Oleg says Bf109 rolls faster than Fw190 series? Huh, eh? WTF??

[Serapis]

So why in the heck would they give BETTER values for enemy planes and thus putting their OWN designs to a bad light?That would have for sure made heads roll.Or maybe TsAGI tried to de-moralize whole VVS(Soviet AirForce) so the Germans could whack their arses?

DB603

Well, since you asked, perhaps it was easier to blame Soviet setbacks on superior enemy planes than failures in leadership (that went all the way to the top because of the 1938 purges) and poor training and tactics -- fewer heads roll that way.

Frankly, I have no reason to doubt TsAGI data, but then, I haven't seen any. Also, this is a demo product and I have no idea what Il2's physics engine does with that data. But there are some rather odd results in the Il2 FM.

Modern flight impressions seem to match western NACA data (read what the late late Mark Hanna had to say about flying a Buchon at speeds over 400mph), and less formal wartime comparison testing and wartime pilot experience. these sources indicate that the 109 was great when it got slow (though not as great as a Spitfire) but lost it's handling at high speeds. The 190 was the opposite.

As for the "EGOs" involved in this "debate," they seem to be by far the strongest on the IL2 cheerleader side who come in here and announce, like the right hand of god, that AH is porked and better shape up. If AH is porked, then FM's should be adjusted. I frankly could care less if a 109 or 190 out rolled the other in RL, as long as it's accurately modedled in the game. And if the P-39 rolls like a F-16 -- GREAT! It won't be such a target in the MA if it ever arrives. Perhaps if the Finns flew 190s...

But there is no real evidence to suggest that the Il2 data (whaterver source and however applied in a physics engine) is accurate at this time.

Charon

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: Charon ]

[JG5_Jerry]

If you had an inkling about Mr Maddox or had met him, you'd know that the guy is obsessed with aircraft in all shapes and sizes. IL-2 has been in development through thick and thin for several years now. Does anyone honestly think that he would just then say to himself 'Ah, I can't be bothered!' and louse it all up with some dodgy FMs? Hardly.

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: JG5_Jerry ]

[fscott]

"The argument of the western sources being only accurate ones is so big BS,that You can't swallow that without choking in it."

DB603.

My only question is why you, or anyone else, are so quick to embrace this Russian data of which you have not even seen yet?  

You are basing your argument on this:


1) A man who says he has TsAGI reports. No one I know has a copy of these reports. Hey the guy is another Ethan Hawking, he HAS to be right eh?

2) A computer game with a fast rolling 109.

Versus this:

1) 60 years of common wisdom.

2) NACA reports that you HAVE seen.

3) British reports comparing 109 to Spitfars.

4) Literally hundreds of books all saying the same damn thing.

5) Documentaries all saying the same damn thing. Go watch a few History Channel documentaries.

6) Museums all across the world all saying the same damn thing. Read the descriptions on the billboards next to an Fw190.


So I think it very funny that ANYONE suddenly grasps onto this "new 109" flight modelling as being even remotely accurate.  I think people will grasp onto anything *new* just because it's different.

Until Oleg or anyone else with this mystery report posts it, I will treat it as an unsubstantiated piece of evidence, meant to be severly scrutinized.

[highflyer]

Wasnt it written in stone that the world was flat for hundreds of years?

It wasnt untill someone with outrageous ideas, and insights to think otherwise against the "known wisdom" to disprove all.

 

[fscott]

Highflyer, we are not dealing with the "unkown", that is a ludicrous comparison.

We have numerous references to which we can weigh the value of "data".  

I'm not saying the world is round, I'm just saying that we should severly scrutinize the idea that it is.

[SKurj]

its a leaked demo at that...


SKurj

[Staga]

This might sound like I'm nitpicking but actually world is not round, more like a 0 in 90 degree angle...

 

[MajorMajor]

I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that the Il-2 developer intentionally porked the flight model or is intentionally using biased data to support some sort of political agenda.  

What is worrying, however, is that the performance of the planes doesn't even match his own NII VVS data.  Take, for example, the P-39 roll rate.  Even after it was pointed out several times that the performance was doubtful, the developer didn't bother to first check the in-game performance against his own data.  Instead, his initial reaction was to slate western data and testing methodologies.  It was only later that he checked the in-game performance and conceded that it didn't conform to his own research.  

How can he, his team and a couple of months of beta testing have missed something as fundamental and simple to test as rate of roll?  And it was missed; if it had been caught during testing, he would have said so instead of defending the in-game performance as correct.

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: MajorMajor ]

[DB603]

S!

 I am not embracing Russian nor Western data. I would like to see them side by side and facts why they differ if any significant difference is found. The western sources are for sure accurate in their way and Russian in their way.
 The Hanna flying a Buchon is not same as he was flying a real DB605-engined 109.Buchon is a mixture of 109E and others,not a pure 109. I don't underestimate his points.
 The 60 years of knowledge and hundreds of books..Well there is for sure some bias in ANY document, either western or eastern. But the results the 109 achieved cannot be true if it was so crappy some sources try to indicate?
 The performance of the 190. I do not question it's roll rate or other data. I am more than interested to see on what the claims of 109 being better in roll is based on when Oleg releases the info. The 109 was not as bad as said, nor was the 190 a brick.
 I am just a bit fed up with the neverending boasting of the "superior" allied fighters. They were good, no doubt, but not all pilots were Yeagers or Gabreskies, either wasn't every LW pilot Hartmann or Galland. It is easy to say a plane is superior when You outnumber the enemy. Where ever the poor guy tries to fly, there's always some1 at the 6 with guns blazing. Surviving in that environment is more a question of luck than skill.
  I think we should just wait for the release of IL-2 and then make any further comments on the matter. Just now we don't have enough data and facts to do even halfarsed assumptions.Only fact is that AH and IL2 will BOTH be best of their genre(online/boxed) and I think many will agree on that.Over and out!

