PDA

View Full Version : Do 109s actually have any advantages against late war spits?



Noxx0s
03-25-2010, 02:37 PM
I'm struggling to understand what they are if so...

I'm looking at IL-2 compare (very useful I've found http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif), comparing the Spit IX 25lbs to various 109 models. The only one that really has any real advantage is the K4, which is faster by 25-50+kph from 2000 meters on up and has a slightly better ROC from 2000m and up. The ROC advantage is very very small though. And the speed advantage is, again, only from 2000meters on up. This is assuming both planes have boost on at max power.

As for the G2 and F4, the two 109s I hear most favored most of the time, the F4 is inferior in ALL categories. The spit is faster, and climbs better at all altitudes. On top of it all, it has a nearly 4 second advantage when it comes to turning. T

The G2 has a small speed advantage of ~20kph at altitudes over 7000m, which rarely happens anyways, and a even smaller advantage in ROC at altitudes over 5000m (still not too common). The spit is actually significantly faster at altitudes below 3250 meters and climbs WAY better at altitudes of 2000m and below. Again it has a significant turn advantage as well.

To top it all off, the spit has a slightly higher break speed as well.

So is there something I'm missing here? I get that earlier spits have significant disadvantages vs. 109s in ROC, top speed, and break speed, but even these can be compensated for by just not being an idiot in a spit and attacking with a decent energy advantage.

Even the K4's speed and ROC advantages are very slight, and it only gets significant above 5000m. The spit actually outclimbs it below 2000m. You'd probably be better off just taking a D9 as it can go faster, climb better, and turns slightly faster as well (by about a second according to the graphs). Not to mention it can actually turn at high speeds decently.

So are people just taking these planes because they like their looks better, or have a thing for 109s? Or do they just feel more "uber" playing the more difficult to fly aircraft? (personally I find planes like the Tempest far more difficult, but 109s are undeniably not as super easy to fly as spits)

Or am I missing something? I'm hardly an expert on flight dynamics, so what is there I need to be aware of beyond armament, speed, roll rate, rate of climb, and break speed?

Lastly, is BnZ the ONLY effective way to use 109s and 190s against better maneuverable spits? I enjoy it, but sometimes I want to actually be able to engage a single enemy when he's alone and I can risk bleeding a little E. Surely, in some ways having a turn that cuts your speed really quickly could be used to advantage in some way? With BnZ, if he actually spots you coming down all he has to do is pull a split-s and that's it, you have no shot, at least in my experience (please enlighten me if I'm wrong).

na85
03-25-2010, 03:00 PM
Well first of all, if you're comparing the Spit25 to all the different 109 models you're doing it wrong.

Many here would contend that the Spitfire IX with +25 lbs boost is overmodeled as represented in game. Regardless, it is clearly the best-performing spitfire in the stock game.

Why would you compare the best spitfire to the G-2 or F-4?

If you look at the G-2 or F-4 and compare them to, say, the spitfires MkV or the early mkIX models then you can see the 109s have a chance.

Noxx0s
03-25-2010, 03:04 PM
Well first of all, if you're comparing the Spit25 to all the different 109 models you're doing it wrong.

Many here would contend that the Spitfire IX with +25 lbs boost is overmodeled as represented in game. Regardless, it is clearly the best-performing spitfire in the stock game.

Why would you compare the best spitfire to the G-2 or F-4?

If you look at the G-2 or F-4 and compare them to, say, the spitfires MkV or the early mkIX models then you can see the 109s have a chance.
I did only because I've heard a lot people say they consider those the best.

But regardless, compare the K4 to it and it still comes up pretty short. Except in armament obviously. But if you're flying late war wouldn't a D9 just be better?

na85
03-25-2010, 03:29 PM
They like the F-4 and G-2 the best but that doesn't mean they can magically compete with aircraft 2 or 3 years newer.

The F-4, when faced with its historical opposition is a fabulous aircraft. Same with the G-2.

As for the late war case of K-4 or D-9 vs spit25...

The K-4 is WAY faster than the Spit25 anywhere above 2000m. I wouldn't call that "coming up short". It also climbs better.

The FW190D-9 is faster but doesn't climb anywhere near as well as the K-4.

If you like flying down low on the deck, then taking a D-9 would probably be the better choice.

horseback
03-25-2010, 03:33 PM
Chronology is everything here.

The Spit 25lbs is supposed to be a late-late war version, say fall 1944 and later 'almost Mk XIV" model to partially compensate for the lack of late-war Allied fighters except for the Tempest. Of course, there were later upgrades given to the 'Mustang Mk III' and the later to Jugs and Lightnings.

The 109K in game is depicted as being at factory fresh, optimum condition, something that I doubt ever saw the light of day given the problems of the German manufacturing and labor from the summer of 1944 onwards, not to mention fuel issues. The pilot accounts I've read about flying the 109K were anything but complementary. Sacrificing almost all the handling virtues the series once possessed for speed and firepower made it less 'fun' to fly for the veterans of two & three years earlier. For the rookies who realized how outnumbered and unskilled they were it was even worse.

Against the Spit Vb or the early Soviet fighters, a 109F-4 or early G series enjoyed significant advantages and was considered a delight to fly (if not so much when taking off and landing), very responsive to the pilot's inputs and armed with effective guns for fighter vs fighter combat.

The quality of the opposition not only in terms of aircraft but also in terms of enemy pilot skills was undoubtedly also a factor.

cheers

horseback

DKoor
03-25-2010, 03:53 PM
Do 109s actually have any advantages against late war spits?
Eh... only to say that they are considerably faster than Spitfires, any Spitfires in the game. All veteran players in this game should be able to exploit that fact to their advantage in a sense that if they aren't able to attack a Spitfire from superior position they will simply run away through shallow dive and there is little a Spitfire can do about it.

On the other hand a Spitfire in disadvantageous position versus Bf-109 can't hope to escape but the pilot must stay and fight, although the Spit holds some really strong cards on its own...

There is a lot more to say about the issue but suffice is to say that those fights are never black/white, even the most disproportionate fight such is Bf-109G2 vs Spit V isn't black/white and either can be victorious although G2 is objectively said, clearly superior in few key areas.

Conclusion is that we are talking about legendary WW2 fighters and they didn't earned that rep by being crappy vs ANYTHING other side threw against themhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

TS_Sancho
03-25-2010, 04:10 PM
I'll share a few game tips on the 109's.

In an early Spit vs. early 109, drag the spit into a left hand climbing spiral. The Spit cant match the 109's AOA (angle of attack) below 170 KPH indicated and will fall off, at which point he's yours.

Another pearl of wisdom is to remember that the SpitV and earlier cant climb above 400kph. Once you realize that they really aren't so difficult anymore.

In regards to the later Spit models their achilles heal is that they are substantially slower in top speed than most of their contemporaries. If your losing the fight get enough separation to be out of weapons range and use a shallow dive to extend.

In late war scenarios I would recommend leaving the Kurfurst at the aerdrome in favor of the BF109G6AS or the G10. If dogfighting is your bag I think you'll find that either offer a more competitive platform than the 109K.

Most importantly remember, it is the pilot not the plane.

TinyTim
03-25-2010, 04:25 PM
MkIXc 25lb boost is a monster at low altitudes, but worse than ordinary MkIXc above 6km. Bf-109K4 outflies Spit_25lb with relative ease above 6km, where it has substantional advantage in climb and in speed. According to IL-2Compare, speed difference at 6500m is nearing 100kph:

http://www.shrani.si/f/3a/we/2jjtKsFX/k4vs25lbix.jpg

MkXIV as modelled in UP2.0 is another story though. Not many options even for a K-4 versus this thing.

BillSwagger
03-25-2010, 04:27 PM
I always considered late war 109s an altitude/energy fighter but many people choose to fly it lower with some success. It has the speed but not the turn advantage in that case, especially against late war spits. Often I'll see a case where the 109 enters the fight with more speed, but gets caught up turning and thats where the Spit will overcome the 109.

My thought on the Spitfire is that it is over modeled to a degree, only that 25 lbs boost was something that couldn't be achieved for longer than a minute or two, and at designated altitudes, with out risking engine damage. There's no doubt this fact in game is what keeps the Spitfire on the heels of a 109, but either plane has the chance to be successful if flown properly and from a tactical advantage.

What am i saying though, i seldom fly either plane unless i need a confidence boost. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bill

Jumoschwanz
03-25-2010, 05:00 PM
If an IL2 pilot flying a specific year plane-set chooses the bf109 over the FW190 when both are available, it is most likely because they do not have the time in the FW190 that they have in the bf109.

Being comfortable and well practiced in your aircraft goes a long way.

The extra top-speed, high-speed maneuverability and firepower the FW190 offers over the Bf109 can be a big help if a pilot takes the time to become proficient in his gunnery and to develop tactics to use these advantages.

Vs. a Spitfire-heavy planeset, I will always take the FW190 when it is available when I want to shoot them down and return to base.

Sancho was right when he said it is the pilot not the plane though. You CAN do well in a Bf109 vs. Spitfires if you are smart.

Now if you want to just have fun and try and turn with some Spitfires then go ahead and do it. If you are a very good pilot, you will succeed in as many fights as you rate percentile-wise in ability.

For instance, if you generally shoot down nine out of ten opponents you come up against, then you are a top-tenth percentile fighter. And the aircraft type really has little bearing on this, again as Sancho surmised.

The FW190 may let you shoot opponents down FASTER though, as it has at four times the firepower a Bf109 with a single twenty has, you can get a Spit down in one FW pass where it may take more in the 109, and that counts for a lot.

The firepower the Spitfire has over the early Bf109s likewise can help them get the job done faster if they are good enough to get a shot at you, but that is it again, who is good enough and wise enough to get a shot while at the same time avoiding the attack. Pilot ability...

Ba5tard5word
03-25-2010, 05:32 PM
Maybe check out the Bf-109K-14 that is in UP 2.0, I think its top speed at sea level is something ridiculous like 600kph. It's a real rocket and seems surprisingly maneuverable at high speeds. It's probably way better than any real-life versions would have been (it was just a proposal and was never built) but it's still fun to fly. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

190's usually have higher top speeds than contemporary 109's, but they are slower to accelerate so it takes longer to get to that top speed.

TheGrunch
03-25-2010, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:
If an IL2 pilot flying a specific year plane-set chooses the bf109 over the FW190 when both are available, it is most likely because they do not have the time in the FW190 that they have in the bf109.

Being comfortable and well practiced in your aircraft goes a long way.
+1 on both points. I'd love to fly the 190 more, I'm just not used to it yet. Didn't stop me making some dude in a Spit XIV look pretty silly a few weeks ago. He wasted all of his ammo trying to hit me out of frustration at 600-800m as I blew past him and extended repeatedly. Then I went back in and nailed him once he tried to make a run for it. I wouldn't have got away with it in a 109, not fast enough at sea level to extend easily, or maneouverable enough at high speed to ruin the guy's shots.
I think one of the most important things new players miss is knowing their *own* limitations. They make it all about the plane and what *it* can do.
Now, Jumo will go for absolutely crazy scissors-fighting, taking very high-angle deflection shots, because he knows he can do that. I wouldn't...because I know I can't, yet. The guy I was flying against either didn't know or didn't care that he couldn't make the shots he was attempting against me.
Lots of people seem to think purely in terms of what their aircraft can do.

DKoor
03-25-2010, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:
190's usually have higher top speeds than contemporary 109's, but they are slower to accelerate so it takes longer to get to that top speed.
Yes.
And they are in my opinion totally different when it comes to fight styles, 109 should do a lot of hammerheads straight forcing a lot vertical, while 190 is more restrained to slashing attacks at extreme speeds without much maneuvering as it really is inferior to 109 in all maneuvering but high speed maneuvering.

na85
03-25-2010, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:
If an IL2 pilot flying a specific year plane-set chooses the bf109 over the FW190 when both are available, it is most likely because they do not have the time in the FW190 that they have in the bf109.

Maybe. I consider myself a decent FW190 pilot but recently I decided I wanted to make the transition to flying Messerschmitts. IMHO the 109 has more combat potential than the FW but it takes a lot more effort to reach the level where you are effective.

Erkki_M
03-26-2010, 12:21 AM
Purely performance-wise the late 109s still have the advantages over spit IX and IXc 25lbs the F and G have over Spit V, just with smaller margins.

Much bigger problem is the reduced high-speed turn and maneuverability of the 109s. That combined with relatively faster Spitfires and generally much higher speeds makes fighting late Spits for 109s very difficult. The low-muzzle speed, low-ROF and low-ammo MK-108 cannon doesnt help any; most your firing windows are not from dead 6, because Spitfires are not as easy to surprise bouncing or catch in level flight anymore. They are also more likely to be co-E or even above the 109s. You still have advantage is top speed, use it before tables turn.

There is little reason to not choose FW190A6, A9, D9 or even the clumsy A8 over late 109s. They are (usually, and at most altitudes) faster, have considerably better high-speed turn and especially roll, are more heavily armed, have more ammo, and have better cockpit visibility. I'd say that the 109G10 still serves some purpose as a general anti-P-51 fighter, and 109K4 does well in forcing P-51s and P-47s to extend from an area or even in pushing them to a lower "orbit", and to be bounced by FW190s. 109 sure is much better "personal plane" for dogfighting, but then again, you should never be alone, and if you are forced to turn, you've already made mistakes...

irR4tiOn4L
03-26-2010, 02:16 AM
Originally posted by na85:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:
If an IL2 pilot flying a specific year plane-set chooses the bf109 over the FW190 when both are available, it is most likely because they do not have the time in the FW190 that they have in the bf109.

Maybe. I consider myself a decent FW190 pilot but recently I decided I wanted to make the transition to flying Messerschmitts. IMHO the 109 has more combat potential than the FW but it takes a lot more effort to reach the level where you are effective. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ive just never really liked the 190 myself.

Maybe its all the stick time, but i just find the 109 and TnB generally just 'fits'

Sillius_Sodus
03-26-2010, 11:53 AM
The 190 definitely takes a lot of practice to master.

Jumoschwanz
03-26-2010, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by na85:IMHO the 109 has more combat potential than the FW but it takes a lot more effort to reach the level where you are effective.

If the Bf109 has much less firepower, is slower, and much less maneuverable at speed than the FW190, I guess I am missing what gives it more "combat potential".

Those same facts though will back you up in your statement about it taking " a lot more effort" to be effective with it.

The only combat potential the bf109 may have that the FW190 might not is in an slow speed turning fight at low altitude, and then if the opponent is an ace and is in a Spit or other aircraft that turns as good or better than the 109, you are still in trouble.

Those low speed fights can be a real hoot, but I don't know if they can be called combat as much as they can be called "duels", because the smart WWII aces did not recommend them as an effective combat method did they?

If you run your Bf109 up against a good allied pilot that is really used to his Spitfire, La-5 or P-39, I would put my money on the allied pilot...

DKoor
03-26-2010, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:
If you run your Bf109 up against a good allied pilot that is really used to his Spitfire, La-5 or P-39, I would put my money on the allied pilot...
Jesus Mary and all Saints....
Jumo admit it, you are writing stuff like this only because you hold a more special place for FW in your hearthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

Because that simply is not true, or if you want it, you could put the money but you could not be certain that allied bunch will be victorious more times than 109. Although P-39, Spitfire, LA-5 and many other contemporary fighters are good fighters you could never say (during the whole war) that they are superior to Bf-109.
Same thing is in game... in fact skilled G2 can toy with ones you mentioned above in many scenarios while you can't say the same to them, LA-5 is the most potent of that bunch you noted... but only below 2000m.

Anyhow earlier and later scenarios wouldn't find a 109 in any serious deficit versus allied fighters. Same can be said about FW-190 too.

All in all all that is objectively agreeable in this matter is that both 109 and 190 are very potent killing machines that severely earned their rep... in short they are both good but they simply require a bit different approach.

K_Freddie
03-26-2010, 05:00 PM
BF109G6AS.. Just strap yourself into it and stop talking nonsense - I hope you can shoot straight
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Jumoschwanz
03-26-2010, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
you could put the money but you could not be certain that allied bunch will be victorious more times than 109.

