PDA

View Full Version : Real Life Sturmovik Aces?



Multimetal
08-25-2004, 05:53 PM
Does anyone know if there were any Sturmovik pilots IRL who became aces? I'm just curious as to the real defensive tactics used by IL2's vs. the ones the AI uses in the game, which pretty much amount to "fly along and hope that the armor holds up." The later IL2's actually seem to make pretty good dogfighters down low, with a tight turning circle and good armament. I doubt that a real Luftwaffe pilot would be much inclined to get into that kind of fight, though! Any info is appreciated!

Multimetal
08-25-2004, 05:53 PM
Does anyone know if there were any Sturmovik pilots IRL who became aces? I'm just curious as to the real defensive tactics used by IL2's vs. the ones the AI uses in the game, which pretty much amount to "fly along and hope that the armor holds up." The later IL2's actually seem to make pretty good dogfighters down low, with a tight turning circle and good armament. I doubt that a real Luftwaffe pilot would be much inclined to get into that kind of fight, though! Any info is appreciated!

PBNA-Boosher
08-25-2004, 06:07 PM
While not an ace, you may want to check out the story of Anna Yegorova. She was an IL2 pilot on the Eastern front, and a rather good one at that....

Boosher
_____________________________
"So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you..."
-Gandalf

p1ngu666
08-25-2004, 06:20 PM
btw, the earlier il2s had better performance i think
il2field mod used tobe best

anyways, i think there was a few aces, it is cabable of mixing it with fighters http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
<123_GWood_JG123> NO SPAM!

jensenpark
08-25-2004, 06:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Multimetal:
Does anyone know if there were any Sturmovik pilots IRL who became aces? I'm just curious as to the real defensive tactics used by IL2's vs. the ones the AI uses in the game, which pretty much amount to "fly along and hope that the armor holds up." The later IL2's actually seem to make pretty good dogfighters down low, with a tight turning circle and good armament. I doubt that a real Luftwaffe pilot would be much inclined to get into that kind of fight, though! Any info is appreciated!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny enough, I think (but not 100% sure) I may head read it in the book about Hartmann (Blonde Knight...) where he talks about either himself or a squad mate chasing and downing a Il2 where all it did was just that...fly straight and depend on the armour.

http://www.corsair-web.com/thistler/rtfoxint.jpg
Buzz Beurling flying his last sortie over Malta, Oct.24, 1942

-dying non-stop online as silverdart

Multimetal
08-25-2004, 08:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PBNA-Boosher:
While not an ace, you may want to check out the story of Anna Yegorova. She was an IL2 pilot on the Eastern front, and a rather good one at that....

Boosher
_____________________________
"So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you..."
-Gandalf<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Boosher: Any links to this story, or where I can find out more? Thanks for the info, all. I think that in the manual for the original IL2 there is a quote from Hartmann about how sometimes even 20mm would bounce off the Sturmovik....Tough birds!

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2004, 08:42 PM
One of the online virtual pilots has sent me an early manuscript of a 1st person account by a Sturmo pilot. It's interesting reading.

I'm still waiting to see any evidence of Sturmos handling like "large Zeros", rolling and cavorting like this sim purports they can.

I just don't see how a "titanium bathtub" with enormous unloaded weight, plus hardpoints and weapons fairly dripping off it, can handle like they do in FB. The later models of the damned things can outmaneuver a 109G6 in a turn. That's GOT to be horsesh**.

I mean, I can believe they could take out a low flying formation of He111s or Stukas, sure, as they sometimes did. They have a lot of firepower and a fairly high speed. But they have just got to be hideously overmodelled in the roll, stall and stability areas.

PBNA-Boosher
08-25-2004, 08:45 PM
http://pratt.edu/~rsilva/yegorova.htm

Another from: http://www.vectorsite.net/avil2.html
While the Soviets had all-female aircraft regiments, there were no such formations of Shturmoviks. Nonetheless, women did fly the Il-2 in combat. The most famous of them was Senior Lieutenant Anna Yegorova, who flew 260 missions and was decorated three times, the last posthumously, for she was shot down and presumed dead. However, though she was severely mistreated by her German captors, she did in fact survive to be liberated. Pictures show her to be striking and photogenic. Besides being a good fighter, she was likely a useful instrument for the energetic Red propaganda machine.


The Book, "A Dance With Death" has an interview with her, as well as another pilot who flew C-47's and Li-2's, Olga Lisikova.

The ISBN number for "A Dance with Death" is 1-58544-177-5

Boosher
_____________________________
"So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you..."
-Gandalf

Korolov
08-25-2004, 09:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Blah, blah blah, blah Sturmovik overmodeled, blah blah...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don't fly against or with IL-2s very often, do you Stiglr? They have very poor yaw stability and CAN'T manuver worth a damn, especially with a full load. If you can't outturn one with a Bf-109G-6, then frankly, you must be a very shoddy pilot.

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2004, 09:24 PM
I've flown them myself, and against them, and I'm here to tell ya, they are overmodeled in all the ways I mentioned.

The only time they'll stall is with too heavy a load or MAJOR combat damage and a smoking engine that's not outputting much. Now that you mention it, I have NEVER, EVER, seen a Sturmo spin and auger in, and I've seen countless fighters do it, including ones that should be pretty stall resistant.

They *will* outturn a 109G6 in late versions. They won't necessarily climb to them, of course, but they'll do a decent job of outmaneuvering them.

You try and fly a 109E against the early Sturmos. They'll actually toy with you.

LStarosta
08-25-2004, 09:55 PM
It's called boom and zoom, mate.

http://home.comcast.net/~l.starosta/sig2.jpg
Spacer nad Berlinem!

woofiedog
08-25-2004, 10:35 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gifThere's not to much on the Web about Anna Yegorova... but heres another link.
http://lonestar.texas.net/~snolep/topicalpg/index09.htm


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/WOOFIEDOG.jpg

The_Ant
08-26-2004, 01:17 AM
Have to go with Stiglr, ive flown the il2/forgotten battles since the first was released 4 years ago,and in Fb the campaign ai is just Focked up.
When im facing a early il2 (one seater) or a late il2 1943 model (one seater)
it werves off and starts zoom climbing, rolling and trying too out manouver my Bf 109 or Fw 190, i always end up being surprised by this,im having no difficulty in shooting them down but the point is as stiglr says they souldnt be doing this,i have even seen 2 seater il2 do this one time.I think its the programing of the game since other ai aircraft also tends to do other stupid moves,lagg 3 for instance it will be trying too outmanouver you and doing some scissor moves which makes it loose its energy,and bang you have him cold dead,but take take an aircraft like la5 or the yak series which are turn fighters,they dont do this stupid stuff and they tend too be easier too shoot down than the lagg series(not complaining about Dm now so dont acuse me for bad shooting).

[Si Vis Pacem,Para Bellum = If you wish for peace, prepare for war.]

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2004, 02:18 AM
Hello,

Forthose how do have an interest about the aces of the VVS I can only recomend this book;

Stalin's falcons.
the aces of the red star by Thomas Polak with christopher Shorees
ISBN 1-902304-01-2

The best book not to read but to have as refence!

Sensei

There where IL2 aces, as gunner and as pilot.

BfHeFwMe
08-26-2004, 02:59 AM
They made a serious error in instrumentation equipment when manufacturing IL-2's, the verticle velocity indicator is calibrated far, far, to low. You hardly ever have the climb within it's ability to indicate the rate.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Obviously the climb rates could never be off. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

1.JaVA_Razer
08-26-2004, 03:12 AM
I'm going with korolov here,

IL2's are concrete bloks for MG's and are a good workout for Cannons but in NO WAY can an IL2 outmaneuver a BF 109, well maybe at LOW speeds, without load, and with landingflaps while the BF has low speed and no flaps.

