G2

[4thFG_Cap_D_Gentile]

So the G2 was crippled after latest update, harder to pull out of dives and a left hot climbing turn can't keep Yaks away anymore if headrest is removed in the G2.

 

Kepping some customers happy and others away!

 

Concerning Yak flaps misery, put the Yak into a hot level left turn and go to the edge of a stall and deploy the flaps and you are saved, then pull even more with the safety net deployed and get yourself close to the stall again, you want to ease of on the stick in that situation, don't ! just pull even more and the Yak settles in a steady Ki-43 turn. Maybe those Russian planes weren't that bad afterall.

 

Crude!

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

So the G2 was crippled after latest update, harder to pull out of dives and a left hot climbing turn can't keep Yaks away anymore if headrest is removed in the G2.

 

Kepping some customers happy and others away!

 

Concerning Yak flaps misery, put the Yak into a hot level left turn and go to the edge of a stall and deploy the flaps and you are saved, then pull even more with the safety net deployed and get yourself close to the stall again, you want to ease of on the stick in that situation, don't ! just pull even more and the Yak settles in a steady Ki-43 turn. Maybe those Russian planes weren't that bad afterall.

 

Crude!

It will get the best rate of Climb ingame next update. 

[4thFG_Cap_D_Gentile]

It will Claus ?

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

It will Claus ?

21+m/s. It's also the fastest ingame fighter above 5000m and outruns Yak-1 at all altitudes.  

As far as I have tested it, using 60% upwards trim for the G-2 it is only 1 second slower in a continuous turn without flaps and has far superior rate of climb to Spiral Climb away at 270kph. 

You should under no circumstances try to climb away with extended Slats, this means you are getting far too low rate of climb.

It has superior Top Dive Speed to Fw190. 

 

As far as I see it you are mostly wrong. If you suck persistently in any of the German BoS Fighters it's 100% due to lack of skill and effort. 

 

Edit: Also, check your trim Settings for Diving, you should ALWAYS Push the 109 into the Dive for easier recovery. 

They have also corrected elevator lightness when the E-7 was introduced, because IT WAS HEAVY!

Edited March 13, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[4thFG_Cap_D_Gentile]

 

 

As far as I see it you are mostly wrong. If you suck persitently in any of the German BoS Fighters it's 100% due to lack of skill and effort.

 

We could test my skills if you like and see if I suck, 1 on 1 anywhere if expert settings PM me and we set it up. Looking forward to hearing from you.

I don't actually persistently suck against the Yaks but it has become harder after last update.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

We could test my skills if you like and see if I suck, 1 on 1 anywhere if expert settings PM me and we set it up. Looking forward to hearing from you.

I don't actually persistently suck against the Yaks but it has become harder after last update.

I'm no fighter Contrail-Jock, just a simple little Destroyer having fun at times, sometimes shooting down Noob Fw190s in I-16s. I'm no serious competition for Wannabe Hartmanns. 

I just test the aircraft, look for the sweetspots in manouverability and performance for myself and bother people about them on the forums. 

I'd probably still win against you, but I don't aspire to duels. We may just meet in the Skies of the DED Experimental or Flying Legends Servers whenever I feel like flying and that's really it. 

Edited March 13, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Nothing like a good old 'pistols at dawn' contest.

 

On a serious note, were there any changes to the Bf-109G-2 in the last updates? Last FNBF 9./JG52 destroyed a high amount of VVS fighters for only 1 loss.

 

If I understood the situation you describe right, I don't see why a chandelle would magically keep the Yak-1 away from you.

[Vade]

Well today i noticed my G2 got really stiff in dives at around 600kmh, which was a bit odd. So there might be something to it, not sure...

[[GOAT]Spoutpout]

I just test the aircraft, look for the sweetspots in manouverability and performance for myself and bother people about them on the forums.

 

During your tests, did you notice something wrong with the roll rate ?

Edited March 14, 2016 by Spoutpout

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Thanks for point it out Vade, I'll try it for myself once I can.

 

On a separate note, if my memory doesn't betray me, the Bf-109 was known for requiring a heavy hand at higher speeds, yes? I can't remember where I saw that, but it's something I always held to be true.

[[GOAT]Spoutpout]

 

 

On a separate note, if my memory doesn't betray me, the Bf-109 was known for requiring a heavy hand at higher speeds, yes?

 

TWO heavy hands, you mean ?

[III/JG2Gustav05]

Well today i noticed my G2 got really stiff in dives at around 600kmh, which was a bit odd. So there might be something to it, not sure...

