Hs 129 barely flyable

[Lagarto]

Recently I've been trying to fly some Hs 129 missions and what a disappointment it was. This thing is so underpowered it barely wallows through the air. A sitting duck for AA. On some maps the AI have problem with clearing the surrounding mountains on takeoff. I just can't believe it was that bad in real life. Maybe some tweak is in order?

[omi89]

Problems pilot faced IRL due to low quality engine (to avoid interference with production of standardized engines). Rudel also felt much safer in JU-87. Avoid version with 75mm, and try to come in low ,drop bombs, make several gun passes (fire early, unless targeting tanks) and leave. :)

[Lagarto]

I didn't even try the one with 75 mm cannon :) One would expect a ground-attack machine with two engines, one cannon and no rear gunner to perform at least on a par with Il-2 (one engine, two underwing cannons and a rear gunner, not to mention all the armour) but no such thing. I never survived more than two sorties in a row. Suicidal.

[IceFire]

I love the Hs129 but it is a quirky and underpowered aircraft... problems it suffered in real life.

From Wikipedia:

Hs129B-2
Max. takeoff weight: 5,250 kg (11,574 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × Gnome-Rhône 14M 4/5 14-cylinder radial engines, 522 kW (700 hp) each

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_129

Compared to say an IL-2M3

Loaded weight: 6,160 kg (13,580 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × Mikulin AM-38F liquid-cooled V-12, 1,285 kW (1,720 hp)

The IL-2 is a later model cetainly and it does weigh a bit more but it has a 320hp advantage from one engine compared to two. The Gnome-Rhone's are very poor from a power standpoint.

My suggestion is to fly the Hs129 very gingerly. It's a solid attack aircraft and can really kill tanks but it's slow in everything it does. The upside is it's very stable for gunnery as it has a good counter rotating propeller arrangement.

[JtD]

The performance of the Hs 129 and the Il-2 are pretty similar, at least down low. As IceFire has already pointed out, the Il-2 is in fact the bigger, more powerful aircraft of the two. It's also got superior low speed performance, due to a lower wing loading, and at sea level it's slightly faster. But the Hs 129 is as tough and well armoured.

If you fly the Hs 129 with a gunpod, you spoil the performance of the aircraft quite a bit. The gondola adds considerable drag and weight, if you go against tanks, it's well worth it, but you're indeed an easy target for any fighter around. As a flying machine, I'd rate the Hs 129 superior to contemporary Il-2's without gunpods, but inferior with gunpods.

[Lagarto]

OK then, perhaps the poor impression is exacerbated by the fact that its engines cut out under negative G, which is the last thing you want when you're down low dodging Flak. S! to the brave guys who had to fly that thing in real combat.

[The_WOZ]

I find the Hs-129 so much more enjoyable to fly than the IL-2 and a lot more stable at low speeds too.
Gunnery is a lot easier with the counter rotating propellers and rudder trim (not found on the IL2).
And it has fire extinguishers which is usefull given the tendency of the gnome-rhones to catch fire at the slight bullet impact.
And is so much more tough than the IL-2, it will get you home as long as you have 1 good engine.

I fly it a lot online and get very good results even in dogfights (with the B-2 and as long as it's one on one). The trick is to climb to 700 or 1000m before the attack run and attack in slashing passes, getting alt after every pass. You can do 4 or 5 continous passes like this before running out of energy.

With the 7.5cm cannon on the B-3 is best to shoot from afar, if you shoot at 200m or less the shells won't explode.

[IceFire]

Definitely once you get the trick with the B-3 it's a blast (literally :D) and VERY effective as I haven't found a tank I couldn't crack with it. There may be one or two very heavy tanks that take a couple of hits but it's basically a one hit kill weapon on armor.

Love it! Great fun with this aircraft!

[Treetop64]

Recently I've been trying to fly some Hs 129 missions and what a disappointment it was. This thing is so underpowered it barely wallows through the air. A sitting duck for AA. On some maps the AI have problem with clearing the surrounding mountains on takeoff. I just can't believe it was that bad in real life. Maybe some tweak is in order?

The Hs129 certainly requires a delicate touch. You can successfully fly missions in it, however. It's not impossible, though it is slow and vulnerable.

No different than it was in real life. Read any reliable source and you'll learn that it was just as unpopular then as you're finding out now, for virtually the same reasons you're expressing.

We need to be careful about suggesting the "tweaking" of aircraft if they don't behave to our liking, before we've given ourselves sufficient time to learn it's nuances...

[Lagarto]

Since everybody says it flies as it's supposed to, then OK, I'll give it a second chance :) Thanks to Asura's new DGen it's possible now to generate campaigns for it, and I still hope to have some fun flying it.

[1984]

No different than it was in real life. Read any reliable source and you'll learn that it was just as unpopular then as you're finding out now, for virtually the same reasons you're expressing.

+1...

hs-129 was not really bad plane, in total, but, Lagarto, what you write is very similar to what i read about hs-129 in different sources...

and on russian, from authors of books and articles about il-2, have several good articles with name "Planes of the battlefield, the Eastern front (1941-45.)" (http://lib.rus.ec/b/308617/read#t3) ie, about soviet and german attack planes like il-2, 87, fw 190 and hs-129...

in particular, authors criticized all sides and about germany one of main findings - it's resistance of german armor and bulletproof glass which compared with soviet analogues were less resistant...

for example, in tests 6 mm of german armor it's approximately 3.4 mm of soviet AB-1 (type of armor, which was used for il-2), 75 mm of german bulletproof glass with better, than soviet glass, visibility it's approximately 54 mm of soviet K-4, etc...

interesting, how it's confirmed/veracity in german sources etc? because it's important too, if we talk about armored "nose" of fw 190, i think...

well, anyway, apparently it's one of reasons why hs-129 was not really mass attack plane...

and here (http://www.airpages.ru/mn/hs129_01.shtml) "hs-129 in NII VVS KA" with interesting details (on russian, but in end have summary of findings)...

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

No matter what, its so sexy looking anyway, especially compared to the IL-2. You could say, its a question of taste, and of course its special, with its duck-like nose and its edgy neck, but hey! - its such a stubborn german design, as much as you can imagine it. :D

http://modellzona.com/img/3ojXRm.jpg

[HarryM]

Thanks for the new desktop!

[Luno13]

Also bear in mind that the Hs-129 only flew under fighter cover and did not cross the front lines. So, this plane only had to contend with flak. Unfortunately, the flak in Il-2 is a bit too accurate, but that is meant to compensate for low numbers due to computer constraints.

Furthermore, I think it's worth mentioning that the Il-2 is very nimble in the game. I feel that, based on accounts, the control inputs are too light. After all, it is a huge and heavy airplane, but you can pull out of dives and jink with just a flick. So, when comparing to the Hs-129, the handling seems poor compared to our ingrained perceptions of the Il-2. Hopefully it will be looked at with the other Soviet planes in 4.13.

[Lagarto]

Also bear in mind that the Hs-129 only flew under fighter cover and did not cross the front lines.

How's that? What was it attacking if it didn't cross the front lines?

[Treetop64]

I think what he meant was that the Hs-129 did not go on interdiction missions. It only flew in direct support of the panzers.

[csThor]

Basically the Hs 129 was used like a flying anti-tank gun ... a basically defensive weapon. It wasn't used to intrude into soviet territory to hunt soviet tank formations but used to attack (and hopefully destroy) soviet tanks which were either attacking german positions or which had broken through into german-controlled territory.
It was, however, not used exclusively under fighter-cover (there were never enough german fighters to allow that). Rather the opposite was true as the VVS rarely ventured into german-controlled airspace until 1944 due to their fighter doctrine. They tied their fighters to specific targets - like a ground-target or a flight of own bombers/Il-2s they had to protect - instead of allowing them to roam freely like the german fighters were allowed to. Because of this Hs 129 did not encounter soviet fighters very often and mostly "by accident".

[K_Freddie]

Furthermore, I think it's worth mentioning that the Il-2 is very nimble in the game. I feel that, based on accounts, the control inputs are too light. After all, it is a huge and heavy airplane, but you can pull out of dives and jink with just a flick. So, when comparing to the Hs-129, the handling seems poor compared to our ingrained perceptions of the Il-2. Hopefully it will be looked at with the other Soviet planes in 4.13.

Maybe it's a good idea to not have adjustable joystick settings, and set these per aircraft in code/data. Then everyone has to fly it like it is.. all 100s

[Bolelas]

That might be a good idea, but, dont forget, there are joysticks, and JOYSTICKS, and not everybody can aford a JOYSTICK, or built one. That was ok, if everybody flew with the same.

[Luno13]

Indeed, even the length of the joystick has a huge impact on how the aircraft behaves. However, this is just relative performance between two planes with the same curve and with the same stick. I could make both planes 100 straight across, but the Il-2 would still be snappier than the Henschel.

With my current stick, a straight line (10,20,30...100) gives the best impression, but on another that I have, a quadratic line is better (1,4,9...100). Straight 100s feels like flying an RC toy, but I'm sure it works for some people.

[Jumoschwanz]

I find the Hs-129 so much more enjoyable to fly than the IL-2 and a lot more stable at low speeds too.

The difference between a smart pilot and a "gamer".

The first thing the Gamer thinks of is to MOD the aircraft so it flies to his tastes, maybe a Japanese Zero would be a nice flight model for all the planes?

A real simmer though uses his brain, practices and thinks of a way to use what he is given to get the job done, just like the pilots had to in WWII.

In flying the HS-129 online I came to very similar tactics to those WOZ discovered and found it to be a fabulous tool for destroying armor.

[majorfailure]

The difference between a smart pilot and a "gamer".

The first thing the Gamer thinks of is to MOD the aircraft so it flies to his tastes, maybe a Japanese Zero would be a nice flight model for all the planes?

A real simmer though uses his brain, practices and thinks of a way to use what he is given to get the job done, just like the pilots had to in WWII.

In flying the HS-129 online I came to very similar tactics to those WOZ discovered and found it to be a fabulous tool for destroying armor.

Then again a real pilot given the choice between a Hs129 and an Il2 might chose the Il - most of the important and vulnerable components encased in armor instead of just the pilot. And at least ingame the IL is a bit easier to fly IMHO -looking at the wingloading of both planes that's what I'd expect IRL too. Not saying the Hs can't be put to use (lots of ammo for a good armament and good inflight stabily), but just that it is no stellar performer -probably close to real world?

[Janosch]

A Hs-129 even with Bk 3.7 is a wonderful anti-tank plane... if there's no horrible turbulence at low altitudes! However, I think that a Bf-110 would be a better choice. Even with having to adjust rudder trim, it's so much more nimble plane than Hs-129. Of course, the 129 supposedly survives ground fire better than the 110... or does it?

As for tail gunners, even if they can't shoot down all the enemy fighters, they provide a second pair of eyes for any ground pounder.


The first thing the Gamer thinks of is to MOD the aircraft so it flies to his tastes, maybe a Japanese Zero would be a nice flight model for all the planes?


And zeros themselves shouldn't have stiff controls at high speeds, because zero is the maneuverable plane!!!1

Mods suck.

[IceFire]

And zeros themselves shouldn't have stiff controls at high speeds, because zero is the maneuverable plane!!!1

Is this a serious statement? :confused:

All models of Zero (but in particular the A6M2) had notoriously poor high speed handling. Roll rate in particular was not very good at higher speeds.

[Janosch]

Is this a serious statement? :confused:


Nah, I just rambled on about the "gamer" mentality.

One more thing about mods though: they can really improve playability and add variety to certain kind of games, but in Il-2 pretty much all they've done is add some nice graphics, sounds and a few flyable planes of varying quality. Even if there really is something wrong with Hs-129, it'll get fixed soon, since the next patch is coming in 2 weeks, and then it's another 2 weeks until 4.13.

[IceFire]

Got it :)

[stugumby]

Just curious here, what is the proper prop pitch and manifold settings for the hs 129?? Im stooging about after take off at what guesstimate is 75% pitch 75% power and get going pretty good, radiator 4 ?

[IceFire]

Just curious here, what is the proper prop pitch and manifold settings for the hs 129?? Im stooging about after take off at what guesstimate is 75% pitch 75% power and get going pretty good, radiator 4 ?

Most of the time I use the rule of thumb for using 90% pitch and 90% power with rads maybe open to 2 or 4. Sometimes I'll back off the power a bit more but as soon as I'm in attack position I usually increase to 100% pitch and 100% power when needed.

The Hs129 doesn't have a huge power reserve so you need to push the engines sometimes and plan your manoeuvring so that you maintain some energy prior to coming around for another attack.

[1984]

No matter what, its so sexy looking anyway, especially compared to the IL-2. You could say, its a question of taste, and of course its special, with its duck-like nose and its edgy neck, but hey! - its such a stubborn german design, as much as you can imagine it. :D

looks really not bad, very typical for german planes (and my opinion exactly here not question of taste because il-2 it's plane for action, it's not designer thing another case maybe mig-3 vs bf 109) and this i can say and about for example fw 187, but personally i want this plane with new level of modelling ie AFM + 3d and something more and it's could be just fantastic...

[Kittle]

One thing I do in all aircraft when I am trying to preserve E is to slack off on prop pitch in a dive. When making your diving approach to a target in the 129, cut the pitch back to 45 - 50%. Your airspeed will climb rapidly as the prop is cause far less drag. Near the bottom of the attack, crank the pitch back up so you can grab more air and make the most of your gained airspeed in converting it to altitude.

[1984]

:)

[II./JG1_Britchot]

The Hs-129 is one of my favorite planes in Il-2. Definitely a plane that you have to be gentle with to get the best results. It worked for Rudolf-Heinz Ruffer ;)

http://en.valka.cz/files/ruffer_kills_jpg_212.jpg

[Rabb]

One thing I do in all aircraft when I am trying to preserve E is to slack off on prop pitch in a dive. When making your diving approach to a target in the 129, cut the pitch back to 45 - 50%. Your airspeed will climb rapidly as the prop is cause far less drag. Near the bottom of the attack, crank the pitch back up so you can grab more air and make the most of your gained airspeed in converting it to altitude.

Well, it is actually the other way around.

Prop pitch (together with throttle) is reduced in dives to prevent engine over-revving and subsequent damage, an to slow a dive a bit. Increasing prop pitch should reduce drag (propeller blades are more aligned with airflow), and thus enable (just for a bit) better speed gain. But it has to be controlled within engine RPM limit.

Of course, exact relations depend on aircarft's speed and throttle setting.

[RPS69]

Well, it is actually the other way around.

Prop pitch (together with throttle) is reduced in dives to prevent engine over-revving and subsequent damage, an to slow a dive a bit. Increasing prop pitch should reduce drag (propeller blades are more aligned with airflow), and thus enable (just for a bit) better speed gain. But it has to be controlled within engine RPM limit.

Of course, exact relations depend on aircarft's speed and throttle setting.

You both actually stated the same thing.

[Rabb]

Actually, no. Reducing prop pitch increases drag. At high speeds to be exact.

Increasing prop pitch at high (dive) speeds enables you to gain even more speed, but if you're not careful you can over-rev the engine and destroy it.

[Bolelas]

I am in confusion. You mean reducing(reducing rpm) pitch in a dive creates more drag? When you reduce pitch, the blades are more like feather prop, correct?

Or you mean, if you also reduce throttle, and the engine starts windmilling, that means it is the drag that keeps rotating the engine, and (correct) more drag(but minimal.
(i gess,i am no expert just curious :)

I think in a dive if you are with limit revs (not over-rev) the engine is slowing you down. Like in a descent with a carr, if you put low gear in, it will slow you down.

[Kittle]

LoL, this is easy to get confused on, cause I did. Rabb and I were indeed talking about the exact same thing. I did, however, have my terminology backwards. To 'bite' more air and get more power, you reduce the pitch. It is counter intuitive cause it seems in the mind that you are reducing. In this case, consider the blades being as wide as possible from the cockpit being reduced to 0 pitch. And when the blades are edge on to the cockpit being 100% pitch.

So, in order to go accelerate faster in the dive (within the limits of that particular aircrafts RPM range) you would increase the pitch.

In order to grab as much air with the prop as possible for maximum raw thrust, the pitch would be reduced to almost 0 degrees. It throws me off since, in civil planes anyway, pulling backwards on the prop pitch lever increases pitch, pushing forward reduces it. In my head, pulling back should very well be reducing, lmfao!!!

In my own head, i say reducing when I am actually increasing, hence the confusion. Hope this clarification helps, lol.

@ Rabb - Thx for keeping me on my toes! Aviation is, and always has been, about getting it right the first time since second chances are so rare in this field. :D


Like gramps used to say, "There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but there aren't any OLD & BOLD pilots!"

[RPS69]

Actually, no. Reducing prop pitch increases drag. At high speeds to be exact.

Increasing prop pitch at high (dive) speeds enables you to gain even more speed, but if you're not careful you can over-rev the engine and destroy it.

In game, you reduce percentage... to increase pitch. He is talking in game terms, you are talking in formal terms. But both are stating the same thing.
I don't know why IL2 implemented it that way, but it generates this kind of confussion.

Maybe the original intention was to reduce pitch effect, or increase it, not to actually reduce or increase blade pitch.

[zipper]

LoL, this is easy to get confused on, cause I did. Rabb and I were indeed talking about the exact same thing. I did, however, have my terminology backwards. To 'bite' more air and get more power, you reduce the pitch. It is counter intuitive cause it seems in the mind that you are reducing. In this case, consider the blades being as wide as possible from the cockpit being reduced to 0 pitch. And when the blades are edge on to the cockpit being 100% pitch.

So, in order to go accelerate faster in the dive (within the limits of that particular aircrafts RPM range) you would increase the pitch.

In order to grab as much air with the prop as possible for maximum raw thrust, the pitch would be reduced to almost 0 degrees. It throws me off since, in civil planes anyway, pulling backwards on the prop pitch lever increases pitch, pushing forward reduces it. In my head, pulling back should very well be reducing, lmfao!!!

In my own head, i say reducing when I am actually increasing, hence the confusion. Hope this clarification helps, lol.

@ Rabb - Thx for keeping me on my toes! Aviation is, and always has been, about getting it right the first time since second chances are so rare in this field. :D


Like gramps used to say, "There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but there aren't any OLD & BOLD pilots!"



Actually, pulling back the prop lever does reduce ... the rpm. It is the RPM controller: Back reduces rpm and forward increases it ... up to 100% (redline), with the throttle, of course, controlling manifold pressure the same way.

[Kittle]

@ zipper - Exactly!!! But you are in technically increasing pitch, the results are less drag caused by the prop and lowering the RPMs. I think they did it right in IL2, so people will know the effect their having on their aircraft without ground school, lol.

[Rabb]

A lot of talk about `pitching` ;) Excellent explanation, Kittle.

Bolelas, you can find some nice general information here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propeller_(aircraft)

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

But...why would you want to increase speed in an attack dive? Its IMHO one of the Hs129s best features - beside the stable flight - that you have plenty of time for a proper attack. This is even more important with the BK7.5 version, where you can make up to 3-4 shots per attack.

[IceFire]

But...why would you want to increase speed in an attack dive? Its IMHO one of the Hs129s best features - beside the stable flight - that you have plenty of time for a proper attack. This is even more important with the BK7.5 version, where you can make up to 3-4 shots per attack.

Indeed! I throttle back before my attack dive in a Hs129. The aircraft is immensely stable thanks to the counter rotating prop design and it lets you get several shots on target with minor corrections to engage multiple tanks in those rare cases.

In other types you may want to increase dive speed although... sometimes not :) It's often fun to appear to be going fast but really you're wiping as much speed in the dive as possible and the other guy goes sailing past.