PDA

View Full Version : Bf109 model questions!!!



animalmotherxd
07-25-2005, 06:59 PM
Q1: Were the guns on the BF-109's synchronized? I am talking about both cannons and machine guns. I know nothing of this in real life and was wondering, but i was watching pearl harbor and the guns on the 109's in the battle of britain scene were shooting unsynchronized as it looked. I was wondering if they did shoot together or one after the other. I also saw that there must be some time crank to keep the guns from blowin off the propeller, wouldnt that make them shoot at different times??? The spitfire cannons by the way also fired at differnet times and not synchronized/

Q2: Why is the 109's ailerons so week, like the mustang and FW190's why were they not made stronger? Wouldnt the bf109 be a much better fighter with stronger ailerons?

Q3: I was playing online and someone told me that theres many things you can do to win a dogfight without haveing a superior plane? He was lowering his speed at times and his flaps were changing in combat, is there ways to be more effectiv in combat then just going fast with full throttle?

lol, I am a HUGE noob btw...I just wanted som imput or maybe some advice ty for your help.

3.JG51_BigBear
07-25-2005, 07:19 PM
Q1. Pearl Harbor isn't a great source of historical information, but no, tracer rounds came out unsynchronized on real warbirds. In game they are synchronized.

Q2. When you say weak, do you mean structurally weak (i.e. they don't take a lot of damage) or weak in the sense that the plane doesn't roll as quickly as the Focke Wulf or P-51. If its the first I haven't noticed, if its the second, sure most any plane would do better with a faster rate of roll but the plane's roll rate was limited by its design.

Q3. Depends on what plane you're flying. Certain planes, like the FW190 and the P-51, lend themselves to high speed attack. Even if your plane is not superior to your opponenet's in speed and manueverability, it is best to gain altitude and make fast slashing attacks on the other plane using your speed/momentum to quickly gain altitude and prepare for another attack. Planes like the Zero and and Yak are better at turning and burning. Their strengths lie in their superior turn rates and ability to lose speed rapidly to cause over shoots or to stay on an opponenets tail. You always want the altitude advantage over your opponent but in these planes you'll find full throttle isn't always the best strategy.

animalmotherxd
07-25-2005, 08:03 PM
I meant weak as in it doesnt roll to fast, its slow, as if it were to heavy and the hydrolicscant push it up or down.

3.JG51_BigBear
07-25-2005, 10:26 PM
From British test of the Bf109E

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 unmanoeuvrable in roll at high speeds.

VW-IceFire
07-25-2005, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by animalmotherxd:
I meant weak as in it doesnt roll to fast, its slow, as if it were to heavy and the hydrolicscant push it up or down.
The 109's ailerons seem to give best effect around 200-300kph. The Spitfire is much worse except the clipped wing version which is much better. Design limitation and tradeoffs.

The FW190 is optimized for high roll rate but in its overall design, it trades certain values for other ones. Its give and take...there is no super fighter that is the absolute best at all things.

Kocur_
07-26-2005, 12:03 PM
animalmotherxd Posted Mon July 25 2005 17:59

"Were the guns on the BF-109's synchronized? I am talking about both cannons and machine guns."

Guns were never synchronised with eachotherhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif They are synchronised with propeller: there is a device between pilots trigger and triggering mechanism in gun , which is switching off trigger when propellor blade is moving before the gun muzzle. So guns are actually firing only "between" propeller blades. If the guns are mounted close to eachother it might look like they were inter-synchronised, but its not that.
Another case are Bf-109, Yaks, and some other planes with "hub cannon". The cannon (or machine gun) is mounted behind engine, with barrel between cylinders. There is a reducer gear between engines crankshaft and propellor. Crankshaft axis is lower than propellor axis, which is a pipe that projectiles go through. No need to synchronise gun with propeller.
Installing guns to shoot "through" propeller has pros: they are more accurate, no real need to set convergance, and unlike fuselage, wings are slightly twisting under stress from speed and g's, and contras: a fraction of time you were pushing trigger button, the guns were actually not firing, because of "waiting" for propeller blades to move by, so rate of fire drops a bit, by 10-20%

Chuck_Older
07-26-2005, 03:42 PM
Animalmother-

The prototype Bf 109 flew in 1935. At the time, monoplanes were just supplanting biplanes as fighters. In 1937, the B model was going to operational units. they didn't have the benefit of 60+ years of hindsight http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif And why do you assume that the ailerons were hydraulically operated, by the way? My reference material isn't here with me right now, but it's almost certainly not hydraulically actuated or boosted in the Bf 109

At the time, aileron effectiveness wasn't going to be comparable to a biplane's in the first place, and manueverability is not dependant solely on roll rate. Speed and firepower were more pressing concerns.

They made the smallest airframe possible with a powerful engine. Not a perfect design, but it was small (hard target) and fast

Kocur_
07-26-2005, 04:33 PM
Im absolutely positive nothing but gear and brakes was hydraulic operated in Bf-109 airframe. Not even flaps! Check those two coaxial wheels on left side of cocpit: those are elevater trim and flaps, both operated manually.
AFAIK the first operational combat plane with boosted but not entirely hydraulic operated control surface control was P-38L (ailerons).
Bf-109 started career with RR Kestrel, at like 640ps, and finished it with DB-605DCM at 2000ps! Horizontal speed of late 109's was greater than officially cleared for operational use diving speed of early ones. The control system was not designed to work well at high speeds. Who thought of it in 1934/5? And AFAIK it never was thoroughly re-designed to make 109 high speed controlability at least get a bit closer to Fw-190's (which belonges to the second generation of low wing fighters). As probably pretty much of everything was done to make 109 as light and as easy to produce as possible, not much was done to increace its controlability. It took Willy 8 years in which the power plant got almost 2,5 times more powerful than originally, to introduce enlarged vertical stabiliser (on late G-6)...!

animalmotherxd
07-26-2005, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
Q1. Pearl Harbor isn't a great source of historical information, but no, tracer rounds came out unsynchronized on real warbirds. In game they are synchronized.

Q2. When you say weak, do you mean structurally weak (i.e. they don't take a lot of damage) or weak in the sense that the plane doesn't roll as quickly as the Focke Wulf or P-51. If its the first I haven't noticed, if its the second, sure most any plane would do better with a faster rate of roll but the plane's roll rate was limited by its design.

Q3. Depends on what plane you're flying. Certain planes, like the FW190 and the P-51, lend themselves to high speed attack. Even if your plane is not superior to your opponenet's in speed and manueverability, it is best to gain altitude and make fast slashing attacks on the other plane using your speed/momentum to quickly gain altitude and prepare for another attack. Planes like the Zero and and Yak are better at turning and burning. Their strengths lie in their superior turn rates and ability to lose speed rapidly to cause over shoots or to stay on an opponenets tail. You always want the altitude advantage over your opponent but in these planes you'll find full throttle isn't always the best strategy.

WOW, you all were really a great help, I got the point now, after reading each of the posts, I got way ebtter at flying the 109 and understand pros from cons. Why are the warbirds in IL2(game) synchronized while on really warbirds they werent? I thought it was supose ot be historically acurate. Doesn't that mean there must be a patch released to unsynchronized them? Not just on the 109, but the spitfires hispano 20mm? I don't know, jsut a thought...

Chuck_Older
07-26-2005, 06:50 PM
This sim is supposed to be historically accurate.

The synchronised effect is a bit more complex than you seem to think. The sim actually knows where those bullets go, synchronous effect or not. Don't rely only on what you see in the sim regarding those muzzle flashes- there are compromises in this simulation, like any other. You will not find a 100% historically correct and accurate WWII simulation that always gets all things always correct no matter what, anywhere, for any price. It just doesn't exist.

A Compromise was made in the sim in this area, like many others. It simply is irrelevant that those flashes are non-synchronous- the effect is correct. What you are assuming is that the rounds expended depend on those muzzle flashes- and that's not so. Don't assume so much.

When the sim was made (not recently), computing power was judged to be best spent elsewhere, rather than worry about some muzzle flashes. A lot of people have commented on this over the years, and it is apparently not so simple to change this- it's a part of the code that is just not justifiable to alter due to difficulty and time constraints is what I've understood about it

There are exactly zero pathces not provided by the game developer, 1C:Maddox games. There are no mods for the game, period. This allows all players online to be sure that they all play with exactly the same flight and damage models for each individual aircraft. It also ensures compatibility within whatever version you're playing- my v4.01 is exactly the same as yours if properly installed.

There are many, many many details left out of the sim, just like every other ever made. For example- I cannot take a P-51's supercharger out of AUTO mode. I also cannot select which fuel tank to use in it. Furthermore I cannot change my fuel mixture setting in that aircraft- but these things are possible in a real-life P-51. There were reasons for this, which revolve around the aircraft being one that was 'made' for the sim long after the code was written, and certain things were difficult to model in that aircraft using the game engine, or else within the game engine, the effect of those systems wasn't satisfactorily modelled.

Some folks think that the sim is 'modular' such as, "OK, we have a Merlin engine in this aircraft, take that code out and put it in another and presto, you have that other aircraft with the same engine" and I suspect it is not the case. Each plane has more systems than an engine, or cannon, or machinegun modelled- how does this airframe's propeller reduction gear work with that engine? How is the surpercharger geared? How efficient is the cowling? What carburetor type was used? Where is the cannon or machinegun mounted?

A simulation nowadays is a very complex thing, and expecting 100% historical accuracy 100% of the time in 100% of the situations in 100% of each aircraft's systems is very unrealistic for the foreseeable future

Kurfurst__
07-27-2005, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Im absolutely positive nothing but gear and brakes was hydraulic operated in Bf-109 airframe. Not even flaps!

Oil and coolant radiator was also hydraulically operated. Yep, flaps were handled manually - and ?


Bf-109 started career with RR Kestrel, at like 640ps, and finished it with DB-605DCM at 2000ps!

Well not really, the first flight tests were done with small RR Kestrel because DB was not yet read. There was no operational variant with the Kestrel engine, initially it had Junkers engines, then DBs.


Horizontal speed of late 109's was greater than officially cleared for operational use diving speed of early ones.

Common myth. The maximum speed is given in ture airspeeds, the dive limit in indicated airspeed. The two are very different and not comparable.


The control system was not designed to work well at high speeds. Who thought of it in 1934/5? And AFAIK it never was thoroughly re-designed to make 109 high speed controlability at least get a bit closer to Fw-190's (which belonges to the second generation of low wing fighters).

That`s incorrect because the control system was througtly redesigned in the Bf 109F in 1939, improvements were added later on as well, mostly in 1943.


As probably pretty much of everything was done to make 109 as light and as easy to produce as possible, not much was done to increace its controlability.

False, as pointed out above.


It took Willy 8 years in which the power plant got almost 2,5 times more powerful than originally, to introduce enlarged vertical stabiliser (on late G-6)...!

Now that`s really reaching.

a, Kestrel was never a powerplant of any operational 109
b, Obviosuly there was no need for increased stabiliser until speeds grow high enough, which did not happen until 1942.
c, The vertical stabiliser was introduced in 1943...
d, 2000 HP engines were introdued in 1945...

So it took a year, between mid-42 and mid-43, which is fairly typical.

Kurfurst__
07-27-2005, 04:44 PM
As for cannons on the 109, they were never syncronized. The 109E`s cannons and the gondolas of later models fired out of the propellor arc, thus did not need syncronization.
Ditto for the nose cannon, which fired through the engine shaft, and not the propellor.

The only gun that was syncronized was the cowl MGs/HMGs. These were electrically operated, so syncronization was easy and relatively lossless.

Kocur_
07-27-2005, 06:08 PM
Kurfurst__ Posted Wed July 27 2005 15:42

"Oil and coolant radiator was also hydraulically operated."

Ok, I thought of them as part of propulsion system, which Im ready to consider wrong if you would insist.

"Yep, flaps were handled manually - and ?"

Nothing, just a fact.

"Well not really, the first flight tests were done with small RR Kestrel because DB was not yet read."

I'd say first flight of first prototype makes beginning of planes career, but thats sematics. Btw werent first operational Bf-109's, the B powered with Junkers Jumo at 680ps. And in fact C and D too? Oh and the "small RR Kestrel" was rated at 695ps.

"Common myth. The maximum speed is given in ture airspeeds, the dive limit in indicated airspeed."

Ok. But if to give both in IAS or TAS? Thats not ironic.

"That`s incorrect because the control system was througtly redesigned in the Bf 109F in 1939, improvements were added later on as well, mostly in 1943."

I bet we all know that F got a new wing, but was control system really redesinged to give good high speed control? It could be done without any electric or hydraulic boosting as Fw190 shows. Not ironic again.

"a, Kestrel was never a powerplant of any operational 109"

Sure wasnt. But Jumo was even weaker.

"b, Obviosuly there was no need for increased stabiliser until speeds grow high enough, which did not happen until 1942."

Well if I were mean I would say more like 1941, since F-4 with 1350ps wasnt all that much slower or less powerful (torque!) than G-1/2 with 1475ps.

"c, The vertical stabiliser was introduced in 1943... "

As above.

"d, 2000 HP engines were introdued in 1945..."

But 1800ps in 1944.

To sum up: Kurfurst__ you read me wrong. I like 109! As I like all radical designs. All for lighteness! No compromises! And with that even more Im quick to critisize some of prof. Messerchmitt decisions or lack of them. Why werent 109's given really effective high speed control system, as pressure of coming USAAF fighters would make them fight at higher speeds than ever intended? (dont tell me it was all ok with already existing elevator trim as it took Lukas Schmid test flights in spring 1943 to establish how to use it properly at high speeds). Couldnt he see that new REALLY more powerful engines would come to 109 soon in 1940/41 already? How much of performance would be lost with stronger and sadly heavier, main gear legs - many 109's would be saved from crashes at landings. IMO 109 simply could have been even better.

p1ngu666
07-27-2005, 06:40 PM
so did the pilot haveto wind down the flaps, similer to i16s landing gear?

animalmotherxd
07-28-2005, 11:11 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Kurfurst__ Posted Wed July 27 2005 15:42

"Oil and coolant radiator was also hydraulically operated."

Ok, I thought of them as part of propulsion system, which Im ready to consider wrong if you would insist.

"Yep, flaps were handled manually - and ?"

Nothing, just a fact.

"Well not really, the first flight tests were done with small RR Kestrel because DB was not yet read."

I'd say first flight of first prototype makes beginning of planes career, but thats sematics. Btw werent first operational Bf-109's, the B powered with Junkers Jumo at 680ps. And in fact C and D too? Oh and the "small RR Kestrel" was rated at 695ps.

"Common myth. The maximum speed is given in ture airspeeds, the dive limit in indicated airspeed."

Ok. But if to give both in IAS or TAS? Thats not ironic.

"That`s incorrect because the control system was througtly redesigned in the Bf 109F in 1939, improvements were added later on as well, mostly in 1943."

I bet we all know that F got a new wing, but was control system really redesinged to give good high speed control? It could be done without any electric or hydraulic boosting as Fw190 shows. Not ironic again.

"a, Kestrel was never a powerplant of any operational 109"

Sure wasnt. But Jumo was even weaker.

"b, Obviosuly there was no need for increased stabiliser until speeds grow high enough, which did not happen until 1942."

Well if I were mean I would say more like 1941, since F-4 with 1350ps wasnt all that much slower or less powerful (torque!) than G-1/2 with 1475ps.

"c, The vertical stabiliser was introduced in 1943... "

As above.

"d, 2000 HP engines were introdued in 1945..."

But 1800ps in 1944.

To sum up: Kurfurst__ you read me wrong. I like 109! As I like all radical designs. All for lighteness! No compromises! And with that even more Im quick to critisize some of prof. Messerchmitt decisions or lack of them. Why werent 109's given really effective high speed control system, as pressure of coming USAAF fighters would make them fight at higher speeds than ever intended? (dont tell me it was all ok with already existing elevator trim as it took Lukas Schmid test flights in spring 1943 to establish how to use it properly at high speeds). Couldnt he see that new REALLY more powerful engines would come to 109 soon in 1940/41 already? How much of performance would be lost with stronger and sadly heavier, main gear legs - many 109's would be saved from crashes at landings. IMO 109 simply could have been even better.

I agree. why didnt the 109's get better control at highspeeds? I mean it's obvious when your bieng outtured by Yaks- and La-7s, spits as well. If it had a conrtol sytem like fw-190 wouldn't it had been way better off?

Also,if 109's had no hydrolics that meant the pilots OWN MUSCLES turned the plane? If so...wow...just woow...you need string legs eh? Or maybe the leverage you get off pullies and cranks helps...i dont know just a thought.

AerialTarget
07-29-2005, 03:33 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
so did the pilot haveto wind down the flaps, similer to i16s landing gear?

Well, according to a source quoted in another thread, it took twenty five seconds to do. Therefore, I would say that you are probably right!