Author Topic: Observations on new 109s  (Read 3301 times)

Offline Stang

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6119
Observations on new 109s
« Reply #15 on: December 17, 2005, 10:40:54 PM »
You blew it, 421.. now pass the bowl, hogboy.

Offline Morpheus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10152
Observations on new 109s
« Reply #16 on: December 18, 2005, 02:01:13 AM »
lol 190s are a JOKE.

The D9 flys like its ready to dip a wing at 300mph. They are badly in need of a looksee. I do not beleive for a second that the same people building the first operational  jet bombers, jet fighters, and rocket powered fighters....  Where dumb enough to build the equivilant of what the 190s are right now in AH. They are dogs in every respect.

I dont blame shawk for running and Bnzing and doing nothing but E fighting in his D9. You get someone stuck on you in a 190 and you are screwed. Unless they are a complete newb and dont know how to use a throtle. Flying them is like punishing yourself.

Like i said, I do not beleive that the germans where stupid enough to build a plane that flys like the 190s fly in AH now. Yeah, they lost the war, but they lost it because they were getting gang banged from all sides. Not because they had chitty planes.

The flaps NEED to be fixed. Please god fix the flaps on the 109s atleast. They are wrong, we know this. Its been proven, over and over and over... It is a real shame that a plane like the A8, which was the best A version of them all, is such a piece of crap in AH. It was said to be on par with the P47s of its day. A B26 could out turn the A8's we have now.... Not to mention handle better at low speed.  Give me a B26 and I'll show you.

Oh yeah. Please fix the 109s' flaps.

One more thing... Before someone goes saying I am calling HT and pyro dumb i didnt. I just do not beleive they are modeled anywhere near what they where in real life. From all the pilot's i've heard and read about talking about the 190s and 109s... They just do not seem close to what we got.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2005, 02:12:29 AM by Morpheus »
If you don't receive Jesus Christ, you don't receive the gift of righteousness.

Offline bozon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6037
Observations on new 109s
« Reply #17 on: December 18, 2005, 03:12:53 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Hajo
And the flap problem can aleviate that.
...
Going over records, first hand accounts and gun cam.  I don't think they were as bad in real life as they appear to be here.
...
Still no flap deployment along with the leading edge slats which should give the 109 better low speed handling.  When on runway I hear the slats before take off....and when breaking when landing.  Hear nothing when flying but the stall horn....and one would think that when leading edge slats deployed ones nose would go up even minutely, but should be noticable....I notice nothing?

If you allow 109 to daploy flaps at high speeds you'd have to allow it for all planes. I'd rather have ALL planes restricted to flap use under 200 mph, including P51/47/38. The marge - pull out flaps - turn hard routine is BS. I do believe it was possible in real life but I also believe stalls and spins were harder to recover from in real life. Just my opinion, no hard evidence.

when the slats deploy you do not gain any significant amount of lift. What they do is delay the stall and allow further increase of the attack angle. Then you get the extra lift.

Quote

Originally posted by Kweassa
It doesn't pull turns like Spits, nor can it follow even P-47s in a turn, as a matter of fact. It doesn't have bullshi* Hizookas nor easy-fire 50cals... it can't pop flaps out at 250mph and start outmaneuvering the first merge - which by the way, every US fighter at least more than twice the weight of 109s can pull off in a dime. All it can do is climb and accelerate.

From your turn ability test:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=166537
Type (SL angle used)
- time to complete under normal setting (average turn speed), radius
- time to complete under one notch of flap (average turn speed), radius
- time to complete under full flap (average turn speed), radius

the worst turning 109:
Bf109K-4 (1.0/1.2/1.2) *NEW*
- 18 seconds (183mph), 233.3m
- 19 seconds (163mph), 220.4m
- 19 seconds (142mph), 191.5m

P-47D-40 (0.05)
- 24 seconds (159mph), 271.6m
- 22 seconds (151mph), 236.4m
- 23 seconds (124mph), 203.0m

The worst turning 109, even without flaps, turns both tighter and quicker than a Jug even with some flaps. The only advantage of the jug is when flying extremely slow with full flaps out. The K4 will still complete a turn 4 whole seconds quicker (about 25% better). Meaning, at anything but a scissor fight that got real slow, advantage to the 109.

That being said, the 109 are extremely unstable at slow speeds relative to some other planes. The P51 and La7 stall increadibly gently though I recall they were notorious in that respect. THAT aspect should be looked in to.

Bozon
Mosquito VI - twice the spitfire, four times the ENY.

Click!>> "So, you want to fly the wooden wonder" - <<click!
the almost incomplete and not entirely inaccurate guide to the AH Mosquito.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGOWswdzGQs

Offline JB42

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 558
Observations on new 109s
« Reply #18 on: December 18, 2005, 03:43:03 AM »
And yet I continue to rack up plenty of kills in them, weird huh?
" The only thing upping from the CV are lifejackets." - JB15

" Does this Pony make my butt look fat?" - JB11

" I'd rather shoot down 1 Spit in a 109 than 10 109s in a Spit." - JB42

Offline Wilbus

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4472
Observations on new 109s
« Reply #19 on: December 18, 2005, 03:49:36 AM »
Quote
If you allow 109 to daploy flaps at high speeds you'd have to allow it for all planes. I'd rather have ALL planes restricted to flap use under 200 mph, including P51/47/38. The marge - pull out flaps - turn hard routine is BS. I do believe it was possible in real life but I also believe stalls and spins were harder to recover from in real life. Just my opinion, no hard evidence.


UH?! Why would they have to be enabled for all planes? Shouldn't that be the same as "because P51's can deploy them at 400mph that should have to be done for all planes"?

It's been PROVEN the 109's flaps could be deployed in far greater speeds then they can be now (it's what? 170mph now?). Pyro mentioned in a post not long ago they were suposed to have been changed for the latest release but they were somehow "overlooked". Well, we've waited 6 or 7 years for em to be changed guess we can wait a few more versions.

There is nothing that says all planes should have flap changes because the 109's get it Bozon.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2005, 04:07:52 AM by Wilbus »
Rasmus "Wilbus" Mattsson

Liberating Livestock since 1998, recently returned from a 5 year Sheep-care training camp.

Offline FTJR

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1996
Observations on new 109s
« Reply #20 on: December 18, 2005, 04:01:09 AM »
Wil beat me too it.....
Bring the Beaufighter to Aces High
Raw Prawns      

B.O.S.S. "Beaufighter Operator Support Services" 
Storms and Aeroplanes dont mix

Offline BigR

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 933
Observations on new 109s
« Reply #21 on: December 18, 2005, 04:04:11 AM »
One thing no one ever takes into account in these "discussions" is that most AH fights are on the deck. Once you add 15-20k to these fights, the performance gaps really close up.  Now I’m not saying the LW planes don't need some looking into, but it’s silly to compare what we do in the MA to actual WWII fights. TOD will be a much more fair comparison when it’s released. You watch...in TOD, the LW planes will do much better than they do in the MA.

Offline Wilbus

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4472
Observations on new 109s
« Reply #22 on: December 18, 2005, 04:08:38 AM »
Edit for the post above:

What you want is to dumb the game down even further then it is now. Next step will be making all plane turn equal and have the same max speed because noone should have an unfair advantage...


Bozon, this is not ment as an attack on you nor any kind of flame. Just saying...
« Last Edit: December 18, 2005, 05:11:59 AM by Wilbus »
Rasmus "Wilbus" Mattsson

Liberating Livestock since 1998, recently returned from a 5 year Sheep-care training camp.

Offline gatt

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2441
Observations on new 109s
« Reply #23 on: December 18, 2005, 04:56:35 AM »
I dont think that deploying flaps on 109 will improve his Main Arcade flying effectiveness a lot. IMO is more a matter of general FM stability (compression, etc.): maximum speeds at altitudes and ROC are not everything.

Another real pig, as far as stability is concerned, is the C.205. I've been flying it for ages and, even compared to 109s, she is a real unstable a/c. I guess his FM has been left behind as well. When I fly a 205 I understand how pig is compared to a 109, when I fly a 109 I understand how pig is compared to a P51. How could they be so different in handling in the real thing? AFAIK, axis air forces lost the war due to numbers, bombing and attrition (and allied tanks on runways, I know :)), not becouse a/c where so poor in comparison.

Flying P51s and Spitfires in combat is so easy that our whole squad (and we are about 10) got bored a long time ago. I dont say that P51 and Spits FMs are wrong, I simply say that 205, 109, 190 are so pig-ish in comparison that something could be wrong. Some FM are so forgiving that you can even dogfight without looking at your most important gauges. Some others are just the opposite. Too much difference, not in general performance (speed, ROC), rather in flyability (sp?).

And racking up kills in a 109K means nothing. The whole Main Arcade is so full of "takeoff, fly into the nearest furball, f**k the SA, kill and die, so you dont have even to loose time to rtb" (TM) gamers that even a well flown K-4 or 205 can do very good.

I'm afraid that the real TOD will have very few gamers flying in the LW/RA ranks. Like in Scenarios, where you have to pick up walk-ons and move entire flights from allied to axis to be able to begin. Flying axis can be rewarding but, after the last G-10/K-4/30mm things and comparing FMs after every patch, is getting less and less fun. When a game is not fun/intersting for both sides some people could stop paying and playing. The last step of the Main Arcade will be a "what-if 1946?" arena, with americans and british fighting Red Stars above Berlin; i.e. Spitfires and Ponies fighting La7. Ah, I was forgetting Nikis. Oh, look, it is already happening :D
« Last Edit: December 18, 2005, 05:04:48 AM by gatt »
"And one of the finest aircraft I ever flew was the Macchi C.205. Oh, beautiful. And here you had the perfect combination of italian styling and german engineering .... it really was a delight to fly ... and we did tests on it and were most impressed." - Captain Eric Brown

Offline AGO

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8
      • http://www.4stormo.it
Observations on new 109s
« Reply #24 on: December 18, 2005, 05:55:19 AM »
Holy worlds Gatt an Hajo

nothing to be added, you said all:

No more Sa, LWs FMs at the worlst and Allied at the best.....  

I am very sad, after all these years,  to admit AH is more & more a shoot'em up game and less & less a simulation. :furious
« Last Edit: December 18, 2005, 05:58:49 AM by AGO »

Offline Furball

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15780
Re: Re: Observations on new 109s
« Reply #25 on: December 18, 2005, 06:01:43 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Zazen13
something like 90% of all air to air kills were tallied by 10% of the pilots on all sides.

Zazen


maybe HTC have modelled the 109 perfectly then and it is unable to be flown well by 90% of AH players with only 10% able to ;)

well done Pyro et co.!
I am not ashamed to confess that I am ignorant of what I do not know.
-Cicero

-- The Blue Knights --

Offline Rotax447

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 112
Observations on new 109s
« Reply #26 on: December 18, 2005, 06:30:11 AM »
From everything I have read, the pucker factor in landing a 109, was akin to shooting a carrier approach at night.  You had a very narrow speed/power range to play with.

I have flown for and against LW in the SE arena.  When matched against contemporary 47's 51's, LaLa's they give as good as they take.  The fights come down to pilot skill, and the luck of the bounce.

IMO, what kills the LW, and to a lesser extent the 47 and 51 in the MA, is the one, two, LaLa, Spit punch.  I'll fight a LaLa or Spit at 1K and closing in the MA.  When I have a LaLa at one 1K, with Spit 1K behind him, I might as well pull out my .45 end the fight then and their.  Gives them more time to find their next victim:-)

TOD should correct this by matching apples to apples, and I believe we are all in for some fun fights.

Offline Grendel

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 877
      • http://www.compart.fi/icebreakers
Observations on new 109s
« Reply #27 on: December 18, 2005, 07:02:27 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Rotax447
From everything I have read, the pucker factor in landing a 109, was akin to shooting a carrier approach at night.  You had a very narrow speed/power range to play with.
 


Bf 109 D:
"The controls, sensitive ailerons, and tail group were fully effective to the time the wheels touched the ground. So much for that."
- US Marine Corps major Al Williams. Source: Bf 109D test flight, 1938.

Me 109 G-2/G-6:
- Pokela has told me that he took special care to teach the proper take-off and landing on the Me. How about the Germans, I've heard they didn't believe you could fit the planes in our small fields?
"They spoke of how the final approach speed should be 220 km/h. That would overshoot the field, we said. We landed at 180. "
- Mauno Fräntilä, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association: Chief Warrant Officer Mauno Fräntilä.

Me 109 G-6:
In landing the Me was stable. The leading edge slats were quick and reliable, and they prevented the plane from lurching in slow speeds and made it possible to make "stall landings" to short fields. The problem in landings was the long nose, so the plane was partly controlled by touch in the final seconds of landing.
- Torsti Tallgren, Finnish post war fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Me 109 G-6:
"The Me was stable on landings. The quickly reacing automatic wing slats  negated any swaying on slow speeds and made it possible to make "stall landings" to small fields. The problem in stall landings was the long nose, which hindered visibility forward. Because this controlling at the last stages of landing was done partly by sense of touch on the controls."
- Torsti Tallgren, Finnish post war fighter pilot. Source: Interview of Torsti Tallgren by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

Me 109 G-6:
Landing was slightly problematic if the approach was straight, with slight overspeed at about 180 km/h. Landing was extremely easy and pleasing when done with shallow descending turn, as then you could see easily the landing point. You had a little throttle, speed 150-160 km/h, 145 km/h at final. You controlled the descent speed with the engine and there was no problems, the feeling was the same as with Stieglitz. If I recall correctly the Me "sits down" at 140-142 km/h.
The takeoff and landing accidents were largely result from lack of experience in training. People didn't know what to do and how to do it. As a result the plane was respected too much, and pilots were too careful. The plane carried the man, and the man didn't control his plane.
- Erkki O. Pakarinen, Finnish fighter pilot, Finnish Air Force trainer. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Me 109 G:
"Speed at 150 knots or less, gear select to DOWN and activate the button and feel the gear come down asymmetrically. Check the mechanical indicators (ignore the electric position indicators), pitch fully fine... fuel - both boost pumps ON. If you have less than 1/4 fuel and the rear pump is not on the engine may stop in the three-point attitude. Rad flaps to full open and wings flaps to 10 degrees to 15 degrees. As the wing passes the threshold downwind - take all the power off and roll into the finals turn, cranking the flap like mad as you go. The important things is to set up a highish rate of descent, curved approach. The aircraft is reluctant to lose speed around finals so ideally you should initiate the turn quite slow at about 100-105. Slats normally deploy half way round finals but you the pilot are not aware they have come out. The ideal is to keep turning with the speed slowly bleeding, and roll out at about 10 feet at the right speed and just starting to transition to the three point attitude, the last speed I usually see is just about 90; I'm normally too busy to look after that!
The '109 is one of the most controllable aircraft that I have flown at slow speed around finals, and provided you don't get too slow is one of the easiest to three point. It just feels right ! The only problem is getting it too slow. If this happens you end up with a very high sink rate, very quickly and absolutely no ability to check or flare to round out. It literally falls out of your hands !
Once down on three points the aircraft tends to stay down - but this is when you have to be careful. The forward view has gone to hell and you cannot afford to let any sort of swing develop. The problem is that the initial detection is more difficult. The aeroplane is completely unpredictable and can diverge in either direction. There never seems to be any pattern to this. Sometimes the most immaculate three pointer will turn into a potential disaster half way through the landing roll. Other times a ropey landing will roll thraight as an arrow!"
- Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109 G (Spanish version).

Me 109 G:
"I didn't notice any special hardships in landings."
-Jorma Karhunen, Finnish fighter ace. 36 1/2 victories, fighter squadron commander. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Me 109 G-2:
"Landing was normal."
-Lasse Kilpinen, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy"

Me 109 G:
"It was beneficial to keep the throttle a little open when landing. This made the landings softer and almost all three-point landings were successful with this technique. During landings the leading edge slats were fully open. But there was no troubles in landing even with throttle at idle."
-Mikko Lallukka, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy"

Me 109 G:
"Good in the Me? Good flying characterics, powerful engine and good take-off and landing characterics."
- Onni Kuuluvainen, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Me 109 G:
"Landing: landing glide using engine power and the following light wheel touchdown was easy and non-problematic. I didn't have any trouble in landings even when a tire exploded in my first Messerschmitt flight."
-Otso Leskinen, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Me 109 G:
"MT could "sit down" on field easily, without any problems. Of all different planes I have flown the easiest to fly were the Pyry (advanced trainer) and the Messerschmitt."
- Esko Nuuttila, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Me 109 G:
"Takeoff and landing are known as troublesome, but in my opinion there is much more rumours around than what actually happened. There sure was some tendency to swing and it surely swerved if you didn't take into account. But I got the correct training for Messerchmitt and it helped me during my whole career. It was: "lock tailwheel, open up the throttle smoothly. When the speed increases correct any tendency to swing with your feet. Use the stick normally. Lift the tailwheel and pull plane into the sky.
Training to Me? It depended on the teacher. I got good training. First you had to know all the knobs and meters in the cockpit. Then you got the advice for takeoff and landing. Landing was easy in my opinion. In cold weather it was useful to have some RPMs during the finals and kill throttle just before flaring."
- Atte Nyman, , Finnish fighter ace. 5 victories. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy"

Me 109 G:
There wasn't any special problems with landing.
- Reino Suhonen, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Me 109 G:
Landing: approach field with about 250 km/h speed. When turning to landing direction slow down to 200-210 and always try to land as close to the beginning of runway as possible, so you won't have problems in small fields. Gear is out, flaps out, radiator open - those operations were done at 220-240 km/h speed. Bring plane to landing direction's center and sit down on three points at 180 km/h.
- Pekka Tanner, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Offline CHECKERS

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1187
      • http://www.geocities.com/motorcity/1502/index.html
Re: Observations on new 109s
« Reply #28 on: December 18, 2005, 07:17:17 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Hajo
Decided to fly the 109s extensively see if anything has changed besides the obvious ammo loadout etc.  These are my opinions and not necesaarily the opinions of our sponsors

G14....imho on par or just a smidge better then the past G6.  Has a very small performance envelope as does the K4.  By envelope I mean at what speed the plane operates the best.  250 - 210 mph might as well fly a garbage truck.  Anything over 400 starts to stiffen and actually compress as did some 109s before.  But the "envelope seems to have narrowed.

K4 is worthless unless you want to fly around at exactly 400mph and take lead shots or HO's.  Maneuverability is horrible.  The climb rate seems to be slower the the old G10 which imho appears to have been a better fighter then either the K4 or the G14.

Flaps......still haven't been attended to.  When some of the models have leading edge slats to increase maneuverability why do they just about stall in a turn at 210 mph?  For an aircraft that shot down thousands of Allied Aircraft during WWII and was manufactured after WWII for some years by Spain because of it's success as a fighter.  Why is it so bad here?

Considering ammo lethality, handling at low speeds or speeds slightly in excess of 400mph the way it flies here it has to be near the bottom of the pack on aircraft chosen to fly.  In here just about everything handles much better in most areas then the 190s or 109s in this game.  If the FM is accurate in Aces High then how the hell did the LW Pilots have the victories they totaled during WWII?  We've got to get the Flaps situation rectified to make these planes viable aircraft in Aces High.  Be interested to see the sorties that 109s and 190s have in comparison to other aircraft in Aces High.

Again this is just my opinion....something seems different since the last version.  Of course there is a good chance I may be wrong.  But that would be highly unusuall :rofl


HALO, I agree with you about the 109's and the later comments on 190's, also ..... I liked the G 10, it was better than all of them .

   CHECKERS
Originally posted by Panman
God the BK's are some some ugly mo-fo's. Please no more pictures, I'm going blind Bet your mothers don't even love ya cause u'all sooooooooo F******* ulgy.

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Observations on new 109s
« Reply #29 on: December 18, 2005, 07:57:39 AM »
Landing the 109 in AH: Lovely ;)
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)