PDA

View Full Version : bf109 cant do anything



Afromike1
07-02-2008, 10:38 AM
My question is, since the 109 can only bnz because its turning sucks than why does the 109 lock up at high speeds since all it can really do is bnz. Why doesnt everyone just switch to the fw190? the spit turns better for the tnb and the fw190 is better for the bnz (and with more guns) so why do people even play the bf 109?

Afromike1
07-02-2008, 10:38 AM
My question is, since the 109 can only bnz because its turning sucks than why does the 109 lock up at high speeds since all it can really do is bnz. Why doesnt everyone just switch to the fw190? the spit turns better for the tnb and the fw190 is better for the bnz (and with more guns) so why do people even play the bf 109?

gorkyporky
07-02-2008, 10:48 AM
in my experience, altough somewhat limited with bf109, it turns pretty good. Use combat flaps (altough i dont, at least not much). I have sucesfuly managed to fight spits in bf109 online and offline. And it depends of what version you are using (as far as i know F-4 is the best).
I must point out again that this opinions come from limited use of this plane. I fly it only if need arises.

JtD
07-02-2008, 10:57 AM
It's fast and has a great rate of climb.

I'm not talking about the G-6 here, which sucks.

Deedsundone
07-02-2008, 11:15 AM
I always end up in a turn and burn eventually with the 109 when I fly it.Some I have more confidence in like the F2/4,G2 and G10/14 than the other models.Sometimes I win,sometimes I lose depending on the enemy fighter/pilot."If you end up T&B with a 109 you have used it wrong" someone will shout.Sure,but it can turn,from what I´ve experienced.Only my thoughts of it.

I prefer the 109 to the 190,cause I have confidence in it.The 190 I think I will never learn to like to fly,even if it looks good. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Xiolablu3
07-02-2008, 11:46 AM
I guess you must only fly late war.

stalkervision
07-02-2008, 12:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Afromike1:
My question is, since the 109 can only bnz because its turning sucks than why does the 109 lock up at high speeds since all it can really do is bnz. Why doesnt everyone just switch to the fw190? the spit turns better for the tnb and the fw190 is better for the bnz (and with more guns) so why do people even play the bf 109? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 109 turns pretty well. You just have to know how to get the best out of it.

Want to out-turn just about anything in the 109?

Use a "spiral tight turn climb" for evasion. It leaves just about everything in the dust.


You really have to get the slats "notched in" and the rudder full opposite direction and just right to do it though. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


Many many many times I have out climbed pairs of spits and P-51's using this trick. I hang right on the slats in a very tight spiral at full power. I say "notched in" because in the 109 you will literally feel the plane "notch in" when done right.


The plane will get to it's apparent max alieron spiral turn rate and just then you apply full opposite rudder and the whole plane will feel like it gets in a "notch" almost like you shifted the whole plane into third second gear!


I have used this manauver in every flight sim known to man in 109's of every make and model and it always works. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Afromike1
07-02-2008, 12:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I guess you must only fly late war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

actually I mainly fly the g2.

But what I'm hearing is that, okay... it can tnb and bnz just not so well. So why not just stick with a plane that can do really well in one of those areas? IMO I find the 109 sorta the "middle man" between really great tnb planes and bnz planes.

I also took a look at the skies-of-fire stats and I found out that the 109f got the second highest k/d ratio! how is that possible? even though it was flown less times, it was still flown 22 more times than the la-7 (with a k/d ratio of 1.41).

stalkervision
07-02-2008, 12:17 PM
Middle isn't always a bad thing that's why.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

ImMoreBetter
07-02-2008, 12:18 PM
The Bf-109F is arguably the best aircraft for it's period in the war.

stalkervision
07-02-2008, 12:19 PM
If you can really fly a 109 really really well you will be a man my son.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

JtD
07-02-2008, 12:20 PM
Bf 109F is the best fighter of 1941. Easy to rack up kills in it and survive.

G-2 is the king of climb in the mid war section. Keep the combat going up, and you'll be on the winning side. Don't follow downward turns. It is an excellent dogfighter for 1942.

stalkervision
07-02-2008, 12:27 PM
Funny,I use to really hate the 109 and felt exactly like you do. You fly it enough and soon you will say.."ah..it,s really not that bad". later you will learn all it little quirks and it will end up being your prefered plane if you fly it long enough. It really grows on you and I have to say has more "personality" imo ,if a plane can have such a thing, then any aircraft I know.

Btw this is exactly how many luftwaffe pilots felt of the 109. When given a choice between a new fw-190 and the old 109 they choose the 109!

Kurfurst__
07-02-2008, 12:28 PM
It climbs like a rocket, it has an elephant cannon in the nose, its fast, turns decent and above all, its is just incredibly forgiving.

Brain32
07-02-2008, 12:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Afromike1:
...so why do people even play the bf 109? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Which people? I play late war almost exclusively and 109's are practically extinct lol
Like Xiola said in earlier scenarios 109's are good to even awsome(109F4 imo being best) but after G2 it's plain joke, infact I would fly 109 a lot more often if I had 109F4 for late war WarClouds maps, as silly and ridiculous as it sounds it's far more appropriate for faster paced combat with late war planes!!!
I mean what is there to say when above 375kmh a freakin' 7 ton heavy fully fueled P-47 can manouver with you in 109K4 in just about every single aspect of flight and the quicker you go the more you are in disadvantage, at 400Kmh you are already in significant disadvantage and I'm talking sustained turning here, for God's sake that plane could probably carry two 109's under it's wings like TB3/I16 combination, not to mention how most sane people never take 100% of fuel as that is more than 2hours of flight and that's if you are hauling @ss all the time.
But they that's not even so bad, atleast you have some room to manouver with it, with other planes it's even worse and I'm not talking Spitfires here, Mustang3 for example has better apsolute turn time and it will kick your @ss down to about 330kmh, 5-ton Tempest is even worse with 310kmh all this without flaps and assuming 100% of fuel
Did you noticed how I bolded Kmh? That was to emphesize on the speed given, in late war that's stupidly slow.
Want another gem? Yes, the 1941 109F4 can actually manouver much better at theese speeds than K4 and none of those late war planes would be advised to engage it in manouvering combat below 400kmh!!! So basically a 1941 design is more appropriate for late 1944 combat than late 1944 design is http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
Now if that makes ANY sense to anybody of you - good for you, I'm staying in my Focke http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

F19_Orheim
07-02-2008, 12:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Afromike1:
... So why not just stick with a plane </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why stick with a plane at all?
Variation makes things more fun and interesting. To always go for the "best" plane might not always be the most fun... I like a challenge... and I like to fly different kind of rides.

SeaFireLIV
07-02-2008, 12:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Afromike1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I guess you must only fly late war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

actually I mainly fly the g2.

But what I'm hearing is that, okay... it can tnb and bnz just not so well. So why not just stick with a plane that can do really well in one of those areas? IMO I find the 109 sorta the "middle man" between really great tnb planes and bnz planes.

I also took a look at the skies-of-fire stats and I found out that the 109f got the second highest k/d ratio! how is that possible? even though it was flown less times, it was still flown 22 more times than the la-7 (with a k/d ratio of 1.41). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

this will probabaly be hard for you to understand. but some of us fly an aircraft because we just like them, not because they`re `uber` or `pwns` or best.

I`d love to see what you`d say if you had a go at the I16. It`s slow, can`t climb, can`t dive (just try diving with it, I dares you) and it`s easy to get p`ked in.

In fact the G2 is one of the few 109 planes I don`t mind flying because I can actually turn in it a bit. Put it into the hands of an expert and it`ll even turn with a Spit vb and shoot it down if quick enough.

stalkervision
07-02-2008, 12:47 PM
I have taken on 4 and more ace level P-51 in a 109 and won and not the fancier model 109's either. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

I assume the aircraft's fm's are the same in on-line Il-2 but I prefer to stay away from that particular dog and pony show.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

stalkervision
07-02-2008, 12:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Afromike1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I guess you must only fly late war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

actually I mainly fly the g2.

But what I'm hearing is that, okay... it can tnb and bnz just not so well. So why not just stick with a plane that can do really well in one of those areas? IMO I find the 109 sorta the "middle man" between really great tnb planes and bnz planes.

I also took a look at the skies-of-fire stats and I found out that the 109f got the second highest k/d ratio! how is that possible? even though it was flown less times, it was still flown 22 more times than the la-7 (with a k/d ratio of 1.41). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

this will probabaly be hard for you to understand. but some of us fly an aircraft because we just like them, not because they`re `uber` or `pwns` or best.

I`d love to see what you`d say if you had a go at the I16. It`s slow, can`t climb, can`t dive (just try diving with it, I dares you) and it`s easy to get p`ked in.

In fact the G2 is one of the few 109 planes I don`t mind flying because I can actually turn in it a bit. Put it into the hands of an expert and it`ll even turn with a Spit vb and shoot it down if quick enough. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


well said Seafire. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Brain32
07-02-2008, 01:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
this will probabaly be hard for you to understand. but some of us fly an aircraft because we just like them, not because they`re `uber` or `pwns` or best. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
"Uber", "pwns" or "best" a plane doesen't have to be, but it also does not have to be a helpless target...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
I`d love to see what you`d say if you had a go at the I16. It`s slow, can`t climb, can`t dive (just try diving with it, I dares you) and it`s easy to get p`ked in. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually if you look at the raw numbers you will see that I-16 is worse than 109E only in maximum speed and maximum dive speed both by a larege margin though, but it holds ALL other cards, sure I still prefer 109E but I-16 is VERY far away from helpless target. Now imagine a 109E could also easily turn with you down to like 10kmh above your stall speed and you will get Tempest vs late 109's situation...

quasimodo_3
07-02-2008, 01:26 PM
yer going too fast to do anything but B&Z, that's why you can't turn with it.

DuckyFluff
07-02-2008, 01:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by quasimodo_3:
yer going too fast to do anything but B&Z, that's why you can't turn with it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


And your definition of "too fast" is?

The late 109s are pure and simple PORKED.

Try to use them in historic manner and you will be slaughtered, the stupid concrete elevator at relatively low speed just plain kills it for me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

A great aircraft neutered for "game balance". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

quasimodo_3
07-02-2008, 01:47 PM
300kph is too fast for staying with a more maneuverable plane that you just bounced. Staying hard on the throttle while you're trying to stay with a prospect target's moves goes against the plane's better handling capabilities. Lose the throttle until your nose
is lined up with the target and then gun the throttle to catch up to him works alot better.

DuckyFluff
07-02-2008, 02:13 PM
300kph in a combat zone = 186.42 MPH = dead http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

You obviously have NO IDEA http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

SeaFireLIV
07-02-2008, 02:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:

"Uber", "pwns" or "best" a plane doesen't have to be, but it also does not have to be a helpless target... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where did I say that the i16 was a helples target? please tell me. I seem to have missed the bit where I typed that.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Actually if you look at the raw numbers you will see that I-16 is worse than 109E only in maximum speed and maximum dive speed both by a larege margin though, but it holds ALL other cards, sure I still prefer 109E but I-16 is VERY far away from helpless target. Now imagine a 109E could also easily turn with you down to like 10kmh above your stall speed and you will get Tempest vs late 109's situation... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look at the numbers? Fine, but looking just at numbers is not enough. how about the I16s famous neg-g cut out. An inexperienced I16 pilot won`t be even attempting any dive speeds if he gets that wrong. what about the pixie (technical term) of the type 18 guns? But, sure, ignore that and let`s look at the type 24.

In good hands, an I16 type 24 can hold its own against a 109 and is FAR from helpless, then again, against a good 109 pilot, the I16 has its work cut out and has the worse deal because a good 109 pilot can DICTATE the battle. He can attack and b&Z (even with G2), he can extend if the I 16 even looks like getting near, even the AI knows this.

So it`s NOT just about numbers, it`s how you use the plane, ie it`s the PILOT, and you know it, you`re just trying to be pedantic, but getting that wrong too.

JtD
07-02-2008, 02:37 PM
As the I-16 can climb with the 109E, the 109 cannot dictate the fight. It can chose to leave, but not necessarily to reenter.

Afromike1
07-02-2008, 02:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
not to mention how most sane people never take 100% of fuel as that is more than 2hours of flight and that's if you are hauling @ss all the time.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I totally didnt know you can change the ammount of fuel you bring into the air!!!

omfg that is some useful info! http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif

Brain32
07-02-2008, 02:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:

"Uber", "pwns" or "best" a plane doesen't have to be, but it also does not have to be a helpless target... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where did I say that the i16 was a helples target? please tell me. I seem to have missed the bit where I typed that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And where did I say you typed that? I even clearly separated quotes, TAGERT StyleTM


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Look at the numbers? Fine, but looking just at numbers is not enough. how about the I16s famous neg-g cut out. An inexperienced I16 pilot won`t be even attempting any dive speeds if he gets that wrong. what about the pixie (technical term) of the type 18 guns? But, sure, ignore that and let`s look at the type 24. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I also clearly stated diving ability as greatly inferiour for the I-16, yes type18 is lightly armed but with best possible LMG's in the game and in 1940 they really kick behinds, no explosions but heavy damage with small burst easily achievable, Type24 has mid-late war armament strenght-wise.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
In good hands, an I16 type 24 can hold its own against a 109 and is FAR from helpless, then again, against a good 109 pilot, the I16 has its work cut out and has the worse deal because a good 109 pilot can DICTATE the battle. He can attack and b&Z (even with G2), he can extend if the I 16 even looks like getting near, even the AI knows this.

So it`s NOT just about numbers, it`s how you use the plane, ie it`s the PILOT, and you know it, you`re just trying to be pedantic, but getting that wrong too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
OK I ask you here how would you handle I-16 if the mentioned 109 could turn with you? The "how you use it" part is valid when you have an edge at certain thing, people usually like the so called "turn vs speed" matchups, but what if you have "everything vs nicer camo scheme" matchup?

Osprey_334th
07-02-2008, 02:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Afromike1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I guess you must only fly late war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I also took a look at the skies-of-fire stats and I found out that the 109f got the second highest k/d ratio! how is that possible? even though it was flown less times, it was still flown 22 more times than the la-7 (with a k/d ratio of 1.41). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's because LA's a normally flown by noobs, well especially in there.

Brain32
07-02-2008, 02:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Afromike1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
not to mention how most sane people never take 100% of fuel as that is more than 2hours of flight and that's if you are hauling @ss all the time.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I totally didnt know you can change the ammount of fuel you bring into the air!!!

omfg that is some useful info! http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure thing, this is especially important on standard DF servers, American planes for example are loaded with fuel and more than 50% is a waste to take with you especially considering the size of il2 maps. Also lower fuel load has a great impact on flight performance, P51/38/47 at 50% fuel load are uncomparably more manouverable than at 100% fuel load http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

idonno
07-02-2008, 03:06 PM
In real life they flew with a full fuel load, and so do I.

The rest of ya'll are weinnes! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Brain32
07-02-2008, 03:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by idonno:
In real life they flew with a full fuel load, and so do I.

The rest of ya'll are weinnes! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And with droptanks! So please don't let me catch you online without droptanks or I'll post a screenshot here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

luftluuver
07-02-2008, 03:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by idonno:
In real life they flew with a full fuel load, and so do I.

The rest of ya'll are weinnes! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They also flew for several hours before even any likelihood of any combat.

stalkervision
07-02-2008, 03:21 PM
I recall one sabre ace who had one hung drop tank and still shot down three migs like that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

on-line MP pilots are just spoiled rotten. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

SeaFireLIV
07-02-2008, 03:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
As the I-16 can climb with the 109E, the 109 cannot dictate the fight. It can chose to leave, but not necessarily to reenter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you guys actually flown against 109s in an I16 in IL2? Or are you just looking at a chart?


Still, let`s assume you might be right: If the 109 pilot can leave, then he can simply climb later and return, attacking from height again, then using his superior energy abilities to reclaim and retain his advantage. the I16 cannot simply leave when he chooses.

The 109 pilot dicates the fight if he knows how to fly his plane over an I16 pilot who also knows his plane. Obviously this is in a 1v1 scenario.

I stand by my point.

stalkervision
07-02-2008, 03:39 PM
that's pretty much how I fight agains't early spits in the 109 e btw..

and if and when bob/sow comes out I will probably do the same very same thing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Xiolablu3
07-02-2008, 03:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
As the I-16 can climb with the 109E, the 109 cannot dictate the fight. It can chose to leave, but not necessarily to reenter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thats something I never knew, very interesting.

Is this historically correct? I somehow doubt it.

stalkervision
07-02-2008, 03:45 PM
Btw in the one and only game I know of that has the spanish air war included,the nice/ cute but dated "luftwaffe commander" The early 109d carboretted version when fighting agains't the I-16 Ratta only has a dive advantage. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif It will dive like hell and leave the poor Rata behind but one has to be very careful about reentering the fight to soon after or the rata will catch up to you!

You can make a Rata spin out in extended turning fights with the 109 exactly like the real life ones did though. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

DKoor
07-02-2008, 03:52 PM
Bf-109G2 if quality flown, outflies most Spitfires and contemporary aircraft in 1942 even 1943 except P-51B (comes year later, but 1943 109's are just not competitive at all in this game).

The only really weak 109's are Bf-109G6 EARLY & LATE.
109K is nice if one gets used to the heavy lockups, heavy trim action always needed otherwise you'll get outflown.
Bf-109G6AS is the best 109 in game overall, regarding speed/maneuverability combo.

That speaks for itself. 109 is a nice aircraft and furthermore, you get to fly them in all periods so that is another plus.

stalkervision
07-02-2008, 03:54 PM
and this plane is a real bit-ch for the 109 d to fight! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

anyone know it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I would pay double the SOW price just to be able to shot it down!

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/imgs/d510.jpg

VW-IceFire
07-02-2008, 04:09 PM
109G-2 is probably one of the few planes in the planeset that can still compete quite well against 1945 opposition despite being a 1942 model year.

It turns really well, it climbs really well, and it has enough punch to make enemy fighters hurt. The dive is a problem for the 109 but its a problem for many types...in this case the heavy elevator is certainly an issue. Regardless of modeling it can be overcome by tactics...try to limit your speed in the dive. Throttle back during the attack phase, line up on the target at a lower speed, and then while retaining some of your energy go back to full throttle and use the excellent climb to reposition.

quasimodo_3
07-02-2008, 04:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuckyFluff:
300kph in a combat zone = 186.42 MPH = dead http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

You obviously have NO IDEA http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, Here's the idea. We're talking Gustav series. If you are flying on a furball server
conventional wisdom is that you assume you are
going to have someone covering your six. If you are being mauled and have no help then you split
S and hope that you get into friendly airspace.
The slower speeds are so that you can use flaps
in mid-alt and on the deck, both combat and landing without jamming them. We're talking turn radius here. Late 109's can fly with LA's and KI-84's this way, though it's not historic at all. Late war 109's had all they could deal with as far as contemporary allies planes were concerned. It's was a bomber interceptor first,
and a B&Z'er as well. It was a decoy for higher alt schwarms later in the war. I probably was too generalized in my first blog.

SeaFireLIV
07-02-2008, 04:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 JtD:
As the I-16 can climb with the 109E, the 109 cannot dictate the fight. It can chose to leave, but not necessarily to reenter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thats something I never knew, very interesting.

Is this historically correct? I somehow doubt it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i`d be cautious with this as i`ve never been able to climb with a 109.

the only time I 16s in IL2 were able to do this was when the I16 was first released. It never had neg-g, took on 1944 planes and had a tough as nails model. Then it could do almost anything, but after that it was drastically cut down to realistic levels.

But in its present incarnation, online or offline, i`ve never been able to do this or seen anyone else climb with a 109.

DKoor
07-02-2008, 04:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Afromike1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
not to mention how most sane people never take 100% of fuel as that is more than 2hours of flight and that's if you are hauling @ss all the time.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I totally didnt know you can change the ammount of fuel you bring into the air!!!

omfg that is some useful info! http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure thing, this is especially important on standard DF servers, American planes for example are loaded with fuel and more than 50% is a waste to take with you especially considering the size of il2 maps. Also lower fuel load has a great impact on flight performance, P51/38/47 at 50% fuel load are uncomparably more manouverable than at 100% fuel load http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>+1

German TA-152 fighters are also loaded with a great amount of fuel, but I'm afraid those are the only fighter on German side that you can take 50% fuel (or even less in some cases).
For most other "Germans" it's gotta be 75% in most cases.

Also WEP thing must be watched too, it's not the same if you fly at 110% and engage WEP occasionally or if you fly all the time on WEP... for instance Bf-109K with 100% fuel cannot last 35mins in the air with WEP engaged! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif So this is the main reason (for me) why I'm not on WEP all the time.

It's always a good idea to check out the range of your preferred fighter... that really reveals how much fuel you need for some mission.

slipBall
07-02-2008, 04:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImMoreBetter:
The Bf-109F is arguably the best aircraft for it's period in the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


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

WTE_Galway
07-02-2008, 08:55 PM
I cannot speak for online play as I gave that all away many years ago.

Going back a few years, in a typical "we are all war winning heroes" online furball without CEM the 109 the 109 loses a few of its normal advantages. For example online:
- CEM is often off (109 is easy to manage in combat)
- dogfights are short enough to ignore overheating (with current FM 109 hardly ever overheats)
- their are rarely bombers to warrant the performance hit and slwo ROF of the mk108's


Offline I have spent so much time in 109's I have trouble flying anything else at all effectively.

My favourite mount out of combat for sight seeing on a new map is actually the Emil .. its an awesome plane for scud running flying below treetop level skimming ridge tops and diving down into valleys and flying through villages at street height.

In combat, just drop the fuel load back to suit the mission (historically the Luftwaffe was chronically short of fuel and in addition fuel loads IRL are varied to cater for different weather and munitions loadouts)and stick with the 20mm nose canon if its available, keep speed up at all times and the 109 flies well.

JtD
07-02-2008, 10:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
As the I-16 can climb with the 109E, the 109 cannot dictate the fight. It can chose to leave, but not necessarily to reenter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you guys actually flown against 109s in an I16 in IL2? Or are you just looking at a chart? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I have done this twice online. Two fights that lasted over half an hour each, with the 109 running away, climbing, coming back only to see that the I-16 had climbed as well and was as high or higher. I was in the 109 once and in the I-16 the other time. I actually 'won' both fights because both times my opponent run out of fuel before I did, and disengaged.

The 109 did not dictate the fight.

deepo_HP
07-03-2008, 12:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Yes, I have done this twice online. Two fights that lasted over half an hour each, with the 109 running away, climbing, coming back only to see that the I-16 had climbed as well and was as high or higher. I was in the 109 once and in the I-16 the other time. I actually 'won' both fights because both times my opponent run out of fuel before I did, and disengaged.

The 109 did not dictate the fight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hi jtd,

this can perhaps be explained by assuming, that running away and coming back costs energy, which has been used by the i-16 only for climb.
i think, no i-16 climbs better than any early 109 (up to g2, i am not very used to see i-16 in later ones) in direct comparison. meaning at least climbing to some 2-4000m (maybe in initial climbs it can do for the lower best climbspeed) and one behind the other.
for any prolonged climb like that, 109's will be about 15-20% faster at the desired alt, imo.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by brain32:
OK I ask you here how would you handle I-16 if the mentioned 109 could turn with you? The "how you use it" part is valid when you have an edge at certain thing, people usually like the so called "turn vs speed" matchups, but what if you have "everything vs nicer camo scheme" matchup? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hi brain,

strange question... as the 109 can't turn with a i-16! and your 'argument' about 'nice camo' being the only lasting advantage in later scenarios is just that: a comment on skins.
i would like to see him in a p47d22 turning, running or climbing with 109g14 at med alt, or in a p51d turning or climbing with 109g10.
in combat, going for the shot in a turn-fight, it helps a lot to engage flaps in 109... the time for full turn might be longer, but it gives the possibility to tighten up which neither p51 or p47 can do.

when it is stated, that 109k in a sustained turn-fight at 400kmh can't match a p47d, i can't argue with that... might be true, but i don't see the sense. is that called a turn-fight? i mean, i would go for 300kmh and if that 7-tonner still wants to stay sustained, i engage flaps, tighten up and use this thing in my nose.
after all, i never saw 'turn-fights' as fights where the opponents fly sustained turns at the same, disadvantegeous speed?

109 accelerate very good, they decelerate excellent, they climb very good to excellent, they have good to very good speeds. and it can be stressed to situations and recover, where many other planes would stall or spin out.
sure there is probably always one allied fighter better in some discipline in later scenarios. but 109s (except few models) have always something to hold against.
listing 'xx' can do 'that' better, and 'yy' can do 'this' better shows often, that the regarding pilot has only got into the wrong situation. because he didn't know what to hold against - or what to expect early enough.

109 needs (imo more than any other plane in the game) the pilot to use all controls he got and for very most one: the throttle lever.

i agree very much with what has said before: spiral climb, lower speed fights in late war, slats and flaps... all this makes the 109 by far not a bad competitor, even in turnfights. where i don't say that it is say a good one. but those who can't be fought in turns, can be in most cases either being matched in climb or speed, or in fast changing combinations.

Manu-6S
07-03-2008, 01:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
As the I-16 can climb with the 109E, the 109 cannot dictate the fight. It can chose to leave, but not necessarily to reenter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you guys actually flown against 109s in an I16 in IL2? Or are you just looking at a chart? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I have done this twice online. Two fights that lasted over half an hour each, with the 109 running away, climbing, coming back only to see that the I-16 had climbed as well and was as high or higher. I was in the 109 once and in the I-16 the other time. I actually 'won' both fights because both times my opponent run out of fuel before I did, and disengaged.

The 109 did not dictate the fight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IMO I16 vs 109 is quite similar to Spit vs 109 (but I16 still loses energy).

1v1 (both pilots of equal high skill) the 109 must extend or spiral climb: his enemy will stick to his 6 all the time.

2v2 is totally another story.

It's true the F4 is the best '41 plane, but even the late 109s are not so bad... their only problem is the control freezing at high speed (IMO awfully simulated) and the danger of collision with pigeons (your plane will explode... hail is dangerous too).

So I16 is safe against a single 109... otherwise it's dead.

stathem
07-03-2008, 01:46 AM
In what even remotely historic Eastern Front server are I-16's fighting Emils? In 1940 the Soviets and the Germans were virtual allies.

Whenever I've flown Ratas against 109s they've been Fs - the only time you see an Emil is if it's hauling bombs. Why do you think the Freidrich never got bomb racks in this game?

And the F has a very healthy advantage over the I-16.

And to people having trouble with the stiff elevator - go buy a HOTAS - trim on a slider. Movable stab can go a long way to easing your troubles.

joeap
07-03-2008, 01:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
In what even remotely historic Eastern Front server are I-16's fighting Emils? In 1940 the Soviets and the Germans were virtual allies.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There were still plenty of I-16s around in 41 mate. Well those that were not destroyed on the ground. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

joeap
07-03-2008, 01:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuckyFluff:
A great aircraft neutered for "game balance". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Got tinfoil?

stathem
07-03-2008, 01:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
In what even remotely historic Eastern Front server are I-16's fighting Emils? In 1940 the Soviets and the Germans were virtual allies.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There were still plenty of I-16s around in 41 mate. Well those that were not destroyed on the ground. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah I know, sorry, you misunderstood me.

Freidrichs were available in 1941 - so a map designer should put them on for 1941 scenarios. And if he does, then people will fly them - unless they want to bomb.

joeap
07-03-2008, 04:58 AM
Oops yes you said "Emils" point taken.

Freiwillige
07-03-2008, 05:02 AM
The 109 90% of the time can win one of two ways.
If you cannot out turn them in the horrizontal plain then fight them in the vertical plain. It can out turn half of its opponents and out climb the other half!

tragentsmith
07-03-2008, 06:09 AM
Coming from my experience in the 110, the 110 actuailly turns better at high speed with 25% of fuel than the 109 with 50 % fuel. That's why I fly the 110 on Warclouds.

If I'm stick to have an inferior plane against late war UFOs and flying shermans, I'll exchange top speed against firepower, endurance and all around visibility (+rear gunner). Coupled with teamwork, well it is the best solution against too confident oponents.

JtD
07-03-2008, 09:59 AM
The sustained climb of the Bf 109E and I-16 are very similar. That's why the 109 can't disengage and come back at higher altitude. Nothing to do with the fact that it will lose more energy in the process than the I-16 will.

Xiolablu3
07-03-2008, 10:35 AM
It will be mostly 109F2's and 109E's in 1941.

The first 109F4's didnt appear until very late 1941 IIRC, and then possibly only in smallish numbers on the Eastern front, most of them sent to the West, where air combat was more dangerous.

SO the 109F4 is really a 1942 plane, I think. In the same way that a 109G2 is really a 1943 plane.

The F2 has real problems with firepower, I prefer the Emil with the 2xMGFF.

Kurfurst__
07-03-2008, 10:44 AM
F-4 was introduced June 1941. Three months later there were 320+ in service.
http://ww2.dk/oob/statistics/se27941.htm

What we do not have is the uprated F-4s of 1942 - they were having +150 horsepower after 1,42ata boost pressure was cleared.

G-2 was introduced June 1942; similiarly as the F-4 it become available in large numbers for frontline units within a few months. By 1943 its production run out in favour of the G-4 with a new radio set, and then the G-6.

F-2s were appearantly uparmed in the field with MG 151/20 upon pilots request.

Brain32
07-03-2008, 11:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Going back a few years, in a typical "we are all war winning heroes" online furball without CEM the 109 the 109 loses a few of its normal advantages. For example online:
- CEM is often off (109 is easy to manage in combat)
- dogfights are short enough to ignore overheating (with current FM 109 hardly ever overheats)
- their are rarely bombers to warrant the performance hit and slwo ROF of the mk108's </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes I remember 2002, it was a good year, let's return to present now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
(In case you did not understand the above has nothing to do with the current situation.)


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> in combat, going for the shot in a turn-fight, it helps a lot to engage flaps in 109... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Other planes have flaps too, very effective also...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> the time for full turn might be longer, but it gives the possibility to tighten up which neither p51 or p47 can do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
O rly? Wouldn't say so, actually I find it funny...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> when it is stated, that 109k in a sustained turn-fight at 400kmh can't match a p47d, i can't argue with that... might be true, but i don't see the sense. is that called a turn-fight? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes it's called a turn-fight, this does not make sense, if both planes are turning it sure is a turnfight, jet fighters turn-fight at near Mach speeds so what? Also you can look at it as starting speed, people don't cruise at 300kmh in late war planes, they are often over 500kmh in a cruise if not even more. I often engage in dogfights against late 109's with P51D and especially the Tempest as 109's are pathetic at it, I even developed a pattern for an attack on a 109, I simply gain a lot of separation during the high speed stage and then settle at my best turning speed and keep it there, no 109 can match that and eventually get's shot down, every single time so far - pathetic.

OK I guess that 109 might be OK-ish on a true furball servers where the fastest guy flies at like 260km/h and uses a keyboard instead of a flightstick lol

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> but even the late 109s are not so bad... their only problem is the control freezing at high speed (IMO awfully simulated) and the danger of collision with pigeons (your plane will explode... hail is dangerous too). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I really wonder if that IS elevator freeze anymore, look at 400kmh for example, if controls were realy freezed you could pull the stick all the way and at full power you should be able to keep it and even accelerate, this is not the case in-game however, it's simply will not turn at high speed. So you pull all the way and get cr@ppy deg/sec rate and interpret it as locked elevator, but is it really?
Look again at what I said first time:
109F4 turns better(as in has better turn time) at high speed than 109K4!!!

I ask again HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE??? How is it possible that nearly completely the same airframe with 15% better powerloading has lower turn time?
If you look at all other planes in-game that have multiple variant, every single one of them follows the same rule, if the airframe remains more or less the same but power(and weight) increases low speed turn time is worser, high speed turn times are better, however this is not the case with 109's(and ONLY 109's) they suffer at both low speed turn times and high speed turn times...

No if that is strange only to me, I'll take two tin foil hats please, you go win the t3h war http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Hottie1961
07-03-2008, 11:17 AM
During the Spanish civil war in 1936 Ratas dictated every fight against the outdated He 51`s, until the 109 arrived, and the Ratas were wiped out. Read Adolf Galant`s book.
It was common knowledge that in the hands of an experienced pilot, any 109 could take on any Allied plane, despite all its faults.

DuxCorvan
07-03-2008, 11:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Afromike1:
why do people even play the bf 109? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because this is a simulation, not a competition.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hottie1961:
During the Spanish civil war in 1936 Ratas dictated every fight against the outdated He 51`s, until the 109 arrived, and the Ratas were wiped out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not so simple. He-51 was outdated from the start and even I-15s completely outperformed them.

I-16 (named "Mosca" by their pilots, "Rata" was a derogatory enemy term) were more than a good match, and even a threat to early 109 models, (B and C). It was not till the arrival of Emils that those early I-16 were outclassed -mostly because of poor high altitude performance.

Even so, Republicans managed to build a mod I-16 (named "Supermosca", or "Nariz fra/Cold nose" because of having their propeller hub painted white) powered by US engines that managed to fight back in equal terms. But there were not many of them.

Galland's book is full of common places and misconceptions. There's plenty of new and comprehensive data about SCW air combat, but it's mostly in Spanish.

DuckyFluff
07-03-2008, 11:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by quasimodo_3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuckyFluff:
300kph in a combat zone = 186.42 MPH = dead http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

You obviously have NO IDEA http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, Here's the idea. We're talking Gustav series. If you are flying on a furball server
conventional wisdom is that you assume you are
going to have someone covering your six. If you are being mauled and have no help then you split
S and hope that you get into friendly airspace.
The slower speeds are so that you can use flaps
in mid-alt and on the deck, both combat and landing without jamming them. We're talking turn radius here. Late 109's can fly with LA's and KI-84's this way, though it's not historic at all. Late war 109's had all they could deal with as far as contemporary allies planes were concerned. It's was a bomber interceptor first,
and a B&Z'er as well. It was a decoy for higher alt schwarms later in the war. I probably was too generalized in my first blog. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please don't patronise me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif , I'm not some noob http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif ...your advice is nonsense. If you need to use flaps in a 109 you did something wrong and are trying to dig yourself out of a situation you shouldn't be in in the first place, and BTW I don't fly in easy setting dogfight servers full of noobs chasing each other on the deck.

Also my understanding is that in reality the 109 elevator only <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">started</span> to become noticeably harder, BUT NOT UNRESPONSIVE as in game, at speeds above 300MPH THATS <span class="ev_code_RED">482KPH</span>.

I dont know why Oleg made the 109s useless at what they were historically renowned for but its what we got http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif personally I fly 190s now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

BTW I don't want to hear it from the usual crowd of he said/she said, sad, chart/graph, bean counting, types who want to point out that I'm wrong by 10kph and draw this out to a 100 page tirade of BS over the wrong decimal point or rivet in the wrong place. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Last word.

Hottie1961
07-03-2008, 11:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Afromike1:
why do people even play the bf 109? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because this is a simulation, not a competition. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also because its interesting to discover why the 109 is the fighter with the most kills ever, despite its faults. You can take on ANY fighter and shoot it down, providing you are good. Hartmann had 352 kills in his 109.

DKoor
07-03-2008, 03:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
I really wonder if that IS elevator freeze anymore, look at 400kmh for example, if controls were realy freezed you could pull the stick all the way and at full power you should be able to keep it and even accelerate, this is not the case in-game however, it's simply will not turn at high speed. So you pull all the way and get cr@ppy deg/sec rate and interpret it as locked elevator, but is it really?
Look again at what I said first time:
109F4 turns better(as in has better turn time) at high speed than 109K4!!!

I ask again HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE??? How is it possible that nearly completely the same airframe with 15% better powerloading has lower turn time?
If you look at all other planes in-game that have multiple variant, every single one of them follows the same rule, if the airframe remains more or less the same but power(and weight) increases low speed turn time is worser, high speed turn times are better, however this is not the case with 109's(and ONLY 109's) they suffer at both low speed turn times and high speed turn times...

No if that is strange only to me, I'll take two tin foil hats please, you go win the t3h war http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I wonder the same thing. And I still can't come up to some conclusion...

http://i30.tinypic.com/30ae0t2.gif
500kg difference at take off, 500HP difference with boost too... power to weight ratio noticeably better in K4.

http://i26.tinypic.com/2hhgfug.gif
50kg difference at take off, but also 50HP difference, PtW practically the same, it's practically same but K4 has nicer airframe... and from my noob observation if I never played this game I'd always thought that K4 is superior to G6AS (if for nothing, than for cleaner airframe?).

But really these types have night & day difference in handling in game.

Col.BBQ
07-03-2008, 08:22 PM
Its quite simple, DKoor, the airframes of the K4 and F4 are different. Without the engines, the K4 is 40% heavier than the F4 so the K4 must pull more lift if it wants to match turn-rate with the F4. What really hurts the K4's turn performance is its DB-605D engines is 20% heavier than the F4's DB-601. It may not seem much but a 20% increase of weight in front of the craft is significant as more elevator down-force is required to pull the nose up. The Bf-109 is notorious for its inability to pull high stick forces due to its cramp cockpit and short control stick. This doesn't hurt the F4 much at high speed but severly affects the K4.

zardozid
07-03-2008, 09:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Afromike1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I guess you must only fly late war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

actually I mainly fly the g2.

But what I'm hearing is that, okay... it can tnb and bnz just not so well. So why not just stick with a plane that can do really well in one of those areas? IMO I find the 109 sorta the "middle man" between really great tnb planes and bnz planes.

I also took a look at the skies-of-fire stats and I found out that the 109f got the second highest k/d ratio! how is that possible? even though it was flown less times, it was still flown 22 more times than the la-7 (with a k/d ratio of 1.41). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

this will probabaly be hard for you to understand. but some of us fly an aircraft because we just like them, not because they`re `uber` or `pwns` or best.

I`d love to see what you`d say if you had a go at the I16. It`s slow, can`t climb, can`t dive (just try diving with it, I dares you) and it`s easy to get p`ked in.

In fact the G2 is one of the few 109 planes I don`t mind flying because I can actually turn in it a bit. Put it into the hands of an expert and it`ll even turn with a Spit vb and shoot it down if quick enough. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bingo!

I'm with you their bro... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

KrashanTopolova
07-03-2008, 10:30 PM
RAAF pilot Bobby Gibbes was the first to fly the flyable of two captured F109's in the western desert theatre. He was most impressed and expressed the wish that his squadron had them rather than the P-40's they were equipped with. He did trials on it; bushwhacked the other pilots of the squadron in exercises with it until they put a stop to the excercises because of their nerves; and he wanted to bring it back to Australia. Two weeks later the RAF Command took it off him, much to his disappointment.
Like the FW190 which 'locked up' in a dive (controls became almost too heavy), the F109 had a problem with the slats jamming open and with weighty control touch at high speed.
Notably, Bobby Gibbes (as an Ace pilot) didn't rate those characteristics a mention.
This particular F109 was the last F109 flying and was often seen at British airshows. It had the serial number 6 on it.
The German pilots slowed down to turn with the Hurricanes and this it could do easily because of its superior power to weight ratio; much like a Japanese fighter.

WTE_Galway
07-03-2008, 10:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KrashanTopolova:
RAAF pilot Bobby Gibbes was the first to fly the flyable of two captured F109's in the western desert theatre. He was most impressed and expressed the wish that his squadron had them rather than the P-40's they were equipped with. He did trials on it; bushwhacked the other pilots of the squadron in exercises with it until they put a stop to the excercises because of their nerves; and he wanted to bring it back to Australia. Two weeks later the RAF Command took it off him, much to his disappointment.
Like the FW190 which 'locked up' in a dive (controls became almost too heavy), the F109 had a problem with the slats jamming open and with weighty control touch at high speed.
Notably, Bobby Gibbes (as an Ace pilot) didn't rate those characteristics a mention.
This particular F109 was the last F109 flying and was often seen at British airshows. It had the serial number 6 on it.
The German pilots slowed down to turn with the Hurricanes and this it could do easily because of its superior power to weight ratio; much like a Japanese fighter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that the F2/F4 version of BF109 &gt; P40 goes without saying. I don't think anyone now or back then ever saw the P40 as a dogfighting wonder plane. Its just the tool they were stuck with at the time and the job had to be done. The fact that a number of allied pilots got very respectable scores against 109's flying P40's in Africa says a lot for the skills of those pilots.

KrashanTopolova
07-03-2008, 10:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think that the F2/F4 version of BF109 &gt; P40 goes without saying. I don't think anyone now or back then ever saw the P40 as a dogfighting wonder plane. Its just the tool they were stuck with at the time and the job had to be done. The fact that a number of allied pilots got very respectable scores against 109's flying P40's in Africa says a lot for the skills of those pilots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed.
It's also easy to overlook in a sim offline (or perhaps even online) that most WW2 fighter sorties were flown by Flights with wingmen backing you up; and most dogfights were between flight sections; not one-on-one intentionally. This, of course made it a more level playing field if there happened to be a few aces in the enemy flight. I believe it was the British in WW1 that first adopted these tactics of providing section cover around the flying clock. the Germans and French on the other hand flew air and ground support spontaneously and often individually as long as there was light of day to do so.
Similarly, RAAF pilots commented on the willingness of Japanese pilots over New Guinea to leave their flight to do battle individually. Perhaps they felt their aircraft could permit that tactic.

DKoor
07-03-2008, 11:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Col.BBQ:
Its quite simple, DKoor, the airframes of the K4 and F4 are different. Without the engines, the K4 is 40% heavier than the F4 so the K4 must pull more lift if it wants to match turn-rate with the F4. What really hurts the K4's turn performance is its DB-605D engines is 20% heavier than the F4's DB-601. It may not seem much but a 20% increase of weight in front of the craft is significant as more elevator down-force is required to pull the nose up. The Bf-109 is notorious for its inability to pull high stick forces due to its cramp cockpit and short control stick. This doesn't hurt the F4 much at high speed but severly affects the K4. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm amazed how you didn't compared G6AS and K4, more so because I put an effort to post a picture and all that... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
They are basically same aircraft by performance and K4 has cleaner airframe for all I can (as a noob with these things) tell. However, if ASM engine in G6AS is significantly lighter than 605D than that may explain some things in the light of what you said.

stathem
07-04-2008, 01:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
http://i30.tinypic.com/30ae0t2.gif
500kg difference at take off, 500HP difference with boost too... power to weight ratio noticeably better in K4.

http://i26.tinypic.com/2hhgfug.gif
50kg difference at take off, but also 50HP difference, PtW practically the same, it's practically same but K4 has nicer airframe... and from my noob observation if I never played this game I'd always thought that K4 is superior to G6AS (if for nothing, than for cleaner airframe?).

But really these types have night & day difference in handling in game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's something a bit odd to my eyes in those pics...maybe someone can explain it.

F and G, wingspan 10.6m

K - 9.94m

And yet they have identical wing areas...(16.02m^2)

So did the K have a broader chord wing...or a narrower fuselage? Or is it a mistake?

DKoor
07-04-2008, 03:24 AM
Gotta be a mistake...
IL2 viewer says F4 & G6AS wing area 17,3 sq.m., wingspan 10,6m, K4 wing area 16,05sq.m., wingspan 9,94m.

stathem
07-04-2008, 03:34 AM
So the K4 has a smaller wing?

Anyone clarify the reality? Kurfurst?

Kurfurst__
07-04-2008, 04:28 AM
All 109F-K has the same wing area - 16,05 m2. This gets rounded sometimes.

Local strenghtening, aerodynamic details, internal arrangements are biggest difference. But basically the wing shape etc. is unchanged.

Also ASM and D powerplants are virtually identical in weight. Heck, they are almost the same.. detail differences between the two, the D being some 15-20 kg heavier. Some components of it were from the much more mature DB 603.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Engine/DB60x/DB605_datasheets_ASM.html
http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Engine/DB60x/DB605_datasheets_DBDC.html

Olegs data is sometimes very curious... weights and powers as rule do not match real world values as a rule, in case of 109.. I guess he didnt care if in the end he tuned it to meet specs (more or less).

DKoor
07-04-2008, 04:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
All 109F-K has the same wing area - 16,05 m2. This gets rounded sometimes.

Local strenghtening, aerodynamic details, internal arrangements are biggest difference. But basically the wing shape etc. is unchanged.

Also ASM and D powerplants are virtually identical in weight. Heck, they are almost the same.. detail differences between the two, the D being some 15-20 kg heavier. Some components of it were from the much more mature DB 603.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Engine/DB60x/DB605_datasheets_ASM.html
http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Engine/DB60x/DB605_datasheets_DBDC.html

Olegs data is sometimes very curious... weights and powers as rule do not match real world values as a rule, in case of 109.. I guess he didnt care if in the end he tuned it to meet specs (more or less). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>This can explain a lot of things http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

quasimodo_3
07-04-2008, 08:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuckyFluff:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by quasimodo_3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuckyFluff:
300kph in a combat zone = 186.42 MPH = dead http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

You obviously have NO IDEA http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, Here's the idea. We're talking Gustav series. If you are flying on a furball server
conventional wisdom is that you assume you are
going to have someone covering your six. If you are being mauled and have no help then you split
S and hope that you get into friendly airspace.
The slower speeds are so that you can use flaps
in mid-alt and on the deck, both combat and landing without jamming them. We're talking turn radius here. Late 109's can fly with LA's and KI-84's this way, though it's not historic at all. Late war 109's had all they could deal with as far as contemporary allies planes were concerned. It's was a bomber interceptor first,
and a B&Z'er as well. It was a decoy for higher alt schwarms later in the war. I probably was too generalized in my first blog. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please don't patronise me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif , I'm not some noob http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif ...your advice is nonsense. If you need to use flaps in a 109 you did something wrong and are trying to dig yourself out of a situation you shouldn't be in in the first place, and BTW I don't fly in easy setting dogfight servers full of noobs chasing each other on the deck.

Also my understanding is that in reality the 109 elevator only <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">started</span> to become noticeably harder, BUT NOT UNRESPONSIVE as in game, at speeds above 300MPH THATS <span class="ev_code_RED">482KPH</span>.

I dont know why Oleg made the 109s useless at what they were historically renowned for but its what we got http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif personally I fly 190s now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

BTW I don't want to hear it from the usual crowd of he said/she said, sad, chart/graph, bean counting, types who want to point out that I'm wrong by 10kph and draw this out to a 100 page tirade of BS over the wrong decimal point or rivet in the wrong place. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Last word. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your smileys are looking at a bogie at 12:00.
This isn't about tactics or about teamplay. The
original poster has a problem with the 109's
roll rate, turn radius and so on. I'm merely suggesting he slow things down to fight on his terms. The 109G's were too heavy to do what the
earlier versions had been capable of, and too fast also. The G2, the original poster's ride,
is the easiest of the G's, so it shouldn't be as much trouble.
what word?

Brain32
07-04-2008, 10:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Col.BBQ:
Its quite simple, DKoor, the airframes of the K4 and F4 are different. Without the engines, the K4 is 40% heavier than the F4 so the K4 must pull more lift if it wants to match turn-rate with the F4. What really hurts the K4's turn performance is its DB-605D engines is 20% heavier than the F4's DB-601. It may not seem much but a 20% increase of weight in front of the craft is significant as more elevator down-force is required to pull the nose up. The Bf-109 is notorious for its inability to pull high stick forces due to its cramp cockpit and short control stick. This doesn't hurt the F4 much at high speed but severly affects the K4. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your assumptions are flawed, 109K4 is barely 15% heavier than 109F4 and it also has 15% better powerloading, airframes are not different enough drag-wise to make such a dramatic impact, worse turn radius sure ok, worse low speed turn time ok for that too, but worse high speed turn - I would sure like to hear a good explanation for that.

Let me draw it for those that do not understand:

1.Fw190A5 is heavier than A4 and more powerfull, A4 turns better at low speed, A5 at higher
2.Fw190A5_1.65ata is heavier than A5 and more powerfull, A5 turns better at low speed, A5_1,65ata at higher not by much but it does not have much better powerloading either
3. Fw190A9 is heavier than A8 and more powerfull, A8 turns better at low speed, A9 at higher(nearly 5 sec at 500kmph!!!)
4. Freakin' He111H6 is heavier and more powerfull than He-111H2, H2 turns better at low speed H6 at higher
5. Hurri MkII is heavier and more powerfull than HurriMkI, MkI turn better at low speed, MkII at high
6. I-185M-71 is heavier and more powerfull than I-185M-82, M82 turn better at low speed, M71 at high
7. Lagg3IT is heavier and a bit more powerfull than Lagg3series4 it owns it on both ends http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
8. La-5FN is very slightly heavier and vastly more powerfull than La5, FN is better at both ends but very little at low speed...

Let's countinue...
9. P38L_late is heavier and more powerfull than P-38J, J turn better at lower speeds, L_late turns better at higher speeds
10. P40Mis heavier and more powerfull than P40E....ok I'm starting to bore myself to death, same is also valid FOR EVERY SINGLE TYPE OF AIRCRAFT IN THE GAME <span class="ev_code_RED">EXCEPT</span> the 109's

Do you guys get that or do I need to spell it for ya'?

Col.BBQ
07-04-2008, 07:10 PM
If you want to go believing in power loading then go ahead. By this theory, a Piper Cherokee fitted with a P & W 2000 engine would be competitive at aircraft races but it won't.

Brain32
07-05-2008, 08:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Col.BBQ:
If you want to go believing in power loading then go ahead. By this theory, a Piper Cherokee fitted with a P & W 2000 engine would be competitive at aircraft races but it won't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You have apsolutely no clue what are you talking about http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Col.BBQ
07-05-2008, 07:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Col.BBQ:
If you want to go believing in power loading then go ahead. By this theory, a Piper Cherokee fitted with a P & W 2000 engine would be competitive at aircraft races but it won't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You have apsolutely no clue what are you talking about http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Alas, it is you who doesn't understand despite everything I told you, so la de da.

Vike
07-05-2008, 08:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:

About F4 & K4:
500kg difference at take off, 500HP difference with boost too... power to weight ratio noticeably better in K4.

About G6/AS & K4:
50kg difference at take off, but also 50HP difference, PtW practically the same, it's practically same but K4 has nicer airframe... and from my noob observation if I never played this game I'd always thought that K4 is superior to G6AS (if for nothing, than for cleaner airframe?).

But really these types have night & day difference in handling in game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Very interesting infos DKoor!http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

[EDIT]
I'll just add a German pilot account about the Kurfurst-4.Indeed,this formidable fighter was frequently described as able to outfly anything and maneuverable like any other Me109-G,dixit the German Ace Franz Stigler,28 victories

- Just here. (http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-Stigler.html)

Then,why on earth did 1C/Maddox put this unbelievable weight of 3400kg for both K4s?!? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
The IRL data gives 3362kg for K4 in clean config,ready to fly and fight... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif



Anyway,I quite agree with Stalkervision and SeaFireLIV statements in page 1.

Indeed,the G2 is certainly one of the best plane in the sim.Thus,for the challenge,i tend to avoid flying the early (from E4 to G2) as they are really easy to fly. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Thus,my absolute favourite are the Late-109s,especially the K4.Clearly there are those who know how to master them,and those who don't and say:

"why do people even play the [late] bf 109?" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Afromike1,simply look at here:

- Vike in Me109-K4-B4 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/8011077875?r=6671021085#6671021085)

- When and How to use Mk108 on Late-109s (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/4851018475?r=6891029475#6891029475)

...And you should see why i consider the Late-109s as the sexiest and strongest planes of the game! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Salute!
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j32/Vike01/h.jpg

@+ http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif

stalkervision
07-05-2008, 08:24 PM
Someone finally agreed with me! WooW Who! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Can I get you 24 carrot gold plated Vike! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Xiolablu3
07-05-2008, 09:47 PM
From Vikes link...

'What was your favorite 109?

The F version was my favorite. It was not nearly as sluggish in the controls as the G version was. It was best suited as a Dogfighter. The G6 however was better at higher altitudes and had a higher ceiling than the F's.'

'In control feel he said the K felt identical to the G'


Franz Stigler

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-Stigler.html

Vike
07-05-2008, 10:51 PM
Still from my link about Franz Stigler...

"Fanz Stigler liked the 109G as well and also enjoyed flying the K-4. The K-4, he said was very much like the G yet could leave all other fighters behind in climb. In control feel he said the K felt identical to the G. He described on many occasions where they would just bank away from the fighters and climb away from them (my guess this is probably after attacking them?)"

@+ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

Manu-6S
07-06-2008, 03:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> What's the fastest you ever had a 109 in a dive?
I've taken it to about 680 to 750 km/hr at which point you needed 2 hands to pulls it out of the dive.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No trim on sliders, No combat flaps... the Late109s' control are ****ed up because Oleg modelled them for ONE HAND. Point.

One can ask why the G6 sucks so much.. I have an idea but people here would eat me alive...

And going OT:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Did pilots like the tracers or did some not use them?
Every third round was a tracer round and most pilots he new used them. However they were not used to aim. The tracer round always had less of an arc than the actual bullet. So if the pilot aimed using the tracers the bullets would all miss. A good pilot used the gun sight and always waited till they were at close range.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> [The commanding officer] ordered the tracer ammo removed . . . I'll never forget the spectacular results we got. Our kill rate went up from 50 to 100 percent.
Colonel Charles W. King, USAF
5 Victories, WW-II
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And people still whine for the visibility of Browning's tracers...

You can learn to shoot at AI (quick mission), real pilots can't: tracers are useless here.

WTE_Ibis
07-06-2008, 03:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> [The commanding officer] ordered the tracer ammo removed . . . I'll never forget the spectacular results we got. Our kill rate went up from 50 to 100 percent.
Colonel Charles W. King, USAF
5 Victories, WW-II
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>



__________________________________________

Kill rate to 100%
Krikies! I gotta get me some of them.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif


.

Brain32
07-06-2008, 06:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Col.BBQ:
Alas, it is you who doesn't understand despite everything I told you, so la de da. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh I perfectly understand what you said that's why I'm laughing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

joeap
07-06-2008, 08:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vike:

Then,why on earth did 1C/Maddox put this unbelievable weight of 3400kg for both K4s?!? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
The IRL data gives 3362kg for K4 in clean config,ready to fly and fight... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif


</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm maybe I'm missing something but is 38 kg a huge difference?

Anyway you guys know that Oleg had to tweak stuff to get the desired performace or close to it. Not that I don't agree with some of your points concering the 109 just adding that in.

DKoor
07-06-2008, 09:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
Someone finally agreed with me! WooW Who! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Can I get you 24 carrot gold plated Vike! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>+1



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

DKoor
07-06-2008, 09:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vike:

Then,why on earth did 1C/Maddox put this unbelievable weight of 3400kg for both K4s?!? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
The IRL data gives 3362kg for K4 in clean config,ready to fly and fight... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif


</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm maybe I'm missing something but is 38 kg a huge difference?

Anyway you guys know that Oleg had to tweak stuff to get the desired performace or close to it. Not that I don't agree with some of your points concering the 109 just adding that in. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It's 3421kg in game.
With such difference you could put Ging in the pit instead of average German fighter pilot http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .
But all in all, it shouldn't be such a big deal as it is, unfortunately for some reason this few kg more seems to be a LOT.
Since you can really feel the difference between G6AS and K4 in game...

And yes, in game viewer says 3362kg, but it probably is 3421kg in v4.08 (since more updated IL2 Compare v4.071 says so).

Kettenhunde
07-06-2008, 09:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The F version was my favorite. It was not nearly as sluggish in the controls as the G version was. It was best suited as a Dogfighter. The G6 however was better at higher altitudes and had a higher ceiling than the F's.'

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Adding weight increases the moments about the CG. The same thing is experienced in any aircraft that undergoes weight creep without a change in CG limits.

Both the Spitfire series and the P 51 series experienced the same thing.

All the best,

Crumpp

stalkervision
07-06-2008, 09:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
Someone finally agreed with me! WooW Who! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Can I get you 24 carrot gold plated Vike! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>+1

Average fliers just toss the 109 aside right away and never explore why it was such a great fighter. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Vike obviously is a very discerning and knowlegable member. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif