PDA

View Full Version : Bf109 in Public Beta



XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 07:07 PM
Ok i must say i am very happy with the 109 now. I was fighting a Yak-3 (i think it was pinkpanther) and i attacked him with about 500m alt advantage below 3000 and missed .... i could feel that i was getting all i could out of my plane at auto-pitch but the Yak-3 was able to get on my 6 and gain on me ...... so i started a right climbing spiral and he kept gaining on me slowly until well above 3000 metres ....... then I had the advantage, although it was very slight, and could get seperation and do zoom attacks ........ but this was a very skilled pilot and i never got a good firing solution for a close-range mk108 shot .......... after a long fight with no result i pulled away dangerously low on fuel and we both left with a S!

this was a G6/AS U4 with about 40% fuel left when the fight started (i think). and i never had to go manual-pitch

So i think the 109 and Yak-3 are very well matched. The Yak owns the 109 below but the 109 owns the Yak medium high. But not in a way that one is "über" to the other - just a slight difference that a good pilot can use to his advantage

I have seen no bug-posts with the 109 nor have i found any so i think it is a brilliantly modelled plane now - very historically accurate i think - what do you think ?

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 07:07 PM
Ok i must say i am very happy with the 109 now. I was fighting a Yak-3 (i think it was pinkpanther) and i attacked him with about 500m alt advantage below 3000 and missed .... i could feel that i was getting all i could out of my plane at auto-pitch but the Yak-3 was able to get on my 6 and gain on me ...... so i started a right climbing spiral and he kept gaining on me slowly until well above 3000 metres ....... then I had the advantage, although it was very slight, and could get seperation and do zoom attacks ........ but this was a very skilled pilot and i never got a good firing solution for a close-range mk108 shot .......... after a long fight with no result i pulled away dangerously low on fuel and we both left with a S!

this was a G6/AS U4 with about 40% fuel left when the fight started (i think). and i never had to go manual-pitch

So i think the 109 and Yak-3 are very well matched. The Yak owns the 109 below but the 109 owns the Yak medium high. But not in a way that one is "über" to the other - just a slight difference that a good pilot can use to his advantage

I have seen no bug-posts with the 109 nor have i found any so i think it is a brilliantly modelled plane now - very historically accurate i think - what do you think ?

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 07:18 PM
one thing i would like to be clarified - the MW50

i ruin the engine occationally with it be enabling it - what is the standard practice (in-game not real-life) for operating the MW-50 ?

we never had to think about this before (i know it was possible to ruin it with MW50 but never happened to me in any patch before this) - i always enabled MW50 on runway before takeoff at 60% throttle cuz we have endless supply of MW50 liquid.

i meant to check out if the MW50 was limited now .... but i was too busy fighting off the P51 and the Ki-84 ....

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 07:34 PM
I've wondered that same question.

about half the time I use MW50 engine goes fubar.

can someone tell me please when to use and when not to use it? i thought it maybe a speed thing. Don't get same issue with the erhohte notleisting on 190s.

But agree; 109s seem pretty darn good now. overall I'm very happy.

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 07:39 PM
The amount of fuel can have an enormous effect on the performance of some planes. I reccon there's alot of flyers that only fuel up their planes 25%. It's probably the reason why there has been alot of arguments on some planes performances. The 109 runs out of fuel pretty fast when fueled 25% so 50% is the minimum, for me at least. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Being a Dora driver I need all the fuel I can get, cause it takes time collecting kills in this baby!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<center>


http://members.chello.se/unni/rote3.JPG



'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 07:42 PM
I engage the MW50 only when my engine is at the lowest possible RPM. This method has helped my engine perform flawlessly. In RL MW50 was only to be used for 10 minutes at the time, then the engine needed to cool down for about 2 minutes, AFAIK this is not modelled in FB.

<center>


http://members.chello.se/unni/rote3.JPG



'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 08:54 PM
robban75 wrote:
- I engage the MW50 only when my engine is at the
- lowest possible RPM. This method has helped my
- engine perform flawlessly. In RL MW50 was only to be
- used for 10 minutes at the time, then the engine
- needed to cool down for about 2 minutes, AFAIK this
- is not modelled in FB.
-
But thats not a reason for damaging the engine if you enable MW50 at high-rpm.
Never heard Oleg talking about that. Thats not i whine i can live with it, i'm just intersted why the engine gets damaged.

"HyperLobby 4 Ever"

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 08:57 PM
Stefan-R wrote:
-
- But thats not a reason for damaging the engine if
- you enable MW50 at high-rpm.
- Never heard Oleg talking about that. Thats not i
- whine i can live with it, i'm just intersted why the
- engine gets damaged.


Engine will be damaged if you switch MW on or off when over 100% throttle. That is apparently historical feature.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 09:32 PM
i was told somewhere else on her to turn MW50 on before 50per power, like runway, then leave it on, and the mw50 will only kick in at power over 100per.... ?

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 09:40 PM
JG26_Red wrote:
- i was told somewhere else on her to turn MW50 on
- before 50per power, like runway, then leave it on,
- and the mw50 will only kick in at power over
- 100per.... ?


Yes, so it works. But I think it must be again turned off before it ends.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 10:58 PM
thanks!

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 11:57 PM
johann_thor wrote:
- one thing i would like to be clarified - the MW50
-
- i ruin the engine occationally with it be enabling
- it - what is the standard practice (in-game not
- real-life) for operating the MW-50 ?
-
- we never had to think about this before (i know it
- was possible to ruin it with MW50 but never happened
- to me in any patch before this) - i always enabled
- MW50 on runway before takeoff at 60% throttle cuz we
- have endless supply of MW50 liquid.
-

I have noticed this too, but unlike other replys on this thread my engine goes fubar if MW50 is engaged before revs reaches about 2600+.

To be sure of this I use manual pitch and then switch to autopitch.

This ppitch thing is an other issue for discussion, on 109 it is possible to over rev the engine with manual ppitch and get it ruined.

The engine feels like a real potent racemachine with almost instant up reving with use of manual ppitch - very demanding business just to keep revs within limits.

The Bf.109 feels much more agil using manual ppitch but with a of ruining the engine during battle.

I assume this is accurate modelled but is there to be such a difference between the various ac:s on this Ppitch management?

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 12:05 AM
i too get engine dmg if i dont rev up the engine .... my way of doing things now is to rev up at 60% throttle on auto pitch and enable MW50 before taking off

the MW50 still does not seem to run out of liquid

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 12:52 AM
but 109g6 climbrate still does not match it should be in real life.

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 01:15 AM
what G-6 ? i have not tested the 43 versions the G-6AS seems ok.....nothing uber but pretty realistic i think

starting public beta...........have to check

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 05:01 AM
K model on the runway engaged at minimum throttle right at engine start. Flew a few minutes to the intercept zone, power never breaking past 95%. Once engaged used boost for about 5 seconds on a power zoom. Than back to normal throttle control below 95%. Within 2 minutes my bearings were squeeling and another 3 had to set her down, no smoke, never got hit. Glad I'm not the only one getting the engines trashed from nothing.

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 06:44 AM
RedManAce wrote:
- K model on the runway engaged at minimum throttle
- right at engine start. Flew a few minutes to the
- intercept zone, power never breaking past 95%. Once
- engaged used boost for about 5 seconds on a power
- zoom. Than back to normal throttle control below
- 95%. Within 2 minutes my bearings were squeeling
- and another 3 had to set her down, no smoke, never
- got hit. Glad I'm not the only one getting the
- engines trashed from nothing.
-
-


Were you on auto or manual pitch control?


--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 08:44 AM
I am impressed with the 109 family now.

The elevator is like concrete at high speeds though and I've played lawn dart a few times, but I will get used to it. (I bet it is pretty accurate!)

