PDA

View Full Version : Turn time late 109 vs 190D9

JG4_Helofly
10-27-2007, 04:10 AM
Hello,

I was just wondering why late bf109 are turning worse than the 190 D9. Even the A6 ( best turning Anton ) turns better than a 109 K4.
This is not really a problem for me, but when I look at weight and power of both planes I can't understand why it's like this.

Here the exemple of K4 vs D9:
Take off weight of the K4 is 3421Kg vs 4334Kg for the D9.
Wing area is 16.02 for the 109 and 18.3 for the D9.
Power is 1850 vs 2240.
Turn time is 23.36 K4 vs 21.55 D9

If you do the math you will find out that the 109K has better powerloading and better wingloading, so why does the 190D9 turn so much better? I thought powerloading and wingloading show us the most important numbers for the estimation of the turn performance.
What do I miss here?

JG4_Helofly
10-27-2007, 04:10 AM
Hello,

I was just wondering why late bf109 are turning worse than the 190 D9. Even the A6 ( best turning Anton ) turns better than a 109 K4.
This is not really a problem for me, but when I look at weight and power of both planes I can't understand why it's like this.

Here the exemple of K4 vs D9:
Take off weight of the K4 is 3421Kg vs 4334Kg for the D9.
Wing area is 16.02 for the 109 and 18.3 for the D9.
Power is 1850 vs 2240.
Turn time is 23.36 K4 vs 21.55 D9

If you do the math you will find out that the 109K has better powerloading and better wingloading, so why does the 190D9 turn so much better? I thought powerloading and wingloading show us the most important numbers for the estimation of the turn performance.
What do I miss here?

Kurfurst__
10-27-2007, 04:22 AM
Indeed. I had never considered the late 109s turn times logical.

Powerloading, K-4 535 PS/t (1800PS) or 595 PS/t (2000 PS). D-9 517 PS/t (2240 PS, I am not sure about D-9 ratings). The K has probably a bit lower parasitic drag than the Dora, and it`s induced drag (wingloading) is certainly less..

So, I don`t quite figure it out. I doubt it would be all down to the bad weight of the in-game 109K (3421 kg vs. RL 3362 kg) would explain it.

Anyway, there is no real life sustained turn data for these planes (at least I don`t know about it).

Manos1
10-27-2007, 04:26 AM
Isn't he fantastic!?

Reaction time of 2minutes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Respect Kurfurst!
This was faster than me reading the post and trying to remember your callsign!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

HuninMunin
10-27-2007, 04:32 AM
Indeed the little weight increase from the G6 onwards feels more like the 109 gains about a ton ingame.

Kwiatos
10-27-2007, 04:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Hello,

I was just wondering why late bf109 are turning worse than the 190 D9. Even the A6 ( best turning Anton ) turns better than a 109 K4.
This is not really a problem for me, but when I look at weight and power of both planes I can't understand why it's like this.

Here the exemple of K4 vs D9:
Take off weight of the K4 is 3421Kg vs 4334Kg for the D9.
Wing area is 16.02 for the 109 and 18.3 for the D9.
Power is 1850 vs 2240.
Turn time is 23.36 K4 vs 21.55 D9

If you do the math you will find out that the 109K has better powerloading and better wingloading, so why does the 190D9 turn so much better? I thought powerloading and wingloading show us the most important numbers for the estimation of the turn performance.
What do I miss here? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sry but you are wrong. All bfs turn better then Fw190 A or D in these game at medium to low speed. Just dont count on Il2Compare turn and climb data because these are wrong. Try to test it in game turnig with mate 109 vs Fw190 and you will see.

K_Freddie
10-27-2007, 04:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Posted Sat October 27 2007 03:10
Posted Sat October 27 2007 03:22
Reaction time of 2minutes Big Grin
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you see the difference, Me?, no!
Can you ? huh?
Nah, not me.....
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Zzzzzz

M_Gunz
10-27-2007, 04:59 AM
Il2C has 109K turning faster at 350kph and less. IL2C AP did set to use higher AOA of slats
which would really cut into power required for the high speed turns.

HuninMunin
10-27-2007, 05:02 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:
Il2C has 109K turning faster at 350kph and less. IL2C AP did set to use higher AOA of slats
which would really cut into power required for the high speed turns. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Use teh trim , Luke.

anarchy52
10-27-2007, 05:31 AM
The only 109 that turns in accordance with real life tests (russian ones) is 109 G2 and is banned from most servers as it is considered too much to handle for an average Spit/La/Pony ace.

Don't know about F series compared to RL examples, but ingame G2 definitely outclasses the F4.

The rest are more or less target drones compared to the opposition.

190 Antons are crippled regarding turn performance even compared with crash landed, repaired and fitted with non-original prop (Stuka I believe) samples that russians tested. 190 are however more useful due to the fact they do not lock up at speed above 450 km/h and have better arnament. Anton should turn close to 109 G6 we have in game if russian tests are to be considered valid.

It seems that the common trait of 109/190 in game is poor manuverability. Don't know why. SFS's could probably give an answer.

M_Gunz
10-27-2007, 05:33 AM
Trim does not change AOA, only lets you pull more.
Trouble is that as AOA increases, lift factor increases and drag at same speed increases with
the square of the change. You add 50% lift factor through more AOA then drag is 2.25 times
what it was before that.

With those curves being sustained, not instant turn, the 109K has not the power to turn best.

However with less than full slat AOA I am guessing it should turn better at higher speeds
than the curve made at 18 deg AOA that IIRC was used for slats planes.

But the Dora set up the way it is for speed is a beast and IIRC no slats turn and climb were
set for 12 deg AOA which has less drag.

HuninMunin
10-27-2007, 05:34 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:
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Me knows, trash talking about ingame circumstances here. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kernow
10-27-2007, 06:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Turn time is 23.36 K4 vs 21.55 D9
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's your testing right, not IL2C? Your K4 time agrees with IL2C, but the D-9 is 22.5 according to IL2C. I found the D-9 even better than IL2C and you, at 20.5 sec (either left/right). However, I haven't done the K-4 yet.

FWIW, here are some other, related, results I obtained. I tested at sea-level on the Smolensk map, using the IAS that would give the best turn time TAS found in IL2C. May not be the exact best IAS, but it's close enough to use in combat when needed, at least at 1km +/- a km. I recorded a track while pulling a continuous turn, holding the desired speed, at full power. Then I reviewed the track, noting how long it had taken to make 3,4 or 5 turns.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
109
F-2 - 19 sec (better than IL2C)
G-14 - 20.25 ( - " - )

190
A-4 - 22.7 sec ( - " - )
A-5 - 23.3 sec (slightly better etc)
A-5+ - 21.8 sec (better...)
A-6 - 23.3 sec (not currently in IL2C)*
A-8 - 21.5 sec (much better) & no, that isn't a typo http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
A-9 - 22.3 sec (better...)

D-9 - 20.5 sec[/list]

*IIRC - In a previous version of IL2C (and presumably also of the game) the A-6 was indeed the best turning 190. Then the next version gave them exactly the same performance all-round. Now the A-6 isn't listed, but it seems at least possible that they still have the same FM. I often hear that the A-6 "is the best turning 190." Maybe that was once true, but I don't think it's true any longer, in-game. It's just said enough to be believed.

Remember, this is all how the game IS (or how I found it) not about how it perhaps should be. I'll try to do the K-4 under the same conditions some time soon. I'd be interested to see any other game data that might be out there, but I don't think the later 109s are worse than the 190 (although the K-4 will also have to outperform IL2C for that to be so... we'll see, hmmm.)

M_Gunz
10-27-2007, 07:06 AM
Are you comparing turns made at different speeds?

anarchy52
10-27-2007, 07:48 AM
Kernow, sustained turn means constant altitude and constant speed.

Kernow
10-27-2007, 07:55 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:
Are you comparing turns made at different speeds? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
turns made at the best turn speed for each aircraft - as given in IL2C. I converted the TAS at 1000m given in IL2C to an IAS and used that. Best turn as in best rate of turn not min radius.

Will get on to that K-4 test now...

Vike
10-27-2007, 07:56 AM
Kwiatos and Kernow,

I read you consider IL2Compare as wrong and/or inaccurate,on what i disagree,here is why:

*First thing,Kernow you say this or that plane turns better that IL2C says,while you do your test on Smolensk (!?)
IL2C bases its results on Crimea map,where the settings are the closest to IRL AFA i heard.BTW using other maps that Crimea for testing imply other outside temperatures,thus other max speeds and then, inevitably,other Best Turn Time results! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

*Kwiatos,a long time ago,i had the same feeling that you...But if you look to the IL2Comp. curves twice,you'll see that the best turn times for Dora9 and K4-B4 are reached in different speeds.

Thus,concerning speeds,i noticed that the less an aircraft needs speed to reach its Best Turn Time,the more this aircraft seems supple in maneuvers/turns. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

By example: Take a Me109 E7/Z (BTT@1000m=24,6sec)and the K4-B4 (BTT@1000m=23,36sec)
Go on Crimea map and drive them both to ~350km/h IAS,then do a sharp turn...You'll see that inspite of the better BTT of the K4-B4,the Emil will be a better turner. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

It is the same situation between all Fw190s (including Dora and Ta152s) and the Me109-Late.
Moreover,the high speeds needed for the Fw190s to reach their BTT imply a higher risk of black/red-outs! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Like Hunin already said,personally when i fight on servers like WarClouds-WF,it's astonishing how weak and useless are the Fw190s in turning fights,especially those involving SpitIX...

How many time i was hard turning with SpitIX while three or four Fw190A & D9 were around me and my future victim,simply unable to take part to the fight because of the Me109 and SpitIX superior turning abilities...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Use teh trim , Luke. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
When you've understood that,you've understand everything to know about maneuvering the late Me109s,especially when combining combat flaps and trim,exactly like the real Luftwaffe Expertens did *and did well* when involved in turning fights.

See here for IRL infos and details (many testimonies) (http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/#db) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

@+

Kernow
10-27-2007, 08:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
Kernow, sustained turn means constant altitude and constant speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
that's why I do it on the deck - easy to see if your height increases and impossible to go too low http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif where did I give the impression I was doing anything other than constant height & speed? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kernow
10-27-2007, 09:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vike:
*First thing,Kernow you say this or that plane turns better that IL2C says,while you do your test on Smolensk (!?)
IL2C bases its results on Crimea map,where the settings are the closest to IRL AFA i heard.BTW using other maps that Crimea for testing imply other outside temperatures,thus other max speeds and then, inevitably,other Best Turn Time results! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yea, I know. Normally I test on Crimea; I just did a load of one-off turn tests on Smolensk, and then, rather than repeat them on Crimea, I did all other turn tests on Smolensk so I could compare like with like. I thought that was probably the reason for the improved times, but some ac performed just as IL2C predicted when tested on Smolensk: MiG-3ud, spot-on at 20.2 sec; Yak-1 at 21.0 sec (right) & 21.6 sec (left) v 21.4 sec from IL2C; so maybe it's not the map. Il2C does come with a 'health warning' after all. Anyway I don't think IL2C is 'wrong' I just noted the differences I'd found (which could be due to the map used, as you say). I trust and use Il2C extensively.

Crimea may be the standard used for testing, but it isn't very close to standard conditions. The IAS/TAS relationship at sea-level implies a temperature of 35 C or a deviation from ISA of +20.

Anyway, I've done the K-4 under the same conditions now and it consistently went around at 21 sec, with one 'lap' at 22, giving an average of 21.2 sec. I discarded my first test, because I only closed the rad half-way through. I'd need to do more to prove it conclusively, but I think the difference between open/closed rad could be 1/2 to 1 sec. Left on auto it will open pretty quickly (on tracks it always appears open). Did you close the rad, Helofly?

Although I found the K-4 fractionally better than the best Anton (although within my probable margin of error), I agree that the D-9 is better (by about half a sec) than the K-4. Whether that is as it should be is another matter.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Kwiatos:
... All bfs turn better then Fw190 A or D in these game at medium to low speed... Try to test it in game turnig with mate 109 vs Fw190 and you will see. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, that is true. In a med to slow speed fight with both ac at the same speed the 109 is superior. And I agree that the Antons can't - quite - match any 109 for best rate of turn, but the Dora (early one) can turn at a greater rate than the K-4 if both ac are free to fly at their best speed.

Polyperhon
10-27-2007, 03:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Thus,concerning speeds,i noticed that the less an aircraft needs speed to reach its Best Turn Time,the more this aircraft seems supple in maneuvers/turns. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

By example: Take a Me109 E7/Z (BTT@1000m=24,6sec)and the K4-B4 (BTT@1000m=23,36sec)
Go on Crimea map and drive them both to ~350km/h IAS,then do a sharp turn...You'll see that inspite of the better BTT of the K4-B4,the Emil will be a better turner. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

It is the same situation between all Fw190s (including Dora and Ta152s) and the Me109-Late.
Moreover,the high speeds needed for the Fw190s to reach their BTT imply a higher risk of black/red-outs! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Like Hunin already said,personally when i fight on servers like WarClouds-WF,it's astonishing how weak and useless are the Fw190s in turning fights,especially those involving SpitIX...

How many time i was hard turning with SpitIX while three or four Fw190A & D9 were around me and my future victim,simply unable to take part to the fight because of the Me109 and SpitIX superior turning abilities...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you.Exactly what we are talking about 3 years (at least) to the various pony maniacs that they (still) insist that the P-51 is "porked" when they have the same fate that you describe, only that the roles are reversed and instead of Fw190 we have P-51 and Bf109 in place of Spit.That's why most brit pilot preferred the Spit from the Pony, and this is why the heavier wing-gun Bf109s were far from finished when they encountered Ponys ( I don't think that the extra drag-weight was enough to eliminate this advantage).The fact that the slow muzzle velocity (which was useless in deflection shooting and needed close 6 o'clock position) Mk108 became standard says nothing to some people.
In any case, Bf109 was simply the best http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

DKoor
10-28-2007, 06:29 AM
I consider 109 to be better in turn that any late war allied plane except the Spitfire. However 109K is out of the picture because I haven't flew much of those on some serious basis (long term)...
But believe me when I say that I would be extremely surprised to see any FW gaining on 109 in sustained tnb or to win overall maneuvering fight vs 109.

Those who can clearly turn tighter should be able to win tnb because of their ability to cut inside.... and thus all better high speed turn goes out of window, and all other aspects as well.

That is especially true if tnb is on deck....

Cpt. Obvious strikes it again...

M_Gunz
10-28-2007, 11:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Polyperhon:
In any case, Bf109 was simply the best http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You must get awfully disappointed at high speeds and/or altitudes with ideas like that.
It is what comes of comparing best numbers without regard to conditions of either as basis of
such opinion.

The better pilot has a wider picture and gets surprised less.
The average gamer just complains about the FM.

Polyperhon
10-28-2007, 11:49 AM
All I want is an online server that would

1) start fight from 5.000m
2) NO external views of any kind

then give me an early Bf 109G-6 to kill your ponys!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

JG14_Josf
10-28-2007, 12:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Thus,concerning speeds,i noticed that the less an aircraft needs speed to reach its Best Turn Time,the more this aircraft seems supple in maneuvers/turns. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kernow,

My take on those words is an agreement concerning an observation of how the game models flight. A plane that is modeled as a good energy fighter (does not dump energy or ˜energy bleed' ˜like a stuck pig' for few gains in actual degrees of turn) will ˜feel' like a ˜light plane' and be ˜more maneuverable' in ˜turn fights'.

An example of what I am trying to communicate is a simple test for any player testing any plane.

Take-off distance and acceleration during the take off roll immediately clues the player in on the ˜feel' of the aircraft.

Take an Fw190A-8 off the runway 10 times and then spawn in with an Fw190D-9 and see the difference.

Take a 109G-2 off the runway 10 times and then spawn in with a 109G-6.

The ˜feel' is noticeable.

I've read, and can find again, a quote by a well known P-47 pilot who said something to the effect that the P-47 did not ˜feel' like a heavy plane.

Imagine, for example, flying at 400 mph and then performing a maximum performance level turn from that high speed level flight attitude to a stall at maximum g (as much as the pilot could stand).

What does the real aircraft feel like during that maneuver (it is a loaded deceleration maneuver used to quantify turn performance in modern military aircraft)?

Does the aircraft ˜feel' heavy? Does it ˜feel' sluggish? Does it lag and hesitate during the roll and during the increase of lift vector acceleration?

This is where the game may have things wrong, in my opinion, since this thing called ˜agility' is not a function of weight, wing-loading, or power-loading. If the aircraft is flying above the speed required to generate the lift force that will accelerate the mass of the aircraft, then, the aircraft will accelerate at that rate.

Please think about that before reacting with some kind of personal attack toward me.

The P-47 and the Fw190A-4 were WWII fighter planes known to be ˜agile' when flown in their envelopes (very ˜agile' in roll and in pitch).

Both aircraft were famous for acceleration rates in dives too.

The game appears to make light planes accelerate quickly and ˜feel' quick and agile through the entire envelope when, in fact, that ˜lightness' should not necessarily be possible at higher speeds (especially above 220 miles per hour when compressibility begins to burn energy from the plane in the process of compressing air mass) when the force of drag becomes extreme.

The game has developed from a very simple acceleration model (where every plane had the same rate of acceleration) to a more complex model where the latest P-47 and the Dora ˜feels' lighter.

The player can get a better idea about what I am saying with the take-off experiment and with loaded deceleration experiments.

An agile plane will covert velocity into degrees of turn quickly. A plane that is not agile will not.

Testing sustained turn performance is a test of wing-loading and power-loading where weight is accelerated at a constant rate relative to the gravity vector and the lift vector combined. A loaded deceleration test and a Wind up Turn (http://flighttest.navair.navy.mil/unrestricted/FTM108/c6.pdf) will measure ˜agility' and begin to quantify dynamic turn performance.

If during loaded decelerations and wind up turns the plane ˜feels' like a heavy plane burning energy like a stuck pig, then, chances are that plane will take all day to get up during the take-off roll and it will not be a good ˜dogfighter' in the game no matter what the sustained turn times might suggest.