Author Topic: the BF110G2 (Read 5214 times)

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #105 on:** March 18, 2002, 06:46:39 AM »

Just an important note to add here, while planes like 110 and 190A where considered valid fighters till the end of the war, Typhs, from the very beginning were RE FU SED as valid fighters and were limited mainly to jabo roles till the Tempest arrival.

Do you consider our Typh as a mediocre fighter, remarkabily inferior to the SpitIX? For example, as you can see in the charts, Typh is still faster than SpitIX at 20k. It does 400mph at 20k WEP OFF, 190A8 does 380mhp WEP off and near 400 WEP on, SpitIX does 375 WEP off and 380 WEP on. At 25k Typh does 375mph WEP off, same as 190A8 WEP off. Typh only lacks of substained climb performance above 20k, but this is very different than zoom climb capability.

HoHun · « **Reply #106 on:** March 18, 2002, 08:37:42 AM »

Hi Wilbus,

>I don't know if it compressed easily in real life or not, it doesn't in AH though.

Though I don't have any quantitative data, compressbility was the number one problem for the Typhoon. Unlike most other contemporary fighters, it featured a very thick wing that induced very poor characteristics at high Mach numbers. It's telling that the Tempest, which was very much superior to the Typhoon in all respects, was essentially a Typhoon with thin wings.

In short, I'd expect the Typhoon to run into compressiblity problems very easily.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #107 on:** March 18, 2002, 09:26:31 AM »

Well, HoHun, our Typh shines over almost any other fighter at control at very hi speeds, specially elevator control without need of using trims.

The only noticeable effect of the thick wing is a slower acceleration at already very hi speeds in a dive.

J_A_B · « **Reply #108 on:** March 18, 2002, 10:07:03 AM »

"Do you consider our Typh as a mediocre fighter, remarkabily inferior to the SpitIX"

What's the purpose of comparing a 1944 Typhoon to a 1942 Spitfire?

Even then, arena usage suggests that most people DO in fact consider the Spit to be a much better fighter than the Typhoon.

BTW, the main reason the Typhoon was rejected as a fighter was lack of performance at altitude. When the fighting is being done at 25-30K, how the plane handles at low altitudes is of little relevence. Typhoons were put to good use in the role of intercepting low-altitude FW-190 raids and other tasks too, in addition to ground attack.

J_A_B

Wilbus · « **Reply #109 on:** March 18, 2002, 11:00:20 AM »

Rgr Hohun, that thick wing should be a porblem,doesn't seem to be though.

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #110 on:** March 18, 2002, 12:41:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by J_A_B
[BWhat's the purpose of comparing a 1944 Typhoon to a 1942 Spitfire?[/B]

J_A_B, our Typhoon MkIb is a 1941 plane, the 1944 one was the Tempest.

illo · « **Reply #111 on:** March 18, 2002, 12:58:40 PM »

Quote

illo, sadly, rollrate is good almost only in the defensive

I don't agree with this one. At least for me it's one of most importand qualities of plane in offensive. It makes possible to orientate yourself fast to counter new situations. In fast closure attacks it makes easy to put leadshot on opponent doing almost any evasive. It's just something I prefer. Maybe just because im used to flying 190As.

Widewing · « **Reply #112 on:** March 18, 2002, 02:33:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by MANDOBLE

J_A_B, our Typhoon MkIb is a 1941 plane, the 1944 one was the Tempest.

This is not accurate. AH's version represents the typical Typhoon being delivered in 1944. This includes the bubble canopy and four blade propeller, neither of which were available in 1941. Moreover, early Typhoons suffered from several difficulties resolved in the version we fly. Weakness in the aft fuselage (resulting in the loss of the entire tailplane under high load), to name just one.

Don't try padding your argument by pointing to the early Mk.1b. We have a late war, fully developed Typhoon, not the early 1941, seriously problematic version.

Your point about compressibility is a good one, don't undermine your position by offering the under-developed early war examples in an effort add strength to that point. It'll stand on its own merit.

My regards,

Widewing

-ammo- · « **Reply #113 on:** March 18, 2002, 04:44:15 PM »

What has the typhoon have to do with the 110G2? Hijacker. You are just trying to discredit me with inconclusive claims. and Wmaker quoting an earlier post "just in case of post editing". Implying that I am dishonest? I stand by it today. Pyro had already stated that the D11 was going to be fixed and yet Santa was having a bad day and decided to rant. I just called him on it. For context read the entire thread. This entire post has been diluted and is now meaningless.

The 110 is not some beast that cant be beaten in AH. Far from it. However I don't believe it should accerate like it does, dive like it does, and I am not sure whether its top speed is correct.

This was never meant to be an attack on LW enthusiests. When our D11 was found to be overweight, I am glad HTC made it right. I would think that you folks that claim to want realistic flight models would want the same for your 110G2, no?

Does anyone of you LW enthusiests have comprehensive data on the 110 series of AC?

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #114 on:** March 18, 2002, 05:03:08 PM »

ammo, the data you are going to find everywhere is just top speed at some alt, dimensions, wingloading, weights and initial climb rate. Now try to find data to calculate propelor efficiency, drag coeficient, etc, it is like an impossible task.

Basically, you are not going to find easily anything definitive to find out how this plane should accelerate at any alt or dive from any alt.

What you feel about 110G is similar to what I feel about typh, and the only definitive factor we have against the superb hi speed control is just the wing thickness of the Typh.

Karnak · « **Reply #115 on:** March 18, 2002, 08:49:21 PM »

MANDOBLE,

Thanks for the direct response.

I don't know enough about Typhoon performance, but I have never read about it remaining remarkably light on the elevators as speed increased. I have read that about Spitfires, Mustangs and Fw190s though.

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #116 on:** March 18, 2002, 09:28:28 PM »

Karnak, if you want and have time, we can repeat all the tests battery done almost a month ago with other players, you will be very surprised with our typh and very surprised also with our D9 (for very different reasons).

Karnak · « **Reply #117 on:** March 18, 2002, 10:05:50 PM »

Not required Mandoble, I take your word for it. (I also know about the D-9's high speed handling in AH having flown it quite often).

Dashe · « **Reply #118 on:** March 18, 2002, 10:12:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by MANDOBLE
Basically, you are not going to find easily anything definitive to find out how this plane should accelerate at any alt or dive from any alt.

Perhaps, if really interested, freedom of information can get the intellegence reports from WW2? There are tons of information just waiting to be asked for so it can be released.

Dashe

Wilbus · « **Reply #119 on:** March 19, 2002, 02:23:19 AM »

Where do you ask for such things Dashe?