PDA

View Full Version : Bf 109 (happend to everyone right?)



XyZspineZyX
11-05-2003, 06:19 PM
See I like this plane, I like it a lot...
I learnt not to use MW50 and be very sensitive with power and prop pitch. But I don't know... what bugs me is that every time I get shot the motor gets it, or at least it apperas so, and my windshield is full of oil instantly. I've never seen anything close to this in the sim. One you're hit motor gets it and "logically" there's an oil leak and consequently you see sh*t. I wonder why would anybody manufacture something like that... Of course the plane is not ment to be a target, but It must have some durability since to expect that it will not sustain any damage in the battle would be foolish. Apparently "nowdays" Bf109 are one big barrel of oil and wires, since controls cripling is second to none in this plane. I do not want to start some red vs. bule war. I am just aksing you : Is this normal?

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2003, 06:19 PM
See I like this plane, I like it a lot...
I learnt not to use MW50 and be very sensitive with power and prop pitch. But I don't know... what bugs me is that every time I get shot the motor gets it, or at least it apperas so, and my windshield is full of oil instantly. I've never seen anything close to this in the sim. One you're hit motor gets it and "logically" there's an oil leak and consequently you see sh*t. I wonder why would anybody manufacture something like that... Of course the plane is not ment to be a target, but It must have some durability since to expect that it will not sustain any damage in the battle would be foolish. Apparently "nowdays" Bf109 are one big barrel of oil and wires, since controls cripling is second to none in this plane. I do not want to start some red vs. bule war. I am just aksing you : Is this normal?

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2003, 06:42 PM
there where oil lines at the top i know that
just fly a p39 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2003, 06:45 PM
i dont know the specific positions of the oil equipment, but the 109 was one of the planes you better dont get shot in.

---
Regards, DeBaer

-I fear nothing but the ground-

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2003, 06:59 PM
The durability of the plane was quite decent if I remember correctly. I was not as durable as Jug of course. I don't complain about leakadge I take it as a part of a damage model, but to get it 9 time from ten is way too much for me. Let alone that the motor starts to whine almost instantly even if got hit with 7.72mm bullet, I mean ONE bullet. That's not way it was, no way.

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2003, 07:06 PM
Also at least G-model had a device which sprayed fuel into windscreen in order to clean it from oil etc.

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2003, 07:40 PM
Yeah, it's annoying that it happens so often. But that's how it's modeled in the game. I've actually gotten pretty good at landing with all that sludge all over my screen since I've had plenty of practice /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif .

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2003, 08:10 PM
I pilot 109's for a good amount of time and while I do find many of the same things annoying some of it is true.

The 109 was a somewhat obsolete design by the end of 1945 and it had reached the limits and abilities of the airframe. It was notably heavy on the controls, even in earlier versions, and unlike many others, the amount of armor platting added was significantly less.

So it was not an all star performer by the end of the war. I still like flying it...fast and powerful. It has its charms.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2003, 08:37 PM
VW-IceFire wrote:
- I pilot 109's for a good amount of time and while I
- do find many of the same things annoying some of it
- is true.
-
- The 109 was a somewhat obsolete design by the end of
- 1945 and it had reached the limits and abilities of
- the airframe. It was notably heavy on the controls,
- even in earlier versions, and unlike many others,
- the amount of armor platting added was significantly
- less.
-
- So it was not an all star performer by the end of
- the war. I still like flying it...fast and
- powerful. It has its charms.
-
-

BS we could say the same thing about the Spitfire then,since they were the same era designs?

The plane was improved and it had ever increasing performance the poor showing towards the end was because of poor pilots not the plane itself.

Read a lil before you make these statements


Glasses-"I may have four eyes but you only have one wing"

"Kurt Tank is your daddy"

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2003, 09:03 PM
I understand that if you avoid getting hit ...

and if you hurry up and shoot the other guy down quickly ...

you have much fewer problems with getting your engine hit.

:P


falcon

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_09.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2003, 09:31 PM
Glasses: The Spitfire had practically the same engine for all the war, only with increasing octane fuel. The 109, on the other hand, had bigger and bigger engines installed, and such heavier engines needed bigger wheels and stronger fuselage, leading to a heavier construction and increased weight, and even the wing "bulges" from the bigger wheels. The spit, on the other hand, did not have any major structural change all over the war, except the bubble canopy on the later series

http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/reincarnation.jpg (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/)
Are you damned? (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/)
<

Buzz_25th
11-05-2003, 09:36 PM
The fact that the real 109 could spray fuel on the windshield to clean it shows it had a problem with oil spray.

Oleg didn't model the fuel spray, but he got the oil spray right.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25th_Buzz
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/anderson3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2003, 09:45 PM
What is it about the 109 - it apparently has so many faults yet those who have adopted it seem to love it, I never fly anything else. Agree about the cables being severed, seems a fairly unlikely event, and the petrol window cleaning has been mentioned. The only real bugbear for me are the huge gun flashes - really hinders shooting - anything longer than 1 second burst and the target is gone /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://allanhall.ic24.net/images/SmallPunkGrey.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2003, 10:11 PM
it gets bit easier after 1.2, when 109s get better acceleration, and correct topspeeds.. at the moment late Gs and EMils are lacking top speed and acceleration, so it should get easier in 1.2.

I wish..

____________________________________



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/sig3.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2003, 11:59 PM
I wouldn't get in any obsolete non obsolete designs discussion if I may. The fact is that Me's were getting hevier during the war but still look at the speed and performace... I see no deterioration. But back to what was my point originally.

First, I fully agree with an oil spray, no problem. But the problem is that once the engine is hit you get an oilspray. C'mon the engine has oil tubes and tanks all over it? No way. That's my point I don't want to see oil spray every single time a space the engine is in gets a bullet. And again it's not a matter of evading being shot, it is of course but..., it's just that's quite dumb to always get an oil leak and instant engine whine... I feel that this can be easily put in order without any major Bf-hype since it's just a really anoying glitch.

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 02:36 AM
Ahem the Spitfires having the same engine through out the war?

Really?

<Sigh> The spitfire just as the 109s had their engines replaced by ever increasing performing engines bigger engines larger engines,just look at the Griffon engined spits. Brit pilots reffered to it as the heavy spitfire it had lost all the "grace" of the earlier models. Same thing went for the 109s they became heavier but also became much more powerful with better climb,speed and acceleration. Comparing the 109E to the 109F and G series is like comparing the 190A to a 190D or even a Ta152H they were similar but had redesigns made to improve the overall handling and performance.

The bulges didn't do jack for performance they were made to fit the 12.7mm MG131s to give the 109s heavier firepower.

Like i said before poor showing of the airframe towards the end was lack of trained pilots who could exploit the machine to its limits. That's why you see some American airmen who may have not set foot in one say such things about the airframe.

Glasses-"I may have four eyes but you only have one wing"

"Kurt Tank is your daddy"

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 02:50 AM
By the end of the war, the Bf109 was built largely by slave labor with substitute and second hand parts. The Spitfire wasn't. A lot of the enslaved people workng in the German military industry were intentionally trying to sabotage what they were working on. Not that they had to try too hard with the degradation of quality parts available. Sure, the output of war machines was increased, but with slave labor you get what you pay for.

Not a slam against 109 pilots--I fly 109s half the time myself.


Message Edited on 11/05/0308:59PM by xenios

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 03:12 AM
The mustang seems to be even more fragile the the 109. The thing that I dont like is the oilspash on all the russian planes the revi is still visable on the p51 and 109 its really bad

<center>http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LS1.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 04:14 AM
No, I believe the "oil slick" DM is an error on behalf of the designers. I saw an interview with chuck yeager in which he mentioned targeting the engine on the fw's because of the complexity and frailness of its oil hoses, plumbing etc... But this is seldom a problem when taking a pill or two in the fw. Perhaps they got the dm's backward?

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 04:35 AM
One thing to remember glasses is that the Spitfires original shape was very streamlined the 109 on the other hand wasn't quite so aerodynamic therefore changes to the Spitfire were often more effective and caused less performance degradation.
The Spit was still in use into the 1960's with the Irish Airforce

JG4_Tiger

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 04:53 AM
Yes the Spit had 2 engines fitted, the Merlin at 27 L and the Griffon at 36 L. The Me109 started off with a Jumo 210, then a DB600 engine, to a DB601 and finally to a DB605. Not counting the R-R fitted to the prototype.


