Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JG4_Karaya

  1. You are missing the Bf109 completely, the workhorse of the Luftwaffe fighter arm on the Eastern front, the FW190 never set as much a foot in there as on the Western Front. Leaving out the Messerschmitt is like leaving out the Spitfire in Western Europe, therefore any eastern front scenario without it IMHO is senseless. As in the context of the original thread question, I'd personally go for the P-40 for the time being, simply because the P-39 did not really see much service before 1943 in the East whereas the P-40 did. I would therefore wait with the P-39 until we move into 1943 and beyond...
  2. An example of what happens if the devs use Soviet data for German aircraft. First of all most data is based on captured aircraft that we do not know which state they are in, how many flying hours the airframe has, how worn out the engine is, how rough the surface finish has become through use, etc. These tests are certainly not a good indication of what a factory fresh aircraft is capable of Look for the Soviet report at the end of this post! Notice the figures for the Bf109E & F (2nd and 3rd entry) First of all what is apparent is that the Emil is NOT in anything of a good shape. Speed figures of the report: Sea level: 440kmh 5000m: 546kmh Messerschmitt specifications (Bf109E-3): Sea level: 500kmh 5000m: 570kmh http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109E_V15a/Geschw_109V15a.html http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109E_French_trials/french_109e_performanceT.html Also turn times are excessively high (26.5 - 29.4), official Messerschmitt (calculated) data suggests a best turn time at constant altitude and speed of 18.96s at 1000m. Given that the Emil has a slightly bigger wing area (16.4m^2) than the Friedrich (16.1m^2) and is also much lighter (2550kg for an E-4, 2780kg for an F-2, 2890kg for an F-4) it seems only logical that the Emil would have a faster turn time than the Friedrich and Gustav which are quoted with taking 19.5-20.5 and 20.0-21.0 respectively for a full turn in test reports. http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109E_Baubeschreibung/109E3_Baubeschreibung.html Then there is the Bf109F (no exact model stated). This machine also seems to be wildly underperformant no matter if it's a F-2 or F-4. Speed figures of the report: Sea level: 510kmh 5000m: 556kmh Messerschmitt specifications (Bf109F-2): Sea level: 515kmh 5200m: 615kmh http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109F1F2_Kennblatt/Kennblatt_fur_Bf109F1F2_DB601N.PDF A Bf109F-4, the model that we are going to get, would be even faster than the F-2 due to its more powerful DB601E engine (530kmh at sea level, 635kmh at 6000m) Interestingly the Bf109G-2 (last entry, the 2nd from right is actually a G-2/R-6 with underwing gondolas which increase weight by 215kg and decrease level speed by about 8kmh on average) in the report is actually spot on, both in level speeds and turn times. The values match official Messerschmitt data pretty well and are even a tad on the high side Speed figures of the report: Sea level: 524kmh 7000m: 666kmh Messerschmitt specifications (Bf109G-1): Sea level: 537kmh 7000m: 660kmh Rechlin specifications (Bf109G-1): Sea level: 524kmh 6400m: 650kmh http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G_Rechlinkennblatt/rechlin_G1_blatt.html http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G_Erlatrials/Erla109G_13speedrun_scatter_web.jpg http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G1-6_datasheet/109G_perftable.html I think this is a very good showcase of how picking foreign test data can lead to some very flawed results and a warped picture of an aircrafts performance. Please do not go down that road and be fair to all sides!
  3. For the love of god, please, PLEASE use GERMAN flight test data for GERMAN aircraft, use SOVIET test data for SOVIET aircraft. Anything else is bound to lead to biased and skewed results. Else I foresee similar FM discrepencies as are still present in RoF with most of the mid war German fighters being unbearably slow snailicopters, Camels outrunning anything short of a Fokker D.VII and Pfalz D.XII, etc. PUH-LEASE with sugar on top
  4. +1 I was expecting at least one of the "premium" planes to be the La-5, that the other would be the FW190 I did not expect, especially after the heated discussion about wether or not it actually participated in the air battles over Stalingrad. I personally was expected something more among the lines of say a Bf110 or a Bf109E Jabo, etc. Also I am wondering about the 2 aircraft that will be released after launch, my guess would be that one of them is either the MC.202 or IAR80 and the other is some model of the I-16 family. I find the premium price tag quite excessive, not going to preorder at this time, I will probably wait for the launch, then get the "normal" version and buy the La5/FW190 seperately...
  5. Small? Last time we had a talk I was under the impression you were being paid rather generously (at least compared to what I earn)
  6. The early one was, we're not talking about the FN model yet, the first series that saw combat at Stalingrad was a much worse performer with a topspeed of barely 580kmh at 6200m. If the devs get the FMs right then there will be a lot of moaning and bitching about what many people expect should be a great fighter... it was not... yet
  7. Am extremely sceptical about both the leveling and unlocking of modifications or weapons and the unlocking of planes, I think that none of this fits into a historical flight simulation, leave it for the Battlefield and Call of Duty titles...
  8. Nice video, is that two different aircraft variants shown in the video or just different gun loadouts for one and the same aircraft? I ask because the two LaGG-3s in the first half have non protruding cannon barrels (ShVAK prolly) whereas the single LaGG-3 in the second half seems to have a different cannon based on the fact that the cannon barrel does not end flush with the prop. So either this is a same series fighter with a 23mm Vya or its a different version aircraft all together (K-37 or LaGG-3IT). PS: Oh, nevermind, saw that in the YT video description it is mentioned as a 37mm armed K-37...
  9. At the beginning they also showed a Bf109F and captioned it a "Bf109E"... the average viewer most likely does not notice
  10. Here's an ICE key up for grabs - first come, first served! TQN75-XQHNQ-6D4M9-H2V92-4U46Z
  11. I do not want to belittle Team Fusion's efforts but tweaking code & adjusting flight models is a lot easier than creating new aircraft and maps that are on par with the stock content of CloD in terms of quality. That is why I am pretty sure that CloD will never expand past the BoB theatre. Unfortunately BoS seems to be our only hope for an expanding WWII sim atm and therefore it seems perfectly justified to question developer decisions early on... if this project fails to please the masses then the WW2 sim community will be between a rock and a hard place. I for one am VERY sceptical about the multiplayer aspect. The one thing that kept my interest in IL-2 alive for years was the existance of online wars, if those had not existed I would probably have lost interest much earlier...
  12. Are you serious? They would have to be flippin' mad not to support Windows 7, who cares about 8... pfff
  13. They were flown with gondolas and droptanks however, and disabling invalid combinations should not be too complicated from a programming point of view I'd take this system over scrolling through dozens of pre determined loadouts any time of the week - look at some of the late Bf109s in IL-2 1946 to see just how many variations are possible and plausible, each loadout would have to be individually coded with the old system in mind which increases chances that we are limited to just a fraction.
  14. It would be a droplist with a variety of things to choose from for each single pylon or pair of. Should be quite obvious, no?
  15. Sorry if this has been asked for before but I feel that the loadout section deserves to be improved upon for BoS (coming from RoF which I assume will be the basis) In RoF just like in the old IL-2 series it is the case that you get a fixed list of loadouts to choose from (combinations of bombs mostly) but for a WWII sim in which the number of possible combinations is most likely much larger than in WWI where planes were happy to even carry a handful of small bomblets it would make sense to be able to assign bombs/droptanks/gunpods per pylon (or pair of these) On the example of a Bf109G for example it would make sense to have several hardpoints modelled that allow for individual setups: cowling MGs: full, empty hub cannon: full, empty (for a later model G-6 for example the choice between MG151/20 and Mk108) centerline rack: 4xSC50, 4xSD50, 1xSC250, 1xSD250, 1xAB250, droptank, empty under wing: MG151/20 gondolas, empty It would be a lot easier to set an aircraft up that way than having to implement and scroll through a billion pre-determined loadout mixes as is the case in the old IL-2 series and RoF. This should hopefully also eliminate the problem of being dependent on the devs decision of implementing certain loadouts which was a great issue with IL-2. It took ages to finally get proper loadouts for the Bf109Fs as well as some of the later Gustav which only had gunpods and droptanks but no bombs to choose from... Anyone agree?
  16. Much of the popularity of the P-39 with the Soviet pilots probably has to do with its very generous equipment including Radios which were a rarity early war with the VVS and even later on their own radios were not up to western standards, often times only the leader of a formation had a receiver/transmitter set while his wingmen had a receiver only sets Proper gunsights which often times were quite rudimentary on soviet fighters early in the war. German pilots commented that early war you just had no reason to fear a soviet fighter on your six as they just could not aim their guns properly Armoured glass that would not distort, age and yellow after a short time Armament that was very hard hitting at the time (4x.303s + 2x.50s + 1x37mm) although it is said that in the field often times the LMGs were removed to safe weight and increase performance
  17. There is little to choose between a 1942 Mk.Vb and the 1943 vanilla Yak-9 speed wise but the Spitfire has the advantage in climbrate, turning performance and firepower. As said the Yaks never were too impressive (imho) up until the Yak-3 which improved quite a bit in terms of speed while turning performance only improved marginally - same wing loading as a fully loaded Yak-9D but better power loading - the initial Yak-9 probably was a better turner...
  18. That is because in the old IL-2 series all La-5s & 7s were about 20kmh too fast at all altitudes or at the very least at altitude. To me the best western allied fighter was the Mustang Mk.III simply because it left pretty much any other fighter standing and still had appreciable handling qualities. I never liked the Tempest much as it was just too nervous for my taste..
  19. Btw, here's a very interesting page covering the MiG-3 http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/mig3.html#development
  20. I think I will have to disagree with your assessment of the 190 vs VVS planes. Any FW pilot who is competent and confident enough to fight it out with Spitfires is not going to be troubled by Yaks, LaGGs and Las. The contemporary Spitfires are usually every bit as good as the "bread-and-butter" Yaks and then some. Compare a 1942 Mk.V Spitfire @ 16lbs boost vs an early 1943 vanilla Yak-9 (the best performing variant actually) and you'll see that the former is better in about every single way, and we are not even talking Mk.IX yet... The only fighters that might fight the A model 190s on even terms are the late FN model La-5s & 7s and the Yak-3, simply because their speed at low level puts them on par with the FW.
  21. LOL, so your basic RoF routine transferred to BoS? Have fun being eaten up by Gustavs as the G-1 to -4 are all faster, better climbing and better turning than any of the serial produced MiGs. As for the original thread: The IL-2 will have a hard time defending itself as they are usually flying nap-of-the-earth and thus have no room to maneuver plus their vertical maneuvrability is severly lacking to say the least. I remember an IL-2 online war mission where a score of red pilots took on IL-2s that my squad intercepted flying Bf109E-4s. Needless to say they were slaughtered as we just dove on them, fired a burst, climbed back up (rinse, repeat). They just were sitting ducks even facing the venerable Emil...
  22. Yes I do realize that and I stated so in the 5th dev update thread, still the difference in wing loading is so great that I doubt it it possible to overcome it with any reasonable mean. Furthermore I think Kwiatek posted some turn time figures for the I-16 Type 18 (16s) and the MiG-3 (22s) and these showed that in fact the two are not even remotely close! There are also turn time figures in the links I have posted and they are in agreement with the others (17 vs 22-23s).
  23. I have posted this in another thread but seeing as this is still MiG-3 vs I-16: The I-16 Type 18 has a wing loading of just 126kg/m^2 (takeoff weight: 1830kg, wing area: 14.54m^2) whereas the MiG-3 comes in at 192kg/m^2 (takeoff weight: 3350kg, wing area: 17.44m^2), an increase of 52%, so I personally cannot see how the MiG should ever be able to outturn the Rata... The I-16 was known to be very agile but also a "hot" aircraft in that it gave little stall warning and could enter a very nasty spin. The MiG-3 also had handling problems at first until it had leading edge slats (similar to the Bf109's) installed which improved low speed flying characteristics but I highly doubt these could offset the 50% difference in wing loading! Also the MiG-3 should not best any of its German opponents in a sustained slow speed turning fight as it basically has the same wing loading as a 1943 Bf109G-6 (3100kg, 16.1m^2). I-16 and MiG-3 data taken from here btw: http://www.wio.ru/tacftr/polikarp.htm http://www.wio.ru/tacftr/mig.htm
  24. Ok, seems like its the french tests only that are not showing up as you said... On the "Baubeschreibung" for the Bf109E the turn radius/time chart however is missing ("See for graphical illustration HERE.") http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109E_Baubeschreibung/109E3_Baubeschreibung.html
  • Create New...