PDA

View Full Version : People who do flight model PLZ read this!



pilas-
10-27-2004, 12:01 PM
Download and check this movie out. These people actually own and fly real life 109 G, P-51 and Spit IX.
Just download and listen.
http://mnemeth1.brinkster.net/movies/EAA_Interviews.wmv

Stiglr
10-27-2004, 12:53 PM
Well, if they're flying them today, you gotta remember these planes likely are a bit different.

They likely don't have the weapons, the armor, the radios (then VERY heavy) and they may have some modern instrumentation.

In a very broad sense, they're the real mc coy, but when nitpicking about performance, they're a little suspect, for the reasons listed above (which translate into a LOT of weight)

SeaFireLIV
10-27-2004, 01:00 PM
Stiglr is correct. One might be able to get an `idea` of how WWII planes performed, but to rely exclusively on these modernised machines would be an error.

Korolov
10-27-2004, 01:21 PM
I think the seas have boiled away and the moon turned red, because I agree with Stiglr.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Kwiatos
10-27-2004, 01:36 PM
I saw these video and really enjoy opinion about P-51 how it turn and climb comparing to Bf109. These remember me first time when P-51 came in FB - these time i think P-51 was best modelled in FM (turn and climb). Now FM P-51 is far away from these opinion. Thx for americanwhinher. The same with actual FM of Corsairs, Hellcat and Willcat.

See all Mark Hanna opinion about P-51-Bf109-Spitfire performance. Its very close to opinion pilots from these video expecially about turn ability of P-51:
" I like it (Bf109) as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor. At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109"

http://www.bf109.com/frameset.html

Gibbage1
10-27-2004, 03:25 PM
Pilot's openion should generally be taken with a gain of salt. Every pilot will say the aircraft they fly is superior. I can find MANY quotes from pilots in both WWII and todays modern pilots that say the P-38 can turn inside a 109, and even some that say it could turn inside a Zero!

So lets not latch onto this one pilots "openion" because thats all it is. If you can use this as proof, then I will find a pilot that will say the P-38 can out fly any German aircraft http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Its very easy.

Kwiatos
10-27-2004, 03:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Pilot's openion should generally be taken with a gain of salt. Every pilot will say the aircraft they fly is superior. I can find MANY quotes from pilots in both WWII and todays modern pilots that say the P-38 can turn inside a 109, and even some that say it could turn inside a Zero!

So lets not latch onto this one pilots "openion" because thats all it is. If you can use this as proof, then I will find a pilot that will say the P-38 can out fly any German aircraft http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Its very easy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes of course if these is one side opinion we should be much more carefully with it.
Still i think Mark Hanna opinion is very important. He flew many types of warbirds includng most popular like Spitfire, Bf 109 and P-51. Remember he was American and dont fought at WW2 and these what he said sounds very reliable for me.

pilas-
10-27-2004, 04:28 PM
Hey All
Sure Stiglr the planes have some differences, but all types miss more or less the same: Armor, guns, heavy radios, etç. With this in mind, you can extrapolate and get a very accurate picture on how the planes did perform and compare in real life. From what we hear in the movie, and coming from experienced pilots, flight simms, some more than others, still have a LOT of barriers to overcome before they can use the adjective 'accurate' to describe the flight model.
It is true that a pilot opinion is just an opinion, but we do detect a pattern in these 2 pilots in the movie and Mark Hanna's article on the 109.
I say that these 6 minutes of video require that the FM people stop and reflect a while on their product.

S! Everyone

Pilas

VW-IceFire
10-27-2004, 04:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
I think the seas have boiled away and the moon turned red, because I agree with Stiglr.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Too true!

I also agree with Stiglr...on this one occasion.

I've already said my bit about the video in one of the other threads so I won't repeat.

Stachl
10-27-2004, 05:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Pilot's openion should generally be taken with a gain of salt. Every pilot will say the aircraft they fly is superior. I can find MANY quotes from pilots in both WWII and todays modern pilots that say the P-38 can turn inside a 109, and even some that say it could turn inside a Zero!

So lets not latch onto this one pilots "openion" because thats all it is. If you can use this as proof, then I will find a pilot that will say the P-38 can out fly any German aircraft http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Its very easy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Come on, Mark Hanna had no axe to grind here (unlike many people on these forums http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif). He flew and tested all of these planes and I can't believe that he didn't give an honest opinion concerning their relative performances. Hopefully, as we get more flyable FW-190s and 109s, we are finally going to get a better idea of what the 'losers' aircraft were like instead of only the one-sided opinions we have for so long.

As to the merit of comparing newly rebuilt WWII aircraft, I;m all for it and I hope Oleg is too. Just because the weights aren't exactly as they were when that plane took off for it's last combat mission does not invalidate the basic inherent characteristics these planes still have. I mean the test pilot Eric Brown, who first test flew the rebuilt 109E/7 that Marseille flew during the BoB (in California 1998 I think), said in his notes that this plane rolled 50% faster than any Spitfire he had ever flown. I am no engineer, but it seems to me that this basic trait will still hold true even when they are loaded for battle (give or take a few and provided they aren't 'souped up' versions).

GR142_Astro
10-27-2004, 11:05 PM
Do you think for one instant an airshow pilot is going to risk stick-reversal in a priceless P51? The aircraft is twitchy as heck down low. If you get shot down by a P51 down low in Forgotten Battles, you got owned by the Stang jock, not his plane.


1944 - P51 pilot pushes his plane hard enough to save his life

2004 - P51 pilot pushes his plane hard enough to save his plane

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Interesting quote from Maj. "Kit" Carson:

Bf109 Aerobatics
Not easy to do. Loops had to be started from about 280 mph when the elevator forces were getting unduly heavy; there was also a tendency for the wing slats to bang open the top of the loop, resulting in aileron snatch and loss of direction.

Below 250 mph the airplane would roll quickly, but there was a strong tendency for the nose to fall through the horizon in the last half of the roll and the stick had to be moved well back to keep the nose up.

Upward rolls were difficult, again because of elevator heaviness at the required starting speed. Due to this, only a moderate pull out from a dive to build up speed was possible and considerable speed was lost before the upward roll could be started.
--------------------------------------------

I think the 109 wing slats should be addressed in Forgotten Battles. They aren't modeled to deploy realistically.

pilas-
10-28-2004, 03:01 AM
Hey All,

Not only should the 109 slats be modeled close to reality, a lot of other plane features and capabilities should be redone to match reality, reality beeing a lot closer to these gentlemen opinion than any of our opinions or for that matter any software model designed so far.
If reality sells games is another matter.

S! All

LeOs.K-Ande
10-28-2004, 09:42 AM
quote"I can find MANY quotes from pilots in both WWII and todays modern pilots that say the P-38 can turn inside a 109, and even some that say it could turn inside a Zero!"

Might be true. Id like to see a video interview where is a person who has actually flown both planes make this statement. I bet not many people are willing to say this this on camera ;-)


quote"Do you think for one instant an airshow pilot is going to risk stick-reversal in a priceless P51? The aircraft is twitchy as heck down low. If you get shot down by a P51 down low in Forgotten Battles, you got owned by the Stang jock, not his plane.


1944 - P51 pilot pushes his plane hard enough to save his life

2004 - P51 pilot pushes his plane hard enough to save his plane"

So the bith planes are lighter because no weapons. Both planes are pushed equally but not to the extreme limit. Does this mean that the P51 starts to perform better when pushed more and the 109 does not?

I´m perfectly happy with the game as it is since I rarely fly US planes or against them. The interview was interesting but when people start twisting it it just goes wrong. take it for what it is and leave it alone.

WB_Outlaw
10-28-2004, 11:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stachl:
I mean the test pilot Eric Brown, who first test flew the rebuilt 109E/7 that Marseille flew during the BoB (in California 1998 I think), said in his notes that this plane rolled 50% faster than any Spitfire he had ever flown. I am no engineer, but it seems to me that this basic trait will still hold true even when they are loaded for battle (give or take a few and provided they aren't 'souped up' versions). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The early model 109s had cannons in the wings. That's a lot of outboard mass. Roll rate will increase significantly by removing those guns.

-Outlaw.

Stiglr
10-28-2004, 04:16 PM
Stachl wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Come on, Mark Hanna had no axe to grind here (unlike many people on these forums ). He flew and tested all of these planes and I can't believe that he didn't give an honest opinion concerning their relative performances. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nobody is saying Hanna had a bias or that he wasn't being honest. Merely saying that unless the bird in question is equipped and loaded out to match combat conditions of the time, then something's going to be missing from its true handling characteristics. The plane will likely still perform basically like it should (e.g, a Spit will outturn a 109 handily), but you can't "break out the protractors" and go for fine numbers like you would with a real, honest-to-God loaded for bear wartime plane.

Stachl
10-28-2004, 07:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stachl:
I mean the test pilot Eric Brown, who first test flew the rebuilt 109E/7 that Marseille flew during the BoB (in California 1998 I think), said in his notes that this plane rolled 50% faster than any Spitfire he had ever flown. I am no engineer, but it seems to me that this basic trait will still hold true even when they are loaded for battle (give or take a few and provided they aren't 'souped up' versions). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The early model 109s had cannons in the wings. That's a lot of outboard mass. Roll rate will increase significantly by removing those guns.

-Outlaw. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about the .303s in the wing of the Spitfire? On this particular 109 the guns are on board but without the ammo, don't know about the Spits he was comparing to as he didn't say.

Basic is exactly what I'm talking about Stiglr. Basically the 109 should be much better at low speed dogfighting than the P-51 according to Hanna's thoughts after flying both planes (something none of us have done). Not exactly, but basically. Also, he wasn't talking about exact top speed numbers or exact climb rate, he was talking about the handling and feeling of the plane and I think his opinions have merit.

Astro, I doubt Hanna pushed either the P-51 or the 109 to the absolute limit, but he did get a feeling that the 109 was better slow. Why is that so hard to understand, or do you just like to argue even about facts.

GR142_Astro
10-29-2004, 01:14 AM
No, if you'll read carefully I made no specific comments about speed or slow handling. I am merely pointing out that this "new revelation" some are so jazzed about really tells us nothing. Without both planes fully configured for combat, including having enough fuel on board to get home, it means very little.

The facts are that 11,000 109s were lost on takeoff/landing accidents due to their poor gear design, and the remaining 22,000 (less the ones that were strafed/scrapped) were shot down. On the western front, P47s and P51s didn't have an overly difficult time with these things.

The 109 was a good aircraft, being stretched beyond its limitations of design. It did ok, but it wasn't enough. Let's not try and revise history to make it out to be some win-all uber kite.

MMMkay?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

k5054
10-29-2004, 04:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The early model 109s had cannons in the wings. That's a lot of outboard mass. Roll rate will increase significantly by removing those guns.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Roll rate isn't affected by mass. Roll acceleration is, but for a single-engine fighter the roll acceleration is very high, max roll rate is achieved in a fraction of a second, something like 0.1 for a no-cannon or 0.2 for cannon. Max rate is determined by net torque (aileron, engine, rudder secondary effect) vs roll damping effect. When the torque balances the roll damping you're at max roll rate. Mass (or roll moment of inertia) isn't a factor.

Red_Storm
10-29-2004, 06:00 AM
If you'd watch guncamera footage, you'd see that pilots back then didn't push their planes to their limits. If you've ever flown a Cessna, you know you won't pull it to its limit very quickly either, it's just scary. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I personally believe the opinion of these pilots over the opinion of some board member who's probably never flown a propeller aircraft and just goes by information he's read in (most probably) nationalistic books.

The excessive Ami-whining the past months has totally ruined all of the American planes, to the point where down low the P-51 outturns the 109, it's faster (which is realistic) but it also climbs better. the M2 .50's are nukes compared to other weapons. They do even more damage than MG151/20's, while they both had the same rate of fire. I personally don't see how people can even have fun in flying these planes. It must be very boring and no-one respects you online. Yay. Fun.

(I flew the P-51 quite a bit before it was nerfed)

Nubarus
10-29-2004, 06:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pilas-:
Hey All,

Not only should the 109 slats be modeled close to reality, a lot of other plane features and capabilities should be redone to match reality, reality beeing a lot closer to these gentlemen opinion than any of our opinions or for that matter any software model designed so far.
If reality sells games is another matter.

S! All <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Looks like you missed a lot here gameplay wise pilas.
As it stands now in game the G2 can turn inside a Spitfire IX.

The other G's are a different thing since they are heavier.

But since these guys don't say which model G they talk about it's rather stupid to change the FM over a 6 minute interview with people flying these stripped down planes now while the current FM is designed with test documents from the WWII era.

Besides, it's your opinion that the current FM is wrong.
Better be more specific regarding that with true facts and documentation and in game tests, wrap it all in a nice email and send it to Oleg instead of opening yet another BS thread here that will lead to nothing.

LeOs.K-Ande
10-29-2004, 06:40 AM
Quote" On the western front, P47s and P51s didn't have an overly difficult time with these things.
"
Well it usually was 10 to 1 situation so that might be a one major reason.

I´m happy with E models and G models but the F models really suck. they should be good turners but they are not like they shold be.

Everybody keeps saying P51 dominates fast and high and 109 low and slow. I would like to know the speed where P51 should start dominating. Anybody know this?

NorrisMcWhirter
10-29-2004, 08:04 AM
Hi,

Just to play devil's advocate....

So, these planes are not representative of their WW2 counterparts nor to the pilots push their planes to the limit... Relatively speaking, this is irrelevant.

Let's say that all the planes have their armament removed and similar replacement of some modern instrumentation + a modern radio. They now are, relatively speaking, arguably in a similar state as if they had those items fitted.

Let's also conjecture that the pilots are not going to want to push their planes as if their life depended on it. Let's say that they will push their planes to a similar point before they back off.

Relatively speaking, the planes can now be assessed against each other perfectly validly if we assume the two cases above to be true. This means that the 109, not pushed too far outturns a P51 that, similarly, isn't pushed too far.

Are we impressed when a real life pilot tests Il-2 and finds that it is realistic? If so, why dismiss pilot accounts on one hand but think good of them on another?

Cheers,
Norris

pilas-
10-29-2004, 09:37 AM
Hey All

Nubarus, I didnt send Oleg any data about the 109 ,but I helped to collect data that was presented to him and his team.
If IL2 FM tried and achieved to model accurately these modern day, restaured warbirds, despite all the differences from ww2 warbirds, we would all be much happier, because we would have a much better experience than we do now.
Nodoby asked to change the flight model based on a 6 minute video, it's stupid to come to that conclusion. Maybe it would be worth while to talk to the people in the video and maybe ask their help when testing the software models.
They would supply much valuable input about plane accuracy than probably you and all the people who have posted in this forum put together.
It's noy my opinion that is wrong, you dont have the necessary knoledge about real life warbirds or my opinion to prove me or anyone wrong or right.
These Gentleman in the video do.

S!

Pilas.

Jippo01
10-29-2004, 10:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
The facts are that 11,000 109s were lost on takeoff/landing accidents due to their poor gear design, and the remaining 22,000 (less the ones that were strafed/scrapped) were shot down. On the western front, P47s and P51s didn't have an overly difficult time with these things.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Things you write are no facts.


-jippo

Gibbage1
10-29-2004, 12:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeOs.K-Ande:
quote"I can find MANY quotes from pilots in both WWII and todays modern pilots that say the P-38 can turn inside a 109, and even some that say it could turn inside a Zero!"

Might be true. Id like to see a video interview where is a person who has actually flown both planes make this statement. I bet not many people are willing to say this this on camera ;-)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can even find you German ace quotes were they think the P-38 is more manuverable then there own 109 or 190 in combat.

It all openion. Not proof.

LeOs.K-Ande
10-29-2004, 01:31 PM
Quote " I can even find you German ace quotes were they think the P-38 is more manuverable then there own 109 or 190 in combat.

It all openion. Not proof. "


true.
My point was that you or anyone else can find quotes like that but finding people who say them on video and are respected pilots are hard to find.

I bet you too Find things more beleavable if you see a real pilot with experience say some comment than just reading it from god nows where. Find me a P38 pilot who has flown both P38 and 109 and if he says it, I will belive it more than any book quote you can give me.

I realize that this is just two pilots with some amount of experience with these planes ( yes and the planes are not 100% like they were in active duty time) and thats what it should be thinked of. Just 2 opinions but with little more weight than yours or mine.

Nubarus
10-29-2004, 08:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pilas-:
These Gentleman in the video do.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They don't know since these planes miss a lot of features and weaponry, so they have no idea how it really flew during WWII.

Better talk to WWII veterans if you are so keen on pilot accounts.
I have spoken to a few veterans of the 322 Squadron on several occasions and their stories regarding the Spitfires are different then the one's in your video.

They flew the MKV, IX and XIV.

Fact or bias?

I don't know and personally I don't really care either since I don't feel like going into a debate about it with these guys.

Anyway, you are trying to have something changed and from reading your posts you feel your precious BF109 got shafted by Oleg.

But like the man said in the sticky post and I quote: "Dear folks, please read it with attention:

1. The address for bug reports:
In readme is shown new one instead of closed old il2beta@1c.ru. So use please only new one PF@1c.ru

2. We can't search at the web for your bug reports. It take too much time. So we will accept the reports that only will be sent to the address shown above.

So put your money where your mouth is pilas and send the mail.

LeOs.K-Ande
10-29-2004, 10:24 PM
I dont want to sound like a complete A** hole here but what would be better info to us then a real live pilot who has flown both planes? Don´t get me wrong, as I said Im very happy with the FM on all counts but the F model(109).

Nubarus made a lot of sence saying that it´s useless posting it here but, thats why the forum is here. maybe oleg reads it, maybe not but atleast it´s posted. I love the game too much to "not fly it " if the FM sucks. I will fly it still.

Ps. I wish the "man" would post here nowdays. It would put end to all these speculations and calm things down. now it´s just us morons fighting eachothers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Nubarus
10-30-2004, 05:22 AM
I am not against real live pilots who provide info but as was explained before they fly stripped down planes and can in no way provide accurate performance information.

Like I said before, the only ones who can provide that are WWII veterans, not pilots who fly them today.

If Oleg starts to model planes according to stories of pilots who fly them today we won't have WWII planes anymore but planes with the performance of how they fly now, around 60 years later.

WOLFMondo
10-30-2004, 11:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Do you think for one instant an airshow pilot is going to risk stick-reversal in a priceless P51? The aircraft is twitchy as heck down low. If you get shot down by a P51 down low in Forgotten Battles, you got owned by the Stang jock, not his plane.


1944 - P51 pilot pushes his plane hard enough to save his life

2004 - P51 pilot pushes his plane hard enough to save his plane <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From what i've read and seen thats 100% true, they don't want to cause fatigue to the metal on the planes through stressful manouvers and they never push the engines anywhere near absolute maximum power.

Cajun76
10-31-2004, 03:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeOs.K-Ande:
Quote" _On the western front, P47s and P51s didn't have an overly difficult time with these things.
_ "
Well it usually was 10 to 1 situation so that might be a one major reason.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif 10 to 1, the entire war, at no time did they ever have even local air superioity.....

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

This tired excuse gets passed around more than a Playboy in the guy's middle school locker room.

TAGERT.
10-31-2004, 04:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:
This tired excuse gets passed around more than a Playboy in the guy's middle school locker room. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It is only 2nd to the one about the 13 year old boys with no flight traning flying Me262s into combat.

TX-EcoDragon
11-02-2004, 06:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142_Astro:

1944 - P51 pilot pushes his plane hard enough to save his life

2004 - P51 pilot pushes his plane hard enough to save his plane <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From what i've read and seen thats 100% true, they don't want to cause fatigue to the metal on the planes through stressful manouvers and they never push the engines anywhere near absolute maximum power. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All other points aside, you do realize your talking about Skip Holm here right??

http://www.dagored-airracing.com/team/sholm.shtml

Blackdog5555
11-05-2004, 03:13 PM
some of you guys need to read the history of the Airwar in Europe. I DO have my library. I hate typing. Ill keep it short. THE P51 WAS A LONG RANGE HIGH ALTITUDE ESCORT FIGHTER. THE RULE WHICH MOST P51 DRIVERS IRL FOLLOWED WAS TO NEVER, AND I MEAN NEVER GO BELOW 10,000 FT TO FIGHT BECAUSE YOU WILL GET KILLED AT LOW ALTITUDES. THE LOW LEVEL FM FOR P51 IS WRONG BUT SO IS ITS HIGH ALTITUDE MODEL. AT 25,000 IT SHOULD FLY GREAT...BUT NOOOO...ITS A FLYING TURD...