Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: 1K3 on February 07, 2006, 02:04:13 PM
-
...?
-
waddayamean? do you want to ruin this game?
-
Oh boy...
:noid
-
let me drop my flaps at the correct speed :t I have a hunch that the LW rides won't suck quite as much in ToD... I'm assuming most of hte fighting will happen up high, and fights way up in the sky are a wee bit different than what we get in hte MA. That being said, maybe they'll suck even more... who knows? Just fix my damn flaps... :O
-
For those who feel like checking it out, you can fly the Axis rides against their US and British counterparts in the Axis vs. Allied arena right now. There were over 100 people in there on Sunday at once for a bomber raid! Suprising as it may seem, ALL of the LW fighters are carrying better then 1:1 K/D!
-
The LW kill:death alone does not mean that the planes aren't "broke". They're still broke, despite their kill:death ratio.
-
Originally posted by Sable
For those who feel like checking it out, you can fly the Axis rides against their US and British counterparts in the Axis vs. Allied arena right now. There were over 100 people in there on Sunday at once for a bomber raid! Suprising as it may seem, ALL of the LW fighters are carrying better then 1:1 K/D!
they are carrying the kill death ratio that they are because most of the players in the axis rides have years of experience in them and are generally very aggressive and communicate well. unlike their counterparts.
-
Originally posted by storch
they are carrying the kill death ratio that they are because most of the players in the axis rides have years of experience in them and are generally very aggressive and communicate well. unlike their counterparts.
OR a more likely explanation given the .8 kills per sortie and less than 3 kills per hour of the Pontiff here, they are not aggressive at all, but good at waiting for the cherrypicking.
-
Originally posted by Grits
OR a more likely explanation given the .8 kills per sortie and less than 3 kills per hour of the Pontiff here, they are not aggressive at all, but good at waiting for the cherrypicking.
this idiot spends her time following me around the bbs. could this be love that she's feeling?
-
I replied to your post 3 1/2 hours after you posted it, and you replied to mine 4 minutes later, who's following who Nancy?
-
" this idiot..."
WOAH! Watch what you throw from that glass house your in.
-
Despite various peoples subjective assessments of them being "broke", the 109s and 190s are still very competitive in a historical matchup. As Storch points out, tactics and pilot skill are the most important element.
-
Flew in the AvA arena for a little last night... 190a5 vs 51B seemed a fairly even matchup. 1v2-3 it was still manageable. 109G6 vs. spitVIII seemed easy, but I'm used to turning with spits in K4's, so I guess a G6 should seem that way. I don't know (care) enough about 190's to say if they're busted or not... I will say that the A8 should be much better than it is, if pilot accounts of the plane are of any indication. Fix the flaps on 109's and they should be competitive in most historical matchups. You have to be better to fly 109's. I can live with that.
-
Originally posted by wetrat
You have to be better to fly 109's.
Try a TBM for a couple of tours. You could be great! :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Westy
" this idiot..."
WOAH! Watch what you throw from that glass house your in.
being an idiot, it is much easier to spot other idiots. after all it takes one to know one. good eye there........ and BTW that should be you're.
-
Originally posted by Grits
I replied to your post because I'm deeply and passionately in love with you and want to have your baby, a baby storch brought by the real storch would complete me.
sorry but I don't schtupp corn meal.
-
I don't often agree with Storch however he is right when it comes to this.
In general (all of AH, not just AvA) people dedicated LW iron are far more skilled. Be it you allied boys like it or not.
Wether this is because many LW pilots have been as dedicated as they are or just because the LW rides actually require far more skill to fly not to mention far more skill to kill with.
This is quickly proved in arenas like AvA where the allies, even though superior numbers often get smacked around. This is thanks to the communication and flying ability of the dedicated LW people.
While the "allies" so to speak, have lots of great sticks aswell there are still far less of them. Why? Because the planes in general don't require the skill or have anywhere near the learning curve of the LW rides. One can survive in a P51 even if one sucks (and even get a kill thanks to spraying with 50 cals).
All the allied planes of course require skill too but give a n00b a 109 and another n00b a P51 and see who will get the most done (and forbid both of them to run away).
Flying a Pony or P38 after you have been in a 109 or 190 is truly like going from Full Realism to Relaxed Realism (in those other games) as far as stalling and maneuverability is concerned. They are just SOO friendly and forgiving (be it right or wrong).
-
Originally posted by storch
being an idiot, it is much easier to spot other idiots. after all it takes one to know one. good eye there........ and BTW that should be you're.
Didn't you just sort of dig yer own grave there? ;)
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Didn't you just sort of dig yer own grave there? ;)
why? I'm an idiot, grits is one also. I embrace my idiocy, it's quite liberating. I'm glad to see westy recognizes that and is ..... well, let's repeat that it takes one to know one.
-
Wilbus, do not ask too many questions or contradict the Pontiff, he will excommunicate you.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
I don't often agree with Storch however he is right when it comes to this.
In general (all of AH, not just AvA) people dedicated LW iron are far more skilled. Be it you allied boys like it or not.
Wether this is because many LW pilots have been as dedicated as they are or just because the LW rides actually require far more skill to fly not to mention far more skill to kill with.
This is quickly proved in arenas like AvA where the allies, even though superior numbers often get smacked around. This is thanks to the communication and flying ability of the dedicated LW people.
While the "allies" so to speak, have lots of great sticks aswell there are still far less of them. Why? Because the planes in general don't require the skill or have anywhere near the learning curve of the LW rides. One can survive in a P51 even if one sucks (and even get a kill thanks to spraying with 50 cals).
All the allied planes of course require skill too but give a n00b a 109 and another n00b a P51 and see who will get the most done (and forbid both of them to run away).
Flying a Pony or P38 after you have been in a 109 or 190 is truly like going from Full Realism to Relaxed Realism (in those other games) as far as stalling and maneuverability is concerned. They are just SOO friendly and forgiving (be it right or wrong).
Another reason could be you guys are in 109s from day one through the end of the RPS. True you go through upgrades , but your still flying a similar machine the whole tour. It just gets improved. In fact except for PTO setups there are 109s in every CT/AvA setup. Of course this explaination will draw fire because it's far less heroic then the LW pilots are gods dribble you folks love to use. Then throw in a healthy dose of Allied rides are uber to stroke your ego some more.
You can spout large learning curve all you want. If the planes available everyday even Forest Gump will figure it out after a month.:rofl
-
A pissant grammar flame following up a blithering "I know you are but what am I" level of retort? lol.
That's choice coming from you. A person with the personality of a mushroom and IMO who represents the low water mark of the AH community over the past couple of years.
(awaits the "Oh yeah? You're momma wears army boots!" taunt)
-
Oh yeah? Your momma wears army boots!
-
I disagree with Wilbus.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
its hard to judge if the 109s are more dedicated pilots...i had 2 sorties in A vs A...was pretty even with wetrat in spit 8 but he got me... and slaughtered a pack of luftdweebs killing 5 before the inevitable cannon ho/gangbangers reupped to kill me....its the ma all over again in there just like the ct was..
-
a person easily offended by another person pointing out not a grammatical but more likely a spelling error. this causes the offended person's veins in the neck and head to bulge and pulsate. my work is done here, and oh find the windex within the seldomly opened cleaning products cabinet underneath the filthy sink in your squalid kitchen, clean the spittle off of your monitor. you are grossing out the roaches.
-
Originally posted by jaxxo
its hard to judge if the 109s are more dedicated pilots...i had 2 sorties in A vs A...was pretty even with wetrat in spit 8 but he got me... and slaughtered a pack of luftdweebs killing 5 before the inevitable cannon ho/gangbangers reupped to kill me....its the ma all over again in there just like the ct was..
I agree... the AvA is basically the same as the MA, but with more even matchups. In the AvA, getting gangbanged by 3 51b's in an a5 is a perfectly winnable fight, whereas getting ganged in the MA by an La7, spit16 and niki in an a5 generally isn't. Pilot skill matters much more in the early-mid war matchups. The late war luftwobble rides get harder to fly and hte late war allied birds get easier, so the disparity between planes in those matchups will be much larger. The allied planes will compensate for skill (and lack thereof) much more.
-
Originally posted by Shifty
Another reason could be you guys are in 109s from day one through the end of the RPS. True you go through upgrades , but your still flying a similar machine the whole tour. It just gets improved. In fact except for PTO setups there are 109s in every CT/AvA setup. Of course this explaination will draw fire because it's far less heroic then the LW pilots are gods dribble you folks love to use. Then throw in a healthy dose of Allied rides are uber to stroke your ego some more.
You can spout large learning curve all you want. If the planes available everyday even Forest Gump will figure it out after a month.:rofl
spend a little time in the G14 in the AvA and then post your observation about the similarity it has with it's precedent models.
-
I think all the 109's and 190's (especially the G-14 and the A-8) should be perked.
-
Originally posted by Shifty
Another reason could be you guys are in 109s from day one through the end of the RPS. True you go through upgrades , but your still flying a similar machine the whole tour. It just gets improved. In fact except for PTO setups there are 109s in every CT/AvA setup. Of course this explaination will draw fire because it's far less heroic then the LW pilots are gods dribble you folks love to use. Then throw in a healthy dose of Allied rides are uber to stroke your ego some more.
You can spout large learning curve all you want. If the planes available everyday even Forest Gump will figure it out after a month.:rofl
Well actually I don't think so. Of course this is my opinion.
The "allied rides are easy mode" I base entirily on my feeling. I feel they are ALOT easier to handle then the LW planes.
This is emediatly felt when you try any allied plane. Another thing that shows a clear difference is the need for trimming. The 190's currently need the most trimming (they shouldn't really need any at all). The 109's require alot of trimming aswell but not quite as much. I am not talking about trimming out of dives here but trimming for the speed you are currently in.
The allied planes almost fly without me doing anything with the trim, it is almost like flying with CT on at all times.
I know non of you will agree with me but like I said, I base my opinion on my feelings. And my opinion is the LW rides have a far far steeper learning curve.
Shifty, as far as "us" being in 109's from day one this isn't really true as we get 190's aswell.
And, (this could be because I fly many planes in the MA) I really don't have a problem going from a 109 to a P51 and flying it on the edge aswell. Hasn't got all that much to do with being used to the planes.
-
I disagree with Wilbus.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Well actually I don't think so. Of course this is my opinion.
The "allied rides are easy mode" I base entirily on my feeling. I feel they are ALOT easier to handle then the LW planes.
This is emediatly felt when you try any allied plane. Another thing that shows a clear difference is the need for trimming. The 190's currently need the most trimming (they shouldn't really need any at all). The 109's require alot of trimming aswell but not quite as much. I am not talking about trimming out of dives here but trimming for the speed you are currently in.
The allied planes almost fly without me doing anything with the trim, it is almost like flying with CT on at all times.
I know non of you will agree with me but like I said, I base my opinion on my feelings. And my opinion is the LW rides have a far far steeper learning curve.
Shifty, as far as "us" being in 109's from day one this isn't really true as we get 190's aswell.
And, (this could be because I fly many planes in the MA) I really don't have a problem going from a 109 to a P51 and flying it on the edge aswell. Hasn't got all that much to do with being used to the planes.
I realize you got the 190 as well Wilbus. I used way too much sarcasm in my reply. Now I'm basing my observations on the CT/AvA not the MA at all. I've been a LW flyer before myself in JG3, and JG54. I understand what you say about LW planes needing more skill to fly. I agree with you to a point.
Yes it takes skill to be good in LW rides. Once a LW guy becomes experianced he is deadly. However when he is shot down , it's not just because the Allied planes are uber. That chorus gets beat to death in the AvA.
One disadvantage I do think the LW guys have is the number of plane types they fight against more than the types themselves. When I fly Allied I know I'm going to have to deal with usually one or two planes. The 109, or the 190. Occasionally 110's.
Where I do think the axis get screwed is having to fight Spits/Hurris/Typh/Temp/P38s/P51s/P47s, all at the same time. Thats a lot of different plane types , and performance envelopes to fight against.
I'll vote to get rid of the RAF planes as long as the P-47 can be included 80% of the time.:aok
-
I disagree with Wilbus.
-
That was a truly lame and uninspiring response. Making fun of the area under my sink? You should have gone with the more intelligent and scorching "you're momma wears army boots."
-
:rofl
-
I think I should have been more clear Shifty :)
Allied planes take skill to get good in. They take alot of skill to get good in. However, they are still far easier to start in for a n00b aswell as for an average pilot.
There's a reason many N00bs fly P51 (not just because it is a famous plane) over the 109's or 190's.
50 cal makes it easy as hell to hit (although they lack the punch of 20mm). It requires very little trimming (only an advantage to those of us who don't use Combat trim). It turns far far better then any 190 while it performs equally good in high speeds. It performs far better then the 109 at high speeds and still outturn the 109 (although the 109 should beat it in a climbing turn).
Same thing goes for P47 and P38, while they are different from the Pony they too are far easier than the 109's and 190's. Maybe not just because they need far less trimming (ok so the P38 has got two counter rotating props so we'll leave out aileron trim there) but MUCH because of the guns.
The 109's have become "experten" planes much because they fly around with quite poor (although nose mounted) armament with very little ammo. Alternative 2 is to bring gondies but that has a serious effect on performance. 190's are just plain hard to aim in. Add to this that both the 109 and the 190 suffers from very poor forward view which makes deflection shots more then twice as difficult compared to pretty much every allied plane in the AvA now.
When an LW guy is shot down it's not just because of the planes, actually, it has very little to do with the planes most of the time. It's the man not the machine. However, the machine gives a distinct advantage.
I will stick to my opinion that the allied planes are far easier to get kills in and easier to fly aswell as gun in. This is one of the reasons more pilots fly allied then there are LW (although the LW community is by far the loudest).
And like I said before, my opinion is based from having flown AH from the first day of the open beta. I've been through every plane in AH and have flown most of them alot. Having gone from being a sissyfire 5 pilot in the beta days to changing to Pony, F4u, P38 and P47 (spent several tours in each of them), 190 A8 and later A5 and Dora, 109's etc I believe I know pretty much every advantage and disadvantage of them.
-
WTF are you constantly messing with trim in 109's for, wilbus? There's no need. I trim ele's up for high speed turns and to get out of dives... other than that, it's just another distraction that yields little to no results. I'd rather have my hand on my throttle working me through turns than screw with trim that does nothing at low speeds.
-
I continue to disagree with Wilbus.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
109 flaps, 109 flaps, 109 flaps, 109 flaps, 109 flaps...
go away Todd.
:D
-
Though I dont have much to offer in this forum, I must say I am impressed that about a third of this threads' postings are concise and respectful. I dont think I've ever seen a simple "I disagree with" posting -- no posturing, no puffery, no insultsing tone!
Clearly some of you are taking meds before entering the forum, and I was wondering if those could be made available for "aircraft and vehicle" posters?
-
I disagree with Simaril AND Wilbus.
-
Wetrat, trim takes alot of workload away from the hand working the stick. To constantly be trimmed "right" enables you to aim far better (which is why CT gives an advantage in most cases). I constantly trim for the speed I am in, at all speeds in all planes. Of course, trimming out of dives is a must with 109's.
As for you rather haveing your hand on the throttle. I can do both considerig I have my trim knobs on the throttle.
And you are wrong about it not giving any results. Imagine being trimmed for 300. Then you suddenly slow down to 200 and want to take a snapshot, you pull the stick then eas of a little and the planes nose imediatly tips down, you miss the shot.
Trim does a hell of alot in all speeds. Think about it, why was CT added? Clearly it is not to trim people out of high speed dives as it does the exact opposit.
But you are right about it being a workload, a workload that almost doesn't exist in allied rides.
I agree with Simaril and am surprised I still have been attacked :D
I agree with Stang on both flaps and the Tod thing
-
hi. i am always turning with spits in my k4, and im really so used to it that flying a g6 against p51bs is no problem. infact i could probably turn a k4 with zekes. you need to be really good to fly the 109s.
-
Cool Mandingo. Let's go into the DA you and I.
You in a K4 and me a spit, any spit. Then me in a Zeke :)
I give you 10 seconds after the first merge, at most, unless you run ;)
-
Question: "How do you fix something which you can't actually prove is wrong?"
Answer: "You can't. So don't fix it"
The above is probably the best way to describe HTC's attitude on this matter, at least, IMO.
I've dedicated a lot of posts in many threads concerning this very subject. Being entirely untrained in any kind of aero-engineering knowledge, the only thing I could do was to try and provide anecdotes from other gamers, and compare the each of planes in as objective a way as I could imagine.
I strongly feel that either;
1) the 109 and 190 has stability issues so serious as to be considered 'abnormal'
or
2) the major opposition the historical 109s and 190s faced in the war, are much too stable and easy to manage, notably the USAAF planes
The willingness and aggressiveness of the P-51 and P-47 pilots in the game, to engage planes known as much more maneuverable than their own, often with considerable success, often surprises me - and not all of them are the 'expert pilots', so to speak.
In common contrast, the frustration levels mounting around 109s and 190s are IMO seriously high among the 190 or 109 pilots in the game, I myself included. Not all of them are dedicated 'LW pilots', as one might suggest, and definately not all of the cases are related with personal skill issues. Engaging in a slow-speed fight, which typically described as 'superior against the opposition' is in the MA a near suicidal attempt, IMO, and such results manifest itself in the form of the general tendency of how people fly the plane - "Bore and Zoom", as someone might put it.
The problem is, how can I prove that AH's version of depiction in the stability of the 109/190 pair and the P-51/P-47 pair is wrong? If anyone else has got any ideas, please, let me know.
-
I took up a 109G6 the other night to see what the fuss was about. I actually landed kills in it. I don't do that in 38s or Spits very often.
Flew a G14 last night. Got in behind a Tiffie, tapped the gun button and BOOM the Tiffie blew up. Killed a Spit 8 after that and an LA before being rammed by another LA.
The 109s seemed fine to me. I know I've flown the Emil most of all and have fun in that one down low and slow too. I had a lot of fun flying Emils against the Spits and Hurri's in AvA when the early B of B planeset was there.
Now, I have to keep in mind I'm a lousy shot and an average stick, but I just don't see what the fuss is about.
The only thing I can figure is that folks expect 109s and 190s to knife fight the same as Spits can down low and slow and I just don't think that's what they are best at.
I do believe Luftwhining has reached a new level lately though and part of it seems to stem from some belief that the LW iron should naturally be superior to everything it comes up against.
I guess in the end I look at it this way. My lifelong history interests have been Spits and USAAF birds in particular the 38. So that's what I "fly". If I was a LW junkie I'd fly LW stuff. Either way I'd make the best of it because that's where my interest lies. and quit grumbling about how my particular favorite ride isn't what I believe it should be.
-
I disagree with everyone.
-
I disagree with KONG and myself.
-
This "we axis are so experienced" comes from earlie fighter simulations where the axis planes really sukked.....
But not in today games still the image hangs. But when i see apar or doom fly axis stuff i know im sure.
generaly it climbs like rockets is very manouvrable and good acceleration.
Not to forget 1 ping boem guns.
wich work very good in close snapshots.
for most planes counts a good pilots gets all out of it a noob dies alot easier no matter what plane he flies he makes that stupid mistake.
-
The only thing I can figure is that folks expect 109s and 190s to knife fight the same as Spits can down low and slow and I just don't think that's what they are best at.
So you're saying people who've been flying 109s for years still can't tell the difference between how a Spit fights and how a 109s fights, and the complaints are caused by doofuses who try to outturn everything in 109 and 190s - based on a few sorties.
I do believe Luftwhining has reached a new level lately though and part of it seems to stem from some belief that the LW iron should naturally be superior to everything it comes up against.
Some dicussions may have gone in that direction. This matter however, did not.
I guess in the end I look at it this way. My lifelong history interests have been Spits and USAAF birds in particular the 38. So that's what I "fly". If I was a LW junkie I'd fly LW stuff. Either way I'd make the best of it because that's where my interest lies. and quit grumbling about how my particular favorite ride isn't what I believe it should be.
It's particularly easy to comment as you would when one's own favorite ride is always pretty much spot on (or in some cases even better than) what one believes it should be.
However, when a 109 at a co-E status loses a fight to a P-47 in vertical looping due to loss of stability control at high AoA during the upward travel and reversal, whereas the P-47 could simply pull down the flaps and gain an almost irreversible advantage during the elongated vertical turn against a plane with better pure turn rate, better power:weight ration, and only half its weight.. it's pretty difficult to "quit grumbling".
Since you're an avid fan of the Spits and P-38s, let me put in terms you may understand:
Imagine how it would be like, if outturning a Fw190 in your precious Spitfire, was as difficult as fighting Spitfires in your beloved P-38G in a low and slow deadlock contest. If trying to simply outturn a Fw190 in a Spit, which doesn't even use rolls but just simply goes into a tightest turn possible, was so damned difficult and skill-demanding, then I have a hunch that it wouldn't be so easy to 'make the best of it.' (Then someone would come along and say he upped a Spit and killed 10 planes in a sortie, so he feels nothing's wrong with the Spit)
I guess in the end, that's basically it for us "Luftwhiners".
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
So you're saying people who've been flying 109s for years still can't tell the difference between how a Spit fights and how a 109s fights, and the complaints are caused by doofuses who try to outturn everything in 109 and 190s - based on a few sorties.
Some dicussions may have gone in that direction. This matter however, did not.
It's particularly easy to comment as you would when one's own favorite ride is always pretty much spot on (or in some cases even better than) what one believes it should be.
However, when a 109 at a co-E status loses a fight to a P-47 in vertical looping due to loss of stability control at high AoA during the upward travel and reversal, whereas the P-47 could simply pull down the flaps and gain an almost irreversible advantage during the elongated vertical turn against a plane with better pure turn rate, better power:weight ration, and only half its weight.. it's pretty difficult to "quit grumbling".
Since you're an avid fan of the Spits and P-38s, let me put in terms you may understand:
Imagine how it would be like, if outturning a Fw190 in your precious Spitfire, was as difficult as fighting Spitfires in your beloved P-38G in a low and slow deadlock contest. If trying to simply outturn a Fw190 in a Spit, which doesn't even use rolls but just simply goes into a tightest turn possible, was so damned difficult and skill-demanding, then I have a hunch that it wouldn't be so easy to 'make the best of it.' (Then someone would come along and say he upped a Spit and killed 10 planes in a sortie, so he feels nothing's wrong with the Spit)
I guess in the end, that's basically it for us "Luftwhiners".
What I'm saying is these guys at HTC have been doing this for a long time. They seem to know what they're doing. I'm sure they have all the documents and stats out there they can find plus every last bit of data that the 'experts' here throw at them.
Yet the 'experts' are telling them that they've got it wrong. Based on what? Something they've found that fits with what they believe a certain plane can do.
Wander into the arena every night lately and all you see on 200 is HTC is screwing the Luftwaffe fans.
Not one of us flew combat in a WW2 plane that I know of. Any of us 'experts' are just passing on our interpretation of what we think it should be like. I see guys landing kills all the time in 109s, 190s etc. There are some guys that really can make them dance. So is it the modeling or the pilot?
Ultimately who gets to decide how it's gonna work? Last I checked it was HTC since it's their game.
So based on the heading of this thread, then HTC is wrong and the 'experts' here are right.
When I fly the Emil I have fun...but ya know what it's not really an Me109E. It's just pretend, like everything else in this game. When I flew the G6 and G14 after all the grumbling, I expected it to feel and fly awful. It didn't. I'm not going to lie about it. It was fun. Same goes for the 190A5
But again, it's the heading of the thread that set the tone. HTC you are wrong. We know better so you better fix the 109s and 190s cause we don't like em.
-
Maybe you guys should dig up Kurt Tank, and Willie Messerschmitt , and beat the hell out of em You seem to think theres some personal evil plot against the LW planes. Blame the designers of the aircraft. Or blame the designers of the game. You guys act like it's the Allied players fault your ride isn't up to your expectations.
Kweassa, I know your experiance and knowledge of all this is vast, and I do respect your opinon. I got to ask if you know a P-47 is going to best your 109 in a scenario like you discribed..... Why not ensure you don't get in that position, the same way you will never follow a Spit through a couple of flat turns? I do know what your saying though. I remember when it happened to me once in the CT. I even had an altitude and energy advantage on Shane, and he pretty much spanked my 109 with his P-47.
I will tell you the average P-47 driver won't be able to pull that off. Theres more involved than dropping flaps. I've been trying to figure it out since Shane did it to me. I'm just now getting proficient with the Jug in the vertiucal. However if the 109 has a wingman , and you don't....... Its dirt nap time.
You can tell when your flying a Jug if the LW guy is any good. The good ones will use your wieght against you and have some paitence. Then kill you right when your Jug becomes a rock.
The newer LW pilots seem to think just because your in a P-47 your meat on the table. So they get careless in the vertical , and even when turning. They don't consider lighter gunloads , turning off combat trim , and such. I think some of them just see a whale with wings.
-
Yes we all know the Allies used alien technology that allowed a heavier aircraft with less thrust to weight ratio to out maneuveres higher thrust to weight aircraft, yeah those Germans didn't know how to make airplanes......
I remember back when AH1 was released with a true flight model that had almost all the aircraft have acelerated stall, airplanes had really high turning circles at highspeeds, P-51s Bled E and could be made to Bleed E same goes for the 190A8s and Spitfires, then HT changed it to the simpler more so FM back when AH was 30 bucks a month.....
Then they dropped it to 15 a month and people came in the bucket load. But the simpler no adverse flight condition FM remained . Then comes AH2 and the LW fighters have an FM more aching to AH 1.03 and the Allied rides have the same FM of the 1.04 and beyond.
I still remember when Pyro found out that the JUg had 300lbs overweight he made a quick patch to patch it up, while some other things were being accurately addressed about LW aircraft, that were told wrongly modeled and proved so by many others.
Now AH2 the 190s/109s have the thick bars in the cockpit that looks like you're looking through a toilet paper roll and the wobbly FM the inpotent cannons and both aircraft that could deploy in the case of the 190 one notch at 300 and the 109 at almost 400mph, are overlooked.......
Yeah and they know it'll remain the same,cus LW sucking =$$$$$
-
Glasses, I saw this quote on another board where they were discussing the fact that Montgomery Burns of the Simpsons was apparently a P47 pilot.
C. Montgomery Burns
Quote:
"Ah, the Luftwaffe. The Washington Generals of the History Channel."
I thought you might appreciate it :)
-
I think that was Homer that said it while he was sitting with Bart and he switched over the TV to the History channel which had Stukas on and then he said said quote :D
-
Originally posted by Glasses
I still remember when Pyro found out that the JUg had 300lbs overweight he made a quick patch to patch it up,
iirc, the D11 was 300 lbs too light. The weight was added after people complained it was a spitbolt.
I think it was something about the ammo load not included.
Bozon
-
Kweassa said pretty much everything I wanted to say in his posts but I will add a few things anyway.
Kweassa
I will tell you the average P-47 driver won't be able to pull that off. Theres more involved than dropping flaps. I've been trying to figure it out since Shane did it to me. I'm just now getting proficient with the Jug in the vertiucal. However if the 109 has a wingman , and you don't....... Its dirt nap time.
You can tell when your flying a Jug if the LW guy is any good. The good ones will use your wieght against you and have some paitence. Then kill you right when your Jug becomes a rock. The newer LW pilots seem to think just because your in a P-47 your meat on the table. So they get careless in the vertical , and even when turning. They don't consider lighter gunloads , turning off combat trim , and such. I think some of them just see a whale with wings.
Well, if you wanna mix in wingmen you can just turn it around. If the P47 has a wingman and you don't, it's nap time. Not a very clever statement really ;)
Lighter gunloads, (combat trim doesn't affect performance btw, it only takes less load of your stick hand and makes it easier to aim).
Tell me, take the two planes we're discussing. Say a 109 K4 vs a P47D40.
The 109 weights in (empty) at about 4900 lbs. The P47 weights in at about 9950 lbs.
28,16 lbs/square feet.
That's 203% more weight.
109 K uses an engine of about 1550 hp for takeoff (1800 with emergency boost?)
P47 has 2535 hp power plant which is a hell of alot more HP. However, it is not 203% more HP thus the power/weight ratio is far greater in the 109.
33,3 lbs/square feet wingloading.
Also, wingloading is far greater in the P47. None of this is noticable once the P47 pops its flaps (already at 400mph if it wants to).
Max loaded at just above 7400 lbs the 109 still weights 2500lbs less then an empty P47. (although the wingloading is greater on a fully loaded 109 then of an empty P47).
Guppy.
What I'm saying is these guys at HTC have been doing this for a long time. They seem to know what they're doing. I'm sure they have all the documents and stats out there they can find plus every last bit of data that the 'experts' here throw at them. Yet the 'experts' are telling them that they've got it wrong. Based on what? Something they've found that fits with what they believe a certain plane can do.
Yes they have done this for a long time. But your certainty as for them having all info possibly available is somewhat funny. Although we never see what sources they use it's been proven time over time some of the experts here have far more info.
Crumpp is just a good example of that as far as the 190's go. There is no way HTC would ever spend that much time investigating one airplane, which I can definatly understand. However, they've gotten alot of free info from people like Crumpp.
It has been proven the 109 flaps don't deploy at as high speeds as they should. The last chart I saw posted on the BBS showed 10 degree flap movement at almost 800 km/h (bout 490mph). Be it this high or not (doubt we'll ever see them deploy at that speed, right or wrong). Now the last thing we heard when the last patch was released is "the 109 flaps were overlooked". Well hot damn please forgive us for being frustrated.
Then comes the stability issue, possible the biggest issue at this time but Kweassa has already mentioned it.
As for landing ## in planes. So what? I've landed 10 kills in a 202.
I don't really feel this is wrong entirely "against" the LW. I think HTC need to take a serious look at the entire FM in AH when it comes to stability and low speed handeling. the 110 is a prime example of this as it is THE single best LW dogfighter in AH. It's the LW plane that can best compete with most allied planes in a pure turnfight. Same thing goes for every twin in the game, they feel too good, way too good.
-
I can't resist the temptation so I'll jump in.
It is possible to land kills in LW planes and you don't have to be an ace to do it. I can. Even the stability problems can be overcome. But it's a fact that it is much, MUCH easier to harvest a large number of kills in a Spit XVI than to do it in a 109K.
If this is realistic I DON'T KNOW, see Guppy's statement. But I tend to agree that the LW planes are undermodeled, on purpose or not. The Fw-190 in here is a dog while historical data suggests a Spit IX is a perfect match for a contemporary Fw-190A. The data matches and pilots who have flown both planes think so too.
P.s I hate you Wilbus for shooting me down twice in quick succession yesterday. That a 109G-2 cannot hang with a Ki-84, I accept but how the hell did you pull off that reversal when I met you in a Spit XVI a few moments later? I never met someone who could do that. The only way I can think off is to reverse with all your might (burning off ALL your E, normally an unwise move) to get a one shot opportunity (which turned out to be enough). I didn't film it, can you tell me how you did that?
That I managed to land 4 kills later in said Spit XVI was not much consolation :D
-
go fly il2 the german stuff turns like zero's also always at monky alt a real cherry pick fest for them.
the luftwhiners did get a great influence over there.
btw wow 10 degree flap at 490 mph and than whine about p38 whiners for auto retract on a flap made for that purpose.
so the fowler flap must be made from balsa wood while the 109's made of krup uber titanium offcourse
:rolleyes:
-
Just posted the data from the chart Bug, right or wrong.
Hogenbor, don't hate me ;)
I fly on 100% feeling, not sure if I filmed it (don't think I did) but will gladly go and fly some with you in the DA and see if I make the same reversal.
I fly the Ki84 as aggressive as possible, going for quick kills then moving on to the next. I've become very used to flying it against "gangs". It suits my flying style in the MA perfectly which is why its almost the only plane I fly part from LW planes.
Not at all whining about P38 flaps bug, don't try and start a flame ;)
HT stated that we had two options. 1 was auto-retract flaps on all planes. 2 was auto jam flaps on all planes in the "set" speeds. The P38 atleast has got SOME use of its flaps. :)
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Well, if you wanna mix in wingmen you can just turn it around. If the P47 has a wingman and you don't, it's nap time. Not a very clever statement really ;)
I wasn't trying to be clever Wilbus. I give better odds to a 109, turning the tables or escaping from two P-47s once the fight has gone slow. Than a P-47 turning the tables or escaping from two 109s. Then again I guess you can chalk it up to your superior LW pilot skills.:aok
I still think the 109 is as dealdy of plane as there is in this sim. I'd like to see the 190 get a make over and a couple of it's earlier variants included.
One point Bug EAF touched on though. Luftwhining is not exclusive to AH. It was just as thick in Air Warrior , and Warbirds. I don't know about WWII Online because I never tried it. I wouldn't be suprised though if there was a sea of black leather tears there too.:D
Wilbus Kweassa
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Crumpp is just a good example of that as far as the 190's go. There is no way HTC would ever spend that much time investigating one airplane, which I can definatly understand. However, they've gotten alot of free info from people like Crumpp.
crumpp is now persona non grata on this board. I spoke with him last night at length. he claims that he called HT himself to question why he was banned and that HT responded that he was tired of crumpp's calling HTC's modelling into question. that is however crumpp's side to the story I suspect there may be another side to the drama. let's see if HT responds with something other then banning me from the board as well.
read crumpp's well documented last posts on the P51's performance and stall characteristics. in the "maybe the 190s aren't wrong thread by simaril. these last posts by crumpp may have broken the camel's back. I will again point out that the LW will never be modelled to 100% fidelity in this or any other game of this nature. to do so would be financial suicide for the game developers.
LW players can take comfort in the fact that we must overcome a handicap from the get go. the knowledge of this fact adds considerable satisfaction to my gaming experience, the losses are less bitter and the victories are that much sweeter.
-
Originally posted by storch
LW players can take comfort in the fact that we must overcome a handicap from the get go. the knowledge of this fact adds considerable satisfaction to my gaming experience, the losses are less bitter and the victories are that much sweeter.
And the BS that much thicker.;)
-
Sorry to hear about Crumpp.
Although we rarely seen eye to eye, was always a lively discussion.
Storch -
I would doubt that any plane is modelled to 100% accuracy.
Given the resources needed and the hardware required to get near to it.
But HT seems to do a great job within the above limitations.
Or do you think NASA, Boeing, Airbus etc all run their 'sims' on home PC's,
and that the sim itself is coded by a small staff?
Unless your volunteering to upgrade us all, in which case count me in.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Sorry to hear about Crumpp.
Although we rarely seen eye to eye, was always a lively discussion.
Storch -
I would doubt that any plane is modelled to 100% accuracy.
Given the resources needed and the hardware required to get near to it.
But HT seems to do a great job within the above limitations.
Or do you think NASA, Boeing, Airbus etc all run their 'sims' on home PC's,
and that the sim itself is coded by a small staff?
Unless your volunteering to upgrade us all, in which case count me in.
no kev to the contrary I think it's all well and good. while I don't enjoy getting the short end of the stick, I'll take it. any other game would have to be modelled about the same or fail. you can't have the new guy who loves the P51 or the spitfire walk on and be hopelessly creamed. they would log and never subscribe. I never liked spitfires or anything english but I did like mustangs and corsairs so when I first started and got hopelessly pounded in the MA in my auger in any turn 190 I tried the pony and easily got kills. that kept me in the game. every time I flew a 190 or 109 I was dead meat, in the pony or the corsair I landed kills. by my third day I had been recruited into JG3 and with the help of some dedicated LW enthusiasts I was able to learn the ropes in the LW models. HT has a good formula. my digs are levelled at the ackllied players who don't see they walk into the game with a signifcant advantage and still manage to end up on the cartoon slab.
-
I disagree with Storch.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
"I do believe Luftwhining has reached a new level lately though and part of it seems to stem from some belief that the LW iron should naturally be superior to everything it comes up against."
:rofl
So much BS so little time...
-C+
-
I for one am a bit sad to see Crumpp go. Although his discussions with gripen got out of hand, the guy must be considered a true expert on the Fw-190. If he was too biased I don't know, but at least he was able to admit a mistake, something Kurfurst never did. All the latest discussions were way over my level of understanding and I think it is sad that never a consensus could be reached.
As for Wilbus. Being beaten so quickly in a more or less one on one is quite rare for me. I would never claim to be a top pilot but this was humiliating ;)
I'd love to go to the MA and film a bit (I never bothered to master the film viewer since AH1) but I am an occasional flyer. I think the game is great but I cannot play it without 100% concentration, something I rarely have when I come home after a hard days work. When you see me on-line you can always suggest it of course. You are welcome.
-
I'd glady film and fly with/against you in the MA or DA or TA (or whatever you want) Hogenbor.
Like I said, I like quick kills ;) (Ok I like to humiliate people )
Then again I guess you can chalk it up to your superior LW pilot skills
No, just my superior skill :D
Shifty
I will still not agree with anyone of you guys, the simple fact for me (and for most other people I've seen join the game over the years) is that grabbing a Pony, F4u or any other US plane will much quicker get you kills and get you into AH then grabbing a 109 or a 190.
They are much more forgiving to fly.
So Crumpp was banned eh? Too bad, he had lots of good info on both 190's and other planes. Why he was banned I can only speculate in...
-
Gee whiz, I sure don’t wanna be banned for having the wrong opinion. So let it be known I think all plane modeling is perfect………….oh, and I agree with everybody.
-
When was he banned btw? He still posted yeasterday (the 15:th).
-
I meant the DA, just a typo. And I feel inclined to try a 109 in AvA tonight, just to see if I can get kills. I was 2.5 to one in the Hurri I, even got some 109F's with Finns in 'em.
Is unlimited side switching allowed in AvA?
-
I fly Hellcats.
-
So Crumpp was banned eh? Too bad, he had lots of good info on both 190's and other planes. Why he was banned I can only speculate in...
Gee whiz, I sure don’t wanna be banned for having the wrong opinion. So let it be known I think all plane modeling is perfect………….oh, and I agree with everybody.
Oh.. it's a conspiracy, it is a devilish conspiracy against LW fanatics.
Seriously guys.. get a grip :lol
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
I will still not agree with anyone of you guys, the simple fact for me (and for most other people I've seen join the game over the years) is that grabbing a Pony, F4u or any other US plane will much quicker get you kills and get you into AH then grabbing a 109 or a 190.
They are much more forgiving to fly.
If we're taking votes....I kind of agree with this (glances at Todd, notes objection). In a very general way. Possibly this is because there are really only two main LW types, and multiple allied types. But it has always seemed to me that it is harder to fly a 109 or an FW to the same level of success as most allied planes. That may be completely historical and realistic, I have no idea.
I except from the foregoing the Hellcat, Corsair and Lightning. I think those three take a lot of practice to fly well in turn fights.
- oldman
-
KONG1: Opions are no problem, how you present an opion can be.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by Glasses
I remember back when AH1 was released with a true flight model that had almost all the aircraft have acelerated stall, airplanes had really high turning circles at highspeeds, P-51s Bled E and could be made to Bleed E same goes for the 190A8s and Spitfires, then HT changed it to the simpler more so FM back when AH was 30 bucks a month.....
Don't be spweing lies and crap Glasses. You weren't the only one around back then who is still here. I remember it quite well and it wasn't changed for the reasons you claim. It was changed because it was demonstrated to be incorrect as modeled.
Your revisionist history is not limited to the Germans dominating the skies of WWII until the very end it seems.
-
Storch..et.al... I've been a LW fan/pilot in Aces High for over four years. The 109 and 190 haven't really changed a whole lot in thier flight model.
From my persepctive, there are a couple of factors that can greatly impact gameplay that you often balance out in a sim. For example, if you take a great game we all love, called Wings Over Vietnam, aircraft pretty much fly on rails, but bleed speed like a stuck pig. The gameplay however is simple because the aircraft are easy to fly and the cockpits easy to use.
Take something like Lo-MAC - geez, you need a frackin degree in avionics to use the F-15. The A-10 is simple, but she's a simple bird to begin with.
In Aces High - the aircraft are simple. Flaps, gear, trim, auto climb/level/speed, dive brakes(if you got them), and then flight model.
For the flight model - couple of factors impact playability - stall characteristics, energy retention, acceleration, roll rate, turn rate, and top speed.
I really think HTC has balanced these flight model items to make the game playable. It's not going to be perfect, and I'm glad they haven't mucked to much with the 109/190. Sure, flap use at higher speeds would be nice (and historic), but you know what, it always comes down to the man, not the machine. I can up in a Spitfire XIV or Tempest, blazing in at 400mph, do a stupid manouver and still get popped by a 190A5 or 109F-4, if the pilot is smart.
I wish the 190's accelerated faster than they do, but they're not too far off. My acceleration tests have proven that fact - most 109 and 190's are in the top 20. Most American birds are slooooow to accelerate, but have high top speed.
We're not after a high-fidelity flight model in AH. Frack, that would be crazy trying to fly in an environment so uncompromising it'll kill you just trying to learn the game. Doesn't make $$$ sense either.
The LW aircraft may be off, but so are a lot of other birds. Bottom line is, how much time and effort makes monetary sense to investigate these items that would actually result in better profits and gameplay?
Make a case to HTC on how fixing X problem makes $$$ sense and a better product, then I'm sure you'll have their attention.
-
Originally posted by hitech
KONG1: Opions are no problem, how you present an opion can be.
HiTech
Uh oh............... I just heard thunder, and felt the earth shake.:confused:
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
But it has always seemed to me that it is harder to fly a 109 or an FW to the same level of success as most allied planes. That may be completely historical and realistic, I have no idea.
- oldman
As the war continued on more new airframes were introduced without US engineers and factories being bombed. Without the shortages the Germans had. The experienced German pilots who knew how to keep their aircraft out of trouble and could get the most out of it got killed off. Perhaps because US aircraft could be pushed to an edge that exceeded the envelope of the German aircraft.
I have heard tankers say they wish they could have had Tigers. Don't recall any allied pilots saying they wish they could have had German fighters.
I do see alot more 190s taking over the Tiffy role though.
-
Originally posted by Shifty
Uh oh............... I just heard thunder, and felt the earth shake.:confused:
That was the three chili dawgs for lunch.... :D
-
See Rule #7
-
Originally posted by Waffle BAS
That was the three chili dawgs for lunch.... :D
Actually it was only two chili dogs. I had to leave room for the 12 pack. Now I'm going in to ask the boss for a raise.:p
-
the guys asked me to raise their pay so i started paying them on the roof of the warehouse.
-
Originally posted by storch
the guys asked me to raise their pay so i started paying them on the roof of the warehouse.
:rofl
Yeah I figure thats the same response I would get. So it's a good thing I don't drink, or I would ask for a raise. Warehouse roofs get just as hot in Texas, as they do in Florida in the summer time.
-
Originally posted by Lye-El
As the war continued on more new airframes were introduced without US engineers and factories being bombed. Without the shortages the Germans had. The experienced German pilots who knew how to keep their aircraft out of trouble and could get the most out of it got killed off. Perhaps because US aircraft could be pushed to an edge that exceeded the envelope of the German aircraft.
I have heard tankers say they wish they could have had Tigers. Don't recall any allied pilots saying they wish they could have had German fighters.
I do see alot more 190s taking over the Tiffy role though.
That has got nothing to do with AH as engine troubles, materials, shortages etc are not modelled.
As for Allied fighers being more advanced (if I understood you correct) there is really no way you can claim that.
It's enough to say Me 262 or Me 163 (although the later didn't do much at all). Or one could mention V1 and V2 (although not really airplanes) and then guided missiles (tested but not used in combat). A whole lot of things both US, Brittish and Russian were direct offspring to German designs. Of course I will be seriously attacked by a whole bunch of American fellows now for saying that
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
That has got nothing to do with AH as engine troubles, materials, shortages etc are not modelled.
As for Allied fighers being more advanced (if I understood you correct) there is really no way you can claim that.
It's enough to say Me 262 or Me 163 (although the later didn't do much at all). Or one could mention V1 and V2 (although not really airplanes) and then guided missiles (tested but not used in combat). A whole lot of things both US, Brittish and Russian were direct offspring to German designs. Of course I will be seriously attacked by a whole bunch of American fellows now for saying that
I was going to post that but decided to save my typing fingers. let's not leave out the operational He162A-2 as well.
-
Atomic bomb rulezzzz
:aok
allied didnt worry at all
-
I'm being revisionist so in 1.04 that gave us things like the NIki who could go to 0MPH directly at 90 degrees and perform like a pitts special, that was realistic.
The fact that most planes didn't havge ayn adverse yaw or torque in high angles of attack and slow airspeed, the fact that most planes magically got less g per turn to contend to other airtcraft, the fact that some aircraft lost all airspeed and becmae stall prone even though they weighed les and had more power???
I could go on Karnak, the FM was changed first to entice people to come in to AH, since in Prime time it had about 250 after the FM change and when they dropped the price to 15 a month the Arena was completely full and that was prior to AW croaking :lol
-
Originally posted by KONG1
Gee whiz, I sure don’t wanna be banned for having the wrong opinion. So let it be known I think all plane modeling is perfect………….oh, and I agree with everybody.
I disagree:D
-
I will say that the german stuff is more challenging. But if you fly it smartly, it's no harder to get kills in. Unless you are Nath, Apar or Stang you can't turn on the deck with spits in it. But who's to say that b/c you can't do that it's not accurately modeled? I'm sure you have stories of a 109 outturning a spit, but we have no idea the experience level of pilots and other factors. On top of that I'm sure theres just as many, if not more, stories of allies outturning 109s. Could it possibly be that 109/190s weren't the dream machines in RL that all the lufft guys want them to be?:eek:
-
Either that or the 50k allied aircrews that got killed during the war sucked!!!
And the German pilots who are the butt of ridicule are that good????
-
1943-45 TODs will be the proof about how instable are our 109s at the edge of the flight envelope and how our 190A are not able to do their job against bombers at high alts. Ppl will choose the allied side becouse no one plays with no fun. Flying on rails even at the edge of the flight envelope withouth even a vibration with Spitfires, P51s, P47, and P38s is much more fun indeed. It doesnt need a rocket scientist to get it.
Now, I'd like to be wrong, and I hope to, becouse actually I wish TOD all the best.
-
Ops forgot about that one Storch, guess we could just go on and on ;)
LOL @ Bug, you score one point there ;)
Superdud I don't think you have quite understood the discussion. (or atleast mine). It's not a question of a Spit outturning a 109 or a 190. It should, easy calculations of wingload (which is a good start of messuring turnrate but not the only thing that matters) clearly shows the Spit should turn better than the 109 and turn way better than the 190.
No, what bothers me is planes, twice as heavy or even more, easily outmanuevers and outturns the LW planes. And even worse, they are able to go from low speed directly up WAY better then either the 109 or 190. Their stall speed is lower but most noticably they are stable like nothing else even at that speed. Tourque is virtually non existant (most noticable in the F4u which was infamous for lots of tourqe). F4u can go straight up without much problem till it flips over in a friendly way.
I am not saying the 109 and 190's are have the wrong tourqe, I am saying the allied planes has non (well more or less atleast).
Just to bring out an example of how much greater the 109 tourqe is we can take the open beta of 2.0.
The 109 had TOO MUCH tourqe for the auto pilot to function in the normal set climb speed. The trim alone wasn't enough to hold it steady at full throttle. It actually started to feel more like a WW2 bird then just a very fast Cesna with 150hp engine.
How many of you have read about WW2 pilots saying they could never apply full throttle from the start as they would flip their planes? I don't mean flip as in making a ground loop when you forget to apply rudder but actually FLIP the plane.
The tourqe is hardly even noticeable on allied planes. With greater weight in the plane also means easier tourqe handeling, so a P47 with less HP/Weight should have less tourqe (depends on prop diameter aswell btw) then a Spit or 109. Not to mention one of my absolute favorite birds in AH for MA combat. The Ki84. It's the plane in AH with highest thrust to weight ratio, followed closly by the Spit 16 yet non of them has got any tourqe to speak of, not even when they go straight up to 50mph.
Both the 109 and the 190 has got more, and strangely enough the 190 is still the plane that requires most trimming in the entire game, yet it should hardly need any at all, specially not aileron wise.
-
How many of you have read about WW2 pilots saying they could never apply full throttle from the start as they would flip their planes? I don't mean flip as in making a ground loop when you forget to apply rudder but actually FLIP the plane.
Never read about anything like that.
-
You should read more Justin.
-
Have posted this before, but I think this is what Wilbus means:
"At this slow speed, just a few knots above stalling, it took a lot of right rudder, even though in a left turn. And you didn't dare add power quickly since the powerful engine turning that large prop could make the aircraft roll uncontrollably to the left-the dreaded "torque roll." [ Fred Blechman on F4U-4]
http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/Bentwings.html
"The aircraft stalls like a Piper Cub. Though a wing tends to drop, there isn't the slightest mean streak in it unless you cob the power, which produces a very violent torque roll" [ Jeff Ethell on Spitfire]
http://www.supermarine-spitfire.co.uk/flying.html
"I remember telling everyone I ever checked out in the Mustang to take it up high, lower the gear and flaps, then back it off to about 15 inches with the prop up to 3 grand... slow it down easy to about 130 mph... then SLAM in 61 inches fast. The resulting torque roll might have helped save a few lives on full power go-arounds" [Dudley Henriques on P-51]
http://www.warbirdalley.com/p51pr.htm
-
That was the three chili dawgs for lunch....
You owe me a new keyboard, Waffle.
Was drinking a can of beer when saw that, and splurted. :D
-
Thanks TimRas for the examples. I don't quite know how to explain it for people who have never heard about torque before.
Trying again. The prop is spinning in one direction, in order for the prop not to fly away to that direction it needs something that counter its own movement. In the case of airplanes this counterpart is the airplane it self.
Have you ever watched a car dragracing? Take a more normal car (not any of those long specially designed dragsters), let's take a Mustang with a big A** engine. Watch it drive away, even at high speeds you will see one of the front gears that wants rise off of the ground. You will se maybe the left gear/left front side of the car almost leaving the ground. This is the result of Torque.
If you firewall an airplane this is very noticable, hell it is even noticable with a small civilian boring airplane like a 4 seater Cesna. Now take a High performance WW2 fighter, any one of them but specially the light weight, big engined hot rods (109, spit, Ki84 etc). They have the smallest possible airframe with the biggest possible engine installed in them.
Torque is almost non existant in AH.
TimRas posted some perfect examples of what happaned to both F4u's and Mustangs and spits. Three quite different airplanes in terms of weight, one radial and two inlines but they all suffer from torque.
Also read the quote about the F4u a little extra And you didn't dare add power quickly since the powerful engine turning that large prop could make the aircraft roll uncontrollably to the left-the dreaded "torque roll."
Which was what I tried to say before. The F4u was infamous for this, big a** engine with a big a** prop produces an enormous ammount of torque. The F4u is infact one of those planes in AH with least torque, easily being more controllable then most planes even at full power or when firewalled.
Sugest you read this (http://www.aspecialdayguide.com/wells/skyraider.htm) link. Another plane infamous for torque, A1 Skyraider (Prop plane used in the Vietnam war).
And one more quote One "vice" plagued the Corsair throughout its production run. At low speeds, the huge R2800 engine produced huge amounts of torque. If an inexperience pilot jammed the throttle to the firewall on takeoff, the torque could easily twist the airplane onto its back and "ruin the pilot's afternoon." This tendency earned the Corsair the nickname "Ensign Eliminator." Experienced pilots said the F4U was no more challenging to fly than any other high-performance fighter then in service.
Notice it would actually flip the plane onto its BACK in worst case scenario. Do you think that torque would be friendly when flying at stall speed in a turn (or even worse, going straight up stalling out) and firewalling the throttle?
Try doing that in AH, firewall the throttle and watch your plane roll away nicely. Try doing it in the air and feel very little difference. The torque just isn't there, on any planes really. Although it is, (IMO right now) most noticable on the 109.
-
Originally posted by justin_g
Never read about anything like that.
torque roll quite common in P51s and corsairs
-
Let me take one more example.
A Helicopter uses a rotor on top of it provide lift. The Rotor is spinning one direction (let's say to the right), this makes the chopper spin left. Helicopters have a tail rotor, ever see what happens when they lose that tailrotor? Go watch to movie Blackhawk Down and you will know what happens :)
Another alternative to a tailrotor is twin rotors (Think P38 in chopper mode). Both counter rotating rotors.
(http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/helicopter-m/ka50/ka50_09.jpg)
Bad a** chopper :D
More pictures of it here (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/helicopter-m/ka50/pics01.shtml)
-
Below right: Lama 2 co-axial indoor heli
Below left: Igor the cat, 19 years
gripen
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/852_1140183585_img_0307.jpg)
-
The Cat will pwn the Lama.
-
Actually that was really a problem during the first flights; I had to land to my hand because two cats were eagerly waiting the "bird" come down. Nowadays they don't give a sh##.
gripen
-
Oh yeah, you can see him setting up the sneak attack right now, he'll jump it from out of the sun!
-
I took the original statement to mean that the aircraft would rotate around its longitudinal axis on take-off(with the gear still on the ground). Timras quotes are all for landing/go-arounds - in this case I'm not arguing. But I find it very hard to believe that torque could flip the aircraft over the roll axis if its still on the ground. The wing would stop the motion when it hit the ground, I can't see a 12,000lb Corsair being lifted & pivoting over ~20ft of wing to land on its back.
-
Read it again please.
it happened, both to F4u's and A1 Skyraiders. If you firewall it there is no way the plane will remain on its wheels specially not unharmed.
One "vice" plagued the Corsair throughout its production run. At low speeds, the huge R2800 engine produced huge amounts of torque. If an inexperience pilot jammed the throttle to the firewall on takeoff, the torque could easily twist the airplane onto its back and "ruin the pilot's afternoon." This tendency earned the Corsair the nickname "Ensign Eliminator." Experienced pilots said the F4U was no more challenging to fly than any other high-performance fighter then in service.
That is just one snip I dug up on the internet. The place is full of similair texts and I've heard it lots before, both on TV interviewing pilots aswell as reading it.
-
Originally posted by Glasses
...snip...
Yeah and they know it'll remain the same,cus LW sucking =$$$$$
...snip...
This nonsense claim is driving me nuts.
Several LW proponents routinely claim that HTC deliberately porks LW because US customers wouldnt play if the LW were as "good as it was supposed to be."
That idea is 100% without basis in fact.
One. When I work with newbs, they often ask "whats the best plane?" Obviously there's no simple answer to that, but the implication is obvious: they want to know what plane gives them the best chance of success as a beginner. They dont care if I tell them the Soviet La-7 for speed, or the British Spit VIII for turning, the Japanese Nik for maneuverability+firepower, or the US P-51 for energy fighting. THEY JUST WANT WHAT WORKS, and they dont care about politics.
Two. Other VERY successful games have non- US uber weapons. Call of Duty's best gun is probably the MP-44, and the US BAR is heavy and slow. The Garand has less hitting power than it should. No one cares. CounterStrikes best guns are not US weapons. No one cares. Players want to succeed, and they want to learn each games' quirks on its own terms. Its not about nationalism playing a game, players jsut want to succeed.
Three. If anything, in the US market the WW2 German side carries a mystique that sells. For many years in the computer games press I remember reading that "nukes and Nazis" were slam dunk topics. Panzer General introduced unit quality enhancement to computer wargames, and sold like proverbial hotcakes, all from the german side. When they ported the idea to the allied side (Pacific General), the game died -- because it was stale, not because of nationalism. Steel Panthers succeeded even though it accurately modelled the overwhelming power of the 88mm AT gun, the power of the Tiger, and the wimpiness of allied armor. I could go on and on, but the point is obvious to anyone who thinks about it.
You can criticize the modelling of the LW rides if you want, but leave out the "economic driven" slander. It's absolutely 100% nonsense.
-
Anyone got the time needed for an engine to go from idle to full power ?
-
Traditionally, air combat sims have vastly undermodelled Luftwaffe airplanes in order to sell more copies to an American audience. Take for example Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe....
:aok
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Traditionally, air combat sims have vastly undermodelled Luftwaffe airplanes in order to sell more copies to an American audience. Take for example Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe....
:aok
-- Todd/Leviathn
Or the Battlefield 1942 Secret weapons addon - no one ever flies on the German side - silly buggers. :D
German sims don't sell. Neither did Silent Hunter, I, II, or III. And no one flies for the Luftwaffe or the German army in WWII online.
Isn't there something naughty about flying Luftwaffe anyways? Sort of like growing a goatee and playing an evil James Bond character...
(http://www.jamesbondmm.co.uk/images/bond-villains/thumbnails/large-med/ml_med.jpg) (http://www.jamesbondmm.co.uk/images/bond-villains/thumbnails/large-med/vd_med.jpg) (http://www.jamesbondmm.co.uk/images/bond-villains/thumbnails/large-med/jg_med.jpg)
-
I tend to agree with Simaril. Making the US planes better than they should be would not win customers. I'd sooner think it would lose them.
For me personally, I would like to see every plane modelled as authentic as possible (even if it sucks). The problem is that no one really knows what authentic is. We only have a feeling from combat accounts we read and a ton of data.
I do think that the 109 and 190s are undermodelled a bit, but on purpose? Hell no. Besides, I can't prove it. I also think that the La-7 cannot be THAT fast or that the Mossie should be sturdier and should handle better. Does this interfere with my enjoyment of the game? Hardly.
If the German planes are indeed as 'bad' as they are now I can imagine that the game is less fun for the Axis side. This will have an influence on numbers. In the war at the Axis were outnumbered, but this is a game, so some side balancing would be nice. I'd rather like to slug it out with a squad of 109's against a squad of Spits.
As for the 'dark pleasure' in flying for the virtual Luftwaffe... well, my country was overrun in four days and occupied for 5 years by Germany. I've been to Dachau, one of the death camps, now a momument. I've been to several war cemetaries, WWI, WWII, allied and German. I've seen several war museums. To see WWII hardware yes, but I never, NEVER forget what war is and what it does to people.
Still, if I had to pick a favourite fighter, it would be the 109. Politics aside, it was the underdog, yet it was built more than any other fighter. It served for three decades (in Spain). The worlds No1 ace flew it. It has more kills than any other fighter. And oh irony, it was equipped in foreign service with the engine of its greatest adversary (Buchons got Merlins). And oh irony squared, the state of Israel used Czech built 109s in combat to defend their young state.
-
Ill state it as plainly as I can.
We never have nore ever will adjusted models based on the country of origen.
HiTech
-
Amen!
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Traditionally, air combat sims have vastly undermodelled Luftwaffe airplanes in order to sell more copies to an American audience. Take for example Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe....
:aok
-- Todd/Leviathn
If anything German aircraft are overmodelled because in late war RL they were unreliable and poorly made by slave labour.
LW aircraft in game have been proven time and time again that in capable hands they are very competitive with allied rides, just like in real life.
-
I disagree with Superdud and Kong and some parts of Stringer...
-
I now agree with Kong and Superdud, but completely disagree with Big G.
-
We could start with things we know and then move up bit by bit.
One problem of the BF109's and 190's is stability close to stall speed. If you check Kwessa's turn performance conclusions. (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=155592) you'll find out that both this aircraft are extremly unstable close to stall speed and they can't reach their advertised stall speed.
"Most of the planes are pushed to 0.05 degrees before reaching stall AoA. Some that cannot handle such high AoA (or, in real combat, would require inhuman levels of micromanagement) , are pushed to 1~1.5 degrees before stall AoA. "
They fall out of the sky way before that. I think the person that designed the game wouldn't have to much hard time pinpointing the problem. But I may be wrong.
The results are in the turn radius thread, linked at my sig. But for you, I'll compile them here for easier comparison.
Fighter Name (SL setting normal / SL one notch flaps / SL full flaps)
* fighters listed without SL settings for flaps are those that can use one setting throughout the entire testing
List of entire fighters
A6M2 (0.05)
A6M5b (0.05)
Bf109E-4 (1.0/1.1/1.2)
Bf109F-4 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
Bf109G-2 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
Bf109G-6 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
Bf109G-14 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
Bf109K-4 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
Bf110C-4 (0.05)
Bf110G-2 (1.0)
C.202 (0.05)
C.205 (1.0)
F4F-4 (0.05)
FM-2 (0.05)
F4U-1 (1.0)
F4U-1D (1.0)
F4U-1C (1.0)
F4U-4 (1.0)
F6F-5 (1.0)
Fw190A-5 (1.0/1.5/1.5)
Fw190A-8 (1.0/1.5/1.5)
Fw190D-9 (1.0/1.5/1.5)
Fw190F-8 (1.0/1.5/1.5)
Hurricane Mk.Ia (0.05)
Hurricane Mk.IIc (0.05)
Hurricane Mk.IId (0.05)
Ki-61-I-Tei (0.05)
Ki-84-I-Ko (0.05)
La-5FN (0.05)
La-7 (0.05)
Me163B (0.05)
Me262A (0.05)
Mosquito Mk.VI (0.05)
N1K2-J (0.05)
P-38G (0.05)
P-38J (0.05)
P-38L (0.05)
P-40B (1.0)
P-40E (1.0)
P-47D-11 (0.05)
P-47D-25 (0.05)
P-47D-40 (0.05)
P-51B (0.05)
P-51D (0.05)
Spitfire Mk.Ia (0.05)
Spitfire Mk.V (0.05)
Seafire Mk.II (0.05)
Spitfire Mk.IX (0.05)
Spitfire Mk.VIII (0.05)
Spitfire Mk.XVI (0.05)
Spitfire Mk.XIV (0.05)
Ta152H-1 (1.0)
Typhoon Mk.Ib (0.05)
Tempest Mk.V (0.05)
Yak-9T (0.05)
Yak-9U (0.05)
List of those cannot use minimal settings
Bf109E-4 (1.0/1.1/1.2)
Bf109F-4 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
Bf109G-2 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
Bf109G-6 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
Bf109G-14 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
Bf109K-4 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
Bf110G-2 (1.0)
C.205 (1.0)
F4U-1 (1.0)
F4U-1D (1.0)
F4U-1C (1.0)
F4U-4 (1.0)
F6F-5 (1.0)
Fw190A-5 (1.0/1.5/1.5)
Fw190A-8 (1.0/1.5/1.5)
Fw190D-9 (1.0/1.5/1.5)
Fw190F-8 (1.0/1.5/1.5)
P-40B (1.0)
P-40E (1.0)
Ta152H-1 (1.0)
- Bf109 variants (6)
- Fw190 variants (5)
- F4U variants (4)
- Miscel. (5)
So, while 20 planes cannot use thes settings, which seems a lot, actually half of them are 109s and 190s. The only other major plane with a number of variants that cannot handle the minimal setting, is the F4U. Speaking cynically, basically our 109s and 190s are in the same league as the "Ensign Eliminator" when it comes to maneuvering stability.
Thank you Kwessa for your effort.
This is a good place to start.
Then we can look at the flaps. That can be fixed too. I saw documents here on the boards that show the maximum allowed speed for deploying flaps.
Another thing would be the loadouts. I understand the need to have historical accurate loadoutd for TOD but main arena needs all the loadouts operational used by the type. I didn't find much info of P-51D's using bombs and rockets in the same time during WW2 but in MA it should be available, since the pony could carry both and did carry them in Korea.
We can do this with BF-109's guns too. Find a way to limit the ordnance in the "ARENA SETTINGS" and let them have all the toys they were able to carry in MA.
There are other few things that have been documented here and can be checked: G-14 speed , FW-190A5 too light, and so on.
We could also look at zoom climbs of FW's but that is hard to test and the fix in 'close to stall' stability may fix this one too.
I think would be a good way to start with things we know, before moving to more complicated stuff. This would cool down the virtual LW a lot.
-
I disagree with some, agree with others, remain ambivalent towards a few but...
now that I think about it...
I actually disagree with others but agree with some; I'm still ambivalent towards a few.
I'm trying to recall, though, if I've ever heard the LW's whine about the Bf-110. Is that one undermodeled too? I mean, after all, it simply creamed the RAF in the BOB; it does well here but not nearly as well as you'd expect from it's actual, glorious combat record.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Other VERY successful games have non- US uber weapons. Call of Duty's best gun is probably the MP-44, and the US BAR is heavy and slow. The Garand has less hitting power than it should. No one cares. CounterStrikes best guns are not US weapons. No one cares. Players want to succeed, and they want to learn each games' quirks on its own terms. Its not about nationalism playing a game, players jsut want to succeed.
A minor hijack...
I like the Garand in Call of Duty 2, I like it a lot. It's a fast shooting, fast reloading and very accurate. It lacks some knockdown power, but so do all the other battle rifles in the game. The MP-44 is a great choice because you hit with 2 or 3 rounds rapidly. My personal favorite is the Bren gun. The Thompson would be up there if 30 round mags were modeled, reducing reloads.
My regards,
Widewing
-
No, Toad, most of the folks that fly the 110 know it's way too good. I don't know what is wrong, historically, but if the 110C flew in real life the way it does in AH2, the war would have ended over Britain in 1940-1941, with the LW being the victor. You'd be seeing 110K-4s in 1943 and for the RAF you'd be seeing HUrricane MkXIV's. These two planes, which were inferior to the 109E4 and the spitmk1 are far superior to them in AH. That contradicts what really happened, but hell if I know what EXACTLY is wrong. Roll rate? No E-loss? Too much E-retention? NOt enough drag? Who knows, but something's off.
-
LW aircraft in game have been proven time and time again that in capable hands they are very competitive with allied rides, just like in real life.
Which, never was a part of the subject in this discussion. Cut the speed on the La-7 and some people still will be able to manage multiple kill sorties in it - which, has absolutely nothing to do with whether the plane is modelled right or wrong. Mind you, that many of the people in favor of the opinion that something is wrong with the 109 or the 190, are decent and competitive pilots.
The problem in question is the amount of the so-called "competitiveness" required to match certain planes in a low-speed fight - in which case historically many sources are in favor of a handy advantage to the plane in question. To put it in simple words, it is TOUGH, and DAMN TOUGH to fight a P-47 or a P-51 in a 109, especially if the fight starts out without any kind of decisive advantage to one side and both pilots are forced into a low and slow turn contest where losing ground during turning immediately relates to being shot down.
Please, hear me out.
I can honestly say that my opinion is many of the P-47 or P-51 pilots above average will not hesitate to engage a 109 in a low and slow fight. Those same pilots, on the other hand, will NEVER engage a Spitfire for example, in a low and slow fight. The contrast in maneuverability between a Spitfire and a P-51/P-47 is so much clear in most cases that unless a very skilled pilot has much confidence that his opponent is relatively n00b, he will not willingly engage a Spitfire in such manner.
Now, a 109 certainly does not turn as good as a Spitifre. However, my own turn tests prove that most of the 109s do have a much smaller turn radius than P-47s or P-51s - small enough to make Pony or Jug pilots thinks twice before engaging it in such speeds. And yet, most of the 109 pilots will wince at the thought of having to fight against a P-51 or a P-47 with a pilot about simular in skill as he himself, while in contrast the P-51/P-47 will not.
Why is that?
I've once engaged a good P-47 pilot with a 109. I've decided to engage him in an all out maneuvering contest and soon regretted I've ever done so.
He utilized a series of classic maneuvers entering into a typical rolling scissors - and as the situation goes, to follow him in I was forced into a situation where it required me to kick the rudders hard and pull high AoA during low speeds - which the P-47 managed pretty clean and admirable fashion, while me and my 109 had to struggle the whole way through to keep it under control.
I am well aware of what happens in the 109 in such cases - I'm probably the one who posts most about it. And yet, being careful and more careful, the inevitable destabilization still comes. The 'edge of the envelope' draws near, my plane destabilizes, rocks hard to the left, and I lose ground. The Jug crawls behind me and takes a decisive advantage.
The only way I survived that fight was I gave up maneuvering as soon as that moment came, since I expected the Jug pilot to still be at low throttle since he would probably be thinking that I'd try more maneuvers. I successfully outaccelerate the P-47, taking hits from 400~600 yards but no big parts damaged, until a friendly nearby joins the fight and finally shoots him down from my six.
Now, I know that the Jug pilot was good. He was probably better than me for sure. But I was in a G-14. He was in a P-47D.
P-47D-40
- 24 seconds (159mph), 271.6m
- 22 seconds (151mph), 236.4m
- 23 seconds (124mph), 203.0m
Bf109G-14
- 18 seconds (168mph), 214.0m
- 18 seconds (158mph), 202.7m
- 20 seconds (135mph), 191.5m
My plane has a radius shorter by over 50m during normal flight. 30m with first notch of flaps engaged, and 10m when full flaps are reached. His plane is almost twice as heavier as mine. And yet, the probelm with the stability knocked all of that advantage away from my hand, and gave it to a plane in normal cases that should not be trying to fight a 109 low and slow.
The big irony is the Jug pilot congratulated me for a good fight. I answered that I got almost killed. He responds that most 109s don't try to fight anyway, so he's satisfied as it is. Right - most 109s won't even want to fight a P-47 - how can I blame them? I've just experienced what happens to most 109s when they do try to fight.
Normally, that much of advantage in maneuvering is enough to equalize the difference in skill and give an advantage to the lesser pilot. 50m of advantage in turn radius is equivalent to that of the difference between the A6M5 and the La-5FN.
How "competitive" does a A6M5 pilot need to be, to outturn a La-5FN in a low and slow stall/turn/maneuvers fight? Is it supposed to be that difficult to outturn a La-5FN in a A6M5?
If we have an A6M5 in AH that is plagued with stability problems so harsh that it takes so much skill and competitiveness to outturn a La-5FN in it at an area which it is supposed to excel more than any other plane, would people still go claiming that there's nothing wrong with it?
Or, if my own skill level or prowess isn't enough to convice you, ask for some opinions of the much better pilots in this thread. Bruno or Wilbuz is both much better pilot than me. I know gatt is way over my head in pilot skill. They'll thell you the exact same story - 109s have stability problems.
I can very well accept the fact if indeed the 109s or 190s are supposed to be this difficult to manage. If in that case, then something is wrong with other planes. The P-51s or P-47s. Whatever kind of special flaps they use, or whatever the secret to their amazing stability, the kind of effect the P-38 pilots would beg for to maintain even over speed limits set in the game... the 109 does not have it. If it nears its own envelope it stalls, and stalls violently and prematurely. Correction is difficult. "Riding the stall" to "mush" through maneuvers is frustratingly difficult.
Do I really need to be that much competitive, to outturn a P-51 or a P-47 in a 109?
-
Actually Toad most LW people part from a few bad apples agree on that the 110 is way more capable in AH then in real life and if anything, is overmodelled.
But that goes for most twin engined planes in AH IMO.
-
"Helicopters have a tail rotor, ever see what happens when they lose that tailrotor?"
Hmm, actually a light helicopter would not really notice if it lost its tail rotor in level flight and it could make a emergency landing by "skiing" to ground with at least 60km/h speed. At that speed the airframe has enough aerodynamical leverage to hold it straight. In Black Hawk Down the effect is probably a bit exaggarated. If the helicoper loses its tailrotor when howering it probably can not accelerate enough to gain control. The aircraft weight could also affect to how much it needs speed to maintain directional control if TR is lost.
A bit offtopic, sry
***
On subject:
I do not understand what use 109 has of its slats in this game?
How much worse would it be without them? They are not there to provide more lift, but to enable the 109 pull more AoA than would be normally possible. Same for LAs of course. The do have a "normal" wing profile so their AoA performance without slats should be on par with other similar a/c of the time, so what happens when slats are enabled?
I also think that 190 loses too much energy in maneuvers especially at high speed. Pretty low drag airframe and in high speed the wingloading is not such a significant factor as in slow speed. It is pretty hard to find any "hard" evidence of these matters so you just need to take my word as that is my impression from flying them against various opposition for five years now and reading numerous books about the subject.
The visibility issues are quite strange too. The Mustang has a thick armoured glass attached into thick framing yet it is not visible from the inside. Yet I think it is modelled correctly in P51. The thick glass optically "hides" the framing. Yet in 109 and 190 it works differently (or doesn't work)?
Not a conspiracy here, just an accidental mistake, I'm sure of it. But I do not like that those things are pointed out and yet ignored continuously. If I'm proven wrong in my assumpitions then it is settled and life goes on. I do not mean that I would need a personal answer to these matters but to me it seems that the LW enthusiasts would like to hear something of HTCs view on matters concerning LW iron.
If they are on some list and will be looked on in the future, then fine, I can wait. Done that a few years now. The game evolves but some things remain the same for years.
-C+
-
Actually, you could stop this argument and push for for unity for all the planes. ONE single flight performance / model for all the planes.
No flighter / bomber is different than the others - only difference is the 3d model.
I mean where's the fun in that? Diiferences in flight models make the game, and the 109s / 190s are just a different beast to learn.
I could whine about the mossie and cry about how when I try to pull up in it like I do any other plane - the damn thing stalls out, drops a wing and I fall to the ground....
Have I posted that the mossie has a porked FM and I can't fly it like a spit? nope - just learn how to pilot the mossie and fly it to it's strengths and try to avoid it's weak areas or performance. Just like the 109s / 190s. Just like any virtual plane..
Any plane with leading edge slats, when in a slow turn on the edge of stall, if one pops out there's going to be alot of instability.
-
But that goes for most twin engined planes in AH IMO.
why dont u just say the P38 is overmodelled and should be a lousy plane according to uber (godly)waffel pilots.
:rolleyes::)
I fly even if it was like the brick in 1.03
wilbus
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
why dont u just say the P38 is overmodelled and should be a lousy plane according to uber (godly)waffel pilots.
:rolleyes::)
I fly even if it was like the brick in 1.03
wilbus
Actually I wasn't thinking of the P38 so much as thinking about the A20 BUG, and the 110, not to mention the fact that multi engined planes (B17 for example) outturn 190's (specially at 30k there is no chance of staying with a B17 LOL) :rolleyes:
So no, I won't say what you really want me to say ;)
! :)
-
Kweassa: The last time I engaged a P-51D in a 109 was in a G10 in version 1 of Aces High, until last night.
Back then in AH version 1.x, I remember using a couple of roping hammerheads and acceleration advantages to get on his six. He was using his combat flaps but when I reached the peak of the hammerheads and she swung back toward the ground, the 109 was very controllable, maybe a few seconds until my airspeed got back up. I also remember getting low and slow using trim at speeds around 150-250mph. Maneuver I used for almost two years with the 109 in version 1.
I was dog fighting a P-51D in my 109K-4 last night at 20'000ft. Then, I hammer-headed again - using the K's superior acceleration and climbing with the P-51D on my six. The energy retention compared to the G10 was different, he almost had me on my 6 around d400 back, but when she swung back towards the ground, something was wrong - the 109K-4 wallowed like a deer stuck in a mud, she just couldn't bite into the air. I dropped below the P-51D still in a low-speed stall where the P-51D had just executed the same maneuver and proceeded to drill around 300 rounds of 50 cal into my aircraft.
Frazzled, I tried the G-14 this time, hammering, and again, she wallowed for around 5-10 seconds before I regained control. I could no longer rely on this method for my combat maneuvers.
Perhaps the flight model of the 109 in version 1 was off? WTF do I know about flight models other than the thousands of hours I have in flight sims. Seriously, I have no real-life benchmarks to compare them against. I've got around 80-100 hours in single engine aircraft but I can't say the 109/190's are behaving badly.
It similiar to me from flying a 172 Cessna and flying a LearJet in sim and calling the FM off. Flying is flying but flight characteristics vary greatly, especially for fighters.
The only way, I mean the only way the flight model of the 109 or 190 can be called on, is to have a real-life 190/109 pilot test the aircraft. Top speeds, roll rates aside from written data, flight handling can only be verified by someone who has flown the birds. Until then, it is pointless for us even to call them off.
-
arent bombers with their bigger wingspan a bit more air huggin at bigger alt.
The u2 comes into my mind with its enormous wingspan to fly at extreme alt.
So might high wingloaded planes have some disadvantage up high.
It should not be only the FW that can be outturned at that point if it is only the FW than u may have a point.
what a points :)
-
The only way, I mean the only way the flight model of the 109 or 190 can be called on, is to have a real-life 190/109 pilot test the aircraft. Top speeds, roll rates aside from written data, flight handling can only be verified by someone who has flown the birds. Until then, it is pointless for us even to call them off.
That would be difficult because he has to play it on a puter.
Better would be a real flying plane with the model from AH.
Than let it test.
but thats impossible
-
Jaws
So, while 20 planes cannot use thes settings, which seems a lot, actually half of them are 109s and 190s. The only other major plane with a number of variants that cannot handle the minimal setting, is the F4U. Speaking cynically, basically our 109s and 190s are in the same league as the "Ensign Eliminator" when it comes to maneuvering stability.
Do you realize that the F4U was MORE stable than the P-47 or P-51 of any model ( at comprabale speeds)? In fact it could out turn any of them including the P-38 with or without flaps. It was only considered unstable when landing full flaps on a carrier deck at about 75MPH at high AoA. Most A/C modeled in AH can't even fly at that speed.
The instability of the F4U only applies when compared to the Wildcat, Hellcat or A6M Zero. The F4U and 190 are not in the same league when it comes to low speed stability. The F4U can pull 2G's at speeds where the 190 can barely fly.
I should be the one complaining.
-
Originally posted by Mister Fork
but when she swung back towards the ground, something was wrong - the 109K-4 wallowed like a deer stuck in a mud, she just couldn't bite into the air.
thats the exact thing i found flying the K4 over G10. just didnt seem to have the "bite" in the elevator like it used to.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Jaws
Do you realize that the F4U was MORE stable than the P-47 or P-51 of any model ( at comprabale speeds)? In fact it could out turn any of them including the P-38 with or without flaps. It was only considered unstable when landing full flaps on a carrier deck at about 75MPH at high AoA. Most A/C modeled in AH can't even fly at that speed.
The instability of the F4U only applies when compared to the Wildcat, Hellcat or A6M Zero. The F4U and 190 are not in the same league when it comes to low speed stability. The F4U can pull 2G's at speeds where the 190 can barely fly.
I should be the one complaining.
That was a quote from Kwessa's post.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
But that goes for most twin engined planes in AH IMO.
We agree. Wholeheartedly. I'd even say it would cover just about all multiengine aircraft in the game.
Bombers turnfighting? Successfully?!?!?
Come now.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Jaws
Do you realize that the F4U was MORE stable than the P-47 or P-51 of any model ( at comprabale speeds)? In fact it could out turn any of them including the P-38 with or without flaps. It was only considered unstable when landing full flaps on a carrier deck at about 75MPH at high AoA. Most A/C modeled in AH can't even fly at that speed.
The instability of the F4U only applies when compared to the Wildcat, Hellcat or A6M Zero. The F4U and 190 are not in the same league when it comes to low speed stability. The F4U can pull 2G's at speeds where the 190 can barely fly.
I should be the one complaining.
Nobody is questioning the stall speed here. We all know the FW-190 had much higher stall speed. The problem is how unstable the plane is close to that speed. I never read anything saying that FW-190 was fishfloping like in AH when it is close to stall speed:
(http://marinergraphics.com:16080/ww2/images/pro_190_survey_a_2.jpg)
All controls are effective up to the stall
-
Well then that is different:D
Just please don't mistake the F4U for one of those Army types. It cannot be compared in the low speed realm to land based fighters. They do not have the same criteria for stability.
-
By definition ALL controls on any airplane are always "effective" until the stall.
The question is "how effective". ;)
-
Deleted for flame
-
"1943-45 TODs will be the proof about how instable are our 109s at the edge of the flight envelope and how our 190A are not able to do their job against bombers at high alts."
Its funny how they have been doing just that in countless Squad Ops, Scenarios, and Snapshots for years now.
As if Combat Theater is going to be the first time the historical opponents have fought each other in AH in a single life historical mission setup, what do you think the Special Events Arena is, a spare MA?
-
Let's just say that ToD/CT would never work without these AI pilots being developed, because 90% of the players are going to be allied, they will need something to shoot -- viola! you have AI pilots to shoot now!.
-
From the rumors I heard, they had to tone down the AI pilots because they were better than 99% of the player base. Irregardless of what they're flying. ;)
-
Originally posted by Squire
"1943-45 TODs will be the proof about how instable are our 109s at the edge of the flight envelope and how our 190A are not able to do their job against bombers at high alts."
Its funny how they have been doing just that in countless Squad Ops, Scenarios, and Snapshots for years now.
As if Combat Theater is going to be the first time the historical opponents have fought each other in AH in a single life historical mission setup, what do you think the Special Events Arena is, a spare MA?
I don't think there has ever actually been a large scale recreation of the Western Front air war in AH. The closest we've come was the 8th AF event a few years ago, but even then the Allies did NoE raids for several targets.
I am looking forward to ToD though, I will probably reup my account when it comes out.
-
Originally posted by Squire
"1943-45 TODs will be the proof about how instable are our 109s at the edge of the flight envelope and how our 190A are not able to do their job against bombers at high alts."
Its funny how they have been doing just that in countless Squad Ops, Scenarios, and Snapshots for years now.
As if Combat Theater is going to be the first time the historical opponents have fought each other in AH in a single life historical mission setup, what do you think the Special Events Arena is, a spare MA?
What can you expect from a (take a deep breath) Spitfire ace? LOL :rofl
-
a virtual spitfire ace. remember boys this isnt real. its just pixels and you arent really valiant luftweiny heros:aok
some of u guys get wound real tight over this.
-
Originally posted by Mister Fork
Frazzled, I tried the G-14 this time, hammering, and again, she wallowed for around 5-10 seconds before I regained control. I could no longer rely on this method for my combat maneuvers.
I have noticed that the 109s, especially the late war models, have very poor yaw control at low speeds. This is something new, or at least new to me. I see this especially when maneuvering inverted...
My regards,
Widewing
-
I don't think there has ever actually been a large scale recreation of the Western Front air war in AH. The closest we've come was the 8th AF event a few years ago, but even then the Allies did NoE raids for several targets.
I am looking forward to ToD though, I will probably reup my account when it comes out.
They did Big Week and Ruhr.
In Big Week they had P-51bs, P-47D-11s and P-38Ls.
I didn't fly Ruhr, I was assisting the CMs, so I don't recall the plane set. They also did that Sicily event where it was basically the same plane set. I didn't fly that one due to the stupid 'lottery'.
Judging how a plane is modeled has nothing to do with KD or score in an event. You and I flew together in Big Week in A-8s at 27k and killed plenty of Allied planes, bombers, P-51s, P-38s and D-11s but the A-8 was hardly the superior performer at 25-27k as you well know.
When AG and I flew in the Norway / Tirpitz event we flew F-8s NOE out hunting allied shipping. With our bombs still on we were bounced by a squad of F6Fs and we shot them all down without a loss. Again the F-8 is not a dominant aircraft nor we were the most skilled players.
There have been plenty of ToDs (now Squad Ops) Snapshots etc... with LW vs Late war western allies, many times it was just the A-5 and G-6 vr the P-38L and P-51b and the LW always did well as I remember it...
With time and experience in any plane, regardless of how well or how poorly its modeled, a player eventually learns to hold his own.
I can get kills in the AH G-14 that doesn't change the fact its as much as 24 mph to slow at FTH... or that in flops far worse then any other plane in the game.
-
Flew plenty of times as Axis in Squad Ops, while you were in the MA.
As far as claiming to be an "ace"? I will leave that to you "tough guy".
:D
-
There was an article on one of those auto magazines; Think the article was called " A Tale of two mustangs" a Guy who was a multimillionare and owned several cars a racing team and Vintage Mustangs, a P-51D and a Jet.
He did say that when he had to commute to races he used his Pony instead of the Jet since the Pony was much more economic n terms of fuel than the Jet.
He did say however when asked who would win in a drag race between a Mustang Car and the airplane. He responded to the former it wasn't because the airplane was slow, but because during take off he was told by his intructor to slowly ad power to the airplane, giving it too much power on take off meant a ground loop out of the runway and he would lose control.
A 2k hp engine on an airplane standing still on the runway and a tail dragger has to deal with gyro precession,torque,spiraling slipstream, among others, it isn't until the airplane has reached an adequate airspeed tht they could raise the tail,which would have obtained enough lift to be controlled by this flight surface, most of the time the pilot has to be centered on the runway with the tail close on the ground and then lift it up slowly and adding power as well.
Some are saying that AH would need a super computer to run an accurate FM with real time physics, yet some airplanes like the LW birds perform like they have an exagerated disadvantage to help planes that are iconic, for their "supossed superiority" to give a bit more of an advantage.
A game like this who is based in the states and has the "W0N T3H W4R" P_51 D mustang crowd could do everything. It wouldn't be very profitable for AH's longevity if it actually took some grey matter to manage some of the most iconic allied rides , since the LW birds are seen as the evil fanatic aircraft they're suppossed to lose no matter what, unless the pilot is a Nathbot that performs well in any plane,and I don't claim to be one but I do very well in the LW rides, but there's no way whatsoever to reverse a plane that has no vices at any flight condition against a LW ride, heck an F4U with just enough speed can even out turn spits while using flaps same goes for the P_51; and the only plane that can make planes like these get into a disadvantageous position in AH are and always will be other allied rides.
Apparently the only way those 50k allied aircrews died against the LW, where from exposure to Polio, Tuberculosis,and Anthrax,from screwing the farmer's Sheep . :D
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Well then that is different:D
Just please don't mistake the F4U for one of those Army types. It cannot be compared in the low speed realm to land based fighters. They do not have the same criteria for stability.
F4U Doa the Hog wasn't known for being an Ensign Eliminator for nothing,epsecially having a slow aceleration and a large amount of left turning tendencies at high angles of attack and low airspeedI don't think even in airshows today you see many F4Us going full vertical at 50mph and hanging there on their props , in AH1 the F4U was a respected aircraft, meaning it needed some skill to fly due its low speed instability, now in AH2 it's as easy as any plane with white and red stars, and multicolored roundels.
I don't want the LW aircraft to over perform I just want them to have an accurate performance as it relates to its contemporaries, not the complete discrepency that we have now that some aircraft that were know for having certain limits on their performance exceed in many ways over aircraft that had distinct advantages in certain aspect of flight.
-
Originally posted by Glasses
Apparently the only way those 50k allied aircrews died against the LW, where from exposure to Polio, Tuberculosis,and Anthrax,from screwing the farmer's Sheep . :D
You use that number alot Glasses. Are you suggesting those were all lost to LW fighters? I would suggest that a larger portion of those losses were to flak then to fighter attack.
Does that mean the 70,000 LW aircrew losses from 39-44 were all to Allied fighters? Kinda doubt that too. The number from LW Quartermaster-General figures found in Luftwaffe War Diaries. They didn't include the 1945 numbers.
Bottom line is I think there are better ways to present an argument then that.
-
Difference is the figures you quote are operations in all theaters those I quote are against the LW in the ETO :-)
-
Its getting biased and unrespectfull looks like some still regret the LW lost the war.
Sigh
The LW was a tool of the nazi's nothing to be proud of.
I just like the allied conqoured freedom sorry guys.
Remember where just virtual pc chair pilots some not even allowed in a real plane.
(to fat wearing glasses not able to withstand the G's)
I like flying the american P38 but i dont imagine im a american Bong super vet.
Im just a lousy unsuccesful real life pilot.
With all comfort in my chair with a cup of coffee with no death danger around.
get a grip wabbles.
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
arent bombers with their bigger wingspan a bit more air huggin at bigger alt.
The u2 comes into my mind with its enormous wingspan to fly at extreme alt.
So might high wingloaded planes have some disadvantage up high.
It should not be only the FW that can be outturned at that point if it is only the FW than u may have a point.
what a points :)
Actually BUG I wasn't quite clear there, I used the 190 only as example (bad idea as I am a 190 fan). No what troubles me is that all bombers can easily outmaneuver most fighters like that up high. In this case I don't give a rats a** about wingloading. I never heard of no B17 or B24 or Ju88 trying to outmaneuver a fighter at 30k and giving the fighter the finger saying "I've got bigger wings then you tard".
Hell, the B17 and B24 (etc) have both got the P47 and Ta152 beat at 30k+ part from speed really.
Originally posted by Toad We agree. Wholeheartedly. I'd even say it would cover just about all multiengine aircraft in the game. Bombers turnfighting? Successfully?!?!? Come now.
Yup! Sorry was unclear. I'll just point you to the text above :)
-
FWIW - I was tolling around in an 190a5 at 95 TAS less than 1000 feet off the ground according to the E6b...that was with flaps and gear retracted....
The controls still worked as I could apply rudder to correct when I started to stall...
According to that document that Jawwzy posted, I should have hit the ground once getting below 110 TAS. Maybe the 190s are porked and that stall limit needs to be raised from 95 up to 110 TAS? Or maybe the pilot knows how to ride a stall?
-
A-5 is lighter then it should be and the lower stall speed is the direct result of it.
This list made by Kwessa tells the true about the stability of the aircraft close to the stall. He tested all of them. And it has nothing to do with who the pilot is. This is how the planes are modeled.
The results are in the turn radius thread, linked at my sig. But for you, I'll compile them here for easier comparison.
Fighter Name (SL setting normal / SL one notch flaps / SL full flaps)
* fighters listed without SL settings for flaps are those that can use one setting throughout the entire testing
List of entire fighters
A6M2 (0.05)
A6M5b (0.05)
Bf109E-4 (1.0/1.1/1.2)
Bf109F-4 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
Bf109G-2 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
Bf109G-6 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
Bf109G-14 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
Bf109K-4 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
Bf110C-4 (0.05)
Bf110G-2 (1.0)
C.202 (0.05)
C.205 (1.0)
F4F-4 (0.05)
FM-2 (0.05)
F4U-1 (1.0)
F4U-1D (1.0)
F4U-1C (1.0)
F4U-4 (1.0)
F6F-5 (1.0)
Fw190A-5 (1.0/1.5/1.5)
Fw190A-8 (1.0/1.5/1.5)
Fw190D-9 (1.0/1.5/1.5)
Fw190F-8 (1.0/1.5/1.5)
Hurricane Mk.Ia (0.05)
Hurricane Mk.IIc (0.05)
Hurricane Mk.IId (0.05)
Ki-61-I-Tei (0.05)
Ki-84-I-Ko (0.05)
La-5FN (0.05)
La-7 (0.05)
Me163B (0.05)
Me262A (0.05)
Mosquito Mk.VI (0.05)
N1K2-J (0.05)
P-38G (0.05)
P-38J (0.05)
P-38L (0.05)
P-40B (1.0)
P-40E (1.0)
P-47D-11 (0.05)
P-47D-25 (0.05)
P-47D-40 (0.05)
P-51B (0.05)
P-51D (0.05)
Spitfire Mk.Ia (0.05)
Spitfire Mk.V (0.05)
Seafire Mk.II (0.05)
Spitfire Mk.IX (0.05)
Spitfire Mk.VIII (0.05)
Spitfire Mk.XVI (0.05)
Spitfire Mk.XIV (0.05)
Ta152H-1 (1.0)
Typhoon Mk.Ib (0.05)
Tempest Mk.V (0.05)
Yak-9T (0.05)
Yak-9U (0.05)
List of those cannot use minimal settings
Bf109E-4 (1.0/1.1/1.2)
Bf109F-4 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
Bf109G-2 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
Bf109G-6 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
Bf109G-14 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
Bf109K-4 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
Bf110G-2 (1.0)
C.205 (1.0)
F4U-1 (1.0)
F4U-1D (1.0)
F4U-1C (1.0)
F4U-4 (1.0)
F6F-5 (1.0)
Fw190A-5 (1.0/1.5/1.5)
Fw190A-8 (1.0/1.5/1.5)
Fw190D-9 (1.0/1.5/1.5)
Fw190F-8 (1.0/1.5/1.5)
P-40B (1.0)
P-40E (1.0)
Ta152H-1 (1.0)
- Bf109 variants (6)
- Fw190 variants (5)
- F4U variants (4)
- Miscel. (5)
So, while 20 planes cannot use thes settings, which seems a lot, actually half of them are 109s and 190s.
-
I have seen/heard storys of lancasters doing the corkscrew to evade fighters at night in wich the fighters couldnt follow offcourse they dissapeared in the dark also.
I guess the biggest problem with those bombers in AH is that they run at fullspeed all the way but fighters can do this also.
In real life i guess they had more time and took more time to setup an attack working to gether with aircontrol to setup the attack.
And maybe they only had one good chance than had to leave the area or take the time to setup the attack again.
Or another group setup took over the attack.
But mostly those bombers ran in big formations having to keep speed at 150 mph cruising. Not like in AH.
AH is a game runned by individuals not like the team disipline in WO2.
-
Well Bug I don't regret anything of the LW losing the war yeah it was a toool of the Nazis like it was a tool for any other nation on the War that was set out to kill anyone , No single person in WW2 that fought in the war is clean form causing human suffering, that and beyond the war. Despite this I have great admiration for all pilots from any side that fought in the war, and in fact several of my former JG54 squaddies can attest to that.
I just find it quite frustrating watching Planes that were no turn fighters either pulling maneuvers that would cause an A6M Zero turn green with Envy, and those planes which were heavier and being to fluter around like nothing more like they have said like a very fast C152 with a very gentle departure from controlled flight.
Yeah the 190 can be somewhat controllable at low airspeed no doubt about that, but then you look in contrast to what it faces and you find the slow speed handling of other kites to be quite exagerated even to the pooint of being ludicrous while the 190A5 might still be controllable at 95mphTAS ( I don't even know why are we using TAS) you'll find that an airplane like a P-47 in AH will go below that and can keep pulling quite some G s and even pull up to a rear quarter shot at even less airspeed and pull even higher AoA, just by dropping the magical Vstol flaps.
I have several hours flying time in small planes, I don't pretend to be an expert,but I do know enough to know that something's off in the modeling of not only LW planes but the rest of the plane set.
Seems people get filled with hatred whenever they see a post of mine and even take parts of it out of context, to start a flame war, and accuse me of wanting to LW to Win almost every battle, that's not simply the truth, you can see my K/D for the past couple of months and you can see I do reasonably well when I'm forced to fly the airplanes like the missiles with guns as they're modeled, what I find frustrating is that even with 6 years flying in AH, even if I'm reasonably skilled it won't matter anyway because the LW planes single engine fighters cannot in almost any situation out fight any planes and get them to reverse, there's no way. The acelerated stall in 190s and 109s start at 300mph and at that speed most planes that are not like that gain a considerable amount of advantage by not being and not having any performance to be gained, since most 190s and 109s actually perform best in that 250 350 mph range, yet in AH they simply cannot do anything.
-
"The LW was a tool of the nazi's nothing to be proud of."
What the hell are you talking about, BUG?
Are you suggesting we are NAZIs because we like to fly and gather knowledge about LW iron?
Stay out of the discussion if you do not understand what is talked about, kid.
-C+
-
Kid/s ? i just put them in bed.
Are u an expert?
im not im just just talkin on my feeling.
Since i was a litle kid i been into aviation because my dad was a ground engineer and spend alot of time in and around planes.
even flew at times in em and jumped out of them.
maybe after i done my aviation JAR B1 study wich i start next year but than still not able to talk about whats real.
Its just the way some talk about 50k death allies calling em peasants unskilled etc.
anyway the reaction from Glasses is a very mature one not like urs
dont be an arrogant joker.
I pay for this game since 1.03 and i have all rights like u to talk and give my thoughts.
actualy u just pushed me again to stick in this thread.
-
"dont be an arrogant joker."
I'm not -you are.
You are calling us NAZI symphatizers.
-C+
-
Charge is right. You are calling all LW pilots Nazi sympathizers, all simply because they fly these planes. That's taking the emphasis from the main point and saying "It doesn't matter anyways, if I'm wrong or right, you're all neo-nazi wannabes and that's wrong!" -- it's diverting the argument.
Please leave such accusations out of it.
-
Originally posted by Glasses
Difference is the figures you quote are operations in all theaters those I quote are against the LW in the ETO :-)
You miss my point. somehow using the real wartime dead in an argument about a flight sim doesn't work for me. Nothing remotely humorous about the loss of anyone's son or daughter regardless of which side they were on.
-
where did i say that ?
The one who fits the shoe take it
The LW was a tool of the nazi's its no way or other.
U guys should look at ur own place texts and try to imagine how u can take it.
"I fly german stuff because they where experts so i must be an expert.
Guys that fly allied planes mostly suk because they where simple inexperiand peasants."
I have seen enough threads greatly defending the uber luftwaffe how great they where with an almost disapointed emphasis they couldnt win the war.
I have been called **** for that by the banned guy coz i shot him down in the ct.
Yeah i hate that attitude.
I dont hate guys that fly german planes i dont hate real lw pilots either its just that wanna be attitude some guys show it makes me sick.
and love
-
Originally posted by Glasses
Apparently the only way those 50k allied aircrews died against the LW, where from exposure to Polio, Tuberculosis,and Anthrax,from screwing the farmer's Sheep . :D
Most were due to flack. And the Germans died much more when the bombers were escorted by fighters. So one could draw the conclusion the LW did pretty good...against bombers... and against allied fighters they didn't do so good. If one wants to make asinine statements.:D
-
Originally posted by Lye-El
Most were due to flack. And the Germans died much more when the bombers were escorted by fighters. So one could draw the conclusion the LW did pretty good...against bombers... and against allied fighters they didn't do so good. If one wants to make asinine statements.:D
Yet another not too clever comment by you.
If you wanna argue how well LW fighters did against Allied fighters and bombers escorted by fighters you might wanna add in the equation of numbers.
You're conclusions are quite obviously not based on anything.
-
Bug, I got nothing against ya, but here's the quote I was thinking of.
Its getting biased and unrespectfull looks like some still regret the LW lost the war.
Sigh
The LW was a tool of the nazi's nothing to be proud of.
I just like the allied conqoured freedom sorry guys.
[snip]
get a grip wabbles.
You are basically claiming we all regret that the LW lost the war, and are indirectly equating us with neo-nazis that never accepted the truth about the war.
I generally have no quabbles with you, but this didn't sit well with me.
-
Originally posted by 1K3
...?
Back on topic. Judging from the Spitfire/La/Niki cheerleaders replies and (more important of course) official replies I'd say: NO!
Dont worry, we'll carry on with shooting down dweebmounts with our dark side irons, we leather dressed wanna-be :D
-
The idea that numbers alone were responsible for the defeat of the LW in the west is really a myth. Obviously numbers played a part (as they do in all battles), but not as big of one as people would tend to think. The allies had a massive numerical advantage in aircraft on the western front from 1941 onward as the Luftwaffe transferred aircraft to the eastern and mediterranean fronts. In 1941 and 42, a lot of this numerical advantage was in fighters, but after the failure at Dieppe many RAF fighter squadrons were transferred to other theaters to support the ground combat taking place elsewhere.
Allied fighter strength did build up again following this, but it was split up between British and American units, split between different air forces within both nationalities (ADGB vs. 2nd TAF for the British, and 8th vs. 9th AF for the Americans). These splits meant that in the late war years, it was very rare to see all the allied fighters concentrated on any one mission or task. And with missions ranging from V1 defense of GB, fighter bombing of france, bomber escort to germany, and fighter intrusions and escorts to Norway these forces were fairly spread out when on operations.
At the same time, the Luftwaffe had taken steps to increase their fighter presense in the west, primarily to counter daylight bombing by the 8th AF. As a result, the fighter vs. fighter odds in actual battles tended to far greater in 1941/42 then in 1944. In spite of these decreased odds, the allies had far greater sucess in these battles in 1944, and when the allies did focus all of their fighter forces on one concentrated objective (air superiority and bombing of the normandy area for D-day) again, the Luftwaffe responded by transferring even more fighter units to the west. The result of this concentrated battle was far different in 1944 then it was in 1942.
To illustrate this, I'm going to show some numbers from two large scale air battles, one that took place in 1942, and one from 1944. I've chosen these two because I have good records from both sides for these dates, making it possible to make an accurate analysis.
The first that I've chosen is the Dieppe raid of Aug 19th, 1942. The allies attempted to make a landing at Dieppe in France and the RAF was tasked with providing fighter cover, as well as attacking German targets in the landing area. The Luftwaffe put the maximum possible effort to oppose this landing with both bombers and fighters of their own, resulting in a large and concentrated air battle that lasted most of the day.
The RAF flew 2600 total sorties, and of this 1800 were Spitfire Mk. Vs and around 150 were the new Spitfire Mk. IXs. The reported 106 total aircraft lost for the day, of which 88 were spitfires! Luftwaffe fighters claimed 96 aircraft destroyed, which would indicate that most of the RAF losses were to enemy fighters.
In opposition, the Luftwaffe mounted 377 Fw190 sorties, and an unknown number by bomber units in the area (mostly Do217s). They reported 48 aircraft lost, 20 of which were fw190s.
Despite the incredible numerical advantage, the RAF suffered much higher losses - particularly in fighters. This can be primarily attributed to two factors - first the Luftwaffe pilots of JG2 and JG26 generally had much more combat experience then their allied counterparts, second the Fw190 had a massive speed advantage over all the allied fighters present at the low altitudes where most of the combat was fought that day.
The second combat I've chosen is that of April 8th, 1944. This was a large scale raid by the 8th Air Force, with a large scale Luftwaffe response. The target for half the bombers was a number of Luftwaffe installations in NW Germany, the other half of the bombers would hit aircraft factories in the Brunswick area - deeper in northern Germany.
The 8th AF dispatched 644 bombers, evenly split between the two targets. 780 fighter sorties were flown as escorts and fighter sweeps, once again fairly even split between the two bomber streams. The Luftwaffe concentrated their fighter response entirely on the deeper penetration, and as a result only 4 of the B-17s which were striking the closer targets were lost, while 30 of the B-24s hitting Brunswick were lost. Also as a result of this, 376 of the US fighters didn't see any LW fighters in the air. Only the 330 B-24s and 408 escort fighters would be involved in the ensuing air battle.
I don't have an exact total of Luftwaffe sorties for the day, but I know from kill and loss reports that they employed the following JagdGruppen in combat on that day:
I, II, III JG1 - 129 fighters
Stab, I, II, III, IV JG3 - 105 fighters
I JG5 - 29 fighters
Stab, I, III JG11 - 68 fighters
I, II, III JG26 - 129 fighters
II JG27 - 12 fighters
II JG 53 - 23 fighters
III JG54 - 37 fighters
III JG300 - 16 fighters
I, II, III JG302 - 67 fighters
Sturmstaffel I - 17 fighters
The total comes to 632 fighters (all Bf109s and Fw190s). Luftwaffe serviceability tended to run around 50%, and 8th AF intellegence reported that around 300-350 Luftwaffe fighters were seen. It seems likely that this was a fairly accurate estimate of the number of LW sorties flown that resulted in contact. In terms of fighter odds, we are looking at around 1.5:1 in the actual combat area, as opposed to over 4:1 seen in the previous battle.
Ultimately, the Americans lost 22 fighters, but 9 of those were losses to flak or crashes due to pilot error/malfunction from the fighter units that never made contact with the Luftwaffe.
Luftwaffe fighter losses for the day were 78 with 42 pilots killed and 13 wounded. A devastating total, particularly in pilots where you are seeing nearly 20% of those who were in action that day killed or wounded.
US bombers made claims for 60 kills, and US fighters 88. The fighters were ulitimately credited with 57 kills after reviewing the claims and gun camera film.
We can see from this, that in early 1944 the typical 8th AF bombing mission was generating far lower odds then those that existed in 1942. We can also see that the results achieved were FAR better. In particular, allied fighters were achieving much greater sucess against their german counterparts. The three main reason for this were: allied bombers were a far more serious threat and so german fighters were more focused towards attacking them, allied pilot quality and tactics had improved during the war while german pilot quality had declined, allied fighters were now as fast or faster then their opponents and possesed better high altitude performance which is where most of their combats were taking place.
When the allies did again focus all their fighters for D-Day (achieving odds closer to those seen at Dieppe, then over Germany in the first half of 1944) the Luftwaffe was shattered. Bomber losses to fighters which had been increasing throughout 1944, dropped off an June and never recovered. The luftwaffe made further attempts to build up a large force and strike at allied bombers as well as at the allied tactical fighters, but were never able to regain control of their airspace which had been lost in 1944.
In light of this, I think it's silly to write off the Luftwaffe's defeat as being a case of simple numbers. As we can see, the allies had a huge numerical advantage from early on in the war but continued to suffer defeat at the hands of the Luftwaffe. The big key to sucess for the allied airforces in the west was improvments in pilot training, tactics, and aircraft. At the same time, the Luftwaffe saw little improvement in their fighters, and a decline in the quality of their pilots.
-
Thanks...interesting, and backed by numbers rather than generalities.
-
Originally posted by Sable
In light of this, I think it's silly to write off the Luftwaffe's defeat as being a case of simple numbers. As we can see, the allies had a huge numerical advantage from early on in the war but continued to suffer defeat at the hands of the Luftwaffe. The big key to sucess for the allied airforces in the west was improvments in pilot training, tactics, and aircraft. At the same time, the Luftwaffe saw little improvement in their fighters, and a decline in the quality of their pilots.
I agree with all of this.
- oldman
-
Very few make the "Number only" argument, the one that says the only reason the LW lost was because they were outnumbered.
That's beside the point. The point being that the 109s in AH are totally unstable at almost all speeds when in fact historically they were no such thing.
Let's not lose sight of the main problem: These planes in AH perform horribly. The speed/climb might be on, but you can't even pull the same angle of attack with any of them as you can with the rest of the planeset.
Each plane has its own flight model. WITHIN that flight model each plane will fly differently. Nobody is arguing that all planes should fly the same. This will NOT make them fly the same. It will make them fly within their own flight envelope, but WITHOUT the ahistorical instability that this plane does not deserve and should not have.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
The speed/climb might be on, but you can't even pull the same angle of attack with any of them as you can with the rest of the planeset.
Not getting in the argument but I'll just point out that not every aircraft was able to pull the same angle of attack. Ever.
-
cc toad, I was thinking more along the lines that this was an indication of how unstable the plane was -- this is a "Flop-o-meter", if you will.
The plane registers a 10.0 on the Flop-o-meter in AH, but historically was never reported to have this same instability.
-
Hi Sable,
Some points about your post:
1.) You are using the Dieppe raid as a yardstick. If anything, the Dieppe raid tells us that the RAF was not up to par in 1942. One can not expect the Luftwaffe to operate with that level of success on a regular basis.
2.) You are ignoring attrition. Between 1942 and 1944, some 10000 Luftwaffe pilots might have been lost. The Luftwaffe had a hard time replacing these losses, while Britain, the USA and the USSR were able to field much higher numbers of pilots eventually regardless of their losses.
3.) Calculating the force ratio, you are taking into account the splitting of the USAAF forces, you assume that all Luftwaffe fighters were able to make contact. While that's backed up by the USAAF intelligence statement, this is a rather unreliable source. Due to the difficulties of fighter control, it was typical for a certain percentage of Luftwaffe units to fail to make contact - the pilots sarcastically talked about "training sorties" in such cases.
4.) The final total of the 1944 raid seems to about 30 bombers and 13 fighters lost by the USAAF for the loss of 78 aircraft by the Luftwaffe. That's a 9% loss ratio for the bombers, which is quite high and certainly indicates that this was very hard fighting with the Luftwaffe concentrating on the bombers. Outnumbered in terms of fighters and then having a large part of your force ignore the enemy fighters will necessarily yield losses out of proportion of the fighter force ratio.
5.) Unlike the (general) situation in 1942, when the British were merely staging nuisance raids, the Luftwaffe could not ignore the bombers in favour of the most promising targets in 1944 to maximize their effect. The raid in question might indicate bad controlling of the Luftwaffe interceptors by pushing too hard for an attack on the bombers, resulting in heavy losses to the escort fighters, but the bombers were a major factor in the air war and can not be ignored when talking about the force ratio. While you mention this effect, you fail to include it in your conclusions - bombers mean numbers, too.
6.) The Luftwaffe leadership certainly failed to exploit their limited numbers in the optimum way, contributing to the Luftwaffe's final defeat. Galland was quite clear on this. However, his suggestions all come down to juggling numbers more skillfully than the people he criticizes - this does not detract from the fact that the air war was won by numbers.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by Sable
The idea that numbers alone were responsible for the defeat of the LW in the west is really a myth......... BIG SNIP. .........
In light of this, I think it's silly to write off the Luftwaffe's defeat as being a case of simple numbers. As we can see, the allies had a huge numerical advantage from early on in the war but continued to suffer defeat at the hands of the Luftwaffe. The big key to sucess for the allied airforces in the west was improvments in pilot training, tactics, and aircraft. At the same time, the Luftwaffe saw little improvement in their fighters, and a decline in the quality of their pilots.
Interesting ... but results of fighter v/s fighter engagements when the LW main target were bombers (from late 1942 till the end of the war, that is) mean nothing. Pure fighter engagements, from late 1942 on, were very rare and usually not accepted by Luftwaffe due to low numbers and opportunity.
You can verify this thing even during massive online historical scenarios:
- allied fighter sweep usually make german fighter assembly difficult and dangerous;
- 190A high cover, made mainly by Bf109G and sometimes by a few 190D, is usually outnumbered;
- 190A's directed against bombers barely float at 25K and making a second pass is almost impossible due to the ridiculous (I dont say difficult I say ridiculous) behaviour of our FW at high altitude; if this is not enuff, our bombers make bombing runs at 300mph+. During this phase FWs, again outnumbered, are like sitting ducks for the close allied escort.
I played many 1943-45 scenarios in Warbirds, both from the axis and allied side. From the allied side, with usual numbers, if you organize a good fighter sweep, high and close escort, winning is a joke. Real LW did pretty big damage to bombers forces during some big raids mainly due to the lack of escort or big planning mistakes. However, RAF and 8th AF had pretty unlimited resources and recovered soon. An average force of 500-1000 bombers with the same number of escorts ... isnt enuff?
No fighter force, with the actual LW numbers, good or not as far as a/c quality and pilot training are concerned, virtual or not, can stand a chance. Saying that numbers were not the main reason of allied air supremacy, togheter with the night&day bombing campaign is pretty silly.
In the Main Arena numbers mean nothing. However, what keep good allied vs axis aircraft k/d ratios is only pilot quality. IMNSHO, obviously.
-
Originally posted by HoHun
1.) You are using the Dieppe raid as a yardstick. If anything, the Dieppe raid tells us that the RAF was not up to par in 1942. One can not expect the Luftwaffe to operate with that level of success on a regular basis.
I think Dieppe is an interesting data point as it shows just how little numbers alone swayed things in the allies favor. Throughout 1941 and 1942 the most common operations that were likely to generate a response from the Luftwaffe fighter forces, was a "Circus" where a small number of bombers would make a raid escorted by a dozen or more fighter squadrons (150+ fighters). The German opposition to these was typically small scale and involved one sortie only. In spite of this, they were able to exact a far greater toll of the RAF - typically on the order of 3:1.
2.) You are ignoring attrition. Between 1942 and 1944, some 10000 Luftwaffe pilots might have been lost. The Luftwaffe had a hard time replacing these losses, while Britain, the USA and the USSR were able to field much higher numbers of pilots eventually regardless of their losses.
[/b]
I mentioned the falling quality of german pilots and agree with you 100% on this point. The Luftwaffe training structure was hard pressed to deal with the attrition they faced, and eventually couldn't keep up.
3.) Calculating the force ratio, you are taking into account the splitting of the USAAF forces, you assume that all Luftwaffe fighters were able to make contact. While that's backed up by the USAAF intelligence statement, this is a rather unreliable source. Due to the difficulties of fighter control, it was typical for a certain percentage of Luftwaffe units to fail to make contact - the pilots sarcastically talked about "training sorties" in such cases.
[/b]
I make the assumption of all of these units making contact because they all claimed kills and/or suffered losses. Obviously it might be that not all of those fighters in those units saw the enemy, but the same holds true for the 8th AF units that saw action (especially as it was common practice to break up into individual squadrons and cover different parts of the bomber stream).
4.) The final total of the 1944 raid seems to about 30 bombers and 13 fighters lost by the USAAF for the loss of 78 aircraft by the Luftwaffe. That's a 9% loss ratio for the bombers, which is quite high and certainly indicates that this was very hard fighting with the Luftwaffe concentrating on the bombers. Outnumbered in terms of fighters and then having a large part of your force ignore the enemy fighters will necessarily yield losses out of proportion of the fighter force ratio.
5.) Unlike the (general) situation in 1942, when the British were merely staging nuisance raids, the Luftwaffe could not ignore the bombers in favour of the most promising targets in 1944 to maximize their effect. The raid in question might indicate bad controlling of the Luftwaffe interceptors by pushing too hard for an attack on the bombers, resulting in heavy losses to the escort fighters, but the bombers were a major factor in the air war and can not be ignored when talking about the force ratio. While you mention this effect, you fail to include it in your conclusions - bombers mean numbers, too.
[/b]
The loss totals are fairly high for the allied bombers, and go to show that the LW had neither fallen apart or given up at this point (I mention this, because many histories describe the operations of the 8th up to Big Week and the first Berlin raid and then write the Luftwaffe off as defeated, which I think is neither fair or accurate).
While I do see your point on numbers, I think of this as ultimately more of a tactical and equipment change. This is a direct result of the allies developing better bombers, as well as better tactics of using them in large numbers in conjunction with their better fighter escorts. There is obviously a huge difference between the 6 bostons that a 1942 Circus might be escorting, and 300 B-24s. But at the same time those 300 B-24s have no more capability against a 109 or 190 then the Bostons, unless the fighter attacks them (and while doing so ignores the escorts). In 1942 the Jagdflieger would attempt to get to the bombers, but if they couldn't they would strike the escort where they had the advantage. But by 1944 the orders were to attack the bombers at all costs. At the same time, the American escorts who had been told their primary objective was now shooting down German fighters, not staying close to the bombers. And the result was a complete reverse of the tactical situation from 1942 - the hunters had become the hunted.
6.) The Luftwaffe leadership certainly failed to exploit their limited numbers in the optimum way, contributing to the Luftwaffe's final defeat. Galland was quite clear on this. However, his suggestions all come down to juggling numbers more skillfully than the people he criticizes - this does not detract from the fact that the air war was won by numbers.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Ultimately though we can see that the numbers alone didn't solve anything. The other daylight air offensives in the west (LW bob, and RAF 41-42) both failed despite having numerical superiority. It was the combination of having the required numbers, along with better trained pilots, better tactics, and better aircraft that made the difference. From '42 to '44 Luftwaffe pilot quality dropped, tactics were actually worse, and the aircraft had hardly improved at all - at the same time the opposite had occured on the allied side. This was the difference between the aerial defeat at Dieppe and the victory over Germany.
-
Regarding the performance of 190A8: How many of you people have flown the 190A8 on AvA arena against Tiffies/Temps, Ponys and Spit XXXs? :)
***
"The big key to sucess for the allied airforces in the west was improvments in pilot training, tactics, and aircraft."
Could be that those evolved too but I'd say that mostly because of numbers. One big country really can't fight three big countries at the same time. I that situation the aircraft quality and performance had little to do. Consider the situation they had more ME262s, and those earlier than they finally did come into service. I don't think it would had affected the outcome. Probably made it a bit more costly for allies in form of a few more aircrews lost but the effect would have been insignificant in the big scale.
I have read many books of the German pilots and I don't recall any of them expressing their concern of the quality or performance of their rides. It always was the numbers and tactical disadvantage, and in the end the lacking combat experience of their new pilots.
-C+
-
Oh yeah, judging the whole thing from a Spitfire and/or Pony cockpit makes everthing cristal clear ...
-
Originally posted by gatt
No fighter force, with the actual LW numbers, good or not as far as a/c quality and pilot training are concerned, virtual or not, can stand a chance. Saying that numbers were not the main reason of allied air supremacy, togheter with the night&day bombing campaign is pretty silly.
But the Allies had a numerical advantage for YEARS and weren't able to translate that into air superiority until 1944. Likewise, the Luftwaffe had a numerical advantage over the RAF during the battle of britain, but that wasn't enough to make up for poor strategy, tactics, and aircraft. If numbers were really all it took to win air battles, then the Luftwaffe should have fallen apart in June 1941 once they faced the combined force of the expanding RAF and the VVS.
With regard to the 190A, it really was a poor performer at high alt by 1944/45 standards. In AH it's performance matches that shown in Focke-Wulf test data. And it's poor high altitude performance is part of my point - no real performance improvements in fighter aircraft were implemented by the LW on a large scale until after the issue had been decided in fall and winter of 44.
Heck, put together 60 Noobs in Bostons and Spit V's and have them try to mount a bombing raid, opposed by 10 of the best pilots in AH (pick the last 10 KOTH winners or something) flying Fw190A5's. I'd put my money on seeing 10 guys land 6 kill sorties. Numbers alone don't win battles.
-
Sable, I see you have exceptional numbers flying both allied and axis rides. So you know what you are talking about. But still, I'm really puzzled by the comparison of stability between allied and axis a/c ...
-
Nope Numbers alone sure don't win battles.
Numbers did win the war though. LW didn't fall apart untill 1944 or so, however, the large scale bombing raids didn't pick up pace before 1944 (although some serious bombing was done well before 1944). LW was destroyed not only in the air but also on the ground due to lack of materials, pilots and fuel aswell as the idiotic leadership (thankfully) of the German high command (how about sending 900 fighters and fighter-bombers on a silly attack raid?)
You forget one important thing though Sable (unless I missed it and you typed it somewhere).
Sorties, indicate just that, sorties. While the US sorties of a raid would indicate the number of planes actually being sent out on that raid to and from Germany the German sorties indicate a very different thing.
The German sorties indicate, not the number of planes sent out to attack the incoming raid, but, the number of actual sorites flown. It was not uncommon (actually it was very common) for the german fighter pilots to fly two or even three sorties in a day as long as the country was under attack for this ammount of time, which it often was as the bombers turned around and headed back.
While the allies, in your example, may have reported some 300-350 fighters seen, they were infact the same fighters on their second sorties.
-
"With regard to the 190A, it really was a poor performer at high alt by 1944/45 standards."
I concur. Small wing on a heavy a/c needs power and if the supercharger is optimized for lower altitude and starts to lose pressure... The 190A was a good bomber killer because its mechanical endurance and good default guns package. Otherwise it was out of its element up high.
-C+
edit: added "A" :)
-
Yup, that the 190 A was a poor high altitude performer is a fact.
That doesn't mean it was a poor high altitude buff killer though. Only that it was uncapable against Allied fighters that performed well at higher altitudes (P47, 51, Spits etc).
Against bombers (unescorted) I'd say it was still very potent.
-
Definately. Just fly straight and use yer firepower ;)
Weren't they escorted by 109's at high alt because of that, or was it because of gondola-carrying or extra armament?
-
The Sturmbocke's (extra armour and 30mm wing armament) were escorted by 109s because they were heavy and because the 190As in general were already breathing quite thinly so high their heaviness was pronounced in maneuvers.
Don't know how much more weight the "Sturmbockes" actually had compared to normal Antons...
-C+
-
According to Weal's "Luftwaffe Sturmgruppen" (Osprey) the 190A-8/R2 (with 2xMk108 cannons) was 200Kg heavier than the standard A8. This seems due to added weight of heavier cannons and armor plated ammo magazines.
I cannot say if this added weight includes also the armored glass plates added on front (+50mm) and side (+30mm) cockpit glass panels and the 5mm steel plates added on fuselage around the cockpit (source: "Sturmstaffel 1" by Eric Mombeek).
[edit] The 7mm and 13mm MGs were often removed from 190A-6, A-7 and A-8 used by Sturm units, so you should calculate this as well.
-
Let me dig up my book from all the moving boxes and I'll give you an exact weight difference due to armor. Not sure how much the guns added but it wasn't much at all, less ammo but larger shells. There is some weight differnce in the armament but not a whole lot.
-
From the 190A-8 flightbook: total weight of armour for the 190A-8/R8 attack fighter (oil cooler, oil tank, windscreens, panels, seat, head, bulk, ammo boxes) was 248,8Kg. The manual is very detailed indeed.
-
Yes, but how much weight is removed with the removal of same parts for the outboard MG151/20s? What is the net weight gain?
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Yes, but how much weight is removed with the removal of same parts for the outboard MG151/20s? What is the net weight gain?
Ok:
The normal 190A-8 had an overall armour of 138Kg instead of the 248Kg of the R/8 attack model.
The net effect of the Mk108s and ammo addition is about +64Kg.
The 2x13mm MG and ammo, often removed, weighted about 130Kg.
-
Hi Sable,
>I make the assumption of all of these units making contact because they all claimed kills and/or suffered losses.
OK, that's reliable enough for establishing a force ratio. If it had been the USAAF count alone, I'd have had my doubts.
>From '42 to '44 Luftwaffe pilot quality dropped, tactics were actually worse, and the aircraft had hardly improved at all - at the same time the opposite had occured on the allied side. This was the difference between the aerial defeat at Dieppe and the victory over Germany.
Well, we're not so far apart. It's only the Dieppe yardstick I disagree with. I'll try to explain:
The Dieppe yardstick fails because it shows the RAF operating below 100% effectiveness. Assuming the RAF to be at 100%, we would have to conclude that the Luftwaffe in 1942 as operating at 300%, and see a great decline in 1944.
However, the truth is that the RAF might have been at 75% with regard to training and tactics, and at 75% again with regard to figher aircraft - the Spitfire V really was behind the curve in 1942. The multiplication - just to illustrate the principle, not because I believe the results are accurate - indicates a 56% fighting effectiveness for the RAF. The Luftwaffe on the other hand might have been at 120% in training and tactics, and at 120% with regard to the fighter aircraft - in 1942, the Fw 190 was way ahead of the pack. End result: Luftwaffe 144% vs. RAF 56%, not quite a 3:1 advantage, but close.
Now what about 1944? No cherry picking tactics for the Jagdwaffe now because the bombers do so much damage that interception is a must. A slight decrease in piloting skill due to the losses of the past two years. Make it 100% effectiveness in training, 90% in fighters because the Me 109 and the Fw 190 were slightly behind the curve now. Their oppponents, the USAAF pilots, by mid-1944 had reached a high level in fighting skills as well, and the "sacrifice" of the bombers means they get to be the cherry pickers, giving them the 120% training and tactics effectiveness previously owned by the Luftwaffe. Their P-51 arguably was the best fighter in the European theatre, so fighters score 110%. End result: USAAF 132% vs. Luftwaffe 90%.
Let's have a closer look at the results of the 1944 battle: The USAAF loss of 30 bombers and 13 fighters means that they lost more than 300 men, 73 of them highly qualified pilots and co-pilots, 133 aero engines and 43 airframes, mostly expensive multis. The Luftwaffe lost 78 single-engine airframes with as many aero engines, and 55 pilots. In tactical terms, this is a Luftwaffe victory since the USAAF losses are considerably heavier than theirs. In strategical terms, it is a Luftwaffe defeat because the USAAF could replace the losses while the Luftwaffe couldn't.
That's how the outcome of the war was determined by numbers. The quality of pilots and equipment is a force multiplier, but the Luftwaffe didn't fall all that much behind in that regard. In fact, with the Me 262, they made a credible attempt at taking the lead once again.
However, there is a limit to what you can achieve with force multipliers, and in the end, the air war was totally dominated by numbers.
I share your point of view with regard to the situation after Big Week, but the Luftwaffe was already engaged in a battle of attrition they could not realistically expect to win, almost regardless of the tactical outcome. They had not fallen back that much behind their 1942 effectiveness, but the USAAF in 1944 had closed the gap and in fact overtaken. At the same time, the Allies were throwing superior forces at the Luftwaffe, with the confidence of a power that could make good the inevitable losses and actually increase their strength while inflicting losses on the enemy in a magnitude he couldn't replace. The exchange ratio actually wasn't that important for the Allies - the attrition rate was.
I hope that makes it a bit more transparent what I think of when I talk about numbers being decisive :-) They were not the only factor, but they were really the dominant factor in 1944 and '45.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
So that small weight increase does not really explain the need for escorts other than the 109s gave 190s time to close up on bombers without the need to fear the escorts interfering.
I think that it was not the R8 that needed the escort but the rocket equipped R6s. The rocket tubes were so bulky that they had serious effect on handling.
Also the R1 and R2 might be more sluggish than regular A8 because of the extra drag because of cannons in underwing gondolas.
-C+
-
Originally posted by Charge
So that small weight increase does not really explain the need for escorts other than the 109s gave 190s time to close up on bombers without the need to fear the escorts interfering.
I think that it was not the R8 that needed the escort but the rocket equipped R6s. The rocket tubes were so bulky that they had serious effect on handling.
Also the R1 and R2 might be more sluggish than regular A8 because of the extra drag because of cannons in underwing gondolas.
-C+
Rocket and related tubes add *a lot* of both weight and drag.
Whats weird is that in Mombeek and Weal books are described engagements between Sturm 190As and bombers up to 26-27.000ft. Try to do it with an AH2's A-8 with 30mm .... LOL :rofl :eek: :huh
-
The total comes to 632 fighters (all Bf109s and Fw190s). Luftwaffe serviceability tended to run around 50%, and 8th AF intellegence reported that around 300-350 Luftwaffe fighters were seen. It seems likely that this was a fairly accurate estimate of the number of LW sorties flown that resulted in contact. In terms of fighter odds, we are looking at around 1.5:1 in the actual combat area, as opposed to over 4:1 seen in the previous battle.
Your assumption as to the numbers of LW fighters put into the air to intercept the various Allied bomber raids on 8 April '44 is very much on the high side.
The LW never sent up one large formation of all available fighters to hit one point along the bomber streams. Just like all allied escort fighters weren't combined at one point covering the bombers. They were spread out and on 8 April the Allies were hitting many targets over the Reich. Mostly the targets were split between airfields and industry across western Europe (255 bombers of the 3rd Bombardment Division were targeting airfields through out; the bombers of the 2nd Bombardment Division were targeting aircraft industries). The LW only had the numbers to form into 3 or 4 Gefechstverband of a max of 50 - 60 fighters each (typical numbers were much lower, sometimes as few as 20 per Gefechstverband). It only stands to reason that large portions of the Allied escort fighters never saw the enemy, the same is true of the LW dayfighters. A good number never made contact with the enemy.
Just as an example:
A Gefechstverband made up of Sturmstaffel 1 and elements of I., II., IV., flying a mix of FW 190-A6s / A-7s and 109Gs (about 60 fighters) intercepted B-24s of the 2nd Bombardment Division NW of Braunschweig. A 'massive' air battle ensued over Fallersleben in which the 'sky was filled with swirling P-51s, P-38s, Bf-109s and FW 190s'.
It should be noted that the LW at this point were ordered not to engage the allied fighters but to push through to the bombers. Schmid in summarizing operations for April '44:
The daylight air warfare over the Reich with the increased American offensive action had brought about a psychological effect on all Luftwaffe command staffs and dominated them. Nowhere, at no command headquarters, neither at OKH, nor at OKL, nor the staff of the General der Jagdflieger, nor at Luftflotte Reich, nor at the headquarters of I. Jagdkorp was an adequate plan under consideration for operations to gain air superiority by a victorious fighter battle. the attention of all responsible commanders was focused only on one danger - the Flying Fortress and their bomb loads. The persistent demand for destroying American bombers by an incessant commitment of fighters originated with the Führer.
Oberst Johannes Kogler, Kommodore of Jagdgeschwader 6 stated:
Orders were given to leave Allied fighters alone and concentrate on the bombers. This command led to a vicious spiral of disaster. The Luftwaffe concetrated on the bombers and were shot down by Allied fighters. The American fighters learned that they were safe against attack and became bolder and more effective. The Luftwaffe headed for bomber formations which supposedly were unescorted, but you ran into fighters anyway and in the end they were all over the place. The Luftwaffe developed an inferiority complex which got worse each day, but High Command woul dnot relax its order.
What Kogler is talking about is that the Allied fighters had freedom of operation, with little fear of the LW attacking them while forming up or en route to the escort / patrol area. They were able use this freedom to stay on the offensive while the Luftwaffe fighters were ordered to attack the bombers and as such were an easier target.
The LW through the use of radar, ground observation, recce etc.. were able on many occasions to establish areas of local control on certain sections of the bomber stream but these control was only temporary and within minutes Allied fighters would be vectored in. With the LW restricted to attacking the bombers they had to just accept this.
When folks talk about 'numbers' defeating the LW they aren't referring to the total numbers/ ratio of fighters in a given air battle. They refer to the the total number of fighters / sorties flown over the course of the air war over western Europe. The LW were never in the position to inflict upon the western allies losses great enough to win air superiority. The battle of attrition was always a great advantage for the Allies.
Not only was attrition a factor but the lack of the total number of day fighters available for Reichsverteidigung meant that units were 'scattered across the Reich'. As such they had to fly long distances to reach the bombers and / or to form up with other units. Many times LW fighters ran low on fuel before they made contact, or intercepted the bombers late, or missed them all together.
Willi Unger of 11./JG 3 stated:
The operational bases of our fighter units in Reichsverteidigung were spread all over Germany. Attempts to maintain strength at critical times and in critical areas were made by the rapid deployment of fighters to northern or southern Germany. Several Gruppen from various airfields would combine in the air and were then led from the ground to attack the approaching bombers. This did not always work. The bombers often cheated by flying towards one town then changing course to bomb a completely different target. As the endurance of our fighters flying with an auxiliary drop tank was a maximum of 2.5 hours, we were often forced to break off. There was no question of German fighters having the advantage, only disadvantages, since the numbers of American escort fighters were far superior to us and they also operated at higher altitude.
The allied fighter pilots were able to build up experience while growing their numbers. The direct opposite was happening with the LW. This is a direct result of the allied numerical superiority.
Christer Bergström wrote an article:
The effect of Allied numerical superiority in the air over Normandy in 1944 (http://www.bergstrombooks.elknet.pl/normandy.htm)
While it focuses on the period right around D-day it goes to demonstrate the effect of Allied numerical superiority on the LW.
Finally Schmid stated in March '44:
...the striking power of the few remaining daylight fighter units assigned to Reichsverteidigung remained unbroken. Whenever weather conditions permitted the concentrated employment in close combat formation in a single area, noteworthy success was achieved in bringing down enemy aircraft and keeping our own losses to a reasonable limit. The success of our defensive operations over Berlin on 6 and 8 March gave ample evidence of the fighting morale of our fighter pilots and of their ability to execute effective combat despite the technical inferiority of their aircraft... If the Reichsverteidigung had 1000-1200 fighters available, it would doubtless have been in a position to alter the situation in the air, at least by day, in Germany's favor within a ver short period of time, assuming of course, that there was no appreciable increase in American fighters.
Allied numerical superiority in the air over western Europe was key in the battle of attrition, it was key in spreading the LW out all over Western Europe, it was key to the D-day landings and it was key in allies gaining air superiority ...
I didn't read anything past the post I quoted you from. So if others brought up the same points I did then great. Just take my contribution with this post with a grain of salt...
-
Bruno:
Thanks for your input here. Well, we've had our scruffles and probably will, but the data you just put in as well as your analysis was very much in the line I am reading up on.
Are you guys stuck on that date very much, or something more general?
-
Beginning in Feb '44 with Big Week and pressing up to the D-day landings the LW in the west was worn down while allied air power built up. The LW recovered some what later in terms of total numbers with new aircraft being produced and by rushing pilots through training. However, the quality of LW pilots was on a downward slide getting worse exponentially.
Depending on what you are looking for there's a lot that happened on many dates.
Read up on Addi Glunz, some how he made it through.
-
All ears for Glunz. Any read to be recommended?
(Same goes with Priller)
I have the basics about Big Week in C.Shore's work "Ten crucial battles of WW2". The book looks good, but is a tad of a dry read. I recommend it though.
BTW, one date is just enough. Been looking at june 24th 1944. Just RAF vs LW is plenty, and the US were yet also very active that day.
The feeling though, is that the LW loss records as compared to aircraft not existing, need a lot of patching up. Much record work I guess.
-
just a totaly oddbal thought outta left feild......
- 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. If you're in a fight and trying to get a shot while this is going on - you're going to have a very hard time. Most likely you'll pull to far for a shot and tumble down, until you correct and regain control.
-
Originally posted by Waffle BAS
just a totaly oddbal thought outta left feild......
- 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. If you're in a fight and trying to get a shot while this is going on - you're going to have a very hard time. Most likely you'll pull to far for a shot and tumble down, until you correct and regain control.
Funny, nobody is blaming the slats on La-7 :p
-
Originally posted by Waffle BAS
just a totaly oddbal thought outta left feild......
- 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. If you're in a fight and trying to get a shot while this is going on - you're going to have a very hard time. Most likely you'll pull to far for a shot and tumble down, until you correct and regain control.
While this could be correct for "near stall speed" where the slats pop in and out it is not correct for the speeds where the plane actually is unstable.
Most have metioned low speed flying, for example after a hammerhead where the plane just keeps on wobbling, usually both slats are out at this time.
-
Hi,
the 109 wasnt unstable due to the slats, as long as the mechianics was able to adjust them well.
While turning this is irrelevant anyway, cause here always the inner wing slat will pop out at 1st, this gave the 109 a advantage over most other planes. The outpopping slat simply hinder the wing to drop. While the 109 pilot had maybe to 'fight' the unstability due to the outpopping slat, the other pilots had to fight the stalling inner wing.
The seperate working slats was the reason why the piltos was bale to get that close to the stall without to fear a spin, they wasnt a reason for a unstable gunplattform in general. Used pilots could get over this edge and turn with both slats open. In this moment there is no reason for a unstable feeling.
btw, the La5/7 had linked slats afaik, they did pop out always together, according to the La5 manual the slowspeed behaviour (below 210km/h IAS) was pretty bad.
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.
At slowspeed the 190A8 seems to be ok, while the A5 seems to be a bit light, at least its strange to see the 109G6 with same stallspeed(100% fuel 95mph +/-). Strangewise the 109E had a similar stall speed than the Spit1a(according to british tests), i guess the G6 (without gunpods) wasnt more bad than the SpitIXc regarding this.
Greetings, Knegel
-
"- 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 "
AFAIK the MEs were not unstable in any sense. The uneven slat deployment will yaw the plane slightly in banking which is not very noticeable unless you are trying to keep something in your gunsight while turning. That is my interpretation of all the anecdotal evidence I have seen.
AFAIK the slat does not actually "increase" lift. It uniforms the airflow over the wing so that the profile tolerates more AoA than it normally could without the slat.
-C+
-
One thing I've read is that alot of 109 pilots didn't like when the slats popped out - as they then had an audible clue that their crate was about to stall.
For kicks go up a mossie and level it at at about 100 feet and get going fast...
then yank back on the stick.. hard like you were trying to pull up to keep from getting bounced. You'll end up in the ground.
Also on the topic of 190A8s vs bombers - isn't that why they put the d9 into production? Because the 190a8 started to suffer from degraded performance at 20k even worse above 25k ? Most A8 flight needed escorts because they were so laden with extra armor and added weight they were pretty much easy pickings for us fighters.
-
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.
-
Not sure what you are saying wilbus, Speed and slat deployment are not related.
-
Also on the topic of 190A8s vs bombers - isn't that why they put the d9 into production? Because the 190a8 started to suffer from degraded performance at 20k even worse above 25k ? Most A8 flight needed escorts because they were so laden with extra armor and added weight they were pretty much easy pickings for us fighters.
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.
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.
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.
-
The 303rd BG, my father-in-law's outfit. He flew as tailgunner.
This is from the 303rd website. If you choose, you can view all of their missions. This is "February"; as they set it up, you get all missions flown on a February date, in any year they were active.
01 February 1945
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 310
Target: Railroad bridge at Mannheim, Germany
Crews Dispatched: 39
Length of Mission: 7 hours, 35 minutes
Bomb Load: 10 x 500 lb RDX M43 & 2 x 500 lb M17 Incendiaries
Bombing Altitudes; 26,000, 25,000 & 26,500 ft
Ammo Fired: 1,050 rounds
02 February 1943
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 13
Target: Railroad Marshalling Yards, Hamm, Germany
(Mission Aborted)
Crews Dispatched: 12
Length of Mission: 3 hours
Bomb Load: 5 x 1000 lbs, 10 x 500 lbs,
5 x 300 lbs M31 Incendiary bombs
Bombing Altitude: 20,500 ft
Ammo Fired: none
03 February 1944
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 103
Target: U-Boat Facilities at Wilhelmshaven, Germany (PFF)
Crews Dispatched: 39
Crews Lost: Capt. G.A. White, 10 KIA
Length of Mission: 6 hours, 20 minutes
Bomb Load: 6 & 12 x 500 lb G.P. bombs (6 w/bomb bay tanks)
Bombing Altitudes: 28,000 ft and 28,300 ft
Ammo Fired: 5,450 rounds
03 February 1945
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 311
Target: Military Objectives at Berlin, Germany
Crews Dispatched: 39
Length of Mission: 8 hours, 15 minutes
Bomb Load: 10 x 500 lb H.E. M43 bombs
Bombing Altitudes: 24,200, 23,000 & 25,100 ft
Ammo Fired: 1,755 rounds
04 February 1943
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 14
Target: Industrial Targets NW of Osnabruck, Germany
Crews Dispatched: 13
Crews Lost: Capt. Cole - 3 KIA, 6 POW, 1 WIA/POW/DOW
Crew Members Lost or Wounded: 1 WIA
Length of Mission: 5 hours plus
Bomb Load: 10 x 500 lbs M43
Bombing Altitude: 19,000 ft
Ammo Fired: 20,991 rounds
Enemy Aircraft Claims: 8 Destroyed, 1 Probable, 2 Damaged
04 February 1944
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 104
Target: City area, Frankfurt, Germany (PFF Bombing)
Crews Dispatched: 38
Crew Members Lost or Wounded: 3 crewmen experienced frostbite
Length of Mission: 7 hours, 15 minutes
Bomb Load: 21 & 42 65 lb M47A1 Incendiaries
Bombing Altitudes: A Group, 25,000 ft; B Group, 24,000 ft
Ammo Fired: 5,620 rounds
05 February 1944
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 105
Target: Bricy German Airfield, Orleans, France
Crews Dispatched: 20 with 3 spares (unused)
Length of Mission: 5 hours, 25 minutes
Bomb Load: 12 x 500 lb G.P. bombs
Bombing Altitude: 15,000 ft
Ammo Fired: 1,780 rounds
06 February 1944
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 106
Target: Dijon/Lonvic Airdrome, Dijon, France
Crews Dispatched: 20 plus 2 spares
Crews Lost: 1 crew, Lt. J.S. Bass, 1 KIA, 9 POW
Crew Members Lost or Wounded: Co-pilot Lt. C.G. Doering KIA
Length of Mission: 7 hours, 10 minutes
Bomb Load: 6 or 12 500 lb M43 type bombs
Bombing Altitude: 15,500 ft
Ammo Fired: 425 rounds
06 February 1945
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission: No. 312
Target: Friedrichroda, Geisel, and Ostheim, Germany
Visual Targets of Opportunity
Crews Dispatched: 39
Length of Mission: 8 hours, 28 minutes
Bomb Load: 10 x 500 lb H.E. M43 bombs
Bombing Altitudes: 25,100, 23,500, & 25,900 ft
Ammo Fired: 580 rounds
08 February 1944
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 107
Target: City area, Frankfurt, Germany (PFF)
Crew Dispatched: 20 plus 2 spares
Crew Members Lost or Wounded: 1 minor wound, 1 frostbite
Length of Mission: 7 hours, 40 minutes
Bomb Load: 21 or 42 x 65 lb M47A1 Indendiary bombs
Bombing Altitude: 26,400 ft
09 February 1945
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 313
Target: Synthetic Oil Plant at Lutzkendorf, Germany
Crews Dispatched: 39
Crews Lost: Lt. Nemer, 5 KIA, 1 POW, 3 RTD;
Lt. Barrat, 8 KIA, 1 POW; Lt. Bailey, 7 POW, 2 RTD
Crew Members Lost or Wounded: 1 WIA
Length of Mission: 8 hours, 14 minutes
Bomb Load: 10 x 500 lb H.E. M43 bombs
Bombing Altitudes: 25,200, 23,200, & 25,600 ft
Ammo Fired: 1,205 rounds
11 February 1944
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 108
Target: City area, Frankfurt, Germany (PFF)
Crews Dispatched: 21
Crew Members Lost or Wounded: 1 KIA, 7 injured
Length of Mission: 8 hours
Bomb Load: 6 or 12 x 500 lb G.P. bombs
Bombing Altitude: 25,000 ft
Ammo Fired: 1,370 rounds
14 February 1943
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 15
Target: Industrial Targets, Hamm, Germany
(Aborted)
Crews Dispatched: 19
Length of Mission: 3 1/2 to 4 1/4 hours
Bomb Load: 5 x 1000 lbs M44 H.E. & 10 x 500 H.E. M43 bombs
Bombing Altitude: 22,000 ft
Ammo Fired: 8,748 rounds
Enemy Aircraft Claims: 1 Destroyed, 1 Damaged
14 February 1945
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 314
Target: Military Objectives at Dresden, Germany
Crews Dispatched: 39
Length of Mission: 9 hours, 5 minutes
Bomb Load: 6 x 500 lb H.E. M43 & 4 x 500 lb M17 Incendiaries
Bombing Altitudes: 27,900, 26,600, & 28,300 ft
Ammo Fired: 1,750 rounds
15 February 1945
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 315
Target: Military Objectives at Dresden, Germany
Crews Dispatched: 39
Length of Mission: 8 hours, 22 minutes
Bomb Load: 18 x 250 lb H.E. M57 bombs
Bombing Altitudes: 24,700, 24,100, & 25,600 ft
Ammo Fired: 1,050 rounds
16 February 1943
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 16
Target: Port Area, St. Nazaire, France
Crews Dispatched: 14
Crews Lost: Two - Lt. Dunnica & Capt. Breed
Length of Mission: 5 1/4 to 5 1/2 hours
Bomb Load: 500 & 1000 lbs Demolition bombs
Bombing Altitude: 25,000 to 26,500 ft
Ammo Fired: 30,119 rounds
Enemy Aircraft Claims: 4 Destroyed, 1 Probable, 1 Damaged
16 February 1945
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 316
Target: Synthetic Oil Plant at Langendreer, Germany
Crews Dispatched: 39
Crews Lost: Lt. Wertz, 3 KIA, 6 POW
Crew Members Lost or Wounded: 1 WIA
Length of Mission: 6 hours, 20 minutes
Bomb Load: 18 x 250 lb H.E. M57 bombs
Bombing Altitudes: 28,400, 28,300
Ammo Fired: 1,761 rounds
19 February 1945
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 317
Target: Coking Plant at Gelsenkirchen, Germany
Crews Dispatched: 38
Crewmen Wounded or Lost: 1 KIA
Length of Mission: 6 hours, 15 minutes
Bomb Load: 10 x 500 lb RDX M43 bombs
Bombing Altitudes: 26,700, 25,400, & 26,700 ft
Ammo Fired: 850 rounds
20 February 1944
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 109
Target: A Group - Junker Aircraft Works, Leipzig, Germany
B Group - Industrial Plants, Hettstedt, Germany
Crews Dispatched: 38
Crew Members Lost or Wounded: 2 minor wounds, 1 crash landing
Length of Mission: 9 hours, 10 minutes
Bomb Load: 12 x 500 lb G.P. & 42 x M-47 Incendiary bombs,
plus 3000 lbs of nickels
Bombing Altitude: A Group - 19,000 ft; B Group - 16,000 ft
Ammo Fired: 9,740 rounds
20 February 1945
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 318
Target: Marshalling Yard at Nurnberg, Germany
Crews Dispatched: 39
Length of Mission: 7 hours, 35 minutes
Bomb Load: 16 x 500 lb H.E. M43 bombs
Bombing Altitudes: 26,000, 25,100, & 26,500 ft
Ammo Fired: 700 rounds
21 February 1944
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 110
Target: German Airdrome, Diepholz, Germany
Crews Dispatched: 36
Length of Mission: 6 hours, 10 minutes
Bomb Load: 12 x 500 lb G.P. bombs plus 1 A/C w/ 3000 lbs nickles
Bombing Altitude: 21,000 ft
Ammo Fired: 5,510 rounds
21 February 1945
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 319
Target: Marshalling Yard at Nurnberg, Germany
Crews Dispatched: 38
Length of Mission: 8 hours, 30 minutes
Bomb Load: 5 x 500 lb H.E. M43 & 5 x 500 lb M17 Incendiaries
Bombing Altitudes: 23,800, 23,900 & 25,250 ft
Ammo Fired: 480 rounds
22 February 1944
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 111
Target: Junkers Aircraft Factory, Aschersleben, Germany
Crews Dispatched: 36
Crews Lost: Lt. J.W. Stuermer, Lt. J.R. Morrin,
Lt. G.E. Underwood, Lt. C.D. Crook and Lt. J. Moffatt
Crew Members Lost or Wounded: 50 total; 37 crew members
plus 1 passenger missing, 3 bodies recovered from sea from missing A/C
and 9 crewmen killed in mid-air collision
Length of Mission: 8 hours, 30 minutes
Bomb Load: 12 x 500 lb G.P. bombs
Bombing Altitude: 20,000 ft
Ammo Fired: 37,455 rounds
22 February 1945
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 320
Target: Marshalling Yards at Uelzen (Ulzen), Germany
Crews Dispatched: 39
Length of Mission: 6 hours, 45 minutes
Bomb Load: 12 x 500 lb RDX bombs
Bombing Altitudes: 12,650, 11,340, & 12,900 ft
Ammo Fired: 595 rounds
23 February 1945
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 321
Target: Marshalling Yards at Kitzingen, Germany
Crews Dispatched: 39
Length of Mission: 9 hours, 36 minutes
Bomb Load: 12 x 500 lb RDX M64 bombs
Bombing Altitudes: 11,500, 11,200 & 12,450 ft
Ammo Fired: 1,520 rounds
24 February 1944
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 112
Target: Kugelfischer Ball Bearing Works, Schweinfurt, Ger.
Crews Dispatched: High Group - 20; Composite Group - 7
Crews Lost: Lt. Henderson and Lt. Smith
Crew Members Lost or Wounded: 20 crewmen missing,
1 crew suffered frostbite
Length of Mission: 7 hours, 40 minutes
Bomb Load: 42 x 65 lb M47A1 Incendiary bombs; 12 x 500 lb G.P.
Bombing Altitude: 23,000 ft; 20,000 ft
Ammo Fired: 2,150 rounds
24 February 1945
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 322
Target: Oil Target at Hamburg, Germany
Crews Dispatched: 39
Length of Mission: 8 hours, 12 minutes
Bomb Load: 12 x 500 lb RDX M64 bombs
Bombing Altitudes: 26,600, 26,000 & 27,500 ft
Ammo Fired: 275 rounds
-
25 February 1944
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 113
Target: Group A - Messerschmitt A/C Factory, Augsburg, Ger.
Group B - V.K.F. Ball Bearing Works, Stuttgart, Ger.
Crews Dispatched: Group A - 19; Group B - 12
Crew Members Lost or Wounded: 6 crewmen wounded by flak
Length of Mission: 9 hours, 15 minutes
Bomb Load: Group A - 12 x 500 lb bombs,
Group B - 3 or 6 x 1000 lb bombs
Bombing Altitude: Group A - 22,100 ft; Group B - 21,100 ft
Ammo Fired: 3,780 rounds
25 February 1945
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 323
Target: Tank Factory at Friedrichshafen, Germany
Crews Dispatched: 38
Length of Mission: 7 hours, 50 minutes
Bomb Load: 6 x 500 lb H.E. M43 & 6 x 500 lb M17 Incendiaries
Bombing Altitudes: 23,850 ft
Ammo Fired: 870 rounds
26 February 1943
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 17
Target: U-Boat Yards - Wilhelmshaven, Germany (Secondary)
Crews Dispatched: 19
Length of Mission: 5 hours, 20 minutes
Bomb Load: 10 x 500 lbs H.E. M43 bombs
Bombing Altitude: 24,000 ft
Ammo Fired: 20,500 rounds
26 February 1945
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 324
Target: Marshalling Yard at Berlin, Germany
Crews Dispatched: 39
Length of Mission: 8 hours, 40 minutes
Bomb Load: 6 x 500 lb H.E. M43 & 4 x 500 lb M17 Incendiaries
Bombing Altitudes: 25,000, 24,500 & 26,500 ft
Ammo Fired: 650 rounds
27 February 1943
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 18
Target: U-Boat Pens, Brest, France
Crews Dispatched: 16
Length of Mission: 5 hours 22 minutes
Bomb Load: 5 x 1000 lb H.E. M44 bombs
Bombing Altitude: 21,600 ft
Ammo Fired: 9,440 rounds
27 February 1945
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 325
Target: Marshalling Yard at Leipzig, Germany
Crews Dispatched: 39
Length of Mission: 8 hours, 45 minutes
Bomb Load: 6 x 500 lb H.E. M43 & 4 x 500 lb M17 Incendiaries
Bombing Altitudes: 26,500, 26,300 & 26,800 ft
Ammo Fired: 640 rounds
28 February 1944
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 114
Target: Bois/Coqueral--"Crossbow" Targets (V-2 Rocket Sites)
Crews Dispatched: 23
Crews Lost: 1Lt. Shoup crew - 7 KIA, 2 EVD, 1 POW
Crew Members Lost or Wounded: 3 crewmen wounded
Length of Mission: 4 hours, 45 minutes
Bomb Load: 12 x 500 lb G.P. bombs
Bombing Altitude: 14,000 ft
Ammo Fired: 1,160 rounds
28 February 1945
303rd BG (H) Combat Mission No. 326
Target: Marshalling Yard at Hagen, Germany
Crews Dispatched: 39
Length of Mission: 7 hours, 20 minutes
Bomb Load: 10 x 500 lb M43 & 2 x 500 lb M17 Incendiary bombs
Bombing Altitudes: 25,000, 24,000 & 26,000 ft
Ammo Fired: 1,000 rounds
ALL 303rd missions are listed HERE (http://www.303rdbg.com/missions.html) . You can cross-reference to the summaries by date if you are so inclined.
-
Sorry. What I ment was high, or on the "edge" of high, angle of attack.Where the slats pop in and out. However this is not where the 109 "feels" unstable in AH. All the slats do to the 109 is to make the plane jump somewhat mkaing the aim a bit harder in those moments. They don't make the plane jump as much as I thought they would though, judging from pilot reports. This could be a "experten vs newbie" thing though in Real life. Marseille never had any trouble with it as far as is mentioned anywhere.
Back to topic. The plane feels unstable (well more so then other planes) at stall speed, trying to follow a P47 up in a loop till they both hang on the props the P47 is far easier to controll. This goes with most other planes aswell.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Not sure what you are saying wilbus, Speed and slat deployment are not related.
Question Hitech - I assume you control the Centre of Gravity and the weight of the aircraft? I am wondering if the COG was off in any aircraft, by a few feet, what kind of impact would that have on stall characterists.
Another questio HT: what improvements were made in the aerodynamic/physics environment model from AHI to AHII?
-
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
-
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)
-
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)
-
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
-
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
-
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:
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.
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?"
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.
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.
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??
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]
-
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)
-
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.
-
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
-
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)
-
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)
-
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.
-
HoHun can you post link / image of the on the cl of deployment vs max cl ?
HiTech
-
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)
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
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.
Pennies were minted using zinc plated steel during 1943.
My regards,
Widewing
-
According to THIS (http://www.ww2guide.com/bombs.shtml) site, nickels were :
Nickels - Propaganda leafets dropped by air
I've heard them referred to as nickels in the past, somewhere sometime I think.
I think that's it as I found another site that says the same thing:
Between January and September 1944 the 801st / 492nd Bomb Group undertook 2263 separate missions of which, due to various circumstances, 1577 (ie 69%) were completed satisfactorily. The successful missions delivered to Occupied Europe: 662 "Joes" (agents); 18,535 containers of supplies; 8050 "Nickles" (bundles of 4,000 propaganda leaflets); 10,725 packages of supplies; 26 pigeons (for messages, not eating); and carried 437 passengers
-
Originally posted by straffo
Explain me how a glider can fly with your conception of physic ?
(miracle is a not the correct answer)
A glider is slow, very slow, it need smooth turning otherwise it bleed energy like hell.
I talk about energy bleed while highspeed manouvers(around and above Vmax).
Take a stone, acceleate it and let it move upward, do the same with a feather, then you will understand why the real 109 and 190, P47, P38, P51 had a better vertical behaviour than the hurri, Zero and early SpitV.
The stone will move up higher and will be faster on the earth. The well known and often only respected drawback is a less good glide and turn radius and sustained turn(depending much to the power).
While all manouvers at speeds where the turnradius get depermined by the blackout, big wings are only a handycap. Specialy at this speeds, the more zero drag will waight much, and i think thats not so regarding the 190A8 and D9. If two planes, one with 3000kg and one with 4500kg, meet up with same speed in same alt, the 4500kg plane have a much higher stage of energy. 1500kg more weight/inertia at maybe 550km/h, i guess thats more worth than 1000HP. thats why i would expect, if a SpitV or A6M5 in on the tail of a 190A8 or P47, and all planes just leveled out after a dive with maybe 400mph, that the 190A8/P47 should 1. have a much advanced upzoom and 2. should keep the high speed MUCH better than the more light 'big winged' planes. In AH the SpitV and A6M5, almost dive and easy upzoom with a P47 and FW190A.
In AH(same like in many other sims) it looks like a smal wingload get overestimated much, as result planes like the P51, FW190, P38 and P47, often only can run(in AH the US planes got super flaps to make them playable lol). As result the performence relation between similar wing(drag)loaded planes fit rather good, while more heavy wingloaded planes most have a big disadvantage.
The inertia while calculating the dragload simply get forgotten.
Additionally the wing aspect ratio also most get forgotten. As result the Ta152H is a hopeless plane in low/med alt, where it only got used in the war and where the real pilots did talk very good about it.
btw, you know why aerobatic gliders get smaler wings?? Cause they keep more energy while the needed highspeed to make their manouvers!!
Big wings specialy with high aspectratio are good for gliding and slowspeed turning(measured in IAS), as faster the plane get as more this wings are a handycap!!
Greetings, Knegel
-
"* We don't want our 109s to outturn Spits."
At least I don't, I want them to have correct performance -what ever that is...
This is something that troubles me:
"However the 109 had a distinct advantage in manoeuvrability and turning circle at low speeds. The design of the 109, with it's leading edge slats gave a lower stalling speed. The 109 was very forgiving if stalled, with no tendency for a stall to develop into an uncontrollable spin, something that the Spitfire was prone to. Thus a Messerschmitt pilot was more at home at low speeds than his British counterpart."
http://www.jazzitoria.dial.pipex.com/aspit-2.htm
You notice that this is claimed by a Spitfire society!? (Not that I trust every stray website on the http://WWW...)
Where could they come up with such claim because all the RAE test data seems to claim the contrary? I wonder if they have first hand anecdotal evidence of this which is not documented elsewhere.
In a way that supports my understanding of the strengths and weaknesses between 109(E) and Spit I. I have had the impression that using its slats the 109 could momentarily turn inside the Spit but could not match the turn rate of the latter. AFAIK the 109 F could not turn as tightly as E but had better rate of turn which may well take it to region where it could not match Spitfire either in minimum circle nor in turn rate, yet not being totally inferior but still somewhat inferior. The difference probabaly became more marked in G as it was again heavier.
I have seen the calculations based on simple formulas of wingarea, but near stall speed performance probabaly relies more heavily on wing profile and AoA capability where the calculations are more complex.
Note:I am not claiming anything here! Just wondering the contradicting data.
:confused:
-C+
-
Well you would better read this : http://www.aerodyn.org/Frames/1wings.html
I've unfortunatly not the time and the correct vocabulary to make you a detailled
explaination.
btw, you know why aerobatic gliders get smaler wings?? Cause they keep more energy while the needed highspeed to make their manouvers!!
Don't you thing it's more because of the instabilty of this formula ?
-
Originally posted by Charge
Note:I am not claiming anything here! Just wondering the contradicting data.
:confused:
The data is not so much contradicting as much as people concepts of what "manuverability" and "handeling" is.
A plane can be very "manuverable" and yet have an extremely nasty stall behaviour and terrible instability. This just means that one needs to be a very good pilot to actually use this "manuverability" potential to it's full.
AH 109 are very "manuverable" they CAN handily out turn P51s and P47s. 109F is very close to spit IX in turning. However, their "handeling" is much worse. This is why so many good players claim that the 109 out performs the P51 and P47 while so many less skilled players can't see it or do it.
P47 is the exact opposite. Under 200 mph it is a dog. The rate of turn is among worst in the game (exact ranking depend a lot on fuel load) and turn radius is largest - even with the "magical" flaps extended. But the handeling is superb since it is a big heavy plane with wings that develop the stall gradualy and excelent ailron/elevator/rudder authority. In high speeds the E dumping ability makes it "cheat" as if it can actually turn but slowing down very fast. In the first circle it gains the angles by reduce the radius faster thus not only turning inside the other's circle but also displacing the center of its turning circle aft of the center of the other plane - meaning, it needs to turn less angles in order to pull lead. This is not high rate of turn or good "manuverability".
"Manuverability" can be measured with numbers - rate of turn, radius, rate of climb, roll, stall speed. You can find documented performance of the planes. "Handeling" is completly subjective and exteremly hard to quantify. It's more a feeling than anything else. Note the comments about buffeting before the stall. It is a welcomed feature of handeling, but it doesn't do anything for the max possible turn ability. It does however give the pilot a feeling confidence that he's not about to suddenly loose control and encourage him to extract every little of potential performance. The experts can do it anyway.
conclusion - 109s "handeling" and "feeling" is weird. You can't really prove it with any pilot stories nor use these stories to model a flight sim. The claim "109 should handily outturn a P51/47" is worthless - it already can. BUT since so many agree that the instability seem to be out of place it does merit some investigation to the reasons only the 109 shows it by HTC.
Bozon
-
Originally posted by straffo
Well you would better read this : http://www.aerodyn.org/Frames/1wings.html
I've unfortunatly not the time and the correct vocabulary to make you a detailled
explaination.
Don't you thing it's more because of the instabilty of this formula ?
Hi,
nothing special on this page. The only related theme i found(while a fast look), is the article regarding "Low Aspect-Ratio Wings", here you can read exact why the aerobatic glider(same like the hangglider) have a more short wing than the real glider. Simply cause it need to fly at higher speeds to be able to do loopings etc. A real glider with its big wings simply have to much zero drag, what is not that important while the very slow gliding, but increase in square with the speed, as result it bleed speed like mad in relation to the smal winged aerobatic glider(a hangglider would fly backward). Of course at slowspeed(bigger AoA while levelflight) the longer aspectratio provide a smaler induced drag, therfor a smaler minimum drag(induced + zero drag) at a slower speed, therfor a better glideangle.
Exactly what i say, the Ta152H with its high aspect ratio wings should have a very high max lift coefficient(max AoA) and so a relative good slowspeed behaviour, while such a wing tend to have a relative smal critical mach.
Greetinms, Knegel
-
Originally posted by bozon
"Manuverability" can be measured with numbers - rate of turn, radius, rate of climb, roll, stall speed. You can find documented performance of the planes. "Handeling" is completly subjective and exteremly hard to quantify. It's more a feeling than anything else. Note the comments about buffeting before the stall. It is a welcomed feature of handeling, but it doesn't do anything for the max possible turn ability. It does however give the pilot a feeling confidence that he's not about to suddenly loose control and encourage him to extract every little of potential performance. The experts can do it anyway.
conclusion - 109s "handeling" and "feeling" is weird. You can't really prove it with any pilot stories nor use these stories to model a flight sim. The claim "109 should handily outturn a P51/47" is worthless - it already can. BUT since so many agree that the instability seem to be out of place it does merit some investigation to the reasons only the 109 shows it by HTC.
Bozon
Finally someone hits it on the head.
If I say a car has a top speed of 140mph, and 0-60 in 10 secs, it tells you NOTHING about how it feels or handles.
Plus as he said handling is subjective, what one pilot would like, another might hate.
What a more experienced pilot could do, would be more than what a rookie could do.
Thats why HT doesn't use anecdotal evidence to model FM's.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Finally someone hits it on the head.
If I say a car has a top speed of 140mph, and 0-60 in 10 secs, it tells you NOTHING about how it feels or handles.
Plus as he said handling is subjective, what one pilot would like, another might hate.
What a more experienced pilot could do, would be more than what a rookie could do.
Thats why HT doesn't use anecdotal evidence to model FM's.
Also feel is different for each expert. Take race car drivers for instance . Put multiple drivers in the same car and have them make hot laps around the track. Each driver would want different changes made in the handling to fit his style of driving.
One mans car that feels like its on rails is another's that cant do anything in it. I am betting it's the same with aircraft.
Bronk
-
The real quirks of slats in general are AFAIK not modelled in AH.
In AH slats work as in perfect condition.
-
Also feel is different for each expert. Take race car drivers for instance . Put multiple drivers in the same car and have them make hot laps around the track. Each driver would want different changes made in the handling to fit his style of driving.
One mans car that feels like its on rails is another's that cant do anything in it. I am betting it's the same with aircraft..
Funny thing is that the way the car "feels" according to the driver is exactly what they tune the car to in racing (formula 1).
Now that doesn't mean that i would like to see all airplane FM's being tuned to all kinds of different wishes in AH. But that's not the case here, there are numerous complains about the SAME thing....instability. Instability that was not there in real 109's by accounts ("feel") of real pilots (AFAIK its more then a wish to at least take a serious look into and to see if its possible to correct.
-
Originally posted by Apar
Funny thing is that the way the car "feels" according to the driver is exactly what they tune the car to in racing (formula 1).
Now that doesn't mean that i would like to see all airplane FM's being tuned to all kinds of different wishes in AH. But that's not the case here, there are numerous complains about the SAME thing....instability. Instability that was not there in real 109's by accounts ("feel") of real pilots (AFAIK its more then a wish to at least take a serious look into and to see if its possible to correct.
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
-
Plus as he said handling is subjective, what one pilot would like, another might hate.
What a more experienced pilot could do, would be more than what a rookie could do.
Thats why HT doesn't use anecdotal evidence to model FM's.
So what you're saying is, if we make a reveresed what-if situation;
... somebody upping a Spitfire in a certain game may actually feel it is very hard to outturn a Fw190.
... and, many, numerous Spitfire fans, in one time or other, are expressing their feelings the same opinion about it.
... and yet, since handling is all so subjective, and the hard coded fact that the Spitfire does outturn the Fw190 is solid, that would means the many complaints of many Spitfire fans that for some reason the Spitfire keeps destabilizing before the Fw190 does, is nothing but placebo. There's no guarantee a Spifire should easily outturn a Fw190, and all of the problem is totally concerned with the individual pilots skill.
... so in effect, the Spitfire pilots in that game are nincompoops, and obviously some other person who flew it for two test sorties have a more precise and correct interpretation and sense of comparability between the real plane and the game plane, and how the game plane handles, than the people loyally dedicated to the Spitfire who flew the plane exclusively for years, as their favorite in the game.
So, there's nothing to complain when a horde of Spitfire fans are complaining Spitfires keep stalling out when trying to follow a 190 in a simple flat turn, and they have 190s outmaneuvering them time after time in a low and slow fight.
Right?
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
So what you're saying is, if we make a reveresed what-if situation;
... somebody upping a Spitfire in a certain game may actually feel it is very hard to outturn a Fw190.
... and, many, numerous Spitfire fans, in one time or other, are expressing their feelings the same opinion about it.
... and yet, since handling is all so subjective, and the hard coded fact that the Spitfire does outturn the Fw190 is solid, that would means the many complaints of many Spitfire fans that for some reason the Spitfire keeps destabilizing before the Fw190 does, is nothing but placebo. There's no guarantee a Spifire should easily outturn a Fw190, and all of the problem is totally concerned with the individual pilots skill.
... so in effect, the Spitfire pilots in that game are nincompoops, and obviously some other person who flew it for two test sorties have a more precise and correct interpretation and sense of comparability between the real plane and the game plane, and how the game plane handles, than the people loyally dedicated to the Spitfire who flew the plane exclusively for years, as their favorite in the game.
So, there's nothing to complain when a horde of Spitfire fans are complaining Spitfires keep stalling out when trying to follow a 190 in a simple flat turn, and they have 190s outmaneuvering them time after time in a low and slow fight.
Right?
Almost makes sense apart from -
a) We're not talking about another game.
b) Turn rates are part of the FM, so has nothing to do with 'feel'.
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.
Tell me how your going to code 'feel' into an FM? All they can use is hard coded data.
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 :) .
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
* 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.
[/b]
So you want a spit flight model........just want it attached to the 109 pixels?
-
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)
-
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
-
Found the complete report, thanks hohun
-
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 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?
-
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 (http://luftwaffe.cz/viermot.html)
nor on his list of 262 experten:
Düsenjäger (http://luftwaffe.cz/dusen.html)
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...
-
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
-
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.
-
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.."
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Widewing,
the funny thing is that many if not all the so called Luftwhiners of this and many other threads are quite good at using the 190-190 family in the arena. Check the stats of many of them. Do you think they have problems using the 109 or need a training session? I dont think so.
Many of them have flown allied planes as well, and I'm sure that 99% of them feel that flying a Pony or a Spitfire or a Jug is 200% easier not in terms of stall/spin/torque but in general terms: they feel on rails, very stable, no wobble ... even at the very edge of the envelope. I fly 109-190 and 205. Some days ago I took a Spitfire XVI for a first trial in the Main and I laugh, really I laugh at how easy it is to do EVERYTHING with her. You can fly without taking a look at the main gauges: the a/c forgive everything. You can drive the edge of the envelope with no fear. And the Pony, mutatis mutandis, is almost the same. The point is that the differences in handling/stability at that edge are too much for some planes.
Was Hanna drunk when he mock-dogfighted a Pony with a rebuilt G-10? Anecdotal evidences of tens of AARs are not enuff? Well, should the results of a subjective flight model be the ultimate law then? You all feel/are safe becouse some feelings cannot be demonstrated with numbers and equations. However, do we need maths to demonstrate that a 110 should not outloop many light aircraft? Or a P-47N should not loop like a zeke slow and low on the deck? Or a Lanc should not outfly a light fighter performing wingovers and other acrobatics? Or that some fighters should not do a 180 flat turn and loose almost ZERO speed? Or that some fighters after performing a couple of hard scissors rolls should not lift their noses and follow a 400mph low-g zoomer up in the sky? Or that the t/o or landing should not be SO easy? Or that torque during t/o is practically non existent?
Are these the proof that our FM is so good that our feeling about some a/c behaviour is wrong? C/mon .....
-
The problem is that there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that points to the opposite conclusion that some of you draw. We could play "lets post anecdotes" all day, and end up with no idea of how the airplanes should really perform, because the anecdotal results were all so different. For instance, here is Mark Hanna's statement, taken from his experience flying restored aircraft half a decade after the fact:
It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better.
But then look at what the results of British Air Ministry testing were in Dec 1943:
BRIEF COMPARISON WITH Me.109G
Turning Circle
49. The Mustang III is greatly superior.
COMBAT PERFORMANCE WITH LONG-RANGE TANKS
Turning Circle
56. The tanks do not make quite so much difference as one might expect. The Mustang III can at least turn as tightly as the FW.190 (BMW.801D) without stalling out and therefore definitely more tightly than the Me.109G.
Who is right? The only unbiased way to model it is the way HTC does - by doing the math. Is it pefect? The only way any of us are in a position to say is if we can bring some objective data to the table.
-
Out-turn doesnt mean out-maneuver, doesnt mean better in every meaning and above all doesnt justify such a big difference in handling like the one we have in AH.
I dont want to rely on anecdotal evidences of course but our FM is so full of weird behaviours that I'm really puzzled you guys blindly rely on it in this discussion when it fits the plane you prefer.
I remember very well when the crowd of the slow and low turn&burners whined so much and made HTC change the whole FM. From that point on, since the turning performances were supposed to be right then everything else *had* to be right. Like the "lift your nose" and "hang on your prop" behaviours we can see everyday in the Main.
Right numbers about max speeds at alts, stall speeds and turning times/radius dont necessarily mean that *every other flying attitude* is right. IMHO, of course.
-
HiTech, do you find anything odd related to current 109s or 190s flying characteristics worth to be fixed?
-
Mando, add the Bf110 as well. Btw, judging form the threads of the last months the answer is obviously no.
-
Originally posted by gatt
From that point on, since the turning performances were supposed to be right then everything else was right. Like the "lift your nose" and "hang on your prop" behaviour we can see everyday in the Main.
There are areas when I'm positive the FM is wrong without even checking. I would even say they are wrong in every flight sim. When you have passed deep into the stall and the plane starts moving relative to the air in diretions it was not intended to it is near impossible to calculate the effects.
For example, the "lift your nose" and "hang on your prop" move. All fine and dandy till you start falling backwards. Now you have airflow coming on the surfaces of the plane from directions of way beyond +- 15 degrees from zero AoA. All kinds of numerical "tricks" that give approximated solutions like laminar flow with carefuly placed vorticities become totaly irrelevant. I don't know what numerics HTC uses, but I'm sure my 1GHz Pentium 3 does not solve full Hydrodynamicl equations with boundary condition that look like a 109 or P-47, in real time. Most of it is likely pre-calculated sets of solutions with some adjustable parameters that your FE uses for parts of the plane.
On the other hand, one would not want a sim whose physics work on anacdots and stories. This will quickly become science fiction and the only way to test your model is by comparing to data. If 109 should handle "better", how do you factor "better" into your model? The only thing I'd ask HTC for is to check that the model itself is not bugged and factors everything in, not to force a patched up solution to please the crowd of how it should handel in their imagination.
Bozon
-
Interesting interview:
http://www.forumtroll.net/movies/EAA_Interviews.wmv
There is also a video where Skip Holm claims that the P51 can not be skid sideways for gunsolution whereas for 109 it is very easy.
I think this claim is based on a/c geometry. The P51 has its wings quite far back (as in P39 too) and in 109 the wings are quite forward.
-C+
-
On the other hand, one would not want a sim whose physics work on anacdots and stories. This will quickly become science fiction and the only way to test your model is by comparing to data. If 109 should handle "better", how do you factor "better" into your model? The only thing I'd ask HTC for is to check that the model itself is not bugged and factors everything in, not to force a patched up solution to please the crowd of how it should handel in their imagination.
I agree, obviously. My thoughts come only from a relative perception of a/c performances and behaviour during extreme manoeuvers.
I always talked about "flying on rails" comparing two aircraft, never describing one plane only.
Take a Pony and fly all the day, then take a 190A-5 and fly all the day. The difference in handling at the edge of the envelope is so big that you have to ask to yourself whats wrong.
Look, I'm not saying that the wrong one is the A-5 FM, I'm simply saying that a very good fighter (in RL) like the A-5 is so unstable and wobbling during hazardous manoeuvers, *compared to the Pony*, that something could be wrong.
Take the Spitfire IX and the C.205 and evaluate the stability of the two, even how different is head movement during high-g manoeuvers. The first looks like a toy, the second is so unstable that one cannot imagine how real pilots could manage it.
Have you ever mixed with a low and slow 110G-2? What kind of FM in the earth can allow that big fat twin engine fighter those manoeuvers?
-
Originally posted by Krusty
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.
Just so you know, the P-38 is SUPPOSED to fly with a few degrees nose down due to wing incidence....
What joysticks are you gents using? Also, consider adding additional damping.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Just so you know, the P-38 is SUPPOSED to fly with a few degrees nose down due to wing incidence....
It might be exaggerated somewhat in AH. It's very pronounced in this game. When flying level you are actually looking DOWN (gunsight and all) well below the horizon at all times. It's rather unsettlings when flying over the water low.
-
"Just so you know, the P-38 is SUPPOSED to fly with a few degrees nose down due to wing incidence...."
As should 190.
And 109.
-C+
PS. "What joysticks are you gents using? Also, consider adding additional damping."
http://www.savanne.org/kuvat/HypCoug1_resize.jpg
It is quite accurate with Hall-sensors. Doesn't really help on 190 slow speed wobble once it sets on.
-
the funny thing is that many if not all the so called Luftwhiners of this and many other threads are quite good at using the 190-190 family in the arena. Check the stats of many of them. Do you think they have problems using the 109 or need a training session? I dont think so.
Many of them have flown allied planes as well, and I'm sure that 99% of them feel that flying a Pony or a Spitfire or a Jug is 200% easier not in terms of stall/spin/torque but in general terms: they feel on rails, very stable, no wobble ... even at the very edge of the envelope. I fly 109-190 and 205. Some days ago I took a Spitfire XVI for a first trial in the Main and I laugh, really I laugh at how easy it is to do EVERYTHING with her. You can fly without taking a look at the main gauges: the a/c forgive everything. You can drive the edge of the envelope with no fear. And the Pony, mutatis mutandis, is almost the same. The point is that the differences in handling/stability at that edge are too much for some planes.
Dead on. I flew the g10 almost exclusively and the few times I took up a P51 or Spit I was surprised on how easy they handle compared to the g10 (and K4).
Widewing up a 109g2 with 75% (or more) fuel and do some agressive (tied) turnes at 200-220 mph in the DA or MA with it, you will see what happens. It will try to snaproll and you will having your hands full trying to to prevent it while trying to maintain turn rate. I'm happy to guide you through the process. Flying the 109 close to its envelope at high fuel state is a ***** (and that is not the case with the P51 and spit)
-
Do you guys have life ?
I mean really ? Girlfriend, wife, work, other hobbies ?
Is this important ?
Kingpin of your life...wobbliness of 109 in AH :D
-
Almost all the stuff I've read says the 109 and 190 were both susceptible to snap rolls.
The 190 could enter a snap roll in a high 'g' high aoa manoever.
So I don't get what your trying to prove.
Just search the web, plenty of stuff regarding 190/109 snap rolls.
Has it ever dawned on any of you that there were aircraft that were better at handling than the 109/190's?
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Has it ever dawned on any of you that there were aircraft that were better at handling than the 109/190's?
Kev this is impossible . We all know aircraft design was halted after Willy Messerschmitt and Kurt tank designed the 109/190 respectively.
That is all .
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Timofei
Do you guys have life ?
I mean really ? Girlfriend, wife, work, other hobbies ?
Is this important ?
Kingpin of your life...wobbliness of 109 in AH :D
Ehy, ehy, ehy dont be offensive this euro working time :mad: :huh ;)
-
Originally posted by Sable
BRIEF COMPARISON WITH Me.109G
Turning Circle
49. The Mustang III is greatly superior.
COMBAT PERFORMANCE WITH LONG-RANGE TANKS
Turning Circle
56. The tanks do not make quite so much difference as one might expect. The Mustang III can at least turn as tightly as the FW.190 (BMW.801D) without stalling out and therefore definitely more tightly than the Me.109G.
actually a quote in the quote.
i have to mention, i find these analysis odd, and somewhat frequent in the little reading i have done.
based on that the 109 turns definately WORSE than 190's. that is something i have read more than once.
the 190A5 MAYBE can keep a turn with a g10 (old AH G10) but not a chance with others, especially a G2.
what 109 and 190 are they talking about in this above quoted test? are they generalizing about 190's and 109's?
do you see the dilema / discrepency?
-
I see many discrepencies
-
"Has it ever dawned on any of you that there were aircraft that were better at handling than the 109/190's?"
Really? Name a few?
-C+
-
From soviet fighter tactics in 1942
"Germans will position their fighters at different altitudes, especially when expecting to encounter our fighters. FW-190 will fly at 1,500-2,500 meters and Me-109G at 3,500-4,000 meters. They interact in the following manner:
FW-190 will attempt to close with our fighters hoping to get behind them and attack suddenly. If that maneuver is unsuccessful they will even attack head-on relying on their superb firepower. This will also break up our battle formations to allow Me-109Gs to attack our fighters as well. Me-109G will usually perform boom-n-zoom attacks using superior airspeed after their dive.
FW-190 will commit to the fight even if our battle formation is not broken, preferring left turning fights. There has been cases of such turning fights lasting quite a long time, with multiple planes from both sides involved in each engagement. "
-
Originally posted by Charge
http://www.savanne.org/kuvat/HypCoug1_resize.jpg
It is quite accurate with Hall-sensors. Doesn't really help on 190 slow speed wobble once it sets on.
Interesting stick!
I use all CH Products gear, with excellent precision. I found that increasing roll damping some significantly reduced the 109's twitch as it approached the limits. This isn't a cure, but it does help quite a bit.
It's not the "floppy" behavior that bothers me, it's the near complete lack of rudder authority at low speeds that I find perplexing, inasmuch as the 109s supposedly had very effective rudders and the 109s of AH1 don't have this problem.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Apar
Dead on. I flew the g10 almost exclusively and the few times I took up a P51 or Spit I was surprised on how easy they handle compared to the g10 (and K4).
Widewing up a 109g2 with 75% (or more) fuel and do some agressive (tied) turnes at 200-220 mph in the DA or MA with it, you will see what happens. It will try to snaproll and you will having your hands full trying to to prevent it while trying to maintain turn rate. I'm happy to guide you through the process. Flying the 109 close to its envelope at high fuel state is a ***** (and that is not the case with the P51 and spit)
I flew the 109s last night with 50% fuel and usually take 75% in the MA. The 109G-2 doesn't give me trouble because I don't try to fly it like a Spitfire. But, that doesn't mean I don't fly it near the edge... I just avoid going beyond that point. Push any aircraft to its limits and it will depart. It doesn't help you to push it so hard that it snap spins (often in the opposite direction), and it usually costs you. There's little need to out-turn P-51s and P-47s when you can beat them working angles and forcing the fight into the vertical.
But hey, I'll be doing my Trainer stint in the TA tonight after 9 PM Eastern. So feel free to stop in and show me why I'm not flopping all over the place.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I flew the 109s last night with 50% fuel and usually take 75% in the MA. The 109G-2 doesn't give me trouble because I don't try to fly it like a Spitfire. But, that doesn't mean I don't fly it near the edge... I just avoid going beyond that point. Push any aircraft to its limits and it will depart. It doesn't help you to push it so hard that it snap spins (often in the opposite direction), and it usually costs you. There's little need to out-turn P-51s and P-47s when you can beat them working angles and forcing the fight into the vertical.
But hey, I'll be doing my Trainer stint in the TA tonight after 9 PM Eastern. So feel free to stop in and show me why I'm not flopping all over the place.
Flying timid in any plane is not what this post is about Widewing. If you don't turn at all but just run the 109 and 190 won't snap roll on you either :O
Now go practice the 109 allot in the TA and if you feel your really ready to show me how to fly the 109 gimmy me a howl
-
Originally posted by Apar
Flying timid in any plane is not what this post is about Widewing. If you don't turn at all but just run the 109 and 190 won't snap roll on you either :O
Now go practice the 109 allot in the TA and if you feel your really ready to show me how to fly the 109 gimmy me a howl
Timid?! LOLOL
Drop by junior.... I'll show ya timid....
My regards,
Widewing
-
For some reason - I thought one of the MAJOR rules of dogfighting had to do something "about retaining speed..and never get too slow in your aircraft"... :D
-
Timid?! LOLOL
Drop by junior.... I'll show ya timid....
My regards,
Widewing
Go practise for a year or so first LOL
There's only 2-3 plp I respect in a 109, you're definetly not one of them Widewing
-
oooh ooooohhh 109 fight!!!! lmao!!!!!
-
Originally posted by Apar
Go practise for a year or so first LOL
There's only 2-3 plp I respect in a 109, you're definetly not one of them Widewing
Uh huh....
Well, you said give ya a howl...I did and you didn't drop by...
Too bad, because in between working with new players, several of us flew duels in the 109s. Ghosth and I had quite a lot of fun and managed not to flop all over the place.
You'll have another opportunity, I'll be in the TA again tomorrow evening as I have a training appointment at 9 PM.. Should be done by 10:00 PM or so. If you can't make it, no problem. I'm in the TA Wednesday, Thursday and Friday evenings...Every week. If I'm busy, look for Airvent, he's pretty good in 109s, I'm sure he can keep you occupied until I'm free.
My regards,
Widewing
-
There's little need to out-turn P-51s and P-47s when you can beat them working angles and forcing the fight into the vertical.
That really isn't the point Widewing. The point is most other planes, Pony, Jug and the Hog (Hog most of all pherhaps) feels like flying on rails compared to 109, 190, 205. Crab a C-hog and you won't need to trim at all more or less, like flying with constant combat trim.
The 109 was a small plane, like the spit. It was built as an air superiority fighter and interceptor, not an escort fighter. The Spit and 109 were built on more or less the exact same terms, the spit ended up with a bit bigger wings and thus better turn radius. THey were both small airframes with the biggest possible engine installed.
The problem IS the turn radius. This problem might not lie in the 109 as much as it lies in the P51, P47, Hog etc etc (just tell me why I often outturn Spits in Ponys, granted the pilots aren't the top of the notch, but still, a n00b spit should outturn a P51). The P47 weights in at nearly 10,000 lbs EMPTY. That's 2500 lbs MORE then a FULLY LOADED 109. Not sure of the typical combatload of the Jug but remove maybe 4000 lbs from the max load of 17,500 lbs and we're down to 13,500lbs.
Now remove 1100lbs (500kg bomb) from the 109's max load of about 7500 and we're down to 6400 lbs. The P47 outturning the 109, outlooping it etc is like a 109 outturning a zeke.
So while I know the Jug and Pony can be beaten in the vertical using climbrate, we shouldn't have to.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
The 109 was a small plane, like the spit. It was built as an air superiority fighter and interceptor, not an escort fighter. The Spit and 109 were built on more or less the exact same terms, the spit ended up with a bit bigger wings and thus better turn radius. THey were both small airframes with the biggest possible engine installed.
[/b]
242 sq ft vs. 174 sq ft. Thats 39% more - almost half again as much.
Originally posted by Wilbus
The problem IS the turn radius. This problem might not lie in the 109 as much as it lies in the P51, P47, Hog etc etc (just tell me why I often outturn Spits in Ponys, granted the pilots aren't the top of the notch, but still, a n00b spit should outturn a P51). The P47 weights in at nearly 10,000 lbs EMPTY. That's 2500 lbs MORE then a FULLY LOADED 109. Not sure of the typical combatload of the Jug but remove maybe 4000 lbs from the max load of 17,500 lbs and we're down to 13,500lbs.
Now remove 1100lbs (500kg bomb) from the 109's max load of about 7500 and we're down to 6400 lbs. The P47 outturning the 109, outlooping it etc is like a 109 outturning a zeke.
So while I know the Jug and Pony can be beaten in the vertical using climbrate, we shouldn't have to.
You could have an airplane that weighed as much as a mountain, but as long as you have enough lift and enough thrust, it'd turn with the best of them.
Below I've listed the combat takeoff weight, wing area, rate of climb (gives a good indication of acceleration/excess power available for manuevering) and wing loading for the Spit,109,51, and 47.
Spitfire Lf.IX - 7,485 lbs - 242 sq ft wing area
0 ft RoC - 4600 fpm
wing loading 30.9 lbs/sq ft
Bf109G-14 - 7,320 lbs - 174 sq ft wing area
0 ft RoC - 3,800-4,300 fpm (depends on the chart you look at)
wing loading 42 lbs/sq ft
P-51D - 10208 lbs - 236 sq ft wing area
0 ft RoC - 3,400-3,600 fpm (depending on chart again)
wing loading 43.3 lbs/sq ft
P-47D - 13,582-14,411 (depending on specific D model) - 300 sq ft wing area
0 ft RoC - 2,900-3,250fpm (depending on specific D model)
wing loading 45.3-48
Is it really that surprising that the Spit turns WAY better then the others, and that the last three are pretty close to one another? Especially when you consider that the American planes are often running around the arena 1000+ lbs lighter then what I've listed here due to fuel and weapons loads.
-
And Zeke:
A6M5 - 6,025 lbs - 229 sq ft wing area
0 ft RoC - 3400 fpm
wing loading 26.3 lbs/sq ft
-
Note that "enough lift" does not mean only wingarea but how much lift a wing can produce with wingarea + AoA. Those a/c mentioned have different tolerances for AoA...
On rudder authority of 109:
-Finnish pilots commented that 109 "flew on rails" and was a good gun platform yet stiff in handling.
-Holm (or his pal) commented the 109 to have an extremely effective rudder which gives a good yaw control while maneuvering.
-109 needed a constant pressure on rudder to keep it straight while flow in speeds where the trim tabs on rudder were not set.
To me it means that 109 has not very strong aerodynamical centering which support the comment on very good yaw control but contradicts a bit with "flew on rails" comment. Maybe the Finns were simply comparing it to their earlier rides which were slower and thus more maneuverable, so the 109 naturally helt like more stiff and stable.
-C+
PS. My comment on 109/190 handling qualities meant that they are quite hard to define and opinions are usually quite subjective.
-
It's quite intersting Sable that you have listed the 109 with its MAX takeoff weight and the P47 with about 4000lbs LESS then max takeoff weight.
The P47 has 39% more wing area but it's 200% the weight (109 MAX takeoff vs P47 "normal" combat weight). The P47 has got about 70% more engine power.
Yeah it is surprising as hell the P47 can keep up with the 109.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
That really isn't the point Widewing. The point is most other planes, Pony, Jug and the Hog (Hog most of all pherhaps) feels like flying on rails compared to 109, 190, 205. Crab a C-hog and you won't need to trim at all more or less, like flying with constant combat trim.
Snip ...
So while I know the Jug and Pony can be beaten in the vertical using climbrate, we shouldn't have to.
Really ... out of curiosity: Pony, Jug and Spit drivers ... dont you feel on rails and easy mode flying those irons? Sometimes I think we are talking about two different sims.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
It's quite intersting Sable that you have listed the 109 with its MAX takeoff weight and the P47 with about 4000lbs LESS then max takeoff weight.
What is the normal takeoff weight of a G-14? The weight given seems to indicate the 109 carried a drop tank.
Max takeoff weight of the P-47 would include max drop tank size or max bombload.
-
Uhm, 7.320lbs means about 3.327Kg ....
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Uh huh....
Well, you said give ya a howl...I did and you didn't drop by...
Too bad, because in between working with new players, several of us flew duels in the 109s. Ghosth and I had quite a lot of fun and managed not to flop all over the place.
You'll have another opportunity, I'll be in the TA again tomorrow evening as I have a training appointment at 9 PM.. Should be done by 10:00 PM or so. If you can't make it, no problem. I'm in the TA Wednesday, Thursday and Friday evenings...Every week. If I'm busy, look for Airvent, he's pretty good in 109s, I'm sure he can keep you occupied until I'm free.
My regards,
Widewing
I cancelled my account a couple of weeks ago. You really think I will renew it for YOU?? LOL I wouldn't take to much pride in clubbing 109 n00bs in the TA Widewing.
The only player worthwhile renewing my account for a couple of duells is the one that's not allowed to play this game anymore.
Let me refrase the invitation to you Widewing. Once you've reached Nath's level of 109 flying gimmy a howl. Otherwise just keep practising!
-
Clean loaded weights(ie: full internal fuel only, no gondolas or bombs) & horsepower - from German sources:
Bf 109F-4: 2890 kg / 6371 lbs, 1331 hp
Bf 109G-6: 3196 kg / 7046 lbs, 1455 hp
Bf 109G-14: 3318 kg / 7301 lbs, 1775 hp with MW 50
Bf 109K-4: 3362 kg / 7412 lbs, 1825 hp(B4+MW50) - 1973 hp(C3+MW50)
The P-47D weights listed by Sable are in the range for the same load condition(full internal fuel and ammo), eg: P-47D(late razorback model) with full internal fuel and overload ammo = 14087 lbs & 2600 hp.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
It's quite intersting Sable that you have listed the 109 with its MAX takeoff weight and the P47 with about 4000lbs LESS then max takeoff weight.
The P47 has 39% more wing area but it's 200% the weight (109 MAX takeoff vs P47 "normal" combat weight). The P47 has got about 70% more engine power.
Yeah it is surprising as hell the P47 can keep up with the 109.
The P-47 and P-51 weights are taken from Francis Dean's "Americas Hundred Thousand" which has detailed weight breakdowns for each aircraft - those numbers are for full internal fuel and ammo - i.e. combat takeoff weight. Note that both can shed over 1000 lbs of fuel in AH before takeoff, and the P-47 can shed another 500 lbs or so with the 6 gun loadout.
The number for the 109G-14 is based on the numbers listed on various German performance charts I have found for clean takeoff weight at full fuel and ammo. Note that the 109 is only carrying about 630 lbs of fuel total.
Btw, 300 is about 74% more then 174 and 13582 is about 85% more then 7320. So yes, the P-47 weights nearly twice as much, but it also has close to twice as much wing and power.
All three end up with wing loadings in the 38-40 lb/sq ft range when using 25% fuel (and the 6 gun option in the P-47s case), and the rates of climb are closer together at that point as well. In light of that, I don't think it's too shocking that they are all in the same ballpark - if we look at the stats for the Spit (an airplane that most agree is in a different class altogether) we can see a huge difference.
-
Originally posted by Apar
I cancelled my account a couple of weeks ago. You really think I will renew it for YOU?? LOL I wouldn't take to much pride in clubbing 109 n00bs in the TA Widewing.
The only player worthwhile renewing my account for a couple of duells is the one that's not allowed to play this game anymore.
Let me refrase the invitation to you Widewing. Once you've reached Nath's level of 109 flying gimmy a howl. Otherwise just keep practising!
Too bad... I enjoy good competition. If or when you sign-up again, drop by the TA when I'm on and we'll knock off the rust.
I've flown against or with just about all the top level sticks in this game. They all have my respect, and I'm pretty sure that I have their's too. Being the best does not matter. The goal is to have fun, not measure donuts.
Oh, and Airvent/Bovidea/Bighorn2 would give NathBDP all he can handle in 109s or anything else for that matter. Ghosth is a fixture in Aces High and I'm sure you know that.
As Trainers, we do not go around clubbing n00bs. We attempt to teach them enough so that they can hold their own in MA. We do that by challenging them according to their level, increasing the difficulty as they progress. The ultimate goal of a Trainer is to bring the new guy to a level that combined with his natural talent, he can come back to the TA some day and beat his Trainer. That's when you know that you've done your job well.
One of the newer fellows who will gain a reputation in the game is sumguy. Another up-and-coming fellow is Slushy. Both of these guys have a desire to be among the best and both have the talent to do so. As they gain experience, they will eventually be a dangerous foe for anyone.
We also encourage skilled pilots to visit the TA and share their abilities and knowledge with new players. Several gentlemen and one lady do so. By handle, a few of these are Nomak, Fester, Cav58, Schatzi and Airvent.
Since we are discussing the TA, let me mention what we do not appreciate, and this is directed to everyone.
What we do not like are the inflated ego types who figure they can come in, dazzle the n00bs and misbehave in the TA. These guys will have to deal with any Trainer(s) who may be in the room at the time. All Trainers are good pilots. Some are much better than just good. So, don't expect to escape with your hair. Moreover, be mindful of the MOTD and ROE and be a gentleman too, because the ultimate solution to the inflated ego type is .eject numbskull.
My regards,
Widewing
-
As far as them being in the same ballpark it really isn't so. The 109 is in the junior leauge against the elite as far as turn radius goes.
Ops, looked at your spit wing area of 39% more. Not sure why you brought that in though (part from me saying that both the spit and 109 were built on the same terms). The spit should outurn the 109, and it does.
As far as the P47 vs 109 goes the P47 does have bigger wing, 74% you say (I don't care to take the time to check it, I trust you). it weights 85% more. Twice as much power? Uhm, not really. Not even near I'd say. Not quite sure of what our K4 uses. It should be 1800-2000hp with WEP (Guessing 2000hp is the high ata version thus we should have 1800).
So 1800 vs 2500 in the P47, which is about 39% more HP.
39% more HP, 74% more wing area and (acording to your figures) 85% more weight. My weight would be down at around 6900 lbs for the combat loaded 109.
I don't think the P47 should be anywhere near the 109 in a turnfight.
Partialy deleted (HiTech)
-
LOL HT just came back in to edit my post and remove that myself
Might not have been possible due to the time that has elapsed though...
-
Originally posted by Apar
The only player worthwhile renewing my account for a couple of duells is the one that's not allowed to play this game anymore.
Nath got banned??
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
As far as the P47 vs 109 goes the P47 does have bigger wing, 74% you say (I don't care to take the time to check it, I trust you). it weights 85% more. Twice as much power? Uhm, not really. Not even near I'd say. Not quite sure of what our K4 uses. It should be 1800-2000hp with WEP (Guessing 2000hp is the high ata version thus we should have 1800).
You're right as far as the power - I overstated the difference. But ultimately power isn't a HUGE factor in turning performance.
Let me illustrate with this example. Take these three-
Spit V - 6525 lbs - 242 sq ft wing area - 27 lbs/sq ft wing loading
0ft RoC - about 3200fpm
Spit F.IX - 7480 lbs - 242 sq ft wing area - 30.9 lbs/sq ft wing loading
0ft RoC - about 3700fpm
Spit VIII - 7690 lbs - 242 sq ft wing area - 31.7 lbs/sq ft wing loading
0ft RoC - about 4600fpm
Here are Kweassa's latest turn trials results for these three:
Spitfire Mk.V: 157.0m
Spitfire Mk.IX: 174.1m
Spitfire Mk.VIII: 170.7m
Notice that the mk.V with the worst rate of climb (by a massive margin compared to the VIII), still outturns the others by a handy margin due to it's wingloading advantage.
Also note that in the case of the VIII vs. the IX, their wing loadings are very close - within about 2-3% of each other - but the VIII has a big edge in power, acceleration, rate of climb. The end result - a very slight advantage in favor of the Mk VIII.
What this tells me is that lift is much more important then excess thrust in determining how well these aircraft will turn. As we saw above the P-47, P-51, and 109G-14 are all pretty close in wingloading, and so as a result they are fairly close in turning ability. The Bf109 still has the edge, but once you figure in different loads, flap useage, different E states, and pilot ability it can go either way.
This squares pretty well with most of the combat reports I've read, and with what I see in the game.
-
ok, so I'm flying the 190-D9, doing about 260mph, about 8k. I pull back on the stick to climb, nose gets about 10-15 degress up, (guessing really, it wasnt very far, just beginning the climb) and the plane instantly flips to the left and upside down. hit the rudder and roll back over. I did this several times at speeds from about 250 to 280. whether I moved the stick slowly or quickly, instant flip, left wing drops, plane rolls upside down. At 300mph I can pull up in to a climb but the stall horn sounds as soon as I pull back on the stick. I can finish the loop but I better keep the wings level or I'll flip again. This is what kills me in the MA almost everytime in the D9 because in the MA I'm on the deck, pull up to miss a tree, and flip boom. Is it the FM or the stick?
-
Partly both. Airscrew, what stick do you have and how do you have your sliders set up?
Part of it is the flight model. It's prone to doing this at all speeds, but usually with a little more stick force than you describe. I'm thinking your scaling sliders are all at 100% (which isn't good for most sticks)
-
X-45 (USB) about 1 and half years old, but I havent used it much this year only since November.
My sliders are pretty much at default, from 0 to 90, slight curve from 0 - 90. starting at about 5% on 0 to 100% on 90. damping about 5% , dead band about 5%, for both Roll and Pitch
-
airscrew. i just flew offline last night for fun in the dora. granted it was 25% fuel, but i was just playing....
anyway, for a test i decided to see how many loops i could do off the ground. lowest point was below the tree line, and just pulled over as hard as i could. (stall limiter off)
i gave up after 9 loops without losing alt or augering because i could not pull up in time (thought that would happen after about 2)
granted when i flew in the MA i flew the dora more than 80% of my time, so i have a "feel for it".
as for stick config, i set mine up a bit un-conventionally..all EQ sliders are @ 100% for everything and i am flying with a CH fighterstick pro.
-
The problem with the game is that this isn't really what I see Sable. Equal pilots the P51 (especially the P51) will outturn a 109 hands down. This may of course be due to flaps, and due to the fact that the 109 flaps are still not fixed. However, another problem with the 109 in a turnfight (190 aswell) is that it can almost never get slow enough to actually use its flaps, getting bellow 170mph in a 109 or a 190 is a pain in the but. Getting it up into a spiralclimb will do it, but compare it to a Pony in such a climb and the 109 is MUCH MORE unstable not to mention how easy it snapstalls.
Oh well not sure why I discuss it really, I know I've said that before, probarly will say it again.