109 cant do XXXX anymore.

[Winger]

Well, now we have what i expected from day one. A 109 that cant do XXXX against spitfires. Even Spitfire Ias. Pre patch it was able to outclimb the spit by a good margin therefore compensated for its sucky turnrate. now i can hardly outclimb and hardly outspeed a spitfire 1 in my 109 not even with perfect pitch management. GOOD job now the game is TOTALLY dead for me! Well done!

Winger

[CaptainDoggles]

What altitude are you trying at?

[Lixma]

Well, now we have what i expected from day one. A 109 that cant do XXXX against spitfires. Even Spitfire Ias. Pre patch it was able to outclimb the spit by a good margin therefore compensated for its sucky turnrate. now i can hardly outclimb and hardly outspeed a spitfire 1 in my 109 not even with perfect pitch management. GOOD job now the game is TOTALLY dead for me! Well done!

Winger

Winger it was me you were scrapping with.

Believe me when I say

a) You were outclimbing me .

b) You were out-running me.

And this was after I had repeatedly hit your 109, white stuff trailing from each radiator, and at one point I had set your wing-tip on fire....despite all this I was still being left behind!

So from where I was sitting it wasn't a lack of performance from the 109 that brought you down.....it was the fact that each time you tried diving/extending/climbing you came into the range of my guns and got hit. That's not the plane's fault.

[Lixma]

With that said, have a look at this post I made yesterday....

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3324359/Sydney_Camm_s_tractor_beam.html#Post3324359

So, I'm flying a 109 online an hour ago.

I happen upon a Hurricane. Both of us are roughly co-E so I gently straighten out, nudge the revs to 2500 and begin a 260kph climb. At this point I am outside his of guns range so i'm not particularly concerned; I can continue to extend for a bit and decide what to do.

Imagine my surprise, then, when I find the Hurricane slowly but inexorably gaining on me.

Why?

Anyone else had this happen?

[ATAG_Doc]

I am afraid it is the pilot.

[Tree_UK]

Hi lixma, I enjoyed the 2 dogfights with you earlier, great fun and great flying. S!

[Tvrdi]

hahah Winger...maybe you was talking about DRI?

[Danelov]

I am afraid it is the pilot.

Stuka Geschwaders wellcome always new pilots.

[Ze-Jamz]

What a load of crap..

seriously OP do you believe that.. honestly? you must be flying a different game my friend

[Winger]

i know i was faster and better climbing but by a really small amount. Much less than what was possible pre patch. At least that was what it felt like. If i wanted to fly me a decent amount of height advantage it would have taken forever. Also when diving its much harder to get room entween me and the pursuer. Pre patch this was much easier.
But hey. NA release is close so pleasing the grand of customes is important too eh:P

Winger

EDIT: Ze-Jamz no i dont mean it. I just do this post because i feel like calling people like you on the plan to make crappy comments. SUCCESS!

[Winger]

hahah Winger...maybe you was talking about DRI?

Everyone know that all ROF planes a pure farce and pro allied:P Discuss discuss discuss:grin::(:mad:
I wonder what the FM rework in ROF will bring when it will EVER happen:)

Winger

[Ze-Jamz]

EDIT: Ze-Jamz no i dont mean it. I just do this post because i feel like calling people like you on the plan to make crappy comments. SUCCESS!

Dont write such tripe then and I wont be forced to entertain you..simples

theres enough stuff that needs to be addressed and that the devs take note on..that isnt one of them

[ATAG_Doc]

My daddy told me to never blame the plane that's too easy. It can't defend itself. It's always the person at the controls.

[robtek]

One of the virtues of good fighter pilots is and was : patience!
If you are not in a good position to attack, extend and get the position.
If you have to hurry to reach something -> first fault!
That doesn't disregard fast reactions, but a good fighter pilot acts and forces his type of fight to the enemy.

Not that i fly like this, ok, maybe sometimes a little bit :-D

[CaptainDoggles]

Well I just had some good dogfights on Repka #1 (full real) flying the 109 and have had no trouble using energy tactics against either spit1s or hurris.

As any 109 pilot ought to know, the key is to stay fast and always maintain an E advantage. Use the vertical, not the horizontal.

Robtek is correct that patience is key.

[Blackdog_kt]

I'm suspecting it's prop pitch management but i can't be sure until you tell me what kind of RPM you were using during different stages of the fight.

As a rough pointer:

Go to a coarser pitch (lower RPM) during dives and you'll pick up speed much easier, then start adjusting towards fine pitch during the climb back up.

I usually adjust pitch to maintain about 2000-2100 RPM when diving and it picks up speed really fast. On the other hand, i only use finer pitch in a dive when i actually want to prevent it from picking up speed.

Diving with your RPM at 2500 is like driving downhill on 3rd gear, it will go faster if you switch to 5th gear (going to coarser pitch) ;)


The useful powerband is of course pretty limited (2000-2500 RPM) and getting used to how much RPM you need for a given attitude and airspeed range takes some time getting used to, but it's definitely doable. You just don't get the performance for free anymore like we could in IL2:1946.

I don't fly online yet until some more bugs get squashed and we get some form of quality control for mods, but i have no problem almost rear-ending even the AI that many people constantly complain about its exaggerated performance, to the point that i've now set my cannon convergence to 100 meters and i would set it even lower if i could :-P
The only thing that outruns me is AI Spit Mk.IIs and that's because it's the aircraft with the closest to real life performance in the sim, while most of the rest are a bit slower than they should be.

