PDA

View Full Version : BF109-G , impressions of the soviet pilot.



crazyivan1970
01-17-2005, 05:38 AM
http://www.airforce.ru/history/ww2/kozhemjako/kozhemjako_1.jpg

Just a few quotes from the interview with veteran of 107 GIAP Major Kozhemyako ( I.K.) ... i find it rather interesting and pretty honest..

A.S. - Author
I.K. - major Kozhemyako

**********************************************
A.S What do you think about German fighter planes Messerschmitt BF-109G?

I.K. I think of them with a lot of respect.
BF109 was very good, very high scale fighter plane. If was superior to our Yaks in speed and vertical combat. It wasn`t 100% superiority, but still. Very dynamic plane. I`ll be honest with you, it was my dream during my war years, to have a plane like this. Fast and superior on vertical, but that didn`t happen.

A.S. What was so specific for BF-109G, anything you can point out?

I.K. I have to tell you, that Messer had one extremely positive thing, it was able to be successful fight Yak`s at 2000m and Aircobras at 6000m. This is truly unique ability and valuable. Of course, here Yak and P-39 were inferior. As far as combat on different altitudes, BF109 was universal, like La-5.
A.S. Well, i guess 90% of success in all altitudes belongs to its engine€¦

I.K. I wouldn`t doubt it.

A.S. But if you look at this from another perspective, this uniqueness of BF109 could have played fatal role when it encountered aicraft that was specialized and optimized for combat on certain altitudes. You already know that Barkhorn on the question about best fighter of WW2 answered: On high altitudes P-51 and low altitudes Yak-9, Surprized?

I.K. Yes, Very Surprized. But, I guess if I was fighting in Me109 I would have look at Yak-9 differently, who knows.

A.S. How would you grade weapons on BF109G comparing to Yak1?

I.K. Yaks weapons were more powerful. maybe that`s why german fighters were trying to avoid head to head attacks.

A.S. I can`t agree with you. Yak can`t have more powerful weaponry because it has only 1 12.7mm MG (UBS) while BF109G has 2 13mm MG-13s.

I.K. German high caliber machine guns were rather weak, just a name "high caliber". They couldn`t even penetrate armored plate behind pilot, needed armor piercing bullet for that, and even then from close distance. But if german pilot would open fire from 200-300m with regular bullets and under sharp angle, it couldn`t even penetrate block of M105, could only bust thru the cowling covers.. Same for armored glass, couldnt penetrate it. My opinion on 13mm MG, they could only be effective from close distances, shooting at point blank ranges could bring you some success. I think 1 UBS in combat was more effective in combat then 2 MG13s combined.
20mm german cannon was excellent, unlike MG`s. Very powerful, not worse then out SHVAK.

A.S. I am surprised that you think that Me109 was capable in the turning combat. There is general opinion that BF109 was rather average when it comes to combat with many manuevers. It`s very common opinion that BF109G with its technical and tactical characteristics was rather "hunter" then turnfighter..

I.K. Lies! Me109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be Messer! Speedy, maneuverable,(especially in vertical) and extremely dynamic. I can`t tell about all other things, but taking under consideration what i said above, Messerschmitt was ideal for dogfight. But for some reason majority of german pilots didn`t like turn fight, till this day i don`t know why.
I don`t know what was stopping them, but it`s definitely not the plane. I know that for a fact. I remember battle of Kursk where german aces were starting "roller-coaster" rides where our heads were about to come off from rotation.
No, seriously... Is it true it`s a common thing now that Messer wasn`t maneuverable?

A.S. Yes.

I.K. Heh.. Why would people come up with something like this... It was maneuverable...by god it was.

Hetzer_II
01-17-2005, 06:22 AM
You is wrong!!

You old LW-Whiner!!!!
All lies, the old man lies because he is playing Il2 on the blue side.... he has to lie because he flies blue...

!!!!!!!!

WOLFMondo
01-17-2005, 06:33 AM
Interesting stuff, kinda supports the way BF109's behave at the minute.

Do you have the link to the rest of the interview?

p1ngu666
01-17-2005, 06:36 AM
maybe he would climb faster without all those medals http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif?

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

is like that ingame, yak9 isnt uber, just cool http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

yak3, now thats a uberyak http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

crazyivan1970
01-17-2005, 06:37 AM
Hetzer calm down http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Here`s the link to original: http://www.airforce.ru/history/ww2/kozhemjako/ , sorry it`s in russian. Part above i translated this morning. I`ll try to translate the rest later on.

Cheers!

BBB_Hyperion
01-17-2005, 06:42 AM
"Anklopfger¤t" Knocker Device was the MG13 called (this name was used for all devices that werent able to get through armor or protection without luck)
now you know why .)

Thx for the Heads Up CI was already mental giving in to LeadSpitter_'s lobbyism club http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Hetzer_II
01-17-2005, 06:43 AM
Whoever finds the joke in my post can keep it

;-)

crazyivan1970
01-17-2005, 06:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hetzer_II:
Whoever finds the joke in my post can keep it

;-) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn`t ban you yet..so i guess i have a pretty good sense of humor http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

WOLFMondo
01-17-2005, 07:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Hetzer calm down http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Here`s the link to original: http://www.airforce.ru/history/ww2/kozhemjako/ , sorry it`s in russian. Part above i translated this morning. I`ll try to translate the rest later on.

Cheers! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks. I tried babelfish translator but it got a bit garbelled.

crazyivan1970
01-17-2005, 07:07 AM
Translater wont do much mate. If i have time, i`ll translate a little more.

Hetzer_II
01-17-2005, 07:24 AM
"I didn`t ban you yet..so i guess i have a pretty good sense of humor "

To have a mod with a sense of humor......
->priceless

For everything else there is mastercard...

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

CTO88
01-17-2005, 07:27 AM
i think interviewer has made a little mistake. IIRC Barkhorn states about yak-9u.

WWMaxGunz
01-17-2005, 07:36 AM
Ivan I read about the 109's and turning combat and notice specific that the major includes
a vertical element in that. Not flat-turning but roller coaster turning which if you have
a faster plane is a more highly effective method. To him, turning combat is not limited to
flat turns and A.S. there didn't ask about it. I wish he did just for the response.

crazyivan1970
01-17-2005, 07:54 AM
He was talking about manueverable combat in general.. roller coaster it was rather my translation, he called it differently, i couldn`t find the word for it... "round robin" - that`s what it says in dictionary... Sorry for miss-translation

p1ngu666
01-17-2005, 07:58 AM
9u is different from yaks that came before, not just better, less turny, atleast ingame

IIJG69_Kartofe
01-17-2005, 07:59 AM
Yep, NOTHING prove that a 109 is a "bad turner".

In Contrario, there is a lot of Pilot's testimonials (actual and WWII pilots) who say the opposite, ....

But a legend is a beast, a verry hard to kill beast.

H-J MARSEILLE is the proof that we can make wonders with a 109, but it's an idividual way of fighting, and in a war being individual is the best way to die, LW tacticians have understand that long time ago, that's why turning was not recomended to pilots.

JG7_Rall
01-17-2005, 08:33 AM
Wow, awesome post Ivan. Does he have anything to say on the 190? Thanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

S.taibanzai
01-17-2005, 08:45 AM
Wow thx Ivan

this is realy impresive ,you cant beat the speaks from real ww2 pilots

wonder why also why the german pilots wont turn

maybe they dont want to loose there speed

ZG77_Nagual
01-17-2005, 08:58 AM
Nice work Crazy. Good to see this. As I've said before I think the 109 is probably the best all-round dogfighter - I also think it is currently very well modeled.

jurinko
01-17-2005, 09:05 AM
thanks Ivaushka, very interesting. Except the MG 151, FB very realistic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

crazyivan1970
01-17-2005, 09:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
Wow, awesome post Ivan. Does he have anything to say on the 190? Thanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

***
A.S. Did you ever encounter FW-190 in combat? If yes, what`s your take on the capabilities of this plane as a fighter?
I.K. I have only met FW190 once, at the end of the war. We were escorting 6 Sturmoviks to Berlin. Us €" 4 Yak-9s. Flight of 6 Fockers intercepted us on the approach to the target. I can say that they were not really aggressive. They started approaching, but all 4 our Yak`s turned towards them. They imitated attack, fired few rounds from long distance and flew away. We tried to chase them, but who are we kidding€¦ bottom line, they didn`t engage us.
Well, what can I say based on one encounter? Not whole a lot. Looks like speed wise FW is similar to BF109 (we could not catch them) but by far better weapons. Fokker had such impressive weapons that when it fired all of them, it turned into fireball up front€¦ almost to the tips of the wings. I would get in the front of it. In Horizontal maneuvers Yak would probably better then FW, not sure about vertical.
***

CK_Mouch
01-17-2005, 09:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> WOLFMondo said: Thanks. I tried babelfish translator but it got a bit garbelled. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you forgot to put the Babel fish inside your ear ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Thanks a lot Crazyivan, very interesting http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Chromatorg
01-17-2005, 09:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S.taibanzai:
Wow thx Ivan

this is realy impresive ,you cant beat the speaks from real ww2 pilots

wonder why also why the german pilots wont turn

maybe they dont want to loose there speed <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, he specificaly saying what in _turn_ fight yaks had advantage, and also by violent manuevering. He is talking about Yak-7 and Yak-1. About Yak-3 he saying something like "if i only could flight Yak-3 during the war i would blow all german fighters with such advantage!".

karost
01-17-2005, 09:16 AM
Oh... thanks Ivan for your kinds transtlate a good story for us.

real 20mm in bf-109G not weak http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

and I wonder like S.taibanzai..."why the german pilots wont turn"

MARSEILLE like to breaking LW tactical rule to make turn but that was bf-109F not bf-109G

basic of bf-109s is a energy combat if make alot of turn then loose a speed its mean loose energy (imho) ... I'm not sure why ?
S!

geetarman
01-17-2005, 09:29 AM
That guy's gotta have major back pain!

faustnik
01-17-2005, 09:49 AM
That is a surprising article Ivan, thanks for posting. American pilot reports always paint the Bf109 as an average dogfighter at best, and inferior to the Fw190. The Mg131 quote is also interesting, I have to investigate why it was so inferior to the UBS.

Thanks for posting. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG53Frankyboy
01-17-2005, 10:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
That is a surprising article Ivan, thanks for posting. American pilot reports always paint the Bf109 as an average dogfighter at best, and inferior to the Fw190. The Mg131 quote is also interesting, I have to investigate why it was so inferior to the UBS.

Thanks for posting. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well , "The MG 131 was a light weapon, but this was achieved by combining a modest muzzle velocity and a light projectile."

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-pe.html

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

WOLFMondo
01-17-2005, 10:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
That is a surprising article Ivan, thanks for posting. American pilot reports always paint the Bf109 as an average dogfighter at best, and inferior to the Fw190. The Mg131 quote is also interesting, I have to investigate why it was so inferior to the UBS.

Thanks for posting. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Might be because US pilots faced it much higher up and they had an equal speed performance against it. Might also depend on the quality of pilots who were on the eastern front vs the western front?

faustnik
01-17-2005, 10:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:


Might be because US pilots faced it much higher up and they had an equal speed performance against it. Might also depend on the quality of pilots who were on the eastern front vs the western front? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But the Bf109 performed well at high altitude?

USAAF and RAF pilot quality was excellent by '43 so, you may be right there.

The differences in opinion seperated by East and West is interesting.

crazyivan1970
01-17-2005, 10:24 AM
Two completely different styles of airwar IMO faust. Different odds too.

I think WOLF talking about LW pilots

Gryphonne
01-17-2005, 10:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>20mm german cannon was excellent, unlike MG`s. Very powerful, not worse then out SHVAK. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

If even a Russian pilot says this, Oleg just has to change the MG151/20 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Gryph

ZG77_Nagual
01-17-2005, 10:28 AM
Wow! That link below makes it pretty clear why the vvs weapons are generally superior to all others.

well , "The MG 131 was a light weapon, but this was achieved by combining a modest muzzle velocity and a light projectile."

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-pe.html

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

crazyivan1970
01-17-2005, 10:34 AM
Another good quote:

A.S. As far as i understood you are saying that Soviet VVS won airwar with Luftwaffe only because they were more prepared for the war till exhaustion?

I.K. Yes. That is correct, exactly war till "exhaustion". Sometimes it was the skill, sometimes superior planes and sometimes our own blood, we were ready to give anything, we were not holding back anything.

Stiglr
01-17-2005, 10:42 AM
It is very interesting to note the difference between "dogfighting" and "dogfighting with the vertical factored in". Because most pilots probably think they're talking way over the heads of their audience, they don't make such fine distinctions, and rarely even use maneuver terms or "talk in angles and degrees". Lost in this is the general impression that a Messerschmitt is likely very average if ALL it does is turn, like a Spitfire might. However, when you factor in some yo-yos, or climbing spirals and things of that nature, it'll give a great account of itself in a knife fight.

As for "Americans reporting that Messers were average dogfighters": what would you expect when all they see of a 109 is a head-on attack into a bomber box, roll over on their backs and head for terra firma? Most pilots aren't going to turn back and fight when they're outnumbered 2: or 3:1, and on the deck over friendly territory. Better to head home; you'll be back up later that afternoon.

The other thing that caught my eye was the discussion of the 13mm MG, and the idea that the 20mm was very good. Exactly the opposite of what we see in here. I'm often able to draw smoke and damage from 13mm bursts in later model 109s... but the 20mms are all but useless over half the time.

JG7_Rall
01-17-2005, 10:43 AM
Wow Ivan, thanks a lot for taking the time to translate that, especially the part about the 190! I really hope some day our MG151's are fixed, I hate having to use Mk 108's on the later 109's. I'd also like Oleg to allow us to use the 20mm in later 109's, despite the fact that they're modelled off of Hungarian examples.

JG7_Rall
01-17-2005, 10:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
It is very interesting to note the difference between "dogfighting" and "dogfighting with the vertical factored in". Because most pilots probably think they're talking way over the heads of their audience, they don't make such fine distinctions, and rarely even use maneuver terms or "talk in angles and degrees". Lost in this is the general impression that a Messerschmitt is likely very average if ALL it does is turn, like a Spitfire might. However, when you factor in some yo-yos, or climbing spirals and things of that nature, it'll give a great account of itself in a knife fight.

As for "Americans reporting that Messers were average dogfighters": what would you expect when all they see of a 109 is a head-on attack into a bomber box, roll over on their backs and head for terra firma? Most pilots aren't going to turn back and fight when they're outnumbered 2: or 3:1, and on the deck over friendly territory. Better to head home; you'll be back up later that afternoon.

The other thing that caught my eye was the discussion of the 13mm MG, and the idea that the 20mm was very good. Exactly the opposite of what we see in here. I'm often able to draw smoke and damage from 13mm bursts in later model 109s... but the 20mms are all but useless over half the time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. And also, pilot quality has to be factored in. Despite the fact that kills on the Eastern front were initially a bit easier to come by, the pilots on the Easter were exceptional, while the pilot quality on the west during '44 and '45 declined dramatically.

crazyivan1970
01-17-2005, 10:47 AM
A.S. So the M-105 was very reliable and tough...but what about Yakovlev fighter planes in general, were they durable?

I.K. It really depence where it hits you, anything outside of engine and cockpit, you could bring home 10 or more holes. Quiet often myself was "bringing" home 8-10 holes from bullets and cannon rounds (6-8 from MG and couple of 20mm armor peircing ones...

But if high-explosive projectile was hitting Yak...it was a problem. Plywood would be flying in all directions and distruction would be major, even if plane didn`t catch fire, still have to jump out, can`t fly much with surfaces missing. BF109 in that regard was tougher, full metal construction.

A.S. Did germans use armor peircing round often?

I.K. Quiet often. I have an impression that every 3rd or 4th round was armor peircing. Which is understandable, they had to attack IL-2s, without armor penetrating ammo there is no effect, HE rounds were bounching right of their armor.

faustnik
01-17-2005, 11:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:

But if high-explosive projectile was hitting Yak...it was a problem. Plywood would be flying in all directions and distruction would be major, even if plane didn`t catch fire, still have to jump out, can`t fly much with surfaces missing. BF109 in that regard was tougher, full metal construction. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ooophhh, maybe you should have held that one back Ivan. You might have to call for backup to put out the fire that starts. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

crazyivan1970
01-17-2005, 11:05 AM
No Faust..I posted it for a reason... because i believe that 20mm that is used in IL-2 is HP, not HE. At least it looks like that.
Also, he is talking about surface being blowing away, which affects lift, stability...etc. Which is not really modeled for ANY planes. We have holes modeled, missing parts - wings, tails...etc. But not ...say top surface of the wing. Maybe just due to some limitation. BOB perhaps?

JG77Von_Hess
01-17-2005, 11:12 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gifThanx for sharing Ivan, interresting read there and much appriciated..

Regards.

VH.

faustnik
01-17-2005, 11:18 AM
Clint posted sim data from Oleg saying that the Mg151/20 belt load was 1AP-2HEI-2Mgl.

LW Fighters on the Eastern front used 3Mgl - 1API - 1AP according Butch2K, "the man" with knowledge of this stuff.

|CoB|_Spectre
01-17-2005, 11:19 AM
Thx Ivan, I always enjoy first-person accounts. I can understand the absolute need for empirical data in evaluating performance products such as those modeled in this sim, but to disregard the human experience is to take away an important piece of the puzzle. Numbers do not always tell the whole story or even the true story. It is generally accepted that people's memories fade with time and often unconsciously embellish reality. No doubt that is true of most of us. However, most of us do not deal with life and death survival on a daily basis of the magnitude these aging fellows experienced at a young age. It has always amazed me the clarity with which they seem to recall such things. No doubt the intensity of the moment engraves it more deeply than more routine experiences. It is said you never feel as alive than when you're close to death. Surely it would burn the events indelibly into your mind to be resurrected with clarity when triggered by a song, a sound, an odor.

S.taibanzai
01-17-2005, 11:19 AM
Thank you Ivan for your time to post and trancelate this

are you russian ?

that lives in USA ?

No i now it you are so smart that you speak manny languages right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

HayateAce
01-17-2005, 11:22 AM
bleh

crazyivan1970
01-17-2005, 11:28 AM
Wanna turn this into circus Hayate... bad idea. I wont allow.

crazyivan1970
01-17-2005, 11:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Clint posted sim data from Oleg saying that the Mg151/20 belt load was 1AP-2HEI-2Mgl.

LW Fighters on the Eastern front used 3Mgl - 1API - 1AP according Butch2K, "the man" with knowledge of this stuff. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually... looking back to original source... it`s not high explosive he`s describing... i gotta come up with better translation... ok, found it: "high-explosive fragmentation projectile"

Jonny___C
01-17-2005, 11:57 AM
Keep in mind that right from the time of the Battle of Britain, with Bf-109E€s, German pilots avoided really high-G turns because of worry about weakness in the 109€s wings. In other words they did not fly the plane to the edge of its envelope. Apparently the 109, flown to the max, could turn every bit as well as the Spitifre. Pilots just didn€t do it because of a fear of wing failure.

That worry may have coloured pilot thinking about subsequent marks of the 109 as well.

Sig.Hirsch
01-17-2005, 12:03 PM
Great post .
Thx Ivan for sharing and keeping it clean http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

HE rounds for BoB i hope http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ZG77_Nagual
01-17-2005, 12:04 PM
In europe we have dogfights mainly occuring in the context of high-alt bomber escort. A/C are going to be evaluated in terms of speed first - then maneuverability at speed - and firepower. The 190 is a better high-speed fighter than the 109 - and is better armored and armed. It is better able to change direction at high speed and is more on a par with the mustang in terms of roll and overall performance in the zoom regime.
The 109 - in my opinion, was more a product of early dogfighting theory - and also more of an interceptor. This is reflected in it's climb and it's moderate/low speed maneuverability. On the EF where the fight was low to mid it outshown the 190 - which was also more often used for ground support there. It's no surprise the a/c were evaluated differently based on theatre. The 190 shines when it is at the top of the hill e-wise and able to stay fast. The 109 is better able to handle fur-balls and horizontal fights.

It's allways surprising to me to find there are still alot of people online who seem to restrict themselves to either strict horizontal or strict vertical fights (though the later is perhaps more intelligent of the two tactically) It's really fairly rare - and more of an indulgence - for me to get dogged down into a horizontal purely horizontal fight where I haven't the energy or space to get vertical anymore.

Jonny___C
01-17-2005, 12:11 PM
This may be of interest, though it's about the Bf-109J

***

Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company relates his experiences flying the OFMC
Messerschmitt Bf 109J (export version to Spain)...

"So how does the aeroplane compare with other contemporary fighters? First, let me say that all
my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12
(54" and 2700 rpm. I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the
allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-
fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed
characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the
'109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely
matched that pilot ability would probably be the deciding factor. At higher speeds the P-51 is
definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he
would be relatively safe against the '109. Other factors affecting the '109 as a combat plane
include the small cramped cockpit. This is quite a tiring working environment, although the view
out (in flight) is better than you might expect; the profusion of canopy struts is not particularly a
problem."

carguy_
01-17-2005, 12:12 PM
Looks like a breakthrough.

Seems the Me109G is very close to real.First time I see an interview that confirms the FM of a plane almost completely.

Machineguns are ok

MG151/20 is undermodelled as I suspectedhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bookmarking the post.

Lazy312
01-17-2005, 12:27 PM
The veteran actually said that MG151/20 was as effective as ShVAK. Which is true in the game. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WOLFMondo
01-17-2005, 12:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:


Might be because US pilots faced it much higher up and they had an equal speed performance against it. Might also depend on the quality of pilots who were on the eastern front vs the western front? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But the Bf109 performed well at high altitude?

USAAF and RAF pilot quality was excellent by '43 so, you may be right there.

The differences in opinion seperated by East and West is interesting. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It did but did not have the speed advantage or the dive or climb advantage it had over VVS planes as they got higher. The P51's and P47's (to a lesser extent but its shallow dive acceleration made up for it) could equal the BF109's in terms of speed. As it got much higher the 109's small wings gave it a disadvantage....why the Spitfire performs better
in turns the higher it goes vs a 109.

100% agree with Stiglr, 109's in the west faced different odds, well trained pilots in huge numbers already at altitude waiting for the fight in high altitude planes with sound tactics and new escorts arriving all the time to change over with the previous escorts. Very much a different type of warfare.

Fornixx
01-17-2005, 12:59 PM
Now this is one interesting mother of a thread!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

faustnik
01-17-2005, 01:03 PM
Good points Stigler and Mondo, but, I think people tend to generalize ETO aircombat too much. Sure, high altitude intercepts were an important aspect of air combat on the Western front but, there were others. P-47s, P-51s and P-38s spent much of their time down low attacking ground targets. Medium bombers on tactical raids typically operated at lower altitudes. USAAF and RAF fighters must have had many encouters with LW planes in similar conditions to those found on the Eastern front.

p1ngu666
01-17-2005, 01:14 PM
wing hits on yak really do make it unflyable, and certainly unfightable in.

i got hit in wing, and i couldnt pull out of my diving turn, wing didnt fall off, but that only changed crash site http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

IIJG69_Kartofe
01-17-2005, 03:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lazy312:
The veteran actually said that MG151/20 was as effective as ShVAK. Which is true in the game. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heeeeee .... ????

You are talking about the same game ??? Il2 PF ver 3.03???

Shure ?

LBR_Molders
01-17-2005, 04:18 PM
Thanks for share those impressions Ivan.

Magnific !

LBR_Rommel
01-17-2005, 04:24 PM
S!

WEll Ivan thats fantastic

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

A.S What do you think about German fighter planes Messerschmitt BF-109G?

I.K. I think of them with a lot of respect.
BF109 was very good, very high scale fighter plane. If was superior to our Yaks in speed and vertical combat. It wasn`t 100% superiority, but still. Very dynamic plane. I`ll be honest with you, it was my dream during my war years, to have a plane like this. Fast and superior on vertical, but that didn`t happen.

A.S. I can`t agree with you. Yak can`t have more powerful weaponry because it has only 1 12.7mm MG (UBS) while BF109G has 2 13mm MG-13s.

I.K. German high caliber machine guns were rather weak, just a name "high caliber". They couldn`t even penetrate armored plate behind pilot, needed armor piercing bullet for that, and even then from close distance. But if german pilot would open fire from 200-300m with regular bullets and under sharp angle, it couldn`t even penetrate block of M105, could only bust thru the cowling covers.. Same for armored glass, couldnt penetrate it. My opinion on 13mm MG, they could only be effective from close distances, shooting at point blank ranges could bring you some success. I think 1 UBS in combat was more effective in combat then 2 MG13s combined.
20mm german cannon was excellent, unlike MG`s. Very powerful, not worse then out SHVAK.


A.S. I am surprised that you think that Me109 was capable in the turning combat. There is general opinion that BF109 was rather average when it comes to combat with many manuevers. It`s very common opinion that BF109G with its technical and tactical characteristics was rather "hunter" then turnfighter..

I.K. Lies! Me109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be Messer! Speedy, maneuverable,(especially in vertical) and extremely dynamic. I can`t tell about all other things, but taking under consideration what i said above, Messerschmitt was ideal for dogfight. But for some reason majority of german pilots didn`t like turn fight, till this day i don`t know why.
I don`t know what was stopping them, but it`s definitely not the plane. I know that for a fact. I remember battle of Kursk where german aces were starting "roller-coaster" rides where our heads were about to come off from rotation.
No, seriously... Is it true it`s a common thing now that Messer wasn`t maneuverable?


A.S. So the M-105 was very reliable and tough...but what about Yakovlev fighter planes in general, were they durable?

I.K. It really depence where it hits you, anything outside of engine and cockpit, you could bring home 10 or more holes. Quiet often myself was "bringing" home 8-10 holes from bullets and cannon rounds (6-8 from MG and couple of 20mm armor peircing ones...

But if high-explosive projectile was hitting Yak...it was a problem. Plywood would be flying in all directions and distruction would be major, even if plane didn`t catch fire, still have to jump out, can`t fly much with surfaces missing. BF109 in that regard was tougher, full metal construction.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now i hpe some things need to be changed, all the strong points here Oleg had done it before, but because of the false propaganda of some guys, why some ppl demand that german planes so diferent of RL, nothing better than a RL PILOT, than a Guys who wants only write a book of illusions.

Ty Ivan, i believe after this ppl like Kurfurst will be listen more carefully, instead of the old blah blah blah "your plane sucks because its german"

WWMaxGunz
01-17-2005, 05:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
He was talking about manueverable combat in general.. roller coaster it was rather my translation, he called it differently, i couldn`t find the word for it... "round robin" - that`s what it says in dictionary... Sorry for miss-translation <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Roller coaster was second reference, first was "speedy, maneuverable, (especially in vertical)
and extremely dynamic"

And Ivan, that fits the picture of an energy fighter totally which fits using the vertical
to defeat slower but better slow/flat turning opponents. It has as much to do with the
training of the pilot as it does the plane.

LBR_Rommel
01-17-2005, 05:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by carguy_:
Looks like a breakthrough.

Seems the Me109G is very close to real.First time I see an interview that confirms the FM of a plane almost completely.

Machineguns are ok

MG151/20 is undermodelled as I suspectedhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bookmarking the post. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sry man read again, the 109 now its even close to well modelled if i consider the statements of the RL pilot.

LBR_Molders
01-17-2005, 05:21 PM
S!

As can't i remeber this 109 in the game our Veteran Pilot talked about is closer to the 109's i used to fly in a game ahhhhhhhhhhh let see......ah yes!! its

IL2 Sturmovik! The 1st best fight simms ive ever flied 2 or 3 years ago....

Regards.

Xnomad
01-17-2005, 05:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jonny___C:
Keep in mind that right from the time of the Battle of Britain, with Bf-109E€s, German pilots avoided really high-G turns because of worry about weakness in the 109€s wings. In other words they did not fly the plane to the edge of its envelope. Apparently the 109, flown to the max, could turn every bit as well as the Spitfire. Pilots just didn€t do it because of a fear of wing failure.

That worry may have coloured pilot thinking about subsequent marks of the 109 as well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hmmm I've never heard this before. The only time I've heard about wing shedding 109's was when the Bf 109 F was new and a pilot while testing the plane was bounced by Spits, he turned hard and lost a wing (and his life), due to this the wing was later strengthened. The F wing was new and completely different to the Emil wing.

I thought inexperienced pilots didn't dare turn hard in the Emil because they stopped when the slats started coming out taking this as a sign of an impending stall, whereas an experienced pilot would turn hard with the slats fully extended and thus enjoyed the larger wing surface area and thus a harder turn without a stall. He would therefore be able to turn with an inexperienced Spit pilot who was worried about the nasty spin a Spit would get into if you turned too hard.

LBR-GuntherRall
01-17-2005, 05:27 PM
Salute to all!

Good after reading that great interview with this Russian official, it was confirmed that me and many of our friends already knew!
1 - Bf 109G, was very good in curves, and be said of passage the German pilots and that they didn't like of many maneuvers!
2 - the mg 151/20, made damages YES!
3 - and that in this forum has people that says that the 109 this correct one, but I know because! Because they don't fly the 109, they don't like the airplane and they are the give wrong impressions off the aircraft as well as the 190! That that says that the 109 this correct one in it loves him, excuse me or and a lot of unformed or crazy!

For God's sake OLEG repairs that thing....

And those that are oh saying that the airplane this good and correct... and because bf or Fw don't fly.

Crazy thank you very much for this explanation, you don't know as that and a balm for us that the German airplanes that are very wrong in DM flew and in FM!

Bye http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Xnomad
01-17-2005, 05:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LBR-GuntherRall:
Salute to all!

Good after reading that great interview with this Russian official, it was confirmed that me and many of our friends already knew!
1 - Bf 109G, was very good in curves, and be said of passage the German pilots and that they didn't like of many maneuvers!
2 - the mg 151/20, made damages YES!
3 - and that in this forum has people that says that the 109 this correct one, but I know because! Because they don't fly the 109, they don't like the airplane and they are the give wrong impressions off the aircraft as well as the 190! That that says that the 109 this correct one in it loves him, excuse me or and a lot of unformed or crazy!

For God's sake OLEG repairs that thing....

And those that are oh saying that the airplane this good and correct... and because bf or Fw don't fly.

Crazy thank you very much for this explanation, you don't know as that and a balm for us that the German airplanes that are very wrong in DM flew and in FM!

Bye http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif what? Was this babelfished too? Me no speaky... someone please translate

crazyivan1970
01-17-2005, 05:37 PM
I think you guys heading wrong way... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Memoirs of pilots should be taken with the grain of sault... but still, they were the ones that seen something we didn`t see. So their opinion should count. I think 109 series are spot on now. But that just my opinion. There is nothing to fix really... maybe except 20mm gun, which seems to do alot more damage offline then online.
Above translation proves nothing, really. All it does, it gives you food for taught. But i have to tell you, this is one of the most honest interviews i`v ever read and that`s why i shared it.

WWMaxGunz
01-17-2005, 05:41 PM
OTOH people can take a quote in pieces and come out with what they want....

EDIT:Add -- Oleg has Rechlin tests data done by test pilots. I think that is better.

Xnomad
01-17-2005, 05:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
I think 109 series are spot on now. But that just my opinion. There is nothing to fix really... maybe except 20mm gun
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed

LEXX_Luthor
01-17-2005, 05:48 PM
Ya thanks crazie...Most interesting.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I.K. :: Me109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat, it has to be Messer! Speedy, <span class="ev_code_yellow">maneuverable,(especially in vertical)</span> and extremely dynamic. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Pilots who Know, and this is one I suspect, think of "turning" as including vertical turning in addition to horizontal turning, and any continous mix of the two.

Here the interviewer should have specified "horizontal" turning--the turning we flight simmers think of automatically like Pavlovs salivating dog. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I take from the interview--especially the part made <span class="ev_code_yellow">yellow colour</span>--that Bf109G was at least an average, or "competitive" horizontal maneuver fighter, but a very superior vertical maneuver fighter indeed.

faustnik
01-17-2005, 05:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
There is nothing to fix really... maybe except 20mm gun <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Ivan, weren't you and Korolov just busting my nuts over my Mg151/20 power questions a couple months ago. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

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

LBR_Rommel
01-17-2005, 06:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
I think you guys heading wrong way... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Memoirs of pilots should be taken with the grain of sault... but still, they were the ones that seen something we didn`t see. So their opinion should count. I think 109 series are spot on now. But that just my opinion. There is nothing to fix really... maybe except 20mm gun, which seems to do alot more damage offline then online.
Above translation proves nothing, really. All it does, it gives you food for taught. But i have to tell you, this is one of the most honest interviews i`v ever read and that`s why i shared it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

S!

Agree Ivan i think if numbers come toghter with statements then u have a better job, but we must consider that several pilots said almost the same thing, so this goes against some guys who just pop up with this like:

Germans did the worst planes.
not true
Bf 109 cant turn at all
not true, some planes can tur better, but the 109 can turn
20mm its by far inferior
not true
the 109 elevators freezes on some speeds
what ive read about it is that in early models in dives, controls became hard, but freeze its a very diferent thing, what i think, in game thats a exagereted feature, but thats me.

Ppl in this place get exclusive focus on testing Luftwaffe planes instead of it should test all of them, then compare, but no, what we regular see here its guy digging the worst numbers for the luft planes and the best optmistics numbers for their favorite allied plane, and the same ppl comes here DEMANDING RL planes, well to me it is BS.
Do you remember the Spitfire not overheating in the desert map?
Sure i will quote the quality of my favorite plane, but i ask only to Oleg to consider by HIS numbers, i think he will be a better judge of the situation, better then anyone here, btw hes the profeesional on the simulation stuff, not me.

clint-ruin
01-17-2005, 06:42 PM
I don't think the questions are the problem, the problem is more presupposing answers. Something I've not seen you do terribly much Faustnik, but about 60% of replies so far are well into.

Peoples approach to information generally is pretty scary when you get down to it.

I think re 151/20 it does not boil down to "useless" or "fine" generalisations, the problems it suffers from, to me, are more to do with the way the sim handles explosive damage, and that the gun itself fires 80% explosive-only rounds, more than any other gun save the Cobras 37mm. You find the same issues with the T9 and the NS-37/45 HET rounds in terms of shots that hit, make a big bang, and do almost nothing due to the way damage is calculated in the game.

It would be interesting if BOB handles surface degradation and HE damage better than PF but also models fuses failure to detonate. After reading what Butch2k posted about fuse problems with the early 108 rounds I am starting to wonder if this low angle of impact/thin surface damage stuff in PF is really all that out of sync with reality, myself.

Another bit I found interesting was this:

A.S. I can`t agree with you. Yak can`t have more powerful weaponry because it has only 1 12.7mm MG (UBS) while BF109G has 2 13mm MG-13s.

I.K. German high caliber machine guns were rather weak, just a name "high caliber". They couldn`t even penetrate armored plate behind pilot, needed armor piercing bullet for that, and even then from close distance. But if german pilot would open fire from 200-300m with regular bullets and under sharp angle, it couldn`t even penetrate block of M105, could only bust thru the cowling covers.. Same for armored glass, couldnt penetrate it. My opinion on 13mm MG, they could only be effective from close distances, shooting at point blank ranges could bring you some success. I think 1 UBS in combat was more effective in combat then 2 MG13s combined.
20mm german cannon was excellent, unlike MG`s. Very powerful, not worse then out SHVAK.

Matched with what Oleg tossed out a couple of years ago here:

(Q): It's just so **** frustrating to lose engine oil on ONE hit by a small calibre MG while flying a 109 when a YAK can take 20mm shots on the engine without damage.
(A): If you only will have a chance to read Russian, I will show you exactly the same statements about German planes in recals of Russian WWII pilots.
So I'm sorry, I almost don't take in account such pilots recals, except these that corresponds to real construction of the aircraft. I will repeat and will underline, I almost don't take in account such recals of almost any nation if it doesn't corresponds with actual construction of aircraft.
Not the time yet to show how is modelled the constuction of the plane in IL-2 and even more complex in FB.
When will be the right time - I will show. Then you and other simply will think about any comments next time and simply will compare to others who developing sims before to say that something is wrong...
Sure something isn't perfect, but anyway much better than in some others, where such details simply not modelled or were taken from the sky.
Link: 10/30/02 11:15AM

Would be interested in info on 20mm vs the 105 cowl/block if there's any further down. The russian site has a whole block of the interview labelled "105" so .. is there?

Thanks again to CrazyIvan for posting his translation of stuff that would otherwise be totally unavailable to us in any intelligible form. Wish he would re-post his Il2 pilot diary translation stuff one day :>

WWMaxGunz
01-17-2005, 06:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LBR_Rommel:
_Germans did the worst planes._
not true
_ Bf 109 cant turn at all_
not true, some planes can tur better, but the 109 can turn
_ 20mm its by far inferior_
not true
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Person who did that was making sarcasm about the game, clear to most readers.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
_ the 109 elevators freezes on some speeds_
what ive read about it is that in early models in dives, controls became hard, but freeze its a very diferent thing, what i think, in game thats a exagereted feature, but thats me.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not just you, but you make your own sarcasm.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Ppl in this place get exclusive focus on testing Luftwaffe planes instead of it should test all of them, then compare, but no, what we regular see here its guy digging the worst numbers for the luft planes and the best optmistics numbers for their favorite allied plane, and the same ppl comes here DEMANDING RL planes, well to me it is BS. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes this is just wrong.
NEVER have LW players done anything like that!

Now I make sarcasm.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Do you remember the Spitfire not overheating in the desert map?
Sure i will quote the quality of my favorite plane, but i ask only to Oleg to consider by HIS numbers, i think he will be a better judge of the situation, better then anyone here, btw hes the profeesional on the simulation stuff, not me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If it comes down to it, even Oleg will sometimes accept other data on basis of the data
and source. No one is perfect but a person willing to know that can become better.

ZG77_Nagual
01-17-2005, 07:05 PM
Really the 109 conforms to everything I've read about it (except the really bad stuff). It is a great mid/low range turn fighter - excellent sustain and very able to dig itself out with pure power. Personally I think the K is a little to good slow - but it extends performance more into higher speeds in terms of turn. Elevators do get heavy fast (alerons too of course) but you can still grey out at 440mph in a G and 460 in a k. Really excellent plane. Maybe now that so many people complain about it I'll start flying it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

faustnik
01-17-2005, 07:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
I don't think the questions are the problem, the problem is more presupposing answers. Something I've not seen you do terribly much Faustnik, but about 60% of replies so far are well into.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I ws just giving Ivan a hard time Clint, wasn't being serious. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

crazyivan1970
01-17-2005, 09:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
There is nothing to fix really... maybe except 20mm gun <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Ivan, weren't you and Korolov just busting my nuts over my Mg151/20 power questions a couple months ago. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will still bust your nuts over it faust http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Because i don`t think as a weapon german 20mm is undermodeled. It just inconsistent IMO, esp online. I have no problems downing enemy aircraft with single 20, but i think effect of some types of ammo is not up there yet. Just like in example of Yak series. I want to see that surface being blown off. But agree with me on one thing tho. Damage effect of all weapons is inconsistent on line. Did you ever fly Lagg3 35 series? My favorite russian bird. There were times when i would literally light up 109 or 190 from wing to wing with 23mm rounds. That is the same gun as on IL-2! Capable of penetrating tanks (from the top or rear). But off line...1-2 rounds and it`s over, every time. Inconsistency, that`s what is bothering me and that applies to many weapons.

faustnik
01-17-2005, 09:18 PM
You know my beef Ivan, it's not the Mg151/20 specifically, but, the HE rounds under 30mm lacking punch. This should effect all 20mm cannon, it just effects Mg151 more because of its loadout. The Mg151/20 relies heavily on the superior blast effect of its minengeschoss shells for devastating effect. This is true online and off Ivan, not like the net issue you described. I agree with you on the seperate net issue completely, it is very frustrating at times.

The 23mm VYA is my favorite all-around weapon in IL-2. I am trying to get the ground crew to fit a pair in the wings of my 190. MAKE IT FIT! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

WUAF_Badsight
01-17-2005, 09:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
the problems it suffers from, to me, are more to do with the way the sim handles explosive damage <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
as in Mk108 ?

WUAF_Badsight
01-17-2005, 09:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
The 23mm VYA is my favorite all-around weapon in IL-2. I am trying to get the ground crew to fit a pair in the wings of my 190. MAKE IT FIT! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Mk103 !

the premier A2A cannon in FB & only one prop fighter gets it ! ! !

GR142-Pipper
01-17-2005, 09:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LBR-GuntherRall:
Salute to all!

Good after reading that great interview with this Russian official, it was confirmed that me and many of our friends already knew!
1 - Bf 109G, was very good in curves, and be said of passage the German pilots and that they didn't like of many maneuvers! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So on one side a "Russian official" states that the 109 was a good turner and on the other side many, many pilots have stated that it wasn't...so much so to the point that the 109 was a recognized non-turner, so now the "Russian official" is deemed right and this becomes sufficient verification to request a 109 flight model change? Amazing. Simply amazing.

GR142-Pipper

S.taibanzai
01-17-2005, 10:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LBR-GuntherRall:
Salute to all!

Good after reading that great interview with this Russian official, it was confirmed that me and many of our friends already knew!
1 - Bf 109G, was very good in curves, and be said of passage the German pilots and that they didn't like of many maneuvers! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So on one side a "Russian official" states that the 109 was a good turner and on the other side many, many pilots have stated that it wasn't...so much so to the point that the 109 was a recognized non-turner, so now the "Russian official" is deemed right and this becomes sufficient verification to request a 109 flight model change? Amazing. Simply amazing.

GR142-Pipper <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Show me wat and who are those MANNY?MANNY?


I never ever had readed that 109 was not a good turner never ,show me in wich condisions they where wich year ,wich alt, wich front , wich etc...etc...

show me !!!!

then we talk

WWMaxGunz
01-17-2005, 11:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LBR-GuntherRall:
Salute to all!

Good after reading that great interview with this Russian official, it was confirmed that me and many of our friends already knew!
1 - Bf 109G, was very good in curves, and be said of passage the German pilots and that they didn't like of many maneuvers! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So on one side a "Russian official" states that the 109 was a good turner and on the other side many, many pilots have stated that it wasn't...so much so to the point that the 109 was a recognized non-turner, so now the "Russian official" is deemed right and this becomes sufficient verification to request a 109 flight model change? Amazing. Simply amazing.

GR142-Pipper <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see people saying it agrees with the 109G's as they are, not scrambling for change.
Give that a couple days to get organized, then comes the request!

p1ngu666
01-17-2005, 11:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
You know my beef Ivan, it's not the Mg151/20 specifically, but, the HE rounds under 30mm lacking punch. This should effect all 20mm cannon, it just effects Mg151 more because of its loadout. The Mg151/20 relies heavily on the superior blast effect of its minengeschoss shells for devastating effect. This is true online and off Ivan, not like the net issue you described. I agree with you on the seperate net issue completely, it is very frustrating at times.

The 23mm VYA is my favorite all-around weapon in IL-2. I am trying to get the ground crew to fit a pair in the wings of my 190. MAKE IT FIT! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

any good convergance for this cannon? i miss tons with it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

WUAF_Badsight
01-17-2005, 11:37 PM
yea ? its like a Hispano , super fast bullets

faustnik
01-17-2005, 11:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:

The 23mm VYA is my favorite all-around weapon in IL-2. I am trying to get the ground crew to fit a pair in the wings of my 190. MAKE IT FIT! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

any good convergance for this cannon? i miss tons with it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With the IL-2, I always have it set at 500m for ground attack work. With the Lagg, I use 200m. The YVa shreds 109s nicely. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

clint-ruin
01-17-2005, 11:45 PM
The VYa was a weird weapon around 1.11/2.01, one of the first JTD identified as having some serious problems in FB with rounds-per-aircraft kill IIRC. It got fixed a few versions ago, since then it seems it's a real killer.

GR142-Pipper
01-18-2005, 12:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S.taibanzai:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LBR-GuntherRall:
Salute to all!

Good after reading that great interview with this Russian official, it was confirmed that me and many of our friends already knew!
1 - Bf 109G, was very good in curves, and be said of passage the German pilots and that they didn't like of many maneuvers! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So on one side a "Russian official" states that the 109 was a good turner and on the other side many, many pilots have stated that it wasn't...so much so to the point that the 109 was a recognized non-turner, so now the "Russian official" is deemed right and this becomes sufficient verification to request a 109 flight model change? Amazing. Simply amazing.

GR142-Pipper <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Show me wat and who are those MANNY?MANNY?

I never ever had readed that 109 was not a good turner never ,show me in wich condisions they where wich year ,wich alt, wich front , wich etc...etc... show me !!!!

then we talk <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So let's talk. Show ME and everyone else here where the 109 (specifically the G models and later) were EVER regarded as good turners? Oh that's right, the "Russian official" said so. (snicker)

GR142-Pipper

WOLFMondo
01-18-2005, 12:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Good points Stigler and Mondo, but, I think people tend to generalize ETO aircombat too much. Sure, high altitude intercepts were an important aspect of air combat on the Western front but, there were others. P-47s, P-51s and P-38s spent much of their time down low attacking ground targets. Medium bombers on tactical raids typically operated at lower altitudes. USAAF and RAF fighters must have had many encouters with LW planes in similar conditions to those found on the Eastern front. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

p51's, p38's and the escort p47's would all be heading towards the uk on there return, they'd be heading back, straifing, less chance of being jumped and would have cover from the 2nd taf. it was the ground attack p47's and raf 2nd taf that did all the low level work and would have faced a similar situation to the vvs because they would go out, fight and come back all at low altitude but then the lw would'nt give spitfires there advantage and dogfight with them, just bounce and leave and the tempests were on par or could even be considered superior in performance to what was being thrown at them...hence more losses were to flak than anything else.

S.taibanzai
01-18-2005, 01:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S.taibanzai:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LBR-GuntherRall:
Salute to all!

Good after reading that great interview with this Russian official, it was confirmed that me and many of our friends already knew!
1 - Bf 109G, was very good in curves, and be said of passage the German pilots and that they didn't like of many maneuvers! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So on one side a "Russian official" states that the 109 was a good turner and on the other side many, many pilots have stated that it wasn't...so much so to the point that the 109 was a recognized non-turner, so now the "Russian official" is deemed right and this becomes sufficient verification to request a 109 flight model change? Amazing. Simply amazing.

GR142-Pipper <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Show me wat and who are those MANNY?MANNY?

I never ever had readed that 109 was not a good turner never ,show me in wich condisions they where wich year ,wich alt, wich front , wich etc...etc... show me !!!!

then we talk <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So let's talk. Show ME and everyone else here where the 109 (specifically the G models and later) were EVER regarded as good turners? Oh that's right, the "Russian official" said so. (snicker)


GR142-Pipper <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



I dont have to proofe any thing m8,

you sayed or write it your self

<span class="ev_code_RED">many, many pilots have stated that it wasn't</span>

I asked you show me where you claimed that the bf 109 was no turner


now you disregard mine question to you ,

to proof it that it was not so

the lack of evidence from you ,say's it al

you have claims show it, to back it up

you cant thats your problem ,and thats why you reverse my question to you

BlackStar2000
01-18-2005, 04:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S.taibanzai:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LBR-GuntherRall:
Salute to all!

Good after reading that great interview with this Russian official, it was confirmed that me and many of our friends already knew!
1 - Bf 109G, was very good in curves, and be said of passage the German pilots and that they didn't like of many maneuvers! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So on one side a "Russian official" states that the 109 was a good turner and on the other side many, many pilots have stated that it wasn't...so much so to the point that the 109 was a recognized non-turner, so now the "Russian official" is deemed right and this becomes sufficient verification to request a 109 flight model change? Amazing. Simply amazing.

GR142-Pipper <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Show me wat and who are those MANNY?MANNY?

I never ever had readed that 109 was not a good turner never ,show me in wich condisions they where wich year ,wich alt, wich front , wich etc...etc... show me !!!!

then we talk <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So let's talk. Show ME and everyone else here where the 109 (specifically the G models and later) were EVER regarded as good turners? Oh that's right, the "Russian official" said so. (snicker)

GR142-Pipper <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Pipper

What about a bunch of RL FINNISH pilots

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Me 109 G:
"Fast and maneuverable Me 109 (G) would be a tough opponent in the hands of a skillful pilot. Messerschmitt was during it´s time an efficient fighter and would not be in shame even nowadays. Eventhough the top speeds of the today´s fighters are high the differerencies would even up in a dogfight.
Mersu (Messerchmitt) had three meters long engine in the nose were with 1 500 horsepowers. The speed was at it´s best 750 kilometers per hour. It turned well too, if you just pulled the stick"
- Mauno Fr¤ntil¤, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories. Source: Finnish Virtual Pilots Association: fighter ace Mauno Fr¤ntil¤ was creating the glory of the war pilots.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My source
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/109myths/

Now Show me yours sources that Bf109 G CANT TURN!
can you? or like the rest its another FALSE STATEMENT???

WWMaxGunz
01-18-2005, 05:04 AM
Now a statement of can't turn well gets changed to can't turn.
But then in that whole exchange there is not a single number given let alone a chart
or reference to anything but quotes without any data.
Worst part is... there will be people trying once again to push for change on so little.

Ohhhh, look! A step of flaps and it turns inside the Spits! Pull em back and you can
make up the lost speed in no time since you were all flying near dead slow anyway.
Then get on the forum and argue historic as demands for change... I know there's people
see the problem but there's enough others to outnumber the ones who will stay here and
say different.

BlackStar2000
01-18-2005, 05:10 AM
Ivan

Check this

This match with th russian pilot
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

Me 109 G:
"- Did you use the 7.9mm machine guns of the G2 model as an aid to aiming and only then fired the cannon? Were the light MGs good for anything ?
We used to fire all guns when in good position. The G2 had more ammo for the MGs than for the cannon, so it was worthwile to shoot with every weapon. Our idea was that if the cannon was jammed so the 7mm guns were worthless, then it was time to go home.
- Many a fighter pilot tells in their memoirs that the rifle caliber MG was almost useless. It could not penetrate the rear armour nor make leaks in the fuel tanks. Well, if you hit a carburator it might be split.
It pays to shoot always, you might hit for example the aileron mechanism or some other weak spot. "
- Ky¶sti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Check this thing here about controls

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Me 109 G:
"The maximum speed not to be exceeded was 750kmh. Once I was flying above Helsinki as I received a report of Russkies in the South. There was a big Cumulus cloud on my way there but I decided to fly right through. I centered the controls and then something extraordinary happened. I must have involuntarily entered into half-roll and dive. The planes had individual handling characteristics; even though I held the turning indicator in the middle, the plane kept going faster and faster, I pulled the stick, yet the plane went into an ever steeper dive.
In the same time she started rotating, and I came out of the cloud with less than one kilometer of altitude. I started pulling the stick, nothing happened, I checked the speed, it was about 850kmh. I tried to recover the plane but the stick was as if locked and nothing happened. I broke into a sweat of agony: now I am going into the sea and cannot help it. I pulled with both hands, groaning and by and by she started recovering, she recovered more, I pulled and pulled, but the surface of the sea approached, I thought I was going to crash. I kept pulling until I saw that I had survived. The distance between me and the sea may have been five meters. I pulled up and found myself on the coast of Estonia.
If I in that situation had used the vertical trim the wings would have been broken off. A minimal trim movement has a strong effect on wings when the speed limit has been exceded. I had 100kmh overspeed! It was out of all limits.
The Messerschmitt's wings were fastened with two bolts. When I saw the construction I had thought that they are strong enough but in this case I was thinking, when are they going to break
- What about the phenomenon called "buffeting" or vibration, was there any?
No, I did not encounter it even in the 850kmh speed."
- Ky¶sti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BlackStar2000
01-18-2005, 05:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Now a statement of can't turn well gets changed to can't turn.
But then in that whole exchange there is not a single number given let alone a chart
or reference to anything but quotes without any data.
Worst part is... there will be people trying once again to push for change on so little.

Ohhhh, look! A step of flaps and it turns inside the Spits! Pull em back and you can
make up the lost speed in no time since you were all flying near dead slow anyway.
Then get on the forum and argue historic as demands for change... I know there's people
see the problem but there's enough others to outnumber the ones who will stay here and
say different. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Either Piper is presenting some numbers or you Max, you just get in the way to do nothing, just scared that Oleg may change something Max?, have you notice that a lota of things have changed? and not all of it was claims by ppl in this place?

See Ivan ppl with kind of atitude Make this place suck, MOronMax show only to make confusion. Add nothing, show nothing.

Sig.Hirsch
01-18-2005, 05:40 AM
Pipper , Hayate ace , Copperhead , Luftluver ....

all the same or maybe one guy ... don't bother .

Read books Pipper or be honest if you had done so before .

JG5_UnKle
01-18-2005, 06:03 AM
The "Turn Issue" with the 109 is IMHO less of a performance issue and more of a "Tactical Doctrine" issue.

As the turn performance AT HIGH SPEED of the 109 was generally inferior to contemporaries like the Spit/P51 the LW would choose not to engage on these terms - fairly logical?

Rely instead on speed and climb ability (BnZ) and take advantage of your aircrafts 'advantages' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif just saying the 109 'couldn't turn' in uninformed BS.

The G-2 could go 360 in about 19 seconds - that isn't slow IMHO.

ArmchairAce
01-18-2005, 06:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lazy312:
The veteran actually said that MG151/20 was as effective as ShVAK. Which is true in the game. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

MG151/20 as effective as ShVAK in IL2? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif Cool joke http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

wooden planes, wooden brains http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

p1ngu666
01-18-2005, 07:46 AM
109s around yak turning ability, but better climb, better not to turn, but fight in area of most advantage.

ive read 2-3 typhoon books (pilot accounts), they met luftwaffe like 3 times or sumin, most effective attack was 262 2a dropping ab bombs over airfield.

spitfires and tempests and other fighters seemed to have done a good job keepin typhoons free todo there work http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

and ya, flak the worst, guess as germans retreated they took aa guns if they took anything, so more aa in a smaller area....
plus they did stuff over the rhur valley, now THAT place had alot of flak

Enofinu
01-18-2005, 07:46 AM
well, Finnish pilots did Turn fight with 109:s against Russian planes. and i think Germans didnt cos tactical rule or so. cos, when you enter Turn fight, you cant run away from fight so easily, than if using BnZ. you get like trapped, and then you just need one enemy from somewhere you didnt notice and manage to pull your self nicely front of his gunsights... So, BnZ tactics worked better, for pilot lifes. "why risk it all now for kill, and maybe get killed, cos if you do it much safer, you can come up and fight and kill much more later"

p1ngu666
01-18-2005, 07:46 AM
oh u tend to loose control of fight if u turn too

IIJG69_Kartofe
01-18-2005, 07:54 AM
In every combat flight manual you can read that turning is a defensive maneuver, you can't be offensive if you makes rounds in the air.

BAG.LordDante
01-18-2005, 08:33 AM
Jeah Baby !! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

JG51-Priller
01-18-2005, 08:57 AM
Read this. From a dead pilot, died in a Me109.
He was a honorable Men, and i think he know what he say....

Mark Hanna !!

http://www.bf109.com/flying.html

Lazy312
01-18-2005, 09:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ArmchairAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lazy312:
The veteran actually said that MG151/20 was as effective as ShVAK. Which is true in the game. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

MG151/20 as effective as ShVAK in IL2? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif Cool joke http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

cool joke? I did a little testing spraying Emil and I need average 12 shvak rounds to destroy it and 13 from MG151/20..

ArmchairAce
01-18-2005, 11:48 AM
I did a little testing too:

Three (3) ShVAK shells ALWAYS knock off a Yak3 tail, tried several times to "be sure"

Try this with MG151/20. Pump it full, the tail still holds. You need like 10 or more before the tail falls off

Something wrong here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

iron men, rusty pilots http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Buzzsaw-
01-18-2005, 11:56 AM
Salute

Quotes from German pilots about G model 109's, courtesy of the 4th Fighter Group site:

Johannes Steinhoff, Sicily, Commander JG 77 (July 1943):

"The Malta Spitfires are back again... They're fitted with a high altitude supercharger and at anything over twenty-five thousand feet they just play cat and mouse with us.
At 28,000 feet the Spitfire could turn in an astonishingly narrow radius. We on the other hand, in the thin air of those altitudes had to carry out every maneuver with caution and at full power so as not to lose control."

Johannes Steinhoff, Messerschmitts Over Sicily, (Stackpole Books, 2004), pp. 97-98, 111,
Gunther Rall:

"The elliptical wings on the Spitfires had fantastic characteristics, great lift. They were very maneuverable. We couldn't catch them in a steep climb."


Note both of these quotes are referring to 109G's versus Spit IX's.

BBB_Hyperion
01-18-2005, 12:05 PM
Were these 109s fitted with dust filters on intake ?

GR142-Pipper
01-18-2005, 02:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S.taibanzai:
I dont have to proofe any thing m8,

you sayed or write it your self

<span class="ev_code_RED">many, many pilots have stated that it wasn't</span>

I asked you show me where you claimed that the bf 109 was no turner

now you disregard mine question to you , to proof it that it was not so the lack of evidence from you ,say's it al

you have claims show it, to back it up

you cant thats your problem ,and thats why you reverse my question to you <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well this will certainly be EASY. Below are some links from a variety of sources. Have a look.

1. Soviet fighter tactics. Every instance it says that the 109 will be outturned. Link: http://luthier.stormloader.com/SFTacticsIII.htm

2. On-line commentary.
Link: http://www.aviation-booklist.com/fighter.html Scroll down where it talks about the 109 avoiding turn fights "at all cost".
Link: http://pigeonh.free.fr/bf109.htm

3. Comments by actual pilots (what you requested).

Link: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERbf109.htm Look at items 2) and 3) which are comments by Britsh aces Douglas Bader and Alan Deere.

Link: http://www.patriotfiles.com/article.php?sid=441

Link: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/breed.html

The theme is the same....109s aren't good turners. Similar links are plentiful as even a modest amount of research on your part will readily confirm. So, I've given you some links to start you off so all you have to do is click and read.

Now, YOU show us evidence where the 109G (and subsequent) WERE regarded as GOOD turners. Be sure to include some actual combat pilot accounts where the 109G and subsequent were regarded as good turners by their allied fighter adversaries. Be sure to include your cites and references...as I did.

The stage is all yours....

GR142-Pipper

Sig.Hirsch
01-18-2005, 03:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> . Soviet fighter tactics. Every instance it says that the 109 will be outturned. Link: http://luthier.stormloader.com/SFTacticsIII.htm

2. On-line commentary.
Link: http://www.aviation-booklist.com/fighter.html Scroll down where it talks about the 109 avoiding turn fights "at all cost".
Link: http://pigeonh.free.fr/bf109.htm

3. Comments by actual pilots (what you requested).

Link: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERbf109.htm Look at items 2) and 3) which are comments by Britsh aces Douglas Bader and Alan Deere.

Link: http://www.patriotfiles.com/article.php?sid=441

Link: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/breed.html <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


1- is about La-5 FN versus G6's , of course the former is better in turns
2- is about flight sim games , dubious sources
3(1)- is about Messerschmitt "Emil" , not 'G'
3(2)- is about Spit V versus G6's , of course the former is better in turns
3(3)- is biased 200% , look at his quote :

"But another household work, the highly propagandized Me 109G, was obsolete when it was built and was aerodynamically the most inefficient fighter of its time. It was a hopeless collection of lumps, bumps, stiff controls, and placed its pilot in a cramped, squarish cockpit with poor visibility."


did he flew it ? no.

Me109 G was built in 1942 and was not obsolete but one of the best fighters of its time .
it had a good aerodynamic compared to P-40's , P-47's etc..

sorry no more time to listen to his propaganda .

Your links prove nothing really , sorry to say it , it just proves that La-5 Fn is better than 109 G6 in turning slow speed , and that Spitfire V is better than 109 G6 in turning .

It proves also that there are some sources that are not to trust http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

cheers ,

Recon_609IAP
01-18-2005, 03:28 PM
I think all IL2 109 pilots should have requirement to read Lipfert's Eastern front book.

JG7_Rall
01-18-2005, 03:56 PM
Kit Carson is a biased moron. I'd refute what he's saying but it's all here:

"The 109 was a bad design, as it needed ballast to fix the center of gravity
- A certain Kit Carson wrote about the 109, that "the engineers screwed up the center of gravity, and 60 pounds of permanent ballast had to be added to the rear of the fuselage to get the C.G. back." Well, pardon me, this isn't the only place where this mr. Carson - who never flew a 109 - happens to be wrong. The claim happily ignores that any plane that is modified during its lifetime undergoes changes - and their COG moves when new equipment is added to the plane or other larger modifications are done. But output was the key - radical changes couldn't be easily done to the airframe, as that might disrupt the production. Therefore a quick way to balance the plane was to add ballast.
- To put the matter into comparison, 60 pounds marking max 1,1% of the plane's total weight was ballast by mr. Carson's words, though he does not mention which model he means. Maybe Emil? Spitfire Mk.IX on the other hand carrier 87,5 pounds of ballast - more than Carson's example. And compare this to the huge 600 lbs (!) needed in F-15C when it is upgraded to APG-63(V)2 radar. Fact is, ballast is normal in any aircraft, especially when it is fitted with new equipment."

Source: http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/109myths/

This is also interesting:

"109's controls locked up in high speed."
- Another very mythical subject. Before answering one must be asked: "What model are you talking about?"
- There was large differences between various types in the high speed controls. Each newer version handled better in high speeds, the best being the 109 K series which had flettner tabs for enhanced aileron control. 109 G series were also much better on this regard compared to 109 E, which yet again wasn't such a dog as many claim. 109 test pilots, Russians included, have said that the 109 had pretty good roll at higher speeds - again not as good as the 190s, P-51 or P-47 - but it maintained a good lateral control ability. Recovering from extremerely fast 750-900 km/h vertical dives was the problem - not level flight or even normal combat flying.
- Spitfire and a 109 had equal roll rates at up to 400 mph speeds. Not even the favourite warhorse of the Americans, P-51, exactly shined with its roll rate at high speeds. P-51 pilots have actually said that flying P-51 at high speeds was like driving a truck.
- An often quoted British report made of a Me 109 E talks about the "short stick travel", "due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick" and "at 400 mph with 40 pounds side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4 seconds to get into a 45 degree roll or bank. That immediately classifies the airplane as being unmaneuverable and unacceptable as a fighter."
- Well, pardon me. This British report claims, that The 109-E needed 37lb stick force for a 1/5 aileron deflection at 400mph. Coincidentally, the Spitfire 1 required 57 lb stick force from the pilot for similar deflection at similar speed. This is a 54% higher stickforce for the Spitfire pilot.
- The British test is taken as gospel by many, while it is just one test, made by the enemy, using a worn out and battle damaged airframe. German flight tests report pilots using aileron forces of over 45 lbs and 109's stick was designed for elevator stick forces of up to or over 85kg, over 180 lbs. So it was more matter of the pilot and the test procedures, than maneuverability of the Bf 109. Several details of that test are suspicious and German chief test pilot Heinrich Beauvais disagreed with it and with Eric Brown. Beauvais tried to get into contact after the war with Eric Brown to discuss the matters, but Brown refused to discuss the 109 with him. This being the case, it seems that Brown wasn't willing to listen a pilot who'd flown more on the 109 than he ever had, and was more interested on believing his negative findings of the 109 than being proven wrong by an expert."

Also, this:

Me 109 G:
"Fast and maneuverable Me 109 (G) would be a tough opponent in the hands of a skillful pilot. Messerschmitt was during it´s time an efficient fighter and would not be in shame even nowadays. Eventhough the top speeds of the today´s fighters are high the differerencies would even up in a dogfight.
Mersu (Messerchmitt) had three meters long engine in the nose were with 1 500 horsepowers. The speed was at it´s best 750 kilometers per hour. It turned well too, if you just pulled the stick"
- Mauno Fr¤ntil¤, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories. Source: Finnish Virtual Pilots Association: fighter ace Mauno Fr¤ntil¤ was creating the glory of the war pilots.

All quotes and more can be found at the source link above.

LBR_Rommel
01-18-2005, 04:02 PM
From Ivan to Rommel: Lets conduct proper, interesting discussion so we can all benefit from it.

Thanks.

BigganD
01-18-2005, 04:20 PM
I read before about an finnish pilot that flown the 109 G2, he said that the mg17 almost didnt do any damage.. as fast the 151 where empty he rtb.

GR142-Pipper
01-18-2005, 05:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
1- is about La-5 FN versus G6's , of course the former is better in turns
2- is about flight sim games , dubious sources
3(1)- is about Messerschmitt "Emil" , not 'G' <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And still even the E wasn't regarded as much of a turner by the Brits. The G and subsequent only got worse.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>3(2)- is about Spit V versus G6's , of course the former is better in turns
3(3)- is biased 200% , look at his quote :

"But another household work, the highly propagandized Me 109G, was obsolete when it was built and was aerodynamically the most inefficient fighter of its time. It was a hopeless collection of lumps, bumps, stiff controls, and placed its pilot in a cramped, squarish cockpit with poor visibility." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There's nothing incorrect whatsoever regarding this quote that pertains to the G model 109. It WAS beginning to fall behind its Allied (and German) contemporaries. The recurring point of the numerous cites is the same...109s weren't regarded as good turners.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>did he flew it ? no. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Whether or not he flew it doesn't invalidate the correctness of his statements. It's a safe bet you were never a military pilot. Should we not listen to anything you say because you weren't?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Me109 G was built in 1942 and was not obsolete but one of the best fighters of its time .
it had a good aerodynamic compared to P-40's , P-47's etc..

sorry no more time to listen to his propaganda .

Your links prove nothing really , sorry to say it , it just proves that La-5 Fn is better than 109 G6 in turning slow speed , and that Spitfire V is better than 109 G6 in turning .

It proves also that there are some sources that are not to trust http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What was asked for were references that backed up the claim that 109s were not good turners. I have provided them from a variety of sources (first-hand combat pilots, gamers and editorials), those from actual Allied aces being the most compelling. This isn't new ground.

Furthermore, there are virtually NO SOURCES whatsoever which claim that the 109G and later were good turners (which of course, they weren't).

That you choose to dismiss the mountain of data in one hand and the absense of it in another is entirely your choice. The overwealming body of evidence is clear.... the 109G and subsequent were not good turners.

However, I'll offer you the same opportunity as provided to Pikas...show us where the 109G and subsequent WERE regarded as good turners.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
01-18-2005, 05:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
Also, this:

Me 109 G:
"Fast and maneuverable Me 109 (G) would be a tough opponent in the hands of a skillful pilot. Messerschmitt was during it´s time an efficient fighter and would not be in shame even nowadays. Eventhough the top speeds of the today´s fighters are high the differerencies would even up in a dogfight.
Mersu (Messerchmitt) had three meters long engine in the nose were with 1 500 horsepowers. The speed was at it´s best 750 kilometers per hour. It turned well too, if you just pulled the stick"
- Mauno Fr¤ntil¤, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories. Source: Finnish Virtual Pilots Association: fighter ace Mauno Fr¤ntil¤ was creating the glory of the war pilots.

All quotes and more can be found at the source link above. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So where does it say that the 109 was a good TURNER relative to it's Allied contemporaries? On the Eastern Front just about every Allied aircraft I can think of outturned it. But let me spot you this as a credible cite. The tally is now one Finnish pilot vs. many, many, others who don't share that view. You be the judge.

GR142-Pipper

JG7_Rall
01-18-2005, 07:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
Also, this:

Me 109 G:
"Fast and maneuverable Me 109 (G) would be a tough opponent in the hands of a skillful pilot. Messerschmitt was during it´s time an efficient fighter and would not be in shame even nowadays. Eventhough the top speeds of the today´s fighters are high the differerencies would even up in a dogfight.
Mersu (Messerchmitt) had three meters long engine in the nose were with 1 500 horsepowers. The speed was at it´s best 750 kilometers per hour. It turned well too, if you just pulled the stick"
- Mauno Fr¤ntil¤, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories. Source: Finnish Virtual Pilots Association: fighter ace Mauno Fr¤ntil¤ was creating the glory of the war pilots.

All quotes and more can be found at the source link above. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So where does it say that the 109 was a good TURNER relative to it's Allied contemporaries? On the Eastern Front just about every Allied aircraft I can think of outturned it. But let me spot you this as a credible cite. The tally is now one Finnish pilot vs. many, many, others who don't share that view. You be the judge.

GR142-Pipper <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No need to flame me bud, I was just pointing that out and I'm not looking to pick a fight. I agree that many of ther German planes could be outturned in flat out turns on the eastern front, however, that doesn't mean that the 109's turn is overmodelled as is. If we analyze the tactics of the Finnish we can see that they were more liberal as far as knife fighting goes, whereas the Germans practiced energy management a lot more (as posted before). So if the Finns say it was a good turner, I'm willing to take their word http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Again, I wasn't looking to start a fight, I just wanted to post that source here.

WWMaxGunz
01-18-2005, 07:20 PM
It depends on how you turn. Flat turns are not the only kind, especially in combat.
I'd go so far as to say that in combat, flat turns and low speed are the worst and
invite death more with every extra plane in the local area.

109's could turn well enough while holding on to speed that with the vertical added
they were as the Russian Major quoted, very good. With proper use of roll, the 190
can be even better at it but the 109 can mix less vertical in and achieve.

Difference east and west are too much to mix quotes. Russians were having 109's stay
and e-fight while British over the channel were not and got surprised when the 190's
did. Yet the 109's fit better against the Russians planes it seems or perhaps another
'Hitler mistake' led to deployment being as it was. A mistake named Goering?

Buzzsaw-
01-18-2005, 07:24 PM
Salute Rall

"Kit Carson is a biased moron."

Maybe you better reconsider that statement.

You are talking about a man who flew IN COMBAT, against both the 109G and the later models, shot down enemy aircraft, and in fact became an Ace.

A man who was an aeronautical engineer, and a Colonel in the US Airforce.

Does that sound like the resume of an moron?

AIR POWER magazine didn't think so, they published his article and afforded him the utmost respect.

You talk about how important it is to respect the opinions of the Soviet pilot, well, now we have the opinion of an American.

Why is his opinion any less valid?

Stachl
01-18-2005, 07:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Quotes from German pilots about G model 109's, courtesy of the 4th Fighter Group site:

Johannes Steinhoff, Sicily, Commander JG 77 (July 1943):

"The Malta Spitfires are back again... They're fitted with a high altitude supercharger and at anything over twenty-five thousand feet they just play cat and mouse with us.
At 28,000 feet the Spitfire could turn in an astonishingly narrow radius. We on the other hand, in the thin air of those altitudes had to carry out every maneuver with caution and at full power so as not to lose control."

Johannes Steinhoff, Messerschmitts Over Sicily, (Stackpole Books, 2004), pp. 97-98, 111,
Gunther Rall:

"The elliptical wings on the Spitfires had fantastic characteristics, great lift. They were very maneuverable. We couldn't catch them in a steep climb."


Note both of these quotes are referring to 109G's versus Spit IX's. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Buzzsaw,

I would think the last sentence of your post would be much more credible if it read:

"Note one of these quotes is referring to 109G6-R6's versus Spit IX's."

Don't you? It is a fact that in mid 1943 MTO most, if not all, of JG77's 109s were equipped with two extra 20mm cannons on the wings in order to deal with the American heavy bombers, as there just weren't very many FW 190s around. I'd be surprised to hear that you were unaware of this after having read this book.

GR142-Pipper
01-18-2005, 07:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
No need to flame me bud, I was just pointing that out and I'm not looking to pick a fight. I agree that many of ther German planes could be outturned in flat out turns on the eastern front, however, that doesn't mean that the 109's turn is overmodelled as is. If we analyze the tactics of the Finnish we can see that they were more liberal as far as knife fighting goes, whereas the Germans practiced energy management a lot more (as posted before). So if the Finns say it was a good turner, I'm willing to take their word http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Again, I wasn't looking to start a fight, I just wanted to post that source here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> First, allow me to apologize if you were offended in any way. I had no intention to do that whatsoever in either actual words or tenor. I too am not looking for any confrontation. It's just a discussion about airplanes.

In this sim, the 109's turn capabilities DO seem to be overmodeled...by quite a bit. Yes, we have one Finnish pilot who says they could turn and nearly everyone else who can speak with some authority on the matter who says that turning just wasn't the 109's strength (particularly the G model and later). There just is virutally no evidence supporting the contention that the 109G and later as good turners.

GR142-Pipper

Buzzsaw-
01-18-2005, 08:10 PM
Salute Stachl

Actually many if not most of the 109's used by Steinhoff's Geschwader were 109G2's, which were rarely equipped with underwing cannons. The G2 in the game can have them, but that was extremely uncommon.

The Allies captured a number of G2's from German airfields in Sicily after the invasion, and none of them had the underwing cannon.

http://www.heuvel22.myweb.nl/Images/Raaf109-6x.jpg

Also many G6's were also captured in the Med, which also did not have underwing cannon:

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/capt-luft/bf109/vx101.jpg

Talking to most Luftwaffe pilots who flew the 109, they all disliked the underwing cannons and took them off their fighters.

p1ngu666
01-18-2005, 08:25 PM
109's turn was probably ok, but spit/yak better, that would make 109 average

its probably average to good ingame

Stachl
01-18-2005, 09:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute Stachl

Actually many if not most of the 109's used by Steinhoff's Geschwader were 109G2's, which were rarely equipped with underwing cannons. The G2 in the game can have them, but that was extremely uncommon.

The Allies captured a number of G2's from German airfields in Sicily after the invasion, and none of them had the underwing cannon.

http://www.heuvel22.myweb.nl/Images/Raaf109-6x.jpg

Also many G6's were also captured in the Med, which also did not have underwing cannon:

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/capt-luft/bf109/vx101.jpg

Talking to most Luftwaffe pilots who flew the 109, they all disliked the underwing cannons and took them off their fighters. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Salute Buzzsaw,

In July 1943 (the quote you used from the book Messerschmitts Over Sicly), they definitely had the G6/R6 (there may of been a few G4s and G2s but not many by this time). In fact it didn't matter one little bit whether the average pilots liked the gunpods or not, their task was to stop the B17s, B24s, and B25s and you couldn't do that with a single 20mm cannon. Unless a Staffel was specifically formed for fighter vs. fighter combat (a so called Hohen or Holtzauge Staffel), there was no 'choice' in the matter, befelt ist befelt.

Anyway I'm not going to debate this with you. I'll let you go on with your misleading information if you like. I just felt I had to say something.

Regards

WUAF_Badsight
01-18-2005, 10:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
And still even the E wasn't regarded as much of a turner by the Brits. The G and subsequent only got worse. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
thats not true

the G2 model had a 3 - 4 second quicker turn time over the E3- E4

WUAF_Badsight
01-18-2005, 10:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
In this sim, the 109's turn capabilities DO seem to be overmodeled... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sustained Turn Time Tests

posted by JtD

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/groupee/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=394102855&p=1


As usual I have done a little test with the new version. This time I focused on sustained turn times, which are not correct in the IL-2 compare program. The following 60 planes ranking is sustained right hand turn in seconds per 360 on the deck, the times that I achieved. It's totally possible that I didn't push every plane to it's maximum, but it feels okay:

I-153 M62..............10,8
Fiat Cr.42.............12,8
A6M2...................12,8
A6M5a..................13,3
I-16 T24...............14,0
Ki 84 Ia...............14,7
PZL P.11c..............14,8
B-239..................15,0
La-7...................15,1
P-40E FM...............15,1
P-39Q-10...............15,1
LaGG-3 S66.............15,3
Spitfire Mk.Vb.........15,4
Fiat G.50..............15,4
LaGG-3 S35.............15,5
Yak-3..................15,5
Spitfire Mk.VbLFCW.....15,5
La-5F..................15,7
Yak-9..................15,8
P-39N-1................15,8
La-5...................15,9
La-5FN.................15,9
Yak-1b.................15,9
P-63C-5................15,9
Spitfire Mk.IXeHF......16,0
LaGG-3 S29.............16,1
Spitfire Mk.IXeLFCW....16,1
P-40E..................16,2
P-40M..................16,2
Bf 109 G-2.............16,3
Yak-9d.................16,3
Bf 109 G-10............16,6
Yak-9u.................16,7
P-51D-20...............16,7
Bf 109 K-4.............16,8
MiG-3 AM38.............16,8
P-51B..................16,9
IAR 81a................16,9
Bf 109 F-4.............17,2
Hurricane Mk.II FM.....17,3
Bf 109 G-6 Ende 43.....17,4
Hurricane Mk.IIb.......17,4
Hurricane Mk.IIc.......17,4
Bf 109 F-2.............17,5
FW 190 D-9 (44)........17,5
LaGG-3 S4..............17,8
FW 190 D-9 (45)........17,8
Yak-1..................17,9
P-38J..................17,9
Yak-7b.................18,1
Bf 109 E-4.............18,2
P-47D-27...............18,4
Bf 109 E-7/B...........18,6
FW 190 A-4.............18,7
MiG-3ud................18,7
FW 190 A-5.............18,9
FW 190 A-6.............19,0
FW 190 A-8.............19,0
P-47D-10...............19,3
FW 190 A-9.............19,6

"I turned 5 turns with every plane, than diveded the time by 5. I entered these turns at same speed and alt as I left them. So the turn is sustained.

I tested at low fuel. I wanted to eliminate range. A 100% fuel P-47 gets seven times as far as a Bf 109 G-2 does.

Online8aislands, 50meters alt, full power, rads closed if possible, auto pitch, just enough fuel to complete the test (from 1% to 5%)."

faustnik
01-19-2005, 12:17 AM
Yeah, my plane, the Fw190A9 wins! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



Oh. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

robban75
01-19-2005, 06:00 AM
Wha?? 7 pages, and I finally notice this thread now!
I've been sick for a couple of days, and of course when I'm away the forum blossoms! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Excellent article Ivan, very interesting, and a big thanks for translating it! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

alarmer
01-19-2005, 06:04 AM
Thank you for this Ivan, Most inteligence reading here in awhile http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG7_Rall
01-19-2005, 10:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute Rall

"Kit Carson is a biased moron."

Maybe you better reconsider that statement.

You are talking about a man who flew IN COMBAT, against both the 109G and the later models, shot down enemy aircraft, and in fact became an Ace.

A man who was an aeronautical engineer, and a Colonel in the US Airforce.

Does that sound like the resume of an moron?

AIR POWER magazine didn't think so, they published his article and afforded him the utmost respect.

You talk about how important it is to respect the opinions of the Soviet pilot, well, now we have the opinion of an American.

Why is his opinion any less valid? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, my statement was over the top, and his resume is impressive indeed. However, anyone who's willing to say things like that about a plane which was the backbone of the Luftwaffe, one of the best airforces in the world until '44-'45, is missing something. Sure, there were drawbacks to the 109, but in that article it seems like the negatives are put center stage while he rushes past the strong points. Oh well, just forget what I said. It's not really that important, I mainly just wanted to link people to that article.

OldMan____
01-19-2005, 11:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
In this sim, the 109's turn capabilities DO seem to be overmodeled... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sustained Turn Time Tests

posted by JtD

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/groupee/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=394102855&p=1


As usual I have done a little test with the new version. This time I focused on sustained turn times, which are not correct in the IL-2 compare program. The following 60 planes ranking is sustained right hand turn in seconds per 360 on the deck, the times that I achieved. It's totally possible that I didn't push every plane to it's maximum, but it feels okay:

I-153 M62..............10,8
Fiat Cr.42.............12,8
A6M2...................12,8
A6M5a..................13,3
I-16 T24...............14,0
Ki 84 Ia...............14,7
PZL P.11c..............14,8
B-239..................15,0
La-7...................15,1
P-40E FM...............15,1
P-39Q-10...............15,1
LaGG-3 S66.............15,3
Spitfire Mk.Vb.........15,4
Fiat G.50..............15,4
LaGG-3 S35.............15,5
Yak-3..................15,5
Spitfire Mk.VbLFCW.....15,5
La-5F..................15,7
Yak-9..................15,8
P-39N-1................15,8
La-5...................15,9
La-5FN.................15,9
Yak-1b.................15,9
P-63C-5................15,9
Spitfire Mk.IXeHF......16,0
LaGG-3 S29.............16,1
Spitfire Mk.IXeLFCW....16,1
P-40E..................16,2
P-40M..................16,2
Bf 109 G-2.............16,3
Yak-9d.................16,3
Bf 109 G-10............16,6
Yak-9u.................16,7
P-51D-20...............16,7
Bf 109 K-4.............16,8
MiG-3 AM38.............16,8
P-51B..................16,9
IAR 81a................16,9
Bf 109 F-4.............17,2
Hurricane Mk.II FM.....17,3
Bf 109 G-6 Ende 43.....17,4
Hurricane Mk.IIb.......17,4
Hurricane Mk.IIc.......17,4
Bf 109 F-2.............17,5
FW 190 D-9 (44)........17,5
LaGG-3 S4..............17,8
FW 190 D-9 (45)........17,8
Yak-1..................17,9
P-38J..................17,9
Yak-7b.................18,1
Bf 109 E-4.............18,2
P-47D-27...............18,4
Bf 109 E-7/B...........18,6
FW 190 A-4.............18,7
MiG-3ud................18,7
FW 190 A-5.............18,9
FW 190 A-6.............19,0
FW 190 A-8.............19,0
P-47D-10...............19,3
FW 190 A-9.............19,6

"I turned 5 turns with every plane, than diveded the time by 5. I entered these turns at same speed and alt as I left them. So the turn is sustained.

I tested at low fuel. I wanted to eliminate range. A 100% fuel P-47 gets seven times as far as a Bf 109 G-2 does.

Online8aislands, 50meters alt, full power, rads closed if possible, auto pitch, just enough fuel to complete the test (from 1% to 5%)." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

always remember when comparing to other turn teste that most of them are made at 1000m.

Buzzsaw-
01-19-2005, 12:11 PM
Salute

Doing tests at 25% fuel is not an accurate measure of the results which were obtained in historical testing, which was normally done at full fuel loads.

When you reduce the P-51D's fuel by 75%, you are removing a far higher percentage of weight from the aircraft than if you remove 75% of a 109K4's fuel. You improve the P-51's wingloading by a proportionately higher percentage than you improve the 109K4's.

So the P-51 will turn far better at 25% fuel, proportionate to the K4 at 25% fuel, than it would when both are tested at 100% fuel. This test skews the result to proportionately improve the turnrate of the aircraft which can take a higher fuel load more than an aircraft which cannot take such a large fuel load. So in effect, it makes the U.S. aircraft look better, and the German aircraft look worse. And makes aircraft like the 109K4 look worse proportionately than aircraft such as the P-51 or 190.

Do the test again, with aircraft at full full load, and you will see the positions of the table change considerably.

You will also be more historically accurate in your testing.

robban75
01-19-2005, 12:13 PM
I tried sustained turning with full fuel and full power but no boost with the D-9 '45 and Spit IXc.

Here's what I got.

D-9

Left -- 23.3 sec
Right - 22.2 sec

IXc

Left -- 18.1 sec
Right - 17.8 sec

The D-9 seems to correlate quite well with the object viewer.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Sig.Hirsch
01-19-2005, 12:21 PM
P-51 100% would mean 1600 km autonomy
Bf-109 100% would mean 500-540 km autonomy

It's not correct to compare a plane full of fuel with a "light" one .

You have to give P-51 same amount of fuel to compare the airframes on equal basis , otherwise the test is not worth the bother .

cheers,

Enofinu
01-19-2005, 12:26 PM
Funny thing is what that pilot says about wood or about deltawooded planes when compared to all metal planes.. bit different than what we had. how thick is the deltawood skin of the plane?

lrrp22
01-19-2005, 01:04 PM
Buzz's point is that any historical numbers you find on the P-51 are going to be based on a 100% fuel load. You can't test a P-51 at 25% fuel and then claim that it is overmodeled compared to historical data.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
P-51 100% would mean 1600 km autonomy
Bf-109 100% would mean 500-540 km autonomy

It's not correct to compare a plane full of fuel with a "light" one .

You have to give P-51 same amount of fuel to compare the airframes on equal basis , otherwise the test is not worth the bother .

cheers, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

RedNeckerson
01-19-2005, 01:56 PM
Ivan,

Thanks for posting your translation - it's been very interesting to read.

It shows that many times the slide rule and the science just doesn't carry over into the realities of actual combat.

Kind of reminds me of the oral accounts of specific air battles from Spitfire pilots like Johnny Johnson and Eric Brown who couldn't shake the higher-wingloaded FW190s off their tales in some fights although the slide rules and calculators said they could http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Johnson survived by running away to friendly AAA and Eric Brown and his opponent broke off when both were apparently low on fuel.

Whatever the case, this quote from an unknown but very wise Spitfire pilot says it all:

"Turning doesn't win fights!" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

WWMaxGunz
01-19-2005, 04:28 PM
Sliderules and pencils don't add up when only part of the numbers are used.
Calculators didn't come for more than 30 years later.

Tell the one about "science proved bees can't fly" next.

BigKahuna_GS
01-19-2005, 04:33 PM
S!


Outnumbered P51 during Bomber Escort Duty
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/anderson4.jpg
http://www.cebudanderson.com/carson.htm
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/anderson/anderson.htm

Manueverability and or turnining ability is all relative to speed and altitude.
The 109 is a good turning and manueveable aircraft, but the K model was not known for it's turning ability. I hope the 109 series in IL2/AEP/FB/PF does not turn any better than they do now or you can start painting rising suns on them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Here is what Bud Anderson had to say about his P51B/C/D vs 109G:

"We're flying tighter circles, gaining a little each turn, our throttles wide open, 30,000 feet up.The Mustang is a wonderful airplane, 37 feet wingtip to wingtip, just a little faster than the smaller German fighters, and also just a little more nimble. Suddenly the 109s, sensing things are not going well, roll out and run, turning east, flying level. Then one lifts up his nose and climbs away from the rest."

http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto/anderson9.jpg

Bud Anderson on German fighter Strength:

[I]"It seemed we were always outnumbered. We had more fighters than they did, but what mattered was how many they could put up in one area. They (germans) would concentrate in huge numbers, by the hundreds at times. They would assemble way up ahead, pick a section of the bomber formation, and then come in head-on, their guns blazing, sometimes biting the bombers below us before we knew what was happening."


Here is a small, but most vivid and full of WW II air combat spirit, describe - excerpt from "Bud" Anderson's book "To Fly and Fight":


http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/can'ttalk.jpg

"He Was Someone Who Was Trying to Kill Me, Is All"

"The sky above was a bright crystal blue, and the land below a green-on-green checkerboard divided by a silver-blue ribbon. Below was occupied France, beyond the river lay Germany, and it all looked the same, rolling and peaceful and bursting with spring.

... The day was unusually, incredibly clear. In better times, it would have been a day for splashing through trout streams with fly rods, or driving so fast that some giggling girl would beg you to slow. But these weren't those kinds of times. These were the worst times God ever let happen. And so the trout streams were left to the fish, gasoline was a thing you used sparingly, and it was just one more day for flying and fighting and staying alive, if you could, six miles high over Germany.

... This particular day, out of the year I flew combat in Europe, is the one I have thought of on a thousand days since, sometimes on purpose and sometimes in spite of myself. Sometimes it's in cameo glimpses, other times in slow motion stop action, but always, in Technicolor. I sit on my porch, nearly a half-century and half-world removed from that awful business, looking out over a deep, green, river-cut canyon to the snow-capped Sierra, thinking about getting tires for the Blazer or mowing the lawn or, more likely, the next backpacking trip . . . and suddenly May 27, 1944, elbows its way to the front of my thoughts like a drunk to a bar. The projectionist inside my head who chooses the films seems to love this one rerun.

We were high over a bomber stream in our P-51B Mustangs, escorting the heavies to the Ludwigsbafen-Mannbeim area. For the past several weeks the Eighth Air Force had been targeting oil, and Ludwigshafen was a center for synthetic fuels. Oil was everything, the lifeblood of war.

... We'd picked up the bombers at 27,000 feet, assumed the right flank, and almost immediately all hell began breaking loose up ahead of us. This was early, still over France, long before we'd expected the German fighters to come up in force. You maintained radio silence until you engaged the enemy, and after that it didn't much matter since they knew you were there, and so people would chatter. They were chattering now, up ahead, and my earphones were crackling with loud, frantic calls: "Bandits, eleven o'clock low! . . . Two o'clock high, pick him up! . . . Blue leader break left!" It sounded as though the Messerschmitts and Focke-Wulfs were everywhere.

You knew how it was up ahead, and you knew it would be like that for you any minute now, the German single-seat Fw 190s and Me 109s coming straight through the bombers, mixing it up with the Mustangs, the hundreds of four-engined heavies and the hundreds of fighters scoring the crystal blue sky with their persistent white contrails.

The Germans liked to roar through the bombers head-on, firing long bursts, and then roll and go down. They would circle around to get ahead of the bomber stream, groping for altitude, avoiding the escorts if possible, then reassemble and come through head-on again. When their fuel or ammunition was exhausted, they would land and refuel and take off again, flying mission after mission, for as long as there were bombers to shoot at. They seldom came after us. Normally, they would skirmish the escorts only out of necessity. We were an inconvenience, best avoided. It was the bombers they wanted, and the German pilots threw themselves at them smartly and bravely. It was our job to stop them.

It seemed we were always outnumbered. We had more fighters than they did, but what mattered was how many they could put up in one area. They would concentrate in huge numbers, by the hundreds at times. They would assemble way up ahead, pick a section of the bomber formation, and then come in head-on, their guns blazing, sometimes biting the bombers below us before we knew what was happening.

In the distance, a red and black smear marked the spot where a B-17 and its 10 men had been. Planes still bearing their bomb loads erupted and fell, trailing flame, streaking the sky, leaving gaps in the bomber formation that were quickly closed up.

"Bud" Anderson on wing of his "Old Crow" - the signed photo from collection of Martin Welsh (thanks!).
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/anderson3.jpg

Through our headsets we could hear the war, working its way back toward us, coming straight at us at hundreds of miles per hour. The adrenaline began gushing, and I scanned the sky frantically, trying to pick out the fly-speck against the horizon that might have been somebody coming to kill us, trying to see him before be saw me, looking, squinting, breathless . . .

Over the radio: "Here they come!"

They'd worked over the bombers up ahead and now it was our turn.

Things happen quickly. We get rid of our drop tanks, slam the power up, and make a sweeping left turn to engage. My flight of four Mustangs is on the outside of the turn, a wingman close behind to my left, my element leader and his wingman behind to my right, all in finger formation. Open your right hand, tuck the thumb under, put the fingers together, and check the fingernails. That's how we flew, and fought. Two shooters, and two men to cover their tails. The Luftwaffe flew that way, too. German ace Werner Molders is generally credited with inventing the tactic during the Spanish Civil War.

Being on the outside of the turn, we are vulnerable to attack from the rear. I look over my right shoulder and, sure enough, I see four dots above us, way back, no threat at the moment, but coming hard down the chute. I start to call out, but . . .

"Four bogeys, five o'clock high!" My element leader, Eddie Simpson, has already seen them. Bogeys are unknowns and bandits are hostile. Quickly, the dots close and take shape. They're hostile, all right. They're Messerschmitts.

We turn hard to the right, pulling up into a tight string formation, spoiling their angle, and we try to come around and go at them head on. The Me 109s change course, charge past, and continue on down, and we wheel and give chase. There are four of them, single-seat fighters, and they pull up, turn hard, and we begin turning with them. We are circling now, tighter and tighter, chasing each other's tails, and I'm sitting there wondering what the hell's happening. These guys want to hang around. Curious. I'm wondering why they aren't after the bombers, why they're messing with us, whether they're simply creating some kind of a diversion or what. I would fly 116 combat missions, engage the enemy perhaps 40 times, shoot down 16 fighters, share in the destruction of a bomber, destroy another fighter on the ground, have a couple of aerial probables, and over that span it would be us bouncing them far more often than not. This was a switch.

We're flying tighter circles, gaining a little each turn, our throttles wide open, 30,000 feet up. The Mustang is a wonderful airplane, 37 feet wingtip to wingtip, just a little faster than the smaller German fighters, and also just a little more nimble. Suddenly the 109s, sensing things are not going well, roll out and run, turning east, flying level. Then one lifts up his nose and climbs away from the rest.

We roll out and go after them. They're flying full power, the black smoke pouring out their exhaust stacks. I'm looking at the one who is climbing, wondering what he is up to, and I'm thinking that if we stay with the other three, this guy will wind up above us. I send Simpson up after him. He and his wingman break off. My wingman, John Skara, and I chase the other three fighters, throttles all the way forward, and I can see that we're gaining.

I close to within 250 yards of the nearest Messerschmitt--dead astern, 6 o'clock, no maneuvering, no nothing--and squeeze the trigger on the control stick between my knees gently. Bambambambambam! The sound is loud in the cockpit in spite of the wind shriek and engine roar. And the vibration of the Mustang's four. 50-caliber machine guns, two in each wing, weighing 60-odd pounds apiece, is pronounced. In fact, you had to be careful in dogfights when you were turning hard, flying on the brink of a stall, because the buck of the guns was enough to peel off a few critical miles per hour and make the Mustang simply stop flying. That could prove downright embarrassing.

But I'm going like hell now, and I can see the bullets tearing at the Messerschmitt's wing root and fuselage. The armor-piercing ammunition we used was also incendiary, and hits were easily visible, making a bright flash and puff. Now the 109's trailing smoke thickens, and it's something more than exhaust smoke. He slows, and then suddenly rolls over. But the plane doesn't fall. It continues on, upside down, straight and level! What the hell . . . ?

The pilot can't be dead. It takes considerable effort to fly one of these fighter planes upside down. You have to push hard on the controls. Flying upside down isn't easy. It isn't something that happens all by itself, or that you do accidentally. So what in the world is be doing?

Well. It's an academic question, because I haven't the time to wait and find out. I pour another burst into him, pieces start flying off, I see flame, and the 109 plummets and falls into a spin, belching smoke. My sixth kill.

The other two Messerschmitt pilots have pulled away now, and they're nervous. Their airplanes are twitching, the fliers obviously straining to look over their shoulders and see what is happening. As we take up the chase again, two against two now, the trailing 109 peels away and dives for home, and the leader pulls up into a sharp climbing turn to the left. This one can fly, and he obviously has no thought of running. I'm thinking this one could be trouble.

We turn inside him, my wingman and I, still at long range, and he pulls around harder, passing in front of us right-to-left at an impossible angle. I want to swing in behind him, but I'm going too fast, and figure I would only go skidding on past. A Mustang at speed simply can't make a square corner. And in a dogfight you don't want to surrender your airspeed. I decide to overshoot him and climb.

He reverses his turn, trying to fall in behind us. My wingman is vulnerable now. I tell Skara, "Break off!" and be peels away. The German goes after him, and I go after the German, closing on his tail before he can close on my wingman. He sees me coming and dives away with me after him, then makes a climbing left turn. I go screaming by, pull up, and he's reversing his turn--man, be can fly!--and be comes crawling right up behind me, close enough that I can see him distinctly. He's bringing his nose up for a shot, and I haul back on the stick and climb even harder. I keep going up, because I'm out of alternatives.

This is what I see all these years later. If I were the sort to be troubled with nightmares, this is what would shock me awake. I am in this steep climb, pulling the stick into my navel, making it steeper, steeper . . . and I am looking back down, over my shoulder, at this classic gray Me 109 with black crosses that is pulling up, too, steeper, steeper, the pilot trying to get his nose up just a little bit more and bring me into his sights.

There is nothing distinctive about the aircraft, no fancy markings, nothing to identify it as the plane of an ace, as one of the "dreaded yellow-noses" like you see in the movies. Some of them did that, I know, but I never saw one. And in any event, all of their aces weren't flamboyant types who splashed paint on their airplanes to show who they were. I suppose I could go look it up in the archives. There's the chance I could find him in some gruppe's log book, having flown on this particular day, in this particular place, a few miles northwest of the French town of Strasbourg that sits on the Rhine. There are fellows who've done that, gone back and looked up their opponents. I never have. I never saw any point.

He was someone who was trying to kill me, is all.

So I'm looking back, almost straight down now, and I can see this 20-millimeter cannon sticking through the middle of the fighter's propeller hub. In the theater of my memory, it is enormous. An elephant gun. And that isn't far wrong. It is a gun designed to bring down a bomber, one that fires shells as long as your hand, shells that explode and tear big holes in metal. It is the single most frightening thing I have seen in my life, then and now.

But I'm too busy to be frightened. Later on, you might sit back and perspire about it, maybe 40-50 years later, say, sitting on your porch 7,000 miles away, but while it is happening you are just too **** busy. And I am extremely busy up here, hanging by my propeller, going almost straight up, full emergency power, which a Mustang could do for only so long before losing speed, shuddering, stalling, and falling back down; and I am thinking that if the Mustang stalls before the Messerschmitt stalls, I have had it.

I look back, and I can see that he's shuddering, on the verge of a stall. He hasn't been able to get his nose up enough, hasn't been able to bring that big gun to bear. Almost, but not quite. I'm a fallen-down-dead man almost, but not quite. His nose begins dropping just as my airplane, too, begins shuddering. He stalls a second or two before I stall, drops away before I do.

Good old Mustang.

He is falling away now, and I flop the nose over and go after him hard. We are very high by this time, six miles and then some, and falling very, very fast. The Messerschmitt had a head start, plummeting out of my range, but I'm closing up quickly. Then he flattens out and comes around hard to the left and starts climbing again, as if he wants to come at me head on. Suddenly we're right back where we started.

A lot of this is just instinct now. Things are happening too fast to think everything out. You steer with your right hand and feet. The right hand also triggers the guns. With your left, you work the throttle, and keep the airplane in trim, which is easier to do than describe.

Any airplane with a single propeller produces torque. The more horsepower you have, the more the prop will pull you off to one side. The Mustangs I flew used a 12-cylinder Packard Merlin engine that displaced 1,649 cubic inches. That is 10 times the size of the engine that powers an Indy car. It developed power enough that you never applied full power sitting still on the ground because it would pull the plane's tail up off the runway and the propeller would chew up the concrete. With so much power, you were continually making minor adjustments on the controls to keep the Mustang and its wing-mounted guns pointed straight.

There were three little palm-sized wheels you had to keep fiddling with. They trimmed you up for hands-off level flight. One was for the little trim tab on the tail's rudder, the vertical slab which moves the plane left or right. Another adjusted the tab on the tail's horizontal elevators that raise or lower the nose and help reduce the force you had to apply for hard turning. The third was for aileron trim, to keep your wings level, although you didn't have to fuss much with that one. Your left hand was down there a lot if you were changing speeds, as in combat . . . while at the same time you were making minor adjustments with your feet on the rudder pedals and your hand on the stick. At first it was awkward. But, with experience, it was something you did without thinking, like driving a car and twirling the radio dial.

It's a little unnerving to think about how many things you have to deal with all at once to fly combat.

So the Messerschmitt is coming around again, climbing hard to his left, and I've had about enough of this. My angle is a little bit better this time. So I roll the dice. Instead of cobbing it like before and sailing on by him, I decide to turn hard left inside him, knowing that if I lose speed and don't make it I probably won't get home. I pull back on the throttle slightly, put down 10 degrees of flaps, and haul back on the stick just as hard as I can. And the nose begins coming up and around, slowly, slowly. . .

Hot ****! I'm going to make it! I'm inside him, pulling my sights up to him. And the German pilot can see this. This time, it's the Messerschmitt that breaks away and goes zooming straight up, engine at maximum power, without much alternative. I come in with full power and follow him up, and the gap narrows swiftly. He is hanging by his prop, not quite vertically, and I am right there behind him, and it is terribly clear, having tested the theory less than a minute ago, that he is going to stall and fall away before I do.

I have him. He must know that I have him.

I bring my nose up, he comes into my sights, and from less than 300 yards I trigger a long, merciless burst from my Brownings. Every fifth bullet or so is a tracer, leaving a thin trail of smoke, marking the path of the bullet stream. The tracers race upward and find him. The bullets chew at the wing root, the cockpit, the engine, making bright little flashes. I hose the Messerschmitt down the way you'd hose down a campfire, methodically, from one end to the other, not wanting to make a mistake here. The 109 shakes like a retriever coming out of the water, throwing off pieces. He slows, almost stops, as if parked in the sky, his propeller just windmilling, and he begins smoking heavily.

My momentum carries me to him. I throttle back to ease my plane alongside, just off his right wing. Have I killed him? I do not particularly want to fight this man again. I am coming up even with the cockpit, and although I figure the less I know about him the better, I find myself looking in spite of myself. There is smoke in the cockpit. I can see that, nothing more. Another few feet. . . .

And then he falls away suddenly, left wing down, right wing rising up, obscuring my view. I am looking at the 109's sky blue belly, the wheel wells, twin radiators, grease marks, streaks from the guns, the black crosses. I am close enough to make out the rivets. The Messerschmitt is right there and then it is gone, just like that, rolling away and dropping its nose and falling (flying?) almost straight down, leaking coolant and trailing flame and smoke so black and thick that it has to be oil smoke. It simply plunges, heading straight for the deck. No spin, not even a wobble, no parachute, and now I am wondering. His ship seems a death ship--but is it?

Undecided, I peel off and begin chasing him down. Did I squander a chance here? Have I let him escape? He is diving hard enough to be shedding his wings, harder than anyone designed those airplanes to dive, 500 miles an hour and more, and if 109s will stall sooner than Mustangs going straight up, now I am worrying that maybe their wings stay on longer. At 25,000 feet I begin to grow nervous. I pull back on the throttle, ease out of the dive, and watch him go down. I have no more stomach for this kind of thing, not right now, not with this guy. Enough. Let him go and to hell with him.

Straight down be plunges, from as high as 35,000 feet, through this beautiful, crystal clear May morning toward the green-on-green checkerboard fields, leaving a wake of black smoke. From four miles straight up I watch as the Messerschmitt and the shadow it makes on the ground rush toward one another . . .

. . . and then, finally, silently, merge.

Eddie Simpson joins up with me. Both wingmen, too. Simpson, my old wingman and friend, had gotten the one who'd climbed out. We'd bagged three of the four. We were very excited. It had been a good day.

I had lived and my opponent had died. But it was a near thing. It could have been the other way around just as easily, and what probably made the difference was the airplane I flew. Made in America. I would live to see the day when people would try to tell me the United States can't make cars like some other folks do. What a laugh. ..."

Note: The above article is excerpted from the book To Fly and Fight: Memoirs of a Triple Ace by Col C. E. "Bud" Anderson with Joseph P. Hamelin.

For more details about "Bud" Anderson and his book, check here: http://www.cebudanderson.com/


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

S.taibanzai
01-19-2005, 10:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!


Outnumbered P51 during Bomber Escort Duty
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/anderson4.jpg
http://www.cebudanderson.com/carson.htm
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/anderson/anderson.htm

Manueverability and or turnining ability is all relative to speed and altitude.
The 109 is a good turning and manueveable aircraft, but the K model was not known for it's turning ability. I hope the 109 series in IL2/AEP/FB/PF does not turn any better than they do now or you can start painting rising suns on them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Here is what Bud Anderson had to say about his P51B/C/D vs 109G:

_"We're flying tighter circles, gaining a little each turn, our throttles wide open, 30,000 feet up._The Mustang is a wonderful airplane, 37 feet wingtip to wingtip, just a little faster than the smaller German fighters, and also just a little more nimble._ Suddenly the 109s, sensing things are not going well, roll out and run, turning east, flying level. Then one lifts up his nose and climbs away from the rest."

http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto/anderson9.jpg

Bud Anderson on German fighter Strength:

[I]"It seemed we were always outnumbered. We had more fighters than they did, but what mattered was how many they could put up in one area. They (germans) would concentrate in huge numbers, by the hundreds at times. They would assemble way up ahead, pick a section of the bomber formation, and then come in head-on, their guns blazing, sometimes biting the bombers below us before we knew what was happening."_


Here is a small, but most vivid and full of WW II air combat spirit, describe - excerpt from "Bud" Anderson's book "To Fly and Fight":


http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/can'ttalk.jpg

"He Was Someone Who Was Trying to Kill Me, Is All"

"The sky above was a bright crystal blue, and the land below a green-on-green checkerboard divided by a silver-blue ribbon. Below was occupied France, beyond the river lay Germany, and it all looked the same, rolling and peaceful and bursting with spring.

... The day was unusually, incredibly clear. In better times, it would have been a day for splashing through trout streams with fly rods, or driving so fast that some giggling girl would beg you to slow. But these weren't those kinds of times. These were the worst times God ever let happen. And so the trout streams were left to the fish, gasoline was a thing you used sparingly, and it was just one more day for flying and fighting and staying alive, if you could, six miles high over Germany.

... This particular day, out of the year I flew combat in Europe, is the one I have thought of on a thousand days since, sometimes on purpose and sometimes in spite of myself. Sometimes it's in cameo glimpses, other times in slow motion stop action, but always, in Technicolor. I sit on my porch, nearly a half-century and half-world removed from that awful business, looking out over a deep, green, river-cut canyon to the snow-capped Sierra, thinking about getting tires for the Blazer or mowing the lawn or, more likely, the next backpacking trip . . . and suddenly May 27, 1944, elbows its way to the front of my thoughts like a drunk to a bar. The projectionist inside my head who chooses the films seems to love this one rerun.

We were high over a bomber stream in our P-51B Mustangs, escorting the heavies to the Ludwigsbafen-Mannbeim area. For the past several weeks the Eighth Air Force had been targeting oil, and Ludwigshafen was a center for synthetic fuels. Oil was everything, the lifeblood of war.

... We'd picked up the bombers at 27,000 feet, assumed the right flank, and almost immediately all hell began breaking loose up ahead of us. This was early, still over France, long before we'd expected the German fighters to come up in force. You maintained radio silence until you engaged the enemy, and after that it didn't much matter since they knew you were there, and so people would chatter. They were chattering now, up ahead, and my earphones were crackling with loud, frantic calls: "Bandits, eleven o'clock low! . . . Two o'clock high, pick him up! . . . Blue leader break left!" It sounded as though the Messerschmitts and Focke-Wulfs were everywhere.

You knew how it was up ahead, and you knew it would be like that for you any minute now, the German single-seat Fw 190s and Me 109s coming straight through the bombers, mixing it up with the Mustangs, the hundreds of four-engined heavies and the hundreds of fighters scoring the crystal blue sky with their persistent white contrails.

The Germans liked to roar through the bombers head-on, firing long bursts, and then roll and go down. They would circle around to get ahead of the bomber stream, groping for altitude, avoiding the escorts if possible, then reassemble and come through head-on again. When their fuel or ammunition was exhausted, they would land and refuel and take off again, flying mission after mission, for as long as there were bombers to shoot at. They seldom came after us. Normally, they would skirmish the escorts only out of necessity. We were an inconvenience, best avoided. It was the bombers they wanted, and the German pilots threw themselves at them smartly and bravely. It was our job to stop them.

It seemed we were always outnumbered. We had more fighters than they did, but what mattered was how many they could put up in one area. They would concentrate in huge numbers, by the hundreds at times. They would assemble way up ahead, pick a section of the bomber formation, and then come in head-on, their guns blazing, sometimes biting the bombers below us before we knew what was happening.

In the distance, a red and black smear marked the spot where a B-17 and its 10 men had been. Planes still bearing their bomb loads erupted and fell, trailing flame, streaking the sky, leaving gaps in the bomber formation that were quickly closed up.

"Bud" Anderson on wing of his "Old Crow" - the signed photo from collection of Martin Welsh (thanks!).
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/anderson3.jpg

Through our headsets we could hear the war, working its way back toward us, coming straight at us at hundreds of miles per hour. The adrenaline began gushing, and I scanned the sky frantically, trying to pick out the fly-speck against the horizon that might have been somebody coming to kill us, trying to see him before be saw me, looking, squinting, breathless . . .

Over the radio: "Here they come!"

They'd worked over the bombers up ahead and now it was our turn.

Things happen quickly. We get rid of our drop tanks, slam the power up, and make a sweeping left turn to engage. My flight of four Mustangs is on the outside of the turn, a wingman close behind to my left, my element leader and his wingman behind to my right, all in finger formation. Open your right hand, tuck the thumb under, put the fingers together, and check the fingernails. That's how we flew, and fought. Two shooters, and two men to cover their tails. The Luftwaffe flew that way, too. German ace Werner Molders is generally credited with inventing the tactic during the Spanish Civil War.

Being on the outside of the turn, we are vulnerable to attack from the rear. I look over my right shoulder and, sure enough, I see four dots above us, way back, no threat at the moment, but coming hard down the chute. I start to call out, but . . .

"Four bogeys, five o'clock high!" My element leader, Eddie Simpson, has already seen them. Bogeys are unknowns and bandits are hostile. Quickly, the dots close and take shape. They're hostile, all right. They're Messerschmitts.

We turn hard to the right, pulling up into a tight string formation, spoiling their angle, and we try to come around and go at them head on. The Me 109s change course, charge past, and continue on down, and we wheel and give chase. There are four of them, single-seat fighters, and they pull up, turn hard, and we begin turning with them. We are circling now, tighter and tighter, chasing each other's tails, and I'm sitting there wondering what the hell's happening. These guys want to hang around. Curious. I'm wondering why they aren't after the bombers, why they're messing with us, whether they're simply creating some kind of a diversion or what. I would fly 116 combat missions, engage the enemy perhaps 40 times, shoot down 16 fighters, share in the destruction of a bomber, destroy another fighter on the ground, have a couple of aerial probables, and over that span it would be us bouncing them far more often than not. This was a switch.

We're flying tighter circles, gaining a little each turn, our throttles wide open, 30,000 feet up. The Mustang is a wonderful airplane, 37 feet wingtip to wingtip, just a little faster than the smaller German fighters, and also just a little more nimble. Suddenly the 109s, sensing things are not going well, roll out and run, turning east, flying level. Then one lifts up his nose and climbs away from the rest.

We roll out and go after them. They're flying full power, the black smoke pouring out their exhaust stacks. I'm looking at the one who is climbing, wondering what he is up to, and I'm thinking that if we stay with the other three, this guy will wind up above us. I send Simpson up after him. He and his wingman break off. My wingman, John Skara, and I chase the other three fighters, throttles all the way forward, and I can see that we're gaining.

I close to within 250 yards of the nearest Messerschmitt--dead astern, 6 o'clock, no maneuvering, no nothing--and squeeze the trigger on the control stick between my knees gently. Bambambambambam! The sound is loud in the cockpit in spite of the wind shriek and engine roar. And the vibration of the Mustang's four. 50-caliber machine guns, two in each wing, weighing 60-odd pounds apiece, is pronounced. In fact, you had to be careful in dogfights when you were turning hard, flying on the brink of a stall, because the buck of the guns was enough to peel off a few critical miles per hour and make the Mustang simply stop flying. That could prove downright embarrassing.

But I'm going like hell now, and I can see the bullets tearing at the Messerschmitt's wing root and fuselage. The armor-piercing ammunition we used was also incendiary, and hits were easily visible, making a bright flash and puff. Now the 109's trailing smoke thickens, and it's something more than exhaust smoke. He slows, and then suddenly rolls over. But the plane doesn't fall. It continues on, upside down, straight and level! What the hell . . . ?

The pilot can't be dead. It takes considerable effort to fly one of these fighter planes upside down. You have to push hard on the controls. Flying upside down isn't easy. It isn't something that happens all by itself, or that you do accidentally. So what in the world is be doing?

Well. It's an academic question, because I haven't the time to wait and find out. I pour another burst into him, pieces start flying off, I see flame, and the 109 plummets and falls into a spin, belching smoke. My sixth kill.

The other two Messerschmitt pilots have pulled away now, and they're nervous. Their airplanes are twitching, the fliers obviously straining to look over their shoulders and see what is happening. As we take up the chase again, two against two now, the trailing 109 peels away and dives for home, and the leader pulls up into a sharp climbing turn to the left. This one can fly, and he obviously has no thought of running. I'm thinking this one could be trouble.

We turn inside him, my wingman and I, still at long range, and he pulls around harder, passing in front of us right-to-left at an impossible angle. I want to swing in behind him, but I'm going too fast, and figure I would only go skidding on past. A Mustang at speed simply can't make a square corner. And in a dogfight you don't want to surrender your airspeed. I decide to overshoot him and climb.

He reverses his turn, trying to fall in behind us. My wingman is vulnerable now. I tell Skara, "Break off!" and be peels away. The German goes after him, and I go after the German, closing on his tail before he can close on my wingman. He sees me coming and dives away with me after him, then makes a climbing left turn. I go screaming by, pull up, and he's reversing his turn--man, be can fly!--and be comes crawling right up behind me, close enough that I can see him distinctly. He's bringing his nose up for a shot, and I haul back on the stick and climb even harder. I keep going up, because I'm out of alternatives.

This is what I see all these years later. If I were the sort to be troubled with nightmares, this is what would shock me awake. I am in this steep climb, pulling the stick into my navel, making it steeper, steeper . . . and I am looking back down, over my shoulder, at this classic gray Me 109 with black crosses that is pulling up, too, steeper, steeper, the pilot trying to get his nose up just a little bit more and bring me into his sights.

There is nothing distinctive about the aircraft, no fancy markings, nothing to identify it as the plane of an ace, as one of the "dreaded yellow-noses" like you see in the movies. Some of them did that, I know, but I never saw one. And in any event, all of their aces weren't flamboyant types who splashed paint on their airplanes to show who they were. I suppose I could go look it up in the archives. There's the chance I could find him in some gruppe's log book, having flown on this particular day, in this particular place, a few miles northwest of the French town of Strasbourg that sits on the Rhine. There are fellows who've done that, gone back and looked up their opponents. I never have. I never saw any point.

He was someone who was trying to kill me, is all.

So I'm looking back, almost straight down now, and I can see this 20-millimeter cannon sticking through the middle of the fighter's propeller hub. In the theater of my memory, it is enormous. An elephant gun. And that isn't far wrong. It is a gun designed to bring down a bomber, one that fires shells as long as your hand, shells that explode and tear big holes in metal. It is the single most frightening thing I have seen in my life, then and now.

But I'm too busy to be frightened. Later on, you might sit back and perspire about it, maybe 40-50 years later, say, sitting on your porch 7,000 miles away, but while it is happening you are just too **** busy. And I am extremely busy up here, hanging by my propeller, going almost straight up, full emergency power, which a Mustang could do for only so long before losing speed, shuddering, stalling, and falling back down; and I am thinking that if the Mustang stalls before the Messerschmitt stalls, I have had it.

I look back, and I can see that he's shuddering, on the verge of a stall. He hasn't been able to get his nose up enough, hasn't been able to bring that big gun to bear. Almost, but not quite. I'm a fallen-down-dead man almost, but not quite. His nose begins dropping just as my airplane, too, begins shuddering. He stalls a second or two before I stall, drops away before I do.

Good old Mustang.

He is falling away now, and I flop the nose over and go after him hard. We are very high by this time, six miles and then some, and falling very, very fast. The Messerschmitt had a head start, plummeting out of my range, but I'm closing up quickly. Then he flattens out and comes around hard to the left and starts climbing again, as if he wants to come at me head on. Suddenly we're right back where we started.

A lot of this is just instinct now. Things are happening too fast to think everything out. You steer with your right hand and feet. The right hand also triggers the guns. With your left, you work the throttle, and keep the airplane in trim, which is easier to do than describe.

Any airplane with a single propeller produces torque. The more horsepower you have, the more the prop will pull you off to one side. The Mustangs I flew used a 12-cylinder Packard Merlin engine that displaced 1,649 cubic inches. That is 10 times the size of the engine that powers an Indy car. It developed power enough that you never applied full power sitting still on the ground because it would pull the plane's tail up off the runway and the propeller would chew up the concrete. With so much power, you were continually making minor adjustments on the controls to keep the Mustang and its wing-mounted guns pointed straight.

There were three little palm-sized wheels you had to keep fiddling with. They trimmed you up for hands-off level flight. One was for the little trim tab on the tail's rudder, the vertical slab which moves the plane left or right. Another adjusted the tab on the tail's horizontal elevators that raise or lower the nose and help reduce the force you had to apply for hard turning. The third was for aileron trim, to keep your wings level, although you didn't have to fuss much with that one. Your left hand was down there a lot if you were changing speeds, as in combat . . . while at the same time you were making minor adjustments with your feet on the rudder pedals and your hand on the stick. At first it was awkward. But, with experience, it was something you did without thinking, like driving a car and twirling the radio dial.

It's a little unnerving to think about how many things you have to deal with all at once to fly combat.

So the Messerschmitt is coming around again, climbing hard to his left, and I've had about enough of this. My angle is a little bit better this time. So I roll the dice. Instead of cobbing it like before and sailing on by him, I decide to turn hard left inside him, knowing that if I lose speed and don't make it I probably won't get home. I pull back on the throttle slightly, put down 10 degrees of flaps, and haul back on the stick just as hard as I can. And the nose begins coming up and around, slowly, slowly. . .

Hot ****! I'm going to make it! I'm inside him, pulling my sights up to him. And the German pilot can see this. This time, it's the Messerschmitt that breaks away and goes zooming straight up, engine at maximum power, without much alternative. I come in with full power and follow him up, and the gap narrows swiftly. He is hanging by his prop, not quite vertically, and I am right there behind him, and it is terribly clear, having tested the theory less than a minute ago, that he is going to stall and fall away before I do.

I have him. He must know that I have him.

I bring my nose up, he comes into my sights, and from less than 300 yards I trigger a long, merciless burst from my Brownings. Every fifth bullet or so is a tracer, leaving a thin trail of smoke, marking the path of the bullet stream. The tracers race upward and find him. The bullets chew at the wing root, the cockpit, the engine, making bright little flashes. I hose the Messerschmitt down the way you'd hose down a campfire, methodically, from one end to the other, not wanting to make a mistake here. The 109 shakes like a retriever coming out of the water, throwing off pieces. He slows, almost stops, as if parked in the sky, his propeller just windmilling, and he begins smoking heavily.

My momentum carries me to him. I throttle back to ease my plane alongside, just off his right wing. Have I killed him? I do not particularly want to fight this man again. I am coming up even with the cockpit, and although I figure the less I know about him the better, I find myself looking in spite of myself. There is smoke in the cockpit. I can see that, nothing more. Another few feet. . . .

And then he falls away suddenly, left wing down, right wing rising up, obscuring my view. I am looking at the 109's sky blue belly, the wheel wells, twin radiators, grease marks, streaks from the guns, the black crosses. I am close enough to make out the rivets. The Messerschmitt is right there and then it is gone, just like that, rolling away and dropping its nose and falling (flying?) almost straight down, leaking coolant and trailing flame and smoke so black and thick that it has to be oil smoke. It simply plunges, heading straight for the deck. No spin, not even a wobble, no parachute, and now I am wondering. His ship seems a death ship--but is it?

Undecided, I peel off and begin chasing him down. Did I squander a chance here? Have I let him escape? He is diving hard enough to be shedding his wings, harder than anyone designed those airplanes to dive, 500 miles an hour and more, and if 109s will stall sooner than Mustangs going straight up, now I am worrying that maybe their wings stay on longer. At 25,000 feet I begin to grow nervous. I pull back on the throttle, ease out of the dive, and watch him go down. I have no more stomach for this kind of thing, not right now, not with this guy. Enough. Let him go and to hell with him.

Straight down be plunges, from as high as 35,000 feet, through this beautiful, crystal clear May morning toward the green-on-green checkerboard fields, leaving a wake of black smoke. From four miles straight up I watch as the Messerschmitt and the shadow it makes on the ground rush toward one another . . .

. . . and then, finally, silently, merge.

Eddie Simpson joins up with me. Both wingmen, too. Simpson, my old wingman and friend, had gotten the one who'd climbed out. We'd bagged three of the four. We were very excited. It had been a good day.

I had lived and my opponent had died. But it was a near thing. It could have been the other way around just as easily, and what probably made the difference was the airplane I flew. Made in America. I would live to see the day when people would try to tell me the United States can't make cars like some other folks do. What a laugh. ..."

Note: The above article is excerpted from the book To Fly and Fight: Memoirs of a Triple Ace by Col C. E. "Bud" Anderson with Joseph P. Hamelin.

For more details about "Bud" Anderson and his book, check here: http://www.cebudanderson.com/


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


yeah right http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif the p-51 turns with Bf109

hehe more please more http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Propagandaaaaaaaaaaaaa

a nother USA whiner come's here with statements like that

I wil tel you some thing US exacurate everything when it comes to own material

and wil not say oh the enemy planes or wat ever is bether in this or that

Big ego thats all

I have a lot of respect for Mr Kozhemyako

Becuase he is honest

and its one of the most honest interview i ever saw

I stop believing when i saw a US interview from B-17 gunner who claims 16 kills

PzKpfw
01-20-2005, 01:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Propagandaaaaaaaaaaaaa <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Propaganda ended with the war http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I wil tel you some thing US exacurate everything when it comes to own mater <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And can you provide examples?, or is this another poor attempt @ US whineing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.....

Regards, John Waters

WUAF_Badsight
01-20-2005, 01:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Doing tests at 25% fuel is not an accurate measure of the results which were obtained in historical testing, which was normally done at full fuel loads. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
the test i posted was done by JtD & with just enough fuel to complete the test (1-3%)

doing this will show what each A/C is capable of without different fuel weights throwing the test out , showing how good each plane is actually performing

which is more accurate than showing what each A/C is capable of while holding a different weight

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
This test skews the result to proportionately improve the turnrate of the aircraft which can take a higher fuel load more than an aircraft which cannot take such a large fuel load <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
while that is true , testing at the bearest minimum fuel is also capable of showing how each A/C is performing relative to each other at the same fuel level

it shows the Mustang doing sustained turning better than the Bf109 K4 , G6 late , F4 & F2 & the Emils

another test done in 3.01 by a squad member of JtD's showed the Mustang as having the most overboosted climb rate of any that were tested , i will dig up the thread

WWMaxGunz
01-20-2005, 03:30 AM
You might as well put results with full fuel right next to empty then.

Where do trueisms come of what planes should do relative? If RL tests are done with full
tanks and then you make with empty, how can you say the sim is right or wrong. Or is RL
tests are done half full and you do not match but slant the outcome then what?
Actual test flights tell closely what the conditions are but hey, here is what a pilot
who was there actually SAW and it says what you want so which is better? The memory of
course because it says what you already knew! Details, scheatails, pilots know what is
right except for the ones who say the wrong things and then it is propaganda lies!
When it comes to German fighters, those dweebs at Rechlin have not even a clue from their
sliderules and charts. US, NACA is just propaganda division really. Likewise the British
facilities. You know the reality! 109's are among fastest, with best climb and great
turning. Spitfire outturns 109 is just British lies and US planes were all mediocre at
best and mostly worse so they lie too. And here you have another proof and on they come
with history revision that the 109's were anything but stellar all through the war. Hold
steady now, it's not just a plane... it's a Messerschmidt! Forget lousy numbers, this is
the real logic; it must be so it is, what agrees is right and what does not is wrong.
Where else has this applied just so? It is history, it is fate, to believe strongly and
then to act! Someone play marching music... quickly!

Feel better now?

Then wake the 'ell up!

Marc-David
01-20-2005, 08:31 AM
Just some observations and some slightly rhetoric questions http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The Mustang is a wonderful airplane, 37 feet wingtip to wingtip, just a little faster than the smaller German fighters, and also just a little more nimble. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How little is a just little faster? 10km/h ?
How little is a little more nimble? 2sec per 360 turn?
Did the Mes carry gunpods?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> My angle is a little bit better this time. So I roll the dice. Instead of cobbing it like before and sailing on by him, I decide to turn hard left inside him, knowing that if I lose speed and don't make it I probably won't get home. I pull back on the throttle slightly, put down 10 degrees of flaps, and haul back on the stick just as hard as I can. And the nose begins coming up and around, slowly, slowly. . .

Hot ****! I'm going to make it! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I remeber countless encounters since IL-2 where I experienced absolutely the same. Half of them I succeeded in shooting down my enemy like Anderson, half of them, even combat flaps did not help to get me into a gun solution or out of the situation.

To me, this whole story feels like two good pilots met each other in nearly even planes. One decided wrong, and the other was lucky to succeed in a risky maneuvering.

Imagine (End of story, Version B):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> My angle is a little bit better this time. So I roll the dice. Instead of cobbing it like before and sailing on by him, I decide to turn hard left inside him, knowing that if I lose speed and don't make it I probably won't get home. I pull back on the throttle slightly, put down 10 degrees of flaps, and haul back on the stick just as hard as I can.

Hot ****, I'm not gonna make it!

I was too slow when entering the turn. And the flaps now slow me down even more... Too late... He sees it and goes vertical into an Immelmann, and bounces on me before my speed has rebuild. 13mms and 20mm grenades smash through my plane, and the engine quits, pouring out long white fumes of glycol. I throw off the canopy and bail. As a whizzing shadow, the tail of crippeled my plane passes me. .. I'm shot down over enemy territory... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yours, MD

Stanger_361st
01-20-2005, 08:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
You might as well put results with full fuel right next to empty then.

Where do trueisms come of what planes should do relative? If RL tests are done with full
tanks and then you make with empty, how can you say the sim is right or wrong. Or is RL
tests are done half full and you do not match but slant the outcome then what?
Actual test flights tell closely what the conditions are but hey, here is what a pilot
who was there actually SAW and it says what you want so which is better? The memory of
course because it says what you already knew! Details, scheatails, pilots know what is
right except for the ones who say the wrong things and then it is propaganda lies!
When it comes to German fighters, those dweebs at Rechlin have not even a clue from their
sliderules and charts. US, NACA is just propaganda division really. Likewise the British
facilities. You know the reality! 109's are among fastest, with best climb and great
turning. Spitfire outturns 109 is just British lies and US planes were all mediocre at
best and mostly worse so they lie too. And here you have another proof and on they come
with history revision that the 109's were anything but stellar all through the war. Hold
steady now, it's not just a plane... it's a Messerschmidt! Forget lousy numbers, this is
the real logic; it must be so it is, what agrees is right and what does not is wrong.
Where else has this applied just so? It is history, it is fate, to believe strongly and
then to act! Someone play marching music... quickly!

Feel better now?

Then wake the 'ell up! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I always thought that I am glad you said it. If you loose the real war win it in the virtual propaganda war.

lrrp22
01-20-2005, 11:24 AM
Cool, another anti-American post. How original...



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S.taibanzai:

yeah right http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif the p-51 turns with Bf109

hehe more please more http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Propagandaaaaaaaaaaaaa

a nother USA whiner come's here with statements like that

I wil tel you some thing US exacurate everything when it comes to own material

and wil not say oh the enemy planes or wat ever is bether in this or that

Big ego thats all

I have a lot of respect for Mr Kozhemyako

Becuase he is honest

and its one of the most honest interview i ever saw

I stop believing when i saw a US interview from B-17 gunner who claims 16 kills <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

p1ngu666
01-20-2005, 11:29 AM
i agree with badsight, tests with just enuff fuel show "fair test" data, ie fair relitive to each other, no need to get pandantic about it tho http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

it was probably a g6 in the story, and the g6 was never the best 109 in terms of flying (extra guns i know, but speed/climb etc worse)

high alt is diff from low alt, if the merlin is kicking out the power and 109 isnt, then itll (109) lose.

JG7_Rall
01-20-2005, 02:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
i agree with badsight, tests with just enuff fuel show "fair test" data, ie fair relitive to each other, no need to get pandantic about it tho http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

it was probably a g6 in the story, and the g6 was never the best 109 in terms of flying (extra guns i know, but speed/climb etc worse)

high alt is diff from low alt, if the merlin is kicking out the power and 109 isnt, then itll (109) lose. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. It's an awesome story, I have the whole book and I loved it. But that description simply doesn't give enough information (and how could it?) to draw valid conclusions from.

FI_Macca44
01-20-2005, 02:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Hetzer calm down http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Here`s the link to original: http://www.airforce.ru/history/ww2/kozhemjako/ , sorry it`s in russian. Part above i translated this morning. I`ll try to translate the rest later on.

Cheers! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very interesting, thanx Ivan.
With some help and dictionaries,some guessing, but managed to go through some of it. God thanks I was tought Russian at school!gotta relearn it.

geetarman
01-20-2005, 03:52 PM
Re: this endless 109 vs. 51 debate - the telling difference in this sim is not turning ability. It's e-bleed while turning and acceleration that spells the difference in game at the usual df altitudes (i.e. 2,000' - 15,000').

Accurate or not, the 51, as it's been modelled, seems to lose alot more E if you turn hard and continously and has abysmal acceleration. Moral - don't turn with any 109G or you're probably dead at those alts.

And to tbanzai - your comment is really uncalled for and says alot more about your predjudices than it says about Americans.

IIJG69_Kartofe
01-20-2005, 03:56 PM
P51 is a better turner than a 109 IRL... Yes !
Spit IX is a better turner than a 109 IRL... Yes !
And many other planes tun better than 109 ...


BUT ...

Consider the AL-TI-TU-DE of the fight.
In the game & IRL Spit IX wit make circles around a 109 over 5000 m.
The P51 will be waaay better at Hi-alt than the 109 in speed and in game he does.

(but furballers don't fly high ... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif and in game they don't care about speed, they just wanna turn ... Re-http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif)

And ... if you fly low and slow with a 109 you will be dead meat with P51 or spit IX because he has SLATS and they work really great (that what they are made for).

P.CLOSTERMAN in "The great Show" give a perfect example of that, he drag a 109 at high alt and, just before the 109 shoot, he tighten his turn, the 109 try to folow and ... The 109 stall in the rarefied air and was shooted down.

In the game when i encounter a spit IX at High alt i simply ran... Becase i know i have NO CHANCES.

So ... Continue to fly low & slow and you will become my friends http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif, but if you go high i will certainly begin to dislike you a lot http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif!

geetarman
01-20-2005, 04:11 PM
Kartofe shoots! He scores! Well done. To all Yank plane pilots - stay out of the weeds and see what happens. You won't worry whether Oleg modelled the 109 with a generous turn rate or better than expected low speed capability.

If we all flew were our forefathers flew and how they flew, things would be different.

Now - don't get me started on the real issue! How the 38 should really be able to handle 109's at low altitude much better than they do now. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Just kiddin'.

Von_Rat
01-20-2005, 04:30 PM
as far as 109 vs p51 in turn, this sounds like a case of, OMG,,, my bnz plane got outurned in a 50m stall fight, by the other guys bnz plane.

people want realistic flight capilities, but refuse to fly their planes realisticlly.

i think one problem about modeling the planes to historical data is, that the guys who recorded this data didnt really care about what the planes performance was in a 50m stall fight, because pilots almost never did it in real life. it was a good way to get killed.

p1ngu666
01-20-2005, 05:12 PM
low down speed important for some, mossies and typhoons for example.

for spit V in my "the spitfire story" book (oh jeez, sounds like a fairy tale title, dont it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif) there isnt speeds for low down, think there is for LF spits tho

WWMaxGunz
01-20-2005, 05:43 PM
All propaganda aside, both stories tell me that pilot skill, situation and last but making
some limits the plane itself are what paints the picture. A good pilot will put the plane
into situations where he may make the good picture, foul the move of the other. Someone
who only sees pictures will come away thinking the picture tells it all and insist on that
picture they like over and over again.
Anderson shows it in at least one place, where move met with countermove left him in the
spot. But he doesn't state all the parts and you can't take the final act as anything but
exactly what it says. THAT 109 didn't have the energy to make the final shot in that
situation which going in, the 51 had more speed to get tricked into the overshoot anyway
so more energy to make the climb with. Not a case of 109's can't every time just as the
turnings of the Soviet Majors retells are not guaranteed just because you have a 109.

There is a thing called energy for angles. You can get extra turn up to some point by
losing some speed which you may be able to make up. If you match your moves correctly
then you can do the extra here and there, but not just all the time and wherever you
see a chance take it then whine when your plane is slow and still doesn't dance best.

P-51 turns.... I understand from handed down information that at least in combat speeds
the P-40 can turn better, and the P-40 while a better turning plane than many people will
think is still not a world class turn fighter. I should get more angle for energy from
the P-40 but in the P-51 I can hold a lot more energy and I can use it at higher speed
so I can pull a move here and there better if I'm good enough and hard enough. IMHO the
way the P-51 in the sim is, it's a bit easy to fly which may be true (to some degree it
must have been) but the elevator response in the sim seems in a class by itself.


Neal

Von_Rat
01-20-2005, 06:05 PM
low down speed , yes is important. im talking about stall fighting low down with planes meant for BNZ.

p1ngu666
01-20-2005, 06:48 PM
yeah, if u doing that, u despirate, or know nowt about ur plane

LeadSpitter_
01-20-2005, 07:18 PM
maybe the turnrates of the russian ac are slightly overmodeled and same with shvak strenght 1 burst exploded plane as far as 1.2 distance compaired to 20mm which loose all power at .40ish range and .50 cal loose all strenght past .30 range with all due respect?

maybe yak la and lagg3 turnrates should be closer to the turnrates of the g series unless someone can show the sourced data that shows differently and the 109s should have a better noticable rate of climb advantage.

What I would personally like to see is all the ac take some time to recover from massive nose over stalls and stalls that flop the planes around in all directions with very minimal penalty and recover in 10m "the dredded insta stall flop recoveries" or stick yanking

one of the greatest things in il2 sturmovik was stall characteristics compaired to other games of its time like cfs2 which is similiar to what we have now. The wildcat and p40b series in version PF3.0 had these stall characteristics of sturmovik so it is definatly possible to bring them back. The were takken away and givin the new instacatch recovery like all planes have now.

thats one thing in sturmovik that made the game really enjoyable there was severe penalities for putting your ac over its edge and took 500-1000m to recover from the flat spin and bleed off all airspeed something we dont see anymore at all in this game unless someones rudder cables have been shot out and then there is absolutely noway to recover.

Please put the sturmovik stalls into fb aep pf oleg for all ac instead of these instant recovery flops if you get the chance to read this. And ivan great post there arsehat it was an enjoyable read.

WUAF_Badsight
01-21-2005, 12:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
You might as well put results with full fuel right next to empty then. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
but the point of a "near zero" fuel test is . . .

to show how planes are performing regardless of weight-of-fuel

GR142_Astro
01-21-2005, 12:34 AM
Good points about stall recovery. To watch folks purposefully yank their planes into a spin/stall and then recover 10 or 20 meters later and THEN re-engage the fight is just silly.

There is just something strangely anti-gravitaional about certain planes, with the 109 leading the charge. These things can top out of loop and at 10kph airspeed still have all kinds of evasive options due to that Moby **** rudder. Yes, I know it was an effective rudder, but what the Fb109s are doing is more akin to thrusting rockets on the Apollo LEM.

Something is fishy in 109 town.

Abbuzze
01-21-2005, 03:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Good points about stall recovery. To watch folks purposefully yank their planes into a spin/stall and then recover 10 or 20 meters later and THEN re-engage the fight is just silly.

There is just something strangely anti-gravitaional about certain planes, with the 109 leading the charge. These things can top out of loop and at 10kph airspeed still have all kinds of evasive options due to that Moby **** rudder. Yes, I know it was an effective rudder, but what the Fb109s are doing is more akin to thrusting rockets on the Apollo LEM.

Something is fishy in 109 town. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It seems you dont fly a 109 very often...
The strange moves you discribe at the top of a loop or even hammerhead, are mostly unsteered!! to fly a clean and good hammerhead in a 109 is real difficult! Other planes have a tendency to fly a hammer by itself, in a BF you had to fight against the plane to do this... please show us a trak with this great moves at 10kph! If you like I can host it!!

Tvrdi
01-21-2005, 06:14 AM
the problem is that low speed turnfights 50m above ground in RL were RARE.....so only in our instant dogs u got such fight..enough said...

GR142_Astro
01-21-2005, 11:02 AM
No thanks, I've flown the Fb109 plenty to know what it's all about.

My comments are based on exerience and I know what a hammerhead looks like when I see one. If you want to make some tracks and do your own tests, have at it.

One other item, the Spit may very well be a UFO offender like the 109. I wish they would straighten these things out by the next patch.

Kurfurst__
01-21-2005, 11:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbuzze:
It seems you dont fly a 109 very often...
The strange moves you discribe at the top of a loop or even hammerhead, are mostly unsteered!! to fly a clean and good hammerhead in a 109 is real difficult! Other planes have a tendency to fly a hammer by itself, in a BF you had to fight against the plane to do this... please show us a trak with this great moves at 10kph! If you like I can host it!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed. The 109 had low directional stability... but instability translates to manouverbility, and sometimes it`s good to exploit! Ever wondered why late 109 got increased vertical fin?