PDA

View Full Version : BIG QUESTION:WHICH IS BETTER:190D9 OR 109K4?



XyZspineZyX
04-02-2003, 07:29 AM
hi chaps, i have been trying to figure out which plane is the better but i could not do it.
i believe k4 is more stable but i have a feeling that d9 has more ammo and bigger firepower.

so, in a turnfight which would be your choice?

thankx
plebi

XyZspineZyX
04-02-2003, 07:29 AM
hi chaps, i have been trying to figure out which plane is the better but i could not do it.
i believe k4 is more stable but i have a feeling that d9 has more ammo and bigger firepower.

so, in a turnfight which would be your choice?

thankx
plebi

XyZspineZyX
04-02-2003, 07:57 AM
K4..Just as much firepower..better punch but less ammo hehe /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan

&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src='http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/V.gif'</script>

&lt;script>color="#000000";a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor=color;</script>


http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/crazyivan-VFC.gif (http://www.vfc1.netfirms.com/)


"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
04-02-2003, 08:42 AM
I think BF109 k4 is better.
D9 is a Sword, but K4 is a Scalpel.
It's only recomended for sharp-shooters ;-)

XyZspineZyX
04-02-2003, 09:47 AM
I wouldn't want to turn fight in either; use them to your advantage, B'n'Z

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://freespace.virgin.net/geek.rock/fat-alan.gif'</script>
&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName;o.height=80;o.width=80</script>

XyZspineZyX
04-02-2003, 10:38 AM
I'd never claim to be an expert but have found the 109 K-4 to be the aircraft of choice over the Dora, as much as I hate to admit it. I remember once having read that the Dora was the finest Lufwaffe fighter ever produced in significant numbers, whereas the K-4 was a failed attempt by Messerschmitt's designers to modernize an already outdated fighter just to keep the production rolling. Luftwaffe pilots complained that the K-4 was extremely difficult to fly at higher altitudes and its high-speed maneuverability was poor at best. In Forgotten Battles, however, I've been disappointed with the Dora's performance, especially its climb rate and acceleration, and find the only way to take on anything with it is to go for a head-on pass and pray, since the AI's accuracy is uncanny. Perhaps in online play it might be the plane of choice, but not against enemy AI! Especially at the altitudes that most engagements take place.

XyZspineZyX
04-02-2003, 10:44 AM
I find the K4 much better than the Dora, and a much more stable shooting platform. The Dora quivers too much while shooting, making aiming quite difficult. K4´s nose cannon reduces it, and I find it much more accurate, and firepower is good enough to bring down almost everything with a well aimed short burst.Otherwise, it climbs like hell, dives well and even if it doesn´t turn like a Hurri, a B&Z tactic is a good idea. The only plane that scares my while in a K4 is the La 7...It´s the only one that - at least online- can climb and dive with the K4 and outurn it easily.

PATRIA Y HONOR

XyZspineZyX
04-02-2003, 01:10 PM
The Dora is better(IMO) than the K4 in just about everything except climb and acceleration. In real life the 109 had very heavy controls in the rolling plane, something that is not correctly modelled in FB. For those who still want to turn with these B&Z fighters will find that the Dora is not to be underestimated, after all the K4 and Dora had the same turning time, at 1000 meters at least. At 470 km/h the Dora can turn very tight without losing to much E. The Dora can also withstand more battle damage.

http://www.luftwaffe3945.hpg.ig.com.br/aero/ta152-3.jpg


'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

XyZspineZyX
04-02-2003, 01:28 PM
The 109s had extremely poor handling at high speeds.
It was the opposite at near stall speed where it handled beautifully, or at least that's what I've read.
During hard turns also , the slats in the wings had the tedency to open.
While this prevented a stall , it threw the pilot off his aim.
The 109s in this sim have no vices, as opposed to the 190s mediocre stall characteristics being overemphasized.

<center>http://users.compulink.gr/ilusin@e-free.gr/bf109[2)1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
04-02-2003, 01:32 PM
K4 all the way.

"degustibus non disputandum"

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/ferrarif50.gif'</script>

&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName;o.height=65;o.width=110</script>

<center><a href=http://www.jzg23.de>http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig.jpg</a>

&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#B22222";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#FFFFFF";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#8B0000";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#8B0000";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>

XyZspineZyX
04-02-2003, 02:29 PM
They're both good but put a gun to my head and tell me to choose or die....K4.




http://home.earthlink.net/~aclzkim1/_uimages/P-47-4.jpg

XyZspineZyX
04-02-2003, 02:40 PM
I guess that would depend largely on the flying style of the pilot.

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://www.p51.mustangsmustangs.com/survivors/images/T42-103831.jpg'; var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

<CENTER><img src ="http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg"><marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee>

XyZspineZyX
04-02-2003, 03:01 PM
I'm with carguy on this one, then again, I'm something of a 109 aficionado.

http://www.brooksart.com/Aztec.jpg

----------------------------------------
Mors Ianua Vitae (sed mori nolo!)

-Artes Latinae (L186 Anon)-

XyZspineZyX
04-02-2003, 03:13 PM
K4 seems to me the best choice - after 262 - for b&z tactics. It is faster than the Dora and climbs much better (at least as the Dora is modelled in FB).
The Dora climbs not so good but is fine for E management tactics, and is ok for medium high fights. More, the Dora has a couple of interesting features in the economy of a fight. It has a better roll than the k4 and most of all it's almost "impossible" to overheat the engine even with MW50 on, while the k4 overheats much long before, and this can be unpleasant in a prolonged df. Lastly, even if the Dora has a little less fire impact, it seems quite easier to aim with it, and is even considerably less fragile than the k4.

<FONT COLOR="yellow">BBB_ABRAXA</FONT>

<marquee> <FONT COLOR="red"> Si vis pacem, para bellum</FONT></marquee>

XyZspineZyX
04-02-2003, 03:21 PM
The 30mm nose cannon and awesome climb rate make the K-4 one of the most deadly a/c in the sim.

But, the top speed of the K-4 seems too slow(G6/AS will outrun it) and the sustained climb rate of the Dora seems too low.(climb charts for D-9 posted in ORR if you're interested). MW50 on the 1945 Dora seems to have no affect at all below the engine's rated altitude, and the 1944D-9's "erhote-notleistung" provides much better acceleration than 1945's MW50.

The way things are currently modelled, the 1944 FW190D-9 is the a/c I would choose over both the K-4 and the 1945D-9.

================================================== ==========

Advantages for each a/c should be:

109K-4

- slightly better power/weight ratio = better acceleration
- better top speed above 6,000m by about 10-12mph
- superior sustained climb rate at all altitudes

190D-9

- better top speed at altitudes below 5,500m
- superior roll-rate
- better zoom climb (IMO)
- better dive speed (IMO)
- sustains speed better (IMO)
- better high-speed handling (especially roll-rate)

As far as armament is concerned, the K-4 has 1x30mm and 2x13mm. The D-9 has 2x20mm and 2x13mm. Some have stated that the D-9s armament is weak, but it isn't.