It doesnt overheat like it did in 1.11 and the rads are now rads and not air-break-e-a-tors.

The 20mm has good punch, and the late models climb pretty close to what they should.

Those are my observations, take em or leave em.

I do have one question, however... How can I turn off those annoying words "MW50" etc. They get quite annoying sitting there on my screen all the time. I turn MW50 on after startup and leave it on, so I really dont need to be reminded constantly that it is ready. Any conf.ini settings or something that I can switch off?



http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/Fehler.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 09:03 AM
bah I looked around but could not find anything. It seems those messages are coded into the game. Would love to insert blank text into some of them. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 09:10 AM
NoHudLog=0

Change "0" to "1" and no more messages will appear. Unfortunately, I believe this applies to all messages, including prop pitch, throttle, etc.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 09:52 AM
Fehler wrote:
- I am impressed with the 109 family now.
-
- The elevator is like concrete at high speeds though
- and I've played lawn dart a few times, but I will
- get used to it. (I bet it is pretty accurate!)


Fehler, elevator heaviness for Bf-109 is a very much inaccurate information. Bf-109 was the first fighter to use very small elevators, in order to keep the stick forces manageable at high speeds. This brought a problem though, at slow speeds the elevator was unpleasant, it was heavier than on other fighters, because it had to be deflected more for the same wing AoA.

So the engineers designed a moving stabilizer instead of the usual trim tabs. This cured the problem, but brought the pilot a new task in cockpit, find the proper trim for a particular speed. This is why Bf-109 has such a big trim wheel, in order to make the trim changes fast (for the same reason the horizontal stabilizer was moved by an electric engine on Fw-190). Beginners had to get accustomed with this system, but it was nothing that the average pilot could not master.

But this is also the reason why many allied test pilots did not use proper trim for Bf-109 and Fw-190, resulting in confusing reports. When they say that Fw-190 controls were excessively heavy and at the same time found that it was easy to bring the aircraft in an accelerated stall at high speed, they simply used the trim setting for low speeds ("Tail Heavy"). None of these would have happened with the proper trim: german pilots reported easy pullouts at extreme dive speeds.

Because of its qualities this system was later adopted by other high speed aicraft, like Fw-190, Me-262 and even F-86A. Yes, the first series of F-86 had the same type of elevator control with Bf-109: moving stabilizer + elevator. There was a minor difference in that the controls were actuated by control cables moved by a hydraulically boosted stick, compared to control rods on the other planes mentioned. This hydraulically boosted stick was not a fully hydraulic control system like in F-86E, with engine driven pumps pushing hydraulic fluid in actuating cilinders. It was a very simple device, similar with the system used for brakes, the usual trade of distance for force. This was achieved in Fw-190 (and the other) using bell cranks.

It's interesting that beside the dives next to Mach 1, pilots considered the control variant of F-86A as being superior to the full hydraullic, all moving tail found in F-86E. This is why RCAF Sabres did not drop this type of controls, even with late types fitted with 6-3 wings. RCAF Sabres were considered by many as being more maneuvrable than NAA Sabres.

So please, Fehler, do not listen to Skychimp and the band, they have absolutely no proof for this control heaviness they like to talk about, neither for elevator or aileron. They just fantasize on the side of that RAE report on Emil, later corrected by RAE itself, crediting Emil as having better controls at high speed than Spitfire. Of course 109F and later models were much better in this respect than Emil.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 11/13/0304:08AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 03:58 PM
Hello Everyone,

This is how the MW50 is opperated in FB. This was taken from the read me from the out-of-the-box version.

"Bf-109G-6/AS, Bf-109G-10/G-14 and Bf-109K-4

These aircraft are equipped with MW50 injection system. The system operates automatically, giving the engine additional power as you move the throttle control beyond the 100% mark. The system can be switched on and off (using the WEP control key), however, it may only be done when the engine is idle or running on lower throttle to prevent damage. Also, it should be switched off when it runs out of water-methanol mix as it can't operate properly without external pressure and may lead to engine damage."

It clearly stat's that you turn MW50 when the engine is idling or at low throttle. I believe it was stated by Oleg (I may be wrong) that the throttle should be 30% or lower when turning on MW50. It will add additional power when the throttle is over 100%. Now wether or not you can run out of water-methonal in the 1.2 Public Beta is beyond me since I don't have it installed. I hope this help's out. =S=


Semper Fi!! Carry On!! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Squirral aka Wolf_Fangs

<marquee>Wolf Pak Squadron</marquee>

<center>http://www.sanfords.net/DarK_Wolfs_free_demonic_graphics/wolf15.gif </center>

<center>The King Is Coming! Do You Feel The Fear?</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 04:37 PM
i agree with huck here ... the elevator is too concrete. the Emil test is perhaps the most inaccurate and flawed test of any aircraft ever made. it should not be mentioned - yet some people always refer to this BS test of the 109.
But huck you could maby try to be less offensive when you have somthing to say http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif sometimes you are actually very right about some things but spoil your own credability by flaming - and flaming someone for flaming you is not an excuse http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

the solution would be to model the 109 stabilizer. it trims by moving the whole stabilizer. this would give the 109 more effective trim (but please keep it slow as it is to prevent cheats)

the 109 did not have any more stiff elevator response then P51, Spitfire or 190.

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 04:56 PM
ok despite this little too heavy elevator i am still very happy with the 109. i started this thread by comparing the 109 and Yak-3 but now i did a lot of fights with mustangs yesterday and i want to share my view on the subject. the Mustang is very fast, has good high-speed manouverability and retains speed very well. the 109 in contrast has to slow down the battle to outturn the mustang and that means death in any other situation except 1on1. the 109 with its excellent power/weight ratio is able to get better initial acceleration then the mustang but the mustang will catch it in the long run - so you can fight the pony but NOT run away. i am not sure about the zoom - need more testing...but i did shake a P51 by going into a vertical tail stand at 110% and MW50 rad closed. the P51 has no chance in a 1on1 if the 109 got the alt advantage ... just take a snapshot and enter a vertical tail stand and come down in a hammerhead. however if the P51 has the alt advantage the 109 is screwed in the same way. also the mustang will not overheat like a 109 and seems to suffer less drag from cooling - wich is realistic. so dont let the fight take too long or the Pony will start to own you. if the 109 tries to dive away - its dead ! the mustang will own it at high speed in any manouver so try climbing or going vertical with hard manouvers at speeds where your 109 is not cemented stuck !

2 co-operating Mustangs are damn hard to shake !

these are my observations - feel free to post yours !

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 05:07 PM
Indeed the 109s are quite good now - save that old MW overheating issue...

Yes it has been improved somewhat. You don`t ruin you engine after 5-6mins operating on full power, but at about 9... still not good.

I can`t understand WHY it`s such a hard issue to correct.

Simple : The part in the K-4`s (and in other MW equipped 109 manuals is <u>CLEAR.</u>

It says it`s allowed to use it for 10 continous minutes at WEP, and only then you had to wait for about 5 minutes at a lower power to use it again. This is not something special about MW, simply that the engine needs some time to cool down... ie. some other engines used MW continously at lower power. Manual says there`s enough MW for 26 minutes. Read : manual says you can fly for a total 26 minutes on WEP, with the single limitation that you can`t use it more than 10 mins at a time...

However what we have in Il-2 is that you get overheat messege after about 5 mins now, and altough you can push it to 10 mins, it`s very risky, and you are very near to step into the realm of flying with a severely damaged, rough running engine.

Frankly, I don`t think anyone would tell pilot`s it`s safe to run on WEP for 10mins if it was so risky in RL. Oleg should finally correct that.

Also, about operation. It shouldn`t run out if it`s enabled but you run under 100% throttle (though I am not convinced based on the former betas that MW could actually run out, I tested w/o overheating, 8x time and fuel run out sooner...) In real life, pilot used a switch to enable/disable the use of MW, but otherwise it was automatical, and only dependent on throttle position. Above 100%, injection and boost raise automatically happened, when throttle was below 100% (1.45ata), injection ceased and boost returned to normal. This is not exactly how it is in Il-2, enabling WEP seems to use a completely new set of Boost/RPM values instead of raising the above-100% ones.

Also, I also found the sight of MW enabled annoying. It should pop up once I enabled it, and then only when throttle is 100% +, like on P-47`s water injection boost.



Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 05:21 PM
johann_thor wrote:
- what G-6 ? i have not tested the 43 versions the
- G-6AS seems ok.....nothing uber but pretty realistic
- i think
-
- starting public beta...........have to check
-
-

i say g6 or g6later not g6as i wonder how many g6as could be seen on east front till the war over?i just think they are so rare.

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 07:10 PM
a G-6 is not just a G6. the germans had all kinds of variations with different parts and different engines.

the G6/AS in this game is there to represent the G6 planes with the new more powerful engines that were present in early 44 - correct me if i am wrong

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 07:25 PM
one happy camper here

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 11:35 PM
Good post Isegrim - don't really know why this has been like this for so long now /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

In V1.11 we found that engine damage occured around 4 mins after the overheat message. This seemed the same in all 109's (I did not do exact tests on all types!) but the interesting thing is that power has nothing to do with it.

You can begin overheating and reduce power - if you still have overheat message after about 3:30 secs then you get a damaged engine.

The thing is - you could run at 110% power and the engine is still damaged after the same amount of time. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Bottom line : If you are in trouble - floor it! Full power! You have just over 3 mins /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

JG5_UnKle

"Know and use all the capabilities of your airplane. If you don't sooner or later, somebody who does, will kick your ***"


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-14-2003, 01:05 AM
I haven't had the opportunity to test all the 109s in the beta because you can't hardly find any early war servers! It's all Ponys and later model 109s. The earliest 109 I've found yet online is the G6 Late. That I was pretty happy with (except for the continued affront of the yellowed cockpit glass that turns the terrain below into a smeared mess, and totally hides plane "dots").

I'd like to see if the F4s still snap left for no apparent reason...if the G6 Standard is still a total dog...

but, if the G6Late is any indication, there may be hope.

XyZspineZyX
11-14-2003, 01:10 AM
about 109s performance in new patch you can see here http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zubzz
i dont remember its base on rc01 or rc01new.

XyZspineZyX
11-14-2003, 05:28 AM
johann_thor wrote:
- i agree with huck here ... the elevator is too
- concrete. the Emil test is perhaps the most
- inaccurate and flawed test of any aircraft ever
- made. it should not be mentioned - yet some people
- always refer to this BS test of the 109.
- But huck you could maby try to be less offensive
- when you have somthing to say /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif sometimes you are
- actually very right about some things but spoil your
- own credability by flaming - and flaming someone for
- flaming you is not an excuse /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-
- the solution would be to model the 109 stabilizer.
- it trims by moving the whole stabilizer. this would
- give the 109 more effective trim (but please keep it
- slow as it is to prevent cheats)
-
- the 109 did not have any more stiff elevator
- response then P51, Spitfire or 190.
-
Very interesting. I'm afraid I have to agree, please Huck try to ignore the flaming people & try not to flame yourself. Your knowledge of aircraft is impressive & I like to learn but, please try to be nice. State facts & don';t get drawn in to arguments. this will have a better effect.

Your comments about Allied pilots not knowing how to trim the 109 make sense, (during war time test anyway)but if you call them stupid allied pilots who know nothing..well you loose your audience. Obviously air forces have flight instructors for a reason. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

johan_thor, wrote:

- yet some people
- always refer to this BS test of the 109.

Now it may be a BS test but not all of us know this & it has been presented as a valid test repeatedly in English lang. books so you have to convince people, or not, as you all see fit. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Ps. i don't mean to offend anyone.