[fd ski]

1) 60 years of common wisdom.

Common wisdom ? wtf is that ? I would venture to say that "common" wisdom has been declining even since...

2) NACA reports that you HAVE seen.

Same NACA reports have been contradictory to other reports such was RAF testing. Almost all of them contradict each other. None of them are holy.

3) British reports comparing 109 to Spitfars.

Spitfires   One mark out of 36 where each had 3 sub variants comapred against 1 type of out 6 where each had up to 16 variants ?

It's like saying all VWs are faster then BMWs cause 1.8T Golf can smoke the M4 !

4) Literally hundreds of books all saying the same damn thing.

And look up the sources for those books. They feed on one another. Mistakes are propagated from one to the next. Anecdotes of the pilots from 60 years again in the middle of the heated fight used for performance comparison ? Get outta here...
And i beg you, don't quote me that BS Johnson P47 vs Spitfire match... even NACA charts show spitfire rolling faster  

5) Documentaries all saying the same damn thing. Go watch a few History Channel documentaries.

Yea, i love them History Channel programs. You can find out 3 times a day how US single handedly saved the world from all evil....
The documentaries are good from the historical point of view, but if you want to be technical about planes - look somewhere else.

6) Museums all across the world all saying the same damn thing. Read the descriptions on the billboards next to an Fw190.

Oh, i remember that one. Tour guide explaining to me how P51 could outperform ANYPLANE at ANY ALTITUDE during WHOLE WAR. When asked about 109G/K 190D or SPitfire - "they were all xxxxxxx" ( select your own sorry bellybutton excuse ). When they are condered it always seems to come back to range  
Museums are for little children to check otu what "grandpa" flew. Information there is usually very much generic, borderline neglegent.

--------------------------------------------

It absolutelly amazes me how people in US are willing to discount anything made in russia due to "communist control". I hate to tell you folks but russian engineers have decades long tradition of excellence. Don't let the shabby production and maintenance standards decieve you. The quality of work and designs of Russian firms can put lot of Western firms to shame.

[leonid]

First of all, I was not one of the il2 supporters who blasted AH.  I have too much respect for HTC's work to do such a crass thing.  And, I still play AH from time to time.  But what bothers me is the lack of education so many "il2-blasters" have for all things Soviet.  It appears that the type of statements made came from some long lost notebook from Mr.McCarthy himself.  Because Stalin ruled over Russia for so long(totally undermining the Communist system by doing so), his crimes have been used to exonerate just about any derogeratory and demeaning statement concerning the Soviet system.  This mind-set has resulted in total and absolute believe of the German post-war memoirs, nevermind that these very same Germans were part of the Nazi system and considered the Slavs untermenschen.  And now, 60 years later, it is all writ in stone, like the stone tablets brought down from the mountain with the flaming bush.  What seriously needs to be done is to first accept that a terrible mistake occurred in so readily accepting the German view of the war without knowing more about the Soviet side.  Then, as much effort should be spent in obtaining and studying material from the Soviet side, then comparing it with the standard German material to come up with a newer assessment of the Soviet-German War.  And, if you have no interest in going the distance for finding the truth of this war, then you really should state as much in any posts you make concerning the Soviet Union, and its struggle in WWII.

Either you're going to sit on your fat ass, and pull out the standard McCarthyist fifties propaganda that comes so readily to mind in Western society, or you're going to realize something is truly missing about the telling of this war, then actively take measures to find the truth of the Soviet-German War.  Should you decide the latter, I think you'll be surprised at the depth and complexity and pain of that conflict, because there was a lot more going on then what the Germans led on to.

It's up to you.

[fscott]

FD SKI. Your effort to discredit my points was worthless.  Of course each point mcan be discredited. Hell, ANYTHING can be discredited.

But you failed to comment on my TWO points about IL-2's version of the 109 rollrate.  Why?

The evidence is in numerous books as well as interviews with ex-Lufwaffe pilots. Almost every source will tell you that 109 controls got very heavy at higher speeds.

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: fscott ]

[fd ski]

Originally posted by fscott:

But you failed to comment on my TWO points about IL-2's version of the 109 rollrate.  Why?

The evidence is in numerous books as well as interviews with ex-Lufwaffe pilots. Almost every source will tell you that 109 controls got very heavy at higher speeds.

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: fscott ]

which 109 at what speeds ?
If Oleg posts interviews with LW veterans will you believe him ? I doubt it...

How about this:
Spitfires rolled horribly !!!
but... spit 9 with clipped wings and metal airlions would outroll almost anything ...
See why blanket statements and generalizations are wrong ?