PDA

View Full Version : DUEL: Bf-109 vs P-38



DKoor
07-04-2009, 11:54 AM
Well I'm interested in your opinion on how these compare one to another when their fighter combat capabilities are in question.
Which one do you consider to be more suitable in pure fighter superiority role and why, you may specify version (vs contemporary fighters of course)...

My opinion is that, in spite of their very very different appearance, they share many similar "features"... they have nose mounted weapons, they dive pretty well, they climb exceptionally, their controls become heavy at high speeds, they are very agile especially in vertical but also in horizontal...

I have thought about the issue thoroughly and I'll say that I give a hair-split advantage to P-38 when pure fighter A2A work is concerned.

Trefle
07-04-2009, 12:18 PM
P-38 was a more modern design but also required specific training from the US pilots , 109 was probably easier to fly and be used in combat by new pilot recruits

I'd say in real life , 109 were better adapted for what the Germans had to do , they were cheaper to build , easy to assemble in the field , more adequate for supporting the troop's advance and pin point borders defence , they also consumed less fuel .

And likewise , P-38 were better adapted for what Americans needed , it had great range , was great at high altitude , interesting ground attack capability , reasonably tough , USA could take the time to train pilot very well during the war and they had plenty of oil , P-38 were suited for those sweep missions over large ocean areas like in the pacific or for trips from the UK into continental Europe .

If we look at historical records , P-38 suffered quite heavy losses at the hands of the Luftwaffe in Europe although it held the line , but was the best aircraft to grace the skies of the Pacific theater with the Hellcat in term of efficiency

In game , i'd say it depends which 109 and which P-38 (the late one is a beast ), the conditions of the fight (alt , who saw who first , number of planes etc) and pilot skill IMHO .

Against a G6 , P-38 is superior IMO , at all altitudes , it's much faster and keep energy MUCH better (than any 109 ) . Against a K4, G10 or even a G14 it's about equal (except above 6k for the G14 ) , 109 climbs better , turn and roll slightly better at low/medium speed , whereas the P-38 keeps energy , zooms and dives better .

A good P-38 pilot should be able to hold his own for a short period of time against any 109 at most altitudes , but the 38 pilot should not prolong the fight much and think about disengaging (cause in medium/low speed turning fights , 109 has the advantage ) unless he always manages to keep the altitude/energy advantage over the 109 IMHO

BillSwagger
07-04-2009, 01:14 PM
In real life, i happen to agree with Trefle.
The roll of the 38 was range. It was used quite a bit in the MTO, also, before the P-51s were in service.

In game, Id lean towards the P-38. The only disadvantage is its size, as its tends to make a bigger target than a 109.

Flight_boy1990
07-04-2009, 01:24 PM
In my opinion any version of the Bf-109 (from G-6 upwards) can nail the P-38,any of them.
But it's not the plane sub-model that is important,but the pilot.

A well trained Rotte of Bf-109 will own 2 or 3,even 4 P-38's.

From my experience,a P-38 formation is separated,scattered and shotdown much easier than a formation of Bf-109's.

K_Freddie
07-04-2009, 03:07 PM
Also a P38 is a bugger to shoot down with a Me109.. It requires sniping skill, and the whole idea is to hit the pilot, as not much else works unless you get a lucky shot in. A good P38 pilot will make this difficult for you to do.

A far as a flying a p38 is concerned.. a 1x sweep and run, only turn back if you have advantage and speed or numbers.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

DKoor
07-04-2009, 03:27 PM
BTW I forgot to mention if you guys have some tracks of Bf-109 vs P-38 in action online, I'd appreciate it if you share it with us http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif .
I have this one;
http://www.esnips.com/doc/4f38...ialTargetP38L-WC-401 (http://www.esnips.com/doc/4f38df52-ede7-4051-9bd8-0388828510c6/HristoBf109G-vs-AerialTargetP38L-WC-401)

I have to found one where I (in Bf-109) lost fight to AerialTarget in his P-38 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif . Was a nice fight.

DKoor
07-04-2009, 04:02 PM
Haha... found it.
http://www.esnips.com/doc/f5b0...L-vs-KunaG6AS-WC-404 (http://www.esnips.com/doc/f5b02328-6ee3-4ec8-80df-824173fdb88b/AerialTarget38L-vs-KunaG6AS-WC-404)

With good flying fellow as AT surely was, one mistake was all he needed, I lost sight on him temporarily, by the time I recovered he was too busy cutting my cables http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

Xiolablu3
07-04-2009, 05:25 PM
Personally I would prefer the Bf109 as a pure fighter, but the P38 as a 'fighting aircraft'.

The P38 can carry a huge bomb load and fight its way out.

The Bf109 is a defensive aircrat, the P38 and offensive, in my opinion.

If forced to choose one or the other it would totally depend on my mission. Is it to support the troops (P38) or is it to defend my airspace(bf109)?

Freiwillige
07-04-2009, 06:00 PM
I would take the 109. Simply put a 38 would have a hard time getting above a 109 since 109's are some of the best climbers historically and in the Sim. And an altitude advantage is hard to beat, even with 4 .50's and a 20mm!

ROXunreal
07-04-2009, 06:11 PM
Well, since it's my second favorite plane in terms of looks I gave the P-38 a serious try for the first time in online play, and I'm hugely disappointed. I mean, probably because I have like 5 hours flight in it overall, but still. I dive in on an enemy and they can make a simple non-exaggerated turn and I cannot follow them because the P-38 turns like a railroad engine above 500 kmh. It was hugely irritating, every time I'd bounce someone and they'd turn away and I'd have to run for a few minutes to get some distance and then try again. Not to mention that although it's exceptionally fast in level flight, I can't even dream of running away from a diving enemy as speeds above 650 are useless for anything but suicide. An hour and I never even got someone in my sights properly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif I'm surprised I didn't get killed once.

DKoor
07-05-2009, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by ROXunreal:
Well, since it's my second favorite plane in terms of looks I gave the P-38 a serious try for the first time in online play, and I'm hugely disappointed. I mean, probably because I have like 5 hours flight in it overall, but still. I dive in on an enemy and they can make a simple non-exaggerated turn and I cannot follow them because the P-38 turns like a railroad engine above 500 kmh. It was hugely irritating, every time I'd bounce someone and they'd turn away and I'd have to run for a few minutes to get some distance and then try again. Not to mention that although it's exceptionally fast in level flight, I can't even dream of running away from a diving enemy as speeds above 650 are useless for anything but suicide. An hour and I never even got someone in my sights properly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif I'm surprised I didn't get killed once. Mate one suggestion if I may.
It is somewhat clear from your words that you fly on open pit server http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .
If you jump onto P-38 historical opponent there isn't a single aircraft that can touch you if you fly it perfectly. If you show a good gunnery work, they will all without exception end up in dirt. Meaning it is not plane fault.
Thing is... you will be facing: Bf-109's, FW-190's in ETO and A6M's, Ki's, N1K's and J2M's on PTO... none of them can handle a P-38 in superior position (can not escape by diving from P-38, because you are using trim, right?).
Saying how what you can't outturn, you can outrun comes to mind because it is true http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

Try to gain the top speed in P-38 you will see that is easier than in most fighters, and that may be the edge you need (P-38 itself is one of the fastest pistons in game).

DKoor
07-05-2009, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
I would take the 109. Simply put a 38 would have a hard time getting above a 109 since 109's are some of the best climbers historically and in the Sim. And an altitude advantage is hard to beat, even with 4 .50's and a 20mm! Mate I'm not sure if combat climb vs P-38 (and Spitfire for that matter) is the way to go, because they have exceptional rate of climb. That depends on fuel level tho, but is the factor that you cannot foresee/guess.
A P-38 loaded with 50% fuel climbs really good, on 25% climbs exceptionally certainly in league with best 109's (on 25% still has enough fuel to do the job properly). I presume the initial position would determine the victor there, if all other things are equal.

BillSwagger
07-05-2009, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by ROXunrealhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif I'm surprised I didn't get killed once.


Well something is good about the plane.
I usually favor the planes i die less in, not sure if anyone else feels the same.
As for shooting planes, thats just your lack of experience in flying a 38.
I've found if the plane is harder to turn at high speeds then i might have to take a different line instead of following on their direct six. with a bit of anticipation, you can find an angle that gets you lined up pretty well and if they cut or turn then you have a little bit of a lead to get a shot in.
At least that's what i do when i fly a 109, another plane with poor high speed turning.

Muddy17
07-05-2009, 01:37 AM
Only my opinion but if I can chase down and kill 4 Ace Lag- in a 109 but in the same situation get spanked in a 38,, this tells me that ,,well it aint for dogfighten.
Just set it up un QC and try for yourself.
That said you may have more time in on a 38 but,, I do not.
Muddy

DKoor
07-05-2009, 01:52 AM
Originally posted by Muddy17:
Only my opinion but if I can chase down and kill 4 Ace Lag- in a 109 but in the same situation get spanked in a 38,, this tells me that ,,well it aint for dogfighten.
Just set it up un QC and try for yourself.
That said you may have more time in on a 38 but,, I do not.
Muddy You can use 25% fuel and try again.
P-38 when fully loaded with fuel is sluggish just like most American warbirds. But on 25% fuel it's a dream to fly. And fight http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

JtD
07-05-2009, 08:09 AM
I consider the 109 slightly superior to the P-38 as a pure fighter.

The P-38J vs. G-2 and G-6 matchup is fairly even and in a multi vs. multi environment I'd rather be in the 38J because of the better speed. With the later methanol 109's the pictures change, except for high altitude performance against the G-14 and the G-6AS. I think I'd prefer all methanol 109's over the J in a duel.

The P-38L is worse than the J in my opinion. Sure, the roll rate is great now, the dive breaks may help on occasion, but the reduced speed and climb hurt a lot. The only 109's I consider worse fighters are than the L are the two G-6 models.

The L-late is certainly the best of the lot, with good speed again in addition to the great roll and the dive breaks. This one is a tough contender for the 109's, even the methanol ones. I'd still lean towards the G-6AS, G-10 and K-4 as superior fighters, but they are close. It would depend a bit on altitude and type of fight.

As a sidenote, the P-38 can run more power for a longer time. I can get the J model to run 110% open rads without overheating, iIrc. To my knowledge, that's not possible with the 109. This is of course an advantage in any fight.

RegRag1977
07-05-2009, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
Well I'm interested in your opinion on how these compare one to another when their fighter combat capabilities are in question.
Which one do you consider to be more suitable in pure fighter superiority role and why, you may specify version (vs contemporary fighters of course)...

My opinion is that, in spite of their very very different appearance, they share many similar "features"... they have nose mounted weapons, they dive pretty well, they climb exceptionally, their controls become heavy at high speeds, they are very agile especially in vertical but also in horizontal...

I have thought about the issue thoroughly and I'll say that I give a hair-split advantage to P-38 when pure fighter A2A work is concerned.

In my opinion P38 is better than Bf109 in everything but dueling (cockpit on) for simple reasons: better forward view, high positionned and centered gunsight (along with contra rotative stability and centered guns), everything is so clear on the sides that deflection shooting is far more accurate and often ends in engine "out of duty" or PK. You just can't miss!
Slightly better all around view also , better weapons, better range. I feel very confident with this airplane, i'm even more cocky with it than with the excellent 109.

DKoor
07-05-2009, 09:10 AM
OK here is a track, can you please comment this one;

http://www.esnips.com/doc/0939...38l_jina9_wc_409b1mm (http://www.esnips.com/doc/093970c8-aae4-4f18-ade1-fd158e8a8cd1/dkoor38l_jina9_wc_409b1mm)

ONLINE v4.09b1m modded. A close quarter combat between me in P-38L_LATE and JIN in FW-190A9 on WarClouds... it shows just how great P-38 possibilities are. Apart from P-47 (not even 100% sure about Jug) I think no other allied aircraft could come out on top out of this one... you will need (fantastic) May-Bug custom made Slovakia Winter map to view this track properly. I can't post map download link due to this site rules, but I think you wont have a hard time getting it from "flak" site http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif .
In case of probs, PM me.

Kettenhunde
07-05-2009, 11:35 AM
It all depends on which variant of the Bf-109 you want to compare to a P-38 variant. Almost any conclusion can be reached depending on which one you choose.