I have the same feeling about G2 after I go back to it from F4. High speed handling worse than before in the latest patch. Maybe subjective, not sure. 

[LukeFF]

 

 

So the G2 was crippled after latest update

 

No, it was not. 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

There was no mention of any adjustments to the 109 on the last update as far as I remember. Just like there were no improvements to the 190 as another thread asked. These are the problems with subjective observations. There are FM changes coming as detailed in DD 123 but they have not been enacted yet.

[ShamrockOneFive]

+1 HerrMurf. This is why objective testing is necessary and subjective testing its largely useless.

 

It's so strong in most people (myself included) that if a patch note said that Plane X was 15% better than before, I'd jump into the game, play for a while and come back and say "YEP, 15% better for sure!" and then it would be revealed that nothing had been changed. Guaranteed.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Elevators are roughly 15% heavier above 600 and almost 50%  heavier at 750+, but this is historically correct. 

Roll Rate is high, but then it is for all fighters at this moment. As far as I know aileron control was heavy, but lighter than most other fighters even at very high speed. 

Bf109E maximum was 38lbs, againt 60lbs on Spitfire at high Dive Speeds, Bf109F and later had new, redesigned wings with much lighter aileron controls still, so Rate of Roll should be quite good even at high speeds. 

Total Rate of Roll should be slightly lower for: Bf109s (all except Emil), Lavochkins and Yak-1, but all others fit nicely.

[Dakpilot]

It is interesting about stick forces, (not meaning when you get total lock up where superman could not move them, but generally) for example in your Spit and 109E comparison  although the forces were much heavier in the Spitfire was it still able to complete a manoeuvre similar to the 109?

 

obviously having light and nicely balanced controls is the ideal, from a design goal, but as in the Spitfire and 109 example it was not always the case in every phase of flight

 

I flew many Russian aircraft that in some circumstances had much higher control force inputs than I was used to in Western aircraft, however although certainly uncomfortable at first, it did not take very long (bit of extra exercise or gym  ) to be acclimatised, and  did not then seem to be a huge disadvantage in control, just different and at times a bit of a workout.

 

The Russian Pilots would take the piss out of me (in a good natured manner) for being a soft Westerner 

]

Cheers Dakpilot

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

It is interesting about stick forces, (not meaning when you get total lock up where superman could not move them, but generally) for example in your Spit and 109E comparison  although the forces were much heavier in the Spitfire was it still able to complete a manoeuvre similar to the 109?

 

obviously having light and nicely balanced controls is the ideal, from a design goal, but as in the Spitfire and 109 example it was not always the case in every phase of flight

 

I flew many Russian aircraft that in some circumstances had much higher control force inputs than I was used to in Western aircraft, however although certainly uncomfortable at first, it did not take very long (bit of extra exercise or gym  ) to be acclimatised, and  did not then seem to be a huge disadvantage in control, just different and at times a bit of a workout.

 

The Russian Pilots would take the piss out of me (in a good natured manner) for being a soft Westerner 

]

Cheers Dakpilot

The Brits generally disliked the Short Stick and Stick throws (you can yank the Spitfire's wand all over the place with not too much action happening in the rudders and with both hands)

[Guest deleted@50488]

I would have expected the roll to become a lot heavier than it presently does, in the E7, F2, F4 and G2....

 

Of course it would be difficult to adapt it to every possible pilot's strenght, so while IRL some pilots could reach exhaustion, others could probably get past it :-), but at 750 km/h I can still easily roll the 109, all models, in il2-BoS, while I thought rudder might have to be used as an aid at such top speeds ?

Edited March 14, 2016 by Von-Queca

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I would have expected the roll to become a lot heavier than it presently does, in the E7, F2, F4 and G2....

 

Of course it would be difficult to adapt it to every possible pilot's strenght, so while IRL some pilots could reach exhaustion, others could probably get past it :-), but at 750 km/h I can still easily roll the 109, all models, in il2-BoS, while I thought rudder might have to be used as an aid at such top speeds ?

Only the Emils Ailerons became heavy, the later models had no such problems. 

 

These are the numbers thrown around for the later models without wing guns (F-2 in this case, Gustavs had heavier, stiffer wings so this would shift somewhat higher even)

200 kph = 45 deg/sec (0.8rad)

300 kph = 68 deg/sec (1.2rad)

400 kph = 83 deg/sec (1.45rad)

480 kph = 20kg/44lbs limit

500 kph = 88 deg/sec (1.55rad)

600 kph = 91 deg/sec (1.6rad) - peak value

700 kph = 56 deg/sec (0.98rad)

800 kph = 23 deg/sec (0.4rad)

 

Could someone provide  a source or link for these, I think they are from either Finnish or british testing. 

This is where I took em from: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?topic=160997.0

Edited March 14, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[Guest deleted@50488]

Only the Emils Ailerons became heavy, the later models had no such problems. 

 

These are the numbers thrown around for the later models without wing guns (F-2 in this case, Gustavs had heavier, stiffer wings so this would shift somewhat higher even)

200 kph = 45 deg/sec (0.8rad)

300 kph = 68 deg/sec (1.2rad)

400 kph = 83 deg/sec (1.45rad)

480 kph = 20kg/44lbs limit

500 kph = 88 deg/sec (1.55rad)

600 kph = 91 deg/sec (1.6rad) - peak value

700 kph = 56 deg/sec (0.98rad)

800 kph = 23 deg/sec (0.4rad)

 

Could someone provide  a source or link for these, I think they are from either Finnish or british testing. 

This is where I took em from: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?topic=160997.0

 

Thx for the Data Mann!

[JG13_opcode]

Pretty sure the last update only addressed the ability to report crashes.

 

Anyone who's noticed "new behaviour" is clearly imagining it.

[4thFG_Cpt_Godfrey]

Let me fan the flames a little here. I for one agree with Flatley. What always amazes me is all these performance charts, spec's, manual say this and say that, etc., from a bunch of "experts". I really don't care what these graphs show when thrown onto the forums. No 2 aircraft ever respond/perform the same by accounts of all pilots, from the dawn of aviation until now and likely forever. Based on literally thousands of books where these real pilots (Are we to believe they don't know what they are talking about?) have gratefully shared their experiences, this sim has a long ways to go. I certainly can't build one and I'm sure they are trying to get it right, but it has flaws. Yaks' hanging on their props with full flaps extended, climbing, losing no airspeed, goes against basic physics.

 

What made me write this is, someone comes on here and post his opinion and some "expert" tells him he sucks and has no skills!! According to the little cute gold ribbons, I would say he paid his share to the tune of $170 US dollars and therefore should be able to post about anything he likes without being publicly berated. I think he deserves a little respect/consideration for his opinions

Edited March 14, 2016 by Orion

[JG13_opcode]

Let me fan the flames a little here. I for one agree with Flatley. What always amazes me is all these performance charts, spec's, manual say this and say that, etc., from a bunch of "experts". I really don't care what these graphs show when thrown onto the forums. No 2 aircraft ever respond/perform the same by accounts of all pilots, from the dawn of aviation until now and likely forever. Based on literally thousands of books where these real pilots (Are we to believe they don't know what they are talking about?) have gratefully shared their experiences, this sim has a long ways to go. I certainly can't build one and I'm sure they are trying to get it right, but it has flaws. Yaks' hanging on their props with full flaps extended, climbing, losing no airspeed, goes against basic physics.

 

What made me write this is, someone comes on here and post his opinion and some "expert" tells him he sucks and has no skills!! According to the little cute gold ribbons, I would say he paid his share to the tune of $170 US dollars and therefore should be able to post about anything he likes without being publicly berated. I think he deserves a little respect/consideration for his opinions

Some of us are indeed experts in the field. For example, I am an aerospace engineer, and I can tell you that while you can choose either to accept that there are certain hard truths to which aircraft must comply, or choose to stick your head in the sand and go with "anecdata", a great deal of our modern world is built on the experts whose knowledge you're so willing to throw away. The same rules and principles we use to design modern fighter aircraft, airliners, UAVs, etc. are all applicable to the study of wartime aircraft and their performance. This isn't stuff that gets pulled out of someone's ass; engineers and scientists have been studying the physics of flight for more than a century. Are we to assume that because some anecdotes appear to you to contradict what science predicts, that these "experts" are clueless idiots? Or do you think it's more likely to be a case of not having the complete picture?    

 

It's true that no two aircraft perform exactly alike. But what many laypeople fail to grasp is that the general trend is more important, and the vast majority of pilot anecdotes simply lack sufficient context necessary to draw performance conclusions. You can't just read memoirs from Pokryshkin that purport to show La-5s outzooming 109s from roughly-equal energy states and assume that the La-5 should therefore always outzoom the 109. That's not how real life works.

 

As for Yaks that "lose no speed", well yes, it would "go against basic physics" but thankfully that is not the case and you are just exaggerating to support your agenda.

