109 Poll (long)

[Karaya One]

Not interested in starting a flame war. I am interested in finding out why the 109 behaves so poorly compared to the Spit and P51. Granted, the simulation is in its infancy but there is an emphasis on realism and I feel that the 109 series is getting over-looked.

None of us have flown a 109 in real life so the only intelligent comparison we can make is via historical write-up and other sims.

When I started playing AH last week I was downright frustrated with the 109. I spent numerous hours on stick scalings and setups. Two nights ago, I flew the P51 and Spit exclusively and wallah...my kills per sortie jumped four-fold.

My reasoning for this poll/thread is such:

1) The 109G10 performs worse than the 109K in Warbirds. The K model was heavier and had a worse roll rate than the 10.

2) The 109 had a roll rate comprable to the Spit. In AH the Spit out rolls the all the 109s dramatically. Try doing a Split S in a 109 and then do it in a P51 and Spit. Note the differences. There is lacking rudder authority that made the 109 so unique.

3) The 109 feels mushy and punchy at all speeds. The 109 excelled in the negative G arena. Not so in AH. The inverted performance is poor.

4)There is very little horizontal performance. If any. The G6 did have some turning ability but not so in AH.

Most of the LW pilots loved there 109s. It was a formidable enemy. Most pilots passed on the FW and continued flying the 109.

However, I find the 109 in AH very questionable. Maybe the weight and roll rate are wrong? Do we need different stick scalings to get the most out of the plane?

Any advice or input would be greatly appreciated. I am interested in flying a fighter...not a mack truck.

K1

btw, I have all the trim settings programmed to compensate for torque etc.. Compression is not an issue.

[Mox]

 

Originally posted by Karaya One:
btw, I have all the trim settings programmed to compensate for torque etc.. Compression is not an issue.

Being a big fan of the 109's and 190's I was very much looking forward to flying them on a regular basis.  After weeks of trying I gave up.

I still try one of the German birds out now and then but I always return to the other planes.

IMHO the 109's and the 190's are under modeled or the other planes are over modeled.  Lets face it the Germans had some of the best equipment in the world at that time and the Luftwaffe had the best of the best.

BTW you cannot compensate for
torgue's lag!  Sorry Torgue but I couldn't pass that one up..    

Mox
The Wrecking Crew

[This message has been edited by Mox (edited 02-28-2000).]

[Karaya One]

Well, the 109 series should be outgunned with respect to the other late model airplanes.

However, the 109 just requires way too much work to be successful. I think Hristo also mentioned that the trim settings on the 109 behave slowly compared to the other planes. I noted the same problem. Maybe more control surface travel is involved?

"Nose bounce" that exists with the 109 but not with the Spit or 51?

I am looking forward to hearing feedback from other pilots and HT.

I just cannot believe the 109 was this bad.

I miss my 109!  

K1

[Ripsnort]

Kara, when you log on next time, check the Roster and look for Doctor Yo from JG2, he's our resident technical fellow in the art of 109 flying...he's very good in that A/C.

Get some stick time with him, like I mentioned under A/C thread, I think what you're experiencing is a more detailed FM (That *may* need alittle tweeking here and there) than what you find in WarBirds(not a WB's slam, just my observations).  I've been flying it recently, and I must admit, it's grown on me.

One thing I noticed, I managed to get a 109F in AH into an inverted flat spin, something I could NEVER do in WB's without having a wing missing or some other vital surfaces...that sold me on their FM.  I'm still not able to do a true Hammar head, I'm sure it's just some refinements in my timing at stall speed.

------------------
Brian "Ripsnort" Nelson
++JG2++ ~Richthofen~ XO
(Formerly VF-101 Grim Reapers~Rip1~Warbirds~)
JG2 "Richthofen"
 
"Opfer mussen gebracht werden"
— Otto Lilienthal

[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 02-28-2000).]

[wells]

 

1) The 109G10 performs worse than the 109K in Warbirds. The K
                model was heavier and had a worse roll rate than the 10.

The 109G10 was 25 mph slower than the K IRL.  Dunno about the roll rates, but I don't think the wing design changed any with regards to aileron control.

                 

2) The 109 had a roll rate comprable to the Spit. In AH the Spit out
                rolls the all the 109s dramatically. Try doing a Split S in a 109 and
                then do it in a P51 and Spit. Note the differences. There is lacking
                rudder authority that made the 109 so unique.

The early 109's had comparable roll rates to the early spits.  While the spits roll rate improved over time, the 109's did not.  A cramped cockpit was the main reason.  It took 4 seconds to roll 45 degrees at 400 mph in a 109.  The pilot could only get 1/5 stick deflection.

From trials between a Spit XIV (same wing as Spit IX) and a 109G.

