PDA

View Full Version : Skip Holm interview about Bf-109



Sintubin
01-30-2007, 02:00 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94

Wah ? holly **** bf 109 is in fact a good plane in real

i now it deep inside of me hehe

waffen-79
01-30-2007, 02:13 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

I guess a man that has ACTUALLY flew the planes is better than any charts

slipBall
01-30-2007, 02:15 PM
amen

MEGILE
01-30-2007, 02:17 PM
omg no way!

This guy.. who does he think he is?

"allies won the war"

agree 100%

Krizz1972
01-30-2007, 02:19 PM
lol

Irish_Rogues
01-30-2007, 02:29 PM
Wow, dueling videos imagine that. We'll see if this go round Skip Holm's opinion gets better treatment. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Kwiatos
01-30-2007, 02:41 PM
In game G-2 turn horizontaly little better at slow speed then Spitfire MK IX. SPit is better at high speeds and in climb turn but not in horizontaly slow speed turn. I saw many Spitfire MK IX pilots was killed by G-2 pilots beacuse they thought that spit turn always better. Only key to outturn G-2 in SPit IX is as i name it "energy turn" but no way slow speed horizontal turn. Spit V (18sec) is better turner then G-2 (20 sec) as it should. Bf109 F (19,5sec) was should be close to SPitV.
Of course P-51 have no chance with Bf109 in turn at medium to high speed so it is also correct.

Sintubin
01-30-2007, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
In game G-2 turn horizontaly little better at slow speed then Spitfire MK IX. SPit is better at high speeds and in climb turn but not in horizontaly slow speed turn. I saw many Spitfire MK IX pilots was killed by G-2 pilots beacuse they thought that spit turn always better. Only key to outturn G-2 in SPit IX is as i name it "energy turn" but no way slow speed horizontal turn. Spit V (18sec) is better turner then G-2 (20 sec) as it should. Bf109 F (19,5sec) was should be close to SPitV.
Of course P-51 have no chance with Bf109 in turn at medium to high speed so it is also correct.

Nah those pilots are overmodelled

I love skip answer DO YOU NOW YOUR BOSS http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

HuninMunin
01-30-2007, 03:05 PM
This here gentlemen, will soon become forum legend.

Sintubin
01-30-2007, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
This here gentlemen, will soon become forum legend.

I am such a bad boy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Xiolablu3
01-30-2007, 03:20 PM
OPinions, opinions, opinions...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt8G3vxLmKE

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

GBrutus
01-30-2007, 03:24 PM
"It's only what I read..." LOL. Conclusive then.

HuninMunin
01-30-2007, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
OPinions, opinions, opinions...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt8G3vxLmKE

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

waffen-79
01-30-2007, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
OPinions, opinions, opinions...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt8G3vxLmKE

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

So? now it's O.K. to believe History Channel Documentaries????

Game developers make allied planes perform better so they can "still win the war" because their REAL advantage goes to hell when some admin shouts::

"even teams" LOL

Be sure

AKA_TAGERT
01-30-2007, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by waffen-79:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

I guess a man that has ACTUALLY flew the planes is better than any charts Hardly!

How can I say that?

EASY!

In that for every WWII Bf109 pilot that says his 109 could out turn a Spitfire there is a WWII Spitfire pilot that says his Spitfire could out turn a Bf109

Not only that but there are varying stories from WWII pilots that had the opportunity to fly captured aircraft!

Most pilots tend to be biased! It takes special training to LEARN how to take your bias out of it! As TEST pilots do, and even with that training it can sneak in! But usually un-intentionally! In that TEST pilots realize what they say about how a plane flies is not used to impress others or pick up chicks but will be applied and could kill other pilots if they don't tell the truth.

But the DATA collected during a flight that is used to make those CHARTS does not have the problem of human bias!

Long story short, data/charts do not lie intentionally or unintentionally unless there was a mistake in the way the data was processed or collected. Thus I would not take one 'opinion' of anyone!

SAVVY?

Xiolablu3
01-30-2007, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by waffen-79:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
OPinions, opinions, opinions...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt8G3vxLmKE

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

So? now it's O.K. to believe History Channel Documentaries????

Game developers make allied planes perform better so they can "still win the war" because their REAL advantage goes to hell when some admin shouts::

"even teams" LOL

Be sure </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Did I say anything of the sort?

The point I was trying to make is that there are so many different opinons on the subject.

Not that either one is right or wrong....See Tagerts reply for a more detailed answer to what I meant.

faustnik
01-30-2007, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
But the DATA collected during a flight that is used to make those CHARTS does not have the problem of human bias!

Agreed. Show me the chart!

DIRTY-MAC
01-30-2007, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by waffen-79:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

I guess a man that has ACTUALLY flew the planes is better than any charts Hardly!

How can I say that?

EASY!

In that for every WWII Bf109 pilot that says his 109 could out turn a Spitfire there is a WWII Spitfire pilot that says his Spitfire could out turn a Bf109

probably most of them who said they could outurn the other,
was the plane chasing the other, wonder why?
look were the nose of a plane points when it does a continius turn

Sintubin
01-30-2007, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by waffen-79:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
OPinions, opinions, opinions...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt8G3vxLmKE

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

So? now it's O.K. to believe History Channel Documentaries????

Game developers make allied planes perform better so they can "still win the war" because their REAL advantage goes to hell when some admin shouts::

"even teams" LOL

Be sure </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Did I say anything of the sort?

The point I was trying to make is that there are so many different opinons on the subject.

Not that either one is right or wrong....See Tagerts reply for a more detailed answer to what I meant. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hmm feeling atacked

your ppost was with sacarsm meaning to say they are wrong

but you wont admit that wont you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ps: you see sacarsm ))

Xiolablu3
01-30-2007, 04:54 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

No mate my post said :-

'Opinions, Opinions, Opinions' - Meaning 'Who is right?, Skip Holmes or this guy in the History CHannel doc? They both say the opposite'

My 'Confused' smilie was meant to convey the feeling of 'confusion' at the two sources saying different things. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


I belive the 109F4 was a fantastic plane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

josephs1959
01-30-2007, 05:26 PM
Now I believe "Skip" isn't considering the added weight of ammo and guns. That point being said, and I'll leave it to others to argue that point with their fact sheets, charts and numbers and formulae. I've always believed that the allied fighter planes, American, British and Russians were and ARE overmodelled in climb rates, energy loss or retainment and turn radius or radii ect, ect. I also agree with "Skip's" point that the engineers or game designers WANT the allies to win the war and or every battle. As a result you see the performance difference between the planes in the game and what an actual pilot that HAS flown these planes has said. If it makes sense that the ME-109's performance deteriotes with every later model because of added weight of it's engine, then it also makes sense that the P-51 with it having more weight than the Me-109 would have poorer performance in some repects, Period! Just after hearing this interview, the performance of the ME-109,Me-262 must be radically improved! You can't use the same formulae and end up with different results ON THE BASIS OF SIDES. If measures are being taken to make sure of "no cheating" whether it be between players or sides, then how is it explained for the false performance of the Allied planes? Isn't that a form of cheating? "Skip" also mentioned the laminar flow wing (it's contribution to added speed through less drag). The following planes ALSO have a laminar flow wing, Me-262, Ta-152, Do-335. to name a few. Now there are other factors to consider,I know. But how does one rationalize (And I'm sure there'll plenty of them) the performance of these planes as compared to the P-51 and Spitfire in energy retention? For example; top speed of the ME-262, 540 mph. Top speed of the P-51, 437mph a difference or more than 100 mph! The performance of the Anton and the Dora compared to the P-51 and Spitfire are also heavily suspect. I read in a thread somewhere that, "this game is the fairest of all the others". Fairest isn't fair and this game is quite far from fair or correct. It's a shame that we as players haven't heard or read from any of the actual pilots of WWII about the game. It makes sense that they should have been at least consulted in the designing of the game, I mean they WERE there, and they're disappearing every day that goes by. The absence of their opinion along with their experience is something that cannot be ignored. I'm sick and tired of reading,"It's the violin player."(I don't play the violin and I'm not interested to learn,I play this game). If that is really the belief then the allied planes wouldn't have to be overmodelled or the axis planes undermodelled just to even the score and make the game more playable. This also is true of the fact that servers are allowed the abilty to exclude certain planes(Me-262) to make the game fairer while all the while professing that it's the abilty of one's skill that has to be improved. If that were true then shouldn't it be the allies who need the improvement? Improvement of tactics for instance can make up for the 262's performance. In the actual war allied planes raided German jet airfields and waited for the jets to take off or land. Now I'm not advocating an unlimited amount of ME-262's in a server's game, every blue player would choose it when the going got tough. But rather a rationed number based on the ratio of 262's to other German planes for that time period. For instance 3 X 262's are only allowed for a given scenerio once they are taken than that's it until the scenerio is played again. It doesn't make any sense that after all the work and patches that was put into the game to make it seem realistic to flasely improve one set of planes just for the sake of what? Play balance? What we end up with is what we have, a realistic LOOKING game with unrealistic and unfair one sided performance.It wasn't the quality of the allied planes or pilots that won the war, it was the numbers. 10 to 1 or even 15 to 1! No matter how good of a pilot you are you're going down. Of all the allies, the German pilots considered the British, the best and "respected" their abilities as pilots. Then came the Americans but the German pilots felt they were the young birds and still needed more experience compared to the British pilots. This is from German pilots that fought on both fronts,although the Russians had some experienced pilots, that the Russians were a joke! I'm paraphrasing of course I got this info from,"The Blond Knight of Germany" by Col. Raymond F. Toliver & Trevor J. Constable. Ballintine books. 1970. And no I'm not going to read it again just to find the actual quote.

Badsight-
01-31-2007, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by Sintubin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94

Wah ? holly **** bf 109 is in fact a good plane in real

i now it deep inside of me hehe the 109 is not a "G"

the Bf-109 in that video has a more powerfull merlin engine & is lighter than it WW2 spec
this is an old video

Badsight-
01-31-2007, 12:21 AM
here is a run-down of the 109 in that video

http://www.skipholm.com/willy-messerschmitt.htm

Xiolablu3
01-31-2007, 02:29 AM
Joseph, good post but could youbreak up your posts into paragraphs next time? It would make it much easier and less tiring to read. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If you are not sure, just break it up into different sections covering each point, like I have here. (mine are very short because I am trying to show you)

I am not sure I agree with you that the BF109 is undermodelled in this game. Its by far the best fighter in the game in 1940-41. Far more powerful than the Spitfire Vb 1941, its only real opponent thats in the same class. The only thing the Spitfire is better at is turn, and even then the 109 is not far behind. I would say the game represents reality very well as far as the early 109's are concerned.

We can see in Badsights link that Skips 109 has a more powerful engine than a normal G. Also he has only flown a Spitfire once, and says that the Spifire V is basically the same as a Spitfire IX. I dont believe what he says about the 109 outturning the Spitfire, but thats just me. Maybe HE could outturn the Spitfire he flew is HIS 109.

bazzaah2
01-31-2007, 02:35 AM
Originally posted by GBrutus:
"It's only what I read..." LOL. Conclusive then.

maybe he reads these forums.

jermin122
01-31-2007, 02:59 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
OPinions, opinions, opinions...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt8G3vxLmKE

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

LOL. Those 109 pilots should have turned in corner speed.

Termitedelight
01-31-2007, 04:25 AM
I've heard that story from Bud Anderson many times and it gets better everytime! The guy being interviewed before Skip Holm was pretty down to earth....like his attitude!

Sintubin
01-31-2007, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sintubin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94

Wah ? holly **** bf 109 is in fact a good plane in real

i now it deep inside of me hehe the 109 is not a "G"

the Bf-109 in that video has a more powerfull merlin engine & is lighter than it WW2 spec
this is an old video </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


They talk about bf 109 G right

MEGILE
01-31-2007, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by bazzaah2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GBrutus:
"It's only what I read..." LOL. Conclusive then.

maybe he reads these forums. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



LMAOoooooooooooooo

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Jaws2002
01-31-2007, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by josephs1959:
I've always believed that the allied fighter planes, American, British and Russians were and ARE overmodelled in climb rates, energy loss or retainment and turn radius or radii ect, ect. I also agree with "Skip's" point that the engineers or game designers WANT the allies to win the war and or every battle. As a result you see the performance difference between the planes in the game and what an actual pilot that HAS flown these planes has said. If it makes sense that the ME-109's performance deteriotes with every later model because of added weight of it's engine, then it also makes sense that the P-51 with it having more weight than the Me-109 would have poorer performance in some repects, Period! Just after hearing this interview, the performance of the ME-109,Me-262 must be radically improved! You can't use the same formulae and end up with different results ON THE BASIS OF SIDES. If measures are being taken to make sure of "no cheating" whether it be between players or sides, then how is it explained for the false performance of the Allied planes? Isn't that a form of cheating? "Skip" also mentioned the laminar flow wing (it's contribution to added speed through less drag). The following planes ALSO have a laminar flow wing, Me-262, Ta-152, Do-335. to name a few.

You think the game is biased because you probably don't fly red much to get the idea how it really is. IF you do you are probably in the one or two planes that have problems. If you fly Russian front the reds don't really have a chance until the La-5/5F comes into the picture.

Performance wise the western allies are in the same boat until late 43.

And no. Do-335 and Ta-152 did not have laminar flow wing.



Now there are other factors to consider,I know. But how does one rationalize (And I'm sure there'll plenty of them) the performance of these planes as compared to the P-51 and Spitfire in energy retention? For example; top speed of the ME-262, 540 mph. Top speed of the P-51, 437mph a difference or more than 100 mph!


if you have problems in the 262 while fighting the spits or P-51 then you have some serious catch up to do in your energy management.


The performance of the Anton and the Dora compared to the P-51 and Spitfire are also heavily suspect.

I don't know what version of the game you fly but since PF- came out the FW-190's were improved steady. They are very competitive fighters in the 4.071m. The best they ever were.



I read in a thread somewhere that, "this game is the fairest of all the others". Fairest isn't fair and this game is quite far from fair or correct. It's a shame that we as players haven't heard or read from any of the actual pilots of WWII about the game. It makes sense that they should have been at least consulted in the designing of the game, I mean they WERE there, and they're disappearing every day that goes by. The absence of their opinion along with their experience is something that cannot be ignored. I'm sick and tired of reading,"It's the violin player."(I don't play the violin and I'm not interested to learn,I play this game).

What a load of bs. It is right what they say. It's all in the violinist. If you have problem in 262 against allied prop fighters you should really consider trying the violin instead of this game. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif


If that is really the belief then the allied planes wouldn't have to be overmodelled or the axis planes undermodelled just to even the score and make the game more playable. This also is true of the fact that servers are allowed the abilty to exclude certain planes(Me-262) to make the game fairer while all the while professing that it's the abilty of one's skill that has to be improved. If that were true then shouldn't it be the allies who need the improvement? Improvement of tactics for instance can make up for the 262's performance. In the actual war allied planes raided German jet airfields and waited for the jets to take off or land. Now I'm not advocating an unlimited amount of ME-262's in a server's game, every blue player would choose it when the going got tough. But rather a rationed number based on the ratio of 262's to other German planes for that time period. For instance 3 X 262's are only allowed for a given scenerio once they are taken than that's it until the scenerio is played again.


The biggest danger to me when I fly the 262 vs late war allied props are collisions (yeah when I come in too fast and i end up ramming my target http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif), And damage taken when my target blows up too close to me, under the weight of fire of the 108's.



It wasn't the quality of the allied planes or pilots that won the war, it was the numbers. 10 to 1 or even 15 to 1!


Actually you are in a big part wrong. The allied pilots were overal way better trained then the germans at that point in the war. And also the P-51 and P-47 were much better planes at the high altitudes they had to fly.


No matter how good of a pilot you are you're going down. Of all the allies, the German pilots considered the British, the best and "respected" their abilities as pilots. Then came the Americans but the German pilots felt they were the young birds and still needed more experience compared to the British pilots. This is from German pilots that fought on both fronts,although the Russians had some experienced pilots, that the Russians were a joke! I'm paraphrasing of course I got this info from,"The Blond Knight of Germany" by Col. Raymond F. Toliver & Trevor J. Constable. Ballintine books. 1970. And no I'm not going to read it again just to find the actual quote.


I think you should really consider the violin. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

II_JG1.Priller
01-31-2007, 11:06 AM
The "lighter then combat trim" cuts both ways in the planes they are comparing. They all have had the combat tools removed, so performance will adjust for both plane equally.

AKA_TAGERT
01-31-2007, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by Sintubin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sintubin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94

Wah ? holly **** bf 109 is in fact a good plane in real

i now it deep inside of me hehe the 109 is not a "G"

the Bf-109 in that video has a more powerfull merlin engine & is lighter than it WW2 spec
this is an old video </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


They talk about bf 109 G right </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Than they are talking about a plane that Skip has not flown

Viper2005_
01-31-2007, 12:33 PM
Aeroplanes are complicated things, and evolve throughout their lives. Hundreds of modifications are often incorporated during the service life of a typical fighter aircraft. It isn't really enough to say "Spitfire IX vs Bf-109G" because that covers a whole spectrum of aeroplanes.

Spitfire IXs could be fitted with various different engines (off the top of my head, Merlin 61, 63, 66, 70). They could be fitted with a variety of different wings (C wing and E wing being the most common, though the B wing was also used). These wings might then be clipped either during production or as a local modification.

Then there were all manner of detail mods, such as bob weights in the elevator control circuit, various different items of operational equipment, different kinds of mirror etc etc.

These mods could have a considerable impact upon the weight and balance of the aircraft.

Then there are the usual issues of cleanliness and surface finish. Often aircraft were repainted in rather a crude fashion with no time taken to strip the old coat of paint. This resulted in wide variations in both weight and surface roughness which had obvious impacts upon performance.

Next one must consider the fact that not all aeroplanes are created equal. By way of an illustration, consider that today the tolerance on JSF's wings is about 10 thousandths of an inch. During WWII the tolerance on the Mosquito's wings was about 6" per wing, measured with a length of string attached to the nose. Differences of 6" between wings was acceptable.

This could clearly result in considerable variability between aircraft. The same applied and applies to metal aircraft. Some would be lighter than others. Some would be weaker than others. (Hence the 50% safety factor between design limit load and design ultimate load. They didn't incorporate it for fun!)

And then there is also variability between engines and airscrews.

It would be quite possible to set up an objective test of two aircraft types and find that whilst on average A might out turn B, a good example of type B would out turn a bad or even average example of type A.

Which is why many test reports quote engine, aircraft and airscrew serial numbers.

This variability (or perhaps the fear thereof) was probably at the root of the decision to have nominally identical P-51s designated P-51B and P-51C as a function of the factory in which they were built.

So even if you had a time machine and could test fly WWII aircraft in representative conditions you might well get ambiguous results.

But this film relates to warbirds, and warbirds are a very different animal.

Most P-51s and Spitfires on the civil register don't actually have authentic engines. They usually have post-war civil engines, or else use engines incorporating at least some parts designed for those engines, because this allows a considerable increase in TBO and therefore reduces operating costs.

Quite a lot of Spitfire IXs flying today only have single stage, superchargers because this reduces costs and you don't need altitude performance for airshow work. All sorts of strange configurations result, sometimes even with incorrect reduction gear ratios (off the top of my head I can think of at least one Spitfire IX fitted with a Merlin XX series engine).

Post war airframe mods are also generally incorporated for safety or cost reasons. Old valve driven radios are replaced with modern kit that's cheaper and better. Some warbirds even have GPS.

Gunsights are sent to museums along with the guns.

If you don't need the guns you don't need the gun heaters either, nor indeed do you need the ammunition boxes. Quite a lot of warbirds incorporate modifications to enable the use of the space formerly occupied by the guns and ammunition for luggage.

Then of course people start messing about putting extra seats in the poor things.

Quite a lot of P-51s in the USA have ended up with P-51H tails and a second seat in order to maximise their revenue generating potential and improve their handling respectively.

Pilots are different too. They tend to treat the aeroplane rather more kindly than their WWII counterparts would have done, being much more conscious of the maintenance costs.

They also take away a very different impression of the aeroplane due to the fact that they rarely use period flying kit. Often you'll see modern bonedomes, and hear complaints about headroom as a result (especially since people tend to be taller these days anyway). It is one thing to fly with a headset, another to fly with a bone dome and quite another again to fly with a leather helmet.

All these little details matter and they add up. Civilian aircraft tend to use different radio setups to military aircraft, with different connectors. Bone domes often have their wiring in a pigtail lead such that your fitter will plug you into a single wire emanating from the back of cockpit somewhere, whereas if you're using a conventional civvie headset you'll generally plug two wires in to the front of the panel somewhere. This means that if you want to convert a warbird for civilian use you may well have to re-wire it. Wires in the wrong place get in the way, and therefore this change changes the ergonomics of the aircraft, which obviously impact upon the performance you can get out of it.

(And of course, whilst the pig-tail lead will disconnect automatically if you have to jump out of the aircraft, the conventional civilian system won't, which is an important detail to remember if things go pear-shaped on you.)

I don't know how WWII aircraft were wired (doubtless it varied anyway), but the chances are that most warbirds on the civil register are wired differently today.

Similar issues doubtless apply to oxygen systems, pressurisation etc.

Fuels and lubricants are different today, and this obviously impacts performance (and may have forced the incorporation of further mods).

In summation, the average WWII warbird may look very much like a WWII fighter, but it is likely a very different animal, and great care should be taken if you want to use modern warbird performance as a basis for meaningful comparison between WWII aircraft.

HayateAce
01-31-2007, 02:15 PM
Hmmm, this is odd. I am out turning 109s pretty easily with the Spitfire.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif

BillyTheKid_22
01-31-2007, 03:01 PM
http://www.actionart.ca/images/Spitfire%20Domain.jpg


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

WWMaxGunz
01-31-2007, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Next one must consider the fact that not all aeroplanes are created equal. By way of an illustration, consider that today the tolerance on JSF's wings is about 10 thousandths of an inch. During WWII the tolerance on the Mosquito's wings was about 6" per wing, measured with a length of string attached to the nose. Differences of 6" between wings was acceptable.


I would like to see the exact text of that measurement and tolerance, no insult here. Is it
6" one wing to the other or 6" from original spec? Really is it remotely possible that they
did not build those planes from rigid jigs but instead went with 200 year old methods?
I can see one factory having jigs that differed from another but left wing to right? Eeek!


All these little details matter and they add up. Civilian aircraft tend to use different radio setups to military aircraft, with different connectors.

Not to mention the difference in weight. All the old electronics and wiring would have to be
replaced. Those radios were large, heavy and used a lot of power just in the tube heaters.
Where would anyone get parts for one including compatible with the original tubes?

I do agree that trying to compare planes that are not powered and weighted as well as shaped
the same as historic is a fool's errand. But WTH, we have people that would not be happy
with the real things if they do not match some data on the best ever known or worse yet,
someones expectations based on their favorite stories!

VMF-214_HaVoK
01-31-2007, 08:50 PM
Who turn fights anyway? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

DustyBarrels77
01-31-2007, 10:01 PM
skip calles this ha1112 with a merlin a 109g6, enough said. This video is also a edit back from early EAW days from the germfanbois. They edit out the low medium power airshow speeds and deck flying altitudes skip speaks of in the full interview. Speak to the owner who is a much more experience pilot then skip, Im sure many of you have seen his crazy aerobatic stunts like flying under bridges upside down to give you fellas a hint. Im sure you can research the owner and will know who the crazy guy is with a little interest http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Badsight-
01-31-2007, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by Sintubin:

They talk about bf 109 G right sorry to break it to you , but no - they are not talking about a G Bf-109 , nor are they talking about a G 109 out-turning Spitfires

they have a lighter plane with more power than any WW2 non-meth G 109 . that is the plane they are talking about