Will 109s and Fw-190s be fixed before ToD release

[HoHun]

Hi Hitech,

>HoHun can you post link / image of the on the cl of deployment vs max cl ?

Here is the bit I was referring to:

http://hometown.aol.de/HeRuch/BA1640-18_T4.jpg

I believe Badboy has the complete report available, or at least might be able to provide the exact PRO reference.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[niklas]

Originally posted by Bruno
First the D-9s FTH wasn't much better then the Antons. Also, the D-9 wasn't a 'bomber killer' it was an air superiority fighter designed to combat allied fighters not bombers.
 

http://www.pilotenbunker.de/Jagdflieger/Luftwaffe/Adam_Georg/adam_georg.htm

This guy killed plenty of buffs in his dora. I knew his nephew who translated the page in old wb.de times.

I think he killed over 50 buffs. i remember that he also had a 3rd cannon right there where the bombrack is.

niklas

[hitech]

Found the complete report, thanks hohun

[Kev367th]

Was thinking, and only the man himself (HT) can confirm this -

I would assume there are two parts to an FM -

1) The actual flight physics that is common to all planes in the game.
2) The individual characterstics of each plane, e.g. speed, acceleration, climb, turn etc etc.

Assuming that the figures are all correct in part 2 (HT has never said his figures are wrong) then the problem would have to lie in part 1.

This would mean 'if' HT ever found a problem with part 1 that affected aircraft stability at low speeds, after fixing it and then applying the same fix to all other aircraft, we would be right back to square one again.

i.e. Why can this plane fly so better than my LW ride at slow speeds.

[Apar]

Apar you missed my point a car that is loose (read as rear breaks loose in turn) is what some drivers want and some do not. What was getting at is a car that is undriveable to one is another's dream ride. I am betting is the same with aircraft.

Bronk

I do get your point, what I'm saying is that it is not applicable here, because this issue is not with respect to accomodating all sorts of different customers requests it is w.r.t. solving 1 numereously complained about issue.
Do you get my point?

[Bruno]

Originally posted by niklas
http://www.pilotenbunker.de/Jagdflieger/Luftwaffe/Adam_Georg/adam_georg.htm

This guy killed plenty of buffs in his dora. I knew his nephew who translated the page in old wb.de times.

I think he killed over 50 buffs. i remember that he also had a 3rd cannon right there where the bombrack is.

niklas

Hmm, no LW pilot had 50 confirmed Viermott kills that I am aware of. I believe a poster on another forum by the name of 'Ossi' claims to be his grandson. I have no idea who his nephew is.

According to your link Adam Georg didn't fly his first combat mission (JG54) until Sept '44:

September 1944:
Ausbildung/training course
in Gießen, Fw 190.
Erste Jagdeinsätze als "Katschmarek"
First real missions as a "Katschmarek"

September 1944 - Dezember 1944:
in Müncheberg

and was transferred to JG 7 in Jan '45 to fly 262s:

10.Jan.1945 JG 7 :
Me 262 (Rote 13)

How many B-17s did he claim in the D-9? surely not all 50..? Did he claim any kills while in training..?

His name doesn't appear anywhere on Kacha's list of Viermott Killers

nor on his list of 262 experten:

Düsenjäger

That doesn't mean his name doesn't belong on either of those lists but it seems pretty incredible to have scored over 50 viermott kills in just a few months so late in the war...

Or did you mean Georg-Peter Eder?

Anyway, I didn't say no 190D-9 ever shot down a bomber, what I said was they were not normally tasked with that mission...

[Bronk]

Originally posted by Apar
I do get your point, what I'm saying is that it is not applicable here, because this issue is not with respect to accomodating all sorts of different customers requests it is w.r.t. solving 1 numereously complained about issue.
Do you get my point?

So you're saying HTC should model aircraft with pilot anecdotal accounts?
Because what I am saying is he shopuldn't.


Bronk

[Apar]

Originally posted by Bronk
So you're saying HTC should model aircraft with pilot anecdotal accounts?
Because what I am saying is he shopuldn't.


Bronk

yes I do, when there is enough multi scource anecdotal accounts to support it.

[Waffle]

can't base off of stories / recounts  because whoever flew them is pretty biased -  The old "oh sure - our planes were the best at the time.....they could out manuever anything.."

[Kweassa]

a) We're not talking about another game.

 It was cynicism. Try to stay with me here.

b) Turn rates are part of the FM, so has nothing to do with 'feel'.

 Wrong.

 A plane does not automatically arrive at its best turn radius with a touch of a button. A pilot is needed to push the plane to the edge, and there the plane's handling characteristics - which the pilot feels - makes every bit of difference.

 A plane that 'feels bad' in maneuvering is that much difficult to push to the edge. In effect, when the feeling is so bad that it starts to discourage pilots from trying to venture out to what the plane can do, the theoretical turn performance becomes meaningless. The plane is practically castrated, regardless of what it can do under theoretical test conditions. This is why a plane that is outturned by 109s in figures, usually outturns a 109 in actual combat in the AH - that's the whole point of these 109 threads in the first place.

c) Yet to see a 'flight test' that shows a 190 v its historical Spit opponent can hang with a Spit in a turn. (some got close).

So if in another game a Spit was consistenly being outurned by its historically opposite 190, it would be an FM problem, NOT A FEEL problem.

 And how does a game pilot first perceive that something is wrong with the FM?
 

Tell me how your going to code 'feel' into an FM? All they can use is hard coded data.

 You tell me.

 If there's no data on how the planes should handle and feel, then what's the basis on how the planes currently feel and react in the game? By calculatons alone? Could there be some factors that HTC did not consider? Got wrong? Used wrong data? Confused? Made mistakes? Or any number of what can happen while making a game?

Or as I have also said, there's only so much you can do for a game designed to be played on home PC's, or Boeing, Airbus etc would all be running there simulators on Dells and Gateways  .

 That should probably mean you would have no problems seeing HT fix certain plane's behavior to more closely match historical accounts. Since it's only a game, and not a military grade simulator, you'd have no beef with it when the LW planes become actually a little better than what the history portrays, or your precious Spitfires go topsy turvy with every 10 miles of speed cut.

 ....

 The funny thing about these kind of discussions is the really important questions never get answered, and people argue semantics with the least important stuff. So, that being said, my turn for some questions to you.

 I'm not asking for facts. I'm asking for your opinion:

* Do you think the 109s handled more gently than P-51s or P-47s in real life?
* Do you think the 109s handle more gently than P-51s or P-47s in Aces High?

[Kev367th]

Very rarely fly the Pony or 109/190 in AH2 so I'm not really expert enough to say.

As for real life- Well as you, me and probably everyone who partakes in these discussions has NEVER flown any of the aircraft, we have to rely on the FM. An FM that is built from data, NOT stories.

As for historical, as per every other dicussion, historical accounts can be found both supporting and refuting the argument.
So who's do you go by?

As for AH2 - It's not real life, people get themselves into situations a 'real life'  WW2 wouldn't dream of.
How many accounts can you find of pilots dropping flaps and gear to turn tighter in WW2?
How many accounts can you find of pilots deliberately shutting off their engine to slow down faster to force an overshoot?

I'ts almost to the point where people want them to fly the way they think they should, as opposed to the way they perhaps actually flew.

Lets assume that some fault is found in flight physics that affects all aircraft and a fix clears up the LW low speed handling.
What you think it's going to do to every other aircraft?

We'll be right back here again.

[Krusty]

I disagree strongly, kev. Anecdotal evidence IS evidence. You get enough of it and you can build a "wall of bricks" argument. Almost all anecdotal evidence says that P47s were wonderful diving planes. Plenty of anecdotal evidence says that P51s had a lethal spin that was unrecoverable.

Are these things written down? P47 is noted in dive reports. I don't think there are any "spin reports", yet there are notes from trainers saying "after 3 turns bail" in a p51 spin.

You ever see "A Few Good Men"?

Where do you eat?

In the mess hall.

Can you eat anywhere else?

No, you'd get in trouble.

So, where in the manual does it say that you have to eat in the mess hall?

It doesn't, you just have to.

How do you know?

Because everybody tells you.

There are such things as unwritten rules.

If everybody says something is so, there's a good chance it is, even if "everybody saying so" is anecdotal evidence. Minor things are not written down. Minor things include small handling quirks and foibles and such.

In this case we have tested proof that 109's were stable and docile (flight tests) *AND* many reports from pilots about the stability of the plane.

[Widewing]

Alright, this is getting really rediculous now.

Kweassa and Krusty, both of you need to double your dose of Midol immediately.

If someone insisted that the P-38 should have its FM adjusted to reflect annectodal evidence, the Luftwaffe guys would go apoplectic, possibly requiring electric shock therapy....

Many of us agree that there have been changes to the 109 FMs over the years and not all were for the better. I have no doubt that the 109s have issues with directional control at low speeds and the tend to be quite twitchy at the limits.

However, they are still very capable fighters.

Kweassa wrote: "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."

Be careful what you ask for....  Nothing handles as badly as a Yak at 150 mph. It wobbles like Al Roker's bicycle. Accelerated stalls are absolutely awful. F4Us will snap roll violently. The P-51s are bears to get out of a spin. Even the Ki-84 is prone to violent snap rolls if pushed too hard.

Tonight, I spent two hours flying the 109s and 190s in the TA. There were several MA regulars in attendance and we flew dozens of duels.

Flying the 109G-14 and 109G-2, I had no difficulty turning inside P-51s and P-47s. I had no problems with the handling, which was rock-steady with the stall horn howling. At exceptionally low speeds, the nose would hunt all over the place, but stall fighting isn't what the 109s do best. When the P-51 dumped flaps, I merely went nose high and maintained a significant advantage.

Kweassa and Krusty, stop by the TA tomorrow evening (after 9 PM Eastern) and let's see if we figure out why you are having so much trouble with the 109s and 190s. These fighters are all very capable. If you're having as much trouble in them as you state... Well, it probably is not the limits of the airplane that is confounding you, but how you are flying them.

My regards,

Widewing

[Krusty]

Widewing, I appreciate the offer, but when you put it that way it sounds like you're saying "You are wrong and don't know what the heck you're talking about". I know I'm not the best pilot, but I know for a fact that when the 109 flops around it's not my fault, it's the plane, because I've been in and out of 109s since AH came out of beta testing.

Again, I'm not an expert, but I do know a thing or two about how it handles. It flops. Badly. Not all 109 versions equally, but they all flop.

So, with that explanation, I will decline your invitation. Much like the Mossie/110 flat spin, the 190 flopping at low speeds, the P38 flying in a nose down position when level, and the 190 flying in a nose up position when level, and the 109 flopping at most speeds, this is not a pilot error issue.

[Airscrew]

ok, it took me a couple of days but I found what I was looking for. Now someone may have already posted this and this may not matter much but I'll just throw this up and see what sticks

This comes from Messerschmitt Bf109 at War, Armand van Ishoven (its mostly seems to be an edited collection of stories from various pilots of the 109.


"Fighting the Spitfire"  Erwin Leykauf
During what was later called the Battle of Britain, we flew the Bf109e.  The essential difference from the Spitfire MkI flown at that time by the RAF was that the Spitfire was less manoeuvrable in the rolling plane.  With its shorter wings (2 metres less) and its square-tipped wings, the Bf109 was more manoeuvrable and slightly faster.  When the 109 was flown, advertently or inadvertently, too slow, the slots shot forward of the wing, sometimes with loud bang which could be heard above the noise of the engine.  Many times the slots coming out frightened young pilots when they flew the Bf109 for the first time in aerial combat.  One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing.  Sometimes the slots would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply.  Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slots were still closed against the wing.  For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slots were out.  For this reasion it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better then the Bf109.  That is not true.  I myself had many dofights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them.
One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine.  It was a matter of feel.  When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that the plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle.  In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing this.  This advantage to the Bf109 soon changed when improved Spitfires were delivered.