Dkoor, this forum and thread is about IL2 and that is all I was ever talking about, not WWII at all. I will fly the La-5, P39 and SpitmkV against your 109g2 five times each, fifteen total fights, and we will see what the numbers say ok?

The 109g2 is good, but I know there are IL2 pilots online for those three allied aircraft that given the same amount of E, will beat the 109g2 four out of five times no problem.....

DKoor
03-26-2010, 07:02 PM
But what if your skill exceeds mine? Or vice versa (not likely at all since I fly sortie or two per week nowadays)?
Of what goodness would our duels then be?http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

The best possible results could be obtained by two skilled players that regularly play the game. That being said I'll comment the other part of your post...

Just saying hypothetically... how do you expect a P-39, Spit or LA-5 to beat a Bf-109G2 when they can't even catch it? So once they are on G2's tail it should just firewall it and run for home.

Also they aren't better climbers, without checking it I can also say that I expect G2 to outaccelerate them all maybe LA-5 is closest one to G2?

TinyTim
03-26-2010, 07:39 PM
If you'd pick two comparably skilled pilots, sat one in a P-39, the other into a G2, let them fight 10 times, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">then switch the rides and do it all again...</span> well I'm pretty certain G-2 would come out on top easily versus mentioned opposition. SpitV is meat on the table already for F4 let alone G2, V-LF is monster down low, very dangerous, but hopelessly outclassed above 4km (even more so than russian fighters), Cobra and Lavochka lack altitude performance, dive, climb... La is dangerous down low no doubt, but G2 would be stupid to stay low. At 6 or 7km G2 toys with La5.

Yes it's possible to get a positive kill ratio with say a SpitV vs G2 on dogfight servers, but that has nearly nothing to do with plane performance.

BillSwagger
03-26-2010, 07:52 PM
I've fought with Spits and 109s and the 109 is faster in a lot of ways you just have to be disciplined to not turn too hard at the cost of losing an E advantage.

The 109 is really at home up high, which puzzles me why a lot of people fight down low in turn battles. Sure its capable, but that's not what it was designed for, IMO.


Bill

WTE_Galway
03-26-2010, 11:15 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:

The 109 is really at home up high, which puzzles me why a lot of people fight down low in turn battles. Sure its capable, but that's not what it was designed for, IMO.

Bill

well .. because airquake online battles are always fought down low in tight circles using aircraft that historically never did that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


A chart for the technically inclined ...

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y101/clannagh/effete.jpg

M_Gunz
03-27-2010, 12:45 AM
Having players switch planes to find the better plane assumes one or both players is skilled
in both planes -and- the styles of fighting suited for either against the other.

Jumoschwanz
03-27-2010, 10:06 AM
If you re-read the post where I was talking about the 109g2 getting it's butt kicked, you will see that the whole thing was about low speed dogfighting, of course if you use the 109g2's climb and speed you can do different things.....

"The only combat potential the bf109 may have that the FW190 might not is in an slow speed turning fight at low altitude, and then if the opponent is an ace and is in a Spit or other aircraft that turns as good or better than the 109, you are still in trouble.

Those low speed fights can be a real hoot, but I don't know if they can be called combat as much as they can be called "duels", because the smart WWII aces did not recommend them as an effective combat method did they?

If you run your Bf109 up against a good allied pilot that is really used to his Spitfire, La-5 or P-39, I would put my money on the allied pilot..."

DKoor
03-27-2010, 11:35 AM
Although not a historical duel, I think maybe a series of clashes between 109 and 190 would give more definitive answer than pitting them vs their allied oppos which are hands down all inferior and are expected to lose unless axis fighters hugs ground (1942 setup you mentioned). No reason why they should do that... but I also don't think that duels are what their designers had in mind when they created themhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.
So that may not work as expected, fighting war is one thing and sport air fighting a whole another storyhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Also while you are right when you said your remarks about G2 fighting down, I think same or similar scenario with possible disaster of much greater proportions is due if you try the same in FW. Although FW has nice speeds it loses much in maneuvers, much more than 109 and allies. Check out the A4 and G2 stats... they will reveal that the only practical advantage of A4 is speed at low altitude. G2 excels in other key areas...

Anyhow those fighters are very much different... 109 and 190 are nothing alike when fighting styles are in question.
109 is IMHO unique fighter because of its great RoC capability and also fair maneuverability... while FW-190 is a classical boom and zoomer, similar to the P-47, P-51 etc. only altitude vary.

M_Gunz
03-27-2010, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:
If you re-read the post where I was talking about the 109g2 getting it's butt kicked, you will see that the whole thing was about low speed dogfighting, of course if you use the 109g2's climb and speed you can do different things.....

Yes, with one arm tied behind its back (forced to play to the strength of the opponent), it should lose.
I think I will spend the rest of today 'simply amazed'.

Noxx0s
03-27-2010, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:
in short they are both good but they simply require a bit different approach.

And that's what I would love to hear about. Apart from climbing high and diving on allied fighters and getting them when they're not looking (which honestly any fighter can do apart from some japanese and russian planes, though the 190 is better at it obviously), what other options do I have?

Thanks for that spiral tip btw, I've used it a couple times to great effect.

Erkki_M
03-27-2010, 01:56 PM
Like Galland put it, 109 is a rapier and 190 a slashing saber...

1 vs. 1 duels between two equally good players with equally much difference is aircraft pitted against each other, then switched planes and tried again, repeated long enough with different players, only finds out which plane is a better 1 vs. 1 plane at some certain beginning situation(ie. head-on, co-E, low altitude).

War is completely different matter... Even seemingly very important things such as top speed, maneuverability and armament can be of no use, if the planes cant be maintained in flying condition or if they dont have the endurance and range for wanted missions - or if there are not enough fields they can use for taking off.

Of course many of the real-life issues are not relevant at all in game, but the FW190 still enjoys much more of the important cards than the 109... Speed, cruising speed, high-speed maneuverability, cockpit visibility and roll. A lone pilot never wants to engage in long fights anyways, and in groups, the FW simply doesnt need some of the qualities the 109 has. And notice, that not all 109s are G2s... Many of the 109s advantages are really only needed when, when flying against typical opponents such as Spitfires in 41-43 and P-47/51 in late war, the pilot(s) has already done serious mistakes. Real life combat was not, and in right servers and places in IL2 multiplayer, ISNT just fighters vs. fighters combat without any surrounding events and context. FW-190 can do everything: it can kill ANYTHING in a blink of an eye, even heavy bombers, its tactically safer for its pilot to fly, its stunningly more effective when flown with wingman/group tactics, its faster enabling it to more likely be able to egress of a fight should it try to do so, it forgives more combat damage taken, and it can give its pilots ability to gain more firing positions. The only thing it does worse is low-speed handling and ROC, but since especially the first is rare to play any significant role in fights bigger than 2 vs 2 between planes flown with more than two braincells, despite some of its qualities, qualities the 109 is simply left second. It does have its roles even in 44/45, but as a general combat aircraft, the FW is much, much better. Its also a better JABO, in both carrying bigger bombload and being able to take more hits from the AAA.

TS_Sancho
03-27-2010, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by IcyScythe:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:
in short they are both good but they simply require a bit different approach.

And that's what I would love to hear about. Apart from climbing high and diving on allied fighters and getting them when they're not looking (which honestly any fighter can do apart from some japanese and russian planes, though the 190 is better at it obviously), what other options do I have?

Thanks for that spiral tip btw, I've used it a couple times to great effect. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

On a bet with a squadmate I managed an 11 to 1 kill ratio for a month in spits/109's before the stats rolled ( staying in the mix I can maintain 2 or 3 to 1 in an average month)

I flew the FW190 almost exclusively and concentrated on carefully selecting my quarry, quick one pass kills and high speed extensions looking over my shoulder the whole time. Boring after a while but successful soooooo..... if your looking to rack up your stats quick, high speed attacks when the other guy isnt looking is how you do it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Christos_swc
03-28-2010, 03:10 AM
Originally posted by na85:
If you like flying down low on the deck, then taking a D-9 would probably be the better choice.

Dogfighting on the deck is not what the Dora is about.
Just because it doesn't climb as well as the K4 doesn't mean it's not a good climber.
It is.
It doesn't have an advantage in climb rate over most late war planes but then again it doesn't need to since climbing is only good for getting up to the desired altitude quickly, not avoiding an opponent and Dora will climb up past 4k quite easily.
The Dora is an excellent ac for boom n zoom tactics but it requires good gunnery, still better in this respect than P47's or P-51s and most other planes bar the 190 Antons.
It's fast at all altitudes and faster than pretty much anything at the deck which is a major plus in the interests of survivability.
Last night I was playing there was not a single 109 in a late war server.
There's nothing this ac can do well in such a server.
It cannot turn with the spits, Yaks, Las, Japanese planes, it cannot boom n zoom because it lacks high speed manouvrability big time, it breaks up easily under fire, it's engine is very vulnerable and it takes just a couple of hits to drop a wing and become easy prey after that.
Granted, if the difficulty level does not involve switching to external views and the like then I feel you can be successful in anything, it really is all down to the pilot.
But in a server with no cockpit views and icons on, it's very difficult to overcome the ac's shortcomings.
I fly 190s exclusively, from the A4 to the 44 Dora, depending on the map, I feel it's as good as anything.
I wouldn't dogfight anything with it because it's not a turner but I will come in with an advantage and shoot them down and run away when I have no advantage.
I would gladly dogfight a 109 at high alt though.
Spiraling down while you turn and keeping your speed above 400k you're bound to get on his tail sooner or later.
Also the sight of a 109 way overhead looking to boom n zoom a 190 brings me a laugh.
Any time this happens I say "bring it on".
He's in for a lot of frustration.
If you can't turn and burn and you can't boom n zoom successfully then there's no place for you in the game.
Oh, forgot to mention the 109s are not particularly fast at low levels either, so they can't run from the US or Russian planes.
The can run away from the Japs but they have no business fighting them down low anyway.
I feel the P-51s and Doras are the best ac in the game when using correct tactics and if you want to dogfght on the deck you go for the Spits and Las.
This leaves the 109 out in the cold in a 44-45 server, there's no successful tactic for repeated success I can think of for the 109 other than flying up high with a K4 and staying there for the duration lol!

Christos_swc
03-28-2010, 04:13 AM
Originally posted by Sillius_Sodus:
The 190 definitely takes a lot of practice to master.

From the original Il-2 many years ago everyone found the 190 frustrating to begin with.
You can jump in the 109 and fly well in it from the word go.
The first thing one should do with his 190 that is of paramount importance is map his joystick correctly!
That's 50 per cent of the job done.
The other 50 percent is to learn energy tactics.
Once all that is done and out of the way the 190 is a hoot.
It remains frustrating that you can't turn but you can't beat the feeling of ac's breaking up under the fire of The Butcher bird's 20s.
Nothing will rack up kills as fast as a well flown 190 with good situational awareness and good tactics and gunnery.
And there's no other ac in the game that can execute successful bombing missions with relative immunity, bring down enemy ac and destroy bombers than the 190.
It's the most versatile of them all.

JtD
03-28-2010, 05:33 AM
The 109K carries a 500kg bomb, while the 190D does not carry any. That's something I tend to use and once I've dropped the payload, I'll engage in dogfights. The 109K is incredibly fast and climbs really well. So this would be the properties you'll have to emphasize. It can outturn all of the US opposition in a slow speed turn fight, it can totally dominate the Lavochkins at altitudes above 3km by using vertical maneuvers, it's about on par with the best Yak (the 9u), which you best fight at high altitudes and it can also beat the Yak-3 at high altitude even in a turnfight. The only plane I wouldn't like to tango with are the Spitfires, but even here you can score if you fight them at the right altitude and use vertical components mostly. And if things get messy, you can always just level out, dive or climb, and run for it.
The better high speed handling of the 190 certainly makes it easier to score kills, but the the 109K is a very potent fighter, too. I prefer it over the 190A-9, which would be the other fighter bomber in the German arsenal at the time. The A-9 is too slow.

Bremspropeller
03-28-2010, 06:18 AM
The 109K carries a 500kg bomb, while the 190D does not carry any.

Which is just another loadout-abomination.

The 109 wouldn't be able to carry anything larger than a SC250 for ground-clerance-reasons, while the Doras quite frequently carried at least SC250s (not an option in-game), if not larger bombs (weight-/ clearance-wise not a polem anyway - all the way up to SC1000s).

Christos_swc
03-28-2010, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
The 109K carries a 500kg bomb, while the 190D does not carry any. That's something I tend to use and once I've dropped the payload, I'll engage in dogfights. The 109K is incredibly fast and climbs really well. So this would be the properties you'll have to emphasize. It can outturn all of the US opposition in a slow speed turn fight, it can totally dominate the Lavochkins at altitudes above 3km by using vertical maneuvers, it's about on par with the best Yak (the 9u), which you best fight at high altitudes and it can also beat the Yak-3 at high altitude even in a turnfight. The only plane I wouldn't like to tango with are the Spitfires, but even here you can score if you fight them at the right altitude and use vertical components mostly. And if things get messy, you can always just level out, dive or climb, and run for it.
The better high speed handling of the 190 certainly makes it easier to score kills, but the the 109K is a very potent fighter, too. I prefer it over the 190A-9, which would be the other fighter bomber in the German arsenal at the time. The A-9 is too slow.

If you want to bomb and then dogfight you're far better off with the A-9 in my opinion.
Ground targets and especially ships are protected by flak which is a nightmare to the 109.
I've sunk countless of ships with the 190 which also gives you the opportunity to dive at a 45 degree angle at 850Km/h from a safe altitude, level off meters off the sea, hit the target and get outta there in a flash and in total control of the plane regardless of speed.
No 109 can do that and approaching a heavily defended target with a 109 is more like a kamikaze mission.
And even if you survive you're bound to get some hits that will have you returning to base rather than engaging in aerial combat.
As far as owning the La's above 3000meters it doesn't say much other than it can climb away and avoid them.
If you choose the 109K and fly over the battlefield above 3000m and there's no La there or there's one and dives away what do you do?
You can't boom and zoom from a safe altitude and get some good shots in in the 109 or it'll build up too much speed, can't go low or you're dead meat.
Like I said, 109s are only fast at altitude, at the end of the day when chased or chasing someone you end up on the deck and that's where the speed counts and 109s don't have it.
Different perspective and experiences I guess, if you persist with anything in this game you'll make it work for sure.
But consistent success in a 109 would probably require disciplined use of tactics(you can't even allow them to get pot shots at you while using energy tactics) that would make P51 pilots look like impatient blocks.
The 109K could be a potential threat to the P51 even more so than the Doras because it can turn tighter than them, climb faster than them and run pretty fast to catch them.
Problem with P-51s is:
1)They're to be found at high alts where they can dive away and leave the 109 pilot fiddling with the elevator trimmer only to find out that his trimmed aircraft will still not roll at all.
2)P-51s usually find themselves together at high alts and fight with numerical superiority.
The rest are just individuals occasionally deciding to go up there and shoot one down only to find themselves outnumbered more often than not.
109s fly solo most of the time.
Doras too, although they are in my opinion a more versatile ac than the P-51 that is also it's undoing in the game.
Because they can be successful at all altitudes they scatter at all altitudes and fight whilst all P-51s group together at high alt in a position of safety.

Wildnoob
03-28-2010, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by Christos_swc:
it cannot boom n zoom because it lacks high speed manouvrability big time

It can b&z. The high speed control is really a problem, but you cannot attack like a runaway train in a 109. With practice, I'd say a 109 pilot can match the Fw-190 because even if cannot dive so well, it can overcome this with the superior rate of climb.


Oh, forgot to mention the 109s are not particularly fast at low levels either, so they can't run from the US or Russian planes

Well, I rountely outrun Russian planes with the MW-50 versions. Depending on circumstances its possible to outrun even US planes.

Christos_swc
03-28-2010, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by Wildnoob:
Well, I rountely outrun Russian planes with the MW-50 versions. Depending on circunstances its possible to outrun even US planes.

The La can outrun you.
Rest assured that if there were more 109s to be found on late war servers there would be more La pilots to hunt them down at low level.


Originally posted by Wildnoob:
It can b&z. The high speed control is really a problem, but you cannot attack like a runaway train in a 109. With practic, I'd say a 109 pilot can match the Fw-190 because even if the first cannot dive so well, it can overcome this with the superior rate of climb

Climb has little to do with it.
Sure it can get you in position quick and can get you back to position quick but how exactly you're gonna shoot someone down if you can't even begin to follow his evasive moves escapes me.
It cannot overcome a poor diving handling with superior climb because the diving part is the tool of scoring a kill.
You say in practice you can boom n zoom as well as in a 109, I haven't seen that with my own eyes online and I trust what I see.
The sight of a high flying 109 about to dive on you is nothing to worry about as I said earlier and I'd like to know if anyone here would feel nervous about the prospect...

Wildnoob
03-28-2010, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by Christos_swc:
The La can outrun you.

More easy a MW-50 109 outrun a La than vice versa IMHO.




but how exactly you're gonna shoot someone down if you can't even begin to follow his evasive moves escapes me.

I deploy combat flaps and work with trottle and rudder to not get much speed. Guess I exaggerate but the 109 still can be a very effective energy fighter.



The sight of a high flying 109 about to dive on you is nothing to worry about as I said earlier and I'd like to know if anyone here would feel nervous about the prospect...

All pilots gonna tell you: "never underestimate your enemies" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JtD
03-28-2010, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by Christos_swc:

If you want to bomb and then dogfight you're far better off with the A-9 in my opinion.

A-9 is not bad, my choice would depend on the opposition, but usually I'd go for the 109. Because it's better at surviving.


Ground targets and especially ships are protected by flak which is a nightmare to the 109.

The 190 can take a bit more, but just a bit. Usually I try to not get hit, because if you do, it's usually game over in both. At least if there are enemy fighters present.


I've sunk countless of ships with the 190 which also gives you the opportunity to dive at a 45 degree angle at 850Km/h from a safe altitude, level off meters off the sea, hit the target and get outta there in a flash and in total control of the plane regardless of speed.
No 109 can do that and approaching a heavily defended target with a 109 is more like a kamikaze mission.

When I use the 109, I can dive at higher speed and with a bit of trim, I can pull out just as well as in a 190. I'm not really doing a lot of high speed maneuvering in my bombing run, except for that pull out. Believe me, I've done that quite often, it works.


And even if you survive you're bound to get some hits that will have you returning to base rather than engaging in aerial combat.

If I'm hit, I'm returning to base. I don't like to fight with poor material. Be it 109 or 190.


As far as owning the La's above 3000meters it doesn't say much other than it can climb away and avoid them.
If you choose the 109K and fly over the battlefield above 3000m and there's no La there or there's one and dives away what do you do?
You can't boom and zoom from a safe altitude and get some good shots in in the 109 or it'll build up too much speed, can't go low or you're dead meat.

I usually climb up, and for as long as I'm in superior position, I'll attack. Best thing a La can do here is to dive and run, thus leaving the battle field to me and my team. Objective accomplished. Now I do wonder what you do in a 190 above 3000m, where a La-7 outruns, outclimbs and outturns you.


Like I said, 109s are only fast at altitude, at the end of the day when chased or chasing someone you end up on the deck and that's where the speed counts and 109s don't have it.

Actually, the K-4 is 10 km/h slower on the deck than the A-9. And while I sometimes, not always, end up being chased on the deck, I chase down to whichever altitude I please. That includes altitudes where the K-4 is 50 km/h faster than the A-9.


Different perspective and experiences I guess, if you persist with anything in this game you'll make it work for sure.
But consistent success in a 109 would probably require disciplined use of tactics(you can't even allow them to get pot shots at you while using energy tactics) that would make P51 pilots look like impatient blocks.

Actually, no. You can always go for some low speed turning, unlike the 190. So folks who are used to make one sharp turn and the 190 is gone, will have to deal with the fact that the 109 is still there. You push a situation, it either works out (much more likely than scoring against alert opposition in the 190 that is sticking to high speed passes), or it doesn't, in case of which you pull up, and climb away to set up for another fight. Sure a better high speed handling would be nice, but then you can deal with what the 109 has got. The biggest drawback for me are the weapons, I hate the 30mm thing.


The 109K could be a potential threat to the P51 even more so than the Doras because it can turn tighter than them, climb faster than them and run pretty fast to catch them.
Problem with P-51s is:
1)They're to be found at high alts where they can dive away and leave the 109 pilot fiddling with the elevator trimmer only to find out that his trimmed aircraft will still not roll at all.
2)P-51s usually find themselves together at high alts and fight with numerical superiority.
The rest are just individuals occasionally deciding to go up there and shoot one down only to find themselves outnumbered more often than not.
109s fly solo most of the time.
Doras too, although they are in my opinion a more versatile ac than the P-51 that is also it's undoing in the game.
Because they can be successful at all altitudes they scatter at all altitudes and fight whilst all P-51s group together at high alt in a position of safety.

I prefer the D-9 over the K-4. It has the same speed and a better maneuverability. And a nicer weapon setup. Since a P-51 at high altitude is not a threat to ground pounders, I tend to ignore it unless it comes down to play. However, when it comes down to play, I'd rather be in a K-4 than in A-9.

na85
03-28-2010, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by Christos_swc:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
If you like flying down low on the deck, then taking a D-9 would probably be the better choice.

Dogfighting on the deck is not what the Dora is about.
Just because it doesn't climb as well as the K4 doesn't mean it's not a good climber.
It is.
It doesn't have an advantage in climb rate over most late war planes but then again it doesn't need to since climbing is only good for getting up to the desired altitude quickly, not avoiding an opponent and Dora will climb up past 4k quite easily.
The Dora is an excellent ac for boom n zoom tactics but it requires good gunnery, still better in this respect than P47's or P-51s and most other planes bar the 190 Antons.
It's fast at all altitudes and faster than pretty much anything at the deck which is a major plus in the interests of survivability.
Last night I was playing there was not a single 109 in a late war server.
There's nothing this ac can do well in such a server.
It cannot turn with the spits, Yaks, Las, Japanese planes, it cannot boom n zoom because it lacks high speed manouvrability big time, it breaks up easily under fire, it's engine is very vulnerable and it takes just a couple of hits to drop a wing and become easy prey after that.
Granted, if the difficulty level does not involve switching to external views and the like then I feel you can be successful in anything, it really is all down to the pilot.
But in a server with no cockpit views and icons on, it's very difficult to overcome the ac's shortcomings.
I fly 190s exclusively, from the A4 to the 44 Dora, depending on the map, I feel it's as good as anything.
I wouldn't dogfight anything with it because it's not a turner but I will come in with an advantage and shoot them down and run away when I have no advantage.
I would gladly dogfight a 109 at high alt though.
Spiraling down while you turn and keeping your speed above 400k you're bound to get on his tail sooner or later.
Also the sight of a 109 way overhead looking to boom n zoom a 190 brings me a laugh.
Any time this happens I say "bring it on".
He's in for a lot of frustration.
If you can't turn and burn and you can't boom n zoom successfully then there's no place for you in the game.
Oh, forgot to mention the 109s are not particularly fast at low levels either, so they can't run from the US or Russian planes.
The can run away from the Japs but they have no business fighting them down low anyway.
I feel the P-51s and Doras are the best ac in the game when using correct tactics and if you want to dogfght on the deck you go for the Spits and Las.
This leaves the 109 out in the cold in a 44-45 server, there's no successful tactic for repeated success I can think of for the 109 other than flying up high with a K4 and staying there for the duration lol! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note that I didn't say the Dora was exclusively a low altitude plane. What I said was if he WANTS to fly at low alt, then he'd be better off in a Dora than in a K-4.

Erkki_M
03-28-2010, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Christos_swc:

If you want to bomb and then dogfight you're far better off with the A-9 in my opinion.

A-9 is not bad, my choice would depend on the opposition, but usually I'd go for the 109. Because it's better at surviving. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anything but. Survival in a close-in knife fight, where you shouldnt be in the first place and where you are, against, be it P51s, Tempests or Spitfires, KIA on about as equal probability with FWs, because those tend to not be 1 vs 1s...

I'd really like knowing HL nicks of people preferring 109 over 190, especially when the 190s are A6 to D9, which are all much better choices than any 109 but the UltraPack's K14 perhaps.

JtD
03-28-2010, 12:14 PM
It's better at surviving because it has a higher dive limit, level speed and climb rate. What's that got to do with close in knife fights?

Oh, and I prefer the 190 over the 109 in 8 out of 10. Just not the A-9 over the K-4 for late war fighter bombing.

Frankthetank36
03-28-2010, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
It's better at surviving because it has a higher dive limit, level speed and climb rate.

I'll agree with all of those besides dive limit. The only real advantages the Dora has over the 109K are superior roll rate and dive controllability (the Antons are durable, but the Dora's liquid-cooled engine falls apart just as easily as any other), and those are what make it, IMO, easier to get kills with. What's the point of having a 450mph plane if it can only do 450mph in a straight line?

JtD
03-28-2010, 01:44 PM
The D-9 has a higher dive limit, but the A-9 hasn't. The higher speed is good for minimizing time within AAA range, being harder to intercept and also retaining more E through the bomb run. Essentially it allows the K-4 to deliver the bomb and zoom back up to an altitude where it already outclimbs a La-7 again (E difference between K-4 and La-7 at dive limit translates to 1650m altitude difference). The A-9 cannot do that.

Kettenhunde
03-28-2010, 01:52 PM
The D-9 has a higher dive limit, but the A-9 hasn't.

The Vd is exactly the same on both aircraft.

na85
03-28-2010, 02:05 PM
What about Vne?

It's not very realistic but in IL2 pilots routinely exceed the design dive speeds of these aircraft. I approach within 20 km/h of Vne almost every time I fly P-47s or FW190s

Christos_swc
03-28-2010, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by Frankthetank36:
The only real advantages the Dora has over the 109K are superior roll rate and dive controllability (the Antons are durable, but the Dora's liquid-cooled engine falls apart just as easily as any other), and those are what make it, IMO, easier to get kills with. What's the point of having a 450mph plane if it can only do 450mph in a straight line?

I've flown the Dora enough to tell you it's engine is much more durable than that of the 109.
Whether that is historically correct I do not know but it will not get smoked anywhere near as easily and,thank God, there's no oil spraying on the windscreen!
I alternate between the Antons and the Dora and it appears the Dora's engine is closer to durability to the 190 As than the 109s.
The 109K is indeed a high speed high alt ac with hopeless high speed handling.
I feel the Dora has quite a few aces up it's sleeve against the 109 that gives it the edge over the 109 specifically.
At high alt he Dora can convert alt to maintain high speed which allows it to turn quicker than the 109.
At any time during the fight the Dora can disengage and the 109 has no hope of catching it, not due to reduced diving capabilities but because it will have to follow the Dora in a dive past 800m/h where the 109 becomes totally unresponsive.
The Dora can do as it pleases, roll 180 degrees during the dive and get away in the opposite direction which the 109 has no answer to even with trimmed elevators because it cannot roll.
And that's just one of the options.
How about pushing the nose down pulling negative g's and toy with the 109 as it has to roll over to follow only to see you pull up again so it has to roll over slowly again and again and again.
The Dora can get down to 700-800m above the ground at very high speed, do a 180 degree roll and get out of the dive leaving it's attacker flying in the other direction or face certain death by hitting the ground.
That's the easiest way for any inexperienced Dora pilot to put it's high speed handling and good roll rate to good use.
At low level the Dora cannot outturn the 109 but it can get away or survive (relatively easily) long enough till the 109 runs out of ammo or you get some help.
The 109 cannot run away and cannot survive the Dora's gunfire, it doesn't roll quickly enough and is nowhere near as durable, plus the Dora is harder hitting.
Of course the Dora has to get on it's 6 first which is not possible in theory since the 109 turns better at low speeds.
However at low alts there's a lot of dogfighting going on and everyone will find himself on anyone's six and vice versa.
In a one on one at low alt the Dora can't cope but it can choose not to engage and attack from a position of authority given the chance.
A 109 in a position of authority (on your 6 at low alt or E advantage at higher alts) cannot feel any confidence of getting a kill.
I disagree that the Dora is only a bit more durable that the 109, you must give both aircrafts a good chance before you can conclude on their durability and my experience tells me it's a significantly tougher ac.

Christos_swc
03-28-2010, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The D-9 has a higher dive limit, but the A-9 hasn't.

The Vd is exactly the same on both aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The Dora is 20Km/h better.
Of course that's not what will dictate the winner against a 109, there are far more important differences between the two.

Bremspropeller
03-28-2010, 03:04 PM
Vd = Vne

na85
03-28-2010, 03:29 PM
I thought Vd is usually about 90% of Vne. I.e. one is the safety limit and one is the actual structural limit.

Kettenhunde
03-28-2010, 03:34 PM
What about Vne?


In theory you can fly right up to Vne safely in any aircraft. Just do not exceed it!

I have done it in my airplane doing aerobatics on a very smooth day. Granted my airplane has some modifications that put the actual Vne higher than a stock aircraft. I am not about to test or find the new limits however, LOL. It is not something you should practice and all it takes is one gust to exceed it.

Typically Vne is based on a 50fps gust velocity while Vd or maximum dive speed has a tighter tolerance of 25 fps.

The POH's for both the FW-190A9 and FW-190D9 both list the same Vd speeds. There is no published difference. You can calculate Vd and Vne which is what the Focke Wulf POH are based on. If there was a difference, it would certainly be published in the operating instructions.

Kettenhunde
03-28-2010, 03:37 PM
Vd is usually about 90% of Vne

Other way around Na85.

Vne is ~90% of Vd.

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

WTE_Galway
03-28-2010, 03:49 PM
You seriously would not want to encounter windshear when flying close to Vne it can ruin your day.

Vne for some aircraft also gets lower with altitude which may be a concern in a dive http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

By the way Vne is not just related to excess force on the airframe, resonance and flutter become an issue as well.

The following clip is a Lockheed C141 exceeding Vne and behaving in a most un-ladylike fashion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa-MD773ZAQ

Bremspropeller
03-28-2010, 03:50 PM
Kinda interesting, as Vc (FAR CS-25) is listed at 80% Vd.

Dunno, if there's Vne for airliners anyway, or if only Vd counts.

What is Mmo then? As "soft" limit as Vne (lots of margin before buffet-onset), or a "hard" one as Vd?

na85
03-28-2010, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Vd is usually about 90% of Vne

Other way around Na85.

Vne is ~90% of Vd.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Brain fart.

Frankthetank36
03-28-2010, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by Christos_swc:

The 109 cannot run away and cannot survive the Dora's gunfire, it doesn't roll quickly enough and is nowhere near as durable, plus the Dora is harder hitting.

Harder hitting? I don't know about that. The Anton is the single most well armed piston fighter in the game (unless you include the Bf-109Z). I mean, there are plenty of planes with 4 cannons and those are great, and the Fw-190A goes the extra mile by topping them off with a couple of 50 cals. But the Dora deletes 2 of the cannons, reducing the armament from phenomenal to average. Still enough to smoke a Mustang in one pass, to be sure, but certainly less likely to blow a plane apart in one shot like the 109's 30mm nose cannon.

Kettenhunde
03-28-2010, 08:09 PM
Dunno, if there's Vne for airliners anyway, or if only Vd counts.

There is a Vne and Vd for every airplane. Vne represents the maximum speed with a 29Knot gust and Vd with a 14Knot gust. Sounds like a quite bit until you start looking at winds at altitude.

Vmo or Mmo is a maximum airspeed limited by design. It is a speed that is set by the designer.


Sec. 25.335 Design airspeeds.
The selected design airspeeds are equivalent airspeeds (EAS). Estimated values of VS0 and VS1 must be conservative.

(b) Design dive speed, VD. VD must be selected so that VC/MC is not greater than 0.8 VD/MD, or so that the minimum speed margin between VC/MC and VD/MD is the greater of the following values:
(1) From an initial condition of stabilized flight at VC/MC, the airplane is upset, flown for 20 seconds along a flight path 7.5 deg. below the initial path, and then pulled up at a load factor of 1.5 g (0.5 g acceleration
increment). The speed increase occurring in this maneuver may be calculated if reliable or conservative aerodynamic data is used. Power as specified in Sec. 25.175(b)(1)(iv) is assumed until the pullup is initiated, at which time
power reduction and the use of pilot controlled drag devices may be assumed;
(2) The minimum speed margin must be enough to provide for atmospheric variations (such as horizontal gusts, and penetration of jet streams and cold fronts) and for instrument errors and airframe production variations. These
factors may be considered on a probability basis. The margin at altitude where MC is limited by compressibility effects must not less than 0.07M unless a lower margin is determined using a rational analysis that includes the effects of any automatic systems. In any case, the margin may not be
reduced to less than 0.05M.


Sec. 25.251 Vibration and buffeting.
(a) The airplane must be demonstrated in flight to be free from any vibration and buffeting that would prevent continued safe flight in any
likely operating condition.
(b) Each part of the airplane must be demonstrated in flight to be free from excessive vibration under any appropriate speed and power conditions up to VDF/MDF. The maximum speeds shown must be used in establishing the operating limitations of the airplane in accordance with Sec. 25.1505.


Sec. 25.1505 Maximum operating limit speed.
The maximum operating limit speed (VMO/MMO airspeed or Mach Number, whichever is critical at a particular altitude) is a speed that may not be deliberately exceeded in any regime of flight (climb, cruise, or descent), unless a higher speed is authorized for flight test or pilot training operations. VMO/MMO must be established so that it is not greater than the
design cruising speed VC and so that it is sufficiently below VD/MD or VDF/MDF, to make it highly improbable that the latter speeds will be
inadvertently exceeded in operations. The speed margin between VMO/MMO and VD/MD or VDF/MDF may not be less than that determined under Sec. 25.335(b) or found necessary during the flight tests conducted under Sec. 25.253.

You set a VMO / MMO and based on that you design your airplane on paper. When building and as things progress, you could very well end up with an aircraft that goes faster than your VMO/MMO. In that case if it meets the criteria outlined in 25.335 then you can change it.

There is no requirement to demonstrate VMO/MMO as doing so can be quite catastrophic. High speed flight to the designs edges is extremely dangerous.

Generally speaking, if the POH notes the speed as demonstrated, it means the test pilots flew it and achieved that speed. It is an airmanship call to exceed it although being the very first to do so is probably not a good decision. It is the onset of some very scary behaviors, otherwise the test pilots would have gone faster.

If it is listed as a limitation, then it is just that, a limit, not be exceeded if you value your life.

JtD
03-28-2010, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by Christos_swc:
I disagree that the Dora is only a bit more durable that the 109, you must give both aircrafts a good chance before you can conclude on their durability and my experience tells me it's a significantly tougher ac.

Didn't you say you only flew 190ies? The wings of the 190 can take 23% more than the wings of the 109. I think it is up to the individual if this would be "a bit" or "significantly". Personally, I'd say the P-47 is "significantly" tougher, and the wings of the P-47 can take 133% more than the wings of the 109.

The dive limits are 860 for the A-9, 880 for the K-4 and 900 for the D-9.

Christos_swc
03-29-2010, 12:27 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
Didn't you say you only flew 190ies?

Of course, that's what I fly now.
I play this game since the first Il-2 came out.
Show me a Luftwaffe pilot that hasn't spent countless of hours flying a 109!

Kettenhunde
03-29-2010, 04:26 AM
FW-190D9 Dive limitations:

http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/6545/wnr210079part2.jpg (http://img192.imageshack.us/i/wnr210079part2.jpg/)

FW-190A9 Dive limitations:

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/9307/airspeedindicators.jpg (http://img11.imageshack.us/i/airspeedindicators.jpg/)

Erkki_M
03-29-2010, 06:01 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
It's better at surviving because it has a higher dive limit, level speed and climb rate. What's that got to do with close in knife fights?

Oh, and I prefer the 190 over the 109 in 8 out of 10. Just not the A-9 over the K-4 for late war fighter bombing.

The 109K is faster than the FW190D9 only at very high altitudes. The A9 is slightly slower in its top speed above roughly 2000m but has equal sustainable speed until about 6000m where above which it starts to loses engine power, like all Fockes.

Max dive speeds are equal. Climb rate is not much worse than K4s and almost equal to other 109s, and 190s happen to zoom better. Good luck trying to outzoom a Spitfire, Tempest or especially P51.... To be able to fully use the ROC you need space and time.

Lastly, I can pretty much hit from any angle(except dead 6 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) up to about 400m distance with the MG151/20s, but I cant hit a **** with the MK108. How big percentage of firing positions that, might have been usable if you had lighter cannon in your 109, are wasted because its crappy ballistics, or because you want to get closer knowing you only have 65 pitiful rounds in it, and this in a plane that rolls and turns incredibly badly at high speeds, compared to the FWs let alone your targets? Slow down for a shot? Good idea in 1 vs 1 duel perhaps, when fighting 5 or 6 guys in P51s who are all in voice comms, you might as well shoot yourself. The 109 is simply too limited compared to the FW, it only does better in situations where you are already screwed.

JtD
03-29-2010, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by Christos_swc:

Of course, that's what I fly now.
I play this game since the first Il-2 came out.
Show me a Luftwaffe pilot that hasn't spent countless of hours flying a 109!

I wouldn't know, I don't keep a log. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif You should try the K-4 once in a while, even if it's just for fun (or maybe for even larger appreciation of the 190 thereafter http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif). It's ok to fly.

Erkki, the arguments I joined in is about the suitability of the K-4 and the A-9 as a fighter bomber. Not about the D-9, and dogfighting only as a secondary point. The dive limits are not the same, see last line of last post on the last page, the K-4 is the single best zoom climber in game and I've already said I don't like the weapons. The benefit of the K-4 is that it can outrun P-51's, while the A-9 can't. So the 5 to 6 guys in P-51's are a much smaller problem in a K-4.

If you're interested in showing me the superiority of the A-9 over the K-4 in a fight, we could check that in a 1 vs. 1. My conditions would be full switch FM, externals on, rest I don't care. Guess you'd have to host. We could do an A-9 vs. K-4, or we can do a couple of you in the A-9 and me in various Allied fighters and me in the K-4 and you in various Allied fighters. We can also put up a scenario that involves the ground attack. My HL handle is JtD, who would have guessed, but you won't find me there since the mods have killed the game for me. So we'd have to set a date.

Bremspropeller
03-29-2010, 09:41 AM
Vmo or Mmo is a maximum airspeed limited by design. It is a speed that is set by the designer.

That was not my question.

Is Mmo the point where buffeting starts to build up or is there a safety-margin between Mmo and the actual buffet-onset?

Erkki_M
03-29-2010, 09:48 AM
JtD, you wouldnt want to re-read my posts? Mentioned at least twice that 109 is better 1 vs 1.

109K4 cannot outrun any P51 at altitudes below 4000m, against Mustang 3 even 109K4c3 has no hope at any altitude. Using full power and MW50, it will run out of fuel in less than 30min(and you might have already flown some time, and you need fuel to RTB as well) - you cannot avoid your typical enemy forever. Especially on an online df map its too easy to just park a P51 CAP over the blue airfield... FW190 on the other hand can,, with full tank, fly almost an hour erhöhte notleistung enabled and power at 100%. Plus, the D9 can actually escape P47(which A9 can escape too) and P51 more or less at all altitudes, especially low, when a 109, if in trouble, needs to either drop to the deck and hope to not get pursued or try outclimbing his foes, where the margin of error is very, very small: this race does not start at the deck and 0 speed.

If you are so keen yourself in proving 109 superiority over 190, come fly with us online, almost daily at WarClouds and CZ_AH; WC has late war set 24/7/365, we can see who survives longer and ends up with more kills. I play online as you know whom, my stats are public and I can send you our TeamSpeak2 server info if you contact me. I can assure you that there are reasons why very few fly 109s in late war scenarios... Some interesting topics on the subject at WC forums as well:

109 vs. P47: http://www.war-clouds.com/modu...ile=viewtopic&t=5667 (http://www.war-clouds.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=5667)

in depth 109K4 analysis: http://www.war-clouds.com/modu...ile=viewtopic&t=5660 (http://www.war-clouds.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=5660)

...for examples.

And I dont use mods either; I dont need them.

Kwiatos
03-29-2010, 10:18 AM
Fw 190 D-9 vs P-51 in Warclouds:



http://www.war-clouds.com/modu...opic&t=5373&start=90 (http://www.war-clouds.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=5373&start=90)


http://www.war-clouds.com/modu...wtopic&p=53418#53418 (http://www.war-clouds.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=53418#53418)

So about D-9 in IL2:

"If you look in IL2 compare chart from IL2 and compare it with RL data for Fw 190 D-9 you should be note that D-9 is clearly overmodelled in performacne in IL2.

D-9 ( 44) is RL D-9 with 1900 PS modification. These plane is the most overmodeled both in speed and climb rate.

RL D-9 1900 PS ( 1.7 Ata) had max speed 686 km/h at 6000m and only the best polished planes ( with engine gap sealing) reach only 595 km/h at the deck.

Standart plane D-9 with 1900PS reach 575 km/h at the deck ( without engine gap sealing).

Also climb rate is way too good. RL D-9 1900 PS achive 20 m/s with Staig and Kampf. ( WEP power).

The same D-9 with MW 50 in Il2 is also too good both in speed and climb rate.

RL D-9 MW 50 ( 1.8 Ata) reach maximum speed 700 km/h but at 5.5 km. Maximum climb rate was 22 m/s with M50.

P-51 is IL2 have more accurate performacne. Also has too many stability problems which really casue bad aiming from these plane. P-51 should be much better at high alts above 6-7 km then any D-9. But it is not true in IL2. Look at IL2 Compare speed chart between D-9 ( 44) and P-51 D-20 and check speed at 7km till 10 km. P-51 should be way better then D-9. RL D-9 (44) reach only 686 km/h at 6.0 km then its speed drop rather rapidly.

So thats why in IL2 average D-9 pilots has better results then P-51.

These is the fact. D-9 is way too good gents.

But at least we corrected these in Ultra Pack 2.0 and make new planes with new FM's for P-51 B and D and also all Fw 190 series"



About RL Dora 9:

"Dietmar Hermann summarized FW 190 D-9 performance as follows:

I haven?t read or heard that the D-9 was tested with the Jumo 213 and C3 fuel. I know that at the beginning of development Focke-Wulf made a distinction between the normal Jumo 213 and the Jumo 213 with 100 octane fuel. I think that there was not a problem with the engine; rather there was a problem of the fuel?s availability. In my book I have published one chart from 3.1.45 (page 154) showing FW 190 D-9 performance with B4 fuel with MW 50 injection operating at 2,02 ata (Sondernotleistung ). However, I have no evidence showing that 2,02 ata was enabled by the end of the war. I think that the D-9 was flown either with the 1900 PS update or with MW50 injection (2100 PS).

The development announcement of the D-9 said that all D-9 were delivered with the ETC 504 and the 170 l or 300 l drop tank (Entwicklungsmitteilung Fw 190 D-9, Blatt XV b2 and b3 from 31 May 44 and renewed at 20 June 44). The first test report of FW 190 D-9 serial number 210002 states that the D-9 lost 8..10 km/h. with the ETC 504 and the fixed wheel flaps (delivery condition).

From Fw 190 ? Long Nose? , pg 103: ?Focke-Wulf conducted experiments with a Fw 190 D-9 (WNr. 210 002, TR+SB) in an attempt to further increase the performance of production aircraft. Gaps in the engine cowling fore and aft were sealed with rubber. In the course of these experiments an increase in speed of 17 km/h was achieved at combat power. Focke-Wulf subsequently advised the manufacturing plants to pay special attention to proper sealing of the engine compartment pending approval by E-Stelle Rechlin. Rechlin rejected the idea of rubber seals for the engine compartment, however.?

D-9 production aircraft did not have the slit sealing (engine gap seal). I have the information from a document named "Lfd. Entwicklungsarbeiten Fw 190/Ta152" from 8.1.45 updated 20.3.45 with the handwritten statement "24.3. Rechlin lehnt ab!". So I think that this was the expected answer about the previous troubles during the Focke-Wulf testing. (Test report No. 3 of Fw 190 D-9 210002 dated 24.10.44 shows a 13 km/h difference at SL operating at 1.8 ata between aircraft with sealed and unsealed engine gaps (595-608) - Ed.).

Flight Report Nr. 4 of Fw 190 D-9/210002 presented the following results: Operating at 1,75 ata, a maximum speed of 606 km/h (376 mph) at ground level was obtained. The maximum speed in the first gear was 650 km/h (404 mph) at 2,7 km (8858 ft.). The condition of the aircraft was as follows: D-9 production condition with methanol installation, surface smoothed/primed and polished, seams & cracks sealed, operable wheel flaps, gap at engine sealed (D-9 Serienzustand mit Methanolanlage, Oberfläche gespachtelt und poliert, Spalte abgedichtet, bewegliche Radklappen, Spalte am Triebwerk abgedichtet.) These values did not quite reach the characteristic curve from the comparison dated 15.12.44.

So we can state: D-9 without engine sealing - 15 km/h; with ETC 504 + fixed wheel covering about -10 km/h. This indicates that the D-9 reached the following speeds - minimum:

* 606 km/h (377 mph) at sea level with MW 50 injection and engine sealing; without ETC 504 and variable wheel covering.
* 591 km/h (367 mph) at sea level with MW 50 injection; without engine sealing, ETC 504 and variable wheel covering.
* 581 km/h (361 mph) at sea level with MW 50 injection, ETC 504 and fixed wheel covering; without engine sealing.

With 1900 PS engine set up:

* 578 km/h (359 mph) at sea level without engine sealing and variable wheel covering.
* 568 km/h (353 mph) at sea level with ETC 504 and fixed wheel covering.

17 December: The Second Gruppe pilots returned to the front and their new base at Nördhorn-Clausheide in seventy-four Fw 190D-9s, their numbers bolstered by twenty brand-new pilots. The pilot?s opinions of the ?long-nosed Dora?, or Dora-9, as it was variously nicknamed, were mixed. The new model was intended to correct the Fw 190?s most glaring weakness, its poor high altitude performance. What came out of Kurt Tank?s shop was a compromise. Tank did not like the liquid-cooled Jumo 213A engine, but it was the best choice available. The long in-line engine had to be balanced by a lengthened rear fuselage to maintain the proper center of gravity, making the Fw 190D four feet longer than the Fw 190A. The new airplane lacked the high turn rate and incredible rate of roll of its close-coupled radial-engined predecessor. It was a bit faster, however, with a maximum speed of 680 km/h (422 mph) at 6600 meters (21,650 feet).Its 2240 horespower with methanol-water injection (MW 50) gave it an excellent acceleration in combat situations. It also climbed and dived more rapidly than the Fw 190A, and so proved well suited to the dive-and-zoom ambush tactics favored by the Schlageter pilots. Many of the early models were not equipped with tanks for methanol, which was in very short supply in any event. At low altitude, the top speed and acceleration of these examples were inferior to those of Allied fighters. Hans Hartigs recalled that only one of the first batch of Dora-9s received by the First Gruppe had methanol-water injection, and the rest had a top speed of only 590 km/h (360 mph).


The liquid-cooled 1,750 PS (1,726 hp, 1,287 kW) Jumo 213A could produce 2,100 PS (2,071 hp, 1,545 kW) of emergency power with MW 50 injection, improving performance to 426 mph (686 km/h) at 21,650 ft (6,600 m). Early D-9s reached service without the MW 50 installation, but in the meantime Junkers produced a kit to increase manifold pressure (Ladedrucksteigerungs-Rüstsatz) that increased engine output by 150 PS to 1,900 PS, and was effective up to 5,000 m (16,400 ft) altitude. It was fitted immediately to D-9s delivered to the units from September, or retrofitted in the field by TAM. By the end of December, all operational Doras, 183 in total, were converted.[30] From November 1944, a simplified MW-50 system (Oldenburg) was fitted, that boosted output to 2,100 PS. By the end of 1944, 60 were delivered with the simplified MW 50 system or were at the point of entering service. The 115 l tank of the Oldenburg system would hold the MW 50 booster liquid was single purpose, while later systems were to be dual purpose, either holding MW 50 or additional fuel.[31]

Il2 Compare charts clearly show that both stock Fw 190 D-9 ( expecially 1944 year model) are too good in general performacne.
It confirm RL charts and data.

MikkOwl
03-29-2010, 10:22 AM
With my probably more limited experience with the aircraft in question, my opinion is that the K-4 is overall a much worse plane than the late Spitfires and the Fw 190 series. Fragile airframe, fragile engine, weak firepower, unforgiving to mistakes, poor visibility, poor turner, roll rate not special, poor range.

The good is climb, the tiny size (stealthy) and, in some cases, speed (though engine reliability is a major issue).

In general it seems like an aircraft that is good for a pilot who is an expert shot, and very good at using the sun and clouds to bounce enemies before spotted, using the Mk 108 at very close range where only 2-4 shots are needed. Possibly better in smaller numbers (a rotte, 2 aircraft) as it helps staying unseen. Probably better in real life than in IL-2 too due to the unpixellated sky, dirtier imperfect windshields (good for Bf 109 vs the spit windshield) and the infinite variation of the real world ground, clouds etc vs IL-2.

I imagine it flying with or without gunpods and bouncing those tough IL-2's and bigger carpet bombers.

In summary, a back stabbing ninja aircraft which isn't so hot at fighting its contemporaries after being spotted.

Erkki_M
03-29-2010, 10:24 AM
Kwiatek, how about 109K, 190A9? Seen arguments for and against. A9 is more than enough better than all 109s, including the K, but still.

Bremspropeller
03-29-2010, 10:26 AM
Is there any *proof* that indicates that planes were not modified in field-service?

There are few problems a roll of speed-tape can't fix. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

BTW: Tesa-strips will stay attached at M2.0 at SL - I've seen it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

JtD
03-29-2010, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by Erkki_M:
JtD, you wouldnt want to re-read my posts? Mentioned at least twice that 109 is better 1 vs 1.

Well, you'd need to point me to that. I can't see it.


109K4 cannot outrun any P51 at altitudes below 4000m, against Mustang 3 even 109K4c3 has no hope at any altitude. Using full power and MW50, it will run out of fuel in less than 30min(and you might have already flown some time, and you need fuel to RTB as well) - you cannot avoid your typical enemy forever. Especially on an online df map its too easy to just park a P51 CAP over the blue airfield... FW190 on the other hand can,, with full tank, fly almost an hour erhöhte notleistung enabled and power at 100%. Plus, the D9 can actually escape P47(which A9 can escape too) and P51 more or less at all altitudes, especially low, when a 109, if in trouble, needs to either drop to the deck and hope to not get pursued or try outclimbing his foes, where the margin of error is very, very small: this race does not start at the deck and 0 speed.

The K-4 can outrun a P-51B at low altitude. Using full power and MW50, it will have a dead engine after 5 minutes and be out of MW50 in 20 minutes. Who cares about how much fuel is left after 30? And why exactly would I run that long? How is the A-9 better when a P-51 is parking above the airfield? Interestingly, the 109 can fly for an hour at 100% just like the Fw, though the 190 indeed has a better range. Why exactly do you mention the irrelevant D-9 again? The K-4 is faster than the P-47 at all altitudes, while the A-9 isn't and also has a lower top speed. It will be run down. Same story against the P-51, just more easily. Why exactly would a K-4 drop to the deck where the A-9 wouldn't? Because, the way I do it, I disengage in a shallow dive if in an A-9 and in a shallow climb if in a K-4. It's kind of the point in these planes.


If you are so keen yourself in proving 109 superiority over 190, come fly with us online, almost daily at WarClouds and CZ_AH; WC has late war set 24/7/365, we can see who survives longer and ends up with more kills. I play online as you know whom, my stats are public and I can send you our TeamSpeak2 server info if you contact me. I can assure you that there are reasons why very few fly 109s in late war scenarios... Some interesting topics on the subject at WC forums as well:

I'm not keen on proving anything. And, I repeat, this is still not 109 vs. 190, it is K-4 vs. A-9 mainly in a fighter bombing role. And, I also repeat, I prefer the 190 over the 109 in 8 out of 10. I'm also not going to fly on WC WF, which has no externals and the most boring planeset around. Last time I flew there I gave up when I found it is totally easy to score there without getting shot down, but totally boring, too.

Erkki_M
03-29-2010, 11:49 AM
JtD, you're having A9 vs. K4 JABO discussion with someone else, not me. And if it was about that, why the duel challenge?

To the second, quoting myself


The 109 is simply too limited compared to the FW, it only does better in situations where you are already screwed.

109 sure is much better "personal plane" for dogfighting, but then again, you should never be alone, and if you are forced to turn, you've already made mistakes...

P-51B? How about D or stang 3? Thats like comparing FW190A9/D9 to 109G6.

Range and endurance both matter, a LOT. Just not in 1 vs 1 and kids air quake servers. The greater endurance, and FW can stay up and fly fast considerably longer than the 109, the less time a plane uses flying in and out of the combat area. Picking almost always 100% of fuel, flying both 109 and 190, I almost always end up running out of fuel before running out of ammunition or having RTB due to combat damage. You take off, climb to 6000m takes an odd 7-8min as you want to spare fuel, you fly 5-10min to the target area at altitude... You have used at least 10, perhaps even up to 20 minutes, before you get into a fight on a busy full difficulty(or, at least externals views off, with some mission tasks) server, 20 minutes out of your 40min endurance(60min+ if you want to be a slow target and want to use even more time climbing and cruising). You are forced to head home 5-10min before you run out of fuel. In a late 109, you're left with 25 minutes of cruising if you want to keep your speed high, 40min if not. FW190 has 35-50min. Unless the server is full of people who want to get KIA each sortie, 109s use relatively more time flying to target area and back home. This too has been discussed over at the WC forums.

Totally easy to score without getting show down in WC? How? Their statistics database doesnt find you either.

About the P47 you forget one vital thing: it has no power limitations above roughly 5000m. It has easily better best sustainable speed, it retains energy better in maneuvers and can, again in sustained, match 109K4's climb at high altitudes. For 109s its, for most players, next to impossible to hit a thing at high speeds, the combination of poor high-speed roll, elevator authority and MK-108 does that. P-51 you might be able to force lower, but the K4 alone is not a real threat to them alone: it needs FWs to do the killing. Forcing high flying P47s and P51 lower or to egress from the immediate area together with CAPing friendly airfields is the only job I find them do better than the FW...

JtD
03-29-2010, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by Erkki_M:
JtD, you're having A9 vs. K4 JABO discussion with someone else, not me. And if it was about that, why the duel challenge?

You quoted me from that discussion and felt you needed to add something. So how am I supposed to know you just want to take something out of context? So I guess we're done.

BillSwagger
03-29-2010, 01:13 PM
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">I see the 109 more as energy fighter, utilizing the dive to build speed and making gentle turns to stay fast. In this way i think it is better than the 190.

The 190 is a plane you can point where you need to go and it will build up a lot of speed in level flight. I found that at lower altitudes its better in the vertical, more so than a Tempest, which can make it deceptively dangerous even if you are in a Mustang, and that is where the 109 seems to fall to the wayside.

I haven't flown the Ks much, but the G-14s since most people generally fight lower than 10k on most servers. I think the 1944 109G-6AS is probably better suited for the longer duration of dogfights because it has a better and more consistent ammo load. It is also considerably fast with out the MW50, which i only utilize in zoom climbs or emergencies.

Arguing top speed is of little significance in my opinion, what seems to make a bigger difference is how much energy the fighter can sustain through a series of maneuvers. Not only does the plane need to dive fast, but it needs to hold its speed through a turn. The 190 can gain most of this energy back in a vertical zoom despite making an energy bleeding tight turn, which again, the 109 falls the wayside. </pre>

na85
03-29-2010, 01:28 PM
Hey Bill you might want to remove those [code] tags

Frankthetank36
03-29-2010, 02:35 PM
If you want to kill high-altitude bombers the Bf-109 is definitely the better plane, especially the K4 with its 3 30mm cannons. In mid-war scenarios, the FW-190 is superior if the bombers are at a reasonably low altitude.

na85
03-29-2010, 02:52 PM
The K-4 only has 1x 30mm cannon.

thefruitbat
03-29-2010, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by na85:
The K-4 only has 1x 30mm cannon.

not with gunpods http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

although not my preference, 109's with gunpods fly like pregnant dogs imo.

Christos_swc
03-29-2010, 03:49 PM
Well, guys, maybe we should concentrate more on how good an ac is to fly and be successful with in the game and not one on one scenarios.
Personally I'm useless in one on one situations without a better turning plane (which I don't fly) or a good E advantage.
The 109 I find very frustrating for BnZ tactics.
I just got back form online play where I killed a 109K4.
We were both flying at high alt with me higher so he went for the deck.
I closed in and realized it was going to be an uncomplicated kill because he had little control at that speed to avoid my gunfire.
He then took off again, gained alt and came for me but I simply run away, I was not interested.
Maybe my Dora is better against a K-4 or maybe not, point is I feel the Dora is the best Luftwaffe mount for me to get kills in the game and survive at the same time.
In general, taking on an opponent on equal terms and winning depends on your turn rate.
I'm talking about this game, not real life and referring to us mortal pilots who have not developed jaw dropping tactics for dogfighting like the most talented and/or dedicated fliers.
If you can't turn as tight you should be looking for an E advantage.
So the 109 in this respect does not compare favorably with the late war Spits which was the original question, neither does the Dora, especially against the uber 25lbs, same against the Japs and Soviets, any of them.
If you want to have any success with these you should always be looking for an alt advantage and take care not to get bounced.
This situations involve high speed where the Dora shines and the 109 really doesn't, good zoom climb, acceleration, robustness, low alt level speed,firepower and good climb.
The Dora shines in most and fails in none.
The 109 only shines for it's good climb, high alt engine performance is irrelevant in this game most,if not all, of the time and fails spectacularly in one of the most important aspects of Boom n Zoom tactics, high speed manoeuvrability.
And it's not a robust plane, not so because of the airframe but because of that weak engine.
Let's not forget that the realism settings of the server play a huge role and I would not hesitate to take to battle a 109 on a full real server but with a no cockpit view it's a "no thanks".

M_Gunz
03-29-2010, 03:53 PM
Do 109s actually have any advantages against late war spits?

Answer is: Dora

Frankthetank36
03-29-2010, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by thefruitbat:

not with gunpods http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

although not my preference, 109's with gunpods fly like pregnant dogs imo.

Does it matter what kind of gunpods you use? The Mk108 and Mk103 and the MG151(I think that's what it's called?) are all 30mm (as far as I know) but there must be some sort of differences between the three. Either way I'd much rather use a weighted-down K4 to take out a B-29 than a D9 with only 2 20mm cannons and a couple of 50 cals, not that the Superfortress was actually used in the ETO. The Ta-152, on the other hand...

DKoor
03-29-2010, 07:31 PM
IRL maybe in game no.
109 nose is sooo flamable, one 50cal from defensive turret and its all over. FW on the other hand can receive much more punch in the nosehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

Kettenhunde
03-29-2010, 08:12 PM
Is Mmo the point where buffeting starts to build up or is there a safety-margin between Mmo and the actual buffet-onset?


Mmo is set by the designer and where he thinks mach and q-effects will manifest themselves. It is generally a calculated speed.

Only he can adjust it under specific guidelines and test flight conditions.

That answer the question for you?

JtD
03-29-2010, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by Frankthetank36:

Does it matter what kind of gunpods you use? The Mk108 and Mk103 and the MG151(I think that's what it's called?) are all 30mm (as far as I know) but there must be some sort of differences between the three. Either way I'd much rather use a weighted-down K4 to take out a B-29 than a D9 with only 2 20mm cannons and a couple of 50 cals, not that the Superfortress was actually used in the ETO. The Ta-152, on the other hand...

The MK 103 and MK 108 are 30mm cannons, the MG 151/20 is a 20mm cannon. The MK 103 fires the shells at a much higher velocity, so is harder hitting than the MK108, but does not have the rate of fire.

---

I think that with the reworked g limits that are coming with 4.10 we will be seeing a raise in popularity with the late 109's. When the other planes have to use a reasonable amount of elevator in order to not shed wings, the 109 will have the same high speed elevator response as others.

Erkki_M
03-29-2010, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frankthetank36:

Does it matter what kind of gunpods you use? The Mk108 and Mk103 and the MG151(I think that's what it's called?) are all 30mm (as far as I know) but there must be some sort of differences between the three. Either way I'd much rather use a weighted-down K4 to take out a B-29 than a D9 with only 2 20mm cannons and a couple of 50 cals, not that the Superfortress was actually used in the ETO. The Ta-152, on the other hand...

The MK 103 and MK 108 are 30mm cannons, the MG 151/20 is a 20mm cannon. The MK 103 fires the shells at a much higher velocity, so is harder hitting than the MK108, but does not have the rate of fire.

---

I think that with the reworked g limits that are coming with 4.10 we will be seeing a raise in popularity with the late 109's. When the other planes have to use a reasonable amount of elevator in order to not shed wings, the 109 will have the same high speed elevator response as others. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Moreover, no more Spitfire "batturns"! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JtD
03-29-2010, 11:01 PM
I think "batturn" is a word for the low to medium speed qualities of the Spitfire, isn't it? I don't think that will change much, and if so, it won't be related to the new g limit. In particular at higher altitudes.

M_Gunz
03-29-2010, 11:15 PM
I seriously doubt that the new aircraft G limits will be less than the current pilot G-limits!

Frankthetank36
03-30-2010, 10:21 AM
^But it seems to me that G effects for pilots occur over time. The pullout for a dive bomber is supposed to be something like 9G and yet I have NEVER even begun to black out after pulling out of a dive for a Stuka or SBD. Whereas if you were to sustain that turn, you would easily black out. So I would think you could rip the wings off of something if you were to quickly yank back on the stick.

Kettenhunde
03-30-2010, 10:51 AM
I have NEVER even begun to black out after pulling out of a dive for a Stuka or SBD.


IIRC, the Stuka and many other German aircraft had an automatic dive recovery system as a safety feature for when the pilot passed out.

It was linked to the dive brakes and bomb release controls. When the controls were activated and hydraulic piston assisted in recovery if the pilot was conscious or recovered the aircraft if he was not.

Of course it had to be activated with sufficient altitude to effect the recovery.

JtD
03-30-2010, 10:52 AM
The Ju-88 was a rated H3, so 3 g's would be safe to pull. That's lower than the current pilot limit. But I think that Frank nailed the major difference between pilot and plane limits - the pilot can deal with peak accelerations, the plane can deal with sustained. So besides more realistic bomber behaviour we can expect the high-speed-pass-snap-shot crowd to suffer most. And of course the fighter bomber that use steep dive angles and pull out at high speed.

Frankthetank36
03-30-2010, 11:01 AM
So P-51s and Tempests with their outstanding high speed elevator response will really suffer, while the Fw-190s, which while they maintain good elevator authority at high speeds, will suffer less since they can't pull such sharp turns at high speeds in the first place.

Kettenhunde
03-30-2010, 11:02 AM
The Ju-88 was a rated H3,


Here is the speed and angle restrictions for the Ju88 when using the automatic pull out device from the POH.

2. dive-flight with pull-out device and dive-brakes, with pull-out acceleration of 3g and at Va = 575 km/h .
height loss h=530m at 50° dive angle
height loss h=700m at 60° dive angle
height loss h=900m at 70° dive angle

3. dive-flight with pull-out device but without dive-brakes, with pull-out acceleration of 3g and at Va = 550 km/h .

height loss h=460m at 50° dive angle
height loss h=650m at 60° dive angle
height loss h=850m at 70° dive angle

Bremspropeller
03-30-2010, 11:04 AM
JtD, do you have any breakdown of the Beanspruchungsklassen plus their safety-factors? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif


So P-51s and Tempests with their outstanding high speed elevator response will really suffer, while the Fw-190s, which while they maintain good elevator authority at high speeds, will suffer less since they can't pull such sharp turns at high speeds in the first place.


The planes won't "suffer" (unless you over-g them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif ).
People that flew them the wrong way before will http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kettenhunde
03-30-2010, 11:06 AM
So besides more realistic bomber behaviour we can expect the high-speed-pass-snap-shot crowd to suffer most.


Physiologically the sustained turners should suffer the most in a good model.

Instantaneous ROR Gz is much easier on the human body and the tolerances are much higher than sustained GOR Gz. Load factor tolerances are all about rate of onset and length of exposure.

JtD
03-30-2010, 11:08 AM
@Brems:

No, I don't. I have a couple of pilot manuals which give the H rating. I don't even know for sure if H3 means 3.00 are safe or 3.99 are safe. Judging from the Ju-87 manual, I think it's the latter. It's H5 but the written out warning is to not pull 6g's or more to avoid plastic deformation.

You're right about the pilot/plane thing, I guess. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Frankthetank36
03-30-2010, 11:09 AM
So then why did they design the auto pullout system on the Stuka? Do real life pilots black out while in-game pilots do not? Try a dive bombing attack out for yourself in a D3A or SBD; the screen will not turn black at all during pullout.

JtD
03-30-2010, 11:16 AM
Mainly to avoid overstressing the airframe.

"By that [auto pull out] it is avoided that in the pull out from a dive forbidden small pull out radii develop, meaning that the maximum (save) load limit n=6 will not be exceeded so that permanent deformation of the plane can be avoided."

Bremspropeller
03-30-2010, 11:19 AM
Well, the automation (6g pullout) will give you either the same radius at higher speed or a tighter radius at same speed (v-n diagram tells you if you're within the CL-boundary).

The automation gives the pilot more room in his thoughts for aiming and finding the right point to release the bomb, instaed of fiddling around with trim and flight-controls.

So it takes workload off the pilot.


Is there any good literature about the Stuka (or Ju 88 for that matter) and it's recovery-automation around?

JtD
03-30-2010, 12:16 PM
The pull out limited the elevator angle, so you'd basically be flying a fixed radius or more accurately AoA. Since the plane would reach terminal velocity in the dive (540 km/h), it should be pretty easy to do the math about the g's and I guess that's what they did.

The Ju-87 / 88 pilot handbook is pretty good, Ju-87 can be found here (http://www.airwar.ru/other/bibl/ju87b2-10.html). (The Russian says it is in German.)

Kettenhunde
03-30-2010, 02:44 PM
The Ju88 pullout was set for 3G's. As I said, physiologically, GOR Gz is much more likely to cause GLOC than ROR Gz.

It is not the amount of G's, it is the onset rate and length of exposure.

M_Gunz
03-30-2010, 03:52 PM
I guess I should have written "for bat turn capable fighters in IL2 with the IL2 blackout modeling".
MY BAD.

WTE_Galway
03-30-2010, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:

Is there any good literature about the Stuka (or Ju 88 for that matter) and it's recovery-automation around?

Manfred Griehl's 2001 book gets quoted an awful lot and appears to have a lot of technical and historical data but i haven't actually sighted a copy personally so cannot say how much specific information is there about dive recovery, here is an Amazon link ...

http://www.amazon.com/Junkers-...Griehl/dp/1840371986 (http://www.amazon.com/Junkers-Ju-Stuka-Manfred-Griehl/dp/1840371986)


For online more general Ju 87 specs this link has some good detail:

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Junkers_Ju_87


btw .. my understanding is the dive recovery was initiated upon releasing the bomb presumably among other advantages meaning recovery started the instant the bomb was released.

M_Gunz
03-30-2010, 09:50 PM
How much do those H or G limits change between loaded with bombs and bombs are gone?

JtD
03-30-2010, 11:27 PM
A heavily loaded you Ju-87B was rated H3 instead of H5.

freakvollder
04-03-2010, 10:20 AM
oh a nice 109 discussion here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif surviving in a late 109 is not easy! It's an experten plane.

If your opponent is stupid enough to get slow (what is the most common way to get killed) and he is also stupid enough to climb with you, then you have him!

But the biggest advantage you can get is only bye flying patient and save as many advantages you can. Then you will be successful in any plane ever.

Salute

M_Gunz
04-03-2010, 03:59 PM
109 is like a glove, 190 is like a gauntlet. Difference is more than just the punch.

Kurfurst__
04-04-2010, 03:58 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
The Ju-88 was a rated H3, so 3 g's would be safe to pull.

Are you sure the H3 means "safe for 3 g"? I am trying to find out the meaning of those German load classes for some time, but I haven't found anything definitive on it, only that there were different classes, ie. H stands for Hochleistung, ie. high performance aircraft. For example the 109 and pretty much every S-E fighter was in H5 class, but they were rated officially for about 6.5-6.7-6.9 g for safe load limit and 10-13 g for break limit.

Kettenhunde
04-04-2010, 06:31 AM
Are you sure the H3 means "safe for 3 g"


It does not and you are correct Kurfurst. It is just a load class for planning purposes, ie departure and arrival airfield requirements, arrival procedures, etc..

In the United States we use Class A,B,C, and D. It effects the speeds, rates, and limitations of the aircraft.

If there are any further restrictions they will be noted in the POH.

JtD
04-04-2010, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Are you sure the H3 means "safe for 3 g"? I am trying to find out the meaning of those German load classes for some time, but I haven't found anything definitive on it, only that there were different classes, ie. H stands for Hochleistung, ie. high performance aircraft. For example the 109 and pretty much every S-E fighter was in H5 class, but they were rated officially for about 6.5-6.7-6.9 g for safe load limit and 10-13 g for break limit.

No, I'm not. Sorry, I was talking assumptions here.

H = Hochleistungs- und Versuchsflugzeuge
G = Flugzeuge für gewerbliche Güterbeförderung
P = Flugzeuge für gewerbliche Personenbeförderung
R = Reise- und Sportflugzeuge
S = Schulflugzeuge
K = Kunstflugzeuge

Gruppe 1 = Beanspruchung: sehr gering
Gruppe 2 = Beanspruchung: gering
Gruppe 3 = Beanspruchung: normal
Gruppe 4 = Beanspruchung: hoch (beschr. kunstflugtauglich)
Gruppe 5 = Beanspruchung: sehr hoch (unbeschr. kunstflugtauglich)

So, in English:
H = high performance and experimental aircraft
G = Aircraft for commercial freight transport
P = Aircraft for commercial passenger transport
R = Travel- and sports aircraft
S = Training aircraft
K = aerobatic aircraft

Group 1 = very low stress
Group 2 = low stress
Group 3 = normal stress
Group 4 = high stress (suitable for limited aerobatics)
Group 5 = very high stress (suitable for unlimited aerobatics)

Group 3 was generally limited to 60° angle of bank in turns, so roughly 2 g's.

Particular limits are supposed to be noted in the pilot notes.

Deutscher Luftfahrtausschuss (DLA), 1933.

Kettenhunde
04-04-2010, 03:44 PM
Group 3 was generally limited to 60° angle of bank in turns, so roughly 2 g's.


No, Normal is ~4G's unless the POH says otherwise.

yuuppers
04-04-2010, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Group 3 was generally limited to 60° angle of bank in turns, so roughly 2 g's.

No, Normal is ~4G's unless the POH says otherwise. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is that for modern American standards or for the Deutscher Luftfahrtausschuss (DLA), 1933 standards?

Kettenhunde
04-04-2010, 03:55 PM
Is that for modern American standards or for the Deutscher Luftfahrtausschuss (DLA), 1933 standards?

Look it up and find out.

yuuppers
04-04-2010, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Is that for modern American standards or for the Deutscher Luftfahrtausschuss (DLA), 1933 standards?

Look it up and find out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In other words Eugene, you can't answer the question?

Kettenhunde
04-04-2010, 09:06 PM
No....I am just not interested in your questions.

You have never been anything but rude and nasty.

The limits are printed in Luftwaffe technical publications. If you don't have them, my suggestion would be to look through certain archives.

JtD
04-05-2010, 12:07 AM
Yuupers, the 60° bank angle are a quote from "Technik für den Flugzeugführer", Mai 1942. (D (Luft) 1803) ("Technology for the pilot", May 1942). 60° bank angle translate to two g's - if you use real physics. It doesn't mean that Group 3 had a load limit of 2.

"Technik für den Flugzeugführer" quotes the DLA Standards of 1933. The DLA paper would be "Bauvorschriften für Flugzeuge" ("Regulations for the construction of aircraft"). Even more detailed is part 1:

"Bauvorschriften für Flugzeuge, Heft 1, Vorschriften für die Festigkeit von Flugzeugen, Herausgeber Deutscher-Luftfahrzeug-Ausschuß Berlin-Adlershof, Belastungszustände, Sicherheitszahlen, Festigkeitsnachweise. 1936"

"Regulations for the construction of aircraft, part 1, Regulations for the strength of aircraft", published by German aircraft commission Berlin Adlershof, stress-scenarios, safety numbers, strength verification. 1936"

You can buy that at the Luftfahrtarchiv Hafner but it is in German.

Kettenhunde
04-05-2010, 05:37 AM
"Technik für den Flugzeugführer" quotes the DLA Standards of 1933.

Which is based on....

http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/180031

Funny thing that German or anybody else's insurance companies want to know that British, Italian, US, or anybody else airplanes are up to the same standards when they put their clients on board.

Those standards are still in existence today.

yuuppers
04-05-2010, 07:13 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
Yuupers, the 60° bank angle are a quote from "Technik für den Flugzeugführer", Mai 1942. (D (Luft) 1803) ("Technology for the pilot", May 1942). 60° bank angle translate to two g's - if you use real physics. It doesn't mean that Group 3 had a load limit of 2.

"Technik für den Flugzeugführer" quotes the DLA Standards of 1933. The DLA paper would be "Bauvorschriften für Flugzeuge" ("Regulations for the construction of aircraft"). Even more detailed is part 1:

"Bauvorschriften für Flugzeuge, Heft 1, Vorschriften für die Festigkeit von Flugzeugen, Herausgeber Deutscher-Luftfahrzeug-Ausschuß Berlin-Adlershof, Belastungszustände, Sicherheitszahlen, Festigkeitsnachweise. 1936"

"Regulations for the construction of aircraft, part 1, Regulations for the strength of aircraft", published by German aircraft commission Berlin Adlershof, stress-scenarios, safety numbers, strength verification. 1936"

You can buy that at the Luftfahrtarchiv Hafner but it is in German.

Thank you JtD. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Kettenhunde
04-05-2010, 03:17 PM
Now you can look it up for yourself!


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Frankthetank36
04-05-2010, 03:37 PM
The 109 must have SOME serious advantages (if not in the sim, then at least in real life)... I mean, none of the pilots with 300+ kills used FW-190s.

Kettenhunde
04-05-2010, 06:38 PM
I mean, none of the pilots with 300+ kills used FW-190s.


They did not use P-51's or Spitfires either.

Erkki_M
04-06-2010, 02:30 AM
Yep. Unfortunately the game is not real life, and when comparing FW and 109 its both in good and bad. I mean, look at it, 2/3 of people in HyperLobby play on servers with external views on, and even about the other half the rest usually load a quarter fuel tank and head right towards the closest enemy air base. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

There are places where you can find "realistic" online gaming experience too but, but they have problems of their own. Such as usually very low player numbers...

JtD
04-06-2010, 02:57 AM
You might want to look into UKD3, don't know the recent numbers, but used to be good.

Erkki_M
04-06-2010, 03:21 AM
Its OK, but I dont like the far-out icons, spoiling AI planes(if I wanted them I'd go single player) or padlock. I understand some people need them and icons can be turned off, but still. Also I'm possibly banned there, got kickbanned from uk ded 2 last yer before even managing to take off, asked for reason but it was never given.

EDIT: yeah, I'm on the banlist...

BillSwagger
04-06-2010, 04:53 AM
Originally posted by Frankthetank36:
The 109 must have SOME serious advantages (if not in the sim, then at least in real life)... I mean, none of the pilots with 300+ kills used FW-190s.

The 109 was a dominant fighter through much of the war up til about 43 when higher altitude planes were able to get above its ceiling.

Its performance doesn't really compare to the 190, but the 190 also was not the best fighter above 20k ft not until they had the Doras, so the 109 was the fighter of choice in the altitude game and a lot was done to the airframe and engine to make sure it maintained a climb advantage even at higher altitudes.

Tactically, if the Germans didn't have an advantage they would avoid the fight and climb above their enemies and then attack. Its climb ability is really under estimated, if you think about it. You might engage an enemy at 10k ft, and decide to climb instead which with in minutes can put the 109 at a considerable altitude advantage. This remains true in the game if you stay fast and don't attempt to turn battle with a Spitfire.

The weakness of the 109 that i can see is that it loses high speed maneuverability at lower altitudes, which makes gaining a lead or dodging an attack a bit tricky, but by comparison it actually holds its energy very well.



Bill

DKoor
04-06-2010, 05:36 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frankthetank36:
The 109 must have SOME serious advantages (if not in the sim, then at least in real life)... I mean, none of the pilots with 300+ kills used FW-190s.

The 109 was a dominant fighter through much of the war up til about 43 when higher altitude planes were able to get above its ceiling.

Its performance doesn't really compare to the 190, but the 190 also was not the best fighter above 20k ft not until they had the Doras, so the 109 was the fighter of choice in the altitude game and a lot was done to the airframe and engine to make sure it maintained a climb advantage even at higher altitudes.

Tactically, if the Germans didn't have an advantage they would avoid the fight and climb above their enemies and then attack. Its climb ability is really under estimated, if you think about it. You might engage an enemy at 10k ft, and decide to climb instead which with in minutes can put the 109 at a considerable altitude advantage. This remains true in the game if you stay fast and don't attempt to turn battle with a Spitfire.

The weakness of the 109 that i can see is that it loses high speed maneuverability at lower altitudes, which makes gaining a lead or dodging an attack a bit tricky, but by comparison it actually holds its energy very well.



Bill </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All what you said is 100% true, but I'd like to point out one thing...

"You might engage an enemy at 10k ft, and decide to climb instead which with in minutes can put the 109 at a considerable altitude advantage. This remains true in the game if you stay fast and don't attempt to turn battle with a Spitfire."

This is true but I guess that was actually quite rare in WW2. It comes to my mind some accounts of the air war over Romania and Hungary where the escorting P-38s and P-51s met bunch of IARs and Bf-109s few times... no much maneuvering there as coordinated as it is in game.
In life it was all different as for the most part those that got shot down didn't even saw what hit them, all those poor dead fellas would probably agree with me if they can http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif.

To my mind comes one exact situation where Bf-109 pilot explains how he shot down a P-51... he said that all he did was following his leader in the attack on the Liberator formation... sometimes during the attack they got mixed with 51s his leader picked out his target but at one point a 51 got directly on his tail and closing.
Logically, the German explains, he filled his gunsight without him needing to adjust his shooting solution even lightly! So he carefully pressed the trigger (watching not to blow his element leader -flying directly in front of American- out of sky). The poor Mustang pilot who was seconds aways from blowing up that leading 109 actually didn't stand a chance but haven't even realized that... to add to the confusion, neither leading 109, who was at the time concentrated his effort on Liberators, realized that he was in mortal danger and seconds away from certain death.

Anyhow to be crystal clear, I sincerely doubt it ever came to some classic turning furball to the scale we can witness in game (everyone and their mothers know exactly what to do at any given time during the fight), people online mostly do a very good job once the fight begins (the other story is that they soemtimes don't stand a chance because of their inferior tactical position so sometimes it seems like they died easily...)... those guys in WW2 fought and died after with many errors, much more so than we can see online - be it from panic for their real life, ignorance, inexperience, or simple non-awareness of the danger... they were hardly stupid folks as I assume those filled more "common" army positions.

BillSwagger
04-06-2010, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:

All what you said is 100% true, but I'd like to point out one thing...

"You might engage an enemy at 10k ft, and decide to climb instead which with in minutes can put the 109 at a considerable altitude advantage. This remains true in the game if you stay fast and don't attempt to turn battle with a Spitfire."

This is true but I guess that was actually quite rare in WW2.


Not so rare, it just depends on the reference material. You look at the eastern front, and MTO as well as parts of the western front, the 109 was able to use its superior climb to always attack from an advantage. The account your referring to seems to describe a bomber intercept mission at higher altitudes where climbing for advantage is less of a concern than stopping the bombers. Plus, tactically a P-51 is better suited to force a 109 to fly to its ceiling where climb is not going to be an out for the 109.

History has many layers and people often remember what gets printed on the front of a newspaper, but a little digging can reveal much more about an event and the lives it has effected.

I find most players on any server seldom fly their planes in a historical way, its usually a scramble at lower altitudes and for that reason some planes don't appear to be performing as well as they could. Its the pilot, not the plane.


Bill

na85
04-07-2010, 12:09 AM
Anyone have any tracks showing late war Bf109s fighting spits?

JtD
04-07-2010, 01:25 AM
Game tracks? Sure. But then on the ones I have it isn't really much fighting. It's more about having a superior position, diving down and shooting Spitfires.

DKoor
04-07-2010, 01:52 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
Game tracks? Sure. But then on the ones I have it isn't really much fighting. It's more about having a superior position, diving down and shooting Spitfires.
That would represent most of the historical sweep action too.

Pretty much regardless of plane type.

Christos_swc
04-07-2010, 03:43 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:

This is true but I guess that was actually quite rare in WW2

I recall the story of a P-47 pilot saying they saw some 109s at a distance during a sortie and the minute they saw each other both formations started climbing.
In the end the P-47s outclimbed the 109s ceasing the advantage.
It's generally interesting to read a bit more info on the fighting tactics used during the era rather than the usual "I got in behind him,fired and saw hits" etc.
At first glance it's a bit strange that a P-47 would outclimb a 109 but obviously the 109s where some G-model and they were both flying at very high alt when they met each other giving the advantage to the P-47s...

JtD
04-07-2010, 04:39 AM
Spotting the enemy first is half the victory, to use another overused phrase. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Erkki_M
04-07-2010, 04:58 AM
You dont fight the enemy either, its pointless, you kill him, and if you cant, you get out. Online too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BigKahuna_GS
04-07-2010, 07:14 AM
S!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill-only that 25 lbs boost was something that couldn't be achieved for longer than a minute or two
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That is incorrect. The boost ratings the RAF & USAAF developed with 150grade fuel were ment to be operated thru the power band at most throttle settings.
That ment you could fast cruise at military power in the Mustang Mark III & IV at 25lbs of boost resulting in about a 200hp increase over factory boost levels.
I think you were confusing 25lbs of boost with WEP. WEP of course was limited to 5 minutes.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform.../150-grade-fuel.html (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html)

The increased performance obtained with 150 Grade Fuel was put to good use by Mustangs, Tempests and Spitfires in intercepting Buzz Bombs launched against Britain beginning mid June. Performance increases at sea level were as follows:


---------------- 130 Grade----------150 Grade
Spitfire IX------ 335 mph---------- 358 mph +25 lb
Spitfire XIV----- 359 mph---------- 366 mph +21 lb
Tempest V-------- 372 mph---------- 386 mph +11 lb
Mustang III (V-1650-3)360 mph------ 390 mph +25 lb

The Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) reported in Technical Note No.Aero.1501(Flight) that a Mustang III (Merlin V-1650-7), flying at +25 lb./sq.in. as received from Squadron, obtained 382 mph at sea level. 404 mph was obtained at sea level after "cleaning up" the aircraft by removing the bomb racks and aerial bracket, repainting the wing's leading edge and rubbing down the aircraft. 316 Squadron was one of the Mustang units to convert to 150 grade fuel, their Operations Record Book stating for 1.7.44 "18 A/C test after modification to +25 lbs boost". 610 Squadron uprated thier Spitfire XIVs on 18 July, the ORB stating "the modification of the aircraft to take 21 boost continues". These squadrons did more that just chase divers as 315 Squadron demonstrated when they shot down 6 Me 109's, 1 Me 110 and 1 Fw 190 while escorting Beaufighters to Norway on 30 July 1944. By mid August the Buzz Bomb threat was largly eliminated with the advance of the allied armies beyond the launching areas. The ADGB squadrons that had converted to 150 grade fuel now found more time to operate over the continent. The Spitfire IX Squadrons were permanently pulled off anti-diver duty on 10 August and went over completely to escort work, sweeps and armed recces. 316 Squadron flying their Mustangs downed 3 Me 109’s and a Fw 190 five miles N. of Chalom on 14 August. 315 Squadron met with remarkable success on 18 August, claiming 16 Fw 190’s shot down near Beauvais with their boosted Mustang III’s (II./JG 26 recorded 8 killed and 2 wounded). The Spitfire XIV squadrons quickly got into the swing of it with 350 Squadron scoring on 19 August by shooting down a Ju 88 on the outskirts of Brussels. And so it went - so much for divers.

--

JtD
04-07-2010, 07:43 AM
The boost ratings the RAF & USAAF developed with 150grade fuel were ment to be operated thru the power band at most throttle settings.

Now that's something I don't get. 25lbs and corresponding other increased boost ratios were max. boost allowances for combat rating / WEP. I haven't seen any documentation that other ratings, like cruising, had been changed after the introduction of 150 octane fuel.

So if you have documentation of a 25lbs fast cruise, please show it. Thanks.

TheGrunch
04-07-2010, 08:04 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
I haven't seen any documentation that other ratings, like cruising, had been changed after the introduction of 150 octane fuel.
That's because there isn't any. The new 25lb/81in boost rating became the new 5 minute limit, and the old 18lb/67in rating became the new 15 minute limit. Here's an example from the Mustang III manual.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-pilotsnotes.jpg

DKoor
04-07-2010, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by Christos_swc:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:

This is true but I guess that was actually quite rare in WW2

I recall the story of a P-47 pilot saying they saw some 109s at a distance during a sortie and the minute they saw each other both formations started climbing.
In the end the P-47s outclimbed the 109s ceasing the advantage.
It's generally interesting to read a bit more info on the fighting tactics used during the era rather than the usual "I got in behind him,fired and saw hits" etc.
At first glance it's a bit strange that a P-47 would outclimb a 109 but obviously the 109s where some G-model and they were both flying at very high alt when they met each other giving the advantage to the P-47s... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not sure about this because of one simple reason... if they both started climbing from same position after they spotted each other neither group probably could seized a decisive altitude advantage (regardless of altitude).
Think about it, or better yet measure it, you probably couldn't get decisive advantage in 1500-2000m of pure climb at best RoC starting equally.

It was probably that they already had some kind of advantage, be it higher altitude, earlier spotting or simple better tactical position (facing them nose to tail and variations etc.)

JtD
04-07-2010, 08:38 AM
That's because there isn't any. The new 25lb/81in boost rating became the new 5 minute limit, and the old 18lb/67in rating became the new 15 minute limit. Here's an example from the Mustang III manual.

Actually 15lb/61in according to the manual you showed, but I get the picture. There were indeed new limits below the new max boost combat rating introduced with the 150 octane fuel. However, no 25lb fast cruise setting.

Thanks!

TheGrunch
04-07-2010, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
Actually 15lb/61in according to the manual you showed, but I get the picture.
Oops, you're right of course. I've got a few manuals on my laptop for the Spitfire XIV and Spitfire IX, unfortunately though the AC adaptor's broken, but the consensus there is much the same, although the Mark XIV adopted only 21lbs of boost rather than 25 as the new 5 minute limit.

BillSwagger
04-07-2010, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
Not sure about this because of one simple reason... if they both started climbing from same position after they spotted each other neither group probably could seized a decisive altitude advantage (regardless of altitude).
Think about it, or better yet measure it, you probably couldn't get decisive advantage in 1500-2000m of pure climb at best RoC starting equally.

It was probably that they already had some kind of advantage, be it higher altitude, earlier spotting or simple better tactical position (facing them nose to tail and variations etc.)

Actually, the climb rates between the mid-war 109G and P-47 were only a minute off from 20,000ft to 30,000ft, favoring the 109s. The 109 loses considerable climb rate at about 28,000ft. Its engine output is in the 700hp range, and it only gets worse as the plane climbs more.
Its quite possible if they met in the mid 20,000ft range the P-47 could beat them to an advantage above 32,000ft.


Altitude makes a considerable difference, seeing as the 109G could climb to 20k in 5.1 minutes, but it took an additional 6.1 minutes to get to 30,000ft. Probably more important are fuel consumption and engine cooling, especially if the 109s were already in the air and on the second half of their fuel stores.



Bill

Kettenhunde
04-07-2010, 10:53 AM
Oops, you're right of course. I've got a few manuals on my laptop for the Spitfire XIV and Spitfire IX, unfortunately though the AC adaptor's broken, but the consensus there is much the same, although the Mark XIV adopted only 21lbs of boost rather than 25 as the new 5 minute limit.

The thrust independent design points will not change just because the thrust limit is raised. That is a fact.

TheGrunch
04-07-2010, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
The thrust independent design points will not change just because the thrust limit is raised. That is a fact.
Of course not, but more importantly you'll have irreparably damaged your engine trying to use a 5-minute war emergency boost rating as a cruise setting. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Kettenhunde
04-07-2010, 04:12 PM
Right Grunch,

The maximum continuous of the engine was not raised. The design cruise points did not change either as these are not linked to thrust production but a result of the physical design of the aircraft.

The 100/150 grade adoption has been confused. The ADGB was used for operational testing of the fuel. That is information is available on Mike Williams site. The RAF adopted the fuel for general service and the first unit to convert was the 2nd TAF. They used it for about 2 months and then reverted back to 100/130 grade.

In the 8th USAAF it was used at a much lower manifold pressure than the RAF adopted.

The problems with maintenance, loss of power, and reliability were pretty severe and many units reverted back to 100/130 grade before its general withdrawal.

yuuppers
04-07-2010, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
In the 8th USAAF it was used at a much lower manifold pressure than the RAF adopted.

How much lower is the 75" Hg boost than the 25lb boost used by the RAF?

na85
04-07-2010, 04:46 PM
75" Hg is about 37 psi.

Kettenhunde
04-07-2010, 05:03 PM
http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...fg-eng-rep-dec44.jpg (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/78thfg-eng-rep-dec44.jpg)

December 1944....72 inches...

I don't think the 75 inches was around for very long.

Another document discussing the problems with power and reliability.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform.../atsce-28march45.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/atsce-28march45.pdf)

yuuppers
04-08-2010, 04:41 AM
The 2cd link is for the PEP fuel.

I don't think this Col. DL Putt ever read the POH for the P-51. see Pt. 8.

One should read the whole 150 fuel article and not just part.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperform.../150-grade-fuel.html (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html)

Kettenhunde
04-08-2010, 04:53 AM
One should read the whole 150 fuel article and not just part.

Yeah read that and you would think the RAF/USAAF used it for years as the standard fuel of the force.

Do you have a copy of an USAAF aircraft POH's authorizing it?

yuuppers
04-08-2010, 05:19 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">One should read the whole 150 fuel article and not just part.

Yeah read that and you would think the RAF/USAAF used it for years as the standard fuel of the force.

Do you have a copy of an USAAF aircraft POH's authorizing it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you say so. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Maybe you should read the POH and see what it says about the fuselage aux fuel tank. For someone who claims to be a pilot who flies by the book I am surprised you missed what Putt stated.

Kettenhunde
04-08-2010, 05:28 AM
A set of Technical Orders amending the POH would be fine too.

Every airplane was required to have an updated POH and a copy of all the TO's amending it in the cockpit in order to fly.

There would literally be hundreds of thousands of copies available as each POH, aircraft, and maintenance personnel would have a copy.

Any of those around?

It is not a hard thing or unusual request. It does not require pages of speculation with selected portions of documents either.

BillSwagger
04-08-2010, 05:54 AM
http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...-progress-report.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/24june44-progress-report.pdf)

This a technical order that includes the amendment orders to update the POH for P-47s for operations at 70" and 100/150 fuel grade.

There is other information on the second page about fouling spark plugs and continued testing on the P-51Bs, but no updates to the POH.

Dated June 1944.



Bill

yuuppers
04-08-2010, 06:59 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

What does the POH say about the flight restrictions with a fuel in the aux fuselage tank Eugene?

Now read VERY, VERY carefully what Col. Putt said in Pt. 8.

BillSwagger
04-08-2010, 08:33 AM
Actually, i dont think Crump is making a dispute that the fuel was used, but at which power setting. And it appears that 75" was only done in a test flight, where the final boost pressure used in combat appears to have been 72" with 100/150 fuel in the P-51s.

It also appears that many RAF units were supplied with 150 until 45, judging from the delivery orders.

Bill

JtD
04-08-2010, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by TheGrunch:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Actually 15lb/61in according to the manual you showed, but I get the picture.
Oops, you're right of course. I've got a few manuals on my laptop for the Spitfire XIV and Spitfire IX, unfortunately though the AC adaptor's broken, but the consensus there is much the same, although the Mark XIV adopted only 21lbs of boost rather than 25 as the new 5 minute limit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know what, I just found an older copy of a P-51 handbook with 67in being the WEP limit, and 61in were already cleared for 15 minutes back then, with 100 octane fuel. So that's actually not a new engine setting, and 150 octane was only used to raise the WEP max boost to 81in.

JtD
04-08-2010, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by yuuppers:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
In the 8th USAAF it was used at a much lower manifold pressure than the RAF adopted.

How much lower is the 75" Hg boost than the 25lb boost used by the RAF? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't 75 just 22lb? I think 81in is 25lb, which is the number given in the POH excerpt The_Grunch posted a page back.

Kettenhunde
04-08-2010, 09:39 AM
This a technical order


No it is not a TO, it is just memo to a department. It has no bearing on what is actually implemented in the field but is just part of the process that may or may not end in a Technical Order and Specified Grade of fuel. If it does not end in a TO with a Specified Grade, it was not adopted for anything beyond limited field testing.

This is an example of a USAAF TO:

http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/5272/87412414.jpg (http://img638.imageshack.us/i/87412414.jpg/)


Actually, i dont think Crump is making a dispute that the fuel was used, but at which power setting. And it appears that 75" was only done in a test flight, where the final boost pressure used in combat appears to have been 72" with 100/150 fuel in the P-51s.

That is correct. IMHO, It also does not appear that the USAAF ever officially adopted the fuel but rather the 8th USAAF Commander used to prerogative to conduct a wide scale operational testing.

The lack of USAAF TO's and POH amendments pretty much proves that.

BillSwagger
04-08-2010, 10:17 AM
I think the fuel grade was used to a greater extent on aircraft that were found to have little issues with it.

The "progress report" i referred to makes the case for the release of the grade to be used in P-47s and that operational instructions were being drafted.

It was war, Crump, i don't think they were gonna wait for the TOs to show up. As long as the fuel was available I'd have to think these aircraft (P-47s) were using it.



Bill

yuuppers
04-08-2010, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
Actually, i dont think Crump is making a dispute that the fuel was used, but at which power setting. And it appears that 75" was only done in a test flight, where the final boost pressure used in combat appears to have been 72" with 100/150 fuel in the P-51s.

It also appears that many RAF units were supplied with 150 until 45, judging from the delivery orders.

Bill

72" was the recommended boost while 75" was 'not to exceed' limit.

TheGrunch
04-08-2010, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Right Grunch,

The maximum continuous of the engine was not raised. The design cruise points did not change either as these are not linked to thrust production but a result of the physical design of the aircraft.
I know! I agree with you, all I was pointing out is that I'm not sure that Kahuna realised that when someone mentions the availability of 25lbs of boost, they mean that it actually was just a throttle setting, and an emergency one at that, rather than some kind of universal engine improvement.

yuuppers
04-08-2010, 12:06 PM
Technical Operations, Eighth Air Force issued a 4 April 1945 memorandum in which 100/150 grade fuel experience in the Eighth Air Force was summarized. It is reproduced in full below:

1. The following is a summary of 100/150 grade fuel experience in Eighth Air Force.

2. a. This fuel was first service tested by Technical Operations Section, this headquarters, in October 1943, said service test lasting through until March 1944, at which time it was recommended that if extra performance from P-38, P-47 and P-51 aircraft was desired it could be secured by the use of this fuel. It was pointed out at that time that the only apparent deleterious effect of this fuel on any one of the three types was the extra lead fouling of spark plugs.

b. A decision was made in May 1944 to have all fighter units supplied with this fuel no later than 1 June. As of that date operations with this fuel continued until approximately 1 February 1945 when all fighter units switched to “Pep” (100/150 plus 1.5 T’s ethylene dibromide). As of 1 April 1945 all units switched back to 100/150 fuel containing 1.0 T ethylene dibromide.

3. At the time the 150 grade fuel was first used all three fighter types listed above were in operational use by this Air Force. Shortly after June 1 P-38 units were re-equipped with P-51 type aircraft so that experience with 150 grade fuel in P-38 aircraft is limited. Gradually, conversion of P-47 outfits to P-51’s took place during the Summer and Fall of 1944, and as of approximately 1 November only one P-47 group remained in this Air Force.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform.../150-grade-fuel.html (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html)

That sure was some wide scale operational testing with some 299590 tons of 150 consummed. (includes RAF consumption)

Kettenhunde
04-08-2010, 02:51 PM
Technical Operations,


Great! Where is the Technical Order and POH instructions??

Oh yeah, 8th AF Technical Operations is not the USAAF branch that publishes Technical Orders.

Although both have "Technical" in their titles and the second word starts with an "O".

Close, just add "rder" followed by numbers, date, and all the instructions for modifying and use! Unfortunately it just not there yet.


299590 tons of 150 consummed

That is not very much at all. In fact 75,000 barrels of 114/145 grade <AFAIK that is specified grade 44-1 and not the British 100/150 grade> was used for engine testing alone in the United States without ever touching an operational unit.

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/1908/150grade31.jpg (http://img37.imageshack.us/i/150grade31.jpg/)

yuuppers
04-08-2010, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> 299590 tons of 150 consummed

That is not very much at all. In fact 75,000 barrels of 114/145 grade <AFAIK that is specified grade 44-1 and not the British 100/150 grade> was used for engine testing alone in the United States without ever touching an operational unit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As usual your reading comprehension is lacking. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

It doesn't say 75,000 bbls was used but REQUESTED to be prepared for engine development experiments.

Testing of 150 fuel took place between Oct 1943 and March 1944. Then it was operational from June 1944.

What is this then?
http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...50grade/cti-1659.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/cti-1659.pdf)

Btw, 75,000 bbls is ~8,400 tons. 299590/8400 = ~36

Kettenhunde
04-08-2010, 09:52 PM
What is this then?


Just what it says Milo. A request for the project's technical orders.

What it is not is the approval and publication of those orders.

You are off in your calculations btw.

75,000 barrels / 7.41 barrel per ton = 10,121 M ton or 11157 US tons.

That is just for some experimental engine development.

This document outlines the 72" for the P-51 and not the 75" used in preliminary experiments. That is far below the +25lbs used by the RAF.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...ir-supply-5feb45.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/dir-supply-5feb45.pdf)

Here is a report from the 78th FG supply which notes their consumption of petrol is ~2.4 million gallons....

Puts the ~288,000 gallons delivered in perspective.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...hfg-supply-dec44.jpg (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/78thfg-supply-dec44.jpg)

BillSwagger
04-09-2010, 01:56 AM
Originally posted by yuuppers:

72" was the recommended boost while 75" was 'not to exceed' limit.


The stipulation i read mentions the max WEP throttle limit was 72". (July 1944)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/8thaf-limits.jpg

and then right below that it says:

"150 grade fuel continued to be used by 8th AF units through 1944. The WER engine limitation for the P-51 continued to be 72" Hg. Eighth Air Force Fighter Groups converted to a new blend of 150 grade fuel, with increased amounts of ethylene dibromide (1½ T) in early 1945."



Bill

mhuxt
04-09-2010, 07:53 AM
Then again, not a single Allied aircraft used it, so that whole 300k ton went into storage.

Kettenhunde
04-09-2010, 10:00 AM
Then again, not a single Allied aircraft used it, so that whole 300k ton went into storage.

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

Bremspropeller
04-11-2010, 06:40 AM
Do 109s actually have any advantages against late war spits?


....yes, the bring along a quite useful amount of booze http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

yuuppers
04-11-2010, 06:55 PM
A report on British production lists the barrels and the weight in tons.

For April 1944 this was 43,800 bbls and 4,928 tons. That works out to 8.9 bbls/ton.

As for the link you say is a request, I don't see it asking for anything but telling/ordering preparations to be made for the introduction of 150 fuel by operational units.

What is this ~288,000 gal.?

M_Gunz
04-12-2010, 01:45 AM
I get this feeling that the 150 would get used whether anyone pushed full boost or not.
Obviously it was done just from reading reports from the later parts of 1944.

Kettenhunde
04-12-2010, 04:37 AM
It was used at a much lower boost level than +25lb the RAF used in testing and operationally for ~2.5 months in the 2nd TAF.

In RAF boost terms they raised the 67inHg which is +18lbs to 72inHg which is +20 lbs.

M_Gunz
04-12-2010, 04:08 PM
It's one thing to say "here's the paper showing such-and-such" as evidence that happened.
It's completely another to say something did not happen because nobody has a paper saying it did.

You can make a claim based on evidence, you need evidence to back your claim else it is empty.

But you can't make a claim based on lack of evidence, that assumes having evidence of everything.
You can't even disprove based on lack of evidence because it is not evidence of lack.

If the fuel was there and was used, does that prove how it was used? I don't think so.

It is perfectly acceptable to say there is not enough data to base claims, conclusions, rebuttals, etc.
It is fine to use qualifiers like "could be" if they're reasonable, esp if to disprove a different "must be".

Kettenhunde
04-12-2010, 08:33 PM
You can make a claim based on evidence, you need evidence to back your claim else it is empty.


Exactly. If the fuel was adopted for anything besides an experimental project, there would be a technical order and POH instructions published.

These are required to be carried in every aircraft and every POH published. There would be tens of thousands of copies.

Read the Note and underlined portion of a Technical Order.

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/3507/47863770.jpg (http://img140.imageshack.us/i/47863770.jpg/)

Notice the Technical Order number <T.O. No. 02-1-38> and compare it to the number found on Mike Williams site <CTI 1659>:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...50grade/cti-1659.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/cti-1659.pdf)

This document is internal correspondence telling the supply side to get the kits ready pending approval. It says nothing about that approval or the extent it was actually implemented.

In addition to actually having the prefix "TO" in the order number, there is no discussion or reference to projects in an actual Technical Order. It is an order and reads as such. There is no guesswork or room to read into it. It details exactly what must be done to the aircraft and how the aircraft is to operated. It is a supplement to the POH until it becomes a published in the POH.

Here is an exerpt from a Technical Order:

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/7842/to6f.jpg (http://img17.imageshack.us/i/to6f.jpg/)

What is being done is like looking at the construction plans, orders, and test program for the welded FW-190's and concluding that production was changed over to all welded aircraft without rivets. Another good example is reading TD 284 and concluding all FW-190A8's mounted the 115 liter aux tank or that FW-190A5's used 1.58 ata. Your right in that the evidence is there that something was done but that does not tell you the extent. It is very possible and often likely you will leap to the wrong conclusion.

I do think the use in the RAF is well documented. The fuel ratings are included in numerous POH's and thanks the Mike Williams site, the majority of the story is laid out.

The ADGB was used to conduct the operational trials. The verdict was further investigation which led to the operational adoption of the fuel and use by the 2nd TAF. They used it for ~2.5 months before maintenance issues forced a withdrawal of the fuel from service.

The USAAF use is not so well defined. What I think happened is the 8th AF commander made a command decision to use his entire force as much as possible as the operational trials. That would explain the lack of a Technical Order and the project memos.

For example you would think that British 100/150 grade was "specified grade 44-1". Why would you think that? Not because of the documentation but because of the storyline that has been written on the website by its authors.

Specified grade 44-1 is 104/150 grade according the USAAF and is a United States fuel tested by Wright Patterson as a replacement for 100/130 grade. It appears it has absolutely nothing to do with British 100/150 grade or the 8th USAAF use of that fuel.

Here we see from Mike Williams site the document testing Specified Grade 44-1. It is noted that the fuel is 104/150 grade.

Up in the top in the subject line:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...5inch-prelim-wer.jpg (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/p-38-75inch-prelim-wer.jpg)

This is from a report entitled, "Aviation Gasoline Production and Control" dated September 1947.

http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/5327/150grade1.jpg (http://img195.imageshack.us/i/150grade1.jpg/)

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3898/441fuel.jpg (http://img210.imageshack.us/i/441fuel.jpg/)

It is easy to make mistakes or draw conclusions that did not exist when you look at reports and do not know the context of them.

Jabo14
04-12-2010, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by IcyScythe:
I'm struggling to understand what they are if so...

I'm looking at IL-2 compare (very useful I've found http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif), comparing the Spit IX 25lbs to various 109 models. The only one that really has any real advantage is the K4, which is faster by 25-50+kph from 2000 meters on up and has a slightly better ROC from 2000m and up. The ROC advantage is very very small though. And the speed advantage is, again, only from 2000meters on up. This is assuming both planes have boost on at max power.

As for the G2 and F4, the two 109s I hear most favored most of the time, the F4 is inferior in ALL categories. The spit is faster, and climbs better at all altitudes. On top of it all, it has a nearly 4 second advantage when it comes to turning. T

The G2 has a small speed advantage of ~20kph at altitudes over 7000m, which rarely happens anyways, and a even smaller advantage in ROC at altitudes over 5000m (still not too common). The spit is actually significantly faster at altitudes below 3250 meters and climbs WAY better at altitudes of 2000m and below. Again it has a significant turn advantage as well.

To top it all off, the spit has a slightly higher break speed as well.

So is there something I'm missing here? I get that earlier spits have significant disadvantages vs. 109s in ROC, top speed, and break speed, but even these can be compensated for by just not being an idiot in a spit and attacking with a decent energy advantage.

Even the K4's speed and ROC advantages are very slight, and it only gets significant above 5000m. The spit actually outclimbs it below 2000m. You'd probably be better off just taking a D9 as it can go faster, climb better, and turns slightly faster as well (by about a second according to the graphs). Not to mention it can actually turn at high speeds decently.

So are people just taking these planes because they like their looks better, or have a thing for 109s? Or do they just feel more "uber" playing the more difficult to fly aircraft? (personally I find planes like the Tempest far more difficult, but 109s are undeniably not as super easy to fly as spits)

Or am I missing something? I'm hardly an expert on flight dynamics, so what is there I need to be aware of beyond armament, speed, roll rate, rate of climb, and break speed?

Lastly, is BnZ the ONLY effective way to use 109s and 190s against better maneuverable spits? I enjoy it, but sometimes I want to actually be able to engage a single enemy when he's alone and I can risk bleeding a little E. Surely, in some ways having a turn that cuts your speed really quickly could be used to advantage in some way? With BnZ, if he actually spots you coming down all he has to do is pull a split-s and that's it, you have no shot, at least in my experience (please enlighten me if I'm wrong).


The Spits 25lbs:
Is called Xwing Fighter in IL2, come from star wars.. :P

In the IL2 servers
Many times is taken for noob pilots, not all.

Spits 25 Roll Good, don´t loose or drag Energy, is a easy an good airplane.


BF 109,FW 190,P39,P51 and others, many times are taken by the veteran pilots.


109s actually have any advantages against late war spits?

Yes the pilot!!!


OR:

Maybe...
You can put the BF109 engine in overheat 4,30 minutes with MW50, radiator closed and run away.
The engine will don´t take damage http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
__________________________________________________

The Airplane don´t count,

Count the team

Remember this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



PD: soory for my bad english http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

M_Gunz
04-13-2010, 02:29 AM
I know that I did not write that evidence equals proof but rather lack of evidence makes an empty claim.
That was all a small application of what you would pick up in the useful parts of a philosophy course.

BillSwagger
04-13-2010, 05:16 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

Here is an exerpt from a Technical Order:

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/7842/to6f.jpg (http://img17.imageshack.us/i/to6f.jpg/)



Do you have the tables that this excerpt makes a reference to?

thanks

Bill

Kettenhunde
04-13-2010, 09:09 PM
Do you have the tables that this excerpt makes a reference to?


Yes, I have a copy of every TO for Alternate Grades of Specified Fuel the USAAF issued in WWII.

http://img532.imageshack.us/img532/4206/to4t.jpg (http://img532.imageshack.us/i/to4t.jpg/)

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/4369/to5q.jpg (http://img23.imageshack.us/i/to5q.jpg/)

M_Gunz
04-13-2010, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by yuuppers:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> 299590 tons of 150 consummed

That is not very much at all. In fact 75,000 barrels of 114/145 grade <AFAIK that is specified grade 44-1 and not the British 100/150 grade> was used for engine testing alone in the United States without ever touching an operational unit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As usual your reading comprehension is lacking. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

It doesn't say 75,000 bbls was used but REQUESTED to be prepared for engine development experiments. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kind of funny when the operative words are quoted from YOU.
That sure was some wide scale operational testing with some 299590 tons of 150 consummed. (includes RAF consumption)

So when you do it, your own don't stink but when you're quoted it does.

BillSwagger
04-13-2010, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Do you have the tables that this excerpt makes a reference to?
>
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thanks Crump.

I was surprised to see the P-42 and the P-47J on that TO.

Its also interesting to see they had some helicopters in WW2, the thought never crossed my mind, but it makes sense that they might have.

Is there more to table A as its labeled "cont" for continued.

I'll have to save this page,

thanks

Bill

Kettenhunde
04-13-2010, 10:32 PM
Helicopters were used during the war for recovery of downed pilots.

IIRC, the Burma was quite active for Helo's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARN2kjjL6So

I will have to dig out the paper copies and scan the table for you.

yuuppers
04-14-2010, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by yuuppers:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> 299590 tons of 150 consummed

That is not very much at all. In fact 75,000 barrels of 114/145 grade <AFAIK that is specified grade 44-1 and not the British 100/150 grade> was used for engine testing alone in the United States without ever touching an operational unit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As usual your reading comprehension is lacking. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

It doesn't say 75,000 bbls was used but REQUESTED to be prepared for engine development experiments. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kind of funny when the operative words are quoted from YOU.
That sure was some wide scale operational testing with some 299590 tons of 150 consummed. (includes RAF consumption)

So when you do it, your own don't stink but when you're quoted it does. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired as well. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Unlike you, when I do it, it does stink. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

M_Gunz
04-14-2010, 09:01 AM
Read your own words.

yuuppers
04-14-2010, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Read your own words.

Here is a clue for you Gunz (I see what Tagert was going on about).

It was <span class="ev_code_RED">NOT</span>, repeat <span class="ev_code_RED">NOT</span> a statement of fact!!!!!!!!!!!

yuuppers
04-14-2010, 11:19 AM
dp

M_Gunz
04-14-2010, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by yuuppers:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Read your own words.

Here is a clue for you Gunz (I see what Tagert was going on about).

It was <span class="ev_code_RED">NOT</span>, repeat <span class="ev_code_RED">NOT</span> a statement of fact!!!!!!!!!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But when someone quotes you on it, you go shirty. You laid the trail down, clown. Then you blame him for following it.
And now you blame me for pointing it as as I don't see what happened. I see that's the same BS 'Tagert' was constantly
up to.


It was <span class="ev_code_RED">NOT</span>, repeat <span class="ev_code_RED">NOT</span> a statement of fact!!!!!!!!!!!




That sure was some wide scale operational testing with some 299590 tons of 150 consummed. (includes RAF consumption)



Let's try the old reading comprehension. Looks like the sarcasm centers around the words "operational testing" and not
the word consummed or the word consumption.

So what part doesn't pass the trollish 'reading comprehension' test?


As usual your reading comprehension is lacking. Roll Eyes

It doesn't say 75,000 bbls was used but REQUESTED to be prepared for engine development experiments.


"It doesn't say 75,000 bbls was used" (used as in consumed/consumption).

Maybe you need writing comprehension lessons? From where I see it you just jump on anything likely and use that then try
to bluster and BS your way out of what you get called on, same as the Tagert login.. one of many by the same troll who
can't admit the least mistake even when it's right in his face.

blairgowrie
04-14-2010, 05:47 PM
yuppers and M_Gunz. Please stop it now. If either one of you continues your personal attacks, you know what will happen. No more warnings.