quote:

Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
Great article, thanks for posting that.

What I took out of it was a testament to how well the BF109 flight model was crafted in IL2.

The description of the handling nuances could read as a review of what we have in game (sans the need for manual prop adjustment).

It seems to me Oleg has been talking to the right people.

Agree but the presence of the floor switch does suggest that the auto-pitch mechanism may be out of order or removed.
The IL2 model is not that hard to fly on manual prop just by listening and having keys or buttons for + and - 5%.
I've certainly gotten a lot of good performance that way but then I always loved driving manual shift cars and dislike
automatics with some passion, they take me away from road-awareness is the best I can say and they're 'soft'.

quote:

Originally posted by M_Gunz:
What he said about the tilted gear wheels ground contact -- never seen it written before and a huge plus as to how good
he is for picking that up.

Basic camber thrust. Cars (in performance applications), motorcycles (especially), even bicycles - should inform most people of what is going on.

This is NOT a jab at you, only a comment/question about people at large - do they really have a hard time getting that? It seemd so basic and obvious.

That's okay with me, most good IQ tests (like Mensa's) do pose questions involving the simple and obvious.
The hardest part of so much of basic science and math is also the simple and obvious, most people look only
for the difficult and obscure or shy away because they believe it has to be that, then take their own failure
as proof they are right. I first read that in a book about great scientists back in 4th grade, it's one of
the things a couple of them including Einstein was quoted on. It's the implications and applications that
get complicated and gnarly.

quote:

Originally posted by M_Gunz:

quote:

Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
Great article, thanks for posting that.

What I took out of it was a testament to how well the BF109 flight model was crafted in IL2.

The description of the handling nuances could read as a review of what we have in game (sans the need for manual prop adjustment).

It seems to me Oleg has been talking to the right people.

Agree but the presence of the floor switch does suggest that the auto-pitch mechanism may be out of order or removed.
The IL2 model is not that hard to fly on manual prop just by listening and having keys or buttons for + and - 5%.
I've certainly gotten a lot of good performance that way but then I always loved driving manual shift cars and dislike
automatics with some passion, they take me away from road-awareness is the best I can say and they're 'soft'.

I was thinking the same very thing gunz about the floor switch.

So what is the point? I have a article on Charles Lindberg flying an early 109 and he raved about it. You can find any number of pilot reviews with opposing opinions, so they really all cancel each other out.

The only objective thing for a flight sim designer to do is to take the type and size of airfoils a plane has, it's power and drag, wieght, weight distribution etc, and plug them into a sim engine.

Poor little boys who got shot down posting why Oleg should disable their opponents for them instead of learning how to fly are amusing though.......

quote:

Originally posted by FoundryWork:
So what is the point? I have a article on Charles Lindberg flying an early 109 and he raved about it. You can find any number of pilot reviews with opposing opinions, so they really all cancel each other out.

Do you feel that article was saying the 109E is bad? Did you bother to read the whole thing? Lot of good points there.
You have problems with an objective view?

quote:

Poor little boys who got shot down posting why Oleg should disable their opponents for them instead of learning how to fly are amusing though.......

Who asked for anything in IL2 to be changed? You think Oleg wasn't aware of the 109 losses during landings?
Did you know that Oleg has flown a 109 as well? Might be a Buchon but I don't think that matters much.

Putting German planes down is just a reflex with Buzzsaw, he has to or he will die horribly.

quote:

Originally posted by FoundryWork:
Poor little boys who got shot down posting why Oleg should disable their opponents for them instead of learning how to fly are amusing though.......

I see you'll fit in just nicely around here

Full of juicy statements like this:

'Multiple maneuvers seemed to result in a notable decay in speed, particularly whenever the leading edge slats deployed; a stark contrast to the Spitfire, whose elliptical wings retain energy nicely under sustained ‘g’. The Messerschmitt was paying the price for its high wing loading.'

quote:

Originally posted by Blue_5:
Full of juicy statements like this:

'Multiple maneuvers seemed to result in a notable decay in speed, particularly whenever the leading edge slats deployed; a stark contrast to the Spitfire, whose elliptical wings retain energy nicely under sustained ‘g’. The Messerschmitt was paying the price for its high wing loading.'

on the other hand what he doesn't mention is the 109 is one of the best accelerating fighters of ww 2.

probably because in these later tests with these old birds no one would want to burn out the db engine, EVER!

I have a quote from one ww 2 109 pilot who said they ALWAYS FLEW WIDE OPEN IN THE COMBAT ZONE.

what I don't understand about the spit quote is a big elliptical wing should really produce a lot of drag when turned aggressively unlike the 109's wing that shouldn't. Delta wings are well known for this same thing also. It has to do with the airfoil aspect ratio I believe.

quote:

Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Putting German planes down is just a reflex with Buzzsaw, he has to or he will die horribly.

And there are those, from what I have read here, think the 109 was perfect with no deficiencies. They get mighty defensive when any of these deficiencies are mentioned.

quote:

Originally posted by stalkervision:

quote:

Originally posted by Blue_5:
Full of juicy statements like this:

'Multiple maneuvers seemed to result in a notable decay in speed, particularly whenever the leading edge slats deployed; a stark contrast to the Spitfire, whose elliptical wings retain energy nicely under sustained ‘g’. The Messerschmitt was paying the price for its high wing loading.'

on the other hand what he doesn't mention is the 109 is one of the best accelerating fighters of ww 2.

probably because in these later tests with these old birds no one would want to burn out the db engine, EVER!

I have a quote from one ww 2 109 pilot who said they ALWAYS FLEW WIDE OPEN IN THE COMBAT ZONE.

what I don't understand about the spit quote is a big elliptical wing should really produce a lot of drag when turned aggressively unlike the 109's wing that shouldn't. Delta wings are well known for this same thing also. It has to do with the airfoil aspect ratio I believe.

For our purposes, ignore the shape of the wing. There are two types of drag that are very important here:

One is parasite drag, which becomes stronger the faster you go. Bigger wings create more parasite drag.

The other is induced drag, which is the drag incurred from the wings producing lift. A bigger wing creates less induced drag than a small wing if they're doing the same lifting.

This is a very rough approximation that will have some inaccuracies if you pick it apart in detail, but it is sufficient for explaining the flight tester's comment. The Spitfire suffers less induced drag than the 109 through hard turns and loops, especially at the low-medium speed range where the parasite drag from its larger wing is less noticeable.

For its time though, the 109E was the superior plane.
I think the use of the airframe was really extended through out the war out of necessity. This doesn't mean it was the best design and possibly out grew its capabilities by 43, however German engineering made subtle improvements so it could be piloted with ease.

I say out grew, meaning that the newer engines and higher altitudes achieved meant more speed and exposure to different stresses that come with those factors, that possibly the original airframe design was not intended or designed around. They had the plane, and it worked in the past, but i think it hit its zenith in 43.

The arguement about turning ability between spit and 109s is really subjective, and is true for any plane. It all depends on the speed and altitude the pilots are flying at. Under one condition one might excel over the other. You can get pretty harry interpretations from pilots this way, although i think any one of them will agree that 109s were the best climbers.

I found this interesting article while looking for spitfire aspect ratio.

"Why carson was wrong"

http://translate.google.com/tr...2FCarson.html&anno=2

nice info here.

quote:

I think the use of the airframe was really extended through out the war out of necessity.

Like the P47, P51, Yak series, Spitfire, and every other first line fighter that flew during the war.....

I don't really see anything new in the article. It is an opinion formed with very little experience in the airplane.

It is a good unbiased review although some his statements are ripe for misinterpretation.

quote:

The lack of propeller governing aroused my suspicions about the workload associated with dogfighting in the aeroplane.

The VDM has a governor, hence the ability to select manual and automatic....

very nice reading !!
THX a lot fot the link.

BTW, hopefully sometimes nobody is still thinking that the "propeller hole" of the Emils in combat service housed a weapon..........

quote:

Originally posted by stalkervision:
I found this interesting article while looking for spitfire aspect ratio.

"Why carson was wrong"

http://translate.google.com/tr...2FCarson.html&anno=2

nice info here.

I love this article...

PS: 20 pages...

quote:

Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
This quote for example:

quote:

The lack of propeller governing aroused my suspicions about the workload associated with dogfighting in the aeroplane.

The VDM has a governor, hence the ability to select manual and automatic....

It appears to be disabled on that particular airplane as he also noted. He wasn't writing about all 109E's, just that one.

I did not see anything about the often-posted-as-fact asymmetric slat deployment, he seemed to like the slats and the low
speed handling enough to make positive comments about that.

How about the guessing about the pitot and the takeoff and stall speeds he was reading?

quote:

Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
"Bouncing Clouds-flying with the spirit of Erich Hartmann"

I never knew E.H. flew Emils

Just for the records, Erich Hartmann flew all these aircrafts during WWII:

Arado AR-66
Arado AR-96
Bucher Bu-131
Bucher Bu-133
Fiesler Fi-153
Focke-Wulf FW-44
Focke-Wulf FW-56
Focke-Wulf FW-58
Heinkel He-46
Heinkel He-50
Heinkel He-51
Junkers F-13
Junkers W-33
Junkers W-34
Klemm KL-25
Klemm KL-35
Messerschmitt Bf-108
Messerschmitt Bf-109B, C, D, E, F, G & K
Messerschmitt Me-262
Morane C-445
North American NAA-64


Models flown in combat:

Messerschmitt Me-109 G-7, G-10, G-14, G-16 and Me-109 K-4

(Source: The BLond Knight of Germany, ISBN 0-8306-8189-2, page 294)
---

and the f-104 and the f-86 after the war!

quote:

Originally posted by stalkervision:
I have a quote from one ww 2 109 pilot who said they ALWAYS FLEW WIDE OPEN IN THE COMBAT ZONE.

I have a quote from Adolph Galland that during the BoB Herman Goering forced 109 pilots to stay close with the bombers
and that made them fly too slow so he asked for a wing of Spitfires.

quote:

what I don't understand about the spit quote is a big elliptical wing should really produce a lot of drag when turned aggressively unlike the 109's wing that shouldn't. Delta wings are well known for this same thing also. It has to do with the airfoil aspect ratio I believe.

LOL! Especially the Delta wings/same reason part! Just beautiful!