Leading Edge Slats on the Me-109

[Gabelschwanz Teufel]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

i did, a while back....

It only works if everybody does it or the ones that don't will stop quoting him.

[Crumpp]

are you really saying that the Spanish simply 'nailed' a merlin into the aircraft and thought 'to hell with the consequences'?

There is nothing they can do about the airframe changes without a complete redesign of the aircraft.

Why do you think they called the Avia S-199 the "Mule"?

The Ha-112 was a different airplane.

The higher thrust line, weight differences, and difference in rpm results in different dynamic pressure ranges in the spiral slipstream than the airframe was designed. It will have different flying qualities.

I guess you hate me for pointing out that fact!!

Try flying a piston engine porter and a turbine porter if you don't think engine makes a difference in flying qualities.

[Crumpp]

The slats ensure a laminar flow

Turbulent flow....not laminar!!

[*Buzzsaw*]

All of this may be somewhat academic, as the game engine has been dropped.

See announcement on main forum.

New forum for BATTLE OF STALINGRAD is here:

http://forum.il2sturmovik.net/index.php?

[Crumpp]

Theres standards and then theres standardisation, you can have standards without standardisation, it simply means there was not a universally applied standard, I asure you the British aircraft industry was not a free-for all where they let the tea ladies get in on the act because it 'looked pretty', there were people who were very aware of what stability and control was within the RAE.
I am not arguing a point about whether a universal standard was adopted, I'm arguing against your bizarre claims the British had 'no' standards and therefore the RAE reports on the 109 may as well have been performed by monkeys.....until of course you want to 'cherry pick' anything positive.

The RAE left things up to the opinion of the pilot as the definative source on the stability and control.

That is why you had such a variation in stability and control in British designs.

Here I will quote Lyons in his report:

It is recommended that Q be adopted for designers' use, that its limits of validity be checked by careful tests on one aeroplane, and that more force measurements in pull out from dives be made on a number of aeroplanes in order that numerical standards may be attached to Q. Reference is made to American standards....

A compact formula Im a criterion of manoeuvrability Q the stick force per g is proposed as a basis of design.

If Q is adopted as a criterion, numerical standards should be attached to it. More measurements are needed of stick force in pulling out of dives, particularly on bombers, before these can be fixed.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Do you think the Leading edge slats will be moddled any better in BOS?

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

The RAE left things up to the opinion of the pilot as the definative source on the stability and control.

That is why you had such a variation in stability and control in British designs.

Here I will quote Lyons in his report:

Just to quote one moderator who got tired of a subject being regurgitated time and again: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=934

If Crump wants to provide Game test data or observed and documented characteristics and furnish the developers with the supporting valid realworld data (NACA or other I dont care). He can do it in private directly to Ilya, this thread has had more than enough time and data thrown at it to "prove" his theory if its correct. This thread is just causing more and more heated arguments and personal attacks and has failed to be objective. And yes I have read most of it because Ive had to moderate it continuously.

Personally I dont see the point of wasting this much energy on a single characteristic of a single aircraft at the expense of all other aspects and all other aircraft. In doing so it would unbalance the game and overall flight model of the aircraft in question. I would also have to question whether Crump holds an objective view of this flight characteristic and flight data given the single bloody-mindedness of the argument.

The developers have their criteria and approach to modelling flight characteristics and should not be pushed to change a FM based on one persons argument against the community. While I am impressed by the amount of research and data and the extreme effort to prove the spit was unstable, where was the game testing data to back up that infact the FM is incorrect? Nada, zero, zilch... so I have to conclude this is just a massive one-man-band trolling of the community.

Dead right, and it applies here as well - this is meant to be about improving 109 control characteristics in CLOD - which evidently won't be happening soon, as pointed out by Buzzsaw.

If Crumpp wants to exhaustively pursue his dead-end obsessions about whether or not the British had standards, or the Spitfire's control characteristics or his clear belief that he alone has all the answers about everything to do with aerodynamics and aeronautics, he can start his own site and troll that instead.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...90&postcount=1

10. Off topic discussion - in full or in part. Purposeful and/ or continuous off topic discussion.

[JG52Uther]

You do all know CoD is dead don't you? All this is pretty pointless in the context of CoD, which is what this forum is about.Nothing will change, or be fixed. Its over.
I'm sure the new forum will be thrilled when you take all your knowledge there to share with everybody.I don't think there is an FM forum there yet, but its early days for the new project.
http://forum.il2sturmovik.net/

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

There is nothing they can do about the airframe changes without a complete redesign of the aircraft.

Why do you think they called the Avia S-199 the "Mule"?

The Ha-112 was a different airplane.

The higher thrust line, weight differences, and difference in rpm results in different dynamic pressure ranges in the spiral slipstream than the airframe was designed. It will have different flying qualities.

I guess you hate me for pointing out that fact!!

Try flying a piston engine porter and a turbine porter if you don't think engine makes a difference in flying qualities.

Do I hate you for pointing out the HE-112 was a different aircraft therefore irrelevant?.......no, it's one of the few things you've said that's true, I don' even hate you for bringing up the Pilatus porter which is also irrelevant. I Do have less than complimentary feelings for your hypocrisy at having quoted Mark Hanna describing the Bouchon's positive handling as an example of the 109 and then immediately contradicting yourself by saying it's not comparable.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Gabelschwanz Teufel

It only works if everybody does it or the ones that don't will stop quoting him.

I smell a trend!