109 Flaps

[Simaril]

I'm in no way a plane engineering guy (does that make me an ENIGMAneer?-- sry) -- but it strikes me that there seems to be an uncanny consistancy in the instability emergence angles Kweassa reported.

Why should entirely different airframes, with different geometry and power, fall into one of two settings? Why do many planes come in at 0.05, and a few need RIGHT AT 1.0 degrees?

The only way this makes sense is human factor. Either Kweassa found the 1.0 worked for the 109 and extrapolated it to other planes that had trouble (ie he didnt repeatedly test in 0.02 degree increments for non-109 planes); or, HTC did it on purpose.

I cant think of any aeordyanmic reason why such disparate planes would lose stability at precisely the same AoA.

Kweassa, did you do the repeated testing on other planes, or did you use 1.0 for other instable planes as adefault?

[Kweassa]

Why should entirely different airframes, with different geometry and power, fall into one of two settings? Why do many planes come in at 0.05, and a few need RIGHT AT 1.0 degrees?

The only way this makes sense is human factor. Either Kweassa found the 1.0 worked for the 109 and extrapolated it to other planes that had trouble (ie he didnt repeatedly test in 0.02 degree increments for non-109 planes); or, HTC did it on purpose.

I cant think of any aeordyanmic reason why such disparate planes would lose stability at precisely the same AoA.

Kweassa, did you do the repeated testing on other planes, or did you use 1.0 for other instable planes as adefault?

 The result was from individually testing all the planes. However, I must warn you that the 1.0 setting can be considered, again, only as a very loose general figure when it comes to debating plane stability, so the exact numbers don't really mean all that much. What it points out is some planes are much more unstable than others, but having a 1.0 setting over 0.05 does not necessarily mean that a 1.0 setting plane is as twice as instable per se.

 Again, the SL settings were put in the testings to minimize human errors - basically, I set the SL at minimal level and pull the stick back max deflection at a certain bank angle that allows the plane to turn flat without losing alt. Any planes that cannot do that, I increased the SL settings and tested it again and again until I reached a satisfactory point where only slight stick adjustments were required to keep the plane turning stable.

 Therefore, other people may be able to fly the 109s upto 0.09 degrees, I am able to fly it at 0.07.. and etc etc. The exact numbers do not specify the exact limits - but only a certain point where my personal judgement is involved.

 What I mean by this, is that I can fly the 109 at max stick deflection, with something upto about 0.07 degrees, but at this state, the plane requires so much stick input that it provided no objective comparison in turning performance to others - if I use figures like that for measuring 109 turn radius, then I would probably have to get rid of the stall limiter entirely in the planes that can use the 0.05 setting ... and from that point the 'human error' or 'human difference' factor kicks in, making the tests not very objective or mechanical.

 Therefore, the 1.0 setting is a setting where, for the tested planes that cannot use 0.05, can handily take on max-stick deflection with only very small course adjustments with the stick.... just as you can pull the stick back with the planes that can use 0.05 settings.

 One thing for certain, is there is a certain margin between the different planes, and that fact can be verified by looking at the SL setting numbers. But the figures themselves, IMO, don't provide any deep meaning.

[Grits]

One thing I note is that although the F4U's fell into the 1.0 catagory, I do not find that they are unstable in combat like the 109/190, furthermore, they are not less stable than other US aircraft IMO. I think Kweassa has indirectly found something, and the stall limiter number are only a faint clue, but not every plane that can not get to .05 is unstable.

[Simaril]

You talked about 1.0 being twic as unstable as 0.05 -- is that 0.05 supposed to be 0.5?

[Kweassa]

Sim, sorry about that, that was a mistake.

 0.05 it is, so I should have said 'twenty times'


 
 Grits, concerning the F4U I think it can be translated into the following;

1) F4U's, when pushed up to its limit, are unstable. This, in one way or other, matches the comments on F4Us having vicious stall characteristics when pushed upto stall.

2) But like you've said, they don't feel as unstable as the 109 or the 190 during combat, even in slow-speed maneuvering contests.

3) Then the implications are clear: you don't need to go upto such harsh environments in the F4U in the first place (!!). The F4U can handle quite stably when it stays within the 'safe zone' of maneuverability - and more often than not, that alone is already enough to outmaneuver a lot of more lighter enemy planes.

4) In other words, it's not reaching its full potential in absolute turn radius (or rather, dangerous levels of AoA) in most cases, and yet still the plane is stable enough at dangerously low speeds, with flaps out, to outmaneuver much lighter and nimble opposition.

5) On the contrary, the 109s and 190s have to be pushed to its utmost limit to reach its full potential in maneuvering - where the pilot must risk considerable amount of destabilization. Even if the pilot puts the flaps down, the flaps do not provide enough advantage in lift or stability to be able to outmaneuver enemy planes - and thus, the 109/190, unlike the F4U, cannot remain in the safe zone, and is always forced to go near the edge of the cliff to win, where everything starts to crumble beneath your feet.


 At least, that's the way how I see it.

[DoKGonZo]

Originally posted by Kweassa
...

5) On the contrary, the 109s and 190s have to be pushed to its utmost limit to reach its full potential in maneuvering - where the pilot must risk considerable amount of destabilization. Even if the pilot puts the flaps down, the flaps do not provide enough advantage in lift or stability to be able to outmaneuver enemy planes - and thus, the 109/190, unlike the F4U, cannot remain in the safe zone, and is always forced to go near the edge of the cliff to win, where everything starts to crumble beneath your feet.

 At least, that's the way how I see it.

I concur with this analysis. Once a 109/190 gets into Luftwobble mode at low speed, it's more or less done for is the opponent recognizes it. And the safe zone is also a lot smaller than on other planes, making it even worse.

[Kweassa]

I concur with this analysis. Once a 109/190 gets into Luftwobble mode at low speed, it's more or less done for is the opponent recognizes it. And the safe zone is also a lot smaller than on other planes, making it even worse.

 ...and that's WITH the leading edge slats, which supposedly was a clever device to help the plane act more smooth and stable under the stress of stall...

 Kinda makes you think, don't it?

 Imagine what the 109 would have been like without slats...!
 Outturned by 262s, anyone?

[Big G]

Have to agree that we are being a bit shortchanged on the 109s, they are very unstable at low speeds and I think I have died more often from spins at low speeds and such than enemy fire.
If HT does anything  for the new patch/ update then please let it be taking a look at the stability of the 109s.
It's not often that you get the majority of the vets in the community ( I don't consider myself in that bracket by a long shot) agreeing to the extent that they have on this subject.
So if you read this HT, skuzzy, pyro et al then please at least have a look at the 109 situation.

cheers
Big G10

[JAWS2003]

I just don't think there is a will to fix the 109's and 190's. I say this judging by small details in the way the planes are upgraded to new TOD standard. (visibility, cockpit bars, weapon loadout, stability.....)
 My opinion.

[Angus]

The slats have been debated about. Aces like Rall did NOT prefer them in combat, while admitting that without them the landing speed would have been unacceptably high.
They apparently do not always work completely, - this conclusion is achieved in the end of the famous "slats" thread, where a good slats expert dropped in and gave some tips. The princip is sound, but the practical application not always. In AH they work about as well as in the perfect world.
Been flying the 109 a bit lately, jostling with La's, Yak's and Hurris amongt others. I do not sense it as an underdog at all! And if you could extend the flaps at higher speeds, that's all there is to it!

[wrag]

Originally posted by storch
geez you guys, the german planes cannot be modelled at 100% fidelity.  there would be a mass exodus from the game turning this game into WB.  is that what you want?  those of us that choose to play in axis craft just have to accept that we will be handicapped 3-5% performance.  the challenge is to smack the allied players down irrespective of their edge.  it makes it more gratifying when we win.

Hmmmmmmmmm................... . one of the BIG reasons I left WB was the treatment of the LW planes.  BTW the 30mm over there is PORKED, hit but little or no damage, but more accurate!

I was overjoyed at the handling charactoristics of the AHI 109's!

Then in comes AHII and the 109's got IMHO porked.

Then comes patch 2.6 and IMHO the 109's got a little worse, if that's possible.

The 109s were my favorite planes until patch 2.6.  Then the f4 lost the gonds, and seemed to turn worse, and the g14 seems just a tad bit worse then a g6, and the k4 (g10) lost the gonds and got that crappola 30mm only which is IMHO a real joke on a dead 6 shot under 200 yds with the site pip right on the con.  You can watch the rounds go wide and left or right or high or low or any combination thereof but HIT!

My connect is dialup at 37k with a ping of right at 180 on a good day and averages 230 otherwise.

Now the 109s just plain SUCK IMHO!

IMHO TOD or combat tour or ????? would be MORE enjoyable if the axis aircraft were more competitive.  After all they were in RL?

But that's just my opinion.  AND my preference.  Now the 109s seem neutered and far less of a threat then before.

[Angus]

disagree. 109 is sweet

[Glasses]

The 109s only place where they're not stalled is on the runway. When in flight you always fly stalled you just don't know it yet.

And the 190s......Well that's a whole nother' thread...

[Big G]

As it's obvious that the 109s are not performing as they should be, why don't we do this ?
Lets get the top 109 driver and the top pony driver, have them conduct a series of ACM as subscribed in various combat reports (that I'msure some guys on here have then we can see it for ourselves)
After all, we can then take the "but in real life, this how they performed" out of the equation and test them in our world.  

For example, I was reading on here about an encounter that a pony driver had with Hartmann over Romania  or Italy, I remember reading about the 2 of them flying side by side with flaps down at 100mph or slower, that the pony driver said that the pony was 85mph faster in the dive than a 109 etc
So I'd like to see a 109 in here fly under a 100 mph side by side with a pony with all the flaps down, then suddenly loop with the pony  chase it down to the deck while remaing within 85 mph of it.
Once I see that then I will belive that the 109s are modelled correctly.

So lets get the top 2 drivers from the 109s and the ponys and film it.

[Simaril]

Originally posted by storch
geez you guys, the german planes cannot be modelled at 100% fidelity.  there would be a mass exodus from the game turning this game into WB.  is that what you want?  those of us that choose to play in axis craft just have to accept that we will be handicapped 3-5% performance.  the challenge is to smack the allied players down irrespective of their edge.  it makes it more gratifying when we win.

Does this really stand up? I hear this particular argument all the time from lufwaffe fliers, but it doesnt make sense to me.

Look at other games: German stuff is, if anything, favored but the games do just fine.

Look at the fist person shooters....Call of Duty and Call of Duty 2. The best guns there are MG-42, and the "noob cannon" is the USSR's Ppsh submachine gun. The BAR is big, heavy, and slow; the Garand has good rate of far and clip, but is UNDERMODELLED (i love beinga ble to say that) in its hitting power. BattleField 1942 is gamier than heck, but there's no USA/Allied bias. In Counterstrike, I seem to remember loveing some German assault rifle for its lethality and accuracy.

None of these games suffered in popularity for not "favoring" the USA.

When I'm talking with freshly minted new guys, yeah, they may have taken up the P-51 or B-17 because they recognized it from History Channel....but when they go down in flames (which is usually when they're asking for tips, after all), theoir first question is always "whats the best plane to start in?" When I tell them about what's out there, they dont care if its USSR, USA, Japanese, or GB. They're perfectly happy tooling around in a Nik or a Spit XVI.

Because their goal isnt to be proud to be an american-- its to figure out how to work this particular game so they feel successful.



I really think HTC just does their level, honest best to model the planes. I also think the stallfighting so common in MA was just incredibly rare, so its very hard to use real life recollected stories (of unverifiable accuracy, lets be honest -- do we want the models based on what Eric Brown said? Wont that just be a different kind of bias?...but I digress).




Wasnt there a sim a few years ago that used physics modelling as foundation rather than table look up? I remember hearing about tinkering to see what longer wings woudl do to a B-52, for example....Wonder what the 190 did in there? If results were at all simular, I'd have to say theat despiite our preferences, HTC may have gotten it right. If not, thats something to talk about.


BUt lets drop the hooey about marketing bias, because the market proves the concept wrong.