Author Topic: Observations on new 109s (Read 3294 times)

wetrat · « **Reply #105 on:** December 20, 2005, 06:18:21 PM »

Show me a film of something you used to be able to do in a G10 (in AH2) that you can't do now... I dive in on things at compression speeds too, same as I used to in a G10, and I haven't lawndarted a K4 once. I've chopped down a few trees (grrr), but they're generally harder to predict than the baby seals in the MA. I really don't see any difference in the thing, and I've logged entirely too much time in it.

bozon · « **Reply #106 on:** December 21, 2005, 12:09:22 AM »

The "109s has changed" claim is pointless. HT says they didn't - even if you convince every single one on this board that they did, HT knows what he did or didn't do. It will get you nothing.

All FM changed from AH1 to AH2. iirc HT said that they have a better resolution for calculating the airflow in the models and that results in a better prediction for near stall behaviour. Also he said that they re-did the torque.

The 109 performance complaints may have some merit IF supported by DATA. The "how could the LW perform so well with such crappy planes" complaint will get you no where. Near stall behaviour is harder to prove as well as to predict and model. That is a soft point that may be worth looking into by HT. This is also a relative issue as we can't tell if it's the 109s that are wrong or all the other models are.

If you want to get something to change you have to be specific and support it by data. What is wrong with the 109s? Slow speed handeling? probably. Early compression? could be. Cockpit views are wrong? maybe.

Now prove it.

Bozon

1K3 · « **Reply #107 on:** December 21, 2005, 12:35:10 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by bozon
If you want to get something to change you have to be specific and support it by data. What is wrong with the 109s? Slow speed handeling? probably. Early compression? could be. Cockpit views are wrong? maybe.

Now prove it.

Bozon

There is nothing wrong with 109E4, F4, G2, and K4

the problem with the remaining 109s...

109G-6
* 109G-6 needs 50 more rounds of 20mm nose cannon

109G-14 (DB-605 AM engine)
* 109G-14 needs 50 more rounds of 20mm nose cannon
* 109G-14's maximim speed is ~15 mph slower at Full Throttel Height at 16,400 ft (109G-14's top speed is 415mph)

as for compression, 109s DO NOT suffer from early compression. The problem is the 109's controls. the 109's stick forces become too great at 450mph and beyond.

wetrat · « **Reply #108 on:** December 21, 2005, 02:26:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by 1K3
as for compression, 109s DO NOT suffer from early compression. The problem is the 109's controls. the 109's stick forces become too great at 450mph and beyond.

That's right... there's no dive you can't get out of with trim (if you have enough room).

bozon · « **Reply #109 on:** December 21, 2005, 03:39:34 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by wetrat
That's right... there's no dive you can't get out of with trim (if you have enough room).

and currently trim does not pull you out? Last time I took a G2 it seemed fine. I'll try it again.

Oldman731 · « **Reply #110 on:** December 21, 2005, 07:01:33 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Grits
What has changed is their crappy views got worse and their most common opponents (was the Spit V, now is the Spit VIII/XVI) have gotten much better.

Yup.

- oldman (but we DO have the G-14 now, which is a lot of fun)

Grits · « **Reply #111 on:** December 21, 2005, 11:10:34 AM »

Yeah, I'm kinda fond of the G-14 myself Oldman.