Concentrated nose armament = more weight hitting a concentrated point = more damage = game over for your enemy.

http://www.cropp.demon.co.uk/FW/MOREPICS/TA152H.JPG

XyZspineZyX
04-02-2003, 03:29 PM
K-4

&lt;script>var YourPicName="http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/games5/il-2/Blackavatar.gif"; var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

&lt;script>color="#000000";a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-5].bgColor="#111111";a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-8].bgColor="#550000";a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-4].bgColor="#111111";a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor=color;</script>

XyZspineZyX
04-02-2003, 03:40 PM
With manual prop pitch the k4 is probably the fastes prop plane in FB even at sealevel, and this is partly a bug since it reaches 628kph at sealevel!
FwFan, if you were refferring to me, i didn't say that the Dora has a weak armament I just said that the k4 has a higher *impact* due to the mk 108 rounds, still some can prefer the concentrated (and more accurate) combination of 2 20 mm cannons, the 13mm mgs being the same.

<FONT COLOR="yellow">BBB_ABRAXA</FONT>

<marquee> <FONT COLOR="red"> Si vis pacem, para bellum</FONT></marquee>

XyZspineZyX
04-02-2003, 04:12 PM
190Fan, few questions.

Can you define high speed, w/r/t "poor handling at high speed" for the 109?

On the same note, can you define "poor handling"?

Why do you think the D-9 should have a better zoom climb than the K-4? With it's monstrous climb rate the K-4 has gobs of thrust. That would help any kind of climb, even a zoom (it also appears to be a bit sleeker than the kinda flat nosed D-9).

Likewise, those aspects of the Kurfurst would help it in a dive, right?

By maintain speed better, do you mean retain energy better? Why?



I'm just curious, I'm not getting on your case or anything.



<CENTER>http://www.km011a0004.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/1.jpg </center>
&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img"); document.write('<'+'script>var oldonload' + a.length + '=window.onload; function killedit' + a.length + '(){document.all["myedit' + a.length + '"].innerHTML = "";oldonload' + a.length + '();};window.onload=killedit' + a.length + ';<'+'/script>');</script>&lt;script>document.write('<'+'b id="myedit' + a.length + '">')</script>

XyZspineZyX
04-02-2003, 05:12 PM
Abraxa wrote:

- FwFan, if you were refferring to me, i didn't say
- that the Dora has a weak armament I just said that
- the k4 has a higher *impact* due to the mk 108
- rounds, still some can prefer the concentrated (and
- more accurate) combination of 2 20 mm cannons, the
- 13mm mgs being the same.


No Abraxa, not refering to you at all /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

But many here have stated they felt the D-9 is under-gunned. It's just not true IMO...

http://www.cropp.demon.co.uk/FW/MOREPICS/TA152H.JPG

XyZspineZyX
04-02-2003, 06:26 PM
Hi DDT, howzit goin'?


BlitzPig_DDT wrote:

- 190Fan, few questions.
-
- Can you define high speed, w/r/t "poor handling at
- high speed" for the 109?


Not sure where the "poor handling at high speed" for the 109 came from, but it wasn't me. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I don't feel the 109 necessarily has poor handling at high speeds at all (over 550kph). But the Dora will easily out roll it and with rudder input turns at least as well, and IMO can snap-roll into a turn faster. Overall, with the possible exception of elevator response, I feel the Dora is more responsive at high speeds.


- Why do you think the D-9 should have a better zoom
- climb than the K-4?

These are simply my impressions flying FB as it's currently modelled, and I think some things are going to change after the first patch based on stuff in ORR, so really all bets are off until then IMO.

I never fly German fighters against other German fighters, but I'm going to do some direct tests between the Kurfurst and the Dora, but probably not until after patch #1.

With regard to zoom climb, I'm not positive that it should have better zoom climb, but it sure seems that way in FB. I've been flying the 1944D-9 lately. On automatic, it reaches 590-600kph down low and you can pull it into a zoom climb to 2,000m and still have good speed and energy left over.

Of all the allied fighters, only the Yak-9U gives me much of a problem in the Dora.


- With it's monstrous climb rate
- the K-4 has gobs of thrust. That would help any kind
- of climb, even a zoom (it also appears to be a bit
- sleeker than the kinda flat nosed D-9).

I know that the Kurfurst has better acceleration and sustained climb, but I'm not sure that automatically translates into better zoom climb, especially after a dive. Also, the Dora should have a higher top speed at sea level than the Kurfurst, and probably up to ~5,000m. After 6,000m Kurfurst should be ~10mph faster than the Dora. Because of this, IMO the Dora should zoom climb better after top speed is reached, from sea level up to 5,000m. especially following a dive.


- Likewise, those aspects of the Kurfurst would help
- it in a dive, right?

Possibly, but another thing to consider is the Kurfurst is 2,000hp and ~3362kg. The Dora is 2,240hp and ~4350kg.(loaded weights) IIRC, similar drag. Personally, I would think the Dora should dive faster than the Kurfurst.

- By maintain speed better, do you mean retain energy
- better? Why?

Again, these are simply my impressions from flying them in FB. The Dora holds speed very, very well IMO.

But really, tests won't mean as much now because both Oleg and some Beta testers have indicated adjustments after the patch. IMO, it's all academic 'til the day Oleg is satisfied and says this is as good as the FM is going to get.


- I'm just curious, I'm not getting on your case or
- anything.

Please stop these brutal and senseless attacks and character assassination at once! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif (j/k) /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


http://www.cropp.demon.co.uk/FW/MOREPICS/TA152H.JPG



Message Edited on 04/02/0312:28PM by FW190fan

XyZspineZyX
04-02-2003, 06:28 PM
FW190fan wrote:
-
- Abraxa wrote:
-
-- FwFan, if you were refferring to me, i didn't say
-- that the Dora has a weak armament I just said that
-- the k4 has a higher *impact* due to the mk 108
-- rounds, still some can prefer the concentrated (and
-- more accurate) combination of 2 20 mm cannons, the
-- 13mm mgs being the same.
-
-
- No Abraxa, not refering to you at all /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
- But many here have stated they felt the D-9 is
- under-gunned. It's just not true IMO...
-


I totally agree, with the new damage modelling, the armament of the Dora seems really effective to me, and due to the central position of the weapons, aim is really accurate and convergence easier.

Cheers

<FONT COLOR="yellow">BBB_ABRAXA</FONT>

<marquee> <FONT COLOR="red"> Si vis pacem, para bellum</FONT></marquee>

XyZspineZyX
04-02-2003, 06:37 PM
Abraxa wrote:

- I totally agree, with the new damage modelling, the
- armament of the Dora seems really effective to me,
- and due to the central position of the weapons, aim
- is really accurate and convergence easier.

HeHe, just wait 'til the Ta152 gets here. A 30mm nose cannon plus 2x20mm in the wing roots. This armament I would consider superior to anything except the 4x30mm MK108 concentrated in the nose of the 262.

Too bad that with the altitude limitations of the 3D model, we will probably never be able to exploit the advantages of the Ta152 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

http://www.cropp.demon.co.uk/FW/MOREPICS/TA152H.JPG

XyZspineZyX
04-02-2003, 07:01 PM
FW190fan wrote:
- HeHe, just wait 'til the Ta152 gets here. A 30mm
- nose cannon plus 2x20mm in the wing roots. This
- armament I would consider superior to anything
- except the 4x30mm MK108 concentrated in the nose of
- the 262.


Imagine the Ta152C, with 4x20mm and a 30mm nose cannon!
It would be awesome(aswell as fearsome)!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


-
- Too bad that with the altitude limitations of the 3D
- model, we will probably never be able to exploit the
- advantages of the Ta152.


Perhaps this is a good reason to implement the Ta152C, which would be at its best at medium to high altitudes!
3D model wise, with the Ta152H already finished, a small modification would turn the exterior model into a C.
Does my memory serve me correct if I say that some time ago Oleg mentioned doing the Ta152C? Please say this is so!

Some sources say the C never saw combat, but some others do! But again does it matter, at least it existed!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



http://www.luftwaffe3945.hpg.ig.com.br/aero/ta152-3.jpg


'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

ShadowHawk__
04-02-2003, 07:07 PM
Even though the 190 can take more battle damage, in my opinion if someone gets in behind me and loads me full of lead I'm screwed anyways, so to me that's not really an issue. I think a few things are off right now on the Dora so as it stands, the K-4. The sheer speed in this plane is unbelieveable, and the Dora's acceleration is just too poor for me right now, you lose your speed in that plane and you're done.

-Death From Above

XyZspineZyX
04-02-2003, 07:12 PM
robban75 wrote:

- Perhaps this is a good reason to implement the
- Ta152C, which would be at its best at medium to high
- altitudes!

Because of altitude limitations, I think the Ta152C may actually be better for FB than the high-altitude H-1.


- 3D model wise, with the Ta152H already finished, a
- small modification would turn the exterior model
- into a C.

Yes, but also differences in flight model, weapons, etc.


- Does my memory serve me correct if I say that some
- time ago Oleg mentioned doing the Ta152C? Please say
- this is so!

According to IL2 Planes Database, the Ta152C is reserved by Oleg. I really hope we see it in FB soon!

Would also like FW190D-12 w/Jumo-213F/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif





http://www.cropp.demon.co.uk/FW/MOREPICS/TA152H.JPG

XyZspineZyX
04-02-2003, 07:29 PM
Between the Dora, and K4. I'd have to pick the K4. However, if you had added the A9 to the list. I'd pick it without thinking about it.

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

XyZspineZyX
04-02-2003, 08:01 PM
109s historically had heavier control forces at high speed, meaning that a 109 pilot could not pull/push etc. the stick back enough to deflect the elevators/ailrons fully (which was rather common with WW2 fighters to more or less extent, since very of them had boosted control surfaces). I don`t feel the 109 would be too good, all the Gs are quite poor in roll at high speed, the K-4 is of course better, since that version introduced simply mechanical Flettner tabs on the rudder and ailrons, helping this problem of high control forces at high speeds.

As for all around flight performance, the K-4 had it all over the D-9, expect for the Dora`s slight speed adv. at very low altitudes (615 km/h vs. 605 km/h at SL)... climb of the Dora seems to be greatly undermodelled for the 1945 version, but the same goes with K-4s speed in Auto prop mode, it`s something like 60-80 km/h slower at all but lower altitudes than it should be..

The things that are better in the D-9 is armament, roll rate, and toughness. Unlike the K-4, the D-9 does not have any major flight perf. advantage over late Soviet models except for roll rate, which puts it behind the K-4 in my opinion. Of course this is primarly because I am used to make advantage of 109s strenght, which gives me a rather comfortable position in fights - taking adv. of 190D strenghts is much harder and more risky IMHO.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/irak.jpg


Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérünk a Szerencse!

(Courage leads us, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

If you are interested in some flight curves and other similiar WW2 stuff, please feel free to visit some of my collection which was uploaded to the Net to be shared:

http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

If climb rate`s with us, what`s against us?

XyZspineZyX
04-02-2003, 08:03 PM
One important thing missing here is suitability to different types of air combat.

K-4 would win any 1 on 1 duel vs D-9. Dora pilot would have to be much better than K-4 jock to beat him.

However, if you try 4 vs 4, I am not so sure of the K-4 domination. Even though late war 109s here are modeled relatively superior 109s in other sims I've played, 190 has retained its qualities.

190 qualities are not simple aerobatic features and abilities.

It is a plane made for more modern air combat than 109 was. 109 was built to outfly the enemy and beat him in the end. 190 was built to strike from initial position of advantage and get out fast.



http://easyweb.globalnet.hr/easyweb/users/ntomlino/uploads/sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
04-02-2003, 08:38 PM
D9/45 model flown conservatively is my choice. The K4 is only negligibly faster for a short period of time, the D9 is much faster and hence a much better performer over time.

GR142 Cyrano

XyZspineZyX
04-02-2003, 08:41 PM
The K4 if you can deal with the poor viz out of the canopy. Galland said that in the pre war designs, the ac designers seemed to forget that it is important to be able to see out of an aircraft!



http://www.aviationartprints.com/images/kw4.jpg
"The important thing about aeroplanes is that they should be speedy." -Richthofen

XyZspineZyX
04-02-2003, 09:58 PM
Depends on the situation. If you can get up to altitude before engaging then the D9 early is superior (D9 late's MW50 isn't working yet) but if you must dodge vulchers then the Bf 109K is superior. The D9 is currently superior to the Bf 109K in every way except climb rate. But that is actually a bug and it is almost certain to be fixed in the first patch. So after the next patch, I would say the D9's hold every imaginal advantage over the K4.

----------------------------------------
I/JG1 Oesau (http://jg1-oesau.org) is recruiting. Join us!

I/JG1 Stats in VEF (http://66.114.65.249/vov/showstats.php?squad=I%2F%20JG1%22Oesau%22)

Stab.I/JG1Death at HL, Maj_Death at Ubi.com

http://www.bestanimations.com/Humans/Skulls/Skull-06.gif

XyZspineZyX
04-02-2003, 10:39 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- 190Fan, few questions.
-
- Can you define high speed, w/r/t "poor handling at
- high speed" for the 109?

That came from me and it was actually 'extremely poor handling at high speed'.
This does not refer to FB as I make clear in the rest of my post.
It refers to real life performance of the a/c as stated in any source of 109 info, be it a book, site or whatever.
You can find countless of 109 threads for more info.
The same search will lead you to the conclusion that the Dora 9 was an a/c blessed with good climb performance.

<center>http://users.compulink.gr/ilusin@e-free.gr/bf109[2)1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
04-03-2003, 12:58 AM
Poor elevator and aileron effectiveness of Bf109K at high speeds is just a myth. All ww2 planes had heavy controls at high speeds, except those with boosted controls (but you can count those on the fingers from one hand). Many late war planes had heavy controls at any speed, so Bf109 compares very well from this point of view. It also had an unequaled maneuvrability at speeds near stall (except those with 16.05 sqm wing area). Its true though that in its infancy (till Bf109E) suffered from heavier than usual controls in dives but this defficiency was later corected.

D9 and A9 are very good planes and on the west front were clearly the best fighters around. They had one single worthy contender, Spitfire XIV, but it lacked the range and did not see as much service as D9 and A9.

K4 was better adapted for the eastern front. Late war russian designs had a slight advantage over D9 at lower altitudes and there was no strong need for heavily armored interceptors, as there was no strategic bombing campaign on eastern front.

I'd choose anytime K4 over D9, but I agree that FW's were at least as important as Bf's in the german war effort. I like and fly more the Fw's (90% of the time) but I would never take a Fw against an ace flying a La-7, Yak-9U or Bf109K.


_______________________________________________&lt;sc ript>var YourPicName='http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bogdandone/Bf109.JPG'; var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

Message Edited on 04/02/0306:59PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
04-03-2003, 03:42 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- I would never take a Fw against an ace
- flying a La-7, Yak-9U or Bf109K.


Really? I would do it any day of the week. Especially if I get the A-9, which is the best all-around fighter currently available in FB.

http://www.cropp.demon.co.uk/FW/MOREPICS/TA152H.JPG

XyZspineZyX
04-03-2003, 04:25 AM
ive heard from a couple of people references to the YAK 9U being troublesome. i thought the YAK 3 in FB seems to be WAY more dangerous an opponent than the YAK 9U. isnt this the case or why do all the best yak pilots fly the yak 3 still in FB?isnt the yak3 more nimble, faster, and better climbing?also is the yak3 better at climbing than an LA7 too?also the A9 with default guns is much better than both doras in all abilities. p.s. as its sits starting from the runway any dora would be eaten alive by a K4 starting at opposing base and both climbing to altitude.

XyZspineZyX
04-03-2003, 06:17 AM
The La-7 is a deadly opponent, but it's no big deal compared to the Yak 3! I fought one last night(AI, Ace), and the fight went on forever. We started at 3000m, but before I took him out we were ended up at 8000m(mostly because I'm a poor shot)! I B&Z him from the very start and he was always at a height disadvantage although it wasn't excagerated. I don't know if the Yak 3 had better high alt performance compared to russian birds in general, but his climb and acceleration ability didn't drop above 5000m that's for sure./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

And another thing, why is it when you reach speeds above 800km/h(which I constantly do in the Dora) aileron and elevator controls become lighter?

http://www.luftwaffe3945.hpg.ig.com.br/aero/ta152-3.jpg


'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

XyZspineZyX
04-03-2003, 06:25 AM
I was surprised to see the Yak3 work so good at high altitude. I'm sure it's not right, or else some of the other planes need to be alot better. Maybe a little of both would make things correct.

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

XyZspineZyX
04-03-2003, 07:24 AM
RedDeth wrote:
- ive heard from a couple of people references to the
- YAK 9U being troublesome. i thought the YAK 3 in FB
- seems to be WAY more dangerous an opponent than the
- YAK 9U. isnt this the case or why do all the best
- yak pilots fly the yak 3 still in FB?isnt the yak3
- more nimble, faster, and better climbing?also is the
- yak3 better at climbing than an LA7 too?

Yak-3 was a very good climber at low altitudes, much better than the Yak-9 series (inc. the "U"), which was notoriously poor in this respect. The Yak9U was only faster by about 20-30 km/h than the Yak-3, but this only applies from medium altitude, at low levels they are just as fast (and anyway, 30km/h doesn`t makes much difference...).

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Aircraft-evaluation-20.jpg



Please note on this chart that the La-7 is in bad shape, it could do 24.1 m/s at SL in good condition.

Also the D-9s runs only at reduced power. A-8 is about correct.



http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/irak.jpg


Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérünk a Szerencse!

(Courage leads us, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

If you are interested in some flight curves and other similiar WW2 stuff, please feel free to visit some of my collection which was uploaded to the Net to be shared:

http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

If climb rate`s with us, what`s against us?

XyZspineZyX
04-03-2003, 07:47 AM
so, i think it is rather hard to figure out which plane is better.

which do you think can turn faster and more stable at low speeds?

and how about the A9? thats the plane i dont know what to do with, some folks say it is the best LW plane in the game. I feel it a bit unstable, though has amazing firepower.

do you also believe that the A9 is better than the D9?


Isegrim: J a HVG-s c*mlapod http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

plébános

XyZspineZyX
04-03-2003, 03:53 PM
Christos_swc wrote:
- That came from me and it was actually 'extremely
- poor handling at high speed'.
- This does not refer to FB as I make clear in the
- rest of my post.
- It refers to real life performance of the a/c as
- stated in any source of 109 info, be it a book, site
- or whatever.
- You can find countless of 109 threads for more info.
- The same search will lead you to the conclusion that
- the Dora 9 was an a/c blessed with good climb
- performance.

You still have not said anything though.

Do you see all the variables in that statement (extremely poor handling at high speed)? It's so full of them that it's nigh on useless really.



<CENTER>http://www.km011a0004.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/1.jpg </center>
&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img"); document.write('<'+'script>var oldonload' + a.length + '=window.onload; function killedit' + a.length + '(){document.all["myedit' + a.length + '"].innerHTML = "";oldonload' + a.length + '();};window.onload=killedit' + a.length + ';<'+'/script>');</script>&lt;script>document.write('<'+'b id="myedit' + a.length + '">')</script>

XyZspineZyX
04-03-2003, 04:56 PM
BlitzPig_DDT ,
what's so difficult for you to understand?
I made this statement and told whoever wants more info to go search the net if he wants to.
There's no point in quoting books and sites when there are so many out there available.
Did you look for such info and didn't find it?
What sort of usefulleness are you looking for?
Go look and then come tell me it ain't so.
As far as controls at high speed being heavy in all WWII a/c that was mentioned before, it doesn't add anything.
When pilots refered to the 109s poor high speed handling they were obviously comparing them to other a/c of the time and not future fly-by-wire jets.


<center>http://users.compulink.gr/ilusin@e-free.gr/bf109[2)1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
04-03-2003, 05:04 PM
Go read this:
http://www.bf109.com/frameset.html
Go buy these:
1)German fighters of WWII by Salamander publications
2)Warplanes of the luftwaffe by David Donald.

Alternatively you can refer us to a source of information stating otherwise.

<center>http://users.compulink.gr/ilusin@e-free.gr/bf109[2)1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
04-03-2003, 06:00 PM
Gentlemen

I can't believe that the poor high-speed handling characteristics of the BF 109 series was a "myth". I assume you've all read Col. "Kit" Carson's "Best of the Breed" series comparison of the BF 109 to the FW 190. I'm certainly not an expert, but Col. Carson was a P51 fighter pilot with combat experience so I'll be happy to take his word for it. Here's an extract of his evaluation of the later BF 109 (G) series' performance:


Ailerons

At low speeds, the ailerons control was good, response brisk. As speed increased the ailerons became too heavy but the response was good up to 200 mph and 300 mph they became "unpleasant". Over 300 mph they became impossible. At 400 mph the stick felt like it was set in a bucket of cement. A pilot exerting all his strength could not apply more than one fifth aileron at 400 mph; that's 5 degrees up and 3 degrees down. The aileron situation at high combat speeds might be summarized in the following way:

(1) Due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick as compared to 60 pounds or more possible if he had more elbow room.

(2) Messerschmitt also penalized the pilot by designing in an unsually small stick top travel of plus or minus 4 inches, giving very poor mechanical advantage between pilot and aileron.

(3) At 400 mph with 40 pounds side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4 seconds to get into a 45 degree roll or bank. That immediately classifies the airplane as being unmaneuverable and unacceptable as a fighter.


His praise for the FW 190, especially its high-speed handling characteristics and "toughness", reads in stark contrast to the above evaluation:


A superb airplane, every inch a fighter. It could do a half roll at cruising speed in one second. Taking this in conjunction with the airplane's high top speed and rate of climb one expected its pilots to exploit its high speed qualities to the fullest without staying in there to "mix it up" in a low speed, flaps down full throttle, gut wrenching dog fight.

I'd also mentioned that the K-4 tended to "swim" at high altitudes. This comes from an excerpt out of Caldwell's excellent reference entitled "JG-26 Top Guns of the Luftwaffe", where he writes:

He (Uffz. Georg Genth) preferred the G-10 as a dogfighter, as the K-4's bulky armament sharply reduced its maneuverability (all of the K-4's supplied to JG 26 were equipped with wing-mounted cannon!). Moreover, at high altitudes, above about 25,000 feet, the K-4 began to float. Genth found that during formation flight at high altitudes it was unnaturally sensitive and gave him the same signals that most aircraft give shortly before a stall.

It may be that Col. Carson's review is a bit biased but in any case he clearly prefers the FW 190 variant to the Messerschmitt. In FB, however, I admit to not knowing how to fly the Focke Wulf correctly, since I'm not able to perform any maneuvers without stalling. Gotta read that Boom n' Zoom article again over at SimHQ, and this time it'll be the "Hit n' Run" article rather than the long-memorized "Hit n' Climb" tactic, which doesn't work too well with the FW 190 as far as I can tell. One of the prerequisites for the "Hit n' Run" tactic is a 100 mph speed advantage over your opponent, which is pretty tough to meet against a late-war LA7 variant, even in a dive.

Again, if the BF 109 variants performed as well in real life combat situations as they do in this sim, I'm ready to accept the fact that their poor reputation among Allied fighter pilots was merely a myth. But I'm still not convinced this should necessarily be so after having read some of the articles noted above. I don't know if we'll ever really be able to settle this issue, but the Dora's flight characteristics in FB don't seem to match those of the specs given (climb rate, MW 50 boost, etc.) I remember reading at Bury's excellent Dora website that these variants were also equipped with GM-1 for high altitude boost, but that's probably irrelevant for this sim.

XyZspineZyX
04-03-2003, 08:17 PM
:::sigh:::

The first report on that site was a test of an E. The Mark Hanna log was from an F or early G airframe. _NoT_ a K.

Huckebein has stated that what you stated was a myth. I guess you think he's wrong? Would be interesting for both of you to post sources. If you just did, I'm afraid that's pretty weak overall.

Ok, let's disect the statement then.

"extremely poor handling". Quite often that is stated in a different way, namely, "heavy controls". In both cases we are dealing with relative terms. Variables if you will, because they are used in place of hard #s, and mean different things to different people based on their frame of reference.

Was the testing (in question) performed during the war? Or was it a post war test? If post-war, how much so? Flying one of those planes today would be quite a different experience due to their age, modern pilot's frames of reference, and the value of the air frames. Was it a factory test with properly trained pilots and equipment in prime condition or was it an enemy testing the oppositions planes? If the later, there is a question of how well the pilot knew the plane. How much he was willing to push what might be the only example they posess, and what kind of condition it was captured in.

In either case, what other planes has the pilot flown? And, under what conditions? In combat with adrenaline pumping you won't notice a heavyness of controls as much as you would under normal testing conditions.

Then there is pilot build and preference. What is "heavy" to one person is not to another. Does his statement reflect a preference for lighter controls, or his physical weakness?

It could seem like I'm splitting hairs, but, all of that really does factor in.


"at high speed". High speed compared to what? Again, what other planes has the pilot flown and under what conditions? How was he testing? Was the speed in question close to the VNE of the plane? If so, you probably don't want to be thrashing it about anyway. Is the speed in question attainable under normal flight, or does it require a bit of a power dive?

Then there is the question of whether it even matters. For example, if you're only able to reach those speeds during a long dive, you'd only be in that situation to escape or to dive on an opponent. If we are talking 109s (which we are, but the point is such vaguaries are repeated as-nauseum for every plane), then you'd be going against more agile opposition and would not want to maneuver with them anyway. Using the speed to climb back up is what you want to do. Preset trim and a forward center of lift both aid in that as well.


In all honesty, I have looked for information on the 109. Long before IL2 ever came out, much less this thread, and I have found what you stated. But, I have never found anything more sobstantive than that.

The more I think about it the less it really means. Let's throw one more thing in there. There is a lot of falsehoods about all those planes running around. It is often passed off as being true because it was printed on paper somewhere. The problem is that an error, or even something made up totally, will (and has been) copied and repeated by otther authors leading to that information being more and more generally accepted, but not really any more true.

190Fan also helped my point. Ask 100 people for an opinion and you will get nearly as many answers. He, for example, prefers the 190 in DF action, he finds he can do better with it (apparently). I find that I do better in, and prefer, the 109 in the same situations that he prefers the 190 in. I find that I can't be successful in the Yak3 or P-40, but I have seen others do very well.

So there is a lot going on for pilot perception of a given plane. Some even have agendas, for example, I read one review of the 109 made during the war by a Brit. He was on a vendetta, trashing the 109. If you took his word at face value, then RAF pilots sucked to not have easily dispatched such a poor opponent. Is his assessment accurate? Not likely, but, for him, it could have been, who's to say. Surely you can see what could happen if that was repeated many times to create a large volume of 2nd generation "resources", right?

Let's look at the aces. IIRC, Hartmann was in the 109 from beginning to end. He also preferred the 109 over the 190. Why? Was it because he didn't want to learn a new plane? That sounds rather unbelieveable. He's out there going up against an enemy trying to kill or capture him. He sure as hell would want the best his nation could offer him. In his opinion, the 109 was exactly that apparently. And, he was the king of energy tactics. Diving at high speed onto a victim, picking them off and climbing up away from his buddies. This means that he was frequently in that area of "high speed" where handling was "extremely poor". I'm forced to conclude that either it was not as poor as many today beleive, or it was irrelevant, or even both.

On the other hand, there were many who did prefer the 190. Who can say what causes a personal preference for a given individual. The point is though, I have yet to come across anything more specific than these vauge, variable filled statements, and that being the case, and Hartmanns preference for it (and especially when held against his flying style), forces me to conclude that it's not as bad as most think it was.


At anyrate, you seemed miffed in your last 2 posts. Looking at your sig, I think it's safe to say that we both prefer LW planes (out of the current set at least). So that means we really are on the same side. Agruing emotionally is not something we should do. It would just weaken us relative to the VVS losers out there.

I'm just trying to dig deeper into these vagaries is all. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



<CENTER>http://www.km011a0004.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/1.jpg </center>
&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img"); document.write('<'+'script>var oldonload' + a.length + '=window.onload; function killedit' + a.length + '(){document.all["myedit' + a.length + '"].innerHTML = "";oldonload' + a.length + '();};window.onload=killedit' + a.length + ';<'+'/script>');</script>&lt;script>document.write('<'+'b id="myedit' + a.length + '">')</script>

XyZspineZyX
04-04-2003, 12:59 AM
FW190fan wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-- I would never take a Fw against an ace
-- flying a La-7, Yak-9U or Bf109K.
-
-
- Really? I would do it any day of the week.
- Especially if I get the A-9, which is the best
- all-around fighter currently available in FB.


Then do it with me/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
G2 against A5 seems fair enough for you?
PM me to set a match, I love those public 1vs1/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


_______________________________________________&lt;sc ript>var YourPicName='http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bogdandone/Bf109.JPG'; var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

XyZspineZyX
04-04-2003, 05:59 AM
I'd like to watch. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I think that those 2 would be a close match, but my gut tells me that with good pilots in each the K-4 had the slight edge needed for victory thanks to it's climb rate.



<CENTER>http://www.km011a0004.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/1.jpg </center>
&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img"); document.write('<'+'script>var oldonload' + a.length + '=window.onload; function killedit' + a.length + '(){document.all["myedit' + a.length + '"].innerHTML = "";oldonload' + a.length + '();};window.onload=killedit' + a.length + ';<'+'/script>');</script>&lt;script>document.write('<'+'b id="myedit' + a.length + '">')</script>

XyZspineZyX
04-04-2003, 08:08 AM
i belive overall the 190 is a better plane, as it is stronger large ammo load and hard hitting and multipurpose also very easy to fly and great controls, but the 109 is better for dogfighting faster climb tighter turn.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
04-04-2003, 08:28 AM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- I'd like to watch./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
- I think that those 2 would be a close match, but my
- gut tells me that with good pilots in each the K-4
- had the slight edge needed for victory thanks to
- it's climb rate.


When driving a Bf109, Focke Wulfs are just gunnery practice/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
So unfortunatelly there would be very little to watch/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif


_______________________________________________&lt;sc ript>var YourPicName='http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bogdandone/Bf109.JPG'; var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

XyZspineZyX
04-04-2003, 12:19 PM
Lufbery_Boy wrote:
- Gentlemen
-
- I can't believe that the poor high-speed handling
- characteristics of the BF 109 series was a "myth". I
- assume you've all read Col. "Kit" Carson's "Best of
- the Breed" series comparison of the BF 109 to the FW
- 190. I'm certainly not an expert, but Col. Carson
- was a P51 fighter pilot with combat experience so
- I'll be happy to take his word for it. Here's an
- extract of his evaluation of the later BF 109 (G)
- series' performance:
-

Etc. etc.


Col. Carson did not make any evaluation with 109s, he only refers to a British evaluation report (which is, BTW, publicly accessible on the net), which was done in 1941 on a Bf109E, and not a later model. BTW, the report itself underlines the differences between the Emil and the newer F model.

In any case, this Carson`s guys article has many-many blunt errors in it, ie. his statements on the lack of non-retractable tailwheel... I wonder, if this guy doesn`t even know that already the G-2 had retractable tailwheel, the K even did completely enclosed them with fairings, if he seemeingly never heard of the Erla canopy, the change of ailron control and so on, what kind of view can he give on the 109 series?

Not kicking you, but this carson page is one of the worst cases of writing about something on which he only did some very basic reading...


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/irak.jpg


Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérünk a Szerencse!

(Courage leads us, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

If you are interested in some flight curves and other similiar WW2 stuff, please feel free to visit some of my collection which was uploaded to the Net to be shared:

http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

If climb rate`s with us, what`s against us?

XyZspineZyX
04-04-2003, 01:16 PM
i'm surprised(if true)that Hartmann would of had such diseregard for the 190 considering a lot of it's strong points seemed to suit his style,then again the 109 was generaly more succesful on the EF than the 190 thanks to Russian tactics and the 190 being used for ground attack more(IIRC)which would place the 190 in the Russian';s low Alt element more.
IIRC most of the heavy G/F series 190's were used in the EF
aswell,and this AC was already heavy...
these AC were very differant in character aswell so climatisation would have to be factured in(being the most lethel pilot on the planet in his original AC would not help in this /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ),i would imagine it would take months to really understand these AC and use them to there fullest,and Hartman was a late bloomer,but i would be surprised if he did not see the advances in the A9/D series and even the Ta's given the time/oppertunity,then again he turned down the 262 giving his reasons to be squad loyalty..

of course evasive manouvres would have to be taken into account too..though these are not brought to light as much,either by pilot or poster.IMO



<img src=http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW/FW190-D9-29_small.jpg>
"yeah whatever"

XyZspineZyX
04-04-2003, 01:51 PM
Gentlemen

Thanks for putting my quoted review by Col. Carson in perspective. I'm glad to read that his report was strongly biased and in many ways incorrect. This certainly puts my faith back in the 109 and if Erich Hartmann chose it over the 190 in spite of his dive and climb tactics, invariably at high speeds, I'm happy to do so as well. Now if only someone would come out with a manual for the 190 so I could learn to fly the damned thing! I'm getting my *** kicked in QMB missions with all variants. I try to keep my speed up and never follow any Indians into a turn but after extending you've got to come around again somehow to face your opponent and in the meantime he's had plenty of time to turn around for a head-on pass, which is suicide! Gotta keep practicing, but let's start with one at a time, so I'll stick with the 109 for a while.

XyZspineZyX
04-04-2003, 03:08 PM
Lufbery, what are you trying to fight against and how? What are you using to attempt it?

The real difference between the 2 in game is climb rate, firepower and speed. The zooms are similar, the handling is similar as well. But, thanks to the 109s climbing so much better, they make it easier to get the energy advantage.

Unless you provide more info I really can't help though.



<CENTER>http://www.km011a0004.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/1.jpg </center>
&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img"); document.write('<'+'script>var oldonload' + a.length + '=window.onload; function killedit' + a.length + '(){document.all["myedit' + a.length + '"].innerHTML = "";oldonload' + a.length + '();};window.onload=killedit' + a.length + ';<'+'/script>');</script>&lt;script>document.write('<'+'b id="myedit' + a.length + '">')</script>

XyZspineZyX
04-04-2003, 03:54 PM
Hi, I'm late again /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

I think I'd prefer the Dora. It has crappy turning, but flaps kind of compensate. Also, great firepower, great roll, and very durable. It's range is also much longer than the K4.

----------------------------------------
When you see me, run.

Crabhart

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 04:32 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- 109s historically had heavier control forces at high
- speed, meaning that a 109 pilot could not pull/push
- etc. the stick back enough to deflect the
- elevators/ailrons fully (which was rather common
- with WW2 fighters to more or less extent, since very
- of them had boosted control surfaces). I don`t feel
- the 109 would be too good, all the Gs are quite poor
- in roll at high speed, the K-4 is of course better,
- since that version introduced simply mechanical
- Flettner tabs on the rudder and ailrons, helping
- this problem of high control forces at high speeds.
-
- As for all around flight performance, the K-4 had it
- all over the D-9, expect for the Dora`s slight speed
- adv. at very low altitudes (615 km/h vs. 605 km/h at
- SL)... climb of the Dora seems to be greatly
- undermodelled for the 1945 version, but the same
- goes with K-4s speed in Auto prop mode, it`s
- something like 60-80 km/h slower at all but lower
- altitudes than it should be..
-
- The things that are better in the D-9 is armament,
- roll rate, and toughness. Unlike the K-4, the D-9
- does not have any major flight perf. advantage over
- late Soviet models except for roll rate, which puts
- it behind the K-4 in my opinion. Of course this is
- primarly because I am used to make advantage of 109s
- strenght, which gives me a rather comfortable
- position in fights - taking adv. of 190D strenghts
- is much harder and more risky IMHO.
-
- http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/irak.jpg
-
-
-
-
- Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérünk a Szerencse!
-
- (Courage leads us, Luck escorts us! - Historical
- motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)
-
- If you are interested in some flight curves and
- other similiar WW2 stuff, please feel free to visit
- some of my collection which was uploaded to the Net
- to be shared:
-
- http://www.pbase.com/isegrim
-
-
- If climb rate`s with us, what`s against us?

Huh.. Only the K-4 had Flettner Tabs? Interesting


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 05:37 PM
This thread is six months old.


<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 05:43 PM
FW190fan wrote:
- This thread is six months old.

So.



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 05:46 PM
Sew buttons on your underwear.


<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 05:47 PM
tagert wrote:
- FW190fan wrote:
-- This thread is six months old.
-
- So.


Trolls usually get banned for this kind of behavior, reviving old disputes.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Da_shoota
09-20-2003, 05:48 PM
definatley the k4

<center>
<img src=http://www.xsi.co.za/Anna_s/splinter-batt.gif>
<font color="green">The official battery for Sam's nightvision goggles!!

Bob's your uncle??<b/></font>
<font color="orange">PT Unveiled 9/17/03</font>
< !--start imood indicator-->
<font color="green">[b]Im feeling= </font>http://moods.imood.com/display/email=ferium13@aol.com/fg=ff0000/trans=1www.imood.com" (http://www.imood.com/query.cgi?email=ferium13@aol.com) border="0"></A>

</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 05:48 PM
FW190fan wrote:
- Sew buttons on your underwear.

Did anyone point out to you that the airplanes modeled in this sim are over 6 months old too? Did that stop you from using them?

Aanyay, I digress.. just so you know, eveything has it's purpose. As was mine in replying to an old post.. Just locking it in before *someone* goes back and edits what they wrote. Clear?

<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 05:58 PM
Clear that you hate the 109 and the 2 prime champions of it.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 05:59 PM
Clear as mud.

Huck, I would be glad to fly against you if I had a cable or DSL, which I don't have yet.

I'm currently a 56K >loser<. :[


<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:06 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- tagert wrote:
-- FW190fan wrote:
--- This thread is six months old.
--
-- So.
-
-
- Trolls usually get banned for this kind of behavior,
- reviving old disputes.

WHAT A CLOWN!!

<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:08 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- Clear that you hate the 109 and the 2 prime
- champions of it.

Hate? No far from.. Truth seaking does get confused for hate sometimes.



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:10 PM
FW190fan wrote:
- Clear as mud.

Sounds like a personal problem than

<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:16 PM
The only "truth" you are interested in is allied propaganda. You are on a personal vendetta. You're opinion is worthless as a result. Stop trolling.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:19 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- The only "truth" you are interested in is allied
- propaganda.

Not at all! I did learn that the K-4 had the Flettner Tabs, thus Carson was wrong about the K-4 with regards to alerions, and rudder.. but what about the elevator? I have not seen anything on Flettner Tabs for the elvators... Suckering a 109 into a dive was a tatic used.

-You are on a personal vendetta.

You think so? Guess it is a good thing I dont give a RAT A$$ about what you think of me.

- You're opinion is worthless as a result.

Negative.

-Stop trolling.

If I ever start Ill stop




<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

Message Edited on 09/20/0310:25AM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:24 PM
FW190fan wrote:
- Clear as mud.
-
- Huck, I would be glad to fly against you if I had a
- cable or DSL, which I don't have yet.
-
- I'm currently a 56K >loser<. :[


Sure, anytime you want, right now I prefer 1vs1 the most. My poor video card is the reason for this, if in one room there are more players, the scenery has mountains or there are lots of static objects, FPS drops to a crawl. Not many reasons for upgrade since FB and CMBB are the only games I play now. Though in just a few months there will be many attractions: LOMAC, Harpoon, BC.



<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:30 PM
Digging up old posts is both trolling and being on a vendetta when it is aimed at one user.

Sorry if it isn't palatable for you, but it's juat the way it is. I'd recommend a dictionary, but, it wouldn't do any good for you if your posts are any indication.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:33 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- Digging up old posts is both trolling and being on a
- vendetta when it is aimed at one user.

Ah, I see your missunderstanding.. So, tell me, what is the purpose of the SEARCH in this forum? Are you telling me I can not go and look up information on things, and then comment on old posts?

- Sorry if it isn't palatable for you, but it's juat
- the way it is. I'd recommend a dictionary, but, it
- wouldn't do any good for you if your posts are any
- indication.

Well I have some recommendations for your parrents.. but the fact that your here it is clear that I am too late.



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 07:10 PM
tagert wrote:
- Well I have some recommendations for your parrents..
- but the fact that your here it is clear that I am
- too late.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Case in point. Thank you very much troll. lol

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 07:19 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- tagert wrote:
-- Well I have some recommendations for your parrents..
-- but the fact that your here it is clear that I am
-- too late.
-
- Case in point. Thank you very much troll. lol

Oh, Im sorry.. Are you operating under the impression that I just decided to make a case? Please note that my *case* was in referance to your INITIAL *case* to me, where you said

>>I'd recommend a dictionary, but, it wouldn't
>>do any good for you if your posts are any
>>indication.

Which was ment to imply that I am.. what? Nice try troll, but you fit the defition better yourself.




<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 08:31 PM
tagert wrote:
- >>I'd recommend a dictionary, but, it wouldn't
- >>do any good for you if your posts are any
- >>indication.
-
- Which was ment to imply that I am.. what? Nice try
- troll, but you fit the defition better yourself.

Dude you are so sad. I find it hard to beleive that someone could really be as mentally deficient as you.

Try to work this one out - you resurrected a 6-month old thread for the sole purpose of attacking a member and furthering your propagandist BS about the 109. Thus, you are indeed a troll. You can try desperately to spin that some other way, but the fact remains that yes, you are a troll.

Others have pointed that out here already.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 08:53 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- tagert wrote:
-- >>I'd recommend a dictionary, but, it wouldn't
-- >>do any good for you if your posts are any
-- >>indication.
--
-- Which was ment to imply that I am.. what? Nice try
-- troll, but you fit the defition better yourself.
-
- Dude you are so sad.

Now now.. be careful there is a guy running around here that would consider that to be TROLLISH.

- I find it hard to beleive that someone could
- really be as mentally deficient as you.

I find it hard to belive your parents had any kids that lived.

- Try to work this one out -

Ok, shoot.

- you resurrected a 6-month old thread for the
- sole purpose of attacking a member and furthering
- your propagandist BS about the 109.

Attacking? Oh.. Ok.. I see where your mistake was made. Ok a little FORUM 101 for you.. First.. do you realise that people can edit thier posts after they are posted? I assumed that you do realise that... I know I know that is alot to expect from you.. but Ill give you the benifit of the doubt.

Now as for Attacking.. Here is what how it went down.. Ill go real S L O W here for you, god knows you need it.

In thread XXX Blotto described what a FLETTNER tab was and how it works. Which was followed by Vo101_Isegrim stating the typical bla bla bla stuff about how nearly all the 109s back to the G had them. So, I thought I would look into it. I could not find much on FLETTNER tabs.. and the little I did find only mentions it being applyed on the rudders.. And I have found a few pictures/drawings where it looks like the 109 K had them on the ALERIONS. So, I though I would look *HERE* to see if anyone had said anything about it.

YOU KNOW WHAT I FOUND!!

A few old threads.. where most where about that FLETTNER helo.. but about 4 of them from ONE GUY who made it CLEAR that the 109K had the FLETTNER tab on the ALERIONS. Best part was it WAS Isegrim himself.. So, in light of past DATA TWEAKING I thought it would be funny to post Isegrim links to his own statments of where *HE* contrdicks himself. Was that too fast for you? Let me know if it was I can cut n paste it to you again.


- Thus, you are indeed a troll.

To someone who does not understand why I replied to the msg.. I guess they might jump to that conclusion.. But only if they are a real A$$ HAT.

- You can try desperately to spin that some
- other way, but the fact remains that yes,
- you are a troll.

Well what ever gets you to sleep at night.. If thinking that helps you out, by all means feel free to feel that way. I could reall care less.

- Others have pointed that out here already.

So /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 11:15 PM
Oh my god. You're still at it. Getting more and more trollish by the post too. lol

And you presume to "teach" me about foruming. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif The funniest part is that you seem to have no grasp of it. lol

Is this your only form of entertainment? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 11:31 PM
Both have advantages and disadvantages. K-4 may beat 190 on fair turning fight, but I would still take Dora over K-4 anytime. K-4 has good forward view, making easy shots, but you have to get very close to hit with that MK108. Dora has forward view making deflection shooting hard, but still quite possible. on Full real server chances would be pretty much 50 - 50. The pilot who sees other first and who has the E-advantage would win. Dora is more durable, and slightly better diver. Also faster at altitudes below 3000 m.

On a average n00b-server with all the helps you can get, I would say K-4, since they can climb with Doras, and challenge them into turnfights on same altitude, where they would be better.. But still, it all depends on Pilot..

____________________________________



Official Sig:



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez4.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 11:34 PM
This is a dead old thread, watch the start date.
Just some mindless troll brought it up again.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 11:54 PM
the K4 IMO, but I am addicted to the 109.
taggart, If you are not a troll, then would you be so kind to explain why you posted three messages, one after another, with a 2 min difference?
Was it impossible to answer to all those pll in one single post?
Someone told me before how some ppl get 3-4000 post in 6 months, just by posting " Me too" or something like this to any thread. (does "so" rings a bell?)
And i agree, aparently here is too much alied propaganda, wich step by step it turns into revenge.

<center>"The show must go on..."<center>
<center>http://www.hobby.ro/roarmy/aviatia/greceanu%20tudor/1.jpg
A 'good' landing is one from which you can walk away. A 'great'
landing is one after which they can use the plane again<center>

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 01:54 AM
Von_Zero wrote:
- the K4 IMO, but I am addicted to the 109.

IMO what?

- taggart, If you are not a troll, then would you be
- so kind to explain why you posted three messages,
- one after another, with a 2 min difference?

I guess you didnt see the three inbetween that I was responding to?

- Was it impossible to answer to all those pll in one
- single post?

It was 3 for 3.. Now if I had a crystal ball and knew what he was going to write next in msg 2 I supose I could have answered it in msg 1.. But I dont, so I didnt.

- Someone told me before how some ppl get 3-4000
- post in 6 months, just by posting " Me too" or
- something like this to any thread. (does "so" rings
- a bell?)

Is there a prize for posting that many? That might explain the motivation.. But from the length of my posts I think it is clear I didnt just type "me too"

- And i agree, aparently here is too much alied
- propaganda, wich step by step it turns into revenge.

Disagree.



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 01:55 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- This is a dead old thread, watch the start date.

LOL! noob.. nothing ever dies on the internet!

- Just some mindless troll brought it up again.

ROTFL.. Still upset huh? Ok, Im sorry that I proved you wrong about the Me262 climb rates a few months back.. Can you ever forgive me?



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion