PDA

View Full Version : K4 Porked? Pickled? or put in Perspective ???



XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 06:47 PM
after long term road testing it seems the K4 is now a great plane but put in perspective against other great planes like the fwa8 and a9 and the doras.k4 used to be the best plane in fb. now it still can be if kept above everyone . but now the doras and fws are all top notch fighters. seems much more balanced now. you can take any of these planes and not worry about being dominated by the k4. the russian planes are all easier to kill by a landslide. I153, I16 ,Yaks ,LAs are all easier to destroy. much more realistic. after all the petty whining it comes down to this. the k4 wasnt the end all best all of fighters. great plane yes but not arguably dominating over all other luftwaffe planes. k4 lost some climb but gained much stronger cannons. it can now blow anything up on one pass. almost impossible to do pre patch.but if caught down low and slow it cant just speed up and outrun all doras fws and las anymore. again realistic. american planes were even made slightly competitive. over all i believe the patch was an Astounding success. it didnt make the game perfect but it never will be perfect and now all planes have a chance in dogfights. it seems now up to pilot skill to decide who wins a battle. Imagine that ?. mediocre pilots cant sit above the battle anymore with impugnity. other planes will get up there and mix it up with you. not just all k4s . all the final patch needs really is to fix roll of jug and improve jugs guns . except for certain other bugs found. oh yes and add some new planes.

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of the 11 time Champions Team AFJ. 6 Years Flying http://www.world-data-systems.com/aerofiles/albums/userpics/p47-22.jpg 47|FC=

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 06:47 PM
after long term road testing it seems the K4 is now a great plane but put in perspective against other great planes like the fwa8 and a9 and the doras.k4 used to be the best plane in fb. now it still can be if kept above everyone . but now the doras and fws are all top notch fighters. seems much more balanced now. you can take any of these planes and not worry about being dominated by the k4. the russian planes are all easier to kill by a landslide. I153, I16 ,Yaks ,LAs are all easier to destroy. much more realistic. after all the petty whining it comes down to this. the k4 wasnt the end all best all of fighters. great plane yes but not arguably dominating over all other luftwaffe planes. k4 lost some climb but gained much stronger cannons. it can now blow anything up on one pass. almost impossible to do pre patch.but if caught down low and slow it cant just speed up and outrun all doras fws and las anymore. again realistic. american planes were even made slightly competitive. over all i believe the patch was an Astounding success. it didnt make the game perfect but it never will be perfect and now all planes have a chance in dogfights. it seems now up to pilot skill to decide who wins a battle. Imagine that ?. mediocre pilots cant sit above the battle anymore with impugnity. other planes will get up there and mix it up with you. not just all k4s . all the final patch needs really is to fix roll of jug and improve jugs guns . except for certain other bugs found. oh yes and add some new planes.

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of the 11 time Champions Team AFJ. 6 Years Flying http://www.world-data-systems.com/aerofiles/albums/userpics/p47-22.jpg 47|FC=

ZG77_Nagual
09-02-2003, 06:53 PM
agreed - overal balance is spot on now. There are no noob planes anymore.

K4 is very formidable - it has great low speed handling and sustained turn along with it's other virtues.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 06:58 PM
The K4 is a great and realistic plane in FB1.1b(from my point of view)

It climbs great(3:08-5000m),dives great and has a fine handling,and like the real it locks controls at highspeed.
So im very pleased with it /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Only 109 that needs correction is G10(not much diffrent to K4 in real) and G14 in climb.They are to slow in constant climb.

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 07:08 PM
Bf-109F and later did not suffer from any kind of control lock at high speed. Pilots who flew it compared the stick forces at high speed with those encountered in Mustang.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 07:12 PM
On the other hand you don't see any of the early war russian planes, those got fixed, like Bf-109. Waiting for a fix are P-39, Yak-3 and La-7, in fact the only planes that red team uses right now (because they are overmodelled). P-39 and Yak-3 are overmodelled in every performance characteristic, La-7 has only the turn erroneous. But all those three share the same defect, shared by all VVS planes before the patch: the do not bleed the speed correctly.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

ZG77_Nagual
09-02-2003, 07:30 PM
I'm on the fence about these planes, Huckbien ; I get to thinking the 39 is overmodeled - but then I get into it with a 109 - which I am pretty confident is very well modeled - with a good pilot and it really seems about right - he's staying with me in turns - climbing better and can run away. The la7 does seem to climb better than the yak3 - so in this sense I'd think maybe the yak is undermodeled. In circle fights it seems to me the planes actually bleed energy much more than before - I know in the 190, for example, when an la7 starts to outturn me - as we lose speed, I can go vertical and he will not be able to catch me after completing his turn - before the patch yak3s and la7s both would just climb and climb even after extended turns.

At this point I really don't know. But I do think gameplay is much more balanced - I have no problem making a go of it in most any plane - whereas before there was a kind of inevitability to some of the flight models.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 07:39 PM
ZG77_Nagual wrote:
- I'm on the fence about these planes, Huckbien ; I
- get to thinking the 39 is overmodeled - but then I
- get into it with a 109 - which I am pretty confident
- is very well modeled - with a good pilot and it
- really seems about right - he's staying with me in
- turns - climbing better and can run away.


Hmm, not really, let's do a easy one: me in a N1 and you in a F4. This one should be no contest, but it is.



- The la7 does seem to climb better than the yak3 - so in this
- sense I'd think maybe the yak is undermodeled.

La7 climbed and accelerated significantly better than Yak3 in real life. Late yaks have the climb and acceleration (and to same degree even the turn characteristic) of the Bf-109F & early G. Only max speed at sea level was better. Let's not confuse the two: La7 was the truly VVS late fighter (very light, very powerful)


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

ZG77_Nagual
09-02-2003, 07:48 PM
I stand corrected - my impression was the yak3 was the uber climber of the group.

As for F4 verses N1 - 109s are not really my cup of tea - but that would be fun match. I've only tried it offline - f4 vs 4 ace n1s - and was pleasantly surprised - but we all know the ai is not for writing home about.

As for 'no contest' between f4 and n1 - not sure where your info comes from - vvs pilots seemed to think the n1 and even the p40 were matches for the f4.

Anywho - next time we run into eachother we can try that out. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 07:50 PM
Col.Kurtz wrote:
-
-
- It climbs great(3:08-5000m),
-
-

Myth/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/taylor-greycap2.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 08:04 PM
ZG77_Nagual wrote:
- As for 'no contest' between f4 and n1 - not sure
- where your info comes from - vvs pilots seemed to
- think the n1 and even the p40 were matches for the
- f4.


No good pilot will ever think that the plane he is flying is a piece of junk (only after he converted from ithttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif).
Performance and kill stats shows it very clearly. In climb and acceleration there is indeed no contest. Turn is about the same, but F4 should turn better. Max speed again F4 should be better. I didn't see any axis pilot saying that Airacobra was a worthy opponent. I wonder why.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 08:06 PM
ZG77_Nagual wrote:
- Anywho - next time we run into eachother we can try
- that out.

If you're online now, I have 20 min free. What do you say?


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 08:23 PM
Let's not forget that the La-7 climbs 5m/sec to fast in 1.1b. Hopefully in the next patch the late 109's blistering climbrate will be even more pronounced./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/GK-2.JPG


'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 08:30 PM
Lets make it so everybody flys German planes. Won't that be fun?

Best sarcasm I can muster up.

25th_Buzz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>
http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/buzz.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 08:38 PM
BuzzU wrote:
- Lets make it so everybody flys German planes. Won't
- that be fun?
-
- Best sarcasm I can muster up.
-

No, let's make it so every plane gets its realistic performance.

Which means everybody will fly German planes/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

ZG77_Nagual
09-02-2003, 08:57 PM
Sorry huckebein - at work now - my online time is sporadic - I'll start practicing /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I prefer german planes allready ! Very nice to have the p39 though when I have to fly red.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 09:02 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- BuzzU wrote:
-- Lets make it so everybody flys German planes. Won't
-- that be fun?
--
-- Best sarcasm I can muster up.
--
-
- No, let's make it so every plane gets its realistic
- performance.
-
- Which means everybody will fly German planes.

What a great joke, I nearly died laughing.
Man you are sooooooooo funny.

<center> http://www.322squadron.com/banners/Giobanner.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 09:16 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- Col.Kurtz wrote:
--
--
-- It climbs great(3:08-5000m),
--
--
-
- Myth /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Joke? or do you really thinks this?

I think this is correct!

A G2 climbs in 4min to 5000m with only 1.3ata (i think this is 1355 HP)

Calculated with Objekt viewer data:
Starting weight and HP from OV.
G2 with 1.3ata
2.28kg/hp

1,4ata
2.10kg/hp

K4 has:
1.86kg/hp at 1800hp
and with the 2000hp engine
1,68kg/hp

Now???

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 09:21 PM
Just make it as close to RL as possible. Even if that would make everyone fly German./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/GK-2.JPG


'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 11:57 PM
robban75 wrote:
- Just make it as close to RL as possible. Even if
- that would make everyone fly German./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
http://members.chello.se/unni/GK-2.JPG
-
-
- 'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky
- than good any day!'

LOL! Not hardly...

http://www.ultimate-gamers.com/sigs/lulubelle3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 12:05 AM
Back on topic. About the K:

The Bf-109G-Ks are overmodelled in roll, rolling in 3 seconds, not losing any roll capability with underwing cannons, and maintaining very high roll rates at high speeds.

Currently:

Bf-109G-6 WITH Mk108 gunpods.

All rolls at 2,000 meters
All speeds at TAS

3 second roll @ 350 km/h
3.5 second roll @ 400 km/h
4 second roll @ 450 km/h


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg


Message Edited on 09/03/0303:06AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 12:18 AM
How did you guys get screens of the TA-152???

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin - 1755

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 01:46 AM
many are now flying german planes after patch but my original point is the K4 is still worth flying.the fw190A9 and Dora are not better than the K4. although i think i prefer the 109AS for turn capability. oh and i wouldnt take gunpods on a 109 it cant climb nearly as good as when clean. post patch. also i am not discrediting the vvs planes. the LA-7 3 cannon version is still very dangerous in the right hands against german planes. considering co altitude and equal pilots. same goes for the faster yak9s. i believe the yak9U is much faster than the yak3 and ill take that over the yak3s better manueverability so i can catch those fast late model german planes. I will still give a slight nod to the k4, A9 ,and dora over the vvs planes but i believe they were also better in real life. one thing the germans did best ...not well...but best...was make Dangerous tanks and fighters that had one shot one kill capabilities. they loved big powerful machines .and it showed

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of the 11 time Champions Team AFJ. 6 Years Flying http://www.world-data-systems.com/aerofiles/albums/userpics/p47-22.jpg 47|FC=

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 02:07 AM
RedDeth wrote:
- they loved big powerful machines .and it showed


Heh heh, Big Bertha, anyone? lol /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 04:22 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Bf-109F and later did not suffer from any kind of
- control lock at high speed. Pilots who flew it
- compared the stick forces at high speed with those
- encountered in Mustang.

Huck,
If you've got a reference to back that up handy please reply. If not, don't sweat it.

I thought heavy controls at high speed was the hallmark of the 109s darkside.

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 04:45 AM
Lance42 wrote:

- Huck,
- If you've got a reference to back that up handy
- please reply. If not, don't sweat it.
-
- I thought heavy controls at high speed was the
- hallmark of the 109s darkside.


At high speeds, aileron overbalance was a problem on the Bf-109F, and likely as well on later models.

Lukas Scmid carried out terminal dive speed tests with the Bf-109F and found the following:


"Thus, I was able to carry on, for I was now curious to determine the terminal dive speed. I achieved this after peeling off in an 80 degree dive dfrom an altitude of 10,700 meters, reaching 906 km/h and mach 0.80. [Isegrim will say .805, which is fine with me)]

Now, no fighter pilot could claim, as had often happened, that he exceed 1,000 kph. the high mach number came as a surprise-it had npt been thought that the Bf-109 could reach such a figure. It should also be mentioned that there was enormously strong aileron overbalance during this last dive, almost ripping the stick from my hand. Had it not been for the limit on the aileron this would have led to disaster. I had already become used to the reversal of force on the elevator with the vertical stabilizer against the stop that had been installed. In order to hold a dive of about 80 degrees I first had to pull back strongly, push forward after speed had increased and then after further increase pull back again to recover. Altogether during the course of these experiments I made about 30 diving flights over a period of two months."

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 05:23 AM
Yea...I just finished "Whistling Death" by Boone Guyton, Vought test pilot, who as you probably know was respected by the Naval and Marine aviation community as a sort of afficianado of compressibility related matters after learning the hard way during F4U development. The book's back at the library so I can't quote, but he flew a captured 109 (at I believe the 2nd Fighter Conference). Sorry I can't be more specific but IIRC he pretty much verified everything negative I'd heard about it in his evaluation. However, Guyton stood 6'4" /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Skychimp, who was Lukas Scmid?


Message Edited on 09/03/0304:25AM by Lance42

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 06:03 AM
Lance42 wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- Bf-109F and later did not suffer from any kind of
-- control lock at high speed. Pilots who flew it
-- compared the stick forces at high speed with those
-- encountered in Mustang.
-
- Huck,
- If you've got a reference to back that up handy
- please reply. If not, don't sweat it.
-
- I thought heavy controls at high speed was the
- hallmark of the 109s darkside.



No, this is a myth generated by a dubious british test on Emil. F and G had completely different wing and controls, it can't be compared with Emil. Anyway wartime british tests on Bf109 cannot be regarded as accurate, they were obviously trying to disparage the aircraft. You'll find plenty of mistakes in such reports, like Bf109 was outturned by Fw190, or you'll find that slats poped when you least expected rolling the aircraft violently, and other things never encountered by those who actually flew the aircraft.

Here's a report of an experienced warbird pilot about G2:

"The Bf109G is heavy to manoeuvre in pitch, being similar to a Mustang. At 520kph it is possible to pull 4g with one hand, but I find it more comfortable to use both hands on the stick for looping manoeuvres, normally entered at 420kph and 3g. Pitch trim changes with speed are moderate, and the tail plane trim wheel mounted abeam the pilots' left hip is easy to use. For a display, I run it at 420-450kph in trim, and then do not retrim. This causes no excessive stick forces during the display. Overall the aircraft is straightforward to handle in pitch."

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/articles/airframes/black6/bk6_flight.htm

Also in G2 manual is specified that in order to recover in dive at high speeds (750kmh IAS limit in manual) you have to carefully use the elevator and stabilizer to avoid damaging them. So the stick forces were not excessive since you could actually overstress the controls. Please note that german fighters use a different trim scheme, in which the whole stabilizer is used - later adopted by jet fighters, until the all moving tails - scheme which permited superior control at high speeds (G2 manual specifically recommends use of stabilizer in pulling out of high speed dives).

You have to understand that all the ww2 fightes had heavy controls at high speed. Bf-109F and later was actually better than most.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 09/03/0302:36AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 06:25 AM
i disagree its not balanced, p39 190s yaks and mig3us need thier controls dulled badly, there needs to be increased stick pressure. to give the game a realistic sense of flying, the new fm of the 190s seem so arcadish like a cfs1 mod to me yeah its fun to fly the a9 but you kill any plane instantly loose any plane on your 6 instantly if not a 190.

all the sea level flight speeds seems pretty damn accurate
with the exception of the p40's if they can manage to give the p39 190 mig3u and yaks more stick simulated stick pressure and slow down controls it would be alot more realistic to me, right now it seems like just another arcade sim to be honest.




http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 01:23 PM
There's one important aspect of this sim that's missing. The ability to overstress the airframe during violent manouvers, the rapid pitch up movement at high speeds would probably have ripped the wings off a 190 in RL even if the 190's airframe was very strong. If overstressing was to be implemented these manouvers will most likely disappear. Right now it's like flying a FBW controlled airplane and I don't like it. But I think the 190 will become less swift in its manouvers in the new patch.

Mortoma, the Ta 152H is a quick paste job in MS paint, nothing advanced, but it looks convincing, doesn't it?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



http://members.chello.se/unni/GK-2.JPG


'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

Message Edited on 09/03/0312:29PM by robban75

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 01:54 PM
K-4 is all fine now. Maybe they should add Flettner tab animation to the ailerons, or consumption of MW from tank... but its practically flawless right now.

PS : From all what I read, the P-51 had as heavy elevators as the 109, but this merely means that the Mustang had heavy elevator forces at high speeds, too (20lbs/G). Poor Mustang, the only part where I believed it could compete isnt existing either. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 02:42 PM
robban75 wrote:
- There's one important aspect of this sim that's
- missing. The ability to overstress the airframe
- during violent manouvers, the rapid pitch up
- movement at high speeds would probably have ripped
- the wings off a 190 in RL even if the 190's airframe
- was very strong. If overstressing was to be
- implemented these manouvers will most likely
- disappear. Right now it's like flying a FBW
- controlled airplane and I don't like it. But I think
- the 190 will become less swift in its manouvers in
- the new patch.

There was a post made here some time ago of a transcript of an interview with a LW vet. He stated that the 109 (forget which model) was capable of handling virtually any amount of G stress the pilot could, or could dish out.

He spoke of a test where there was 2 G meters installed, one black box style, one readable by the pilot. He was trying to reach 9 Gs but wasn't able to. He kept blacking out though. Finally he was called in and the ground crew discovered that he had actually managed to hit 10Gs and the G meter he was reading was defective.

If the 109 could handle 10Gs, I see no reason to beleive that the 190 would be any weaker.

ZG77_Nagual
09-03-2003, 03:15 PM
Well, I took an f4 online last night - after my conversation here with Huckebein - and did get into it with a yak3. I was successful in evading a pretty well-flown yak - and did get a few hits while taking none - but each time a maniac called 'tinkerbell' (you know who you are!!) would blow threw at some point in a 262 and vaporize the yak - which was focused on me. Not much of a test.

So, offline I took the f4 up against four p39n1s - (all'ace' but you know how the ai is) - no problem there - the 39s explode nicely with midship hits and the f4 had no problem staying out of harms way fighting in the vertical. The other way around was both more difficult and easier - it was harder to get away from the f4s in the vertical - but the n1s guns made short work of the 109s.

To continue the comparison - I took the f4 up against 4 yak3s - took longer than the 39s but I did get all four first try - again fighting in the vertical.

Next - four la7s - this took more work - mainly because the la7s seem to be sturdier than either the yak3 or the p39 - and they certainly climb better. First run 3 out of four - with all las damaged before I took any hits. Next run - all four but it took awhile. For grins I tried the n1 against the las - again it seemed more difficult to run in the vertical - but the firepower is nice - took some fairly severe damage to a wing but got all four.

The f4 is a very nice plane to fly - high speed elevator is a little better than the p39s - though the rudder - across the board - is not as good as the p39s - which makes sense (the rudder is the thing on the 39 most likely to throw you into a spin) - being used to tyhe p39, 262 and 190 I'm a little spoiled by rudder response - probably the hardest thing to get used to in the 109 (or las for that matter) Roll is quite good and overall control harmony just seems better to me than in the later models. Accelerations also seems quite good and it seemed alot faster than the p39 in this respect. Turn is not quite as good except at higher speeds - consistent with the object viewer. Most I've ever flown the f4 - i can see how it could become a fav, particularly on early servers.

For other aspects here - I've been flying the 39 and 190 since IL2 - I'm happy to see the 190 get it's high speed wings - though I agree roll is a bit overmodeled fast. Otherwise it seems pretty good. The 39, I have to concede - probably climbs too well - though I haven't seen any static climb tests - which - to be fair - need to be relative - that is compaired to another plane so we can see relative performance - which is alot of what this simm is about. Also, not much in the way of hard data on the vvs modified 39s - which clearly are different than their american contemporaries.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 03:54 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- There was a post made here some time ago of a
- transcript of an interview with a LW vet. He stated
- that the 109 (forget which model) was capable of
- handling virtually any amount of G stress the pilot
- could, or could dish out.
-
- He spoke of a test where there was 2 G meters
- installed, one black box style, one readable by the
- pilot. He was trying to reach 9 Gs but wasn't able
- to. He kept blacking out though. Finally he was
- called in and the ground crew discovered that he had
- actually managed to hit 10Gs and the G meter he was
- reading was defective.
-
- If the 109 could handle 10Gs, I see no reason to
- beleive that the 190 would be any weaker.
-
-

Good to know! Thanks BlitzPig_DDT!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif As it is now the pilot blacks out long before maximum elevator deflection, makes me curious about how many G's I'm actually pulling. A G-meter would be a nice feature.

http://members.chello.se/unni/GK-2.JPG


'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 05:42 PM
robban75 wrote:

--
-
- Good to know! Thanks BlitzPig_DDT!
- As it is now the pilot blacks
- out long before maximum elevator deflection, makes
- me curious about how many G's I'm actually pulling.
- A G-meter would be a nice feature.
-


Try a P-47, it has a G-meter on the cocpit. Altough it`s damned hard to actually black out in that thing, LOL (then for what is it there for? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ).

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 04:43 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- K-4 is all fine now. Maybe they should add Flettner
- tab animation to the ailerons, or consumption of MW
- from tank... but its practically flawless right now.
-
- PS : From all what I read, the P-51 had as heavy
- elevators as the 109, but this merely means that the
- Mustang had heavy elevator forces at high speeds,
- too (20lbs/G). Poor Mustang, the only part where I
- believed it could compete isnt existing either. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
-
- <img
- src="http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb
- .jpg">
- 'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'
-
- Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
- (Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto
- of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)
-
- Flight tests and other aviation performance data:
- http://www.pbase.com/isegrim


Huh.. Only the K-4 had Flettner Tabs? Interesting


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

ZG77_Nagual
09-20-2003, 05:07 PM
There is an interview with Gunther Rall (sp) on here somewhere - he flew all the american types after the war and said the mustang was the best - and fully competitive with the 109s. Personally I think he just didn't take the time to really get to know the p38 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

"Rall told that he was for a short time in a unit that toured the Luftwaffe units, presenting the captured allied planes and educationg about their properties. He had some stick time with P-38, P-47 and P-51.

Of those planes he told that he thought the P-51 was the best.

I asked him what he thought of the matchup between late model 109's against those allied types he had flown.

He answered that the worst shortcoming in 109 was the limited range, but P-38 and P-47 did not pose that much of a problem. But the P-51 was more difficult, very comparable to Bf 109 in actual combat. But as he said, P-51 could do it for a few hours longer in a flight."

"First of all he didn't like the slats in the 109, he more of wished to have a larger wing than these slats on the 109 His favorite Messerschmitt was the Bf109F-4. He said it could tangle with anything the enemy could put up and was the best of 109's, not too heavy etc."



http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/photoreports/guntherrall2003/

With all this whining I've been flying 109s alot - I really don't see the problem - in fact I allmost like them (not a 109 fan) - certainly I like flying them better than la7s or 5fns.

Nice to hear you like the k4 isegrim. Hope you've let Oleg know - I'm sure he values positive input in the midst of all this noise. S!

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg



Message Edited on 09/20/0312:13PM by ZG77_Nagual

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 05:28 PM
ZG77_Nagual wrote:
- There is an interview with Gunther Rall (sp) on here
- somewhere - he flew all the american types after the
- war and said the mustang was the best - and fully
- competitive with the 109s. Personally I think he
- just didn't take the time to really get to know the
- p38

WOW.. Gunther Rall? Very cool! God.. I just hope we can keep Huckie away from this thread.. He might call Gunther an ignorant clown or something.

- "Rall told that he was for a short time in a unit
- that toured the Luftwaffe units, presenting the
- captured allied planes and educationg about their
- properties. He had some stick time with P-38, P-47
- and P-51.

WOW! Well.. I would put alot of weight in what he says than... I think Huckie and Ignram might too, in that here is a guy that not only flew them.. but he was German! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- Of those planes he told that he thought the P-51 was
- the best.

But of corse! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- I asked him what he thought of the matchup between
- late model 109's against those allied types he had
- flown.
-
- He answered that the worst shortcoming in 109 was
- the limited range, but P-38 and P-47 did not pose
- that much of a problem. But the P-51 was more
- difficult, very comparable to Bf 109 in actual
- combat. But as he said, P-51 could do it for a few
- hours longer in a flight."

WOW.. Poor Gunther.. He agrees with Carson and Brown.. This will allmost garinte a implication from Huckie that he is a clown. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

- "First of all he didn't like the slats in the 109,
- he more of wished to have a larger wing than these
- slats on the 109

Funny.. Carson didnt like them either... Man.. God help Gunther if Huckie finds this post!

- His favorite Messerschmitt was the
- Bf109F-4. He said it could tangle with anything the
- enemy could put up and was the best of 109's, not
- too heavy etc."

I think the early war stuff is what we simmers like too.. The World War One style of dog fighting mono on mono.. That is what the early ZEROS and 109 were best at.. Problem is World War Two changed very fast.. to where them old black an white movies of one on one became the exception and not the rule of air wars.. This miss conception by most is what makes them cry out "THIS AC IS NOT MODELED CORRECTLY" when in FACT what is not modeled correctly is the WAR itself. B and Z was the norm, T and B was not.

- With all this whining I've been flying 109s alot - I
- really don't see the problem - in fact I allmost
- like them (not a 109 fan) - certainly I like flying
- them better than la7s or 5fns.

I love the engine sound on the 109s.. best in the sim.

- Nice to hear you like the k4 isegrim. Hope you've
- let Oleg know - I'm sure he values positive input in
- the midst of all this noise. S!

ROTFL! He did.. until more was found out about it! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

PS Thanks for the link to that post, it is a good read!!



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 09:20 PM
Isegrim:

A "g" meter would be very useful in an aircraft that can be heavily grossed out like a P47. Given that an aircraft is designed to balance performance and structural limitations, if you dramatically increase wingloading on the original design, you must necessarily realize a lower overall 'g' loading capability before your reach structural limits.

For instance, if a P47 has a normal combat weight g limit of 7.33 (probably close to this), if you add a heavy external stores package, the g limit goes down. So for a given increase in gross weight, the load on the wings is significantly greater for a given g, and a lower g limit must be adhered to.

That's for symmetric g, which is induced by a straight pull back on the stick. That is where a combat aircraft (any aircraft really!) is designed to take the most stress. An equally important measure of airframe stress is it's ability to handle 'assymetric' g. This is typically induced by 'rolling and pulling' while maneuvering, and results in a lower indicated structural g limit on your guage than just a straight pull. An aircraft structure will not be able to handle the sideloads induced in this type of maneuvering for a number of reasons, but suffice it to say that it may only indicate as 3 or 4 gs on a loaded fighter bomber like a P47.

If that makes sense, compare a WW2 fighter to a modern jet. If you don't have a comprehensive fly by wire system managing your g limits, then you have to ensure you don't 'over g' while maneuvering - and it is very easy! One technique used to avoid pulling too many 'rolling (assymetric) gs' is to 'fly the T': that is, when you're pulling a lot of g, and you want to change your vector, you release or unload some of your positve g, roll, then reestablish desired g force. Of course, a technique like this isnt very important in a sim where structural limits (as far as I can tell) are not modelled.

(note: the 7.33 limit for the P47 is a guess based on figures I've read before, and is an operational, not a structural limit. Operational limits are typically, as far as I can remember, about 50% lower than the expected total strucural failure of an average aircraft)

Barfly
Executive Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 09:21 PM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:
- i disagree its not balanced, p39 190s yaks and
- mig3us need thier controls dulled badly, there needs
- to be increased stick pressure. to give the game a
- realistic sense of flying, the new fm of the 190s
- seem so arcadish like a cfs1 mod to me yeah its fun
- to fly the a9 but you kill any plane instantly loose
- any plane on your 6 instantly if not a 190.
-
- all the sea level flight speeds seems pretty damn
- accurate
- with the exception of the p40's if they can manage
- to give the p39 190 mig3u and yaks more stick
- simulated stick pressure and slow down controls it
- would be alot more realistic to me, right now it
- seems like just another arcade sim to be honest.
-

AGREED STILL FUN BUT NOT A SIM ANYMORE

<center> http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_109_1063229517.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 09:40 PM
Another note about g capability:

I wouldn't place too much validation in one test of a 109, especially given spotty performance of instrumentation, the potential varience between like airframes, pilot capability, etc.

I think most combat aircraft of that era were generally stressed to handle typical combat loads that would be induced by a typical pilot, with of course a good degree of safety built in. At least that's my impression by comparing numbers with modern aircraft. Operational limits for a typical combat aircraft were probably in the realm of 7-8gs at combat weight for a single engine fighter, with structural damage occuring at some point above that, and total failure somewhere in the 10-12 g realm.

Although one might be inclined to push his aircraft past operationally recommended g limits, it is no more safe than boosting you engine past it's well tested limits. Pilot strength and g resistance I think are well modelled in FB, and avoid the need for structural limits in most of the flight regime. It would still be nice to 'bend' or 'break' an airplane if flown beyond, but hey! I'm happy with what we've got here so far.

A good example of monitoring g limits and the effects of exceeding those occured with the introduction of pressurized g suits for mustang drivers. I read an account (cant remember where) of a group of mustangs mixing it up pretty good with some Luftwaffe fighters, and upon post flight inspection, it was discovered that several pilots had bent their wings (annhedral) a few degrees! The g suit will typically provide 1-2 extra sustainable g for a pilots, but you can see what might happen if you can all of sudden easily exceed the normal operational limits...

Barfly
Executive Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 09:43 PM
Why dont you guys use IL2-Compare to compare the Fmodels of the planes in FB????

I cant understand how all the people here with supposedly so much knowledge dont use this program and wonder why Oleg doesnt take their advice seriously while the guy Youss's advice is taken.Well think about it.

The original poster said ""the k4 wasnt the end all best all of fighters. great plane yes but not arguably dominating over all other luftwaffe planes. k4 lost some climb but gained much stronger cannons""

Lost some climb???are you sure??

Its got the highest climb by a GREAT margin over every other plane in FB.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 09:47 PM
IL2 compare shows very well how biased the FM is. I already pointed out 1.11 deficiencies, and you can find them very well in Il2 compare.
I'm sorry to say this but right know the wish to balance the sides completely transformed the scope of this game. I can hardly pretend that is sim anymore.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 09:48 PM
Wolfstriked wrote:
- Why dont you guys use IL2-Compare to compare the
- Fmodels of the planes in FB????
-
- I cant understand how all the people here with
- supposedly so much knowledge dont use this program
- and wonder why Oleg doesnt take their advice
- seriously while the guy Youss's advice is taken.Well
- think about it.
-
- The original poster said ""the k4 wasnt the end all
- best all of fighters. great plane yes but not
- arguably dominating over all other luftwaffe planes.
- k4 lost some climb but gained much stronger
- cannons""
-
- Lost some climb???are you sure??
-
- Its got the highest climb by a GREAT margin over
- every other plane in FB.

That dosetn matter much when yaks & la's can shoot your arse in a climb from over 1KM LOL



I use Il2 Compare its a great tool everyone should use it I love it..

www.cazadoresnocturnos.com/almacen/programas/il2c.zip (http://www.cazadoresnocturnos.com/almacen/programas/il2c.zip)



<center> http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_109_1063229517.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 09:56 PM
No more Noob planes ?????????? Hahahahha !!! LoL rofl, you should be awarded the Olegs Hero Medal !!!
LA7 is not a Noob plane ??? Please meet me in HL or UBI, you K4 i in LA7, same time takeoff, i will have some fun there...not saying i like LA7, just would liek to teach you a lesson about "balanced" modells !!!

II/JG54_Zent

ZG77_Nagual
09-20-2003, 10:07 PM
I shoot down la7s all the time - in fact I've shot down more of them than any other single type. Of course once in awhile you run into a really good pilot. They are great planes - but the were great planes in ww2. Faster and more maneuverable than the 109 - according to everybody - vvs and germans. So, what's your point?

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg


Message Edited on 09/20/0305:12PM by ZG77_Nagual

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 10:13 PM
ZG77_Nagual wrote:
- I shoot down la7s all the time - in fact I've shot
- down more of them than any other single type. Of
- course once in awhile you run into a really good
- pilot. They are great planes - but the were great
- planes in ww2. So, what's your point?
-



I make it a point to kill these dam things there like flys when I see them they must DIE right away if not they will be landing on your ear and pestering the crap out of you /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif




<center> http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_109_1063229517.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 10:41 PM
In Il2-Compare it has the LA7 climbing faster than the K4 until abou 2200.Take the K4 from 2200 to 5000 and you have a great advantage in the K4.Of course this is with MW50 enabled but since FB doesnt model the fact that it was 10 minutes max you can use indefenily and just throttle back when it overheats.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 10:42 PM
Wolfstriked wrote:


- Its got the highest climb by a GREAT margin over
- every other plane in FB.
-

Hell no, La-7 climbs 30m/s, much better than K-4.. On above 4000-5000 meters you will outclimb the La-7, but who the hell fights that high in this sim anyway.. nobody..



____________________________________



Official Sig:



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez4.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 11:06 PM
The K4 climbs at 28 compared to the la7 at 30 but at 1500m the k4 seems to stay at 28 to 29 while the la7 nosedives hitting 20m/s at 3000 while the k4 is doing 29M/s

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 11:29 PM
Amazing how many VVS guys are real 109 Aces, isn't it. You'll never see em mention the G-6 though G-14 in their victory stories. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 11:41 PM
Vipez- wrote:
-
- Wolfstriked wrote:
-
-
-- Its got the highest climb by a GREAT margin over
-- every other plane in FB.
--
-
- Hell no, La-7 climbs 30m/s, much better than K-4..
- On above 4000-5000 meters you will outclimb the
- La-7, but who the hell fights that high in this sim
- anyway.. nobody..


Now this is already aggravating. Verify this data before perpetuating those awful errors from FB engine. Never in it's entire service La7 did have 30m/s climb rate loaded like it has in that IL2 compare data. Max climb rate obtained in test was 24.5m/s with a late La7 (sea level), tested in April '45. In all other tests it performed less good.

G10, G14, G6/AS had all the same initial climb, around 24m/s at loaded weight. K4 was a little bit better with 24.5m/s and a higher climb speed.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>