www.classics-hangar.de

Here's a cool youtube video of a stang. Shows how nicely an aircraft rolls at low speed by just using the rudder.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fK0AGh37 ... re=related

Initially he demonstrates the drag bucket thanks to the laminar flow wing.

He then uses a turn to increase drag and slow the aircraft down.

When they are slowed down notice the comment on how heavy the controls are when they are out of trim.

Note the use of rudder to roll the aircraft instead of aileron at low speeds.

Last note how even a gentle stall break can cause a visit of the upchuck express for those not used to less than 1g

Hey Mathias,
Any idea what the max demonstrated crosswind component for the 108? If I recall in the 172 it was around 15-20kts...I'd have to look at the POH. I think most planes of this size had similar crosswind limitations. My flight instructor had told me to remember that these published limitations were established by very experienced company test pilots...not low time students Even now with some hours under the belt, I still am wary of high crosswinds...they can be very exciting

If crosswind landings are tricky in the 108, I can't imagine how hard they would be in a BF-109 with taller narrower gear and less visibility.

Mathias
FYI - after messing with my control and realism settings, here's what works for me with an X52. Realism - all three, general/torque/pfactor, all the way to the right. Controls - deadzone 20% and the three axes all the way right.

pilottj wrote:Hey Mathias,
Any idea what the max demonstrated crosswind component for the 108? If I recall in the 172 it was around 15-20kts...I'd have to look at the POH. I think most planes of this size had similar crosswind limitations. My flight instructor had told me to remember that these published limitations were established by very experienced company test pilots...not low time students Even now with some hours under the belt, I still am wary of high crosswinds...they can be very exciting

If crosswind landings are tricky in the 108, I can't imagine how hard they would be in a BF-109 with taller narrower gear and less visibility.

Hi TJ, those data is nowhere available in the period handbooks or in the new test data of D-EBFW.
I would have to ask Greg what his magic glass ball told him (DATCOM and Roscam maths).

olderndirt wrote:Mathias
FYI - after messing with my control and realism settings, here's what works for me with an X52. Realism - all three, general/torque/pfactor, all the way to the right. Controls - deadzone 20% and the three axes all the way right.

oldendirt, glad that you got it sorted!