PDA

View Full Version : BF109 question



Superjew1
06-18-2009, 12:44 AM
Since I cant play multi player since the game wont install well on my vista Ive been doing single player missions. I checked out Slovakia since they were all BF109, which was a plane I liked in Janes WWII Fighters, but I found one thing was lacking. I could either get the 30mm cannon in the nose, or the two 20mm cannons on the wings, but I couldnt get both. If Im heading into a dogfight I prefer both, is there some version of the BF109 that was in Janes WWII Fighter that I used, that is not in the Slovakia Single Missions? Or was it impossible to be armed with both 20mm and a 30mm cannon on the BF109? If so, my new favorite german plane is the FW190 with its 4 20mm cannons on the wings in all versions, because lets face it, in a dogfight the cannons do most of the work moreso than the machine guns in the nose.

DKoor
06-18-2009, 01:05 AM
All 109s that have nose 30mm as default have option for underwing MG151/20 gondolas. That would be Bf-109G10, Bf-109G14, Bf-109K4(C3).
Add to the list also Bf-109G6, Bf-109G6LATE, Bf-109G6AS which have this option to choose Mk108 in nose + 2xMG151/20 under wings.

JG52Karaya-X
06-18-2009, 02:41 AM
I can't remember when I've last used gondolas on a Bf109 ingame, I stay away from them like the plague. Yes, you do get an aweful lot of extra firepower but at the same time you're reduced to a flying brick.

The only times I have ever taken and used them was in a few online war missions where the objective was to intercept bombers and I KNEW that there was little to no (human) fighter escort around.

It seems however that this "zomg, gondolas for muh 1o9!!11!" is the latest fashion online. The heavier the better...

Keep in mind though that before actually being able to make use of all that artillery you'll need to get behind your enemy or at least into a favourable firing position, which all that junk will not help you with.

The 109 is a flying sniper rifle and IMHO gives the best account of itself in a clean fighter configuration (20mm or /U4 30mm) and with a good aim you can easily get multiple kills in one sortie with that single cannon, my personal record on online servers against human pilots being 6 in one sortie.

Gammelpreusse
06-18-2009, 03:06 AM
Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
I can't remember when I've last used gondolas on a Bf109 ingame, I stay away from them like the plague. Yes, you do get an aweful lot of extra firepower but at the same time you're reduced to a flying brick.

The only times I have ever taken and used them was in a few online war missions where the objective was to intercept bombers and I KNEW that there was little to no (human) fighter escort around.

It seems however that this "zomg, gondolas for muh 1o9!!11!" is the latest fashion online. The heavier the better...

Keep in mind though that before actually being able to make use of all that artillery you'll need to get behind your enemy or at least into a favourable firing position, which all that junk will not help you with.

The 109 is a flying sniper rifle and IMHO gives the best account of itself in a clean fighter configuration (20mm or /U4 30mm) and with a good aim you can easily get multiple kills in one sortie with that single cannon, my personal record on online servers against human pilots being 6 in one sortie.

Listen to Karaya. He is spot on in his assessment. You want to use the 109 as a rapier, not as a broadsword. For the latter the 190 is repsonsible.

TinyTim
06-18-2009, 03:29 AM
What Karaya said. Only pick gondolas when going versus IL-2s or other bombers with no escort, or when having high cover yourself.

But then, for most situations I'd pick 190 over contemporary 109 any day.

danjama
06-18-2009, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by TinyTim:
What Karaya said. Only pick gondolas when going versus IL-2s or other bombers with no escort, or when having high cover yourself.

But then, for most situations I'd pick 190 over contemporary 109 any day.

I agree, the 190 > contemporary 109's, such as K4 or G14. But i'd take the G6 or G2 over earlier 190's. Maybe not the G6 actually.

Anyway, i do agree gondolas just add too much weight to the Bf109. And once the ammo has gone that's all they are, useless weight.

JtD
06-18-2009, 12:39 PM
And I'd take early 190 over early 109, but late 109 over late 190A models. The MW50 109 offer quite a bit over the contemporary A-8 or A-9.

If you select gondolas you'll get both, the nose cannon and the gondolas. Like everyone else in this topic, I'd recommend you to not take them. I don't use them because the plane performs poorly with them, and if I encounter them my biggest problem is that I might be getting overconfident. Gondolas suck.

danjama
06-18-2009, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
And I'd take early 190 over early 109, but late 109 over late 190A models. The MW50 109 offer quite a bit over the contemporary A-8 or A-9.



I agree with this statement but can't spend any serious time in the late 109's (G14, K4) because of the elevator issue. It's bordering on ridiculous IMO. I only fly them now and then to treat myself, and i often end up low and dirty, and soon afterwards dead. Let us be honest though, the A3-A6 do own. I'd take the Doras over the Gustavs and Kurfursts though.

general_kalle
06-18-2009, 02:17 PM
if early war Me109 up to Me109G2 (minus Me109F2)
later than G2 i would go for FW190, especially D9,
i hate Mk108, too low velocity to hit anything.

DKoor
06-18-2009, 02:25 PM
Agile 109's are supposed to protect those Focke (dog)fighters from fighter opposition anyway... so they don't need as much firepower http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif.

JG52Karaya-X
06-18-2009, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
I agree with this statement but can't spend any serious time in the late 109's (G14, K4) because of the elevator issue. It's bordering on ridiculous IMO.

That is so very much true! The speed at which control column compression starts to set in is really ridiculous.

The real problem however is the obvious inconsistency in terms of compressibility among the IL-2 planeset. Some planes such as the Bf109 series as well as the P38s are at one extreme end of the spectrum with their control responsiveness at high speeds being neutered to nearly useless while on the other extreme end we have planes such as the P-51, Tempest, etc. which seem to have never heard of this word "compression". In case of the P-51 this even results in the aircraft being very easy to de-wing when being pushed into too hard a turn at high speeds.

There simply is no aircraft, neither today nor back then, that was immune to compression. All aircraft suffer from this, however the degree the individual aircraft is affected by this can differ from one to the other.

DKoor
06-18-2009, 02:30 PM
G series is bareable, but K series is truly ridiculous and Fockes and other Gustavs are more useable only because of that fact.

+ to what Karaya says.

Trefle
06-18-2009, 02:38 PM
It's true the elevator authority on the K4 is odd if you compare with 109F4 , i doubt it'll be ever corrected .

If my life depended on it , my head would say choose any 190 ( except F8 ..) over any 109 , even those with MW50 . Reason : speed , cockpit visibility , toughness , firepower .

But my heart says 109 , so i often go for the messers , my favourite being the Emil , but i fly most often the 'good old G6' , the worst of all 109 but also the one that was by far the most produced (12.000) , it is rewarding when you do well with it , a very good schooling plane as well . Putting gondollas on a G6 turns it into a flying coffin , i agree that one should avoid gunpods unless you have a fighter cover while you intercept B-17 for instance

Ba5tard5word
06-18-2009, 02:55 PM
Bf-109E's have 2 cannons in their wings and 2 7.62mm MG's in their nose by default, but the cannons only have like 60 rounds. Bf-109F's and G's have 20mm cannons in the propeller hub and 2 7.62mm mg's though the later 109G's have 13mm mg's in the nose. Some 109 G's have an option of a 20mm or 30mm cannon in the prop hub though I don't really remember which one, and several have the option to use under-wing cannon pods though I don't really use them so I dunno which ones have that.

Just check out Hardball's aircraft viewer which lists the default and optional armament for each plane.

DKoor
06-18-2009, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by Trefle:
If my life depended on it , my head would say choose any 190 ( except F8 ..) over any 109 , even those with MW50 . Reason : speed , cockpit visibility , toughness , firepower . Mate I think I know where are you coming from but IMO that depends on the situation... if you go solo vs 1 E/A Bf-109G6AS as first option and Bf-109G10 as second option are by far better than any Focke except FW-190D.
It is simple, what you can outturn you can outran with Bf-109 (Spitfires), and what you can't outran you can outturn (P-51) with these 109's.

Team vs team? Focke may be one of the top selections not only on axis side but one of the best overall in selection of all pistons.

BillSwagger
06-19-2009, 12:48 AM
best plane in a team v team is broad term, but between 109 and 190, i happen to enjoy flying the 109 a bit more.

Its a better climber, so i'll take a K-4 with gunpods up nice and high, and hunt bombers.

190 is a bit tougher, and can probably handle parking on a bombers six, but if your swooping in for a high speed pass on a wing, the K-4 can take off a wing in one pass, and leave untouched by gunners.

neither plane is my favorite plane to fly.

My personal best is 7 kills in a sortie with a late P-47, and i regularly ace in that plane.

Should probably start another thread for that topic...=))

Trefle
06-19-2009, 01:07 AM
Agreed DKoor , you are correct but for some reasons , i do better in the 190 against western allied crates than the 109 .

Probably because i have better SA in 190 , can sustain and manoeuver at higher speeds better , follow them in dives to shoot them if necessary , dedicate less energy to aim than with late 109 with mk.108 which require more concentration to be accurate and isn't as handy for high speed deflection shots IMHO , also 109 engine is extremely vulnerable against .50cal and i like to make head on attacks , there is also the fact that in long squad missions in 109 , you always have to worry about fuel , so you need to cruise real slow compared to 190 and when you're out of MW50 in combat it's time to make prayers , so all in all i favour 190 although i prefer the 109 as a plane design and have more pleasure flying it

Tully__
06-19-2009, 04:14 AM
Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
I agree with this statement but can't spend any serious time in the late 109's (G14, K4) because of the elevator issue. It's bordering on ridiculous IMO.

That is so very much true! The speed at which control column compression starts to set in is really ridiculous... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If I recall correctly the explanation for the poor elevator authority of the 109's is not compressibility, it's a very high required stick force at high speed. The aerodynamic forces trying to keep the elevator from deflector exceed the pilot's ability to counter them due to the short throw stick design used in this type.

Not having flown a real example myself I can't vouch for the reliability, but I seem to recall a test I read somewhere that gave at least partial credence to this, commenting that the elevator stick forces in the 109 rose rapidly with speed increase to the point where at quite moderate speeds it was a real chore to get large enough elevator deflection for enthusiastic manouvering.

Trefle
06-19-2009, 05:15 AM
Fair enough Tully ,but then how can we explain that elevator authority is even worse on K4 than previous models ?

I thought K4 was designed to fly higher and faster and was supposed to be an improvement at high speed manoeuvrability compared to previous models , in game we start to experience elevator problems well below its top speed which seems suspicious IMHO , but i can live with it , the sim is awesome and FM are very well done generally speaking

Tully__
06-19-2009, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by Trefle:
Fair enough Tully ,but then how can we explain that elevator authority is even worse on K4 than previous models ?

I thought K4 was designed to fly higher and faster and was supposed to be an improvement at high speed manoeuvrability compared to previous models , in game we start to experience elevator problems well below its top speed which seems suspicious IMHO , but i can live with it , the sim is awesome and FM are very well done generally speaking
I can't speak for flight modelling on individual variants, perhaps it's because the K was faster and thus the effect is more pronounced? I haven't flown a K model myself for some time, if I'm in axis aircraft at all its usually earlier variants.

danjama
06-19-2009, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by Tully__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trefle:
Fair enough Tully ,but then how can we explain that elevator authority is even worse on K4 than previous models ?

I thought K4 was designed to fly higher and faster and was supposed to be an improvement at high speed manoeuvrability compared to previous models , in game we start to experience elevator problems well below its top speed which seems suspicious IMHO , but i can live with it , the sim is awesome and FM are very well done generally speaking
I can't speak for flight modelling on individual variants, perhaps it's because the K was faster and thus the effect is more pronounced? I haven't flown a K model myself for some time, if I'm in axis aircraft at all its usually earlier variants. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not even just the K model, the G10 is an offender. I flew a sortie with it last night for 2+ hours online, and the elevators were becoming useless at 450kmh, meaning it flew more like a low speed 190, and i was unable to turn with a P51...

I just did a little test with all pitch inputs at 100 and it helped a bit, but not much. Plus, those settings would be almost useless in most other planes IMO. This would be fine but for the fact we can't change these settings when online.

BillSwagger
06-19-2009, 08:45 AM
i'm not sure they did much to the K variant, other than put in a better engine, but i don't see engineers giving a plane more power and the ability to travel at higher speeds, if it still suffers from the problems of past variants.

I remember reading that the 109K was the best plane of ww2, strictly from an engineering standpoint.
Primarily because of using an old air frame and squeezing the last bit of effectiveness from it, so it could compete with the modern aircraft of that time.

a K is a suped up G-2 if i remember the article correctly.


There are probably tons of people who know more about the subject and better read on 109s than myself.
So i'll leave it at that.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi.../7/7e/Deep_stall.svg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Deep_stall.svg)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com...5_10605e4c5f.jpg?v=0 (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2115/2304008975_10605e4c5f.jpg?v=0)

Also look up "deep stall"...although probably not the issue here, but something to consider because higher airspeeds often lead to unpredictable flight behaviors, especially with such an old design.

Trefle
06-19-2009, 09:07 AM
Well , K model also had a new airframe aside from a more powerful engine , it was designed to operate a higher altitudes and at higher speeds than Gustavs , that's why i think perhaps something is wrong that it has less elevator authority at the same speeds than previous models , but i'm no specialist so my opinion is worth nothing .

With G-10 and previous variants, i think elevator is about ok , it is with K-4 that i find it a bit overdone even if i don't mind about it now cause Oleg is busy with something else , so there's little to no chance of it being examined anyway .

We probably should ask Kettenhunde or Kurfurst what they think about it since they seem knowledgeable about the technical side of aviation or perhaps about the 109

Kettenhunde
06-20-2009, 09:00 AM
Well , K model also had a new airframe aside from a more powerful engine , it was designed to operate a higher altitudes and at higher speeds than Gustavs , that's why i think perhaps something is wrong that it has less elevator authority at the same speeds than previous models , but i'm no specialist so my opinion is worth nothing .


Hi Trefle,

It is considered good design for a higher stick force per G gradient in the longitudinal axis as a safety feature to prevent the pilot from over loading the aircraft at high speed.

I think someone related your simulated pilot is restricted to ~50lbs of pull in all axes. According to the NACA, a pilot can comfortably pull ~85lbs in the longitudinal axis.

All the best,

Crumpp

DKoor
06-20-2009, 09:03 AM
Imagine the forum whining then (85lbs) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .
Balance is all http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif .

Gammelpreusse
06-20-2009, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
Imagine the forum whining then (85lbs) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .
Balance is all http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif .

Yeah. I remember a time when the 109 handled much better at high speeds. No idea how many patches and versions ago that is. But the 109s back then were killers.

WTE_Galway
06-21-2009, 06:41 PM
I always preferred the g6as amongst the axis birds.

However that said .. if you really want firepower in a single seater, the 190a8 load out with the mk108's in the wing itself rather than slung under in pods is a great compromise.