109 Flaps

[storch]

true enough 1K3 with the exception of the 110 which is clearly overmodelled considerably.

[Bruno]

Originally posted by Angus
I find the 109 to turn quite nicely. Just don't mix it with a Spitty!


??????????????????

You don't find anything, you don't fly 109s. You just make things up.



Bozon,

The stall limiter number don't mean that much. If HTC will set the stall buzzer to go off a little earlier for 109s, you'd believe the 109 can really be pushed into the stall.

The stall limiter has nothing to do with the stall horn.

fyi, many folks deleted that stall horn many years ago. Some use a buffeting sound some use nothing. So it makes no difference at all if HTC 'sets the stall buzzer to go off a little earlier'. It doesn't change the fact that  the 109s have become more 'unstable' at low speeds with the recent patch.

Ik3,

Storch whines more the anyone about how planes are modeled in AH, just search his older posts. Take everything he says with a grain of salt.

Stang,

What's wierd to me is the difference in the stalls between 109 variants. All are very unstable, the F being the most to me, yet the g14 and g6 stalls seem much less harsh... anyone else get this feeling?

I agree there's a difference between models but I only have a sortie or two in the F-4 so I can't comment on it being worse.

Urchin,

It was hard as hell to get them to turn, but they could stick with a P-51 in the circlejerk. I don't know if that is true anymore, maybe the FMs have changed since I quit playing or something.

When did you quit playing? Before the last patch? I have flown 109s as much anyone over my years in AH and they have changed in terms of low speed stability. It can be over come but that's not really the point. Top speed, climb etc.. all basically the same. The G-14 is plagued by a bad FM in terms of speed etc.. but Pyro is aware and said he would take a look at it.

Bruno = Wotan btw...

[Grits]

Originally posted by Urchin
He's passing through the "I'm the bestest pilot EVAR, so if I lose the plane must be modelled wrong!" phase.

No, he is in the "I cant accept that I am not the bestest pilot EVAR, so the plane must be modelled wrong!" phase.

Several planes have legitimate issues with the performance numbers. The 190's are too heavy, the 109F is supposed to be at 1.42 ATA but it does not reach the top speed it should at that boost, the 109G-14 is slower than it should be in WEP, the F6F is 10-15mph too slow, the P-40b is around 400-500 fps short of its proper climb rate, the P-38L seems to have its speed a little too slow at high alt.

As I have said all along in every "LW planes are porked" or "109s changed" thread, I think the pure measureable performance numbers are very close in the majority of planes, and it is not a LW only 3-5 percent deficit. Its as Kweassa has pointed out so clearly with his turn rate/radius test, its the inability for the 109 and 190 to easily reach their max AoA without dramatic loss of stability in the roll axis that is the problem. This has huge ramifications in a turn fight and makes the 109s and 190s FEEL like they turn much worse than they actually do because its soooooo freaking hard to ride the edge of stall with out losing roll stability.

[DoKGonZo]

Originally posted by Grits
...  Its as Kweassa has pointed out so clearly with his turn rate/radius test, its the inability for the 109 and 190 to easily reach their max AoA without dramatic loss of stability in the roll axis that is the problem. This has huge ramifications in a turn fight and makes the 109s and 190s FEEL like they turn much worse than they actually do because its soooooo freaking hard to ride the edge of stall with out losing roll stability.

Yeah! What they said!

And this shows up not just in flat turns, but also pulling (or trying to pull) over the top of a loop - leaving the LW planes with, well, nothing to work with in either manouever plane. At least not compared to their contemporaries.

I personally care a lot less about flaps than about the snap-spin and stability issues. I also care about the acceleration issues - which may or may not be related to the weight/power problems.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Grits
Several planes have legitimate issues with the performance numbers. The 190's are too heavy, the 109F is supposed to be at 1.42 ATA but it does not reach the top speed it should at that boost, the 109G-14 is slower than it should be in WEP, the F6F is 10-15mph too slow, the P-40b is around 400-500 fps short of its proper climb rate, the P-38L seems to have its speed a little too slow at high alt.
 

Our P-40B is at least 20 mph too slow at critical altitude (332 mph, should be 352-355 mph).

The P-38L doesn't model full rated power, but models the USAAF derating instead. The derated power settings are what the AAF placed in their manual, carrying over the charts from the P-38J verbatim (which had different engines than the L model). Allison and Lockheed rated the F30 engines on the P-38L at 1,725 hp in WEP as opposed to 1,600 hp for the P-38J. If the AH2 P-38L were modeled with full factory rated power, there would be an increase in speed (at all altitudes), climb rate and acceleration. While this would be happily received by the fans of the P-38, it would not be well received by most others.

As to the 109s: I went offline and tested each plane at their limits. There is not doubt that the 109s become extremely twitchy at high AoA, requiring a lot of rudder work to offset. With a little practice, you can deal with it. In contrast, the P-51s were not nearly as twitchy. They would drop a wing just like the 109s, but required notably less rudder dancing to fly at the edge.

I did not find that the F-4 was worse than any other model. All were about the same in my estimation.

I do not recall when this started, largely because I don't fly 109s with great frequency as of late, with the exception of the 109F-4, which I use quite a bit in the TA for training. I still have AH1 on my machine, so I think I'll compare the respective 109 flight models (F-4, G-2, G-6) to what we have now. I'll report what I see.

My regards,

Widewing

[Kweassa]

Thanks for taking the time to testing it out.

 Although this part...

As to the 109s: I went offline and tested each plane at their limits. There is not doubt that the 109s become extremely twitchy at high AoA, requiring a lot of rudder work to offset. With a little practice, you can deal with it.

 ...is subject to debate - since obviously that a 'little practice' doesn't seem to subdue the malevolent attitude of the 109s nearly enough.

 We've got people in AH who've been flying Luftwaffe planes for a decade now, since days of AW. I myself, while never a good pilot, have been using 109 for years since the day I joined Aces High in version 1.05.

 If people like us can't adapt to such volatile behavior of the plane, frankly I'm stumped about just how much more 'little practice' we all need, to be able to use the 109s good enough to 'have a good amount of advantage over the P-51/P-47 in slow speed maneuvering'.

 Kinda depressing.. actually. To find out that we are wholly incapable of doing something that is possible with just 'a little practice'... and breaking out into frustration so intense and stressful.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Widewing
I still have AH1 on my machine, so I think I'll compare the respective 109 flight models (F-4, G-2, G-6) to what we have now. I'll report what I see.

I checked the AH1 FM for the 109s. Handling gradually degrades down with each increase is power. Thus, the 109F-4 is smooth right up to the limit with nary a twitch. However, the 109G-10 was far more prone to twitch at the limit. However, it is still less so than the current crop of 109s, although I can manage the current ones well enough.

I would not classify the AH2 109s as unstable. They are very stable. They just tend to get a bit nervous at the limit when maneuvering at high AoA, regardless of airspeed.

My regards,

Widewing

[Grits]

Originally posted by Widewing
Allison and Lockheed rated the F30 engines on the P-38L at 1,725 hp in WEP as opposed to 1,600 hp for the P-38J. If the AH2 P-38L were modeled with full factory rated power, there would be an increase in speed (at all altitudes), climb rate and acceleration. While this would be happily received by the fans of the P-38, it would not be well received by most others.

Well thats the thing, I dont care if its well received or not, all planes Axis or Allied should be as accurate as possible within the capability of AH's program and let the chips fall where they may.

[Bruno]

. The derated power settings are what the AAF placed in their manual, carrying over the charts from the P-38J verbatim (which had different engines than the L model). Allison and Lockheed rated the F30 engines on the P-38L at 1,725 hp in WEP as opposed to 1,600 hp for the P-38J. If the AH2 P-38L were modeled with full factory rated power, there would be an increase in speed (at all altitudes), climb rate and acceleration. While this would be happily received by the fans of the P-38, it would not be well received by most others.

None of the planes in AH are modeled to 'factory ratings'. There's no evidence I have ever seen that shows the P-38L was flown operationally in any meaningful numbers at 1,725 hp. If you have some reliable info please post it.

 In FB/AEP/PF they model 2 P-38Ls, one at 1600hp and one 1725hp. There were many long discussions over this issue over at UBI and no one has presented any evidence that shows 1725hp was used operationally in any meaningful numbers. Over at Zeno's Warbirds there's a chart for the 1725hp P-38L. I believe Vermilion and HT went through a discussion on Factory Specs sometime ago, mostly related to VVS planes.

As to the 109s: I went off line and tested each plane at their limits. There is not doubt that the 109s become extremely twitchy at high AoA, requiring a lot of rudder work to offset. With a little practice, you can deal with it. In contrast, the P-51s were not nearly as twitchy. They would drop a wing just like the 109s, but required notably less rudder dancing to fly at the edge.

I have flown 109s almost exclusively in AH since '99. I was here for various FMs changes including the infamous 1.04 FM. What ever you discover in your off line comparisons is almost pointless in how it relates to a real game situation.

The current 109s are 'unstable' they depart and wobble at all speeds, depending on AoA, a trait the real 109s never had. Certainly not more so then any of the heavier Ami fighters.

It's not just about 'managing' the instability, it's about being able to 'fight'. Currently if any 109 gets on my tail any quick, hard maneuver is enough to send the attacker into series of wobbles where by he loses all initiative and speed. Or else he flies straight and runs away. In a fight (real fight not one of those cherry picking high speed runs) the 109 is limited by what it can reasonable do when attacking and when attacked the instability limits the 109 options. None of these can't be overcome or managed but that's hardly the point. It is something never modeled before in AH, or in any other game (those others games that HT and crew had modeled included) and never mentioned anecdotally by real 109 pilots. It does remind me of WBs where by they manipulated the CoG of plane to tweak the FMs.

It's not right and should be looked at.

Back O/T

Flaps will do nothing to help the instability the 109s have.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Bruno
None of the planes in AH are modeled to 'factory ratings'. There's no evidence I have ever seen that shows the P-38L was flown operationally in any meaningful numbers at 1,725 hp. If you have some reliable info please post it.

 In FB/AEP/PF they model 2 P-38Ls, one at 1600hp and one 1725hp. There were many long discussions over this issue over at UBI and no one has presented any evidence that shows 1725hp was used operationally in any meaningful numbers. Over at Zeno's Warbirds there's a chart for the 1725hp P-38L. I believe Vermilion and HT went through a discussion on Factory Specs sometime ago, mostly related to VVS planes.

Factory rated engine rigging was not common in the ETO and MTO. I have talked with pilots and mechanics who claimed that some pilots insisted upon the engines being rigged for the higher output. However, this required re-indexing the props to allow higher RPM. Turbo regulators were adjusted and there were several other things that needed to be done.

I do not think that we can ever determine how common the 1,725 hp rigging was within the AAF. That makes it tough to justify a change. Nonetheless, both Allison and Lockheed clearly show the full 1,725 hp WEP rating in their documentation for the engines and the finished fighters. P-38 crews have stated that the engines were re-rigged for 1,600 hp before delivery to operational squadrons. I do not know if this was done at the factory or in overseas assembly depots.

Either way, I do not expect the P-38L to get changed in AH2. I'd rather see the 109s, P-40B and F6F get adjusted, we have good evidence for those.

My regards,

Widewing

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Bruno
I have flown 109s almost exclusively in AH since '99. I was here for various FMs changes including the infamous 1.04 FM. What ever you discover in your off line comparisons is almost pointless in how it relates to a real game situation.

The current 109s are 'unstable' they depart and wobble at all speeds, depending on AoA, a trait the real 109s never had. Certainly not more so then any of the heavier Ami fighters.

It's not just about 'managing' the instability, it's about being able to 'fight'. Currently if any 109 gets on my tail any quick, hard maneuver is enough to send the attacker into series of wobbles where by he loses all initiative and speed. Or else he flies straight and runs away. In a fight (real fight not one of those cherry picking high speed runs) the 109 is limited by what it can reasonable do when attacking and when attacked the instability limits the 109 options. None of these can't be overcome or managed but that's hardly the point. It is something never modeled before in AH, or in any other game (those others games that HT and crew had modeled included) and never mentioned anecdotally by real 109 pilots. It does remind me of WBs where by they manipulated the CoG of plane to tweak the FMs.

It's not right and should be looked at.

Personally, I'd look at the slats as being related to this issue. Just a hunch.

Tonight after fighting off hordes for an hour, I stopped by the TA and took up a 109G-14. Ren and Kempek were dueling and I played tag with the G-14. I had no trouble remaining with them. I did have to fly it mightly close to the edge, and it was getting antsy.

Later, I mixed it up with Taurus45, who was in a Spitfire Mk.VIII. I found that high g inputs usually caused a minor departure, quickly caught but still annoying. These occurred after the slats deployed, but not WHEN the slats deployed. I was satisfied that the G-14 could be very effective against the Spit8, but I used tactics that suited the 109 rather than fighting to the Spit's strengths. I did notice that when coming over the top slow and inverted, the G-14 would destablize in the yaw axis, meaning that the nose would wander excessively and didn't respond to rudder well. I didn't care for that as it took time to gather it up and resulted in a lost opportunity for a good planform shot because I couldn't get the plane to yaw left. I don't think that's related to the high AoA wiggle, but it seems like an unusual behavior to me.

My regards,

Widewing

[Bruno]

the G-14 would destablize in the yaw axis, meaning that the nose would wander excessively and didn't respond to rudder well. I didn't care for that as it took time to gather it up and resulted in a lost opportunity for a good planform shot because I couldn't get the plane to yaw left. I don't think that's related to the high AoA wiggle, but it seems like an unusual behavior to me.

That's basically the problem, the yaw axis. I had a similar experience in the K-4. I went up, rolled inverted and watched as a Spit squirted through underneath. As I tried to get the nose down (slats weren't out, speed was about 260 mph, combat trim was off) to get in behind him the plane began to yaw and I watched as the 'ball' slapped back and forth. No amount of rudder would stabilize it and I kind of fell over but was able to right myself. By then the fight was over with the Spit high tailing it to ack. The same thing happened with the G-14 when I fought a P-51. I ended up clipping a tree that time as I was very low.

As for whent he slats go out thats been like that since the betas. A little wobbly but you can a handle on it rather quickly.



For the P-38L and Combat Tour:

Since there is talk of pilot earned attributes I could envision a 1725 HP P-38L as well as high known boosts for other aircraft (25lb Spit XVI, 1.98ata K-4 etc). These could be reasonably limited by allowing them to the 'bestest' pilots. I don't if HT would agree.

[Kweassa]

Just out of curiosity, how much improvement in deck speed would the 1,725hp P-38L have?

 I play both games. AH is my main dish, but for every 2 hours of AH, I also play about one hour of IL2/FB/AEP/PF. I found I couldn't catch a P-38L(late) with a Bf109G-10 on the deck, and had to use D-9s to chase it down.

 Seemed to me it did at least about 370mph at deck.. is this figure correct?

[justin_g]

About that: http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/SpeedChart.html

[Urchin]

Originally posted by Bruno

Urchin,

When did you quit playing? Before the last patch? I have flown 109s as much anyone over my years in AH and they have changed in terms of low speed stability. It can be over come but that's not really the point. Top speed, climb etc.. all basically the same. The G-14 is plagued by a bad FM in terms of speed etc.. but Pyro is aware and said he would take a look at it.

Bruno = Wotan btw...

Yea Wotan, I quit playing a long time before the 109 patch.  I played a little bit in H2H last month, I didn't notice all that much of a difference in the K-4, although I'd have lost knife fights with Spits and Ki-84s anyway back before it was changed.  

I'd probably have to resubscribe and fly a new 109 against not turny planes and see what I think of it.