G4

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

No worries, it was my mistake 

 

I think HerrMurph is right about flying like a 190. Really, that's good advice in all the 109s besides the E.

Well, I wouldn't stretch it too far.

 

I think the F series is a particularly good dogfighter in-game. The G2 only a little less so and the G4 a little less again. As the aircraft get heavier they will need to rely more on E and less on maneuverability. This will be especially true if/when we get to a G6. All of the Luftie knife fighters are gonna be in for a rude awakening with that little piggy. As there are plenty of better 109 dogfighters than I am it probably wont change the outcomes too much anyway.

 

The global FM changes which are coming should make some of the handling better and get the 109's a little closer to form.

 

Fortunately I am primarilly an Fw driver so I get to fly like a 190 most of the time anyway.

[Lusekofte]

 

 

The G-2 was already quite heavy for it's Landing Gear, and the Modifications were a late fix for all Gustavs. 

I read it hurt Willy a lot having to modify the 109 undercarriage , he had stuck to the design despite for critique on its many landing accidents . People like the F better, but was it not prone to loose a wing (F2) during G turns, and what exactly did they do to strengthen that on the G model. Did the wing get thicker or was it just strengthening of wing attachment  

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

 

 

I think the F series is a particularly good dogfighter in-game. The G2 only a little less so and the G4 a little less again. As the aircraft get heavier they will need to rely more on E and less on maneuverability. This will be especially true if/when we get to a G6. All of the Luftie knife fighters are gonna be in for a rude awakening with that little piggy. As there are plenty of better 109 dogfighters than I am it probably wont change the outcomes too much anyway.

 

The global FM changes which are coming should make some of the handling better and get the 109's a little closer to form.

 

I am not sure I would agree to that. Engine Power is one of the most important Factors, if not the most important Factor in a Dogfighter, or better said, the Power to Weight Ratio, because it is the only way to get the speed back you loose by turning. 

 

I would say the most important considerations in a WWII Dogfighter would have been light weight and High Power, that's why an I-16 is so reliable at being repelled from earth. 

With the G-4 the 109 once again gets a good boost in Power, IRL Turn Times wouldn't have changed, they would just have been pulled in larger radii and higher Gs. 

A G-14AM would probably outturn a G-2 Flatout, despite being a lot heaver, due to the extreme Power Increase. 

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

A G-14AM would probably outturn a G-2 Flatout, despite being a lot heaver, due to the extreme Power Increase. 

Which doesn't nessecarily mean it's a better dogfighter. More power and higher weight means better energy rentention but also wider turning radius. A light weight and less powerfull airframe would not have that same energy rentention but have other strenghs it oculd use to beat the former.

 

A good example is Yak-1 vs Bf-109 F.  Both are very close but the 109 has better power to weight ratio and higher engine power while the Yak has better aerodynamics. In a dogfight situation this means that although the 109 can ourun or outclimb the Yak it will not surpass it in a turnfight because the Yak benefits from better energy rentention due to it's aerodynamics.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I read it hurt Willy a lot having to modify the 109 undercarriage , he had stuck to the design despite for critique on its many landing accidents . People like the F better, but was it not prone to loose a wing (F2) during G turns, and what exactly did they do to strengthen that on the G model. Did the wing get thicker or was it just strengthening of wing attachment  

Landing Accidents in comparison with what? Biplanes? He wouldn't have had comparative Statistics since the 109 was pretty much the only Service Fighter until the 190 arrived in larger numbers 42. 

 

The post Emil 109s all had Stressed Skin Construction, so the Skin actually was Structural. The cause for the accidents was the F-2 Wings Skins being too thin. They corrected that in the F-4. 

On the G they increased the Number of Ribs per Wing from 14 to 16, 2 being added at the Ailerons. That Strengthened the Wing against Flexing at High Speed and made it more Rigid. 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Which doesn't nessecarily mean it's a better dogfighter. More power and higher weight means better energy rentention but also wider turning radius. A light weight and less powerfull airframe would not have that same energy rentention but have other strenghs it oculd use to beat the former.

 

A good example is Yak-1 vs Bf-109 F.  Both are very close but the 109 has better power to weight ratio and higher engine power while the Yak has better aerodynamics. In a dogfight situation this means that although the 109 can ourun or outclimb the Yak it will not surpass it in a turnfight because the Yak benefits from better energy rentention due to it's aerodynamics.

This ^^

[II./JG77_Manu*]

In a dogfight situation this means that although the 109 can ourun or outclimb the Yak it will not surpass it in a turnfight because the Yak benefits from better energy rentention due to it's aerodynamics.

Not particularly right. The 109 (F) could outturn the Yak at certain altitudes.

I also don't know where the supposedly better aerodynamics are coming from? The Friedrich is as clean as it gets with a waterdrop-nose and wings with very low drag-coefficient and no parts extending anywhere. Not an expert in this department, so happy if you prove me wrong.

Edited January 6, 2017 by II./JG77_Manu*

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Not particularly right. The 109 (F) could outturn the Yak at certain altitudes.

I also don't know where the supposedly better aerodynamics are coming from? The Friedrich is as clean as it gets with a waterdrop-nose and wings with very low drag-coefficient and no parts extending anywhere. Not an expert in this department, so happy if you prove me wrong.

Small Wings<Large Wings. In a Turn the 109 relies on the Slats. In general Turn is the same for both, but this where the Performance turn comes in, where the Yak can use it's speed to pull unsustainable turns for longer. 

 

The Yak is less draggy in a turn, and thus can maintain the same rate of turn as the More Draggy 109 with more Power. 

Edited January 6, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Not particularly right. The 109 (F) could outturn the Yak at certain altitudes.

I also don't know where the supposedly better aerodynamics are coming from? The Friedrich is as clean as it gets with a waterdrop-nose and wings with very low drag-coefficient and no parts extending anywhere. Not an expert in this department, so happy if you prove me wrong.

Yes if the Yak has no exess power left to keep it's sustained turn performence. Also I didn't say the Yak was better at turning (infact combat reports say it's equal), just that it wasn't automaticly worse only because of it's engien and power to weight ratio.

 

As for the arodynamics, yes the 109 had a sleek fuselage but the canopy was a great drag source (became better with Erla Haube later on). Anyway it wasn't my intent to derail this into a aerodynamics discussion since my knowledge in this area is fairly limited as well. 

Edited January 6, 2017 by 6./ZG26_5tuka

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

(became better with Erla Haube later on).

How would it have made a difference at all? It's the exact same Windshield and external Shape. The Erla simply is a simplified Canopy making use of New Glass Manufacturing techniques as used in the Fw190. It reduces from 9 Pieces of Glass to only 3. 

 

 

Same from E-4 to even the G-6 ones (only minor Changes to Framing, change from Screws to Welding)

 

Edited January 6, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[Gambit21]

Aircraft do no out turn one another - they 'out conserve energy' one another. This one truism is missed by so many. Both on the forums and in the virtual skies. Remembering it will help you die less.

[Finkeren]

Aircraft do no out turn one another - they 'out conserve energy' one another. This one truism is missed by so many. Both on the forums and in the virtual skies. Remembering it will help you die less.

That's true for sustained turn, yes, but then there is also the ability to quickly pull a lead to get a shooting solution in a turn fight without stalling, and in that regard, the Bf 109s significantly outturn any other aircraft in the sim.

[Gambit21]

That's true for sustained turn, yes, but then there is also the ability to quickly pull a lead to get a shooting solution in a turn fight without stalling, and in that regard, the Bf 109s significantly outturn any other aircraft in the sim.

True across the board - you still have to mind your energy state. That lead shot is a transient situation. and even then if you don't mind your energy state and his - you risk dying.

 

You're able to pull that lead shot because you conserved the energy to do so.

Thus you'll find my statement is always true - aircraft 'out conserve energy' one another.

That's old time fighter weapons school wisdom.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

That's true for sustained turn, yes, but then there is also the ability to quickly pull a lead to get a shooting solution in a turn fight without stalling, and in that regard, the Bf 109s significantly outturn any other aircraft in the sim.

 

Should be the 190 after the FM fix (up until 90° turn). Let's see

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Yes if the Yak has no exess power left to keep it's sustained turn performence. Also I didn't say the Yak was better at turning (infact combat reports say it's equal), just that it wasn't automaticly worse only because of it's engien and power to weight ratio.

 

As for the arodynamics, yes the 109 had a sleek fuselage but the canopy was a great drag source (became better with Erla Haube later on). Anyway it wasn't my intent to derail this into a aerodynamics discussion since my knowledge in this area is fairly limited as well. 

Anyways, the Aerodynamic Changes of the 109G and K as far as I know are these:

 

Cowling:

-Early MG17 Cowling; used on G-1 through G-4

-Early MG131 Cowling with Bulges; used for all 109s with MG131 and DB605A-1 (mostly G-6 and some G-14)

-Late MG131 Cowling with smoothed out Bulges; used for all 109s with MG131 an DB605A/S and DB605D

 

Tailwheel: 

-Semi Retractable (as on early G-1 through G-4)

-Larger, Non Retractable (as on later G-1 through G-14)

-Extended Non Retractable (used on all G-models without DB605A-1, so DB605A/S, DB605/D etc)

-Extended Retractable (used on K-4)

 

Main Gear and Bulges:

-Early Type without Bulges and Small Wheel (G-1 through G-4)

-Early Type with Drop Bulges and Large Wheel  (G-1 through G-10)

-Late Type with Square Bulges and Large wheel (definetly K-4 and maybe some Gustavs)

 

Vertical Surface:

-Early Metal Type, "Small Rudder" (All Models powered by DB605A-1)

-Late Wooden type "Large Rudder" (All Non-DB605 A-1 powered models)

 

Canopy:

-Early Prison Cell Canopy, sometimes fitted with Galland Panzer, 10 Pieces of Glass

-"Erla Haube" with only 3 Pieces of Glass

These were fitted without coherrent System. Definetly all late models have it (G-6A/S, G-14 etc)

 

 

Different Antenna for different models. 

[simplyjames]

Does the added weight allow the g4 to dive faster than the g2? Or does the added drag counteract this?

[Boaty-McBoatface]

Does the added weight allow the g4 to dive faster than the g2? Or does the added drag counteract this?

 

The added weight will allow it to accelerate in a dive the same amount faster as if a fat lump were at the stick.

 

It weighs the grand sum of 20kg more.

 

The difference is that it has a whopping 1480hp on tap if need be.

Edited January 11, 2017 by B0SS

[Willy__]

 

 

The added weight will allow it to accelerate in a dive the same amount faster as if a fat lump were at the stick. It weighs the grand sum of 20kg more.

 

LOL      

 

The 1.42 ata comes handy though, too bad its only 1 min. 

[szelljr]

[III/JG2Gustav05]

it's very impressive that the view from real G4 cockpit is much better than what we have in the game.

[Lusekofte]

It is also very interesting that you know how to make POW totally similar as human vision in all screen of a game. You have a narrow view in a CFS, any CFS . You can normally adjust this in conf.ini in some games, but it will never be the same as real vision. This is one major difference. The pit of 109 got Allied test pilots to shake their heads. They simply could not believe the design

Edited January 14, 2017 by 216th_LuseKofte

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

It is also very interesting that you know how to make POW totally similar as human vision in all screen of a game. You have a narrow view in a CFS, any CFS . You can normally adjust this in conf.ini in some games, but it will never be the same as real vision. This is one major difference. The pit of 109 got Allied test pilots to shake their heads. They simply could not believe the design

There's also the Fact that humans tend to have two eyes. That reduces the effect of framing close to the face. 

[II./JG77_Manu*]

but it will never be the same as real vision

wrong. Wide FoV VR (for example Star VR which comes pretty close), and you have the same field of view as in real life. Triple screen delivers around 150° without fisheye look, quadruple screen would give you a "real" 180°

Edited January 15, 2017 by II./JG77_Manu*

[=ARTOA=Bombenleger]

it's very impressive that the view from real G4 cockpit is much better than what we have in the game.

Those graphics are also impressive :D

Edited January 15, 2017 by =ARTOA=Bombenleger

[unreasonable]

it's very impressive that the view from real G4 cockpit is much better than what we have in the game.

 

But that is not the pilot's view, but from at least a foot further back - it is the equivalent in BoX of setting your pov position as far back as is possible, in which case your eyes would be embedded in the headrest.

 

Same plane: you can see the camera position here:

 

[III/JG2Gustav05]

But that is not the pilot's view, but from at least a foot further back - it is the equivalent in BoX of setting your pov position as far back as is possible, in which case your eyes would be embedded in the headrest.

 

Same plane: you can see the camera position here:

 

Ok, so how about this one? from pilot position, the side bars are not as so much annoying as we have in game. the front amour glass is much widder than that in il2 

 

Edited January 15, 2017 by III/JG2Gustav05

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Ok, so how about this one? from pilot position, the side bars are not as so much annoying as we have in game. the front amour glass is much widder than that in il2

 

I think it's also due to refraction, you can see in your photo how the side frames above the armored glass gets thinner once you look through it. In this picture of the Bf-109 G4 taken from the side (also looks like the armored glass isn't installed) you can appreciate the full width of the frame bars.

 

 

As a comparison another picture of a Bf-109 G with the refraction from the armored glass "thinning out" the side frames (also check out in the background that beam above the P-51, how it distorts once entering the line of sight of the armored glass):

 

Edited January 15, 2017 by SuperEtendard

[unreasonable]

I do not think refraction is an issue here: if you take a tape measure and check the width of the visible vertical strut supporting the windshield, you find that the proportion covered by glass - and hence refracted -  appears as 20% of the total. That is exactly the same as in game.

 

If you measure the width of the windshield just below the top horizontal bar and compare it with the entire visible width of the struts (including covered parts), the ratios in game and in your photo are indeed different. On my screen, approximately:

 

In photo 35cm width, 3.5 cm per strut, ie about 10% per strut.

 

In game, with pilot head position as far back as possible, 66 cm width, 11 cm per strut - 17% of the width. Certainly a more obscure view.

 

So there is a big difference: but why so confident that Red 7 is representative? (The lack of head rest and rear armour surely are not!) Surely the argument can only be conclusive it is made by comparison to the blueprints.

[CUJO_1970]

That's the whole thing about refraction.

 

You may do a correct 3D model per blueprints but it will not represent what the human eye sees inside the cockpit. This is still true with VR headset or multi-monitor setup.

 

I believe modeling refraction takes up too many resources, so the only way to compensate would be to compromise the 3D model in some way.

[unreasonable]

No, this has nothing to do with refraction, unlike the 190 bar. Gustav5 and I are mainly talking about the width of the bar that is not covered by the glass and hence cannot possibly be affected by refraction.

 

Comparing his photo in post #266 with an in game view, the vertical columns beside the windscreen are much narrower as a proportion of the width of the windscreen whether you include the part covered by the glass or not.

 

So either one of the game and Red 7 are "wrong" or they are showing different variants of the canopy - the latter being more likely IMHO. The only way to be sure is to have a look at the drawings.  

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

The video is done with a GoPro (slight fisheye lens) from behind the pilot. It doesn't have much value for in-game perspective. Even a still photo will not give you an exact perspective but they are close. Both of the still photos above give a reasonable approximation of what we have in-game if you move the pilots head rearward - minus refraction. With the head moved back, I'm pretty happy with the view while understanding the limitations of the model. Just makes the reticle and opposing aircraft a little small. I move the head all the way back, then one mouse click forward from that, and F10 save.

[Matt]

 

No, this has nothing to do with refraction, unlike the 190 bar. Gustav5 and I are mainly talking about the width of the bar that is not covered by the glass and hence cannot possibly be affected by refraction.

 

Comparing his photo in post #266 with an in game view, the vertical columns beside the windscreen are much narrower as a proportion of the width of the windscreen whether you include the part covered by the glass or not.

If you get rid of the parts that are covered by the glass, you'll get this. And i can't see anything being too wide there.

It's a problem with refraction. The combination of modelling the cockpit using blue prints and not modelling refraction will result in what we have ingame right now. Since refraction is not modelled (and i don't think that's coming anytime soon), it would've been a better idea to compensate for this by changing the shape of the struts.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I don't think they have a lot of wiggle room. Their external and internal models are tied pretty tightly together. So major internal modifications would be reflected in their external model as well. Paraphrasing an answer Han gave way back in EA (I think about the 190).

 

Frankly, the default position creates some real problems with the view. I have no idea why they selected a position so far forward. Try moving it back for a week. Once you get used to the smaller reticle you will really appreciate the opened up view.

Edited January 15, 2017 by II/JG17_HerrMurf

[Matt]

Changing the left and right struts would not affect the exterior 3D model and i think the left and right struts being too wide due to lack of refraction is the real issue on the 109 and 190 (and to a lesser degree, the Yak-1b, P-40, Il-2 and Bf 110 with glass armor) and a way bigger issue than the lower bar on the 190 for instance (which doesn't really bother me at all).

[III/JG2Gustav05]

If you get rid of the parts that are covered by the glass, you'll get this. And i can't see anything being too wide there.

2017_1_15__13_39_55.jpg

It's a problem with refraction. The combination of modelling the cockpit using blue prints and not modelling refraction will result in what we have ingame right now. Since refraction is not modelled (and i don't think that's coming anytime soon), it would've been a better idea to compensate for this by changing the shape of the struts.

This is my proposal. I am sorry if there has any technical limitation for this solution, I cannot see. 

Edited January 15, 2017 by III/JG2Gustav05

[CUJO_1970]

Changing the left and right struts would not affect the exterior 3D model and i think the left and right struts being too wide due to lack of refraction is the real issue on the 109 and 190 (and to a lesser degree, the Yak-1b, P-40, Il-2 and Bf 110 with glass armor) and a way bigger issue than the lower bar on the 190 for instance (which doesn't really bother me at all).

 

Agreed.

 

For FW-190, they did make some adjustment to try and compensate with the lower bar. For the struts, there may be too much relation between internal and external 3D model as I understand from developer comments.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

If I remember correctly Han didn't say the struts were the problem preventing changes to be done to the cockpit of the 190. It's the engine cowling which would have required to be adjusted together with the lower bar to enable a realistic frontal view. Without adjusting the cowling the frontal view would remain the same because the same area that is now blocked by the bar would be blocked by the cowling.

[StG2_Manfred]

I'm wondering what this relationship should be? There is an international and an external 3D model. What relationship do they have, except that what we see (from intern and extern) should be plausible for the viewer? And I think noone would notice if the struts are a bit thinner when viewed from inside. It would look the same as if there is refraction, so rather more plausible imo.

[unreasonable]

If you get rid of the parts that are covered by the glass, you'll get this. And i can't see anything being too wide there.

2017_1_15__13_39_55.jpg

It's a problem with refraction. The combination of modelling the cockpit using blue prints and not modelling refraction will result in what we have ingame right now. Since refraction is not modelled (and i don't think that's coming anytime soon), it would've been a better idea to compensate for this by changing the shape of the struts.

 

Yes you are right: I was interpreting the glass as being the forwards section that only makes up about 20% of the width of each side ie the red part in Gustav5's post, but it is actually everything forwards of the vertical retaining bar. Whoops!

Edited January 15, 2017 by unreasonable

[III/JG2Gustav05]

Ok, let's now talking about the upper bar, the diagram below is not a sophisticated drawing but still say something, as you can see the angle "b" is about 5 times of angle "a", but in il2 this ratio is less than 2. I know this ratio very depends on the pilot eyes height, but in the previous picture I posted, the camera is already higher than normal pilot eyes position and you can notice how narrow the upper bar looks like comparing with what we have in il2bos.

 

Edited January 15, 2017 by III/JG2Gustav05