IL2's won't outmaneuver a 109 if flown properly.

------------------------------
Teamplay on a dogfightserverhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif
It sounds like a classic game of air-quake!?


Quote from extreme One


------------------------------
http://www.entity-project.tk
------------------------------
AMD 2500+ @3200+
Asus A7n8X-X
512MB DDR 3200 Apacer
Sapphire 9800 atlantis PRO
2x80mm Coolermaster fans
1x 120 mm PAPST fan
Thermalright SP 97 CPU cooler
Sunbeam rheobus

F19_Ob
08-26-2004, 03:40 AM
Interview with an il-2 pilot

http://www.iremember.ru/pilots/khukhrikov/khukhrikov.html


another site
http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/il-2.html

[This message was edited by ob_swe on Thu August 26 2004 at 02:50 AM.]

jugent
08-26-2004, 05:09 AM
Titanium couldnt be manufactured until 1950. But Delta-wood is as strong as titanium. A well-hidden secret in the Soviet union.
I tell u a secret; non of maddox games are similar to reallity.
They could make a blimp to out-manouvre a messerschmidt

Multimetal
08-26-2004, 11:03 AM
Thanks for the links, all. I agree that the Sturmoviks sometimes seem overmodelled in turns, such as they are VERY difficult to stall, but then again they have a HUGE wing area and large tail surfaces as well. Anyone have figures on wing loading of IL2's vs. 109's or other fighters? That should give us an idea of how accurately the turn rate is modelled. I would expect that the FM of the IL2's would be one of the most accurate, as the FB/IL2 engine was originally created mainly to model these planes, right?

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2004, 11:23 AM
You say what you want, but I've seen some guys who are good Sturmo pilots do things with them online in high realism settings that are patently absurd. couple that with the otto fire that can pick any time to oil up your engine with a single burst, and you can see why Sturmos can be much more of a handful than they ever had a right to be.

I can accept that a Sturmo can sometimes soak up my whole load of ammo and stagger home (S! to ya, brother, if you make it, you earned it!)... but to see them actively dogfight is a little ridiculous.

ianboys
08-26-2004, 11:28 AM
How it is a perfectly sensible question got hijacked into yet another Stiglr-whine? If you dislike the game so much why don't you play a better one? Because there aren't any??

To answer, yes, there were several aces in Shturmovik regiments, but as ShAP's often flew other planes, from the I-152 to the IL-10, it's hard to say how many pure IL-2 aces there were.

Korolov
08-26-2004, 11:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I've flown them myself, and against them, and I'm here to tell ya, they are overmodeled in all the ways I mentioned.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right. In your opinion. The only thing I find challenging about fighting a Sturmovik is the rear gunner.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The only time they'll stall is with too heavy a load or MAJOR combat damage and a smoking engine that's not outputting much. Now that you mention it, I have NEVER, EVER, seen a Sturmo spin and auger in, and I've seen countless fighters do it, including ones that should be pretty stall resistant.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Ju-87 doesn't stall or snap out either. Oh no! The Ju-87 is overmodeled because it doesn't stall! Man the lifeboats! Fear all Ju-87s flying!

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
They *will* outturn a 109G6 in late versions. They won't necessarily climb to them, of course, but they'll do a decent job of outmaneuvering them.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most IL-2s I see either get clobbered or get really lucky. If they are as good as you say they are, there'd be no need to escort them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
You try and fly a 109E against the early Sturmos. They'll actually toy with you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have - and have won numerous times.

CrazyIvan ran a June 1941 east front dogfight mission for a short time; on this mission, we had Bf-109F-2s, Bf-109E-7s, Ju-87s and some He-111s. Russians got a MiG, a Yak-1, LaGG-3, and a few Sturmoviks. Most of the fighters were no big deal, but the Sturmoviks were just so damn tough - we fixed this problem by using classic drag and bag. If there were no fighter escorts, it was very easy to stay with a Sturmovik in the turn. Hell, Ivan hit me several times with the 23mm cannon and I actually survived that! Maybe the Bf-109E is overmodeled in terms of durability. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

Multimetal
08-26-2004, 11:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ob_swe:
Interview with an il-2 pilot

http://www.iremember.ru/pilots/khukhrikov/khukhrikov.html


another site
http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/il-2.html

[This message was edited by ob_swe on Thu August 26 2004 at 02:50 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What a great read! The 1st interview also has some great photos, well worth a look!

p1ngu666
08-26-2004, 11:46 AM
true, 109s do eat il2 ammo :S
the il2 bleeds speed quickly in a turn, thus getting tighter. also the rudder is **** especialy on the early ones.
with a 109 u guide it around the sky, with a il2 in combat, your simply brutal, or i am http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

the stick is shoved around, u kick in some rudder also to speed up the roll, the throttle is nailed to 110%, your in a infoirour plane, so u really push its limits (without even knowing). u also pop flaps more readly to swing yourself around more.
its also easier to fly in combat that 109 i guess.
could it be overmodeled? possibly, but in turn only i think.

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

crazyivan1970
08-26-2004, 11:49 AM
I don`t know, for me an IL-2 was and is a pretty easy kill. It`s not a fighter, and without fighter cover it`s a sitting duck more or less. And as Korolov stated, without rear gunner it`s pretty much a dead meat.

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/band.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2004, 12:21 PM
Korolov wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If they [Sturmos] are as good as you say they are, there'd be no need to escort them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bingo! Give that man a cigar.

Korolov
08-26-2004, 12:28 PM
Except for the fact that they *do* need escort, because without escort, they haven't got a snowballs chance in hell of hitting their targets and getting back home.

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

ianboys
08-26-2004, 12:29 PM
Stiglr, I think you missed his point completely. They do need escorts because any half decent pilot can murder Sturmoviks, human-flown or not.

Not with an F2 thoughhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

F19_Ob
08-26-2004, 02:37 PM
For a while now, during my tests on internal damage, I have given the il-2 ( groundpounders in general ) special attention on survivability and dogfighting cababilities.

In my opinion the il-2 both single and double seater is capable of limited dogfighting.
its advantage being good lift at slow speeds wich enables it to make one or two hard turns, or pull up and spray after an enemy, before it needs to regain energy again. Its ability to take a few hits is another.

The visibilty both to front and rear
is unsuited for dogfights, but by switching between 'shift+F1' and 'normal' view u can get a few more glimpses of the suroundings.
The fastfiring mgs and cannon enables it to shoot (spray) at enemies at long distances, and a descent deflectionshooter can really make something of its weapons on the ranges up to 400m. Quite many times I have hit enemies on 400-700m, usually climbing or occupied in dogfights.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



As always, I cant determine flight characteristics right or wrong.
My knowledge about the plane comes from many scattered sources and often from books about fighterpilots who saw or faced it during combat, like the Finnish ace, Ilmari Juutilainen.
Finnish pilots were recommended care when facing il-2's and keep the fight on the vertical, since the il-s in Finland mostly flew low, hugging the ground and, thus were out of energy.

Finn pilots several times witnessed how il-2's pulled up hard after being attacked, and sprayed with cannons and mg's and even rockets after the enemy, hitting him or shooting him down and then just rejoining formation. A few Finns was shot down or damaged this way .
The il-2 is also included in the Fin ace H.Winds lectures on Finn-fghtertactics used at the time. (here is a link)
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/hist/WW2History-CaptainWindsAirCombatTacticsLecture.html


I have encountered stories (long time ago) where experienced il-2 pilots engaged enemy fighters in dogfighting, doing hard maneuvers and shooting fighters down and protecting each other. only experienced pilots could do this. Many of the il-2 pilots had very little training and for many the majority of training was done during combat.

Il2 pilots in general seem to claim that it was very maneuverable and easy to fly.
Although it was maneuverable, surprizingly many didnt make evasive actions when fired upon. This was the case with I-16 and I-15's aswell, the pilot relying on the back armour to protect them. (according to Finn sources)
It worked too early in the war in Finland since they had only Fokkers gladiators and others with small calliber ammo.

a few thoughts http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

[This message was edited by ob_swe on Thu August 26 2004 at 01:55 PM.]

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2004, 03:15 PM
hey, at least it's a start....!

Thanks! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Speco
08-26-2004, 04:04 PM
I for one tend to belive that the sturmo is one of the most accuretly modeld a/c in the game. First of all it is/was the back-bone of the game. So there is no doubt that the devs gave it "special" treatment. Combine this with the fact that this was one of the easiest planes for the team to model while using input from ppl who actually flew the plane(Oleg recently talked about a ex-general who was an Il-2 pilot during WW2 and his contribution to the game). Maybe it has some minor flaws(I havent noticed any), but it sure as hell isnt the overmodelled plane Stiglr wants us to belive.

Perhaps Stiglr could demonstrate the claims in a dogfight server. Show as how a sturmo buthers a 109E or out-turns a G6. Wait, let me guess, you cant do it but you saw it beeing done by someone somewhere.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/238_1090101031_morbo.jpg
"All humans are vermin in the eyes of Morbo!"

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2004, 05:02 PM
I'll start making tracks when I come up against 'em.

But, knowing you fanbois, you'll have an explanation even for that. I've seen it before. You guys are like the monkey who "hears no evil" (about the design team and the modeling). Predictable.

p1ngu666
08-26-2004, 05:56 PM
oh there is a modeling error be sure http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
in cockpit look up, theres a bar in the middle, front to back, now look at external (dont worry stiglr, we wont say u used external http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif) and its not there http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Korolov
08-26-2004, 08:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Blah blah fanboys, blah blah...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yey! I can now say that the P-38 needs compressability removed at low altitude so I can say I'm not a fanboy!

(Yes I am a Fanboy. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif )

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2004, 09:43 PM
OK, Speco, I got your IL-2 bullsh** FM right here.

Download this track (http://www.naysayers.com/IL-2_BS.zip). It's 1941, a typical matchup where the IL-2 is magically a much better dogfighter than its 109 adversary.

I'm in a 109 E7, and come upon two Sturmos (and more) strafing German positions.

Note during the dive in from about 2km+ to ground level, I still have a hard time catching up to the "slow, heavy Sturmos". Hmmm...

Note at about 2:03, after the rear Sturmo of the Zveno breaks in front of me like a Zero... I get a few potshots at the other one, but in a sustained turn, he is easily outturning me, and is more stable besides. I'm pulling all the stick I can without risking a stall, and have plenty of rudder to coordinate the turn; flaps or not, doesn't matter. Nose low for a second to build up some more speed, no, that doesn't work either. Normally, I wouldn't even stay in a turn this low, but to make the point, I did it here.

Now, after I pull out of that attack and sort of try to reset for more alt. (note how the 109 doesn't seem to want to accelerate past 270kph, even long after I straighten out) Then other events pull me back into the fur. I gain some alt as I chandelle up and come back to the fray; now, notice the Sturmo in the center of the developing furball at about 3:45. What radius do you estimate that turn to be? He even defeats a pull up into a lag pursuit roll directly over top of him; I can't keep my nose on him while heading nearly straight down!!! Then, as I correct for a few more potshots in a sustained turn, notice the OTHER Sturmo in the area change direction TWICE in quick succession and still have ample time to settle in and line up for a nice HO that rips half the engine cowling off my aircraft. (Pity that he forgot I had cannon, too; he explodes behind me, and dies a few minutes earlier than I. Good example of why it's foolish to HO; my shot was a mere reaction to that big shape that suddenly loomed up in my face; I didn't aim at all.)

Then, I make a few more attempts to get the other "A6M2 Sturmo-sen" in my sights, but can only manage the most fleeting, crossing snapshots. This is against the most agile of ANY 109 in the war.

Eventually, the damage from the HO takes its toll and I try to make it home, but a I-16 settles in on my tail, and with half the cowling adding drag, and the radiators open to coax the engine home, I stall trying to stay out of the I-16's sights and auger in.

the rest of the track is just the beginning of the next sortie, and when I find my first victim, I hit the record button and actually turn it OFF. Oh well. That sortie went a bit better, seeing as there were no Sturmos, only I-153s, I-16s and other slower-turning aircraft to fight against.

What have you to say about that? You think a plane with that much extra weight and weaponry should outmaneuver a 109E *that* easily?

tttiger
08-26-2004, 10:24 PM
Here's the best link I have on an interview with a real Sturmo pilot. You'll note they always had fighter escorts and he mentions nothing about dogfighting in them:

http://www.iremember.ru/pilots/khukhrikov/khukhrikov.html

It's an excellent read for anyone who hasn't discovered it previously.

That said, I don't find it unrealistic that in a Field Mod, which was light and fast, that I can drag and bag and get kills on 109s chasing my wingman. Last weekend I watched a Virtual Nazi try to Head-On one of my Sturmo wingmen. The 109 lost http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stigler, you really are getting tiresome, almost a parody of your usual curmudgeon self. I thought you were moving to Targetware and were going to leave us alone....I looked up the term "Luftwhiner" in Webster's and there was a picture of you http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Lighten up (or, better yet, go fly Target Rabaul) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ttt

"I want the one that kills the best with the least amount of risk to me"

-- Chuck Yeager describing "The Best Airplane."

Korolov
08-26-2004, 10:53 PM
Stiglr, for one that was about as laggy as I've seen - the IL-2 you were chasing was warping around like mad!

Second, you fudged up your first turn with the guy - if you'd either not let the plane snap or instead kept your wings level with his rather than doing a barrel roll, you would of had him.

I think this track simply proves my point that you are not handling the 109 the way one would handle it. Even if *you* could turn with a IL-2, turning with a plane as weak as a 109 in a furball like that would be taxing the limit.

But none of this matters now. I'm afraid you're too stubborn to change your position - maybe you should follow ttt's advice and return to Target: Rabaul.

Look at it this way: you know that nobody is gonna do anything about the IL-2 being "overmodeled", so that makes Targetware a better place... right?

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

Dammerung
08-26-2004, 10:55 PM
Oh stiggy stiggy stiggy... What do you have to complain about? No Sturmovik shot you down. You shot yourself down. The only thing to blame apparently are your gunnery skills, besides that Head on with the IL-2 you shot down, which was foolish to say the least. With your Engine about to die, you should've RTBed... Even on your first run, you continued to Turn with the IL-2, when you had such a High Energy State that you could've pulled away, and dived down again. He might've even forgotten about you, due to all the action. If you were more patient, you probably would have gotten more. So I say, maybe you should admit to something, and I realize, this may be hard for you. It's two words. are you ready?

Pilot Error

Oh, there are no fighter pilots down in hell...
Oh, there are no fighter pilots down in hell...
The whole damn place is full of queers, navigators, and bombadiers...
Oh, there are no fighter pilots down in hell...

[This message was edited by Dammerung on Thu August 26 2004 at 11:04 PM.]

Fred_77
08-26-2004, 11:40 PM
Why not check out the wingloadings between the 109 and the IL? Look at the size of it's wing! The wing area of the IL is considerbly more then twice as large, while the takeoff weight is only twice as much as the 109E. The IL has a much lower loading, and I am going to guess that the IL will have a much thicker, high lift airfoil then the 109 will have. If the IL isn't carrying a load, then it's advantage in wingloading only goes up. Compare the wingloading of a lightly loaded IL field mod to the A6M5a. Might be a nasty suprise.

As far as the track goes, it is no wonder that you couldn't get a solution on it. The IL is going much slower, so obviously it is going to turn in a tighter radius. You didn't help yourself out by making horrible skidding turns. At one point so much rudder is used that you end up on your back, and were lucky that was all that happened. In any plane in RL, that move would have been instantly fatal at such a low altitude. If you just made a smooth coordinated turn, you clould have stuck with the IL much longer.

A single IL2 flying with no cover should be and is easy meat, discounting the robo-gunners. Attacking a hive of them is simply suicidal.

S!
Fred.

falco_cz
08-26-2004, 11:49 PM
Il2 late was more bomber then anything elsehttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gifower - 1600 hp, weight &gt;6000 kg, wing area 30 sq.m. Not great chances to survive dogfight with real fighters like Me109/Fw190. The Sturmos were dependend on fighters escort, flying in small group to defenf each other was only options if escort not availabe.30000 Strumos were lost.

Multimetal
08-27-2004, 12:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>30000 Strumos were lost.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This seems quite a bit high. I know that they took serious casualties, especially at first, but 30000 would be at least 75%of all that were manufactured. Also, I'd be willing to bet that they took more casualties from ground fire than enemy a/c, but that is just speculation.

F19_Ob
08-27-2004, 04:27 AM
Hi Stiglr..... I watched the track also.

I can partly understand your frustration being a 109 crazy aswell.
These il-2's was the single seat variants, wich was the best turners. In real life many of them got shot down, not because they couldnt turn well enough but because they never saw the attacker, and mainly because they were low on the deck and often flew without escort in the beginning.
What u probably didnt notice was that they were on the edge of their performance, and wouldnt be able to sustain that turn for more than a few secs more.
I can say this because I fly them often and at the moment m testing their absolute limits in various situations (like I did with the 109's)

Although the 109 can make braking turns, like u did and get snapshots it cant hold that turn close to 200km/h better than an il-2 because of the better roll in the 109 wich also causes u to flip if pressing it.
The Il-2 wont flip because the roll is slow and its wings will provide great lift in this speed, infact best in its general category if I remember correctly, (real pilots loved it on finals) but on the other hand it wont regain its energy or accellerate again aswell as the 109, as u did a few times, just flew away from them and came back.

Not regaining the energy is the biggest disadvantage in the il-2 next to its bad vis.
Although even double seaters have a limited good turn before the energy is gone, there is one thing that they cant do when they are low on it = climb.

Remember also that u had more than 2 enemies to keep in sight, this is a bad situation and psychologically stressing (even for the cool ones)enabling mistakes.
Your only mistake as I remember, was staying around and below 250km/h for a bit long periods.
I also know that its a good idea to try to keep
multiple enemies in sight as much as possible.
When I do that I try to keep my speed up when flying low with enemy in sight, and if he turns I go for a high yoyo to reduce my radious furter and to get the maneuvrability maximised in the descent to firing position often engine idled. (doesnt work always for me either though)


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When I am attacked in the il-2 I idle and pull into a hard breaking turn. If i see the enemy coming I keep my speed up and do as hard turn as nescessary to make the attacker to abort and extend, at that moment I have already turned back with sustained energy climbing after and spraying after him, I often get a few hits even at about 600-700m, thnx to spraying.
I cant follow for more than a few secs though and I also risk my skin, being an easy target myself. Other than that I always take a chance to fire at an enemy low and turning, because my fastfiring cannons and mg's hardly needs any deflection on slow targets, and I never save ammo either, just let them fly into a few sec burst.


I think I'm quite good in the Il-2 but often get wasted by BnZ'ers, wich often Have the possibility to continue the fight or leave at will, while I often end up aborting mission and being more holes than plane, hoping to reach the airfield. Its a big bonus when I get a 109 or FW190 sometimes two and live to tell about it.

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2004, 10:07 AM
Not let the plane snap, Korolov??? ROFL. You don't even see the "Oleg Banana Peel Snapstall" for what it is; total "canned" BS that only bears resemblance to the one planei t was designed for [and then applied to just about every plane]. A 190 might snap like that, but not a 109. Say it with me...leading edge slats.

I realize those weren't picture perfect turns, as I was trying to prove the point. The first break turn there was a pretty good speed difference, but that first one is also sustained quite a long time; not only am I not beginning to make up any of the angles, the longer the turn went, and the slower I became relative to the Sturmo, the more the Sturmo was able to outturn me.

The thing that was most telling was even a lag pursuit roll didn't work; the Sturmo just did a FW-like roll and pulled hard in the other direction, defeating the lag p. roll and not even *hinting* at any stall behavior. None of the Sturmos in that track so much as bobble, or wallow, no matter what maneuver they perform.

And Dammerung, you're a full blown idiot if you think I initiated that HO with the Sturmo. I was still turning with the other one, if you look at the track. He forced that HO (and died like a dog, too). Give me at least a *little* credit.

This has gone exactly like I said it would: you mention something, the fanbois say, "Where's your track?" Post the track, and they can find every excuse in the book. Nowhere in these comments does anyone touch upon the TURN RADIUS of the Sturmo. Does it really look accurate to you? Especially that very first one; my speed may be one reason I couldn't stay with him (and consequently, went after the OTHER one that went on a strafing run), but let's discuss whether that first Sturmo should even be able to effect that Zero bat turn in the first place.

Not that I mind a critique of my flying, sure, that's fair... but let's also look at the evidence that points to an exaggerated sustained turn radius and slightly overdone stability at high AoA and bank for the Sturmo. Large wings account for something, but high weight and lots of drag-inducing hardpoints counter some of that out, y'think?

Someone mentioned lag. There was no, repeat ZERO warping in my connection. my track plays back at 100% quality. Not sure what effect the .zipping, upload or download has on .ntrk files. But warping had nothing to do with anything any of the planes in this track did.

[This message was edited by Stiglr on Fri August 27 2004 at 09:15 AM.]

[This message was edited by Stiglr on Fri August 27 2004 at 09:18 AM.]

crazyivan1970
08-27-2004, 10:51 AM
Stig. come on man. You lost the battle http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
IL-2 was a bad example and "fanboyz" wont let you slide on that one http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Seriously, if you losing fight to IL-2 in any 109s, it all your fault, no more, no less. I`m pretty sure i have an idea where all this started http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif, wasn`t it on TX server where Avi shot you down? Let it go man...

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/band.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2004, 10:55 AM
That was pure otto gunner that time, had nothing to do with the fight. Basically, Aviar broke into a diving attack, I flashed by at nought range along his back, and got an instant oil up. No way that gunner could have seen me until I was half a km away, as I was heading in the opposite direction, and he was in a steeply banked aircraft.

Different situation there.

But I'll agree with you that "IL-2 was a bad example"...er, at least an example of bad and "b" (can't use that word, can I?) modeling.

crazyivan1970
08-27-2004, 11:04 AM
Aww come on... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/band.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

crazyivan1970
08-27-2004, 11:10 AM
BTW, sources say that somewhere up to 35,000 IL-2s were produced and somewhat near 10,000 were shot down and 75% of them by flak. But all sources say different things... so hard to find out exact numbers. Also, some sources claim near 700 LW fighters shot down by rear gunner and frontal guns of IL-2/IL-10

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/band.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

Bogun
08-27-2004, 11:43 AM
There were a lot of Sturmovik aces in VVS.
Here is a list of 79 pilots who claimed 5 or more downed enemy planes:
http://www.ipclub.ru/arsenal/officerroom/aces/aces_rus_79_stu.htm

PS. Russians counted total personal+group kills, and I believe gunner's kills are also counted here.

Regards,

Forgotten War Home Page (http://www.forgottenskies.com/ForgottenWars/default.aspx)
http://bogun.freeservers.com/609_bogun.jpg (http://www.takeoff.to/609IAP)

"The best fighters I met in combat were the American P-51 Mustang and Russian Yak-9U. Both of those types obviously exceeded all Bf109 variants in performance, including the 'K'. The Mustang was unmatched in altitude performance, while the Yak-9U was champion in rate of climb and maneuverability."

- Walter Wolfrum (137 victories)

Korolov
08-27-2004, 12:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Not _let_ the plane snap, Korolov??? ROFL. You don't even see the "Oleg Banana Peel Snapstall" for what it is; total "canned" BS that only bears resemblance to the one planei t was designed for [and then applied to just about every plane]. A 190 might snap like that, but not a 109. Say it with me...leading edge slats.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most of the pilots I've read that flew the 109 say the slats were cr@p, and really just a annoyance.

The "Oleg Banana Peel Snapstall" as you call it, comes naturally for us Fw-190 drivers. Maybe if you flew one of those for a while and learned to counter the handling, you might fly the 109 better. I'm pretty sure the "Oleg Banana Peel Snapstall" wouldn't be applied to ALL planes, but the point is you have to learn to counter it and accept it, NOT fight it. Doing otherwise will just make you at odds with the plane.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I realize those weren't picture perfect turns, as I was trying to prove the point. The first break turn there was a pretty good speed difference, but that first one is also sustained quite a long time; not only am I not beginning to make up any of the angles, the longer the turn went, and the slower I became relative to the Sturmo, the more the Sturmo was able to outturn me.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The sturmo was also lagging a lot too, and that makes up for quite a bit. You may have noticed that the fuselage was moving awkward, as if the rudder were being applied, but the nose is well beyond the ability of the rudder to push the plane...?

My argument still stands: If you'd instead pulled a verticle manuver after the first pass, you could have swung around and hit him as he was making his turn. Thus I believe the main core of your complaints is to make up for a poor tactical assesment and naive manhandling of your aircraft. You already knew the IL-2 turned so "good", why even bother turning with it then? As such, due to this glaring tactical error, it makes one doubt your credibility when you start running around telling everyone that IL-2s turn "too good."

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The thing that was most telling was even a lag pursuit roll didn't work; the Sturmo just did a FW-like roll and pulled hard in the other direction, defeating the lag p. roll and not even *hinting* at any stall behavior. None of the Sturmos in that track so much as bobble, or wallow, no matter what maneuver they perform.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think part of that is lag, but another part is the IL-2s *don't* stall at all - at least not the violent snap stall of most fighter planes. Note that the Ju-87 doesn't snap or stall either - so this must be inherent to single engine attack aircraft in the game.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And Dammerung, you're a full blown _idiot_ if you think I initiated that HO with the Sturmo. I was still turning with the other one, if you look at the track. He forced that HO (and died like a dog, too). Give me at least a *little* credit.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You got that one good, but it also looked like a lag collision to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
This has gone exactly like I said it would: you mention something, the fanbois say, "Where's your track?" Post the track, and they can find every excuse in the book. Nowhere in these comments does anyone touch upon the TURN RADIUS of the Sturmo. Does it really look accurate to you? Especially that very first one; my speed may be one reason I couldn't stay with him (and consequently, went after the OTHER one that went on a strafing run), but let's discuss whether that first Sturmo should even be able to effect that Zero bat turn in the first place.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, it can't do that "Zero bat turn" - because he was lagging like hell. Even I can't duplicate the hard turning manuver he was doing. The IL-2 is a good turner - until it looses its energy.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Not that I mind a critique of my flying, sure, that's fair... but let's also look at the evidence that points to an exaggerated sustained turn radius and slightly overdone stability at high AoA and bank for the Sturmo. Large wings account for something, but high weight and lots of drag-inducing hardpoints counter some of that out, y'think?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't see the IL-2 as being any more draggy than any other fighter, especially the Bf-109E. I also don't understand where you're coming from with exaggerated sustained turn radius... After a few times around, she begins to loose much of the good turning performance maintained at a better energy state. I think I do agree with you on overdone stability at high AoA - should fall a bit faster than it does when you pull up the nose and bleed all that speed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Someone mentioned lag. There was no, repeat ZERO warping in my connection. my track plays back at 100% quality. Not sure what effect the .zipping, upload or download has on .ntrk files. But warping had nothing to do with anything any of the planes in this track did.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said you were warping - I said they were warping. I saw a lot of funky flight manuvers that I couldn't duplicate, like the extreme yaw direction put into use by the IL-2 you attacked.

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

gates123
08-27-2004, 12:22 PM
Aviar is one of the best il-2 pilots I've seen out there, if you got shot down by him its his flying skills to blame.

http://www.fightingcolors.com/custompagestuff/b17visibility72.jpg
Did anyone see that or was it just me?

p1ngu666
08-27-2004, 01:12 PM
or the auto gunner actully hit something by accident http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

btw, if u look at the losses of typhoons, theres was appaling too
http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mags/tiffy/2.jpg
bottom, left page next to the page fold

sturmos faced great fighters in high numbers, flown by good pilots minium (to start with) so in that light, compaired to the tiffy its not bad

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2004, 02:59 PM
No, no, no, Korolov, you're not getting off that easy.

I can't tell you what that track looks like on your machine, but there was not the slightest bit of lag at any time during that mission. None. Animation was rock solid, no "dancing" or "lurching" or anything. I know lag when I see it, and would not use a laggy track to prove *any* point (besides maybe the occurance of lag itself).

That is plain disingenous (not to mention fanboi convenient) to say that those Sturmo's "lagged" their way through those turns. They simply performed them, as I've seen them performed before... and they shouldn't have been able to.

This is another example of fanboi-ism at its worst. You bring up a complaint, it's "So, where's your track??' Show a track, it's "lag" or "pilot error" (of which, I of course, can admit there was some).

How come, to you guys, it absolutely *can't* be programming error or just "optimistic" performance???

Korolov
08-28-2004, 01:16 AM
How come YOU can't accept the fact that there might be more to a disagreement than fanboyism?

That IL-2 was doing a yaw manuver that is completely impossible for it to do, its as if the engine were moved to the wing tip to drag the nose around. How else can we describe that aside from lag?

I'd say there would be a programming error or optimistic performance IF there were something wrong. I don't see anything wrong with the IL-2s regarding manuverability - they always bite the dust without escort anyways.

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

Dammerung
08-28-2004, 01:35 AM
Sure it can be. But in your case it's garbage Gunnery. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Oh, there are no fighter pilots down in hell...
Oh, there are no fighter pilots down in hell...
The whole damn place is full of queers, navigators, and bombadiers...
Oh, there are no fighter pilots down in hell...

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2004, 08:59 AM
Doing a yaw maneuver that was impossible for it to do, huh?

Where are the other telltale lag artifacts? That jerking? That sudden lateral 500 meter movement? Stopping in mid-air?

None of that is present. Why? Because it's NOT lagging. You're full of sh** to suggest otherwise.

It might be possible that it's doing "an impossible maneuver", but that's due to the modeling, my friend.

Open your eyes.

And, still, NOBODY's talking about the turn rate. The info on the screen says it gets around a turn in 23 seconds at 1km alt (and we're at basically sea level, but that's about the same altitude band). I see a couple turns in this track that are accomplished in half that time. But NOBODY is saying anything about that.

sunflower1
08-28-2004, 01:11 PM
I just started playing this game a month ago and I've got an Il-2 campaign going. 35 missions, 20 kills and 7 of them are 109's. Clearly the AI 109's aren't going to be flown as well as human ones, but some of the sturmoviks handling qualities give it a couple of pretty good axes to use. I am consistently surprised that the 109's don't climb away from me well. I look forward to the base transfer missions!! I suppose all that would change online.

Korolov
08-28-2004, 01:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Doing a yaw maneuver that was impossible for it to do, huh?

Where are the other telltale lag artifacts? That jerking? That sudden lateral 500 meter movement? Stopping in mid-air?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don't need to have those to experience lag; those effects come in when the player is lagging REALLY bad, but in this case I believe he was lagging just enough to cause strange manuverability from your point of view.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
None of that is present. Why? Because it's NOT lagging. You're full of sh** to suggest otherwise.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read the above.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
It might be possible that it's doing "an impossible maneuver", but that's due to the modeling, my friend.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then why can't I duplicate it? I can't get that kind of yaw out of my IL-2s.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Open your eyes.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Open your own.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And, still, NOBODY's talking about the turn rate. The info on the screen says it gets around a turn in 23 seconds at 1km alt (and we're at basically sea level, but that's about the same altitude band). I see a couple turns in this track that are accomplished in half that time. But NOBODY is saying anything about that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe for comparison you should make a additional QMB track for us of you turning it on the horizontal, so *maybe* (because we're "fanbois" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ) we'll be able to see what you're hinting at.

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

gombal40
08-28-2004, 02:00 PM
i would like to see data ( not in game like) to support either claims. All i got now is on game stuff No books no words of wisdom comming from them.
Just facts would be nice.
You all seem to tell from so much books, so some scans from them would be helpfull.

Teach me. Im willing to learn.

Korolov
08-28-2004, 02:20 PM
Incidentially, I just ran a test myself to see what was up. I tested the IL-2 2 series model (the one Stiglr encountered in his track) at 25% fuel on Smolensk. Doing a complete 360 degree turn, I clocked the total turn time of 18 seconds. The turn was started at 300kmh and at the end of the turn speed had bled down to 190kmh.

Next, I tried the Bf-109E-7/B on 25% fuel. using the same method (300kmh, 1000m altitude, turn a complete 360), I was able to get 16 seconds total out of it.

Both planes had radiator closed and were running at 100% power.

While the IL-2 is 5 seconds faster than the 23 second claim posted by Stiglr, the Bf-109E-7 turns 2 seconds faster than the IL-2 I tested, so outturning a IL-2 should not be a problem for a 109. The margin is very thin however, and I believe that it would take some very gentle handling on the 109's side to keep from snapping out. In this case it would be better to simply avoid horizontal manuvers altogether, but if it is unavoidable, the 109 should definately be able to keep up with the IL-2 in the 200-300kmh speed range. It's a good bet the Bf-109 could keep up with it at 400kmh, but since the IL-2's turning gets better with speed, this could be a bit risky to get into a turn fight when a IL-2 has a good energy reserve. On the other hand, the IL-2 has a low VNE, and going faster than 500 to 600kmh will likely destroy the IL-2's frame.

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2004, 03:28 PM
5 seconds faster. Five! You don't see a problem with what, 25% better turn than that stated in the object viewer?????? Especially when, according to your estimates, the 109 should only be TWO seconds faster around the circle.

Korolov
08-28-2004, 04:21 PM
That's 2 seconds better than the IL-2, Stiglr. Small as it may be, it's still better.

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2004, 05:02 PM
Well, you'd *expect* the 109 to be faster around the turn. That is part of this little exercise. We've already hashed out that I'm not the best at straight up, on the deck turning. I can admit that would account for *some* of the difference.

But what about the Sturmo being at 5 seconds better than its Object viewer turn time? That's two-and-a-half times the "difference" between the 109 and the Sturmo that we're arriving at. How much of that should also factor in, increasing the difference between a 109 and a Sturmo (in favor of the 109; or more correctly in favor of any plane that happens to be chasing the Sturm)???

p1ngu666
08-28-2004, 05:10 PM
isnt turn time sustained turn?
ie, trying to keep 300 or whatever as your target speed?

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Korolov
08-28-2004, 05:52 PM
p1ngu, in a fight you're going to be pulling as hard as possible to get the maximum turn rate out of the plane, aren't you? I would imagine Stiglr here already knows the sustained turn radius for both planes (and would hazard to say he thinks the Bf-109E should be at 5 seconds for a combat turn.)

Stiglr, you're missing my point - the argument was that the IL-2 turns better than a Bf-109E, correct? I've provided figures that suggest the Bf-109E turns better than the IL-2. So are you changing your argument to "the IL-2 should turn worse" or "the Bf-109E should turn better?"

And in case you were wondering, I'd like to see the figures you have for a Bf-109E's sustained turn radius.

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

p1ngu666
08-28-2004, 07:03 PM
true kore
i was thinking of the 26 seconds
u can get all planes easliy inside that i think

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2004, 07:27 PM
No, Korolov, come on. You really want me to have to spell it out????

I was suggesting that a 109 should not have such a hard time turning with (or turning better than) a Sturmo.

Now we all saw that track (did it finally stop "lagging" for you?), which saw that the 109E7 at least had a bit of a challenge keeping up with it in a sustained turn, with or without flaps; actually more than ONE sustained turn. We also saw it defeat vertical maneuvers with apparent ease, too. And now, you're trying to ignore the fact that it turns 5 SECONDS better than the 23 seconds Object Viewer states for it's sea level statistic by only focusing on the difference in turn rate between a 109 and an IL-2,which is 2 seconds (I'd think it more for such widely disparate planes). And the nerve of you, to say that I said a 109E should make a turn in 5 seconds??? Utter LIES. Go back and READ that again.

p1ngu666
08-28-2004, 08:21 PM
hm
think i could make any biplane bang round in 5 seconds, or close too
isnt turn time for sustained turn, like u can go and have a coffee, and come back and still be doing circles.

going from korolov's test, if it bleed speed the same amount, that il2 is gonna stall out in another half a turn, or be so ineffective itll mush or something

btw the il2 has 2.347 times the wing area of the 109

uve not brought info on how the il2 should turn, even IF it is wrong.
that turn time deffinition needs clarifing

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

LEXX_Luthor
08-28-2004, 09:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Well, you'd *expect* the 109 to be faster around the turn.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack ( AEP )

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Korolov
08-28-2004, 11:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
No, Korolov, come on. You really want me to have to spell it out????

I was suggesting that a 109 should not have such a hard time turning with (or turning better than) a Sturmo.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe you should. It might prove to yourself that you're chasing your tail, round and round (quite literally, it seems.)

So yes, you think the Bf-109E should turn better than it does now, and that the IL-2 should turn worse.

You've given us the sustained turn time for a IL-2 (unknown model) but you haven't given us one for the Bf-109E. Give us some numbers to compare with, please. And don't assume that because we don't agree with you, that we're fanboys or dumb ******s or any of that. It's a disagreement and I think you're taking it too personally.

We've seen some valid points - the IL-2 has over 2 times the wing area of the Bf-109E, and historical accounts suggest that it could turn quite good in the horizontal. As I see it, I think you're just too ashamed to admit a error in tactical awareness and piloting ability. Moreso, we've seen *one* track showing this "amazing IL-2 manuverability" but the tests I've done and the experience of others suggests that the IL-2 cannot do what they did in your specific track.

Most of all, if you have actual, solid proof that the IL-2 turns too well, rolls too well, etc. and the Bf-109E turns too slow, has too low a speed, etc. then you shouldn't be talking to us. Your constant accusations of fanboy-ism and anger with the people who disagree with you is a HINT to yourself that you shouldn't be arguing with us. If you can't bring yourself above that, then maybe it's best you stayed out of it altogether.

I don't *know* that the IL-2 turns too good, or normal, or bad, but I *feel* that it has no advantages whatsoever in combat vs. a Bf-109E.

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2004, 11:46 PM
Once again, Korolov, you're a liar and your FEET STINK.

The quoted turn time is for a '41 Sturmo (look for it yourself in page 1 of the post "IL-2 plane fighter capabilities"). There's no "version loophole" anywhere but in your fanboi diseased mind. So let's clear that up right now.

Now, after hunting down the ILCompare utility...

Look'a this:
http://www.naysayers.com/turn_comparison.gif

Check the bottom right for a head-to-head combat turn matchup. You can see that the only time a '41 Release 2 Sturmo should be outturning a 109E7 is way down at 220 - 180kph, which is getting down near landing speed.

Now let's go back to my track. I reviewed it and found that on the first dive in and attack, at the time the leading [strafing] Sturmo broke left, I was at a rate of 540kph (pretty fast). In the turn that followed, and before the snaproll, I quickly bled down to 280, and by the time I resorted to flaps was down to 250.

Another part of that same "pre-HO" sequence I was at 190, where the Sturmo should be able to gain angles. All other parts of the sequence the 109E should be enjoying a sweet spot of 3 to 5 seconds of superior turn rate.

After the HO, and after the aborted lag pursuit roll, here's where it really gets interesting. You see those Sturmos scissored with me and broke across my nose in planform, while I'm at between 320 and 360kph. Doesn't seem possible, according to these figures, where a Sturmo should need 28 - 30 seconds to complete a circuit. You're now going to tell me these are "30 second wallowing turns?".

More proof. Now I'm awaiting more excuses and more BS from you.

And, at the end of your last wishy-washy post, what's this "feel" stuff all of a sudden? Where's your PROOF that a Sturmo has no combat advantages over a 109E7? Same challenge you leveled at me. Let's see how you do when the shoe's on the other foot.

For my part, I offer an overmodelled turn radius, optimistic stability, and in the case of the '41 Field Mod (which these weren't) a gunner who will put his very first burst into your oil cooler or through the canopy.

By the way, if I can't argue and debate this stuff with the players, then WHO? It's been widely proven that a discussion of this type here is the first step to realizing something is wrong, before the Dev Team will even take notice.

If I seem a bit rabid in this post, to be honest, it's less and less at the modeling and more and more at the excuses, misdirection, spin-doctoring and utter lying some people will resort to rather than admit even an "honest" mistake might have been made.

[This message was edited by Stiglr on Sat August 28 2004 at 10:58 PM.]

Fred_77
08-29-2004, 01:42 AM
So far I have tried to be diplomatic about this, but the time has come to be blunt. The problem is not with differnces between the turning ability of the IL vs 109, but with your handling of the aircraft in the track provided. IL compare clearly shows the 109 having a decisve turn advantage over the IL at all but low speed. Since IL compare is supposedly generated from in game data, you think you would be able to out turn the IL easily, but seemingly cannot. The reason? You are extremely rough in your handling of the aircraft, in regards of the rudder. In the first steep turn, diving on the second IL, you are using nearly full left rudder during a left turn. The ball is nowhere near the center, and is infact at the limit to the right. This is a horrible skidding turn. Since so much rudder is trying to continue a roll to the left, much more aileron to the right is needed to keep the turn steady. Keeping the controls crossed like this not only kills turn performance, but sets you up for a really wicked spin. This type of turn happens frequently in RL when a pilot overshoots the base to final turn and tries to increase the turn with the rudder. As soon as the plane starts to overbank they try to pick up the wing with the aileron, and are greeted with the most vicious spin imagenable. Needless to say, this is a mistake that is only made once. The next steep turn made is a big slipping turn, with lots of top rudder used. A slip is not a turn, and so much top rudder in fact keeps the plane from turning well at all. A slip is not a turn. Watching the track, the plane spends very little time in a coordinated state. Turning by rudder is an idea that needs to die, the sooner the better. You can be sure that the the turn times in IL compare represent a perfectly coordinated turn. If you could go and show the 109 getting raped in coordinated turn, then you would have a legitmate beef. If IL compare is accurate, then it wouldn't happen. See now why it seems to be a hatchet job?

S!
Fred.

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2004, 12:05 PM
And still nobody explains why the Sturmos are getting around turns in much faster than the stated rate.

We've already dissected my flying, which in part explains why I had a harder time matching their *already overmodelled* turns. I have admitted that's a factor, since on the deck turn 'n burn is not my style.

But somebody, ANYBODY explain why the Sturmos are making bat turns at about half their rate, and with rock-solid stability. Bring your "proof", too.

That's why this is NOT a hatchet job.

p1ngu666
08-29-2004, 12:22 PM
well thats NOT sustained turn stiglr, check orr thread,
btw the turns arent that stable, u wobble abit etc,
if your going to follow that line, every plane in fb turns too good.

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Korolov
08-29-2004, 01:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Once again, Korolov, you're a liar and your FEET STINK.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lend me some odor neutralizer then?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The quoted turn time is for a '41 Sturmo (look for it yourself in page 1 of the post _"IL-2 plane fighter capabilities"_). There's no "version loophole" anywhere but in your fanboi diseased mind. So let's clear that up right now.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Define this "version loophole" you claim is in my deceased mind.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Now, after hunting down the ILCompare utility...

Look'a this:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, it appears that the IL-2 will only outturn the Bf-109E-7 below the 220kmh range. I wonder why you lost your little turn fight? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Now let's go back to my track. I reviewed it and found that on the first dive in and attack, at the time the leading [strafing] Sturmo broke left, I was at a rate of 540kph (pretty fast). In the turn that followed, and before the snaproll, I quickly bled down to 280, and by the time I resorted to flaps was down to 250.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Along with Fred_77, I'm sitting here wondering WHY you did that. You had more speed than the IL-2 - why bother with trying to turn with him in a hot combat zone? You willingly put yourself into a losing situation, and manhandled your aircraft in such a way that caused it to snap out and bleed every last advantage it had to the IL-2 - finally falling prey to it's advantage envelope (below 220kmh.)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Another part of that same "pre-HO" sequence I was at 190, where the Sturmo should be able to gain angles. All other parts of the sequence the 109E should be enjoying a sweet spot of 3 to 5 seconds of superior turn rate.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But *you* didn't get the advantage - IL-2 compare suggests that you should have, but for some reason you didn't aquire the advantage you should have. Perhaps if you'd have flown a little better, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
After the HO, and after the aborted lag pursuit roll, here's where it really gets interesting. You see those Sturmos scissored with me and broke across my nose in planform, while I'm at between 320 and 360kph. Doesn't seem possible, according to these figures, where a Sturmo should need 28 - 30 seconds to complete a circuit. You're now going to tell me these are "30 second wallowing turns?".
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Roll rate is a big factor in scissors - you should know this. The IL-2 DOES outroll the 109, so it's no surprise to me that you lost a scissors to him. I can outroll a 109 in a P-38, for crying out loud.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
More proof. Now I'm awaiting more excuses and more BS from you.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BS is out of stock - more BS is on backorder.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And, at the end of your last wishy-washy post, what's this "feel" stuff all of a sudden? Where's your PROOF that a Sturmo has no combat advantages over a 109E7? Same challenge you leveled at me. Let's see how you do when the shoe's on the other foot.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was talking in real life - my knowledge of the turning ability of both planes for their reality counterparts is very little. In the game however, I do know (and additionally bolstered with your charts) that the IL-2 holds no advantages.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
For my part, I offer an overmodelled turn radius, optimistic stability, and in the case of the '41 Field Mod (which these weren't) a gunner who will put his very first burst into your oil cooler or through the canopy.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now thats one thing I'll agree with you on - the gunners ARE Davy Crockett!

But I don't see where you're coming from with overmodelled turn rate and optimistic stability. IL-2 compare suggests the 109 should be able to outturn the IL-2 - but in your track we don't see that. So this leaves us with a few conclusions as to your failure:

1. Piloting error and poor tactical awareness

2. Lag or latency

3. Cheating (yes I'll say that)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
By the way, if I can't argue and debate this stuff with the players, then WHO? It's been widely proven that a discussion of this type here is the first step to realizing something is wrong, before the Dev Team will even take notice.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Many guys have e-mailed 1C about various errors and problems with the game without having to flame and troll the forums trying to incite some flamewars.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
If I seem a bit rabid in this post, to be honest, it's less and less at the modeling and more and more at the excuses, misdirection, spin-doctoring and utter lying some people will resort to rather than admit even an "honest" mistake might have been made.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

THAT'S THE PROBLEM!!!! Where *IS* the mistake aside from being your piloting skills? I'd admit there was a mistake or a bug or a INTENTIONAL OVERMODELLING if there was one - but I don't SEE one. The tests I did with the IL-2 show nothing remarkable over the 109 (except roll rate) - IL-2 compare shows no advantages for the IL-2 until the fight gets really slow. Everyone else seems to think it's piloting error as well.

Maybe if you brought yourself above rampant fanboy accusations and "liar liar pants on fire!" childish comments, you might see that part of the blame lies on your piloting errors.

Your chart only proves that the IL-2 doesn't turn better than the 109, your track suggests you need to learn better awareness, not to mention piloting skills.

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

crazyivan1970
08-29-2004, 02:03 PM
Ahem... now, try 100%loaded IL-2 turn rate vs 100% loaded Emil turn rate http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif i sense Emils turn time will be half of IL2`s. Also, note that Korolov used FLAT turn, which is a big no-no for 109 series, point nose down a bit and bang, you will probably cut that time down by 30-40% http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/band.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2004, 03:10 PM
Here's another factor we're not discussing...

we don't know how much pilot error is in the Sturmo pilots' flying. We're making a lot of comments about how I did not fly a perfect engagement (which I'll freely admit). But, it is possible that the Sturmo drivers had an equal amount of "less than 100% efficient flying" in their inputs too.

What I'm saying is, even with some pilot error thrown in, a 109e7 will have a slightly easier time of it than I did.

And, STILL, nobody hazards a guess as to how close to 25 - 30 second circles those Sturmos were cutting.

Aside for Korolov: the 'version control' I cited was how YOU said that the Sturmo whose Object Viewer stats I describe early on in the post is of an "undetermined mark", but in the post with that screenie it is *clearly* a type 2 1941 version. Like I said, obfuscation and utter untruth is the order of the day for the fanboi confronted with the proof he himself calls rabidly for.

Also, your use of the word "troll". Hmmm, what part of providing data, providing tracks, and *trying* to keep the fanbois from diverting the discussion is "trolling"?

p1ngu666
08-29-2004, 04:26 PM
u still going on with the sustained/break turn thing?

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif @ korolov

btw, we are still none the wiser if the il2 is overmodeled, not much reports etc, heck it could even be undermodeled http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

btw thanks for the 109 tips, night and day compaired to my flying before http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Korolov
08-29-2004, 07:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
we don't know how much pilot error is in the Sturmo pilots' flying. We're making a lot of comments about how I did not fly a perfect engagement (which I'll freely admit). But, it is possible that the Sturmo drivers had an equal amount of "less than 100% efficient flying" in their inputs too.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or it's quite possible that the IL-2 pilot was vastly more skilled than you were and drew you into a trap.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
What I'm saying is, even with some pilot error thrown in, a 109e7 will have a slightly easier time of it than I did.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats a given with all planes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And, STILL, nobody hazards a guess as to how close to 25 - 30 second circles those Sturmos were cutting.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Given that it was a 2 series, and the test I performed, the maximum combat turn rate they could get without flaps would be 18 seconds.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Aside for Korolov: the 'version control' I cited was how YOU said that the Sturmo whose Object Viewer stats I describe early on in the post is of an "undetermined mark", but in the post with that screenie it is *clearly* a type 2 1941 version. Like I said, obfuscation and utter untruth is the order of the day for the fanboi confronted with the proof he himself calls rabidly for.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't see where I said the IL-2 was a undetermined mark... In your track it was a '41 2 series, equipped with 2 20mm ShVak, 2 7.62mm ShKas, and has only 8 rocket racks compared to the first series. For IL-2 compare, '41 IL-2 is a bit vague - does it mean the 3 series or 2 series? The Field mod? Regardless, performance between the '41 model IL-2s is not that different.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Also, your use of the word "troll". Hmmm, what part of providing data, providing tracks, and *trying* to keep the fanbois from diverting the discussion is "trolling"?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You just said why you're a troll.

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

Fred_77
08-30-2004, 12:44 AM
I will take a shot at trying to explain why your turn times don't match up with those in IL compare. Before I start I would like to point out the version of IL compare used in the screen above is an old one. The current version is 2.4, and in it the E7 turns slightly worse then in 2.1. Second point to take into consideration is that we are comparing the best turning IL with the worst turning 109.

The turn in chart in IL compare is a measure of sustained turn abilities. This means the turns are done at a constant airspeed, altitude, angle of bank, and a constant G. Also they will need to be well coordinated turns. The best turn time is going to represent the steepest angle of bank that can be maintained in a level turn without losing speed. The steeper the angle of bank that can be maintained, the faster the turn rate will be.

So in this comparison, we have two rather different aircraft. The IL has a low wingloading and a low power to weight ratio, while the 109 is the opposite with a high wingloading and a high power to weight ratio. Now lets look at a turn 400kph. According to IL compare 2.4, no flaps, it should take the 109 28 seconds, while the IL will complete the turn in 34 seconds. The 109 being more powerful and with a high wingloading and a wing optimised for higher speed, can power through the turn with a relatively high angle of bank. The draggy and less powerful IL must turn at a more shallow bank angle to keep the speed at 400, thus it has a lower turn rate and bigger radius.

If we next look at a speed of 220kph, we will se that the situation is reversed. The IL can complete a level turn in under 28 seconds, while the 109 completes the 360 in 35 seconds. The 109's high wingloading now works against it. without good speed, the 109 cannot generate enough lift to make the turn very steeply, and thus needs to make the bank rather shallow in order to remain airborne at a constant speed. The IL still has a large reserve of lift, due to it's low wingloading, and can thus maintain a steeper angle of bank and enjoy a better rate of turn.

For the 109 vs IL in a break turn, I think the advantage has to go to the IL. The IL can manage a steeper angle of bank, for a longer time then the 109. The 109 has to worry about stalling out first or lessening the angle of bank and being forced to the outside of the turn. The advantage to the 109 is that if forced to the outside, it would have an energy advantage.

Regarding whether or not the IL pilots in the track are flying their planes to the fullest is kind of a hard thing to judge. If they cross the controls badly during a turn, then they will still spin out. It just happens at a much lower airspeed.

I know I have simplifed a lot of things and left a lot out, but I am just trying to give the gist of how the turn chart works. It measures sustanied turns and it seems to be fairly usless in trying to determine how a plane will perform in combat turn.

S!
Fred.