PDA

View Full Version : Bf109 with Mk108 turns too easily



LuftLuver
06-07-2004, 02:51 AM
Looks like most all players now agree that the FB109s (ForgottenBattles109s) have finally entered the realm of Klown Wagon. Allied pilots have seen this, and the blues are being very, very quiet. They hope this bogus 109 flight model sneaks in to the final patch so I am sure they are holding their breath.

It is now a skill-less aircraft. The Mk108 is a bomber buster gun, but there is no weight penalty whatsoever. The nose comes around freely and it dances through the weeds like a G2. I flew the G10 around, but it just felt like a toy and the kills were so easy. I used to fly the 109s for a good challenge, but no more.

Too bad, but the sim has taken yet another step towards arcade. The only thing Forgotten Battles needs now is one of these:

http://www.american-amusements.com/am/home.nsf/Public/47391499718096EE85256BA50045482F/$file/complete.jpg

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"All your bases are belong to us."

LuftLuver
06-07-2004, 02:51 AM
Looks like most all players now agree that the FB109s (ForgottenBattles109s) have finally entered the realm of Klown Wagon. Allied pilots have seen this, and the blues are being very, very quiet. They hope this bogus 109 flight model sneaks in to the final patch so I am sure they are holding their breath.

It is now a skill-less aircraft. The Mk108 is a bomber buster gun, but there is no weight penalty whatsoever. The nose comes around freely and it dances through the weeds like a G2. I flew the G10 around, but it just felt like a toy and the kills were so easy. I used to fly the 109s for a good challenge, but no more.

Too bad, but the sim has taken yet another step towards arcade. The only thing Forgotten Battles needs now is one of these:

http://www.american-amusements.com/am/home.nsf/Public/47391499718096EE85256BA50045482F/$file/complete.jpg

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"All your bases are belong to us."

carguy_
06-07-2004, 02:57 AM
Do you know that weight of BF109 MG151/20 and MK108 are about the same?

I won`t argue with you cuz it`s not worth it.Right know it seems that you do not know nothing about the real Me109 performance.Plz present some data and we`ll talk.

And yes,I agree that Me109 isn`t a challenge anymore but Spits blast the hell out of me so fighting them is most enjoyable.

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

JG53Frankyboy
06-07-2004, 03:00 AM
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-pe.html


and that a G6/U4 would dance in the sky http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
you have another version of game than most other players http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
and sure , the G10 has a LOT more power than a G2

Yellonet
06-07-2004, 03:01 AM
Often get my *** kicked by some 109 online.. but that could just be the fault of my lousy flying... I'll try some flying for blue and see if those 109s really are über clown wagons... I've got a feeling they are http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif


- Yellonet

VOL_Hans
06-07-2004, 03:11 AM
This is interesting...

Apparently they grow accustom to fighting a Bf-109 that dosent match up to it's specs, when they finally see one close to how the real plane flew, they can't handle it.

I for one think that the 109 is fine as it is. I would request a bit more torque on takeoff, but thats about it.

http://www.altitude.us/missions/The%20Volunteers/hanssig.jpg

Charos
06-07-2004, 04:43 AM
For an Extra 30KG I dont see how this would make a BIG Difference. Some Pilots must be 20KG more than some others of smaller stature.

I dont think the 109 is the Lumbering brick everyone tries to make out it should be - I also think the Elevator on the latter models could be a tad more affective to be realistic at high speed.

I have been mainly using the 20mm of late just to get some better gunnery practice in more than going for a quick 30mm fix.

The 109 has been prodded and pulled more than any other plane in IL2 but I wouldnt fly anything else.

F19_Ob
06-07-2004, 04:59 AM
HI mates! I'm probably as wierd as my wife says I am, but I started flying the 109 in the early days and I still think it is a challange.
Ofcourse I have Improved in skill and tactics but I still see possible development.
As in RL its possible to do sharp turns if U bleed speed fast (although limited) and its possible to turn well in slow speeds.

K¶ssi Karhila (Finn ace) outturned early mustangs with his 109 with gunpods in speeds about 250km/h in several level turns.

Read about it in this article under "Recognizing enemy planes and about the Mustang ":
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/hist/WW2History-KyostiKarhilaCoffee.html

read other articles here:
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/hist/


Other than that the Finns used it very often as a turnfighter.
If U want to read detailed accounts I recommend this book by Ilmari Juutilainen (Finn top ace, 94 kills) "Double fighter knight" ISBN 952-5026-04-03

On good days I have won prolonged dogfights against, what I consider aces in p39,p40,p51,spit,La5-7,etc. and the opposit, flying allied planes downing 109's.
There are many situations where a badturning plane actually can outturn a better one, and mostly it has to do with initial positioning and speed = How U enter the fight.

Ofcourse this info will not end the debate, but I hope that more people will convert from the strictly "BnZ" lable as it wont hold closer examination.

U'r mate, ob
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

KGr.HH-Sunburst
06-07-2004, 05:38 AM
LMAO another whiny alliedwhiner post
luftlover sure knows how to troll

allied guys got a hard time believing the 109 was an excellent aircraft http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

damn why the allied flyers turned into newbies is beyond me but i sure dont got a problem fightin 109s in a P47 P51 Spit etc etc
let alone VVS A/C http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/cry.gif

http://www.freewebs.com/fightingpumas/
http://img31.photobucket.com/albums/v94/sunburst/sigp51-D9.jpg
''All your Mustangs are belong to us''

VOL_Hans
06-07-2004, 06:00 AM
I think they suffer from overconfidence in thier own aircraft.

They don't realise that the real Bf-109 was a constant threat to the Allies. That every Allied P-51, 47, 38, Spit, whatever pilot would dread hearing "Messers! 6 High!" through his headphones.

http://www.altitude.us/missions/The%20Volunteers/hanssig.jpg

Heavy_Weather
06-07-2004, 06:43 AM
im sure in real life it wasnt a problem considering the power of the engine, we're only used to how they fly in the game. have you actually flown a 109 armed with mk108's? i know i havent. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

"To fly a combat mission is not a trip under the moon. Every attack, every bombing is a dance with death."
- Serafima Amsova-Taranenko: Noggle, Ann (1994): A Dance with Death.

Xnomad
06-07-2004, 06:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VOL_Hans:
I think they suffer from overconfidence in thier own aircraft.

They don't realise that the real Bf-109 was a constant threat to the Allies. That every Allied P-51, 47, 38, Spit, whatever pilot would dread hearing "Messers! 6 High!" through his headphones.

http://www.altitude.us/missions/The%20Volunteers/hanssig.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Precisely, they get into their planes and expect to have an easy time. I've come across some real strange fliers who yank their plane around so much thinking they can get on my six quickly with a T&B plane that they pull too hard and lose so much speed I just have to line my shot up and take my time and blow his a** out of the sky.

http://www.xnomad.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sig.jpg

Jippo01
06-07-2004, 07:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by F19_Ob:

K¶ssi Karhila (Finn ace) outturned early mustangs with his 109 with gunpods in speeds about 250km/h in several level turns.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was actually misidentified Yaks. No Mustangs were in the area at the time.


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

purzel08
06-07-2004, 07:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftLuver:
Looks like most all players now agree that the FB109s (ForgottenBattles109s) have finally entered the realm of Klown Wagon. Allied pilots have seen this, and the blues are being very, very quiet. They hope this bogus 109 flight model sneaks in to the final patch so I am sure they are holding their breath.

It is now a skill-less aircraft. The Mk108 is a bomber buster gun, but there is no weight penalty whatsoever. The nose comes around freely and it dances through the weeds like a G2. I flew the G10 around, but it just felt like a toy and the kills were so easy. I used to fly the 109s for a good challenge, but no more.

Too bad, but the sim has taken yet another step towards arcade. The only thing Forgotten Battles needs now is one of these:

"All your bases are belong to us."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Russian aircrafts whose aileron/s were blown away "turn too easily". Any comments on that ?

greetings...

Jasko76
06-07-2004, 08:24 AM
Mk 108 weighs less than 60 kg, so STOP whining, you little whiner!


Regards,

Jasko
http://www.zoro.hr/filipovic/filipovic-slike/sarajevo-16.jpg

Formerly known as Rajvosa

FA_Maddog
06-07-2004, 08:41 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by VOL_Hans:
That every Allied P-51, 47, 38, Spit, whatever pilot would dread hearing "Messers! 6 High!" through his headphones.

LMAO http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I don't think that was heard very often.

LuftLuver
06-07-2004, 08:43 AM
Just checking in to see the blues rush to the defense of their secret uber turn patch. Carry on. You fine fellas have cried it into an I-16. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

P.S. Don't forget about the weight of the ammo and the mount, NOT just the gun. Be sure. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"All your bases are belong to us."

RocketDog
06-07-2004, 08:56 AM
Go on then, quote some figures for the weight of the mount ans ammunition, along with equivalent figures for the 20 mm cannon.

Regards,

RocketDog.

Agamemnon22
06-07-2004, 08:59 AM
... and the MG didn't have ammo and a mount? In fact the Mk.108 ammo, while heavier, is a lot less numerous, so it roughly balances out.

Jaws2002
06-07-2004, 09:00 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif
[QUOTE]Originally posted by LuftLuver:



http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/71_1081515457_getthenewbie.jpg

NegativeGee
06-07-2004, 09:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftLuver:

P.S. Don't forget about the weight of the ammo and the mount, NOT just the gun. Be sure. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why not, as you appear to have http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Günther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

Abbuzze
06-07-2004, 09:02 AM
Ok, mounting and ammo...

MK108 ~63kg
MG151/20 ~46kg

30mm shell 60x 0,480kg =28,8kg

20mm shell 200x 0,117kg = 23,4 kg

So you can calculate the difference- mounting should be similar also, cause the frame have to withstand the gunfire without damadge.

I forgott, early 109 with MK108 need a bottle of pressured air to load and fire this gun.. will be also a few kg more http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I./JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
http://www.jg53-pikas.de/

http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/bilder/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam%20neu.gif
couldn´t restist http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

NegativeGee
06-07-2004, 09:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbuzze:
Ok, mounting and ammo...

MK108 ~63kg
MG151/20 ~46kg

30mm shell 60x 0,480kg =28,8kg

20mm shell 200x 0,117kg = 23,4 kg

So you can calculate the difference- mounting should be similar also, cause the frame have to withstand the gunfire without damadge.

I forgott, early 109 with MK108 need a bottle of pressured air to load and fire this gun.. will be also a few kg more http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, using these figures:

MK-108 plus ammo- 91.8kg

MG-151/20 plus ammo- 69.4kg

Weight increase to replace MG-151/20 with MK-108= 22.4kg

So thats 22.4kg more, not counting any differences in gun mount weight and compressed air for firing MK-108.

So, what effect does an additional 22.4kg make to a Bf-109 G10's (for example) turning circle? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

On the basis of the weight difference simply worked out here, there is nothing to model, unless FB can aleady account for the performance changes in turning circle garnered from the expenditure of the weight of a full (cannon) ammo load.

N.B. Does ammo weight include weight of belt links (if present?).

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Günther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

NorrisMcWhirter
06-07-2004, 09:58 AM
Hi,

I've noticed no real difference in the 109s except that the cannon now actually doesn't require 5 hits to down a P51.

If anything, life is far more difficult with those new Spitfires.

I used to fear 8x .50 cals - now all I fear are those death-spitting Hispanos...

Cheers,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

Ugly_Kid
06-07-2004, 10:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftLuver:
Just checking in to see the blues rush to the defense of their secret uber turn patch. Carry on. You fine fellas have cried it into an I-16. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...? The Bfs haven't changed a bit to a better(in turning department) with any of the patches http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif - the only change is with F which got quite a bit worse after 1.1b - so what's your problem?

Maybe you should really test the aircraft and see what changed to where and was it right or wrong modification ... just a hint

crazyivan1970
06-07-2004, 10:12 AM
Make it simple, take G6 with 20mm and 30mm, there is difference, trust me. It`s not really obvious, but dedciated 109 jocks know it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

DangerForward
06-07-2004, 10:48 AM
The difference between the mk108 and the mg151/20 is roughly the same as 4% of the me109's fuel in weight. I use up way more than that climbing away from the airbase.

DangerForward

F19_Ob
06-07-2004, 11:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by F19_Ob:

K¶ssi Karhila (Finn ace) outturned early mustangs with his 109 with gunpods in speeds about 250km/h in several level turns.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was actually misidentified Yaks. No Mustangs were in the area at the time.


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
http://www.ju88.de.tf<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Yes...all do not agree with the pilots, but k¶ssi had sen yaks before and after that event. They didnt have p38's either but still Juutilainen shot one of the 2 present and later confirmed, and also juutilainen claims seing mustangs and he had seen plenty of yak fighters.

heck..I cant confirm or deny their claims....ANYway, the yaks turns better than the mustangs...exept perhaps for some marks of yak9.
But if u have any source Plz post it.
bye then.....

Jippo01
06-07-2004, 11:34 AM
I have no "confirmation" that he didn't shoot down Mustangs, except for the fact that there weren't any. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Good place to read many interesting discussion about this subject matter is this forum here:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/46825

You will note that there are many highly appreciated writers (historians) on that forum. Here is a one thread about the Mustang kills, and difficulty of identifying aircraft in the heat of the battle.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=46825&messageid=1063572662


-jippo
LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

F19_Ob
06-07-2004, 11:56 AM
Thnx for the link Jippo. Its interesting that this discussion is still alive.
I often have to review my knowledge and I've discovered that warhistory is really a mess.

Lets see if they sort it out. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Korolov
06-07-2004, 12:01 PM
The 109s were always good turners in the game. They aren't as good as the VVS fighters, but they definately beat the snot out of USAAF fighters in the turn department. Which is why nobody should turn with them.

Turning isn't as important in a fight, IMO. It's better to have better diving capabilities and climb ability.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

faustnik
06-07-2004, 12:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:

Turning isn't as important in a fight, IMO. It's better to have better diving capabilities and climb ability.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Korolov is right as usual, just add top end speed to the list of desired characteristics and you're home free. Turning is a waste of energy. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

Brain32
06-07-2004, 01:10 PM
Oh, another (''I got my *** kicked by Germans and now I'm frustrated'') WHINER!!!
Please read some historic plane refrences before posting silly treads filled with frustration like this!

JG7_Rall
06-07-2004, 01:41 PM
I was wondering why my 109 didn't turn as well last night. Then I realized I ate a sandwich before I took off. I guess that accounts for it!

Do you REALLY think the mark 108's additional few kg's impact performance THAT much!? You seem to think that because its more powerful, it must weigh so much more, when in fact it doesn't. It's just powerful. So get over it.

"Son, never ask a man if he is a fighter pilot. If he is, he'll let you know. If he isn't, don't embarrass him."
Badges!? We don't needs no stinkin' badges!

LuftLuver
06-07-2004, 01:41 PM
Jaws2002, http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Dang that was funny. Thanks for the laugh on a boring Monday M8!

NorrisMcwhateva, just goes to prove the .50cals are undermodeled a TON and the blues are simply laughing about it. Pathetic. And yes, the Spit with the killa 20mms is my new ride, be sure. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I be seein' 109, 110 and 190 tails falling off left and right. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

For the rest of you, into the fishlocker! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"All your bases are belong to us."

Skalgrim
06-07-2004, 01:49 PM
look of the la-7 with 3 20mm

keep in the mind, the lighter b-20 was first 45 use

so it means, we have la-7 with 3 shvak

but 3 shvak are more weigh as only 2 shvak,
so it should too inferior turn

think fb is not so accurate sim more a arcade game that make great fun,



therefore will such differ too not modell,



als expect not so many


.

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Mon June 07 2004 at 01:14 PM.]

Skalgrim
06-07-2004, 01:58 PM
.

Hunde_3.JG51
06-07-2004, 01:59 PM
Couldn't agree more with what faustnik said.

Also, am I missing something? I don't fly the 109's much but I thought the P-51's out-turned all of the late 109's from the G-6 up, and the P-51B/c could turn with the G-2 in 2.01? Like I said I may be wrong I'm just asking.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

KGr.HH-Sunburst
06-07-2004, 02:06 PM
all P51s with 25% fuel outturn late 109s IF the 109 has more then 25% fuel and that is almost 99% the case when flying on full switch servers

oh and the P51 25% outturns the G10/K4 even if they are flying on fumes

well nuff said in this troll thread

http://www.freewebs.com/fightingpumas/
http://img31.photobucket.com/albums/v94/sunburst/sigp51-D9.jpg
''All your Mustangs are belong to us''

NorrisMcWhirter
06-07-2004, 02:51 PM
Hi,

Indeed, this is troll-y enough to warrant checking out the cave for orc-swords.

I'll bite, though.

With respect to the Barnes Wallis .50s, I don't think they are any different than before..i.e. deadly in the hands of a poor shot. The reason why the LW pilots are amused (not laughing) is because they finally have their guns back to the correct strength and now nothing is more satisfying than watching a P-XX wiped out in a couple of shots when it used to take 5-6 before.

Cheers,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

Red_Storm
06-07-2004, 02:58 PM
The P-51 outturns the Bf-109 downlow, I've done tests with my squad leader and it's true. Now what does that make the P-51?

---
http://server6.uploadit.org/files/RedStorm-sig.JPG

Gibbage1
06-07-2004, 03:03 PM
Lol. Your funny. Any pilot would dread hearing even "Cesna 172! 6 High!" It does not apply to a BF. ANY ARMED AIRCRAFT POSES A THREAT WHEN THEY ARE ON YOUR HIGH 6! DUH!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VOL_Hans:

They don't realise that the real Bf-109 was a constant threat to the Allies. That every Allied P-51, 47, 38, Spit, whatever pilot would dread hearing "Messers! 6 High!" through his headphones.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Gibbage1
06-07-2004, 03:12 PM
It still takes 4-5 hits of 37MM to down a 109. It seems that the 109 has gotten more and more armor every patch. Ow how I remember the days when I could hose down a 109's engine and laugh when the prop stopped cold. Now I can sink 2 37MM shells into a coweling and it will generate a little smoke.

And dont even get me started on the spread of the .50 cal that cripples every Allied fighter that uses them. I have been watching a lot of D-Day guncam footage and its a LOT tighter then what we have in FB.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Hi,

Indeed, this is troll-y enough to warrant checking out the cave for orc-swords.

I'll bite, though.

With respect to the Barnes Wallis .50s, I don't think they are any different than before..i.e. deadly in the hands of a poor shot. The reason why the LW pilots are amused (not laughing) is because they finally have their guns back to the correct strength and now nothing is more satisfying than watching a P-XX wiped out in a couple of shots when it used to take 5-6 before.

Cheers,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
http://www.chavscum.co.uk
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

JG5_UnKle
06-07-2004, 03:18 PM
I think it is the NS37 that is undermodelled rather than the 109 armour.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
JG5 Main Site (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer)
Public Forum (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum)

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
06-07-2004, 03:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Red_Storm:
The P-51 outturns the Bf-109 downlow, I've done tests with my squad leader and it's true. Now what does that make the P-51?

---
http://server6.uploadit.org/files/RedStorm-sig.JPG <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hehe check: P-51 D Performance, or lack there of (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=506109634)

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/blacksheep.jpg

carguy_
06-07-2004, 03:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
It still takes 4-5 hits of 37MM to down a 109. It seems that the 109 has gotten more and more armor every patch. Ow how I remember the days when I could hose down a 109's engine and laugh when the prop stopped cold. Now I can sink 2 37MM shells into a coweling and it will generate a little smoke.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I wonder how many hrs have you flown the virtual Me109.Maybe you don`t know that few hits from whichever VVS/USAAF MGs,cannons cause every Me109 to quit the fight even if it can continue on flying.

Ofcourse this doesn`t apply for the AI.

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

NegativeGee
06-07-2004, 04:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
I think it is the NS37 that is undermodelled rather than the 109 armour.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That sounds familiar. IIRC many, many moons ago Oleg said the NS-37 had reduced performance (muzzle velocity?) compared to the data he had. He also said the MK-108 had increased muzzle velocity compared to the data they worked from.

Btw, I think Gibb may have been refering to the M4 cannon and not the NS-37.

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Günther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

Gibbage1
06-07-2004, 04:37 PM
Ya. I fly P-39 and P-63, not BC Yak's http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The Ns-37 is quite the 1 shot 1 kill gun. Very powerful and accurate. The M4 is far from it. But it will make you wish you were not hit thats for sure.

As for the guy above asking if I have flown 109's online, yes. I have. Servivability is rather low in it, because once your hit your performance degrades quite a bit. But it still takes people a wile to "wear" you down. I have hit 109's with 3 37MM's and countless .50 cal rounds and they flop around desperatly till the eventual final kill. My point is in WWII, 1 37MM hit would doom any aircraft, net alone 3 and have it still flying! I have read war reports of comfirmed 109 kills were pilots have expended only 40 rounds of .50 cal. The average was about 80-100 rounds for a 109 kill. Flying a P-47 in IL2 it takes almost 3x that. In the original IL2 109's would go down from a good spraying. Bf-109's do seem rather alergic too 20MM hispano's. But not .50 cal or 37MM. Takes a few of them pills to bring um down.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NegativeGee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
I think it is the NS37 that is undermodelled rather than the 109 armour.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That sounds familiar. IIRC many, many moons ago Oleg said the NS-37 had reduced performance (muzzle velocity?) compared to the data he had. He also said the MK-108 had increased muzzle velocity compared to the data they worked from.

Btw, I think Gibb may have been refering to the M4 cannon and not the NS-37.

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Günther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

crazyivan1970
06-07-2004, 04:49 PM
P-51 Outturns 109? I gotta see this one. Please invite me next time http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Even K4... If you come across experianced 109 jock, good luck outturning him in the pony, no matter what year it is http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

As far as 37mm goes, it`s an issue with 37mm and hopefully it will be resolved in the upcoming patch. 109 is one of the weakest in the game, without doubt... Problem is, alot of people jam on it and hold that trigger, not even realizing that 90% of ammo didn`t hit the damn thing. Try very short bursts, does wonders.

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

Gibbage1
06-07-2004, 05:10 PM
Lol. I will try to post some screenshots of me hitting a 109 with arcade mode on. Looks like a pin cushion, but a flying one. I had one were you can see 3 37MM hits (1 on each wing, and one right on the head of the pilot) and riddled it with .50 cal's and it was still flying.

Its funny how some AC that you expect to be rather weak like the 109 can absorb lots of damage, and others like the P-47 are disabled in 1 7.62MM hit. We call those "Olegism's". And yes, I have tracks and screenshots to back up my claim of 1 7.62 disabling a P-47 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif And it happens a LOT. I can honestly say that the 109 can take a lot more small cal rounds then the P-47, and thats just wrong no matter what side you fly. Luftwhiner or Ameriwhiner.

But along the subject, I do agree the Mk-108 should not effect flight as much as some people wish. It was a very light gun! But the recoil, spread, and low velocity made it a poor fighter-2-fighter gun. Thats why it was used mainly on bombers, and escorts were still armed with Mg 151/20. Nobody in the Luftwaffa would EVER have had said "Im going to be dogfighting P-51's today. Slap a Mk 108 or 3 on there!". That stuff was RESURVED for B-17's. But in IL2 almost every 109 flying had the Mk-108's on it. I also see a lot of gunpods out there.

Is it me, or do the Gunpods not hinder performance as much as the did? There seems to be a recent surge in gunpod usage, and I used to think they were "easy meet". Now it seems they are turning and flying just as fast as 109's without them!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Problem is, alot of people jam on it and hold that trigger, not even realizing that 90% of ammo didn`t hit the damn thing. Try very short bursts, does wonders.

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Hunde_3.JG51
06-07-2004, 05:26 PM
Ok, now I am confused.

Like I said I don't fly the 109 much (or turn much, I only fly 109E and F-4 and I also use them as I would my FW-190), but I thought most people are saying that the P-51D can out-turn the 109G-14, G-6, and G-6A/S now, whereas before it was the other way around? I thought P-51B out-turns G-6 and above and turns with G-2? Doesn't P-51B out-turn Spitfire IX also?

I'm just going by what everyone is saying. According to that IL-2 compare thing the P-51 out-turns (with combat flaps) all 109's (with flaps also) from G-6 and above easily.

So who is right?

I'm not that concerned about it, just curious as opinions seem much different. If I am turning more than even a little bit, I am trying to scrub off speed for landing http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

LeadSpitter_
06-07-2004, 05:28 PM
The 108s are still extremely accurate at 1000m and holding down the trigger does such a tight pattern that its so easy to get hits at range but at least the 108 arcs a bit at 1000m so you just aim slightly higher. From everything I read about the 108 cannon it was extremely powerful equivelent to a potato masher grenade in explosion, But very difficult to aim at distance and against fighters. It was ment as a bomber killer.

The vvs aircraft are straight lazerbeam accuracy at 1000m with no decline, and .50 cal disapear at 400m but the .303 tracer fire doesnt and reaches around 800m.

I find german and russian cannon to be more accurate then smg at range which should not be the case. but the p39 yak9t and p63 are incrediably difficult to hit fighters with from thier close range decline in arc.

Fly the g6 without the 108 cannon it makes a huge difference in a combat turn

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

Bastables
06-07-2004, 05:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Lol. I will try to post some screenshots of me hitting a 109 with arcade mode on. Looks like a pin cushion, but a flying one. I had one were you can see 3 37MM hits (1 on each wing, and one right on the head of the pilot) and riddled it with .50 cal's and it was still flying.

Its funny how some AC that you expect to be rather weak like the 109 can absorb lots of damage, and others like the P-47 are disabled in 1 7.62MM hit. We call those "Olegism's". And yes, I have tracks and screenshots to back up my claim of 1 7.62 disabling a P-47 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif And it happens a LOT. I can honestly say that the 109 can take a lot more small cal rounds then the P-47, and thats just wrong no matter what side you fly. Luftwhiner or Ameriwhiner.

But along the subject, I do agree the Mk-108 should not effect flight as much as some people wish. It was a very light gun! But the recoil, spread, and low velocity made it a poor fighter-2-fighter gun. Thats why it was used mainly on bombers, and escorts were still armed with Mg 151/20. Nobody in the Luftwaffa would EVER have had said "Im going to be dogfighting P-51's today. Slap a Mk 108 or 3 on there!". That stuff was RESURVED for B-17's. But in IL2 almost every 109 flying had the Mk-108's on it. I also see a lot of gunpods out there.

Is it me, or do the Gunpods not hinder performance as much as the did? There seems to be a recent surge in gunpod usage, and I used to think they were "easy meet". Now it seems they are turning and flying just as fast as 109's without them!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Problem is, alot of people jam on it and hold that trigger, not even realizing that 90% of ammo didn`t hit the damn thing. Try very short bursts, does wonders.

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What, the usual a load gibbage of cobblers?.

G6/AS and G 14/AS, which were reserved for the high altitude anti fighter gruppe?s and stab?s where armed with MK108 3cm cannons

I have tracks of 109s knocked down with single magic 7,62mm?

In August of 1944, he moved on to train in the Me109G Gustav. This training included gunnery practice. With a minimum of instrument training, Gottfried was cleared for combat. He and a handful of fellow graduates were assigned to Jagdgeschwader 53 ?Pik As?, stationed near Aachen, Northwest Germany. Their assignment there was to engage the escort fighters of the waves of U.S. B-17?s in order to allow neighboring Focke Wulf 190 units to attack the bombers themselves.
Gottfried was considered a newcomer, referred to by his elder pilots as a ?Haes-chen?, or ?Little Rabbit?. As such, he was assigned to be an observer of tactics. During one of these early missions, the pilot of a British Spitfire took him for easy prey. However, after a 15-minute dogfight, Gottfried disabled the Spit, forcing the pilot to bail out. The English pilot parachuted down near the JG53 base and was taken prisoner. Leutnant Gottfried Dulias and Leftenant Fred Browning had the opportunity to discuss the dogfight and the fliers? life in general. Gottfried commented that he believed that it was the superiority of his plane and not necessarily his skill that earned him this first victory.

faustnik
06-07-2004, 05:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
If I am turning more than even a little bit, I am trying to scrub off speed for landing http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point! I forgot about that, there is a time to turn. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

Gibbage1
06-07-2004, 06:09 PM
Its more acceptable for a 109 to be taken down by a single 7.62 then a P-47. The DB engine was extreamly complex and extreamly vulnerable as all V engines were. The P-47 is legendary for its toughness. Were as a few 7.62 taking down a 109 is a rarity at BEST, its all too common for it to take down a P-47.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables:
I have tracks of 109s knocked down with single magic 7,62mm?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Magister__Ludi
06-07-2004, 06:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Its more acceptable for a 109 to be taken down by a single 7.62 then a P-47. The DB engine was extreamly complex and extreamly vulnerable as all V engines were. The P-47 is legendary for its toughness. Were as a few 7.62 taking down a 109 is a rarity at BEST, its all too common for it to take down a P-47.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables:
I have tracks of 109s knocked down with single magic 7,62mm?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


A hit in the engine does the same amount of damage regarless that is V engine or radial. The materials used for a V engine are as tough as the materials used for a radial. The only difference is that cooling liquid will be lost soon in a liquid cooled engine, making the engine quit in about 10 minutes, whereas with an radial, if the oil leak is not significant you have a good chance of reaching home (30% chance - figure from an USN survey made in 1944 on 500 damaged radial engine fighters and carrier bombers). Keep in mind that "reaching home" does not mean that you are still able to fight with this plane!

P-47 does not have anything special in regard to it's toughness, except that it was large and able to take slightly more punishment. It actually carried less armour grade steel than many other fighter planes.

Currently in the game a single MG hit can easily set on fire a DB605. I get that 50% of the time. Just try in QMB to fly Bf-110G-2 against 4 B-25J, see what happens. Bf-110G was highly successful bomber destroyer in '43, before USAAF bomber got escort over Germany. There is no mention of a special weakness with the DB605 engines of Bf-110G in such bomber intercept missions. Maybe in 2 out of 10 I can down one B-25 without destroying my engines. Against B-17 is even worse. DB605 ignites with just a couple of hits.

Magister__Ludi
06-07-2004, 06:31 PM
Also Gib you claim that it takes 4-5 37mm hits to down a Bf-109. I never ever saw such a thing. You have to post tracks to back this claim (2 tracks would be enough for me).

Magister__Ludi
06-07-2004, 06:36 PM
One thing more. This thread has lived past its usefulness and should be closed. There is not a single mention in the literature that Mk108 deteriorated the handling of Bf-109. Also it was shown that Mk108 brought only 20kg more in the nose (and this sometimes improves the handling). From a performance point of view 20kg more weight compared to Bf-109 total weight is insignificant.

Gibbage1
06-07-2004, 06:46 PM
Your incorrect. A radial engine WILL take more damage then a V engine because it has more redundancy, less components, and less systems. There are many story's of P-47's and F4F's that had many cylinders blown off and still run. You put a bullete into the valve cover of a V and you take that hole side, not just 1 cylinder. All US bombers and all US Navy aircraft were built with cylinder engines because they were more reliable, could take greater punishment, and did not have a vulnerable cooling system. There is NO WAY you can convince me that a V-12 can take just as much damage as a big 18 cylinder P&W R-2800. One of the reasons the P-47 and B-17 were so legendary in the ammount of damage they could take was the engine.

Also, a 13,000lb aircraft will take a LOT more damage then a 7500lb aircraft simply because of size, not just armor. But the P-47 did have more armor plate then the 109. The 109 had 11 mm plane in the back behind the pilot. P-47 had it in the back, sides, under the pilot and the engine itself was considered armor.

So even the notion that a Bf-109 is just as strong or able to take as much damage as a P-47 is rather laughable.

P.S. Steele is not the only type of armor.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
A hit in the engine does the same amount of damage regarless that is V engine or radial. The materials used for a V engine are as tough as the materials used for a radial. The only difference is that cooling liquid will be lost soon in a liquid cooled engine, making the engine quit in about 10 minutes, whereas with an radial, if the oil leak is not significant you have a good chance of reaching home (30% chance - figure from an USN survey made in 1944 on 500 damaged radial engine fighters and carrier bombers). Keep in mind that "reaching home" does not mean that you are still able to fight with this plane!

P-47 does not have anything special in regard to it's toughness, except that it was large and able to take slightly more punishment. It carried less armour grade steel than many other fighter planes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

LEXX_Luthor
06-07-2004, 07:17 PM
Hunde:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Ok, now I am confused.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>mmm, me too. Neither were the greatest turn fighters. Both were among greatest BnZ fighters. I think the confusion comes from people claiming their favorite BnZ plane cannot out-turn somebody else' favorite BnZ plane.

This is what happens when you don't provide a super active immersive frontline battlefield environment generator. If all they do now is Whine about turning comparison between BnZ Poni and late WAR Fb109, Oleg's FM is probably spot on perfect. Now all Moscow must do is put out a onwhine and offwhine frontline battlefield generator so flight simmers have something to do.


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Magister__Ludi
06-07-2004, 07:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Your incorrect. A radial engine WILL take more damage then a V engine because it has more redundancy, less components, and less systems.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong. A radial from the same generation of engines has the same complexity with a V engine. Jumo222 radials were extremely complex engines. So were the much well known BMW-801. They had every single innovation found on other German V engines. The turbosupercharged version of BMW-801 was extremely complex though small and light (compared with American turbosupercharged radials). American testers found it very reliable, but complained about the difficulty to maintain such a complex engine (LW had completely different engine maintainance procedures than the Allies, all LW engines were supposed to be capable of fast and easy replacement with overhauled engines, maintainance was not done on the aircraft but on special barracks present on each airfield).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
There are many story's of P-47's and F4F's that had many cylinders blown off and still run. You put a bullete into the valve cover of a V and you take that hole side, not just 1 cylinder. All US bombers and all US Navy aircraft were built with cylinder engines because they were more reliable, could take greater punishment, and did not have a vulnerable cooling system. There is NO WAY you can convince me that a V-12 can take just as much damage as a big 18 cylinder P&W R-2800. One of the reasons the P-47 and B-17 were so legendary in the ammount of damage they could take was the engine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A V engine does not stop when hit (unless the shaft itselt is hit). There were instances when a blown off cylinders brought down the whole cylinder bank but most of the time the V engines quit when hit only after they lost the cooling liquid.

But regardless of that when hit both radials and V engines loose about the same amount of power.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Also, a 13,000lb aircraft will take a LOT more damage then a 7500lb aircraft simply because of size, not just armor. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A 13000lb aircraft will take more damage than a 7500lb aircraft, but a LOT more??? what's a LOT more?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
But the P-47 did have more armor plate then the 109. The 109 had 11 mm plane in the back behind the pilot. P-47 had it in the back, sides, under the pilot and the engine itself was considered armor.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


P-47 did not have any armor on sides of the cockpit! Where did you read this cr@p? P-47 seat was armored. Radial engines do not provide enough protection for the pilot, the bullets can easily go through the cylinder rows of a radial. That's why P-47 had an armored firewall - to protect the pilot. Basically there were 3 places with armor on P-47: seat, firewall and another one that I don't remember now, it's possible to be the head rest of the seat, I'll look when I'll arive at home. This is very much less than what you can see on German planes, and I don't speak of Sturmbock Fw-190, but regular Bf-109s and Fw-190s, I can enumerate the places when I'll get home.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
So even the notion that a Bf-109 is just as strong or able to take as much damage as a P-47 is rather laughable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said such a thing. A P-47 could problably take 30% more 20mm hits than a regular Fw-190A. But a heavy caliber weapon like Mk108 was an instant equalizer. 1 hit was enough for both of them, 2 if very lucky. Now I have to hammer the P-51D 6-7 times to down it (it explodes), 4-5 hits is not enough for P-51 though in real life it was enough for a B-17! I did not try on P-47, I haven't got the courage, who knows what I will find out?

And how about those tracks with Bf-109 hit 4 times with 37mm shells that did not want to go down?

plumps_
06-07-2004, 08:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
The 108s are still extremely accurate at 1000m and holding down the trigger does such a tight pattern that its so easy to get hits at range but at least the 108 arcs a bit at 1000m so you just aim slightly higher. From everything I read about the 108 cannon it was extremely powerful equivelent to a potato masher grenade in explosion, But very difficult to aim at distance and against fighters. It was ment as a bomber killer.

The vvs aircraft are straight lazerbeam accuracy at 1000m with no decline, and .50 cal disapear at 400m but the .303 tracer fire doesnt and reaches around 800m.

I find german and russian cannon to be more accurate then smg at range which should not be the case. but the p39 yak9t and p63 are incrediably difficult to hit fighters with from thier close range decline in arc.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Old lies never seem to die...

The .50s disappear only at 1200 m. Maybe they're hard to see at daylight because their graphic representation is rather small compared to the green ShKas or the large MK 108.

The VVS bullets actually do decline just like all the others, simply watch their trajectory from gunsight view at darkness.

For all those who are interested in facts rather than ameriwhining please take a look at JTDs weapons test (http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/weapons.html) (IIRC for 1.21).

BTW. Here (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/leadspitter300.ntrk) is a track where I shoot down the Bf-109 of a certain :leadspitter: from about 300 m only with the .50s of my P-63.

-----------------------------------
http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/stulogo-banner.jpg (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/)

Gibbage1
06-07-2004, 08:15 PM
This shows how narrow minded your thinking is. Your entire logic is based on German engines and Luftwaffa aircraft. I never once mentioned German radials and I was VERY VERY SPACIFIC. I said a P&W R-2800 was much more durable then a standard V engine, and you bring in "No, because a German engine is not". Thats Luftwhiner logic http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I dont care how complex a turbosupercharged BMW engine is. ITS NOT IN A P-47 OR A B-17!!!!! Im not even going to bother with the rest of your post. We are getting so dragged off of subject its not even funny.

Gib

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

Wrong. A radial from the same generation of engines has the same complexity with a V engine. Jumo222 radials were extremely complex engines. So were the much well known BMW-801. They had every single innovation found on other German V engines. The turbosupercharged version of BMW-801 was extremely complex though small and light (compared with American turbosupercharged radials). American testers found it very reliable, but complained about the difficulty to maintain such a complex engine (LW had completely different engine maintainance procedures than the Allies, all LW engines were supposed to be capable of fast and easy replacement with overhauled engines, maintainance was not done on the aircraft but on special barracks present on each airfield).

[QUOTE]

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Magister__Ludi
06-07-2004, 08:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
This shows how narrow minded your thinking is. Your entire logic is based on German engines and Luftwaffa aircraft. I never once mentioned German radials and I was VERY VERY SPACIFIC. I said a P&W R-2800 was much more durable then a standard V engine, and you bring in "No, because a German engine is not". Thats Luftwhiner logic http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I dont care how complex a turbosupercharged BMW engine is. ITS NOT IN A P-47 OR A B-17!!!!! Im not even going to bother with the rest of your post. We are getting so dragged off of subject its not even funny.

Gib

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Oh well..

NegativeGee
06-07-2004, 08:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
The turbosupercharged version of BMW-801 was extremely complex though small and light
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Out of interest, exactly which particular turbosupercharged engine, as carried by what airplane are we refering to here?

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Günther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

Bastables
06-07-2004, 08:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Its more acceptable for a 109 to be taken down by a single 7.62 then a P-47. The DB engine was extreamly complex and extreamly vulnerable as all V engines were. The P-47 is legendary for its toughness. Were as a few 7.62 taking down a 109 is a rarity at BEST, its all too common for it to take down a P-47.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables:
I have tracks of 109s knocked down with single magic 7,62mm?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What a load of bollocks.
Even during the Spanish civil war the 7,62mm and 7,92mm guns were judged relatively ineffective by both sides with 1930s era planes, engines, and armour.

The Battle of Britain and France required the 8x303 armed RAF fighters to give good accurate 2 and 3-second bursts of fire to bring down the lighter armoured early 109 Emils. Even before the war the RAF was tinkering to make the hispanio reliable enough to mount in RAF fighters wings as opposed to the French engine mounts.

Russia with the best aircraft rifle calibre machine gun of the war dropped it pretty quickly when faced with 109s, upgrading to the 2cm (made in response to experience in 1930s Spain) and larger cannons as the war went on.

The 7,62mm/7,92mm was never a one shot= engine kill weapon (excluding golden bb scenarios), even in the 1930s.

Your ugly partisan nature seems to argue for increased ashistorical weakening of German inline engines: Where are the comparisons with other nations inline engines? As well as an increased toughness of p47 versus 7,62mm guns, in a word: malevolent. Only the P47 engine damage upgrade is required if it is actually true.

In August of 1944, he moved on to train in the Me109G Gustav. This training included gunnery practice. With a minimum of instrument training, Gottfried was cleared for combat. He and a handful of fellow graduates were assigned to Jagdgeschwader 53 ?Pik As?, stationed near Aachen, Northwest Germany. Their assignment there was to engage the escort fighters of the waves of U.S. B-17?s in order to allow neighboring Focke Wulf 190 units to attack the bombers themselves.
Gottfried was considered a newcomer, referred to by his elder pilots as a ?Haes-chen?, or ?Little Rabbit?. As such, he was assigned to be an observer of tactics. During one of these early missions, the pilot of a British Spitfire took him for easy prey. However, after a 15-minute dogfight, Gottfried disabled the Spit, forcing the pilot to bail out. The English pilot parachuted down near the JG53 base and was taken prisoner. Leutnant Gottfried Dulias and Leftenant Fred Browning had the opportunity to discuss the dogfight and the fliers? life in general. Gottfried commented that he believed that it was the superiority of his plane and not necessarily his skill that earned him this first victory.

Magister__Ludi
06-07-2004, 08:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NegativeGee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
The turbosupercharged version of BMW-801 was extremely complex though small and light
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Out of interest, exactly which particular turbosupercharged engine, as carried by what airplane are we refering to here?

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Günther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


BMW-801TJ for Ju-388. They were turbosupercharged engines ready for operational use from '43. I hope you did not buy that stupid story with Germany incapable of developing a turbosupercharged engine, blah blah

This engine was only slightly longer than a regular supercharged BMW-801, it was impressively compact for a turbosupercharged engine. They were not adopted for FW-190 simply because there was no fighting at high altitudes (higher than 8000m). Fw engineers (but also RLM planners) thought that it is useless to decrease the performance of the plane at low and medium altitudes for a gain a high altitudes where nothing happened. In case that activity at high altitude would increase they redesigned the older GM-1 system to make it safer. There was no serial use of GM-1 systems with late aircraft either, but all late war fighter were designed for easy mounting of GM-1, which had operational status for all late Fw-190A and D, Ta-152 and even 109K.

crazyivan1970
06-07-2004, 08:56 PM
Gibb i don`t believe Ludi personally attacked you, so please stay civil. Disagreement is not a personal attack. This is how thread gets locked...

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

Gibbage1
06-07-2004, 09:15 PM
Sorry. I was baffled how someone could say that because German engines were complex means the US radial engines were as vulnerable to damage as V engines. That logic still escapes me.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Gibb i don`t believe Ludi personally attacked you, so please stay civil. Disagreement is not a personal attack. This is how thread gets locked...

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Bull_dog_
06-07-2004, 09:38 PM
Back to the original thread...I was reading a new book I had and the book referenced the Fw-190A8 and specifically the Sturmvogel..or whatever (bomber buster).

There were no charts, but the book was specific in that the model was armored up and down...even the sides of the cockpit(to protect pilots from Bomber's defensive fire) and armed with 30mm wing cannons...the wing cannons would take down a B-17 with only 3 shots. The interesting part was that the book stated that while good at bomber busting, the extra weight made the plane no match for allied fighters if they encountered them.

I didn't read through the four pages of stuff, but I was wondering if the 109's rigged with the mk108 were similarly armored? They seem tougher to kill than the early models for sure. I got the impression that not only the cannon, but the extra armor penalized the flight performance of any aircraft so rigged.

Gib for you... starting on pg. 130, a narrative of advice from Russian Pilot Aleksandr Pokryshkin on dogfighting...read to pg. 132 and you'll see the following... "As for firepower, the essence of this component of the formula was its efficacy. You had to hit the enemy from close in, thus ensuring a good chance of hitting without wasting ammunition. The dispersal of bullets and shells at a range of 300 meters was at that time so great that only a few got home - and then without any penetrating power."

The article was on the plane of Sergei Dolgushin... the La-7

The book... Aircraft of the Aces - Legends of WW2 ... by Osprey Aviation. Interesting read.

Gibbage1
06-07-2004, 11:31 PM
The 190a8 was a bomber distroyer. I think that version was specifically designed for it. The 109 was not. The 109 therie matched closely to the Zero. Biggest possible engine in the smallest possible airframe. The pilot barely had room to squeeze in, you can forget about extra armor on the sides. The A series 190 were also lot more damage resistant then the D series because of its radial, and that shows in the game also. I dont think the 109 was a very good bomber intercepter, but when your desperate as the Luftwaffa was, you strap guns on anytihng and send it against the 1000 B-17's driving into Berlin. The Bf-110 was out-dated after BoB and some argue during Bob, but they were still throwing them up against B-17's in late 44 into 45.

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bull_dog_:
Back to the original thread...I was reading a new book I had and the book referenced the Fw-190A8 and specifically the Sturmvogel..or whatever (bomber buster).

There were no charts, but the book was specific in that the model was armored up and down...even the sides of the cockpit(to protect pilots from Bomber's defensive fire) and armed with 30mm wing cannons...the wing cannons would take down a B-17 with only 3 shots. The interesting part was that the book stated that while good at bomber busting, the extra weight made the plane no match for allied fighters if they encountered them.

I didn't read through the four pages of stuff, but I was wondering if the 109's rigged with the mk108 were similarly armored? They seem tougher to kill than the early models for sure. I got the impression that not only the cannon, but the extra armor penalized the flight performance of any aircraft so rigged.

Gib for you... starting on pg. 130, a narrative of advice from Russian Pilot Aleksandr Pokryshkin on dogfighting...read to pg. 132 and you'll see the following... "As for firepower, the essence of this component of the formula was its efficacy. You had to hit the enemy from close in, thus ensuring a good chance of hitting without wasting ammunition. The dispersal of bullets and shells at a range of 300 meters was at that time so great that only a few got home - and then without any penetrating power."

The article was on the plane of Sergei Dolgushin... the La-7

The book... Aircraft of the Aces - Legends of WW2 ... by Osprey Aviation. Interesting read.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Bastables
06-08-2004, 12:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The 190a8 was a bomber distroyer. I think that version was specifically designed for it. The 109 was not. The 109 therie matched closely to the Zero. Biggest possible engine in the smallest possible airframe. The pilot barely had room to squeeze in, you can forget about extra armor on the sides. The A series 190 were also lot more damage resistant then the D series because of its radial, and that shows in the game also. I dont think the 109 was a very good bomber intercepter, but when your desperate as the Luftwaffa was, you strap guns on anytihng and send it against the 1000 B-17's driving into Berlin. The Bf-110 was out-dated after BoB and some argue during Bob, but they were still throwing them up against B-17's in late 44 into 45.

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bull_dog_:
Back to the original thread...I was reading a new book I had and the book referenced the Fw-190A8 and specifically the Sturmvogel..or whatever (bomber buster).

There were no charts, but the book was specific in that the model was armored up and down...even the sides of the cockpit(to protect pilots from Bomber's defensive fire) and armed with 30mm wing cannons...the wing cannons would take down a B-17 with only 3 shots. The interesting part was that the book stated that while good at bomber busting, the extra weight made the plane no match for allied fighters if they encountered them.

I didn't read through the four pages of stuff, but I was wondering if the 109's rigged with the mk108 were similarly armored? They seem tougher to kill than the early models for sure. I got the impression that not only the cannon, but the extra armor penalized the flight performance of any aircraft so rigged.

Gib for you... starting on pg. 130, a narrative of advice from Russian Pilot Aleksandr Pokryshkin on dogfighting...read to pg. 132 and you'll see the following... "As for firepower, the essence of this component of the formula was its efficacy. You had to hit the enemy from close in, thus ensuring a good chance of hitting without wasting ammunition. The dispersal of bullets and shells at a range of 300 meters was at that time so great that only a few got home - and then without any penetrating power."

The article was on the plane of Sergei Dolgushin... the La-7

The book... Aircraft of the Aces - Legends of WW2 ... by Osprey Aviation. Interesting read.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>More stuff pulled out of your hat and treated as fact.

Fw190A8 was a fighter
Fw190A8/R8 was the modified bomber destroyer with the 3cm cannon and additional armour.

In August of 1944, he moved on to train in the Me109G Gustav. This training included gunnery practice. With a minimum of instrument training, Gottfried was cleared for combat. He and a handful of fellow graduates were assigned to Jagdgeschwader 53 ?Pik As?, stationed near Aachen, Northwest Germany. Their assignment there was to engage the escort fighters of the waves of U.S. B-17?s in order to allow neighboring Focke Wulf 190 units to attack the bombers themselves.
Gottfried was considered a newcomer, referred to by his elder pilots as a ?Haes-chen?, or ?Little Rabbit?. As such, he was assigned to be an observer of tactics. During one of these early missions, the pilot of a British Spitfire took him for easy prey. However, after a 15-minute dogfight, Gottfried disabled the Spit, forcing the pilot to bail out. The English pilot parachuted down near the JG53 base and was taken prisoner. Leutnant Gottfried Dulias and Leftenant Fred Browning had the opportunity to discuss the dogfight and the fliers? life in general. Gottfried commented that he believed that it was the superiority of his plane and not necessarily his skill that earned him this first victory.

Bastables
06-08-2004, 01:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bull_dog_:


I didn't read through the four pages of stuff, but I was wondering if the 109's rigged with the mk108 were similarly armored? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In a word: No.

In August of 1944, he moved on to train in the Me109G Gustav. This training included gunnery practice. With a minimum of instrument training, Gottfried was cleared for combat. He and a handful of fellow graduates were assigned to Jagdgeschwader 53 ?Pik As?, stationed near Aachen, Northwest Germany. Their assignment there was to engage the escort fighters of the waves of U.S. B-17?s in order to allow neighboring Focke Wulf 190 units to attack the bombers themselves.
Gottfried was considered a newcomer, referred to by his elder pilots as a ?Haes-chen?, or ?Little Rabbit?. As such, he was assigned to be an observer of tactics. During one of these early missions, the pilot of a British Spitfire took him for easy prey. However, after a 15-minute dogfight, Gottfried disabled the Spit, forcing the pilot to bail out. The English pilot parachuted down near the JG53 base and was taken prisoner. Leutnant Gottfried Dulias and Leftenant Fred Browning had the opportunity to discuss the dogfight and the fliers? life in general. Gottfried commented that he believed that it was the superiority of his plane and not necessarily his skill that earned him this first victory.

LuftLuver
06-08-2004, 02:26 AM
First of all Gibbage is right. LW planes can withstand 3 x 37mm hits. That is just plain funny.


.50cal dispersion is a JOKE. Take a P47 and try to shoot out a light AAA gun. (you know, the pedastel mount). The bullets go right around it. Try it in a Yak3. Laser accuracy. BOOM
This is the Oleg & 1C way to lessen the US aircraft and NASCAR the game.

Now I read that a 190 should turn better than a 109?

"The Mustang was 50 mph faster than the Luftwaffe . The Mustang had between 3000 and 4000 lbs. more weight, and so was able to outdive either German plane. The tightness of its turns were much better than the Me-109 and slightly better than the FW-190." (Yes this is a P51H. But my interest is the comparison between 190 and 109.) The 109 turns too easy, the 190 not easy enough.

Full page on P51H (http://nasaui.ited.uidaho.edu/nasaspark/safety/types/P51H.htm)

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"All your bases are belong to us."

JG5_UnKle
06-08-2004, 02:55 AM
LOL I love this place http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

If I'm having a bad day at work there is always somebody more p1ssed off, and usually much more stupid than me here.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
JG5 Main Site (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer)
Public Forum (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum)

F19_Ob
06-08-2004, 03:01 AM
As I remember, it was standard tactic to dive vertical in the 109 if u had a p51 on U'r tail because if the p51 followed in the same manner his wings would come off.
The finns dived away from their russian buddies too and had already discovered it was possible to cross the red line for safe speed quite a lot. The russians wouldnt follow either. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

BBB_Hyperion
06-08-2004, 03:59 AM
First of all gun Effects are wrong in FB AEP. ALL. i described that in detail on another topic.

The 37 mm is far too weak and the 108 too only to mention some examples. This goes through all guns with explosives as well as ap rounds (For example Armor pentration from Stuka ju87g or il2m)

Why this is so ?

Because the objects(Planes) only have trigger zones.

The Damage is shown in different Stages different textures in this case but that is not the real damage its only a indicator.

On explosive rounds
The calculations that are done you can look up with arcade mode then you see every arrow that points into a direction from the explosion. The explosion itself however pressure burst effect from given tnt(equivalent is missing) seems to have no effect at all. There is no deforming of plane parts.

You see a hit of a 37 mm shell right 1 pixel above the cockpit but no optical effect nor a injured or dead pilot. Ap round you think and on next round same effect .)

Good examples for this are 37 mm vs he111 back fuselage section or mk108 vs p63 middle section etc etc.

@Luftlover
The 109 (had slats deploying on low speed increase cl) should indeed have better turnrate as the p51 at lower speed luftluver good point http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Along with that the 190 needs little uptuning too.
Or the obvious the p51 needs downtuning low speed turnrate your choice .) You can easily check how laminar flow works and why it has problems on high aoa. On Highspeed turns the p51 should be better than the 109 but the 109 looses E faster than the p51 so it turns at lower speed with a higher angle / s rate while the p51 still flys a bigger circle cause of its good e keeping. Thats why the P51 is an excellent energy fighter but normaly not for turnfight.

Regards,
Hyperion

Fehler
06-08-2004, 04:43 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gibbage1:

And dont even get me started on the spread of the .50 cal that cripples every Allied fighter that uses them.

[QUOTE]

ROFL. I find the 50's quite adequate from both the receiving and giving end. But since I am disagreeing with you, perhaps that also equates to a personal attack? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

JG5_UnKle
06-08-2004, 04:43 AM
S! Hyperion

Glad someone can make sense of it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The recent "109 outturns Spit" argument is also similar as the 109 is losing energy fast and gaining angles, it isn't outturning the Spit sustained at all.

The Mustang now manages to outturn the spit at low speeds which is just wrong imho.

Also a good point made by Hyperion is that the visual DM "texture" does not always agree with the internal DM. A good way to test this is to fly with a friend and take nice well aimed shots at his/her aircraft. Use voice comms and you will clearly see the effect is different from the visual one.

Granted, when a wing comes away - you can be sure of a hit http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
JG5 Main Site (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer)
Public Forum (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum)

WUAF_Badsight
06-08-2004, 05:19 AM
another point .... visible convergence point never changes regardless on setting

althogh game might be makeing bullets converge at different points , the visible tracers stay converging at same point (tested with P-47)

now when HEI hit plane the visible DM might look fine ..... but the game MIGHT be taking the plane as heavy damadge

i do not know at all for sure if this is true

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Bill_Door
06-08-2004, 06:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
On explosive rounds
The calculations that are done you can look up with arcade mode then you see every arrow that points into a direction from the explosion. The explosion itself however pressure burst effect from given tnt(equivalent is missing) seems to have no effect at all. There is no deforming of plane parts.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is exactly the point! If you hit a plane in RL with a 108 or a 37 mm it would tear it in two parts. But in FB if none of the "arrows", representing the explosion, hits something critical, nothing happens.
One of the biggest weaknesses of FB.
You can try it in arcade mode and you see! Just hit a plane with the 108 right in the cockpit. If the arrows misses the pilot (they do 1 in 3 times imo), everything is fine. I dont even won't to think about the consequences for a real pilot.

NorrisMcWhirter
06-08-2004, 06:34 AM
Hi,

Oh, boo hoo - the US planes are porked....supposedly...

The 109 is far from an armoured plane and anyone who flies it regularly will tell you that a short burst of .50 is certainly enough to disable it from further combat usefulness. It may not explode/break up but it certainly won't be in a state to be troubling you anymore.

This is far removed from pre v2.01 where numerous 30mm hits would see US planes flying away with fuel leaks. As I've said before, I've done a few offline tests and found that:

a. The P51 can be taken down with a burst of 13mm mg fire to the engine. 1-2 30mm hits is normally enough to smash it into two.

b. I've never experienced disabling a P47 through machine gun fire but it does appear to take anywhere between 2-6 30mm hits.

Online play appears to increase the number of hits required but then I have a crappy 56k connection and it's probable that all my indicated hits are not actually being counted.

Flying in VEF last night found me sprayed for a short time (&lt;.5s) by an La5 which was enough to damage the engine/cause a fuel leak/smash the cockpit and wound me all in one go.

Hardly sounds like being too strong in the DM department.

I agree in some respects to the air-cooled radial engines being more reliable due to simplicity but I don't find that the P47's engine to be any less prone to damage than the FW190.

Furthermore, if I could be bothered to find it, I'd refer you to my previous post about anecdotal evidence, from the victors of the war, being used as a factual basis for statements such as, ' but the P47 could take a lot of damage .. ' etc. I'm sure it could take a lot of damage..it was well armoured, large and easy to hit so would appear to take a lot of mg fire with ease...but where is the pure, statistical evidence?

Cheers,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

JG5_UnKle
06-08-2004, 06:57 AM
Also the P-47's that didn't take so much damage, didn't come back......

So you end up with a few examples of aircraft soaking up tons of damage to non-critical areas and giving rise to these myths like "one P-47 came home with 200 hits! So they all should"

This goes for ALL aircraft, only used the Jug as an example http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
JG5 Main Site (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer)
Public Forum (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum)

NegativeGee
06-08-2004, 07:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
BMW-801TJ for Ju-388. They were turbosupercharged engines ready for operational use from '43. I hope you did not buy that stupid story with Germany incapable of developing a turbosupercharged engine, blah blah<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope you didn't think I would buy such a stupid, uniformed point of view http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This engine was only slightly longer than a regular supercharged BMW-801, it was impressively compact for a turbosupercharged engine. They were not adopted for FW-190 simply because there was no fighting at high altitudes (higher than 8000m). Fw engineers (but also RLM planners) thought that it is useless to decrease the performance of the plane at low and medium altitudes for a gain a high altitudes where nothing happened. In case that activity at high altitude would increase they redesigned the older GM-1 system to make it safer. There was no serial use of GM-1 systems with late aircraft either, but all late war fighter were designed for easy mounting of GM-1, which had operational status for all late Fw-190A and D, Ta-152 and even 109K.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 801 TJ was highly regarded in allied evaluations of captured Ju-388 after the war, and such reports did acknowledge the lack of knowledge the test crews had in the servicing of the advanced engine.

However, it is incorrect to say they were not adopted for use in the FW-190 series due to an abscence of combat at extreme altitude. The 801 TJ placed the turbosupercharging assembly directly behind the the engine itself within the radius of the engine cowl. Although the arrangement was very compact, it still resulted in an engine that was rather long and heavy to consider mounting on a FW-190 fighter. That was not a consideration for the enginners at BMW, who were concerned with an engine for use on a twin engined bomber.

Actual placements of turbosuperchargers on FW-190 type fighters adopted the same approach as is seen in the P-47 and B series onwards P-51's- the placement of the assembly in the middle of the fusleage, as seen in examples such as V15 and V18, although the engines in question are from the DB-603 series (the same is seen again with the DB-605 in the Me-309).

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Günther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

[This message was edited by NegativeGee on Tue June 08 2004 at 06:33 AM.]