PDA

View Full Version : Best Bf-109 Varient?



The_Stealth_Owl
09-01-2009, 02:19 PM
I want something heavier then somthing like a F-4.


What do you guys think? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I just got out of school and I was thinking about this all day... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Chevy350
09-01-2009, 02:27 PM
g2.

AndyJWest
09-01-2009, 02:38 PM
If I am looking for agility, speed, acceleration, Firepower, deacceleration, coolnessness, quality, power, expensiveness and most intimidating and pure joy to fly.
So was Willi Messerschmitt. Not easy to achieve though. Firepower = extra weight = less agility. Aircraft design is often about finding the best compromise. Unless you are against serious opposition: late Spits, La7, P-51 etc, the G2 is probably your best bet - but you've not even listed it, it is actually a tad faster than early G6s.

Not quite sure what you mean by 'expensiveness' though the Germans were fairly good at that...

deepo_HP
09-01-2009, 02:41 PM
that is with no doubt the

Bf-109 K-14

it has gynocologic sight!

TinyTim
09-01-2009, 02:43 PM
In their respective era or overall?

In first case I'd go with F4. In second, G6AS.

Dance
09-01-2009, 02:44 PM
it has gynocologic sight!

So that old hands, could keep their hands in http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Voted F4

Edit : forgot the reasoning, pure joy to fly.

ytareh
09-01-2009, 02:47 PM
This is a no brainer ...the G2 on balance is best by a length on the F4.Of course the G6AS and K14 etc are fast and climb great but handle terribly by comparison particularly when piloted by inexperienced ...

The_Stealth_Owl
09-01-2009, 02:49 PM
You call me inexperienced?!

megalopsuche
09-01-2009, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by ytareh:
This is a no brainer ...the G2 on balance is best by a length on the F4.Of course the G6AS and K14 etc are fast and climb great but don't do so well when controlled by pilots who rely on flat turns...

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

stalkervision
09-01-2009, 02:53 PM
what no c/d or E...? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The_Stealth_Owl
09-01-2009, 03:03 PM
I like to fly verticly so I need the Bf-109 that has the best Power-to-wheight ratio. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Also, can you define "flat turn"?

My brains are a little rusty from school... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

megalopsuche
09-01-2009, 03:08 PM
I recently got to fly the 109K-4 on the "Memel" map at SoV. The La-7s I was fighting could turn inside a closet, but I still managed to kill 6 or 7 of them for no deaths of my own. The most memorable kill happened when the La-7 tried to lead for a high deflection shot (good pilot would do a yo-yo) as I turned hard with rudder, reduced throttle, and dumped flaps. He sailed around just outside my radius, flaps up, MW50, nose up, and hose him with the 30mm.

Flat turn rate is nice, but a good pilot can beat you with a climb and speed advantage all day long. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

X32Wright
09-01-2009, 03:13 PM
Best for me is the G-10 and close second is the G-6/AS. The G-10 actually wwas made AFTER the k-4 is in production using K-4 parts in Gustav frame. It has the speed and power of the K-4 without the weight. Also the G-10's armament isnt limited unlike the K-4 C3.

Everyone likes the G-2 but it is slow up high vs Mustangs and Jugs and Raiden while the G-10 can handle anything it comes across. Of course then I always fight above 5K meters. If I am fighting low then G-14 vs late Allied planes if not, then G-6/AS. I prefer maschinengewehr (MG-151/20) over maschinekanone (MK-108) anyday.

TS_Sancho
09-01-2009, 03:16 PM
The G2 is the most dominant vs. its contemporaries and can hold its own against late war fighters if flown to its strengths.

I prefer the G10 or G6AS, they are both fast at all altitudes with the G10 being slightly better up high and the G6AS slightly faster at low and medium alt.

For me, the G6AS is the superior fighter vs. fighter platform with its MG151/20.

I find the 30mm mk108 on the G10 to be more of a hindrance against anything but 4 engine heavies moving in a straight line due to its low muzzle velocity, lobbing ballistic arc and low ammo count.

Thats my two cents...

stalkervision
09-01-2009, 03:17 PM
when SOW come out A LOT of 109 pilots will have a whole lot of trouble beating off Spitfires.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

unless Oleg "levels the playing field" a bit.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

X32Wright
09-01-2009, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
when SOW come out A LOT of 109 pilots will have a whole lot of trouble beating off Spitfires.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

if that is true then SOW would be SO WRONG since the 109s ruled until 1942.

stalkervision
09-01-2009, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by X32Wright:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
when SOW come out A LOT of 109 pilots will have a whole lot of trouble beating off Spitfires.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

if that is true then SOW would be SO WRONG since the 109s ruled until 1942. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't wait to see the Fm for it.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

X32Wright
09-01-2009, 03:25 PM
We shall see....

Besides it's the Hurricane that won BoB not Spitfire http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif About 85% of british planes involved in BoB were Hurricanes.

And there's this ever present 'hurricane snob' by the 'Krauts' thinking the only plane that ever shot them down as a Spitfire NOT the lowly Hurricane. The Brits actually called this the 'Spitfire Snobbery' by the Luftwaffe.

stalkervision
09-01-2009, 03:25 PM
There are going to be a lot of howling 109 pilots. better brush up on your "bunting maneuver" because this is all you will get to defend yourself. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

stalkervision
09-01-2009, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by X32Wright:
We shall see....

Besides it's the Hurricane that won BoB not Spitfire http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif About 85% of british planes involved in BoB were Hurricanes.

And there's this ever present 'hurricane snob' by the 'Krauts' thinking the only plane that ever shot them down as a spitfire NOT the lowly Hurricane.

I like the Hurricane quite a bit. It flies real steady and sweet in BOB/WOV. Probably in SOW too. Great bomber killer.

X32Wright
09-01-2009, 03:29 PM
We shall see...as I said. of course then I won't be limited by Goering's command either and would definitely be doing 'Freie Jagd' instead of sticking with Kampfwaffe.

Wildnoob
09-01-2009, 03:37 PM
oh, the Hurricane gonna perform very in SOW at least on the online mode would risk to say, just because it has a significant sligth low speed turning ratios then the Bf-109. well, we know very well why this going to happen.

other way if the 109 is flow correctly his superiority is evident, though a well flow Hurricane can be a very dangeours oponent if used correctly despite it's disadvantage anyway.

TS_Sancho
09-01-2009, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
when SOW come out A LOT of 109 pilots will have a whole lot of trouble beating off Spitfires.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

unless Oleg "levels the playing field" a bit.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Will the new flight model prevent me from securing greater altitude or engaging/disengaging my opponent at will due to previousley mentioned greater energy state?

109's a tough cookie as it should be. I dont recall ever hearing of an instance where a combat pilot identified enemy A/C as BF109's and breathed a sigh of relief.

You wouldnt want it to be "a piece of cake" would you?

DKoor
09-01-2009, 03:50 PM
1.Bf-109G6AS.
2.Bf-109F4.

stalkervision
09-01-2009, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
when SOW come out A LOT of 109 pilots will have a whole lot of trouble beating off Spitfires.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

unless Oleg "levels the playing field" a bit.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Will the new flight model prevent me from securing greater altitude or engaging/disengaging my opponent at will due to previousley mentioned greater energy state?

109's a tough cookie as it should be. I dont recall ever hearing of an instance where a combat pilot identified enemy A/C as BF109's and breathed a sigh of relief.

You wouldnt want it to be "a piece of cake" would you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh it won't be a piece of cake I can tell you that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If you have superior altitade of course you will be alright as in any aircraft. I am waiting to see what the "Climb Rate" will be set to. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

also the air speed and nearly as important as the climb rate, the rolling rate. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

The_Stealth_Owl
09-01-2009, 04:00 PM
Right now I'm leaning torwards the G-10.

What do you guys think about that? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

gizmo60
09-01-2009, 04:27 PM
The F4 is a whole lotta fun to fly.

Cheers

WTE_Galway
09-01-2009, 05:07 PM
Out of that choice the G6as but seriously the most fun is the Emil ... I so wish this game had E3's so we could do proper SCW.

PanzerAce
09-01-2009, 11:45 PM
I'm going to agree with Galway on this one, the Emils are the best 109s. Especially going up against late war planes. It's fun to out turn La-7s and Spit 25s http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

WTE_Galway
09-02-2009, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by PanzerAce:
I'm going to agree with Galway on this one, the Emils are the best 109s. Especially going up against late war planes. It's fun to out turn La-7s and Spit 25s http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

You know, I cannot really comment on that because I have never ever flown a Spit 25, not even in QMB http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I am really looking forward to the Avia in 4.09 though.

na85
09-02-2009, 01:52 AM
Originally posted by The_Stealth_Owl:
Right now I'm leaning torwards the G-10.

What do you guys think about that? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Shot down my first spitfire in a G-10 at 4000m over Normandy. It's a good bird but not as nimble as some other variants.

For maneuverability, speed, and firepower I would say the F4 is king. No 30mm, but in 1941/42 the MG151/20 gets the job done just fine. You really only need the Mk108 for bombers.

danjama
09-02-2009, 04:04 AM
G2. Fakt.

Odie1974
09-02-2009, 04:08 AM
Recently I have been trying them all in QMB.

G6AS seems to be the best one for me personally.

megalopsuche
09-02-2009, 04:53 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
when SOW come out A LOT of 109 pilots will have a whole lot of trouble beating off Spitfires.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

unless Oleg "levels the playing field" a bit.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Will the new flight model prevent me from securing greater altitude or engaging/disengaging my opponent at will due to previousley mentioned greater energy state?

109's a tough cookie as it should be. I dont recall ever hearing of an instance where a combat pilot identified enemy A/C as BF109's and breathed a sigh of relief.

You wouldnt want it to be "a piece of cake" would you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh it won't be a piece of cake I can tell you that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If you have superior altitade of course you will be alright as in any aircraft. I am waiting to see what the "Climb Rate" will be set to. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

also the air speed and nearly as important as the climb rate, the rolling rate. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the flying skill of your average Spitfire pilot remains similar to what it is now, then 109E pilots have nothing to fear. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Anyway, I would expect the standard negative G pushover to still be very effective.

WOLFMondo
09-02-2009, 05:03 AM
1st - 109F4
2nd - 109G6AS

WOLFMondo
09-02-2009, 05:04 AM
Originally posted by megalopsuche:


If the flying skill of your average Spitfire pilot remains similar to what it is now, then 109E pilots have nothing to fear. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


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

BillSwagger
09-02-2009, 05:07 AM
for me its the 109k and the c-3 adds a little more horse power to the package.
I could probably get the same out of a G-6 but the K model is faster from what i can tell. Otherwise they are about the same in other performance areas, but the K is little better up high.

Historically, imo, the K was probably the better of the 109s, but the G-10 was an easier and less costly conversion.

megalopsuche
09-02-2009, 05:35 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by megalopsuche:


If the flying skill of your average Spitfire pilot remains similar to what it is now, then 109E pilots have nothing to fear. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahhh, so stalkervision can make a provocative joke, but if I do it you roll your eyes. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Viper2005_
09-02-2009, 05:45 AM
Operating against contemporary opponents, the best 109s in the game IMO are the E4 which is properly armed, the F4, and the G2.

After that, 109 development falls behind. Indeed, as soon as the 190 becomes available, you're unlikely to ever see me flying a 109...

WholeHawg
09-02-2009, 05:50 AM
G2, G2, G2, G2,G2, G2, G2, G2,G2, G2, G2, G2,G2, G2, G2, G2,G2, G2, G2, G2,G2, G2, G2, G2,G2, G2, G2, G2,G2, G2, G2, G2,G2, G2, G2, G2,G2, G2, G2, G2,

Xiolablu3
09-02-2009, 06:22 AM
109G2 is the best overall 109 in the game if you mean all-rounder.

The 109K4 is obviously the fastest if you just need speed however.

X32Wright
09-02-2009, 04:31 PM
I disagree http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The G-6/AS has prety much the same handling as the G-2 but has boost/WEP so it can handle late IXes and Mustangs and Jug at high alt then the G-2. The G-2 although very nice cannot match the speed at high alt of the late Allied planes.

This is why I prefer the G-10 as the best compromise between a K-4 and a G-2.

megalopsuche
09-02-2009, 04:53 PM
If only the G-10 had a MG 151/20. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

general_kalle
09-02-2009, 05:18 PM
the only plane that lets me suvive against spitfires is the F4...
you can turn with them if you do it right!

X32Wright
09-02-2009, 05:42 PM
LOL That's just wrong. I won't ever turn with a Spitfire. I also won't do climb and dive in a Spitfire either. I'd rather maintain the abilities and advantage of my plane (a 109) instead of flying it the way my opponent's plane does.

Even in Peter Townsend's DUEL OF EAGLES book (a book about BoB) this doctrine is followed. Spits do mostly 'Turns' while 109 do mostly 'Climbs and Dives'.

Surely the F4 is adequate for turning with a Spitfire but is at a disadvantage when dealing with IXEs and Spit25lbs.

WTE_Galway
09-02-2009, 05:56 PM
Did a F4 ever in reality fight a Spit 25 ???

doraemil
09-02-2009, 10:55 PM
Depends what you want it to do . . .

The emils can turn with AM6 and AM5 's vs ace AI.


I like the late F series or G2 for speed / some turn performance / not needing boost . . .

K for speed

Fire power . . . But I tend to like the 30 m nose cannon variants and the late G series.

caveat: I don't fly German planes much online though, not good enough a pilot to make use of the nerfed FM's Germans get.


My opinon:

The americans get good jabo / BZ planes / altitude. Japanese get TnB, Russians get TnB w/ BnZ and best sets of cannons. British planes are all arounders w. TnB. But the Germans get average FM's ok cannons (the hispanos and Ki84c + russian ones are way better).

Esp the FW 190 *cries* but closed case / there are enough threads on that topic.

But at least the saving grace is the Stuka for ground action and the new night fighter with the offical upcoming patch.


Maybe when my skill gets up.

Waldo.Pepper
09-02-2009, 11:44 PM
Grateful no one has suggested the Z yet. Thankfully there must be more purists like myself around these days.

DKoor
09-03-2009, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by doraemil:
Depends what you want it to do . . .

The emils can turn with AM6 and AM5 's vs ace AI.
Any Ai can be outturned by anything that shows nothing...

Don't be confused by this, try it online and you will see.

This has nothing with your "ability" but everything with your plane's ability.

WOLFMondo
09-03-2009, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
Did a F4 ever in reality fight a Spit 25 ???

Highly unlikely!! I guess cross referencing the JG's in western europe at the right time but of the top of my head JG2 and JG26 were mainly FW's.

JuHa-
09-03-2009, 11:37 AM
F4: Pure joy to fly, reasonable visibility from the cockpit and very fast in '41 scenarios.

Xiolablu3
09-03-2009, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by X32Wright:
I disagree http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The G-6/AS has prety much the same handling as the G-2 but has boost/WEP so it can handle late IXes and Mustangs and Jug at high alt then the G-2. The G-2 although very nice cannot match the speed at high alt of the late Allied planes.

This is why I prefer the G-10 as the best compromise between a K-4 and a G-2.

Sorry I forgot about the 109G6A/S. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Definitely a good contender for best 109.

WTE_Galway
09-03-2009, 12:53 PM
I reckon the G6as is what the G6 late SHOULD have been.

At some altitude (on the deck ?) it seems to be almost the fastest of the 109's though havent really checked that and its sustained climb up to 8000 - 10000 seems right up there as well,

DKoor
09-03-2009, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by X32Wright:
I disagree http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The G-6/AS has prety much the same handling as the G-2 but has boost/WEP so it can handle late IXes and Mustangs and Jug at high alt then the G-2. The G-2 although very nice cannot match the speed at high alt of the late Allied planes.

This is why I prefer the G-10 as the best compromise between a K-4 and a G-2.

Sorry I forgot about the 109G6A/S. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Definitely a good contender for best 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>For eastern front there is no better 109 than G6AS... for western front G10 is da bomb. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

IMO of course... someone may find some other variant better, but these suit to most like a glove to the hand... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Postman47
09-03-2009, 03:59 PM
whats the difference in g6, g6as, and g10? they all kinda seem the same to me

The_Stealth_Owl
09-03-2009, 04:02 PM
Dont ask that question, you'l start a huge conversation... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I don't liker the Bf-109 any more, now I like the Me-262A-1.

Whitch is beter, the A-1 or the A-2?(Me-262)

X32Wright
09-03-2009, 04:13 PM
G-6 and late G-6: slow and heavy mostly for bomber killer (viermot), this is why it's best used as a 'kanonenboot'.

G-6/AS: high altitude version which handles like a boosted G-2, light and agile and faster then G-2.

G-10: A K-4 in Gustav frame without the weight and gun limitations. Best compromise for fighting Late Spitfires and Mustangs.

If you dont feel the differences between all the 109s then you havent flown the 109s much. You can even feel the difference if the plane has 50 or 75% fuel much less if it has gunpods or not or if you're flying a G-2 vs a G-6 or even an G-6/AS

megalopsuche
09-03-2009, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by Postman47:
whats the difference in g6, g6as, and g10? they all kinda seem the same to me

I'll give it a go:

The largest differences are the cowling shape and the engine.

The 109G-6 had a DB605 engine, about 1475hp.

The 109G-6/AS had a DB605, but with the supercharger of the DB603 (think high altitude performance). It also used a Methanol Water boost system to generate about 1800hp at lower altitudes. To make room for the larger supercharger, the cowling was redesigned and they got rid of those annoying bulges over the MG 131s.

The 109G-10 had the next development of the DB605, the DB605D. This aircraft also used Methanol Water boost and also had the more streamlined cowling. In some cases, it can be very difficult to distinguish a G-10 from a G-6/AS or a G-14/AS, but the deeper oil cooler of the G-10 in addition to the "chin bulges" for the DB605D are where you need to look.

These aircraft also featured a variety of tail assemblies, tailwheel lengths, and wings (different shapes to accommodate the undercarriage). Early production G-6 aircraft also lacked the erla-haube canopy and bullet-proof headrest, but so far as I know every G-6/AS and G-10 displays them.

AndyJWest
09-03-2009, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by The_Stealth_Owl:
Dont ask that question, you'l start a huge conversation... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
'conversation'? I've not heard it called that before. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

And like I said before, G2: G6's are ugly, and later 109s are all too heavy. If you are going to fly something too heavy to turn, you might as well fly a Fw 190. (That should start another 'conversation' too). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

The_Stealth_Owl
09-03-2009, 04:21 PM
One of the kids in my class called the Bf-109 gay...Get Him!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

megalopsuche
09-03-2009, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by AndyJWest:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The_Stealth_Owl:
Dont ask that question, you'l start a huge conversation... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
'conversation'? I've not heard it called that before. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

And like I said before, G2: G6's are ugly, and later 109s are all too heavy. If you are going to fly something too heavy to turn, you might as well fly a Fw 190. (That should start another 'conversation' too). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You shouldn't be relying on turn in any 109.

na85
09-03-2009, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by megalopsuche:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyJWest:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The_Stealth_Owl:
Dont ask that question, you'l start a huge conversation... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
'conversation'? I've not heard it called that before. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

And like I said before, G2: G6's are ugly, and later 109s are all too heavy. If you are going to fly something too heavy to turn, you might as well fly a Fw 190. (That should start another 'conversation' too). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You shouldn't be relying on turn in any 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends on the aircraft your opponent is flying.

Against the later US fighters I'd say it's perfectly acceptable to use angles tactics.

WTE_Galway
09-03-2009, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by The_Stealth_Owl:
One of the kids in my class called the Bf-109 gay...Get Him!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

LOL

Just point out that its the Spitfire and the P51D that have the effete girly curves and whiny RR engine whereas the 109 is all chunky and manly with a deep throated growly Daimler Benz.

Then show him this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYLyrEsTZ60

and point out the macho nature of the G10 versus the obvious pretty boy gayness of the Spitfire http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG52Karaya-X
09-03-2009, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by The_Stealth_Owl:
Whitch is beter, the A-1 or the A-2?(Me-262)

LOL, the A-1 is the fighter version, the A-2 the fighter bomber, mate! So the A-1 for dogfights obviously, the A-2 also only has one pair of Mk108 cannons!

As for the G-6/AS ingame:

It's a fantasy plane really! The real G-6/AS was simply put a G-6 Late (Erla hood, Galland armour) with a DB605AS engine (bigger DB603 supercharger) of 1435PS (less power due to the engine having to drive the bigger SC). It was also slightly heavier than the G-6, all of which resulted in it having worse performance at altitudes up to around 7000m (the rated altitude of the G-6). However it was far superior above that altitude reaching a topspeed of 660km/h at 8900m!

The real G-6/AS did NOT have MW-50, its engine the DB605AS simply couldnt use it!

Our ingame G-6/AS isnt even a G-14/AS, that one had the DB605ASB, ASC or ASM engine of 1850, 2000 or 1800PS respectively and a rated altitude of 7500m. Topspeeds were around 680-700km/h at that same altitude.

Ours does 690km/h at 6000m, that corresponds to no version of the Bf109 in existance.

A real G-6/AS in IL-2 would be nice, for fighting those Jugs in their own playground. Luckily I'm making a new slot mod G-6/AS which will soon be released (flight models done)

As to the initial question:
I'd take the G-10 or K-4, love 'em both!

megalopsuche
09-03-2009, 08:09 PM
That's news to me. Can I ask for your source? Prien and Rodeike have a photo of 109G-6/AS fighters with red undercarriage legs, which so far as I know indicates higher octane fuel and MW 50.

JG52Karaya-X
09-04-2009, 03:00 AM
Some G-6/AS fighters were upgraded with MW-50 over time and with the necessary DB605ASB, ASC or ASM engines so thats where they got their red legs from. That way they are almost identical to the later G-14/AS!

Either way the performance of our stock aircraft is way off, doesnt fit any of the two aircraft even remotely.

About sources:

Kürfürsts page is valuable source, here's a report about the G-14/U4 with DB605AM (our G-14) and with the DB605ASM (effectively making it a G-14/AS.

http://www.kurfurst.org/Perfor...en_g14u4_am-asm.html (http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G14_PBLeistungen/Leistungen_g14u4_am-asm.html)

Or for a G-5 with DB605AS (pressurized fighter)

http://www.kurfurst.org/Perfor...messung_109g5AS.html (http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G5AS_Lmessung/messung_109g5AS.html)

DKoor
09-04-2009, 06:38 AM
Originally posted by X32Wright:
G-6 and late G-6: slow and heavy mostly for bomber killer (viermot), this is why it's best used as a 'kanonenboot'.

G-6/AS: high altitude version which handles like a boosted G-2, light and agile and faster then G-2.

G-10: A K-4 in Gustav frame without the weight and gun limitations. Best compromise for fighting Late Spitfires and Mustangs.

If you dont feel the differences between all the 109s then you havent flown the 109s much. You can even feel the difference if the plane has 50 or 75% fuel much less if it has gunpods or not or if you're flying a G-2 vs a G-6 or even an G-6/AS That is about spot on...

megalopsuche
09-04-2009, 06:53 AM
Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
Some G-6/AS fighters were upgraded with MW-50 over time and with the necessary DB605ASB, ASC or ASM engines so thats where they got their red legs from. That way they are almost identical to the later G-14/AS!


Would the difference have to do with which aircraft were upgrades waiting for repairs vs aircraft that were factory built?

waffen-79
09-04-2009, 12:51 PM
for me it's

1. K-4
2. G-10
3. G-2
4. F-4
5. E-7

(Kanonen-Boot when available)

regarless of theater of operations or planeset, I prefer the 109 in that order

Treetop64
09-04-2009, 01:00 PM
I picked the G-10, but I would have considered the G-2 had you included it in the poll... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-04-2009, 01:29 PM
The F4 is my favorite of all the 109s. A magnificent aircraft and one of the top three easiest to fly in the game in my opinion.

The G2 is the best versus any aircraft in its year and under. Easiest aircraft in the game to fly versus its enemy. Although I see it is not in your poll...which is strange.

S!

Xiolablu3
09-04-2009, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
The F4 is my favorite of all the 109s. A magnificent aircraft and one of the top three easiest to fly in the game in my opinion.

The G2 is the best versus any aircraft in its year and under. Easiest aircraft in the game to fly versus its enemy. Although I see it is not in your poll...which is strange.

S!

Totally agree.

Its the 109F4 if I can pick any 109, and also pick the year to fight, but of course the 109F4 would not be much use in 1945.

TS_Sancho
09-04-2009, 04:03 PM
but of course the 109F4 would not be much use in 1945

I dunno, a BF109F if flown to its strengths is a formidable opponent against anything short of a jet imho.

Compared to most late war aircraft it is still reasonably fast, manueverable and has a decent climbrate.

freakvollder
09-05-2009, 01:43 AM
I fly the Bf-109K4 very often in a 1944/45 Plane set on WarClouds. Its a nice Plane and the fastest plane that the Luftwaffe had in this years. I don't fly the F4 variant often but I think that for the early years it is fantastic.

~S~

Xiolablu3
09-05-2009, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">but of course the 109F4 would not be much use in 1945

I dunno, a BF109F if flown to its strengths is a formidable opponent against anything short of a jet imho.

Compared to most late war aircraft it is still reasonably fast, manueverable and has a decent climbrate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think a Spitfire LFIX 1943 would walk all over the 109F4.

It would be a case of the 109F4 cant climb, cant turn, cant run.

megalopsuche
09-05-2009, 07:14 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">but of course the 109F4 would not be much use in 1945

I dunno, a BF109F if flown to its strengths is a formidable opponent against anything short of a jet imho.

Compared to most late war aircraft it is still reasonably fast, manueverable and has a decent climbrate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think a Spitfire LFIX 1943 would walk all over the 109F4.

It would be a case of the 109F4 cant climb, cant turn, cant run. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The G-2 is only slightly better off with its improved climbrate.

Xiolablu3
09-05-2009, 10:13 AM
Its much like puting a Spitfire V vs a 109G2.

I suppose the Spit can turnfight, though.

Kettenhunde
09-05-2009, 10:22 AM
I suppose the Spit can turnfight, though.


Sure if the fight gets that slow in your 7500lb - 8000lbs ~1000(+) horsepower fighter.

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-05-2009, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

I suppose the Spit can turnfight, though.

So can the G2 IMHO.

S!

AndyJWest
09-05-2009, 10:46 AM
I really don't understand this 'X is a turn n burn fighter' vs 'Y is only zoom and boom' stuff. Yes, some are better than others in a particular situation, but with any fighter, you need to do what you can in the situation you are in. If I'm in a Spit Vb at 4000m, and I find a lone Fw 190 at 2500m, I'm not going to gently waft down to engage him in a turning fight, I'm going to push my nose down and fill him with holes, then pull away and come back if I've missed. Likewise, if the only thing I can do in a tight spot when I'm flying a 190 is to turn then turn I will. Of course you need to make the best tactical use of your aircraft's capabilities, but this is an air-combat simulation, not a chess match. Unexpected things happen, and coping with them is part of the fun.

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-05-2009, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by AndyJWest: but this is an air-combat simulation, not a chess match.

Actually its much like a chess match. Never cared for the TnB/BnZ classifications either and find them quite silly. It is rookie discussion IMO.

S!

TS_Sancho
09-05-2009, 12:13 PM
For the record ALL fighter type combat aircraft are energy fighters.

AndyJWest
09-05-2009, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
For the record ALL fighter type combat aircraft are energy fighters.
+ 1 to that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Xiolablu3
09-05-2009, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I suppose the Spit can turnfight, though.


Sure if the fight gets that slow in your 7500lb - 8000lbs ~1000(+) horsepower fighter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A ww2 aircraft can turn at any speed, but some can turn inside (better than) others. Horizontal turn rate is extremely useful when deflection shooting (leading the target).


S/L Colin Gray, with No. 81 Squadron flying Spitfire IXs in North Africa,
commented on a 3 April 1943 combat:
"Just as I completed my turn I saw another aircraft coming towards me at
high speed, and as he flashed past I recognized a 109G2. He also
obviously recognized me as hostile because he immediately pulled into a
screaming left-hand turn and attempted to dogfight. This was a big
mistake because there was no way a 109 could turn inside a Spitfire. It
took only a few minutes to get on his tail and a short burst with cannon
and machine-guns produced much smoke, glycol, and large chunks falling
off. The pilot immediately pulled up and bailed out, but we were still
close to the ground, and although his parachute appeared to stream, it
did not open before the poor beggar hit the ground."


F/Lt. Irving "Hap" Kennedy No. 185 Flyins SPitfire IX's over Malta : -
"We knew from years
of experience, dating back to the boys who had been in the Battle of
Britain, that the 109 with its slim thirty-two foot wing was initially
faster in a dive than we were. But we accepted that compromise happily
in exchange for our broad superior-lift wing with its better climb and
turn. One couldn't have it both ways."

Israelis accidently engaging the RAF :-

"At 7,000 feet over the border, Weizman spotted eight aircraft ahead. He waggled his wings to attract the attention of his patrol and climbed to 8,500 feet. The eight RAF Tempests Weizman had spotted flew in two quartets beneath the Israelis, in all probability oblivious to their presence. Although the top RAF element was meant to number six aircraft, it seems these eight Tempests were the top cover and not the middle.

The Israelis banked right and made an attack. On the first pass, Schroeder knocked a Tempest out of the sky - the RAF airplane had gone out of control and spun in, the pilot, F/O David Crossley Tattersfield, probably killed in the initial attack. A furball ensued, ***in which the slower, but more nimble Spitfire LF 9s of the Israelis could outfight the heavier and faster Tempests.*** Weizman hit one Tempest with a long burst and his companions damaged two others, but they, like the rest of the RAF aircraft there and below, quit the combat and outran the Israelis. Weizman's target landed safely at Al Arish."


F/Lt. P. F. Kennard of 340 (F.F.) Squadron recorded in his Combat Report
for 9 March 1943:
I was flying in “Turban” squadron as Red 3, when we bounced a
batch of E/A south of St. Omer. Following Red Leader in a very tight
turn, I saw two FW 190’s diving and followed them for a few seconds,
when I noticed another FW 190 on my tail. I immediately took evasive
action, weaving and diving, when I spotted another E/A not far behind
the first. I dived for cloud cover to the north, towards the sea, and
reached the coast (I believe east of Calais) with the two E/A about 2000
yds. behind. Suddenly, coming out of a patch of cloud at 4000 ft. I met
an FW 190 coming straight towards me. We both opened fire at about 700
yds., closing rapidly. I saw a piece fly off his port wing and a large
hole appeared in my starboard wing, and I was forced over onto my back.
I saw the E/A spin into the sea and the pilot fell out, but his
parachute did not open.
**A DOGFIGHT AT FULL THROTTLE** then ensued with the two FW 190’s,
lasting about **10 MINUTES**. I had to hold the stick with both hands to
keep control. I released my hood at 100 ft. above the sea, thinking I
might have to get out quickly. I did a series of tight turns and at
least five times was forced over on my back, when I relaxed my pressure
on the stick.
I kept looking round every few seconds to keep a careful watch
on the two E/A who were never far away, but suddenly I noticed that one
had disappeared. We were flying at less than 100 ft. at the time and I
saw a big oily patch on the water, so it seems certain that the E/A went
in, and I claim this also destroyed.
I then tried to climb a bit. The last FW 190 came so close at
one moment that I saw the pilot’s features very clearly. I cannot
remember what I did exactly, but at about 2000 ft. I saw the FW 190
right below me and slightly in front. I pushed the stick and fired a
short burst. I saw a piece fly off his left wing and smoke come from his
engine, then he disappeared below me. Turning again, I saw him diving
gently away, still pouring out brown smoke. I then flew westwards for
home, climbing as much as I could.

Bremspropeller
09-05-2009, 01:41 PM
Another time, xiolablu turns a Bf109-thread into a Spitfire worship-fest based on over-generalizing pilot-quotes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-05-2009, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
For the record ALL fighter type combat aircraft are energy fighters.

I been preaching that around here for 8 years! I been wondering when it would catch on! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

S!

Kettenhunde
09-05-2009, 02:12 PM
A ww2 aircraft can turn at any speed, but some can turn inside (better than) others.

The physics of aircraft turn performance has been discussed quite a few times in these forums.

I think most of the folks understand that the portion any aircraft will realize a significant turning advantage is a small portion of the envelope and is based upon the aircrafts V-speeds.

That is why low velocity sustained level turn performance was not considered a primary combat characteristic in the progression of WWII fighter development.

The sustained maneuvering envelope consisting of rate and agility was a major consideration and not to be confused with a minimum radius sustained level turn in isolation.

The higher the aircrafts velocity, the more of a combat advantage the design could gain over opponents.

Which leads us back to TS_Sancho's observation:


For the record ALL fighter type combat aircraft are energy fighters

All the best,

Crumpp

Xiolablu3
09-07-2009, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Another time, xiolablu turns a Bf109-thread into a Spitfire worship-fest based on over-generalizing pilot-quotes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif


Cant you just get off my back?


If you dont like my posts then just dont read them.

The ignore button is great. I would enjoy it very much if you used it.


My post is NOTHING to do with 'Spitfire worshipping' they are simply to show that dogfights and turning fights took place all the time in WW2.

You just get upset when I post anything regarding the Spitfire. Even if its not in the context of the thread? Why not get upset when people quote good things about the FW190 which happens just as often?

Kettenhunde implied that turning battles and dogifghts rarely happened in WW2. I wanted to show that they did occur often and that turning hard and better than your opponent was very much valued. Nothing to do with 'Spitfire worshipping'. but I guess you have to be an adult to understand this.

They are simply all about the Spitfire because I pulled them all from a Spit IX combat reports page. Unfotunatly I dont have any FW190 or Bf109 combat reports. But I am sure they also talk about turning hard to get on enemies tails etc.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBdJyLx4aqI

Funnily enough he doesnt talk about V-speeds at all!

DKoor
09-07-2009, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
For the record ALL fighter type combat aircraft are energy fighters.

I been preaching that around here for 8 years! I been wondering when it would catch on! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gifyou got another follower here...

Bremspropeller
09-07-2009, 03:30 PM
Kettenhunde implied that turning battles and dogifghts rarely happened in WW2. I wanted to show that they did occur often and that turning hard and better than your opponent was very much valued. Nothing to do with 'Spitfire worshipping'. but I guess you have to be an adult to understand this.

Well, obviously, being a so called "adult" is not enough to realize that a mere 10-15% is not called "the majority".
It also seems not to be enough to realize that turn-performance is a function of speed, altitude, momentary thrust and weight and the pilot's physical ability to turn Gs.

This has now been extensively shown about 50 times on this forum.
Yet you still continue to mention your "tight turning dogfights"-philosophy over and over again.
Almost sounds like a broken record.


My post is NOTHING to do with 'Spitfire worshipping' they are simply to show that dogfights and turning fights took place all the time in WW2.

Really?
They appear to include the words "Spitfire" or "Spit" quite often.
Spitfire here, Spitfire there - Spitfire anywhere! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
Why not be more creative and find qoutes about other fighters while searching for proof about your theory?
Then again, there just might be some sub-surface agenda going on.

Maybe it doesn't appear that thay way to you.
To me and others, it does.


Unfotunatly I dont have any FW190 or Bf109 combat reports. But I am sure they also talk about turning hard to get on enemies tails etc.

There's a difference between a "turn to kill" and a "turn to engage".
Most turs are for the kill.
Now if there's an isolated event where two fighters make it out between themselves - fine!
About 90% of all engagements were "see, attack, seperate".

If someone tells he's turning inside the other guy because of his plane's superrior turn:
How does he know?

Where does he know from that the other guy flies his a/c to it's edge?
Maybe the other guy is a dweeb.
Maybe he's scared as hell because this is his first mission or his medication has unknown side-effects.
Maybe he's flying the squadron-dog.
Maybe his hamster died and he has a bad day.
Maybe he's ill.

Do you ever think of that when reading those "god-given" pilot-accounts?
Seems to me as if you're just reading and believing everything.
Just like lil Joe when dad tells him of the Boogie-man.

Pilot-reports are about as trustworthy as people claiming to predict the lottery-numbers.
Pilot-talk consists of 50% pure BS:
Oversimplification, exaggeration, making oneself look better, etc.

Chuck Yeager shot down 5 Luftwaffe fighters one day?
Yeah right, he watched three crash into the ground and each other and shot down the other two.

There are numerous stories of that magnitude - no matter which side of the game.

Sorry to bust your bubble, but that's the way it is.

JSG72
09-07-2009, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Kettenhunde implied that turning battles and dogifghts rarely happened in WW2. I wanted to show that they did occur often and that turning hard and better than your opponent was very much valued. Nothing to do with 'Spitfire worshipping'. but I guess you have to be an adult to understand this.

Well, obviously, being a so called "adult" is not enough to realize that a mere 10-15% is not called "the majority".
It also seems not to be enough to realize that turn-performance is a function of speed, altitude, momentary thrust and weight and the pilot's physical ability to turn Gs.

This has now been extensively shown about 50 times on this forum.
Yet you still continue to mention your "tight turning dogfights"-philosophy over and over again.
Almost sounds like a broken record.


My post is NOTHING to do with 'Spitfire worshipping' they are simply to show that dogfights and turning fights took place all the time in WW2.

Really?
They appear to include the words "Spitfire" or "Spit" quite often.
Spitfire here, Spitfire there - Spitfire anywhere! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
Why not be more creative and find qoutes about other fighters while searching for proof about your theory?
Then again, there just might be some sub-surface agenda going on.

Maybe it doesn't appear that thay way to you.
To me and others, it does.


Unfotunatly I dont have any FW190 or Bf109 combat reports. But I am sure they also talk about turning hard to get on enemies tails etc.

There's a difference between a "turn to kill" and a "turn to engage".
Most turs are for the kill.
Now if there's an isolated event where two fighters make it out between themselves - fine!
About 90% of all engagements were "see, attack, seperate".

If someone tells he's turning inside the other guy because of his plane's superrior turn:
How does he know?

Where does he know from that the other guy flies his a/c to it's edge?
Maybe the other guy is a dweeb.
Maybe he's scared as hell because this is his first mission or his medication has unknown side-effects.
Maybe he's flying the squadron-dog.
Maybe his hamster died and he has a bad day.
Maybe he's ill.

Do you ever think of that when reading those "god-given" pilot-accounts?
Seems to me as if you're just reading and believing everything.
Just like lil Joe when dad tells him of the Boogie-man.

Pilot-reports are about as trustworthy as people claiming to predict the lottery-numbers.
Pilot-talk consists of 50% pure BS:
Oversimplification, exaggeration, making oneself look better, etc.

Chuck Yeager shot down 5 Luftwaffe fighters one day?
Yeah right, he watched three crash into the ground and each other and shot down the other two.

There are numerous stories of that magnitude - no matter which side of the game.

Sorry to bust your bubble, but that's the way it is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You forgot to mention that you were retaliating to Xiolablu3s post.

Anyways JMTW.

Best in IL2'46 is the ME 109 G14!

I have only flown it a few times. but it is a reat flyer. Could just do with bigger guns http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif(No Troll http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif)

Kettenhunde
09-07-2009, 08:23 PM
Kettenhunde implied that turning battles and dogifghts rarely happened in WW2.

My post had nothing to do with the frequency of turning fights. You read that in yourself.

Eow_TK
09-07-2009, 09:37 PM
That has nothing to do with "what 109 is best".

I like the G6 personally. Just seems to fit me. I turn with it. (dont start please.) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

paradoxguy
09-08-2009, 01:17 AM
This runs against majority opinion apparently, but the best variant in my experience is the Bf 109K-14. I find it's almost as maneuverable as the Bf 109G-6/AS and the G-10, climbs much faster (the K-series is historically the fastest 109 climber), and has a much more lethal armament than all other 109's. In particular, I feel the default two-machine-gun-one-20mm-cannon centerline armament of most Bf 109's is too light, even with the 13mm machine guns; it's effective against most fighters, but much less so against larger aircraft.

jermin122
09-08-2009, 03:03 AM
Originally posted by megalopsuche:
If only the G-10 had a MG 151/20. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

The weight of MK 108 is wrongly modeled in the game. The weight of MK 108 + 65 rounds should be a bit less then the weight of MG 151/20 + 200 rounds. So the 109 equiped with MK 108 should have the same performance as those with MG 151/20.

You can easily feel the extra weight of MK 108 in the 109 in the game. Hope Oleg will take some time and fix this annoying problem.

Another modeling error occors on the weight of the G6-Early, which is more or less the same as G2 except an extra radio device if I recall correctly.

In one word, most Bf 109 variant, if not all, should be much better perfromace wise.

Besides these, the most terrible error of the 109 modeling that I cannot stand is the cockpit frame of all 109 variants. Oleg just totally messed them up.

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-08-2009, 04:06 PM
In one word, most Bf 109 variant, if not all, should be much better perfromace wise.

Come on now. The 109s like most aircraft are very close to real world performance. Any discrepancies does not put it at a disadvantage versus allied aircraft at least.

When it comes to performance issues concerning load outs the same can be said for just about all aircraft in the game.

S!

La7_brook
09-08-2009, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In one word, most Bf 109 variant, if not all, should be much better perfromace wise.

Come on now. The 109s like most aircraft are very close to real world performance. Any discrepancies does not put it at a disadvantage versus allied aircraft at least.

When it comes to performance issues concerning load outs the same can be said for just about all aircraft in the game.

S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol ya joking right ?the 109 can hardly pull out of dive in Oleys world at 400kph , he has all 109,s flying around with one hand tied behind there back

megalopsuche
09-08-2009, 05:18 PM
Am I going to get in trouble with the moderators again if I ask if this is a troll?