109g-10

[gatt]

I've never seen anybody with any gondolas in any 109 variant that was above 20k in almost the entire time I've been playing this game (since early-mid 2000)

Here I am mate. Before tour 77 my kills were almost only buffs. I used the G-10 for hi alt intercept and the 205 for mid-low. Check my stats and see what the heavy G-10 was good for.

[moot]

Wrag the AUX tank is tiny.  Consider the AUX and AFT tank as a single mass and you will see that burning the AUX tank is better done first.

Burn an equal amount of fuel from the AFT tank as the AUX tank contains before tapping the AUX tank at all, and you'll see the plane handles worse than if you emptied the AUX tank first.

[wrag]

Originally posted by Xasthur
I want the G-10 too, Wrag, but it seems that you're missing a critical point here.

By all accounts the old G-10 flew as a K4 performance wise. If the G-10 was to be re-added it would not be as you remembered it.

The G-10 will be slower.... then if you add the gondolas you'll add a further speed penalty... It will still be better than the G-14 at altitude but it will not behave like a K4.

Also, on un-related note... 109s don't compress. They won't go into an un-recoverable dive like a P-38 will (until you reach ridiculous speeds that is... and any other aircraft will do the same thing). The air disturbance over the control surfaces doesn't happen like it does in the P-38, which is compressibility as I understand it.

The unresponsiveness of the elevators at high speeds in the 109 is not a compression issue, the elevators just become very heavy thus negating regular control inputs.

Manually controlling the elevator trim will counter this and allow the 109 to turn at high speeds with almost anything. As a matter of fact, manual control of the elevators completely removes the issue of heavy elevators and introduces the trouble of blacking-out.

An over-trimmed 109 in a high-speed dive that has otherwise rendered joystick input useless will have you pulling heavy G's and on the verge of black-out for an extended period.

Recently I put a 109K into a very high-speed dive chasing something down, I took the shot and went to pull out.... no response from joystick inputs. After combat trim was disabled I trimmed out the elevators too much and blacked out (I'm still getting used to the trim wheel on my X52). After what was probably the longest G-induced black-out I've had in-game I 'came-too' with the 109 in a tight vertical loop. I had pulled out just above the deck at what was at least 400MPH+ IIRC and completed a full loop at ground level, when the black-out wore off I was already half-way through what had to be at least the second loop.


Trim is everything at high speeds in the 109. Don't sell yourself short by thinking they will compress.

Perhaps you didn't read my earlier post?

I stated that I'am FULLY aware of the performance differences between the G14, G10 and K4.

I also stated that I'm FULLY aware of the differences in handling with and without gonds.

Please reread my earlier post.  ( I suspect STRONGLY that had you read my post you would NOT have made yours. )

As too the 109 diving characteristics I think you will find the P38 will recover using the same technique.

IIRC the La7 can have the same thing happen.

Try rolling one wing high and sideslipping the nose to the high wing in the 109 when you're in a dive.  May take you longer to reach your target but lack of control SEEMS less of an issue.

Also something I have noticed is the speed at which the lack of control happens SEEMS to depend on ALT.  The higher you are in the AH 109 the faster you SEEM to be able to dive and still recover without using up trim.

[wrag]

Originally posted by moot
Wrag the AUX tank is tiny.  Consider the AUX and AFT tank as a single mass and you will see that burning the AUX tank is better done first.

Burn an equal amount of fuel from the AFT tank as the AUX tank contains before tapping the AUX tank at all, and you'll see the plane handles worse than if you emptied the AUX tank first.

I understand your argument.

I can't agree with you statement.

Been flyin a8's and f8's for a long time in AH and IMHO I've found the AFT tank is the KEY to handling with those planes.  

Did so for years in AH.  

Only tried the AUX out because I actually thought a there may have been a minor FM CG change and Krusty knew about it and I did not.  My BAD I guess.  Had differences with Krusty's post several times in the past.  Guess I was giving the benefit of the doubt where I shouldn't have.

Near as I can tell there has been NO FM CG change to the a8 or f8 that justifies burning Auto vs AFT 1st.

IMHO A single mass or not burning off that TINY aux tank does VERY little and the result of burning off the AFT 1st then going to auto-burn creates so nearly the same result, the quicker you lower the level in the aft tank the quicker your 190a8 or f8 will preform better.

Wanna improve your A5 handling?  Take a DT and 75% fuel.  Soon as your dump that DT your A5 is at fighting weight.

