Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: fscott on August 28, 2001, 08:00:00 PM
-
In what century and what country?
Like many people I visit this forum maybe once or twice per week and just picked up on the thread about IL-2. Then I went over to SimHQ and read the thread about the test data being debated among the PHD's.
Is Oleg still standing by his statement? And where the f*ck is he getting his data?
100% of the data I've seen, plus every freaking aviation book about WW2 planes, says the 190 was the fastest roller of the mainline german fighters, and now ONE MAN comes along "proving" the rest of the world is wrong?
This is like saying the Tiger tank was the fastest tank of the war.
Good grief Oleg...
-
Uhm, just a thought, is it possible Oleg is getting "rollrate" mixed with "turnrate"?
This is the only logical conclusion I can come to based upon Oleg's outlandish statement. It really makes me wonder about the whole IL-2 flight modelling, if he really said what he means.
-
Unfortunately, it's not only Oleg Maddox's opinion, but an opinion of TsAGI and NII VVS.
Like an old Soviet joke: surprisingly, Carl Marx and Friedrich Engels are two persons, not four ;)
-
Fscott, there is at least one person at Maddox team who knows the difference between English terms "roll" and "turn", but the problem is that he is too busy now to read Western forums.
But I think that your idea can be right... I'll inqure at the Russian Shturmovik forum right now.
-
FScott,
That's because every book you (and I) have ever read is all based on a single evaluation report of a FW-190. By the way, the famed NACA charts don't even show Bf-109 roll rates anywhere near the FW's.
If somebody told about the roll rates a few months ago, I'd laugh in his face just as well. However, I kinda had this weird feeling in the back of my mind and just couldn't find an acceptable explanation as to why Luftwaffe achieved such incredible successes in the Bf-109 and moved the FW-190 to heavy fighter and ground attack role while continuing to improve the Bf-109.
I talk to a few WWII veterans, and I know a person who is a regular at Luftwaffe veteran meetings - he's good friends with Gunther Rall and many other lesser-known aces; his neighbourghs are a JG5 and JG77 fighter pilots and his grandfather is fromer JG54.
It's alarming that EVERY SINGLE ONE of those veterans who's been asked on this matter just in the past two days says the exact same thing: Bf-109 was superior in high-speed handling and rate of roll.
I do not know how to explain this difference.
The fact is that Soviet Union has tested dozens of every model of the FW-190 and Bf-109, each tested independently of each other at fear of scientits falsifying the results. And compilation of those individual reports in addition to Focke-Wulf and Messerschmitt factories data by today's aviation engineers is the main basis of Oleg's flight model.
I still find the roll rate argument hard to swallow, just because I was lead to believe in FW's superiority by everything I've ever known.
But can somebody explain to me why all those veterans, and independent research of all those scientist in both Germany and Russia shows a different picture from what I always believed?
-
Luthier,
The NACA charts are not the only source of info. Saying that is a pile of BS.
Look at this performance sequence that the British, not Americans, noted:
Spitfire MkIa vs. Bf109E: The Bf109E out rolled the Spitfire MkIa.
Then the British replaced the fabric covered aelirons with aluminum skined aelirons on the Spitfire MkVb and on all Spitfires after.
The result? The Spitfire nout rolled the Bf109 at all speeds.
Are you seriously trying to tell us that the Spitfire easily out rolled the Fw190? No tests indicate that.
Here is the text of the British combat testing of the Spitfire MkXIV against the Fw190 and Bf109G:
COMBAT TRIAL AGAINST FW.190 (BMW.801D)
Maximum Speeds
38. From 0 - 5,000 ft and 15,000 - 20,000 ft., the Spitfire XIV is only 20 m.p.h. faster; at all other heights it is up to 60 m.p.h. faster than the Fw 190 (BMW.801D). It is estimated to have about the same maximum speed as the new Fw 190 (DB.603) at all heights.
Maximum Climb
39. The Spitfire XIV has a considerably greater rate of climb than the FW 190 (BMW.801D) or (estimated) the new Fw 190 (DB.603) at all heights.
Dive
40. After the initial part of the dive, during which the FW 190 gains slightly, the Mk XIV has a slight advantage.
Turning Circle
41. Spitfire XIV can easily turn inside the FW 190, though in the case of a right-hand turn, this difference is not so quite pronounced.
Rate of Roll
42. The FW 190 is very much better.
Conclusion
43. In defense, the Spitfire XIV should use its remarkable maximum climb and turning circle against any enemy aircraft. In the attack it can afford to "mix it" but should beware of the quick roll and dive. If this manoeuvre is used by the FW.190 and the Spitfire XIV follows, it will probably not be able to close the range until the FW.190 has pulled out of its dive.
COMBAT TRIAL AGAINST Me. 109G
Maximum speed
44. The Spitfire XIV is 40 m.p.h. faster at all heights except 16,000 ft. where it is only 10 mph faster.
Maximum Climb
45. Same results. At 16,000 ft. indentical, otherwise the Spitfire XIV out-climbs the Me.109G. The zoom climb is practically identical when the climb is made without opening throttle. Climbing at full throttle, the Spitfire XIV draws away from the Me.109G quite easily.
Dive
46. During the initial part of the dive, the Me.109G pulls away slightly, but when a speed of 380 m.p.h. is reached, the Spitfire XIV begins to gain on the Me.109G.
Turning Circle
47. The Spitfire XIV easily out-turns the Me.109G in either direction.
Rate of Roll
48. The Spitfire XIV rolls much more quickly.
Conclusion
49. The Spitfire XIV is superior to the Me.109G in every respect.
That isn't NACA data, it is AFDU Tactical Trials data. You are saying that all American, British and German tests are BS in favor of the two Russian tests?
[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]
-
If the FW190 was such a lousy roller, why did they ever go into production? What was the advantage of the first production Fw190 over the current mainline 109?
The Germs had several radial version aircraft designs in testing, so that couldn't be the reason, they also had several powerfully armed versions of the 109 as well as prototypes, so that cannot be the reaons either.
As far as I can see, if the Bf109 DID in fact outroll the Fw190, then there was absolutely no reason for the Germs to give the go ahead for 190 production.
Somewhere I remember reading that one of the main reasons for thumbs up to Fw190 production was it's "substantial rollrate", and "ability to perform scissors."
-
I'm at a loss here...
I find the US and UK tests trustworthy - but I also can't force myself to completely discount the Soviet tests and all those Luftwaffe veterans I've heard from in the past two days...
I think that the answer may be somewhere in between.
I know for a fact now that Bf-109 was not as bad at high speeds as I always believed - not only Luftwaffe veterans, but the official FAF test report, plus stories from a few pilots who pulled out of 750 km/h dives attest to the Soviet tests correctness.
Also, Adolph Galland among other pilots has stated that Bf-109 had lighter controls at higher speeds.
Can it be that in a general agressive high-speed low-alt Eastern Front environment Bf-109 outrolled the 190, while at higher alt lower speed Western Front conditions FW had a better rate of roll?
I am yet to see a single chart - including the Soviet - showing performance curves for the 109. I've seen plenty of the FW data. I'd love to overlay all those curves from all the sources and see if maybe Soviet scientists were more competent that you believe.
Descriptions of the actual tests run would be great. Do you have anything on the RAF rate of roll tests, Karnak? Or just the results?
-
Maybe we should wait to see Fw 190 in Il-2 first. And then see how those two compare to each other ?
[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: Hristo ]
-
Just the results.
Those tests were intended to give frontline pilots an idea what to do in a given circumstance. If the roll rate swtiched from the Spitfire's advantage at low speed to the 109's advantage at high speed it would have been noted.
The Spitfire will ALWAYS out roll a Bf109.
Likewise, an Fw190 will ALWAYS out roll a Spitfire.
Here are the results from the same test against the Spitfire MkIX and Tempest MkV:
TACTICAL COMPARISON WITH SPITFIRE IX
13. The tactical differences are caused chiefly by the fact that the Spitfire XIV has an engine of greater capacity and is the heavier aircraft (weighing 8,400 lbs. against 7,480 lbs. of Spitfire IX).
Range & Endurance
14. The Spitfire XIV, without a long-range tank, carries 110 gallons of fuel and 9 gallons of oil. When handled similarily, the Spitfire XIV uses fuel at about 1 1/4 times the rate of the Spitfire IX. Its endurance is therefore slightly less. Owing to its higher speed for corresponding engine settings, its range is about equal. For the same reasons, extra fuel carried in a long-range tank keeps its range about equal to that of the Spitfire IX, its endurance being slightly less.
Speeds
15. At all heights the Spitfire XIV is 30-35 mph faster in level flight. The best performance heights are similar, being just below 15,000 and between 25,000 and 32,000 ft.
Climb
16. The Spitfire XIV has a slightly better maximum climb than the Spitfire IX, having the best maximum rate of climb yet seen at this Unit. In the zoom climb the Spitfire XIV gains slightly all the way, especially if full throttle is used in the climb.
Dive
17. The Spitfire XIV will pull away from the Spitfire IX in a dive.
Turning Circle
18. The turning circles of both aircraft are identical. The Spitfire XIV appears to turn slightly better to port than it does to starbord. The warning of an approaching high speed stall is less pronounced in the case of the Spitfire Mk XIV.
Rate of Roll
19. Rate of roll is very much the same.
Search View and Rear View
20. The search view from the pilot's cockpit is good; the longer nose of the aircraft interferes with the all-round visibility, which remains the same as that of the Spitfire IX. Rear View is similar.
Sighting View and Fire Power
21. The sighting view is slightly better being 4 deg (140 m.p.h.) as against 3 1/3 deg. The two bulges at the side cause little restriction. The firepower is identical with the Spitfire IX.
Armour
22. As for the Spitfire IX
Conclusions
23. The all-round performance of the Spitfire XIV is better than the Spitfire IX at all heights. In level flight it is 25-35 m.p.h. faster and has a correspondingly greater rate of climb. Its manoeuvrability is as good as a Spitfire IX. It is easy to fly but should be handled with care when taxying and taking off.
BRIEF TACTICAL COMPARISON WITH TEMPEST V
Range and Endurance
24. Rough comparisons have been made at the maximum continuous cruising conditions of both aircraft. (3150 revs. +4 1/2 lb. boost Tempest, 2400 revs. +7 lb. boost Spitfire XIV).
24A. The best heights of each aircraft are very different, producing the following results:-
The Tempest is faster and goes further up to 10,000 ft. From 10,000 - 20,000 ft. both aircraft cruise at about 300 I.A.S. Above 20,000 ft. the Tempest cannot maintain its high crusing speed and no comparisons can be made with the Spitfire XIV which increases its ground speed and range up to 29,000 ft.
These comparisons remain the same with the full fuel loads at present available (2 x 45 gall. long range tank Tempest, 1 x 90 gall. longe range tank Spitfire).
Maximum Speed
25. From 0 - 10,000 feet the Tempest V is 20 mph. faster than the Spitfire XIV. There is then little to choose until 22,000 feet, when the Spitfire XIV becomes 30-40 mph. faster, the Tempest's operational ceiling being about 30,000 feet as opposed to the Spitfire XIV's 40,000 feet.
Maximum Climb
26. The Tempest is not in the same class as the Spitfire XIV. The Tempest V however, has a considerably better zoom climb, holding a higher speed thoughout the manoeuvre. If the climb is prolonged until climbing speed is reached then, of course, the Spitfire XIV will begin to catch up and pull ahead.
Dive
27. The Tempest V gains on the Spitfire XIV.
Turning Circle
28. The Spitfire XIV easily out-turns the Tempest.
Rate of Roll
29. The Spitfire XIV rolls faster at speeds below 300 mph., but definitely more slowly at speeds greater than 350 mph.
Conclusions
30. The tactical attributes of the two aircraft being completely different, they require a separate handling techique in combat. For this reason Typhoon squadrons should convert to Tempests, and Spitfire squadrons to Spitfire XIVs, and definitely never vice-versa, or each aircraft's particular advantages would never be appreciated. Regarding performance, if correctly handled, the Tempest is the better below about 20,000 feet and the Spitfire XIV the better above that height.
Note how they noted the exchange of roll rate advantage with the Tempest.
Keep in mind tha air combat on the west front was not high altitude, low speed. There was plenty of low altitude, high speed combat, particularly by the RAF. Much of the high altitude combat was also high speed.
-
from fscott
Somewhere I remember reading that one of the main reasons for thumbs up to Fw190 production was it's "substantial rollrate", and "ability to perform scissors."
i was under the impression that one of the main reasons why the 190 was given the thumbs up was because it used an engine that was not under great demand and therefore highly avaliable?
correct me if i'm wrong on this one.
-
First off the Aircraft in Aces do not roll according to any of the REAL planes roll at airshows...From what Ive seen in film or other wise.
This is a bs issue, aces has dampend roll rates because of lag/warp rolling issues. Its just like a stick stur issue.
Ya dont see dampening or stick stiring issues in il2.. and Ive tested it... the other plane shows/rolls at his FE rate.
simple.
-
DeeZCamp,
Aces High does not have its roll rates dampened to prevent lag issues. Thus says HTC. The roll rates of the aircraft in AH are where HTC believes that they should be.
I have never seen footage of WWII aircraft rolling like those in Il2. If you know of a link to such footage I'd love to see it.
-
Originally posted by DeeZCamp:
First off the Aircraft in Aces do not roll according to any of the REAL planes roll at airshows...From what Ive seen in film or other wise.
This is a bs issue, aces has dampend roll rates because of lag/warp rolling issues. Its just like a stick stur issue.
Ya dont see dampening or stick stiring issues in il2.. and Ive tested it... the other plane shows/rolls at his FE rate.
simple.
Pure roadkill deez, the "dont move your controls so fast" eliminates stick stirring, and I don't see any data from you to confirm that AH has *dampened* roll rates.
Plenty of knowledgeable people who have NACA data agree that AH hits the numbers, until you get a clue as to what your talking about shut the diddly up - you look stupider everytime you post remarks like the above.
If you can't back up your claims about Aces High FM with hard data your opinions don't mean dick, and 4 people mini games aren't a true test of net coding either.
Why don't you do everyone a favor and delete your bookmark for the UBB?
Don't go away mad, just go away.
-
But Jihad - "the Aircraft in Aces do not roll according to any of the REAL planes roll at airshows"... that's gotta count for somethin'. :D
-
Karnak - no disrespect but could you please stay on topic (roll rate) when putting your argument forward? I fail to see what relevance "Search views" have to comparing 109s and 190s roll rate, especially those of a Spit XIV.
I also find "easily", "slightly", "gains on" things when comparing 2 aircraft somewhat childish. How about roll rate in degrees per second?
Another question - which 109 this tactical comparison is talking about? And which model of 190 was considered for the tests (how many planes were used for testing would be another interesting thing to find out).
Somehow we all seem to forget that Western front 190 was not at all the same plane as it was used in the Eastern front - different roles entirely, different armour/armament.
The problem is that everyone just willing to accept "western sources" as god sent reliable info. From what you've just quoted I see them as BS, not the russian data. As Luthier pointed out in another thread 2 research establishments in Russia conducted tests using many a captured aircraft. Please note - not the factory data, not brand new planes - combat ready machines that flew real combat sorties!
Heads rolled (literally!) if the data presented was found to be inaccurate... Please be careful when you discount it so easily as BS...
fscott:
If the FW190 was such a lousy roller, why did they ever go into production?
Who knows what made LW to select 190. I'm sure performance was not the only issue that was considered...
-
Whatever. :rolleyes:
-
Im in belief, that g2 will have about the same rollrate as 190a4 in Il-2. G2 definetly rolls good at il-2 in 500kmh (300mph), about the same as AH 190a5 at 300mph.
We cant argue on this much, since we cant test the a4 on il-2.
i cant figure out, why would they do unrealistic rollrates, as it should be one of the easiest things to model in FM (slider kinda of thing). If they model different roll rates in planes, why not model them according to charts?
If the retail FM rates fall in to their Russian charts, i have no doubt about them being realistic. Even if they dont, i will very much enjoy the flying in it.
What im concerned more, is the top speeds at different altitudes and climbrates. THOSE are the toughest part in dynamic FM, when you cant directly input them.
I hope they publish along with the box the speed/climb curves of different planes, so they can be studied for ACM purposes.
-
Sadly I think we are in front of another CFS2, but this time coming from the East :(
109s rolling like 190s. What a joke :(
-
lynx wrote:
Another question - which 109 this tactical comparison is talking about?
According to the results of the test it seems to be the same 109G6/r6 from which all the books got the wrong max speed for G6.
-
Aper, take a 109G2/R6 in the Il2 beta.
It still rolls like a 190.
-
Ram you have few choices now:
1) Keep on whining
2) Shut up
3) Play game
4) wait 'till you see those TsAGI charts and decide after that.
Personally I prefer No.3 and 4.
-
Guys,
I feel like I'm banging my head against the wall. All those tests show FW-190 as having an exceptional roll rate. However, where are the tests showing the Bf-109's roll rate? And not of the famed 109G6R6, but of something made for dogfights? Have there EVER been non battle damaged and not used/worn 109G2's flight tested in the US or UK?
Obviously, Russian data is not a proof for anyone over here. My personal opinion - and I'm not saying anyone other than me should accept it - is that if I had conflicting test results from two sides, I would trust the one that destroyed 3 times as many German planes and ran hundreds, if not thousands, more tests on dozens more of captured aircraft.
You also don't listen to the veterans who flew and scored with both Me-109 and FW-190, I guess it's no use talking to more of them.
What would be a good enough proof for us to present? FW and Messerschmitt factory data on those planes?
[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: luthier ]
-
Anyone got a confirmation on which two models we're talking about? I think if you had, say a FW190F model loaded up, then compared it to a ME109F, the 109F may indeed outroll the FW190F, no?
-
Sorry...
[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: luthier ]
-
Something to think. Quotes are from CG-OnLine and SimHQ:
"Oleg Maddox, 40, attended the Moscow Aviation Institute and worked 11 years as the lead engineer for one of the largest Russian military research institutes."
"Maddox Games, headed up by ex-TsAGI aeronautical engineer Oleg Maddox, has been designing a World War II simulation for the PC for approximately two years."
If those are correct info about Mr.Maddox I would think twice before accusing him of modeling a FM wrong.
Last time my boss accused me I've calculated some things wrong we walked to our superior's room to check my calculations. Was quite funny to see how red and later white can someones face turn in couple minutes when we were around the table checking my calculations ;)
-
From what Oleg answered on a Russian forum - I think that we'll get some very interesting data soon.
Looks like the current level of simulation accuracy in flight models isn't as high as we are told.
Can anyone show us NACA test results together with detailed test methodics and conditions?
-
Oleg, nice of you to come over and post. Thanks. I think most agree that certain 109 models definately outperform the FW190's, just look at the 109G10 (or K model) compared to the Dora, I'd personally take a G10 to the Dora anyday...but the questionable material was the fact that the roll rate in a 109 being far superior to that of a 190. While we're not sure what models were being discussed, I guess we'll have to wait to release. Again, thank for posting. I can understand your english just fine.
-
http://www.pczone.co.uk/guest/php3/openframe.php3?page=http://www.pczone.co.uk/guest/newreviews/printrev.php3?id=33893 (http://www.pczone.co.uk/guest/php3/openframe.php3?page=http://www.pczone.co.uk/guest/newreviews/printrev.php3?id=33893)
-
I have a suggestion.. it only has one problem.. whos rich?
Let's just build up BF109G2 and Fw190A5, then see which rolls better... mm'kay?
For all that time as I remember, I haven't seen claims about 109 being able to roll like 190.. phew.
Guess I got to begin studying again.
-
Some points:
1- Why would Oleg, (or anyone else), program in wrong rollrate data, if he had hard test numbers right in front of him?
2- Why would Oleg discount the accuracy of NACA data?
3- Is it possible Oleg is misreading the data?
4- Is the data wrong?
My core says go with #4. Since Oleg is OBVIOUSLY saying NACA tests are in error, then I guess it comes down to "EACH HIS OWN", as far as which flight data you choose to believe.
For the past 60 years, the common knowledge was that the Fw190 was a FEROCIOUS roller, and the Bf109 was heavy at higher speeds.
Suddenly, a man designing a *computer game*, comes forward and rewrites 60 years of historical belief?
I know that sets myself up for other arguments like "the world was always flat until one man..."
But WHERE O WHERE were all the Luftwaffe pilots at when books and documentaires were ALL SAYING THE SAME DAMN THING?
Did the History Channel EVER hear one of their interviewees say, "hm.. you know, the Bf109 was a much better rolling aircraft than the Fw190..."
And why are some people so inclined to believe Russian data which has so suddenly come to light within the past 2 or 3 weeks in our world?
Think about it, this "new data" has just come to light, Hell 3 weeks ago, I never knew of anything about Russian data putting a faster rollrate on the Bf109.
So before anyone jumps aboard the Russan bandwagon, I would stop and consider that this is new data of which hardly any of us has seen. Until Oleg posts some of his sources, and even then, we still have to question it's reliability.
Think about, Oleg is about to repute 60 years of common knowledge with the posting of some russian documents... This evidence will dispute all the documentaries and facts that the aviation community has come to embrace.
Imagine all the museums across the world that will have to change their descriptions that sit with their Bf109's and Fw190's...
Imagine all the documentaries that will have to overdub their narration.
We are all about to witness an historical event.
Just think, 50 years from now, new Russian data will put the Mig25 Foxbat at mach 4.5
-
Lets see you want to trust a Russian report that the leaders of the time were trying to convince thier pilots that they had better planes then the germans and probably no matter what or who did the testing the results were dictated to anyway? I perfer to trust the proven data allready in use. There happens to be one or two of these planes setting in W.P museum right now.
Trust a russian report from back then what a luagh!!!!
-
umh i just dont care, i fly the plane who fits me best :D
-
Indian One thing I just can't understand:
If you're right then why would TsAGI give 109 better rollrate than it had?
-
i thought aper was dead
havent seen u in arena in long time bud, youre still the best 109g6 pilot ive ever seen :)
-
I remember fighting once against aper (at least im pretty sure about that), he had g6 and i had typhoon.
I was in belief, that he had g10 from the performance he could pull out from that "crap". but no, g6 he had and i was impressed. Altough i managed to kill him after all (luck), but that was one of the most fierce fights i can remember. Sheesh.
To the topic.. :)
We can see from the TsAGI climb rates, that theyre almost identical with NACA charts. You can see them in here (http://www.kolumbus.fi/latesoft/tsagi_charts.html). If they got those "right", why in the hell would they mess up the roll rate thingy?
Were now just speculating over speculations. Lets give this man a chance shall we? If someone makes game from russian charts (very reliable, you can go try to debate this issue on simHQ bb), that should be just be alternative to the bulk.
Theyre been buried in the archives, just becouse theyre filled of that Russian code language (prolly HTC would be using them if they were readily available, along with the NACA), if they come more available after this dig up, thats just good.
-
This is very interesting discussioin.
Some types spoil it by trying to involve politics into what is just an FM question. This ain't cold war, Indian, Westy and co. Stop that crap. You can discuss Stalin, Beria, McCarthy, Truman and other amazinhunks in another topic. Thank you. The topic could also have name: "stereotypes and US propaganda".
Fact is, USSR engineers had much more opportunity to test German planes in various conditions. US/UK engineers had several times less opportunities like that. There is little reason for arrogance some express here when defending the Western data.
So, engineers who did far more tests and whose heads would literally roll if data was inaccurate are wrong ?
Why would they do that ? Were they tired of their lives ?
What purpose would serve if one would advise his own country pilots of enemy planes performing contrary to reality ?
Advise Yak pilots not to roll with 109 and go into rolling maneuvers with 190 ?
Were USSR engineers German mercenaries ?
A guy who was former aeronautical engineer in an Russian institute doesn't know roll rate from turn rate ? Yeah, let the cheerleaders tell him. How on Earth did Russians come up with MiG 29 or Su 27 with engineers like that ? Oh, they surely must have stolen some NACA plans ;).
-
Im not talking cold war. Im talking back when Russian wernt aload to think for them selfs. Everything I read was that the 109's faught mostly against the brits and US and 190's mostly the Russians. Im also saying I will not believe a report written back then by the russians.
One guy comes forward and says 50 years of belief is a bunch of bull wrong answer.
By the way the cold war has been over for along time. Noone can spend money on defense like the US can.
-
I think that it is both facinating and exciting that soviet data on their nemisis has come to light and it is fundimentaly contrary to western data in some respects. I think it is a gold mine that a soviet engineer has presented that data to us in the form of a simulation so we can all experiance the difference and debate the issue.
I would say that all this about the data being inaccurate or accurate in spite of or because of the fact it was generated in one of the most severe police states in history is also interesting.
Those of you that have not been following the IL2 boards maybe have not read enough from Oleg to trust his judgment. I have been reading it for a year and consider him a very reasonable and dedicated person. I would certainly love to meet him and have a beer and talk planes....
I have never read anything from him that seemed to indicate any kind of aggenda to fundimentaly change the way that we look at german AC.
He would be a hypocrite not to present the best data he can find from sources that many of us would never have heard of..
And game design is not a democracy. As we have seen in AH, the designers have to be as true as they can to thier own vision, They take input and probably observe the debates and deliver their products.
Its amazing how well they turn out inspite of the doom and gloomers.
If il2 is delivered only as poor as it is now. (lol) They have sold one to me.
Anyone that lets this issue keep them from trying out a game they will enjoy a great deal and for free is pretty silly.
-
Only light I can shed here:
The 190 took on the ground support role because it could. Radial engines are not as susceptible to damage as liquid cooled, and the wing structure of the 190 lent itself better to adding hardpoints. It's performance was generally better at lower altitude. Add the wide-stance landing gear and you have a better ground-pounder than the 109 ever could have been.
Of course none of this means the 109 rolled faster. In fact, let's talk about that. The 109 reputedly began to suffer stiffer controls at speed, the 190 supposedly didn't suffer at speed, so what speed are we talking about in these Russian tests?
-
I took L-2's version of the Bf109 to 7km, and a speed of just 110km/h, the damn thing STILL rolled with ease. All common sense says this is impossible.
Try it yourself, bring the 109 to the verge of stall and notice how responsive it is in the roll.
I'm sorry, but from this demo, I'm getting the impression the flight modelling is not gonna just be off, it's gonna be WAY off.
I think we are seeing the next B17, sure it looks absolutely fabulous, but technically it looks horrid.
[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: fscott ]
-
When testing for maximum roll rate do the pilots do an aileron roll or a snap roll? Is it easy to do one pure over the other? Could roll rate data be compromized if the pilot unconciously dialed in a little rudder and created a snap roll?
(BTW: these are actual questions I'm asking, not sarcastic statements. Just wanted to make that clear, sometimes I can't tell the difference ;)
715
-
Before doing test in demo why don't you wait untill final demo/game release. From what I understand you trying to test something that going to change. You have 1.01 beta demo, beta testers have 1.04 and newer.
Its like trying to compare AH 1.03 and 1.07.
Btw Since you here try to compare P39 roll rate? :eek:
-
S!
As Russian said. The FM in the DEMO ain't complete!It has elements left out to save in the SIZE of the demo.Oleg has said this and therefore no comparisons to other games should be made with the demo.Also if Ya have read the shrecking Readme.txt, it CLEARLY indicates the product being DEMO based on early BETA.Could that possibly mean missing features or some silvering?Bashing an unfinished product is next to ridiculous and is that what You need to boost You ego? ;)
I will certainly wait for the final version and then see what it brings along.If Ya remember..AH wasn't good from the start nor did it have the best FM/DM/whatever back then.Like IL-2 is now BETA evolving was/is AH also evolving.
And the western vs. Eastern test results...Why should those Russian documents be undervalued because their leader was J.Stalin?Is it because Russians can not do anything right?Russians were the only ones using for example Fw190D-9 in operational service after capturing factories with planes in different phases of manufacture.Finished them off and took to own use.I would believe they did some EXTENSIVE tests against their own planes to see what the Dora could do and not.Also they for sure very much tested different 109-versions against their planes.So why in the heck would they give BETTER values for enemy planes and thus putting their OWN designs to a bad light?That would have for sure made heads roll.Or maybe TsAGI tried to de-moralize whole VVS(Soviet AirForce) so the Germans could whack their arses? ;)
The argument of the western sources being only accurate ones is so big BS,that You can't swallow that without choking in it.To me it looks like the western(allies) have so low self esteem or need to boos their ego, that they have to convince every1 that they were the winners and therefore only their data is accurate.Western stuff can't be inferior to any German or Soviet equipment whatsoever ;)Yea..I will be attacked and my arse flamed because of this post,but couldn't care less.I still have the right to express my opinion freely ;)
-
Im not talking cold war. Im talking back when Russian wernt aload to think for them selfs. Everything I read was that the 109's faught mostly against the brits and US and 190's mostly the Russians. Im also saying I will not believe a report written back then by the russians.
Looks like you need to read some more. Where do you think Germany lost most of 35,000 109s manufactured (hint - it wasn't Western front...)?
...and, of course, you are free to believe/disbelieve anything you want - the Earth will remain round regardless ;).
-
So why in the heck would they give BETTER values for enemy planes and thus putting their OWN designs to a bad light?That would have for sure made heads roll.Or maybe TsAGI tried to de-moralize whole VVS(Soviet AirForce) so the Germans could whack their arses?
DB603
Well, since you asked, perhaps it was easier to blame Soviet setbacks on superior enemy planes than failures in leadership (that went all the way to the top because of the 1938 purges) and poor training and tactics -- fewer heads roll that way.
Frankly, I have no reason to doubt TsAGI data, but then, I haven't seen any. Also, this is a demo product and I have no idea what Il2's physics engine does with that data. But there are some rather odd results in the Il2 FM.
Modern flight impressions seem to match western NACA data (read what the late late Mark Hanna had to say about flying a Buchon at speeds over 400mph), and less formal wartime comparison testing and wartime pilot experience. these sources indicate that the 109 was great when it got slow (though not as great as a Spitfire) but lost it's handling at high speeds. The 190 was the opposite.
As for the "EGOs" involved in this "debate," they seem to be by far the strongest on the IL2 cheerleader side who come in here and announce, like the right hand of god, that AH is porked and better shape up. If AH is porked, then FM's should be adjusted. I frankly could care less if a 109 or 190 out rolled the other in RL, as long as it's accurately modedled in the game. And if the P-39 rolls like a F-16 -- GREAT! It won't be such a target in the MA if it ever arrives. Perhaps if the Finns flew 190s...
But there is no real evidence to suggest that the Il2 data (whaterver source and however applied in a physics engine) is accurate at this time.
Charon
[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: Charon ]
-
If you had an inkling about Mr Maddox or had met him, you'd know that the guy is obsessed with aircraft in all shapes and sizes. IL-2 has been in development through thick and thin for several years now. Does anyone honestly think that he would just then say to himself 'Ah, I can't be bothered!' and louse it all up with some dodgy FMs? Hardly.
[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: JG5_Jerry ]
-
"The argument of the western sources being only accurate ones is so big BS,that You can't swallow that without choking in it."
DB603.
My only question is why you, or anyone else, are so quick to embrace this Russian data of which you have not even seen yet?
You are basing your argument on this:
1) A man who says he has TsAGI reports. No one I know has a copy of these reports. Hey the guy is another Ethan Hawking, he HAS to be right eh?
2) A computer game with a fast rolling 109.
Versus this:
1) 60 years of common wisdom.
2) NACA reports that you HAVE seen.
3) British reports comparing 109 to Spitfars.
4) Literally hundreds of books all saying the same damn thing.
5) Documentaries all saying the same damn thing. Go watch a few History Channel documentaries.
6) Museums all across the world all saying the same damn thing. Read the descriptions on the billboards next to an Fw190.
So I think it very funny that ANYONE suddenly grasps onto this "new 109" flight modelling as being even remotely accurate. I think people will grasp onto anything *new* just because it's different.
Until Oleg or anyone else with this mystery report posts it, I will treat it as an unsubstantiated piece of evidence, meant to be severly scrutinized.
-
Wasnt it written in stone that the world was flat for hundreds of years?
It wasnt untill someone with outrageous ideas, and insights to think otherwise against the "known wisdom" to disprove all.
;)
-
Highflyer, we are not dealing with the "unkown", that is a ludicrous comparison.
We have numerous references to which we can weigh the value of "data".
I'm not saying the world is round, I'm just saying that we should severly scrutinize the idea that it is.
-
its a leaked demo at that...
SKurj
-
This might sound like I'm nitpicking but actually world is not round, more like a 0 in 90 degree angle...
:D
-
I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that the Il-2 developer intentionally porked the flight model or is intentionally using biased data to support some sort of political agenda.
What is worrying, however, is that the performance of the planes doesn't even match his own NII VVS data. Take, for example, the P-39 roll rate. Even after it was pointed out several times that the performance was doubtful, the developer didn't bother to first check the in-game performance against his own data. Instead, his initial reaction was to slate western data and testing methodologies. It was only later that he checked the in-game performance and conceded that it didn't conform to his own research.
How can he, his team and a couple of months of beta testing have missed something as fundamental and simple to test as rate of roll? And it was missed; if it had been caught during testing, he would have said so instead of defending the in-game performance as correct.
[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: MajorMajor ]
-
S!
I am not embracing Russian nor Western data. I would like to see them side by side and facts why they differ if any significant difference is found. The western sources are for sure accurate in their way and Russian in their way.
The Hanna flying a Buchon is not same as he was flying a real DB605-engined 109.Buchon is a mixture of 109E and others,not a pure 109. I don't underestimate his points.
The 60 years of knowledge and hundreds of books..Well there is for sure some bias in ANY document, either western or eastern. But the results the 109 achieved cannot be true if it was so crappy some sources try to indicate?
The performance of the 190. I do not question it's roll rate or other data. I am more than interested to see on what the claims of 109 being better in roll is based on when Oleg releases the info. The 109 was not as bad as said, nor was the 190 a brick.
I am just a bit fed up with the neverending boasting of the "superior" allied fighters. They were good, no doubt, but not all pilots were Yeagers or Gabreskies, either wasn't every LW pilot Hartmann or Galland. It is easy to say a plane is superior when You outnumber the enemy. Where ever the poor guy tries to fly, there's always some1 at the 6 with guns blazing. Surviving in that environment is more a question of luck than skill.
I think we should just wait for the release of IL-2 and then make any further comments on the matter. Just now we don't have enough data and facts to do even halfarsed assumptions.Only fact is that AH and IL2 will BOTH be best of their genre(online/boxed) and I think many will agree on that.Over and out!
-
1) 60 years of common wisdom.
Common wisdom ? wtf is that ? I would venture to say that "common" wisdom has been declining even since...
2) NACA reports that you HAVE seen.
Same NACA reports have been contradictory to other reports such was RAF testing. Almost all of them contradict each other. None of them are holy.
3) British reports comparing 109 to Spitfars.
Spitfires :) One mark out of 36 where each had 3 sub variants comapred against 1 type of out 6 where each had up to 16 variants ?
It's like saying all VWs are faster then BMWs cause 1.8T Golf can smoke the M4 !
4) Literally hundreds of books all saying the same damn thing.
And look up the sources for those books. They feed on one another. Mistakes are propagated from one to the next. Anecdotes of the pilots from 60 years again in the middle of the heated fight used for performance comparison ? Get outta here...
And i beg you, don't quote me that BS Johnson P47 vs Spitfire match... even NACA charts show spitfire rolling faster :)
5) Documentaries all saying the same damn thing. Go watch a few History Channel documentaries.
Yea, i love them History Channel programs. You can find out 3 times a day how US single handedly saved the world from all evil....
The documentaries are good from the historical point of view, but if you want to be technical about planes - look somewhere else.
6) Museums all across the world all saying the same damn thing. Read the descriptions on the billboards next to an Fw190.
Oh, i remember that one. Tour guide explaining to me how P51 could outperform ANYPLANE at ANY ALTITUDE during WHOLE WAR. When asked about 109G/K 190D or SPitfire - "they were all xxxxxxx" ( select your own sorry bellybutton excuse ). When they are condered it always seems to come back to range :)
Museums are for little children to check otu what "grandpa" flew. Information there is usually very much generic, borderline neglegent.
--------------------------------------------
It absolutelly amazes me how people in US are willing to discount anything made in russia due to "communist control". I hate to tell you folks but russian engineers have decades long tradition of excellence. Don't let the shabby production and maintenance standards decieve you. The quality of work and designs of Russian firms can put lot of Western firms to shame.
-
First of all, I was not one of the il2 supporters who blasted AH. I have too much respect for HTC's work to do such a crass thing. And, I still play AH from time to time. But what bothers me is the lack of education so many "il2-blasters" have for all things Soviet. It appears that the type of statements made came from some long lost notebook from Mr.McCarthy himself. Because Stalin ruled over Russia for so long(totally undermining the Communist system by doing so), his crimes have been used to exonerate just about any derogeratory and demeaning statement concerning the Soviet system. This mind-set has resulted in total and absolute believe of the German post-war memoirs, nevermind that these very same Germans were part of the Nazi system and considered the Slavs untermenschen. And now, 60 years later, it is all writ in stone, like the stone tablets brought down from the mountain with the flaming bush. What seriously needs to be done is to first accept that a terrible mistake occurred in so readily accepting the German view of the war without knowing more about the Soviet side. Then, as much effort should be spent in obtaining and studying material from the Soviet side, then comparing it with the standard German material to come up with a newer assessment of the Soviet-German War. And, if you have no interest in going the distance for finding the truth of this war, then you really should state as much in any posts you make concerning the Soviet Union, and its struggle in WWII.
Either you're going to sit on your fat ass, and pull out the standard McCarthyist fifties propaganda that comes so readily to mind in Western society, or you're going to realize something is truly missing about the telling of this war, then actively take measures to find the truth of the Soviet-German War. Should you decide the latter, I think you'll be surprised at the depth and complexity and pain of that conflict, because there was a lot more going on then what the Germans led on to.
It's up to you.
-
FD SKI. Your effort to discredit my points was worthless. Of course each point mcan be discredited. Hell, ANYTHING can be discredited.
But you failed to comment on my TWO points about IL-2's version of the 109 rollrate. Why?
The evidence is in numerous books as well as interviews with ex-Lufwaffe pilots. Almost every source will tell you that 109 controls got very heavy at higher speeds.
[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: fscott ]
-
Originally posted by fscott:
But you failed to comment on my TWO points about IL-2's version of the 109 rollrate. Why?
The evidence is in numerous books as well as interviews with ex-Lufwaffe pilots. Almost every source will tell you that 109 controls got very heavy at higher speeds.
[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: fscott ]
which 109 at what speeds ?
If Oleg posts interviews with LW veterans will you believe him ? I doubt it...
How about this:
Spitfires rolled horribly !!!
but... spit 9 with clipped wings and metal airlions would outroll almost anything ...
See why blanket statements and generalizations are wrong ?