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

[fscott]

Some points:

1- Why would Oleg, (or anyone else), program in wrong rollrate data, if he had hard test numbers right in front of him?

2- Why would Oleg discount the accuracy of NACA data?

3- Is it possible Oleg is misreading the data?

4- Is the data wrong?


My core says go with #4.  Since Oleg is OBVIOUSLY saying NACA tests are in error, then I guess it comes down to "EACH HIS OWN", as far as which flight data you choose to believe.

For the past 60 years, the common knowledge was that the Fw190 was a FEROCIOUS roller, and the Bf109 was heavy at higher speeds.

Suddenly, a man designing a *computer game*, comes forward and rewrites 60 years of historical belief?

I know that sets myself up for other arguments like "the world was always flat until one man..."  

But WHERE O WHERE were all the Luftwaffe pilots at when books and documentaires were ALL SAYING THE SAME DAMN THING?

Did the History Channel EVER hear one of their interviewees say, "hm.. you know, the Bf109 was a much better rolling aircraft than the Fw190..."

And why are some people so inclined to believe Russian data which has so suddenly come to light within the past 2 or 3 weeks in our world?  

Think about it, this "new data" has just come to light, Hell 3 weeks ago, I never knew of anything about Russian data putting a faster rollrate on the Bf109.

So before anyone jumps aboard the Russan bandwagon, I would stop and consider that this is new data of which hardly any of us has seen. Until Oleg posts some of his sources, and even then, we still have to question it's reliability.

Think about, Oleg is about to repute 60 years of common knowledge with the posting of some russian documents... This evidence will dispute all the documentaries and facts that the aviation community has come to embrace.

Imagine all the museums across the world that will have to change their descriptions that sit with their Bf109's and Fw190's...

Imagine all the documentaries that will have to overdub their narration.

We are all about to witness an historical event.

Just think, 50 years from now, new Russian data will put the Mig25 Foxbat at mach 4.5

[indian]

Lets see you want to trust a Russian report that the leaders of the time were trying to convince thier pilots that they had better planes then the germans and probably no matter what or who did the testing the results were dictated to anyway? I perfer to trust the proven data allready in use. There happens to be one or two of these planes setting in W.P museum right now.

Trust a russian report from back then what a luagh!!!!

[Gh0stFT]

umh i just dont care, i fly the plane who fits me best  

[Staga]

Indian One thing I just can't understand:

If you're right then why would TsAGI give 109 better rollrate than it had?

[Zigrat]

i thought aper was dead

havent seen u in arena in long time bud, youre still the best 109g6 pilot ive ever seen  

[Tuomio]

I remember fighting once against aper (at least im pretty sure about that), he had g6 and i had typhoon.

I was in belief, that he had g10 from the performance he could pull out from that "crap". but no, g6 he had and i was impressed. Altough i managed to kill him after all (luck), but that was one of the most fierce fights i can remember. Sheesh.

To the topic..

We can see from the TsAGI climb rates, that theyre almost identical with NACA charts. You can see them in here. If they got those "right", why in the hell would they mess up the roll rate thingy?
Were now just speculating over speculations. Lets give this man a chance shall we? If someone makes game from russian charts (very reliable, you can go try to debate this issue on simHQ bb), that should be just be alternative to the bulk.
Theyre been buried in the archives, just becouse theyre filled of that Russian code language (prolly HTC would be using them if they were readily available, along with the NACA), if they come more available after this dig up, thats just good.

[Hristo]

This is very interesting discussioin.

Some types spoil it by trying to involve politics into what is just an FM question. This ain't cold war, Indian, Westy and co. Stop that crap. You can discuss Stalin, Beria, McCarthy, Truman and other amazinhunks in another topic. Thank you. The topic could also have name: "stereotypes and US propaganda".

Fact is, USSR engineers had much more opportunity to test German planes in various conditions. US/UK engineers had several times less opportunities like that. There is little reason for arrogance some express here when defending the Western data.

So, engineers who did far more tests and whose heads would literally roll if data was inaccurate are wrong ?

Why would they do that ? Were they tired of their lives ?

What purpose would serve if one would advise his own country pilots of enemy planes performing contrary to reality ?
Advise Yak pilots not to roll with 109 and go into rolling maneuvers with 190 ?

Were USSR engineers German mercenaries ?

A guy who was former aeronautical engineer in an Russian institute doesn't know roll rate from turn rate ? Yeah, let the cheerleaders tell him. How on Earth did Russians come up with MiG 29 or Su 27 with engineers like that ? Oh, they surely must have stolen some NACA plans  .

[indian]

Im not talking cold war. Im talking back when Russian wernt aload to think for them selfs. Everything I read was that the 109's faught mostly against the brits and US and 190's mostly the Russians. Im also saying I will not believe a report written back then by the russians.

One guy comes forward and says 50 years of belief is a bunch of bull wrong answer.


By the way the cold war has been over for along time. Noone can spend money on defense like the US can.

[Pongo]

I think that it is both facinating and exciting that soviet data on their nemisis has come to light and it is fundimentaly contrary to western data in some respects. I think it is a gold mine that a soviet engineer has presented that data to us in the form of a simulation so we can all experiance the difference and debate the issue.

I would say that all this about the data being inaccurate or accurate in spite of or because of the fact it was generated in one of the most severe police states in history is also interesting.

Those of you that have not been following the IL2 boards maybe have not read enough from Oleg to trust his judgment. I have been reading it for a year and consider him a very reasonable and dedicated person. I would certainly love to meet him and have a beer and talk planes....

I have never read anything from him that seemed to indicate any kind of aggenda to fundimentaly change the way that we look at german AC.
He would be a hypocrite not to present the best data he can find from sources that many of us would never have heard of..
And game design is not a democracy. As we have seen in AH, the designers have to be as true as they can to thier own vision, They take input and probably observe the debates and deliver their products.
Its amazing how well they turn out inspite of the doom and gloomers.

If il2 is delivered only as poor as it is now. (lol) They have sold one to me.
Anyone that lets this issue keep them from trying out a game they will enjoy a great deal and for free is pretty silly.

[Kieran]

Only light I can shed here:

The 190 took on the ground support role because it could. Radial engines are not as susceptible to damage as liquid cooled, and the wing structure of the 190 lent itself better to adding hardpoints. It's performance was generally better at lower altitude. Add the wide-stance landing gear and you have a better ground-pounder than the 109 ever could have been.

Of course none of this means the 109 rolled faster. In fact, let's talk about that. The 109 reputedly began to suffer stiffer controls at speed, the 190 supposedly didn't suffer at speed, so what speed are we talking about in these Russian tests?

[fscott]

I took L-2's version of the Bf109 to 7km, and a speed of just 110km/h, the damn thing STILL rolled with ease.  All common sense says this is impossible.

Try it yourself, bring the 109 to the verge of stall and notice how responsive it is in the roll.

I'm sorry, but from this demo, I'm getting the impression the flight modelling is not gonna just be off, it's gonna be WAY off.

I think we are seeing the next B17, sure it looks absolutely fabulous, but technically it looks horrid.

[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: fscott ]

[715]

When testing for maximum roll rate do the pilots do an aileron roll or a snap roll?  Is it easy to do one pure over the other?  Could roll rate data be compromized if the pilot unconciously dialed in a little rudder and created a snap roll?

(BTW: these are actual questions I'm asking, not sarcastic statements.  Just wanted to make that clear, sometimes I can't tell the difference  

715

[Russian]

Before doing test in demo why don't you wait untill final demo/game release. From what I understand you trying to test something that going to change. You have 1.01 beta demo, beta testers have 1.04 and newer.
Its like trying to compare AH 1.03 and 1.07.

Btw Since you here try to compare P39 roll rate?  

[DB603]

S!

 As Russian said. The FM in the DEMO ain't complete!It has elements left out to save in the SIZE of the demo.Oleg has said this and therefore no comparisons to other games should be made with the demo.Also if Ya have read the shrecking Readme.txt, it CLEARLY indicates the product being DEMO based on early BETA.Could that possibly mean missing features or some silvering?Bashing an unfinished product is next to ridiculous and is that what You need to boost You ego?
 I will certainly wait for the final version and then see what it brings along.If Ya remember..AH wasn't good from the start nor did it have the best FM/DM/whatever back then.Like IL-2 is now BETA evolving was/is AH also evolving.
 And the western vs. Eastern test results...Why should those Russian documents be undervalued because their leader was J.Stalin?Is it because Russians can not do anything right?Russians were the only ones using for example Fw190D-9 in operational service after capturing factories with planes in different phases of manufacture.Finished them off and took to own use.I would believe they did some EXTENSIVE tests against their own planes to see what the Dora could do and not.Also they for sure very much tested different 109-versions against their planes.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?
 The argument of the western sources being only accurate ones is so big BS,that You can't swallow that without choking in it.To me it looks like the western(allies) have so low self esteem or need to boos their ego, that they have to convince every1 that they were the winners and therefore only their data is accurate.Western stuff can't be inferior to any German or Soviet equipment whatsoever  ;)Yea..I will be attacked and my arse flamed because of this post,but couldn't care less.I still have the right to express my opinion freely  

[-lynx-]

Im not talking cold war. Im talking back when Russian wernt aload to think for them selfs. Everything I read was that the 109's faught mostly against the brits and US and 190's mostly the Russians. Im also saying I will not believe a report written back then by the russians.  

Looks like you need to read some more. Where do you think Germany lost most of 35,000 109s manufactured (hint - it wasn't Western front...)?

...and, of course, you are free to believe/disbelieve anything you want - the Earth will remain round regardless .