This SEEMS to be the case with the 109s as well.  You WILL have handling/performance issues with a full (100%) tank UNTIL you reach 75% fuel then the issues nearly disappear.

Yes most all the planes in AH handle better with less fuel BUT the LW iron SEEMS to have a GREATER 100% fuel CG issue then the other planes.

That's my OPINION and I'm sticking to it!!!! NEENER NEENER so there!:D

[Krusty]

There has been no change, it has always been this way. It's one of the reasons for snap stalls in the A8, wing dips, etc. Less so since the airflow recode, but still there.


Historically the weight of the ETC rack balanced this aux tank out, and it was left on at all times. However in AH I found out the ETC rack weighs nothing because HTC didn't know how heavy to make it, so there's no COG benefit.

IMHO A single mass or not burning off that TINY aux tank does VERY little and the result of burning off the AFT 1st then going to auto-burn creates so nearly the same result, the quicker you lower the level in the aft tank the quicker your 190a8 or f8 will preform better.

That's the same as folks who say "burn the fuselage tank in the Ki84 first! It turns like a zeke on steroids!" --- but only because you've burned off the majority of your fuel.

Aux tank holds 30 gals. AFT tank holds about 70 gals. Burning aux off will save you 180lbs. Burning off all of AFT will save you 420lbs.

The difference you've seen is NOT one of balance, but pure weight. In such a case you might as well fly with 50% and a DT and drop the tank at the first enemy you see.

We are talking, however, not about pure weight (wing loading) but about the handling at any given weight. Same way the rocket racks on the F-8 help its handling (but not its weight) because they move the CoG forward. We're on different pages here.

[moot]

You're not seeing what I'm trying to show you.

The AUX tank is 30 gallons, AFT 77.   Burning the first 30 gallons from the AFT tank rather than from the AUX tank dry is not a favorable trade off.

The Aux tank is furthest back of all tanks, it's a boost container used as fuel tank as you know.   AFT is ahead of AUX, FWD ahead of AFT, and drop tanks are ahead of FWD and wing tanks (in the 152).  Wing tanks and drop tank are pretty much on the same spot, length-wise.

Having weight furthest ahead is the best CoG you can have for maneuverability, for the same reason you have door handles furthest from the axis of rotation, also for the same reason that if you'd rather the door of your fridge open easily as opposed to heavily (as well as banging against whatever's behind it if you forget to stop it) you'll have all the stuff in it pushed closest to the axis of rotation.
This is seen everywhere, "mass centralization" as a way to make things more efficient when you want to maximize rotation or minimize energy/effort required for this rotation.  e.g. Racing motorcycles attempt to compact everything near the roll axis so that the rider gains time, tires work less, etc.  Same deal with 190s: that's partly why they roll so well, it's thanks to mass being near the axis.

Analogous to this is the pitch axis - it's more efficient if you've got mass distributed as much towards the axis as possible, and on a plane that's near the prop, towards the front, away from the elevators which'll effect the rotation the same way you effect rotation on a door.

So, AUX being furthest back is what you want to get rid of first, if what you're after is agility.  I suppose if you wanted a plane's nose to remain as solid as possible (at the cost of agility), you'd do the inverse.  E.G. if you were shooting at precise (and immobile for the sake of your E) targets such as a bomber's cockpit or a vehicle's driver.
Another analogous model is hunting arrows.  You don't put weight back near the directing tail feathers for a good reason, that's the one I'm trying to illustrate..
I lost a schematic of this I had made a while back, it shows all tanks' positions on the 109/190s length.

So the reason a DT helps pitch agility is the same reason that makes AUX the best tank to burn first.

[wrag]

Originally posted by Krusty
There has been no change, it has always been this way. It's one of the reasons for snap stalls in the A8, wing dips, etc. Less so since the airflow recode, but still there.


Historically the weight of the ETC rack balanced this aux tank out, and it was left on at all times. However in AH I found out the ETC rack weighs nothing because HTC didn't know how heavy to make it, so there's no COG benefit.




That's the same as folks who say "burn the fuselage tank in the Ki84 first! It turns like a zeke on steroids!" --- but only because you've burned off the majority of your fuel.

Aux tank holds 30 gals. AFT tank holds about 70 gals. Burning aux off will save you 180lbs. Burning off all of AFT will save you 420lbs.

The difference you've seen is NOT one of balance, but pure weight. In such a case you might as well fly with 50% and a DT and drop the tank at the first enemy you see.

