PDA

View Full Version : Flightmodels



Matt_2208
03-09-2005, 08:17 PM
Hello http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I have been reading books about the airwar over Russia for years now, and im also a Pilot in profession, and have just bought IL2 FB. (Great graphics !! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif)

Anyway my question is, where can i find out about the planes ingame-capability ? Things such as Turning capability and roll-rate ? I am interested in comparing it to real life specs or experiences.

A thousand thanks; Matt
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BBB_Hyperion
03-09-2005, 08:38 PM
Look at Il2 compare its not 100 % accurate as what is possible in the sim but a good overview.

http://www.airwarfare.com/Sims/IL2/il2_essential_files.htm#018

Matt_2208
03-09-2005, 09:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Look at Il2 compare its not 100 % accurate as what is possible in the sim but a good overview.

http://www.airwarfare.com/Sims/IL2/il2_essential_files.htm#018 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm.. So how does this work ?(Im not currently using my home-computer(Portable at the moment), so if it need installment i can't use it)

I wanted to know if the game takes Wingloading and things like that into considderation. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

We all know that the lower the wingloading usually the better the turn is, but things like the 'Wing-slats' on the Bf-109 and La 9 enhances this in real life. Is this the same in the game ?

A thousand thanks; Matt_2208 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stiglr
03-09-2005, 10:32 PM
The flight model takes wingloading into account, among many other things.... but to say that the end result is always correct, or even correct most of the time, that'd be... inaccurate.

heywooood
03-09-2005, 11:54 PM
To the best of the programers ability and the game engines' capability, all these vanriances and nuances of separate virtual airframes and power plants are modelled quite well.

Also this developer,1c, does a great job of updating and improving the program as time allows.

They have begun work on the successor to Il2/FB/PF but my understanding is that developement and improvement will continue.

tigertalon
03-10-2005, 04:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt_2208:
Hello http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I have been reading books about the airwar over Russia for years now, and im also a Pilot in profession, and have just bought IL2 FB. (Great graphics !! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif)

Anyway my question is, where can i find out about the planes ingame-capability ? Things such as Turning capability and roll-rate ? I am interested in comparing it to real life specs or experiences.

A thousand thanks; Matt
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi, Matt, wellcome to one of greatest addictions nowadays http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Well, to learn advantages and disadvantages between different planes I use HardBall's AC viewer (http://www.netwings.org/dcforum/DCForumID18/4196.html) and Il2_compare (http://www.airwarfare.com/Sims/IL2/il2_essential_files.htm#018) . Note, however, that data presented corresponds to Il2FB+AEP+PF combo, not only AEP or FB, as flight models were tweaked during patching... Those two are just a small simple programs (I don't know but maybe they are just an .exe files), that won't harm your laptop.

It is also advisable to install the latest patches, for PF 3.04(m), for AEP 2.04 and for FB i think it is 1.22.

Matt_2208
03-10-2005, 04:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
The flight model takes wingloading into account, among many other things..... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see... Well i havent tried the game yet, as im currently not at home.

So if it takes such factors into considderation, then let me try and make a small comparence with empty aircraft:

The Bf-109F2:
Weight=1,964 kg "empty"
Wingspan=10.6m
Wingarea=17.4 sq.m.
Has "Wingslats".
-----------------
The La 7:
Weight=2,605 kg "empty"
Wingspan=9.80m
Wingarea=17.6m
Has "Wingslats".

So in theory the Bf-109F2 would turn tighter than the La 7, or ?

A thousand thanks; Matt_2208 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

tigertalon
03-10-2005, 04:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt_2208:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
The flight model takes wingloading into account, among many other things..... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see... Well i havent tried the game yet, as im currently not at home.

So if it takes such factors into considderation, then let me try and make a small comparence with empty aircraft:

The Bf-109F2:
Weight=1,964 kg "empty"
Wingspan=10.6m
Wingarea=17.4 sq.m.
Has "Wingslats".
-----------------
The La 7:
Weight=2,605 kg "empty"
Wingspan=9.80m
Wingarea=17.6m
Has "Wingslats".

So in theory the Bf-109F2 would turn tighter than the La 7, or ?

A thousand thanks; Matt_2208 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Turn times and radius depend greatly on the speed - as high speed compressibility renders controls almost useles on some aircraft - A6M for instance. I'm quite sure that at low speeds Bf109F2 turns tighter, at high La7.

WWMaxGunz
03-10-2005, 04:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt_2208:
Anyway my question is, where can i find out about the planes ingame-capability ? Things such as Turning capability and roll-rate ? I am interested in comparing it to real life specs or experiences.

A thousand thanks; Matt
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can find out by flying and testing yourself. The sim is a reality of its' own.
Do not expect it to be work as reality. Take any plane and see how slow you can fly and
still climb with high percent of the rate of climb at best climb speed. You can look up
best climb speeds on the net, they would be very hard to determine using the sim.

Also you have IL2:FB and not AEP or PF? For any of those you really should get the patches
which improve the flight modelling of the first release. In some cases it is much better.
Pacific Fighters, they needed better lowspeed lift for Carrier Ops so it really shows here.

Also note that in the right speed and alt ranges, the models are all much better than at
the outsides of very high alt, very slow or very fast. All in all, that is very good for
any combat flight sim made. It is just that online especially you will find many players
who take advantage of every place a flaw can give them more in competition.

Matt_2208
03-10-2005, 05:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I'm quite sure that at low speeds Bf109F2 turns tighter, at high La7. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well if thats the case, then the reality is OK. As Bf-109 pilots persistantly claim they wouldnt have any problem in outturning a La 7 below 480kph, but above that they would experience problems in following.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You can find out by flying and testing yourself. The sim is a reality of its' own.
Do not expect it to be work as reality. Take any plane and see how slow you can fly and
still climb with high percent of the rate of climb at best climb speed. You can look up
best climb speeds on the net, they would be very hard to determine using the sim.

Also you have IL2:FB and not AEP or PF? For any of those you really should get the patches
which improve the flight modelling of the first release. In some cases it is much better.
Pacific Fighters, they needed better lowspeed lift for Carrier Ops so it really shows here.

Also note that in the right speed and alt ranges, the models are all much better than at
the outsides of very high alt, very slow or very fast. All in all, that is very good for
any combat flight sim made. It is just that online especially you will find many players
who take advantage of every place a flaw can give them more in competition.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for your advice ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I wasnt expecting it to be 100% realistic, but i mostly play games who stick to reality, and so far IL2 FB sounds great !

Thank you guys, i really appriciate your help. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

A thousand thanks; Matt_2208 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Choctaw111
03-10-2005, 05:39 AM
Welcome to the world of Il2 Matt. I didn't see anyone alse mention this but turn rates are not only determined by speed but by altitute also. The only way to really know what each aircraft is capable of is much practice. Only then will you know which AC is going to be your all time favorite. The flight models for the most part are pretty accurate but then there are always going to be those AC that some people feel are overmodeled or undermodeled. You can't make everyone happy. Even so this is the best WW2 combat flight sim around and I am looking forward to what surprises Oleg has for BoB http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

carguy_
03-10-2005, 06:38 AM
Just bear in mind that flightmodel favors the Russian planes because this game was primarily meant to fly Russian planes mainly and from time to time other nations planes.

If you`re new I guarantee you`ll get smacked if you try to turn late Me109 with Russian fighters.

I would also recommend not using programs/docs that present flight and performance data because as much as this sim tries to be the most accurate FM wise there is,it doesn`t resemble real life performance in some cases.

