I believe it might be because the electric motor driving a high ratio gear mechanism has a inertia that keeps moving a short while even without energy.
As the indikator shows minuscule changes, making them look bigger.

Agreed that there is some delay as I wrote. But I doubt that this delay is proportional to the duration with which one pushes the lever, particularly for an electrical engine which has very fast rampage speeds. Or have you ever seen an electrical mixer taking longer to stop when using it longer? It will be almost constant as it won't accelerate until you release to button. It will accelerate a short time until reaching its operating speed. So I do think that the delay should be constant except for very very short durations of lever pushing.

And I also doubt that the delay can be very long as the ratio is not that excessive and the electric engine will work as a braking system as soon as it is ordered to stop.

Its hydraulic. There is a backup electrical motor for use when the DB engine is off.

The battery at the time were not what we we are use to today. This is why it's slow before eng is on and faster after when the circuit is switched to hydrau.

The 109 was an impressive design for it's time.

This has been discussed alrdy extensively and what we hve now is very accurate (in fact a reference for any future sim)


~S

Hi. No, the 109's VDM propeller-pitch has no hidraulic part (reliable, hydraulics damage does not have an effect on it). Because of this slow (compared with the hydraulic PPs).

I thought 41Sqn_Stormcrow writes because of a control bug, but in this he is right, the electrical motors has no delay. It would be necessary to correct the 109 one in so many trifles that I did not notice this. :rolleyes:

You may switch it off anytime :cool:

Huh... I was so sure of me :oops:

Thx Tom for the doc (by the way you ruined my Sunday as I hate hving to read electrical scheme ;) )

Work? ;)

This is incorrect.

Just because the (unpressurised) B-17 and B-24 didn't fly in the stratosphere does not mean that nothing flew in the stratosphere.

In fact, the Germans used to fly reconnaissance missions in the Ju-86 at altitudes in excess of 45,000 feet, until such time as the Spitfire proved capable of intercepting them.

I believe the highest kill of the war was scored at almost 50,000 feet.

Obviously, close to the absolute ceiling, climb rates were awful, so getting up there probably took both parties well over an hour.

The secret was pressurisation, and the fact that people were prepared to put pilots through rather more physiological stress than would be considered acceptable today.

PR Spitfires quite often flew above FL400 as well, depending upon the atmospheric conditions (contrail avoidance being the main priority).

Beyond these extreme cases, the general trend was for the altitude of combat to increase until roughly mid 1942; hence the HF Spitfire IX and VIII, as well as the Spitfire VII, which started production around this time. Unfortunately, by the time these aeroplanes started to enter service, the average altitude of combat had started to come down again by "mutual consent", probably because people were starting to realise that it was quite difficult for fighters to influence events on the ground from way up in the stratosphere.

As for the B-17 and B-24, the main reason that they didn't go higher was the bomb loads they were carrying.

I strongly suspect that you'll find the higher altitude missions correspond to longer ranges, where bomb load was traded for fuel, much of which had been consumed by the start of the bombing run, resulting in a relatively high altitude (obviously the bomber stream would just cruise-climb to wherever its performance and the ambient conditions took it; they weren't taking any notice of German ATC :lol: ).

No that is correct in the context of the discussion. In the daylight bombing campaign missions mentioned in the thread nobody flew at such extreme altitudes. The altitudes and percentage times for bomber missions flown by the 8th USAAF during WWII are already posted. Would like the USAAF documentation on it?

No the main reason was human physiology. I would be happy to provide you not only with the study conducted by USAAF but the FAA AC which touches on the some of the issues and has a list of resources to get further acquainted with the subject.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/e04e9b9732ba93fd86256caa005ca97e/$FILE/AC61-107A.pdf

The Junkers 86 belonged to a family of very specialized high altitude aircraft. Only a handful were built and operated for a short period of time. Most importantly, it was a pressurized aircraft.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/sto...ere-24790.html

Operating at such altitude was very risky and only a handful of flights were conducted. The Spitfires that intercepted them were specialized for the task, they did not dogfight at all at high altitude, in fact they barely flew at all. The high altitude environment is as much an enemy as any combatant. Most importantly, they were equipped with a pressurized breathing system for the pilot.

http://www.pilotfriend.com/aeromed/m...ng_hypoxia.htm

One could deduce that physiology was a major player in anything the USAAF did.