Bf109 flight model issue.

[II./JG53Lutzow_z06z33]

Since the early in the beta the 109 has been getting worse and worse,now you can't even snap roll it,the plane just learches to 120 degrees or so and snaps back level,....and it's extremely unstable at moderate airspeed. I gotta ask why did they nurff this plane it's early beta was good. If it's the slats that keep it from snap rolling then we should have the option to lock them like they did in ww2.

[TP_Jacko]

Which version of the 109

[JG13_opcode]

Since the early in the beta the 109 has been getting worse and worse,now you can't even snap roll it,the plane just learches to 120 degrees or so and snaps back level,....and it's extremely unstable at moderate airspeed. I gotta ask why did they nurff this plane it's early beta was good. If it's the slats that keep it from snap rolling then we should have the option to lock them like they did in ww2.

Got any data to back up your opinion?

[GridiroN]

The 109 was known for being jerky with a sensitive stick. I don't have any problems rolling though... In fact the 109 might actually be togood a roller right now... It's almost as fast as the fw190.

 

Someone also provides sources that the yak is climbing way to well, so sure some planes have accuracy issues but, I would never say the 109 is a bad roller.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Vne of 900 km/h, high speed roll rate of a Fw 190, impossibility to stall by reaching critical AoA,...

 

And you call them underperforming, mmmmh... 

[II./JG53Lutzow_z06z33]

The 109 was known for being jerky with a sensitive stick. I don't have any problems rolling though... In fact the 109 might actually be togood a roller right now... It's almost as fast as the fw190.

 

Someone also provides sources that the yak is climbing way to well, so sure some planes have accuracy issues but, I would never say the 109 is a bad roller.

It will roll but not snap roll,this is a snap roll.

You do it by full aileron,full rudder and full elevator the 109 won't do it.

Got any data to back up your opinion?

Yea the German victory numbers on the Eastern Front. Early war Russian planes were little more than targets save for the very experienced pilots. The Devs are defiantly giving the Russian planes a boost. I kept getting one shot killed by Russians while I had to pump half of my cannon ammo to bring one down

Edited August 17, 2016 by II./JG53Lutzow_z06z33

[JG13_opcode]

Yea the German victory numbers on the Eastern Front. Early war Russian planes were little more than targets save for the very experienced pilots. The Devs are defiantly giving the Russian planes a boost. I kept getting one shot killed by Russians while I had to pump half of my cannon ammo to bring one down

So that's a "no, I have nothing to back up my feelings except more feelings", then.

 

Case closed!

[Solty]

Vne of 900 km/h, high speed roll rate of a Fw 190, impossibility to stall by reaching critical AoA,...

 

And you call them underperforming, mmmmh... 

Dat!

[CUJO_1970]

Fly the FW.

 

You will go running back to your 109.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

Fly the FW.

 

You will go running back to your 109.

 

The FW's not even be able to do a barrel roll without sending itself into a spin now, it's sad.

Edited August 18, 2016 by GrapeJam

[YSoMadTovarisch]

So that's a "no, I have nothing to back up my feelings except more feelings", then.

 

Case closed!

He might be wrong about the 109 but he's definitely right about the Russian planes, it's been proven that they're badly overperforming at high altitude, high speed maneuverability. Their energy retention and DM are also pretty suspicious.

[El_Babuino]

Mmm...another "low-skilled bf109 pilot whining tread". Its always fun.    TS fly on soviet planes and look how they are "boost".

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Russians Overperforming at Altitude? Fortunately Facts help against the Experts. This is a really rough Sketch, some Aircraft have higher peaking Top Speeds, like the E-7 peaks at more than 590kph in the mid 5000s, but in general this is what you can go by. 

 

 

 

  

Edited August 18, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Your own chart shows that Yak-1 overspeeds at 6000m by more than 30 km/h, talk about facts.

 

And i'll say nothing about the LaGG-3...

