Bunch of Whiners!

[Creepermoss]

So basically the 109 is really easy if you are Finnish or if you are friends with Quax, but if you are a modern test pilot or someone with 1000's of hours on WWII warbirds it is difficult enough for them to comment on it, any similarity with contemporary handling reports and 50 year old myths is purely coincidental and these modern pilots need to man up a little.

I'm not sure I'd put that much faith in the memories of a man that's near or in his 90s by now. A pilot that was 18 years old, in 1945, would be 86 years old today, unless he was born in December.

[DD_bongodriver]

No. What part is so hard to understand for you? It sure was trickier than some other ww2 planes, but NOT a deathtrap. ANYONE with decent (100+ hours) experience with taildraggers should not have too much problems with it, IF everything is done correctly.

 

Can you remind me where I have said deathtrap?

 

All I have said is that the 109 in game is far too easy, I literally had to try hard to screw it up, the 109 in real life has been reported as severely directionally unstable with the tail off the ground,l I experienced nothing like this in game.

Edited November 29, 2013 by DD_bongodriver

[DB605]

No, you didn't said exactly these words. But it's what some people seems to think about 109. Sure, it was unstable when tail is off the ground, but it was also easily manageable with rudder if you know what to do. I certainly can't take-off without rudder in BOS.

 

 

 

"-About the tendency of the Messerschmitt to veer at start and takeoff. This is a mythical subject. Some say it was very difficult, others say that as long as you knew what you were doing it was an easy to control plane.
It was not difficult if you had a good instructor who told you what she would do. And you can control her if you only hold the tailwheel on the ground and let her up not until there is enough speed for you to feel the vertical rudder having effect.
- In Tampere in a meeting of Ilmasilta I met two younger Messerschmitt pilots who had been trained in 1946: one of them had the opinion that there were two styles of takeoff: one veering and one not veering. Some applied full power at once, treading on the right pedal. Others applied power slowly and allowed the thousand hp.s pull the plane up at leisure. "She took off by that method too".
"You moved the power lever slowly and as you felt that the vertical rudder responds, the tail could be allowed to rise and then she took off on her own."
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories.

 

Edited November 29, 2013 by DB605

[Sternjaeger]

I know a military pilot who mostly flies jets, but also has over 1000 hours flying conventional propeller driven aircraft.  He had the opportunity to try out a T-6 Texan (a WW2 trainer) and told me he nearly swung off the runway during takeoff.  Swinging off the runway and crashing is the experience of nearly everyone during their first take-off attempt in the DCS P-51, even when they have thousands of hours in prop sims like Il-2 1946 and Clod.

 

I can't comment on the handling of the 109F-4 in BoS, but I will follow this discussion closely.

 

this is the point, one thing is facts, and another is what people say. Let's use this as an example.

 

I have a decent amount of hours on the T-6 type, and I can tell you that yes, the torque is there, but if you respect procedures (i.e. trim the rudder for takeoff), the torque will still be there, but will be entirely manageable. Obviously for someone who never flew the T-6 the torque will still be outstanding, but it's just because of different experience on different aircraft. I'm sure that if I sat in an F-16 and gave it the full beans, I'd find the experience insanely fast, but a pilot with experience on the same machine will tell you "yeah it's fast, but there's faster stuff".

 

To bring this example to a non-aircraft environment, it's like when you get your first proper fast car, and you're amazed at how fast the thing goes at first, but after a while you get used to it and don't expect things to go any slower than that. 

 

The peculiarities of an aircraft also play another important part: I'm sure that putting a Bf109 pilot on a FW190 for the first time wouldn't have been as difficult as doing the opposite. 

 

What I think really matters is that the devs ensure the environment we fly in is capable of representing the known peculiarity of the aircraft, then we don't have to worry about anything else and let the sim engine do its job.

 

It'll never be like the real deal, but I can tell you it's darn close to it.

Edited November 29, 2013 by Sternjaeger

[Zmaj76]

this is the point, one thing is facts, and another is what people say. Let's use this as an example.

 

I have a decent amount of hours on the T-6 type, and I can tell you that yes, the torque is there, but if you respect procedures (i.e. trim the rudder for takeoff), the torque will still be there, but will be entirely manageable. Obviously for someone who never flew the T-6 the torque will still be outstanding, but it's just because of different experience on different aircraft. I'm sure that if I sat in an F-16 and gave it the full beans, I'd find the experience insanely fast, but a pilot with experience on the same machine will tell you "yeah it's fast, but there's faster stuff".

 

To bring this example to a non-aircraft environment, it's like when you get your first proper fast car, and you're amazed at how fast the thing goes at first, but after a while you get used to it and don't expect things to go any slower than that. 

 

The peculiarities of an aircraft also play another important part: I'm sure that putting a Bf109 pilot on a FW190 for the first time wouldn't have been as difficult as doing the opposite. 

 

What I think really matters is that the devs ensure the environment we fly in is capable of representing the known peculiarity of the aircraft, then we don't have to worry about anything else and let the sim engine do its job.

 

It'll never be like the real deal, but I can tell you it's darn close to it.

Ok then case is closed.

[6S.Manu]

I expect if most of us were plopped into a real 109 minutes before landing, in ideal conditions, and didn't freeze with panic, we'd have a decent chance of getting down with plane and self intact.

 

Can you imagine if the Luftwaffe had had this technology in WW2?! Then it would likely be the other way around..."God damn it, the sim was harder than this!"

 

That's the reaction of the best virtual racing driver after his laps in a real racing car. 

 

Edited November 29, 2013 by 6S.Manu

[-MG-Cacti4-6]

wow, just wow. is it possible for anybody on this board to disagree in a civil manner. I get that people think that because they heard this or that, it must be 100% factual. But to start throwing out insults because someone (whether right or wrong) calls shenanigans, taking what was said out of context, or other forms of "I must win teh internetz" actions is uncalled for.  Some of the comments in this thread i would expect to see in war thunder in the arcade battle subforum. 

[Rama]

wow, just wow. is it possible for anybody on this board to disagree in a civil manner. I get that people think that because they heard this or that, it must be 100% factual. But to start throwing out insults because someone (whether right or wrong) calls shenanigans, taking what was said out of context, or other forms of "I must win teh internetz" actions is uncalled for.  Some of the comments in this thread i would expect to see in war thunder in the arcade battle subforum. 

This.

Removed most of the heat

Please,to all... cool down and don't make me close this thread. Possible?

[Panzerlang]

Seriously? My posts were part of the "heat"?! Jesus f*****g wept. I seriously resent the totally false accusation you've just made by deleting my posts (which are no longer available to be seen by way of proof otherwise).  

 

Guess what...you've just managed to ensure I, and many others I suspect, will think twice in future about posting perfectly cool, polite, civil and otherwise reasonable comments in a debate.

[Rama]

Whatever you resent, please don't discuss the moderation in public (look at the forum rules).

If you want to discuss it, PM me.

[Panzerlang]

Can you remind me where I have said deathtrap?

 

All I have said is that the 109 in game is far too easy, I literally had to try hard to screw it up, the 109 in real life has been reported as severely directionally unstable with the tail off the ground,l I experienced nothing like this in game.

 

Well, I have. When I've been a bit too lively on the pedals the plane has gone south real quick.

 

You have to apply a bit of subjective perspective to anecdotal reports.

[Bearcat]

 

That's the reaction of the best virtual racing driver after his laps in a real racing car. 

 

 

Wow that is a fascinating video ...

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Bongodriver, the Finnish pilots that were sent to pick up the planes from Germany 1943 found out the Bf109 was nothing special to handle after learning the quirks. Those guys were the already veterans from Winter War 1939-1940 with a LOT of flying under their belt. Kyösti Karhila had flown Curtiss 75A Hawks, others had flown Fokker D.XXI and/or Brewsters etc. All of them being tail draggers so torque was nothing new. All of the Finnish vets confirmed they got a thorough introduction to the Bf109 characteristics before getting to fly one. Even then they started with Bf109E before moving to F and G. While they appreciated it and monitored German intructors most Finns found the Bf109 easy and pleasant to fly. So we talk about EXPERIENCE here, they had a lot of it and were taught to the plane and it's quirks. Nothing mythical there. I just find it strange that Bf109 quirks have been blown out of proportion and touted as absolute truth so long that no other opinion seems valid. Günther Rall said well in a meeting once: When you sit in that "office" for 5 years you know exactly what it does and what you can or not do with it. 

[DD_bongodriver]

But it's the quirks we don't have in game, the 109 is simply the easiest aircraft I have ever handled in a sim, why is nobody getting my point here, I don't care that some of us sim pilots have crashed it, that says nothing to me, what I have read from a test pilots report is that it has severe directional instability, it does not have it in game.

[Panzerlang]

It must be a bit like my first Fireblade, which I thought had something wrong with its weight distribution or geometry or ergonomics due to how easily the back wheel would spin under acceleration. "Severe directional instability" could have been a description. Then I learned that it just had a stupidly powerful motor and low gearing and adapted accordingly. The bike was actually perfect.

 

It's all about the perception of the tester and if a bunch of Finns are at odds with other testers it has to be about only that, perception.

 

Just my tuppence worth.

[DD_bongodriver]

No it's not, it's about the game not having the particular quirks exclusive to the 109, it's about finding the in game 109 just feels like any other aircraft and no evidence of that peculiarity that needs a specific input to counteract that tells us 'oh we are in a 109', by now people must realise 'everybody' has mentioned it's quirks, history has given it a reputation, modern test pilots have confirmed it.

[Panzerlang]

Is it possible no sim engine can work to a fine enough scale to reproduce such high-fidelity quirks? Or at least not without resorting to scripted action that operates independently of the physic's code?

[FlatSpinMan]

I'm not sure I'd put that much faith in the memories of a man that's near or in his 90s by now. A pilot that was 18 years old, in 1945, would be 86 years old today, unless he was born in December.

Yeah, but maybe he wrote something down at the time.

[ATAG_Slipstream]

Anyone that thinks they could just jump into a real 109, a high powered warbird, and land it without probably killing themselves after 3  days flying the BoS 109 probably needs to step away from the computer for a while...

Edited November 30, 2013 by 9./ZG26Oster

[DD_bongodriver]

Anyone that thinks they could just jump into a real 109, a high powered warbird, and land it without probably killing themselves after 3  days flying the BoS 109 probably needs to step away from the computer for a while...

 

Yeah, that has to be one of the most worrying theories that came from this thread.

[Panzerlang]

And yet they sent 18 year old kids into combat in them with just a few hours on type. Most of whom got down ok in them too.

 

It would be interesting to know how much sim experience counts towards real flying. Obviously the physical forces upon the body would be a bit of an "oh ooer" moment but apart from that?

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Bongo, the Bf109 in game for sure goes tits up if you do not fly it right. How many hours do we sim pilots have in IL-2 series or any other sim of that matter? A lot more than any real life pilot will ever have. I find the Bf109 in game unforgiving if you fly it wrong. You simply can not slam it to the ground without breaking it or bouncing and then breaking it. Nor on take-off you can't just slam the throttle to the wall without countering the torque. Needs also aileron input when lifting off ground. Because I know how the Bf109 handles in a GAME it is a very easy plane for me to fly. I apply a bit of throttle against brakes, counter the swing with rudder, keep tail down until 120km/h or above and lift the tail. Then it just flies off while you still counter the swing with rudder and wing drop with aileron input. A breeze, like second nature because we have it memorised from the thousands of hours in a virtual cockpit. As a comparison, Cliffs of Dover take-offs and landings feel like arcade after trying out BoS. 

 

 As of flying the real deal. I could not do it as I am not a pilot. But if speaking I would be one, then I would not unless having extensive experience with high powered tail draggers. Well if they can be called that these days, lawn mowers with wings Anyways even after that I would for sure study the Bf109 a lot before first attempt of flying it. And off a grass field as that is what Bf109 pilots said, they liked to fly it off grass fields more than off concrete ones due the quirks. So there you go, lot of preparation before flying.

 

 I am sure BoS will be tweaked, but to make it a sim it should not be harder than reality for the sake of it. Realism vs. playability. It is not very feasible to try modelling everything nor is it possible. We get an approximation of things, how it could be. Not an exact simulation. IMHO BoS is going the right way, the feel and execution of the sim is believeable without being an arcade pile of goo. I am sure we will get a challenge and more in the future. Until then I will continue testing and learning

[DD_bongodriver]

any student I have had with sim experience has obviously benefitted from an understanding of effects of controls and other general stuff, but I have never had one who I would have sent solo straight away, but here is the real eye opener, I have tried to teach experienced flight instructors to fly taildragger aircraft who just never made the grade.

 

And yet they sent 18 year old kids into combat in them with just a few hours on type. Most of whom got down ok in them too.

 

It would be interesting to know how much sim experience counts towards real flying. Obviously the physical forces upon the body would be a bit of an "oh ooer" moment but apart from that?

[Panzerlang]

I believe there are a number of cases of non-pilots landing planes after the pilot has gone down with a heart attack or suchlike. I assume most if not all of them were helped over the radio though.

[Sternjaeger]

Well I can tell you that Italian pilots who received 109s didn't have the exact same smooth experience: apart for the throttle operation (which on Italian and French planes was reversed), they found the aircraft to be quite temperamental with the directional stability, and witnessed several German pilots having terrible accidents at takeoff and landing.

It's true that a pilot's perspective can be extremely subjective, but it doesn't change the peculiarities of a machine.

Every high performance warbird is a demanding machine to fly: if you talk to P-51 mustang owners, when those who have several kinds of warbirds, they will almost unanimously tell you that's their favourite warbird to fly.

 

But then if you ask the first RAF pilots who converted from the Spitfire to the Mustang, several of them will tell you they shat their pants the first time they started to turn and, since they were used to wing buffeting as pre-stall warning, kept on pulling and pulling until the plane just entered a spin with pretty much no warning. 

 

Is it a hard plane? Is it an easy plane? That's subjective, but as long as the aircraft's peculiarities will be represented, we'll be flying something that behaves accurately.

Edited November 30, 2013 by Sternjaeger

[ParaB]

BTW I've been searching for statistics about training accidents in the Luftwaffe for a long time but never found anything substantial besides some statements that they were "very high" during the last 2 years of the war.

 

Has anyone some info on this?

[Sternjaeger]

nobody does, it's a long going debate but to this date there isn't any reliable data available.