Jump to content
kiershar

Question about the new bf-109s and other planes

Recommended Posts

It really sounds like you want an über fighter, that's the best in both turn rate, climb, acceleration and speed, which pretty much will leave the opposition without a fair chance. If that's the case, I don't know why we're even discussing VVS aircraft. Just jump into the Bf 109F2 and you'll be satisfied.

 

You really love making strawmens and destroying them, don't you?

 

Here let me make my point clear enough for you to understand and leave no room for you to twist words : I want a competitive turn fighter. Here's how I define a competitive fighter... it needs to have either the best top speed of the theater OR the best climb speed of the theater OR a package of reasonable climb + reasonable top speed + best turning abilities. NOT the best of all attributes, just one of the three has to be the best. Good turn rate alone is not good enough to be competitive, you need decent climb speed and decent top speed, doesn't have to be the best. Right now there's no competitive turn fighters, it's all about energy fighting and if you don't energy fight, you are dead meat. Is that reasonable and logical for you? I never said I want a plane with perfect attributes, you made that up and ran with it.

 

Here's what i said ealier in the thread :

"I enjoy going against 2 or 3 human pilots at once and to do that you need a plane that has either good top speed to run away, good climb speed to keep on top or a combinaison of enough TWR and turn to make proper gun defense against multiple planes"

 

I don't see how that is ambiguous. Why are you trying to start trouble?

Edited by kiershar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The M-105P, PA, PF and PF-2 all had the same supercharger gear ratios of 7.85 and 10 and nominally had the same power output at altitude. The later engines simply had the permissible boost increased and therefore high power output at low altitude - similar to say erhöhte Notleistung of the BMW801 or 25lb boost for the Merlin66..

 

Better climb rates and high altitude performance of earlier aircraft can be explained with varying production quality and lower weight (in particular the prototype was light and well finished), but not with higher medium altitude power output.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The M-105P, PA, PF and PF-2 all had the same supercharger gear ratios of 7.85 and 10 and nominally had the same power output at altitude. The later engines simply had the permissible boost increased and therefore high power output at low altitude - similar to say erhöhte Notleistung of the BMW801 or 25lb boost for the Merlin66..

 

Better climb rates and high altitude performance of earlier aircraft can be explained with varying production quality and lower weight (in particular the prototype was light and well finished), but not with higher medium altitude power output.

Are you sure? Because the early Yak-1s had their topspeed at significantly higher altitudes too. So basically more power at high altitude.

The weight was about the same on all razorback models or at least irrelevant as a factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually yes, the USSR had quite a few Spitfire Mk. V in service in the south in 1943, and the pilots pretty much thought they were rubbish, which they most likely were (they were mostly second hand 1941 planes unfit for front line service in 1943 and the Soviet Union had no 100 octane fuel for them)

 

 

 

 

Spitfires took part in the defence of Moscow.  Not completely convinced by this lack of 100 octane fuel argument.  The Soviet airforce used octane boosters in the fuel of British made fighters in 1941 too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You probably mean Hurricanes - the Soviets only pressed the Spitfire into combat in early 1943, when the RAF 'generously' handed them down a bundle of Mk. Vb models, hardly a new aircraft by then. The main reason the Spitfire went so quickly into PVO and training roles was the terrible results obtained by the units which operated it.

 

While there were many factors that contributed to this, a main one is that the run of the mill Spitfire Mk. Vb, with no low altitude optimisations, was not a very competitive aircraft in 1943 at the low altitudes most combat was flown there. Ironically, as most of you know, the P-39 was flying at its best conditions and names like Pokryshkin, Klubov, Rechkalov, the Glinka brothers and many others rose to prominence in the very same aircraft the British considered entirely useless at the Western front. The 57th GIAP converted to the P-39 after less than six months in combat operations with the Spitfire.

 

EDIT: Nevermind, I misread it. Thought you wrote Battle of Moscow instead of defence, my bad.

Edited by Lucas_From_Hell
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You probably mean Hurricanes -

 

EDIT: Nevermind, I misread it. Thought you wrote Battle of Moscow instead of defence, my bad.

 

No, I meant Spitfires and the battle of Moscow for the Soviets is the defence of Moscow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure? Because the early Yak-1s had their topspeed at significantly higher altitudes too. So basically more power at high altitude.

The weight was about the same on all razorback models or at least irrelevant as a factor.

Early Yak-1s hat their top speed at ~4800 meters altitude, as opposed to ~3800 meters for the Yak-1 with PF engine. So it's not really that much higher and at those 4800 meters altitude, the PF engined Yak-1 was basically still as fast as the earlier variants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 ...

 

The E-7 is a completely different aircraft from the F-series. It has completely different wing and tail assembly, as well as everyting else except the core fuselage.

...

 

The rudder, unlike on the F-series, is not airfoil shaped, but symmetrical which will result in somewhat more difficult take-off and climb behaviour.

 ...

 

The E-7 is a completely different bird ...

 

 

 

 

P1000781a1.jpg

The fin of an Me109E-3/7  (PoF/Chino)

 

The E actually shares a lot of engineering with the F.  The stabilizer itself is essentially the same except that its mounting point (pivot) had to be lowered on the fuselage a bit to minimize the weight gain of the increased fuselage pivot mount stiffening required by the removal of the stab support struts.  This hurt near critical AoA elevator control some but was deemed worth it overall.  The core of the wing was essentially the same, although the span was shortened to increase speed, the cooling system totally redesigned for a lower profile and with an attempt at achieving Meredith Effect* and aileron and slat spans shortened and aileron linkage altered to increase their effectiveness at higher speeds.  Speed was improved but the resulting turn performance (or lack thereof) was eye-opening so elyptical tips were installed to help bring back some of the lost turn.  The chord of the rudder was shortened slightly about 2 to 3 inches for about 1/2 square foot overall to improve usefulness at speed.  So, it's essentially just an evolved airframe with most of the mods basically just about increasing the basic operational speed of the aircraft.

 

 

*As with Spitfire, it failed, getting duct stall at speed (right when it was needed - lol) and the duct volume taken up by turbulent air bypass ducts was eventually converted to main duct volume and a slightly larger cooler.  Both Supermarine and Messerschmitt concluded that Meredith Effect was not achievable in practice making them believe that laminar flow wings were the answer (they were looking at the Mustang) but, in fact, the reverse turned out to be true.  The Mosquito and Mustang were the only two WW2 aircraft to get Meredith Effect to work as advertised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Rudders: Interesting, can't believe the wiki always.

2. You are in fact wrong about the wings. I just reordered the magazine that had a couple of great drawings and 3D models of it. The two wings have nothing in common except for the section it has with the fuselage.

I'll scan and show them as soon as they arrive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully we will get the

"E-7/NZ (also known as E-7/Z, an E-7/N with additional GM-1 nitrous oxide injection system)"  from memory this helped improve high altitude performance, engine would die if engaged below a certain altitude (if I remember il2 1946 correctly).

And the 

"
E-7/U2 (Ground attack variant of E-7 with additional armour"

Edited by novicebutdeadly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds nice. but i don't need GM-1 (not with the enemies in game) the E-7/N would be sufficent i think

Edited by Asgar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The M-105P, PA, PF and PF-2 all had the same supercharger gear ratios of 7.85 and 10 and nominally had the same power output at altitude. The later engines simply had the permissible boost increased and therefore high power output at low altitude - similar to say erhöhte Notleistung of the BMW801 or 25lb boost for the Merlin66..

 

Better climb rates and high altitude performance of earlier aircraft can be explained with varying production quality and lower weight (in particular the prototype was light and well finished), but not with higher medium altitude power output.

 

Are you sure?

post-1014-0-93055100-1444839400_thumb.gif

post-1014-0-61291600-1444839484_thumb.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Btw,map of BoM can be used for dozens of different scenarios,not only autumn-winter 41/42 but complete 42 till early spring 1943.....  :salute: 

 

.

darn. i would sure have like to see the la5FN, but it looks like the 'BoS war' ends just before they arrive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

darn. i would sure have like to see the la5FN, but it looks like the 'BoS war' ends just before they arrive.

 

Deployed in numbers by the middle part of 1943... if we get the Kursk battles I expect that we'll see the La-5F or FN made available to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

darn. i would sure have like to see the la5FN, but it looks like the 'BoS war' ends just before they arrive.

FN model started to arrive in larger numbers to VVS after battle of Kursk.Ofcourse there were some IAPs equipped with it during the battle,but not like every lavotchkin was FN.Most of them were F versions.So FN is late 43 airplane if we speak about general appearance within fighter units.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

And last question, what is the expected from the mig-3 compared to the yak, especially interested in the ~3000m altitude and climb comparison. Also turn rates in general.

one of the first developer videos is quite interesting..

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/168-developer-diary/page-1#dd5 (the video mind u..)

 

edit.. u have to watch it on utube to see the subtitles

 

https://youtu.be/_wTZjYGyl-4

 

...especially 6:10 into the video.. about comparison to I16 :)

Edited by SvAF/F19_Klunk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who cares about bf 109, it's cliche. ju 88 and bf 110 almost no other games have done them before. i hope they bring in more variants of those 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who cares about bf 109, it's cliche. ju 88 and bf 110 almost no other games have done them before. 

 

iWKad22.jpg

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who cares about bf 109, it's cliche. ju 88 and bf 110 almost no other games have done them before. i hope they bring in more variants of those 2ua

Actually '46 and CloD did them. The Ju-88 is the Many Faced God Loki. A master of illusion.

Actually the Ju-52, Fw-189 and Po-2 are woefully undermodelled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who cares about bf 109, it's cliche. ju 88 and bf 110 almost no other games have done them before. i hope they bring in more variants of those 2

 

Hmmm, apart from the fact, that to model the Luftwaffe during WW2 there really is no substitute for having numerous versions of the Bf 109, I don't see how the Bf 110 and Ju88 are absent from flight sims.

 

Sims that have featured both of these planes:

 

Their Finest Hour

Rowans BoB (both versions)

MS combat flight simulator

European Air War

IL-2 1946 (along with all previous incarnations)

Cliffs of Dover

 

And that's just off the top of my head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.

Obviusly these is a difference in power between M-105 P(PA) and M-105 PF engines at different alts.   PF is low altitutde version of M-105 engine and got more power at lower alts when  P(PA) version got more power at higher alts.  It is clearly seen on power charts both engines  ( something like with DB601 A  and 601Aa version in 109 E)

Edited by 303_Kwiatek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P1000781a1.jpg

The fin of an Me109E-3/7  (PoF/Chino)

 

The E actually shares a lot of engineering with the F.  The stabilizer itself is essentially the same except that its mounting point (pivot) had to be lowered on the fuselage a bit to minimize the weight gain of the increased fuselage pivot mount stiffening required by the removal of the stab support struts. 

 

This book says that the F tail went with the airfoil design, and the E's did not have it. The Chino 109 E may be a frankenplane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The technical description of the Bf109E published by Messerschmitt in 1939 says the E model had an asymmetrical tail fin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't be the first time a book was wrong.

Remember before the Internet, when stuff want taken as gospel just because it was printed on paper?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stupid question. Reading this forum good turn rate = turnfighter, better climb, speed = enery fighter? All flying is about energy Ask a glider pilot.. It's Newton. If I fly a better turning fighter I'd be an idiot to turn-fight like in early WWI. I might use my turn rate in case it gives me a significant advatage in a single situtation (couple of second and my opponents mistake maybe) but nobody was flying intensional turn fights in WWII in any aircraft It was about tactics. Everybody was flying in some formation. Surprise was much more important. This sounds like Sicicllian Opening = black winning...nonsense.

Edited by indiaciki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stupid question. Reading this forum good turn rate = turnfighter, better climb, speed = enery fighter? All flying is about energy Ask a glider pilot.. It's Newton. If I fly a better turning fighter I'd be an idiot to turn-fight like in early WWI. I might use my turn rate in case it gives me a significant advatage in a single situtation (couple of second and my opponents mistake maybe) but nobody was flying intensional turn fights in WWII in any aircraft It was about tactics. Everybody was flying in some formation. Surprise was much more important. This sounds like Sicicllian Opening = black winning...nonsense.

 

 

Agree entirely.  This crazy 'made-up' distinction between turners and boomers - it's absolutely nuts.  I never cease to be amazed at the number of people who appear to believe that Soviet machines or Spitfires, if it comes to that, (in CLOD) should be flown just a few hundred meters off the deck with the intention of luring an enemy into an unwinnable turn fight - like some dock-side whore flashing her knickers at passing sailors.  It's insane or at least entirely at odds with the historical reality. Just because you have an aircraft that happens to turn marginally better than your opponent does not mean that you are required to fly around in circles all day waiting for an enemy "energy fighter" to turn up and try and out-turn you.   Just crazy.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not something exclusive to this forum though, but a more global misconception.

 

These terms are absolutely relative to the opponent you're facing. In the end all every pilot wants to do is to engage in their own terms, but as Wulf put in more colourful terms, you'd be hard-pressed to find a single fighter pilot then or now who would consider that a sound idea. In particular the advice everyone's always given to people flying Soviet that they need to fly planning to draw the enemy into a turn fight somehow is crazy stuff. It's literally saying 'go fly your fighter defensively and your main plan should be dodging bullets because the enemy has a 30km/h top speed advantage above 5000m' when a small height advantage already neutralizes most of the speed difference between the majority of fighters facing each other in any given era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reality was that a lot of Soviet fighters were down low protecting the IL-2's providing close support, ;) not provocatively flashing their knickers,​ that was Soviet doctrine on the Eastern front

 

The big problem is that most pilots take off with no 'Mission objective" other than improving their score, that is where the historical element breaks down

 

Looking forward to the Bf109 E7 which also historically provided a lot of close support missions in its later life

 

Cheers Dakpilot

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many WW2 fighters were intendet to be all-around figher aircrafts by their designers. The Bf 109 for example was meant to be fast but also incooperated a light fuselage and aerodynamical compromiises (round wingtips, slats) to improve it's manouvreing capabilities.

 

The Spitfire wasn't a pure "turnfighter" either as the versions with clipped wingtips shows best.

 

The Yak and other russian fighter aircraft of the early 40s were largely inspired by the expiriences with the german Bf-109 E during the german-russian colaboration and the spanish civil war as well as an imported example of the He-100. It too was meant to be an "all-round" fighter capeable to meet the Messerschmitt on equal terms.

 

Infact russian aircraft designers struggled to make their planes faster, not better turning, to close the performance gap. So the term "turnfighter" was definetly not part of Yakovlevs intentions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say all of them by and large managed to achieve all-around fighters, which is why the Yak, Lavochkin, Supermarine and Messerchmitt designs were used all the way through the war and after its end too. If you look at the performance of most of them, you will see some very marginal differences in turn, speed and so on, but they all bring some fairly excellent qualities to the table in all aspects. They were all reasonably fast, could pull a good turn, had a decent climb rate and so on.

 

Their combat performance boiled down to pilot skill. A testament to this is how the 812 IAP ('Dragons') made it to the top 10 best fighter regiments of the VVS and was still getting good results flying the Yak-1B in 1944 against late 109 models.

 

The point I believe everyone is trying to make is, no plane is a 'turnfighter' or an 'energy fighter'. All planes have a particular set of performance parameters and in-flight characteristics, and all engagements have different parameters too. Someone who goes planning to turn against any given opponent in any situation is likely to fail in a good bunch of them.

 

For example, a Yak-1 finds itself above a Bf-109. It can easily dive down and harpoon the victim. Say the 109 evades the shot. Our hero, however, decides it's turning time so he pulls hard on the stick after the pass to start a scissors fight for example. However, his plane is too fast and is turning wide. The 109 however is flying close to its sustained corner speed, easily keeps up with the Yak and nails it down after a turn or two. This is all hypothetical of course, but the fact is the Yak would have had a much easier time if it had climbed after that first pass and solved it from then on.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...