude* is right. IMHO, of course.

[MANDO]

HiTech, do you find anything odd related to current 109s or 190s flying characteristics worth to be fixed?

[gatt]

Mando, add the Bf110 as well. Btw, judging form the threads of the last months the answer is obviously no.

[bozon]

Originally posted by gatt
From that point on, since the turning performances were supposed to be right then everything else was right. Like the "lift your nose" and "hang on your prop" behaviour we can see everyday in the Main.

There are areas when I'm positive the FM is wrong without even checking. I would even say they are wrong in every flight sim. When you have passed deep into the stall and the plane starts moving relative to the air in diretions it was not intended to it is near impossible to calculate the effects.

For example, the "lift your nose" and "hang on your prop" move. All fine and dandy till you start falling backwards. Now you have airflow coming on the surfaces of the plane from directions of way beyond +- 15 degrees from zero AoA. All kinds of numerical "tricks" that give approximated solutions like laminar flow with carefuly placed vorticities become totaly irrelevant. I don't know what numerics HTC uses, but I'm sure my 1GHz Pentium 3 does not solve full Hydrodynamicl equations with boundary condition that look like a 109 or P-47, in real time. Most of it is likely pre-calculated sets of solutions with some adjustable parameters that your FE uses for parts of the plane.

On the other hand, one would not want a sim whose physics work on anacdots and stories. This will quickly become science fiction and the only way to test your model is by comparing to data. If 109 should handle "better", how do you factor "better" into your model? The only thing I'd ask HTC for is to check that the model itself is not bugged and factors everything in, not to force a patched up solution to please the crowd of how it should handel in their imagination.

Bozon

[Charge]

Interesting interview:

http://www.forumtroll.net/movies/EAA_Interviews.wmv

There is also a video where Skip Holm claims that the P51 can not be skid sideways for gunsolution whereas for 109 it is very easy.

I think this claim is based on a/c geometry. The P51 has its wings quite far back (as in P39 too) and in 109 the wings are quite forward.

-C+

[gatt]

On the other hand, one would not want a sim whose physics work on anacdots and stories. This will quickly become science fiction and the only way to test your model is by comparing to data. If 109 should handle "better", how do you factor "better" into your model? The only thing I'd ask HTC for is to check that the model itself is not bugged and factors everything in, not to force a patched up solution to please the crowd of how it should handel in their imagination.

I agree, obviously. My thoughts come only from a relative perception of a/c performances and behaviour during extreme manoeuvers.
I always talked about "flying on rails" comparing two aircraft, never describing one plane only.
Take a Pony and fly all the day, then take a 190A-5 and fly all the day. The difference in handling at the edge of the envelope is so big that you have to ask to yourself whats wrong.
Look, I'm not saying that the wrong one is the A-5 FM, I'm simply saying that a very good fighter (in RL) like the A-5 is so unstable and wobbling during hazardous manoeuvers, *compared to the Pony*, that something could be wrong.
Take the Spitfire IX and the C.205 and evaluate the stability of the two, even how different is head movement during high-g manoeuvers. The first looks like a toy, the second is so unstable that one cannot imagine how real pilots could manage it.
Have you ever mixed with a low and slow 110G-2? What kind of FM in the earth can allow that big fat twin engine fighter those manoeuvers?

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Krusty


So, with that explanation, I will decline your invitation. Much like the Mossie/110 flat spin, the 190 flopping at low speeds, the P38 flying in a nose down position when level, and the 190 flying in a nose up position when level, and the 109 flopping at most speeds, this is not a pilot error issue.

Just so you know, the P-38 is SUPPOSED to fly with a few degrees nose down due to wing incidence....

What joysticks are you gents using? Also, consider adding additional damping.

My regards,

Widewing

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Widewing
Just so you know, the P-38 is SUPPOSED to fly with a few degrees nose down due to wing incidence....

It might be exaggerated somewhat in AH. It's very pronounced in this game. When flying level you are actually looking DOWN (gunsight and all) well below the horizon at all times. It's rather unsettlings when flying over the water low.

[Charge]

"Just so you know, the P-38 is SUPPOSED to fly with a few degrees nose down due to wing incidence...."

As should 190.

And 109.

-C+

PS. "What joysticks are you gents using? Also, consider adding additional damping."

http://www.savanne.org/kuvat/HypCoug1_resize.jpg

It is quite accurate with Hall-sensors. Doesn't really help on 190 slow speed wobble once it sets on.

[Apar]

the funny thing is that many if not all the so called Luftwhiners of this and many other threads are quite good at using the 190-190 family in the arena. Check the stats of many of them. Do you think they have problems using the 109 or need a training session? I dont think so.

Many of them have flown allied planes as well, and I'm sure that 99% of them feel that flying a Pony or a Spitfire or a Jug is 200% easier not in terms of stall/spin/torque but in general terms: they feel on rails, very stable, no wobble ... even at the very edge of the envelope. I fly 109-190 and 205. Some days ago I took a Spitfire XVI for a first trial in the Main and I laugh, really I laugh at how easy it is to do EVERYTHING with her. You can fly without taking a look at the main gauges: the a/c forgive everything. You can drive the edge of the envelope with no fear. And the Pony, mutatis mutandis, is almost the same. The point is that the differences in handling/stability at that edge are too much for some planes.

Dead on. I flew the g10 almost exclusively and the few times I took up a P51 or Spit I was surprised on how easy they handle compared to the g10 (and K4).

Widewing up a 109g2 with 75% (or more) fuel and do some agressive (tied) turnes at 200-220 mph in the DA or MA with it, you will see what happens. It will try to snaproll and you will having your hands full trying to to prevent it while trying to maintain turn rate. I'm happy to guide you through the process. Flying the 109 close to its envelope at high fuel state is a ***** (and that is not the case with the P51 and spit)

[Timofei]

Do you guys have life ?
I mean really ? Girlfriend, wife, work, other hobbies ?
Is this important ?
Kingpin of your life...wobbliness of 109 in  AH

[Kev367th]

Almost all the stuff I've read says the 109 and 190 were both susceptible to snap rolls.
The 190 could enter a snap roll in a high 'g' high aoa manoever.
So I don't get what your trying to prove.

Just search the web, plenty of stuff regarding 190/109 snap rolls.

Has it ever dawned on any of you that there were aircraft that were better at handling than the 109/190's?

[Bronk]

Originally posted by Kev367th


Has it ever dawned on any of you that there were aircraft that were better at handling than the 109/190's?

Kev this is impossible . We all know aircraft design was halted after Willy Messerschmitt and Kurt tank  designed the 109/190 respectively.

That is all .

Bronk