Why I still dislike Il-2 CloD as a Bf109 Pilot

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I am a Bf109 fan, and as such was greatly interested in CloD in the beginning. As the game was utter [Edited], as was my PC and so I didn't play until a couple of months ago, unitl I got my new Laptop, which runs the TF mod smoothly.

So I did a couple of test flights all on my own, getting to know her, and she was nothing like I expected her, especially when compared to the Spitfire. I knew that the Spitifre should be lighter and easier to fly at high speeds but roughly equal when slower. I also knew that the Bf109 should have better roll speed at low speeds, and inferior at the dive limit.

So, disappointed as I was I read up, trying to find where the Bf109 was so clearly inferior to the Spitfire, and I didn't find anything.

And it seemed more and more that apparently the Bf109E ingame was built entirely around british opinions and results and therefore biased.

And even then it still is worse than even the british tried to show in their tests.

 

I tested the Bf109 stall and compared it to british results by Eric Brown: "Both rudder and ailerons are effective right down to the stall, which is very gentle, the wing only falling about 10 degrees and the nose falling with it. There is no tendency to spin."

and: "In this respect the Bf.109E scores by its excellent control near the stall and innocuous behaviour at the stall, giving the pilot confidence to get the last ounce out of his airplanes turning performance."

RAF Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) Farnborough handling trials,Bf.109E Wn: 1304.

 

In my tests it spins violently and will not recover unless acted against with addition of full engine power and countering the spin with ailerons and rudder. Spin behavior of the aircraft is definetly far worse than even the british claimed it to be. The aircraft dips the wing and then does a half clockswise roll after which the nose points straight down, with a tendency to spin uncontrollably unless acted against using aileron, elevator and rudder input after to complete spins at least, often more.

In british testing spin recovery would be done by centering the controls.

 

Concerning the high control forces the simple argument of different standards of physical exercise and what Pilots were used to is vital too. British testers found the Bf109 way to heavy on the controls, while german testers found the britsh controls too light for save manouvering as the light forces would cause them to blackout or overstress the aircraft.

 

"- This give an important clue why there is very large differencies in opinion about the heaviness of the 109. In high speeds the plane stiffened - but 109 pilots could still control if. So why the Allied test pilots have so different opinion? Simple. They were not used to the plane. Many of them had flown planes, that had for example hydraulically enhanced controls. Or had flown other types, that had very different feeling. Real 109 pilots on the other hands were used to the heaviness - and practised according to it. Although the high control forces were undoubtedly an undesirable feature, or a problem, restricting the manoeuvrability of the aircraft, especially at high speeds, they were perhaps partly compensated by the emphasis put on physical exercise in the Luftwaffe and FinAF. Numerous accounts by pilots of those forces mention the amount of exercise and sports conducted by the aircrew. Daily physical training might be mandatory, depending on your unit. And every flight was practically a work out session, given the admittably heavier control forces of 109 in higher speeds. It is easy to see how the Me 109 pilots flying it regularly were markedly more adapted to its requirements than a pilot who was only flying limited number of test sorties." The Author of http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/ in the chapter about various myths.

 

The ingame BF109 flies like the dog it never was, the ingame sptifire flies like a Biplane completing turns sometimes below 10 seconds which is funny, I guess?

Edited February 16, 2015 by Bearcat

[DD_fruitbat]

Oh my....

[Trooper117]

Not again...

Edited February 15, 2015 by Trooper117

[heinkill]

 

RIP Glen Angus 'GANGUS'. http://gangus.cgsociety.org/

[DD_Crash]

Why is she trying to cut the head off her horse?

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Why does the horse have 7 legs?

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

And a G-2/G-4 trop with Winter European Camouflage?

[JG4_DUI]

I think the 109 flies like a charm in Cliffs. Of course, there are things that you should avoid like the plague. Turning with a Spitfire on the deck is such a thing. But if you fly the 109 with high discipline and good situational awareness you do not have to fear any Spitfire in Cliffs.

 

In our squadron Teamspeak you often can hear comments like "Hell, how was the Spitfire possible to do that? Totally unrealistic!" - just to hear 30 seconds later from the same pilot: "I got him".

 

P.S. I am also frightened by the horse...

Edited February 15, 2015 by DUI

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

And it's the turning performance I doubt. In both airplanes.

The Spitfire seems to fly as if it had a true elliptical wing, both in turn, energy retention and spin behaviour, the BF109E behaves like a Bf109 A-D with Jumo Engines.

The only Bf109 to display a pronounced tendency to spin were the very early Jumo 210 powered models which were much, much lighter and had the CG further aft than E and later models. These models also formed the reputation of the Bf109 as being rather ungainly in take off and landing, not due to the torque, but misplaced CG.

This 109 scare infected many of the young pilots when transitioning on to the Bf109 and bad training added to that. The high number of losses on take off and landing when adjusted for slightly damaged airframes and ground loops wasn't that much higher than that of many allied aircraft.

[DD_Arthur]

I think the 109 flies like a charm in Cliffs. Of course, there are things that you should avoid like the plague. Turning with a Spitfire on the deck is such a thing. But if you fly the 109 with high discipline and good situational awareness you do not have to fear any Spitfire in Cliffs.

 

 

 

Just change the words "Cliffs" with "BoS" and "Spitfire" with "Yak" and this sounds even more familiar.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Just change the words "Cliffs" with "BoS" and "Spitfire" with "Yak" and this sounds even more familiar.

The 109s in BoS feel very, very good, not over or underpowered and they turn very well, as long as you do it right. The 109 doesn't spin like most other planes, due to the abnormally large slats, it just slip-stalls, basically you loose all the lift on the inner wing section and about 50% on the outer one, so the airplane stays straight and stable, but doesn't really fly anymore. In a turn you have to basically try and keep the inner wing just at the edge of stalling and the slats just extended for best turn performance. If you want to loose speed very quickly you can use the wings as airbrakes and the slats to keep you stable and just pull back on the stick all the way to slow down followed by rapid descend.

[DD_fruitbat]

Big difference between f and e versions though, so what do you expect?

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Big difference between f and e versions though, so what do you expect?

The Quotes I gave by Eric Brown were on the E-model. He noted that the Aircraft had no tendency to spin in a stall and from what I know the only model to be rather violent in that aspect was the A-D series.

I think many of the FM creators misunderstood some of the stability issues to be around the roll axis when in fact the were around the vertical axis.

Especially rudder effectiveness was low to counteract the torque.

"In this respect the Bf.109E scores by its excellent control near the stall and innocuous behaviour at the stall, giving the pilot confidence to get the last ounce out of his airplanes turning performance." from the same report.

There are lots of contradiciting reports concerning manouvarbility, but none mention violent spin and stall behaviour for the E-models. http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/

 

The slats don't seem to have any effect.

Edited February 15, 2015 by myfabi94

[Sokol1]

Doc recipe for "Oleg Bias": Revouninstaller.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Doc recipe for "Oleg Bias": Revouninstaller.

Found this tool to be working extremely well, thank you! Although other solutions would have been possible.

Edited February 15, 2015 by myfabi94

[-NW-ChiefRedCloud]

And yet some in CloD have no problems with the 109 or shooting down Spits .... case in point Mr X ... a machine is merrily as good as the man flying it .... 

 

 

Chief

Edited February 15, 2015 by -NW-ChiefRedCloud

[Trooper117]

Good video... What you consistently see there is someone who knows, and is good at deflection shooting.

Regardless of plane performance, you would not want to get in his sights...

[taleks]

Why does the horse have 7 legs?

 

I believe it is eight-legged Sleipnir

 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

How are you setting up your stalls? I just opened up a quick mission with the E-4 in CloD and got similar results to what Winkle described. When the stall occurred, the left wing gently dropped about 10-15 degrees and recovery was easy.

 

Are you entering the maneuver coordinated?

Is this a power off or power on stall that you're trying?

 

If you're not coordinated, you're going to get different results.

If it's a power on stall or if you exceed the maximum AoA, you're definitely not going to get a gentle wing drop. That'll whip you around like a cement mixer.

[unreasonable]

Good video... What you consistently see there is someone who knows, and is good at deflection shooting.

Regardless of plane performance, you would not want to get in his sights...

Also that cannon are much better for deflection shooting than MGs - Spitfires making the same shots on 109s would have made far fewer kills.

Pity about the music.

Why is she trying to cut the head off her horse?

It is the shape of the saddle, causes uncontrollable urges.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I do a power off stall, a full stall. I fly in a straight line at one altitude and the aircraft violently falls over the right wing 180° and the nose drops straight towards the ground. During the manouver I correct for wing drop, fly with stabilizers all the way up and flaps up.  I use elevators to reach full stall. At IAS 150 at 2km stall occurs, the aircraft rolls right violently 180° at least, nose goes hard down and 50% chance of spin.

Edited February 16, 2015 by myfabi94

[Lusekofte]

I find clod behavior on both planes mentioned here are accurate based on historical facts, game wise it also give balance. I find BOS 109 fly excellent , in fact like on rails. And it is the only plane in this game that give me nothing regarding feel of flight.

BOS 109 is the most forgiving plane I´ve ever seen, like a cessna on steroids. Yet it is the most popular plane.

It seems to me the majority is just here to get kills and as cheap as possible. Well  that is my opinion.

Being a sucsessful 109 jockey in cod require a great deal more of skills and strategy than it does in BOS. But I think that is also historical correct. The 109 had a advantage in the early eastern front

Edited February 16, 2015 by LG1.Jaeger

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I find clod behavior on both planes mentioned here are accurate based on historical facts, game wise it also give balance. I find BOS 109 fly excellent , in fact like on rails. And it is the only plane in this game that give me nothing regarding feel of flight.

BOS 109 is the most forgiving plane I´ve ever seen, like a cessna on steroids. Yet it is the most popular plane.

It seems to me the majority is just here to get kills and as cheap as possible. Well  that is my opinion.

Being a sucsessful 109 jockey in cod require a great deal more of skills and strategy than it does in BOS. But I think that is also historical correct. The 109 had a advantage in the early eastern front

The 109E however isn't a very hard plane to fly at all, disconcerting to young Pilots, yes, but not especially hard to fly.

The reasons it was considered inferior by the brits were rather high control forces at speed as well as improper pre flight preparation (slats opening unevenly). The High control forces were acceptable for german pilots as physical fitness was encouraged far more, especially for 109 Pilots.

Another reason it was considered inferior were the slats opening with a loud noise followed by heavy vibration of the airframe due to the slats being originally designed for a 400kg lighter aircraft. They also reduced Aileron responsiveness when extended but gave excellent stability during a turn according to Eric Brown.

The Bf109, in all models, is an excellent close quarter fighter and I don't really understand where the idea comes from that it isn't. It took some getting used to, but then it could compete with the Spitfire in every aspect, including turn.

[Lusekofte]

I read about a RAF testpilot flying about all there was about Luftwaffe airplanes taken during the war.

His compare between spit and 109 was, The spit was easy to fly right off from fightschool, expirience improved pilot attention and ability to choose when to fight. But. The spit dangerous stall made even expirienced pilots avoid taking it to the limits.

The 109 grew with the pilot, it was demanding but flown the right way almost without limits against any fighter in dogfights.

However when people say they do not like flying any Sim, it might be a lousy joystick and not the plane or sim . I got

Doubts in peoples simexpiriences on a general bases

Edited February 17, 2015 by LG1.Jaeger

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I read about a RAF testpilot flying about all there was about Luftwaffe airplanes taken during the war.

His compare between spit and 109 was, The spit was easy to fly right off from fightschool, expirience improved pilot attention and ability to choose when to fight. But. The spit dangerous stall made even expirienced pilots avoid taking it to the limits.

The 109 grew with the pilot, it was demanding but flown the right way almost without limits against any fighter in dogfights.

However when people say they do not like flying any Sim, it might be a lousy joystick and not the plane or sim . I got

Doubts in peoples simexpiriences on a general bases

And that's exactly what you hear people saying who fly them today. All of them will say that's it is more demanding and requires a bit more concentration than Spits and similars, but when flown right could turn with almost all other fighters, outclimb most, but wasn't very strong in high speed roll rate.

I think CloD displays them as the Brits saw them, basically flying trucks and I disagree. I should be able to follow the Spitfire into manouvers and come out alive the other end. There are enough german Pilots reports of them outturning enemy Spitifires and even Hurries (most likely later, heavy models)

[Chuck_Owl]

I think CloD displays them as the Brits saw them, basically flying trucks and I disagree. I should be able to follow the Spitfire into manouvers and come out alive the other end. There are enough german Pilots reports of them outturning enemy Spitifires and even Hurries (most likely later, heavy models)

 

I do hope that you realize that for every german that said that he outturned a Spitfire in a 109 there is at least one british pilot saying that he outturned a 109 in a Spitfire. Pilot reports need to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

I think the best account of comparative studies between aircraft was made by Eric Brown, who flew ALL of 'em planes.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

I do hope that you realize that for every german that said that he outturned a Spitfire in a 109 there is at least one british pilot saying that he outturned a 109 in a Spitfire. Pilot reports need to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

I think the best account of comparative studies between aircraft was made by Eric Brown, who flew ALL of 'em planes.

This.

 

Turn performance varies based on airspeed, so it's fairly meaningless to claim one fighter is more maneuverable than another a great deal of the time.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

This.

 

Turn performance varies based on airspeed, so it's fairly meaningless to claim one fighter is more maneuverable than another a great deal of the time.

But the Devs chose to interpret it as the 109 being a 40 ton truck and the Spitfire a Gokart.

[indiaciki]

 

Skip Holm interview about Bf-109

 

109 turning aginst P51 and Spit

Edited February 18, 2015 by indiaciki

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

But the Devs chose to interpret it as the 109 being a 40 ton truck and the Spitfire a Gokart.

I honestly don't know how you're having trouble with it as the 109E handles quite spritely for me. You mustn't be keeping your maneuvers coordinated. I'm by no means a huge fan of CloD and the TF mod, but I can manage to wrangle the 109 just fine. And, frankly, if you turn fight in a 109 with a Spit instead of relying on the 109's boom and zoom game, that's on you.

[Chuck_Owl]

 

Skip Holm interview about Bf-109

 

109 turning aginst P51 and Spit

 

With 2 notches of flaps I can outturn the Kurfurst with my P-51D all day. It's all relative. I wouldn't trust my P-51 to turn on itself: it'll just start spinning. But give it a bit of flaps and you'll be surprised by the results.

 

I'd like to see which Spitfire mark he's talking about. Spitfires' behaviour did vary greatly based on their respective variant. A Spit I is considered to be the best turner of all of them: that's how Mitchell designed it. However, Joe Smith's modifications (especially with the Mk IX and the Mk XVI) were made especially so it would have a lesser turn rate than the Spit I, but a much, MUCH better (and needed) climb rate to face the FW190, which was a direct response to the Spitfire V that got absolutely destroyed by the Butcher Birds.

 

It's all very, very relative. Slats give the 109 a good turning rate but at low speeds only (slats are retracted naturally at high speeds). Turn rate should be compared at corner velocity, not at the low speeds today's pilots have to operate it. So the speed at which a turn is performed is critical in order to compare it. 

 

And just for fun, here's an interesting article: https://grrc.goodwood.com/cool-stuff/aviation/youre-thinking-buying-spitfire

 

It says that the pilots are restricted to operating the Spitfire at 4.5 G maximum and one third of maximum throttle by law. 

[indiaciki]

I had a German DVD years ago. Just 109 and Spit pilots. They were talking about how they pushed the performance their planes but all pilots agreed that it was all about the pilot - not the machine. Germans and brits alike.

 

Maybe iI'm biased. The 109 was probably the best fighter - the Spit was a miracle.

Edited February 18, 2015 by indiaciki

[unreasonable]

 

It says that the pilots are restricted to operating the Spitfire at 4.5 G maximum and one third of maximum throttle by law. 

 

Really? I missed that part, the article says:

 

"Naturally you wouldn’t be looking to thrash your 75 year old fighter across the sky (come on, yes you would… Ed), but nevertheless according to Boultbee it’s best not to stray beyond around one-third throttle on the mighty 27 litre Rolls Royce Merlin. Nor is it advisable to pull more than 4.5g whilst maneuvering; pull 5G and the aircraft has to undergo an expensive inspection."

 

Interesting article anyway, thanks for the link. In particular the point that they were only built for a 200 hour service life.

[Chuck_Owl]

You are correct. I  must've drank too much coffee when I wrote that.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

One of my Great Grand Uncles is year 1920 (94 now) and he actually flew a Bf109E-4B (with Constant speed Prop) in one of the secondary, rookie fighter units where he got lots of flying time and little enemy contact, and he describes turning basically like this: You had two stages of a turn, you had pull very hard on the stick when you were in cruise and he soon learned to coordinate every turn with trim. It would become very unsettled and loud and then the slats would open with a loud bang when you were still going fast. They never opened evenly and so you would be thrown around in the cockpit but the biggest mistake was to let go of the stick because that could throw your aim completely off and even trigger a spin. So if you held the stick against all your instinct the stick would become very soft around the elevator axis and you lost a bit of control and everything softened up but was also less effective. The slats had the effect, more than on the later models, of "sucking" you into the turn and it wouldn't really want to stop and you had to actually push the stick to get out of a turn again. If you did it right you could turn extremely tight, especially if you pushed the engine hard and turned the flaps crank half a revolution. 3 of his claims are Spitfires , 2 of which happened in the BoB, and he claims they were all 8-gun Spits, and he was able to turn with all of them using this tactic, at any altitude, while his Schwarm bounced them.

His later confirmed claims are mainly P-40s and a number of heavy fighters and Bombers.

He was credited with at least 9 1/3 airkills, his Schwarm shared at least 30 airkills,  most of which he shared with other Pilots of his Staffel, by mid 1944 when he crashlanded and was taken POW in France.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I think CloD displays them as the Brits saw them, basically flying trucks and I disagree. I should be able to follow the Spitfire into manouvers and come out alive the other end. There are enough german Pilots reports of them outturning enemy Spitifires and even Hurries (most likely later, heavy models)

No idea what you are talking about, 109 keeps in turn with Spitfire with no problem. I got CloD and can keep in turn with Spitfires, of course in prolonged sustained turn fight I am going to loose, but that is not going to happen anyway as I simply avoid getting into turnfight. Check the JG4 Karaya youtube channel if you don't believe me, amount of kills he made in 109 E and skill he handles this machine is amazing. 

 

Especially that comment about 40 Ton truck, that's ridiculous. From my perspective you simply have a wrong perspective of what this plane should behave. By any means 109 in CloD is not a 40 Ton truck, it handles really well and although requires attention and discipline I cant say a bad word about it. From my perspective 109 in BoS is too easy, forgives many many mistakes one can make and possibly some got used to that and expect to fly like that anywhere else.

[voncrapenhauser]

Sounds to me that the turn rates are so close, it would be the guy on the stick would be the winning factor here.

TBH I had never heard that the P51 was nowhere near the turn rate of the 109, as stated in the Video.

I knew it was a fast aircraft but not so manoeuvrable, but wow!

 

Great video of from the pilots perspective.... thanks.   

Edited February 18, 2015 by voncrapenhauser

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

No idea what you are talking about, 109 keeps in turn with Spitfire with no problem. I got CloD and can keep in turn with Spitfires, of course in prolonged sustained turn fight I am going to loose, but that is not going to happen anyway as I simply avoid getting into turnfight. Check the JG4 Karaya youtube channel if you don't believe me, amount of kills he made in 109 E and skill he handles this machine is amazing. 

 

Especially that comment about 40 Ton truck, that's ridiculous. From my perspective you simply have a wrong perspective of what this plane should behave. By any means 109 in CloD is not a 40 Ton truck, it handles really well and although requires attention and discipline I cant say a bad word about it. From my perspective 109 in BoS is too easy, forgives many many mistakes one can make and possibly some got used to that and expect to fly like that anywhere else.

The 109 is nowhere even close to being good enough. The Bf109 was a very forgiving airplane in all DB600 series powered models. The training machines B-D were somewhat trickier due to the rearwards weight bias compared to the later ones.

It's lacking the "surge" into the turn it should experience.

It's as if the game wanted you to force into the BnZ role by all means. It was the tactic that the Pilots were trained in from the experience in Spain against the I-16 and French MS.406 and D.520 during the Phoney war. Since these aircraft had tighter turn radii and no armor, BnZ was used as it was the most convenient tactic, especially in the formations of the modern Luftwaffe and made best use of the Radios.

Originally the Zeros were used as BnZ fighters too, does that mean they were no good at turning?

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

The 109 is nowhere even close to being good enough. The Bf109 was a very forgiving airplane in all DB600 series powered models. The training machines B-D were somewhat trickier due to the rearwards weight bias compared to the later ones.

It's lacking the "surge" into the turn it should experience.

It's as if the game wanted you to force into the BnZ role by all means. It was the tactic that the Pilots were trained in from the experience in Spain against the I-16 and French MS.406 and D.520 during the Phoney war. Since these aircraft had tighter turn radii and no armor, BnZ was used as it was the most convenient tactic, especially in the formations of the modern Luftwaffe and made best use of the Radios.

I'm not sure if thats what you want the Bf-109 to be or what ?

Considering how long is 109 E in CloD played and how often it shows superiority I find your topic a desire rather than real issue. Boom and Zoom (or preferably a vertical fight in any other means) is not what games forces you to but what you should be doing. Entering the turnfight you loose your altitude advantage. 109 can do that, I sometimes had to make not one or two circles but more to get on 109 tail in Spitfire. Once again, 109 is not bad at turning, its just inferior to G.50, Spitfire or Hurricane.

You treat it like it would perform as P-47 (that 40 ton truck ...) which is not true. 

 

 

Originally the Zeros were used as BnZ fighters too, does that mean they were no good at turning?

Of course, like anyone would use a plane with superior climb rate and usual altitude advantage.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I'm not sure if thats what you want the Bf-109 to be or what ?

Considering how long is 109 E in CloD played and how often it shows superiority I find your topic a desire rather than real issue. Boom and Zoom (or preferably a vertical fight in any other means) is not what games forces you to but what you should be doing. Entering the turnfight you loose your altitude advantage. 109 can do that, I sometimes had to make not one or two circles but more to get on 109 tail in Spitfire. Once again, 109 is not bad at turning, its just inferior to G.50, Spitfire or Hurricane.

You treat it like it would perform as P-47 (that 40 ton truck ...) which is not true. 

 

 

Of course, like anyone would use a plane with superior climb rate and usual altitude advantage.

I want it to be as realistic as possible and right now I find the game to display the 109 as untrue in many ways, especially the influence of slats on turn performance. The Spitfire has a smaller turn radius but in terms of turn rate the Bf109 is slightly ahead IRL, ingame it is inferior in turn rate as well.

Ask anybody who flew and flies them and they will tell you the same.