What interpretation are you going to use for Bf109E-7?

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Disclaimer: I think that the Bf109 FMs of BoS are the best of the entire Il-2 series.

Of the entire Bf109 family the Emils are probably the most controversial, mainly because of the Battle of Britain. The main controversy concerns manouverability which the Brits condidered inferior to the Spitfire, just as the Germans found the Spitfire inferior in manouverability too.

My question is mainly which interpration of the Airplane/which test results you are going to use for modelling the Bf109E-7 in BoM?

Finnish, German or British tests?

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

It will be a Russian interpretation regardless of the source

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

It will be a Russian interpretation regardless of the source

What will the russian devs base their interpretation on?

[DD_Arthur]

Hopefully nothing as simplistic as these definitions.

 

Of the entire Bf109 family the Emils are probably the most controversial, mainly because of the Battle of Britain. The main controversy concerns manouverability which the Brits condidered inferior to the Spitfire, just as the Germans found the Spitfire inferior in manouverability too.

 

I think this whole premise is meaningless.

Edited February 19, 2015 by DD_Arthur

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Hopefully nothing as simplistic as these definitions.

 

Of the entire Bf109 family the Emils are probably the most controversial, mainly because of the Battle of Britain. The main controversy concerns manouverability which the Brits condidered inferior to the Spitfire, just as the Germans found the Spitfire inferior in manouverability too.

 

I think this whole premise is meaningless.

Tried to keep it simple until there's a larger discussion/question.

[indiaciki]

I take the chance of sounding really stupid. Every 109 is basically a 109 in the first place. Don't take statistics and technical details too seriously. Empirically they don't matter that much. I know this is a conroversial claim.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I take the chance of sounding really stupid. Every 109 is basically a 109 in the first place. Don't take statistics and technical details too seriously. Empirically they don't matter that much. I know this is a conroversial claim.

It's not stupid, because you didn't actually say anything. You get another try and we'll just pretend ^^this^^ didn't happen.

The amount of parts shared by early (E) and late (G and K) model 109s is astonishngly small.

There is a world of difference between Anton-Doras, Emils, Friedrichs, Gustavs and Kurfürsten. Empirically they matter a lot. The Differences are ginormous, especially in Performance.

(1936-1938)

The A-Ds did at best 470kph, 2500ft/min at 2.2tons and packed a puny 4xMG17

(we'll not take them seriously, start the comparison with the E models)

 

(1938-1940)

New Engine: DB601A and DB601N

The best Es did 570kph, 3600ft/min at 2.6tons and packed 2xMG and 2xMG FF/M

 

(1940-1942)

Airframe completely reworked and cleaned up, new aerodynamics, completely new wing, basically a new Aircraft

The Fs have huge differences in submodels too

F-1 and F-2 did 615kph, 3600ft/min, 2.7 tons and had 2xMG17 and 1xMG151, MG FF/M or MG151/20

DB601E for the new model:

The F-4 did a whopping 660kph at 4400ft/min, 2.9 tons, armament 2xMG17 and 1-3xMG151/20

 

(1942-1945)

New Engine: DB605A, larger Bore, more Revs, better High Alt Performance, more Power

The Gs are even more diverse starting with

G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4: 660 to 682kph, 4100-4700ft/min, 3 tons, same armament

Lots of bulges and warts, slowing it down, combat adaptations

G-5, G-6 early: 645kph, 3.1 tons, 2x 13mm MG, 1-3 x 20 or 30mm in any configuration

G-6 late and G-14: same top speed, but far better speed below due to MW50 low alt boost system: 5300ft/min

 

DB601D, Airframe cleaned up again

G-10: 690kph, 5300ft/min, 3.2 tons, same as above

Further Cleaning up, more power

K-4: 720kph, 5500ft/min, 3.3 tons

 

So after all we have a speed increase of 150kph, 25% increase

Climb rate increase of 1900ft/min, 52%

Weight increase of 700kg, 26%

Power increase from 1100hp to 2000hp, thats a growth of 900 or 81%

So, may I say it was a stupid statement? I will go forward and do so, but I don't blame you.

Edited February 20, 2015 by myfabi94

[indiaciki]

of course, the 109 did evolve as did the opposing fighters... and most of the times they fought each other on equal terms.

Edited February 20, 2015 by indiaciki

[SOLIDKREATE]

I'm going to skin it to death. First skin will be from 8./Schl.G.1.

 

Edited February 20, 2015 by SPEKTRE76

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

of course, the 109 did evolve as did the opposing fighters... and most of the times they fought each other on equal terms.

Each Subseries is fundamentally different in many ways.

The F-series and later were fundamentally different in every way to the E-series and were thus completely different flying machines in many ways. They were a lot less scary. I would show that especially the wings were a complete redesign from the E-series, but my Scanner is too Small.

[indiaciki]

I understand your point and I'm sure the devs will do a great job.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I understand your point and I'm sure the devs will do a great job.

I hope a better one than in CloD.

[indiaciki]

BOS is not CLOD. Different Devs. Take a look at ROF.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

1C=777

[DD_Arthur]

1C=777

 

No.  1C + 777 = 1C Games Studio.  Loft and the decision makers in the team had no hand in Cliffs development.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

No.  1C + 777 = 1C Games Studio.  Loft and the decision makers in the team had no hand in Cliffs development.

OK, I didn't know that.

[Finkeren]

I'm by no means an expert on the 109 (nor any other aircraft for that matter) but I'm really looking forward to the E7.

 

Personally I expect it to handle pretty much as the other 109s handle in BoS, meaning it's stable, easy to control but requires a lot of work to keep on a straight course.

 

It should ofc have lower performance, especially at altitude and climb significantly worse. I also expect that the controls will be overall less efective than on the F/G models.

 

That being said: In a Moscow 1941 it would still be a potent fighter against early Soviet fighter opposition, with only the MiG-3 able to match it in speed and posibly climb at certain altitudes. Don't expect it to outturn or outroll the I-16 though.

 

Also: An important point regarding the planeset for BoM: The Bf 109E7 will be the overall best armed fighter on Axis side (and second only to the P-40E on the other side) It will be the only fighter capable of firing Minengeschoss rounds, which will be kind of a big deal when trying to take down hordes of IL-2.-

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I'm by no means an expert on the 109 (nor any other aircraft for that matter) but I'm really looking forward to the E7.

 

Personally I expect it to handle pretty much as the other 109s handle in BoS, meaning it's stable, easy to control but requires a lot of work to keep on a straight course.

 

It should ofc have lower performance, especially at altitude and climb significantly worse. I also expect that the controls will be overall less efective than on the F/G models.

 

That being said: In a Moscow 1941 it would still be a potent fighter against early Soviet fighter opposition, with only the MiG-3 able to match it in speed and posibly climb at certain altitudes. Don't expect it to outturn or outroll the I-16 though.

 

Also: An important point regarding the planeset for BoM: The Bf 109E7 will be the overall best armed fighter on Axis side (and second only to the P-40E on the other side) It will be the only fighter capable of firing Minengeschoss rounds, which will be kind of a big deal when trying to take down hordes of IL-2.-

It should roll better and feel "different" a bit more shaky and vibraty and rougher around the edges.

But 18.9 Seconds at 203m radius should be enough to turn with cannon armed I-16s.

[indiaciki]

I suggest she should sound like a tie fighter. That would be really cool :D

Edited February 20, 2015 by indiaciki

[Finkeren]

It should roll better and feel "different" a bit more shaky and vibraty and rougher around the edges.

 

 

Might roll better, I don't know. IIRC the ailerons on the Emil were considered less effective than on the later models, but then again, it did have a shorter wingspan. In any case it should propably be outrolled by most VVS fighters, especially the I-16.

 

The Emil is genrally considered to have had good roll characteristics, but it's generally measured against the Spitfire Mk.1 which had horrible roll rate.

 

But 18.9 Seconds at 203m radius should be enough to turn with cannon armed I-16s.

 

Propably, I have not seen any data on how much turn performance deteriorated when ShVAKs were installed in the wings.

 

In any case, we won't get cannon armed I-16s (except perhaps as an unlockable) The Type 24 had 4 LMGs and no cannons (IL-2 1946 got this wrong, their 'Type 24' is actually a 28 or 29) and with a turn time of 17sec it should just about outturn the 109E.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Finkeren

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Might roll better, I don't know. IIRC the ailerons on the Emil were considered less effective than on the later models, but then again, it did have a shorter wingspan. In any case it should propably be outrolled by most VVS fighters, especially the I-16.

 

The Emil is genrally considered to have had good roll characteristics, but it's generally measured against the Spitfire Mk.1 which had horrible roll rate.

 

 

Propably, I have not seen any data on how much turn performance deteriorated when ShVAKs were installed in the wings.

 

In any case, we won't get cannon armed I-16s (except perhaps as an unlockable) The Type 24 had 4 LMGs and no cannons (IL-2 1946 got this wrong, their 'Type 24' is actually a 28 or 29) and with a turn time of 17sec it should just about outturn the 109E.

Yeah, the I-16 was however horrible in the later models in terms of rear weight bias. A german joke was that you couldn't outturn and I-16 because it would just, stall, flick and you just had to pick her off. The I-16 has a better Roll rate than even a Fw190. 240°/second I believe it was and 15-16 Seconds for a sustained turn.

The Roll Rate on the later models was more consistent over a greater speed range while the E rolled very well slow and not at all above 650kph IAS.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Tie Fighter or like this, I would like this

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/X2KJCd_VvRU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[indiaciki]

great ! Incl. Doppler effect :D

[bivalov]

But 18.9 Seconds at 203m radius should be enough to turn with cannon armed I-16s.

if i understood it really correctly, 18.92 seconds/203 meters is calculation for 0 meters and 2540 kg, i.e. this is weight of Bf 109 E-1 with 4xMG 17. meanwhile, Bf 109 E-7 is heavier on 50-100 kg, and all soviet tests were done at 1000 meters.............. so, personally i assume in BOS something like 20-21 seconds at 1000 meters and 5 min. power.................

Edited October 4, 2015 by bivalov

[Ace_Pilto]

The model will surely be based on data derived from the dimensions and specifications of the aircraft run through the physics engine of the game. These values are constant, they don't need to be interpreted. Someone's opinion on whether or not it was better than the Spitfire doesn't mean anything.

[707shap_Srbin]

Trials of new factory made Bf109E-3, wich was buyed by USSR from Germany in 1940. In russian.

[novicebutdeadly]

The early Spitfire and the 109E both had bad aileron roll at high speed due to having fabric covered ailerons.

From memory from the 109F series onwards were metal covered.

 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

The early Spitfire and the 109E both had bad aileron roll at high speed due to having fabric covered ailerons.

 

From memory from the 109F series onwards were metal covered.

 

 

Negative, still fabric.