PDA

View Full Version : The 109 K-4, Good as it gets



XyZspineZyX
08-06-2003, 11:42 AM
Well, i tried a post about this a while ago (when it may have mattered), but it violated the forum guidlines.

I would just like to say that i love the 109 K-4 in 1.0, and i know that the MK108's are going to be improved somehow, or so the patch update says. I would just like to formally ask that the FM for the K-4 not be changed, or not dramatically anyways. As it is, the K-4 doesn't turn fast enough (according to historical documentation and German Pilot interviews), and probobly climbed a bit better (not sure though). I think making the K-4 any worse, whilst improving other planes / making others available wouldn't benifit anyone.

I don't know how the patch is going to be or what has been so far on the planes, but i've heard people mention things about it that i will leave unsaid.

this is my simple request: don't mess w/ the 109's too much plz, the VVS already had the advantage in 1.0, no need to widen the gap =\.

XyZspineZyX
08-06-2003, 11:42 AM
Well, i tried a post about this a while ago (when it may have mattered), but it violated the forum guidlines.

I would just like to say that i love the 109 K-4 in 1.0, and i know that the MK108's are going to be improved somehow, or so the patch update says. I would just like to formally ask that the FM for the K-4 not be changed, or not dramatically anyways. As it is, the K-4 doesn't turn fast enough (according to historical documentation and German Pilot interviews), and probobly climbed a bit better (not sure though). I think making the K-4 any worse, whilst improving other planes / making others available wouldn't benifit anyone.

I don't know how the patch is going to be or what has been so far on the planes, but i've heard people mention things about it that i will leave unsaid.

this is my simple request: don't mess w/ the 109's too much plz, the VVS already had the advantage in 1.0, no need to widen the gap =\.

XyZspineZyX
08-06-2003, 12:07 PM
ill stand with u on this one ,dont clip the wings on the k but give us the aim of an eagle that this bird of prey is modeled

XyZspineZyX
08-06-2003, 12:27 PM
Ive been flying Luftwaffe for over 2 years in IL-2/FB and yes I love the 109s.
But I am actualy interested in how the zero handles when it enters FB in the near future, after all it is an Axis plane.

I know people say that its lack of self sealing tanks is a weak point, however it should be able to out turn anything in the game, and be the hunter instead of the hunted as a result in the early war period, late war it had self sealing tanks.

Should be interesting.

S!

XyZspineZyX
08-06-2003, 05:26 PM
Outside of turning, which you shouldn't be doing in the K4 anyway. Just what advantage do you think the Russian planes have over the K4?

Acceleration, top speed, or climb rate? Nope! The K4 is the best. Armament? Nope! Big a$$ cannon on the K4.

You already have the advantage if you fly it right. What is your complaint?

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------47|FC=-
<center>
"No Guts No Glory"
<center>
http://www.fighter-collection.com/p-47d/img/jug.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-06-2003, 05:46 PM
they slowed down the k4 and its climb is worse. ive heard both things from multiple sources.and i believe them. if you just improved the 108 and left it alone nothing would touch it.theyre trying to balance out the planes. at the cost of accuracy. as in jugs.

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of the 11 time Champions Team AFJ. 6 Years Flying http://www.world-data-systems.com/aerofiles/albums/userpics/p47-22.jpg 47|FC=

XyZspineZyX
08-06-2003, 05:54 PM
It has been slowed down. Like all the plane have. It still out climbs everything though.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------47|FC=-
<center>
"No Guts No Glory"
<center>
http://www.fighter-collection.com/p-47d/img/jug.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-06-2003, 05:55 PM
No currently the 109K is a freak with performances that do not match any single 109K subtype either equipped with the DM, DB or DC engine. They simply sorted things out.
But there might be some chances we see another version of the K equipped with the DB605DC.
At least i'll try to get one /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Butch

XyZspineZyX
08-06-2003, 06:17 PM
butch2k wrote:
- No currently the 109K is a freak with performances
- that do not match any single 109K subtype either
- equipped with the DM, DB or DC engine. They simply
- sorted things out.
- But there might be some chances we see another
- version of the K equipped with the DB605DC.
- At least i'll try to get one
-
- Butch
-


True. I have tested itwith Beta8, it`s a mix of variants:


Climb rate at SL is that of with DB605DC (~24.5m/sec).

Sea level speed is that of the 1800PS DB605DM variants (~580kph).

6000m speed is that of the ones with DB605DC and Duennblatt propellor VDM (727kph).

7000m+ speed is that of DB605DB/DC variants with Serianproplellor. (~715kph)

And it does 1.98ata at SL, easy to figure out in Beta8, with MW50 on, it doesnt get below 1.8ata until a while even if you pull back on throttle. It seems the Boost Gauge is wrong for the 605DM variants again..

So we have all three engine variants, plus the production and projected propellors in one plane, LOL.

Plus, it seems to roll better than 109G, which should be true with the 109K with it`s Flettner tabs I believe, even though the 3D model does not show those on the ailerons but only on the rudder.

Hanling IMHO is ok, it`s very slightly worser than late 109Gs, as it was very slightly hevier than those.

Oh,

--------------------------------------------------------
AND IT STILL CANT RUN ON WEP FOR 10 MINUTES. IT SHOULD.

OLEG, HEAR?
--------------------------------------------------------

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

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

XyZspineZyX
08-06-2003, 06:44 PM
Isegrim did u never heard the propaganda that russian engines could/can hold out more then anyother engines.

so dont wonder if 10minWEP was only possible for russian planes.

XyZspineZyX
08-06-2003, 06:52 PM
You won't be holding Wep for very long in Russian planes after the patch. Not even as long as your supposed too.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------47|FC=-
<center>
"No Guts No Glory"
<center>
http://www.fighter-collection.com/p-47d/img/jug.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
08-06-2003, 07:25 PM
Nice research Isegrim. I agree completely with your findings. I prefer the handling of the g6as. That said - in that which is verbotten of which to speak - the 190a9 is the golden girl.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 12:19 AM
i'm trying to think of how i can say this without getting the thread closed, but here'goes anyways.

The K-4 simply won't be as good, unless changes are made... One very important factor, is that the elevator response is horrid at even medium-high speeds... this combined with the fact that, as i said, it had EXCELLENT high speed performance, and that not ALL planes have this affect, is what im mostly concearned about. It's true that the top speeds are still good, and that it's slow speed roll rate is good as well, but when is slow speed performance important in a K-4? Seldom / never... My point is this... many of the planes that i tested don't have the elevator response toned down NEARLY as much as the K-4 does currently at high speeds... this is simply incorrect, and i'd find it very insulting if the K-4 had these falacies (sp) jammed into it, while other planes were only improving (ie. the P-39...)


It's just not feasible to be an effective high altitude BnZ pilot when you have to trim the elevator up 10 clicks minimum to have enough responce to pull out of a dive in time not to lose your advantage (the fact that you will end up below the enemy most of the time now, and that climb rate is simply NOT AS GOOD, means more chances that you're not getting another pass...).

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 02:13 AM
I've only ever had manuvering problems at speeds in excess of 650-700km/h and usually in a slight dive. I didn't find it any more prohibitive than other planes that loose wings and get tough to control. You do trade manuverability for speed and in the case of the K-4...its got both available for it.

An excellent plane by any standards.

http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/icefire/icefire_tempest.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 02:52 AM
the point im trying to make, is that the K-4 1: is meant for BnZ, so using it any other way is foolish, and 2: there are other planes that i tried in the Beta (ie. the P-47) that have better elevator response at 650kmph +... The K-4 should have much better elevator response up untill about 800 kmph.. and as a side note, if you're BnZ'ing at anything less than 700Kmph, you're not doing it right.

VW-IceFire wrote:
- I've only ever had manuvering problems at speeds in
- excess of 650-700km/h and usually in a slight dive.
- I didn't find it any more prohibitive than other
- planes that loose wings and get tough to control.
- You do trade manuverability for speed and in the
- case of the K-4...its got both available for it.
-
- An excellent plane by any standards.
-
- <img
- src="http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/icefire/ic
- efire_tempest.jpg">
- "Never in the field of human conflict was so much
- owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 03:52 AM
Salute All

Ahh, we have the pre-Luftwhine. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

You guys are unhappy you are losing the 390+ Sea Level speed?

It didn't bear any resemblance to reality.

You are unhappy you are losing some elevator response at high speeds?

The actual plane performed much worse than the Patch 8 version at high speeds.

From what I have seen of the K4 in Patch 8, you have nothing to complain about.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 03:57 AM
hmm, thx for the fountain of information. Just out of curiosity, what do you base your information on? In case you were wondering, my fellow squadmate's Grandfather flew a 109 in WWII... but i guess that's not "concrete" enough.

The fact is, the manuvering at high speeds ISN'T how it was.. period.

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 04:27 AM
WUAF_Mj_Hero

The 109 never had half the high speed elevator responce of the P-47. Don't even try and compare them.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------47|FC=-
<center>
"No Guts No Glory"
<center>
http://www.fighter-collection.com/p-47d/img/jug.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 06:29 AM
The problem with FB 1.0 K-4 was that it was a better 190 than 190 itself, namely it had high speed control authority much better than 190 did.

In latest patches things have been corrected and now you'll learn to appreciate the advanced features of the 190.



<center>http://easyweb.globalnet.hr/easyweb/users/ntomlino/uploads/sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 07:52 AM
the k4 is fine how it is with the exception of the guns, its still very reasonable and can be killed by semi descent yak pilot. The only good thing of the k4 is its speed and climbrate


http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 11:08 AM
Frankly, I hadnt notice ANY decrease in climb rates or elevator control heaviness in Beta8... It seems to be like just what it was before. At high airspeeds, the 109s had a heavy elevator, I believe something in the order of what we have now, but it`s isn`t very restrictive, more like a nuisance: most of the time I fail at turning because I blackout, which means I can pull at least 5-6Gs... The only thing I am concerned about is the excessively bad elevator controls at HIGH altitudes. This seems just wrong, control heaviness increases with the pressure on the control surfaces, and the pressure DECREASES at high altitude due to the lower indicated airspeeds... so I believe elevator control at 300kph IAS at high altitude should be the same as at 300kph IAS at low altitude (which is VERY nice).

But otherwise, if what we seen in Beta8 is the one we will get in the final, there`s little to complain about, except WEP time. The MK108 got corrected, both damage and accuracy. Auto prop pitch is correct now, and most importantly, level speeds are no longer 30-70km/h less than they should be (except for SL, where it is a bit slow, ie. 583kph vs. 607 in reality). Some say they are no longer ultra-fragile, but this is hard to confirm.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

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

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 11:27 AM
well, the one thing i will add that some of you may not recognize, but is INFACT a problem which was adressed, and hopefully fixed by the time of the patch is:

The radiator flaps don't opperate correctly, and as a result, the Zoom climb is Definitely not as good, because of the extra radiator drag. If you fly open / closed auto all the time, you should notice this.

Anyways, the point's exhausted, i still stand firm on what i believe... and hope it's fixed by the patch release