Heck, i can close in on AI Hurricanes and Spit Mk.Is with a 110 in a climbing contest if am careful. You just need to familiarize yourself with how prop pitch works and flying a few free flight and quick combat missions in the QMB is the quickest and easiest way.

I just pretend i'm driving a manual transmission car and act accordingly:
climb/dive = uphill/downhill driving
high RPM = low gear
low RPM = high gear

Hope it helps ;)

[Kwiatek]

Well, now we have what i expected from day one. A 109 that cant do XXXX against spitfires. Even Spitfire Ias. Pre patch it was able to outclimb the spit by a good margin therefore compensated for its sucky turnrate. now i can hardly outclimb and hardly outspeed a spitfire 1 in my 109 not even with perfect pitch management. GOOD job now the game is TOTALLY dead for me! Well done!

Winger

Well how do you know that 109E should be faster and better climber then Spit MK1?

I think rather that SPitfire MK1 (100 octan fuel) at low to medium alts was faster plane and with similar climb rate at emergency power.

http://i56.tinypic.com/9qcrvb.jpg

[VO101_Tom]

Well I just had some good dogfights on Repka #1 (full real) flying the 109 and have had no trouble using energy tactics against either spit1s or hurris.

As any 109 pilot ought to know, the key is to stay fast and always maintain an E advantage. Use the vertical, not the horizontal.

Robtek is correct that patience is key.

I read this in Messerschmitt 109 - myths, facts and the view from the cockpit (http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/) page:

"
Me 109 E:
"Performance by 1940 standards was good. When put into a full throttle climb at low air speeds, the airplane climbed at a very steep angle, and our fighters used to have difficulty in keeping their sights on the enemy even when at such a height that their rates of climb were comparible. This steep climb at low air speed was one of the standard evasion maneuvres used by the German pilots. Another was to push the stick forward abruptly and bunt into a dive with considerable negative 'g'. The importance of arranging that the engine whould not cut under these circumstances cannot be over-stressed. Speed is picked up quickly in a dive, and if being attacked by an airplane of slightly inferior level performance, this feature can be used with advantage to get out of range. There is no doubt that in the autumn of 1940 the Bf.109E in spite of its faults, was a doughty opponent to set against our own equipment."
- RAF Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) Farnborough handling trials,Bf.109E Wn: 1304. M.B. Morgan and R. Smelt of the RAE, 1944.
"

I quoted this because this works in the game, not only BnZ :cool:

[Ze-Jamz]

Well how do you know that 109E should be faster and better climber then Spit MK1?

I think rather that SPitfire MK1 (100 octan fuel) at low to medium alts was faster plane and with similar climb rate at emergency power.

http://i56.tinypic.com/9qcrvb.jpg

We have emergency power?

[Vengeanze]

Just to add on diving; coarse pitch is preferable or the engine might overheat in an extended highspeed dive.

[Vengeanze]

We have emergency power?

I think he's refering to boost cut-out which allows for higher rpm.
Clickable red plate at top of throttle.

[TomcatViP]

Well how do you know that 109E should be faster and better climber then Spit MK1?

I think rather that SPitfire MK1 (100 octan fuel) at low to medium alts was faster plane and with similar climb rate at emergency power.



I don't know where you 'd got those curves but it remind me some plastic surgery. :cool:

Hve a close look at the poor Hurri that reach it's terminal velocity at level flight .. :grin:

[Kwiatek]

All these data are from real life data original documents.

As you see chart is original from flight test for SPit MK1 ( 100 octan) then i put there speed chart for Hurricane MK1 +12 lbs also from real life test ( spitfireperformacne site) and data for 109 E-3 is from original German manual ( best score i have seen for 109 E at 1.45 Ata ( 1 minute emergency power) - 0 -500 km/h, 570 km/h at 5 km).


All is here in these topic - it is enough to read it carefully

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=20110

[Blackdog_kt]

Just to add to Blackdog's explanation, although you get the most engine hp at the higher rpm, you actually want the engine to have some room to "pull up" to its hp peak. Again, to use a car analogy, if you are already redlining it in 3rd gear, you can get more speed by dropping the rpm back into a lower part of the powerband by shifting to 4th.

In 109 terms, as you approach the 2500 mark of the rpm, you need to give it a coarser pitch so the engine can again work its way back up to its max rpm. I try to keep the rpm around 2300-2400 where I have room to increase or decrease my speed/rpm's and yet stay withing the 2100-2500 rpm powerband. If I'm cruising, I stay on the low end, if I know I need to increase speed/energy (in a climb or exiting a turn for instance), I'll let it hover on the high end, and back the pitch up when it hits 25-2600.

Yup, that's also a good practice to follow.

[335th_GRAthos]

Flew a Bf109 on the REPKA Server after a long time...

It appeared somewhat strange to me (compared to the Spitfire Ia I usualy fly), when the water cooler was damaged engine vibrations started.

Engine vibrations were shaking the plane so violently that I could no longer aim and shoot properly.

I do not recall having experience to such extend the same in the Spitfire.

Has anybody noticed similar behaviour between the two planes?

~S~

[Ze-Jamz]

Flew a Bf109 on the REPKA Server after a long time...

It appeared somewhat strange to me (compared to the Spitfire Ia I usualy fly), when the water cooler was damaged engine vibrations started.

Engine vibrations were shaking the plane so violently that I could no longer aim and shoot properly.

I do not recall having experience to such extend the same in the Spitfire.

Has anybody noticed similar behaviour between the two planes?

~S~

You don't get vibrations from damaging the water cooler mate or at least I've never had it... youve obviously overcooked the engine which does cause vibrations just like in a Spit

[335th_GRAthos]

Thanks Ze-Jamz,

It was the first time after weeks flying a Bf109 so I probably you are right.

Maybe the Spitfire (I fly mostly the Ia) has the same kind of violent vibrations as well, I do not know, maybe I have not "cooked" a Spit engine until now, you can not do it by overheating the water system (probably it is a bug; I posted it).
The best case I had was "overcooking" a Spit engine by flying too long at max throttle, oil temp exceeded the limit and got a "grosvenor failure" message but even then there were no serious vibrations either...

Of course ;) it can be due to my superior knowledge and flying skill supremacy when in a Spit or, the abesimal skills and native inferiority of the Bf109 noobs who are trying to cause damage to my superior machine ;) ;) that I never experienced the same kind of vibrations when flying Spitfires.... (just joking :D )

Anyway, I just mentioned it here, it was the first thing that I noticed taking a Bf109 (besides this horrible gunsight aiming disturbance).

~S~

PS. Thank God they fixed the propeller change speed, the Bf109 can do some serious B&Z now :)

[TomcatViP]

Thanks Ze-Jamz,


PS. Thank God they fixed the propeller change speed, the Bf109 can do some serious B&Z now :)

Really ? When ?

[skouras]

Really ? When ?

after beta:grin:

[335th_GRAthos]

With the beta patch, the prop changes much faster than before :)

[TomcatViP]

Great. I hve to see it by my self hoping that the beta will be released soon on steam. thx !

[Bpdslayer]

Just a week ago I started a thread to bitch about the 109;s XXXX performance. But yesterday online i suddenly became an ace in the plane. Able to out-turn spits and huri's in at least 8-10 sustained turn fights. Sometimes they stalled before me, and other time i inched my way towards their six. On average i was able to shoot an enemy plane down and land at least 2 thirds of the sorties. I dunno if it was just my luck that nite, but the 109 didnt seem such a bad plane in turn and burn dogfight. I even felt I had the advantage, cause as soon as i noticed someone on my six, i could easily disengage by shallow diving followed by a gradual climb away. Reallie had fun online, even though sounds was missing most of the time...

Oh does anyone know wat the 109's 20mm elektron ammo is? i loaded that into my cannons... seemed to work....

[335th_GRAthos]

Good to hear that, thanks for sharing! Nice to have fun and it seems you enjoyed it :-)

Yes, I hate them (Bf109ers) when they do that (swallow dive and climb).
But I feel sorry for them when they enter turn fight (despite what you wrote about your turning capabilities experience), the Bf makes its fame true honor, it was not made for turning fights...

I am sorry to have to fly Spitfires now but the no-possibility to center the gunsight and be able to track bandits around moving your head is a deal-breaker for me :(

How do you cope with the gunsight yourself?

~S~

[Sven]

the Bf makes its fame true honor, it was not made for turning fights...

From pilot accounts the 109 could turn very well:

Me 109 E:
"The Bf 109s also had leading edge slats. When the 109 was flown, advertently or inadvertently, too slow, the slats shot forward out of the wing, sometimes with a loud bang which could be heard above the noise of the engine. Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them.
One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it. This advantage to the Bf 109 soon changed when improved Spitfires were delivered."
- Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories. Source: Messerschmitt Bf109 ja Saksan Sotatalous by Hannu Valtonen; Hurricane & Messerschmitt, Chaz Bowyer and Armand Van Ishoven.

[Lixma]

Let's examine this passage....
For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them.

Starting with....
For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true.
So basically what this pilot is saying is that the Spitfire pilots who report being able to out-turn a 109 are not to be believed. But we are supposed to take his word as truth when the situation is reversed?

I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them.
And as he just said "it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109."

But we're not supposed to believe them, so that's OK.

Mmmmm.....

And don't get us started on the relative skills of the pilots involved, the condition of the airframes, condition of the engines, relative energy levels during the turns etc...etc....

In CoD I've out-turned both Spitfires and Hurricanes many times in the 109, but I can still say with confidence that the 109 does not turn as well as either British aircraft.

[Sven]

I do not get your point entirely Lixma on that one. He never said anything about spitfire pilots, he's talking about inexperienced Luftwaffe pilots who apparently didn't like to fly their plane beyond the point where the slats came out. Those same inexperienced pilots could tell you that the spit could outturn you.

In CoD I've out-turned both Spitfires and Hurricanes many times in the 109, but I can still say with confidence that the 109 does not turn as well as either British aircraft.


That was not my point, my point is that the 109 was not a bad turner at all.

[Lixma]

I do not get your point entirely Lixma on that one. He never said anything about spitfire pilots, he's talking about inexperienced Luftwaffe pilots who apparently didn't like to fly their plane beyond the point where the slats came out.
I thought he was referring to pilots who flew during the BoB generally, not just Luftwaffe.

My mistake.

[Strike]

I think this once again points out how important pilot skill is. Think of the variables...

no 1 - When stalling vibration/turbulence starts most rookies will ease off the turn, whilst aces know they have a little more turning they can squeeze in.

no 2 - Perhaps some pilots struggle under high G-loads, and prefer not to turn tighter than what's already uncomfortable for them? (even though their lives are at stake)

no 3 - Some pilots probably weren't even aware that they were being chased/fired upon until the damage was done. (Perhaps the target was focusing on something else and turning towards it more gently than if in a dogfight).

These are just a few factors, but you get the idea that whilst we have the luxury of flying these planes in many sims and comparing them, the real pilots probably had little clue/knowledge about enemy planes initially until they saw them in combat. And what little evidence of performance they could draw from in a stressed/heated dogfight was probably highly rough estimations from subjective points of view.

[335th_GRAthos]

From pilot accounts the 109 could turn very well:

Sven, I do not know how much you have been flying this IL2 sim, I presume enough (I can not judge since your membership is rather "new" (2010).

I have been flying a lot this sim, almost 8 years (I stopped counting) exclusively Bf109
(It is my first two months ever I fly Spitfires because I can not stand the stupid non-centered gunsight mode with free head movement).
As such, I will tell you that you are wrong in your deduction.

I am not proud of flying Spitfires and I rarely enjoy good dogfights, I do feel sorry if a Bf109 continues a right turn following me for more than 270 degrees (probably they read the same passage as the one you quoted) because afterwards, they die...

So yes, the passage you quoted can be right but, you die if you insist on out-turning a Spitfire.
Same as the FW190 in IL2FB had a much tighter turn radius than the Spitfire, for the first 270°, after that you were a sitting duck...

I will not spend time explaining what an "energy-fighter" and what an "angles-fighter" is but you can find a lot of information about it in the internet if you like.

~S~

[Sven]

You're taking a perspective from inside the game not reality.

I've been playing for a long while, since Forgotten Battles came out. Flying Axis side exclusively.

You are 100 % right that ingame (1946) I've never even attempted to outturn a spitfire simply because it is pointless. History tells us that it was quite an effective tactic ( Downing 6 of them that way can hardly be luck ), and there are more quotes I can dig up which state the same.

Yet you cannot use that for any FM modelling for obvious reasons, which Lixma also correctly said:

And don't get us started on the relative skills of the pilots involved, the condition of the airframes, condition of the engines, relative energy levels during the turns etc...etc....

My point was only that the 109 is not a bad turner, it was considered effective by experienced pilots.

I personally would prefer BnZ, far safer and more fitted for canon armed birds IMO. Good dogfights I rarely have with Spitfires, scraping them off the ground is no fun. I miss the 6K + fights with P47 and P51 in 1946.

[TomcatViP]

I can not stand the stupid non-centered gunsight mode with free head movement).
~S~

Hi Grathos,

Did you try the center wheel + right click to initiate side head movement by the mouse and align your self with the gun sight.

I hve no TiR and hve used it since the trick was given on the forum and it works fine for me.

~S!

[335th_GRAthos]

Did you try the center wheel + right click to initiate side head movement by the mouse and align your self with the gun sight.

Hi Tomcat, yes this works, unfortunately I use TRACKIR (I can not fly without it) but, my TRACKIR is without 6DOF.

The solution you mentioned I tried already, unfortunately as soon as I activate TRACKIR, everything is centered the wrong way again :(
ROF has a better soution, I was told, you do as you mentioned above, then press a key and the game uses your current view as the future "centered" view, a solution much more flexible and forward-thinking than what CoD has to offer today.



You're taking a perspective from inside the game not reality.
....
History tells us that it was quite an effective tactic ( Downing 6 of them that way can hardly be luck ), and there are more quotes I can dig up which state the same.

Look Sven, the day you find me the quote that says that the Bf109 was an "angles-fighter" than an "energy-fighter", give me the name of that guy who wrote it and I will send him a list of some good psychiatrists I know of... enough said.

Your comments remind me of that famous story of the P-47 pilot who out-turned a Bf109 yes he did but this does not prove that the P-47 was turning better than the Bf109.
You can always turn better than another fighter; if your guns damage the other plane enough to give you advantage for what will follow subsequently you are fine; if not you are dead.

After all, what are discussing about?
The fact that the Bf109 turned better than the Spit as you claim was short lived and it was because "This advantage to the Bf 109 soon changed when improved Spitfires were delivered." Since the Spitfire did not really change form I presume he means that the Spits with better engine performance (engine or propeller) came???
I do not know what Leykauf is trying to make as point, the Bf was not a better turner than the Spit, he was entering the fight at the best turning speed (for tightest turn) and full throttle, losing his whole energy within seconds, easing the stick to gain some speed and pulled the max turn once more.
Unless he was flying a JU-87, he would have turned better against any plane turning at its constant rate of turn...
Like this, you can outurn a Zero flying a Wildcat; for how long, don't ask ;)

~S~

[Widowmaker214]

I really dont recall reading anything credible, that ever pointed to the 109 at being a good turning fighter.

For instance, this R.A.E. performance evaluation from Sept. 1940.
http://www.kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109E_UKtrials/Morgan.html

Being a bad turn fighter, does not make it a bad aircraft. The P51 was not a turner either. (by the time the P51 was really in the mix, the Luftwaffe had lost a large portion of its seasoned pilots)
You can do most anything against green pilots, but if you want to live, you have to fly to the aircraft you are in...and against.

Im actually impressed with the FM vs 1946.

You just have to learn to fly it as it is.. not what you thought it would be.

109s can be quite a pain to fly effectively.

So far I havnt been shot down by a 109 yet. Mainly because they insist on trying to turn with me. If you go further than 180.. to 270.. you're done.

I'll bait them into it. let them Dive... and see if I can sucker them into coming around. IF they are smart, they try for a quick burst then use their speed to climb .. or dive and escape.

Its even better if they try to climb UP to me. Death sentence.

Even with the new patch, things are as I would actually expect them to be. I can't out climb them, or run away/catch them.

If you get jumped by a pair of 109s that know what they are doing. You're done. You cant escape, and if they are working together, you're quickly toast.

If you fight it right, it works great. If you try and make it what its not, you're dead.

Corsairs cant turn fight Zeros.. but Ive seen plenty try.
its almost the same thing.. the corsair bieng a 109.. the zero being a spit.
109 is more an energy fighter... the spit is the turner.

Altitude also plays a big factor. I dont know how the altitude model is in clod yet. It sucked in 1946. For instance, the P51 really needed to be around 25/30 k feet to shine. But in 1946 we were left fighting below 20.
I imagine the 109 would preform better at much higher altitudes (just my thought).. but right now.. engagements online are between 6k and the deck.
Terrible place for a 109.

I do expect flight models to be much better in clod. You simply have to adjust to the characteristics of the aircraft you are in.

[Sven]

Altitude also plays a big factor. I dont know how the altitude model is in clod yet. It sucked in 1946. For instance, the P51 really needed to be around 25/30 k feet to shine. But in 1946 we were left fighting below 20.
I imagine the 109 would preform better at much higher altitudes (just my thought).. but right now.. engagements online are between 6k and the deck.
Terrible place for a 109.


Well that's not really 1946's fault, it's a mission related thing. Sure the 109 gets better up above but the P51 gets much more power when going up, therefore it's best for the 109 to drag the Americans down to ground and once there finish them off, that's how I do it at least. Since 4.101 the P51 has become a very stable plane which can turn really well and put up a vicious fight even at very low altitude.

I have to say that I've now been playing HSFX 5.01 for a while and those new 109 FMs from Aaken are IMO spot on.

[Widowmaker214]

Well that's not really 1946's fault, it's a mission related thing. Sure the 109 gets better up above but the P51 gets much more power when going up, therefore it's best for the 109 to drag the Americans down to ground and once there finish them off, that's how I do it at least. Since 4.101 the P51 has become a very stable plane which can turn really well and put up a vicious fight even at very low altitude.

I have to say that I've now been playing HSFX 5.01 for a while and those new 109 FMs from Aaken are IMO spot on.

In IL2.. the flight models were totally fubared above 20k. Its a known issue. Oleg admitted it... as the game was originally designed around the IL2. They didnt pay much attention to FM above 20k So yeah, its an IL2/1946 problem.

ANd yes, you are right about the 109 vs Mustang. Thats the smartest thing to do. though a smart mustang driver wouldn't follow.
Like I said.. you need to know the strengths of your aircraft, against the weakness of your opponent. trying to turn fight a 109 against a spit, is not good tactics.

[6S.Manu]

I miss the 6K + fights with P47 and P51 in 1946.

Oh Sven, you'd like the seow campaign that we're playing in these months... large human bomber's formations at 9km with escort at 10km/11km... my 190 can't reach more than 9km and every american plane at that altitude flies like the old Oleg's Spit.
We decided to not engage them and focus on the bombers.

Anyway talking about CloD: at start I was one of the greatest supporter but now I have enough of it. You can have very detailed DM and FM (on paper) but the management it's been so bad that I can't trust their numbers. Now I'm going to have doubts about every plane's performance, every little damage, every ammo's model.

I'll be sticked to HSFX for long time.

[ZaltysZ]

Flew a Bf109 on the REPKA Server after a long time...

It appeared somewhat strange to me (compared to the Spitfire Ia I usualy fly), when the water cooler was damaged engine vibrations started.

Something else was damaged too. Sometimes you can get no damage message, but plane will feel damaged anyway. I think damage messages have threshold, which is not the same for effects like vibrations.

[TomcatViP]

Oh Sven, you'd like the seow campaign that we're playing in these months... large human bomber's formations at 9km with escort at 10km/11km... my 190 can't reach more than 9km and every american plane at that altitude flies like the old Oleg's Spit.
We decided to not engage them and focus on the bombers.

Anyway talking about CloD: at start I was one of the greatest supporter but now I have enough of it. You can have very detailed DM and FM (on paper) but the management it's been so bad that I can't trust their numbers. Now I'm going to have doubts about every plane's performance, every little damage, every ammo's model.

I'll be sticked to HSFX for long time.

Pls Manu don't give up; That's what the soon-to-be jobless modders precisely want you to do.

Stand up like a fighter or CoD might be the last reality oriented sim for very long !

[Stealth_Eagle]

Something worth mentioning in my personal experiences:
I was flying a Hurricane up at altitude (perhaps 10,000 feet or greater (I can get the Hurricane up to well over 25,000 ft in full real)) and I noticed a pesky little 109 trying to chase me in the syndicate server. The main way that I ID the 109 was its bright yellow nose which over time became smaller and smaller which pleased me. Then I ran into some 110s (I think AI) which I started above and they never got onto my tail. Pretty much I like the new Hurricane FMs better then the original version.

[Crumpp]

9km with escort at 10km/11km

Just a note...

That is hardly realistic. Nobody flew at 36,000 feet operationally for any length of time during WWII. United States Oxygen systems during the war would be hard pressed to keep a pilot conscious for any long term exposure and fighting would be very problematic.

From the USAAF study on the physiological effects of altitude exposure on USAAF crews during the bombing campaign:

http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/9445/bombingalude.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/683/bombingalude.jpg/)

[6S.Manu]

Just a note...

That is hardly realistic. Nobody flew at 36,000 feet operationally for any length of time during WWII. United States Oxygen systems during the war would be hard pressed to keep a pilot conscious for any long term exposure and fighting would be very problematic.

From the USAAF study on the physiological effects of altitude exposure on USAAF crews during the bombing campaign:

http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/9445/bombingalude.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/683/bombingalude.jpg/)

We need to develop an realistic oxigen system mod for the old IL2!

EDIT: I would have done even the one to simulate the belts and limit the head movement on the cockpit but...

[Stealth_Eagle]

I am referring to the Cliffs of Dover Hurricane FM vs the old 1946 FM.

[Varrattu]

.. ...:rolleyes:

Let me say I am flying a 109 or a Hurri or whatever and I have a six. If the enemy behind me is only 20 km/h faster he needs only 10 seconds to reduce the gap by more than 50 meters.... ... In that situation the performence is not the key factor, the reaction of both pilots is important.

.. ...:rolleyes:


Happy hunting

Varrattu

[TomcatViP]

Interesting problem Vara...

Let's put it in nbr ;-)

let's say that your speed is 400kph.

if the guy in your 6 is 20kph faster it equate to 5% diff in frd speed.

When you'll start to maneuver E will be the most important thing.

With 95% less speed, your Kin E would be 0.95*0.95=0.90 less than that of the other guy (kin E = 0.5 x m x Speed²) with m the mass of the planes.

No you'll say to me that your hurri is heavier than a 109 thx to her heavy plywood and tube structure and that masse at speed equate Kin E.

humm let's think about that...

Mass = lift at level flight. hence the more mass to carry, the more lift you'll have to produce. As lift = drag in the sense that the more lift at a given speed generate more drag, hence you'll see that given you are at the same speed but with an heavier mass, your plane will generate more drag. And then less E. So let's put this aside as it complicate the prob without giving any advantage o your hurri (but let's keep it in mind when we will need to firce him to bypass our plane :rolleyes:).

So your hurri has 10% ((1.-0.90)*100 in %) less kin E than the 109 in your 6 and you generate more drag. You'll understand now that even that "little" 20kph disadvantage is uncomfortable whan you'll start to move the plane in the vertical plane or in a high G situation.

Why in high G ?

let's have a look

let's say you pull hard in the vertical at 5g for a brief moment. In a 5G verical turn (not a 360, or a full loop - you'll soon see that it is impossible), your plane will have a corresponding mass of 5 time heavier. Hence it will need 5 time more lift to stay on the same horizontal plane with your wings level.

hence your drag will increase, let's say linearly by a factor of 5.

What will counteract the drag in that situation ? You'd say so : engine power and you E state.

How your Engine power will contribute ?

Drag increase basically with the square of the speed. Has the power necessary to sustain a given speed is the product of the forward speed AND the force opposite to the speed vector, the power of the drag forces will be :
the fraction of the mass x by the G x by the forward speed.

As you see, basically pulling 5 G increase 5 time your drag and necessitate 5 time more power than in a level flight

Let's say that at 400kph your hurri will need 80% of it's eng power. Hence at 5g it would have need 0.8 x 5 = 4 time more power. A total amount that your engine can not produce. This is were your kin E will start to play it's role : being a source of E to keep your global E state approximatively cte (your hurri is not a conservative system !).

How will that kin E play in this situation ?

humm let's have a look. Kin E is a variable of the square of the speed. It has to compensate for the lack of the power of your engine. But the power is the product of a force by a forward speed and the drag force itself evolve in function of the square of the speed !

You'd see : speed x speed for the drag and drag x speed for the power means speed x speed x speed for he drag power

Hence your kin E will proportionally contribute only as the square root of itself to compensate for the lack of power.... that is 3 time what your eng can deliver at it's peak power (4 -1 x engPower)

Humm let's put it together :

you have 95% of the 109 speed
hence you'll get only 0.95x0.95x0.95 = 85 % of what the 109 will have for power to balance the 5G pull up
during the pul up your 90% less Kin E will transform some E to help you to sustain your forward speed acting only proportionally to the root square of the speed (90%) = 0.95 = 95%

SO if we sum the overall lack of power to sustain your frwd speed we will have (1-0.85) + 3x(1-0.95) = 30% !

30% less power at 5 G means that your speed (considering that drag btw your hurri and the 109 are equal - what we hve seen above is not !) will drop by P = DragForce x Speed => Speed = P/DragForce what means that the drop will be more than 30% of that of the 109 (more since your plane is heavier and have to generate more lift hence face more drag) !

And this is only for the first move !

As you've seen (if you are still there) 5% diff in forward speed means a lot less of manoevrability in term of E and speed after each move (30%).

Let's imagine that after your brief 5G move your speed has dropped down to 300kph. The 109 will still hev a speed of 300 x (1+0.30) = 390 kph hence a 90kph difference vs 20 at the begining of the move.


~S!

PS : Humm humm now you have said that he was 50m behind you (what is really close for two fighters). 50m at 390kph means (390-300)/3.6 = 25 m/s means that the 109 pilot has 2 seconds to do something to stay behind you. Holly Cow ! you are just ready to make an evasive break ;)

PPS: I kown that Vara know all about the above. I just took his remark as a pretexte for a short refreshing cursus :rolleyes:

[CaptainDoggles]

Small correction tomcat, mass does not equal lift in level flight, you are confusing that with weight.

weight = mass * gravity

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

After a small pause due to moving buisness I checked the prop pitch behaviour of the 109 and to my delight the speed is now definitely better. All thumps up for this.

However, I also realized that pushing the lever up will make the pp go up but the pp does not stop increasing when releasing the lever. Basically this will make the pilot guessing how long he has to push the lever in order to achieve a certain pp. I have strong doubts that - considering how important precise setting of proppitch is - this kind of behaviour is accurate history-wise. At least for me it does not make sense. It is more precise to keep the lever up until the pp clock shows the desired value and then one would release it. Bingo, desired pp achieved.

With the current behaviour the pilot needs guessing. This simply does not make sense.

[VO101_Tom]

However, I also realized that pushing the lever up will make the pp go up but the pp does not stop increasing when releasing the lever. ...

Hi. I don't know what may be your trouble (axis maybe?), this works at me. I release the lever, the increase/decrease of the propeller-pitch stops. Sometimes a couple of degrees moves longer, but nonsignificant (at the start, it may not respond to the lever until almost a full 6° turn... but there is OK after take-off).

[Redroach]

Just a note...

That is hardly realistic. Nobody flew at 36,000 feet operationally for any length of time during WWII. United States Oxygen systems during the war would be hard pressed to keep a pilot conscious for any long term exposure and fighting would be very problematic.

Also, just a note, though it has little to do with the BoB: The US atomic bombers (B-29s, August 1945 over Hiroshima & Nagasaki) came in at around 32,000ft.

[IvanK]

Wrt to Oxy systems. Above 30,000feet (in an unpressurised cockpit) even 100% Oxy is not sufficient. Above 30,000feet an Oxy regulator needs to produce an overpressure at 100% Oxy to keep O2 partial pressures in the blood to acceptable/viable levels. I am not sure if WW2 regulators could automatically produce this required overpressure.

In a pressurised cockpit its not an issue until the Cabin Altitude goes over 30,000feet, then the same arises. B29s were of course pressurised.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Hi. I don't know what may be your trouble (axis maybe?), this works at me. I release the lever, the increase/decrease of the propeller-pitch stops. Sometimes a couple of degrees moves longer, but nonsignificant (at the start, it may not respond to the lever until almost a full 6° turn... but there is OK after take-off).

Of course, if you only do this a very little bit, it will stop quicker. But still there is a considerable delay between releasing the lever and stopping of the clock arms turning. The longer you push the lever the longer the delay.
I do understand that some delay may occur in reality between pushing/releasing the lever and the clock and the proppitch. But this delay should at least be constant and independent of how long the lever is pushed. This really does not make any sense.

[robtek]

I believe it might be because the electric motor driving a high ratio gear mechanism has a inertia that keeps moving a short while even without energy.
As the indikator shows minuscule changes, making them look bigger.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Agreed that there is some delay as I wrote. But I doubt that this delay is proportional to the duration with which one pushes the lever, particularly for an electrical engine which has very fast rampage speeds. Or have you ever seen an electrical mixer taking longer to stop when using it longer? It will be almost constant as it won't accelerate until you release to button. It will accelerate a short time until reaching its operating speed. So I do think that the delay should be constant except for very very short durations of lever pushing.

And I also doubt that the delay can be very long as the ratio is not that excessive and the electric engine will work as a braking system as soon as it is ordered to stop.

[TomcatViP]

Its hydraulic. There is a backup electrical motor for use when the DB engine is off.

The battery at the time were not what we we are use to today. This is why it's slow before eng is on and faster after when the circuit is switched to hydrau.

The 109 was an impressive design for it's time.

This has been discussed alrdy extensively and what we hve now is very accurate (in fact a reference for any future sim)


~S

[VO101_Tom]

Its hydraulic. There is a backup electrical motor for use when the DB engine is off.

The battery at the time were not what we we are use to today. This is why it's slow before eng is on and faster after when the circuit is switched to hydrau.

The 109 was an impressive design for it's time.

This has been discussed alrdy extensively and what we hve now is very accurate (in fact a reference for any future sim)


~S

Hi. No, the 109's VDM propeller-pitch has no hidraulic part (http://www.pumaszallas.hu/Private/VO101_Tom/s16.jpg) (reliable, hydraulics damage does not have an effect on it). Because of this slow (compared with the hydraulic PPs).

I thought 41Sqn_Stormcrow writes because of a control bug, but in this he is right, the electrical motors has no delay. It would be necessary to correct the 109 one in so many trifles that I did not notice this. :rolleyes:

[VO101_Tom]

I thought the modelling on it was weird too, but after using the 109 for a few hours, its quite natural, and whether wrong or not, easy enough to use and set precise prop pitch becomes second nature. Still a million times better than the set-and-forget of 1946.

I'll probably miss the manual prop pitch when the automated systems come out for the later series 109s....

You may switch it off anytime :cool:

[TomcatViP]

Hi. No, the 109's VDM propeller-pitch has no hidraulic part (http://www.pumaszallas.hu/Private/VO101_Tom/s16.jpg) (reliable, hydraulics damage does not have an effect on it). Because of this slow (compared with the hydraulic PPs).

I thought 41Sqn_Stormcrow writes because of a control bug, but in this he is right, the electrical motors has no delay. It would be necessary to correct the 109 one in so many trifles that I did not notice this. :rolleyes:

Huh... I was so sure of me :oops:

Thx Tom for the doc (by the way you ruined my Sunday as I hate hving to read electrical scheme ;) )

[VO101_Tom]

by the way you ruined my Sunday as I hate hving to read electrical scheme ;)

Work? ;)

[Viper2000]

Just a note...

That is hardly realistic. Nobody flew at 36,000 feet operationally for any length of time during WWII.

This is incorrect.

Just because the (unpressurised) B-17 and B-24 didn't fly in the stratosphere does not mean that nothing flew in the stratosphere.

In fact, the Germans used to fly reconnaissance missions in the Ju-86 at altitudes in excess of 45,000 feet, until such time as the Spitfire proved capable of intercepting them.

I believe the highest kill of the war was scored at almost 50,000 feet. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_86#Operational_history)

Obviously, close to the absolute ceiling, climb rates were awful, so getting up there probably took both parties well over an hour.

The secret was pressurisation, and the fact that people were prepared to put pilots through rather more physiological stress than would be considered acceptable today.

