Jump to content

SCG_Sinerox

Members
  • Content Count

    136
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

106 Excellent

About SCG_Sinerox

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    My Bf-109 F4

Recent Profile Visitors

689 profile views
  1. Bomber has many connotations. A stuka and a He 111 are both bombers... yet both fulfill very different duties. Context matters. A 109 and a 190 are two very different fighters for different purposes.
  2. Thanks FliegerAD for a substantive response. I think you kinda hit it on the head there. For your average pilot, and even your average sim pilot, the 109 is a rather hard plane to fly and use in combat. Shes got a lot of tricks and hidden secrets that you really don't get in other aircraft. Like the camel from World War 1, it means while being hard to use, she also gives you alot of ways to exploit the airframe once you become familiar and master everything. Most pilots I know for example don't know how to use the 109s "small airframe big engine" design to dogfight effectively utilizing torque to increase roll rate and such. Shes got problems, but underneath those problems lie some beautiful exploits against your opponent by using them as an advantage. The dogfighting aces of the war used these to great effect against superior aircraft like the 51 among other aircraft. While not an ideal aircraft towards the end of the war she still held out with the small amount of experienced pilots left. Even as a 109 fanboy I can still appreciate the many advantages and benefits of the 190. Simply put its an easier plane to use, and learn to use and I think that's a large part of the appeal. The 109 takes alot of time and energy to really learn unless your a natural, hell it took me 3 years to get to the point I'm at now and still I have lots to learn. Quite so, the 109 and the 190 are quite a bit different. And its really like comparing apple and oranges. They were designed with different ideas in mind and for different objectives. Kurt Tank said it best when comparing the 109 to a race horse (ie interceptor, air superiority), to a work horse such as the 190 (jabo, escort, ground attacker, air superiority, etc). If you will the 190 is a different type of fighter plane and so comparing it to the 109 doesn't make the most of sense. The 109 simply put was very good a few things, and the 190 was ok to good at many things. The 109s was flexible in her performance as a fighter, but the 190 was flexible in its role as a plane. Context is key!
  3. The Takeoff and Landing of the 109 wasn't good by any means. But alot of the failures are due to the pilot quality in Germany by 43 up to 45. Alot of the new guys had very little hours in a trainer and were plopped into a 109. So strictly I wouldn't give her to much fault here. Secondly it had fine range, contemporary aircraft had similar ranges (Spitfire for example). This notion that the 109 had bad range has be contextualized and "debunked" thoroughly. What was it meant todo? It was a interceptor and air superiority fighter. It wasn't designed for long range escort, and as such performed fine for its task. Now, what year was it designed through? from about 1935-1945. Thats a good decade of use and yea, by the end of the war it's range wasn't great compared to a 47, or a 51, but it didn't need range by that point anyway and these aircraft were much newer designs (In fact the 51 and 47 are about a half a decade younger!). The Spitfire had the same problem escorting bombers form Britain to France, and Germany you might recall. As for firepower. You quite right. For most pilots the firepower of the 109 was a little on the weak side, especially for attacking bombers without the 30. But notable aces such as Marseille and Molders both thought it was quite satisfactory granted you could aim well. The 190 doesn't need you to aim quite as well so I'll give you that the 190 was a better gun platform for your average pilot. 190, specifically the D9, had the ability to tackle allied fighters, but in areas of performance against allied aircraft it was arguably aged worse then the 109. I'm not sure if you'll understand what I specifically mean, but the main areas of strength of the 190 were over matched by the 51, 47 and such. The 109 however still maintained good maneuverability against most allied aircraft (spit pilots are laughing), and still had its incredible climb rate. Thats not to say the 190 was useless. Far from it, but I'm specifically mentioning how the aircrafts strengths didn't come into play nearly as much towards the end of the war while 109 still could exploit its strengths better. I will say against this all of this, that the d9 overall was better then the g6 late which were among the most common 109s in service at that point. If you take, G-14 G-14S, G-10, and K-4 this all applies. The D9 does actually give the 190 quite a performance boost were it was lacking in the Anton series so this is less apparent with the Dora. So I guess this point is mainly for the late Antons, but it can still be applied to doras as they still relied on their aforementioned, dive, firepower, high speed handling, and roll rate. 109 production may have continued at the levels it did because of political shenanigans. I'm not to informed on the political show of Germany and production so I won't speak to it as I'm far to ignorant on the subject although I hear alot on it. But I would add that a good reason to continue 109 production that I think you might miss the point on is twofold. The Germans managed to produce the 109 in record numbers in record time. Even with all the Allied bombings, 109 production went up in 1944 (although poorer compared to a 1942 109 in terms of production quality), and the time to construct a 109 less then a 190. Also Engines. DB 605 engines were being pumped out as fast as possible. And to switch all 109 production to 190 and BMW would have meant worse production numbers and even more fighter shortages to the many Jagdgeschwaders across Germany at that time. It's simply not feasible. Lastly, the comment you made about Willy not designing better airframes... There were a few attempts at creating a 109 v2 if you will but they never were able to justify interrupting production to implement a slightly better air-frame design. You can see this with the Me-209 (2 attempts of which were made) and the Me-309. Although I would like a more realistic 109 for take off and landings, would be much more enticing and another thing to learn on the 109!
  4. You forgot a few things, 109 has better maneuverability overall, still very good dive rate against contemporary enemy aircraft, fluid coupling supercharger (meaning its performance doesn't suffer until 6k unlike the 190), the roll rate is very similar if you know how to snaproll, and superb handling and stall characteristics, and overall a very flexible aircraft in areas of performance. All which make the 109 a decent to good Boom and Zoomer, and a very good dog fighter. After a few hundred hours in the 109, you'll find that the 109 weak points can be overcome through a variety of methods, which is probably why experienced pilots didn't really have a problem with the 109s lack luster performance at the end of the war and could still go toe to toe with even the best allied aircraft. The 190s fighting ability is derived mostly from its speed, dive, and firepower. Unfortunately later in the war its speed and dive were overcome by contemporary allied aircraft and being not as flexible as the 109, didn't do as well. (Which in part is why 190s usually did the Bomber attacks) Whilst the 109s ability is diversified across many areas of performance, it always had a card up its sleeve if the pilot knew what he was doing. (Sorry, couldn't stand by while people weren't being nice to my baby)
  5. Fair enough, and I do think the 262 should be very hard to get, and only a limited quantity at that on the map at once.
  6. The 262 is the la5fn of the east in 1943. You can't kill it if he does everything right. But he won't be able to kill you if you fly right. The la5fn also gets the advantages of being a prop instead of an early jet, that is, high acceleration, good maneuverability, and engine durability both from damage and use that a pilot of a jet just doesn't get.
  7. Will these be available for the next taw to win?
  8. Why is there a timer between spawning of aircraft of 2 minutes?
  9. He didn't say its not happening. Clearly the issue exist and should be fixed. He's simply saying that the problem seems way more reported the experienced. Video proof has been provided and no doubt does it exist. But alot of people simply don't see aircraft when they get bounced. Wulfe and I are bloody 109 pilots at heart so we know the pains of blindspots. And everyone slips up and something will get through your vision. It is entirely possible that people are using this as an excuse, or rather, they convince themselves it's not their spotting but an issue of the game. We humans do this alot, and its not unrealistic to see it here too. I believe Wulfe is trying to bring a healthy level of skepticism to some of these claims. Evidence has been brought forth through video before, and that has shown this to be an issue as I wrote up above. But after 2,500 hours on IL2 I can't say I have experienced this more then a few times. And perhaps some people need to make sure they back up their claims through evidence that can be objectively looked at, instead of allegorical evidence which proves nothing.
  10. Please don't lock load outs! I prefer when I fly German aircraft for example to take non of the optional instruments and such for weight savings (I know I'm insane). If people want certain stuff they should have to pick it, it's not like its hard to remember.
  11. Fair enough. But what do you mean by realistic? Like the map setting and targets are realistic? Or the plane set? As far as I can tell CB is pretty realistic? I really do want KOTA to become played again once more. I much prefer your mid-late war spin on things.
  12. I'd recommend not trying to host late war stuff KOTA. CB seems to dominate that sector and honestly its boring flying only late war.
  13. Its not so much the black outs but the stupid damage modeling of pilots. If you get hit your disabled for 10-20 seconds sometimes. Its not enjoyable nor realistic at all.
  14. Once the Germans get a bit of a better engine, and when they expand the timeline backwards a bit then the Alby (hopefully we get the D III too!) and the Pflaz should fair better. These planes weren't as outclassed as they are in the game, it just happens they are the most obsolete aircraft being the oldest at the start of this time period. They would usually be facing a fair amount of older craft aswell but instead its mostly camels, spads, and a few R2bs
×
×
  • Create New...