Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: dcannon1 on December 08, 2009, 04:25:25 PM
-
I recently received a "Bits and Pieces" newsletter from EAA Canada. As follows:
"Test Pilot Rod Erdos gives us a personal tour of the only flying "Emil" Messerschmitt Bf-109E in the world in an article he wrote for Vintage Wings of Canada "BOUNCING CLOUDS" FLYING A RARE BF-109.".
http://vintagewings.ca/page?a=1261&lang=en-CAtoolbar:new_tab.html
I would highly recommend every flier in AH and especially to HTC's flight model programmers cut/paste the link to read the article.
Personally i think every aircraft should be modelled as closely to the actual flight characteristics as possible! Currently every aircraft uses the same model with very minor changes (that keep changing) to airspeed, coefficient of lift, power and drag making it a "game" to find the current advantage given plane set. I say make them as real as possible (using actual posted documentation) and let the players sort out the advantages using skill... isn't that why we have different era arenas?
:headscratch:
-
repost?
-
Personally i think every aircraft should be modelled as closely to the actual flight characteristics as possible! Currently every aircraft uses the same model with very minor changes (that keep changing) to airspeed, coefficient of lift, power and drag making it a "game" to find the current advantage given plane set.
I think you're mixing up AH and IL2. IL2 has every plane with the same identical flight model but different speeds.
AH has given most of its aircraft a distinctive "feel" and handling when you fly them. Fly a 190 like a spit and you'll dip a wing and spin out. Fly a spit like a pony and all of a sudden you'll be locking your contols due to compressiong. The low speed handling of the 109s are night and day as compared to the low speed handling of the C2s.
While I agree that HTC should try as much as possible to model aircraft accurately, I had to disagree with your comment above.
That out of the way, specifically it might generate more discussion if you pointed out WHICH areas of the 109E flight model you were saying needed to be revise.
I know the flaps are too fast. I know the P-40E flaps are way too slow (in real life they pop from up to full down in 1.5 seconds). I know the F4us have way too little torque and adverse handling effects. I know the P-51s lack their unstable departures and widowmaker spins that they had in real life (and no, not talking about just with aux tank filled).
So there are a lot of areas they need to work on -- hopefully they have a "to do" list somewhere -- but just pasting a link and saying "make it like this!" isn't always the best way to bring about change.
P.S. To further discussion, I will be forced to point out that the article is about flying a restored replica. I doubt it has real guns (those are probably empty pipes for barrels) nor ammunition, thus being many hundreds of pounds lighter than a war-time 109E would be. Have to consider that SOME things won't be historically correct, but then again others will (i.e. slat popping behavior, to name one example).
-
Restored aircraft lack armor, guns and other equipment that the wartime aircraft had. They don't make for good performance sources.
I'll also echo Krusty and say that you seem to have AH confused with IL-2.
-
Restored aircraft lack armor, guns and other equipment that the wartime aircraft had. They don't make for good performance sources.
I'll also echo Krusty and say that you seem to have AH confused with IL-2.
Yes, it would be like comparing a street car to a race car.
I'll third the confusion part as well.
-
What part of the Bf 109's flight model is the OP suggesting is incorrect?
ack-ack
-
What part of the Bf 109's flight model is the OP suggesting is incorrect?
That's what I was curious about, as well. Would be nicer if he'd explain his thinking.
-
Restored aircraft lack armor, guns and other equipment that the wartime aircraft had. They don't make for good performance sources.
I'll also echo Krusty and say that you seem to have AH confused with IL-2.
Please tell me why you would state this. As most know, I am in the restoration business and have been for almost twenty years. For the past ten, all we have been doing are building to exact specifications from the war, including all armor, guns, sights, equipment, and materials. It is considered a better restoration and in reality, is the only way it should be done.
Please try and think so as not to insult the warbird restoration community by making a blanket uneducated statement like that.
-
Please tell me why you would state this. As most know, I am in the restoration business and have been for almost twenty years. For the past ten, all we have been doing are building to exact specifications from the war, including all armor, guns, sights, equipment, and materials. It is considered a better restoration and in reality, is the only way it should be done.
Please try and think so as not to insult the warbird restoration community by making a blanket uneducated statement like that.
Lemme know when ya need a painter... Awlgrip... alexseal... Dupont. Mostly on fiberglass but still quite a bit of metal work. ;) :D
-
Please tell me why you would state this. As most know, I am in the restoration business and have been for almost twenty years. For the past ten, all we have been doing are building to exact specifications from the war, including all armor, guns, sights, equipment, and materials. It is considered a better restoration and in reality, is the only way it should be done.
Please try and think so as not to insult the warbird restoration community by making a blanket uneducated statement like that.
I've heard they leave the turbo-supercharger out of restored P-47s? Any truth to this?
wrongway
-
What part of the Bf 109's flight model is the OP suggesting is incorrect?
ack-ack
He is saying that ALL aces high planes are incorrect, and that they all perform the same.
just for a quick comparison, FLY A BF109E AND A P47, A SPIT, A HOG, A ZERO, DO THEY HANDLE AT ALL THE SAME?
-
Um... just thought I would point this out: If you look at the OPs 10 posts, all but two of them are complaining about something in the game... just saying...
-
He is saying that ALL aces high planes are incorrect, and that they all perform the same.
just for a quick comparison,FLY A BF109E AND A P47, A SPIT, A HOG, A ZERO, DO THEY HANDLE AT ALL THE SAME?
Nope, each of those planes have their unique flying characteristics in game.
ack-ack
-
I've heard they leave the turbo-supercharger out of restored P-47s? Any truth to this?
wrongway
Some owners have, and others have not. It was more a reality of actually having the knowledge to actually work on the turbo's. Add to it a shortage of parts, and many choose to just save weight, and leave them out. For us in Colorado Springs, the turbo offers sea level pressures as opposed to the handicap of starting out at 6200 feet. That makes a big difference on an aircraft like the Thunderbolt.
-
I know the F4us have way too little torque and adverse handling effects.
Okay, here's the thing.
The F4U-1s have some of the lousiest weight to power ratios in the game. That engine is putting out 2000+ horses, but in a frikkin' HUGE airplane. I mean, sometimes I feel like a Cessna accelerates better...
Corsairs also have large and effective ailerons.
So I guess what I'm saying, why *should* what amounts to relatively small engine (by warbird standards) in a very large airframe have worse torque than some single prop "engines with saddles on them" like the La, 109? Or even the P-51, with its rather greater horsepower weight?
Was the Corsair's torque truly that awful, or was it more "rep". What I mean is, go into AHII put down full flaps and trim for 75mph IAS, power off, like you are coming onto the deck of a carrier. Now realize you are coming in abit low and slam the throttle forward. What happens? Do you think real-world pilots might have been slightly more disconcerted by that reaction considering 1. Their butts were actually in the seat and 2. They had to do slightly more than flick their wrist to correct any rolling tendency?
-
I think you're mixing up AH and IL2. IL2 has every plane with the same identical flight model but different speeds.
Bullpoop.
-
Krusty:
"Fly a spit like a pony and all of a sudden you'll be locking your contols due to compressiong"
Bullpoop too. The Spit holds the all time speed record of a prop plane in a mad dive. That is, without nosing in :D
-
IL2 has every plane with the same identical flight model but different speeds.
Is that technically correct? It would certainly explain why I think all A/C in IL2 feel "the same."
-
a really really big prop though and metal ...
p factor not bhp factor ya know
Okay, here's the thing.
The F4U-1s have some of the lousiest weight to power ratios in the game. That engine is putting out 2000+ horses, but in a frikkin' HUGE airplane. I mean, sometimes I feel like a Cessna accelerates better...
Corsairs also have large and effective ailerons.
So I guess what I'm saying, why *should* what amounts to relatively small engine (by warbird standards) in a very large airframe have worse torque than some single prop "engines with saddles on them" like the La, 109? Or even the P-51, with its rather greater horsepower weight?
Was the Corsair's torque truly that awful, or was it more "rep". What I mean is, go into AHII put down full flaps and trim for 75mph IAS, power off, like you are coming onto the deck of a carrier. Now realize you are coming in abit low and slam the throttle forward. What happens? Do you think real-world pilots might have been slightly more disconcerted by that reaction considering 1. Their butts were actually in the seat and 2. They had to do slightly more than flick their wrist to correct any rolling tendency?
-
a really really big prop though and metal ...
p factor not bhp factor ya know
Why do you think the material is a factor? Are you suggesting that torque in an aircraft is from the mass of the prop?
When do you think P-factor would be noticeable in a Corsair?
-
Don't we know better than to start fighting amongst ourselves the moment a typical, uninformed, ignorant n00b comes in and starts bashing the FM for no obvious reason, nor with any real evidence?
-
I know that agreeing with his statement probably means the world is coming to an end, but Krusty is kind of right in that the torque on the Corsair is undermodeled. But so is every other aircraft in the game.
Don't agree? Run a throttle up quickly like every one does in here, and see how long it is before you haven't bounced a wing on the ground, or rolled the aircraft at low speeds. Torque is a huge factor in warbirds.
-
a really really big prop though and metal ...
p factor not bhp factor ya know
P-factor is the aerodynamic effect that causes the descending prop blade to have a higher AoA and and thus more thrust on one side. If you got a prop, ya got P-factor.
Prop mass as such has nothing to do with P-factor, you are thinking of the gyroscopic forces involved.
Neither of which is is anywhere near as significant for our purposes as the torque itself. And as I pointed out, the F4U doesn't have anything going on in that regard that say, the R-2800-engined P-47 doesn't. I suspect the difference is that no one was trying to plop P-47s down on carrier decks at 75mph.
-
P-factor is the aerodynamic effect that causes the descending prop blade to have a higher AoA and and thus more thrust on one side. If you got a prop, ya got P-factor.
I believe you only have P-factor when the propeller axis is at an angle to the relative wind.
-
I believe you only have P-factor when the propeller axis is at an angle to the relative wind.
Right, when the airplane is at a high angle of attack, like climbing.
-
Okay, in RL the F4U would take off a slippery carrier deck. In AH, it's about the toughest ones to get of a carrier deck.
In real life, Spitfires were launched off a small carrier deck, while being overloaded. Full fuel, ammo, and a big slipper tank. It was done with completely full WEP power from the start, and they would tend to veer a little to the side. I recall oneincident where the aircraft actually went over the side after a little distance, but it still made it. In AH, that might be a problem.
A fun story about the P-factor was when a pilot I know landed his Cessna on a frozen lake. He had problems getting airborne, for the aircraft just turned around itself. He got it in the end, but I can't remember how.
-
Well when your talking about a plane that could, and often did "flip" off its wheels if the throttle was advanced too fast. You start to understand why they called it the Ensign Eliminator.
Yeah, it has a boatload of torque.
-
Reading about this nightmare you guys call 'torque' makes me all the more glad I enjoy a plane that lacks such an evil thing.
Didn't the Mustang also have a tendency to roll over on take off if throttle advanced too fast?
ack-ack
-
Reading about this nightmare you guys call 'torque' makes me all the more glad I enjoy a plane that lacks such an evil thing.
Didn't the Mustang also have a tendency to roll over on take off if throttle advanced too fast?
ack-ack
I think pretty much every single-engine warbird was liable to flip over on its back if you pulled it into an accelerated stall with the throttle fire-walled. But like I say, not every single-engine warbird was landed on the carrier at very low airspeeds.
-
Bullpoop.
Yeah, I don't get that one either Anax. Not a big Il2 fan, but a Fw-190 definitely does different things than a SpitIX when you haul back on the stick at 200mph IAS in that game!
-
Yeah, I don't get that one either Anax. Not a big Il2 fan, but a Fw-190 definitely does different things than a SpitIX when you haul back on the stick at 200mph IAS in that game!
Precisely. Just try flying the Mig-3 in that sim and you'll lose any illusion that every aircraft has the same flight model. When I play other sims and come back to AH, I always get the "riding on rails" feeling for all the aircraft. It takes a while for the difference in feel of the AH aircraft to dominate the over-all feeling of the sim. But I get the feeling that most people here only play AH, and no other flight sims...
-
Precisely. Just try flying the Mig-3 in that sim and you'll lose any illusion that every aircraft has the same flight model. When I play other sims and come back to AH, I always get the "riding on rails" feeling for all the aircraft. It takes a while for the difference in feel of the AH aircraft to dominate the over-all feeling of the sim. But I get the feeling that most people here only play AH, and no other flight sims...
I have no idea what this "riding on rails" bit means Anax.
-
Hmmm, maybe it's not a good metaphor. :headscratch: Generally, I'm just trying to describe my feeling of the sim compared to the others I've tried over the years. The difficulty of performing a true hammerhead compared to some other prop sims while otherwise allowing for effective control response right to the edge of a stall is a good example of what I'm trying to describe.
-
I have no idea what this "riding on rails" bit means Anax.
It means flying in AH feels like riding a rollercoaster with rails attached. Try imagine the difference between riding a train and driving your own car... riding a train feels more rigid and stable, whereas driving a car feels more fluid. It's a bit less noticeable in AH2, but in AH1 almost every sim pilot I knew in our own local community commented that AH feels like "riding on rails" - and ofcourse, not all of them were armchair pilots.
I distinctively remember writing a review about AH2Beta, how in AH2 a lot of planes felt more 'heavier' in a variety of situations such as pulling out from dives, or the bottom of a Split-S.. the feeling of 'inertia' was more detectible in AH2Beta than in the final versions of AH1 .. and etc..
Many people still say AH2 feels like "riding on rails." Some people say IL-2 FM feels generic, except I don't. Aside from AH having generally a lot more noticeable torque effects, the general "feeling of flight" seems a lot more believeable in IL-2. Ofcourse, a lot of actual pilots who fly AH say AH is closest to the real thing, but then again, IL-2 players have their own share of actual pilots as well.
-
It means flying in AH feels like riding a rollercoaster with rails attached. Try imagine the difference between riding a train and driving your own car... riding a train feels more rigid and stable, whereas driving a car feels more fluid. It's a bit less noticeable in AH2, but in AH1 almost every sim pilot I knew in our own local community commented that AH feels like "riding on rails" - and ofcourse, not all of them were armchair pilots.
I distinctively remember writing a review about AH2Beta, how in AH2 a lot of planes felt more 'heavier' in a variety of situations such as pulling out from dives, or the bottom of a Split-S.. the feeling of 'inertia' was more detectible in AH2Beta than in the final versions of AH1 .. and etc..
Many people still say AH2 feels like "riding on rails." Some people say IL-2 FM feels generic, except I don't. Aside from AH having generally a lot more noticeable torque effects, the general "feeling of flight" seems a lot more believeable in IL-2. Ofcourse, a lot of actual pilots who fly AH say AH is closest to the real thing, but then again, IL-2 players have their own share of actual pilots as well.
I have never tried iL-2, but I don't think I have noticed a riding on rails feeling. Just the opposite in fact. Comparing flying in real life versus flying in the game, I am a LOT less stable in the game. Maneuvers I have flown in real life with perfect precision are sloppy in game, and I find myself slipping into stalls or uncoordinated turns frequently, whereas in real life I am, well, competent ;) Perhaps I am misinterpreting your definition of riding on rails though. I feel my plane in game is less stable, but that is because I don't feel the feedback I am acustomed to.
-
Yeah, if we were trying to talk about stability...
Ahh, but I see kweassa did use the word above. Probably not the best choice of word because "riding on rails" is not supposed to mean "reduced tendency to stall."
-
WRT stability, are not civilian aircraft designed with 'positive' stability vs high-performance/fighter aircraft are designed 'neutral'? It means civie aircraft want to climb and remain wing-level vs fighters will stay where u last leave the stick? Could explain the flying-on-rails feeling if your not familiar with fighters...
-
Perhaps by "riding on rails" you mean the aircraft seem to lack a sense of... momentum?
I never have flown an aircraft, so I have no frame of reference in that sense. However, I definitely can sense a slight bit of "momentum" difference between sims. I know in AH you can see some momentum in things such as rolling an aircraft (the P-38 is notorious for "over-rolling"), but in the sense of using things like the rudder, and elevators, I don't get that same feeling of "sliding" through the air as opposed to "cutting" through it. Perhaps that's what's being referred to?
I don't know what is or is not more accurate. I just know I stink and generally look like this -> :joystick:
-
I don't get that same feeling of "sliding" through the air as opposed to "cutting" through it. Perhaps that's what's being referred to?
Yeah, that's what we're getting at, sort of. It's a notoriously nebulous thing to describe. I might say that the air feels more dense in AH than in other sims.
Just to recap, all of this is not to argue that one or the other way is correct, but that there is a distinct feel to AH that is comparable to the "all of the planes feel the same" complaint we hear about other prop sims.
Still, it is far more difficult to execute a true hammerhead in AH than in some other sims, and also more difficult than in a real low-wing aircraft (I have done it in a Grob). The "cutting" through the air feeling seems connected to this difference.
---------
Additionally, I suspect that if the feel of AH were changed to be more slippery, the community would revolt. No longer having such strong control authority at the edge of a stall would put a big damper on the kind of dogfights we are used to having.
-
i think knite has the angle here ...
some games feel less "crisp" than others ...
wallowing in trim and relative deceleration are common complaints i hear when games are compared to each other and actual flight ...
ACM footage also tends to show planes drifting in turns or "skidding" more than i've seen in the newer games.
-
So if I get this straight Anax, you are saying:
1. It seems difficult to get a true rotation out of AHII aircraft.
2. The controls seem very effective at low airspeeds. I.E. at 100mph IAS in most planes it is very easy to have enough elevator to whip into an acclerated stall, you think this is incorrect?
-
Precisely. Just try flying the Mig-3 in that sim and you'll lose any illusion that every aircraft has the same flight model. When I play other sims and come back to AH, I always get the "riding on rails" feeling for all the aircraft. It takes a while for the difference in feel of the AH aircraft to dominate the over-all feeling of the sim. But I get the feeling that most people here only play AH, and no other flight sims...
I have all the il2 series have played it a lot although I like it I'd have to agree the planes do not feel they have indivdual characteristics compared to aces high they feel almost like a cliche of popular opinion from a certain point of view. Sometimes when I'm reading through the in game write ups on certain planes it sounds like urmm propaganda? :rofl
Perhaps by "riding on rails" you mean the aircraft seem to lack a sense of... momentum?
I never have flown an aircraft, so I have no frame of reference in that sense. However, I definitely can sense a slight bit of "momentum" difference between sims. I know in AH you can see some momentum in things such as rolling an aircraft (the P-38 is notorious for "over-rolling"), but in the sense of using things like the rudder, and elevators, I don't get that same feeling of "sliding" through the air as opposed to "cutting" through it. Perhaps that's what's being referred to?
I don't know what is or is not more accurate. I just know I stink and generally look like this -> :joystick:
If you played il2 and aces high on a pure blue background ie with no backgrounds to reference against would you still be able to get that feeling of sliding?
-
Perhaps by "riding on rails" you mean the aircraft seem to lack a sense of... momentum?
Imagine WW2 plane with fly by wire controls. A good example of a plane in AH that feels like its 'flying on rails' is the P-38L or if you played AW, all of the planes in that game had the 'flying on rails' feeling.
ack-ack
-
So if I get this straight Anax, you are saying:
1. It seems difficult to get a true rotation out of AHII aircraft.
More or less. It seems difficult to perform a true hammerhead because the v-stab and fuselage still have a great effect on lateral stability at extremely low airspeeds. That is my educated guess, at any rate. When we did a hammerhead in the Grob, it was almost like the aircraft did it automatically once we were below stall speed. The nose really wanted to come down and neither the v-stab nor the fuselage could prevent it. Rise of Flight has done a really excellent job in this respect. Aircraft that lack a true v-stab (Dr1 and N17) can be whipped sideways with full rudder input, and even in the case of aircraft that lack good rudder authority, a true hammerhead is not difficult to perform.
Edit: You know, a funny thing is that once you do lose your v-stab in AH, you completely lose control of the aircraft. Whereas in Il-2, it's a common whine that aircraft will keep flying (somewhat) without the v-stab.
2. The controls seem very effective at low airspeeds. I.E. at 100mph IAS in most planes it is very easy to have enough elevator to whip into an acclerated stall, you think this is incorrect?
I really don't know if that's correct or not. And I don't know if I can enter an accelerated stall at 100mph ias in other sims because they don't typically have g-meters.
-
Getting back to the original poster's complaint, or rather lack of specific complaint, there is one thing that is really obvious to me from the reference article he links to: In that article, the pilot very clearly describe the Me-109E as a big energy bleeder in turns compared to a Spitfire, and this is WITHOUT the wing slats extended... He clearly states that with the wing slats extended, this Me-109 feature would be worse still (maybe not as bad as he thinks?), meaning that even at a similar turning radius, and with an equivalent or better climb rate, the Me-109E would lose more speed in turns compared to a lot of slower-climbing aircrafts...
This issue points to a basic problem with overall computer simulation flight modeling, where acceleration is treated as being the same for straight-line, climbs, turns, dive or zooms. There is no direct relationship in real life...
There is an old thread here where F4UDOA(?) points out, quite correctly, that the Tempest V has a slower level straight-line acceleration than many other inferior-climbing types, yet had an excellent climb rate, and the countering arguments all went along the lines of "not the exact on-the-nose climb speed acceleration" for where the level straight-line acceleration was tested as it went "past" the "best climb speed"... Typical nonsense... The basic problem is that drag is simply not the same depending on what the aircraft's specific, and unique, shape is doing in turns, climbs or in a straight-line...
I believe the pronounced speed-bleeding in turns displayed by the 109E, in the OP's linked article, likely applies to some extent to all Me-109 variants, and explains why the presumably tight-turning and fast-accelerating Me-109 is matched or out-turned by many heavier types, even perhaps those with less power-to-weight. This is not reflected in the Me-109's climb rate, which is excellent, but this apparent contradiction has led to a very unrealistic Me-109 in most simulations, since they simply do not include a drag that is specific to turns...
The complexity of airframe shape is close to the complexity of natural phenomenons, and thus an over-reliance on math alone will lead to very skewed and unhistorical results...
On that issue at least, the OP chose a good article that illustrates the point well...
Gaston
-
The drag of wings, open slats and all, as well as the fuselage over the range of AoA are not some kind of magic "unknowables" and their effects are entirely calculable.
Further, in-game 109s DO seem to bleed speed in turns to a greater extent than some similar aircraft. So....
Getting back to the original poster's complaint, or rather lack of specific complaint, there is one thing that is really obvious to me from the reference article he links to: In that article, the pilot very clearly describe the Me-109E as a big energy bleeder in turns compared to a Spitfire, and this is WITHOUT the wing slats extended... He clearly states that with the wing slats extended, this Me-109 feature would be worse still (maybe not as bad as he thinks?), meaning that even at a similar turning radius, and with an equivalent or better climb rate, the Me-109E would lose more speed in turns compared to a lot of slower-climbing aircrafts...
This issue points to a basic problem with overall computer simulation flight modeling, where acceleration is treated as being the same for straight-line, climbs, turns, dive or zooms. There is no direct relationship in real life...
There is an old thread here where F4UDOA(?) points out, quite correctly, that the Tempest V has a slower level straight-line acceleration than many other inferior-climbing types, yet had an excellent climb rate, and the countering arguments all went along the lines of "not the exact on-the-nose climb speed acceleration" for where the level straight-line acceleration was tested as it went "past" the "best climb speed"... Typical nonsense... The basic problem is that drag is simply not the same depending on what the aircraft's specific, and unique, shape is doing in turns, climbs or in a straight-line...
I believe the pronounced speed-bleeding in turns displayed by the 109E, in the OP's linked article, likely applies to some extent to all Me-109 variants, and explains why the presumably tight-turning and fast-accelerating Me-109 is matched or out-turned by many heavier types, even perhaps those with less power-to-weight. This is not reflected in the Me-109's climb rate, which is excellent, but this apparent contradiction has led to a very unrealistic Me-109 in most simulations, since they simply do not include a drag that is specific to turns...
The complexity of airframe shape is close to the complexity of natural phenomenons, and thus an over-reliance on math alone will lead to very skewed and unhistorical results...
On that issue at least, the OP chose a good article that illustrates the point well...
Gaston
-
Getting back to the original poster's complaint, or rather lack of specific complaint, there is one thing that is really obvious to me from the reference article he links to: In that article, the pilot very clearly describe the Me-109E as a big energy bleeder in turns compared to a Spitfire, and this is WITHOUT the wing slats extended... He clearly states that with the wing slats extended, this Me-109 feature would be worse still (maybe not as bad as he thinks?), meaning that even at a similar turning radius, and with an equivalent or better climb rate, the Me-109E would lose more speed in turns compared to a lot of slower-climbing aircrafts...
This issue points to a basic problem with overall computer simulation flight modeling, where acceleration is treated as being the same for straight-line, climbs, turns, dive or zooms. There is no direct relationship in real life...
There is an old thread here where F4UDOA(?) points out, quite correctly, that the Tempest V has a slower level straight-line acceleration than many other inferior-climbing types, yet had an excellent climb rate, and the countering arguments all went along the lines of "not the exact on-the-nose climb speed acceleration" for where the level straight-line acceleration was tested as it went "past" the "best climb speed"... Typical nonsense... The basic problem is that drag is simply not the same depending on what the aircraft's specific, and unique, shape is doing in turns, climbs or in a straight-line...
I believe the pronounced speed-bleeding in turns displayed by the 109E, in the OP's linked article, likely applies to some extent to all Me-109 variants, and explains why the presumably tight-turning and fast-accelerating Me-109 is matched or out-turned by many heavier types, even perhaps those with less power-to-weight. This is not reflected in the Me-109's climb rate, which is excellent, but this apparent contradiction has led to a very unrealistic Me-109 in most simulations, since they simply do not include a drag that is specific to turns...
The complexity of airframe shape is close to the complexity of natural phenomenons, and thus an over-reliance on math alone will lead to very skewed and unhistorical results...
On that issue at least, the OP chose a good article that illustrates the point well...
Gaston
Never in the history of this board has such complete and utter kaka been spoke with such great ignorance.
HiTech
-
Never in the history of this board has such complete and utter kaka been spoke with such great ignorance.
HiTech
:rofl And the master of our lives has Spoken.
-
Never in the history of this board has such complete and utter kaka been spoke with such great ignorance.
HiTech
wow :D
-
Never in the history of this board has such complete and utter kaka been spoke with such great ignorance.
HiTech
i think this sounds kinda familiar to me
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,260209.30.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,260209.30.html)
-
i think this sounds kinda familiar to me
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,260209.30.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,260209.30.html)
Nah, HT flamed me by saying he hadn't heard such a load of BS "in a long time." It's completely different. :old:
-
Nah, HT flamed me by saying he hadn't heard such a load of BS "in a long time." It's completely different. :old:
Very true it is completely different. Your statement just had risen slightly above the noise.
This one I almost want to laminate, decorate, make poster size and frame on my wall as the all time wall of shame poster.
HiTech
-
Never in the history of this board has such complete and utter kaka been spoke with such great ignorance.
HiTech
I'm trying to beat that HiTech...really I am...just can't seem to push the envelope enough to achieve that level...I keep blacking out :D
When I do, be gentle...and I'll pay for an 11x14 photo of you standing by the poster size framed reproduction... :angel:
-
I'm trying to beat that HiTech...really I am...just can't seem to push the envelope enough to achieve that level...I keep blacking out :D
When I do, be gentle...and I'll pay for an 11x14 photo of you standing by the poster size framed reproduction... :angel:
:old: :aok
-
Quote, Hitech: "Never in the history of this board has such complete and utter kaka been spoke with such great ignorance."
HiTech
-Well, with that kind of attitude...
In any case, I'll add the caveat that climb, straight-line or turn relative acceleration, or more precisely, speed retention in turns, are not linearly related across aircraft types, but often do retain a link within each type.
But not always: In the British RAE tests, the P-51B with full twin 108 Gallon drop tanks was found to be MUCH slower-climbing, but LITTLE appreciable increase in turning radius or turn rate was noted with full drop tanks versus clean... It was still considered VASTLY superior-turning to a CLEAN Me-109G (or at least one with gondolas, which is not that great a difference in sustained turns:
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/#g6r6
), with the P-51B lugging around two full 108 gal. drop tanks! (Le Fana de l'Aviation, Hors Serie #38, p.102)
Note the same P-51B, WITHOUT drop tanks, was considered about equal in turn rate to the FW-190A... Hmmmmm...
I for myself, think these tests are wrong but not outlandishly so, and they show to a certain extent the unreliability of test pilots flying unfamiliar foreign aircraft: Perhaps the Me-109G's slats were not fully exploited...
I think that, rather than the FW-190A and P-51B being equal in turn rate, and the Me-109G being far behind, it is more likely the FW-190A would be noticeably ahead of the P-51B, with good aileron stall-catch use, and the Me-109G would be very slightly behind or equal to the same clean P-51B, maybe because of better wing leading edge slat use than in the actual test.
But this objection of mine is a far cry from any simulation's calculated la-la land, where the Me-109G-2 or G-6 is ahead of either of them(!)... Gunther Rall himself confirms that the Me-109F could barely hold its own, or win, in turns against the FW-190A, with all of 900 fewer lbs (410 Kg) to lug around than the Me-109G... But surely he is just a doofus like me?
It's one thing to tweak real-life tests results with math assumptions, or in my case, combat or flight test anecdotes. It's another to turn reality completely on its head with them...
Sorry, but reality has its own math book, and unlike yours, there are no gaping omissions in it...
Gaston
-
At what altitude?
Anyway, if you compare the ROC of a Spit I with the 109E, it's just about the same. The Spitty is heavier, the engine power is similar (favouring the 109) so it seems to create more lift. Well, after all, the wingloading is lower.
The difference calculated over to Newtons (how much is it hauling) is some 10%.
Strange isn't it?.... :neener:
-
The FW can almost out turn a Bf109? The 190 is a flying shoebox with a big heavy engine in the front.
I'm going to stop before I violate forum rules... (shaking head).
-
i have heard the same when the roll rate was considered as well, i.e. in follow the leader instead of a luftberry ...
the Brits felt the same in the encounters over the channel before they had a 190 to test ...
flying around in circles may give you the rates but it does not always translate well to ACM.
i suggest the germans were more pragmatic with their testing ...
The FW can almost out turn a Bf109? The 190 is a flying shoebox with a big heavy engine in the front.
I'm going to stop before I violate forum rules... (shaking head).
-
This issue points to a basic problem with overall computer simulation flight modeling, where acceleration is treated as being the same for straight-line, climbs, turns, dive or zooms. There is no direct relationship in real life...
You have just declared Isac Newton wrong. But of course you do not even know you just did.
So yes you will get that attitude because your post is so far from fact that it shows clearly you do not even have the level of knowledge need to discuss the topic.
HiTech
-
Gaston, you seem to place a lot of weight on testing and combat reports, but it's clear you haven't read VVS evaluations of the Bf 109 and Fw 190. Russian pilots held the Bf 109 in higher esteem than the Fw 190 and confidently claimed that it was the better dogfighter of the two.
Not long ago, a rebuilt 109G-10 was compared to a P-51D in a flying magazine (I forget which one), and the author was scandalized to report that the 109G-10 out-turned the P-51D. :P
-
Getting back to the 190 vs Spit/109 in turning, there are anecdotes that the 190's were more agressive and would enter turnfights. I have found one of them first hand, and am still exploring it (hoping to get my hands and eyes on the log book).
Anyway, the encounter took place at medium altitude, which favours the 190's power-curve very much.
It would have been an early type - A5 possibly.
There is no data at the available E at the merge, but I find it likely that the 190 had more.
The Spitfire pilot did know that much of the properties of the 190, only that they were "told to be faster, more aggressive and more maneuverable" than the 109's.
He tried to shake the 190 in a turn and was unable to (unlike the 109). So, instead of carrying on untill stalling at SL, he did a flick-trick, - some kind of a high speed stall where he was basically changing directions under the nose of the 190, then diving away in the opposite direction. The 190 lost him completely.
Had he known the true properties of the 190, he might have carried on turning :D
Anyway, high speed turning, 190A vs SpitV (And those 190A's over the channel in 1941/42 were not the "heavy" ones as later) is something the 190 could risk better than a 109. If things started to reverse, they could roll out and dive away, and be done with it much faster than a 109.
-
Gaston, you seem to place a lot of weight on testing and combat reports, but it's clear you haven't read VVS evaluations of the Bf 109 and Fw 190. Russian pilots held the Bf 109 in higher esteem than the Fw 190 and confidently claimed that it was the better dogfighter of the two.
Not long ago, a rebuilt 109G-10 was compared to a P-51D in a flying magazine (I forget which one), and the author was scandalized to report that the 109G-10 out-turned the P-51D. :P
I have seen a similar interview.
I wonder about the weights included though. Every pound you save in the 109 (armour and so) counts a lot more....
And did the P51 use a notch of flaps?
-
Gaston, you seem to place a lot of weight on testing and combat reports, but it's clear you haven't read VVS evaluations of the Bf 109 and Fw 190. Russian pilots held the Bf 109 in higher esteem than the Fw 190 and confidently claimed that it was the better dogfighter of the two.
Not long ago, a rebuilt 109G-10 was compared to a P-51D in a flying magazine (I forget which one), and the author was scandalized to report that the 109G-10 out-turned the P-51D. :P
Did you see Gaston's hilarious twisting of language and commons sense where he took the quote from a German pilot "The 190 was a broadsword, the 109 was a rapier" and twisted it around somewhere in the dank crevices of his mind to mean that since a "broadsword" is swung in circles (he asssumes), and a rapier is used in linear thrusts, that must mean the 190 was the turner and the 109 was the bnz'er...completely ignoring the obvious original intent and common usage of that "broadsword vs. rapier" comparison of course, but entertaining in its very dementia.
-
What part of a plane's flight model would a Saber represent?
ack-ack
-
What part of a plane's flight model would a Saber represent?
ack-ack
Well, since the East Euro tradition is very fond of angular thrusts and false edge cuts with their sabers, OBVIOUSLY sabers must represent thrust vectoring aircraft...
-
What part of a plane's flight model would a Saber represent?
It only represents something on mail planes
</3AmigosReference>
-
What part of a plane's flight model would a Saber represent?
ack-ack
Obviously, it would be the collision model. Saber's are designed to hit thing. They don't cause any damage to your opponent unless you can hit him with it.
Taken a step further, rapiers and broadswords are designed for the same things. Comparing the 109 and 190 to those leads me to believe someone thought the obvious outcome of fighting with these planes would lead to an inevitable ram? And that no damage to the enemy would occur unless you could slam your weapon into him?
-
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Gaston claim to be a game developer that has developed a table top flying game supposedly using accurate flight model data? If that's the case, I don't think I'd want to buy a game he's developed.
ack-ack
-
he may be referring to the report narrated in this clip re the 190 109 thing ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0YLLBvIBFk&feature=related
-
How's that one?
Anyway, sabre vs broadsword puts the sabre as the nimbler one and the Broadsword doing more damage.
And here...couldn't resist:D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS5YKiW2KBk&feature=related
Why is the UC dropping on the 190 when it is taking hits? I have an anecdote of one leg dropping in such a case.
-
That Rechlin assesment is but one of hundreds of references of the FW-190A out-turning the Me-109G... Did you notice the Russian combat evaluation and the British RAE also said the same thing? Rechlin DID say much later that a MW-50 109G out-turns an unspecified FW-190A...
Note the video's Rechlin quote says "The FW-190 out-turns and out-rolls the Me-109 at ANY speed", which I think is a better high-speed turn performance than later FW-190As are capable when the engine was moved forward 6 inches, changing the center of gravity significantly: Note how terrible is the turn performance above 250 MPH for this 6" longer-nosed A-5:
http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg
Note also how this evaluation emphasises the FW-190A's low-speed turning, just like the Russian combat evaluation "The FW-190 will inevitably offer turning combat at a minimum speed" etc...:
http://www.ww2f.com/russia-war/21828-russian-combat-experiences-fw-190-a.html
Note also that unlike RAE and US Navy evaluations, that absurdly emphasize the FW-190A's "interceptor" or "vertical fighting" nature (despite a poor climb rate and terrible, speed-wasting "sinking" dive pull-out!), these above two evaluations were done by front-line FIGHTER pilots, including the P-47 comparison done in Italy by front-line FIGHTER pilots, NOT test pilots, and THEIR opinion offers a stark contrast to TEST pilot opinions: Which one would you rather pick? There is NO reconciling these two views... Guess whose side Johnny Johnson falls on, with the hindsight of the whole war being over? ("vertical turn" here is actually a "wings vertical turn" in the era's pilot lingo; please don't go down that path, ok?):
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg
Quote, BnZs: "Did you see Gaston's hilarious twisting of language and commons sense where he took the quote from a German pilot "The 190 was a broadsword, the 109 was a rapier" and twisted it around somewhere in the dank crevices of his mind to mean that since a "broadsword" is swung in circles (he asssumes), and a rapier is used in linear thrusts, that must mean the 190 was the turner and the 109 was the bnz'er...completely ignoring the obvious original intent and common usage of that "broadsword vs. rapier" comparison of course, but entertaining in its very dementia."
-The pilot was Gunther Rall, who also said the Me-109F could barely out-turn the FW-190A, and usually didn't, at 900 lbs less than a Gustav...
I am told he actually said, actual quote: "The Me-109 was a floret, the FW-190 was a sabre", which inevitably leads to a VERY interesting question by Ack-Ack, quote:
"What part of a plane's flight model would a Saber represent?"
Now THAT's an interesting question. Hint: The sabre always has a blade shaped in a curve.... It can stab, but is in priority designed for hacking in a curve in confined spaces, or from a horse, the curve facilitating both the draw and the pulling, slicing motion to deepen the cut after the CURVING stroke has bit flesh... Hmmmm... Now what could THAT possibly mean compared to a floret?
The floret, on the other hand, has a straight blade with nearly or absolutely no edge, intended for straight strokes only... This is a floret:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Foil-2004-A.jpg/505px-Foil-2004-A.jpg
This is a sabre:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f2/Sabre_mg_7029.jpg/600px-
Some had less curve, but were still clearly hacking weapons more than straight-line thrusting:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/French_Navy_sabre_img_3012b.jpg/600px
Another Saber: http://england.prm.ox.ac.uk/englishness-british-cavalry-sabre.html
I tell you, denial is truly indestructible...
Quote, Anaxogoras: "Gaston, you seem to place a lot of weight on testing and combat reports, but it's clear you haven't read VVS evaluations of the Bf 109 and Fw 190. Russian pilots held the Bf 109 in higher esteem than the Fw 190 and confidently claimed that it was the better dogfighter of the two.
Not long ago, a rebuilt 109G-10 was compared to a P-51D in a flying magazine (I forget which one), and the author was scandalized to report that the 109G-10 out-turned the P-51D."
-As far as the Me-109G-10 out-turning the P-51D, I actually think this is could be true at the most common medium speeds, even maybe for the G-6, since same-side turning combat with the P-51D can last an incredible 15 minutes in combat reports, which indicates they are very close, except for the Me-109G-6's speed-bleeding in level turns that really needs a downward spiral or MW-50 to even things up, despite a likely tighter radius that could lead some pilots to conclude it "out-turns" the P-51D easily.
Above 300 or 350 MPH I think the P-51D will display an increasing superiority with speed, inevitably decelerating into the Me-109G's better speeds, but below 200 MPH the P-51 can also downthrottle and increase prop pitch with flaps down, what I call the low-speed "trick":
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-hanseman-24may44.jpg
Barring that, they can be described as very close depending on pilot knowledge, and both are inferior at low speed to the FW-190A, which is itself not far behind the Spitfire (see Johnny Johnson Spitfire link above).
As far as Russian opinion, also see link above...
Maybe what you are refering to as "Russian opinion" are a large series of 360° turn times, 18 sec., 21 sec., etc, that cover a wild variety of aircrafts, with many minute variations among an intricate number of variants... To my eyes, there are strong clues that these are not actual data from actual flight tests, but some calculated figures that were trusted by test pilots and put in a report somewhere...
Remember what I said about test pilots versus FIGHTER pilots?. For hundreds of Russian FIGHTER pilots opinions, condensed over months of actual combat with actual German FIGHTER pilots, see the "Russian experience" link above...
All these Russian ultra "precise" "turn times" are likely calculated, which was often not mentionned at the time, and the best indication is the sheer NUMBER of test aircrafts that would have to be involved on the same day for these tests to be valid (temperature, humidity etc... can cause HUGE turn performance variations, but probably affected all aircrafts roughly the same...). Just imagine: Three or four variants of Spitfires? Three or four variants of Me-109s and FW-190s? Have you ever seen a REAL flight test that looked like that? Of course not: You don't even have the time in a day to test all that... Plus the data I am told matches calculated data very consistently, which is another huge red flag...
The total absence of directly linked pilot comments is also very telling... Turn rate has many aspects that require more than just ONE number: Control feel, response, speeds and weight anyone?
Finally, I have already asked in the past about these turn-time tests some simple questions, like, on what DATE they were done, and what serial # of aircrafts were involved(???)... I'd be REALLY curious to see the answers to that... Don't hold your breath... I haven't so far.
If no answer comes up, then you'll have your answer: Such tests would be the most exhaustive turn-rate tests of WWII, and not a single DATE can be put to them? What does this suggest?
It would be nice to know the speed ranges and the use of flaps too, while we're at it...
Quote, Anaxogoras: " Russian pilots held the Bf 109 in higher esteem than the Fw 190 and confidently claimed that it was the better dogfighter of the two."
-They did hold it in high esteeem, because it could perform at higher altitudes than their aircraft, and it could use dive and zoom tactics much better than the FW-190A. Up to the Me-109F, it could also compete in turns, but listen to Gunther rall's complaints when the Me-109G came along... "The weight went too far" he said... Still, the Me-109G had a superb climb rate and could therefore make excellent use of the vertical plane ("floret" anyone?), unlike the FW-190A, as the "Russian Experience" evaluation points out: "The FW-190 does not like to do vertical maneuvers"- "Keep speeds as high as possible against the FW-190"- "pulling OUT[of a 45° dive], it will fall an extra 200 m."- "The FW-190 will inevitably offer turning combat at a minimum speed (sabre, anyone?)" etc ad nauseam...
In the Western Front, the Me-109G-6 no longer had the higher altitude, or the better zoom, or the better dive speed, or the better tail-heavy trim pull-out (not by much at least), or even the better steady climb rate against a 72" P-51, or any kind vertical maneuver advantage. This is why a Luftwaffe officer said: "All those aces that came to me from the Eastern Front got shot down on the Western front."
By late 1944, 70% of Luftwaffe Western Front fighter strenght was FW-190A-equipped... Not so the Eastern Front I would guess.
Gaston
-
More from YouTube. I know I know, this is old.... :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94
http://www.skipholm.com/willy-messerschmitt.htm
-C+
-
Here is a cookie for ya ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgvfklVzYZo&feature=related
-
More from YouTube. I know I know, this is old.... :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94
http://www.skipholm.com/willy-messerschmitt.htm
-C+
Why do people ignore the fact that this isn't a BF 109??????? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Why do people ignore the fact that this isn't a BF 109??????? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
http://www.skipholm.com/willy-messerschmitt.htm
"The engine installation makes the ‘109’ types look very different. Because of this difference in appearance, the Buchon has always been compared against the Daimler-Benz engined aircraft, notably the G model ‘109’, and the data below give a good comparison of the two aircraft."
Why did YOU ignore that I provided a link where the differences were explained? :rolleyes:
-C+
-
http://www.skipholm.com/willy-messerschmitt.htm
"The engine installation makes the ‘109’ types look very different. Because of this difference in appearance, the Buchon has always been compared against the Daimler-Benz engined aircraft, notably the G model ‘109’, and the data below give a good comparison of the two aircraft."
Why did YOU ignore that I provided a link where the differences were explained? :rolleyes:
-C+
I posted both these links in another thread a couple of days ago so yes I've read the page, your still ignoring the fact its not the same plane even the stuff thats listed on the page would hardly make for a great comparison the Buchon is a lot faster, lighter, has a different more powerful engine, different prop different front cowling its also longer taller overall.
I have to laugh that you think after reading the differences on the link you posted that you wouldn't mention its a Buchon, its misleading for people to read and then rehash this youtube clip as an example of real world experience of why world war 2 109s out turned everything in the sky.
-
I posted both these links in another thread a couple of days ago so yes I've read the page, your still ignoring the fact its not the same plane even the stuff thats listed on the page would hardly make for a great comparison the Buchon is a lot faster, lighter, has a different more powerful engine, different prop different front cowling its also longer taller overall.
I have to laugh that you think after reading the differences on the link you posted that you wouldn't mention its a Buchon, its misleading for people to read and then rehash this youtube clip as an example of real world experience of why world war 2 109s out turned everything in the sky.
It certainly has a different front cowling and it is not as streamlined as the original and the thrustline is higher in Buchon. AFAIK the re-engined 109s were not too popular.
The wing profiles are the same with 109 AFAIK and closer to E model as far as wingtips are considered, which may give it a slight edge over the profiles used in G models. I don't know how Skip pushes the envelope flying the Buchon but it is quite clear that if the 109/Bchn can get the fight slow it has a significant edge over the P-51 in maneuvering due to better slow speed handling (due to slats more conventional profile and slats) if compared with P51s, as Skip does claim. In high speed the scales are more equal and I see the P51 holding the edge there especially up high.
While the 109 could not out-turn everything in the sky, which by the way I never claimed, they could perform very well in hands of an expert but not in hands of a novice due to nature of its aerodynamics.
-C+
-
the forward visibility is hindered in the later spanish versions as well.
i thought that plane was actually a german one fitted with a RR spanish style for practical reasons surrounding the availability of DB-60(X)s ...
but i could be thinking of another plane ...
-
The Buchon is apparently roughly equivalent to a G2 in basic wing-loading. This is not representative of later 109s that had problems as weight was added for additional power and armament.
-
It certainly has a different front cowling and it is not as streamlined as the original and the thrustline is higher in Buchon. AFAIK the re-engined 109s were not too popular.
The wing profiles are the same with 109 AFAIK and closer to E model as far as wingtips are considered, which may give it a slight edge over the profiles used in G models. I don't know how Skip pushes the envelope flying the Buchon but it is quite clear that if the 109/Bchn can get the fight slow it has a significant edge over the P-51 in maneuvering due to better slow speed handling (due to slats more conventional profile and slats) if compared with P51s, as Skip does claim. In high speed the scales are more equal and I see the P51 holding the edge there especially up high.
While the 109 could not out-turn everything in the sky, which by the way I never claimed, they could perform very well in hands of an expert but not in hands of a novice due to nature of its aerodynamics.
-C+
I don't think vs the p51 it was ever in any doubt regards the 109 outturning it Spit is a different story, I never said you claimed that a 109 outturns everthing in the sky sorry if it looked that way, just that when everytime the argument comes up people who believe that pop up this video to back up their claim. The people commenting on the youtube page agree with it blindly because thats what they want to believe even the title of the video is at best misleading.
From what I've read on the Buchon its based on the 109g airframe minus the tail half the technical drawings needed didn't show up along with the engines so basically its a plane made up from a variety of different sources and parts by people who didn't build bf109s. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of info out there on this bird :joystick:
People have converted them back to original 109 specifications this plane black 2 was converted back to a g10 from a Buchon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufLPE3aCFU4&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufLPE3aCFU4&feature=related)
-
the forward visibility is hindered in the later spanish versions as well.
i thought that plane was actually a german one fitted with a RR spanish style for practical reasons surrounding the availability of DB-60(X)s ...
but i could be thinking of another plane ...
This might be what your talking about I found this in the sources part of the Buchon's wiki page.
Messerschmitt Me-109E-1 with Hispano Suiza 12Z engine, looks quite like a DB 109 even with a diferent engine install with the exceptions of the exhausts and intake the proportions of the nose are the same.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~tozu/me109/foreign/109-spain.htm (http://www.xs4all.nl/~tozu/me109/foreign/109-spain.htm)
-
How is it hindered? I look at the Buchon, and see the difference mainly under the nose.... :confused:
-
If you compare the two you'll see the engine cowling curves down more in the 109 then the Buchon. The exhaust is much higher (being non-inverted) on the RR and that also obstructs the view.
(http://static.twoday.net/FLYINGART/images/HA-1109-M1L-W-Nr-197-Buchon-Prototyp-.jpg)
(http://www.cbrnp.com/profiles/quarter2/bf109e/bf109-1.jpg)
Also you'll note the inverted engine in the 109 allows for the nose to be narrower at the top, then the Buchon.
(http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/Messerschmitt-Me109/IMAGES/3view-me109.gif)
(http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/6858/ha12084558jn0.jpg)
-
Odd, the 109G on the drawing does not quite much match the one on the colour photo. The drawing has a higher curve of the nose.
-
that's because the picture is of an E ...
here is a g2 i think ...
(http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k44/thor-jg51/jg27109gblank.jpg)
Odd, the 109G on the drawing does not quite much match the one on the colour photo. The drawing has a higher curve of the nose.
-
that's because the picture is of an E ...
here is a g2 i think ...
(http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k44/thor-jg51/jg27109gblank.jpg)
Hehe, yup. No 109G in any of the photos Baumer posted.
Thorsim, that looks like a 109F more than a G-2. Notice the light canopy framing and shallow oil cooler.
This example has heavier canopy framing and a deeper oil cooler:
(https://www.aviationillustration.com/shop/images/Bf.109.G.07.jpg)
-
Notice the red/yellow band for JG301.
At that time IV./JG301 was flying G-14s.
-
Both of the 109's are E's, if you look at the elevator you'll see the brace underneath. I used that just as a point of reference, as the engine cowling started to change more in the G series (just trying to give a clear example of why the 109 had better visibility then the Buchon).
-
Notice the red/yellow band for JG301.
At that time IV./JG301 was flying G-14s.
I would imagine that's simply a made up paint scheme, as it has a JG 301 Reichsverteidigung band, Eastern/Balkan front wingtip markings, JG 27 unit insignia on the cowling, and air to ground kill markings on the rudder despite the lack of an ETC rack or markings of a Jabostaffel.
It is an F- the tell-tale signs being the glazed section of fuselage below the windscreen, fuel filler point below the cockpit (moved to the spine of the tail behind the cockpit in the G series), strengthening struts where the tail attaches to the tail plane, and shallow oil cooler.
It's definitely NOT a G-14, due to the things previously mentioned, the lack of bulges for MG 131's, neither an Erla Haube canopy or an extended vertical stabilizer/rudder (not tell-tale but unlikely for a G-14), the radio mast and the retractable tail wheel (last aircraft built with this were late production G-2's until it was reintroduced in the K series)
-
yea i'm afraid the specific type was lost when i adjusted the graphics for my squad in WB ...
so i was not sure about the specific type ...
Hehe, yup. No 109G in any of the photos Baumer posted.
Thorsim, that looks like a 109F more than a G-2. Notice the light canopy framing and shallow oil cooler.
This example has heavier canopy framing and a deeper oil cooler:
(https://www.aviationillustration.com/shop/images/Bf.109.G.07.jpg)
-
yea it was a "virtual" profile for a "virtual" squad, the jg27 logo i made myself and never existed historically to my knowlege ...
I would imagine that's simply a made up paint scheme, as it has a JG 301 Reichsverteidigung band, Eastern/Balkan front wingtip markings, JG 27 unit insignia on the cowling, and air to ground kill markings on the rudder despite the lack of an ETC rack or markings of a Jabostaffel.
It is an F- the tell-tale signs being the glazed section of fuselage below the windscreen, fuel filler point below the cockpit (moved to the spine of the tail behind the cockpit in the G series), strengthening struts where the tail attaches to the tail plane, and shallow oil cooler.
It's definitely NOT a G-14, due to the things previously mentioned, the lack of bulges for MG 131's, neither an Erla Haube canopy or an extended vertical stabilizer/rudder (not tell-tale but unlikely for a G-14), the radio mast and the retractable tail wheel (last aircraft built with this were late production G-2's until it was reintroduced in the K series)
-
IL2 planes all fly the same ?? whoever said that retarded crap needs to lay off the crackpipe NOW :x , I fly both sims alot & I can tell you this ...Axis planes fly better in Il2 & Allied planes fly better in AH .... whats funny about every plane in AH ? all the controls on every plane is trimmable ..thats inaccurate ..109's & 190's did NOT have trimmable ailerons nor rudders among others.., plane overheat at full power settings for an extended time are not set accurate for AH , you run a piston engine plane in RL at full power for an extended period and it WILL overheat . MW50 boost for 109's..you can
kick it in at full power and it won't wreck the engine ..wrong , read a translated 109 manual and it states specifically NOT to engage WEP at full throttle . there are several other issues too but hey I'm not going to just pick on AH ..IL2 has its issues ... .50 cal. DM not accurate ....not able to select fuel tanks .. kills the P51 in lo alt turn fights , P-47 DM not accurate , she can't take alot of damage and still fly . We can go on & on but heres the problem with ANY sim that mass produces planes ..most developers are not going to tweak the FM's or DM's of each single plane to their exact spec , unless it's just grossly fubar .
my .03 cents
Bolt
-
...my .03 cents...
Oh boy.... :noid
-
IL2 planes all fly the same ?? whoever said that retarded crap needs to lay off the crackpipe NOW :x , I fly both sims alot & I can tell you this ...Axis planes fly better in Il2 & Allied planes fly better in AH .... whats funny about every plane in AH ? all the controls on every plane is trimmable ..thats inaccurate ..109's & 190's did NOT have trimmable ailerons nor rudders among others.., plane overheat at full power settings for an extended time are not set accurate for AH , you run a piston engine plane in RL at full power for an extended period and it WILL overheat . MW50 boost for 109's..you can
kick it in at full power and it won't wreck the engine ..wrong , read a translated 109 manual and it states specifically NOT to engage WEP at full throttle . there are several other issues too but hey I'm not going to just pick on AH ..IL2 has its issues ... .50 cal. DM not accurate ....not able to select fuel tanks .. kills the P51 in lo alt turn fights , P-47 DM not accurate , she can't take alot of damage and still fly . We can go on & on but heres the problem with ANY sim that mass produces planes ..most developers are not going to tweak the FM's or DM's of each single plane to their exact spec , unless it's just grossly fubar .
my .03 cents
Bolt
A great first post.... :aok
-
Agree Bolt said it right. The most common remark coming from AH players is that IL2 planes fly the same. agree about the crap remark. Among the major deficiency's as it concern AH i think is the complete engine "carefree handling" .
-
Oh I forgot ...auto-pilot and auto climb enabled for all planes in AH ? ...lets see who knows if this is accurate too or is it just another care free at ease function for the ones who claim AH is the most accurate flight sim :rofl , I'm done making points because we'd be here all day with BOTH sims ..I like AH too for quick fun arcade fighting with all my enemies flying around with big red tags on em . I like IL2 when I want to take a combat flightsim more ..seriously .. :airplane:
party on Garth :rock
Bolt
-
to be accurate there is no auto-pilot in AH. Only "auto keep attitude" concern the flight level and auto climb which is not as bad as it maybe looks for someone coming for other sims. it really relax you before the fight. I have no complains for auto-trim also cause trimming the plane during the fight is a difficult task. My concerns has to do more with the "light" controls on all aircraft's, except maybe Ta 152, i mean they look like flying or "move" into the air sometimes like RC models and not like the real planes. But that is just a feeling. Let us not forget that RL WWII planes had mechanical controls and not fly-by-wire like ALL sims have.
-
IL-2? Fun but, where did all the extra fuel in my Spitfire VIII go? :huh
-
Oh I forgot ...auto-pilot and auto climb enabled for all planes in AH ?
That's not really the core of the issue. The core of the issue is flight modeling.
Autopilot, auto trim - hell, even trim for some planes that didn't have it - all these things exist in AH to make it just a tad more user friendly. The lack of proper engine management is also an example of this.
In terms of strict authenticity, IL2 is the better game, I agree (and I adore IL2's gunnery system).
However, in terms of "flight models" there is really no comparison for me. In AH, even the individual variants of the same A/C have clearly definable and noticeable characteristics.
In IL2, I do not find this to be the case. To me, in IL2, every plane feels, at its core, exactly the same. Each has the same exact reaction to inputs; differentiated only by airspeed.
The IL2 flight model is "bland." The one thing that HTC has done so well - and it's largely an unheralded achievement - is that they have given the player a real sense of weight and inertia. By comparison, IL2 planes all feel weightless to me.
While that may sound rather off-the-wall, I think its a key difference and its what many people cant quite put their finger on when they ask themselves what IL2's FM is lacking.
-
read a translated 109 manual and it states specifically NOT to engage WEP at full throttle .
Bolt
Here is the manual for the Bf 109 K4 (Flugzeug Handbuch). Please show me where it says this.
http://www.4shared.com/file/184141394/b6bd58fc/Bf_109_K4_Flugzeug_Handbuch.html
-
Bolt,
Not all aircraft overheat like that. In IL2 if you run at wep for even a short time, your engine will break. It is complete BS and, if anything, even gamier than the method AH uses. Read some history instead of just manuals.
-
Here is the manual for the Bf 109 K4 (Flugzeug Handbuch). Please show me where it says this.
Actually it's only a small part of the manual: Part 9A (General Equipment). More interesting would be parts 6, 7, and 7B.
Further more, this is not an operating manual. It's mainly for the ground crews, showing location of specific parts of equipments, giving assembly instructions and such.
-
Hey , I don't wanna get in a bash session with anyone about which sim is better which seems to be where this topic is headed before it gets locked :neener: , both have its fan base and rightfully so ..I play both and have a good time with each . I have read many Aviation Books ( just like some of you who have a strong interest in WW2 Aviation ) thru out the years and read many accounts of Air combat , the planes that were flown and their " characteristics " or history as Karnak has stated , BOTH sims have their issues that we would like to be addressed .. I can post links of captured Axis aircraft test for those that are uneducated but all you have to do folks..is research it online or in books..its all there .. great stuff if you want to pour the time into it ..I'm an ol Air Warrior vet , been playing this stuff since '94 ( with an exception of a trip to sunny Iraq ) I love flightsims as its probably the closest I can get to flying ( $11k to get your pilots license here - full rating ) and anytime when a new flightsim comes along I look into it and if its a realistic sim like I prefer , I'll buy it , I want to keep these PC based sims going for a long time . If I PO'ed anyone ..hey my bad . Anyone can tell you that knows me on the IL2 side will vouch for how we have tried to get planes like the default P-51 FM changed , and only now since the mods have came in ..new variants with shall we say.. a better FM have been fielded . Works are in progress and hopefully both sims will just keep on getting better .
P.S. Karnak , I fly IL2 servers like Spit v 109 , Zeke v Wildcat and other full real servers in Hyperlobby and I have yet
to have any issues with engaging WEP for a time period and locking the motor up ..what AV gas are you using ? is your mechanics
Polish conscripts ? using Valvoline ? :headscratch:
:salute Bolt
-
Actually it's only a small part of the manual: Part 9A (General Equipment). More interesting would be parts 6, 7, and 7B.
Further more, this is not an operating manual. It's mainly for the ground crews, showing location of specific parts of equipments, giving assembly instructions and such.
Snail! :( Dont make me post 294 pages of each variant... can you translate? :)
-
Snail! :( Dont make me post 294 pages of each variant... can you translate? :)
I can read it and translate & post the corresponding passages... if you have the operating manual :)
-
I'll give you the auto pilot functions and the trim functions, but to say that engine management and modeling in IL2 is more accurate is entirely incorrect. If you want to say its more complex, then I'll agree. We've all discussed the difference in game mechanics multiple times between the two games. IL2 has good eye candy, a decent single player experience, and more immersion. The aerodynamics of AH wins hands down.
And, Bolt, no disrespect intended, but most of this community has an instinctual negative reaction to a first post from a new forum member being another "IL2 is more realistic" thread. For whatever its worth...
-
I flew Il-2 for a while both offline and online. I flew AH at the same time, online. I also was fortunate enough to have some stick-time in real aircraft at the same time.
IMHO, AH wins hand down. What Il-2 has/had was nicer graphics, nice gunnery model (t'was before AHII), and more complexity, such as engine management. But the flight model...never a choice.
For fun, I have tested some maneuvers that I have seen from WWII footage, airshows, as well as being described in books. It was quite encouraging to see that they were not easy at all in AH. Some I have not been able to copy.
-
I Tried very hard to get into IL2, I wanted to play it for the single player campaign..on of my annoying gripes was engine over heating which i could turn off, but my biggest gripe was the flight model all the planes felt the same just a different cockpit, when I fly AH I can instantly feel a difference between a 109G2 and 109K4 etc, and AH gives me a real sense of speed and different feeling of the plane doing manovers at different speeds, something IL2 could not give me
I am soooo glad AH deos not model advance engine management as it would take the fun out of it for me, RPM and throttle control is enough for me :D
-
The concept of 'complex engine management' doesn't necessarily include the crazy overheat issues...
Frankly, the CEM is neither truly 'complex' nor more 'realistic' than compared to AH, and it is more of a bunch of arbitrary selections among all the real-life pilot workload that is simplified into one or two extra keys to press during flight - which gives out an illusion that one is actually 'managing' the plane in someway.
...
However, I dig the illusion.
In retrospect, getting used to the CEM in IL-2 was no biggy at all, but it did give you a few fingermashing moments which was quite entertaining... and it also gave out an individual feel to all the planes - the VVS planes require a bit more manual input than others, the early US planes feel not much different at all... until the arrival of mid/late war planes, which feel a lot more advanced than the earlier variants... and the LW planes feel very comfortable and advanced from the start, being equipped with the [supercharger-mixture-throttle-in-one] controls.. and the Brit planes feel... well.. eccentric..
I don't support the CEM because it's more complicated, or because it's more realistic - I support it because it provides cool immersion factor without really making things too difficult. It was a clever implementation with a lot of good compromises. I mean hey, some people still believe that CEM is 'realistic' or 'complex' - that's a good indication that the clever little 'trick' for immersion actually worked in IL-2. It's a good idea.
-
:salute Stoney and all who stand by this or any other sim..it's all good ..just some like to get in depth a little more on these topics ..I'm guilty
Bolt
-
It was a clever implementation with a lot of good compromises. I mean hey, some people still believe that CEM is 'realistic' or 'complex' - that's a good indication that the clever little 'trick' for immersion actually worked in IL-2. It's a good idea.
I did not find it complex nor realistic, just tapping annoying keys every now and then was more of a pain in the bellybutton for me and did not provide any more immersion. A better flight model or more involving campaign would have been more immersion.
-
109 fans might find this interesting (when its released):
http://www.amazon.com/Messerschmitt-Bf109-Owners-Workshop-Manual/dp/1844256421/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1262208653&sr=8-1
The only reference I could find on full throttle use and WEP having been forbidden was during takeoff configuration but the manual I found that said that was already translated.
-
found this interesting while surfing today ...
http://manaboutmayfair.blogspot.com/2006/04/aces-high-ww-ii.html
-
found this interesting while surfing today ...
http://manaboutmayfair.blogspot.com/2006/04/aces-high-ww-ii.html
Wow! Both a 109 and a P51 dumping flaps in combat!
-
Wow! Both a 109 and a P51 dumping flaps in combat!
(http://lgo.mit.edu/blog/drewhill/files/inconceivable.jpg)
-
yea i actually have some more accounts on the flaps i will be posting in another thread ...
although the degree of flap deflection is not stated here i had a friend finally show me some that did so i am retracting my suspicions of the possibility of extreme flap deflections in combat in TRW ...
i have some actual AARs he showed me of the use of extreme flaps in combat, so consider this a preview of me correcting myself with more coming later ...
i just have to upload and relay the documents ...
so i was wrong about the extreme use of flaps in combat historically, and will post more data that shows my error in a week or two ...
sorry if the process was very painful, but these documents were the first i have seen that actually detailed extreme flap deflections that i have seen, and i was skeptical before i saw them.
can't really say more than that, i hope you guys enjoyed the story above and beyond the flaps ...
+S+
t
-
I did not find it complex nor realistic, just tapping annoying keys every now and then was more of a pain in the bellybutton for me and did not provide any more immersion. A better flight model or more involving campaign would have been more immersion.
It's a matter of taste I guess - since the basic line of argument can be used by anyone. For others, having to memorize at which specific altitudes a plane performs better, which has a better absolute performance, when to drop flaps and when not and etc etc.. all can be equally pain in the ass, since the overall 'feeling' of aerial combat may be all they need to feel immersion - in which case these players would prefer stuff like "relaxed realism" and etc..
I agree that tapping around the keys can be an annoyance, but ofcourse IMO that's the whole point of it. Some planes are more cumbersome to control, others are simple and user-comfy. This gives each plane type an individual characteristic which, to me, is no different from some planes turning better than others, others climbing better, others diving faster.. and etc..
Ofcourse, we cannot expect a game developer to model 100% interactive cockpits and game pilots to learn to fly a plane exactly the way they should be flown... but how a plane was managed is also a part of combat, and some planes do have an advantage over others in this aspect. If there is a reasonable way to mimic and implement this aspect into a game without going down the MSFS "mouse-click everything" approach, it's how 1C did it in IL-2 - it works.
-
found this interesting while surfing today ...
http://manaboutmayfair.blogspot.com/2006/04/aces-high-ww-ii.html
Do we have any idea what the source of this is?
Not that I want to be a weiner, but it's a suspicious-sounding account to me.
- oldman
-
Do we have any idea what the source of this is?
Not that I want to be a weiner, but it's a suspicious-sounding account to me.
- oldman
I only browsed that site for a few seconds and spotted so many factual errors, I stopped reading.
Badboy
-
yea i actually have some more accounts on the flaps i will be posting in another thread ...
although the degree of flap deflection is not stated here i had a friend finally show me some that did so i am retracting my suspicions of the possibility of extreme flap deflections in combat in TRW ...
i have some actual AARs he showed me of the use of extreme flaps in combat, so consider this a preview of me correcting myself with more coming later ...
i just have to upload and relay the documents ...
so i was wrong about the extreme use of flaps in combat historically, and will post more data that shows my error in a week or two ...
sorry if the process was very painful, but these documents were the first i have seen that actually detailed extreme flap deflections that i have seen, and i was skeptical before i saw them.
can't really say more than that, i hope you guys enjoyed the story above and beyond the flaps ...
+S+
t
Apology accepted :)
-
(...) it's a suspicious-sounding account to me.
That's the understatement of the year :lol
The German pilot points at his tail, obviously meaning the "200" victories, and then very slowly and dramatically makes a knife cutting motion across his throat, and points at me. He's telling me in sign language that I'm going to be his 201 kill!
Pretty dramatic, isn't it? :rolleyes:
Actually the style reminded me of certain tales by AH fellows in Oclub... ;)
-
spotted a few myself but it seems pretty pervasive recounted on many sites so i am not sure of the original source ...
OTOH i didn't present it as anything but an entertaining account
-
Wow! Both a 109 and a P51 dumping flaps in combat!
Didn't Hartmann later say that it wasn't him in that fight? Don't recall seeing him mention any noteworthy fights like that in his biography and from what I've read about him that throat slashing motion would have been uncharacteristic of him.
ack-ack
-
red heart could have been jg77 ...
a couple of 200+ guys in that squad as well ...
anybody know where they were stationed in jan 45?
-
Blonde Knight of Germany has a section on Hartmann fighting Mustangs. He claimed 7 and made a high speed bail out to survive a fight with 8 51s. All in early 45. Probably 31st, 325th or 52nd FG Mustangs of the MTO would be my guess.
-
Bolt,
Not all aircraft overheat like that. In IL2 if you run at wep for even a short time, your engine will break. It is complete BS and, if anything, even gamier than the method AH uses. Read some history instead of just manuals.
Wings of Prey is the same. Some think that just because you add in 'complex engine management' that some how makes the game and flight model more realistic.
ack-ack
-
i have some actual AARs he showed me of the use of extreme flaps in combat, so consider this a preview of me correcting myself with more coming later
Here's a somewhat better documented account of flap deployment by a 51 and a 109 in a dogfight. I've posted it lots of times before, so if you've already read it, skip to the next post. Hey, I spent so much time typing it that I want to get some use out of it!
- oldman
From JG 26 - Top Guns of the Luftwaffe, by Donald L. Caldwell (Ivy Books, New York 1991), ISBN 0-8041-1050-6 (First Ballentine Edition, June 1993), at page 276:
[The following occurred on the afternoon of September 17, 1944 - the first day of Operation Market-Garden]:
The Third Gruppe [of JG26] also fought a battle with Mustangs, with ruinous consequences for itself. In mid-afternoon, Major Mietusch assembled about fifteen Bf 109s of his scattered command and headed for the landing zones, climbing all the way. The weather had taken a turn for the worse, and there was a continuous layer of thin cloud at 15,000 feet. The Germans climbed through it, and then, while above the Dutch-German border, Mietusch spotted a squadron of P-51s below them. He radioed, “Otter Mietusch, I am attacking!” and dove through the cloud. His first burst of fire destroyed the Number 4 plane of the trailing cover flight. Oblt. Schild hit the Number 2 Mustang’s drop tank, and it dove away trailing a solid sheet of flame. The events of the next few minutes are best stated in the words of the leader of that P-51 flight, Lt. William Beyer of the 361st Fighter Group’s 376th Squadron:
* * *
I was the flight leader at the tail end of the squadron. We had flown back and forth between checkpoints for a couple of hours. My wingmen apparently got tired of looking around for enemy aircraft. Only by the grace of God did I happen to look behind us at that particular moment, because in no more than a couple of seconds the enemy would have shot the whole flight down.
I saw about fifteen German fighters closing fast with all their guns firing. I immediately broke 180 degrees and called out the enemy attack. My Number 4 man went down in flames, and my wingman got hit and spun out. I headed straight back into the German fighters and went through the whole group, just about in the center of them. We were separated by only a few feet...
I immediately made another 180-degree turn, picked out one of them, and started to chase it. The rest of the fighters zoomed back up into the clouds and disappeared. We made many violent high-G maneuvers with wide open throttle. When I started to close and fire, I noticed that his plane seemed to have stopped in the air. I had to decide whether to shoot and run, or to try to stop my plane. I cut throttle, lowered flaps, and dropped my wheels - I still kept closing. I had to fishtail and do flat weaves to stay behind him. This maneuver was repeated three times, and on one occasion I almost cut his tail off, we were so close...
Then we started into steep dives. The last one was at around 1,000 feet with flaps down. This last maneuver was deadly and nerve-racking. He went straight down toward the ground, hoping I couldn’t pull out. If I pulled out early, he could have come in behind me, so I stayed with him. If we had had our wheels down when we pulled out, we would have been on the ground.
It was after this pullout that I finally was able to get my sights lined up and fire at him. I must have hit him with the first burst, because he kept turning and went into the ground and broke up. Knowing the caliber of this German pilot, I am sure that if I had taken the time to get off some shots when he was slowing down he could have possibly shot me down or made a getaway. My other combat victories were not nearly as spectacular as this one, and it is with this in mind that I can recall it so vividly.
* * *
Lt Beyer’s victim was Klaus Mietusch. Mietusch was one of the most fascinating individuals in the Geschwader’s history. He was a career officer, had joined the Geschwader in 1938, and was its senior pilot in length of service when he died at age twenty-five. His early combat career was marked by a seemingly endless series of failures and frustrations. A member of the successful 7th Staffel under Muencheberg, he did not come into his own until he succeeded to the command and led it on detached assignment in Russia in 1943. He was the opposite of the typical extroverted, self-confident fighter pilot. He compensated for what he believed to be his lack of ability by an act of will. According to Priller, Mietusch’s combat motto was, “Bore in, until the enemy is as large as a barn door in your sights.” Again quoting Priller, duty as Mietusch’s wingman was an “unforgettable experience.” Mietusch was shot down ten times and was wounded at least four times. He was said never to have turned down a mission, and he had logged an incredible 452 combat sorties at the time of his death. His seventy-two victories brought the award of the Oak Leaves to his Knights’s Cross, two months after his death.
-
maybe i was unclear all along with my reservations RE: the flap usage ...
i understand and always have understood their value in dumping speed as noted in the two accounts above,
i just was uncomfortable with the extreme maneuvers of a dog fight with full flaps extended.
even in the account i posted the 51 pilot noted the lack of ability to go nose up very far with his flaps all the way out.
now i have some accounts of fights i will post with my official crow eating post but it was not dumping speeds that bugged me earlier it was more the rolling, up down, quick scissor stuff that bugged me ...
i still as a virtual pilot would go for establishing more of an energy advantage if a pilot i had defensive dumped his speed. however as i have posted earlier other real world pilots took the other tack and i have finally seen the proof and will be posting it soon ...
however the two accounts above were not exactly representative of my reservations about the use of flaps in combat.
i was hoping to clarify, not further confuse, i am not sure how successful i have been ...
;)
+S+
t
-
Blonde Knight of Germany has a section on Hartmann fighting Mustangs. He claimed 7 and made a high speed bail out to survive a fight with 8 51s. All in early 45. Probably 31st, 325th or 52nd FG Mustangs of the MTO would be my guess.
June '44 ;)
He mentions seeing American fighters along with Russian fighters in Czechoslovakia later, however there aren't any dates mentioned and no victories for mustangs recorded in the log after June '44 at the end of the Blond Knight.
-
It's a matter of taste I guess - since the basic line of argument can be used by anyone. For others, having to memorize at which specific altitudes a plane performs better, which has a better absolute performance, when to drop flaps and when not and etc etc.. all can be equally pain in the ass, since the overall 'feeling' of aerial combat may be all they need to feel immersion - in which case these players would prefer stuff like "relaxed realism" and etc..
I agree that tapping around the keys can be an annoyance, but ofcourse IMO that's the whole point of it. Some planes are more cumbersome to control, others are simple and user-comfy. This gives each plane type an individual characteristic which, to me, is no different from some planes turning better than others, others climbing better, others diving faster.. and etc..
Ofcourse, we cannot expect a game developer to model 100% interactive cockpits and game pilots to learn to fly a plane exactly the way they should be flown... but how a plane was managed is also a part of combat, and some planes do have an advantage over others in this aspect. If there is a reasonable way to mimic and implement this aspect into a game without going down the MSFS "mouse-click everything" approach, it's how 1C did it in IL-2 - it works.
Kweassa, you have a good, balanced perspective. I might add that lacking CEM does change the performance of the aircraft because cooling systems add drag. For example, if you fly the P-51D frequently enough in Il-2 you learn that the best setting for sustained combat is 95% manifold and 95% prop-pitch, with the radiator closed, and you can maintain a very high airspeed indefinitely.
Bolt64, it's funny to hear you say that the American planes are better in Aces High. If there's any plane that's been whined about the most here, it's the P-51. The newest Il-2 mods are darn pretty, but it's highly dubious when amateurs start adding their own aircraft with "improved" flight models, and I doubt you'll see many HL servers offering them for online play.
-
June '44 ;)
He mentions seeing American fighters along with Russian fighters in Czechoslovakia later, however there aren't any dates mentioned and no victories for mustangs recorded in the log after June '44 at the end of the Blond Knight.
Yeah, and the date given in the story of the Mustang vs. Hartmann fight, Hartmann was probably already in Czechoslovakia.
ack-ack
-
June '44 ;)
He mentions seeing American fighters along with Russian fighters in Czechoslovakia later, however there aren't any dates mentioned and no victories for mustangs recorded in the log after June '44 at the end of the Blond Knight.
Hmm. Had the book in my hand when I said 45. That was the time mentioned in the chapter callled "Mustangs". If it was Summer 44 he'd probably have bumped into the Russian Shuttle run 51 escorts
One of the Mustang fights he talks about was when the Mustangs and Russian fighters got into it after the 109s dove through.
-
Uhm....im no expert, but the author mentions that he thinks he is "hottest pilot in the USAAF" but the USAAF was formed AFTER WW2, during the war it was the Army Air Corps, or something of this nature, right...?
EDIT: I looked it up, and the USAAF was formed on September 18th, 1947. Two years after this dogfight supposedly took place, im kind of doubting the truth behind this account...anyone else?
-
Uhm....im no expert, but the author mentions that he thinks he is "hottest pilot in the USAAF" but the USAAF was formed AFTER WW2, during the war it was the Army Air Corps, or something of this nature, right...?
EDIT: I looked it up, and the USAAF was formed on September 18th, 1947. Two years after this dogfight supposedly took place, im kind of doubting the truth behind this account...anyone else?
The United States Airforce (USAF) was created in 1947, the United States Army Airforce (USAAF) was created in 1942 by executive order that split the US Army into three autonomous components, Army Ground Forces, Service of Supply (later changed to Army Service Forces in 1943) and the Army Airforce. Prior to the executive order, the USAAF was the United States Army Air Corps (USAAC).
I don't dispute the fight took place, it very may well have but I don't think it was Hartmann at the controls of the German plane.
ack-ack
-
Hmm. Had the book in my hand when I said 45. That was the time mentioned in the chapter callled "Mustangs". If it was Summer 44 he'd probably have bumped into the Russian Shuttle run 51 escorts
One of the Mustang fights he talks about was when the Mustangs and Russian fighters got into it after the 109s dove through.
If it was the summer of 1944, wouldn't JG 52 have faced groups from the 15th AF over Romania as they defended Ploesti?
ack-ack
-
If it was the summer of 1944, wouldn't JG 52 have faced groups from the 15th AF over Romania as they defended Ploesti?
ack-ack
Yep, at the same time the Russian Shuttle 51s, including the 4th and 352nd also ran into German fighters while operating with the Italy 51s as part of that Russian shuttle run. Bob Goebel, a 15th AF 51 driver talks about that time in his book on his days with the 31st. Part of the conversation was about how some of the 8th 51 guys had a bit of ETO arrogance towards the 'minor leagues" of the MTO. That was until they got into combat with the LW drivers the 15th fighter pilots regularly met.
-
hehehe I remember reading that.He said the 8th guys had on theyre fancy jackets ,scarves and what have ya and looked like movie stars or something to that effect <G>
Pipz
-
Hmm. Had the book in my hand when I said 45. That was the time mentioned in the chapter callled "Mustangs". If it was Summer 44 he'd probably have bumped into the Russian Shuttle run 51 escorts
One of the Mustang fights he talks about was when the Mustangs and Russian fighters got into it after the 109s dove through.
Note that the first part of the chapter is a flashback from when Hartmann is reassigned from Me 262 training back to I/JG52 in Czechoslovakia... which would make that around March/April.
'Erich's squadron was ordered to operate from a grass strip at Zilistea, a few minutes' flying time from Ploesti. The date was 23 June 1944'
Then it comes back to I/JG52 in Czechoslovakia after his encounter with the Mustangs that forced him to bail out.
'Erich reviewed these five battles with the P-51 Mustangs, which had taken place in the spring of 1944, as he droned through his air journey back to Czechoslovakia. Almost a year had passed since he had battled the Americans in Rumania. By now, they would certainly be stronger.'
-
Note that the first part of the chapter is a flashback from when Hartmann is reassigned from Me 262 training back to I/JG52 in Czechoslovakia... which would make that around March/April.
'Erich's squadron was ordered to operate from a grass strip at Zilistea, a few minutes' flying time from Ploesti. The date was 23 June 1944'
Then it comes back to I/JG52 in Czechoslovakia after his encounter with the Mustangs that forced him to bail out.
'Erich reviewed these five battles with the P-51 Mustangs, which had taken place in the spring of 1944, as he droned through his air journey back to Czechoslovakia. Almost a year had passed since he had battled the Americans in Rumania. By now, they would certainly be stronger.'
Interesting to note the story in "Blonde Knight" the story of his fight with 8 Mustangs where he bails out and the Mustang leader blows past him with a wave. Bob Goebel describes a similar incident in his book taking place July 3, 44, which fits the timeframe, where his flight of 4 Mustangs boxed in a 109. As in Hartmann's story the 109 wingman dives away while the Mustangs follow the lead 109. And Goebel describes lining up for a camera pass on the 109 pilot after he bailed and blowing by the 109 driver and half wave-half saluting the guy in his chute.
Could be Hartmann was Goebel's 4th 109 claim.
Also interesting to note that the Shuttle run missions do not coincide with Hartmann's Mustang claims so he didn't run into the 352nd, and the 15th AF Mustang Groups didn't lose as many as Hartmann claimed.
Ahh the fog of war :)
-
Marseille's claims don't add up either. But again, there was not much chance he could have seen them all actually go down in such a short time.
-
found this interesting while surfing today ...
http://manaboutmayfair.blogspot.com/2006/04/aces-high-ww-ii.html
As others have said, I highly doubt this was Erich Hartmann.
-
As others have said, I highly doubt this was Erich Hartmann.
I highly doubt this has happened this way at all.
-
I highly doubt this has happened this way at all.
Heh, I was thinking that too. :D