PDA

View Full Version : does "Feel" determine the plane's performance?



Afromike1
11-15-2008, 02:48 PM
Im confused here, I hear many pple saying that they prefer the bf109 f-4 over the g-2. But when I look over the charts the g-2 has all of the advantages over the f-4. The only thing that the f-4 is better than the g-2 is at weight.

I asked a couple of bf109 pilots in HL and they said that since its lighter they think they get a better handling of the AC. I understand that its easier to get out of stalls but does weight really over-power any other statistic another AC might have?

Afromike1
11-15-2008, 02:48 PM
Im confused here, I hear many pple saying that they prefer the bf109 f-4 over the g-2. But when I look over the charts the g-2 has all of the advantages over the f-4. The only thing that the f-4 is better than the g-2 is at weight.

I asked a couple of bf109 pilots in HL and they said that since its lighter they think they get a better handling of the AC. I understand that its easier to get out of stalls but does weight really over-power any other statistic another AC might have?

Afromike1
11-15-2008, 03:20 PM
Also, if you have a lighter AC can you do more crazy maneuvers?

M_Gunz
11-15-2008, 03:25 PM
There's power to weight and wingloading and all those things.

The do affect powerfully how long it takes to put yourself in a position; how fast you accelerate,
turn, climb, etc.

Serious air combat is a matter of positioning and counter-positioning, knowing when to build an
advantage and when to fold your hand and run. The ones who play at that level don't just grab
the baddest fighter available every time. It's like pool players, the good ones set up shots by
where the cue ball will end up rather than the taking the most direct shot every time.

109G-2 fits some styles better than 109F-4 and vice-versa. Which is "better"?

Freiwillige
11-15-2008, 03:29 PM
Well its essentialy the same airframe with similar power and performance.

Historically Luftwaffe experten thought that the G series was a regressive step and the G-6 the worst of them all. When the G series started the weight just ballooned and handeling suffered for a small increase in performance.

I think that I would prefer the lighter one too.

Gunther Rall stayed with his G2 long after the 109 G6 became available for the very same reason.

Divine-Wind
11-15-2008, 03:31 PM
I myself find the F-2/4 very pleasant to fly. That said, I have rarely flown it in combat, but it's nice for a sightseeing trip. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

However, the firepower is lacking compared to the G model. [Edit: lol, I looked at the object viewer right after posting this... And discovered that the G-2 and F-4 both have the same armament, the G-2 is just faster... D'oh!)

M_Gunz
11-15-2008, 04:41 PM
Yeah but G-2 is not the big step in reduced performance either.

G-6 had a big increase in firepower and extra armor as well as tradeoffs to performance.
Facing 4 engine bombers escorted by P-38's, which would you rather have -- F4 or G6?

ADD: Same thing happened to the Spitfires. Isn't that the way? Someone brings in a faster
plane with more punch (like FW) and everyone has to go faster and be tougher as a result!
Had Messerschmidt not gone beyond the F's, what would have been the result of that?

ysydor201988
11-15-2008, 05:20 PM
the g6 has moore armor on it if you look forward at your window in the cokpit you can see that the glass it's not like in the F4.When i'm using the g2 i'm flyng with 50 fuel so that can be equal to an f4 at 100 fuel i don't know if that is right but i think so and i have a question the munition has a weight? maybe u r damaged and u r returning u can shoot it to lose weght? and go faster? thanks.

TS_Sancho
11-15-2008, 05:30 PM
The BF109F4 and Bf109G2 "feel" very similiar with the G2 definetley having an "edgier" quality due to the greater horsepower.In a pure 1Vs1 contest The 109G2 is one of the strongest aircraft in the game.
The 109G6 is noticably less responsive and "heavier" but as M_Gunz posted the larger caliber guns and added pilot armor greatly improve ones mission success probobilites vs. the viermotts.
I like the G10 as well.It benifits from a respectable climb rate and speed but feels a bit more "eager" to manuever than the 109K4.
Thats my two cents worth.....

ysydor201988
11-15-2008, 05:39 PM
u all are right but in a fight 1vs1 what it much important the armor of the plane(in case if u r hit u can manage maybe to get home due the armor that saved u) or the weight of the plane but (if u ar hit the pilot is heavy hurt or even geting kiled)?

DaimonSyrius
11-15-2008, 05:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Afromike1:
does "Feel" determine the plane's performance? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, it doesn't. What 'feel' does determine, though, is the pilot's performance
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,
S.

M_Gunz
11-15-2008, 05:58 PM
1vs1 fight narrows things down some but still what planes, etc.

In general 1vs1 I'd rather be able to avoid getting hit at all than being a little better
protected. They can't really armor the whole plane.

Where was the extra on the G-6, I don't even know. Some of these planes a 1mm or so around
the engines even. It is enough against not too close flak burst and glancing bullet hits
that otherwise would damage oil lines and possibly electrical wires or whatever. But I don't
know about the 109s in this regard, just think that if G-2 had it then it would be a little
bit thicker on G-6.

Was G-6 structure beefed up as well or did G-2 have that? 1/10th mm thicker here and there
would make a real difference.

TS_Sancho
11-15-2008, 06:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ysydor201988:
u all are right but in a fight 1vs1 what it much important the armor of the plane(in case if u r hit u can manage maybe to get home due the armor that saved u) or the weight of the plane but (if u ar hit the pilot is heavy hurt or even geting kiled)? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I believe they are trying to awnser that very question over on Zekes vs. Wildcats in hyperlobby at this very moment.

Divine-Wind
11-15-2008, 06:10 PM
Hehe http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Freiwillige
11-15-2008, 07:22 PM
Okay here is what differentiates the G series 109's from the F series. From Bf-109 in action book 2 quadron Signal publications.

"The mainstay of the Luftwaffe fighter force the BF-109 reached its pinnacle with the F series. Even as the Luftwaffe was taking delivery of the "Fritz" series there was no successor on the drawing board."

"The Dictates of the air war forced the Messerscmitt desighne people to sacrafice handeling and menouverability for a higher top speed. Desighned around the more powerfull yet heavier Diamler Benz 605 Engine, Local strengthening was required which in turn increased weight, Which in turn required that the undercarage be streangthened which in turn again increased weight; all of which increased wing loading and decreased handeling characteristics. Weight of the new G series escilated to over 6500 LBS but the RLM felt that given the war conditions, the consiquent loss in handeling was a fair trade off with the gain in power and speed acheived by the DB605 installation. Many pilots in the feild felt otherwise, Claiming that the G series was a regressive step from the F series."

Now add the armement upgrade of the G5 and G6 and the added drag of the Bump cowling and you got a real pig on your hands!

WTE_Galway
11-15-2008, 07:36 PM
The F series feels like it has a fractionally better roll rate to me but I haven't tested it or seen any figures, it may be entirely in my imagination.

Kettenhunde
11-15-2008, 08:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Historically Luftwaffe experten thought that the G series was a regressive step and the G-6 the worst of them all. When the G series started the weight just ballooned and handeling suffered for a small increase in performance.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is just physics. Anytime you add weight you will alter the moment required on the stability and design control points.

Weight X Arm = Moment

You can see this in the Spitfire pilots when they talk about the later variants handling and the P51 pilots who compare the Allison Mustangs to the Merlin's as well.

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
11-16-2008, 12:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freiwillige:
Now add the armement upgrade of the G5 and G6 and the added drag of the Bump cowling and you got a real pig on your hands! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yet at less than high speed or high alt it would out-turn the P-51.

The Need for Speed became what ruled.

No41Sqn_Banks
11-16-2008, 12:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Afromike1:
The only thing that the f-4 is better than the g-2 is at weight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The strange thing is that in the game - according to Il-2 Compare - the Bf 109 G-2 is lighter than the F-4.

Badsight-
11-16-2008, 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 Afromike1:
Im confused here, I hear many pple saying that they prefer the bf109 f-4 over the g-2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>your listening to the voice of experience

many , MANY things have been discovered within this game from testing that were otherwise refuted

ysydor201988
11-16-2008, 01:18 AM
nobody risponded me at my question the munition was a weight? i'm not talking about bombs only bulett's maybe u r damaged and want to return at home and u have that extra weight without them u will go a little faster? thx

M_Gunz
11-16-2008, 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 No41Sqn_Banks:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Afromike1:
The only thing that the f-4 is better than the g-2 is at weight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The strange thing is that in the game - according to Il-2 Compare - the Bf 109 G-2 is lighter than the F-4. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is straight game data that includes tweaks made to get the models to closer match charts.
Without knowing the rest of the adjusted data like power or drag it's not a whole lot of good.

M_Gunz
11-16-2008, 04:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ysydor201988:
nobody risponded me at my question the munition was a weight? i'm not talking about bombs only bulett's maybe u r damaged and want to return at home and u have that extra weight without them u will go a little faster? thx </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is supposed to yet it won't change center of gravity, ditto for fuel.

TS_Sancho
11-16-2008, 03:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by No41Sqn_Banks:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Afromike1:
The only thing that the f-4 is better than the g-2 is at weight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The strange thing is that in the game - according to Il-2 Compare - the Bf 109 G-2 is lighter than the F-4. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is straight game data that includes tweaks made to get the models to closer match charts.
Without knowing the rest of the adjusted data like power or drag it's not a whole lot of good. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here's what hardballs viewer lists, I believe this is closer to reality.
http://img135.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hardball109ii6.jpg

M_Gunz
11-16-2008, 05:08 PM
It's a lot quicker reading Hardball's chart than 30 pages of the Hopp and Kurfurst Show.
The guy I liked the most with the sources and facts was Butch2K.

Jaws2002
11-17-2008, 02:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
It's a lot quicker reading Hardball's chart than 30 pages of the Hopp and Kurfurst Show.
The guy I liked the most with the sources and facts was Butch2K. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well they are in different class.
Butch2K is a professional, dediated and objective historian, the other two are internet propaganda/misinformation agents. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

The F-4 vs G2 is not very acurate in game since G2 is about 200kg too light in game, and it has 1943 standard boost.

No41Sqn_Banks
11-17-2008, 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 Jaws2002:
The F-4 vs G2 is not very acurate in game since G2 is about 200kg too light in game, and it has 1943 standard boost. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Late 1943 standard boost http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JSG72
11-17-2008, 04:50 PM
One of the things that you guys. And perpetual Noobs fail to realise. Is that there was a War going on.

Now when there is "A War going on". What do you want to do before you lift a finger? That's right Frighten your enemy. That is why you get "Charts".
(You know the ones that Many on here elude to, when they want to prove "How good/bad, Your/my plane is.) And unfortunately what some lesser inquizitive Sim builders. Well build by.

Fact is and I am sure you recognise the scenario. It is the next version so it must be better http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
Ermmm... wait a minute this fella don't fly the same at all.
That is where you have to realise that even though you are flying the same basic airframe. you have actually more power. But more weight in the nose of your craft. (You wouldn't notice this if you were a "Noob".)
If you trim your steed to recognise the changes. You will be able to utelise those Changes/advantages, to your benefit. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Just a thought?

M_Gunz
11-17-2008, 07:11 PM
And there I was thinking that those charts were made to evaluate AC being built and the ones
captured when all the time they were just scare tactics.

Kurfurst__
11-18-2008, 02:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:

The F-4 vs G2 is not very acurate in game since G2 is about 200kg too light in game, and it has 1943 standard boost. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, the G-2 is too light, and it has the 1,42ata rating in the engine output tables - at the same time, it turn time and level speed is perfect match for its real world counterpart at full weight, and at 1,3ata boost of 1942 (which did turn in 20 secs and reached 660 kph at altitude at 1,3ata, the same our G-2 reaches these at 1,42ata... It's an odd FM, but fairly accurate.

WTE_Galway
11-18-2008, 03:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
And there I was thinking that those charts were made to evaluate AC being built and the ones
captured when all the time they were just scare tactics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Classic example of such tactics is the he113.

Goebels invented a fake high speed Heinkel fighter for propaganda reasons.

So the British started to record fake kills against it. Presumably also for propaganda reasons http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Xiolablu3
11-18-2008, 03:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSG72:
One of the things that you guys. And perpetual Noobs fail to realise. Is that there was a War going on.

Now when there is "A War going on". What do you want to do before you lift a finger? That's right Frighten your enemy. That is why you get "Charts".
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe most of th ehcarts we have access to now were actually classified and secret information in 1939-45, so I am not sure your theory is correct.

On the F4 vs G2 debate, yes the G2 is the better aircraft in IL2, however it was not around in late 1941- early 1942 like the F4 was, thats why the F4 is such a good aircraft, becasue it has amazing performance in late 1941.

The G2 is 'sort of' a 1943 aircraft because slthough labelled 'Bf109G2 1942' it entered service in November 1942, I *think*. ie very late in 1942.

It should not be used vs Spitfire Vb's in mid 1942 maps for example. Anything mid 1942 and before should be the 109F4, which is still an awesome performer.

Its a bit like saying which was the best aricraft in early 1942, the SPitfire Vc or the Spitfire IX:? Obviously its the mkVc because the Spitfire IX was not even in service.

The 109F4 is such a stunning aircraft because of its performance *in the years it was in service*, not compared to later crafts like the 109G2. If you have the choice of either in online war/scenario/map, then obviously the Bf109G2 is the aircraft to choose.

WHen used correctly, the Bf109F4 is a great aircraft with which to fight , Hurricanes,P40's and Spit MkV's in late 1941/early '42 maps. But it takes a little more skill. A novice would perhaps be better off in a SPitfire MkV, probably as was apparantly the case in real life too.

Kurfurst__
11-18-2008, 04:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The G2 is 'sort of' a 1943 aircraft because slthough labelled 'Bf109G2 1942' it entered service in November 1942, I *think*. ie very late in 1942. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You think of the G-4 (= G-2 + new VHF radio type FuG 16). G-1 appeared in France in June, the other theatres like the Med, Russia begun receiving them G-2s about a month later.

The G-1/G-2 entered service in June 1942. First line unit strenghts as of 1 August 1942.

170 F-2s (almost all in Russia), 94 F-4s (ditto), 164 F-4/trops (ca 2/3s in Africa, the rest on EF), 29 F-4/Z (w.GM1, in the Med), 52 G-1&G-1/2 (all in France/Germany), 163 G-2s (all in Russia). No G-2/trop yet, but they begun to equip units in Sicily in that month. Finally, 83 leftover Emils, the majority of them in Norway/Finnland, ten examples in Germany. In summary:

Bf 109E 83
Bf 109F-1/2 188
Bf 109F-4, F-8 288
Bf 109G 215

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
It should not be used vs Spitfire Vb's in mid 1942 maps for example. Anything mid 1942 and before should be the 109F4, which is still an awesome performer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The G-2 and the Spit Vb/Vc are pretty much contemporaries, especially as the Mk V served for a loooooong time - it began service before the G-2, and was still in active service even after the G-2 was already retired.

Besides, the G-2 is a good 'stand in' for the F-4 of 1942, since the F-4's DB601E ratings were increased at the start of 1942 to 1.42ata, and ca 1350 PS output. Since OTOH the G-2's DB 605A was limited to 1.3ata, and 1310 PS for some time after its introduction (albeit it was still slightly better at altitude than the 601E), oddly enough the performance of the late uprated F-4 (which we lack) and the early downrated G-2 (which we have) were practically identical (both having the same output, and good for about 660 kph at altitude).

Xiolablu3
11-19-2008, 06:56 AM
Thanks for the corrections. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I guess its a bit like pitting 109E4's vs SPitfire MkII's or even SPitfire V's. ie. They are not their 'natural' or 'most common' enemy but those fights certainly took place.


Just as a matter of interest, how many 109F4's and 109G2's were built, Kurfy? Do you know?

Kurfurst__
11-19-2008, 08:06 AM
I don't have books handy, Prien and Rodeike gives the exact amount, but off the top of my head - about 1700-1800 of each.

HellToupee
11-19-2008, 09:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by No41Sqn_Banks:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Afromike1:
The only thing that the f-4 is better than the g-2 is at weight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The strange thing is that in the game - according to Il-2 Compare - the Bf 109 G-2 is lighter than the F-4. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is straight game data that includes tweaks made to get the models to closer match charts.
Without knowing the rest of the adjusted data like power or drag it's not a whole lot of good. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yea but its crap like that which results in its overall feel.

You may make it match charts with tweaks but by being too light it means its feel is way different. The g2 best turn speed is lower than the f4 overall the g2 feels lighter and as if it has a massive power to weight ratio like some rc plane at low speeds.

Performance curves do not even line up with the g6, the jump from g2 to g6 is sort of what makes the g6 feel so terrible.

M_Gunz
11-20-2008, 12:11 AM
Can't please everyone?