Friday Update, April 13, 2012

[jibo]

As a WW sim veteran, War Eagles!, anyone ? (Cosmi -1989)
The last decades were very harsh for this industry and the vast majority of our beloved companies have gone kablooie
(Sierra/Dynamix, Microprose, Origine/Jane's, Rowan/Empire, DID/Rage, Microsoft Aces Studio etc ...
The last straw was the selling of MFS engine to Lockheed Martin in 2009.

It was a real war but the good guys are still in the cockpit here @1C
This is the biggest day since IL2 sturmovik release for me, a real milestone, at last 1C will show the quality of their work.
Luthier & co, worked their a** off, for years and he nearly killed himself by exhaustion trying to save the baby. But he eventually did.

CoD will become the new WWII sim reference. The bird will fly and bring high in the sky 1C colours (especially with the lightning ).
Of course there's still tons of features left in the garage, and CoD itself will keep the stigmas of a badly rushed product.
But the team is already working on a better platform and when the big merge will come, the champagne will pop! (i pay my bottle and i send it from France) because it will be IL2 all over again (just imagine the pacific omygosh).
I'am confident they have a better control of the publishing (at least in russia) and the russian market is rising. Also we won't see any serious competitors at this level, too much work has been done already.

It's a niche but the dog is a bear

Originally Posted by zapatista

and there are a few more serious problems like this.........
- for eg the 109 ground handling is totally artificial and very "console game like" instead of simulating a ww2 pilot experience. the plane is nowhere near as difficult or sensitive to land or takeoff as it should be (iirc over 50% of 109's during ww2 were lost during takeoff and landing accidents, rather then in combat). right now a 9 yo with a few pointers can safely do it, is that really simulation ?

It is not that I contest the basic statement of yours about the ground handling of the 109 but could you provide some links to support that over 50% of all 109s were lost during landing and take-off? Personally I would just say that I simply cannot believe that the armament ministry accepted a plane to be produced for so long with such a horrible statistic. Seems to me very unrealistic. 50% means that every second 109 was lost due to accidents during landing or take-offs. Why should any armament ministry accept such a thing? There had been enough parallel designs of fighters to phase out the 109 if it really had been so bad.

To complete the image I also think that the Spit is still far too easy for take off. It is a pain in the you-know-where to make it turn but the torque seems still quite easy and doesn't concur with anecdotal evidence for take-off imho.

[Fenrir]

That 50% statistic has been bandied around a great deal over the years, but I've never seen any hard data. I think it's been over-egged, or too much is placed on the 109s takeoff characteristics.

Bearing in mind accident attrition was quite high on all sides thanks to wartime pressures of training - particularly at times of high casualties, timetables cut and students rushed throught etc -and perhaps some technical failures due to rushed workmanship or maintanence, I think you'd find any accidental loss rate, allied or axis, higher than peacetime.

However, the 109, I believe is easier to takeoff and land in both Il-2 and CloD than it's real life counterpart.

I have a rather neat quote from Mr Charlie Brown; he's a modern day pilot who flies all sorts of warbirds and has many, many hours on 109s, and NOT just buchons. So many in fact that apparently he's quite in demand from collectors who have 109s that need flying, particularly test flights after rebuild or major overhaul.

I bought a book a year ago which goes through the entire test flight program of a Bf109E - yes, I said an E - and it some excellent information that clarifies a great deal. For the moment we'll just look at the T/O characteristics; I leave the rest to Charlie:

Once again the start up was easy, the checks unhurried and I found myself lined up on the runway full of confidence and anticipation. My game plan was as per 'Black 6' [the Bf-109G-2 belonging to the MoD, now - alas - no longer airworthy - Fen]: takeoff 1.0 to 1.2 ATA monitoring the RPM, keep the tail down till 100kph (62mph), raise it slightly (being prepared to catch any tendancy to swing) and then fly her off at 150kph (93mph). What I found was that the tail felt like it should be raised just as the airspeed started to register, that is at 50-60kph (31-37mph). Once the tail was off the runway the familiar extreme change in directional stability became apparent - from almost absolute stability to almost absolute instability. [Fen's italics] The aircraft flew herself off at 110kph (68mph) much sooner than I had anticipated.

Hmmmmmmm...... familiar, eh......?

[SlipBall]

I think I remember reading 10% loss...its been awhile though

Well, it's not that I did not read about the landing difficulties and I do not put this in doubt. I also believe that the losses due to accidents were indeed higher than in peacetime and probably significantly higher. I also read frequently that it is due to the narrow landing gear.

Mh. Now the thing with the narrow landing gear I have a problem: The Spit has a narrow landing gear too, and perhaps even narrower (the landing gear of the 109 is slightly bent outward while the legs of the Spits are just straightforward parallel).

You now may reply: yeah, the torque in the 109 was stronger. This may be true - but only during full power (not gradual power increase) take-off. Never during landing as the power during landing was usually cut down to very little or even idle.

Brown's statement says clearly that he was not familiar with the type and expected a different behaviour. Of course this may indicate that rookie pilots may have had problems to handle this crate. But I really would like to recall that many spit pilots reported on a strong tendency of the spit to break away too during take-off.

I do not contest that the take off of the 109 should not be left as it is (for reminder) but I really think that a 50% loss rate and even "only" 30% appears to me too high and probably a myth as I really cannot believe that the 109 remained the main stay of the German Air Force throughout the war with this kind of flaw.