We are talking, however, not about pure weight (wing loading) but about the handling at any given weight. Same way the rocket racks on the F-8 help its handling (but not its weight) because they move the CoG forward. We're on different pages here.

Excuse me.................

Pure weight?

Center of Gravity is a WEIGHT thing!

As in WHERE the weight is LOCATED!

Sure that AFT tank is furthest back....

But burnin off that AFT tank gives ME better handling.  And it gives it to me quicker then burnin off that AUX 1st!

How can I say this?  FROM MY EXPERIENCE flying in AH.

You prefer burning off that AUX tank 1st you go ahead.

Me I find that the A8 and F8 SNAP stall much less if I burn off the AFT tank BEFORE I go to the AUX and auto-burn.

YES I agree it is a PURE WEIGHT thing.

IMHO we are on the SAME PAGE.

I understand what you are saying, I DISAGREE with what you are saying.

IMHO there is a considerable difference between 420 lbs and 180 lbs.

[wrag]

Originally posted by moot
You're not seeing what I'm trying to show you.

The AUX tank is 30 gallons, AFT 77.   Burning the first 30 gallons from the AFT tank rather than from the AUX tank dry is not a favorable trade off.

The Aux tank is furthest back of all tanks, it's a boost container used as fuel tank as you know.   AFT is ahead of AUX, FWD ahead of AFT, and drop tanks are ahead of FWD and wing tanks (in the 152).  Wing tanks and drop tank are pretty much on the same spot, length-wise.

Having weight furthest ahead is the best CoG you can have for maneuverability, for the same reason you have door handles furthest from the axis of rotation, also for the same reason that if you'd rather the door of your fridge open easily as opposed to heavily (as well as banging against whatever's behind it if you forget to stop it) you'll have all the stuff in it pushed closest to the axis of rotation.
This is seen everywhere, "mass centralization" as a way to make things more efficient when you want to maximize rotation or minimize energy/effort required for this rotation.  e.g. Racing motorcycles attempt to compact everything near the roll axis so that the rider gains time, tires work less, etc.  Same deal with 190s: that's partly why they roll so well, it's thanks to mass being near the axis.

Analogous to this is the pitch axis - it's more efficient if you've got mass distributed as much towards the axis as possible, and on a plane that's near the prop, towards the front, away from the elevators which'll effect the rotation the same way you effect rotation on a door.

So, AUX being furthest back is what you want to get rid of first, if what you're after is agility.  I suppose if you wanted a plane's nose to remain as solid as possible (at the cost of agility), you'd do the inverse.  E.G. if you were shooting at precise (and immobile for the sake of your E) targets such as a bomber's cockpit or a vehicle's driver.
Another analogous model is hunting arrows.  You don't put weight back near the directing tail feathers for a good reason, that's the one I'm trying to illustrate..
I lost a schematic of this I had made a while back, it shows all tanks' positions on the 109/190s length.

So the reason a DT helps pitch agility is the same reason that makes AUX the best tank to burn first.

I do see what you're saying.  Yes it SOUNDS correct.

AND I KEEP saying that in my experience flying in AH that burning off the AFT tank 1st gives a greater benefit QUICKER.

The A8 and F8 snap stall LESS.

Again there is a considerable difference between 420lbs and 180lbs.

Sure that AUX tank is further back then the AFT BUT flyin in AH burning off the AFT 1st IMHO gives you better handling quicker then burning off the AUX tank 1st.  That is MY FINDING.

As to the 109s they only have 1 internal tank.  Haven't seen or heard of one with more then 1 internal tank?

[wrag]

NOW can we get back to the subject of this thread?

The 109g10 PLEASE!

HiTech can you post that page regarding BRIBES again SIR????????

[Bronk]

Originally posted by wrag
NOW can we get back to the subject of this thread?

The 109g10 PLEASE!

HiTech can you post that page regarding BRIBES again SIR????????

Just so you know. He wanted 200 bottles for a Mk XII spit. Soooo GL with that .

[Krusty]

FYI Wrag, that's our point. Your reduction of weight is reducing it in the place that makes the plane tail heavy and less stable.

If you burn 70 gallons off before you get to a fight, you burn 70 gallons. It's a given, let's say. WHICH 70 gallons you burn makes a difference. So forget that they're named "AUX" or "AFT"

one holds 70, one holds 30. It takes the same time to burn the one as it does to burn the smaller one and 40 of the larger one. It takes the same time to burn the fuel, no matter where it's stored.

So, why not burn off the tank that destabilizes your plane and makes you tail heavy?

Maybe the issue is you don't feel it... Are you taking 100% internal? If you don't, the aux tank isn't filled and you won't be feeling what we feel. I ask only because I know a lot of folks take 50%/75% and DT to save weight, or don't plan on longer sorties.

Take a 190a8 up offline, switch to AFT, increase fuel burn to 100, burn it off,, and before switching tanks turn it back to 0.01 burn. Fly around, pull some hard manuvers. Starts feeling pretty squirrelly, compared to the same loadout with full FWD and 1/2 listed on AFT (about the same gas loadout)


As for the G10, I still say it's got little to no use in MA. That said, I *am* for a G-14/AS for scenario use and all that.

[Motherland]

Originally posted by Krusty

As for the G10, I still say it's got little to no use in MA. That said, I *am* for a G-14/AS for scenario use and all that.

I disagree: I'd think the G10 would get the same or equal use to the K4 simply because of the MG151. I know I'd fly it.

[Xasthur]

Originally posted by wrag

As too the 109 diving characteristics I think you will find the P38 will recover using the same technique.

IIRC the La7 can have the same thing happen.

Try rolling one wing high and sideslipping the nose to the high wing in the 109 when you're in a dive.  May take you longer to reach your target but lack of control SEEMS less of an issue.

Also something I have noticed is the speed at which the lack of control happens SEEMS to depend on ALT.  The higher you are in the AH 109 the faster you SEEM to be able to dive and still recover without using up trim.

It's the shape of the aircraft that causes it to compress. At high speeds the air disturbance caused by the leading edge of the wing is so great that the air that flows over the rear control surfaces is so disrupted that moving the control surfaces to full deflection achieves very little if anything at all.

This is not the case in the 109 as it is in the P-38.

 I just tested offline and a 450 mph IAS dive (Below 20k) will put the P-38 into a state of compression. It is possible to recover from this at this speed with the use of trim and even dive flaps once the speed increases beyond 450MPH. I suspect that a state of total compression occours at a higher speed. I didn't have time to check this.

In the same testing the 109 K4 reacts to regular elevator input (no trim) up to well over 500 MPH IAS. The elevators are heavy but at that speed any further input on the elevators would have the pilot on the edge of blacking out anyway, so it doesn't really matter. It is not until over 600 mph TAS at higher altitudes that the 109 starts to lock up and this is after the aircraft has been buffeting heavily for a while. Manual trim in this situation was more than enough to sharply climb out of this dive and pull enough G to cause black out.


In any case the point of this whole side-discussion here is that the 109 does not suffer from compressability as the P-38 does

On topic, the G-10 would be a nice addition to the list as would the G-14AS

[moot]

Originally posted by wrag
I do see what you're saying.  Yes it SOUNDS correct.

AND I KEEP saying that in my experience flying in AH that burning off the AFT tank 1st gives a greater benefit QUICKER.

The A8 and F8 snap stall LESS.

Again there is a considerable difference between 420lbs and 180lbs.

Sure that AUX tank is further back then the AFT BUT flyin in AH burning off the AFT 1st IMHO gives you better handling quicker then burning off the AUX tank 1st.  That is MY FINDING.

As to the 109s they only have 1 internal tank.  Haven't seen or heard of one with more then 1 internal tank?

Wrag the fuel burn rate is the same on both tanks.  Of course an empty AFT tank and full FWD & AUX are better than empty AUX and full AFT & FWD, that's because AUX is barely further aft than AFT and half AFT's volume.
What you seem to be saying is that you don't want to manualy burn AUX and then switch to AFT.  Nevertheless burning AUX's 30gal first is better than burning 30gal from the AFT.  To get that greater agility from burning AFT before AUX you need to burn the whole AFT tank which takes X amount of time, and in this same X amount of time you could've burnt the whole AUX tank + more than half the AFT tank.

I'm not making it up, AUX is the best one to burn first.  It's elementary

edit- and I just saw that Krusty typed out the exact same thing I came up with
And I mentioned 109s because you mentioned their confirmation that having a DT helped agility.  The 109's DT is furthest ahead too, IIRC.  So it may even be advantageous to have a full DT and empty MAIN at speeds where the extra drag isn't too large yet..

[wrag]

Originally posted by Bronk
Just so you know. He wanted 200 bottles for a Mk XII spit. Soooo GL with that .

200 bottles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OK this is gonna require some assistance from others!

We need to create a BRIBERY fund!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Guess it will require an all new thread though