PDA

View Full Version : Is it me or is this game off a tad?



XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 04:41 AM
iam not plance expert but... the german planes cant be this bad, i cant outrun anything, outdive or outclimb anything in a 109k, 190A9... i was chased down in a shallow climb by a p39, yak and la7, i was going head to head with a la7 in a 109k, doing about 550kph.. head to head mind you, we flew by, i kept going straight he turned around and was on my *** not even a few mintues later and i couldnt get alway.. same thing happened when i was in a A9.. i know the german planes didnt turn that well but comon, i got in both a yak9 and la7 and compared to the 109 and 190 they fly like a arcade game, you can pull back on stick alot and not get any issues, not lose much speed and their engines pick up speeds like indy cars, the 109 and 190s if you come out of a turn you lost tons of speed and the engines just dont accelerate at all... the 109 you can pull back a decent amount and the 190 just doesnt like turns.. these planes cant be all that bad.. i like the game in all, but i think too much advantage is given to the russian fighters.. iam brand new, got into a la7 and was downing guys with really high scores next to their names with ease,,, thats just not right...

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 04:41 AM
iam not plance expert but... the german planes cant be this bad, i cant outrun anything, outdive or outclimb anything in a 109k, 190A9... i was chased down in a shallow climb by a p39, yak and la7, i was going head to head with a la7 in a 109k, doing about 550kph.. head to head mind you, we flew by, i kept going straight he turned around and was on my *** not even a few mintues later and i couldnt get alway.. same thing happened when i was in a A9.. i know the german planes didnt turn that well but comon, i got in both a yak9 and la7 and compared to the 109 and 190 they fly like a arcade game, you can pull back on stick alot and not get any issues, not lose much speed and their engines pick up speeds like indy cars, the 109 and 190s if you come out of a turn you lost tons of speed and the engines just dont accelerate at all... the 109 you can pull back a decent amount and the 190 just doesnt like turns.. these planes cant be all that bad.. i like the game in all, but i think too much advantage is given to the russian fighters.. iam brand new, got into a la7 and was downing guys with really high scores next to their names with ease,,, thats just not right...

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 04:54 AM
Hi and welcome to the forum /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Because you're new, you do not know that you've just re-written the oldest thread in the history of this forum /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

And the most polite- and apolitical response is this: Russian planes are better (and were better historically) at turn and burn low altitude flights [re: "pull back on stick alot and not get any issues"];

if you want to fight and win in a German AC you're going to have to learn to fly like a German (Finn/Rumanian/Hungarian) by conserving your Energy and fighting in the vertical, not horizontal, plane; referred to as "Boom and Zoom" (though I think it should be ZnB and not BnZ). If you fly the Me-109 and Fw190 with the BnZ tactics of the LW you will have much more success with their aircraft...

Cheers,
Cold_Gambler

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 05:03 AM
When flying 109E4 and F4, only Yaks (less Yak1) and La5FN/7 should be able to match you in turn, and only I-153 can outturn you. You should be able to outturn anything else.

This does not happen in the game, unfortunately russian planes are overmodelled in almost any performance characteristic, from turn to climb rate, so until a new patch will be out, do not expect much.


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

Message Edited on 10/07/0311:05PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 05:05 AM
the biggest disparity is that what happens online is nothing like what happened in the real world. Online, you are always engaged in low-level turn fights. furthermore, if there are friendlies in the area, it's usually coincidental.

In the real war, there would be team tactics and almost no "dogfighting" what ever. the VVS forbid it's pilots from turn fighting even though their AC were superior in that regard.

when you have a situation like 4 on 4, w/ pilots trained to coordinate, you'll find out quickly that the differences in performance are not as important as they are in the solo-low-level online combat.

<center> http://webpages.charter.net/Stick_Fiend/images/crazyPilot.gif
<font size= 2>

<a href="http://webpages.charter.net/Stick_Fiend/"><font size= 2> Stick_Fiend Home<a/><font size= 2>
"Altitude, speed, maneuver, fire!"-The "formula of Terror" of Aleksandr Pokryshkin, Three times awarded the rank of Hero of the Soviet Union

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 05:26 AM
still dont explain why i was at 5000m (18000 ft?) running 110percent with the nitrous on my 109k at 550kph? and being tracked down by yaks and la? i know they turned better, and faster at low level... but i was near where the 109k was rated at over 730kph? 19000 feet to be exact... i mean i would try the do the boom shoot and accel and run high but what good will it do if these other planes just track me down without a problem? also, the 109k was supposed to be one of the best climbers.. i shoot at full bore at a la7, doing 500kph turn up and left away from him, he makes a 90 degree turn and catches me??????? from what i have read that shouldnt happen... not even in at A8 or A9..

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 05:26 AM
MGallun - I couldn't agree more! I only play offline and find what you say to be my exact experience too. I have to cheat quite a bit in order to try to match any of the Russian planes and even then they still give me a very good run for my money(I know I can't fly properly- don't flame me).

I suspect that the German planes are modelled correctly, it is the Russian planes that are very overmodelled. Once, for example flying a Me 109g6 with red/blackouts, stall,and spin disabled I had an IL2 turn on me and stick to my six no matter what I did, I was blasted out of the sky 2 minutes later. That seemed a little odd to me that An IL2 can outturn, outclimb and outfight a Me109 in combat!. The Russian plane's DMs seem a little underdone as well.

Unless the game is set that the more I cheat then so does the game. If that's the case then that will teach me to cheat won't it!

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 05:47 AM
yep, i played a few campaigns then noticed i was getting shot down by I16!!!!! i knew something is fishy, and seeing how these yaks -Laggs and Las' can track down 109Ks in climbs and at alt about 5000m makes you go hmmmmmm, you do know the game is named after a russian plane right, so of course they will help the russian planes... oh well, hope they fix it, because there shouldnt be but 1-2 piston engined planes that can out run a K in straight line or climb... and it sure the hell aint no yak lagg or LA, from all the stuff i have read tonight other than this page...

SO HEY PATCH MAKERS LISTEN UP, FIX YOUR STUFF K.. THANKS

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 06:38 AM
DynamicBass wrote:
- I have to cheat quite a bit in order to try to match
- any of the Russian planes and even then they still
- give me a very good run for my money
I don't have to cheat to shoot down Russian planes. I can even stay on the 6 of a Yak by using yo-yos and lag manoeuvres. The Russian planes are easier to fly, but that doesn't make the German planes any less deadly.

- I suspect that the German planes are modelled
- correctly, it is the Russian planes that are very
- overmodelled. Once, for example flying a Me 109g6
- with red/blackouts, stall,and spin disabled I had an
- IL2 turn on me and stick to my six no matter what I
- did, I was blasted out of the sky 2 minutes later.

Uh huh. If you're pulling the stick to the extent where you'd normally stall out, you're bleeding a lot of energy. Develop a lighter hand on the stick and keep your speed up and you'll have much more success with the 109.

- That seemed a little odd to me that An IL2 can
- outturn, outclimb and outfight a Me109 in combat!.

It can't. Try flying the monster and you'll see. It hits it's stops at about 400 kph in a shallow dive, it bleeds off energy terrible, and it weighs a lot for the 1,500 hp it's engine has.

- The Russian plane's DMs seem a little underdone as
- well.
If you think that, try flying a MiG-3 and compare it to a 190. Some of them are more rugged, but so's the 190. The 109 is closest to the MiG in terms of performance and damage model early war, later soviet planes got more armour, the 109 didn't.

- Unless the game is set that the more I cheat then so
- does the game. If that's the case then that will
- teach me to cheat won't it!
The game doesn't cheat as such, but the AI does use a simplified flight model. If you play with all cheat-y realism options off, it's harder, but by no means impossible.

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 06:40 AM
I must be honest though, that I found the original IL2 (with all it's patches) to be very balanced, challenging but total fun to fly. In fact after many months of playing without knowing the correct flying tactics according to ace pilots - I later found that I had been forced by the game to natuarly develop them!!(once I started reading more and more about actual tactics from my extensive home library I discovered this)

This to me was the greatest accolade that this game could achieve as it showed just how true and correct the physics, FM,s,DM's and other aspects of the game were.

Things seemed to have changed a lot in FB however. I don't think that Oleg himself is responsible for this or that it was intentional. Too much credibility and proffesional reputation are at stake here for that to happen.

I think that all the planes were originally overmodelled in FB, however with all the whining the LW Fm's and Dm's were corrected but not enough corrections were made to the Russian planes(IMHO).

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 06:59 AM
Bnej_03 wrote:
-- The Russian plane's DMs seem a little underdone as
-- well.
- If you think that, try flying a MiG-3 and compare it
- to a 190. Some of them are more rugged, but so's the
- 190. The 109 is closest to the MiG in terms of
- performance and damage model early war, later soviet
- planes got more armour, the 109 didn't.

What additional armor got russian fighters compared to Bf-109? What a joke.


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

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 07:12 AM
Bnej03 Thanks for the input, I will continue to try improving on my flying. However I found that as mentioned above that this sort of advice IMO would be far more applicable and succesfull in IL2(IMHO more realisticly and historicaly balanced).

In FB no matter what I try or how I try to perfect and understand one plane's flying characteristics over many months as I learnt in IL2, the Russian planes always seem to trounce me, including older and historicaly inferior russian planes - I'm not talking about Yak9's etc. In fact I have yet to face them(under these circumstances I do realy not look forward to them either).

Other than that I am very happy with the game and enjoy it immensely. It is one HELL of a lot better than MS Combat FS!

I hope patch 1.2 will correct things a little. Can't wait for BoB!

Regards the IL2 staying on my six. I had attacked a group of 5 of them with a wing man in my Me 109G6. After downing one I saw green tracer pass by me whilst monuerering in for my next possible kill. I twisted, climed,dived and turned like hell for the next 1-2 minutes thinking that I had been bounced by an escourting Russian fighter plane that I had not noticed (I remember even thinking to myself that this guy must be one hell of an ACE, as no matter what I do I cannot shake him and I was slowly taking small hits)

My wing man could not save me iether and I was blown out of the sky. I panned to third person view to discover that it was one of the IL2,s that I was attacking that had turned on me!! Like I said just one example of many that have me believing that the Russian FM,s are slightly out.

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 12:09 PM
Its a good thing to know the plane u fly in all speeds, slowest and fastest.

Bf 109's can be maneuvered in very slow speeds with combat flap for short periods. I found a finnish ace Ky√¬∂sti Karhila who used to do this with wingpods at about 250 km/h
and out turning his opponents.

Why not read about it yourself?

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/hist/WW2History-KyostiKarhilaInterview.html


Its way down on the page at "Daily life of a messerschmitt pilot.


I'm practicing this and it often works. Sacrificing speed to get a single sharp turn to get a good deflectionshot .
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 03:08 PM
DynamicBass wrote:
- Regards the IL2 staying on my six. I had attacked a
- group of 5 of them with a wing man in my Me 109G6.
- After downing one I saw green tracer pass by me
- whilst monuerering in for my next possible kill. I
- twisted, climed,dived and turned like hell for the
- next 1-2 minutes

The IL-2 was actually capable of making reasonably tight turns. Don't think that just because it's slow and under-powered that it can't turn well.

But if you're in a Bf-109 G6 you have much better acceleration, climb, speed and roll. Your best evasive tactic is probably just to keep your speed up so an Il-2 can't hang on your tail and to fly in gentle curves to make yourself harder to hit (FB's AI is a crack shot against a target flying straight but is very poor at hitting turning targets. Although this would also have been true in real life, I think FB overdoes it a bit).

Also remember that most effective fighter aircraft like the Bf-109 relied on keeping their speeds high. Rapid turning quickly bleeds energy and results in your ending up low and slow at which point it's usually time to reach for the parachute /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif . Take your time and avoid yanking on the stick and dumping energy. Be prepared to spend a bit of time setting up a high-speed attack and resist the temptation to get drawn into a frantic furball at low altitude. Of course, your AI wingmen will get suckred ever time...

Finally, as far as I can tell, if you fight AI opponents on Ace level they actually can perform better than the standard flight model for that particular aircraft (e.g., too fast climb or level speed etc). In my single missions I usually don't set the AI higher than verteran because of this.

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 04:44 PM
I can't understand how people think that the FM for 109s was that good in IL2. The G6 and G6late were total dogs which shouldn't have been the case.

Also, it's very debatable as to whether the Russian planes were "better" historically that the German planes. Lot's of information, performance statistics, and how it all depends on tactics.

As for hunting in the 109, yes altitude, speed, surprise and don't mix it up if you don't have to. Offline doesn't really help in developing realistic tactics. The AI (both yours and theirs) tend to do stupid things sometimes and at other times they are somehow superhuman in what they can do. Head on shots are still nearly suicide against AI. They always hit with insane deflection shots. And try escaping into a cloud against them. They seem to have special radar for finding and hitting you in clouds.

Then your wingmen will fart around and turn in 109s against I-16s. Crazy.

The only thing I think offline play is good for is developing gunnery and bombing techniques. Otherwise, it's very frustrating. I find flying against humans online to be less problematic than the AI.

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 04:51 PM
needless to say the 109 feel hopelessly underpowered in this game, so doing the dive shot and climb dont work that well with la7, yaks that after you shoot and turn away can make a 90 degree turn and eat you up alive.. which is far from trutch, especially with the climb rate of the k... even the 190s feel doggy, the Ds feel like they got some balls but still fall over 100kph short of top speed indicated on websites... i flew at over 500m in the 109k and at full power and boost and get barely 550, when ishould be getting 700 area... i did find out i had the radiator things wide open, but doubt closing them will make plane 150kph faster

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 04:56 PM
Make sure if you speak of indicated airspeed (IAS) or true air speed (TAS). The IAS is the speed indicated in the cockpit, and is much less that the TAS, which is shown when you fly in the non cockpit view. The gap between TAS and IAS also gets broader as altitude increases.

Nic

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 05:11 PM
MGallun wrote:
- needless to say the 109 feel hopelessly underpowered
- in this game, so doing the dive shot and climb dont
- work that well with la7, yaks that after you shoot
- and turn away can make a 90 degree turn and eat you
- up alive.. which is far from trutch, especially with
- the climb rate of the k... even the 190s feel doggy,
- the Ds feel like they got some balls but still fall
- over 100kph short of top speed indicated on
- websites... i flew at over 500m in the 109k and at
- full power and boost and get barely 550, when
- ishould be getting 700 area... i did find out i had
- the radiator things wide open, but doubt closing
- them will make plane 150kph faster


Don't know why you're having speed problems. If you start high enough you should be reaching speeds in dives in the 750kph range or higher. I do all the time. And at those speeds if an La5/7 tries to keep up it should have it's wings ripped off.

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 05:18 PM
When you make a post like you did, you have to specify AI or HUMAN. Some here have trouble reading./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

AI have their own set of 'rules' and I don't think it matters if are LW or VVS, the AI will run you down even from doing a 'bat turn'.

If as in your example of a H2H, if both a/c were doing 300kph after passing they would be 10km(6mi.) apart if no turn was made and at least 7.5km(4.7mi) apart if 1 a/c turned.


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



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

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 05:19 PM
The flight models and characterists change so much from patch to patch and each version 1c says is the most accurate which seem to have caused more problems then fixed and dont really listen to government flight testings data and graphs, mock dogfighting tests, gunnery effectiveness and a whole slew of other probs with complex engine management.

We just all have to wait and see what they do because even providing information, data, multiple videos doesnt help, or 1c doesnt read them.

If you dont speak russian or french you wont get heard by 1c and they dotn inform the community of changes at all which is a very bad thing.

The game is still the best looking and has the most realistic looking gunnery and nothing in the prop flight sim community compairs to it.

http://www.freewebs.com/leadspitter/lead.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 05:40 PM
well i have been playing online, iam new, so maybe iam just a bad pilot, but these la and yaks just turn on dimes and acceleratle like ferraris.. like is said done maybe front to fronts and the dives and they just turn and catch me in a min, like iam driving a mack truck.. lol, i dunno, i will stop complaining, i just feel the LA LAGG and YAKs are either overmodelled or the germans planes are under modelled.. i dunno..

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 05:45 PM
HaHa I feel your pain, the 109 isn't the way it used to be.

the La7 climbs better than it should, so it may keep up extremly well in a climb with you, also the La7 is faster than you and turns better than you. (If you fly a late 109)

Don't listen to anyone who says the 109's are at the peak of their performance and are wonderful cause they are wrong. The Late 109's have been toned down extremly from patch to patch.

1.0 - K4 was the fastest prop plane with maybe a 190, no Russian plane matched its speed.

1.1b - K4 toned down a lot, La7 and russian planes boosted up for speed as well. At the same time stalls also were put into the game so it didn't feel like we were flying through butter. Since this happened now people don't blackout ever unless at high speeds, now they stall and since the La7's and yaks stall before they begin to turn extremely well. This gave the illusion that the 109's became "bettter" to some, for it seemed it could keep up with the russian birds in some turns. Plus the mk 108 did become much stronger in 1.1b, so this is the only good thing that happened for the late 109's.

1.11 - speed toned down more, overheating takes way less time to occur now and the mk 108's were toned down a touch with the rate of fire.

All and all the 109 is borked to much, if anyone tells me that the 109 is wonderful now, then its because either

A - they don't fly the 109 and don't want it to go back up to par for fearing it

B - They just want to turn with every plane and shoot and the illusion is with the stalls it got better in this department

C - They actually make sure they have the hieght advantage before entering the fight by quite a bit and with the power of the mk 108's they should do well.

Yes the 109 is good at BnZin with the power of the mk 108's. Problem is the La7's are overmodelled and also the K4 does have some problems on the undermodelled side, of the overheating and such so, either wait for the patch and fly something else in the meantime.

Gain crazy alt over everyone and BnZ, never ever take someone on higher than you or even at the same E advantage as you.

Or uninstall the game, reinstall and play 1.0 or 1.1b.

<a>http://www.talonsoft.com/images/hiddenanddangerous/hiddenanddangerous-eyes.jpg</a>

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 06:27 PM
Heres some specs for the La7 and Yak3, for those interested....

La-7
Max speed - 423mph (680kmh) at 19,030ft (5800m)
Time to 16,405ft (5000m), 4.52min.
Range - 615 miles (990km)
Empty weight - 5,842lb (2520kg)
Loaded weight - 7,496lb (3400kg)

Yak-3
Max speed - 367mph (590kmh) at SL, 407mph (655kmh) at 10,170ft (3100m)
Initial climb - 3,800ft/min (19,30m/sec)
Max range - 560 miles (900km)
Empty weight - 4,641lb (2105kg)
Loaded weight - 5,622lb (2550kg)

So, tell me... Do you think a 3 ton fighter, loaded, is going to fly like... manure?

Lets get some specs for a Bf-109K4...

Bf-109K-4
Max speed - 452mph (727kmh) at 19,685ft (6000m)
Initial climb - 4,820ft/min (24.5m/sec)
Range - 356 miles (573km)
Empty equipped weight - 6,070lb (2753kg)
Loaded weight - 7,410lb (3361kg)

Where do you think the Bf-109K-4 is going to outperform the two above? Right. Above 7500m, the Bf-109 is gonna OWN the La7 and Yak3. Above 7500m, the La7 and Yak3 engines produce like... 500hp. Not to mention that the russians didn't usually fly above 7000m.

Below that, about 1500m below that... Right into the La7s prime, somewhat above the Yak-3s prime. The thing is, when you do get into trouble with them at those alts, just dive - they can't follow. 109 can sustain about 800kmh IAS before things start coming off, La-7 can only sustain about 750kmh max.

Fact is, the russians had some damn good planes, especially late in the war. They WILL put up a fight. You don't want them to have any advantage whatsoever. The key of course is to climb well above their operating range, and dive on them. If you come zooming down with a 3000m alt advantage, no way in hell can they catch you. Just remember to regain ALL lost alt, and properly reset your attack.

If you want the best plane for use against the russian birds in their altitude, theres no better answer than the Fw-190A8 or A9. More firepower and armor than you can shake a stick at, good loiter time, very high dive speed, and very high SL speed. Just like the USAAF birds, bring a wingman along and cover each others butts - drag and bag, and russian planes have no chance.

Just look at this Fw-190... Don't tell me it isn't one of the most beautiful fighters you've ever seen!

http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/aakra3.jpg


http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 06:46 PM
Russian chart

http://mishuna.image.pbase.com/u16/isegrim/large/5230580.fghterchart4.jpg


The only way a K-4 can out-perform(speed) a La-7 is with MW50 and that is above ~3500m. Since the 109s overheat so quickly,....../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



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

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 06:56 PM
HOT 109s... Which is what makes the Fw-190 so much better! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Cept the 109 is a better hunter/killer. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 06:58 PM
Korolov, you base your findings on what?
La7 has a marginal advantage in turn over K4, even smaller on earlier MW50 equiped 109. Planes like G6AS and G10 should be able to outturn it at 3500m. They should have equal turn performance beginning with 2500m. The same for climb rate.

Keep in mind that this is based on BEST performance achieved by La7 at the end of war.

Are you curious what were the results in tests carried out by the germans on La5FN (which basically had the same performance with La7 at low level)?

What you have here in FB is just a one sided view on Bf-109 turn performance. With Il2 Maddox team built the myth of 109s that cannot turn. In reality the differences with russian planes in turn performance were indiscernible.


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

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 08:05 PM
i dunno, russian planes are just overdone, they need to fix or up the 190 and 109, 190 dont turn nowhere near as good as a 109, so if you get a yak or la behind ya how will you escape? especially if you plane is only doing 230 in a straight run at 1500m you cant pull up and go vertical, if will stall instanly, while the yak and la just keeps a comin...

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 09:08 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Korolov, you base your findings on what?
- La7 has a marginal advantage in turn over K4, even
- smaller on earlier MW50 equiped 109. Planes like
- G6AS and G10 should be able to outturn it at 3500m.
- They should have equal turn performance beginning
- with 2500m. The same for climb rate.

What are you doing turn fighting in the first place?

- Keep in mind that this is based on BEST performance
- achieved by La7 at the end of war.

Also the best performance for the K4. Altitude is life!

- Are you curious what were the results in tests
- carried out by the germans on La5FN (which basically
- had the same performance with La7 at low level)?

Sure, I'd be happy to see them. Though the La7 in game is vastly superior to the La5FN, at least the 5FN doesn't have the annoying gunsight!

- What you have here in FB is just a one sided view on
- Bf-109 turn performance. With Il2 Maddox team built
- the myth of 109s that cannot turn. In reality the
- differences with russian planes in turn performance
- were indiscernible.

So, 500m alt, 250kmh speed for both planes... K4 will win in a turn? Forgive me if I find that kind of... off.

I can easily see it outturning it up at 6000-7000m of altitude, but not any lower.

Bf-109 has many advantages over other soviet aircraft, and I have no problems employing those advantages.

But don't worry, you guys will get your uber 109s soon enough.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 09:20 PM
what do you mean by that korolov?
according to some its good enough now..?? iam new, so getting shot down doesnt bother me too much, iam learning, i have been allowing my self to get push down to sea level by la and yaks and even a p39(thats another issue p63) i never really did try to climb, that was due to the 109 being so damn doggy already i didnt think it would do anything... oh well, i had a yak, la7 and p39 chasing me for 12 minutes last night trying to shot me down at altitudes of 1500 and lower, i was running hard but eventually i over heated and that was all she wrote... but oh welll...

really i dont need a super uber turning 109, just one that has legit escape speed that was really availbe to it...

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 09:52 PM
The 109 will always be regarded as a experten plane, not a easy to fly one. It takes some time to master them, but when you do... The pilot is unbeatable.

The best 109 to use would be the F-4 or the G-2. They don't have as much punch as the later Gs and Ks, but they make up for it in agility.

Also, when you use MW50, be sure and enable it before you start you engine. It automatically turns on when you push the power above 100%.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 10:05 PM
Ya but just to show you in FB, take a "expert" pilot to dogfight an equal rival in abilities, 1 in an La7 and the other in a K4, same alt, same hieght, at any alt you with, high, low, regardless that La7 is going to win in FB at this time.

The K4 used to be a great plane but now its just ok. There are better out there now, before it was my choice of ride. Now I don't fly anymore because I realize the La7 would be my main chioce of ride. I don't want to be known flying that plane when I flew the 109's 99% of the time, I wait till the 109's get back to par.

<a>http://www.talonsoft.com/images/hiddenanddangerous/hiddenanddangerous-eyes.jpg</a>

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 10:14 PM
Korolov wrote:
- The 109 will always be regarded as a experten plane,
- not a easy to fly one. It takes some time to master
- them, but when you do... The pilot is unbeatable.

Refer back to my previous post, I truely believe the La7 is the "unbeatable" bird that makes the pilot unbeatable in FB as it is at this moment in time.

Try it if you want, and no i don't mean the dumb AI, I mean 2 online people, both start at same hieght.

Remember you can use your tactic of gaining alt around your base till at 6000 alt if you want but, what if the La7 pilot on the Red team did the same /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ..... toast.

<a>http://www.talonsoft.com/images/hiddenanddangerous/hiddenanddangerous-eyes.jpg</a>

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 10:17 PM
Shhhhh, your weren't suppose to notice./i/smilies/16x16_robot-wink.gif

Don't listen to these guys, quite obvious they don't fly them regular or only stick to the few that are half way modeled.

Wait for the patch, too many fingers in the cookie jar, made them tilted it a bit to far. Like we wouldn't notice. he he/i/smilies/16x16_robot-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 10:24 PM
Korolov wrote:
- The 109 will always be regarded as a experten plane,
- not a easy to fly one. It takes some time to master
- them, but when you do... The pilot is unbeatable.
-

Why it was issued as the primary fighter for several years and even used as a trainer./i/smilies/16x16_robot-wink.gif

- The best 109 to use would be the F-4 or the G-2.
- They don't have as much punch as the later Gs and
- Ks, but they make up for it in agility.
-

Not only agility, but accelleration rate, climb rates, energy retention, zoom, and dive./i/smilies/16x16_robot-wink.gif


- Also, when you use MW50, be sure and enable it
- before you start you engine. It automatically turns
- on when you push the power above 100%.
-

Just don't use up all 60 seconds of it at once or you'll overboil./i/smilies/16x16_robot-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 10:29 PM
BfHeFwMe wrote:
-
-
- Why it was issued as the primary fighter for several
- years and even used as a trainer.
-

Because there was nothing to replace it. Messerschmitt tried with the Me209 and Me309.

A trainer?? or a better word would be familurization a/c. The '09 was not an easy a/c to land and take-off in.


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



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

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 11:12 PM
so when i go putz online i should jump in a F4 or G2 instead of a K? iam just not too fond of the 190, just dont like the feel... so i will stick with 109 win or lose, maybe i can find some friends and have wingmen, or i could just run up to 5000m and see if anyone cares to join...

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 11:34 PM
K has the best climb, can reach 5000m in 3:30. However it is generally heavier, and so is less agile. Zoom climb isn't as good as the F's and G-2. But nothing says "dont tread on me" like that mk108!

Also, keep in mind the 109s elevator gets very heavy at high speed, so be sure to set your attack up for a low deflection shot. This is the prime reason I don't like the 109s, very hard to manuver at high speed. Works best at altitude. The Mk108 also requires a lot of lead, best to wait until the wings of your target span the width of the revi and then let loose. If it doesn't kill your target, it will severly cripple them, and you can either wait for the target to go home or setup another pass. Remember, you don't have to totally dewing a target to get a kill credit; just damage him enough to the point he can no longer fight and look for another target.

You can zoom down on a bandit, then zoom back up with max throttle. When you start to slow down you'll want 95 or 90% throttle to keep cool. I keep my radiator closed and open it when it gets hot; throttle back to 80% as well. If you're really worried about overheating, keeping the radiator open at position 2 or 4 generally keeps speed high and will keep the engine cool.

BfHeFwMe wrote:
- Why it was issued as the primary fighter for several
- years and even used as a trainer.

Nothing else availible at the time. Messerschmitt had a monopoly on the fighter market, you see; it wasn't until the Fw-190 arrived in force that average and rookie pilots actually got extreme success. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- Not only agility, but accelleration rate, climb rates,
- energy retention, zoom, and dive.

No, the K4 had the best climb rate and dive over the earlier models. That I can guarentee you.

- Just don't use up all 60 seconds of it at once or you'll
- overboil.

I've ran it for longer than that! MW50 will last you about 45 minutes, but theres no real point to using it for so long. I can run 105% all day with MW50, and 110% isn't worth it unless its a extreme emergency.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 11:36 PM
EyesBlack wrote:
- Ya but just to show you in FB, take a "expert" pilot
- to dogfight an equal rival in abilities, 1 in an La7
- and the other in a K4, same alt, same hieght, at any
- alt you with, high, low, regardless that La7 is
- going to win in FB at this time.

Why do I need a K-4? I did that with a G-6 early, TWICE. K4 would have made it much, much, much easier. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

And I'm not the best 109 pilot either!

- The K4 used to be a great plane but now its just ok.
- There are better out there now, before it was my
- choice of ride. Now I don't fly anymore because I
- realize the La7 would be my main chioce of ride. I
- don't want to be known flying that plane when I flew
- the 109's 99% of the time, I wait till the 109's get
- back to par.

So you only flew it because it made you this awesome uber pilot? 109 isn't for you then...

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 11:43 PM
EyesBlack wrote:
- Refer back to my previous post, I truely believe the
- La7 is the "unbeatable" bird that makes the pilot
- unbeatable in FB as it is at this moment in time.
-
- Try it if you want, and no i don't mean the dumb AI,
- I mean 2 online people, both start at same hieght.
-
- Remember you can use your tactic of gaining alt
- around your base till at 6000 alt if you want but,
- what if the La7 pilot on the Red team did the same

La7 unbeatable... Until you get to 6000m. At which its performance drops off sharply. K4 will beat the La7 to 5000m, and from there on up it will climb much much faster.

Given pilots of equal skill, the 109 will reach a much higher alt by the time the La7 reaches 5000m.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 11:45 PM
korolov, i will give the G6 and F4 tries, i think maybe the reason i was so slow an pukey was i had them radiators wide open, i was wondering what the hell they where lol...

what about that pretty plane in you signature? thats one tuff mofo

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 01:00 AM
Korolov I said don't fight the ai, cause of course you can beat them in the 109 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

If you beat an La7 same alt advantage in a G6 then good for you, but who exactly was flying that La7. (and I don't mean oh look I beat an La7 once. U can try and make him overshoot and shoot him as he passes but thats a bit of luck there to manage that)

oh by the way you can't fly 105 wep on for ages, it does overheat, just not as fast, also as soon as you open your rad up once, like setting 2, it drastically looses speed, best to keep them closed. Oh and going 105 doesn't really make you fly fast compared to 110 with wep, you might as well be going 99 without it and less overheating. The late 109's in this patch are rediculous.

The La7 can climb just about as good as the K4, but not quite, it does climb better as 110 wep rad closed but haha you won't be flying like this past 2000 before you get the message warning do you want eggs with that motor.

Now come on if you are saying that dumb saying "Learn to Fly" you might wanna come find out for yourself,... but I won't be flying no K4 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif not with the way this patch turned out.

And yes as I said before and a million times before this, the K4 is great when you have alt advantage, but if you and the La7 took off at the same time I would put my money on the La7 eating that K4. With the advantages to disadvanteges that plane has, it should be clear.

La7, almost keeps up with the K4 climbing (which is the K4's specialty i thought) and the K4 would overheat by the time it did get any type of alt above the La7.

The La7 is faster, doesn't bleed much E, is slow to overheat, has 3 20mm which is enough for a 1 on 1 fight /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif and I find it turns better, the only thing I can see the late 109s having an advantage on is the mk 108 but id ditch that for better performance cause the way it is now its not worth it.



<a>http://www.talonsoft.com/images/hiddenanddangerous/hiddenanddangerous-eyes.jpg</a>

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 01:03 AM
Oh and don't say your gonna dive away from me either, cause if its 1 on 1, I won't follow, I would head back up and just hover above watching you bleed your E in that dive.

<a>http://www.talonsoft.com/images/hiddenanddangerous/hiddenanddangerous-eyes.jpg</a>

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 01:10 AM
Oh I liked the 109 before, heck I loved her, but I fly the plane that gets the best performance out of me, the 109 doesn't do that anymore. So as of 1.1b the 109 got porked up the rear, and even moreso in 1.11. Till 1.2 I won't be flying the 109 unless just for fun /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif .

<a>http://www.talonsoft.com/images/hiddenanddangerous/hiddenanddangerous-eyes.jpg</a>

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 01:17 AM
and thats what they need to change, in real life the LA7 cannot fathom to keep up with a K in a climb, i realifte the la was only faster at 4000m and below... like i said before the russian planes on here are rather fake, they dont blead much energy at all when turning and accel like ferrais out of the turn, which is not legit and needs to be fixed... if it doesnt iam sure i can find a way to cheat lol, or i just wont play.. lol

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 01:36 AM
ya if someone wants to argue that the La7 isn't overmodeled and that the K4 isn't undermodeled, then so be it, but to me its rubbish. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<a>http://www.talonsoft.com/images/hiddenanddangerous/hiddenanddangerous-eyes.jpg</a>

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 01:37 AM
Whoa, stay away from the G-6 LOL! G-6 is the worst of all the 109s, no boost and is the heaviest. The G-2 is the one you want, or the G-6A/S. G-6A/S is a really good one as well, not quite the same as the K4 but better than the rest of the G series IMO.

- them radiators wide open, i was wondering what the
- hell they where lol...

The radiators kill about 40kmh off your sea level speed when open; close them and you get pretty warm at high power settings but you can go faster. The trick is to balance out between cooling and throttle. Keep a close eye on your oil temp (the one that really matters; in the K4 its the lower guage), on the G and F series its on the lower right hand edge of the cockpit. When it gets to 120C, you need to let up on the power. If you do it right, you can keep the oil temp at about 110C on max power with radiator closed.

- what about that pretty plane in you signature? thats
- one tuff mofo

The profile view is a P-38F, the sub picture on the left is of a P-38J. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 01:55 AM
EyesBlack wrote:
- Korolov I said don't fight the ai, cause of course
- you can beat them in the 109

For your information, it was online and I beat CrazyIvan, who was flying the La7. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

First time, I suckered him into a dive, second time I busted his engine with a mk108 shot to the engine.

Crazyivan is a 109 master, see if you can catch him sometime on HL - he gives some good lessons!

- oh by the way you can't fly 105 wep on for ages, it
- does overheat, just not as fast, also as soon as you
- open your rad up once, like setting 2, it
- drastically looses speed, best to keep them closed.
- Oh and going 105 doesn't really make you fly fast
- compared to 110 with wep, you might as well be going
- 99 without it and less overheating. The late 109's
- in this patch are rediculous.

Huh. Must be doing something wrong then. I mean it never gets hot with me... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

- The La7 can climb just about as good as the K4, but
- not quite, it does climb better as 110 wep rad
- closed but haha you won't be flying like this past
- 2000 before you get the message warning do you want
- eggs with that motor.

La7 has better initial climb; K4 has better sustained climb. Don't see why you're getting hot at the 2000m mark. Never happened to me before.

- Now come on if you are saying that dumb saying
- "Learn to Fly" you might wanna come find out for
- yourself,... but I won't be flying no K4 not with the way
- this patch turned out.

I'm not saying "learn to fly" I'm just saying "try something else". Clearly what you like about the 109 is its ability to win. You aren't just going to win, snap like that, against a La7.

- And yes as I said before and a million times before
- this, the K4 is great when you have alt advantage,
- but if you and the La7 took off at the same time I
- would put my money on the La7 eating that K4. With
- the advantages to disadvanteges that plane has, it
- should be clear.

I wouldn't put my money anywhere. A duel like that is too close for comfort.

- La7, almost keeps up with the K4 climbing (which is
- the K4's specialty i thought) and the K4 would
- overheat by the time it did get any type of alt
- above the La7.

See above. Sustained and instatanious climbs.

You know, in the MTO, luftwaffe pilots were warned to not pull up after a attack on P-38s. The reason was that the P-38 could go from level flight to climb in a split second. Treat the La7 the same way - don't jerk up, do a shallow climb and then get the sucker.

- The La7 is faster, doesn't bleed much E, is slow to
- overheat, has 3 20mm which is enough for a 1 on 1
- fight and I find it turns better, the only thing I can
- see the late 109s having an advantage on is the mk 108
- but id ditch that for better performance cause the way it
- is now its not worth it.

Of course the La7 is better than the K4. Why wouldn't it be? It's only at altitude that the La7 is inferior to the K4. And hey... At least there isn't a La-11 with three 23mm cannon!

IMO the P-39 is more dangerous because it can keep up with you in dives and has a one shot kill 37mm cannon.


EyesBlack wrote:
- Korolov I said don't fight the ai, cause of course
- you can beat them in the 109 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
-
- If you beat an La7 same alt advantage in a G6 then
- good for you, but who exactly was flying that La7.
- (and I don't mean oh look I beat an La7 once. U can
- try and make him overshoot and shoot him as he
- passes but thats a bit of luck there to manage that)
-
- oh by the way you can't fly 105 wep on for ages, it
- does overheat, just not as fast, also as soon as you
- open your rad up once, like setting 2, it
- drastically looses speed, best to keep them closed.
- Oh and going 105 doesn't really make you fly fast
- compared to 110 with wep, you might as well be going
- 99 without it and less overheating. The late 109's
- in this patch are rediculous.
-
- The La7 can climb just about as good as the K4, but
- not quite, it does climb better as 110 wep rad
- closed but haha you won't be flying like this past
- 2000 before you get the message warning do you want
- eggs with that motor.
-
- Now come on if you are saying that dumb saying
- "Learn to Fly" you might wanna come find out for
- yourself,... but I won't be flying no K4 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif not with the way this patch
- turned out.
-
- And yes as I said before and a million times before
- this, the K4 is great when you have alt advantage,
- but if you and the La7 took off at the same time I
- would put my money on the La7 eating that K4. With
- the advantages to disadvanteges that plane has, it
- should be clear.
-
- La7, almost keeps up with the K4 climbing (which is
- the K4's specialty i thought) and the K4 would
- overheat by the time it did get any type of alt
- above the La7.
-
- The La7 is faster, doesn't bleed much E, is slow to
- overheat, has 3 20mm which is enough for a 1 on 1
- fight /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif and I find it turns
- better, the only thing I can see the late 109s
- having an advantage on is the mk 108 but id ditch
- that for better performance cause the way it is now
- its not worth it.
-
-
-
-
- <a><img border=0"
- src="http://www.talonsoft.com/images/hiddenanddang
- erous/hiddenanddangerous-eyes.jpg"></a>



http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 01:57 AM
MGallun wrote:
- and thats what they need to change, in real life the
- LA7 cannot fathom to keep up with a K in a climb, i
- realifte the la was only faster at 4000m and
- below...

La7 can't keep up with a K4 in climb. It will catch you if you try to zoom climb, but if you do a spiral climb it'll snap out.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 02:34 AM
Korolov wrote:
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- Korolov, you base your findings on what?
-- La7 has a marginal advantage in turn over K4, even
-- smaller on earlier MW50 equiped 109. Planes like
-- G6AS and G10 should be able to outturn it at 3500m.
-- They should have equal turn performance beginning
-- with 2500m. The same for climb rate.
-
- What are you doing turn fighting in the first place?


When I'm alone with the enemy plane, or I'm well covered why not turfight, when you have the advantage in turn? What kind of question is that?



-- Are you curious what were the results in tests
-- carried out by the germans on La5FN (which basically
-- had the same performance with La7 at low level)?
-
- Sure, I'd be happy to see them. Though the La7 in
- game is vastly superior to the La5FN, at least the
- 5FN doesn't have the annoying gunsight!

This is your problem Korolov, you are confusing the game with real life performance. La5FN had basically the same performance with La7 at low alts in '44. They had the same engine and basically the same aerodynamics (with few minor differences, repositioned radiator scoop, slightly different wings, so on).

In german tests La5FN achieved 520km/h max speed at sea level compared with the 580km/h that russians claim. And only 16m/s compared with 22-24m/s in russian sources. All this at 1850hp. How do you want it modelled, according to russian sources or german sources? Put yourself this question for the german planes too.



-- What you have here in FB is just a one sided view on
-- Bf-109 turn performance. With Il2 Maddox team built
-- the myth of 109s that cannot turn. In reality the
-- differences with russian planes in turn performance
-- were indiscernible.
-
- So, 500m alt, 250kmh speed for both planes... K4
- will win in a turn? Forgive me if I find that kind
- of... off.

No late ww2 fighter turns well at 250kmh. The recommended turn speed for La7 was 340km/h, and exactly the same was for Bf-109K. In this conditions La7 has a minor advantage: 1 sec less on 360 deg turn time. In reality such insignificant difference is almost impossible to use in one's advantage.
This turning speed you mention was and still is for some planes a glarring error. You actually could turn sustained at that speed. Such thing was impossible in real life late war planes: in best sustained turn the speed remaines at the best sustained turn speed or the plane spins because pilot pulled too much. In Il2 or FB the plane can loose as much as 100km/h (and in Me262 case 200km/h) below best SUSTAINED speed.

Again you are not making the distiction between what planes could do in RL and what planes can do in FB.


- I can easily see it outturning it up at 6000-7000m
- of altitude, but not any lower.
-
- Bf-109 has many advantages over other soviet
- aircraft, and I have no problems employing those
- advantages.


I'm sick of this idiotic argument. I'm a successful pilot in german planes, though that does not mean that I cannot see the obvious errors in flight modelling. Il2 Compare does an excellent job in showing how uberperforming are russian planes compared with their real life performance (from russian tests).



- But don't worry, you guys will get your uber 109s
- soon enough.

109 was uber Korolov, no matter how you dislike the plane. I don't want anything that is not historically accurate, for 109 or for any other plane. Just get the d@mn plane right once and for all.




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

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 02:42 AM
Korolov wrote:
- The 109 will always be regarded as a experten plane,
- not a easy to fly one. It takes some time to master
- them, but when you do... The pilot is unbeatable.

Crap. Bf-109 was easy to fly and easy to fight in it. Experten plane, oh yes, it made more aces than any aircraft in the world, with any air force than use it. For a small force of 200 fighters - romanian air force, Bf-109 made in a year and a half 50 aces!
It was the best prop plane for air to air combat from the beginning to the end of war.



- The best 109 to use would be the F-4 or the G-2.
- They don't have as much punch as the later Gs and
- Ks, but they make up for it in agility.
-
- Also, when you use MW50, be sure and enable it
- before you start you engine. It automatically turns
- on when you push the power above 100%.

F4 indeed, it was a very good turner, not like now in FB, where G2 can outturn it. All Gustavs had the same turn rate, not what we have now, G6 that turns like whales. All of them should complete the turn in 20sec at sea level, sustained speed.


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

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 02:48 AM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- BfHeFwMe wrote:
--
--
-- Why it was issued as the primary fighter for several
-- years and even used as a trainer.
--
-
- Because there was nothing to replace it.
- Messerschmitt tried with the Me209 and Me309.


What are you blabbering here? Me-209 was not intended as a replacement for Bf-109. It was the competing design for Fw-190D.

Me-309 was indeed designed as a replacement for Bf-109, but it was a low priority project and cancelled quite early.

And the late generations of german piston fighters was to be last one too. RLM already made the decision that all new fighter and bomber projects aquired will be jet powered.


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

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 02:54 AM
Next thing you know they'll be trying to tell us how great dum dum rounds were as an air to air bullet again./i/smilies/16x16_robot-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 03:05 AM
Korolov wrote:
- K has the best climb, can reach 5000m in 3:30.
- However it is generally heavier, and so is less
- agile. Zoom climb isn't as good as the F's and G-2.
- But nothing says "dont tread on me" like that mk108!

So what is slightly heavier? Compared with La7 it has 100kg more, but also 150hp more. It has a better power loading.



- Also, keep in mind the 109s elevator gets very heavy
- at high speed, so be sure to set your attack up for
- a low deflection shot.

Again this is fantasy, 109 had one of the lightest elevators at high speed. This is a long lasting myth with no base in reality.



- This is the prime reason I
- don't like the 109s, very hard to manuver at high
- speed.

I did not try it in 1.11, until now it was OK. I hope what you say is not true, that would be very unfortunate, that would make the 109 the most crippled plane in FB. It has crappy climb, turn, damage model, energy retention, now it has heavy elevators too??


-
- Nothing else availible at the time. Messerschmitt
- had a monopoly on the fighter market, you see; it
- wasn't until the Fw-190 arrived in force that
- average and rookie pilots actually got extreme
- success.

Fw-190 was successful as a fighter in East only in '43, when it had an powerloading advantage with everything that derives from it like climb, acceleration (there was also speed, armor, firepower and so on). With the new generation of russian fighters, it became a hit and run fighter, until A9 and D9 (MW50) appeared.



-
-- Not only agility, but accelleration rate, climb rates,
-- energy retention, zoom, and dive.
-
- No, the K4 had the best climb rate and dive over the
- earlier models. That I can guarentee you.

There's no need for any guaranty from you. It had all the above, because of the best excess thrust to weight ratio from any ww2 fighter. All those characteristics are dependent on this ratio.



-- Just don't use up all 60 seconds of it at once or you'll
-- overboil.
-
- I've ran it for longer than that! MW50 will last you
- about 45 minutes, but theres no real point to using
- it for so long. I can run 105% all day with MW50,
- and 110% isn't worth it unless its a extreme
- emergency.

You are trying to say that the only fighting technique for Bf-109 was hit and run? Based on what?


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

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 03:22 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- When I'm alone with the enemy plane, or I'm well
- covered why not turfight, when you have the
- advantage in turn? What kind of question is that?

I still see it as rather stupid. Far too risky when you have other less risky advantages.

- This is your problem Korolov, you are confusing the
- game with real life performance. La5FN had basically
- the same performance with La7 at low alts in '44.
- They had the same engine and basically the same
- aerodynamics (with few minor differences,
- repositioned radiator scoop, slightly different
- wings, so on).

With you, m'friend, its the other way around. It's a game. Not life. Of course it's life for some people... (*cough* crazyivan *cough* /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )

I also don't see how the La5FN and La7 are so related. The La7 has so many changes, especially the one equipped with 3 20mm cannons.

- In german tests La5FN achieved 520km/h max speed at
- sea level compared with the 580km/h that russians
- claim. And only 16m/s compared with 22-24m/s in
- russian sources. All this at 1850hp. How do you want
- it modelled, according to russian sources or german
- sources? Put yourself this question for the german
- planes too.

Hmm, german tests seem way too low and the russian tests seem a tad too high. So, what did the Germans get out of the Bf-109G-6A/S then? For comparison; would also like to see german tests for the G-6 as well. If you have them, would like to see russian tests for the same planes.

Heres what my book states about the G-6: Max speed of 621kmh at 6900m, initial climb of 17,00m/sec. Bout equal range with La7 with external tank.

Interestingly though, the G-6 is about 200kg lighter than the La5FN. However I think the weight is probably offset by the high dehydral of the 109s wing.

The La7 has the same loaded weight as the G-6. All of this out of my book though, so I'm sure it varies from source to source.

- No late ww2 fighter turns well at 250kmh. The
- recommended turn speed for La7 was 340km/h, and
- exactly the same was for Bf-109K. In this conditions
- La7 has a minor advantage: 1 sec less on 360 deg
- turn time. In reality such insignificant difference
- is almost impossible to use in one's advantage.
- This turning speed you mention was and still is for
- some planes a glarring error. You actually could
- turn sustained at that speed. Such thing was
- impossible in real life late war planes: in best
- sustained turn the speed remaines at the best
- sustained turn speed or the plane spins because
- pilot pulled too much. In Il2 or FB the plane can
- loose as much as 100km/h (and in Me262 case 200km/h)
- below best SUSTAINED speed.

However, why wouldn't a pilot push the limit? Who's to say what a desperate pilot would do with his 109? Would he try to accelerate up to 340kmh to get his best possible turn or would he go by the seat of his pants and try some crazy manuver at 250kmh? Remember, these guys weren't superheroes. If a pilot had no choice but to try something crazy that just might save his life, I'm sure he'd do it!

- Again you are not making the distiction between what
- planes could do in RL and what planes can do in FB.

You know, I think you need to chill for a bit. Why don't you go check out VFC*HOST sometime? Have a little fun with the game, shoot some VVS scum... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- I'm sick of this idiotic argument. I'm a successful
- pilot in german planes, though that does not mean
- that I cannot see the obvious errors in flight
- modelling. Il2 Compare does an excellent job in
- showing how uberperforming are russian planes
- compared with their real life performance (from
- russian tests).

You see, thats what I don't get. If you're successful in them, what do little problems matter? Just like in WW2, a Emil pilot finds out his airplane won't turn with a I-16. Is he gonna go to the Messerschmitt factory and tell them their plane sucks because it can't turn? I doubt it. He'd probably find a way around that disadvantage, which we can clearly see they did.

- 109 was uber Korolov, no matter how you dislike the
- plane.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif Yeah I hate all axis planes, we know they sucked, blah blah blah...

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Well you can kiss my 190's... Tailfin! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

- I don't want anything that is not
- historically accurate, for 109 or for any other
- plane. Just get the d@mn plane right once and for
- all.

I fail to see how it was uber. Sure its got some nice specs on paper... But of over 35,000 made, barely any exsist today. Surely if they were truly superior to other allied fighters more than 2 or 3 would be exsisting and flying today? Look at the 262 for a example. Could place total rookies into it and they didn't do so bad, and the Fw-190 as well.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 03:34 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Crap. Bf-109 was easy to fly and easy to fight in
- it. Experten plane, oh yes, it made more aces than
- any aircraft in the world, with any air force than
- use it. For a small force of 200 fighters - romanian
- air force, Bf-109 made in a year and a half 50 aces!
- It was the best prop plane for air to air combat
- from the beginning to the end of war.

Yeah but look at all the accidents involved with that stupid landing gear. They needed SOME experience flying the thing. A 190 IMO was vastly superior to the 109 in many respects, and I think that the allies knew this very well.

The Bf-109 on the other hand was very well liked by the top axis pilots. They could do just about anything they wanted in that plane. Fact is... Rookie pilots don't do so well in them.

- F4 indeed, it was a very good turner, not like now
- in FB, where G2 can outturn it. All Gustavs had the
- same turn rate, not what we have now, G6 that turns
- like whales. All of them should complete the turn in
- 20sec at sea level, sustained speed.

F4 can actually turn faster then those dang russkie birds, really amazing. Can also zoom climb a lot better than the G-2 IMO. I think the F-2 is a better turner though, than the both of them.

G-6s are terrible turners, but at least they pack a much bigger punch. You can actually light up VVS aircraft with those machine guns!

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 03:51 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- So what is slightly heavier? Compared with La7 it
- has 100kg more, but also 150hp more. It has a better
- power loading.

I meant the K4 is heavier than the F and G-2. K4 is lighter than the La7 from my data... Flawed?

- Again this is fantasy, 109 had one of the lightest
- elevators at high speed. This is a long lasting myth
- with no base in reality.

Nothing to do but accept it until it's changed. Till then I recommend the same approach as you would with the Fw-190; coming at the six oclock from high speed.

- I did not try it in 1.11, until now it was OK. I
- hope what you say is not true, that would be very
- unfortunate, that would make the 109 the most
- crippled plane in FB. It has crappy climb, turn,
- damage model, energy retention, now it has heavy
- elevators too??

Not as bad as the Las or yak at high speed, but its a general pain in the butt. Those big elevators, I don't see how they'd lock up so easy. Fortunately you can outroll most fighters at high speed with it, so rolling then pulling out can save your hide in a dive.

- Fw-190 was successful as a fighter in East only in
- '43, when it had an powerloading advantage with
- everything that derives from it like climb,
- acceleration (there was also speed, armor, firepower
- and so on). With the new generation of russian
- fighters, it became a hit and run fighter, until A9
- and D9 (MW50) appeared.

But it was vastly more successful in the west front. And it could perform more roles than the 109. Most of all - it was fast! I can see why it would be performing ATG rather than air superiority though, the 109 was better in the hunter/killer role.

- There's no need for any guaranty from you. It had
- all the above, because of the best excess thrust to
- weight ratio from any ww2 fighter. All those
- characteristics are dependent on this ratio.

In real life it might have. Not in the game. Climbs and dives faster than the earlier variants, regardless of whether or not it can do that in the game or in real life.

And don't assume just because I listed two attributes it has over the earlier variants means it doesn't have the others.

- You are trying to say that the only fighting
- technique for Bf-109 was hit and run? Based on what?

I'm trying to say it was the BEST fighting technique for the Bf-109. Sitting around and TnBing with two flights of La7s on you is not a good idea.

It was, afterall, what the 109 had been designed to do, right? Climb to a higher altitude and dive down on the bandit, then zoom back up? Minimal exposure to enemy fire, ability to engage and disengage at will... Whats not to like? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg



Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Message Edited on 10/08/0309:51PM by Korolov

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 03:52 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

-
-
- What are you blabbering here? Me-209 was not
- intended as a replacement for Bf-109. It was the
- competing design for Fw-190D.
-

It was a dud, for the D-9 bested it./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif If it had bested the D-9, it would have gone into production, replacing the 109.

See pg 32 "Me262" Vol.1

"Still determined to produce a successor to the Bf109, Messerschmitt began work on a new Me209 (the V5), based on the P1091 project, during the spring of 1943."

So who is blabbering Huckie?


-
- Me-309 was indeed designed as a replacement for
- Bf-109, but it was a low priority project and
- cancelled quite early.
-
-

No, it was cancelled because its performance was simular to the current model of the 109. The Me309V1 flew before the order came down to concentrate on jets, etc, mid-1942.


Just a little tidbit about Willey:

"After the war Messerschmitt was arrested and tried for having allowed the use of slave labour in his factories. He was in prison for two years."



http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



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

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 04:00 AM
Interesting, there are two Me-209s. One is a sort of testbed, the second one is a second attempt at a successor to Me-109.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 04:09 AM
Korolov wrote:
- Interesting, there are two Me-209s. One is a sort of
- testbed, the second one is a second attempt at a
- successor to Me-109.
-

The first 209 was given the number for propaganda purposes. This is the a/c that set the speed record in 1939. Messerschmitt tried to make it into a fighter but it 'flopped'.


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



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

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 04:14 AM
Korolov wrote:
- EyesBlack wrote:
-- Refer back to my previous post, I truely believe the
-- La7 is the "unbeatable" bird that makes the pilot
-- unbeatable in FB as it is at this moment in time.
--
-- Try it if you want, and no i don't mean the dumb AI,
-- I mean 2 online people, both start at same hieght.
--
-- Remember you can use your tactic of gaining alt
-- around your base till at 6000 alt if you want but,
-- what if the La7 pilot on the Red team did the same
-
- La7 unbeatable... Until you get to 6000m. At which
- its performance drops off sharply. K4 will beat the
- La7 to 5000m, and from there on up it will climb
- much much faster.


Again you're talking about the performance in game. In real life, at alts over 2500m La7 does not have any advantage.

You like to game the game, don't you Korolov?


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

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 04:15 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Again you're talking about the performance in game.
- In real life, at alts over 2500m La7 does not have
- any advantage.
-
- You like to game the game, don't you Korolov?

Hee. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 04:17 AM
Korolov wrote:
- Whoa, stay away from the G-6 LOL! G-6 is the worst
- of all the 109s, no boost and is the heaviest. The
- G-2 is the one you want, or the G-6A/S. G-6A/S is a
- really good one as well, not quite the same as the
- K4 but better than the rest of the G series IMO.


G6 has the same weight with G2, there are a max of 50kg difference depending of variant (on the same load, of course). You don't seem aware of that.





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

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 04:21 AM
Cept G-2 flies better than the G-6 does. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

G-6 has better firepower but shes a dog.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 04:26 AM
Korolov wrote:
-
-- The La7 can climb just about as good as the K4, but
-- not quite, it does climb better as 110 wep rad
-- closed but haha you won't be flying like this past
-- 2000 before you get the message warning do you want
-- eggs with that motor.
-
- La7 has better initial climb; K4 has better
- sustained climb. Don't see why you're getting hot at
- the 2000m mark. Never happened to me before.

Korolov, you don't know what are talking about. Initial clims IS sustained climb at sea level. Both planes had the same initial climb. Sustain climb was the same up to 2000, then K4 is better. Once again, this is not what you find in game.



- Of course the La7 is better than the K4. Why
- wouldn't it be? It's only at altitude that the La7
- is inferior to the K4. And hey... At least there
- isn't a La-11 with three 23mm cannon!


K4 should be superior at quite low alts, 3500m.



--
-- The La7 is faster, doesn't bleed much E, is slow to
-- overheat, has 3 20mm which is enough for a 1 on 1
-- fight /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif and I find it turns
-- better, the only thing I can see the late 109s
-- having an advantage on is the mk 108 but id ditch
-- that for better performance cause the way it is now
-- its not worth it.


Bf-109 should have the same energy retention as La7, same excess thrust to weight ratio. Now it looses speed twice as fast.



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

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 04:27 AM
Korolov wrote:
- Cept G-2 flies better than the G-6 does. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
-
- G-6 has better firepower but shes a dog.

Yes, it is but it should not be. Basically G6 had the same performance as G2 except max speed (because of the MG mounting).


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

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 04:59 AM
Korolov wrote:
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-- When I'm alone with the enemy plane, or I'm well
-- covered why not turfight, when you have the
-- advantage in turn? What kind of question is that?
-
- I still see it as rather stupid. Far too risky when
- you have other less risky advantages.


If you have the turn advantage and there is no danger around, you should go for it.



-
-- This is your problem Korolov, you are confusing the
-- game with real life performance. La5FN had basically
-- the same performance with La7 at low alts in '44.
-- They had the same engine and basically the same
-- aerodynamics (with few minor differences,
-- repositioned radiator scoop, slightly different
-- wings, so on).
-
- With you, m'friend, its the other way around. It's a
- game. Not life. Of course it's life for some
- people... (*cough* crazyivan *cough* /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )


My problem with your position is not mentioning what are reffering to: the game or reality. Some people might get confused.

Il2 in itself builts a strong picture of a certain plane performance. Very difficult to change later for persons not inclined to a critical view. The same way a book builts very strong feelings about a plane.


- I also don't see how the La5FN and La7 are so
- related. The La7 has so many changes, especially the
- one equipped with 3 20mm cannons.


Yes they are, performance is the aprox the same, except max speed, due to aerodynamic improvements.



-- In german tests La5FN achieved 520km/h max speed at
-- sea level compared with the 580km/h that russians
-- claim. And only 16m/s compared with 22-24m/s in
-- russian sources. All this at 1850hp. How do you want
-- it modelled, according to russian sources or german
-- sources? Put yourself this question for the german
-- planes too.
-
- Hmm, german tests seem way too low and the russian
- tests seem a tad too high. So, what did the Germans
- get out of the Bf-109G-6A/S then? For comparison;
- would also like to see german tests for the G-6 as
- well. If you have them, would like to see russian
- tests for the same planes.


In my oppinion, the results in russian tests are much closer to reality than that particular german test. But this is valid for all testing on captured machines: those planes are war weary, have subtle defects that even experienced mechanics could not solve or even detect, and are flown by pilots not familiar with the planes, using incorrect procedures. Always such tests yield poor results. This is why I don't like the fact that Oleg decided to consider the turn performance of german planes obtained in russian tests as totaly correct and objective value. They are close, even surprisingly close, but is not the full performance of the planes.



- Heres what my book states about the G-6: Max speed
- of 621kmh at 6900m, initial climb of 17,00m/sec.
- Bout equal range with La7 with external tank.


Yep, you guess it, it's the performance with either gun pods or external tank attached.


- The La7 has the same loaded weight as the G-6. All
- of this out of my book though, so I'm sure it varies
- from source to source.

This is not true. G6 loaded weight is around 3100kg (nothing externally attached).



-- No late ww2 fighter turns well at 250kmh. The
-- recommended turn speed for La7 was 340km/h, and
-- exactly the same was for Bf-109K. In this conditions
-- La7 has a minor advantage: 1 sec less on 360 deg
-- turn time. In reality such insignificant difference
-- is almost impossible to use in one's advantage.
-- This turning speed you mention was and still is for
-- some planes a glarring error. You actually could
-- turn sustained at that speed. Such thing was
-- impossible in real life late war planes: in best
-- sustained turn the speed remaines at the best
-- sustained turn speed or the plane spins because
-- pilot pulled too much. In Il2 or FB the plane can
-- loose as much as 100km/h (and in Me262 case 200km/h)
-- below best SUSTAINED speed.
-
- However, why wouldn't a pilot push the limit? Who's
- to say what a desperate pilot would do with his 109?
- Would he try to accelerate up to 340kmh to get his
- best possible turn or would he go by the seat of his
- pants and try some crazy manuver at 250kmh?
- Remember, these guys weren't superheroes. If a pilot
- had no choice but to try something crazy that just
- might save his life, I'm sure he'd do it!

You can't turn sustained at 250km/h in a K4 at full throttle. The plane will either accelerate (yes, even in a turn), or spin if pushed harder. It will start turning sustained at 340km/h.

Keep in mind this: at 250km/h K4 if you're not pulling hard enough to spin the plane (flat horizontal turn) the aircraft will accelerate up to 340km/h. The same behaviour for for La7. Other planes have different sustained speeds.



-- Again you are not making the distiction between what
-- planes could do in RL and what planes can do in FB.
-
- You know, I think you need to chill for a bit. Why
- don't you go check out VFC*HOST sometime? Have a
- little fun with the game, shoot some VVS scum...
- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Sometimes I fly La7 for easy points, it is so overmodelled that I'm amazed that people still salute you.



-
-- I don't want anything that is not
-- historically accurate, for 109 or for any other
-- plane. Just get the d@mn plane right once and for
-- all.
-
- I fail to see how it was uber. Sure its got some
- nice specs on paper... But of over 35,000 made,
- barely any exsist today. Surely if they were truly
- superior to other allied fighters more than 2 or 3
- would be exsisting and flying today? Look at the 262
- for a example. Could place total rookies into it and
- they didn't do so bad, and the Fw-190 as well.

Most warbirds fly in US, UK and some in France. Do you think they are that eager to display flying Bf-109 or Doras? I doubt, because if they'll do there be a pilgrimage there/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


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

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 05:04 AM
Korolov wrote:
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- Crap. Bf-109 was easy to fly and easy to fight in
-- it. Experten plane, oh yes, it made more aces than
-- any aircraft in the world, with any air force than
-- use it. For a small force of 200 fighters - romanian
-- air force, Bf-109 made in a year and a half 50 aces!
-- It was the best prop plane for air to air combat
-- from the beginning to the end of war.
-
- Yeah but look at all the accidents involved with
- that stupid landing gear. They needed SOME
- experience flying the thing. A 190 IMO was vastly
- superior to the 109 in many respects, and I think
- that the allies knew this very well.


Yes landing gear should have been modified all together. It received many modifications throughout the war though.
190 no matter what series was a better multirole fighter, but Bf-109 was always a better air superiority fighter.



- The Bf-109 on the other hand was very well liked by
- the top axis pilots. They could do just about
- anything they wanted in that plane. Fact is...
- Rookie pilots don't do so well in them.

That's simply not true, rookie pilots did not do in any fighter better than in Bf-109. Remember a fighter is for fighting not for take-offs and landings





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

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 05:12 AM
Korolov wrote:

-- I did not try it in 1.11, until now it was OK. I
-- hope what you say is not true, that would be very
-- unfortunate, that would make the 109 the most
-- crippled plane in FB. It has crappy climb, turn,
-- damage model, energy retention, now it has heavy
-- elevators too??
-
- Not as bad as the Las or yak at high speed, but its
- a general pain in the butt. Those big elevators, I
- don't see how they'd lock up so easy. Fortunately
- you can outroll most fighters at high speed with it,
- so rolling then pulling out can save your hide in a
- dive.

You saw the problem but did not interpret it correctly. Those big controls are the culprit for the high speed problems of the russian fighters. They generate excessive stick forces at high speeds. Have you looked how small is the chord of the elevators on german machines? They are this way because they are designed for high speeds.



-- You are trying to say that the only fighting
-- technique for Bf-109 was hit and run? Based on what?
-
- I'm trying to say it was the BEST fighting technique
- for the Bf-109. Sitting around and TnBing with two
- flights of La7s on you is not a good idea.


Hit and run expose you the least in any fighter. So it's normal that pilots preffered it. That does not mean that if Bf-109 pilot wanted a knife fight with a russian fighter he could not do it. On the contrary.


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

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 05:40 AM
I just did a very unscientific test...

took a LA7 3 20mm...

took off full throttle got to 2000m
hit CRTLF1... gave me some gauges and stuff, on the speedo to the lower left it said 540kph.... i pushed R to close, iam not sure that matters with this plane but i stayed there for over 10min before overheating, it got to the speed rather quickly...i turned a few times and never slowed below 400....and straighted out and got back up to speed fairly quickly

took a 109k... took off full throttle and MW50, 2000m it got up to 530kph... BUT took a long time to do it, i turned a few times and it dropped to around 350-360 and took a bit of time to get back up to speed, then at 6 min mark it overheated...


i dunno, just a little test.. i tried with the G2 and that damn thing overheated like in 2 min, got to around 440 at 2000m.. didnt do turn thing because of overheat...

i dunno, this isnt a really legit test i suppose, just a thought, both k and la can reach same speed, but k overheats quicker and burns alot more speed in decnet turns, like i would turn 10 sec then straighten out...

does this sound correct at low alt? i didnt try high but will later... around 7000m, i did get the G2 up to 7000m and full bore radiator closed and it got maybe 500.. in a striaght run...


forgot to mention, on a climb from top speed up to 4000m the 109k would drop to mid 200s... the la would stay in the mid 300s.. this was on 1/4 pull on the CRTLF1 thingy that shows level flight etc.. so i made sure i did the same pull up...
????



Message Edited on 10/09/0304:46AM by MGallun

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 05:44 AM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
--
--
-- What are you blabbering here? Me-209 was not
-- intended as a replacement for Bf-109. It was the
-- competing design for Fw-190D.
--
-
- It was a dud, for the D-9 bested it./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif If it had bested the D-9, it
- would have gone into production, replacing the 109.


D9 was better than Me-209 and entered in production. But it was not a replacement for Bf-109. It was thought as a replacement for Fw-190A in the interceptor role. Me-209A competed with D9, and there was another planned Me-209H for Ta-152H role.



- See pg 32 "Me262" Vol.1
-
- "Still determined to produce a successor to the
- Bf109, Messerschmitt began work on a new Me209 (the
- V5), based on the P1091 project, during the spring
- of 1943."
-
- So who is blabbering Huckie?


So you found an error.


--
-- Me-309 was indeed designed as a replacement for
-- Bf-109, but it was a low priority project and
-- cancelled quite early.
--
--
-
- No, it was cancelled because its performance was
- simular to the current model of the 109. The Me309V1
- flew before the order came down to concentrate on
- jets, etc, mid-1942.

Only 309 was thought as a replacement for 109. But it did not have RLM backing. Only from '42 to '43 RLM had it as a low priority project. The last prototype completed in March '43 already lost RLM support.

Indeed, 309 did not produced any performance improvements over 109 except a slightly higher max speed, therefore it was not adopted. As you can see just an improvement of Cd0 does not mean much.

But if it would have seen service, there'll be much less arguments for disparaging commentaries. That's probably the only benefit 309 could have brought.


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

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 01:01 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-
- D9 was better than Me-209 and entered in production.
- But it was not a replacement for Bf-109. It was
- thought as a replacement for Fw-190A in the
- interceptor role. Me-209A competed with D9, and
- there was another planned Me-209H for Ta-152H role.
-
-
-
-- See pg 32 "Me262" Vol.1
--
-- "Still determined to produce a successor to the
-- Bf109, Messerschmitt began work on a new Me209 (the
-- V5), based on the P1091 project, during the spring
-- of 1943."
--
-- So who is blabbering Huckie?
-
-
- So you found an error.
-
-

Yes, and that error prooves your statement above is "all wet"./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif What did you not understand about "a successor to the Bf109"? Still blabbering, you are, for is not the 109 suppose to have been an intercepter.

Seems Willey had 'run out of steam' when it came to designing piston powered a/c./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



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

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 01:10 PM
It's early in the morning Milo, get yourself together and post again.


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

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 01:39 PM
Not me Huckie who has to get it 'together and post again'./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Huckebein_FW wrote:
- It's early in the morning Milo, get yourself
- together and post again.
-




http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



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

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 01:56 PM
Fw-190D was designed to met the threat of allied high alt bombing. Though Dora was ready in '43 it did not see mass production until the end of war because the allied high alt bombing did not materialize. Antons in '43 still had a long life ahead of them, and in my oppinion it is still debatable which plane was better:A9 or D9.

What I don't understand is what 109 has to do with all of the above?


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

Message Edited on 10/09/0307:57AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 02:04 PM
I've noticed that even the bi-planes can keep up, with speeds reaching 500mph. But this isn't the real world. It only a game.

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 02:20 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Fw-190D was designed to met the threat of allied
- high alt bombing. Though Dora was ready in '43 it
- did not see mass production until the end of war
- because the allied high alt bombing did not
- materialize. Antons in '43 still had a long life
- ahead of them, and in my oppinion it is still
- debatable which plane was better:A9 or D9.
-

Ready in '43???/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Is that why there was D-9 V a/c still being tested well into 1944. The final version for production was not set until mid-1944. I did not know the end of the war was Aug. 1944.

-
- What I don't understand is what 109 has to do with
- all of the above?
-

You get confused very easily./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



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

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 02:39 PM
Korolov wrote:
--Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- I'm sick of this idiotic argument. I'm a successful
-- pilot in german planes, though that does not mean
-- that I cannot see the obvious errors in flight
-- modelling. Il2 Compare does an excellent job in
-- showing how uberperforming are russian planes
-- compared with their real life performance (from
-- russian tests).
-
- You see, thats what I don't get. If you're
- successful in them, what do little problems matter?

Exactly. You don't get it. Why? Why can't you listen to what people tell you?

I'll explain it, many of us are fans of the aircraft and accuracy in terms of FM/DM/etc. Looks are all fine well and good, but if eye-candy was all that mattered, we could play Janes with all the mods. How it flies is far more important. How it flies in relation to the other planes in the game is equally as important. It quite simply does not matter if it has something that can be used as an advantage to be victorious over the opposition if there are errors in the FM. IOW - even if you were pulling down 3000 points per hour online, the plane is still wrong. And we want it right.

Do you get it now?



- Just like in WW2, a Emil pilot finds out his
- airplane won't turn with a I-16. Is he gonna go to
- the Messerschmitt factory and tell them their plane
- sucks because it can't turn? I doubt it. He'd
- probably find a way around that disadvantage, which
- we can clearly see they did.

In WW2, an Emil pilot was flying the real thing, therefore, he could not react to his plane in the same way we are, so this is really an invalid comment on your part.

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 04:02 PM
somebody in this board said something the correct way to climb? turn and climb same time? i tried this last night after diving from 5000m on a couple of LAs chasing a FW190, took one out, lucky shot lol.. so while diving i had it at 75per with rad wide open, i pulled up and did a corkscrew climb, closed rad bumped up to 100 with mw50, the la followed for a bit but then just stopped, dunno if he just quit or couldnt keep up

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 06:08 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- Exactly. You don't get it. Why? Why can't you listen
- to what people tell you?
-
- I'll explain it, many of us are fans of the aircraft
- and accuracy in terms of FM/DM/etc. Looks are all
- fine well and good, but if eye-candy was all that
- mattered, we could play Janes with all the mods. How
- it flies is far more important. How it flies in
- relation to the other planes in the game is equally
- as important. It quite simply does not matter if it
- has something that can be used as an advantage to be
- victorious over the opposition if there are errors
- in the FM. IOW - even if you were pulling down 3000
- points per hour online, the plane is still wrong.
- And we want it right.
-
- Do you get it now?

So, you're saying that if a La7 breaks up at 700kmh, its max speed, it's wrong no matter whether or not its other attributes make it a excellent fighter? Would you make it a personal crusade to increase the breakup speed for the fighter? Or would you ignore it because the La7 has so many other advantages?

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- In WW2, an Emil pilot was flying the real thing,
- therefore, he could not react to his plane in the
- same way we are, so this is really an invalid
- comment on your part.

I don't see why he couldn't or wouldn't react the same way. He finds out his fighter won't turn with a I-16 - so what? He has plenty of other tricks that his fighter can do that the I-16 can't.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 06:20 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Fw-190D was designed to met the threat of allied
- high alt bombing. Though Dora was ready in '43 it
- did not see mass production until the end of war
- because the allied high alt bombing did not
- materialize.

Tonnage of bombs delivered to targets in Europe by USAAF and RAF aircraft by year:

1940 14,631
1941 35,509
1942 53,755
1943 226,513
1944 1,188,577
1945 477,051

(R.J.Overy, The Air War 1939-45)

The overwhelming majority of the tonnage was delivered by four-engined heavy bombers operating at high altitude. For a campaign that did not materialsise the tonnages are impressive.

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 06:27 PM
RocketDog, allied bomber stream was at 6000-7000m, that's medium not high altitude. There Doras had little advantage over Antons, this is why they were not adopted earlier. The reason why Doras were adopted in the end is a little more complicated, and if I'll have the time I will elaborate.


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

Message Edited on 10/09/0312:45PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 06:47 PM
Korolov wrote:
- So, you're saying that if a La7 breaks up at 700kmh,
- its max speed, it's wrong no matter whether or not
- its other attributes make it a excellent fighter?
- Would you make it a personal crusade to increase the
- breakup speed for the fighter? Or would you ignore
- it because the La7 has so many other advantages?

In principle, yes, in practice, no. The reason is your example. I'd not crusade for or against the La7 because it's not "my" plane. I have no interest in it, and little knowledge of it. And for now, there are others to pick up that sword.

I say it over and over and over and over and over again. It's not about how well anybody can do with it. It's about accuracy. Doesn't matter if we're talking a 109, a 190, a 152, a 262, a 335, a -51, a -40, a -47, or whatever. And it doesn't matter if it's overdone or underdone. Accuracy must be sought. For the simple reason that, if it looks like a (say a 190 for the sake of argument), it should fly like a 190, not a Zero. Y'know? Otherwise, why make it look like a 190? It's why I don't bother with games like CS or CFS. (and, to date, I've yet to find sufficiently credible evidence that the planes I'm lobbying for are overmodeled - the G2 in turn just a little perhaps, but not enough to worry about, and I fear what may happen if the devs start flipping switches - we've seen the horror before. lol)


- I don't see why he couldn't or wouldn't react the
- same way. He finds out his fighter won't turn with a
- I-16 - so what? He has plenty of other tricks that
- his fighter can do that the I-16 can't.

We are complaining about how the virtual a/c compares to the real a/c. IOW - FM. The pilot of the real thing couldn't complain about that. He couldn't point to something and say it was inaccurate. That's what I was talking about.

Sure he could complain about the performance, and many test pilots of many planes did just that. But the Emil was actually a fairly agile pleasant little plane to fly. And, while the I-16 was more nimble, it didn't much matter because the Emil had it all over the I-16 everywhere else that it mattered. This was re-inforced by the soviet pilots who were using them.



Message Edited on 10/09/0306:41PM by BlitzPig_DDT

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 07:32 PM
For me I have 2 concerns with the game since I can't seem to fly online (OK 3 concerns) is the AI does not have the same physics as the player aircraft, esp. AI ACE, and the VVS AI seems to outperform LW AI.

AT ACE levels the LA7 definietly seems to perform miracles even when against late models 190As. Even at medium alts it can outrun you AFTER turning on your tail while you are going straight. Something wrong there. AI should have similar physics and FOV constraints as player and do not. The omly way I defeat LA7 AI with late 109 or 190A is to:

1) Hope for AI to get memory lapse (rare - but occurs) and forget you're there

2) Gain big E (dive w/ rad closed,boost, manual pitch) and sucker him into a rope a dope pursuit, where I can perform several slashing attacks and hope my aim is on.

3) Lucky Pilot kill

Number 2 works when 1 V 1 but if you're 4 V 4 LW it may sacrifice many squad mates (offline) because LA7 AI owns the LW AI and you have to help them out when you can.

In short the VVS AI advantages limit the fun and playability and strains the the much celebrated realism of the game.

Online of course where everyone has similar physics things are more dependent on tactics, where the best tactician will usually win.

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 09:01 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- The reason why Doras were adopted in the end is
- a little more complicated, and if I'll have the
- time I will elaborate.

ROTFLMAO!




<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
10-09-2003, 09:56 PM
tagert wrote:
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- The reason why Doras were adopted in the end is
-- a little more complicated, and if I'll have the
-- time I will elaborate.
-
- ROTFLMAO!


tagert, I rarely met in my entire life someone more stupid than you. True rare genuine idiocy.


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

Message Edited on 10/09/0304:03PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 10:30 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- In principle, yes, in practice, no. The reason is
- your example. I'd not crusade for or against the La7
- because it's not "my" plane. I have no interest in
- it, and little knowledge of it. And for now, there
- are others to pick up that sword.

But in the past you've called the La7 uber and overmodelled. Clearly you're a expert on a plane if you say its undermodelled or overmodelled? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

- I say it over and over and over and over and over
- again. It's not about how well anybody can do with
- it. It's about accuracy. Doesn't matter if we're
- talking a 109, a 190, a 152, a 262, a 335, a -51, a
- -40, a -47, or whatever. And it doesn't matter if
- it's overdone or underdone. Accuracy must be sought.
- For the simple reason that, if it looks like a (say
- a 190 for the sake of argument), it should fly like
- a 190, not a Zero. Y'know? Otherwise, why make it
- look like a 190? It's why I don't bother with games
- like CS or CFS. (and, to date, I've yet to find
- sufficiently credible evidence that the planes I'm
- lobbying for are overmodeled - the G2 in turn just a
- little perhaps, but not enough to worry about, and I
- fear what may happen if the devs start flipping
- switches - we've seen the horror before. lol)

I don't buy this accuracy argument. Nobody complained about the 109 being "overmodelled" in 1.0. Nobody was throwing a fit about the P-39 then either, despite it being vastly superior to the one in IL2 1.2. Nobody complains about the IL-2 being too easy to kill.

I think that, no matter what you say, the fact is people get a streak of bad luck, and they come over here to vent their frustrations. Like "I missed my target in the first pass because my P-47 didn't roll quick enough! Thats not right! Nevermind the fact I got him in the second pass!"

- We are complaining about how the virtual a/c
- compares to the real a/c. IOW - FM. The pilot of the
- real thing couldn't complain about that. He couldn't
- point to something and say it was inaccurate. That's
- what I was talking about.
-
- Sure he could complain about the performance, and
- many test pilots of many planes did just that. But
- the Emil was actually a fairly agile pleasant little
- plane to fly. And, while the I-16 was more nimble,
- it didn't much matter because the Emil had it all
- over the I-16 everywhere else that it mattered. This
- was re-inforced by the soviet pilots who were using
- them.

And thats what I mean. We can point out these problems, but what guarentees that they'll be changed? Just like the real pilots, we can learn to counter these disadvantages/bugs. Thats part of what makes this game so exciting, because just like the real pilots, you learn to adapt.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 10:33 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- tagert, I rarely met in my entire life someone more
- stupid than you. True rare genuine idiocy.

Really? So you rarely meet with your parents?

<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
10-09-2003, 11:02 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- Fw-190D was designed to met the threat of allied
-- high alt bombing. Though Dora was ready in '43 it
-- did not see mass production until the end of war
-- because the allied high alt bombing did not
-- materialize. Antons in '43 still had a long life
-- ahead of them, and in my oppinion it is still
-- debatable which plane was better:A9 or D9.
--
-
- Ready in '43??? Is that why there was
- D-9 V a/c still being tested well into 1944. The
- final version for production was not set until
- mid-1944. I did not know the end of the war was Aug.
- 1944.


Despite Milo's trollish intentions, this is an interesting subject.

Often in aircraft development engines prove the critical component. Excellent or courageous designs failed because their engines have not delivered the expected performance.

In Germany's case excellent engines were available, but not in the quantities required. This proved fateful for many good German planes. But let's start with the beginning.

In '42 Germany was confronted with the prospect of high altitude bombing, and since Bf-109 was not well protected and Fw-190A did not offer good performance at high altitude, a requirement for a new fighter was issued. Focke-Wulf answered with 3 projects: 190B (turbosupercharged BMW801), 190C (turbosupercharged DB603), 190D (supercharged Jumo213).

Obviously the most performant at high alts were the liquid cooled engines, and since the easiest to put into production was 190D, RLM chose Dora. It's important to mention that by this time key figures in RLM were quite biased against DB, and were looking for reasons to avoid new contracts for newly developed DB engines. In the end RLM will impose its will by ending the DB603 production in autumn of '44, but we're not there yet.

When allied bombing campaign started it was soon acknowledged that high altitude bombing was impractical, it imposed much too high risks for the bomber crews, not to mention it had a miserable accuracy. By this time Fw-190D was ready and in spring of '43 it entered in production (!!), with D1 model. It was a short production though, LW was not interested in the type, since it did not offer any performance improvements, except a slightly higher max speed at altitude. This alone was not enough, because GM-1 kits were already available for Antons, making them even faster than those early Dora, without disturbing production lines, or creating a maintenance mess with squadrons.

In spring of '44 the situation became so bad that RLM already had to make plans for war at home. That required a high degree of flexibility in supplies, so once a tactic for engine rationalization for bombers had to be applied for fighters also. The requirement for second generation or German bombers (Ju-late88,188,388, Do-217) stipulated that parallel series of bombers should be built with 2 different engines, as a provision for a short supply for one of the engines. This way Ju-88 got Jumo213 and BMW801, Do-217 got DB603 and BMW801.

This way RLM was once again interested in a Jumo213 equipped Fw-190. But putting it in production could not happed overnight. In one year time Antons got 300hp more, so an updated version of Jumo213 able to compete with BMW801 was required. Power was increased to 1900PS, powerful enough to compete with A8, and even offer a little better performance at altitude. D9 designation was chosen after D1 to enforce the idea that D series were considered same aircraft with A series, just that they had different engines.

In fact competition in performance continued between Antons and Doras, after D series were adopted. A9 raised the power output to 2300PS and Dora got 2240PS with MW50. Interesting is that A9 could use GM1 at altitude and still have 2300PS at sea level. Dora could not, it could use either GM1 or MW50, not both. A9 with GM1 was faster at high altitudes than Dora, D9 with GM1 was faster than A9 with GM1 at altitude, but slower at lower altitudes. Therefore overall, A9 was more performant than D9 (in the end Dora's engine got 2100PS without MW50, still less than 2300PS of A9, but more than 2400PS with MW50).

In conclusion Dora was seen by RLM as a parallel fighter line with Anton, with a different engine, not a transitional model to Ta-152. Dora had close performance with A series, only sometimes better, and was not intended as a replacement of A series, as many sources say. It was NOT the last effort of German industry to produce an excellent piston fighter, the "too little too late" like all like to say about it. Dora was available from spring of '43. Also RLM was not really interested in Ta-152, the only missions for which Ta-152 was better equipped than production fighters were long range escort and long range high altitude recon. Both had low priority at that time.

Despite Tank wishes for a DB-603 equipped Ta, RLM had other plans. They ended production of Me-410 and He-219 in autumn of '44 (Do-217 was out of production in '43) and with them the DB-603 line (though DB did not end the development of DB603). Maybe the decision to kill all the DB603 was motivated politically, but clearly at least one of the engine series had to go considering the disastrous situation Germany faced in September of '44, and in my opinion the logical choice was DB603. You had to keep all the engine factories working, but not wasting resources. DB605 line could not be killed because it gave a cheap good fighter, also the Bf110H nightfighter could be produced as a temporary replacement for Me410 (and it was produced until the end of war). Killing any other line of engines would have produced much larger disruptions.



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

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 11:09 PM
Korolov wrote:
- But in the past you've called the La7 uber and
- overmodelled. Clearly you're a expert on a plane if
- you say its undermodelled or overmodelled? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Evidence that you are interested in arguing and not much else. I won't bother to point you to the facts here, it won't accomplish anything.


- I don't buy this accuracy argument.

Of course you don't. To do so would mean to give up this twisted fantasy that people are on a crusade against your beloved Oleg, or that they only bother to complain when they are getting beat. Whatever.


- Nobody complained about the 109 being "overmodelled" in
- 1.0.

Oh really?.... Short, selective memory, mixed with strong fantasy. How convenient.

I do remember people complaining about the E's climb rate, as well as that of others, but that was the main focus because it was the one that was really out of hand. That group included many LW fliers. But of course you don't remember and won't beleive that either.

You say "109", indicating the entire line. Puh-leeze. 1.0 was the closest to accurate overall that the 109 has been since IL2 was RTM'd. But then, you claim everything is overmodeled, even things that are clearly not, so it doesn't really hold water.


- Nobody was throwing a fit about the P-39 then
- either, despite it being vastly superior to the one
- in IL2 1.2.

More selective memory BS. The P-39 was a major factor in people saying that FB had turned the franchise from a sim to an arcade game.

Nevermind the fact that IL2 was wrong and FB is more accurate. They were all convinced that "harder = more realistic". You sound like you drank that Kool-Aid too.


- Nobody complains about the IL-2 being
- too easy to kill.

People only complain about the planes they care about (when it comes to them being undermodeled). Perhaps it's not popular enough to have enough support. Says nothing about your point (if I can call it such).


- I think that, no matter what you say, the fact is
- people get a streak of bad luck, and they come over
- here to vent their frustrations. Like "I missed my
- target in the first pass because my P-47 didn't roll
- quick enough! Thats not right! Nevermind the fact I
- got him in the second pass!"

Which is another way of saying "I know what you what you are saying or mean to say and you yourself don't". Get over yourself. What are you, Ms Cleo? Get real.

I know my reasons for my actions. I know they match what I have stated. You are telling me I'm wrong, or I'm lying. Un-fricking-beliveable.

I can only assume it would shatter your theories to accept the truth, hence your refusal to do so, but, that doesn't change anything either way.


- And thats what I mean. We can point out these
- problems, but what guarentees that they'll be
- changed? Just like the real pilots, we can learn to
- counter these disadvantages/bugs. Thats part of what
- makes this game so exciting, because just like the
- real pilots, you learn to adapt.

Oh sure, never bother to mention anything and be stuck with hosed, BS, fantasy FMs. What a brilliant idea. It's crap like that that causes me to suspect that you are interested only in arguing, or in defending Oleg.

Face it, complaints stir the community to action. Eventually they are either proven wrong and stifled, which is a learning experience for many invovled, or, they are proven valid and build and gather data. Sometimes it leads nowhere, like the 190 vis issue, but sometimes it is successful. That is reason enough to do it. Nevermind that it is simple human nature. Something you must not be factoring into your screwed up philosophies.

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 11:13 PM
OMG, i was just pointing out that i think the 109K is too slow, i didnt mean for everyone to start being asses to each other...

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 11:53 PM
MGallun wrote:
- OMG, i was just pointing out that i think the 109K
- is too slow, i didnt mean for everyone to start
- being asses to each other...

It's what you'll always get if you bring up a topic like this.

DDT doesn't like me because I uh... "ticked" him off, hee. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Huckbein - well hes always been that way.

Pay it no mind, this is what these forums are like every day! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 12:04 AM
How can a simple question or observation turn into all this. Whack man!

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 12:34 PM
Nice story Huckie, but as always you have to put an "uber twin" twist to it.


Huckebein_FW wrote:
- MiloMorai wrote:
--
-- Ready in '43??? Is that why there was
-- D-9 V a/c still being tested well into 1944. The
-- final version for production was not set until
-- mid-1944. I did not know the end of the war was Aug.
-- 1944.
-
-
- Despite Milo's trollish intentions, this is an
- interesting subject.
-

Trolling Huck? Those are the facts, unlike what you have written.

-
- In '42 Germany was confronted with the prospect of
- high altitude bombing, and since Bf-109 was not well
- protected and Fw-190A did not offer good performance
- at high altitude, a requirement for a new fighter
- was issued. Focke-Wulf answered with 3 projects:
- 190B (turbosupercharged BMW801), 190C
- (turbosupercharged DB603), 190D (supercharged
- Jumo213).
-

Issy says the 109 was well protected.


- Obviously the most performant at high alts were the
- liquid cooled engines, and since the easiest to put
- into production was 190D, RLM chose Dora. It's
- important to mention that by this time key figures
- in RLM were quite biased against DB, and were
- looking for reasons to avoid new contracts for newly
- developed DB engines. In the end RLM will impose its
- will by ending the DB603 production in autumn of
- '44, but we're not there yet.
-

Nallinger of DB had not obtained permission from the RLM for the 603 engine production and it was officially viewed with disfavour because of this. That is hardly 'bias'. More later.


- When allied bombing campaign started it was soon
- acknowledged that high altitude bombing was
- impractical, it imposed much too high risks for the
- bomber crews, not to mention it had a miserable
- accuracy. By this time Fw-190D was ready and in
- spring of '43 it entered in production (!!), with D1
- model. It was a short production though, LW was not
- interested in the type, since it did not offer any
- performance improvements, except a slightly higher
- max speed at altitude. This alone was not enough,
- because GM-1 kits were already available for Antons,
- making them even faster than those early Dora,
- without disturbing production lines, or creating a
- maintenance mess with squadrons.
-

The D-1 NEVER went into production. It was to be EXCLUSIVELY used for testing the Jumo 213A. Do you have to be reminded again of what Butch said about the fitting of GM1 to the Fws?

Kurt Tank considered the Dora a transitional a/c. Even the RLM considered it a stopgap a/c. Initial production was to be only 400 a/c.

That is quite the imagination you have Huckie, if you think the Dora was ready in the spring of '43 with only 6 prototypes having been produced./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif (V17 - Sept. '42, V19 - mid '42, V20 - Nov. '43, V21 - Feb '44, V25 - April '44, V28 static testing) There was only 2 V(26, 27) a/c made for the pressurized D-1, the D-2 a/c. There was no contract issued for the production of the D-1 and D-2.


-
- In conclusion Dora was seen by RLM as a parallel
- fighter line with Anton, with a different engine,
- not a transitional model to Ta-152. Dora had close
- performance with A series, only sometimes better,
- and was not intended as a replacement of A series,
- as many sources say. It was NOT the last effort of
- German industry to produce an excellent piston
- fighter, the "too little too late" like all like to
- say about it. Dora was available from spring of '43.
- Also RLM was not really interested in Ta-152, the
- only missions for which Ta-152 was better equipped
- than production fighters were long range escort and
- long range high altitude recon. Both had low
- priority at that time.
-
- Despite Tank wishes for a DB-603 equipped Ta, RLM
- had other plans. They ended production of Me-410 and
- He-219 in autumn of '44 (Do-217 was out of
- production in '43) and with them the DB-603 line
- (though DB did not end the development of DB603).
- Maybe the decision to kill all the DB603 was
- motivated politically, but clearly at least one of
- the engine series had to go considering the
- disastrous situation Germany faced in September of
- '44, and in my opinion the logical choice was DB603.
- You had to keep all the engine factories working,
- but not wasting resources. DB605 line could not be
- killed because it gave a cheap good fighter, also
- the Bf110H nightfighter could be produced as a
- temporary replacement for Me410 (and it was produced
- until the end of war). Killing any other line of
- engines would have produced much larger disruptions.
-

The DB603 was to be used in the D-14/15 with the design completed in March/April '45. The Do335 used DB603 engines as well. This says the 603 was still to be built and used./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

If the RLM was 'not really interested in the Ta152", why were there plans to produce them in 1945 with the DB603 engine?

Why would Fw and Do continue developement of a/c that used an engine that was had its production stopped?



http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



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

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 02:07 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- In '42 Germany was confronted with the prospect of
-- high altitude bombing, and since Bf-109 was not well
-- protected and Fw-190A did not offer good performance
-- at high altitude, a requirement for a new fighter
-- was issued. Focke-Wulf answered with 3 projects:
-- 190B (turbosupercharged BMW801), 190C
-- (turbosupercharged DB603), 190D (supercharged
-- Jumo213).
--
-
- Issy says the 109 was well protected.

Well enough for it's role. But for a bomber killer it wasn't. It had very good protection for the pilot, heavy armament, but the engine was not tough enough (to bring the pilot back, after being hit).


-- When allied bombing campaign started it was soon
-- acknowledged that high altitude bombing was
-- impractical, it imposed much too high risks for the
-- bomber crews, not to mention it had a miserable
-- accuracy. By this time Fw-190D was ready and in
-- spring of '43 it entered in production (!!), with D1
-- model. It was a short production though, LW was not
-- interested in the type, since it did not offer any
-- performance improvements, except a slightly higher
-- max speed at altitude. This alone was not enough,
-- because GM-1 kits were already available for Antons,
-- making them even faster than those early Dora,
-- without disturbing production lines, or creating a
-- maintenance mess with squadrons.
--
-
- The D-1 NEVER went into production. It was to be
- EXCLUSIVELY used for testing the Jumo 213A. Do you
- have to be reminded again of what Butch said about
- the fitting of GM1 to the Fws?
-
- Kurt Tank considered the Dora a transitional a/c.
- Even the RLM considered it a stopgap a/c. Initial
- production was to be only 400 a/c.
-
- That is quite the imagination you have Huckie, if
- you think the Dora was ready in the spring of '43
- with only 6 prototypes having been produced./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif (V17 - Sept. '42, V19
- - mid '42, V20 - Nov. '43, V21 - Feb '44, V25 -
- April '44, V28 static testing) There was only 2
- V(26, 27) a/c made for the pressurized D-1, the D-2
- a/c. There was no contract issued for the production
- of the D-1 and D-2.

When manufacturer switched to D1 designation meant that from its point of view the plane was a production model, ready to enter mass production. But RLM did not awarded a contract for D1 simply because there were no performance differences between D1 and A5 (except a slightly higher max speed at high altitudes). Antons were even faster than D1 with GM1 kit.

In very same time with development of early Dora, GM1 were standardized for Antons, the R4 kit. It was available per squadron request. Not many were mounted because GM1 offered incresed performance at alts over 8000m, where there was no activity. This is what Butch says.

Also D9 and later uses a different GM1 kit than A6-A8.



-- In conclusion Dora was seen by RLM as a parallel
-- fighter line with Anton, with a different engine,
-- not a transitional model to Ta-152. Dora had close
-- performance with A series, only sometimes better,
-- and was not intended as a replacement of A series,
-- as many sources say. It was NOT the last effort of
-- German industry to produce an excellent piston
-- fighter, the "too little too late" like all like to
-- say about it. Dora was available from spring of '43.
-- Also RLM was not really interested in Ta-152, the
-- only missions for which Ta-152 was better equipped
-- than production fighters were long range escort and
-- long range high altitude recon. Both had low
-- priority at that time.
--
-- Despite Tank wishes for a DB-603 equipped Ta, RLM
-- had other plans. They ended production of Me-410 and
-- He-219 in autumn of '44 (Do-217 was out of
-- production in '43) and with them the DB-603 line
-- (though DB did not end the development of DB603).
-- Maybe the decision to kill all the DB603 was
-- motivated politically, but clearly at least one of
-- the engine series had to go considering the
-- disastrous situation Germany faced in September of
-- '44, and in my opinion the logical choice was DB603.
-- You had to keep all the engine factories working,
-- but not wasting resources. DB605 line could not be
-- killed because it gave a cheap good fighter, also
-- the Bf110H nightfighter could be produced as a
-- temporary replacement for Me410 (and it was produced
-- until the end of war). Killing any other line of
-- engines would have produced much larger disruptions.
--
-
- The DB603 was to be used in the D-14/15 with the
- design completed in March/April '45. The Do335 used
- DB603 engines as well. This says the 603 was still
- to be built and used.
-


Stopping the production for all planes that used DB603 means that mass production for the engine was ended. That does not mean that production stopped all together, the engine manufacturer has to built engines for replacements and spare parts.

You have to consider that Me-410, Do217 and He-219 remained in service. Dornier choice to fit Do-335 with DB603 was motivated because of their own experience with the engine, also because of the engine stocks it had.

Also DB did not end the development of DB603 until the end of war.



- If the RLM was 'not really interested in the Ta152",
- why were there plans to produce them in 1945 with
- the DB603 engine?
-
- Why would Fw and Do continue developement of a/c
- that used an engine that was had its production
- stopped?

RLM made many unrealistic promises to Tank. So let's not fall for it. They were planned only on paper, there was no real intention to honour those promises.

But DB603 was still available for development purposes on limited basis. It was not available for production models. DB603 end of production was considered a temporary measure.




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

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 05:23 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

-
- Well enough for it's role. But for a bomber killer
- it wasn't. It had very good protection for the
- pilot, heavy armament, but the engine was not tough
- enough (to bring the pilot back, after being hit).
-

A/c can be replaced easily, but pilots cannot. Issy says there was lots of extra 109s waiting to be flown. One 30mm does not make a heavy armament. Adding the 20mm gunpods helped though but that had other repercussions./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif From your statement, one could 'read' the 109 was getting 'long in the tooth', ie. not up to the job.

-
-
- When manufacturer switched to D1 designation meant
- that from its point of view the plane was a
- production model, ready to enter mass production.
- But RLM did not awarded a contract for D1 simply
- because there were no performance differences
- between D1 and A5 (except a slightly higher max
- speed at high altitudes). Antons were even faster
- than D1 with GM1 kit.
-

"By this time Fw-190D was ready and in spring of '43 it entered in production (!!), with D1"

Well, what is it Huckie? How can you say it was "in production(!!)" and then say it was ready for production, which it WAS NOT. What happened to the D-0 model? The A-5 was NOT fitted with GM1, only with the A-6 was this an option. Niether was the Dora fitted.


- In very same time with development of early Dora,
- GM1 were standardized for Antons, the R4 kit. It was
- available per squadron request. Not many were
- mounted because GM1 offered incresed performance at
- alts over 8000m, where there was no activity. This
- is what Butch says.
-
- Also D9 and later uses a different GM1 kit than
- A6-A8.
-

Butch said it was not a regular fit > isolated basis > not common > few and far between. The /R14, 15, 16 were options as well but were never was used operationally, afaik. No activity over 8km(26.2kft)? Where have you been hiding?


-
- Stopping the production for all planes that used
- DB603 means that mass production for the engine was
- ended. That does not mean that production stopped
- all together, the engine manufacturer has to built
- engines for replacements and spare parts.
-
- Also DB did not end the development of DB603 until
- the end of war.
-
- RLM made many unrealistic promises to Tank. So let's
- not fall for it. They were planned only on paper,
- there was no real intention to honour those
- promises.
-

Why continue developement on an engine that was not to go in any a/c? Did DB not have better things to do? Another German blunder??? The Ta152C was NOT a "paper" design. Niether was the Do335. Both were planned for production, except for the fact the war ended before they did.


- But DB603 was still available for development
- purposes on limited basis. It was not available for
- production models. DB603 end of production was
- considered a temporary measure.
-
-

Your waffling Huckie, make up your mind. First you say production ended(except for replacement) and now you say ending production was only "considered a temperary measure".


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



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

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 07:08 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-
--
-- Well enough for it's role. But for a bomber killer
-- it wasn't. It had very good protection for the
-- pilot, heavy armament, but the engine was not tough
-- enough (to bring the pilot back, after being hit).
--
-
- A/c can be replaced easily, but pilots cannot. Issy
- says there was lots of extra 109s waiting to be
- flown. One 30mm does not make a heavy armament.
- Adding the 20mm gunpods helped though but that had
- other repercussions./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif From your statement, one could
- 'read' the 109 was getting 'long in the tooth', ie.
- not up to the job.

3x20mm is more than heavy armament. And it had no repercusions on the bomber killing abilities of the aircraft. Generaly speaking liquid cooled engines are much less effective in bomber interceptions. Which one do you thing would have been more effective in this mission P-47 or P-51? Among those liquid cooled fighters, Fw-190D was an exception because radiators were around the engine beneath an armoured cover and in a place hard to hit. Also the engine cowling was made from steel plates of 4mm width, hard to penetrate unless from close distance, but even then the bullets won't have enough energy to penetrate the engine too.



-- When manufacturer switched to D1 designation meant
-- that from its point of view the plane was a
-- production model, ready to enter mass production.
-- But RLM did not awarded a contract for D1 simply
-- because there were no performance differences
-- between D1 and A5 (except a slightly higher max
-- speed at high altitudes). Antons were even faster
-- than D1 with GM1 kit.
--
-
- "By this time Fw-190D was ready and in spring of '43
- it entered in production (!!), with D1"
-
- Well, what is it Huckie? How can you say it was "in
- production(!!)" and then say it was ready for
- production, which it WAS NOT. What happened to the
- D-0 model? The A-5 was NOT fitted with GM1, only
- with the A-6 was this an option. Niether was the
- Dora fitted.

No source gives an precise number of how many D1 were built, nevertheless they were built as production models. RLM did not award the type with a contract because their performance did not offer improvements over the types in service. When Doras were adopted in summer of '44 performance was NOT the reason for it. Logistics were.

Also very important, there were NO significant differences between D1 and D9, capable to modify the performance or handling of the aircraft (D1 already had the modified tail). Also D9 was not produced in large numbers until power was increased to 1900PS, to be at least competitive with A8 (which had 2050PS by that time). In spring production was delayed only because the D9 prototype was destroyed during an allied raid IIRC.


-- In very same time with development of early Dora,
-- GM1 were standardized for Antons, the R4 kit. It was
-- available per squadron request. Not many were
-- mounted because GM1 offered incresed performance at
-- alts over 8000m, where there was no activity. This
-- is what Butch says.
--
-- Also D9 and later uses a different GM1 kit than
-- A6-A8.
--
-
- Butch said it was not a regular fit > isolated basis
- > not common > few and far between. The /R14, 15, 16
- were options as well but were never was used
- operationally, afaik. No activity over 8km(26.2kft)?
- Where have you been hiding?

Yes, Butch says they were not common and I share his opinion. He also gives the reason for this: there was no action at those altitudes. Early G fitted with GM1 were more performant at high altitudes than K4 (with C3), yet they were converted to MW50 use. For the very same reason: no action at high altitudes.

Can you give an example of a mission from '44 in which the bomber stream was at 30.000ft? You can't, of course.



-- Stopping the production for all planes that used
-- DB603 means that mass production for the engine was
-- ended. That does not mean that production stopped
-- all together, the engine manufacturer has to built
-- engines for replacements and spare parts.
--
-- Also DB did not end the development of DB603 until
-- the end of war.
--
-- RLM made many unrealistic promises to Tank. So let's
-- not fall for it. They were planned only on paper,
-- there was no real intention to honour those
-- promises.
--
-
- Why continue developement on an engine that was not
- to go in any a/c? Did DB not have better things to
- do? Another German blunder??? The Ta152C was NOT a
- "paper" design. Niether was the Do335. Both were
- planned for production, except for the fact the war
- ended before they did.
-
-
-- But DB603 was still available for development
-- purposes on limited basis. It was not available for
-- production models. DB603 end of production was
-- considered a temporary measure.
--
--
-
- Your waffling Huckie, make up your mind. First you
- say production ended(except for replacement) and now
- you say ending production was only "considered a
- temperary measure".

Closing production on all planes that employed DB603 means that the engine itself was put out of production. DB603 was an excellent engine, but RLM had to enforce a strict resource policy, otherways production would have stopped at all engine factories because of lack of supplies.

They chose to close production on DB603 because planes equipped with them could be replaned TEMPORARILY by Bf110H. Bf110H was an old plane compared to Me410 or He219, but keeping it was a better alternative than killing the whole production of Bf109 and Bf110 and keeping Me410 and He219 instead.

Of course this measure was temporary, until more resources were available, in a different situation on the front. Then Me410 could have been reintroduced in production, and maybe new types base on DB603 could have been launched also. In the end this did not happen, so the measure was kept until the last day of war.


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

Message Edited on 10/10/0301:27PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 09:18 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
.
-
- 3x20mm is more than heavy armament. And it had no
- repercusions on the bomber killing abilities of the
- aircraft. Generaly speaking liquid cooled engines
- are much less effective in bomber interceptions.
- Which one do you thing would have been more
- effective in this mission P-47 or P-51? Among those
- liquid cooled fighters, Fw-190D was an exception
- because radiators were around the engine beneath an
- armoured cover and in a place hard to hit. Also the
- engine cowling was made from steel plates of 4mm
- width, hard to penetrate unless from close distance,
- but even then the bullets won't have enough energy
- to penetrate the engine too.
-


4mm or 0.157" wide(less than 3/16")?? Even it was 4mm thick it would not stop a 0.50". Your make a good comedian./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif What to you think the bomber's gunners were aiming for, the tail, with the fighters coming at them nose on? That leaves the radiator wide open. The P-51 and P-47 had no trouble shooting down German bombers, that is, when they could find them. Just as the Germans did, the P-47 and P-51 would have had their guns switched to heavier armament (20mm) if there was the need. The P-51 had already been so fitted.

The Me209 had its radiator in the nose. The Germans should have produced it instead of the 'more vunerable' Me109.


-
- No source gives an precise number of how many D1
- were built, nevertheless they were built as
- production models. RLM did not award the type with a
- contract because their performance did not offer
- improvements over the types in service. When Doras
- were adopted in summer of '44 performance was NOT
- the reason for it. Logistics were.
-

So now V a/c are production a/c. Must remember that next time you comment on the Spitfire and Hurricane.

No numbers because only prototypes were produced. Logistics were why the RLM wanted Tank to use the Jumo213. Same as why the BMW801 powered Fws were kept in production.


- Also very important, there were NO significant
- differences between D1 and D9, capable to modify the
- performance or handling of the aircraft (D1 already
- had the modified tail). Also D9 was not produced in
- large numbers until power was increased to 1900PS,
- to be at least competitive with A8 (which had 2050PS
- by that time). In spring production was delayed only
- because the D9 prototype was destroyed during an
- allied raid IIRC.
-


V19 - Feb. 16 1944(crashed), V20 - Aug. 5 1944(crashed), V21, V25 and V28 were the only D-1s. V26 and V27 were D-2s(pressurized D-1s). V53 and V54 were damaged in air-raids in Aug. '44. (D-9 prototypes). When did summer become spring?

Have any production numbers from Aug. '44 to Dec. 31 '44?


-
- Yes, Butch says they were not common and I share his
- opinion. He also gives the reason for this: there
- was no action at those altitudes. Early G fitted
- with GM1 were more performant at high altitudes than
- K4 (with C3), yet they were converted to MW50 use.
- For the very same reason: no action at high
- altitudes.
-
- Can you give an example of a mission from '44 in
- which the bomber stream was at 30.000ft? You can't,
- of course.
-

At last, you agree with Butch.

Can you not? Off the top of my head no, but missions were flown up to 30,000ft with fighters even higher. There was still the fighter escort to contend with or are they to be ignored?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


-
-
- Closing production on all planes that employed DB603
- means that the engine itself was put out of
- production. DB603 was an excellent engine, but RLM
- had to enforce a strict resource policy, otherways
- production would have stopped at all engine
- factories because of lack of supplies.
-

If you say so.


- They chose to close production on DB603 because
- planes equipped with them could be replaned
- TEMPORARILY by Bf110H. Bf110H was an old plane
- compared to Me410 or He219, but keeping it was a
- better alternative than killing the whole production
- of Bf109 and Bf110 and keeping Me410 and He219
- instead.
-

Bf110H??? Fill me in on this model. If 109 production had decreased, more time could have been applied to 262 production as well as use of the assembly lines.

-
- Of course this measure was temporary, until more
- resources were available, in a different situation
- on the front. Then Me410 could have been
- reintroduced in production, and maybe new types base
- on DB603 could have been launched also. In the end
- this did not happen, so the measure was kept until
- the last day of war.
-

Ok, so now it is temperary. Glad for the clarification. The Ta152C and Do335 were not "put out of production".



http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



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