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

My agenda is 109s with 30mm cannons on next game.

[Jupp]

~S~ Jupp,

 

I believe that an owner of a broken hearted machine is better than an none operator gone amuck!

 

Pretty, much, that, is it, for now...

 

We Stand on the Standards, We have sworn our lives together under,

 

In any circumfrance,

 

~S~ Everyone else,

 

-Jupp-

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

My agenda is 109s with 30mm cannons on next game.

It should be fun. 109s with 30mm cannons and P-39s with 37mm cannons. Eight aircraft merge, a couple of puffs of smoke and there is only 1 left on each side, out of ammunition because they only had 30 rounds to begin with.

[Asgar]

the 109s 30mm had around 60 rounds IIRC. 

anyway, I want the Me 410 in the next installment

Edited March 15, 2016 by I./JG3_Asgar

[JG13_opcode]

I kinda hope they go to a D-Day or perhaps a 1943-ish Mediterranean scenario next. For the mass appeal.

 

All the high-fidelity aircraft in the world aren't worth it if nobody sees them.

 

Might be a tad overplayed but I think if guys can have their mustangs and jugs and doras it will go a long way towards repopulating this sim. Garner them some cash to build other scenarios.

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

I kinda hope they go to a D-Day or perhaps a 1943-ish Mediterranean scenario next. For the mass appeal.

All the high-fidelity aircraft in the world aren't worth it if nobody sees them.

Might be a tad overplayed but I think if guys can have their mustangs and jugs and doras it will go a long way towards repopulating this sim. Garner them some cash to build other scenarios.

Thanks Opcode!! Just won a bet for a beer 6 pack because of you :D

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

You are correct, Asgar. But it also had a higher rate of fire, which should even the field a little bit.

[4thFG_Cap_D_Gentile]

It's gotten more wobbly as well, at least on the summer map!

[Asgar]

You are correct, Asgar. But it also had a higher rate of fire, which should even the field a little bit.

higher rate of fire does not mean that it will use up ammo faster. the German 30mm mineshell has about twice as much HE filler as the Russian 37mm. If modelled correctly you will need less hits to kill than the Russian pilot does.

Edited March 15, 2016 by I./JG3_Asgar

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Factually speaking both should wreck the target in the first hit, or at the very least force it to exit combat.

 

I assume they should last more or less the same not because of hits, but because in a melee both will probably have multiple 1-2 second firing opportunities. The M4/T9 can spit out about 2,5 rounds/sec while the MK 108 shoots 10,83 rounds/sec. Once the party is over everyone will have to square off with the nose-mounted 12.7mm/13mm guns, and it'll all be even

 

PS: Two people claiming in two separate threads that the aircraft they fly are hopeless against the enemy. Interesting, eh?

Edited March 15, 2016 by Lucas_From_Hell

[JG13_opcode]

Thanks Opcode!! Just won a bet for a beer 6 pack because of you :D

You're welcome? 

 

What was the bet?

[BlitzPig_EL]

I'm curious about that as well...

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I kinda hope they go to a D-Day or perhaps a 1943-ish Mediterranean scenario next. For the mass appeal.

 

All the high-fidelity aircraft in the world aren't worth it if nobody sees them.

 

Might be a tad overplayed but I think if guys can have their mustangs and jugs and doras it will go a long way towards repopulating this sim. Garner them some cash to build other scenarios.

No, just NO! There was no action above D-Day. 

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

You're welcome?

 

What was the bet?

The bet was about someone suggesting the mustang after reading 109 with 30mm for next game because both planes were contemporaries. Five posts limit to decide bet winner Edited March 15, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Gielow

[[CPT]Pike*HarryM]

 

[ShamrockOneFive]

No, just NO! There was no action above D-Day. 

 

June 6, 1944? Not a ton. The Luftwaffe was slow to react. But the D+ days following saw significant aerial activity.

 

This is a very good book if you want day to day activity and action of the RAF vs the Lufwaffe. I'm sure there was plenty more with the 8th and 9th AF too.

https://www.amazon.ca/2nd-Tactical-Air-Force-Vol-2/dp/1903223415/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1458081745&sr=8-3&keywords=2nd+tactical+air+force

It's gotten more wobbly as well, at least on the summer map!

 

Objectively speaking if you get out a stop watch and do a hard ruder over as you start the watch and then stop the watch when the plane has settled down is the difference significant between the winter and summer maps?

 

I'm betting no... But that would be a way to do a test.