PDA

View Full Version : 109G6



XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 04:04 AM
I don't fly 109's much, but I do read the complaints from the Luft flyers (Luftwhining being the popular term to describe this phenomenon).

I noticed in the RC01/02 version, that people are now flying the 109G6 when the 109G2 is also available. Wondered why, till I tested it. Seems like the 109G6 now turns as well as the G2 and F series fighters? I know I could not outturn them in La5's, even though everything I have ever read says that the La5 could turn inside any 109 easily and outloop them even easier.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like you have improved the turn rate in the 109G6's?

IM0, the F series are modeled about right for turn rate, but the G2 (in the 1.11 version) turned a bit better than it should have. Making the G6 turn as well as VVS fighters, simply gives the inexperienced players the chance to turn fight, rather than having to use energy tactics. The really bad part, is that experienced flyers, now have the choice to use energy tactics, or angles tactics, and basically have a superior airplane in speed, climb, firepower and turn. That ain't the way it was 60 years ago.

Budanova

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 04:04 AM
I don't fly 109's much, but I do read the complaints from the Luft flyers (Luftwhining being the popular term to describe this phenomenon).

I noticed in the RC01/02 version, that people are now flying the 109G6 when the 109G2 is also available. Wondered why, till I tested it. Seems like the 109G6 now turns as well as the G2 and F series fighters? I know I could not outturn them in La5's, even though everything I have ever read says that the La5 could turn inside any 109 easily and outloop them even easier.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like you have improved the turn rate in the 109G6's?

IM0, the F series are modeled about right for turn rate, but the G2 (in the 1.11 version) turned a bit better than it should have. Making the G6 turn as well as VVS fighters, simply gives the inexperienced players the chance to turn fight, rather than having to use energy tactics. The really bad part, is that experienced flyers, now have the choice to use energy tactics, or angles tactics, and basically have a superior airplane in speed, climb, firepower and turn. That ain't the way it was 60 years ago.

Budanova

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 04:56 AM
You read wrong. The turn times of the 109s are equal to or worse by maybe 1 to 2 seconds, than the La series overall.

Fact is the 109s *could* turn. And quite well. IL2 (the original) convinced everyone of a load of crap.

The G6 is not much different than the G2, which is in turn, not much different than the F4. They should all be rather close in turn performance. And they are now. Things are *finally* coming together for the 109s.

Please don't screw them up and make them inaccurately modeled cannon fodder again (excepting the use of extreme and ahistoric tactical advantage that is, not talking pilot, just plane). Hell, as it is you can't see out of the bloody things thanks to the oil smeared glass.

And, the G2 really is about the best modeled 109 we have according to all the hardcore testing the "obsessed" (and I use the term lovingly /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif have done.

Although I fear for the official patch. Seems every time they get near accurate they are clipped again in the next release. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

(BTW - I fly mainly P-47 with a touch of P-51 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 05:21 AM
From what I can tell, most Lavochkin flyers are having to get used to the new snap characteristic, while 109 pilots already know their limits.

I can tell you that Lavochkins can outturn 109s, just that it takes longer than it used to. Also, the Lavochkins have similar or identical climb rates, which make them just about equal with the 109s. The only thing is the La's have shoddy VNE's and poor high speed controls.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 05:57 AM
I'm not talking about the published turn rate data in the View Objects section, I'm talking about actually flying the 109G6 and actually flying against it.

Not only is it's sustained turn much improved, but you can yank back on the stick, and it does the most amazing snap turn, and no stall!

Flying La5FN's, I had a really hard time to defeat a Veteran AI 109G6, but flying the G6 against a Veteran AI La5FN, it was comparitively easy to win.

I don't think anybody is going to believe that an F series plane, weighing 4300 lbs, should not turn better than a G series plane weighing 5500 to 6100 lbs.

I usually fly Yaks btw, only occasionly fly La's.

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 06:50 AM
"Flying La5FN's, I had a really hard time to defeat a Veteran AI 109G6, but flying the G6 against a Veteran AI La5FN, it was comparitively easy to win."

Ooops. Don't even bother comparing with AI. If you want to talk about flight performance wrt AI then best to use "AI" in the title of your thread and talk about AI problems.

There is a great track out there that shows an AI 109 do an impossible 180 degree pivot. Fly enough with the AI and you will see all sorts of odd stuff.

It could very well be that there is a significant performance discrepancy between 109-AI and LA-AI, but even if there is it is an AI issue and has nothing to do with the relative performances of LAs and 109s.

It does seem like as the FMs have been tweaked and new planes added the AI FMs have been neglected and in need of some attention, I see alot of AI weirdness in this current beta (B17s aren't flying like heavy bombers at all, doing full rudder uncoordinated slip-turns for no good reason etc.)

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 08:49 AM
109G6 in RC01 is much better than it was in FB1.11. And it can hold it's own in DF now. But every serious 109 jockey knows that G2 is the better one.

And I can tell you that LA5F is untouchable to 109G2 if it is flown right.

Just go to the Virtualpilots2 server and see how Valec flies the thinghttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

-Most difficult in DF is to get in someones six-

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 08:53 AM
Maybe it is the MK-108, wich 300 where built in 43 with severe jamms after 10 rounds.

Standard was 20mm and R-6 with 3x20mm. With Mk-108 you get that firepower saving 210kg weight.

Mass production of this weapon started spring44, thats why it is "端ber" in 43.....;-)

**************
Member of 88-IAP: http://www.88-iap.de , sokol@88-iap.de
Member of Virtual Online War team: http://www.vow-hq.com

88.IAP>Sokol
in Hyperlobby: http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 09:52 AM
"Maybe it is the MK-108, wich 300 where built in 43 with severe jamms after 10 rounds.

Standard was 20mm and R-6 with 3x20mm. With Mk-108 you get that firepower saving 210kg weight.

Mass production of this weapon started spring44, thats why it is "Uber" in 43.....;-)"



Like how our La-5FN which is actually in '44 standards, has its "supposedly" improved/corrected WEP performance compared to '43 La-5FNs, providing 10 minutes of continuous WEP time, rather than the numerously documented(as in German, VVS, TaIC, Czhek, Finnish, Hungarian testings) 2 minutes WEP time with serious overheat problems, but has the year "1943" slapped behind it?



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

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

Message Edited on 11/25/0305:52PM by kweassa

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 10:14 AM
Unfortunately Bf(G&K) in 1.2 RC turn too good. Now G-2 could after few circles outurn for example Mig 3U (i test it online with friend) In FB data Mig 3U and F-4 have equal turn rate and G-2 have worse about 1-2sec. I think 1C tunning too much turn rate BF G & K in beta patch http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif But other side some russian planes also turn too good http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
I "feel" that now in 1.2 beta the most realistic FM have: P-47, P-51, Ki-84, Fw 190 A&D

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 10:51 AM
Cokol_88IAP wrote:
- Maybe it is the MK-108, wich 300 where built in 43
- with severe jamms after 10 rounds.
-
- Standard was 20mm and R-6 with 3x20mm. With Mk-108
- you get that firepower saving 210kg weight.
-
- Mass production of this weapon started spring44,
- thats why it is "端ber" in 43.....;-)
-

The G6 with 1 20 mm has better flight performance than with mk108 . Also i think gun jamming would be a nice idea mk108 tended to jam in hard banking moves . But i doubt that simulating guns jams for vvs planes will be fun at all.

Regards,
Hyperion

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 11:06 AM
Kwiatos wrote:
- Unfortunately Bf(G&K) in 1.2 RC turn too good. Now
- G-2 could after few circles outurn for example Mig
- 3U (i test it online with friend) In FB data Mig 3U
- and F-4 have equal turn rate and G-2 have worse
- about 1-2sec. I think 1C tunning too much turn rate
- BF G & K in beta patch http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif But other side some
- russian planes also turn too good http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Bf-109G2/G6 had 19-20sec turn rate. This ideea that G6 was some underpowered pig is directly caused by Il2. There was no significant difference in weight between G2 and G6, only some versions had some 50kg more of equipment. Also the difference in weight between F4 and G2 is only 100kg. And F4 was considered an extreme dogfighter. Do you think that an increase in weight with 3% will decrease the performance so much? Especially when the power was increased with 10%. Many sources say that G2 was even more maneuvrable than F4, even russians thought so.

Once again there was no difference in maneuvrability and performance between G2 and G6 (except a 10km/h difference in max speed).

Also right now we don't have a G2/G6 powered by C3 fuel. That would make the plane even more performant, it would gain another 75PS.


- I "feel" that now in 1.2 beta the most realistic FM
- have: P-47, P-51, Ki-84, Fw 190 A&D

In terms of performance P-47 is not realistic at all. Overmodelled in every respect. P-51 has a better FM (except the turn rate that should be the same with Fw-190A). Fw-190 handling is awfully modelled, it has an incredible instability in pitch and yaw, it slips all the time, you cannot aim with at all. I never heard of such problems on Fw-190.


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

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 12:39 PM
weight 109f4 was around 2850kg
109G2 3030kg
109G6 3140kg

wastel

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 01:25 PM
S!

Oh..just go ahead and pork the G-6 again, then the LaLa's and YaketyYaks would rule again with impunity /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I have tested online G-6(Early&Late) against the G-2 and they are very close to G-2, but the G-2 still has the edge over them both so hardly G-6 is an 端berplane. G-2 is very close to accurate as it is now and G-6 didn't fall much behind. Go figure!

About G-6 being 端ber..well..I say the most used slogan to those LaLa and YaketyYak drivers that get mauled by the 109G..LEARN TO FLY! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Those VVS planes are extremely good planes if flown well, but in most cases the only thing the pilots do in these planes is senseless stick wanking without a clue of tactics, teamwork or they are a disorganized gaggle chasing one 109G and then collide with eachother /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I've seen a lot of good VVS pilots out there, like VikS, Valec, JimmyGiro and many others. They use their planes well giving 109G drivers, like me, a very tough opponent. And for a change I do fly VVS planes and spank 109's on regular basis in a La5F, Yak-1b or similar. Just fly the plane correctly.

Flanker
1.Lentue P誕っ造llikk誕
Training/Tactics Officer
Lentolaivue 34
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/LLv34

"Let Chaos entwine on defensless soil"
-Dimmu Borgir-

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 03:20 PM
Budanova wrote:
- Not only is it's sustained turn much improved, but
- you can yank back on the stick, and it does the most
- amazing snap turn, and no stall!

This is simply not true. Where do people get this stuff? It's like the BS about the P-51 turning with Zeros in 1.2B. Total, pure, unadulterated BS. Plain and simple.


- Flying La5FN's, I had a really hard time to defeat a
- Veteran AI 109G6, but flying the G6 against a
- Veteran AI La5FN, it was comparitively easy to win.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but it sounds like you just are doing something wrong. I know that the G2 and La5 are *very* evenly matched, for example. And that is how it WAS in WW2 (again, plane only, not counting pilot). If anything, the La5 seems to have the very low speed advantage.

I will attempt your tests here tonight. Not that it means much against the AI, as noted by another forumer.


- I don't think anybody is going to believe that an F
- series plane, weighing 4300 lbs, should not turn
- better than a G series plane weighing 5500 to 6100
- lbs.

The F was also lower powered. Remember, it's more than just wingloading that matters. Total thrust plays a big role. As does wing shape and presence or lack of lift devices (slats, slots, etc).

I will say it again, the 109 was a very capable turner. It was not as good as a Yak3, it was certainly no Zero, but it was quite good in turns. You drank too much of the IL2 Kool-Aid.


- I usually fly Yaks btw, only occasionly fly La's.

Somehow, this does not surprise me. I mentioned that I mainly fly USAAF to illustrate that I am not "looking out for my plane". But, your admission here does cast an air of suspicion that perhaps you are doing just that by trying to get the 109s clipped again.

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 03:27 PM
109:s are good fighters, and so are la5:s too, its just about how u handle em in combat, easist thing u can do is ge urself in trouble http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif think a bit (but just a bit) before u enter in combat, where to enter and is it wise to start turn & burn style maneuvering? just make slashing attacks and keep speed up, observe airspace around ya so u dont get surprised, check ur 6 even when ur behind enemy, he usually happens to have some mates with him, maybe he just drags ya so his mates can bag ya.
think a bit, but just a bit.

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 03:42 PM
wastel wrote:
- weight 109f4 was around 2850kg
- 109G2 3030kg
-
- 109G6 3140kg
-
-
- wastel
-

For G-56 you got the wrong number (should abe around 3080), 3140kg weight is G-6/R-6 (meaning Mk151/20 gun pods).

I/JG53_Jaguar

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 04:12 PM
no, g6r6 is around 3250kg (have original messerschmitt sheet on pc at home).

g2 to g6 around +110kg

wastel


..or can you give me YOUR source?

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 04:31 PM
Why is everyone crying about the 109s maybe being overmodelled when all the yaks, and LAs are overmodelled...

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 06:01 PM
All anecdotal evidence supports the fact that the G6 was not a dogfighter, and did not handle nearly as well as the F series 109's.
Anecdotal evidence also supports the fact that Yaks and La's could out-turn 109's. To have flight modelling where these planes are nearly equal, can not be historically accurate.

Today, Youss's IL2 Compare program became available, so we have reliable data on all the planes in this patch, and the data totally supports my conclusion based on my inept testing vs AI and my observations against human opponents.

109G6 has superior turn rate compared to La5FN at speeds below 330kph. La5FN turns better at speeds above 330kph. However, right now you can't do a high speed stall in a tight turn in the 109G6, so you can snap it around hard at high speeds, and get a shot at the La5FN, even though it's sustained turn rate is better. 109's are supposed to have heavy elevators at high speeds? La pilots were amazed at the slow speeds they could do loops at with this plane, giving it a huge advantage over 109's in a loop, but it's suicide to do that in IL2/FB.

The data also shows the 109G6 turning faster than the La7 at speeds below 320kph. Does anybody really believe that is historically accurate?

Even if we have to live with the sustained turn rate of the new FM for the 109's, that uber high speed snap turn has to be fixed.

Other examples:

According to pilots flying in North Africa, P40E's (Kittyhawks) had one advantage over 109F's, they could outturn them. Yet in IL2, they have identical turn rate up till 300kph, then the F4 turns better. Where is the turn advantage for the P40?

P51 vs 109G6...the 109G should turn better than a P51 at slow speeds, while the P51 should have the advantage at high speeds, particularly in the snap turn. Presently they have exactly the same performance at slower speeds, with the P51 having the advantage at high speeds as it should. The P51 probably needs to have it's slow speed turn reduced, cause we definately should NOT be increasing the 109G6 turn speed!

IMO this game has steadily progressed from a state where historicall accuracy was paramount, to a situation where arcade style "fairplay" is more important. This being the case, the 109's have superior firepower, superior climb, superior speed, superior ability to absorb damage, and equal or superior turn rate. Where is the fairness? Yaks and La's had one advantage over 109's, they could outmanuever them. At least give us that.

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 06:27 PM
man, you WS and US plane dudes whine alot... lol... should make a another room here , the WSUS bar so you all can share whine together... geeeeeez, if you guys cant be faster, dive faster, climb faster, turn faster that a 109 your saying its false?? geeeeeezzz

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 06:51 PM
Huckebein_FW if you read some books or interviews with german pilot they said that BF F was the best bf to dogfight (T&B) not any G-2 or other version. See interview with Gunther Rall for example:
" His favorite Messerschmitt was the Bf109F-4. He said it could tangle with anything the enemy could put up and was the best of 109's, not too heavy etc. "

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/photoreports/guntherrall2003/

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 06:56 PM
Sounds to me like you guys are afraid of a FAST turnable 109... buhhahahahaha

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 07:59 PM
sorry wrong weights..
G2/R6 3240kg
G6/R6 3350kg

original messerschmitt document

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 09:22 PM
Budanova wrote:

- Today, Youss's IL2 Compare program became available,
- so we have reliable data on all the planes in this
- patch, and the data totally supports my conclusion
- based on my inept testing vs AI and my observations
- against human opponents.

Oleg said the program by Youss is only a lookover the real Airspeed with radiator ,pitch and trimm and other endless variables used in the game may vary by 70 km/h to the Data represented in Youss program . So its not valid to make any assumption on turntime or speed with it.

Regards,
Hyperion

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 09:31 PM
So let me get this straight, an elevator force limiter gets installed on the 109 series which highly impacts amount of travel. Said limiter keeps them from overpulling in the turns at or near corner, no more stalls possible due to the limiter, and now we're going to have people cry about that? Exactly what is it you guys want, no elevators at all, nice and hold em straight and steady drones?

You can't have it both ways, if you can't figure out a human 109 pilot is handicapped by elevator force and how to exploit it, you really deserve to have your @zz kicked. Either that, or ask Oleg to install a concrete stick in your LA's./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Doubt it would help, you guys can't survive in a physics on environment regardless.

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 11:53 PM
Budanova wrote:
- All anecdotal evidence supports the fact that the G6
- was not a dogfighter, and did not handle nearly as
- well as the F series 109's.
- Anecdotal evidence also supports the fact that Yaks
- and La's could out-turn 109's. To have flight
- modelling where these planes are nearly equal, can
- not be historically accurate.

wrong - the yaks and las still do much better sustained turns the 109s
-
- Today, Youss's IL2 Compare program became available,
- so we have reliable data on all the planes in this
- patch, and the data totally supports my conclusion
- based on my inept testing vs AI and my observations
- against human opponents.

testing vs. AI !??
-
- 109G6 has superior turn rate compared to La5FN at
- speeds below 330kph. La5FN turns better at speeds
- above 330kph. However, right now you can't do a
- high speed stall in a tight turn in the 109G6, so
- you can snap it around hard at high speeds, and get
- a shot at the La5FN, even though it's sustained turn
- rate is better. 109's are supposed to have heavy
- elevators at high speeds? La pilots were amazed at
- the slow speeds they could do loops at with this
- plane, giving it a huge advantage over 109's in a
- loop, but it's suicide to do that in IL2/FB.


this is all BS ... and propably a result of "testing" against AI - high speed turn in a 109 ??? not possible in 1.2b - you can't deflect the elevator at high speed - enough to get any kind of high G turn - you obviously have not got any time in the 109 - and again i must say that this must be the result of "testing" against AI
-
- The data also shows the 109G6 turning faster than
- the La7 at speeds below 320kph. Does anybody really
- believe that is historically accurate?

the data shows........ what ?

-
- Even if we have to live with the sustained turn rate
- of the new FM for the 109's, that uber high speed
- snap turn has to be fixed.

uber high speed turn - YES THE AI !!! you can't do any high speed turn in a 109 - get it through your thick skull - i wrote a whole thread about this (which became a huck vs. skychimp battleground) - your "testing" against AI has NOTHING to do with online human vs. human dogfight.
-
- Other examples:
-
- According to pilots flying in North Africa, P40E's
- (Kittyhawks) had one advantage over 109F's, they
- could outturn them. Yet in IL2, they have identical
- turn rate up till 300kph, then the F4 turns better.
- Where is the turn advantage for the P40?

no P40 was able to outturn a 109F
-
- P51 vs 109G6...the 109G should turn better than a
- P51 at slow speeds, while the P51 should have the
- advantage at high speeds, particularly in the snap
- turn. Presently they have exactly the same
- performance at slower speeds, with the P51 having
- the advantage at high speeds as it should. The P51
- probably needs to have it's slow speed turn reduced,
- cause we definately should NOT be increasing the
- 109G6 turn speed!

the P51 vs. 109 is very well modelled now - i think the P51 bleeds to much and is a little to much prone to stall - thats it.
-
- IMO this game has steadily progressed from a state
- where historicall accuracy was paramount, to a
- situation where arcade style "fairplay" is more
- important. This being the case, the 109's have
- superior firepower, superior climb, superior speed,
- superior ability to absorb damage, and equal or
- superior turn rate. Where is the fairness? Yaks and
- La's had one advantage over 109's, they could
- outmanuever them. At least give us that.
-
again - all not true - they can still outturn 109s you are again talking about "veteran AI" or "ace AI" and the LA5s have better performance - climb and speed below 3000 metres - just like in real life. are you saying that in original IL2 we had an accurate matchup regarding G6 vs. yak/la - NOBODY in going to agree with you on that.

all written in brotherly love of course http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-26-2003, 12:12 AM
- I noticed in the RC01/02 version, that people are
- now flying the 109G6 when the 109G2 is also
- available. Wondered why, till I tested it. Seems
- like the 109G6 now turns as well as the G2 and F
- series fighters? I know I could not outturn them in
- La5's, even though everything I have ever read says
- that the La5 could turn inside any 109 easily and
- outloop them even easier.
-
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like you have
- improved the turn rate in the 109G6's?
-
- IM0, the F series are modeled about right for turn
- rate, but the G2 (in the 1.11 version) turned a bit
- better than it should have. Making the G6 turn as
- well as VVS fighters, simply gives the inexperienced
- players the chance to turn fight, rather than having
- to use energy tactics. The really bad part, is that
- experienced flyers, now have the choice to use
- energy tactics, or angles tactics, and basically
- have a superior airplane in speed, climb, firepower
- and turn. That ain't the way it was 60 years ago.
-
- Budanova
-
-

There are several finnish pilot accounts that 109g-2 and 109g-6 were about equal in turn with La-5. I would think it depends much on exact model of lavochins. Possibly La-5FN would be around 2sec better in sustained 360 turn than 109g-6. Thats not someting to count in dogfights since you can easily negate that difference by managing you energy in turn better than your opponent.

I'd say it depends much from pilot and IRL LA-5 wasnt clearly better in turning with 109Gs

XyZspineZyX
11-26-2003, 01:58 AM
Budanova wrote:
- Flying La5FN's, I had a really hard time to defeat a
- Veteran AI 109G6, but flying the G6 against a
- Veteran AI La5FN, it was comparitively easy to win.

Ok, I just finished a series of "tests" following your formula. I did -
[me] vs. [Ace AI]
La7 G6
La7 G6 Late
La5FN G6
La5FN G6 Late
G6 Late La7
G6 Late La5FN
G6 La5FN

All started at 1Km at noon on the smolensk map. When flying LW I took the "advantage" option. Las had 25% fuel and 109s had 50% fuel. The reason is the amazing burn rate of the 109. 25% just is not enough staying power, should the fight drag on a bit. The La7s were the 3 gun to try to add a bit of weight to it and the 109s used the 20mm to try to keep some weight off. All to try to intentionally balance thing in the 109s favor a bit (so that when they get beat it would prove an even better point. lol)

I attempted to turn fight as much as possible. Most of the time the AI did no oblige me, surprisingly enough. There were only 2 Lufeberry's in that entire series. Once I was in the FN, once I was in the 6Late against the La7. The La7 instance appeared to be a draw, but I was pulling streamers and he wasn't, plus I was getting lower and slower and had the throttle firewalled. Then the overheat message came up. In short, I lost that turning battle. I then spiral climbed out of it, slopily, and dove away to cool my engine and tried to zoom into another spiral for a chance to get on the offensive. Unfortunately spiral climbs are not my strong suit and I got raped. That was the only fight I lost.

The other lufberry where I was flying the FN, resulted in a clear loss for the 109. He was pulling streamers, I wasn't, and eventually I made significant enough gains on him that I was able to get some shots in.

I also managed some amazing moves with that FN. I forgot how good it was. On one merge I zoomed in a turn to the left, as he crossed under me and off to my right, I reversed the turn and completed the loop, coming back down on top of him and got a shot it.

If I was a good shot, I'd have won these matcehs much sooner. Even the one I lost to the La7. lol

Other than that, I found -

An oddity in the collison modeling (clippin a 109 with an La7 wing, took his wing clean off and only lost an aileron).

Saw that, not only does the AI cheat, it's hard to judge things when trying to follow an opponent because they have the jump and you are reacting. This makes it seem like they perform better than they actually do.

The 6 and 6 late are very close in performance now, as they should be, with the late being a bit better, as it should be.

The 6 series is close to the La series in turn, but NOT superior to it in anyway (from the FN on that is - didn't test the 5 or 5F).

The Laughin and 7 accelerate like pro street drag cars, whereas the 6 series accelerates like factory stock 70's muscle cars. (IOW, clear advantage to the Las)

The Las have better E retention, and better control authority.

Control authority is what is causing you to think that the 109s are turning beasts, even though they aren't, and possibly a bit of LW hatred too, or just beleiving too much hype.

And finally, the 109G6s do NOT have any amazing turning abilities at all. Not snap, not sustained. If you put some vertical component into it and E fight in ways other than basic BnZ, you can come out on top, but that is use of tactics against an inferior or predictible enemy. Unfortunatly, the same is true in reverse.

The Las have a clear advantage down low on co-E terms. I was also playing against the Ace AI. I notice that you mentioned "veteren" level. Again, I don't wish to sound harsh, but I suspect that it's just that you were not flying as well as the planes allow.

I saved all the tracks. (my horribly poor shooting and all)



Message Edited on 11/26/0305:15PM by BlitzPig_DDT

XyZspineZyX
11-26-2003, 08:33 AM
jamming would be nice,

especially high rof weapon suffer from jamming,

you find high rof weapons most in russia plane



g2 has almost same wingloading as la-5n,

therefor has la-5n better powerloading sealevel,so turn la-5fn sealevel better how in game,

but 2000m has g2 better powerloading as la-5fn,both plane has 1550ps 2000m,

db605a has 2000m more power as in sealevel,

but g2 has less weigh as la-5fn,therefor better powerloading for g2 at 2000m

so should g2 better sustain turn as la-5fn 2000m
at least same good,


begin 1600m came la-5fn in altitude where g2 has same powerloading as la-5fn



g6 was doghfighter,

hartmann had too ace p39 pilot shoot down in doghfight,

the p39 pilot had 26 victory as he meet hartmann and p39 pilot had hartmann surprice,

the p39 ace could oneself save with parachute and meet later hartmann in prisoner of war camp

many g6 pilots was successful doghfighter,not only lipfert,

hartmann tatik sooner rare 43

Message Edited on 11/27/0311:04PM by Skalgrim

XyZspineZyX
11-26-2003, 11:01 AM
Budanova wrote:

-...This being the case, the 109's have
- superior firepower, superior climb, superior speed,
- superior ability to absorb damage, and equal or
- superior turn rate. Where is the fairness? Yaks and
- La's had one advantage over 109's, they could
- outmanuever them. At least give us that.
-

Superior firepower... well, MK108 is a beast, buit few 109G-6 were equipped with it. Fortunatley, the standard armament of 20mm + 2x13mm is finally somehow effective.

Superior speed... hmm, La-FFN does 580kph at SL, G6 maybe 520-530kph (510kph with gunpods). At altitude, 630kph for La-5FN vs 640kph for 109G-6. This are real data.

Superior climb? But 109s really had it... above 2-3000m 109G-6 climbed better than La-5FN, in lower alt maybe a bit lower or similar.

Superior ability to absorb damage? For 109s I don眤t think so...

Equal or superior turn rate.. 109F vs early LaGG-3 in reality turned better. Experienced pilots like Lipfert were able to turnfight and to win with less experienced VVS pilots. According to Finnish pilots, La-5FN was more maneuvrable than 109G up to 5000m, than the maneuvrability was equal, higher even better for 109.

Generally I like the new 109G-6, they were the most mass produced fighter subtype and definitely they were awfully modelled in old IL-2 and still bad in FB V1.0-V1.11. Every experienced online pilot can outturn 109G-6 in Yak for sure and in La has to be a bit more careful but also.



<center>http://www.kurita.sk/PRIVATE/pictures/sig_il2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-26-2003, 11:59 AM
I dunno why but why most of players of FB are thinking that good fighter is T&B figter. Most important things that are in fighter are:
1. SPEED!!!
2. Firepower
3. How much bullets to shoot him down
4. Climb
.
.
.
.
.
?. Turn rate

So i think, if most of u think that good fighter is good turning plane, u thinks that if "they" told u that La5 was good fighter that means he was turning good.
And that's mistake. La5 wasn't good fighter. He turns worst that all 109 till 109g6, where his turn was comparable with 109g6.
Well La5 was russian 190. Was faster than 109 at lo alts.
Now about Bf109g (i'm not sure which g2 or g6).
But 109g was much worst turner than 109f2,4
New engine in 109g was hvy, so they have to add stronger landing gear and wieght of all plane went's up, turn rate was near bad as in 190.
Now one more time about La5. As u look at him u can see that wingspan is very short. It gives us info about his speed abilities but big turn radius... and maybe big abilities to spin. It's like Spit5b and Spit5c (5c is with short wings, non eliptical i think). While 5B was great turner, but slow and poor dive. 5C turn not so good as 5B but was a bit faster.

XyZspineZyX
11-26-2003, 05:30 PM
Jurinko wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>109F vs early LaGG-3 in reality turned better. Experienced pilots like Lipfert were able to turnfight and to win with less experienced VVS pilots. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lipfert didn't fly 109Fs. He didn't enter combat until very late '42 or even 1943. He flew Gs early on in his career.

XyZspineZyX
11-26-2003, 05:35 PM
The G-6 should be worse than the G-2, and it is. Really they were the same plane but the G-6 had a heavier engine. And I think they had to add a little more ballast in the tail. It also had a dirtier airframe, but not a lot worse, just two bumps on the nose. All in all, it was not that much heavier nor did it's weight distibution change that much. So I think it's about right. The VVS fliers now have a harder time dealing with it but they should. Their planes are still superior, just not by the long-shot they had before. So their answer is to whine in an effort to get Oleg to castrate the German birds again. I hope Oleg resists that temptation. They need to use the advantage they still have. But they won't dominate completely any longer. I say deal with it.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin - 1755

XyZspineZyX
11-26-2003, 05:42 PM
G2 same engine than G6
-->engine weight was the same!

wastel

XyZspineZyX
11-26-2003, 09:01 PM
wastel wrote:
- G2 same engine than G6
--->engine weight was the same!
-
- wastel
-
But a later production model with 1,42 ATA WEP allowed. Due the "simplified" airframe G-6 is 15-20 km/h slower at alt, but somehow faster at low level



**************
Member of 88-IAP: http://www.88-iap.de , sokol@88-iap.de
Member of Virtual Online War team: http://www.vow-hq.com

88.IAP>Sokol
in Hyperlobby: http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/

XyZspineZyX
11-27-2003, 04:39 AM
The 109's are better than they have been in the past..Let's just look at them all one by one ok?

BF-109E [Entire Series]:
Seems fine, just the engine issues, and the 7/Z missing the centerline rack...

BF-109F-2:
Maybe just a *little* bit undermoddeled, nothing really to complain about, missing the centerline bomb/droptank rack.

BF-109F-4:
Also a little undermoddeled, and missing option for droptank, bombs, or 20mm gunpods.

BF-109G-2
PERFECT! Although the 20mm gunpods should have a bit more of a negative effect on handleing.
I wish we could get a version with GM-1 or MW-50 to simulate Western Front planes.

BF-109G-6 and G-6Late
Looking OK, some say slightly undermoddeled, G-6Late canopy needs to be windexed, and I would like to see the rocket tubes as an option.

BF-109G-14
Also looking fine, no complaints other than lack of rockets and the canopy

BF-109G-10
Lacking rockets, lacking droptank, lacking a bottle of windex for the canopy. Flight performance seems fine.

BF-109K-4
Seems great, canopy needs a wash though, and rockets would be nice.

Well, thats what I think.
Comments welcome...or should I be ready for a flameing?

XyZspineZyX
11-27-2003, 04:55 AM
Salute

Not a big surprise that the 109's have been improved so much... I understand there was a group of specially selected Germans on the betatesters team.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
11-27-2003, 04:56 AM
totally agree with you VOL_Jon

XyZspineZyX
11-27-2003, 04:56 AM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Salute
-
- Not a big surprise that the 109's have been improved
- so much... I understand there was a group of
- specially selected Germans on the betatesters team.
-
-
- RAF74 Buzzsaw

If by "Improved" you mean "Corrected", then yes, the 109's have been corrected so much that they need only a little more fine tuneing

XyZspineZyX
11-27-2003, 05:10 AM
Salute

I would tend to agree that the 109's cockpit canopies need to be improved.

They are far too dusty and greenish. When compared to the Soviet Canopies, they come off much worse.

In actual fact, the quality of the Soviet Perspex was entirely inferior to the German and Western Allied, and was so bad in the early years of the war that the Soviet pilots flew with the canopy open, a tactic which reduced speed on aircraft as much as 30 kph.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
11-27-2003, 05:11 AM
lol!

heh, what about the MIG-3 cockpit, it hardly looks like it has any glass at all!!!

XyZspineZyX
11-27-2003, 05:27 AM
The F-2 and F-4 are undermodeled I would say. I will openly admit that that is my "gut" feeling, up front. I find that they are a touch less agile than G2s and are more difficult to toss about the sky.

The problem though, despite what Budanova would like to beleive, is with the Fs, not Gs.

XyZspineZyX
11-27-2003, 08:50 AM
S!


I like the Bf109G-series more now. I hardly fly G-6/AS or other later variants so I can't tell anything of them. Neither do I fly E/F..well..F-4 in VEF though.

Bf109G-2 is a capable plane now as it should be. 109G-6 series do not fall much behind but U can see the difference in them. Russian kites can beat the crap out of these 109's with good flying anytime, so I do not really see the reason to complain.

Let's compare...109's do not need a lot of hits to lose controls or get an oily window + sputtering engine. 1 Shkas on VVS planes would be enough /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I have to use 30mm to do any damage to a Yak/LaLa for example, the 20mm is like farting in the general direction of the target. Also I have in VERY few instances gotten oil on windscreen on ANY VVS plane or bulletholes all over and their engines can fly for ages with oil cooler leaking the oil out...even with WEP. Deltawood and Honda-engines I see /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

To be serious..Bf109G-series was NOT a bad plane if the pilot could fly it. Now they are quite competetive with the VVS planes and tactics do play a bigger role now than earlier. When a pilot flies an underdog to compete against the better planes U learn to use the strenghts of it. Now it pays off when the plane is finally closer to it's real performance and one can enjoy flying on pretty equal terms. Fights have become more challenging than before(positive way), even I have to avoid to get hit by anything so the glass plane would not break /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Flanker
1.Lentue P誕っ造llikk誕
Training/Tactics Officer
Lentolaivue 34
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/LLv34

"Let Chaos entwine on defensless soil"
-Dimmu Borgir-

XyZspineZyX
11-27-2003, 09:11 AM
Salute

Now maybe we can get an American committee of betatesters to fix the P-47... ha!


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
11-27-2003, 09:36 AM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Salute
-
- Now maybe we can get an American committee of
- betatesters to fix the P-47... ha!

Yeah, *supposedly* they did. Right. Problem is the sov's didn't like it. So it's less than it should be. Go figure. Hmmm....

XyZspineZyX
11-27-2003, 09:40 AM
LLv34_Flanker wrote:
- Bf109G-2 is a capable plane now as it should be.
- 109G-6 series do not fall much behind but U can see
- the difference in them. Russian kites can beat the
- crap out of these 109's with good flying anytime, so
- I do not really see the reason to complain.

They seem to complain because things are approaching accuracy now. So they don't have their UFOs anymore and actually have to fly better.


- Let's compare...109's do not need a lot of hits to
- lose controls or get an oily window + sputtering
- engine. 1 Shkas on VVS planes would be enough I have to use 30mm to do any
- damage to a Yak/LaLa for example, the 20mm is like
- farting in the general direction of the target.

This is not true. The 20mm does quite a job. Especially with the 12.7s in concert. All in where ya hit 'em. I prefr the 20 over the 108. Easier to hit with.


- Also
- I have in VERY few instances gotten oil on
- windscreen on ANY VVS plane or bulletholes all over
- and their engines can fly for ages with oil cooler
- leaking the oil out...even with WEP. Deltawood and
- Honda-engines I see

I cooked an engine in an La7 today. They are mortal now. Quite nice to see. Not sure about the oil on the canopy though.

XyZspineZyX
11-27-2003, 01:52 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Salute
-
- Now maybe we can get an American committee of
- betatesters to fix the P-47... ha!


How about fixing the 4000fpm climb rate of the D-10/22? Is that on your agenda? Shouldn't it be 3200fpm maximum?

Also fix the 23sec turn time, you can now outturn Fw-190 with it, which is ridiculous. 23sec turn time was for P-51D, P-47D had 26sec turn time and even worse.


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

XyZspineZyX
11-27-2003, 06:39 PM
Cokol_88IAP wrote:
- Maybe it is the MK-108, wich 300 where built in 43
- with severe jamms after 10 rounds.
-
- Standard was 20mm and R-6 with 3x20mm. With Mk-108
- you get that firepower saving 210kg weight.
-
- Mass production of this weapon started spring44,
- thats why it is "端ber" in 43.....;-)


Cokol, do you have some more information on MK 108 production ? I would need production figures for the war, as yet I only have for some selected months. I need it for my site yet my trusty companion from Fritz Hahn mysteriously disappeared from the library... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif



http://www.mit.bme.hu/~tade/ac-pict/Hung-AF/pre-1945/Bf-109/Bf109col.gif

Vez辿r端nk a B叩tors叩g, K誕*s辿r誕nk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 01:31 AM
Bump for Buda who seems so hell bent on a quest to get the 109s undermodeled that he seems to have forgotten about this thread and just started a new one.

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 05:48 PM
I think he knows he's wrong and that's why he's ignoring this.

Or it could be that he's so delusional that he doesn't know he's wrong, but, since my experiment doesn't fit his view, he doesn't know what to do with it, and thus is ignoring it.

Bump again.

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 09:17 PM
i agree - he has not answered anything that has been posted to prove his AI testing is wrong. and it is very wrong.

silly thread

XyZspineZyX
11-29-2003, 03:13 AM
The 109, especially the G-6 continues to perform poorly compared to such aircraft as the LaGG-3('43). This is especially evident against AI if one flies a dogfight in each.

The 109's guns and 20mm continue to be very anemic and inaccurate compared to its Soviet counterparts in the game. It is very difficult to achieve any reversal in the 109's due to their instability in maneuver, lack of torque, and overmodeled stall rates in normal maneuver. The Lagg by comparison is solid in each of these respects.

Against human pilots the situation is slightly more complex, as most German pilots in IL-2/FB have learned from experience that they are in an inferior plane as modeled, therefore they utilize far in excess of reasonable tactics, like attacking from extreme altitudes, using teamwork etc... to make up the difference. It is also evident that most pilots that choose to fly such dogs as the 109's against such overmodeled Soviet aircraft and guns typically have higher levels of experience and expertise than the majority of Soviet pilots in the game who have advantages that were not present in reality.

In reality the LaGG-3 was considered an inferior aircraft to the 109 G-6 by every measure.

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

"Loyalty to the country always, loyalty to the government when it deserves it."

Mark Twain

XyZspineZyX
11-29-2003, 03:18 AM
I stated my opinions, and the results from my testing.
Others responded in agreement or disagreement, with reasons for their opinions. Thats what discussion is all about.

My opinion hasn't changed, nor is this thread likely to change the opinions of those who disagree. Why then would I continue to debate?

Particularly since I made this post about one plane, and noticed a change in all the 109 models and made a seperate post on that subject?

Unlike some, I do not stoop so low as to insult those who disagree with me, or presume to know their motivation.

For the record, I DO NOT want an undermodelled 109. I want all planes to be as correct as possible within the paramaters of this game.

XyZspineZyX
11-29-2003, 03:46 AM
Well, if you do not want an undermodeled 109, then you simply have false information.

The 109s we have now are the most accurately modeled they've ever been. With the G2 being about the best done of the lot. The F's however, are undermodeled.

There are a *HOST* of other issues, many pertaining to VVS planes that are overmodeled (and 1 Axis plane (the Zero) that is hideously overmodeled, and 3 US planes that are undermodeled in various aspects). Why not start there?

XyZspineZyX
11-29-2003, 03:55 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Bf-109G2/G6 had 19-20sec turn rate. This ideea that
- G6 was some underpowered pig is directly caused by
- Il2. There was no significant difference in weight
- between G2 and G6, only some versions had some 50kg
- more of equipment. Also the difference in weight
- between F4 and G2 is only 100kg. And F4 was
- considered an extreme dogfighter. Do you think that
- an increase in weight with 3% will decrease the
- performance so much? Especially when the power was
- increased with 10%. Many sources say that G2 was
- even more maneuvrable than F4, even russians thought
- so.
-
- Once again there was no difference in maneuvrability
- and performance between G2 and G6 (except a 10km/h
- difference in max speed).
-
- Also right now we don't have a G2/G6 powered by C3
- fuel. That would make the plane even more
- performant, it would gain another 75PS.

The Bf-109G-6 manual gives a 13 second time for a 180 degree turn at 400 km/h, and a 14 second time to do a 100 degree turn at 450 km/h.



- In terms of performance P-47 is not realistic at
- all. Overmodelled in every respect.

Your biased opinion. Objectively, its undermodelled in top speed, roll rate (except at very low speed), dive acceleration.



- P-51 has a
- better FM (except the turn rate that should be the
- same with Fw-190A).

Better than Fw.



- Fw-190 handling is awfully
- modelled, it has an incredible instability in pitch
- and yaw, it slips all the time, you cannot aim with
- at all. I never heard of such problems on Fw-190.

Then you haven't done much reading, or you skipped the parts that talk about awful stall characterisitics and sustained turn ability. But the Fw-190 is extremely overmodelled in roll rate at moderate to high speeds (3 second roll at 800 km/h IAS).

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/siglight.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-29-2003, 03:59 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- How about fixing the 4000fpm climb rate of the
- D-10/22? Is that on your agenda? Shouldn't it be
- 3200fpm maximum?
-
- Also fix the 23sec turn time, you can now outturn
- Fw-190 with it, which is ridiculous. 23sec turn time
- was for P-51D, P-47D had 26sec turn time and even
- worse.


What's your source for these? Or are these your preferred values determined through you calculations?

And what about the Fw-190 roll issue? I never see you mention that. 3 second rolls at 800 km/h. Absurd.

You continuously claim the P-47 could not turn with the Fw-190. You obviously rely SOLELY on calculated performance and IGNORE totally flight characterisitics of each plane. The Fw-190 did not have good sustained turn characterisitics. It tended to snap roll, especially in right turns, when the turn was sustained and speed bled off. Sorry, but planes didn't necessarily perform the way you want them to in this game.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/siglight.jpg



Message Edited on 11/28/0310:05PM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
11-29-2003, 05:54 AM
Budanova wrote:


After eading all your diatribe I can only say 1 thing, try flying the planes properly. I hand it to some in 109's (my plane of choice especially the G6AS) and others in P51's La's P47's and Yaks hand it to me.

It depends on the situation. Also people need to learn how to augment turning with flaps and trim. It is called flying and will separate the dweebs from those who get the kills.

Also try tactics. Discipline is paramount and not charging in like a bull in a china shop. This is where I believe the experten of the Luftwaffe excelled and why they fared so well. They knew when and how to pick the fight.

Any comparisons of flight performance based on offline flying is crap and should be discounted cause we all know the AI have easier flight models to deal with than we do. It reduces CPU overhead and compensates for where AI is deficient.

Get over it and all you other people whining too. BTW I as much like flying VVS as I do 109's but I fly with a geman squad hence most of my time in the 109. If teams are uneven then I'll fly for red in VVS plans.