Some questions concerning flight model

[Sebastian]

After the first few flights I must admit that you did a fantastic job!

The first thing I mentioned was that the overall feel is much like the one I got familiar with in IL2/Sturmovik. Sturmovik is a really fantastic and realistic flightsim, so this is meant as a compliment, because many other warbirds in microsoft`s fs fly more or less like trains through the sky.

This emil really bites, I already love the brutal stall behavior, the the massive torque effect and the ability to provoke a stall in high-speed turns and loops - something that is very rare in microsoft`s fs!

A few things let me wonder why they are as they do:

1.
Side-slips & rudder effectivness: I have never flown an addon with so little rudder effectivness. Yes, one has enough rudder to compensate the torque on roll, but I can hardly fly circles with the rudder alone, nor am I able to perform side-slips on final approaches.

The emil is my first shockwave warbird, for microsoft`s fs. I own the realair spitfire which is able to do very effective slips. Is it a limitation of fs or a special feature that emil`s rudder behaves at it does?

Of course, I am already looking at YOUR spitfire and I am curious how the rudder will be with her! You`ve got to know I am in a german bush-flying community and we all are side-slip-freaks...

2.
Breaking. Should I tune down braking response of fs to the middle position? I know I have to keep the stick back after touchdown but my little emil is turning forward immediately after applying some breaking pressure. As a limitation of my hardware my flightstick can handle breaking pressure just between all or nothing. All seems to be a bit to much!

3.
After reading through this forum I found some subtile hints about a certain update for emil, something like version 1.2.. I purchased and downloaded yesterday so I take this for garanted that my version is up-to-date.

I ask this because the tail whell doesn`t turn during taxying and someone wrote this would be a bug being fixed with a patch. Shift+G doesn`t function.

P.S.
Please excuse the bad english writing

[Sebastian]

No serious flightsimmers, here?

[Lewis - A2A]

Hey Sebastian,

I'm not sure I can answer all of your questions as I'm just not sure about Flight models. But you made a good point re: flight models within the MSFS simulation. The fact is that there are certain limitations within the game itself, However I think the emil was done to the best of our ability at the time it was made. It should perform to 'the numbers' as they say.

The rudder works ok at my end so perhaps a potential deadzone in your control settings?

Re: braking, this is as you state a problem with your current setup and FS. Unless you own somthing that can control brakes with pressure (I use rudder pedals with toe brakes) it tends to be an all or nothing. The only suggestion I can give here is gentle taps on the button to help slow down rather than just a dead stop and a nose over.

Hope this helps a little bit I'm sorry i'm no help re: the actual FM.

[Sebastian]

O.K., thank you so far.

But perhaps you can answer the simple questions about the tail-wheel movement.

A bit more special, but still very interesting for me: What about slip-ability (forward and side-slips)?

Concerning braking I tuned down the braking power, no it`s easier.

[CodyValkyrie]

1.
Side-slips & rudder effectivness: I have never flown an addon with so little rudder effectivness. Yes, one has enough rudder to compensate the torque on roll, but I can hardly fly circles with the rudder alone, nor am I able to perform side-slips on final approaches.

The emil is my first shockwave warbird, for microsoft`s fs. I own the realair spitfire which is able to do very effective slips. Is it a limitation of fs or a special feature that emil`s rudder behaves at it does?

Of course, I am already looking at YOUR spitfire and I am curious how the rudder will be with her! You`ve got to know I am in a german bush-flying community and we all are side-slip-freaks...

While I cannot comment on the effectiveness or realistic nature of such rudder use in these aircraft, I am able to use a side or forward slip effectively to compensate for crosswinds and the like. You must remember that these aircraft were not meant for short runways and while designed to operate on the fringes of their respective flight envelopes, they were fighters first and foremost.

There are two types of slips that I am familiar with (excerpts from wikipedia):

Forward slips: The forward slip will change the heading of the aircraft away from the down wing, while retaining the original track (path over the ground) of the aircraft.

A forward-slip is useful when a pilot has set up for a landing approach with excessive height or must descend steeply beyond a treeline to touchdown near the start of a short runway. Assuming that the runway is properly lined up the forward slip will allow the aircraft track to be maintained while steepening the descent without adding excessive airspeed. Since the heading is not aligned with the runway, the slip must be removed before touchdown to avoid excessive side loading on the landing gear, and if a cross wind is present an appropriate side slip may be necessary at touchdown as described below.

Sideslip: The sideslip also uses opposite aileron and rudder, In this case it is entered by lowering a wing and exactly enough opposite rudder so the airplane does not turn (maintaining the same heading), while adding airspeed as required.

Most aircraft have certain abilities regarding the above procedures. For example, the P-51D Mustang has little rudder authority, thus full fledged slips are not recommended. If a crosswind is encountered the pilot would probably enter from a crab angle then perform a sideslip as they land to correct for the angle they approached the runway from while making a wheel, not 3 point landing.

This might help clarify some issues for you.

2.
Breaking. Should I tune down braking response of fs to the middle position? I know I have to keep the stick back after touchdown but my little emil is turning forward immediately after applying some breaking pressure. As a limitation of my hardware my flightstick can handle breaking pressure just between all or nothing. All seems to be a bit to much!

It was not uncommon for aircraft from this era to end up nose first when landing. The problem with FS is a pilot cannot "feel" the weight of the aircraft as brakes are applied. As braking is increased you can feel weight on the aircraft, thus you would know when you are nearing a brake setting that is inappropriate for the conditions.

In the Bf.109 many factors will effect the brakes and CG of the aircraft. For example, if you have very low fuel you will find the brakes to be extremely sensitive due to the shift in the center of gravity. The Bf.109 had a well balanced CG (center of gravity) when fueled.

Just remember when landing to do a few things:
- Bring the stick full back once the aircraft has settled and keep it back until you slow to a safe speed
- Raise your flaps immediately to keep the aircraft down upon landing
- Brake conservatively. Just make quick taps.

If you remember to do the above, you will find that the 109 will perform from relatively short fields.

If you find that adjusting the brakes on your device will help, give it a shot. In FS parking brakes apply 100% braking power. Standard toe brakes when simply activated apply 80% of the parking brake power. This is a rather harsh brake setting if you ask me, akin to driving at 60 miles per hour and slamming on the brakes at 80%. It wouldn't be a comfortable stop indeed!

3.
After reading through this forum I found some subtile hints about a certain update for emil, something like version 1.2.. I purchased and downloaded yesterday so I take this for garanted that my version is up-to-date.

I ask this because the tail whell doesn`t turn during taxying and someone wrote this would be a bug being fixed with a patch. Shift+G doesn`t function.

I cannot confirm what it was before the patch, however I have the patch and have found taxiing to be relatively simple, if not hard. The Bf109 was known to be an aircraft that did not taxi particularly well. The order of the day is power bursts following by light braking and rudder deflection. The wheel is fully castoring (from what little I know), which is the equivalant of a grocery cart wheel. It requires a bit of help to move in a specific direction, which is also why a tail wheel lock is required.

I hope some of these explanations help.

-Valk

[Sebastian]

Thanks for your detailed answer!

To point 1:

Exactly right, these two techniques are basics for bush-pilots. The point is that emil isn`t capable of doing forward-slips. This doesn`t has to be a flaw since several real planes cannot perform forward-slips.

Between different simulations there`re distinct approaches to simulate rudder authorities. For example, the RealAir Spitfire is highly capable while its counterpart of Il2/Sturmovik is not. I don`t own the Shockwave Spit, yet, so it is just a question, not a critique, whether the emil is simulated correctly or suffers from fs-limitations.

To point 2:

I really enjoy the challenging behavior of the Shockwave emil, because one can read in several sources that accidents during too optimistic braking manovres were not uncommon.

Even though, braking sensitivy in middle-position helps to get some more comfort.

To point 3:

MAAM`s DC-3 is a plane that also simulates a castoring tail-wheel. You`ve got to get the plane go some meters until you can turn and get the wheel following. With emil that doesn`t function, yet.

[CodyValkyrie]

MAAM`s DC-3 is a plane that also simulates a castoring tail-wheel. You`ve got to get the plane go some meters until you can turn and get the wheel following. With emil that doesn`t function, yet.

Try the patched version. While not easy to taxi, it certainly does taxi reasonably enough. You should have no issues following the yellow lines so to speak. There could also be some other issue at hand here, not related to Shockwave's aircraft, but I know that it does taxi.

[Lewis - A2A]

Hey Sebastian. We are looking into the tail wheel. It should move to turn the aircraft plus the wheel should actually turn.

Could it be that your FSX settings are too low to show such details?

Just in case can you confirm that you recieved the E3 and E4 variants.

[Sebastian]

FSX, what is that? No, I am a fs9-pilot.

My detail settings are rather right-hand-sided.

Yes, I have three variants, E3, E4 and the tropic one. So far, I am always flying the E4. Are there differences between the models? I already mentioned a slight difference in the E4-cockpit which has two different levers.

[Sebastian]

I recently did some flights with Emil.

Something that still doesn`t work is the tail-wheel-steering. The only way to turn the aircraft is to use differential braking, but shouldn`t make easy rudder-steering it either?

The other thing is the lack of substantial rudder authoritiy. The only other warbird I fly is the RealAir Spitfire and her rudder power is gigantic. You can fly without any aileron inputs.

With Emil I can hardly hold the line on crosswind-approaches, nor can I make use of any common slip-manovres to gain some quick views at the runway on finals. Approaches are unnecessary difficult, I love this fast slips with my Spitfire that help a lot on approaches with warbirds.

My joystick-settings shouldn`t be the problem as I use no dead-zone and full sensitivity. As I wrote, I fly all the other RealAirs, the Sibwings Safir, the MAAM DC-3 and many other addons without any problems.

[SD_Research]

OK, I'm back and can answer this for you. Also see my response to your trim question about the Spitfire...

Planes like the Bf 109 and P-51 have very little rudder authority and cannot maintain a forward slip. This is a known trait and it's not a flaw. These are not bush planes and were never intended to be landed on short strips where a sideslip is mandatory. In fact, particularly with the Emil, slipping it in for a landing is not recommended because the landing gear is very narrow. This doesn't mean you don't want to use a turning approach which will allow you to see over the nose, but slipping a plane such as this, with so much power, a huge prop, narrow gear, and lousy brakes is just not a good policy.

The Emil's rudder authority is just up to the task and that's about it. The rudder would never be used to do a long, lazy circle. As I mentioned re: the Spitfire, this is a fighter, it wants to be flown fast and hard and you want to keep it clean, that is, you don't want to be all cross-controlled and uncoordinated when you fly it. Same applies to any fighter. Keep it clean and fast. Speed is your friend. The Spit, however, can be slipped more successfully as it has more rudder authority, if you want to do so.

As far as the tailwheel, it was set up that way in the flight model on purpose. The value of 5 degrees was intentional and carefully tested. The Emil has a lot of weight on the tail and it takes a good blast of throttle along with some differential braking to "break out" the tail and get it to steer. This is a known trait of this particular aircraft and it was set up to duplicate this behaviour. If you reset this value to 180 you are going to get a fully-castoring tailwheel which will cause you to be all over the runway; the five-degree value mimics the difficult breakaway of the real plane. The tailwheel steering animation may not be correct with the lower value, but what do you want, the eye candy or realistic behaviour?

By today's standards these planes were unbelievably crude and weren't much better than the WWI planes they replaced. They require a lot of attention from the pilot. The flight models are not the arcadish and easy flyers you may have come to expect but believe us, these planes -- including the Fw 190 -- can be flown very well but they require some stick time.

The toughest of the bunch is the Fw 190, any variant, hands-down.

[Sebastian]

Thanks!

Of course, now I wonder what RealAir intended with her Spit. Their Spit flies faster rolls only with the rudder than with ailerons...

Nevermind, the Spit and the Me from Shockwave are some of the best investions for FS as I still fly them very often even after months (and I own about 70 gb of addons!).

[SD_Research]

Thanks!

Of course, now I wonder what RealAir intended with her Spit. Their Spit flies faster rolls only with the rudder than with ailerons...

Nevermind, the Spit and the Me from Shockwave are some of the best investions for FS as I still fly them very often even after months (and I own about 70 gb of addons!).

Thanks, Sebastian!

We interviewed several owner/operators of the real aircraft -- including the rare Bf 109E -- and did a lot of research on these planes. The flight dynamics were done by a real-world pilot so the feel of the planes is, we think, very good. We don't and can't claim that they are perfect, that's just not possible, but we do feel that the planes fly like a real plane should fly and do show the traits that are the best-documented about each one.

Pilot reports in the real world tend to differ so we have to make educated guesses one some things, but one the important stuff where all seem to agree, we think we did it right.

There are probably all kinds of little performance goodies you may not have tried, like the Mach effects in a dive when in the P-51D...check out what happens to the roll response when you go past 0.85 Mach...just like the real plane...or try using our mixture control gage with manual mixture control to get extremely accurate cruise performance in the Spit or Zero, or set up your Bf 109 to chug along in "patrol" cruise mode at very low engine RPM.

[SD_Research]

I recently did some flights with Emil.

Something that still doesn`t work is the tail-wheel-steering. The only way to turn the aircraft is to use differential braking, but shouldn`t make easy rudder-steering it either?

The other thing is the lack of substantial rudder authoritiy. The only other warbird I fly is the RealAir Spitfire and her rudder power is gigantic. You can fly without any aileron inputs.

With Emil I can hardly hold the line on crosswind-approaches, nor can I make use of any common slip-manovres to gain some quick views at the runway on finals. Approaches are unnecessary difficult, I love this fast slips with my Spitfire that help a lot on approaches with warbirds.

My joystick-settings shouldn`t be the problem as I use no dead-zone and full sensitivity. As I wrote, I fly all the other RealAirs, the Sibwings Safir, the MAAM DC-3 and many other addons without any problems.

That is interesting because you just highlighted some of the real differences between the Spit and Emil! Indeed, the Spit is more of a sweet pussycat to fly at approach speeds...the Emil has a bit higher wing loading IIRC which is theoretically offset by the slats, but you don't really want the slats popping out on approach as they can create asymmetricall roll stability issues. You should be able to get away with a much sloppier technique in the Spit for landing then in the 109, especially in a crosswind or on a difficult approach.

Grass runways are always best for either plane.

[denbf109]

this reply is not directed to anyone in particular. i'll start by saying that i'm an old bf109 freak! i've flown cfs3, il2'46, flight replicas, and now shockwave's 109e. i've never flown a real 109, but when using full realism settings cfs3 and il2'46 are way out of line (i'm not badmouthing oleg maddux, his rudder simulation for all the 109s is crazy. you can barrel the 109s with rudder only with 500 to700m in loss of altitude. and all his fighters are hyper sensitive). but f/replicas and your s/waves 109 i think are very close to being right on the money. taxing your s/wave 109 is fairly easy but the f/replicas 109f2/f4 is pretty tough. great job on the 109 flite model.....denbf109