G4

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Heh, best advice remains to just fly the F4 when it comes to 109s in BOX. At least up until today.

 

Thanks for your contribution to the thread.

[I./JG68_Sperber]

The G4 still floats more than the G2, very bad ... I make times vacation of Il 2...

[LukeFF]

G2 was there as well, so no need to fly the G4. For me it will stay in the hangar, don't see any need for it

 

Not everyone owns the G-2, hence the G-4 fills in quite nicely for such players.

[150GCT_Veltro]

If anyone is interested, here is the link to the june 1943 G series manual. 

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/BF109_G-2-4-6_Bedienungsvorschrift_June43.pdf

 

1.42 boost is limited to 1 minute, although technically, use of 1.42 ata was forbidden (see note 1):

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you very much!

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Not everyone owns the G-2, hence the G-4 fills in quite nicely for such players.

yes

[MAJ_stug41]

It is not stupid, if they were able to reduce the percentage of takeoff/landing accidents with bigger wheels and also having a better radio could make a difference in real life, even if in the game it makes no real difference. The real main difference between the G2 and G4 is the radio. The bigger wheels and lifted engine limitation were already part of late G2 models.

Yup, and changes were limited to those that would not effect production significantly, so a lot of developments were halfway done, like adding this larger tailwheel but not altering the tail to allow it to recess.

[Matt]

If you experiment a bit and use between 1.3 and 1.42 ATA, you can fly for a good bit longer than 1 minute with better performance (especially in climb) than the G-2.

[Gambit21]

Well, many Luftwaffe pilots did consider the F4 to be the overall best of the bunch.

Definitely the pinnacle of 109 development from a dogfighting perspective - but then then needed to bring down heavies.

[ElPerk]

If you experiment a bit and use between 1.3 and 1.42 ATA, you can fly for a good bit longer than 1 minute with better performance (especially in climb) than the G-2.

Tell me more.

[Trinkof]

Tell me more.

Engine limits in BOS are not strict for a "engine mode" but for an admission pressure and rpm. Meaning if you are in emergency but not far in ATA and close to the combat power, engine will not fail after 1 minute... Maybe after 1.5 or 2 minutes.

 

Good example is the 110. If you run it at max combat power, near limit of emergency (use technochat in game to see the real limit) you will not have 30 minutes before engine fails, but something like 15-20.

 

Same if you run it at combat power , but low, near continuous power you will have more than 30 min before engine fail.

 

By using sound of engine you can with practice be pretty accurate and use high power a little longer. Just use emergency for a couple of seconds at very important moment such as resources or agressive climbing , it can give precious advantage... Do not use it to runaway... If you need this to escape, you already failed.... And you will kill the engine.

 

Do not use emergency for max speed ... But for max acceleration and power.

Edited December 21, 2016 by LAL_Trinkof

[Max_Damage]

The G4 should get an extra helicopter authority for a couple of minutes which provides free escape out of any troublesome situation by simply going upwards and doing a spiral. Trials should be done however to check if it is any better then with the F4.

 

What i dont understand is why is it said that G2 has 22.4 m/s climb at deck and G4 has only 20.1 m/s. They should be very similar at combat both are at ~1310 hp at combat power and have similar normal weight at ~3000 kg. but wtih a large advantage for G4 at emergency.

Edited December 21, 2016 by Max_Damage

[Sgt_Joch]

been flying QMBs on the summer map, seems you can safely push the engine up to 2650-2700 RPM past 1 minute, did 2650 for 5 minutes without overheating.

[Dakpilot]

Did a "stress" test of G4, ran at 1.3 ATA combat power for 30 mins, 1 min cool down at cruise then 1 min 1,42 ATA,1 min cool down then again 1.42 ATA, engine failed at 45 secs, summer map 1000m, cooling on auto (only for personal knowledge not for any 'Test data')

 

As said very well by Mr Trinkof, there is much more potential to manage this, G2 is 5-6km faster than G4 at comparable combat power,1.30 ATA in this scenario, 1-1.5%

 

(rough and ready test, but apples to apples)

 

I imagine in most combat situation G4 will give better performance options than G2, 5-6 kph top speed will not outrun bullets or cannon

 

The instant negativity shown by a few in this thread for this A/C goes some way to explain a certain perceived "attitude" 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Irgendjemand]

Thanks for your contribution to the thread.

 

Simple truth. Isnt it?

[150GCT_Veltro]

The G4 still floats more than the G2, very bad ... I make times vacation of Il 2...

 

We need to be patiente about this, even if i think it should have to be an high priority.

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/168-developer-diary/page-4?do=findComment&comment=405724

 

 

We were able to establish the root cause of some excessive roll reactions of our aircrafts on the rudder.

Oddly enough, we reached the proper behavior of the aircraft through more detailed modeling of the fuselage aerodynamics. By the way, I never cease to be surprised at how bizarre and sometimes non-trivial relationships of aerodynamics and flight dynamics are woven together, when the solution of the problem in the end is not quite where you expected it to be. Nevertheless, we have conducted a number of internal experiments with one of the airplanes, and they showed very good results: the ailerons deviation for slip compensation significantly reduced, the aircraft has acquired the ability to perform deep coordinated sideslip, including at low airspeeds, which is useful on final approach. And when pushing the pedal with the fixed stick the aircraft instead of performing a roll begin to fall into a bank putting the nose down.

 

The successful completion of this research will enable us to further refine the behavior of our aircrafts on these flight regimes. However, the implementation of this research results for all aircrafts in IL-2 BoS/BoM/BoK requires a lot of time. We hope to have this opportunity during 2017.

Edited December 21, 2016 by 150GCT_Veltro

[Trinkof]

Simple truth. Isnt it?

Sadly for them real pilots did not had this choice .... And a lot of them actually stated they would like to stay on fiedrich.... I have just read an interview of Hans Stigler saying exactly this ...

 

So I will correct your sentence "stay on a F4 when it comes to 109" ... No need to add in BOX, as it was the case IRL

 

S !

[Finkeren]

I fell like people are getting bogged down in insignificant little details here. At 1.30 ATA the G4 is very marginally slower in top speed than the G2 and has very slightly worse climb rate, areas where the 109s have such an advantage over the Soviet fighters that it hardly matters. In return you get +1 minute of serious power increase, which you can use for short bursts of acceleration at critical moments (accelleration being one of the areas where the 109 is actually at a disadvantage against some VVS fighters)

 

Sounds like a pretty good deal and certainly nothing to get your panties in a twist over.

[Jade_Monkey]

I fell like people are getting bogged down in insignificant little details here. At 1.30 ATA the G4 is very marginally slower in top speed than the G2 and has very slightly worse climb rate, areas where the 109s have such an advantage over the Soviet fighters that it hardly matters. In return you get +1 minute of serious power increase, which you can use for short bursts of acceleration at critical moments (accelleration being one of the areas where the 109 is actually at a disadvantage against some VVS fighters)

 

Sounds like a pretty good deal and certainly nothing to get your panties in a twist over.

You know these forums, anything can get someone's panties in a bunch.

[Matt]

Tell me more.

Everything less than 1.42 ATA will give you more than 1 minute time.

 

For instance, you can fly around with ~1.36 ATA for 4+ minutes and be faster and climb better than the G-2. 

[E69_geramos109]

When was cleared 1.42 for longer periods?

[Sgt_Joch]

so, now that I have both the G4 and the yak1 s.127, I have been doing a lot of QMB 1 vs 1. The two ACs are pretty evenly matched... if you play to their strengths.

 

With the G4, I see that it is possible to out turn the Yak 1. If you have a E advantage and push the RPM up to 2700 rpm, you can use 'brute strength" to power your way onto the Yak's tail. Just by the sound of the engine, you can sort of tell when you are getting close to the limit.

 

Now I know some one will say SP is not MP and I totally agree, just like I agree that getting into a turn fight with a Yak is playing the Yak's game, BUT being able to push past 2600 rpm/1.3 ata gives you options.

Edited December 21, 2016 by Sgt_Joch

[F/JG300_Gruber]

Had a few quick flight in it, I like it better than the G2 so far. A tiny bit slower at the same engine settings but the boost provided at 1.40+ATA makes it more enjoyable.

 

Still a hell of a brick with the gunpods though.

[StG2_Manfred]

For those who are interested, the Flugzeug Handbuch of the G4 and the Exerzier Karte of the G series.

Bf-109G-4.pdf

Bf-109G.pdf

[Blutaar]

Everything less than 1.42 ATA will give you more than 1 minute time.

 

For instance, you can fly around with ~1.36 ATA for 4+ minutes and be faster and climb better than the G-2. 

This time limit nonsens needs to go it has nothing to do with RL which this sim trys to simulate.

Make the times longer and/or make it so that 1min of WEP will need 1min to refill the timer, 

the same for the 30min timer.

Just my opinion.

Edited December 22, 2016 by Ishtaru

[Jade_Monkey]

This time limit nonsens needs to go it has nothing to do with RL which this sim trys to simulate.

Make the times longer and/or make it so that 1min of WEP will need 1min to refill the timer,

the same for the 30min timer.

Just my opinion.

So the current system is unrealistic but the 1min timer to reset is not arcadish? Edited December 22, 2016 by Jade_Monkey

[Blutaar]

Of course its arcadish but It was just an idea so that people dont fly at WEP all day long.

Im sure there are people with better ideas which fit better.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

What if engines were limited in the following way:

 

As the pilot engages WEP the following things are taken in to consideration:

• If you run WEP over the defined duration during the course of a flight (engine start to engine off @ 1m for the 109 G-4) you initiate a 1/2 chance to begin unnecessary engine wear - this could steadily decrease engine output (similar to running too low/too high of a mixture or without the supercharger engaged at altitude)
• If the engine wear counter is flagged this initiates a 1/4 chance for engine failure - this would "smoke" the engine to simulate engine parts being damaged
• If the engine wear counter is flagged this initiates a 1/8 chance for catastrophic engine failure - this would result in the engine seizing
• If the engine failure counter is flagged this initiates a 1/3 chance for catastrophic engine failure - this would result in the engine seizing 

Edited December 22, 2016 by Space_Ghost

[StG2_Manfred]

This engine failure shortly after 1.5 min. is unrealistic because it was just a precaution to ensure the engine maintains intact. Particular if you consider that all machines are fresh from the factory.

 

There already took place a discussion in the FM forum with interesting information and evidence about DB 601/x limitation of poweroutput:

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/20079-db-601x-limitation-poweroutput/

 

 

@Space_Ghost: Good suggestion imo. Something like that, which reflects the failure of a piston would be more plausible. Although I think it shouldn't happen after 1.5 min.

Edited December 22, 2016 by StG2_Manfred

[Matt]

If there's really a need for engine limits, it should be random element to it and it should be simple.

 

Say for G-4 for instance:

 

 

At 1.3 ATA, there should be a 1% chance that the engine will fail. This check could happen say every 5 seconds. At 1.42 ATA, there's an exponentionally higher chance that the engine will fail with 5%. This check also gets run every 5 seconds.

 

If you're very lucky, you might be able to fly around a whole sortie with 1.42 ATA. If you're very unlucky, the engine might get damaged (not necessarily completely broke) even when running 1.3 ATA for a short while.

 

Of course these numbers are just random examples.

 

This would actually make people cruise around with cruise settings (which for the German planes is currently not really the case, because you usually get 30+ minutes to fly around with combat power instead), while seriously increasing the usefulness of emergency power. 

 

Currently the engine limits are strictly time limits and engine damage will result every single time guaranteed when exceeding the time limits, while at the same time it's also guaranteed that the engine will not get damaged if you stick to the time limits. Realistically, this doesn't make much sense.

[StG2_Manfred]

Very good idea Matt. Same scheme could be used for other engines in terms of heat, mixture and propeller management. This would force people not only to fight, but really to manage their plane. Would be more immersive and realistic.

Edited December 22, 2016 by StG2_Manfred

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

If there's really a need for engine limits, it should be random element to it and it should be simple.

 

-snip-

 

A simple, yet elegant solution.

 

I like it!

[Blutaar]

Sounds much better than that what we have.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Welcome to the world of the P40 pilot.

 

Glad to have you here.

[Dakpilot]

Be thankful there is even 1.42 for 1 -2 minutes in our G4, there is plenty of original documentation showing it blocked/forbidden till Oct 43 in G2/G4/G6, DB605 was not as good a design as the DB601, ask a very famous German Desert war ace

And even later, Feb 44 in some cases, not sure how that is interpreted though, or whether it is 'controversial'  

 

I really do like the idea of better engine limits, but 90%? of people  will just use it like a lottery, and fly 1.42 all the time (in this G4 example)

 

the percentages of blowing the engine would be less than getting shot down normally anyway (in game), the advantages would be clear, run it till it blows, more than likely more time than the average dogfight lasts then get a new A/C

 

It would be like expecting people to respect actual historic use of flaps when there is an exploit available.,, Or not exiting from the game after dropping bomb load, to quickly do another run, if that possibility exists on the server..

 

The limits intended to encourage the use historical cruise are great as well, but then Luftwaffe pilots would be unhappy because (most) Russian engines were designed to a different philosophy, of having max continuous available all the time with no boost, but temp limited

 

It certainly could work, but a LOT more research would be needed to find out how much this was used IRL (boost more than the handbook limits) and not a few instances from books of "I slammed the throttle to the wall and flew all the way home" examples, but from engineers with an understanding of historical WWII engines their limitations and doctrine of use

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Matt]

 

 

I really do like the idea of better engine limits, but 90%? of people  will just use it like a lottery, and fly 1.42 all the time (in this G4 example)

Currently 100% of the people can fly with 1.3 ATA all the time (well, 30 minutes at the very least), with no reason whatsoever not to fly at that setting. I don't think that's any better. Right now, the player gets dictated what he must do and he would be stupid to exceed the time limits and not use them to the fullest.

 

 

 

The limits intended to encourage the use historical cruise are great as well, but then Luftwaffe pilots would be unhappy because (most) Russian engines were designed to a different philosophy, of having max continuous available all the time with no boost, but temp limited

 

What purpose do the current time limits serve, if it's not to encourage people to use historical power settings? It's true that the M105 PF not being boost limited complicates things, but i don't see why that engine should never fail when running full power. So that engine could also get a small random chance of engine failure, increasing with boost and RPM. Besides that, there's a bunch of planes incoming for the Russian sides which will also have strict engine limitations (and currently the plane that suffers the most from the time limits is on the Russian side) and when all BoK planes get released, only 6 out of 32 planes have engines that are not boost or RPM limited in any way.

 

 

 

It certainly could work, but a LOT more research would be needed to find out how much this was used IRL (boost more than the handbook limits) and not a few instances from books of "I slammed the throttle to the wall and flew all the way home" examples, but from engineers with an understanding of historical WWII engines their limitations and doctrine of use

I don't see how that's relevant, because we always get new planes with new engines. So the situation is already not comparable at all to historical accounts from the start. The sim doesn't simulate engine wear that's comparable to historical situations, that's why we have time limitations as a compromise in the first place. My suggestion is also just a compromise, but i think it would be a much better alternative to what's currently in place.

[Dakpilot]

It may be the case that only six of the 32 planes are not limited (correctly) in  full throttle use, but the fact remains that the M-105 and Ash-82 of the Yak, Lagg, Pe-2 and La-5 are the mainstay and most used of Russian aircraft (non LL)

 

Nothing wrong with engines having a chance of failure at maximum continuous power, but then that should be the same for all engines, Ash-82 and M-105 were just designed so that full throttle was max continuous rating, for ease of use by not highly trained/sophisticated pilots

 

A lot of people get hung up on "full throttle" it is just a lever that gives a corresponding power setting to where it is moved.

 

 

The only way it would work would be to have a whole new concept or approach, with an 'attachment' to ones aircraft

 

Where your aircraft is not replaced with a brand new one each flight, and engine running parameters would have a lasting effect,

 

how to implement that in a way that does not encourage players to just get killed and get a fresh one, being fair to all, and still giving fun gameplay is for cleverer minds than mine

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited December 22, 2016 by Dakpilot

[Matt]

We're really getting off-topic now.

 

 

Ash-82 and M-105 were just designed so that full throttle was max continuous rating, for ease of use by not highly trained/sophisticated pilots

 

Well the Ash-82 does have a boost limit. That disappeared on the F model for some reason, but increased engine sturdiness probably had nothing to do with it.

 

As for the M-105 PF, at continous power it runs at 1050 mmhg, which equals 1.43 ATA. So compared to the DB 601 E of the F-4 for instance, it has about the same manifold pressure and RPM as the DB on emergency power and a higher power output at continous power than the DB at combat power and it can run foreever. I don't think that was a safe setting they just chose for ease of use for the pilots or that the DB 601 E could only run for one minute at similar power settings.

 

 

The only way it would work would be to have a whole new concept or approach, with an 'attachment' to ones aircraft

 

Where your aircraft is not replaced with a brand new one each flight, and engine running parameters would have a lasting effect,

That would be the best way, but only really suitable for single player. I also don't see how that would work in multi player. People could just chose a different plane type (unless it would be impossible to do so, which would not be a very popular option).

 

So again, there should be an alternative to that and to the current solution imho.

Edited December 22, 2016 by Matt

[Finkeren]

As for the M-105 PF, at continous power it runs at 1050 mmhg, which equals 1.43 ATA. So compared to the DB 601 E of the F-4 for instance, it has about the same manifold pressure and RPM as the DB on emergency power and a higher power output at continous power than the DB at combat power and it can run foreever. I don't think that was a safe setting they just chose for ease of use for the pilots or that the DB 601 E could only run for one minute at similar power settings.

Yet the DB 601E develops around 250hp more at its maximum setting, regardless of rpm being the same, that's gonna put extra stress on the crankshaft.

[StG2_Manfred]

Yet the DB 601E develops around 250hp more at its maximum setting, regardless of rpm being the same, that's gonna put extra stress on the crankshaft.

 

But that doesn't refute the other arguments. Particulary that the DB60x engine falls appart after 1.5 min. WEP.

[Finkeren]

But that doesn't refute the other arguments. Particulary that the DB60x engine falls appart after 1.5 min. WEP.

No, and I never said it did. I personally think the engine limits are modelled too strickly and would like a system that made running the engine beyond the time limit fairly safe for the first few minutes (but with a small chance of damage or complete failure) the risk steadily increasing the further you keep it running above its rating.

Edited December 23, 2016 by Finkeren