PDA

View Full Version : Comments on the Bf109's High speed manouverability..



Xiolablu3
09-25-2007, 03:11 PM
I found these comments from a test on a Bf109E. I couldnt help thinking that it sounds like the IL2 Bf109 is extrememly accurate according to this report and that the people complaining about its stiff controls are in fact wrong. Manouverability is not something that can be blamed on 'bad fuel', 'bad pilot' or a 'bad engine' - the pilot only has to push or pull the stick and compare it with the Spitfire, Hurricane and any other planes he has flown.

The Bf109 did have very pooor control and manouverability at high speeds :-

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

'Safety in the Dive
During a dive at 400 mph all three controls were in turn displaced slightly and released. No vibration, flutter or snaking developed. If the elevator is trimmed for level flight at full throttle, a large push is needed to hold in the dive, and there is a temptation to trim in. If, in fact, the airplane is trimmed into the dive, recovery is difficult unless the trimmer is would back owing to the excessive heaviness of the elevator.

Ailerons
At low speeds the aileron control is very good, there being a definete resistance to stick movement, while response is brisk. As speed is increased, the ailerons bevome heavier, but response remains excellent. They are at their best between 150 mph and 200 mph, one pilot describing them as an 'ideal control' over this range. Above 200 mph they start becoming unpleasantly heavy, and between 300 mph and 400 mph are termed 'solid' by the test pilots. A pilot exerting all his strength cannot apply more than one-fifth aileron at 400 mph. Measurements of stick-top force when the pilot applied about one-fifth aileron in half a second and then held the ailerons steady, together with the corresponding time to 45 degrees banbk, were made at various speeds. The results at 400 mph are given below:
Max sideways force a pilot can apply conveniently to the Bf.109 stick 40 lbs.
Corresponding stick displacement 1/5th.
Time to 45-degree bank 4 seconds.
Deduced balance factyor Kb2 - 0.145

Several points of interest emerge from these tests:
a. Owing to the cramped Bf.109 cockpit, a pilot can only apply about 40 lb sideway force on the stick, as against 60 lb or more possible if he had more room.
b. The designer has also penalized himself by the unusually small stick-top travel of four inches, giving a poor mechanical advantage between pilot and aileron.
c. The time to 45-degree bank of four seconds at 400 mph, which is quite escessive for a fighter, classes the airplane immediately as very unmaneuvrable in roll at high speeds.

Elevator
This is an exceptionally good control at low air speeds, being fairly heavy and not over-sensitive. Above 250 mph, however, it becomes too heavy, so that maneuvrability is seriously restricted. When diving at 400 mph a pilot, pulling very hard, cannot put on enough 'g' to black himself out; stick force -'g' probably esceeds 20 lb/g in the dive.


..............

Futher COmments

.....The extremely bad maneuvrability of the Bf.109E at high speeds quickly became known to our pilots (RAF). On several occasions a Bf.109E was coaxed to self-destruction when on the tail of a Hurricane or Spitfire at moderate altitude. Our pilot would do a half-roll and quick pull-out from the subsequent steep dive. In the excitement of the moment the Bf.109E pilot would follow, only to find that he had insufficient height for recovery owing to his heavy elevator, and would go straight into the ground without a shot being fired.....'

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

The comment that stuck out was this one :-

'Above 250 (400kph) mph, however, [the elevator] becomes too heavy, so that maneuvrability is seriously restricted.' - WHich is just about exactly the same as the IL2 Bf109. Around 450kph the elevators on 'our' 109 are getting heavy also.



I have a link to the whole test if anyone wants it, as I am sure Kurfurst will want to add the report to his 'All things Bf109' site, if he doesnt have it on there already.

http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/9378/flybf109.html

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-25-2007, 03:42 PM
The 109 responds the same way in the game.

S!

faustnik
09-25-2007, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
The 109 responds the same way in the game.

S!

Yep. The F's get a lot better and then it gets worse with the G's.

Waldo.Pepper
09-25-2007, 03:54 PM
recovery is difficult unless the trimmer is wound back owing to the excessive heaviness of the elevator.

Dammit dammit dammit!

Thanks. Score one for Oleg.

Xiolablu3
09-25-2007, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
The 109 responds the same way in the game.

S!

Yes those were my thoughts exactly. However recently I have seen a few people complaining that it was incorrect, and that the Bf109 was 'nerfed'.

I posted this to show that in fact the 109's poor control at high speeds is in fact correct.

It also explains why the Bf109 was inherantly unsuitable once the speeds of combat got much higher in the later years of the war, and its no wonder Galland and other Luftwaffe pilots were calling for replacements and the Bf109 to be phased out around 1943.

Its control mechanisms were unsuitable for the higher speeds demanded of it in the later versions and even more weight was added in the later versions.

If the controls were this bad on the early versions like the Bf109, they could only get worse as combat speeds increase and the plane got heavier.

Does anyone know if the intended replacement,Bf209 controls implemented a redesign to increase effectiveness over 400kph?

joeap
09-25-2007, 03:58 PM
Let's see of the bluewhiners come here to deny, or the redwhiners to crow or deny in fact the Il-2 version has problems. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-25-2007, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by joeap:
Let's see of the bluewhiners come here to deny, or the redwhiners to crow or deny in fact the Il-2 version has problems. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

For every article, book, video, pilot account saying one thing you can always find something that shows different if you look hard enough. I always say that people hear and see whatever best suits their agenda. So you can count on it.

S!

Xiolablu3
09-25-2007, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
Let's see of the bluewhiners come here to deny, or the redwhiners to crow or deny in fact the Il-2 version has problems. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

For every article, book, video, pilot account saying one thing you can always find something that shows different if you look hard enough. I always say that people hear and see whatever best suits their agenda. So you can count on it.

S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know this wasnt directed at me, however for those that dont know, I really dont have an agenda - I just thought that this test backed up how accurate the Bf109 model was in those respects.

I LOVE the Bf109F4 in the game, its one of my favourite planes, I dont find that the heavy elevator at high speeds hinders me too much because combat is still occuring at around 300kph, and you have a plane which excells in all charactersitics, climb, speed, dive etc.

I love its handling, and how you can totally outzoom all other 1941 planes, it feels so powerful and is a beautiful plane to fly. Only the Spitfire V comes close to it in 1941, and the Bf109F4 is far superior in my opinion. It outclasses it in everything except turn.

So please dont htink my comments are intended to 'nerf' the Bf109, or that I am from the 'red crowd'. I prefer to fly blue most of the time anyway. And I certainly dont want my favourtite 1941 ride, the 109F4, nerfed in any way.

This post was just to confirm that 1C MAddox's Bf109 control flight model is very realistic with repsect to heavy controls at higher speeds (400kph+), and that anyone complaining about this should refer to offical tests of the plane.

Anyway, the Spitfire mkI and MkII which we will get in SOW series are going to be just as bad in the roll department. They had fabric covered ailerons and roll rate at higher speeds was just as poor, possibly even worse?

Bremspropeller
09-25-2007, 04:17 PM
I got a chart that reads a 109 could outturn a P-51 at M 2.0 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

VW-IceFire
09-25-2007, 04:24 PM
Thanks Xiola! I always find these tests the most useful...some will ignore them...but I tend to find most of the tests I read far more informative than anything else. To be honest most of these tests seem to show the game being more correct than incorrect...relatively speaking of course.

But basically this confirms what I already know. You should keep the 109 in its ideal speed range for best results. Just like any plane.

Xiolablu3
09-25-2007, 04:44 PM
COuld anyone answer my earlier question about the Me209 please?

Did the Me209 introduce new control mechanisms for better high speed control?

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-25-2007, 04:56 PM
I LOVE the Bf109F4 in the game, its one of my favourite planes, I dont find that the heavy elevator at high speeds hinders me too much because combat is still occuring at around 300kph, and you have a plane which excells in all charactersitics, climb, speed, dive etc.

I love its handling, and how you can totally outzoom all other 1941 planes, it feels so powerful and is a beautiful plane to fly. Only the Spitfire V comes close to it in 1941, and the Bf109F4 is far superior in my opinion. It outclasses it in everything except turn.

So please dont htink my comments are intended to 'nerf' the Bf109, or that I am from the 'red crowd'. I prefer to fly blue most of the time anyway. And I certainly dont want my favourtite 1941 ride, the 109F4, nerfed in any way.

This post was just to confirm that 1C MAddox's Bf109 control flight model is very realistic with repsect to heavy controls at higher speeds (400kph+), and that anyone complaining about this should refer to offical tests of the plane.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif100% The F4 is among my favorite rides in the game.

S!

VMF-214_Pappy
09-25-2007, 05:11 PM
Yeah the F-4 is one of my favorite LUFT rides too, i like early war stuff without pumpkin chuncking 30mm, thus u have to earn your kill.

Kurfurst__
09-25-2007, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I found these comments from a test on a Bf109E. I couldnt help thinking that it sounds like the IL2 Bf109 is extrememly accurate according to this report and that the people complaining about its stiff controls are in fact wrong. Manouverability is not something that can be blamed on 'bad fuel', 'bad pilot' or a 'bad engine' - the pilot only has to push or pull the stick and compare it with the Spitfire, Hurricane and any other planes he has flown.

The Bf109 did have very pooor control and manouverability at high speeds :-

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

'Safety in the Dive
During a dive at 400 mph all three controls were in turn displaced slightly and released. No vibration, flutter or snaking developed. If the elevator is trimmed for level flight at full throttle, a large push is needed to hold in the dive, and there is a temptation to trim in. If, in fact, the airplane is trimmed into the dive, recovery is difficult unless the trimmer is would back owing to the excessive heaviness of the elevator.

If the aircraft is trimmed into the dive. This is of course making the pilot's task more difficult for obvious reasons. When he slows down the aircraft nose is going to sink on it's own.

When not trimmed into dive however...

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109f_afdu_2.jpg

In contrast Spitfire's light elevator forces presents plenty of trouble and is even self endangering to the pilot :

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/spit2gflying.jpg

Result :

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/spits2.jpg

I hope this gets modelled for BoB. It should be.


Ailerons
At low speeds the aileron control is very good, there being a definete resistance to stick movement, while response is brisk. As speed is increased, the ailerons bevome heavier, but response remains excellent. They are at their best between 150 mph and 200 mph, one pilot describing them as an 'ideal control' over this range. Above 200 mph they start becoming unpleasantly heavy, and between 300 mph and 400 mph are termed 'solid' by the test pilots. A pilot exerting all his strength cannot apply more than one-fifth aileron at 400 mph. Measurements of stick-top force when the pilot applied about one-fifth aileron in half a second and then held the ailerons steady, together with the corresponding time to 45 degrees banbk, were made at various speeds. The results at 400 mph are given below:
Max sideways force a pilot can apply conveniently to the Bf.109 stick 40 lbs.
Corresponding stick displacement 1/5th.
Time to 45-degree bank 4 seconds.
Deduced balance factyor Kb2 - 0.145

Several points of interest emerge from these tests:
a. Owing to the cramped Bf.109 cockpit, a pilot can only apply about 40 lb sideway force on the stick, as against 60 lb or more possible if he had more room.
b. The designer has also penalized himself by the unusually small stick-top travel of four inches, giving a poor mechanical advantage between pilot and aileron.
c. The time to 45-degree bank of four seconds at 400 mph, which is quite escessive for a fighter, classes the airplane immediately as very unmaneuvrable in roll at high speeds.


http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Tactical_trials/109...ichsflg_Aug1940.html (http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Tactical_trials/109E_vergleich110SpitHurCurtiss/109E_vergleichsflg_Aug1940.html)

Subject : Comparison flight between Bf 109 E, Bf 110 C, Spitfire, Hurricane and Curtiss.

due to the negative acceleration. This [evasive] measure is also recommended.

The rolling ability of the enemy fighters at high speeds is worse than that of the Bf 109.
Quick changes of the trajectory along the vertical axis cause especially with the Spitfire
load changes around the cranial axis, coming from high longitudinal thrust momemtum, and
significantly disturb the aiming.

In summary, it can be said that all three enemy planes types are inferior to the German
planes regarding the flying qualities. Especially the Spitfire has bad rudder and elevator
stability on the target approach. In addition the wing-mounted weapons have the known
shooting-technique disadvantages.


Appearantly the Spitfire I required twice the stickforce to obtain less aileron deflection at high speed :

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/spitI_109E_ailerons-1.jpg

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/highspeed1.jpg

This, too, should be throughly modelled.


Elevator
This is an exceptionally good control at low air speeds, being fairly heavy and not over-sensitive. Above 250 mph, however, it becomes too heavy, so that maneuvrability is seriously restricted. When diving at 400 mph a pilot, pulling very hard, cannot put on enough 'g' to black himself out; stick force -'g' probably esceeds 20 lb/g in the dive.

On the contrary,

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Tactical_trials/109...ests.html#techtrials (http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Tactical_trials/109G2_britg2trop/MET109Gtrop_tests.html#techtrials)

"Manoeuvrability.

33. The elevators harden up at high speeds and retrimming is necessary, which is difficult as the trim wheel hardens up and becomes almost sold in a dive. Some force is needed on the stick at high speeds, but accelerations as great as the pilot can stand can be put on."


The Bf109G is heavy to manoeuvre in pitch, being similar to a Mustang. At 520kph it is possible to pull 4g with one hand, but I find it more comfortable to use both hands on the stick for looping manoeuvres, normally entered at 420kph and 3g. Pitch trim changes with speed are moderate, and the tail plane trim wheel mounted abeam the pilots' left hip is easy to use. For a display, I run it at 420-450kph in trim, and then do not retrim. This causes no excessive stick forces during the display. Overall the aircraft is straightforward to handle in pitch.

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/index1024.htm


Pitch tends to be heavy above 400km/h, but it is still easy to manage up to 500km/h, and the aircraft is perfectly happy carrying out low-level looping maneuvers from 550km/h and below. Above 550km/h, one peculiarity is a slight nose-down trim change as you accelerate. This means that when you run in for an airshow above 500km/h, the airplane has a slight tucking sensation-a sort of desire to get down to ground level. This is easily held on the stick, or it can be trimmed out, but it is slightly surprising initially.

When you maneuver above 500km/h, two hands are required for a more aggressive performance. Either that or get on the trimmer to help. Despite this heavying up, it is still quite easy to get 5G at these speeds.

- Mark Hanna





Futher COmments

.....The extremely bad maneuvrability of the Bf.109E at high speeds quickly became known to our pilots (RAF). On several occasions a Bf.109E was coaxed to self-destruction when on the tail of a Hurricane or Spitfire at moderate altitude. Our pilot would do a half-roll and quick pull-out from the subsequent steep dive. In the excitement of the moment the Bf.109E pilot would follow, only to find that he had insufficient height for recovery owing to his heavy elevator, and would go straight into the ground without a shot being fired.....'


or...

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/spits2.jpg

Of course nobody would tell stories about that latter case, would he?




The comment that stuck out was this one :-

'Above 250 (400kph) mph, however, [the elevator] becomes too heavy, so that maneuvrability is seriously restricted.' - WHich is just about exactly the same as the IL2 Bf109. Around 450kph the elevators on 'our' 109 are getting heavy also.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109f_afdu_2.jpg

420 mph IAS, how much TAS is that?

Not the first revisionist raising his ugly head in this board, mind you...



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BerkshireHunt:

Yes, and while we're about it what about the 109's heavy elevator on dive recovery?... It's well documented, I believe.

Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox :

Yes it well documented in trials. True aircpeed is 980 km/h - no problem to recover. Force on the stick less than 40 kg (without use of trim)
From the trals in Rechlin. I have all the data for this..

And it is the very similar force on a stick like for the best easy flying planes of WWII....

Any other questions? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

The basic problem is of course that in Il-2, pilots are limited to one-hand pull forces on the stick. This puts 'two hander' planes into disadvantage, something they didn't have in real life.

PS : As for new tests, any and all are welcome for which the original can be provided with reference to rule out falsifications, and if the supplier can make the transscription himself (exact original layout is required to be maintained!) the test can be up within a day. Simple : Stop *****in', start typin'.

crazyivan1970
09-25-2007, 06:16 PM
And here it begins.....

stalkervision
09-25-2007, 09:57 PM
excellent info Kurf.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Viper2005_
09-25-2007, 10:07 PM
It would perhaps be more useful to consider control response as a function of Mach number rather than as a function of Q, especially since the classic 109 "issue" is elevator response.

Von_Rat
09-25-2007, 10:11 PM
The basic problem is of course that in Il-2, pilots are limited to one-hand pull forces on the stick. This puts 'two hander' planes into disadvantage, something they didn't have in real life.


agreed

if 2 hand pull was modeled, i dont think we'd be seeing so much complaining about the 09s manuverbility.

JG14_Josf
09-25-2007, 10:50 PM
.......The aeroplane behaves in a similar fashion to the Mark I Rotol Spitfire in a dive i.e. the controls become heavier with speed, especially near the limiting speed. Considerable forward pressure on the control column is necessary to keep the aeroplane in the dive; the elevator is sensitive throughout the speed range. The rudder and ailerons become very heavy at speeds about 400 m.p.h. A.S.I., the latter being almost immovable then. However the ailerons were, if anything, a little lighter at high speeds than has been found on other Spitfires.

Airplanes have limits (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-II.html)

Trolls don't

La7_brook
09-26-2007, 02:32 AM
Thinking Tommys,runaway too found more books http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Whirlin_merlin
09-26-2007, 02:54 AM
The capacity for different people to read the same words and find a different meaning never ceases to amaze me.

For instance how the term 'not ideal' can mean 'In contrast Spitfire's light elevator forces presents plenty of trouble and is even self endangering to the pilot'.

Oh well each to there own, what was will continue to be what was.

Manu-6S
09-26-2007, 02:55 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The basic problem is of course that in Il-2, pilots are limited to one-hand pull forces on the stick. This puts 'two hander' planes into disadvantage, something they didn't have in real life.

Agree.

Great post Kurfy.

Kurfurst__
09-26-2007, 03:09 AM
Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
The capacity for different people to read the same words and find a different meaning never ceases to amaze me.

For instance how the term 'not ideal' can mean 'In contrast Spitfire's light elevator forces presents plenty of trouble and is even self endangering to the pilot'.

I think I forgot to post this :

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/SPIT2_characteristics_precautions.jpg

This may be of interest regarding trimming aircraft into the dive, RAE's lecture on 109E controls, and the Spit II manual in comparison :


'Safety in the Dive
During a dive at 400 mph all three controls were in turn displaced slightly and released. No vibration, flutter or snaking developed. If the elevator is trimmed for level flight at full throttle, a large push is needed to hold in the dive, and there is a temptation to trim in. If, in fact, the airplane is trimmed into the dive, recovery is difficult unless the trimmer is would back owing to the excessive heaviness of the elevator.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/SPIT2_trimming_in_dive.jpg

MEGILE
09-26-2007, 03:12 AM
This is a hardcore chart monkey fest.

Good times.

HayateAce
09-26-2007, 03:31 AM
This is heaven.

Wait til someone mentions that the game's somewhat correct heavy high-speed 109 handling can EASILY and JOKINGLY be overcome with Olegs Lightning Fast Magic Trim Wheel®.

OOPS...

Grendel-B
09-26-2007, 03:33 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I found these comments from a test on a Bf109E. I couldnt help thinking that it sounds like the IL2 Bf109 is extrememly accurate according to this report and that the people complaining about its stiff controls are in fact wrong.


You quote a well known report, but that report is just ONE report - and goes wrong on some details or need some additional information for correct comparison.

Some myth debunking on this particular issue:

"109's controls locked up in high speed."
- Another very mythical subject. Before answering one must be asked: "What model are you talking about?"
- There was large differences between various types in the high speed controls. Each newer version handled better in high speeds, the best being the 109 K series which had flettner tabs for enhanced aileron control - at least in theory, as it is debated whether many Me 109 K-4s actually had those flettners enabled. 109 G series were much better on this regard compared to 109 E, which yet again wasn't such a dog as many claim. 109 test pilots, Russians included, have said that the 109 had pretty good roll at higher speeds - again not as good as the 190s, P-51 or P-47 - but it maintained a good lateral control ability. Recovering from extremerely fast 750-900 km/h vertical dives was the problem - not level flight or even normal combat flying.
- Spitfire and a 109 had equal roll rates at up to 400 mph speeds. Not even the favourite warhorse of the Americans, P-51, exactly shined with its roll rate at high speeds. P-51 pilots have actually said that flying P-51 at high speeds was like driving a truck.
- An often quoted British report made of a Me 109 E talks about the "short stick travel", "due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick" and "at 400 mph with 40 pounds side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4 seconds to get into a 45 degree roll or bank. That immediately classifies the airplane as being unmaneuverable and unacceptable as a fighter."
- The report claims that The 109-E needed 37lb stick force for a 1/5 aileron deflection at 400mph. Coincidentally, the Spitfire 1 required 57 lb stick force from the pilot for similar deflection at similar speed. This is a 54% higher stickforce for the Spitfire pilot.
- The British test is taken as gospel by many, while it is just one test, made by the enemy, using a worn out and battle damaged airframe. German flight tests report pilots using aileron forces of over 45 lbs and 109's stick was designed for elevator stick forces of up to or over 85kg, over 180 lbs. Finnish Bf 109 G-2 test revealed that at 450 km/h the stick could be still fully taken to the limit with ~10 kg force (20 pounds). Aileron roll without rudder could be performed to both direction from 400-450 km/h in 4-5 s. This is better than the Spitfire with fabric ailerons, about the same as Spitfire with metal ailerons and slightly below clipped wing Spitfire. So it was more matter of the pilot and the test procedures, than maneuverability of the Bf 109. Several details of that test are suspicious and German chief test pilot Heinrich Beauvais disagreed with it and with Eric Brown. Beauvais tried to get into contact after the war with Eric Brown to discuss the matters, but Brown refused to discuss with him. This being the case, it seems that Brown wasn't willing to listen a pilot who'd flown more on the 109 than he ever had, and was more interested on believing his negative findings of the 109 than being proven wrong by a real expert.

And more pilot references:

Stick forces and maneuvering in high speeds
Bf 109 D:
The most delightful features of the Messerschmitt were, first, in spite of its remarkably sensitive reaction to the controls, the ship showed no disposition to wander or "yaw" as we call it; neither was there any tendency to "hunt". It was a ship where the touch of a pianist would be right in keeping with the fineness of the response. And, likewise, I am sure that any ham-handed pilot who handled the controls in brutal fashion would soon be made to feel ashamed of himself.
Seldom do we find a single-seater that does not stiffen up on the controls as the ship is pushed to and beyond its top speed.
In about cruising speed, a movement of the control stick brought just exactly the reaction to be expected. And at high speed, wide open, the control sensitivity checked most satisfactorily.
Then I wanted one more check and that was at the bottom of the dive where the speed would be in excess of that ship's straightaway performance. So down we went about 2,000 feet with the air speed indicator amusing itself by adding a lot of big numbers - to a little over 400 mph. A gentle draw back on the control effected recovery from the dive; then up the other side of the hill.
- US Marine Corps major Al Williams. Source: Bf 109D test flight, 1938.

Me 109 E-4:
"I established a recommended minimum looping speed of 450 kmh and found that the gearing of the propellor control was just right for looping with a little practise it was easy to keep the RPM at 2300 throughout looping manoeuvres. The ailerons were light and extremerely effective. The rate of roll is at least 50 % faster than a Mk V Spitfire with full span wingtips. During the VNE dive I achieved an IAS of 660 kmh. The original limit was 750 kmh. I was only limited by the height avalable, not by any feature of the aircraft which was extremerely smooth and stable at 660 kmh."
- Charlie Brown, RAF Flying Instructor, test flight of restored Me 109 E-4 WN 3579. Source: Warbirds Journal issue 50.

109 G-2/Trop:
"Roll performance is similar to a Hurricane or elliptical wing tipped Spitfire. A full stick roll through 360 degrees at 460 kph [=285 mph] takes 4 to 4.5 seconds without using rudder, and needs a force of around 20 lbf. One interesting characteristic is that rolls at lower speeds entered at less than 1g, such as a roll-off-the-top or half Cuban, have a markedly lower roll rate to the right than to the left. Therefore, I always roll left in such manoeuvres."
- Dave Southwood, test pilot.

109 G:
It turned well too, if you just pulled the stick"
- Mauno Fräntilä, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories. Source: Finnish Virtual Pilots Association: fighter ace Mauno Fräntilä was creating the glory of the war pilots.

Me 109 G:
- How difficult was it to control the 109 in high velocities, 600 kmh and above?
The Messerschmitt became stiff to steer not until the speed exceeded 700kmh. The control column was as stiff as it had been fastened with tape, you could not use the ailerons. Yet you could control the plane."
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

Me 109 G:
"Sarantola recalled that the MT was a very stable plane, but not the most maneuverable. The stick forces were quite large and elevator trim was used quite frequently while maneuvering.
MT was easy to fly and overall a safe plane. Flying and landing was easy."
- Olli Sarantola, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Blitz '01 - Meeting With The Veterans by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

109 G:
"The roll rate is very good and very positive below about 250 mph. Above 250 mph however the roll starts to heavy up and up to 300 or so is very similar to a P-51. After that it's all getting pretty solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningfull roll rates. Pitch is also delighful at 250 mph and below. It feels very positve and the amount of effort on the control column needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right to me. The aircraft is perfectly happy carrying out low-level looping maneuvers from 300 mph and below. Above 300 mph one peculiarity is a slight nose down trim change as you accelerate. The rudder is effective and if medium feel up to 300. It becomes heavier above this speed but regardless the lack of rudder trim is not a problem for the type of operations we carry out with the aeroplane."
- Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109 G (Spanish version).

Me 109 G:
"-Many claim that the MT becomes stiff as hell in a dive, difficult to bring up in high speed, the controls lock up?
Nnnooo, they don't lock up.
It was usually because you exceeded diving speed limits. Guys didn't remember you shouldn't let it go over.
The controls don't lock up, they become stiffer of course but don't lock. And of course you couldn't straighten up (shows a 'straightening' from a dive directly up) like an arrow."
- Väinö Pokela, Finnish fighter ace and Me 109 trainer. 5 victories. Source: Interview of Väinö Pokela by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

Me 109 G-2/G-6:
- How heavy did the Me controls get at different speeds?
"It got heavy, but you could use the flettner. It was nothing special, but a big help.
Once in '43, there was a Boston III above the Gulf of Finland. I went after it, and we went to clouds at 500 meters. Climbing, climbing, climbing and climbing, all the way to seven kilometers, and it was just more and more clouds. It got so dark that I lost sight. I turned back down, and saw the Russkie diving too. Speed climbed to 700 km/h. I wondered how it'd turn out. I pulled with all my strength when emerging from the clouds, then used the flettner. I was 50 meters above sea when I got it to straighten out. "
- Did the roll capabilites change?
"Not so much. It got stiffer, but you still could bank. "
- Were you still in full control at high speeds, like at 600-700 km/h?
"Yes. "
- How about slow and medium speeds, could you do stunts?
"Yes, but it was heavier than the earlier planes (Fokker D.XXI, Curtiss Hawk 75). But better in combat. I got to fly the Hornet simulator last summer. That stick moved only little. "
- Mauno Fräntilä, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association: Chief Warrant Officer Mauno Fräntilä.

Me 109 G-6:
Me109 was almost a dream come true for a pilot. Good controllability, enough speed, excelent rate of climb. The feel of the controls were normal except when flying over 600km/h - some strength was needed then.
- Erkki O. Pakarinen, Finnish fighter pilot, Finnish Air Force trainer. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Source:
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/

carguy_
09-26-2007, 03:40 AM
I don`t blame Xiolablu but this thread certainly looks like another fish set up to lure some of the worst Willywhiners here just to show that Luftwaffles can whine too.


For me it`s generally ok.Over 420km/h elevator gets heavy and stays like this all the way to 890km/h.

The question I always keep asking with this issue is why does the elevator lock-up the very same from 420 to 890?
So you`re saying that at 420km/h the me109 elevators should be suffering the SAME stick lock-up as when doing 720km/h or 800km/h?
Because that`s the way in the game.You get a heavy stick at 420km/h and it stays the same until the plane falls apart.

This is wrong.The elevator heaviness should increase gradually from little heaviness to a very heavy stick.In the game, you reach 420km/h and BANG you get heavy elevators.Those elevators are as heavy at 420km/h and as at 800km/h.
So what you are saying is that it is correct to model THE VERY SAME elevator heaviness at the start of said speed and THE VERY SAME at aircraft`s critical speed?

It seems you people really have something against German planes.Really, I can`t understand why would you want to pork it unles sit`s historical?Certainly not for your gaming pleasure,no?

The elevator stiffness is incorrectly modelled in the way explained.If someone does not understand I can make a graph because it`s easy to make.

You`ve already done your part in FORCING Oleg to render manual prop pitch unusable thus taking approximately 10% of 109 performance.
You not only believe that Mustang was a Spitfire but also you`re positive that Germans flew piles of ### that could never technically and technologically stand up to the USAF/RAF wonders.

Kurfurst__
09-26-2007, 04:09 AM
Originally posted by carguy_:
This is wrong.The elevator heaviness should increase gradually from little heaviness to a very heavy stick.In the game, you reach 420km/h and BANG you get heavy elevators.Those elevators are as heavy at 420km/h and as at 800km/h.
So what you are saying is that it is correct to model THE VERY SAME elevator heaviness at the start of said speed and THE VERY SAME at aircraft`s critical speed?


It's correct, in a general sense. The stick force gradient is rather stable for elevators, meaning that you'll need the same amount of force on stick to apply the same Gs up until the elevator control surfaces at very high speeds start to reach compressibility and the effectiveness of the elevator surface (= amount of G pulled per deflection) start to detoriate due to ballooning etc. You'll get less pitching movement for any given deflection.

Pitch movement is basically elevator effectiveness at a given speed x elevator deflection. Stickforce applied defines how much

Of course the elevator gets 'heavier' with speed, meaning the you will need more and more force to get the same deflection, because the air pressure increases over the elevator as speed increases. However due to the same reason, the same deflection will have more and more effect on pitch. So it balances things out, as it's the same force that increases stick forces and that is actually makes the aircraft to drop or raise it's nose : airflow over the control surfaces.

Ie. if you deflect the elevator 5 degrees at 200 mph, you'll need to apply a small force for that. There's very little airflow over the surface, hindering you very little at moving the surface. At the same time, 5 degrees will have only small effect on pitch - there's little airflow and air pressure over the surfaces, too! The same 5 degrees will give you a lot more pitch if it occurs at 600 km/h, but it's also much heavier to apply that 5 degrees of deflection. The subjective feel will be that the elevator is heavier, and pitch is slower, even though you're actually pulling 5 Gs, the limit your body can take for any prolonged period.

It's a matter of gearing between the stick and the control surface. Say you have a stick with 20 degrees of back and forth movement. If you attach this to an elevator that can deflect 10 degrees up and down, you'll get a lot of mechanical advantage, but at the same time, that 10 degrees of control surface deflection may be insufficent to achieve sufficient pitch control at slow speeds. Your aircraft will be sluggish in pitch at slow speeds. Alternately, if your elevators are designed to be very effective (they yield high pitch movements for even small deflections), you'll have an elevator that does not allow precise control of pitch and angle of attack, and the aircraft will easily stall, will be more difficult to flare properly on landing, and will be a poor gunnery platfrom due to sudden changes in pitch even with small stick movements.

You can opt for the opposite, and have 30 degrees of control surface deflection, with moderate control effectiveness giving you less mechanical advantage, but precise control at low speeds (landing, low speed knife fights) and small deflections (gunnery). It also prevents you from blacking yourself out or overstressing the airframe. At the same time you'll experience higher workload on the stick at high speeds, since you'll need to achieve greater deflections at high speeds.

It's up to the designer to decide what sort of control characteristics he would like to have for his airplane.

Think of a car's steering wheel. Small movements at high speed on a highway will change your direction very rapidly, whereas you'll need a lot more steering applied to get the same rapid change in direction when just cruising around in a city.

I presume Il-2 modells it with slightly differently than in real life, to keep things simple, with a constant force on the stick and playing with a pre-set curve for detoriating control effectiveness (pitch/roll/yaw achieved per deflection angle vs. speed).

Manu-6S
09-26-2007, 04:31 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I dont find that the heavy elevator at high speeds hinders me too much because combat is still occuring at around 300kph, and you have a plane which excells in all charactersitics, climb, speed, dive etc.

Are you joking Xiola?

In the server where I used to fly you CAN'T reach what speed without dying: any slow 109 is a dead 109 (I say this as Blue and RED pilot).

I tell you two of my experiences:

1)I was at 5000m in a F4 and I found a co-alt HurriIIc BnZing the noobs under him. I engaged him and we fought 10 minutes(!!!) I was a good pilot, I didn't ambush him and knowing that I MUST not to pass in front of his 4 cannons I worked with patience and precision manouvres. I made a energy fight with spiral climbings but in every attack my plane reached the 500Km/h and I failed 2 attacks every 3 because of elevator problem (I refuse to call it "stiffness")... When I hitted him it wasn't enough since I couldn't aim at the weak points.

The only time I pull my throttle back he fired at me but I was lucky. At last I got him and both congratulates ourself for the fight (where I admitted I was in a superior plane).

Now I think that I would prefer to become tired after few decisive manouvres than to stay in fight for 10 minutes with the danger of a new enemy every minute because I CAN'T pull hard on the stick.

2) I my squad we did some traing of high speed aiming in 109s: 2 guys in a SpitV low (me too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif ) and 4 bf109 for every Spit: at turn one 109 boomed me and tried to shoot me down.. it was quite impossible. And when my mate said "now I'll pull the throttle back" I got him while he was zooming.

Obviosly the target of the training wasnt' to shoot down the enemy... but learning to aim correctly at medium-high speed.

luftluuver
09-26-2007, 06:54 AM
Why did I know that somehow the Spitfire would be brought into the discussion. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Grendel-B

"I pulled with all my strength when emerging from the clouds, then used the flettner."

What Flettner would this be?

JG53Frankyboy
09-26-2007, 07:00 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:

"I pulled with all my strength when emerging from the clouds, then used the flettner."

What Flettner would this be?

i belive he ment here the so called "flying stabilizer" of the elevator.

not exactly what i understand as a Flettner ............

luftluuver
09-26-2007, 07:03 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
i belive he ment here the so called "flying stabilizer" of the elevator.

not exactly what i understand as a Flettner ............
That is what I was thinking, so wanted clarification.

Zoom2136
09-26-2007, 07:47 AM
People... get a job... some of you have way to much time on your hands... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

HayateAce
09-26-2007, 07:54 AM
Ah, but some of these folks DO have a job. To make the 109 everything it wasn't in real life, in order to patch up their wounded egos for it having lost the DubbaDubba Two.

Vipez-
09-26-2007, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Ah, but some of these folks DO have a job. To make the 109 everything it wasn't in real life, in order to patch up their wounded egos for it having lost the DubbaDubba Two.

Oh give it a rest will you. You are not even funny anymore.

http://omglol.kerrolisaa.com/1/5126.jpg

msalama
09-26-2007, 08:30 AM
Älä ny, hauska mieshän toi on.

Vipez-
09-26-2007, 09:21 AM
Nooh niin..aika turhaa kyllä sille on edes vastata..

crazyivan1970
09-26-2007, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Ah, but some of these folks DO have a job. To make the 109 everything it wasn't in real life, in order to patch up their wounded egos for it having lost the DubbaDubba Two.

Hayate... i think it turned into a pretty good discussion... if you planning to de-rail it, prepare to be de-railed too...for few weeks. I am not joking by the way. You are perfect example of how any good discussion takes a nose dive and gets locked. By the way, i wouldnt suggest using other accounts, i know them all...

DmdSeeker
09-26-2007, 11:17 AM
Was there a German Eric Brown?

What I mean is, was there an equivalent German pilot who got to fly most anything he could get his hands on and recorded his impressions?

Reason I ask is because this thread seems to be becoming a 109/Spit thread (no offense to Kurfy, it's good info and he's keeping his temper).

I'd be more interested from a wider comparision.

There must be, in every generation or model of a fighter's evelution aspects of the enemy craft that the designers wish to emulate. THis must be true, or there wouldn't be any evolution.

Accepting this, one can almost track what the designers themselves thought were weak spots in thier planes by the modifications made on the next model.

For instance, Supermarine obviously thought thier Spitfire was challengend in roll, as they progressively changed the design from fabric to metal aerlirons, increased wing stiffness and ultimately clipped wings. However, as as far as I know, they left the elevator pretty much alone.

Looking at what was changed through the 109's life time can give insight into what Messerschmidt thought needed improving, i.e. what was weak in the preceeding model.

berg417448
09-26-2007, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
Was there a German Eric Brown?



I have not read this book but it looks like it might be interesting:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/'Luftwaffe-Test-Pilot'---Hans-Wer...tem#ebayphotohosting (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/'Luftwaffe-Test-Pilot'---Hans-Werner-Lerche_W0QQitemZ200155378625QQcmdZViewItem#ebaypho tohosting)

Brain32
09-26-2007, 11:35 AM
Current elevator modelling and ZeroTM damage model, make 109's on the very border of useability. Without any hestiation and after some thought I can seriously say I wouldn't be sorry if 109 wasn't flyable in the game. I would probably yell gimme,gimme for it if it wasn't but now when I see how it turned out... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Korolov1986
09-26-2007, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Current elevator modelling and ZeroTM damage model, make 109's on the very border of useability. Without any hestiation and after some thought I can seriously say I wouldn't be sorry if 109 wasn't flyable in the game. I would probably yell gimme,gimme for it if it wasn't but now when I see how it turned out... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

The irony of that comment strikes hard when you have dozens of other folks saying the same thing about other planes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JG53Frankyboy
09-26-2007, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
................, make 109's on the very border of useability. ..................:

good joke - almost in HayateAce leage http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

carguy_
09-26-2007, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Current elevator modelling and ZeroTM damage model, make 109's on the very border of useability. Without any hestiation and after some thought I can seriously say I wouldn't be sorry if 109 wasn't flyable in the game. I would probably yell gimme,gimme for it if it wasn't but now when I see how it turned out... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Few people with ~ 130:1 K/D ratio say otherwise.

Brain32
09-26-2007, 11:38 AM
The irony of that comment strikes hard when you have dozens of other folks saying the same thing about other planes.
Yes like for Spitfire, LA7, etc.

Brain32
09-26-2007, 11:41 AM
You know guys there were 109's AFTER 109G2, or should I say there are 109's other than G2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Also records made in 2001 don't count today Carguy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

LAte 109's(g6-g14-g10-and especially K4) are practically useless in this game for serious scenarious. I would rather take FW190A4 in 1945 il2 scenario than 109K4, any time.

JZG_Thiem
09-26-2007, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
This is heaven.

Wait til someone mentions that the game's somewhat correct heavy high-speed 109 handling can EASILY and JOKINGLY be overcome with Olegs Lightning Fast Magic Trim Wheel®.

OOPS...

I absolutely agree, hayateace. I know this myself from 1.0 to 3.x., but there is a simple fix for you and everyone else who hasnt touched this game after 4.01 because you were to busy hanging around in forums and posting stuff. Ask someone nice, i suggest maybe Kurfy and im sure hell give you a link where you can upgrade your game to 4.08, just in case you still have it installed. If not, i suggest you buy the 1946 DVD and completely re-install. The DVD even has 4.08 so you dont need Kurfys link i think. After loading up the game (double click on this funny il2 icon, just in case you forgot) just start a mission with the QMB for example. If you dont know that, im sure the handbook, which is provided as a .pdf on the DVD can guide you through this process. Once you have installed, read up the handbook (you have a joystick, right?) and entered a mission, youll be able to make a test flight. For details on how to operate a plane in IL2 i suggest you read up the handbook again. There are lots of shortcuts fo rall the important functions in game, just in case you are not a proud owner of a Joystick.

Well, after all you can (try to) fly around, but be careful, this game is not that easy on you, at least not as easy as CFS1 or whatever. When you managed to be able ot fly straight and level, do gentle turns, climbs etc., then you are prepared for using the trim (can be operated via a key or a slider; sliders are those funny wheels on Joysticks btw.). Just take a 109 (one of the funny planes with funny swastikas, it has a single inline engine. Read up on google or Wiki about what an inline engine actually looks like). Then speed the plane up a bit and use the trim. Watch one of the funny dials in the cockpit (cockpit layouts are also availiable on the DVD) and use a stop watch (you have one?) and check out how long it takes for the actual trim to follow your set trim value. You will notice that it takes somewhere between 5-10secs for a full deflection trim (applies for all planes btw.), which i dont necessary consider to be "lightning fast". However taking into consideration your ability to grasp things and follow the development of this game, your impression will be different and much closer to "lightning fast" than of any other -or at least a vast majority- member of this board.

anarchy52
09-26-2007, 12:09 PM
IMHO, Bf-109 doesn't live up to expectations, it's flaws are blown out of proportion. G2 is the only 109 that is really competitive:
- fast, but not the fastest
- maneuverable, but not the best
- excellent climber
basically jack of all trades, king of none (except maybe the climb). G6 should be similar. Competitive at first, falling behind when facing more recent allied stuff, but still dangerous.

I don't know much about alcoholic 109s and K-4s, but judging by the raw numbers...

faustnik
09-26-2007, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
G2 is the only 109 that is really competitive

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif F4's kick butt in '42, on both fronts.

JZG_Thiem
09-26-2007, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
Was there a German Eric Brown?



I have not read this book but it looks like it might be interesting:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/'Luftwaffe-Test-Pilot'---Hans-Wer...tem#ebayphotohosting (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/'Luftwaffe-Test-Pilot'---Hans-Werner-Lerche_W0QQitemZ200155378625QQcmdZViewItem#ebaypho tohosting) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like 3 weeks ago i was in the bookstore with this book in my hands (at least iirc). I made a quick scan through it and saw a lot of pics of P51s, P47s n stuff, with german markings. I really couldnt believe it, never heared of this stuff be4. For some reason i figure that there would be not much useful and precise information within (dont ask.....) and put it down again and left the store.

carguy_
09-26-2007, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif F4's kick butt in '42, on both fronts.

They kick butt in `44 aswell.Reds tend to forget how it differs from the later Gustavs and get shot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

G6 yes, it`s too bad compared to the G2 but we know all about this issue already.
Basically the worst time for 109 is early 43 cuz that`s when G6early faces La5F/FN which are both the late `43-`44 types.G6early is ****,late is worse than G2/F4 but good enough to win just about any duel although little too muc on the heavy side.
G10/G14/K4 are all a different world.Huge performance gain,similar DF abilities,insane climb power.If only there was a MG151/20 option loadout available...The whole frame is fragile,very fragile but the cockpit is well protected.
Anyway, if you get shot in such plane it is you, period.
The only shortcomings this plane has ingame are minor performance FM mishaps and general age of the aircraft.

Brain32
09-26-2007, 12:43 PM
G10/G14/K4 are all a different world.Huge performance gain,similar DF abilities,insane climb power.If only there was a MG151/20 option loadout available...The whole frame is fragile,very fragile but the cockpit is well protected.
Anyway, if you get shot in such plane it is you, period.
They are so simple to shoot down it's ridiculous, you DO play against humans right? Maybe they are of some use on the EasternFront but with any kind of half competent opposition on the West you will not only get wasted and laught at, but people like me will yell at you for waisting planes flying that POS we call late 109's, take a 190 if you want to fight, heck take a ju87 and bomb but don't fly that cr@p.

Everything overall is fine with 109's (if not even more than fine) as far as I'm concerned however elevator stifness has not only been exaggerated, but really brought to utter, ridiculous nightmare. And I would still like to see the explanation for their DM, don't know what would excatly indicate that Me109 was almost in line with the A6M2 regarding battle damage, but heck I don't have all the documents in the world...

La7_brook
09-26-2007, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Current elevator modelling and ZeroTM damage model, make 109's on the very border of useability. Without any hestiation and after some thought I can seriously say I wouldn't be sorry if 109 wasn't flyable in the game. I would probably yell gimme,gimme for it if it wasn't but now when I see how it turned out... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Few people with ~ 130:1 K/D ratio say otherwise. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Does flying coops count, you think , http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Kurfurst__
09-26-2007, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
Was there a German Eric Brown?

Lerche was also mentioned, I think Karl Bauer and Heinrich Beuavauis (sp?) would be good candidates...

Xiolablu3
09-26-2007, 02:09 PM
The SPitfire I and II had the same problems as the 109 with regards to bad aileron control at high speeds as they had fabric ailerons.

The elevator was good throughout the whole speed range, some would even say too senstive, especially on the Mk1 and Mk2 with fabric ailerons. It led to senstive elevator but very stiff ailerons which was very strange for pilots not used to it.

Aileron control got much better with the addition of metal ailerons which were added to some MkII's and all MkV's I believe.

ALl 109's up to the G2 kick but in all years, being the top dog from 1939 to 1942. It only starts hitting limits at the G6 series.

Airmail109
09-26-2007, 02:14 PM
Ive been flying IL2 since 2001

LOL all you whiners are noobs

OMG p47s are porked

OMG P51s are porked

OMG 190s are porked

OMG p38s are porked

OMG 109s are porked

109s are great if flown right in Il2, the late models are not ridiculously easy to bag. The guys flying them just are. Use its strengths such as an insane climb performance, huge guns and nice handling without wing cannons

Idiots

Find a plane that maximises your strengths...for some reason I do really well in P51s, 109s, and Corsairs. Far better than anything else including Las and Spitfires

I hate 190s and cant fly them, but I know guys who can. Find what suits and live with it.

Xiolablu3
09-26-2007, 02:27 PM
SO is it certain (to you more knowledgeable guys), that the Bf109E should have a bit better roll rate than the Spitfire mk1 and Mk2 (with fabric ailerons) at high speeds?

JG14_Josf
09-26-2007, 03:47 PM
The elevator was good throughout the whole speed range, some would even say too senstive, especially on the Mk1 and Mk2 with fabric ailerons.

X3,

Where do you get your information?

Spitfire II. - P.7280 Comparative Performance Trials. (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-II.html)


The aeroplane behaves in a similar fashion to the Mark I Rotol Spitfire in a dive i.e. the controls become heavier with speed, especially near the limiting speed. Considerable forward pressure on the control column is necessary to keep the aeroplane in the dive; the elevator is sensitive throughout the speed range. The rudder and ailerons become very heavy at speeds about 400 m.p.h. A.S.I., the latter being almost immovable then. However the ailerons were, if anything, a little lighter at high speeds than has been found on other Spitfires.

Any airplane in level flight can require stick force to maintain level flight. If the airplane happens to be trimmed (designed to be in trim) at a cruise speed (efficient airspeed = not burning a lot of fuel going too fast, pushing too much air, and not going too slow taking a long time to cover distance = for example: 400 km/h), then, the pilot can fly the plane using the rudder and leave the stick alone (minor changes perhaps).

The same plane at a slower or faster speed will tend to dive or climb because the wings produce more or less ˜lift' (air thrusting opposite the lift vector) at more or less relative velocity (aircraft to air mass relative velocity).

The slower the plane goes and the less lift will be produced for the same ˜trim' position which is a combination of design variables including (but not limited to) main wing incidence angle, tail surface incidence angle, center of gravity, center of lift, center of mass, main wing surface area, tail surface area, etc.

The tendency is nose heavy (dive) at slower speeds (slower than the designed ˜trim') and tail heavy at higher speeds.

The faster the plane goes the greater the lift force and the greater is the force rotating the plane around the center of mass (nose up when flying level and therefore rotating the plane around the center of gravity = nose up).

Any plane can change trim and therefore most planes have, at least, elevator trim.

Some planes, like the Spitfire, uses trim tabs to trim the elevator while other planes, like the 109 and 190 use jack screws or mechanisms to move the tail plane incidence angle (changing the angle of attack of the horizontal stabilizer).

In any case the change of trim causes a change in trim drag.

Trim drag is an increase in Power Required or an increase in the force of total drag which slows the plane down.

A plane that suffers from large increases in trim drag can be compared to a plane that does not suffer from larger increases in trim drag.

Finding out why a plane suffers from large increases in trim drag is a good start toward finding out the facts before arriving at conclusions; does this sound reasonable?


The elevator was good throughout the whole speed range, some would even say too senstive, especially on the Mk1 and Mk2 with fabric ailerons.


The aeroplane behaves in a similar fashion to the Mark I Rotol Spitfire in a dive i.e. the controls become heavier with speed, especially near the limiting speed. Considerable forward pressure on the control column is necessary to keep the aeroplane in the dive; the elevator is sensitive throughout the speed range.

How much forward pressure on the control column is necessary to keep the aeroplane in the dive especially near the limiting speed?

That is one bit of information addressing the question.

The answer is:

Considerable

If the question isn't asked or acknowledged will the question and the answer disappear?

HayateAce
09-26-2007, 04:04 PM
I will let you girls in on a couple of wittle secrets:

109G2 is modeled several hundred pounds too light, FACT

109 series is UNIVERSALLY known to deteriorate in performance from F series on, FACT

Like the Uboats, the 109 had its glory days for a few years, but it ended. Learn to accept that an you will be much more stress free.

faustnik
09-26-2007, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
109 series is UNIVERSALLY known to deteriorate in performance from F series on, FACT.

??????????

Bf109 performance increased with the G and K series. Check your FACTs. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

carguy_
09-26-2007, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
They are so simple to shoot down it's ridiculous, you DO play against humans right? Maybe they are of some use on the EasternFront but with any kind of half competent opposition on the West you will not only get wasted and laught at, but people like me will yell at you for waisting planes flying that POS we call late 109's, take a 190 if you want to fight, heck take a ju87 and bomb but don't fly that cr@p.

Typical limitations of a typical DF servers player.You don`t experience the difficulties the Spitfire comes across in online wars,it seems you`re only able to view it through it`s 1v1 performance.Where I fly, Spits don`t have only the same easy job to shoot some 109 Jerries and go home without a scratch.Both Normandy and Italy maps played in online wars were the most popular.Despite lots of Mark9 flying around, reds did not manage to win the map, they couldn`t even stop the majority of strategic bombings from being accomplished.
A well organised Luftwaffe held the frontline for 55 days of campaign with success.Because in online wars you have to use your plane sometimes for different types of missions, you have to change the tactics, use the plane in multiple roles.In some roles, the 109 is better than the Spit just like the Mustang.Each had its ups and downs in those maps.Tactical and strategic bombraids got knackered, even escorting was relatively safe.Spitfires were the biggest threat when operating in mix with P51 C and D.Well, maybe also when driven by AI - unbeatable aceholes unable to miss,overheat or blackout.


As for the opponents - they are brave men who stood up against us in Ratas, Chaikas and Migs as a fearsome enemy.I don`t think that there is a better opponent to choose from.




Everything overall is fine with 109's (if not even more than fine) as far as I'm concerned however elevator stifness has not only been exaggerated, but really brought to utter, ridiculous nightmare.

Nothing that can`t be fixed manually.Trimming for particular situation takes up to 7 seconds.I suggest you stop crying and learn.

Brain32
09-26-2007, 05:57 PM
Typical limitations of a typical DF servers player.You don`t experience the difficulties the Spitfire comes across in online wars,it seems you`re only able to view it through it`s 1v1 performance.
Typical elitist conclusions;
First Spitfires are the least of my problems as I'm faster in a late ME109, problem is more apparent with vannila G6 as it's slower, turns worse, climbs worse, is for some reason weaker and it's armament is lighter.

Another tipical elitist conclusion is that all we do on DF servers is have bunch of 1vs1's, I rarely dogfight really, 90% of my kills come down to coming in very fast,(very often unnoticed) and blasting the enemy of the sky with extreme angles of deflection actually being preffered as I shoot better at high deflection than dead astern.

I don't fly like that just to be good but because I like high speed, fast closure rates and fast decision making, twisting and yanking at 200kmh I'm not interested in and even find boring.

However when in 109 they really have to have no clue that you even might be here because microscopic movement of control column is enough to evade a diving me109. I fly A LOT on the Red side and I know what I'm talking about, late 109's are easy money, I've been told many times, this guy is great and that guy is great, not only did I nail them every time but I also did better with that pile of poop then they did, where are those famous Me109 aces of il2 community??? I flew throughout the servers on hyperlobby and several Russian servers that I joined by IP, once the 109G2 is gone, so are the Me109 pilots.
Just look at some numbers for let's say 109K4, at SL your top speed is 580kmh, you are 180kmh in the stiffness county flying like that, at alt your top speed will be 725kmh, you are 325kmh in the stiffness country flying like that, give me a fecking break, if at that speed I come on to your six, no let's say you are at 500kmh, what will you do? I will even blast you with 6 tons heavy P47D because by the time you slow down enough to achieve an angle good enough to evade my attack you will either be already cut in half or loose so much speed that you will be easy pickings for me, I shot hundreds and hundreds of 109's that way, those that survived applied pretty much same tehnique FW190A would apply with a Spitfire on it's six, how very historical LMAO


Nothing that can`t be fixed manually.Trimming for particular situation takes up to 7 seconds.I suggest you stop crying and learn.
Oh I trimm, true by keyboard not by slider or some kind of macro, but if you think that's the same as having some kind of believable control with the stick you are delusional.

JG6_Oddball
09-26-2007, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by VMF-214_Pappy:
Yeah the F-4 is one of my favorite LUFT rides too, i like early war stuff without pumpkin chuncking 30mm, thus u have to earn your kill.

lol you reminded me what chuck yaeger said about the p-39 and the 37mm "the shell was so large that after firing it you could see it fall off after a few seconds...it was like lobing grapefruits"

S!

Von_Rat
09-27-2007, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Typical limitations of a typical DF servers player.You don`t experience the difficulties the Spitfire comes across in online wars,it seems you`re only able to view it through it`s 1v1 performance.
Typical elitist conclusions;
First Spitfires are the least of my problems as I'm faster in a late ME109, problem is more apparent with vannila G6 as it's slower, turns worse, climbs worse, is for some reason weaker and it's armament is lighter.

Another tipical elitist conclusion is that all we do on DF servers is have bunch of 1vs1's, I rarely dogfight really, 90% of my kills come down to coming in very fast,(very often unnoticed) and blasting the enemy of the sky with extreme angles of deflection actually being preffered as I shoot better at high deflection than dead astern.

I don't fly like that just to be good but because I like high speed, fast closure rates and fast decision making, twisting and yanking at 200kmh I'm not interested in and even find boring.

However when in 109 they really have to have no clue that you even might be here because microscopic movement of control column is enough to evade a diving me109. I fly A LOT on the Red side and I know what I'm talking about, late 109's are easy money, I've been told many times, this guy is great and that guy is great, not only did I nail them every time but I also did better with that pile of poop then they did, where are those famous Me109 aces of il2 community??? I flew throughout the servers on hyperlobby and several Russian servers that I joined by IP, once the 109G2 is gone, so are the Me109 pilots.
Just look at some numbers for let's say 109K4, at SL your top speed is 580kmh, you are 180kmh in the stiffness county flying like that, at alt your top speed will be 725kmh, you are 325kmh in the stiffness country flying like that, give me a fecking break, if at that speed I come on to your six, no let's say you are at 500kmh, what will you do? I will even blast you with 6 tons heavy P47D because by the time you slow down enough to achieve an angle good enough to evade my attack you will either be already cut in half or loose so much speed that you will be easy pickings for me, I shot hundreds and hundreds of 109's that way, those that survived applied pretty much same tehnique FW190A would apply with a Spitfire on it's six, how very historical LMAO


Nothing that can`t be fixed manually.Trimming for particular situation takes up to 7 seconds.I suggest you stop crying and learn.
Oh I trimm, true by keyboard not by slider or some kind of macro, but if you think that's the same as having some kind of believable control with the stick you are delusional. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

just because you fly on a df server doesnt mean you fly like an idiot.



i find it laughable that the late 109s elevator is so stiff that aiming at top level speed is hard.

who the hell would design a plane like that.


in rl 09s used bnz, good luck trying that with this games late model 09s.

Xiolablu3
09-27-2007, 03:04 PM
COuld anyone pls answer my question about the Spitfire mk1, MkII?

Preferably one of the unbiased knowledgable crew...(I wont name any but I think you know who you are - F,R,B,I etc))

Would you guys think that the Spitfire mk1 and Mk2 with fabric ailerons would have even worse high speed aileron effectiveness than the Bf109E?

Xiolablu3
09-27-2007, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
G2 is the only 109 that is really competitive

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif F4's kick butt in '42, on both fronts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the 109E4's in 1940.

In fact ALL the Bf109's kick butt up until 1943. They only start to go downhill in 1943 when many Luftwafffe pilots thought they should have been phased out. Adolf Galland is about as high profile as you can get, and he states in his book how the Bf109 should have been phased out in 1943 and how it was overdeveloped and new additions were having a negative effect on its flight characterstics.

You shouldnt be surprised to find the later Bf109's are not as effective. Gallands comments on the later 109's are akin to Johnnie Jonson, Douglas Bader or one of the top SPitfire Squadron leaders saying that the Spitfire should be phased out, or CHuck Yaeger saying the Mustang should be phased out.

Sure it was still a design which could compete, but as it gained weight and got faster and faster, this negatively affected its well known major flaw - high speed manouverability.

The early designs were fantastic, from the first Bf109 to F/early G's, however it peaked just too early in the war years IMO.

By 1943-45 the numbers being produced were far more important than retooling for another major type. 10,000 Bf109G6's NOW was far more important than 2000 Bf209's in 6 months time. It was a critical period for the Luftwaffe and quantity was far more important than quality.

And even the later Bf109's wer not totally quantity over quality, they could still compete with the best, even with their flaws. Plus many pilots had been flying them for 4 years in combat, and knew how to get the very best out of the plane.

faustnik
09-27-2007, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

Would you guys think that the Spitfire mk1 and Mk2 with fabric ailerons would have even worse high speed aileron effectiveness than the Bf109E?

Xio,

Kurfurst posted a chart on page one with stick forces. That's a good direct comparison.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/spitI_109E_ailerons-1.jpg

It looks like the Bf109 required lower stick forces to roll at high speed, but, the cramped pit of the 109 meant less force could be applied, maybe.

???

Kurfurst__
09-27-2007, 03:37 PM
Hmmm, in German trials with Bf 109F they actually reached bout 23kg (50 lbs) stick force and calculated with as much as 30 kg (66 lbs), so they definietely thought it was possible. Also the arguement that the 109 cocpit was cramped is odd, given the Spitfire and 109 cocpit width was virtually identical.

I think you misunderstand the graph. This appears some sort of standard measurement of the RAF, in which they measured how long time and how much stick force it takes achieve a given roll rate or aileron deflection. I pretty sure that moe than 1/3 or 1/4 deflection could be achieved on either the Spit or the 109 at such low speeds as 150 mph and such.. yet it shows only such deflection. I presume they were less interested in arbitary figures such as maximum steady rate of roll (which would develop only after a time, perhaps very sluggishly, ie. max roll rate is great, but roll acceleration is poot).

The same deflection and roll could be acieved on the 109 with less stickforce, as per this graph - all things equal. It's also more 'brisk' on the ailerons, ie. it can bank the same 45 degrees quicker at low/medium speed, though at high speed both aircraft took plenty of time to do that.

Xiolablu3
09-27-2007, 03:39 PM
Thanks for interpreting them for me, I am not so great at that sort of thing and I am interested in the answers.

I would definitely expect the Bf109E to have the better aileron controls at high speeds than the fabric aileroned Spitfires, but I just wanted it confired by you guys really.

Thanks for your answers.

I cant help htinking that the controls at high speeds on the SPitfire Mk1's are going to be extremely strange and awkward.

A very sensitive elevator, but stiff and unresponsive ailerons, along with an engine which cuts out in negative 'G'. Its going to be one wierd bird to fly, and even tho the real plane was still supposed to be 'noob freindly', it will take much more skill to fly well than the current MkV's and MkIX's which we have in IL2 right now.

Grendel-B
09-27-2007, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
I will let you girls in on a couple of wittle secrets:

109G2 is modeled several hundred pounds too light, FACT

109 series is UNIVERSALLY known to deteriorate in performance from F series on, FACT


Hehe. And HayateAce is universally known as our little troll who climbs out of her pit every time 109 is mentioned http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Wish we had candy we could throw her as reward for all the amusing moments she offers us.

Xiolablu3
09-27-2007, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
. Also the arguement that the 109 cocpit was cramped is odd, given the Spitfire and 109 cocpit width was virtually identical.

.

Are you sure about that?

There was a program where a Bf109 pilot tried out a SPitfire cockpit, and a Spitfire Veteran tried the Bf109 cockpit.

The SPitfire pilot could barely squeeze into the Bf109 cockpit and he staed how cramped it was.

The Bf109 pilot easily got into the Spit cockpit, and stated how nice and roomy it was.

Not trolling here, this really was a program with 2 real cockpits. I will post it if I can find a clip.

I had always gathered that the Spitfire had a more roomy cockpit than the Bf109..

'Gordon Levett [Israeli pilot in the late 1940's] compares the three combat aircraft flown by the 101

'The Mustang had the best visibility, important for a fighter aircraft, the Messerschmitt the worst. The Spitfire cockpit fitted like a glove, the Messerschmitt like a strait-jacket, the Mustang like a too comfortable armchair.'


He is talking about the Avia S199, but I am quite sure it had an idential cockpit to a Bf109.

faustnik
09-27-2007, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Hmmm, in German trials with Bf 109F they actually reached bout 23kg (50 lbs) stick force and calculated with as much as 30 kg (66 lbs), so they definietely thought it was possible. Also the arguement that the 109 cocpit was cramped is odd, given the Spitfire and 109 cocpit width was virtually identical.

That's a lot of force in that direction. You would probably use mostly shoulder muscles to push/pull the stick sideways??? Pulling back on the stick, it would seem like you could apply great force???

That's interesting about pit dimensions being similar. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Have you seen actual figures for that.

Abbuzze
09-27-2007, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Hmmm, in German trials with Bf 109F they actually reached bout 23kg (50 lbs) stick force and calculated with as much as 30 kg (66 lbs), so they definietely thought it was possible. Also the arguement that the 109 cocpit was cramped is odd, given the Spitfire and 109 cocpit width was virtually identical.

That's a lot of force in that direction. You would probably use mostly shoulder muscles to push/pull the stick sideways??? Pulling back on the stick, it would seem like you could apply great force???

That's interesting about pit dimensions being similar. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Have you seen actual figures for that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe it is the way you used the stick. I think both cockpits where quite small compared to a P47 for example.

I allready posted this some time ago:

Flying the Spitfire was like driving a sports car. It was faster than the old Hurricane , much more delicate. You couldn't roll it very fast, but you could make it go up and down much easier. A perfect lady. It wouldn't do anything wrong. The Hurricane would drop a wing if you stalled it coming in, but a Spitfire would come wafting down. You couldn't snap it into a spin. Beautiful to fly, although very stiff on the ailerons - you had to jam your elbow against the side to get the leverage to move them. And so fast!!! If you shut the throttle in a Hurricane you'd come to a grinding halt; in a Spitfire you just go whistling on.
[1] P/O H.G.Niven 601 & 602 Squadrons, having flown both Hurricane and Spitfire.

I think this will give us an imagination about the space in the cockpit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

luftluuver
09-27-2007, 04:27 PM
I believe it was Hans Ekkehard-Bob who said he was surprised at the amount of room in a Spit cockpit compared to the 109 he flew.

Kurfurst__
09-27-2007, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
That's a lot of force in that direction. You would probably use mostly shoulder muscles to push/pull the stick sideways??? Pulling back on the stick, it would seem like you could apply great force???

There's some neat diagram about that floating around. The figures for max one hand force was around 50 lbs back/forth, and 20-25 lbs sideways (with one hand). It also depends on the angle of your arms - with a lower, shorter stick you can exert a few lbs more.


That's interesting about pit dimensions being similar. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Have you seen actual figures for that.

I have some very accurate wartime drawings made by curious Germans and Russians on enemy planes (Spit/109E).
Simply overlay them and the result is easy to see. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

For example, the Bf 109E canopy's greatest width at the bottom of the canopy is 640 mm, the Spitfire IX's Malcolm hood is 590 mm (it's the same as the earlier canopy's, since the Malcom only bulges to the sides at certain point). The fuselage below widens out a bit on both planes, but there's not much of a differnce there either.

GBrutus
09-27-2007, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Hmmm, in German trials with Bf 109F they actually reached bout 23kg (50 lbs) stick force and calculated with as much as 30 kg (66 lbs), so they definietely thought it was possible. Also the arguement that the 109 cocpit was cramped is odd, given the Spitfire and 109 cocpit width was virtually identical.

That's a lot of force in that direction. You would probably use mostly shoulder muscles to push/pull the stick sideways??? Pulling back on the stick, it would seem like you could apply great force???

That's interesting about pit dimensions being similar. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Have you seen actual figures for that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe it is the way you used the stick. I think both cockpits where quite small compared to a P47 for example.

I allready posted this some time ago:

Flying the Spitfire was like driving a sports car. It was faster than the old Hurricane , much more delicate. You couldn't roll it very fast, but you could make it go up and down much easier. A perfect lady. It wouldn't do anything wrong. The Hurricane would drop a wing if you stalled it coming in, but a Spitfire would come wafting down. You couldn't snap it into a spin. Beautiful to fly, although very stiff on the ailerons - you had to jam your elbow against the side to get the leverage to move them. And so fast!!! If you shut the throttle in a Hurricane you'd come to a grinding halt; in a Spitfire you just go whistling on.
[1] P/O H.G.Niven 601 & 602 Squadrons, having flown both Hurricane and Spitfire.

I think this will give us an imagination about the space in the cockpit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Niven is refering to leverage rather than lack of space. I would imagine it would be easier to reach full deflection with the Spitfire's yoke as opposed to the '109's stick. The Spit never had great ailerons anyway, regardless of how confined the cockpit is.

luftluuver
09-27-2007, 04:39 PM
I will let ppl make their own conclusions.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/spit-109cp3c2.gif
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/spit109comp4.jpg
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/spit109comp2.jpg

faustnik
09-27-2007, 05:19 PM
Nice diagrams Luft. Looks like the Spit had more headroom, but, the width was similar.

Interesting discussion, thanks for all the informative posts guys. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

HuninMunin
09-27-2007, 05:31 PM
Is it me or is the seat of the 109 layed back at a higher angle then the one of the Spit?
Not important to aileron controll but if so - what would be the effect towards g-tolerance (even if marginal)?

Anyway - thanks for posting these Luft, much appreciated.

Blutarski2004
09-27-2007, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Nice diagrams Luft. Looks like the Spit had more headroom, but, the width was similar.

Interesting discussion, thanks for all the informative posts guys. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


..... It appears to me that the Spit's cockpit had respectably more width at upper torso level (shoulder to elbow) - in a ratio of about 5:4.

stalkervision
09-27-2007, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Is it me or is the seat of the 109 layed back at a higher angle then the one of the Spit?
Not important to aileron controll but if so - what would be the effect towards g-tolerance (even if marginal)?

Anyway - thanks for posting these Luft, much appreciated.

I believe you are right. The brits found the 109 seating position allowed for higher g tolerences and added exrensions to the spits rudder pedals to simulate the 109 seating btw..

M_Gunz
09-27-2007, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109f_afdu_2.jpg

420 mph IAS, how much TAS is that?

Without giving the altitude? Gee it must be snowing somewhere, I can see that here.

420mph IAS is over 670kph and you have Mark Hanna saying 2 hands at 550+kph.


Not the first revisionist raising his ugly head in this board, mind you...

Ahhh, humor!



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BerkshireHunt:

Yes, and while we're about it what about the 109's heavy elevator on dive recovery?... It's well documented, I believe.

Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox :

Yes it well documented in trials. True aircpeed is 980 km/h - no problem to recover. Force on the stick less than 40 kg (without use of trim)
From the trals in Rechlin. I have all the data for this..

And it is the very similar force on a stick like for the best easy flying planes of WWII....

Any other questions? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/QUOTE]

What speed was that 109 trimmed to before the dive? How hard did the pilot have to push to
get it to dive that fast and of course the hard part would be not letting up too fast.

OTOH if trimmed for 600kph level and left there would you expect a turn that gets much slower
to be easy one handed on the stick?


The basic problem is of course that in Il-2, pilots are limited to one-hand pull forces on the stick. This puts 'two hander' planes into disadvantage, something they didn't have in real life.

True though under multiple G's there is a time limit, those two arms are driven by one heart
and pair of lungs. Fortunately for IL2 it is possible to use the trim with no strength or
time limits and NEVER does the trim stiffen up, never does the turn-time-delay change.

Hey, nice tactics. First go after the Spitfires then get in some "damage control".

What TAS do you get for 420mph IAS? LOL! Hey, at sea level...........

M_Gunz
09-27-2007, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
Was there a German Eric Brown?

What I mean is, was there an equivalent German pilot who got to fly most anything he could get his hands on and recorded his impressions?

Gunther Rall and he gave such impressions recently.

To me the important parts were what he identified as bad and good, not just what he said about
what flight simmers asked. It tells me that many simmers miss what counts rather than getting
details wrong.

Hartmann managed short hard turns at high speed but refused to stay around after first shots
when he set up and executed attacks.

I like how Spitfire reports are the answer to 109 control stiffening, also how stiffening is
untrue since the controls did not lock solid. That must prove the IL2 109's are porked while
the IL2 Spits have too easy handling, La-La-La-Rebop!

Kurfurst__
09-28-2007, 04:28 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Nice diagrams Luft. Looks like the Spit had more headroom, but, the width was similar.

Interesting discussion, thanks for all the informative posts guys. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

The problem with such drawings from several books is that they are varying in accuaracy, and not done to the same scale by engineers.

Take a look at the first picture for example, it is totally out of scale. The Messerschmitt 109 drawing is simply a lot smaller in scale than the other.

Check the canopy size vs. actual scale drawings (you can check the scale from the actual dimensions noted on originals)

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109e_Spit_cpit_malcolm.png

Note the Spit canopy top view has the Malcom 'cut in two' in the middleway between it's top and bottom, at the point shown on the cross section : it's greatest width. On the cross section you can see two blue outlines for the Malcom, the big bubble is where it bulges out maximum, the inner line is how it would look otherwise (and it's BTW the maximum size of the early Spit canopies such as fitted onto the Mk I and early Mk V, before the Malcom came in).

Note also that the pilot does not sit in the rear back of the 109 canopy, but about 2/3s back. The armor headplate is about the same place at where the Spit hood's rear.

And the cross section view. Again, you can check the scale against the noted dimensions.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109e_Spit_cpit_xsection.png

Brain32
09-28-2007, 04:58 AM
They only start to go downhill in 1943 when many Luftwafffe pilots thought they should have been phased out. Adolf Galland is about as high profile as you can get, and he states in his book how the Bf109 should have been phased out in 1943 and how it was overdeveloped and new additions were having a negative effect on its flight characterstics.

Aaand the 109 mega-hating propaganda continues, let's get some things strait. First of all where are those MANY pilots that thought 109 should be phased out?
All I see constantly with ultra 109-hating people is talking about Galland, that's fine he really said it but let's look a bit deeper into it; in 1943 they were looking at 109G6 which really wasn't stunning however nobody mentions G10,G14,K4 strange how we always get to poorest version when we talk about 109 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Did you also know that Galland test flew ME262 in 1943, well doooh ofcourse he wanted it, but it wasn't very realistic was it?
Imagine Johnnie Jonson, Douglas Bader, and Chuck Yeager test flying P80/Vampire/Meteor in 1943, you think they wouldn't say, "trash the Spitfire/P51/P47 and start with massive production of Meteors,Vampires and P80's"? It takes a very biased mind to think otherwise...


Sure it was still a design which could compete, but as it gained weight and got faster and faster, this negatively affected its well known major flaw - high speed manouverability.
This is just crazy, find me one pilot that said high speed manouverbility was a major problem in combat, frak find me one that says it was a problem at all, sure it was not as comfortable as in planes with light stick forces but come to frak on what are you guys talking about. You see people mention cramped cockpit, some liked the slats some didn't, take off and landing problems, poor rear visibility on pre-Galland hood types, BUT NOWHERE did any 109 pilot mention control stiffening as a major problem, NOWHERE. Don't you think that with all the flaws mentioned about 109 this which you describe as major flaw would be one of the first stated by 109 pilots, yet it's NOWHERE to be found by those guys that actually used that thing in combat http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Without giving the altitude? Gee it must be snowing somewhere, I can see that here.
420mph IAS is over 670kph and you have Mark Hanna saying 2 hands at 550+kph.
Your point is? In the paragraph above it does not state if it was a two handed pull or one handed pull anyway. This whole "two hands" thing is highly subjective, I can pull 30-40Kg+ with one hand easily, but if for some reason I don't have to, I'll use two hands because it's more comfortable. Heck I bet HavoK can pull my weight and the stick force weight with one hand too, but unless excersising in the gym I see no reson why should one make things harder for himself, heck I would probably use two hands for 10Kg stick force too, I'm flying a plane here not lifting weights...
Two conclusions, not all people are physically same aaand people are generally not idiots and try to make things easier for themselves.

JG53Frankyboy
09-28-2007, 05:07 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Is it me or is the seat of the 109 layed back at a higher angle then the one of the Spit?
Not important to aileron controll but if so - what would be the effect towards g-tolerance (even if marginal)?

Anyway - thanks for posting these Luft, much appreciated.

I believe you are right. The brits found the 109 seating position allowed for higher g tolerences and added exrensions to the spits rudder pedals to simulate the 109 seating btw.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

more important was that the rudderpedals were in a higher position compared to the seatheight in the 109.
and yes, the Spitfires got additional higher footsteps on the pedals.

Whirlin_merlin
09-28-2007, 05:29 AM
Nice diagrams Kurfurst, however ergonomics (sp?) is also about layout.
I have come accross references to the 109 pit being more restrictice than the spit one, from people who have flown both, I've never seen the opposite. Of course this I would be open minded on this and would be interested if you have anything saying the opposite.

Does anyone have any nice critical and tactical mach number charts to hand that they can post please.

carguy_
09-28-2007, 05:38 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
You see people mention cramped cockpit, some liked the slats some didn't, take off and landing problems, poor rear visibility on pre-Galland hood types, BUT NOWHERE did any 109 pilot mention control stiffening as a major problem, NOWHERE.

I have a video where Galland talks about slats making the plane stall prematurely.AFAIK slats where for reducing stall speed.Does the ace actually know what he`s talking about?

"Wings of the Luftwaffe" video about 109.

Blutarski2004
09-28-2007, 06:01 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> They only start to go downhill in 1943 when many Luftwafffe pilots thought they should have been phased out. Adolf Galland is about as high profile as you can get, and he states in his book how the Bf109 should have been phased out in 1943 and how it was overdeveloped and new additions were having a negative effect on its flight characterstics.

Aaand the 109 mega-hating propaganda continues, let's get some things strait. First of all where are those MANY pilots that thought 109 should be phased out?
All I see constantly with ultra 109-hating people is talking about Galland, that's fine he really said it but let's look a bit deeper into it; in 1943 they were looking at 109G6 which really wasn't stunning however nobody mentions G10,G14,K4 strange how we always get to poorest version when we talk about 109 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Did you also know that Galland test flew ME262 in 1943, well doooh ofcourse he wanted it, but it wasn't very realistic was it?
Imagine Johnnie Jonson, Douglas Bader, and Chuck Yeager test flying P80/Vampire/Meteor in 1943, you think they wouldn't say, "trash the Spitfire/P51/P47 and start with massive production of Meteors,Vampires and P80's"? It takes a very biased mind to think otherwise... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Galland made those remarks post-war. You make it sound as if his words were from 1943 and therefore spoken without benefit of exposure to the later G & K models.

Also, you are making a very large assumption when you suggest that Galland's comments were motivated by his knowledge of the Me-262. Galland may just as easily have been comparing the Me-109 to any of a number of later German prop fighter projects.




... find me one pilot that said high speed manouverbility was a major problem in combat, frak find me one that says it was a problem at all, sure it was not as comfortable as in planes with light stick forces but come to frak on what are you guys talking about. You see people mention cramped cockpit, some liked the slats some didn't, take off and landing problems, poor rear visibility on pre-Galland hood types, BUT NOWHERE did any 109 pilot mention control stiffening as a major problem, NOWHERE. Don't you think that with all the flaws mentioned about 109 this which you describe as major flaw would be one of the first stated by 109 pilots, yet it's NOWHERE to be found by those guys that actually used that thing in combat http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

..... In order to comment about high-speed handling, or any other performance characteristic for that matter, a pilot would have to have a basis of comparison. How many LW combat pilots would have had extensive time in a number of different fighter types?

What does it mean when Macki Steinhoff mentions the controls of his 109 becoming "ominously heavy" in a high-speed dive (circa 1943)?

It's ludicrous to suggest that the 109 was a deathtrap at high-speed. I don't think that any rational person here is claiming such a thing. But there still remains a spectrum of controllability within which the 109 must be fit. And test-pilot reports describing the stick as being "set in concrete" above such-and-such a speed, or notes that a 109 trimmed into a dive had to be trimmed out of the dive, or observations that a very heavy rudder effort had to be maintained in a dive to prevent dangerous yawing cannot be ignored. Every aircraft design has its good and bad features, and that includes the 109.

Blutarski2004
09-28-2007, 06:03 AM
Originally posted by carguy_:
Does the ace actually know what he`s talking about?


..... ????????????????????

Friendly_flyer
09-28-2007, 06:58 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109e_Spit_cpit_malcolm.png


While I haven't sat in any of the two planes, it seems to me that the dimensions of the cockpit below the hood is rather similar. The only place the two cockpits differ markedly is the shape of the hood. When I see old films of pilots closing the Bf 109 hood, the glass is very close to the face, I'd say uncomfortably so. The Spitfire cockpit is just as cramped, but the blown hood gives just that little extra room to move the head about without fear of banging the nose on the glass.

Abbuzze
09-28-2007, 07:08 AM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:


While I haven't sat in any of the two planes, it seems to me that the dimensions of the cockpit below the hood is rather similar. The only place the two cockpits differ markedly is the shape of the hood. When I see old films of pilots closing the Bf 109 hood, the glass is very close to the face, I'd say uncomfortably so. The Spitfire cockpit is just as cramped, but the blown hood gives just that little extra room to move the head about without fear of banging the nose on the glass.

I think you are right - Mark Hanna described that he didn´t wear glases in the Buchon because he feard to scratch the windows while looking around http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Xiolablu3
09-28-2007, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> They only start to go downhill in 1943 when many Luftwafffe pilots thought they should have been phased out. Adolf Galland is about as high profile as you can get, and he states in his book how the Bf109 should have been phased out in 1943 and how it was overdeveloped and new additions were having a negative effect on its flight characterstics.

Aaand the 109 mega-hating propaganda continues, let's get some things strait. First of all where are those MANY pilots that thought 109 should be phased out?
All I see constantly with ultra 109-hating people is talking about Galland, that's fine he really said it but let's look a bit deeper into it; in 1943 they were looking at 109G6 which really wasn't stunning however nobody mentions G10,G14,K4 strange how we always get to poorest version when we talk about 109 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Did you also know that Galland test flew ME262 in 1943, well doooh ofcourse he wanted it, but it wasn't very realistic was it?
Imagine Johnnie Jonson, Douglas Bader, and Chuck Yeager test flying P80/Vampire/Meteor in 1943, you think they wouldn't say, "trash the Spitfire/P51/P47 and start with massive production of Meteors,Vampires and P80's"? It takes a very biased mind to think otherwise...


Sure it was still a design which could compete, but as it gained weight and got faster and faster, this negatively affected its well known major flaw - high speed manouverability.
This is just crazy, find me one pilot that said high speed manouverbility was a major problem in combat, frak find me one that says it was a problem at all, sure it was not as comfortable as in planes with light stick forces but come to frak on what are you guys talking about. You see people mention cramped cockpit, some liked the slats some didn't, take off and landing problems, poor rear visibility on pre-Galland hood types, BUT NOWHERE did any 109 pilot mention control stiffening as a major problem, NOWHERE. Don't you think that with all the flaws mentioned about 109 this which you describe as major flaw would be one of the first stated by 109 pilots, yet it's NOWHERE to be found by those guys that actually used that thing in combat http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Without giving the altitude? Gee it must be snowing somewhere, I can see that here.
420mph IAS is over 670kph and you have Mark Hanna saying 2 hands at 550+kph.
Your point is? In the paragraph above it does not state if it was a two handed pull or one handed pull anyway. This whole "two hands" thing is highly subjective, I can pull 30-40Kg+ with one hand easily, but if for some reason I don't have to, I'll use two hands because it's more comfortable. Heck I bet HavoK can pull my weight and the stick force weight with one hand too, but unless excersising in the gym I see no reson why should one make things harder for himself, heck I would probably use two hands for 10Kg stick force too, I'm flying a plane here not lifting weights...
Two conclusions, not all people are physically same aaand people are generally not idiots and try to make things easier for themselves. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


'Propaganda 109 hating' from me?? Its from Adolfs bloody book you ***** and he mentions absolutely nothing about replacing it with the Me262, which I am sure he would if it were possible. Lets see he flew the Me262 prototype in 1943 and you think that he thought they could replace the thousands of Me109's with Me262's in 1943?

He thought that the Me109 should have been phased OUT in 1943. He wasnt expecting fleets of Me262's to arrive in 1943, he isnt a ***** after all. He would realise that the Me262 would not reach squadrons until mid 1944. And thats even in a pretty rushed state, without the proper materials for the eninges and with the engines catching fire.

I only see one person trying to disprove what the Commander of the Luftwaffe said about the Bf109.

Its not propaganda and 109 hating to say that the high speed control problem, landing problems, small armament problems (unless carrying gondalas, were starting to affect the Bf109 in 1943. Just as it affected the Spitfire a bit later.

What he says about the Bf109 in his book is primarily about the failings of the aircraft in 1943, nothing to do with replacing it with the Me262. He would know that it would be replaced with the FW190 if anything.

Ahh well, I really shouldnt have bothered, we all know that you are the HayateAce of the Blue side, dont we? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Xiolablu3
09-28-2007, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
This is just crazy, find me one pilot that said high speed manouverbility was a major problem in combat, frak find me one that says it was a problem at all

BF109 pilot would know no better, it was normal to them. I am sure there must a be a few quotes out there somewhere about poor high speed control being a hindrance in the Bf109, from pilots who had also flown the FW190, its just bloody obvious. If I find any I will post them.

SPitifre pilots certainly knew the hindrance of fabric airlerons and worse control at high speeds on SPitfire mkII's. From Johnnie Johnsons Biography, in early 1941 as Baders wingman....


'Bader was working his way into the middle of the 109's. Then suddenly we were in the middle of a fight. Watching the spurts of white smoke from Baders guns. Darting a glance ahead to see a couple of 109's, surprisingly near, half rolling away. Calling a break as other enemy formations streaked out of the sun. Bunching up in the cockpit to better take the G's as we turned to meet the attack. Always watching our leader. Fighting down the natural instict to fasten onto the tail of a 109 and follow him down. Kicking our top rudder to hold the outside position on top of a turn. FAlling too far behind Bader and almost laughing out loud whne in the midst of all the turning and cavorting and sweating, Flying Officier Dundas admonished Wing Commander Bader:

'I say dogsbody[Baders callsign], we havent all got metal ailerons'

'OK, Cocky, dont panic. Reform.'

Bewolf
09-28-2007, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
This is just crazy, find me one pilot that said high speed manouverbility was a major problem in combat, frak find me one that says it was a problem at all

BF109 pilot would know no better, it was normal to them. I am sure there must a be a few quotes out there somewhere about poor high speed control being a hindrance in the Bf109, from pilots who had also flown the FW190, its just bloody obvious. If I find any I will post them.

SPitifre pilots certainly knew the hindrance of fabric airlerons and worse control at high speeds on SPitfire mkII's. From Johnnie Johnsons Biography, in early 1941 as Baders wingman....


'Bader was working his way into the middle of the 109's. Then suddenly we were in the middle of a fight. Watching the spurts of white smoke from Baders guns. Darting a glance ahead to see a couple of 109's, surprisingly near, half rolling away. Calling a break as other enemy formations streaked out of the sun. Bunching up in the cockpit to better take the G's as we turned to meet the attack. Always watching our leader. Fighting down the natural instict to fasten onto the tail of a 109 and follow him down. Kicking our top rudder to hold the outside position on top of a turn. FAlling too far behind Bader and almost laughing out loud whne in the midst of all the turning and cavorting and sweating, Flying Officier Dundas admonished Wing Commander Bader:

'I say dogsbody[Baders callsign], we havent all got metal ailerons'

'OK, Cocky, dont panic. Reform.' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, the german fighter pillots were not that stupid. If Boom and Zoom tactics would have been such a limiting expririence as it is in this sim, they would have spoken out and not just taken it as it is, the way you imply. That's just too far fetched and more a theory to underline sacred prejudices then anything else.

You are one of those guys who is so deeply imbedded into all that folklore that you indeed believe you are unbiased.

BOA_Allmenroder
09-28-2007, 08:48 AM
In reading threads of this type it's very clear that the vast majority of the so called armchair experts on this board have little to no practical flying experience and really don't know what the hell they are talking about.

Example: Great at making charts, no clue what the chart means in real life. As an example I offer all this talk about aileron deflection. Not only are mechanical limits important, ie stick force and control travel limits, but physical limits are just as important. And I'm not talking about Gs.

I'm talking about what many of you, with no practical experience overlook: the physical travel limit placed upon your control input because THE FRIGGIN COCKPIT IS SMALL AND YOUR FRIGGIN LEG GETS IN THE WAY AND YOU CAN"T MOVE HE STICK ANY FURTHER BECAUSE IT HITS YOUR FRIGGIN LEG AND NO AICRRAFT DESIGNER HAS YET TO PRODUCE A CONTORL THAT MOVES THROUGH YOUR FRIGGIN BODY!!!

AND 50lbs OF STICK FORCE = 150lbs AT THREE GS!!

As I said, an awful lot of book knowledge, little if any practical experience. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Blutarski2004
09-28-2007, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
If Boom and Zoom tactics would have been such a limiting expririence as it is in this sim, they would have spoken out and not just taken it as it is, the way you imply. That's just too far fetched and more a theory to underline sacred prejudices then anything else.

You are one of those guys who is so deeply imbedded into all that folklore that you indeed believe you are unbiased.


..... Of course, another possibility is that B&Z attacks were not carried out at 400mph+ dive speeds - i.e., were not made in dive-trimmed condition at very high high speeds.

Bewolf
09-28-2007, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
If Boom and Zoom tactics would have been such a limiting expririence as it is in this sim, they would have spoken out and not just taken it as it is, the way you imply. That's just too far fetched and more a theory to underline sacred prejudices then anything else.

You are one of those guys who is so deeply imbedded into all that folklore that you indeed believe you are unbiased.


..... Of course, another possibility is that B&Z attacks were not carried out at 400mph+ dive speeds - i.e., were not made in dive-trimmed condition at very high high speeds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Possible. But given that this speed is reached rather quickly, and AFAIk faster in real life then in this Sim, I doubt it.

Brain32
09-28-2007, 09:09 AM
Oh it seems I upset British HayateAce http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

'Propaganda 109 hating' from me?? Its from Adolfs bloody book you ***** and he mentions absolutely nothing about replacing it with the Me262, which I am sure he would if it were possible.
I suggest you read the book again, but don't just look for paragraphs that would look great in your favourite 109 mega hateing hobby - if put out of context like it often is. SAme as the famous or better said infamous "squadron of Spitfires" quote http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


Ahh well, I really shouldnt have bothered, we all know that you are the HayateAce of the Blue side, dont we?
There is a very thin line between you and HayateAce, planes from your country are ubered UFO's while planes from his are on par with German cr@p and that is what he is more upset, but not more than you when it comes to the Me109 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif. My country however produced no planes, and pilots from my country flew 109's, Yak's, Spitfires, nearly anything that flew in ww2 think about that a bit if you are able to http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


BF109 pilot would know no better, it was normal to them.
Sure they wouldn't mention things like say; "...above 400kmh plane was concrete and we couldn't even follow B25 in any kind of manouver...", why would they mention such a thing? I'm sure things like "uncomfortable throtthle lever" are far more important http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

luftluuver
09-28-2007, 09:20 AM
"The 109 was not bad at diving, but the Thunderbolt was much better at diving. In climbing, if you compared it with the Mustang and with the Spitfire, it depended on what height you started to climb. In the altitude between 5000 and 10000 meters , I think the 109 was much better at climbing than all the other types. The version of the 109 that I flew in 1944 and 1945 as a commander of a high-cover fighter group of our FW 190s was a very good one at 8000 to 10000 meters, as it has <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">a special engine for high altitude, but it was very bad at low levels. Of course, it had a special tank for injections in the fuselage and so at a lower altitude your turning radius was not so good as that of a normal 109 and not even as good as that of an FW 190.</span> So we normally didn't attack Mustangs or Thunderbolts at low altitudes because it was bad for our type of aircraft."
Luftwaffe General Walter Krupinski

"It was very advanced and equipped with new, more sophisticated technology. Nicknamed Gustav, the 109G was well armed, but not as light as the early E and F versions. Its more powerful engine meant higher power settings whose initial climb rate sent it soaring to 18700 feet in six minutes, but <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">at low speed the plane was difficult to handle</span>."
Major Gunther Rall - April 1943

Brain32
09-28-2007, 09:30 AM
And your point with theese quotes here is what exactly?

JG14_Josf
09-28-2007, 10:09 AM
As I said, an awful lot of book knowledge, little if any practical experience.

Ahhh...that is why pilot "anecdotes" bring the practical experience to light (or flame war):

Spitfire II. - P.7280 Comparative Performance Trials. (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-II.html)


The aeroplane behaves in a similar fashion to the Mark I Rotol Spitfire in a dive i.e. the controls become heavier with speed, especially near the limiting speed. Considerable forward pressure on the control column is necessary to keep the aeroplane in the dive; the elevator is sensitive throughout the speed range. The rudder and ailerons become very heavy at speeds about 400 m.p.h. A.S.I., the latter being almost immovable then. However the ailerons were, if anything, a little lighter at high speeds than has been found on other Spitfires.

Note how the ˜anecdote' is recorded on a document from WWII by the British Military and the ˜anecdote' is titled "Comparative Performance Trials" so as to help the reader understand the nature of the ˜anecdote'.

If the person reading the ˜anecdote' has some experience in flying real aircraft then the person may appreciate the words better as communications having meaning such as:

"Considerable forward pressure on the control column is necessary to keep the aeroplane in a dive; the elevator is sensitive throughout the speed range."

A player of a game flying a game version of a Spitfire may not associate the words with anything at all since the words have no meaning at all to the reader/player whatever.

The words do have meaning. The meaning includes the factor of considerable forward pressure being necessary on the control column to keep the Spitfire in a dive.

The meaning includes the factor of the elevator being sensitive throughout the speed range. Add those two factors up and a person may, or may not, imagine a pilot having to apply considerable pressure forward on a sensitive elevator control column in the effort to keep the airplane from pulling out of a dive and ripping the wings off or blacking out the pilot because the forces at high speed are considerable because the relative difference between airplane mass and air mass force, inertia, velocity whatever is considerable where the forces can cause well over 12 times the rate of gravitational acceleration instantaneously.

The word "instantaneously" is another term that can cause flame wars or something similar to agreeable understanding concerning physical facts.

The Spitfire and 109 were very similar designs where light weight was combined with light (relatively speaking) construction and maximum thrust for the size and design of the engine at the time the aircraft designers designed the two (very similar) designs.

The differences in design included a difference in designing out (or in) the ability of the pilot to destroy the airplane with high acceleration at high speed. Stick force requirements are a design ˜feature'.

Plane design includes trim requirements at various speeds. Some planes managed to design out trim change requirements (and trim drag) due to variations in speed.

Again:

"Considerable forward pressure on the control column is necessary to keep the aeroplane in a dive; the elevator is sensitive throughout the speed range."

In a dive the pilot had to exert considerable forward pressure on the control column to keep the aeroplane in a dive and the elevator is sensitive throughout the speed range. If a player is inclined to think that this is a ˜feature' unique to the Spitfire, then, they may be right, or, it may be obvious that this is a ˜feature' that could be improved upon, or, the reader may just want to go on about some flame fest as usual.

To contrast the ˜features' associated with elevator control the following may lighten up the current ˜discussion':


The Fw 190 has a high rate of dive, the intitial acceleration being excellent. The maximum speed so far obtained in a dive is 580 m.p.h. [934 k.m./h.] True at 16,000 ft [4,880m], and at this speed the controls, although slightly heavier, are still remarkably light. One very good feature is that no alteration of the trim (http://www.pbase.com/chrisdnt/190_tests) form [sic] level flight is required either during the entry or during the pull-out.

The notion that Adolf Galland didn't know what he was talking about when his opinions were recorded concerning the 109/190 economic production is as narrow minded as a player suggesting that military combat test results are ˜anecdotes'.

Finding out how a plane performs relative to another plane in any case whatsoever requires a pilot flying both planes or a very accurate computer simulation; even so – one proves something and the other proves how good or how badly a computer computes.


"109's controls locked up in high speed."
- Another very mythical subject. Before answering one must be asked: "What model are you talking about?"
- There was large differences between various types in the high speed controls. Each newer version handled better in high speeds, the best being the 109 K series which had flettner tabs for enhanced aileron control - at least in theory, as it is debated whether many Me 109 K-4s actually had those flettners enabled. 109 G series were much better on this regard compared to 109 E, which yet again wasn't such a dog as many claim. 109 test pilots, Russians included, have said that the 109 had pretty good roll at higher speeds - again not as good as the 190s, P-51 or P-47 - but it maintained a good lateral control ability. Recovering from extremerely fast 750-900 km/h vertical dives was the problem - not level flight or even normal combat flying.
- Spitfire and a 109 had equal roll rates at up to 400 mph speeds. Not even the favourite warhorse of the Americans, P-51, exactly shined with its roll rate at high speeds. P-51 pilots have actually said that flying P-51 at high speeds was like driving a truck.
- An often quoted British report made of a Me 109 E talks about the "short stick travel", "due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick" and "at 400 mph with 40 pounds side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4 seconds to get into a 45 degree roll or bank. That immediately classifies the airplane as being unmaneuverable and unacceptable as a fighter."
- The report claims that The 109-E needed 37lb stick force for a 1/5 aileron deflection at 400mph. Coincidentally, the Spitfire 1 required 57 lb stick force from the pilot for similar deflection at similar speed. This is a 54% higher stickforce for the Spitfire pilot.
- The British test is taken as gospel by many, while it is just one test, made by the enemy, using a worn out and battle damaged airframe. German flight tests report pilots using aileron forces of over 45 lbs and 109's stick was designed for elevator stick forces of up to or over 85kg, over 180 lbs. Finnish Bf 109 G-2 test revealed that at 450 km/h the stick could be still fully taken to the limit with ~10 kg force (20 pounds). Aileron roll without rudder could be performed to both direction from 400-450 km/h in 4-5 s. This is better than the Spitfire with fabric ailerons, about the same as Spitfire with metal ailerons and slightly below clipped wing Spitfire. So it was more matter of the pilot and the test procedures, than maneuverability of the Bf 109. Several details of that test are suspicious and German chief test pilot Heinrich Beauvais disagreed with it and with Eric Brown. Beauvais tried to get into contact after the war with Eric Brown to discuss the matters, but Brown refused to discuss with him. This being the case, it seems that Brown wasn't willing to listen a pilot who'd flown more on the 109 than he ever had, and was more interested on believing his negative findings of the 109 than being proven wrong by a real expert (http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/#bigpicture).



Every aircraft has a structural limit and that limit is measured as a speed for a specific weight or load out. That speed limit is called Va. Above that speed the aircraft is going fast enough to generate forces that are capable of permanent deformation of the aircraft structure. That speed limit is not the maximum possible speed. The ˜maneuvering' speed limit (Va) can be exceeded without any damage to the plane so long as the pilot does not allow the plane to be exposed to the possible accelerating forces that are not possible below the Va speed limit.

Some sources claim how WWII aircraft were capable of 12 times the accelerating force of gravity before structure damage occurs which is considerably higher than modern private and commercial aircraft SO... the military aircraft of WWII could go faster before reaching Va (the structural speed limit for a specific aircraft load out weight).

Any aircraft flying over Va can self-destruct and this is a physical fact measured as accurately as possible and published for any plane having undergone this measurement AS: Va (maneuvering speed limit).

An example of this type of structural strength measuring (to find out how vast a plane can go before going beyond a speed where lifting forces can destroy the plane) can be found in some of the primary source WWII military documentation.

Example:

Limits (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/8511049574?r=3651094084#3651094084)

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1153402735_elevatorlimits.jpg

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1153401667_bobweightopinion.jpg

Why?


http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1153401717_mkvdiveaccident.jpg

Why are these things reported, ignored, reported again, ignored again as if ignorance makes a person knowledgeable?

Every plane has a speed limit where any faster speed increases the potential force above a threshold where the force of lift can destroy the plane and that speed is not top speed. That means that a speed range between Va and Vmax is a dangerous, self-destructive, envelope of flight where the aircraft design must account for the possibility of self-destruction and one method is to increase the stick forces at higher speeds – on purpose.

Thanks to Crumpp for the info

Blutarski2004
09-28-2007, 10:45 AM
Nice post, Josf. You make good sense here.

Blutarski2004
09-28-2007, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
And your point with theese quotes here is what exactly?


...... Let me think about that. Performance data from the end-user community?

JG14_Josf
09-28-2007, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Nice post, Josf. You make good sense here.

Thanks,

To continue on this line of thinking (and possible discussion) please consider the case of the Spitfire at high speed where the pilot is pushing the stick forward with considerable effort.

If the pilot does this for awhile, then, the arms may get tired (who actually knows what ˜considerable' means in this single example?) and no longer able to maintain the dive speed (or the ground interrupts the flight) AND this causes (if you have flown an airplane then you know how this works) a need to adjust the control of the plane differently (different than flying the plane in trim).

Please consider that last fact some. During flight it is possible to trim the plane for any climb, dive, or level flight attitude (even a level turn) and let go of the stick. If the plane veers off the desired flight path the pilot can then regain control by using the rudder pedals. If the plane veers way off (due to a rapid change in relative air mass = gust, thermal, low/high pressure change, lee side wake turbulence from ground terrain, etc.), then, the pilot moves the flight stick column thing. If the stick is rapidly trying to wack your PP and you have to push the damn thing forward just to stay straight, then, much of the ˜feel' of flying is compromised (or so my limited experience suggests) and that is just one way to look at this situation concerning stick forces.

The pilot can trim out the stick forces. In the same documentation (but I'm not looking for it now) the early Spitfires were bending trim tabs which limited the ability to trim out the stick forces at high speeds (in dives), so...., the pilot had a stick wacking his PP even with the trim tabs if he wanted to dive fast.

What happens if the pilot let go of the stick at speeds well above Va and at speeds close to Vmax?

If you try to answer the question and you come up with a need to understand a specific plane (not a computer game) and a specific flight condition (such as a specific plane with a specific trim setting), then, the answer can be quite different under different circumstances.

The Spitfire (not trimmed out) where the pilot is pushing a considerable amount of force just to keep the plane diving (at high speed) will certainly start turning if the pilot simply lets go of the stick.

What happens if the Spitfire pilot trims out the stick forces before letting go of the stick?

Here is where specific knowledge concerning specific aircraft is demonstrably more accurate than any person's guess that is based upon unspecified but (perhaps) relevant information.

A. The trim tab bends and the pilot must continue to push the stick forward or the plane will not dive at high speed and the plane will pull out of the dive if the pilot does not push the stick forward even if the pilot tries to trim the plane with the trim tab.
B. The trim tab does not bend and the need to push the stick forward is no longer needed.

It is certain, for all planes, that speeds above Va are conditions of flight where the potential for structural damage exists. So a sensitive elevator control at high speeds can be problematic and this does not mean that an elevator control being stuck in cement (concrete) is ˜better'.

The point I'm trying to discuss concerns something specific about FORCE and what happens to all that force once the trim tab takes away that force once the pilot no longer has to exert that force.

It may be a good idea to know something about trim drag at this time. Trim drag is the increase of drag FORCE associated with control FORCE.

Example:

The elevator is a control surface used to generate control Force.

What happens to an airplane if the elevator (and the horizontal stabilizer) falls off at slow speed and the same question for high speed?

I may be wrong here but I think that a speed exists where a plane relies the least amount on the force generated by the elevator; in other words the falling off of the elevator isn't such a big deal at this speed compared to missing the elevator at a higher or lower speed (in level flight).

At this minimum required elevator control force speed the elevator is producing the least amount of trim drag. The elevator isn't needed at this speed (or is needed the least at this speed) in the effort to maintain level flight (for the specific CG, center of gravity, and load out for the plane at this speed). At this minimum required elevator control surface speed the main wings are producing just enough force to maintain level flight (at a specific engine thrust setting).

Any change from this minimum required elevator control force speed there will be a need to increase elevator control force and this FACT requires an increase in Total Drag.

The pilot can move the stick to increase the elevator control force.

The pilot can move the trim tab (or the horizontal stabilizer incidence angle for 109 and 190 aircraft) to generate the elevator control force required to keep the aircraft flying straight and level.

The pilot can move the stick or the pilot can move the trim tab and in either case, and at any speed, the force required to maintain the trajectory is produced; in either case.

In both cases there will be an increase in total drag force.

Back to the pilot in the early Spitfire pushing the stick and then trimming out the plane.

Now the plane is diving at high speed and the pilot does not have to push the stick forward.

What happens to the stick force required to pull the stick back after trimming out the plane's tendency to pitch up in a high speed dive?

Please think about this before responding and consider the same type of question asked of the 109 where the plane is diving at high speed and the pilot has NOT trimmed the plane for High speed.

P.S. I don't have the TRUE answer. I'm asking. I won't be satisfied with the TRUE answer until such time as I have these planes around me in flight where I get to answer my questions in an accurate manner for my own accurate knowledge. So...please don't repeat the often false claims where my perspective is twisted into something unrecognizable from reality – on purpose. In other words; correct any errors in the data and leave me (personally) out of it. Please.

or

If the data makes sense to you, then, I am very happy for you. I am only relaying the data as I find myself currently capable.

No joke.

BOA_Allmenroder
09-28-2007, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:

Every aircraft has a structural limit and that limit is measured as a speed for a specific weight or load out. That speed limit is called Va. Above that speed the aircraft is going fast enough to generate forces that are capable of permanent deformation of the aircraft structure. That speed limit is not the maximum possible speed. The ˜maneuvering' speed limit (Va) can be exceeded without any damage to the plane so long as the pilot does not allow the plane to be exposed to the possible accelerating forces that are not possible below the Va speed limit.



The above is an example of the lack of practical experience I mentioned.

What Va is, in reality, is the speed above which you eant to avoid ABRUPT CONTROL INPUTS.

So, what this means is, above Va there is the possibility that, for example, a full scale deflection of the controls could result in structural damage: everything from wrinkling the skin to catastrophic failure.

However, smooth, controlled inputs at or above Va WILL NOT/WILL LIMIT such results.

Again, a whole lot of book knowledge, very little practical knowledge.

carguy_
09-28-2007, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
"The 109 was not bad at diving, but the Thunderbolt was much better at diving. In climbing, if you compared it with the Mustang and with the Spitfire, it depended on what height you started to climb. In the altitude between 5000 and 10000 meters , I think the 109 was much better at climbing than all the other types. The version of the 109 that I flew in 1944 and 1945 as a commander of a high-cover fighter group of our FW 190s was a very good one at 8000 to 10000 meters, as it has <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">a special engine for high altitude, but it was very bad at low levels. Of course, it had a special tank for injections in the fuselage and so at a lower altitude your turning radius was not so good as that of a normal 109 and not even as good as that of an FW 190.</span> So we normally didn't attack Mustangs or Thunderbolts at low altitudes because it was bad for our type of aircraft."
Luftwaffe General Walter Krupinski

That might be an explanation to everything.The G6/AS should be that but is not.




"It was very advanced and equipped with new, more sophisticated technology. Nicknamed Gustav, the 109G was well armed, but not as light as the early E and F versions. Its more powerful engine meant higher power settings whose initial climb rate sent it soaring to 18700 feet in six minutes, but <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">at low speed the plane was difficult to handle</span>."
Major Gunther Rall - April 1943

A very interesting quote.I wonder what changes might have induced such a revolutional change from the F.


One more ergument that all German birds that we have ingame are those from the eastern front.

JG14_Josf
09-28-2007, 03:07 PM
The above is an example of the lack of practical experience I mentioned.

OK look,

Why do you quote me and then suggest that my words exemplify lack of practical experience and then repeat what I said in different words?

Who are you blaming for this:


However, smooth, controlled inputs at or above Va WILL NOT/WILL LIMIT such results.

Where did anyone suggest whatever that quote above intends to suggest?

Why add my name to this list?

What DID I write?


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:

Every aircraft has a structural limit and that limit is measured as a speed for a specific weight or load out. That speed limit is called Va. Above that speed the aircraft is going fast enough to generate forces that are capable of permanent deformation of the aircraft structure. That speed limit is not the maximum possible speed. The ˜maneuvering' speed limit (Va) can be exceeded without any damage to the plane so long as the pilot does not allow the plane to be exposed to the possible accelerating forces that are not possible below the Va speed limit.

What exactly is incorrect (at all) about those words and why do those words SOMEHOW become this:


The above is an example of the lack of practical experience I mentioned.

What, on earth, are you intending to do with your post?


However, smooth, controlled inputs at or above Va WILL NOT/WILL LIMIT such results.

Does that intend to suggest that someone (who happens to be me) ˜thinks' that a plane flying 1 mile per hour above Va will suddenly fly apart at the slightest touch of the controls?

If the poster has a suggestion by which the discussion can be made more accurate and less false, then, specific information is requested rather than vague innuendo – please.

Any airplane flying closer to Vmax will be more capable of producing the forces that can cause damage simply because the relative difference in velocity between the aircraft and the air mass is at the maximum difference i.e. V max.

The ability of the pilot to cause (or avoid) sudden (or instantaneous) accelerations at or near V max (because sudden or instantaneous accelerations are possible at or near V max and not possible at or near the 1 g stall speed) is a control force design as much as it is a physical possibility.

In other words:


It was found that if this gradient was too heavy, the pilot of fighter-type airplanes would tire rapidly in combat, whereas if the gradient was too light, the airplane would be too sensitive and subject to structural failure due to inadvertent excessive acceleration of the airplane.

Which; is a greater danger closer to V max, a lesser danger closer to the 1 g stall speed, and measured as a danger at speeds above Va.

Why has the poster picked me out to be the example of his point without actually pointing out an example of mine that exemplifies his point?


What Va is, in reality, is the speed above which you eant to avoid ABRUPT CONTROL INPUTS.

What does ˜eant' mean – exactly?

What does Va mean – exactly?

What was incorrect about my words intending to describe Va – exactly?


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:

Every aircraft has a structural limit and that limit is measured as a speed for a specific weight or load out. That speed limit is called Va. Above that speed the aircraft is going fast enough to generate forces that are capable of permanent deformation of the aircraft structure. That speed limit is not the maximum possible speed. The ˜maneuvering' speed limit (Va) can be exceeded without any damage to the plane so long as the pilot does not allow the plane to be exposed to the possible accelerating forces that are not possible below the Va speed limit.

What?


So, what this means is, above Va there is the possibility that, for example, a full scale deflection of the controls could result in structural damage: everything from wrinkling the skin to catastrophic failure.

At Va the IDEA that "catostophic" [sic] failure can occur is mis-information.

Do you understand this fact?

Va has (for the most part) a built in safety factor where the published speed is well below the actual force required to cause permanent damage for the specific weight of the aircraft as it was tested.

The idea is to test some aircraft and account for obvious tolerances on the SAFE SIDE.

What did the poster write again?


So, what this means is, above Va there is the possibility that, for example, a full scale deflection of the controls could result in structural damage: everything from wrinkling the skin to catastrophic failure.

If Va is 400 km/h and the pilot pilots the plane at 401 km/h, then, he or she is piloting the plane over the published maneuvering speed. The aircraft will not necessarily survive "full scale deflection of the controls" at that speed because a pilot may be able to depart from the flight envelope. The plane cannot self destruct in mid air while flying at that speed (it cannot because the forces are not high enough while flying at that speed). The possible acceleration at 401 km/h (without the safety factor), at 401 km/h, is 1 km/h more relative velocity between aircraft mass and air mass over Va which is hardly a measure of possible FORCE that can destroy the plane. The plane will stall before accelerating at a rate of acceleration where structural failure is possible so long as the aircraft remains flying (within the flight envelope). Departing from the flight envelope due to a stall (it can't generate enough acceleration to cause structural failure at 1 km/h above Va) can introduce a whole lot of possible accelerations, forces, loads, and failures once the pilot departs from the flight envelope.

Flying at 401 (one km/h above a 400 km/h Va) removes the possibility of structural failure and the possibility of permanent deformation of the aircraft at 1 km/h above Va is unlikely in the extreme (if not impossible).

Departing from flight may be possible.

Once the plane isn't flying, then, many things are possible.

Va is a measured (including a safety factor) speed limit where more speed is more energy, more force, and more potential for damage. Less than Va is a measure of energy and potential that does not include the possibility of permanent deformation (not enough energy, force, or possible acceleration WHILE FLYING).

See this clearly please. If the aircraft structure is measured as being capable of sustaining NO MORE than 4 times gravitational acceleration (a force), then, Va will be the speed at which the aircraft can begin to generate the lift required to accelerated the aircraft mass at 4 times gravitation acceleration. Below that speed the aircraft wings cannot generate enough force to accelerate the aircraft mass at 4 times gravitational acceleration; the plane stalls. It is therefore impossible to generate 5 times gravitational acceleration.

See this?

If ˜permanent deformation' is measured as possible (with a safety factor) at 4 g and ˜structural failure' is measured at 6 g, then, there is NO WAY the airplane is going to come apart at Va or slightly above Va because there isn't enough energy (speed) to generate the required force.

There are many different ways to view this thing called Va and a vague understanding of it can be harmful because the situation changes as aircraft weight changes.

Many pilots with years of ˜practical experience' think that they have to go slower when the weight of the aircraft is lowered because a lower weight decreases the stall speed and therefore increases the rate of acceleration at lower speeds.

Thinking that the above sentence is true isn't the same thing as knowing the above sentence is true.

Thinking a 109 should fly in an ambiguous way (such as elevator lock up at ˜high speed') isn't the same thing as knowing what actually happens when flying a 109 (you can't fly two at the same time) at high speed.

Thinking something does not make something true even if you repeat the thought over and over and over again.


The above is an example of the lack of practical experience I mentioned.


Or not

BOA_Allmenroder
09-28-2007, 03:33 PM
The careful reader will note I said above Va not at Va.

And I said 'possibility' not must or always or will, and I gave a range of what could happen.

But you're correct; no one with practical experience can challenge the armchair theorists whose actual flight time is limited to the measured time they spend, in the air, as they leap through their self created hoop.

JG14_Josf
09-28-2007, 03:38 PM
But you're correct; no one with practical experience can challenge the armchair theorists whose actual flight time is limited to the measured time they spend, in the air, as they leap through their self created hoop.

What is the purpose of your post?

Did you show how my post was in error - at all?

Why do you involve me in your crusade?

Please stop.

Edit:

As far as I know; published Va limits are meant to apply to possitive loads and NOT negative loads where wing and aircraft structure is stressed opposite the lift vector (negative g), so, a plane flying at Va could possible fold up under negative loads at that speed.

Again - Va is a measure of something specific and not ambiguous. People can be ambiguous.

Kurfurst__
09-28-2007, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
And your point with theese quotes here is what exactly?

...... Let me think about that. Performance data from the end-user community? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well if we go by Krupinski, someone should signal Oleg ASAP to give the 109F methanol-water boost, since at least Krupinski remembers that all 109Fs he flew having them. I like the idea of a 109F with 500 plus horsepower.

Seriously, I am not sure what 109 model Krupinski is talking about. GM-1 109s or AS-type 109s..? As for the latter, they had high altitude prop blades, which indeed yielded less thrust up to about 4 km than the old ones, but the difference was not that dramatic, 6-7 km/h in top speed and about 1 m/sec in rate of climb. I think 'Graf' is exaggrevating the things both ways, perhaps only a language thing. In all interviews I've seen with graf Krupinski he used the words 'much' 'a lot' and 'very' rather heavily.

As for the Gunther Rall quote, there seems to be nothing wrong with it, apart it's not from Gunther Rall. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Otherwise, you're mistaken. It's not performance data, it's flamebait. You must have missed the username. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

JG53Frankyboy
09-28-2007, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:
.............................
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
"It was very advanced and equipped with new, more sophisticated technology. Nicknamed Gustav, the 109G was well armed, but not as light as the early E and F versions. Its more powerful engine meant higher power settings whose initial climb rate sent it soaring to 18700 feet in six minutes, but <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">at low speed the plane was difficult to handle</span>."
Major Gunther Rall - April 1943

A very interesting quote.I wonder what changes might have induced such a revolutional change from the F.


.................... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

as far i can remember :
1. the more power of the DB605. espacially its torque, made it more difficult to control at lower speeds, espacially in the airfield pattern (Platzrunde <- ? i have no english word, sorry).
2. the additional weight............

planes are not ONLY for combat - the pilots have also to fly them........... and in that the 109G was not so userfreindly as the 109F.

we here in game are mostly only looking to the combat.......... not on the plane itself.

therefore i mostly call this game a combat simulator, not a flightsimulator http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

same issue with the mentioned Spitfire stuff i think - "normal" plane flight quality versus combat ability

Blutarski2004
09-28-2007, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Well if we go by Krupinski, someone should signal Oleg ASAP to give the 109F methanol-water boost, since at least Krupinski remembers that all 109Fs he flew having them. I like the idea of a 109F with 500 plus horsepower.

..... I'd have no problem with that, if was legitimately retro-fitted to F series. Same situation as water injection kits being fitted to the early model P47s.



Seriously, I am not sure what 109 model Krupinski is talking about. GM-1 109s or AS-type 109s..? As for the latter, they had high altitude prop blades, which indeed yielded less thrust up to about 4 km than the old ones, but the difference was not that dramatic, 6-7 km/h in top speed and about 1 m/sec in rate of climb. I think 'Graf' is exaggrevating the things both ways, perhaps only a language thing. In all interviews I've seen with graf Krupinski he used the words 'much' 'a lot' and 'very' rather heavily.

..... Whatever the problem was, it was apparently enough to lead him to change tactics and refuse combat at lower altitudes. I was interested by his comment about loss of turn performance down low, which I'm guessing must have been due to either an increase in weight or a reduction in available power. Worth investigating, IMO.



As for the Gunther Rall quote, there seems to be nothing wrong with it, apart it's not from Gunther Rall. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

..... I can't comment on this point. That is for Lufty to address.



Otherwise, you're mistaken. It's not performance data, it's flamebait. You must have missed the username. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

..... Lufty's motives for posting are unknown to me. I choose to view it simply as part of an interesting exchange of views and history related to the ME109 series. It certainly is on a higher level than some of the wild and crazy stuff that has been posted to Ubizoo.

luftluuver
09-28-2007, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst: Otherwise, you're mistaken. It's not performance data, it's flamebait. You must have missed the username. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

..... Lufty's motives for posting are unknown to me. I choose to view it simply as part of an interesting exchange of views and history related to the ME109 series. It certainly is on a higher level than some of the wild and crazy stuff that has been posted to Ubizoo. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Blut, you should know by now that any comment that even come close to saying anything that remotely looks like a negative about the 109 is considered a 'flame bait' by our illustrious Kapt K. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

As for Kapt K's reading comprehension, I have no idea how he comes up with that Krupinski was flying a model F in 1944 and 1945. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Maybe he mis-read the F in Fw190? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


Originally posted by Kurfurst: Well if we go by Krupinski, someone should signal Oleg ASAP to give the 109F methanol-water boost, since at least Krupinski remembers that all 109Fs he flew having them.


I choose to view it simply as part of an interesting exchange of views and history related to the ME109 series. Bingo!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

M_Gunz
09-28-2007, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by BOA_Allmenroder:
AND 50lbs OF STICK FORCE = 150lbs AT THREE GS!!

No it doesn't. Arm would be heavier, much harder to move esp with accuracy.
It might even help a *small* amount, by the sine of the angle off center the stick is which is.
But the stick -force- would be the same.


As I said, an awful lot of book knowledge, little if any practical experience. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

You said it.

Blutarski2004
09-28-2007, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst: Otherwise, you're mistaken. It's not performance data, it's flamebait. You must have missed the username. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

..... Lufty's motives for posting are unknown to me. I choose to view it simply as part of an interesting exchange of views and history related to the ME109 series. It certainly is on a higher level than some of the wild and crazy stuff that has been posted to Ubizoo. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Blut, you should know by now that any comment that even come close to saying anything that remotely looks like a negative about the 109 is considered a 'flame bait' by our illustrious Kapt K. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

As for Kapt K's reading comprehension, I have no idea how he comes up with that Krupinski was flying a model F in 1944 and 1945. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Maybe he mis-read the F in Fw190? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


Originally posted by Kurfurst: Well if we go by Krupinski, someone should signal Oleg ASAP to give the 109F methanol-water boost, since at least Krupinski remembers that all 109Fs he flew having them.


I choose to view it simply as part of an interesting exchange of views and history related to the ME109 series. Bingo!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... I'm not sure K was suggesting that Krupinski was referring to flying the F series 109 in 1944/1945. I believe he was saying that if we accept Krupinski's recollections about the deteriorated low altitude performance of his hi-alt optimized G10/G14s as valid, then we must also accept his comment that all the F series 109s which he had flown previously had been fitted with MW50 - and that it should be represented in-game as such. I can't comment on that particular point, as I've never come across any data either way.

Basically, I'm just trying to participate here without raising thread temperature to flash point.

M_Gunz
09-28-2007, 07:35 PM
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/spit109comp4.jpg
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/spit109comp2.jpg


The problem with such drawings from several books is that they are varying in accuaracy, and not done to the same scale by engineers.

The first picture did not address width of cockpit in any way. However the next two do.
The scales are given, shown one right below the other for comparison and where's the difference?
Are we to forget the second two on the basis of the first or blow them off as inaccurate -- in
fact any source from anywhere that might say anything not positive about Bf109 is inaccurate?

Yes including Krupinski that idiot didn't know what he was talking about if you just read enough
books it is clear? It's not like special high alt engines might be wasting power to the super
charger at far less than critical height, oh no the difference is the prop, right?

Geez Louise, versatility is nothing to be ashamed of! You'd think someone called someone else's
kids stupid, ugly and weak.

luftluuver
09-28-2007, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... I'm not sure K was suggesting that Krupinski was referring to flying the F series 109 in 1944/1945. I believe he was saying that if we accept Krupinski's recollections about the deteriorated low altitude performance of his hi-alt optimized G10/G14s as valid, then we must also accept his comment that all the F series 109s which he had flown previously had been fitted with MW50 - and that it should be represented in-game as such. I can't comment on that particular point, as I've never come across any data either way.

Basically, I'm just trying to participate here without raising thread temperature to flash point. Ok, it was pre 1944.

Blut, who is 'he/his', Krupinski or Kapt K? I did not see Krupinski mention anything about having MW50 in the F? In fact Krupinski only mentions a 'special tank' which could be either MW50 or GM-1. Why not have the F with GM-1 instead? Very strange conclusion, indeed. In fact if you want to push the fantasy a step further, one could say that all early model 109Gs should have MW50 or GM-1.

Abbuzze
09-29-2007, 04:01 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:

Blut, who is 'he/his', Krupinski or Kapt K? I did not see Krupinski mention anything about having MW50 in the F? In fact Krupinski only mentions a 'special tank' which could be either MW50 or GM-1. Why not have the F with GM-1 instead? Very strange conclusion, indeed. In fact if you want to push the fantasy a step further, one could say that all early model 109Gs should have MW50 or GM-1.

In my opinion this can only be GM1 because he mentioned 8000 to 10000m. At this altitude MW50 would just cool the engine, but not improve performance. GM1 on the other side would made a hotrod of a 109 if used in this altitude.

Kurfurst__
09-29-2007, 04:02 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Well if we go by Krupinski, someone should signal Oleg ASAP to give the 109F methanol-water boost, since at least Krupinski remembers that all 109Fs he flew having them. I like the idea of a 109F with 500 plus horsepower.

..... I'd have no problem with that, if was legitimately retro-fitted to F series. Same situation as water injection kits being fitted to the early model P47s. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Problem is it wasn't. Krupinski's memory simply cheated him, the 109F was long withdrawn from first line service by the time MW-50 test begun, or maybe Krupinski mixes them up with GM-1 carrying 109Fs.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Seriously, I am not sure what 109 model Krupinski is talking about. GM-1 109s or AS-type 109s..? As for the latter, they had high altitude prop blades, which indeed yielded less thrust up to about 4 km than the old ones, but the difference was not that dramatic, 6-7 km/h in top speed and about 1 m/sec in rate of climb. I think 'Graf' is exaggrevating the things both ways, perhaps only a language thing. In all interviews I've seen with graf Krupinski he used the words 'much' 'a lot' and 'very' rather heavily.

..... Whatever the problem was, it was apparently enough to lead him to change tactics and refuse combat at lower altitudes. I was interested by his comment about loss of turn performance down low, which I'm guessing must have been due to either an increase in weight or a reduction in available power. Worth investigating, IMO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The performance, power and weight data for the AS types and other are very well covered and detailed.
Simple physical reality is that Krupinski was exaggreavting or mixing several things up.

Of course, anyone can choose Krupinski's (or luftluuver's, given it's unsourced) story over the physical reality, that gives rather strict rules as to how turn will be effected by known amounts of increase in weight and power.




<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> As for the Gunther Rall quote, there seems to be nothing wrong with it, apart it's not from Gunther Rall. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

..... I can't comment on this point. That is for Lufty to address. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well he didn't. That a form of addressing, isn't it ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

luftluuver
09-29-2007, 06:03 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> As for the Gunther Rall quote, there seems to be nothing wrong with it, apart it's not from Gunther Rall. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

..... I can't comment on this point. That is for Lufty to address. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well he didn't. That a form of addressing, isn't it ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So who did Kapt K?

luftluuver
09-29-2007, 06:06 AM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
In my opinion this can only be GM1 because he mentioned 8000 to 10000m. At this altitude MW50 would just cool the engine, but not improve performance. GM1 on the other side would made a hotrod of a 109 if used in this altitude. Yes Abbuzze, that is what I am tending to think as well.

Blutarski2004
09-29-2007, 06:54 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Simple physical reality is that Krupinski was exaggreavting or mixing several things up.

Of course, anyone can choose Krupinski's (or luftluuver's, given it's unsourced) story over the physical reality, that gives rather strict rules as to how turn will be effected by known amounts of increase in weight and power.


..... I agree that memories are not perfect repositories of history, but they are not totally imperfect. That's why I was careful to say that the topic was worth investigating rather than simply accepting on its face.

Your comment about performance test data is reasonable and implies that Krupinski's memory may be faulty. But it's not definitive. Conditions at the front can sometimes differ dramatically from conditions at the test facility.

Again, intriguing commentary from Krupinski - worth investigating, at least IMO.

JG53Frankyboy
09-29-2007, 06:58 AM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:

Blut, who is 'he/his', Krupinski or Kapt K? I did not see Krupinski mention anything about having MW50 in the F? In fact Krupinski only mentions a 'special tank' which could be either MW50 or GM-1. Why not have the F with GM-1 instead? Very strange conclusion, indeed. In fact if you want to push the fantasy a step further, one could say that all early model 109Gs should have MW50 or GM-1.

In my opinion this can only be GM1 because he mentioned 8000 to 10000m. At this altitude MW50 would just cool the engine, but not improve performance. GM1 on the other side would made a hotrod of a 109 if used in this altitude. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bf109F-4/Z
as example http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biiijg53.html

Brain32
09-29-2007, 08:00 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
And your point with theese quotes here is what exactly?


...... Let me think about that. Performance data from the end-user community? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And it was nice and fine but how exactly was it related to the topic we discuss which is IIRC about high speed manouverbility and stick forces in the ME109 series. Ahh yes when it's about 109 we tend to cherrypick all and any opportunity to find some bad words, but when some people return the favour on another plane(hint:eliptical wings) then we have all sort of names ready for them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

luftluuver
09-29-2007, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
And it was nice and fine but how exactly was it related to the topic we discuss which is IIRC about high speed manouverbility and stick forces in the ME109 series. Ahh yes when it's about 109 we tend to cherrypick all and any opportunity to find some bad words, but when some people return the favour on another plane(hint:eliptical wings) then we have all sort of names ready for them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif So tell me Brain, what does the flying qualities of the Spitfire that your hero Kapt K posted a few pages back have to do with high speed maneuverability of the 109? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Oh yes I forgot, the 109 fanboys don't like any mention that their super duper uber perfect a/c had any negatives. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif One will not see any of these 109 fanboys say anything negative about their super duper uber perfect 109, so to balance this one sided view, others have to post what was negative about this super duper uber perfect 109. If the 109 fanboys were totally honest, yes I know it is very very hard, they would post both the positive, AND negative, of the 109.

As for cherry picking, there was some positive comment in the statements which you so conveniently ignored. Talk about cherry picking. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

La7_brook
09-29-2007, 01:23 PM
Fixes will come with two handed modelling for the stick http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

stalkervision
09-29-2007, 02:51 PM
all I know about high speed turning in the 109 was that Erich Hartman was once chased by eight Mustangs in two groups of four. He couldn't outrun them but he managed to outturn the two groups. He got a tremendous physical workout doing it, pulling those high g turns...

apparently physical conditioning to pull hard enough on the stick for the required time was the real deciding factor in the battle.

Von_Rat
09-29-2007, 03:22 PM
imo most of these issues will clear up when a 2 handed stick and pilot fatiuged are modelled.

Manu-6S
09-29-2007, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
for the required time


BINGO!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

In the way the new 109s are modelled you can't choose if force on the stick or not...

Another little gift to our Red friends...

But however, tonight I made smoke (dark grey smoke) a SpitVc and it continued to chase me for 15 minute until I finished my fuel... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

@luftluuver:
It's not a matter to be a 109-lover or a Spit-lover... somebody here request only a honest FM-DM for the planes...

M_Gunz
09-29-2007, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
imo most of these issues will clear up when a 2 handed stick and pilot fatiuged are modelled.

LOL!

Not for those focussed on how they do online vs how they SHOULD be doing!
For them the complaints will never end, their boot soles will be modeled too thick and throw
their rudder use off or something and the other side will always have it better.

La7_brook
09-29-2007, 05:00 PM
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 Von_Rat:
imo most of these issues will clear up when a 2 handed stick and pilot fatiuged are modelled.

LOL!

Not for those focussed on how they do online vs how they SHOULD be doing!
For them the complaints will never end, their boot soles will be modeled too thick and throw
their rudder use off or something and the other side will always have it better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> So just how should they be doing it ? For the recond do you like the way the late 109 is of now ?

DKoor
09-29-2007, 05:20 PM
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 Von_Rat:
imo most of these issues will clear up when a 2 handed stick and pilot fatiuged are modelled.

LOL!

Not for those focussed on how they do online vs how they SHOULD be doing!
For them the complaints will never end, their boot soles will be modeled too thick and throw
their rudder use off or something and the other side will always have it better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I think those are easily spotted.
They are:
1-"no idea", total noobs
2-"blurred vision" child perspective, because their source is Hitler Channel, they don't bother with it more
3-trolls & various idiots
...........& the best way to filter them out is - ignoramma.

You can tell when someone is being honest in his intentions or not, that's not a rocket science.

JG6_Oddball
09-29-2007, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
all I know about high speed turning in the 109 was that Erich Hartman was once chased by eight Mustangs in two groups of four. He couldn't outrun them but he managed to outturn the two groups. He got a tremendous physical workout doing it, pulling those high g turns...

apparently physical conditioning to pull hard enough on the stick for the required time was the real deciding factor in the battle.

are you sure THEY were chasing him...or was it the other way around http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif plane abilty x pilot skill=...?

S!

stalkervision
09-29-2007, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by JG6_Oddball:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
all I know about high speed turning in the 109 was that Erich Hartman was once chased by eight Mustangs in two groups of four. He couldn't outrun them but he managed to outturn the two groups. He got a tremendous physical workout doing it, pulling those high g turns...

apparently physical conditioning to pull hard enough on the stick for the required time was the real deciding factor in the battle.

are you sure THEY were chasing him...or was it the other way around http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif plane abilty x pilot skill=...?

S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He blew a couple of P-51's out of the sky and damaged a third with a B and Z attack and then the p-51's pounced him and his wingman. He sent his wingman home because he was inexperianced and took on the P-51's all by himself. He was managing to work his way back to his base with exhausting high g turns at high speed when the fuel light in his 109 came on and he had to bail out.

Btw, his 109 was an older type without mentenol fuel injection for emergency high altitude escape that his squadron was forced to use because the unavailability of the newer 109 model at the time.

Erich hartman was never even wounded in combat. This is a rarity and I attribute it to his rather unique attack style. He never comenced an attack without really thinking about it. The fact he was never wounded says a lot for the fellow considering all his kills. This considering he was "jumped" many times while flying his 109.

Hartman and his fellow german fliers were always vastly outnumbered btw..

M_Gunz
09-29-2007, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
You can tell when someone is being honest in his intentions or not, that's not a rocket science.

Honest is easy when it is honesty to beliefs.

What gets me is the ones that go into exaggeration about whatever. "If I touch the stick it
bleeds/wings snap off/stalls/spins" or "It won't turn" or "paper DM" and the like. The other
side has concrete DM, turns without losing speed (true of all planes at some speed each), etc.

If I trim for 360kph at level then dive by keep moving stick forward you know what? I have
NO PROBLEM with letting up on the stick for pulling out or turning.

Hey believe what you want, I don't have such faith to be saying right or wrong about 109's.
What I do see plainly is that for some people they have their own truth and feel entirely
threatened to see anything different whether 109 or P-51 or FW or Yak or whatever and all
the others are supposed to measure usually short by compare. Note how many answers to the
first post is words about Spitfires? What have they to do with it? If your main concern
is how you do online it has everything to do with it, I GUESS.

And for the completeness of records left over by the Nazis -- all accounts I've read said that
in many places US and Brits got to first the records were incomplete, many had been destroyed
while in other places all was abandoned. How to say if it is not on original paper it was not
real when so much was destroyed or lost?

JG6_Oddball
09-30-2007, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:


Hartman and his fellow german fliers were always vastly outnumbered btw..

torwards the end of the war most of the pilots with exp had died or been wounded and unable to fly. A pilot with exp in an old plane can make it a killing machine...a new pilot in an old plane and it becomes the machine that killed him http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

S!