PDA

View Full Version : problem with the bf 109z model?



porcupine1
03-26-2004, 03:02 AM
ive noticed that the bf 109z in the game was made using a late g6 airframe it should have been an early g6 airframe.
http://www.luft46.com/mess/me109z.html
Ive check a ton of sources and the are all showing drawings of the Z with an early g6 cowl type. IAm I wrong? most likely but who can tell.

porcupine1
03-26-2004, 03:02 AM
ive noticed that the bf 109z in the game was made using a late g6 airframe it should have been an early g6 airframe.
http://www.luft46.com/mess/me109z.html
Ive check a ton of sources and the are all showing drawings of the Z with an early g6 cowl type. IAm I wrong? most likely but who can tell.

ASM 1
03-26-2004, 03:34 AM
I have also read that the planned 109z had MW50 boost and ours doesn't http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif Must go dig up my book and check. Mind you, given the way the thing flies do we need it I wonder???? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif

cheers

Andrew

FA_Whisky
03-26-2004, 03:44 AM
Did this thing even fly? Does Oleg have any test data or is it all made up?

It almost goes and turns like a K4, i think is should be more like a faster P38 getting real heavy on the controls at high speed.

SeaFireLIV
03-26-2004, 03:52 AM
The ruddy thing didn`t even fly. No one even knows what it`s FMs really should be. You can start a whine thread on this , but it`s pretty pointless. My personal whine would be it seems to fly too well, I`m sure in reality it would be very nose heavy and unwieldy, more a bomber than fighter worthiness.

ASM 1
03-26-2004, 03:54 AM
I think the prototype did fly, before it was destroyed. In terms of flight model, well they already had plenty of data for the 109 G6 and if there is even a little data on the characteristics of the Z which Oleg and co had access to then surely it would not have been too difficult to fill in the gaps? I dunno, guess we'll have to ask oleg...

Not complaining - current drive of choice is the TA152, but the armamaent on the 109z is certainly fun! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

cheers

Andrew

porcupine1
03-26-2004, 04:10 AM
oh i dont want to start a whine thread about did it fly or not or should it be in the game. it just that even the basic 3d model seems to be obviously wrong. odd.

to me this game is the perfect platform to see those planes that never were able to fly, fly!

no it never flew it was undergoing preflight tests when it was damaged in an airraid. they franticly worked on it to repair it but abandoned it for the me 262.

it never flew, but then agian how much action did the russian b1 rocketplane see?

ASM 1
03-26-2004, 06:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by porcupine1:
to me this game is the perfect platform to see those planes that never were able to fly, fly!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll go along with that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Can we have a DO 635 then please? (basically two 335's joined together?) or just a 335 on its own would be nice.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
no it never flew it was undergoing preflight tests when it was damaged in an airraid. they franticly worked on it to repair it but abandoned it for the me 262.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I stand corrected, thought it did fly - ah well.

Thanks

Andrew

p1ngu666
03-26-2004, 09:12 AM
yeah i wondered about the cowl bumps, why have them if u dont have the MG's?
its also chronicaly fast, atleast thats what a airrace showed, blitzed p38s

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

BlitzPig_DDT
03-26-2004, 09:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
The ruddy thing didn`t even fly. No one even knows what it`s FMs really should be. You can start a whine thread on this , but it`s pretty pointless. My personal whine would be it seems to fly too well, I`m sure in reality it would be very nose heavy and unwieldy, more a bomber than fighter worthiness.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

Papa_K
03-26-2004, 10:10 AM
Compiled from sites listing variants of the Bf-109:

"Another extreme variant was the "Bf-109Z Zwilling (Siamese Twin)", which consisted of two Bf-109F-4 airframes joined together to make a single aircraft. It was conceptually similar to the American P-82 Twin Mustang, except that only the left fuselage had a cockpit. Messerschmitt proposed the idea as a means of providing the Luftwaffe with a long-range Jabo that would leverage off existing Bf-109 production tooling.

Messerschmitt got the go-ahead from the RLM in early 1942. Two variants were planned, including the "Bf-109Z-1" bomber destroyer ("Zerstoerer") with five 30 millimeter guns, and the "Bf-109Z-2" Jabo with twin 30 millimeter cannon and a one-tonne bomb load. Advanced versions with the Junkers Jumo 213 engine were considered. The prototype was finished in mid-1943, but damaged by Allied bombers before it could fly. Attempts were made to repair it, but then the RLM ordered that the program be abandoned, as interest had moved on to improvements to the Focke-Wulf FW-190 and new jet-powered aircraft."


Personnally, I'm of two opinions on the 109Z:

RANT:
The 109Z, the mutant-that-never-flew, is becoming a common sight. It's one of the fastest things out there. While it can't turn-and-burn, the Z somehow overcomes the limitation that has beset production-model 109s. The high-speed "cement elevator" doesn't seem to be in place (yet) for the Z. The latest Bf-109 model available, the 109K, has now been neutered in AEP. The 109K's high speed pitch control is now limited, at best, making it difficult to use in diving attacks from well above a maneuvering target. In FB 1.22, the K's high-speed elevator response was not spectacular, but it allowed enough control to make life miserable for lower altitude foes. Obviously, something had to be done. (The high-speed control response of the production 109 series, or at least the K, may now be more "accurately" represented.) Enter the 109Z, a multi-cannon twin-fuselage freak, blasting its way into the "realism" factors of this sim/game. Can't wait for the "Hartmann in a Z" campaign. Make sure it's "cockpit view only".

RAVE:
The 109Z is fun to fly.

Papa_K

dahdah
03-26-2004, 10:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by asm016:


I'll go along with that. Can we have a DO 635 then please? (basically two 335's joined together?) or just a 335 on its own would be nice.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't you mean Ju635?

The preliminary design was designated the Do335Z(He P1075).

Aeronautico
03-26-2004, 02:16 PM
The cowl bumps thingie irritates me a bit too...

Even if based on LATE serial 109G-6's, I imagine the bumps would be removed anyway?

A.

--------------------
Airplanes are now built to carry a pilot and a dog in the cockpit: the pilot's job is
to feed the dog, and the dog's job is to bite the pilot if he touches anything...

- Arlen Rens, Lockheed Martin test pilot

73GIAP_Milan
03-26-2004, 02:24 PM
Since they are putting in all those "X planes" why not put in the Fokker DXXIII (D23) as well, and some more flying experiments like the Curtiss XP55 Ascender and Kyushu J7W1 Shinden..just to name a few...

Such craft should not be missing in such a futuristic game like IL2/FB http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif

Maybe a bit off topic, but i get a slight bit annoyed by all those ppl whining on craft that feature where actually not much info is available on....the programmers must work with everything they can lay their hands on, respect that and be glad that such aircraft were even put in...
And not to forget, if they are INDEED off from what they have been IRL, suggestions are always good to improve... no offense here..

EDIT: by the time i wrote this, i was in a grumpy mood, no offense again...i just need sleep http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Just ignore the parts you don't like in this post :P


Regards,

Der Tote Baron a.k.a. SK_Black_Knight....
______________________________
Sky Knights Squadron Leader

ASM 1
03-26-2004, 02:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dahdah:

Don't you mean _Ju635_?

The preliminary design was designated the Do335Z(He P1075).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not a clue about this one - the book I read says it was a DO 635 - planned "zwilling" version of the 335 with 4 DB603LA engines of 2000+ HP. Not much other info I am afraid as the book is rather sketchy - devotes all of a small paragraph to it. Whatever its called, DO/JU 635 I want one, it would be a beast! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif Although the 335 will do for starters. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

cheers

Andrew

CO_Eagle_31stFG
03-26-2004, 02:37 PM
I hate to be so negative about a plane, but there is no true way to answer anything about this aircraft DM or FM. This aircraft never flew not even for testing. As the prototype was being built, the hangar in which it was being built was destroyed in an allied bombing. The damage to the project was too extensive and the Germans did not return to this project instead they went on to the ME programs which had more potential.
Everything is based on thought not actual data, with one exception a picture of how the plane looked. So nobody can actually say the aircrafts DM FM or anything else isn't right or wrong. This is a freebee you get what you get.
True fiction http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Anyway the other aircraft in FB and AEP are really nice and enjoyable. Thanks for the rest Oleg. Thats all I have to say

ASM 1
03-26-2004, 03:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> So nobody can actually say the aircrafts DM FM or anything else isn't right or wrong. This is a freebee you get what you get.
True fiction http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Anyway the other aircraft in FB and AEP are really nice and enjoyable. Thanks for the rest Oleg. Thats all I have to say<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hear Hear! Lets not all moan too much (constructive criticism / speculation is ok, hey thats what the forums are here for) Dunno about anyone else, but I actually enjoy flying the 109z, Great for possible "what if" scenarios - as are the YP 80, BI-1 etc As CO_Eagle says - beggars cant be choosers - so what if the 109z is a bit out... who knows? If you don't like it, as has been said before, don't fly it. Not moaning myself, nor am I trying to stir things up - no point speculating as DTB says (sorry for shortening your name!) we dont have any data, so we cant comment one way or the other.... unless someone has found plans for the 109z in their attic/cellar somewhere hehe http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Take it for what it is - a representation of an aircraft in a computer flight sim - as are all the planes in FB, granted some of these may be more accurate representations than others, dependent on the data available in terms of plans, tests, veterans etc. but quite frankly I have never flown a 109, 190, La7, Spit or whatever (let alone in combat! - http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif to all those that did) so what do I know ? For me FB/AEP is as real as it gets, and I am more than happy with it "X-Planes or no "X-Planes" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif and IMHO we as a community are exteremely lucky to get what we get in terms of upgrades/patches etc.

Now... About that JU/DO 635...... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

Not trying to step on ayone's toes, just my 2 penny's worth

Cheers

Andrew

BlitzPig_DDT
03-26-2004, 03:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CO_Eagle_31stFG:
I hate to be so negative about a plane, but there is no true way to answer anything about this aircraft DM or FM. This aircraft never flew not even for testing. As the prototype was being built, the hangar in which it was being built was destroyed in an allied bombing. The damage to the project was too extensive and the Germans did not return to this project instead they went on to the ME programs which had more potential.
Everything is based on thought not actual data, with one exception a picture of how the plane looked. So nobody can actually say the aircrafts DM FM or anything else isn't right or wrong. This is a freebee you get what you get.
True fiction http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Anyway the other aircraft in FB and AEP are really nice and enjoyable. Thanks for the rest Oleg. Thats all I have to say<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

:::sigh:::

To be completely honest, I think people want to complain about this plane simply because it's LW and a good performer. In fact, they want to complain bitterly about any LW plane that is a good performer, it's just that most other ones are a bit harder to do that with because it's too easy for the average joe to present counter arguments.

Please consider what it is you guys are saying. You must realize that modern design techniques are heavily computer oriented. That is, prototyping is done in software. Designers know full well how the plane will perform long before it's ever built. Nothing is perfect, but their margin of error is well within the limits we currently have placed on us by this sims overall physics engine.

In other words, it doesn't matter if it ever flew for real or not, any good group of AEs and programmers - which everyone here falls overthemselves to crusade on behalf of any other time - worth their salt could come up with an accurate simulation of any aircraft, real or not.

Furthermore, consider this, the design's concept was old news long before the prototype was made, and we know that it was very viable. The 109 was a phenomenal climber with a great thrust to weight ratio. Wing tips produce considerable drag. Wings add to the weight of the aircraft. Now, look at the 109Z. Not quite 2 109s. 2 109s have 10 wing tip vorticies. The Z has 4. 2 109s have MGs mounted in the upper cowls, that's weight plus holes. The Z does not, and has those areas smoothed out. 2 109s have 2 canopies and hte drag produced from them. The Z's right hand fuselage has a smoothed out canopy area. Finally, the center section is smaller than 2 109 wings, and almost certainly lighter (less metal).

What you end up with is something with the thrust of 2 109s, but less weight and considerably less drag than 2 109s. Better T:W, much better T : D. Should we be surprised that it flies and performs well?

Finally, yet again I remind you that Oleg stated many moons ago that it was quite aerodynamically sound and that it would be easy to make an accurate FM for.

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

[This message was edited by BlitzPig_DDT on Fri March 26 2004 at 03:47 PM.]

porcupine1
03-26-2004, 03:46 PM
Warning RANT ahead! if you have a heart condition, pregnant, or under 5 feet tall,. you may not enjoy this rant.
Please keep hands and feet inside the rant at all times. do not exit the rant until it has come to a complete stop. and as always please no
flash photography. OK HERE WE GO !!!
WEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

GGRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif OK I NEVER SAID I DIDNT LIKE THE AIRCRAFT OR WAS UPSET THAT IT WAS IN THE GAME. I NEVER SAID I DIDNT APPRECEATE TH WORK THIRD PARTY MODDELERS DID. gshh my question was weather or not the Z used an early g6 or a late G6 airframe. I was wrong it is supposed to be an F4 airframe. I WASNT WHINEING CHILDREN!!! now for the love of god this is out of hand I post a simple issue and it turns into a whine thread! HIGHJACKED THREAD!
ok sorry i am better. nobody enjoys third party aircraft than me i love the oddballs and the crapplanes I was presenting a simple question. but for some reason every time I post here it turns into a whine thread or a won the war thread or a what if tha nazis thread! God I miss the old forums when you could have an intelegent conversation but why does it alwasy have to turn into this always????.
end of rant. I hope you enjoyed todays rant! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

westcoastphil
03-26-2004, 04:30 PM
Love it, love it, love it....just got off an online mission on Forgottenserver. 6 car kills with two bombs and two P38s downed on return to base...woo hoo!! Z is it. Ok...back to whining.

http://members.cox.net/riknbkr330/109f2.jpg

porcupine1
03-26-2004, 05:01 PM
SO I said if you are really a skunk why is your hat red?

Aeronautico
03-26-2004, 06:27 PM
porcupine, Oleg stated it is based on serial 109G-6 frames:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=231101662&r=995103862#995103862

Thread worth a visit:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=98110964&r=50210964#50210964

Aero

--------------------
Airplanes are now built to carry a pilot and a dog in the cockpit: the pilot's job is
to feed the dog, and the dog's job is to bite the pilot if he touches anything...

- Arlen Rens, Lockheed Martin test pilot