Author Topic: Something I recently read about Bf-109E series  (Read 833 times)

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
Something I recently read about Bf-109E series
« on: November 09, 2001, 06:23:00 AM »
" It was commonly known to the Luftwaffe pilots that their adversaries over the english channel, the Spitfire MkIs, were superior in turn performance than the aircraft they used, Bf-109E series. Therefore, rarely would experienced pilots think about going toe-to-toe with a Spitfire in a turn fight.

 But in fact, the tests the RAF had done with a captured Bf-109E revealed that the turn performance was not very inferior to their Spitfire MkIs. Rather, a 109 was able to hold its own in a turnfight against the Spitfires.

 But this fact remained top-secret, and was not revealed until after the war. Thus, many Luftwaffe pilots(and RAF pilots alike) testified that the Spitfire MkI was superior in turning capabilities than the Bf-109E, and most who are still alive think so even up to today."

 ...

 I got this from a Korean website I visit often. I wasn't able to get any specific sources for that article, and it has made me very curious.

 Can anyone illuminate me on this subject?  :)

[ 11-09-2001: Message edited by: Kweassa ]


Offline Naudet

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 729
Something I recently read about Bf-109E series
« Reply #2 on: November 09, 2001, 07:16:00 AM »
If anyone has cirle times for Spit we could compared them.

I found in a book the following data:

BF 109E-4  25 seconds at 3k

BF 109F-0 18 seconds at 3k

Offline Bombjack

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 55
Something I recently read about Bf-109E series
« Reply #3 on: November 09, 2001, 07:16:00 AM »
I've never seen anything like such a statement from a primary source Kweassa.

However the report from the PRO doesn't tell the whole story either (as I'm sure Staga is aware), since experienced 109 pilots had no trouble pulling through the slot opening to achieve tighter turns. If the evaluating officers had been willing to do so, IMHO they would have drawn the 'popular' conclusion: the Hurricane I (and to a lesser extent the Spit I) were both able to "out turn" the 109e, but the advantage was not huge.

Offline Raubvogel

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3882
Something I recently read about Bf-109E series
« Reply #4 on: November 09, 2001, 01:39:00 PM »
Those tests were done with the slats wired shut.

Offline Bombjack

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 55
Something I recently read about Bf-109E series
« Reply #5 on: November 12, 2001, 07:22:00 AM »
Quote
Those tests were done with the slats wired shut.

Page 2 of the turning evaluation clearly shows that was not the case, since reference is made to the 109's much-referenced asymmetric slot opening.

I have no references, but it is my recollection that some german pilots chose to wire the slots on their planes shut for this reason - however accounts from the experten seem to agree that the slots were a positive asset and they at least were fully capable of using them.

Offline Buzzbait

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1141
Something I recently read about Bf-109E series
« Reply #6 on: November 12, 2001, 01:58:00 PM »
S!

109E outturning Spits and Hurricanes  (I's)...  I don't think so.

What your comments may be referring to, is that the 109E can be flown up to the edge of the stall more easily than the Spits and Hurri's.  (mentioned below)  So a less experienced Spitfire pilot might not push his plane as far, and therefore a 109E flown by an equally experienced pilot might be able to turn with it.  Against an experienced Spitfire pilot, the 109E would be easily outturned.  SEE BELOW:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


On May 4, 1940, a Bf.109E (Wn: 1304) was flown to RAF Boscombe Down, where it was appraised by the Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment (A & AEE); then later flown to the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) at Farnborough for handlin gtrials, and allocated the serial number AE479. The results of the RAE's evaluation were discussed on Thursday, March 9, 1944 at a meeting of the Royal Aeronautical Society in London, at which M.B. Morgan and R. Smelt of the RAE lectured on 'The aerodynamic features of German aircraft'.

"Take-off
This is best done with the flaps at 20 degrees. The throttle can be opened very quickly without fear of choking the engine. Acceleration is good, and there is little tendency to swing or bucket. The stick must be held hard forward to get the tail up. It is advisable to let the airplane fly itself off since, if pulled off too soon, the left wing will not lift, and on applying aileron the wing lifts and falls again, with the ailerons snatching a little. If no attempt is made to pull the airplane off quickly, the take-off run is short, and initial climb good.
Approach
Stalling speeds on the glide are 75 mph flaps up, and 61 mph flaps down. Lowering the flaps makes the ailerons feel heavier and slightly less effective, and causes a marked nose-down pitching moment, readily corrected owing to the juxtaposition of trim and flap operating wheels. If the engine is opened up to simulate a baulked landing with flaps and undercarriage down, the airplane becomes tail-heavy but can easily be held with one hand while trim is adjusted. Normal approach speed is 90 mph. At speeds above 100 mph, the pilot has the impression of diving, and below 80 mph one of sinking. At 90 mph the glide path is reasonably steep and the view fairly good. Longitudinally the airplane is markedly stable, and the elevator heavier and more responsive than is usual in single-seater fighters. These features add considerably to the ease of approach. Aileron effectiveness is adequate; the rudder is sluggish for small movements.
Landing
This is more difficult than on the Hurricane I or Spitfire I. Owing to the high ground attitude, the airplane must be rotated through a large angle before touchdown, and this requires a fair amount of skill. If a wheel landing is done the left wing tends to drop just before touchdown, and if the ailerons are used to lift it, they snatch, causing over-correction. The brakes can be applied immediately after touchdown without fear of lifting the tail. The ground run is short, with no tendency to swing. View during hold-off and ground run is very poor, and landing at night would not be easy.
Taxing
The aircraft can be taxied fast without danger of bucketing, but is is difficult to turn quickly; an unusually large amount of throttle is needed, in conjunction with harsh braking, when manuevering in a confined space. The brakes are foot-operated, and pilots expressed a strong preference for the hand operation system to which they are more accustomed.
Lateral Trim
There is no procounced change of lateral trim with speed of throttle setting provided that care is taken to fly with no sideslip.
Directional Trim
Absence of rudder trimmer is a bad feature, although at low speeds the practical consequences are not so alarming as the curves might suggest, since the rudder is fairly light on the climb. At high speeds, however, the pilot is seriously inconvenienced, as above 300 mph about 2 1/2 degrees of port (left) rudder are needed for flight with no sideslip and a very heavy foot load is needed to keep this on. In consequence the pilot's left foot becomes tired, and this affects his ability to put on left rudder in order to assist a turn to port (left). Hence at high speeds the Bf.109E turns far more readily to the right than to the left.
Longitudinal Trim
Five three-quarter turns of a 11.7 in diameter wheel on the pilot's left are needed to move the adjustable tailplane through its full 12-degrees range. The wheel rotation is in the natural sense. Tailplane and elevator angles to trim were measured at various speeds in various condition; the elevator angles were corrected to constant tail setting. The airplane is statically stable both stick fixed and stick free.
'One Control' tests, flat turns, sideslips
The airplane was trimmed to fly straight and level at 230 mph at 10,000 feet. In this condition the airplane is not in trim directionally and a slight pressure is needed on the left rudder pedal to prevent sideslip. This influences the results of the following tests:

Ailerons fixed central On suddenly applying half-rudder the nose swings through about eight degrees and the airplane banks about five degrees with the nose pitching down a little. On releasing the rudder it returns to central, and the airplane does a slowly damped oscillation in yaw and roll. The right wing then slowly falls. Good baned turns can be done in either direction on rudder alone, with little sideslip if the rudder is used gently. Release of the rudder in a steady 30-degree banked turn in either direction results in the left wing slowly rising.

Rudder fixed central Abrupt displacement of the ailerons gives bank with no appreciable opposite yaw. On releasing the stick it returns smartly to central with no oscillation. If the ailerons are released in a 30-degree banked turn, it is impossible to assess the spiral stability, since whether the wing slowly comes up or goes down depends critically on the precise position of the rudder. Excellent banked turns can be done in either direction on ailerons alone. There is very little sideslip on entry or recovery, even if the ailerons are used very harshly. In the turn there is no appreciable sideslip.

Steady flat turns Only half-rudder was used during this test. Full rudder can be applied with a very heavy foot load, but the nose-down pitching movement due to sideslip requires a quite excessive pull on the stick to keep the nose up. When flat turning steadily with half-rudder, wings level, about half opposite aileron is needed. The speed falls from 230 mph to 175 mph, rate of flat turn is about 110.

Steady sideslip when gliding Gliding at 100 mph with flaps and undercarriage up the maximum angle of bank in a straight sideslip is about five degrees. About 1/4 opposite aileron is needed in conjuction with full rudder. The airplane is faily nose-heavy, vibrates and is a little unsteady. On release of all three controls the wing comes up quickly and the airplane glides steadily at the trimmed speed. With flaps and undercarriage down, gliding at 90 mph, the maximum angle of bank is again five degrees 1/5 opposite aileron being needed with full rudder. The nose-down pitching movement is not so pronounced as before, and vibration is still present. Behaviour on releasing the control is similar to that with flaps up.
Stalling Test
The airplane was equipped with a 60 foot trailing static head and a swiveling pitot head. Although, as may be imagined, operation of a trailing static from a single-seater with a rather cramped cockpit is a difficult job, the pilot brought back the following results:
Lowering the ailerons and flaps thus increases CL max of 0.5. This is roughly the value which would be expected from the installation. Behaviour at the stall. The airplane was put through the full official tests. The results may be summarized by saying that the stalling behaviour, flaps up and down, is excellent. Both ruddera nd ailerons are effective right down to the stall, which is very gentle, the wing only falling about 10 degrees and the nose falling with it. There is no tendency to spin. With flaps up the ailerons snatch while the slots are opening, and there is a buffeting on the ailerons as the stall is approached.. Withs flaps down there is no aileron snatch as the slots open, and no pre-stall aileron buffeting. There is no warning of the stall, flaps down. From the safety viewpoint this is the sold adverse stalling feature; it is largely off-set by the innocuous behaviour at the stall and by the very high degree of fore and aft stability on the approach glide.
Safety in the Dive
During a dive at 400 mph all three controls were in turn displaced slightly and released. No vibration, flutter or snaking developed. If the elevator is trimmed for level flight at full throttle, a large push is needed to hold in the dive, and there is a temptation to trim in. If, in fact, the airplane is trimmed into the dive, recovery is difficult unless the trimmer is would back owing to the excessive heaviness of the elevator.
Ailerons
At low speeds the aileron control is very good, there being a definete resistance to stick movement, while response is brisk. As speed is increased, the ailerons bevome heavier, but response remains excellent. They are at their best between 150 mph and 200 mph, one pilot describing them as an 'ideal control' over this range. Above 200 mph they start becoming unpleasantly heavy, and between 300 mph and 400 mph are termed 'solid' by the test pilots. A pilot exerting all his strength cannot apply more than one-fifth aileron at 400 mph. Measurements of stick-top force when the pilot applied about one-fifth aileron in half a second and then held the ailerons steady, together with the corresponding time to 45 degrees banbk, were made at various speeds. The results at 400 mph are given below:
Max sideways force a pilot can apply conveniently to the Bf.109 stick 40 lbs.
Corresponding stick displacement 1/5th.
Time to 45-degree bank 4 seconds.
Deduced balance factyor Kb2 - 0.145

Several points of interest emerge from these tests:
a. Owing to the cramped Bf.109 cockpit, a pilot can only apply about 40 lb sideway force on the stick, as against 60 lb or more possible if he had more room.
b. The designer has also penalized himself by the unusually small stick-top travel of four inches, giving a poor mechanical advantage between pilot and aileron.
c. The time to 45-degree bank of four seconds at 400 mph, which is quite escessive for a fighter, classes the airplane immediately as very unmaneuvrable in roll at high speeds.
Elevator
This is an exceptionally good control at low air speeds, being fairly heavy and not over-sensitive. Above 250 mph, however, it becomes too heavy, so that maneuvrability is seriously restricted. When diving at 400 mph a pilot, pulling very hard, cannot put on enough 'g' to black himself out; stick force -'g' probably esceeds 20 lb/g in the dive.
Rudder
The rudder is light, but rather sluggish at low speeds. At 200 mph the sluggishness has disappeared. Between 200 mph and 300 mph the rudder is the lightest of the three controls for movement, but at 300 mph and above, absence of a rudder trimmer is severely felt, the force to prevent sideslip at 400 mph being excessive.
Harmony
The controls are well harmonised between 150 mph and 250 mph. At lower speeds harmony is spoiled by the sluggishness of the rudder. At higher speeds elevator and ailerons are so heavy that the worn 'harmony' is inappropriate.
Aerobatics
These are not easy. Loops must be started from about 280 mph when the elevator is unduly heavy; there is a tendency for the slots to open at the top of the loop, resulting in aileron snatching and loss of direction. At speeds below 250 mph the airplane can be rolled quite quickly, but in the final stages of the roll there is a strong tendency for the nose to fall, and the stick must be moved well back to keep the nose up. Upward rolls are difficult. Owing to elevator heaviness only a gentle pull-out from the dive is possible, and considerable speed is lost before the upward roll can be started.
Fighting Qualities
A series of mock dogfights with our own fighters briought out forcibly the good and bad points of the airplane. These may be summarised as follows:
Good Points;
High top speed and excellent rate of climb
Engine does not cut immediately under negative 'g'
Good control at low speeds
Gentle stall, even under 'g'
Bad Points;
Ailerons and elevator far too heavy at high speeds
Owing to high wing loading the airplane stalls readily under 'g' and has a relatively poor turning circle
Absence of a rudder trimmer, curtailing ability to bank left in the dive
Cockpit too cramped for comfort
Further Comments
At full throttle at 12,000 feet the minimum radius of steady turn without height loss is about 890 feet in the case of the Bf.109E, with its wing loading of 32 lb/sq ft. The corresponding figure for a comparable fighter with a wing loading of 25 lb/sq ft, such as the Spitfire I or Hurricane I, is about 690 feet. Although the more heavily loaded fighter is thus at a considerable disadvantage, it is important to bear in mind that these minimum radii of turn are obtained by going as near to the stall as possible. In this respect the Bf.109E scores by its excellent control near the stall and innocuous behaviour at the stall, giving the pilot confidence to get the last ounce out of his airplanes turning performance.
The extremely bad maneuvrability of the Bf.109E at high speeds quickly became known to our pilots (RAF). On several occasions a Bf.109E was coaxed to self-destruction when on the tail of a Hurricane or Spitfire at moderate altitude. Our pilot would do a half-roll and quick pull-out from the subsequent steep dive. In the excitement of the moment the Bf.109E pilot would follow, only to find that he had insufficient height for recovery owing to his heavy elevator, and would go straight into the ground without a shot being fired.
Pilots verbatim impressions of some features are of interest. For example, the DB 601 engine came in for much favourable comment from the viewpoint of response to throttle and insusceptability to sudden negative 'g'; while the throttle arrangements were described as 'marvellously simple, there being just one lever with no gate or over-ride to worry about'. Suprisingly though, the manual operation of flaps and tail setting were also liked; 'they are easy to operate, and being manual are not likely to go wrong'; juxtaposition of the flap and tail actuating wheels in an excellent feature.
Performance by 1940 standards was good. When put into a full throttle climb at low air speeds, the airplane climbed at a very steep angle, and our fighters used to have difficulty in keeping their sights on the enemy even when at such a height that their rates of climb were comparible. This steep climb at low air speed was one of the standard evasion maneuvres used by the German pilots. Another was to push the stick forward abruptly and bunt into a dive with considerable negative 'g'. The importance of arranging that the engine whould not cut under these circumstances cannot be over-stressed. SPeed is picked up quickly in a dive, and if being attacked by an airplane of slightly inferior level performance, this feature can be used with advantage to get out of range. There is no doubt that in the autumn of 1940 the Bf.109E in spite of its faults, was a doughty opponent to set against our own equipment'."

<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Offline gripen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
Something I recently read about Bf-109E series
« Reply #7 on: November 12, 2001, 04:13:00 PM »
The RAE tested and calculated flight envelopes for the Bf 109E and the Spitfire I. These can be found from the RAE 109E  report which is available from the PRO and the British Library. Turning times and sizes of the circles can be seen from the envelope.

gripen

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: gripen ]

Offline gripen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
Something I recently read about Bf-109E series
« Reply #8 on: November 12, 2001, 04:14:00 PM »
The RAE tested and calculated flight envelopes for the Bf 109E and the Spitfire I. These can be found from the RAE 109E  report which is available from the PRO and the British Library. Turning times sizes of the circles can be seen from the envelope.

gripen

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Something I recently read about Bf-109E series
« Reply #9 on: November 13, 2001, 04:36:00 AM »
I found the turning circle data of Me-109-E, Spitfire 1 and Hurricane 1 in Len Deighton's book, "Fighter" According to Deighton, The 109 had the tightest turning arc of the three, but at a speed so much lower that both the Spitfire and the Hurricane would still out-turn the 109 by going faster through an arc only a little wider.
The Spitfire had lower wing loading than the 109, so a better turning performance is expected, and so it was in most real cases.
By reading a whole heap of pilot autobiographies from both sides, as well as having a chat with a couple of aces I have come to the opinion that there was no 109 turning better than the 109F, and at through the whole war the same-time model of the Spitfire would always turn better. The German pilots were taught not to get into a turnfight with a Spitfire, while the British pilots were confident in their own turning superiority.
The only abnormalities to this I can only explain with custom tweaks to planes, fuel load and skill of pilot.
German pilots flying captured Spitfires described it as ridiculously easy to fly in comparison with the 109, so the mockfight test done by german pilots might still have yealded the same outcome.
A factor which one must mention with a turnfight between those two was the 109's tendency to snap, while a Spitfire stalled gently. It would therefore require a better pilot to squeeze the full turning out of a 109, and a little snap could prove fatal.
I remember one two fights between aces in a 109E vs Spitfire I, Galland fought R.S.Tuck resulting in both losing their wingmen, and Moelders was shot down by Malan after a fight in which he was completely outmaneuvered by the Spit.
Some pilots of both nations added some tweaks to their plains, Galland's 109F had extra guns added to his (Galland did not favour a turnfight against Spitfires, so a little more punch and less turning abilities were fine with him), while some British pilots added other tweaks to improve performance, i.e. different exhaust stubs, by removing outboard MG's, etc.
In addition, just like in AH, the fuel  load of the opponents would be a crusial factor.
If I remember right, the 109E in Warbirds was the best 109 turner. HTC have IMHO done very well with the flight modelling, so when the time comes that a "Yellow nosed" 109E arrives to the scenery of AH, I guess many LW fans will be slightly disappointed with it being both slower and less maneuverable than the 109F.
Would be nice to have a 109E and a SpitfireI though, and take them to the test properly!  :D
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mƶlders)

Offline niklas

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
Something I recently read about Bf-109E series
« Reply #10 on: November 13, 2001, 07:03:00 AM »
Quote
At full throttle at 12,000 feet the minimum radius of steady turn without height loss is about 890 feet in the case of the Bf.109E, with its wing loading of 32 lb/sq ft. The corresponding figure for a comparable fighter with a wing loading of 25 lb/sq ft, such as the Spitfire I or Hurricane I, is about 690 feet

Have you ever noticed that they talk about CORRESPONDING NUMBERS? They assume the same wingdesign for a spit and hurry:

Look: 890*25/32 = 695!!! 690feet for a spit and hurry is the result from a very simple calculation!

But the wing of a spit was different. It offered way lower lift coefficients. I repeat what i already posted in another threat. A spit VA was tested by the NACA:
"The maximum lift coefficients avaialbe in manoevre with flaps up and in all conditions of flight tested were considerably LOWER than are normally reached by airplanes of similar type"
"The stalling characteristics of the Spitfire are therefore its redeeming feature. It would be desirable, however, to obtain these characteristics without sacrificing a high value of the maximum lift coefficient"
"The maximum lift coefficient reached in turns from level flight with flaps up was 1.23"

Now it gets very interesting if you look at what Angus said:
[/quote]
in Len Deighton's book, "Fighter" According to Deighton, The 109 had the tightest turning arc of the three, but at a speed so much lower that both the Spitfire and the Hurricane would still out-turn the 109 by going faster through an arc only a little wider.
[/quote]
What would happen when you decrease the max. lift coefficient of a Spit? Turn radius becomes larger, but you fly it a bit faster, so the overall turn time doesn“t get much worse.
I really hope HTC will fix the turnRADIUS of the spit, because at them moment with it“s large wing, gentle stall characteristic, and high lift coefficient it“s a bit overmodelled and those silly "turn on a dim" monoevers would become more rare.

109 could outturn Spit? It definitly happened:
A quote from Erwin Leykauf:

.....sometimes the slots would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots, thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slots were closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvering only started when the slots were out. For this reason, it is possible to find pilots from this period (1940) who will tell you that the spitfires turned better than the Bf109. that is not true, I myself had many dogfights with spitfires and could always outturn them.
One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becomeing critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal elipse rather than a circle. In this way one could outturn the spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it.


And Galland also turned with Spits. The following pic is from the luftwaffe-board, and it says galland shot down a spit in a turnfight (hard right turn). Note also the aircraft model (FU6 > wing gondolas)

   

btw, i“m always wondering myself why english reports mention a cramped cockpit of the 109. Was the cockpit of the spit much larger? Hey, why did they build in this nice little extra door to the left?

Just read what the naca found about the stickforces of a spitfire. Again from the naca report:
"The effectiveness of the ailerons of the Supermarine Spitfire airplane was determined... .It should be noted that the airplane tested was equipped with metal-covered ailerons"
"The ailerons were sufficiently effective at low speeds, and were relatively light at small deflections in high speed flight. The force required to obtain high rolling velocities in high speed flight were considered excessive. With a stick force of 30pounds, full deflection of the ailerons could be obtained only at speeds lower than 110 MPH (!!!!)."

niklas

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: niklas ]

Offline Naudet

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 729
Something I recently read about Bf-109E series
« Reply #11 on: November 13, 2001, 07:33:00 AM »
Niklas, i agree with u. Most people in here still refer to wingloading as the nun-plus-ultra indicator for turning performance.

As i stated and clearly described in an early post of me (sry can post a link, on my AH BB sites there is always the search button missing  :( ), the wing loading concept was obsolete since it was replaced by the energy maneuvering concept.
As u pointet out, wing construction and lift is a very relevant sector.

Btw from reading "Green Hearts - First in combat with the Dora 9" and from the JG26 history, it seems many German pilots claimed kills out of very steep turns and while in a dogfight. There was no matter if the opponent was a Spit, a P51, P47, tempest or Yak. They would all mix it up.

Offline R4M

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 662
Something I recently read about Bf-109E series
« Reply #12 on: November 13, 2001, 07:37:00 AM »
Niklas! Naudet! stop confusing them allied schweinhunde with facts!

WE all know Spitfire was the Uber fighter of the war!. Any resistance is futile against that absolute truth!

 :D

seriously, GREAT piece of info, Niklas  :)

Offline Seeker

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2653
Something I recently read about Bf-109E series
« Reply #13 on: November 13, 2001, 07:53:00 AM »
Don't the above data again reinforce the fact that the 109 series is the least accurately moddled A/C in AH, with the most concessions to gameplay and quakers?

Simply put, it has extra controls in the game which it did not in fact enjoy? Rudder trim.

I can understand why this annoys the LW contingent in the gane so much.

Rudder trim *must* be removed from the 109 series in AH!

Offline R4M

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 662
Something I recently read about Bf-109E series
« Reply #14 on: November 13, 2001, 08:05:00 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Seeker:
Rudder trim *must* be removed from the 109 series in AH!


Yes,please. And assymetrical slat deployement too.

BUT...not before Kommandogėrat is removed from **ALL** the planes in Aces High except the Fw190. And not before removing the ammo counters from the planes wich never had one. And not before removing the ability to fire weapons independently in planes wich couldnt do it. And of course remove Combat trim from **ALL** the planes  :D...

You get my drift?   :) Be careful what you wish for   :p

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]