PR Spitfires quite often flew above FL400 as well, depending upon the atmospheric conditions (contrail avoidance being the main priority).

Beyond these extreme cases, the general trend was for the altitude of combat to increase until roughly mid 1942; hence the HF Spitfire IX and VIII, as well as the Spitfire VII, which started production around this time. Unfortunately, by the time these aeroplanes started to enter service, the average altitude of combat had started to come down again by "mutual consent", probably because people were starting to realise that it was quite difficult for fighters to influence events on the ground from way up in the stratosphere.

As for the B-17 and B-24, the main reason that they didn't go higher was the bomb loads they were carrying.

I strongly suspect that you'll find the higher altitude missions correspond to longer ranges, where bomb load was traded for fuel, much of which had been consumed by the start of the bombing run, resulting in a relatively high altitude (obviously the bomber stream would just cruise-climb to wherever its performance and the ambient conditions took it; they weren't taking any notice of German ATC :lol: ).

[Crumpp]

This is incorrect.

No that is correct in the context of the discussion. In the daylight bombing campaign missions mentioned in the thread nobody flew at such extreme altitudes. The altitudes and percentage times for bomber missions flown by the 8th USAAF during WWII are already posted. Would like the USAAF documentation on it?

As for the B-17 and B-24, the main reason that they didn't go higher was the bomb loads they were carrying.

No the main reason was human physiology. I would be happy to provide you not only with the study conducted by USAAF but the FAA AC which touches on the some of the issues and has a list of resources to get further acquainted with the subject.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/e04e9b9732ba93fd86256caa005ca97e/$FILE/AC61-107A.pdf

The Junkers 86 belonged to a family of very specialized high altitude aircraft. Only a handful were built and operated for a short period of time. Most importantly, it was a pressurized aircraft.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/stories/battle-stratosphere-24790.html

Operating at such altitude was very risky and only a handful of flights were conducted. The Spitfires that intercepted them were specialized for the task, they did not dogfight at all at high altitude, in fact they barely flew at all. The high altitude environment is as much an enemy as any combatant. Most importantly, they were equipped with a pressurized breathing system for the pilot.

As had been previously pointed out by von Schrotter (vice supra) and Haldane [41] altitude exposure in excess of 33,000 ft. resulted in falling arterial Oxygen saturation, even with the use of 100% Oxygen.

http://www.pilotfriend.com/aeromed/medical/understanding_hypoxia.htm

[ATAG_Doc]

One could deduce that physiology was a major player in anything the USAAF did.

[Crumpp]

One could deduce that physiology was a major player in anything the USAAF did.

Yes.

Carrying bombs was not the limit, a human beings ability to survive and function at altitude was the limiting factor.

That being said, the B-17 series approached the limit of what was practical for a high altitude bomber of the day. Prolonged operational campaign at 20,000 feet was a milestone given the technology.

[Crumpp]

From the report:

When flying at high altitudes, the biggest fear for any crew member is succumbing to anoxia. Anoxia is the lack of breathable oxygen above 10,000 feet. The human body is adapted to an environment below 10,000 feet and whenever it goes above this altitude it requires supplemental oxygen to survive. To highlight this problem, Flight Surgeons and Physiologists found fatal and non-fatal anoxia occurring in operational aircraft from 1942 - 1944. While there was evidence of some mild cases during the first six months of operations in the Eighth Air Force, it was not until a death was reported that the problem got the needed attention. The seriousness of the problem was identified in the first two years of operations, from Aug 1942 through Aug 1944. During this time there had been a small number of deaths, but a larger number of non-fatal cases of anoxia.

Just flying a mission meant the chance of dying from a lack of oxygen.

The peak for anoxia cases came in November 1943
with an overall rate of 18.1 cases per 1,000 heavy bomber aircraft sorties.

The final aspect of physiological problems experienced by crews involves adaptation to the extreme cold of flying at 25-30,000 feet during their long missions. Here again, many unanticipated problems had to be overcome. Minus 30 to 50 degree temperatures were quite normal over northern Europe at 25,000 feet, the optimum altitude for heavy bombers. Frostbite, the predominant hazard, made the provision of suitable flight crew
clothing essential. The USAAF had developed electrically heated flying suits in 1940, but they only became available to gunners during the winter of 1942-43. The suits were completely unreliable, when subjected to the rigors of operational flying.

Another important piece of crew equipment found to be defective in the B-17 was the oxygen system. The early B-17s had the continuous flow type oxygen regulators. The Eighth AF had considerable trouble with this type of system because it had a tendency to allow the breath moisture to freeze and obstruct the oxygen flow. During many flights a crew member found himself constantly squeezing the O2 hoses just to break up ice crystals before they totally stopped the flow of oxygen. This deadly problem was immediately addressed because of crew complaints and cases of anoxia.

The entire USAAF had continuous flow type regulators until ~1944.

Of course all this exposure to altitude leads to a plethora of physiological problems. Today we recognize this leads to a decrease in the crews ability to safely operate the aircraft.

To highlight this problem one only needs to look at the data from 1944 in the Eighth AF:
there were 2562 aircraft accidents not related to combat, involving 2835 aircraft, and resulting in the death of 1692 persons. This amounts to seven accidents and 4.6 fatalities every day of the year.1

Pilot error was the primary cause of B-17 accidents in the Eighth AF. The most common forms of pilot error were: improper taxiing, leveling off too high, hitting too hard, overshooting the landing, and misuse of landing gear or flaps.

Pilot error in today’s aviation community indicates a problem with
crew training, physiological conditioning or crew fatigue.