Just try out those planes yourself,see which are better in which areas.

Matt_2208
03-10-2005, 07:43 AM
Thanks for your warm welcome and advice guys, I'll try out the game as soon as i get home. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Just bear in mind that flightmodel favors the Russian planes because this game was primarily meant to fly Russian planes mainly and from time to time other nations planes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope that isnt the case, if it is then that is very sad http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif(I'll just have to prey that the creator is a decent man who doesnt play with history !)
But if the game takes Wingloading and such into considderation, then i can't see how the La 7 would be turning tighter than the Bf-109F.

A thousand thanks, Matt_2208 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

msalama
03-10-2005, 08:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>flightmodel favors the Russian planes <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Proof please?

Matt_2208: please DO NOT believe everything you hear around here...

Vipez-
03-10-2005, 08:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>flightmodel favors the Russian planes <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Proof please?

Matt_2208: please DO NOT believe everything you hear around here... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WEll, i have to agree, obviously you have not flown since the original IL-2.. back then there was some serious Russian BIAS, fortunalety, game has advanced a lot to bring german planes back to compete with russian planes. I still remember flying FW190 A-4, when Yak1 outdived my FW190 A-4 in early il2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Only FB patches started to fix some of the worst russian plane-favouring..

Still there are few issues:

just one example: 109 elevator lockups (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=3361077062&p=1)

and

German 20mm (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=3821034482&p=1)

OT, but Don't call me a whiner, but it's just the way it is http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Now things really got fooked up, when american and british planes started to appear (hence, the Spit-, Mustang-, and Jug-whiners http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

Matt_2208
03-10-2005, 09:33 AM
Well I've been reading 'MANY' books about the Me109. And according to every German pilot who flew a Bf-109, the Bf-109F had no problem what so ever turning with a La 7 or even a Yak 9, as long as the speed didnt exceed 480-500kph.

If the Bf-109F can't outturn a Yak 9 or La 7 in the game, then it is unrealistic both historically and theoretically. But im relying on that it can for now, it sounds like a realistic game.

I tried CFS3, and there the 'Bf-109G' can turn with a Spit !(Wich i think is abit to much for the G6 version.)


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Still there are few issues:

just one example: 109 elevator lockups <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The elevator wasnt going to get stiff until well above 550kph, only the ailerons would get really stiff, so i hope that isnt the case !
If it is, then someone should take it up with the creator of the game, if he's a decent man he will do something about it. Offcourse he's going to need evidence, but that is easely obtained.

A thousand thanks; Matt_2208 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stiglr
03-10-2005, 01:36 PM
I'd think, in theory, there would be more things to consider than what you've listed there. For example, engine power. One might weigh more than the other, but if it has a much more powerful engine, it might pull through a turn better.

Also, wing design plays a factor in turn rate, too, doesn't it?

Korolov
03-10-2005, 02:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vipez-:
WEll, i have to agree, obviously you have not flown since the original IL-2.. back then there was some serious Russian BIAS, fortunalety, game has advanced a lot to bring german planes back to compete with russian planes. I still remember flying FW190 A-4, when Yak1 outdived my FW190 A-4 in early il2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Only FB patches started to fix some of the worst russian plane-favouring..
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, but at the same time, the Fw-190 could drop flaps and outturn a I-16. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Vipez-
03-10-2005, 02:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:

Yeah, but at the same time, the Fw-190 could drop flaps and outturn a I-16. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

heh funny how come i missed that. All I remember is, Blue pilots getting absolutely butchered in online wars, Like VEF-1.. nowdays it is pretty much even, and finally germans having some historical advantages over soviet planes.. don't tell me you though the case was so in old IL2 ? Because, I certainly don't think so http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/353.gif Besides, I16 didnt exist in first IL2 versions http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

tigertalon
03-10-2005, 02:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt_2208:
Well I've been reading 'MANY' books about the Me109. And according to every German pilot who flew a Bf-109, the Bf-109F had no problem what so ever turning with a La 7 or even a Yak 9, as long as the speed didnt exceed 480-500kph.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I doubt there were many engagements between Bf109F and La7... While Bf109G2 became operational in 1942, on the other hand many units at the end of war still didn't receive La7 and were equipped with La5FN.

Korolov
03-10-2005, 03:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vipez-:
heh funny how come i missed that. All I remember is, Blue pilots getting absolutely butchered in online wars, Like VEF-1.. nowdays it is pretty much even, and finally germans having some historical advantages over soviet planes.. don't tell me you though the case was so in old IL2 ? Because, I certainly don't think so http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/353.gif Besides, I16 didnt exist in first IL2 versions http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I recall the first few times of flying the Fw-190s, I thought they sucked because they couldn't turn with the VVS planes. Then I found out that if you drop flaps, you somehow got a immense turning ability (and this was in all versions of IL-2 - demo to the final version).

And by the way, there were quite a few pilots adept at flying the A-8 with BnZ, so why you didn't have more success in VEF is probably for another reason outside of FM. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

crazyivan1970
03-10-2005, 03:54 PM
Flew BF109s since demo times... cannot consider myself butchered... Bias accusation are really sad IMO. I can`t answer for VEF..i dont fly it... but i think overall skill of LW jocks is much higher now. Yes i am one of those who says it`s a pilot, not the plane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Airmail109
03-10-2005, 04:35 PM
Ivan....I cant fly spitfires for peanuts....its the planes style that just does my nut in! I prefer 109s.....they just seem to work for me! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

carguy_
03-10-2005, 06:08 PM
Well if it is the pilot not the plane then the whole LW lobby playing online campaigns are pilots with about half of the skills the wonderfull allied pilots posses.

Stiglr
03-10-2005, 10:16 PM
Sadly, I can't agree with you, Ivan. I think it's pretty well proven that, with German aircraft, IL-2 makes sure any negatives are done to the nth degree, and any benefits are marginalized.

Take a look: the whole Alt+F1 gunsight toggle issue started with the 109, even though the offset position of the Revi has ZERO effect in sighting. Can anyone, anywhere, give a good reason why the default should be, "can't use the sight for targeting"? Let's put aside for the moment that the command to "unf***" the sight is poorly documented, or not documented at ALL, depending on which version you're talking about.

The elevator 'problem' for the 109 is the most extreme for any plane, but you know it had to be a problem for MOST early designs across the board. But, because the British made such a big deal out of it in their report (no doubt helped along by their rather light elevator experiences in Spits), it is the ONLY plane in the sim to lock up that bad, at that low a speed. Yet, along with the rival Spitfire, it was considered about the best plane in the WORLD until mid '43...some would say beyond that. A plane that good with an elevator THIS bad? No, I don't think so...

Then, there's the 190 "visibility problem", totally fabricated by the game's pit design (a real butcher job). Any idiot knows the 109 is harder to see out of than the 190, but in IL-2, it's the other way around.

On the "positive" side of the ledger, how convenient it was for the "complex engine management" to be totally whitewashed once the design team figured out it would help the 109 and 190 jocks, who should benefit from "automatic operation"... and clearly inhibit VVS and Western Allied designs almost across the board.

German 20mm...the only 20mm that somehow, can't be made effective. What's up with that?

When you look at planes through the life of this product that have had wild swings in "ability" that were subject to a bit of scrutiny, which planes benefitted? The La5FN, the P-39s, the Hurricane II, the I-16.... the only 109 I can think of is the IL-2 v2.0 109E, that had a "antigravity boost" along with the Hurri for that short time period.

The "B" word is one that certainly cannot be dismissed out of hand.

Badsight.
03-10-2005, 10:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt_2208:
So if it takes such factors into considderation, then let me try and make a small comparence with empty aircraft:

The Bf-109F2:
Weight=1,964 kg "empty"
Wingspan=10.6m
Wingarea=17.4 sq.m.
Has "Wingslats".
-----------------
The La 7:
Weight=2,605 kg "empty"
Wingspan=9.80m
Wingarea=17.6m
Has "Wingslats".

So in theory the Bf-109F2 would turn tighter than the La 7, or ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>dont let your theory rest on so few variables

or youll start to sound like Stigler . . . .

(BTW , the La-7 in FB isnt the be-all it has been in the past , well slightly at least)

Korolov
03-10-2005, 11:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Take a look: the whole Alt+F1 gunsight toggle issue started with the 109, even though the offset position of the Revi has ZERO effect in sighting. Can anyone, anywhere, give a good reason why the default should be, "can't use the sight for targeting"?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't forget that the P-47 razorbacks have this as well - default view is looking at a bar in the center of the screen. And the I-153s as well, which have a metal gunsight in front of the reflector one, which makes it more difficult than it has to be in order to aim.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The elevator 'problem' for the 109 is the most extreme for any plane, but you know it had to be a problem for MOST early designs across the board. But, because the British made such a big deal out of it in their report (no doubt helped along by their rather light elevator experiences in Spits), it is the ONLY plane in the sim to lock up that bad, at that low a speed.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Incorrect. Try the P-38J, Yak series and Lavochkin series in a dive.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Yet, along with the rival Spitfire, it was considered about the best plane in the WORLD until mid '43...some would say beyond that. A plane that good with an elevator THIS bad? No, I don't think so...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Emphasis on "say". Let's see, we've heard "P-38 was the best plane in the world", "P-51 was the best plane in the world", "La-7 was the best plane in the world" and on and on and on. Ancedotal evidence gets you nowhere - especially for a plane that of 35+ million produced, there are only a few exsisting today.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Then, there's the 190 "visibility problem", totally fabricated by the game's pit design (a real butcher job). Any idiot knows the 109 is harder to see out of than the 190, but in IL-2, it's the other way around.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No doubt the Fw-190 view has been butchered, but whether you fly the Fw-190 or the Bf-109 depends on your point of view and how you like to fly. For example, the Fw-190 definately has a better rear hemisphere view, and to the sides. This has worked to my advantage many times - even if the forward view is hell.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
On the "positive" side of the ledger, how convenient it was for the "complex engine management" to be totally whitewashed once the design team figured out it would help the 109 and 190 jocks, who should benefit from "automatic operation"... and clearly inhibit VVS and Western Allied designs almost across the board.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How often do you have to shift superhcarger gears or fuel mix in the 109/190?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
German 20mm...the only 20mm that somehow, _can't_ be made effective. What's up with _that_?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny, I really like the MG151. Guess that's just me. Nothing like diving on a poor slob in a IL-2 or a Yak-9 and giving them a quad 20mm job.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
When you look at planes through the life of this product that have had wild swings in "ability" that were subject to a bit of scrutiny, which planes benefitted? The La5FN, the P-39s, the Hurricane II, the I-16.... the only 109 I can think of is the IL-2 v2.0 109E, that had a "antigravity boost" along with the Hurri for that short time period.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I see some people saying the MG151 is uberized, that the 109 climbs too fast, etc.

Who do we believe?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The "B" word is one that certainly cannot be dismissed out of hand. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nor can it come from just one position either.

TAGERT.
03-11-2005, 01:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Sadly, I can't agree with you, Ivan. I think it's pretty well proven that, with German aircraft, IL-2 makes sure any negatives are done to the nth degree, and any benefits are marginalized. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Proven! LOL! You wouldnt know proven if it grew legs jumped up and bit ya on the backside.

TAGERT.
03-11-2005, 01:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
dont let your theory rest on so few variables

or youll start to sound like Stigler . . . .
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>ROTFL!

msalama
03-11-2005, 02:28 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Here we f**king go again...

Time for the old tried-and-true question: I trust you gentlemen have collected evidence of this unfair behaviour, and sent a bug report to 1C:Maddox? Or, failing that, do you _really_ think it's advisable for you, this game & the community at large to make yourselves appear as morons YET AGAIN by starting this age-old whine for the Nth time?

Please spare a thought or two for this matter before going _any_ further. Thank you.

carguy_
03-11-2005, 03:03 AM
Duh!

Ofcourse MG151/20 is uberized.You`re on the other end of it most of the time.

Matt_2208
03-11-2005, 03:32 AM
I don't understand how so many German 109 pilots got above the 100 mark, if the 109 was a bad plane from 43 and onwards. (That is impossible)

I read this about the La7 and Yak3 on the IL2 site: "The Yak3/La7 has complete combat superiorty over its latest German, British, American counterparts" It couldnt be more untrue!

Russian pilots werent stupid thats a fact, and they were good pilots, yet their highest scoring ace had 68 kills while Germany had 'Many' 109 aces topping the hundreds on the scoring board ! This must have been because of the equipment differences !.

If the guy making the flightmodels need an accurate discription on the aircrafts capability they need not only interview Russian pilots, but also German pilots, or else it will ofcourse favor the side who's pilots have been interviewed.

About thoeries; Well the Yak3 had very little wing, yet it turns like **** ingame (According to IL2 stats), Hmm.. hows that ?

The A6M7 Zero turns very tight in real life, as it is light and has alot of wingarea. It also has great climbrate because of this, despite relatively low enginepower.

And offcourse there's more to tight turns than just Wingarea and weight etc etc.. However a Low wingloading is the first step !

Please share your thoughts on this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

A thousand thanks; Matt_2208 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Nubarus
03-11-2005, 04:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt_2208:
Russian pilots werent stupid thats a fact, and they were good pilots, yet their highest scoring ace had 68 kills while Germany had 'Many' 109 aces topping the hundreds on the scoring board ! This must have been because of the equipment differences !. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ever thought about the fact that the German aces had a lot more targets to shoot at since they decided to pick a fight with 3 super powers and their Allies?

And that at the start of the war the Russians had **** planes, bad leadership, bad communications and poorly trained pilots.

There are plenty of factors then just better equipment that need to be taken into account.

While the Russians outnumbered their German counterparts is also a very good reason that their aces had lower kill scores since it was pretty hard to get a kill when all your fellow pilots are trying to get them as well with so little targets available.

Matt_2208
03-11-2005, 05:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Ever thought about the fact that the German aces had a lot more targets to shoot at since they decided to pick a fight with 3 super powers and their Allies? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was talking 1943 and onwards on the Eastern front only !

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And that at the start of the war the Russians had **** planes, bad leadership, bad communications and poorly trained pilots. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1943 isnt the start of the war ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I was talking 43 and onwards.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
There are plenty of factors then just better equipment that need to be taken into account.

While the Russians outnumbered their German counterparts is also a very good reason that their aces had lower kill scores since it was pretty hard to get a kill when all your fellow pilots are trying to get them as well with so little targets available. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was 'one' very unlikely factor !

Matt_2208

Nubarus
03-11-2005, 06:01 AM
The German top aces flew during the entire war, not just from 1943 onward.

But from what I have seen so far in your 9 posts is that you already made up your mind regarding your "question".

So your question is not a question but a fishing trip.

msalama
03-11-2005, 08:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>About thoeries; Well the Yak3 had very little wing, yet it turns like **** ingame (According to IL2 stats), Hmm.. hows that? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dunno how's that, but it did that IRL too. The Yak-3 was praised as one of the best dogfighters in WWII, and not only by Russians - the Nieman-Normandie Regiment of France chose the Yak-3 as well.

So yep, it was/is a good plane.

TAGERT.
03-11-2005, 08:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt_2208:
I don't understand how so many German 109 pilots got above the 100 mark, if the 109 was a bad plane from 43 and onwards. (That is impossible)

I read this about the La7 and Yak3 on the IL2 site: "The Yak3/La7 has complete combat superiorty over its latest German, British, American counterparts" It couldnt be more untrue!

Russian pilots werent stupid thats a fact, and they were good pilots, yet their highest scoring ace had 68 kills while Germany had 'Many' 109 aces topping the hundreds on the scoring board ! This must have been because of the equipment differences !.

If the guy making the flightmodels need an accurate discription on the aircrafts capability they need not only interview Russian pilots, but also German pilots, or else it will ofcourse favor the side who's pilots have been interviewed.

About thoeries; Well the Yak3 had very little wing, yet it turns like **** ingame (According to IL2 stats), Hmm.. hows that ?

The A6M7 Zero turns very tight in real life, as it is light and has alot of wingarea. It also has great climbrate because of this, despite relatively low enginepower.

And offcourse there's more to tight turns than just Wingarea and weight etc etc.. However a Low wingloading is the first step !

Please share your thoughts on this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

A thousand thanks; Matt_2208 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My thoughts on this is you have not given it much thought.

TAGERT.
03-11-2005, 08:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
Ever thought about the fact that the German aces had a lot more targets to shoot at since they decided to pick a fight with 3 super powers and their Allies? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Bingo!

crazyivan1970
03-11-2005, 09:19 AM
Stig, i`ll be 100% honest with you. There is a huge difference in the way we look at things. I look at myself first then i look at others, it`s that simple. I was never into finding little faults here and there and then scream bloody murder about it. I just fly and suck it up. See the problem is.. you can`t even accuse that i fly so-called uber russian AC http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I flew 109s exclusevly since day one. Was it hard at times, of course... sure i was getting my behind handed to me. But as a reward you become more experianced and not making same mistakes again. It was all about learning curve for me and i am sure for many others.
I am not going to deny that some things were wrong, some still are... but it doesn`t change anything and would never make my say the "B" word. Because it`s the sorriest excuse you can come up with - accusing of bias. But that is my PERSONAL opinion, we are two different people.

Stiglr
03-11-2005, 10:54 AM
Well, I have never said that I ever expect to win all the time. I make enough mistakes and there are enough good pilots out there for anyone to realize that sometimes, you'll get the bear, sometimes the bear gets you. I got no problem with that. Many times it IS the better pilot who wins. And I'm not always that pilot. I got no problem losing a fair fight to someone who's better, or even luckier (this time) than I am.

By the same token, hell NO, I'm not going to just "suck it up" when P39s are flying rings around me like an F-15, based on the bias of the developer. I know from these planes enough to spot the rather obvious porkings and ueberings that have been slathered onto the sim like too much mayo on a bad sandwich. Maybe you can shed some light over exactly WHY "certain" planes' flight models have whipsawed so wildly among the various versions? Whatever you do, DON'T say Oleg was always right. With such huge differences, that simply is not possible.

The usual folks who have the most to lose, and wouldn't be spotted flying an "average" plane to save their lives, they will always jump in and do their fanb@i dance, because of course, it's their ueber-ride that's been gifted with special properties. It's purely self-serving. And sure, one can say I'm being self-serving as well. But that's fine; I know that all I want is accuracy, and that's all that matters to me. Besides, nobody in here can say they see me flying those ueberrides-du-jour in the first place.

Matt_2208
03-11-2005, 11:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Dunno how's that, but it did that IRL too. The Yak-3 was praised as one of the best dogfighters in WWII, and not only by Russians - the Nieman-Normandie Regiment of France chose the Yak-3 as well.

So yep, it was/is a good plane. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Havent ever heard it was a good T&B fighter before, and the french didnt say that either !

The roll rate was great, and so was the reliability according to the french atleast, plus it was pretty darn fast ! Thats why the French prefered it sometimes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
My thoughts on this is you have not given it much thought. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for your kindness ! Its always good when people respect each other. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Matt_2208

TAGERT.
03-11-2005, 11:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Well, I have never said that I ever expect to win all the time. I make enough mistakes and there are enough good pilots out there for anyone to realize that sometimes, you'll get the bear, sometimes the bear gets you. I got no problem with that. Many times it IS the better pilot who wins. And I'm not always that pilot. I got no problem losing a fair fight to someone who's better, or even luckier (this time) than I am. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Master of the obvious statment.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
By the same token, hell NO, I'm not going to just "suck it up" when P39s are flying rings around me like an F-15, based on the bias of the developer. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not 100% sure, Im not Ivan, but Ill go out on a limb ands say that the "suck it up statmen"t was based of the FACT that the problems,if any, are small and for the most part are do to the limitations of simulation itself. To realise that though, you would have to first realise that no simulation ever was, is, or will be perfect. That extream example of a P39 flying like an F15 is just your WEAK way of justifying your actions.. Key word being weak. As for bias.. Get a mirror! And know that to this day, you have never presented anyting that would be considered proof of any bias.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I know from these planes enough to spot the rather obvious porkings and ueberings that have been slathered onto the sim like too much mayo on a bad sandwich. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Typical empty statments.. No examples, No track files, No supporting evidence, NOTHING! Im sure that most of what you see has more to do with your own inept flying skils than the aircraft.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Maybe you can shed some light over exactly WHY "certain" planes' flight models have whipsawed so wildly among the various versions? Whatever you do, DON'T say Oleg was always right. With such huge differences, that simply is not possible. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ever hear of a bug? As for huge differences, again, Typical empty statments.. No examples, No track files, No supporting evidence, NOTHING!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
The usual folks who have the most to lose, and wouldn't be spotted flying an "average" plane to save their lives, they will always jump in and do their fanb@i dance, because of course, it's their ueber-ride that's been gifted with special properties. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! What a tool! Do you really belive that?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
It's purely self-serving. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>GET A MIRROR!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
And sure, one can say I'm being self-serving as well. But that's fine; __I __know that all I want is accuracy, and that's all that matters to me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You wouldnt know accuracy if bit you in the backside

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Besides, nobody in here can say they see me flying those ueberrides-du-jour in the first place. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As if we care what you fly. Whats the mater stig, is the Targetware server down again? Or just two people in it thus no fun?

crazyivan1970
03-11-2005, 11:41 AM
Ok, TAG and Stigler stay out of this topic for 1 day, that`s an order.

Matt_2208, Yak3 was probably the best fighter down below 5km in the end of the war. And there was a good reason NN chosed them over any other plane. And they did really well in it. I am not sure what sources you are using, but i have read memoirs of french pilots.

Matt_2208
03-11-2005, 01:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Matt_2208, Yak3 was probably the best fighter down below 5km in the end of the war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, thats a bold statement !(No offense) Im sure the Spit MK.XIV would make it look bad in comparison !

Im just abit disappionted that its being shown as **** good T&B fighter, when its got high wing-loading and no wing-slats. SO in theory it shouldnt be turning tighter than a Bf-109G let alone an 109F, and most certainly not a Spitfire !


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And there was a good reason NN chosed them over any other plane. And they did really well in it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I whole-heartedly agree, but this was not because of it being a good T&B fighter, but because of its Speed, roll-rate and reliability.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I am not sure what sources you are using, but i have read memoirs of french pilots. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I've read them aswell. They liked really liked the Yak3 and for good reason.

Regards; Matt_2208 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

crazyivan1970
03-11-2005, 01:40 PM
Take RL turn timings of Spitfire and Yak3 and compate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Matt_2208
03-11-2005, 01:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Take RL turn timings of Spitfire and Yak3 and compate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well IIRC the Yak's turn time was 21-22 sec. Even Spitfire MK.I could out-do this with 19 sec for a 360.

regards; Matt_2208

Korolov
03-11-2005, 02:05 PM
Matt, do you have any idea how much the Yak-3 weighed?

Read this very carefully:

2,692kg take off weight - thats a little bit over 2.5 metric tons. At that weight... heavy wing loading won't mean a whole lot.

Compare to the Bf-109G-10 - 3,300kg take off. Whoa, that's 600kg more. That's not small beans. Unless it's a spiral climb, the 109G is going to lose a straight horizontal yank and bank fight to the Yak-3.

And the Spitfire... Well, let's just say it turned better than the 109 did.

To put things into context, Pokrishkin said he preferred to fly the P-39 over any soviet plane availible. Why would he want to fly what most USAAF pilots considered a death trap?

There was far more flying in the sky than just aluminum scrap piles.

Matt_2208
03-11-2005, 02:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Matt, do you have any idea how much the Yak-3 weighed?

Read this very carefully:

2,692kg take off weight - thats a little bit over 2.5 metric tons. At that weight... heavy wing loading won't mean a whole lot.

Compare to the Bf-109G-10 - 3,300kg take off. Whoa, that's 600kg more. That's not small beans. Unless it's a spiral climb, the 109G is going to lose a straight horizontal yank and bank fight to the Yak-3.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure but compare that to the Bf-109F or G2 with normal load, or for max-aerobatics-load=Empty http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And the Spitfire... Well, let's just say it turned better than the 109 did. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well as matter of fact, it did and it didnt ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
To put things into context, Pokrishkin said he preferred to fly the P-39 over any soviet plane availible. Why would he want to fly what most USAAF pilots considered a death trap?

There was far more flying in the sky than just aluminum scrap piles. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And i fully agree, im just striving for a realistic simulations thats all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Regards; Matt_2208 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

gates123
03-11-2005, 02:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt_2208:

Dunno how's that, but it did that IRL too. The Yak-3 was praised as one of the best dogfighters in WWII, and not only by Russians - the Nieman-Normandie Regiment of France chose the Yak-3 as well.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



I spoke to a yak-3 pilot at an airshow about a yr ago. He was flying the a original replica powered by the Allison v-1710 powerplants. He has flown alot of warbirds including a F8F and he said nothing can out fly it under 15k ft. He even has a replica A6m3.

Told me a story one time of how he was pushing it real hard and a snap stall came so quick he swore he would never do it again. Said the first thing he noticed was the right wing dipped and he almost got in a uncontrollable flat spin. I Guess it scared the &%$# out of him.

Sounds like what happened to me the other night online. It comes quick and the first thing that happens is the right wing will dip, but I'll usually cut throttle and try not to black out before that happens. So from my standpoint Oleg got it right. I do believe there are certain situations where you can briefly outturn a yak-3 if you enter your planes "sweet-spot", especially a 109G-2. I'm sure the flight models are not all perfected in each plane but they can't be far off. If theres 2 planes I can think of that need tweaking (with no proof or data to back this up) its the Zeros dive speed and the P-38's stall speed.

Can someone also please put a lid on Stiglr, last time I saw him online he was turnfighting by himself flying a 109 on the deck getting shot up by a LAGG. Then he comes in here and complains about uber Russian flight models but what he fails to see is his own pilot incompetence. Sorry but CrazyIvan is right when he says "its the pilot not the plane". Someone send him a copy of CFS2/3 and let him loose at simaviation's forum....please. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Korolov
03-11-2005, 02:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt_2208:
Sure but compare that to the Bf-109F or G2 with normal load, or for max-aerobatics-load=Empty http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

By 1944, the Freidrich and Gustav2 were pulled out of service. Plus, you said '43 and later.

But since you asked, yes, the 109G-2 will outturn a Yak-3 in the right conditions in FB.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Well as matter of fact, it did and it didnt ! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends on the Spitfire model and the 109 model - just like vs a Yakolev and a Lavochkin. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And i fully agree, im just striving for a realistic simulations thats all <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And how long have you been flying the sim thus far?

As far as we can tell, you come in here with very little experience, asking questions and making assumptions of aircraft performance, when you have absolutely no idea how they flew.

The fact is, nobody here flew a Yak-3 in combat against a Bf-109, or a Spitfire versus a 190, or any of that - everyone has their own opinion of things, and you are entitled to them. But do not make any assumptions, because as a pilot, you should know, **** happens.

Badsight.
03-11-2005, 03:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So in theory the Bf-109F2 would turn tighter than the La 7, or ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>maybe if the theory wasnt based on Real Life performance

best 360 degree turn time for La-7 : 17 seconds

best 360 degree turn time for Yak-3 (Vk105) : 17/18 seconds

best 360 degree turn time for Bf109F2 : 18-19 seconds

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As Bf-109 pilots persistantly claim they wouldnt have any problem in outturning a La 7 below 480kph <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>i think they are relaying their fantasy rather than their experience

Matt_2208
03-11-2005, 04:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
By 1944, the Freidrich and Gustav2 were pulled out of service. Plus, you said '43 and later.

But since you asked, yes, the 109G-2 will outturn a Yak-3 in the right conditions in FB. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well then what is peopl's problem ? If the Bf-109F-G2 can outturn a Yak3 and La-7 then it is perfectly realistic. (Except at high speed, where the Yak and La would have the advantage)


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Depends on the Spitfire model and the 109 model - just like vs a Yakolev and a Lavochkin. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to Len Deighton the Bf-109E would turn tighter than the Spit MK.I, but it didnt in many cases because of pilots seeing the Wing-slats deploy thought they should back off a little, wich cost them dearly !

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And how long have you been flying the sim thus far? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats a blank 'Zero' for me ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
As far as we can tell, you come in here with very little experience, asking questions and making assumptions of aircraft performance, when you have absolutely no idea how they flew. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I came in here and asked because i wanted to know how accurate this game was, as i just bought it. And i know its not a totally new game, so updates must have been made. However i also asked some of these questions because of reading some of the stats for the ingame aircraft at the IL2 FB site.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The fact is, nobody here flew a Yak-3 in combat against a Bf-109, or a Spitfire versus a 190, or any of that - everyone has their own opinion of things, and you are entitled to them. But do not make any assumptions, because as a pilot, you should know, **** happens. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, although I've been lucky so far. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Regards; Matt_2208 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Matt_2208
03-11-2005, 04:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> maybe if the theory wasnt based on Real Life performance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No just abit on physics !( Wich plane manufactures normally take into considderation http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> best 360 degree turn time for La-7 : 17 seconds

best 360 degree turn time for Yak-3 (Vk105) : 17/18 seconds

best 360 degree turn time for Bf109F2 : 18-19 seconds <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont want to sound demanding, but perhaps you could tell me what is the source on that ? (Be aware of BIAS )

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> i think they are relaying their fantasy rather than their experience <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well i could say the same about Russian pilots http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Regards; Matt_2208 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Matt_2208
03-11-2005, 04:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I spoke to a yak-3 pilot at an airshow about a yr ago. He was flying the a original replica powered by the Allison v-1710 powerplants. He has flown alot of warbirds including a F8F and he said nothing can out fly it under 15k ft. He even has a replica A6m3. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes because the Yak-3 had great roll-rate and great speed, so thats why he said nothing could "out-fly" it under 15k ft.

Btw the A6M3 can do a 360 in 12.6 sec, reported by the Japanees themselves, so there's no way a Yak-3 or any other USSR fighter will be outturning it.

Regards; Matt_2208 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Badsight.
03-11-2005, 05:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt_2208:
According to Len Deighton the Bf-109E would turn tighter than the Spit MK.I, but it didnt in many cases because of pilots seeing the Wing-slats deploy thought they should back off a little, wich cost them dearly ! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>wow , the Spitfire Mk1 could do 19 second level 360 degree turns , whereas the Emil Bf109 struggled to get close to 22 second level turns

& Spitfire pilots colud not speak highly enough of the early models handeling

i dont know where your getting the idear that the Messerschmitt was a dominant turning A/C

it wasnt

but it was out-turned by all other nations dominant fighters , if you really want to believe the F & G model 109's could turn with Yaks & LA's , why did the RLM command that pilots were not to engage them in DF's under 5K ?

instead of asking this forum members opinions , why dont you just try reading up on these A/C instead

crazyivan1970
03-11-2005, 05:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt_2208:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
By 1944, the Freidrich and Gustav2 were pulled out of service. Plus, you said '43 and later.

But since you asked, yes, the 109G-2 will outturn a Yak-3 in the right conditions in FB. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well then what is peopl's problem ? If the Bf-109F-G2 can outturn a Yak3 and La-7 then it is perfectly realistic. (Except at high speed, where the Yak and La would have the advantage)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You got it backwards, 109 has edge on high speed...well except K4.. G2 deffinitely does, all the way up to G14. At high speed better hangling then any russian built AC...fact http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Badsight.
03-11-2005, 06:26 PM
oh man , not in a sustained high speed turn , no way

the only time i see Bf109s doing aproper out-turn move iswhen both A/C start the turn at close to the stall speed

in a high speed start , the messer will blow off speed & cut in , but that dont mean its the tighter turner

to me , Bf's have the worst elevator authority at high speeds

Matt_2208
03-12-2005, 02:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> wow , the Spitfire Mk1 could do 19 second level 360 degree turns , whereas the Emil Bf109 struggled to get close to 22 second level turns <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is your source on that ? Have you read Len Deightons book ?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
i dont know where your getting the idear that the Messerschmitt was a dominant turning A/C <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well it was at some speeds, except the I-16 and Zero wich would outturn it at low speeds.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
it wasnt
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And what are you basing that on ?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
but it was out-turned by all other nations dominant fighters , if you really want to believe the F & G model 109's could turn with Yaks & LA's , why did the RLM command that pilots were not to engage them in DF's under 5K ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That 109's were asked not Dogfight Yaks or La's below 5k is a complete lie. Do you have any document on that ?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
instead of asking this forum members opinions , why dont you just try reading up on these A/C instead <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've read my fair share, but not you it seems.

Matt_2208

Matt_2208
03-12-2005, 02:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
You got it backwards, 109 has edge on high speed...well except K4.. G2 deffinitely does, all the way up to G14. At high speed better hangling then any russian built AC...fact http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is not true, the 109 had problems with the ailerons and elevator above 500kph. Thats fact ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Regards; Matt_2008 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Aaron_GT
03-12-2005, 04:20 AM
" All I remember is, Blue pilots getting absolutely butchered in online wars, Like VEF-1.."

I remember us red pilots getting butchered by JG77 et al in early war scenarios...

Monty_Thrud
03-12-2005, 04:25 AM
Check this out Matt_2208 Spifire MkI v Emil (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1.html)...hope it helps, oh and welcome http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Aaron_GT
03-12-2005, 04:32 AM
Korolov wrote:
"To put things into context, Pokrishkin said he preferred to fly the P-39 over any soviet plane availible. Why would he want to fly what most USAAF pilots considered a death trap?"

How much of his liking for the P39 was based on performance and how much on the superior additional equipment (sights, radio, heating)?

To Matt:
When quoting turn times, there's a difference between instantaneous turn performance and sustained turn performance and both vary with speed. At very low speed (just above stall) at high altitude the 109E was very competitive in sustained turn with the Spitfire I. However turn fighting down to that type of speed is not really what you want to be doing unless you have been dragged down low and alone and it is your only option. Roll and dive and zoom climb performance would be more useful allowing you to dive to disengage, zoom climb back up, and then rejoin your formation for protection. This is why as the war progressed these qualities were given more emphasis in subsequent aircraft at the expense of turn performance.

Matt_2208
03-12-2005, 04:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Check this out Matt_2208 http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1.html... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah I've seen those, but there were some serius complications in that test, as explained in Deightons book.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
hope it helps, oh and welcome http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks buddy ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Matt_2008 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Badsight.
03-12-2005, 12:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt_2208:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
i dont know where your getting the idear that the Messerschmitt was a dominant turning A/C <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well it was at some speeds, except the I-16 and Zero wich would outturn it at low speeds.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
it wasnt
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And what are you basing that on ?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
but it was out-turned by all other nations dominant fighters , if you really want to believe the F & G model 109's could turn with Yaks & LA's , why did the RLM command that pilots were not to engage them in DF's under 5K ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That 109's were asked not Dogfight Yaks or La's below 5k is a complete lie. Do you have any document on that ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>well i see your mind is already made up

i dont think you can be helped

this is just a fishing thread

if you truely believe that only planes like the I-16 or the Zero were capable of out-turning the best Bf109 model your totally living in fantasy land

Matt_2208
03-13-2005, 07:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>well i see your mind is already made up

i dont think you can be helped

this is just a fishing thread <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's no meaning in getting rude.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> if you truely believe that only planes like the I-16 or the Zero were capable of out-turning the best Bf109 model your totally living in fantasy land <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats not what i said. The Bf-109 was a very tight turning aircraft at low-moderate speeds, not even the Spitfire could follow it, only the Zero, Oscar and "biplanes/triplanes" could outturn it at low speeds.

Later model 109's didnt have such a tight turning capability, but nonetheless they could still outturn the P-51's and P-47's they faced.

Matt_2208

Matt_2208
03-13-2005, 07:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt_2208:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>well i see your mind is already made up

i dont think you can be helped

this is just a fishing thread <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It isnt nessecary getting rude.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> if you truely believe that only planes like the I-16 or the Zero were capable of out-turning the best Bf109 model your totally living in fantasy land <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats not what i said. The Bf-109 was a very tight turning aircraft at low-moderate speeds, not even the Spitfire could follow it, only the Zero, Oscar and "biplanes/triplanes" could outturn it at low speeds.

Later model 109's didnt have such a tight turning capability, but nonetheless they could still outturn the P-51's and P-47's they faced.

Matt_2208 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Badsight.
03-13-2005, 07:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt_2208:
Thats not what i said. The Bf-109 was a very tight turning aircraft at low-moderate speeds, not even the Spitfire could follow it, only the Zero, Oscar and "biplanes/triplanes" could outturn it at low speeds. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>fantasy

110% proof , as in "no way in hell"

stay off the top shelf

JR_Greenhorn
03-13-2005, 10:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt_2208:
It isnt nessecary getting rude. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Perhaps others here find your tone rude, Matt_2208. If you truly are as new as your account implies, and not just a new account for an old troll, you've got a few things to learn around here.

You claim you are a pilot and a have done a significant amount of reading on the topics being discussed here. However, you have yet to display an in-depth understanding of physics and aircraft design. Also, you have not yet constructed a well-supported argument, and you do not seem to be able to refute the points others make without letting the discussion deteriorate. Actually, you only seem interested in bickering about the real-life performace of these planes as history remembers them.

Do you really have an interest in the flight models in this game? If so, go and fly the game offline for a while. Fly long enough to learn the limits of the AI, and the limits of your skills. Then venture online, and try flying against those that you are trying to argue with here. Not only will you have a better handle on what you are trying to argue, you may build some respect for yourself in the eyes of others around here. You have not done so yet.

Skalgrim
03-14-2005, 04:36 AM
Mark hanna has fly spits p51 and 109g


He had say, 109 was one of the best low speed doghfighter, only spit could match with 109.

P51 was no match under for 109, 109 could easy outmaneuver p51 under 480km/h ias.

He knowed sure better as we, he has they fly.

btw.

spain g10 with 1680ps and 3150kg weigh has 28m/sec initialclimb.

German g10 and k4 has better powerload as spain g10, that means 30m/sec are possible for k4.

Interesting is too hartmanns comments,

he was hunt from 6-8 p51 Romania, they could never turn inside from hartmann G6,

was very long doghfight, he has means later they could not aim and turn, but was therefore faster as his g6.

He must chute later, because no fuel,

but he could easy outturn p51

Matt_2208
03-14-2005, 06:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Perhaps others here find _your_ tone rude, Matt_2208. If you truly are as new as your account implies, and not just a new account for an old troll, you've got a few things to learn around here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Truly as new as my account implies ? I've only just bought the game !

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> You claim you are a pilot and a have done a significant amount of reading on the topics being discussed here. However, you have yet to display an in-depth understanding of physics and aircraft design. Also, you have not yet constructed a well-supported argument, and you do not seem to be able to refute the points others make without letting the discussion deteriorate. Actually, you only seem interested in bickering about the real-life performace of these planes as history remembers them.

Do you really have an interest in the flight models in this game? If so, go and fly the game offline for a while. Fly long enough to learn the limits of the AI, and the limits of your skills. Then venture online, and try flying against those that you are trying to argue with here. Not only will you have a better handle on what you are trying to argue, you may build some respect for yourself in the eyes of others around here. You have not done so yet. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With all due respect, your the one who's got it all screwed up !

The Bf-109 is one of the tightest turning monoplane-fighters at low speeds of WW2 ! Check your History book, and you might find out about that. Spitfire's wouldnt be able to follow an 109F at low speeds, and thats a **** fact+simple physics ! (Also ask a LW 109 fighter-pilot, and he will tell you the same, I garantee it)

Read Len Deighton's book, and Mark Hanna's accounts for starters http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Or you could start with this: http://www.jazzitoria.dial.pipex.com/aspit-2.htm

regards; Matt_2208.

anarchy52
03-14-2005, 07:55 AM
Well on the subject of Yak-3 vs Spit:
I posted a while ago translated pilot's testimony from ABG forum (I could dig it out but I'm too lazy). Yugoslav army had an interesting mix of planes: Yak-3/9 Spits V, IX, even few XIV IIRC, Mosquito, P-47...
The point he made was that he thought Spit is superior overall to Yak-3 in dogfight (especially in horizontal) as Yak-3 was demanding to fly (lot of work in the cockpit) and was VERY unstable even at very high speed. He also stated that Yak-3 when engaging Spit should take the fight in vertical (actually his exact words were "fighting vertical is yak's only chance").

IMHO the area in which FB does poorly is modelling e-retention, stall, roll and torque.
That's why you'll often see that FB doesn't reflect relative aircraft performance according to historical data.
For example (numbers taken from IL-2 FB aircraft viewer):
1942 109G6 vs P-39Q10
---------------------
wingloading:
109G6: 182.2kg/m^2
P-39: 186.6kg/m^2

power-to-weight:
109G6: 0.41HP/kg
P-39: 0.32HP/kg

powerloading
109G6: 75.14HP/m^2
P-39: 60.3HP/m^2

turntime:
109G6: 21.2 sec
P-39: 18.9 sec
so looking at these numbers it would seem that Bf-109G6 would be superior to P-39 in almost any respect except horizontal turns, but from my experience co-E co-alt situation in G6 vs P-39 usually ends with 109 as flaming wreck on the ground.

similar with 190D-9 vs P-51
----------------------------
with both planes not being T'n'B fighters, with P-51 having better wingloading and D9 having better powerloading and power-to-weight ratio I'd say that P-51 is dora's worst nightmare as it has excellent high-speed manuverability and better e-retention, zoom climb, turn etc...also 190's terrible forward view and instability doesn't help much.

109G10 vs P-51D
---------------
basically P-51D should be at disadvantage in almost every respect by looking at basic parameters. But you'll notice that 109's in game have terrible elevator authority over 470km/h and are worse in zoom climbs, e-retention. co-alt co-e P-51 can easily turn the situation to it's advantage by simply highspeed dive and pulling up - it will outmanuever (better high speed elevators), outzoom the 109 (due to better e-retention) and end up with higher e-state then 109 in one simple manuever.

Uber Spitfire?
--------------
Well, you'll see for yourself. It's the prime example of discrepancy between real life historical account and game. While nobody would seriously argue about the fact that Spit did and should easily outturn 109 and 190, in game it excells in every respect: zoom, climb, e-retention, high and low speed, high and low alt manuverability, arnament, durability...
Historical 190 tactics vs Spit will get you shot down in a blink of an eye as your roll rate, high speed manuverability and initial dive acceleration are nullified by terrible e-retention which makes vertical combat just as bad option vs Spit as horizontal.

Also read this to see the other face of the medal:
http://www.kurfurst.atw.hu/articles/MW_KvsXIV.htm


The point was not "luftwhining" (although, you will hear that label a lot on this forum) but an ilustration of the fact that those numbers alone do not accuratelly describe aircraft's FM not in real life and ESPECIALLY not in FB.

karost
03-14-2005, 09:45 AM
by nature of history-info. was writed from many people , many countries about wwii air combat which may conerning in the same way or conflic in difference way, only a wise guys, who read alot more and talk to many experiece man ( real pilots ) or he/they are a pilot too , can see alot of the difference thing in game compare to a real life plane.

Matt_2208 , thanks for come and share alot of thing which some part quite difference form what we was domain.
as you come to the post with new source ( like Len Deighton's book, and Mark Hanna's accounts) and talk with history and physic-language which make me interesting much http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif and hope to read more. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


I /we try to avoid for bise's emotion and open our big heart to read and learning a new thing that is a wonderful... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

anarchy52 , thanks for post http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



"I not a real pilot just a common guy who playing alot in (pc) sim and looking on the sky to see a real plane fly...."

Regards,

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

Badsight.
03-14-2005, 07:42 PM
Matt_2208 , no 109 ever made turn times better than its equivelant Spitfire model

whoever told you they could were relaying their fantasy , not real life

whoever made up that spitfire page needs to get a reality check & quit with the mis-infomation

JR_Greenhorn
03-14-2005, 09:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt_2208:
With all due respect, you're the one who's got it all screwed up ! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm afraid you'll have to explain it to me. What have I got "screwed up?"

Not once did I contribute to the run of the mill flight model bickering that you have done. Not once did I challenge your claims of the matchless low-speed turn of the Bf 109. Why then, would you firing back more of the same have any effect my opinion of you?

I was merely criticizing your ability to construct an argument. I also made the observation that you have not yet tried to use your claimed knowlegde in physics to support your arguments. Restating the same thing over and over does not make it any more or less true.

You must assume the burden of proof and support your point if you want others to take you seriously. How is that done? The most commonly accepted method around here is to post your claim with properly cited sources. This does not mean telling someone to "check your history book." Rather, it means quoting portions of the book that support your point, and then providing the name of the book and author, as well as the page number. Perhaps I don't have the book that you are basing your case on. How am I to find it if you never even state the proper title of the book?

Once you have made your point and supported it with historical records, if you are accusing the game of being incorrect, you must then test the game in a quasi-scientific manner, and provide proof here.

Why is this necessary? Because around here there are so many rants about all manner of things being wrong in this game. One can't possibly believe everything he reads. We sort the wheat from the chaff based upon the quality of support provided with the argument.

karost
03-15-2005, 05:52 AM
Mark Hanna and ME-109

.........

These are also hydraulically controlled with an open/close and neutral position, and activated by the trigger on the stick at 375 psi. If you leave the radiator flap control in anything other than neutral and then try to activate the undercarriage you will not have enough pressure to enable the gear to travel.

.........
Pitch is also delighful at 250 mph and below. It feels very positve and the amount of effort on the control column needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right to me. As CL max is reached the leading edge slats deploy - together if the ball is in the middle, slightly asymmetrically if you have any slip on. The aircraft delights in being pulled into hard manuevering turns at these slower speeds. As the slats pop out you feel a slight "notching" on the stick and you can pull more until the whole airframe is buffeting quite hard. A little more and you will drop a wing, but you have to be crass to do it unintentionally. Pitch tends to heavy up above 250 mph but it is still easily manageable up to 300 mph and the aircraft is perfectly happy carrying out low-level looping maneuvers from 300 mph and below. Above 300 mph one peculiarity is a slight nose down trim change as you accelerate. This means that running in for an airshow above 300 mph the aeroplane has a slight tucking in sensation - a sort of desire to get down to ground level ! This is easily held on the stick or can be trimmed out but is slightly surprising initially. Maneuvering above 300, two hands can be required for more aggressive performance. EIther that or get on the trimmer to help you. Despite this heavying up it is still quite easy to get at 5G's at these speeds.
.........

Having said all this, I like the aeroplane very much, and I think I can understand why many of the Luftwaffe aces had such a high regard and preference for it. Our intention is to eventually re-engine our aeroplane with a Daimler-Benz 605 and convert it to a late '109G or perhaps even a 'K'.
.........

if you need to read details pls visit here:

http://www.bf109.com/flying.html#HANNA

Many good books about flying BF-109:
http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/store/viewissue.asp?issueid=gerf

and ......BF 109 is not easy for landing ..... and killed many young pilots :
http://www.ofmc.co.uk/mah/mah.htm

Regards,

Karost

Matt_2208
03-19-2005, 10:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by anarchy52:
Well on the subject of Yak-3 vs Spit:
I posted a while ago translated pilot's testimony from ABG forum (I could dig it out but I'm too lazy). Yugoslav army had an interesting mix of planes: Yak-3/9 Spits V, IX, even few XIV IIRC, Mosquito, P-47...
The point he made was that he thought Spit is superior overall to Yak-3 in dogfight (especially in horizontal) as Yak-3 was demanding to fly (lot of work in the cockpit) and was VERY unstable even at very high speed. He also stated that Yak-3 when engaging Spit should take the fight in vertical (actually his exact words were "fighting vertical is yak's only chance").

IMHO the area in which FB does poorly is modelling e-retention, stall, roll and torque.
That's why you'll often see that FB doesn't reflect relative aircraft performance according to historical data.
For example (numbers taken from IL-2 FB aircraft viewer):
1942 109G6 vs P-39Q10
---------------------
wingloading:
109G6: 182.2kg/m^2
P-39: 186.6kg/m^2

power-to-weight:
109G6: 0.41HP/kg
P-39: 0.32HP/kg

powerloading
109G6: 75.14HP/m^2
P-39: 60.3HP/m^2

turntime:
109G6: 21.2 sec
P-39: 18.9 sec
so looking at these numbers it would seem that Bf-109G6 would be superior to P-39 in almost any respect except horizontal turns, but from my experience co-E co-alt situation in G6 vs P-39 usually ends with 109 as flaming wreck on the ground.

similar with 190D-9 vs P-51
----------------------------
with both planes not being T'n'B fighters, with P-51 having better wingloading and D9 having better powerloading and power-to-weight ratio I'd say that P-51 is dora's worst nightmare as it has excellent high-speed manuverability and better e-retention, zoom climb, turn etc...also 190's terrible forward view and instability doesn't help much.

109G10 vs P-51D
---------------
basically P-51D should be at disadvantage in almost every respect by looking at basic parameters. But you'll notice that 109's in game have terrible elevator authority over 470km/h and are worse in zoom climbs, e-retention. co-alt co-e P-51 can easily turn the situation to it's advantage by simply highspeed dive and pulling up - it will outmanuever (better high speed elevators), outzoom the 109 (due to better e-retention) and end up with higher e-state then 109 in one simple manuever.

Uber Spitfire?
--------------
Well, you'll see for yourself. It's the prime example of discrepancy between real life historical account and game. While nobody would seriously argue about the fact that Spit did and should easily outturn 109 and 190, in game it excells in every respect: zoom, climb, e-retention, high and low speed, high and low alt manuverability, arnament, durability...
Historical 190 tactics vs Spit will get you shot down in a blink of an eye as your roll rate, high speed manuverability and initial dive acceleration are nullified by terrible e-retention which makes vertical combat just as bad option vs Spit as horizontal.

Also read this to see the other face of the medal:
http://www.kurfurst.atw.hu/articles/MW_KvsXIV.htm


The point was not "luftwhining" (although, you will hear that label a lot on this forum) but an ilustration of the fact that those numbers alone do not accuratelly describe aircraft's FM not in real life and ESPECIALLY not in FB. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you Anarchy, that was a great post. And I agree, although spec's such as wing-loading, Lift-loading, power-to-weight ratio and power-to-wing Area are actually very accurate to depict real life maneuverablility of a plane.

However lower wingloading does not automaticly equal better turn rate, it is more a factor of actual 'liftloading'. Depending on the wing`s design, it may develope more or less lift. As it stands, the P-51D had laminar flow wings, which lowered the drag, but this came at the cost of lower lift, especially under high G loads. The 109 had a conventional wing and was equipped with automatic leading edge slats. These opened out at low speed or at high speed under high G loads, and restored the airflow (=lift) which would have been long separated otherwise due to turbulance.

So if the 109 and P-51 were to face each other on 'Earth' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif, then the 109 would always be turning tighter.

Regards; Matt_2008 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif