What plane do want to learn how to fight with?

[Anaxogoras]

BnZ what bothers me  about this game is that 190s were considered by Allied airmen to be superior to 109s.

Depends on which Allied airmen you were talking to.  The VVS pilots generally considered the 109 to be better than the 190.

Anyone (and this has occured a lot lately)  fighting at 25K or over....(had lightnings at 33K couple nights ago)
not to mention K4s at that altitude.  There were 5 of them against 4 of us in P47Ns.  It really wasn't a contest.
A K4 I drew a bead on....tried to do the K4 nose up routine.....it didn't work.  the N model climbed right up
the K4s six, closing the gap rather quickly I might add and the K4 Pilot was puzzled and questioned how
that could happen.

He misjudged your E-state.  The K-4 still outclimbs the N at 25k ft, and continues to outclimb it through 30k ft.

[SIK1]

I have three airframes I would like to become proficient in. The F4U, the 109, and the 38.

[Shuffler]

The Jeep.

I have not been able to get it much more than a few feet off the ground.

[Latrobe]

The Jeep.

I have not been able to get it much more than a few feet off the ground.

You should go to the level bombng training part of the TA and drive in any direction for about 10 seconds 

[Shuffler]

You should go to the level bombng training part of the TA and drive in any direction for about 10 seconds  

   wooot.


<edit>
ummm not very responsive to rudder input. Any pointers?

[dunnrite]

 wooot.


<edit>
ummm not very responsive to rudder input. Any pointers?

Lower alts?

Back on topic, the ones in between and including A20-Yak U

[texastc316]

Workin on 38s now, been wanting to learn it for years. Maybe after the 38 (in a couple of years) I want to learn the 109's. P38 is definitly my favorite ride right now, the beatings evidently worked.

[MjTalon]

Continuing my P-38 training. I have a lot of training and learning to do in the P-38. I'll think i know a lot, fight a fellow SAPP or 80th and get my arse handed too me within 10 seconds so I consider myself a P-38 novice despite knowing it a little bit.

One plane that i think is underestimated truly is the 190A5. My time in JG11 opened my eyes to that beast. A skilled 190A5 pilot or a team of 190a5's will make short work of a gaggle.

[Hajo]

Gav....take a look at the altitude I posted......33K.

The N Jug outclimbed the K4.  I know...I was in the N Jug.

[SPKmes]

The Jeep.

I have not been able to get it much more than a few feet off the ground.

Have you tried it since the new updates.....T34's can jump clear over the roads now......my next mission is to jump clear over the supply convoy

[Masherbrum]

Ki-61.   

[BnZs]

Depends on which Allied airmen you were talking to.  The VVS pilots generally considered the 109 to be better than the 190.

There can be no doubt that the much more lightly loaded 109s would be superior in a sustained turn than a 190, BUT, one wonders if our A-5 should turn better than it does. The wingloading is not all that different from that of a P-47 D-11. And then there is the issue of the our 190s speed at low alt, coupled with the issue of control stiffness in the 109s...if the control stiffness in AHII for the 109s at high speed were modeled more like it is in IL2, then that alone would be a huge edge to the 190s.

[PJ_Godzilla]

There can be no doubt that the much more lightly loaded 109s would be superior in a sustained turn than a 190, BUT, one wonders if our A-5 should turn better than it does. The wingloading is not all that different from that of a P-47 D-11. And then there is the issue of the our 190s speed at low alt, coupled with the issue of control stiffness in the 109s...if the control stiffness in AHII for the 109s at high speed were modeled more like it is in IL2, then that alone would be a huge edge to the 190s.

I'm not sure I follow. When you say control stiffness, I'm thinking input/output or the reciprocal.

I note for comparison that the 109 gets very "stiff" at his speed, which is to say the ratio of input to output goes up radically (the Zeke seems to do the same).

I'm not sure if this is a function of control surface movement as a ratio of stick movement (seems like, given the mechanical linkage, it should have sufficient compliance to change MUCH, though cables do stretch under load, etc) or if, e.g. the 109's case, it's because you lose decent flow over the surfaces - i.e., is it a mechanical or aero effect or, if both, how much of each? 

I can only deduce that you're saying that we'd get much more control authority at speed in the 190 by adopting the IL2 model, at least w/r the 109. But this seems counterintuitive since we currently get Passed-out Barbie at anything nearing 500 IAS in the 109. I still have a modicum of control in the 190s at those speeds.

[BnZs]

No PJ, I'm saying that the 109s suffer loss of control authority at slower speeds as modeled in Il2 than AHII, as do all planes in IL2.

In Il2, the elevator authority of the 109 is notably reduced starting at 280 IAS. In AHII you can still pull pilot-limited "into the black" Gs to almost 400mph IAS.

Having a good deal more control authority at 400+mph IAS isn't near the advantage that having significantly more authority at 300mph IAS, because in the case of the former, one must be in a power-dive to reach such high airspeeds in the first place and one will be so severely limited by blackout at those speeds anyway.

I'm not sure I follow. When you say control stiffness, I'm thinking input/output or the reciprocal.

I note for comparison that the 109 gets very "stiff" at his speed, which is to say the ratio of input to output goes up radically (the Zeke seems to do the same).

I'm not sure if this is a function of control surface movement as a ratio of stick movement (seems like, given the mechanical linkage, it should have sufficient compliance to change MUCH, though cables do stretch under load, etc) or if, e.g. the 109's case, it's because you lose decent flow over the surfaces - i.e., is it a mechanical or aero effect or, if both, how much of each? 

I can only deduce that you're saying that we'd get much more control authority at speed in the 190 by adopting the IL2 model, at least w/r the 109. But this seems counterintuitive since we currently get Passed-out Barbie at anything nearing 500 IAS in the 109. I still have a modicum of control in the 190s at those speeds.

[Anaxogoras]

I'm not sure if this is a function of control surface movement as a ratio of stick movement (seems like, given the mechanical linkage, it should have sufficient compliance to change MUCH, though cables do stretch under load, etc) or if, e.g. the 109's case, it's because you lose decent flow over the surfaces - i.e., is it a mechanical or aero effect or, if both, how much of each? 

109s did not suffer from compression, i.e. a lack of airflow over the control surfaces at high speed.  Rather, they suffered from  too much airflow over the control surfaces at high speed.