All the best,

Crumpp

Freiwillige
07-05-2009, 01:13 PM
Alot of people underestimate the 109's ability to climb steeper and slower than any competing aircraft. If say the p-38 tries to keep his guns on the 109 he will stall givin co E. And if he decides not to fall into that trap then only other options are to climb at a faster shallower angle which puts him under and in front of the 109, Not a good place to be! Or diving away and on the defensive.

DKoor
07-05-2009, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
It all depends on which variant of the Bf-109 you want to compare to a P-38 variant. Almost any conclusion can be reached depending on which one you choose.

All the best,

Crumpp Always contemporary fighters, those that faced each other IRL... i think there is no point in other comparisons, but that's just me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .
I think for instance P-38L_LATE vs Bf-109G10 would be a fair matchup. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Trefle
07-05-2009, 02:19 PM
Did P-38L_Late fight in the European theater ?
I think i had read somewhere they were the late war pacific version , but not sure

Stiletto-
07-05-2009, 02:19 PM
That was a nice duel in that track, Koor! It looked like he was going to have you but you completely tricked him and turned the tables almost immediatley. It looked like you were able to regain the energy lost in a short amount of time, obviously one of the P-38's good points and then control the fight from then on when he passed by.

That track showed a multitude of techniques you can use in the aircraft. I don't know if the P-38 is the best at any one thing, but it's probably one of the best at alot of things, giving it a huge bag of tricks to work with compared to other aircraft. This can be a huge factor in a dogfight that is hard to see on paper.

DKoor
07-05-2009, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
Alot of people underestimate the 109's ability to climb steeper and slower than any competing aircraft. If say the p-38 tries to keep his guns on the 109 he will stall givin co E. And if he decides not to fall into that trap then only other options are to climb at a faster shallower angle which puts him under and in front of the 109, Not a good place to be! Or diving away and on the defensive. Not sure if the combat climb is a valid option versus Lightning. Lightning rate of climb may vary in great degree so after all your Bf-109 may actually be worse in climb than of the P-38 you are facing!
It is not a false statement, a P-38L_LATE for instance is pure monster regarding rate of climb if you load it with 25% fuel... it is very important for both players to be aware of their fighters performance and also of their adversary.

Just for the heck of it I'll post some interesting numbers regarding this... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

BillSwagger
07-05-2009, 03:24 PM
he's got a point about the 109 climb rate, but it all depends on the energy of the fighter you're up against, and the separation you have during the fight.


There are many aircraft that do much better in climb in the first 5 seconds of climb especially if they are flying from a zoom.

TinyTim
07-05-2009, 04:50 PM
Of course the pick would always depend on the type of mission, most probable enemy plane types etc, but in the broadest sense of air to air efficiency:

non methanol 109s > P-38J/L > MW50 109s > P-38L_Late

DKoor
07-05-2009, 05:13 PM
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/roc_g6as_vs_38ll_3500.jpg
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/roc_g6as_vs_38ll_7000.jpg
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/roc_g6as_vs_38ll_10000.jpg

X axis in meters, Y axis in km/h (variometer values).
Usual testing environment, fully realistic physics except overheat (turned off for obvious reasons). Radiator closed, max speed setup.
P-38L_LATE tested on 25% fuel, Bf-109G6AS on 50% fuel.
Actually by the time they reach 10000m altitude P-38 has more flight time left than Bf-109 I think because it carries more fuel and also 109 consumes more when MW50 is engaged.
RoC divided into three charts for better preview.

Chart translates into this... neither plane has definite RoC advantage, but 109 is better below 6000m while P-38 is better on higher alts.

DKoor
07-05-2009, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by Stiletto-:
That was a nice duel in that track, Koor! It looked like he was going to have you but you completely tricked him and turned the tables almost immediatley. It looked like you were able to regain the energy lost in a short amount of time, obviously one of the P-38's good points and then control the fight from then on when he passed by.

That track showed a multitude of techniques you can use in the aircraft. I don't know if the P-38 is the best at any one thing, but it's probably one of the best at alot of things, giving it a huge bag of tricks to work with compared to other aircraft. This can be a huge factor in a dogfight that is hard to see on paper. TY.
P-38, much like a Bf-109, has this "hover mojo" thing going on... it is relatively stable at near stall speeds... note how the Focke "dances" around hovering P-38...
It must be also said that luck played major part in that fight... if he landed just one more salvo (and I flew thru two salvoes but haven't been hit) I think it would cut the Lightning in half... 4x20mm and 2x13mm salvo at point blank range.

Right after I completed my right-hand evasive turn I reversed it to the left and up thinking (wrongly mind you) that I would immediately come out with more energy by doing that... but I underestimated Focke's energy state, he was able to follow it... after that it was only two solutions left.

First, I start with hover thing and risk being blown immediately if it doesn't work, and second and even more grim IMO, to try to run away in vertical dive.
Second option wasn't really an option because in the end it almost certainly wouldn't work http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .
So... I just exploited that P-38 hovering characteristic while Focke tried to compensate and gain favorable gun solution and after he missed two times, he lose his energy thus effectively ending the fight. IMHO http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

But I tell you... seemed like one hour fight to me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif , but you're right - it was over quite fast.

DKoor
07-05-2009, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by TinyTim:
Of course the pick would always depend on the type of mission, most probable enemy plane types etc, but in the broadest sense of air to air efficiency:

non methanol 109s > P-38J/L > MW50 109s > P-38L_Late +1

Flight_boy1990
07-06-2009, 04:07 AM
Hmm this looks more like a cardiogram to me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I'm curious what program you're using to make this graph?

DKoor
07-06-2009, 04:12 AM
Originally posted by Flight_boy1990:
Hmm this looks more like a cardiogram to me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I'm curious what program you're using to make this graph? Hehe... yeah that's because it isn't manually flown... more precise would be to just use averages on both charts, but that can lead to some other errors (like when supercharger kicks in, there is spike in graph and average will flatten it out - incorrectly).

Programs used, Autopilot & Device link, plus Autopilot script specially setup for RoC tests on Crimea map...

Program I used to make the chart is M$ Excel, after I extracted the data from Device Link. It is pretty precise http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif .

DKoor
07-12-2009, 10:03 AM
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/p38llate_bf109g6as_acceleration.jpg

Acceleration from 0kph to ~550kph http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

Edit.
Seems that fuel plays noticeable part in all this story. P-38 on 25% can still tick pretty long enough, I think it is in Bf-109G6AS fuel=50% range http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .
Results from 0-200 can be deceiving since I did the test at first attempt, I haven't exactly sported the best flying outhere... so what you see in the chart (P-38 being faster with 50% fuel from 0-200kph is error http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ).

Like JtD said, trend is what matters the most.

Trefle
07-12-2009, 10:13 AM
Hey , Dkoor , nice graphs mate , is there any chance you can do the same but with the 0.50cal issue we are discussing in the 0.50cal BB guns thread ?

I mean is it possible to know exactly how many bullets hit the target plane with your device link utility when viewing a NTRK track ?

Would be useful to know cause we would know the difference between hitting power at close and long range , at convergence and out of convergence , thanks for answer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JtD
07-12-2009, 10:16 AM
Can you produce an acceleration over speed graph? The trend is obvious, but I guess one can see a lot more than just a trend.

From 0 means you took off? How did you do that to not have it mess with the results a lot?

I tested the P38L-late at 15.4 seconds from 0-200 some time ago, seems not much has changed.

JtD
07-12-2009, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by Trefle:

I mean is it possible to know exactly how many bullets hit the target plane with your device link utility ?

No, it doesn't tell you that. It is a tool to give instrument outputs. There is no cockpit instrument to count hits. You can get the exact number of hits in multiplayer mission by typing user XXXX STAT into the console of the game. In coops you have to fly the mission again to see the result of the previous mission. Many online servers also show stat pages where you can get the info. I found the best way to test was to play a multiplayer game on my own and use the user XXX STAT command.

I tested it a long time ago and generally there was no significant difference in hitting power from far away and from close up. However, in some instances there is. I remember that I found it impossible to light up some planes from further away that were easy to set on fire from close up. This was the exception and in combat does not make much of a difference.

Trefle
07-12-2009, 10:24 AM
Ah ok that is a pity .. so there is no way i can get statistics out of a NTRK replay , ok .

Yes apparently like said Tully in the 0.50cal thread , armoured parts of the a/c are easier to damage from close , it's easier to make structural damage from close range cause of higher bullet velocity , but i wanted numbers to back it up , but ok nevermind .

Thanks for answer JtD http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JtD
07-12-2009, 10:32 AM
If the NTRK was online you get the results as well, just as if you were online.

Xiolablu3
07-12-2009, 11:26 AM
You can play in arcade mode offline and see where and how many bullets hit.

You get arrows at certain angles through the plane showing exactly where it hit...

DKoor
07-12-2009, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by Trefle:
Hey , Dkoor , nice graphs mate , is there any chance you can do the same but with the 0.50cal issue we are discussing in the 0.50cal BB guns thread ?

I mean is it possible to know exactly how many bullets hit the target plane with your device link utility when viewing a NTRK track ?

Would be useful to know cause we would know the difference between hitting power at close and long range , at convergence and out of convergence , thanks for answer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif It wouldn't be so easy to conduct that kind of test.
You'd have to hit exactly same spot at 100m, 200m, 300m... to have valid results.
my best idea I could come up with is to get in B-25 turret and precisely hit aircraft while both you and target drone are sitting on runway.
However I don't doubt much that there is a difference.

With P-51 to be specific, one almost as a rule have opportunity to fire at enemy from close range as P-51 is a very fast plane.
So having an opportunity to rake E/A with fire concentrated to small area/point from point blank range should be devastating.
Chances to hit at convergence spot are simply higher if we disregard everything else.

BTW load up your online track and after you do some shooting on the track, press SHIFT+TAB (while the track is playing) and type:
user Trefle STAT
...but be careful everything is case sensitive.
Then you should get something like this;
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/dkoor_hawk_action_1.gif

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/dkoor_hawk_action_2_stat.gif

Trefle
07-12-2009, 12:08 PM
Ok thanks for answer guys , that's kind of you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Wildnoob
07-12-2009, 12:37 PM
just bag two planes in a arcade server, one LA-7 and a I-85 online with the Mustang. get them in deflection shoots and was just a quick burst and for they go down. though most of the hits where scored on the laterals of the aircrafts.

I fired always at close range and the .50's where extremetly deadly. can't complain anything, the armamment do more them well it's job.

after that I zoom to above 6000 meters, doing some stops, triming the plane to reach 500 km/h and them start to climbing again until hit that "safety" altitude.

the LA-7 pilot I shoot down coming from a more them a 700km/h from 6000 meters (making some spiral turns for not get excessive speed, logic) dive reply:

"who was chassing me?"

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

know, just a personal experience, but at least for me the .50's cals work very well, and I still don't figure out how to use the K-14 gunsigth yet.

Wildnoob
07-12-2009, 01:28 PM
http://rapidshare.com/files/25.../Filme_0022.wmv.html (http://rapidshare.com/files/255070618/Filme_0022.wmv.html)

this is not a attack in witch I manage to hit the target unfortenetly for me and luckly for it, but normally most of my attacks are like that.

PS: personally I don't fly with icons or that view, just let them for logic avaliation purposes.

DKoor
07-12-2009, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Can you produce an acceleration over speed graph? The trend is obvious, but I guess one can see a lot more than just a trend. Yes I think that would be nice thing... I'll try it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

DKoor
07-12-2009, 05:23 PM
OK.... I really bleeded for this one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif.
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/bf109g6as_p38llate_acceleration.gif
Something went wrong with my Excel and I was stuck with errors in charts for 2 hrs or so... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

I was really angry, had to find a solve to it, finally found it - I copy/pasted it in .TXT file and reload it in Excel again.
I think Excel somehow recognized formulas used and cell formatting (which apparently wasn't to its taste so I couldn't finish the job ).

Curve is pretty much predictable...
Oh, yes... Y axis, acceleration in m/s, X axis speed in kph.
Planes P-38L_LATE on 25% fuel and Bf-109G6AS on 50% fuel.

For average user who's not really interested charts, these planes have a dog acceleration compared to average cars of today http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif (they are in region of 3-4m/s, tested airplanes produced that kind of acceleration only in 150-300kph region). But this is whole another story tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif .

JtD
07-12-2009, 10:28 PM
So the G6AS acceleration is roughly 10% superior to the P-38's acceleration. This means the 109 can easily pull ahead so that the 38 can shoot it down. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

What did happen at 300 km/h with the 109? Radiators opened?

Sorry about your Excel troubles, but it is MS, and MS likes to entertain...

DKoor
07-13-2009, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
So the G6AS acceleration is roughly 10% superior to the P-38's acceleration. This means the 109 can easily pull ahead so that the 38 can shoot it down. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

What did happen at 300 km/h with the 109? Radiators opened?

Sorry about your Excel troubles, but it is MS, and MS likes to entertain... Now I know the "scheme" with Excel, so it wont be so hard to repeat the test with another trial or two...
Both aircraft were tuned for maximum speed, with rad closed etc.

Inconsistency in the chart may be due to initial instability during take off, pretty much those nasty spikes that you see up to 200kph, then difference in altitude during the test course... altitude varied from 0m during take off to 28m being the highest altitude.

I'll try to repeat it to get a bit better results, but yes 109G will surely still be ahead http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

Joking aside, what we are looking here are two among best WW2 fighters regarding acceleration/speed.

JZG_Thiem
07-13-2009, 05:08 AM
Dkoor: i have made quite lot of tests with Autopilot as well. At first i had probs too with the parameters for the closed loop control. Yet i found a quite easy and fast solution. As a result you can get parameters for each plane quite easily so its going to be very stable. Usually during my tests they stabilize below 1000m when i start at the deck. From that point on the autopilot is extrmely stable.
PM me if you are interested (her or on WC).

Pigeon_
07-13-2009, 05:37 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
OK.... I really bleeded for this one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif.
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/bf109g6as_p38llate_acceleration.gif
Something went wrong with my Excel and I was stuck with errors in charts for 2 hrs or so... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

I was really angry, had to find a solve to it, finally found it - I copy/pasted it in .TXT file and reload it in Excel again.
I think Excel somehow recognized formulas used and cell formatting (which apparently wasn't to its taste so I couldn't finish the job ).

Curve is pretty much predictable...
Oh, yes... Y axis, acceleration in m/s, X axis speed in kph.
Planes P-38L_LATE on 25% fuel and Bf-109G6AS on 50% fuel.

For average user who's not really interested charts, these planes have a dog acceleration compared to average cars of today http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif (they are in region of 3-4m/s, tested airplanes produced that kind of acceleration only in 150-300kph region). But this is whole another story tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif .

Thanks for your charts DKoor. I think all this is very interesting. But... there must be something wrong with this chart.

Acceleration is actually measured in meters per second squared (m/sē). The main thing is, though, that I had expected to see an inverted logaritmical function. I don't get why planes would accelerate faster at higher speeds than the would from a standstill. On top of that, how could the plane ever be moving if the maximum acceleration at 0 Km/h is 0 m/sē?

DKoor
07-13-2009, 06:14 AM
I re-tested it, this time with tuned Autopilot.
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/bf109g6as_p38llate_accel.gif



Originally posted by JZG_Thiem:
Dkoor: i have made quite lot of tests with Autopilot as well. At first i had probs too with the parameters for the closed loop control. Yet i found a quite easy and fast solution. As a result you can get parameters for each plane quite easily so its going to be very stable. Usually during my tests they stabilize below 1000m when i start at the deck. From that point on the autopilot is extrmely stable.
PM me if you are interested (her or on WC). OK mate, thanks... I did my re-tests from runway 0kph start point to 575kph TAS.
I've programmed autopilot to hold the aircraft as stable as possible... I really didn't want to fiddle with the autopilot.ini data since the author himself said that it is mostly a painful trial and error process http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .
I think new results are satisfactory since the aircraft were really tested at virtually the same regime. 1m altitude more or less http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

Here are the tracks from which data was used;
http://www.datafilehost.com/download-f3944f3b.html

DKoor
07-13-2009, 06:21 AM
Originally posted by Pigeon_:
Thanks for your charts DKoor. I think all this is very interesting. But... there must be something wrong with this chart. No essentially chart is right.
However collection of data via device link is not giving us precise points for every desired point in time.

Anyway... here is how it looks (first ten values from both fighters) so if you find something unusual or error please say;
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">time (s) speed (m/s) speed (kph) accel (m/s2) time (s) speed (m/s) speed (kph) accel (m/s2)
0 -0,202777778 -0,73 0 0 -0,063888889 -0,23 0
1,0008 1,855555556 6,68 1,854072298 0,9972 1,722222222 6,2 1,727057985
1,998 4,416666667 15,9 2,210543877 2,0016 4,144444444 14,92 2,07056577
3,0024 7,213888889 25,97 2,402707464 2,9988 6,416666667 23,1 2,139744787
3,9996 10,29444444 37,06 2,573868498 3,9996 9,575 34,47 2,393989399
5,0004 13,83888889 49,82 2,767556373 5,0004 12,66111111 45,58 2,532019661
6,0012 17,66944444 63,61 2,944318544 6,0012 16,21388889 58,37 2,70177446
7,002 21,68888889 78,08 3,097527691 6,9984 19,78333333 71,22 2,82683661
7,9992 26,275 94,59 3,28470347 7,9992 23,725 85,41 2,965921592
9 31,575 113,67 3,508333333 9 28,14722222 101,33 3,127469136
</pre>

From left to right; Bf-109 data then P-38 data.
Gaps in data are quite big as it may be seen... but still we may get a pretty good orientation.


Acceleration is actually measured in meters per second squared (m/sē). The main thing is, though, that I had expected to see an inverted logaritmical function. I don't get why planes would accelerate faster at higher speeds than the would from a standstill. On top of that, how could the plane ever be moving if the maximum acceleration at 0 Km/h is 0 m/sē? Time data I get from device link is all in hours and speed in kph.
Therefore I need to subtract hours from time and translate it into seconds.

Speed... I need to multiply kph values with 0,277777778 to get values in m/s.

Then I divide such speed values with time values (in sec), thus getting acceleration values in m/s2.

Pigeon_
07-13-2009, 06:36 AM
Why does the acceleration increase with the aircraft's speed? Has it got anything to do with the way the power is transformed to thrust by the propeller? I mean... does the propeller have more "grip" at higher speeds?

DKoor
07-13-2009, 06:53 AM
Originally posted by Pigeon_:
Why does the acceleration increase with the aircraft's speed? Has it got anything to do with the way the power is transformed to thrust by the propeller? I mean... does the propeller have more "grip" at higher speeds? I know exactly what you mean... and I may be total laymen in the area but still this makes some sense in a way to me...

I look at it with following RL experience logic (practically the only logic I could apply); when I run, say, from 0-400m, my acceleration will rise to the 40m, peak somewhere between 40-80m, after that it must drop gradually because my muscles can't produce linear curve to the highest possible speed value... I will probably accelerate up to 100-150m and after that I wont accelerate any more because I've reached my max speed.
I've observed the same thing in my car... I have manual gear... when I put it in 1st gear it accelerates fairly well; in second gear it's 'monster' I can really feel the acceleration, 3rd, 4th less so... in 5th gear it's a real dog compared to the first two gears.

Now I know zip about aircraft engines and how they work, but if they are anything like this experiences then this could be about right.

JtD
07-13-2009, 09:51 AM
This has to do with how induced drag and parasitic drag develop with changing speed.

Induced drag comes from the lift the airfoils provides and it keeps decreasing as the plane goes faster.

Parasitic drag is really that and keeps increasing as the plane goes faster.

The addition of these two types of drag gives total drag, which has it's minimum at a medium speed which depends on the aircraft.

The picture from http://adamone.rchomepage.com shows it:
http://adamone.rchomepage.com/drag_vs_speed.gif

Then you also have to see that the propeller has a very low efficiency at low speed, therefore thrust does not go up infinitely at low speed. It is more like constant below a certain speed.

Prop efficiency from web.mit.edu:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SPRING/propulsion/UnifiedPropulsion7/UnifiedPropulsion7_files/image106.jpg

So at low speeds you have drag decreasing and thrust increasing which means initially acceleration increases as the speed increases. DKoors results are quite reasonable.

Pigeon_
07-13-2009, 10:26 AM
Well look at that! I learned something new today! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif