PDA

View Full Version : Rediscovering the 109G - some questions about flying it



Haigotron
06-12-2006, 11:03 AM
Hey,

I usually get really frustrated with the later G variants, so I decided to go back to the E then move up to the F and now I started a new Dgen 109G6 campaign and I love flying it. I also love the feeling of knowing im in a better variant than the F and it feels natural to switch from the earlier to the later (kind of like in real life- cheers Oleg and gang).

Anyways some question about flying it (nothing about tactics, more mechanics and such)

1) is it me , or is there a tendancy to always apply rudder to center the ball? Is this also in RL?

2) I switch to Manual prop in landing situations (w/low power and high prop pitch) to better control my landing. But, I was curious to find out why the engine over revs if you're not careful if the prop pitch is 100% and the the power at 90. This seems like a normal power setting in other plane, and isnt the 100% prop pitch the setting with most air friction? So why does the engine spin too fast in those situations.

3) The leading edge strats : I read the Willy Messerschmitt book, and loved it - you guys have to read it, it dissects the 109 from beginning to end plus the 110 and 262 and the top secret america bomber...
The question, how do those strats work? Not in the sense of creating more surface area, but mechanically, how the hell did they create such a genius idea (i know the MiG also has it)...It baffles my mind...


4)Can i alter the conf.ini file for the lenght of the Dgen campaign, midway through my campaign (ive only play 5 missions and wanna reduce the lenght to very short)

Haigotron
06-12-2006, 11:03 AM
Hey,

I usually get really frustrated with the later G variants, so I decided to go back to the E then move up to the F and now I started a new Dgen 109G6 campaign and I love flying it. I also love the feeling of knowing im in a better variant than the F and it feels natural to switch from the earlier to the later (kind of like in real life- cheers Oleg and gang).

Anyways some question about flying it (nothing about tactics, more mechanics and such)

1) is it me , or is there a tendancy to always apply rudder to center the ball? Is this also in RL?

2) I switch to Manual prop in landing situations (w/low power and high prop pitch) to better control my landing. But, I was curious to find out why the engine over revs if you're not careful if the prop pitch is 100% and the the power at 90. This seems like a normal power setting in other plane, and isnt the 100% prop pitch the setting with most air friction? So why does the engine spin too fast in those situations.

3) The leading edge strats : I read the Willy Messerschmitt book, and loved it - you guys have to read it, it dissects the 109 from beginning to end plus the 110 and 262 and the top secret america bomber...
The question, how do those strats work? Not in the sense of creating more surface area, but mechanically, how the hell did they create such a genius idea (i know the MiG also has it)...It baffles my mind...


4)Can i alter the conf.ini file for the lenght of the Dgen campaign, midway through my campaign (ive only play 5 missions and wanna reduce the lenght to very short)

LEBillfish
06-12-2006, 11:18 AM
1. Drop throttle, prop pitch will compensate to keep somewhat the same speed so you can cruise....Though sadly most planes here never find that cruise condition.

2. You'll find you often run at 40-65% PP....I never shift to manual unless setting it to 40% first......Then rarely do it on a 109.

3. SLATS....SLATS!!....Not Strats, slots, ****s or a hundred other things they're called.....WHat they do is make the leading edge thicker, so the turbulance below the wing becomes more, giving more lift when you need it. I've read how allied test pilots would ease off when they extended, 109 pilots would ride them harder...Hence why 109's turned better for axis pilots then what they did in allied testing..........What's interesting is they are gravity driven. IOW, when the air resistance reduced enough they'd slide down simply on bearings....Very clever and simple, automatic.

4. no idea

Haigotron
06-12-2006, 11:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">SLATS....SLATS!!.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOLOL the funny thing is i stopped to look at that word when i typed it and said to myself...hmmmm is seems wrong..but whatever...i apologize to have incured your wrath Lebillifish...please spare my familly next time you strafe my block ( i live in montreal)

Thanks for the answers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

horseback
06-12-2006, 02:31 PM
Generally speaking, the 109 should be flown in the Auto Prop Pitch most of the time.

The 109 series had the rudder and aileron trim tabs bent to spec for cruise speed; if you're over or under cruise settings, you'll have to add aileron and rudder to compensate: a bit of left rudder for below, and a bit of right rudder for above.

This was why I opted for rudder pedals back in the original Il-2 Sturmovik days; using a twist-rudder, the back of my stick hand tended to cramp up a bit on long flights.

Hey, it was a good enough excuse that my ex-wife was diverted from her usual mindless opposition to me buying myself a 'toy.'

cheers

horseback

VW-IceFire
06-12-2006, 03:04 PM
A quick tip on the rudder stuff...if you tap the &lt; and &gt; buttons on the keyboard you can rudder over either way above or below cruising speed.

JG53Frankyboy
06-12-2006, 03:13 PM
about the propeller :
the Bf109 (like all german Daimler Benz driven planes in game) have no Constant Speed Propeller when you are on manual mode.
than you are controlling the propeller Blade angle directly. so, if you have 100% pitch, the angle has the lowest drag, so the engine will overrev.

ColoradoBBQ
06-12-2006, 04:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
1. Drop throttle, prop pitch will compensate to keep somewhat the same speed so you can cruise....Though sadly most planes here never find that cruise condition. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think it was ever possible to reach the ideal cruise conditions in those planes in real life without using a gentle pressure on the rudder. You got turbulence, changing atmospheric condtions, air pressure at different altitude, etc. I think it is there just to make sure the pilot doesn't get tired from pushing down hard on the rudder on long flights

slipBall
06-12-2006, 04:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hey, it was a good enough excuse that my ex-wife was diverted from her usual mindless opposition to me buying myself a 'toy.' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


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

WTE_Galway
06-12-2006, 04:57 PM
a good kick of right rudder is essential for good shooting in a 109 as well

or alternatively get used to centring the gunsight about a metre above the appropriate wingtop when shooting from behind http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I like the G2, it and the G6as are the sweetest G series to fly

Haigotron
06-13-2006, 07:45 AM
Thank you all, but does anyone have a clue about the conf.ini question?

Brain32
06-13-2006, 08:59 AM
Add this to the end of the Conf.ini
[DGen]
CampaignLength=VeryShort

Other optins are: Short, Medium, Long, VeryLong (VeryLong is default)

GH_Klingstroem
06-13-2006, 10:10 AM
Lebillfish is right that the slats operate automatically but they come out at a certain angle of attack(the angle with which the airflow strikes the wing) When this angle becomes higher the leading edge slats will come out and what you get then is a slot(the space between the slat and the wing) What this does is to reenergise the airflow. The air now is being sucked up through this slot at a faster speed(since air thats has to get through a narrow space will have to speed up, called the venturi effect) and this in turn re-energises the airflow over the wing and then gives more lift and high angle of attacks So without the slats the wing would stall at say 15-16 degrees but thanks to the slats the wing can now pull a few more degrees of AoA and delay the wingstall! Very clever but I think the 109 became very undstable with the slats as they very often came out when they werent supposed to and sometimes only on one wing with terrible results!
Hope that explains a bit!

slipBall
06-13-2006, 10:17 AM
GH_ Excellent explanation http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Haigotron
06-13-2006, 12:25 PM
wow yea, thats so cool, I always thought the air only passed above andbelow the slats, but never through the gap that opens, very ingenius...

thanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

brain32,do you know if I can change that once I've started a campaign? Im at mission 4 only, I know very short is around 20...will it work if i change it now?

WWMaxGunz
06-13-2006, 01:26 PM
Gunther Rall in interview said that phsst, slats come out you loosen the stick a little and
they go back in. But then what the heck does he know?

Yah you can get more AOA with slats. 109 wing is still a speed-oriented wing with high
induced drag at increased AOA (narrow and rectangular compared to turn-fighter design)
so you add a few degrees of AOA and the drag increases by the square of the difference
at the same speed.

The slats was there so the landing speed would not be insanely high. Hard enough with
the narrow carriage, try it without slats to hold the nose higher and slow the plane
down. SURE you can fly like that just like DF players will use flaps in turns and care
nothing about speed but the increased AOA is not free just like the stupid flaps and
you deserve to get picked off by fast compared-to-you movers.

IRL you die once. Ever read of Hartmann, Rall or Marseilles riding slats or flaps?
NO! They kept the speed. Slats out is a warning, not a look-for. DF is UNREAL.

WWMaxGunz
06-13-2006, 01:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Haigotron:
1) is it me , or is there a tendancy to always apply rudder to center the ball? Is this also in RL? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Galland and others that switched from 109's to 190's had a joke that Hartmann walked in
circles, one leg stronger than the other from constantly standing on the rudder.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">2) I switch to Manual prop in landing situations (w/low power and high prop pitch) to better control my landing. But, I was curious to find out why the engine over revs if you're not careful if the prop pitch is 100% and the the power at 90. This seems like a normal power setting in other plane, and isnt the 100% prop pitch the setting with most air friction? So why does the engine spin too fast in those situations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Drop power or pitch. Why 90% power when approaching landing? You want low power but high
rpm in case you have to go around the revs are already up. Low power because when landing
you control speed with pitch and alt with power unless you get too slow and into control
reversal. Know your stall speeds both clean and dirty by practice (it is where you start
losing alt not wing drop or spin) and stay above by 30% on approach. Don't forget if you
do go around that adding power quick you have to counter the torque.

Xiolablu3
06-13-2006, 01:41 PM
I too dont like the later 109's. Specifically the G10/G14/K. I am guessing that its the Mk108 which is the main reason for its nose heaviness as the 109G6A/S (which is really a later 109G14A/S) doesnt have the Mk108 and is much more light to handle.

Another reason I dont like the later 109s is becasue they are very capable of going fast, but not very capable of turning/rolling once they ARE fast. Fighting late war planes in late 109's is frutrating because of the slow roll and compressibility at very high speeds.

I dont particularly like the 106G6 or 109G6 late either. I am leaning towards a FW190 once we get to these later 109's, purely because its so great at turning/rolling at high speed compared to the Gustav.

I love the 109E/109F and 109G2. But anything later (except the 109G6/AS) feels like its lost its potency in manouvrability for me. I love flying 109F4's vs Spitfire V's in game. The 109F is just so much more powerful and is a dream to fly.

PS I never use prop pitch for anything and I find take offs and landings easy in the 109, even with a 500k bomb on. The FW190 is so much harder to take off, esp with bomb.

slipBall
06-13-2006, 04:29 PM
Hi Haigotron, I got a great link for you, it's been awhile since I last went through it. I remember it being very interesting. When I originaly read it, I remember that the Fin 109 pilots were instructed to come in fast for landing, I think in this link, I might have read that elsewhere. I was a little surprised to read that so I tried it. I have been landing ever since at 210, E4, F2 mainly what I fly.For me it means smoother, less bounce, than at a slower speed. But, thats just me, and I am use to it. Anyway I hope you enjoy the read if you have'nt already had found it on your own.
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/

Haigotron
06-13-2006, 04:39 PM
awesome link , thanks slipball http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

xiolablu3, yea, that's what I think also about the later variants, it seems something is keeping it back, you cleared that up thanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

wwmaxgunz, agreed with you, i didnt think of the 90% @ landing,
it makes my argument completely false

WTE_Galway
06-13-2006, 05:15 PM
one thing we do not get modelled in game is the sound of the slats opening and closing .. apparently they made a humungous loud bang every time it happened

carguy_
06-13-2006, 05:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I too dont like the later 109's. Specifically the G10/G14/K. I am guessing that its the Mk108 which is the main reason for its nose heaviness as the 109G6A/S (which is really a later 109G14A/S) doesnt have the Mk108 and is much more light to handle. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well there wasn`t much of a weight difference between MK108:MG151/20 loadouts,approximately 20kg.That`s nothing for performance of a few tons aircraft.
The nose heaviness is indeed noticable on the MK108 equipped planes,good examples being the G6/AS and G6late which have the option.
One thing tells me is that difference is 4.05m modelled is about 50-80kg although I don`t have any idea as to how prove it.

Anyway,the G2 also feels very heavy for me.Like a Tempest.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Another reason I dont like the later 109s is becasue they are very capable of going fast, but not very capable of turning/rolling once they ARE fast. Fighting late war planes in late 109's is frutrating because of the slow roll and compressibility at very high speeds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There you have it,a performance of a slightly obsolete airframe based on 30s knowledge proved to be quite inadequate for fast flying.In real life the controls were heavy in a gradual way.The stick stiffness occured starting @450kph and was getting heavier until almost cement @730kph.In game we have about same heaviness at those two speeds.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I dont particularly like the 106G6 or 109G6 late either. I am leaning towards a FW190 once we get to these later 109's, purely because its so great at turning/rolling at high speed compared to the Gustav. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The G6 is quite a **** since it has no rear view and the engine is too weak for that kind of weight and airframe.A clearly underpowered aircraft.


G6late feels lighter and is also more powerfull.Erla Haube canopy makes it very dangerous against opponents that mostly down the earlier variant easily.

Haigotron
06-13-2006, 05:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">one thing we do not get modelled in game is the sound of the slats opening and closing .. apparently they made a humungous loud bang every time it happened </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

alas, i thought i was the only one who couldnt hear it, i would turn off my engine, and glide down, making sharp climbs and turns...but nothing would sound...

Ratsack
06-13-2006, 09:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Haigotron:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">one thing we do not get modelled in game is the sound of the slats opening and closing .. apparently they made a humungous loud bang every time it happened </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

alas, i thought i was the only one who couldnt hear it, i would turn off my engine, and glide down, making sharp climbs and turns...but nothing would sound... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OT, I know, but the other thing that's not modelled is the sound of superchargers changing gear. Apparently there was not just a sound, but a tangible bump when the Fw190A's supercharger went into high gear. Mustang and Spit IX pilots also report that the two-stage, two-speed Merlins made an almighty THUMP when they changed gears. I read one pilot account where he was taking a pony for a joy ride and was day dreaming in the climb. It gave him such a fright when the Merlin clicked over to FS gear that it was just about brown trousers time. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif


cheers,
Ratsack

Haigotron
06-14-2006, 09:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">modelled is the sound of superchargers changing gear </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didnt even knew that!

Awesome! I hope they change that in BoB

Xiolablu3
06-15-2006, 05:41 AM
What makes the 109G6 so much heavier and worse performing than the 109G2?

I am guessing at more armour and the 2x.50's instead of the .30's, but I dont know for sure.

I cant really see why the 109G6 should be THAT much worse off than the 109G2? Did they add a lot of other stuff?

alert_1
06-15-2006, 05:55 AM
Me109G6 had only about 50kg more "stuff" then Me109G2 (bigger wheels, MG131/13 instead of Mg17 and that was it). Later G6 might have wooden tail that add some weight but vanilla G6 (1943) was as good dogfihter as G2 (ask Hartmann when in doubt...)

Brain32
06-15-2006, 06:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The stick stiffness occured starting @450kph and was getting heavier until almost cement @730kph.In game we have about same heaviness at those two speeds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, we have cement mode all the way.

Kurfurst__
06-15-2006, 08:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
What makes the 109G6 so much heavier and worse performing than the 109G2?

I am guessing at more armour and the 2x.50's instead of the .30's, but I dont know for sure.

I cant really see why the 109G6 should be THAT much worse off than the 109G2? Did they add a lot of other stuff? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really. Apart from the HMGs, they were pretty much identical to late G-2s and G-4s - those also carried a new type radio and enlarged wheels. The guns themselves were barely heavier as well.. so I guess it's just a lot of small items, and at the time the G-6s came, some extra radio navigation systems were introduced - in some planes.

Officially the G-2 was some 3037kg, the G-6/trop 3143kg, but the latter is a trop variant with some 40kg worth extra stuff compared to the normal versions.

So it's a bit heavier and a bit draggier, but personally I believe production differencies between individual G-2s were greater than the 'official' specs G-2/G-6.

As for the stick forces, it's more of a case of simulation vs. RL. The sim allows only one hand's muscle power used on all planes. In real life there was nothing preventing helping pulling with your other arm.

Haigotron
06-15-2006, 05:10 PM
So is the general consensus - if you have a choice between 109Gs...or Fw190s...chose the later?

WWMaxGunz
06-15-2006, 05:21 PM
If you are going to make deflection shots at more than slight angles then 109 revi is more,
uhhhhhh, usuable.

Xiolablu3
06-16-2006, 09:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Haigotron:
So is the general consensus - if you have a choice between 109Gs...or Fw190s...chose the later? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The FW190A needs a lot more flight experience to fly. It relies on speed and firepower and not its horizontal turn.

If you are newish to the game/flying then I would use a 109. Kepp practising on the FW190 tho.

It all depends on how you like to fly.

If you turn and burn a lot then dont use a FW190. However when its later war and fight speeds become very high (Yak3 vs German for EG) I find the 109 doesnt respond properly at vry high speed. Try getting up to 500-600Kph in a 109G10/K and then try and pull some G's you will see what I mean. The FW190 responds at very high speed very well.

I have trouble pulling alead on another plane at high speeds in the later 109's which can be very frustrating. Which is why I usually take a FW190 rather than a late 109.