[mb339pan]

wrong data!
The P40 is much faster that data, from my tests on autumn stalingrad map 12:00 am, airstart 300m

 

 

 

 

543 km/h, and still increases, ipotetical max speed over 550 km/h

 

I wonder if they really tested the planes in the game ... bha

Edited August 18, 2016 by 150GCT_Pan

[mb339pan]

G2 on autumn stalingrad map 12:00 am, airstart 300m

 

1.3 ATA 2600 rpm

 

 

manual pitch 2800 rpm (up for 2/3 min.)

 

 

I ask the best experts not to move data that can be wrong, tested before yourself please!
these simple tests are made in 5 minutes

Edited August 18, 2016 by 150GCT_Pan

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

wrong data!

The P40 is much faster that data, from my tests on autumn stalingrad map 12:00 am, airstart 300m

 

 

 

 

543 km/h, and still increases, ipotetical max speed over 550 km/h

 

I wonder if they really tested the planes in the game ... bha

Potential Max Speed of the P-40 is 585 on the Ground. However, the WEP is 42"@3000, and that's the 5 minute Setting. 56+" kill your engine in a matter of 30 Seconds right now. It's not really useful at all unless you need a boost while prophanging. 

 

Correction: 571kph. 

 

Edit: That's why I for some time called it the fastest ingame Aircraft for 2 Minutes. 

Edited August 18, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[mb339pan]

Even the F4 little more than a minute breaks the engine, but that is the maximum performance, maximum speed, not cruise speed
P40 WEP in that the graphic is wrong, even if the motor breaks down after a few seconds

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Even the F4 little more than a minute breaks the engine, but that is the maximum performance, maximum speed, not cruise speed

P40 WEP in that the graphic is wrong, even if the motor breaks down after a few seconds

The F-4 has at least 5 Minutes with 2600rpm and 1.35ata. 

The E-7 is run at 1.3ata and 2400-2600 for 5 Minutes (RPM increase above Critical Altitude)

Where is the Problem?

That's why I have a Chart for WEP and Non-WEP Times, or one Speed at which you may be intercepted, and one which you can use to intercept. 

G2 on autumn stalingrad map 12:00 am, airstart 300m

 

1.3 ATA 2600 rpm

 

 

 

manual pitch 2800 rpm (up for 2/3 min.)

 

 

 

I ask the best experts not to move data that can be wrong, tested before yourself please!

these simple tests are made in 5 minutes

 

The 109s top Speed varies greatly  with Stabilizer Settings, for best speed trim Nose down. 

Your own chart shows that Yak-1 overspeeds at 6000m by more than 30 km/h, talk about facts.

 

And i'll say nothing about the LaGG-3...

And 190 is overperforming by at least 7kph everywhere.

Edited August 18, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[YSoMadTovarisch]

And 190 is overperforming by roughly 7kph everywhere.

 

How?

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

[YSoMadTovarisch]

The 190A3 overperform by around 10-12km in the first supercharger gear while badly underperform after the 2nd supercharger gear, how does it "overperform by 7km/h everywhere" like you've said?

 

And I'm not even gonna get into it's flight characteristics, it's just disgusting.

Edited August 18, 2016 by GrapeJam

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

It will roll but not snap roll,this is a snap roll.

 

You do it by full aileron,full rudder and full elevator the 109 won't do it.

The Problem is in the Slats. A Snap Roll really only happens if you can get 1 Wing to stall, however when you have Slats to prevent such stalls and a strong weight bias towards the Front you get that weird wobbling it does right now. 

You can still perform Snaps Rolls by pushing. 

[JtD]

Russians Overperforming at Altitude?

LaGG-3 and Yak-1 do. At 8-10 km altitude, they can maintain speeds 50-100 km/h higher than the maximum speeds given for their historical counterparts.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Pe-2 did the same, since it is using the same engine.

The La-5 on the other hand is pathetic at maintaining high speeds, at least when I try. It keeps overheating like there's no tomorrow, so I need to fly it with rads completely open when LaGG/Yak fly rads nearly closed. It's awfully slow across all altitudes.

The Fw190 is not faster at all altitudes. It's slightly optimistic in first gear and slightly pessimistic in second up to FTH, and slightly optimistic above 8000m again. It's reaching 620 at Kampfleistung at 6000m (610 according to you, 625 according to my test), where historical data ranges from 610 to 630 at that altitude. Throughout the altitude band, we're talking of differences of about 10km/h, give or take. It's probably the most accurate speed performance we have in game.

[LukeFF]

 

 

I wonder if they really tested the planes in the game ... bha

 

Yes, they are, so please keep your immature comments to yourself.  

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

LaGG-3 and Yak-1 do. At 8-10 km altitude, they can maintain speeds 50-100 km/h higher than the maximum speeds given for their historical counterparts.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Pe-2 did the same, since it is using the same engine.

The La-5 on the other hand is pathetic at maintaining high speeds, at least when I try. It keeps overheating like there's no tomorrow, so I need to fly it with rads completely open when LaGG/Yak fly rads nearly closed. It's awfully slow across all altitudes.

The Fw190 is not faster at all altitudes. It's slightly optimistic in first gear and slightly pessimistic in second up to FTH, and slightly optimistic above 8000m again. It's reaching 620 at Kampfleistung at 6000m (610 according to you, 625 according to my test), where historical data ranges from 610 to 630 at that altitude. Throughout the altitude band, we're talking of differences of about 10km/h, give or take. It's probably the most accurate speed performance we have in game.

I could probably improve Top Speed at 6k by playing with the Stabilizer for the 190. 

 

I don't really see the Top Speeds of the Russian fighters at altitude as detrimental to Gameplay, since they are still pityfully slow. 

[Crump]

 

 

Since the early in the beta the 109 has been getting worse and worse,now you can't even snap roll it,the plane just learches to 120 degrees or so and snaps back level,....and it's extremely unstable at moderate airspeed. I gotta ask why did they nurff this plane it's early beta was good. If it's the slats that keep it from snap rolling then we should have the option to lock them like they did in ww2.

 

Is your control input is correct?  

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Ose7kcd_zKo#t=681

[mb339pan]

Yes, they are, so please keep your immature comments to yourself.  

 

lol, wrong graphics and I'd be immature ... ok

[Fern]

Definitely feels like there's been a change to the 109 flight performance, especially on the summer maps. Constantly wobbling even after trimming and feels like its going to fall out of the sky at 300-500km.

 

Just another "low-skilled bf109 pilot" here.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Definitely feels like there's been a change to the 109 flight performance, especially on the summer maps. Constantly wobbling even after trimming and feels like its going to fall out of the sky at 300-500km.

 

Just another "low-skilled bf109 pilot" here.

To me it feels like the exact opposite. Extremely stable, although the elevators seem to be a lot more powerful. 

[JG13_opcode]

Their energy retention and DM are also pretty suspicious.

 

What's the definition of Energy Retention, and how do you measure it?

 

To what data are you comparing Energy Retention of the in-game Soviet birds, and how do they stack up against historical Energy Retention data?

Definitely feels like there's been a change to the 109 flight performance, especially on the summer maps. Constantly wobbling even after trimming and feels like its going to fall out of the sky at 300-500km.

 

Just another "low-skilled bf109 pilot" here.

 

I notice the G-2 is super wobbly at low speed on the pitch axis, but last time I flew the F-4 it wasn't nearly as bad.  CG issues would be my guess.

Edited August 18, 2016 by JG13_opcode

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

The G-2 and especially the F-4 always had a slight pitch unstability. Didn't notice any difference.

[JG13_opcode]

The G-2 and especially the F-4 always had a slight pitch unstability. Didn't notice any difference.

 

Yeah I'm not saying it's changed, only that I've always noted the problem with the G-2 and less so the F-4.

[II./JG53Lutzow_z06z33]

Mmm...another "low-skilled bf109 pilot whining tread". Its always fun.    TS fly on soviet planes and look how they are "boost".

Skills aren't an issue I had over 350 victories in early beta multiplayer after that I quit counting it wasn't unusual for me to have double-digit Victory marks in a single 60-minute session so it isn't skill it's that traditional luftwaffe tactics no longer work in this game boom and zoom fighting is useless because the Yaks can catch you even if you started with the energy Advantage even though I 16 can catch up to the 109 the main issue is that apply model does not represent the historical overpowering ability of the 109 to dominate early War Russian aircraft I understand the need for balance but all they've accomplished is destroying any advantage the 109 had in fighting the tiger turning Russian Fighters and those are speed and high altitude performance

[JtD]

I don't really see the Top Speeds of the Russian fighters at altitude as detrimental to Gameplay, since they are still pityfully slow.

Whether or no gameplay suffers depends on if you want to play quake with airplanes or a historical flight simulation game. In my opinion, it suffers.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -Christopher Hitchens 

+1 For Hitchens. 

 

Every time I see the "Evidence" I see a Yak maintaining optimum Climb Speed and 109s going ludicrously Steep, Manouvering etc, while the Yak Pilot works around the fact that he has the worse aircraft. 

[GridiroN]

Russians Overperforming at Altitude? Fortunately Facts help against the Experts. This is a really rough Sketch, some Aircraft have higher peaking Top Speeds, like the E-7 peaks at more than 590kph in the mid 5000s, but in general this is what you can go by.

 

 

 

All this does demonstrate speeds. Some other posters noted that the yak and laugh are going significantly faster than they should be, but either way, the previous poster's point was the maneuverability.

 

Maybe there are issues with the 109, I don't know. I don't know enough about a analyzing raw data. What I can say though is that its obvious several planes have some issues...the i16 is obnoxious, practically a troll plane, the yak and lag have infinite energy, the fockewulf is not a competitive dogfighter at all which goes against almost every pilot opinion ive read...

 

It's a great sim ,but these conversations always devolve into Russian pilots not wanting their planes touched and calling any German who has an issue "a low skill 109'er", and German pilots not wanting their planes touched any further after what happened to the 190...

 

Let's all just friggin admit that almost every plane has multiple realism issues... Someone else in another thread proved with air tunnel tests that the yak climb rate is also significantly higher than it should be... Like... Common people.

Edited August 18, 2016 by GridiroN

[JG13_opcode]

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -Christopher Hitchens 

 

 

+1 For Hitchens. 

 

Every time I see the "Evidence" I see a Yak maintaining optimum Climb Speed and 109s going ludicrously Steep, Manouvering etc, while the Yak Pilot works around the fact that he has the worse aircraft.

That's why I asked him for Energy Retention data.

 

Pro tip: He doesn't have any.

 

"Energy retention" is a meaningless term that sim pilots who lack a complete understanding of aircraft performance came up with. Nobody tested for that historically and there is no agreed-upon definition. There was a guy named TAGERT who posts here occasionally under a different name that came up with a pretty good dive-zoom test, using devicelink to give the exact same control inputs every time. Using that he could get a reasonable idea as to the relative performance of two aircraft in a dive-pullout-zoom scenario. Determining whether or not that counts as "Energy Retention" is left as an exercise for the reader. In either case, there is no historical data to compare it to, so when a person says "the E retention is suspicious" it means "I don't like the way Plane X is modeled".

 

Aircraft performance is in one of two domains: sustained or instantaneous. Either the aircraft can do something until it runs out of fuel (sustained), or it cannot (instantaneous).

Edited August 19, 2016 by JG13_opcode

[YSoMadTovarisch]

What's the definition of Energy Retention, and how do you measure it?

 

For such light weight and not so clean air frames, not so hot power to weight ratio they keep speed pretty damn well in straight line after a dive, while zooming( even with shallow angle pull out), they actually keep speed better than the 190, in straight line mind you.

Edited August 19, 2016 by GrapeJam

[JtD]

"Energy retention" is a meaningless term that sim pilots who lack a complete understanding of aircraft performance came up with. Nobody tested for that historically and there is no agreed-upon definition.

Energy retention is just plain and simple physics. Change of total mechanical energy over time. Which can easily be derived from available data, such as speed, climb, turn or glide information. Of course this can be measured in game, and of course it's situation specific. An aircraft that has twice the historical glide ratio but lacks in top speed, will have scenarios where it retains energy too well, and others where it retains it too poorly.

 

I think that you'll have to get used to that catchy and simple, sometimes inaccurate physical concepts will be used to for the description of observations on a gaming board. There's nothing wrong with that, in fact, it's part of the fun.

Edited August 19, 2016 by JtD