"The Spitfire XIV rolls much more quickly."

the aileron design was further improved in the Spitfire series when the Mk21 came out with a whole new wing design.

[fats]

When turning the plane seems to slow down very fast to ~130 on deck, similar to WBs. And at least the WB model seems a bit flawed when someone did some spiral down tests and it took 109 only 50% of the time for 'other' planes to lose as much alt, when speed was kept constant.

Other thing is the climb tests done by FAF which had the Bf 109G-2 climb a bit faster than I am able to do.

Besides those two things I thought it was quite fun to fly. This is pre version 1.0, haven't had time to yet to even open an account.


//fats

[sick]

psst, hey fats: drop me an email?
sick@rogerwilco.com. random conversation
topic   now back to your regularly
scheduled FM debate, heheh...

sick

[hblair]

This is an interesting thread. I have been flying the 109 exclusively since the first night of open beta. (I had one sortie in a F4U and a B26 several weeks ago) I generally kill most planes that come to me co-altitude and want to duel.

The key to doing well in the 109 (here and in Warbirds for me are:

#1 NEVER turn horizontally unless you are safe (almost always turn vertically)

#2 NEVER try to turn with a con if his buddies are near, although I can get angles even on most N1K's for the first turn or two, eventually him or his buddies are gonna get ya

#3 ALWAYS try to come into the fight with altitude     ( if theres a pony or N1K above ya try to drag one of 'em off where its just you 2, then throttle back and get him to overshoot, I've found most pilots in this simm will go for the flat turn! after an overshoot (signing their death certificate)    

#4 NEVERforget the essence of the 109. Think of yourself as an irritating monkey on the ceiling with a hammer. Wait til they aint looking, swoop down, club the fella, climb back up, repeat.  

------------------
         hblair
JG 77 WB's Historical Arena & Events
The ASSASSINS WB's Main Arena, ACA
Luftwoobies Sturmgruppe Kommando Aces High
   



[This message has been edited by hblair (edited 02-28-2000).]

[gatt]

Hehe hblair,
you probably havent ever met Karaya and his 109 in WarBirds ...  

Anyway, I have been flying 109's for two whole years in WB with JG27. IMHO, AH 109's have a steeper learning curve than those in WB. Now I like very much the 109G-2.

BTW Karaya, try to move the joy sliders up (roll and pitch axis), it helped me a lot.

Gatt
4th Stormo CT

[Karaya One]

Gatt:

Thanks for the jstick slider info. I will try it.

K1

[funked]

"Most pilots passed on the FW and continued flying the 109."  

Utterly false.  They flew what they were assigned.  I'm sure a few pilots preferred the 109, but I can quote dozens of pilots who much preferred the Fw.

Sorry to break your bubble, but the Me 109 was a very good fighter airplane... for 1935.

They were able to cram larger engines into it to maintain some parity in speed and climb, but the airframe was simply not up to par with more modern types by 1942 or so.

[Hristo]

 

Originally posted by hblair:

Think of yourself as an irritating monkey on the ceiling with a hammer. Wait til they aint looking, swoop down, club the fella, climb back up, repeat.  

LOL, this is the best definition of 109 I have ever seen !!!

[LLv34_Camouflage]

Here's some FAF war time test data: Does someone have similar data from AH?  

FAF G-2's were fitted with one 20mm cannon and 2 MGs in the nose, no gun gondolas in the wings.  No WEP (GM1, MW50) was used, to save the engine.

 
 

Camo

------------------
Camouflage
XO, Lentolaivue 34
 www.muodos.fi/LLv34

"The really good pilots use their superior judgement to keep them out of situations
where they might be required to demonstrate their superior skill."

[Wanker]

Hiya Karaya,

I've found the G2 to be a good starting point in AH. If a dweeb like me can kill in it, then you'll have no problem!  

------------------
banana
**MOL** (Men of Leisure)

[Karaya One]

 

Originally posted by funked:
"Most pilots passed on the FW and continued flying the 109."  

Utterly false.  They flew what they were assigned.  I'm sure a few pilots preferred the 109, but I can quote dozens of pilots who much preferred the Fw.

Sorry to break your bubble, but the Me 109 was a very good fighter airplane... for 1935.

They were able to cram larger engines into it to maintain some parity in speed and climb, but the airframe was simply not up to par with more modern types by 1942 or so.

I have no bubble to break. What I repeated is from 2 sources of LW historical info. While the 190 may have been superior in certain respects most LW pilots were weary of the plane because of its harsh stall characteristics, which were later solved.
Most stuck with the ride that they excelled in.

As for the dated airframe, I can think of several others that were modified but the foundation stayed the same.

The 109 may have been dated but it was still a good enough airframe for some of the greatest aces of WWII, even if you segment their tours of duty.

History is based on a POV, just like many peoples idea of the "truth."

K1