Glassess wrote:
- Ahem the Spitfires having the same engine through
- out the war?
-
- Really?
-
- <Sigh> The spitfire just as the 109s had their
- engines replaced by ever increasing performing
- engines bigger engines larger engines,just look at
- the Griffon engined spits. Brit pilots reffered to
- it as the heavy spitfire it had lost all the "grace"
- of the earlier models. Same thing went for the 109s
- they became heavier but also became much more
- powerful with better climb,speed and acceleration.
- Comparing the 109E to the 109F and G series is like
- comparing the 190A to a 190D or even a Ta152H they
- were similar but had redesigns made to improve the
- overall handling and performance.
-
- The bulges didn't do jack for performance they were
- made to fit the 12.7mm MG131s to give the 109s
- heavier firepower.
-


If they didn't do jack for performance, why were the G-10 and K-4 fitted with more streamlined fairings compared to the G-6/14?



http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 04:59 AM
"One thing to remember glasses is that the Spitfires original shape was very streamlined the 109 on the other hand wasn't quite so aerodynamic therefore changes to the Spitfire were often more effective and caused less performance degradation. The Spit was still in use into the 1960's with the Irish Airforce"

The Bf109s being so 'inferior' in aerodynamical efficiency compared to the Spitfire, is a very thoroughly spread myth. If we should talk about inferiority in aerodynamics, we should talk about a plane which used a 2000hp engine and still did no more than 30~40km/h faster than its German adversaries.

Both the Spitfire and the 109, opted for bigger guns and more powerful engines throughout the war. They both had redesigned parts of their structures, and were brought up to competant levels, instead of lagging behind their age.

Was the Bf109 design reaching a 'fatigue point'? Most probably, but the same can be said about the Spitfire.

There's a tendency of this myth generated by people(usually some of the Luftwaffe command and Allied personnel) surrounding the 109, who were hugely in favor/respect of the Fw190s - as its major contendor, both the Allied personnel and parts of the Luftwaffe command, sought to continuously minimalize the 109s and maximize the 190 - misinterpretation everywhere.

As much as the most prominent aces of the USAAF were born in the P-47 is a testament to the plane, the same could be said about the 109.

For nearly 10 years, it stretched out and evolved as much as it could - which era includes almost the entire length of the war.

-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 05:07 AM
Up to the redesigned 109F, the 109 was very 'blocky' compared to the Spit.


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 07:14 AM
Now, back to the original question before it turned into 109 VS Spit.


Give the game a little slack and accept the somewhat simplified damage models for what they are. Yes, you take a hit in the engine cowl and you'll likely have a windscreen full of crud. Even if you get hit in the bottom of the cowl. Sometimes these hits seem stupid, and other times you'll think "that was cool" even though you've just been hosed. It averages out.


Maybe we'll get super-complex damage models in the future with BOB where you can shoot a guy's prop spinner off, but till now just learn to live with it. The P51 gets it ALL the time so I know how you feel.

S

(I do wonder what happened to those cool cockpit bullet holes like the Hurricane used to get.)



"We will welcome them with bullets and shoes."

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 07:23 AM
GR142_Astro wrote: Give the game a little slack and accept the somewhat
- simplified damage models for what they are.

Very good point.

Plus the 109 did have it's oil tank right in front of the cockpit IIRC.

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 09:39 AM
Saburo_0 wrote:
- GR142_Astro wrote: Give the game a little slack and
- accept the somewhat
-- simplified damage models for what they are.
-
- Very good point.
-
- Plus the 109 did have it's oil tank right in front
- of the cockpit IIRC.


Saburo, if you don't know why are talking about it?
Bf-109 had the oil in a horseshoe tank right behind the propeller spinner, protected under a steel plate. It was far away from the cockpit and the upper part of the ring was empty in order not to spill the oil on the upper part of the cowling, in front of the cockpit. It also had a system that alowed to clean the windshield with fuel. Beside the Fw-190 configuration, Bf-109 has probably the best placement for the oil tank, and has the least motives to have oil on its windshield.

But if we are at this subject let's see how american planes fare at this chapter.

P-51 had the oil tank for the engine and tank for the hydraulic fluid in front and behind the firewall, so no matter where you hit in front of the cockpit you'll get oil on the windshield, which is consistant with veteran stories.

P-47 had the oil tank behind the engine, underneath the upper cowling, in front of the cockpit, again the ideal placement to get the oil on the windshield. Corsair also had it there, but for P-47 and Corsair pilots this was the least of their worries: both had the fuel tank in front of the cockpit, a placement good only for flooding the cockpit with burning fuel.

P-40 had the oil tank in front of the cockpit, even P-39 had an unprotected oil tank for the gear box in the upper part of the cowling behind the propeller.

I hope you all have a better picture now.

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/images/bf10910_a2.jpg





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

Message Edited on 11/06/0304:04AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 01:06 PM
Huck, thanks for the pic. I knew they moved the oil tank with the Fredrich redesign, but didn't know about the armor plate. If Saburo_0 is referring to the Emil though, he's right. The Emil had the oil tank just in front of the instrument panel, as shown here:

http://www.bf109.com/acrobat/bf109ehighgerman.pdf

in "Anlage 14" (towards the end of the document.) The hydraulic tank for the Emil (shown in "Anlage 5" in the same document) was by the pilot's left knee. I think the horseshoe shape of the tank on the later 109's was more a function of plumbing an oil pickup line than avoiding spray on the windshield, though that would have been a benefit of the arrangement, too. As far as the oil tanks on allied fighters, you're right that they were in a bad position to keep from spilling oil on the windshield if it, though I don't know what armor protection they had, if any.

The 109's fuel tank was also more pilot friendly (behind and below him) than those of the Hurricane and Spitfire, which both had fuselage tanks in front of the pilot. American fighters had them there, too, but tended to carry more fuel in general, leaving fewer options for tank placement. Self-sealing liners helped limit the danger on later allied fighters, but not the early ones. Read Geoffrey Page's "Tail of a Guinea Pig" for details.

I too have some questions about the 109's DM. The control hits seem to occur too often, given that the majority of the 109's controls were rods, not cables. The engine seems to be much more fragile than its Russian in-line counterparts in the game, despite in-lines having the same basic architecture in regards to damage tolerance, whether vee or inverted vee. The one exception I understand is the Il-2 itself, which of course had armor surrounding the engine and radiator. AFAIK, aircraft like the LaGG's and Yak's didn't have armored cowlings, yet their engines can take much more damage than German or American in-line engines in the game. I think it's more that the Russian engines take too much damage though, rather than the others being too fragile. Precision machinery does not, in general, tolerate ballistic trauma well.

All that being said, I believe the DM to be one of the harder aspects of the game to get right, given the infinite combinations of projectile type, speed, hit locations and hit angles. There is also very little damage data available, especially compared with the quantity of performance data available.

Blotto

"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter craft, no matter how technically advanced." - A. Galland

"Look, do you want the jets, or would you rather I slap the props back on?" - W. Messerschmitt

http://home.mindspring.com/~blottogg/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/14fsPatch.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 01:17 PM
There are lots of mysterios happening in the Me-109 like it seems to overheat when you come close to the enemy, it stalls more frequent and so on.

Test this close your radiator and fly with 100% it wont overheat. When you get close to the enemy, the harddisk starts to load something to the virtual memory and the plane overheats.

The same is when you are dogfighting, you can perform the most advanced manouvers if you are alone.
If you have a enemy in sight it spinns more easily.

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 02:08 PM
With dogfighting, it is that same with me and in every plane. I stall even more frequently online than offline.

The explanation is plain simple: nerves!!!!



Message Edited on 11/06/0302:08PM by HansKnappstick

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 07:19 PM
Huck, the original post says that he does not want to start some sort of Red vs blue war. But you attack me for sharing what info i have with someone new & then .....

Anyway, I stand corrected, i had seen a drawing & did not realize it was only on the E model.

I liek flying the 109G6 & don't care for the constant oil splashes either. But it doesn't make me fel persecuted or paranoid.
Geesh..

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 09:38 PM
p1ngu666 wrote:
- there where oil lines at the top i know that
- just fly a p39 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



I second than,especially cuz P39 nose is MK108-proof.

"degustibus non disputandum"

<center>http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

<center>"Weder Tod noch Teufel!"</font>[/B]</center> (http://www.jzg23.de>[B]<font)

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 10:35 PM
Given that the 109 has an inverted engine all of the main bearings and big end bearings are sat just below the piolts eye line, as these components, along with the reduction gear box (situated just behind the prop), are the largest oil consumers in any piston engine big leaks over the screen after damage are inevitable, even if the engine is windmilling oil will still be pumped round.


"They Gave All Their Tommorrows So That We Can Have Our Todays"

"Whirlwind Whiner"
First Of The Few

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 03:01 AM
The argument that during the last days of the war they were doing slave labor for the MEs decreased their overall performance is utter Bull. There were some cases of sabotage being done to the planes but before they went to front line duty these aircraft were ferried to the front line. Inspected on the front before being sent up. If you look at reports by combat pilots they did find some things in some of the aircraft but they were being fixed before being sent up. Besoides the point most of the aircraft before being stressed to the limit were being shot down or destroyed on the ground due to the overwhelming allied strength that engulfed the Luftwaffe during the latter part of 1944. Most of the Sabotaged issues were encountered in 1945 were these inspections couldn't be done as thoroughly or at all due to the pressure being put on the LW to send up aircraft. Later it was fuel that didn't permit the aircraft to get up.

Both the 109 and spitfire were the same era designs and had their respective performance vices one is superior in some ways to the other but non is a better do all aircraft. The 109 served its purpose during the war and brought down many aircraft. In fact it was responsible for most of the A-A victories the LW had during the war mainly because it was much more economical to produce than its bigger brother the Fw190.

Glasses-"I may have four eyes but you only have one wing"

"Kurt Tank is your daddy"

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 03:16 PM
Xitter wrote:
- See I like this plane, I like it a lot...
- I learnt not to use MW50 and be very sensitive with
- power and prop pitch. But I don't know... what bugs
- me is that every time I get shot the motor gets it,
- or at least it apperas so, and my windshield is full
- of oil instantly. I've never seen anything close to
- this in the sim. One you're hit motor gets it and
- "logically" there's an oil leak and consequently you
- see sh*t. I wonder why would anybody manufacture
- something like that... Of course the plane is not
- ment to be a target, but It must have some
- durability since to expect that it will not sustain
- any damage in the battle would be foolish.
- Apparently "nowdays" Bf109 are one big barrel of oil
- and wires, since controls cripling is second to none
- in this plane. I do not want to start some red vs.
- bule war. I am just aksing you : Is this normal?
-
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



I really enjoy the 109 bcause its so difficult and I think also a crippled 109 in fb is "very" crippled , and u only get home with some difficulty /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

fw190 is also hard to fly but cant turn as well as the 109
and I like turning.

Fighting and evading is an art in the 109 since u hardly cant see anything from your cockpit and those "dirty" vindows, compared to all allied fighters especially the yak3 wich I personally think is the absolutely best characteristics and have the best visibility in all directions ( no blind spots ).


So.... if the 109 wsnt difficult perhaps I wldnt fly it.
I think this is the case with many who like this ac?

when I shoot down a p39, La7 or Yak3. or 9 in a bf 109 it feels like ive done something difficult.( I admit I kind of like that feeling ) this is only my opinion and everyone have their own favorites for different reasons and thats just fine. Ive had real trouble shooting down 109's in p39's and the stall in that thing is very unpleasnt /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


THNX


See u when u check your 6.

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 06:47 PM
Glassess wrote:
-- Both the 109 and spitfire were the same era designs
In fact the 109 is an early 30's design and the spit is a late 30's design
The 109 and the Hurri would be same era designs

http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/reincarnation.jpg (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/)
Are you damned? (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/)
<

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 08:05 PM
Hehehe

Yhea, the BF-109 is really a plane you develop a love/hate relationship with.

Love killing the bad guys with it
Hate getting shot in it
Love cracking bombers with it
Hate carrying gunpods or bombs

My favorite 109's are the BF-109E-4, G-2, G-10, and obviously K4.

The G-10 is probably my favorite...I named mine Marlene! Blonde hair, blue eyes, and...anyway...

Yes, there are some DM and FM goofs, as an example I don't think it has a nasty enough stall/spin, or high enough acceleration, speed, and climb. The oil spray pattern looks good, but it happens 2x as often as it should! It would be nice if it was set so that it would slowly clear away as if being washed off. And I think airspeed might also help clear the 109 and other aircraft.