Bf109 vs. Yak 1 contrast

[ImPeRaToR]

You are just a lost cause Emil.

[Mewt]

Why does EVERYTHING have to be so black and white and so polarizing? "TnB is the best!" "No BnZ is the best!"

 

You know what? Any pilot worth their salt would consider ANY tactic possible and viable depending on the situation and platform available.

 

Wouldn't it be better energy spent help each other be better pilots, and make better strategic decisions rather than trying to convince each other and yourself that your own personal tactic is above all criticism?

 

Just a thought. 

[FuriousMeow]

Why does EVERYTHING have to be so black and white and so polarizing? "TnB is the best!" "No BnZ is the best!"

 

You know what? Any pilot worth their salt would consider ANY tactic possible and viable depending on the situation and platform available.

 

Wouldn't it be better energy spent help each other be better pilots, and make better strategic decisions rather than trying to convince each other and yourself that your own personal tactic is above all criticism?

 

Just a thought. 

 

Yep. Being either TnB or BnZ equates to a limited tactile approach. Combat of any form is an ever changing environment that requires adaptability, otherwise game over.

[=69.GIAP=MALYSH]

indeed. The USAAF and RAF won the skies over western Europe by engaging the enemy wherever they could be found. P51's detached from the bomber stream's return leg and went all the way down to the deck if need be, looking for targets of opportunity. VVS escorts engaged any enemy attacking their il2 formation, regardless of energy state or numerical inferiority.

The contrast between "B&Z and live" or "go down and surely die" is simply nonsense. The point is not to spend every mission as low as possible, the point is to go wherever you're needed whenever you're needed (up to a reasonable point) and fight according to your situation, not your personal desires. As mentioned, if the clouds are low at least some fighter cover needs to be below clouds to cover airspace or protect CAS aircraft. In a mission, that is 

 

but we're still (often) looking at "T&B" vs "B&Z" like the two are contrasting doctrines. Let me give a few scenarios.

 

1. A 109 is coming down on a yak with E advantage. He pulls lead pursuit, takes a shot. Classic B&Z.

2. As before but the 109 pulls a bit of lag to reduce his aspect angle, then pulls lead to shoot. Still B&Z? Not entirely.

3. As before but the 109 pulls up after the shot to assess the psychology of his opponent. If his opponent is rattled or damaged the 109 might choose to fight more aggressively and burn some E to get a clean shot. Still B&Z? Don't think so.

 

What if 

4. A yak is chasing a 109, closing in. The 109 breaks, the yak follows in a turn. Classic T&B

5. As above but the yak pops up (in the turn) to conserve his E, then (at corner velocity) slices downwards slightly for a harder turn. We call this a pitch-to-slice. Still turning, but using energy to turn much more efficiently.

6. What if it's a 109 closing in, he does the same but turns a smidge late, to displace his circle for a low-aspect snapshot, then exits the fight. Definitely not T&B, but not B&Z either.

 

 

It's not that one is better than the other, neither one of them exists at all. They are two sides of the same coin. By adhering to either one pilots lock out a whole host of possible responses to any one situation. Even when you choose to make only one pass, it's not a bad idea to reduce aspect angle as much as possible. You do that with exactly the same tools as you would use in a "turning fight".

 

WWII is a fascinating conflict but some very bright minds have been working on air combat doctrine for 70 years since then. The computer has allowed us to map energy curves in the which changed the concepts of T&B and B&Z into a combined theory of "energy maneuvering". This acknowledges the relationship between angles and energy, similar to the relationship between kinetic and potential energy. Geometry describes the relationship between two aircraft, and the pilot can affect that geometry using a set of tools. 

 

Luckily for us, this information is not too hard to find. The Falcon4 community keeps a decent chunk of updated USAF material, e.g. http://www.sci.fi/~fta/chap1.htm   of course we're interested in the guns-only stuff, but the geometry is the same.

[VeryOldMan]

My point is nto  that one is better than the other.  Jsut that if you know your plane is inferior in TnB you would be dumb to provoke TnB. People argued that you are not useful if you are not   commmiting  to the fight and  I sustain that     by staying above and boucing  whiel not dieing you are far more effective at protectign your  bombers than  goign in to a tnB that you will surely loose and only delay  your bomber being shot down by 1 minute.

[dkoor]

Gang bang luftwaffe style is proven to be most successful tactic in IL-2.

 

Can beat one FW, but you can't beat several of them be sure.

 

The only thing that stopped me for employing that tactic in just about any aircraft I flew is low structure integrity on some (like Yak or Lavochkin where you can kiss yer wings goodbye when you get really fast).

 

Anyhow, I hope to re-live some of the stuff like this:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e9bNiq07kw

 

Jaws2002 is right... you sure most remember fights where started from lesser position but came out on top... be it with luck playing part, your good move, something else, or a combination... these are fights that count.

And if that FW-190 tore me apart I betcha he wouldn't remember that occasion like me now.

 

[Jaws2002]

This wasn't even about z&B vs t&b. It was about flying always the fastest plane on the map and only engage with huge advantage, against everything else.

 

But in the end, we are not in an army and don't have to fight for our life. Everyone can play the game however he wants to get the most fun out of his money. There's no right or wrong way to play a game.

I get tired really quick of the best planes in the game.

Edited October 3, 2013 by Jaws2002

[Volkoff]

Well to be fair, it's not all looking bad for the VVS. While the LaGG is going to have a tough time, especially since we get a version with no slats so handling is gonna suck, the Yak-1 isn't gonna be half bad...

 

 

The Yak should beat the 109 handily in roll rate as well as in overall maneuverability at high speeds. Keep it above 400 km/h, and there should be little trouble.

 

 

 

I am particularly interested in the maximum roll rate and the high speed maneuverabilty performance of the LaGG-3, Yak-1, and La-5, particularly relative to Axis counterparts. As per evolved Soviet practice, I intend to avoid operating as a singleton and I will always coordinate with other 69 GIAP squadmates, the Section being the smallest unit I will sim fly in online. Roll rate and high speed maneuvers will factor strongly into many Soviet Section tactics I will be experimenting with along the way.  MJ

Edited October 3, 2013 by =69.GIAP=MIKHA

[Jaws2002]

I am particularly interested in the maximum roll rate and the high speed maneuverabilty performance of the LaGG-3, Yak-1, and La-5, particularly relative to Axis counterparts. As per evolved Soviet practice, I intend to avoid operating as a singleton and I will always coordinate with other 69 GIAP squadmates, the Section being the smallest unit I will sim fly in online. Roll rate and high speed maneuvers will factor strongly into many Soviet Section tactics I will be experimenting with along the way. MJ

 

 

I'm sure Tushka will fly something almost as slow as the Aico.

 

Had tons of fun flying that slow paperbasket with Tushka.

[Volkoff]

I'm sure Tushka will fly something almost as slow as the Aico.

 

Had tons of fun flying that slow paperbasket with Tushka.

 

Yes, I remember how highly effective Tushka and Gamecock were in ROF, using the N28 in a very well coordinated Section. Tushka is certainly also hghly effective in the Airco, now, as you point out. I am sure that he will play a big role in helping to shape our Section tactics. His demonstrated experience with planes like the N28 or DH2 should really come in handy, particularly as we try to deveolop the LaGG-3 into an effective fighter. Giiven the demonstrated roll rate of the LaGG-3, and the fact that she has a Klimov M-105Pf engine, I have not totally given up on the LaGG-3 as an effective fighter. Sure she will make a great bomber interceptor, but given an altitude advantage, a great roll rate and high speed maneuvers coordinated in highly effective sections, maybe she is more. In any event, working on LaGG-3 section tactics should help to shape our future use of the Yak-1 and La-5.     MJ

 

P.S. I hope we can eventually get the IAR 81 into the sim at some point.

Edited October 3, 2013 by =69.GIAP=MIKHA

[Jaws2002]

The Lagg3 used like the Noop28 in rof should work out ok. I spent about half my ROF time in noop 28 and flying it coordonated in group, it can be very effective.

 

In looks in ROF, the noop 28 made a good IAR-80 wannabe.

 

[Jaws2002]

Btw. There's interest by the team to get the iar-80/81 in game pretty soon. There's a poll posted in the polls section where you can chose between Machi 202 and Iar80/81:

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/729-poll-what-non-german-fighter-would-you-see-il-2-bos/

 

 

For Stalingrad the iar is the better choice, since it was used heavily in combat at Stalingrad for three months. Both iar80 and iar 81's were there.

 

You can help make it reality.

[AX2]

6 ?? years ago... my first campaign in squad  was in Hurricanes!

My second campaign in squad was in IARs! We have great memories about the IARs !

 

You can help make it reality.

Why not ?

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/729-poll-what-non-german-fighter-would-you-see-il-2-bos/

 

 

You have a +1

Edited October 4, 2013 by Mustang

[Crump]

 

but we're still (often) looking at "T&B" vs "B&Z" like the two are contrasting doctrines. Let me give a few scenarios.

 

1. A 109 is coming down on a yak with E advantage. He pulls lead pursuit, takes a shot. Classic B&Z.

2. As before but the 109 pulls a bit of lag to reduce his aspect angle, then pulls lead to shoot. Still B&Z? Not entirely.

3. As before but the 109 pulls up after the shot to assess the psychology of his opponent. If his opponent is rattled or damaged the 109 might choose to fight more aggressively and burn some E to get a clean shot. Still B&Z? Don't think so.

 

What if 

4. A yak is chasing a 109, closing in. The 109 breaks, the yak follows in a turn. Classic T&B

5. As above but the yak pops up (in the turn) to conserve his E, then (at corner velocity) slices downwards slightly for a harder turn. We call this a pitch-to-slice. Still turning, but using energy to turn much more efficiently.

6. What if it's a 109 closing in, he does the same but turns a smidge late, to displace his circle for a low-aspect snapshot, then exits the fight. Definitely not T&B, but not B&Z either.

 

 

All of this is exactly the element most of these games are missing.  With the absence of stability and control effects, atmospheric modeling, as well as some of the finer aerodynamic effects it is artificially easier to reach performance states the reality would have found difficult.

[Finkeren]

I am particularly interested in the maximum roll rate and the high speed maneuverabilty performance of the LaGG-3, Yak-1, and La-5, particularly relative to Axis counterparts. As per evolved Soviet practice, I intend to avoid operating as a singleton and I will always coordinate with other 69 GIAP squadmates, the Section being the smallest unit I will sim fly in online. Roll rate and high speed maneuvers will factor strongly into many Soviet Section tactics I will be experimenting with along the way.  MJ

That's my expectation as well. Most Soviet fighters should have an overall advantage over the Bf 109 in high speed maneuverability. I very much look forward to find out, how the controls are modelled at different speeds. 

[VeryOldMan]

That's my expectation as well. Most Soviet fighters should have an overall advantage over the Bf 109 in high speed maneuverability. I very much look forward to find out, how the controls are modelled at different speeds. 

 

 

On moderately high speed yes, their problems come back at  stupdly high dive speeds when they   broke more easily than  LW planes. Also the FW190   is undisputed king of high speed maneuverability on the game planeset.

[Mac_Messer]

For Stalingrad the iar is the better choice, since it was used heavily in combat at Stalingrad for three months. Both iar80 and iar 81's were there.

 

You can help make it reality.

The IAR 80 yuk, ugly plane. A poorman`s Focke.

 

 

 

 

 

I want it!

That's my expectation as well. Most Soviet fighters should have an overall advantage over the Bf 109 in high speed maneuverability. I very much look forward to find out, how the controls are modelled at different speeds. 

I don`t know. The very stiff elevator authority of the Bf109 at higher speeds was supposedly proven to be a myth.

Edited October 4, 2013 by Mac_Messer

[Crump]

 

On moderately high speed yes, their problems come back at  stupdly high dive speeds when they   broke more easily than  LW planes. Also the FW190   is undisputed king of high speed maneuverability on the game planeset.

 

 

The FM is able to sum the aerodynamic forces and determine the moments about the CG.

 

 

In AFM an aircraft is separated into numerous parts, and parameters are set individually for every piece; aerodynamic force is calculated separately for each of them, and the plane’s motion results from multiple indexes taken from these forces

 

It is just a step further to model a dynamic static margin.  In a sense, the FM needs to be layered. 

 

If the aircraft is in trim then:

 

Moments about the AC - Stability margin(Lift Force) = 0

 

The aircraft trim ability is the used to set the equation to zero along the axis of motion.

 

If the FM is already:

 

 

aerodynamic force is calculated separately for each of them, and the plane’s motion results from multiple indexes taken from these forces

 

Then the stability and control characteristics should be reasonably approximated by a dynamic CG where the stability margin changes with load and attitude.

 

This way such things as acceleration sensitivity can be modeled.

[Crump]

 

The very stiff elevator authority of the Bf109 at higher speeds was supposedly proven to be a myth.

 

 

It is not a myth.  It was purposely designed that way and is a good thing.  Keeps pilots alive and maneuvering by preventing them from breaking their airplane or taking it to places it cannot fly.

 

The Bf-109 series conforms with today's standard for unlimited class aerobatic aircraft and was designed to conform to a similar standard of stability and control adopted at the time by the RLM.

 

Most other countries did not have defined stability and control standards.  The definitions of what was acceptable varied greatly from company to company, institution to institution.

 

Therefore, you ended up with many aircraft placed the pilot survival firmly in his own hands.  It was up to him not to take the aircraft where it could not fly or break it.  Unfortunately this leads to unnecessary accidents without any gain in performance outside of the pilots mistaken belief that the controls being easy to depart the aircraft from the envelope was a good thing.

[dkoor]

Trouble is that with such limitations in game you end up with other aircraft having unrealistic advantage over 109.

They don't have such "limitations" so we had some aircraft that could tore their wings apart without you even blacking out.

In P-51 you don't even have to work hard for that, just pull the stick up hard at +700kph.

 

Same thing with P-38, it suffered for supposedly historical high-speed lawn darting disadvantage, whereas other aircraft could achieve around 1000kph on such alts. Namely, P-47. P-38 loops uncontrollaby looong before that.

 

I just hope to see some proper pilot limitations modeled so we don't have such situations anymore of people doing insane G's all the time.

[Crump]

 

Trouble is that with such limitations in game you end up with other aircraft having unrealistic advantage over 109.

 

It think you mean without the realistic limitations you end up with an unrealistic advantage.  I agree. 

 

You make an excellent point on the pilot physiology as well.  In fact, that is was much more of a limiting factor than anything else.

[VeryOldMan]

And guess what? They lost the war. Back then still the infantry wan the wars. If the infantry needs cover during a deffensive operation, when you have cloud cover at 1000 meters, you need the fighters under the clouds if you want them to be of any use. Flying safe at 3000m will let your army to the mercy of the enemy il-2s. Then when you go home to land your three kils, you may find a t-34 parked in your spot. :D

 

The thing is even if Hartman had different treatment, no army can afford to allow all fighter pilots fly however they want.

And where's the fun in flying safe only?

I got a lot of kills while Z&B, but I remember better those kills I worked hard for, against the odds.

 

 

A yes..   was the VVS that inflicted most of the defeats over LW.. oo wait..   the  T-34s massive army and  stupdly huge  rocket barrages obviously  did less damage than  brave heroes  tnB over LW pilots of their imagination.. because not many VVS pilto shad the chance to TnB on LW fighters because  they  woudl hardly   go into that situation, except on desperate situaions..  right when the war had already been won by those other factors.

 

 

 

I laugh at anyoen that THINKs that TnB requires more skill,  my opinion is exact opposite. If i was in a squadron and they complained that I avoided tNB in the deck, I would laugh at them and leave and never feel any regret.

[AX2]

 

I don`t know. The very stiff elevator authority of the Bf109 at higher speeds was supposedly proven to be a myth.

It is not a myth. +1

Sorry for off topic

But

I read an interview a Russian pilot he said.. La 5Fn was much heavier in controls than the La5 .    And the La5Fn needed a very experienced pilot. 

Some times the russian pilots remove the canons in the spifires, to improve the performance in dogfight against the BF 109.

Few know that, the P51 was twice as heavy in controls than the P47 at high speed, 46lbs in stick at 5 gs.

Everyone knows that the BF 109 at high speed is heavy in stick.. vs  ?...

Personally I think the BF 109 G6 FM was really bad modeled in IL-2.  only modeled by Incomplete  mathematical tables and formulas.

Of course, I am not an aviation engineer, they will say the last word.

But many things about the planes remain in mystery also for engineers, at that point , the engineers can kill a flight sim o give life a the flight sim 

[ImPeRaToR]

Well hopefully we will see a 109G-6 modelled by these guys in a year or two

[Volkoff]

Imp was right about the Yak-1 canopy type. We are getting the later paperback canopy type with the small rear side windows. We can now compare the fit and finish of the Yak-1 and the Bf-109 Our Yak-1 has a lived in worn look to her, just as our Bf-109 does. In terms of fit and finish, the model for the 109 seems to have an overall appearance of better quality of fit and finish, when compared to our Yak-1. The models seem to very accurately reflect the differences in manufacturing quality control.

[DB605]

 

It is not a myth.

 

 

Sure it's not myth. it's well known fact that it's become stiffer after 550+km/h. But old books etc. saying it's so stiff that it's uncontrolable at higher speeds is myth. It was manouverable even very high speeds, just needed more strenght to pull/push stick than some other planes.

Edited October 4, 2013 by DB605

[dkoor]

It think you mean without the realistic limitations you end up with an unrealistic advantage.  I agree. 

 

You make an excellent point on the pilot physiology as well.  In fact, that is was much more of a limiting factor than anything else.

Yeah.

It is kinda indirect advantage.

 

Or maybe better put, due to limitations of the game some types always had an upper hand over other types.

And that upper hand wasn't there IRL.

 

There are also things like the IL-2 always favoured cannons over MGs more, therefore we had a lot of bitter argues about .50cals at UBI...

Sure someone will say, cannons are stronger than MGs. Nothing wrong with that, but game favoured structure damage over other types of damage (due to type of missions mostly flown, no one likes to fly 1hr missions or wait for enemy to crash 20mins after sustaining damage etc., due to kill claims - when you blow up E/A you sure get the credit but when you cripple it with .303s and some wise guy pulls 20mms at him and blows him he gets the credit - this scenario happened more often than not on crowded server etc., also there simply weren't enough DM boxes to make LMG or HMG for that matter that deadly they really were IRL).

 

Like I already said I hope to see most of these things cleared up in BoS.

It's in everyone's interest.

 

But the ones shot down  .

[AX2]

saying it's so stiff that it's uncontrolable at higher speeds is myth.,

BF 109  In dive... I remember Luftwaffe dive test the.. the pilot reach TAS 906 kms/h in dive, but above 750 to 780  kms/h was very dangerous !   the problem was the lateral stability. 

But,  TAS 750 Kms/h on deck  is not the same TAS 750 Kms/h at 24000 Fts, The Air density is different,  ( The pull/push stick on deck can be hard,  but  at height  the stick sure is lighter ) I Think ... ???

 

 

 

 

 

 just needed more strenght to pull/push stick than some other planes.

Yes... and... WRONG !!! 

 "Some others planes " ??  ....Which one ?    .. please tell me.

I recently discovered that the P51 is twice heavier in stick  than the P47.

About many planes we have lack of data  it is a fact.

Only I want a balanced flight sim  for all sides , when data are missing or remain in mystery... We must give a chance to all planes. 

[DB605]

BF 109  In dive... I remember Luftwaffe dive test the.. the pilot reach TAS 906 kms/h in dive, but above 750 to 780  kms/h was very dangerous !   the problem was the lateral stability. 

But,  TAS 750 Kms/h on deck  is not the same TAS 750 Kms/h at 24000 Fts, The Air density is different,  ( The pull/push stick on deck can be hard,  but  at height  the stick sure is lighter ) I Think ... ???

 

 

 

Yes... and... WRONG !!! 

 "Some others planes " ??  ....Which one ?    .. please tell me.

I recently discovered that the P51 is twice heavier in stick  than the P47.

About many planes we have lack of data  it is a fact.

Only I want a balanced flight sim  for all sides , when data are missing or remain in mystery... We must give a chance to all planes. 

 

Can't remember exactly what planes right now but at least fw 190 and p 47 was lighter to handle.

I don't want any balancing, i wan't realism I guess that's what you meant too...

 

Quote from virtualpilots.fi:

 

""109's controls locked up in high speed."

- Another very mythical subject. Before answering one must be asked: "What model are you talking about?"

- There was large differences between various types in the high speed controls. Each newer version handled better in high speeds, the best being the 109 K series which had flettner tabs for enhanced aileron control - at least in theory, as it is debated whether many Me 109 K-4s actually had those flettners enabled. 109 G series were much better on this regard compared to 109 E, which yet again wasn't such a dog as many claim. 109 test pilots, Russians included, have said that the 109 had pretty good roll at higher speeds - again not as good as the 190s, P-51 or P-47 - but it maintained a good lateral control ability. Recovering from extremerely fast 750-900 km/h vertical dives was the problem - not level flight or even normal combat flying.

- Spitfire and a 109 had equal roll rates at up to 400 mph speeds. Not even the favourite warhorse of the Americans, P-51, exactly shined with its roll rate at high speeds. P-51 pilots have actually said that flying P-51 at high speeds was like driving a truck.

- An often quoted British report made of a Me 109 E talks about the "short stick travel", "due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick" and "at 400 mph with 40 pounds side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4 seconds to get into a 45 degree roll or bank. That immediately classifies the airplane as being unmaneuverable and unacceptable as a fighter."

- The report claims that The 109-E needed 37lb stick force for a 1/5 aileron deflection at 400mph. Coincidentally, the Spitfire 1 required 57 lb stick force from the pilot for similar deflection at similar speed. This is a 54% higher stickforce for the Spitfire pilot.

- The British test is taken as gospel by many, while it is just one test, made by the enemy, using a worn out and battle damaged airframe. German flight tests report pilots using aileron forces of over 45 lbs and 109's stick was designed for elevator stick forces of up to or over 85kg, over 180 lbs. Finnish Bf 109 G-2 test revealed that at 450 km/h the stick could be still fully taken to the limit with ~10 kg force (20 pounds). Aileron roll without rudder could be performed to both direction from 400-450 km/h in 4-5 s. This is better than the Spitfire with fabric ailerons, about the same as Spitfire with metal ailerons and slightly below clipped wing Spitfire. So it was more matter of the pilot and the test procedures, than maneuverability of the Bf 109. Several details of that test are suspicious and German chief test pilot Heinrich Beauvais disagreed with it and with Eric Brown. Beauvais tried to get into contact after the war with Eric Brown to discuss the matters, but Brown refused to discuss with him. This being the case, it seems that Brown wasn't willing to listen a pilot who'd flown more on the 109 than he ever had, and was more interested on believing his negative findings of the 109 than being proven wrong by a real expert."

[Crump]

 

An often quoted British report made of a Me 109 E talks about the "short stick travel", "due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick" and "at 400 mph with 40 pounds side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4 seconds to get into a 45 degree roll or bank. That immediately classifies the airplane as being unmaneuverable and unacceptable as a fighter."

 

 

Sounds to me like they had a rigging issue and without other Bf-109's to compare, did not catch it.

[Finkeren]

On moderately high speed yes, their problems come back at stupdly high dive speeds when they broke more easily than LW planes. Also the FW190 is undisputed king of high speed maneuverability on the game planeset.

No argument there.

[=RvE=Windmills]

 

 

Beauvais tried to get into contact after the war with Eric Brown to discuss the matters, but Brown refused to discuss with him. This being the case, it seems that Brown wasn't willing to listen a pilot who'd flown more on the 109 than he ever had, and was more interested on believing his negative findings of the 109 than being proven wrong by a real expert."

 

Pffffffff

[Jaws2002]

 

 

 

 

[LLv44_Mprhead]

I have said this before and I will say it again: All tests and test reports made by opposing force using captured aircraft should be taken with grain of salt. First there is the issue of aircraft being unfamiliar and flown without proper manuals and documents from factory etc., then there is possibility that airframe/engine is excessively worn or damaged and the last but not least, the human factor. By that I mean human tendency to make a findings that support your expectations and beliefs. So if you think that your aircraft is the best in the world you tend to get results that support that. These are the reasons I think that for example Finnish test reports of Bf-109 G-2 and G-6 are more reliable than let's say British or Russians.

[AX2]

I have said this before and I will say it again: All tests and test reports made by opposing force using captured aircraft should be taken with grain of salt. First there is the issue of aircraft being unfamiliar and flown without proper manuals and documents from factory etc., then there is possibility that airframe/engine is excessively worn or damaged and the last but not least, the human factor. By that I mean human tendency to make a findings that support your expectations and beliefs. So if you think that your aircraft is the best in the world you tend to get results that support that. These are the reasons I think that for example Finnish test reports of Bf-109 G-2 and G-6 are more reliable than let's say British or Russians.

I must agree +1

 

@DB605

If you want realism ..

I will like see a BoS interview to Klaus Plasa .

With a camera or simply by E-mail... The email is cheaper,  And intelligent Fan made, questions are easy to do.

 

There is the last one pilot of BF 109, flying the BF in 2013 ! , but it's best not ask and ignore him ???  

Thats answered all questions about of realism for me.

For that reason, I think the balance is always the best option for a flight sim. 

 

 

Also

Klaus Plasa really files that 109 aggressively ,  I like  the wingtip vortices on a BF 109  

[dkoor]

Not to mention that Finns actually flew this aircraft into battle, so eventually their pilots knew those rides inside out.

Yep I'd rather take their word on 109s.

[Volkoff]

Not to mention that Finns actually flew this aircraft into battle, so eventually their pilots knew those rides inside out.

Yep I'd rather take their word on 109s.

 

The Finns took a few LaGG-3's into battle too. I think LeLv 32 used one of the LaGG-3's and maybe the other two as well. Didn't a Finnish ace get one of his kills with a LaGG-3 and the rest with the P-36 Hawk or something like that?     MJ

Edited October 6, 2013 by =69.GIAP=MIKHA

[DB605]

The Finns took a few LaGG-3's into battle too. I think LeLv 32 used one of the LaGG-3's and maybe the other two as well. Didn't a Finnish ace get one of his kills with a LaGG-3 and the rest with the P-36 Hawk or something like that?     MJ

Yes, Eino Koskinen shot down russian LaGG 3 with it. Must have been intersting dogfight. Lack of spare parts greatly restrict the use of captured planes.

 Finns also ordered 22 captured Mig-3 from germans but they were destroyed in bombing at germany.

[SKG51_robtek]

 

I must agree +1

 

@DB605

If you want realism ..

I will like see a BoS interview to Klaus Plasa .

With a camera or simply by E-mail... The email is cheaper,  And intelligent Fan made, questions are easy to do.

 

There is the last one pilot of BF 109, flying the BF in 2013 ! , but it's best not ask and ignore him ???  

Thats answered all questions about of realism for me.

For that reason, I think the balance is always the best option for a flight sim. 

 

 

Also

Klaus Plasa really files that 109 aggressively ,  I like  the wingtip vortices on a BF 109  

 

Excuse me, but Klaus Plasa is flying a museum piece which will NEVER!!! reach the limits of its flight envelope again, except in a emergency.

The gamers here are usually disputing about the limits, not the normal flight.

[Volkoff]

Yes, Eino Koskinen shot down russian LaGG 3 with it. Must have been intersting dogfight. Lack of spare parts greatly restrict the use of captured planes.

 Finns also ordered 22 captured Mig-3 from germans but they were destroyed in bombing at germany.

 

Ah! Yes, thanks DB605!   I was trying to think of his name.  MJ