same mentality as 60 years, again now in il2?

[GRUNHERZ]

Oleg I just finisahed watching some of my LW guncamera films.

These films showed Bf109 and Fw190 attacking and scoring cannon HE hits on P38, Yak9, LA5, Mustang, B17 and Liberator.

Most were at extremly short range and showed up very clearly.


Here is what I saw every single time a 20mm HE round hit regardless of plane type.

A small quick flash of light, followed almost instantly by a small cloud of very light gray almost white smoke.

Once again every single hit was exactly the same, flash of light and light gray smoke.


Not one single hit showed BLACK smoke of any kind. And the cloud of smoke was very small compared to the effect in ILs, plus it was easy to see through.

The only time the target was hidden was if many many many rounds hit at same time, yet in IL2 a single hit hides the plane.


Please look into this oleg, and thanks for the communication.

[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: GRUNHERZ ]

[Oleg Maddox]

Originally posted by R4M:


Take a look into SWOTL's manual.General Kuprinski's talking about the 109. And what did he said about the 109's rollrate compared wit the 190's.


Do you really think that a 109, with the ailerons it had, where it had them, with the wing it had, with the round tips, with the anhedral angle of the wing, and with the lighter structure wing, will be able to EVEN APROACH the Fw190?.


[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]

I know that at different speeds and at the same altitude they have  different rollrate, say that on small speed FW-190 better, on middle speed - almost equal and on high speed 109 rolls better even with the more light force on the stik of 190.  

That is the acsioma.  

Also I know that is myth that on 109 wasn't possible to recover from a deep VERTICAL dive with the critical for airframe speeds. Both Soviet and German test say that it is almost equal to other planes...

That is my last post here.

Please wait for release and please be sure that all will be fine and will differs well from that demo.

[R4M]

Originally posted by Oleg Maddox:


I know that at different speeds and at the same altitude they have  different rollrate, say that on small speed FW-190 better, on middle speed - almost equal and on high speed 109 rolls better even with the more light force on the stik of 190.  

That is the acsioma.  

NOW we are talking about a completely different issue.

First of all let me tell you that I dont believe that at middle speeds (200-300mph) the Fw190 rolled worse or equal than the 109. The FW190 rollrate was at its highest peak just at that speed.

HOWEVER, and pending on what is found regarding the 109 stick forces at very high speeds I CAN believe that at very high speeds (where the 190's rollrate degraded significantly), the 109 could roll better...but only if the 109 stick forces were not as high as they are claimed to be.

But on the speed ranges from 120mph to 350mph IAS I still dont believe it.

Dont take me wrong, Oleg. Il2 is graphically impressive and has a detail I've NEVER seen before in a flight simulator. The demo is simply awesome for EVERYTHING...but the FM. And the FM is exactly what is the most important thing for me.

Il2 can be the best sim ever (box sim, and who knows, maybe Multiplayer in the future),I wont care so much about it if it wasnt so good.

I simply want to see an accurate FM in its place, and 109 rolling like or better than 190s is not what I expect from an accurate FM. That is my complain, wich does not detract from the fact that IL-2 shows a GREAT promise.

[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]

[Possi]

http://www.pczone.co.uk/guest/php3/openframe.php3?page=http://www.pczone.co.uk/guest/newreviews/printrev.php3?id=33893
 http://www.pilotenbunker.de/

[Oleg Maddox]

R4M,

In this case you should forget and don't play other sims too if you think that FM there is very correct    . Just kidding  

I told many times, I have no problem if smeone thinking that I'm wrong      

I'm not only aviation engineer(Graduated Moscow Aviation Institute), but I'm also real private pilot (not so good of course and fly almost only Yak-52, if you know what it is   ) and sure know what I do  

I told you that I will publish opinions of German WWII pilots...(including sepcial interviews of them) which are now accessible.... I will do it but not here and not on SimHQ.

That is really my last post here.  It is not nice to use AH developers page to discuss other sim, especially with me. I Very respect guys made AH as it is.

[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Oleg Maddox ]

[funkedup]

Dmitry nice post.  

[funkedup]

Pretty classy responses from Mr. Maddox too.  

[Zigrat]

yeah gotta admit oleg is a classy guy

hey mabye all the data we had is wrong. who knows? after all if i had been alive a few hundred years ago mabye i would have believed the world was flat.... mabye this is a similar thing?


actually i think the best way to resolve it is for funkedup to go talk to that 109 test pilot at chino and ask him how it handles! thats probably the best solution  

[AKSWulfe]

Originally posted by Hristo:
name one, please

Gunther Rall. In his interview on LuftWaffe Wings- Discovery channel. About 6 years ago.

I will look through my books tonite, and find more.
-SW

[Serapis]

While I had a hard time coming up with a direct comparison between the 190 and 109, I did find the following that suggests the high speed handling of the 109 should be similar to how it's modeled here.

Apparently, not all Soviet sources agree on the same things about the 109. Here are some translated excerpts from a Soviet Fighter Tactics manual I came across, posted by Luthier no less (good job, by the way, translating these materials), that seem to support heavy controls at high speeds. The link can be found at:Luthier's Excellent Site

 

 Soviet Fighter Tactics
 (Translated from Russian, 2000) http://luthier.stormloader.com/SFTacticsI.htm

… Me-109 dives rather well. It gains airspeed quickly and loses our fighters easily when in a dive. It is not recommended to follow a diving Me-109. It is best to stay above, slightly lowering your plane’s nose just to keep the enemy in sight, and dive into the Me-109 after it exits it’s dive.
Me-109 loses a great deal of altitude when exiting a dive. It is very difficult for a Me-109 to exit a deep dive at a small altitude. It is also very hard to alter direction during a high-speed dive. When it is needed to alter directions during a dive, Me-109 will usually end the attack and climb to repeat the attack in a new direction. This particular weakness of a Me-109 can be exploited by our fighters.

And,

…FW-190A has the following advantages compared to the Me-109G6: under 4,000 meters it is about 20-30 km/h faster in horizontal flight. It is easier to controland has better overall pilot visibility. It also has superior firepower.
FW-190 is inferior to Me-109G by the following criteria: it is substantially heavier than the Me-109G (wing loading of 206 kg per square meter) and thus its climb rate is worse. Above 4,500 meters is it slower in horizontal flight. Landing speed is higher. It is slower in a dive. There is no armor protection against attacks from below or the side.

Here are some recent Buchon flight impressions from the late Mark Hanna (who died in a Buchon in 1999 as a result of an in-flight fire.)

 

The roll rate is very good and very positive below about 250 mph. This is particularly true of the Charles Church's Collection clipped wing aircraft. Our round tipped aeroplane is slightly less nice to feel. With the speed further back the roll rate remains good, particularly with a bit of help from the rudder. Above 250 mph however the roll starts to heavy up and up to 300 or so is very similar to a P-51. After that it's all getting pretty solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningfull roll rates. Another peculiarity is that when you have been in a hard turn with the slats deployed, and then you roll rapidly one way and stop, there is a strange sensation for a second of so of a kind of dead area over the ailerons - almost as if they are not connected ! Just when you are starting to get worried they work again !

Pitch is also delighful at 250 mph and below. It feels very positve and the amount of effort on the control column needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right to me. As CL max is reached the leading edge slats deploy - together if the ball is in the middle, slightly asymmetrically if you have any slip on. The aircraft delights in being pulled into hard manuevering turns at these slower speeds. As the slats pop out you feel a slight "notching" on the stick and you can pull more until the whole airframe is buffeting quite hard. A little more and you will drop a wing, but you have to be crass to do it unintentionally. Pitch tends to heavy up above 250 mph but it is still easily manageable up to 300 mph and the aircraft is perfectly happy carrying out low-level looping maneuvers from 300 mph and below. Above 300 mph one peculiarity is a slight nose down trim change as you accelerate. This means that running in for an airshow above 300 mph the aeroplane has a slight tucking in sensation - a sort of desire to get down to ground level ! This is easily held on the stick or can be trimmed out but is slightly surprising initially. Maneuvering above 300, two hands can be required for more aggressive performance. EIther that or get on the trimmer to help you. Despite this heavying up it is still quite easy to get at 5G's at these speeds].
 So how does the aeroplane compare with other contemporary fighters ? First, let me say that all my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12 (54") and 2700 rpm. I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor. At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109. Other factors affecting the '109 as a combat plane include the small cramped cockpit. This is quite a tiring working environment, although the view out (in flight) is better than you might expect; the profuseion of canopy struts is not particularly a problem.

The full report can be found at: 109 page

This link also covers RAF testing of the 109E, which supports Hanna’s impressions and those of German Ace Franz Stigler, who had the following to offer:

 

What's the fastest you ever had a 109 in a dive?
I've taken it to about 680 to 750 km/hr at which point you needed 2 hands to pull it out of the dive.

Stigler also commented on having flown the Spitfire and enjoying the extra leverage offered by its stick. The 109E results indicated that only 40 lbs of stick force could be applied.

Charon

[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Charon ]

[Westy MOL]

Funny enough P-51 pilots thought thier plane was tops over the P-47 and P-38. Likwise the P-47 and P-38 pilots all thought they had the best planes over the other two also.

 So, for example, perhaps HTC and the other developers should follow suit and base P51, P38 and P47 perfomances on half century old pilot recollections, "my ride" favoritism and biased conjecture?

 I can also point folks to documents and stories from living USAAF pilots who says the P-47 could outclimb the ME 109, take enourmous battle damage and make it home. Or that nothing could touch the P-39 below 15k. That the P-51 could not only outturn the 109 but also 190 - as well as outclimb them too!  And quite a good number of P38 pilots firmly believe thier plane could out perfom the Lw aircraft in all aspects. If they want to ensure the P47/P51 or P38 performs accurately against thier real life counter parts.

 Or is it more sound and logical to use widely accepted AND available aircraft test reports that came from several different nations and build the best program you can to model that?

 I'm not saying anything bad about the WWII Soviet tests or documents. I've never seen them, never read them either. Not many have    It is simply that they are the new kid on the block and they'll have to under go debates I'm sure before they get accepted by the aviation community, let alone computer combat/flight sim fans, as defacto correct.

 Westy

[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Westy MOL ]

[AKSWulfe]

The fueding of personal planes doesn't end with Fighters Westy.

American bomber pilots typically held show-off matches between B17 and B24 crews. In a book I have at home, one B24 saw a B17 crew lower and ahead of them. They went into a dive and when they got close to the '17, they shut down the two outboard engines and flew past them and great speed.

I guess if we went by the accounts of the '17 crew members, the B24 would be one fast mamma jamma....

Anyways...
-SW

[Hristo]

Just to remind some of you who are testing rollrates in Il-2. All speeds are in kilometers per hour. Flying at 500 kph is 310 mph.

Gunther Rall ? said it ? OK, I believe you.

[AKSWulfe]

One of those Discovery Wings interviews where Gunther Rall was the guest (and he was on quite a few of them)... they show them as re-runs from time to time on the Discovery Wings network. Titled "Wings of the LuftWaffe" or something like that.
-SW

[Rude]

All this is great guys, however, if I can't logon to a multiplayer sim with at least 120 folks huntin each other down, it's not worth the effort for me personally, irregardless of the FM or the graphics.

Just wouldn't be much fun for this guy.