Author Topic: Will 109s and Fw-190s be fixed before ToD release  (Read 11308 times)

Offline Waffle

  • HTC Staff Member
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4849
      • HiTech Creations Inc. Aces High
Will 109s and Fw-190s be fixed before ToD release
« Reply #210 on: February 21, 2006, 12:44:24 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Bruno
Thirdly, the reason the Sturmgruppen needed escort is because of their tactics of applying mass on mass, i.e. forming large formations (Gefechtsverband). They needed cover while forming up, while en route to target etc...  Also, the Sturmbocks were ordered to push through to the bombers and ignore the allied fighters as such they were vulnerable. With out cover the allied fighters could just wait until the 190s formed for their attack then attack the 190s in turn. In order to give the 190s cover they were provided with top cover and close escort (109s / D-9s) that were tasked with keeping the 190s clear so they could get to the bombers, it had nothing to do with the 190s not being able to defend themselves or being to heavy to fight. In fact many a Sturmbock pilot had numerous allied fighter kills. The LW focus was on destroying bombers.



Tack on the extra weight of the armored cowling ring - the thicker canopy panels / the armor on the cockpit side, the increased ammo load, the armor around the cannon magazines....

Adds up to severly disadvantaged plane.

Weren't the BMWS only rated to 23,000 feet?   Once the allies came in above 20000 feet  the 190s were at a horrible disadvantage

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
Will 109s and Fw-190s be fixed before ToD release
« Reply #211 on: February 21, 2006, 01:36:42 PM »
Hi Bruno,

>Second, the Allied bombers didn't typically bomb from above 20k feet. During the AH Ruhr Scenario a lot for research was done and it was found that the average altitude for the bombers making raids against Ruhr industry was around 17.5k feet. Some higher, some much lower. In fact a few raids were in the 9000 foot range.

I wonder if this might have something to do with the visibility conditions? I have read about the Ruhr area haze in connection with with RAF night raids, and now I wonder if the smog might have been bad enough to actually reduce daytime visibility, too.

The Ruhrgebiet was Germany's largest industrial area, production was geared up for total war, the primary energy source was coal, and environmental protection hadn't been invented yet ... no idea how bad it actually was, but it might have been a factor.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
Will 109s and Fw-190s be fixed before ToD release
« Reply #212 on: February 21, 2006, 02:22:28 PM »
Hi Waffle,

>uneven slat deployment at low speeds makes the 109 a very unstable aircraft as well as the 110. The controls will still function, but if one slat pops out - lift is increased and the other wing stalls - until you correct to get get both slats out - or in most cases the pilots over corrects and pops the unextended slat out while the other one retracts.

I believe slats are a red herring here.

The Me 109 is perfectly stable with the slats asymmetrically deployed - more than a slat-less aircraft in the same situation, actually.

The original design locked the slats as soon as the flaps were retracted, but Messerschmitt conducted an extensive series of tests before the war and found that leaving the slats unlocked was beneficial in all flight situations.

There is a beautiful air-to-air shot of Black 6 in a 30° bank, skidding slightly, with the slat on the starboard wing extended and the port one flush with the wing surface. Air-to-air photography is usually done with a wide angle lens in order to minimize camera shake, so obviously the pilot of Black 6 had no fear that "uneven slat deployment" would upset his mount while flying in close formation to the camera ship.

The French test of their captured Me 109 mentions that during tests against the D.520, the Messerschmitt matched the D.520's circles exactly, with neither aircraft being able to gain an advantage. However, while the D.520 gave no warning before it (sooner or later) flicked out of the turn into an accelerated stall, the Messerschmitt reliably signalled the incipient stall by shaking the stick a bit so that the pilot could relax his pull on the stick and avoid flicking out. (This kind of behaviour does not depend on slats, but it's considered a good handling quality.)

The slats were not deployed just one hair short of the stall, as is often suggested. The RAE tests of the Me 109 found that with gear and flaps retracted, the slats deployed at Cl = 0.865, while they measured Clmax = 1.4 under the same conditions. This means that if the maximum available G rate is (for example) 5 G, the slats come out at 3.1 G already.

From my reading, it appears that the Messerschmitts - Me 109 and Me 110 alike - could be slightly upset in roll while pulling through the slat-deployment Cl (which is a transient effect), but otherwise were perfectly docile and superior to most contemporary designs with regard to near-stall handling. To avoid misunderstandings: I'm thinking more of the Fw 190 here than of the Spitfire :-) The latter had the same good handling qualities near the stall, though it used a completely different wing design to achieve them.

The Spitfire also combined the good handling characteristics with a much smaller turning circle, which might have contributed to give the out-turned Me 109 a reputation of bad handling which it doesn't really deserve. You should not expect the Messerschmitt to turn with a Spitfire, but you should not expect anything but trouble-free handling from it either.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline gatt

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2441
Will 109s and Fw-190s be fixed before ToD release
« Reply #213 on: February 21, 2006, 04:49:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by JAWS2003
A8 had no problem dealing with the bombers. was the escorts that messed them up. The drop in performance of the FW-190 A at altitude made them vulnerable to fighter escorts, not helpless against the bombers.
 Over Ploiesti, the old Romanian IAR-80/81(with 1000HP engine) had no problem shooting down bombers at 7500-8000m. Was the escorts they were hopeless against.


Nor were the high wing loading C.205 of ANR in the North of Italy during 1944.
The first thing that comes in mind is an attendance flop during 1944-45 TODs from the axis side.
With our 190A, 30mm K-4 (against fast escorts) and lack of 109G-10 with gondolas .... even the MA will be better.

But I'm ready to change my opinion :) cuz I love this sim :D
« Last Edit: February 21, 2006, 05:20:40 PM by gatt »
"And one of the finest aircraft I ever flew was the Macchi C.205. Oh, beautiful. And here you had the perfect combination of italian styling and german engineering .... it really was a delight to fly ... and we did tests on it and were most impressed." - Captain Eric Brown

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Will 109s and Fw-190s be fixed before ToD release
« Reply #214 on: February 21, 2006, 04:49:39 PM »
I have not been noticing this in AH, since the G-meter is hard to see now, but has anybody tested at what point slats extend in AH2? I know they will pop out at very slow speeds, but at high AOA as well. I've just not tested it specifically.

EDIT: Never mind, the slats aren't really an issue in AH, that's besides the point

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
Will 109s and Fw-190s be fixed before ToD release
« Reply #215 on: February 21, 2006, 05:10:15 PM »
Jesus Christ, Hohun... where the HECK were you when we were discussing about 109 stability issues earlier on in other threads... :D  What you've wrote is EXACTLY what I wanted to know. Thank you so very much for posting it.

 Using Hohun's post to demonstrate our "Luftwhiner" points:


Quote
The Me 109 is perfectly stable with the slats asymmetrically deployed - more than a slat-less aircraft in the same situation, actually.


* Not so in AH - Slats popping out is an indication that the plane will soon enter instability. Much less, anything more beneficial "than a slat-less aircraft in the same situation". If anything, there is NOTHING more advantageous or beneficial to the AH 109s when entering the edge of the envelope.


Quote
The original design locked the slats as soon as the flaps were retracted, but Messerschmitt conducted an extensive series of tests before the war and found that leaving the slats unlocked was beneficial in all flight situations.


* Not so in AH. In AH the handling characteristics are so poor that it makes you wonder, "gee, if this plane is this wobbly with the slats which were supposed to make them better, then how worse can it be when it had no slats at all?"


Quote
The French test of their captured Me 109 mentions that during tests against the D.520, the Messerschmitt matched the D.520's circles exactly, with neither aircraft being able to gain an advantage. However, while the D.520 gave no warning before it (sooner or later) flicked out of the turn into an accelerated stall, the Messerschmitt reliably signalled the incipient stall by shaking the stick a bit so that the pilot could relax his pull on the stick and avoid flicking out. (This kind of behaviour does not depend on slats, but it's considered a good handling quality.)


* OBVIOUSLY, not so in AH.


Quote
The slats were not deployed just one hair short of the stall, as is often suggested. The RAE tests of the Me 109 found that with gear and flaps retracted, the slats deployed at Cl = 0.865, while they measured Clmax = 1.4 under the same conditions. This means that if the maximum available G rate is (for example) 5 G, the slats come out at 3.1 G already.


* This is interesting. Perhaps I'd better test it out.


Quote
From my reading, it appears that the Messerschmitts - Me 109 and Me 110 alike - could be slightly upset in roll while pulling through the slat-deployment Cl (which is a transient effect), but otherwise were perfectly docile and superior to most contemporary designs with regard to near-stall handling.


* If we can call the AH 109 "docile"... then gee.. what are the P-51s and P-47s? UFOs??


Quote
The Spitfire also combined the good handling characteristics with a much smaller turning circle, which might have contributed to give the out-turned Me 109 a reputation of bad handling which it doesn't really deserve. You should not expect the Messerschmitt to turn with a Spitfire, but you should not expect anything but trouble-free handling from it either.


* "Trouble free." I wish.


 ...

 Some of you have expressed different opinions. Claiming that you had no problems fighting in 109s. Ok, so you may have felt that way. But I doubt even you guys won't go so far as to say, "... and I feel the 109 handles more docile, or benevolent, than its contemporaries such as P-51s and P-47s."

 If anything, the 109s and the 190s are the worst handling planes in the entire set. I dare you to come up with any plane you think that handles worse or has more vicious stall characteristics than 109s or 190s.

 Bf110s or Mossies may have dreadful weird flat spins, but perfectly docile during tight turns. P-38s may have accelrated stalls that are hard to recover, as their pilots claim, but in most cases the plane is solidly stable - try fly level with a P-38 and then suddenly yank back at the stick at max deflection, and see if they develop a spin. P-51 pilots go so far as to claim they have no problems fighting La-7s in a low-and-slow fight - a plane that has a 41m shorter turn radius than the P-51, which the difference is equivalent to that of between an A6M5 and a Spit16.

 And then there is the 109.

 A plane with average 30m~50m shorter turn radius than the P-51 or the P-47, and supposedly should be more docile and and gentle, easier to handle in than most of its contemporaries. Which turns out to be in fact, the most violent and sensitively reacting plane in the entire plane set including bombers. Because we are complaining about that fact, now we're being called Nazi sympathizers.


 So I'll say state it loud and clear and simply, in a big tantrum, so even the people dim of wit can understand:



* We don't want our 109s to outturn Spits.

* We want our 109s to outturn P-51s and P-47s handily, without rocking right and left wildly. Or at least, if it be so that our plane is pushed into such severe status as to be so much destabilized, then we should be seeing the enemy planes suffer even more of it, since the 109s are supposed to be much more easier to handle.

* In other words, we want the plane to handle much more easily, that even a relative n00b won't have much trouble just plain outturning P-51s, P-47s, Typhoons and such - so much easier that they can just pull the stick back and it will come behind them, just like a Spitfire won't have any trouble doing that to a 109. By all means 109s should be able to do that - they are supposed to be easy to handle, and already has a smaller turning radius than any Mustang or Jug.

* The claims that "we have to be competitive enough" to be able to outturn P-51s or P-47s is bullshi*. How much skill does one need to simply outturn a 109 with a Spitfire or a Zero? Nobody says that people need to be 'competitive' to be able to outturn 109s in Spits or Zeros. The difference is that much clear. And we want to see that much clear difference between the 109s and its main opposition US fighters too.

* We want to stop seeing the bullshi* of P-47s or P-51 handling severely tight loops or hard-core 180degrees wingovers much more easier than 109s just because they are so much more stable than 109s.

[/b]
« Last Edit: February 21, 2006, 05:39:48 PM by Kweassa »

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
Will 109s and Fw-190s be fixed before ToD release
« Reply #216 on: February 21, 2006, 05:10:52 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Knegel
Regarding the 109A8 and D9 i only wonder why so heavy planes, with so much power but smal wing can waste so much energy, while planes with much more big wings, much less weight and less power keep energy out of highspeed like mad. Thats like a stone decelerate faster than a feather.
 


Explain me how a glider can fly with your conception of physic ?

(miracle is a not the correct answer)

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
Will 109s and Fw-190s be fixed before ToD release
« Reply #217 on: February 21, 2006, 05:12:20 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by HoHun
The French test of their captured Me 109 mentions that during tests against the D.520, the Messerschmitt matched the D.520's circles exactly, with neither aircraft being able to gain an advantage. However, while the D.520 gave no warning before it (sooner or later) flicked out of the turn into an accelerated stall, the Messerschmitt reliably signalled the incipient stall by shaking the stick a bit so that the pilot could relax his pull on the stick and avoid flicking out. (This kind of behaviour does not depend on slats, but it's considered a good handling quality.


Well we use a joystick not a real stick so the feedeback can only be audio.

Offline Apar

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 963
Will 109s and Fw-190s be fixed before ToD release
« Reply #218 on: February 21, 2006, 05:15:58 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kweassa
Jesus Christ, Hohun... where the HECK were you when we were discussing about 109 stability issues earlier on in other threads!! :D What you've wrote is EXACTLY what I wanted to know. Thank you so very much for posting it.

 So, using Hohun's post to demonstrate our points:



* Not so in AH - Slats popping out is an indication that the plane will soon enter instability. Much less, anything more beneficial "than a slat-less aircraft in the same situation". If anything, there is NOTHING more advantageous or beneficial to the AH 109s when entering the edge of the envelope.




* Not so in AH. In AH the handling characteristics are so poor that it makes you wonder, "gee, if this plane is this wobbly with the slats which were supposed to make them better, then how worse can it be when it had no slats at all?"




* OBVIOUSLY, not so in AH.




* This is interesting. Perhaps I'd better test it out.




* If we can call the AH 109 "docile"... then gee.. what are the P-51s and P-47s? UFOs??




* "Trouble free." I wish.



Exactly my feelings too. :aok

And HoHun

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
Will 109s and Fw-190s be fixed before ToD release
« Reply #219 on: February 21, 2006, 05:44:14 PM »
Hi Straffo,

>Well we use a joystick not a real stick so the feedeback can only be audio.

Good point! (You could also translate it visually by adding a slight screen-shaking effect for example.)

Another way of handling this would be to scale the joystick deflection to stick deflection mapping so that a larger proportion of the physical throw is assigned to the critical section of the simulated control throw. This is sort of a force-feedback since it allows changing the force vs. control deflection curve - from the wrong end, in a way :-)

If this sounds weird, just imagine that the simulated Me 109 would have 4 cm of control travel between safe turn and departure, and the simulated D.520 only 2 cm. The simulator pilot would feel twice the force increase in the Me 109 before departure compared to the D.520 even with an ordinary, non-adjustable linear spring in his joystick.

No idea if any simulator actually works like this, I'm just dreaming it up as I write :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
Will 109s and Fw-190s be fixed before ToD release
« Reply #220 on: February 21, 2006, 06:01:30 PM »
Hi Kweassa,

>Jesus Christ, Hohun... where the HECK were you when we were discussing about 109 stability issues earlier on in other threads... :D  What you've wrote is EXACTLY what I wanted to know. Thank you so very much for posting it.

Glad you found it helpful :-) Most (or even all) of the bits were actually posted in earlier discussions - I remember one very constructive one with Badboy contributing - but I believe the information was never summed up in one post before.

I think your turn rate tests were pretty informative - do you think you could come up with a test procedure to quantify the difference in handling qualities, too?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
Will 109s and Fw-190s be fixed before ToD release
« Reply #221 on: February 21, 2006, 06:20:09 PM »
Quote
I think your turn rate tests were pretty informative - do you think you could come up with a test procedure to quantify the difference in handling qualities, too?


 I'm afraid I still haven't. I just don't have the enough knowledge to think up how to quantify difference in handling. Speeds or turn tests are actually pretty simple and all it takes is brute will power ( :) ) to do test all 50+ planes.. but to quantify difference in handling?? I'm totally stumped.

 And even if I did come up with some method, and test all planes out... what do I compare it with? To my (short) knowledge there's no existing series of info that compares differences in handling..  That's probably the only reason why arguments about plane performances always turn up - the unfortunate lack of info.

Offline hitech

  • Administrator
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12430
      • http://www.hitechcreations.com
Will 109s and Fw-190s be fixed before ToD release
« Reply #222 on: February 21, 2006, 06:24:57 PM »
HoHun can you post link / image of the on the cl of deployment vs max cl ?

HiTech

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
Will 109s and Fw-190s be fixed before ToD release
« Reply #223 on: February 21, 2006, 06:27:48 PM »
Hi Toad,

>This is from the 303rd website. If you choose, you can view all of their missions.

Highly interesting post! :-)

>21 February 1944
>Bomb Load: 12 x 500 lb G.P. bombs plus 1 A/C w/ 3000 lbs nickles

>20 February 1944
>Bomb Load: 12 x 500 lb G.P. & 42 x M-47 Incendiary bombs,
plus 3000 lbs of nickels

Do you have any idea what "nickels" could be? I don't think they would drop $13000 in coins at an industrial target in Germany, so the simple answer is out ;-)

By the way, I just learned that during the war, the 5-cent-coins were minted with a different alloy, I guess because nickel was a strategic resource. The substitute alloy contained a percentage manganese, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_(U.S._coin)

(I believe the Germans were short both on nickel and on manganese.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Will 109s and Fw-190s be fixed before ToD release
« Reply #224 on: February 21, 2006, 06:36:03 PM »
Straffo/HoHun, keep in mind that AH models stall vibrations and indicates an on-coming stall through the stall horn. I couldn't fly in this game without the stall horn (personally), but have heard from other players that disable it.

HoHun: I don't know about the Nickels, but Pennies were minted in Silver or some alloy, because the copper was needed for shell casings.