PDA

View Full Version : Bf109. Which one is the best.



Semi-on
12-13-2009, 03:47 PM
The topic is self-explanatory. I'd like to choose Bf-109 as my profile plane. Can people here suggest which ones are better, best and why? Your advice is much appreciated.

Semi-on
12-13-2009, 03:47 PM
The topic is self-explanatory. I'd like to choose Bf-109 as my profile plane. Can people here suggest which ones are better, best and why? Your advice is much appreciated.

thefruitbat
12-13-2009, 04:01 PM
109 f4

when you fly that plane in its time frame you are king of the skies. Not sure you can say that about any other later 109.

Metatron_123
12-13-2009, 04:09 PM
It depends in what context, which time frame we are talking about.

In 1940 the Bf-109E is one of the best fighters in the world along with the Spitfire I and A6M2 Zero. In 1941-42 the Bf-109 F-4 is in my opinion better than most of it's opposition including the Spitfire V, and completely outclasses everything Russian in that time period. In 1942-43 you have the Bf-109G-2, which as far as performance is concerned is actually better than the later and more heavily armed Bf-109G-6. Use the G-6 mostly against inferior oposition and bombers. (Although I hear the Bf-109G-2 is a bit lighter in the game than RL). As we move into 1944/45 the opposition is suddenly very strong. Pick and choose between Bf-109G-10, G-6/AS and K-4. They are all at least on a par with the latest allied stuff, if not superior any more.

Edit: What fruit-bat said, the Bf-109 F-4 is wonderful to fly and the best thing in the sky apart from the Fw-190A in 41 and 42.

thefruitbat
12-13-2009, 04:13 PM
I agree, in 1940 along with the spit and zero e4 the best, BUT in '41 nothing can touch the f4, save maybe the fw190a2. By the time of the g2 the spit mkIX.F is on the scene.

Plus in il2 the f4 is the nicest to fly.

K_Freddie
12-13-2009, 05:24 PM
E -> F -> AS
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The_Stealth_Owl
12-13-2009, 06:52 PM
You are not making the best desision to choose the 109 mate. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

RS_Spitslayer
12-13-2009, 08:11 PM
Yeah...owl will get you straitened right out.

Treetop64
12-13-2009, 08:23 PM
Either the F4 (best 109 in RL in the war), or the G2. The G2 behaves a lot like the F4, except faster, and a tad bit heavier.

Choctaw111
12-13-2009, 08:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
109 f4

when you fly that plane in its time frame you are king of the skies. Not sure you can say that about any other later 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. The 109F4 is all business. Even when sitting in the pit in game you get that same "all business" feeling. It flies great, climbs great and has excellent concentrated firepower.

Treetop64
12-13-2009, 08:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Choctaw111:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
109 f4

when you fly that plane in its time frame you are king of the skies. Not sure you can say that about any other later 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. The 109F4 is all business. Even when sitting in the pit in game you get that same "all business" feeling. It flies great, climbs great and has excellent concentrated firepower. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, true. Flying the F4 in its proper time frame on an Eastern Front campaign makes one almost invincible.

na85
12-13-2009, 10:03 PM
109K4 has excellent combat potential but it takes a lot of practice to achieve. I'd rather take a K series than any of the Gs in a late-war scenario.

X32Wright
12-14-2009, 02:14 AM
You cannot ask which is the best 109 without asking 'what are you fighting?'. You should think of the 109's variants as different platforms for different enemies.

Some would say G2 is the best but that is outclassed by late Spits and Mustangs and Jug fighting at 6K meters. SO in this case you will ned a K-4 C3 if not a G-10. If however you are fighting mixed enemies from La5FN/La7 to Spit VIIIs then an G-6/AS would be adequate. If you are facing say Zeros and P-39s then a Bf-109 F-4 would be good.

I consider the G-6/AS to be the best compromised between BNZ and TNBing and if I need a more powerful plane I chose the G-10. For me the G-6/AS flies like a boosted G-2 and the G-10 to be a high-performance G-6/AS

Erkki_M
12-14-2009, 03:34 AM
Two most important things are speed and climb.

Only planes faster than the Bf109F are P39D(below 4000m) and MiG-3ud(above 6000m, equally fast below). MiG-3ud is also the only plane able to outclimb the Friedrich, at altitudes above 5000m. The Bf109F4 is against its typical opponents perhaps the very most superior plane in the West and East Front. Spitfire V LFs might give you a challenge at very low altitudes, but you almost always have the G2 or FWs available then as well.

The Bf109G2 is almost as superb. Only planes faster than you are P39D(below 4000m again), La5F(at the deck, sustainable speed is equal) and Spitfire IX and Jak-1B are equally fast(Jak1B at the deck only). The only plane able to climb with you is the Spitfire IX. If you want a 109 you can fight anything with, its the G2. If you cant outrun and climb something, you can outmaneuver it. Any enemy. Only troublesome opponents are La-5FN and late Spitfires.

Bf109G6. If you have an alternative, dont fly it...

Bf109G6AS. Practically a G6 in steroids, very G2-ish, a lot heavier but is very fast at lower altitudes. Its enemies are in different league already, expect no easy kills. You are still often able to outrun, and usually outclimb your enemy, but with a smaller margin than before. Works well against American aircraft and Spitfires at lower altitudes. You can turn with the American planes(though P51 will give you trouble before his speed drops), but not with Spitfires. If you see this plane in the Eastern front(you shouldnt), well, dont fight low just because it worked with the Americans.

Bf109G10. Slower than the G6AS at altitudes below 6000m. Works better in a Thunderbolt hunt, having similar maneuverability. For most, an unwanted feature is the 30mm low-velocity Mk-108 cannon in the nose that makes especially deflection shooting way harder than with the lighter MG151/20 and which has only 65 rounds, without an option for the lighter cannon.

Bf109G14 is like the G10, but is able to carry bombs and lacks the G10's altitude performance.

Bf109K4. Superior speed, superior climb. This is the only 109 that is able to have an even fight with the Thunderbolt and Mustang(together with G6AS, which can do it at low alts) - as the matter of fact, it can even fight an even fight with the Mustang MK. III above 6500m. The Kurfurst is less than ideal against the Spitfire, though, because its even less maneuverable than the other late 109s, and like the G10, can only carry the Mk-108.

-------------

So it depends on your opponent, but the two 109s that can hold more or less their own against any opponent are F4 and G2.

koivis
12-14-2009, 05:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Erkki_M:
If you see this plane in the Eastern front(you shouldnt), well, dont fight low just because it worked with the Americans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Atleast II./JG51 had over 30 G-14/AS from 10/44, and they were in Eastern front... G-14/AS is what we have as "G-6/AS" because it had MW-50, which I think, most G-6/AS lacked.

Anyway, I think it's been wrong since beginning that AS is faster in low altitudes that G-10, for example, because it's rated altitude was higher (6.4 vs 6.0 km), and power at sea level is lower (1800 vs 1850 hp). Engines in question are DB 605ASM for G-14/AS, and DB 605DB for G-10. Well, there are some mods that give more realistic 109 variants...

ROXunreal
12-14-2009, 06:23 AM
I can't fly planes that lock up at high speeds for the life of me. That mostly refers to the 109 and P-38, I can't hit anything with them. I don't feel comfortable attacking slower than 500kmh, and near 600 I already cannot keep lead at all no matter how hard I pull the stick. There must be some trick I'm missing.

My other 109 issue is that it takes damage very poorly. Worse than La's, Yaks, Spits, 190's, anything american....

Metatron_123
12-14-2009, 06:41 AM
Elevator trim helps you.

Daiichidoku
12-14-2009, 08:15 AM
this one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fww2/he100/he100-8.jpg

VW-IceFire
12-14-2009, 08:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ROXunreal:
I can't fly planes that lock up at high speeds for the life of me. That mostly refers to the 109 and P-38, I can't hit anything with them. I don't feel comfortable attacking slower than 500kmh, and near 600 I already cannot keep lead at all no matter how hard I pull the stick. There must be some trick I'm missing.

My other 109 issue is that it takes damage very poorly. Worse than La's, Yaks, Spits, 190's, anything american.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Use elevator trim and throttle back during the attack run. Sometimes I even hard over on the rudder to keep the speed manageable so that the controls still function. Aim for the easiest target and have a go at him... if you're coming fast enough and he doesn't see you then you've got him. If not... full throttle and use that acceleration advantage (109s tend to be fast to accelerate) plus the speed advantage to zoom away and try for another pass.

The 109 is a very small and fairly lightweight fighter. Unlike some of the competitors the 109 is going to be more sensitive to damage, however, it does have very good protection for the pilot.

The 190 was a tougher plane in comparison and the radial engine is naturally more resilient than an inline engine.

The Lavochkins and Yaks are heavier and the partial wood construction makes them tough in places but not very efficient (thus the lower performance for most of the war).

Ba5tard5word
12-14-2009, 12:10 PM
The Fw-190 one. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Well it's been a while since I've flown 109's though I've recently done most of FlatSpinMan's Afrika campaign in the 109-E, which is really a very good plane for its time period, Hurricanes can't touch it and Tomahawks are easily matched by it.

The F is pretty good too. Something I've noticed is that the E and F are very tight and responsive, but the later G versions all definitely feel heavier and more wobbly when trying to aim.

I'm going to try and play some missions in the made-up 109-F Finnish campaign I made a while ago to see if I'm still good at flying it.

Erkki_M
12-14-2009, 12:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:
I'm going to try and play some missions in the made-up 109-F Finnish campaign I made a while ago to see if I'm still good at flying it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We only had G2s, G6s and two G8s... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Frankthetank36
12-14-2009, 12:55 PM
K series by far. It is a bit difficult to aim, but, as with the FW-190, they will never be able to catch you if you use hit-and-run tactics. I don't know of any other singe engine piston engine non-mod planes that can hit 450mph in IL-2 besides the Ta-152, and that plane's low-altitude performance isn't exactly spectacular. That 30mm nose cannon and 5000ft/min ain't no joke either.

megalopsuche
12-14-2009, 01:48 PM
109G-6

The_Stealth_Owl
12-14-2009, 02:53 PM
The Bf-109 was a cheap mass produced in poor conditions with bad materials, piece of junk.

I fly the FW-190 A-4 II, witch is about 99% better quality, and a lot more expensive and fancy.

Manu-6S
12-14-2009, 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 The_Stealth_Owl:
The Bf-109 was a cheap mass produced in poor conditions with bad materials, piece of junk.

I fly the FW-190 A-4 II, witch is about 99% better quality, and a lot more expensive and fancy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You like to be bashed, don't you?

jamesblonde1979
12-14-2009, 03:56 PM
Only scared little dweebs who want easy kills fly the 109.

Real men fly the P-39.

AndyJWest
12-14-2009, 03:59 PM
Real pilots fly what they are given.

jamesblonde1979
12-14-2009, 04:02 PM
Pinch of salt mate, pinch of salt.

na85
12-14-2009, 04:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The_Stealth_Owl:
The Bf-109 was a cheap mass produced in poor conditions with bad materials, piece of junk.

I fly the FW-190 A-4 II, witch is about 99% better quality, and a lot more expensive and fancy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://koti.mbnet.fi/tibe9mm/Troll_fail.jpg

thefruitbat
12-14-2009, 05:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The_Stealth_Owl:
The Bf-109 was a cheap mass produced in poor conditions with bad materials, piece of junk.

I fly the FW-190 A-4 II, witch is about 99% better quality, and a lot more expensive and fancy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://koti.mbnet.fi/tibe9mm/Troll_fail.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROFL!!

jermin122
12-14-2009, 06:31 PM
I like flying late-war 109s, especially K4. However, the elevator trim delay on all 109 variants should be fixed as per reality. Otherwise, they are quite obsolete at high speed. And the game doesn't model the high altitude performance correctly for late-war 109s. You even cannot maintain a level fly without using elevator trim above 8000 meters. If these things are fixed, late-war 109s should be superior than contemporary Fw-190As.

AndyJWest
12-14-2009, 06:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jermin122:
I like flying late-war 109s, especially K4. However, the elevator trim delay on all 109 variants should be fixed as per reality. Otherwise, they are quite obsolete at high speed. And the game doesn't model the high altitude performance correctly for late-war 109s. You even cannot maintain a level fly without using elevator trim above 8000 meters. If these things are fixed, late-war 109s should be superior than contemporary Fw-190As. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What was 'the reality' of Bf 109 elevator trim? How does it differ from that in IL-2? Simply saying it is wrong isn't very helpful. Can you provide us with a source for what you state?

And why do you expect to be able to fly without using elevator trim at all? That doesn't sound very realistic to me.

Frankthetank36
12-14-2009, 06:43 PM
^^How late in the war are we talking here? The 109s were always known for having stiff controls at high speeds, unlike the Focke-Wulfs. The 190A also has some of the most devastating firepower ever fitted to a mass-produced single-engine piston fighter. I can see the G-10 being superior to contemporary 190A's since it was about as fast in level flight as the P-47, but I wouldn't say the G-6 was BETTER than the 190A. They both have their advantages: the BF-109G-6 is a better turnfighter and has better altitude performance, while the FW-190A6/8 had better roll and high-speed control and was quite a bit more durable (I would also say it was better armed; you don't have to deal with convergence issues with the optional 30mm nose cannon on the later 109s and it can destroy or cripple a lot of fighters in one hit, but the ballistics aren't exactly great and it doesn't have much ammo, while the 190 has a ton of ammo in its four 20mms).

X32Wright
12-14-2009, 07:32 PM
Most 'Expertens' never switch to the FW-190 much less too for the Me-262. Most of the 'expertens' stuck with the Gustav if not the Friedrich including the highest scoring ace of the war, Erich Hartmann.

I stand by to say that the hardest plane in the sim to master is the 109. It is not easy to pick up unlike a spit and not as temperamental (meaning you needing to know the complexities of CEM) as the Mustang but very hard to master. Once you feel the subtle difference in each of the 109s (including fuel loads) then it means you have matured enough as a flyer. No other plane in the game offer this kind of subtleties.

jamesblonde1979
12-14-2009, 08:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by X32Wright:


I stand by to say that the hardest plane in the sim to master is the 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree unless you mean from the G-6 on. Anything earlier than that is a delight to fly and quite simple to fight as it does practically everything well.

Early 109's stack up with their contemporaries as being fast with good acceleration, good turn, great low-speed handling, no real vices except at high speed and adequate firepower. The 109 will sit on your tail until the cows come home if the pilot knows how to move the throttle.

Landings may present a problem to beginners though. XD

Compared to aircraft like the P-51, 190, LaGG-3, Tomahawk etc the 109 is a cinch.

jermin122
12-14-2009, 08:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyJWest:

What was 'the reality' of Bf 109 elevator trim? How does it differ from that in IL-2? Simply saying it is wrong isn't very helpful. Can you provide us with a source for what you state? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read this post. http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...283/m/8081035787/p/1 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/8081035787/p/1). There should be no delay on the elevator trim at all.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And why do you expect to be able to fly without using elevator trim at all? That doesn't sound very realistic to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now what 'sounds' realistic to you?

na85
12-14-2009, 11:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jermin122:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyJWest:

What was 'the reality' of Bf 109 elevator trim? How does it differ from that in IL-2? Simply saying it is wrong isn't very helpful. Can you provide us with a source for what you state? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read this post. http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...283/m/8081035787/p/1 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/8081035787/p/1). There should be no delay on the elevator trim at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you need to re-read that post... BastardSword is talking about elevator response, not elevator trim. Those are different things.

jermin122
12-14-2009, 11:50 PM
Read through that post, please.

Ba5tard5word
12-14-2009, 11:53 PM
Haha, I was a total noob with the 109-E when I made that, the Afrika! campaign is a really good way to get to know the Emil.

WTE_Galway
12-15-2009, 03:28 AM
The 109 is an aircraft that has a steep learning curve. Its not forgiving for beginners but if you can fly a 109 well you can dominate in historical servers.

Soooo many times you see newer players on these forums start by criticising it and calling it junk .. and then the same guy a few years later is singing its praise.


Personally I like it because its 'chunky' has machismo (unlike those effete Spitfires) and is a challenge to fly well.

My favourites are the E4, E4B and the G6AS.

Gadje
12-15-2009, 04:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:
Haha, I was a total noob with the 109-E when I made that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And three months later? ......your experienced enough to give advise on the 109?

To the OP- some of your advisors likely know less about this than you...its the way here( just like the Mig/YakU thread!).
Ask a legitimate question about the sim and the 'Owls' of the world open the spam tin in an effort to show their wisdom and you the OP are left struggling to know who knows what!.

Wright knows alot about flying 109's. You can trust his advice on this.

Frankthetank36
12-15-2009, 09:23 AM
Um, how exactly is the 109 difficult to master? I can see landings being tricky for beginners, but in the air, the plane is very pilot-friendly. As long as you keep the speed from getting excessive, it has great handling (with the exception of the K-4 and possibly the G-10, never tried the G-10), nearly as good as a Spitfire. If you can avoid the enemy wingmen, you can turn & burn to your heart's content. It has decent armament too (especially the later models), so you don't need to aim for radiators and stuff until the cannon runs out of ammo.

Now the FW-190 is a plane that requires skill to fight in. It is not as easy to use good roll to your advantage as good elevator response, and if you ever yank back on the stick, you will stall and flip. The armament is great but it is tricky to aim due to the unresponsive elevator. You really have to plan your attacks in the 190; in the Messerschmitt, you can BnZ them by coming in just over the other guy, diving vertically, and pulling out when you get on their six if you can keep the speed down. With the 190, you don't have the elevator response at any speed to do that so you need to come in at a much shallower angle, which is tricky since it is MUCH harder to line up on their six that way. Also in the 190 you are dead if you EVER get caught at low alt and low speed. Actually, that tends to be true with most planes, but it is a mistake that newbies will make and with a Spit or 109 you can turn into the other guy and have some sort of hope of surviving.

K_Freddie
12-15-2009, 09:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frankthetank36:
With the 190, you don't have the elevator response at any speed to do that so you need to come in at a much shallower angle, which is tricky since it is MUCH harder to line up on their six that way. Also in the 190 you are dead if you EVER get caught at low alt and low speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nah.. wrong on both accounts http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bremspropeller
12-15-2009, 10:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Most 'Expertens' never switch to the FW-190 much less too for the Me-262. Most of the 'expertens' stuck with the Gustav if not the Friedrich including the highest scoring ace of the war, Erich Hartmann. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The funny thing is, BS is is hard to get out of people's heads.

As if pilots could chose which aircraft they were flying in their unit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

The only known pilot to keep his 109G over a D-9 was Gerhard Barkhorn, flying briefly in Stabsschwarm JG 6, before joining JV 44 and transitioning to 262s.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I stand by to say that the hardest plane in the sim to master is the 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

April fool's day is half a year away. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Ba5tard5word
12-15-2009, 10:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And three months later? ......your experienced enough to give advise on the 109? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well at least I know now that its elevators get rather sticky at high speeds... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif


And I do find that the 109 is a pretty easy plane to pick up. It keeps its speed high and accelerates and climbs quickly, unlike the 190, and doesn't generally do speed stalls like pretty much any other plane, and which is something that makes the Spitfire tricky for a beginner. Also some of its CEM settings are automatic which makes flying a bit easier.

It's definitely a tough plane to master though. Its nose armament requires a lot of practice and patience to use--even if you master the basics of flying a 109, you still have to get used to nose-based armament. Master the basics of flying a 190 or Spitfire and you can much more easily get kills with their heavier and more spread-out wing-based armament.

Metatron_123
12-15-2009, 11:35 AM
Ok, I think a lot of our 'flawed' evaluations come from having over-sensitive controls. When in real life pilots often said that the Spitfire was easier to fly(even the German ace Werner Molders)it becomes obvious that we need to reduce the sensitivity of our joysticks to get a more accurate viewpoint.

Metatron_123
12-15-2009, 11:37 AM
[QUOTE] The funny thing is, BS is is hard to get out of people's heads.

As if pilots could chose which aircraft they were flying in their unit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif [QUOTE]

Ok the bs part is that pilots never went from Bf-109F to G. That is simply not the case. However it's entirely true that aces were often given the chance to voluntarily transfer to a unit of their choice, obviously at times with different aircraft, and they sometimes declined. But I presume this had less to do with the aircraft and more to do with the people the were used to working with.

na85
12-15-2009, 11:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frankthetank36:
Um, how exactly is the 109 difficult to master? I can see landings being tricky for beginners, but in the air, the plane is very pilot-friendly. As long as you keep the speed from getting excessive, it has great handling (with the exception of the K-4 and possibly the G-10, never tried the G-10), nearly as good as a Spitfire. If you can avoid the enemy wingmen, you can turn & burn to your heart's content. It has decent armament too (especially the later models), so you don't need to aim for radiators and stuff until the cannon runs out of ammo.

Now the FW-190 is a plane that requires skill to fight in. It is not as easy to use good roll to your advantage as good elevator response, and if you ever yank back on the stick, you will stall and flip. The armament is great but it is tricky to aim due to the unresponsive elevator. You really have to plan your attacks in the 190; in the Messerschmitt, you can BnZ them by coming in just over the other guy, diving vertically, and pulling out when you get on their six if you can keep the speed down. With the 190, you don't have the elevator response at any speed to do that so you need to come in at a much shallower angle, which is tricky since it is MUCH harder to line up on their six that way. Also in the 190 you are dead if you EVER get caught at low alt and low speed. Actually, that tends to be true with most planes, but it is a mistake that newbies will make and with a Spit or 109 you can turn into the other guy and have some sort of hope of surviving. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uh...... FW190 has fabulous elevator response at high speeds and is by far an easier aircraft to score kills in.

Sillius_Sodus
12-15-2009, 11:52 AM
One of the inconvenient things about the 109 and 190 is the lack of rudder trim. If you have pedals it's not an issue, a twisty stick a bit of an issue and without either a pain in the keester.

Bremspropeller
12-15-2009, 11:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However it's entirely true that aces were often given the chance to voluntarily transfer to a unit of their choice, obviously at times with different aircraft, and they sometimes declined. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Got any proof for that?

BillSwagger
12-15-2009, 12:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K_Freddie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frankthetank36:
With the 190, you don't have the elevator response at any speed to do that so you need to come in at a much shallower angle, which is tricky since it is MUCH harder to line up on their six that way. Also in the 190 you are dead if you EVER get caught at low alt and low speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nah.. wrong on both accounts http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1
I've always found the Spitfire and 190s to be the easiest planes to fly. The first time i flew a 190 online, i got an ace, and returned to base to pick a different plane.
As for the best 109, if i know i'll be flying high and fast, then its the 109K model all the way, but out of all the 109s the G6/AS i've found to be a bit more balanced for use in turns and its cannons are some what more moderate and easier to aim in a dogfight.
The G2 is the best 109 for its era 41-42.



Bill

Frankthetank36
12-15-2009, 12:57 PM
Eh? The 190 and Spitfire are polar opposites. One has good maneuverability at slow speeds and the other maintains control at high speeds. One has a fragile liquid-cooled engine, the other has a durable air-cooled radial. One has 2 machine guns and 4 cannon, the other has 2 cannon and 4 MG's. One has a medium roll rate and a great turning circle, the other has a horrible turning circle and excellent roll ability.

I would place the Bf-109 in between those two, but much closer to the Spit than the 109. And while the 190 maintains control at high speeds, I definitely wouldn't say that it is responsive; rather, it has sluggish elevator response at all speeds but at least maintains that response at high speed unlike the 109. If you dive on the other guy at a 90 degree angle, you will be able to quickly pull up in time to get on their six in the Spit or 109 if you keep the speed down, but in the 190, you will SLOWLY pull out, long after you zoom by the other guy.

Metatron_123
12-15-2009, 01:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However it's entirely true that aces were often given the chance to voluntarily transfer to a unit of their choice, obviously at times with different aircraft, and they sometimes declined. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Got any proof for that? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well yes, no doubt through connections at times, but for example Pierre Clostermann transferred from no. 341 'Alsace' squadron to 602 'city of Glasgow'where his friend was posted, a choice offered to him by 'Al' Deere. In fact he downgraded from Spitfire IX to Spitfire V with this decision. He also returned to the frontline flying Tempests in 274 Squadron after he had been taken to back to the UK to work in the French HQ, again his choice, albeit through connections and pulling strings.

Then there's Erich Hartmann who declined to operationally test Me-262s, choosing to remain with JG-52, his request being respected by Galland. Again this had very little to do with the aircraft involved.

Bremspropeller
12-15-2009, 02:00 PM
The point is, Galland asked Hartman if he was willing to join JV 44 - he was never ordered.

Pilots would fly whatever type was flown on Gruppe-level.

K_Freddie
12-15-2009, 02:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frankthetank36:
.. but in the 190, you will SLOWLY pull out, long after you zoom by the other guy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe it's your joystick settings..

Have a look at the tail wing of an FW.. It's long and narrow, compared to a Spit or Me109.
This says only one thing.. very responsive to the touch, with minimum stick force required.
Which is probably why most who are not used to this, put the FW into a quick stall. The P51 is similar.

I haven't compared the elevator areas - they look close, but the design of the FW is much better by all accounts.

Frankthetank36
12-15-2009, 02:38 PM
Well I don't know what the wing loading on the 190 is but it feels VERY highly loaded. What I am trying to say is that with a spit, you can pull back on the stick and it TURNS. With the 190 (this is more pronounced in the A), you pull and it just moves a little. You pull back more and it moves a tiny bit more. You continue to pull back more and it doesn't move much more and instead snaps and rolls over. You have to compensate for this by not making any sudden movements in the pitch axis. I would say that the Focke-Wulf is more capable than the 109 (well, maybe the 190A isn't so great against the American planes that can beat it at its own hit-and-run game since the Messerschmitt has the ability to turn into the attackers), but it is not an easy plane to fly.

Xiolablu3
12-15-2009, 03:18 PM
Like most others here, I love the 109E and 109F4. Also the 109G2 is a great plane.

As with the real aircraft, things get worse once you hit the G6 and later.

1939 to mid-43, it was equal or best fighter in the world.

Only the Spitfire could compete on equal terms on the Western front, and these two jockeyed for top dog through the first half of the war.

Later more aircraft joined the race, but the Bf109 still stayed competetive even up until 1945. I wouldnt not say it was ever totally outclassed. But you can see why it no longer held top spot once P51's, Ki84's, Re2005's, FW190D's, Spit IX's/XIV's appeared.

It was actaully very highly thought of in the East throughout the whole war, more so than in the West. The Russians didnt rate the Fw190 much. being far more fearful of the 'skinnies' (109's).

I would take the 109E in 1940, (missing out the 109F2, dont like the 15mm cannon) 109F4 in 1941, 109G2 in 1942. After that I would take a Fw190A5/A6 up until I can get a Fw190D9. Like other veterans here, the stiff elevators on the later models (109G6 and later) really hamper my fighting style.

Kettenhunde
12-15-2009, 03:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I definitely wouldn't say that it is responsive; rather, it has sluggish elevator response </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why would it have sluggish elevator responses in your game?

Xiolablu3
12-15-2009, 03:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frankthetank36:
Well I don't know what the wing loading on the 190 is but it feels VERY highly loaded. What I am trying to say is that with a spit, you can pull back on the stick and it TURNS. With the 190 (this is more pronounced in the A), you pull and it just moves a little. You pull back more and it moves a tiny bit more. You continue to pull back more and it doesn't move much more and instead snaps and rolls over. You have to compensate for this by not making any sudden movements in the pitch axis. . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the price you pay for the higher top speed.

You cannot have both, the designer must make a choice for his aircraft.

An RAF pilot makes this point very well when comparing the Spitfire and Bf109, but the point is also valide for the Fw190. :-

"At 1440 Hours, a red flare went up from the dispersal hut, arching
over the strip, and my mechanic jumped to his battery. I pulled on my
helmet, fastened the oxygen mask, put on my gloves, turned the oxygen
valve on, and primed twice. The engine broke into a roar. The mechanic
pulled out the battery cable and gave me a "thumbs up" and I was tearing
down the strip with full throttle and 3000 R.P.M. Airbourne, gear up,
throttle back a little to let the lads catch up, at 4500 f.p.m. climb.
... I had the throttle open and I rolled over and headed on a course to
cut the angle toward the 109s, which had separated a little. I wound on
nose-heavy trim so essential to keep the aircraft in a high-speed dive.
The Spit responded eagerly as I dove more steeply than the 109s, with
Red Two and Three no doubt following, although I could not see them. The
controls got very heavy as the airspeed needle moved far right at 480
mph. (Corrected for altitude, true airspeed approached 600 mph.) I could
see that I was gaining on the nearest Me 109. That was something new. We
were already half-way to Sicily; that was no problem. We knew from years
of experience, dating back to the boys who had been in the Battle of
Britain, that the 109 with its slim thirty-two foot wing was initially
faster in a dive than we were. But we accepted that compromise happily
in exchange for our broad superior-lift wing with its better climb and
turn. One couldn't have it both ways. In any case, I was closing on this
Me 109, which I recognised as a G. Perhaps he wasn't using full
throttle.
We were down to 5,000 feet and our dive had become quite shallow. I
could see the Sicilian coast a few miles ahead. Now I was within range
at 300 yards, and I let him have a good squirt. The first strikes were
on the port radiator from which white smoke poured, indicating a glycol
coolant leak. I knew I had him before the engine broke out in heavy
black smoke. " (Bf 109 G-4 "Black 14" of 2(H)/14, flown by Leutnant
Friedrich Zander, shot down 10 June 1943)
Squadron Leader I.F. Kennedy DFC & Bar.

Xiolablu3
12-15-2009, 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 Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I definitely wouldn't say that it is responsive; rather, it has sluggish elevator response </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why would it have sluggish elevator responses in your game? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He means docile, whereas the Spitfire and Fw190 have very sensitive and effective elevator.

Its an advantage for the Bf109 in the low to mid speed range, the elevator is beautiful and precise, but once the speeds get higher, the elevator does get sluggish. As it did in reality, whereas the Fw190 and Spit's are better in th ehigh speed range.

EDIT: Sorry, I realise he WAS talking about the Fw190. I disagree with his point entirely - I thought he was talking about the bf109!

The Fw190's elevators get better the faster you go. At slower speeds they will not turn the aircraft like a Spitfire's, but this is to be expected!

Frankthetank36
12-15-2009, 03:41 PM
No, no, no. The D-9's pitch response is okay (although it sacrifices roll compared to the A version), but the FW-190A's elevator is the complete opposite of the Spitfire's. Okay, they will both flip and stall if you yank back, but the Spitfire's elevator allows it to change pitch QUICKLY while the 190 changes pitch very SLOWLY. That is why I am saying it is difficult to line up on the other guy's six; you either plan the attack very well or you shoot from 3, 8, 5 o'clock, or some other random direction. The 190 might have better response as you go faster, but at ANY speed you will still not be able to pull out of a 90 degree dive quickly enough to line up (you will start to black out before you are able to turn quickly). The Spit, on the other hand, is great at doing that. What kind of mods are you guys running if you can get 190s to loop on a dime like a Spit or Zero (and, to a slightly lesser extent, a 109)?

Xiolablu3
12-15-2009, 03:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frankthetank36:
No, no, no. The D-9's pitch response is okay (although it sacrifices roll compared to the A version), but the FW-190A's elevator is the complete opposite of the Spitfire's. Okay, they will both flip and stall if you yank back, but the Spitfire's elevator allows it to change pitch QUICKLY while the 190 changes pitch very SLOWLY. What kind of mods are you guys running if you can get 190s to loop on a dime like a Spit or Zero? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No mods, but I think 'sluggish' is completely the wrord to describe the FW190's elevators. I would just say that they are incapable of turning the aircraft in a tight circle at slower speeds, which is correct.

Crumpp, you really should try the game out, you may like it! You spend a heck of a of time on this forum to say you have not played the game. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Also you could then give your input on what you think needs to be improved.

As long as they are not constant 'teh Fw190 is p0rked!' threads'! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

na85
12-15-2009, 03:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frankthetank36:
No, no, no. The D-9's pitch response is okay (although it sacrifices roll compared to the A version), but the FW-190A's elevator is the complete opposite of the Spitfire's. Okay, they will both flip and stall if you yank back, but the Spitfire's elevator allows it to change pitch QUICKLY while the 190 changes pitch very SLOWLY. What kind of mods are you guys running if you can get 190s to loop on a dime like a Spit or Zero? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you flying with the ball centered? If you yank the stick back you'll spin out if the ball isn't centered.

When you say the 190 changes pitch slowly I feel like you're playing an entirely different game than I am.

At speeds above 400 km/h the 190 has FAR better control response than the 109.

thefruitbat
12-15-2009, 03:48 PM
also keep the ball centered when manauvering in the fw, so you blead of as least e as possible.

Nothing wrong with the 190's elevator...

Ba5tard5word
12-15-2009, 03:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frankthetank36:
Well I don't know what the wing loading on the 190 is but it feels VERY highly loaded. What I am trying to say is that with a spit, you can pull back on the stick and it TURNS. With the 190 (this is more pronounced in the A), you pull and it just moves a little. You pull back more and it moves a tiny bit more. You continue to pull back more and it doesn't move much more and instead snaps and rolls over. You have to compensate for this by not making any sudden movements in the pitch axis. I would say that the Focke-Wulf is more capable than the 109 (well, maybe the 190A isn't so great against the American planes that can beat it at its own hit-and-run game since the Messerschmitt has the ability to turn into the attackers), but it is not an easy plane to fly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Fw-190 rolls quickly but its elevators move it very slow up and down compared to a lot of other fighters, it just requires a lot of practice to get good at flying it, but its massive firepower and high speed makes up for its low maneuverability and slow acceleration. And the speed stall (where it flips over to the right when you pull back on the stick) happens in just about any plane other than the La-5 and Bf-109, and especially happens to the Spitfire, and just requires practice to learn to avoid it. With the 190 you just have to keep your speed up and try and make quick passes at your enemy instead of relying on getting into a dogfight and staying on the enemy's tail like you can all day with the 109...with the 190 you can do some turn fighting but it can't keep up with the turns of most enemy fighters and will bleed speed very quickly in maneuvers.

I think the 109 is more intuitive to a beginner, it goes where a novice would expect a WW2 fighter to go when you move the stick, and doesn't stall at speed, climbs really well and gathers and retains speed much better than the 190. It's not quite as maneuverable as a Spitfire but it almost is.

Frankthetank36
12-15-2009, 03:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frankthetank36:
Well I don't know what the wing loading on the 190 is but it feels VERY highly loaded. What I am trying to say is that with a spit, you can pull back on the stick and it TURNS. With the 190 (this is more pronounced in the A), you pull and it just moves a little. You pull back more and it moves a tiny bit more. You continue to pull back more and it doesn't move much more and instead snaps and rolls over. You have to compensate for this by not making any sudden movements in the pitch axis. . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the price you pay for the higher top speed.

You cannot have both, the designer must make a choice for his aircraft.

An RAF pilot makes this point very well when comparing the Spitfire and Bf109, but the point is also valide for the Fw190. :-

"At 1440 Hours, a red flare went up from the dispersal hut, arching
over the strip, and my mechanic jumped to his battery. I pulled on my
helmet, fastened the oxygen mask, put on my gloves, turned the oxygen
valve on, and primed twice. The engine broke into a roar. The mechanic
pulled out the battery cable and gave me a "thumbs up" and I was tearing
down the strip with full throttle and 3000 R.P.M. Airbourne, gear up,
throttle back a little to let the lads catch up, at 4500 f.p.m. climb.
... I had the throttle open and I rolled over and headed on a course to
cut the angle toward the 109s, which had separated a little. I wound on
nose-heavy trim so essential to keep the aircraft in a high-speed dive.
The Spit responded eagerly as I dove more steeply than the 109s, with
Red Two and Three no doubt following, although I could not see them. The
controls got very heavy as the airspeed needle moved far right at 480
mph. (Corrected for altitude, true airspeed approached 600 mph.) I could
see that I was gaining on the nearest Me 109. That was something new. We
were already half-way to Sicily; that was no problem. We knew from years
of experience, dating back to the boys who had been in the Battle of
Britain, that the 109 with its slim thirty-two foot wing was initially
faster in a dive than we were. But we accepted that compromise happily
in exchange for our broad superior-lift wing with its better climb and
turn. One couldn't have it both ways. In any case, I was closing on this
Me 109, which I recognised as a G. Perhaps he wasn't using full
throttle.
We were down to 5,000 feet and our dive had become quite shallow. I
could see the Sicilian coast a few miles ahead. Now I was within range
at 300 yards, and I let him have a good squirt. The first strikes were
on the port radiator from which white smoke poured, indicating a glycol
coolant leak. I knew I had him before the engine broke out in heavy
black smoke. " (Bf 109 G-4 "Black 14" of 2(H)/14, flown by Leutnant
Friedrich Zander, shot down 10 June 1943)
Squadron Leader I.F. Kennedy DFC & Bar. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is what I have been trying to get at all along, but people continue to claim that the 190 has fast, responsive pitch control when it clearly does not.

Xiolablu3
12-15-2009, 03:57 PM
The Fw190 is more manouverable than the Spitfire mkV in all ways except in turning circles.

The clipped wing SPitfire is closer, but scarifices some of its tight turning circles in return for roll rate. (slightly higher wing loading thanks to the missing wingtips)

Personally I prefer the full winged Spifires.

Sorry to take it off topic.

I notice that the Germans added wing area to the 109F4 and later. Possibly to give it a bit lower wing loading? Just a guess?

The_Stealth_Owl
12-15-2009, 03:58 PM
You want Speed?

Try getting it in your wing-torn-off Bf-109 after a dive.

Frankthetank36
12-15-2009, 03:59 PM
And when you dive on the other guy and pull up to shoot, that is a portion of a turning circle.

Ba5tard5word
12-15-2009, 04:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frankthetank36:
No, no, no. The D-9's pitch response is okay (although it sacrifices roll compared to the A version), but the FW-190A's elevator is the complete opposite of the Spitfire's. Okay, they will both flip and stall if you yank back, but the Spitfire's elevator allows it to change pitch QUICKLY while the 190 changes pitch very SLOWLY. That is why I am saying it is difficult to line up on the other guy's six; you either plan the attack very well or you shoot from 3, 8, 5 o'clock, or some other random direction. The 190 might have better response as you go faster, but at ANY speed you will still not be able to pull out of a 90 degree dive quickly enough to line up (you will start to black out before you are able to turn quickly). The Spit, on the other hand, is great at doing that. What kind of mods are you guys running if you can get 190s to loop on a dime like a Spit or Zero (and, to a slightly lesser extent, a 109)? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You just can't fly a 190 like a 109 or Spitfire. Again, the 190 is much less maneuverable and is more about keeping your speed high and making passes at your enemy.

Before you fly a mission with a 190 against Spitfires,, I recommend you check out Hardball's aircraft viewer or Il2Compareto compare the max speeds of the two planes at the altitudes you intend to fight at. The 190 will generally always have a much higher max speed than Spitfires from the 190's model year...I'm not sure about high altitudes since I usually fly at sea level, but at sea level the 190 will pretty much always be way faster than the Spitfire.

Again what you need to do is keep an eye on the Spitfires and pounce. Wait for them to do maneuvers and bleed speed, like when they turn around to rejoin a battle or if they just got out of a turn battle or whatever. Keep your speed up, get over 500kph, and then zoom up on the Spit's tail and blast him when you are around 300 to 150 meters away. If you have good aiming and are in a good position, all you will need is a single quick blast to blow him away. You can try and tail him but you'll only have a short space where you can stay on his tail before he starts diving and turning sharper than you can keep up. Smart use of throttle and predicting where he will turn can prevent you from losing him, but again you really can't stay on his tail all day long so it's best to try and gain speed and zoom up on him again when you get the chance.

Xiolablu3
12-15-2009, 04:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frankthetank36:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frankthetank36:
Well I don't know what the wing loading on the 190 is but it feels VERY highly loaded. What I am trying to say is that with a spit, you can pull back on the stick and it TURNS. With the 190 (this is more pronounced in the A), you pull and it just moves a little. You pull back more and it moves a tiny bit more. You continue to pull back more and it doesn't move much more and instead snaps and rolls over. You have to compensate for this by not making any sudden movements in the pitch axis. . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the price you pay for the higher top speed.

You cannot have both, the designer must make a choice for his aircraft.

An RAF pilot makes this point very well when comparing the Spitfire and Bf109, but the point is also valide for the Fw190. :-

"At 1440 Hours, a red flare went up from the dispersal hut, arching
over the strip, and my mechanic jumped to his battery. I pulled on my
helmet, fastened the oxygen mask, put on my gloves, turned the oxygen
valve on, and primed twice. The engine broke into a roar. The mechanic
pulled out the battery cable and gave me a "thumbs up" and I was tearing
down the strip with full throttle and 3000 R.P.M. Airbourne, gear up,
throttle back a little to let the lads catch up, at 4500 f.p.m. climb.
... I had the throttle open and I rolled over and headed on a course to
cut the angle toward the 109s, which had separated a little. I wound on
nose-heavy trim so essential to keep the aircraft in a high-speed dive.
The Spit responded eagerly as I dove more steeply than the 109s, with
Red Two and Three no doubt following, although I could not see them. The
controls got very heavy as the airspeed needle moved far right at 480
mph. (Corrected for altitude, true airspeed approached 600 mph.) I could
see that I was gaining on the nearest Me 109. That was something new. We
were already half-way to Sicily; that was no problem. We knew from years
of experience, dating back to the boys who had been in the Battle of
Britain, that the 109 with its slim thirty-two foot wing was initially
faster in a dive than we were. But we accepted that compromise happily
in exchange for our broad superior-lift wing with its better climb and
turn. One couldn't have it both ways. In any case, I was closing on this
Me 109, which I recognised as a G. Perhaps he wasn't using full
throttle.
We were down to 5,000 feet and our dive had become quite shallow. I
could see the Sicilian coast a few miles ahead. Now I was within range
at 300 yards, and I let him have a good squirt. The first strikes were
on the port radiator from which white smoke poured, indicating a glycol
coolant leak. I knew I had him before the engine broke out in heavy
black smoke. " (Bf 109 G-4 "Black 14" of 2(H)/14, flown by Leutnant
Friedrich Zander, shot down 10 June 1943)
Squadron Leader I.F. Kennedy DFC & Bar. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is what I have been trying to get at all along, but people continue to claim that the 190 has fast, responsive pitch control when it clearly does not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


It does once you get to mid-high speed range. IMHO. Try it at 350-400kph and it will be very responsive.

I think you are tryiong to fly the 190 like a 109 or Spitfire. It requires a completely different mindset to get the best out of her. Speed, Speed, Speed. Once in the fight dont let your speed drop. Zoom around at high speeds without letting it drop and you will see how precise and effective the contrls are.

The faster you go in the 190, the better she handles. This is what the desgner had in mind. The Fw190 was not built for slow speed turn and burn dogfighting. it was built with high speeds in mind. Crumpp can explain this better than me. But just taking the Fw190A6 for a spin at 450kph+ will show you what we are talking about. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Then try using the elevator on the Bf109G10 at 450kph and you will see what sluggish means.

Frankthetank36
12-15-2009, 04:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:

You just can't fly a 190 like a 109 or Spitfire. Again, the 190 is much less maneuverable and is more about keeping your speed high and making passes at your enemy.

Before you fly a mission with a 190 against Spitfires,, I recommend you check out Hardball's aircraft viewer or Il2Compareto compare the max speeds of the two planes at the altitudes you intend to fight at. The 190 will generally always have a much higher max speed than Spitfires from the 190's model year...I'm not sure about high altitudes since I usually fly at sea level, but at sea level the 190 will pretty much always be way faster than the Spitfire.

Again what you need to do is keep an eye on the Spitfires and pounce. Wait for them to do maneuvers and bleed speed, like when they turn around to rejoin a battle or if they just got out of a turn battle or whatever. Keep your speed up, get over 500kph, and then zoom up on the Spit's tail and blast him when you are around 300 to 150 meters away. If you have good aiming and are in a good position, all you will need is a single quick blast to blow him away. You can try and tail him but you'll only have a short space where you can stay on his tail before he starts diving and turning sharper than you can keep up. Smart use of throttle and predicting where he will turn can prevent you from losing him, but again you really can't stay on his tail all day long so it's best to try and gain speed and zoom up on him again when you get the chance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know the strengths and weaknesses of the 190 and I usually prefer it over the 109, but I still say that it takes much more practice to use since you do not fly it like most other fighters.

What it boils down to is this: how do you start the pass? With most planes I would get directly above them, roll over and dive vertically, pull up when I am at their level at 6 o'clock, fire, and then get out of there. The thing about the 190 is that often you can't pull up in time thanks to the sluggish elevator (OK, it gets better as you go faster, but by then a quick transition from a vertical dive to straight and level will cause you to pass out from the G's). So you need to come in at a shallower angle and, if they are maneuvering, it is difficult to plan so that you end up on their six. And getting shots from angles other than six o'clock is tricky. These things are possible, but it takes experience and that is why I say that the 109 is easier to pick up and fly.

And then there are the P-47s and P-51s and Tempests that are as fast or faster than 190s and usually have better turning circles once they get up to speed (well, maybe not the 47 but the Tempest is excellent in that regard).

Xiolablu3
12-15-2009, 04:22 PM
Gunther Rall agrees with most of the Il2 veterans here with regard to the later Bf109's
:-

GŁnther Rall commented on the Spitfire, having had the opportunity to fly
various captured allied aircraft, as well as the Me 109G:
"...Nicknamed Gustav, the BF 109G was well armed but not as light as the
earlier E and F versions. Its more powerful engine meant higher power
settings whose inital climb rate sent it soaring to 18,700 ft. in six
minutes but at low speed the plane was difficult to handle. ...Most of
us considered the 109G over-developed. Poor landing characteristics
added to its woes. "

So in general, the Bf109G6 and later were still competetive aircraft, but the pilots were beginning to feel it was 'overdeveloped' and that the airframe could not really handle all the new deveolopments and extra weight, without some severe-'ish' detrimental effects.

Galland and Steinhoff felt the same way. I could find the exact quote about the Bf109G6 and later, from Galland having problems, but I think you get the idea.

Ba5tard5word
12-15-2009, 04:28 PM
Tempest is ok at turning but has the same problem the Fw-190 has where it has a very high top speed but quickly loses its speed if you do a lot of maneuvering, and takes a long time to get back up to speed. It's really easy to go from 550kph+ to 350kph in a Tempest and then get tailed to death by a slower plane that keeps its speed in maneuvers better.

Ba5tard5word
12-15-2009, 04:30 PM
And I haven't flown it nearly enough, but the 190-D has always felt like it has the engine that the 190 was supposed to have...it has a ridiculously high top speed and is way better than the Antons at keeping its speed and accelerating, it's sort of like when you go from an early LaGG-3 to a La-5.


Yeah ok we're really off topic now, oh well, I love these topics when nobody is being too nasty.

Xiolablu3
12-15-2009, 04:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:
Tempest is ok at turning but has the same problem the Fw-190 has where it has a very high top speed but quickly loses its speed if you do a lot of maneuvering, and takes a long time to get back up to speed. It's really easy to go from 550kph+ to 350kph in a Tempest and then get tailed to death by a slower plane that keeps its speed in maneuvers better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly mate.

High wing loading has its problems in certain situations. just like it has its benefits in others.

Diving is on area where a high wingloading (well atually just stubby wings with less drag) and sleek design helps a lot. This is one reason why the Fw190 and Bf109 could dive faster than the Spitfire with its large, broad wing area.

Frankthetank36
12-15-2009, 04:33 PM
But the nice thing about the Tempest is that its pitch agility makes it very easy to pull out and start passes using the vertical dive method I mentioned above. How are you guys starting your passes in the Focke-Wulf?

Xiolablu3
12-15-2009, 04:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frankthetank36:
But the nice thing about the Tempest is that its pitch agility makes it very easy to start passes using the vertical dive method I mentioned above. How are you guys starting your passes in the Focke-Wulf? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

f you miss the shot zoom back up and Always from above, zooming down, take a shot and zoom back up. Don't slow down, possibly throttle back in the dive- If you feel you may break up from too high speed. (700kph+)

Frankthetank36
12-15-2009, 04:38 PM
Are you flying level when you actually fire or still in the dive?

na85
12-15-2009, 05:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frankthetank36:

What it boils down to is this: how do you start the pass? With most planes I would get directly above them, roll over and dive vertically, pull up when I am at their level at 6 o'clock, fire, and then get out of there. The thing about the 190 is that often you can't pull up in time thanks to the sluggish elevator (OK, it gets better as you go faster, but by then a quick transition from a vertical dive to straight and level will cause you to pass out from the G's). So you need to come in at a shallower angle and, if they are maneuvering, it is difficult to plan so that you end up on their six. And getting shots from angles other than six o'clock is tricky. These things are possible, but it takes experience and that is why I say that the 109 is easier to pick up and fly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the exact opposite of any experiences I've had ingame with the 190.

The elevator response at speed is so much better than, say, the 109 that I can easily correct if the target jinks. Coming in steep is no more of a problem than it is in other aircraft.

Frankthetank36
12-15-2009, 05:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:

That's the exact opposite of any experiences I've had ingame with the 190.

The elevator response at speed is so much better than, say, the 109 that I can easily correct if the target jinks. Coming in steep is no more of a problem than it is in other aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

See:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frankthetank36:
Are you flying level when you actually fire or still in the dive? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

na85
12-15-2009, 05:43 PM
I'd say I'm flying level when I fire about 50% of the time.... maybe less.

Bremspropeller
12-15-2009, 07:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I notice that the Germans added wing area to the 109F4 and later. Possibly to give it a bit lower wing loading? Just a guess?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

- They added wing-area with the F-1.

- They did so, because the new wing-tip gave better induced-drag figures (bhigher aspect-ratio towards wing-tip). If you will, this was a step towards the elliptical planform.

Xiolablu3
12-16-2009, 07:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frankthetank36:
Are you flying level when you actually fire or still in the dive? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry , I was typing that in bed last night and it got a bit messed up.

It really doesnt matter if you shoot facing downwards, or pull up behind him to take the shot, as long as you start the attack from above, you are sure to have much more speed than him when you actually attack. Take a shot and zoom back up.

Basically Erich Hartmann and Johnnie Johnson tactics. No dogfighting unless absolutely necessary, low risk to your life.

Gammelpreusse
12-16-2009, 10:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frankthetank36:
Are you flying level when you actually fire or still in the dive? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry , I was typing that in bed last night and it got a bit messed up.

It really doesnt matter if you shoot facing downwards, or pull up behind him to take the shot, as long as you start the attack from above, you are sure to have much more speed than him when you actually attack. Take a shot and zoom back up.

Basically Erich Hartmann and Johnnie Johnson tactics. No dogfighting unless absolutely necessary, low risk to your life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I may add a bit to that...

Often it does not make much sense to dive on a plane and start firing. First of all, due to the speed and deflection, hitting is hard as you often will have your target vanish under your nose. Also, coming down directly makes you easier to spot and after passing him, you either have to continue the dive or risk getting shot at while extending away.

What somestimes makes more sense is actually diving behind and under the bogey, then pulling up and THEN starting to shoot. You are less likely to be seen, you have a hugely greater range for deflections and you are already on your way up again while shooting.

It gets a bit used to, but in 8 years of flying this sim, it served me quite well.

Shooting a bandit from behind is probably the worst place to be. Simply for the fact you are shown the smallest silouette while at the same time having to deal with most of the armor a plane offers.

M_Gunz
12-16-2009, 11:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
What somestimes makes more sense is actually diving behind and under the bogey, then pulling up and THEN starting to shoot. You are less likely to be seen, you have a hugely greater range for deflections and you are already on your way up again while shooting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also your lead angle is all above, not blocked by the nose after a few degrees. Works best with nose guns, IMO.

Gammelpreusse
12-16-2009, 12:46 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 Gammelpreusse:
What somestimes makes more sense is actually diving behind and under the bogey, then pulling up and THEN starting to shoot. You are less likely to be seen, you have a hugely greater range for deflections and you are already on your way up again while shooting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also your lead angle is all above, not blocked by the nose after a few degrees. Works best with nose guns, IMO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jup, that's what I wanted to express, and agreed to the center armament. This tactic works especially well with the 109 as this also is a work around for the stiff elevator controls at high speeds. Also works for the P38.

JG52Karaya-X
12-17-2009, 06:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I notice that the Germans added wing area to the 109F4 and later. Possibly to give it a bit lower wing loading? Just a guess?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

- They added wing-area with the F-1.

- They did so, because the new wing-tip gave better induced-drag figures (bhigher aspect-ratio towards wing-tip). If you will, this was a step towards the elliptical planform. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They didnt add wing area on the Bf109F, they actually reduced it!

The Emil had a wing area of 16.4 m^2 whereas all other marks starting with the F series had 16.16 m^2. The reason for doing so remains valid though, in order to reduce induced drag!

Thinking about it, the Emil must have been a very agile bird, being around 200kg lighter than the Friedrich and with a slightly bigger wing!

Bremspropeller
12-17-2009, 10:00 AM
Thx for the clarification http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

MD_Titus
12-20-2009, 06:34 AM
in their time frames - f4, g2, g6a/s

MD_Titus
12-20-2009, 06:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The_Stealth_Owl:
The Bf-109 was a cheap mass produced in poor conditions with bad materials, piece of junk.

I fly the FW-190 A-4 II, witch is about 99% better quality, and a lot more expensive and fancy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
uh what?

Gammelpreusse
12-20-2009, 07:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MD_Titus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The_Stealth_Owl:
The Bf-109 was a cheap mass produced in poor conditions with bad materials, piece of junk.

I fly the FW-190 A-4 II, witch is about 99% better quality, and a lot more expensive and fancy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
uh what? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was one of the most successful pieces of junk ever designed, so that is a labelling which is not nessecarily an offense http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

M_Gunz
12-20-2009, 10:05 AM
What do you want from a 13 year old?

Xiolablu3
12-20-2009, 10:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MD_Titus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The_Stealth_Owl:
The Bf-109 was a cheap mass produced in poor conditions with bad materials, piece of junk.

I fly the FW-190 A-4 II, witch is about 99% better quality, and a lot more expensive and fancy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
uh what? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1 umm what?

orville07
12-20-2009, 10:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
What do you want from a 13 year old? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LMAO Gunz, leave the poor bairn alone its Christmas!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Psalm 128

"Blessed are the children
who walk in the Lord.
Blessings and joy shall be theirs.
Theirs is the bounty,
the fruit of the vine.
Theirs is the joy of God's care."

Hahaha http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif . There again, he's probably a Marilyn Manson Satan-Child like most of em these days and won't appreciate it....Teen rebellion innit Bruv? Word up Cuz, U iz da bomb, Massive!!

Kids, eh? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

MD_Titus
12-20-2009, 11:42 AM
no it's the specific designation of "II" that i am querying. what is it owl, please explain.

hopefully it's not an a4 with 2 50mm high RoF guns in the cowling...

TS_Sancho
12-20-2009, 01:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MD_Titus:
no it's the specific designation of "II" that i am querying. what is it owl, please explain.

hopefully it's not an a4 with 2 50mm high RoF guns in the cowling... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I caught that as well. All I can say is thank goodness for CRT=2.

VMF-214_HaVoK
12-20-2009, 02:17 PM
The F4 is my absolute favorite 109 in the game. I dont fly it as much (little too good for its era IMO) but the G2 is the best all around performer. I prefer the F4 though for various reason.

The_Stealth_Owl
12-20-2009, 02:32 PM
Can't explane my craft here. I don't want any spys to know about it.

Top secret. German space center would kill me.


I even got an FW-190 A-5 ata 1.65 Mk. 2.

thefruitbat
12-20-2009, 02:39 PM
Great!, don't bother to mention them ever again then.

MD_Titus
12-21-2009, 01:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
Great!, don't bother to mention them ever again then. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

from his modding site
"New planes are under way.


I have a FW-190 A-4 II that I am thinking about sharing."

so uh what is it, do we get a read me?

na85
12-21-2009, 04:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MD_Titus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
Great!, don't bother to mention them ever again then. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

from his modding site
"New planes are under way.


I have a FW-190 A-4 II that I am thinking about sharing."

so uh what is it, do we get a read me? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps you could take your frankenplane discussion to private messaging, as this topic is about the Bf109.