PDA

View Full Version : HE-111 bugs.



lbhskier37
01-25-2006, 07:19 PM
*rant start* Ok, in this beautiful game there are 4 level bombers, and how many hundreds of fighters? What was the only point of fighters? Wasn't it to protect/destroy bombers? A 60 page thread starts when one latewar UFO has a climbrate that is off by 5%, but no attention ever gets paid to bombers. *end rant*

Now here are some big problems with the HE that need to be addressed.

#1 groundhandling. People who are complaining about some wobbling in their favorite fighter should hop in a HE-111 and try to taxi around. How did this ever get through beta testing? Does anyone fly the bombers in the beta or do they just have big furball dogfights with latewar uberplanes?

#2 bombsite crosshairs never coming back. I know when you bank the aircraft to far the bombsite takes time to reset and the crosshairs disappear. I'm not sure if this happens to anyone else, but online it seems like everytime I try to use the HE the bombsite never comes back even after 10-15 minutes of straight and level flying. This is always a really fun surprise after spending over a half hour getting to altitude and then wasting the whole run because your bombsite has a bug in it.

What the heck does it take to get some attention paid to bombers in this game? I know it might not be reflected in this forum, but not everyone give a sh 1 t about the climbrates and boost levels of latewar wonderplanes, some of us actually try to fly missions in this sim.

The_Gog
01-25-2006, 10:00 PM
You are 100% correct on all points mate.

People don't give a rats red bum about bombers in this sim.

The ground handling of the He111 is atrocious but still you will get people on here saying how they don't have a problem with it. I have watched time and time again pilots spawn in 111 only to end up going around and around in circles as they attempt to taxi. The fanbois will say just lock the tail wheel or taxi out slowly but why the need to do that with just the heinkel?
I don't need to do that with the Betty or the 110!! They all have similar configuration yet only the heinkel handles like an epileptic blowfly sprayed hard with flyspray.

Also, the bombsight does sometimes never come back, dunno why (this happens with Betty also).

So yep, someone out there needs to take a break from fixing the insignificant fighter problems and get these bombers sorted out!!!!!

(now we will get the obligatory 'but this is a fighter sim!'....if that's the case then why are there even ground objects, ships etc etc)

Jetbuff
01-25-2006, 11:34 PM
FYI: The bombsight crosshair delay seems tied to the total time spent turning, rather than the bank angle. i.e. If you orbit while climbing for too long it will take forever to reappear. To avoid this, always make short, sharp turns whenever possible.


Regarding ground handling, I understand the Heinkel had a very aft center of gravity which, while probably not as pronounced as in game, did result in a rather large yawing moment when turning.

I am more concerned about the top speeds at various altitudes and climb rates though. They are way off the numbers we have seen to date. (~50kph too slow at most altitudes and ~10mins too slow to 4500m)

Maraz_5SA
01-25-2006, 11:43 PM
There are problems with the He.111, sure, but not those you wrote! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The crosshairs do not appear again if you made too strong manoeuvers before. Fly without doing sharp turns, near the target you can only do flat or slightly banked turns. Anyway tour route should be straight at 15-20 kn from the target.

Ground handling is difficult, but I do not suppose that it was easy IRL for such a beast. Again, you can only make large turns on ground, never exceed 20 kmh speed.

I find the He.111 now has reduced climb rate and speed, this is the true problem IMHO.

With 2000 kg bombload and 50% fuel I took about 25 minutes to climb to 4500m, with 100% throttle always applied. At that height I had some difficulty keeping a speed of 240 Km/h IAS.

EDIT: I better specify: He.111H-6, 4x500Kg bombs, 50% fuel, Crimea map.

Maraz

p1ngu666
01-26-2006, 03:11 AM
bet this gets moved to GD http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

to drag this partly offtopic, the crosshairs on the b25's manual guns dont line up with where the tracers go http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

tb3 has a similer issue, theres a little thingy below the gunsight which shows how far off the rounds will be (roughly)

and u cant make missions with b25s to level bomb as ai cos they dive down and attack the target.

theres the horror of the betty rear turret, which was often chopped, so why cant we have that version..

269GA-Veltro
01-26-2006, 03:48 AM
Originally posted by The_Gog:
You are 100% correct on all points mate.

People don't give a rats red bum about bombers in this sim.

The ground handling of the He111 is atrocious but still you will get people on here saying how they don't have a problem with it. I have watched time and time again pilots spawn in 111 only to end up going around and around in circles as they attempt to taxi. The fanbois will say just lock the tail wheel or taxi out slowly but why the need to do that with just the heinkel?
I don't need to do that with the Betty or the 110!! They all have similar configuration yet only the heinkel handles like an epileptic blowfly sprayed hard with flyspray.

You're are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! I couldn't agree more. He-111 has been ruined....i have lost the pleasure to fly it, one of my favorite aircraft in the Il2 serie. The taxi is really a shame....

p1ngu666
01-26-2006, 04:00 AM
http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666//he111onice.ntrk

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

zaelu
01-26-2006, 05:40 AM
I can say too that He-111 is now very dificult to taxi. Before the patch the problem was there but a little different.

Before the patch you could taxi quite ok if you didn't exceed 19% throttle, now you can exceed and is quite more easy if you do a quickstart with 110% and use a little rudder to guide the plane for the runway.

If you try to do it easy, now you may end in a "tete a que" (i'm not shure this is the correct spelling in french) if you apply to much rudder at 5 Km/h or less.
Also in the takeoff run when at 100Km/h or so if you apply rudder you end in a ridiculous spin... like a formula one car that miss-shift the gears in a turn.

This plane "looks" to me like a heavy underpowered plane but, in the game is like that only when airborne. On the ground is a different story.

Best way to take off now is to never exceed 20% throttle... easy on the rudder, after you start moving the plane try to reduce throttle as much as posible WITHOUT using rudder in the same time align with the runway, put your nose 5 degrees to the right, lock tailwheel, trim right the rudder 15 clicks, throttle up easy and constatly to full power... use little rudder on the run (best if you don't), after tail lifted you are almost there. Don't forget to unlock the tailwheeel for landing.

Also B25 is not looking good on the ground... Again in my opinion (I am no engineer in that, I am just using my commmon sense... maybe wrong) a plane with two engines spining the props in the same direction will have less torq effect than a plane with just one engine. For example... if on the ground you take a fighter and throttle up to full power (pick one with almost 2000 HP) you will have some spin but not uncorectable. Now, if you take an bomber and throttle just to 25% both engines th bomber (an He-111) is spining like mad... although is alot more heavier, it produces less power and should be more stable due to the fact that the power is applied in two smaller parts on the sides simetrical. It should have torq effect still but far more less...

again... I think. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

As for the bombsight... I didn't have trouble with that but one squad mate did. He missed some bomb runs because of that... but I think he yanks the bomber too much http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. Could be somethink related to the hardware also... maybe.

ElAurens
01-26-2006, 05:50 AM
Level stabilizer is your friend. Use it.

But yeah, the ground handeling is way off.

The_Gog
01-26-2006, 06:27 AM
But is anyone interested in fixing it?

I bet if it was a Russian plane it's faults would'nt get past beta!

KG26_Oranje
01-26-2006, 09:11 AM
#2 bombsite crosshairs never coming back. I know when you bank the aircraft to far the bombsite takes time to reset and the crosshairs disappear. I'm not sure if this happens to anyone else, but online it seems like everytime I try to use the HE the bombsite never comes back even after 10-15 minutes of straight and level flying. This is always a really fun surprise after spending over a half hour getting to altitude and then wasting the whole run because your bombsite has a bug in it.

S! bro.

Kg26 is a He111 SQD online.
We dont have that problem u just say.
If we make a incorrect run and we loosing the crosshair than it will take us just 2 to 5 min to get it back.
that is for the he111H2 and h6.
I dont know how it handels in the B-25.

Buht for the rest its nice if we got more support for the bombers than in the past.
Taxi a he111 is hard now and climing rate is poor.
We are jaloose on the wath-if fans and fighter fans. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
I feel that a WW2 aircombat sim most have flyable bombers in it to.
and not just as flyable target buht as a , close to historical correct wapen.
It give this sim so many more options if we have the major bomber force flyable.
For example the Night fighter batlles over europ vs the RAF bombers.

S! bro.

Jetbuff
01-26-2006, 09:37 AM
In case someone missed it:

Originally posted by Jetbuff:
FYI: The bombsight crosshair delay seems tied to the total time spent turning, rather than the bank angle. i.e. If you orbit while climbing for too long it will take forever to reappear. To avoid this, always make short, sharp turns whenever possible.
I discovered this by chance in a mission where my sight refused to come up. The only thing different I had done was that I had anchored (circular orbit) short of the IP to wait for a squadmate. My bombsight did not settle even after 15 minutes!

Easy offline test: Do a single sharp turn of about 180? and see how long the sight takes to come back up. Next, do 3-4 complete 360? turns and now see how long the sight takes to come back up.

WWSensei
01-26-2006, 09:54 AM
The game is fighter centric. Always has been. While there are a few die hard bomber fans (and I am one of them) we are outnumbered 100 to 1. When the few that do fly bombers they do so usually from no more than 2500-3500 meters because they won't take the time to climb up to altitude.

Much as I hate it I can't really blame Oleg for catering to the majority of those with short attention spans.

Sintubin
01-26-2006, 11:06 AM
Yes the h111 climb is of and speed too

nsu
01-26-2006, 11:14 AM
yes with the He111 you drive drunken http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Gruß NSU http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

p1ngu666
01-26-2006, 11:18 AM
indeed, its a real shame there not done better.

tb3, he111, b25, and betty all have some annoying issues

to fly higher makes it harder due to the view distance being poor

ElAurens
01-26-2006, 12:15 PM
I am very successful online with the Betty at 5000 meters. For me it is the most accurate bombing platform, inspite of it's relatively small load out.

Philipscdrw
01-26-2006, 12:26 PM
Back in the days when I had internet and Il-2 on the same computer, the most fun to be had was flying bombers on the near-full-switch servers. We'd end up forming impromptu squads and attempt to fly in formation. I suppose part of the reason for that is that shooting down fighters is very difficult, while hitting a building with trucks hidden inside with a bomb is quite straightforward.

I wonder how difficult it would be to put a limiter in the code to stop the bombsight from disappearing for more than 30 seconds?

p1ngu666
01-26-2006, 01:20 PM
i made a mission with betties pretending tobe lancs with tallboys, scale bombload is nearly 1/7th http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

the nordon should be good with the plane moving about, it had gryos too keep it tracking better. however, thats what some guys on tv said...

seemed like the nordon shook alarmingly too

airjunkie
01-26-2006, 05:08 PM
I use the engines to taxi on the runway ( to turn and etc.).Brakes will make you spin like a top .

But.... on the other side, the He-111 is one of the few big bombers you can fly so cannot beat that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

msalama
01-27-2006, 05:25 AM
How many of you guys have ANY idea of how heavy(ish) multiengine taildraggers with CoG somewhat aft are taxiied IRL?

I haven't flown the He-111 too much, granted, BUT my impression so far is that the plane's ground behaviour is nevertheless pretty much OK (in the context of this game that is). You just have to be VERY careful with your differential power when taxiing the bugger, that's all!

But then again, there's of course no way of determining its _exact_ level of correctness in this regard, and it _is_ probably somewhat off like many other things in this game. Still, its behaviour _does_ fall in line (at least broadly) with how RL heavy(ish) taildraggers behave, thus _mandating_ the use of CORRECT differential power and braking techniques at ALL times!

So once again, be careful with those throttles in there. Because y'see, a plane this heavy has a BIG store of kinetic E potential - and inertia too - which of course makes it very vulnerable to over-throttling. Yeah, you don't seem to turn at all, so you apply some liberal differential throttle... and all of a sudden you notice that you're turning pretty fast indeed, but because of all this mass you're now unable to stop... Sounds familiar?

So in conclusion, maybe it's the pilot not the plane once again??? HTH http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ElAurens
01-27-2006, 05:45 AM
Ever seen WW2 heavy bombers operating on the ground IRL?

I have.

They are like beached whales. The He 111 in game acts like a paper plane with 5000hp when it is on the ground. There is nothing historical about it. Its a bug.

Maraz_5SA
01-27-2006, 05:53 AM
I do not agree with some of the previous posters. Even with the bugs/problems they have, the bombers in IL-2 can give a lot of fun and immersion.

The taxiing problem is not so important in coops and single offline missions, when one already starts aligned with the runway

Maraz

p1ngu666
01-27-2006, 06:00 AM
indeed, thats fine until u haveto land, and taxi...

if u see film of lancs, b17s etc taxing about.

first thing u notice is taxi ways are fairly narrow, and second is there fairly close together

its handling is completely bogus..

KG26_Alpha
01-27-2006, 06:01 AM
Was going to post something but cant be bothered................bit like 1c's approach to bombers in IL2.

Schuggerbaby
01-27-2006, 06:10 AM
Being new to the game (since November) my first experiances with the He 111 and other twin-engine planes like the BF 110 were quite frustrating. Groung Handling is extremly cumbersome compared to fighter airplanes and the spinning effect could really drive you nuts.
Getting your bomber to the runway is somewhat of a science in itself and I usually manage it only without biting bits out of my with engine management, rudder and breaks and tail wheel lock - which works often but surely not always.
Flying Missions in IL2 using the level bomber are usually low altitude attacks, i.e. Torpedo runs and skid bombing runs on ships usually below 50m.
I have yet to make a successful level bombing run in an online mission, as getting your bomber to 2500 to 3000 meters altitude (so that you are safe from small calibre AA) is extremly time consuming. As the online maps in IL2 are somewhat small it is almost impossible to approach your target directly while gaining significant altitude, thus forcing you to fly large circles to climb before you go en route.
I have also experianced the phenomen of never appearing holy bombing sight crosshair of Antioch. It took me about 20 minutes to climb to 2800m, then another 15 minutes with engaged height stabilizer to get my target in sight, but the bloody crosshair did not appear. Pure frustration, I tell you.
Enough about unconstructive criticism.
What could be changed in the game to make high altitude bombing runs more attractive?
Larger maps? I don't think so. With full realism on you will fly an eternity before you make contact then.
I thought about giving bombers the opportunity to enter the map in the air at a given altitude.

msalama
01-27-2006, 07:43 AM
There is nothing historical about it. Its a bug.

Got Track(tm)?

I OTOH have noticed that the bugger is very much controllable by using RL taxiing techniques, such as conservative use of differential power & brakes etc. While the bird IS most likely off to a degree - as are many other things in this game - it's still taxiiable if one uses techniques found in, say, any DC-3 pilot's manual (plenty of those floating around the 'net in case you didn't know). Now, I _do_ understand that a DC-3 isn't a He-111, but they both _are_ heavyish twin taildraggers nevertheless... you dig?

So that's my experience, yours may of course vary. I OTOH _have_ seen a moron or 3 @ HL picking up a He-111 and then expecting the bird to be able to withstand the same kind of ham-fisted abuse than, say, a Biffer, and of course b1tching and moaning about it all later after wrapping the big-a** bird around the control tower http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

But you're NOT one of those guys, I'm sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
01-27-2006, 07:56 AM
biffer = 109?

yeah, they had such a goood reputation for there ground handling http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

track on page 1 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

msalama
01-27-2006, 08:08 AM
biffer = 109?

They ain't that hard to handle in this GAME, y'know! Whereas the He-111 _can_ be... to the clueless, that is http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

p1ngu666
01-27-2006, 08:28 AM
in my first 109 takeoff (4.x) i took a k4, started engine, turned on mw50, then slammed the throttle wide open

half way down runway i fishtailed on purpose...

no need to lock tailwheel...

we know 109 is a easy plane http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

so in summy, your point is that 109 is a piece of p1ss to handle on the ground, even for a caveman, while a he111 while abit harder, is manageable, aslong as your very very carefull, and go very slow.

ofcourse, he111 enters the point of no return very easily..

msalama
01-27-2006, 08:54 AM
so in summy, your point is that 109 is a piece of p1ss to handle on the ground, even for a caveman, while a he111 while abit harder, is manageable, aslong as your very very carefull, and go very slow.

Spot on P1ngu, though we might actually be better off if we replaced "Biffer" with any single-engined type ppl have experience with. But yep, that's the point right there still...

msalama
01-27-2006, 08:55 AM
ofcourse, he111 enters the point of no return very easily..

...so U plain & simple don't push it over the edge in the 1st place. Easy as getting beaten up on a Saturday night http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Jetbuff
01-27-2006, 09:38 AM
The realism of He-111 taxiing behaviour is both hard to prove/disprove and easy to tame. The limitation in top speed and climb is much more significant.

ElAurens
01-27-2006, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
. The limitation in top speed and climb is much more significant.

And all the harder to fathom, when on the ground it behaves as if it has far more power than it has when in the air.

Someone got some keystrokes wrong on this one...

Maraz_5SA
01-27-2006, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
The realism of He-111 taxiing behaviour is both hard to prove/disprove and easy to tame. The limitation in top speed and climb is much more significant.

Jetbuff, do you have some figures of climb time for He.111 in RL for different loadouts? I would like to do some tests...
Thanks
Maraz

msalama
01-27-2006, 12:20 PM
The realism of He-111 taxiing behaviour is both hard to prove/disprove and easy to tame. The limitation in top speed and climb is much more significant.

Spot on, if such limitations really do exist (I honestly don't know - not my bird of choice).

But in principle, yes, agree 100%...

p1ngu666
01-27-2006, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">ofcourse, he111 enters the point of no return very easily..

...so U plain & simple don't push it over the edge in the 1st place. Easy as getting beaten up on a Saturday night http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

quite right, i should just fly a hero fighterplane and be done with it. OR i could spawn in a he111 and never move it, at all.

if its a airstart, then ill just belly it in.

i mean, its SO obivous its right, perfectly acceptable handling for a passenger plane, or something ull stick a few tons of fuel and explosives in http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

KG26_Alpha
01-27-2006, 01:22 PM
Ok chaps ...........

Calm down.

Its hard enough being a He111 bomber squad finding pilots but the He111 needs serious overhaul in all departments if bombers are going to survive in the IL2 series.

Ground handling is totally ridiculous.....end of story.

Climb rates cruise speeds payloads and defence armament are all way off in speed hight and accuracy.

Its a fact that these are just 200 points to the fighter jocks and an easy 200 points at that when human piloted due to AI gunners being permamently on the schnapps.

As a squad we have endured years of seeing the bombers go down the slippery slope of bad fm & dm the Stukas was the first, bf110 was slowed down and made into a lame duck He111 continually porked till its where it is now.

So 1c fix the bloody thing please../

Jetbuff
01-27-2006, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by Maraz_5SA:
Jetbuff, do you have some figures of climb time for He.111 in RL for different loadouts? I would like to do some tests...
Thanks
Maraz
Lots of info in a recent thread, from this post onwards: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m...871098293#3871098293 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/7621065963/r/3871098293#3871098293)

msalama
01-27-2006, 04:43 PM
OK, so you're getting all heated up. Fair enough.

But firstly, define what's "right" or "wrong" in the context of IL-2, please. Just listening... and while you're at it, please state your credentials as heavy prop transport and/or bomber pilots too... and please, do not forget to mention your achievements as recognized WWII aviation historians as well, now that we're at it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Patiently waiting for your CV here... but meanwhile, please let me _still_ put forth this one additional question: COULD it actually be that you're approaching this perceived problem as mere _gamers_, and gamers only?

Just asking, that's all http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

msalama
01-27-2006, 04:59 PM
...or, if translated in layman's language: do you guys REALLY think you know ANYTHING about _real_ WWII/vintage aviation? Meaning what exactly IS your credibility in defining something as right/wrong/incorrect/unhistorical etc.?

Just asking, and patiently waiting for your counter-arguments too w/ me asbestos suit on http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Jetbuff
01-27-2006, 05:06 PM
msalama, while I've agreed with you thus far and I definitely do not persume to know whether the 111's ground-handling is off or not, I must take issue with this rather strange assertion. Just because we did not fly the planes in question does not mean we cannot make logical inferences based on second-hand accounts and data. Yes, we may never know for sure but there's nothing wrong with trying.

msalama
01-27-2006, 05:54 PM
msalama, while I've agreed with you thus far and I definitely do not persume to know whether the 111's ground-handling is off or not, I must take issue with this rather strange assertion. Just because we did not fly the planes in question does not mean we cannot make logical inferences based on second-hand accounts and data. Yes, we may never know for sure but there's nothing wrong with trying.

No, of course not. But what I wanted to point out is that we're not necessarily _that_ credible in claiming that something is totally incorrect when we actually don't know / cannot prove if it really is... or, in other words, we tend to approach all this from an emotional standpoint regardless of whether there actually _is_ any real knowledge from our part to back up our gripes... dig?

But of course there's hard data too, and ways to measure our fleet's performance against their RL counterparts. But still, how the h*ll does that apply to something like taxiing behaviour??? You tell me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Jetbuff
01-27-2006, 06:32 PM
Point taken. For one thing, I certainly hear you on the rather inexplicable vehemence with which people stick to often baseless convictions even when faced with tonnes of data to the contrary.

Heck, I think the 111 climb and top-speeds are off based on real life data and reproducible in-game tests. Still, it's just a game; so what if this plane is uber or that one is porked? Hopefully it gets fixed but it's not the end of the world if it doesn't eh?

Tooz_69GIAP
01-27-2006, 08:09 PM
The Heinkel is one of my faves also. I still enjoy flying it, but it has become considerably harder to fly effectively in it due to it's lower speeds, and reduced climb rate, and taxiing does produce problems if I am not careful.

The_Gog
01-27-2006, 08:13 PM
The assumption that the taxiing performance of the 111 is bad is made because it is the only aircraft in the game that behaves in such a way as severely as it does. The Betty and 110 behave in a manner so different that one could easily think that the Heinkel was made on another planet.

In a nutshell, the 111's taxiing performance stands out like dogs balls against all other aircraft.

So how do we know it wasn't like that in real life?

Simple, because it would not have been! No plane would handle like that except the very worst handling contraptions of WW1.

It is simply an error in its characteristics that appeared in the last or before last patch because IT USED TO BE OK! Someone changed it and stuffed it up, that's why there is all this talk of it now and not 2 years ago.

Sure, we could all taxi out at 1% throttle being careful not to go beyond 1 degree of rudder either way but you just cant be expected to do that in JUST THIS PLANE and no others. If people out there think that the handling of the 111 is fine then they should be demanding that all other twins be made the same, the B-25, A-20, Betty, Beau, 110 should all be screwed up so as to make it more accurate.

p1ngu666
01-27-2006, 11:51 PM
the tailwheel has very little rolling resistance, thats why it goes round and around

problem is, finding footage of he111's on the ground. i do have some german film of miltary stuff, but its there propaganda stuff...

BSA 650
01-28-2006, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
the tailwheel has very little rolling resistance, thats why it goes round and around

problem is, finding footage of he111's on the ground. i do have some german film of miltary stuff, but its there propaganda stuff...

Oh p1ngu666

You are a big Hollywood Fan!
USA and England make propaganda stuff too, but German lost the war and have just no german propaganda Film in the Movies like "pearl harbor"

http://video.movies.go.com/pearlharbor/

Hollywood is a propaganda stuff maker and you mean it is the real live!?


Why lost german the war, bad aircraft or to many allies aircraft?
IL2 is a game, you see it when you will!
or make it fun to play 20 red to 1 blue aircraft?

ElAurens
01-28-2006, 01:18 AM
BSA 650, your comment has nothing to do with this discussion.

We are talking about aircraft characteristics, nothing more.

msalama,

What leads you to believe that this quirky ground handeling of the He 111 is indeed accurate?

And again I must ask if you have ever seen large tail dragger aircraft operate on the ground in real life?

I have. Ford Tri Motors, DC3s, B17s, and yes an He 111. And not once in all the times I have seen them have I ever seen even a trace of anything like the way the He 111 moves in the sim. These are relatively large and heavy aircraft. They have stability built into them as part of the role they carry out. They do take rather large initial throttle openings just to get moving from a standstill, especially on unpaved surfaces. They DO NOT spin like tops in the blink of an eye.

I hope you are not falling into the trap of believing that just because some aspect of the sim is of a high level of difficulty that it necessarily means that it is more accurate.

p1ngu666
01-28-2006, 01:28 AM
its stuff from the newsreals, so its decidly propgandaish. theres similer allied stuff i know, but ive been to duxford a few times and seen real planes fly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

u can dl them, for free from some torrent sites, there legal i think, unlike some of the other content http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

WWII German Newsreel 1942 Part 3 english subs Deutsche Wochenschau

thats one of the ones i got

BSA 650
01-28-2006, 01:31 AM
it is the answer from p1ngu666 post:
"but its there propaganda stuff... "
it is not all propaganda stuff from the german side!
let us so be talked again about the He111!

BSA 650
01-28-2006, 01:34 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
its stuff from the newsreals, so its decidly propgandaish. theres similer allied stuff i know, but ive been to duxford a few times and seen real planes fly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

u can dl them, for free from some torrent sites, there legal i think, unlike some of the other content http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

WWII German Newsreel 1942 Part 3 english subs Deutsche Wochenschau

thats one of the ones i got

do you see the He111 fly in duxford?

yes "Deutsche Wochenschau" is propganda!

p1ngu666
01-28-2006, 01:52 AM
nah if i was to post a vid of reallife he111 from that, some ppl will say its propaganda http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

even as silly as it seems that someone would claim that they propaganda'ed ground handling of a bomber, it could well happen http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

think the vast majority of bomber acciedents on the ground where collisions, nosefirst into another bomber..

JG109_Grisu
01-28-2006, 02:15 AM
Hi

Eric Brown writes in his Book "Berühmte Flugzeuge der Luftwaffe" (in english: Wings of the Luftwaffe): ...Das Flugzeug ließ sich am Boden angenehm rollen..., that means: The airplane can be rolled on the ground pleasantly.

The Grandfather of my woman was laughing when I was showing him the He-111 rolling on the Taxilike a drunken cow: he was radio operator in a He-111 H-6.

Why does the Betty not have thus a strange behavior on the taxiway? The principle is the same: Two engines, a rear wheel and one rudder. B-25 is another thing, she has a nose wheel and two rudders.

Sorry for my bad english

Jetbuff
01-28-2006, 05:16 AM
Originally posted by The_Gog:
So how do we know it wasn't like that in real life?

Simple, because it would not have been! No plane would handle like that except the very worst handling contraptions of WW1.
Actually, there are quite a few planes that had horrible ground handling by most accounts. How exactly bad is 'horrible'? Not sure, but even the ubiquotous 109 was apparently very likely to dig a toe in and ground loop.

I'm trying to dig up the post, but iirc someone posted some data showing how far back behind the main gear the Heinkel's CoG was compared to similar bombers. If that's true, the spin, while overdone, may be plausible in theory: pendulum type momentum if you swing the tail around too abruptly.

It is simply an error in its characteristics that appeared in the last or before last patch because IT USED TO BE OK! Someone changed it and stuffed it up, that's why there is all this talk of it now and not 2 years ago.
The Hurricane in FB 1.01 used to bleed very little speed even when pullin to the verge of stall, the K-4 a longer while back could climb at 100kph IAS and an ~80? angle. Just because it was different before doesn't mean it was right. Of course, that doesn't mean it's modelled correctly now either.

Sure, we could all taxi out at 1% throttle being careful not to go beyond 1 degree of rudder either way but you just cant be expected to do that in JUST THIS PLANE and no others. If people out there think that the handling of the 111 is fine then they should be demanding that all other twins be made the same, the B-25, A-20, Betty, Beau, 110 should all be screwed up so as to make it more accurate.
I think you are exaggerating a bit here out of frustration. You can taxi at any throttle you want, but you just have to slow down to below 20kph for any sharp turns. Personally, I find that 20-30% throttle and 20kph for the duration of taxiing greatly reduces the chances of one of those pirhouettes.

Not all twins should exhibit this; this is, if correct, supposed to be the result of a too far aft CoG relative to the main gear. My personal opinion though is that even if the concept is correct, it is probably slightly exaggerated at the moment due to the limitations of the ground physics in the sim.

Jetbuff
01-28-2006, 05:22 AM
Believe me when I say that nothing would warm my heart more than a more docile and capable He-111. But we have to approach this with an open mind. Just because its performance and handling does not fit our expectations does not necessarily mean that they are wrong; it could just as easily be our expectations, settings, hardware, technique and/or a game limitation.

KG26_Oranje
01-28-2006, 08:50 AM
Some data for He111 from Jane`s.
this is a copi of test data from 1934-1946 reports/test reports from Heinkel , RAF , Luftwaffe.
Jane used it for the 1946 , Jane`s fighting Aircrafts of WW2.
Used it wiht wisdom that the IL2 He111 is a Computer made AC.

S! I/KG26_Oranje.

Heinkel He111B
Specification.- He111B-2.
Year.- 1935.
Crew.- Five (pilot, Observer, Radio operator/gunner, Engineer/Gunner , Gunner).
Power Plant.- Two Daimler-Benz DB 600ACG 12-cylinder , inverted Vee Liquid-Cooled engines
each developing 950 hp.
Dimensions.- span, 74 ft, 2 in. lenght, 57 ft 5 in. height, 14 ft 5 in. wing area, 942,92 sq ft.
Weights.- empty, 12,875 lb. Loaded maximum, 22,046 lb.
Performance.- Maximum speed, 186 m.p.h. at sea-level, cruising speed, 174 m.p.h. climb rate,
30 min to 14,765 ft. service ceiling, 22,966 ft.
Armament.- three 7.9 m/m MG15 machine guns on flexible mount in nose cone, open dorsal turret
and retractable dustbin, bomb load, 3307 lb, internally.


Heinkel He111P.

The heinkel He111p was generally similar to the 111H , the main difference being that it was fitted with
two Daimler-Benz DB 601 engines in place of the Junker Jumo 211 units.
Produktion was discontinued in favour of the H serie.

Specification.- He111P-4.
Year.- 1938.
Crew.- Five (pilot, Observer, Radio operator/gunner, Engineer/Gunner , Gunner).
Power Plant.- Two Daimler-Benz DB 601A-1 12-cylinder , Liquid-Cooled engines each developing 1100hp.
Dimensions.- span, 74 ft, 2 in. lenght, 53 ft 9 in. height, 13 ft 2 in. wing area, 942,92 sq ft.
Weights.- empty, 14,936 lb. Loaded maximum, 29,762 lb.
Performance.- Maximum speed, 225 m.p.h. at sea-level, cruising speed, 194 m.p.h. climb rate,
7 min to 3280 ft. service ceiling, 26,250 ft.
Armament.- six 7.9 m/m MG15 machine guns in nose cone on flexible mounting, in nose fixed,
in two beam windows and in open dorsal turret and ventral gondola, some aircraft also fitted with
one 7.9 m/m MG17 machine gun in tail cone, bomb load, 2204 lb, internally and 2204 lb,
externally on racks.

Heinkel HE111H.

He111.
Assembly plants : Rostock-Marienehe.
Components plants : Rostock-Marienehe and Rostock Works I and II.

The Heinkel He111H.
The He111 , originally evolved as a camouflaged civil transport in 1935, was in continous service
thoughout the war , and was used extensively as a bomber , torpedo-carrier , transport and
glider-tug.
The most widlely-used produktion serie was the 111H and the best known sub-type was the
H-6.
This differed little , except in armament and ohter minor details , from later variants , e.g.
H-10 , 14, 16, 18, 20 and 21.

Type.- Twin-engined Bomber and Torpedo-carrier.
Also used as a Transport, Glider-Tug or as a Flying-Bomb Carrier.
Wings.- Low wing cantilever monoplane in three portions comprising a rectangular
centre-section built integral with the fuselage and two tapering outer sections.
Structure of light metal consisting of two spars and the usual number of ribs.
The whole covered with a stressed skin of smooth duralumin sheet.
Ailerons on outer sections.
Hydraulically-operated slotted flaps in inner sections.
Ailerons droop when flaps are lowered.
Fuselage.- Oval section metal structure tapering to a point aft.
Structure consists of three main bulkheads , a number of secondary frames ,
interconnected by longerons and "U" section stringers , the whole covered with smooth metal
sheet.
Tail Unit.- Monoplane type.
All suraces elliptical.
Cantilever tail-plane and fin.
Trimming-tabs in movable surfaces.
Metal structure wiht smooth sheet covering.

General specs He111H
Landing gear.- Retractable type.
Each unit consists of two oleo legs and two backwardly sloping hinged members which,
when broken inwardly, raise the wheels aft into the tails of the engine nacelles.
Low-pressure wheels and Cannstadt brakes.
Power plant.- Two Junker Jumo 211F-2 twelve-cylinder inverted Vee liqued-cooled engines,
each rated at 1,300 h.p. at 3,810 m. (12,500 ft.) in nacelles at extremities of centre-section.
Junker Jumo 211F-2 12-cylinder, liquid-cooled engines each developing 1350 hp.
take-off and emergency 1,340 h.p. at 2.600 r.p.m. at 1.4 ata at sea-level,
1,350 h.p. at 2.600 r.p.m. at 1.4 ata at 820 ft.
climbing 1,120 h.p. at 2.400 r.p.m. at 1.25 ata. at sea-level,
1,060 h.p. at 2,400 r.p.m. at 1.25 ata. at 17,000 ft. maximum cruising 910 h.p. at 2,250 r.p.m.
at 1.15 ata, at sea-level, 920 h.p. at 2,250 r.p.m. at 1.15 ata, at 19,500 ft.
Junker Jumo 211P, take-off and emergency 1,500 hp. at 2.700 r.p.m. at 1.45 ata at sea-level,
1,410 h.p. at 2.700 r.p.m. at 1.45 ata at 14.100 ft.
climbing 1,300 h.p. at 2.500 r.p.m. at 1.32 ata. at sea-level,
1,280 h.p. at 2,500 r.p.m. at 1.32 ata. at 15,100 ft. maximum cruising 950 h.p. at 2,250 r.p.m.
at 1.15 ata, at sea-level, 1,010 h.p. at 2,250 r.p.m. at 1.15 ata, at 17,000 ft.
Junker Jumo 211J, take-off and emergency 1,400 hp. at 2.600 r.p.m. at 1.4 ata at sea-level,
1,410 h.p. at 2.600 r.p.m. at 1.4 ata at 820 ft.
climbing 1,200 h.p. at 2.400 r.p.m. at 1.25 ata. at sea-level,
1,200 h.p. at 2,400 r.p.m. at 1.25 ata. at 16,500 ft. maximum cruising 950 h.p. at 2,250 r.p.m.
at 1.15 ata, at sea-level, 1,000 h.p. at 2,250 r.p.m. at 1.15 ata, at 16,700 ft.
Junker Jumo 213A, take-off and emergency 1,776 hp. at 3.250 r.p.m. at sea-level,
1,600 h.p. at 3,250 r.p.m. at 18,000 ft.
climbing 1,600 h.p. at 3.000 r.p.m. at sea-level,
1,480 h.p. at 3,000 r.p.m. at 18,000 ft. maximum cruising 1,340 h.p. at 2,700 r.p.m.
at sea-level, 1,220 h.p. at 2,700 r.p.m. at 17,000 ft.
Take off power can be increased to 2,240 h.p. by using methanol/water injection.


Three-bladed VDM controllable-ptch full-feathering airscrews.
Four self-sealing fuel tanks, two inboard and two outboard of nacelles.
Total fuel capacity 940 lmp. gallons.
Accommodation.- Normal crew of five , three in nose compartment and two aft of wings.
Pilot on port side of unsymmetrical nose, which is entirely glazed wiht transparent panels.
Aloneside pilot is a tip-up seat for the navigator/bomb-aimer, who also operated the hand-operated
machine-gun in a spherical nose mounting offset to starboard.
Bihind pilot is the bomb compartment located between the wing-spars.
Passage between bomb cells leads to after cabin accommodating the radio-operator-gunner,
operating the upper and lower gun positions are armoured.
Armament.- Differed greatly according the sub-type.
The later He111s were armed wiht one 13 m/m. MG 131 in the nose , two 7.9 m/m. MG 81 in the
lower ventral position firing forward ; one 13 m/m. MG 131 in the upper rear-firing position and
two 7.9 m/m. MG 81 firing laterally , one on each side of the fuselage.
Bomb load.- Originally the He111 had only internal stowage within fusalage for a maximum
of eight 250 kg. (550 lb.) bombs suspended vertically.
Later , external stowage was provided for bombs of heavier calibre than 250kg. or for mines,
two torpedoes or one FZG 76 Flying-bomb.
The flying-bomb was carried offset to starboard.
Typical alternative bomb loads were :- One 1,800 kg. or one 2,500 kg. two torpedoes carried
on crutches under short centre-section roots, one on each side of centre-line.
Equipment.- Standard bomber radio equipment comprising long and blind-approach equipment.
D/F. loop aerial is housed beneath transparent cover over upper rear gunner.
Fixed aerial for lorenz blind-approach system mounted benath rear fuselage.
Equipment also generally includes an inflatable dinghy.

Specification.- Heinkel He111H-3
Weights.- Weight empty 19,130 lbs.
Power plant.- two Junker Jumo 211A-3 twelve-cylinder inverted Vee liqued-cooled engines,
each rated at 1,100 h.p.
take-off and emergency 950 hp. at 2.200 r.p.m. at 1.2 ata at sea-level, 1000 h.p. at 2.200 r.p.m.
at 1.2 ata at 17.000 ft. climbing 850 h.p. at 2.200 r.p.m. at 1.1 ata. at sea-level,
870 h.p. at 2,200 r.p.m. at 1.1 ata. at 17,000 ft.
Performance.- Maximum speed 258 m.p.h. Range wiht maximum fuel 1,760 miles.
Armament.- 6x 7.92 m/m MG 15 machine-guns. and provision for two externally-mounted
PVC 1006 bomb racks.[for two SC1000 (1,000kg.) or one SC1800 (1,800kg.)].

Specification.- He111H-6.
Year.- 1939.
Crew.- Five (pilot, Observer, Radio operator/gunner, Engineer/Gunner , Gunner).
Power Plant.- Two Junker Jumo 211D-2 12-cylinder, liquid-cooled engines each developing 1200 hp.
take-off and emergency 1,200 hp. at 2.400 r.p.m. at 1.35 ata at sea-level,
1,210 h.p. at 2.400 r.p.m. at 1.35 ata at 820 ft.
climbing 930 h.p. at 2.300 r.p.m. at 1.15 ata. at sea-level,
930 h.p. at 2,300 r.p.m. at 1.15 ata. at 16,500 ft. maximum cruising 790 h.p. at 2,100 r.p.m.
at 1.1 ata, at sea-level, 800 h.p. at 2,100 r.p.m. at 1.1 ata, at 14,700 ft.
Dimensions.- Span 74 ft , 3 in. (22,6 meter), Length 54 ft. 6 in. (16,6 m), Height 13 ft. 9 in.
(4,2 m), Wing aria 942 sq. ft. (87,6 sq. m.).
Weights.- Weight empty 17,000 lbs. (7,720 kg.) , Normal loaded weight 26,500 lbs. (12,030 kg.),
Maximum permissible overloaded weight 31,000 lbs. (14,075 kg.).
Performance.- Maximum speed 250 m.p.h. (400 km.h.) at 17,000 ft. ( 5,185 m.),
max speed 258mph (416 km.h.) at 19,680ft.
Clim to 17,000 ft (5.185 m.) 20 mins., Service ceiling 27,500 ft. (8,390 m.),
Range wiht maximum fuel 1,750 miles (2,800 km.).

Specification.- He111H-16.
Year.- 1943.
Crew.- Five (pilot, Observer, Radio operator/gunner, Engineer/Gunner , Gunner).
Power Plant.- Two Junker Jumo 211F-2 12-cylinder, liquid-cooled engines each developing 1350 hp.
take-off and emergency 1,340 h.p. at 2.600 r.p.m. at 1.4 ata at sea-level,
1,350 h.p. at 2.600 r.p.m. at 1.4 ata at 820 ft.
climbing 1,120 h.p. at 2.400 r.p.m. at 1.25 ata. at sea-level,
1,060 h.p. at 2,400 r.p.m. at 1.25 ata. at 17,000 ft. maximum cruising 910 h.p. at 2,250 r.p.m.
at 1.15 ata, at sea-level, 920 h.p. at 2,250 r.p.m. at 1.15 ata, at 19,500 ft.
Dimensions.- span, 74 ft, 2 in. lenght, 53 ft 9 in. height, 13 ft 1 in. wing area, 931,07 sq ft.
Weights.- empty, 19,135 lb. Loaded maximum, 30,865 lb.
Performance.- Maximum speed, 227 m.p.h. at sea-level, cruising speed, 197 m.p.h. climb rate,
8,5 min to 6560 ft. service ceiling, 27,890 ft.
Armament.- One 20 m/m MG FF cannon in nose, one 13 m/m MG 131 Machine gun in
dorsal position, two 7.9 m/m MG81Z machine guns in rear ventral gondola ,
two 7.9 m/m MG15 or MG81Z machine guns in beam positions, the nose cannon could also be replaced by a 7.9 m/m MG15 machine gun and the beam positions with twin 7.9 m/m MG81Z
Bomb load, 7165 lb, made up of varios bombs carried internally and on external racks.

Heinkel He111Z-1.

The He111Z was basically two He111H-6 airframes, each less one outer wing, joined together
outboard of a left and right engine by a length of wing which carried a fifth Jumo 211 engine.
The result was a five-engined aircraft wiht two-separate fuselages and tail-units.
The pilot sat in the port fuselage.
The intended function of the He111Z was that of a glider-tug, although consideration was given
to using it as a bomber, to carry four 1,800 kg. bombs ; as a reconnaissance aircraft wiht
two 264-gallon jettisonable fuel tanks ; or as an anti-shipping aircraft to carry four
Hs 293 radio-controlled glider bombs.
Dimensions.- Span 115 ft.6 in. (35,2 m.), Length 54 ft. 8in. (16,7 m.),
landing-gear track 32 ft. 10 in. (10 m.).
Take-off weight.- 62,500 lbs. (28,375 kg.).
Performance.- Maximum speed 298 m.p.h. (477 km.h.) at 16,000 ft (4,880 m.),
Range 1,180 miles (1,890 km.).

Heinkel He111A , B , C , D , E and F serie variants.
12 march 1935 He111V-1 first test flight.
He111A-0: Pre-produktion bomber variant , with BMW V engines.
Was rejected by the Luftwaffe.
10 bild and sold to China.
He111C-0: Airliner deliverd to DLH.
only 6 build.
He111B-1:
B-2:
He111D: Powerd by two 950 h.p. DB 600Ga engines.
Few were built, as a shortage of DB 600s necessitated a produktion switch to the Junker Jumo-powered He111E.
He111E:Powerd by two 1,000 h.p. Junker Jumo 211.
He111F: Uprated Jumo 211s plus new wing of simpler construction and with straight instead of curved taper.
Last 111 variant wiht stepped nose.

He111P and H serie variants.

He111P-0 : Pre-production.
Two 1,150 h.p. DB 601Aa and new ventral gondola-type gun position replace the dustbin of
earlier models.
P-1: First produktion version.
Three 7.9 m/m MG 15 machine guns.
P-2: FuG 10 radio instead of FuG III.
P-3: Dual-control trainer.
P-4: Increase armour, three extra MG 15 guns and provision for two externally-mounted PVC 1006
bomb racks.
P-6: Final produktion model.
Two 1,175 h.p. DB601N engines.
He111H-0: Pre-produktion.
Two 1,010 h.p. Junker Jumo 211A.
H-1: Initial produktion model.
Generally similar to H-0.
H-2 No info in jane`s.
H-3: Two 1,100 h.p. Junker Jumo 211A-3 and same Armament as P-4.
H-4: Two external PVC 1006 racks for two 1,000 kg (2,205 lb.) SC1000 bombs or one
1,800 kg. (3,968 lb.) SC1800 bomb.
First H-4 had 1,100 Jumo 211D engines but later examples had 1,400 hp Jumo 211F-1.
Joined Kampfgeschwader during Battle of Britain like H-5 (below).
H-5: Similar to H-4 but had increased fuel capacity and carried bomb load entirely external.
H-6: First variant to carry torpedoes operationally.
Two 765 kg. (1686 lb.) LT F5b, Six MG15 machine guns and one forward-firing 20 m/m MG FF cannon.
Some a/c had fixed MG 17 in tail cone, others had remotely-operated grenade launcher in same position.
Two Jumo 211F-1.
Introduced into production at end of 1940, H-6 was most widely used of all He111 versions
and was also employed as an ordinary bomber.
H-7 and H-9: Boht basically H-6 a/c with minor changes of equipment.
H-8: Modification of H-3 or H-5 with immense barrage balloon fender carried forward of nose and engines.
Survivors of 30 or so a/c converted eventually stripped of fender and modified as glider tugs
under designation He111H-8/R2.
H-10: Simular to H-6, with balloon-cable-cutter in wing leading edges and an MG FF cannon
in ventral gondola.
H-11: Two MG 81 machine guns in ventral gondola, dorsal gun position fully enclosed and provision
made to carry five 250 kg. (551 lb.) bombs externally.
H-11/R1: Provision for two pairs of MG 81 guns firing from beam hatches in fuselage.
H-11R/2: Glider tug.
H-12: Specially equipped to carry two Henschel 293A anti-shipping missiles, but never used operationally.
H-14: Pathfinder with crew of six and FuG Samos and other specialised radio equipment.
H-16: Two 1,350 hp. Jumo 211F-2 and carry extensive defensive armament, including MG 81Z
twin-gun installation, 13 m/m MG 131 weapon and MG FF cannon.
H-16/R1: Had MG 131 gun in power-operated dorsal turret.
H-16/R2: Glider-tug.
H-16/R3: Pathfinder.
H-18: Specialised pathfinder, being in effect a combination of H-14 and H-16/R3.
H-20/R1: Equipped to carry 16 paratroops.
H-20/R2: Freighter and glider-tug.
H-20/R3: Night bomber with racks for a 2,000 kg. (4,410 lb.) bomb load.
H-20/R4: Equipped to carry a load of twenty 50 kg (110 lb.) SC 50 bombs.
H-22: Designation covering conversion of H-6 and H-16 a/c to carry a Fieseler 103 missile (V-1) under either wing.
H-23: Final production model of H-series.
Built as a paratroop transport but often used as a bomber.
Two 1,776 hp. Jumo 213A-1.

From Jane`s Fighting Aircraft of World war II
isbn 1 85170 199 0
Bracken Books
Londen
Originally published by Jane`s Publishing Company 1946/47

Jetbuff
01-28-2006, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by KG26_Oranje:
Specification.- He111H-6
.
.
.
Performance.- Maximum speed 250 m.p.h. (400 km.h.) at 17,000 ft. ( 5,185 m.),
max speed 258mph (416 km.h.) at 19,680ft.
Clim to 17,000 ft (5.185 m.) 20 mins., Service ceiling 27,500 ft. (8,390 m.),
OK, we have the yardstick. (first one that specifies the H-6 variant to my knowledge) Now, anyone know in what configuration these tests were done so we can replicate them and get the exact margin of error. e.g. with 2x2000kg bombs and full fuel load I doubt you can even get to 5000m let alone do it in 20 mins. At 25% fuel though, same loadout it takes roughly an hour to reach 5000m.

msalama
01-29-2006, 12:26 AM
What leads you to believe that this quirky ground handeling of the He 111 is indeed accurate?

Nothing. I already said in my first post that it is probably somewhat off, but still controllable using RL taxiing techniques. So what exactly is your point there?


And again I must ask if you have ever seen large tail dragger aircraft operate on the ground in real life? ... They DO NOT spin like tops in the blink of an eye.

Sure I have, and no, they don't. Which - at least in part - most likely has to do with the fact of those buggers being piloted by professionals, not some clueless Hyperlobby d*ckheads. Dig?


I hope you are not falling into the trap of believing that just because some aspect of the sim is of a high level of difficulty that it necessarily means that it is more accurate.

Wouldn't dream of it.

BfHeFwMe
01-29-2006, 01:15 AM
So your asserting it was totally wrong the previous three years? Where's your evidence and credentials for that???

Works two ways. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

NonWonderDog
01-29-2006, 02:43 AM
I'd never flown the He-111 before, so I just landed the thing with a full bomb load (first try!) in the QMB to check out the ground handling....

And msalama's got a point. It's really not that bad. Slow to a near stop and use differential thrust to turn and not only will you be taxiing it realistically, you'll have few problems with it. Frankly, if you try to turn at speed with differential braking (I can't imagine that the He-111 even HAD differential braking...) you *should* loop it. This actually goes for most taildraggers... but one battle at a time.

The ground handling is definitely a bit off, though. There seems to be absolutely no yaw damping on the ground, and that has to be a bug. I like that it can get away from you, but it really should stop spinning *eventually.*

Frankly, I didn't know ground loops even existed in the sim before I taxied the HE-111. If all the taildraggers could be halfway between the Bf-109 and the HE-111, that would be a *huge* improvement to ground handling fidelity.

KG26_Alpha
01-29-2006, 08:21 AM
Yea but why just the HE111's ?

All other twin engined taildraggers in IL2 behave resonably well on the ground.

Jetbuff
01-29-2006, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by KG26_Alpha:
Yea but why just the HE111's ?

All other twin engined taildraggers in IL2 behave resonably well on the ground.
Like I said, there was a potential explanation posted here. (I forget by whom) It stated that the He-111, unlike other flyables we have in-game had a very aft CoG relative to the main gear. Think of the main gear as a pivot and you can see how a plane with an aft CoG might generate quite a large moment around that pivot when turned sharply causing the tail to swing rather violently.

This does not mean I believe it is currently realistic, just that there is a potential explanation for this behaviour, strange as it may seem. It would warrant more confirmation for me personally if it was a more serious problem, but I find it to be a marginal issue. However, judging by the taxiing habits I see on HL, no wonder people are having trouble. I doubt planes were taxied at anywhere near the speeds we see people use. At 20kph and/or full-stop turns the He-111 is fully controllable.



Now, let's consider the alternatives if it is indeed unrealistic:
<LI> Oleg has it in for the He-111? I very much doubt that but if it were the reason, this discussion would be pointless.
<LI> A FM-engine limitation is resulting in the behaviour. More likely but again, the discussion would be pointless.
<LI> There was an oversight in programming it. In that case, I'm sure attention has been drawn to it already, but just to be sure, resend a track to pf@1c.ru.
<LI> Their info on the ground-handling of the He-111 is incorrect. See above.
In none of these instances do I see how the personal 'feeling' of how a 111 should handle could influence things for the better. Cheers...

KG26_Alpha
01-29-2006, 09:45 AM
well thats no explanation of anything

I want to know why just the He11's behave this way its nothing to do with cog, the things just totally unstable swinging around like a whirling dervisher.

Again why just the HE111's ????????????

ElAurens
01-29-2006, 09:58 AM
Writing code for a flight sim of this magnatude involves literally millions of lines of code.

When the current version was being written someone just placed a value in the wrong spot.

It's a coding issue. It has nothing to do with real life anything.

Jetbuff
01-29-2006, 10:20 AM
ElAurens, you may be 100% correct. I wouldn't know either way. What I do know is that this 'issue' has not really interfered with my enjoyment of the Heinkel.

Originally posted by KG26_Alpha:
well thats no explanation of anything

I want to know why just the He11's behave this way its nothing to do with cog, the things just totally unstable swinging around like a whirling dervisher.

Again why just the HE111's ????????????
If true it actually does explain everything. e.g. why just the 111? Perhaps because it's the only one plane with this characteristic?

I cannot argue with you about the realism of the feature. I merely propose a plausible explanation that was presented here by someone else when this was first encountered. If you choose to discount it out of hand, do not expect another. Doing so indicates that you've already made up your mind what the answer to your question is and will not be satisfied unless everyone agrees with your supposition.

KG26_Alpha
01-29-2006, 10:55 AM
Thxz El Aurens

Thats the most sensible reply Ive seen here and confirms my thoughts on the matter.

msalama
01-29-2006, 12:41 PM
So your asserting it was totally wrong the previous three years?

So you're trying to make conclusions without being equipped for the task? Nice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

msalama
01-29-2006, 12:44 PM
Again why just the HE111's ????????????

"Just"? The Beaufighter f.ex. ain't that different, only somewhat lighter. Try it out and you'll see...

The_Gog
01-29-2006, 12:50 PM
I am going to explode into a million tiny pieces here if one more idiot posts a reply here saying that the 'Ground handling of the 111 is not that bad' only to say later in the same freakin post 'It is a bit off and shouldn't be spinning around like that!'

It is stuffed. The code is wrong pure and simple. People pushing this COG argument don't have a clue what they are talking about. For an aircraft to behave like the 111 does, it's COG would have to be situated at or near the very tip of the tail and it must be the equivalent of about 30,000 tonnes!

As has been said above, if this is so correct, why does it only appear in the Heinkel?? And go away with your pathetic COG argument FFS!

msalama
01-29-2006, 12:55 PM
As has been said above, if this is so correct, why does it only appear in the Heinkel??

"Only"? The Beaufighter f.ex. ain't that different, only somewhat lighter. Try it out and you'll see...

msalama
01-29-2006, 12:58 PM
Oh yeah, sorry, forgot:

1) The ground handling of the Heinkel isn't that bad if you use correct RL taxiing techniques.

2) Yep, it is somewhat off nevertheless.

You exploded already?

Jetbuff
01-29-2006, 03:39 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

The_Gog
01-30-2006, 01:03 AM
Its taken me 3 hours to clean myself of the keyboard! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

NonWonderDog
01-30-2006, 03:50 AM
Hmm...

Yak-9B *with* bombs behaves exactly like the He-111.

Yak-9B *without* bombs behaves quite like a Bf-109.


It seems to be the cog position that does it, even if it's a bit overdone in the He-111.

Jetbuff
01-30-2006, 06:32 AM
Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
Hmm...

Yak-9B *with* bombs behaves exactly like the He-111.

Yak-9B *without* bombs behaves quite like a Bf-109.


It seems to be the cog position that does it, even if it's a bit overdone in the He-111.
Errr... I told you so? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

One more time though, how realistic is this? None of us really know. But at least we know why.

ColHut
01-30-2006, 07:10 AM
Back to the problem of cross hairs.

My experience is that the problems are entirely related to network and load on the computer. I should know I still use a modem and fly B-25 on line with a p4 2.53 laptop & mobility radeon 9000. This problem drove me nuts.

Solution

put plane on approximate course and hit "level stabilizer" make sure "pilot automation" is "off"

leap to bomb aimer's position hit "shift F1" by default. RAISE SIGHT TO MAXIMUM elevation so it is pointing at the sky (minimum CPU/graphics load). Sight will settle after 5 to 25 seconds.
(Watch and wait and see). Then trim onto target (per many posts on this board about this" and voila!

WOl
works for me after a lot of trial and error and patience by my on-line colleagues.

Jetbuff
01-30-2006, 07:19 AM
Hut, interesting theory. I'll test it out. In turn, why don't you try this:

- Turn sharply for 360? and time how long it takes for the sight to settle.

- Do it again, but this time turn much more gradually at a much gentler bank.

- Now do it yet again, but this time make 3-4 full revolutions.

Compare the settling times versus time taken to complete the turns across all 3 tests.

ColHut
01-30-2006, 07:29 AM
Thanks JetBuff,
I will give it a go...now

ColHut
01-30-2006, 08:16 AM
Hmm I did nearly what you suggested.

I will need to do this properly tomorrow (it is late...)

On the Okinawa map no flak no enemy with a B-25
Time to sight re-appearance (or first appearance)

Barrel roll - any speed - 2-7 seconds no obvious rhyme or reason
Turning
-45 degrees 2-5 seconds
-90 degrees 5-10 seconds
-270-330 (yes 270-330) degrees 12-17 seconds
over 360 - 390 1 minute - 1 minute 5

speed or rate of turn did not seem to be a factor.

I flew in Bombsight view (shift F1) from bomb aimer's position.

Over the sea, there is little difference between sea and sky (horizon) as far as load goes. It differs somewhat over land!

This, together with my earlier experience, makes me think that big turns to come onto a bombing run (I try to make them individual legs of less than 45 degrees and about 5 ks each) coupled with load greatly increase your bombsight cross-hair level problem. I need to test further to see if turns are the single most important factor or whether load (particularly online with particular objects in view (land or horizon)are determinative.

For what it is worth, flyig the same missions on and off line, the only difrence being what I set as the object in my sight seemed to be the difference between the bomsight never settling and it taking 20-40 seconds.

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

KG26_Alpha
01-30-2006, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
Hmm...

Yak-9B *with* bombs behaves exactly like the He-111.

Yak-9B *without* bombs behaves quite like a Bf-109.


It seems to be the cog position that does it, even if it's a bit overdone in the He-111.

4x100 kg bombs stored internally well behind pilots seat position down the fusalage will certainly account for some swinging around but in that aircraft its perfectly controlable with brakes and rudder and correct throttle procedure. Totally acceptable IMHO.

Jetbuff
01-30-2006, 06:21 PM
ColHut, I also found that it is not just the degrees of turn but how long you turn for. e.g. if you compare the sharpest 360? you can manage versus a gentle one, you should notice a difference with the latter taking longer for the sight to come back up. To me this says that settling time is directly proportional to how long the sight was disturbed in the first place.

Philipscdrw
01-31-2006, 10:19 AM
There is a way to adjust the He-111 centre of gravity...

... when landing, pull the stick back hard on the flare, and you'll break the fuselage off just behind the wing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I was able to taxi off the runway like that, but when I let it stop it wouldn't move again...

The_Gog
02-02-2006, 03:31 AM
bump!

KG26_Alpha
02-02-2006, 04:37 AM
Preliminary reports are its being fixed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

msalama
02-02-2006, 07:02 AM
4x100 kg bombs stored internally well behind pilots seat position down the fusalage will certainly account for some swinging around but in that aircraft its perfectly controlable with brakes and rudder and correct throttle procedure. Totally acceptable IMHO.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

What I've tried to say ALL the time, be the Heinkel 100% correct or not...

Jetbuff
02-02-2006, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by KG26_Alpha:
Preliminary reports are its being fixed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
What? The pirouhette or the climb/top-speed? The latter is far more important imo.

KG26_Oranje
02-10-2006, 07:28 AM
Test the HE111-H6 now in the patch 4.03M

He111-H6
2x sc2000.
50% fuel.
Ground start.

Climing the HE111-H6 , minor improvement.
Taxi control is Div buht not improved!
Ju88 handels very good on taxi buht loosing alt on level stab.
Like the HE111 diht in 2.01 versian.
Is there some code conecting those two things?
I mean if u improve the one , than u distroy the ahter thing?
Lets hope it will be fixts soon.
This distroy game play in coops.

lbhskier37
02-10-2006, 08:26 AM
Oranje, last night after you guys were off I was playing with the JU some more and found that you can use elevator trim to keep it from losing altitude with level stabilizer on, just like you can change direction a bit using the rudder trim.

About the HE I haven't tested it yet, but it looks like the JU is gonna be the new bomber of choice for the LW!



Originally posted by KG26_Oranje:
Test the HE111-H6 now in the patch 4.03M

He111-H6
2x sc2000.
50% fuel.
Ground start.

Climing the HE111-H6 , minor improvement.
Taxi control is Div buht not improved!
Ju88 handels very good on taxi buht loosing alt on level stab.
Like the HE111 diht in 2.01 versian.
Is there some code conecting those two things?
I mean if u improve the one , than u distroy the ahter thing?
Lets hope it will be fixts soon.
This distroy game play in coops.

KG26_Alpha
02-10-2006, 08:43 AM
JU88 sinks like a lead brick with payload on level stabilizer and fully trimmed up.

He111 ground handling is still rediculous, but theres improvement on climb rates.

lbhskier37
02-10-2006, 09:44 AM
What payload and fuel level you using for the JU Alpha? Last night I was running a pair of 1000kg bombs with full fuel, but that took 100% throttle and a bit of pitch up to keep level which is probably realistic because I believe thats an overload, and with the default loadout of 28x50kg and 2x250kg I had no trouble staying level with a bit of up trim.

Maraz_5SA
02-10-2006, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by lbhskier37:
What payload and fuel level you using for the JU Alpha? Last night I was running a pair of 1000kg bombs with full fuel, but that took 100% throttle and a bit of pitch up to keep level which is probably realistic because I believe thats an overload, and with the default loadout of 28x50kg and 2x250kg I had no trouble staying level with a bit of up trim.

Yes, according to stuff posted by Jippo, max fuel load was 4400 l, plus 2000 Kg bombs, it makes roughly 5200 Kg. Add about 8500 empty weight, 500 kg for crew and ammo, 300 kg for lubricant, this makes some 14.500 Kg that is serious overload.

I am under the impression too that the Ju.88 loses height on autolevel only if overloaded.
Maraz

ElAurens
02-10-2006, 10:48 AM
Last night online on the Med map I noticed that with both the Ju88 and He111 on 50% fuel and the 2x2000kg loadout that the He 111 has a shorter take off roll and initially climbs better. I would have thought it would be the other way 'round.

Jetbuff
02-10-2006, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by KG26_Alpha:
JU88 sinks like a lead brick with payload on level stabilizer and fully trimmed up.
I noticed that too. Wonder what the reason is?

He111 ground handling is still rediculous,
Not losing any sleep over it, but this:

but theres improvement on climb rates.
is really encouraging.

Maraz_5SA
02-11-2006, 01:18 AM
He.111 climb rate and max speed have improved.

I played again a mission I had played with 4.02, I attained 4500 m in 15 minutes 30 seconds (He.111H-6, 50% fuel, 4x500 Kg bombs, 100% throttle, rad full open, 210 km/h IAS) while previously I took about 25 minutes.

Sustained climb rate was around 5 m/s, dropped to 4 m/s above 3500 m.

I could keep at that height a sustained max sped of 270 km/h IAS (350 km/h TAS) while previously I could keep around 250-260 km/h (I wish I could find my exact data about that test...)

Anyway it's a noticeable improvement! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Maraz

Jetbuff
02-16-2006, 09:59 AM
So they fixed my Heinkel? WOOOOOOT! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif