109e4

[mako26]

Per changes to the 109F and G model in 1.33:

Corrected horizontal stabilizer aspect ratio on:

bf109f2

bf109f4

bf109g6

please check the 109E4 horizontal stabilizer aspect ratio too.

------------

The 109E4 seems to be suffering from similar characteristics though not as severe. Much like the F and G models it will hold sustained flat turns but any opposite roll out of a turn generates a loss of control. It feels like the tail loses control first and attempts to pass the nose, despite having some 'x' axis control at the ailerons it is very difficult to get the tail under control. In such instance rudder input only results in increasing the severity of the control loss. Possibly the horizontal stabilizer is the cause of this?

In combat situations this limits the 109E4's ability to execute a successful rolling or vertical scissors maneuver against the spitfire mk1. Prior to the initial audit the 109E4 could take advantage of better elevator response than the spitfire mk1 to cut inside the spitfires turn, which is still possible until you try to roll in the opposite direction, which causes the tail to lose control.

------------------------

I do not use customized joystick axis curves.

---------------------

Note: the stability of the 109E4 since the audit is better up until control loss. The nose does not bounce around as much as it use to, which has resulted in improved aiming. I found this to be consistent with the 109F and G models post audit, too.

[beazil]

I noticed this as well. I don't know if this is a result of the input changes to the 109 series, but like Mako, I was chiming in for a response. I realize we are all adjusting, and will continue to do so.

[gutted]

please check the 109E4 horizontal stabilizer aspect ratio too.

You do realize this specific problem was found in the later 109's BECAUSE they were compared to the E right?

.ie After the fix, all the 109's will have the same aspect ratio.

The issues you describe are cross-control issues, and they've been around longer than these recent audits.

[mako26]

You do realize this specific problem was found in the later 109's BECAUSE they were compared to the E right?

.ie After the fix, all the 109's will have the same aspect ratio.

The issues you describe are cross-control issues, and they've been around longer than these recent audits.

I obviously did not know that otherwise I wouldn't have said as such?

If you'd be willing to share your perspective on the cross-control issues I'd appreciate it, since you do have substantially more time in the 109 than most if not all current LW.

In my opinion the aircraft's reaction to hitting the edge of stall range has changed quite a bit since the audit. Before I could aggressively fight the stalling wing and still keep the plane in the intended direction. Now its more like I have to hold and wait wait...then add input. I fear rolling the plane at low speed on the deck. Feels more like the stall characteristics of the bell.

If its not the stabilizer then some weakness is there somewhere. Just like with the F and G models, Doc's changes addressed many problems and clearly identified a remaining issue. Is it not possible this could be the case with the E4, but the location of the issue may differ? I still believe it must be in the tail somewhere because it tries to pass the nose when fighting at the edge of a stalling wing.

[beazil]

You do realize this specific problem was found in the later 109's BECAUSE they were compared to the E right?

.ie After the fix, all the 109's will have the same aspect ratio.

The issues you describe are cross-control issues, and they've been around longer than these recent audits.

lol, gotta plead ignorance on this one gutted.

[gutted]

The major problem with the 109 in this game is it's overall instability along its yaw axis.. which is why its easier to cross control than other planes which are more stable along that axis.

Cross control happens when pulling elevator and opposite aileron in regards to a turn direction. This causes an uncoordinated movement, and with enough AoA can cause the aircraft to depart/flop. To combat this, always ease up the elevator when rolling the other way at slow speeds.

Other planes like the spitfire are so stable in the yaw axis (.ie flying on rails) that its largely a non-issue. You can crank and roll to your hearts desire with no adverse afffects. Just something we have to live with.

Edited February 3, 2011 by gutted

[GOPHUR]

Well said gutted.

[mako26]

The major problem with the 109 in this game is it's overall instability along its yaw axis.. which is why its easier to cross control than other planes which are more stable along that axis.

Cross control happens when pulling elevator and opposite aileron in regards to a turn direction. This causes an uncoordinated movement, and with enough AoA can cause the aircraft to depart/flop. To combat this, always ease up the elevator when rolling the other way at slow speeds.

Other planes like the spitfire are so stable in the yaw axis (.ie flying on rails) that its largely a non-issue. You can crank and roll to your hearts desire with no adverse afffects. Just something we have to live with.

Thank you for the explanation Gutted much appreciated

After some time in offline mode I'm able to aggresively conduct a scissors move through singular axis movement, but I'm still at a loss when trying to do a rolling scissors move, least at low speed. Should a rolling scissors maneuver be avoided entirely at lower speed? Or is there a way produce the maneuver without tossing the plane into the dirt?

[DOC]

I went over these with as fine a toothed comb as was possible during the final stages of the v1.33 closed beta we're in now and found 2 very small changes that will affect the E-1 (but not the E-4) ... those will be incorporated in the open beta we have planned for v1.33 but I feel I must point out that this does not mean we have eliminated cross control behaviour in the 109 or made it like any other aircraft. So in addition to the corrections made to the F and G models the E-1 got a small correction also.

"Cross control delicateness" has always existed in the 109 and are endemic to that airframe as modeled in this flight simulator. You have to fly in obeyance of that handling "quirk" just like you have to obey the quirks of other aircraft which the 109 does not share, such as Spitfires being not as aerobatic at high speeds as the 109s are.

Some players might be expecting (as a result of recent work) that they can fly the 109s the same as say, the Spitfires which are much easier planes to fly close to the stall and in slow tight circles. That would be incorrect. Spitfires always were superior at that style of flying, 109s were better at vertical turning and in the higher speed ranges.

In response to Mako26 I would suggest that a rolling scissors at speeds slow enough to pop the slats out (which due to the nature of a rolling scissors almost insists they come out unevenly due to disparite wing loadings) ... is not a good idea. It will make the plane very unstable and snatch at the aileron on the side the slat deploys. This will drastically alter the airflow over that wing since that is what the slats do, and if you start to PiO (pilot induced oscillation) in an effort to correct this, then you are passing that alteration in wing profile back and forth from one wing to the other, which will rip the aircraft out of your control until you "straighten her out" and if you are at low altitude, you won't have time to do pull that off.

109s can fly a good circle (relatively speaking) at stalling speeds but they won't be aerobatic at those speeds, and they cannot sustain it as long as planes that don't have slats since the slats create drag as a by product of the extra lift they provide. In general a Bf109 has a better response and ability to make instantaneous turn rate, and the Spitfire has a better ability to make sustained turn rate. ITr is generally associated with speed and quick well led vector corrections, and STr is generally associated with slower speeds and larger more fixed vector corrections.

Of course once you start to generalize you are then led to all sorts of specific arguments that seek to dsipel that generalization, and you end up going in circles. Pun not intended.

A rolling scissors performed at speeds above slat deployment (medium or higher speeds) would be a different beast. The 109 will handle this quite well, and with good vertical ability (high climb rate) you should rely on that aspect of the manoeuvre where you have advantages that less able climbers cannot employ as easily, to gain the maximum advantages, and not so much the amount of pitch you can pull on the elevator at the same time as you have a large rolling motion from the ailerons. If you can seperate the two in a more disciplined fashion the problem becomes greatly reduced. Roll and pull, pull and roll, but with some seperation of the two movements. When I do a rolling scissors I roll, then back off the ailerons and pull, when I need to roll again some forward stick as I start the roll counters the cross control, then I can resume the back elevator I need.

This also makes you much more unpredictable to track by the guy behind you. Neg G "bunts" like this should become a stock part of your scissors and rolling manouevres when a guy is behind you. They are extremely effective and in general a 109 does them better than it's opponents can.

109s are not superior in the horizontal plane of manoeuvre such as the Spitfires and Hurricanes are. The 109's are superior in the vertical plane of manoeuvre to the Spitfires and Hurricanes, although the Spitfire IX with the higher performing Merlin 66 finally nails that aspect of the envelope where the earlier Spitfires failed. The 109's are still superior at higher speeds and in both diving and turn and rolling response crispness to even the Spitfire IX.

It's just when you get super slow the 109s suffer. Can't be helped really, they just aren't as good at really slow speed aerobatics, even though they can still turn a pretty good tight flat circle.

[mako26]

Doc I do appreciate your thorough explanation of the E4 and all the 109fm's in general as well as your many suggestions on how to apply the 109's strengths to a dogfight.

That being said I loaded up an older version of BGE that I had from back in June, first build of 1.31 I believe. The handling difference is night and day in the 200-300kph range, on the deck max power no flaps. I can use rudder, elevator, and aileron input all at once to do aggressive course corrections without even coming anywhere close to generating the kind of flop we have in the current FM, let alone the fact that in the current FM even if I am able to hold on to the plane the nose is wallowing all over the place and this is with very conservative control inputs. The old E4 feels like its on rails compared to the new E4, even down in the 200-215kph range I can handle the old E4 aggressively in scissors maneuvers, in the new E4 that's simply a no go zone, heck anything under 275kph is a no go zone, even if you can keep the plane under control the course corrections are so much slower that it gets eaten alive by spitfire mk1's.

Whatever was 'fixed' in the E4 fm PLEASE un-fix it.

If there is any type of further testing detail, video showing the effects I'm describing, anything at all that I can provide that would assist, I'd like to help. thanks.

[mako26]

just cuz i lub you.

HRPqT-kwNUw

g_5d0RQsFT0

[jokeri]

"Cross control delicateness" has always existed in the 109 and are endemic to that airframe as modeled in this flight simulator. You have to fly in obeyance of that handling "quirk" just like you have to obey the quirks of other aircraft which the 109 does not share, such as Spitfires being not as aerobatic at high speeds as the 109s are.

So this means that the 109-series is still needing the FM "overhaul" to get the "cross control delicateness" off from them? I haven't read anything that this kind of behaviour is trait for the 109-series.

[DOC]

Mako26

All the issues you experienced in you "new 109E4" video were not experienced here in testing unless we pushed for it (I can do the moves you attempt fine and not suffer those consequences unless I force them) and in fact I was able to be more aggressive than you reveal in your video. I have several other players saying the same thing.

Perhaps it is a problem you can eliminate on your end, because something is clearly different for you than for us who do not have this issue.

It is a shame that there is no feasible way in which we can pit the old against the new online at the same time (it would require 2 different hosts) as I am certain in a down and dirty low speed dogfight the new would trounce the old, given pilots of equal ability in each one.

Which was the point of the whole excercise. To improve joystick control at low speeds in turns. We were not trying to change the basic Bf109 airframes handling only how it receives input from digital joystick control.

Don't make the mistake of immediately adopting the "CRS is the enemy" mindset. We remain accessable and interested in players perceptions. We aren't trying to deny you or anything like that. We as the games developers want the best for all of you too. That is what is best for us. The problem however, is that peoples idea of "best" varies enormously, and we can only code one of all those different ideas for everyone.

PS: Campaign stats versus both it's top opponents show the Bf109E-4 is doing better this campaign than against it's historical stats from previous campaigns. It cannot be flying as poorly as some people appear to be experiencing. That just does not add up. I don't know why some are finding it better and some not, but I am sure that there is a reason. It would not be doing better in combat if it was no longer able to manoeuvre well.

[dabar0n]

None of us (ok most of us) are not saying you are the enemy DOC. We are very appreciative of your work in improving the planes. We also are trying to in our own gripey, whiny ways trying to give you as much feedback as possible to make it as accurate as possible. I am wondering what the difference is aswell because I am having exactly the same problems as mako is. So if it is a control problem client side... what might be causing it. Aside from hamfisting, what would cause us to not be able to do it when several of you are not having the issue? We were easily able to do it before so we are familiar with the moves...what might be causing some of us to have these issues? If we can figure this answer out you will have a lot of pilots starting to log back in. (I have many many squadmates who won't touch the plane anymore and are no longer logging in.) I know many other squads with the same issue right now.

So, where can we start. What kind of information might be helpful to others to figure out why some are ok and others are not? I am willing to help with this.

dab

[beazil]

ditto.

[chrg]

>>"Cross control delicateness" has always existed in the 109 and are endemic to that airframe as modeled in this flight simulator. You have to fly in obeyance of that handling "quirk" just like you have to obey the quirks of other aircraft which the 109 does not share, such as Spitfires being not as aerobatic at high speeds as the 109s are.>>

Floppyness of 109 is something that has been part of 109 handling in this game for a long time although it is difficult to say why because Spitfire 1 does not share the same behavior as it does not have better rudder than 109 and it also has larger wingspan so it should be actually somewhat worse. After all IRL Spitfire was prone of flat tailspin stall where as 109 was not. 109 could also make a nasty stall but it was possible to get out of it quite quickly if you were fast to make corrections and rudder played a significant part in that procedure. Just as in Hurricane the vane surrounding the tail wheel was made to increase the vertical flat area to help getting out of tailspins and Hurricane had larger rudder AND great wingspan. So the behavior of 109 in this game is not aerodynamically logical. Maybe it's an effect of too pronounced snatching of the ailerons when slats come out. Deploying slats should not have such effect on ailerons and certainly not have such effects on general handling. It has often been quoted as "ruining the shot" if the pilots is following a target with his sight and slats deploy asymmetrically in a turn, not an abrupt loss of control.

>>Some players might be expecting (as a result of recent work) that they can fly the 109s the same as say, the Spitfires which are much easier planes to fly close to the stall and in slow tight circles. That would be incorrect. Spitfires always were superior at that style of flying, 109s were better at vertical turning and in the higher speed ranges.>>

Spitfire has a large wing but it still is of relatively thinner profile that that of 109 both from root and tip (NACA13/09 vs 15/11) and it is also elliptic which makes the pressure distribution even at leading edge of the wing, which is OK from drag point of view, but not very comfortable near the stall region. That is also the reason for 2 deg washout at wing tip. Straight leading edge wing is better in this respect as the leading edge pressure is highest at the tip of the wing i.e. the pressure distribution is inverse to the shape of the Spit leading edge design.

>>109s can fly a good circle (relatively speaking) at stalling speeds but they won't be aerobatic at those speeds, and they cannot sustain it as long as planes that don't have slats since the slats create drag as a by product of the extra lift they provide. In general a Bf109 has a better response and ability to make instantaneous turn rate, and the Spitfire has a better ability to make sustained turn rate. ITr is generally associated with speed and quick well led vector corrections, and STr is generally associated with slower speeds and larger more fixed vector corrections.>>

In a degree I agree. Slats do not create drag but the stalled part of the wing does, what slats do they merely keep the airflow attached to wing that would have otherwise stalled. So the slats do not create lift either but the wing profile which is able to function at bigger AoA than that without slats, so in a sense they do create more lift. Add to that the the flap configuration in 109 is very good and the degree of flap deployment is fully variable where as in Spitfire it is only up or down i.e. they work merely as an airbrake. Not sure if they work that way also in Hurricane, they probably do.

>>109s are not superior in the horizontal plane of manoeuvre such as the Spitfires and Hurricanes are. The 109's are superior in the vertical plane of manoeuvre to the Spitfires and Hurricanes, although the Spitfire IX with the higher performing Merlin 66 finally nails that aspect of the envelope where the earlier Spitfires failed. The 109's are still superior at higher speeds and in both diving and turn and rolling response crispness to even the Spitfire IX.>>

Hurricane does not have any other advantage over other planes than its very very small turn radius, it is also slow to accelerate due to thick wing, also in dives. Spitfire has a large slick wing which helps it keep energy very well unless the AoA grows too big when it is in risk of losing control abruptly and where it creates lots of drag. 109 does not really have any advantage except better aerodynamic behavior in slow speed, for which it needs engine power, which it has,at least down low over its allied counter parts if early war setup is considered but it still cannot match the turn radius of Hurricane. Dive acceleration is bound to be good due to smallish wing and moderate weight. It has been quoted that when Brits tested H75 in a dogfight against Spitfire the H75 was (much?)better in turning circles but Spit could still get away from trouble due to better overall performance, not due its maneuverability. So I'd say that it was not advisable to enter a slow stall fight in a Spit but always keep enough speed to be able to hold E, which is does well, to use for other options as going vertical if it is getting out-turned. So Spit is a good slow and medium speed fighter, but not a good stall fighter.

Also the high speed maneuverability advantage tends to be less pronounced in a game if G tolerance differences due to pilot ergonomics are neglected between different designs -as is very common in games.

>>It's just when you get super slow the 109s suffer. Can't be helped really, they just aren't as good at really slow speed aerobatics, even though they can still turn a pretty good tight flat circle.>>

Interesting conclusion which I pretty much commented earlier and disagree with, but it also depends on what era of 109s we are looking at as the weight increase had a more pronounced effect on them that it did on Spitfire airframe.

-C+

[DOC]

Ok well now we appear to be entering the realms of discussion and this forum should be reserved for bug reporting/explanation. So I'll close this and if a bug is reported you can use a new thread for that purpose.